Page 23
A Rejoynder to the Reply made unto the Answer of a Note, entituled a brief Note concerning Points of Religion.
SHould I tell you, that you are fallen out with your brief Note, you would say that I lie in Ambush to catch at your words, by willfully mistaking your meaning; what mean you then by entituling your three Queries now, so as to make them all but one Question, the question (say you) propounded was this, &c. there is reason to suspect some design in it; but I matter not what it is, because I do not fear any disadvan∣tage, to fall unto the Truth by it: but I would have the Reader to consider, how much Credit is to be yeilded to your words, being that you are thus contradictory to your self; if it be not a Con∣tradiction, pray resolve me, how three distinct Queries can be but one Question, and that one Question entituled a breif Note concerning Points of Religion.
And here in the beginning of your Reply, I find the old proverb to be verified, Claudius ac∣cusat Maechum; you are guilty of that, for which you have accused and condemned me. Here are verbal Flourishes and rhetorical Excursions, charging me highly of many misdemeanors com∣mited in my Answer, and promising great things for your self, how exact and pertinent you will be in your following Reply; to dispel (as a light vapour) all that is material in my Answer. Thus while by fair flourishes you raise a mist before the eyes of your Reader, you lurk away without ta∣king notice of a great part of my Answer upon