all the principles and articles of the chriftian religion, I chofe out but one, that would not at all help him, till he farther declares, that the belief of one God is not an article of the chriftian religion." For, of " ALL the articles of the "christian religion," he fays, "I chofe but one;" which not being that of a Deity, his words plainly import, that that was left out amongst the rest, unless it be poffible for a man to chufe but one article of the chriftian religion, viz. That 66 Jefus is the Meffiah;" and, at the fame time, to chufe two articles of the chriftian religion, viz. That there is one eternal God, and that Jefus is the Meffiah. If he had spoken clearly, and like a fair man, he should have said, That he taxed me with chufing but one article of revealed religion. This had been plain and direct to his purpose: but then he knew the falfhood of it would be too obvious: for, in the feven pages, wherein he taxes me fo much with One article, christianity is feveral times named, though not once to the purpofe he here pretends. But revelation is not fo much as once mentioned in them, nor, as I remember, in any of the pages he bestows upon me.

To conclude, the feveral paflages above quoted out of him; concerning one fole article, are all in general terms, without any the least limitation or reftriction; and, as they stand in him, fit to perfuade the reader, that I excluded all other articles whatsoever, but that one, of "Jefus the Meffiah:" and if, in that fenfe, they are not true, they are fo many falfhoods of his, repeated there, to miflead others into a wrong opinion of me. For, if he had a mind his readers fhould have been rightly informed, why was it not as eafy once to explain himself, as fo often to affirm it in general and unreftrained terms? This, all the boasted strength of the unmasker will not be able to get him out of. This very well becomes one, who fo loudly charges me with thuffling. Having repeated the fame thing over and over again, in as general terms as was poffible, without any the least limitation, in the whole difcourfe, to have nothing else to plead when required to prove it, but that it was meant in a limited fenfe, in an unmasker, is not fhuffling. For, by this way, he may have the convenience to fay, and unfay, what he pleases; to vent what ftuff he thinks for his turn; and, when he is called to account for it, reply, He meant no fuch 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 received; that all his belief was comprised in this one fingle article:" and, when fuch a talker was demanded to prove his affertion, fhould he fay, he meant to except his belief of the apoftles creed: Would he not, notwithstanding fuch a plea, be thought a fhuffling lyar? And, if the unmasker can no otherwife prove thofe univerfal propofitions above cited, but by faying, he meant them with a tacit reftriction, (for none is expreffed) they will ftill, and for ever remain to be accounted for, by his veracity.

WHAT he fays in the next paragraph, p. 7, of my "fplitting one article into two," is just of the fame force, and with the fame ingenuity. I had faid, That the belief of one God was neceffary; which is not denied: I had also said, "That the belief of Jefus of Nazareth to be the Meffiah, together with thofe "concomitant articles of his refurrection, rule, and coming again to judge the world, was neceffary, p. 95. And again, p. 98, That God had declar

"ed, whoever would believe Jefus to be the Saviour promifed, and take him, now raised from the dead, and conftituted the Lord and Judge of all men, to "be their King and Ruler, fhould be faved." This made me fay, "Thefe, "and thofe articles" (in words of the plural number) more than once; evidence enough to any but a caviller, that I "contend not for one fingle article, and no more. And to mind him of it, I, in my vindication, reprinted one of thofe places, where I had done fo; and, that he might not, according to his manner, overlook what does not please him, the words, THESE ARE ARTICLES, were printed in great characters. Whereupon he makes this remark, p. 7, "And though fince he has tried to split this one into two, p. 28, " yet he la"bours in vain: for to believe Jefus to be the Meffiah, amounts to the fame "with believing him to be King and Ruler; his being Anointed, (i. e. being the Meffiah) including that in it: yet he has the vanity to add in great characters, "THESE ARE ARTICLES; as if the putting them into thefe great letters, "would make one article two.'

ANSW. Though no letters will make one article two; yet that there is one God, and Jefus Chrift his only Son our Lord, who rofe again from the dead,. afcended into heaven, and fitteth at the right hand of God, fhall come to judge the quick and the dead, are, in the apoftles creed, fet down as more than one article, and therefore may, very properly, be called THESE ARTICLES, without fplitting one into two.

