A second vindication of The reasonableness of Christianity, &c, by the author of The reasonableness of Christinaity, &c.

A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c.

A Cause that stands in need of Falshoods to support it, and an Adversary that will make use of them deserve nothing but Con∣tempt; which I doubt not but every considerate Reader thought Answer enough to Mr. Edwards's Socinianism Unmask'd. But since in his late Socinian Creed, he says, I would have answer'd him if I could, That the Interest of Christianity may not suffer by my si∣lence, nor the contemptibleness of his Treatise afford him matter of Triumph amongst those who lay any weight on such boasting, 'tis fit it should be shewn what an Arguer he is, and how well he deserves for his Performance to be dubb'd by himself Irrefragable.

Those, who like Mr. Edwards, dare to publish Inventions of their own for Matters of Fact, deserve a name so ab∣horr'd, that it finds not room in civil Conversation. This secures him from the proper Answer due to his Imputa∣tions

to me in Print of Matters of Fact utterly false, which without any Reply of mine, fix upon him that Name (which without a profligate Mind, a Man cannot expose himself to) till he hath proved them. Till then he must wear what he has put upon himself. This being a Rule which common Ju∣stice hath prescribed to the private Judgments of Mankind, as well as to the publick Judicatures of Courts, That all Allegations of Fact brought by conten∣ding Parties should be presum'd to be false till they are proved.

There are two ways of making a Book unanswerable. The one is by the clearness, strength and fairness of the ar∣gumentation. Men who know how to write thus, are above bragging what they have done, or boasting to the World that their Adversaries are ba••••led. Another way to make a Book unanswerable, is to lay stress on Matters of Fact foreign to the Question, as well as to Truth; and to stuff it with Scurrility and Fiction. This hath been always so evident to common sense, that no Man who had any regard to Truth or Ingenuity,

ever thought Matters of Fact besides the Argument, and Stories made at pleasure, the way of managing Con∣troversies. Which shewing only the want of Sense and Argument, could, if used on both sides, and in nothing but downright railing: And he must always have the better of the Cause, who has Lying and Impudence on his side.

The Unmasker in the Entrance of his Book, s••ts a great distance between his and my way of Writing. I am not sorry that mine differs so much as it does from his. If it were like his, I should think, like his, it wanted the Author's Commendations. For, in his first Paragraph, which is all laid out in his own Testimony of his own Book, he so earnestly bes••eaks an opi∣nion of Mastery in Politeness, Order, Coherence, Pertinence, Strength, Se∣riousness, Temper, and all the good Qualities requisite in Controversie, that I think, since he pleases himself so much with his own good opinion, one in pity ought not to go about to rob him of so considerable an Admirer. I shall not therefore contest any of those Ex∣cellencies

he ascribes to himself, or Faults he blames in me in the ma∣nagement of the Dispute between us, any further than as particular Passages of his Book, as I come to examine them, shall suggest unavoidable Re∣marks to me. I think the World does not so much concern it self about him or me, that it need be told, in that Inventory he has given of his own good Parts in his first Paragraph, which of us two has the better hand at Flou∣rishes, Iesting, and Common-Places; If I am, as he says, pag. 2. troubled with angry Fits and passionate Ferments, which though I strive to palliate, are easily dis∣cernable, &c. and he be more lauda∣bly Ingenuous in the openness of that Temper, which he shews in every Leaf, I shall leave to him the entire glory of boasting of it. Whatever we brag of our Performances, they will be just as they are, however he may think to add to his by his own Enco∣miums of them. The difference in Stile, Order, Coherence, good Bree∣ding (for all those amongst others the Unmasker mentions) the Reader will observe, whatever I say of them: and

at best they are nothing to the question in hand. For, though I am a Tool, Pert, Childish, Starch'd, Impertinent, Incoherent, Trifling, Weak, Passionate, &c. Commendations I meet with before I get to the 4th. Page, besides what fol∣lows as Upstart Racovian, p. 24. Flourish∣ing Scribler, p. 41. Dissembler, 106. Pe∣dantick, 107. I say, although I am all this, and what else he liberally be∣stows on me in the rest of his Book, I may have truth on my side, and that in the present case serves my turn.

Having thus placed the Laurels upon his own Head, and sung Applause to his own Performance, he, pag. 4. en∣ters, as he thinks, upon his Business, which ought to be, as he confesses, pag. 3. to make good his former charges. The first whereof he sets down in these words. That I unwarrantably crowded all the necessary Articles of Faith into one, with a design of favouring Soci∣nianism.

If it may be permitted to the sub∣dued to be so bold with one, who is already Conqueror, I desire to know, where that Proposition is laid down in these terms as laid to my Charge.

Whether it be true, or false, shall, if he pleases, be hereafter examined: But it is not at present the Matter in que∣stion. There are certain Propositions, which he having affirm'd and I denied, are under debate between us: And that the Dispute may not run into an endless ramble by multiplying of new before the Points in contest are de∣cided, those ought first to be brought to an issue.

To go on therefore in the order of his Socinianism Unmask'd (for p. 3. he has out of the Mishna taught me good Breeding, to answer the First first, and so in order) the next thing he has a∣gainst me, is p. 5. which, that the Reader may understand the force of, I must inform him, that in the 105. p. of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism, he said, that I give this plau∣sible 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 Iesus is the Messiah.

This I denied. To make it good, Socinianism Unmask'd, p. 5. he thus argues, First, It is obser∣vable, 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 his Matter was exhausted, and he had nothing else to say, Vind. p. 38. then he bethinks himself of this salvn, &c. Answ. As if a Falshood were ever the less a Falshood, because it was not op∣posed; or would grow into a Truth if it were not taken notice of, before the 38th. Page of the Answer. I de∣sire him to shew me these formal words over and over again in my Reasonable∣ness of Christianity: Nor let him hope to evade by saying, I would be shift∣ing by excepting against the formality of the words.

To say that I have over and over again those formal words in my Book, is an Assertion of a Matter of Fact, let him produce the words, and justifie his Allegation; or confess, that this is an Untruth publish'd to the World: And since he makes so bold with Truth in a Matter visible to every Body, let the World be Judge, what Credit is to be given to his Allegations of Mat∣ters of Fact, in things foreign to what

I have Printed; and that are not ca∣pable of a Negative Proof. A sample whereof the Reader has at the entrance in his Introducti••••, Page A 4, and the three or four following Pages. Where he affirms to the World not only what I know to be false; but what 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 confi∣dently affirms what he does not know, no body need be told.

But he adds, I had before Pleaded to the Indictment, and thereby owned it to be true. This is to make good his Promise, p. 3. to keep at a distance from my feeble strugglings. Here this strong Arguer must prove, that what is not answer'd or deny'd in the very beginning of a Reply, or before the 38th. 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 the examining to see in my Vindication, from p. 26. to 31. wherein is con∣tain'd, what I have said about one Article, whether I have owned,

what he charged me with, on that Subject.

This Proposition then remains up∣on him still to be proved, viz.

I.

That I have over and over again these formal words in my Reaso∣nableness of Christianity, viz. That nothing is required to be be∣lieved by any Christian Man, but this, That Iesus is the Messiah.

He goes on pag. 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, pag. 3. To clear his Book from those sorry Objections and Cavils I had raised against it. Several of my sorry Objections and Cavils were to re∣present to the Reader, that a great part of what he said was nothing but Suspicions and Conjectures, and such he could not but then own them to be. But now he has rid himself of all his Conjectures, and has raised them up

into direct positive Affirmations, which being said with Confidence without Proof, who can deny, but he has clear'd, throughly clear'd that part from my sorry Objections and Cavils? He says it was the main Work I set my self 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 him∣self 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 or more. It is no Argument from what a Man has found, to prove what was his main Work to find, un∣less where his aim was only to find what there was, whether more or less. For a Writer may find the Reputation of a poor contemptible Railer; Nay, of a downright impudent Lyar, and yet no body will think it was his main work to find that. Therefore Sir, if you will not find what 'tis 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 se∣cond, viz.

II.

That the main Business I set my self about, was to find but one Article of Faith.

In the following part of this Sen∣tence, 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 vouch∣safed to do so, concerning one Article, wherewith he has made so much noise. My words in pag. 192. of my Reaso∣nableness of Christianity, stand thus;

For that this is the sole Doctrine pressed and required to be believed in the whole tenor of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching, we have shew'd through the whole History of the Evan∣lists and Acts, and I challenge them to shew that there was any other Doctrine upon their assent to which, or disbelief of it, Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers, and accordingly recei∣ved into the Church of Christ, as Members of his Body, as far as mere Believing could make them so; or else kept out. This was the only Go∣spel

Article of Faith which was prea∣ched 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 tenor of our Saviour's and his Apostles preaching, p. 129. this was the ONLY Gospel Article of Faith which was preach'd to them.

I shall pass by all other Observa∣tions, that this way of citing these words would suggest, and only re∣mark, that if he brought these words to prove the immediately preceding Assertion of his, viz. That to find but one Article of Faith was the main Work I set my self about. This Argument re∣duced into form will stand thus.

He who says, that this is the sole Doctrine pressed and required to be believed, in the whole tenor of our Saviour's and his Apostles Preaching, upon their assent to which, or dis∣belief of it, Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers, and ac∣cordingly received into the Church of Christ, as Members of his Body, as far as mere believing could make them so, or else kept out, sets him∣self

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 De∣claimer, exempt from being called strictly to an Account for what he so loosely says, and from proving what he should be called to Account for. Rail lustily, is a good Rule, something of it will stick, true or false, proved or not proved.

If he alledges these words of mine, to answer my Demand, Vind. p. 27. 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 shew'd through the whole History of the Evangelists, and the Acts, that this is the sole Doctrine, or only Gospel-Article pressed and re∣quired to be believed in the whole

Tenor of our Saviour and his Apo∣stles Preaching; upon their assent to which, or disbelieving of it, Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers, and accordingly re∣ceived 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 exclu∣sion of any oth••r Doctrinal or Histo∣rical Truth contained in the Scripture: And therefore it remains still on the Unmasker to shew where 'tis I express any de••iance of any other Truth con∣tain'd 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 Conten∣tion 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 hap∣pen 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 Sa∣viour and his Apostles admitted Men into the Church upon the believing him to be the Messiah, does thereby ex∣clude 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 annext 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, Soci∣nianism Unmask'd, pag. 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 Prin∣ciple 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 mean∣ing (which it must be, if he meant any thing to the purpose,) viz. That when he charged me so often and po∣sitively for contesting for one Article, viz. that Iesus 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.

Answ. How should I know it? he never told me so either in his Book, or otherwise. This I know, that he said, pag. 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 Iesus 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 ex∣cluded

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 Iesus being the Messiah, was required to make a Man a Be∣liever. The Believing in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, is one Article; and in Iesus 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 Chri∣stian, let us see with what truth or in∣genuity the Unmasker could apply, be∣sides that above-mention'd, these fol∣lowing Expressions to me, as he does without any exception. Why then must there be one Article, and no more? pag. 115. Going to make a Religion for his Mermidons, he contracts all into one Article, and will trouble them with no more, pag. 117. Away with Systems, away with Creeds, let us have but one

Article, though it be with the defiance of all the rest, pag. 118. Thus we see why he reduces all Belief to that one Ar∣ticle before rehearsed, pag. 120. And all this without any the least Excep∣tion of the Article of a Deity, as he now pretends. Nor could he indeed, as is evident from his own words, pag. 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:— But if these learned Men were not pre∣judiced— they would perceive, that when the Catholick Faith is thus brought down to one single Article, it will soon be reduced to none, the Unite will dwindle into a Cypher. By which the Reader may see, that his Intention was, to persuade the World, that I re∣duced ALL BELIEF, the CATHO∣LICK FAITH (they are 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, Unite, and Cypher, with which he winds up all, had been utterly lost, and dwindled into palpable Nonsence.

To demonstrate that this was the sence he would be understood in, we are but to observe what he says again, pag. 50. of his Socinianism Unmask'd, where he tells his Readers, That I, and my Friends, have new-modell'd the A∣postles Creed; yea indeed, have pre∣sented them with ONE Article, instead of TWELVE. And hence we may see what Sincerity there is in the Rea∣son 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.

Answ. Ergo, He did not in positive words, without any exception, say, I reduced All Belief, the Catholick 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 Catholick Faith, ALL which he af∣firm'd 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 pag. 50. of his Socinia∣nism Unmask'd, where he says, That I have new-modell'd the Apostles Creed, and presented the World with ONE Ar∣ticle instead of TWELVE, be an In∣terpretation of them. For if the Ar∣ticle of One Eternal God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, be one of the Ar∣ticle of the Apostles Creed, and the one Article I presented them with be not that, 'tis plain, he did and would be un∣derstood to mean, that by my one Ar∣ticle, I excluded that of the One Eter∣nal God, which Branch soever of Re∣ligion, either Natural or Revealed, it belongs to.

I do not endeavour to persuade the Reader, as he says, p. 6. that he mis∣understood me; but yet every body will see, that he mis-represented me. And I challenge him to say, that those Expressions above quoted out of him, concerning One Article, in the obvious sence 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: Accor∣dingly this was it which I taxed him with, That of all the Principles and Ar∣ticles 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 ta••ed me, That of all the Principles and Articles of Christia∣nity I chose out but One: Let him shew 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 general∣ly; misled his Reader, and left him∣self a Subterfuge. But if there be no Expression to be found in him tending that way, all this is but the covering of one Falshood 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 further 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 be∣ing that of a Deity, his words plain∣ly import, that that was left out a∣mong the rest, unless it be possible for a Man to chuse but One Article of the Christian Religion, viz. That Iesus is the Messiah; and at the same time to chuse Two Articles of the Christian Religion, viz. That there is One E∣ternal God, and that Iesus is the Mes∣siah. If he had spoken clearly, and like a fair Man, he should have said, That he taxed me with chusing but One Article of Revealed Religion. That had been plain and direct to his purpose: But then he knew the Falshood 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 limita∣tion or restriction; and as they stand in him, fit to persuade the Reader that I excluded all other Articles whatso∣ever, but that one of Iesus the Mes∣siah: And if in that sence they are not true, they are so many Falshoods of his repeated there, to mislead others into a wrong Opinion of me. For if he had had a mind his Readers should have been rightly informed, why was it not as easie 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 pos∣sible, without any the least limitation in the whole Discourse, to have no∣thing

else to plead when required to prove it, but that it was meant in a limited sence, in an Unmasker, is not shuffling. 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 an 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 received; That all his Be∣lief was comprised in this one single Ar∣ticle: And when such a Talker was demanded 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 expressed) they will still and for ever remain to be accounted 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 ne∣cessary; which is not now denied: I had also said,

That the Belief of Iesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, together with those concomitant Articles of his Resurrection, Rule, and coming again to Judge the World, was necessary, p. 291. And again, p. 301. That God had de∣clared, whoever would believe Iesus to be the Saviour promised, and take him now raised from the Dead, and constituted the Lord and Judge of all Men, to be their King and Ruler, shall 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 contended 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, overlook what does not please him,

the words, THESE ARE ARTICLES, were printed in great Characters. Whereupon he makes this Remark, p. 7. And though since he has tried to split this One into Two, pag. 28. yet he labours in vain: For to believe Iesus to be the Messiah, amounts to the same with believing him to be King and Ruler; his being Anointed (i. e. being the Mes∣siah) including that in it: Yet he has the vanity to add in great Characters, THESE ARE ARTICLES; as if the putting them into these great letters, would make One Article Two.

Answ. 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 more than One Article, and may very properly be called THESE ARTICLES, with∣out splitting One into Two.

What, in my Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, I have said of One Article, I shall always own; and in what sence I said it, is easie to be understood; and

with a Man of the least Candour, whose Aim was Truth, and not Wrang∣ling, it would not have occasion'd one word of Dispute. But as for this Un∣masker, who made it his business not to convince me of any Mistakes in my Opinion, but barely to mis-represent me; my business at present with him, is, to shew the World, that what he has captiously and scurrilously said of me relating to One Article, is false; and 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 Mean∣ing against his direct Words: Such a Caviller as he, who would shelter him∣self under the pretence of a Meaning, whereof there are no Footsteps, whose Disputes are only Calumnies directed against the Author, without examin∣ing the Truth of Falshood of what I had published, is not to expect the Al∣lowances one would make to a fair and ingenuous Adversary, who shew'd so much Concern for Truth, that he treated of it with a Seriousness due to the weightiness of the Matter, and used other Arguments besides Obloquy,

Clamour and Falshoods, against what he thought Error. And therefore I again positively demand of him to prove these words of his to be true, or confess that he cannot: Viz.

III.

That I contend for One Article of Faith, with the exclusion and de∣fiance of all the rest.

Two other Instances of this sort of Arguments I gave in the 29th. Page of my Vindication, out of the 115th. and 119th. Pages of his Thoughts con∣cerning the Causes of Atheism, and I here demand of him again to shew, 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 levelled to all Mens Mother Wit, and every common Apprehension.

Or where he finds, in my Reasona∣nableness of Christianity, this other Pro∣position:

V.

That the very manner of every thing in Christianity must be clear and intel∣ligible; every thing must immedi∣ately be comprehended by the weakest Noddle, or else it is no part of Re∣ligion, espicially of Christianity.

These things he must prove that I have said: I put it again upon him to shew where I said them, or else to confess the Forgery: For till he does one or t'other, he shall be sure to have these, with a large Catalogue of other Falshoods, laid before him.

Pag. 25. of his Socinianism Unmask'd, he endeavours to make good his say∣ing, that I set up One Article, with de∣fiance of all the rest, in these words; For what is excluding them wholly, but defying them? Wherefore, seeing he ut∣terly excludes all the rest, by represent∣ing them as USELESS to the making •• Man a Christian, which is the design of his whole Undertaking, 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 who∣ever,

but he, thought that a bare Ex∣clusion, or passing by, was Defiance? If he understands it so, I would ad∣vise him not to seek Preferment. For Exclusions will happen; and if every Exclusion be Defiance, a Man had need be well assured of his own good Tem∣per, 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 signifie a professed Enmity to it. For in its proper use, which is to Persons, it signifies an open and declared En∣mity raised to that height, that he in whom it is, challenges the Party de∣fied to Battle, that may there wreek his hatred on his Enemy in his De∣struction. 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 ••ansying what would be for his turn, and then confidently fathering it upon me. It never en∣ter'd 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 funda∣mental Articles of the Christian Faith were useless to make a Man a Chri∣stian; though, if it be true, that the Belief of the Fundamentals alone (be they few or many) is all that is neces∣sary 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 pro∣pose to him, and leave it with him to be shew'd, Where it is,

VI.

I have represented all the rest as useless to the making a Man a Chri∣stian? And, How it appears, that this is the design of my whole Un∣dertaking?

In his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism, he says, pag. 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 rea∣soning

I disowned p. 26. of my Vindi∣cation, and intimated p. 27. that he should have quoted the Page where I so pretended. To this p. 26. he tells me with great confidence, and in abun∣dance of words, as we shall see by and by, that I had done so: As if repe∣tition 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. 301. of the Reasonableness of Christianity. The all merciful God seems herein to have consul∣ted the poor of this World, and the bulk of Mankind. THESE ARE ARTICLES that the labouring and illiterate Man may comprehend. 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 Reli∣gion, i. e. The Reason I gave, why there was to be but one single Article in Religion with the exclusion of all the rest, was, because Men ought to under∣stand 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 Ar∣ticle, and say these Articles. Whe∣ther I said These Articles properly or improperly, it matters not in the pre∣sent case (and that we have examin'd in another place) 'tis plain, I meant more than one Article, when I said these Articles; and did not think, that the labouring and illiterate Man could not understand them, if they were more than one: And therefore I pre∣tended not, that there must be but one, because by illiterate Men more than one could not be understood. The rest of this Paragraph is nothing but a repetition of the same Assertion with∣out Proof, which with the Unmasker often passes for a way of proving, but with no body 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 Proofs. 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 pretended that I contended for one single Article with the exclusion of all the rest, because all Men ought to un∣derstand their Religion. Pag. 27. of my Vindication, I denied that I had so pre∣tended. To convince me that I had, thus he proceeds.

Unmasker. He founds his Conceit of one Article partly upon this, tha•• a multitude of Doctrines is obscure, 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, shew 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. 27.

Answ. This is to say, that it is in my Book. You have said it more than once already; I demand of you to shew 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 Christian Men with no more, but one Article: BECAUSE that is in∣telligible, and all people high and low may comprehend it.

Answ. We have heard it affirm'd by you over and over again, but the que∣stion still is, where is that way of ar∣guing to be found in my Book?

Unm. For he has chosen out, as he thinks, a plain and easie Article. Where∣as the others, which are commonly pro∣pounded, are not generally agreed on (he saith), and are dubious and uncer∣tain. But the believing that Iesus was the Messiah has nothing of doubtfulness, or obscurity in it.

Answ. The word For in the begin∣ning 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 signifie, that I trouble Men with no more but one Ar∣ticle because one only 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 easie 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 toge∣ther: and spins it out after his way, in p. 301. of his Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, where he sets down the

short, plain, easie and intelligible Sum∣mary (as he calls it) of Religion, couch'd in a single Article: He im∣mediately 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 illiterate Man may comprehend.

Answ. If my insisting on it so long to∣gether, was the cause why, in your Thoughts of the Causes of Atheism, you did not quote any single Passage; methinks here, in your Socinianism Un∣mask'd, where you knew it was ex∣pected 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 un∣derstood the better; the generality of the 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 he desires to know, when he said so, p. 29. Vindic.

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 repeti∣tions of the same Assertion, without the producing any but one place, for Proof, and that too against him as I have shewn. But he has not yet done with confounding me by dint of repe∣tition; he goes on.

Unm. Good Sir, let me be permitted to acquaint you, that your Memory is as defective as your Iudgment.

Answ. I thank you for the regard you have had to it; for often repeti∣tion is a good help to a bad memory. In requital, I advise you to have some eye to your own Memory and Iudg∣ment too. For one or both of them seem a little to blame in the reason you subjoyn to the foregoing words, viz.

Unm. For in the very Vindication you attribute it to the goodness and con∣descention of the Almighty, that he re∣quires nothing as absolutely necessary to be believed, but what is suited to vul∣gar capacities, and the comprehension of illiterate Men.

Answ. I will for the Unmasker's sake put this Argument of his into a Syllo∣gism. If the Vindicator in his Vindi∣cation attributes it to the goodness and condescenssion 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 Reasonable∣ness of Christianity pretend, that the reason why he contended for one Ar∣ticle with the exclusion of all the rest was, because all Men ought to under∣stand their Religion.

But the Vindicator in his Vindica∣tion attributes it to the goodness and condescention 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 Chri∣stianity, 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 pro∣ved, and which as he confesses here

p. 26. I denied to remember to be in my Reasonableness of Christianity. Who can but admire his Logick!

But besides the strength of Iudgment, which you have shew'd in this clear & cogent reasoning, does not your Memory too deserve its due applause? You tell me in your Socinianism Unmask'd, that in p. 29. of my Vindication, I desired to know when I said so. To which de∣sire of mine you reply in these words before cited, Good Sir, Let me be per∣mitted to acquaint you that your Memory is as defective as your Iudgment; for in the very Vindication you attribute it to the goodness and condescention 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 Vindi∣cation, i. e. when I writ the 29th. Page, I asked the question when I had said what he charg'd me with saying,

and I am answer'd, I had said it in the 30th. Page, which was not yet written, i. e. I ask the question to day WHEN I had said so: and I am an∣swer'd, I had said it to Morrow. As apposite, and convincing an Answer to make good his charge, as if he had said to Morrow I found a Horse-shooe. But perhaps this judicious Disputant will ease himself of this difficulty by looking again into the 29th. p. 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 vouch∣safes 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 Rea∣sonableness 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 Christia∣nity, which the Unmasker had seen, and charged with this saying; and could not referr 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, Vindic. p. 29. 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 levell'd to all Mens Mother Wit: Both which he falsly charges on me, but 'tis only to the latter of them, that my words I desire to know where I said so are ap∣ply'd.

Perhaps the well-meaning Man sees no difference between these two Pro∣positions, 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. 'Tis his privilege to plead he did not mean as his words import, and without any more ado he is assoil'd; 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 Capacities: Where∣as the other Articles, mentioned by me, are obscure and ambiguous, and there∣fore surpass the comprehension of the il∣literate.

Answ. The latter part indeed is now the first time imputed to me. But all the rest is nothing but an unproved repetition, though usher'd 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 ••orgot, and notwithstanding all your pains by so

many repetitions to beat it into my Head, I fear I shall never remember it.

Unm. Which shews that you are care∣less of your words, and that you forget what you write.

Answ. So you told me before, and this repeating of it does no more con∣vince me, than that did.

Unm. What shall we say to such an oblivious Author?

Answ. Shew it him in his Book, or else he will never be able to remember, that it is there, nor any body else b•• 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 shew∣ing 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. 'Tis 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 him∣self

the Lye, unless you set down their Numbers, and the words in them, which confute, and which are con∣suted.

I beg my Reader's pardon for laying before him so large a pattern of our Un∣masker's new fashioned Stuff; his fine Tissue of argumentation not easily to be match'd, but by the same Hand. But it lay altogether 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 op∣position to my Impertinencies, Inco∣herencies, weak and feeble struglings. Other Excellencies he there promised upon the same ground, which I shall give my Reader a tast of, in fit pla∣ces. Not but that the whole is of a piece, and one cannot miss some of them in every Page: But to tran∣scribe them all, would be more than they are worth. If any one desires more plenty, I send him to his Book it self. But saying a thousand times not being proving once, it remains up∣on him still to shew,

VII.

Where, in my Reasonableness of Christianity, I pretend that I contend for one single Article, with the exclusion of all the rest, be∣cause 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 Chri∣stianity that is not plain and ex∣actly level to all Mens 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 Articl. has made me trespass a little against the Iewish Character of a well-bred Man, recommended by him to me out of the Mishna. Though I propose to my self to follow him, as near as I can, step by step, as he proceeds.

In the 110th. and 111th. Pages of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of A∣theism, he gave us a List of his Fun∣damental Articles: Upon which I thus applied my self to him, Vind. p. 5.

Give me leave now to ask you se∣riously, whether these you have here set down under the title of Fundamental Doctrines are such (when reduced to Propositions) that every one of them is requi∣red to make a Man a Christian, and such as without the actual be∣lief thereof, he cannot be saved? If they are not so every one of them, you may call them Fundamental Do∣ctrines 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 Chri∣stian. And again, Vindic. p. 18. I asked him whether just these nei∣ther more nor less were those ne∣cessary Articles.

To which we have his Answer, So∣cinianism Unmask'd, 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 Evangelical Truths, those Christian Principles which belong to the very Essence of Christia∣nity: I have proved them to be such, and I have reduced most of them to certain Propositions, which is a thing the Vindicator called for.

Answ. Yes; But that was not all the Vindicator called for, and had rea∣son to expect. For I asked,

whether those the Unmasker gave us in his Thoughts concerning the Causes of A∣theism, were the Fundamental Do∣ctrines 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 till he does it, or confesses he cannot. For having set down the Articles, which the Scrip∣ture upon a diligent search seem'd to me to require as necessary, and only necessary, I shall not lose my time in examining, what another says against those Fundamentals, which I have ga∣ther'd out of the Preachings of our

Saviour and his Apostles, till he gives me a List of his Fundamentals, which he will bide 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 Satisfaction 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 determin'd, that it would be the greatest folly imaginable to part with this Rule for asking; and give up my self 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 Col∣lection of Fundamentals only to un∣settle me, and not to give me a better of his own, I shall not think worth minding, till, like a fair Man, he puts himself upon equal terms, and makes up the Defects of mine by a compleat one of his own. For a deficiency or error in one necessary is as fatal, and

as certainly excludes a Man from be∣ing a Christian, as in an hundred. When any one offers me a compleat 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 chuse the true and perfect one, and relinquish the other.

He that does not do this, plainly de∣clares, that (without shewing 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 Occasion; and in effect, says thus,

Distrust those Fundamentals which the Preaching of our Sa∣viour, and his Apostles, have shew'd to be all that is necessary to be be∣lieved 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 compleat List, the

Defects of your Fundamentals.

To which this is a sufficient Answer, Si quid novisti rectius imperti, si non, his ut ere 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 Unmask'd: But in a great pet refuses to tell me, whether this Second List of Fundamentals be com∣pleat: And instead of answering so reasonable a Demand, pays me with ill Language, in these words, pag. 22. subjoyn'd 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 re∣quire 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 your self were the oc∣casion of it. I proposed my Colle∣ction 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 perfect? Thereupon you grow into Choler, and tell me 'tis a foo∣lish Question. Why! then I think it was not very wise in you so forwardly to offer one, unless you had 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 your self? nor are yet resolved with your self, what Doctrines are to be put in, or left out of it? Farther, pray tell me, if you had a settled Collection of Fundamen∣tals, that you would stand to, why should I take them from you upon your word, rather than from an Ana∣baptist, or a Quaker, or an Arminian, or a Socinian, or a Lutheran, or a Pa∣pist? 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 believe upon his bare word, as an Unmasker, who to my certain knowledge will make bold with Truth. If you set up for Infalli∣bility, you may have some claim to

have your bare word taken, before any other but the Pope. But yet if you do demand to be an unquestionable Proposer of what is absolutely neces∣sary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, you must perform it a lit∣tle better, than hitherto you have done. For it is not enough sometimes to give us Texts of Scripture; Some∣times Propositions of your own fra∣ming; and sometimes Texts of Scrip∣ture 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 Propositions as these, and then in both places set down, what you think fit to draw out of them. And Page 15. you have these words: And here likewise it were easie to shew that Adoption, Iustifica∣tion, Pardon of Sins, &c. which are Privileges and Benefits bestow'd upon us by the Messiah, are Necessary Matters of our Belief. By all which, as well as the whole frame, wherein you make shew of giving us your Funda∣mental

Articles, it is plain, that what you have given us there, is nothing less than a compleat Collection of Fundamentals, even in your own Opi∣nion 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 Ne∣cessary Articles has raised your Zeal into so severe Censures, and drawn upon me from you so heavy a Con∣demnation, that if half that you have said of me be true, I am in a very ill case, for having so curtailed the Fun∣damental Doctrines of Christianity. Is it folly then for me to ask from you a compleat Creed? If it be so dange∣rous (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 De∣mand? a short Faith, defective in Ne∣cessaries, is no more tolerable in you, than in me; nay, much more inexcuse∣able, if it were for no other reason, but this, that you rest in it your self, and would impose it on others; and

yet do not your self know or be∣lieve it to be compleat. For if you do, why dare you not say so, and give it us all entire in plain Proposi∣tions? and not, as you have in 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 understand those Texts alike, and some may draw Articles out of them quite different from your Systeme; 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 contain'd in them, cannot tell whether you will allow them to be Christians, or no. For you know, Sir, several Inferences are often drawn from the same Text; and the different Systems of dissenting (I was going to say Christians, but that none must be so, but those who receive your Col∣lection 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? 'Tis of no less consequence than, nor much different from the Jaylor's Question in the 16th. 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 believed for Salvation: would it not then be Wis∣dom to know them? nay, is it not our Duty to know and believe them? If not, why do you with so much outcry reprehend me, for not know∣ing 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 compleat List?

If Fundamentals are to be known, easie to be known (as without doubt they are) then a Catalogue may be given of them. But if they are not, if it cannot certainly be determin'd 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 pretence in∣deed, and clamour is Religion, and the Saving of Souls: But your Busi∣ness 'tis plain is nothing, but to over∣rule, and prescribe, and be hearken'd 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 Contro∣versie between us, and my Mistakes in it has made you begin a quarrel with me, and let loose your Pen a∣gainst me in no ordinary way of re∣prehension?

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 recei∣ved,

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 shew for yours) in as civil, well-bred and Christian-like Language.

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 Parishio∣ners, who (after you have resolv'd which Catalogue of Fundamentals to give him, either that in your Thoughts of the Causes of Atheism; or this other here in your Socinianism Unmask'd, for they are not both the same, nor ei∣ther of them perfect) asked you, are these all Fundamental Articles necessa∣ry 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; without a belief

of which they are not Christians, nor can be saved? And is it folly in a Mi∣nister of the Gospel to inform one committed to his Instruction in so material a Point as this, which distin∣guishes Believers from Unbelievers? Is it folly in one whose Business it is to bring Men to be Christians, and to Salvation, to resolve a Question by which they may know, whether they are Christians or no, and without a resolution of which they cannot cer∣tainly know their Condition and the state they are in? Is it besides your Commission and Business, and there∣fore 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 your self upon me for a Teacher in this very Point, as if you wanted a Parishioner to in∣struct: 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 ca∣priciously required. For this is no otherwise capricious, than all Que∣stions

are capricious to a Man that can∣not answer them: and such an one I think this is to you. For if you could answer it, no body can doubt, but that you would; and that with con∣fidence: For no body will suspect 'tis the want of that makes you so reser∣ved. This is indeed a frequent way of answering Questions by men, that cannot otherwise cover the Absurdi∣ties of their Opinions, and their in∣solence of expecting to be believed upon their bare words, by saying they are capriciously asked, and deserved no other Answer.

But how far soever Capriciousness (when proved, for saying is not enough) may excuse from answering a material Question, yet your own words here will clear this from 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 Funda∣mental 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 demonstrate,

Your words are, I think I have suffi∣ciently proved, that there are other Do∣ctrines besides that [Jesus is the Mes∣siah] which are required to be believed 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 Argu∣ment 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 in our Bibles on purpose to be belie∣ved, I have reason to demand of you other Texts, besides those you have enumerated, as containing Points ne∣cessary 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 pur∣pose

to be believed, as well as those which you have cited.

Another reason of doubting, and consequently of demanding, 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 belie∣ved to make a Man a Christian, I have from your next Argument which join'd to the former stands thus, p. 22. Why did the Apostles write these Do∣ctrines? 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 those Doctrines which are such as had immediate respect to the Occasion, Au∣thor, Way, Means and Issue of their Redemption and Salvation. If there∣fore all things which have an immediate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means, and Issue of Mens Redemption and Salvation are those, and those only which are necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, may a Man not justly doubt, whether those Pro∣positions which the Unmasker has set

down, contain all those things, and whether there be not other things con∣tain'd in other Texts of Scripture, or in some of those cited by him, but otherwise understood, that have as immediately a respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means, and Issue of Mens Redemption and Salvation, as those he has set down? And therefore I have reason to demand a compleater List. For at best, to tell us, that all things that have an immediate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means, and Issue Issue of Mens Redemption and Salvation, is but a general Description of Funda∣mentals, with which some may think some Articles agree, and others others: And the terms immediate respect may give ground enough for difference a∣bout 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 abovementioned, the par∣ticular Articles themselves, which are necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian.

It is not my Business at p••••sent to examine the validity of these Argu∣ments

of his, to prove all the Propo∣sitions to be necessary to be believed, which he has here in his Socinianism Unmask'd, set down as such. The use I make of them now, is to shew the reason, they afford me to doubt, that those Propositions, which he has given us for Doctrines necessary to be belie∣ved, are either not all such, or more than all, by his own rule: And there∣fore I must desire him to give us a compleater Creed, that we may know, what in his sense is necessary, and enough to make a Man a Chri∣stian.

Nor will it be sufficient in this case to do, what he tells us, that he has done, in these words, p. 21. I have briefly set before the Reader, these E∣vangelical Truths, Those Christian Prin∣ciples which belong to the very Essence of Christianity— and I have reduced most of them to certain Propositions, which is a thing the Vindicator called for, p. 16. With Submission, I think, he mistakes the Vindicator. What I called for was, not that most of them, should be reduced to certain Proposi∣tions, but that all of them should: and

the reason of my demanding that was plain, viz. that then having the Unmasker's Creed in clear and distinct Propositions, I might be able to examine, whether it was, what God in the Scriptures indis∣pensibly required of every Man to make him a Christian, that so I might thereby correct the Errors or Defects of what I at present ap∣prehended the Scripture taught me in the case.

The Unmasker endeavours to excuse himself from answering my Question by another exception against it, p. 24. in these words. Surely none but this Upstart Racovian will have the confi∣dence to deny that these Articles of Faith are such as are necessary to con∣stitute a Christian, as to the Intelle∣ctual and Doctrinal part of Christia∣nity, such as must IN SOME MEA∣SURE be known and assented to by him. Not that a Man is supposed every mo∣ment to actually exert his assent and belief for none of the Moral Vertues, none of the Evangelical Graces are ex∣erted thus always. Wherefore that Que∣stion in p. 16. (though he says he asks

it seriously) might have been spared,

Whether every one of these Fun∣damentals is required to be believed to make a Man a Christian, and such as without the actual belief thereof he cannot be saved?

Here is seriousness pretended when there is none, for the Design is only to Cavil, and (if he can) to expose my Assertion. But he is not able to do it, for all his Critical Demands are an∣swer'd in these few words, viz. That in the Intellectual (as well as Moral En∣dowments) are never supposed to be al∣ways in act: They are exerted upon Occasion, not all of them at a time. And therefore he mistakes if he thinks, or rather as he Objects without thinking, that these Doctrines if they be Funda∣mental and Necessary, must be always actually believed. No Man besides him∣self ever started such a thing.

This terrible long Combate has the Unmasker managed with his own Sha∣dow, to confound the Seriousness of my Question, and as he says himself, is come off not only safe and sound, but triumphant. But for all that, Sir, may not a Man's Question be serious,

though he should chance to express it ill? I think you and I were not best to set up for Criticks in Language, and Nicety of Expression, for fear we should set the World a Laughing. Yet for this once, I shall take the liberty to defend mine here. For I demand in what Expression of mine, I said or supposed, that a man should every mo∣ment actually exert his assent to any Proposition required to be believed? Cannot a Man say, that the Unmasker cannot be admitted to any Preferment in the Church of England without an actual assent to, or Subscribing of the 39 Articles, unless it be suppos'd that he must every moment from the time he first read, assented to, and subscri∣bed those Articles, till he received Institution and Induction, actually ex∣ert his assent to every one of them, and repeat his Subscription? In the same sense it is literally true, that a Man cannot be admitted into the Church of Christ or into Heaven, without actually believing all the Ar∣ticles necessary to make a Man a Chri∣stian, without supposing, that he must actually exert that assent every mo∣ment

from the time, that he first gave it, till the moment that he is admit∣ted into Heaven. He may Eat, Drink, make Bargains, study Euclid, and think of other things between; nay, some∣times Sleep, and neither think of those Articles nor any thing else, and yet it be true, that he shall not be ad∣mitted into the Church, or Heaven, without an actual assent to them: That Condition of an actual assent he has perform'd, and until he recall that assent by actual Unbelief it stands good, and though a Lunacy or Lethargy should seize on him presently after, and he should never think of it again as long as he lived, yet it is literally true, he is not saved without an actual assent. You might therefore have spa∣red your pains in saying, That none of the Moral Virtues, none of the Evange∣lical, Graces are exerted THUS al∣ways, till you had met with some body who had said THUS, That I did so I think would have enter'd into no bodies thoughts but yours, it being evident from p. 298, and 300. of my Book, that by Actual I meant Explicit. You should rather have given a

direct Answer to my Question, which I here again seriously ask you, viz. Whether,

IX.

Those you called Fundamental Do∣ctrines, in your Thoughts concer∣ning the Causes of Atheism, or those Christian Principles which belong to the very Essence of Chri∣stianity, so many as you have given us of them in your Soci∣nianism Unmask'd (for you may take which of your two Creeds you please) are Just those, nei∣ther more nor less, that are every one of them required to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian, and such, as without the actual or (since that word displeases you) the explicit belief whereof he cannot be saved.

When you have answer'd this Que∣stion, we shall then see which of us two is nearest the right? But if you shall forbear Railing, which I fear you take for arguing, against that Summary of Faith, which our Saviour

and his Apostles taught, and which only they propos'd to their Hearers to be believed to make them Christians, till you have found another perfect Creed of only necessary Articles, that you dare own for such; you are like to have a large time of Silence. Be∣fore I leave the Passage above cited, I must desire the Reader to take notice of what he says concerning his List of Fundamentals, viz. That these his Ar∣ticles of Faith necessary to constitute a Christian, are such as must IN SOME MEASURE be known and assented to by him. A very wary Expression concerning Fundamentals. The Que∣stion is about Articles necessary to be explicitly believed to make a Man a Christian. These in his List the Un∣masker tells us are necessary to consti∣tute a Christian, and must IN SOME MEASURE be known and assented to, I would now fain know of the Reader whether he understands here∣by, that the Unmasker means, that these his necessary Articles must be explicitly believed or not! If he means an explicit Knowledge and Belief, why does he puzzle his Reader by so

improper a way of speaking? for what is as compleat and perfect as it ought to be, cannot properly be said to be in some Measure. If his in some Mea∣sure falls short of explicitly knowing and believing his Fundamentals, his necessary Articles are such as a Man may be a Christian without explicitly knowing and believing, i. e. are no Fundamentals, no necessary Articles at all. Thus Men, uncertain what to say, betray themselves by their great Caution.

Having pronounced it Folly in him∣self to make up the defects of my short, and therefore so much blam'd Collection of Fundamentals, by a full one of his own, though his Attempt shews he would if he could, he goes on thus, p. 22. From what I [the Un∣masker] have said it is evident, that the Vindicator is grosly mistaken when he saith,

Whatever Doctrine the Apo∣stles required to be believed to make a Man a Christian, are to be found in those places of Scripture which he has quoted in his Book.

And a little lower, I think I have suffici∣ently proved that there are other Do∣ctrines

besides that, which are required to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian. Answ. Whatever you have pro∣ved, or (as you never fail to do) boast you have proved, will signifie nothing till you have proved one of these Pro∣positions, and have shewn either,

X.

That what our Saviour and his Apo∣stles preach'd and admitted Men into the Church for believing, is not all that is absolutely re∣quired to make a Man a Chri∣stian. Or,

That the believing him to be the Messiah, was not the only Article they insisted on to those, who acknowledg'd one God; and up∣on the belief whereof they ad∣mitted Converts into the Church, in any one of those many places quoted by me out of the History of the New Testament.

I say, any one; For though it be evident throughout the whole Gospel and the Acts, that this was the one

Doctrine of Faith, which in all their Preachings every where, they princi∣pally drive at: Yet if it were not so, but that in other places they taught other things, that would not prove, that those other things were Articles of Faith absolutely necessarily requi∣red to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, unless it had been so said. Be∣cause if it appears, that ever any one was admitted into the Church by our Saviour or his Apostles, without ha∣ving that Article explicitly laid before him, and without his explicit assent to it, you must grant, that an expli∣cit assent to that Article is not neces∣sary to make a Man a Christian: Un∣less you will say, that our Saviour, and his Apostles admitted Men into the Church, that were not qualified with such a Faith, as was absolutely neces∣sary to make a Man a Christian, which is as much as to say, that they allow'd, and pronounced Men to be Christians, who were not Christians. For he, that wants what is necessary to make a Man a Christian, can no more be a Christian, than he, that wants what is necessary to make him a Man, can

be a Man. For what is necessary to the being of any thing is Essential to its being; and any thing may be as well without its Essence, as without any thing that is necessary to its be∣ing: and so a Man be a Man without being a Man, and a Christian a Chri∣stian without being a Christian; and an Unmasker may prove this, with∣out proving it. You may therefore set up, by your unquestionable Autho∣rity, what Articles you please, as ne∣cessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian; If our Saviour, and his Apostles admitted Converts into the Church without preaching those your Articles to them; or requiring an Ex∣plicit assent to what they did not Preach, and explicitly lay down, I shall prefer their Authority to yours; and think it was rather by them, than by you, that God promulgated the Law of Faith; and manifested, what that Faith was, upon which he would receive penitent Converts.

And though by his Apostles our Saviour taught a great many other Truths, for the explaining this Fun∣damental Article of the Law of Faith,

that Jesus is the Messiah; some where∣of have a nearer, and some a more remote connexion with it, and so cannot be deny'd by any Christian, who sees that connexion, or knows they are so taught: yet an explicit belief of any one of them is no more necessarily required to make a Man a Christian, than an explicit belief of all those Truths which have a con∣nexion with the being of a God, or are reveal'd by him, is necessarily re∣quired to make a Man not to be an Atheist: Though none of them can be denied by any one, who sees that connexion, or acknowledges that re∣velation, without his being an Atheist. All these Truths taught us from God, either by Reàson, or Revelation, are of great use, to enlighten our Minds, confirm our Faith, stir up our Affe∣ctions, &c. And the more we see of them, the more we shall see, admire, and magnifie the Wisdom, Goodness, Mercy, and Love of God in the Work of our Redemption. This will ob∣lige us to search, and study the Scrip∣ture, wherein it is contain'd and laid open to us.

All that we find in the Revelation of the New Testament, being the de∣clar'd Will and Mind of our Lord and Master the Messiah, whom we have taken to be our King, we are bound to receive as Right and Truth, or else we are not his Subjects, we do not believe him to be the Messiah our King, but cast him off, and with the Iews say, we will not have this Man reign over us. But it is still what we ••ind in the Scripture, not in this or that System; what we sincerely seek∣ing to know the Will of our Lord, discover to be his Mind. Where it is spoken plainly we cannot miss it, and it is evident, he requires our assent: where there is obscurity either in the Expressions themselves, or by reason of the seeming contrariety of other Passages, there a fair endeavour, as much as our Circumstances will per∣mit, secures us from a guilty Disobe∣dience to his Will, or a sinful Error in Faith, which way soever our en∣ry resolves the doubt, or perhaps leaves it unresolved. If he had required more of us in those Points, he would have declared his Will plainer to us;

and discover'd the Truth contain'd in those obscure, or seemingly contra∣dictory places, as clearly, and as uni∣formly as he did that Fundamental Ar∣ticle, that we were to believe him to be the Messiah our King.

As Men we have God for our King, and are under the Law of Reason: As Christians, we have Iesus the Messiah for our King, and are under the Law revealed by him in the Gospel. And though every Christian, both as a Deist and a Christian, be obliged to study both the Law of Nature and the Re∣vealed Law, that in them he may know the Will of God, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, yet in neither of these Laws is there to be found a Select Set of Fundamentals, distinct from the rest which are to make him, a Deist or a Christian. But he that believes one Eternal invisible God, his Lord and King, ceases there∣by to be an Atheist; and he that be∣lieves Iesus to be the Messiah his King, ordain'd by God thereby becomes a Christian, is delivered from the Power of Darkness, and is Translated into the Kingdom of the Son of God, is actu∣ally

within the Covenant of Grace, and has that Faith; which shall be im∣puted to him for Righteousness, and if he continues in his Allegiance to this his King, shall receive the reward, Eternal Life.

He that Considers this, will not be so hot as the Unmasker, to contend for a Number of Fundamental Articles all necessary every one of them to be explicitly believed, by every one, for Salvation, without knowing them him∣self, or being able to enumerate them to another. Can there be any thing more absurd, than to say, there are several Fundamental Articles, each of which every Man must explicitly be∣lieve upon pain of Damnation, and yet not to be able to say, which they be? The Unmasker has set down no small Number; but yet dares not say, these are all. On the contrary, he has plainly confessed, there are more: but will not, i. e. cannot tell what they are, that remain behind. Nay, has given a general Description of his Fundamental Articles, by which it is not evident, but there may be ten times as many, as those he had named;

and amongst them (if he durst or could name them) probably several, that many a good Christian, who died in the Faith, and is now in Hea∣ven, never once thought of; and others, which many, of as good Au∣thority as he, would from their diffe∣rent Systems, certainly deny and con∣tradict.

