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; methinks 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 unmasker; 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 unmasker 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 To which we have his answer, " Socinianism un- " masked," p. 8, &c. From p. 8 to 20, he has quoted near forty texts of scripture, of which he saith, p. 21, " Thus I have briefly set before the reader, those evan-" gelical truths, those Christian principles, which belong " to the very essence of Christianity: I have proved " them to be such, and I have reduced most of them " to certain propositions, which is a thing the vindi-" cator called for."
Answ. Yes: but that was not all the vindicator call ed for, and had reason to expect. For I asked, " Wheu ther those the unmasker gave us, in his Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," were the funda mental articles, " without an actual belief whereof, a " man could not be a Christian; just all, neither more " nor less?" This I had reason to demand from him, or from any one, who questions that part of my book; and I shall insist upon it, until he does it, or confesses he cannot. For having set down the articles, which the scripture, upon a diligent search, seemed to me to re quire as necessary, and only necessary; I shall riot lose my time in examining what another says against those fundamentals, which I have gathered out of the preach ings of our Saviour and his apostles, until he gives me a list of his fundamentals, which he will abide by; that so, by comparing them together, I may see which is the true catalogue of necessaries. For after so serious and diligent a search, which has given me light and satisfac tion in this great point, I shall not quit it, and set my self on float again, at the demand of any one, who would have me be of his faith, without telling me what it is.
Those fundamentals the scripture has so plainly given, and so evidently determined, that it would be the greatest folly imaginable, to part with this rule for ask ing; and give up myself blindly to the conduct of one, who either knows not, or will not tell me, what are the points necessary to be believed to make me a Christian. He that shall find fault with my collection of funda mentals, only to unsettle me, and not give me a better of his own, I shall not think worth minding, until, like a fair man, he puts himself upon equal terms, and makes A Second Vindication of the up the defects of mine, by a complete one of his own. For a deficiency, or errour, in one necessary, is as fatal, and as certainly excludes a man from being a Christian, as in an hundred. When any one offers me a complete catalogue of his fundamentals, he does not unreasonably demand me to quit mine for nothing: I have then one, that being set by mine, I may compare them; and so be able to choose the true and perfect one, and relinquish the other.
He that does not do this, plainly declares, that, (without showing me the certain way to salvation) he expects, that I should depend on him with an implicit faith, whilst he reserves to himself the liberty to require of me to believe, what he shall think fit, as he sees occa sion; and in effect says thus, " Distrust those funda-" mentals, which the preachings of Our Saviour and his " apostles have showed to be all that is necessary to be " believed to make a man a Christian; and, though I " cannot tell you, what are those other articles which " are necessary and sufficient to make a man a Christian, " yet take me for your guide, and that is as good as if " I made up, in a complete list, the defects of your fun-" damentals?" To which this is a sufficient answer, " Si quid novisti rectius, imperti; si non, his titere " mecum."
The unmasker, of his own accord, p. 110 of his " Thoughts concerning the causes of atheism," sets down several, which he calls " fundamental doctrines." I ask him, whether those be all? For answer, he adds more to them in his " Socinianism unmasked:" but in a great pet refuses to tell me, whether this second list of fundamentals be complete: and, instead of answering so reasonable a demand, pays me with ill language, in these words, p. 22, subjoined to those last quoted, " If " what I have said will not content him, I am sure I " can do nothing that will; and therefore, if he should " capriciously require any thing more, it would be as " great folly in me to comply with it, as it is in him to " move it." If I did ask a question, which troubles you, be not so angry; you yourself were the occasion of it. I proposed my collection of fundamentals, which I had, with great care, sought; and thought I had found clear in the scripture; you tell me no, it is imperfect, and offer me one of your own. I ask, whether that be per fect? Thereupon you grow into choler, and tell me it is a foolish question. Why! then I think it was not very wise in you so forwardly to offer one, unless you had one ready, not liable to the same exception. Would you have me so foolish, to take a list of fundamentals from you, who have not yet one for yourself; nor are yet resolved with yourself, wrhat doctrines are to be put in, or left out of it? Farther, pray tell me, if you had a settled collection of fundamentals, that you would stand to, why should I take them from you, upon your word, rather than from an anabaptist, or a quaker, or an arminian, or a socinian, or a lutheran, or a papist; who, I think, are not perfectly agreed with you, or one another in fundamentals? And yet, there is none amongst them, that I have not as much reason to be lieve, upon his bare word, as an unmasker, who, to my certain knowledge, will make bold with truth. If you set up for infallibility, you may have some claim to have your bare word taken, before any other but the pope.
