will see where the shuffling is: and, if it be not clear enough from those words themselves, let those above quoted, out of p. 50, of his " Socinianism unmasked/' where he says, that " I have new modelled the apostles " creed, and presented the world with ONE article in- " stead of TWELVE," be an interpretation of them. For, if the article of " one eternal God, maker of hea- " ven and earth," be one of the articles of the apostles creed, and the one article I presented them with, be not that, it is plain, he did, and would be understood to mean, that by my one article, I excluded that of the one eternal God, which branch soever of religion, either natural, or revealed, it belongs to.
I do not endeavour to " persuade the reader," as he says, p. 6, " that he misunderstood me," but yet every body will see that he misrepresented me. And I chal lenge him to say, that those expressions above quoted out of him, concerning " one article," in the obvious sense of the words, as they stand in his accusation of me, were true.
This flies so directly in his face, that he labours mightily to get it off, and therefore adds these words, " My discourse did not treat (neither doth his book run " that way) of principles of natural religion, but of the " revealed, and particularly the Christian: accordingly, " this was it that I taxed him with, That, of all the " principles and articles of Christianity, he chose out " but one, as necessary to be believed to make a man a " Christian."
Answ. His book was of atheism, which one may think should make his " discourse treat of natural " religion." But I pass by that, and bid him tell me where he taxed me, " That, of all the principles and ar- " tides of Christianity, I chose out but one: " let him show, in all his discourse, but such a word, or any thing said, like " one article of Christianity," and I will grant that he meant particularly, but spoke generally; misled his reader, and left himself a subterfuge. But if there be no expression to be found in him, tending that way, all this is but the covering of one falsehood with another, which thereby only becomes the grosser. Though if he 202 A Second Vindication of the had in express words taxed me, That, of all the prin ciples and articles of the Christian religion, I chose out but one, that would not at all help him, till he far ther declares, that the belief of one God is not an " ar- " tide of the Christian religion." For, of " ALT, the " articles of the Christian religion," he says, " I chose " but one; " which not being that of a Deity, his words plainly import, that that was left out amongst the rest, unless it be possible for a man to choose but one article of the Christian religion, viz. That " Jesus is the Mes- " siah; " and at the same time, to choose two articles of the Christian religion, viz. That there is one eternal God, and that Jesus is the Messiah. If he had spoken clearly, and like a fair man, he should have said, That he taxed me with choosing but one article of revealed religion. This had been plain and direct to his purpose: but then he knew the falsehood of it would be too ob vious: for, in the seven pages, wherein he taxes me so much with One article, Christianity is several times named, though not once to the purpose he here pre tends. But revelation is not so much as once mentioned in them, nor, as I remember, in any of the pages he bestows upon me.
To conclude, the several passages above quoted out of him, concerning one sole article, are all in general terms, without any the least limitation or restriction; and, as they stand in him, fit to persuade the reader, that I excluded all other articles whatsoever, but that one, of " Jesus the Messiah:" and if, in that sense, they are not true, they are so many falsehoods of his, repeated there, to mislead others into a wrong opinion of me. For, if he had a mind his readers should have been rightly informed, why was it not as easy once to explain him self, as so often to affirm it in general and unrestrained terms? This, all the boasted strength of the un masker will not be able to get him out of. This very well be comes one, who so loudly charges me with shuffling. Having repeated the same thing over and over again, in as general terms as was possible, without any the least limitation, in the whole discourse, to have nothing else to plead when required to prove it, but that it was Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 203 meant in a limited sense, in an unmasker, is not shuf fling. For, by this way, he may have the convenience to say, and unsay, what he pleases; to vent what stuff he thinks for his turn; and, when he is called to account for it, reply, He meant no such thing. Should any one publish, that the unmasker had but " one article of faith, " and no more," viz. That the doctrines in fashion, and likely to procure preferment, are alone to be re ceived; that all his belief was comprised in this " one " single article: " and when such a talker was de manded to prove his assertion, should he say, he meant to except his belief of the apostles creed: would he not, notwithstanding such a plea, be thought a shuffling lyar? And, if the unmasker can no otherwise prove those universal propositions above cited, but by saying, he meant them with a tacit restriction, (for none is ex pressed,) they will still, and for ever remain to be ac counted for, by his veracity.
