A FREE BUT Modest Censure On the late Controversial WRITINGS and DEBATES Of The Lord Bishop of Worcester and Mr. Locke: Mr. Edward's and Mr. Locke: The Honble Charles boil, Esq; and Dr. Bently. Together with Brief Remarks on Monsieur Le Clerc's ARS CRITICA.  
By F. B. M. A. of Cambridg.  
LONDON; Printed for A. Baldwin in Warwick-lane, 1698.   

A free, but modest Censure on some late Debates, etc.  
IT is an odd Humour in some men to cry down all Books that look towards polemics, and they imagine they sufficiently disparage this period of Time we are cast into by saying, it is an Age of Controversies. If they dip into an Author, and find he is upon the Dispute, they presently lay him aside, and will have no more to do with him, because he is a wrangler, and hath fastened on an Adversary to debate the case with him. It may be observed, that these who pretend to be such peaceable Souls, are generally of the number of the indifferent, and question whether there be Truth on either side, or on any side: But those who believe there is, and think (as with reason they do) that Truth is worth the contending for, have an other apprehension of those Writings that are Controversial, and know them to be of great use in the World. And therefore we find that some of the best Writers that were extant in all Ages, have entered these Lists, and have thought it absolutely necessary to appear as Champions in defence of an assaulted Verity. The main Disputes of late have been about those Points which have reference to the Trinity, but I will pass by the professed Socinians, whose Writings and Discourses have been examined and sifted by some of the Learnedest men of our Church, as the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Worcester, Gloucester, Sarum, the Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Edward's, Dr. Williams, Mr. Edward's, and others. All which have performed their parts extremely well, but with some difference and variety; and there have been infinite descants on their several Attempts, which are now almost worn off and forgotten; and I will not call those Disputes back again, and renew the battle. My design is to offer a few Remarks upon some other Controversies that have been started of late, wherein one or two of the forementioned Combatants are engaged, as well as other fresh ones, who have more lately appeared on the Stage, and have invited a great number of Spectators to observe them.  
The first is an ingenious Gentleman, who, though he hath not professedly listed himself into the Socinian Camp, seems at least to be a friend and well-willer to that Cause, and is again befriended and well esteemed by that party▪ and some think is set on work by those that favour them. He hath had the fortune to light on two shrewd Adversaries, the one a Reverend and Learned Prelate, the other a worthy and Learned Priest of the Church of England, both known by their Writings on divers Subjects. The first took occasion in the close of his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, to reflect on some Passages in the Essay of Human Understanding, as some ways prejudicial to the Doctrine of the Trinity, and other Mysteries of the Christian Faith; and accordingly these Passages had been made use of (as his Lordship of Worcester observed) by another Writer, to confront and oppose those Sacred Mysteries; for that zealous opposer of Mysteries (setting up with the other Gentleman upon the same Stock, and being Joint-partners in the same Principles) contends that we cannot be certain of the Truth of any thing, unless we have clear and distinct perceptions of it, and therefore where these are wanting, there is no Certainty; for all certainty of Knowledge depends upon Reason, and Reason depends on clear Ideas, which are inconsistent with Mysteries. It is the managing and applying of this Notion of clear and distinct Ideas, so as to make them the sole foundation of Knowledge, Reason, and Certainty, that the foresaid excellent Prelate hath been pleased to examine and disprove in the 10 th' Chapter of the Vindication of the Trinity. And afterwards in his Answers to Mr. Lock's Letters, this Opinion of Mr Lock (for Mr. T. took it from him) is narrowly searched into, accurately discussed, and fully baffled by his Lordship who hath proved that clearness of Ideas is not the only basis of Reason and (the consequence of that) Certainty, but that it is possible to be certain of the truth and reality of a thing without clear and distinct Ideas of it: and some other Principles and Assertions of Mr. Lock, concerning the Ideas of things, are showed to be very precarious and groundless, and the mere Creatures of his own Fancy. This the Reader will find performed with great solidity and depth of Mind, together with the mixture of divers fine Thoughts and Conceptions concerning other matters bordering on that Subject, with great variety of reading: And this more particularly I have observed, and I see others agree with me in it, that the Reverend Bishop hath all along proved that Mr. Lock contradicts himself, and apparently thwarts his own Notions, which is as ill a thing as can be said of any Writer.  
But that whereby his Lordship hath most obliged the World is, his accurate anatomising of this Gentleman; for his Lordship is one that dives into Men as well as Books. Accordingly he hath given us this double Character of him, that he is a great Sceptic, and that he hath an inclination to overthrow some of the chiefest▪ Articles of the Christian Faith. This is a high Charge, but that Learned Pen proves it to a tittle, showing out of several plain and direct Passages in Mr. Lock's Book of Human Understanding, that he takes away all certainty of Knowledge, that (as he confesses himself) he hath no Idea of a Man, and that he industriously labours to make it out, that there is no certainty that we are Men. Essay of Human Understanding, Book 3. Chap. 6. Book 4. Chap. 7. His Lordship goes on further to show out of his Letters, that from his Notion of Ideas he can't possibly prove a God. And truly if the Idea of a man was boggled at by him, it was to be expected that he would advance further, and scruple the Idea of a Deity. Moreover the Bishop makes it evident that Mr. Lock is inclined to hold no other Principle in man than Matter; and than if there be any Idea of a God, we know what it must be, for he that is for a Corporeal Soul, will (with Mr. Hobbes) maintain the Notion of a Corporeal Deity. The same Learned Pen acquaints us, from his foresaid Letters to him, that he denies the Identity of the same Body at the Resurrection with that which died: He makes it appear from the same Papers, that he questions the two Natures in Christ, and that he disbelieves the Trinity, and Incarnation; and in another place (yea in divers) he shows that he denies the certainty of all Faith; and yet all along talks of the certainty of Ideas. Thus this Learned and Judicious Father hath laid that Writer open, and hath let the World see, that the more that Author handles his Pen, the farther proofs he gives of the ill disposition of his Mind, and the uncouth Notions that harbour there.  
It is observable, that the Bishop shows how this Gentleman hath introduced new Terms to unsettle the knowledge of things, and amuse the Minds of the unwary, and how he pleases himself with paradoxical Conceits. To which I will add what I have lately observed myself out of his Essay of Human Understanding. That he hath a great mind to scepticize, and to maintain Paradoxes, we may perceive by what he saith of the Will: Whether man's Will be free or no, is an unreasonable and unintelligible question; for Liberty belongs not to the Will▪ it is no attribute or modification of it. So he, Book 2. Chap. 21. Again, in the same place he tells us, that in respect of Willing a man is not free, Liberty consisting in a Power to act, or not to act, which, in regard of Volition, a man hath not. Some that have read this, think he may go with that Petition he talks of in another place, Pray give me a little Sense. Afterwards in the same Book and Chapter he concludes thus, This than is evident, a man is not at liberty to Will or not to Will any thing in his Power that he once considers of. Now from these and several other things that occur in his Writings, we may gather, that my Lord Bishop of Worcester had reason to set him forth to the world as a Sceptic, and to charge him with laying such foundations as tend to the overthrow of the Mysteries of our Faith. Answ. to Mr. Lock's 2 d Letter. This is the true Portraiture of that Author, which is abundantly made good in his Lordship's excellent Observations on the Essay of Human Understanding, and on the Letters of the same Writer; whence he hath been pleased to communicate to the World the true apprehensions we ought to have of him. This is the best and shortest way of dealing with him, and it is a proof of his Episcopal Integrity and Sincerity.  
