to the Soul And as in our Speculations we have an obscure and confused Knowledge of what we seek after or a kind of Presentation of the Truth before we arrive at a clear and distinct perception of it so this Principle of discerning Good and Evil is at first obscure and rises by degrees into a clearer light and according to the Improvement that is made of it into a fuller sense of those Moral Differences Now if this Account of Natural Conscience or what you call Practical Principles be true there are in my opinion in your Third Chapter mention'd before several Defective Reasonings or Ill-grounded Suppositions One I have spoke to viz. That you represent this Natural Light or Natural Conscience like our Idea's or Propositions in Mathematicks clear and distinct I do not consider or apprehend it so but yet sufficient for a general Direction of our Actions and Lives You say your self I deny not that there are Natural Tendences Ibid. §. 3. imprinted on the Minds of Men and that from the very first instances of Sense and Perception there are some things that are grateful and others unwelcome to them some things that they encline to and others that they flie Grant us in the Soul such a like Principle which we name Natural Conscience as a Spring and Motive of our Actions for that Virtue you give there to your Principle in reference to Moral Good and Evil Or which I suppose is all one as a Rule or Direction to our Actions Grant this I say and we desire no more Give that Principle what Name you please so it have the same Effect in the Direction of our Actions Whether it appear sooner or later and be more or less prevalent that will not exclude it from being a Natural Principle 'T is so in Reason and Passions and in our distinguishing some Sensible Qualities and in what we call Pudor Naturalis yet those Principles are by all accounted Natural But to proceed to another of your Suppositions You seem to make account that if Conscience was an Innate Principle it should be invincible and inextinguishable and universally received without doubt or question Then to prove that it is not so Ibid. §. 2 cap. 9 you bring in several barbarous or semi-barbarous People as your Witnesses Mengrelians Tonoupinambo's and such others Gentlemen that are not of my acquaintance These are your Witnesses to prove that there are no practical Innate Principles or Natural Conscience in Mankind This is like searching Gaols and Prisons to find Witnesses for a bad Cause But I except against your Witnesses as Personae Infames whose Testimony is of no force or validity 'T is as if a Man should produce two or three Monsters or Men of monstrous shapes and from them pretend to prove that the Shape of Man is not naturally regular In the mean time Sir as your Plea is weak in my opinion so methinks you have an ungrateful Office To rake up all the dirt and filth you can from barbarous People to throw in the face of Humane Nature This some will think an Indignity cast upon Mankind and a piece of Ingratitude to our Maker But as to this Principle of Natural Conscience or Natural Light whereof we are treating we do not conceive it such a Light as may not be dim'd or it may be extinguish'd in some People If there was no other Principle in Humane Nature than Natural Conscience singly all Mankind would be more uniform in their Actions and Principles But seeing Man is made up of various Principles and such as often interfere one with another what wonder is it to see some following this some that some better some a worse There is a Law of the Members as well as of the Mind and these are at war and sometimes one gets the victory sometimes the other Who knows not that both the Light of Nature and Revelation may be over-power'd by contrary Principles Appetites Passions and present Self-interest You might bring such Arguments against Christianity and pretend that there is no such Law given by God because multitudes of Men that bear that Character and Denomination do not live according to its Rules Now if you say further That there are not only rude and barbarous People but also civiliz'd Nations that have had Practices and Customs contrary to what are call'd the Laws of Nature or Natural Conscience I think this also is no sufficient Argument against that Principle You instance in some Practices of the Greeks and Romans But were those Practices commended or approved by the generality of Mankind or by those Nations themselves according to their Laws and Institutions Exorbitant Practices against Natural Conscience are no Proof that there is no such Principle As a wicked Rebellion in a Kingdom or State is no good Proof that there are no Laws against it Nor because there are Banditti or Buccaneers or Commonwealths that are Pyratical can we infer that there are no Rules of Common Justice As on the other hand It is a strong Proof of Natural Conscience as the Supreme Law if we find Instances and Actions in those Heathen States you mention the Greeks and the Romans transcendent or contrary to the Interest of State and yet receiv'd with general Applause and Approbation As when a secret Project was offered to the Athenians how they might make themselves the greatest People in Greece the Motion was referr'd to be Examin'd and Consider'd by Aristides and he made this Report to the Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. in Vit. Aristid Never was propos'd a more Profitable Project nor a more Dishonest Upon which Report it was unanimously Rejected The sense of Vertue prevailing more than of