A Brief Vindication OF THE Fundamental Articles OF THE Christian Faith, AS ALSO Of the Clergy, Universities and Public Schools, from Mr. Lock's Reflections upon them in his Book of Education, etc. With some Animadversions on two other late Pamphlets, viz. Of Mr. Bold and a Nameless Socinian Writer.  
By john Edward's, B. D.  
LONDON: Printed for I. Robinson at the Golden Lion, and I. Wyatt at the Rose in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1697.   

THE Epistle Dedicatory TO BOTH UNIVERSITIES.  
HONOURED SIRS,  
A Late Writer hath taken the confidence to make very Disrespectful, Indecent, Rude, and Scurrilous Reflections upon You, and hath with that Scorn and Insolence, which are peculiar to him, and cannot be supposed to be in any other Man, censured your Studies and Ways and Methods of Learning, which are at this day owned and practised by you. They have always born the brand of Infamy who have showed their ill will to these Public Schools of Education and Professed Seminaries of Arts and Literature. Pope Paul the Second and Sixtus the Fourth who succeeded him were infamous on this account, for both of them were observed to bear a Hatred to Universities, and publicly to declare their abhorrence of Academic Men and Learning. Mr. Hobbes is a Modern Instance, who was wont to decry the University-Studies and Learning, because he had espoused a Set of Notions which were destructive not only to Academic but all Religious Principles. But a later Instance we have in one Mr. Lock, who though he infinitely comes short of the forenamed Person in Parts or Good Letters, yet hath taken the courage to tread in his Old Friend's steps, and publicly to proclaim his dislike of University-Men, and to remonstrate against the Methods they take in bringing up of Youth. The Name of Public Schools and Academies is as hateful to him as that of Ath●nasius to a Socinian.  
Nor is he pleased with our Old Christianity, but hath offered a New Scheme to the World, the same (the very same in words, as well as to the Thing) with what Mr. Hobbes propounded as the Perfect and Complete Model of Faith, viz. To believe in Christ is nothing else than to believe that Jesus is the Christ: and no other Faith, besides this Article, is required to Eternal life. De Cive cap. 18. The belief of this Article, Jesus is the Christ or Messias, is all the Faith required for Salvation. Leviathan. Part. 3. Chap. 43. This is the Doctrine which is revived and furbished up in the pretended Reasonableness of Christianity: and you see whence it is borrowed. When that Writer was framing a New Christianity, he took Hobbes' Leviathan for the New Testament, and the Philosopher of Malmsbury for our Saviour and the Apostles. See how naturally a Man passes from arraigning and vilifying the Universities to affront and abuse Religion! He had with pride and contempt trampled upon the former, and now he attacks the latter, and treads Christianity itself under his feet.  
It may be few of you have taken notice of the Affronts done to yourselves by this Bold Assailant, as not busying yourselves with such sort of Writers, or as thinking such Reflections below your Resentments. But I having had occasion to enter the Lists with this Gentleman, it falls in my way to take notice of his Double Insolence, i. e. to You and to Religion, but more especially the latter, which he hath miserably shattered and unsettled, and almost reduced to nothing; having balked a great part of the Gospels, and wholly laid aside the Epistles, and renounced all Articles of Christianity but One as necessary to be believed to constitute a Man a Christian, and having every where showed his disdain of the Ministry and Ministers of the Gospel, especially the Clergy of the Church of England. So that he deserves to be treated with satire rather than Argument. And therefore if there be in the ensuing Papers a kind of mixture of the former with the latter, I hope it will not be disrelished even by the most Serious and judicious Readers when they consider on whom it is bestowed.  
Gentlemen, I have now an opportunity of vindicating the Honour of those Renowned and Learned Bodies to which you belong, and likewise of asserting and defending the Cause of Christianity: wherefore I thought I should be defective as to both these Concerns if I did not offer these Papers to You, and humbly request You to take them into your patronage, with the Author of them, who is,  
Most Learned Sirs, Your entire Servant and Honourer JOHN EDWARD'S.   

The Author to the Bookseller.  
SIR,  
YOu know Books Printed at Cambridge are commonly Licenced by the University, and accordingly when I designed the following Papers for the Press there, I requested Mr. Vicechancellor and the Regius Professor of Divinity to peruse them, which they did, and then returned them to me with an Imprimatur: and two other Heads of Colleges (for I applied myself to no more) were pleased to sign the same. The Form was thus:  
April 17. 1697.  
Imprimatur,  

Hen. james Procan.  
Io. Beaumond Reg. Theol. Prof.  
Io. Covell S. T. P.  
Io. Balders●on S. T. P.   
But since I found it necessary to be printed at London, 〈◊〉 that I might not seem neglectful of 〈◊〉 ●avour and Kindness of the worthy P●●sons before mentioned; And that you and the Reader may see that the Ensuing Undertaking was so far approved of by those Learned Gentlemen, that they Licenced the Printing of it: I have thought fit for their 〈◊〉 and yours to set down their Names.  
Your humble Servant J. E.   

A Brief Vindication OF THE Christian Faith, etc.  
AFter I had observed the rude and surly Genius of a late Penman, the Author and Vindicator of a Treatise which he entitules The Reasonableness of Christianity, I had a mind to see what was his Humour in some other of his Productions, and accordingly I looked into his Papers of Education, and there I soon discovered that it was his settled Nature and Temper to Traduce all ranks of Persons, and that he had taught his Tongue to Revel, and that he can't write three Pages without thrice as many Calumnies and Falsehoods, and so I less wondered at his Rudeness to Me. There I found that he libels the most Learned and Celebrated Societies of Men in this Nation, that he strives to blast the reputation of the most Useful Perso●s, and to ridicule their Public Employments and Statiens, that with an ungovernable pride and disdain he discards some Arts and Sciences, and laughs at the Professors of them: And in brief, I found that he imperiously flies at all, and like some Barbarous Invader makes havoc wheresoever he comes, and spares no Sex, Place, or Quality of Persons. Of which I will now give the Reader some particular Instances, and undeniable proofs.  
For I conceive it will not be expected that I should first endeavour to make it clear, that the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity is the same person that writ concerning Education, for all his Friends and Admirers, (who would not wrong him, we must think) make him the Father of both: And he owns it himself, for when I saluted him by the name of Mr. Lock in a late Treatise [The Socinian Greed. Chap. 6.] he readily answered to it. In his Socinian Creed, p 120. he begins with M E, saith he, Vindicat. p. 398. and afterwards in the same Page and the four following ones, he particularly applies to himself what I said of him by Name in that Chapter; and he concludes p. 402. This is all that is new, which I think Myself concerned in, in his Soc●nian Creed. This All is what I had said concerning his One Article, and concerning his baulking of the Epistles, and concerning his crying down of Systems with a design to establish one of his own. All along I charged Mr. Lock with these things, to which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity submissively replies, I think MYSELF concerned in all this, which is as much as to say, I am Mr. Lock whom you mentioned so often in that Chapter. And we shall find in p. 424, 425. of his Second Vindication, that he takes to himself whatever I had said with particular reference to Mr. Lock, whom I expressly named in the foresaid Chapter. Here we see the Masker pulls off his Vizour, and after all his Disguises owns himself to bear that Name which I called him by. I think than I may proceed.  
First, to give the Reader a right Idea of this Gentleman, I will take notice of his way of treating the Universities whether at home or abroad, for we must know that he is a Catholic Hater of them all, as appears from his scornful censuring and disparaging the Learning now in fashion in the Schools of Europe, page 158 of his Thoughts of Education, by which general terms he means the Form Academies as well as the meaner Schools and Seats of Education which are in these European parts. Our Universal Railer spares neither Foreign Nurseries of Learning, nor those in his own Country. It is as easy to him with the same infectious Breath, to blast the one as the other. And his Pride and Arrogance prompt him to blow upon both, and to defy all Methods of Education but his own. But chiefly his spite is heightened against those Two Famous Seminaries of Learning which our own Nation is blessed with, and thence it is that they fall under such Benedictions as these from him, which I shall next take notice of. The Tutors (saith he) think it their great business to fill the Studies and Heads of their Pupils with such Authors as these, viz. Burgersdicius and Schiebler. p. 162. This is an unpardonable fault, and therefore the Lash is due from our Severe Educator, and accordingly he here bestows it on the Cambridg and Oxford Tutors. I charge you, young Men, as I am Tutor General, not to deal in such Author's. Read john Lock who writ of Humane Understanding, and hath had little of it since, and not over much then. If you would fill your Pupils heads with Whimsies, there is a Book for you, If you would have no Idea of the Supreme Being, and a false one of Christianity, and a fantastic one of Good Manners, then think it your great business to fill your Studies with my Essay, and my Reasonableness of Christianity, and my Thoughts of Education. Though I know not whether Burgersdicius and Schiebler be Authors in fashion amongst the generality of Tutors at this time, but rather think they are not; yet if they have been, or are among some, it is enough to ground an Out cry upon. In the same page he tells us that Burgersdicius ' s and Schieblers did not swarm in Seneca ' s days, as they do now in these. No, good Sir, nor did such Whimsical Writers as john Lock and Sam. Bold swarm in those days, as they do now. He very worshipfully urges the little advantage of Logic, p. 234. and presently after adds, that the Skill of Reasoning well is seldom or never got by studying the Rules which pretend to teach it. Again, in the same place, merely to disparage the Academic Studies, he tells us that Right Reasoning is founded on some thing else than the Predicaments and Predicables, and consists not in talking in Mood and Figure: But we know, Good Sir, it is inconsistent with talking against them.  
In an other place, p. 145. he hath a fling at Latin (as well as Logic) brought fro● the University. What would the Man be at? Is he against all Latin● It may be so, for what need he be at the pains to learn this Tongue when Pedlars French best suits his way of living, and those he converses with? And yet methinks this should not be his meaning that he is for no Latin at all, for he may stand in need of it upon occasion; the being able to read a little of it may serve him at a dead lift. Or, is he against False Latin only One would think that should not be, for this Half-quarter (if that be not too much) of a Student in Physics and Chirurgery, hath not Skill to tell when Priscian's head is broken, or if he had, he hath not Art enough to heal it. Or, doth he rage only against the Latin that is brought from the University? Ay, there it is, I will warrant you: He imagines that it must be brought by the Carrier (and perhaps this fanciful Gentleman thinks Hobson is alive ●till) and must be paid for, and this Hidebound Gripple Man (who lays up all against the next rising and falling of Guinea's) will not be at the charges.  
But hark! there is a Terrible Broadside coming, for by way of a Concluding Struck he boldly tells us, that the Education which is at this day in the University (and by this way of speaking you may perceive he intends one of our own Universities) is useless for the World, and Man's Life. Now we are sunk, and never can rise again. A Man of University. Education is to be kicked out of the World, and deserves not to Live in it, because he is not bred up according to the Rules of one Mr. Lock's Education. His University Learning is not useful for the World, it will never make him a Committee Man, and help him to understand Manufacture and Fishery: And if it will not do that, what is it good for?  
And this Lewd Declaimer is full of Invectives against the Persons as well as the Studies of University Men, for he lets us know that the young Tutor from the University is neither well-bred, nor skilled in the world, nor well principled in the grounds and foundations of true virtue and generosity, p 145. His Latin and his Logic were bad, but his Ethics are much worse; he hath been fooling with Burgersdicius, but hath not looked into Machiavelli, and thence principled himself with the grounds and foundations of true Virtue and Generosity, which cannot be but from him alone. And then he is very sharp again upon the University-Tutors because they are not well bred, and have not the knowledge of a man of Business, p. 159. and have no knowledge of the World, p. 162, 163. and therefore are unfit to be Tutors, and to read Lectures to Gentlemen, it being impossible (as he adds) that any one should come forth well fashioned out of unpolished ill bred company, p 163. The Universities are this unpolished ill bred company, and how then can a well fashioned Tutor, and one that is fit to read Lectures to Gentlemen proceed thence?  
This is this best Language Mr. john Lock can bestow upon University-Men. He would have us know that he hath engrossed all Gentility and Good Breeding to himself, that University-Air inspires Men with Rusticity, and makes them errand Boors and Peasants, that a Fellow of a College is a Clown, and must be so by the Statutes, that Tutors are the worst of Corydons, and belong to the Rabble and High-Shoes, that the College Raven hath more Manners than the Scholars, and that the very Latin which is brought from those places smells of Barbarism. Afterwards he rebukes the Unmannerliness and Rudeness of Scholars, p. 262. meaning the foresaid persons, and rattles them again for their want of Good Breeding. Again, in an other place he derides and scoffs at the Liberal Arts, and the Tutors Learned Enc●clopaidia, p. 150. There is some unlawful Magic in this Circle of the Arts, and he would not have any one come within the Compass of it. In short, from what this Tutorer of Tutors hath let fly already against our present Academies, we may perceive him inclined to inveigh as heartily against them as Culpeper ever did against the College of Physicians. But the two Grand things which he upbraids them with are their Deficiency as to their Learning, and to their Breeding. With respect to both which, if he were indulged his Liberty, it is not to be doubted he would use such Language as this:  
The Students in the Universities, as well as the Books in the Great and Common Library of one of them, are all Chained; they are Tied to certain Methods of Study, and their Authors are prescribed them. They live in perfect Durance, and the Bocardo and Toll-booth are but representations of their respective Colleges. At their very entrance they are imprisoned and Shackled, a Burgersdicius or some such System-maker is clapped into every youth's hands, and they can't be matriculated without Predicaments and Predicables. There is nothing but Restraint and Imposition here. Oxford presents us with a Bible in its Armorial Ensigns, thereby pinning the Epistles upon us, as well as the rest of the Scripture. The Light and Cups (as Sacred as they are) of the other University are fantastic Emblems, and serve only to dazzle and intoxicate the minds of the enslaved Pupils of Alma Mater; who (poor Souls) are not skilled in the World, and understand not Trade and Commerce, and know not that Sturbridg-Fair is the best Commencement. Again, as their Knowledge, so their B●eeding is contemptible, for a Man cannot be a Gentleman, and read Burger●dicius and Scheibler. Logic gives one an ill Mien and Shape, and therefore (as I hinted before) there is not a well fashioned Tutor among them. They have no more Manners than what is left in the bare M●tto of the Founder of New College. If those of this University were remanded back to ●reke-lade and Lechelade (their first Principles) those of the other were reduced to their old Inns and Hostles, it would be suitable to their merits: But it would be much more agreeable if they were removed out of the World. I ever thought that the best way to decide the Controversy between Ca●●s and Twine about the Antiquity of these Societies is to dissolve them both. They are so Useless and Insignificant a part of Mankind, so Ill bred a Company, that the Nation would not be a Farthing the worse if they underwent the same fate with the Abbeys and Monasteries. In short, I am one that like nothing which belongs to the Ford or the Bridge, No, not so much as the Buildings of the former, for in my judgement Lowse-Hall is as good a Structure as the Theatre. I see nothing that is Genteel, or Learned in either of the so much Celebrated Universities. Both their Behaviour and their Studies are to be abhorred because they are not according to the Pattern of my Seraglio which I intent to publish to the World, and have partly done it in my Education.  
But where then can we suppose this Raving Tutor and Reformer to have been bred, who thinks and talks after this rate? And to what Society doth he belong? If Charity did not give a Check here, we might mention the Famous and Renowned Gymnasium at the entrance of moorfield's, that Academy of poor shattered Noddles, that Receptacle of Inflamed meanings.  
Because the Universities are constantly supplied from the Public Schools, therefore it is no wonder that he who is a professed Enemy to those Higher and Supreme Seats of the Muses, shows his rancour against the Inferior ones, and such as are in order to the other. He is severe upon Schoolmasters (though not so severe as he every where complains they are upon their Boys) and their way of Education, and will not entertain a favourable thought of any thing they do. As before I observed that he routed Burgersdicius, so now he laughs at the Teachers of Lily's Grammar, p. 290, nay he would have no Grammar at all, p. 291. The way of learning Latin in a Grammar-School he declares against with great superciliousness, p. 291. He would not have any Language learned by Grammatical Rules, p. 288. but only by rote, p. 295. In an other place he shows his dislike not only of Logical Disputes (which is a Touch to the Academic Gentlemen) but of Set Declamations, and very vigorously appears against making Latin Themes and Declarations, p. 297. and 7 pages more, not only because he was so dull at these Exercises when he was in his Boyship, but because it is, as he saith, the Vulgar Method of Grammar Schools, which he hath a strange Antipathy against, and is so weak and indiscreet as to discover it by ill Language. Surely the fear of the Schoolmasters Rod (which with some emotion and trembling he mentions p. 268. and in other places) was betimes begot in his mind by his early deserving it: And that frightful Idea made so deep an impression on his thoughts, that it will continue with him all his days, and he will ever have a fling at that Instrument of Education, as he calls it.  
A Publick-School is the worst of Prisons, that which we silly folks call a Free-School is a house of Bondage with him, the Children are chained to the Oar seven, eight, or ten years, p. 268. Again, in the same place, They are put into the Herd, and driven with a Whip or Scourge, etc. This is very sad and lamentable indeed, they are both Slaves and Beasts. You Gentlemen that are Masters of the Great Schools in London, Westminster, Eton, Winchester, and all the rest of you that are of that so Useful and Honourable Employment, you are all of you a company of Tyrants, Oppressors, Taskmasters, Herd-drivers, Overseers of Galleys: You unmercifully as well as unjustly treat the poor Children that are under you, cruelly chaining them to the Oar, and at the same time driving them like Beasts, as this Man of Sense expresses it. And you that are their Parents, how unreasonable do you act when you put them to School? You commit them to the Common Gaol (as you know Westminster-School is but one Remove from the Gatehouse) you enter them Gally-flaves, and you make their condition equal with that of your very Brutes: And all this you do to get them a little Latin and Greek, which might be had at a great deal cheaper rate of pains and time, p. 268. And then after all this, you and their Masters give some of them their Mittimus to the Universities, where they are in Bondage and Jail again: There they tug at the Oar, there they run the Gauntlet through dry Systems of Logic and Philosophy, p. 164. yea (which is worse, far worse) dull Systems of Divinity, p. 283. So that it seems not only the Logic, but the Philosophy, and the Divinity of the Universities are exposed by this Instructor Param●unt. No Books whatsoever that contain any Set Rules (so he phrases it) of any Art, even Grammar itself, must be taught or sold; and so St. Paul's School and Churchyard must both of them be laid aside together. Hence we may interpret what he saith p. 267. where he calls himself a Bookish man, not because of his reading of Books, but because of his condemning the Sale of them. What think you? Is this not a new sort of Bookish man? What think you? doth he speak like one that is in a Post for the encouraging and improving of Trade in this Kingdom?  
I had almost forgot an other freak of our New Tutor, and that is his undervaluing and vilifying of Music and Poetry, two signs of an Illnatured man, and one that hath a Harsh and Untuned Soul. The former he censures, together with the Persons that are Masters of it, p. 346. ●elling us that he hath scarcely heard among men of Parts and Business any one commended or esteemed for having an Excellency in Music. And it hath the last place among all Accomplishments according to our Gr●ff Tutor p. 347. The latter viz. Poetry is condemned by him p. 302, where he is falling upon the Schoolmasters, and their way of educating of Youth. If a Child hath a Poetic vein, it is to me, saith he, the str●ngest thing in the world that the Father should desire, or suffer it to be cherished or improved, p. 302. He would have the Parents stifle and suppress it as much as may be, p. 303. His School master must not so much as enter him in Versifying, p. 304. Yea our Rough Reformer, who c●n rail only i● Prose, is against making of Verses, Verses of any sort, p. 302. Who gives us a tas● of the strange Genius of this Projector, and shows that he prefers his own Conceits and Whims to the judgement of the Wise, and that he hath the hardiness to censure and defame all those Brave Men of our own and other Countries that have been esteemed and honoured for their excellent Poetic Vein, and by their Ravishing Number have obliged the Learned World, as some of them by their Pious Raptures have been extremely serviceable to Religion. But neither Universities nor Schools, nor the Studies and Arts they profess, nor the Persons that teach or learn them, the Books which are read by them can find any acceptance with our Acquaint Educator. If he be for any University, it is Rakow▪ though as yet he defers his Matriculation. If he be for any Library, besides his own Set of Books, it is Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, though he pretends he hath read nothing in it.  
