Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing 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, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ...

A Brief REPLY To another SOCINIAN Author.

THERE came lately to my hand this Writer's Sheets in the true Racovian Print: but I having been so large upon the Vindica∣tor, this Double-Column'd Gentleman, who pretends to be an Examinator, cannot ex∣pect I should spend much time about him. In the first place we are to observe that he most humbly and reverentially dedicates his Papers to the New Patron of the Cause, and takes upon him the Defence of what he hath said in his Rea∣sonableness of Christianity. He highly ap∣plauds him for his being so serviceable to the Socinian and Antitrinitarian Inte∣rest. And it is part of his Panegyrick that he hath happily provided for the quiet and satisfaction of the minds of the honest

multitude, p. 3. That is, he hath not trou∣bled and molested them (as some have done with propounding Several Articles of Christian Belief) but hath told them that One is enough for them, and bids them rest contented with that, like good honest Ignorant Souls. Thus he hath provided (but how happily let the Rea∣der judg) for their quiet and satisfaction. But though the Examinator heaps great Commendations on the Vindicator, yet he professes i•• (you'll believe him, you may) that he knows him not, p 4. Only at a venture he takes his part, he now being become one of the Brotherhood, and may prove a very Substantial Tool and Engine in the great Work they are now about, viz. the subverting of our Savi∣our's Divinity, the laying aside the Apo∣stolical Epistles, the shutting out the Ne∣cessary Matters of Faith contain'd in them, and the setting up and idolizing of One Article, with defiance of all the rest as any ways Necessary to be believ'd. This is the New DIANA that is set up by our Ephesians, especially by their late De∣metrius.

Then he hath a fling at my Booksellers, p. 5. wherein he follows the steps of the Vindicator, p. 37. And in this and other

things they jump, which discovers their Correspondence, though he had but just before said he knew him not. And so this gives us an account of the truth of what the Vindicator said, that he knew not that the Socinians interpreted such and such Texts after such a manner. This is said to im∣pose upon the world, and make them be∣lieve that he and the Racovians have not been Confederates. But he confutes this in another place, where he owns that he hath particular knowledg of that Gentle∣man, and knew the circumstances of his Life, p. 13. Col. 2. for he could not say of him that he overcame the prejudices of Education unless he had been acquainted with his Education and manner of life. And if this is the Gentleman of no ordinary judgment, from whom he saith he hath seen a Letter, &c. p. 17. Here still you see is Juggling and sleight of hand, and it is natural and proper it seems to the Party. And further to shew their Con∣ferring of Notes together, it might be observ'd that both agree to say that what I write was writ in hast and in a fit, Examin. p. 5. Vindicat. p. 19. And let it be so, if they will, for thence it will appear that a man need not take up much time to confute either the Vindica∣tor or this Gentleman.

But what is this that he hath to say of my Booksellers? Some great matter with∣out doubt. He put me upon making Excep∣tions against that Treatise, that so the sale of his own Tract might be the more promoted, p. 5. The Reader may guess from this what is their own Trade; they and their Booksellers joyntly club to cheat the poor bulk of mankind. That is their practice we may learn from their fastning it upon others. Any man may see that the Rationalist went snips with his Pater-Noster-Men, they fully understood one an∣other, as appears from their not denying him to be the Author of the Reasonable∣ness of Christianity, &c. all the time it was in the Press: but when they saw the Sale of it was not according to their High Expectations, they, to buoy up the Gentleman's Credit, be∣gan to disown him to be the Author. This was done by the two Shrine∣men that before cried aloud for Diana. Now then, I think it appears at last that these people are extremely beholding to my Booksellers if they did any such thing as they surmise, for by this means the sale of their Book was promoted.

