## 1. THE
CATECHISM, *&c.*

[Page]
I. IN the Appendix of the *Defence
of Free-thinking in
Mathematics,* the Author,
out of his greatly benevolent
and truly Chriſtian Spirit, has compoſed
a CATECHISM which he recommends
to my Scholars: This CATECHISM with
its Introduction I ſhall tranſcribe in his
own Words, and fully and diſtinctly anſwer
the ſeveral Queſtions contained
therein.

### 1.1. The INTRODUCTION.

II. "THIS Vindicator, indeed, by
his diſſembling nine Parts
in ten of the Difficulties propoſed in the
[Page 4]
*Analyſt,* ſheweth no Inclination to be
CATECHISED by me. But his Scholars
have a Right to be informed. I therefore,
recommend it to them, not to be
impoſed on by hard Words and magiſterial
Aſſertions, but carefully to pry
into his Senſe, and ſiſt his Meaning,
and particularly to inſiſt on a diſtinct
Anſwer to the following Queſtions."

### 1.2. The CATECHISM.

"LET them ask him, whether he
can conceive Velocity without
Motion, or Motion without Extenſion,
or Extenſion without Magnitude? If
he anſwers that he can, let him teach
them to do the ſame. If he cannot,
let him be asked, how he reconciles
the Idea of a Fluxion which he gives
(P. 13.) with common Senſe? Again,
let him be asked, whether nothing be
not the Product of nothing multiply'd
by ſomething? And if ſo, when the
Difference between the Gnomon and
the Sum of the Rectangles vaniſheth,
[Page 5]
whether the Rectangles themſelves do
not alſo vaniſh? that is, when *ab* is
nothing, whether A*b* + B*a* be not alſo
nothing? that is, whether the Momentum
of AB be not nothing? Let him
then be asked, what his Momentums
are good for, when they are thus brought
to nothing? Again, I wiſh he were
asked to explain the Difference between
a Magnitude infinitely ſmall and
a Magnitude infinitely diminiſh'd? If
he faith there is no Difference, then
let him be asked, how he DARES to
explain the Method of Fluxions by the
*Ratio* of Magnitudes infinitely diminiſh'd
(P.9.) when Sir *Iſaac Newton*
hath expreſly excluded all Conſideration
of Quantities infinitely ſmall? If
this able Vindicator ſhould ſay that
Quantities infinitely diminiſh'd are nothing
at all, and conſequently that,
according to him, the firſt and laſt
*Ratios* are Proportions between nothings,
let him be deſired to make
Senſe of this or explain what he means
by '*Proportion between nothings.* If
he ſhould ſay the ultimate Proportions
[Page 6]
are the Ratios of mere Limits, then
let him be asked how the Limits of
Lines can be proportioned or divided?
After all, who knows but this Gentleman,
who hath already complained of
me for an uncommon Way of treating
Mathematics and Mathematicians, may
(as well as the *Cantabrigian*) cry out
*Spain* and the *Inquiſition* when he
finds himſelf thus cloſely purſued and
beſet with Interrogatories? That we
may not therefore ſeem too hard on an
innocent Man, who probably meant
nothing, but was betray'd by following
another into Difficulties and Straits that
he was not aware of, I ſhall propoſe
one ſingle Expedient, by which his
Diſciples (whom it moſt concerns) may
ſoon ſatisfy themſelves, whether this
Vindicator really underſtands what he
takes upon him to vindicate. It is in
ſhort, that they would ask him to explain
the ſecond, third or fourth Fluxions
upon his Principles. Be this the
Touchſtone of his Vindication. If he
can do it, I ſhall own my ſelf much
miſtaken: If he cannot, it will be evident
[Page 7]
that he was much miſtaken in
himſelf, when he preſumed to defend
Fluxions without ſo much as knowing
what they are. So having put the Merits
of the Cauſe on this Iſſue, I leave
him to be tried by his Scholars."

