ftantial power. Active power, paffive power, and circumftantial power, have equal claim, if any claim, to toleration. I conceive, that if there can be any propriety in thus ufing them, it must arise from the plea, that these expreffions are fynecdoches. Were people in general aware that the expreffions are tropical, their use might be admitted: but as I have no reafon to fuppofe, that philofophers have conceived them to be tropical, or wished them to be thus accepted by their readers, I beg leave to affert, and endeavour to expose, their abfurdity. In my opinion, the divifion is fimilar to dividing an individual into parts, and then calling each part an individual of the fame species as the individual divided. As if one fhould divide a houfe into floors, walls, and roof, and then affirm, that the floors are a house, the walls are a houfe, and the roof is a house.

Active property or ability, is a quality of fome fubject. Ability may be various not only in degree, but also in kind. Thus ability to fly, and ability to reason, are different kinds of ability: but ability to draw an empty carriage, and ability to draw a loaded carriage, are different degrees of the fame kind of ability.

There can ability, but

Ability is one thing, the actual exertion or exercise of ability is another thing. be no exertion or exercife without there may be ability that is not exerted.

Thus a

man

man may have the ability of fpeech when he is filent; he may have ability to rife and walk, although he fits ftill.

We may also remark concerning active property, as before, concerning property in general, that, we cannot infer the want of ability, in any respect, from its not being exerted, nor from the exertion of a lefs degree of ability, can we infer that there is no greater degree in the subject. Thus, though the house-dog was filent when the thieves broke in, we cannot conclude from that fact, he had not ability to bark; nor from a horfe carrying one hundred weight, can we conclude that he had not ability to carry two hundred.

9. Through confounding power with ability, fome of these remarks on ability have been inadvertently applied to power. Writers and speakers have told us of dormant power as distinct from power in exercife: alfo of power in poffeffion and power in exertion. But in my opinion there is no power where there is no operation: for power entirely relates to agency, if I may safely ufe that word, respecting the effecting or else oppofing some change. Efficiency is a co-existent and effential confequent of the existence of power respecting a valuable change, although in order of nature it gives precedence to power.

10. Again, From the fame erroneous conception, or confufion of notions, power has been fuppofed to admit degrees of comparison. Thus respecting

B 3

respecting intelligent beings, it has been faid, that, difpofition to an action is imperfect power, or the lowest degree of it. That, next to this is mere ability to perform, that is with difficulty and care. And lastly, a strong habit, conftituting ability to perform the fame with ease and certainty. But I conceive the first to exhibit no power at all. The fecond, with the addition of actual operation, I judge to convey the notion of power. And the third alfo, but not to convey an idea of greater power than the former; fince though there might be a furplufage of active property, yet there was no greater paffive property: for the event or performance in both cases is the fame." The schools fay, Whatfoever power the agent has to act, yet the action can be received by the patient no farther than the power of the patient reaches." Exchange the term power in the first part of the fentence for ability, and in the latter part for capacity, then will the note be just but as it ftands, is inconfiftent, for the power will ever be as the properties of the agent and patient are related, and as the actual operation and event are, and no farther. How inconfiftent then to say, that a gallon may pour its liquor into a pint bottle, but the bottle can receive but a pint, and if the neck be narrow it can receive liquor but flowly, how faft foever the larger vessel may pour it! That a teacher may teach a child all the rules of reading in a day, but a child cannot learn them

in a month Who does not fee that the excefs of ability in the gallon and teacher, does not enlarge the power, which is limited by the pint and the learner, and the actual event produced?

The power is always limited by the weaker part of the propofition that implies it. If I affirm that the fun in the laft fummer concurred to the formation, growth, and ripening of a particular daify, in a certain field: the exuberance of the fun's ability in respect of vegetation avails nothing in this inftance, for power was limited by the capacity of the daify in relation to the fun, in respect of perfecting that particular flower.

If power is always limited by that ability or that capacity in every cafe, that is weakeft, then is power, a uniform thing which does not admit degrees of comparison.

II. Ability is not power, although effential to the existence of power. Try ability by the idea of producing change. I have rubbed what appeared gold on the touch-ftone, but on pouring aquafortis, the affay has evaporated in smoke. Production of change is the touch-ftone of power. Ability, we will add the ability of a person, refer it to production of change; but this ability and an able perfon may continue for ever, without producing change, if there is not alfo relative acpacity, and concurring circumftances. Therefore neither ability, nor an able perfon, is power. Let us take ability of action, or of an acting per

fon

fon, for instance, ability of thinking, thinking under any modification, inclination at large if you please, bring this to the notion of producing change but without capacity, related capacity, in some object of thought, and concurring circumftances, no power exifts, no change takes place. Conceive the ability of a body in mo. tion. A faw in motion has ability to separate fundry bodies; but, let it move ever so violently and inceffantly, without a body of suitable texture, and in concurrent circumstances, no change takes place, no power in respect of dividing a body exifts: it may move to eternity and faw air without producing the relative change, confequently its ability is not power.

Ability has evidently a contrary, for ability is active property, and capacity is paffive property, and active and paffive are contraries. Inability is defect of ability, but not its contrary.

12. Capacity, or paffive property, like ability, is a quality of fome fubject. It may be various not only in degree but also in kind. Thus capacity for the paffion of love and capacity for an amputation are different kinds of capacity: but capacity to receive one pound of meat, and capacity to receive two pounds, are different degrees of the fame kind of capacity.

Capacity is one thing, the actual occupation of it another thing. There can be no reception of ability without capacity for that reception, nor of

the