upon Philosophick Principles, and yet should let the Foundatijes action alone upon which it rests; and more yer, that one of my lo Citt's Adverlaries should in the Title Page of his Book (the only place Hie corent where some Authors Confute close they write against) pretend threat to answer all the Arguments, &c. and yer noe meddle with the Bjies and Philosophical, which is the chief part of the Discourse. But ’tis Dur Belt New Philosophy, and that he does not care to trouble his Head of chals with, but likes the Company of his Systematical Divines berche Tomb ter; whose Appretiative, Comparative and Intensive, (whatever my we may Thoughts may be of them in other respects) I no more envy Naturte him than he does me the French. Poets and Divines.

But though our Learned Author thus ftarts and boggles at vile esigen New Philofophy, yet he has the Courage to venture boldly and mai cung hardi'y upon New Logick, whereof he has given us a very prego ponti nant Instance, and such as is not to be parallel'd in the whole Art ich Die of Thinking. Had Mr. N. p. 96. says he, when he said there are disebut two forts of Love, that of Desire and Benevolence, consider'd that ainda this Love of Desire may be branched into Religious and Natural Dee deti fires, Desire of things Spiritual and Temporal, of things good for the osch Body and for the Soul, of things to be used here, and to be enjoyed habis here and hereafter, of things as necessary for our being and cur well

of was being, of things to be desired for their own and for Gods Jake, he would
halise have discerned as great a difference betwixt one Love of Desire and as
urie nother, as betwixt Love of Desire and of Benevolence. As much as
ce to say, had Mr. N. when he said there were but two forts of

Lines, Strait and Crooked, consider that Crooked might be
branched into a Circle, an Ellipsis, a Parabola, &c. he would have
discern'd as grear a difference between this Crooked and that
Crooked, as between Crooked and Strait. Well said Logician :
What do things that differe genere, the Co-ordinaie Members
of a Division, differ no more than things that differ only Spea
cie ? Do a Strait Line and a Crooked Line difier no more than
a Circle and an Ellipsis ? This 'cis to think freely, and to leave
the Company of the Systematical Men. Not that I would indi-
nuate hereby that our Author does not underliand Logick. On
the contrary, I verily believe he does. But as the Best Men
have their Failings, in the Wiselt have their Oversights and
Blunders. And all the ule I would make of this is only 10 ad-
vise him not to be too secure of his Underitanding, which by
this he may see is lyable to Confusion and Miliake as well as

other Mens, and to look better to his hits the next time.
DAP But to return, having thus ftared and explained my Sense, I

leave it to the Rational part of the World to consider whether
iny Learned Adversaries have Confused me, or so much as op-
poled me or no. In the mean time, I shall cake che liberty to
conclude that they have not, and accordingly ihall not think my

where's

felf any further concern'd with them at present, than to grant
them the main Conclusion they contend for, as being aliene
from the Business, and unterly befide the Point in Queition. I
was inclining once to have made some Remarks upon the par-
ticular Arguments, together with other incidental Passages thar .
sun through the Bulk of their Discourses, but a Kind and In-
genious Hand has saved me thar Pains in relation to Mr. L-
and as to the other, I consider that there needs only a particular
Application of that general Ground I have laid, which may
ferve as a Key to unlock his Difficulties and Objections, which
run upon a mistaken Sense of my Meaning, and Light with all
their Weight (whenever they have any) upon a Proposition that
is nor mine. And indeed I think I have taken the only proper
Method to answer a Book thar is written as his is. For when
the whole runs upon a falle Ground, to have taken him Piece-
meals, Paragraph by Paragraph, and co have coalider'd every
fingle Objection distinctly, by thewing that such a thing is true
in this Senle, which is not to the purpose, bur not true
in that Sense which only is fu, would have been a thing fome-
what tedious and Troublesome to me (who have neither Time
mor Health to spare) and not very delightfome to mỳ Reader,
who also need not find the wanit of it, if taking the general
Ground I have laid along with him, he makes a particular Ap-
plication of it as he goes. Upon which Consideration I hall
concern my self no further at this time : And let nor any fo fæc
prejudge my Answer as to think it lefs Just and Perfect because
lo Short; for as short as it is, 'will be found as long as the Ob-
jection; and if I do not answer more largely, 'cis becaule my
Adverfaries have nor opposed me Perrinently; which is also the
Reason why I did not Reply to Dr. W.-by's Private Papers.
A Fencer that fees bis Adversaries Pass verywide of hiin,and run-
ning quite beside him need not be very follicitous of his Defence,
nor ule a great deal of Guard; but when he finds him to {trike di:
rectly at him he is concern'd toward off the blow as well as he
can. And so Mall 1;and doubt not but byGod's Aflistance to be able
to do it. And they may begin the Experiment affoon as they please.

In the mean time, may the good Spirit of God thine forth upon all our Minds with his 'Heavenly Light, and assist our weak Underitandings in the Study and Contemplation of all that Truth which it concerns us to know; and allo by bis Di. vine Grace so dispose our Wills to all Charity and Brotherly Love, that whether we find and consent in the Truth or no, we may yet continue well-affected to each other, and may study to preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace, and in Righteousness of Life. Which Things I value more highly, and am, I hope, more heartily concern'd for, than for any Hypothesis in the World.