But while the ministry have been industrious in preventing confusions, and watching opportunities of accommodating differences, their adversaries have practis’d all imaginary ways to insult and embarrass them. _Osborne_ clears himself from the imputation which the _Craftsman_ had charg’d him with, _viz._ that the supposition that we are going to unite with the Emperor, will be attended with perfidy, infraction of treaties, and violation of faith. _London Journal_, _Jan. 30._ No. 600. This Journal contains observations on Mr. _Oldcastle’s_ minutes of Q. _Elizabeth_’s reign, which he affirms is a collection of _Scraps_ without order or method, coherence or connexion, being sounds without sense, confusedly thrown at the present administration. _See_ p. 3. Admits that this Queen was a wise and glorious Princess, but says that our _Constitution_, and the _exercise of Power at home_, is vastly better than what they were in her reign, and our _Foreign Affairs_ transacted with as much wisdom. Quotes Mr. _Oldcastle_’s own words, in which he describes the _Wisdom_ and _Address_ of Q. _Elizabeth_, to describe the _Wisdom_ and _Address_ of the present Minister in negotiating _Foreign Affairs_. (See p. 3.) Lastly, he gives several maxims out of _Cambden_ and _Francis Osborne_’s memoirs of this Queen, such as her preferring peace to war; her delaying resentment of injuries till proper seasons; her judgment of her subjects abilities, which she dextrously fitted for her favours and their employments; her steady resolution not to ransom herself from her enemies at the price of their preferments who lov’d her. _Fog’s Journal_, _Saturday, January 9._ No. 120. A Letter is inserted, containing remarks on Mr. _Chubb_’s discourse concerning _Reason_, in which is asserted, that _it either is, or ought to be a sufficient guide in matters of Religion_. This Proposition the remarker explains in the words of Mr. _Chubb_, and assents to, and then proceeds to consider it more particularly. Does not comprehend Mr. _Chubb_’s observation, i. e. _The Question is not whether there be absolutely such a capacity in man_: for if man has such a capacity, as Mr. _Chubb_ insists, he may be truly said to be the possessor of it. Nor can the remarker understand the sense of that clause, _he ought to have_, because it has no relation to the dispute between Mr. _Chubb_ and the Bp of _London_, i. e. what man _now_ has, and is capable of. The remarker goes on to shew, that the author’s argument to prove that man _ought_ to have such a capacity, is needless, because it is universally assented to. Mr. _Chubb_ argues, _That as our species was no ways accessary to ~Adam’s~ transgression, ’tis unreasonable and unequal that they should suffer by it._