What he says in the next paragraph, p. 7, of my " splitting one article into two," is just of the same force, and with the same ingenuity. I had said, That the belief of one God was necessary; which is not de nied: I had also said, " That the belief of Jesus of Na- " zareth to be the Messiah, together with those con- " comitant articles of his resurrection, rule, and com- " ing again to judge the world, was necessary, p. 151. " And again, p. 157, That God had declared, whoever " would believe Jesus to be the Saviour promised, and " take him now raised from the dead, and constituted " the Lord arid Judge of all men, to be their King and " Ruler, should be saved." This made me say, " These, " and those articles " (in words of the plural number) more than once; evidence enough to any but a caviller, that I " contend not for one single article, and no " more." And to mind him of it, I, in my Vindica tion, reprinted one of those places, where I had done so; and, that he might not, according to his manner, over look what does not please him, the words, THESE ARE ARTICLES, were printed in great characters. Where upon he makes this remark, p. 7, " And though since " he has tried to split this one into two, p. 28, yet A Second Vindication of the " he labours in vain: for to believe Jesus to be the " Messiah, amounts to the same with believing him to " be King and Ruler; his being anointed, (i. e. being " the Messiah,) including that in it: yet he has the va- " nityto add in great characters, THESE AUE ARTICLES; " as if the putting them into these great letters, would " make one article two."
Ans. Though no letters will make one article two; yet that there is one God, and Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, shall come to judge the quick and the dead, are, in the apostles creed, set down as more than one article, and therefore may, very properly, be called THESE ARTICLES, without splitting one into two.
What, in my " Reasonableness of Christianity," I have said of one article, I shall always owrn; and in what sense I have said it, is easy to be understood; and with a man of the least candour, whose aim was truth, and not wrangling, it would not have occasioned one word of dispute. But as for this unmasker, who makes it his business, not to convince me of any mistakes in my opinion, but barely to misrepresent me; my business at present with him is, to show the world, that what he has captiously and scurrilously said of me, relating to one article, is false; arid that he neither has, nor can prove one of those assertions concerning it, above cited out of him, in his own words. Nor let him pretend a meaning against his direct words: such a caviller as he, who would shelter himself under the pretence of a mean ing, whereof there are no footsteps; whose disputes are only calumnies directed against the author, without ex amining the truth or falsehood of what I had published; is not to expect the allowances one would make to a fair and ingenuous adversary, who showed so much concern for truth, that he treated of it with a seriousness due to the weightiness of the matter, and used other argu ments, besides obloquy, clamour and falsehoods, against what he thought errour. And therefore I again posi tively demand of him to prove these words of his to be true, or confess that he cannot; viz.
Reasonableness of Christianity, $$c. 205 III. " That I contend for one article of faith, with " the exclusion and defiance of all the rest."
Two other instances of this sort of arguments, I gave in the 175th page of my Vindication, out of the 115th and 119th pages of his " Thoughts concerning the causes " of atheism; " and I here demand of him again to show, since he has not thought fit hitherto to give any answer to it, IV. " Where I urge, that there must be nothing in " Christianity, that is not plain, and exactly le- " veiled to all men's mother- wit, and every com- " mon apprehension."
Or, where he finds, in my " Reasonableness of chris- " tianity," this other proposition: V. " That the very manner of every thing in chris- " tianity, must be clear and intelligible; every " thing must immediately be comprehended by " the weakest noddle; or else it is no part of re- " ligion, especially of Christianity."
