2,s6 OF THE NATURE 



independent of the fenfes, of the imagination, 

 of the memory, and of all our other relative 

 faculties. But the exiHence of our bodies, and 

 of external objeds, is doubtful to every unpre- 

 judiced reafoner ; for that extenfion in length, 

 breadth, and thicknefs, vv'hich we call our bodies, 

 and which feem to be fo intimately conneded 

 with us, is nothing more than a relation of our 

 fenfes ; and the organs of fenfation themfelves 

 are only certain affinities with the objeds whicli 

 affed them. Has the internal fenfe, the mind, I 

 any thing common or fimilar to thefe organs ? 

 Have the fenfations produced by light or found 

 any refemblance to that fubtile fluid which ex- 

 cites the idea of light, or to the vibration of the 

 air which conveys to us the notion of found ? 

 Thefe effeds refult folely from the neceOliry and 

 intimate relation that fubfifts between the eyes 

 and ears and the different matters which ad up- 

 on them. But, as we have demonftrated, that 

 there is no refemblance between fenfations and 

 the objeds which produce them, is not this a 

 fufficient proof that the nature of the foul is dif- 

 ferent from that of matter ? 



We may, therefore, confider it as an efta- 

 bliflied point, that internal fenfation is totally 

 differenc from its caufe ; and we have already 

 lliown, that, if externa] objeds exift, they muft 

 be very different from the ideas we form of 

 them ; becaufe fenfation has not the mofl diftant 

 refemblance to the objeds by which it is excited. 



May 