III. In this CATECHISM I am firſt
to be: asked, "Whether I can conceive
Velocity without Motion, or Motion
without Extenſion, or Extenſion without
Magnitude?" Theſe Queſtions are
more clearly expreſs'd in the 29th and
30th Queries of his *Analyſt,* where he asks,
"Whether we can form an Idea or Notion
of Velocity diſtinct from and excluſive
of its Meaſures? Whether Motion can
be conceived in a Point of Space? And
if Motion cannot, whether Velocity
can? And if not, whether a firſt or laſt
Velocity can be conceived in a mere Limit,
either initial or final, of the deſcribed
Space?" I anſwer, I can conceive
Velocity and Motion in a *Point of Space*;
that is without any aſſignable Length or
Extenſion deſcribed by it, and ſo might
he too if he had underſtood and conſider'd
[Page 8]
the Nature of Motion. For Motion
is an Effect of ſome Cauſe acting on
the Thing moved; which Effect ſetting
aſide all Reſiſtance, will ever be proportional
to the whole Action of the generating
Cauſe: And therefore if a Cauſe
acts continually upon a given Thing without
any Interruption, there muſt be a continual
Increaſe of its Velocity. The Velocity
cannot be the ſame in any two
different Points of the Space deſcribed,
however near thoſe Points may be to
each other. For if it was, there muſt: be
a Ceſſation of the Action of the moving
Cauſe during the Paſſage of the Thing
thro' the Space comprehended between
the two Points; which is contrary to
the Suppoſition.

If the Cauſe acts continually upon the
moving Point, but with different Degrees
of Strength during the Time of the Motion;
the Velocity will not increaſe with
the Time, nor with the Square Root of the
[Page 10]
Space deſcribed; but will ſtill increaſe
from the Beginning to the End of the
Motion, and not be the ſame in any two
different Points of the Space deſcribed,
however near to each other. Let the
Velocity increaſe with the *n* Power of
the Time, that is, let V be as T^{
n
}; and
then V will be as [...] or as
[...], putting S for the Space deſcrib'd:
Whence it appears that the Velocity will
not be the ſame in any two different
Points of the Space deſcribed: For it muſt
vary upon the leaſt Change of the Space
S, and conſequently be different in every
different Point of AD; which ſhews that
this Author has been greatly miſtaken in
imagining that there can be no Motion,
no Velocity, in a Point of Space.

IV. The next Queſtions in the CATECHISM,
depending upon each other,
run thus. "Let him be asked, whether
nothing be not the Product of nothing
multiply'd by ſomething? And if ſo,
when the Difference between the Gnomon
[Page 11]
and Sum of the two Rectangles
vaniſheth, whether the Rectangles
themſelves do not alſo vaniſh? that is
when *a b* is nothing, whether A*b* + B*a*
be not alſo nothing? that is, whether
the Momentum of AB be not nothing?
And let him be asked what his Momentums
are good for when thus they
are reduced to nothing?" As to the
firſt of theſe Queſtions I agree with him
that nothing is the Product of nothing
multiply'd by ſomething; but muſt know
what he means by the vaniſhing of
the Gnomon and Sum of the two
Rectangles in the ſecond, before I give
him a direct Anſwer. If by vaniſhing he
means that they vaniſh and become nothing
as Areas, I grant they do; but abſolutely
deny, upon ſuch an Evaneſcence
of the Gnomon and Sum of the two Rectangles
by the moving back of the Sides
of the Gnomon till they come to coincide
with thoſe of the Rectangle, that
nothing remains. For there ſtill remain
the moving Sides, which are now become
the Sides of the Rectangle; into which
Sides both the Gnomon and the Sum of
[Page 12]
the two Rectangles are now turned by
this retroverted Motion. And as the Gnomon
and Sum of the two Rectangles, upon
the Evaneſcence of their Areas by
this retroverted Motion, are both converted
into the two Sides of the Rectangle
AB, ſo in the Inſtant of that Converſion,
their Motions are exactly the
ſame; or the Motion of the Gnomon is
the ſame with the Sum of the Motions of
the two Rectangles, when they evaneſce,
and are converted into the two Sides of
the Rectangle AB.

If a Point moves forward to generate
a Line, and afterwards the ſame Point
moves back again to deſtroy the Line
with the very ſame Degrees of Velocity,
in all Parts of the Line which it had in
thoſe Parts when moving forward to generate
it; in the Inſtant the Line vaniſhes
as a Length, nothing of a Line will remain;
but ſtill the generating Point will
remain, together with the Velocity it had
at the very Beginning of its Motion. And
the Caſe is the very ſame with reſpect to
a Rectangle increaſing by the Motion of
[Page 13]
its Sides: For upon the Evaneſcence of
a generated Gnomon, there ſtill remain
the Sides of the Rectangle into which the
Gnomon by its Evaneſcence is converted,
together with the Velocities of thoſe
Sides that is, when the Gnomon evaneſces
there ſtill remains A*b* + B*a.*