This, as great an Absurdity as it is, cannot be otherwise, whilst Men will take upon them to alter the terms of the Gospel; and when it is evident, that our Saviour, and his Apostles re∣ceived Men into the Church, and pronounced them Believers, for taking him to be the Messiah their King and Deliverer sent by God, have the bold∣ness to say, this is not enough. But when you would know of them what then is enough, they cannot tell you. The reason whereof is visible, viz. Be∣cause they being able to produce no other reason for their Collection of Fundamental Articles to prove them necessary to be believed, but because they are of Divine Authority and contain'd in the Holy Scriptures, and are, as the Unmasker says, writ there

on purpose to be believed, they know not where to stop, when they have once begun. Those Texts that they leave out, or from which they deduce none of them, being of the same Di∣vine Authority, and so upon that Ac∣count equally Fundamental, with what they have culled out, though not so well suited to their particular Systems.

Hence come those endless and unrea∣sonable Contentions about Fundamen∣tals, whilst each censures the Defect, Re∣dundancy, or Falshood of what others require, as necessary to be believed; and yet he himself gives not a Cata∣logue of his own Fundamentals, which he will say is sufficient and compleat. Nor is it to be wondred, since in this way it is impossible to stop short of putting every Proposition divinely re∣vealed into the List of Fundamentals; all of them being of Divine, and so of equal Authority, and upon that account equally necessary to be belie∣ved by every one who is a Christian; though they are not all necessary to be believed to make any one a Chri∣stian. For the New Testament, con∣taining the Laws of the Messiah's King∣dom,

in regard of all the Actions both of Mind and Body of all his Subjects, every Christian is bound by his Alle∣giance to him, to believe all that he says in it to be true, as well as to as∣sent, that all that he commands in it is just and good: And what Negli∣gence, Perverseness, or Guilt there is in his mistaking in the one, or failing in his obedience to the other, That this Righteous Judge of all Men, who cannot be deceived, will at the last day lay open, and reward accordingly.

'Tis no wonder therefore, there has been such fierce Contests, and such cruel Havock made amongst Chri∣stians about Fundamentals: Whilst eve∣ry one would set up his System upon pain of Fire and Faggot in this, and Hell Fire in the other World; Though at the same time, whilst he is exerci∣sing the utmost Barbarities against others to prove himself a true Chri∣stian, he professes himself so ignorant that he cannot tell, or so uncharitable, that he will not tell, what Articles are absolutely necessary, and sufficient to make a Man a Christian. If there be any such Fundamentals, as 'tis cer∣tain

there are, 'tis as certain they must be very plain. Why then does every one urge and make a stir about Fundamentals, and no body give a List of them? But because, (as I have said) upon the usual Grounds, they cannot. For I will be bold to say, that every one, who considers the matter, will see, that either only the Article of his being the Messiah their King, which alone our Saviour and his Apostles preach'd to the Uncon∣verted World, and received those that believed it into the Church, is the only necessary Article to be believed by a Theist to make him a Christian; Or else that all the Truths contain'd in the New Testament, are necessary Articles to be believed to make a Man a Christian; And that between these two it is impossible any where to stand. The reason whereof is plain. Because either the believing Iesus to be the Messiah, i. e. the taking him to be our King, makes us Subjects and Denizons of his Kingdom, i. e. Chri∣stians; Or else an explicit knowledge of, and actual Obedience to the Laws of his Kingdom is what is required

to make us Subjects; Which, I think, is what was never said of any other Kingdom. For a Man must be a Sub∣ject before he is bound to obey.

Let us suppose it will be said here, that an Obedience to the Laws of Christ's Kingdom, is what is necessary to make us Subjects of it, without which we cannot be admitted into it, i. e. be Christians: And if so, this Obe∣dience must be Universal; I mean, it must be the same sort of Obedience to all the Laws of this Kingdom: Which since no body says is in any one such as is wholly free from Error or Frailty, this Obedience can only lie in a sin∣cere disposition and purpose of Mind to obey every one of the Laws of the Messiah deliver'd in the New Testa∣ment, to the utmost of our Power. Now believing right being one part of that Obedience, as well as acting right is the other part, the Obedience of assent must be implicitly to all that is deliver'd there; That it is true. But for as much as the particular acts of an explicit assent cannot go any far∣ther than his understanding, who is to assent, What he understands to

be the Truth deliver'd by our Saviour, or the Apostles commission'd by him, and assisted by his Spirit, That he must necessarily believe: It becomes a Fun∣damental Article to him, and he can∣not refuse his assent to it, without re∣nouncing his Allegiance. For he that denies any of the Doctrines that Christ has deliver'd, to be true, denies him to be sent from God, and consequently to be the Messiah, and so ceases to be a Christian. From whence it is evi∣dent, that if any more be necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, than the believing Iesus to be the Messiah, and thereby taking him for our King; It cannot be any set bundle of Fundamentals culled out of the Scripture, with an omission of the rest, according as best suits any ones Fancy, System, or Interest: But it must be an explicit belief of all those Propositions, which he according to the best of his understanding, really apprehends to be contain'd, and meant in the Scripture; and an implicit be∣lief of all the rest, which he is ready to believe, as soon as it shall please God, upon his use of the means, to

enlighten him, and make them clear to his understanding. So that in ef∣fect, almost every particular Man in this sense has, or may have, a distinct Catalogue of Fundamentals, each whereof it is necessary for him expli∣citly to believe, now that he is a Chri∣stian; whereof if he should disbelieve, or deny any one, he would cast off his Allegiance, disfranchise himself, and be no longer a Subject of Christ's Kingdom. But in this sense no body can tell what is Fundamental to ano∣ther, what is necessary for another Man to believe. This Catalogue of Fundamentals every one alone can make for himself: No body can fix it for him; no body can collect or pre∣scribe it to another: But this is accor∣ding as God has dealt to every one the measure of Light and Faith; and hath open'd each Man's Understand∣ing, that he may understand the Scrip∣tures. Whoever has used wha•• means he is capable of, for the informing of himself, with a readiness to believe and obey what shall be taught and prescrib'd by Iesus his Lord and King, is a true and faithful Subject of Christ's

Kingdom; and cannot be thought to fail in any thing necessary to Salva∣tion.

Supposing a Man and his Wife, barely by seeing the wonderful things that Moses did, should have been per∣swaded to put▪ themselves under his Government; Or by reading his Law, and liking it; or by any other Mo∣tive, had been prevail'd on sincerely to take him for their Ruler and Law∣giver, and accordingly (renouncing their former Idolatry and Heathenish Pollutions) in token thereof had by Baptism and Circumcision, the initia∣ting Ceremonies, solemnly enter'd themselves into that Communion un∣der the Law of Moses; had they not thereby been made Denizons of the Commonwealth of Israel, and invested with all the Privileges and Preroga∣tives of true Children of Abraham, leaving to their Posterity a right to their share in the Promis'd Land, though they had died before they had performed any other Act of Obedi∣ence to that Law; nay, though they had not known whose Son Moses was, nor how he had deliver'd the Children

of Israel out of Egypt, nor whither he was leading them? I do not say it is likely they should be so far ignorant: But whether they were or no, 'twas enough, that they took him for their Prince and Ruler, with a purpose to obey him, to submit themselves en∣tirely to his Commands and Conduct; And did nothing afterwards, whereby they disowned or rejected his Autho∣rity over them. In that respect, none of his Laws were greater, or more necessary to be submitted to one than another, though the matter of one might be of much greater Conse∣quence than of another. But a Dis∣obedience to any Law of the least Con∣sequence, if it carry with it a disown∣ing of the Authority that made it, forfeits all, and cuts off such an Of∣fender from that Commonwealth, and all the Privileges of it.

This is the case, in respect of other Matters of Faith, to those who believe Iesus to be the Messiah, and take him to be their King sent from God, and so are already Christians. 'Tis not the opinion, that any one may have of the weightiness of the Matter, (if they

are, without their own fault ignorant that our Saviour hath revealed it) that shall disfranchise them, and make them forfeit their Interest in his Kingdom: they may be still good Subjects, though they do not believe a great many things, which Creed-makers may think necessary to be believed. That which is required of them is a sincere endea∣vour to know his Mind declared in the Gospel, and an explicit belief of all that they understand to be so. Not to believe what he has reveal'd, whether in a lighter or more weighty Matter, calls his veracity into Que∣stion, destroys his Mission, denies his Authority, and is a flat disowning him to be the Messiah; And so overturns that Fundamental, and Necessary Ar∣ticle whereby a Man is a Christian. But this cannot be done by a Man's Ignorance, or unwilful Mistake of any of the Truths published by our Sa∣viour himself, or his authorized and inspired Ministers in the New Testa∣ment. Whilst a Man knows not that it was his Will or Meaning, his Alle∣giance is safe, though he believe the contrary.

If this were not so, it is impossible, that any one should be a Christian. For in some things we are ignorant, and err all, not knowing the Scrip∣tures. For the holy inspired Writings, being all of the same Divine Autho∣rity, must all equally in every Article be Fundamental and necessary to be believed; if that be a reason, that makes any one Proposition in it necessary to be believed. But the Law of Faith, the Covenant of the Gospel, being a Covenant of Grace, and not of Natu∣ral Right or Debt, nothing can be ab∣solutely necessary to be believed, but what by this new Law of Faith God of his good pleasure hath made to be so. And this 'tis plain by the preach∣ing of our Saviour and his Apostles, to all that believed not already in him, was only the believing the only true God, and Iesus to be the Messiah, whom he hath sent. The performance of this puts a Man within the Cove∣nant, and is that which God will im∣pute to him for Righteousness. All the other acts of assent to other Truths, taught by our Saviour, and his Apostles, are not what make a Man

a Christian; but are necessary acts of Obedience to be performed by one, who is a Christian; and therefore be∣ing a Christian, ought to live by the Laws of Christ's Kingdom.

Nor are we without some glimpse of Light, why it hath pleased God of his Grace, that the believing Iesus to be the Messiah should be that Faith which he would impute to Men for Righteousness. 'Tis evident from the Scripture, that our Saviour despised the Shame and endured the Cross for the Joy that was set before him; Which joy, 'tis also plain, was a Kingdom, But in this Kingdom which his Father had appointed to him, he could have none but voluntary Subjects, such as leaving the Kingdom of Darkness, and of the Prince of this World, with all the Pleasures, Pomps and Vanities thereof, would put themselves under his Dominion, and translate them∣selves into his Kingdom; which they did by believing and owning him to be the Messiah their King, and thereby taking him to rule over them. For the Faith for which God justi••ieth, is not an empty Speculation, but a

Faith joyn'd with Repentance, and working by Love. And for this, which was in effect to return to God himself, and to their natural Allegi∣ance due to him, and advance as much as lay in them the Glory of the Kingdom, which he had promised his Son, God was pleased to declare he would accept them, receive them to Grace, and blot out all their former Transgressions.

This is evidently the Covenant of Grace as deliver'd in the Scriptures: And if this be not, I desire any one to tell me what it is, and what are the terms of it. 'Tis a Law of Faith, whereby God has promised to forgive all our Sins upon our Repentance, and believing something; and to impute that Faith to us for Righteousness, Now I ask what 'tis by the Law of Faith we are required to believe? for till that be known, the Law of Faith is not distinctly known, nor the terms of the Covenant upon which the Al∣merciful God graciously offers us Sal∣vation. And if any one will say this is not known, nay, is not easily, and certainly to be known under the Go∣spel,

I desire him to tell me what the greatest Enemies of Christianity can say worse against it? For a way pro∣pos'd to Salvation, that does not cer∣tainly lead thither, or is propos'd so as not to be known, are very little different as to their consequence; and Mankind would be left to wander in darkness and uncertainty with the one as well as the other.

I do not write this for Controver∣sies sake; for had I minded Victory, I would not have given the Unmasker this new Matter of exception. I know whatever is said, he must be bawling for his fashionable and profitable Or∣thodoxy, and cry out against this too which I have here added, as Socinia∣nism, and cast that Name upon all that differs from what is held by those, he would recommend his Zeal to in Writing. I call it bawling, for whether what he has said be Rea∣soning, I shall referr to those of his own Brotherhood, if he be of any Brotherhood, and there be any that will joyn with him in his Set of Fundamentals, when his Creed is made.

Had I minded nothing but how to deal with him, I had tied him up short to his List of Fundamentals, without affording him Topicks of declaiming against what I have here said. But I have enlarged on this point, for the sake of such Readers, who with a love of truth read Books of this kind, and endeavour to inform themselves in the things of their ever∣lasting concernment: It being of grea∣ter consideration with me, to give any light and satisfaction to one sin∣gle Person, who is really concerned to understand, and be convinced of the Religion he professes, than what a Thousand fashionable or titular Pro∣fessors of any sort of Orthodoxy shall say or think of me, for not doing as they do, i. e. for not saying after others, without understanding what is said, or upon what Grounds; or caring to understand it.

Let us now consider his Argument, to prove the Articles he has given us to be Fundamentals. In his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism, p. 119. he argues from 1 Tim. iii. 16. where, he says, Christianity is called a Mystery,

that all things in Christianity are not plain, and exactly level to every com∣mon apprehension; that every thing in Christianity is not clear, and intelli∣gible and comprehensible by the weakest Noddle. Let us take this for proved, as much as he pleases, and then let us see the force of this subtle Disputant's Argument, for the necessity there is, that every Christian Man should be∣lieve those, which he has given us for Fundamental Articles out of the Epi∣stles. The Reason of that Obligation, and the Necessity of every Man and Woman's believing them, he has laid in this, that they are to be found in the Epistles, or in the Bible. This Argument for them we have over and over again in his Socinianism Un∣mask'd, as here, p. 9. thus; Are they set down to no purpose in these inspired Epistles. Why did the Apostles write these Doctrines, was it not, that those they writ to, might give their assent to them? P. 22. They are in our Bibles for that very purpose to be believed. p. 25. Now I ask, can any one more directly invalidate all he says here for the necessity of believing his Articles?

Can any one more apparently write booty than by saying that these his Doctrines, these his Fundamental Arti∣cles (which are after his fashion set down between the 8. and 20. Pages of this his First Chapter) are of ne∣cessity to be believed by every one, before he can be a Christian, because they are in the Epistles and in the Bible; and yet to affirm that in Chri∣stianity, i. e. in the Epistles and in the Bible there are Mysteries, there are things not plain, not clear, not intelli∣gible to common apprehensions. If his Articles, some of which contain Mysteries, are necessary to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian, because they are in the Bible; than according to this rule it is necessary for many Men to believe, what is not intelligible to them; what their Nod∣dles cannot apprehend (as the Un∣masker is pleased to turn the Suppo∣sition of vulgar Peoples understanding the Fundamentals of their Religion into ridicule) i. e. it is necessary for many Men to do, what is impossible for them to do, before they can be Christians. But if there be several

things in the Bible, and in the Epi∣stles, that it is not necessary for Men to believe to make them Christians; then all the Unmasker's Arguments from their being in the Epistles is no Proof, that all his Articles are necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, because they are set down in the Epistles; much less, because he thinks they may be drawn according to his Sys••em out of what is set down in the Epistles. Let him therefore ei∣ther confess these and the like Que∣stions, Why did the Apostles write these? was it not that those they writ to, might give their assent to them? Why should not every one of these Evan∣gelical Truths be believed and imbra∣ced? They are in our Bibles for that very purpose, and the like, to be im∣pertinent and ridiculous: Let him cease to propose them with so much ostentation, for they can serve only to mislead unwary Readers: Or let him unsay what he has said of things not plain to common apprehensions, not clear and intelligible. Let him recant what he has said of Mysteries in Christianity. For I ask with him, p. 8. where can

we be informed but in the sacred and inspired writings? It is ridiculous to urge, that any thing is necessary to be explicitly believed to make a Man a Christian, because it is writ in the Epistles and in the Bible; Unless he confess that there is no Mystery, no thing not plain not intelligible to Vul∣gar understanding, in the Epistles or in the Bible.

This is so evident, that the Un∣masker himself, who p. 119. of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of A∣theism, thought it ridiculous to sup∣pose, that the Vulgar should under∣stand Christianity, is here of another Mind: And, p. 30. says of his Evan∣gelical Doctrines and Articles necessa∣ry to be assented to, that they are in∣telligible and plain; There is no Am∣biguity and Doubtfulness in them; They shine with their own light, and to an unprejudiced eye are plain, evident and illustrious.

To draw the Unmasker out of the Clouds, and prevent his hiding him∣self in the doubtfulness of his Expres∣sions, I shall desire him to say directly, whether the Articles, which are ne∣cessary

to be believed, to make a Man a Christian, and particularly those he has set down for such, are all plain and intelligible, and such as may be understood and comprehended (I will not say in the Unmasker's ridiculous way, by the weakest Noddles, but) by every illiterate Countryman and Woman capable of Church Commu∣nion?

If he says yes; Then all Mysteries are excluded out of his Articles ne∣cessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian. For that which can be comprehended by every Day-Labou∣rer, every poor Spinster, that is a Member of the Church, cannot be a Mystery. And if what such illite∣rate People cannot understand, be re∣quired to be believed to make them Christians, the greatest part of Man∣kind are shut out from being Chri∣stians.

But the Unmasker has provided an Answer in these words, p. 31. There is, says he, a difficulty in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and several Truths of the Go∣spel, as to the exact manner of the things themselves, which we shall never be able

to comprehend, at least on this side of Heaven: But there is no difficulty as to the reality and certainty of them, because we know they are revealed to us by God in the Holy Scripture.

Which Answer of difficulty in the manner, and no difficulty in the reality, having the appearance of a distin∣ction, looks like Learning; but when it comes to be applied to the case in hand will scarce afford us sense.

The Question is about a Proposition to be believed, which must first ne∣cessarily be understood. For a Man cannot possibly give his assent to any Affirmation or Negation, unless he understand the terms as they are joyn'd in that Proposition, and has a Con∣ception of the thing affirm'd or de∣ny'd, and also a Conception of the thing concerning which it is affirm'd or deny'd as they are there put toge∣ther. But let the Proposition be what it will, there is no more to be under∣stood than is expressed in the terms of that Proposition. If it be a Pro∣position concerning a Matter of Fact, 'tis enough to conceive, and believe the Matter of Fact. If it be a Propo∣sition

concerning the manner of the Fact, the manner of the Fact must also be believed, as it is intelligibly expressed in that Proposition, v. g. should this Proposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be offer'd as an Article of Faith to an illiterate Countryman of England, he could not believe it: Because, though a true Proposition, yet it being pro∣pos'd in words whose meaning he un∣derstood not, he could not give any assent to it. Put it into English, he understands what is meant by the Dead shall rise. For he can conceive, that the same Man, who was dead and senseless, should be alive again; As well as he can, that the same Man, who is now in a Lethargy, should awake again; or the same Man that now is out of his sight, and he knows not whether he be alive or dead, should return, and be with him again: And so he is capable of believing it, though he conceives nothing of the manner how a Man revives, wakes, or moves. But none of these manners of those actions being included in those Pro∣positions, the Proposition concerning the Matter of Fact (if it imply no

contradiction in it) may be believed; and so all that is required may be done, whatever difficulty may be as to the exact manner how it is brought about.

But where the Proposition is about the manner, the belief too must be of the manner. v. g. The Article is, The Dead shall be raised with spiritual Bodies. And then the belief must be as well of this manner of the Fact, as of the Fact it self. So that what is said here by the Unmasker about the manner signifies nothing at all in the case. What is understood to be ex∣pressed in each Proposition, whether it be of the manner, or not of the manner, is (by its being a Revelation from God) to be believed, as far as it is understood: But no more is requi∣red to be believed concerning any Article, than is contain'd in that Ar∣ticle.

What the Unmasker, for the remo∣ving of Difficulties, adds farther in these words, But there is no difficulty as to the reality and certainty of the truths of the Gospel. Because we know, they are revealed to us by God in the

Holy Scripture, is yet farther from signifying any thing to the purpose, than the former. The Question is about understanding; And, in what sense they are understood, believing several Propositions, or Articles of Faith, which are to be found in the Scripture. To this, the Unmasker says, there can be no difficulty at all as to their reality and certainty; be∣cause they are revealed by God. Which amounts to no more but this, That there is no difficulty at all in under∣standing and believing this Proposi∣tion, that whatever is revealed by God is really and certainly true. But is the understanding and believing this single Proposition, the understanding and believing all the Articles of Faith ne∣cessary to be believed? Is this all the explicit Faith a Christian need have? If so, then a Christian need explicitly believe no more but this one Propo∣sition, viz. That all the Propositions between the two Covers of his Bible are certainly true. But I imagine the Unmasker will not think the believing this one Proposition is a sufficient be∣lief of all those Fundamental Articles,

which he has given us as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian. For if that will serve the turn, I conclude he may make his Set of Fundamentals as large and express to his System as he pleases; Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, Socinians, will all thus own the belief of them; viz. That all that God has revealed in the Scripture is really and certainly true.

But if believing this Proposition, that all that is reveal'd by God in the Scripture is true, be not all the Faith which the Unmasker requires, what he says about the reality and certainty of all Truths reveal'd by God removes nothing of the difficulty. A Propo∣sition of Divine Authority is found in the Scripture: 'tis agreed presently between him and me, that it contains a real certain truth: But the difficulty is, what is the Truth it contains, to which he, and I must assent. v. g. The Profession of Faith made by the Eu∣nuch in these words, Iesus Christ is the Son of God, upon which he was admitted into the Church as a Chri∣stian, I believe contains a real and cer∣tain

Truth. Is that enough? no says the Unmasker, p. 87. it includes in it that Christ was God; and therefore it is not enough for me to believe, that these words contain a real certain truth; But I must believe they contain this truth, that Jesus Christ is God; That the Eunuch spoke them in that sense, and in that sense I must assent to them: Whereas they appear to me to be spo∣ken, and meant here, as well as in seve∣ral other places of the New Testament, in this sense, viz. That Iesus Christ is the Messiah, and in that sense in this place I assent to them. The meaning then of these words as spoken by the Eunuch is the difficulty: And I desire the Unmasker, by the Application of what he has said here, to remove that difficulty. For granting all Revela∣tion from God to be really and cer∣tainly true (as certainly it is) how does the believing that general truth remove any difficulty about the sense and interpretation of any particular Proposition found in any passage of the Holy Scriptures? Or is it possible for any Man to understand it in one sense, and believe it in another; because it

is a Divine Revelation, that has reallity and certainty in it? Thus much as to what the Unmasker says of the Funda∣mentals he has given us, p. 30. viz. That No true Lover of God and Truth need doubt of any of them: For there is no ambiguity and doubtfulness in them. If the distinction he has used of diffi∣culty as to the exact manner, and diffi∣culty as to the reality and certainty of Gospel Truths, will remove all ambiguity and doubtfulness from all those Texts of Scripture, from whence he and others deduce Fundamental Articles, so that they will be plain and intelligible to every Man in the sense he understands them, he has done great Service to Christianity.

But he seems to distrust that him∣self, in the following words. They shine, says he, with their own light, and to an unprejudiced eye are plain evident and illustrious, and they would always continue so, if some ill minded Men did not perplex and entangle them. I see the Matter would go very smooth, if the Unmasker might be the sole au∣thentick Interpreter of Scripture. He is wisely of that Judge's Mind, who

was against hearing the Counsel on the other side, because they always perplexed the Cause.

But if those who differ from the Unmasker, shall in their turns call him the Prejudiced and Ill-minded Man, who perplexes these Matters (as they may with as much Authority as he) we are but where we were; Each must un∣derstand for himself the best he can; till the Unmasker be received as the only unprejudiced Man, to whose Di∣ctates every one without Examina∣tion is with an implicit Faith to submit.

Here again, p. 32. The Unmasker puts upon me, what I never said, and therefore I must desire him to shew, where it is, that I pretend,

XI.

That this Proposition, that Jesus is the Messiah, is more intelligible than any of those he has named.

In his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism, p. 120. he argues that this Proposition [Iesus is the Messiah]

has more difficulty in it than the Ar∣ticle of the Holy Trinity. And his Proofs are worthy of an Unmasker. For, says he, Here is an Hebrew word first to be explain'd, or (as he has this strong Argument again, Socinianism Unmask'd, p. 32.) Here first the Name Iesus, which is of Hebrew extraction, though since Grecized must be ex∣pounded.

Answ. Iesus being a proper Name, only denoting a certain Person, needs not to be expounded, of what extra∣ction soever it be. Is this Proposition, Ionathan was the Son of Saul King of Israel, any thing the harder, because the three proper Names in it, Ionathan, Saul and Israel are of Hebrew extra∣ction? And is it not as easie and as level to the understanding of the Vulgar as this, Arthur was the Son of Henry King of England, though neither of these Names be of Hebrew extraction? Or cannot any Vulgar Capacity under∣stand this Proposition, Iohn Edwards writ a Book, Intituled, Socinianism Unmask'd, till the Name Iohn, which is of Hebrew extraction, be explained to him? If this be so, Parents were

best beware how hereafter they give their Children Scripture Names, if they cannot understand what they say to one another about them, till these Names of Hebrew extraction are ex∣pounded to them; And every Propo∣sition, that is in Writings and Con∣tracts made concerning Persons, that have Names of Hebrew extractions, become thereby as hard to be un∣derstood as the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

His next Argument is just of the same size. The word Messias must, he says, be explained too. Of what Extraction soever it be, there needs no more Explication of it than what our English Bible gives of it, where it is plain to any vulgar capacity, that it was used to denote that King and De∣liverer whom God had promised. So that this Proposition, Iesus is the Messiah, has no more difficulty in it, than this, Iesus is the promised King and Deli∣verer; Or than this, Cyrus was King and Deliverer of Persia: Which I think requires not much depth of Hebrew to be understood. He that under∣stood this Proposition, and took Cyrus

for his King, was a Subject and a Mem∣ber of his Kingdom; And he that un∣derstands the other, and takes Iesus to be his King, is his Subject and a Member of his Kingdom. But if this be as hard as it is to some Men to understand the Doctrine of the Tri∣nity, I fear many of the Kings in the World have but few true Subjects. To believe Jesus to be the Messiah, is (as he has been told over and over again) to take him for our King and Ruler, promised and sent by God. This is that, which will make any one from a Iew or Heathen to be a Christian. In this sense it is very intelligible to vulgar Capacities. Those who so un∣derstand and believe it, are so far from pronouncing those words as a spell (as the Unmasker ridiculously suggests, p. 33.) that they thereby become Christians.

But what if I tell the Unmasker, that there is one Mr. Edwards, who (when he speaks his Mind, without considering how it will make for or against him) in another place, thinks this Proposition, Iesus is the Messias, very easie and intelligible? To con∣vince

him of it, I shall desire him to turn to the 74th. Page of his Soci∣nianism Unmask'd, where he will find that Mr. Edwards without any great search into Hebrew Extractions, inter∣prets Iesus the Messiah to signifie this, That Iesus of Nazareth was that emi∣nent and extraordinary Person prophesied of long before, and that he was sent and commissioned by God: Which I think is no very hard Proposition to be un∣derstood. But it is no strange thing, that that which was very easie to an Unmasker in one place, should be ter∣rible hard in another; where want of something better requires to have it so.

Another Argument that he uses to prove the Articles he has given us to be necessary to Salvation, (p. 22.) is because they are Doctrines which contain things that in their Nature have an immediate respect to the Oc∣casion, Author, Way, End, Means and Issue of Mens Redemption and Sal∣vation. And here I desire him to prove,

XII.

That every one of his Articles contains things so immediately relating to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means and Issue of our Redemption and Salvation, that no body can be saved without understanding the Texts from whence he draws them, in the very same sense that he does; And explicitly believing all these Propositions that he has deduced, and all that he will deduce from Scripture, when he shall please to compleat his Creed.

Pag. 23. He says of his Fundamen∣tals, not without good reason THERE∣FORE I called them Essential and Integral parts of our Christian and Evangelical Faith: And why the Vin∣dicator fleers at these terms, p. 18. I know no reason, but that he cannot confute the Application of them.

Answ. One would think by the word therefore, which he uses here, that in the precedent Paragraph, he

had produced some reason to justifie his ridiculous use of those terms in his Thoughts concerning Atheism, p. 111. But nothing therein will be found tending to it. Indeed the foregoing Paragraph begins with these words, Thus I have briefly set before the Rea∣der those Evangelical Truths, those Chri∣stian Principles, which belong to the very essence of Christianity. Amongst these there is the word Essence: But that from thence, or any thing else in that Paragraph, the Unmasker could with good sense, or any sense at all, inferr as he does, not without good reason, THEREFORE, I called them the ESSENTIAL and INTEGRAL parts of our Christian and Evangelical Faith, requires an extraordinary sort of Logick to make out. What, I be∣seech you, is your good reason too here, upon which you inferr There∣fore, &c? For it is impossible for any one but an Unmasker, to find one word justifying his use of the terms Essen∣tial and Integral. But it would be a great restraint to the running of the Unmasker's Pen, if you should not al∣low him the free use of illative Par∣ticles,

where there are no Promises to support them: And if you should not take Affirmations without Proof for reasoning, you at once strike off above three quarters of his Book; and he will often, for several Pages toget••er, have nothing to say. As for Example, from p. 28. to p. 35.

But to shew, that I did not without reason say his use of the terms Essen∣tial and Integral, in the place before quoted, was ridiculous, I must mind my Reader, that pag. 109. of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of A∣theism, he having said that the Epi∣stolary Writings are fraught with other Fundamentals besides that one which I mention, and then having set them down, he closes his Catalogue of them thus: These are Matters of Faith con∣tain'd in the Epistles, and they are Es∣sential and Integral parts of the Gospel it self, p. 111. Now what could be more ridiculous, than where the que∣stion is about Fundamental Doctrines, which are the Essentials of Christian Religion, without an assent to which a Man cannot be a Christian, and so he himself calls them, p. 21. of his

Socinianism Unmask'd, that he should close the List he had made of Funda∣mental Doctrines, i. e. Essential Points of the Christian Religion, with tel∣ling his Reader, These are Essential and Integral parts of the Gospel it self? i. e. these which I have given you for Fundamental, for Essential Doctrines of the Gospel are the Fundamental and not Fundamental, Essential and not Es∣sential parts of the Gospel mixed to∣gether. For integral parts, in all the Writers I have met with, besides the Unmasker, are contra-distinguished to Essential; and signifie such parts as the thing can be without, but without them will not be so compleat and en∣tire as with them. Just such an ac∣cuteness as our Unmasker would any one shew, who taking upon him to set down the parts Essential to a Man, without the having of which he could not be a Man, should name the Soul, the Head, the Heart, Lungs, Stomach, Liver, Spleen, Eyes, Ears, Tongue, Arms, Legs, Hair and Nails; and to make all sure, should conclude with these words, these are Parts contain'd in a Man, and are Essential and Inte∣gral

Parts of a Man himself, i. e. they are Parts, some without which he cannot be a Man, and others which though they make the Man entire, yet he may be a Man without them; As a Man ceases not to be a Man, though he want a Nail, a Finger, or an Arm, which are Integral Parts of a Man. Risum teneatis? If the Un∣masker can make any better sence of his Essential and Integral Parts of the Gospel it self; I will ask his Pardon for my Laughing: Till then he must not be angry, if the Reader and I laugh too. Besides I must tell him, That those which he has set down are not the Integral Parts of the Christian Faith; any more than the Head, the Trunk, and the Arms, Hands and Thighs are the Integral Parts of a Man: For a Man is not entire without the Legs and Feet too. They are some of the Integral Parts indeed; But cannot be called the Integral Parts, where any that go to make up the whole Man are l••ft out. Nor those the Integral, but some of the Integral Parts of the Christian Faith, out of which any of the Do∣ctrines proposed in the New Testa∣ment

are omitted: For whatever is there proposed, is proposed to be believed, and so is a part of the Christian Faith.

Before I leave his Catalogue of the Essential and Integral Parts of the Go∣spel, which he has given us, instead of one containing the Articles necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, I must take notice of what he says, whilst he is making it, p. 9. Why then is there a Treatise publish'd to tell the World that the bare belief of a Mes∣siah is all that is required of a Christian. As if there were no difference between believing a Messiah, and believing Iesus to be the Messiah: No difference be∣tween required of a Christian, and re∣quired to make a Man a Christian. As if you should say, renouncing his former Idolatry, and being Circum∣cised and Baptized into Moses, was all that was required to make a Man an Israelite; Therefore it was all that was required of an Israelite. For these two Falshoods has he in this one short Sentence, thought fit slily to Father upon me the humble imi∣tator of the Iesuits, as he is pleased

to call me. And therefore I must desire him to shew,

XIII.

Where the World is told in the Treatise that I publish'd, That the bare belief of a Messiah is all that is required of a Chri∣stian?

The Six next Pages, i. e. from 28. to the End of his Second Chapter, being taken up with nothing but Pul∣pit Oratory out of its place; and without any reply, apply'd or appli∣cable to any thing I have said in my Vindication; I shall pass by, till he shews any thing in them that is so.

In pag. 36. This Giant in Argu∣ment, falls on me, and mauls me un∣mercifully about the Epistles. He be∣gins thus; The Gentleman is not without his Evasions, and he sees it is high time to make use of them. This puts him in some disorder. For when he comes to speak of my mentioning his ill treatment of the Epistles—you may observe that he begins to grow warmer

than before. Now this meek Man is nettled, and one may perceive he is sen∣sible of the Scandal that he hath given to good People by his slighting the Epi∣stolary Writings of the Holy Apostles, yet he is so cunning as to disguise his Passion as well as he can. Let all this impertinent and inconsistent stuff be so. I am angry, and cannot disguise it; I am cunning and would disguise it; But yet the quick-sighted Unmasker has found me out, that I am nettled. What does all this notable Prologue of Hictius Doctius, of a Cunning Man, and in effect no Cunning Man, in dis∣order, warm'd, nettled, in a passion tend to? but only to shew, that these fol∣lowing words of mine, p. 19. of my Vindication, viz.

I require you to publish to the World those Passages which shew my contempt of the Epistles

are so full of heat and disorder, that they need no other An∣swer, But what need I, good Sir, do this, when you have done it your self? A Reply, I own, very soft, and whe∣ther I may not say, very silly, let the Reader judge. The Unmasker having accused me of contemning the Epi∣stles,

my Reply in my Vindicat. p. 19. was thus;

Sir, when your Angry Fit is over, and the abatement of your Passion has given way to the return of your Sincerity, I shall beg you to read this Passage in the 297. p. of my Book. These holy Writers (viz. the Penmen of the Epistles) inspired from above, writ nothing but Truth; and in most places very weighty Truths to us now, for the expounding, clearing and confirming of the Christian Do∣ctrine, and establishing those in it, who had imbraced it. And again, p. 299. the other Parts [i. e. besides the Gospels and the Acts] of DI∣VINE REVELATION are Objects of Faith, and are so to be received; They are Truths of which none, that is once known to be such, i. e. revealed, may or ought to be disbelieved. And if this does not satisfie you, that I have as high a Veneration for the Epistles, as you, or any one can have, I require you to publish to the World those PAS∣SAGES, which shew my con∣tempt of them.

After such di∣rect

words of mine, expressing my veneration for that part of Divine Re∣vel••••on, which is contain'd in the Epi∣stles, any one but an Unmasker would blush to charge me with contempt of them, without alledging, when sum∣mon'd to it, any word in my Book to justifie that charge.

If hardness of Forehead, were strength of Brains, 'twere two to one of his side against any Man I ever yet heard of. I require him to pub∣lish to the World those Passages, that shew my contempt of the Epistles, and he answers me, he need not do it, for I have done it my self. Whoever had common sense would understand, that what I demanded was, that he should shew the World where, amongst all I had published, there were any Passa∣ges, that expressed contempt of the Epistles: For it was not expected, he should quote Passages of mine, that I had never published. And this accute Unmasker (to this) says, I had published them my self. So that the reason why he cannot find them is, because I have published them my self. But, says he, I appeal to the Reader, whether (after

your tedious Collections out of the four Evangelists) your passing by the Epistles, and neglecting wholly what the Apostles say in them, be not publishing to the World your contempt of them? I de∣mand of him to publish to the World those Passages, which shew my con∣tempt of the Epistles: And he answers, he need not, I have done it my self. How does that appear? I have passed by the Epistles, says he. My passing them by then, are Passages published against the Epistles? For publishing of Passages is what you said you need not do, and what I had done. So that the Passages I have published, containing a contempt of the Epistles, are extant in my saying nothing of them? Surely this same passing by has done some very shrewd displeasure to our poor Unmasker, that he so starts when∣ever it is but named, and cannot think it contains less than Exclusion, Defiance and Contempt. Here there∣fore the Proposition remaining to be proved by you is,

XIV.

That one cannot pass by any thing without contempt of it.

And when you have proved it, I shall then ask you, what will become of all those parts of Scriptur••; all those Chapters and Verses, that you have passed by in your Collection of Fundamental Articles? Those that you have vouchsafed to set down, you tell us are in the Bible on purpose to be be∣lieved. What must become of all the rest, which you have omitted? Are they there not to be believed? And must the Reader understand your pas∣sing them by to be a publishing to the World your contempt of them? If so, you have Unmasked your self: If not, but you may pass by some parts of Scripture, nay whole Epistles, as you have those of St. Iames, and St. Iude, without contempt; Why may not I without contempt pass by others; But because you have a liberty to do what you will, and I must do but what you in your good pleasure will allow me?

But if I ask you whence you have this Privilege above others; You will have nothing to say, except it be according to your usual Skill in Divining, that you know my Heart, and the Thoughts that are in it, which you find not like yours, right, and orthodox, and good; But always evil and perverse, such as I dare not own, but hypocritically ei∣ther say nothing of, or declare against; But yet with all my cunning I cannot hide them from you; your all know∣ing penetration always finds them out; You know them, or you guess at them, as is best for your turn, and that's as good: And then presently I am con∣founded. I doubt whether the World has ever had any two-eyed Man your equal for penetration and a quick sight. The telling by the Spectators looks, what Card he guesses, is nothing to what you can do. You take the heighth of an Author's Parts, by numbring the Pages of his Book; You can spy an Heresy in him by his saying not a syllable of it; Distinguish him from the Orthodox by his understand∣ing places of Scripture, just as several of the Orthodox do; You can repeat

by heart whole Leaves of what is in his Mind to say, before he speaks a word of it; You can discover De∣signs before they are hatch'd, and all the Intrigues of carrying them on by those who never thought of them. All this, and more you can do, by the Spirit of Orthodoxy, or which is as certain, by your own good Spirit of Invention informing you. Is not this to be an errant Conjurer?

But to your Reply. You say, after my TEDIOUS Collection out of the four Evangelists, my passing by the Epi∣stles, and neglecting wholly what the Apostles say, &c. I wondred at first why you mention'd not the Acts here, as well as the four Evangelists. For I have not, as you have in other places observed, been sparing of Collections out of the Acts too. But there was it seems a Necessity here for your omit∣ting it: For that would have stood too near what followed, in these words; and neglecting wholly what the Apo∣stles say. For if it appear'd to the Reader, out of your own Confession, that I allowed and built upon the Di∣vine Authority of what the Apostles

say in the Acts, he could not so easily be mislead into an Opinion, that I contemned what they say in their Epi∣stles. But this is but a slight touch of your Leger-de-main.

And now I ask the Reader what he will think of a Minister of the Gospel, who cannot bear the Texts of Scrip∣ture I have produced, nor my Quota∣tions out of the four Evangelists? This which in his Thoughts of the Causes of Atheism, p. 114. was want of Vivacity and Elevation of Mind, want of a Vein of Sense and Reason, yea and of Elocution too, is here in his So∣cinianism Unmask'd, a tedious Colle∣ction out of the four Evangelists. Those places I have quoted, lie heavy it seems upon his Stomach, and are too many to be got off. But it was my business not to omit one of them; that the Reader might have a full view of the whole tenour of the Prea∣ching of our Saviour and his Apo∣stles to the Unconverted Iews and Gentiles; and might therein see what Faith they were Converted to, and upon their assent to which they were pronounced Believers and admitted in∣to

the Christian Church. But the Unmasker complains there are too many of them: He thinks the Gospel, the good News of Salvation tedious from the Mouth of our Saviour and his Apostles: He is of opinion, That before the Epistles were writ, and without believing precisely what he thinks ••it to cull out of them, there could be no Christians; And if we had nothing but the four Evangelists, we could not be saved. And yet 'tis plain, that every single one of the Four con∣tains the Gospel of Iesus Christ, and at least they all together contain all that is necessary to Salvation. If any one doubt of this, I referr him to Mr. Chil∣lingworth for Satisfaction, who hath abundantly proved it.

His following words (were he not the same Unmasker all through) would be beyond Parallel. But let us hear why the Vindicator did not attempt to Collect any Articles out of these Wri∣tings, He assigns this as one Reason:

The Epistles being writ to those who were already Believers, it could not be supposed that they were writ to them to teach them Fundamen∣tals,

p. 13, 14. Vindic. Certainly no Man would have conjectured that he would have used such an Evasion as this. I will say that for him, he goes beyond all surmises, he is above all Conjectures, he hath a faculty which no Creature on Earth can ever fathom. Thus far the Unmasker, in his Orato∣rical strain. In what follows he comes to his closer reasoning against what I had said. His words are, Do we not know that the four Gospels were writ to and for Believers, as well as Unbelie∣vers? Answ. I grant it. Now let us see your Inference: Therefore what these holy Historians recorded, that our Saviour and his Apostles said and preach'd to Unbelievers, was said and preach'd to Believers. The Dis∣course which our Saviour had with the Woman of Samaria, and her Townsmen, was addressed to Belie∣vers; because St. Iohn writ his Gospel (wherein it is recorded as a part of our Saviour's History) for Believers as well as Unbelievers. St. Peter's Preaching to Cornelius and St. Paul's Preaching at Antioch, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, &c. was not to Unbelie∣vers,

for their Conversion; Because St. Luke dedicates his History of the Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, who was a Christian, as the Unmasker stre∣nuously proves in this Paragraph. Just as if he should say, that the Dis∣courses which Caesar records he had upon several Occasions with the Gauls were not addressed to the Gauls alone, but to the Romans also; because his Commentaries were writ for the Ro∣mans as well as others: Or that the Sayings of the Ancient Greeks and Romans in Plutarch, were not spoke by them to their Contemporaries on∣ly, because they are recorded by him for the benefit of Posterity.

I perused the Preachings of our Sa∣viour and his Apostles to the Uncon∣verted World, to see what they taught and required to be believed to make Men Christians: And these all I set down, and leave the World to be judge what they contain'd. The Epi∣stles which were all written to those who had imbraced the Faith, and were all Christians already, I thought would not so distinctly shew, what were those Doctrines, which were absolutely

necessary to make Men Christians; they being not writ to convert Unbelievers, but to build up those, who were al∣ready Believers, in their most holy Faith. This is plainly expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, V. 11, &c▪ Of whom, i. e. Christ, we have many things to say and hard to be utter'd, see∣ing ye are all dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be Tea∣chers, ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God; and are become such as have need of Milk and not of strong Meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a Babe: But strong meat belong∣eth to him that is of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised, to discern both good and bad. Therefore leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the founda∣tion of Repentance from dead Works, and of Faith towards God and of the Doctrine of Baptism, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the Dead, and of eternal Iudgment. Here the Apostle shews what was his De∣sign

in writing this Epistle: Not to teach them the Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion, but to lead them on to more Perfection; That is, to greater degrees of Knowledge of the wise Design and wonderful Con∣trivance and carrying on of the Go∣spel and the Evidence of it; which he makes out in this Epistle, by shewing its Correspondence with the Old Te∣stament, and particularly with the Oeconomy of the Mosaical Constitu∣tion. Here I might ask the Unmasker, whether those many things which St. Paul tells the Hebrews he had to say of Christ, (hard to be utter'd to them, because they were dull of hear∣ing) had not an immediate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means, or Issue of their Redemption and Salvation; And therefore, whether they were such things without the knowledge of which they could not be saved, as the Un∣masker says of such things, p. 23. And the like I might ask him concerning those things which the Apostle tells the Corinthians, 1 Ep. Chap. III. 2. that they were not yet able to bear. For much to the same purpose, he speaks

to the Corinthians, Ep. 1. Ch. III. as in the above-cited places he did to the Hebrews; That he as a wise Master-Builder had laid the Foundation: And that Foundation, he himself tells us, is Iesus the Messiah, and that there is no other Foundation to be laid. And that in this he laid the Foundation of Chri∣stianity at Corinth, St. Luke records, Act XVIII. 4. in these words; Paul at Corinth reason'd in the Synagogue every Sabbath-day, and testified to the Iews that Iesus was the Messiah. Upon which Foundation he tells them there might be a Superstructure. But that what is built on the Foundation is not the Foundation, I think I need not prove. He further tells them, that he had de∣sired to build upon this Foundation; But withal says, he had fed them till then with Milk, and not with Meat: because they were Babes, and had not been able to bear it, neither were they yet able. And therefore this Epistle we see is almost wholly spent in Re∣proofs of their Miscarriages, and in Exhortations and Instructions relating to Practice, and very little said in it for the explaining any part of the

great Mystery of Salvation contain'd in the Gospel.

By these Passages we may see (were it not evident to common sence it self from the Nature of things) that the design of these Epistles was not to lay the Foundations, or teach the Principles of the Christian Religion; they being writ to those who had re∣ceived them, and were Christians al∣ready. The same holds in all the other Epistles: And therefore the Epi∣stles seem'd not to me the properest parts of Scripture, to give us that Foundation distinct from all the Su∣perstructures built on it; Because in the Epistles, the latter was the thing propos'd, rather than the former. For the main intention of the Apostles in writing their Epistles, could not be to do what was done already; to lay down barely the Foundations of Chri∣stianity to those who were Christians already; but to build upon it some ••arther Explication of it, which either their particular Circumstances, or a general evidencing of the Truth, Wis∣dom, Excellencies, and Privileges, &c. of the Gospel required. This was the

reason that perswaded me to take the Articles of Faith absolutely necessary to be received to make a Man a Chri∣stian, only from the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles to the Un∣converted World, as laid down in the Historical Part of the New Testament. And I thought it a good Reason. It being past doubt, that they in their Preachings proposed to the Uncon∣verted all that was necessary to be be∣lieved to make them Christians. And also, that that Faith, upon a Profession whereof any one was admitted into the Church as a Believer, had all that was necessary in it to make him a Christian; because if it wanted any thing necessary, he had necessarily not been admitted; unless we can suppose, that any one was admitted into the Christian Church by our Saviour, and his Apostles, who was not yet a Chri∣stian; or pronounced a Believer, who yet wanted something necessary to make him a Believer, i. e. was a Be∣liever and not a Believer at the same time. But what those Articles were, which had been Preach'd to those, to whom the Epistles were writ, and

upon the Belief whereof they had been admitted into the Christian Church, and became as they are called Belie∣vers, Saints, Faithful, Elect, &c. could not be collected out of the Epistles. This, though it were my reason, and must be a reason to every one, who would make this Enquiry; and the Unmasker quotes the place where I told him it was my reason; Yet he according to his never erring Illumi∣nation, flatly tells me, p. 38. that it was not, and adds, Here then is want of Sincerity, &c. I must desire him therefore to prove what he says, p. 38. viz.

XV.

That by the same Argument that I would perswade that the Funda∣mentals are not to be sought for in the Epistles, he can prove that they are not to be sought for in the Gospels and in the Acts; because even these were writ to those that believed.

And next I desire him to prove, what he also says in the same Page, viz.

XVI.

That the Epistles being writ to those that believed, was not an Argument that I did make use of.

He tells us, p. 38. That it is the Argument whereby I would perswade, and in the very same Page, a few Lines lower, says, That it is not the Argu∣ment I did make use of. Who, but an arrant Unmasker, would contradict himself so flatly in the same breath? And yet upon that he raises a Com∣plaint of my want of Sincerity.