But what saith the Essayer, and the writer of Letters to this? Why, he charges the Bishop with unaccurate Thoughts, and unaccountable ways of speaking, and vulgar and popular Discourse. Letter 1. p. 153. And in other Places he will not allow him to understand the Connection of words, or true English, p. 155, 156. and the Contents of most of his Vindication and Answers he pronounces unintelligible, incomprehensible, difficult, impossible, confounding. And yet all along he lards his pages with seeming Compliments and Commendations of his Lordship, with feigned Submissions, and doing of Homage. This double strain is usual with him, which makes him inconsistent with himself: and in his last Edition of his Essay he retracts some things which he had inserted into the former, Book 2. Chap. 21. He makes bold, he saith in his 23 d Chapter, to propose an extravagant Conjecture, and soon after he begs the Readers Pardon for his wild fancy, and so much for that, he saith. In another place (Book 4. Ch. 4.) to the Question, What are Changelings? His studied answer is, They are Changelings. Query, Whether this be not the same with Condign Punishment is Condign Punishment. The like profound way of writing the Bishop takes notice of in his Letters, telling us, that instead of a sober and steady Reply to his Allegations, he spends above fifty Pages in renewing and enlarging a Complaint wholly concerning himself. Answer to Mr. L's 2 d Letter. And the rest is spent (as he objects to him) in misrepresentations of things, in groundless exceptions, in wearisome repetitions out of his own Writings, and sometimes in loose and poor Jargon; a goodly Instance whereof we have in his Dialogue (from p. 117, to p. 161. Letter 2.) between him and a certain Gentleman, though in reality it is a Conference between Mr. Lock and himself, unless you will add Cousheda, or some other of his Drills to bear him Company. This it is to write out of a man's own Thoughts (as we know who saith of himself) this it is to be ambitious to multiply the pages of a Book, and to study to make it bulky: this it is to be a grave and solemn Trifler. Hence he lets the Bishop know, that he will go on with the Controversy still, and not let it fall, because he is not satisfied with what his Lordship hath said (and some are of opinion that he is resolved never to be) and that he will fill the World with Replications, Rejoinders, Surrejoinders.  
But let that be as he pleases, it is sufficient that we have showed the invalidity of what he hath writ already. I confess I was inclined to Mr. Lock's side, before I read and well perused the Bishop's remarks upon him. He hath gained a Name by dissenting from others in the Subjects he discoursed of, wherefore I looked upon him as a man of free Thoughts, and conceived he meant no ill in that liberty which he took, but acted only as a man of good Parts, and ingenious freedom would do. But his Lordship's judicious Animadversions on his Letters, and other Writings, have given me another Idea of him. And I can entirely depend upon his Lordship's judgement, because I see it is founded on most natural and rational Collections, made from what Mr. Lock hath expressly asserted, and often repeated. So that I am a Proselyte by his Lordship's Writings, and I am the more so, because I see his Antagonist hath not been able to return any tolerable Answer to what hath been said. Some had thought that Mr. Edward's had been too severe with this Gentleman, and represented him in false colours; but now the discovery which the Bishop hath made justifies Mr. Edwards' Proceedings: and all men of consideration and due thoughts conclude, that Mr. Edward's had just occasion (though we knew it not so well as he did) to alarm the World with the apprehensions of the danger of Mr. Lock's Writings.  
We come then in the next place to consider these two noted Writers, and to make some Remarks on their respective Undertake. And first I will begin with Mr. Lock, for though I did not give him the priority in the Title-page, he shall have it now. Thinking is the great excellency and prerogative of our Human Nature; and there are none that ever arrived to true and solid Apprehensions of things, without the exercising this noble Faculty, and that with great seriousness and application. But it is possible that a Person may be very Thoughtful, and yet not attain to any considerable Notions of what is true, because his Thoughts are tinctured with ill Principles and Designs, and conducted and managed all along by Caprice, and Prejudice, and Opiniatrity. We have an example of this in the Author who is now under our hands; it can't be denied that he hath showed himself a Thinking man in his Essay of Human Understanding (of which I spoke before) and in his later writings concerning the Reasonableness of Christianity (as he calls it) and his Vindication of them, of which I am now to speak. These latter sufficiently discover him to be one of a musing Head, and a thoughtful Brain; but at the same time they testify him to be either a great Stranger to the Christian Religion, or else a great Corrupter of it; and truly it is this latter which he chooses to be known and signalised by, as appears from his stiff Defence of this Assertion, that of all the Articles and Points of the Christian Religion, there is but one that is necessary to be believed, to constitute us true Christians, and that is this, Jesus is the Messias. And as for the Apostolical Epistles, it is not there, he saith, that we are to learn what are the fundamental Articles of Faith. One would scarcely think, that a man never so thoughtful and musing, could light on such a Notion as this; much less would it enter into a man's Thoughts, that he should with so much zeal and earnestness persist in the Conceit. To evade the Doctrine of the Trinity, and our Saviour's Satisfaction (both which I find he hath been urged by Mr. Edward's to own, but he begs his Pardon, he will not submit to any such acknowledgement) and to render the other great Fundamentals of Christianity supernumerary, and useless to give men the denomination of Christians, and so to cashier Christianity itself, he hath unhappily placed in the room of all these, the belief of that one single Article before mentioned. And herein he runs counter to the positive determinations of the Holy and Inspired Writings, and the suffrages of all the wise, intelligent, and godly Christians in all Ages since the foundation of that Holy Institution, as well as the persuasion of all that have a true sense of the nature of Christianity at this day: This is a thing which his Fellow-Collegian will condemn him for, who delivers it among his other Maxims, that a man of a sound and well-weighed judgement is afraid always of standing by himself in a new Opinion. Mr. Charles Boil against Dr. Bently, p. 226. And he tells him further, p. 237. that Confidence and Paradoxes are not the true way to a lasting Reputation. The first point of Modesty and Sense, is never to contradict the whole World needlessly; and the next to that, to be sure never to do it without very good Grounds. And Mr. Locke cannot avoid the imputation of a Pedant, according to this noble Gentleman; for it is another of his learned Maxims▪ That an itch of contradicting great Men, or established Opinions upon very slight grounds, is an instance of Pedantry, p. 97. And in the same place this Honourable Writer makes it another mark of a Pedant, that he relies on his own performances, and spins Volumes (as one saith he hath the gift of it) barely out of his own Thoughts. Tho this must be granted that he can make bold with another spinner's Thoughts, and impose upon the World with borrowed Cobwebs, for Mr. Edward's and others have showed, that the one Article was borrowed from Mr. Hobbs' Citizen and Leviathan. Nor indeed is this the only thing wherein he jumps with Mr. Hobbs, as in the Materiality of Human Souls. Letter to the Bishop of Worcester, p. 68  
These things have purchased him a great disesteem among all men of stayed Minds, all that retain a regard to sober Philosophy and Orthodox Divinity: as on the contrary Mr. Edwards' observation is true, that Persons of loose Principles, Sceptics, and Deists, applaud his undertake, and are his humble admirers. I find that Mr. Edward's in his Thoughts concerning the Causes and Occasions of Atheism, was the first that attacked him, briefly laying open the weakness, folly, and absurdity, as also the extreme danger of asserting the necessity but of one Article of Faith, in order to the making a man a Christian. He treated Mr. Lock very kindly and civilly, bestowing upon him the Epithets of Learned, Ingenious, Thoughtful, Ripe-witted, etc. But this fair usage, joined with strength of Argument, had no other effect on him than this, that it produced a slender Vindication of himself; wherein this was the only thing made out to the Reader, that he was resolved to adhere to his own Sentiments: Whereupon Mr. Edward's thought fit in a larger Discourse [Socinianism Unmasked] to handle the former Subject, where he condescended to Mr. Lock's Demands, and proved, that there are several other Articles to be explicitly believed, in order to the making us Members of Christ, besides that one, Jesus is the Messias. This he hath evinced, by instancing in divers particular Doctrines, and showing, that we cannot possibly be Christians without the belief of them: and (as I am told) he had the Thanks of some the most eminent men in our Church, for his great pains and faithfulness in asserting and vindicating the most substantial Doctrines of our Holy Religion, when they were struck at so boldly by men of corrupt Designs.  
