* 'iiST^ V''^~ -•• ■» 
 
 :/ . '^:..^;it- 
 
 L;^ 
 
 
 «fci' 
 
 s»i^3l 
 
 — - - 
 
 2m(^ 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ?- ^ . *:^'/' 
 
 ■:M--:^ 
 
 
 te-^^jr 
 
 ^^.:^# -.-n' 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 PR1]\[€ET01V, X. J. 
 
 UlliN'ATIOX OF 
 
 S A M LT K 1. A a N K W , 
 
 ^ . Ill' H H 1 I, i II E I. 1' H 1 4. VK. 
 
 No. 
 
 
 COLLECTION OP PURITAN AND 
 ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
 
 I 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 
 
 
THE 
 
 Scepticifm and Fundamental Errors 
 
 Eftablifh'd in 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL CLARKS 
 
 SERMONS. 
 
 Preach'd at St. P A U L's 
 
 More fully Difcovered. 
 
 Being a Defence of the Remarh upon Mr C\ firO- u i 
 wherein, beCdes the Contents of the ffirt i /'""^ ""^ Sermons; 
 and ^^oftheDemonftrations ?hev Ln L "'""■^■'; '■"• ^^^ N^«'e 
 pear; moftof the followinrParticularsTrrn""'". •"">' ™''« '<> ''P- 
 n^.ricMM„hod, and the rfft St,; madeX '" ' ^'•f"''"' '^"- 
 
 I. That as Mr. C. has Eftahlim'H r >.' "'> '"«- 
 
 yn ^^3the makes it imDofljblpfnr ;!/• * a, 
 
 IX The Author of the'i?i4-swi^'^''°°^/°'''""f Sermons* 
 gefted Afperlions. ' ^'/'w^f,.,, ,s refcued from his undii 
 
 LONDON- 
 
 - Church- Yard ; and fold by V'tS" ^■""' '"c^^" ^"'^'' 
 ■^"i^. 170 (J. ^ -^ " ■^""> near Stationer i- 
 
(I ) 
 
 THE 
 
 SCEPTICISM 
 
 AND 
 
 IMPIETY 
 
 O F 
 
 Mr. SAMUEL CLARK's 
 
 SERMONS, 
 
 Preach'd at St. PAULS. 
 
 More fully Difcovered. 
 
 MR. Samtel Clark, in his Firfl Volume of Sermons, Preach- 
 ed at St. PaulSy having really Eftablifh'd Spinoza's Hypo- 
 thecs, which he apparently pretended to Confute j the 
 Author of the Remarks upon thofe Sermons, perceiving 
 this Difguife, could not but think it would be a very acceptable piece 
 of Service, not only to difcover that Fundamental Error compleat- 
 ly Eftablifh'd, but even the Second-hand Artifices made ufe of for 
 that Purpofe. This he did without any Perfonal Refledions, nay 
 with repeated Endeavours to fecure Mr. Clark's Reputation, one 
 way or other, as any one may fee by the following, and fuch like Ex- 
 
 B preffionsj 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 prcflions; viz. I hav^mt 'faid^ and am far from fay trig herf, that Mr, 
 Clark mended to Favour^ muchlefsto Eftablifh Sip'moz^^ s Hy pot hep. ^Tis 
 likely he has been imfofed upon by Mr. Lock'i Sofhifms and Equivocations^ 
 &c. Remarksy pag. 41^ 
 
 To Recompenfe that Author's Pains and Care, he is fet off in the 
 Daily Courant, wherein Mr. Clark's Second Volume of Sermons is Ad- 
 vertifed, as Ignorant and Infmcere ; and in the Preface to thofe Sermons 
 over and over, as Extreme Infmcere^ pag. 1 2. Extreme Malicions^ ibid. 
 pag. 1 5. Extreme Ignorant^ ibid. Wanting Honefiy^ ib. pag. 17. &c, 
 Mv, c. could ground this Chara(aer upon nothing elfcj, but upon 
 what he finds in the Remarks'^ which I am furie can give him no ground 
 at all, for recommending their Author to the World, as be does. This 
 will appear in fome Meafure, by confidering a little this Preface, where- 
 in he pretends to Anfwer thofe Remarks. 
 
 This pretended Reply, is an appeal to the Pnblicky in Order to Ju' 
 ftify Mr. C. of what he is Charg'd with in the Remarh ^ and to 
 convince their Author, of what he is Accufed of in this Preface. Mr. 
 Cs Method in profecuting this Defign, is, barely to Name the 
 Tages of the Remarh, make them fay, what they neither do nor can 
 fay, mifreprefent their Author's Words, or Senfe, or Both every 
 where ; and then upon the fole Account of his own Fancies, which 
 he Fathers upon them, Acquits himielf and Condemns me. He makes 
 himfelf my Accufer, and my Judge, even in the Prefence of the Jndge^. 
 Appealed to by his pretended Reply. He keeps his own and ray 
 WftmfeSj to wit, what is faid in thofe Pages oi the Remarh, which he 
 names only, both out of Sight and Hearing, fpeaks for them, as beft 
 ferves his turn, and thereupon judges the Caufe in his own Favour. 
 This procedure being fo every way Irregular, Uajuft, and Self-con- 
 demning, and the Contents of this Preface, fo Mean and llnbecomingj 
 the Author of the Remarks would not think it worth his while to take 
 any manner of Notice of it, but for thefe two Reafons. 
 
 BVi?, Becaufe it gives him a fecond Occafion, to oppofe the Septicifm 
 and Atheifm^ wherewith certain Men have of late Years. endeavoured 
 to infe^ thefe Nations, and which are Ellablilh'd in Mr. C\ Ser- 
 mons. 
 
 Secondly, Becaufe it obliges him to defend hia Reputation very unac- 
 countably Attack'd and Tarnilh'd in it. 
 
 The more diftiadly to perceive what (ball be faid on thofe Heads, 
 we mud remember thel'e are the three Points to which Mr. C. is re- 
 turning an Anfwer in this Preface, viz.. That by the Sceptical Hyfothcm 
 fa EJhbliJfid in his SermonSy "'tis impojfihle for him to ConfHte the Atheifi^s 
 
 ht: 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 he freUnds t9 argue aga'nft^ or any other. That he reduces Human Vnder' 
 flanding to the moji tnct4rahle\StAte of Scepticifm: 3nd that /;'• does rather 
 Efi-abliJJ} than Defiroy, Confirm^ than Confute SpiLOZaV j^cheiftn, I ftiall 
 now fet before you, what Mr. C is pleas'd to offer againfl what is faid 
 in the Remarks, to make out thofe three Points againft him \ and upon 
 what he fays, make fuch Obfervations as will farther prove him Ua- 
 anfwerably guilty of Scepticifm, Convidied of jitheifw^ and by new 
 Deraonftrations, of having Fundamentally Subverted the Grounds of all 
 Morality, Natural and ReveaCd Religion', and laftly refcue the Author 
 of the Remarks Reputation, from his equally Foul and Falfe Af- 
 perflons. 
 
 He begins, \?hat concerns me in his Preface, with acquainting his 
 Reader, Pag.i. ' That I entered not into the Merits of the Caufe, or 
 ' offered any confiderable Reafons againft bim , that the Remarks are 
 ' made up chiefly of Raillery and Grofs Mifconjlm^ions, and that all 
 ' they fay by way of Argument, depends Entirely upon the Sappofition 
 ' of the Truth of the Cartefian Irlypothefis, which the belt Mathematici- 
 
 * ans in the World have Demonftrated to be Falfe *. uinfxver^ I have 
 entered into the Merits of the Caufe, into the very Effence of the Caufe ; 
 and have offered confiderable Reafons, even Demonfirations, in Oppo- 
 fition to what he faid. The Remarks are not Chiefly made up of Raille- 
 ry^ and what is in them, to which I prefume he gives that Name, was 
 purpofely inferted to make him lefs conceited of his own Reafon: And 
 good Reafon I had for fo doing, which I am hindred from unfolding 
 here. M, I fay, or any Fart of what I fay, does not depend Entirely, or 
 not Entirely, or at all, upon the Suppoftion of the Truth of the Cartefian 
 or any other Hypethefts whatfoever. Befidcs, I flatly deny that the Car^ 
 tefian Hypothtfis has been proved to be entirely Falfe, by the belt, or 
 by any Mathematician in the World. Nay, nobody win believe he 
 knows what he alferts here to be True. If he did, by producing thofc 
 Demonjirations, he would Demouftrate that Hypothefis to be Falfe^ and 
 by fo doing, demonftrate All that is faid in the Remarks, by way of 
 Argument, to hz Entirely Falfe, becaufe, accordingtobim, it Entirely 
 depends upon the Suppofition of the Truth of that Hypothefis. He pro- 
 duced none, he had none to produce, is what every one will Naturally 
 conclude^ fince he has altogether in vain imploy'd 17 Pages, even in a 
 Preface, agaiaft thofe Remarks, and that what he would thereby dif- 
 tharge himfelf of, and fiixupon me, is of the highell Importance, and 
 purfucd by him with the utmoft Bittemefs. Mr. c. goes on in the next 
 Page and fays: 
 
 * The only Argument I ailedge againfl him ititht Remarks is this: 
 
 * That if we know not Difiin^lly, what the Effeuce of 6W, and what the 
 \ Ejfence oi Matter is, we cannot poffibly demonftrate them at all, to 
 
 B 2 * be 
 
(4) 
 
 « be two different Ejjences. ' j4»fwer. I have not time to fhew you the 
 Equivocations in thefe Lines, and in a Marginal Note which is annex- 
 ed to them J whereby Mr. c. would impofe upon his Reader, and yet 
 fay nothing, but according to his Mafters, Mr. L. and Sfimzah Hypo- 
 thefis. 
 
 j The State of the Qfteftitn is chang'd here, both in Sound and Senfe. 
 The Term, Diftinclly, is not in it, as quoted in the Remarks, Pag. 4. 
 otit of his Sermons in thefe words: ' What the Suhftance ox Epnce 
 ' of that Being, which is Self- exiftent, or Neceflarily-Exifting, is, we 
 have No Idea^ neither is itpojfible for us in any Meafnre^ to comprehend, 
 
 * Pa^. 74. What it is, I mean as to its Subjiance and Ejfence^ we are /«- 
 
 * finitely VndU to Comprehend. Pag.^%. We are Vtterly Ignorant^ 
 ' of the Siibfiance or Ejfence of all other things. ' Pag. 77. This you 
 fee is quite different from what Mr. C. fays in his Preface^ which in- 
 deed is Scepticifmtyren inCrain, without any mitigation, limitation or 
 exception whatfoever. Hence 'tis Geometrically proved in the Remarks.^ 
 that it is impofljble for Mr. C. to Confute the Atheifl Sfimz.a^ or any 
 other-, to Know, Perceive, or Prove, that there are more real Sub- 
 ftances in the whole World, than one; to Know, Perceive, or Prove 
 that the Subjlance and Ejfence of GOD^ is not the Subjla-^ce or EjfeHce of 
 JUatter^ is not Spinoz.a's one Eternal Material Snbftance^ &C. To this it 
 is, that Mr C. isanfwering in the following manner. 
 
 ' To which 1 anfwer. 'Tis plain we know not the Efences^ i. e Real 
 Subftances of things, by Intuition^ but can only reafon about them 
 from what we know of their different Properties or Attributes. Now 
 from the Demonflrable At^r.bhtes of God, and from thtT kac^n Pro- 
 perties of Matter, we have as unanfwerable Reafoas to Convince and 
 Satisfy us, that thfir F.Jfences are Entirely different, t'tc' v7e know 
 not difl:inftly what thofe EfHnces are j as our Faculties can' affbrd us^ 
 in judging of any the Certaineft things whctfoever. For Inflance : 
 The DeraciHrabie Attributes of Goa are, th^t He it b°]f-Ex'ii>'!nt, 
 Independent, &c. The known Properties of Matter, are, that h is 
 not Neccflary or Sdf-Exiffent, &c. Now Nothing can be more Cer- 
 tain and Evident, than that the SHbfiances, to which thefe incompa*' 
 tible Attiibittes or Properties belong, or the Eff^ences from which 
 they ilo'^j arc Entirely Different one from the other, tho' ws Jo not 
 diftinfHyknow what the Inmoft Subftances or Eflenc^ themfwlves 
 are. If any Man will. think a meer Hypothefi?, the Cartefum, or any 
 other, concerning the Inmojl Nanire oi SHhfi(i,7ces^ to be a more Sa- 
 tisfjifiory Difcovery of the different L.flences of things, than we can 
 mak'^ by Reafomng jhas from their Demonflrrable Properties •, and 
 will chufe rather to dnw fond Confetjuences from fuch FJypothejes and 
 F^^icns^ Founded upon no Proof d^X. alL than to make ufe of fuch Pki- 
 
 ' lofophy 
 
(O 
 
 lofophy as h Grounded only upon Clear Reafon^ or good Expert mem i \ ^ 
 * know no help for it, but he mufl be permitted to enjoy his Opinioa 
 ' quietly. ' 
 
 In the firfl Period of this pretended Anfwer, Mr. C. fays, 'TiV plain 
 he hnovps not the Ejfences or SHbjlanccs of God^ or of Matter by Jmnition : 
 And yet declares, That he has as unanfwerable Reafons to Convince and 
 Satisfie hiw^ that their E (fences and S/ibfiances are entirely different^ as his 
 Faculties can afford him, in judging of any the certainejl Things vohatfoever. 
 From whence it neceflarily follows, Firft, that Mr. C. knows, even 
 by Intuition^ that thofe Eflences and Subftances are entirely different. 
 Secondly^ That Mr. C. neither does, nor can know, by Intuition^ that 
 thofe Effences and Subftances are Entirely different. The firft Propo- 
 fition Demonftrated. 
 
