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 dis puting. 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 nonsense, 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 men's minds."
XXX. « That I have depraved the gospel."
XXXI. " That I have abused Christianity."
For all these three, p. 73, he affirms of me without proof and without honesty.
Whether it be from confusion of thought, or unfair ness of design; either because he has not clear distinct notions of what he would say, or finds it not to his pur pose 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 Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the promised King and Saviour: and that, upon men's believing these two articles, they were baptized and admitted into the church, i. e. received Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 307 as subjects of Christ's kingdom, and pronounced be^ lievers. From whence it unavoidably follows, that these two are the only truths necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian.
This matter of fact is so evident from the whole tenour of the four Gospels 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 concerned to give some answer to it; but, in his usual way, full of uncertainty and confusion. To clear this matter, he lays down four particulars; the first is, p. 74, u That the belieting " Jesus to be the promised Messiah, was the first step " to Christianity."
The second, p. 76, " That though this one proposi- " tion, (viz. of Jesus the Messiah) be mentioned alone " in some places, yet there is reason to think, and be " persuaded, that at the same time other matters 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 objection 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 unmasker 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 occurring, concerning the " matter before us, and for the establishing of his " wavering mind; I will here (before I pass to the se- 66 cond general head of my discourse) answer a query, " or objection, which some, and not without some " show of ground, may be apt to start: how comes it " to pass, they will say, that this article of faith, viz. " that Jesus is the Messiah, or Christ, is so often re- " peated in the New Testament? Why is this sometimes 308 A Second Vindication of the " urged, without the mentioning- of any other article of " belief? Doth not this plainly show, that this is all " that is required to be believed, as necessary to make " a man a Christian? May we not infer, from the fre- <c quent and sole repetition of this article in several " places of the evangelists and the Acts, that there is no " other point of faith of absolute necessity; but that f( this alone is sufficient to constitute a man a true " member of Christ?"
By which he shows, that he is uncertain which way to put the objection, so as may be easiest to get rid of it: and therefore he has turned it several ways, and put several questions about it. As first, " Why this article of faith," viz. that Jesus is the Messiah, " is often so repeated in the New Testament? " His next question is, " Why is this sometimes urged " without the mentioning any other article of belief? " which supposes, that sometimes other articles of belief are mentioned with it.
The third question is, " May we not infer, from the " frequent and sole repetition of this article^ in several " places of the evangelists and Acts? " Which last question is in effect, Why is this so fre quently and' alone repeated in the evangelists and the Acts? i. e. in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles to unbelievers. For of that he must give an account, if he will remove the difficulty. Which three, though put as one, yet are three as distinct questions, and demand a reason for three as distinct matters of fact, as these three are, viz. frequently proposed: some times proposed alone; and always proposed alone, in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles: for so in truth it was all through the Gospels and the Actsr 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: " That believing Jesus to be " the promised Messias," was, says he, " the first step " to Christianity." Let it be so: What do you infer Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 309 from thence? The next words show: " therefore this, " rather than any other article, was propounded to be " believed by all those, whom either our Saviour or " his apostles invited to embrace Christianity." Let your premises be ever so true, and your deduction of this proposition be ever 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 repeti tions, " Why sometimes urged alone, and why always " proposed alone, viz. to those whom either our Saviour " or his apostles invited to embrace Christianity? " And your answer is, Because the believing " Jesus to be the " Messias, was the first step to Christianity." This therefore remains upon you to be proved,, XXXII. " That, because the believing Jesus to be " the Messias is the first step to Christianity, there- " fore this article is frequently proposed in the " New Testament, is sometimes proposed without " the mentioning any other article, and always " alone to unbelievers."
And when you have proved this, I shall desire you to apply it to our present controversy.
His next answer to those questions is in these words, p. 76, " That though this one proposition, or article, be " mentioned alone in some places, yet there is reason " to think, and be persuaded, that at the same time " other matters of faith were proposed." From whence it lies upon him to make out this reasoning, viz.
XXXII I. " That because there is reason to think, " and be persuaded, that at the same time that this " one article was mentioned alone, (as it was " sometimes,) other matters of faith were pro- " posed: therefore this article was often proposed " in the New Testament; sometimes proposed " alone; and always proposed alone, in the preach- " ings of our Saviour and his apostles to unbe* *' lievers."
310 A Second Vindication of the This I set down to show the force of his answer to his questions: supposing 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 persuaded, " that at the same time other matters of faith [i. e. ar- " tides of faith necessary to be believed to make a man u a Christian] were proposed: " and I doubt not but to show the contrary.
His third particular, in answer to the question pro posed in his objection, 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;3' 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 ar ticle, that Jesus was the " Messias, was often " proposed in the New Testament, sometimes pro- " posed alone, and always proposed alone," in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles, through the history of the evangelists and the Acts.
