。Ilayitdownforaprinciple，thatthemomentsorquantitiesofmotioninbodiesareinadirectcompoundedreasonofthevelocitiesandquantitiesofMattercontainedinthem。
Hence，wherethevelocitiesareequal，itfollowsthemomentsaredirectlyasthequantityofMatterineach。Butitisfoundbyexperiencethatallbodiesbatingthesmallinequalities，arisingfromtheresistanceoftheairdescendwithanequalvelocity；themotionthereforeofdescendingbodies，andconsequentlytheirgravity，whichisthecauseorprincipleofthatmotion，isproportionaltothequantityofMatter；whichwastobedemonstrated。
。Youlayitdownasaself-evidentprinciplethatthequantityofmotioninanybodyisproportionaltothevelocity{242}andtakentogether；andthisismadeuseoftoproveapropositionfromwhencetheexistenceofisinferred。Prayisnotthisarguinginacircle？
。InthepremiseIonlymeanthatthemotionisproportionaltothevelocity，jointlywiththeextensionandsolidity。
。But，allowingthistobetrue，yetitwillnotthencefollowthatgravityisproportionalto，inyourphilosophicsenseoftheword；exceptyoutakeitforgrantedthatunknown，orwhateverelseyoucallit，isproportionaltothosesensiblequalities；whichtosupposeisplainlybeggingthequestion。Thatthereismagnitudeandsolidity，orresistance，perceivedbysense，Ireadilygrant；aslikewise，thatgravitymaybeproportionaltothosequalitiesI
willnotdispute。Butthateitherthesequalitiesasperceivedbyus，orthepowersproducingthem，doexistina；thisiswhatIdeny，andyouindeedaffirm，but，notwithstandingyourdemonstration，havenotyetproved。
。Ishallinsistnolongeronthatpoint。Doyouthink，however，youshallpersuademethatthenaturalphilosophershavebeendreamingallthiswhile？Praywhatbecomesofalltheirhypothesesandexplicationsofthephenomena，whichsupposetheexistenceofMatter？
。Whatmeanyou，Hylas，bythe？
。ImeantheappearanceswhichIperceivebymysenses。
。Andtheappearancesperceivedbysense，aretheynotideas？
。Ihavetoldyousoahundredtimes。
。Therefore，toexplainthephenomena，is，toshewhowwecometobeaffectedwithideas，inthatmannerandorderwhereintheyareimprintedonoursenses。Isitnot？
。Itis。
。Now，ifyoucanprovethatanyphilosopherhasexplainedtheproductionofanyoneideainourmindsbythehelpof，Ishallforeveracquiesce，andlookonallthathathbeensaidagainstitasnothing；but，ifyoucannot，itisvaintourgetheexplicationofphenomena。ThataBeingendowedwithknowledgeandwillshouldproduceorexhibitideasiseasilyunderstood。ButthataBeingwhichisutterlydestituteofthesefacultiesshouldbeabletoproduceideas，orinanysorttoaffectanintelligence，thisIcanneverunderstand。ThisIsay，though{243}wehadsomepositiveconceptionofMatter，thoughweknewitsqualities，andcouldcomprehenditsexistence，wouldyetbesofarfromexplainingthings，thatitisitselfthemostinexplicablethingintheworld。Andyet，forallthis，itwillnotfollowthatphilosophershavebeendoingnothing；for，byobservingandreasoningupontheconnexionofideas，theydiscoverthelawsandmethodsofnature，whichisapartofknowledgebothusefulandentertaining。
。Afterall，canitbesupposedGodwoulddeceiveallmankind？DoyouimagineHewouldhaveinducedthewholeworldtobelievethebeingofMatter，iftherewasnosuchthing？
。Thateveryepidemicalopinion，arisingfromprejudice，orpassion，orthoughtlessness，maybeimputedtoGod，astheAuthorofit，Ibelieveyouwillnotaffirm。Whatsoeveropinionwefather\'onHim，itmustbeeitherbecauseHehasdiscoveredittousbysupernaturalrevelation；orbecauseitissoevidenttoournaturalfaculties，whichwereframedandgivenusbyGod，thatitisimpossibleweshouldwithholdourassentfromit。Butwhereistherevelation？orwhereistheevidencethatextortsthebeliefofMatter？Nay，howdoesitappear，thatMatter，，isthoughttoexistbyallmankind；orindeed，byanyexceptafewphilosophers，whodonotknowwhattheywouldbeat？Yourquestionsupposesthesepointsareclear；and，whenyouhaveclearedthem，Ishallthinkmyselfobligedtogiveyouanotheranswer。Inthemeantime，letitsufficethatItellyou，IdonotsupposeGodhasdeceivedmankindatall。
