And from hence it seems to follow, that a _thinking Thing_ is a _Corporeal Thing_; for the _Subjects_ of all _Acts_ are understood only in a _Corporeal way_, or after the manner of _matter_, as he himself shews hereafter by the example of a piece of Wax, which changing its _colour_, _consistence_, _shape_, and other _Acts_ is yet known to continue the _same thing_, that is, the _same matter subject_ to so many _changes_. But I cannot conclude from another _thought_ that _I now think_; for tho a Man may _think_ that he _hath thought_ (which consists only in _memory_) yet ’tis altogether impossible for him to _think_ that he _now thinks_, or to _know_, that _he knows_, for the question may be put _infinitely_, how do you _know_ that you _know_, that you _know_, that you _know_? &c. Wherefore seeing the Knowledge of this Proposition _I am_, depends on the knowledge of this _I think_, and the knowledge of this is from hence only, that we cannot separate _thought_ from _thinking matter_, it seems rather to follow, that a _thinking thing_ is _material_, than that ’tis _immaterial_. ANSWER. When I said, _That is a Mind_, _a Soul_, _an Understanding_, _Reason_, &c. I did not mean by these _names_ the _Faculties_ only, but the _things_ indow’d with those _Faculties_; and so ’tis alwayes understood by the two first names (_mind_ and _soul_) and very often so understood by the two last Names (_understanding_ and _Reason_) and this I have explain’d so often, and in so many places of these Meditations, that there is not the least occasion of questioning my meaning. Neither is there any parity between _Walking_ and _Thought_, for _walking_ is used only for the _Act_ it self, but _thought_ is sometimes used for the _Act_, sometimes for the _Faculty_, and sometimes for the _thing_ it self, wherein the _Faculty_ resides. Neither do I say, that the _understanding thing_ and _intellection_ are the same, or that the _understanding thing_ and the _intellect_ are the same, if the _intellect_ be taken for the _Faculty_, but only when ’tis taken for the _thing it self that understands_. Yet I willingly confess, that I have (as much as in me lay) made use of _abstracted words_ to signifie that _thing_ or _substance_, which I would have devested of all those things that belong not to it. Whereas contrarily this Philosopher uses the most _concrete Words_ to signifie this _thinking thing_, such as _subject_, _matter_, _Body_, &c. that he may not suffer it to be separated from _Body_. Neither am I concern’d that His manner of joyning many things together may seem to some fitter for the discovery of Truth, than mine, wherein I separate as much as possibly each particular. But let us omit words and speak of things.