it good or friendly advice to your lordship, if you have such a secret, that should keep it up.

you

Your lordship, with some emphasis, bids me observe my own words, that I here positively say, " that the mind not being certain of the truth of that it doth not evidently know." So that it is plain here, that "I place certainty only in evident knowledge, or in clear and distinct ideas; and yet my great complaint of your lordship was, that you charged this upon me, and now your lordship finds it in my own words." Answer. My own words, in that place, are, "the mind is not certain of what it doth not evidently know;" but in them, or that passage, as set down by your lordship, there is not the least mention of clear and distinct ideas; and therefore I should wonder to hear your lordship so solemnly call them my own words, when they are but what your lordship would have to be a consequence of my words; were it not, as I humbly conceive, a way not unfrequent with your lordship to speak of that, which you think a consequence from any thing said, as if it were the very thing said. It rests therefore upon your lordship to prove that evident knowledge can be only where the ideas concerning which it is are perfectly clear and distinct. I am certain, that I have evident knowledge, that the substance of my body and soul exists, though I am as certain that I have but a very obscure and confused idea of any substance at all: so that my complaint of your lordship, upon that account, remains very well founded, notwithstanding any thing you allege here.

Your lordship, summing up the force of what you have said, adds, " that you have pleaded, (1.) That my method of certainty shakes the belief of revelation in general. (2.) That it shakes the belief of particular propositions or articles of faith, which depend upon the sense of words contained in Scripture."

That your lordship has pleaded, I grant; but, with submission, I deny that you have proved,

(1.) That my definition of knowledge, which is that which your lordship calls my method of certainty, shakes the belief of revelation in general. For all that

your lordship offers for proof of it, is only the alleging some other passages out of my book, quite different from that my definition of knowledge, which, you endeavour to show, do shake the belief of revelation in general: but indeed have not, nor, I humbly conceive, cannot show, that they do any ways shake the belief of revelation in general. But if they did, it does not at all follow from thence, that my definition of knowledge, i. e. my method of certainty, at all shakes the belief of revelation in general, which was what your lordship undertook to prove.

(2.) As to the shaking the belief of particular propositions or articles of faith, which depend, as you here say, upon the sense of words; I think I have sufficiently cleared myself from that charge, as will yet be more evident from what your lordship here farther urges.

66

Your lordship says, "my placing certainty in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas, shakes the foundations of the articles of faith [abovementioned] which depend upon the sense of words contained in the Scripture:" and the reason your lordship gives for it is this, because I do not say we are to believe all that we find there expressed." My lord, upon reading these words, I consulted the errata, to see whether the printer had injured you: for I could not easily believe that your lordship should reason after a fashion, that would justify such a conclusion as this, viz. your lordship in your letter to me, "does not say that we are to believe all that we find expressed in Scripture;" therefore your notion of certainty shakes the belief of this article of faith, that Jesus Christ descended into hell. This, I think, will scarce hold for a good consequence, till not saying any truth be the denying of it; and then if my not saying in my book, that we are to believe all there expressed, be to deny, that we are to believe all that we find there expressed, I fear many of your lordship's books will be found to shake the belief of several or all the articles of our faith. But supposing this consequence to be good, viz. I do not say, therefore I deny, and thereby I shake the belief of some articles of faith; how does this prove, that my

placing of certainty in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas, shakes any article of faith? unless my saying, that certainty consists in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas, B. iv. chap. 12, § 6, of my Essay, be a proof, that I do not say, in any other part of that book, "that we are to believe all that we find expressed in Scripture."