For want of Sincerity in one of us, we need not go far for an Instance. The next Paragraph, p. 38.—40. af∣fords us a gross one of it; Wherein the Unmasker argues strongly, not a∣gainst any thing I had said, but against an Untruth of his own setting up. Towards the latter end of the Para∣graph, p. 40. he has these words; It is manifest that the Apostles in their Epistles taught Fundamentals, which is contrary to what this Gentleman says, that such a thing could not be suppos'd;

And therefore the Unmasker has taken a great deal of pains to shew, that there are Fundamental Doctrines to be found in the Epistles; as if I had denied it. And to lead the Reader into an Opinion, that I had said so, he sets down these words, could not be suppos'd, as if they were my words. And so they are, but not to that purpose. And therefore he did well not to quote the Page, lest the Reader, by barely turning to the place, should have a clear sight of Falshood, instead of that Sincerity which he would make the Reader believe is wanting in me. My words, p. 294. Of the Reasonableness of Christianity are,

NOR CAN IT BE SUPPOS'D, that the send∣ing of such Fundamentals was the reason of the Apostles writing to any of them.

And a little lower;

The Epistles therefore being all written to those who were already Believers and Christians, the occa∣sion and end of writing them could not be to instruct them in that which was necessary to make them Christians.

The thing then that I deny'd, was not, that there were

any Fundamentals in the Epistles. For p. 295. I have these express words;

I do not deny but the great Do∣ctrines of the Christian Faith are dropt here and there, and scatter'd up and down in most of them.

And therefore he might have spared his Endeavours in the next Paragraph to prove, that there may be Funda∣mentals found in the Epistles, till he finds some body that denies it. And here again, I must repeat my usual Question, that with this sincere Wri∣ter is so often necessary, viz.

XVII.

Where it is that I say that it cannot be suppos'd that there are Fun∣damental Articles in the Epi∣stles?

If he hopes to shift it off, by the word taught; which seems fallaciously put in, as if he meant, that there were some Fundamental Articles taught necessary to be believed to make them Christians, in the Epistles, which those who they were writ to knew not be∣fore,

in this sense I do deny it, and then this will be the

XVII.

Proposition remaining upon him to prove, viz.

That there are Fundamental Arti∣cles necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian taught in the Epistles which those, who they were writ to, knew not before.

The former part of his next Para∣graph, p. 40. runs thus: Hear another feigned Ground of his omitting the Epi∣stles, viz. Because the Fundamental Ar∣ticles are here promiscuously and without distinction mixt with other Truths. p. 14. But who sees not that this is a mere Elu∣sion? For on the same account he might have forborn to search for Fundamental Articles in the Gospels, for they do not lie there together, but are dispersed up and down: The Doctrinal and Histori∣cal Parts are mix'd with one another, but he pretends to sever them. Why then

did he not make a Separation between the Doctrines in the Epistles, and those other Matters that are treated of there? He has nothing to reply to this, and therefore we must again look upon what he has suggested as a cast of his shuffling faculty.

The Argument contain'd in these words is this. A Man cannot well di∣stinguish Fundamental from Non-fun∣damental Doctrines in the Epistles, where they are promiscuously mixed with Non-fundamental Doctrines▪ Therefore he cannot well distinguish Fundamental Doctrines from others in the Gospels, and the Acts, where they are mixed with Matters of Fact. As if he should say, one cannot well distinguish a Batchellour of Divinity from other Divines, where several of them stand together promiscuously in the same Habit; Therefore one cannot distinguish a Batchellour of Divinity from a Billingsgate Orator, where they stand together in their distinct habits. Or that it is as easie to distinguish ••ine Gold, from that of a little lower Allay, where several pieces of each are mixed together; as it is to distin∣guish

pieces of fine Gold from pie∣ces of Silver, which they are mixed among.

But it seems the Unmasker thinks it is as easie to distinguish between Fun∣damental and not Fundamental Do∣ctrines, in a writing of the same Au∣thor, where they are promiscuously mixed together, as it is to distinguish between a Fundamental Doctrine of Faith, and a relation of Matter of Fact, where they are intermixedly reported in the same History. When he has proved this, the Unmasker will have more reason to tax me with Elusion, Shuffling and Feigning, in the reason I gave for not collecting Fundamen∣tals out of the Epistles. Till then, all that noise must stand amongst those ridiculous Airs of Triumph and Vi∣ctory, which he so often gives him∣self, without the least Advantage to his Cause, or Edification of his Rea∣der, though he should a thousand times say that I have nothing to re∣ply.

In the latter part of this Paragraph, he says, That necessary Truths, Funda∣mental Principles, may be distinguish'd

from those, that are not such, in the Epistolary Writings, by the Nature and Importance of them, by their imme∣diate respect to the Author, and means of our Salvation. Answ. If this be so, I desire him to give me a definitive Collection of Fundamentals out of the Epistles, as I have given one out of the Gospels and the Acts. If he cannot do that; 'Tis plain he hath here given a distinguishing mark of Fundamen∣tals, by which he himself cannot di∣stinguish them. But yet I am the Shuffler.

The Argument in the next Para∣graph, p. 41. is this.

Necessary Doctrines of Faith, such as God absolutely demands to be be∣lieved for Justification, may be di∣stinguished from Rules of Holy Li∣ving, with which they are mixed in the Epistles; Therefore Doctrines of Faith necessary, and not necessary, to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian may be distinguished, as they stand mixed in the Epistles. Which is as good sense as to say, Lambs and Kids may be easily distinguish'd in the same Pen, where they are together;

by their different Natures: Therefore the Lambs I absolutely demand of you, as necessary to satisfie me, may be di∣stinguish'd from others in the same Pen, where they are mix'd without any distinction. Doctrines of Faith, and Precepts of Practice, are as distin∣guishable as doing and believing: And those as easily discernible one from another, as thinking and walk∣ing: But Doctrinal Propositions, all of them of Divine Revelation, are of the same Authority, and of the same Spe∣cies, in respect of the necessity of be∣lieving them; And will be eternally un∣distinguishable into necessary and not necessary to be believed, till there be some other way found, to distinguish them, than that they are in a Book, which is all of Divine Revelation. Though therefore Doctrines of Faith, and Rules of Practice are very distin∣guishable in the Epistles; yet it does not follow from thence, that Funda∣mental and not Fundamental Do∣ctrines, Points necessary, and not ne∣cessary to be believed to make Men Christians, are easily distinguishable in the Epistles. Which therefore re∣mains

to be proved: And it remains incumbent upon him,

XVIII.

To set down the Marks, whereby the Doctrines deliver'd in the Epistles, may easily and exactly be distinguished into Fundamen∣tal, and not Fundamental Arti∣cles of Faith.

All the rest of that Paragraph, con∣taining nothing against me, must be bound up with a great deal of the like stuff, which the Unmasker has put into his Book, to shew the World, he does not imitate me in Impertinencies, Incohe∣rences, and trifling Excursions, as he boasts in his first Paragraph. Only I shall desire the Reader to take the whole Passage concerning this Matter, as it stands in my Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 295.

I do not deny, but the great Doctrines of the Chri∣stian Faith are dropt here and there, and scatter'd up and down in most of them. But 'tis not in the Epi∣stles we are to learn, what are the

Fundamental Articles of Faith, where they are promiscuously, and with∣out distinction, mixed with other Truths, and Discourses, which were (though for Edification indeed yet) only occasional. We shall find and discern those great, and neces∣sary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, to those who were yet Strangers and ignorant of the Faith, to bring them in, and convert them to it.

And then let him read these words which the Unmasker has quoted out of them, It is not in the Epistles that we are to learn, what are the Fundamental Arti∣cles of Faith, they were written for the resolving of Doubts, and reforming of Mistakes; With his Introduction of them in these words, He commands the Reader not to stir a jot further than the Acts. If I should ask him, where that Command appears, he must have recourse to his old shift, that he did not mean as he said, or else stand Con∣victed of a malicious Untruth. An Orator is not bound to speak strict Truth, though a Disputant be. But this Unmasker's Writing against me,

will excuse him from being of the latter: And then why may not Fals∣hoods pass for Rhetorical flourishes, in one who hath been used to popular Haranguing; to which Men are not generally so severe, as strictly to exa∣mine them, and expect that they should always be found to contain no∣thing but precise Truth, and strict Reasoning? But yet I must not forget to put upon his Score, this other Pro∣position of his, which he has, p. 42. and ask him to shew,

XIX.

Where it is that I command my Rea∣der not to stir a jot farther than the Acts?

In the next two Paragraphs, p. 42.—46. The Unmasker is at his natural Play of Declaiming without Proving. 'Tis pity the Mishna, out of which he takes his good breeding, as it told him that a well-bred and well-taught Man answers to the first in the first place, had not given him this Rule too about Order, viz. That Proving should go

before Condemning; Else all the fierce Exaggerations, ill Language can heap up, are but empty Scurility. But 'tis no wonder that the Iewish Doctors, should not provide Rules for a Chri∣stian Divine turn'd Unmasker. For where a Cause is to be maintain'd, and a Book to be writ, and Argu∣ments are not at hand, yet something must be found to fill it; Railing in such cases is much easier than Rea∣soning, especially where a Man's Parts lie that way.

The first of these Paragraphs, p. 42. he begins thus; But let us hear further what this Vindicator saith to excuse his rejection of the Doctrines contained in the Epistles, and his putting us off with one Article of Faith: And then he quotes these following words of mine:

What if the Author designed his Treatise, as the Title shews, chiefly for those who were not yet through∣ly and firmly Christians, purposing to work upon those, who either wholly disbelieved, or doubted of the Truth of the Christian Reli∣gion?

Answ. This, as he has put it, is a downright Falshood. For the words he quotes, were not used by me to excuse my rejection of the Doctrines contained in the Epistles, or to prove there was but one Article. But as a reason why I omitted the mention of Satisfaction.

To demonstrate this, I shall set down the whole Passage as it is, p. 6. of my Vindication; where it runs thus:

But what will become of me that I have not mention'd Satisfaction!

Possibly this Reverend Gentle∣man would have had Charity enough for a known Writer of the Brotherhood to have found it by an Innuendo in those words above quoted, of laying down his Life for another. But every thing is to be strained here the other way. For the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. is of necessity to be represented as a Socinian; Or else his Book may be read; and the Truths in it, which Mr. Edwards likes not, be received; and People put upon examining. Thus one, as full of happy Conjectures and Suspi∣tions

as this Gentleman, might be apt to argue. But what if the Au∣thor designed his Treatise, as the Title shews, chiefly for those who were not yet throughly or firmly Christians; Proposing to work on those who either wholly disbelieved or doubted of the Truth of the Christian Religion?

To this he tells me, p. 43. that my Title says nothing for me, i. e. shews not, that I designed my Book for those that disbelieved or doubted of the Christian Religion.

Answ. I thought that a title that professed the Reasonableness of any Do∣ctrine shew'd it was intended for those that were not ••ully satisfied of the Reasonableness of it; unless Books are to be writ to convince those of any thing, who are convinced already. But possibly this may be the Unmasker's way: And if one should judge by his manner of treating this Subject, with Declamation instead of Argument, one would think, that he meant it for no body, but those who were of his Mind already. I thought therefore, The Reasonableness of Christianity as deli∣ver'd

in the Scripture, a proper Title to signifie whom it was chiefly meant for: And, I thank God, I can with satisfaction say it has not wanted its effect upon some of them. But the Unmasker proves for all that, that I could not design it chiefly for Disbe∣lievers or Doubters of the Christian Religion. For, says he, p. 43. How those that wholly disregard and disbelieve the Scriptures of the New Testament, as Gentiles, Iews, Mahometans and Atheists do (I crave leave to put in Theists in∣stead of Atheists, for a reason pre∣sently to be mention'd) are like to at∣tend to the Reasonableness of Christia∣nity as deliver'd in the Scripture is not to be conceived; And therefore we look upon this as all meer Sham and Sophistry. Answ. Though the Unmasker teaches good breeding out of the Mishna, yet I thought he had been a Minister of the Gospel, and had taught Christia∣nity out of the Scripture. Why! Good Sir, would you teach Iews and Mahometans Christianity out of the Talmud and Alcoran; because they are the Books, that at present they attend to and believe? Or would you, laying

by the Authority of all Books, Preach Religion to Infidels in your own Name, and by your own Authority; laying aside the Scripture? Is it not to be con∣ceived, no not by a Christian Divine, that the way to make Unbelievers Christians, is to shew them the Rea∣sonableness of the Religion contained in the Scripture? But it seems the Un∣masker has a peculiar way of Preach∣ing and propagating Christianity with∣out the Scripture, as some Men have a peculiar way of disputing without Reason.

In the beginning of this Paragraph, p. 43. the Unmasker, that is always a fair Interpreter of my meaning, and never fails to know it better than I do, tells me, That by those, that wholly disbelieve, I must mean Atheists, Turks, Iews and Pagans; and by those that are not firmly Christians, a few weak Christians. But did our Unmasker ne∣ver hear of Unbelievers under a deno∣mination distinct from that of Atheists, Turks, Iews, and Pagans? Whilst the Pulpit and the Press have so often had up the Name of Theists or Deists, has that Name wholly scaped him? 'Twas

these I chiefly designed, and I believe no body of all that read my Vindica∣tion, but the Unmasker mistook me, if he did. But there at least, p. 9. he might have found the Name, as of a sort of Unbelievers not unknown a∣mongst us. But whatever he thought, it was convenient and a sort of Pru∣dence in him (when he would per∣swade others, that I had not a De∣sign which I say I had) to lessen as much as he could, and cover the need of any such Design, and so make it, that I could not intend my Book to work upon those, that disbelieved, or did not firmly believe; by insinuating there were few or none such amongst us. Hence he says that by those that are not throughly and firmly Christi∣ans, I mean a FEW weak Christians; as well as under those, who wholly disbelieve he left the Theists out of my meaning. I am very glad to hear from the Unmasker, that there are but few weak Christians, few that have Doubts about the Truth of Christia∣nity amongst us. But if there be not a great number of Deists, and that the preventing their increase be no••

worth every true Christian's Care and Endeavours, those who have been so loud against them have been much to blame; and I wish to God there were no reason for their Complaints. For these therefore I take the liberty to say, as I did before, that I chiefly de∣signed my Book; And shall not be asham'd of this Sophistry as you call it, if it can be Sophistry to alledge a Matter of Fact that I know; Till you have Arguments to convince me, that you know my intention in publishing it, better than I do my self. And I shall think it still no blameable Pru∣dence, however you exclaim against Prudence, (as perhaps you have some reason) that

I mention'd only those Advantages, that all Christians are agreed in; And that I observed that command of the Apostle, Rom. XIV. 1. Him that is weak in the Faith re∣ceive ye, but not to doubtful Dis∣putations; without being a Socinian. I think I did not amiss, that I of∣fer'd to the belief of those that stood off, that, and only that, which our Saviour and his Apostles preach'd for the reducing the Unconverted

World. And would any one think he in earnest went about to per∣swade Men to be Christians, who should use that as an Argument to recommend the Gospel, which he has observed Men to lay hold on as an Objection against it? To urge such Points of Controversie as Ne∣cessary Articles of Faith, when we see our Saviour and the Apostles urged them not as necessary to be believed to make Men Christians, is (by our own Authority) to add Prejudices to Prejudices, and to block up our own way to those Men, whom we would have access to, and prevail upon.

I have repeated this again out of the 7th. Page of my Vindication, where there is more to the same pur∣pose; That the Reader may see how fully the Unmasker has answer'd it.

Because I said,

Would any one blame my Prudence if I mention'd only those Advantages, which all Christians are agreed in.

The Un∣masker adds, p. 44. Socinian Christians, and then as if the naming of that had gained him his Point, he goes

on victoriously thus, He has bethought himself better since he first. Publish'd his Notions, and (as the result of that) he now begins to resolve, what he writ, into Prudence. I know whence he had this Method (and 'tis likely he has taken more than this from the same hands) viz. from the Missionary Iesuits, that went to Preach the Gospel to the Peo∣ple of China. We are told, that they instructed them in some Matters relating to our Saviour; they let them know that Iesus was the Messias, the Person pro∣mised to be sent into▪ the World; But they conceal'd his Sufferings and Death, and they would not let them know any thing of his Passion and Crucifixion. So our Author (their humble Imitator) undertakes to instruct the World in Christianity, with an omission of its Principal Articles, and more especially that of the Advantage we have by Christ's Death, which was the prime thing design'd in his coming into the World. This he calls Prudence: So that to hide from the People the main Articles of the Christian Religion, to disguise the Faith of the Gospel, to be∣tray Christianity it self, is according

to this excellent Writer, the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence. May we be deli∣ver'd then, say I, from a Prudential Racovian. And there ends the ratling for this time; not to be outdone by any Piece of Clock-work in the Town. When he is once set a going, he runs on like an Alarm, always in the same strain of noisy empty Declamation (wherein every thing is suppos'd and nothing prov'd) till his own weight has brought him to the Ground? And then, being wound up with some new Topick, takes another run, whether it makes for or against him it matters not; he has laid about him with ill Language, let it light where it will, and the Vindicator is paid off.

That I may keep the due distance in our different ways of Writing, I shall shew the Reader, that I say not this at random; but that the place affords me occasion to say so. He be∣gins this Paragraph with these words, p. 42. Let us hear farther what this Vindicator says to excuse his rejection of the Doctrines contain'd in the Epi∣stles. This rejection of the Do∣ctrines contain'd in the Epistles, was

the not mentioning the Satisfaction of Christ, amongst those Advantages I shew'd, that the World received by his coming. This appears by the words he here quotes, as my excuse for that omission. In which place, I also produced some Passages in my Book which sounded like it, some words of Scripture that are used to prove it; But this will not content him: I am for all that, a Betrayer of Christianity and Contemner of the Epis••les. Why? Because I did not out of them name Satisfaction. If you will have the truth of it, Sir, there is not any such word in any one of the Epistles, or other Books of the New Testament, in my Bible, as Satisfying or Satisfaction made by our Saviour; and so I could not put it into my Christianity as de∣liver'd in the Scripture. If mine be not a true Bible, I desire you to fur∣nish me with one that is more Ortho∣dox; or if the Translators have hid that main Article of the Christian Re∣ligion, they are the betrayers of Chri∣stianity, and Contemners of the Epistles, who did not put it there; and not I, who did not take a word from thence,

which they did not put there. For truly, I am not a Maker of Creeds; nor dare add either to the Scripture, or to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.

But you will say Satisfaction, though not named in the Epistles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. Answ. And so it may out of several places in my Reasonableness of Christia∣nity, some whereof, which I took out of the Gospels, I mention'd in my Vindication, p. 5. and others of them which I took out of the Epistles, which I shall point out to you now: As p. 74. I say the Design of our Sa∣viour's coming was to be OFFERED up; And p. 158. I speak of the Work of our REDEMPTION; words which in the Epistles are taken to imply Sa∣tisfaction. And therefore if that be enough, I see not, but I may be free from betraying Christianity; But if it be necessary to Name the word Satis∣faction, and he that does not so is a Betrayer of Christianity, you will do well to consider how you will acquit the Holy Apostles, from that bold Imputation; which if it be extended

as far as it will go, will scarce come short of Blasphemy; For I do not remember that our Saviour has any where named Satisfaction, or implied it plainer in any words than those I have quoted from him. And he, I hope, will scape the Intemperance of your Tongue.

You tell me, I had my Prudence from the Missionary Iesuits in China▪ who conceal'd our Saviour's Suffering and Death; because I undertake to in∣instruct the World in Christianity, with an omission of its Principal Articles. And I pray, Sir, from whom did you learn your Prudence, when taking upon you to teach the Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, in your Thoughts concern∣ing the Causes of Atheism, you left out several, that you have been pleased since to add in your Socinianism Un∣mask'd? Or if I, as you say here, be∣tray Christianity by this Omission of this Principal Article; What do you, who are a Professed Teacher of it, if you omit any principal Article; Which your Prudence is so wary in, that you will not say you have given us all that are necessary to Salvation, in that List you have last published? I pray who

acts best the Jesuit (whose humble Imi∣tator you say I am) you or I; when pretending to give a Catalogue of Fundamentals, you have not reduced them to direct Propositions; but have left some of them indefinite, to be collected as every one pleases; and in∣stead of telling us it is a perfect Ca∣talogue of Fundamentals, plainly shuf∣fle it off, and tell me, p. 22. If that will not content me, you are sure you can do nothing that will; If I require more, it is Folly in you to comply with me? One part of what you here say, I own to you, savours not much of the Skill of a Jesuit. You confess your inability, and I believe it to be perfectly true; That if what you have done already (which is nothing at all) will not content me, you are sure, you can do nothing that will content me, or any reasonable Man, that shall de∣mand of you a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentals. But you make it up pretty well, with a Confidence becoming one of that Order. For he must have rub'd his Forehead hard, who in the same Treatise, where he so severely condemns the Imperfection

of my List of Fundamentals, confesses that he cannot give a compleat Cata∣logue of his own.

You publish to the World in this 44, and the next Page, that I hide from the People the main Articles of the Christian Religion; I disguise the faith of the Gospel, betray Christianity it self, and imitate the Iesuits that went t•• Preach the Gospel to the People of China, by my Omission of its prin∣cipal or main Articles.

Answ. I know not how I disguise the Faith of the Gospel, &c. in imita∣tion of the Jesuits in China; unless taking Men off from the Inventions of Men, and recommending to them the Reading and Study of the Holy Scripture to find what the Gospel is and requires, be a disguising of the Faith of the Gospel, a betraying of Chri∣stianity, and an imitating of the Iesuits. Besides, Sir, if one may ask you, in what School did you learn that pru∣dent warine••s and reserve, which so eminently appears, p. 24. of your So∣cinianism Unmask'd, in these words: These Articles (meaning those which you had before enumerated as Funda∣mental)

of Faith, are such as must IN SOME MEASURE be known and assented to by a Christian, such as must GENERALLY be received, and im∣braced by him? You will do well the next time to set down, how far your Fundamentals must be known, assented to, and received; to avoid the suspicion, that there is a little more of Jesuitism in these Expressions, in some measure known and assented to, and generally receiv'd and imbraced, than what be∣comes a sincere Protestant Preacher of the Gospel. For your speaking so doubtfully of knowing and assenting to those, which you give us for Fun∣damental Doctrines, which belong (as you say) to the very essence of Chri∣stianity, will hardly scape being im∣puted to your want of Knowledge, or want of Sincerity. And indeed the word General is in familiar use with you, and stands you in good stead, when you would say something, you know not what, as I shall have occa∣sion to remark to you when I come to your 91 Page.

Further, I do not remember where it was, that I mention'd or undertook

to set down all the principal or main Articles of Christianity. To change the ••••rms of the Question from Arti∣cles necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, into principal or main Articles, looks a little Jesuitical. But to pass by that; The Apostles when they went to preach the Gospel to People as much Strangers to it, as the Chineses were, when the Europeans came first amongst them, Did they hide from the People the main Articles of the Christian Religion, disguise the Faith of the Gospel, and betray Chri∣stianity it self? If they did not, I am sure I have not: For I have not omit∣ted any of the main Articles which they Preached to the Unbelieving World. Those I have set down, with so much care not to omit any of them, that you blame me for it more than once, and call it tedious. However you are pleased to acquit or condemn the Apostles in the case by your Su∣pream Determination, I am very in∣different. If you think fit to con∣demn them for disguising or betraying the Christian Religion, because they said no more of Satisfaction, than I have

done, in their Preaching at first to their Unbelieving Auditors, Iews or Heathens, to make them as I think Christians (for that I am now speak∣ing of) I shall not be sorry to be found in their Company under what censure soever. If you are pleased graciously to take off this your censure from them, for this omission, I shall claim a share in the same Indulgence.

But to come to what perhaps you will think your self a little more con∣cerned not to censure, than what the Apostles did so long since; for you have given instances of being very apt to make bold with the Dead; Pray tell me, does the Church of England admit People into the Church of Christ at hap-hazard? Or without proposing, and requiring a Profession of all, that is necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian? If she does not, I desire you to turn to the Baptism of those of riper Years in our Liturgy: Where the Priest asking the Convert particularly, whether he believes the Apostles Creed, which he repeats to him; Upon his Profession that he does, and that he desires to be baptized into that

Faith, without one word of any other Articles, Baptizes him; and then de∣clares him a Christian, in these words: We receive this Person into the Congre∣gation of Christ's Flock, and sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not be asham'd—to CON∣TINUE Christ's faithful Soldier and Servant. In all this there is not one word of Satisfaction, no more than in my Book, nor so much neither. And here I ask you, whether for this omis∣sion, you will pronounce that the Church of▪ England disguises the Faith of the Gospel? However you think fit to treat me, yet methinks you should not let your self loose so freely against our first Reformers, and the Fathers of our Church ever since, as to call them Betrayers of Christianity it self, because they think not so much necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, as you are pleased to put down in your Articles; but omit, as well as I, your main Article of Satisfaction.

Having thus notably harangued up∣on the occasion of my saying,

Would any one blame my Prudence

, and thereby made me a Socinian, a Iesuit,

and a Betrayer of Christianity it self, he has in that answer'd all that such a Miscreant as I do or can say; and so passes by all the Reasons I gave, for what I did; without any other notice or answer, but only denying a Matter of Fact, which I only can know, and he cannot, viz. My design in Printing my Reasonableness of Christianity.

In the next Paragraph, p. 45. in answer to these words of St. Paul, Rom. XIV. 1. Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful Disputations, which I brought as a rea∣son, why I mention'd not Satisfaction amongst the Benefits receiv'd by the coming of our Saviour; Because, as I tell him in my Vindication, p. 5. My Reasonableness of Christianity, as the title shews, was

designed chiefly for those who were not yet through∣ly or firmly Christians

. He re∣plies, and I desire him to prove it.

XX.

That I pretend a design of my Book which was never so much as thought of, till I was sollicited by my Bre∣thren to Vindicate it.

All the rest in this Paragraph being either nothing to this place of the Ro∣mans, or what I have answer'd else∣where, needs no farther Answer.

The next two Paragraphs, p. 46.••49. are meant for an Answer to something I had said concerning the Apostles Creed, upon the occasion of his charge∣ing my Book with Socinianism. They begin thus.

This Author of the New Christianity. Answ. This New Christianity is as old as the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, and a little older than the Unmasker's System. Wisely ob∣jects that the Apostles Creed hath none of those Articles which I mention'd, p. 12, 13. Answ. If that Author wisely objects, the Unmasker would have done well to have replied wisely. But for a Man wisely to reply it is in the first place requisite, that the Objection be truly and fairly set down in its full force, and not represented short, and as will best serve the Answerers turn to reply to. This is neither wise nor honest: And this first part of a wise Reply the Unmasker has failed in. This will ap∣pear from my words and the occasion

of them. The Unmasker had accused my Book of Socinianism, for omitting some Points, which he urged as ne∣cessary Articles of Faith. To which I answer'd, That he had done so only

to give it an ill Name, not because it was Socinian, for he had no more reason to charge it with Socinia∣nism for the Omissions he mentions, than the Apostles Creed

. These are my words, which he should have either set down out of p. 12. which he quotes, or at least given the Obje∣ction as I put it, if he had meant to have clear'd it by a fair Answer. But he, instead thereof, contents himself that I object, that the Apostles Creed hath none of those Articles and Doctrines which the Unmasker mention'd. Answ. This at best is but a part of my Ob∣jection, and not to the purpose. I there meant, without the rest join'd to it; which it has pleased the Unmasker ac∣cording to his laudable way to con∣ceal. My Objection therefore stands thus,

That the same Articles, for the Omission whereof the Unmasker

charges my Book with Soci∣nianism, being also omitted in the Apostles Creed, he has no more reason to Charge my Book with Socinianism, for the Omis∣sions mention'd, than he hath to charge the Apostles Creed with Socinianism.

To this Objection of mine, let us now see how he answers, p. 47.

Nor does any considerate Man wonder at it [i. e. That the Apostles Creed hath none of those Articles and Doctrines which he had mention'd] For the Creed is a form of outward Profession, which is chiefly to be made in the Publick Assemblies, when Prayers are put up in the Church and the Holy Scriptures are read. Then this Abridgment of Faith is properly used, or when there is not generally time or opportunity to make any Enlargement. But we are not to think it expresly contains in it all the necessary and weighty Points, all the important Doctrines of Belief, it being only designed to be an Abstract.

Answ. Another indispensible requi∣quisite in a wise Reply is, that it should be pertinent. Now what can there be more impertinent, than to confess the Matter of Fact upon which the Obje∣ction is grounded, but instead of de∣stroying the Inference drawn from that Matter of Fact, only amuse the Reader with wrong Reasons, why that Matter of Fact was so?

No considerate Man, he says, doth wonder that the Articles and Doctrines he mentioned, are omitted in the Apo∣stles Creed: Because that Creed is a form of outward Profession. Answ. A Pro∣fession! of what I beseech you? Is it a Form to be used for Form's sake? I thought it had been a Profession of something, even of the Christian Faith: And if it be so, any considerate Man may wonder necessary Articles of the Christian Faith should be lest out of it. For how it can be an outward Pro∣fession of the Christian Faith, without containing the Christian Faith, I do not see; unless a Man can outwardly profess the Christian Faith in words, that do not contain or express it, i. e. profess the Christian Faith, when he

does not profess it. But he says, 'tis a Profession chiefly to be made use of in Assemblies. Answ. Do those solemn Assemblies privilege it from containing the necessary Articles of the Christian Religion? This proves not that it does not, or was not designed to con∣tain all Articles necessary to be belie∣ved to make a Man a Christian; un∣less the Unmasker can prove that a From of outward Profession of the Chri∣stian Faith, that contains all such ne∣cessary Articles, cannot be made use of in the Publick Assemblies. In the Publick Assemblies, says he, when Prayers are put up by the Church and the Holy Scriptures are read, then this Abridgment of Faith is properly used; or when there is not generally time or opportunity to make an Enlargement. Answ. But that which contains not what is ab∣solutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, can no where be properly used as a form of outward Profession of the Christian Faith, and least of all in the solemn Publick As∣semblies. All the sense I can make of this is, That this Abridgment of the Christian Faith, i. e. imperfect Colle∣ction

(as the Unmasker will have it) of some of the Fundamental Articles of Christianity in the Apostles Creed, which omits the greatest part of them, is made use of as a form of outward Profession of but part of the Christian Faith in the Publick Assemblies, when by reason of reading of the Scripture and Prayers, there is not time or op∣portunity for a full and perfect Profes∣sion of it.

'Tis strange the Christian Church should not find time nor opportunity in Sixteen hundred Years to make, in any of her Publick Assemblies, a Profession of so much of her Faith as is neces∣sary to make a Man a Christian. But pray tell me, has the Church any such full and compleat form of Faith, that hath in it all those Propositions, you have given us for necessary Articles (not to say any thing of those which you have reserved to your self in your own Breast, and will not communi∣cate) of which the Apostles Creed is only a scanty form, a brief imperfect abstract, used only to save time in the Croud of other pressing Occasions, that are always in hast to be dispatch'd?

If she has, the Unmasker will do well to produce it. If the Church has no such compleat form, besides the Apostle's Creed, any where, of Fundamental Articles, he will do well to leave talking idlely of this Abstract, as he goes on to do in the following words:

But, says he, we are not to think that it expresly contains in it all the necessary and weighty Points, all the important Doctrines of our Belief, it being only designed to be an Abstract. Answ. Of what, I beseech you, is it an Abstract? For here the Unmasker stops short, and as one that knows not well what to say, speaks not out what it is an Abstract of; But provides himself a Subterfuge in the generality of the preceding terms of necessary and weigh∣ty Points, and Important Doctrines, jumbled together; which can be there of no other use, but to cover his Ig∣norance, or Sophistry. For the Que∣stion being only about necessary Points, to what purpose are weighty and im∣portant Doctrines join'd to them; un∣less he will say, that there is no diffe∣rence between necessary and weighty

Points, Fundamental and important Do∣ctrines? And if so, then the distin∣ction of Points into necessary and not necessary, will be foolish and imper∣tinent; And all the Doctrines con∣tain'd in the Bible will be absolutely necessary to be explicitly believed by every Man to make him a Christian. But taking it for granted, that the di∣ction of Truths contain'd in the Go∣spel into Points absolutely necessary, and not absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, is good; I desire the Unmasker to tell us, what the Apostles Creed is an Abstract of. He will perhaps answer, that he has told us already in this very Page, where he says it is an Abridgment of Faith, and he has said true in words, but saying those words by rote after others, without understanding them, he has said so in a sense, that is not true. For he supposes it an Abridgment of Faith, by containing only a few of the ne∣cessary Articles of Faith, and leaving out the far greater part of them; And so takes a part of a thing for an Abridg∣ment of it; Whereas an Abridgment, or Abstract of any thing, is the whole

in little, and if it be of a Science or Doctrine, the Abridgment consists in the essent••al or necessary Parts of it; contracted into a narrower compass, than where it lies diffus'd in the ordi∣nary way of delivery, amongst a great number of Transitions, Expla∣nations, Illustrations, Proofs, Reason∣ings, Corollaries, &c. All which, though they make a part of the Discourse wherein that Doctrine is deliver'd, are lest out in the Abridgment of it, wherein all the necessary parts of it are drawn together into a less room. But though an Abridgment need to contain none but the essential and necessary parts, yet all those it ought to contain; Or else it will not be an Abridgment or Abstract of that thing, but an Abridg∣ment only of a part of it. I think it could not be said to be an Abridgment of the Law contain'd in an Act of Parliament, wherein any of the things required by that Act were omitted; which yet commonly may be reduced into a very narrow compass, when strip'd of all the Motives, Ends, Ena∣cting Forms, &c. expressed in the Act it self. If this does not satisfie the

Unmasker what is properly an Abridg∣ment; I shall referr him to Mr. Chil∣lingworth, who I think will be allow'd to understand sense, and to speak it properly, at least as well as the Un∣masker. And what he says, happens to be in the very same Question be∣tween Knot the Jesuit, and him; that is here between the Unmasker, and me: 'Tis but putting the Unmasker in the Jesuit's place, and my self (if it may be allow'd me without Vanity) in Mr. Chillingworth's the Protestants, and Mr. Chillingworth's very words, Chap. IV. §. 65. will exactly serve for my Answer.

You trifle affectedly, confounding the Apostles Belief of the whole Religion of Christ, as it comprehends both what we are to do, and what we are to believe, with that part of it which contains not Duties of Obedience, but only the necessary Articles of simple Faith. Now, though the Apostles Belief be in the former sense, a larger thing than that which we call the Apostles Creed; Yet in the latter sense of the word, the Creed (I say) is a full Comprehension of their Belief, which

you your self have formerly con∣fessed, though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly. And here again unwillingness to speak the Truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense, and call it an Abridg∣ment of some Articles of Faith. For I demand those some Articles which you speak of, which are they? Those that are out of the Creed, or those that are in it? Those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and there∣fore it is not an Abridgment of them. Those that are out of it, it com∣prehends not at all, and therefore it is not an Abridgment of them. If you would call it now an Abridg∣ment of Faith, this would be sense; and signifie thus much; That all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprised in it. For this is the proper Duty of Abridgments, to leave out nothing necessary.

So that in Mr. Chillingworth's judgment of an Abridgment, it is not sense to say as you do, p. 47. That we are not to think that the Apostles Creed expresly contains in it all the necessary Points of our Belief, it being only designed to be

an Abstract, or an Abridgment of Faith. But on the contrary, we must con∣clude it contains in it all the necessary Articles of Faith, for that very reason, because it is an Abridgment of Faith, as the Unmasker calls it. But whether this, that Mr. Chillingworth has given us here, be the nature of an Abridg∣ment, or no; this is certain, that the Apostles Creed cannot be a form of Profession of the Christian Faith, if any part of the Faith necessary to make a Man a Christian be left out of it: And yet such a Profession of Faith would the Unmasker have this Abridg∣ment of Faith to be. For a little lower in the 47. p. he says in express terms, That if a Man believe no more than is in express terms in the Apostles Creed, his Faith will not be the Faith of a Chri∣stian. Wherein he does great Honour to the Primitive Church, and parti∣cularly to the Church of England. The Primitive Church admitted con∣verted Heathens to Baptism, upon the Faith contain'd in the Apostles Creed: A bare Profession of that Faith, and no more, was required of them to be re∣ceived into the Church and made

Members of Christ's Body. How little different the Faith of the Ancient Church was from the Faith I have mentioned, may be seen in these words of Tertullian; Regula fidei una omnino est, sola, immobilis, irreformabilis, Cre∣dendi scilicet in unicum deum omnipo∣tentem Mundi conditorem, & filium ejus Iesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, Crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum à Mortuis, re∣ceptum in Coelis, Sedentem nunc ad dex∣tram Patris, Venturum judicare vivos & Mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectio∣nem. Hâc lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admit∣tunt novitatem correctionis, Tert. de Virg. Velan, in Principio. This was the Faith that in Tertullian's time suf∣ficed to make a Christian. And the Church of England, as I have remar∣ked already, only proposes the Arti∣cles of the Apostles Creed▪ to the Con∣vert to be baptized, and upon his Professing a Belief of them, asks whe∣ther he will be Baptized in THIS FAITH, which (if we will believe the Unmasker) is not the Faith of a Christian. However the Church, with∣out

any more ado, upon the Profession of THIS FAITH, and no other, Baptizes them into it. So that the Ancient Church, if the Unmasker may be believed, baptized Converts into that Faith which is not the Faith of a Christian. And the Church of Eng∣land, when she Baptizes any one, makes him not a Christian. For he that is Baptized only into a Faith that is not the Faith of a Christian, I would fain know how he can thereby be made a Christian? So that if the Omissions, which he so much blames in my Book, make me a Socinian, I see not how the Church of England will escape that Censure; Since those Omissions are in that very Confession of Faith, which she proposes, and upon a Profession whereof she Baptizes those whom she designs to make Christians. But it seems that the Unmasker (who has made bold to Unmask her too) rea∣sons right, that the Church of Eng∣land is mistaken, and makes none but Socinian Christians, or (as he is pleased now to declare) no Christians at all. Which if true, the Unmasker were best look to it, whether he himself be

a Christian, or no: For 'tis to be fear'd, he was baptized only into that Faith, which he himself confesses is not the Faith of a Christian.

But he brings himself off in these following words; All matters of Faith in some manner may be reduced to this brief Platform of Belief. Answ. If that be enough to make him a true and an Orthodox Christian, he does not con∣sider whom in this way he brings off with him: For I think he cannot de∣ny, that all Matters of Faith in some manner may be reduced to that Ab∣stract of Faith which I have given, as well as to that brief Platform in the Apostles Creed. So that for ought I see, by this rule, we are Christians, or not Christians; Orthodox or not Or∣thodox, equally together.

But yet he says in the next words, When he calls it an Abstract or Abbre∣viature, it is implied, that there are more Truths to be known and assented to by a Christian in order to making him really so, than what we meet with here. The quite contrary whereof (as has been shewn) is implied by its being called an Abstract. But what is that to

the purpose? 'Tis not sit Abstracts and Abbreviatures should stand in Unmas∣ker's way. They are Sounds Men have used for what they pleased, and why may not the Unmasker do so too; And use them in a Sense, that may make the Apostles Creed be only a broken scrap of the Christian Faith? However in great Condescention, being willing to do the Apostles Creed what honour he could, he says, That all Matters of Faith in some manner may be reduced to this brief Platform of Be∣lief: But yet when it is set in competition with the Creed, which he himself is making (for it is not yet finish'd) it is by no means to be al∣low'd as sufficient to make a Man a Christian. There are more Truths to be known and assented to in order to make a Man really a Christian. Which what they are, the Church of England shall know, when this new Reformer thinks fit: And then she may be able to propose to those, who are not yet so, a Collection of Articles of Belief, and Baptize them anew into a Faith, which will really make them Chri∣stians; But hitherto, if the Unmas∣ker

may be credited, she has failed in it.

Yet he craves leave to tell me in the following words, p. 48. That the Apo∣stles Creed hath more in it than I or my Brethren will subscribe to. Were it not the Undoubted Privilege of the Un∣masker to know me better than I do my self, (for he is always telling me something of my self which I did not know) I would in my turn crave leave to tell him, that this is the Faith I was baptized into, no one tittle whereof I have renounced, that I know; And that I heretofore thought, that gave me title to be a Christian. But the Unmasker hath otherwise deter∣min'd: And I know not now where to find a Christian. For the Belief of the Apostles Creed will not it seems make a Man one: And what other Belief will, it does not yet please the Unmasker to tell us. But yet as to the Subscribing to the Apostles Creed, I must take leave to say, however the Unmasker may be right in the Faith, he is out in the Morals of a Christian; It being against the Charity of one, that is really so, to pronounce, as he

does, peremptorily in a thing, that he cannot know; and to affirm positively what I know to be a downright False∣hood. But what others will do it is not my talent to determine: That be∣longs to the Unmasker. Though as to all that are my Brethren in the Chri∣stian Faith, I may answer for them too, that they will also with me do that without which in that sense they can∣not be my Brethren.

P. 49. The Unmasker smartly con∣vinces me of no small Blunder in these words. But was it not judiciously said by this Writer, that

it is well for the Compilers of the Creed, that they lived not in my days

. P. 12. I tell you Friend, it was impossible they should, for the Learned Usher, and Vossius, and others, have proved that that Symbol was drawn up not at once, but that some Articles of it were adjoyn'd many years after, far beyond the extent of any Man's Life, and therefore the Compi∣lers of the Creed could not live in my days, nor could I live in theirs. Answ. But it seems that had they liv'd altogether, you could have liv'd in their days. But, says he, I let this

pass, as one of the Blunders of our thoughtful and musing Author. Answ. And I tell you Friend, that unless it were to shew your reading in Usher and Vossius, you had been better let this Blunder of mine alone. Does not the Unmasker give here a clear Proof, that he is no Changeling? Whatever Ar∣gument he takes in hand, weighty or trivial, material or not material to the thing in question, he brings it to the same sort of sense and force. He would shew me guilty of an absurdity in saying,

It was well for the Com∣pilers of the Creed, that they lived not in his days

. This he proves to be a Blunder; because they all lived not in one anothers days; Therefore it was an absurdity to suppose they might all live in his days. As if there were any greater absurdity to bring the Compilers, who lived possibly within a few Centuries of one ano∣ther by a Supposition into one time, than it is to bring the Unmasker, and any one of them who lived a Thou∣sand Years distant one from another, by a Supposition to be Contempora∣ries; For 'tis by reason of the Com∣pilers

living at a distance one from another, that he proves it impossible for him to be their Contemporary. As if it were not as impossible in Fact for him who was not born till above a Thousand Years after to live in any of their Days, as it is for any one of them to live in either of those Com∣pilers days that died before him. The Supposition of their living together is as easie of one as the other, at what distance soever they lived, and how many soever there were of them. This being so, I think it had been better for the Unmasker to have let alone the Blunder, and shew'd (which was his Business) that he does not ac∣cuse the Compilers of the Creed of being all over Socinianized, as well as he does me, since they were as guilty as I of the omission of those Arti∣cles (viz. That Christ is the Word of God. That God was incarnate. The eternal and ineffable Generation of the Son of God. That the Son is in the Father, and Father in the Son, which expresses their Unity) for the omis∣sion whereof, the Unmasker laid So∣cinianism to my Charge. So that

it remains still upon his Score to shew,

XXI.

Why these Omissions in the Apostles Creed not as well make that Ab∣stract, as my Abridgment of Faith to be Socinian.

Page 53. The Unmasker desires the Reader to observe, that this lank Faith of mine is in a manner no other than the Faith of a Turk. And I desire the Reader to observe, that this Faith of mine, was all that our Saviour and his Apostles preach'd to the Unbelie∣ving World. And this our Unmasker cannot deny; As I think will appear to any one, who observes what he says, p. 76, and 77. of his Socinianism Vn∣mask'd. And that they preach'd no∣thing but a Faith, that was in a man∣ner no other than the Faith of a Turk; I think none amongst Christians, but this bold Vnmasker, will have the irre∣verence profanely to say.

He tells us, p. 54. That the Mussel∣men (or as he has for the Information

of his Reader very pertinently proved, should be writ Moslemim, without which, perhaps we should not have known his Skill in Arabick), or in plain English the Mahometans believe that Christ is a good Man, and not above the Nature of a Man, and sent of God to give instruction to the World: And my Faith, he says, is of the very same Scantling. This I shall desire him to prove, or which in other words he insinuates in this, and the neighbour∣ing Pages, viz.

XXII.

That that Faith which I have af∣firm'd to be the Faith, which is required to make a Man a Chri∣stian, is no other, than what Turks believe, and is contain'd in the Alchoran.

Or, as he expresses it himself, p. 55.

That a Turk according to me is a Christian, for I make the same Faith serve them both.

And particularly to shew where 'tis I say,

XXIII.

That Christ is not above the Nature of a Man, or have made that a necessary Article of the Chri∣stian Faith.

And next where it is,

XXIV.

That I speak as meanly of Christ's Suffering on the Cross, and Death, as if there were no such thing?

For thus he says of me, p. 54. I seem to have consulted the Mahometan Bible, which did say Christ did not suffer on the Cross, did not Die. For I, and my Allies, speak as meanly of these Articles, as if there were no such thing.

To shew our Vnmasker's Veracity in this case, I shall trouble my Reader with some Passages out of my Rea∣sonableness of Christianity, pag. 61.

When we consider that he was to fill out the time foretold of his Ministry, and after a life Illustrious in Miracles, and good Works, at∣tended with Humility, Meekness, Patience and SVFFERING, and every way conformable to the Pro∣phecies of him, should be led as a Sheep to the Slaughter; and with all quiet and submission be brought to the CROSS, though there were no Guilt or Fault found in him

. And p. 74.

Contrary to the design of his coming, which was to be OFFER'D up a Lamb blameless and void of offence.

And p. 116. Laying down his life, both for Iews and Gentiles. P. 178. Given up to Contempt, Torment and Death. But say what I will, when the Vnmasker thinks fit to have it so, it is speaking out of the Mahometan Bible, That Christ did not suffer on the Cross, did not Die; or at least, is speaking as meanly of these Articles, as if no such thing had been.

His next Slander is, p. 55. in these words; This Gentleman presents the World with a very ill notion of Faith,

for the very Devils are capable of all that Faith, which he says makes a Chri∣stian. It is not strange, that the Vn∣masker should misrepresent the Faith, which I say makes a Christian; when it seems to be his whole Design to mis∣represent my meaning every where. The frequency of his doing it, I have shew'd in abundance of instances, to which I shall add an eminent one here; which shews what a fair Champion he is for Truth and Religion.

Page 196. of my Reasonableness of Christianity, I give this account of the Faith, which makes a Christian; That it is

Mens entring themselves in the Kingdom of God; owning and pro∣fessing themselves the Subjects of Jesus, whom they believe to be the Messiah, and receive for their Lord and King: For that was to be bap∣tized in his Name.

This sense of believing Christ to be the Messiah, that is to take him for our King and Lord, who is to be obey'd, I have expressed over and over again; as p. 209. my words are,

That as many of them, as would believe Jesus the Son of God (whom he sent into the World)

to be the Messiah the promised Deli∣verer, and would receive him for their King and Ruler, should have all their past Sins, Disobedience, and Rebellion forgiven them. And if for the future they lived in sincere Obedience to his Law, to the utmost of their Power, the Sins of humane frailty for the time to come, as well as those of their past lives, should for his Son's sake, because they gave themselves up to him to be his Subjects, be forgiven them; And so their Faith, which made them be baptized into his Name (i. e. enroll themselves in the King∣dom of Iesus the Messiah, and pro∣fess themselves his Subjects; and consequently live by the Laws of his Kingdom) should be accounted to them for Righteousness.

Which Account of what is necessary, I close with these words:

This is the FAITH for which God of his free Grace Justifies sinful Man.

And is this the Faith of Devils?

To the same purpose, p. 214. are these words.

The chief End of his coming was to be a King, and as

such to be received by those, who would be his Subjects in the King∣dom, which he came to erect.

And again, p. 212.

Only those, who have believed Jesus to be the Mes∣siah, and taken him for their King, with a sincere endeavour after righ∣teousness in obeying his Law, shall have their past Sins not imputed to them.

And so again, p. 213. and 227. and in several other places: Of which I shall add but this one more, p. 228.

