have outdone what you suppose of that gentleman's) has found and charged on that notion as dangerous, I shall endeavour to give you satisfaction in.

You farther add, that "though I answered not a word in the proper place, yet afterwards, Let. 2. p. 95, (for you would omit nothing that may seem to help my cause) I offer something towards an answer."

I shall be at a loss hereafter what to do with the 82d and following pages to the 95th; since what is said in those pages of my second letter goes for nothing, because it is not in its proper place. Though if any one will give himself the trouble to look into my second letter, he will find, that the argument I was upon in the 46th page obliged me to defer what I had farther to say to your new accusation: but that I reassumed it in the 82d, and answered it in that and the following pages.

But supposing every writer had not that exactness of method, which showed, by the natural and visible connexion of the parts of his discourse, that every thing was laid in its proper place; is it a sufficient answer, not to take any notice of it? The reason why I put this question is, because if this be a rule in controversy, I humbly conceive, I might have passed over the greatest part of what your lordship has said to me, because the disposition it has under numerical figures, is so far from giving me a view of the orderly connexion of the parts of your discourse, that I have often been tempted to suspect the negligence of the printer, for misplacing your lordship's numbers; since, so ranked as they are, they do to me, who am confounded by them, lose all order and connexion quite.

The next thing in the defence, which you go on with, is an exception to my use of the word certainty. In the close of the answer I had made in the pages you pass over, I add," that though the laws of disputation allow bare denials as a sufficient answer to sayings without any offer of a proof; yet, my lord, to show how willing I am to give your lordship all satisfaction in what you apprehend may be of dangerous consequence in my book, as to that article, I shall not stand still sullenly, and put your lordship upon the difficulty of showing wherein that danger lies; but shall on the

other side endeavour to show your lordship, that that definition of mine, whether true or false, right or wrong, can be of no dangerous consequence to that article of faith. The reason which I shall offer for it, is this; because it can be of no consequence to it at all." And the reason of it was clear from what I had said before, that knowing and believing were two different acts of the mind: and that my placing of certainty in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas, i. e. that my definition of knowledge, one of those acts of the mind, would not at all alter or shake the definition of faith, which was another act of the mind distinct from it. And therefore I added, "that the certainty of faith (if your lordship thinks fit to call it so) has nothing to do with the certainty of knowledge. And to talk of the certainty of faith, seems all one to me, as to talk of the knowledge of believing; a way of speaking not easy to me to understand."

These and other words to this purpose in the following paragraphs your lordship lays hold on, and sets down as liable to no small exception: though, as you tell me, "the main strength of my defence lies in it." Let what strength you please lie in it, my defence was strong enough without it. For to your bare saying, "my method of certainty might be of dangerous consequence to any article of the Christian faith," without proving it, it was a defence strong enough barely to deny, and put you upon showing wherein that danger lies; which therefore, this main strength of my defence, as you call it, apart, I insist on.

But as to your exception to what I said on this occasion, it consists in this, that there is a certainty of faith, and therefore you set down my saying, "that to talk of the certainty of faith, seems all one as to talk of the knowledge of believing;" as that "which shows the inconsistency of my notion of ideas with the articles of the Christian faith." These are your words here, and yet you tell me, "that it is not my way of ideas, but my way of certainty by ideas, that your lordship is unsatisfied about." What must I do now in the case, when your words are expressly, that my notion of ideas have an inconsistency with the articles of the Christian

faith? Must I presume that your lordship means my notion of certainty? All that I can do is to search out your meaning the best I can, and then show where I apprehend it not conclusive. But this uncertainty, in most places, what you mean, makes me so much work, that a great deal is omitted, and yet my answer is too long.

Your lordship asks in the next paragraph, "how comes the certainty of faith to be so hard a point with me?" Answer. I suppose you ask this question more to give others hard thoughts of my opinion of faith, than to be informed yourself. For you cannot be ignorant that all along in my Essay I use certainty for knowledge; so that for you to ask me, "how comes the certainty of faith to become so hard a point with me?" is the same thing as for you to ask, how comes the knowledge of faith, or, if you please, the knowledge of believing, to be so hard a point with me? A question which, I suppose, you will think needs no answer, let your meaning in that doubtful phrase be what it will.