These things he must prove that I have said; I put it again upon him to show where I said them, or else to confess the forgery: for till he does one or the other, he shall be sure to have these, with a large catalogue of other falsehoods, laid before him.
Page 26, of his " Socinianism unmasked," he endea vours to make good his saying, that " I set up one arti- " cle, with defiance to all the rest," in these words: " for " what is excluding them wholly,, but defying them? " Wherefore, seeing he utterly excludes all the rest, by " representing them as USELESS to the making a man a " Christian, which is the design of his whole under- " taking, it is manifest that he defies them."
Answ. This at least is manifest from hence, that the unmasker knows not, or cares not what he says. For whoever, but he, thought, that a bare exclusion, or passing by was defiance? If he understands so, I would advise him not to seek preferment. For exclusions will 206 A Second Vindication of the happen; and if every exclusion be defiance, a man had need be well assured of his own good temper, who shall not think his peace and charity in danger, amongst so many enemies that are at defiance with him. Defiance, if, with any propriety, it can be spoken of an article of faith, must signify a professed enmity to it. For, in its proper use, which is to persons, it signifies an open and declared enmity, raised to that height, that he, in whom it is, challenges the party defied to battle, that he may there wreak his hatred on his enemy, in his destruction. So that " my defiance of all the rest " remains still to be proved.
But, secondly, There is another thing manifest from these words of his, viz. that, notwithstanding his great brags in his first paragraph, his main skill lies in fancy ing what would be for his turn, and then confidently fa thering it upon me. It never entered into my thoughts, nor, I think, into any body's else, (I must always except the acute unmasker, who makes no difference between useful and necessary,) that all but the fundamental arti cles of the Christian faith were useless to make a man a Christian; though, if it be true, that the belief of the fundamentals alone (be they few, or many) is all that is necessary to his being made a Christian, all that may any way persuade him to believe them, may certainly be useful towards the making him a Christian: and therefore here again, I must propose to him, and leave it with him to be showed where it is.
VI. " I have represented all the rest as useless to the " making a man a Christian?" And how it ap pears, that " this is the design of my whole under- " taking?"
In his " Thoughts concerning the causes of atheism," he says, page 115, " What makes him contend for one " single article, with the exclusion of all the rest? He " pretends it is this, that all men ought to understand " their religion." This reasoning I disowned, p. 174, of my Vindication, and intimated, that he should have quoted the page where I so pretended.
Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 207 To this, p. 26, he tells me with great confidence, and in abundance of words, as we shall see by and by, that 1 had done so; as if repetition were a proof. He had done better to have quoted one place, where I so pretend. Indeed, p. 27, for want of something better, he quotes these words of mine out of p. 157, of the Reasonableness of Christianity: " The all-merciful God " seems herein to have consulted the poor of this " world, and the bulk of mankind. THESE AIIE ARTI- " CLES that the labouring and illiterate man may com- " prehend." I ask, whether it be possible for one to bring any thing more direct against himself? The thing he was to prove was, that " I contended for one single " article, with the exclusion of all the rest, because I " pretended, that all men ought to understand their " religion:" i. e. the reason I gave, why there was to be " but one single article in religion, with the exclu- " sion of all the rest," was, because men ought to un derstand their religion. And the place he brings, to prove my contending upon that ground, " for one single " article, with the exclusion of all the rest," is a passage wherein I speak of more than one article, and say, " these " articles." Whether I said, " these articles," properly or improperly, it matters not, in the present case (and that we have examined in another place) it is plain, I meant more than one article, when I said, " these ar- " tides;" and did not think, that the labouring and illiterate man could not understand them, if they were more than one: and therefore, I pretended not, that there must be but one, because by illiterate men more than one could not be understood. The rest of this pa ragraph is nothing but a repetition of the same asser tion, without proof, which, with the unmasker, often passes for a way of proving, but with nobody else.
