To go on, therefore, in the order of his " Socinianism " unmasked," (for, p. 3, he has, out of the Mishna, taught me good breeding, " to answer the first, and so " in order/') The next thing he has against me is p. 5, which that the reader may understand the force of, I must inform him,, that in p. 105 of his " Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," he said, that I " give this plausible conceit," as he calls it, " over " and over again, in these formal words/' viz. " That " nothing is required to be believed by any Christian " man, but this, that Jesus is the Messiah." This I denied. To make it good, " Socinianism unmasked/* p. 5, he thus argues. First, " It is observable, that this " guilty man would be shifting off the indictment, by " excepting against the formality of words, as if such " were not to be found in his book; but when doth he " do this? In the close of it, when this matter was ex-" hausted, and he had nothing else to say/' Vind. p. 113, " then he bethinks himself of his salvo, &c." Answ. As if a falsehood were ever the less a falsehood, because it was not opposed, or would grow into a truth, if it were not taken notice of, before the 38th page of the answer. I desire him to show me these " formal " words over and over again," in my " Reasonableness " of Christianity: " nor let him hope to evade, by saying, I would be " shifting, by excepting against the forma-" lity of the words."
To say, that " I have, over and over again, those for-" mal words," in my book, is an assertion of a matter of fact; let him produce the words, and justify his allegation, or confess, that this is an untruth published to the world: and since he makes so bold with truth, in a matter visible to every body, let the world be Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 195 judge, what credit is to be given to his allegations of matters of fact, in things foreign to what I have print ed; and that are not capable of a negative proof. A sample whereof the reader has at the entrance, in his introduction, p. A. 4, and the three or four following pages. Where he affirms to the world, not only what I know to be false; but that every one must see, he could not know to be true. For he pretends to know and deliver my thoughts. And what the character is of one that confidently affirms what he does not know, nobody need be told.
But he adds, " I had before pleaded to the indict-" ment, and thereby owned it to be true/' This is to make good his promise, p. 3, to keep at a distance from my " feeble stragglings." Here this strong arguer must prove, that what is not answered or denied, in the very beginning of a reply, or before the llth page, " is " owned to be true/' In the mean time, 'till he does that, I shall desire such of my readers, as think the unmasker's veracity worth examining, to see in my Vindi cation, from p. 174, &c. wherein is contained, what I have said about one article, whether I have owned what he charged me with, on that subject.
This proposition then remains upon him still to be proved, viz.
I. " That I have, over and over again, these formal " words in my Reasonableness of Christianity, viz. " That nothing is required to be believed by any " Christian man, but this, That Jesus is the Mes-" siah."
He goes on, p. 5, " And indeed he could do no " other, for it was the main work he set himself about, " to find but one article of faith in all the chapters of " the four evangelists, and the acts of the apostles; " this is to make good his promise, p. 3, " To clear his " book from those sorry objections and cavils 1 had " raised against it." Several of my " sorry objections " and cavils " were to represent to the reader, that a great part of what is said was nothing but suspicions and 196 A Second Vindication of the conjectures; and such he could not but then own them to be. But now he has rid himself of all his conjec tures; and has raised them up into direct, positive af firmations, which, being said with confidence without proof, who can deny but he has cleared, thoroughly cleared, that part from my " sorry objections and ca-" vils? " He says, " it was the main work I set myself " about, to find but one article of faith." This I must take the liberty to deny; and I desire him to prove it. A man may " set himself to find two," or as many as there be, and yet find but one: or a man may " set " himself to find but one/' and yet find two more. It is no argument, from what a man has found, to prove what was his main work to find, unless where his aim was only to find what there was, whether more or less. For a writer may find the reputation of a poor con temptible railer; nay of a downright impudent lyar; and yet nobody will think it was his main work to find that. Therefore, sir, if you will not find what it is like you did not seek, you must prove those many confident assertions you have published, which I shall give you in tale, whereof this is the second, viz.
II. " That the main business I set myself about, was " to find but one article of faith."
In the following part of this sentence, he quotes my own words with the pages where they are to be found: the first time, that, in either of his two books against me, he has vouchsafed to do so, concerning one article, wherewith he has made so much noise. My words in (p. 102 of) my " Reasonableness of Christianity" stand thus: " for that this is the sole doctrine pressed and re-" quired to be believed, in the whole tenour of our Sa-" viour's and his apostles preaching, we have showed, " through the whole history of the Evangelists and Acts, " and I challenge them to show, that there was any " other doctrine upon their assent to which, or disbelief " of it, men were pronounced believers, or unbelievers, * and accordingly received into the church of Christ, " as members of his body, as far as mere believing Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 197 " could make them so; or else kept out. This was the " only gospel article of faith, which was preached to " them." Out of this passage, the unmasker sets down these words, " This is the SOLE doctrine pressed and " required to be believed, in the whole tenour of our " Saviour's and his apostles preaching," p. 129, " this " was the ONLY gospel article of faith, which was " preached to them."
I shall pass by all other observations, that this way of citing these words would suggest, and only remark, that, if he brought these words, to prove the immediately preceding assertion of his, viz. That " to find out but " one article of faith was the main work I set myself " about/' this argument, reduced into form, will stand thus: He who says, that this is the sole doctrine pressed and required to be believed in the whole tenour of our Sa viour's and his apostles preaching, upon their assent to which, or disbelief of it, men were pronounced believers, or unbelievers, and accordingly received into the church of Christ, as members of his body, as far as mere believ ing could make them so, or else kept out; sets himself to find out but one article of faith, as his main work. But the vindicator did so: ergo, If this were the use he would make of those words of mine cited, I must desire him to prove the major. But he talks so freely, and without book every-where, that I suppose he thought himself, by the privilege of a declaimer, exempt from being called strictly to an account, for what he loosely says, and from proving what he should be called to an account for. Rail lustily, is a good rule; something of it will stick, true or false, proved or not proved.
If he' alleges these words of mine, to answer my de mand, Vind. p. 175, where he found that " I contended " for one single article of faith, with the exclusion and " defiance of all the rest," which he had charged me with; I say, it proves this as little as the former. For to say, " That I had showed through the whole history " of the Evangelists, and the Acts, that this is the sole " doctrine, or only gospel article pressed and required 198 A Second Vindication of the " to be believed in the whole ten our of our Saviour and " his apostles preaching; upon their assent to which, " or disbelieving of it, men were pronounced believers " or unbelievers, and accordingly received into the " church of Christ, or kept out; " is the simple asser tion 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 there fore 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 un masker'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, con cerning 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 Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 199 " Deity, for that is a principle of natural religion/' If it be fit for an un masker 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 contest ing for " one article," viz. that " Jesus was the Mes-" siah," 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."
Answ. 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 ar ticle. 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 ex ception: " 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. " Away with " systems, away with creeds, let us have but one article, 200 A Second Vindication of the " though it be with defiance to all the rest," p. 118. " Thus we see, why he reduces ail belief to that one " article before rehearsed," p. 120. And all this with out 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 unita-" rians; they are for one article of faith, as well as " One person in the Godhead: — But, if these learned " men were not prejudiced, — 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 ar-" tide, 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 prin-" ciple of natural religion."
Answ. 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 Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. £01 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."