{253} These ONES they also called by the names of _Internal Forms_, and _Intelligible Forms_. Thus Harris: "Let us suppose any man to look for the first time upon _some Work of Art_; as, for example, upon a Clock; and, having sufficiently viewed it, at length to depart. Would he not retain, when absent, an Idea of what he had seen? And what is it, _to retain such Idea_? _It is to have_ A FORM INTERNAL _correspondent to_ THE EXTERNAL; only with this difference, that the _Internal Form is devoid of the Matter; the External is united with it_, being seen in the metal, the wood, and the like. Now, if we suppose this Spectator to view _many such Machines_, and not simply to view, but to consider every part of them, so as to comprehend how those parts all operate to one End, he might be then said to possess a kind of INTELLIGIBLE FORM, by which he would not only understand and know the clocks, which he had seen _already_, but every Work, also, of like Sort, which he might see _hereafter_." We might here remark upon the mystical jargon, which is thus employed to obscure the simple fact, that after a man has seen an individual of a particular kind he has the idea of that individual; and after he has seen various individuals of the same kind, he has ideas of the various individuals, and has them combined by association. But we must hear Mr. Harris a little further. After telling us that there are two orders of these _immutable_ INTELLIGIBLE FORMS; _one_ belonging to the Contemplator of objects, and subsequent to their existence; _another_ belonging to the Maker of them, being the archetype, according to which they were formed; he thus proceeds: "The WHOLE VISIBLE {254} WORLD, exhibits nothing more than so many passing pictures of these IMMUTABLE ARCHETYPES. Nay, through these it attains even a Semblance of Immortality, and continues throughout ages to be SPECIFICALLY ONE, amid those infinite particular changes, that befall it every moment. May we be allowed then to credit those speculative men, who tell us, _it is in these permanent and comprehensive_ FORMS _that the_ DEITY _views at once, without looking abroad, all possible productions both present, past, and future; that this great and stupendous view is but a view of himself, where all things lie enveloped in their Principles and Exemplars, as being essential to the fulness of this universal Intellection_?" I shall exhibit but one other specimen of the mode of speculating about these imaginary Beings, from another great master of the ancient philosophy, Cudworth. Both Aristotle and Plato, he says, "acknowledged two sorts of Entities, the one mutable, or subject to flux and motion, such as are especially individual corporeal things; the other immutable, that always rest or stand still, which are the proper objects of certain, constant, and immutable knowledge, that therefore cannot be mere nothings, non-entities.