 Mr. C. has as unaofwerable Reafons to Convince and Satisfie him, 
 that thofe Eflences are entirely different, as his Faculties can afford 
 him in judging of any the Certaineft things whatfoever. This is his 
 Principle. But his Faculties afford him unanfwerable Reafons, even 
 by Intuition, to convince and fatisfie him, That the Effences of a Cir- 
 cle^ of a Sejuare^ and of a Triangle, are entirely diflcrent. This is Self- 
 evident. Therefore his Faculties afford him unanfwerable Reafons, to 
 Convirt-eand Satisfie him, even by Intuition, that the Eflences of God, 
 and of Mattel, aie entirely different. The Propofition tobeprov'd. 
 
 But 'lis Fiicultit^ neither do, nor can ifl^)rd him unanfwerable Rea- 
 fons, nor any Rfalb:}s vi aL, t « Convince and Sitisfie him by Intvition^ 
 that ^hoii; Efleiicev. art enti'-elv differcnc. This Demonftrated, His 
 Faculties neither do, nor van afford him unar/werable Reafons, or any 
 Reafons atalU to Convince aiii Satisfy lum by Intuition^ of the entire 
 difi~ei ence ot ai;y Ti'.»gs^ bnt of ti.ofe Things alone which he knows by 
 LitHition. This IS Sell c'luciit. But he does not know tliofe Effences 
 by Intuition. T''': is his Principle. Therefore his Faculties neither 
 do, nor can afford him unanfwerable Reafons, or any Reafons at all, 
 to Convince and Sitis^^y l:im by Intuition.^ that thofe Effences are entire- 
 ly different : 'lis what was to be Demonftrated. The Concludon from 
 the whole is^ That Mr. C has Extraardinary Eaculties^ which enable 
 him to Knew and not to Know the entire difference of thofe Eflences, 
 even by Intuition. 
 
 If Mr. Cs pretended Anfwer here, was not exadly fuited to bis Ex- 
 traordinary Faculties j he would not mike ufe of the word, Diflin^ly^ 
 ifl it, becaufe it changes the State of the Qjjejiicn. If he had been 
 plcafed to confider well, and to underftand the Demonftrations in the 
 Remarks, whereby 'tis GtomttricaHy prov'd, That it is abfulutely im- 
 poflible for him, to Knovp^ Perceive^ or Prove, Mediately, or Immedi- 
 ately^ either by Intuition or by Demonfiration, that there is any other 
 
 Shbflani9 
 
CO 
 
 Suh/^ance in the whole World, bcfidcs his Mafters Mr. L, and 5jp/w- 
 x.a'i one only Material Sithfla»ce; he would preferitly apprehend that 
 the Terms, Demonftrahle Attrihutes^ and Properties of God, and of Mat- 
 ter, as ufed by him in his Sermons, and in the 2d. and 3d Periods here 
 (me'aning by God and Matter, two Keal SdjfaNcej, entirely different) 
 are Sounds without Senfe. Nay, he might have perceived this, even 
 by what Is faid in the 35th Pa^e of the Remarks^ in thefe words. 
 ' For as it would be abfolutely Impoflible for a Man, who neither 
 
 * has nor can have the Jdeai of a Right-Lined Tria?jgle, and of a Para* 
 
 * UUcrram, eithsr to Know, Perceive, or Prove, either Mediately^ or 
 
 * Immediately, that to have its three Angles, equal to two Right 
 
 * ones, is an EJfential (the word made ufeof in thofe Sermons, inftead 
 
 * of the Word Demonftrahle^ ufcd herej Property or Attribute of a 
 ' Right-Lined Triangle^ and not of a Parallelogram -. So likewife, it is 
 ' Abfolutely Impoflible for Mr. C. who neither has, nor can have 
 
 * the Idea of This, or of That, or of any real Shbflance^ whatever, ei- 
 
 * ther to Know, Perceive, or Prove, that This, or That, or T'other 
 
 * Property or Attribute, is an Effential, i. e. Demonftrahle^ Property 
 
 * or Attribute of This, or of That, or of T'other real 5«^7?4»f<r what- 
 ' foever. ' Mr. C therefore will Pardon me, if I tell him here, af- 
 ter having Geometrically proved it, that he no more knows what 
 he fays, when he talks here, or elfewhere, of the Demonftrahle At- 
 tributes of God and Matter, than a Blind Man would, if he (hould 
 fay. That the found of a Trumpet, and the fmell of a Rofe, are Z>f- 
 /r.oriftrahle Attributes of the Colour of a Violet, but not of Scarlet- 
 Colour. 
 
 But it feems, by thofe new and extracrdmary Faculties which Mr.C. 
 has got, fince he wrote his firft Volume of Sermons, he has likewife 
 got a new and extraordinary Light too 5 for he tells us in the 4th Pe- 
 riod of the Qviotation we Examine : That nothing can be more Certain 
 and Evident to him^ than that the SahftanceSy to which thofe Incomfatible 
 Attributes belongs are entirely dijferent. This therefore is as Certain and 
 Evident to him, as that land 2 make 4. If fo, I earneftly intreat him 
 to Communicate that Certainty and Evidence to the World, with this 
 Airurancc,that he will thereby do more real good to the Publick,and to 
 Pofiej it/, than if he was Compofing, Collating, Tranflating, Tran- 
 fcribiiig, Telling what others have, or have not faid, giving his own 
 Opinion after others, and the like, for One Hundred Years together.He 
 knows thatiwhat lie calls here Incomfatible Attribnte, are, by his Mafters 
 Mr. L. and' Spinoz^a^ made Compatible with. Communicable to, nay, 
 and aftually afcribed to one and the fame Material Sub/lance. And 1 
 will remind him here, after having prov^ed it ia the Re/narks, That 
 
 Ihcir 
 
C 7 ) 
 
 th€ir SchoUr, Mr. Samuel Claris does precifcly the very fame thing, ia 
 bis firfi Volume of Sermons, Preach'd at St. Fault. 
 
 Now if the Author of the Preface has that Certaift and Evident Know- 
 ledge ; he is able to Confute Mr. L. Spinoz.a, and thofe Sermons, and 
 to Eftablifli the Exiftence of the one only true God, which they Fun- 
 damentally Defcroy, as Certainly and Evidently as that 4 and 4 make 
 8, to any one who rightly underftands them, and the Subjed they treat 
 of. But it has been Demonftrated in the Remarks, that Mr. C. neither 
 has, nor can have, any fuch Certainty or Evidence. In the 5th and 
 laft Period of the Quotation we Examine, he has his Mafcers Terms, 
 Jnmofi Nature of Subftances. Imagining and Teaching, there is but one 
 Only Material Subftance differently xModify'd in the whole World, and 
 that what we call particular diftent Subfiames, fiich as Man, Horfe, &c 
 are hwt ^X^ttcViX Nominal Subftances, different Modifications of that Pre- 
 tended tne [{eal Subftance ; they make ufe of that Equivocating Cant, 
 whereby they exprefs them Pelves according to their own Hypothefis, 
 and yet impofe upon the Reader by the Equivocation in the Terms 
 Z^atnre and Shbftan.es. The former they make to ftand for their one 
 Real Subftance, the latter for their Nominal Subftances, their different 
 ColleBiont of Modi fi( at ions. 1 have not Time to Explain this farther. 
 Mr. C will confirm and explain it afterwards, if we have room enough. 
 1 have not laid or thought, as he pretends in this Period I have, that 
 the Cartefian Hypothefis or Pjme Other, are a more Satisfactory Difcovc 
 ry of \.Yit JnmoFi Nuture of Subftance!, than what Mr. C. fays. Thus Re/u 
 fining from his Demon firable jittnbutes. Thefe are Imaginations of his 
 own. 1 woold be afhamed to vent fuch grofs fenfelefs Jargon. Nci- 
 ther have 1 in the Remarks, as he pretends here I have, drawn any find ' 
 Confiquences from any fuch Hypothefis and FiElions, as are Founded upon 
 no Proof at all, to make that Difiovery. 1 did not as much as offer, or 
 fpcak one word to make auy fuch Difcovery. It was not my Bufinefs 
 there. 1 had nothing to do with it. Yet there are Confiquences in the 
 Remarks, drawn from meer Hypothefis and Pinions, Founded upon no 
 Proof at all; but then they are thofe alone, which are drawn from 
 Mr. c's pretended Reafinings, to fhew thofe Reafonings to b^ fuch, 
 which they do, even to a Demonftration. 
 
 But now, this amounts to jufl nothing at all ; for fince that time, 
 Mr.C by his New and Extraordinary Faculties and I'ight, has acquired 
 a New Philofofhy too. In the Period before us, the Philofiphy ulcd by 
 the Author of the Remarks, are Confequences drawn from Hypothefer 
 and Fidiuus, Founded upon no Proof at all. That made ufe of by 
 Mr. C. todifcover the entire Difference of ihc Efjences o( Things, from 
 his Demonftrable Attributes; is, on the Contrary, Grounded etdy upon 
 Clear Reafin or Good Ex^erimems. This indeed is perfedly a cev? Nufc 
 
 to> 
 
(8) 
 
 to me. For the Remarh prove, that Mr. C was then throughlyunac- 
 quainted with any Phihfophy Grounded only upon Clear I{eafon. And whaC 
 he brings in his Preface to fhew his Acquaintance with it fince that 
 time, confifts only in telling us, that he has New and Extraordinary 
 Faculties, which enable him to See and not to Seethe very fame things 
 at the very fame time, in the very fame way ; i. e. by Intuition ^ and a 
 new Light, whereby he Certainly and Evidently knows, what he nei- 
 ther does, nor can know at all. Herein only confifts his Philofophy 
 Grounded only upon Clear Reafon. But as for his Philcfcphy Ground- 
 ed only upon good Experiments^ whereby thus Reafoningfrom hii Demon- 
 flrable Attributes, he Can Ihew the entire difference ot ihe Effences of 
 Things, as he fays ; I confeft I do not underftand it, neither did I 
 ever hear of any fuch Philofophy before •, and indeed I muft own, I am 
 utterly unable to comprehend what fort of Alembick or other Machine 
 he can make ufe of, to difcover the Entire Difference of the Effences of 
 Things, by his Philofophy Grounded only upon Good Experiments, fin the 
 following Lines, the Effences of Created Things are only fpoken of./^ • 
 
 But perhaps he'll tell me here again,that/^«; extreme Ignorant^ and 
 that fuch a Man as I am, with thofe ordinary Faculties and Light 
 which I have, muft not pretend to fee fo far into thofe Matters, or 
 offer to conceive what Alembick he is able to make ufe of, to difcover 
 the entire difference of the Effences of Things, by his extraordinary 
 Faculties, Light, and Philofophy grounded only upon good Experi- 
 ments. He may prove this againft me, according to his Faculties, and 
 in his extraordinary way, form Articulate Sounds in the following 
 manner, faying: 
 
 Since my Faculties enable me, tven by Intuition, to See and not to 
 See, the entire difference of thofe Effences, which I can neither See, 
 or Feel, or Hear, or Tafte, nay, nor Underftand ; they can enable 
 me to See and not to See an Alembick, which I can neither See nor 
 Touch, &c. /grant it. Therefore they can enable me to -Dji/?;7 thofe 
 Eifcnces through that AleiTvbick, and to See and not to See, what 5«/. 
 phisr^- Mercury, or Salts they are Compofed of, and not Compofed of; 
 and CoTifequently to fhew you a Caput Mortuum, if you will but look 
 upon me attentively. Granted. Tlierefore they can enable me to fhew 
 you, and not to fhew you the Entire Difference of thofe Effences. For 
 inftunce. That a Spiritual Effence is, and is not, an Inch and a Half, 
 and the Breadth of a Ha'r fhorter, than a Material one jand that it has, 
 and has not, incomparably finer Colours,' Smells and Tafts. Let it be 
 Jo. Now your forry Faculties canuot enable you to do this, nor evea 
 to conceive how lean [htw, Thus Re aj'oning from my Demonftrable Attri- 
 butes, by my extraordinary ^dcnlths^L'ighl and Philofophy, Grounded only 
 \ipoa good Experiments 'j That the Eff'ncts of things ^iQ Entirely Dif^ 
 
 ferer 
 
(9) 
 
 ferent , by making a Chimical Operation upon their very Ba* 
 dies. 
 
