صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني


or disbelieving of it, men were pronounced believers or unbelievers, and accordingly received into the church of Christ, or kept out;" is the simple assertion of a positive matter of fact, and so carries in it no defiance, no, nor exclusion of any other doctrinal, or historical truth, contained in the Scripture and therefore it remains still on the unmasker to show, where it is I express any defiance of any other truth contained in the word of God; or where I exclude any one doctrine of the Scriptures. So that if it be true, that " I contend for one article," my contention may be without any defiance, or so much as exclusion of any of the rest, notwithstanding any thing contained in these words. Nay, if it should happen that I am in a mistake, and that this was not the sole doctrine which our Saviour and his apostles preached, and, upon their assent to which, men were admitted into the church: yet the unmasker's accusation would be never the truer for that, unless it be necessary, that he that mistakes in one matter of fact should be at defiance with all other truths; or, that he who erroneously says, that our Saviour and his apostles admitted men into the Church, upon the believing him to be the Messiah, does thereby exclude all other truths published to the Jews before, or to Christian believers afterwards.

If these words be brought to prove that I contended "for one article," barely "one article," without any defiance or exclusion annexed to that contention; I say neither do they prove that, as is manifest from the words themselves, as well as from what I said elsewhere, concerning the article of one God. For here I say, this is the only Gospel article, &c. upon which men were pronounced believers; which plainly intimates some other article, known and believed in the world before, and without the preaching of the Gospel.

To this the unmasker thinks he has provided a salvo, in these words, Socinianism unmasked, p. 6, "And when I told him of this one article, he knew well enough that I did not exclude the article of the Deity, for that is a principle of natural religion." If it be

fit for an unmasker to perceive what is in debate, he would know, that the question is not, what he excluded, or excluded not, but what articles he charged me to have excluded.

Taking it therefore to be his meaning (which it must be, if he meant any thing to the purpose), viz. That when he charged me so often and positively, for contesting for "one article," viz. that "Jesus was the Messiah," he did not intend to accuse me for excluding "the article of the Deity." To prove that he did not so intend it, he tells me, that "I knew that he did not." Ans. How should I know it? He never told me so, either in his book, or otherwise. This I know, that he said, p. 115, that, "I contended for one article, with the exclusion of all the rest." If then the belief of the Deity be an article of faith, and be not the article of Jesus being the Messiah, it is one of the rest;" and if "all the rest" were excluded, certainly that being one of" all the rest," must be excluded. How then he could say, "I knew that he excluded it not," i. e. meant not that I excluded it, when he positively says, I did "exclude it," I cannot tell, unless he thought that I knew him so well, that when he said one thing, I knew that he meant another, and that the quite contrary.

He now, it seems, acknowledges that I affirmed, that the belief of the Deity, as well as of Jesus being the Messiah, was required to make a man a believer. The believing in "one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth," is one article; and in "Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord," is another article. These, therefore, being "two articles," and both asserted by me, to be required to make a man a Christian, let us see with what truth or ingenuity the unmasker could apply, besides that above-mentioned, these following expressions to me, as he does without any exception: " Why then must there be one article, and no more ?" p. 115. Going to make a religion for his myrmidons, he contracts all into one article, and will trouble them with no more," p. 117. with systems, away with creeds; let us have but one ar




ticle, though it be with defiance to all the rest," p. 118. "Thus we see, why he reduces all belief to that one article before rehearsed," p. 120. And all this without any the least exception of the article of a Deity, as he now pretends. Nor could he, indeed, as is evident from his own words, p. 121, 122: "To conclude, this gentleman and his fellows are resolved to be Unitarians; they are for One article of faith, as well as One person in the Godhead: men were not prejudiced,

But, if these learned they would perceive, that, when the catholic faith is thus brought down to one single article, it will soon be reduced to none; the unit will dwindle into a cypher." By which the reader may see that his intention was, to persuade the world that I reduced all belief, the catholic faith, (they are in his own words) "to one single article, and no more." For if he had given but the least hint, that I allowed of Two, all the wit and strength of argument, contained in Unitarians, unit and cypher, with which he winds up all, had been utterly lost, and dwindled into palpable nonsense.

To demonstrate that this was the sense he would be understood in, we are but to observe what he says again, p. 50 of his Socinianism unmasked, where he tells his readers, that "I and my friends have new modelled the Apostles' Creed; yea, indeed, have presented them with one article, instead of twelve." And hence we may see what sincerity there is in the reason he brings, to prove that he did not exclude the “article of the Deity." "For," says he, p. 6, " that is a principle of natural religion."

Ans. Ergo, he did not in positive words, without any exception, say, I reduced "all belief; the catholic faith, to one single article, and no more." But to make good his promise, "not to resemble me in the little artifices of evading," he wipes his mouth, and says at the bottom of this page, But the reader sees his [the vindicator's] shuffling."

Whilst the article of "One God" is a part of "all belief, a part of the catholic faith," all which he affirmed I excluded, but the

one article concerning the Messiah; every one 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 instead of twelve," by an interpretation of them. For, if the article of" one eternal God, maker of heaven 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 onu 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 challenge 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.

[ocr errors]

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."

Ans. 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 articles 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 had in express words taxed me, "That, of all the principles and articles of the Christian religion, I chose 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 Christian religion." For, of " all 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 Messiah ;" 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 obvious: 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 pretends. 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 himself, as so often to affirm it in general and unrestrained terms? This, all the boasted strength of the unmasker will not be able to get him out of. This very well becomes 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

« السابقةمتابعة »