That the true Worth of this Gentleman, who is now under our consideration, may be further evidenced out of his Writings, and that the world may see that he who defames the Academic Bodies is disposed to be a Catholic Railer, I will in the next place remind the Reader how abusively he trea●s the Nobility and Gentry of this Realm who send their sons to Travel. He ridicules both the Father and the Mother, upbraiding the one for his Want, for he cannot stay any longer for the Portion, which is to come into his hands when his Son is married; and jeering the other for her Fondness and Childishness, for she must have new babies to play with. p. 372. And my Young Master is laughed at for his Marrying and Propagating as if these were two Ridiculous things, especially the former. This would well enough become a Town-Wit and have passed in a Play, but it sounds oddly and prodigiously from a Grave Tutor, from a Staunch Metaphysitian, from a Formal Breeder up of Youth, and from one who lays down Rules of Civility, Good Manners, and Breeding, p. 256, 257, 258, etc. and in several other places inculcates this that a Teacher and Governor of Children (of which rank he thinks himself the Chief) must be a well-bred man, nay he must not fail to be a well bred man, he must be exactly well bred.  
Surely some Persons of Honour of either Sex will set a Mark on that foresaid passage in his book, and observe the Lightness and Scurrility of his expressions, and in ●he Margin note this, that this Writer hath no regard to his own Rules, that he teaches men to trample upon his own Dictates, and that he gives the world to understand that his Foppish Gravity is to be hissed at. If there were some real ground for what he saith, yet a Writer of a book on purpose (as he pretends) to chastise the Indiscretion and Ill Breeding of others, would not have used terms of that nature. Or, if a discreet man had censured the practice itself, yet he would have been careful to do it without those unmannerly and indecent Reflections on a great part of the present Nobility of our Kingdom, with others of the Gentry. Or, if he had made bold with my Young Master (as he calls him) yet he might have forborn reflecting so rudely on their Honourable Parents, and speaking so disrespectfully of some on whom our Dependence hath been, and making himself and the reader merry with his Lampoons upon them. Is this the man that cries up himself for the Gift of Educating? Is this deportment which I have been mentioning the Character of a Well-bred man? Or is it not rather the Idea and Portraiture of an Illbred and Wand'ring Pedagogue, of an Itinerant Tutor who scampers from one Shire to an other, to give documents about reading Reynard the Fox p. 279. which he calls Education, and hath writ a Book about it?  
He flings at the Reverend judges, by fixing a Pasquil upon one of them, p. 105, 106. of his Second Vindication. Which is either true or false; if we can suppose the former, yet no Discreet man would publicly mention it, out of respect to the the Honourable Robe. Especially this Writer should not have exposed any of that Order, seeing he had particularly commended and urged decency of words, p. 256. Educat. and had declared that it is the part of a Well-bred Man to express a respect to persons according to their Rank and Condition. p. 258. But on the other hand, if this Imputation be false, than he deserves to fall into the hands of those Ministers of justice, and to be sentenced according to his Crime. But I return to his Treatise of Education.  
It is observable that the Softer Sex have found no Protection from this Rough Man▪ He is not only an University Hater but a Hater of Women. He exposes the behaviour of two Ladies of Quality, that fell out with one an other in Company, and relates the Paritculars of it. p. 265, 266. It is likely that one or both of them have been told of this passage in his book, and they can't but think it is an Affront to them, and must needs be so far from believing him to have any of that Good Breeding which he pretends to teach the world, that they will ra●her stigmatize him as a Scandalous Blab that tells all he hears, a Tom Coriat that relates whatever he picks up in his perambulations. Join this with his Reflections on those Persons of Honour before mentioned, and then give me your opinion of the Breeding of our Gensorious Tutor.  
That he hath an Antipathy to the Whole Sex, one would guests from what falls from his Pen, p. 14. If women were themselves to frame the bodies of their children in their wombs, we should certainly have no perfect children born, which perhaps may go down very glib with his Admirers, but you see he ventures to border upon Profaneness and Blasphemy rather than he will not express his dislike of the Female Order. Whether this be done in revenge to the Sex, who generally, where some body comes, dub him the Hard-favoured Man, and sometimes upon occasion make use of him to scare their Children, I will not dispute. Or it may be he that hath been used to play with the Young Ones, thinks he may make bold to be rude even with the Mothers. Else he would not have given them the odious name of Monkeys, p. 15, and in reproach have called the House of Office Madam Cloacina, p. 36. This is the cleanly, genteel, and polite language of john Lock that writes himself Gent. And this stile and behaviour are the more strange because they are observed in one that hath been freely admitted to the Concerns of that Sex.  
I might here harmlessly divert the Reader with his Scotchhoppers and Dibstones, p. 115, 237, 275. with his Documents about Milk-potage and Water-Gruel p. 18. and his teaching Children to evacuate dextrously, p▪ 33 to p. 38. Which latter succeeds only when the Party is present, it being promoted by his Vespasian-Looks. He hath spent some time, he saith, in the study of Physic, p. 40, and especially of the Guts, which he very feelingly and concernedly discourses of p. 34, 35, 36. as if they were that part of the Body which he most minds. Which is one reason perhaps why he hates Colledg-Commons, and for their sake the Universities.  
But I will not make any farther Additions, because I will not prevent myself in what I design at an other time, and because what I have before produced out of his Pages is sufficient to convince us what a Talon of Education he hath, and how fit a person he is to have Youth committed to his charge. He hath been consulted of late, he saith, by many about the breeding of their children, Epist. Ded. but let me request such to consult their Reason, and demand of that to tell them whether a Rash Censor of the Studies and Learning of our own Academies, whether a Rude Reviler of those in the most Honourable Station, whether a Defamer of Laudable Arts, whether a Supercilious Innovator and a Fantastic Reformer in the Methods of Teaching, and lastly whether a Corrupter of our Holy Faith, and a professed Depraver of the Chief Articles of the Christian Religion (of which I shall speak anon) be a person fit to be consulted about the breeding of their Children. The Orthodox Parents (and I hope we have some of them left in England still) will surely be cautioned by this not to commit them to this bold Patron of so Bad a Cause, who prides himself in his Heterodoxy, and boasts that he hath renounced the received doctrines of the Christian Church.  
And thus having in a preliminary way descanted on some part of his book concerning Education, that the Reader might thence have some insight into the Man I was to deal with, I shall proceed now to take notice of his other Papers, which relate to Religion: for his New Education was in order to the introducing of a New Religion. He had spoken before against the Learning in fashion, and now he comes to censure the Religion in fashion, (as he calls it) and the Fashionable and Titular Professors of it (as he Styles them, p 93) i. e. the established Ministers of it. He had showed his perverse spirit in his Notions about the breeeding up of Children: next he will try how successful he can be in the perverting of Men. He will see what he can do with Grown people, as well as with his Young Masters. Having taken upon him to reform the Universities and Schools, and to cast off their Studies and Learning, he is encouraged to go on, and to reform Religion, and to give us a New Model of Christianity. Accordingly he published a Treatise entitled The Reasonableness of Christianity, wherein he pretends to teach the world what they have been so long ignorant of, viz. that if a man acknowledge a God, there is but One Article of Christian Belief which is necessarily required to be embraced by him in order to the constituting him a Christian. As for all other Articles and Doctrines delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the Writings of the New Testament, he pronounces them to be unnecessary and useless as to the making a man a Christian, and capacitating for Life and Salvation. This Novel Conceit, which is an unwarrantable Restraining and Confining of the Christian Faith and makes Christianity a far different thing from what it is represented by our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles, hath been Vindicated by him once and again. And as I thought myself obliged to reflect upon his First Vindication in a Discourse which I published, and entitled Socinianism Unmasked, so now I am designing to attack his Second Vindication, and by exactly setting down his own words (which I shall very faithfully do) and by impartially examining them, to convince the Unbiass'd Reader of the Vanity, Weakness and Inconsistency, of the Absurdity, Falsehood and Dishonesty of his Arguing, and on the contrary to establish this Doctrine in men's minds, that there are More Articles than One in the Christian Religion which are the necessary and indispensable matter of our Faith, in order to our being True Christians.  
Only first let me be permitted to observe how the Vindicator, to bubble the Reader, insinuates that in my Socinianism Unmasked I used ill language and railing; and again in the same place (his Preface) he complains of my Style as rude and scurrilous: whereas any impartial Reader may satisfy himself that I always kept myself close to the matter which was before me, I attended to the Merits of the Cause, and made no Reflections but what his way of Discoursing drew from me. I will not deny that I laboured to assert the Truth with that Concern and Earnestness, that Zeal and Ardour which so Good a Cause deserves. I don't love to dally with the Grand Articles of our Religion, for I look upon Languid and Timorous Assertors of Evangelical Truths as a sort of Betrayers of them. There is as much of judas as Nicodemus in such persons. It is one of the most Ominous Defects and Miscarriages of this Age that such numbers of men are Faint and Indifferent in matters of this nature. I thank God I am not of so Phlegmatic a Mould, I have not so grovelling and dastardly a spirit as tamely to suffer this Upstart Adversary to shock Religion, and pervert the Faith, and not to stand up in defence of it, and to detect his Errors and Cheats. Therefore I am now treated as his Mortal Enemy, because I tell him the Truth, and that without timorous mincing of it. It is this that hath raised in him an Angry and Malicious Ferment, and hath made him rage and huff, and fill the world with Clamours. 
* Occasional Paper. Numb. 5. p▪ 38.  One hath rightly observed concerning his Second Vindication that it is an Angry piece of work, and that he was in a Storm whilst he was writing it. It is easily discernible that all along he is swelled with Coler and Revenge. Being touched home, he equally raves against the Truth and Me.  
We see the Physic hath worked, as all the Filth and Excrements of his Papers show. Dirt and Ordure, and Dunghills are the frequent embellishments of his Style. I am charged with popular calumnies, falsehood, absurdity, bawling, talking at random, malicious untruth, leger-demain. Nay, I am a Conjurer, though I never took him to be such. I am a petulant Scold, I am Villainous, and I am even what he pleases. I am sometimes an Innocent with him, and sometimes a jesuit (for our Scurrilous Tutor is very happy in his wise and significant tacking of Calumnies together.) I'm a Reprobate with him as to my Parts and Breeding. I am honoured with the Epithets of a Buffoon, and (with an Innuendo) a Devil. I have Lying and Impudence laid to my charge. Yea, this Well-bred Governor, calls me a downright Impudent Liar.  
And abundance of such Rhetorical Flowers I could present the Reader with out of the Vindicator's Garden, for you must know that though he is a deadly Enemy to Poetry, yet he is a Great Rhetorician. The Strangeness of the Scene is, that though he plentifully Rails every where, yet he cries out against me as if I did so. It is plain that he would suffer no body to Rail but himself: He is clearly for the Monopoly of this Trade. He seems to be of the Humour of him that would let no body where he was Swear but himself, Let him then engross the whole Commodity, I'll not pretend to be a Sharer or Rival with him. One that hath spent the greatest part of his time among Nurses and Gossips and the Loquacious Fry, is not to seek in the Art of Scolding, nay is supposed to Excel in it. To such a one I am ready to give the Precedence, because I question whether any of the Sisterhood at Billingsgate can outstrip him.  
This Thoroughpaced Railer flies to Personal Reflections, that is, such as he counts to be of that nature, or else he would not have filled his Papers with them. I am a Preacher, and a Pulpit-Orator, p▪ 61, 206, 352, 386. which are very scandalous imputations with him: Wherefore he often insists upon these, and touches upon my Parish and Parishioners, p, 203. and the very naming of an Use of Exhortation, p. 393. is a Jest, and a piece of Stinging Wit with him. In one place, p. 14●. he is so Logical, that he infers I am no Good Arguer or Writer because I am a Preacher. And yet he will grant that a Man may be a Commissioner for Trade to the Barbadoes, and yet be a Good Writer. But whether he can be so as he is a Conceited Tutor, I leave to be considered. He hath such a rude way of treating the most Eminent Persons (as you heard before) that I could not expect to escape him who am in an other Level. But it is observable, that whilst he maliciously strikes at me, he defames most of the Best Writers of our Age, who are known to be Preachers and Pulpit Orators, and this hath been the main Employment of their Lives. Nay, I could take notice that in his Vindication he uses the Testimonies and Authorities (though it is true he hath mistaken them) of some of those Writers that have been famed for their Preaching and Pulpit Oratory Now, if Preachers be no Arguers, then why doth he make use of their Authority? If they be, why doth he vilify them? Good Mr. Vindicator, be persuaded to leave off these Contradictions and Nonsense. But any discerning man may see that here (as well as in several other places of his Vindication, and some of his other Writings) his design was to ridicule the Sacred Office of Preaching, and to blast the whole Function. We may guests what honourable thoughts he hath of it when he attempts to apply the term Post, in way of a rascally Quibble, to the Ministry, and the Persons concerned in it, p. 422. Therefore his Bitter Reflections on the Ministers of the Gospel and their Office, are deservedly taken notice of and censured by a late Writer. Occasional Paper, Num. 1. and Num. 5. Truly there should be some care taken of this Gentleman; for the very mentioning of Preaching, though it be from his own mouth, inflames his blood, renews his Frenzy, and makes him Rave. This poor crazed Tutor should be looked after, and sound dosed with Hellebore, lest in the fits of his overheated Brain he should lash out, and revenge himself on the Wainscot of our Pulpits, and with them of the Reading Pews, for the sake of the Epistles, (of which hereafter:) And it is well if our whole Bible's escape his fury for the same reason.  
But our Scolding Tutor falls upon me again p. 30. and now the Topick is Preferment, and Admission to Preferment in the Church of England, p. 24. It may be this is done to invite me to take notice of his Preferments; and therefore though he be so rude as to upbraid me for my want of Titles and Dignities, yet I shall be so Civil to him as to acknowledge and recount those which he is Master of. I own him to be Censor-General of the Logic and Latin of the Universities, Corrigidore and Regulator of all the Public Schools in Christendom, Great Master of the Anti-Academick Order, Tutor in Eyre and Controller to the Youth of Seven Counties, Curator in Ordinary to Costive Paunches, Principal Secretary to the Deists Office, Feoffee in Trust for Sozzo's Pupils, etc. And I beg his pardon that I forgot to mention those Offices and Places before.  
He is at me again, p. 67. and obliquely insinuates (for he is full of his Squinting Hints) that I am for that Maxim, The Doctrines in fashion, and likely to procure Preferments, are alone to be received, and so would imply that I am ready to receive any Doctrines in fashion, be they never so Unreasonable or Impious, and that Gain will tempt me to this or any thing else. Why, I tell you, Sir, you are in the wrong box, I am not the man you take me for, I was never hired to write for the lowering of Guineas, I never sought or held a Place with the forfeiture of my Honesty, and therefore I defy your Impotent Raillery not only against me, but against the Whole Clergy, High and Low, for you look upon them all as Mercenary, and that they receive no Doctrines but what are in fashion, and are likely to procure Preferment. Which you have learned from your Brethren of Racovia, who tell us that the Church of England men are or would be 
* Answer to the Archbishop's Sermon, p. 44.  Pensioners of the World.  
Behold the Insolence of our Libertine, who hath had the sway among Children, and hath Lord-mavored it over Nurses and Chair-women! He hath been so worshipped and obeyed by the Striplings, and hath had such an absolute command of their Legs and Hats, that he expects the like submission and obeisance from all others, and he thinks he may say any thing, and not be opposed, for he cannot brook Contradiction. But I shall force him to it, and seeing he hath thought good to Riot thus with his Pen, he must not think to go untouched. Seeing he hath taken the liberty to reflect on my Calling and Function (and therein hath abused all of the same Character with myself) he must not take it ill if I sometimes glance upon the Post he is in, and his Studies and Employments. If I follow so laudable an Example as his, he is obliged to pardon me, and to remember that he was the Aggressor.  
And though indeed we are forbid to answer such people according to their folly, yet in some Circumstances, i. e. when Pride and Conceit, and such like Ingredients are mixed with their Folly, we are permitted by the Wise Man to answer them according to the merits of their wilful and affected folly, lest they should be wise in their own conceit, lest they should be hardened in their Pride and Arrogance, and think themselves Wise because no body checks and bridles their folly. Indeed it is almost a Reproach to a man to encounter such an Adversary, who hath the second time gulled the world with false Stories, and abandoning all shame and ingenuity, given himself up to obstinate resolves of maintaining a Cause which will prove to mischievous to Christendom: An Adversary that hath no sense of what he doth, but is blinded and infatuated by Prejudice, so that he hath left himself no power to judge of his own words or actions. Which renders him a person not fit to be treated with that respect and deference which are due to an Ingenuous and Civil Opponent. To use him Gently, is to handle a Bear with Ceremony and Caution. And sometimes he is not worth a Serious Reply, for he Cheats the people, and then makes Sport of it. But however, though I shall be somewhat free with him, yet I will not thrust upon the Reader any thing that is indecent, rude, spiteful, or entrenching upon Truth. When we deal with such men, our Master's Example forbids us to revile again, but the Apostle allows us, nay commands us to rebuke them sharply; I shall not be thought perhaps to be defective in this, but none can censure me for Excess if they consider what the Badness of his design (as well as the Petulancy of his Style) required. But where he gives me any scope for Arguing and Reasoning the case▪ I have with great seriousness applied myself to it, and I hope I have established the Truth upon firm and solid grounds.  
I will begin with his Preface to his Vindication, where he inserts a very Gracious Epistle to Mr. Bold, his late Convert, and now Confederate, and there pretends to tell him the Birth of his Reasonableness of Christianity. It was begot (if you will believe the Father of it) on the Controversy of justification: He might have as well have said on the Controversy of Predestination: for it as much belongs to one as the other: And so you see it was a mere By blow, and worthy of the Parent. But he is extremely fond of this Spurious Issue, and applauds himself for being the Author of it. The first view I had of it, saith he, seemed mightily to satisfy my mind. I wonder that every body did not see and embrace it, though Systems of Divinity said nothing of it. I was pleased, saith our Narcissus, with the growing discovery, every day, whilst I was employed in this search. And more to the same purpose in the same Epistle. Then he proceeds to applaud the Godfather of this Brat Mr. Bold. Concerning whom he declares, that he hath more readily entertained, and more easily entered into the meaning of his Book than most (he might have said any) he hath heard speak of it. And afterwards, Mr. Bold hath entered into the true sense of my Treatise, and his notions perfectly agree with mine. And therefore he must needs be (as he styles him) a Calm Christian, a Grave Divine, a Man of Parts, a Well-bred Man. And he hath (if you'll credit our Encomiast) a settled repute, etc. Would you know the reason of all this Coaksing? It is no other than this, that same Mr. Bold who was Sponsor for the Bastard brood, had in a late Pamphlet mightily extolled the Dad of it, Mr. Lock. He calls him the Ingenious Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, Rep p. 3. and that great and eminent Person, p. 27. (It is a sign so when one of so little sense and discretion votes him to be such.) He is no Disparagement to the Cause, he saith, p 27. and there is a good reason for it, I must tell him, for as a Person, so a Cause that hath nothing of worth in it, is not capable of being disparaged: Poor Creature, he ●hinks it a great matter to have One Pen (besides his own) wagging on his side. He is mightily rejoiced that he hath got a Single Patron for his Single Article, and is over joyed at such Fulsom Encomiums thrown upon him, and therefore he heaps up as many as he can on the other's head. The sum of all which is this, CLAW ME, AND I WILL CLAW THEE.  