。Butthenovelty，Philonous，thenovelty!Thereliesthedanger。Newnotionsshouldalwaysbediscountenanced；theyunsettlemen\'sminds，andnobodyknowswheretheywillend。
。Whytherejectinganotionthathasnofoundation，eitherinsense，orinreason，orinDivineauthority，shouldbethoughttounsettlethebeliefofsuchopinionsasaregroundedonalloranyofthese，Icannotimagine。Thatinnovationsingovernmentandreligionaredangerous，andoughttobediscountenanced，Ifreelyown。Butistherethelikereasonwhytheyshouldbediscouragedinphilosophy？Themakinganythingknownwhichwasunknownbeforeisaninnovationinknowledge:
and，ifallsuchinnovationshadbeenforbidden，{244}menwouldhavemadeanotableprogressintheartsandsciences。Butitisnoneofmybusinesstopleadfornoveltiesandparadoxes。Thatthequalitiesweperceivearenotontheobjects:thatwemustnotbelieveoursenses:thatweknownothingoftherealnatureofthings，andcanneverbeassuredevenoftheirexistence:thatrealcoloursandsoundsarenothingbutcertainunknownfiguresandmotions:thatmotionsareinthemselvesneitherswiftnorslow:thatthereareinbodiesabsoluteextensions，withoutanyparticularmagnitudeorfigure:thatathingstupid，thoughtless，andinactive，operatesonaspirit:thattheleastparticleofabodycontainsinnumerableextendedparts:——thesearethenovelties，thesearethestrangenotionswhichshockthegenuineuncorruptedjudgmentofallmankind；andbeingonceadmitted，embarrassthemindwithendlessdoubtsanddifficulties。AnditisagainsttheseandthelikeinnovationsIendeavourtovindicateCommonSense。Itistrue，indoingthis，Imayperhapsbeobligedtousesome，andwaysofspeechnotcommon。
But，ifmynotionsareoncethoroughlyunderstood，thatwhichismostsingularinthemwill，ineffect，befoundtoamounttonomorethanthis——thatitisabsolutelyimpossible，andaplaincontradiction，tosupposeanyunthinkingBeingshouldexistwithoutbeingperceivedbyaMind。And，ifthisnotionbesingular，itisashameitshouldbeso，atthistimeofday，andinaChristiancountry。
。Asforthedifficultiesotheropinionsmaybeliableto，。thoseareoutofthequestion。Itisyourbusinesstodefendyourownopinion。Cananythingbeplainerthanthatyouareforchangingallthingsintoideas？You，Isay，whoarenotashamedtochargeme。Thisissoplain，thereisnodenyingit。
。Youmistakeme。Iamnotforchangingthingsintoideas，butratherideasintothings；sincethoseimmediateobjectsofperception，which，accordingtoyou，areonlyappearancesofthings，Itaketobetherealthingsthemselves。
。Things!Youmaypretendwhatyouplease；butitiscertainyouleaveusnothingbuttheemptyformsofthings，theoutsideonlywhichstrikesthesenses。
。Whatyoucalltheemptyformsandoutsideofthingsseemtometheverythingsthemselves。Noraretheyemptyorincomplete，otherwisethanuponyoursupposition——thatMatter{245}isanessentialpartofallcorporealthings。Weboth，therefore，agreeinthis，thatweperceiveonlysensibleforms:
buthereinwediffer——youwillhavethemtobeemptyappearances，I，realbeings。Inshort，youdonottrustyoursenses，Ido。
。Yousayyoubelieveyoursenses；andseemtoapplaudyourselfthatinthisyouagreewiththevulgar。Accordingtoyou，therefore，thetruenatureofathingisdiscoveredbythesenses。Ifso，whencecomesthatdisagreement？Whyisnotthesamefigure，andothersensiblequalities，perceivedallmannerofways？andwhyshouldweuseamicroscopethebettertodiscoverthetruenatureofabody，ifitwerediscoverabletothenakedeye？
