Poffibly this reverend gentleman 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 ftrained here the other way. For the author of the "Reasonablenefs of Chriftianity, &c." is of neceffity to be reprefented as a foci"nian; or elfe 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 fufpicions as this gentleman, might be apt to argue. But what if the author defigned his treatife, as the title fhows, chiefly for "thofe who were not yet thoroughly or firmly christians; propofing to work on thofe, who either wholly difbe"lieved, or doubted of the truth of the chriftian religion?"

To this he tells me, p. 43, that my " title fays nothing for me," i. e. fhows not that I defigned my book for thofe that difbelieved, or doubted of the chriftian religion.

Anfw. I thought that a title that profeffed the reafonablenefs of any doctrine, fhowed it was intended for those that were not fully fatisfied of the reafonableness of it; unlefs books are to be writ to convince thofe of any thing, who are convinced already. But poffibly this may be the unmafker's way: and if one fhould judge by his manner of treating this fubject, with declamation inftead of argument, one would think, that he meant it for no body but those who were of his mind already. I thought, therefore, "the Reasonablenefs of Chriftianity, as delivered in the Scripture," a proper title to fignify whom it was chiefly meant for: and, I thank God, I can with fatisfaction fay, it has not wanted its effect upon fome of them. But the unmafker proves for all that, that I could not defign it chiefly for difbelievers or doubters, of the chriftian religion. "For,

fays he, p. 43, how thofe that wholly difregard and "difbelieve the fcriptures of the New Teftament, as "gentiles, jews, mahometans, and atheifts do," (I crave leave to put in theifts, instead of atheists, for a

reafon presently to be mentioned) "are like to attend to the Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in "the Scripture, is not to be conceived: and therefore

we look upon this as all mere fham and fophiftry." Anfw. Though the unmafker teaches good breeding out of the Mishna, yet I thought he had been a minifter of the gospel, and had taught chriftianity out of the fcripture. Why! good fir, would you teach jews and mahometans chriftianity out of the talmud and alcoran; because they are the books that at prefent 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 afide the fcripture? Is it not to be conceived," no not by a chriftian divine, that the way to make unbelievers christians, is to fhow them the reasonablenefs of the religion contained in the fcriptures? But it seems the unmasker has a peculiar way of preaching and propagating christianity without the fcripture; as fome men have a peculiar way of difputing without reafon.

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 thofe that wholly difbelieve, "I must mean "atheifts, turks, jews, and pagans; and by those that

are not firmly chriftians, a few weak chriftians. But did our unmafker never hear of unbelievers, under a denomination diftinct from that of atheists, turks, jews, and pagans? Whilft the pulpit and the prefs have fo often had up the name of theifts or deifts, has that name wholly efcaped him? It was these I chiefly defigned, and I believe, nobody of all that read my Vindication, but the unmasker, mistook me, if he did. But there at least, p. 165, he might have found the name, as of a fort of unbelievers not unknown amongst us. But, whatever he thought, it was convenient, and a fort of prudence in him (when he would perfuade others, that I had not a defign, which I fay I had) to leffen as much as he could, and cover the need of any fuch defign; and fo make it, that I could not intend my book to work upon those that disbelieved, or did not firmly believe;

by infinuating, there were few or none fuch amongst us. Hence he fays, that by thofe that are not thoroughly and firmly chriftians, "I mean a FEW weak chriftians;" as well, as under those who wholly difbelieve, he left the theifts 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 chriftianity amongst us. But if there be not a great number of deifts, and that the preventing their increase be not worth every true chriftian's care and endeavours, those who have been fo 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 fay, as I did before, that I chiefly defigned my book; and fhall not be afhamed of this fophiftry, as you call it, if it can be fophiftry to allege a matter of fact that I know; until you have arguments to convince me, that you know my intention in publishing it, better than I do myfelf. And I fhall think it still no blameable prudence, however you exclaim against prudence, (as perhaps you have some reason) that "I mentioned only "those advantages, that all chriftians are agreed in; "and that I obferved that command of the apoftle, "Rom. xiv. I, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful difputations;" without being. a focinian.. I think I did not amifs, that I offered to "the belief of those that stood off, that, and only that, "which our Saviour and his apoftles preached for the

reducing the unconverted world. And would any one "think, he in earnest went about to perfuade men to be "chriftians, who fhould ufe that as an argument to recommend the gofpel, which he has obferved men to lay hold on as an objection against it? To urge fuch points of controverfy as neceffary articles of faith, "when we see our Saviour and the apoftles urged them "not as neceffary to be believed to make men chriftians, "is (by our own authority) to add prejudices to pre"judices, and to block up our own way to thofe men, "whom we would have accefs to, and prevail upon."