But yet, if you demand to be an unquestionable pro poser, of what is absolutely necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, you must perform it a little better, than hitherto you have done. For it is not enough, sometimes to give us texts of scripture; some times propositions of your own framing, and sometimes texts of scripture, out of which they are to be framed; as p. 14, you say, " These and the like places afford us " such fundamental and necessary doctrines as these:" and again,, p. 16, after the naming several other texts of scripture, you add, " which places yield us such pro-" positions as these;" and then in both places set down what you think fit to draw out of them. And p. 15, you have these words: " and here, likewise, it were easy " to show, that adoption, justification, pardon of sins, " &c. which are privileges and benefits bestowed upon " us by the Messiah, are necessary matters of our be-" lief." By all which, as well as the whole frame, where in you make show of giving us your fundamental arti- 218 A Second Vindication of the cles, it is plain, that what you have given us there, is nothing less than a complete collection of fundamentals, even in your own opinion of it.
But, good sir, Why is it a foolish question in me? You have found fault with my summary for being short; the defect in my collection of necessary articles, has raised your zeal into so severe censures, and drawn upon me, from you, so heavy a condemnation, that, if half you have said of me be true, I am in a very ill case, for hav ing so curtailed the fundamental doctrines of Christia nity. Is it folly, then, for me to ask from you a com plete creed? If it be so dangerous (as certainly it is) to fail in any necessary article of faith, Why is it folly in me, to be instant with you, to give me them all? Or why is it folly in you, to grant so reasonable a demand?
A short faith, defective in necessaries, is no more tole rable in you, than in me; nay, much more inexcusable, if it were for no other reason but this, that you rest in it yourself, and would impose it on others; and yet do not yourself know,, or believe it to be complete. For if you do, why dare you not say so, and give it us all entire, in plain propositions; and not, as you have in a great measure done here, give only the texts of scripture, from whence, you say, necessary articles are to be drawn? Which is too great an uncertainty for doctrines absolutely necessary. For, possibly, all men do not un derstand those texts alike, and some may draw articles out of them quite different from your system; and so, though they agree in the same texts, may not agree in the same fundamentals; and till you have set down plainly and distinctly your articles, that you think con tained in them, cannot tell whether you will allow them to be Christians, or no. For you know, sir, several infer ences are often drawn from the same text: and the dif ferent systems of dissenting (I was going to say christians, but that none must be so, but those who receive your collection of fundamentals, when you please to give it them) professors are all founded on the scripture, Why, I beseech you, is mine a foolish question to ask, " What are the necessary articles of faith?" It is of no less consequence than, nor much different from the Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c.
jailer's question in the sixteenth of the Acts, " What shall " I do to be saved?" And that was not, that ever I heard, counted by any one a foolish question. You grant, there are articles necessary to be belived for sal vation: Would it not then be wisdom to know them? Nay, is it not our duty to know arid believe them? If not, why do you, with so much outcry, reprehend me, for not knowing them? Why do you fill your books with such variety of invectives, as if you could never say enough, nor bad enough against me, for having left out some of them? And, if it be so dangerous, so criminal to miss any of them. Why is it a folly in me, to move you to give me a complete list?
If fundamentals are to be known, easy to be known, (as without doubt, they are,) then a catalogue may be given of them. But, if they are not, if it cannot cer tainly be determined, which are they; but the doubtful knowledge of them depends upon guesses; Why may not I be permitted to follow my guesses, as well as you yours? Or why, of all others, must you prescribe your guesses to me, when there are so many that are as ready to prescribe as you, and of as good authority? The pre tence, indeed, and clamour is religion, and the saving of souls: but your business, it is plain, is nothing but to over-rule and prescribe, and be hearkened to as a dictator: and not to inform, teach, and instruct in the sure way to salvation. Why else do you so start and fling, when I desire to know of you, what is necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, when this is the only material thing in controversy between us; and my mistake in it has made you begin a quarrel with me, and let loose your pen against me in no ordinary way of reprehension?
Besides, in this way which you take, you will be in no better a case than I. For, another having as good a claim to have his guesses give the rule, as you yours; or to have his system received, as well as you yours; he will complain of you as well; and upon as good grounds, as you do of me; and (if he have but as much zeal for his orthodoxy, as you show for yours) in as civil, well-bred, and christian-like language.
A Second Vindication of the In the next place, pray tell me, Why would it be folly in you, to comply with what I require of you? Would it not be useful to me, to be set right in this matter? If so, Why is it folly in you to set me right? Consider me, if you please, as one of your parishioners, who (after you have resolved which catalogue of fundamentals to give him, either that in your " Thoughts of the Causes of " Atheism/' or this other here, in your " Socinianism " unmasked;" for they are not both the same, nor either of them perfect) asked you, " Are these all fundamental " articles necessary to be believed to make a man a " Christian; and are there no more but these?" Would you answer him, that it was folly in you to comply with him, in what he desired? Is it of no moment to know, what is required of men to be believed; with out a belief of which, they are not Christians, nor can be saved? And is it folly in a minister of the gospel, to in form one committed to his instruction, in so material a point as this, which distinguishes believers from unbe lievers? Is it folly in one, whose business it is to bring men to be Christians, and to salvation, to resolve a ques tion, by which they may know, whether they are christians or no; and, without a resolution of which, they cannot certainly know their condition, and the state they are in? Is it besides your commission and business, and therefore a folly, to extend your care of souls so far as this, to those who are committed to your charge?