The fourth and last particular, which he tell us is the main answer to the objection, is in these words, page 78, " That Christianity was erected by degrees."
Which requires him to make out his argument, viz.
XXXV. " That because Christianity was erected by " degrees, therefore this article, that Jesus was " the Messias, was often proposed in the New Tes- " tament, sometimes proposed alone, and always " proposed alone in the preachings of our Saviour " and his apostles to unbelievers, recorded 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.
Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 311 Of these four particulars it is, that he says, p. 74, to " clear this objection, and to give a full and satisfactory " answer to all doubts in this affair, I offer these en- " suing particulars, which will lead the reader to the " right understanding of the whole case."
How well they have cleared the objection, may be seen by barely setting them down as answers to the questions,, wherein he puts the objection.
This is all I have hitherto done; whereby is very visible, how well (supposing them true) they clear the objection: and how pertinently they are brought to answer those questions wherein his objection is con tained. Perhaps it will be said, that neither these, nor any thing else, can be an apposite answer to those ques tions put so together. I answer, I am of the same mind. But if the un masker through ignorance or shuf fling, 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 questions it does or does not lie in, I shall not trouble myself to divine; since I think he himself cannot tell: for which ever he takes of them, it will involve him in equal dif ficulties. I now proceed to examine his particulars themselves, and the truth contained in them. The first, p. 74, stands thus: 1. " The believing of Jesus to be the promised " Messias was the first step to Christianity. It was that " which made way for the embracing 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 others, equally necessary to be believed, to make a man a Christian; this is a reason why it should be constantly preached 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 mentioned. For I desire to know what those other articles are that, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, are re peated or urged besides this?
In the next place, if it be true, that this article, viz. that Jesus is the Messiah, was only the first in order amongst a great many articles, as necessary to be be- A Second Vindication of the lieved; how comes it to pass, that barely upon the proposal and believing of this, men were admitted into the church as believers? The history of the New Tes tament is full of instances of this, as Acts viii. 5, 12, 13. ix. and in other places.
Though it be true, what the unmasker says here, " That if they did not give credit to this in the first " place, that Jesus of Nazareth was that eminent and 66 extraordinary person prophesied 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 be- " lieved by all that looked towards Christianity,, and " why it is mentioned so often in the evangelical writ- " ings," is not true. For, first, this supposes that there were other articles joined with it. This he should have first proved, and then given the reason for it; and not, as he does here, suppose what is in 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 Jesus 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 system, 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 preached to the world. What did they preach? Even this single proposition to make way for the rest, viz. " This Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 313 " is the eminent man sent from God," to teach you other things: which amounts to no more but this, that Jesus was the person which was to teach them the true religion, but the true religion itself 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 preached, if it be true,, that this was all they meant by the preaching every-where, Jesus to be the Messiah, and if it were only an introduc tion, and a making way for the doctrines of the gospel. But it is plain, it was called the gospel itself. Let the unmasker, as a true successor of the apostles, go and preach the gospel, as the apostles 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 foolishly employed, if he should tell them nothing but this, that Jesus was the person promised and sent from God to reveal the true religion; but should teach them nothing of that true religion, but this preliminary article? Such the unmasker makes all the preaching, recorded in the New Testament, for the con version of the unbelieving world. He makes the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles to be no more but this, that the great prophet promised to the world was come, and that Jesus was he: but what his doctrine was, that they were silent in, and taught not one article of it. But the unmasker misrepresents it: for as to his accusing the historians, the evangelists, and writers 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 mentioned " alone in some places, yet there is reason to think, " and be persuaded, that at the same time other matters " of faith were proposed;" I shall show how bold he makes with those inspired historians, when I come to consider that particular.
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.
314 A Second Vindication of the But taking it, as in truth it is there, we shall have a quite other view of it. Our Saviour preached every where the kingdom of God; and by his miracles de clared himself to be the king of that kingdom. The apostles preached the same, and after his ascension, openly avowed him to be the Prince and Saviour pro mised: but preached not this as a bare speculative article of simple belief; but that men might receive him for their King, and become 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 religion; which when you have received and embraced all and every article thereof, which are a great number, you will then be Christians, if you be not ignorant or in credulous 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 observe the laws he has given you; and you are his subjects, you are Christians. For those that truly did so, made themselves his subjects; and to continue so, there was no more required, than a sincere endeavour to know his will in all things, and to obey it. Such a preaching as this, of Jesus 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 prepara tion to the gospel: but, when received with the obe dience 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, nobody can clear the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles from that incredible imperfection, or their historians from that unpardonable negligence, and not doing either what they ought, or what they undertook, which our un- rnasker hath so impiously charged upon them; as will appear yet plainer, in what I have to say to the un- masker'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, either on the preaching of our Saviour Reasonableness of Christianity 9 8$c. 315 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 men- " tioned alone in some places, yet there is reason to " think and be persuaded, that at the same time other " matters of faith were proposed. For it is confessed, " by all intelligent and observing men, that the histoiy " of the scripture is concise; and that in relating 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 expressly mentioned in some of the " gospels, yet we must not conclude thence, that no " other matter of faith was required 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 unmasker here keeps to his usual custom of speaking in doubtful terms. He says, that where this one article that Jesus is the Messiah, is alone recorded in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles; " We " have reason to be persuaded, that at the same time " other matters of faith were proposed/' If this be to his purpose, by matters of faith, must be meant funda mental articles of faith, absolutely necessary to be be lieved by every man to make him a Christian. That such matters of faith are omitted, in the history of the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, by the sacred historians; this, he says, " we have reason to be per- " suaded of."