 Under Favour, good Mr. Chimifi^ I believe you mean a Chimaricat 
 Operation. You believe fo ! You are Certainly a Cartefian^ and by a 
 neceflary Confequence, belides your Extreme Malice^ hfincerity^ and 
 Difhonefty^ an Fxtrerr.e Jgnoravt Fellovp\ and fo are your other two lit- 
 tle FaBious Fellows y Seme and Reafon^ my declared Enemies. Of this 
 my Preface, not to fpeak of my Sermons, isalafting Witnefs; where- 
 in all that is faid againfi: you, is Diametrically oppofite to them, and 
 
 give them the Lye to their Face, And With Submiflion, 
 
 Mr, Chimifi^ I mull return at prefent to acquaint my Reader, that he 
 has now feen all that Mr. C. fays, in anfwer to the firfl Charge, made 
 out againft him in the Remarks. What he offers confifts in this, w^. In 
 Mifreprefentingthe State of the Glueftions more ways than one. In tel- 
 ling us. That his Faculties enable him to fee, and not to fee, by Intui* 
 tlori^ that the Subftances and ElFences of God and of Matter, are en- 
 tirely different. That reafoning From their Demonftrable Attributes, 
 as he does fomewhere, by the affiftance of his Philofophy grounded on- 
 ly upon clear Reafon and good Experiments, which is to befound no 
 where. Nothing can be more Certain and Evident to him, than thit 
 thofe Effences and Subftances are entirely different. Now all this will 
 pafs only for a piece of new News he has been pleafed to invent, in Or- 
 der to divert the Publick, lincehe could notlnftrudt iti for thofe bare 
 Stories inform us of nothing elfe, but that their Author had no Argu- 
 ment at all to offer, againft what he pretends to anfwer here, nor 
 indeed (hall he ever have whilft be lives. 
 
 Since Mr. C. fays nothing to the fecond, let us now hear what he 
 fays, in oppofition to the third Charge, made out againft him in the 
 Remarksy viz. That he has rather Efiahlijh'd than Defiroy^d^ Confirmed 
 than Confuted SpinozaV Jtheifm. Now I made Spinoz.ai's Atheifm tO COn- 
 fift in his Hypothejis of one only Material Subjlance^ differently Modified 
 in the whole World. This 1 have proved to be the very fame Thing, 
 whofe Exiftence Mr. C. Eftablifhes in his Sermons ; and to which, with 
 Mr. L. and Spinoz^a^ he every where gives the Holy Name GOD, iV;- 
 cefarily-ExJlent Beings &c. and that the more fecurely to compafs 
 his DelIgG, he made ufe of Mr. L's and Spin9Z,a% Equivocating Cant^ 
 whereby he Mifreprefented Hobb's and Spinoza's Scnfe, Argued 
 againft Mifreprefented Accejforjei^ left the very l^>afis of their jithe- 
 ifm, or their FJfential Hy^othefes untouched; and by this Second-hand 
 Artifice, as well as in diredi Terms, Eftablifh'd It, even under Pre- 
 tence of Confuting It, as hisMafter Mr. L. had done. This you may 
 fee in the laft Pages of the Remarks ; and to this it is, that Mr. C. pre- 
 tends CO anfwer in the following Manner. 
 
 C *Hc 
 
( lo) 
 
 * He charges me, Remarks, Tag, 32, with Arguing only againft the 
 j4cceffories of jitheifvi, and Itaving the Efle«tial Hypothefes in its full 
 Force; nay, wiih Confirming and Eftablilhing, Pag ii. Spimz.a'f, 
 Atbeifra. It feems, in the Opinion of this Author, that proving 
 the Material World to be, not a NecelTary, but a Dependent Being •, 
 made (Mr. L\ and Spinoz^a^s tifual ExprcfTion) Preferv'd and Go- 
 vern'd by a Self-Exiftent, Independent, Eternal, Infinite yi//W, of 
 perfed Knowledge, Wifdcm, Power, Juilice, Goodnefs and Truth ; 
 is Arguing only againft the Accejfones of Atheifm \ and that the Ef 
 fential Hypothefis of Atheifm, is left untouchd ; nay, Confirm'd and 
 Eftablifli'd by all thofe who will not prefnme to Define the Eflence 
 of that Supreme Mtnd, according to the VnimelUgibk Layignage of 
 \\\t Schools^ aad the Gronfidlefs hnaginacion o/Des Cartes, concerning 
 the Stibfiar.ce or £ fence of Matter and Sfirit. I Confefs it appeals 10 
 me on the Contrary^ That the Ejfence of Atheifm lies in making God 
 either an Vnimell.'gem Being ffuch as is the Material World) or at 
 ieaft a Necejfary Agents (fuch as 5/?/»o2-<? makes his One Subftancej void 
 of all Freedom, Wifdom, Power and Goodnefs , and that other y^^- 
 taphyfcal Difpntes, are only about Acceffories. And that there is much 
 more Ground on the other fide, to fufped that very Hypothefis, of 
 which this Writer is fofond, to be favourable to the Atiieifts main 
 purpofe. For if from Des Cartcs'% Noion of the Eflence of Matter, it 
 follows fas he himfelf, in the Places now Cited, confefles in exprefs 
 words j that itimplies a Contradidion to foppofe the Material World 
 Finite, or fuppofe any part of Matter can be annihilated by the Pow-- 
 er of Godi I appeal to this Author, whether this does not Natu- 
 rally tend to make Men think Matter a NecelTary and Self-Exiftent 
 Being. Jh. Tag. 13. 
 
 There being nothing in thofe Pages named here, or in any other 
 part of the Remarks^ againft which the Contents of the laft Part of 
 the 2d Period here, can be urged ; 1 look upon it as one of thofe 
 Groundlefs Imaginations of Mr. c's, fpread here and there in his Pre- 
 face, whereof I am not cop.cerned to take any Notice. As for the 
 two hll Periods here, having grounded no Argument of mine againft 
 Mr. C. upoa the c^^.tejian Hypothrjis, or any other, and only fpoke of it 
 Occadonaily, I am not engaged to defend it. If I was, I might eahly 
 do it as to the two partculars of his Dodriae, mentioned in the Re- 
 marks^ viz. His Freoj of the Exiftence of God, from the Idea of a Being, 
 Infinitely Perfed; and hisplaciiig [htfjftnce of Matter, in Extenlion 
 in Length, Breadth and Depth. The firftofihefe being cenfured by 
 Mr. C. as Obfcure and Defective^ and not fitted to convince and put the 
 Atheljl to ^'ihnQQ^ I charg'd him with not underftanding tfeat Argu- 
 ment, told him it is a Satisfa^ory Proofs and Chalknged hiai,or any o- 
 
 ther 
 
( n ) 
 
 tlier to prove the contrary, or to invalidate it in the leail. To this 
 he anfwers in his Preface, Vag. lu. Ttjat he docs not Hnderfiand it. 
 Thus you fee he is able to Cenlure and Blame, and undertake to Con- 
 fute, what he does not at all underftand \ and what might be the quite 
 contrary to what he takes it to be, for all he knows. I acquaiated 
 Mr. C. that his Mafters, Mr. L. and Spinoz.a^ whoafcribe/^/iw/Vf Exten* 
 fton^ Space^ Place, &c. to what they call God, as he does, do own and 
 Teach that Beingto be a Material Sub/lance, which was the Occalioo 
 of my fpeaking of Extetjfwn. To this he anfwers not one word in his 
 Preface, though it be the Main Point of the 3d Charge in the Remarks, 
 and that I have proved therein, 'tis a Material SHh/htrce, which he 
 likewife calls by that /:/<?/y Name His Silence alone upon this Head, 
 would prove him guilty of what he is charged with •, but his Confef- 
 fwn, his owning the Charge to be true, in the Quotation before us, puts 
 h beyond all Controvcrfy. I wou'd really think it a Difhonour to 
 DesCartesy to offer to vindicate his Dodrine from the grofs Imputati- 
 ons of little Niblers, who do not underftand what he, or they them- 
 felves fay ; and efpecially from what it is charged with here, and in 
 the foregoing 9 and 10 Pages -^ what is quoted out of him there, vili- 
 bly Confuting what 'tis brought to maintain. 1 fhall now return to 
 what concerns me in the Qiiotation before us. 
 
 In the firft Period here, Mr. C. changes the Terms of the Qneflion. as 
 he does every where, tho' by the Laws of Difputation, common Equi- 
 quity, and the Dilates of Reafon, he was bound to keep to them every 
 where. I have not charged him in that Page, with Arguing only a- 
 gainft Accejfories. I have charged him there, and in other Places, as 
 Page 31. with Arguing ow/)', againft Mifrefrefented Accejfories , which 
 is a quite different thing from Arguing only, againft Accejfories barely 5 
 and 'tis becaufe it is lo, that he thus mifreprefents the Charge. But of 
 this more afterwards. In the fecond Period, he likewife changes the 
 Terms of the Queftion ; for here you have the Terms, Self-Exiftent, 
 Independent, Infinite Mind, 6^c. Now the Term Mind, thus accom- 
 panied is not made ufe of throughout his whole Book. The Terms 
 made ufe cf there, are Sflf-Exif-ent Nature, (borrow'd from Spinoaa) 
 Self-Exlj}ent £eing,Necijfarily-Exij}efjt Being, Eternal, All Powerful Being, 
 &c. Thefe and the like I have proved in the Remarks, Pag. 37. to be, at 
 prefcnt, Equivocal Terms; becaufe the Modern Atheijls make them to 
 ftand for their pretended Eternal Material Subjlance, as the Ortho- 
 dox do, for the real Eternal Immaterial Subjlance; and made out that 
 with his Maflers, Mr. L. and Spino^^a, Mr. C. makes them to ftand tor 
 the former. I have likewife made out, ib. Pag. 30, :ji, &c. That Spina- 
 2.4 and Mr. L. after him, exclude what Mr. C. calls Bare Matter, Mter 
 Jncogitative Matter, the Material World, from being their God. This 
 
 C 1 ex^ 
 
( 12) 
 
 explained ; fince the Term Mwd^ is made in the Period before us, to 
 Hand for the word Bewg, ufed in the Sermons •, let us now Sub- 
 ftitute the thing fjgnified, to thofe Vague, Loofe, Equivocal Terms, 
 Mind^ and Materi^World^ purpofely made ufe of here again to impofe 
 upon us^ and fo the Period under confideration, in its genuine Senfe^. 
 ftrip'd of thofe Equivocations, will run thus. 
 
 ' It feems in the Opinion of this Author, that proving the Materi- 
 
 * al World, /. e. Bare^ Pure, meer Incogittiti've A'latter^Matter as a Ado- 
 ' dification of the one only Material Suhfiance^ anuninteHgent Being &c. to 
 
 * be, not a Neceflary, but a Dependent Being ; Made, Preferv'd and 
 
 * Govern'd, by a Self-Exiftent, Independent, Eternal, Infinite, Mind, 
 ' i. e. Cogitative Material Siihftance, of Perfed Knowledge, Wifdom, 
 *" Power, Jufl;ice, Goodnefs and Truth, is arguing againft the Accef- 
 
 * Tories of Atheifm, and that the Eflentiai Hypothefis is left untouch'd, 
 
 * nay, Confirm'd and Eftablifh'd '. This indeed, to me, not only 
 /ffwJtobefo, but certainly is fo. It or Spinoz,a himfelf aflerts, That 
 the Material World is not a Necejfary, but a Dependent Being, &c. The 
 very Bafis of his Dodrine, the Eflentiai Hypothefis of his Atheifm^ 
 confifts precifely, in Eftablifhing the Exiftence of his pretended one 
 only Cogitatize and Extended, Eternal Material Snhfiance', to whirh he 
 likewife afcribes the Attributes United to it here. But Mr. C. is of a 
 contrary Opinion, as you may fee by his confejfwn^ concerning this 
 Point, which you have in the next Period, and in the following words, 
 wherein the Term Cod being ufed, I fhall fubftitute to it, the Thing 
 it Hands for. 
 