Profit and Advantage to their State In like manner when it was offer'd to Fabricius the Roman General to Id. in Vit. Pyr. take off Pyrrhus a dangerous Enemy and then in War with Rome by Poison He nobly abhorr'd the Proposal and instead of giving the Physician who was the Undertaker a Reward or Recompence as he expected He sent Pyrrhus Notice of the intended Treachery that the Traitor might receive condign Punishment from his own Prince These and such like Actions have always been accounted Honourable amongst Men and leave a sweet Odour and Fragrancy to all Ages in the Names and Memories of their Authors as of Excellent Persons and great Examples There are Two sorts of Tempers and Actions amongst Men which generally bear that Character of Honourable First When we deny our private Interest whether of Life or Fortune for the Good of the Publick Secondly When we deny both for the sake of Conscience or for the love of Truth and Vertue And if the first of these be call'd Heroical the latter may be call'd Divine As on the other hand Nothing is more odious or disgustful than a perfidious Man or a dry Knave whether he act merely for his own Advantage or that of his Society without respect to the Rules
THIRD REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding IN A LETTER Address'd to the AuTHOR LONDON Printed for M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleet-street MDCXCIX THIRD REMARKS UPON AN ESSAY CONCERNING Humane Understanding SIR I Have not yet receiv'd the Favour of your Answer to my Second Letter or Second Remarks upon your Essay about Humane Vnderstanding You ruffled over the First Remarks in a domineering Answer without giving any Satisfaction to their Contents but the Second being more full and explicit I was in hopes you would have been more concern'd to Answer them and to Answer them more Calmly and like a Philosopher You best know the reason of your Silence but as it will be understood in several ways so it may be subject to that Construction amongst others That you could not satisfie those Objections or Queries without exposing your Principles more than you had a Mind they should be exposed You know there is a Sect or Party of Men among us whom we have much ado to bring to a fair and distinct Account of their Doctrine and Principles They cannot or will not fix their Notions and declare them freely to the World that they may be impartially examin'd I hope you do not approve that Method nor think it worthy of imitation Yet if to find out Truth be the End and Design of your Writing as I believe it is it must be first known what you Affirm and what you Deny before the Matter can be examin'd especially as to those grand Points that are of common Concern and which I have made the Subject of my Enquiries I mean the Grounds of Morality and Religion And in Prosecution of the same Argument that we may have a little more Light into your Doctrine I now desire to know what Natural Conscience is according to your Principles I told you in my former Remarks That I thought it was Necessary as a Ground for Morality to allow a natural distinction betwixt Good and Evil Right and Wrong turpe honestum Vertue and Vice And this distinction I thought was manifested and supported by Natural Conscience whether amongst those that have or have not External Laws This I think is taught us plainly by the Apostle of the Gentiles when Rom. ii 14 15. he says Those that were without a Law were a Law to themselves doing by nature the things contained in the Law which show the Law written in their hearts Their Consciences bearing witness and their thoughts accusing or excusing them The Gentile Philosophers and Poets have said the same things concerning natural Conscience as you cannot but know And that you must go against the best Authors Divine or Humane if you deny to Man natural Conscience as an original Principle antecedently to any other Collections or Recollections I do not deny that you allow such a Principle as Conscience in some sence or other but consider pray how you define it or what you say is to be understood by it Conscience you Pag. 18. §. 8. say is nothing else but our own Opinion of our own Actions But of what sort of Actions I pray and in reference to what rule or distinction of our Actions whether as Good or Evil or as Profitable or Unprofitable or as Perfect or Imperfect Or of all promiscuously of natural Actions and about things of indifferency as well as others As for instance whether we have play'd well in a Game at Chess or in a party at Tennis is this matter of Conscience yet we make a judgment of our Actions in these cases as well as other But tho' they were imperfect in their kind or not well managed we feel no Accusation or Remorse of Conscience for it Surely therefore that Principle ought to be better described and distinguish'd than by such a loose Character of it as makes all our Actions indifferently the Objects of Conscience I take Conscience to relate to our Moral Actions only and to the distinction of moral Good and Evil and such other Differences Accusing excusing or justifying us according as we have observ'd neglected or contemn'd those Differences This we understand by natural Conscience and take it to be the Foundation of natural Religion as that is of Revealed Now I do not remember that in this sence you have once nam'd natural Conscience in your Book tho' you had a fair opportunity for it in your large Discourse about Practical Principles in your Third Chapter Book I. But it may be you think there is none truly natural in this Acceptation However seeing you own natural Religion let 's consider what you understand by it and how you can make it subsist without natural Conscience in that Sence and notion we have given of it You place natural Religion I think in the Belief of the Being of a Pag. 277. §. 