12. Ballance the difficulties (1697)
MS Locke e.1, pp. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. Further elucidation of Locke’s point that there is no proof for the opinion that the soul always thinks. Addition to the Essay, IV.iii.6 ‘Of the Extent of Human Knowledge’ and included in the fourth edition. Locke’s autograph (H) is collated with the fourth edition of the Essay (4) (copy Bodleian Library L2742).
Relation with the Essay
 Draft for Essay, IV.iii.6, ‘Of the Extent of Humane Knowledge’. The fragment was included in the fourth edition of the Essay, but there are substantive differences between the fragment in MS Locke e.1 and the text included in the Essay. This suggests that the manuscript used for the Essay was not MS Locke e.1 but a later manuscript that has been lost. See the collation of the text with the fourth edition of the Essay. The present text contains no errors that are typical of copying from a previous version, hence it is possible that this is the first version.
Relative order of ‘Ballance’ and ‘Enthusiasm’
 See 11. Enthusiasm (1695-1697) 
 ‘Ballance’ contains a reference to those who ‘have the confidence to conclude that omnipotency it self cannot give life & perception to a substance which has the modification of solidity’. This is probably a reference to Edward Stillingfleet’s attack on Locke’s discussion of the possibility of thinking matter. Stillingfleet attacked Locke’s views on this point first in his Vindication, p. 241-242. This book was advertised in November 1696 (see ). Locke’s remark in ‘Ballance’ is probably not a reference to the first, but rather to the second of Stillingfleet’s three attacks, i.e. the First Answer (1697), pp. 54-55 and pp. 78-79. The First Answer is dated 27 March 1697, the Postscript is dated 26 April of the same year, and the book was advertised on 11 May in Flying Post (see ). So, if the reference to Stillingfleet is correct, then 11 May 1697 is the terminus a quo for ‘Ballance’. If the texts in MS Locke e.1 were entered chronologically (see 11. Enthusiasm (1695-1697) ), and if the ‘Conduct’ was entered after ‘Ballance’ later in 1697 (see 1. Of the Conduct of the Understanding (1697-1704) ), then this later date is the terminus ad quem for ‘Ballance’.
 Not printed before in the present manuscript version.