But, that I may keep that distance, which he boasts, there is betwixt his and my way of writing, I shall not say this without proof. One instance of his repetition, of which there is such plenty in his book, pray take here. His business, p. 26, is to prove, that " I pre- ** tended that I contended for one single article, with " the exclusion of all the rest^ because all men ought to 208 A Second Vindication of the " understand their religion:" p. 174, of my -Vindica tion, I denied that I had so pretended. To convince me that I had, thus he proceeds: Unmasker. " He founds his conceit " of one article, " partly upon this, that a multitude of doctrines is ob- " scure, and hard to be understood."
Answer. You say it, and had said it before: but I ask you, as I did before. Where I did so?
Umn. " And therefore he trusses all up in one article, " that the poor people and bulk of mankind may " bear it."
Answ. I desire again to know where I made that in ference, and argued so, for " one article?"
Unm. " This is the scope of a great part of his « book."
Answ. This is saying again, show it once. Unm. " But his memory does not keep pace with his " invention, and thence he says, he remembers nothing " of this in his book," Vind. p. 174.
Answ. This is to say that it is in my book. You have said it more than once- already; I demand of you to show me where.
Unm. " This worthy writer does not know his own " reasoning, that he uses."
Answ. I ask, Where does he use that reasoning? Unm. " As particularly thus, that he troubles chris- " tian men with no more, but one article: BECAUSE " that is intelligible, and all people, high and low, may " comprehend it."
Answ. We have heard it affirmed by you, over and over again, but the question still is, " Where is that way " of arguing to be found in my book?"
Unm. " For he has chosen out, as he thinks, a plain " and easy article. Whereas the others, which are com- " monly propounded, are not generally agreed on, (he " saith,) and are dubious and uncertain. But the be- " lieving that Jesus is the Messiah, has nothing of " doubtfulness or obscurity in it."
Answ. The word " For," in the beginning of this sentence, makes it stand for one of your reasons; though it be but a repetition of the same thing in other words.
Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 209 Unm. " This the reader will find to be the drift and " design of several of his pages."
Answ. This must signify " that I trouble men with no " more but one article, because only one is intelligible," and then it is but a repetition. If any thing else be meant by the word This, it is nothing to the purpose. For that I said, that all things necessary to be be lieved are plain in scripture, and easy to be understood, I never denied; and should be very sorry, and recant it, if I had.
Unm. " And the reason why I did not quote any sin- " gle one of them, was, because he insists on it, so long " together: and spins it out after his way, in p. 156 of " his " Reasonableness of Christianity," where he sets " down the short, plain, easy, and intelligible summary " (as he calls it) of religion," couched in a single ar ticle: he immediately adds: " the all-merciful God " seems herein to have consulted the poor of this world, " and the bulk of mankind: these are articles" (whereas he had set down but one) " that the labouring and il- " literate man may comprehend."
Answ. If " my insisting on it so long together" was " the cause why, in your thoughts of the causes of " atheism," you did not quote any single passage; me- thinks here, in your " Socinianism unmasked," where you knew it was expected of you, my " insisting on it," as you say, " so long together," might have afforded, at least, one quotation to your purpose.
Unm. "He assigns this, as a ground, why it was " God's pleasure, that there should be but ONE POINT " of faith, BECAUSE thereby religion may be under- " stood the better; the generality of people may com- " prehend it."
Answ. I hear you say it again, but want a proof still, and ask, " where I assign that ground?"
Unm. " This he represents as a great kindness done " by God to man; whereas the variety of articles would " be hard to be understood."
Answ. Again the same cabbage; an affirmation, but no proof.
P 210 A Second Vindication of the Unm. "This he enlarges upon, and flourishes it " over, after his fashion: and yet desires to know, " When he said so?" p. 175 Vind.
Answ. And if I did, let the world here take a sample of the un masker's ability, or truth, who spends above two whole pages, 26, 27, in repetitions of the same as sertion, without the producing any but one place for proof; and that too against him, as I have shown. But he has not yet done with confounding me by dint of re petition; he goes on.