When Mr. Lock found himself thus foiled, instead of acting according to his own Confession, I know not any thing, saith he, more disingenuous, than not publicly to own a Conviction one hath received concerning any thing erroneous in what one hath printed, (Letter to the Bishop of Worcester) he writ a Preface and Book (if Ink and Paper make a Book) of above 500 pages, to tell the World that he was angry with Mr. Edward's, and highly displeased with his plain and impartial dealing with him, and not treating him according to his fond expectations. Every one observed that he started little needless pedantic Questions, and foolishly demanded an Answer to them, with a mixture of childish Complaints, and wilful mistakes; and according to the enquiry I have made into those Papers, I find he was so hardy as not only to fall upon Mr. Edwards' Person, but his Office, and he rudely vilified the whole Function. It is true, it is the opinion of some upon this occasion, that Mr. Edward's might have been even with him by bare Contempt, for this is the justest return to such an Adversary; but I find Mr. Edward's was pleased to take another course, because, I suppose, he had a mind to discover this Writer yet further to the World, and likewise to take off his little Objections which he had filled so great a Volume with, and especially to vindicate the honour of those Learned Bodies which Mr. Locke had aspersed and vilified. I have discoursed several upon this Subject, but I never met with any that blamed Mr. Edwards' way of dealing with this Gentleman, unless such as were sworn favourers of him, or were troubled with qualms of Scepticism and indifferency in Religion, or did not understand the liberty a man may lawfully take in chastizing an Antagonist, or lastly excepting two or three Hawkers who have felt the mischief of some bodies Books lying on their Hands, since the Bishop and Mr. Edward's examined them: All others unanimously concur in this, that Mr. Locke hath been dealt with according to his Genius and Merits. A good sensible Gentleman was one day expressing his dislike of some things in Mr. Edwards' last Effort on Mr. Locke, which reflected, he said, on his Studies, his way of Living, and the Post he is in. Whereupon I turned him to some Passages in Mr. Lock's Book, which expressly reflected on Mr. Edwards' Degree, his Station in the Church, his Office as a Clergyman and a Preacher, and on the Universities and Clergy themselves; which when this Gentleman had read and considered, he made me this Return, I see there is reason to hear both sides, whereas hitherto I have attended but to one, Mr. L's Friends being so clamorous and urgent. I verily think, if there be any Offence, it is on his side; for a man may innocently reflect on the private concerns of an Adversary, when there is just occasion given; but it is unsufferable to jest and play with Sacred Things, and to flout at those Employments and Offices which have the stamp of Religion upon them: which puts me in mind, said this Gentleman, of what I was told a very sober Writer, in one of his Occasional Papers, objected to Mr. Locke, viz. his disrespectful language to Priests, that is, all Ministers and Clergymen.  
I confess, I could have wished, continued that Gentleman, that when Mr. Edward's was excepting (and that justly) against some things in Mr. Lock's Treatise of Education, he would have taken notice of what is useful and commendable in it, viz. his common places of Temperance, of Company, of Familiarity, of Affectation, of Rewards and Punishments, of Self-denial, Fool-hardiness, Fortitude and Courage, with Observations, Hints, Cautions, Counsels concerning the humours of Children, and the manners of Men. These Mr. Edward's might have taken notice of, I say, and owned their usefulness in some measure; and thereby have showed, that he despised not what was any ways good and commendable in his Adversary: But so might Mr. Lock, it may be said, have acknowledged the convictive arguings in Mr. Edwards' Writings, and the other accomplishments of his Pen, which have made his Books acceptable among Foreigners, as well as those at home. But one thing I must needs say I wonder Mr. Edward's did not reflect upon, when he was handling that Book of Education, viz. Mr. Lock's forgetfulness of Christianity. It being his work and design in those Papers to inform and instruct Youth, if he had been pleased to remind them that there is such a thing as Christianity in the World, he might have done service to the Age, especially when he knows there is a Generation of People who have no regard to the revealed Truths of Religion, but on the contrary, disown them. What! nothing but Ethick and Oeconomick Strictures, and such like Documents? Is not his young Master (for so he calls him) baptised? Doth he address himself to him as to a Pagan, Turk, or Jew? He should for once at least have made mention of the Christian Religion, and the blessed Institutor of it, and taken occasion to commend that excellent Dispensation: One little sprinkle at least would have done well, especially in an Age where Deism is so rampant. But truly, added this Gentleman, it is well he did not touch upon Christianity, as the matter stands, for he might have done more harm than good, as we learn from his Book, which he styles the Reasonableness of Christianity. Thus he.  