'Tis not enough to be∣lieve him to be the Messiah, unless we obey his Laws, and take him to be our King to reign over us.

Can the Devils thus believe him to be the Messiah? Yet this is that which by these, and abundance of other places, I have shew'd to be the mean∣ing of believing him to be the Mes∣siah.

Besides, I have expresly distinguish'd the Faith which makes a Christian, from that which the Devils have; by proving, that to the believing Jesus to be the Messiah must be join'd re∣pentance, or else it will not make them true Christians; And what this repen∣tance

is, may be seen at large in p. 193, &c. some Expressions whereof I shall here set down: As p. 198.

Repentance does not consist in one single Act of Sorrow (though that being first, and leading, gives Deno∣mination to the whole), but in do∣ing Works meet for Repentance; in a sincere Obedience to the Law of Christ the remainder of our Lives.

Again: To distinguish the Faith of a Christian from that of Devils, I say ex∣presly out of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,

That which availeth is Faith, but Faith working by Love; and that Faith without Works, i. e. the Works of sincere Obedience to the Law and Will of Christ, is not sufficient for our Justification.

And p. 222.

That to inherit eternal Life, we must love the Lord our God, with all our Heart, with all our Soul, with all our Strength, and with all our Mind; An•• 230. Love Christ in keeping his Com∣mandments.

This, and a great deal more to this purpose, may be seen in my Reasona∣bleness of Christianity; particularly

where I answer that Objection about the Faith of Devils, which I handle from p. 193. to p. 251. and therein at large shew wherein the Faith of De∣vils comes short of the Justifying Faith, which makes a Christian. And yet the good, the sincere, the candid Unmasker, with his becoming Confi∣dence, tells his Readers here, p. 55. That I present the World with a very ill notion of Faith: For the very Devils are capable of all that Faith, which I say makes a Christian Man.

To prevent this Calumny, I in more places than one distinguished be∣tween Faith in a strict sense, as it is a bare assent to any Proposition, and that which is called Evangelical Faith, in a larger sense of the word; which comprehends under it something more than a bare simple assent, as p. 43.

I mean this is all is required to be believed by those who acknowledge but one Eternal invisible God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth: For that there is something more requi∣red to Salvation, besides believing we shall see hereafter.

P. 47.

All I say that was to be believed for

Justification. For that this was not all that was required to be done for Justification, we shall see hereafter.

P. 92.

Obeying the Law of the Messiah their King being no less re∣quired than their believing that Ie∣sus was the Messiah, the King and Deliverer, that was promised them,

Pag. 192.

As far as meer believing could make them Members of Christ's Body.

By these, and more the like Passages in my Book, my meaning is so evident, that no body, but an Unmasker, would have said, that when I spoke of believing as a bare Speculative assent to any Proposition as true, I affirm'd that was all that was required of a Christian for Justi∣fication: Though that in the strict sense of the word is all that is done in be∣lieving. And therefore, I say, as far as meer believing could make them Members of Christ's Body; plainly sig∣nifying, as much as words can, that the Faith, for which they were justi∣fied, included something more than a bare assent. This appears not only from these words of mine, p. 196. St. Paul often in his Epistles, puts Faith

for the whole Duty of a Christian; but from my so often, and almost every∣where interpreting believing him to be the Messiah, by taking him to be our King; whereby is meant not a bare idle Speculation, a bare notional per∣swasion of any truth whatsoever float∣ing in our Brains; but an active Prin∣ciple of Life, a Faith working by Love and Obedience. To take him to be our King, carries with it a right disposition of the will to honour, and obey him, joyn'd to that assent where∣with Believers imbrace this Fundamen∣tal Truth, that Jesus was the Person, who was by God sent to be their King; he that was promis'd to be their Prince and Saviour.

But for all this, the Unmasker, p. 56. Confidently tells his Reader that I say no such thing. His words are, But besides this Historical Faith (as it is generally call'd by Divines) which is giving Credit to Evangelical Truths, as barely reveal'd, there must be something else added to make up the true Substan∣tial Faith of a Christian. With the assent of the Understanding, must be joyn'd the consent or approbation of the

Will. All those Divine Truths, which the Intellect assents to must be allow'd of by this Elective Power of the Soul. True Evangelical Faith is a hearty ac∣ception of the Messias, as he is offer'd in the Gospel. It is a sincere and im∣partial submission to all things requir'd by the Evangelical Law which is con∣tain'd in the Epistles as well as the other Writings. And to this practical assent and choice there must be added likewise a firm Trust and reliance in the blessed Author of our Salvation. But this late Undertaker who attempted to give us a more perfect account than ever was before of Christianity, as it is deliver'd in the Scriptures, brings us no tidings of any such Faith belonging to Christianity, or discover'd to us in the Scriptures. Which gives us to under∣stand that he verily believes there is no such Christian Faith, for in some of his numerous Pages (especially 191. and 192, &c.) where he speaks so much of Belief and Faith, he might have taken occasion to insert one word about this compleat Faith of the Gospel.

Though the places above quoted out of my Reasonableness of Christia∣nity,

and the whole tenor of the lat∣ter part of it, shew the falshood of what the Unmasker here says; Yet I will set down one Passage more out of it, and then ask our Unmasker, when he hath read them, whether he hath the brow to say again, that I bring no tidings of any such Faith? My words are Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 244.

Faith in the Promises of God, relying and acquiescing in his Word and Faithfulness, the Almighty takes well at our hands, as a great mark of Homage, paid by us poor frail Creatures to his Goodness and Truth, as well as to his Power and Wisdom; and accepts it as an Ac∣knowledgment of his peculiar Pro∣vidence and Benignity to us. And therefore our Saviour tells us, Iohn XII. 44. He that believes on me be∣lieves not on me, but on him that sent me. The Works of Nature shew his Wisdom and Power: But 'tis his peculiar care of Mankind, most eminently discover'd in his Promi∣ses to them, that shews his Bounty and Goodness: And consequently engages their Hearts in Love and

Affection to him. This oblation of an heart fixed with dependance and affection on him, is the most ac∣ceptable Tribute we can pay him; the Foundation of true Devotion; and Life of all Religion. What a Value he puts on this depending on his Word, and resting satisfied on his Promises, we have an example in Abraham; whose Faith was coun∣ted to him for Righteousness; As we have before remarked out of Rom. IV. and his relying firmly on the Promise of God, without any doubt of its Performance; gave him the Name, of the Father of the Faithful; And gained him so much favour with the Almighty, that he was called the Friend of God: The Highest and most Glo∣rious Title can be bestowed on a Creature.

The great out-cry he makes against me in his two next Sections, p. 57.••60. as if I intended to introduce Ignorance and Popery, is to be entertain'd rather as the noise of a petulant Scold, saying the worst things she could think of, than as the arguing of a Man of

sense or sincerity. All this mighty Accusation is grounded upon these Falshoods, That I make it my great business to beat Men off from Divine Truths; That I cry down all Articles of the Christian Faith but one; That I will not suffer Men to look into Christia∣nity; That I blast the Epistolary Wri∣••ings. I shall add no more to what I have already said about the Epistles, but those few words out of my Rea∣sonableness of Christianity▪ p. 295.

The Epistles resolving Doubts, and re∣forming Mistakes, are of great Ad∣vantage to our Knowledge and Pra∣ctise.

And p. 229.

An explicit belief of what God requires of those, who will enter into, and receive the benefits of the New Covenant, is absolutely required. The other parts of Divine Revelation are Objects of Faith, and are so to be received. They are Truths whereof none that is once known to be such [i. e. of Divine Revelation] may or ought to be disbelieved.

And as for that other Saying of his, That I will not suffer Men to look into Christianity; I desire to know where

that Christianity is locked up, which I will not suffer Men to look into. My Christianity, I confess, is contain'd in the written Word of God: And that I am so far from hindring any one to look into, that I every where appeal to it, and have quoted so much of it, that the Unmasker complains of being overlaid with it, and tells me 'tis te∣dious.

All Divine Revelation, I say, p. 300. requires the Obedience of Faith; And that every one is to re∣ceive all the parts of it, with a do∣cility and disposition prepar'd to imbrace and assent to all Truths coming from God; and submit his Mind to whatever shall appear to him to bear that Character.

I speak in the next Page of Mens en∣deavouring to understand it, and of their interpreting one place by another. This and the whole Design of my Book shews, That I think it every Christian's Duty to read, search, and study the Holy Scriptures: and make this their great Business: And yet the good Unmasker in a fit of Zeal displays his Throat, and crys out, p. 59. Hear O ye Heavens, and give ear, O Earth,

judge whether this be not the way to in∣troduce Darkness and Ignorance into Christendom; whether this be not blind∣ing of Mens Eyes, &c. For this migh∣ty Pathos ends not there. And all things consider'd, I know not whe∣ther he had not reason, in his want of Arguments, this way to pour out his concern. For neither the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, nor the Apostles Creed, nor any thing else being with him the Faith of a Chri∣stian, i. e. sufficient to make a Chri∣stian, but just his set of Fundamental Articles (when he himself knows what they be) In fine, nothing being Chri∣stianity but just his System, 'tis time to cry out, Help Neighbours, hold fast Friends; Knowledge, Religion, Chri∣stianity is gone, if this be once per∣mitted, that the People should read and understand the Scripture for them∣selves, as God shall enlighten their Understandings in the use of the means; and not be forced to depend upon me, and upon my choosing, and my Interpretation, for the necessary Points they are to believe to make them Christians: If I the great Un∣masker,

have not the sole Power to decree, what is, or is not Fundamen∣tal, and People be not bound to receive it for such, Faith and the Gospel are given up; Darkness and Barbarism will be brought in upon us by this Wri∣ter's Contrivance. For, he is an under∣hand Factor for that Communion, which cries up ignorance for the Mother of De∣votion and Religion, i. e. in plain Eng∣lish for Popery. For to this and no∣thing else tends all that sputter he makes in the Sections before men∣tion'd.

I do not think there was ever a more through-paced Declaimer than our Unmasker. He leaves out nothing that he thinks will make an affright∣ing noise in the Ears of his Orthodox Hearers, though all the blame and censure he pours out upon others, light only on himself. For let me ask this Zealous Upholder of Light and Knowledge, does he think it reasona∣ble that any one, who is not a Chri∣stian, should be suffer'd to be undi∣sturb'd in his Parish? Nay, does he think fit, that any such should live free from the Lash of the Magistrate,

or from the Persecution of the Eccle∣siastical Power? He seems to talk with another Air, p. 65. In the next place, I ask, whether any one is a Christian who hath not the Faith of a Christian? Thirdly, I ask, whether he has the Faith of a Christian, who does not ex∣plicitly believe all the Fundamental Articles of Christianity? And to con∣clude, I ask him, whether all those that he has set down are not Funda∣mental necessary Articles? When the Unmasker has fairly answer'd these Questions, it will be seen who is for Popery, and the Ignorance and Ty∣ranny that accompanies it.

The Unmasker is for making and imposing Articles of Faith: But he is for this Power in himself. He likes not Popery (which is nothing but the Ty∣ranny and imposing upon Mens Un∣derstandings, Faith, and Consciences) in the hands of the old Gentleman at Rome: But it would, he thinks, do ad∣mirably well in his own hands. And who can blame him for it? Would not that be an excellent way to propagate Light and Knowledge, by tying up all Men to a bundle of Articles of his own

culling? Or rather to the Authority of Christ and his Apostles residing in him? For he does not, nor ever will, give us a full view of Fundamentals of his Christianity: But like the Church of Rome, to secure our Dependance, re∣serves to himself a Power of declaring others, and defining what is Matter of Faith, as he shall see occasion.

Now therefore vail your Bonnets to the Unmasker, all you that have a Mind to be Christians: Break not your Heads about the Scriptures, to examine what they require of you: Submit your Faith implicitly to the Unmasker, he will understand and find out the necessary Points for you to believe. Take them, just so many as he thinks fit to deliver them to you: This is the way to be knowing Chri∣stians. But be sure, ask not whether those he is pleas'd to deliver be every one of them Fundamental, and all the fundamental Articles necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian: Such a capricious Question spoils all; Overturns Christianity, which is in∣trusted to the Unmasker's sole keeping, to be dispensed out as he thinks fit. I••

you refuse an implicit Faith to him, he will presently find you have it for the whore of Babylon; he will smell out Popery in it immediately: For he has a very shrewd Scent, and you will be discover'd to be an Underhand Factor for the Church of Rome.

But if the Unmasker were such an Enemy, as he pretends, to those Fa∣ctors; I wonder he should, in what he has said concerning the Apostles Creed, so exactly jump with Knot the Jesuit. If any one doubt of this, I desire him to look into the Fourth Chapter of Knot's Charity maintain'd, and there he will see, how well our Unmasker and that Iesuit agree in Argument; nay, and Expressions too. But yet I do not think him so far guilty, as to be imployed as an Underhand Factor for Popery. Every Body will, I sup∣pose, be ready to pronounce him so far an Innocent, as to clear him from that. The Cunning of his Design goes not beyond the laying out of his preaching Oratory, for the setting up his own System; and making that the sole Christianity. To that end, he would be glad to have the Power of

interpreting Scripture, of defining and declaring Articles of Faith, and impo∣sing them. This which makes the absolute Power of the Pope he would not I think establish at Rome; but 'tis plain he would have it himself, if he could get it, for the Support of the Christianity of his System. An im∣plicit Faith, if he might have the Ma∣nagement of it, and the taking Funda∣mentals upon Trust from his Authority, would be of excellent Use. Such a Power in his Hands, would spread Truth and Knowledge in the World, i. e. his own Orthodoxy, and Set of Opinions. But if a Man differs, nay, questions any thing of that, whether it be ab∣solutely necessary to make one a Chri∣stian, 'tis immediately a Contrivance to let in Popery, and to bring Dark∣ness and Barbarism into the Christian World. But I must tell the Innocent Unmasker, whether he designs it or no, That if his calling his System the on∣ly Christianity, can bring the World to receive from him Articles of Faith of his own chusing, as Fundamentals necessary to be believed by all Men to make them Christians, which Christ

and his Apostles did not propose to all Men to make them Christians, he does only set up Popery in another Guise, and lay the Foundatians of Ignorance, Darkness, and Barbarism, in the Christian World. For all the Ig∣norance and Blindness, that Popery introduced, was only upon this Foun∣dation. And if he does not see this (as there is Reason to excuse his Inno∣cence) 'twould be no hard matter to demonstrate it; If that were at pre∣sent the Question between us. But there are a great many other Propo∣sitions to be proved by him, before we come to that new Matter of De∣bate.

But before I quit these Paragraphs, I must go on with our Unmasker's Account, and desire him to shew where it is

XXV.

That I make it my Business to beat Men off from taking notice of any Divine Truths?

Next, where it is

XXVI.

That I cry down all Articles of Chri∣stian Faith but one?

Next, how it appears

XXVII.

That I will not suffer Mankind to look into Christianity?

Again, where it is

XXVIII.

That I labour industriously to keep People in Ignorance; Or tell them, That there is no necessity of know∣ing any other Doctrines of the Bible?

These and several others of the like strain, particularly concerning One Ar∣ticle, and the Epistles; (which are his common places) are to be found in his 59. and 60. Pages. And all this out of a Presumption, that his System is

the only Christianity; And that if Men were not pressed, and perswaded to receive that, just every Article of it, upon pain of Damnation; Christia∣nity would be lost: And not to do this, is to promote Ignorance, and con∣temn the Bible. But he fears where no fear is. If his Orthodoxy be the truth, and conformable to the Scrip∣tures, the laying the Foundation only where our Saviour and his Apostles have laid it, will not overturn it. And to shew him, that it is so, I desire him again to consider what I said in p. 8. of my Vindication: Which, because I do not remember, he any where takes notice of in his Reply, I will here offer again to his consideration:

Con∣vince but Men of the Mission of Jesus Christ; make them but see the Truth, Simplicity and Reasona∣bleness of what he himself hath taught, and required to be belie∣ved by his Followers, and you need not doubt, but being once fully per∣swaded of his Doctrine and the Ad∣vantages, which all Christians agree are received by him, such Converts will not lay by the Scriptures; But

by a constant reading and study of them, will get all the Light they can from this Divine Revelation; and nourish themselves up in the words of Faith and good Doctrine, as St. Paul speaks to Timothy.

If the reading and study of the Scripture were more pressed than it is, and Men were fairly sent to the Bible to find their Religion; and not the Bible put into their hands only to find the Opinions of their peculiar Sect or Party, Christendom would have more Christians, and those that are, would be more knowing, and more in the right than now they are. That which hinders this, is that select bundle of Doctrines, which it has pleased every Sect to draw out of the Scriptures, or their own inventions, with an Omis∣sion (and as our Unmasker would say, a Contempt) of all the rest. These choice Truths (as the Unmasker calls his) are to be the standing Orthodoxy of that Party, from which none of that Church must recede without the forfeiture of their Christianity, and the loss of eternal Life. But whilst People keep firm to these, they are in

the Church, and the Way to Salva∣tion. Which in effect, what is it but to incourage ignorance, laziness, and neglect of the Scriptures? For what need they be at the pains of con∣stantly reading the Bible? Or per∣plex their Heads with considering and weighing what is there deliver'd, when believing as the Church believes, or saying after, or not contradicting their Domine, or Teacher, serves the turn?

Further, I desire it may be consi∣der'd what Name that meer Mock∣shew of recommending to Men the study of the Scripture deserves; if, when they read it, they must under∣stand it just as he (that would be, and they are too apt, contrary to the Command of Christ, to call their Ma∣ster) tells them. If they find any thing in the Word of God, that leads them into Opinions, that he does not allow; If any thing they meet with in Holy Writ seems to them to thwart or shake the received Doctrines, the very proposing of their Doubts ren∣ders them suspected: Reasoning about them, and not acquiescing in what ever is said to them, is interpreted

want of due respect and deference to the Authority of their Spiritual Guides: Disrepute and Censures fol∣low: And if in pursuance of their own Light, they persist in what they think the Scripture teaches them, they are turn'd out of the Church, deliver'd to Sathan, and no longer al∣low'd to be Christians. And is thus a sincere and rightly directed study of the Scriptures, that Men may under∣stand and profit thereby, incouraged? This is the Consequence of Mens as∣suming to themselves a Power of de∣claring Fundamentals, i. e. of setting up a Christianity of their own ma∣king. For how else can they turn Men, of as unblameable Lives as others of their Members, out of the Church of Christ (for so they count their Communion) for Opinions, un∣less those Opinions were concluded inconsistent with Christianity? Thus Systems, the Inventions of Men, are turn'd into so many opposite Gospels; and nothing is truth in each Sect, but what just suits with them. So that the Scripture serves but like a Nose of Wax, to be turn'd and bent, just as

may sit the contrary Orthodoxies of different Societies. For 'tis these seve∣ral Systems that to each Party are the just Standards of Truth, and the mean∣ing of the Scripture is to be measur'd only by them. Whoever relinquishes any of those distinguishing Points, immediately ceases to be a Christian.

This is the Way that the Unmasker would have Truth and Religion pre∣serv'd, Light and Knowledge propa∣gated. But here too the differing Sects giving equal Authority to their own Orthodoxies will be quits with him. For as far as I can observe, the same Genius seems to influence them all; even those who pretend most to freedom, the Socinians themselves. For when it is observed how positive and eager they are in their Disputes; how forward to have their Interpreta∣tions of Scripture received for Au∣thentick, though to others in several places they seem very much strain'd; How impatient they are of Contradi∣ction; and with what disrespect and roughness they often treat their Op∣posers; May it not be suspected that this so visible warmth in their present

Circumstances, and Zeal for their Or∣thodoxy, would (had they the Power) work in them, as it does in others? They in their turns would I fear be ready, with their Set of Fundamen∣tals; which they would be as forward to impose on others, as others have been to impose contrary Fundamentals on them.

This is and always will be the un∣avoidable effect of intruding on our Saviour's Authority, and requiring more now as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, than was at first required by our Saviour and his Apostles. What else can be expe∣cted among Christians, but their tear∣ing, and being torn in pieces by one another; whilst every Sect assumes to it self a Power of declaring Funda∣mentals, and severally thus narrow Christianity to their distinct Systems? He that has a mind to see how Fun∣damentals come to be fram'd and fa∣shion'd, and upon what Motives and Considerations they are often taken up, or laid down, according to the Humours, Interests, or Designs of the Heads of Parties, as if they were things

depending on Mens pleasure, and to be suited to their convenience, may find an Example worth his notice, in the Life of Mr. Baxter, Part II. p. 197. —205.

Whenever Men take upon them to go beyond those Fundamental Articles of Christianity, which are to be found in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles, where will they stop? Whenever any Set of Men will re∣quire more as necessary to be believed to make Men of their Church, i. e. in their sense Christians, than what our Saviour and his Apostles propos'd to those, whom they made Christians, and admitted into the Church of Christ; however they may pretend to recommend the Scripture to their Peo∣ple, in effect no more of it is recom∣mended to them, than just comports with what the Leaders of that Sect have resolv'd Christianity shall con∣sist in.

'Tis no wonder therefore there is so much Ignorance amongst Christians, and so much vain outcry against it; whilst almost every distinct Society of Christians Magisterially ascribes Or∣thodoxy

to a select Set of Fundamen∣tals distinct from those proposed in the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, which in no one Point must be question'd by any of its Commu∣nion. By this means their People are never sent to the Holy Scriptures, that true Fountain of Light, but hood∣wink'd: A Veil is cast over their eyes, and then they are bid read the Bible▪ They must make it all chime to their Churches Fundamentals, or else they were better let it alone. For if they find any thing there against the recei∣ved Doctrines, though they hold it and express it, in the very terms the Holy Ghost has deliver'd it in, that will not excuse them. Heresie will be their lot, and they shall be treated accordingly. And thus we see how, amongst other good effects, Creed-making always has, and always will necessarily produce and propagate Ig∣norance in the World, however each Party blame others for it. And there∣fore, I have often wonder'd to hear Men of several Churches so heartily exclaim against the implicit Faith of the Church of Rome; when the same

implicit Faith is as much practised and required in their own, though not so openly professed, and ingenuously owned there.

In the next Section, the Unmasker questions the Sincerity of mine, and professes the greatness of his concern for the Salvation of Mens Souls. And tells me of my Reflection on him upon that account, in the 9th. Page of my Vindication. Answ. I wish he would for the right Information of the Rea∣der every where set down, what he has any thing to say to in my Book, or my Defence of it, and save me the Labour of repeating it. My words in that place are,

Some Men will not bear, that any one should speak of Religion, but according to the Mo∣del, that they themselves have made of it. Nay, though he proposes it upon the very terms, and in the very words, which our Saviour and his Apostles preach'd it in; yet he shall not escape Censures and the severest insinuations. To deviate in the least, or to omit any thing contained in their Articles is Heresy, under the most invidious Names

in fashion; and 'tis well if he escapes being a downright Atheist. Whe∣ther this be the Way for Teachers to make themselves hearken'd to as Men in Earnest in Religion, and really concern'd for the Salvation of Mens Souls I leave them to con∣sider. What Success it has had to∣wards perswading Men of the truth of Christianity, their own Com∣plaints of the prevalency of Athe∣ism on the one hand, and the num∣ber of Deists on the other sufficient∣ly shew.

I have set down this Passage at large, both as a confirmation of what I said but just now; as also to shew, that the Reflection, I there made, needed some other Answer than a bare Pro∣fession of his regard to the Salvation of Mens Souls. The assuming an undue Authority to his own Opinions, and using manifest Untruths in the de∣fence of them, I am sure is no mark that the directing Men right in the way to Salvation is his chief aim. And I wish, that the greater Liberties of that sort, which he has again taken in his Socinianism Vnmask'd, and which

I have so often laid open, had not con∣firm'd that Reflection. I should have been glad, that any thing in my Book had been fairly controverted, and brought to the touch, whether it had or had not been con••uted. The mat∣ter of it would have deserved a serious debate (if any had been ne∣cessary) in the words of Sobriety and the Charitable temper of the Gospel, as I desired in my Pre••ace: And that would not have mis-become the Vn∣masker's Function. But it did not con∣sist, it seems, with his Design. Chri∣stian Charity would not have al∣low'd those ill-meant Conjectures, and groundless Censures, which were ne∣cessary to his purpose; and therefore he took a shorter course, than to con∣fute my Book, and thereby convince me and others. He makes it his busi∣ness to rail at it, and the Author of it; that that might be taken for a confu∣tation. For, by what he has hitherto done, arguing seems not to be his Talent. And thus far who can but allow his Wisdom? But whether it be that Wisdom that is from above, first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easie to be

intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocri∣sie, I shall leave to other Readers to judge.

His saying nothing to that other Reflection, which his manner of ex∣pressing himself drew from me, would make one suspect it favoured not al∣together of the Wisdom of the Go∣spel; nor shew'd an over great Care of the Salvation of Souls. My Words, Vindic. p. 25. are

I know not how better to shew my Care of his Cre∣dit, than by intreating him, that when he takes next in hand such a Subject as this, wherein the Salva∣tion of Souls is concerned, he would treat it a little more seriously, and with a little more Candour; lest Men should find in his Writings another Cause of Atheism, which in this Treatise he has not thought fit to mention. Ostentation of Wit in General, he has made a Cause of Atheism, p. 28. But the World will tell him; That frothy light Discourses concerning the serious Matters of Religion, and Ostentation of trifling mis-becoming Wit, in

those who come as Ambassadors from God, under the title of Suc∣cessors of the Apostles in the great Commission of the Gospel, is none of the least Causes of Atheism.

But this advice I am now satisfied (by his Second Part of the same Strain) was very improper for him; and no more reasonable, than if one should advise a Bu••••oon to talk gravely; who has nothing left to draw attention, if he should lay by his scurrility.

The remainder of this 4th. Chapter, p. 61.••67. being spent in shewing, why the Socinians are for a few Arti∣cles of Faith, being a Matter that I am not concern'd in; I leave to that forward Gentleman to examine, who examined Mr. Edwards's Exceptions against the Reasonableness of Christia∣nity; and who, as the Unmasker in∣forms me, p. 64. was chosen to vindi∣cate my attempt, &c.

If the Unmasker knows that he was so Chosen, it is well. If I had known of such a choice, I should have desi∣red that somebody should have been chosen to Vindicate my attempt, who had understood it better. The Un∣masker

and Examiner are each of them so full of themselves, and their own Systems, that I think they may be a fit match one for another; And so I leave these Cocks of the Game, to try it out in an endless battle of wrang∣ling (till Death them depart) which of them has made the true and exact Collection of Fundamentals; And whose System of the two ought to be the prevailing Orthodoxy, and be re∣ceived for Scripture. Only I warn the Examiner to look to himself; For the Unmasker has the whiphand of him, and gives him to understand, p. 65. that if he cannot do it himself by the strength of his Lungs, the ve∣hemency of his Oratory, and endless attacks of his Repetitions, the Eccle∣siastical Power, and the Civil Magi∣strates lash have in store demonstra∣tive Arguments to convince him that his [the Vnmasker's] System is the only true Christianity.

By the way, I must not forget to mind the Unmasker here again, that he hath a very unlucky hand at gues∣sing. For, whereas he names Socinus as one from whom I received my

Platform, and says that Crellius gave me my Kue; it so falls out, that they are two Authors of whom I never read a Page. I say not this, as if I thought it a fault if I had, for I think I should have much better spent my time in them, than in the Writings of our learned Unmasker.

I was sure there was no offending the Unmasker without the guilt of Atheism; only he here, p. 69. very mercifully lays it upon my Book, and not upon my Design. The tendency of it to Irreligion and Atheism, he has proved in an Eloquent Harangue (for he is such an Orator he cannot stir a foot without a Speech) made as he bids us suppose by the Atheistical Rab∣ble. And who can deny, but he has chose a fit Imployment for himself? Where could there be found a better Speech-maker for the Atheistical Rab∣ble? But let us hear him: For though he would give the Atheistical Rabble the Credit of it, yet 'tis the Unmasker speaks. And because 'tis pity such a pattern of Rhetorick and Reason should be lost, I have for my Reader's Edi∣fication, set it all down verbatim.

We are beholding to this worthy Adventurer for ridding the World of so great an Incumbrance, viz. That huge Mass and unweildy Body of Christianity, which took up so much room. Now we see that it was this bulk and not that of Man∣kind which he had an eye to, when he so often mention'd this latter. This is a Physician for our turn in∣deed: We like this Chymical Ope∣rator that doth not trouble us with a parcel of heavy Drugs of no value, but contracts it all into a few Spi∣rits, nay doth his business with a single drop. We have been in bon∣dage a long time to Creeds and Catechisms, Systems and Confes∣sions; we have been plagued with a tedious Beadroll of Articles, which our Reverend Divines have told us we must make the Matter of our Faith. Yea, so it is, both Confor∣mists and Nonconformists (though disagreeing in some other things) have agreed in this to molest and Crucifie us. But this noble Writer (we thank him) hath set us free; and eas'd us by bringing down all

the Christian Faith into one Point. We have heard some Men talk of Epistolary Composures of the New Testament, as if great Matters were contain'd in them, as if the great Mysteries of Christianity (as they call them) were unfolded there: But we could never make any thing of them; and now we find that this Writer is partly of our Opinion. He tells us that these are Letters sent upon occasion, but we are not to look for our Religion (for now for this Gentleman's sake we begin to talk of Religion) in these places. We believe it, and we believe that there is no Religion but in those very Chapters and Verses, which he has set down in his Treatise. What need we have any other part of the New Testament? That is Bible enough, if not too much. Happy, thrice happy shall this Au∣thor be perpetually esteemed by us, we will Chronicle him as our Friend and Benefactor. It is not our way to Saint People: Otherwise we would certainly canonize this Gen∣tleman; and when our hand is in,

his pair of Booksellers for their be∣ing so Beneficial to the World in publishing so rich a Treasure. It was a blessed day when this hope∣ful Birth saw the Light, for hereby all the Orthodox Creed-Makers and Systematick Men are ruined for ever. In brief, if we be for any Christianity, it shall be this Au∣thor's; for that agrees with us sin∣gularly well, it being so short, all couch'd in four words neither more nor less. It is a very fine Compen∣dium, and we are infinitely obliged to this great Reformer for it. We are glad at heart that Christianity is brought so low by this worthy Pen-man, for this is a good presage that it will dwindle into nothing. What! But one Article, and that so brief too! We like such a Faith, and such a Religion, because it is so near to none.

He hath no sooner done, but as it deserved, he crys out, Euge Sophos. And is not the Reader, quoth he, sa∣tisfied that such Language as this hath real truth in it? Does not he perceive, that the discarding all the Articles

but ONE makes way for the casting off that too? Answ. 'Tis but supposing that the Reader is a civil ••entleman, and answers Yes, to these two Que∣stions, and then 'tis Demonstration, that by this Speech he has irrefragably proved the tendency of my Book to Irreligion and Atheism.

I remember Chillingworth some∣where puts up this Request to his Ad∣versary Knot:

Sir, I beseech you, when you write again, do us the favour to write nothing but Syllo∣gisms. For I find it still an extream trouble to find out the conceal'd Propositions, which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems. As now for Example, I profess to you I have done my best endeavour to find some Glue, or Sodder, or Ce∣ment, or Thread, or any thing to tie the Antecedent and this Conse∣quent together.

The Unmasker agrees so much in a great part of his Opinion with that Jesuit (as I have shew'd already) and does so infinitely out-doe him in spinning Ropes of Sand, and a course Thread of Incon∣sistencies, which runs quite through

his Book, That 'tis with great justice, I put him here in the Jesuits place, and address the same Request to him.

His very next words give me a fresh reason to do it: For thus he argues▪ p. 72. May we not expect, that those, who deal thus with the Creed, i. e. Dis∣card all the Articles of it but one, will use the same Method in reducing the ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, Abbreviate the former into one Precept, and the latter into one Petition? Answ. If he will tell me where this Creed, he speaks of, is, it will be much more easie to answer his Demand. Whilst his Creed, which he here speaks of, is yet no where, it is ridiculous for him to ask Questions about it. The Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, I know where to find, in express words set down by themselves, with peculiar marks of distinction. Which is the Lord's Prayer we are plainly taught, by this Command of our Saviour, Luk. XI. 1. When we pray, SAY, Our Father, &c. In the same manner and words we are taught what we should believe, to make us his Disciples by his Command to the Apostles what

they should Preach, Mat. X. 7. As ye go preach SAYING. What were they to say? Only this, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Or, as St. Luke expresses it, IX. 2. They were sent to preach the Kingdom of God, and to heal the Sick; Which, what it was we have sufficiently explain'd. But this Creed of the Unmasker, which he talks of, where is it? Let him shew it us di∣stinctly set out from the rest of the Scripture. If he knows where it is, let him produce it, or leave talking of it, till he can. 'Tis not the Apo∣stles Creed, that's evident. For that Creed he has discarded from being the Standard of Christian Faith, and has told the World in words at length, That if a Man believes no more than is in express terms in the Apostles Creed, his Faith will not be the Faith of a Christian. Nay, 'tis plain, that Creed has in the Unmasker's Opinion, the same tendency to Atheism and Irreligion, that my Summary has. For the Apo∣stles Creed reducing the Forty, or per∣haps Four hundred Fundamental Ar∣ticles of his Christian Creed, to Twelve; and leaving out the greatest part of

those necessary ones which he has al∣ready, and will hereafter in good time give us, does as much dispose Men to serve the Decalogue, and the Lord's Prayer just so; as my reducing those Twelve to Two. For so many at least he has granted to be in my Summary, viz. The Article of one God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and the other of Jesus the Messiah; though he every where calls them but ONE: Which, whether it be to shew, with what love and regard to truth he continues, and consequently began this Controversie; or whether it be to be∣guile and startle unwary, or confirm prejudiced Readers, I shall leave to others to judge. 'Tis evident he thinks his Cause would be mightily maimed, if he were forced to leave out the charge of ONE Article; and he would not know what to do for Wit or Argument, if he should call them two. For then the whole weight and edge of his strong and sharp reason∣ing in his Thoughts concerning the Cau∣ses of Atheism, p. 122. would be lost. There you have it in these words; When the Catholick Faith is thus brought

down to one single Article, it will soon be reduced to none; the Unit will dwindle into a Cypher. And here again, it makes the whole Argument of his Atheistical Speech, which he winds up with these convincing words; We are glad to hear, that Christianity is brought so low by this worthy Pen-man; for this is a good Presage, that it will dwindle into nothing. What! ONE Article, and that so brief too: We like such a Faith and such a Religion, because it is so near NONE. But I must tell this Writer of equal Wit, Sense, and Modesty, That this Religion, which he thus makes a dull Farce of, and calls near none, is that very Religion, which our Saviour Iesus Christ and his Apostles preach'd for the Conver∣sion and Salvation of Mankind; no one Article whereof, which they pro∣pos'd as necessary to be received by Unbelievers to make them Christians, is omitted. And I ask him, whether it be his Errand, as one of our Savi∣our's Ambassadors to turn it thus into Ridicule? For till he has shewn, that they Preach'd otherwise, and more than what the Spirit of Truth has re∣corded

of their Preaching in their Hi∣stories, which I have faithfully colle∣cted, and set down, all that he shall say reflecting upon the Plainness and Simplicity of their Doctrine, how∣ever directed against me, will by his Atheistical Rabble of all kinds, now they are so well enter'd and instructed in it by him, be all turn'd upon our Saviour and his Apostles.

What tendency this, and all his other trifling, in so serious a cause as this is, has to the propagating of A∣theism and Irreligion in this Age, he were best to consider. This I am sure, the Doctrine of but one Article, (if the Author and finisher of our Faith, and those he guided by his Spi∣rit, had Preach'd but one Article) has no more tendency to Atheism, than their Doctrine of one God. But the Unmasker every where talks, as if the Strength of our Religion lay in the number of its Articles; and would be presently routed, if it had but a few: And therefore he has mustered up a pretty full band of them, and has a reserve of the Lord knows how many more, which shall be forthcoming up∣on

occasion. But I shall desire to mind this Learned Divine, who is so afraid what will become of his Re∣ligion, if it should propose but one or a few Articles as necessary to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian, that the Strength and Security of our Re∣ligion lies in the Divine Authority of those who first promulgated the terms of admittance into the Church, and not in the Multitude of Articles sup∣pos'd by some necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian: And I would have him remember, when he goes next to make use of this strong Argument of ONE dwindling into a Cypher, that One is as remote as a Million from none. And if this be not so, I desire to know whether his way of arguing will not prove Pagan Polytheism to be more remote from Atheism than Christianity. He will do well to try the force of his Speech, in the Mouth of an Heathen, com∣plaining of the tendency of Christia∣nity to Atheism, by reducing his great number of Gods to but one, which was so near none and would therefore soon be reduced to none.

The Unmasker seems to be upon the same Topick where he so patheti∣cally complains of the Socinians, p. 66. in these words. Is it not enough to rob us of our God, by denying Christ to be so; But, must they spoil us of all the other Articles of Christian Faith but one? Have a better heart▪ good Sir, for I assure you, no body can rob you of your God, but by your own consent; Nor spoil you of any of the Articles of your Faith. If you look for them where God has placed them, in the Holy Scripture; and take them as he has framed and fashion'd them there; there you will always find them safe and sound. But if they come out of an Artificer's Shop, and be of humane Invention, I cannot answer for them: They may, for ought I know, be no∣thing but an Idol of your own setting up; which may be pull'd down, should you cry out never so much, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

He, who considers this Argument of one and none, as managed by the Unmasker, and observes his Pathetical way of reasoning all through his Book, must confess, that he has got the very

Philosopher's Stone in disputing. That which would be worthless Lead in others, he turns into pure Gold; His Oratory changes its Nature, and gives it the noble Tincture: So that what in plain reasoning would be Nonsence, let him but put it into a Speech, or an Exclamation, and there it becomes strong Argument. Whether this be not so, I desire Mode and Figure may decide. And to those I shall desire he would reduce the Proofs, which p. 73. he says, he has given of these following Propositions, viz.

XXIX.

That I have corrupted Mens Minds.

XXX.

That I have depraved the Gospel.

XXXI.

That I have abused Christianity.

For all these three, p. 73. he af∣firms of me without Proof, and with∣out Honesty.

Whether it be from confusion of Thought, or unfairness of Design; ei∣ther because he has not clear distinct notions of what he would say, or finds it not to his purpose to speak them clearly out, or both together; so it is, that the Unmasker very seldom, but when he rails, delivers himself so that one can certainly tell what he would have.

The Question is, what is absolutely necessary to be believed by every one to make him a Christian. It has been clearly made out from an exact Survey of the History of our Saviour and his Apostles, that the whole aim of all their Preaching every where was to convince the unbelieving World of these two great Truths. First, That there was one Eternal invisible God, Maker of Heaven and Earth; And next, That Iesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the promised King, and Sa∣viour. And that upon Mens believing these two Articles they were Baptized, and admitted into the Church, i. e. received as Subjects of Christ's King∣dom, and pronounced Believers. From whence it unavoidably follows, that

these two are the only Truths necessa∣ry to be believed to make a Man a Christian.

This Matter of Fact is so evident from the whole tenor of the four Go∣spels, and the Acts; And presses so hard, that the Unmasker, who contends for a great number of other Points necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, thinks himself con∣cern'd to give some Answer to it: But in his usual way full of Uncer∣tainty and Confusion. To clear this Matter, he lays down four Particulars. The First is, p. 74. That the believing Iesus to be the promised Messiah, was the first step to Christianity.

The Second, p. 76. That though this one Proposition (viz. of Jesus the Mes∣siah) be mentioned alone in some places, yet there is reason to think, and be per∣swaded, that at the same time other Mat∣ters of Faith were proposed.

The Third, p. 76. That though there are several Parts and Members of the Christian Faith, yet they do not all occur in any one place of Scripture.

The Fourth, p. 78. That Christianity was erected by degrees.

These particulars he tells us, p. 74. he offers to clear an Objection. To see therefore whether they are pertinent or no, we must examine what the Ob∣jection is as he puts it. I think it might have been put in a few words: This I am sure, it ought to have been put very clear and distinct. But the Un∣masker has been pleased to give it us, p. 73. as followeth. Because I designed these Papers for the satisfying of the Reader's Doubts, about any thing occur∣ring concerning the Matter before us, and for the establishing of his wavering Mind, I will here (before I pass to the Second general Head of my Discourse) answer a Query or Objection, which some and not without some shew of Ground may be apt to start. How comes it to pass, they will say, that this Article of Faith, viz. That Iesus is the Messiah or Christ, is so often repeated in the New Testament? Why is this sometimes urged without the mentioning of any other Article of Belief? Doth not this plainly shew that this is all that is re∣quir'd to be believed as necessary to make a Man a Christian? May we not inferr from the frequent and sole repe∣tition

of this Article in several places of the Evangelists and the Acts, that there is no other Point of Faith of abso∣lute necessity; but that this alone is suf∣ficient to constitute a Man a true Member of Christ.

By which he shews, that he is un∣certain which way to put the Obje∣ction, so as may be easiest to get rid of it: And therefore he has turn'd it several ways, and put several Que∣stions about it. As First,

Why this Article of Faith, viz. That Jesus is the Messiah, is so often repea∣ted in the New Testament.

His next Question is, Why is this sometimes urged without the mentioning any other Article of Belief, which sup∣poses that sometimes other Articles of Belief are mentioned with it.

The Third Question is, May we not infer from the frequent and sole repeti∣tion of this Article in several places of the Evangelists and Acts.

Which last Question is in effect, Why is this so frequently and alone repeated in the Evangelists and the Acts, i. e. in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles to Unbelie∣vers.

For of that he must give an account, if he will remove the diffi∣culty. Which three, though put as one, yet are three as distinct Que∣stions, and demand a Reason for three as distinct Matters of Fact, as these three are, viz. frequently proposed; Sometimes propos'd alone; and always propos'd alone in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles; for so in truth it was all through the Go∣spels and the Acts to the unconverted Believers of one God alone.

These three Questions being thus jumbled together in one Objection, let us see how the Four particulars he mentions will account for them.

The first of them is this. The be∣lieving of Iesus to be the promised Messias, was, says he, the first step to Christianity. Let it be so, what do you infer from thence? The next words shew, Therefore this rather than any other Article was propounded to be believed by all those whom either our Saviour or his Apostles invited to im∣brace Christianity. Let your Premises be never so true; and your Deduction of this Proposition be never so regular

from them, it is all lost Labour. This Conclusion is not the Proposition you were to prove. Your Questions were, why this Article is so often proposed? And in those frequent repetitions, why sometimes urged alone, and why al∣ways proposed alone, viz. to those whom either our Saviour or his Apostles in∣vited to imbrace Christianity. And your Answer is, because the believing Iesus to be the Messias, was the first step to Christianity. This therefore remains upon you to be proved,

XXXII.

That because the believing Iesus to be the Messias, is the first step to Chri∣stianity; therefore this Article is frequently proposed in the New Te∣stament; Is sometimes proposed with∣out the mentioning any other Ar∣ticle; and always alone to Vn∣believers.

And when you have proved this, I shall desire you to apply it to our present Controversie.

His next Answer to those Questions is in these words, p. 76. That though this one Proposition or Article be men∣tioned alone in some places, yet there is reason to think and be perswaded that at the same time other Matters of Faith were proposed. From whence it lies upon him to make out this reason∣ing, viz.

XXXIII.

That because there is reason to think, and be perswaded, that at the same time, that this one Ar∣ticle was mentioned alone (as it was sometimes) other Matters of Faith were propos'd. Therefore this Article was often proposed in the New Testament; Some∣times proposed alone; and always proposed alone in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles to Unbelievers.

This I set down to shew the force of his Answer to his Questions: Sup∣posing it to be true, not that I grant it to be true, That where this

one Article is mentioned alone, we have reason to think, and be perswaded, that at the same time other Matters of Faith [i. e. Articles of Faith necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian] were proposed: And I doubt not but to shew the contrary.

His Third particular, in Answer to the Question proposed in his Obje∣ction stands thus, p. 76. That though there are several Parts and Members of the Christian Faith, yet they do not all occur in any one place of the Scripture; which Answer lays it upon him to prove

XXXIV.

That because the several parts of the Members of the Christian Faith do not all occur in any one place of Scripture; Therefore this Article, That Jesus was the Messias, was often proposed in the New Testa∣ment, sometimes proposed alone, and always proposed alone in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles, through the Histo∣ry of the Evangelists and the Acts.

The Fourth and last Particular, which he tells us is the main Answer to the Objection, is in these words, Pag. 78.

That Christianity was erected by de∣grees.

Which requires him to make out this Argument, viz.

XXXV.

That because Christianity was erected by degrees, Therefore this Ar∣ticle, that Jesus was the Messias, was often proposed in the New Te∣stament, sometimes proposed alone, and always proposed alone in the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles to Unbelievers, re∣corded in the History of the Evangelists and Acts.

For, as I said before, in these three Questions he has put his Objection; To which he tells us this is the main Answer.

Of these four Particulars it is that he says, p. 74. To clear this Objection, and to give a full and satisfactory An∣swer to all doubts in this Affair, I offer these ensuing particulars, which will lead the Reader to the right under∣standing of the whole case.

How well they have clear'd the Ob∣jection, may be seen by barely setting them down as Answers to these Que∣stions, wherein he puts the Objection.

This is all I have hitherto done: Whereby is very visible how well (sup∣posing them true) they clear the Ob∣jection; and how pertinently they are brought to answer those Questions wherein his Objection is contain'd. Perhaps it will be said, that neither these, nor any thing else can be an apposite Answer to those Questions put so together. I answer, I am of the same mind. But if the Unmasker through ignorance or shuffling will talk thus confusedly, he must answer for it. He calls all his three Questions one Objection over and over again: And therefore which of those Que∣stions it does or does not lie in, I shall not trouble my self to divine: Since I

think he himself cannot tell. For, which ever he takes of them, it will involve him in equal Difficulties. I now proceed to examine his particu∣lars themselves, and the truth con∣tain'd in them. The first, pag. 74. stands thus.

1. The believing of Iesus to be the promised Messias was the first step to Christianity. It was that which made way for the imbracing of all the other Articles, a Passage to all the rest. Answ. If this be, as he would have it, only the leading Article amongst a great many other equally necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian; This is a reason, why it should be con∣stantly preach'd in the first place. But this is no reason, why this alone should be so often repeated, and the other necessary Points not be once men∣tion'd. For I desire to know, what those other Articles are, that in the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apo∣stles are repeated or urged besides this?

In the next place, if it be true, that this Article, viz. That Iesus is the Messiah, was only the first in order, a∣mongst

a great many Articles as ne∣cessary to be believed; how comes it to pass, that barely upon the Proposal and believing of this, Men were ad∣mitted into the Church as Believers? The History of the New Testament is full of instances of this, as Act. VIII. 5. 12. 13. IX▪ and in other places.

