, whether it was that one article that he here sets down, viz. That Jesus was the Messiah, or that set of articles which the immasker gives us, I shall leave to this mo dern 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 show them to me in St. John's gospel, or else to convince the world, that St. John was mistaken, when he said, that he had written his gospel, that men might believe that "Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God; " and that^ believing, they might have life through 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, recording the discourses of our Saviour and his apostles, omitted all the other fun damental articles proposed by them to be believed to make men Christians, but this one, that Jesus 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, not to be found in any one of them. If every one of them con tains the gospel of Jesus Christ, and consequently all things necessary to salvation, whether this will not be a new ground of accusation against me, and give the im masker 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 sovereign authority to determine.
Having showed 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 320 A Second Vindication of the what truth there is in what he here pretends, viz. that though the one article, That Jesus is the Messiah, be mentioned " alone in some places, yet we have reason " to be persuaded, from the conciseness of the " scrip ture history, that there were, at the same time, joined with it other necessary articles of faith, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles.
It is to be observed, that the unrnasker builds upon this false supposition, that in some places, other neces sary articles of faith, joined with that of Jesus the Messiah, are by the evangelists mentioned to be pro posed by our Saviour and his apostles, as necessary to be believed to make those they preached to Christians. For his saying, that in some places, that " one neces- " sary article is mentioned alone," implies, that in other places it is not mentioned alone, but joined with other necessary articles. But then it will remain upon him to show, XXXVI. " In what place, either of the Gospels or " of the Acts, other articles of faith are joined " with this, and proposed as necessary to be be- " lieved to make men Christians."
The unmasker, it is probable, will tell us, that the article of Christ's resurrection is sometimes joined with this of the Messiah, as particularly in that first sermon of St. Peter, Acts ii. by which there were three thou sand added to the church at one time. Ansvv. This sermon, well considered, will explain to us both the preaching of the apostles; what it was that they pro posed to their unbelieving auditors, to make them chris- tians; and also the manner of St. Luke's recording their sermons. It is true, that here are delivered by St. Peter many other matters of faith, besides that of Jesus being the Messiah; for all that he said, being of divine authority, is matter of faith, and may not be disbeliev ed. The first part of his discourse is to prove to the Jews, 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 Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 321 Ghost; and that this was the pouring1 out of the Spirit, prophesied of by the prophet Joel. This is all matter of faith, and is written, that it might be believed: but yet I think, that neither the unmasker, nor any body else will say, that this is such a necessary article of faith, that no man could, without an explicit belief of it, be a Christian; 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 proposed, 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 proposed. But yet I do not think any one so unreasonable as to say, that every proposition in the New Testament is a fundamental article of faith, which is required explicitly to be believed to make a man a Christian.
Here now is a matter of faith joined, in the same sermon, with this fundamental article, that " Jesus 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 contained in the unmasker 's catalogue of necessary articles. 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, proposed 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 unfaithfulness, 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 mak ing his system the Christianity necessary, and only ne cessary to be received.
The next thing that St. Peter proceeds to, in this his sermon, is, to declare to the unbelieving jews that Jesus of Nazareth, who had done miracles amongst them, y A Second Vindication of the 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 crucifixion, death, and re surrection, 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 proposed, as a part of divine revelation. But that these were not here proposed to the unbelieving jews, 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 persuade them of this fundamental truth, viz. that Jesus 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 immediate a connection with the o o conclusion, that you cannot deny it, without denying even what is inferred from it, and is therefore the fitter to be an argument to prove it. But that our Saviour's crucifixion,, death, and resurrection, were used here as arguments to persuade them into a belief of this funda mental article, that Jesus was the Messiah, and not as propositions of a new faith they were to receive, is evi dent from hence, that St. Peter preached here to those who knew the death and crucifixion of Jesus as well as he; and therefore these could not be proposed to them, as new articles of faith to be believed; but those matters of fact being what the jews knew already, were a good argument, joined with his resurrection, to convince them of that truth, which he endeavoured to give them a belief of. And therefore 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 Jesus, 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 convince them of; this the Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 323 faith he endeavoured to bring- them into; which as soon as they had received with repentance, they were by baptism admitted into the church, and three thousand at once were made Christians.
Here St. Luke's own confession, without that " of in- " telligent and observing men," which the unmasker has recourse to, might have satisfied him again, " that " in relating matters of fact, many passages were omit- " ted by the sacred penmen/' For, says St. Luke here, ver. 40, " And with many other words," which are not set down.