。Strictlyspeaking，Hylas，wedonotseethesameobjectthatwefeel；neitheristhesameobjectperceivedbythemicroscopewhichwasbythenakedeye。But，incaseeveryvariationwasthoughtsufficienttoconstituteanewkindofindividual，theendlessnumberofconfusionofnameswouldrenderlanguageimpracticable。Therefore，toavoidthis，aswellasotherinconvenienceswhichareobviousuponalittlethought，mencombinetogetherseveralideas，apprehendedbydiverssenses，orbythesamesenseatdifferenttimes，orindifferentcircumstances，butobserved，however，tohavesomeconnexioninnature，eitherwithrespecttoco-existenceorsuccession；allwhichtheyrefertoonename，andconsiderasonething。HenceitfollowsthatwhenIexamine，bymyothersenses，athingIhaveseen，itisnotinordertounderstandbetterthesameobjectwhichIhadperceivedbysight，theobjectofonesensenotbeingperceivedbytheothersenses。And，whenIlookthroughamicroscope，itisnotthatImayperceivemoreclearlywhatI
perceivedalreadywithmybareeyes；theobjectperceivedbytheglassbeingquitedifferentfromtheformer。But，inbothcases，myaimisonlytoknowwhatideasareconnectedtogether；andthemoreamanknowsoftheconnexionofideas，themoreheissaidtoknowofthenatureofthings。What，therefore，ifourideasarevariable；whatifoursensesarenotinallcircumstancesaffectedwiththesameappearances。Itwillnotthencefollowtheyarenottobetrusted；orthattheyareinconsistenteitherwiththemselvesoranythingelse:exceptitbewithyourpreconceivednotionofIknownotwhatonesingle，unchanged，unperceivable，realNature，markedbyeachname。Whichprejudiceseemstohavetakenitsrisefromnotrightly{246}understandingthecommonlanguageofmen，speakingofseveraldistinctideasasunitedintoonethingbythemind。And，indeed，thereiscausetosuspectseveralerroneousconceitsofthephilosophersareowingtothesameoriginal:whiletheybegantobuildtheirschemesnotsomuchonnotionsasonwords，whichwereframedbythevulgar，merelyforconveniencyanddispatchinthecommonactionsoflife，withoutanyregardtospeculation。
。MethinksIapprehendyourmeaning。
。Itisyouropiniontheideasweperceivebyoursensesarenotrealthings，butimagesorcopiesofthem。Ourknowledge，therefore，isnofartherrealthanasourideasarethetrueofthose。But，asthesesupposedoriginalsareinthemselvesunknown，itisimpossibletoknowhowfarourideasresemblethem；orwhethertheyresemblethematall。Wecannot，therefore，besurewehaveanyrealknowledge。Farther，asourideasareperpetuallyvaried，withoutanychangeinthesupposedrealthings，itnecessarilyfollowstheycannotallbetruecopiesofthem:or，ifsomeareandothersarenot，itisimpossibletodistinguishtheformerfromthelatter。Andthisplungesusyetdeeperinuncertainty。Again，whenweconsiderthepoint，wecannotconceivehowanyidea，oranythinglikeanidea，shouldhaveanabsoluteexistenceoutofamind:norconsequently，accordingtoyou，howthereshouldbeanyrealthinginnature。Theresultof；allwhichisthatwearethrownintothemosthopelessandabandonedscepticism。Now，givemeleavetoaskyou，First，Whetheryourreferringideastocertainabsolutelyexistingunperceivedsubstances，astheiroriginals，benotthesourceofallthisscepticism？Secondly，whetheryouareinformed，eitherbysenseorreason，oftheexistenceofthoseunknownoriginals？And，incaseyouarenot，whetheritbenotabsurdtosupposethem？Thirdly，Whether，uponinquiry，youfindthereisanythingdistinctlyconceivedormeantbythe？Lastly，Whether，thepremisesconsidered，itbenotthewisestwaytofollownature，trustyoursenses，and，layingasideallanxiousthoughtaboutunknownnaturesorsubstances，admitwiththevulgarthoseforrealthingswhichareperceivedbythesenses？
