Note 134 — PART FIRST. (continued 8)

This doctrine of fancy, or imagination, ought undoubtedly, as Dr. Russel says of the imagination itself, to be under some management. The indiscriminate use of the word has been carried to such a length as in a manner to supersede all evidence, testimony, argumentation or reason. With some it is sufficient to discredit the most positive testimony (even upon oath) if they take it into their heads that such a thing cannot be: which by the bye is as strong an evidence of ignorance as any man can give. If imagination is given as a cause, the extent and nature of its powers ought to be ascertained; but who has done this? On the contrary I may say that not one in five hundred who makes use of the word would be able to define it. But the most curious mode of reasoning used by these imaginary gentlemen is, if they are asked, “How do you prove that such a thing is the effect of imagination?” they are ready to answer, “I can indeed bring no proof that it is so, but how do you prove that it is not?” Here the imaginaries have not reason sufficient to show them that they ought to bring a proof, and not those who say they saw or felt any thing. But, waving this, sense is the highest faculty in our nature; imagination as well as reason are inferior to it; because neither the one nor the other can be conversant except about the objects of sense. If any person therefore says that he sees or that he feels any thing, nobody can, with any shadow of reason, say that he neither saw nor felt any thing. If one man sees what another cannot see, while the supposed object is easily within reach of the eyes of either, then the one who cannot see it has a right to suspect that the object is imaginary; but, if the person himself feels any slight pain or uneasiness, and that should go off in a short time, after drinking a glass of wine, there is as little reason to suppose that the pain was imaginary, as that the drinking of the wine was imaginary. In Dr. Russel’s case, though his strength was in general sufficient to resist the contagion in which he was immersed, yet, when that strength began to decay, it was no wonder that he found the contagion beginning to invade: a few glasses of wine gave vigour to the system, and enabled it to repel the attack. Had he been much fatigued with bodily labour, and found himself greatly relieved by a few glasses of wine, surely he would not suppose that his former fatigue was merely imaginary. Just so must it be in the former case; the one has no more to do with imagination than the other.