*a*and

*b*for the Velocities in D towards F and H, and

*p*for a Point; it will be equal to A

*b*+ B

*a*+

*ap*+

*bp*: Let it be ſo, and yet

*a*+

*b*×

*p*will be nothing when compared with A

*b*+ B

*a,*nor make the leaſt Augmentation to that Sum when added to it. For let

*a*be to

*b*as 3 to 2, and A

*b*+ B

*a*+

*ap*+

*bp*will be 2A + 3B + 5

*p*: But 5

*p*or five Points added to a Line, make nothing but the Line itſelf; a Point being no Part of a Line; and conſequently not in the leaſt increaſing its Length when added to it: And therefore the Motion of the Gnomon when it evaneſces and [Page 16] turns into the Sides of the Rectangle CDK, will be A

*b*+ B

*a,*as Sir

*Iſaac Newton*makes it.

*b*for the Velocity towards C,

*a*for the Velocity towards H [Page 17] and

*p*for a Point, will be BD×

*b*+

*ap.*Now ſuppoſe the Ordinate EF to move back to BD, and the Point F to move back in the Line HE to C, and that in moving back they have the ſame Degrees of Velocity in every Point of EB and EH, which they had before in moving forward; it is manifeſt, that when the Augment BDFE vaniſhes and becomes nothing as an Area, by being converted into the Ordinate BD, and into a Point at the Extremity of that Ordinate; there will remain BD and the Point in D, together with their Velocities in that Point; for the Motions of that Line and Point, are not deſtroy'd by the Evaneſcence of the Area BDFE, In the Inſtant EF coincides with BD, and the Point F with D, the Area BDFE will be converted into BD +

*p,*and its Motion will become BD ×

*b*+

*pa,*as before. But

*pa,*being only ſo many Points as

*a*contains Units, is really and truly nothing with reſpect to BD ×

*b*; and conſequently does not at all increaſe it when added to it. And therefore the

*Fluxion*of the curvilineal Area ABD, will be BD ×

*b*; or as BD if

*b*[Page 18] be given, or the Line AH move down AG with a Velocity which is exactly the ſame in every Part of GA.

Hence it appears, that if mathematical
Quantities be increaſed in equal Times
by Motion, their iſochronal Increments
muſt be made to vaniſh by a Retroverſion
of the Motion, before we can obtain the
Motions with which they vaniſh, or begin
to be generated; that is, before we can
obtain the *Fluxions* of the Quantities,
the Name given by Sir *Iſaac Newton*
to thoſe Motions. So then, this Author
has been much out in ſuppoſing that upon
the Evaneſcence of the Gnomon CGK,
or of the curvilineal Figure BDFE, the
Momentum or *Fluxion* of the Rectangle
CDK, or of the Area ABD, vaniſhes.
Conſequently, he has been greatly miſtaken
in every one of theſe Queſtions.

V. But he goes on. "I wiſh he were
asked to explain the Difference between
a Magnitude infinitely ſmall and a Magnitude
infinitely diminiſhed. If he
ſaith there is no Difference: Then let
[Page 19]
him, be further asked, how he DARES
to explain the Method of Fluxions by
the *Ratio* of Magnitudes infinitely diminiſh'd,
when Sir *Iſaac Newton* hath
expreſly excluded all Conſideration of
Quantities infinitely ſmall? If this able
Vindicator ſhou'd ſay that Quantities
infinitely diminiſh'd are nothing at all,
and conſequently that, according to
him, the firſt and laſt *Ratios* are Proportions
between nothings, let him be
deſired to make Senſe of this, or explain
what he means by *Proportion
between nothings.* If he ſhou'd ſay
the ultimate Proportions are the *Ratios*
of mere Limits, then let him be asked
how the Limits of Lines can be proportioned
or divided?"

As all this Part of the CATECHISM
relates to the Meaſures of Fluxions by
the firſt and laſt *Ratios* of iſochronal
Increments generated and deſtroy'd by
Motion, ſo I have taken it together, and
ſhall anſwer the whole in one Section.

[Page 20]
Neither Sir *Iſaac Newton* nor I have
ſaid, that *Fluxions* are meaſured by the
Proportions of Magnitudes infinitely
ſmall, nor by the Proportions of any
Magnitudes whatever generated in equal
Times; but that *they are meaſured by
the firſt or laſt Proportions of iſochronal
Increments generated or deſtroy'd
by Motion*; which Proportions are the
*Ratios* with which ſuch Increments begin
to exiſt before they have acquired
any Magnitude, or with which they
ceaſe to exiſt and vaniſh after they have
loſt all Magnitude. Theſe *Ratios* ſubſiſt
when the iſochronal Increments have
no Magnitude, for as much as the Motions
ſubſiſt with which thoſe Increments,
*juſt now, in this very Inſtant,* begin
or ceaſe to exiſt; to which Motions
theſe *Ratios* are proportional.