。Forthepresent，Ihavenoinclinationtotheansweringpart。Iwouldmuchratherseehowyoucangetoverwhatfollows。Prayarenottheobjectsperceivedbythe{247}
ofone，likewiseperceivabletootherspresent？Iftherewereahundredmorehere，theywouldallseethegarden，thetrees，andflowers，asIseethem。ButtheyarenotinthesamemanneraffectedwiththeideasIframeinmy。Doesnotthismakeadifferencebetweentheformersortofobjectsandthelatter？
。Igrantitdoes。NorhaveIeverdeniedadifferencebetweentheobjectsofsenseandthoseofimagination。Butwhatwouldyouinferfromthence？Youcannotsaythatsensibleobjectsexistunperceived，becausetheyareperceivedbymany。
。IownIcanmakenothingofthatobjection:butithathledmeintoanother。Isitnotyouropinionthatbyoursensesweperceiveonlytheideasexistinginourminds？
。Itis。
。Buttheideawhichisinmymindcannotbeinyours，orinanyothermind。Dothitnotthereforefollow，fromyourprinciples，thatnotwocanseethesamething？Andisnotthishighly，absurd？
。Ifthetermbetakeninthevulgaracceptation，itiscertainandnotatallrepugnanttotheprinciplesImaintainthatdifferentpersonsmayperceivethesamething；orthesamethingorideaexistindifferentminds。
Wordsareofarbitraryimposition；and，sincemenareusedtoapplythewordwherenodistinctionorvarietyisperceived，andIdonotpretendtoaltertheirperceptions，itfollowsthat，asmenhavesaidbefore，，sotheymay，uponlikeoccasions，stillcontinuetousethesamephrase，withoutanydeviationeitherfromproprietyoflanguage，orthetruthofthings。But，ifthetermbeusedintheacceptationofphilosophers，whopretendtoanabstractednotionofidentity，then，accordingtotheirsundrydefinitionsofthisnotionforitisnotyetagreedwhereinthatphilosophicidentityconsists，itmayormaynotbepossiblefordiverspersonstoperceivethesamething。Butwhetherphilosophersshallthinkfittoathingtheno，is，I
conceive，ofsmallimportance。Letussupposeseveralmentogether，allenduedwiththesamefaculties，andconsequentlyaffectedinlikesortbytheirsenses，andwhohadyetneverknowntheuseoflanguage；theywould，withoutquestion，agreeintheirperceptions。Thoughperhaps，whentheycametotheuseofspeech，someregardingtheuniformnessofwhatwasperceived，mightcallitthething:others，especially{248}
regardingthediversityofpersonswhoperceived，mightchoosethedenominationofthings。Butwhoseesnotthatallthedisputeisaboutaword？towit，whether。whatisperceivedbydifferentpersonsmayyethavethetermappliedtoit？
Or，supposeahouse，whosewallsoroutwardshellremainingunaltered，thechambersareallpulleddown，andnewonesbuiltintheirplace；andthatyoushouldcallthisthe，andI
shouldsayitwasnotthehouse——wouldwenot，forallthis，perfectlyagreeinourthoughtsofthehouse，consideredinitself？Andwouldnotallthedifferenceconsistinasound？Ifyoushouldsay，Wedifferedinournotions；forthatyousuper-
addedtoyourideaofthehousethesimpleabstractedideaofidentity，whereasIdidnot；Iwouldtellyou，Iknownotwhatyoumeanby；andshoulddesireyoutolookintoyourownthoughts，andbesureyouunderstoodyourself——Whysosilent，Hylas？Areyounotyetsatisfiedmenmaydisputeaboutidentityanddiversity，withoutanyrealdifferenceintheirthoughtsandopinions，abstractedfromnames？
Takethisfartherreflexionwithyou:thatwhetherMatterbeallowedtoexistorno，thecaseisexactlythesameastothepointinhand。FortheMaterialiststhemselvesacknowledgewhatweimmediatelyperceivebyoursensestobeourownideas。Yourdifficulty，therefore，thatnotwoseethesamething，makesequallyagainsttheMaterialistsandme。
。[Ay，Philonous，][10]Buttheysupposeanexternalarchetype，towhichreferringtheirseveralideastheymaytrulybesaidtoperceivethesamething。
