The Works of John Locke, in Nine Volumes

"understand their religion:" p. 174, of my Vindication, 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 ob66 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?

Unm. "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 inference, 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 commonly propounded, are not generally agreed on, (he saith,) and are dubious and uncertain. But the believing 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.

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 believed 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 single 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 article 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; 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 comprehend 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.

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 unmasker's ability, or truth, who spends above two whole pages, 26, 27, in repetitions of the same assertion, 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 repetition; 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 unmasker's sake, put this argument of his into a syllogism. If the vindicator, in his vindication, attributes it to the goodness and condescension 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 exclusion 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 "Reasonableness of christianity, he pretended, that the reason why he contended for one

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, I desired to know when I said so. To which desire of mine, you reply in these words before cited: "Good sir, let me be permitted to acquaint "you, that your memory is as defective as your judg"ment; 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 unmasker 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,

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 christianity," which the unmasker 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, which was not then written. But this is nothing with an unmasker; therefore, what is yet worse, those words of mine, Vindication, p. 175, 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 between 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 before. 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."

Answ. The latter part, indeed, is now the first time imputed to me; but all the rest is nothing but an un

« Previous Continue »

Books

The Works of John Locke, in Nine Volumes, Volume 6