One would, at first sight, wonder why the unmasker neglects these demonstrative authorities of the holy pert- meri themselves, where they own their omissions, to tell us, that it is " confessed by all intelligent and ob- " serving men, that in relating matters of fact, many " passages were omitted by the sacred penmen." St. John, 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 directly against him, and what he would have: and therefore he had reason to pass them by. For St. John, in that passage above cited, chap. xx. 30, 31, tells us, that how much soever he had left out of his history, he had inserted that which was enough to be believed to eternal life: " but these are written, that ye might be- " lieve, and believing, 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 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," and that, believing this, we " might have life through his name." This may serve as a key to us, in reading the history of the New Testament; and show us why this article, that Jesus was the Messiah, is no- where omitted, though a great part of the arguments used, to convince men of it, nay, very often the whole discourse, made to lead men into the belief of it, be intirely omitted.
324 A Second Vindication of the The Spirit of God directed them everywhere 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 mistaken: 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 writ ings, whereof that infallible Spirit was the author. This preserved the decorum used in all histories, and avoided those continual, large, and unnecessary repeti tions, which our critical unmasker might have called tedious, with juster reason than he does the repetition of this short proposition, that Jesus is the Messiah; which I set down no oftener in my book, than the Holy Ghost thought fit to insert it in the history of the New Testament, as concise as it is. But this, it seems to our nice unmasker, is " tedious, tedious and offensive." And if a Christian, and a successor of the apostles, can not bear the being so often told, what it was that our Saviour and his apostles every-where preached to the believers of one God, though it be contained in one short proposition; what cause of exception arid 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 discourses of the apostles, all of them every where to the same purpose, viz. to persuade men to be lieve, that Jesus was the Messiah? It was necessary, even by the laws of history, as often as their preaching any where was mentioned, to tell to what purpose they spoke; which being always to convince men of this one fundamental truth, it is 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 constant repetition of them had been superfluous, and consequently might justly have been blamed as " tedious." But there is enough recorded abundantly to convince any rational man, any one riot wilfully 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 Reasonableness of Christianity > &;c. 325 than such as became prudent, as well as faithful writers. Much less did that conciseness (with which the uiimasker would cover his bold censure of the Gospels and the Acts, and, as it seems, lay them by with contempt) make the holy writers omit any thing, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, absolutely 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 unbelieving jews. But in most other places, unless it be where there was something particular in the circumstances of the matter, he contents himself to tell to what purpose they spoke: which was every where only this, that Jesus was the Messiah. Nay, St. Luke, in the first speech of St. Peter, Acts ii. 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 Jesus was the Messiah, and recorded several of the arguments wherewith St. Peter urged it, for the conversion of the unbelieving jews, his auditors, he adds, ver. 40, " And " with many other words did he testify and exhort, " saying, Save yourselves from this untoward genera " tion." Here he confesses, that he omitted a great deal which St. Peter had said to persuade them, To what? To that which, in other words, he had just said before, ver. 38, " Repent and be baptized every one of you in " the name of Jesus Christ," i. e. Believe Jesus to be the Messiah, take him as such for your Lord and King, and reform your lives by a sincere resolution of obe dience to his laws.
Thus we have an account of the omissions in the re cords 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 believed 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 think3 that " the corruption " and degeneracy of human nature, with the true " original of it, (the defection of our first parents,) the 326 A Second Vindication of the " propagation of sin and mortality, our restoration and " reconciliation by Christ's blood, the eminency and " excellency of his priesthood, the efficacy of his death, " the full satisfaction thereby made to divine justice, " and his being made an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, " our justification by Christ's righteousness, election, " adoption," &c. were all proposed, and that too, in the sense of our author's system, by our Saviour and his apostles, as fundamental articles of faith, necessary to be explicitly believed by every man, to make him a Christian, in all their discourses to unbelievers; and yet that the inspired penmen of those histories every-where left the mention of these fundamental articles wholly out? This would have been to have writ, not a concise, but an imperfect history of all that Jesus and his apostles taught.
