with his Remembrance, than he with my Fact. For I am conscious that if once a full period is put to my Life, and the Scene of it ever become a perfect Blank, this Life can no more be restor'd to my Body, or the Scene of it really appear again, because it is rais'd an Human Body, than if it were rais'd the Body of a Beast, and enliven'd ; in which there might be all the Particles of my Body, and yet not I my self; and thus it is in the former case; there is nothing more of me, besides the Particles of my Body, the rest is all the Workmanship of God. Now I appeal to any Man, that does but understand what he properly means by himself, whether this is not the true State of the Case.

Estibius somewhere expresses a great veneration for Lucretius, insomuch that he thinks an Immaterial Substance too wild a Notion for him to have entertain'd. Lucretius, we know, declares for Man being wholly Mortal : but then he declares it with a little better Consistency than his Admirer: It was indeed too wild, as well as too religious a Notion, for hiin, that the

bly revive. No, he plainly faw, and boldly maintain'd the Consequence ; and therefore, taking Advantage, as is suppos'd of the Stoic's wdhirgfusoia, which is the very


same Notion Estibius lias grafted on the
Christian Religion, he has these remark-
able Lines.
Nec, si materian noftram conlegerit ætas,
Poft obitum, rursumque redegerit, De rerum
ut fita nunc eft ;

Natura Lib. 3.
Atque iterum Nobis fuerint data

Lumina vita,
Pertineat quicquam tamen ad nos id quoque

Interrupta femel cum fit retinentia Nostri.


Qui fuimus ; nec jam de illis nos afficit angor,
Quos de materia nostra nova proferat Ætas.

English'd by Mr. Creech,

Nay, grant the scatter'd Ashes of our Vrn
Be joyn'd again, and Life and Sense return;
Yet how can that concern Us, whentis done,
Since all the Memory of past Life is gone?
Now we ne'er joy, nor grieve, to think what

we .
Were heretofore, nor what thofe things will's

be, Which fram'd from Us, the following Age)

shall see.

Now if the same Person that reads Second Thoughts, shou'd read Lucretius too, as



'tis not improbable he may, and is convinc'd by the former, I am very apt to think he will clap together Estibius's Principle, and Lucretius's Consequence ; for a Man is not setled till Principles and Consequences agree, and his Notions lie quiet, and consistently in his Mind; but we fee Lucretius is not willing, and I am confident Esibius is not able to part these two.

And now I need not dwell upon the horrid Consequences, that attend this Notion, when made Christian. It makes God create, in the future State, finners as such; who receive their polluted Souls immediately from his pure Hands; and having once taken away their Being, according to this Doctrine, he creates them on purpofe to be miserable. And therefore once more I call upon Estibius, either to quit the Premisses, or stand by the Conclusion; and I hope he will deal fairly, in this important Controversy, with himself and the World; for it is a Subject, upon which so long as he is free to publish his Thoughts, he cannot expect to keep secret his Defign.




CECT. I. Some Terms intended to be us'd exe
D plain'd. p. I. viz. Substance, p. 2. Attribute,
ibid. Property, ibid. Mode, p. 3. H. Soul, ¡bid.
Idea, ibid.

SECT. II. What sort of Proof is to be expect-

ed, and insisted upon, p. 4. ist, Not Sensible, p. 5.

2dly, Not Mathematical, or Geometrical, ibid.

3dly, Not such as will leave no Hesitation or Scru-

ple with most Readers, ibid. And yet may be valid

and conclusive. p. 6. 4thly, The Proof upon this

Subje& must proceed inthe Analytic Method, with

the validity of that Method, ibid. 5thly, Tho' it

does not lead to a full comprehension of the Cause,

yet it fully concludes for ihe Existence of it, p. 7.

Lastly, The Necesity of recurring to a Principle

for the Solution of some Phænominon, in what

Cafe a good Establishment of that Principle.

SECT. III. Of Immaterial Substance in ge-

neral. ift, Substance provd to be as self-evident
as any other simple Idea, and a real Principle
not withstanding Mr. L's deriding it, p. 8. Acknow-

ledgd by Spinoza, p. 9. How we may be said io
know jomeibing of Substance, ibid. That a Dif
ference in accidents inferrs a Difference in their

« VorigeDoorgaan »