in what certainty lies and desired it of your lordship by these pressing considerations, that it would secure that article of faith against any dangerous consequence from my way, and be a great service to truth in general. To which your lordship replies here, that you did never pretend to inform the world of new methods; and therefore are not bound to go any farther than what you found fault with, which was my new method.

Answ. My lord, I did not desire any new method of you. I observed your lordship, in more places than one, reflected on me for writing out of my own thoughts, and therefore. I could not expect from your lordship what you so much condemn in another. Besides, one of the faults you found with my method was, that it was new: and therefore if your lordship will look again into that passage, where I desire you to set the world right in a thing of that great consequence, as it is to know wherein certainty consists; you will not find, that I mention any thing of a new method of certainty: my words were 66 another," whether old or new was indifferent. In truth, all that I requested, was only such a method of certainty as your lordship approved of, and was secure in; and therefore I do not see how your not pretending to inform the world in any new methods can be any way alleged as a reason for refusing so useful and so charitable a thing.

Your lordship farther adds, "that you are not bound to go any farther than what you found fault with." Answ. I suppose your lordship means, that "you are not bound by the law of disputation;" nor are you, as I humbly conceive, by this law forbid: or if you were, the law of the schools could not dispense with the eternal divine law of charity. The law of disputing, whence had it its so mighty a sanction? It is at best but the law of wrangling, if it shut out the great ends of information and instruction; and serves only to flatter a little guilty vanity, in a victory over an adversary less skilful in this art of fencing. Who can believe, that upon so slight an account your lordship should neglect your design of writing against me? The great motives of your concern for an article of the Christian faith, and

of that duty which you profess has made you do what you have done, will be believed to work more uniformly in your lordship, than to let a father of the church, and a teacher in Israel, not tell one who asks him, which is the right and safe way, if he knows it. No, no, my lord, a character so much to the prejudice of your charity, nobody will receive of your lordship, no, not from yourself: whatever your lordship may say, the world will believe, that you would have given a better method of certainty, if you had had one; when thereby you would have secured men from the danger of running into errors in articles of faith, and effectually have recalled them from my way of certainty, which leads, as your lordship says, to scepticism and infidelity. For to turn men from a way they are in, the bare telling them it is dangerous, puts but a short stop to their going on in it: there is nothing effectual to set them a going right, but to show them which is the safe and sure way; a piece of humanity, which when asked, nobody, as far as he knows, refuses another; and that I have earnestly asked of your lordship.

Your lordship represents to me the unsatisfactoriness and inconsistency of my way of certainty, by telling me, that it seems still a strange thing to you, that I should talk so much of a new method of certainty by ideas; and yet allow, as I do, such a want of ideas, so much imperfection in them, and such a want of connexion between our ideas and the things themselves." Answ. This objection being so visibly against the extent of our knowledge, and not the certainty of it by ideas, would need no other answer but this, that it proved nothing to the point; which was to show, that my way by ideas was no way to certainty at all; not to true certainty, which is a term your lordship uses here, which I shall be able to conceive what you mean by, when you shall be pleased to tell me what false certainty is.

But because what you say here is in short what you ground your charge of scepticism on, in your former letter, I shall here, according to my promise, consider what your lordship says there, and hope you will allow this to be no unfit place.

Your charge of scepticism, in your former letter, is as followeth.

Your lordship's first argument consists in these propositions, viz.

1. That I say, Book IV. Chap. 1, that knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas.

2. That I go about to prove, that there are very many more beings, of which we have no ideas, than those of which we have; from whence your lordship draws this conclusion," that we are excluded from attaining any knowledge, as to the far greatest part of the universe:" which I agree to. But with submission, this is not the proposition to be proved, but this, viz. that my way by ideas, or my way of certainty by ideas, for to that your lordship reduces it; i. e. my placing of certainty in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas; leads to scepticism.

