together those old methods of certainty, which have obtained greatest reputation in the world." Whereupon I must crave leave to mind you again, that the proposition you are here upon, and have undertaken to prove in this place, is concerning the certainty of deductions, and not concerning certainty in general. I say not this, that I am willing to decline the examination of my method of certainty in general, any way, or in any place: but I say it to observe, that in discourses of this nature, the laws of disputation have wisely ordered the proposition under debate to be kept to, and that in the same terms, to avoid wandering, obscurity, and confusion.

I therefore proceed now to consider what use your lordship makes of the ancients, against my way of certainty in general; since you think fit to make no use of them, as to the certainty of reason in making de ductions: though it is under this your second branch of certainty by reason, that you bring them in.

Your first objection here is that old one again, that my way of certainty by ideas is new. Answer. Your calling of it new does not prove it to be different from that of reason: but your lordship proves it to be new.

"1. Because here [i. e. in my way] we have no general principles." Answer. I do, as your lordship knows, own the truth and certainty of the received general maxims; and I contend for the usefulness and necessity of self-evident propositions in all certainty, whether of institution or demonstration. What therefore those general principles are, which you have not in my way of certainty by ideas, which your lordship has in your way of certainty by reason, I beseech you to tell me, and thereby to make good this assertion against me.

2. Your lordship says, "that here [i. e. in my way] we have no antecedents and consequents, no syllogistical methods of demonstration." Answer. If your lordship here means, that there be no antecedents and consequents in my book, or that I speak not or allow not of syllogism as a form of argumentation, that has its use, I humbly conceive the contrary is plain. But

VOL. IV.

C C

if by "here we have no antecedents and consequents, no syllogistical methods of demonstration," you mean, that I do not place certainty in having antecedents and consequents, or in making of syllogisms, I grant I do not; I have said syllogisms, instead of your words, syllogistical methods of demonstration; which examined, amount here to no more than syllogisms; for syllogistical methods are nothing but mode and figure, i. e. syllogisms; and the rules of syllogisms are the same, whether the syllogisms be used in demonstration or in probability. But it was convenient for you to say, "syllogistical methods of demonstration," if you would have it thought, that certainty is placed in it for to have named bare syllogism, without annexing demonstration to it, would have spoiled all, since every one, who knows what syllogism is, knows it may as well be used in topical or fallacious arguments, as in demonstration.

Your lordship charges me then, that in my way of ideas I do not place certainty in having antecedents and consequents. And pray, my lord, do you in your way by reason do so? If you do, this is certain, that every body has, or may have certainty in every thing he discourses about: for every one, in any discourse he makes, has, or may, if he pleases, have antecedents and consequents.

Again, your lordship charges me, that I do not place certainty in syllogism; I crave leave to ask again, and does your lordship? And is this the difference between your way of certainty by reason, and my way of certainty by ideas? Why else is it objected to me, that I do not, if your lordship does not place certainty in syllogism? And if you do, I know nothing so requisite, as that you should advise all people, women and all, to betake themselves immediately to the universities, and to the learning of logic, to put themselves out of the dangerous state of scepticism for there young lads, by being taught syllogism, arrive at certainty; whereas, without mode and figure, the world is in perfect ignorance and uncertainty, and is sure of nothing. The merchant cannot be certain that his account is right cast up, nor the lady

that her coach is not a wheelbarrow, nor her dairymaid that one and one pound of butter are two pounds of butter, and two and two four; and all for want of mode and figure: nay, according to this rule, whoever lived before Aristotle, or him, whoever it was, that first introduced syllogism, could not be certain of any thing; no, not that there was a God, which will be the present state of the far greatest part of mankind (to pass by whole nations of the East, as China and Indostan, &c.) even in the Christian world, who to this day have not the syllogistical methods of demonstration, and so cannot be certain of any thing.