 I confefs it appears to me on the contrary. That the EfTence of A- 
 
 * theifm lies in making God, i.e. an Eternal Cogitative and Extended 
 
 * Material Subftance, either an Unlateliigent Being Tuch as is the Ma- 
 
 * terial World i. e. on of that Subfiance'^s Modifications) or at lealt a Ne- 
 ' celTary Agent, rfoch as Spnoz^a makes his one Snbflance, i. e. his Cod 
 ' to be) void of all Freedom, Wifdom, Power and Goodnefs '. 
 
 Here you fee Firf!-, That Mr. C. makes the EJfence of Aheifm to 
 confilt, in making Cod, an Vmntell':gem Being, fuch as is the Ma- 
 terial World. Now not cae of the .Modern Jtheifls either holds 
 or fays, that what he^calls Cod, is an VnintetUgcnt Being, witnefs 5pj- 
 mza }, therefore Mr. C. makes the Ejjence of Jthetfm to confill in a 
 meer Chim<tra, ia what no Atheift siT^rts. In the next PlacCy you fee 
 he makes the" EJfence of Spir:oz,as Atheifn^ to confifl in making his Cod 
 a Necejfary Agent, void ofai) Freedom, Wifdom, Power and Goodnefs. 
 Now Sp:noz.a does not deprive his God of all Freedom, &c. He Teaches 
 the quite contrary Doftrine, as I have fhewed in the Remarks, Pag. 33. 
 &c. Mr. C. therefore makes the Effence of Atbeijm to confill, where it 
 I. cither does nor can coiifill:, in two Tenets, which the Atbeifi he pre- 
 
 . • tends 
 
tends to argue againfl, neither Holds nor Teaches, and Confcquently 
 wherein his Atheifm can by no means confifl:. But he does not make 
 his Atheifm to confifl: in his Hypthefis of One only Sub/lance. No, by no 
 means, with him, that's a Metaphy/ical Qj: e ftion zhowi Acceforhs only^ . 
 i. e. things Mijfeyent^ \ fuppofe j to which State the Modern Atbeifl) 
 have endeavoured to bring the mofl: important Articles. 
 
 Mr.C. is very far from making Spinoz.a's Aibeifm to confifl: in that 
 Hyfothefis. For the Author of the Remarks having done fo, in oppofiti- 
 on to him, he Confejjei here, tt appears to him on the contrary^ that his 
 Atheifm lies in making his God either an unintelligent'.Beirig^ or, at leaf}, in 
 not afcribing to him, F>eedom^ Thinkmg^ all^l'cw'er, &c. Juft:as if he 
 fliould fay, oppofing, th:it Cali a uU's Folly, in that particular Ca(e, con- 
 fifted in making his Hofe Confid. I confefs it appears to me on the 
 C0ntrary,that CaUguU\ Folly confided, in not afcribing Freedom^Thinking^ 
 Knowledge^ IVifdom, &c. to his Cor?f,l. Thus Things appear to thofe 
 whofe extraordinary Faculties enable them to fee, and not to fee the- 
 Efl^encesof things by Intuition. But as Cal'guU would add Madnefs to 
 his Folly, if he fliould afcribe Freedom, Thinking, &c. to his Confid- 
 fo Spinoz^a and tJlhers add BLfphev.y to their Atheifm, by afcribing the 
 Holy Name, and the Divine Attributes of Cod, to their pretended Ma- 
 terial Sub/lance. Indeed Mr. C. by this his Confjfion, has the good luck 
 to ftand with his Mafl:ers, Mr. L. and Spinoza, in a Diametrical Oppofi- 
 tlon, not only to the extreme Ignorant Author of the Remarks, but like- 
 wife to all thofe of the Learned of Europe, who wrote againfl: Spinoza, 
 whofe Writings came into my Hands, for they all of them Unanimoufly 
 aflTert, with the Extreme Ignorant Author of the Remarks, l^hat the very 
 Bajis, the y cry Hinge of Spinoza's Atheifm, is his Hypothefs of one Sub-' 
 fiance. The Limits lam confined to,will allow of no Quotations of this 
 kind. But if any one will fee a Lifl: of thofe Learned, and the Author's 
 own Opinio-:, he may read Mr. Bayle^s Hi(l. and Crit. Diuiofiary, Vol. 5. 
 at the Letter S. and Name spmoza. He rajy read the Learned Mr. Le 
 f^ajfor s Treat ife, of the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, Printed at /"-jr/J. 
 He may alfo read a Book publifli'd at Dort, or Domick, in Flanders, in 
 the Year 1698. Intituled. Examen rhilofophicum fext£ defimiionis partis. 
 1. Ethic. Beneditii de Spinoz*, five Promodrus animadverfon/tm fuper uni* 
 CO veter;:m Cr r event ioritm Aiheornm Atgu?/iemo, nempe -, Una. Sttbjlantii ; 
 hbi InfirmitM & f^anitas Argument orum pro ea evmcetur. The 
 Contents of this Title is what happens to beaiferted in the Alr/w^r/^i 
 Pag. 4. and 11. wherein the Hypothefs of one Sid^f am e, is made the 
 only Foundation, the very Ground and firfl Principle of all Athei(ts both 
 Ancient and Modern, But Mr. C. has extraordinary Faculties. 
 
 And fince for that Reafon he makes the E(fence of Spinoza's Athefm 
 to COnfill, in not afmbing Freedom^ Thinking, all Powtr, Q^q. to his one 
 
 Siil/lf 
 
(H) 
 
 Suhflancei, you fee ThirSy^ That Mr.C. makes the Ejjenee of Atheifm 
 to confifl', /» not being an Ejfential Atheift, For 'tis Evident from the 
 Nature of the Things maintained by the Learned^ who wrote againffi 
 Spinoaa, and avowed by one of the SubtileB Atheifls that ever lived j 
 That whoever with Spinoz^a, Vnites Freedom^ Thinkings aU Power^ 
 &c. to one only Material Snlflance, does with Sfinoz,a Eftablifh the Ex- 
 ifience of one only AElital and Eternal^ Cogitative and Extended Material 
 Subfiance'^ and that whoever Eftablifhes "this^ does Ejfentially, Origin 
 nally^ and Fmdamentally Subvert and Deflroy the Exiftence of an Eternal 
 Spirtt. Now Mr. C. with his Faculties, makes the EJfence fas he calls 
 it, for 'tis none of my Exprefllons/ of Atheifm .to confift, in not Vnite- 
 ing thofe Attributes and Stibflance, whofe Vnion EJfentially^ Originally and 
 Enndamentally Subverts and Deftroys the Exiftence of an Eternal Spirit^ 
 of the one only true God \ and fo by a necejfary Confequence^ makes the 
 EJfence of Atheifm to confift, in not being ejfentially, originally^ andfundamen- 
 tally an Atheifir. The Reafon of this extraordinary Procedure, is evident. 
 Now if inftead of eftablifliing the Exiftence of that Subftance^ and 
 uniting thofe A:tributes to it, as Spinoza himfelf does, by mifreprefent- 
 ing him, and Hobbs too, by ufing every where, general, vague, loofe, 
 equivocal Terms ; and his Mafters Mr. l's and Spinoz.ah Cant ; by fay- 
 ing for infcance, ' That if Sfinoz.a's Definition of Subftance be true, 
 ' it will prove nothing to his main Purpofe,^' 99, '. and the like ; and if 
 inftead of this Artifice, I fay, Mr. C had been pleafed then, to make his 
 Confejfion in plain Terms, as he does, now ; the Author of the Remarks 
 had not been at the Expence of expofing thofe fecond-hand Shifts and 
 Tricks imployed in his Sermons, to compafs that Defign covertly. 
 He would have diredly attacked that Hypothefis of One Subfance, which 
 makes Creation impoffible •, Heaven and Hell, empty Names. Prayers, 
 vain Amufement. Morality, Fi(flion. All Revelation, the Effeds of 
 an exalted Fancy, or the Heats of adiforder'd Imagination, as Spinoza 
 affirmed ; and as the Learned B. of H^. conclude againft Mr. L. L. 3. 
 p. 151. In a word, which eftabliflies that there neither is, nor can be 
 any other God, but that pretended one Material Subftance, which 
 as the Bottom is nothing eH>, but the whole Univerfe (the ts mv} the 
 God whofe Exiftence is aflerted in Mr. c*s Sermons, as 1 have made 
 out in the Remarks, is notdifowned by him in his Reply, nay owned 
 in, and mofe evident from his Confejfon here. 
 
 Now (ir.ce Mr. C. by a fa) em n Confcffion, be fides his having efla- 
 blilh'd the fame in his Sermons, owns SpiKoz.a's Hypothefis of oiie An- 
 gle Subltance, which is the very Ba fis whereon his whole Dodrine 
 snd Atheifm is built ; 'tis evident he muft hold thofe other Teuets of 
 that Atheilt's, which are iflfeperablefrom that Hypothefis. That you 
 
 may 
 
( 15) 
 
 may fee he does fo, I (hall acquaint you here with fome Places he names 
 in his Preface, wherein hedefignedly mifreprefents Spimr^a; and with 
 others, wherein he teaches in plain Terms, nay, wherein he outdoes 
 that Atheift himfelf, in teaching fuch things as are infeparable from 
 their common Hypothells. Instances hereof. To prove me extreme 
 infincere for afleriing, Rev.arks^ p. 30. That Spinox.a never faid, the 
 Material M'orld was ^ his God, nay, that he taught the cjuite contrary Do- 
 ^rine: Mr. C in his Preface, p. \i. and 12. quotes fevenl PafDges 
 out of him, wherein he fays, That his God is a Corporeal Skhftance, 
 This 1 knew well when J wrote the Remarks ^ and 'tis for this very 
 Reafon I faid, thatS/?iwo^4 was mifreprefented. For with him, Mr. L. 
 and their Scholar, Mr. C tht Corporeal Suhflance is their 6"^^, and the 
 Corporeal World but a Mo-fi^ication oi that Subfi. wee, to which they a- 
 fcribe both Thinking and Extcnjion. This is Spinoza's Dodrine through- 
 out all his Writings, and which is more, throughouc his Letters too, 
 as I have (hown, Remarks, p. 30, 31, &c. And indeed it is abfolutely 
 incompatible with his Hypothecs to fay otherwife. 
 
 He charges me with the Highe/t Degree of Infwcerity, p. m. for fay- 
 ing and fhewing, Remarks, p. 39,40. &c. That by the Terms, Barcj 
 Pure, meer Unintelligent Matter, meer Inco?itative Matter, meer Inani^ 
 mate Matter, &c. he means his Mailer's ALitter, as a Modification ; 
 their unintelligent Beirg, their Corporeal World, to difference and diftin- 
 guifh it as they do, in, and by that very Jaygo», from their Cogita- 
 tive Matter, i. e- the'iv Aiatter dL% Snhfiance, their Cod. Now this is fo 
 very plain from the Terms themfelves, from his conftant Abufc of 
 them. Remarks, p.^i. and from his eftabliftiing that Hypothclis, which 
 €x profejfo teaches that Diftindionof A'fatter Into Cogitative and Incogi- 
 tative ; that none but a Man of one Suhjhnce with Spinoza, would fo 
 farexp^fe himfelf to Laughter as Mr. C, does in his Preface, p. 11.) 
 as toaifert that throughout his Sermons, he takes the Terms Bare, &c. 
 Jncogitative^ Vnintelligent, Inanimate Mutter ; either as oppofed to Mo- 
 tio^!, or to the Form of the J-J^orld, or as confidered without the Direction of 
 ^ Supreme Mind. H-* wjl] therefore j^ive me leave to fay, that all this 
 is B.tre, Pure, Meer Nonfenje • not in Oppofttion to Motion, but in Op- 
 pof.tion to its having any Senfe at all m it ; and fo let it lay. I (hewed. 
 Remarks, />• 23- that'Mr. C. mifreprefented Spinoza, by charging him 
 with reducing what he calls God, to z firicily natural Nccejjhy, to be 
 aEled upon, Crc, and faid Mr. C. himfelf roas guilty of what he gronndltfy 
 imputed to S'piaoZd, ib p. 34. In anl'wer hereunto, Mr. C in his Pre- 
 face, p. 12. mifreprefents the Qjieltion, produces fome Pdlfages out 
 of Spinoza, whereiu he fays. That what he calls God^ aHrs by theneceffuy 
 0f his Nature ; and then concludes. That I am very Infincere for not 
 taking notice of thofe Pajfages, jinfvper, I had nothing at all to do with 
 
 them, 
 
(i6) 
 
 rthem, iieither would Mr. C. were it not that he would fain juftifyhis 
 MifreprefentiDg Spinoz^a in his Sermons, by Mifreprcfentl'ng him agaia 
 in his Preface. This will appear evidently to any one who knows the 
 difference between a StriHly Natural Necejfity^ which Mr. C. imputes 
 to SpiKoz,a, and a Necejfity of Nature^ which alone S^lmza afcribes to 
 his God every where, even in his Letters. 
 