WHAT, in my "Reasonablenefs of Chriftianity," I have faid of one article, I fhall always own; and in what fenfe I faid it, is eafy to be understood; and with a man of the leaft candor, whofe aim was truth, and not wrangling, it would not have occafioned one word of difpute. But as for this unmasker, who makes it his bufinefs, not to convince me of any mistakes in my opinion, but barely to misrepresent me; my business at prefent with him is, to fhew the world, that what he has captioufly and fcurrilously faid of me, relating to One article, is false; and that he neither has, nor can prove one of those affertions concerning it, above cited out of him, in his own words. Nor let him pretend a meaning against his direct words: fuch a caviller as he, who would fhelter himself under the pretence of a meaning, whereof there are no footfteps; whofe difputes are only calumnies directed against the author, without examining the truth or falfhood of what I had published; is not to expect the allowances one would make to a fair and ingenuous adverfary, who fhewed fo much concern for truth, that he treated of it with à ferioufnefs due to the weightiness of the matter, and ufed other arguments, befides obloquy, clamour and falfhoods, against what he thought error. And therefore I again pofitively demand of him to prove these words of his to be true, or confefs that he cannot; viz.

III. That I contend for one article of faith, with the exclufion and defiance "of all the rest,"

Two other inftances of this fort of arguments, I gave in the 112th page of my vindication, out of the 115th and 119th pages of his " thoughts concern

ing

ing the caufes of atheism;" and I here demand of him again to shew, fince he has not thought fit hitherto to give any answer to it,

IV. “WHERE I urge, that there must be nothing in chriftianity, that is not "plain, and exactly levelled to all men's mother-wit, and every common apprehenfion."

OR, where he finds, in my " Reasonableness of Chriftianity," this other propofition:

V." THAT the very manner of every thing in christianity, must be clear "and intelligible; every thing muft immediately be comprehended by "the weakest noddle; or elfe it is no part of religion, efpecially of chriftianity."

THESE things he must prove that I have faid: I put it again upon him to fhew where I faid them, or elfe to confefs the forgery: for till he does one or the other, he fhall be fure to have thefe, with a large catalogue of other falfehoods,

PACd before him.

PAGE 26. of his "Socinianifm unmasked," he endeavours to make good his faying, that "I fet up one article, with defiance to all the reft," in these words: "for what is excluding them wholly, but defying them? Wherefore, seeing "he utterly excludes all the reft, by reprefenting them as USELESS to the making a man a chriftian, which is the defign of his whole 'undertaking, it "is manifeft that he defies them.'

ANSW. This at least is manifeft from hence, that the unmasker knows not, or cares not what he fays. For whoever, but he, thought that a bare exclufion, or paffing by, was defiance? If he understands fo, I would advise him not to feek preferment. For exclufions will happen; and if every exclufion be defiance, a man had need be well affured of his own good. temper, who shall not think his peace and charity in danger, amongst fo many enemies that are at defiance with him? Defiance, if, with any propriety, it can be spoken of an article of faith, muft fignify a profeffed enmity to it. For, in its proper ufe, which is to perfons, it fignifies 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 deftruction. So that "my defiance of all "the reft" remains ftill to be proved.

BUT, fecondly, There is another thing manifeft from these words of his, viz. that, notwithstanding his great brags in his first paragraph, his main skill lies in fancying what would be for his turn, and then confidently fathering it upon me. It never entered into my thoughts, nor, I think, into any body's elfe, (I must always except the acute unmasker, who makes no difference between useful and neceffary) that all but the fundamental articles of the christian faith, were useless to make a man a chriftian; though, if it be true, that the belief of the fundamentals alone (be they few, or many) is all that is neceffary to his being made a chriftian, all that may any way perfuade him to believe

them,

་

them, may certainly be ufeful towards the making him a chriftian: and therefore, here again, I muft propofe to him, and leave it with him to be shewed where it is,

VL" I HAVE reprefented all the reft as ufelefs to the making a man a "chriftian?" And how it appears, that this is the defign of my whole “undertaking?”.

