ideas are not required, that are in all their parts perfectly clear and distinct: because certainty being spoken there of the knowledge of the truth of any proposition, and propositions being made in words, it may be true, that notwithstanding all the ideas we have in our minds are, as far as we have them there, clear and distinct; yet those which we would suppose the terms in the proposition to stand for, may not be clear and distinct: either, 1. By making the term stand for an uncertain idea, which we have not yet precisely determined in our minds, whereby it comes to stand sometimes for one idea, sometimes for another. Which though, when we reflect on them, they are distinct in our minds, yet by this use of a name undetermined in its signification, come to be confounded. Or,

2. By supposing the name to stand for something more than really is in the idea in our minds, which we make it a sign of, v. g. let us suppose, that a man many years since, when he was young, eat a fruit, whose shape, size, consistency, and colour, he has a perfect remembrance of; but the particular taste he has forgot, and only remembers that it very much delighted him. This complex idea, as far as it is in his mind, it is evident, is there; and as far as he perceives it, when he reflects on it, is in all parts clear and distinct: but when he calls it a pine-apple, and will suppose, that name stands for the same precise complex idea, for which another man (who newly eat of that fruit, and has the idea of the taste of it also fresh in his mind) uses it, or for which he himself used it, when he had the taste fresh in his memory; it is plain his complex idea in that part, which consists in the taste, is very obscure.

To apply this to what your lordship here makes me suppose, I answer,

1. I do not suppose, that to certainty it is requisite, that an idea should be in all its parts clear and distinct. I can be certain, that a pine-apple is not an artichoke, though my idea, which I suppose that name to stand for, be in me obscure and confused, in regard of its taste.

2. I do not deny, but on the contrary I affirm, that I can have a clear and distinct idea of a man (i. e. the

idea I give the name man to, may be clear and distinct) though it should be true, that men are not yet agreed on the determined idea that the name man shall stand for. Whatever confusion there may be in the idea, to which that name is indeterminately applied; I do allow and affirm, that every one, if he pleases, may have a clear and distinct idea of a man to himself, i. e. which he makes the word man stand for: which, if he makes known to others in his discourse with them about man, all verbal dispute will cease, and he cannot be mistaken when he uses the term man. And if this were but done with most of the glittering terms brandished in disputes, it would often be seen how little some men have to say, who with equivocal words and expressions make no small noise in controversy.

Your lordship concludes this part by saying, " thus you have showed how inconsistent my way of ideas is with true certainty, and of what use and necessity these general principles of reason are." of reason are." Answ. By the laws of disputation, which in another place you express such a regard to, one is bound not to change the terms of the question. This I crave leave humbly to offer to your lordship, because, as far as I have looked into controversy, I do not remember to have met with any one so apt, shall I say, to forget or change the question as your lordship. This, my lord, I should not venture to say, but upon very good grounds, which I shall be ready to give you an account of, whenever you shall demand it of me. One example of it we have here: you say, "you have showed how inconsistent my way of ideas is with true certainty, and of what use and necessity these general principles of reason are." My lord, if you please to look back to the 105th page, you will see what you there promised was "to show the difference of my method of certainty by ideas, and the method of certainty by reason:" and particularly in the pages between that and this, the certainty of principles, which you say is one of those two things, wherein the way of certainty by reason lies. Instead of that, your lordship concludes here, that you have showed two things:

"1. How inconsistent my way of ideas is with true certainty." Whereas it should be "to show the inconsistency or difference of my method of certainty by ideas, and the method of certainty by reason; which are two very different propositions. And before you undertake to show, that my method of certainty is inconsistent with true certainty, it will be necessary for you to define, and tell us wherein true certainty consists, which your lordship has shown no great forwardness to do.