 In Order to fcreen him in, from appearing in his Native Deformity, 
 as I have often done, I only acquainted Mr. C Remarh^Vag. 34. That 
 he did, with his Mafter Spinoza, Efiahli^ the Eternal Neceffary Co-exU 
 ftence of Things. This he jumbles with the foregoing Qiieftion and 
 mifreprefents both of them, fo much like a Man of his own Principles 
 thati fhall give you what he fays at length in his own words, which 
 are the following. 
 
 ' The Author of the Remarks fays, Page 34. That / am guilty my 
 ' felf of what J groiwdlefly imputed /o SpinoZa ; viz. of making Cod a meer 
 ' Neceffary j^gent. Natncly, by affirming that there u a Necejjary Difference 
 
 * betwixt Good and Evil, and that there isfuch a Thing as fitnefs and XJn- 
 
 * ^tnefs^ Eternally, Necejfarily^ and Vnchangeabiy, in the Nature and Rea- 
 
 * fon of Things, Antecedent to Will, and to all Vofiti-ve and Arbitrary yip. 
 
 * pointmems Whatfoever. This he fays, is a Groundlefsand PofitiveAf- 
 
 * fertion, and plainly imports the Eternal Neceffary Co-exiftence of 
 
 * all Things, as much as Spinoz.ah Hypothefis does. Is not this an 
 
 * admirable Confequence ? Becaufe I affirm the Proportions of Things 
 
 * and the Difference of Good and. Evil, to be Eternal and Neceffary ; 
 
 * that therefore 1 affirm the Exillence of the things themfelves, to' 
 -' be alfo Eternal and Neceffary ? Becaufe I affirm the Proportion, fup- 
 ' pofe between a Sphere and a Cylinder, to be Eternal and Neceffary 
 ' that therefore I affirm the Exiftence of Material Spheres and Cylin- 
 *" ders, to be likewife Eternal and Neceffary""? Becaufe 1 affirm the 
 
 * Difference between Firtue and Fice, to be Eternal and Neceffary 
 ' that therefore 1 affirm Men, who Pradife Virtue and Vice, to have 
 
 * Exifled Eternally. This Accufation fhews both extreme Ignorance dindi 
 ' great Malice, in the Author of the Remarks \ It mull be owned in- 
 deed, that as flated here, it fnews extreme Ignorance and Malice in 
 fome Body ; but the Author of the Remarks is as far fiom being at 
 all concerned in it, as he who never heard of this Accufation. 
 
 The State of the Qiiellion is here Changed in alls its Parts I never 
 thought, much iefs faid, and I would be afhamed to fay, that Mr. C. 
 makes what he calls God, a Meer Neceffary Agent, b^cauHe he affirms that 
 there is a Neceffary D ffnence betwixt Good and Evil, That there is fuch 
 a Thing as Panefs and Vnfitmfs, &c. 7 his is Mr. C's own, and like the 
 f eft of his pretended Reafonings. The imputeing it to the Author of 
 •ih^ Rema> ks,- is the genuine Effed of his Principles. He leaves out here 
 
 one 
 
( 17) 
 
 one part of the Quotation, and the very words upon which Iground- 
 "ed the Charge now mentioned. His adwlruble Confeqnence here, is like- 
 wife his own, for I have not charged him with Eftablifhing the £/fr- 
 vd^ Necejfary^ Co-exiftenct of Things^ upon the Account of his faying, 
 that Proportions, the D jference hetrvixt Coed and Evil, Virtue and Vice, 
 are Eternal and Neceff^ry. But if inflead of the word Things, which he 
 ufes, he had imployed the viox^ Sphere, Cyli:7der and Men-^ and faid. 
 That there are Proportions, Good and Evil, Virtue and Vice, Eternally^ 
 Neceffarily, and Vnchangeably in Spheres, Cylinders and Men, ylntecedent 
 to Will, and to all Arbitrary or Po/itive Appointment whatfoever ; then 
 indeed I would have concluded, that he EUablifh'd the Eternal, Ne- 
 cejfary, Coexijience of Spheres, CyLjiders, an6 Men -, but inftead of thofe, 
 he having ufed the word Things, I concluded that he Ellablifh'd the 
 Eternal, Neceffary Coexiftence of Things, which 1 (hall now Demon- 
 ftrate, and then leave the Reader to judge, who is the Extreme Ig- 
 norant and Maliciofts. I (hall firft fet before you the whole Quotation, 
 as Cited in the Remarh^ Pag. 34. out of Mr. C's Sermons, in thefc 
 words. 
 
 ' There is a Fitnefs or Suitahlenefs of certain CircHmflances to certain 
 ' Perfons, and an Vnfititablenefs to Others, Founded in the Nature of 
 ' Things, and the Qualifications of Perfons, Antecedent to M'lll, and to 
 ' all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment whatfoever. Pag. 234. fAgain) 
 ' There is therefore fuch a thing a! Fitnefs and Vnfiinefs, Eternally^ 
 ' Necejfarily, and Unchangeably, in the Nature and Reafon oi Things. Pag. 
 ' 235. (He adds) That this Fitnefs and llnfitnefs. Eternally, Necef- 
 ' farily and Unchangeably in the Nature of Things, Antecedent to 
 ' IVill, and to aH Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment whatfoever, does 
 * always and necejfartly Determine the Will of God. Pag. 255. '. This 
 laft Period is that upon which 1 grounded myCharge of his making what 
 he calls God, a Neceffary Agent :, and becaufe it proves that Charge, he 
 leaves ic out in the foregoing Paragraph, as quoted in his Preface. 
 
 Thofe Expreflions now quoted, I have proved in the Remarks, Pag. 
 34. to be equivalent to what Mr. L. fays upon this Head, and more 
 than what Spino:,a himfelf alFerts^ but from ihem i ihall at prefent Ihew, 
 Firfl:, That Mr. C. Eflabliflies the Neceffary Co- exifl en ce of Thirds, which 
 is done in the following Manner. The Fitnefs and Ui. fitnefs fpokcQ 
 of here, are Relations of Agreement or Difagreemenc, Etcrn&Dy, Ne- 
 ceffarily, and Unchangeably in the Natures of Things, Antecedent to 
 Will,Siad to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment whatfoever : There- 
 fore, tht Things themfelves, in whofe Natures this Fitnefs and Unfit- 
 nefs, thofe relations of Agreement and Dif^greement are, are like- 
 v;ife Etsrnaijv, Ncceflarily, artd Unchangeably £jc^/;nj. Antecedent 
 to Willj aaa to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment whati^hever. 
 
 P This 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 This Demonftrated. Thofe Thwgs themfelves are Eternally Necefla- 
 rily, and Unchangeably Exifiing, Antecedent to Will, and to all Ar- 
 bitrary or Pofitive Appointrnent whatfoever, which do in their Na- 
 tures agree or difagree, Antecedent to WV//, and to alJAibitrary or 
 Pofitive Appointment whatfoever. This is felf evident. Now the 
 Things themfeves, fpoken of by Mr. C do agree or difagree in their 
 Natures, Antecedent to W'^//^, and to^ll Arbitrary or Pofitive Appoint- 
 ment whatfoever. 'Tis bis Principle. Therefore thofe Thirigs them- 
 ielves are Eternally, Neceffarily, and Unchangeably Exifiing, Antece- 
 dent to J^nil^ and to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment whatfoe- 
 ver. Now thofe Ihings which are thus Eternally, NecefTarily, and 
 Unchangeably Exifiingy Antecedent to Will, and to all Arbitrary or 
 Pofitive Appointment whatfoever, do Eternally, and Necejfarily Coex- 
 ifient, at leaft, with the W^// of what Mr. C. calls Cod. Tis what 
 was to be Demonftrated. 
 
 From the Q_uotatlcn before us, I fhall prove Secondly, That Mr. C, 
 makes hhCod a Netijfary Agent. In Ord^r hereunto, let us remem- 
 ber, that fince Mr. C\ God is Always, and Necejfarily Determined by 
 thofe Fitneflesand Unfitnefles, Eternally. Neceflarily, and Unchange- 
 ably Exifting, Antecedent to ^//Z, and to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Ap- 
 pointment whatfoever ; it is plain that his HUl has been Eternally znd 
 Vnchangeably detei min'd by the Natures, or by the Refnlt of the Na- 
 tures, i. e. the Fitiaefles and Unfilneffes in xhokThings. This being Evi- 
 dent, 1 proceed to prove, That Mr. C. makes his God a Necejfary A- 
 gem. 1 hat Being is a NeccfTary Agent, whofe Will is Eternally and 
 Unchangeably, Alw'ays and NectfDrily Determin'd, by fomething Ex- 
 ternal to it f-lr. Independent of it felf, nay Eternally, Neceflarily, 
 and Uuchangtably Exifting, Antecedent to Will, and to all Arbitrary 
 or Pofitive Appointment whatfoever^ the Will oi what Mr. c. calls 
 God, is fuch, according to himfelf 4 and therefore according to him, 
 what he calls God, is a Necejfary Agent. This was the Propofition.to 
 to be proved. But Mr. c. is not content with this, for he evidently 
 reduces what he calls Cod^ to an Ahfolute Neceffity of Fate. 'Tis De- 
 monftrated thus. 
 
 Thofe Relations of Agreement and Difagreement, thofe Fitnefles 
 and Unfitnelfcs, mentioned by Mr. c. are, according to him, Eter- 
 ually, Neceflaiily, and Unchangeably in the Natures of 'Things, An- 
 tecedent to Will, and to all Arbitrary and Pofitive Appointment what- 
 foever. This is his Principle. Whatever is Eternally, Neceflarily, 
 and Unchangeably in the Nature of Things, Antecedent to Wdl, and 
 to all Arbiuaiy or Poftive Appointmenc whatfoever, muft be Eter- 
 nally, Neceflarily and Unchangeably Ex'.filng, Antecedent to t^e H'-ill, 
 and to ail Arbitrary or Poiitive Appointment of the Being, which Mr. 
 
 C calls 
 
( 19) 
 
 r. calls God. This is Self evident. Whatever is Eternally, Ncceffa- 
 rily, and Unchangeably Exifting^ Antecedent to the m//, and to all 
 Arbitrary or Pofitive AppointmeDt of what he calls God •, mufl: be E- 
 ternally, Neceflarily, and Unchangeably Exifting^ Antecedent to the 
 Will^ and to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment oi ^n^ Thinkings 
 Intelligent^ Wife Being. This he cannot deny. Whatever is Eternally, 
 Neceflarily, and Unchangeably Exifting, Antecedent tothe/fV//, and 
 all the Arbitrary or PoUtive Appointment of any Tife/;?^'/«^, Intelligent^ 
 Wife Being \ muft; Necefldrily be the Work of fome Vnthinking^ Vnin- 
 telligent^ Vnwife Beingy the Vndefign'd, Neccffary j^p^ointnient of Fate^ 
 the bare EffeH- of the Vngitided Motions of Matter ^ the Fort nit on j Prodnci 
 of Cafialt), the Re fait of meer Chance ^ a Hit of F^ap- hazard. This is 
 Self-evident. Therefore thofe Fitnefles and UnfitnefTes, thofe Re- 
 lations of Agreement and Difagreement mentioned by Mr. C arc 
 NecefTarily the Undefign'd Work of fome Unthinking , Unintelli- 
 gent, Unvvife Being, the NecefTary Appointment of Fate, the 
 meer Produf^ of Chance, a Hit of Hap- hazard. This is a De- 
 monftration. Now that Being, whofe Will is Eternally and Un- 
 changeably, always and neceflarily Determind by thofe undefign'd ne- 
 ceflary eflefts of meer Fate, Chance and Hap-hazard ; is Eternally and 
 Unchangeably, Always and Neceflarily forc'd to Ad, by an Abfolute^ 
 VncontronUhle Neceffity of Fate. This is Self-evident. But Mr. C. Teaches 
 that the rJj// of that Being which he calls God, is thusdetermin'd by 
 thofe Effeds. 'Tis his Principle. Therefore, the Extreme Learned 
 Mr. C reduces what he calls God, to an abfolute uncontroulable necef- 
 iity of Fate. 'Tis the Propofition that was to be Demonftrated. 
 
 From what has been now faid, 'tis fo very plain, that Mr. C. makes 
 it impoflible for what he calls God, to Create any real Sub/lance ^ that I 
 need not reduce the Proof of it to a regular Form. His Hypothelis of 
 one only Material Subfl:ance, befides what you have read in the imme- 
 diately preceding Paragraphs, neceflarily excludes Creation. Nay,That 
 he Teaches what I fay, is evident from what heaflerts in his Sermons, 
 Fag. 1 58. wherein giving his Thoughts, in hisMafl:er's Equivocal jar- 
 gon, concerning Cr ration., he concludes in thefe words. * Which, t. e. 
 
