He tells me also in the same place, p. 104, that I deride mysteries. But for this he hath quoted neither words nor place: and where he does not do that, I have reason, from the frequent liberties he takes to impute to me what no-where appears in my books, to desire the reader to take what he says not to be true. For did he mean fairly, he might, by quoting my words, put all such matters of fact out of doubt; and not force me, so often as he does, to demand where it is: as I do now here again,

LI. Where it is that I deride mysteries?

66

His next words, p. 104, are very remarkable: they are, "O how he [the vindicator] grins at the spirit of " creed-making! p. 169, Vindic. The very thoughts of "which do so haunt him, so plague and torment him, "that he cannot rest until it be conjured down. And "here, by the way, seeing I have mentioned his rancour against systematic books and writings, I might "represent the misery that is coming upon all booksellers, if this gentleman and his correspondence go " on successfully. Here is an effectual plot to under"mine Stationers-hall; for all systems and bodies of

66

66

divinity, philosophy, &c. must be cashiered; what"soever looks like system must not be bought or sold. "This will fall heavy on the gentlemen of St. Paul's "church-yard and other places." Here the politic unmasker seems to threaten me with the posse of Paul's church-yard, because my book might lessen their gain in the sale of theological systems. I remember that " De"metrius the shrine-maker, which brought no small "gain to the craftsmen, whom he called together, with "the workmen of like occupation, and said to this "purpose: Sirs, ye know, that by this craft we have "our wealth: moreover ye see and hear, that this Paul "hath persuaded, and turned away much people, saying, "that they be no gods that are made with hands; so "that this our craft is in danger to be set at nought. "And when they heard these sayings, they were full of "wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the

"Ephesians." Have you, sir, who are so good at speechmaking, as a worthy successor of the silver-smith, regulating your zeal for the truth, and your writing divinity by the profit it will bring, made a speech to this purpose to the craftsmen, and told them, that I say, articles of faith, and creeds, and systems in religion, cannot be made by men's hands or fancies; but must be just such, and no other, than what God hath given us in the scriptures? And are they ready to cry out to your content, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians?" If you have well warmed them with your oratory, it is to be hoped they will heartily join with you, and bestir themselves, and choose you for their champion, to prevent the misery, you tell them, is coming upon them, in the loss of the sale of systems and bodies of divinity: for, as for philosophy, which you name too, I think you went a little too far; nothing of that kind, as I remember, hath been so much as mentioned. But, however, some sort of orators, when their hands are in, omit nothing, true or false, that may move those they would work upon. Is not this a worthy employment, and becoming a preacher of the gospel, to be a solicitor for Stationers-hall? And make the gain of the gentlemen of Paul's church-yard, a consideration for or against any book writ concerning religion? This, if it were ever thought on before, nobody but an unmasker, who lays all open, was ever so foolish as to publish. But here you have an account of his zeal: the views of gain are to measure the truths of divinity. Had his zeal, as he pretends in the next paragraph, no other aims, but the "defence of the gospel;" it is probable this controversy would have been managed after another fashion.

Whether what he says in the next, p. 105, to excuse his so often pretending to "know my heart and thoughts," will satisfy the reader, I shall not trouble myself. By his so often doing it again, in his Socinianism unmasked, I see he cannot write without it. And so I leave it to the judgment of the readers, whether he can be allowed to know other men's thoughts, who, on many occasions, seems not well to know his own. The railing in the remainder of this chapter I shall pass by, as I have done

a great deal of the same strain in his book: only to show how well he understands or represents my sense, I shall set down my words, as they are in the pages quotes, and his inferences from them.

Vindication, p. 171.

he

Socinianism Unmasked,

p. 108.

"The professed divines "of England, you must "know, are but a pitiful "sort of folks with this

66 I

great racovian rabbi. "He tells us plainly, that "he is not mindful of what "the generality of divines "declare for, p. 171. He "labours so concernedly

66

I know not but it may be true that the anti-trinitarians and racovians understand those places as I do; but it is more than I know, that they do so. took not my sense of those texts from those writers, but from the scripture itself, giving light to its own meaning, by one place compared with another. What, in this way, appears to me its true meaning, I shall not decline, because I am told, that it is so understood by the racovians, whom I never yet read; nor embrace the contrary, though the generality of divines I more converse with, should declare for it. If the sense wherein I understand those texts be a mistake, I shall be beholden to you, if you will set me right. But they are not popular authorities, or frightful names, whereby I judge of truth or falsehood.

66

66

to ingratiate himself with "the mob, the multitude (which he so often talks of) that he has no regard "tothese. The generality of "the rabble are more con"siderable with him than "the generality of divines."

He tells me here of the generality of divines. If he had aid of the church of England, I could have understood him but he says, "The professed divines of Eng"land;" and there being several sorts of divines in England, who, I think, do not every-where agree in their interpretations of scripture; which of them is it I must have regard to, where they differ? If he cannot tell me that, he complains here of me for a fault, which he himself knows not how to mend.

" itself." What! just these, neither more nor less? If you are sure of it, pray let us have them speedily, for the reconciling of differences in the christian church, which has been so cruelly torn about the articles of the christian faith, to the great reproach of christian charity, and scandal of our true religion.

Does the vindicator here "scoff at the matters of "faith contained in the epistles ?" or show the vain pretences of the unmasker: who undertakes to give us, out of the epistles, a collection of fundamentals, without being able to say, whether those he sets down be all or no?

Vindication, p. 176.

66

Socinianism Unmasked, p. 110.

"To coax the mob, he profanely brings in that "place of scripture; Have any of the rulers believed " in him?"

66

I hope you do not think, how contemptibly soever you speak of the venerable mob, as you are pleased to dignify them,p.117,that the bulk of mankind, or, in your phrase, the rabble, are not concerned in religion; or ought not to understand it, in order to their salvation. I remember the pharisees treated the common people with contempt; and said, "Have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees, believed " in him? But this people, who know not the law, are "cursed." But yet these, who in the censure of the pharisees, were cursed, were some of the poor, or, if you please to have it so, the mob, to whom the gospel

was preached by our Saviour, as he tells John's disciples, Matt. xi. 5.

Where the profaneness of this is, I do not see; unless some unknown sacredness of the unmasker's person make it profaneness to show, that he, like the pharisees of old, has a great contempt for the common people, i. e. the far greater part of mankind; as if they and their salvation were below the regard of this elevated rabbi. But this, of profaneness, may be well born from him, since in the next words my mentioning another part of his carriage is no less than irreligion.

66

Socinianism Unmasked,

66

p. 110. Ridiculously and irreligiously he pretends," that I prefer what he saith to me to what is offered to me from the word of God, p. 173.

Vindication, p. 173. He prefers what I say to him myself, to what is offered to him, from the word of God, and makes me this compliment, that I begin to mend about the close, i. e. when I leave off quoting of scripture, and the dull work was done" of going through the history of the Evangelists and the Acts," which he computes, p. 105, to take up three quarters of my book.

66

The matter of fact is as I relate it, and so is beyond pretence; and for this I refer the reader to the 105th and 114th pages of his "Thoughts concerning the "causes of atheism." But had I mistaken, I know not how he could have called it irreligiously. Make the worst of it that can be, how comes it to be irreligious? What is there divine in an unmasker, that one cannot pretend (true or false) that he prefers what I say, to what is offered him from the word of God, without doing it irreligiously? Does the very assuming the power to define articles, and determine who are, and who are not christians, by a creed not yet made, erect an unmasker presently into God's throne, and bestow on him the title of Dominus Deusque noster, whereby