What an account would it have been of the gospel, as it was first preached and propagated, if the greatest 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 be lieved to make a man a Christian? And yet this is that, which, under the notion of their being concise, the un- masker would persuade us to have been done by St. Luke and the other evangelists, in their histories. And it is no less than what he plainly says, in his " Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," p. 109, where, to aggravate my fault, in passing by the epistles, and to show the necessity of searching in them for fundamen tals, he in words blames me; but in effect condemns the sacred history contained 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 epistolary writings of the apostles, " because they are fraught with other fundamental " doctrines,, besides that one which he mentions. 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 grand heads, as he calls them, some whereof I have above set down out Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 327 of him, he adds, " These are the matters of faith con- " tained 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 discovered nor contained in the historical writings of the evangelists: whereby he confesses, that either our Saviour and his apostles did not propose them in their preachings to their unbelieving hearers; or else, that the several faithful writers of their history, wilfully, i. e. unfaith fully, 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 smother the greatest and most material parts of our Saviour's and his apostles 'discourses. For what else did they, if all that the unmasker has set down in his list be fundamental doctrines; every one of them absolutely necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, which our Saviour and his apostles every-where preached, to make men Christians? but yet St. Luke, and the other evangelists, by a very guilty and unpardonable conciseness, every where omitted them, and throughout their whole history, never once tell us, they were so much as pro posed, much less, that they were those articles which the apostles laboured to establish and convince 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? Flow, 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 fun damentals out of the epistles had that guilt in it. For I never denied all the fundamental doctrines to be there, but only said, that there they were not easy to be found out, and distinguished from doctrines not fundamental. Whereas our good unmasker charges the historical books of the New Testament with a total omission of the far greatest part of those fundamental doctrines of Christianity, which he says, are absolutely necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian.
328 A Second Vindication of the 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 un masker's slander, any one need but look a little farther 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 dis courses made by the preachers of Christianity, to their unbelieving auditors. But in the process of his history, he generally contents himself to relate* what it was their discourses drive at; what was the doctrine they endea voured to convince their unbelieving hearers of, to make them believers. This we may observe, 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 JESUS 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 preached, and would have men believe. The account he gives us of St. Paul's preaching at Thessalonica, is this: That " three sabbath-days he REASONED with " the jews 'out of the scriptures, OPENING and AL- " LEGiNGj that the Messiah must needs have suffered,, " and risen again from the dead; and that Jesus was " the Messiah; Acts xvii. 2, 3. At Corinth, that he " REASONED in the synagogue every sabbath, and PER- " SUADED the jews and the Greeks, and TESTIFIED " that Jesus was the Messiah; " xviii. 4, 5. That " Apollos mightily convinced the jews, SHOWING BY " THE SCRIPTURES, that Jesus was the Messiah; " xviii. 28.
By these, and the like places, we may be satisfied what it was, that the apostles taught and preached, even this one proposition, That Jesus was the Messiah: for this was the sole proposition they reasoned about; this alone they testified, and they showed out of the scrip tures; and of this alone they endeavoured to convince the jews and the Greeks, that believed one God. So that it is plain from hence, that St. Luke omitted no- Reasonableness of Christianity ', <§*c< 329 thing, that the apostles taught and preached; none of those doctrines that it was necessary to convince unbe lievers of, to make them Christians; though he, in most places, omitted, as was fit, the passages of scripture which they alleged, and the arguments those inspired preachers used to persuade men to believe and embrace that doctrine.
Another convincing argument, to show that St. Luke omitted none of those fundamental doctrines, which the apostles any-where proposed as necessary to be believed, is from that different account he gives us of their preaching in other places, and to auditors otherwise disposed. 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 proposed also the article of the one invisible God, maker of heaven and earth: and this we find recorded in him out of their preaching to the Lystrians, Acts xiv. and to the Athenians, Acts xvii. In the latter of which St. Luke, to convince his reader, that he, out of con ciseness, omits none of those fundamental articles, that were any-where proposed by the preachers of the gospel, as necessary to be believed to make men Christians, sets down not only the article of Jesus the Messiah, but that also of the one invisible God, creator of all things; which, if any necessary one might, this of all other fun damental articles might, by an author that affected 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 ed. Not that St. Luke omitted that fundamental arti cle, where the apostles taught it: but, they having here begun their preaching with that of the one living- God, they had not, as appears, time to proceed farther, and propose to them what yet remained to make them Christians: all that they could do, at that time, was, to hinder the people from sacrificing to them. And, be fore we hear any more of their preaching, they were, by the instigation of the jews, fallen upon, and Paul stoned.