It is worth the observing that the Vindicator subscribes himself at the close of his Letter to Mr. Bold (which in a conceited manner he claps into the Preface) his most humble servant. A. B. Upon which these short Remarks may be made, 1. That he is ashamed of his Name, and that with good reason. 2. He is ashamed of his Cause and dares not Personally own it, and set his Name to the defence of it. This and the former may be reckoned as the only Instances of Shamefacedness and Modesty, that the man was ever guilty of. But 3. We may gather from those two letters which he hath affixed to the end of his Epistle Who he is, for though he hath only set down A. B. yet he hath left us to add the next letter C, and then we know what person is meant, viz. a Breeder up of Boys to learn their First Rudiments, a Learned Teacher of A B C. concerning which you may find more p. 272, 273. Educat.  
From the Preface and Epistle I pass to the Book itself, the first part of which is spent in the old known way of Malefactors at the Bar: they are always willing to evade the Charge, to insist upon the little Niceties, and on the Formality of words, and the Exact Punctilios of Matter of Fact. This is the practice of our Criminal, p. 6, 7. and he thinks thereby to palliate his Gild. He is loath to own it, for he knows his demerit, and the Consequence of it. He is to be excused indeed for this, or rather there is a known Proverb that excuses him: that makes him so backward to Confess. I have given an account of this matter in my Socinianism Unmasked p. 5, 6. and have also showed since that the Formal Words are agreed to by his late Proselyte. So that his own Gizzard, Mr. Bold, comes in Evidence against him, and lets us know that we have no reason to listen to him when he waves the indictment. He will say and unsay, as it comes into his head, and will put the Reader off with any shuffling suggestions, merely to evade what I had justly laid to his charge. One of his great Cavils is that I allege matter of fact, but do not justify the Allegation, p 2 and 7. and undertakes to prove it from my pretending (as he saith) to know and deliver his thoughts, p. 8. This (saith he there) is an Instance of False Allegations in matters of Fact, and such as are not capable of a Negative proof. Such poor, little, trifling stuff doth he obtrude upon the Reader; as if one that had read his Writings could not in a probable way tell what his thoughts of such a subject were; unless you will say he dissembled when he wrote, and this perhaps is it which he means when he saith there concerning me, that that I affirm what I do not know. And so you see what he hath got by caviling against what I alleged, he hath before he was aware let the world know that he believes not what he writes, that his Thoughts and his Pen hold no correspondence, that when he pleads for One Article only, he doth not think that there is but One, but however he designs to root out All by reducing all the Articles of Christianity to One. Who would attend to any of his Objections, when it is plain that it is not his business to search out Truth, but to betray it?  
He hath nothing to say to what I replied to his former Vindication, and therefore now to cheat the world, and amuse the Reader, and to give farther proof of his daring Confidences, he bids me p. 9, 25, 72, etc. go to work again, 1. to prove that there are these words in his Reasonableness of Christianity, viz. that Nothing is required to be believed by a Christian, as absolutely necessary to make him such, but this Proposition, jesus is the Messias: 2. to prove that he set himself on purpose to find but one Article of Faith: 3. to prove that he contends for One Article of Faith with exclusion and defiance of all the rest: 4 to prove that the believing of jesus to be the Messias is not the only Article sufficient to make a man a Christian. And several other things he calls upon me to prove, and the silly Accountant scores them up as he goes along, and sets down the Figures. And he would not have left off where he doth, but that the Innocent had numbered as far as he could go. There is not one Particular he mentions, which I have not proved and evinced in my Socinianism Unmasked: and therefore I scorn, at the motion of such a Whiffling Objector, such a Crude Repeater of what he had said before in his First Vindication, but now hath lately vamped up, and sent abroad again, I scorn (I say) to produce the same Proofs again, and to affront the Reader with Needless Repetitions, which is the guise of this trifling Writer.  
But seeing our A B C darian calls to me over and over again to prove this, and to prove that, I will now put him upon Proving, and see how he will discharge that part. In order to this I am to acquaint the Reader that this Gentleman in his Former Vindication called for a List of Fundamental Articles, i. e. such as the Holy Scripture represents to us as requisite to be known and believed, that we may be True Christians. I obeyed the demands of this pert Vindicator, and performed the Task which he was pleased to set me: in my first Chapter of my forenamed Treatise I assigned a considerable number of Articles of the Christian Faith, as absolutely necessary to be known, i. e. so far as they can be known, for there are Great and Profound Mysteries couched in some of them, so that I had reason to say they were in some measure (which expression the Vindicator vainly objects against p. 70.) to be known and understood, and to be believed: and I particularly and distinctly proved that all of them are of that nature, and consequently no man can be a Christian without a competent knowledge and belief of these Doctrines. I also there propounded a General Rule whereby all such Articles and Doctrines may be discerned; i. e. they may be known to be such from the Nature of the things contained in them, for no Evangelical Truths are absolutely and indispensably necessary to be known and to be assented to in order to the constituting of us Christians but those that have Immediate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means, and Issue of Man's Redemption and Salvation. But our Vindicator attempts not in the least to invalidate this Description of Necessary Articles; nay though he mentions it again p. 130. yet he can't invent any thing to object against it, only asks this and the other Question nothing to the purpose. Our bold Reformer in Divinity scribles on, and shows not himself concerned to disprove what I propounded and asserted. No: he doth not so much as pretend to it. But he quarrels and shuffles, and makes a long Harangue about the Set Number of Fundamental Articles, and inquires p. 69. whether there be neither more nor less than I have assigned. Which is nothing to the purpose, for Christianity consists not, as this Narrow soul'd Man would suggest, in a Point. If he will make it his business to score them up, so let him; it is none of mine.  
I have assigned several Articles of Necessary Belief, I have particularly Enumerated such Doctrines as have all the Marks of being Fundamental. Let him prove that they have not those Marks, or let him take what course he pleases to prove that they are not Fundamental Truths, and such as ought to be known and asserted to in order to make us Christians: and when he hath done this particularly and distinctly, I will be a● leisure to tell him whether I think there be any more that belong to the Foundation▪ I have done my part, I have proved that more than One Article is absolutely requisite to make a man a Christian, and yet he is still craving, and calls to me, and demands, and requires, and challenges me to prove this and that, and yet will not prove any thing himself. This is a Mad way of Writing, to boast still of his One Article, and yet not show that any one of these Articles which I named ought not to be added to it. This is the business he should have undertaken, and therefore for the future I expect that he either allows of those Articles as Fundamental or else particularly show that they are not. Pray set yourself to this work, and prove (if you can) that all those Articles which I have mentioned are not necessary to be believed, to make men Christians: and by that time you have done this, I shall find you fresh employment which will hinder a man's jaunting to my Young Master's houses, and his going a Gooding.  
And the Justice and Fairness of my dealing with him will appear from this, that I hold him to his own Rule: The Rule of Fair Dispute, saith he, is to prove where any thing is denied: to Evade this is shu●●ing. p 451. He stiffly denies that those Propositions which I assigned are necessary to be believed, for the constituting a man a Christian: I call upon him to prove it, I have made it evident that they are all of them Fundamental Articles, but he will not own them to be such: then I say, Prove the contrary. I expect this of you, I demand and require it of you, and will insist upon it (to use your own peremptory stile.) Your Talk is this, to prove that those doctrines of the Gospel which I enumerated are not as necessary to be known and believed, to constitute a man a Christian, as that One Article which they have named. And when you have tried what you can do towards a proof of this, I'll tell you then what I have more to say to you. But you see I put you upon following your own Rule, and if you do not observe it, you are by your own sentence a Shuffler.  
It is observable that this Long-winded Rambler hath spent above 20 pages (viz. from p. 48, to p. 71.) in Little Queries, Evasions, Shift, Wrangling about words, and yet with pretences of great Seriousness. But especially he is for his Queries, he is every where Ask, he hath more and more Questions to put, which verifies a good Ancient Saying which we have concerning such a Foolish Querist as he hath showed himself to be. This strange Impertinent humour abounds so excessively in him that one would be curious to inquire what is the source of it, whence it is that throughout all these Papers he is ever starting of idle trifling Questions. I can resolve it into nothing but this, that one whose Converse hath been always with Children must needs assimilate and ape them, for (as he observes himself, Educat. p. 220) they are mightily given to this way of ask of Questions: and yet this Pedantic Tutor justifies this childish folly in himself of acting thus, p. 54, to p. 60.  
Well seeing he is such an Intemperate and Lavish Asker, I hope he will not deny me the liberty of ask him only three or four Questions: and I conceive I have as much Authority to demand an Answer as he.  
I. Why doth he pretend sometimes to assert more Articles than one, whereas at other times he peremptorily contends but for One, which he calls the Sole Article and the Only Article? In two or three other places he talks of collecting several Articles, but how is that consistent with One? Concerning that Account of Faith which he offers to the world he thus speaks p. 232. No one Article which the Apostles proposed as necessary to be received by unbelievers to make them Christians, is ommitted in it. When he saith, no one Article is omitted, it is implied that there are more Articles than one. If there be More, I demand of him to set down just how many they are, seeing he demands the like of me. But with all let him tell the world whether he talks thus as one that is Crazed, and knows not whether One and Many Articles be the same, or whether his speaking thus be a Preparative to his Recanting his former Doctrine. Here are several Lesser Questions in the Great one that I propounded: let us have his Answer to them all.  
II. What is the Reason that he hath not all this while undertaken to disprove that Plurality of Fundamental Arrticles which I asserted? Why neither in his First nor Second Vindication hath he dared to show that those Articles are not to be believed in order to the denominating a man a True Christian, and a Member of Christ? If he could have done it, no body can doubt but that he would, and that with much Confidence, for no one will suspect that it is the want of that that hinders him from such an enterprise. This Judicious Player at Dibstones finds fault with my Collection of Fundamentals, and yet meddles with no particular one of them: only is so senseless and ridiculous as to deny them to be Fundamental Doctrines of Christanity, and such as are necessarily to be received by every one that lays claim to Christianity. I demand a Reason of this, I require a particular and full Account why every one of those Articles is not to be received as Fundamental. I shall insist upon it till he either assigns some Reason, or confesses he cannot.  
III. How can he expect that I should comply with his demands, which are very numerous, and particularly with that of assigning a Set Collection of Fundamentals, when he hath told me already that he is resolved (like a Well bred man and a Good Christian of one Article) to slight whatever I shall offer to him? If I should propound such doctrines as I verily believe to be Fundamentals, he before hand asks why he should take them from me rather than from an Anabaptist? p. 52. And in the same place he saith he hath as much reason to believe an Anabaptist or Quaker, etc. as me. Which is as much as to tell me in express terms that he hath taken up a resolution to attend to no Articles of Faith that I shall propound. Where were the Thoughts of our Pilgrim Tutor when his unwary tongue dropped such words as these? Even when he is soliciting me, yea challenging me to give him a List of Articles, he proclaims to the world that he will not accept of any of them: he declares that he would sooner take a Set of Articles, and Fundamentals from a Socinian or a Papist (for he particularly names them both on this very occasion, than from me, p. 52. And, Sir, we will believe you without swearing.  
IV. An other Question I shall put to you, and require an Answer to it. Seeing you have taken part with the Follower of Socinus, and have adopted several of their Notions and Tenants, and interpret some Scriptures which relate to the Trinity in the same way that they do, and thereby have given occasion to be thought one of the Party, and yet you pretend to disown all acquaintance with them p. 222, 223. seeing you appear thus with a double face, and amuse the world with these disguises, I require of you to return an Answer to this Query, and the several parts of it, Whether you verily believe that jesus is so the Son of God that he is really God, and that in the Unity of the Divine Essence there is a Trinity of Distinct Persons or Subsistencies, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and that these Three are One God, as the Scriptures plainly and expressly declares. Seeing you are so brisk in your demands, I expect a positive Answer to mine, and hereby shall we know whether you are a True Man, or a Spy. When I see you have performed this work, I will still find you more employment.  
I had proved (Socinianism Unmasked chap. 2.) that his Opinion of One Article was founded, among other things, upon this Notion, that all things in Christanity must be so plain that they may be easily comprehended, and that there may be nothing difficult to men's understandings. This I made clear from the tenor and coherence of his words, from his 〈◊〉 of reasoning, from the scope of his book, and from the plain sense of his expressions. But our Vindicator cannot bear this, and therefore puts himself into a posture of shifting and evading whatever was brought against him, and by all imaginable arts he labours to stifle my Reasonings and Arguings on that Point. One of his knacks is to frame a Dialogue between me and him, p. 34, 35, 36. and he is so silly in the contriving of it that it baffles him instead of favouring his Cause. Fearing that the Dialogue would not do the feat, he appears in the shape of a Syllogizer p. 39 though the Inconsiderate Man had derided Logic and Syllogism, because they are University-Learning. The next he falls into the old trade of Questions, Where? and When? and after this is done he begins his Dialogue again. This is one of the Distracted Scenes of his Vindication, and the Reader may thence form an idea of the Whole Work, and see with amazement what little Knacks and Conceits he applies himself to, that he may juggle men out of the Truth. He hath so accustomed himself to showing of Tricks among his Young Fry whom he hath had the Tutorage of, that we must never expect any other of him, whatever Subject he handles.  
P. 93, 94. he will not admit of any Mysteries in Christianity, and therefore opposes what I had asserted, viz. that there are some Doctrines in the Gospel which are not plain and clear, and yet are of necessity to be believed. If he had been Master of any Sincerity, he would have observed how I explained myself, and showed that all the Doctrines and Articles of the Christian Religion are not alike: some of them are in themselves Evident and Illustrious, others because of the Transcendency of their Matter are Obscure and Mysterious, and not levelly to our humane understandings, as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Christ's Incarnation, etc. but yet are believed with a firm and unshaken Faith. This is so Rational that none but the hood winked Masker would have excepted against it. And he doth it after a very poor rate: He nibbles at the distinction I make between the Certainty or Reality of some Evangelical Doctrines, and the exact manner of the things themselves contained in those Doctrines: But he fin●s it pricks his chaps, and so he gives it over.  
However, like the Gentlemen of Racovia, he cannot endure to hear of Mysteries in Christianity, and therefore here he takes occasion to express his great dislike of those who assert that in the Christian Religion there are Mysteries properly so called, i. e. such Truths and Articles, that as to the Manner of the things contained in them are not Intelligible, but exceed humane Reason, and cannot possibly be fathomed by it. The denying of this is one of his last Artifices and Contrivances, for if we briefly recount the Methods of this New Projector, we shall find them to be in this order; first he presented the world with odd Conceits of the Ideas of things, thereby to undermine the Principles of Truth, and to discompose the received Notions in Philosophy and Divinity, as a very 
* B●. of Worcester in his Vind. of the Trinity, ch. 10.  Reverend and Learned Writer (though one of the chiefest and most Eminent of the Pulpit Orators) hath lately proved against him. Then, that his Sentiments might prevail, he prescribes a new way of Bringing up of Youth, and seasoning them betimes in some Private Nurseries with such Principles as he and his Associates shall dictate; and accordingly all Public Schools and Universities, and their Studies are cried down by him. Next, there comes forth a New Plate form of Religion, all the Fundamental Articles and Doctrines of Christianity are discarded by him, excepting One bare single Article, which he thinks fit to retain till he hath a fair opportunity of throwing that off too. Then he further advances, and every where very warmly inveighs against Ministers and Preachers, partly because of their University-Learning, but chiefly because they oppose his groundless notion of One Article, and assert the Fundamentals of Christianity. And lastly, to complete his design, he strikes in with the Deists and Socinians, and laughs at the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, and thereby encourages men to cast off all Revealed Religion, the greatest part of which consists of Profound and Inexplicable Mysteries, and such as Humane Reason neither found out, nor can comprehend when revealed. These are the Ways and Methods he hath applied himself to, in order to the undermining of the Orthodox Faith.  
Here I will observe to the Reader how profoundly skilled in Greek our University Hater is: He brings in these words (though alien to his purpose) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, saith he, if we put into English, are [the dead shall rise] p. 100 He might have found it rightly translated to his hand in our English Bible, 1 Cor. 15. 15. but we know the Gentleman doth not much meddle with the Epistles (especially St. Paul's) as we shall hear afterwards. He thinks, good man, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Verb of the future tense. And here we see the reason why such as he declaim against Public Schools, and against Grammar. It is no wonder indeed that he despairs of setting up for a Critic for fear he should set the world of laughing, p. 67. To this Eminent Skill of his in Criticism and Grammar we may refer Cincinnetus, a new Name for a Dictator of Rome, p. 356. of his Education.  
He plays upon the Sacred Names jesus and Messias p. 107. and would persuade the Reader to believe that he ought no more attend to the meaning of the word jesus and the word Messias when the Proposition, jesus is the Messias, is tendered to him to believe, than to the Signification of the Name Saul or Arthur, or any other Name whatsoever. But what is the reason then, I ask the Vindicator why these Names jesus and Christ (which latter is the Greek for M●ssias) are so particularly and distinctly explained, and descanted upon by those Learned and Pious Writers who have commented upon the Apostle's Creed? We see they spend a considerable time in giving the true and full Import of these Denominations. There is mentioned a Man in the same Creed, under whom our Saviour suffered, but we do not find that his double Name is searched into and sisted by Expositors as those Blessed Names jesus and Messias are. And the reason is plain, because Christian men are concerned to know the true meaning and Sense of these Titles, or else they can't know who it was that was born, suffered, and died for them. In the very Names themselves there is included the Nature of this Divine and Extraordinary Person, and therefore it was fit that they should not be ignorant of this. But it is not so with other Names, they need not any such Explaining and Opening: as for example Pontius Pilate and john Lock are well known to be such Persons, though the Extraction of the Names be not explained. I hope our Captious and Ludicrous Vindicator will consider this, and not ridiculously and impiously undervalue and debase the Names of the Son of God, and compare them with those of King Saul and Prince Arthur, and tell us (as he doth afterwards p. 108.) that this Proposition jesus is the Messias needs no more Explication than this, Cyrus was King of Persia. And as to what he subjoins p. 109, 110. that I own the Easiness of the foresaid Proposition, the Masker's Understanding is clouded, or else he would not have quoted these Words in p. 74. of my Socinianism unmasked to the purpose he doth, for any one may see that I intended them to be but a General Description or Character of the Messias; and the Occasion of that Lax Character of him is discernible in that place to any one but our Muffled Vindicator.  
He would show himself a Critic p. 112. etc. in descanting upon the word Integral and Essential, which I made use of in a general meaning for whatever appertained to the Essence and integrity of a Christian: which shows that our Tutor was Overnice, that his Exceptions are mean and low, and that he is but Practitioner in Water-gruel.  
P. 117. he tells the Reader that all that part of my Discourse in Socinicnism Unmasked which reaches from p. 28 to 35. is nothing but Pulpit-Oratory. If the Reader will be pleased to consult that part of the Chapter, he may satisfy himself that there is Ignorance as well as Malice in this Imputation: for I there she●●hat he treads in the steps of those of the Racovian way who cast off several Articles of Christian Faith because they are in part Dark and Mysterious: I show that this was the practice of Grellius, and is followed by the English Socinians at this da●: I particularly assert the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and show in what sense it may be said not to be Difficult: I prove that it contains in it no Contradiction: and as to the One Article so talked of by him, I make it evident that it is not more Intelligible than any of the Articles which I propounded as Fundamental. These are the Contents of that Part of my Treatise, and I appeal to the Reader whether this be the Pulpit-Oratory. That the Creature should give it this Name, is the highest piece of Nonsense, and the plainest proof of Stupidity that he could have divulged to the world: unless: you will say, it was only to have a fling at the Pulpit (which he often mentions with Contempt and Reproach) and then it is Profane Spite.  