23. God and of Obedience due to him This is good so far as it goes and is well supported But the Question is what Laws those are that we ought to obey or how we can know them without Revelation unless you take in natural Conscience for a distinction of Good and Evil or another Idea of God than what you have given us That Principle of Conscience and a true Idea of God with Moral Attributes being admitted we have a Foundation for natural Religion But not being admitted I do not see by what ratiocination you can collect antecedently to Revelation what the Will of God is what his Laws are how Promulgated and made known to us And consequently what we have to direct our Obedience if we do not know wherein that Obedience consists I may know there is a King and that I am bound to obey him yet if I do not know his Laws nor what his Pleasure is I cannot tell when I please him or displease him obey him or disobey him if I know not I say in what particulars my Duty and Allegiance are to be express'd and practis'd Neither can we think Natural Religion a matter of small concern or consequence seeing in virtue of that Principle without any External Laws so far as we know Noah and Job not to mention more have been accounted Just and Upright in the sight of God and mark'd as the particular Favourites of Heaven by one of the Prophets Ezek. xiv 14. If they had no other Guide or Motive to Vertue and Piety than your Idea of God and of the Soul with an arbitrary difference of Good and Evil I wonder how they could attain to such a degree of Righteousness as would bear that eminent Character from God and his Prophets Upon this occasion also we may reflect upon Natural Faith and the Nature of it You know how it is describ'd by the same Apostle of the Gentiles He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him And without this Faith he says 't is impossible to please him Heb. xi 6. Now how shall a Man in
of Vertue and Honesty And if those Rules be neglected more or less by Men or appear little amongst some People this is no good Proof that there are no such Principles As it is no sufficient Argument that there is no Sun in the Firmament because his Light is obscured in Cloudy Days or does not appear in Foggy Regions 'T is enough to prove there is such a Luminary if he shine clearer in other Climates or by fits though he be subject to Clouds and Eclipses as well as the Light of Nature So I do not see any necessity of Universal Consent or Universal Uniformity to declare a Principle to be Natural How many are there amongst all sorts of Men who say they can make no distinction of Musical Sounds or of Concords and Discords They say all Compositions for Voices or Instruments are equal to them as to Pleasantness or Unpleasantness only some are more Noisie than others or of quicker or slower Time Yet I think no Man will deny the Sense of Musick to be Natural to Mankind without Ratiocination So also for Beauty I do not mean that of Faces only or Colour but of Order Proportion Uniformity or Regularity in general This is very different in different Persons and some scarce appear at all affected with it Yet who does not think that some Notion or Idea of Order and Regularity and of their Difference from Confusion or Disorder is Natural to us Even the Power of Reason several Passions a propension to Laugh at ridiculous Objects or Actions are more and less and appear sooner in some than others And this may be observ'd in Children of whose Weakness you make great use and frequent mention If you allow these other Principles to be Natural and born with us I know not why you should make so much a-do about the word Innate I should be glad to know if you allow any Powers or Principles to be Innate in your sense of the word If you allow none at all not these last mention'd nor so much as willing or nilling this or that the Controversie will be chang'd and I desire to know what Idea you can form of a Soul or of a Spirit without any Powers or any Action I wish that may not be the Supposition that lies at the bottom of your Philosophy That the Soul of Man is no distinct Substance from God or the Body but either a Divine Influence or the Power of the Body This hypothesis I confess may lead you to deny both innate Idea's and practical Principles To proceed a little further you have an odd Exception in your 12th Paragraph to show that the Dictates of natural Conscience are not Truths because they are not form'd into Propositions And to make them capable of being assented to as Truths they must have the word Duty join'd to them But say you what duty is cannot be understood without a Law nor a Law be known or supposed without a Law-maker or without Rewards and Punishments This to me is but Chicanry about words But let us see how far these things make for you or against you Do we not preserve our selves Do we not make use of Reason without the formality of a Law telling us 'T is our Duty to do these things Or in the case of natural Conscience have we not the Marks and Sense of our Duty and of the Will of our Maker from an inward Testimony approving or disapproving our Actions according as we obey or disobey that Principle in the distinction of Moral Good and Evil On