no affinity with _corporeal Acts_, and _thought_, which is the common _Ratio_ of _those_ is wholly different from _Extension_, which is the common _Ratio_ of _These_. But after we have formed two _distinct conceptions_ of these two _substances_, from what is said in the sixth Meditation, ’tis easie to know, whether they be _one_ and the _same_ or _different_. OBJECT. III. * _Which of them is it, that is distinct from my thought? which of them is it that can be separated from me?_ Some perhaps will answer this Question thus, I my self, who _think_ am distinct from my _thought_, and my _thought_ is _different_ from me (tho’ not _seperated_) as _dancing_ is _distinguished_ from the _Dancer_ (as before is noted.) But if _Des-Cartes_ will prove, that _he_ who _understands_ is the same with his _understanding_, we shall fall into the Scholastick expressions, the _understanding understands_, the _sight sees_, the _Will wills_, and then by an exact analogy, the Walking (or at least the _Faculty_ of walking) shall walk. All which are obscure, improper, and unworthy that perspicuity which is usual with the noble _Des-Cartes_. ANSWER. I do not deny, that _I_ who _think_ am _distinct_ from my _thought_, as a _thing_ is _distinguish’d_ from its _modus_ or _manner_; But when I ask, _which of them is it that is distinct from my thought_? this I understand of those various _modes_ of _thought_ there mention’d, and not of _substance_; and when I subjoyn, _which of them is it that can be separated from me_? I only signifie that all those _modes_ or _manners_ of _thinking_ reside in me, neither do I herein perceive what occasion of _doubt_ or _obscurity_ can be imagined. OBJECT. IV. * _It remains therefore for me to Confess that I cannot Imagine what this Wax is, but that I conceive in my mind What it is._ There is a great Difference between _Imagination_ (that is) having an _Idea_ of a Thing, and the _Conception of the Mind_ (that is) a _Concluding_ from _Reasoning_ that a thing _Is_ or _Exists_. But _Des-Cartes_ has not Declared to us in what they Differ. Besides, the Ancient Aristotelians have clearly deliver’d as a Doctrine, that _substance_ is not _perceived_ by _sense_ but is _Collected_ by _Ratiocination_. But what shall we now say, if perhaps _Ratiocination_ be nothing Else but a _Copulation_ or _Concatenation_ of _Names_ or _Appellations_ by this Word _Is_? From whence ’twill follow that we _Collect_ by _Reasoning_ nothing _of_ or _concerning_ the _Nature_ of _Things_, but of the _names_ of _Things_, that is to say, we only discover whether or no we _joyn_ the _Names_ of _Things_ according to the _Agreements_ which at Pleasure we have made concerning their _significations_; if it be so (as so it may be) _Ratiocination_ will depend on _Words_, _Words_ on _Imagination_, and perhaps _Imagination_ as _also Sense_ on the _Motion_ of _Corporeal Parts_; and so the _Mind_ shall be nothing but _Motions_ in some Parts of an _Organical Body_.