Sir, I have a title to demand this of you, as if I were your parishioner: you have forced yourself upon me for a teacher, in this very point, as if you wanted a pa rishioner to instruct: and therefore I demand it of you, and shall insist upon it, till you either do it, or confess you cannot. Nor shall it excuse you, to say it is capriciously required. For this is no otherwise ca pricious, than all questions are capricious to a man, that cannot answer them; and such an one, I think, this is to you. For, if you could answer it, nobody can doubt, but that you would, and that with confi dence: for nobody will suspect it is the want of that makes you so reserved. This is, indeed, a frequent way of answering questions, by men, that cannot otherwise Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 221 cover the absurdities of their opinions, and their inso lence of expecting to be believed upon their bare words, by saying they are capriciously asked, and deserve no other answer.
But how far soever capriciousness (when proved, for saying is not enough) may excuse from answering a ma terial question, yet your own words here will clear this from this being a capricious question in me. For that those texts of scripture which you have set down, do not, upon your own grounds, contain all the fundamental doctrines of religion, all that is necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian; what you say a little lower, in this very page, as well as in other places, does demon strate. Your words are, " I think I have sufficiently " proved, that there are other doctrines besides that " [Jesus is the Messiah] which are required to be believ-" ed to make a man a Christian; Why did the apostles " write these doctrines? Was it not, that those they writ " to, might give their assent to them?" This argument, for the necessity of believing the texts you cite from their being set down in the " New Testament," you urged thus, p. 9, " Is this set down to no purpose in these " inspired epistles? Is it not requisite that we should " know it and believe?" And again, p. 29> " they are in " our bibles to that very purpose, to be believed." If then it be necessary to know and believe those texts of scripture you have collected, because the apostles writ them, and they were not " set down to no purpose: and " they are set down in our bibles on purpose to be be-" lieved:" I have reason to demand of you other texts, besides those you have enumerated, as containing points necessary to be believed; because there are other texts which the apostles writ, and were not " set down to no " purpose, and are in our bibles, on purpose to be be-" lieved," as well as those which you have cited.
Another reason of doubting, and consequently of de manding, whether those propositions you have set down for fundamental doctrines, be every one of them necessary to be believed, and all that are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, I have from your next argu ment; which, joined to the former, stands thus, p. 22: A Second Vindication of the " Why did the apostles write these doctrines? Was it " not that those they writ to, might give their assent to " them? Nay, did they not require assent to them? " Yes verily; for this is to be proved from the nature " of the things contained in these doctrines, which are " such as had immediate respect to the occasion, aut( thor, way, means and issue, of their redemption and " salvation." If therefore all " things which have an " immediate respect to the occasion, author, way, " means and issue of men's redemption and salvation," are those and those only, which are necessary to be be lieved to make a man a Christian; may a man not justly doubt, whether those propositions, which the unmasker has set down, contain all those things, and whether there be not other things contained in other texts of scripture, or in some of those cited by him, but otherwise under stood, that have as immediate a " respect to the occa-" sion, author, way, means arid issue, of men's redemp-" tion and salvation," as those he has set down? and therefore I have reason to demand a completer list.
For at best, to tell us of " all things that have an im-" mediate respect to the occasion, author, way, means " and issue, of men's redemption and salvation," is but a general description of fundamentals, with which some may think some articles agree, and others, others: and the terms, " immediate respect," may give ground enough for difference about them, to those who agree that the rest of your description is right. My demand therefore is not a general description of fundamentals, but, for the reasons above mentioned, the particular ar ticles themselves, which are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian.
It is not my business at present, to examine the va lidity of these arguments of his, to prove all the proposi tions to be necessary to be believed, which he has here, in his " Socinianism unmasked," set down as such. The use I make of them now, is to show the reason they afford me to doubt, that those propositions, which he has given us, for doctrines necessary to be believed, are either not all such, or more than all, by his own rule: and therefore, I must desire him to give us a completer Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 223 creed, that we may know, what in his sense, is neces sary, and enough to make a man a Christian.
Nor will it be sufficient, in this case, to do what he tells us he has done, in these words, p. 21, "I have " briefly set before the reader those evangelical truths, " those Christian principles, which belong to the very " essence of Christianity;" and " I have reduced