But to return to Mr. Edward's, and his sharp way of treating Mr. Locke, though to charge Persons with what they are not guilty of, be Reviling and Reproaching them; yet to deal freely with them, and to tell them their own (especially when others decline it) is an act of Justice and Honesty. A frank speaking or writing here is very Innocent, and sometimes Necessary, though in other cases some use it unlawfully; but this using it so doth not make the thing itself unlawful. Honest men may wear and use Swords, though Highwaymen do so too; and the former may use them against these latter when there is occasion: Sharpness of stile, and a seasonable Raillery are not forbidden us▪ and generally there are none that utterly condemn these, but those that are afraid of them, and deserve them. When we cannot reason some men out of their evil Opinions and Practices, we may try to laugh them out of them. When I perused Mr. Edwards' last Reflections on Mr. Locke, I called to mind that of the excellent Justin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. It is not at all incongruous to make ourselves merry with the surly humour of those men who pretend to surpass others in Understanding. (Just. Martyr. ad Zen. Epist.) This was the judgement of a serious Philosopher and Christian, and one that laid down his Life for Christianity. We may as lawfully deride a stubborn Adversary, as argue with him: And this we shall find to be the practice of the most wise and grave upon occasion, as is to be seen in several of the Writings of the Ancients, who were otherwise very austere. It is well known, that most of the Learned and Religious Apologists for Christianity, against the Jews and Gentiles, were very pleasant and diverting in their Writings, and used a Sarcastic Style, and spared not their Adversaries. The like we see in the Examples of some of the Learnedest and most Judicious of our own Nation, as the Lord Bacon, Bishop Montague, and others that writ against Mr. Selden; Dr. More, the Author of the Friendly Debates, Dr. Grove, Dr. Stillingfleet in his Conferences between a Romish Priest, etc. some of the London-Divines in their printed Reflections on Jesuits and other Papists in the late Reign, Dr. Burnet upon Mr. Warren, Dr. South on the Dean of St. Paul's, and the Dean and others upon him; Dr. Williams and other late Writers against the English unitarians. These all thought Reflecting was no Sin; and some others perhaps are flat, grave and reserved, because they can't be otherwise.  
It is not unknown to the World, that the Person I am now speaking of, can write as solidly as any man, and the best proof of it is, that he hath done so: but if he pleases to follow such great Examples as I have named, and to relax his Pen, who can censure him for it? Nay, who will not justify him? For who are more fit to be treated with Contempt, than those that treat Religion and the most substantial Articles of it in that manner? I don't see then how it can give offence to men of impartial Thoughts, to give a Writer such treatment as he merited. Wherefore we expect with some impatience Mr. Edwards' farther Remarks on Mr. Lock's 2 d Vindication, and that set of Animadversions on some other parts of his Education, which he partly promised in his last Book, pag. 91. There is a sort of men, I perceive, would have had Mr. Edward's touched Mr. Lock with more tenderness; and so they would have all Writers be very sweet upon their Opponents, and show themselves as mild and gentle as cade Lambs: though they wield their Pens against the stiffest Patrons of Error, they must compliment and flatter them, they must show themselves very fond of them, and address themselves to them with great respects and honour, or at least they must not dare to provoke and exasperate them, though it be by the innocent freedom of urging Truth. This faint sort of Penning may be observed especially in one known Writer of late, and if there were more such, the Mischief of that sneaking Humour would be unspeakable. But I perceive Mr. Edwards' fault is, that he is none of those hum-drumming Authors; and thence it is that he is disgusted by those of that kidney, and hath the honour to bear the same imputation that was causelessly thrown upon my Lord Bishop of Worcester, in one of the late Socinian Pamphlets, that he was a passionate and angry Writer, and not fit to write Controversies.  
But the truth of the matter, with respect to the Gentleman Mr. Edward's hath to do with, is this, that he began to be very daring, and with disdain to trample upon Universities, public Schools, Clergymen, etc. as well as upon the most sacred and venerable Articles of our Christian Faith, and the very Epistles of the inspired Apostles; which occasioned Mr. Edward's to appear against him with some severity and indignation, and to be plain and home with him, and to be a little upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him. He thought good to treat him roundly and smartly, and to intersperse here and there some nipping Sarcasms. And now we see and are convinced, that this was the best way of dealing with him; for this sort of Medicaments hath cured his Pen of the Diarrhaea, at least as to this present Cause for a time. As we owe it likewise to this plainness and freedom that the late Socinian Writers were took down so soon. By the pointed dint of Mr. Edwards' Arguments in his Socinian Creed, and by the free and smart Lashes he distributed among those Gentlemen, this great Service was done to the Church. And I am persuaded, and so are others, that he will never hear from them again, especially now their great Pan is dead, who used to hand their Papers to the Press, and to pay for them. It is the general opinion, that if Mr. Locke had not run the Gauntlet, we should not have been quiet for him; whence we see there was a necessity of using this severe Discipline towards him. It was as requisite as sober and close arguing, of which he had abundance in Mr. Edwards' several Writings. Here was no unfair dealing then, Mr. Edward's did nothing that was ungenteel, or argued him to be a stranger to good Manners, no more than the Gentlemen of the Grand Jury of Middlesex, who thought fit to give Mr. Locke's Book a place in their Presentments. To conclude, it is a vulgar Saying (though borrowed from an eminent Pen) that Writers of Controversies should use soft Words and hard Arguments: But though the Bishop of Worcester hath followed this exactly in his Controversies with Mr. Locke, yet neither Mr. Lock nor Mr. Edward's have tied themselves to this Rule, for Mr. Lock in his Debates with the Bishop hath soft Words and soft Arguments; and in his last Debates with Mr. Edward's he hath some very hard words, though his Arguments be very soft. But of Mr. Edwards it is generally said, his Arguments are hard as well as his Words.  
Leaving Mr. Locke and his Antagonists, we proceed to Champions of another nature and kind. And the next pair is of the Critical Classis: the Honourable Charles boil Esq; having published the Epistles of Phalaris, etc. Dr. Bentley not long after put out his Dissertations upon them, wherein he makes some Reflections on the Editors, but chiefly on the performance itself. I don't think he had any ill design, but he shows himself a true thorough-paced Critic, that is, one that flies at all, censures and condemns all as he sees occasion, and spares neither persons nor things, for else he would not be a right Critic. It is a hard matter to decide the Controversy between Persons of this Study, for there is a great deal of subtlety and double-dealing in the ordinary managing of the Critics Office; and it is an easy matter for a well-read man to thrust his Notions on the belief of the world, and to gain a very good reception, though they have little solidity at the bottom. I will not undertake to interpose here, for he only is to be Umpire that fully understands both sides. But I hope I may be permitted to report what every unbiass'd man saith that hath insight into that sort of Learning, namely, that the Doctor's Criticism is very brave and noble; and if it be not exactly adjusted to Truth, yet it is very probable.  