When I objected to him his Contempt of the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles, which I evinced from his passing them by and wholly neglecting to gather any Articles of Faith out of them, he replies, in way of Recrimination, that I have passed by several Chapters and Verses in my Collection of Articles, and thence infers my Contempt of them, p. 122. It is to be hoped there are but few men in the world whose brains are thus disordered. Could any one but this shallow Vindicator think that I should collect the Fundamental Articles of Christanity out of all the Chapters and Verses of the New Testament? Or, if I did not so, and mentioned not some of them, that this was any Argument of my despising those Writings? Could any but this poor Dandler of Infants imagine that there is a parity between these two, viz. my collecting of the Fundamental Articles out of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and his presenting of us with one Article only out of the Evangelists and Acts, without so much as taking notice of the Apostolical Epistles? Could any but this Weak Arguer infer from my not mentionig every ch●p●●r and verse in the New Testament that this is the same with omitting all the Epistles? Could any one that hath not the like Hardened Front with himself publish to the world that this is a sign of my Contemning the Scriptures? and then upon this occasion he hath the vanity to vent a silly paltry Quibble upon passing by, which none but such an abhorred Pedant would slain his paper with.  
Then, as if he had discarded all Truth, and feared his Conscience with a hot iron, he hath the face to utter such words as these viz, that I, though a Minister of the Gospel, cannot bear the Texts of Scripture which he hath produced, nor his quotations out of the four Evangelists, p. 152. whereas any one that pursues what I have writ may see that I only objected against his Quotations as not being a Complete Collection, and because in several places he distorted the Evanelists words. Yet according to his never-failing art of Falsifying he represents me as one that vilifies the Four Evangelists. Such another daring Falsehood is that, that I think the Gospel, the Good News of Salvation, tedious from the mouth of our Saviour and his Apostles, p. 126. For which apparent forgery I claim the forfeiture of his Ears, if he hath not (as he hath deserved) lost them before. And from this you may gather what Sincerity there is in his objecting to me that I make bold with Truth, and that what I say is utterly false p. 403. you must not credit one word of it, for once a Forger, and always so. This is his master piece of Art to cheat and abuse the world with downright Falsities, and to betray Christanity, and yet whilst he is doing this to accuse others of being False.  
He grants p. 127 what I had urged about the Four Gospels being writ to and for Believers, as well as Unbelievers, and yet immediately after he revokes his Grant, and sophistically shifts it off, so that no man alive knows where to have the Gentleman.  
But it is worth our remarking that it hath pleased God to leave this Man to his own infatuations, and to suffer him to produce and insist upon a protion of Scripture which is an absolute Conjuration of what he brings it for. p. 125. He quotes a great part of the fifth chapter to the Hebrews to prove that the Necessary Articles and Principles of Faith are not to be gathered out of the Epistles, particularly he makes use of those words, You have need that one teach you again which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God. v. 12. And the Apostle in chap. 6. v. 1. particuarly sets down these Principles of the doctrine of Christ, (as he also styles them.) Who but this Obstinate and Senseless Vindicator would hence infer (as he strenuously doth) that the Apostolical Epistles, and this especially, were not written to teach men the Fundamental Principles of Christianity? We have seen what a Talon he hath of Grammar and Criticism; now behold the man's Improvements in Logic? If you please we'll reduce what he saith into a Syllogistic, because this profound Logician hath set us a Pattern before, and he will take it ill if we don't follow him.  
If it be plainly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews that they have need to be taught again the First Principles of the Oracles of God, and of the doctrine of Christ, and accordingly the Apostle distinctly tells them what some of these Principles are, than neither this Epistle nor any other Epistles of the Apostles distinctly show what were those doctrines, which were absolutely necessary to make men Christians (I use the Logitian's own words):  
But it is plainly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews that they have need to be taught again the first Principles of the Oracles of God, and of the doctrine of Christ, and accordingly the Apostle distinctly tells them what some of those Principles are:  
Ergo, neither this Epistle nor any other Epistles of the Apostles distinctly show what were those doctrines which were absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian.  
Or more briefly he argues thus, This and other Epistles tell us what are the Necessary Principles of Christianity; Ergo, they do not tell us.  
You have a taste of his Logical Faculty, and I doubt not but you likewise have been drawing a Conclusion from the Premises, viz. that such Wild Reasonings argue a flaw in his Skull that uses them. Is this the Thoughtful man? A Creature that goes on all four, if it could speak, would talk much better Sense. Here is such a Heap of Contradictions, and such Impiety in citing the Holy Text to patronise them, that I question not but the Judicious Reader will hence form such thoughts of this Gentleman as his great merits require.  
But surely in his next quotations out of an Epistle (though it be a part of Scripture which he so much dreads) he will take care to speak tolerable sense, and not to abuse the Sacred Writ in this palpable manner. Let us see then how it is with him in his Citation out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In order to prove his former wild Conceit, that the Epistles of the Apostles are not to be consulted for Fundamentals of Christianity, he alleges chap. 3. v. 2. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it: neither yet are ye able. The plain meaning of which words without doubt is this, that the Apostle had hitherto taught them, and continued still to teach them the Necessary and Indispensable Doctrines of Christianity, such as were as needful for them as Milk for babes. Because they were not able to bear any heavy Superstructure, he made it his chief business to lay the Foundation, and this Foundation is jesus Christ, v. 10, 11. The plain way of Salvation by this JESUS the Son of God, the Plain and Easy Articles of the Christian Faith (all of them Plain as to the Truth and Certainty of them, though some of them not Plain as to the manner of the things comprehended in those Articles) these plain and simple Truths (which are as Pure and Unsophisticated as Milk, and therefore are so termed here) are those Doctrines which the Apostle taught the Corinthians. And now then let us see how this Man of Logic argues from the Apostle's words; and to give you the better light into his excellent way of Arguing, we will present it in Mode and Figure, for Mr. Chillingworth, saith he, bid his Adversary write nothing but Syllogisms, p. 228. and besides we find that Good Mr. Bold is for Syllogisms, p. 4. of his Reply: So that upon these Weighty Authorities we must betake ourselves to this way of Disputing. Thus than he argues,  
If the Apostle fed the Corinthians with milk, i. e. taught them the Plain and Necessary Articles of Christianity, and delivered such in his Epistles to them, than we are not to think that any Fundamental and Necessary Articles of the Christian Religion, such as are to be received to make a man a Christian, are to be found in this or any other of the Epistles:  
But the Apostle fed the Corinthians with milk, i. e. taught them the Plain and Necessary Articles of Christianity, and delivered such in his Epistles to them:  
Ergo, we are not to think that any Fundamental and Necessary Articles of the Christian Religion, such as are to be received to make a man a Christian, are to be found in this, or any other of the Epistles.  
Risum teneatis? If the Vindicator can clear this from Nonsense, I promise him that the Reader and I will leave off laughing at him for his cashiering of Burgersdicius. But in the mean time we see the reason why this Itinerant Innovator is so zealous against Logic, and University-Learning. He trembles at the thoughts of Strict Sense and Argument, because these make against him: Yea, he makes the Blessed Apostle contradict himself, merely to contradict me.  
And I would further remark, that immediately after he had quoted those foresaid words of the Apostle, he adds, THEREFORE very little is said in this Epistle for explaining any part of the Great Mystery of Salvation (and yet before he was against all Mysteries in Christistianity) contained in the Gospel, p. 131. And presently after, The same holds in all the other Epistles, and THEREFORE the Epistles seemed not to me to be the properest part of Scripture (he said before they were not at all proper) to give us the Foundation, p. 132. He complains of a therefore of mine, where there is no cause at all for it, p. III. but here is such a pair of Therefores as never was heard of in any Age, and be sure never will be, unless it be in his Writings. It was St. Paul's way to instruct the Corinthians in the plain Principles of Christianity, he took care to settle them in the Foundation, seeing they were not fit at that time for any considerable Superstructure, and therefore (saith our Vindicator) we must not expect to meet with any such Principles in this Epstle, or in any others. There are several people in that Great Brick House he wots of at the lower end of moorfield's, that never bid for that place by talking so ravingly. Whether the children's Crying and Bawling, or the M●thers Unkindnesses to him have put him into these disorders, I shall not determine, but the poor Animal is certainly much shattered, and 'tis to be feared belongs to the Hospital of the Incurable.  
Then he proceeds, p. 138, 139. to mention my taking notice of his feigned ground of Writing the Epistles, viz. because the Fundamental Articles are mixed here with other Truths. But having nothing to rejoin, he falls to Railing, a fault which he imputes to me, but is peculiar to himself.  
And as for what I said of Mixture, that those things which are promicuously put together are capable of being distinguished (which he boggles at) there is an Example of it in one he knows very well; a Committee man and a Vindicator are mixed together, but there is a possibility of distinguishing, yea of separating the former from the latter, the Honourable from the Vile; though 'tis true some things are so mixed in some persons that they will never admit of a separation, as a Chamber-Quack and an Abhorrer of Universities; or thus, an Innovator and a Creed-Hater. There is no parting of these. In the same place he thinks it Witty to reflect twice on my Degree in the University, as if B. D. were as Contemptible as A B C, which is his own Character.  
He jogs on still p. 140, 141, etc. sometimes coining matter, and fastening it upon me, sometimes impertinently ask of Questions, and requiring Answers, and every where falling into ridiculous Impertinencies, and weak reasonings: And what else could be expected from a Man that had all his days been used to the Tattle of Brats and Nurslings, and hath thereby perfectly learned all their humours, especially (as I observed before) their impertinent Queries, and troublesome Babble? Thus our Old Tutor is twice a Child, though he dotes so extremely that he can't see it, but verily persuades himself that all he hath writ against me is Strong and Nervous, and, like what he dictates to his Young Masters, must not be examined and censured.  
Only here it is to be noted, that what he saith p. 145. concerning Popular Haranguing, is a saucy Reflection on the Chiefest and most Eminent of the Clergy of our Church, whose constant employment hath been that which he contemptuously calls Popular Haranguing, and in other places Pulpit-Oratory, i. e. Preaching. Such is his Spleen against this Evangelical Institution, and the Ministers of it, though he makes a show of being a Christian. But he that will bespatter the Universities, and Academic Learning, and expunge the Chiefest Articles of Religion out of the Bible, will not stop at any thing.  
But our Penny-Post is upon the hoof still, p. 146, 147, etc. and his Quill is as Itinerant as himself, and like its Owner, fixes no where, hath no Habitation. Sometimes he quotes what I have said, and misinterprets it, at other times, to fill up his book, and to make it bulky, he gives you large shivers out of his own Writings, for he thinks none are so good as they, and that's the reason he never quotes an Author, unless it be to disparage him. He trifles to a prodigy, and according to his constant Method, he never fails at the close of a Paragraph to wind up all with Railing, his Mother-tongue.  
But wondrous it is to see what work he makes p. 156. where the Reader will be puzzled to tell whether his Falsehood or his Weakness be greater: He complains that I call him a Betrayer of Christianity and a Contemner of the Epistles, because he did not out of them name [Satisfaction:] Whereas the Re●der will find, if he thinks fit to consult my Socinianism Unmasked, that I treat of his Contempt of the Epistles in one Chapter, and of his refusing to use the word Satisfaction in an other. And I mention his not naming of Christ's Satisfying for us on no other account but this, that it argues he is a favourer of Socinianism, because when he professedly and designedly enumerates the Advantages of our Saviour's Coming, he speaks not of his making Satisfaction for us. This is the true and plain account of the matter, whence it is obvious to take notice of his wilful violation of Truth and Sincerity. He jumps from the Third Chapter of my Book to the Seventh to form a Falsehood against me. He most untruly and perversely represents the thing he speaks of, and there is no shadow of Verity in what he saith: So that the Reader is sufficiently cautioned against depending upon his word for the future; and he must always suppose him to be an arrant Masker.  
But he is as Silly as he is False, for, in the same place, to excuse himself as to his not mentioning of Satisfaction, he saith, there is not any such word in any one of the Epistles, or other Books of the New Testament in his Bible as Satisfying, or Satisfaction made by our Saviour, and so he could not put it into his Christianity as delivered in the Scripture. Very sound and solid! It being such a Noble Strain of Logic and Reason, we will form it into a Syllogism, and leave it as Mr. Lock's Memorial to posterity. It is briefly thus:  
If there be no such word as Satisfaction in any of the books of the New Testament, it cannot be put into Christianity as delivered in the Scripture.  
But there is no such word as Satisfaction in any of the Books of the New Testament.  
Ergo, it can't be put into Christianity as delivered in the Scripture.  
Get thee gone, for a Cunning Disputant: thou hast not thy fellow, I verily believe, within the Compass of the four Seas. By the same way of Arguing I will prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is no part of Christianity as delivered in the Scripture. And so you may, saith the Vindicator, for I hold there is no such thing as the Trinity in Scripture.  
But I will try again, by the same Argument I will prove that the Divine Decrees, and the Attributes of God, and his Providence are no Part of Christianity, because these words [Decrees, Attributes, Providence] (as it is understood of God) are not in Scripture. Nor do the Sacraments belong to Christianity, because that word occurs no where in the Sacred Writings, as Barclay (Apol. p. 292.) profoundly argues. Nay, The word Christianity is not to be found in Scripture, why then doth this man talk of Christianity as delivered in the Scripture? You see by this what strange and inconsistent things he obtrudes upon the Reader. He will not allow of Satisfaction because the word is not mentioned in the Bible: Is there any reason then to own such a thing as Christianity, seeing the word is not found there? But he will say, the Thing is. And the same I say of Satisfaction; and so the Vindicator shows himself to be a sorry contemptible Wrangler, and lets the World know that he hath dealt so much with Children, that he's of that number himself.  
But afterwards p 157. he pretends to own the Thing, and to say it may be collected out of his Reasonableness of Christianity. Yet still the Stubborn and Stomachful Man (which disposition he observes reigns much in Children Educat. p. 121, 122.) will not buckle to the Word. Surely this same word satisfying hath been some way or other very mischievous to him, that he so starts back at the naming of it. But to come close to the business, I appeal to any Impartial Man whether it can in any probability be believed that a person own such or such a Truth or Doctrine of the Gospel, and yet will not express it by that Word or Name which all the Professors of the Orthodox Faith have agreed to call it by. This is the Case of the Vindicator, he pretends to allow of the Satisfaction of Christ, and yet he absolutely refuses to use the Word. But till he can give us any Reason for this refusal, we shall believe that the true Cause why he will not admit of the Word is, because he disbelieves the Thing itself.  
P. 159 he would be fastening two Properties of a jesuit (as he saith) upon me; but every one saith they are his Own, and therefore I will not injure him by laying claim to them. And this I'll tell him moreover, that he hath an Other Property of one of that Order, which he hath not named, and that is Trudging up and down, and having no Home. And if a man can be of Loiola's Order and a Mendicant too, then I'm sure he may put in for both.  
What he jabbers p. 163, 164. about Satisfaction not being named at the Admission of those of Riper Years to Baptism, he might have seen answered, if he had had two eyes, in my Socinianism Unmasked, p. 47.  
P. 168. he comes to make little Whimsical Remarks on what I had said of the Apostles Creed, he raises Trifling Objections; he sets up a Phantom, a mere Shadow, and then encounters it; he is wanton and freakish, and in brief, the Kitling plays with his own Tail.  
He insists upon the terms Abstract and Abridgement, p. 173, 174. and spends a great many vain words about them, but can't for his heart disprove what I asserted, viz. that the foresaid Creed is an Abstract or Abridgement of the Christian Faith, which is more fully expressed in the Holy Scriptures, not only in the Gospel, but in the Epistles, which our Vindicator cannot endure to hear of. At last I am to be the jesuit again, and he is to take Mr. Chillingworth's place, and so the Protestant is to confute the Papist, and there's an end of that silly Fantastic Fiction of our Masker, not worthy of one of the poor raw Boys that he hath dragged up in his time.  
Further, it is to be noted that after he had banded as fiercely as he could against my notion of Abridgement, and, to thwart me, had produced Chillingworth's sense of the word, he confesses that he is ignorant whether what Chillingworth had given, be the nature of an Abridgement, or no. p. 177. Which shows how fickle and restive he is, and that he builds upon precarious hypotheses, and is not careful whether there be any Ground for what he saith. This would make one doubt whether this Writer be in his right mind or no. Hath not former Thoughtfulness disordered his Brain, that he thus talks?  
P. 177. he would seem to pay some honour to the Primitive Church and the Church of England (though no man believes it, no not himself) and to vindicate their practice in admitting persons to Baptism upon the Faith contained in the Apostles Creed, as if no more were to be believed by them than what is in express terms in that Form of Confession. But the Catechism of our Church may satisfy him that more is comprehended in that Form of Faith than is expressly there mentioned, else it would not have been said that we are chiefly to learn, in these Articles of our Belief, to believe in God the Father, in God the Son, and in God ●he Holy Ghost. He may look long enough into the Creed, and never find there these words, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; but Our Church lets us know that these terms are really contained in that Profession of Faith. Whence it follows that when persons are baptised into the Faith of the Apostles Creed, they are baptised into the Faith of the Trinity, and consequently into more than is in express words mentioned in this Symbol of our Faith. Which is the thing that this Quarrelsome Animal objects against, but is not able after all his fluttering to effect any thing. Besides, it is evident that our Church thinks not this Creed to be absolutely Perfect and Complete, because she adds other Creeds to it, as the Nicene and Athanasian. Which it is probable she would not have done if every thing to be believed were in express, direct, and full words set down in the other Form of Belief. And again, as to what he saith of the Primitive Practice of admitting persons to Baptism upon the bare confession of the Apostles Creed, he betrays his Ignorance, having not learned from several Eminent Writers that this Creed is not exactly the same that it was in the First Ages of Christianity, but that some Articles have been added to it. But the heedless Masker attends to none of these things, but goes on Chattering, and loves to hear his Clack move. But you must pardon him, for he that is used to the Conversation of Nurses, and the whole Posse of the Chatting Crew, can't be thought to moderate his Intemperate Organ.  
P. 183, 184. he heaves very hard to take off a Blunder that had been justly imputed to him, but he runs into a greater and more ridiculous one, and salves it by Supposition, for he would have it supposed (and that is a great word with him, you must note, in his Writings) that the Compilers of the Creed who lived in several Centuries, yet lived in one age or time. This is precious stuff, you will say. Though some of the Compilers of the Creed lived at some years' distance from one an other, yet by a Supposition they are Contemporary, and live together. Yes, it must be so by all means, he peremptorily vouches that the supposition of their living together is easy, at what distance so ever they lived, and how many so ever there were of them. p. 185. This is as if he should suppose that all the Pedantic Tutors that lived in King Richard the Second, and King Henry the Eight's reigns should live at the same time with our Vindicator who is of the same race and kind. One would not think that a man that talks so much against Poetry as he doth, should have such a fansiful knack of Fiction. The sense of this Blunder hath somewhat dampt him, and for some pages together he is down in the mouth, and only sneakingly desires me to show him this, and show him that, i. e. to show him his Folly: which I need not do, he hath sufficiently done it himself.  
Then p. 190, 191, 192, 193, etc. he is at his old work of Repetition, and quoting himself (though he could not quote a worse Author) and filling up whole pages with what he had said in his Reasonableness of Christanity, and in his former Vindication. And truly this is his employment every where, so that a man may modestly compute that there are three parts of his book spent in Reiterating the same things, and in the very same words. He that is so much against Themes will not permit himself to vary the Phrase, but brings over his old matter again in the very same individual terms that he used before, which renders his Farce very ridiculous and irksome. But besides the impudent Vanity of the thing, there is a great deal of Knavery and Dishonesty in it, which he ought to answer for. None but he that hath counterfeited his Name would impose upon the world by offering them a false number of Pages, to heighten the Price of them. The Reader is cheated into a book of above thirty sheets, when▪ if you pair off his Repetitions, there remain not above eight or nine. Here is a gross piece of Injustice, to make the Buyer pay five shillings for a Twelve penny Cut. This is a New way of Writing, to insert one book into an other verbatim, and so to choose the unwary Chapman. Nay, it might be further observed that whatever he hath added in this last Pamphlet is run over again in some places of it, as if he studied to make it more Ridiculous than it seemed to be at the first reading. But it appears it was his business to heap up a Multitude of words, and to eke out his poor lank matter: for a Book was to come out against what I had writ, and there was a necessity of Stuffing it and Swelling it, and to say Much where Nothing could be said to the Purpose.  