After the Booksellers, I must be taken to task by the Reverend Examinator, who

having flutter'd a little about the formal words which I had said were to be found in the Reasonableness of Christianity (which no Creature that hath once read it will once doubt of) he fixes on this (p. 5.) as the Vindicator's true sense, yea his own words, that all that was to be believed for justification, or to make a man a Christian, by him that did already believe in, and wor∣ship one True God, maker of heaven and earth, was no more than this Single Proposi∣tion, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Messias. This man makes a Mise∣rable Entrance to his work, for though he saith these are the Vindicator's words (for thus he brings them in, It is true he saith) yet no man alive can find them in his book: and he knew this himself, else he would have set down the page, as we find him paging it afterwards. What shall we say then to such men as these who will vouch any thing? They can be trusted with no book, no not with one of their own Tribe, for we see here that this Writer's stile is, he saith, and yet this Express Saying no where occurs in the book he refers to. And here by the way, we may observe the bold Parti∣ality of this Writer; he (as well as the Vindicator, p. 38.) would charge me

with not quoting the formal words which are in the Reasonableness of Christianity, whilest he is not sensible of his plain mis∣quoting the same Author. Yet here we may observe this, that it is but a Single Proposition (and no more) which is to be believ'd, to make a man a Christian. This is the sense of the Vindicator's friend, thus he understands him; and so indeed every one must, and yet it may be re∣membred that the Vindicator himself would evade this, and pretends that he means more than a Single Proposition or Article.

Now next let us see how this Exami∣nator licks over the Vindicator's Article, and tells us that the belief of Iesus's being the Messias comprehends and implies several other things, p. 3. Here he sweats to bring off his Brother handsomly and with credit by letting us know that his Bold Asserti∣on which runs through his whole book is to be qualified after this manner, 1. All sy∣nonymous expressions, &c. and so he sets them down one, two and three. But I ask him this Question (and let the Rea∣der be pleas'd to observe the issue of it) Why did not the Gentleman himself make use of these Qualifications when he vented the Proposition, and insisted upon it in

the bulk of his book, yea why did he not mention these Qualifications in his Answer to my Exceptions against his book? He knew what he had asserted, and he defends (as well he can) his doing so, but you will find in no part of his Vindication that he betakes himself to these Evasions, though he hath enough of Others of a different sort. How then come you, Mr. Examinator, to invent these things for him? Do you not here∣by proclaim to the world that you will put off the Reader with any idle and groundless Conceit of your own?

When he repeats my words, p. 6, 7. wherein I took notice of the Gentleman's willful omitting of plain and obvious passa∣ges in the Evangelists (out of whose Wri∣tings he had drawn a Whole Article) which contain the belief of the Holy Trinity, he saith not a word to excuse his Omission, but by his silence (for he would have spoken without doubt if he had had any thing to say in his Friends defence) he owns it to be wilful and blameable. On∣ly he comes with the Trite and Common Answer of the Party to those Texts; but before he enters upon the Second of them, viz. Iohn 1. 1. he declares there is no such Text in the whole Bible, p. 9. He

said rightly that he was bold to say it, for a man shall scarcely hear a more Audaci∣ous word, though 'tis true he endea∣vours to mollifie it with an if.

As to what he saith about my taking notice of the Gentleman's slighting the Epistolary Writings, I have fully answer∣ed it in the foregoing Papers, and there∣fore shall add no more here.

He proceeds next to those Socinan Au∣thors, whose undue Notions concerning God I glanc'd upon. The Author of the Con∣siderations, &c. in reply to the Right Reve∣rend Bishop who had from the notion of God's Eternity inferr'd that he was Self-ex∣istent or from himself, hath these words, What makes him (viz. the Bishop) say, God must be from himself, or self-originated? for then he must be before he was, which this Writer concludes to be a Contradiction. Therefore he would make this Conclusi∣on that God's Self-existence is a Contra∣diction. I know it will be pretended that this is the Consequence only of the Bishops Notion of Eternity, but it is plain that that Writer makes use of this Argu∣ing to shake the belief of the Eternity and Self-Existence of the Allmighty, and that will appear from what he further adds in way of Exception to what that

Reverend Person saith afterwards con∣cerning God's Eternity. This Exami∣nator talks of a false notion of Self-existence, but doth not say what it is. If I have mistaken the Considerer, let him write plainer another time.