Then comes Mr. boil, and shows himself a great Critic, and a witty one: He hath amassed a great deal of Reading together, excellently criticized for his own turn; but when all is done, his Quotations do not reach the Business. However, this must be said, he hath taken a great deal of pains, or some body for him hath so, for this is that which the▪ Doctor hath more than hinted, that Mr. boil was not the Author of that Work; yea, that there was a Club of Critics to finish it; that it was patched up of several pieces, and by several hands. Cuckow-like they had translated their own brood, and laid it in this Gentleman's Nest. But to be free with the Learned Doctor, though most men think this to be true, yet unless he had had good ground for it, he should have been silent, especially when he dealt with a Person of Honour, and one that had been lately reading not only Rosscommon, but an ancienter Poet, 
— Quae non fecimus ipsi,  
Vix ea nostra voco—.  Therefore truly I think the Learned Doctor should have tacitly owned him to be the Author of that undertaking, till he could evince the contrary, and the rather because that Gentleman publicly set his Name to it, and told the World it was his. But let us see how this incensed young Critic handles the Doctor, and truly he doth this roughly enough; for first he reflects on his Morals, and accuses him of false dealing, lying, cheating, denying his own words— p. 5, 6, 7, 8. and he produces other men's words and hands against him. The decision of all which wholly depends on the integrity of the Witnesses, and on the fair and sincere interpreting of what passed on both sides; and therefore I shall wave this, and proceed to that which we may more easily judge of. Only all that I will say at present is this, that from what an honest Gentleman beyond-sea, Monsieur Grevius, is ready to attest to the World, we shall be able to guests what weight there is in the rest of the Stories and Relations. Mr. boil (to let us know, at his first setting up to write, that he intends not to be sparing in his Reflections) grates on the Doctor's breeding, Pref. tells him of his dependence on— p. 12. upbraids him with want of Humanity, ibid. Objects to him ill breeding, p. 22. ill-manners, ibid. He lets the Doctor know that he acts not like a Scholar or a Christian, p. 24. or one in Holy Orders, ibid. He charges him with want of Modesty, p. 28. with affectation of Pedantry, p. 34. defect of sagacity and sincerity, p. 67. he saith he is a man of no meaning and design, p. 68 one that hath no relish or taste of the proprieties of any of those Languages he hath pretended to judge of or write in, p. 72. he jeers at his Employment of Library-keeper, p. 91, 100 he lays to his charge disabliging rude qualities, p. 111. misrepresenting of Authors to serve a turn, 117. laughs at him for quibble and witticism, 133, 134, tells him he is fast asleep, and yet talks wildly, 137. he means he talks in his Sleep. He commonly arraigns' him as a Filcher and a Plagiary, he calls him a weeder of Writers, 216. and (to let us see he improves in his Style) he honours him with the Epithets of Ass and Dunce, 220. And in one single page he lays it on thick, telling him he is false and disingenuous in his dealings, fierce and vindictive— lofty and insulting— scurrilous, clownish, p. 222. and every where he represents him as a Fool, a weak Creature, as a man neither of Understanding nor Integrity.  
Here is the charge, which is either true or false; if the former, than Mr. boil is the only discerning man in the World (which no body I think believes, no not himself) for no body but he will or can say all these things of the Doctor. If the latter, than some body begins the Prize betimes for the Whetstone, and few can boast they have the better of him: But I will not be so rude as to impeach him of falsity, though the thing he saith be not true; for perhaps it may seem true to him, and then if he delivered only his Opinion, he doth not falsify. As to Mr. boil's stile, it is very reflecting and sarcastic; and if any man thinks otherwise, he deserves to taste of it. But such as it is, if Dr. Bentley had deserved it at his hands, it had not been culpable: For it is not the severity of Language that renders it unblamable, but the ill design and end that make it so. An ingenious Gentleman was pleased to say, There is not so much Truth spoken any where as at Billingsgate, Blount's Life of Apollonius Tyanaeus, written by Philostrat.) because others are mealy-mouthed, and loath to speak out, but they tell one another's faults plainly and roundly, though with unsufferable indecency of words, and with implacable Passion, and to very unchristian ends and purposes, and (by that Gentleman's leave) with want of Truth very frequently. I will not then insist upon the bare mode of Language, used by this noble Writer, but fairly and impartially scan the decency and fitness of it, as it relates to the Person whom he hath to do with, and as it may be thought to become himself.  
1. Some think this noble Gentleman hath transgressed his own Laws and Rules about Pedantry, and whilst he charges the Doctor with that fault, is guilty of it himself, in those scraps of Poetry which he claps into the front, and into the body of his Book, in his affected Quotations of others besides Rosscommon; in his indigested Rhapsodies out of Greek Authors, in his forced and strained Criticisms, in his slighting the best and most authentic Authority, in his formal dictating every where, in his prescribing of Maxims and Rules to the World, in his pack of Advices and good Counsels, when there was no need of them. Such trumpery as this is found in the most slender sort of Writers, and such as this Gentleman calls Pedants. This is some men's sense concerning his Examination of Dr. Bently's Dissertations.  
2. Others think that the ill-breeding he objects to the Doctor is his own blemish, for they apprehend it savours not overmuch of Gentility and good Manners, to disparage the breeding of a Person of ingenuous Education, and brought up in Societies and Families where that quality is not wanting, and who taught it unto others. And there are those who imagine, that Doctor of Divinity, Chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, the King's Library keeper, (not to mention his Promotion and Dignity in the Church) almost amount to as great a noise as the Title of Esquire.  
3. Some think (and who can help their thinking?) that Mr. boil offends against his own Rules, about ill-breeding and Pedantism, when he mentions Dr. Bently's dependence on a great Man, as if that Relation were a dishonour to him, for be sure he doth not mention it for his Honour. One would think that for the sake of that eminent Person, that Reflection might have been spared. But some are of Opinion, that this is a kind of revenging of Mr. L.'s Cause, which they would not do directly on the Bishop, for writing against him, and therefore chose this oblique way: But I can say nothing as to that. No man believes there is any great overplus of breeding (for that is the word our Author furnishes us with) in insisting on Dr. Bentley's being the Library-keeper at St. James'. He did rather call for some Deference as he was the King's Servant there. Wherefore he that turns this into a Reflection, seems not to understand the breeding of the Court. But however, as the Doctor was in Holy Orders, he was to have had some respect paid to him; but even this is mentioned to his disparagement, which carries little of the air and genius of a Gentleman: which is an Argument to persuade me that some body else besides the Honourable Mr. boil had a hand in this work. In short, whoever he was, he gives the Doctor no quarter, he teazes and worries him most unmercifully. Mr. Wotton hardly escapes, for this Author flies at him and his Treatise of Ancient and Modern Learning, and more than once reminds him, that he hath purged his Book of several ill Passages in this second Edition▪ p. 97. letting us know that the former had several ill Passages in it: and he charges this Gentleman likewise with ill manners, p. 22. and it is a kindness that he there stopped.  
4. The aggravation of all is this, That the greatest part of all this Raillery is only for a little Criticism. Who would think that such a small matter should exasperate Persons to that height, and warm their Bloods to that degree? It was otherwise with the late Combatants we spoke of, their difference was in points of an high nature, where indifferency would have been a fault. Mr. Edward's had reason to appear with some warmth, when the grand matters of our Religion lay at stake, such as concerned the very life and soul of Christianity. Not to mention that Mr. Edward's had treated Mr. Lock in a moderate and civil stile; and that on the other side Mr. Locke had not only rudely treated him, but others of the same Function and Office, so that he had made it not only a personal but a public Quarrel, which gave some warmth to Mr. Edwards' Pen.  
