(_h_) “What then, must the logicians lay aside their first and second intentions, their abstracts and concretes &c.: must the moral philosopher quit his means and extremes, his _principia congenita et acquisita_, his liberty of contradiction and contrariety, his necessity absolute and hypothetical, &c.: must the natural philosopher give over his intentional species, &c.: because they do not relish with T. H.’s palate?” I confess that among the logicians, Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio, &c. are terms of art. But if the Bishop think that words of _first and second intention_, that _abstract_ and _concrete_, that _subjects_ and _predicates_, _moods_ and _figures_, _method synthetic_ and _analytic_, _fallacies_ of _composition_ and _division_, be terms of art, I am not of his opinion. For these are no more terms of art in logic, than _lines_, _figures_, _squares_, _triangles_, &c. in the mathematics. Barbara, Celarent, and the rest that follow, are terms of art, invented for the easier apprehension of young men, and are by young men understood. But the terms of the School with which I have found fault, have been invented to blind the understanding, and cannot be understood by those that intend to learn divinity. And to his question whether the moral philosopher must quit his means and extremes, I answer, that though they are not terms of art, he ought to quit them when they cannot be understood; and when they can, to use them rightly. And therefore, though _means_ and _extremes_ be terms intelligible, yet I would have them quit the placing of virtue in the one, and of vice in the other. But for his _liberty of contradiction_ and _contrariety_, his _necessity absolute_ and _hypothetical_, if any moral philosopher ever used them, then away with them; they serve for nothing but to seduce young students. In like manner, let the natural philosopher no more mention his _intentional species_, his _understanding agent and patient_, his _receptive and eductive power of the matter_, his _qualities infusæ_ or _influxæ_, _symbolæ_ or _dissymbolæ_, his _temperament ad pondus_ and _ad justitiam_. He may keep his _parts homogeneous_ and _heterogeneous_; but his _sympathies_ and _antipathies_, his _antiperistasis_ and the like names of excuses rather than of causes, I would have him fling away. And for the astrologer, (unless he means astronomer), I would have him throw away his whole trade. But if he mean astronomer, then the terms of _apogæum_ and _perigæum_, artic, antartic, equator, zodiac, zenith, meridian, horizon, zones, &c. are no more terms of art in astronomy, than a saw or a hatchet in the art of a carpenter. He cites no terms of art for geometry; I was afraid he would have put _lines_, or perhaps _equality_ or _inequality_, for terms of art. So that now I know not what be those terms he thinks I would cast away in geometry. And lastly, for his metaphysician, I would have him quit both his terms and his profession,