 * Creat'on, no man can ever reduce to a Contradidion, any more than 
 
 * the Eoymation of any thing into a Shape it had not before., can be re- 
 
 * duced to a Contradiction '. Now the Forming any thing into a 
 Shape v/hich it had not before^ is only the giving that thing a dijfe- 
 rent Modi fiat ion from what it had before. Spinoz.a makes Creation to 
 confifl: in a KJeceJfir^ Immanent y^t?, as he Calls it i. e. In his (iods, or 
 Material Subftauces, neceflarily producing various Chanoes or ^Ite- 
 tations oi Ado di feat ions in it felf This likewife is what 'his Scholar, 
 Mr. L. calls Creation^ as well as his Difciple Mr. C. And this is a ne- 
 
 D 2 celfjry 
 
( 20) 
 
 ccflary Confequence of their other Imagination, f/z,. That all things 
 are Eternal •, and fo, that nothing either has, or can be producd, but 
 \2iX\0M% Changes oi Modifications^ - ■'-• 
 
 From what has been faid, 'tis likewife evideht^/that Mr, C. makes it 
 impoffible for the Being he calls God, to alter or change the Condition 
 or CircHmfiances oi Men^ either for the Better or for the Worfe. This 
 he alfo Teaches in precife Terms in his Sermons, Pag. 234. wherein 
 fpeaking of his Fitnefles and llnfitnefles, he has the following Remark- 
 able words : ' Farther, that there is a Fitnefs or Suitablenefs of cer- 
 ' tain Circumftances to certain Perfons, and an Unfnitablenefs toothers, 
 ' Founded in the Nature of Things, and the Oualifications of Perfcns^ 
 'Antecedent to WiU^ and to all Arbitrary of ~Pofitive Appointment 
 ' whatfoever^ muft unavoidably be acknowledged by every one,d-c." 
 
 By the by, here are certain Terfons made Coetemal^ at leaft with the 
 Will of what Mr. C. calls God. Pnt to return to what I aimed at. Since 
 the Fitnefs or Suitablenefs, the llnHtnefs or Unfuitablenefs of certain 
 CircH7tjftances ^ to certain Terfons^ are Founded in the Nature of 
 Things^ and the QhnHfications of the Perfons themfelves, and that too, 
 Antecedent to WUl^ and to all Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment 
 whatfoever ; they mujfl neceflarily be Antecedent to the Will, and 
 to all the Arbitrary or Pofitive Appointment of what Mr. C 
 calls God. They rauft therefore be Antecedent to the iVill^ and to all 
 Pofitive or Arbitrary Appointment of any Thinking, Intelligent, Wife 
 Being. They muft therefore be the bare Effefts of meer Fate, Chance, 
 Hap-hazard, &c. They muft be abfolutely independent of the M^ill of 
 what Mr. C. calls God. And fince they Eternally and Unchangeably, 
 always and neceflarily Determine that Will:, 'tis impoffible' for what he 
 calls Gcd, to Refift, Sufpend, or alter their Determination, to Con- 
 troul or Derogate from thofe unadvifed Decrees of Fate, thofe Blind 
 but cecefl^ry Laws of Hap-hazard. 'Tis therefore abfolutely Impoffi- 
 ble for Mr. C\ God, to Change or Mter the Ctrciwiflances hi Men or 
 Terfons^ either for the Better, or for the Worfe. 
 
 Hence it is evident, that Mr. C. makes any Dependence upon what he 
 calls God, any Prayers or Thankfgivings direded to him, abfolutely 
 Vain and llfelefs. For he makes the Circumftances of Men, Antece- 
 dent to, and Independent of his Will. Now every one fees, that to 
 Pray, or return Thanks to a Being, who cannot poffibly alter our Cir- 
 cumftances, would be to no purpofe. • The Extreme Learned Mr. C 
 having in his Sermons^ by the affiftance:of General, Vague, Loofe, Un- 
 determined, Obfcure, Ambiguous, or Equivocal Terms, Efcablifh'd 
 the Exiftence of his own and of his Mafters, Mr. L. and Spinoza's onq 
 only Material Subftance, of their God j and reduced him to the State 
 wherein we have now feen him , he, in the clofe of his Difcourfe, lays 
 down the Cronnds q\ Natural Religion and of Moralit^^ the 5ubje(9; of his 
 
 zd. 
 
C 21 ) 
 
 2d. Volume of Sermons. This he docs very Learnedly, and exa^fy 
 according to the Nature of his God, and that Condition wherein we 
 faw him in the Preceding Pages, as you ihall fee in the following 
 Lines. ° 
 
 After having difcourfed of his Fitne/Tes and UnfitntfTes more than 
 he needed, he fubjoins : ' By this Underftanding, or Knowledge of 
 ' the Natural and Neceflary Relations, ;. e F,tmfj'a and V^tmffss, 
 
 * of Things, the Aaions likewife of j4ll Intelligent Beirgs, are con- 
 ' ftantly Direaedi which by the by, is the Gro.rd and FoHtuUtton 
 ' of all Moralit , Fag. 235, Since it is fo, infcead of applying rhem- 
 felves to the Bible, to learn the true Cronnds of Chriftian and Gofpd 
 Morality , Men (hould betake themfelvcs to Philofophy, which alone 
 Teaches the N '.rural and Neceflary Relations of Things ; and Con- 
 feqaently the true Ground and Foundation of all Morality, accord- 
 ing to the ExtreK.e Learned Mr. C. He iafers from what he faid 
 upon this Head, ' H hat the true Ground and Foundation of all E- 
 
 * ternal Moral Obligations, confifis in the forementioned Necefla- 
 ' ry and Eternal different Relations, i.e. Fitntfes andVt)fitnefles,?2ig, 
 ' 255 '. And then to make fure Work on't, out of his GreAt Learnings 
 and Singular Modefiy ^ he concludes in the following remarkable 
 words, vi-^. 
 
 ' They who found all Moral Obligations Ultimately in the Will of 
 
 * God, Muft^ recur at length to the fame Thing, only vyith this dif- 
 ' ference, that they do not clearly Explain how the Nature and Will 
 ' of Cod himfelf, muft be Neceflirily Good and Juft, as I have endea- 
 ' voured to do. Pag. 257. 
 
 This would make any one to fmile, were it not out of Refpeft to 
 the Subjed^ and a true Senfe of Pity and Compaflion for this poor 
 Man. They who found, as they ought to do, ail Mo^al Obligatiofis Ulti- 
 mately in ihtWill of 6W, even Aluft, at length with Mr.C. found them 
 in his Fitiieflls and Uafitnefl^es, that is in the bare efledts of meer Fate, 
 Chance, Hap hazard, &c. They do not dead. Ex^U.n how the Will of 
 Cod muft be necefTarily Good and Jufc, as Mr. C. does. Ihey^ i. e. Chri* 
 ftian Divines and Philofophers, Great and really Learned Men. Mr.C 
 i.e a little Suckling Modification of oneSubftance mxhSpinor^a.Uh clear 
 Explication confifts in afTertlng, That the Nature oi his Cod, is to be a 
 Material Subfiance. That his ^^-7// is Eternally and Unchangeably, al- 
 ways and Neceflarily Determined by fate. Here you have Mr. C's fi- 
 niftiing ftroke. Conformably to that part of his Doctrine you have feen 
 in the preceding Pages, he makes the Ground and Foundation ofall Mo- 
 ral Obligations, of all Natural Religion, the Subj(£lof his Second Vo- 
 lume of Sermons,to coafift in his Fitnefles and Unfitnefles, the bare Ef- 
 feds of Chance, Fate, and Hap hazard i and tells us, that we iBuft do- 
 fo too, iflftead of founding thera VltimAteiy in the Will of Cod. What 
 
(22) 
 
 What you have now read, contains one Part of the Infeparable 
 
 Concomitants of the Hypothefis of One only material Spibflance. I have 
 not time to quote any more out of Mr. C\ nor even to make due Re- 
 flections upon what has been faid. You fee, that with the Nature and 
 Exiftence of the One only True God •, the very Bads both of Natu- 
 ral and Revealed Religion, and All genuine Morality, are fundamen- 
 tally Subverted by Mr. C All thole who have undertook to do this, 
 and whofe Writings came within my fighr, are outdone by him. 
 Now fince his Dodrine is ^o every way McnUroufly Enormous, Dan- 
 gerous, Heterodox, Anti Chriftian, Unreafo.iable, &c. Since it de- 
 ftroys the Exigence of God, and ellablifhes the Eternal Exigence of 
 the IVorU, it is far beyond the reach of any private Cenfure j where- 
 fore 1 humbly recommend it to the Confideration of the mofl Reve- 
 rend Fathers in God, the Lords, the Arch biOiops, the Right Reve- 
 rend the Bifhops, and of the Two Houfes of Convocation now Af- 
 fembled. 
 
 Having now (hew'd you what Mr. C. is pleafed to offer againfl: the 
 third and lafl: Particular, wherewith he is charged in the Remarks, vit. 
 The ellablilhing the Hypothefis of One only Material Subflance *, and 
 made to appear. That he confefies that to be his Principle, and pro- 
 ved that he teaches thofe other of its Attendants, which I only named 
 in the Remarks. I fhall now proceed to the laft; Head I propofed to 
 fpeak to, viz.. To rcfcue my Reputation from Mr. C's Afpertions. 
 There being feme things in the Rfmarks which fhew, that their Au- 
 thor underftands the ArtiSces made ufe of by iMr. L. to eflablifh 5/?/- 
 mz-as Hypothefis ^ leaft he (hould expofe thofe Artifices^ and that Hy- 
 pothefis as eftablifh'd in the EfTay of Humane Underftanding, and 
 thereby make it appear more fully and clearly, aseftabliih'd byMr. C 
 in the very fame Cant, and by the fame Abufeof Words and Lan- 
 guage^ perhaps it was thought expedient to raife Prejudices againft 
 that Author, and to reprefent him in Print, under fuch Odious Cha- 
 rafters, as would in. line every one, not only to Defpife, but even to 
 Dif-believe Truth it ftlf, if fpoke by him, as being extreme Jgno' 
 rant., extreme Ma.'icious^ Diflionefi^ &C. 
 
 Befides other things faid in the Preface to raife Prejudices againft 
 him, the Charge now mentioned contains two Parts. The Firft re- 
 gards that AuihoTh Vnae-' /landing •, He is Extreme Ignorant, &C. The 
 Second regards even his H^ill:, He is Extreme Maliciom, &c. He is 
 bad all over, and that too, even in Extremes. Concerning the Firft, 
 the Author would by no means take any notice of it, or fay any 
 thing in his own O'v^Jence upon that Head, but leave the Reader to 
 judge of him by what he Did, were ic noc for the following Reafon: 
 The Sermons preach'd at Sc. Pa/d's, eftablilh the very fame Atheifm 
 
 which 
 
(23) 
 
 which they pretend to confute; the Remarh difcovered and proved 
 this. Now their Author is fet off as being Fxtreme Ignorant^ and 
 there is no Name to them that might in fome Meafure keep up their 
 CrediE againft that Charge. This might induce fome to think, that 
 that Author is really Ignorant of the Subjeft he engagM in, that it is 
 not of his Province, that he has not fludied ir, that he does not at all 
 underftacd ir, e^r. and fo continue to efteem and read thofe Sermons, 
 and to fuck in the Fundamental Errors eftablifh'd in them. The In- 
 terefh of Truth therefore, the Intereft of the mofl: Important Truth, 
 obliges that Author to fay fomething, even upon that Head. This 
 he defires fhould be his Apology for what he (hall fay, and which 
 otherwife he would not fay, as he has been always far from faying 
 it, or any fuch thing. Concerning the fecond Part of the Charge, as 
 I need none, fo I'll make no Apology tor my vindicating my Sinceri- 
 ty, Integrity, Honefly, &ci 
 
 Many are the Methods ufed in this Preface to raife Prejudices againfl 
 the Author of the Remarks. He is faid to be ExtrefMc Ignoranty even 
 of the Syntax of a Sentence^ and of the Vfe of the Partide^ Or To be 
 Ignorant of any Fhilofophy^ but what little he feems to know of the 
 Cartefian. To build all he fays by way of Argument, entirely upon 
 the fuppofition of the Truth of the Cartefian Hyfothefis^ prov'd falfe. 
 To admit of no Definitions but what are according to the VnintelUgbU 
 Language of the Schools, &c. 
 
