[Footnote i-405: _Writings_, I, 243.] [Footnote i-406: A. C. Fraser ed. (Oxford, 1894), II, 425-6.] [Footnote i-407: _Ibid._, II, 121. For Locke and his place in the age see S. G. Hefelbower's _The Relation of John Locke to English Deism_. About the time he read Locke, Franklin notes he studied Arnauld and Nicole's _La logique ou l'art de penser_. Mr. G. S. Eddy has informed one of the editors that the Library Company of Philadelphia owns John Ozell's translation of the work (London, 1718), and that this was the copy owned by Franklin. (See Lowndes's _Bibliographer's Manual_, IV, 1930, and _Dictionary of National Biography_, "John Ozell.") In accord with the English deistic and rationalistic tendency, _La logique_ admits that Aristotle's authority is not good, that "Men cannot long endure such constraint" (Thomas S. Bayne's trans., 8th ed., Edinburgh and London, n.d., 23). Indebted to Pascal and Descartes, it admits with the latter that geometry and astronomy may help one achieve justness of mind, but it vigorously asserts that this justness of mind is more important than speculative science (p. 1). Anti-sensational, it denies "that all our ideas come through sense" (p. 34), affirming that we have within us ideas of things (p. 31). It is uncertain of the value of induction, which "is never a certain means of acquiring perfect knowledge" (p. 265; see also 304, 307, 308, 350). It accords little praise to the sciences and reason, and seems wary of metaphysical speculation, assuring more humbly that "Piety, wisdom, moderation, are without doubt the most estimable qualities in the world" (p. 291). As we shall discover, this work on the whole seems to have had (with the exception of the last very general principle) little formative influence on the young mind which was fast impregnating itself with scientific deism. Were it not for the recurring implications (particularly in the harvest of editions of the _Autobiography_) that _La logique_ is as significant for our study as, for example, the works of Locke and Shaftesbury, this note would be pedantic supererogation.] [Footnote i-408: A. C. Fraser, _op. cit._, I, 99. See also 190, 402-3; II, 65, 68, 352.] [Footnote i-409: Cited in C. A. Moore, "Shaftesbury and the Ethical Poets in England, 1700-1760," _Publications of the Modern Language Association_, XXXI (N. S. XXIV), 276 (June, 1916).] [Footnote i-410: _Ibid._, 271.] [Footnote i-411: J. M. Robertson, ed., _Characteristics ..._ (New York, 1900), I, 27.] [Footnote i-412: _Ibid._, I, 241-2.] [Footnote i-413: Moore, _op. cit._, 267.] [Footnote i-414: In _Dogood Paper_ No. XIV Franklin suggests (autobiographically?): "In Matters of Religion, he that alters his Opinion on a _religious Account_, must certainly go thro' much Reading, hear many Arguments on both Sides, and undergo many Struggles in his Conscience, before he can come to a full Resolution" (_Writings_, II, 46).]