In his next pages 202, etc. he is stark mad at me for intimating that he and his Allies are Underhand Factors for Rome. See how it pleases the Divine Disposer of all things that by occasion of a small Hint a man shall discover to the world his Inward Consciousness, and together with that his Propensions and Designs which he with all the art imaginable laboured to mask and conceal! When I but mentioned the Tendency of the Party to Rome, he, as a Concerned and Guilty Criminal, starts up, and shows himself galled and pinched, he flies about and grows furious and outrageous. What! saith he, doth this Orthodox Railer tell us that we are Factors for Rome, and truck for Popery? What! doth he think that because I hate Universities, I am in love with the Whore of Babylon? How can I be of the Roman Church that am of none? But this is easily answered by the known Maxim, One of no Religion will soon be of any. Scepticism makes way for Popery. The doctrine which the Author and Vindicator of the Reasonableness of Christianity hath spread abroad, is contrived on purpose to bring men off from the Received Articles of Christianity, and to prepare them to be Sceptics and Infidels. I hope to give the Reader satisfaction about this and in a few words to convince the Intelligent and Serious Considerer that it is the design of this Writer to unsettle Religion, to introduce Indifferency and Neutrality into Christianity, to place all Opinions on a level, to represent all Doctrines to be alike, that there may be no contending for any Articles of Faith, that those which were looked upon by the Primitive Church and by Our Own as Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity may for the future not be thought necessary to be known and believed in order to making men True Christians, He persuades men that One Article will do their business, and that those who pass for Orthodox Protestants confound people with bundles of doctrines, which are useless and unnecessary; that half the Bible, Yea a quarter of it is enough, that One of the Evangelists Writings contains all the rest (for which he quotes Mr. Chillingworth) and therefore if all the rest were lost, we need not concern ourselves about it; as for the Epistles of the Apostles, we need not trouble our heads with looking into them, for there is only now and then dropped by the buy an Article of Faith.  
And then, this Author under the pretence of declaring against Systems of Divinity (which is his Common Subject) strikes at all the Received and Celebrated Doctrines of the Christian Church, and represents them as indifferent and precarious. Every where he shows his abhorence of the very word System (as if it were as uneasy to him as Satisfying) so that it is a singular and extraordinary favour he would quote (as he doth, and that with Respect) Dr. Cudworths book that bears the Name of System. Now, I am only to take notice of the Ground of his inveighing against Systems, which is his design of bringing an odium on the Settled Truths of Christianity, and to make way for his own Giddy Notions. Accordingly he pronounces concerning those Stable Fundamentals of Christianity that they were framed and fashioned according to the humours, interests, or designs of the Heads of Parties, as if they were things depending on men's pleasure, and to be suited to their convenience. These are his words p. 215, 216. and speak his heart; and the Turkish Spy doth not express his mind more fully. Thus he disposes his Readers to be of no Church, of no Religion. Or at least he would persuade them that one way of Religion is as good as an other: which is the prevailing doctrine of these days. Therefore Mr. Bold (one whom I shall afterwards account with) was much mistaken when he said, he never hardly appeared on a fashionable subject, Rep. p. 3. for this Opinion, and that One religion is as good as another, is the Modish doctrine every where. This Country Gentleman is in the Fashion, and doth not know it. (And thence you may judge of the Truth of what Mr. Lock saith of him, that he takes not up his Opinions from Fashion. Pref. to his Vindicat.)  
Now this is a fair step towards Rome, for if one Religion be equivalent to an other, and our Salvation is not concerned in the belief of the Necessary Articles of our Faith, than we are at liberty to embrace what Form and Model of Articles we please, and those of the Church of Rome will perhaps be thought as good as any. There is a strange passage in this Writer, p. 217, 218. which speaks his favourable opinion of the Pontifician way, I have often wondered, saith he, to hear men of several Churches so heartily exclaim against the Implicit Faith of the Church of Rome, when the same Implicit Faith is as much practised and required in their own, though not so openly professed, and ingeniously owned there. First, he lets us know that from that Converse which he hath had with persons of several Churches, whether of the Communion of the Church of England, or those of the Dissenters, he finds that they are against the Church of Rome. Secondly, that though they are against the doctrine of Implicit Faith in the Church of Rome, yet they like it well enough in their own. Thirdly, they not only like it, but practise it, yea the very same Implicit Faith. Fourthly, they not only practise▪ but require it, they command and enjoin those of their Communion to believe all they say with an Implicit Faith. But fifthly, they do not this with so good a grace as those of the Roman Church do. For those latter are very open and ingenuous in their profession and practice of implicit Faith, but the former are not so. Protestants have not that Candour and Fairness which are to be seen in Papists; they neither so openly profess, nor so ingenuously own this doctrine, but yet as strictly practise it, and require the practice of it as they do. I leave it with the Reader to determine from the Premises which of these two, those of the Roman or of the Reformed Churches, have the happiness to be most in favour with this Gentleman.  
In the known stile of the Roman Priests and Writers he declares that the Scripture serves but like a Nose of Wax, p 213. And as the Heads of the Church of Rome deny the Bible to the Common people, so he is advancing towards this apace, for he lops off three of the Evangelists, (for one he saith will suffice) and all the Epistles. And further to show his good will to the Roman Catholics, and to their Beloved Notion of Transubstantiation he tells us p. 408, 409. that if a man understands those words of our Saviour's Institution [This is my body] and [This is my blood] in a Literal sense, he must believe the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper are changed really into his Body and Blood, though he knows not how. And afterwards he saith,, He is obliged to belive it to be true, and to assent to it. And presently afterwards, To deny assent to this as true, would be to deny our Saviour's Veracity, and consequently his being the Messiah sent from God. Here he lets us know that his One Article is quite renounced if Transubstantition be not admitted. You see what his making of [jesus is the Messias] to be the Sole Article of Christian Faith, comes to. But this doctrine of Transubstantiation is so grateful to him that he brings it over again, p 413, 414. assuring us that the Old Gentleman at Rome, who hath an Ancient Title to Infallibility, may make Transubstantia●on a Fundamental Article necessarily to be believed, as well as I make the Divinity of Christ and his Satisfaction, etc. (for these he means by the Sense of any Disputed Texts of Scripture, because the Texts concerning these Points are disputable with him) Fundamental Articles necessarily to be believed. It is brought to this issue it seems, that Transubstantiation is as Fundamental an Article of the Christian Faith as any that can be named besides Iesus' being the Messias. Thus by the overruling Providence of Heaven this sort of Writers discover the inward bent of their thoughts and inclinations, though they labour to hide them from the world. This Gentleman would be thought to have no kindness for Rome, and yet his own words confu●● him. As I observed before that he stoutly Rails whilst he is remonstrating against that practice, so here he stiffly patronizes Popery, even when he had pretended to show himself displeased at my charging him with it.  
And I could produce several other passages out of his Writings which makes it appear that our Prester john is inclined to receive the Roman Missionaries; I could make it evident that he is Indifferent as to the Reformed Religion, and the Doctrines professed by the Owners of it, and that he inspires men's minds with a disesteem of those Articles which the Christian Churches since the Reformation have unanimously asserted and vindicated, and that he represents them as Ridiculous. You must not, saith he, give ear to what the Preachers and Pulpit Orators of these Churches tell you about more Articles than One as necessary to be known and believed, in order to making you Christians. If you assent to this Single Proposition, jesus is the Messias, I declare to you that you are, as to matter of Faith, as Good Christians as St. Peter and St. Paul were. When your Parish-Priests endeavour in their Popular Harangues to persuade you that this is not the sum Total of the Christian Faith, but that there are other Necessary and Fundamental Doctrines which are of the Essence of Christianity, you must roundly tell them from me, that the Catalogue of Fundamentals every one alone can make for himself: no body can collect or prescribe it to an other, but this is according as God hath dealt to every one the measure of light and faith, and hath opened each man's understanding, that he may understand the Scripture. These are the express words of our Vindicator, p. 85. and from them it undeniably follows, that though no body must be a Creed-maker, yet every one may be a Fundamental-maker. Mr. Hobbs was pleased to give this power to the King only, but this Gentleman is more liberal, and grants it to every Subject: He may make what Catalogue of Fundamentals he pleases, and put this into it, among the rest, that the Pope is Infallible, and that the Religion of the Church of Rome is to be preferred to that of the Reformed. Fundamentals depend not upon the Scriptures, but upon men's Understandings, and therefore every man according to his apprehensions may make as many, and as few Fundamental Articles as he thinks fit. What think you now of our Tutor, our Anti-Academian? Is not this Man of One Article disposed to entertain the Twelve New Articles of Faith of the Council of Trent?  
It is impossible to conceive how Great Mischief that person may do whose Head is stuffed with such Notions as these, especially if we consider he is always creeping into Houses, and insinuating into Families, and wheadling the Masters and Mistresses, and infecting the early thoughts of young Ones with such Principles. Such a one the Commonwealth is concerned to have an eye upon, for the safety of the Public. And though all this while I don't suppose him to be set on work upon any consideration of his extraordinary Skill or Ability, as if I took him either for a Conjurer or a Jesuit, yet he may be made use of as a very fit Tool, as a Convenient Machine, and (as I said before) he may serve to be an Underhand Factor. And if the Creature had not been some such thing, it is impossible he should startle and stare, and fling about (as the Reader may observe he doth) at the naming of Popery and Rome. He conceals the resentment as well as he can, but the Observing Reader may plainly discern it. None would have been guilty of this but our Ridiculous Masker, who, in imitation of the Changeling kind, hides his face, and then thinks no body sees him. But notwithstanding all his Ar●ifices and Disguises, he bewrays himself. As they vulgarly say of the Fiend, that when he appears in Humane Shape, he can never dissemble it so well, but he is some way or other discovered, there is some mark to discern him by.  
A little after, p. 229, 230. he returns to the One Article again, and upbraids me for many. I have, he saith, a reserve of the Lord knows how many more, p. 233. which is Irreverently and Profanely spoken, because he uses the Sacred Name so slightly and vainly. By this we may guests what manner of Education his Children and Nurslings have: He that abuses that Holy Name himself will not check this fault in others.  
Then in three pages together, 232, 233, 234. he falls into his old Trot of telling me, and desiring to show, and let him know, etc. Without any shame or remorse he continues to stuff whole pages with Reiterations of his former Writings. Though he was lately not for telling, but for weighing of money, yet he hath other thoughts with respect to his Books, for he reckons Number to be Weight. Such Writers glory in the number of their Lines, and think to be Voluminous is to be Argumentative.  
Next, p. 238, etc. he runs back to Object against the Reason which I assigned why the believing of jesus to be the Messias is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament And he busies himself with Wire drawing every word that I had said, and scores up all along (as he had done before) what I must show him, and what I must prove, and sets them down in distinct Figures: And yet after all these little devices and pedantic tricks, he hath not raised one Objection against me that hath any thing more in it than his children's Rattle. And indeed it must needs be so, and can't be otherwise: when men have taken up false deceitful Notions, and then labour to Vindicate them, it is presently seen that their pretences of Arguing are mere Sound, and are nothing but Childish and Noisy Amusements.  
In no less than 20 pages afterwards he busies himself in hunting for Objections and Cavils against what I had said, and at last resolves to admit but of a single Article as necessary to be believed in order to the making a man a Christian, But will not that Sermon of St. Peter in Acts 2. evidence that there are more Fundamental Points than that one, jesus is the Messias? Are not our Saviour's Passion, Death, and Resurrection particularly mentioned in ver. 23, 24 and are they not Fundamental Articles of Faith? Can you believe jesus to be the Messias, without believing him to have suffered, died, and rose again? To this it is answered, p. 268. that these Articles were not proposed by St. Peter to the unbelieving jews as Fundamental ones, and consequently they are not to be reckoned as Fundamental Articles, for it is certain that the Holy Apostle proposed them as they were. I request the Serious and Judicious Reader to take an estimate of Mr. Lock's Reasonableness of Christianity from this one thing, viz. his denying the Articles of our Saviour's Suffering, Death, and Resurrection to be Articles of the Foundation, i. e. such as are necessarily required to be believed, for the costituting a man a Christian. That he denies this is plain, because he tells us that St. Peter propounded not these Articles as Fundamental, and because according to him there is but one Fundamental Article. If there be but One, than these are no Fundamental Propositions, unless you will say that three added to one make but one. Which I think he will scarcely assent to, unless his Arithmetic be proportionable to his Christianity. Besides, in an other place, p 233. he is Positive as to this matter, for his words are these, [The Death and Resurrection of Christ are recorded by the Spirit of God in Holy Writ, but are no more necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian than any other part of Divine Revelation] that is, than any Inferior Truth mentioned in the New Testament, as that Christ rid upon as Ass. This he declares to be as requisite to make a man a Christian as that Christ died and rose again.  
But stay, we must not think the day is our own, the Adversary begins to rally, and bushes upon us with his strong Reserves, as thus, p. 268. Those Articles of the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ were not proposed here as the Fundamental Articles which St. Peter principally aimed at, and endeavoured to convince them of. And afterwards, They are not the Principal thing aimed at, p. 269. but only brought in by the buy. A Wager on it that he is good at Push● pin. None but such a Trifler as the Vindicator could have been so shameless as to offer this to a Reader of any sense and consideration: for it is evident in this Sermon that our Saviour's Crucifixion, and Death and Rising again are equally urged with his being Lord and Christ: And the Apostle mentions his Resurrection again, v. 32. This jesus hath God raised up, and therefore exhorts his Countrymen and Brethren to embrace this jesus, to believe that he suffered, and laid down his life, and took it up again for the Good of the World. But our New Modeller of Christianity tells us that these are Articles occasionally brought in here by St. Peter, and only as Arguments to persuade the Jews, but were far from being Fundamental and Necessary Points of Christian Faith, such as they must needs believe. And how doth he prove that these were brought in as Arguments? Ay, that is worth our taking notice of. That our Saviour's Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection were used here as Arguments to persuade them into a belief of this Fundamental Article, that jesus was the Messias, is evident, saith he, from hence, that they preached here to 〈◊〉 who kn●w the death and crucifixion of jesus, as well as Peter, and therefore they could not be proposed to them as New Articles of Faith to be believed, p. 269.  
The answer is obvious, that though those Auditors knew as well as their Speaker that Christ suffered on the cross, and there expired, and rose again, yet they were ignorant of the Design and End of all this, viz. that he suffered, and died and rose from the dead for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind. Thus they were New Articles of Faith to them, and thus St. Peter proposed them to be believed and received, as appears from that Question of those Jews who were converted by this Sermon, What shall we do to be saved? Which implies that St. Peter had told them Christ's Death and Resurrection were in order to the Salvation of lost mankind: and therefore they desire to know what Method they must take to have the Benefit of that Salvation and Redemption; and accordingly he exhorts them to Repent, and to be baptised every one of them in the name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, v. 38. These Jews were before strangers to this, they had no persuasion concerning the Design of Christ's Suffering, Dying, and Rising again, viz. that Salvation and Pardon of sins were to be obtained by them, and therefore the Apostle preaches tehse Truths to them. And that they are the Principal Doctrines in this Sermon appears from their being insisted upon so largely, from v. 23, to 36. but as for that Other Article, that jesus is the Messias, it is not expressly mentioned throughout the whole Sermon, only the substance of it is in ver. 36, after the other Grand Articles of Christ's Passion and Dying and Rising had been amply discoursed of and urged. And yet our Bold Breeder up of Small Craft faces it out that that was the Sole Proposition and the Sole Truth the Apostle laboured to convince them of, and to bring them ●o. p. 270. and that the Others are no Fundamental Articles. Our new Theologue is for a Messias that neither Suffered, nor died, nor rose again.  
I leave the Reader to judge of this, whilst I follow our Travelling Tutor to p. 281. etc. where we still fi●d him perverting of St. Luke's Writing. He sets himself to misrepresent his History both of the Gospel and of the Acts, as if he had a particular pike against that Good Man, that Holy Writer, above all the rest.  
From p. 209. to p. 299. he undertakes to set down the Contents of our Saviour's and the Apostle's Preaching, and thence to prove that One Article only was propounded to be believed to make men Christians. But our bold Undertaker falls very short of what he designed, as I shall make evident from the Texts he alleges. First, he quotes Mat. 4. 23. jesus went about all Ga●●ilee, teaching in the Synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, called in the 17th v. the Kingdom of heaven, which is no other than the State of the Christian Church under the Gospel, with all the Great Benefits and Privileges, as well as the Duties and Offices which appertain to it. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom, even the kingdom of heaven, for it is that Doctrine and Dispensation wherein Heaven and Happiness are freely offered to mankind, and whereby they may be made actual Partakers of them. This is that which Christ taught and preached, and thence our deep Logician infers that he taught and preached but One Article, as if the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven contained in it no more. Next he quotes Mat. 10. 7. where our Lord enjoined his Apostles to preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. And he adds Luke 10. 9 where our Saviour commands the Seventy Disciples to give and preach to the Inhabitants of some particular places in judea, and to say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. Which is as much as to say, Go and preach the same Gospel that I myself have taught, for this is the Sum of what I have every where published and preached, Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, Mat. 4. 17. Reform your lives, and embrace that Doctrine which approaches nearer and nearer unto you every day, and is more and more to be discovered to the world. It is no less than the doctrine of the Kingdom of God, i. e. God's spiritual Government of his Church under the reign of the Messias the Saviour and Redeemer: wherefore you must be careful to inform yourselves concerning the Laws of this Spiritual Kingdom, and to know and believe them, as well as to practise them. If a Man can prove hence that there is but One Article in all Christianity to be assented to, to constitute a person a member of Christ, he hath a faculty of Proving which none ever heard of before.  
Well, but why doth he not go on? He had undertaken to prove the One Article from the Commission given by our Saviour to his Apostles and his Disciples, and why then doth he not proceed, and quote Mat. 28. 19, 20. among his other Texts that he produces? This is worth the Readers taking notice of, for it will discover to him the Genius and Spirit of the man we are now dealing with. Though he had taken upon him to set down and rehearse the several particular Commissions our Saviour gave the Apostles and Disciples when he sent them to preach the Gospel yet he omits this most Solemn order of all, whereby they and their Successors were enjoined to teach all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things etc. They were to convert all Nations to the Faith of the Gospel, and to make them Christ's Disciples (for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by baptising them into the profession of the Holy Trinity; and consequently they were to be instructed in this doctrine, in order to their being made Christians: they must know and believe that in the Eternal Godhead there are Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; this is propounded as requisite in order to their being admitted and constituted Disciples of jesus. If the Vindicator had not been conscious to himself that this is the True Sense and Import of the Text, it is certain he would have produced it among the other places: but (which is dismal to consider) he stifles the inward sentiment of his Conscience, to secure his One Article; for he saw that the Article of the Trinity was plainly expressed in this Commission, and as plainly enjoined to be believed as a Necessary Point in order to give a man the denomination of a Disciple of Christ, or a True Christian; and for this reason our False Masker conceals this place, even when he was pretending to give an account of those Texts which mentioned our Blessed Saviour's Commissions to his Apostles. This shows what a Perfidious Scribe we have got, one that makes nothing of wilfully leaving out any Text of Scripture, to further his design and purpose and at other times he as wilfully perverts plain Texts to the same end. The consideration of which strange behaviour, will I doubt not, obtain me an Excuse among Impartial and Intelligent Readers for my manner of handling this Adversary, whose obstinate Hypocrisy and dissimulation call for no other than the severest Chastisements and Correptions: though I confess it is with no mean regret and reluctancy that I put myself upon this way of writing; but t●ere is no help for it in the present case; he must of necessity be disciplined and taught, as the men of Succoth, with Thorns and Briars. I should not have undertaken this task upon my own private and personal account, because Contempt, and Neglect are the best Return in this case: but when I saw our Holy Religion endangered by his sacrilegious attempts of depriving us of the greatest part of it, and when I observed his Rude encroachments on the Professed Schools of Learning, I found it was a Public Cause, and that every one, who would, had a right to engage in it, and to oppose him as a Common Foe, as a Proclaimed Rebel, as an Outlaw, as a Pest of the Community, and to treat him accordingly.  