3. Your lordship farther says, that " in my way of certainty by ideas we have no criterion." Answer. To perceive the agreement or disagreement of two ideas, and not to perceive the agreement or disagreement of two ideas, is, I think, a criterion to distinguish what a man is certain of, from what he is not certain of. Has your lordship any other or better criterion to distinguish certainty from uncertainty? If you have, I repeat again my earnest request, that you would be pleased to do that right to your way of certainty by reason, as not to conceal it. If your lordship has not, why is the want of a criterion, when I have so plain a one, objected to my way of certainty, and my way so often accused of a tendency to scepticism and infidelity, when you yourself have not a better? And I think I may take the liberty to say, if yours be not the same, you have not so good.

Perhaps your lordship will censure me here, and think it is more than becomes me, to press you so hard concerning your own way; and to ask, whether your way of certainty lies in having antecedents and consequents, and syllogisms; and whether it has any other or better criterion than what I have given: your lordship will possibly think it enough, that " you have laid down the grounds of certainty which the ancient Grecians went upon." My lord, if you think so, I must be satisfied with it: though perhaps others will think it strange, that in a dispute about a method of certainty, which, for its supposed coming short of certainty, you charge with a tendency to scepticism and infidelity, you

should produce only the different opinions of other men concerning certainty, to make good this charge, without declaring any of those different opinions or grounds of certainty to be true or false: and some may be apt to suspect that you yourself are not yet resolved wherein to place it.

But, my lord, I know too well what your distance above me requires of me, to say any such thing to your lordship. Your own opinions are to yourself, and your not discovering them must pass for a sufficient reason for your not discovering them: and if you think fit to overlay a poor infant modern notion with the great and weighty names of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and the like; and heaps of quotations out of the ancients; who is not presently to think it dead, and that there is an end of it? Especially when it will have too much envy for any one to open his mouth in defence of a notion, which is declared by your lordship to be different from what those great men said, whose words are to be taken without any more ado, and who are not to be thought ignorant or mistaken in any thing. Though I crave leave to say, that however infallible oracles they were, to take things barely upon their, or any man's authority, is barely to believe, but not to know or be certain.

Thus your lordship has sufficiently proved my way of certainty by ideas to be inconsistent with the way of certainty by reason, by proving it new; which you prove only by saying, that "it is so wholly new, that here we have no general principles; no criterion; no antecedents and consequents; no syllogistical methods of demonstration: and yet we are told of a better way of certainty to be attained merely by the help of ideas;" add, if your lordship pleases, signified by words: which put into propositions, whereof some are general principles, some are or may be antecedents, and some consequents, and some put together in mode and figure, syllogistical methods of demonstration. For pray, my lord, may not words, that stand for ideas, be put into propositions, as well as any other? And may not those propositions, wherein the terms stand for ideas, be as

well put into antecedents and consequents, or syllogisms, and make maxims, as well as any other propositions, whose terms stand not for ideas, if your lordship can find any such? And if thus ideas can be brought into maxims, antecedents and consequents, and syllogistical methods of demonstration, what inconsistency has the way of certainty by ideas, with those ways of certainty by reason, if at last your lordship will say, that certainty consists in propositions put together as antecedents and consequents, and in mode and figure? For as for principles or maxims, we shall know whether your principles and maxims are a way to certainty, when you shall please to tell us what it is, that to your lordship makes a maxim or principle, and distinguishes it from other propositions; and whether it be any thing but an immediate perception of the agreement or disagreement of the ideas, as expressed in that proposition. To conclude, by all that your lordship has alleged out of the ancients, you have not, as I humbly conceive, proved that my way of certainty is new, or that they had any way of certainty different from mine: much less have you proved that my way of certainty by ideas is inconsistent with the way of certainty by reason, which was the proposition to be proved.

Your lordship having thought it enough against my way of certainty by ideas, thus to prove its newness, you betake yourself presently to your old topic of obscure and confused ideas; and ask, " but how comes there to be such a way of certainty by ideas, and yet the ideas themselves are so uncertain and obscure?" Answer. No idea, as it is in the mind, is uncertain; though to those who use names uncertainly it may be uncertain what idea that name stands for. And as to obscure and confused ideas, no idea is so obscure in all its parts, or so confounded with all other ideas, but that one, who, in a proposition, joins it with another in that part which is clear and distinct, may perceive its agreement or disagreement, as expressed in that proposition: though when names are used for ideas, which are in some part obscure or confounded with other ideas, there can be no propositions made which can produce certainty