Unm. " Good sir, let me be permitted to acquaint you, " that your memory is as defective as your judgment."
Answ. I thank you for the regard you have had to it; for often repetition is a good help to a bad memory. In requital, I advise you to have some eye to your own memory and judgment too. For one, or both of them, seem a little to blame, in the reason you subjoin to the foregoing words, viz.
Unm. "For in the very Vindication, you attribute it " to the goodness and condescension of the Almighty, " that he requires nothing, as absolutely necessary to be " believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and " the comprehension of illiterate men."
Answ. I will, for the un masker's sake, put this argu ment of his into a syllogism. If the vindicator, in his vindication, attributes it to the goodness and condes cension of the Almighty, that he requires nothing to be believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and the comprehension of illiterate men; then he did, in his " Reasonableness of Christianity," pretend, that the reason, why he contended for One article, with the ex clusion of all the rest, was because all men ought to understand their religion.
But the vindicator, in his vindication, attributes it to the goodness and condescension of Almighty God, that he requires nothing to be believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and the comprehension of illiterate men.
" Ergo," in his u Reasonableness of Christianity," lie pretended, that the reason why he contended for one Reasonableness of Christianity, $$c. 211 article, with the exclusion of all the rest, was, because all men ought to understand their religion.
This was the proposition to be proved, and which, as he confesses here, p. 26, I denied to remember to be in my " Reasonableness of Christianity." Who can but admire his logic!
But, besides the strength of judgment, which you have showed in this clear and cogent reasoning, Does not your memory too deserve its due applause? You tell me, in your " Socinianism unmasked," that in p. 175 of my Vindication, 1 desired to know when I said so. To which desire of mine, you reply in these words be fore cited: " Good sir, let me be permitted to acquaint " you, that your memory is as defective as your judg- " inent; for, in the very Vindication, you attribute it " to the goodness and condescension of the Almighty, " that he requires nothing, as absolutely necessary to be " believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and " the comprehension of illiterate men," p. 30.
Sure the urimasker thinks himself at cross questions. I ask him, in the 29th page of my Vindication, WHEN I said so? And he answers, that I had said so in the 30th page of my Vindication; i. e. when I writ the 29th page, I asked the question, When I had said, what he charged me with saying? And I am answered, I had said in the 30th page; which was not yet written: i. e. I asked the question to-day, WHEN I had said so? And I am answered, I had said it to-morrow. As opposite and convincing an answer, to make good his charge, as if he had said, To-morrow I found a horse-shoe. But, perhaps this judicious disputant will ease himself of this difficulty, by looking again into the 175th page of my Vindication, out of which he cites these words for mine: " I desire to know, When I said so?" But my words in that place are, " I desire to know, WHERE I said so?" A mark of his exactness in quoting, when he vouchsafes to do it. For unmaskers, when they turn disputants, think it the best way to talk at large, and charge home in generals: but do not often find it convenient to quote pages, set down words, and come to particulars. But, 212 A Second Vindication of the if he had quoted my words right, his answer had been just as pertinent. For I ask him, WHERE, in my " Reasonableness of Christianity," I had said so? And he answers, I had said so in my Vindication. For where, in my question, refers to my " Reasonableness of chris- " tianity," which the un masker had seen, and charged with this saying; and could not refer to my Vindication, which he had not yet seen, nor to a passage in it, whicli was not then written. But this is nothing with an un- masker; therefore, what is yet worse, those words of mine, Vindication, p. 1 75, relate not to the passage he is here proving, I had said, but to another different from it; as different as it is to say, " That, because all men " are to understand their religion, therefore there is to " be but one article in it;" and to say, " that there " must be nothing in Christianity that is not plain, and " exactly levelled to all men's mother- wit:" both which he falsely charges on me; but it is only to the latter of them, that my words, " I desire to know, where I said " so?" are applied.