I will stay a little to examine one ridiculous passage p. 304: I had offered to prove that there is more than that One Article, jesus is the Messias, to be believed to make a man a Christian, by producing that place Rom. 10. 9 If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him (i. e. Christ Jesus) from the dead, thou shalt be saved: where the belief of Christ's Resurrection is propounded as absolutely necessary to salvation: and if so, then jesus is the Messias is not the Only Article, as he often inculcates. What is his Answer to this? To believe the Resurrection of Christ, saith he, is in effect the same as to believe him to be the Messias, and so is put to express it. And again p. 305. Believing Christ's Resurrection is put for believing him to be the Messias: so that these which seem to be Two Articles are but one and the same. And if they be so, then why throughout all his Collection of places out of the Evangelists and Acts did he not mention all those Texts (which are very many) that speak of our Saviour's Resurrection, and why did he not reckon them to be the same with those that speak of Iesus' being the Messias? Why did he not all along tell us that one is put to express the other? The true Reason is because he thought of no such thing at that time, but hath invented it since, to shift off what I said.  
This is such an other piece of Invention as that in his First Vindication p. 6. that he designed his Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity chiefly for Infirm Christians, such as disbelieved or doubted of the Truth of Christianity: and again in his Second Vindication p. 152. he saith, he chiefly designed his book for Deists. (though b● the way we may take notice of his Contradicting himself, for Deists are no Christians, and if he designed his book chiefly for one, he could not design it chiefly for the other.) And yet if you consult his whole Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity, you shall not find one syllable that intimates any such Design, though there, if any where, he was obliged to discover and declare it, that the Reader might not mistake the Intention of his book. This proves that what he hath since added in both his Vindications is mere Fiction and Shame, and he was forced to fly to this Asylum when I h●d laid open the mischief of his Papers. This may convince us that he will first assert and print any thing, and then afterwards he will (in his Snivelling way) come and Retract it, or gloss it over with some pitiful Evasion. But where is the Probity, where is the Integrity of the Man all this while?  
Nay, (to return to the Present Matter) it is plain that he designedly omitted those places which mention our Saviour's Resurrection, because it was his persuasion that they belong not to this Proposition, jesus is the Messias. He declares (as you lately heard) that in St. Peter's Sermon, Christ's Resurrection (as well as his Sufferings and Death) was brought in only by the buy, and was not a Principal Article, was not principally aimed at, but that this Proposition jesus is the Messias is the sole Truth the Apostle laboured to bring them to the belief of: and lately we were told by him that the Resurrection of Christ is no more to be believed to make a man a Christian, than any Ordinary Truth or Proposition recorded in the New Testament.  
Yet after all this, he palpably contradicts what he hath said, and in plain terms tells us that Christ's Resurrection and his being the Messias are the very same, and one is put to express the other. Before he held them to be distinct, and so distinct, that where he found the one he could not find the other, as in several places of the New Testament that he consulted. The Resurrection of our Lord was not taken notice of by him as appertaining to the Messiaship. When St. Peter in the main part of his Sermon preached concerning Christ's Resurrection, our Expositor told us that it was made use of only as an Argument to persuade them of this Fundamental Truth, that jesus is the Messias, p. 269. and yet now all of a sudden this Proposition is equivalent, nay is the same with jesus rose from the dead. There is no account in the world can be given of this, but that he will be saying something, though it be to his own apparent Confutation. See here the Influence of Company! It is a Common Topick, but the Reality of it could never be more evinced than in this Instance. Here we see how it tinctures men's Manners, and transforms them into the shapes of those they associate with. Here is one that hath spent his days among Talking and Gossipping people, and they have made him such a one as themselves: He hath learned of them the knack of Perpetual Jabber, and his Tongue will wag when the Sexton is covering him with Moulds. But if this were all, we might pass it off with a little mirth. But alas it is dismal and horrid to consider what a Profligate Writer shows his Head in the World, who is neither ashamed to contradict himself nor the Holy Writings of the Apostles: And so he brings a contempt on the things of God and Religion, and vacates the Authority of Scripture, only to gratify some of his Fraternity, who with himself have a design to smother the Chief Articles of our Religion, and to stifle the Christian Faith.  
P. 344, 345, etc. he is mightily Concerned (if you will believe him) that he should be thought to favour Socinianism. What Evidence I brought for it he labours to render invalid, but with little success. He would maintain forsooth, that though I have proved him a Socinian, yet he is no Socinian; and what if he be both? May not a man be a Socinian and no Socinian, as well as a Physician and no Physician? But he farther complains that he is the first man that was ever found out to be at the same time a Socinian and a Factor for Rome, p. 346. No, Sir, you are mistaken here (as in all your other Points) you are not the first man, for there was a jesuit in the late Reign (as a professed Socinian owns, in his Exceptions of Mr. E. examined, p. 46.) who published a Paper entitled, An Address, etc. wherein he pretends to show that the Scriptures commonly alleged for the Incarnation of the Son of God, and for the Trinity, admit of an other sense. And this Paper was read by the Jesuite-Preacher in Limestreet, and zealously urged by him in his Pulpit. Whence it is evident that Popish Priests, when they see it makes for their Interest, cry up the Socinian Principles and Doctrines. A I●suite can appear in all shapes and figures, as well as a Vindicator, and that is the reason that our Vindicator mentioned not this when he was enumerating the Properties of a jesuit, for he knew well enough that he could assume the guise of a Quaker, or a Socinian, or any other Sect; and therefore a Socinian and a Factor for Rome are not inconsistent. Which proves that the Vindicator had no cause to complain of my coupling these Two together, and that it was as weakly as falsely said of him, that he was the first man in whom both these Denominations meet. Socinianism was first brought out of Italy, and thither it tends.  
Our Runagate Tutor being almost out of breath with Impertinent Nonsense and Repetitions, begins to sit down, and take up with Quotations, p. 350: and of whom? Of two Orthodox Prelates of our Church. But wherever he mentions that word Orthodox, he intends it for a Jeer, so that those Worthy Persons he gives that Epithet to are much obliged to him for his Buffonery. But that is not all, they are two Prelates, he saith, whom, when he follows Authorities, he shall prefer to Slichtingius and Socinus (the good man thinks Socinus was after Slichtingius.) Here is the Honour that is done to those Eminent Men of our Church; he can only give them the preference to two Notorious Corrupters of our Christian Faith. What an impudent affront is this to the Ashes of the late Archbishop, and to the Right Reverend Bishop now living, from the Pen of this Episcopus Puerorum, this Contemptible Overseer of Hanging-Sleeves? When he follows Authorities, is as much as to say, he never will, for our Puny-Governor is Authority to himself. Thus he quotes those Excellent Prelates only to abuse them, and to distort their words, as may be seen in what he saith of them. And it is very observable that this man who scorns Authorities, yet brags in an other place that 
* Letter to the Bishop of Worcester, p. 69.  he hath Great Authorities to justify him: And in what? viz. that the Soul of Man is Material. Here our good Gentleman can depend upon Authorities, and call them Great Ones, when they shock the Immortality of Humane Souls, but in a Point of Orthodox Faith he laughs at Authorities.  
This Ignorant Writer stands to what he said before, that [the Son of God] was a phrase that among the jews in our Saviour's time was used for [the Messias.] p. 357. Which hath no foundation at all, and none but the man that talks of the Mishna, and never saw it, would have asserted any such thing. Mr. Selden, who, it is thought, was the better Antiquary and Judge in this matter, expressly tells us, that by [the Son of God] the jews meant [the Word of God] (as he is called in the Chaldee Paraphrast) which was the same as if he had professed himself to be God. De Jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 12. For the Old Jews belief was (as several Good Authors have proved) that the Messias was God, or the Son of God, for they looked upon the Son of God as Synonymous with God, when it is applied to the Messias. Rittangel, a Learned Writer, who had been a Jew, sufficiently proves this from the Jewish Writings. And from other Testimonies it might be proved that the Son of God was not a term only to express the Messias, but that it signified something more, viz. That Jesus is the Proper, Natural and Eternal Son of God, that he is One with the Father, as having the same Divine Nature and Essence. Thus in the strictest sense he is the Son of God; and the Jews in our Saviour's time understood this expression thus, otherwise they would not have attempted to stone him for Blasphemy, when he said he was the Son of God; which according to them was the same with being One with the Father, and making himself God, Joh. 10. 30, 33, 36. Whence it is evident that the Son of God denotes the Divinity of Christ, which the word Messias doth not, and consequently the Son of God and the Messias are not terms of the very same signification. And that place Acts 8. 37. I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God, inefragrably proves it, which I urged in my former Treatise▪ but when the Vindicator came to repeat what I had alleged, he leaves out the words of the Text, as the Reader may see, p 370. which is an argument of his hating the Light. But as being ashamed (which is prodigious in him) of that Omission, he afterwards mentions the Text, and sweats to evade the force of it. My Argument ran thus, If the Eunuch, who was instructed by Philip in the Christian Faith, professed that he believed jesus Christ or the Messias to be the Son of God, than that word Messias or Christ is not of the very same signification with the Son of God, but imports something else: But the Eunuch professed, etc. Therefore the word Messias is not of the same signification with the Son of God. The Minor is the Text: The Major is proved from this, that if the Son of God signified no more than the Messias, than the Eunuches words are a downright Tautology, for they are as much as if he had said, I believe that the Messias is the Messias. A man would think there is some sense and reason in this way of Arguing. No, saith our Gentleman, I will not allow that there is any Sense in this, for the Tautology will be quite removed if we take [Christ] here for a proper Name, p. 374. Say you so, Good Mr. Vindicator! Then why may not your One Article [jesus is the Messias] be reduced to this [Jesus is he whom we call the Messias, or whose Proper Name is Messiah?] What is the reason that you did not take the word Christ for a Proper Name in all those other places where you allege that Name to signify his Office? And what is the reason that the word Messias in your Collection of Texts may not be thought to be the same? Unless your Pedantship will say that a Greek word, but not an Hebrew or Syriack one is capable of being a Proper Name? You see the strength of our Adversary. After so many years plodding and booking it he cannot afford any other than such weak insipid trash as this. Get thee gone, I say to thee, for a maker of poor thin Physick●broth.  
P. 399. he thinks it Profane that I say of him, that he makes our Saviour a Coward. But if I prove that he represents him as such, than the Profaneness will lie at his own door. Though, it is true, our Saviour used great Caution at the first Preaching of the Gospel, and did not on all occasions and to all persons declare himself to be the Messias, yet he was not so Reserved and Timorous as this Writer would have us believe, for he hath the confidence to say in his Reasonableness of Christianity that Christ made no other discovery of himself at the beginning of his Ministry but by Miracles and Circumlocutions, and general Discourses, p. 59 And in an other place of that Book he saith he did this lest the Sanhearim should have laid hold on what he said, to have got him into their power, and thereby to take away his life, p. 62. And afterwards he saith, our Saviour would by no means in express terms profess himself to be the Messias, p▪ 72. and that for the same reason. Nay, he tells us that out of this wary and cautious principle he never in the whole course of his Ministry, so much as to his Disciples, much less to the multitude, or the Rulers of the jews, declared himself to be the Messias in express terms, p. 148. And in almost a hundred pages together, (viz. from p. 59 to p. 152.) he labours to instill this Notion into the minds of his Readers, that our Blessed Lord had not Courage enough to own himself to be the Messias, the views of Danger hindered him from letting the world know Who he was.  
But how contrary is this to what we read in the Evangelical Writings? When the women of Samaria had mentioned the Messias, john 4. 25. Christ immediately thereupon said unto her, I that speak unto thee am he, i. e. the Messias. Here in plain and direct words he owns himself to be the Messias, and this was at the very entrance of his Ministry. Again, we are assured that he went about all Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, Mat. 4. 23. i e. that the Messias was come, and that he himself was that Messias, for it was no more dangerous to proclaim himself to be the Messias, than to tell the Jews that the Messias was come, for they would soon know what Particular Person it was. Further, though our Saviour (as is particularly taken notice of by the Evangelists) showed his Prudence and Discretion in not exposing himself to unnecessary dangers by too great a freedom of speaking, yet at the beginning of his Ministry we find that he plainly, and without any reserve told the Jews that God was his Father, john 5. 17. or, which is equivalent, that he was the Son of God, which is as much as if he had said, he was God; for so the Jews interpreted it in that place, for they said this was making himself equal with God, v. 18. He told them at the same time that he had power to raise the dead, v. ●1. and that he is to be judge of the world at the last day, v. 22, 27. that all men ought to honour him as they honour the Father, v. 23. that he gives Eternal Life to those that believe on him, v. 24. and more fully and amply in other expressions in that Chapter he publicly and expressly declares himself to be the Messias and the Son of God. And it is observable that he made this free, plain and open profession of himself, and his Divine Nature, and Messiaship at that very time when the jews persecuted him, and sought to slay him, v. 16.  
Judge then of the Truth and Consistency of what this Dabbler in Scripture and Divinity saith of our Saviour, viz. That in the whole course of his Ministry he never expressly declared himself to be the Messias Nay, (which makes it the more unaccountable and prodigious) he holds that Christ never all that time owned himself to be the Messias, although according to him, there was no other Article of Faith propounded by Christ and the Apostles to be believed to make a man a Christian but this, that jesus is the Messias. Judge of the truth of what he saith, viz. that our Saviour always spoke to the Jews (whether his own Apostles and Disciples, or others) concerning himself in obscure and mystical terms, p. 99 as being afraid to speak out, and standing in awe of the Angry jews, who sought to kill him, p. 85. Is not this clearly confuted by what I have alleged out of the Gospels, and is it not further confuted by what we read in Mat. 10. 28, 32? where our Saviour dissuades his Apostles from fearing them that kill the body, and requires it of them as their duty that they confess him before men, i. e. (as is most evident from comparing john 9 22. with 12. 4) that they confess him to be the Messias. And can we think that they were obliged to do this unless he had plainly told them that he was the Messias? But, according to this New Expositor, Christ exacted more of his Apostles than he dared to do himself; for he was Cautious and Fearful, and therefore would not confess himself to be the Messias; he had not Spirit and Valour enough to own that Character in the whole course of his Ministry, lest he should thereby be in danger of his life, as he expresses it. What is this but belying our Blessed Saviour, and making him a Coward? And who but a Poltroon, a Cowardly Flincher from the Fundamental Articles of our Faith would entertain such a vile and impious thought of our Lord and Master?  
It is pleasant to see p. 222. (which should indeed have been mentioned before) how this Imperious Dragger up of Youth handles the Ancient Grave Citizen who dedicated a Book to him, and most submissively crouched to him. In stead of acknowledging his good will and respect to him, this Supercilious and Unmannerly Well bred man snibs him for his forwardness, and condemns him as a System-Maker, though the poor man had railed in three or four places of his Pamphlet against all Systems. What a Magotted Vindicator is this?  
Now our Pilgrim is approaching towards his journey's end, and therefore p 403▪ etc. spends his languid remains upon Mr. Bold's feeble Vindication of him; where he hath made his case worse (if it be possible) than it was, and involves him further in self-contradiction. But seeing the Western Gentleman was so loving and friendly to to the Creed-hater, this same Creed-hater was resolved, right or wrong, to assert and vindicate whatever that Gentleman said, it dropping from the pen of so Dear a Friend, who did what he could to help our lame Vindicator over the stile. Though afterwards he shows him a Dogtrick p. 440. where he snarls (but covertly) against him: he disapproves of Mr. Bol●'s indispensa●ble necessity which he speaks of. But because he must not seem to fall out with him so soon after sworn friendship, he makes a Distinction between absolute and conditional necessity, and so compromises the matter. Now all is well again, and Mr. Lock and Mr. Bold are as Great as two Inkle-makers. Now the stile runs thus, Mr. Bold and I say p. 448. I follow Mr. Bolds order p. 449. Mr. Bold's reasoning is clear and strong p. 468. because he reasons for him. Now you'll find Mr. Lock vouching every syllable that Mr. B. saith, sense or nonsense: he swallows all dow●, and sordidly licks up his drivel (as he doth his own in his Loathsome Repetitions) and desires and infects his Paper with it. Nay he solemnly engages for him for the future, I dare answer, saith he, for Mr. Bold, 418. (But have a care Sir, of satisfying; remember that, I pray) if he shall please to turn Turk, and read Lectures to me out of the Alcoran, I promise to attend to him.  
Our Stroling Tutor pretends to tell us p. 451. what answering with ill language is called in his Country: but let him first prove that a Vagrant is of any Country.  
There are several other Passages in this Author's Bundle of Sheets which I might reflect upon: but lest I should be thought to be too Severe and Unmerciful to him, I will here hold my hand. I hate to insult over a poor Worm of what sort or denomination so ever; otherwise I would here ri●le and uncase the Whole Bloated Pamphlet that is before us, and let the world further see what a miserable Arguer, what a poor Manager of Controversies we have got, and offer some other incontestable proofs of his design to erect a New and Maimed Christianity in opposition to the Old Catholic one. It is but some part of his Paper-Fardel that I have handled: perhaps when I have perused the rest, he may hear further from me. I deal with him as he doth with his Bantlings, I don't cram and gorg him, but give him a little at a time. I have thrice as much more to say to him about his Vindication, besides a Just Set of Animadversions on some other parts of his Education, whence (if I see Occasion) I shall make it appear that he is neither fit to teach Children nor Men And I hope I shall do good service to Church and State in further unmasking of him.   

Brief Animadversions on a late Reply of Mr. Bold, of Steeple in Dorsetshire, to what I had writ against his Defence of the One Article.  
THere is a necessity of making some Addition here, unless I should give the Reader the trouble of a Formal Answer to some thing that Mr. Bold (one of Mr. L's Proselytes) hath lately published, and unless I should send it to the Press by itself. Which I find there is no reason to do, because some very brief Animadversions on that Author's feeble Attempt will serve the turn. It is the unhappiness of this Gentleman, who I think means well as to the main, that he hath espoused a Groundless and Unscriptural Notion, and then thinks himself obliged to vindicate it. Good man, he is easily warped, as his best Friends complain and lament. They allow him to be serviceable in an honest Practical Discourse, but find him not able to discern the Merits of a Cause in Controversy, or, if he did, to manage it aright. If you will believe him, he is a man of a Cold Phlegmatic complexion, p. 24. and he often boasts himself to be one of Temper and Mildness. But then he must mean it thus, that he comes sober and gentle to destroy our Religion, and to shatter Christianity, of which he hath given us sufficient proof in these as well as in his former papers.  
Nay, we must not think him to be so Phlegmatic and Mild as he would persuade his Readers he is, for I assure you he comes on like a Smart Antagonist, and falls upon me without Mercy, as well as without Judgement. He complains of Vinegar in my Ink p 4. but let the Reader judge what Gall there is in his, when he charges me with coarse treating. Pref. p. 3. weak and sorry stuff p. 46 jumbling p. 24. banter p. 2. imperious rambling Pref. p. 16. Nay, he rises higher, and declares that he finds in my papers Railing p. 52. sulphureous eruptions p. 47. Malignity Pref. p. 4. nay (to consummate all) Antichristianism. Pref. p. 4. You see the man disgorges choler, in stead of Phlegm. He hath got heart of late from his new Friendship and League with the Vindicator, whose upstart Conceits he is resolved to defend, and especially the One Article, though it be with defiance of all the other parts of Christianity. Accordingly he declares with much confidence that the belief of Iesus' being the Messias is the ONLY Article indispensably necessary to make a man a Christian, and (as the Consequence of that) that the belief of more is unnecessary. Pref. p. 4.  