Answ. They need be good reasons to persuade a ra tional 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 published to instruct the world in a new religion, leave out the ne cessary and fundamental parts of that religion. But let them be considered as inspired writers, under the con duct of the infallible Spirit of God, putting them upon, and directing them in, the writing of this history of the 316 A Second Vindication of the gospel: and then it is impossible for any Christian, but the immasker, to think, that they made any such gross omissions, contrary to the design of their writing, with out 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 spared the confes sion of intelligent and observing men, after so plain a declaration of St. John himself, chap. xx. 31, " Many " other things did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, " which are not written in this book." And again, xxi. 25, " There are also many other things that Jesus " 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 opi nion 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 omitted, 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 impudence to say, that the inspired writers, in the re lation they give us of what Christ and his apostles preached to unbelievers to convert them to the faith, omitted the fundamental articles, which those preachers proposed to make men Christians; and without a belief of which, they could not be Christians?
The unmasker talks after his wonted fashion; i. e. seems to say something, which, when examined, proves nothing to his purpose. He tells us, " That in some 6i places," where the article of " Jesus the Messiah is " mentioned alone, at the same time other matters of " faith were proposed." I ask, were these other mat ters of faith all the unmasker 's necessary articles? If not, what are those other matters of faith to the un- masker's purpose? As for example, in St. Peter's sermon, Acts ii. " Other matters of faith were proposed with " the article of Jesus the Messiah." But what does this Reasonableness of Christianity, <fyc. 317 make for his fundamental articles: were they all pro posed with the article of Jesus the Messiah? If not, un believers were converted, and brought into the church, without the un masker's necessary articles. Three thou sand 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; arid shall consider only, how long that sermon may have been. It is plain from ver. 15, that it began not until about nine in the morning; and from ver. 41, that before night three thousand were converted and bap tized. Now I ask the unmasker, Whether so small a number of hours, as Peter must necessarily employ in preaching to them, were sufficient to instruct such a mixed multitude so fully in all those articles, which he has proposed 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 unmasker'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 " Jesus the Messiah is mentioned alone, at the same " time other matters of faith were proposed:" Let us take this to be so at present, yet this helps not the un masker's case. The fundamental articles, that were proposed by our Saviour and his apostles, necessary to be believed to make men Christians, are not set down; but only this single one, of " Jesus the Messiah:" there fore, will any one dare to say 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 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 Jesus Christ? Or how can they 318 A Second Vindication of the serve to the end for which they were written? Which was to publish to the world the doctrine of Jesus Christ, that men might be brought into his religion. Now I challenge the unmasker to show me, not out of any one place, but out of all the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles, recorded in the four Gospels, and in the Acts, all those propositions which he has reckoned up as fundamental articles of faith. If they are not to be found there, it is plain, that either they are not articles of faith, necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian; or else, that those inspired writers have given us an account of the gospel, or Christian religion, where in the greatest part of the doctrines necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, are wholly omitted. Which in short is to say, that the Christianity, which is recorded in the Gospels and the Acts, is not that Chris tianity which is sufficient to make a man a Christian. This (as absurd and impious as it is) is what our un masker 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 writers 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 for- " mer treatise [i. e. his gospel] have I made, O Theo- " philus, of all that Jesus 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 necessary to make a man a Christian. It would else be a very lame and imperfect 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 unmasker hath been pleased to term it, would be a very lank faith, a very lank gospel.
St. John also says thus, of his history of the gospel, chap. xx. 30, 31, " Many other signs truly did Jesus, Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 319 " in the presence of his disciples, which are not written " in this book:" so far his history is, by his own con fession, concise. " But these," says he, " are written " that ye might believe that Jesus 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 unmasker's) enough contained in his gospel, for the procuring of eternal life, to those who believed it. And,