question of the plain man: "Do things exist when no one is conscious of them?" His reply is, "Yes, for the Divine Mind is conscious of them"--which again is true, but is not an answer to the question. However, the point of immediate interest for our present purpose is to ascertain whether the conception of "potential" existence can lend to things that permanence which according to Berkeley necessitates the assumption of a permanent mind. Now, by the potential existence of a body or thing no more is meant than that _if_ I open my eyes and look in the right direction, I shall see the thing; and the things I see are my sensations, ideas, call them what you will. But that I can see with my eyes shut is beyond possibility of proof--it certainly is not proved by the fact that I can see with my eyes open; and neither is it proved by the fact that other people see things when my eyes are closed. In fine, if the things I see are my sensations, then things cannot have a permanent existence; and no inference as to the permanence of the Divine Mind can be drawn. We are driven, therefore, to suppose that the things I see are different, partially or wholly, from my sensations. And this supposition seems to be implied by various passages in Berkeley. For instance, he says (i. p. 307), "the things I perceive are my own ideas ... the things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will," where he seems to distinguish what is _immediately_ perceived (_i.e._ sensations) from something else. And a few lines before he seems to be inclined to admit the existence of something else than my sensations, for he says "ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves or their archetypes, exist independently of my mind." The permanence of things is undoubtedly an inference. We find by experience that effects which are produced by causes acting before our very eyes are at other times produced by their causes in our absence: the fire burns in my absence as well as in my presence. Obviously, therefore, the thing which produces its effects when I have no sensations of it must be different from those sensations; and it must be an existing thing, otherwise its effects will be effects produced by a non-existent cause. To say that the unobserved cause in these cases is a possibility of sensation does not mend matters. A possible sensation is a sensation which, as a matter of fact, does not exist and never did. It is a piece of pure imagination; and consequently on this theory the whole past history of the universe is imaginary. Neither are matters mended by denying that there are such things as "causes," and affirming that we only know "invariable and unconditional antecedents." How can a possible sensation, that is, an event which did not take place, precede one which does take place? How can an imagination of my mind have preceded the existence of my mind?