Which is as much as if he should speak thus to his Auditors, There are a great many Ministers of the Gospel that hold it is necessary to the making a man a Christian that he should believe several Truths and Doctrines recorded in the New Testament, as that we are by nature the children of wrath, that we are freed from this wrath by the Meritorious and All-sufficient Undertake of Christ jesus who is both God and Man; that he gave himself a Sacrifice for us, and satisfied Divine Justice by paying an Infinite Price for us; that hereby he hath purchased Justification, Pardon of sins, and Eternal Life for us; that this Saviour and Redeemer rose from the dead, and is exalted unto Glory, and will judge the quick and the dead at his last appearing. But, my Friends, I must tell you, those that preach these doctrines as necessary to be known and believed in order to make men members of Christ and of his Church, talk idly and impertinently, and are not at all to be attended to. For it is my opinion, and I have preached to you, and I have thrice printed it, that none of those foresaid doctrines which either Jesus Christ or his Apostles delivered, are necessary to be believed to give you a Title to Christianity. You and I may be true Christians though we are ignorant of every one of those Doctrines before rehearsed, though we know nothing of the nature and intent of them, nay though we never heard of them: for there is but One Article of Faith, and no more, that is required to make us Christians, and that is this, that jesus is the Messias. If you believe this, take it upon my word, you need nothing more (I mean as to matter of Faith) to make you True and Living Members of Christ. This alone is that which properly deserves the Name of justifying Faith, and is that Faith which God will impute to a man for Righteousness. I have been blamed by several of my Brethren in the Ministry for preaching and printing such doctrines as this, and they have baffled me (as they think) out of the Holy Scriptures, and have demonstrated that there are sundry other Points of Faith that are required to be believed in order to the making a man a Christian; but I can't be brought to listen to what they say. Neither Churchmen nor Dissenters shall bring me off from this persuasion. I will rather stick to Worthy Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Lock then part with my Opinion at the solicitation of Thousands of Divines and other Christians whom they call Orthodox. I'm chiefly confirmed in this Notion by the latter of those Gentlemen whom I named, who cruises up and down the Countries to propagate this doctrine, and I hope will take Steeple in his Circuit very suddenly, and then he will further satisfy you (though I should not have used that word Satisfying because it is ●o hateful to him) and instruct you in that and some other matters relating to Religion, which no Christian ear ever heard of before.  
After Mr. Bold had asserted the Darling Proposition, he presents us with an other, which is no less strange and monstrous, and from whence we may guests at the Character of the Man, who is Mr. L's humble admirer. His express words are these, Pref. p. 5. A man's knowing that jesus Christ hath revealed such a doctrine, brings him not under an Obligation to believe it, but he may, notwithstanding that, withhold his Assent. This is the maxim of Mr. L's New Christian, but the Mischievous Ingredients of it are sufficient to show the nature and design of this Writer: for though he will perhaps say that he delivers that afterwards which is contrary to the interpretation which I make of these words, yet the Answer is plain, that he makes nothing of Contradicting himself, and therefore this is no Plea. He can say, and unsay, as he thinks fit, of which I gave several Instances in my Reflections on what he writ before. This then is no excuse at all, but rather shows his Weakness, that he can't tell when he talks inconsistently; or his Insincerity and Perverseness, that he will make use of Contrarieties to serve his own ends. I know likewise he will say that he speaks this of those Doctrines the belief whereof doth not constitute a man a Christian, but this is a mere Evasion, and he can't possibly make use of it with any shadow of Sense; for if you ask him what those Doctrines are, he will tell you that they are those which I before specified, and reckoned as Fundamentals of Christianity. But he denies them to be such, and he can't do otherwise; for if there be but One Article of Faith necessarily to be believed to make a man a Christian (which is the thing he so stiffly maintains) than all the rest are not necessary to be believed to make him so, or to denominate him to be such.  
Having thus prevented and obviated the Cavils which he might start, I'll now very concisely present unto the Reader a few Remarks on that Proposition which I quoted out of Mr. B's last printed Papers, viz. that I knowing that Christ hath revealed such or such a Doctrine, brings not a man under an obligation to believe it, but he may notwithstanding that with hold his assent.  
First, this baffles the end of Christ's revealing his doctrines to the Sons of men, for without doubt they were revealed for this very purpose, that we should yield assent to them. But this Gentleman tells you that there is no such thing, Revelation hath no affinity with Assent, and therefore this could not be the End and Design of that. And herein he follows the Pattern sent him by a late Writer in his Christianity not mysterious, p. 38. Divine Revelation, saith he, is not a motive of Assent, nor a ground of our persuasion, or a reason we have to believe a thing, as if we were to receive it only because revealed.  
Secondly, This separates Knowledge from Belief, and makes Religion, and even Christianity itself a mere Notional Speculative thing. We may according to this Wise Shaper of Christianity read the New Testament, and see what Christ and the Apostles delivered there as matter of Belief, but we are not under an obligation to believe what they delivered. We may, if we please, look into the Gospel and the Acts (but have a care of peeping into the Epistles) and thence stock ourselves with Propositions, and furnish our Brains with Knowledge, as well as our Tongues with something to talk of, but we are excused from yielding Assent to the truth of them. Such a monstrous Idea doth this Writer give us of that Sacred Institution of the Blessed Jesus.  
Thirdly, This is bidding defiance to the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, for whoever refuses to believe those doctrines which are revealed in the Sacred Writings, doth in effect declare that those Writings are not divinely inspired. And yet Mr. L's Disciple assures his Reader that though Truths and Doctrines be revealed in the Writings of the New Testament, yet we are not obliged to give credit to them, and to profess our belief of them: which is no other than annulling the Authority of the Scriptures.  
Fourthly, This Assertion destroys that very One Article which he contends for, for if the revealing of a Truth obliges us not to believe it, than we may with hold our Assent to this Proposition, jesus is the Messias, as well as to any Other; for seeing they are all equally revealed in the Scripture, we ought to make no difference. So that you see the poor Foolish Builder pulls down his own Structure with his own hands. The Beloved Article which he so much insists upon is ruined by what he himself asserts. This is the just Judgement of God on such audacious Innovators, and Depravers of Christianity: Whilst they are throwing down the Propositions which others with great reason assert, they demolish their own.  
Fifthly and lastly, This wild Proposition of the Replyer is destructive of all Revealed Religion. Let there be never so many doctrines revealed to us by the Holy Spirit in the Divine Oracles, a Christian is under no obligations according to him to believe them, for all being alike revealed they may be equally disbelieved. This is the New Theology of our giddy Worshipper of that Idol Opinion of One Article. One would scarcely think that he should at this time of day have the confidence to talk after this rate, and to impose such dangerous and pernicious notions upon the world. Or, at least one would think that this Writer and his Fellow should not stare, and show themselves so extraordinarily concerned when we tell them that they are Betrayers of Christianity.  
Having descanted on his Main Propositions, and seen what the dismal Contents of them are, I'll look into some other things which are most obvious in his Reply. I expected he would have attempted to purge himself of those Self-Contradictions which I laid to his charge, and proved in the plainest manner imaginable from his own words, which I faithfully set down▪ but he, like his brother-Criminal, deni●●●, but gives no reason why he doth so. He follows the example of the Vindicator, and unmercifully Repeats what he had said before: And all the rest is studied Evasion, Subterfuge, Whiffling. It is in vain to mention all the Particulars; it shall suffice to propound to the Reader's view one of them, and from that let him guests at all the others.  
I had been proving in my Reflections on Mr. B. the Absurdity of the Opinion of One Article, and had showed how he contradicted himself, one Instance whereof was this, that he had said, that a True Christian is as much obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit is God, as to believe that jesus is the Christ (which are his own words) and yet he saith, There is but that One Article [jesus is the Messias] to be believed to make a man a Christian Whence I inferred (and whether justly or no, let the Reader judge) that he spoke things repugnant and contradictory; for if a True Christian be as much obliged to believe one as the other, than it is certain that a man can't be a True Christian without believing both, and if there be a necessity of believing both to make a man a True Christian, than the belief of one only is not enough. Now, mind what the Replyer saith to this, and how fallaciously and sophistically he discourses, p. 19 It is as necessary for me, saith he, to believe that jesus was at Cana of Galilee, and turned Water into Wine there, as it is that he was crucified without the Gates of Jerusalem, because I have the same evidence for the one that I have for the other. But I can not say it is of as much Importance for a man to know the one, as it is to know the other; much less can I say that no man can be a Christian till he knows and believes that jesus was at Cana in Galilee, etc. Which is so extraneous and foreign, and every ways so impertinent and inconsistent, that if one did not know with what Writer this Gentleman symbolizes, it might create astonishment to hear such a senseless and incoherent application of these words: for whereas I had asserted that a man can't be a True Christian unless he believes other Articles and Doctrines, (viz. such as I have mentioned before) as well as that One of Iesus' being the Christ; and accordingly to disprove this he should have showed that those Articles are not as necessary to be believed as that Single one he mentions, he (not regarding the matter he was about) produces some Historical passages out of the New Testament, viz. Christ's being at Cana of Galilee, and turning Water into Wine there, etc. and then thinks (though one would think it is impossible he should) he hath effected what he undertook. But doth not any considerate man see that there is no comparison between these things which he alleges and those other before spoken of, between the belief of some Historical Circumstances and the belief of the Grand Fundamental Points of the Christian Religion? Is there not a vast difference between these Inferior Truths and those that are of an Higher nature, even such as are of the Essence of Christianity, and have Immediate respect to the Salvation of our Souls? Though the belief of the former be not absolutely necessary to make a man a Christian, doth it follow thence that the belief of the latter is not necessarily requisite for that purpose? Who but the Replyer and the Vindicator (for he takes his part as to this very thing in his Vindication) could first imagine any such thing, and then puhlish it to the world? What Talon of Reasoning Mr. B. had before he undertook this Cause of the One Article, I can't tell; but since I am sure he is a very poor Arguer, and makes out nothing of what he pretends to, but fills up his pages with weak, dilute stuff, yea without any dash of what is sprightly and generous.  
And that he and his Cause run very low, is evident from what he saith, p. 24. in defence of his One Article. The Notion, saith he, of One Article may induce those who embrace it, to esteem more Persons Christians than the other Notion can allow of. And thus far I fancy (and you say right, Good Sir, it is no more than a fancy) the advantage is on the former's side, for I conceive there is no hurt in letting Charity, as well as Patience, have its perfect work. Thus he; and he is pleased to confess that this is the suggestion that comes from a cold Phlegmatic temper. If he means that it is very flat and dull, I think every body will agree with him. Tho truly we must grant that here are some footsteps of Ingenuity (such as it is) for here is set forth the True Cause why this doctrine of One Single Article is so vigorously urged at this day, and even upheld by Pensions Old Reynard would not say a syllable of this throughout his whole Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity, and his two Vindications of it. He thought it was too gross and broad, therefore the Dissembler concealed it. But Unwary Mr. Bold, who tells all he knows, acquaints us with the true and proper design of the setting up of One Article, and the furious appearing against all the rest. By this means, saith he, we shall have more Christians (such as they are) then ever were before. There are many that will embrace One Point of Christianity, who will refuse to own the rest, so that we shall have Christians in abundance. But whether they be True Christians, or whether they be esteemed to be such (that is his word) is not material: but we shall have the Number of these latter much increased and that's enough. And besides, saith he, we shall have more Charity (and there is no hurt in that:) when there is but One Single Article of Christian Faith, we shall all Agree, and what a fine world shall we have then?  
Ay but, Sir, would it not be a better world if there were no Article at all, and then besure there could be no Contention? whereas now there is occasion for it, for some will not allow of the One Article you speak of. Therefore according to your own way of Arguing it were best to throw off that One Article, and with it all the other Fundamental and Necessary doctrines of our Christian Faith, and then it is certain we shall have no Point of Faith to fall out about, and Charity will ride in triumph, and yours and Mr. L's Christianity shall bear it company in the same Triumphal Seat. This is the force and strength of our Author's Reasoning, whatever he may pretend. Surely Steeple is well taught when such a one is their instructor. Who would have thought that there is such a Pious Contriver for Religion in any part of the King's dominions? Who could have thought that All the Fundamental Principles of our Faith (except one) were to be cashiered to make way for Charity? And who can think that the One Article so much talked of will remain long without the rest? And, in a word, what man of ●ense and sobriety can think that these wild Notions are not spread abroad on purpose to subvert the Foundations of Christianity, and to bring in Infidelity, and to turn us out to the herd of Deists and next to Atheists? Let not Mr. Bold say that these are Guesses (as in one place I remember he saith I am a Guesser, because I am a Critic, which is as much sense according to his applying of it, as if one should say he is a Conjurer because he is Rector of Steeple:) No, Sir, here is no Conjecture for the thing that I say is plain and obvious, and depends upon natural and rational consequences, and we every day see more and more the truth of it.  
As Dull and Phlegmatic as he is, his Invention is ripe, witness that horrid Fiction and False Imputation p. 25. line 3, etc. But I must not stand upon these things.  
Then he would argue from the use of the term Christian p 25. that there is but One Article. which is so poor and mean that he deserves to (be what he is) Mr. Locks Second in the present Combat. Yet he hath so good an opinion of this which he suggests, that he saith, It may afford some light to this matter. No, Sir, there is no such thing as Light here only a Wooden Candlestiks. I am loath to suppose any Brass about it, though one would wonder how he could have that face to offer any such thing as this to prove that there is but One Article to be believed to constitute a Christian man, which was the ma●ter he undertook.  
Our Mushrom-Scribe is drawn to the dregs, and in his next Paragraphs doth nothing but Cant, and Hover in Obscure and Ambiguous terms: but hath not a dram of Reason left, as the Reader cannot but own, if he had nothing else to do but to consult the pages.  
Then he Catechises his Friends, p. 29, 30, 31. and makes sorry work of it, but at last it is observable how this Wild Reasoner, who had been all along in his Reply (as well as in his former Papers) endeavouring to assert the necessity of but One Article in Christianity, and opposing what I had said in behalf of More Articles, it is observable (I say) that at last he gives up the Cause, and meekly prostrates himself to what I had offered: Let a man believe, saith he, never so many particular doctrines taught by Christ and his Apostles, that belief will prove no more but that he believes jesus is the Messias, p. 32. If the believing of many doctrines taught by Christ and his Apostles be the same with believing that One doctrine, why then hath he made all this stir? for if many will prove no more than one, than vice versa, one will prove to be many; and if his One Article be thus multiplied, than why doth he quarrel with me for asserting Many Articles?  
But still there must be (whatever comes of it) but One Article, and he undertakes to prove it, p. 36. from St. John's words, Whosoever believeth that jesus is the Christ, is born of God, 1 John 5. 1. Which every one, saith he, I suppose will acknowledge to be as much as to say, ● Christian. And thence infers, If the belief of more Articles was absolutely necessary to make a person a Christian, it could not with truth be said, Whosoever believeth that jesus is the Christ is born of God. Which is a farther proof of the Shallowness, or (which is worse) of the wilful Obstinacy of this blind Worshipper of the Idol that Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Lock have set up: for any one that is moderately versed in this Epistle of St. john knows that it is a Collection of several Marks and Evidences whereby persons may examine and know whether they be True Believers, and Christians indeed; and among several others which he assigns this is one, that they believe jesus to be the Christ. Now, can any one that is not very Weak or perverse infer hence, that the belief of no other Article but this is absolutely necessary to make a man a Christian? Is it not plain from other places in this Epistle that Love to God and the brethren, keeping the Commandments, etc. are Signs and Evidences of Regeneration, as well as believing jesus to be the Messias? And why then upon the mentioning of this latter in the place forecited, must we conclude that none of those are absolutely necessary to make one a Christian or a Regenerate person? If we should follow Mr. Bold's way of Interpreting, then, when it is said in this Epistle, Every one that doth righteousness is born of God, ch. 2. v. 29. we must infer that doing of righteousness, without any believing, gives us a title to Regeneration: And when it is said, Every one that loveth (which refers to loving one an other in the same verse) is born of God, ch. 4. v. 7. we must thence gather that Brotherly Love of itself, abstract from all Believing, and consequently from believing that jesus is the Messias, is the only thing necessarily required of us to make us Christians; and so our Learned and Profound Arguer baffles himself, and ruins his own One Article.  
Our Rambling Disputer tells us in the same place, that St. John the Divine was a more Reverend Rector than the Rector of Steeple: where, besides the Whimsical Conceitedness of the Style, he humbly intimates that he himself is a Reverend Rector, for else he could not say, the other is more Reverend.  
What he demands, p. 40 about those terms the Son of God and the Messias, I have answered in the foregoing Discourse.  
I urged from Acts 8. 37. that the Son of God and the Messias are not terms of the same signification, because else the Eunuch could not say that he believed jesus Christ to be the Son of God. To which he returns this fantastic Reply, I think, saith he, they amount to somewhat more, viz. that jesus Christ is The Christ. Which hath not the least foundation in the Original, from whence only he can pretend to borrow it, and therefore we must look upon it as a mere Shuffle. And indeed afterwards he doth as good as confess it, for notwithstanding his thinking it to be a good Reply, he unthinks it, but puts us off with an other groundless Conceit, (the same that the Vindicator had made use of) viz. that jesus Christ is used in the New Testament as a Proper Name, as if only his being called jesus or Christ was sense of those places where the words jesus and Christ are so often mentioned in Scripture.  
At the conclusion of all, I must own myself obliged to this Dorsetshire Gentleman for any thing that he hath said of me in some places of his last Papers that looks Respectfully and Civilly, and in a strain above what I expected or desired. Wherefore, abstracting from our present Debate, I am ready at all times to express the Deference which I owe to his Person and Office, and more over I assure him that I am in perfect Charity with him and all men, though there is no Consideration whatsoever can bribe me to a concealment of my dislike of his present Enterprise.   

Brief Reflections on a late pretended Answer of a Nameless Socinian to a Discourse, entitled, The Socinian Creed.  
THe Double●column'd Gentlemen begin to appear again, and one of them hath published a Pamphlet which he calls at a venture The Agreement of the Unitarians with the Catholic Church, etc. And truly I am to own with great thankfulness the honour he doth me there of joining me with Three Learned Prelates of our Church. I am bound to make some Return for this extraordinary kindness, and perhaps he may meet with it somewhere in this Paper. But this I must needs add that he is too lavish and excessive in his favours when he gives me the Preference to those Eminent Persons both in his Title and his Book: for the First part of this Learned Scribble bears this Inscription, An Answer to Mr. Edward's, wherein the Nameless Author pretends to say something with relation to a Book which I lately committed to the public view, entitled The Socinian Creed: in which I first gave a brief, but impartial Account of those Erroneous and Unsound Principles which are generally espoused by the Foreign and English Socinians; and then I showed the proper Tendency of them to Irreligion and Atheism.  
So that according to this Distribution of my Work, the Socinian Brother who undertook-to answer it was obliged in the first place either to confess that those Principles and Tenants were owned by that Party of men both at home and abroad, or else to prove that they were not. And then, as to the Other Division of my Task, he was bound either to acknowledge that the Socinian Principles and Doctrines have a Tendency to Irreligion and Infidelity, or else he was under a necessity of showing that they have no such thing. Any man of good reason and sense would expect these things from him, and accordingly let us see what this Anonymous Writer hath done, and thence gather whether he hath acted the part of an Answerer, which he took upon him.  
