"the great doctrines of the chriftian faith aré dropt here "and there, and fcattered up and down in most of "them." And therefore he might have fpared his endeavours, in the next paragraph, to prove, that there may be fundamentals found in the epiftles, until he finds fome body that denies it. And here again, I must repeat my ufual queftion, that with this fincere writer is fo often neceffary, viz.

XVII. Where it is that I fay, "That it cannot be fuppofed, that there are fundamental articles in "the epiftles?"

If he hopes to shift it off by the word Taught, which feems fallaciously put in; as if he meant, that there were fome fundamental articles taught, neceffary to be believed to make them chriftians, in the epiftles, which those whom they were writ to, knew not before: in this fenfe I do deny it: and then this will be the

XVIIIth propofition remaining upon him to prove,

viz.

"That there are fundamental articles neceffary to be "believed to make a man a chriftian taught in the epiftles, which thofe, whom they were writ to, "knew not before."

The former part of his next paragraph, p. 40, runs thus: Hear another feigned ground of his omitting. "the epiftles, viz. because the fundamental articles are "here promifcuoufly, and without diftinction, mixed " with other truths," p. 41. " But who fees not, that

this is a mere elution? For on the fame account he "might have forborn to fearch for fundamental articles. "in the gofpels; for they do not lie there together, bu:

are difperfed up and down. The doctrinal and hifto"rical parts are mixed with one another, but he pre"tends to fever them. Why then did he not make a

Сс

feparation between the doctrines in the epiftles, and "thofe other matters that are treated of there? He has

"nothing

"nothing to reply to this, and therefore we must again "look upon what he has fuggefted, as a caft of his fhuf"fling faculty."

The argument contained in thefe words is this: A man cannot well diftinguish fundamental from non-fundamental doctrines in the epiftles, where they are promifcoufly mixed with non-fundamental doctrines: therefore he cannot well diftinguish fundamental doctrines from others in the gofpels, and the Acts, where they are mixed with matters of fact. As if he fhould fay, one cannot well diftinguish a bachelor of divinity from other divines, where feveral of them ftand together promifcuously in the fame habit; therefore one cannot diftinguish a bachelor of divinity from a Billingfgate orator, where they stand together in their diftinct habits: or that it is as easy to diftinguish fine gold from that of a little lower allay, where feveral pieces of each are mixed together; as it is to diftinguifh pieces of fine gold from pieces of filver, which they are mixed amongst.

But it seems, the unmafker thinks it as eafy to diftinguish between fundamental and not fundamental doctrines, in a writing of the fame author, where they are promifcuoufly mixt together, as it is to diftinguish between a fundamental doctrine of faith, and a relation of a matter of fact, where they are intermixedly reported in the fame history. When he has proved this, the unmafker will have more reafon to tax me with elufion, fhuffling, and feigning, in the reafon I gave for not collecting fundamentals out of the epiftles. Until then, all that noise must stand amongst thofe ridiculous airs of triumph and victory which he fo often gives himself, without the leaft advantage to his caufe, or edification of his reader, though he fhould a thoufand times say, "That I have nothing to reply.”

"That

In the latter part of his paragraph, he fays, "neceffary truths, fundamental principles, may be diftinguished from thofe that are not fuch, in the epiftolary writings, by the nature and importance of them, "by their immediate refpect to the author and the means "of our falvation." Anfw. If this be fo, I defire him to give me a definitive collection of fundamentals out of

&

the Epiftles, as I have given one out of the Gofpels and the Acts. If he cannot do that, it is plain, he hath here given a diftinguishing mark of fundamentals, by which he himself cannot diftinguish them. But yet I am the fhuffler.