In his thoughts concerning the caufes of atheifm, he fays, page 115, "What makes him contend for one fingle article, with the exclufion of all the "rent? He pretends it is this, that all men ought to understand their religion." This reafoning I difowned, p. III. of my vindication, and intimated, that he fhould have quoted the page where I fo pretended. To this, p. 26, he tells me with great confidence, and in abundance of words, as we fhall fee by and by, that I had done fo; as if repetition were a proof. He had done better to have quoted one place, where I fo pretend. Indeed, p. 27, for want of fomething better, he quotes thefe words of mine out of p. 98. of the Reasonableness of Chriftianity: "The all-merciful God seems herein to have confulted the poor "of this world, and the bulk of mankind. THESE ARE ARTICLES that the labouring and illiterate man may comprehend." I afk, whether it be poffiblefor one to bring any thing more direct against himself? The thing he was to prove, was, that "I contended for one fingle article, with the exclufion of all: "the reft, because I pretended, that all men ought to understand their religion;" i. e. the reafon I gave, why there was to be "but one fingle article in religion, "with the exclufion of all the reft," was, because men ought to understand their religion. And the place he brings, to prove my contending upon that ground, for one fingle article, with the exclufion of all the reft," is a paffage wherein I fpeak of more than one article, and fay," thefe articles." Whether. I.faids thefe articles," properly or improperly, it matters not, in the prefent cafe: (and that we have examined in another place) it is plain, I meant more than one article, when I faid "these articles;" 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, becaufe by illiterate men, more than one could not be understood. The reft of this paragraph is nothing but a repetition of the fame affertion, without proof, which, with the unmalker, often pafies for a way of proving, but with no-body elfe.

and

His

BUT, that I may keep that distance, which he boafts, there is betwixt his my way of writing, I fhall not say this without proofs. One instance of his repetition, of which there is fuch plenty in his book, pray take here. bufinefs, p. 26, is to prove, that " I pretended that I contended for one fingle "article, with the exclufion of all the reft, because all men ought to understand "their religion;" p. 111. of my vindication, I denied that I had fo 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 obfcure, and hard to be understood."

ANSWER.

ANSWER. You fay it, and had faid it before: but I afk you, as I did before, Where I did fo?

UNM." And therefore he truffes all up in one article, that the poor people: "and bulk of mankind may bear it."

ANSW. I defire again to know where I made that inference, and argued fo, for one article ?"

UNM. "This is the scope of a great part of his book."

ANSW. This is faying again, fhew it once.

UNM." But his memory does not keep pace with his invention, and thence "he fays, he remembers nothing of this in his book," Vind. p. 111.

ANSW. This is to say that it is in my book. You have said it more than once already; I demand of you to fhew me where.

UNM. "This worthy writer does not know his own reasoning, that he uses." ANSW. I afk, Where does he ufe that reasoning?

UNM. "As particularly thus, that he troubles chriftian men with no more, "but one article: BECAUSE that is intelligible, and all people, high and low, may comprehend it.”

que

ANSW. We have heard it affirmed by you, over and over again, but the stion still is, “Where is that way of arguing to be found in my book?" UNM. "For" he has chofen out, as he thinks, a plain and easy article. Whereas the others, which are commonly propounded, are not generally agreed on (he faith) and are dubious and uncertain. But the believing that Jefus is the "Meffiah, has nothing of doubtfulness or obfcurity in it."

ANSW. The word "For," in the beginning of this fentence, makes it stand for one of your reasons; though it be but a repetition of the fame thing in other words.

UNM. " 66 pages. ANSW. This must fignify, "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 elfe be meant by the word This, it is nothing to the purpose. For that I said, that all things neceffary to be believed are plain in fcripture, and easy to be understood, I never denied; and should be very forry, and recant it, if I had.

This the reader will find to be the drift and design of several of his

UNM." And the reason why I did not quote any fingle one of them, was, "because he infifts on it, fo long together and fpins it out after his way, in p. 98. of his "Reasonableness of Chriftianity," where he fets down the short plain, eafy, and intelligible fummary (as he calls it) of religion," couched in a single article; he immediately adds:" the All-merciful God feems herein "to have confulted the poor of this world, and the bulk of mankind: thefe are articles" (whereas he had fet down but one) "that the labouring and "illiterate man may comprehend."

Answ. If “my infifting on it fo long together" was the cause why, in your thoughts of the caufes of atheism," you did not quote any fingle paffage; methinks here, in your "Socinianifm unmarked," where you knew it was expected of you, my "infifting on it," as you fay, "fo long together," might have af

forded, at leaft, one quotation to your purpose.

UNM.