。Andnottomentionyourhavingdiscardedthosearchetypessomayyousupposeanexternalarchetypeonmyprinciples；——，，:thoughindeeditmustbe\'supposedtoexistinthatMindwhichcomprehendsallthings；butthen，thisservesalltheendsof，aswellasifitexistedoutofamind。AndIamsureyouyourselfwillnotsayitislessintelligible。
。Youhaveindeedclearlysatisfiedme——eitherthatthereisnodifficultyatbottominthispoint；or，iftherebe，thatitmakesequallyagainstbothopinions。
。Butthatwhichmakesequallyagainsttwocontradictoryopinionscanbeaproofagainstneither。
。Iacknowledgeit。But，afterall，Philonous，whenI
consider{249}thesubstanceofwhatyouadvanceagainst，itamountstonomorethanthis:Wearesurethatwereallysee，hear，feel；inaword，thatweareaffectedwithsensibleimpressions。
。Andhowareconcernedanyfarther？Iseethischerry，Ifeelit，Itasteit:andIamsurecannotbeseen，orfelt，or。tasted:itisthereforered。Takeawaythesensationsofsoftness，moisture，redness，tartness，andyoutakeawaythecherry，sinceitisnotabeingdistinctfromsensations。Acherry，Isay，isnothingbutacongeriesofsensibleimpressions，orideasperceivedbyvarioussenses:whichideasareunitedintoonethingorhaveonenamegiventhembythemind，becausetheyareobservedtoattendeachother。Thus，whenthepalateisaffectedwithsuchaparticulartaste，thesightisaffectedwitharedcolour，thetouchwithroundness，softness，&c。Hence，whenIsee，andfeel，andtaste，insuchsundrycertainmanners，Iamsurethecherryexists，orisreal；
itsrealitybeinginmyopinionnothingabstractedfromthosesensations。Butifbythewordyou，meananunknownnature，distinctfromallthosesensiblequalities，andbyitssomethingdistinctfromitsbeingperceived；then，indeed，Iown，neitheryounorI，noranyoneelse，canbesureitexists。
。But，whatwouldyousay，Philonous，ifIshouldbringtheverysamereasonsagainsttheexistenceofsensiblethings，whichyouhaveofferedagainsttheirexisting？
。WhenIseeyourreasons，youshallhearwhatIhavetosay，tothem。
。Isthemindextendedorunextended？
。Unextended，withoutdoubt。
。Doyousaythethingsyouperceiveareinyourmind？
。Theyare。
。Again，haveInotheardyouspeakofsensibleimpressions？
。Ibelieveyoumay。
。Explaintomenow，0Philonous!howitispossiblethereshouldberoomforallthosetreesandhousestoexistinyourmind。Canextendedthingsbecontainedinthatwhichisunextended？Or，arewetoimagineimpressionsmadeonathingvoidofallsolidity？Youcannotsayobjectsareinyourmind，asbooksinyourstudy:orthatthingsareimprintedonit，asthefigureofasealuponwax。Inwhatsense，therefore，arewetounderstandthoseexpressions？Explainmethisifyoucan:andI
shallthenbeabletoanswerallthosequeriesyouformerlyputtomeaboutmy。
。Lookyou，Hylas，whenIspeakofobjectsasexistinginthemind，orimprintedonthesenses，Iwouldnotbeunderstoodinthegrossliteralsense；aswhenbodiesaresaidtoexistinaplace，orasealtomakeanimpressionuponwax。Mymeaningisonlythatthemindcomprehendsorperceivesthem；andthatitisaffectedfromwithout，orbysomebeingdistinctfromitself。Thisismyexplicationofyourdifficulty；andhowitcanservetomakeyourtenetofanunperceivingmaterial
intelligible，Iwouldfainknow。
。Nay，ifthatbeall，IconfessIdonotseewhatusecanbemadeofit。Butareyounotguiltyofsomeabuseoflanguageinthis？
。Noneatall。Itisnomorethancommoncustom，whichyouknowistheruleoflanguage，hathauthorised:nothingbeingmoreusual，thanforphilosopherstospeakoftheimmediateobjectsoftheunderstandingasthingsexistinginthemind。\'Noristhereanythinginthisbutwhatisconformabletothegeneralanalogyoflanguage；mostpartofthementaloperationsbeingsignifiedbywordsborrowedfromsensiblethings；asisplainintheterms，reflect，，&。，which，beingappliedtothemind，mustnotbetakenintheirgross，originalsense。
