text: " Consequently if the figures we see are as Berkeley says apprehended neither as plane nor as solid Mr Bailey entertaining the notions he does on the subject of extension _must_ regard him as holding that they cannot be apprehended as extended at all--and accordingly such is the express representation he gives of the theory in the passage just quoted where he says that "the doctrine of Berkeley which affirms that the figures we see are neither plane nor solid (that is are extended in _no_ direction according to Mr Bailey's ideas of extension ) appears to him to be _a part_ of the doctrine which asserts that visible objects are only internal feelings