worthy and pious clergyman of the name of Bolde, who was the author of A Collection of Tracts, published in Vindication of Mr. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures, and of his Essay concerning Human Understanding, in 8vo. Scarcely was he disengaged from this controversy, before he was drawn into another, on the following occasion. Some time before this, Mr. Toland published a book, entitled Christianity not mysterious, in which he endeavoured to prove, "that there is nothing in the Christian religion, not only contrary to reason, but even nothing above it;" and in explaining some of his notions, he made use of several arguments from Mr. Locke's Essay concerning Human Understanding. About the same time several treatises were published by some Unitarians, maintaining, that there was nothing in the Christian religion but what was rational and intelligible, which sentiment had been advanced by Mr. Locke. The use which was made of his writings in these instances, determined Dr. Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, to make an attack upon our author. Accordingly, in his Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity, published in 1697, he censured some passages in the Essay concerning Human Understanding, as tending to subvert the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Mr. Locke immediately published an answer to this charge, in A Letter to the Right Reverend Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester, &c. to which the bishop replied in the same year. This was confuted in a second letter of Mr. Locke's, which drew a second answer from the bishop, in 1698. A third letter of Mr. Locke's was the last which appeared in this controversy, the death of the bishop having taken place not long after its publication. It was generally admitted, that Mr. Locke had greatly the advantage of the bishop in this controversy. When speaking of it, M. Le Clerc says, "Every body admired the strength of Mr. Locke's reasonings, and his great clearness and exactness, not only in explaining his own notions, but in confuting those of his adversary. Nor were men of understanding less surprised, that so learned a man as the bishop should engage in a controversy, in which he had all the disadvantages possible: for he was by no means able to maintain his opinions against Mr. Locke, whose reasoning he neither understood, nor the subject itself about which he disputed. This eminent prelate had spent the greatest part of his time in the study of ecclesiastical antiquities, and reading a prodigious number of books; but was no great philosopher; nor had ever accustomed himself to that close mode of thinking and reasoning, in which Mr. Locke did so highly excel. How-