Though it be true what the Un∣masker says here, That if they did not give Credit to this in the first place, that Iesus of Nazareth was that Emi∣nent and Extraordinary Person prophe∣••ied of long before, and that he was sent and Commissioned by God, there could be no hope that they would attend to any other Proposals relating to the Christian Religion; yet what he subjoins, That this is the true reason, why that Article was constantly propounded to be believed by all that looked towards Christianity, and why it is mention'd so often ••n the Evangelical Writing is not true. For First, this supposes that there were other Articles joyn'd with it. This he should have first proved, and then given the reason of it; And not, as he does here, suppose what is in the Question, and then give a reason, why

it is so; and such a reason that is in∣consistent with the Matter of Fact, that is every where recorded in Holy Writ. For if the true reason, why the Preaching of this Article, that Iesus was the Messiah, as it is recorded in the History of the New Testament, were only to make way for the other Articles, one must needs think, that either our Saviour and his Apostles (with reverence be it spoken) were very strange Preachers; Or that the Evangelists, and Author of the Acts were very strange Historians. The first were to instruct the World in a new Religion consisting of a great number of Articles, says the Unmasker, necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, i. e. a great number of Propositions making a large Sy∣stem, every one whereof is so necessary for a Man to understand, and believe, that if any one be omitted, he cannot be of that Religion. What now did our Saviour and his Apostles do? Why, if the Unmasker may be believed, they went up and down with danger of their Lives, and Preach'd to the World▪ What did they Preach? Even

this single Proposition to make way for the rest, viz. This is the Eminent Man sent from God to teach you other things, which amounts to no more but this, That Iesus was the Person which was to teach them the true Re∣ligion, but that true Religion it self is not to be found in all their Preaching; nay, scarce a word of it. Can there be any thing more ridiculous, than this? And yet this was all they Preach'd; if it be true, that this was all which they meant by the Preaching every where Iesus to be the Messiah; And if it were only an Introduction and a making way for the Doctrines of the Gospel. But it is plain it was called the Gospel it self. Let the Unmasker, as a true Successor of the Apostles, go and Preach the Gospel as the Apo∣stles did, to some part of the Heathen World, where the Name of Christ is not known: Would not he himself, and every body think, he was very foo∣lishly imploy'd, if he should tell them nothing but this, that Iesus was the Person promised and sent from God to reveal the true Religion; But should teach them nothing of that true Reli∣gion,

but this Preliminary Article? Such the Unmasker makes all the Preaching recorded in the New Testa∣ment, for the Conversion of the Un∣believing World. He makes the Preach∣ing of our Saviour and his Apostles, to be no more but this; that the great Prophet promised to the World was come, and that Iesus was he: But what his Doctrine was, that they were silent in, and taught not one Article of it. But the Unmasker mis-repre∣sents it: For as to his accusing the Historians, the Evangelists, and Wri∣ters of the Acts of the Apostles, for their shameful omission of the whole Doctrine of the Christian Religion, to save his Hypothesis, as he does under his next Head in these words, That though this one Proposition be mention'd alone in some places, yet there is reason to think and be perswaded, that at the same time other Matters of Faith were proposed; I shall shew how bold he makes with those inspired Historians, when I come to consider that parti∣cular.

How ridiculous, how senseless this bold Unmasker and Reformer of the

History of the New Testament makes the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, as it stands recorded of them by infallible Writers, is visible. But taking it as in truth it is there, we shall have a quite other view of it. Our Saviour Preach'd every where the Kingdom of God, and by his Mi∣racles declar'd himself to be the King of that Kingdom. The Apostles Prea∣ched the same, and after his Ascension openly avowed him to be the Prince and Saviour promis'd. But Preach'd not this, as a bare Speculative Article of simple belief. But that Men might receive him for their King, and be∣come his Subjects. When they told the World that he was the Christ, it was not as the Unmasker will have it; Believe this Man to be a Prophet, and then he will teach you his new Reli∣gion; which when you have received and imbraced, all and every Article thereof, which are a great number, you will then be Christians, if you be not ignorant or incredulous of any of them. But it was, Believe this Man to be your King sent from God: Take him for such, with a resolution to ob∣serve

the Laws he has given you, and you are his Subjects; you are Chri∣stians. For those, that truly did so, made themselves his Subjects: And to continue so there was no more requi∣red than a sincere endeavour to know his Will in all things, and to obey it. Such a Preaching as this of Iesus to be the Messiah; the King and Deliverer that God Almighty had promised to Mankind, and now had effectually sent to be their Prince and Ruler; was not a simple preparation to the Gospel: But when received with the Obedience of Faith, was the very receiving of the Gospel; and had all that was requisite to make Men Christians. And without it be so understood, no body can clear the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apo∣stles from that incredible Imperse∣ction; or their Historians from that unpardonable negligence, and not do∣ing either what they ought, or what they undertook; which our Unmasker hath so impiously charged upon them, as will appear yet plainer in what I have to say to the Vnmasker's next Particular. For as to the remainder

of this Paragraph, it contains nothing but his censure and contempt of me, for not being of his Mind; for not seeing as he sees, i. e. in effect not laying that blame, which he does ei∣ther on the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles; or on the inspired Writings of their Historians, to make them comply with his System, and the Christianity he would make.

The Unmasker's Second Particular, p. 76. tells us, That though this One Proposition or Article be mention'd alone in some places, yet there is reason to think, and be perswaded, that at the same time other Matters of Faith were proposed. For it is confess'd by all in∣telligent and observing Men, that the History of the Scripture is concise; and that in relating of Matter of Fact many Passages are omitted by the Sacred Penmen. Wherefore though but this one Article of belief, (because it is a Leading one, and makes way for the rest) be expresly mention'd in some of the Gospels, yet we must not conclude thence, that no other Matter of Faith, was re∣quir'd to be admitted of. For things are briefly set down in the Evangelical

Records, and we must suppose many things which are not in direct terms related.

Answ. The Vnmasker here keeps to his usual custom of speaking in doubt∣ful terms. He says, that where this one Article, that Iesus is the Messiah, is alone recorded in the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, We have reason to be perswaded, that at the same time other Matters of Faith were pro∣pos'd. If this be to his purpose, by Matters of Faith must be meant Fun∣damental Articles of Faith, absolutely necessary to be believed by every Man to make him a Christian. That such Matters of Faith are omitted in the History of the Preaching of our Sa∣viour and his Apostles by the Sacred Historians, this, he says, we have rea∣son to be perswaded of.

Answ. They need be good Reasons to perswade a rational Man, that the Evangelists in their History of our Saviour and his Apostles (if they were but ordinarily fair and prudent Men) did, in an History publish'd to instruct the World in a new Religion, leave out the necessary and Fundamental

parts of that Religion. But let them be consider'd as inspired Writers, un∣der the Conduct of the infallible Spi∣rit of God, putting them upon, and directing them in the writing of this History of the Gospel, and then it is impossible for any Christian, but the Unmasker, to think, that they made any such gross Omissions, contrary to the design of their Writing, without a Demonstration to convince him of it. Now all the reason that our Un∣masker gives is this: That it is confessed by all intelligent and observing Men, that the History of the Scripture is concise, and that in relating Matters of Fact, many Passages are omitted by the Sacred Penmen.

Answ. The Unmasker might have spar'd the Confession of intelligent and observing Men, after so plain a Declara∣tion of St. Iohn himself, Chap. XX. 31. Many other things did Iesus in the pre∣sence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book. And again, XXI. 25. There are also many other things that Iesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose the world could not contain the Books that should

be written. There needs therefore no opinion of intelligent and observing Men to convince us, that the History of the Gospel is so far Concise, that a great many Matters of Fact are omit∣ted, and a great many less material Circumstances, even of those that are set down. But will any intelligent or observing Man, any one that bears the Name of a Christian, have the Im∣pudence to say, that the inspired Wri∣ters, in the relation they give us of what Christ and his Apostles Preach'd to Unbelievers to convert them to the Faith, omitted the Fundamental Articles which those Preachers pro∣posed to make Men Christians; and without a belief of which they could not be Christians?

The Unmasker talks after his wont∣ed fashion; seems to say something, which when examin'd proves nothing to his Purpose. He tells us, That in some places where the Article of Iesus the Messiah is mention'd alone, at the same time other matters of Faith were proposed. I ask, were these other mat∣ters of Faith all the Unmasker's ne∣cessary Articles? If not, what are

those other matters of Faith to the Un∣masker's Purpose? As for Example, in St. Peter's Sermon, Act. II. Other matters of Faith were proposed with the Article of Iesus the Messiah. But what does this make for His Fundamental Articles? Were They all propos'd with the Articles of Iesus the Messiah? If not, Unbelievers were converted and brought into the Church without the Unmasker's necessary Articles. Three Thousand were added to the Church by this one Sermon. I pass by now St. Luke's not mentioning a Syllable of the greatest part of the Unmasker's necessary Articles; and shall consider only, how long that Sermon may have been. 'Tis plain from v. 15. that it began not till about Nine in the Morning, and from v. 41. that be∣fore Night Three Thousand were converted and Baptized. Now, I ask the Unmasker, whether so small a Number of Hours as St. Peter must necessarily imploy in Preaching to them were sufficient to instruct such a mixed Multitude so fully in all those Articles, which he has propos'd as necessary to be believed to make a

Man a Christian, as that every one of those Three Thousand, that were that day Baptized, did understand and ex∣plicitly believe every one of those his Articles, just in the sense of our Un∣masker's System? Not to mention those remaining Articles which the Unmasker will not be able in twice as many Months to find and declare to us.

He says, That in some places where the Article of Iesus the Messiah is mentioned alone, at the same time other matters of Faith were proposed. Let us take this for so at present, yet this helps not the Unmasker's case. The Fundamental Articles, that were pro∣pos'd by our Saviour and his Apostles, necessary to be believed to make Men Christians, are not set down; but only this single one of Iesus the Messiah: Therefore will any one dare to say that they are omitted every where by the Evangelists? Did the Historians of the Gospel make their relation so concise and short, that giving an account in so many places of the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles for the Conversion of the Unbelieving World,

they did not in any one place, nor in in all of them together, set down the necessary Points of that Faith, which their Unbelieving Hearers were con∣verted to? If they did not, how can their Histories be called the Gospels of Iesus Christ? Or how can they serve to the end for which they were writ∣ten? Which was, to publish to the World the Doctrine of Iesus Christ, that Men might be brought into his Religion? Now I challenge the Un∣masker to shew me not out of any one place, but out of all the Preach∣ings of our Saviour and his Apostles, recorded in the four Gospels, and the Acts, all those Propositions which he has reckon'd up as Fundamental Arti∣cles of Faith. If they are not to be found there, 'tis plain, that either they are not Articles of Faith necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian; or else, that those inspired Wri∣ters have given us an account of the Gospel, or Christian Religion, wherein the greatest part of Doctrines necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian are wholly omitted: Which in short is to say, that the Christianity

which is recorded in the Gospels and the Acts, is not that Christianity, which is sufficient to make a Man a Christian. This (as absurd and im∣pious as it is) is what our Unmasker charges upon the Conciseness, (as he is pleased to call it) of the Evangelical History. And this we must take upon his word; Though these inspired Wri∣ters tell us the direct contrary. For St. Luke in his Preface to his Gospel, tells Theophilus, that having a perfect knowledge OF ALL THINGS, the Design of his Writing was to set them in order, that he might know the certainty of those things, that were believed amongst Christians. And his History of the Acts begins thus, The former Treatise [i. e. his Gospel] have I made, O Theophilus, of ALL that Iesus began to do and to teach. So that how concise soever the Unmasker will have his History to be, he professes it to contain ALL that Jesus taught. Which ALL must, in the narrowest sense, that can be given it, contain at least all things necessa∣ry to make a Man a Christian. 'Twould else be a very lame and im∣perfect

History of ALL that Jesus taught; if the Faith contained in it were not sufficient to make a Man a Christian. This indeed, as the Un∣masker hath been pleased to term it, would be a very lank Faith, a very lank Gospel.

St. Iohn also says thus of his Hi∣story of the Gospel, Ch. XX. 30, 31. Many other signs truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book: So far his History is by his own Confession concise. But these, says he, are written, that ye might believe, that Iesus is the Messiah the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name. As concise as it was, there was yet (if the Apostle's word may be taken for it against the Unm••sker's) enough con∣tain'd in his Gospel, for the procuring of eternal life to those who believed it. And whether it was that one Ar∣ticle that he there sets down, viz. That Iesus was the Messiah, or that Set of Articles which the Unm••sker gives us, I shall leave to this Modern Divine to resolve. And if he thinks still, that all the Articles he has set down in his

Roll, are necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, I must desire him to shew them to me in St. Iohn's Gospel, or else to convince the World, that St. Iohn was mistaken, when he said, that he had written his Gospel, that Men might believe that Iesus is the Messiah the Son of God, and that believing they might have life thorugh his Name.

So that granting the History of the Scripture to be so concise as the Un∣masker would have it, viz. That in some places the infallible Writers, re∣cording the Discourses of our Saviour and his Apostles, omitted all the other Fundamental Articles propos'd by them to be believed to make Men Christians, but this one, that Iesus was the Messiah; Yet this will not remove the Objection that lies against his other Fundamentals, which are not to be found in the Histories of the Four Evangelists; nay, which are not to be found in every one of them. If every one of them contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and consequently all things necessary to Salvation, Whe∣ther this will not be a new ground of

Accusation against me, and give the Unmasker a right to charge me with laying by three of the Gospels with contempt, as well as he did before charge me with a contempt of the Epistles, must be left to his soveraign Authority to determine.

Having shew'd, that allowing all he says here to be as he would have it, yet it clears not the Objection, that lies against his Fundamentals; I shall now examine what truth there is, in what he here pretends, viz. that though the one Article, that Jesus is the Messiah, be mention'd alone in some places, yet we have reason to be perswaded from the conciseness of the Scripture History, that there were at the same time join'd with it other necessary Articles of Faith in the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles.

It is to be observed, that the Un∣masker builds upon this false Suppo∣sition, that in some places other ne∣cessary Articles of Faith join'd with that of Iesus the Messiah, are by the Evangelists mention'd to be propos'd by our Saviour and his Apostles, as necessary to be believed to make those

they Preach'd to Christians. For his saying, that in some places that one necessary Article is mention'd alone, im∣plies that in other places it is not mention'd alone, but join'd with other necessary Articles. And then it will remain upon him to shew,

XXXVI.

In what place either of the Gospels or of the Acts, other Articles of Faith are join'd with this, and propos'd as necessary to be be∣lieved to make Men Christians.

The Unmasker, 'tis probable, will tell us, that the Article of Christ's Re∣surrection is sometimes join'd with this of the Messiah, as particularly in that first Sermon of St. Peter, Acts II. by which there were Three Thousand added to the Church at one time. Answ. This Sermon well consider'd, will explain to us both the Preaching of the Apostles, what it was that they propos'd to their unbelieving Auditors to make them Christians; and also the manner of St. Luke's recording their

Sermons. 'Tis true, that here are de∣liver'd by St. Peter many other Mat∣ters of Faith besides that of Iesus being the Messiah: For all that he said being of Divine Authority, is Matter of Faith, and may not be disbelieved. The first Part of his Discourse, is to prove to the Iews, that what they had observed of Extraordinary at that time amongst the Disciples, who spake variety of Tongues, did not proceed from Wine, but from the Holy Ghost; And that this was the pouring out of the Spirit prophesied of by the Pro∣phet Ioel. This is all Matter of Faith, and is written, that it might be belie∣ved: But yet, I think, that neither the Unmasker, nor any body else will say, that this is such a necessary Arti∣cle of Faith, that no Man could with∣out an explicit belief of it, be a Chri∣stian: Though being a Declaration of the Holy Ghost by St. Peter, it is so much a Matter of Faith, that no body, to whom it is now propos'd, can deny it and be a Christian. And thus all the Scripture of the New Testament, given by Divine Inspiration is Matter of Faith, and necessary to be believed

by all Christians to whom it is pro∣pos'd. But yet I do not think any one so unreasonable as to say, that every Proposition in the New Testa∣ment is a Fundamental Article of Faith, which is required explicitly to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian.

Here now is a matter of Faith join'd, in the same Sermon, with this Funda∣mental Article that Iesus is the Messiah; And reported by the Sacred Historian so at large, that it takes up a Third part of St. Peter's Sermon recorded by St. Luke; And yet it is such a matter of Faith, as is not contain'd in the Un∣masker's Catalogue of necessary Ar∣ticles. I must ask him then, whether St. Luke were so concise an Historian, that he would so at large set down a matter of Faith propos'd by St. Peter, that was not necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, and wholly leave out the very mention of all the Unmasker's additional necessary Ar∣ticles, if indeed they were necessary to be believed to make Men Christians? I know not how any one could charge the Historian with greater unfaithful∣ness,

or greater folly. But this the Unmasker sticks not at, to preserve to himself the Power of appointing, what shall, and what shall not be necessary Articles; and of making his System the Christianity necessary, and only necessary to be received.

The next thing that St. Peter pro∣ceeds to in this his Sermon is, to de∣clare to the Unbelieving Iews, that Iesus of Nazareth, who had done Mi∣racles amongst them, whom they had Crucified and put to Death, and whom God had raised again from the Dead, was the Messiah.

Here indeed our Saviour's Cruci∣fixion, Death, and Resurrection are mentioned: And if they were no where else recorded, are matters of Faith; which, with all the rest of the New Testament, ought to be believed by every Christian to whom it is thus propos'd; as a part of Divine Reve∣lation. But that these were not here propos'd to the Unbelieving Iews, as the Fundamental Articles, which St. Peter principally aimed at, and en∣deavoured to convince them of, is evident from hence; That they are

made use of as Arguments to perswade them of this Fundamental Truth, viz. That Iesus was the Messiah, whom they ought to take for their Lord and Ruler. For whatsoever is brought as an Argument to prove another Truth, cannot be thought to be the principal thing aimed at in that argumentation; though it may have so strong and im∣mediate a connexion with the Con∣clusion, that you cannot deny it with∣out denying even what is inferr'd from it, and is therefore the fitter to be an Argument to prove it. But that our Saviour's Crucifixion, Death, and Re∣surrection, were used here as Argu∣ments to perswade them into a belief of this Fundamental Article, that Ie∣sus was the Messiah; and not as Propo∣sitions of a new Faith they were to receive; is evident from hence, that they Preach'd here to those who knew the Death and Crucifixion of Iesus, as well as Peter: And there∣fore these could not be propos'd to them as new Articles of Faith to be believed: But those Matters of Fact, being what the Iews knew already, were a good Argument joyn'd with

his Resurrection to convince them of that truth, which he endeavoured to give them a Belief of. And there∣fore he rightly inferred from these Facts joined together, this Conclusion, the believing whereof would make them Christians. Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Iesus, whom ye have crucified, Lord and Christ. To the making good this sole Proposition his whole Discourse tended: This was the sole Truth he laboured to con∣vince them of: This the Faith he en∣deavoured to bring them into; which as soon as they had received with Re∣pentance, they were by Baptism ad∣mitted into the Church, and three Thousand at once made Christians.

Here St. Luke's own Confession, without that of intelligent and obser∣ving men, which the Unmasker has recourse to, might have satisfied him again, that in relating matters of Fact, many passages are omitted by the sacred Pen-men. For says St. Luke here v. 40. And with many other words, which are not set down.

One would at first sight, wonder why the Unmasker neglects these de∣monstrative Authorities of the Holy Pen-men themselves, where they own their Omissions, to tell, us, that it is confessed by all intelligent and observing men, that in relating matters of Fact, many Passages are omitted by the sacred Pen-men. St. Iohn in what he says of his Gospel, directly professes large Omissions, and so does St. Luke here. But these Omissions would not serve the Unmasker's turn: For they are di∣rectly against him, and what he would have: And therefore he had reason to pass them by. For St. Iohn, in that passage above-cited, Ch. XX. 30, 31. tells us, that how much soever he had left out of his History, he had incerted that, which was enough to be be∣lieved to eternal Life. But these are written that ye might believe, and be∣lieving ye might have life. But this is not all he assures us of, viz. That he had recorded all that was necessary to be believed to eternal Life: But he in express words, tells us what is that ALL that is necessary to be believed to eternal Life; and for the Proof of

which Proposition alone, he writ all the rest of his Gospel, viz. That we might believe. What? Even this. That Iesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing this we might have life through his Name.

This may serve for a Key to us, in reading the History of the New Testa∣ment; And shew us, why this Arti∣cle that Iesus was the Messiah, is no where omitted, though a great part of the Arguments used to convince Men of it, nay very often th•• whole Discourse▪ made to lead Men into the Belief of it, be entirely omitted. The Spirit of God directed them every where to set down the Article, which was absolutely necessary to be believed to make Men Christians; So that That could no ways be doubted of nor mi∣staken; But the Arguments, and Evidences, which were to lead Men into this Faith, would be sufficient, if they were once found any where, though scattered here and there in those Writings, whereof that infalli∣ble Spirit was the Author. This pre∣served the Decorum used in all Histo∣ries, and avoided those continual large

and unnecessary Repetitions, which our critical Unmasker might have call'd te∣dious, with juster Reason, than he does the Repetition of this short Proposi∣tion, that Iesus is the Messiah; which I set down no oftner in my Book, than the Holy Ghost thought fit to insert in the History of the New Te∣stament, as concise as it is. But this it seems to our Nice Unmasker, is te∣dious, tedious and offensive. And if a Christian and a Successor of the Apo∣stles cannot bear the being so often told, what it was, that our Saviour and his Apostles every where preach'd to the Believers of one God, though it be contain'd in one short Proposi∣tion; What cause of Exception, and disgust would it have been to Heathen Readers, some whereof might perhaps have been as Critical as the Unmasker, if this sacred History had in every Page been filled with the repeated Dis∣courses of the Apostles, all of them every where to the same purpose, viz. to perswade Men to believe, that Ie∣su•• was the Messiah? It was necessary even by the Laws of History, as often as their preaching any where

was mention'd to tell to what purpose they spoke; which being always to convince Men of this one Fundamen∣tal Truth, 'tis no wonder, we find it so often repeated. But the Arguments and Reasonings, with which this one Point is urged, are, as they ought to be, in most places left out. A con∣stant Repetition of them had been su∣perfluous, and consequently might justly have been blam'd as tedious. But there is enough recorded aboundantly to convince any rational Man, any one not willfully blind, that he is that promised Saviour. And in this we have a reason of the Omissions in the History of the New Testament; which were no other than such, as became prudent, as well as faithful Writers. Much less did that Conciseness (with which the Vnmasker would cover his bold Censure of the Gospels and the Acts, and as it seems, lay them by with Contempt) make the holy Wri∣ters omit any thing, in the preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, abso∣lutely necessary to be known, and believed to make Men Christians.

Conformable hereunto, we shall find St. Luke writes his History of the Acts of the Apostles. In the begin∣ning of it he sets down at large some of the Discourses made to the unbe∣lieving Iews. But in most other Pla∣ces, unless it be where there was something particular in the Circum∣stances of the Matter, he contents himself to tell to what purpose they spoke: Which was every where only this, That Iesus was the Messiah. Nay, St. Luke in the first Speech of St. Peter, Act. 11. which he thought fit to give us a great part of, yet owns the Omission of several things, that the Apostle said. For having expressed this Fundamental Doctrine, That Iesus was the Messiah, and re∣corded several of the Arguments wherewith St. Peter urged it for the Conversion of the unbelieving Iews his Auditors, he adds v. 40. And with many other words did he testifie and exhort saying, Save your selves from this untoward Generation. Here he confesses, that he omitted a great deal which St. Peter had said to per∣swade them. To what? To that which

in other words he had just said before v. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ, i. e. Believe Iesus to be the Messiah, take him as such for your Lord and King, and reform your Lives by a sincere Resolution of Obedience to his Laws.

Thus we have an account of the Omissions in the Records of Matters of Fact in the New Testament. But will the Unmasker say, that the preaching of those Articles, that he has given us as necessary to be be∣liev'd to make a Man a Christian, was part of those Matters of Fact, which have been omitted in the History of the New Testament? Can any one think that the Corruption and Degene∣racy of humane Nature, with the true Original of it (the Defection of our first Parents) the Propagation of Sin and Mortality, our Restoration and Reconci∣liation by Christ's blood, the Eminency and Excellency of his Priesthood, the Efficacy of his Death, the full Satisfa∣ction thereby made to divine Iustice, and his being made an all-sufficient Sa∣crifice for Sin, our Iustification by

Christ's Righteousness, Election, Adop∣tion, &c. were all proposed, and that too in the Sense of our Authors Sy∣stem, by our Saviour and his Apo∣stles, as Fundamental Articles of Faith, necessary to be explicitely believed by every Man, to make him a Chri∣stian, in all their Discourses to Unbe∣lievers; And yet that the inspired Pen-men of those Histories every where, left the mention of these Fun∣damental Articles wholly out? This would have been to have writ not a concise, but an imperfect History of all, that Iesus and his Apostles taught.

What an account would it have been of the Gospel, as it was first preached and propagated, if the grea∣test part of the necessary Doctrines of it were wholly left out, and a Man could not find from one end to the other of this whole History, that Religion, which is necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian? And yet this is that, which under the Notion of their being concise, the Vn∣masker would perswade us to have been done by St. Luke and the other Evangelists in their Histories. And

'tis no less than what he plainly says in his Thoughts concerning the Causes of A∣theism, p. 109. Where to aggravate my Fault in passing by the Epistles, and to shew the Necessity of search∣in them for Fundamentals, he in words blames me; But in effect, condemns the Sacred History contain'd in the Gospels and the Acts. It is most evident, says he, to any thinking Man, that the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity purposely omits the Epi∣stolary Writings of the Apostles, because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he men∣tions. There we are instructed concerning these grand heads of Christian Divinity. Here i. e. in the Epistles, says he, There are Discoveries concerning Satisfaction, &c. and in the close of his List of his Grand Heads, as he calls them, some whereof I have above set down out of him, he adds, These are the Matters of Faith contained in the Epistles. By all which Expressions he plainly signifies, that these, which he calls Fundamental Doctrines, are none of those, we are instructed in, in the Gospels and the Acts; that they are not discover'd

nor contain'd in the historical Writings of the Evangelists. Whereby he con∣fesses, that either our Saviour and his Apostles did not propose them in their Preachings to their unbelieving Hear∣ers; or else, that the several faithful Writers of their History, willfully, i. e. unfaithfully, every where omitted them in the account they have left us of those Preachings; Which could scarce possibly be done by them all, and every where, without an actual Combination amongst them to smo∣ther the greatest and most material parts of our Saviour's and his Apo∣stles Discourses. For what else did they, if all that the Unmasker has set down in his List be Fundamental Doctrines; every one of them abso∣lutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian; which our Saviour and his Apostles every where preach∣ed to make Men Christians; but yet St. Luke and the other Evangelists, by a very guilty, and unpardonable Con∣ciseness, every where omitted them; and throughout their whole History never once tell us, they were so much as proposed; much less that they

were those Articles, which the Apo∣stles laboured to establish and con∣vince Men of every where, before they admitted them to Baptism? Nay, the far greatest part of them the History, they writ, does not any where so much as once mention? How after such an Imputation as this the Unmasker will clear himself from laying by the four Gospels and the Acts with contempt let him look; if my not collecting Fundamentals out of the Epistles had that Guilt in it. For I never denied all the Funda∣mental Doctrines to be there; but only said, that there they were not easie to be found out; and distinguished from Doctrines not Fundamental. Whereas our good Vnmasker charges the historical Books of the New Testament with a total Omission of the far greatest part of those Funda∣mental Doctrines of Christianity, which he says are absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian.

To convince the Reader what was absolutely required to be believed to make a Man a Christian, and thereby

clear the holy Writers from the Unmas∣ker's Slander, any one need but look a little further into the History of the Acts, and observe St. Luke's Method in the Writing of it. In the beginning (as we observed before) and in some few other places, he sets down at large the Discourses made by the Preachers of Christianity to their unbelieving Auditors. But in the Process of his History, he generally contents him∣self to relate, what it was their Dis∣courses drive at; what was the Do∣ctrine they endeavour'd to convince their unbelieving Hearers of, to make them Believers. This we may ob∣serve is never omitted. This is every where set down. Thus Acts V. 42. he tells us, that daily in the Temple, and in every house the Apostles ceased not to teach, and to preach IESUS THE MESSIAH. The particulars of their Discourses he omits, and the Arguments they used to induce Men to believe he omits: But never fails to inform us carefully what it was the Apostles taught and preach'd, and would have Men believe. The account he gives us of St. Paul's Preaching at

Thessalonica, is this: That three Sab∣bath Days he REASON'D with the Iews out of the Scriptures, OPENING and ALLEDGING that the Messiah must needs have Suffer'd and risen again from the Dead; and that Iesus was the Messiah, Act. XVII. 2, 3. At Corinth, That he REASON'D in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and PERSWADED the Iews and the Greeks, and TESTI∣FIED that Iesus was the Messiah. XVIII. 4, 5. That Apollos mightily convinced the Iews, SHEWING BY THE SCRIPTURES that Iesus was the Messiah, XVIII. 27.

By these, and the like places, we may be satisfied what it was that the Apostles Taught and Preach'd, even this one Proposition that Iesus was the Messiah; For this was the sole Propo∣sition they reason'd about; this alone they testified, and they shew'd out of the Scriptures; and of this alone they endeavour'd to convince the Iews and the Greeks, that believed one God. So that it is plain from hence, that St. Luke omitted nothing, that the Apostles Taught and Preach'd; none of those Doctrines, that it was neces∣sary

to convince Unbelievers of, to make them Christians: Though he in most places omitted, as was fit, the Passages of Scripture which they al∣ledg'd, and the Arguments those in∣spired Preachers used to perswade Men to believe and imbrace that Doctrine.

Another convincing Argument, to shew that St. Luke omitted none of those Fundamental Doctrines which the Apostles any where propos'd as necessary to be believed, is from that different account he gives us of their Preaching in other places, and to Au∣ditors otherwise dispos'd. Where the Apostles had to do with Idolatrous Heathens, who were not yet come to the knowledge of the only true God, there he tells us they pro∣pos'd also the Article of the one In∣visible God, Maker of Heaven and Earth: And this we find recorded in him out of their Preaching to the Ly∣strians, Act. XIV. and to the Athe∣nians, Act. XVII. In the later of which St. Luke, to convince his Rea∣der that he out of conciseness omits none of those Fundamental Articles,

that were any where propos'd by the Preachers of the Gospel as necessary to be believed to make Men Chri∣stians, sets down not only the Article of Iesus the Messiah, but that also of the one invisible God, Creator of all things, which (if any necessary one might) this of all other Fundamental Articles might by an Author, that af∣fected brevity, with the fairest excuse have been omitted, as being implied in that other of the Messiah ordained by God. Indeed, in the Story of what Paul and Barnabas said at Lystra, the Article of the Messiah is not mention'd. Not that St. Luke omitted that Fun∣damental Article, where the Apostles taught it: But they having here be∣gun their Preaching with that of the one living God, they had not, as ap∣pears, time to proceed farther, and propose to them what yet remain'd to make them Christians: But they were, by the instigation of the Iews, fallen upon, and Paul stoned, before he could come to open to them this other Fun∣damental Article of the Gospel.

This by the way shews the Un∣masker's Mistake in his first Particu∣lar,

p. 74. where he says (as he does here again in his second Particular, which we are now examining) that believing Iesus to be the Messiah is the first step to Christianity; and therefore this, rather than any other, was pro∣pounded to be believed by all those, whom either our Saviour, or the Apo∣stles, invited to imbrace Christianity. The contrary whereof appears here; Where the Article of one God is pro∣posed in the first place, to those whose Unbelief made such a proposal ne∣cessary. And therefore if his Reason (which he uses again here, p. 76.) were good, viz. That the Article of the Messiah is expresly mention'd alone, because it is a leading Article and makes way for the rest, this Reason would ra∣ther conclude for the Article of one God: And that alone should be expresly mentioned instead of the other. Since as he argues for the other, p. 74. if they did not believe this in the first place, viz. That there was one God, there could be no hopes that they would attend unto any other Proposal relating to the Christian Religion. The Vanity and Falshood of which reasoning, viz.

That the Article of Jesus the Messiah was every where propounded rather than any other, because it was the lead∣ing Article, we see in the History of St. Paul's Preaching to the Athenians. St. Luke mentions more than one Ar∣ticle, where more than one was pro∣pos'd by St. Paul; though the first of them was that leading Article of one God, which if not received in the first place, there could be no hope they would attend to the rest.

Something the Unmasker would make of this Argument of a leading Article for want of a better, though he knows not what. In his first par∣ticular, p. 74. he makes use of it to shew, why there was but that one Article propos'd by the first Preachers of the Gospel, and how well that suc∣ceeds with him we have seen. For this is Demonstration, that if there were but that one propos'd by our Sa∣viour and the Apostles, there was but that one necessary to be believed to make Men Christians: Unless he will impiously say that our Saviour and the Apostles went about Preaching to no purpose. For if they propos'd

not all that was necessary to make Men Christians, 'twas in vain for them to Preach, and others to Hear; if when they heard and believ'd all that was propos'd to them, they were not yet Christians: For if any Article was omitted in the Proposal, which was necessary to make a Man a Christian, though they believed all that was pro∣posed to them, they could not yet be Christians; unless a Man can from an Infidel become a Christian, without doing what is necessary to make him a Christian.

Further, if his Argument of its be∣ing a leading Article proves, that that alone was propos'd, It is a Contradi∣ction to give it as a Reason, why it was set down alone, by the Historian where it was not proposed alone by the Preacher, but other necessary mat∣ters of Faith were propos'd with it; unless it can be true that this Article of Iesus is the Messiah, was propos'd alone by our Saviour and his Apostles, because it was a leading Article, and was mention'd alone in the History of what they preach'd, because it was a leading Article, though it were not

propos'd alone, but jointly with other necessary matters of Faith. For this is the use he makes here again, p. 76. of his leading Article under his second Particular, viz. To shew why the Hi∣storians mention'd this necessary Ar∣ticle, of Iesus the Messiah, alone, in places where the Preachers of the Gospel propos'd it not alone, but with other necessary Articles. But in this latter case it has no shew of a Reason at all. It may be granted as reaso∣nable for the Teachers of any Reli∣gion not to go any farther, where they see the first Article which they propose is rejected, where the leading Truth, on which all the rest depends, is not received. But it can be no rea∣son at all for an Historian who writes the History of these first Preachers, to set down only the one first and lea∣ding Article and omit all the rest, in instances where more were not only propos'd, but believed and imbraced, and upon that the Hearers and Belie∣vers admitted into the Church. 'Tis not for Historians to put any distin∣ction between leading or not leading Articles; But if they will give a true

and useful account of the Religion, whose Original they are writing, and of the Converts made to it, they must tell, not one, but all those necessary Articles, upon assent to which Con∣verts were Baptized into that Reli∣gion, and admitted into the Church. Whoever says otherwise, accuses them of falsifying the Story, misleading the Readers, and giving a wrong account of the Religion which they pretend to teach the World, and to preserve and propagate to future Ages. This (if it were so) no pre∣tence of conciseness could excuse or palliate.

There is yet remaining one Consi∣deration, which were sufficient of it self to convince us, that it was the sole Article of Faith which was preach'd; And that if there had been other Ar∣ticles necessary to be known and be∣lieved by Converts, they could not upon any pretence of conciseness be supposed to be omitted: And that is the Commissions of those, that were sent to Preach the Gospel. Which since the Sacred Historians mention, they cannot be suppos'd to leave out

any of the material and main Heads of those Commissions.

St. Luke records it, Ch. IV. 43. that our Saviour says of himself, I must go unto the other Towns to tell the good news of the Kingdom, for (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) upon this Errand am I SENT. This St. Mark calls simply Preaching. This Preaching what it contain'd St. Mat∣thew tells us, Ch. IV. 23. And Iesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their Synagogues, and preaching the good news of the Kingdom, and healing all manner of Sickness, and all manner of Diseases amongst the People. Here we have his Commission, or End of his being sent, and the Execution of it: Both termi∣nating in this, that he declar'd the good News that the Kingdom of the Messiah was come; and gave them to understand by the Miracles he did, that he himself was he. Nor does St. Matthew seem to affect such concise∣ness, that he would have left it out, if the Gospel had contained any other Fundamental Parts, necessary to be believed to make Men Christians. For he here says, all manner of Sickness, and all manner of Disease, when either of

them might have been better left out, than any necessary Article of the Go∣spel to make his History concise.

We see what our Saviour was sent for. In the next place, let us look into the Commission he gave the Apostles, when he sent them to Preach the Gospel. We have it in the X. of St. Matthew, in these words; Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go PREACH, SAYING THE KINGDOM OF HEA∣VEN IS AT HAND. Heal the Sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the Dead, cast out Devils: Freely have ye received freely give. Provide neither Gold, nor Silver, nor Brass in your Purses; nor Scrip in your journey; neither two Coats, neither Shooes nor yet Staves (for the Workman is worthy of his meat). And into whatsoever City or Town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into any house salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: But if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And who∣soever

shall not receive you, nor hear your words; When ye depart out of that house or City, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrha, in the day of judgment, than for that City. Behold, I send you forth as Sheep in the midst of Wolves: Be ye therefore wise as Serpents, and harmless as Doves. But beware of Men, for they will deliver you up to the Councils, and they will scourge you in their Synagogues. And ye shall be brought before Governours, and Kings for my sake, for a Testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the Brother shall deliver up the Brother to Death, and the Father the Child: and the Chil∣dren shall rise up against the Parents, and cause them to be put to Death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my Name's sake: But he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when

they persecute you in this City, flee ye into another: For verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the Cities of Israel till the Son of man be come. The Disciple is not above his Master, nor the Servant above his Lord. It is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Master, and the Servant as his Lord. If they have called the Master of the house Beel∣zebub, how much more shall they call them of his houshold? Fear them not therefore: For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: And what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house tops. And fear not them which kill the Body, but are not able to kill the Soul: But rather fear him which is able to destroy both Soul and body in Hell. Are not two Sparrows sold for a farthing; And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father? But the very hairs of your head are all numbred. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many Sparrows. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I

confess also before my Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth; I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his Father, and the Daughter against her Mother, and the Daughter-in Law against the Mother in Law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own houshold. He that loveth Father and Mother more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that loveth Son or Daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his Cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me: He that findeth his life shall lose it: And he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shall receive a Prophets re∣ward; and he that receiveth a righte∣ous man, shall receive a righteous mans reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a

Disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. And it came to pass when Iesus had made an end of Commanding his twelve Disciples.

This is the Commission our Saviour gave the Apostles when he sent them abroad to recover, and save the l••st Sheep of the house of Israel. And will any of the Unmasker's intelligent and observing Men say, that the History of the Scripture is so concise, that any pas∣sages, any essential, any material, nay any parts at all of the Apostles Com∣mission are here omitted by the Sacred Penman? This Commission is set down so at full, and so particularly, that S. Mat∣thew, who was one of them to whom it was given, seems not to have left out one word of all, that our Saviour gave them in charge. And it is so large, even to every particular Ar∣ticle of their Instructions, that I doubt not but my citing so much, ver∣batim out of the Sacred Text, will here again be troublesome to the Un∣masker. But whether he will venture again to call it tedious, must be as Na∣ture or Caution happen to have the better on't. Can any one who reads

this Commission, unless he hath the Brains as well as the Brow of an Un∣masker, alledge that the conciseness of the History of the Scripture has con∣cealed from us those Fundamental Do∣ctrines, which our Saviour and his Apostles Preach'd; but the Sacred Hi∣storians thought fit by consent, for unconceivable Reasons, to leave out in the Narrative they give us, of those Preachings? This Passage here wholly confuteth that. They could Preach nothing, but what they were sent to Preach: And that we see is contain'd in these few words, Preach, saying the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Heal the Sick, cleanse the Lepers, raise the Dead, cast out Devils, i. e. Acquaint them, that the Kingdom of the Mes∣siah is come, and let them know by the Miracles, you do in my Name, that I am that King and Deliverer they expect. If there were any other necessary Articles, that were to be be∣lieved, for the saving of the lost Sheep they were sent to, can one think that St. Matthew, who sets down so mi∣nutely every Circumstance of their Commission, would have omitted the

most important, and material of it? He was an ear Witness, and one that was sent; And so (without supposing him inspired) could not be misled by the short account he might receive from others, who by their own, or others forgetfulness might have drop'd those other Fundamental Articles, that the Apostles were order'd to Preach.

The very like account St. Luke gives us of our Saviours Commission to the Seventy, Ch. X. 1,—16. After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whi∣ther he himself would come. Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: Pray ye therefore the Lord of the h••rvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as Lambs among Wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shooes: and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it; if not, it shall return to you

again. And in the same house remain eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick that are therein, and SAY VNTO THEM, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS COME NIGH VNTO YOV. But in whatsoever city ye enter, and they re∣ceive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same and say, Even the very dust of your city which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: Not∣withstanding, be ye sure of this, that the Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. Wo unto thee Chorazin, Wo unto thee Bethsaida: For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sack∣cloth and ashes. But it shall be more tole∣rable for Tyre and Sidon at the judg∣ment than for you. And thou Caper∣naum, which art exalted to Heaven, shalt be thrust down to Hell. He that

heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Our Saviour's Commission here to the Seventy, whom he sent to Preach, is so exactly conformable to that which he had before given to the Twelve Apostles, that there needs but this one thing more to be ob∣served, to convince any one, that they were sent to convert their Hea∣rers to this sole belief, that the King∣dom of the Messiah was come, and that Iesus was the Messiah. And that the Historians of the New Testament are not so concise in their account of this Matter, that they would have omitted any other necessary Articles of Belief, that had been given the Seventy in Commission. That which I mean is, the Kingdom of the Messiah is twice mentioned in it to be come, v. 9. & 11. If there were other Ar∣ticles given them by our Saviour to propose to their Hearers, St. Luke must be very fond of this one Article, when for conciseness sake, leaving out the other Fundamental Articles that our

Saviour gave them in charge to Preach, he repeats this more than once.

The Unmasker's Third Particular, p. 76. begins thus; This also must be thought of, that though there are se∣veral parts and members of the Chri∣stian Faith, yet they do not all occur in any one place of Scripture. Some∣thing is in it (whether owing to his Will, or Understanding, I shall not enquire) that the Unmasker always delivers himself in doubtful, and am∣biguous terms. It had been as easie for him to have said, There are seve∣ral Articles of the Christian Faith, necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, as to say (as he does here) There are several parts and members of the Christian Faith. But as an evidence of the clearness of his Notions, or the fairness of his Arguing, he always rests in generals. There are, I grant, several parts and mem∣bers of the Christian Faith, which do no more occur in any one place of Scrip∣ture, than the whole New Testament can be said to occur in any one place of Scripture. For every Proposition

deliver'd in the New Testament for Divine Revelation, is a part and mem∣ber of the Christian Faith. But 'tis not those parts and members of the Christian Faith we are speaking of; But only such parts and members of the Christian Faith, as are absolutely necessary to be believed by every Man, before he can be a Christian. And in that sense I deny his Asser∣tion to be true, viz. That they do not occur in any one place of Scripture. For they do all occur in that first Ser∣mon of St. Peter, Act. II. 11. by which Three Thousand were at that time brought into the Church, and that in these words, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Iesus, whom you have Crucified, Lord and Christ. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ. Here is the Doctrine of Jesus the Messiah, the Lord, and of Repentance propos'd, to those who al∣ready believe one God; Which I say, are all the parts of the Christian Faith necessary to be received to make a Man a Christian. To sup∣pose, as the Unmasker does here, that

more is required, is to beg, not prove the Question.

If he disputes this Collection of mine out of that Sermon of St. Peter, I will give him a more authentick Collection of the necessary parts of the Christian Faith from an Author that he will not question. Let him look into Act. 20. 20, &c. and there he will find St. Paul saying thus to the Elders of Ephesus, whom he was ta∣king his last leave of, with an Assu∣rance, that he should never see them again. I have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you. But have shew'd you, and have taught you pub∣lickly and from house to house, testify∣ing both to the Iews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Iesus Christ. If St. Paul knew what was necessary to make a Christian, here it is: Here he (if he knew how to do it, for 'tis plain from his words he designed to do it) has put it together. But there is a greater yet than St. Paul, who has brought all the parts of Faith ne∣cessary to Salvation into one place, I mean our Saviour himself, Ioh. XVII.

13. in these words. This is Life eter∣nal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

But the Unmasker goes on. There∣fore when in some places, only one single part of the Christian Faith is made mention of, as necessarily to be imbrac'd in order to Salvation, we must be careful not to take it alone, but to supply it from several other Places, which make mention of other necessary and indispensable points of belief. I will give the Reader a plain instance of this, Rom. X. 9. If thou shalt believe in thy heart, that God hath rais'd him (i. e. the Lord Iesus) from the dead thou shalt be saved. Here one Article of Faith, viz. the belief of Christ's re∣surrection (because it is of so great Im∣portance in Christianity) is only men∣tion'd: But all the rest must be supposed, because they are mention'd in other places.

Answ. One would wonder that any one conversant in holy Writ, with ever so little Attention; much more that an Expounder of the Scriptures should so mistake the sense and stile of the

Scripture. Believing Iesus to be the Messiah with a lively Faith, i. e. as I have shew'd, taking him to be our King, with a sincere submission to the Laws of his Kingdom, is all that is required to make a Man a Christian; for this includes repentance too. The believing him therefore to be the Messiah, is very often, and with great reason, put both for Faith and Repen∣tance too; which are sometimes set down singly, where one is put for both, as implying the other: And sometimes they are both mention'd; and then Faith, as contradistinguish'd to Repentance, is taken for a simple As∣sent of the mind to this Truth that Iesus is the Messiah. Now this Faith is variously expressed in Scripture.

There are some particulars in the History of our Saviour allow'd to be so peculiarly appropriated to the Mes∣siah, such incommunicable marks of him, that to believe them of Iesus of Nazareth was in effect the same, as to believe him to be the Messiah, and so are put to express it. The principal of these is his Resurrection from the dead, which being the great:

and demonstrative Proof of his being the Messiah, 'tis not at all strange, that the believing his Resurrection should be put for believing him to be the Messiah: Since the declaring his Re∣surrection was a declaring him to be the Messiah. For thus St. Paul argues, Act. XIII. 32, 33. We declare unto you good tidings, or we preach the Go∣spel to you, for so the word signifies, how that the promise that was made unto the Fathers, God hath fullfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Iesus again. The force of which Argument lies in this, that if Iesus was raised from the dead, then he was certainly the Messiah: And thus the promise of the Messiah was fullfilled in raising Iesus from the dead. The like Argument St. Paul useth, 1 Cor. XV. 17. If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, you are yet in your Sins. i. e. If Iesus be not risen from the dead, he is not the Messiah, your believing it is in vain, and you will receive no benefit by that Faith. And so likewise from the same Argument of his Resurre∣ction, he at Thessalonica proves him

to be the Messiah, Act. XVII. 2, 3. And Paul, as his manner was, went into the Synagogue, and three Sab∣bath Days reasoned with the Jews out of the Scriptures, opening and alledging that the Messiah must needs have suffer∣ed, and risen again from the dead: And that this Iesus whom I preach unto you is the Messiah.

The necessary Connection of these two, that if he rose from the dead he was the Messiah; And if he rose not from the dead he was not the Messiah; The chief Priest and Pharisees, that had prosecuted him to Death, understood very well, who therefore came together unto Pilate saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, whilst he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again. Command there∣fore that the Sepulchre be made sure unto the third day, least his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead: So the last error shall be worse than the first. The error they here speak of, 'tis plain, was the opinion, that he was the Messiah. To stop that Belief, which his Miracles had

procured him amongst the People, they had got him put to Death: But if after that, it should be be∣lieved, that he rose again from the dead, this demonstration that he was the Messiah, would but establish what they had laboured to destroy, by his Death: Since no one, who believed his Resurrection, could doubt of his being the Messiah.

'Tis not at all therefore to be wonder'd, that his Resurrection, his Ascension, his Rule and Dominion, and his coming to judge the quick and the dead, which are Characteri∣stical marks of the Messiah, and be∣long peculiarly to him, should some∣times in Scripture be put alone as sufficient descriptions of the Messiah; And the believing them of him put for believing him to be the Messiah. Thus, Acts X. our Saviour in Peter's Discourse to Cornelius, when he brought him the Gospel, is describ'd to be the Messiah, by his Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Dominion, and coming to judge the quick and the dead.

These, (which in my Reasonableness of Christianity, I have upon this ground taken the Liberty to call con∣comitant Articles) where they are set alone for the Faith to which Salva∣tion is promis'd, plainly signifie the believing Iesus to be the Messiah, that Fundamental Article which has the promise of Life; And so give no Foundation at all for what the Un∣masker says, in these words. Here one Article of Faith, viz. The belief of Christ's Resurrection (because it is of so great Importance in Christianity) is only mention'd; but all the rest must be suppos'd, because they are mention'd in other places.

