Is it enough, then, to have learned merely this?—It is enough, say you.—Is it enough, then, for him who would not commit any mistake in the use of money, merely to have heard, that we are to receive the good pieces, and reject the bad?—This is not enough.—What must be added besides?—That faculty which tries and distinguishes what pieces are good, what bad.—Therefore, in reasoning too, what hath been already said is not enough; but it is necessary that we should be able to prove and distinguish between the true and the false and the doubtful.—It is necessary.

§ 2. And what farther is professed in reasoning?—To admit the consequences of what you have properly granted.—Well; and here, too, is the mere knowing this enough?—It is not; but we must learn how such a thing is the consequence of such another; and when one thing follows from one thing, and when from many things in common. Is it not moreover necessary, that he who would behave skilfully in reasoning, should both himself demonstrate whatever he delivers, and be able to comprehend the demonstrations of others; and not be deceived by such as sophisticate, as if they were demonstrating? Hence then the employment and exercise of concluding arguments and figures arises, and appears to be necessary.

§ 3. But it may possibly happen, that from the premises which we have properly granted, there arises some consequence, which, though false, is nevertheless a consequence. What, then, ought I to do? To admit a falsehood?—And how is that possible?—Well; or to say that my concessions were not properly made?—But neither is this allowed.—Or that the consequence doth not arise from the premises?—Nor is even this allowed.—What, then, is to be done in the case?—Is it not this? As the having once borrowed money is not enough to make a person a debtor, unless he still continues to owe money and hath not paid it: so the having granted the premises is not enough to make it necessary to grant the inference, unless we continue our concessions. If the premises continue to the end, such as they were when the concessions were made, it is absolutely necessary to continue the concessions, and to admit what follows from them. But if the premises do not continue such as they were when the concession was made, it is absolutely necessary to depart from the concession, and from admitting what doth not follow from the argument itself. For this inference is no consequence of ours, nor belongs to us, when we have departed from the concession of the premises. We ought then to examine these kinds of premises, and their changes and conversions, on which any one, by laying hold, either in the question itself, or in the answer, or in the syllogistical conclusion, or in any other thing of that sort, gives an occasion to the unthinking of being disconcerted, not foreseeing the consequences.—Why so?—That in this topic we may not behave contrary to our duty, nor with confusion.

§ 4. The same thing is to be observed in hypotheses and hypothetical arguments. For it is sometimes necessary to require some hypothesis to be granted, as a kind of step to the rest of the argument. Is every given hypothesis, then, to be granted, or not every one; and if not every one, which? And is he who has granted an hypothesis for ever to abide by it? Or is he sometimes to depart from it, and admit only consequences, but not to admit contradictions?—Ay; but a person may say, on your admitting the hypothesis of a possibility, I will drive you upon an impossibility. With such a one as this, shall the man of prudence not engage, but avoid all examination and conversation with him?—And yet who, besides the man of prudence, is capable of treating an argument, or who besides is sagacious in questions and answers, and incapable of being deceived and imposed on by sophistry?—Or will he indeed engage, but without regarding whether he behaves rashly and at hazard, in the argument?—Yet how then can he be such a one as we are supposing him? But, without some such exercise and preparation, is it possible for him to preserve himself consistent? Let them show this: and all these theorems will be superfluous and absurd, and unconnected with our idea of the virtuous man. Why then are we still indolent, and slothful, and sluggish, seeking pretences of avoiding labour? Shall we not be watchful to render reason itself accurate?—"But suppose, after all, I should make a mistake in these points: have I killed a father?"—Wretch! why, in this case, where had you a father to kill? What is it, then, that you have done? The only fault that you could commit, in this instance, you have committed. This very thing I myself said to Rufus, when he reproved me for not finding something that was omitted in some syllogism. Why, said I, have I burnt the Capitol then? Wretch! answered he, was the thing here omitted the Capitol? Or are there no other faults, but burning the Capitol, or killing a father? And is it no fault to treat the appearances presented to our minds rashly and vainly and at hazard; not to comprehend a reason, nor a demonstration, nor a sophism; nor, in short, to see what is for or against one's self in a question or answer? Is nothing of all this any fault?

| Go to Table of Contents |

Chapter VIII

That Faculties Are Not Safe to the Uninstructed

§ 1. IN as many ways as equivalent syllogisms may be varied, in so many may the forms of arguments and enthymemas be varied likewise. As for instance: if you have borrowed, and not paid, you owe me money. But you have not borrowed, and not paid, therefore you do not owe me money. To perform this skilfully, belongs to no one more than to a philosopher. For if an enthymema be an imperfect syllogism, he who is exercised in a perfect syllogism must be equally ready at an imperfect one.

Why, then, do not we exercise ourselves and others after this manner?1

Because even now, though we are not exercised in these things, nor diverted by me, at least, from the study of morality: yet we make no advances in virtue. What is to be expected then if we should add this avocation too? Especially as it would not only be an avocation from more necessary studies, but likewise a capital occasion of conceit and insolence. For the faculty of arguing and of persuasive reasoning is great; and, particularly, if it be much laboured and receive an additional ornament from rhetoric. For in general every faculty is dangerous to weak and uninstructed persons; as being apt to render them arrogant and elated. For by what method can one persuade a young man who excels in these kinds of study that he ought not to be an appendix to them, but they to him? Will he not trample upon all such advice; and walk about elated and puffed up, not bearing any one should touch him, to put him in mind where he is wanting and in what he goes wrong.

What then, was not Plato a philosopher?

Well, and was not Hippocrates a physician? Yet you see how he expresses himself. But is it in quality of physician, then, that he expresses himself so? Why do you confound things, accidently united from different causes, in the same men? If Plato was handsome and well-made, must I too set myself to endeavour at becoming handsome and well-made; as if this was necessary to philosophy, because a certain person happened to be at once handsome and a philosopher? Why will you not perceive and distinguish what are the things that make men philosophers, and what belong to them on other accounts? Pray, if I2 were a philosopher, would it be necessary that you should be lame too?

§ 2. What then? Do I reject these faculties? By no means. For neither do I reject the faculty of seeing. But if you ask me, what is the good of man? I have nothing else to say to you but that it is a certain regulation of the choice with regard to the appearances of things.

| Go to Table of Contents |

Chapter IX

How from the Doctrine of our Kindred to God We Are to Proceed to Its Consequences

§ 1. IF what philosophers say of the kindred between God and man be true, what has any one to do, but, like Socrates, when he is asked what countryman he is, never to say that he is a citizen of Athens, or of Corinth, but of the world? For why do you say that you are of Athens: and not of that corner only where that paltry body of yours was laid at its birth? Is it not, evidently, from what is principal, and comprehends not only that corner, and your whole house; but the general extent of the country from which your pedigree is derived down to you, that you call yourself an Athenian, or a Corinthian? Why may not he, then, who understands the administration of the world; and has learned that the greatest and most principal and comprehensive of all things is this system, composed of men and God; and that from him the seeds of being are descended, not only to my father or grandfather, but to all things that are produced and born on earth; and especially to rational natures, as they alone are qualified to partake of a communication with the deity, being connected with him by reason: why may not such a one call himself a citizen of the world? Why not a son of God? And why shall he fear anything that happens among men? Shall kindred to Cæsar, or any other of the great at Rome, enable a man to live secure, above contempt, and void of all fear whatever; and shall not the having God for our Maker, and Father, and Guardian free us from griefs and terrors?

§ 2.