Then it is said to you:

“If you allow that innate disposition contains two self-evident judges, the judgment of one being false and that of the other true, then no judgment of innate disposition can be trusted until it is known to proceed from the true judge. This cannot be known until it is known not to belong to the false judgment; nor can that judgment be known to be false until the self-evident, innate premises by which its falsity is known have first been established. It follows from this (1) that nothing can be known through the judgment of innate disposition. For the truth cannot be known until falsehood is known, while falsehood cannot be known until the truth is known; consequently, the truth can never be known.

“Moreover, the syllogisms used to impugn those self-evident, innate judgments are theoretical syllogisms, while theoretical propositions are composed of self-evident propositions. If self-evident propositions could be impugned by theoretical propositions, both self-evident and theoretical propositions would be invalidated, for the invalidity of a foundation necessarily entails the invalidity of its branch. It is thus evident that whoever permits primary self-evident [innate propositions to be challenged by] theoretical propositions (2) holds a false position that entails the invalidation of rational knowledge—and indeed revealed knowledge as well.

“Moreover, in ordinary usage, the term wahm (estimation) means error, whereas you use it to mean a faculty that apprehends the nonsensible meanings present in bodies. Accordingly, if the faculty pronouncing this impossible does so regarding something other than a body, it is not the estimative faculty; and if it pronounces it impossible only regarding a body, its judgment concerning that body is true. Why, then, do you say that this is a judgment of the estimative faculty in a matter concerning which its judgment is inadmissible?”

It is well known that what sound innate disposition judges (3) from among the universal propositions known