第4章

。Ilayitdownforaprinciple，thatthemomentsorquantitiesofmotioninbodiesareinadirectcompoundedreasonofthevelocitiesandquantitiesofMattercontainedinthem。

Hence，wherethevelocitiesareequal，itfollowsthemomentsaredirectlyasthequantityofMatterineach。Butitisfoundbyexperiencethatallbodies(batingthesmallinequalities，arisingfromtheresistanceoftheair)descendwithanequalvelocity；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:exceptitbewithyourpreconceivednotionof(Iknownotwhat)onesingle，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，itiscertain(andnotatallrepugnanttotheprinciplesImaintain)thatdifferentpersonsmayperceivethesamething；orthesamethingorideaexistindifferentminds。

Wordsareofarbitraryimposition；and，sincemenareusedtoapplythewordwherenodistinctionorvarietyisperceived，andIdonotpretendtoaltertheirperceptions，itfollowsthat，asmenhavesaidbefore，，sotheymay，uponlikeoccasions，stillcontinuetousethesamephrase，withoutanydeviationeitherfromproprietyoflanguage，orthetruthofthings。But，ifthetermbeusedintheacceptationofphilosophers，whopretendtoanabstractednotionofidentity，then，accordingtotheirsundrydefinitionsofthisnotion(foritisnotyetagreedwhereinthatphilosophicidentityconsists)，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。

。And(nottomentionyourhavingdiscardedthosearchetypes)somayyousupposeanexternalarchetypeonmyprinciples；——，，: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:whichideasareunitedintoonething(orhaveonenamegiventhem)bythemind，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，then(andnottillthen)mayyoubringtheauthorityofMosesintoourdispute。

。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，
。But，Philonous，youdonotseemtobeawarethatyouallowcreatedthings，inthebeginning，onlyarelative，andconsequentlyhypotheticalbeing:thatistosay，uponsuppositionthereweretoperceivethem；withoutwhichtheyhavenoactualityofabsoluteexistence，whereincreationmightterminate。Isitnot，therefore，accordingtoyou，plainlyimpossiblethecreationofanyinanimatecreaturesshouldprecedethatofman？AndisnotthisdirectlycontrarytotheMosaicaccount？

。Inanswertothat，Isay，first，createdbeingsmightbegintoexistinthemindofothercreatedintelligences，besidemen。YouwillnotthereforebeabletoproveanycontradictionbetweenMosesandmynotions，unlessyoufirstshewtherewasnootherorderoffinitecreatedspiritsinbeing，beforeman。Isayfarther，incaseweconceivethecreation，asweshouldatthistime，aparcelofplantsorvegetablesofallsortsproduced，byaninvisiblePower，inadesertwherenobodywaspresent——thatthiswayofexplainingorconceivingitisconsistentwithmyprinciples，sincetheydepriveyouofnothing，eithersensibleorimaginable；thatitexactlysuitswiththecommon，natural，andundebauchednotionsofmankind；thatitmanifeststhedependenceofallthingsonGod；andconsequentlyhathallthegoodeffectorinfluence，whichitispossiblethatimportantarticleofourfaithshouldhaveinmakingmenhumble，thankful，andresignedtotheir[great][11]Creator。Isay，moreover，that，inthisnaked{253}conceptionofthings，divestedofwords，therewillnotbefoundanynotionofwhatyoucallthe。Youmayindeedraiseadustwiththoseterms，andsolengthenourdisputetonopurpose。ButIentreatyoucalmlytolookintoyourownthoughts，andthentellmeiftheyarenotauselessandunintelligiblejargon。

。IownIhavenoveryclearnotionannexedtothem。

Butwhatsayyoutothis？Doyounotmaketheexistenceofsensiblethingsconsistintheirbeinginamind？AndwerenotallthingseternallyinthemindofGod？Didtheynotthereforeexistfromalleternity，accordingtoyou？Andhowcouldthatwhichwaseternalbecreatedintime？Cananythingbeclearerorbetterconnectedthanthis？