I used in my book the term certainty for knowledge so generally, that nobody that has read my book, though much less attentively than your lordship, can doubt of it. That I used it in that sense there, I shall refer my reader but to two places amongst many to convince him. This, I am sure, your lordship could not be ignorant of, that by certainty I mean knowledge, since I have so used it in my letters to you, instances whereof are not a few; some of them may be found in the places marked in the margent: and in my second letter, what say in the leaf immediately preceding that which you quote upon this occasion, would have put it past a possibility for any one to make show of a doubt of it, had not that been amongst those pages of my answer which, for its being out of its proper place, it seems you were resolved not to take notice of; and therefore I hope it will not be besides my purpose here to mind you of it again.

After having said something to show why I used certainty and knowledge for the same thing, I added, "that your lordship could not but take notice of this in B. 4. c. 1. § 1, and c. 11. § 9.

VOL. IV.

T

the 18th sect. of chap. iv. of my fourth book, it being a passage you had quoted, and runs thus: Wherever we perceive the agreement or disagreement of any ideas, there is certain knowledge; and wherever we are sure those ideas agree with the reality of things, there is certain real knowledge: of which having given the marks, I think I have shown wherein certainty, real certainty, consists." And I farther add, in the immediately following words, " that my definition of knowledge, in the beginning of the fourth book of my Essay, stands thus: Knowledge seems to be nothing but the perception of the connexion, and agreement or disgreement, and repugnancy of any of our ideas." Which is the very definition of certainty that your lordship is here contesting.

Since then you could not but know that in this discourse certainty with me stood for, or was the same thing with knowledge; may not one justly wonder how you come to ask me such a question as this, "how comes the knowledge of believing to become so hard a point with me?" For that was in effect the question that you asked, when you put in the term certainty, since you knew as undoubtedly that I meant knowledge by certainty, as that I meant believing by faith; i. e. you could doubt of neither. And that you did not doubt of it, is plain from what you say in the next page, where you endeavour to prove this an improper way of speaking.

Whether it be a proper way of speaking, I allow it to be a fair question. But when you knew what I meant, though I expressed it improperly, to put questions in a word of mine, used in a sense different from mine, which could not but be apt to insinuate to the reader, that my notion of certainty derogated from the wanpopopia or full assurance of faith, as the Scripture calls it; is what I guess, in another, would make your lordship ask again, is this fair and ingenuous dealing?"

My lord, my Bible expresses the highest degree of faith, which the apostle recommended to believers in his time, by full assurance*. But assurance of faith, though it be what assurance soever, will by no means down with

* Heb. x. 22.

your lordship in my writing. You say, I allow assurance of faith; God forbid I should do otherwise; but then you ask, "why not certainty as well as assurance?" My lord, I think it may be a reason not misbecoming a poor layman, and such as he might presume would satisfy a bishop of the church of England, that he found his Bible to speak so. I find my Bible speaks of the assurance of faith, but nowhere, that I can remember, of the certainty of faith, though in many places it speaks of the certainty of knowledge, and therefore I speak so too; and shall not, I think, be condemned for keeping close to the expressions of our Bible, though the Scripture-language, as it is, does not so well serve your lordship's turn in the present case. When I shall see, in an authentic translation of our Bible, the phrase changed, it will then be time enough for me to change it too, and call it not the assurance, but certainty of faith: but till then, I shall not be ashamed of it, notwithstanding you reproach me with it, by terming it, the assurance of faith, as I call it; when you might as well have termed it, the assurance of faith, as your Bible calls it.

It being plain, that by certainty I meant knowledge, and by faith the act of believing; that these words where you ask, "how comes the certainty of faith to become so hard a point with me?" and where you tell me, "I will allow no certainty of faith;" may make no wrong impression on men's minds, who may be apt to understand them of the object, and not merely of the act of believing: I crave leave to say with Mr. Chillingworth," that I do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith to be in themselves truths as certain and infallible, as the very common principles of geometry or metaphysics. But that there is not required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science:" and that for this reason (amongst others given both by Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Hooker) viz." that faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it so that he that knows, believes, and something more; but he that believes, many times does * C. vi. § 3.