Farther, from my saying, that the intellectual world is greater and more beautiful certainly than the material, your lordship argues, that if certainty may be had by general reasons without particular ideas in one, it may also in other cases. Answ. It may, no doubt: but this is nothing against any thing I have said; for I have neither said, nor suppose, that certainty by general reasons, or any reasons, can be had without ideas; no more than I say, or suppose, that we can reason without thinking, or think without immediate objects in our minds in thinking, i. e. think without ideas. But your lordship asks, "whence comes this certainty (for I say certainty) where there be no particular ideas," if knowledge consists in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas? I answer, we have ideas as far as we are certain; and beyond that, we have neither certainty, no nor probability. Every thing which we either know or believe, is some proposition: now no proposition can be framed as the object of our knowledge or assent, wherein two ideas are not joined to, or separated from one another. As, for example, when I affirm that "something exists in the world, whereof I have no idea," existence is affirmed of something, some being: and I have as clear

an idea of existence and something, the two things joined in that proposition, as I have of them in this proposition, "something exists in the world, whereof I have an idea." When therefore I affirm, that the intellectual world is greater and more beautiful than the material; whether I should know the truth of this proposition, either by divine revelation, or should assert it as highly probable (which is all I do in that chapter* out of which this instance is brought) it means no more but this, viz. that there are more, and more beautiful beings, whereof we have no ideas, than there are of which we have ideas; of which beings, whereof we have no ideas, we can, for want of ideas, have no farther knowledge, but that such beings do exist.

If your lordship shall now ask me, how I know there are such beings; I answer, that, in that chapter of the extent of our knowledge, I do not say I know, but I endeavour to show, that it is most highly probable: but yet a man is capable of knowing it to be true, because he is capable of having it revealed to him by God, that this proposition is true, viz. that in the works of God there are more, and more beautiful beings, whereof we have no ideas, than there are whereof we have ideas. If God, instead of showing the very things to St. Paul, had only revealed to him, that this proposition was true, viz. that there were things in heaven, "which neither eye had seen, nor ear had heard, nor had entered into the heart of man to conceive;" would he not have known the truth of that proposition of whose terms he had ideas, viz. of beings, whereof he had no other ideas, but barely as something, and of existence; though in the want of other ideas of them, he could attain no other knowledge of them but barely that they existed? So that in what I have there said, there is no contradiction, nor shadow of a contradiction, to my placing knowledge in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas.

But if I should any where mistake, and say any thing inconsistent with that way of certainty of mine; how, I beseech your lordship, could you conclude from thence, that the placing knowledge in the perception of the * Essay, b. iv. ch. 3.

agreement or disagreement of ideas tends to scepticism? That which is the proposition here to be proved, would remain still unproved: for I might say things inconsistent with this proposition, that "knowledge consists in the perception of the connexion and agreement or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas;" and yet that proposition be true, and very far from tending to scepticism, unless your lordship will argue that every proposition that is inconsistent with what a man any where says, tends to scepticism; and then I should be tempted to infer, that many propositions in the letters your lordship has honoured me with will tend to scepticism.

Your lordship's second argument is from my saying, "we have no ideas of the mechanical affections of the minute particles of bodies, which hinders our certain knowledge of universal truths concerning natural bodies" from whence your lordship concludes, "that since we can attain to no science, as to bodies or spirits, our knowledge must be confined to a very narrow compass." I grant it; but I crave leave to mind your lordship again, that this is not the proposition to be proved: a little knowledge is still knowledge, and not scepticism. But let me have affirmed our knowledge to be comparatively very little; how, I beseech your lordship, does that any way prove, that this proposition, "knowledge consists in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas," any way tends to scepticism? which was the proposition to be proved. But the inference your lordship shuts up this head with, in these words: "so that all certainty is given up in the way of knowledge, as to the visible and invisible world, or at least the greatest part of them" showing in the first part of it what your lordship should have inferred, and was willing to infer; does at last by these words in the close, "or at least the greatest part of them," I guess come just to nothing: I say, I guess; guess; for what "them," by grammatical construction, is to be referred to, seems not clear to me.

Your third argument being just of the same kind with the former, only to show, that I reduce our knowledge