。Andarenotyoutooofopinion，thatGodknewallthingsfrometernity？

。Iam。

。ConsequentlytheyalwayshadabeingintheDivineintellect。

。ThisIacknowledge。

。Byyourownconfession，therefore，nothingisnew，orbeginstobe，inrespectofthemindofGod。Soweareagreedinthatpoint。

。Whatshallwemakethenofthecreation？

。Maywenotunderstandittohavebeenentirelyinrespectoffinitespirits；sothatthings，withregardtous，mayproperlybesaidtobegintheirexistence，orbecreated，whenGoddecreedtheyshouldbecomeperceptibletointelligentcreatures，inthatorderandmannerwhichHethenestablished，andwenowcallthelawsofnature？Youmaycallthisa，ifyouplease。But，solongasitsuppliesuswiththemostnatural，obvious，andliteralsenseoftheMosaichistoryofthecreation；solongasitanswersallthereligiousendsofthatgreatarticle；inaword，solongasyoucanassignnoothersenseormeaninginitsstead；whyshouldwerejectthis？Isittocomplywitharidiculousscepticalhumourofmakingeverythingnonsenseandunintelligible？IamsureyoucannotsayitisforthegloryofGod。For，allowingittobeathingpossibleandconceivablethatthecorporealworldshouldhaveanabsoluteexistenceextrinsicaltothemindofGod，aswellastothemindsofallcreatedspirits；yethowcouldthissetfortheithertheimmensityoromniscienceoftheDeity，orthenecessaryandimmediatedependenceofall{254}thingsonHim？Nay，woulditnotratherseemtoderogatefromthoseattributes？

。Well，butastothisdecreeofGod\'s，formakingthingsperceptible，whatsayyou，Philonous？Isitnotplain，Goddideitherexecutethatdecreefromalleternity，oratsomecertaintimebegantowillwhatHehadnotactuallywilledbefore，butonlydesignedtowill？Iftheformer，thentherecouldbenocreation，orbeginningofexistence，infinitethings。Ifthelatter，thenwemustacknowledgesomethingnewtobefalltheDeity；whichimpliesasortofchange:andallchangearguesimperfection。

。Prayconsiderwhatyouaredoing。Isitnotevidentthisobjectionconcludesequallyagainstacreationinanysense；

nay，againsteveryotheractoftheDeity，discoverablebythelightofnature？Noneofwhichcanconceive，otherwisethanasperformedintime，andhavingabeginning。GodisaBeingoftransceridentandunlimitedperfections:Hisnature，therefore，isincomprehensibletofinitespirits。Itisnot，therefore，tobeexpected，thatanyman，whetherMaterialistorImmaterialist，shouldhaveexactlyjustnotionsoftheDeity，Hisattributes，andwaysofoperation。Ifthenyouwouldinferanythingagainstme，yourdifficultymustnotbedrawnfromtheinadequatenessofourconceptionsoftheDivinenature，whichisunavoidableonanyscheme；butfromthedenialofMatter，ofwhichthereisnotoneword，directlyorindirectly，inwhatyouhavenowobjected。

。Imustacknowledgethedifficultiesyouareconcernedtocleararesuchonlyasarisefromthenon-existenceofMatter，andarepeculiartothatnotion。Sofaryouareintheright。ButIcannotbyanymeansbringmyselftothinkthereisnosuchpeculiarrepugnancybetweenthecreationandyouropinion；thoughindeedwheretofixit，Idonotdistinctlyknow。

。Whatwouldyouhave？DoInotacknowledgeatwofoldstateofthings——theoneectypalornatural，theotherarchetypalandeternal？Theformerwascreatedintime；thelatterexistedfromeverlastinginthemindofGod。Isnotthisagreeabletothecommonnotionsofdivines？or，isanymorethanthisnecessaryinordertoconceivethecreation？Butyoususpectsomepeculiarrepugnancy，thoughyouknownotwhereitlies。Totakeawayallpossibilityofscrupleinthecase，dobutconsiderthisonepoint。Eitheryouarenotabletoconceive{255}theCreationonanyhypothesiswhatsoever；and，ifso，thereisnogroundfordislikeorcomplaintagainstanyparticularopiniononthatscore:oryouareabletoconceiveit；and，ifso，whynotonmyPrinciples，sincetherebynothingconceivableistakenaway？Youhaveallalongbeenallowedthefullscopeofsense，imagination，andreason。Whatever，therefore，youcouldbeforeapprehend，eitherimmediatelyormediatelybyyoursenses，orbyratiocinationfromyoursenses；whateveryoucouldperceive，imagine，orunderstand，remainsstillwithyou。If，therefore，thenotionyouhaveofthecreationbyotherPrinciplesbeintelligible，youhaveitstilluponmine；ifitbenotintelligible，Iconceiveittobenonotionatall；andsothereisnolossofit。AndindeeditseemstomeveryplainthatthesuppositionofMatter，thatisathingperfectlyunknownandinconceivable，cannotservetomakeusconceiveanything。And，I

hopeitneednotbeprovedtoyouthatiftheexistenceofMatterdothnotmakethecreationconceivable，thecreation\'sbeingwithoutitinconceivablecanbenoobjectionagainstitsnon-

existence。

。Iconfess，Philonous，youhavealmostsatisfiedmeinthispointofthecreation。

。Iwouldfainknowwhyyouarenotquitesatisfied。

YoutellmeindeedofarepugnancybetweentheMosaichistoryandImmaterialism:butyouknownotwhereitlies。Isthisreasonable，Hylas？CanyouexpectIshouldsolveadifficultywithoutknowingwhatitis？But，topassbyallthat，wouldnotamanthinkyouwereassuredthereisnorepugnancybetweenthereceivednotionsofMaterialistsandtheinspiredwritings？

。AndsoIam。

。OughtthehistoricalpartofScripturetobeunderstoodinaplainobvioussense，orinasensewhichismetaphysicalandoutoftheway？

。Intheplainsense，doubtless。

。WhenMosesspeaksofherbs，earth，water，&c。ashavingbeencreatedbyGod；thinkyounotthesensiblethingscommonlysignifiedbythosewordsaresuggestedtoeveryunphilosophicalreader？

。Icannothelpthinkingso。

。Andarenotallideas，orthingsperceivedbysense，tobedeniedarealexistencebythedoctrineoftheMaterialist？

。ThisIhavealreadyacknowledged。

。Thecreation，therefore，accordingtothem，wasnot{256}thecreationofthingssensible，whichhaveonlyarelativebeing，butofcertainunknownnatures，whichhaveanabsolutebeing，whereincreationmightterminate？

。True。

。IsitnotthereforeevidenttheassertorsofMatterdestroytheplainobvioussenseofMoses，withwhichtheirnotionsareutterlyinconsistent；andinsteadofitobtrudeonusIknownotwhat；somethingequallyunintelligibletothemselvesandme？

。Icannotcontradictyou。

。Mosestellsusofacreation。Acreationofwhat？ofunknownquiddities，ofoccasions，or？No，certainly；

butofthingsobvioustothesenses。Youmustfirstreconcilethiswithyournotions，ifyouexpectIshouldbereconciledtothem。

。Iseeyoucanassaultmewithmyownweapons。

。Thenasto；wasthereeverknownamorejejunenotionthanthat？Somethingitissoabstractedandunintelligiblethatyouhavefranklyownedyoucouldnotconceiveit，muchlessexplainanythingbyit。ButallowingMattertoexist，andthenotionofabsoluteexistencetobeclearaslight；yet，wasthiseverknowntomakethecreationmorecredible？Nay，hathitnotfurnishedtheatheistsandinfidelsofallageswiththemostplausibleargumentsagainstacreation？Thatacorporealsubstance，whichhathanabsoluteexistencewithoutthemindsofspirits，shouldbeproducedoutofnothing，bythemerewillofaSpirit，hathbeenlookeduponasathingsocontrarytoallreason，soimpossibleandabsurd!thatnotonlythemostcelebratedamongtheancients，butevendiversmodernandChristianphilosophershavethoughtMatterco-eternalwiththeDeity。Laythesethingstogether，andthenjudgeyouwhetherMaterialismdisposesmentobelievethecreationofthings。

。Iown，Philonous，Ithinkitdoesnot。ThisoftheisthelastobjectionIcanthinkof；andImustneedsownithathbeensufficientlyansweredaswellastherest。

NothingnowremainstobeovercomebutasortofunaccountablebackwardnessthatIfindinmyselftowardsyournotions。

。Whenamanisswayed，heknowsnotwhy，toonesideof\'thequestion，canthis，thinkyou，beanythingelsebuttheeffectofprejudice，whichneverfailstoattendoldandrooted{257}notions？AndindeedinthisrespectIcannotdenythebeliefofMattertohaveverymuchtheadvantageoverthecontraryopinion，withmenofalearned，education。

。Iconfessitseemstobeasyousay。

。Asabalance，therefore，tothisweightofprejudice，letusthrowintothescalethegreatadvantagesthatarisefromthebeliefofImmaterialism，bothinregardtoreligionandhumanlearning。ThebeingofaGod，andincorruptibilityofthesoul，thosegreatarticlesofreligion，aretheynotprovedwiththeclearestandmostimmediateevidence？WhenIsaythebeingofaGod，IdonotmeananobscuregeneralCauseofthings，whereofwehavenoconception，butGod，inthestrictandpropersenseoftheword。ABeingwhosespirituality，omnipresence，providence，omniscience，infinitepowerandgoodness，areasconspicuousastheexistenceofsensiblethings，ofwhich(notwithstandingthefallaciouspretencesandaffectedscruplesofSceptics)thereisnomorereasontodoubtthanofourownbeing——Then，withrelationtohumansciences。InNaturalPhilosophy，whatintricacies，whatobscurities，whatcontradictionshaththebeliefofMatterledmeninto!Tosaynothingofthenumberlessdisputesaboutitsextent，continuity，homogeneity，gravity，divisibility，&c——dotheynotpretendtoexplainallthingsbybodiesoperatingonbodies，accordingtothelawsofmotion？andyet，aretheyabletocomprehendhowonebodyshouldmoveanother？Nay，admittingtherewasnodifficultyinreconcilingthenotionofaninertbeingwithacause，orinconceivinghowanaccidentmightpassfromonebodytoanother；yet，byalltheirstrainedthoughtsandextravagantsuppositions，havetheybeenabletoreachtheproductionofanyoneanimalorvegetablebody？Cantheyaccount，bythelawsofmotion，forsounds，tastes，smells，orcolours；orfortheregularcourseofthings？Havetheyaccounted，byphysicalprinciples，fortheaptitudeandcontrivanceevenofthemostinconsiderablepartsoftheuniverse？But，layingasideMatterandcorporeal，causes，andadmittingonlytheefficiencyofanAll-perfectMind，arenotalltheeffectsofnatureeasyandintelligible？Ifthe

arenothingelsebut；Godisa，butMatteranunintelligent，unperceivingbeing。Iftheydemonstrateanunlimitedpowerintheircause；Godisactiveandomnipotent，butMatteraninertmass。Iftheorder，regularity，andusefulnessofthemcan{258}neverbesufficientlyadmired；Godisinfinitelywiseandprovident，butMatterdestituteofallcontrivanceanddesign。Thesesurelyaregreatadvantagesin。NottomentionthattheapprehensionofadistantDeitynaturallydisposesmentoanegligenceintheirmoralactions；whichtheywouldbemorecautiousof，incasetheythoughtHimimmediatelypresent，andactingontheirminds，withouttheinterpositionofMatter，orunthinkingsecondcauses——Thenin:

whatdifficultiesconcerningentityinabstract，substantialforms，hylarchicprinciples，plasticnatures，substanceandaccident，principleofindividuation，possibilityofMatter\'sthinking，originofideas，themannerhowtwoindependentsubstancessowidelydifferentas，shouldmutuallyoperateoneachother？whatdifficulties，Isay，andendlessdisquisitions，concerningtheseandinnumerableotherthelikepoints，doweescape，bysupposingonlySpiritsandideas？——

Eventhethemselves，ifwetakeawaytheabsoluteexistenceofextendedthings，becomemuchmoreclearandeasy；

themostshockingparadoxesandintricatespeculationsinthosesciencesdependingonthe。infinitedivisibilityoffiniteextension；whichdependsonthatsupposition——Butwhatneedistheretoinsistontheparticularsciences？Isnotthatoppositiontoallsciencewhatsoever，thatfrenzyoftheancientandmodernSceptics，builtonthesamefoundation？Orcanyouproducesomuchasoneargumentagainsttherealityofcorporealthings，orinbehalfofthatavowedutterignoranceoftheirnatures，whichdothnotsupposetheirrealitytoconsistinanexternalabsoluteexistence？Uponthissupposition，indeed，theobjectionsfromthechangeofcoloursinapigeon\'sneck，ortheappearanceofthebrokenoarinthewater，mustbeallowedtohaveweight。Buttheseandthelikeobjectionsvanish，ifwedonotmaintainthebeingofabsoluteexternaloriginals，butplacetherealityofthingsinideas，。fleetingindeed，andchangeable；——

however，notchangedatrandom，butaccordingtothefixedorderofnature。For，hereinconsiststhatconstancyandtruthofthingswhichsecuresalltheconcernsoflife，anddistinguishesthatwhichisrealfromthethefancy。

{259}

。Iagreetoallyouhavenowsaid。，andmustownthatnothingcaninclinemetoembraceyouropinionmorethantheadvantagesIseeitisattendedwith。Iambynaturelazy；andthiswouldbeamightyabridgmentinknowledge。Whatdoubts，whathypotheses，whatlabyrinthsofamusement，whatfieldsofdisputation，whatanoceanoffalselearning，maybeavoidedbythatsinglenotionof!

。Afterall，isthereanythingfartherremainingtobedone？YoumayrememberyoupromisedtoembracethatopinionwhichuponexaminationshouldappearmostagreeabletoCommonSenseandremotefromScepticism。This，byyourownconfession，isthatwhichdeniesMatter，ortheexistenceofcorporealthings。Noristhisall；thesamenotionhasbeenprovedseveralways，viewedindifferentlights，pursuedinitsconsequences，andallobjectionsagainstitcleared。Cantherebeagreaterevidenceofitstruth？orisitpossibleitshouldhaveallthemarksofatrueopinionandyetbefalse？

。Iownmyselfentirelysatisfiedforthepresentinallrespects。But，whatsecuritycanIhavethatIshallstillcontinuethesamefullassenttoyouropinion，andthatnounthought-ofobjectionordifficultywilloccurhereafter？

。Pray，Hylas，doyouinothercases，whenapointisonceevidentlyproved，withholdyourconsentonaccountofobjectionsordifficultiesitmaybeliableto？Arethedifficultiesthatattendthedoctrineofincommensurablequantities，oftheangleofcontact，oftheasymptotestocurves，orthelike，sufficienttomakeyouholdoutagainstmathematicaldemonstration？OrwillyoudisbelievetheProvidenceofGod，becausetheremaybesomeparticularthingswhichyouknownothowtoreconcilewithit？Iftherearedifficulties，thereareatthesametimedirectandevidentproofsofit。ButfortheexistenceofMatterthereisnotoneproof，andfarmorenumerousandinsurmountableobjectionslieagainstit。Butwherearethosemightydifficultiesyouinsiston？Alas!youknownotwhereorwhattheyare；somethingwhichmaypossiblyoccurhereafter。Ifthisbeasufficientpretenceforwithholdingyourfullassent，youshouldneveryieldittoanyproposition，howfreesoeverfromexceptions，howclearlyandsolidlysoeverdemonstrated。

。Youhavesatisfiedme，Philonous。

。But，toarmyouagainstallfutureobjections，dobutconsider:Thatwhichbearsequallyhardontwocontradictory{260}opinionscanbeproofagainstneither。Whenever，therefore，anydifficultyoccurs，tryifyoucanfindasolutionforitonthehypothesisofthe。Benotdeceivedbywords；

butsoundyourownthoughts。Andincaseyoucannotconceiveiteasierbythehelpof，itisplainitcanbenoobjectionagainst。Hadyouproceededallalongbythisrule，youwouldprobablyhavesparedyourselfabundanceoftroubleinobjecting；sinceofallyourdifficultiesIchallengeyoutoshewonethatisexplainedbyMatter:nay，whichisnotmoreunintelligiblewiththanwithoutthatsupposition；andconsequentlymakesratherforit。Youshouldconsider，ineachparticular，whetherthedifficultyarisesfromthe-。Ifitdothnot，youmightaswellarguefromtheinfinitedivisibilityofextensionagainsttheDivineprescience，asfromsuchadifficultyagainst。Andyet，uponrecollection，Ibelieveyouwillfindthistohavebeenoften，ifnotalways，thecase。Youshouldlikewisetakeheednottoargueona。Oneisapttosay——Theunknownsubstancesoughttobeesteemedrealthings，ratherthantheideasinourminds:andwhocantellbuttheunthinkingexternalsubstancemayconcur，asacauseorinstrument，intheproductionsofourideas？Butisnotthisproceedingonasuppositionthattherearesuchexternalsubstances？Andtosupposethis，isitnotbeggingthequestion？

But，aboveallthings，youshouldbewareofimposingonyourselfbythatvulgarsophismwhichiscalled。YoutalkedoftenasifyouthoughtImaintainedthenon-existenceofSensibleThings。WhereasintruthnoonecanbemorethoroughlyassuredoftheirexistencethanIam。Anditisyouwhodoubt；I

shouldhavesaid，positivelydenyit。Everythingthatisseen，felt，heard，oranywayperceivedbythesenses，is，ontheprinciplesIembrace，arealbeing；butnotonyours。Remember，theMatteryoucontendforisanUnknownSomewhat(ifindeeditmaybetermed)，whichisquitestrippedofallsensiblequalities，andcanneitherbeperceivedbysense，norapprehendedbythemind。RememberIsay，thatitisnotanyobjectwhichishardorsoft，hotorcold，blueorwhite，roundorsquare，&c。ForallthesethingsIaffirmdoexist。ThoughindeedIdenytheyhaveanexistencedistinctfrombeingperceived；orthattheyexistoutofallmindswhatsoever。Thinkonthesepoints；letthembeattentivelyconsideredandstillkeptinview。Otherwiseyouwillnotcomprehendthestateofthequestion；withoutwhichyourobjections{261}willalwaysbewideofthemark，and，insteadofmine，maypossiblybedirected(asmorethanoncetheyhavebeen)againstyourownnotions。

。Imustneedsown，Philonous，nothingseemstohavekeptmefromagreeingwithyoumorethanthissame。IndenyingMatter，。atfirst，glimpseIamtemptedtoimagineyoudenythethingsweseeandfeel:but，uponreflexion，findthereisnogroundforit。Whatthinkyou，therefore，ofretainingthename，andapplyingitto？Thismaybedonewithoutanychangeinyoursentiments:

and，believeme，itwouldbeameansofreconcilingthemtosomepersonswhomaybemoreshockedataninnovationinwordsthaninopinion。

。Withallmyheart:retaintheword，andapplyittotheobjectsofsense，ifyouplease；providedyoudonotattributetothemanysubsistencedistinctfromtheirbeingperceived。Ishallneverquarrelwithyouforanexpression。