As to the Examinator's question. How the Second and Third Persons can be Self-existent? I answer, They are Self-exi∣stent as they are eternally from the Self-same Deity. Though according to the Nicene Creed Christ be God of God, yet that doth not infring his Self-Existence, because those words are not spoken of the Essence of Christ which is common to him with his Father, but of his Perso∣nality. He being the same with the Fa∣ther as to the former hath his Existence of himself; but differing from the Fa∣ther as to the latter, he is rightly said to be from him, or of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity. This is easily re∣conciled with what he saith an Other Bi∣shop asserts, if this Vnitarian hath not a mind to quarrel.

In the next Paragraph he is quite non∣plus'd, for I had charg'd the Sacinian Au∣thors with their denial of God's foreknow∣ing future Contingencies, and consequent∣ly denying the Omniscience of God, which

is an inseparable Attribute of the Deity; and he having nothing to reply to the purpose, first tells us he is not concern'd in it, p. 18, whereas every one knows that he being one of the Party is concern'd. Secondly, assoon as he had as it were re∣nounced the Socinian doctrine by saying he was not Concern'd in it, he presently owns it for Truth, as those words im∣port, p. 18.—to deny his foreknowledg of the certainty of that which is not certain, &c. which is as much as to say that there are some things that are Uncertain and therefore Unknowable, and these God can have no knowledg of. And yet thirdly, he would seem to hint that it is a dishonourable thing to God (those are his words) that he should not have a fore∣sight of these things. Thus Confused is our Author, which shews he is not fit to be an Examiner of other mens Writings, when he can't write Consistently himself, but in three or four lines hath as many Blunders.

In the next words and what follows he perfectly gives up the Cause, p. 18. for I had laid this to the charge of the Racovians that they denied the Immensity or Omnipresence of God, which is a Pro∣perty or Perfection never to be disjoyn'd

from the Deity; whereupon he tamely acknowledges that Crellius and the rest of the Fraternity are of this perswasion. Only, because the Gentleman must be wagging his tongue, he gives us a scrap out of a Latin Poet, and just names a Greek Father, who never said any thing to that matter, and so we are rid of them.

But he comes on again, and goes off assoon, for he barely mentions the Spiri∣tuality of God, which I had asserted to be another Divine Excellency: and it is such an Attribute of God that we can't conceive of him without it, and therefore it is made the short and comprehensive Definition of him that he is a Spirit, Iohn 4. 24. In my Discourse which this Ex∣aminator calls in question I took notice that the Socinians denied this Property of the Deity, which I justly tax'd as an Atheistick Tang: and I think it was a mild term, for it is a Rank Sign of a great tendency to Atheism to deny that God is a Spirit, i. e. an Immaterial Incorporeal Being. But our present Author resolves himself into the opinion of those modest Divines (who by their Blushing can be no other than Socinus's Scholars) who determine nothing about the Point; which is as much as to say, he and they

deny it. But you must know they are now a little upon their Credit: this Gentleman (who speaks in the name of the rest) had before given up the Im∣mensity and Omniscience of God, and therefore it is high time now to be upon the Reserve, and to pause a little, that the world may not see that they reject All those Properties of the Deity which I mention'd. But notwithstanding this cunning practice of theirs, the world may see, yea, it cannot but plainly see that they deny every one of these Divine Attributes more or less, and this parti∣cularly which I mention'd last, viz. that God is a Spirit properly so call'd. For whereas I quoted Socinus and Crellius (their Grand Patriots) to prove this de∣nial, this Writer takes no notice of my doing so, which lets us see that the opi∣nion of those Great Masters is humbly submitted to by all the rest.

