difficulties set forth in my Defence of Free-Thinking, for instance, in sect. xxxvi. Wherein I entreat my antagonist to explain "whether Sir Isaac's moméntum be a finite quantity or an infinitesimal or a mere limit, adding, if you say a finite quantity, be pleased to reconcile this with what he saith in the scholium of the second lemma of the first section of the first book of his Principles : "Cave intelligas quantitates magnitudine determinatas, sed cogita semper diminuendas sine limite.' If you say, an infinitesimal; reconcile this with what is said in his introduction to the Quadratures: 'Volui ostendere quod in methodo fluxionum non opus sit figuras infinite parvas in geometriam inducere.' If you should say, it is a mere li mit, be pleased to reconcile this with what we find in the first case of the second lemma in the second book of his Principles: Ubi de lateribus A et B deerant momentorum dimidia,' &c, where the moments are supposed to be divided." I shall scarce think it worth my while to bestow a serious thought on any writer who shall pretend to maintain Sir Isaac's doctrine, and yet leave this passage without a reply. And the reader, I believe, will think with me that, in answer to difficulties distinctly proposed and insisted on, to offer nothing but a magisterial assertion is a mere grimace of one who made merry with fluxions, under the notion of defending them. And he will be farther confirmed in this way of thinking, when he observes that Mr. Walton hath not said one syllable in reply to those several sections of my Defence, which I had particularly referred to, as containing a full answer to his Vindication. But it is no wonder if, with Sir Isaac's doctrine, he should drop also his own arguments in favour thereof. XXI. I have been at the pains once for all to write this short comment on Mr. Walton, as the only way I could think of for making him intelligible, which will also serve as a key to his future writings on this subject. And I was the rather inclined to take this trouble, because it seemeth to me, there is no part of learning that wants to be cleared up more than this same doctrine of fluxions, which hath hitherto walked about in a mist to the stupefaction of the literari of the present age. To conclude, I accept this professor's recantation, nor am at all displeased at the ingenious method he takes to disguise it. Some zealous fluxionists may perhaps answer him. AN ESSAY, &c. WHETHER the prosperity that preceded, or the calamities that succeed the South-sea project have most contributed to our undoing, is not so clear a point as it is that we are actually undone, and lost to all sense of our true interest; nothing less than this could render it pardonable, to have recourse to those old-fashioned trite maxims concerning religion, industry, frugality, and public spirit, which are now forgotten, but if revived and put in practice, may not only prevent our final ruin, but also render us a more happy and flourishing people than ever. Religion hath in former days been cherished and reverenced by wise patriots and lawgivers, as knowing it to be impossible that a nation should thrive and flourish without virtue, or that virtue should subsist without conscience, or conscience without religion: insomuch that an atheist or infidel was looked on with abhorrence, and treated as an enemy to his country. But in these wiser times, a cold indifference for the national religion, and indeed for all matters of faith and Divine worship, is thought good sense. It is even become fashionable to decry religion; and that little talent of ridicule is applied to such wrong purposes, that a good Christian can hardly keep himself in countenance. Liberty is the greatest human blessing that a virtu ous man can possess, and is very consistent with the duties of a good subject and a good Christian; but the present age aboundeth with injudicious patrons of liber |