principles we have hitherto laid down. In doing of which, if I seem
too prolix to those of quick apprehensions, I hope it may be pardoned,
since all men do not equally apprehend things of this nature, and I am
willing to be understood by every one.

  First, then, it will be objected that by the foregoing principles
all that is real and substantial in nature is banished out of the
world, and instead thereof a chimerical scheme of ideas takes place.
All things that exist, exist only in the mind, that is, they are
purely notional. What therefore becomes of the sun, moon and stars?
What must we think of houses, rivers, mountains, trees, stones; nay,
even of our own bodies? Are all these but so many chimeras and
illusions on the fancy? To all which, and whatever else of the same
sort may be objected, I answer, that by the principles premised we are
not deprived of any one thing in nature. Whatever we see, feel,
hear, or anywise conceive or understand remains as secure as ever, and
is as real as ever. There is a rerum natura, and the distinction
between realities and chimeras retains its full force. This is evident
from sect. 29, 30, and 33, where we have shewn what is meant by real
things in opposition to chimeras or ideas of our own framing; but then
they both equally exist in the mind, and in that sense they are
alike ideas.

  35. I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we
can apprehend either by sense or reflexion. That the things I see with
my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the
least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that which
philosophers call Matter or corporeal substance. And in doing of
this there is no damage done to the rest of mankind, who, I dare
say, will never miss it. The Atheist indeed will want the colour of an
empty name to support his impiety; and the Philosophers may possibly
find they have lost a great handle for trifling and disputation.

  36. If any man thinks this detracts from the existence or reality of
things, he is very far from understanding what hath been premised in
the plainest terms I could think of. Take here an abstract of what has
been said:- There are spiritual substances, minds, or human souls,
which will or excite ideas in themselves at pleasure; but these are
faint, weak, and unsteady in respect of others they perceive by sense-
which, being impressed upon them according to certain rules or laws of
nature, speak themselves the effects of a mind more powerful and
wise than human spirits. These latter are said to have more reality in
them than the former:- by which is meant that they are more affecting,
orderly, and distinct, and that they are not fictions of the mind
perceiving them. And in this sense the sun that I see by day is the
real sun, and that which I imagine by night is the idea of the former.
In the sense here given of reality it is evident that every vegetable,
star, mineral, and in general each part of the mundane system, is as
much a real being by our principles as by any other. Whether others
mean anything by the term reality different from what I do, I
entreat them to look into their own thoughts and see.

  37. I will be urged that thus much at least is true, to wit, that we
take away all corporeal substances. To this my answer is, that if
the word substance be taken in the vulgar sense- for a combination
of sensible qualities, such as extension, solidity, weight, and the
like- this we cannot be accused of taking away: but if it be taken
in a philosophic sense- for the support of accidents or qualities
without the mind- then indeed I acknowledge that we take it away, if
one may be said to take away that which never had any existence, not
even in the imagination.

  38. But after all, say you, it sounds very harsh to say we eat and
drink ideas, and are clothed with ideas. I acknowledge it does so- the
word idea not being used in common discourse to signify the several
combinations of sensible qualities which are called things; and it
is certain that any expression which varies from the familiar use of
language will seem harsh and ridiculous. But this doth not concern the
truth of the proposition, which in other words is no more than to say,
we are fed and clothed with those things which we perceive immediately
by our senses. The hardness or softness, the colour, taste, warmth,
figure, or suchlike qualities, which combined together constitute
the several sorts of victuals and apparel, have been shewn to exist
only in the mind that perceives them; and this is all that is meant by
calling them ideas; which word if it was as ordinarily used as
thing, would sound no harsher nor more ridiculous than it. I am not
for disputing about the propriety, but the truth of the expression. If
therefore you agree with me that we eat and drink and are clad with
the immediate objects of sense, which cannot exist unperceived or
without the mind, I shall readily grant it is more proper or
conformable to custom that they should be called things rather than
ideas.

  39. If it be demanded why I make use of the word idea, and do not
rather in compliance with custom call them things; I answer, I do it
for two reasons:- first, because the term thing in
contra-distinction to idea, is generally supposed to denote somewhat
existing without the mind; secondly, because thing hath a more
comprehensive signification than idea, including spirit or thinking
things as well as ideas. Since therefore the objects of sense exist
only in the mind, and are withal thoughtless and inactive, I chose
to mark them by the word idea, which implies those properties.

  40. But, say what we can, some one perhaps may be apt to reply, he
will still believe his senses, and never suffer any arguments, how
plausible soever, to prevail over the certainty of them. Be it so;
assert the evidence of sense as high as you please, we are willing
to do the same. That what I see, hear, and feel doth exist, that is to
say, is perceived by me, I no more doubt than I do of my own being.
But I do not see how the testimony of sense can be alleged as a