I have repeated this again out of the 164th page of my Vindication, where there is more to the fame pur

pose;

pofe; that the reader may fee how fully the unmasker has answered it.

Because, I faid, "Would any one blame my prudence, " if I mentioned only those advantages, which all chrif<<tians are agreed in?" the unmafker adds, p. 44, "so"cinian chriftians:" and then, as if the naming of that had gained him his point, he goes on victoriously thus: "He has bethought himself better, fince he first pub<lifhed his notions, and (as the refult of that) he now

begins to refolve what he writ into prudence. I know "whence he had this method, (and it is likely he has "taken more than this from the fame hands) viz. from "the miffionary jefuits, that went to preach the gofpel to the people of China. We are told, that they inftructed them in fome matters relating to our Saviour; they let them know that Jefus was the Meffias, the perfon promifed to be fent into the world: but they "concealed his fufferings and death, and they would "not let them know any thing of his paffion and cruci"fixion. So our author (their humble imitator) un"dertakes to inftruct the world in chriftianity, with arr " omiffion of its principal articles; and more especially "that of the advantage we have by Chrift's death, which "was the prime thing defigned in his coming into the "world. This he calls prudence: fo that to hide from "the people the main articles of the chriftian religion, "to disguise the faith of the gofpel, to betray chriftianity * itself, is, according to this excellent writer, the cardinal virtue of prudence. May we be delivered then, fay I, from a prudential racovian.” And there ends the rattling for this time; not to be outdone by any piece of clock-work in the town. When he is once fet a going, he runs on like an alarum, always in the fame. ftrain of noify, empty declamation, (wherein every thing is fuppofed, and nothing proved) till his own weight has brought him to the ground: and then, being wound up with fome new topic, 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 diftance in our different

ways

rr

ways of writing, I fhall fhow the reader, that I fay not this at random; but that the place affords me occafion to fay fo. He begins this paragraph with these words, P. 42, "Let us hear farther, what this vindicator says "to excufe his rejection of the doctrines contained in "the epiftles." This rejection of the doctrines contained in the epiftles, was the not mentioning the fatisfaction of Chrift, amongst thofe advantages I fhowed that the world received by his coming. This appears by the words he here quotes, as my excufe for that omiffion. In which place, I alfo produced fome paffages in my book, which founded like it, fome words of fcripture that are used to prove it; but this will not content him : I am, for all that, a "betrayer of chriftianity, and contemner of the epiftles." Why? Because I did not, out of them, name fatisfaction. If you will have the truth of it, fir, there is not any fuch word in any one of the epiftles, or other books of the New Testament, in my bible, as fatisfying, or fatisfaction made by our Saviour; and fo I could not put it into my Christianity "as delivered in the Scripture." If mine be not a true bible, I defire you to furnish me with one that is more orthodox; or, if the tranflators have "hid that main "article of the christian religion," they are the "be"trayers of chriftianity, and contemners of the epiftles," 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 fcripture, or to the fundamental articles of the chriftian religion.

But you will fay, fatisfaction, though not named in the epiftles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. Anfw. And fo it may out of feveral places in my "Rea"fonablenefs of Chriftianity," fome whereof, which F took out of the gospels, I mentioned in my Vindication, p. 163, 164, and others of them, which I took out of the epiftles, I fhall point out to you now: as p. 41, F fay, the defign of our Saviour's coming was to be onFERED up; and p. 84. I fpeak of the work of our REDEMPTION; words, which in the epiftles, are taken to imply fatisfaction. And therefore if that be enough, I

I

fee