。Youhave，Iown，satisfiedmeinthispoint。Buttherestillremainsonegreatdifficulty，whichIknownothowyouwillgetover。And，indeed，itisofsuchimportancethatifyoucouldsolveallothers，withoutbeingabletofindasolutionforthis，youmustneverexpecttomakemeaproselytetoyourprinciples。
。Letmeknowthismightydifficulty。
。TheScriptureaccountofthecreationiswhatappearstomeutterlyirreconcilablewithyournotions。Mosestellsusofacreation:acreationofwhat？ofideas？No，certainly，butofthings，ofrealthings，solidcorporealsubstances。Bringyourprinciplestoagreewiththis，andIshallperhapsagreewithyou。
。Mosesmentionsthesun，moon，andstars，earthandsea，plantsandanimals。Thatallthesedoreallyexist，andwereinthebeginningcreatedbyGod，Imakenoquestion。{251}Ifbyyoumeanfictionsandfanciesofthemind，thenthesearenoideas。Ifbyyoumeanimmediateobjectsoftheunderstanding，orsensiblethings，whichcannotexistunperceived，oroutofamind，thenthesethingsareideas。Butwhetheryoudoordonotcallthem，matterslittle。
Thedifferenceisonlyaboutaname。And，whetherthatnameberetainedorrejected，thesense，thetruth，andrealityofthingscontinuesthesame。Incommontalk，theobjectsofoursensesarenottermed，but。Callthemsostill:providedyoudonotattributetothemanyabsoluteexternalexistence，andIshallneverquarrelwithyouforaword。Thecreation，therefore，Iallowtohavebeenacreationofthings，of
things。Neitheristhisintheleastinconsistentwithmyprinciples，asisevidentfromwhatIhavenowsaid；andwouldhavebeenevidenttoyouwithoutthis，ifyouhadnotforgottenwhathadbeensooftensaidbefore。Butasforsolidcorporealsubstances，IdesireyoutoshowwhereMosesmakesanymentionofthem；and，iftheyshouldbementionedbyhim，oranyotherinspiredwriter，itwouldstillbeincumbentonyoutoshewthosewordswerenottakeninthevulgaracceptation，forthingsfallingunderoursenses，butinthephilosophicacceptation，forMatter，or，。
Whenyouhaveprovedthesepoints，thenandnottillthenmayyoubringtheauthorityofMosesintoourdispute。
。Itisinvaintodisputeaboutapointsoclear。Iamcontenttoreferittoyourownconscience。AreyounotsatisfiedthereissomepeculiarrepugnancybetweentheMosaicaccountofthecreationandyournotions？
。IfallpossiblesensewhichcanbeputonthefirstchapterofGenesismaybeconceivedasconsistentlywithmyprinciplesasanyother，thenithasnopeculiarrepugnancywiththem。Butthereisnosenseyoumaynotaswellconceive，believingasIdo。Since，besidesspirits，allyouconceiveareideas；andtheexistenceoftheseIdonotdeny。Neitherdoyoupretendtheyexistwithoutthemind。
。Prayletmeseeanysenseyoucanunderstanditin。
。Why，IimaginethatifIhadbeenpresentatthecreation，Ishouldhaveseenthingsproducedintobeing——thatisbecomeperceptible——intheorderprescribedbythesacredhistorian。IeverbeforebelievedtheMosaicaccountofthecreation，andnowfindnoalterationinmymannerofbelievingit。Whenthingsaresaidtobeginorendtheirexistence，we{252}donotmeanthiswithregardtoGod，butHiscreatures。AllobjectsareeternallyknownbyGod，or，whichisthesamething，haveaneternalexistenceinHismind:butwhenthings，beforeimperceptibletocreatures，are，byadecreeofGod，perceptibletothem，thenaretheysaidtobeginarelativeexistence，withrespecttocreatedminds。UponreadingthereforetheMosaicaccountofthecreation，Iunderstandthattheseveralpartsoftheworldbecamegraduallyperceivabletofinitespirits，endowedwithproperfaculties；sothat，whoeversuchwerepresent，theywereintruthperceivedbythem。ThisistheliteralobvioussensesuggestedtomebythewordsoftheHolyScripture:inwhichisincludednomention，ornothought，eitherof，