Answ. If all the rest be of absolute, and indispensible Necessity to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian, all the rest are every one of them of equal importance. For things of equal Necessity to any end, are of equal Importance to that end. But here the Truth forced its way unawares from the Unmasker. Our Saviour's Resurrection, for the reason I have gi∣ven, is truly of great importance in Christianity; so great, that his being

or not being the Messiah stands or falls with it: So that these two im∣portant Articles are inseparable, and in effect make but one. For since that time, believe one and you be∣lieve both; Deny one of them and you can believe neither. If the Un∣masker can shew me any one of the Articles in his List, which is not of this great importance mention'd alone with a promise of Salvation for be∣lieving it, I will grant him to have some colour for what he says here. But where is to be found in the Scri∣pture any such Expression as this; If thou shalt believe with thy heart the corruption and degeneracy of humane na∣ture, thou shalt be saved? or the like? This place therefore out of the Romans makes not for, but against his List of necessary Articles. One of them alone he cannot shew me any where set down, with a Supposi∣tion of the rest, as having Salvation promis'd to it. Though it be true, that that one which alone is absolutely necessary to be superadded to the Belief of one God, is in divers places differently expressed.

That which he subjoins, as a Con∣sequence of what he had said, is a farther Proof of this. And consequently, says he, if we would give an impartial account of our belief, we must consult those places: And they are not all toge∣ther, but dispersed here and there: Wherefore we must look them out, and acquaint our selves with the several particulars, which make up our belief, and render it entire and consummate.

Answ. Never was Man constanter to a loose way of talking. The Que∣stion is only about Articles necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian: And here he talks of the seve∣ral particulars, which make up our be∣lief, and render it entire and consummate; Confounding as he did before essential and integral parts, which it seems he cannot distinguish. Our Faith is true and saving, when it is such as God by the new Covenant requires it to be: But it is not entire and consummate, till we explicitely believe all the Truths contained in the Word of God. For the whole Revelation of Truth in the Scripture, being the proper and entire Object of Faith.

Our Faith cannot be entire and consum∣mate, till it be adequate to its proper Object, which is the whole divine Revelation contain'd in the Scripture: And so to make our Faith entire and consummate, we must not look out those places, which he says, are not all to∣gether. To talk of looking out, and culling of places is Nonsense, where the whole Scripture alone can make up our belief, and render it entire and consummate: Which no one, I think, can hope for in this frail State of Ig∣norance and Error. To make the Unmasker speak Sense, •• and to the purpose, here, we must understand him thus. That if we will give an impar∣tial Account of the Articles, that are necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, we must consult those places where they are, for they are not all together, but dispersed here and there, wherefore we must look them out, and acquaint our selves with the several particulars which make up the Funda∣mental Articles of our belief, and will render a Catalogue of them entire and consummate. If his Supposition be true, I grant his Method to be reaso∣nable,

and upon that I join issue with him. Let him thus give us an impar∣tial Account of our belief: Let him ac∣quaint us with the several particulars, which make up a Christian's belief, and render it entire and consummate. Till he has done this, let him not talk thus in the air of a Method, that will not do: Let him not reproach me, as he does, for not taking a course, by which he himself cannot do, what he reviles me for failing in. But our hasty Author, says he, took another course, and thereby deceived himself and unhappily deceived others. If it be so, I desire the Unmasker to take the course he proposes, and there∣by undeceive me, and others; and acquaint us with the several particulars which make up a Christian's belief, and render it entire and consummate. For I am willing to be undeceived: But till he has done that, and shewn us by the success of it, that his course is better, he cannot blame us for ••ol∣lowing that course we have done.

I come now to his Fourth and last par∣ticular, p. 78. which he says, is the main Answer to the Objection, and therefore I

shall set it down in his own words en∣tire as it stands together. This, says he, must be born in our Minds, that Chri∣stianity was erected by degrees, according to that Prediction and Promise of our Saviour, that the Spirit should teach them all things, Joh. XIV. 26. and that he should guide them into all truth, Joh. XVI. 13. viz. after his departure and ascension, when the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a special man∣ner to enlighten Mens minds, and to discover to them the great Mysteries of Christianity. This is to be noted by us, as that which gives great light in the present case. The discovery of the Do∣ctrines of the Gospel was gradual. It was by certain steps that Christianity climbed to its heighth. We are not to think then that all the necessary Do∣ctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd to the World in our Sa∣viour's time. Not but that all that were necessary for that time were publish'd: But some which were necessary for the succeeding one were not then discover'd or at least not fully. They had ordina∣rily no belief, before Christ's Death and Resurrection, of those Substantial Arti∣cles,

i. e. that he should die and rise again; But we read in the Acts, and in the Epistles, that these were formal Ar∣ticles of Faith afterwards, and are ever since necessary to compleat the Christian belief. So as to other great Verities, the Gospel increased by degrees, and was not perfect at once. Which furnishes us with a reason why most of the choicest and sublimest truths of Christianity are to be met with in the Epistles of the Apostles, they being such Doctrines as were not clearly discover'd and open'd in the Gospels and the Acts. Thus far the Vnmasker.

I thought hitherto, that the Cove∣nant of Grace in Christ Jesus had been but one, immutably the same: But our Vnmasker here makes two, or I know not how many. For I cannot tell how to conceive, that the Conditions of any Covenant should be changed, and the Covenant remain the same: Every change of Condi∣tions in my apprehension makes a new and another Covenant. We are not to think, says the Vnmasker, That all the necessary Doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd

to the World in our Saviour's time; not but that all that were necessary for that time were publish'd: But some which were necessary for the Succeeding one, were not then discover'd; or at least not fully. Answ. The Unmasker, constant to him∣self, speaks here doubtfully, and can∣not tell whether he should say that the Articles necessary to Succeeding times, were discover'd in our Saviour's time, or no: And therefore, that he may provide himself a retreat, in the doubt he is in, he says, they were not clearly publish'd; they were not then discover'd, or at least not fully. But we must de∣sire him to pull off his Mask, and to that purpose.

1^o. I ask him how he can tell, that all the necessary Doctrines were ob∣scurely published or in part discover'd; for an obscure publishing, a Discovery in part, is opposed to, and intimated in not clearly published, not fully discover'd. And if a clear and full Discovery be all that he denies to them, I ask

XXXVII.

Which those Fundamental Articles are, which were obscurely publish'd, but not fully discovered, in our Sa∣viour's time?

And next, I shall desire him to tell me

XXXVIII.

Whether there are any Articles ne∣cessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, that were not dis∣cover'd at all in our Saviour's time, and which they are.

If he cannot shew these distinctly, it is plain he talks at random about them: But he has no clear and distinct conception of those that were publish'd, or not publish'd; clearly or obscurely discover'd, in our Saviour's time. It was necessary for him to say some∣thing, for those his pretended neces∣sary Articles, which are not to be ••ound any where propos'd in the

Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles to their yet Unbelieving Au∣ditors; And therefore he says, We are not to think all the necessary Doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly published to the World in our Saviour's time. But he barely says it, without giving any Reason, why we are not to think so. It is enough that it is ne∣cessary to his Hypothesis. He says we are not to think so, and we are presently bound not to think so. Else from ano∣ther Man, that did not usurp an Au∣thority over our Thoughts, it would have requir'd some Reason to make them think, that something more was requir'd to make a Man a Christian after than in our Saviour's time. For, as I take it, it is not a very probable, much less a self-evident Proposition, to be received without Proof, That there was something necessary for that time, to make a Man a Christian, and some∣thing more that was necessary to make a Man a Christian in the succeeding time.

However, since this great Master says we ought to think so, let us in obe∣dience think so as well as we can; till

he vouchsafes to give us some Reason to think, that there was more requir'd to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian in the succeeding time, than in our Saviour's. This, instead of remo∣ving, does but increase the Difficulty: For if more were necessary to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian after our Saviour's time, than was during his life; how comes it, that no more was propos'd by the Apostles in their Preaching to Unbelievers for the ma∣king them Christians, after our Savi∣our's Death, than there was before: Even this one Article, that he was the Messiah? For I desire the Unmasker to shew me any of those other Articles mentioned in his List (except the Re∣surrection and Ascension of our Sa∣viour, which were intervening Mat∣ters of Fact, evidencing him to be the Messiah) that were propos'd by the Apo∣stles after our Saviour's time to their Unbelieving Hearers, to make them Christians. This one Doctrine, that Iesus was the Messiah, was that, which was propos'd in our Saviour's time to be believed, as necessary to make a Man a Christian: The same Doctrine

was likewise what was propos'd after∣wards, in the Preaching of the Apo∣stles to Unbelievers, to make them Christians.

I grant this was more clearly pro∣pos'd after than in our Saviour's time; But in both of them it was all that was propos'd to the Believers of one God, to make them Christians. Let him shew, that there were any other pro∣pos'd in or after our Saviour's time to be believed, to make Unbelievers Christians. If he means by necessary Articles published to the World, the other Doctrines contain'd in the Epi∣stles; I grant they are all of them ne∣cessary Articles to be believed by every Christian, as far as he understands them. But I deny, that they were propos'd to those they were writ to, as necessary to make them Christians, for this demonstrative Reason: Be∣cause they were Christians already. For Example, many Doctrines proving, and explaining, and giving a farther Light into the Gospel, are publish'd in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians. These are all of Divine Authority, and none of them may be

disbelieved by any one who is a Chri∣stian: But yet what was propos'd or publish'd to both the Corinthians and Thessalonians to make them Christians, was only this Doctrine that Iesus was the Messiah: As may be seen, Act. XVII. and XVIII. This then was the Do∣ctrine necessary to make men Chri∣stians in our Saviour's time; And this the only Doctrine necessary to make Unbelievers Christians after our Sa∣viour's time. The only difference was, that it was more clearly propos'd after than before his Ascension: The Rea∣son whereof has been sufficiently ex∣plain'd. But any other Doctrine but this, propos'd clearly or obscurely, in or after our Saviour's time, as necessary to be believed to make Unbelievers Christians, That remains yet to be shewn.

When the Unmasker speaks of the Doctrines that were necessary for the succeeding time after our Saviour, he is in doubt whether he should say they were, or were not discover'd in our Saviour's time; and how far they were then discover'd: And therefore he says, some of them were not then ••••••∣cover'd,

or at least not fully. We must here excuse the doubtfulness of his talking concerning the discovery of his other necessary Articles. For how could he say they were discover'd, or not discover'd, clearly or obscurely, fully or not fully, when he does not yet know them all, nor can tell us, what those necessary Articles are? If he does know them let him give us a List of them, and then we shall see easily whether they were at all pub∣lish'd or discover'd in our Saviour's time. If there are some of them, that were not at all discover'd in our Sa∣viour's time, let him speak it out, and leave shifting: And if some of those, that were not necessary for our Saviour's time, but for the succeeding one only were yet discover'd in our Saviour's time, why were they not necessary to be believed in that time? But the truth is, he knows not what these Doctrines necessary for Succeeding times are, and therefore can say nothing positive about their Discovery. And for those that he has set down, as soon as he shall name any one of them, to be of the number of those not necessary for

our Saviour's time, but necessary for the Succeeding one, it will presently appear, either that it was discover'd in our Sa∣viour's time; And then it was as neces∣sary for his time as the Succeeding: Or else that it was not discover'd in his time, nor to several Converts after his time, before they were made Chri∣stians; And therefore it was no more necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian in the Succeeding, than it was in our Saviour's time. However, general Positions and Distinctions with∣out a Foundation, serve for shew, and to beguile unwary and inattentive Readers.

2^o. Having thus minded him that the Question is about Articles of Faith necessary to be explicitly and distinct∣ly believed to make a Man a Christian; I then, in the next place, demand of him to tell me,

XXXIX.

Whether or no all the Articles neces∣sary now to be distinctly and expli∣citly believed to make any Man a Christian, were distinctly and ex∣plicitly published or discover'd in our Saviour's time.

And then I shall desire to know of him,

XL.

A Reason why they were not.

Those that he instances in of Christ's Death and Resurrection, will not help him one jot: For they are not new Doctrines revealed, new Mysteries discovered; but Matters of Fact, which happen'd to our Saviour in their due time, to compleat in him the Chara∣cter and Predictions of the Messiah, and demonstrate him to be the Deli∣verer promised. These are recorded of him by the Spirit of God in holy Writ; but are no more necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, than any other part of Divine Reve∣lation, but as far as they have an imme∣diate Connexion with his being the Messiah, and cannot be denied without denying him to be the Messiah: And therefore this Article of his Resurre∣ction (which supposes his Death) and such other Propositions as are conver∣tible with his being the Messiah, are,

as they very well may be, put for his being the Messiah; and as I have shew'd, propos'd to be believed in the place of it.

All that is reveal'd in Scripture has a consequential necessity of being be∣lieved by all those, to whom it is pro∣pos'd: Because it is of Divine Au∣thority, one part as much as another. And in this sense, all the Divine Truths in the inspired Writings are Funda∣mental and necessary to be believed. But then this will destroy our Vn∣masker's select Number of Funda∣mental Articles: And the choicest and sublimest Truths of Christianity, which he tells us, are to be met with in the Epistles, will not be more necessary to be believed, than any, which he may think the commonest or meanest Truths in any of the Epistles or the Gospels. Whatsoever part of Divine Revelation, whether reveal'd before, or in, or after our Saviour's time; whether it contain (according to the distinction of our Unmasker's nice pa∣late) choice or common; sublime or not sublime Truths; is necessary to be believed by every one, to whom it is

propos'd, as far as he under••tands, what is propos'd. But God by Iesus Christ has entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind; a Covenant of Faith, instead of that of Works, wherein some Truths are absolutely necessary to be explicitly believed by them to make Men Christians; and therefore those Truths are necessary to be known, and consequently necessary to be pro∣pos'd to them to make them Chri∣stians. This is peculiar to them to make Men Christians. For all Men, as Men, are under a necessary obliga∣tion to believe what God proposes to them to be believed: But there being certain distinguishing Truths, which belong to the Covenant of the Gospel, which if Men know not, they cannot be Christians; and they being some of them such as cannot be known without being propos'd; those and those only are the necessary Doctrines of Christianity I speak of; without a knowledge of, and assent to which, no Man can be a Christian.

To come therefore to a clear deci∣sion of this Controversie, I desire the Unmasker to tell me,

XLI.

What those Doctrines are which are absolutely necessary to be proposed to every Man to make him a Chri∣stian.

XLII.

1^o. Whether they are all the Truths of Divine Revelation contain'd in the Bible.

For, I grant his Argument (which in another place he uses for some of them, and truly belongs to them all) viz. That they were reveal'd and writ∣ten there on purpose to be believed, and that it is indispensibly necessary for Christians to believe them.

XLIII.

2^o. Or whether it be only that one Article of Iesus being the Messiah, which the History of our Saviour and his Apostles Preaching has with such a peculiar distinction every where propos'd.

XLIV.

3^o. Or whether the Doctrines necessary to be propos'd to every one to make him a Christian, be any set of Truths between these two.

And if he says this latter, then I must ask him,

XLV.

What they are? that we may see why those rather than any other con∣tain'd in the New Testament, are necessary to be propos'd to every Man to make him a Christian; And if they are not every one propos'd to him, and assented to by him, he cannot be a Christian.

The Vnmasker makes a great noise, and hopes to give his unwary, though well-meaning Readers, odd Thoughts, and strong Impressions against my Book, by declaiming against my lank Faith, and my narrowing of Christia∣nity to one Article; which, as he says,

is the next way to reduce it to none. But when it is consider'd, it will be found, that 'tis he that narrows Chri∣stianity. The Unmasker, as if he were Arbiter and Dispenser of the Oracles of God, takes upon him to single out some Texts of Scripture; and, where the words of Scripture will not serve his turn, to impose on us his Inter∣pretations and Deductions as necessary Articles of Faith; which is in Effect to make them of equal Authority with the unquestionable Word of God. And thus, partly in the words of the Scripture, and partly in words of his own, he makes a Set of Fundamen∣tals, with an Exclusion of all the other Truths deliver'd, by the Spirit of God in the Bible: Though all the rest be of the same Divine Authority, and Original; and ought therefore all equally, as far as they are understood, by every Christian to be believed. I tell him, and I desire him to take no∣tice of it: God has no where given him an Authority thus to garble the inspired Writings of the Holy Scrip∣tures. Every part of it is his Word, and ought every part of it to be be∣lieved

by every Christian Man, accor∣ding as God shall inable him to under∣stand it. It ought not to be narrowed to the Cut of the Vnmasker's peculiar System: 'Tis a Presumption of the highest Nature, for him thus to pre∣tend according to his own Phancy to establish a Set of Fundamental Arti∣cles. This is to diminish the Autho∣rity of the Word of God, to set up his own; and create a reverence to his System, from which the several parts of Divine Revelations are to receive their Weight, Dignity and Authority. Those Passages of Holy Writ which suit with that, are Fundamental, Choice, Sublime and Necessary: The rest of the Scripture (as of no great moment) is not Fundamental, is not necessary to be believed, may be neglected, or must be tortur'd to comply with an Analogy of Faith of his own making. But though he pretend to a certain Set of Fundamentals; yet to shew the Va∣nity, and Impudence of that pretence, he cannot tell us which they are; and therefore in vain contends for a Creed he knows not, and is yet no where. He neither does, and which is more, I

tell him he never can give us a Colle∣ction of his Fundamentals gather'd upon his Principles out of the Scrip∣ture, with the rejection of all the rest as not Fundamental. He does not ob∣serve the difference there is between what is necessary to be believed by every Man to make him a Christian, and what is requir'd to be believed by every Christian. The first of these is what by the Covenant of the Go∣spel is necessary to be known, and consequently to be propos'd to every Man to make him a Christian: The latter is no less than the whole Reve∣lation of God; all the Divine Truths contain'd in Holy Scripture; which every Christian Man is under a neces∣sity to believe, so far as it shall please God upon his serious and constant en∣deavours to enlighten his Mind to un∣derstand them.

The Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles, has sufficiently taught us what is necessary to be propos'd to every Man to make him a Christian. He that believes him to be the pro∣mised Messiah, takes Iesus for his King, and repenting of his former Sins, sin∣cerely

resolves to live for the future in obedience to his Laws is a Subject of his Kingdom, is a Christian. If he be not, I desire the Unmasker to tell me, what more is requisite to make him so. Till he does that, I rest sa∣tisfied, that this is all that was at first, and is still necessary to make a Man a Christian.

This, though it be contain'd in a few words, and those not hard to be understood; though it be in one vo∣luntary act of the Mind relinquishing all irregular Courses, and submitting it self to the rule of him, whom God had sent to be our King, and promised to be our Saviour; Yet it having re∣lation to the Race of Mankind from the First Man Adam to the End of the World, it being a Contrivance, wherein God has displaid so much of his Wis∣dom and Goodness to the corrupt and lost Sons of Men, and it being a De∣sign to which the Almighty had a peculiar regard in the whole Consti∣tution and Oeconomy of the Iews, as well as in the Prophecies and History of the Old Testament; This was a Foundation capable of large Super∣structures.

1. In explaining the Oc∣casion, Necessity, Use and End of his coming. 2. Next, in proving him to be the Person promis'd; by a Corre∣spondence of his Birth, Life, Suffe∣rings, Death, and Resurrection, to all those Prophecies and Types of him, which had given the expectation of such a Deliverer, and to those Descrip∣tions of him whereby he might be known, when he did come. 3. In the discovery of the Sort, Constitu∣tion, Extent, and Management of his Kingdom. 4. In shewing from what we are deliver'd by him, and how that Deliverance is wrought out, and what are the Consequences of it.

These, and a great many more the like, afford great numbers of Truths deliver'd both in the Historical, Epi∣stolary, and Prophetical Writings of the New Testament, wherein the My∣steries of the Gospel hidden from for∣mer Ages were discover'd; and that more fully, I grant, after the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon the Apo∣stles. But could no body take Christ for their promised King, and resolve to obey him, unless he understood all

the Truths that concern'd his King∣dom, or, as I may say, Mysteries of State of it? The truth of the con∣trary is manifest out of the plain and uniform Preaching of the Apostles, after they had received the Holy Ghost, that was to guide them into all Truth. Nay, after the writing of those Epistles, wherein were contain'd the Unmasker's Sublimest Truths; They every where propos'd to Unbelievers Iesus the Messiah to be their King, Or∣dain'd of God; and to this join'd Re∣pentance: And this alone they Preach'd for the Conversion of their Unbelie∣ving Hearers. As soon as any one assented to this, he was pronounced a Believer; And these inspired Rulers of the Church, these infallible Prea∣chers of the Gospel, admitted him in∣to Christ's Kingdom by Baptism. And this after, long after our Saviour's As∣cension, when (as our Unmasker expresses it) the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a special manner to enlighten mens Minds, and to discover to them the great Myste∣ries of Christianity, even as long as the Apostles lived: And what others were to do, who afterwards were to

Preach the Gospel; St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. III. 11. Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, even Iesus the Messiah. Though upon this Foun∣dation Men might build variously, things that would, or would not hold the touch; Yet however, as long as they kept firm to this Foundation, they should be saved, as appears in the following Verses.

And indeed, if all the Doctrines of the Gospel, which are contain'd in the Writings of the Apostles and Evan∣gelists, were necessary to be under∣stood, and explicitly believed, in the true sense of those that deliver'd them, to make a Man a Christian; I doubt whether ever any one, even to this day, was a true Christian: Though I believe the Unmasker will not deny but that, e're this, Christianity (as he expresses it) is by certain steps climbed to its height.

But for this, the Unmasker has found a convenient and wise remedy. 'Tis but for him to have the Power to declare, which of the Doctrines deli∣ver'd in Holy Writ are, and which are not necessary to be believed, with an

additional Power to add others of his own, that he cannot find there, and the business is done. For unless this be allow'd him, his System cannot stand: Unless his Interpretations be received for authentick Revelation, we cannot have all Doctrines necessary for our time; In truth, we cannot be Christians. For to this only, what he says concerning the gradual discovery of the Doctrines of the Gospel tends. We are not to think, says he, that all the necessary Doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd to the World in our Saviour's time. Not but that all that were necessary for that time were publish'd: But some that were necessary for the succeeding one were not then discover'd, or at least not fully.

I must here ask the Unmasker a short Question, or two; as First,

XLVI.

Are not all the Doctrines necessary for our time contain'd in his Sy∣stem?

Next,

XLVII.

Can all the Doctrines necessary for our time, be propos'd in the ex∣press words of the Scripture?

When he has answer'd these two plain Questions (and an Answer to them, I shall expect) the World will then see, what he designs by Doctrines ne∣cessary for our Saviour's time, and Do∣ctrines necessary for succeeding times; whether he means any thing else by it, but the setting up his System, as the exact Standard of the Gospel; and the true and unalterable Measure of Christianity, in which it has climbed to its height.

Let not good and sincere Christians be deceived, nor perplexed by this Maker of another Christianity, than what the infallible Spirit of God has lest us in the Scriptures. 'Tis evident from thence, that whoever takes Iesus the Messiah for his King, with a Reso∣lution to live by his Laws, and does sincerely repent as often as he trans∣gresses any of them, is his Subject;

All such are Christians. What they are to know, or believe more concerning him, and his Kingdom, when they are his Subjects, he has left upon Re∣cord in the great and Sacred Code, and Constitutions of his Kingdom, I mean in the Holy Scriptures. All that is contain'd therein, as coming from the God of Truth, they are to receive as Truth, and imbrace as such. But since it is impossible explicitly to believe any Proposition of the Chri∣stian Doctrine but what men under∣stand, or in any other sense than we understand it to have been deliver'd in; An explicit belief is, or can be re∣quired in no Man, of more than what he understands of that Doctrine. And thus, whatsoever upon fair Endea∣vours, he understands to be contain'd in that Doctrine, is necessary to him to be believed: Nor can he conti∣nue a Subject of Christ upon other terms.

What he is perswaded is the mean∣ing of Christ his King, in any Ex∣pression he finds in the Sacred Code; That by his Allegiance he is bound to submit his Mind to receive for true,

or else he denies the Authority of Christ, and refuses to believe him; nor can be excused by calling any one on Earth Master. And hence it is evidently impossible for a Christian to understand any Text in one sence, and believe it in another, by whom∣soever dictated.

All that is contain'd in the inspired Writings, is all of Divine Authority, must all be allow'd for such, and re∣ceived for Divine and infallible Truth, by every Subject of Christ's Kingdom, i. e. every Christian. How comes then the Unmasker to distinguish these Di∣ctates of the Holy Spirit into neces∣sary and not necessary Truths? I de∣sire him to produce his Commission, whereby he hath the Power given him to tell, which of the Divine Truths contain'd in the Holy Scrip∣ture are of necessity to be believed, and which not. Who made him a Judge or Divider between them? Who gave him this Power over the Oracles of God; to set up one, and debase ano∣ther at his pleasure? Some, as he thinks sit, are the choicest Truths. And what I beseech him are the other? Who

made him a Chuser, where no body can pick and chuse? Every proposi∣tion there, as far as any Christian can understand it, is indispensibly necessa∣ry to be believed: And farther than he does understand it, it is impossible for him to believe it. The Laws of Christ's Kingdom do not require Im∣possibilities, for they are all reasonable, just and good.

Some of the Truths delivered in Holy Writ are very plain: 'Tis im∣possible, I think, to mistake their Meaning: And those certainly are all necessary to be explicitely believ'd. Others have more Difficulty in them, and are not easy to be understood. Is the Unmasker appointed Christ's Vicegerent here, or the Holy Ghost's Interpreter, with Authority to pro∣nounce which of these are necessary to be believ'd, and in what Sense, and which not▪ The Obscurity that is to be found in several passages of the Scripture, the difficulties that cover and perplex the meaning of several Texts, demand of every Chri∣stian Study, Diligence, and Attention, in reading and hearing the Scriptures;

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

in comparing, and examining them; and receiving what light he can from all manner of helps, to understand these Books wherein are contain'd the Words of Life. This the Unmaker, and every one is to do for himself; and thereby find out, what is necessary for him to believe. But I do not know that the Unmasker is to understand, and interpret for me, more than I for him. If he has such a power I desire him to produce it. Till then I can acknow∣ledge no other infallible, but that guide, which he directs me to him∣self here in these Words, According to our Saviour's promise, the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a special manner to enlighten mens minds, and to discover to them the great mysteries of Christia∣nity. For whether by men he here means those on whom the Holy Ghost was so eminently poured out, Act. II. Or whether he means by these Words, that special Assistance of the Holy Ghost, whereby particular men to the end of the World, are to be lead into the Truth, by opening their un∣derstandings, that they may under∣stand the Scriptures (for he always

loves to speak doubtfully and indefi∣nitely) I know no other infallible guide, but the Spirit of God in the Scriptures. Nor has God left it in my choice, to take any Man for such. If he had, I should think the Unmasker the unlikeliest to be he, and the last Man in the World to be chosen for that▪ Guide: And herein, I appeal to any sober Christian, who hath read what the Unmasker has with so little Truth and Decency (for 'tis not al∣ways mens fault if they have not Sense) writ upon this Question, whe∣ther he would not be of the same mind?

But yet as very an Unmasker as he is, he will be extremely apt to call you Names, nay to declare you no Chri∣stian; and boldly affirm you have no Christianity, if you will not swallow it just as it is of his Cooking. You must take it just as he has been pleased to dose it; no more, nor no less, than what is in his System. He hath put him∣self into the Throne of Christ, and pretends to tell you, which are, and which are not the indispensable Laws of his Kingdom. Which parts of his divine Revelation you must necessarily

know, understand, and believe, and in what sense; and which you need not trouble your head about, but may pass by as not necessary to be belie∣ved. He will tell you that some of his necessary Articles are Mysteries, and yet (as he does p. 115. of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism) that they are easy to be understood by any Man, when ex∣plained to him. In answer to that, I demanded of him

who was to ex∣plain them? The Papists I told him, would explain some of them one way, and the Reformed another; The Remonstrants and Anti-remon∣strants give them different senses; And probably the Trinitarians and Unitarians will profess, that they understand not each other's Expli∣cations.

But to this in his reply he has not vouchsafed to give me any answer. Which yet I expect, and I will tell him why; Because as there are different Explainers, there will be different Fundamentals. And therefore, unless he can shew his Au∣thority to be the sole Explainer of Fundamentals, he will in vain make

such a pudder about his Fundamen∣tals. Another Explainer, of as good Authority as he, will set up others against them. And what then shall we be the better for all this stir, and noise of Fundamentals? And I desire it may be consider'd how much of the Divisions in the Church, and bloody Persecutions amongst Chri∣stians, has been owing to Christia∣nity thus set up against Christianity, in multiplied Fundamentals and Ar∣ticles, made necessary by the Infal∣libility of opposite Systems. The Unmasker's Zeal wants nothing but Power to make good his to be the only Christianity, for he has found the Apo∣stles Creed to be defective. He is as infallible as the Pope, and another as infallible as he; and where Humane Additions are made to the Terms of the Gospel, Men seldom want Zeal for what is their own.

To conclude; What was sufficient to make a Man a Christian in our Sa∣viour's time, is sufficient still, viz. the taking him for our King and Lord, ordained so by God. What was necessary to be believed by all Chri∣stians

in our Saviour's time as an in∣dispensable Duty, which they owed to their Lord and Master, was the believing all divine Revelation, as far as every one could understand it: And just so it is still, neither more nor less. This being so, the Unmas∣ker may make what use he pleases of his Notion, That Christianity was ere∣cted by Degrees, it will no way (in that sence in which it is true) turn to the advantage of his select Funda∣mental necessary Doctrines.

The next Chapter has nothing in it, but his great Bug-bear, whereby he hopes to fright People from Read∣ing my Book, by crying out, Socinia∣nism, Socinianism. Whereas I challenge him again to shew one word of Soci∣nianism in it. But however it is worth while to write a Book to prove me a Socinian. Truly, I did not think my self so considerable, that the World need be troubled about me, whether I were a follower of Socinus, Armi∣nius, Calvin, or any other Leader of a Sect amongst Christians. A Chri∣stian I am sure I am, because I believe Iesus to be the Messiah, the King and

Saviour promised, and sent by God: And as a Subject of his Kingdom, I take the rule of my Faith, and Life, from his Will declar'd and left upon Record in the inspired Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists in the New Testament: Which I endeavour to the utmost of my power, as is my Duty, to understand in their true sense and meaning. To lead me in∣to their true meaning, I know (as I have above declar'd) no infallible Guide, but the same Holy Spirit, from whom these Writings at first came. If the Unmasker knows any other in∣fallible Interpreter of Scripture, I de∣sire him to direct me to him. Till then, I shall think it according to my Master's Rule, not to be called, nor to call any Man on Earth Master. No Man, I think, has a right to prescribe to my Faith, or Magisterially to im∣pose his Interpretations or Opinions on me: Nor is it material to any one what mine are, any farther than they carry their own Evidence with them. If this, which I think makes me of no Sect, entitles me to the Name of a Papist, or a Socinian, because the Un∣masker

thinks these the worst, and most invidious he can give me; and labours to fix them on me for no other reason, but because I will not take him for my Master on Earth, and his System for my Gospel; I shall leave him to recommend himself to the World by this Skill, who no doubt will have reason to thank him for the rareness and subtility of his Discovery. For, I think, I am the first Man, that ever was found out to be at the same time a Socinian, and a Factor for Rome. But what is too hard for such an Un∣masker? I must be what he thinks fit. When he pleases a Papist, and when he pleases a Socinian, and when he plea∣ses a Mahometan. And probably, when he has consider'd a little better, an Atheist; for I hardly scaped it when he writ last. My Book, he says, hath a tendency to it; and if he can but go on, as he has done hitherto, from Surmises to Certainties, by that time he writes next his Discovery will be advanced, and he will certainly find me an Atheist. Only one thing I dare assure him of, that he shall never find, that I treat the things of God or Re∣ligion

so, as if I made only a Trade, or a Jest of them. But let us now see how at present he proves me a Socinian.

His first Argument is, my not an∣swering for my leaving out, Matth. XXVIII. 19. and Iohn I. 1. Pag. 82. of his Socinianism Unmask'd. This he takes to be a Confession, that I am a Socinian. I hope he means fairly, and that if it be so on my side, it must be taken for a standing Rule between us, that where any thing is not answer'd, it must be taken for granted. And upon that score, I must desire him to remember some Passages of my Vindication, which I have al∣ready, and others which I shall mind him of hereafter, which he passed over in Silence, and hath had nothing to say to, which therefore by his own rule, I shall desire the Reader to observe, that he has granted.

This being premised; I must tell the Unmasker, that I perceive he reads my Book with the same Understanding that he writes his own. If he had done otherwise, he might have seen, that I had given him a reason for my

omission of those two, and other plain and obvious Passages and famous Testi∣monies in the Evangelists, as he calls them, where I say, p. 11.

That if I have le••t out none of those Passa∣ges or Testimonies, which contain what our Saviour and his Apostles preach'd and required assent to, to make Men Believers, I shall think my Omissions (let them be what they will) no Faults in the present Case. Whatever Doctrines Mr. Ed∣wards would have to be believed, to make a Man a Christian, he will be sure to find them in those Prea∣chings and famous Testimonies of our Saviour and his Apostles I have quoted. And if they are not there, he may rest satisfied, that they were not propos'd by our Saviour and his Apostles, as necessary to be believed to make Men Christ's Disciples.

From which words, any one but an Unmasker, would have understood my Answer to be, That all that was ne∣cessary to be believed to make Men Christians, might be found in what our Saviour and the Apostles propos'd to Unbelievers for their Conversion:

But the two Passages abovemention'd, as well as a great many others in the Evangelists, being none of those, I had no reason to take notice of them. But the Unmasker having out of his good pleasure put it once upon me, as he does in his Thoughts of the Causes of Atheism, p. 107. That I was an Epitomizer of the Evangelical Writings, though every one may see I make not that my Business, yet `tis no matter for that, I must always be accountable to that fancy of his. But when he has proved,

XLVIII.

That this is not as just a reason for my omitting them, as several other obvious Passages and famous Te∣stimonies in the Evangelists, which I there mention, for whose Omission he does not blame me,

I will undertake to give him another Reason, which I know not whether he were not better let alone.

The next Proof of my being a So∣cinian is, that I take the Son of God to

be an expression used to signifie the Messiah. Slichtingius and Socinus un∣derstood it so, and therefore I am, the Unmasker says, a Socinian. Just as good an Argument, as that I believe Iesus to be a Prophet, and so do the Mahometans, therefore I am a Maho∣metan: Or thus, The Unmaskert holds that the Apostles Creed does not con∣tain all things necessary to Salvation, and so says Knot the Jesuit: There∣fore the Unmasker is a Papist. Let me turn the Tables, and by the same Argument I am Orthodox again. For two Orthodox, Pious and very Emi∣nent Prelates of our Church, whom, when I follow Authorities, I shall pre∣fer to Slichtingius and Socinus, under∣stand it as I do, and therefore I am Orthodox. Nay, it so falls out, that if it were of force either way, the Argument would weigh most on this side: Since I am not wholly a Stran∣ger to the Writings of these two Or∣thodox Bishops, but I never read a Page in either of those Socinians. The never sufficiently admir'd and valued Archbishop Tillotson's words, which I quoted, the Unmasker says, do not ne∣cessarily

import any such thing. I know no words that necessarily import any thing to a Caviller. But he was known to have such clear Thoughts, and so clear a Stile; so far from having any thing doubtful, or fallacious in what he said, that I shall only set down his words as they are in his Sermon of Sincerity, p. 2. to shew his meaning. Nathaniel, says he, being satisfied, that he [our Saviour] was the Messiah, he presently owned him for such, calling him THE SON OF GOD, and the King of Israel.

The words of the other Eminent Prelate, the Bishop of Ely, whom our Church is still happy in, are these. To be the Son of God, and to be Christ, being but different Expressions of the same thing: Witness, p. 14. And p. 10. It is the very same thing to be∣lieve that Iesus is the Christ, and to believe that Iesus is the Son of God, express it how you please. This ALONE is the Faith which can re∣generate a man, and put a divine Spi∣rit into him, that it makes him a Con∣queror over the World as Iesus was. Of this the Unmasker says, that this

Reverend Author speaking only in a gene∣ral way represents these two as the same thing, viz. That Iesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of God, be∣cause these Expressions are applied to the same person, and because they are both comprehended in one general Name, viz. Jesus. Answ. The Question is whether these two Expressions, the Son of God, and the Messiah, in the Learned Bishop's Opinion signifie the same thing. If his Opinion had been asked in the Point, I know not how he could have declar'd it more clearly. For he says they are Expressions of the same thing, and that it is the very same thing to believe that Iesus is the Mes∣siah, and to believe that he is the Son of God; Which cannot be so, if Messiah and Son of God have different Signifi∣cations: For then they will make two distinct Propositions in different Sen∣ces, which it can be no more the same thing to believe, than it is the same thing to believe that Mr. Edwards is a Notable Preacher, and a Notable Rai∣ler; or than it is to believe one Truth and all Truths. For by the same Rea∣son, that it is the same thing to believe

two distinct Truths, it will be the same thing to believe two thousand di∣stinct Truths, and consequently all Truths. The Unmasker, that he might seem to say something, says that the Reverend Author represents these as the same thing. Answ. The Unmasker ne∣ver fails, like Midas, to turn every thing he touches into his own Metal. The Learned Bishop says very directly and plainly, that to be the Son of God, and to be the Messiah, are Expressions of the same thing: And the Unmasker says, he represents these Expressions as one thing. For `tis of Expressions that both the Bishop and he speak: Now, Expressions can be one thing, but one of these two ways: Either in Sound, and so these two Expressions are not one; Or insignification, and so they are. And then the Unmasker says, but in other words, what the Bishop had said before, viz. That these two to be the Son of God and to be the Messiah, are Expressions of the same thing. Only the Unmasker has put in the word Represents to amuse his Reader, as if he had said something, and so indeed he does after his fashion, i. e. obscurely

and fallaciously; which when it comes to be examined, is but the same thing under shew of a difference: Or else, if it has a different meaning, is de∣monstratively false. But so it be obscure enough to deceive a willing Reader, who will not be at the pains to examine what he says, it serves his turn.

But yet, as if he had said something of weight, he gives Reasons for put∣ting Represents these two Expressions as one thing, in stead of saying, these two are but different Expressions of the same thing.

The First of his Reasons is, Because the Reverend Author is here speaking only in a General way. Answ. What does the Vnmasker mean by a General way? The Learned Bishop speaks of two particular Expressions applied to our Saviour. But was his Discourse never so general, how could that alter the plain Signification of his words, viz. That those two are but different Expressions of the same thing?

2^o. Because these Expressions are ap∣plied to the same person. Answ. A very demonstrative Reason, is it not, that

therefore they cannot be different Ex∣pressions of the same thing?

3^o. And because they are both com∣prehended in one general Name, viz. Iesus. Answ. It requires some Skill to put so many Falshoods in so few words. For neither both nor either of these Expressions are comprehen∣ded in the Name Iesus: And that Iesus, the Name of a particular Person, should be a general Name, is a disco∣very reserv'd to be found out by this new Logician. However general is a Learned Word, which when a Man of Learning has used twice, as a Rea∣son of the same thing, he is cover'd with Generals. He need not trouble himself any farther about sence, he may safely talk what Stu•••• he pleases, with∣out the least Suspicion of his Reader.

Having thus strongly proved just nothing; he proceeds and tells us, p. 91. Yet it does not follow thence, but that if we will speak strictly and closely, we must be forced to confess, they are of different Significations. By which words (if his words have any Signi∣fication) he plainly allows, that the Bishop meant as he says, that these

two are but different Expressions of the same thing: But withal tells him, that if he will speak closely and strictly, he must say, they are of different Signi∣fications. My concernment in the case being only, that in the Passage al∣ledg'd, the Reverend Author said, that the Son of God and the Messiah were different Expressions of the same thing, I have no more to demand af∣ter these words of the Unmasker, he has granted all I would have. But shall leave it to the decisive Authority of this Superlative Critick to determine, whether this Learned Bishop, or any one living, besides himself, can under∣stand the Phrases of the New Testa∣ment, and speak strictly and closely concerning them. Perhaps his being yet alive, may preserve this Eminent Prelate from the malicious driveling of the Unmasker's Pen, which has be∣spotted the Ashes of two of the same Order, who were no mean Ornaments of the English Church; And if they had been now alive, no body will doubt, but the Unmasker would have treated them after another fashion.

But let me ask the Unmasker, whe∣ther (if either of these Pious Prelates, whose words I have above quoted, did understand that Phrase of the Son of God to stand for the Messiah, which they might do without holding any one Socinian tenet) he will dare to pro∣nounce him a Socinian. This is so ri∣diculous an Inference, that I could not but laugh at it. But withal tell him, Vindic. p. 23. That

if the sence wherein I understand those Texts be a Mistake, I shall be beholding to him to set me right: But they are not popular Authorities, or frightful Names, whereby I judge of Truth or Falshood.

To which I subjoin these words;

You ••ill now no doubt applaud your Conje∣ctures, the Point is gain'd, and I am openly a Socinian. Since I will not disown, that I think the Son of God was a Phrase, that among the Iews in our Saviour's time was used for the Messiah, though the Soci∣nians understand it in the same sence. And therefore I must cer∣tainly be of their Perswasion in every thing else. I admire the ac∣cuteness,

force, and fairness of your Reasoning, and so I leave you to triumph in your Conjectures.

Nor has he sailed my expectation: For here, p. 91. of his Socinianism Unmask'd, he upon this erects his Comb, and Crows most mightily. We may, says he, from hence as well as other Rea∣sons, pronounce him the same with those Gentlemen (i. e. as he is pleased to call them my good Patrons and Friends the Racovians) which you may perceive he is very apprehensive of, and thinks, that this will be reckon'd a good Evi∣dence of his being, what he denied himself to be before. The Point is gain'd, saith he, and I am openly Socinian. He never utter'd truer words in his life, and they are the Confutation of all his Pretences to the contrary. This Truth which unwarily dropt from his Pen, confirms what I have laid to his Charge. Now you have Sung your Song of Triumph, 'tis fit you should gain your Victory, by shewing,

XLIX.

How my understanding the Son of God to be a Phrase used amongst the Iews in our Saviour's time, to signifie the Messiah, proves me to be a Socinian.

Or if you think you have proved it already, I desire you to put your Proof into a Syllogism: For I con∣fess my self so dull, as not to see any such Conclusion deducible from my understanding that Phrase as I do, even when you have proved that I am mistaken in it.

The places which in the New Testa∣ment shew that the Son of God stands for the Messiah, are so many, and so clear, that I imagine no body that ever con∣sider'd and compar'd them together, could doubt of their meaning, unless he were an Vnmasker. Several of them I have Collected and set down in my Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 25, 26, 27. 29. 34, 35, 36. 41. 50, 51. 53, 54. 60. 95. 101.

First, Iohn the Baptist, Joh. I. 20. when the Iews sent to know who he was, confessed he himself was not the Messiah. But of Iesus he says, v. 34. after having several ways in the fore∣going Verses declar'd him to be the Messiah; And I saw and bare record, that this is the SON OF GOD. And again, Chap. III. 26—36. he de∣claring Iesus to be, and himself not to be the Messiah, he does it in these Synonymous terms of the Messiah and the Son of God, as appears by compa∣ring, v. 28. 35, 36.

Nathanael owns him to be the Mes∣siah, in these words, Ioh. I. 50. Thou art the SON OF GOD, Thou art the King of Israel: Which our Saviour in the next Verse calls Believing, a term, all through the History of our Saviour, used for owning Iesus to be the Messiah. And for confirming that Faith of his, that he was the Messiah, our Saviour further adds, that he should see greater things, i. e. Should see him do greater Miracles, to evi∣dence that he was the Messiah.

Luke the 4th. 41. And Devils also came out of many crying, Thou art the

Messiah the Son of God, and he rebu∣king them suffered them not to speak. And so again, St. Mark tells us, Chap. III. 11, 12. That unclean Spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he strictly charged them, that they should not make him known. In both these places, which relate to different times, and different occa∣sions, the Devils declare Iesus to be the Son of God. `Tis certain, what∣ever they meant by it, they used a Phrase of a known Signification in that Country. And what may we rea∣sonably think they designed to make known to the People by it? Can we imagine these unclean Spirits were Promoters of the Gospel, and had a Mind to acknowledge and publish to the People the Deity of our Saviour, which the Vnmasker would have to be the Signification of the Son of God? Who can entertain such a thought? No, they were no Friends to our Sa∣viour: And therefore desir'd to spread a Belief of him, that he was the Mes∣siah, that so he might by the envy of the Scribes and Pharisees, be disturb'd

in his Ministry, and be cut off before he had compleated it. And therefore we see our Saviour in both places for∣bids them to make him known; As he did his Disciples themselves, for the same Reason. For when St. Peter, Mat. XVI. 16. had own'd Iesus to be the Messiah, in these words; Thou art the Messiah the Son of the living God. It follows, v. 20. Then charged he his Disciples, that they should tell no man, that he was Iesus the Messiah. Just as he had forbid the Devils to make him known, i. e. to be the Messiah. Besides, these words here of St. Peter can be taken in no other sence, but barely to signifie that Iesus was the Messiah, to make them a proper Answer to our Saviour's Question. His first Que∣stion here to his Disciples, v. 13. is, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? The Question is not, of what Original do you think the Mes∣siah when he comes will be? For then this Question would have been as it is, Mat. XXII. 42. What think you of the Messiah, whose Son is he? If he had enquir'd about the common opinion concerning the Nature and Descent of

the Messiah. But his Question is con∣cerning himself; Whom of all the extraordinary Persons known to the Iews, or mentioned in their Sacred Writings, the People thought him to be. That this was the meaning of his Question is evident, from the Answer the Apostles gave to it; And his fur∣ther demand, v. 14, 15. They said, some say thou art Iohn the Baptist, some Elias, and others Ieremias, or one of the Prophets. He saith unto them, But WHOM say ye that I am? The People take me, some for one of the Prophets, or Extraordinary Messen∣gers from God, and some for ano∣ther: But which of them do you take me to be? Simon Peter answer'd and said, Thou art the Messiah the Son of the living God. In all which Discourse, 'tis evident there was not the least Enquiry made by our Saviour con∣cerning the Person, Nature, or Quali∣fications of the Messiah; but whether the People or his Apostles thought him, i. e. Iesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. To which St. Peter gave him a direct and plain Answer in the fore∣going words, declaring their Belief

of him to be the Messiah: Which is all, that with any manner of Congruity, could be made the sence of St. Peter's Answer. This alone of it self were enough to justifie my interpretation of St. Peter's words, without the Au∣thority of St. Mark and St. Luke, both whose words confirm it. For St. Mark Chap. VIII. 29. renders it, Thou art the Messiah, and St. Luke, Chap. IX. 18. The Messiah of God. To the like Que∣stion, Who art thou, Iohn the Baptist gives a like Answer, Ioh. I. 19. 20. I am not the Christ. By which Answer, as well as by the following Verses, it is plain, nothing was understood to be meant by that Question, but, which of the extraordinary Persons promi∣sed to or expected by the Iews, art thou?

Ioh. XI. 27. The Phrase of the Son of God is made use of by Saint Mar∣tha: And that it was used by her to signi••ie the Messiah, and nothing else is evident out of the Context. Mar∣tha tells our Saviour, that if he had been there before her Brother died, he by that Divine Power, which he had manifested in so many Miracles which

he had done, could have saved his Life; and that now, if our Saviour would ask it of God, he might ob∣tain the Restoration of his Life. Iesus tells her, he shall rise again: Which words Martha taking to mean, at the general Resurrection, at the last Day, Iesus thereupon takes occasion to in∣timate to her, that he was the Mes∣siah, by telling her, that he was the Resurrection and the Life, i. e. That the Life, which Mankind should receive at the general Resurrection, was by and through him. This was a de∣scription of the Messiah. It being a received Opinion amongst the Iews, that when the Messiah. came, the Just should rise, and live with him for ever. And having made this Declaration of himself to be the Messiah, he asks Martha, Believest thou this? What! Not whose Son the Messiah should be; But whether he himself was the Mes∣siah, by whom Believers should have Eternal Life at the last Day. And to this, she gives this direct and appo∣site Answer; Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the World.