 Anfvp The Author of the l^emarkj owns his Acquaintance with the 
 School-AItn, and with their Language ; but then he muft own that 
 that cannot be perceived by the Remarks. That whoever charges 
 him with their Language, or Reafonings, upon the account of what 
 he fays in that Pamphlet, muft be utterly unacquainted with them, 
 or have a certain difpofition of Heart and Mind, which I need not 
 to name : For there is no little Paper writ, or any thing proportion- 
 able to it, in any Book extant, that is more remote from their Me- 
 thod and Language, than that Pamphet is. It has not a Tindure, 
 nor fo much as the Air of their Way in it , befides what is in it that 
 is quoted out of Mr. C. who fwimming and finking by turns through- 
 out his whole Preface, catch d always at what he could not fee. 
 
 On the other hand, \ never faw any Volume of Sermons ^o com- 
 pleatly COmpos'd of the Vnimelligible Language of the S(.hools as Mr. Cs. 
 'Tis a continued Series, not only o^ that Language, but even of the 
 hare Abnfe of that Language: His Mafters like wife, Mr. L. and Spinoz.a, 
 blame theScW Men and their Language at every turn ., and yet 'ris 
 by the dowiiright Jbufe of School-Language, that they eftablifh their 
 Hypothefisi and ftili that Language is bUmed, People aie frighted 
 from learning its true life, that the Modem Atheijhy under the per- 
 plexed. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 plexed Webs of its Ahufe, may the more fecurely eftablifli and fpread 
 their Jtheifnij and meet with lefs, or no Oppofition at all. I believe 
 'tis its Ahnfe in thofe Sermons, that made one of the Ingenious Gentle- 
 men of the Temfle to fay, after having read them over and over 
 That they are a contiriHed Texture of Jargon from the beginnincr to the 
 end. But a profefled Deifi^ i. e, a real Atheiji I believe, proclaimed 
 That they are the befi Sermons that were ever preach' d at St. Paul's. Several 
 Learned and Religious Men have declared, they had the very fame 
 Notion of thofe Sermons before the Remarks appeared, which they 
 found in that Pamphlet. A Divine, and a Doftor too of the Church 
 of £>g/W, whofe Parts and Learning have been often publifh'd to the 
 World from the Pulj^it and Pre fs, both with Advantage and Ap- 
 plaufe, has the following Words in a Letter to one of his. Acquain- 
 tance, and which I faw, vt:(. I had the very fame Thoughts of Mr. C's 
 Sermons before J faiv thofe Remarks upon them^ which I find exprefs^d in 
 that Pamphlet. I know Clark is one, who in appearance fights again fi Athelfm, 
 
 hut in reality is.. So that the Author of the Remarks \%KiQi\\\^ 
 
 only, nor the twentieth Man who perceived the Enormous Errors in 
 thofe Sermons. 
 
 As for the Canefian Fhibfophy, it was not taught publickly in the 
 College wherein that Author learnt his Philofophy ; neither were 
 «here any Proofs from Reafon, out of the Cartefian Philofophy, made 
 ufe of in his Publick and Univerfal A6t of Divinity. If Mr. C. will 
 not take his Word for this, he has Eye Witnefles at hand, who can 
 teftify it to be true: Yet he was taught the Cartefian Philofophy pri- 
 vately, and he mull own, with greac Men, even with Mr. c's own 
 Mafcers, Mr. L. and Spinoza, that he received more Benefit from that 
 Philofophy, than he either did or could receive from thofe Philofo- 
 phies, which are commonly and publickly taught in the Univerfities. 
 But then there is not one Argument in the Remarks to make out againft 
 Mr. C. the three general Heads therein mentioned ; that is emirelj.^or 
 at all, bottomed upon the Suppofuion of the Truth of Des Cartes\ of 
 that juflly admir'd Gentleman's Mr. L's Words; Hypothefis, tho' 
 Mr. C afferts, That all of .them entirely depend upon the SHppefition 
 of that Truth : As that Author does not pin his Faith, much lefs does 
 he his Reafoning upon the Sleeve of any Man or Society of Men. 
 He defires no Succour from any Q.n3rttrs, either to eftablifli or del 
 fend, any Truth he is coacein'd to know, make oat, or maintain, 
 by Reafon alone. > ■ i :-> 
 
 Peihaps M. C will fay, that after having gone through the ordi-' 
 nary Gourfesof Philofopijy, Divinicy, Mathematlcks, &c. which are 
 taught in the Univeriiuesi one might be ftill an extreme Ignorant 
 Man, as he often tells me I am. For Ignorance and Knowledge being 
 
 Qppofites, 
 
( 25) 
 
 Oppofites ; lie alone is an Ignorant, who does not perceive the Agree- 
 menc or Dffagrcement of thofe Ideas, whereof he makes the Words 
 Signs, which he Unites, or Difunitesinhis Difcourfe. And he alone 
 a Learned Man, who perceives rhat Agreement or Difacrecmenr 
 and Unites, or Difunites his Words accordingly. The Agreement 
 and Difagreement of Words is abfolutely Arbitrary; that of our 
 Ideas abfolQtely neceflary. Now there is incomparably a greater dif- 
 ference between perceiving the Agreement or Difagreement of the 
 latter, and that of the former; than there is between perceiving the 
 Agreement or Difagreement of Ladies Masks, and that of their Faces. 
 There is incomparably a greate^r Difficulty too, in difcerning the 
 latter, than there is in difcovering the former. A Lad of S'xteea 
 Years may call Things by four different forts of Names, that is, write 
 or difcourfe in four different Languages, perceive the Agreement or 
 Difagreement of his Words, according to Moods, Tenfes, Cafes 
 according to the Grammar Rules of thofe Languages, and yet not 
 perceive the necefl-iry Agreement or Difagreement of the Ideas, 
 whereof thofe Words are Signs or Marks, tho' without this he cannot 
 hate, either real Knowledge or Learning. A Greek, Jrahick^ He- 
 brew^ Romurt^ or French A^ecanicJi, who is able to read and write in, 
 and knows the Grammar of his own Language, is perhaps a great 
 deal better acquainted with the Arbitrary Agreement or Difagree- 
 ment of its articulate Sounds or Words, than any of us is, who at 
 piefent learn thofe Languages; and yet, if upon that account he 
 Ihould pretend to be a Learned Man, a Philofoper or a Divine, he 
 would be laugh d at by thofe of his own Nation. 
 
 One may make Demonftrations and undoubted Propoficions ia 
 
 * Words, and thereby advance not one jot in the Knowledge of the 
 ' Truth of Things ; v.g. he that having learnt thefe following Words, 
 
 with their ordinary Acceptations annexed to them; 'v.g Stibfiance^ 
 ' Man, Anijnal, Form, Soul, regetative, Se?ifitive, Rational, may make 
 
 * feveral undoubted Propofitions about the Soul, without knowing at 
 *^ all what the Soul really is ; and of this fort a Man may find an in- 
 
 * finite number of Propofitions, Reafonings, and Conclufions in Books 
 ' of Metaphydcks, vSchool-Divinity, and fome fort ot natural Philo- 
 
 * fophy ^ and after all, know as little of God, Spirits or Lod.es, as he 
 ' did before he fet out. F{fay of Humane Vnderftanding, D 4 C. 8. 
 
 * §. p. So that with this Knowledge of the Agreement or Difagree- 
 ment of articulate Sounds, one may write Politely, fpeak fiuenily, 
 tell you by rote the Hiftory of the Learned, and their Learning too , 
 nay, compofe great Volumes, and charge every Page with four or 
 five learned Languages; and after all this, be but a Crarfsmttticaly* 
 Rhetorical, f^erbM^ Nominal^ Parrot- Learned Pratler, really IgKorant, 
 
 • £ Herein 
 
(26) 
 
 Herein I agree with Mr.L. and his Scholar, and refer the latter to 
 the Remarks. There he fhall find no fuch Reafonings as his Matter 
 defervediy Cenfures •, nay, 1 crave leave to fay, he fhall there meet 
 with fuch as he requires, and often fpeaksof : Such 1 humbly con- 
 ceive are the Demonftrations in the 9 firft Pages of that Pamphlet, 
 whereby the two firft General Heads therein mention'd, are made 
 out. But fince two or three more befides Mr. C have, very gravely, 
 aflerted, as I have been told. That tho' we neither have, nor can have 
 any Idea of Real Skhfiances^ yet we can certainly know that there are 
 more Real Subftances in the World, than a lingle material One, the 
 God of thofe Men of One Subftance : I fhaO here (hew my Reader the 
 Nature and life of the Demonftrations in the 9 firft Pages of the Re- 
 marks, whereby the quite contrary to what thofe Gentlemen imagine, 
 is Geometrically made out, beginning with acquainting him with the 
 Occafion of their being made againft Mr. C. 
 
 I have aflerted in the F{emarks, that Mr. L. eftablifh'd and ftrenu- 
 ouUy improved in his Efl^ay, this Sceptical Hypothelis, viz,. We neither 
 have, tior can have any Idea of Subftance, as he phrafes it ; in order to 
 give Defence to, and to render it impoffible for any one to confllte 
 his Hypothefis of One only Material Suhfiance, either to perceive, or 
 prove, that there is any other befides that in the whole World, i. e. 
 any other GOD but the Vniverfe. Both thofe Hypothefes being efta- 
 blifh'd by Mr. C. I Itkewife charg'd him with eftablifhing the One, 
 in order to give Defence to the other : Indeed if that Sceptical Hypo- 
 thefis be true, *tis an invincible Defence to the h theiftical One, Now 
 the Author of the Remarks turned their only Defence into an invincible 
 Battery againft themfekes, by proving Geometrically, that if the 
 •Sceptical Hypothefis be true, as they teach and pretended it 
 is^ 'tis abfolucely impoflible for them to eftablifh the other, or to 
 know what they fay, when they go about to do fo, ,To convince, 
 by Authority, thofe who doubt of this Truth, made out in thatPam- 
 phet, by Demonftrations-, I looked over the Controverfies manag'd 
 by, and againft Mr. L. to fee, if on either fide thofe Demonftrations* 
 were made ufe of. For if any one allowing this Hyporhelis to be 
 true, viz., We neither have^ nor can have any Idea of any real Subftance 
 whatever, fhoulJ perceive the Hypothelis of one only material Sub- 
 ftance eftablifhM by Mr. L. and undert.ke to prove againft hini, that 
 there are more real Subftances in the World than one ; Mr. L. could 
 make ufe of the foremeationed Demonftrations, or of the Reafoning 
 contaia'd in them, to [hew his Adverfary, that he could not poffibly 
 perceive, know, or prove, that there is any other but his pretended 
 One only material Subftance, in the whole Uaiverfe. 
 
 Oa the othtr Hand, any one duly qualified, may from that very 
 
 sceptical 
 
C 27 ) 
 
 Sceptical Hypothefiseftablilh'd and imBrovM (,„nt 
 ly Demonftrate, That it is abroluteirimDoffiM/f ''■;•'•■ ^^'""""cal.' 
 know, or prove, that there are not mo^^Tn?'' ''''"' '<> Perceive, 
 material Subftance in the World ; and that it l"\''r'T'",'''^ °"="^'' 
 for him toltnow what he fays, in any one fi .1 Z^"'''*' 'T'P''"''^^^ 
 ufe of, .0 eftablilb the Eterna Exillence of 1 '^"•'? ''' '"'''« 
 But no Body precifdy difcovetin- hat H>,L ^ '?^'"'''' Subftance. 
 Mr. L. the forementinned Reafo Fng could Z 1' 'h '"''"'"'''' "^ 
 made Bfe of on either fide. I fay /„.;aI k ' r°' ''"' ""' ^eea 
 valen-ly difcovered by the Learned ^It'of'"!!);' '" ''"" ^'l"*' 
 fee by the following and fuch-like ExprS,:^ ^^ ^ThatMrr^-' 
 ' j£^oy^,n or Do::h,/,.l, whether Ar««,,mav not th„l ,„! j ' " 
 ' that he is not «.,<,,„, or does not hTL^h. I' '°."'^"'egree, 
 ' ahov, Mmur and A/«,^,Jo the World a ,H T / "' !' ' '^'■'"">'' 
 ' ,icn may be nothing but the effXso an cxalted"?'^"'"''^ "'1 *'"''''-• 
 ' of diforder'd ImagLtions, as ^'t^affim'd l"'*^' °"''^""» 
 This, and the like frequent Acculation in thofe'rt » ^•'"'-- '5'- 
 of that Learned Prelate, are Equiva leic rVhif k '"' '^""^^'^ ""' 
 .fie Hypc.he„s of One 'only mIterM S Cce ^^^["^ ";; ^.-"h 
 nianagmg that Controvtrly hioder'd th^V rh' J*"' '^'^•/-s Skill m' 
 Subftanc? has not been .hefei„p,eul'lllmedI„''H ''''"? "^ ^"^ 
 e'Uher'^^f ""^"'"^^ in thofe De„L.,o'^,o^rht' -? ,- ^'d^'/n 
 
 But what I could not meet with in th*. r^.,f /- 
 
 and aga,.ft Mr. A. himfdf.ri'in't'L^r I^^ ^d' TL^'^ "^^Z 
 
 Mr.I'sDoarine: The Two UtteTs , t ?L' , ."' '" ^'^'"'^ °f 
 Mr. Brou^hon in h,s P/k^.w' and A Z^"''''' f "ff""' "hat 
 J,.al .rJ-U have alTertei in o^rd'er to'p'r "eThe'w 'Lf/"^ "' f' 
 red Imma,r,;ul, from a r«/ .W«..,W iirflf, 1, „ ^'f^','''"" °^ » 
 tarneftly eftablilhes5,;,,««>s Hypcthefis in U^ / . "*; '''"">' ^"'' 
 gon. lam fure Mr! iV».™Vlfert'arV,hatri»h,"'"i'l '"'"'' J"" 
 r,r« ^#rm ^,y?„ff W,.., of the foremen ic.M I' J*"" "''■"=• 
 if I miftake not, Mr. fiW .6,L Jaci eT t^-t V^^ ""^ 
 
 .fS.bfi.ncc However, he alFerts, according to riehtTeafon rf 
 
 Frof ernes oj One and the fan:e Snhfi.J Pfycfo n ,. tw' 
 
 the Author of the Letters, endeavours everv where rn ?' f ' ^^"' 
 
 n,ayfeebythefol,owiogPaflage, whicrrcL^ofroVt^r;' Ts^ 
 
 garding my prefent De/ign. "luuy, as re- 
 
 ' Now ih^Natun of 5/./:/?^;;r. being acknowkdg'd by W.Bro^gh . 
 