Lastly, Those undue Menaces and threatenings, which are scattered up and down by the Examinator, induce me to incline towards Dr. Bentley's Opinion, that Mr. boil was not the entire Composer of those Papers: For though too many that bear the name of Gentlemen, are for touching the Hilt presently if a harsh word be given, yet the noble and religious Education of the Boyles allows of no such thing. The angry Criticiser, who ever he is, gives plain hints of a severer Method to be used. In three or four places the Doctor is given to understand that if he provokes this Writer, he shall feel the force of a sharper Instrument than a Quill: for Gentlemen, he saith, use to revenge their Quarrels in another way than with their Pens. This is one of the most boisterous Critics that ever I met with; he is for hectoring his Brother Critic into silence or compliance. This is a new way of writing, with Sword or Bagonet in hand. This is done certainly to warn our Clergy for the future that they write not against one sort of men, lest they be whipped through the Lungs for their pains. As for the Learned Doctor, you must think he fares the worse for his free Discourses and Sermons against the Deists and Atheists, when at the Boylean Lecture he smote them under the fifth Rib, and therefore 'tis no wonder that he is threatened to be served so himself. Truly I reckon the Doctor to be in an unsafe case as to his person: and he is in as dangerous a one as to his Books, for I will not secure them from an University Decree, (for some of the same hands are at work now that procured the Dean of S. P. that favour) no nor from a warmer Doom, such as that about the year 1684. But I leave the Doctor to tell his own Story and his Fears; only before I leave off, I will add the Reflection of the Town on one or two of the foregoing Adventurers and others, viz. into what different postures they cast themselves, and appear on the Stage. Dr. South combats a Brother-Church-man, say they; Mr. Edwards is pleasant upon a Lay-Gentleman; Mr. boil (as it were to be even with him) rallies upon a Reverend Clergyman; and one too well known to be named, plays upon both Ranks. Hence some fanciful Brains imagine that these Changes are thus purposely rung by the Press: but this is a groundless Conceit, and needs no refuting.  
Having spoken with this freedom concerning our Domestic Critics, let me add something concerning a Foreign one, the Ingenious and Learned Author of Ars Critica. He had made himself known before by several of his learned Writings; but we must look upon this as his Masterpiece, not so much for the superexcellency of the thing itself, as for the subtle contriving and designing of it, viz. that it should propagate Socinianism in a new method. Others have in a downright way promoted the Cause, by positive handling and determining the particular Doctrines, and by excepting and arguing against the contrary Opinions. But here comes a Gentleman that takes another course, and undertakes to make Proselytes by Critical Art. For the Missionary Fathers have not more ways and arts of gaining Converts in China, and the other Pagan Countries they resort to, than these men have of winning over people to Vnitarianism. It is true, Criticism hath been their chief Province, they have applied themselves to the study of Grammar, and have made some proficiency in it; but they have miserably abused this sort of Learning, by making it serve their own turns: For which this Author is as eminent as any, but he hath gone to work in away different from the rest; for whereas others plainly and directly asserted the Socinian Opinions, by commenting upon the Books of the New Testament, here is another way taken by this Writer in this his last Book. One would think he intended only to set down the Laws and Rules of Criticism, with respect to Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Authors; but the main drift of his undertaking is to establish the Doctrines of Socinus. It is in an oblique and collateral manner that he chooses to be a Patron of that Cause. His Artifice is to shape his Critic into a Socinian. This (which I hope may be of some good use to the Reader) I will make good by going through the several parts of his Book, and showing that the various Topics of Criticism which he makes use of, are strained to this purpose, namely, to the defence of the Socinian Points.  
Part 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. treating on the Head of common Opinions, he drags in this, Among the Jews it was thought that Sacrifices were the chief part of Divine Worship; therefore in the New Testament all the Offices of Religion are expressed by the name of Sacrifices. And so the Death of Christ is called there a Sacrifice, because it was the chief part of that Religion, and had some things in it resembling Sacrifices. And then hints, that it was only a metaphorical and improper Sacrifice. For the sake of the Doctrine which rejects Christ's Satisfaction, this was brought in here under this Head, though it is plain it hath no reference to it.  
Part 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 3. what he hath about the names Elohim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deus, God, hath a collateral aspect to the Doctrine of the unitarians, who hold that the Name of God is and may be applied to Christ; and yet it doth not follow thence that he is truly and properly God: For, saith he, though the supreme Numen be called Elohim, yet neither that nor any of the other words denote God as he is the most perfect Nature, but only as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be worshipped. This is to let us know, that though our Saviour may be the Object of Divine Worship, yet he is not God, because he hath not the most perfect Nature, that is, the Nature of the one Supreme God, as they style it. And this is the thing he aims at in what follows in that Chapter, where he alleges some of the ancient Christian Writers, who make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God, as it signifies some worthy and honourable Being (as Angels, or Magistrates) not the only true God that is to be worshipped. But it is easily seen that this is nothing to his purpose, only he shows his good will to the Cause.  
Chap. 4. This Writer shows his favour of that Doctrine which is known to be espoused by his party, when he will not let those words, Gen. 2. 17. Thou shalt surely die, be interpreted thus, thou shalt be mortal, or be in the state of mortality; of which no other reason can be given than this, that he was willing (to use his own words) to accommodate this threatening to his own Opinion.  
In the same Chapter he shows his good will to the Racovian Divinity, when he interprets Jer. 31. 33. of the Memory only. I will put my Law into their inward parts, and write it in their Hearts; that is, saith he, I will take care that the Israelites shall retain the Law in their Memories, and shall not want a Monitor to put them in mind of it. This is the whole emphasis of the words. And to confirm this, he quotes the next words as a proof of what he saith, They shall teach no more every man his Neighbour, etc. but we find nothing of proof in them, there is not the least intimation that the foregoing words are to be meant of bare remembrance. But this is the slender fare which we must expect, when this learned Writer pretends to make the greatest Provision, and to satisfy the Readers appetite: Nor can it be otherwise when a man of his Parts and Reading truckles to a Cause, and submits himself to be led by false Notions, and (to uphold them) wrists the Holy Scripture, as he doth here, under a cloak of Criticism. Any unprejudiced man may be convinced, that the forementioned words are the Covenant or Promise of Grace and Salvation by the Messiah. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant, ver. 31. and those days are the days of the Gospel, as appears from the occasion of citing and applying the foresaid Text, in Heb. 8. 8. That Covenant is in a more signal manner fulfilled under the Evangelical Dispensation, the Divine Law is put into the inner parts of the Faithful, and written on their Hearts; that is, by virtue of the Holy Spirit their Understandings are so enlightened, and their Wills and Consciences so effectually wrought upon, that they are enabled to observe that Law. This is the privilege of the Evangelical Covenant: but our Author was not to comply with this, because it is repugnant to the Doctrine of those men he adheres to, who explode all special Grace and Assistance of the Spirit, and solve all by Moral Suasion. It is no wonder then, that in obeisance to those Doctors, he makes writing the Law in the Heart, and inner parts, to be no more than bare remembering of it. Thus you have his Interpretation, and you have the true ground and occasion of it. He proceeds to try whether he can by Quotations out of Gentile Writers prove, that writing in the Mind or Heart is of the same signification with Remembrance; but some of his Instances which he alleges, come not up to what he quotes them for, and if they did, the Sacred and Pagan stile are not to be paralleled always, as he himself expressly acknowledges among his Critical Observations: And as for the Citation out of Josephus, Antiq. 1. 4. c. 8. The writing of the Laws on their Minds, and the preserving them in their Memories, seem to be two distinct things. The truth is (so far as I can judge) this Learned Gentleman shapes his Criticism according to the Doctrines he hath embraced, and that is the ground of his mistaking here and in other places.  
