by these and the like expressions. For as to what is said of the absolute
existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being
perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their ESSE is PERCIPI,
nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or
thinking things which perceive them.

[Note: First argument in support of the author's theory.]

4. THE VULGAR OPINION INVOLVES A CONTRADICTION.--It is indeed
an opinion STRANGELY prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains,
rivers, and in a word all sensible objects, have an existence,
natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the
understanding. But, with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever
this principle may be entertained in the world, yet whoever shall find in
his heart to call it in question may, if I mistake not, perceive it to
involve a manifest contradiction. For, what are the fore-mentioned
objects but the things we perceive by sense? and what do we PERCEIVE
BESIDES OUR OWN IDEAS OR SENSATIONS? and is it not plainly repugnant that
any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?

5. CAUSE OF THIS PREVALENT ERROR.--If we thoroughly examine this
tenet it will, perhaps, be found at bottom to depend on the doctrine
of ABSTRACT IDEAS. For can there be a nicer strain of abstraction
than to distinguish the existence of sensible objects from their
being perceived, so as to conceive them existing unperceived?
Light and colours, heat and cold, extension and figures--in a
word the things we see and feel--what are they but so many sensations,
notions, ideas, or impressions on the sense? and is it possible to
separate, even in thought, any of these from perception? For my part, I
might as easily divide a thing from itself. I may, indeed, divide in my