the one hand Occultum quatiente animo tortore flagellum On the other Hic murus aheneus esto Nil conscire sibi These were both the Sayings of Heathens that had no other Law than the Law of natural Conscience And so their Apostle says They were a Law to themselves by help of that Principle When you offer a Child Bitter instead of Sweet he turns away his Head and makes grimaces when he has no Law or Duty prescrib'd to him nor any other Logick than what was born with him or what he suck't from the Breasts of his Mother Then as to Punishments and Rewards there is a Presage of them from natural Conscience and they are furthermore deducible from the Nature of God if you allow him Moral Attributes as we do Indeed in your way upon your Idea of God and your uncertainty of the Immortality of the Soul I do not see how possibly you can prove future Rewards and Punishments without a Revelation nor consequently give us a Foundation for Morality and natural Religion I must tell you again that you bring such Arguments against Natural Conscience as you might bring against Christian Religion In your next Paragraph put but Christianity in th◠room of innate Principles and your Argument will be as good §. 13. or as bad against either of them The sum of your Argument is taken from the Topick of Universal Practice as conformable or not conformable to the Rule You say it is impossible that Men should without shame or fear confidently break a Rule which they could not but evidently know that God had set up and would certainly punish the breach of Which they must if it were innate Put in this place Which they must if they were Christians to a degree to make it a very ill Bargain to the Transgressor Does not this hit the Christians as well and as manifestly as those that abuse natural Conscience Then you say again But let any one see the Ibid. fault and the Rod by it and with the Transgression a Fire ready to punish it A Pleasure tempting and the Hand of the Almighty visibly held up and prepared to take vengeance For this must be the case where any Duty is imprinted upon the Mind Put here For this must be the case where our Duty as Christians is manifestly known and acknowledged and then tell me whether it be possible for People with such a prospect such a certain knowledge as this wantonly and without scruple to offend againct a Law which they carry about with them in indelible Characters and that stares them in the face whilst they are breaking it Might not this to our sorrow be urg'd against Christians Or to prove that the Law of Christianity is not known to them or believed Neither ought you to be offended that we transfer your Argument to Christians seeing you your self to prove that there is no Natural Conscience in our sence have argued before from the Practice of Christians as well as Heathens You alledge the Practice of the Mengrelians You instance in Duels and bloody Wars c. amongst Christians You might have applied all these things particularly to Christians but still we should have thought it no good Proof that there is no Christian Law no more than it is that there is no Natural Conscience Do we not see Men every day in spite of Laws External or Internal Divine or Humane pursue their Lusts
Passions and vitious Inclinations Though they have not only the Terrors of another Life to keep them in awe and order but see before their eyes Gaols Gibbets Irons Whips Racks and Torturing Engines Examples also of miserable Creatures suffering actually for those very Crimes If all these united Forces and Restraints cannot keep them from extravagant Evils can we think it strange that the single Principle of Natural Conscience should be suppress'd or suffocated by the Stupidity or Vices incident to Humane Nature In your next Section you call for a List of the Laws or Principles §. 14. of Conscience And so the Papists do for a Catalogue of Fundamentals And it would be easie to give them one if there was but one Fundamental as a certain late Author supposes As to the Dictates or Principles of Natural Conscience call them Laws of Nature or what you please we say in general that they are for the distinction of Moral Good and Evil But the Cases are innumerable as in other Cases of Conscience wherein there may be occasion for their Exercise The general Rule is Appeal with Sincerity to your Conscience for your Direction If that be obscur'd perverted or sear'd we cannot help it So your great Topicks or Demands of Universal Consent §. 11. Universal Practice Invincible Evidence are not to be found in this miscellaneous World and under all the corruptions of Humane Nature These Principles of Conscience are Seeds as we said before that may die or may thrive and spring more or less according to the Soil they are set in and according to the care and culture that is had of them This minds me of your Dilemma in a following Section which §. 