This may be perceived in his Critical Notes in this same Chapter, about opening the Eyes, where the design was to fetch in Acts 26. 18. To open their Eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light; and then from his premised Critical Glosses, to insinuate that there is no Emphasis, no Energy, as he saith, in those words. So he continues that there is nothing Emphatical in the Apostles words concerning Lydia, Acts 16. 14. The Lord opened her Heart. Her Conversion was not by any special Power and Efficacy, only (as he strangely expresses it) It was by divine▪ Providence, whatever machines God made use of at last, that Lydia gave an attentive Ear to Paul. He tells us that the wonderful change that was wrought in this Female by the preaching of the Gospel was the work of Providence, by which all other things come to pass in the World. And it was a Mechanical Operation, for that he must mean by his Machines'; it was an external work, void of an inward efficacious and energetical Principle. This is his way of describing Lydia's Conversion to the Christian Faith, only to serve his Hypothesis about Grace and Conversion: This was the reason why our Critic would have us take no notice of any Emphasis in those foregoing Phrases, no not in the writings of the Bible.  
Chap. 5. He approaches nearer to his designed business; he so order his way of Criticising, that he must take notice of ambiguous words, and words of different significations, and then he brings in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the price of Redemption, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redeem, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redemption, and represents these as ambiguous and doubtful terms, and hard to be understood when they are applied to Christ's Redemption. And here he perplexes the matter, and renders it difficult and obscure, and unsettles▪ and confounds the belief of the weak. It is observable he undertakes afterwards to reckon up all the significations of the word Spirit in the Old and New Testament (as well as in other Writers) but he can't find one place where it signifies the third Person in the Trinity. He acknowledges indeed that there is mention of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, but it is only as much as God in general, or a Divine Power, or some invisible force, not any distinct Person in the Trinity. It is true, he saith, The Christian Divines, both Ancient and Modern, fitted or accommodated several of those places to the Holy Ghost, the third Person in the Trinity, and so do the Divines at this day; but he is not pleased to say, that either in the Old or in the New Testament, the word Spirit doth occur in this sense. No, that was not to be expected, for his method of Criticism was to be guided by his prepossessions concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, or rather his denial of that Doctrine. His whole Catalogue of Places, in Writers that mention the word Spirit, seems to be inserted into this Chapter, on purpose to patronise that mistaken Notion, that the Scriptures mention not the Spirit as a distinct Person in the Deity: For this cause the divers senses of the word Spirit were hooked in under this Chapter, which treats of ambiguous words.  
In the next he considers the larger and the narrower acceptions of the words Justice or Righteousness, Charity, Faith, but all along seems to be upon design, and forces his Critical Observations into some subservienty to the Principles and Practices he hath a kindness for.  
In the 7 th' Chapter he lays down this Rule, viz. That proper words must not be confounded with improper ones, and then tells us, that the contrary practice is a common fault; and accordingly the Apostle offends, he saith, in this kind, when he speaks thus to the Galatians, Chap. 4. 8. When ye knew not God, ye did service unto them who by nature are no Gods. Which words are haled in here to prove, that St. Paul was a confused and improper Speaker, and to take occasion to discourse of that expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a God by Nature, that hereby the Divinity of Christ might receive a shock. If you ask him what a God by Nature is, he answers, One that is not a God by Institution and Opinion. And yet such was our Saviour, say the Socinian Masters, he is a God by divine Institution, Appointment, and Order; this is all the Divinity they allow him.  
Chap. 8. His Criticism is again a hackney to his private Belief and Opinion; and thence he brings in Grace among the Obscure words that are to be found in Theological Writers; and he professes he can't make any sense of it, as it is used by St. Augustin, and other Divines since his time. Why, because it is not according to the Vnitarian Scheme of Divinity, and therefore there can be no sense in the word or thing. It is not then strange that he ridicules that Doctrine, and exposes it to contempt and scorn, making use to that purpose of a certain Jesuits Dialogue, which he very solemnly quotes. And in the same place the Pious and Learned Father St. Augustin is despised and vilified as a popular Speaker, and unskilled in the Critic Art, because he vouches the Doctrine of Grace. The best Language Monsieur Le Clerc can give it is, that it is he knows not what; which though spoken in a jeering and scoffing way, is, some fear, the truest thing he hath said in this Chapter, or any other.  
Chap. 9 He pretends to propound some words which have no signification at all, but are commonly used among the Philosophic Fry, and not only among them, but Divine; for these (he is pleased to say) no less than they, love to speak concerning those things which they understand and not. Our Lay-Critick is very smart upon the Gown. These Divines, and these Priests (as they are otherwise called) are, I perceive, very offensive to some of late, and no wonder, when they talk Nonsense, and do not understand themselves what they say, as this Gentleman complains. And if any man ask of them an interpretation of many of the words they use, they reply presently, that their Discourse is about a thing that is incomprehensible; and therefore Human Reason must not pass judgement on things of this nature, as it doth upon others. Thus our witty Critic, who (as his Brethren) by the Incomprehensible thing mean the Trinity, and other Doctrines that have relation to it, which are Names of Nothing according to this Writer, nay, (as he displays it in great Characters) they are NOTHING, as if his putting any thing into Capital Letters would annihilate it.  
Chap. 12. His interpretation of the Righteousness of God revealed from Faith to Faith, Rom. 1. 17. is wholly of the Racovian strain.  
Chap. 14. He disparages the Divinity of Christ, by telling us, that the Divinity which inhabited in him, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Evangelist in a Platonic way; and that Platonic way he asserts to be far different from the mind of some Christians, who hold Christ to be truly God. Afterwards he hath as little ground for what he so positively affirms, that all Christians at this day descent much from the determination of the Nicene Council.  
Chap. 15. He again falls soul upon St. Augustin (that celebrated Father of the Christian Church) and all those that agree with him in the Doctrine of Grace, the reason of which I have assigned before.  
Chap. 16. On the same Principle that his Friends go upon (that all things are clear and plain in Christianity, and that there are no Mysteries in it) he upbraids the ancient Christian Writers, with their mystical and obscure Orations and Discourses. He unhappily joins with Porphyrius, the most implacable Adversary of the Christians and Christianity itself (though very Learned, he saith) in this very thing, and uses his words against the Christian Doctors, who interpreted the Holy Scriptures in the Primitive times.  
