proportionate Object meet together, both the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Sensible Idea of White and black and the Sense of Seeing are generated together, neither of which would have been produced if either of those two had not met with the other. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· The like is to be conceived of all other Sensibles, as Hot and Cold, &c. that none of these are Absolute things in themselves, or Real Qualities in the Objects without, but they are begotten from the mutual Congress of Agent and Patient with one another, and that by Motion: So that neither the Agent has any such thing in it before its Congress with the Patient, nor the Patient before its Congress with the Agent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· But the Agent and Patient meeting together, and begetting Sensation and Sensibles, both the Object and the Sentient are forthwith made to be so and so qualified, as when Honey is tasted, the Sense of Tasting and the Quality of Sweetness are begotten both together, though the Sense be vulgarly attributed to the Taster and the Quality of Sweetness to the Honey. The Conclusion of all which is summed up thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That none of those Sensible things is any thing absolutely in the Objects without, but they are all generated or made Relatively to the Sentient. There is more in that Dialogue to this purpose, which I here omit; but I have set down so much of it in the Authour's own Language, because it seems to me to be an excellent Monument of the Wisdom and Sagacity of the old Philosophers. That which is the main Curiosity in this whole business of the Mechanical or Atomical Philosophy, being here more fully and plainly expressed, than it is in Lucretius himself, viz. That Sensible things, according to those Ideas that we have of them, are not real Qualities absolutely Existing without us, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phansies or Phantasms in us: So that both the Latin Interpreters Ficinus and Serranus, though probably neither of them at all acquainted with this Philosophy, as being not yet restored, could not but understand it after the same manner: the one expressing it thus, Color ex Aspectu Motúque Medium quiddam resultans est. Talis circa Oculos Passio; and the other Ex varia Aspicientis diathesi, variáque sensilis specie colores varios & videri & fieri, it a tamen ut sint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nec nisi in animo subsistant. However it appears by Plato's manner of telling the story, and the Tenour of the whole Dialogue, that himself was not a little prejudiced against this Philosophy. In all probability the rather, because Protagoras had made it a Foundation both for Scepticism and Atheism.
VIII. We have now learnt from Plato, that Democritus and Leucippus were not the sole Proprietaries in this Philosophy, but that Protagoras, though not vulgarly taken notice of for any such thing (being commonly represented as a Sophist only) was a sharer in it likewise: which Protagoras indeed Laertius and others affirm to have been an Auditor of Democritus; and so he might be, notwithstanding what Plutarch tells us, that Democritus wrote against his taking a-