So now I hope the Reader is convinc'd that I was not Vnjust to the Socinians, that I did not highly injure them (as they have cried out) when I charg'd them with Atheism or a Strong Tendency to it in some Points. I tax'd them with de∣nying these four Attributes, the Self-Ex∣istence, the Omniscience, the Omnipotence,

the Spirituality of God, and lo! this pro∣fessed Son of Socinus (who was chosen out with great deliberation and judgment without doubt from the rest of his bre∣thren to undertake the Cause, to refute what I had alledg'd against them, and who questionless hath said all that he could in the Case) lo! I say, this pro∣fessed and known Writer of the Brotherhood confirms and ratifies what I have laid to their charge. For he produces the words out of their own Author which I referr'd to, whence it appears that he had a mind to distort the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester's words, and to argue against the Self-Existence of God. This Exami∣nator without any more ado rejects the Second and third Attributes, and by his boggling at the fourth we know what must be the fate of that. Thus he and his fellow-Criminals being conscious to the truth and Justice of the Charge, con∣fess themselves Guilty. They are so far from clearing themselves of the Imputa∣tion and Enditement that they Aggra∣vate it. I leave the Reader to give the Sentence. They deserve a Severe one at his hands, but I desire him to be Mer∣ciful for the sake of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, who forgave and pray'd for

his greatest Opposers. May the All∣Merciful God forgive them, and enligh∣ten their minds, that they may be con∣vinc'd of their Errors, and heartily re∣nounce them. The Lord give them Re∣pentance to the acknowledging of the truth, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil.

Then he runs to their Common Place, which hath help'd to fill up their papers many a time, and he thinks he doth great feats. But he only epitomizes Crel∣lius de Vno Deo Patre, and offers a great many Texts which have been answered a hundred times, as he (but untruly) saith on another occasion, p. 8. This takes up 18 or 19 whole Pages: and why? Because this costs him nothing, he bor∣rows it all (and he might have borrow'd a great deal more) from the same Au∣thor. Here he can afford to be very long and large, but when he undertakes the Examination of what I had particularly objected against the Socinians, he is like the dog at Nilus, he is presently gone: he is not furnish'd with any Answer that he dares insist upon, or trust to.

Next, I will observe to the Reader that this Author meddles not with my Argument which I drew from their own

Professed Principle, viz. that nothing is to be believed but what is exactly adjusted to Reason, and thence prov'd that upon the same account that they reject the do∣ctrine of the Holy Trinity they may like∣wise quit the belief of a Deity. This I enlarg'd upon in seven pages together, it being (as I then conceiv'd, and am more confirm'd in it since) an Unanswer∣able Proof of what I laid to their Charge. He only grazes on it a little, p. 19. but wheels off presently, and fixes upon that subject before mentioned, God's Vnity, because he knew where to have e∣nough of it, but did not know how to take off the force of that Argu∣ment which I propounded and insisted upon.

In the next place he will turn Critick, and see whether he can thrive in this em∣ployment, seeing he hath so ill success in his former attempts. His nice palate disgusts the word birth, as applyed to Adam, p. 38. but thereby he only shews his want of skill in the Denotation of words. He is so poor a Dabbler in Gram∣mer and Criticism that he knows not that by the Hebrew jalad, and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Latin nasci, and accordingly our English [to be born] are

signified in a general way the Origin, Rise, or Beginning of things or persons, and consequently Birth or Nativity is not to be taken always in the Vulgar Sense. He might have read in Genethliack Wri∣ters that the word is applied even to Ci∣ties and Houses. But I need not go so far to defend the Expression. The use of it, and that in the very way that I have applied it, is to be found in Scrip∣ture: Art thou the first man that was born? Iob 15. 7. Or we may read it, if we please, more exactly according to the Original, Art thou born as the first man, or Adam, i. e. (as the Context will shew it) art thou as understanding as the man that was first born, viz. as our First Parent Adam? By reason of this birth Adam is call'd the son of God, Luk. 3. 38. Whence the Socinians would ga∣ther that Christ hath that name upon the like account, because of his Extraordina∣ry Original, because of his Miraculous Birth. Thus we have found that this Gentleman is ignorant of the true mean∣ing of words in Common Authors, that he doth not know the acception of them in Holy Scripture, nay that he doth not know what his own Authors say, which evinces him to be triply a Blunderer, and

that he deserves no more to be call'd an Examinator.