Part 2. Chap. 5. Who would think he could have handsomely brought Synods, and the Representative Church, under this Chapter of Abstracts and Concretes? And yet it must be done, because it was to be brought in some where for the Synod of Nice's sake, where there were so many Representatives of the Church at that time, who asserted and vindicated the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.  
Chap. 8. Having in other places spoken so contemptuously of some of the greatest Points of Religion, it is not to be supposed that he hath very reverend Thoughts of GOD himself▪ and accordingly he hath this strange Passage, As often as the word GOD occurs in any Writer, we must know it is always the name of a Notion, which, according to the Wit or Wisdom of the Writer, contains in it more or fewer Attributes.  
Part 3. In several Chapters together he shows himself a true Gritick, in his inquiries about the causes of those Faults which have crept into old Writers, only here and there he hath a brief touch which serves to remind us of his inclination. But in the 14 th' Chapter, which is concerning the Faults that are to be attributed to Impostors, he plainly shows his Bias in these following particulars. He reckons Rom. 5. 14. among the adulterated Texts, Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even on those who sinned not after the similitude of Adam 's Transgression: but any one that knows the Opinions of Socinus' Friends, cannot but see why not is looked upon as an Interpolation. He numbers Rom. 9 5. God blessed for ever, among the vitiated places, observing that the word God is not in some Copies. Next he instances in 1 Tim. 3. 16. God was manifest in the Flesh, and remains us that the word God is omitted in many Greek Exemplars. Then he takes notice that those words in 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, are not to be found in the old Greek Copies, but are foisted in by fraud: but yet, as he saith afterwards, Chap. 16. They are contended for, and maintained by Divines that have not skill in Critics, or who look for that in Books which they wish for, not for what is in them. Among the places that have been altered and corrupted by Impostors, the 4th ver. of the Epistle of St. Judas is reckoned by him; because the only Lord God is meant of our Saviour, therefore he adheres to those who say God is a word inserted here by fraud. Thus all these Allegations confirm us in that opinion, which this Author is not unwilling we should have of him, namely, that he is a great admirer of Socinus' Doctrines, and is ambitious of propagating them; and this he doth under the mask of Criticising.  
He concludes all with his judgement on the Character of a Writer; and we might do so too, and be as severe upon him as he is upon Curtius, whom he makes a very sorry Writer. But as for himself, and his Treatise of the Critical Art, he gives us high Characters of both in several of his Pages, but chiefly in his Dedicatory Epistle to his Teuto, where he assures us, that he doth not swell with Pedagogic Pride, nor is he loaded with a farrage of jejune Learning, but uses his Judgement and Memory, and is modest, etc. I am as ready as himself to heap praises on his Head, and to applaud his neat Style, his great Reading, his vast Industry, his excellent Remarks on the different undertake of Authors, his variety of Critical Notions, by which he hath very much obliged the World. But then (that I neither may be a partial Critic▪) I must needs say, he hath disobliged it much more by his straining of Criticism, to support a Cause which he hath unfortunately adopted. And here to make an end, I will observe these three things.  
1. There is nothing New in this Writer which respects that Cause: He hath not cultivated the Argument at all, no not where every one might have expected it. For who would have thought that so industrious a Critic, and so hearty a well-willer to Vnitarianism, would not have attempted at least to return an Answer to the excellent Arguments used by Bishop Pearson and Bishop Stillingfleet to disprove the Allegations of the Socinians, about the adulterating and depraving of some of those Texts which he hath produced? This would have been a seasonable work, and especially because it properly appertains to the Province of Critics, and because it appears from his Writings, that he is not unacquainted with the Works of those eminent Men, and reads them in their own Language. And yet notwithstanding all this, he makes no effort that ways, nor doth he so much as take notice that those excellent Authors have replied to the Objections and Scruples of the Socinian Writers about those Texts. Whence▪ we may infer, that what those Learned Anti-Socinians have suggested, is unanswerable, and that one of the smartest Critics of our days hath nothing to say to it.  
2. We might observe how mischievous and dangerous such Writings as these, which not only this Author but others of the same Persuasion have lately filled the World with, may prove to Mankind. We ought to think of this betimes, and to show our resentment of it, lest otherwise we contribute by our insensibleness to that Evil which we see is approaching. Any man that is not prepossessed, may discern the Contrivance which is carrying on at this day, namely, to instil the notions of Socinianism into the Youth of this Age: and accordingly it is observable, that the Foreign and English unitarians have industriously applied themselves to this rank of Persons, that is, to those that are coming up in the World. We see that their address is very frequent and close to young Gentlemen, that by sowing these early Seeds in them, there may be a hopeful Crop expected afterwards: so that though these Seeds-men may not prevail so far upon this present Generation as they desire, yet there may be some fruit of their labours in the future one. This Learned Monsieur is a Tutor to the younger Heads, a Director to them in their Studies, and dedicates his Critics to one of them, and intimates the hopes of the good success of his Documents. And truly it is to be mentioned with infinite regret, that these Instructors have their Teuto's every where, and are very busily at work with them: so among ourselves, we have some that promote Principles of a like nature with those, and are employed in the Education of the youth of this Nation. As much as to tell us, that if they cannot sufficiently proselyte the men of this Age, they will make sure of those of the next; if they can't succeed at present, they will gain Posterity.  
3. I have one thing more to observe, and that is this, how harmful a Project it is of our Critic, to publish Dr. Hammond's Annotations on the New Testament, and at the same time to mix his own additional Notes with them. This is a politic way to promote the Cause, and especially in England, where the Works of that Learned and Pious Annotator are in so great esteem: When his Criticisms and Interpretations are blended with the Socinian ones, how easily will they be both imbibed together? I thought fit to caution my Countrymen about this Hazard, that they may not be betrayed into Error, even the worst of Errors, whilst they are intent upon studying the Truth. This is all I have to say at present concerning this French Author, whose Wit and Parts, and acquired Accomplishments are not of the lowest degree, and whose Critical Genius, if it had been set right, would have been extremely serviceable to Religion, especially the Christian. But it is his unhappiness to have taken the wrong Path, and if he goes on after this rate he hath begun, he will criticise a great part of our Religion out of doors.  
I had some Thoughts of proceeding to other Authors, some of our own Country, as Dr. Whitby and Mr. Norris, who have duelled one another about the Love of the Creature: I was thinking to examine the Philosophic Champions, as L. P. or the Oxford-Essays, and Mr. H. and one or two pair more of the Strugglers of this Age: but these may perhaps be the diversion of another Paper, and it may be will give less Offence; for your Critics are very touchy People; and it is very invidious to go a Socinian-hunting, as one or two lately have found it.  
And lastly, I am fully sensible what a difficult and arduous work I have been about, no less than adjusting the Debates between Cambridg and Oxford, between the St. John's men on one side, and the men of Christ-Church on the other.  
THE END.