20. you propose as very powerful or conclusive in these words But concerning Innate Principles I desire those Men to say whether they can or cannot by Education and Custom be blurr'd and blotted out If they can we must find them clearest and most perspicuous nearest the fountain in Children and illiterate People who have receiv'd least impression from foreign Opinions Let them take which side they please they will certainly find it inconsistent with visible Matter of Fact and daily Observation The Close you hear is in an high Tone But for trial of this Argument let us use the same method here which we did before And as then we put Christianity in the room of Innate Principles so put now in their place the Power and Principle of Reasoning So the Sentence will run thus But concerning this Power or Principle of Reasoning I desire these Men to say whether it can or cannot by Education and Custom or contrary Principles for that we must take in if we speak of Natural Conscience be blurr'd or blotted out If they cannot says he they must be alike in all Men. If they can they must be clearest in Children before they are corrupted We say neither of these will follow These Powers may be weak in Children and may be blurr'd or blotted in several Persons and yet be Natural Principles as we see it is in the Principle of Reason or Reasoning All Men will distinguish betwixt a Power and the Actual and Prevailing Exercise of that Power which may be hindred by various Circumstances and tho' Natural to Rational Creatures may be weak in some and ineffectual in others by contrary Principles or other Impediments I see this word Innate is still a Stumbling-stone And we must ask again whether you allow any Powers to be Innate to Mankind We say thos◠foremention'd Powers are Innate but the Exercise of them more or less is Conditional and depends upon the Disposition of the Body Culture and other Circumstances Thus much I have said in defence of Natural Conscience and Natural Religion I must now ask leave to reflect upon a Passage in my last Letter I there told you That I writ as a private Person without conference or confederacy with any other any more than I suppose you to do But I told you also That I could not blame any other whosoever they are or may be that desire such Principles of Humane Understanding as may give them good Proofs and Security against such a System as this Cogitant Matter a Mortal Soul a Manichaean God or a God without Moral Attributes and an Arbitrary Law of Good and Evil. As to the Arbitrary Law of Good and Evil I gave you my Thoughts against it in that Letter And what is now said about Natural Conscience tends to the same effect As to a Manichaean God if he have no Moral Attributes we cannot tell from your Idea of him but he may prove so Then for the Immortality of the Soul you seem now to have declar'd your self uncertain of it without Revelation Lastly for Cogitant Matter this you propose as a Problem which you are unable or unwilling to decide I do not willingly dispute about what is Possible or Impossible to God for we cannot comprehend an Infinite Nature but rather what is Conceivable or Unconceivable to us And I will not assert any thing Possible that is Unconceivable unless I have positive Assurance Divine or Humane that it is Possible Now you bring no positive Evidence of this Possibility of Cogitation in Matter and I think it unconceivable according to our Faculties and Conceptions that Matter should be capable of Cogitation as a power of Matter either Innate or Impress'd My Reasons are these That Unity we find in our Perceptions is such an Unity as in my judgment is incompetent to Matter by reason of the Division or Distinction of its Parts All our Perceptions whether of Sense Passions Reason or any other Faculty are carried to one Common Percipient or one common Conscious Principle For we compare them all one with another and censure them all which cannot be done without one Common Judge or Percipient Pray then tell us what part of the Body is that which you make the Common Percipient Or if that be too much tell us how any one part of the Body may or can be so If you say they are many then let us know how they conferr Notions or tell one another what they have perceiv'd in their several Districts Still they must come however to one Common Percipient either by Conference or at the first Perception and you are oblig'd to assign this part of the Body that we may examine whether it be capable of such a Function or no. I know it hath been attempted by some Persons but not so if I understand them right as to make that Corporeal part the Percipient but the Soul exercising her Functions there But if the Body be Cogitant some one part must be the Grand Cogitant or Common Percipient Now seeing this Percipient what or wheresoever it is consists of many Parts or Particles it is obnoxious to the same Exceptions we made before and is still upon the same grounds incapable of performing that function In one part of your Essay
monstra sub aequore Pontus This you see takes in both rational and irrational Creatures Georg. 4. as he had done before in a like Description but our concern is only for rational Natures and the Soul of Man And if the Soul of Man be nothing but an influx from another Principle not a distinct permanent Substance and the Principle of its own Actions whosoever goes upon this Principle I do not wonder if he cannot allow innate Idea's or practical Principles in the Soul For there is no permanent Soul or distinct Substance to imprint them upon They are the Operations of another Being and exerted according to the Dispositions of the Body or may be wholly intermitted when the Body is asleep This I think they speak coherently with the former Position Moreover upon that Hypothesis The Soul cannot be said to be Immortal or to act and operate after the dissolution of the Body for the Body then is no further capable of those Influences Furthermore in consequence of this Principle of Deism and the Mortality of the Soul great Doubts and Difficulties must needs arise to them about the Resurrection How it can be the same Man or the same Person that rises again