Then he thinks he doth mighty things, p. 39. by quoting Limborch a very Learn∣ed Foreigner (a System-maker, for he hath compiled a Large System of Divini∣ty, though he gives it another Name; and why then doth this Gentleman talk so reproachfully of Systems? p. 44. &c.) but this his Author is a Second Episcopius; and therefore it was wisely done to bring him in to tell us what are the Fundamen∣tals of Religion.

But it was more cunningly done in the next Paragraph to fetch in the Sixth Ar∣ticle of the Church of England in favour of the Vindicator's Conceit. Surely this his Patron, at whose feet he lays his Papers, will give him little thanks for this, for he jeers him rather than defends his Cause. Thus though they are agreed, and under∣stand one another so far as to Impose up∣on the world, yet they cannot (and ne∣ver will) agree to speak Truth. And in∣deed this Worthy Writer foresignified something of this nature. He is a boding sort of man, you may perceive, for thus he speaks in his Humble Dedicatory to the Vindicator, If I have mistaken your sense, or used weak reasonings in your de∣fence

(and behold! here he doth both) I crave your pardon. And so you may, and I will tell you for your comfort, he will soon forgive you, for he knows that your heart is right, i. e. for the Good Cause, and therefore a little Mistaking of him out of weakness is pardon∣able.

Then he hales in Mr. Chillingworth by head and shoulders, p. 40. pronouncing him very definitively the ablest defender of the Religion of Protestants that the Church ever had; which is too high a Character for him, though he was a person of Great Parts and Learning. Why must he be said to be the Ablest Defender when we can name so many Eminent Writers in other Countreys that have perform'd this task? Or, if he means the Church of England, why must he have the absolute Preference to Others that we can name here, especially that Great Ornament and Glory of our Church, whom I had occasion to men∣tion before, who hath so Learnedly de∣fended the Religion of Protestants? I, but he writ against Crellius, and there∣fore he must not be the Ablest Defender. Again, there is a reason well known to the world why Mr. Chillingworth hath

the Preheminence in the opinion of this Writer and his Confederates, but of that at some other time perhaps. Let us now go on, and see what this Gentleman gets by his producing of Mr. Chilling∣worth; and it is no other than this, a plain confutation of the Vindicator's Project con∣cerning the reducing of Religion to a Point, and no more. For these are that Worthy Man's words, The Bible, the Bi∣ble, I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants. And I say so too, but this Gentleman and the Author of the Reason∣ableness of Christianity are of another opi∣nion, for according to them it is not the Bible, but a very Small Portion of it that is the Religion of Protestants. They ac∣knowledg that Some few Verses in seve∣ral Chapters of the Four Evangelists and the Acts are matter of Faith or Religion, but they do not cry the Bible, the Bible, the Bible, they do not think that All and Eve∣ry one of the Fundamental Truths in the Whole Scripture are the necessary mat∣ter of our Belief. Thus I think this Re∣verend Scribe might have spared the quoting of Mr. Chillingworth, unless he delights in confuting himself and his New Convert.