*Ratio*of the Increments CD and EF generated in equal Times, has a real Exiſtence; for as much [Page 21] as it is equal to the

*Ratio*of the Motions in C and E, which are the Motions ſubſiſting in thoſe Points when the iſchronal Increments

*juſt*begin or ceaſe to exiſt. The Exiſtence of the Motions preſerves the Exiſtence of

*theſe Ratios*of the Increments CD and EF. If the

*Ratio*of the Motions in C and E, be that of 4 to 3; the firſt or laſt

*Ratio*of the iſochronal Increments CD and EF, will likewiſe be that of 4 to 3, even tho' no Part of thoſe Increments has any Exiſtence.

The Motions in C and E, are as the
moving Quantities and Velocities taken
together; or as two Points and their Velocities,
taken together; or as the Velocities,
all Points being equal. And the firſt
or laſt *Ratio* of the iſochronal Increments
CD and EF, is compounded of
the firſt or laſt *Ratio* of theſe Spaces,
and of the *Ratio* of the moving Quantities.
For the Velocities in C and E being
in the firſt or laſt *Ratios* of theſe
[Page 22]
iſochronal Spaces, the Motions, which are
as the moving Quantities and Velocities
taken together, will be as the ſame
moving Quantities and the firſt or
laſt *Ratio* of the iſochronal Spaces
taken together. If Q and *q* denote the
moving Quantities in C and E, V and *v*
their Velocities, S and *s* the iſochronal
Spaces CD and EF, and Ṡ and *ṡ* the firſt
or laſt *Ratio* of thoſe iſochronal Spaces;
then QV will be to *qv,* as QṠ to *qṡ*;
and in this caſe V will be to *v,* as Ṡ to *ṡ,*
becauſe Q and *q* are equal.

Again, the firſt or laſt *Ratio* of the
iſochronal Spaces FD and DH in the
augmented Rectangle EGL (See the *Figure*
in *Page* 14.) has a real Exiſtence;
for as much as it is equal to the *Ratio* of
the two Motions of two Points in D, of
one towards F, and the other towards H;
which Motions, ſubſiſting when the iſochronal
Spaces FD and DH are nothing,
preſerve the Exiſtence of the firſt or laſt
*Ratio* of theſe Spaces, or keep it from
being a *Ratio of nothings.* If V and *v,*
denote the Velocities in D towards F
[Page 23]
and H, Q and *q* the Sides of the Rectangle
DK and DC, and Ṡ and *ṡ* the firſt
or laſt *Ratio* of the iſochronal Spaces
FD and DH; then Q *v* will be to *q*V,
as Q*ṡ* to *q*Ṡ; but Q*v* + *q*V is the Fluxion
or Motion of the Rectangle CDK,
as I have ſhewn before; and therefore the
Moment or Meaſure of the Fluxion of the
Rectangle will be Q*ṡ* + *q*Ṡ. This is
a full and clear Anſwer to this Part of
the CATECHISM, and ſhews that its
Author has been greatly miſtaken in ſuppoſing
that I explained the Doctrine of
Fluxions by the *Ratio of Magnitudes
infinitely deminiſh'd,* or by *Proportions
between nothings.*

VI. I come now to the laſt Part of
the CATECHISM, which ſtands thus.
"I ſhall propoſe one ſingle Expedient,
by which his Diſciples (whom it moſt
concerns) may ſoon ſatisfy themſelves,
whether this Vindicator really underſtands
what he takes upon him to vindicate.
It is in ſhort, that they wou'd ask
him to explain the ſecond, third, or fourth
Fluxions upon his Principles. Be this
[Page 24]
the Touchſtone of his Vindication:
If he can do it, I ſhall own my ſelf
much miſtaken: If he cannot it will
be evident that he was much miſtaken
in himſelf, when he *preſumed* to deſend
Fluxions without ſo much as
knowing what they are. So having
put the Merits of the Cauſe on this
Iſſue, I leave him to be tried by his
Scholars."

