6.There are,I make no doubt,among the mathematicians many sincere believers in Jesus Christ:I know several such myself:but I addressed my'Analyst'to an infidel;and,on very good grounds,I supposed that,besides him,there were other deriders of faith who had nevertheless a profound veneration for fluxions:and I was willing to set forth the inconsistence of such men.If there be no such thing as infidels who pretend to knowledge in the modern analysis,I own myself misinformed,and shall gladly be found in a mistake;but even in that case,my remarks on fluxions are not the less true;nor will it follow that I have no right to examine them on the foot of human science,even though religion were quite unconcerned,and though I had no end to serve but truth.But you are very angry (p.
13and 14)that I should enter the lists with reasoning infidels,and attack them upon their pretensions to science:and hence you take occasions to shew your spleen against the clergy.I will not take upon me to say that I know you to be a Minute Philosopher yourself;but I know the Minute Philosophers make just such compliments as you do to our church,and are just as angry as you can be at any who undertake to defend religion by reason.If we resolve all into faith,they laugh at us and our faith:and if we attempt to reason,they are angry at us:they pretend we go out of our province,and they recommend to us a blind implicit faith.Such is the inconsistence of our adversaries.But it is to be hoped there will never be wanting men to deal with them at their own weapons;and to shew they are by no means those masters of reason which they would fain pass for.
7.I do not say,as you would represent me,that we have no better reason for our religion than you have for fluxions:but I say that an infidel,who believes the doctrine of fluxions,acts a very inconsistent part in pretending to reject the Christian religion because he cannot believe what he doth not comprehend;or because he cannot assent without evidence;or because he cannot submit his faith to authority.Whether there are such infidels,I submit to the judgement of the reader.For my own part I make no doubt of it,having seen some shrewd signs thereof myself,and having been very credibly informed thereof by others.Nor doth this charge seem the less credible,for your being so sensibly touched,and denying it with so much passion.You,indeed,do not stick to affirm,that the persons who informed me are"a pack of base,profligate,and impudent liars''(p.27).How far the reader will think fit to adopt your passions,I cannot say;but I can truly say,the late celebrated Mr.Addison is one of the persons whom you are pleased to characterise in these modest and mannerly terms.He assured me that the infidelity of a certain noted mathematician,still living,was one principal reason assigned by a witty man of those times for his being an infidel.Not that I imagine geometry disposeth men to infidelity:but that,from other causes,such as presumption,ignorance,or vanity,like other men geometricians also become infidels,and that the supposed light and evidence of their science gains credit to their infidelity.
8.You reproach me with calumny,detraction,and artifice (p.15).You recommend such means as are innocent and just,rather than the criminal method of lessening or detracting from my opponents (Ibid.).
You accuse me of the odium theologicum ,the intemperate zeal of divines,that I do stare super vias antiquas (p.13);with much more to the same effect.For all which charge I depend on the reader's candour,that he will not take your word,but read and judge for himself.
In which case he will be able to discern (though he should be no mathematician)how passionate and unjust your reproaches are,and how possible it is for a man to cry out against calumny and practise it in the same breath.Considering how impatient all mankind are when their prejudices are looked into,Ido not wonder to see you rail and rage at the rate you do.But if your own imagination be strongly shocked and moved,you cannot therefore conclude that a sincere endeavour to free a science,so useful and ornamental to human life,from those subtleties,obscurities,and paradoxes which render it inaccessible to most men,will be thought a criminal undertaking by such as are in their right mind.Much less can you hope that an illustrious Seminary of learned men,which hath produced so many free-spirited inquiries after truth,will at once enter into your passions,and degenerate into a nest of bigots.
9.I observe upon the inconsistency of certain infidel analysts.I remark some defects in the principles of the modern analysis.
I take the liberty decently to dissent from Sir Isaac Newton.I propose some helps to abridge the trouble of mathematical studies,and render them more useful.What is there in all this that should make you declaim on the usefulness of practical mathematics;that should move you to cry out,Spain,Inquisition,Odium Theologicum?By what figure of speech do you extend what is said of the modern analysis to mathematics in general;or what is said of mathematical infidels to all mathematicians;or the confuting an error in science to burning or hanging the authors?But it is nothing new or strange that men should choose to indulge their passions,rather than quit their opinions,how absurd soever.Hence the frightful visions and tragical uproars of bigoted men,be the subject of their bigotry what it will.A very remarkable instance of this you give (p.27),where,upon my having said that a deference to certain mathematical infidels,as I was credibly informed,had been one motive to infidelity,you ask,with no small emotion,"For God's sake are we in England or in Spain?''
"Is this the language of a familiar who is whispering an inquisitor,&c.?''