(82) 
 
 * ton to be unhVDn to us, it is plain, even to Lemonflration ; that it is 
 
 * »of pojfible we ftiouM be able to determine, whether it ij, or is nofi capable 
 
 * of both Properties ^ and it appears ftrange, or rather pleafant, that 
 
 * One who acknowledges Subftance is an unknown Nature, fliould 
 
 * take pains to prove that two Properties, and particularly by a pre- 
 
 * tended comparing them two together, cannot be both together the 
 ' Properties of fJe does not I know what : Or that the fame Subftance 
 
 * is not capable of Cogitation and Exten/ion of the Nature and Capa- 
 ' cities of which Subftance he acknowledges, that himfelf and all 
 
 * Men are perfeflly Ignorant. /*. 140. 
 
 The Reafoning. in this Paflage, made ufe of by Mr. Vs Scholar, to 
 maintain his Dodrine, efpeciaUy of One only material Subftance, con- 
 firms, feveral things laid in the Remarks^ as Firft, That Mt.L. defign- 
 edly eftablifh'd and improv'd this Sceptical Hypothefis, viz,. Subftance 
 is an unknown Nature, or a fuppofed Something, we know not what, whereof 
 we neither have^ nor can have any Idea at allt, to deprive us of all poffible 
 Means, either of perceiving, knowing, or proving, that there is any 
 other real Subftance in the World, but his pretended One only ma^ 
 terial Subftance, Remarks, p 39. Secondly, That it is impolfible for 
 Mr. C. to prove the Exiftence of God, againft S^inoz.a, or any other 
 Atheift, even according to the Author of thofe Letters, his own dear 
 Fellow-Scholar. 'Tis the firft Charge made out againft him in the 
 Remarks. Thirdly, That he, with his Mafter, has eftablifh'd that 
 Sceptical Hypothefis, to give Defence to their Hypothefis of One on- 
 ly material Subftance, &c. 
 
 Now the Author of the Remarks pufhes and finks thofe Men into the 
 very Pit they have dug for to ketch the Unwary. He attacks them 
 in their own Way, and beats them with their own Weapons. The 
 Demonftrations in the Remark^ Geometrically make out, that it isab- 
 folutely impoflible for Mr. C to prove the Exiftence of the One only 
 True God, againft Spinoza^ or any other Atheift whatever. Turn 
 them on the other fide, and they will Geometrically prove, that it is 
 likewife abfolutely impoflible for him, or for thofe other few Men of 
 one Subftance with Spinoza, to make out to theaifelves, or to prove 
 the Exiftence of their God, of their pretended One only Eternal ma- 
 terial Subftance, agaiifft any Orthodox or Reaf^nable Man what- 
 ever. For it is abfolutely impolfible for them, either to perceive or 
 prove, to knciv., or to hz certain of the Eternal Exiftence of their pre- 
 tended material Subftance, without knowing, or being certain, or 
 without perceiving and proving a Conftant, ri/ible. Immutable, Necef- 
 fary Connexion or Jgreeihent, betwixt the Ideas of Infinite Knowledge, 
 Peiception, Thinking, Omnipotency, &c. and the Idea of their pre- 
 teuaed Eternal Material Sabftantce on the one Hand. And on the other 
 
 Hand 
 
C^9) 
 
 Hand, a Conl^ant, Vifibte, Immutable, Nfeceflary Hepitgtiancy or Dif- 
 agreement^ betwixt the Ideas of thofe Attributes, and an Eternal Im- 
 material Subflance, an Eternal Spirit, to wliith they have been al- 
 ways afcrib'd by Chriftian Philorophers and Divines, and the know- 
 ing part of Mankind, to fay no more. 
 
 Now thofe Demonftrations unanfwerably prove, That is abfolutcly 
 impolTible for them, either mediately or immediately^ cither by /w- 
 tuitiort or Den.orjfiration ^ to pcrccive or prove, to know cr to be cer- 
 tain of that Comsxion or yigreement, Kepupiafuy or Difngreenjem on 
 either fide. That it is abfolutely impoflible for them to advance one 
 fingle ftep, one jot, with Evidence, Ctitainty, Kaowledge or Rea- 
 fon, to eltablifh the Exiftencc of their pretended Eternal, Material 
 Subftance, and to deftroy the ExiIIe.«ce oi: an Eternal Immaterial 
 Subflance, of an Eternal Spirit. That the uirAofb extent of their 
 Doftriae upon this Subjed, amounts barely t^ perk^Sceptidfm. That 
 in refcjencc to thofe Matters, they reduce thcmielves to the mofl: ab- 
 folnte and incurable State of Sce^tic'fm, that Humane Underftanding 
 can be confider'd in, or reduced to, which is the Second General 
 Head made out againfl: Mr. C. in the Remarks, and which is plainly 
 exprefled in the Paflage before us, in thefe Words : Now the Nature 
 of Snbjiarice beitig imlinown to ns, it is plain even to Demon(iration^ that it 
 is tm poffible rve fliould he able to dftermine^ whether it is^ or is not capable 
 ofbeth Properties, i.e. of Thinking, and of Extenfion ; That is, that 
 it is abfolutely impoffiblefor us to know, or to be certain, that there 
 is any other Subftance in the World, but thofe Men's pretended One 
 only Eternal Material Subftance, &c. 
 
 Since therefore thole Dejnon(irations turn their own Sceptical Hy- 
 pothefis into an unfwerable Proof againft thofe Men of one Subftance 
 with SpinoT^a ^ fince they fix them in a contemptible Scepticifm^ and 
 that it was upon the Account of that very Hypothefis, that the Great 
 and Learned B. of W. charged Mr. L. with Scepticifm j I think it would 
 become thofe Men, who have in fome meafuredifproved them, cither 
 to fufpend their Judgment concerning them, or to become better ac- 
 quainted with them. Befides, they underftand them, or they do not. 
 If not, they ought not to approve, or difprove them. If they do, 
 they perceive that they are either True or Falfe, If the former, they 
 ought to confefs it. If the latter, I befeech them to fhew it. None 
 of them dares to fet them before his Reader, as they are in the Re- 
 tnarh, and undertake to confute them, leaft he fhould with Mr. C. in 
 his attempt that way, fhew bimfelf to be Sauco-Tanca in Migmature^ 
 or fucceed as Mr. De La Bmyeres famous Magijlrate did. Indeed they 
 are the beft Arguments that have been made againft our Modern S|y?tf- 
 matical Atheifis pretending to Reafon, and to the ftricl Rules of Ar- 
 • gumenutioa, 
 
( 3° ) 
 
 gumentation, without having any Right to do fo. And I crave Jeave 
 to know, that Humane Underftanding, whilft in the State wherein 
 tis now, (hall never be able to prove any of them Falfei tht>' thev 
 Geometrically make out, that thofe Pretenders, are but Bare Fnre 
 Meer Contemptible Scepticks ^s to the Subjea before US. So michfor 
 the firft part of Mr. c's Charge, which has been, indeed by dint of 
 Impudence, forc'd from the Author of the Remarks. 
 
 Before I come to tiie lecond part of that Charge, I rauft acquaint 
 you, that Mr. C in his Sermons, Pag. 37. has thefe wordi. ' Hence 
 we may obferve. That cur firft Certainty of the Exiftence of God, 
 arif€s not from this, that in the Idea we frame of him in our own 
 Minds, or rather tn the Defaiticn we make of the word God, as figni- 
 fying a Being of all poffible Perfedions, we include Silf^ExiftLe 
 
 Az' ^^'' , . Z^?"^^.^,^" calls that i).M/./^, Pag. 38. a Nominal Idea 
 or JSlotton which he hkewife frames in his own Mind. Now I took the 
 Terms in the firft Period to llgnify, that \^^ frames the Idea of God, not 
 only in his Mtnd h^^r. alfo (or ratherj in the Be^nitionoi the word 
 Cod, And becaufe he makes the words Nominal idea, to fignifie the 
 fame thing with Dcfimtion; I acquainted him, that there is no fuch 
 thing as a Nominal Idea, and that it was impolfible for him to frame 
 an Idea in a Real, much lels in a Nominal Idea, except he had the Fa^ 
 cultiesof Sanco-Panca, who could fee Ditlcinea by hear-fay i c a 
 Lady in her Name, or in an articulate So»nd, and that too by his £^r/, 
 
 ■T X^jf l^'j ^''■f"^^^. ^^ ^^^^g^s me in his Preface, P^?, 10 
 with a Chddf Vnderfiandtng of the Syntax of that Sentence, and with re^ 
 ferring the Particle Or, to a wrong Member of the Period. But I 
 
 Challenge him or any body to make Senfe of that Period, and then to refer the Par- 
 tjcle Or, to a.y th.ng buc u hat I refer'd it to. Indeed, tho' I lufpeVcTd fome 1 in^ 
 the matter, by confider.ng Mr. C's Sermons, yet Iwas no. a,re that he etS to 
 have .Unco-Fuma^ Faculties, till I read this Preface to his fecond Volume. Tit Fa. 
 cukies ot tliat Famous Sg«/V. enabled him to fee DuJcinea in her NamJ^^ln an aVticn 
 late5.«.^; wherem (he neither was, nor could be ; and wherdn i fhe ei Lr was 
 or could be^ he neither did, nor could/e. her, becaufe he neither L nor cnnlHri' 
 a sound. Th,s Author's FacuHi.s enable him'to /.. and nTzlfce^^^^^^ 
 ierence of the £#«.e> ot things. We mult therefore own, that he has exaaiv rhe 
 very fame idculues which Samo-Fauco had. "idLiic udb exactly me 
 
 Andtobefure, thole are the J^.ft/r/« which enabled him to Charge me with f^ 
 rrho^tSs'hfr'^' ^^^«-/^.«ey?.., ace. He/.., and^e^^hTdi^ n^fco^U 
 
 i^ftt/j/^y. Tending in, and imploy'd hy a modificatio}7, even of one Suhflance with 
 Spm^a. I was never io charg'd before. Thofe Mean and Unmanly Vi es ar^ n 
 deed contrary to any Natural Temper. Setting RehVinn a r.lr .n,i !i? ' u 
 other 1 rinci^e, I Luid not be guflty of.n "f t^em.^'T cou d' ot only'S!;? '/ Z 
 even prove Mr. C. guilty ot what he charges me with. For L rrXeprS^' mv 
 iVords or Senj. or Both every where. But 'ds enough to ha ve proved thfh^ S^r^ 
 
 TeifJ 'Befide'f "The T^' r^r'"-^"""'^ ^^ ^<"4' -^^J » Sp not'/'J: 
 
 mi/jn. Be Ides, The Truth I maintain requires no fucii Defence. The God I ado^ 
 
 tne Revelation I believe, the Religion 1 p^ofefs, forbid it, i he Ood 1 adore. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
■'^H;^' 
 
 
 ^-M 
 
 ^