_Third objection._ (Sect. 42-44.) We actually _see_ sensible things existing at a distance from our bodies. Now, whatever is seen existing at a distance must be seen as existing external to us in our bodies, which contradicts the foregoing Principles. _Answer._ Distance, or outness, is not visible. It is a conception which is suggested gradually, by our experience of the connexion between visible colours and certain visual sensations that accompany seeing, on the one hand, and our tactual experience, on the other—as was proved in the _Essay on Vision_, in which the ideality of the _visible_ world is demonstrated(470). _Fourth objection._ (Sect. 45-48.) It follows from the New Principles, that the material world must be undergoing continuous annihilation and recreation in the innumerable sentient experiences in which it becomes real. _Answer_. According to the New Principles a thing may be realised in the sense-experience of _other_ minds, during intervals of its perception by _my_ mind; for the Principles do not affirm dependence only on this or that mind, but on a living Mind. If this implies a constant creation of the material world, the conception of the universe as in a state of constant creation is not new, and it signally displays Divine Providence. _Fifth objection._ (Sect. 49.) If extension and extended Matter can exist only _in mind_, it follows that extension is an attribute of mind—that mind is extended. _Answer._ Extension and other sensible qualities exist in mind, not as _modes_ of mind, which is unintelligible, but _as ideas_ of which Mind is percipient; and this is absolutely inconsistent with the supposition that Mind is itself extended(471). _Sixth objection._ (Sect. 50.) Natural philosophy proceeds on the assumption that Matter is independent of percipient mind, and it thus contradicts the New Principles. _Answer._ On the contrary, Matter—if it means what exists abstractly, or in independence of all percipient Mind—is useless in natural philosophy, which is conversant exclusively with the ideas or phenomena that compose concrete things, not with empty abstractions. _Seventh objection._ (Sect. 51.) To refer all change to spiritual agents alone, and to regard the things of sense as wholly impotent, thus discharging natural causes as the New Principles do, is at variance with human language and with good sense. _Answer._ While we may speak as the multitude do, we should learn to think with the few who reflect. We may still speak of “natural causes,” even when, as philosophers, we recognise that all true efficiency must be spiritual, and that the material world is only a system of sensible symbols, regulated by Divine Will and revealing Omnipresent Mind. _Eighth objection._ (Sect. 54, 55.) The natural belief of men seems inconsistent with the world being mind-dependent.