The argument in the next paragraph, p. 41, is

this:

Neceffary doctrines of faith, fuch as God abfolutely "demands to be believed for juftification, may be dif"tinguished from rules of holy living, with which they "are mixed in the epiftles; therefore doctrines of faith "neceffary, and not neceffary to be believed to make a "man a chriftian, may be diftinguished, as they stand "mixed in the epiftles." Which is as good fenfe as to fay, lambs and kids may easily be diftinguished in the fame penn, where they are together, by their different natures: therefore the lambs I abfolutely demand of you, as neceffary to fatisfy me, may be diftinguished from others in the fame penn, where they are mixed without any diftinction. Doctrines of faith, and precepts of practice, are as diftinguishable as doing and believing; and those as easily difcernible one from another, as thinking and walking: but doctrinal propofitions, all of them of divine revelation, are of the fame authority, and of the fame fpecies, in refpect of the neceffity of believing them; and will be eternally undiftinguishable into neceffary, and not neceffary to be believed, until there be fome 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 diftinguishable in the epiftles, yet it does not follow from thence, that fundamental and not fundamental doctrines, points necessary and not neceffary to be believed to make men chriftians, are easily distinguishable in the epiftles. Which, therefore, remains to be proved: and it remains incumbent upon him,

XVIII. "To fet down the marks, whereby the doc"trines, delivered in the epiftles, may eafily and

exactly

"exactly be diftinguifhed into fundamental, and
not fundamental articles of faith."

All the rest of that paragraph, containing nothing against me, must be bound up with a great deal of the like ftuff, which the unmasker has put into his book, to fhow the world he does not "imitate me in imperti

nencies, incoherences, and trifling excurfions," as he boafts in his first paragraph. Only I fhall defire the reader to take the whole paffage concerning this matter, as it ftands in my "Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity," p. 154. "I do not deny but the great doctrines of "the chriftian faith are dropt here and there, and scat"tered up and down in most of them. But it is not "in the epiftles we are to learn what are the funda"mental articles of faith, where they are promifcuously, " and without distinction, mixed with other truths and difcourfes, which were (though for edification indeed, yet) only occafional. We fhall find and difcern "thofe great and neceffary points beft, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, to those who were yet ftrangers and ignorant of the faith, to bring them, in, and convert them to it." And then let him read thefe words, which the unmasker has quoted out of them: "It is not in the epiftles, that we are to learn "what are the fundamental articles of faith; they were "written for the refolving of doubts, and reforming of

rr

mistakes;" with his introduction of them in these words: "he commands the reader not to stir a jot fur"ther than the Acts." If I fhould ask him where that command appears, he inuft have recourfe to his old fhift, that he did not mean as he faid, or elfe ftand convicted of a malicious untruth. An orator is not bound to speak ftrict truth, though a difputant be. But this unmarker's writing against me will excufe him from being of the latter: and then why may not falfhoods pass for rhetorical flourishes, in one who hath been used to popular haranguing; to which men are not generally fo fevere as strictly to examine them, and expect that they should always be found to contain nothing but precife truth and ftrict reasoning? But yet I must not forget to put

S 3

upon

1

upon his fcore this other propofition of his, which he has, p. 42, and afk him to show,

XIX. "Where it is that I command my reader 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. It is pity the Mishna, out of which he takes his good breeding, as it told him, that "a well-bred and well"taught man anfwers to the firft, in the first place," had not given him this rule too, about order, viz. That proving fhould go before condemning; elfe all the fierce exaggerations ill language can heap up, are but empty fcurrility. But it is no wonder that the Jewish doctors fhould not provide rules for a chriftian divine, turned unmafker. For where a caufe is to be maintained, and a book to be writ, and arguments are not at hand, yet fomething must be found to fill it; railing in fuch cafes is much easier than reasoning, 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 faith to "excufe his rejection of the doctrines contained in the

epiftles, and his putting us off with one article of "faith." And then he quotes thefe following words of mine: "What if the author defigned his treatise, as "the title fhows, chiefly for those who were not yet thoroughly and firmly chriftians: purpofing to work upon thofe, who either wholly difbelieved, or doubted "of the truth of the christian religion?"

Anfw. This, as he has put it, is a downright falfhood. For the words he quotes were not ufed by me, " to ex"cufe my rejection of the doctrines contained in the epiftles," or to prove there was but one article; but as a reafon why I omitted the mention of fatisfaction. To demonftrate this, I fhall fet down the whole paffage, as it is, p. 163, 164, of my Vindication, where it runs thus:

But what will become of me that I have not mentioned fatisfaction?

2.

" Poffibly