when both the Body and the Soul are new And this would bring on nice Disputes about the Notions of Identity and Diversity Which accordingly we find discuss'd at large in the Essay for their Satisfaction I suppose that go upon those B. 2 c. 27 Principles I will mention another Doubt or Dispute which arises from that Principle viz. That the Soul is not a Substance distinct from God and Matter From this Position a Question springs up concerning the Powers of Matter or whether Matter be not capable of Cogitation If the Soul be not a Substance distinct from God and Matter then all our Cogitations are either the Operations of God or the Operations of Matter there being no third Substance to be the Subject of them This being the case They chuse as of two inconveniences the less to make Matter the Subject of them rather than God adding this temperament That Matter hath not this Power of Cogitation from it self but as impress'd or communicated to it from God Neither do they positively assert so far as I know this Power of Cogitation in Matter either innate or impress'd but leave that as a floating Problem which they will not determine either way But seeing this Controversie takes its Original only from their Principles they are bound to decide it or declare which part they will take I have noted those Doctrines you see which chiefly relate to the Soul of Man and are found agreeable to or consequential upon the Principles of the Deists If they be further try'd upon the Idea of God as you have given it without Moral Attributes only as a Supreme Being Eternal All-knowing most Powerful no Deist of one sort or other will be excluded by this Idea nor any party of Men except meer Atheists if yet there be any such Monsters amongst Men. So that still in all these Principles and these are the chief Principles to be depended upon in reference to Morality and Religion there is nothing so far as I can observe higher than Deism neither do I know the scope or occasion of some Discourses in this Essay upon any other Suppositions than those we have mentioned But I speak this with due regard always to better Information and must take it at present for a kind of Rationale to that learned Work to see the dependence of one part upon another However I will take the liberty to say that the Author cannot upon those Principles give us as is pretended a Demonstrative Morality as clear as Mathematicks He may give us a sett of Prudential Maxims for the Conveniences of Life or a kind of Political Righteousness but will never reach what is most Sacred and Divine either in Morality or Religion I wish him however good success that it may not be said Parturiunt Montes SIR If you please to declare your Thoughts more freely concerning these things especially as to the Nature of God and the Soul of Man you may state the case more distinctly and bring it to an issue which is all I desire I shall only give it a Friendly Consideration and accordingly I request that you would manage it with calm Reason without Wrath or Bitterness Diis proximus ille est Quem Ratio non Ira movet I am SIR Your Humble Servant POSTSCRIPT THE Epicurean Philosophers have given us a Method of Science without any other Principles than what are collected from Sense and Experience which I take to be the same in effect with your Method And it may be useful indeed within its Sphere to make Men attend to their Evidence that it be real and to beat out of the Schools some empty Notions or Notionalities But as it does not reach the first Criterion or the first Discriminations we make of True and False so also in reference to Good and Evil those Principles fall short and will not bear when they come to lay a Foundation for Morality and Religion They can carry us no higher than Epicurus's Ethicks still within the compass of a Temporal Felicity and provision for it These Authors must either go upon a Principle of Private Self-Preservation for the Basis of their Morals or of the Preservation of Society They have no higher Principle that I know seeing they make no Intrinsick and Essential Distinction of Good and Evil nor include Goodness Justice and other Moral Attributes in the Idea of the Divine Nature Nor can prove the Immortality of the Soul or a future state of Punishments and Rewards And their Notion of Conscience of Vertue and Vice Good and Evil without distinction of Natural and Moral are so lax and general and have so little Sacred in them that they seem to me to stand upon the very same level with the rest But if others can deduce better things from those Principles I should be glad to see it done Yet I do not account the Epicurean Philosophers to be Atheists but rather a sort of Deists for there are several sorts of Men under that denomination Those that are meer Materialists and own no Deity distinct from Matter are the very worst Deists and scarce deserve that name or title tho' they pretend to it Others that own an Immaterial Deity and that Matter is not the only Substratum of all things are yet distinguishable into different Parties beth in respect of their natural Principles and Religious Some of them will own not only an immaterial Deity but also particular finite immaterial Spirits distinct Substances from the Deity but will not own Reveal'd Religion Others on the contrary will own both natural and reveal'd Religion but not that the Soul of Man or any finite Spirits are permanent Substances distinct from the Deity But think them only transient Irradiations or Effluxes of the Deity in certain