Afterwards he nibbles at some other passages in my Discourse, but flies off in∣to Impertinencies. Only one thing I meet with that is very Remarka∣ble, and I request the Reader to attend to it. There are (saith he) some that-of Deists have been reconciled to the Christian faith by the Vnitarian books, and have pro∣fess'd much satisfaction therein, p. 42. You may perceive that they are making of Proselytes as fast as they can, and a∣mong the rest some Deists come in to them, and so (as the Apostle speaks of Seducers and those that are Seduced, 2 Pet. 2. 20.) the latter end is worse with them than the beginning: for whereas be∣fore they owned a Natural Religion, now they become guilty of perverting and prophaning a Revealed one. They are so far from being reconciled to the Christi∣an Faith, that they oppose and contra∣dict it, and even defie the Main Articles of this Religion which is owing to Di∣vine Revelation. Such Converts as these have no reason to profess much satis∣faction in the Vnitarian books, unless Cor∣rupting the Christian saith be to be chosen before plain Theism. To speak the plain truth (and it is the design of these Papers to do so) and that which every Think∣ing

and Considering Man cannot but discern, the Socinians are but the Jour∣ney men of the Deists, and they are set on work by them, for these latter hope to compass their Design, which is to im∣pair the Credit of the Christian Religion and of those Inspired Writings which give us an account of it, they hope (I say) effectually to compass this design by the help of such Good Instruments as they find the Socianiz'd Men to be. You see then what ground this Gentleman hath to think that the Deists are Proselytes to the Vnitarians.

Then he proceeds to make a long ha∣rangue about the Obscurity of Systematical Fundamentals, p. 44. &c. but never was poor Creature so bewildred as he is. Only he happily lights upon the Quakers, p. 44, 45. where it is worth observing that the man doth not know his Friends from his Foes, nor these from them. He rails against this sort of men (who he saith would be counted the only People of God) and yet it is certain that they are his brethren-Socinians. They utterly dis∣own the Scripture as the Rule of Faith, he saith: and doth not our late Socinian Writer symbolize with them when he declares that the Divine Truths con∣tained

in the Epistles of the Holy Apo∣stles (which are a considerable part of Scripture) are not the Necessary matter of Faith? He complains that the Quakers turn the Gospel into an Allegory; but the foremention'd Author doth much worse, for he represents the greatest Part of the Gospel-discoveries as Superfluous and Needless. In giving us the farther Cha∣racter of the Quakers, he in lively colours represents the Socinians, for these are his words concerning them, Retaining still the words wherein the Christian Faith is ex∣pressed, though in an Equivocal Sense, they have made a shift to be reputed generally Chri∣stians. Certainly there could not be a better Pourtraiture of the Racovian Wri∣ters, for it is known that they are crafty and sophistical, and quote Scrip∣ture only to pervert it. They acknow∣ledg Christ to be God, and an Expiatory Sacrifice, but they mean it Equivocally; they quit the true sense of Scripture though they retain the words, and by rea∣son of this latter have made a shift (as this Author speaks) to pass for Christians. These men (whatever some few English Writers of the Racovian way hold of late) exactly side with the Quakers in crying down of Water-Baptism (for so

they both call it in derision.) In the Grand Point of the Trinity they both con∣cur, i. e. to reject it, witness W. Pen's Sandy Foundation, by which he means the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. In a quibbling manner, wherein he shews both his Ignorance and Blasphemy, he thus speaks, If God, as the Scriptures testifie, hath never been declared or believed but as the HOLY ONE, then it will fol∣low that God is not an HOLY THREE. Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent, but impertinent distin∣ction, that he is One in Substance, but Three in Persons or Subsistencies. To which all Socinus's followers say Amen. The same Gentleman derides the doctrine of Satisfaction, and scoffingly calls the Asserters of it† Satisfactionists: and who knows not that Transylvania agrees here with Pensylvania? The Man that suf∣fer'd at Ierusalem is the Socinian as well as the Quakers Stile: And generally as to the main things that relate to our Savi∣our, they perfectly accord, viz. in mak∣ing nothing of them. If Quakerism then be no Christianity, as this our Writer re∣ports

it in the same place, then we may with much more reason conclude that Socinianism is none. By this it appears that Socinus and Fox are well met, and that they are very Loving Friends. But they must seem to disagree, as here in this Gentleman's Papers.