As to the first Part it is plain before the Readers e●es that this Pamphleteer is so far from disowning most of those Articles and Doctrines which I fixed upon the Socinians, and from charging me with wronging them in asserting that the Foreign and English Socinians defend these very Articles in their Writings, he is so far (I say) from this that in effect he acknowledges to the world that they are the very doctrines and sentiments of those persons, and that they are worded in that very manner as I set them down, and that the Authors whom I quoted delivered them in those very terms, and that I have not misrepresented any of them. Which undeniably appears from this, that he undertakes not to invalidate any one of my References or Quotations. If I had in the least perverted the sense and meaning of any single Socinian Writer that I produced, if I had in any degree falsified in my Citation of them, I should most certainly have heard it from this Gentleman in this his last Effort, especially when he particularly mentions my References and Quotations. p. 3. Out of that vast number of them which I made use of he would not have failed to set down one Instance at least, if he could have met with it, of my injuring the Racovian Authors by falsely alleging their Writings.  
But so it is, there is not one single Quotation or Reference, which I brought to prove and confirm what I avouched concerning the Socinians, that he excepts against; which most assuredly he would have done, if there had been the least ground imaginable for it. And 'tis certain that he had Time enough to do it, since I published what I writ, if the thing had been any ways feasible: and I suppose it will be granted that he wanted not Will to effect it. So then from his not doing it, nor so much as attempting it we may conclude his utter Inability and hereby he doth as good as grant that the Socinians are guilty of All they stand charged with by me in the Socinian Creed. He lets the world know that I have done them right, and that I have fathered nothing upon them falsely. He vouches the Truth of my Collections, he asserts the faithfulness of my Testimonies and Proofs out of the Original Authors. By all which he arraigns and convicts himself, and stabs his own Cause. And yet this he calls an Answer to me. Let the Reader judge of the Consistency of these things, and thence form a suitable Idea of this Wild and Senseless Undertaker.  
Then, as to the other Articles of the Socinian Creed, it is observable that he is loath to let the world know by a formal Confession from him that he and his Friends allow of those doctrines, and therefore he betakes himself to the wont way of Shuffling, Equivocating and Dissembling; and indeed he performs this part to a Wonder, and almost exceeds the late Vindicator in this excellent faculty. It is pleasant to see how he higgles and dodges. says and unsays, hath neither regard to the Truth, nor to what he saith himself. But we must not think this strange, for that man will take the liberty to contradict himself who is Resolved to do so to others. Nay, it cannot escape the Reader's observation that this Anonymous Scribe, merely to avoid the Imputation of some Articles I fastened on the Socinians, ventures to renounce what the most Considerable and Staunch men of that Party, yea what the Modern and Domestic Socinians have in express terms asserted:  
Of which I will give one instance (though there are several others:) He may for our parts, saith he, be Anathema that teaches or believes that doctrine, viz that there is no Merit in what Christ did or suffered, and that he made not Satisfaction for our sins p. 7. Yet one of the First-Rate Racovians tells us that it was taught by Soci●us and his brethren in plain and direct words, that 
* Smalc. cont. Frantz. Disput. 4  the Opinion of those is false, absurd and pernicious who have feigned that there is any such thing as Merit i● Christ. And this Author himself speaking of Christ's Merit and Satisfaction pronounces them 
† Homil 4. in 1 johan Catechism de morte Christi. Qu. 12.  Fiction, a Deceitful opinion, erroneous and very dangerous. And the English Socinians at this day (of whom our present Penman without a Name is one) declare their disbelief and abhorrence of this Persuasion, viz. that Christ Merited and Satisfied for us. In one of their late Prints they let us know that 
‖ The Antit●lu●tarian Scheme of Religion. p. 18.  the Oblation which Christ made of himself was not made to the justice of God, or by way of Reparation, but, as all other Sacrifices, (viz. of Beasts) by way of humble suit. And (which is more) these men have scoffed at and ridiculed the Merits and Satisfaction of our Blessed Lord, as the Reader may satisfy himself in the Letter of Resolution concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. p. 7. And the Antitrinitarian Scheme of Religion, p. 18. and a Letter to the Clergy of both Universities. chap. 6. and 8. all which I have particularly and distinctly quoted in the account of the Socinian Creed. And it is well known that in several others of their Pamphlets they have derided and exposed the Merit and Satisfaction of our Saviour: and yet now they Anathematise those that do so.  
Which, with abundance of other the like Instances in this last attempt of theirs, shows a Profligate sort of Writers they are. They are not afraid to call down a Curse upon their own heads: and with their Execrations they mix the most palpable and notorious Falsehoods, and thereby convince us that they have abandoned all Faith and Integrity, that they are under an obstinate resolution to debauch their Understandings, to abuse their Reasons and Consciences, and to impose upon the world.  
We must either say this of them, or else (which I would be most willing to believe) that they are disposed to a Recantation, and are inclined to relinquish several of those Articles which they stiffly maintained before. I hope it will be improved into a full sincere Renuntiation. However, I have gained this Point; that I have brought them to Retract in words at least, some of the Articles of their Creed. It is worthy of our Remark that whereas in some of their first Prints they answered very tamely to the name of Socinians, now this Gentleman throws off this Character, and will no longer bear that Badge: which shows that they are Changeable, and design some New model, and have a mind ●o have it graced with a New Title. Our Nameless Trimmer proclaim his Agreement with the Catholic Church, and very orthodoxly he would seem to talk concerning the Incarnation of Christ and some other Doctrines, p. 25, 26, etc. as if he were inclined to tack about, and leave the Socinian quarters. Whatever he intends▪ this is plain that he confutes himself and his Party, and then he calls it an Answer to me. Indeed these are the best sort of Answers a man would desire: and to say Truth, the Party cannot afford any other.  
But behold the Inconsistent Folly and Stupidity of the Man! Though he frankly submits to my References and Citations, and even throws up some of the Articles of his own Creed, yet he is pleased to charge me with Infamations in the Title-page of his book. An Intelligent person would think that those Great and Undeniable Truths which I had asserted in my late Treatise are neither Infamations nor Defamations, they being founded upon Reason, Antiquity, and Scripture. Nor could the several members of the Indictment which I drew up against the Socinians deserve that Name which he uses, because he himself owns the greatest part of them to be True. Wherefore all that can be said is that Infamations is a dainty term that he is much taken with, and accordingly he resolved that it should come in some where, right or wrong, into his Papers; and where better than in the Front of them, to make up the Raree Show? But if we will attend to the true import and meaning of the word there, it is this, that the Socinian Doctrines are Infamous, and that I had rightly represented them as such, and that this Writer, who dare not show his head, or subscribe his Name, is not able to disprove either of these things. Thus it is the deserved Lot of this sort of men that the more they write the more they expose themselves, and discover to world the Incoherence of their Assertions, the Vanity of their Pretences, the Weakness of their Judgement, the Strength of their Prejudice, and above all the Badness of their Designs and Projects, which all Wise and good Men see and abhor.  
Next, as to the Second Part of my late Discourse, it is to be observed that he makes no Reply to the imputation of that Tendency to Irreligion and Atheism which I so often urged, and as often proved against the men of Racovia, and the very English Unitarians. And indeed I was not singular in this Impeachment of them, for I evinced it to be the persuasion of Others (of Great Judgement and Sagacity) that sundry of the Socinian Opinions have a natural Vergency to Infidelity and Impiety, and one that hath writ since, and professes to the treat the Socinians with Civility and Good Temper (and would be so treated by them again, as he bespeaks their kindness in his Preface) is not shy of using this very language, but in plain and downright terms tells us that 
* Mr. Norr●'s Acco●nt o● Reason and Faith, p. 13.  the general Principle on which the body of Socinianism turns is of that nature that it advances the most Absurd, and withal the most Impious and Blasphemous Proposition imaginable. And in another place, As from a Socinian it is easy to commence a Deist, so he that is once a Deist is in a hopeful way to be an Aiheist whenever he pleases. And afterwards thus, in his Address to the Socinians, The Consequence of your Principle, (viz. That nothing is to be believed but what they can comprehend) leads you not only out of Christianity, but out of all Religion whether Natural or Revealed, even beyond Deism, even into Atheism itself▪ And again he tells them, that their Principle of believing nothing but what they can comprehend directly leads to Atheism. It seems then that though Atheism be voted by some a Rude and Unmannerly word, and though Atheist be thought to be an Ungenteel term, (wherefore the Plausible and Modish Style of [Deist] is used, and is 
* Bishop of Worcester's Pref. to his Vind. of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  a Name that gains reputation among all such as hate Religion, but know not how otherwise to distinguish themselves from professed Atheists, which they would by no means be taken for) though, I say, the Title of Atheist be not modish and fine enough for some men's mouths, yet we see that this Gentleman, who 
† Pref. to the Account of Reason and Faith.  remonstrates with some Passion against that Rudeness of Style which he espies in some Writers, and particularly engages before hand to show himself Civil to the Socinians, yet boggles not in the least at this way of Expression, but with great freedom and boldness declares it to be his Opinion and Belief that these men are in the next capacity to be Atheists, and that their Principles and Doctrines directly lead to Atheism, as well as to Impiety and Blasphemy. And that we may know he is in good earnest, he repeats this over and over again. This is the very thing which I undertook to prove in my late Discourse (and I hope to the satisfaction of every unbiass'd Reader) by that plentiful Enumeration and Induction of Particulars which I offered, whence I demonstrated that a great number of the Socinian Articles naturally tend to the promoting▪ of Irreligion and Profaneness, and even to the effacing of the Sense of a Deity.  
But what saith our present Author to this, who hath taken upon him the Office of an Answerer? Why truly he Skulks, and hides his baffled head, and hath not one syllable to say for himself, or against me. This is a new kind of Answerer, a Silent one, because he is conscious to himself that nothing can be offered. It is not to be doubted that if the foresaid Charge could have been evaded any ways, he would have attempted it. Had there been any thing said by me against his Party which he could have disproved, questionless he would have undertaken it. Had there been any show of Reason or Truth on his side, he would have let us known it. Had there been any Excuse to be invented, he would not have failed to publish it, and that with open Mouth. Wherefore all persons of Understanding must conclude that he acknowledges the Truth and Reality of what I objected to the Socinians, viz. that most of their Doctrines and Principles damp Religion, and nourish Vice, and foster Atheistical and Licentious Practices: which is the thing that makes Socinianism so Fashionable at this day, and gains it so many Proselytes.  
And now from the whole what a Strange Prospect have we of the Undertaking of this Doughty Champion for the Socinian Cause? I appeal to the Reader whether his Incoherent and Shattered Pamphlet can be called an Answer, and consequently whether the Men of Racovia, who have much pretended to Grammar and Criticism, speak Properly ly●and (which is a higher Consequence) whether they have not abjured all Modesty in obtruding such a piece of work upon the world. This shows that their business is to make a Noise, whether there be any Sense or significancy go along with it or no. They make a great stir, but effect nothing; they are very busy, but yet to no purpose. This we may truly say, Their Heads are a proof, against some Philosophers, that there may be Motion where there is Emptiness. I promised the Gentlemen before hand that if any thing substantial in the way of Reply were offered by them, I would not be backward to meet the Answerer with a rejoinder: but here is nothing that looks like it, he is so far from offering any thing of Substance, that he doth not so much as pretend to a Shadow of any thing that is of that nature. There is not one Proposition that I laid down which is shaken by him, and he hath not so much as started One Objection against all I writ, and yet he hath the Confidence and Effrontery to dub his Pamphlet an Answer.  
But it may be this will end well, it seems to argue that the Socinians are drawn to the very dregs, and have nothing to allege in their behalf. This looks as if their Plenipotentiaries were inclined to a Treaty of Peace, and were forward to put an end to the Seven Years War between the Unitarians and Trinitarians▪ For what can we think else when all their Ammunition is spent, and they can fight no longer? This Champion who was chosen and culled out of the whole Host of the Unitarians to engage the Contrary Side, le●s fall his Weapons. His Courage abates, and his Spirits flag and dwindle: He dares not grapple with the Arguments I proposed, neither doth he produce any of his own. He raises no Exceptions against me nor takes any notice of mine against him. Nay, which is Wondrous and Astonishing, his Invention is so barren that he can't coin any new Cavils against what I delivered, nor rally up any old ones. Thus when they have no Forces to bring into the field, the War must needs cease. When they surrender their Garrisons and Holds (as I have showed they do) and fairly give up the Cause, what can we conclude but that they are coming over to us?  
And as for myself particularly, whatever the matter is, they are very Complaisant, and surely they intent in a short time to take me into their favour For though this Infallible Judge is pleased to tell the world that I have writ some trifling books (those he means that I have writ against his Brethren of Racovia) and some indifferent ones, those I suppose which I have writ against a Friend of theirs lately) yet out of abundant grace and goodwill, he vouchsafes to declare that somebody hath been serviceable to the Common Christianity by some Learned Books, p. 17. (I wish I could say as much of our Author): and again, that he hath writ divers Good Books, and one Excellent one, p. 3. Though one would be loath to take a Disciple of Socinus upon his bare word, and though it would be immodest and vainglorious to attribute or apply any such thing to myself, yet as it is the frank Testimony of an Adversary, who would not esteem it as a singular Mark of Favour? who would not resent these Obliging Kindnesses from an Enemy, especially when they are mixed with Reflections, as in the present case? for than it is a sign that the Approbation forced its way through Calumnies and Falsehoods. In short, I perceive they have a mind to be Friends with me, they would have at least a Cessation of Arms, if I would agree to it.  
On which occasion I will take leave to say, that I am most heartily Glad that I have appeared in this Cause, maugre all the insults of the Adversaries; I thank the Father of Lights that he was pleased to dispose me to this Honourable Service, and in such a Juncture, when the whole Posse of the Unitarians and their Allies attacked the Christian Faith with such Force and fury. When these Granadiers came on so fiercly, who could but expect an Assault? who was not sensible that Religion was invaded, and that Christianity itself was in extreme danger? It is a Comfortable Reflection to me that I have born up against the Bold Aggressors, and that I have, according to my mean powers, asserted and vindicated the Truth with that warmth and zeal which become every Christian Breast. And now I must tell them I scorn to flinch from so good a Cause as I have undertaken▪ and I will never submit to gratify the humour and genius of Deists and Sceptics, or any Well Willers to Racovia. Though I am as great an Admirer and Lover of Civility and Good Temper as any Man, yet I will never be bribed to a faint-hearted Relinquishing of the Truth. No: I will by the Divine Aid, vindicate the Religion of the New Testament, and the Faith of the Christian Church in all ages, and that with open face. And particularly, as to what I last writ and published, I will make it stand the shock of the most daring Socinian in Christendom.  
But to let these Gentlemen see that I am no Man of Contention, I declare to them that I am not averse from complying with their Offers, if they be Sincere and in Good Earnest, and if they resolve not to violate their own Articles of Peace. I will forgive their Colt's teeth (as this pleasant Gentleman words it) if for the future they use not (as they have done in most of their Writings) those of the Bear. And why indeed should I contend with these Catholic and Orthodox Men? for that is the Style now in their last Print. Who will fall out with those that profess Agreement with the Catholic Church? But especially the Title of Orthodox (which they so abhorred) is much courted by this Author, as the Reader cannot but observe. Which may be an occasion to us to think that these Persons are inclined to do something to deserve that Name. It is my hearty Prayer and Wish that they may show themselves to be of this number. And I promise them thus far to yield to the Terms of Peace, that if they renew not the Quarrel, and assault me not afresh, this shall be our Last Campagne, and so here is an End to our Debates and Rencounters.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. Line 29. read and if those, p. 11. l. 14. r. Unreasonably, p. 12. l. penult. r. which, p. 13. l. 6. r. numbers, l. 11. r. nor the, p. 19 l. 15. r him for, p. 33. l. 22. r. assented, p. 34. l. 27. r. task l. 31. for they r. you, p. 38. l. 21. r. declare, p. 39 l. 15. deal the, p 42. l. 20. r. more to, p. 46. l. r. peruse, p. 56. l. 17. r. owns, p. 5●. l. 31. r. bandied, p. 64. l. 4. deal and, p. 75. l. 13▪ for give r. go, p. 94. l. 22. before to insert it.   

BOOKS written by the Reverend Mr. John Edward's.  
AN Enquiry into several Remarkable Texts of the Old and New Testament which contain some Difficulty in them, with a Probale Resolution of them, in two Vol. 8●.  
A Discourse concerning the Authority, Stile and Perfection of the Books of the Old and New Testament, with a Continued Illustration of several Difficult Texts throughout the whole Work. In three Vol▪ 8●.  
Some Thoughts concerning the several Causes and Occasions of Atheism, especially in the Present Age, with some brief Reflections on Socinianism, and on a Late Book entitled, The Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures 8●. price 1 s. 6 d.  
A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God from the Contemplation of the visible Structure of the Greater and the Lesser World. In two Parts. The first showing the Excellent Contrivance of the Heavens, Earth, Sea, etc. The second, the wonderful Formation of the Body of Man. 8●. price 4 s,  
Socinianism Unmasked: A Discourse showing the Unreasonableness of a Late Writer's Opinion concerning the Necessity of only One Article of Christian Faith, and of his other Assertions in his Late Book Entitled, The Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures, and in his Vindication of it; with a brief Reply to another (Professed) Socinian Writer. 8●. price 1 s. 6 d.  
The Socinian Creed: Or a Brief Account of the professed Tenants and Doctrines of the Foreign and English Socinians, wherein is showed the Tendency of them to Irreligion and Atheism. With Proper Antidotes against them. 8●. price 3 s.  
A Brief Vindication of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, as also of the Clergy, Universities, and Public Schools from Mr. Lock's Reflections upon them. With some Animadversions on two other late Pamphlets, viz. of Mr. Bold and a Nameless Socinian Writer. 8●. price 1 s. 6 d.  
Brief Remarks upon Mr. Whiston's New Theory of the Earth: and upon another Gentleman's Objections against some Passages in a Discourse of the Existence and Providence of God, relating to the Copernican Hypothesis. 8●. price 6 d.   

BOOKS Printed for Jonathan Robinson, and John Wyat.  
A Practical Exposition on the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, in two Volumes, in Quarto.  
The Vanity of the World, with other Sermons, in 8vo.  
Sermons or Discourses on several Scriptures, in Four Volumes, in Octavo.  
The Almost Christian discovered, in some Sermons on Acts 26. 28. All these written by the Right Reverend Father in God Ezekiel Hopkins, late Lord Bishop of London-derry.  
Bishop Usher's Life and Letters. By Dr▪ Parr, in Folio.  
— 's Body of Divinity, or the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion, Folio.  
— is 22 Sermons on several Subjects, Fol.  
Iosephus' History of the Jews, Folio.  
Dr. Bates' Harmony of the Divine Attributes, Octavo. 4th Edition, 1697.  
Charron of Wisdom, in three Books.  
All Dr. Antony Walker ' s Works, viz.  
The Sinfulness and Danger of delaying Repentance.  
The Virtuous Woman, or the Life of the Countess of Warwick.  
The Virtuous Wife, or the Life of Mrs. Eliz. Walker.  
His Sermons of Water-drinking, Preached at Tunbridge wells, etc.  
The worthy Communicant, a Treatise showing the due Order of Receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The 17th Edition. By jeremiah Dyke. Newly reprinted 1697.  
The Poor Doubting Christian drawn unto Christ. By Thomas Hooker.  
Ovid's Metamorphosis, in English Verse. By George Sandys.  
Aesop's Fables in Prose, with Cuts  
Solitude improved by divine Meditation. By Nathaniel Ranew, late Rector of Felsted in Essex.  
Practical Discourses concerning Death and Heaven. By Nathaniel Ranew.  
Correction, Instruction, or a Treatise of Afflictions. By Tho. Case.  
The Principles of Christian Religion, with a brief Method of the Doctrine thereof. By Bishop Usher.  
The sinfulness of Sin, and the fullness of Christ, In two Sermons. By W. Bridge.  
Brinsley's Posing of the parts reprinted 1697.  
Sir Simon D'ews Journal of all Queen Elizabeth's Parliaments, Folio.  
Bacon's Historical and Political account of the Government of England.  
FINIS.