2. Another thing which you say you have done is, "that you have shown of what use and necessity these general principles of reason are." Answ. Whether by these general principles you mean those propositions which you set down, page 108, and call there maxims, or any other propositions which you have not any where set down, I cannot tell. But whatsoever they are, that you mean here by "these," I know not how the usefulness of these your general principles, be they what they will, came to be a question between your lordship and me here. If you have a mind to show any mistakes of mine in my chapter of maxims, which, you say, you think extraordinary for the design of it, I shall not be unwilling to be rectified; but that the usefulness of principles is not what is here under debate between us

with submission, affirm. That which your lordship is here to prove is, that the certainty of principles, which is the way of certainty by reason, is different from my way of certainty by ideas. Upon the whole, I crave leave to say in your words, that, "thus I have," I humbly conceive, made it appear, that you have not showed any difference, much less any inconsistency of my method of certainty by ideas, and the method of certainty by reason," in that first part, which you assign of certainty by reason, viz. certainty of principles.

I come now to the second part, which you assign of certainty by reason, viz. certainty of deductions. I only crave leave first to set down these words in the latter end of your discourse, which we have been considering, where your lordship says, "you begin to think J. S. was in the right, when he made me say, That I had

discoursed with very rational men who denied themselves to be men." Answ. I do not know what may be done by those who have such a command over the pronouns "they" and "them," as to put "they themselves" for "they." I shall therefore desire my reader to turn to that passage of my book, and see whether he too can be so lucky as your lordship, and can with you begin to think, that by these words, "who have actually denied, that they, i. e. infants and changelings, are men; I meant, who actually denied that they themselves were men * "

Your lordship, to prove my method of certainty by ideas to be different from, and inconsistent with, your second part of the certainty by reason, which, you say, lies in the certainty of deductions, begins thus: " that you come now to the certainty of reason, in making deductions; and here you shall briefly lay down the grounds of certainty, which the ancient philosophers went upon, and then compare my way of ideas with them." To which give me leave, my lord, to reply:

(1.) That I humbly conceive, it should have been grounds of certainty [in making deductions] which the ancient philosophers went upon; or else they will be nothing to the proposition, which your lordship has undertaken here to prove. Now of the certainty in making deductions, I see none of the ancients produced by your lordship, who say any thing to show, wherein it consists, but Aristotle; who, as you say, "in his method of inferring one thing from another, went upon this common principle of reason, that what things agree in a third, agree among themselves." And it so falls out, that so far as he goes towards the showing wherein the certainty of deductions consists, he and I agree, as is evident by what I say in my Essay t. And if Aristotle had gone any farther to show, how we are certain, that those two things agree with a third, he would have placed that certainty in the perception of that agreement, as I have done, and then he and I should have perfectly agreed. I presume to say, if Aristotle had if Aristotle had gone farther in this matter, he would have placed our knowledge or * Essay, b. iv. c. 7. § 17. + B. iv. c. 2. § 2. & c. 17. § 15.

certainty of the agreement of any two things in the perception of their agreement. And let not any one from hence think I attribute too much to myself in saying, that that acute and judicious philosopher, if he had gone farther in that matter, would have done as I have done. For if he omitted it, I imagine it was not that he did not see it, but that it was so obvious and evident, that it appeared superfluous to name it. For who can doubt that the knowledge, or being certain, that any two things agree, consists in the perception of their agreement? What else can it possibly consist in? It is so obvious, that it would be a little extraordinary to think, that he that went so far could miss it. And I should wonder, if any one should allow the certainty of deduction to consist in the agreement of two things in a third, and yet should deny that the knowledge or certainty of that agreement consisted in the perception of it.

(2.) In the next place, my lord, supposing my method of certainty, in making deductions, were different from those of the ancients; this, at best, would be only that which I call argumentum ad verecundiam*; which proves not on which side reason is, though I, in modesty, should answer nothing to their authorities.

(3.) The ancients, as it seems by your lordship, not agreeing one among another about the grounds of certainty, what can their authorities signify in the case? or how will it appear, that I differ from reason, in differing from any of them, more than that they differ from reason, in differing one from another? And therefore, after all the different authorities produced by you out of your great measure of reading, the matter will at last reduce itself to this point, that your lordship should tell us wherein the certainty of reason, in making deductions, consists; and then show wherein my method of making deductions differs from it: which, whether you have done or no, we shall see in what follows.

Your lordship closes your very learned, and to other purposes very useful, account of the opinions of the ancients, concerning certainty, with these words: "that thus you have, in as few words as you could, laid * Essay, b. iv. c. 17. § 19.