Lastly, let us see the wonderful hand of God in suffering this Unthoughtful Writer to produce a Paper written by a Iesuite in the late Reign, entituled an Ad∣dress, &c. And in this Address, he saith, he goes about to shew that the Scriptures com∣monly alledg'd for the Trinity, admit of ano∣ther sense. He goes the same way in the Ar∣ticle of the Incarnation. What! had he not enough of the Quaker but he must bring in the Iesuite? And must he tell the world that the Iesuitical Writers take the part of the Socinians? must he pub∣lickly give notice that they both carry on the same work, and joyntly conspire to pervert the Scriptures in order to it? For the credit of the Cause, it had been better to have placed this under a for∣mer head, and to have told the Reader that some Iesuites (as well as some De∣ists) are Converts to Socinianism. But he hath blurted it out that Ignatius Loyo∣la and Faustus Socinus were of kin. Sure∣ly

this Author must not be employ'd any more to write in defence of the Cause. He must be no longer a Double-Column'd Writer: they must look out for a man that is not so Open-hearted, one that can handle his Weapon with more Cun∣ning, for this man hath stabb'd his own Cause.

But because this Writer in the begin∣ning and towards the end of his Papers is pleas'd to use some words of Deference and Respect, I will not be backward to return his Civility in the same kind by letting him know that I suppose him to be a Person of Ingenuity and Learning (only I wirh he had shew'd it in his late Undertaking) and that I would not have made opposition to him in any other Points but These which are the Foundation, Basis and Ground-work of Christianity, and the very Life and Soul of our Religion, and therefore none is to be permitted to treat them irreverently and scoffingly, as he and his Associates have lately done. But I entertain some hope that this Unsavoury Tang will wear off in time.

And thus I have finished both my Re∣plies to the Gentlemen's Writings against me: and I have wholly confined my

self to these, and not ventured to guess at their Persons, or make any Reflecti∣ons of that kind, for that is a thing which I abhor. Nay, though the Vin∣dicator by his reflecting upon my Degree, p. 24. and 36. and Calling, p. 36, and before, p. 26, and before that, p. 9. had given me occasion to enquire in∣to his Quality and Character, yet I purposely forbore to meddle with any such Considerations. And so as to the Examinator, I could easily have traced his Person and Station, and offer'd some Remarks upon either, but I made it not my business to observe Who they were that wrote, but what they had written. And it was necessary to do this latter with some Salt and Keenness, that the levity of their Arguments might be the better exposed, and that I might in a lawful and innocent way retaliate that Liberty which they had taken. And indeed the Socinian Gentlemen must shew themselves very Disingenuous (which I will not presume of them) if they be dissatisfied with me for my Freedom of discourse, when in all their Writings they profess to use it. And it is plain that they make use of it: for

who sees not that they have been very sharp upon some of the most Eminent and Venerable Persons of our Church? They have handled the late Archbishop and some of his Reve∣rend Brethren (who in their Wri∣tings shewed their dislike of the Soci∣nian doctrines) with no excess of Respect: And they represent them and the whole Clergy as Mercenary, Timerous, and False hearted: They would perswade the world that the doctrine of the Trinity is defended by them merely because they are bribed or forced to it. And others of their Writers have been very severe upon the Trinitarians in their late Prints. And therefore with good reason some of These have been free with them again, especially that Worthy Person who undertook the Defence of the Archbishop and the Bishop of Worcester, and hath with great Vivacity and Sharpness reflected on the Socinian Errors, and with as great Solidity and Composedness establish'd the con∣trary Truths, and hath not spared

that Socinian Author whom he grap∣ples with, no not in the least. I suppose none will grudg me that Freedom which this Gentleman and others have taken in their Replies to the Racovian Writers, especially see∣ing I have not (as I conceive) made ill use of it. But of that let the Rea∣der judg.

FINIS.

Notes

• W. Pen's Sandy Foundation, p. 12.
• †

  Sandy Found∣at. ibid.
• Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity.