. I do not pretend to any proper positive  of it.
However, I conclude it exists, because qualities cannot be
conceived to exist without a support.

     . It seems then you have only a relative  of
it, or that you conceive it not otherwise than by conceiving the
relation it bears to sensible qualities? {198}

     . Right.

     . Be pleased therefore to let me know wherein that
relation

     consists.

     . Is it not sufficiently expressed in the term
, or ?

     . If so, the word  should import that it
is spread under the sensible qualities or accidents?

     . True.

     . And consequently under extension?

     . I own it.

     . It is therefore somewhat in its own nature entirely
distinct

     from extension?

     . I tell you, extension is only a mode, and Matter is
something that supports modes. And is it not evident the thing
supported is different from the thing supporting?

     . So that something distinct from, and exclusive of,
extension is supposed to be the  of extension?

     . Just so.

     . Answer me, Hylas. Can a thing be spread without
extension? or is not the idea of extension necessarily included
in ?

     . It is.

     . Whatsoever therefore you suppose spread under
anything must have in itself an extension distinct from the
extension of that thing under which it is spread?

     . It must.

     . Consequently, every corporeal substance, being the
 of extension, must have in itself another extension,
by which it is qualified to be a : and so on to
infinity. And I ask whether this be not absurd in itself, and
repugnant to what you granted just now, to wit, that the
 was something distinct from and exclusive of
extension?

     . Aye but, Philonous, you take me wrong. I do not mean
that Matter is  in a gross literal sense under extension.
The word  is used only to express in general the same
thing with .

     . Well then, let us examine the relation implied in
the term . Is it not that it stands under accidents?

     . The very same.

     . But, that one thing may stand under or support
another, must it not be extended?

     . It must. {199}

     . Is not therefore this supposition liable to the same
absurdity with the former?

     . You still take things in a strict literal sense. That
is not fair, Philonous.

     . I am not for imposing any sense on your words: you
are at liberty to explain them as you please. Only, I beseech
you, make me understand something by them. You tell me Matter
supports or stands under accidents. How! is it as your legs
support your body?

     . No; that is the literal sense.

     . Pray let me know any sense, literal or not literal,
that you understand it in. -- How long must I wait for an answer,
Hylas?

     . I declare I know not what to say. I once thought I
understood well enough what was meant by Matter's supporting
accidents. But now, the more I think on it the less can I
comprehend it: in short I find that I know nothing of it.