Page:Of the conduct of the understanding (IA ofconductofunder00lock).pdf/80

74 edge to which it does not at all belong, and wherewith it has no manner of affinity. Some men have so used their heads to mathematical figures, that giving a preference to the methods of that science, they introduce lines and diagrams into their study of divinity or politic inquiries as if nothing could be known without them; and others accustomed to retired speculations run natural philosophy into metaphysical notions and the abstract generalities of logic: and how often may one meet with religion and morality treated of in the terms of the laboratory, and thought to be improved by the methods and notions of chemistry? But he that will take care of the conduct of his understanding, to direct it right to the knowledge of things, must avoid those undue mixtures, and not by a fondness for what he has found useful and necessary in one, transfer it to another science, where it serves only to perplex and confound the understanding. It is a certain truth that “res nolunt malé administrari;” it is no less certain “res nolunt malé intelligi.” Things themselves are to be considered as they are in themselves, and then they will show us in what way they are to be understood. For to have right conceptions about them we must bring our understandings to the inflexible nature and unalterable relations of things, and not endeavor to bring things to any preconceived notions of our own.

There is another partiality very commonly observable in men of study no less prejudicial or ridiculous than the former, and that is a fantastical and wild attributing all knowledge to the ancients alone, or to the