If there be an _Idea_ of _God_ (as ’tis manifest that there is) this whole _Objection_ falls to the ground; and then he subjoyns, _That we have no Idea of the Soul, but collect it by Ratiocination_, ’Tis the same as if he should say, that there is no _Image_ thereof represented in the _Phantasie_, but yet, that there is such a Thing, as I call an _Idea_. OBJECT. VIII. * _An other Idea of the Sun as taken from the Arguments of Astronomers, that is consequentially collected by me from certain natural notions._ At the same time we can certainly have but one _Idea_ of the Sun, whether it be look’d at by our eyes, or collected by _Ratiocination_ to be much bigger than it seems; for this last is not an _Idea_ of the Sun, but a proof by Arguments, that the _Idea_ of the _Sun_ would be much larger, if it were look’d at nigher. But at different or several times the _Ideas_ of the Sun may be diverse, as if at one time we look at it with our bare eye, at an other time through a Teloscope; but Astronomical arguments do not make the _Idea_ of the Sun greater or less, but they rather tell us that the _sensible Idea_ thereof is _false_. ANSWER. Here also (as before) what he says is not the _Idea_ of the Sun, and yet is described, is that very thing which I call the _Idea_. OBJECT. IX. * _For without doubt those Ideas which Represent substances are something more, or (as I may say) have more of objective Reality in them, then those that represent only accidents or modes; and again, that by which I understand a mighty God, Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creatour of all things besides himself, has certainly in it more objective reality, then those by which Finite substances are exhibited._ I have before often noted that there can be no _Idea_ of _God_ or the _Mind_: I will now superadd, That neither can there be an _Idea_ of _Substance_. For _Substance_ (Which is only _Matter Subject_ to _Accidents_ and _Changes_) is _Collected_ only by _Reasoning_, but it is not at all _Conceived_, neither does it _represent_ to us any _Idea_. And if this be true, How can it be said, _That those Ideas which represent to us Substances have in them something More, or More Objective Reality, then those which represent to us Accidents_? Besides, Let _Des-Cartes_ again Consider what he means by ~More Reality~? Can _Reality_ be increas’d or diminish’d? Or does he think that One _Thing_ can be _More A Thing_ then an other Thing? let him Consider how this can be Explain’d to our Understandings with that _Perspicuity_ or Clearness which is requisite in all _Demonstrations_, and Which He Himself is used to present us with upon other Occasions. ANSWER.