，or，aretermsintroducedbyphilosophers；and，asusedbythem，implyasortofindependency，orasubsistencedistinctfrombeingperceivedbyamind:butareneverusedbycommonpeople；or，ifever，itistosignifytheimmediateobjectsofsense。Onewouldthink，therefore，solongasthenamesofallparticularthings，withthe，，，，andthelike，areretained，thewordshouldbenevermissedincommontalk。Andinphilosophicaldiscoursesitseemsthebestwaytoleaveitquiteout:sincethereisnot，perhaps，anyonethingthathathmorefavouredandstrengthenedthedepravedbentofthemindtowardsAtheismthantheuseofthatgeneralconfusedterm。

。Wellbut，Philonous，sinceIamcontenttogiveupthenotionofanunthinkingsubstanceexteriortothemind，I

thinkyououghtnottodenymetheprivilegeofusingthewordasIplease，andannexingittoacollectionofsensiblequalitiessubsistingonlyinthemind。Ifreelyownthereisnoothersubstance，inastrictsense，than。ButIhavebeensolongaccustomedtothethatIknownothowtopartwithit:tosay，thereisnointheworld，isstillshockingtome。Whereastosay——Thereisno，ifbythattermbemeantanunthinkingsubstanceexistingwithoutthemind；butifbyismeantsomesensiblething，whoseexistenceconsistsinbeingperceived，thenthereis:——

distinctiongivesitquiteanotherturn；andmenwillcomeintoyournotionswith{262}smalldifficulty，whentheyareproposedinthatmanner。For，afterall，thecontroversyaboutinthestrictacceptationofit，liesaltogetherbetweenyouandthephilosophers:whoseprinciples，Iacknowledge，arenotnearsonatural，orsoagreeabletothecommonsenseofmankind，andHolyScripture，asyours。Thereisnothingweeitherdesireorshunbutasitmakes，orisapprehendedtomake，somepartofourhappinessormisery。Butwhathathhappinessormisery，joyorgrief，pleasureorpain，todowithAbsoluteExistence；orwithunknownentities，？Itisevident，thingsregardusonlyastheyarepleasingordispleasing:andtheycanpleaseordispleaseonlysofarforthastheyareperceived。Farther，therefore，wearenotconcerned；andthusfaryouleavethingsasyoufoundthem。Yetstillthereissomethingnewinthisdoctrine。Itisplain，IdonotnowthinkwiththePhilosophers；noryetaltogetherwiththevulgar。Iwouldknowhowthecasestandsinthatrespect；

precisely，whatyouhaveaddedto，oralteredinmyformernotions。

。Idonotpretendtobeasetter-upofnewnotions。

Myendeavourstendonlytounite，andplaceinaclearerlight，thattruthwhichwasbeforesharedbetweenthevulgarandthephilosophers:——theformerbeingofopinion，that；andthelatter，that，。Whichtwonotionsputtogether，do，ineffect，constitutethesubstanceofwhatIadvance。

。Ihavebeenalongtimedistrustingmysenses:

methoughtIsawthingsbyadimlightandthroughfalseglasses。

Nowtheglassesareremovedandanewlightbreaksinuponmyunderstanding。IamclearlyconvincedthatIseethingsintheirnativeforms，andamnolongerinpainabouttheir。ThisisthestateIfindmyselfinatpresent；though，indeed，thecoursethatbroughtmetoitI

donotyetthoroughlycomprehend。YousetoutuponthesameprinciplesthatAcademics，Cartesians，andthelikesectsusuallydo；andforalongtimeitlookedasifyouwereadvancingtheirphilosophicalScepticism:but，intheend，yourconclusionsaredirectlyoppositetotheirs。

。Yousee，Hylas，thewaterofyonderfountain，howitisforcedupwards，inaroundcolumn，toacertainheight；at{263}whichitbreaks，andfallsbackintothebasinfromwhenceitrose:itsascent，aswellasdescent，proceedingfromthesameuniformlaworprincipleofgravitation。justso，thesamePrincipleswhich，atfirstview，leadtoScepticism，pursuedtoacertainpoint，bringmenbacktoCommonSense。