But perhaps the remaining words of the period will help us out in your lordship's argument, which all together stands thus: "because I do not say we are to believe all that we find there expressed; but [I do say] in case we have any clear and distinct ideas, which limit the sense another way, than the words seem to carry it, we are to judge that to be the true sense." My lord, I do not remember where I say what in the latter part of this period your lordship makes me say; and your lordship would have done me a favour to have quoted the place. Indeed, I do say, in the chapter your lordship seems to be upon," that no proposition can be received for divine revelation, or obtain the assent due to all such, if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive knowledge." This is what I there say, and all that I there say which in effect is this, that no proposition can be received for divine revelation, which is contradictory to a self-evident proposition; and if that be it which your lordship makes me say here in the foregoing words, I agree to it, and would be glad to know whether your lordship differs in opinion from me in it. But this not answering your purpose, your lordship would, in the following words of this paragraph, change self-evident proposition into a proposition we have attained certainty of, though by imperfect ideas: in which sense the proposition your lordship argues from as mine will stand thus: that no proposition can be received for divine revelation, or obtain the assent due to all such, if it be contradictory to any proposition, of whose truth we are by any way certain. And then I desire your lordship to name the two contradictory propositions, the one of divine revelation, I do not assent to; the other, that I have attained to a certainty of by my imperfect ideas, which makes me reject, or not assent to that of

divine revelation. The very setting down of these two contradictory propositions will be demonstration against me, and if your lordship cannot (as I humbly conceive you cannot) name any two such propositions, it is an evidence, that all this dust, that is raised, is only a great deal of talk about what your lordship cannot prove: for that your lordship has not yet proved any such thing, I am humbly of opinion I have already shown.

Your lordship's discourse of Des Cartes, in the following pages, is, I think, as far as I am concerned in it, to show, that certainty cannot be had by ideas; because Des Cartes using the term ideas, missed of it. Answ. The question between your lordship and me not being about Des Cartes's, but my notion of certainty, your lordship will put an end to my notion of certainty by ideas, whenever your lordship shall prove, that certainty cannot be attained any way by the immediate objects of the mind in thinking, i. e. by ideas; or that certainty does not cousist in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas; or, lastly, when your lordship shall show us what else certainty does consist in. When your lordship shall do either of these three, I promise your lordship to renounce my notion, or way, or method, or grounds (or whatever else your lordship has been pleased to call it) of certainty by ideas.

The next paragraph is to show the inclination your lordship has to favour me in the words "it may be." I shall be always sorry to have mistaken any one's, especially your lordship's inclination to favour me: but since the press has published this to the world, the world must now be judge of your lordship's in-.

clination to favour me.

The three or four following pages are to show, that your lordship's exception against ideas was not against the term ideas, and that I mistook you in it. Answer. My lord, I must own that there are very few pages of your letters, when I come to examine what is the precise meaning of your words, either as making distinct propositions, or a continued discourse, wherein I do not think myself in danger to be mistaken; but whether in the present case, one much more learned than I would

not have understood your lordship as I did, must be left to those who will be at the pains to consider your words, and my reply to them. Your lordship saying, " as I have stated my notion of ideas, it may be of dangerous consequence." This seeming too general an accusation, I endeavoured to find what it was more particularly in it, which your lordship thought might be of dangerous consequence. And the first thing I thought you excepted against was the use of the term idea: but your lordship tells me here, I was mistaken; it was not the term idea you excepted against, but the way of certainty by ideas. To excuse my mistake, I have this to say for myself, that reading in your first letter these express words: "When new terms are made use of by ill men to promote scepticism and infidelity, and to overthrow the mysteries of our faith, we then have reason to inquire into them, and to examine the foundation and tendency of them ;" it could not be very strange, if I understoood them to refer to terms: but it seems I was mistaken, and should have understood by them "my way of certainty by ideas," and should have read your lordship's words thus: "When new terms are made use of by ill men, to promote scepticism and infidelity, and to overthrow the mysteries of faith, we have then reason to inquire into them," i. e. Mr. L.'s definition of knowledge, (for that is my way of certainty by ideas) "and then to examine the foundation and tendency of them," i. e. this proposition, viz. that knowledge or certainty consists in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas. "Them," in your lordship's words, as I thought (for I am scarce ever sure what your lordship means by "them") necessarily referring to what ill men made use of for the promoting of scepticism and infidelity, I thought it had referred to terms. Why so? says your lordship. Your quarrel, you say, was not with the term ideas. "But that which

you insisted upon was the way of certainty by ideas, and the new terms as employed to that purpose;" and therefore it is that which your lordship must be understood to mean, by what "ill men make use of," &c. Now I appeal to my reader, whether I may not be ex