Perhaps the well-meaning man sees no difference be tween these propositions, yet I shall take the liberty to ask him again, Where I said either of them, as if they were two? Although he should accuse me again, of " excepting against the formality of words," and doing so foolish a thing, as to expect, that a disputing un- masker should account for his words, or any proposition he advances. It is his privilege to plead, he did not mean as his words import, and without any more ado he is assoiled; and he is the same unmasker he was be fore. But let us hear him out on the argument he was upon, for his repetitions on it are not yet done. His next words are, Unm. " It is clear then, that you found your ONE *' article on this, that it is suited to the vulgar capa- " cities: whereas the other articles mentioned by me, " are obscure and ambiguous, and therefore surpass the " comprehension of the illiterate."
Arisw. The latter part, indeed, is now the first time imputed to me; but all the rest is nothing but an un- Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 213 proved repetition, though ushered in with " it is clear " then;" words that should have a proof going before them.
Unm. " But yet you pretend, that you have forgot " that any such thing was said by you."
Answ. I have indeed forgot, and notwithstanding all your pains, by so many repetitions, to beat it into my head, I fear I shall never remember it.
Unm. " Which shows that you are careless of your " words, and that you forget what you write."
Answ. So you told me before, and this repeating of it does no more convince me than that did.
Unm. " What shall we say to such an oblivious au- " thor?"
Answ. Show it him in his book, or else he will never be able to remember that it is there, nor any body else be able to find it.
Unm. " He takes no notice of what falls from his " own pen."
Answ. So you have told him more than once. Try him once with showing it him, amongst other things which fell from his own pen, and see what then he will say: that perhaps may refresh his memory.
Unm. " And therefore, within a page or two, he " confutes himself, and gives himself the lye."
Answ. It is a fault he deserves to be told of, over and over again. But he says, he shall not be able to find the two pages wherein he " gives himself the lye," unless you set down their numbers, and the words in them, which confute, and which are confuted.
I beg my reader's pardon, for laying before him so large a pattern of our unmasker's new-fashioned stuff; his fine tissue of argumentation not easily to be match ed, but by the same hand. But it lay all together in p. 26, 27, 28; and it was fit the reader should have this one instance of the excellencies he promises in his first paragraph, in opposition to my " impertiriencies, " incoherences, weak and feeble strugglings." Other excellencies he there promised, upon the same ground, which I shall give my reader a taste of in fit places: not but that the whole is of a piece, and one cannot miss A Second Vindication of the some of them in every page; but to transcribe them all, would be more than they are worth. If any one desires more plenty, I send him to his book itself. But saying a thousand times, not being proved once, it remains upon him still to show, VII. Where, in my " Reasonableness of Christianity," " I pretend that I contend for one single article, " with the exclusion of all the rest, because all " men ought to understand their religion."
And in the next place, where it is that I say, VIII. " That there must be nothing in Christianity " that is not plain and exactly level to all men's " mother-wit."
Let us now return to his 8th page: for the bundling together, as was fit, all that he has said, in distant places, upon the subject of One article, has made me trespass a little, against the Jewish character of a well bred man, recommended by him to me, out of the Mishna. Though I propose to myself to follow him, as near as I can, step by step as he proceeds.
In the 110th and lllth pages of his " Thoughts con- " cerning the causes of atheism," he gave us a list of his "fundamental articles:" upon which, I thus ap plied myself to him, Vind. p. 168, &c. " Give me leave " now to ask you seriously, Whether these you have " here set down under the title of " fundamental doc- " trines," are such (when reduced to propositions) that " every one of them is required to make a man a chris- " tian, and such as, without the actual belief thereof, " he cannot be saved? If they are not so, every one of " them, you may call them " fundamental doctrines," " as much as you please, they are not of those doctrines " of faith I was speaking of; which are only such as " are required to be actually believed, to make a man " a Christian." And again, Vind. p. 169, 1 asked him, " Whether just these, neither more nor less," were those necessary articles?
Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 215