The Question was only whether she was perswaded, that those, who be∣lieve in him, should be raised to eter∣nal Life; That was in effect, whether he was the Messiah: And to this she answers yea Lord, I believe this of thee; And then she explains what was contain'd in that Faith of hers, even this, that he was the Messiah, that was promis'd to come, by whom alone Men were to receive eternal Life.

What the Iews also understood by the Son of God is also clear from that passage at the latter end of XXII. of Luke. They having taken our Savi∣our, and being very desirous to get a Confession from his own Mouth, that he was the Messiah, that they might from thence be able to raise a formal, and prevalent Accusation against him before Pilate; the only thing the Council asked him was, whether he was the Messiah, v. 67. To which he answers so in the fol∣lowing Words, that he lets them see, he understood, that the design of their Question was to entrap him, and not to believe in him, whatever he should

declare of himself: But yet he tells them, Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God; Words that to the Iews plainly enough owned him to be the Messiah: But yet such as could not have any force against him with Pilate. He having confessed so much, they hope to draw yet a clearer Confession from him. Then said they all, art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, ye say that I am. And they said, what need we any further witness? For we our selves have heard of his own Mouth. Can any one think that the Doctrine of his Deity (which is that which the Unmasker accuses me for waveing) was that, which the Iews designed to ac∣cuse our Saviour of before Pilate; or that they needed Witnesses for? Common sense, as well as the current of the whole History shews the con∣••••ary. No, it was to accuse him, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉owned himself to be the Messiah, and ••hereby claim'd a Title to be King of the Iews. The Son of God was so known a Name amongst the Iews to stand for the Messiah; that having got that from his Mouth, they

thought they had Proof enough of Treason against him. This carries with it a clear and easie meaning. But if the Son of God be to be taken, as the Unmasker would have it, for a Declaration of his Deity, I desire him to make common, and coherent sence of it.

I shall add one Consideration more to shew, that the Son of God was a Form of Speech then used amongst the Iews to signifie the Messiah, from the persons that used it. uiz. Iohn the Baptist, Nathanael, St. Peter, St. Martha, the Sanhedrim, and the Centurion, Luke XXVII. 54. Here are Iews, Heathens; Friends, Enemies; Men, Women; Believers, and Unbe∣lievers; All indifferently use this Phrase of the Son of God, and apply it to Iesus. The Question between the Unmasker and me is whether it was used by these several persons, as an Appellation of the Messiah, (or as the Unmasker would have it) in a quite different Sence; As such an Application of Divinity to our Saviour, that he that shall deny that to be the mean∣ing of it in the minds of these Speakers,

denies the Divinity of Iesus Christ. For if they did speak it without that meaning, it is plain it was a Phrase known to have another meaning; or else they had talked unintelligible Jar∣gon. Now I will ask the Unmasker, whether he thinks, that the Eternal Generation, or as the Unmasker calls it, Filiation of Iesus the Son of God, was a Doctrine that had enter'd into the Thoughts of all the Persons above∣mentioned, even of the Roman Centu∣rion, and the Soldiers that were with him watching Jesus? If he say he does, I suppose he thinks so only for this time, and for this occasion: And then it will lie upon him to give the World convincing Reasons for his Opinion, that they may think so too: Or if he does not think so, he must give up this Argument, and allow that this Phrase, in these places, does not necessarily import the Deity of our Saviour, and the Doctrine of his eternal Generation: And so a Man may take it to be an Expression standing for the Messiah, without being a So∣cinian, any more than he himself is one.

There is one place, the Unmasker tells us, p. 87. that confutes all the Surmi∣ses about the Identity of these terms. It is, says he, that famous Confession of Faith, which the Aethiopian E••nuch made when Philip told him he might be bap∣tized if he believed. This without doubt was said according to that apprehension which he had of Christ, from Philip's instructing him; for it is said, he Prea∣ched unto him Iesus, v. 35. He had ac∣quainted him that Iesus was the Christ the anointed of God, and also that he was the Son of God, which includes in it that he was God. And accordingly this Noble Proselyte gives this account of his Faith, in order to his being Bap∣tiz'd, in order to his being admitted a Member of Christ's Church, I believe that Iesus is the Son of God; Or you may read it according to the Greek, I believe the Son of God to be Iesus Christ. Where there are these two di∣stinct Propositions.

1^o. That Iesus is the Christ, the Messiah

2^o. That he is not only the Messiah, but the Son of God.

The Unmasker is every where stea∣dily the same subtil Arguer. Whe∣ther he has proved, that the Son of God, in this Confession of the Eunuch, signifies, what he would have, we shall examine by and by. This at least is Demonstration, that this Passage of his overturns his Principles; and re∣duces his long List of Fundamentals to two Propositions, the belief whereof is sufficient to make a Man a Christian. This Noble Proselyte, says the Unmasker, gives this account of his Faith in order to his being baptized, in order to being admitted a Member of Christ's Church. And what is that Faith according to the Unmasker? He tells you there are in it these two distinct Propositions, viz. I believe, 1^o. That Jesus is the Christ the Messias; 2^o. That he is not only the Messias, but the Son of God. If this famous Confession, containing but these two Articles were enough to his being Baptized; If this Faith were sufficient to make this Noble Proselyte a Chri∣stian; what is become of all those other Articles of the Unmasker's System, without the belief whereof, he in o∣ther places tells us a Man cannot be a

Christian? If he had here told us, that Philip had not time nor opportunity, du∣ring his short stay with the Eunuch, to explain to him all the Vnmasker's System, and make him understand all his Fundamentals; he had had Reason on his side: And he might have urged it as a Reason why Philip taught him no more. But nevertheless he had, by allowing the Eunuch's Confession of Faith sufficient for his Admittance as a Mem∣ber of Christ's Church, given up his other Fundamentals as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian; even that of the Holy Trinity: And he has at last reduced his necessary Arti∣cles to these two, viz. That Iesus is the Messiah, and that Iesus is the Son of God. So that after his ridiculous cal∣ling mine a lank Faith, I desire him to consider, what he will now call his own. Mine is next to none, because, as he says, it is but one Article. If that reasoning be good, his is not far from none: If consists but in two Ar∣ticles, which is next to one, and very little more remote from none than one is. If any one had but as much Wit as the Unmasker, and could be but as

smart upon the number two, as he has been upon an unit, here were a brave opportunity for him to lay out his Parts; and he might make vehement Complaints against one, that has thus cramp'd our Faith, corrupted mens Minds, depraved the Gospel, and abused Chri∣stianity. But if it should fall out, as I think it will, that the Unmasker's two Articles should prove to be but One, he has saved another that labour, and he stands painted to himself with his own Charcoal.

The Unmasker would have the Son of God, in the Confession of the Eu∣nuch, to signifie something different from the Messiah: And his reason is, because else it would be an absurd Tau∣tology. Answ. There are many Exege∣tical Expressions put together in the Scripture, which though they signifie the same thing, yet are not absurd Tautologies. The Unmasker here in∣verts the Proposition, and would have it to signifie thus. The Son of God is Iesus the Messiah, which is a Proposi∣tion so different from what the Apo∣stles proposed every where else, that he ought to have given a Reason, why,

when every where else they made the Proposition to be of some thing af∣firm'd of Iesus of Nazareth, the Eu∣nuch should make the Affirmation to be of something concerning the Son of God: As if the Eunuch knew very well what the Son of God signified, viz. as the Unmasker tells us here, that it included or signified God; and that Phi∣lip, (who we read at Samaria preach'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Messiah, i. e. instructed them who the Messiah was) had here taken pains only to instruct him, that this God was Iesus the Messiah, and to bring him to assent to that Proposition. Whether this be Natural to conceive, I leave to the Reader.

The Tautology, on which the Un∣masker builds his whole Objection, will be quite removed, if we take Christ here for a proper Name in which way it is used by the Evangelists and Apostles in other places, and particularly by St. Luke; as Act. II. 28. III. 6. 20. IV. 10. XXIV. 24, &c. In two of these places, it cannot with any good sence be taken otherwise; for if it be not in Act. III. 6. and IV. 10. used as a pro∣per Name, we must read those places

thus, Iesus the Messiah of Nazareth: And I think it is plain in those others cited, as well as in several other places of the New Testament, that the word Christ is used as a proper Name. We may easily conceive, that long be∣fore the Acts were writ the Name of Christ, was grown by a familiar use to denote the Person of our Saviour, as much as Iesus. This is so manifest, that it gave a Name to his Followers, who as St. Luke tells us, XI. 26. were were called Christians; And that, if Chronologists mistake not, Twenty Years before St. Luke writ his History of the Apostles; And this so generally, that Agrippa a Iew uses it, Act. XXVI. 28. And that Christ as the proper Name of our Saviour was got as far as Rome, before St. Luke writ the Acts, appears out of Suetonius, l. 5. And by that Name he is called in Tacitus, Ann. l. 15. 'Tis no wonder then, that St. Luke in Writing this History, should some∣times set it down alone, sometimes join'd with that of Iesus, as a proper Name; which is much easier to con∣ceive he did here, than that Philip propos'd more to the Eunuch to be

believed to make him a Christian, than what in other places was propos'd for the Conversion of others; or than what he himself propos'd at Samaria.

His 7th. Chapter is to prove, that I am a Socinian, because I omitted Christ's Satisfaction. That Matter having been answer'd, p. 147. where it came properly under consideration, I shall only ob∣serve here, that the great stress of his Argument lies as it did before; not upon my total omission of it out of my Book, but on this, that I have no such thing in the place where the Advantages of Christ's coming are purposely treated of; from whence he will have this to be an unavoidable Inference, viz. That I was of Opinion, that Christ came not to satisfie for us. The reason of my omis∣sion of it in that place, I told him was because my Book was chiefly designed for Deists; and therefore I mention'd only those Advantages, which all Chri∣stians must agree in; and in omitting of that, comply'd with the Apostle's Rule, Rom. XIV. To this he tells me ••latly, that was not the design of my Book. Whether the Unmasker knows with what design I publish'd it better

than I my self, must be left to the Reader to judge: For as for his Vera∣city in what he knows, or knows not, he has given so many Instances of it, that I may safely referr that to any body. One Instance more of it may be found in this very Chapter, where he says, I pretend indeed, p. 5. that in another place of my Book, I mention Christ's restoring all Mankind from the state of Death, and restoring them to Life, and his laying down his Life for ano∣ther, as our Saviour Professes he did. These few words this Vindicator hath picked up in his Book since he wrote it. This is all, through his whole Treatise, that he hath drop'd concerning that Ad∣vantage of Christ's Incarnation, i. e. Christ's Satisfaction. Answ. But that this is not all that I drop'd through my whole Treatise concerning that Ad∣vantage, may appear by those places above-mentioned, p. 157. where I say, that the design of Christ's coming was to be offered up; and speak of the Work of Redemption; which are Expressions taken to imply our Saviour's Satisfa∣ction: But the Unmasker thinking I should have quoted them, if there had

been any more, besides those mention'd in my Vindication, upon that Presump∣tion sticks not boldly to affirm, that there were no more; and so goes on with the Veracity of an Unmasker. If affirming would do it, nothing could be wanting in his Cause that might be for his Purpose. Whether he be as good at proving, this Consequence (amongst other Propositions which remain upon him to be proved) will try, viz.

L.

That if the Satisfaction of Christ be not mentioned in the place where the Advantages of Christ's coming are purposely treated of, then I am of Opinion, that Christ came not to satisfie for us.

which is all the Argument of his 7th. Chapter.

His last Chapter, as his first, begins with a Commendation of himself. Par∣ticularly, it boasts his freedom from Bigolism, Dogmatizing, Censoriousness, and Vncharitableness. I think he hath

drawn himself so well, with his own Pen, that I shall need referr the Rea∣der only to what he himself has writ in this Controversie, for his Character.

In the next Paragraph, p. 104. he tells me I laugh at Orthodoxy. Answ. There is nothing that I think deserves a more serious Esteem than right Opi∣nion (as the Word signifies) if taken up with the Sense of Love and Truth. But this way of becoming Orthodox has always Modesty accompanying it, and a fair Acknowledgment of Falli∣bility in our selves, as well as a Sup∣position of Error in others. On the other side, there is nothing more ridi∣culous than for any Man or Company of Men to assume the Title of Ortho∣doxy to their own set of Opinions, as if Infallibility were annexed to their Systems, and those were to be the standing Measure of Truth to all the World; from whence they erect to themselves a power to censure and condemn others for differing at all from the Tenets they have pitch'd upon. The Consideration of humane Frailty ought to check this Vanity:

But since it does not, but that with a sort of Allowance it shews it self in almost all religious Societies, the play∣ing the trick round, sufficiently turns it into ridicule. For each Society ha∣ving an equal right to a good Opi∣nion of themselves, a Man by passing but a River or a Hill, loses that Or∣thodoxy in one Company which pu••••ed him up with such Assurance and Insolence in another; and is there, with equal Justice, himself expos'd to the like Censures of Error and Here∣sie, which he was so forward to lay on others at Home. When it shall appear that Infallibility is intailed up∣on one set of Men of any Denomina∣tion, or Truth confined to any Spot of Ground, the Name and Use of Or∣thodoxy as now it is in Fashion every where, will in that one place be rea∣sonable. Till then, this ridiculous Cant will be a Foundation too weak to sustain that Usurpation that is rai∣sed upon it. 'Tis not that I do not think every one should be perswa∣ded of the Truth of those Opinions he professes. 'Tis that I contend for: And 'tis that which I fear the great

Sticklers for Orthodoxy often fail in. For we see generally that Numbers of them exactly jump in a whole large Collection of Doctrines, consisting of Abundance of particulars; as if their Notions were by one common Stamp printed on their Minds, even to the least Lineament. This is very hard, if not impossible, to be conceived of those who take up their Opinions on∣ly from Conviction. But how fully soever I am perswaded of the Truth of what I hold, I am in common Justice to allow the same Sincerity to him that differs from me; And so we are upon equal Terms. This Perswasion of Truth on each side, invests neither of us with a right to censure or con∣demn the other. I have no more rea∣son to treat him ill for differing from me, than he has to treat me ill for the same cause. Pity him I may; inform him fairly I ought; but contemn, malign, revile or any otherwise pre∣judice him for not thinking just as I do, that I ought not. My Ortho∣doxy gives me no more Authority over him, than his (for every one is Orthodox to himself) gives him over

me. When the Word Orthodoxy (which in effect signifies no more but the Opinions of my Party) is made use of as a pretence to domineer (as ordinarily it is) it is, and always will be ridiculous.

He saith I hate even with a deadly hatred all Catechisms and Confessions, all Systems, and Models. I do not remem∣ber, that I have once mentioned the Word Catechism, either in my Reasona∣bleness of Christianity, or Vindication. But he knows I hate them deadly, and I know I do not. And as for Systems and Models, all that I say of them, in the Pages he quotes to prove my Hatred of them, is only this, viz. p. 8. of my Vindication

Some Men had rather you should write booty, and cross your own Design of removing Mens Prejudices to Christianity, than leave out one Title of what they put into their Systems. Some Men will not bear it, that any one should speak of Religion, but according to the Model that they themselves have made of it.

In neither of which places do I speak against Systems or Models; but

the ill use, that some Men make of them.

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 quo∣ting 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 Myste∣ries?

His next Words, p. 104. are very remarkable: They are O how he [the Vindicator] grins at the Spirit of Creed making? p. 18. Vind. the very thoughts of which do so haunt him, so plague and torment him, that he cannot

rest till it be conjured down. And here by the way, seeing I have mention'd his rancour against Systematick Books and Writings, I might represent the Misery that is coming upon all Booksellers if this Gentleman and his Correspondents go on suc••essfully. Here is an effectual Plot to undermine Stationers-Hall; for all Systems and Bodies of Divinity, Philo∣sophy, &c. must be cashier'd: Whatever looks like System must not be bought or sold. This will fall heavy on the Gen∣tlemen of St. Paul's Church-yard, and other places. Here the Politick Un∣masker 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 Demetrius the Shrine∣maker which brought no small gain to the Crafts-men 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 perswaded, 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

naught. 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 Speech-making, as a worthy Successor of the Silver-smith, regu∣lating your Zeal for the Truth, and your writing of Divinity by the Pro∣fit 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 Mens 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 warm'd them with your Oratory, 'tis 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 mention'd. But however, some sort of Orators, when their hands are in, omit nothing true or false, that may move those that they would work upon. Is not this a worthy Im∣ployment, and becoming a Preacher of the Gospel, to be a Sollicitor 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, no body 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 mea∣sure the truths of Divinity. Had his Zeal, as he pretends in the next Para∣graph, no other aims, but the defence of the Gospel, 'tis probable this Contro∣versie would have been managed after another fashion.

Whether what he says in the next, p. 105. to excuse his so o••ten pretend∣ing to know my Heart and Thoughts, will satisfie the Reader, I shall not trouble my self. By his so often doing it again in his Socinianism Unmask'd, I see he cannot write without it. And

so I leave it to the Judgment of the Readers, whether he can be allow'd to know other Mens thoughts, who in 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 shew how well he understands or represents my sense, I shall set down my Words, as they are in the Pages he quotes, and his Inferences from them.

Vindicat. p. 22.

Socin. Unmask'd, p. 108.

I know not but it may be true, that the Antitrinitari∣ans and Racovians understand those places as I do: But 'tis more than I know, that they do so. I took not my sence of those Texts from those Writers, but from the Scripture it self, giving Light to its own mean∣ing by one place compared with a∣nother. What in this way appears to me its true meaning, I shall not decline; be∣cause I am told that it is so under∣stood by the Raco∣vians, whom I never yet read; nor embrace the contrary, though the generality of Divines I more converse with, should declare for it. If the sence wherein I understand those Texts be a Mistake, I shall be beholding to you, if you will set me right. But they are not popular Authorities, or frightful Names whereby I judge of Truth or Falshood.

The professed Di∣vines of England, you must know, are but a pitiful sort of Folks with this great Racovian Rabbi. He tells us plainly, that he is not mindful of what the generality of Di∣vines declare for, p. 22. He labours so concernedly to ingratiate himself

with the Mobb, the Multitude (which he so often talks of) that he hath no re∣gard to these. The generality of the Rabble are more considerable with him, than the gene∣rality of Divines.

He tells me here of the Generality of Divines. If he had said of the Church of England, I could have un∣derstood him. But he says, The pro∣fessed Divines of England; And there being several sorts of Divines in Eng∣land, who, I think, do not every where

agree in their Interpretations of Scrip∣ture; 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.

Vindicat. p. 18.

Socin. Unmask'd, p. 109.

The list of Mate∣rials for his Creed, for the Articles are not yet form∣ed, Mr. Edwards closes, p. 111. with these words, These are the Matters of Faith contain'd in the Epistles, and they are Essential and Integral parts of the Gospel it self. What just these? neither more nor less? l. 4. If you are sure of it, pray let us have them speedily, for the reconciling of Diffe∣rences in the Christian Church, which has been so cruelly torn about the Ar∣ticles of the Christian Faith, to the great Reproach of Christian Charity, and Scandal of our true Religion.

This Author, as demure and grave as he would some∣times seem to be, can scoff at the mat∣ters of Faith con∣tain'd in the Apo∣stles Epistles, p. 18. l. 4, &c.

Does the Vindicator here scoff at the Matters of Faith contain'd in the Epistles? Or shew the vain Pretences of the Unmasker; who undertakes to give us out of the Epistles a Colle∣ction of Fundamentals, without being able to say whether those he sets down be all or no?

Vindicat. p. 33.

Socin. Unmask'd, p. 110.

I hope you do not think how contemptibly so∣ever you speak of the Venerable Mob, as you are pleas'd to dignifie them, p. 117. that the bulk of Mankind, or in your Phrase, the Rabble are not concerned in Religion, or ought not to under∣stand 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 knoweth 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 Preach'd by our Sa∣viour, as he tells Iohns Disciples, Mat. XI. 5.

To Coakse the Mob, he prophane∣ly brings in that place of Scripture. Have any of the Rulers believed in him?

Where the Prophaneness of this is, I do not see; Unless some unknown Sacredness of the Unmasker's Person make it Prophaneness to shew, that he like the Pharisees of old, has a great contempt for the Common People, i. e. the far greater part of Man∣kind; as if they and their Salva∣tion were below the regard of this elevated Rabbi. But this of Pro∣phaneness may be well born from him, since in the next words my men∣tioning another part of his Carriage is no less than Irreligion.

Vindicat. p. 25.	Socin. Unmask'd p. 110.
He prefers what I say to him my self to what is of∣fer'd to him from the Word of God, and makes me this Complement, 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.	Ridiculously and irreligiously he pre∣tends, that I pre∣fer what he saith to me, to what

is offer'd to me from the Word of God, p. 25.

The Matter of Fact is as I relate it, and so is beyond pretence, and for this I refer the Reader to the 105. and 114. Pages of his Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism. But had I mi∣staken, I know not how he could have call'd it Irreligiously. Make the worst of it that can be, how comes it to be Irreligious? What is there Divine in an Vnmasker; that one cannot pretend (true or false) that he prefers what I say, to what is o••••er'd him from the Word of God, without doing it Irre∣ligiously? Does the very assuming the Power to de••ine Articles, and deter∣mine who are, and who are not Chri∣stians, by a Creed not yet made, erect an Unmasker presently into God's

Throne, and bestow on him the title of Dominus deus{que} noster, whereby Of∣fences against him come to be Irreli∣gious Acts? I have misrepresented his meaning; Let it be so: Where is the Irreligion of it? Thus it is: The Power of making a Religion for others (and those that make Creeds do that) being once got into any one's fancy, must at last make all Oppositions to those Creeds and Creed-maker's Irreligion. Thus we see in process of time it did in the Church of Rome: But it was in length of time, and by gentle degrees. The Unmasker, it seems, cannot stay, is in hast, and at one jump leaps into the Chair. He has given us yet but a piece of his Creed, and yet that is enough to set him above the state of Humane Mistakes or Frailties, and to mention any such thing in him, is to do Irreligiously.

We may further see, says the Un∣masker, p. 110. how counterfeit the Vin∣dicator's Gravity is, whil'st he condemns frothy and light Discourses, p. 26. Vindic. And yet in many Pages together, most irreverently treats a great part of the Apostolical Writings, and throws aside

the main Articles of Religion as unne∣cessary. Answ. In my Vindic. p. 19. you may remember these words,

I require you to Publish to the World those Passages which shew my con∣tempt of the Epistles.

Why do you not (especially having been so called upon to do it) set down those words, wherein I most irreverently treat a great part of the Apostolical Writings? At least why do you not quote those many Pages wherein I do it? This looks a little suspiciously, that you cannot: And the more, be∣cause you have in this very Page not been sparing to quote places which you thought to your purpose. I must take leave therefore (if it may be done without Irreligion) to assure the Rea∣der, that this is another of your many Mistakes in Matters of Fact, for which you have not so much as the excuse of Inadvertency: For as he sees, you have been minded of it before. But an Vnmasker, say what you will to him, will be an Unmasker still.

He closes what he has to say to me in his Socinianism Unmask'd, as if he were in the Pulpit, with an Use of

Exhortation. The false Insinuations, it is filled with, makes the Conclusion of a Piece with the Introduction. As he sets out so he ends, and therein shews wherein he places his Strength. A custom of making bold with Truth, is so seldom curable in a grown Man, and the Unmasker shews so little sence of Shame, where it is charged upon him, beyond a possibility of clearing himself, that no body is to trouble themselves any farther about that part of his established Character. Let∣ting therefore that alone to Nature and Custom, two sure Guides, I shall only intreat him, to prevent his ta∣king Railing for Argument, (which I fear he too often does) that upon his entrance every where upon any new Argument, he would set it down in Syllogism, and when he has done that (that I may know what is to be answered) let him then give Vent as he pleases, to his noble Vein of Wit and Oratory.

The lifting a Man's self up in his own Opinion, has had the Credit in former Ages to be thought the lowest Degradation that Humane Nature

could well sink it self to. Hence says the Wise Man, Prov. XXVI. 6. An∣swer a Fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Hereby shewing, that Self-conceitedness is a Degree beneath ordinary Folly. And therefore he there provides a fence against it, to keep even Fools from sinking yet lower, by falling into it. Whether what was not so in Solomon's days, be now, by length of time, in ours, grown into a mark of Wisdom and Parts, and an Evidence of great Performances; I shall not enquire. Mr. Edwards—who goes beyond all that ever I yet met with in the Com∣mendation of his own, best knows why he so extols what he has done in this Controversie. For fear the Prai∣ses he has not been sparing of in his So••inianism Unmask'd, should not suffi∣ciently trumpet out his Worth, or might be forgotten; He in a new Piece entituled, The Socinian Creed, proclaims again his mighty Deeds, and the Vi∣ctory he has established to himself by them, in these words; But he and his Friends (the One-Article-Men) seem to have made Satisfaction by their profound

silence lately, whereby they acknowledge to the World, that they have nothing to say in Reply to what I laid to their Charge, and fully proved against them, &c. Socinian Creed, p. 128. This fresh Testimony of no ordinary Conceit, which Mr. Edwards hath of the Excellency and Strength of his Reasoning in his Socinianism Unmask'd, I leave with him and his Friends to be considered of at their leisure: And if they think I have mis-applied the term of Conceitedness, to so Wise, Un∣derstanding, and every way accom∣plished a Disputant (if we may believe himself) I will teach them a way how he, or any body else, may fully con∣vince me of it. There remains on his Score marked in this Reply of mine, several Propositions to be proved by him. If he can but find Arguments to prove them that will bear the set∣ting down in form, and will so pub∣lish them, I will allow my self to be mistaken. Nay, which is more, if he or any body in the 112. Pages of his Socinianism Unmasked, can find but Ten Arguments that will bear the test of Syllogism, the true Touchstone of

right Arguing, I will grant that that Treatise deserves all those Commen∣dations he has bestowed upon it; though it be made up more of his own Panegyrick, than a Confutation of me.

In his Socinian Creed (for a Creed∣maker he will be; and whether he has been as lucky for the Socinians as for the Orthodox, I know not) p. 120. he begins with me, and that with the same conquering Hand and Skill which can never fail of Victory; if a Man has but Wit enough to know what Proposition he is able to Confute, and then make that his Adversary's tenet. But the Repetitions of his old Song concerning one Article, the Epistles, &c. which occur here again, I shall only set down, that none of these excellent things may be lost, whereby this Ac∣cute and Unanswerable Writer has so well deserved his own Commenda∣tions, viz. That I say there is but one single Article of the Christian Truth necessary to be believed and assented to by us, p. 121. That I slight the Chri∣stian Principles, curtail the Articles of our Faith, and ravish Christianity it

self from him, p. 123. And that I turn the Epistles of the Apostle into Waste Paper, p. 127, &c.

These, and the like Slanders, I have already given an Answer to in my Reply to his former Book. Only one new one here I cannot pass over in Silence; because of the remarkable Prophaneness which seems to me to be in it, which, I think, deserves pub∣lick notice. In my Reasonableness of Christianity, I have laid together those Passages of our Saviour's Life, which seemed to me most eminently to shew his Wisdom, in that Conduct of him∣self, with that Reserve and Caution which was necessary to preserve him, and carry him through the appointed time of his Ministry. Some have thought I had herein done conside∣rable Service to the Christian Reli∣gion, by removing those Objections which some were apt to make from our Saviour's Carriage, not rightly understood. This Creed-maker tells me, p. 127. That I make our Saviour a Cow∣ard: A Word not to be applied to the Saviour of the World by a Pious or Discreet Christian upon any pretence,

without great Necessity and sure Grounds. If he had set down my words, and quoted the Page (which was the least could have been done to excuse such a Phrase) we should then have seen which of us two this impious and irreligious Epithete given to the Holy Iesus, has for its Author. In the mean time, I leave it with him, to be accounted for by his Piety, to those, who by his Example shall be in∣couraged to entertain so vile a thought, or use so prophane an Expression of the Captain of our Salvation, who free∣ly gave himself up to Death for us.

He also says in the same p. 127. that I every where strike at Systems, the Design of which is to establish one of my own, or to foster Scepticism, by beating down all others.

For clear Reason or good Sence, I do not think our Creed-maker ever had his fellow. In the immediate prece∣ding words of the same Sentence, he charges me with a great Antipathy against Systems; and before he comes to the end of it, finds out my Design to be the establishing one of my own. So that this my Antipathy against Systems,

makes me in love with one. My De∣sign, he says, is to establish a System of my own, or to foster Scepticism in beat∣ing down all others. Let my Book, if he pleases, be my System of Christia∣nity. Now is it in me any more fostering Scepticism, to say my System is true and others not, than it is in the Creed-maker to say so of all other Systems but his own? For, I hope, he does not allow any System of Christianity to be true, that differs from his any more than I do.

But I have spoke against all Systems. Answ. And always shall, so far as they are set up by particular Men or Par∣ties, as the just Measure of every Man's Faith, wherein every thing that is contained, is required and im∣posed to be believed to make a Man a Christian: Such an Opinion and Use of Systems I shall always be against; till the Creed-maker shall tell me amongst the Variety of them which alone is to be received and rested in, in the absence of his Creed; which is not yet finished, and, I fear, will not as long as I live. That every Man should receive from others, or

make to himself such a System of Christianity as he found most confor∣mable to the Word of God, according to the best of his understanding, is what I never spake against, but think it every one's Duty to Labour for, and to take all opportunities as long as he lives, by Studying the Scrip∣tures every day, to perfect.

But this, I fear, will not go easily down with our Author; for then he cannot be a Creed-maker for others. A thing he shews himself very for∣ward to, how able to perform it we shall see when his Creed is made. In the mean time, talking loudly and at Random about Fundamentals, without knowing what is so, may stand him in some stead.

This being all that is new, which I think my self concerned in, in this Socinian Creed, I pass on to his Post∣script. In the first Page whereof, I find these words, I found that the Ma∣nager of the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, had prevailed with a Gentle∣man to make a Sermon upon my Refu∣tation of that Treatise, and the Vindi∣cation of it. Such a piece of Imperti∣nency

as this, might have been born from a fair Adversary. But the Sam∣ple Mr. Edwards has given of himself in his Socinianism Unmask'd, perswades me this ought to be bound up with what he says of me in his Introduction to that Book in these words: Among others, they thought and made Choice of a Gentleman, who they knew would be extraordinary useful to them. And he it is probable was as forward to be made use of by them, and presently accepted of the Office that was assigned him; and more there to the same purpose. All which, I know to be utterly false.

'Tis pity that one who relies so en∣tirely upon it, should have no better an Invention. The Socinians set the Author of the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, &c. on Work to write that Book, by which Discovery, the World being (as Mr. Edwards says) let into the project, that Book is confounded, baffled, blown off, and by this Skilful Artifice there is an end of it. Mr. Bold preaches and publishes a Sermon without this irrefragable Gentleman's good Leave and Liking: What now must be done to discredit it and keep

it from being read? Why, Mr. Bold too, was set on Work by the Manager of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. In your whole Store-house of Stra∣tagems, you that are so great a Con∣querour, Have you but this one Way to destroy a Book which you set your Mightiness against, but to tell the World it was a Jobb of Journey-work for some body you do not like? Some other would have done better in this new Case, had your happy Invention been ready with it: For you are not so bashful or reserved, but that you may be allowed to be as great a Wit as he who professed himself ready at any time to say a good or a new thing if he could but think of it. But in good earnest, Sir, if one should ask you, do you think no Books contain Truth in them which were Under∣taken by the Procuration of a Book∣seller? I desire you to be a little ten∣der in the Point, not knowing how far it may reach. Ay, but such Book∣sellers live not at the Lower End of Pater-Noster-Row, but in Paul's Church-Yard, and are the Managers of other∣guess Books, than The Reasonableness

of Christianity. And therefore you ve∣ry rightly subjoin, Indeed it was a great Master-Piece of Procuration, and we can't but think that Man must speak truth, and defend it very Impartially and Substantially, who is thus brought on to undertake the Cause. And so Mr. Bold's Sermon is found to have neither Truth nor Sence in it, because it was Printed by a Bookseller at the lower End of Pater-Noster-Row; for that, I dare say, is all you know of the Matter. But that is hint enough for a happy Diviner to be sure of the rest, and with Confidence to report that for certain Matter of Fact, which had never any being but in the fore∣casting Side of his Politick Brain.

But whatever were the Reason that moved Mr. B—to Preach that Ser∣mon, of which I know nothing; This I am sure, it shews only the Weakness and Malice (I will not say, and ill Breeding, for that concerns not one of Mr. Edward's Pitch) of any one who excepts against it, to take notice of any thing more than what the Au∣thor has Published. Therein alone consists the Errour, if there be any;

and that alone those meddle with, who write for the sake of Truth. But poor Cavillers have other Purposes, and therefore must use other Shifts, and make a bustle about something besides the Argument to prejudice and beguile unwary Readers.

The only Exception the Creed-maker makes to Mr. Bold's Sermon, is the Contradiction he imputes to him, in saying,

That there is but one Point or Article necessary to be believed for the making a Man a Christian: And that there are many Points besides this, which Je∣sus Christ hath taught and revealed, which every sincere Christian is in∣dispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand:

And,

That there are particular Points and Articles, which being known to be revealed by Christ, Christians must indispen∣sibly assent to.

And where now is there any thing like a Contradiction in this? Let it be granted for Ex∣ample, that the Creed-maker's Set of Articles (let their Number be what they will when he has sound them all out) are necessary to be believed, for

the making a Man a Christian. Is there any contradiction in it to say, There are many Points besides these, which Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed, which every sincere Christian is in∣dispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand? If this be not so; It is but for any one to be perfect in Mr. Edward's Creed, and then he may lay by the Bible, and from thence∣forth he is absolutely dispensed with, from studying or understanding any thing more of the Scripture.

But Mr. Edwards's Supremacy, is not yet so far established that he will dare to say, That Christians are not obliged to endeavour to understand any other Points revealed in the Scrip∣ture, but what are contained in his Creed. He cannot yet well Discard all the rest of the Scripture; because he has yet need of it for the compleating of his Creed, which is like to secure the Bible to us for some time yet. For I will be answerable for it, he will not be quickly able to resolve what Texts of the Scripture do, and what do not contain Points necessary to be believed. So that I am apt to

imagine, that the Creed-maker, upon Second Thoughts, will allow that Saying, There is but One, or there are but Twelve, or there are but as many as he shall set down (when he has resolved which they shall be) ne∣cessary to the making a Man a Chri∣stian; and the saying, There are other Points besides contained in the Scrip∣ture, which every sincere Christian is indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand, and must believe when he knows them to be revealed by Jesus Christ; are two Propositions that may consist together without a Con∣tradiction.

Every Christian is to partake of that Bread and that Cup which is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. And is not every sincere Christian indispensibly obliged to en∣deavour to understand these Words of our Saviour's Institutions, This is my Body, and This is my Blood? And if upon his serious Endeavour to do it, he does understand them in a literal sence, that Christ meant that that was really his Body and Blood, and nothing else; must he not necessarily

believe that the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, is changed really into his Body and Blood, though he doth not know how? Or, if having his Mind set otherwise, he under∣stands the Bread and Wine to be re∣ally the Body and Blood of Christ; without ceasing to be true Bread and Wine; Or else, if he understands them, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed given and re∣ceived in the Sacrament, in a Spiri∣tual manner; Or lastly, If he under∣stands our Saviour to mean by those words, only the Bread and Wine to be a Representation of his Body and Blood; In which was soever of these Four, a Christian understands these words of our Saviour to be meant by him, is he not obliged in that sence to believe them to be true, and assent to them? Or can he be a Christian, and understand these words to be meant by our Saviour, in one sence, and deny his assent to them as true, in that sence? Would not this be to deny our Savi∣our's Veracity, and consequently his being the Messiah sent from God? And yet this is put upon a Christian where

he understands the Scripture in one sence, and is required to believe it in another. From all which it is evident, that to say there is One, or any Num∣ber of Articles necessary to be known and believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, and that there are others con∣tained in the Scripture, which a Man is obliged to endeavour to understand, and obliged also to assent to as he does understand them, is no Contra∣diction.

To believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and to take him to be his Lord and King, let us suppose to be that only which is necessary to make a Man a Christian: May it not yet be necessary for him, being a Christian, to study the Doctrine and Law of this his Lord and King, and believe that all that he delivered is true? Is there any Con∣tradiction in holding of this? But this Creed-maker, to make sure Work, and not to sail of a Contradiction in Mr. Bold's words, misrepeats them, p. 241. and quite contrary both to what they are in the Sermon, and what they are as set down by the Creed-maker himself, in the immedi∣ately

preceding Page; Mr. Bold says,

There are other Points that Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed, which every sincere Christian is in∣dispensibly obliged to understand, and which being known to be revealed by Christ, he must indispensibly assent to.

From which, the Creed-maker argues thus, p. 240. Now if there be other Points and particular Articles, and those many, which a sincere Christian is obliged, and that necessarily and in∣dispensibly to understand, believe, and assent to, then this Writer hath in effect yielded to that Proposition I maintained, viz. That the belief of one Article is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian, and consequently he runs counter to the Proposition he had laid down.

Is there no difference, I beseech you, between being indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand, and being indispensibly obliged to understand any Point? Tis the first of these, Mr. Bold says, and 'tis the latter of these you argue from, and so con∣clude nothing against him; nor can you to your purpose. For till Mr. Bold says (which he is far from saying)

that every sincere Christian is necessa∣rily and indispensibly obliged to un∣derstand all those Texts of Scripture, from whence you shall have drawn your necessary Articles (when you have perfected your Creed) in the same sence that you do, you can con∣clude nothing against what he hath said concerning that one Article, or any thing that looks like running Coun∣ter to it. For it may be enough to constitute a Man a Christian, and one of Christ's Subjects, to take Iesus to be the Messiah, his appointed King, and yet without a Contradiction, so that it may be his indispensible Duty as a Subject of that Kingdom, to en∣deavour to understand all the Dictates of his Soveraign, and to assent to the Truth of them, as far as he under∣stands them.

But that which the good Creed-maker aims at, without which, all his necessary Articles fall, is that it should be granted him, that every sincere Christian was necessarily and indispen∣sibly obliged to understand all those parts of Divine Revelation, from whence he pretends to draw his Arti∣cles

in their true meaning, i. e. just as he does. But his infallibility is not yet so established, but that there will need some proof of that Proposition. And when he has proved that every sincere Christian is necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand those Texts in their true meaning, and that his In∣terpretation of them is that true mean∣ing; I shall then ask him, whether every sincere Christian is not as necessa∣rily and indispensibly obliged to under∣stand other Texts of Scripture, in their true meaning, though they have no place in his System?

For Example, To make use of the Instance above-mentioned, is not eve∣ry sincere Christian necessarily and in∣dispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand these Words of our Savi∣our; This is my body, and this is my blood, that he may know what he re∣ceives in the Sacraments? Does he cease to be a Christian, who happens not to understand them just as the Creed-maker does? Or may not the old Gentleman at Rome (who has somewhat the ancienter Title to In∣fallibility) make Transubstantiation a

Fundamental Article necessarily to be believed, there, as well as the Creed-maker here makes his Sence of any disputed Text of Scripture a Funda∣mental Article necessary to be be∣lieved?

Let us suppose Mr. Bold had said that instead of one point, the Right Knowledge of the Creed-makers One Hundred Points (when he has resolved on them) doth constitute and make a Person a Christian; yet there are many other Points Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed which every sin∣cere Christian is indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand, and to make a due use of: For this I think the Creed-maker will not deny. From whence, in the Creed-maker's Words, I will thus argue. Now if there be other Points and particular Articles, and those many, which a sincere Chri∣stian is obliged, and that necessarily and indispensibly, to understand and believe, and assent to, then this Writer doth in effect yield to that Proposition which I maintained, viz. That the Belief of those one hundred Articles is not suffi∣cient to make a Man a Christian. For

this is that which I maintain; That up∣on this ground, the Belief of the Ar∣ticles which he has set down in his List, are not sufficient to make a Man a Christian; and that upon Mr. Bold's Reason, which the Creed-maker insists on against one Article, viz. because there are many other Points Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed, which every sincere Christian is as necessarily and indispensibly obliged to endeavour to understand and make a due use of.

But this Creed-maker is cautious, be∣yond any of his Predecessors: He will not be so caught by his own Argu∣ment; and therefore is very shy to give you the precise Articles that eve∣ry sincere Christian is necessarily and indispensibly obliged to understand, and give his assent to. Something he is sure there is that he is indispensibly ob∣liged to understand and assent to, to make him a Christian; but what that is, he cannot yet tell. So that whe∣ther he be a Christian or no, he does not know, and what other People will think of him, from his treating of the serious things of Christianity, in so

trifling and scandalous a way, must be left to them.

In the next Paragraph, p. 242. The Creed-maker tells us, Mr. Bold goes on to confute himself, in saying,

a true Christian must assent unto this that Christ Jesus is God.

But this is just such another Confutation of himself as the before-mentioned, i. e. as much as a Falshood substituted by another Man, can be a confutation of a Man's self, who has spoken Truth all of a piece. For the Creed-maker, according to his sure way of baffling his Opponents, so as to leave them nothing to answer, hath here, as he did before, changed Mr. Bold's words, which in the 35. p. quoted by the Creed-maker stand thus;

When a true Christian understands that Christ Jesus hath taught that He is a God, he must assent unto it.

Which is true and conformable to what he had said before; that every sincere Chri∣stian must endeavour to understand the Points taught and revealed by Jesus Christ, which being known to be revealed by him he must assent unto.

The like piece of Honesty the Creed-maker shews in the next Paragraph, p. 243. where he charges Mr. Bold with saying that a true Christian is as much obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit is God, as to believe that Iesus is the Christ, p. 40. In which place, Mr. Bold's words are;

When a true Christian understands that Christ Jesus hath given this Ac∣count of the Holy Spirit, viz, That he is God; He is as much obliged to believe it, as he is to believe that Iesus is the Christ.

Which is an un∣contestable Truth, but such an one as the Creed-maker himself saw would do him no Service, and therefore he mingles it, and leaves out half to make it serve his turn. But he that should give a Testimony in the slight Affairs of Men, and their Temporal Concerns, before a Court of Judicature, as the Creed-maker does here, and almost eve∣ry where, in the great Affairs of Reli∣gion, and the Everlasting Concern of Souls, before all Mankind, would lose his Ears for it. What therefore this worthy Gentleman alledges out of Mr. Bold, as a Contradiction to him∣self,

being only the Creed-maker's Con∣tradiction to Truth and clear Matter of Fact, needs no other Answer.

The rest of what he calls Reflections on Mr. Bold's Sermon, being nothing but either rude and mis-becoming Lan∣guage of him; Or pitiful Childish Ap∣plication to him, to change his Per∣swasion at the Creed-maker's Intreaty, and give up the Truth he hath owned, in Courtesie to this doubty Comba∣tant, shews the Ability of the Man. Leave off begging the Question, and superciliously presuming that you are in the right, and instead of that, shew it by Argument; And I dare answer for Mr. Bold, you will have him, and I promise you with him one Convert more. But Arguing is not, it seems, this notable Disputant's way. If Boast∣ing of himself, and contemning others, false Quotations, and feigned Matters of Fact, which the Reader neither can know, nor is the Question concerned in if he did know, will not do, there is an end of him; He has shewn his excellency in scurrilous Declamation, and there you have the whole of this unanswerable Writer. And for this,

I appeal to his own Writings in this Controversie, if any judicious Rea∣der can have the patience to look them over.

In the beginning of his Reflections on Mr. Bold's Sermon, he confidently tells the World, That he had found that the Manager of the Reasonable∣ness of Christianity, had prevailed on Mr. Bold to Preach a Sermon upon his Reflections, &c. And adds, And we can∣not but think, that that Man must speak the truth, and defend it very impartially and substantially, who is thus brought on to undertake the Cause. And at the latter end, he Addresses himself to Mr. Bold, as one that is drawn off to be an under Journey-man Worker in Socinianism. In his gracious Allow∣ance, Mr. Bold is seemingly a Man of some relish of Religion and Piety, p. 244. He is forced also to own him to be a Man of Sobriety and Temper, p. 245. A very good rise, to give him out to the World, in the very next words, as a Man of a profligate Conscience: For so he must be, who can be drawn off to Preach or Write for Socinianism, when he thinks it a most dangerous Errour,

who can dissemble with himself, and choak his inward Perswasions (as the Creed-maker insinuates that Mr. Bold does in the same Address to him, p. 248.) and write contrary to his Light. Had the Creed maker had rea∣son to think in earnest that Mr. Bold was going off to Socinianism, he might have reasoned with him fairly, as with a Man running into dangerous Errour: Or if he had certainly known that he was by any By-ends prevailed on to undertake a Cause contrary to his Con∣science, he might have some Reason to tell the World as he does, p. 239. That we cannot think he should speak truth, who is thus brought to undertake the Cause. If he does not certainly know that Mr. Bold was THUS brought to undertake the Cause, he could not have shewn a more Villainous and Unchristian Mind than in publishing such a Character of a Minister of the Gospel, and a worthy Man, upon no other Grounds, but because it▪ might be subservient to his ends. He is en∣gaged in a Controversie that by Ar∣gument he cannot maintain; Nor knew any other way from the begin∣ning,

to attack the Book he pretends to write against; but by crying out Socinianism; a Name he knows in great Disgrace with all other Sects of Chri∣stians, and therefore sufficient to de∣terr all those who approve, and con∣demn Books by hearsay, without exa∣mining their Truth themselves, from perusing a Treatise to which he could affix that imputation. Mr. Bold's Name (who is publickly known to be no So∣cinian) he foresees will wipe off that false Imputation, with a great many of those who are led by Names more than Things. This seems exceedingly to trouble him, and he labours might and main, to get Mr. Bold to quit a Book as Socinian, which Mr. Bold knows is not Socinian; because he has read and considered it.

But though our Creed-maker be mightily concerned that Mr. B—d should not appear in the Defence of it▪ Yet this concern cannot raise him one jot above that Honesty, Skill and good Breeding, which appears towards o∣thers. He manages this Matter with Mr. B—d, as he has done the rest of the Controversie, just in the same

strain of Invention, Civility, Wit and good Sence. He tells him, besides what I have above set down, that he is drawn off to debase himself and the post, i. e. the Ministry, he is in, p. 245. That he hath said very ill things to the lessening and impairing, yea, to the de∣faming of that knowledge and belief of our Saviour, and of the Articles of Christianity, which are necessarily re∣quired of us, p. 245. That the Devout and Pious (whereby he means him∣self, for one and none is his own beloved Wit and Argument) observing that Mr. Bold is come to the necessity of but ONE Article of Faith, they expect that he may in time hold that NONE is necessary, p. 248. That if he writes again in the same strain, be will write rather like a Turkish Spy, than a Chri∣stian Preacher; That he is a Back∣slider, and Sailing to Racovia with a side Wind: Than which, what can there be more Scurrilous or more Malicious? And yet at the same time, that he outrages him thus, beyond not only what Christian Charity, but common Civility would allow in an ingenuous Adversary, he makes some awkward

Attempts, to sooth him, with some ill timed Commendations; And would have his under-valuing Mr. Bold's Animadversions, pass for a Comple∣ment to him: Because he, for that rea∣son, pretends not to believe so crude and shallow a thing (as he is pleased to call it) to be his. A notable Contri∣vance to gain the greater Liberty of Railing at him under another Name, when Mr. B—d's it seems is too well known to serve him so well to that purpose. Besides it is of good use to fill up three or four Pages of his Re∣flections; a great Convenience to a Writer, who knows all the ways of baffling his Opponents but Argument, and who always makes a great deal of stir about Matters foreign to his Sub∣ject, which whether they are granted or denied, make nothing at all to the Truth of the Question on either side. For what is it to the Shallowness or Depth of the Animadversions, who writ them? Or to the Truth or Fals∣hood of Mr. B—d's Defence of the Reasonableness of Christianity whether a Lay-man or a Church-man; a Socinian, or one of the Church of England an∣swer'd

the Creed-maker as well as he? Yet this is urged as a matter of great weight. But yet in reality it amounts to no more but this, that a Man of any Denomination, who wishes well to the Peace of Christianity, and has observed the horrible Effects the Chri∣stian Religion has felt from the Impo∣sitions of Men in Matters of Faith, may have reason to defend a Book, wherein the Simplicity of the Gospel, and the Doctrine proposed by our Sa∣viour and his Apostles, for the Con∣version of Unbelievers, is made out, though there be not one Word of the distinguishing Tenents of his Sect in it. But that all those, who under any Name, are for imposing their own Orthodoxy, as necessary to be belie∣ved, and persecuting those who dis∣sent from them, should be all against it, is not perhaps very strange.

