IV. And although authors commonly represent to us, some subtil philosophers of antiquity, as obstinately persisting in suspending their assent to every thing that was proposed to them, and which was evident both to their reason, and their senses, and likewise represent them, as earned defenders of universal scepticism, to which opinion they refuse to admit of the least exception; yet for all this, it is very doubtful to me, whether these were their real sentiments; and I am rather inclined to think, they did it, to shew their ingenuity, and to display their talent for disputing; or that from some other motive, they spoke differently from what they thought. The most famous among this tribe, were Archesilaus, Carneades, and Pyrrho. But the first, if we believe Sextus Empericus, was in reality a Platonist, and only a sceptic in appearance; whose method it was, always to dispute problematically upon every thing in public, but was ever careful to suggest in private, to such of his disciples as he found were the most capable, the Platonic doctrine. Cicero says, that his zeal for contesting every thing that was advanced by his school-fellow and rival Zeno, carried him to the dangerous extreme, of endeavouring, although it was against the conviction of his own mind, to refute whatever was advanced by Zeno. We may add to this, that according to the testimony of Diogenes Laertius, Archesilaus never went to the extreme of doubting the evidence of his senses, but rather treated with contempt and derision, those who carried scepticism to that length. V. Carneades was a most subtil philosopher, and so eminent as an orator, that Cicero in various parts of his works speaks of him with admiration and envy; and assures us, that by the keenness of his ingenuity, and the fertile torrent of his elocution, he could persuade his hearers to believe whatever he thought fit, and Quintilian, and Numenius, declare the same; and it is probable, that his propensity for disputation, and his ambition of shewing his ingenuity, excited him to contest the most established axioms; which together with his affecting to distrust the evidence of his senses, made him pass for a rigorous sceptic. But we may venture to assert, that if an historical anecdote which is related of him by Numenius is to be credited, Carneades believed his eyes as much as any man living; for having surprized a concubine of his in the embraces of his beloved disciple Mentor, he was so offended at his treachery, that he broke with him for ever, and excluded him from being the successor to his academy. How happened it then, that like a good sceptic, he did not doubt whether the representation of that obscenity, might not be a _deceptio visus_? I for my own part am inclined to think, that there never yet was a sceptic in the world, who after the exhibition of such evidence, could maintain his heart and his mind in a state of suspence.