I do not wonder that this Author ſhou'd
have no clear Ideas or Conceptions of
ſecond, third or fourth Fluxions, when
he has no clear Conceptions of the common
Principles of Motion, nor of the firſt
and laſt *Ratios* of the iſochronal Increments
of Quantities generated and deſtroy'd
by Motion. For Fluxions, according to Sir
*Iſaac Newton,* are the *Motions* with which
the iſochronal Increments of Quantities begin
or ceaſe to exiſt, or the Motions of the
generating Quantities in the very Limits
or Extremities of the *Fluents*: Thus
the Fluxions of Solids are the Motions of
Surfaces; the Fluxions of Surfaces, the
Motions of Lines; the Fluxions of Lines,
[Page 25]
the Motions of Points; and the Fluxions
of Points are nothing, for Points in their
own Nature are invariable, and therefore
incapable of being generated or increaſed
by Motion: And if the firſt Fluxions of
Quantities be Motions, it follows, that
the Mutations of theſe Motions and the
Mutations of thoſe Mutations, which
are the ſecond and third Fluxions of the
Quantities, muſt likewiſe be Motions.

Firſt, ſecond and third Fluxions do really
exiſt, and may be clearly and diſtinctly
conceiv'd by attending to the Motions
of the ſeveral Parts of a Cube, namely,
of its Surfaces of their Lines and Points,
in the Inſtant it begins to be increas'd by
Motion. For if A denotes the Side of a Cube
generated by an uniform Motion, whoſe
Velocity is expreſs'd by *a*; the firſt Fluxion
of the Cube, according to theſe Principles,
will be expreſſed by 3*a*A^{2}; its ſecond
Fluxion, which is the Fluxion of 3*a*A^{2}, will
be expreſſed by 6*a2*A, or by 6*a*A × *a*;
its third Fluxion, which is the firſt Fluxion
on of 6*a2*A, will be expreſs'd by 6*a3* or
by 6*a2* × *a*; and its fourth Fluxion will
[Page 26]
be nothing: But all theſe Fluxions or Motions
do exiſt, and may be clearly and
diſtinctly conceived in the Motion of a
Cube, at the very End of its Generation,
or at the very Beginning of its Augmentation,
by Motion; for it begins to be
augmented by the Sum of the Motions
of three of its Squares comprehending
any one of its ſolid Angles, each of which
Squares being denoted by A^{2} and their
Velocity outward by *a,* the Fluxion of
the Cube or the Motion with which it
begins to increaſe or to be enlarged, will
be 3*a*A^{2}; and this is the firſt Fluxion
of the Cube; and the three moving
Squares begin to be augmented, in the
very ſame Inſtant wherein the Cube begins
to enlarge, each by the Sum of the
Motions of its two adjoining Sides, and
conſequently the Motions of thoſe Sides
to augment the cubic Surface, will be
expreſs'd by 6*a*A, but that Surface at
the ſame Inſtant of Time moves outward
to augment the Solid with a Velocity
which is alſo denoted by *a,* and therefore
the whole Motion of the fix moving
Sides of the three Squares for increaſing
[Page 27]
or enlarging the Cube, will be expreſſed
by 6*a*A × *a* or by 6*a2*A; and this is the
ſecond Fluxion of the Cube; and when
the three moving Squares begin thus to
increaſe, ſideways and outwards, for the
Enlargement of the Cube, their ſix moving
Sides begin to be augmented by the
Motion of ſix Points; and the common
Velocity of thoſe Points in order to increaſe
the Sides of the Squares, being the
ſame with the Velocity of thoſe Sides to
increaſe the Cubic Surface, and with the
Velocity of that Surface to augment the
Solid; the whole Motion with which
thoſe Points begin to enlarge the Cube,
will be expreſs'd by 6*a3* or by 6*a3*
*p*; and
this is the third Fluxion of the Cube:
Theſe three Kinds of Motion do all neceſſarily
exiſt and may be clearly and
diſtinctly conceived in the Syſtem of
Motion whereby a Cube begins to be
augmented: And therefore the firſt, ſecond
and third Fluxions of Quantities
may be diſtinctly conceived, and fully explained
upon the Principles of Sir *Iſaac
Newton.*