One thing more I must observe of the Creed-maker on this Occasion: In his Socinian Creed, Ch. VI. The Au∣thor of the Reasonableness of Christia∣nity, &c. And his Book, must be judged of by the Characters and Writings of those, who entertain or commend his

Notions. A professed Unitarian has defended it; therefore he is a Socinian. The Author of A Letter to the Deists, speaks well of it, Therefore he is a Deist. Another as an Abettor of the Reasonableness of Christianity, he men∣tions, p. 125. whose Letters I have ne∣ver seen: And his Opinions too are, I suppose, set down there as belong∣ing to me. Whatever is bad in the Tenets or Writings of these Men in∣fects me. But the Mischief is, Mr. Bold's Orthodoxy will do me no good: But because he has defended my Book against Mr. Edwards, all my Faults are become his, and he has a mighty Load of Accusations laid upon him. Thus contrary Causes serve so good a Natured, so Charitable and Candid a Writer as the Creed-maker, to the same purpose of Censure and Railing. But I shall desire him to figure to himself the Loveliness of that Creature which turns every thing into Venom. What others are, or hold, who have expres∣sed favourable thoughts of my Book, I think my self not concerned in. What Opinions others have published, make those in my Book neither true nor

false; and he that for the sake of Truth would confute the Errors in it, should shew their Falshood and Weak∣ness as they are there: But they who write for other Ends than Truth, are always busie with other Matters, and where they can do nothing by Reason and Argument, hope to prevail with some, by borrowed Prejudices and Party.

Taking therefore the Animadver∣sions, as well as the Sermon, to be his whose Name they bear, I shall leave to Mr. B—d, himself to take what Notice he thinks fit of the little Sence as well as great Impudence of putting his Name in Print to what is not his; or taking it away from what he hath set it to; whether it belongs to his Bookseller or Answerer. Onely I can∣not pass by the palpable falsifying of Mr. B—d's Words, in the beginning of his Epistle to the Reader, without mention. Mr. B—d's Words are,

Whereby I came to be furnished with a truer and more just No∣tion of the main Design of that TREATISE

and the Good Creed-maker set them down thus, The

main Design of MY OWN TREA∣TISE OR SERMON: A sure way for such a Champion for Truth to secure to himself the Laurel or the Whetstone.

This irresistible Disputant (who si∣lences all that come in his way, so that those that would cannot answer him) to make good the mighty En∣comiums he has given himself, ought (one would think) to clear all as he goes, and leave nothing by the way unanswered, for fear he should fall into the Number of those poor baffled Wretches whom he with so much scorn reproaches, that they would an∣swer if they could.

Mr. B—d begins his Animadversions with this Remark, that our Creed-maker had said, That I give it over and over again in these formal Words, viz. That nothing is required to be be∣lieved by any Christian Man but this, That Iesus is the Messiah. To which Mr. B—d replies, p. 4. in these Words,

Though I have read over the Rea∣sonableness of Christianity, &c. with some Attention, I have not obser∣ved those formal Words in any part

of that Book, nor any Words that are capable of that Construction; provided they be consider'd with the Relation they have to, and the manifest Dependance they have on what goes before, or follows after them.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Whether it was because he would not, or because he could not, let the Reader judge. But this is down upon his Score already, and it is expected he should answer to it, or else confess that he cannot. And that there may be a fair Decision of this Dispute. I expect the same Usage from him, that he should set down any Propo∣sition of his, I have not answer'd to, and call on me for an Answer, if I can. And if I cannot, I promise him to own it in Print.

The Creed-maker had said, That it is most evident to any thinking and con∣siderate Person, that I purposely omit the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles, because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines, besides that which I mention▪

To this Mr. B—d answers, p. 5.

That if by Fundamental Articles, Mr. Edwards means here, all the Propositions delivered in the Epi∣stles, concerning just those particu∣lar Heads he [Mr. Edwards] had there mentioned, it lies upon him to prove, That Jesus Christ hath made it necessary, that every Per∣son must have an explicit Know∣ledge and Belief of all those, before he can be a Christian.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

And yet without an Answer to it, all his Talk about Fundamentals, and those which he pretended to set down in that place, under the Name of Fundamentals, will signifie nothing in the present case; Wherein, by Funda∣mentals, were meant such Propositions which every Person must necessarily have an explicit Knowledge and Be∣lief of, before he can be a Christian.

Mr. B—d, in the same place, p. 6, and 7. very truly and pertinently adds,

That it did not pertain to [my] undertaking to enquire what Do∣ctrines

either in the Epistles, or the Evangelists and the Acts, were of greatest moment to be under∣stood by them who are Christians, but what was necessary to be known and believed to a Person's being a Christian. For there are many important Doctrines, both in the Gospels and in the Acts, be∣sides this, That Iesus is the Messiah. But how many soever the Do∣ctrines be, which are taught in the Epistles, if there be no Doctrine besides this, That Iesus is the Mes∣siah, taught there as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri∣stian, all the Doctrines taught there will not make any thing against what this Author has as∣serted, nor against the Method he hath observed; Especially, consi∣dering we have an Account in the Acts of the Apostles, of what those Persons by whom the Epi∣stles were writ, did teach as ne∣cessary to be believed to Peoples being Christians.

This, and what Mr. B—d subjoins▪

That it was not my design to give

an Abstract of any of the inspired Books

, is so true, and has so clear Reason in it, that any but this Wri∣ter, would have thought himself concerned to have answered some∣thing to it.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

It not being it seems a Creed-maker's Business to convince Mens Under∣standing by Reason, but to impose on their Belief by Authority, or where that is wanting, by Falshoods and Bauling. And to such Mr. Bold observes well, p. 8. that

if I had given the like Account of the Epistles, that would have been as little satisfactory as what I have done already, to those who are re∣solved not to distinguish BE∣TWIXT WHAT IS NE∣CESSARY TO BE BE∣LIEVED TO MAKE A MAN A CHRISTIAN, AND THOSE ARTICLES WHICH ARE TO BE BELIEVED BY THOSE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS, as they can

attain to know, that Christ hath taught them.

This Distinction the Creed-maker, no where that I remember, takes any Notice of; unless it be p. 255. where he has something relating hereunto, which we shall consider when we come to that place. I shall now go on to shew what Mr. Bold has said, to what he answers not.

Mr. Bold farther tells him, p. 10. That if he will prove any thing in Opposition to the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. it must be this;

That Jesus Christ and his Apostles have taught, that the Belief of some one Article, or certain Num∣ber of Articles distinct from this, That Iesus is the Messiah, either as exclusive of, or in Conjunction with the Belief of this Article, doth constitute and make a Person a Christian: But that the Belief of this, that Jesus is the Messias alone, doth not make a Man a Christian

But to this Mr. Edwards irresraga∣bly answers nothing.

Mr. Bold also, p. 10. Charges him with his falsly accusing me in these words: He pretends to contend for one single Article, with the exclusion of all the rest, for this reason; because all Men ought to understand their Religion. And again where he says I aim at this, viz. That we must not have any Point of Doctrine in our Religion, that the Mob doth not at the very first naming of it, perfectly understand and agree to, Mr. Bold has quoted my express words to the contrary.

But to this, this answerable Gentle∣man answers nothing.

But if he be such a mighty Dispu∣tant, that nothing can stand in his way; I shall expect his direct Answer to it, among those other Propositions which I have set down to his Score, and I require him to prove if he can.

The Creed-maker spends Five Pages of his Reflections in a great stir who is the Author of those Animadversions he is Reflecting on. To which, I tell him, it matters not to a Lover of Truth, or a Confuter of Errours, who was the Author; but what they con∣tain.

He, who makes such a deal of doe about that which is nothing to the Question, shews he has but little Mind to the Argument; that his hopes are more in the recommendation of Names and prejudice of Parties, than in the Strength of his Reasons and the goodness of his Cause. A Lover of Truth follows That, whoever be for or against it; and can suffer himself to pass by no Argument of his Adver∣sary, without taking notice of it either in allowing its force, or giving it a fair Answer. Were the Creed-maker capa∣ble of giving such an Evidence as this, of his Love of Truth, he would not have passed over the Twenty first Pages of Mr. Bold's Animadversions in silence. The Falshoods that are there∣in charged upon him would have re∣quired an Answer of him, if he could have given any: And I tell him he must give an Answer, or confess the Fals∣hoods.

In his 255. p. he comes to take no∣tice of these words of Mr. Bold, in the 21. Page of his Animadversions, viz.

That a Convert to Christianity or a Christian, must necessarily be∣lieve

as many Articles as he shall attain to know that Christ Jesus hath taught

. Which, says the Creed-maker, wholly invalidates what he had said before in these words, viz.

That Iesus Christ, and his Apostles, did not teach any thing as necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, but only this one Pro∣position. That Iesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

The reason he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to shew, That the former of these Propositions, (in Mr. Bold) invali∣dates the latter, and that the Animad∣verter contradicts himself, stands thus: For, says he, if a Christian must give assent to all the Articles taught by our Saviour in the Gospel, and that necessa∣rily; then all those Propositions reckon'd up in my late Discourse, being taught by Christ or his Apostles, are necessary to be believed. Answ. And what, I beseech you, becomes of the rest of the Propositions taught by Christ or his Apostles, which you have not reckon'd up in your late Discourse; Are not they necessary to be believed, if a Chri∣stian must give an assent to ALL the Articles taught by our Saviour and his Apostles?

Sir, If you will argue right from that antecedent, it must stand thus: If a Christian must give an assent to ALL the Articles taught by our Sa∣viour and his Apostles, and that neces∣sarily; Then all the Propositions in the New Testament, taught by Christ or his Apostles, are necessarily to be believed. This Consequence I grant to be true, and necessarily to follow from that antecedent, and pra•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your best of it: But withal reme••••ber, that it puts an utter end to your select Number of Fundamentals, and makes all the Truths delivered▪ in the New Testament necessary to be explicitly believed by every Chri∣stian.

But Sir, I must take notice to you, that if it be uncertain whether he that Writ the Animadversions, be the same Person that Preached the Ser∣mon, yet it is very visible that 'tis the very same Person that reflects on both; Because he here again uses the same Trick in answering in the Anim∣adversions, the same thing that had been said in the Sermon, viz. By pretending to argue from words as

Mr. Bold's, when Mr. Bold has said no such thing. The Proposition you ar∣gue from here is this, If a Christian must give assent to all the Articles taught by our Saviour, and that necessa∣rily. But Mr. Bold says no such thing. His words, as set down by your self are;

A Christian must necessarily believe as many Articles as he shall attain to know that Christ Jesus hath taught.

And is there no difference ••••••ween ALL that Christ Iesus hath taught; and AS MANY as any one shall attain to know that Christ Iesus hath taught? There is so great a difference between these two, that one can scarce think even such a Creed-maker could mistake it. For one of them admits all those to be Christians, who taking Iesus for the Messiah, their Lord and King, sincerely apply themselves to understand and obey his Doctrine and Law, and do believe all that they un∣derstand to be taught by him: The other shuts out, if not all Mankind, yet Nine Hundred Ninety Nine of a Thousand, of those who profess them∣selves Christians, from being really so. For he speaks within Compass, who

says there is not one of a Thousand, if there be any one Man at all, who explicitly knows and believes that all that our Saviour and his Apostles taught, i. e. All that is delivered in the New Testament, in the true ••ence that it is there intended. For if giving assent to it, in any sence, will serve the turn, our Creed-maker can have no Exceptions against Socinians, Pa∣pists, Lutherans, or any other, who acknowledging the Scripture to be the Word of God, do yet oppose his System.

But the Creed-maker goes on, p. 255. and endeavours to prove, that what is necessary to be believed by every Christian, is necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian, in these words: But he will say, the belief of those Propositions, makes not a Man a Christian. Then, I say, they are not necessary and indispensible; for what is absolutely necessary in Christianity, is absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian.

Ignorance, or something worse, makes our Creed-maker always speak doubtfully or obscurely, whenever he

pretends to argue; for here absolutely necessary in Christianity either signifies nothing, but absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian; and then it is proving the same Proposition by the same Proposition: Or else, has a very obscure and doubtful Significa∣tion. For, if I ask him whether it be absolutely necessary in Christianity to obey every one of our Saviour's Com∣mands, what will he answer me? If he answers, NO; I ask him which of our Saviour's Commands is it not in Christianity absolutely necessary to obey? If he answers, YES; Then I tell him by his rule, there are no Christians; because there is no one that does in all things obey all our Saviour's Com∣mands, and therein fails to perform what is absolutely necessary in Chri∣stianity; and so by his rule is no Christian. If he answers, Sincere En∣deavour to obey, is all that is abso∣lutely necessary; I reply, And so Sin∣cere Endeavour to understand, is all that is absolutely necessary: Neither perfect Obedience, nor perfect Un∣derstanding is absolutely necessary in Christianity.

But his Proposition being put in terms clear, and not loose and falla∣cious, should stand thus, viz. What is absolutely necessary to every Chri∣stian, is absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian: But then I deny that he can inferr from Mr. Bold's words, that those Propositions (i. e. which he has set down as Fundamen∣tal or necessary to be believed) ar•• absolutely necessary to be believed by every Christian. For that indispen∣sible necessity Mr. Bold speaks of, is not absolute, but conditional. His words are, A Christian must believe as many Articles as he shall attain to know that Iesus Christ hath taught. So that he places the indispensible necessity of Believing, upon the con∣dition of attaining to know that Christ taught so. An endeavour to know what Iesus Christ taught, Mr. B—dsays truely is absolutely neces∣sary to every one who is a Christian, and to believe what he has attained to know that Iesus Christ taught, that also, he says, is absolutely necessary to every Christian. But all this grant∣ed (as true it is) it still remains (and

eternally will remain) to be proved from this (which is all that Mr. Bold says) that something else is absolutely required to make a Man a Christian, besides the unfeigned taking Iesus to be the Messiah, his King and Lord, and accordingly, a sincere resolution to obey and believe all that he com∣manded and taught.

The Jailor, Acts XVI. 30. in An∣swer to his Question, what he should do to be saved; was answer'd, That he should believe in the Lord Ie∣sus Christ. And the Text says that the Jailor took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straight-way. Now, I will ask our Creed-maker, whether St. Paul in speaking to him the Word of the Lord, proposed and explained to him all those Propositions and Fundamen∣tal Heads of Doctrine, which our Creed-maker has set down as necessa∣ry to be believed to make a Man a Christian. Let it be consider'd, the Jailor was a Heathen, and one that seems to have no more Sense of Re∣ligion or Humanity, than those of

that Calling use to have: For he had let them alone under the Pain of their Stripes without any Remedy, or so much as the ease of washing them, from the Day before, till after his Conversion, which was not till after Midnight. And can any one think that between his asking what he should do to be saved, and his being baptized, which the Text says, was the same hour and straightway, there was time enough for St. Paul and Silas to explain to him all the Creed-maker's Articles, and make such a Man as that, and all his house understand the Creed-maker's whole System; especially since we hear nothing of it in the Conversion of these or any others who were brought into the Faith in the whole History of the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles? Now let me ask our Creed-maker, whether the Jailor was not a Christian, when he was baptized; and whether if he had then immediately died, he had not been saved, without the Belief of any one Article more than what Paul and Silas had then ••aught him? Whence it follows, that

what was then proposed to him to be believed (which appears to be nothing but that Iesus was the Messiah) was all that was absolutely necessary to be believed to make him a Chri∣stian; though this hinders not but that afterwards it might be necessa∣ry for him, indispensibly necessary, to believe other Articles, when he attained to the Knowledge that Christ had taught them. And the reason of it is plain: Because the knowing that Christ taught any thing, and the not receiving it for true, (which is believing it) is inconsistent with the believing him to be the Messiah, sent from God to inlighten and save the World. Every word of Divine Reve∣lation, is absolutely and indispensibly necessary to be believed, by every Christian, as soon as he comes to know it to be taught by our Savi∣our or his Apostles, or to be of Di∣vine Revelation. But yet this is far enough from making it absolutely necessary to every Christian to know every Text in the Scripture, much less to understand every Text in the Scripture; and least of all, to under∣stand

it as the Creed-maker is pleased to put his sence upon it.

This the good Creed-maker either will not, or cannot understand: But gives us a List of Articles culled out of the Scripture by his own Autho∣rity, and tells us those are absolutely necessary to be believed by every one, to make him a Christian. For what is of absolute Necessity in Christianity, as those he says are, he tells us is ab∣solutely requisite to make a Man a Christian. But when he is asked whe∣ther these are all the Articles of ab∣solute Necessity, to be believed to make a Man a Christian; This wor∣thy Divine, that takes upon him to be a Successor of the Apostles, can∣not tell. And yet, having taken up∣on him also to be a Creed-maker, he must suffer himself to be called up∣on for it again and again, till he tells us what is of absolute Necessity to be believed to make a Man a Christian, or confess that he cannot.

In the mean time, I take the liber∣ty to say, That every Proposition de∣livered in the New Testament by our Saviour, or his Apostles, and so re∣ceived

by any Christian as of Divine Revelation, is of as absolute necessity to be assented to by him, in the Sence he understands it to be taught by them, as any one of those Propo∣sitions enumerated by the Creed-ma∣ker: And if he thinks otherwise, I shall desire him to prove it. The Reason whereof is this, that in divine Revelation the ground of Faith being onely the Authority of the Proposer, where that is the same, there is no difference in the Obligation or Mea∣sure of believing. Whatever the Mes∣siah that came from God taught, is equally to be believed by every one who receives him as the Messiah, as soon as he understands what it was he taught. There is no such thing as garbling his Doctrine, and making one part of it more necessary to be believed than another, when it is un∣derstood. His saying is, and must be, of unquestionable Authority to all that receive him as their heavenly King; and carries with it an equal Ob∣ligation of assent to all that he says as true. But since no Body can expli∣citly assent to any Proposition of our

Saviour's as true, but in the Sence he understands our Saviour to have spoken it in, the same Authority of the Mes∣siah, his King, obliges every one abso∣lutely and indispensibly to believe every part of the New Testament in that Sence he understands it: For else he rejects the Authority of the Deliverer, if he refuses his Assent to it in that Sence which he is per∣swaded it was delivered in. But the taking him for the Messiah, his King and Lord, laying upon every one who is his Subject, and Obligation to endeavour to know his Will in all things, every true Christian is under an absolute and indispensible necessity, by being his Subject, to study the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind, according to that Measure of Time, Opportunity, and Helps which he has; that in these sacred Writings, he may find what his Lord and Master hath by himself, or by the Mouths of his Apostles, required of him, ei∣ther to be believed or done.

The Creed-maker, in the following Page, 256. hath these Words; It is worth the Reader's observing, That not∣withstanding

I had in twelve Pages to∣gether, (viz. from the Eighth to the Twentieth) proved that several Propo∣sitions are necessary to be believed by us, in order to our being Christians; yet this Sham-Animadverter attends not to any one of the particulars which I had mentioned, nor offers any thing against them, but onely in a Lumping way, dooms them all in those magisterial Words; I do not see any Proof he produces, p. 21. This is his wonderful way of confuting me, by pretending that he cannot see any Proof in what I al∣ledge; and all the World must be led by his eyes.

Answ. It is worth the Reader's obser∣ving, That the Creed-maker does not reply to what Mr. Bold has said to him, as we have already seen, and shall see more as we go on; and there∣fore he has little reason to complain of him, for not having answered enough. Mr. Bold did well to leave that which was an insignificant lump, so as it was together: For 'tis no wonderful thing not to see any Proof, where there is no Proof. There is indeed, in those Pages the Creed∣ma∣ker

mentions, much Confidence, much Assertion, a great many Questions asked, and a great deal said after his Fashion: But for a Proof, I deny there is any one: And if what I have said in another place already, does not convince him of it, I challenge him, with all his Eyes and those of the World to boot, to find out in those Twelve renowned Pages one Proof. Let him set down the Proposition, and his Proof of its being absolutely and indispensibly necessary to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian; And I too, will join with him in his Testimonial of himself, that he is ir∣refragable. But I must tell him be∣fore-hand, talking a great deal loosely will not do it.

Mr. Bold and I say we cannot see any Proof in those Twelve Pages: The way to make us see, or to con∣vince the World that we are blind, is to single out one Proof out of that Wood of Words there, which you seem to take for Arguments, and set it down in a Syllogism, which is the fair trial of a Proof or no Proof. You have indeed a Syllogism in the 23d.

Page, but that is not in those Twelve Pages you mention. Besides, I have shew'd in another place, what that proves; to which I referr you.

In Answer to the Creed-maker's Question, about his other Fundamen∣tals found in the Epistles; Why did the Apostles Write these Doctrines? Was it not, that those they Writ to, might give their Assent to them? Mr. Bold, p. 22. replies;

But then it may be asked again, Were not those Persons Christians, to whom the Apostles writ these Doctrines, and whom they required to Assent to them? Yes, verily: And if so, What was it that made them Christians, before their Assent to these Doctrines was required? If it were any thing besides their Believing Iesus to be the Messiah, it ought to be instanced in, and made out.

But to this Mr. Edwards An∣swers not.

The next thing in Controversie be∣tween Mr. Bold and the Creed-maker, (for I follow Mr. B—d's Order,) is about a Matter of Fact, viz. Whe∣ther the Creed-maker has proved,

That Iesus Christ and his Apostles have taught, That no Man can be a Christian, or shall be saved, un∣less he have an explicit Knowledge of all those things which have an imme∣diate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means and Issue of our Salva∣tion, and which are necessary for the knowing the true Nature and Design of it?

This, Mr. Bold, p. 24. tells him

he has not done.

To this the Creed-maker replies, p. 258.

And yet the Reader may satisfie him∣self, that this is the very thing that I had been proving just before, and in∣deed, all along in the foregoing Chapter. Answ. There have been those who have been seven Years proving a thing, which at last they could not do; And I give you seven Years to prove this Proposition which you should there have proved, and I must add to your score here, viz.

LII.

That Iesus Christ, or his Apostles, have taught, That no Man can be a Christian, or can be saved, un∣less he hath an explicit Knowledge

of all those things which have an immediate respect to the Occasion, Author, Way, Means and Issue of our Salvation, and which are ne∣cessary for our knowing the true Nature and Design of it.

Nor must the poor Excuse, of say∣ing, It was not necessary to add any farther Medium; and then proceed to ano∣ther Syllogism, because you had secured that Proposition before; go for Payment. If you had secured it, as you say, it had been quite as easie, and much more for your Credit, to have pro∣duced the Proof whereby you had secured it, than to say you had done it; and thereupon to reproach Mr. Bold with Heedlessness; and to tell the World, that he cares not what he saith. The Rule of fair Dispute, is indispen∣sibly to Prove, where any thing is Denied. To evade this, is Shuffling; and he that, instead of it, answers with ill Language, in my Country, is call'd a Foul-mouth'd Wrangler.

To the Creed-maker's Exception to my Demand, about the Actual Belief of all his Fundamentals in his new Creed; Mr. Bold asks, p. 24.

Whe∣ther

a Man can believe particular Propositions, and not actually be∣lieve them?

But to this Mr. Edwards An∣swers not.

Mr. Bold, p. 25. farther acknow∣ledges the Creed-maker's Fundamental Propositions to

be in the Bible; and that they are for this purpose there, that they may be believed; And so,

he saith,

is every other Proposition which is taught in our Bibles:

But asks,

How will it thence follow, that no Man can be a Christian, till he particularly know, and actually assent to every Proposition in our Bibles?

But to this Mr. Edwards An∣swers not.

From p. 26, to 30. Mr. B—d shews, that the Creed-makers Reply, con∣cerning my not gathering of Funda∣mentals out of the Epistles, is nothing to the purpose, and this he demon∣stratively proves.

And to this Mr. Edwards An∣swers not.

The Creed-maker had falsly said, That I bring no Tydings of an Evan∣gelical Faith: And thence very rea∣dily and charitably inferrs; Which gives us to understand, that he verily believes there is no such Christian Faith. To this Mr. Bold thus softly replies, p. 31.

I think Mr. Edwards is much mistaken, both in his Assertion and Inference:

And to shew that he could not so inferr, adds;

If the Author of the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, &c. had not brought any Tidings of such a Faith, I think it could not be thence justly inferr'd, that he verily believes there is no such Christian Faith. Because his Enquiry and Search was not con∣cerning Christian••Faith, considered subjectively, but objectively; What the Articles be which must be be∣lieved, to make a Man a Christian; and not, with what sort of Faith these Articles are to be believed.

To this the Creed-maker answers, indeed; But it is something as much worse than nothing, as Falshood is worse than Silence. His words are, p. 258. It may be questioned, from what he

[the Animadverter] hath the confidence to say, p. 31. viz. There is no Enquiry in the Reasonableness of Christianity, con∣cerning Faith subjectively considered, but only objectively, &c. And thus having set down Mr. B—d's Words otherwise than they are; for Mr. Bold does not say there is no Enquiry, i. e. no Men∣tion, (for so the Creed-maker explains Enquiries here. For to convince Mr. Bold, that there is an Enquiry, i. e. Mention of Subjective Faith, he alledges, That Subjective Faith is spoken of in the 191. and 192. pages of my Book.) But Mr. Bold says, not that Faith considered subjectively, is not spoken of any where in the Rea∣sonableness of Christianity, &c. But

That the Author's Enquiry and Search, (i. e. the Author's Search, or Design of his Search) was not concerning Christian Faith consi∣dered subjectively:

And thus the Creed-maker imposing on his Reader, by perverting Mr. Bold's Sence, from what was the Intention of my Enquiry and Search, to what I had said in it, he goes on, after his scurrilous fashion, to insult, in these words which fol∣low;

I say, it may be guessed from this, what a Liberty this Writer takes, to assert what he pleases. Answ. To assert what one pleases, without Truth, and without Certainty, is the worst Character can be given a Writer: And with Falshood to charge it on another, is no mean Slander and Injury to a Man's Neighbour. And yet to these shameful Arts must he be driven, who finding his strength of managing a Cause, to lie only in Fiction and Falshood, has no other but the dull Billinsgate way of co∣vering it, by endeavouring to di∣vert the Reader's Observation and Censure from himself, by a confi∣dent repeated Imputation of that to his Adversary, which he himself is so frequent in the Commission of. And of this, the Instances I have given, are a sufficient Proof: In which I have been at the Pains to set down the Words on both Sides, and the Pages where they are to be found, for the Reader's full Satisfaction.

The Cause in Debate between us is of great Weight, and concerns every Christian▪ That any Evidence

in the Proposal, or Defence of it, can be sufficient to conquer all Men's Pre∣judices, is a Vanity to imagine. But this, I think, I may justly demand of every Reader, that since there are great and visible Falshoods on one side or the other, (for the Accusa∣tions of this kind are positive and frequent,) he would examine on which Side they are; And upon that, I will venture the Cause in any Rea∣der's Judgment, who will be but at the pains of turning to the Pages marked out to him; And as for him that will not do that, I care not much what he says.

The Creed-maker's following words, p. 258. have the Natural Mark of their Author. They are these. How can this Animadverter come off with peremptory declaring, that Subjective Faith is not enquired into in the Trea∣tise of the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, &c. When in another place, p. 35, and 36. he averrs, That Chri∣stian Faith, and Christianity consider'd Subjectively are the same. Answ. In which words, there are two manifest ••ntruths; The one is, That Mr. Bold

peremptorily declares, that Subjective Faith is not inquired into, i. e. Spo∣ken of in the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, &c. Whereas Mr. Bold says in that place, p. 31.

If he [i. e. the Author] had not said one word concerning Faith subjective∣ly considered.

The Creed-maker's other Untruth, is his saying, That the Animadverter averrs, p. 35. & 36. that Christian Faith and Christianity considered subjectively are the same▪ Whereas 'tis evident, that Mr. Bold arguing against these words of the Creed-maker, (The belief of Iesus being the Messiah was one of the first and leading Acts of Christian Faith) speaks in that place of an act of Faith, as these words of his demonstrate.

Now, I apprehend that Christian Faith and Christianity consider'd subjectively (and an ACT▪ of Christian Faith▪ I think, cannot be understood in any other sence) are the very same▪

I must therefore desire him to set down the words, wherein the Animadverter peremptorily declares,

LIII.

That subjective Faith is not enquired into, or spoken of, in the Treatise of the Reasonableness of Chri∣stianity, &c.

And next to produce the words wherein the Animadverter averrs,

LIV.

That Christian Faith and Christia∣nity consider'd subjectively, are the same.

To the Creed maker's saying, That the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. brings us no tidings of Evangelical Faith belonging to Chri∣stianity, Mr. Bold replies; That I have done it in all those Pages where I speak of taking and accepting Iesus to be our King and Ruler, and particularly he sets down my words out of p. 301.

But to this Mr. Edwards Answers not.

The Creed-maker says, p. 59. of his Socinianism Unmasked, that the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity,

tells men again and again, that a Chri∣stian Man, or Member of Christ, needs not know or believe any more than that one individual Point. To which Mr. Bold thus replies, p. 33.

If any Man will shew me those words in any part of the Reasonableness, &c. I shall suspect I was not awake all the time I was reading that Book: And I am as certain as one awake can be, that there are several Passages in that Book directly contrary to these words. And there are some Expres∣sions in the Vindication of the Rea∣sonableness, &c. one would think, if Mr. Edwards had observed them, they would have prevented that Mistake.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Mr. Bold, p. 34. takes notice, that the Creed-maker had not put the Query or Objection right, which, he says, some, and not without some shew of ground, may be apt to start: And therefore Mr. Bold puts the Query right, viz.

Why did Jesus Christ and his Apo∣stles, require assent to, and belief of

this one Article alone, viz. That Iesus is the Messiah, to constitute and make a Man a Christian, or true Member of Christ (as it is a∣bundantly evident they did, from the Reasonableness of Christianity) if the belief of more Articles is abso∣lutely necessary to make and consti∣tute a Man a Christian.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

And therefore I put the Objection or Query to him again, in Mr. Bold's words, and expect an Answer to it, viz.

LV.

Why did Iesus Christ and his Apostles require assent to, and belief of this one Article alone, viz. That Jesus is the Messiah, to make a Man a Christian (as it is abundantly evi∣dent they did from all their Preach∣ing recorded throughout the whole History of the Evangelists and Acts) if the belief of more Articles be absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian?

The Creed-maker having made be∣lieving Iesus to be the Messiah, only one of the first and leading Acts of Chri∣stian Faith; Mr. Bold, p. 35. rightly tells him, That

Christian Faith must be the belief of something or other: And if it be the belief of any thing besides this, That Iesus is the Christ or Messias, that other thing should be specified; and it should be made appear, that the Belief that Iesus is the Messiah, without the Belief of that other Proposition, is not Chri∣stian Faith.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Mr. B—d, in the four follow∣ing Pages, 36,—39. has excellently explained the difference between that Faith which constitutes a Man a Christian, and that Faith whereby one that is a Christian, believes the Doctrines taught by our Saviour; and the ground of that difference, and therein has fully over-turned this Po∣sition, that believing Iesus to be the Messiah, is but a Step, or the first Step to Christianity.

But to this Mr. Edwards Answers not.

To the Creed-makers supposing that other Matters of Faith were proposed with this, That Iesus is the Messiah; Mr. Bold replies, That this should be proved, viz. That other Articles were proposed, as requisite to be believed to make Men Christians. And p. 40. he gives a Reason why he is of ano∣ther Mind, viz.

Because there is nothing but this recorded, which was insisted on for that purpose.

But to this Mr. Edwards Answers not.

Mr. Bold, p. 42. shews, that Rom. X. 9. which the Creed-maker brought against it, confirms the Assertion of the Au∣thor of the Reasonableness, &c. con∣cerning the Faith that makes a Man a Christian.

But to this Mr. Edwards Answers not.

The Creed-maker says, p. 78. This is the main Answer to the Objection, (or Query above proposed,) viz. That Christianity was erected by degrees. This, Mr. Bold, p. 43. proves to be

nothing to the purpose, by this Rea∣son; viz.

Because what makes one Man a Christian, or ever did make any Man a Christian, will at any time, to the End of the World, make another Man a Christian;

And asks,

Will not that make a Christian now, which made the Apostles themselves Christians?

But to this Mr. Edwards Answers not.

In Answer to his 6th. Chapter, Mr. Bold, p. 45. tells him,

It was not my Business to discourse of the Trinity, or any other particular Doctrines proposed to be believed by them who are Christians; And that it is no fair and just Ground to ac∣cuse a Man, for rejecting the Do∣trines of the Trinity, and that Jesus is God; Because he does not interpret some particular Texts to the same purpose others do.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Indeed he takes notice of these words of Mr. Bold, in this Paragraph, viz.

Hence Mr. Edwards takes occasion to

write many Pages about these terms [viz. Messiah and Son of God] But I do not perceive that he pretends to offer any Proof that these were not Synonymous terms amongst the Iews at that time, which is the Point he should have proved, if he designed to invalidate what this Author saith about that matter.

To this the Creed-maker replies, p. 257. The Animadver∣••er doth not so much as offer one syllable ••o disprove what I delivered, and closely urged on that head. Answer, What need any Answer to disprove where there is no Proof brought that reaches the Proposition in Question? If there had been any such Proof, the produ∣cing of it, in short, had been a more convincing Argument to the Reader, than so much bragging of what has been done. For here are more Words spent (for I have not set them all down) than would have served to have expressed the Proof of this Propo∣sition, viz. That the terms above-men∣tioned were not Synonymous amongst the Iews, if there had been any Proof of it. But having already examined what the Creed-maker brags he has

closely urged, I shall say no more of it here.

To the Creed-makers making me a Socinian, in his Eighth Chapter, for not naming Christ's Satisfaction a∣mongst the Advantages and Benefits of Christ's coming into the World; Mr. Bold replies, 1. That it is no Proof, because

I promised not to name every one of them. And the mention of some is no denial of others.

2. He replies, That

Sa∣tisfaction is not so strictly to be termed an Advantage, as the effects and fruits of it are; and that the Doctrine of Satisfaction instructs us in the way how Christ did by di∣vine Appointment, obtain those Advantages for us.

And this was an Answer that deserved some reply from the Creed-maker.

But to this he answers not.

Mr. Bold says right, That this is a Doctrine that is of mighty Importance for a Christian to be well acquainted with. And I will add to it, that it is very hard for a Christian who reads the Scripture with Attention, and an

unprejudiced Mind, to deny the Satis∣faction of Christ: But it being a term not used by the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, and very variously explain∣ed by those that do use it, and very much stumbled at by those I was there speaking to, who were such as I there say,

who will not take a Blessing, unless they be instructed what need they had of it, and why it was be∣stowed upon them;

I left it, with the other disputed Doctrines of Chri∣stianity, to be looked into (to see what it was Christ had taught concerning it) by those who were Christians, and be∣lieved Jesus to be the Saviour promised and sent from God. And to those who yet doubted that he was so, and made this Objection;

What need was there of a Saviour?

I thought it most reasonable to offer such Particu∣lars only as were agreed on by all Chri∣stians, and were capable of no Dispute, but must be acknowledged by every body to be needful. This, though the Words above-quoted out of p. 254, & 256. of the Reasonableness of Christia∣nity, &c. shew to be my Design; yet the Creed-maker plainly gives me the

Lye, and tells me it was not my Design. All the World are faithless, false, trea∣cherous, hypocritical, Strainers upon their Reason and Conscience, Dissemblers, Iourney-men, mercenary Hirelings, ex∣cept Mr. Edwards: I mean, all the World that opposes him. And must not one think he is mightily behold∣ing to the Excellency and Readiness of his own Nature, who is no sooner en∣gaged in Controversie, but he imme∣diately finds out in his Adversaries these Arts of Equivocation, Lying and Effrontry in managing of it? Reason and Learning, and acquired Improve∣ments, might else have let him have gone on with others in the dull and or∣dinary way of fair arguing; wherein possibly he might have done no great feats. Must not a rich and fertile Soyle within, and a prompt Genius wherein a Man may readily spie the Propensi∣ties of base and corrupt Nature, be ac∣knowledged to be an excellent Quali∣fication for a Disputant, to help him to the quick Discovery and laying open of the Faults of his Opponents; which a Mind otherwise disposed

would not so much as suspect? Mr. Bold without this, could not have been so soon found out to be a Iourney-man, a Dissembler, an hired Mercenary, and stored with all those good Qualities wherein he hath his full share with me. But why would he then venture upon Mr. Edwards, who is so very quick-sighted in these matters, and knows so well what villainous Man is capa∣ble of?

I should not here, in this my Vin∣dication, have given the Reader so much of Mr. Bold's Reasoning, which though clear and strong, yet has more Beauty and Force as it stands in the whole Piece in his Book; Nor should I have so often repeated this Remark upon each Passage, viz. to this Mr. Ed∣wards answers not; had it not been the shortest and properest Comment could be made on that triumphant Paragraph of his, which begins in the 128. page of his Socinian Creed, wherein amongst a great deal of no small strutting are these Words; By their profound silence they acknowledge they have nothing to reply. He that desires to see more of

the same noble strain, may have re∣course to that eminent Place. Be∣sides, it was fit the Reader should have this one taste more of the Creed-maker's Genius, who passing by in silence all these clear and apposite Replies of Mr. Bold, loudly com∣plains of him, p. 259. That where he [Mr. Bold] finds something that he dares not object against, he shifts it off. And again, p. 260. That he doth not make any offer at Reason, there is not the least shadow of an Argument.—As if he were only hired to say something against me [the Creed-maker] though not at all to the purpose: And truly, any Man may discern a Mercenary Stroke all along; with a great deal more to the same purpose. For such Language as this, mixed with Scur∣rility, neither fit to be spoken by, nor of a Minister of the Gospel, make up the remainder of his Postscript. But to prevent this for the future; I demand of him, That if in either of his Treatises there be any thing against what I have said, in my Rea∣sonableness of Christianity, which he thinks not fully answer'd, he will set

down the Proposition in direct Words, and note the Page of his Book where it is to be found; And I promise him an Answer to it. For as for his Railing, and other Stuff, besides the Matter, I shall hereafter no more trouble my self to take notice of it. And so much for Mr. Edwards.

THere is another Gentleman, and of another sort of Make, Parts, and Breeding, who (as it seems, ashamed of Mr. Edwards's Way of handling Controversies in Religion) has had something to say of my Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. And so has made it necessary for me to say a Word to him, before I let these Papers go out of my Hand. It is the Author of The Occasional Paper, Numb. 1. The 2, 3, and 4 Pages of that Paper, gave me great hopes to meet with a Man who would examine all the Mistakes which come abroad in Print, with that Temper and Indif∣ferency, that might set an exact Pat∣tern for Controversie, to those who would approve themselves to be sin∣cere Contenders for Truth and Know∣ledge,

and nothing else, in the Dis∣putes they engaged in. Making him Allowance for the Mistakes that Self-Indulgence is apt to impose upon Hu∣mane Frailty, I am apt to believe he thought his Performances had been such: But I crave leave to observe, That good and candid Men are often misled, from a fair unbiassed pursuit of Truth, by an over-great Zeal for some∣thing that they, upon wrong Grounds, take to be so; And that it is not so easie to be a fair and unprejudiced Champion for Truth, as some who profess it think it to be. To acquaint him with the Occasion of this Re∣mark, I must desire him to read and consider his 19th. Page, and then to tell me.

• 1. Whether he knows, that the Doctrine proposed in the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. was borrowed, as he says, from Hobbs's Leviathan? For I tell him, I borrowed it only from the Writers of the Four Gospels, and the Acts; and did not know that those words he quoted out of the Le∣viathan, were there, or any thing like them. Nor do I know yet any far∣ther,

• than as I believe them to be there, from his Quotation.
• 2. Whether affirming, as he does positively, this, which he could not know to be true, and is in it self per∣fectly false, were meant to encrease or lessen the Credit of the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. in the Opinion of the World? Or is consonant with his own Rule, p. 3. of putting candid Constructions on what Adversaries say? Or with what fol∣lows, in these words; The more Di∣vine the Cause is, still the greater should be the Caution. The very Discoursing about Almighty God, or our Holy Re∣ligion, should compose our Passions, and inspire us with Candour and Love. It is very indecent to handle such Sub∣jects in a manner that betrays Rancour and Spite. These are Fiends that ought to vanish; and should never mix ei∣ther with a Search after Truth, or the Defence of Religion.
• 3. Whether the Propositions which he has out of my Book, inserted into his 19th. Page, and says▪ are conso∣nant to the words of the Leviathan, were those, of all my Book, which

• were likeliest to give the Reader a true and fair Notion of the Doctrine contained in it? If they were not, I must desire him to remember and beware of his Fiends. Not but that he will find those Propositions there to be true. But that neither he nor others may mistake my Book, this is that, in short, which it says,
  • 1. That there is a Faith that makes Men Christians.
  • 2. That this Faith is the Believing Iesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah.
  • 3. That the Believing Iesus to be the Messiah, includes in it a receiving Him for our Lord and King, promised and sent from God: And so lays upon all his Subjects an absolute and indis∣ble necessity of assenting to all that they can attain, the Knowledge that he taught; and of a sincere Obedience to all that he commanded.

This, whether it be the Doctrine of the Leviathan, I know not. This ap∣pears to me out of the New Testa∣ment, from whence (as I told him in the Preface) I took it, to be the Do∣ctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles; And I would not willingly be mistaken

in it. If therefore there be any other Faith besides this absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian, I shall here again desire this Gentleman to inform me what it is, i. e. to set down all those Propositions which are so indis∣pensibly to be believed, (for 'tis of sim∣ple Believing, I perceive, the Contro∣versie runs) that no Man can be a Be∣liever, i. e. a Christian, without an Actual Knowledge of, and an Explicit Assent to them. If he shall do this with that Candour and Fairness he declares to be necessary in such Matters, I shall own my self obliged to him: For I am in earnest, and I would not be mi∣staken in it.

If he shall decline it, I, and the World too, must conclude, that upon a review of my Doctrine, he is con∣vinced of the Truth of it, and is satis∣fied that I am in the right. For it is impossible to think that a Man of that Fairness and Candour which he solemn∣ly Prefaces his Discourse with, should continue to condemn the Account I have given of the Faith which I am persuaded makes a Christian; And yet he himself will not tell me (when I

earnestly demand it of him, as desi∣rous to be rid of my Error, if it be one) what is that more, which is ab∣solutely required to be believed by every one, before he can be a Believer; i. e. what is indispensibly necessary to be known, and explicitly believed to make a Man a Christian.

Another thing which I must desire this Author to examine by those his own Rules, is, What he says of me, p. 30. where he makes me to have a Prejudice against the Ministry of the Gospel, and their Office, from what I have said, p. 260, 261, 270. of my Rea∣sonableness, &c. concerning the Priests▪ of the World, in our Saviour's time; which he calls bitter Reflections.

If he will tell me what is so bitter, in any of those Passages which he has set down, that is not true, or ought not to be said there, and give me the Rea∣son why he is offended at it; I pro∣mise him to make what Reparation he shall think fit, to the Memory of those Priests whom he with so much Good-nature Patronizes, near Seventeen Hundred Years after they have been out of the World; and is so tenderly

concerned for their Reputation, that he excepts against that, as said against them, which was not. For one of the three Places he sets down, was not spoken of Priests. But his making my mentioning the Faults of the Priests of old, in our Saviour's time, to be an Exposing the Office of the Ministers of the Gospel now, and a Vilifying those who are employed in it; I must desire him to examine, by his own Rules of Love and Candour, and to tell me, whether I have not reason here again to mind him of his FIENDS, and to advise him to beware of them? And to shew him why I think I have, I crave leave to ask him those Que∣stions.

• 1. Whether I do not all along plain∣ly, and in express words, speak of the Priests of the World, preceding, and in our Saviour's time? Nor can my Ar∣gument bear any other sence.
• 2. Whether all I have said of them be not true?
• 3. Whether the representing truly the Carriage of the Iewish, and more-especially of the Heathen Priests in our Saviour's time, as my Argument

• required, can expose the Office of the Ministers of the Gospel now? or ought to have such an Interpretation put upon it?
• 4. Whether what he says of the Ayr and Language I use reaching far∣ther, carry any thing else in it but a Declaration, that he thinks some Men's Carriage now, hath some affinity with what I have truly said of the Priests of the World before Christianity; and that therefore the Faults of those should have been let alone, or touch'd more gently, for fear some should think these now concerned in it?
• 5. Whether, in truth, this be not to accuse them with a Design to draw the Envy of it on me? Whether out of Good-will to them, or to me, or both, let him look. This I am sure, I have spoke of none but the Priests before Christianity, both Iewish and Heathen. And for those of the Iews, what our Saviour has pronounced of them, justifies my Reflections from be∣ing bitter; And that the Idolatrous Heathen Priests were better than they, I believe our Author will not say: And if he were Preaching against them, as

• opposing the Ministers of the Gospel, I suppose he would give as ill a Cha∣racter of them. But if any one ex∣tends my Words farther than to those they were spoke of, I ask whether that agrees with his Rules of Love and Candour?

I shall impatiently expect from this Author of The Occasional Paper, an An∣swer to these Questions; and hope to find them such as becomes that Tem∣per, and Love of Truth, which he pro∣fesses. I long to meet with the Man, who laying aside Party, and Interest, and Prejudice, appears in Controversie so as to make good the Character of a Champion of Truth for Truth's sake; A Character not so hard to be known whom it belongs to, as to be deserved. Whoever is truly such an one, his Op∣position to me will be an Obligation. For he that proposes to himself the convincing me of an Error, only for Truth's sake, cannot, I know, mix any Rancour, or Spite, or Ill-will, with it. He will keep himself at a distance from those Fiends, and be as ready to hear as offer Reason. And two so disposed, can hardly miss Truth between them,

in a fair Enquiry after it; at least, they will not lose Good-breeding, and espe∣cially Charity, a Vertue much more necessary than the attaining of the Knowledge of obscure Truths, that are not easie to be found; and pro∣bably, therefore, not necessary to be known.

The unbiassed Design of the Writer, purely to defend and propagate Truth, seems to me to be that alone which legitimates Controversies. I am sure, it plainly distinguishes such from all others, in their Success and Useful∣ness. If a Man, as a sincere Friend to the Person, and to the Truth, labours to bring another out of Error, there can be nothing more beautiful, nor more beneficial. If Party, Passion or Vanity direct his Pen, and have an Hand in the Controversie, there can be nothing more unbecoming, more prejudicial, nor more odious. What Thoughts I shall have of a Man that shall, as a Christian, go about to in∣form me what is necessary to be be∣lieved to make a Man a Christian, I have declared, in the Preface to my Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. nor

do I find my self yet alter'd. He that in Print finds fault with my imper∣fect Discovery of that wherein the Faith which makes a Man a Christian consists, and will not tell me what more is required, will do well to sa∣tisfie the World what they ought to think of him.

FINIS.