[Page 28]
As firſt, ſecond and third Fluxions are
explained by the ſeveral Motions neceſſarily
exiſting in the very Inſtant a Cube
begins to be augmented, ſo they may likewiſe
be explain'd and distinctly comprehended,
by conſidering the naſcent or
evaneſcent Increments of the ſeveral Parts
of a Cube, generated by Motion; provided
always that by naſcent or evaneſcent
Increments be underſtood not generated
Increments of any Magnitude whatever,
but only ſuch Quantities or Magnitudes
as are proportional to and Conſequently
Meaſures of the Motions with
which thoſe iſochronal Increments begin
or ceaſe to exiſt. For if *a,* which before
denoted Velocity, be now put for the
firſt or laſt Ratio of the Space deſcribed
by that Velocity in a given Time; 3*a*A^{2}
will denote the naſcent Increment of the
Cube generated by the Motion of three
of its Squares comprehending any one of
its ſolid Angles; and 6*a*A will expreſs the
Sum of the naſcent Increments of the
three moving Squares, which Sum multiply'd
into *a* will be the Increment of
the naſcent Solid 3*a*A^{2}; conſequently
[Page 29]
6*a2*A will be the ſecond naſcent Increment
of the Cube; and the naſcent Increment
of 6A*a,* or of ſix Rectangles
each denoted by A*a,* will be 6*a2*, which
multiply'd into *a* gives 6*a3* for the naſcent
Increment of 6*a2*A, and therefore 6*a3* is
the third naſcent Increment of the Cube:
All this may be clearly conceiv'd and
made evident to Senſe by the *Figure*
in *Page* 14. For let CDK repreſent one
of the three moving Squares comprehending
any of the ſolid Angles of a
Cube increaſing by Motion, and then
three times CDK multiply'd into *a,* or
3*a*A^{2}, will expound the firſt naſcent Increment
of the Cube; and 3FC + 3LD
or 6A*a* (which is the naſcent Increment
of the three moving Squares) multiply'd
into *a,* will be the ſecond naſcent Increment
of the Cube; and, the Rectangle
FH or *a2* being the naſcent Increment of
the Rectangle FC or LD, and 2FH or
2*a2* the naſcent Increment of FC + LD
or of 2A*a,* and 6*a2* the naſcent Increment
of 6A*a,* it follows that 6*a2* multiply'd
into *a,* or that 6*a3*, will be the naſcent
Increment of 6A*a2* and conſequently
[Page 30]
the third naſcent Increment of the Cube.
And theſe three diſtinct Orders of Increments,
all begin to exiſt together, in the
very Inſtant the Cube begins to be augmented
by Motion.

This may ſerve as an Anſwer to the
laſt Part of the CATECHISM, concerning
the Author's *Touchſtone* of my *Vindication*:
Whether he will *own himſelf
miſtaken* I know not; but I think he
ought after his unjuſt and ſhameful Treatment
of Sir *Iſaac Newton*; who in *the
Introduction to his Quadrature of
Curves,* in *the ſecond Lemma of the
ſecond Book, and in the Scholium to the
firſt Section of the firſt Book of his
Principles of Philoſophy,* has deliver'd
his Doctrine of *Fluxions* in ſo clear and
diſtinct a Manner, without the leaſt *Inconſiſtency*
in Terms or Arguments, that
one wou'd have thought it impoſſible for
any Perſon not to have underſtood him,
particularly for this Author, who ſays, *he
had long and maturely conſidered thoſe
Principles, and taken as much pains as*
[Page 31]
*any Man living to underſtand and make
Senſe of them.*

I have now done with the CATECHISM;
but beg leave before I conclude this Paper,
in order to prevent my being CATECHISED
any more by this Author, to give
the World a ſhort Account of ſome Part
of my Faith in Religion. I believe that
there is one ſupreme, incorporeal, everliving,
intelligent and omnipreſent Being,
called GOD, who made and governs the
World. I believe that GOD is endued
with infinite Power, Knowledge, Wiſdom
and Goodneſs; and that to *deny* or
*limit* any one of theſe Attributes, is in
Effect to *deny* a GOD. I believe, that
to ſay GOD *cannot* create Spirits with a
Power, inherent in themſelves and reſulting
from their own Frame and Make,
of perceiving and knowing. Things of a
quite different Nature from their own,
by Ideas and Senſations; is in Effect to
*deny* a GOD; for as much as by this
Principle his Almighty Power is denied.
And laſtly, I believe that this Supreme
Being has revealed his Will to Mankind
[Page 32]
by *Moſes,* the Prophets, *Jeſus Chriſt*
and the Apoſtles; and that the Doctrine
by them deliver'd is therefore divine,
and cannot be altered by any Power or
Authority upon Earth, nor even by an
Angel from Heaven, who is pronounced
accurſed ſhou'd he preach any other *Goſpel*
than what is delivered.