fee not, but I may be free from betraying chriftianity; but if it be neceffary to name the word Satisfaction, and, he that does not fo, is a betrayer of chriftianity, you will do well to confider, how you will acquit the holy apoftles from that bold imputation; which if it be extended as far as it will go, will fcarce come fhort of blafphemy: for I do not remember, that our Saviour has any where named fatisfaction, or implied it plainer in any words, than thofe I have quoted from him; and he, I hope, will escape the intemperance of your tongue.

r

You tell me, I had my "prudence from the miffionary jefuits in China, who concealed our Saviour's fuffer"ings and death, because I undertake to inftruct the "world in chriftianity, with an omiffion of its principal "articles." And I pray, fir, from whom did you learn your prudence, when, taking upon you to teach the fundamental doctrines of chriftianity, in your "Thoughts "concerning the Caufes of Atheism," you left out feveral, that you have been pleafed fince to add in your "Socinianism unmasked?" Or, if I, as you say here, betray christianity by this omiflion of this principal article; what do you, who are a profeffed teacher of it, if you omit any principal article, which your prudence is fo wary in, that you will not fay you have given us all that are neceffary to falvation, in that lift you have last published? I pray, who acts beft the jefuit, (whofe humble imitator, you fay, I am) you or I? when, pretending to give a catalogue of fundamentals, you have not reduced them to direct propofitions, but have left fome of them indefinite, to be collected as every one pleases: and instead of telling us it is a perfect catalogue of fundamentals, plainly fhuffle it off, and tell me, p. 22, "If: "that will not content me, you are fure you can do no

thing that will: if I require more, it is folly in you "to comply with me?" One part of what you here fay, I own to you, favours not much of the skill of a jefuit. You confefs 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 fure, you can do nothing that will content me," or any reasonable man that shall demand of you a complete catalogue

catalogue of fundamentals. But you make it up pretty well, with a confidence becoming one of that order. For he must have rubbed his forehead hard, who in the fame treatise, where he fo feverely condemns the imperfection of my lift of fundamentals, confeffes that he cannot give a complete catalogue of his own.

You publish to the world in this 44th, and the next page, that "I hide from the people the main articles of the chriftian religion; I disguise the faith of the gofpel, betray christianity itself, and imitate the jefuits "that went to preach the gospel to the people of China, by my omiffion of its principal or main articles."

"

Anfw. I know not how I disguise the faith of the gofpel, &c. in imitation of the jefuits 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 difguifing the faith of the gofpel, a betraying of chriftianity, and imitating the jefuits." Befides, fir, if one may afk you, In what fchool did you learn that prudent warinefs and referve, which fo eminently appears, p. 24, of your "Socinianifm unmasked," in thefe words: "Thefe "articles" (meaning those which you had before enumerated as fundamental articles) of faith, "are fuch as must

IN SOME MEASURE be known and affented to by a "chriftian, fuch as muft GENERALLY be received and "embraced by him?" You will do well the next time, to fet down, how far your fundamentals must be known, affented to, and received; to avoid the fufpicion, that there is a little more of jefuitifm in thefe expreffions, "in fome measure known and affented to, and gene

rally received and embraced;" than what becomes a fincere proteftant preacher of the gofpel. For your fpeaking fo doubtfully of knowing and affenting to thofe, which you give us for fundamental doctrines, which belong (as you fay) to the very effence of christianity, will hardly escape being imputed to your want of knowledge, or want of fincerity. And indeed, the word "general," is in familiar ufe with you, and stands you in good stead, when you would fay fomething, you

know

know not what; as I fhall have occafion to remark to you, when I come to your 91ft page.

Further, I do not remember where it was, that I mentioned or undertook to fet down all the "principal or "main articles of christianity." To change the terms of the queftion, from articles neceffary to be believed to make a man a chriftian, into principal or main articles, looks a little jefuitical. But to pass by that: the apoftles, when they "went to preach the gospel to peo"ple," as much strangers to it as the Chinese were, when the Europeans came firft amongst them, "Did "they hide from the people the main articles of the "christian religion, difguife the faith of the gofpel, and "betray christianity itself?" If they did not, I am fure I have not for I have not omitted any of the main articles, which they preached to the unbelieving world. Thofe I have fet down, with fo much care, not to omit any of them, that you blame me for it more than once, and call it tedious. However you are pleafed to acquit or condemn the apoftles in the cafe, by your fupreme determination, I am very indifferent. If you think fit to condemn them for "r difguifing or betraying the "chriftian religion," because they said no more of satisfaction, than I have done, in their preaching at first, to their unbelieving auditors, jews or heathens, to make them, as I think, chriftians, (for that I am now speaking' of) I fhall not be forry to be found in their company, under what cenfure foever. If you are pleafed graciously to take off this your cenfure from them, for this omiffion, I fhall claim a fhare in the fame indulgence.

But to come to what, perhaps, you will think yourself a little more concerned not to cenfure, and what the apostles did fo long fince; for you have given inftances of being very apt to make bold with the dead: Pray tell me, does the church of England admit people into the church of Chrift at hap-hazard? Or without propofing and requiring a profeffion of all that is neceffary to be believed to make a man a chriftian? If fhe does not, I defire you to turn to the baptifm of thofe of riper years in our liturgy: where the priest, afking the con

vert

vert particularly, whether he believes the apostles creed, which he repeats to him; upon his profeffion that he does, and that he defires to be baptized into that faith, without one word of any other articles, baptizes him; and then declares him a christian in these words: "We "receive this perfon into the congregation of Christ's "flock, and fign him with the fign of the cross, in to"ken that he fhall not be afhamed-to CONTINUE "Chrift's faithful foldier and fervant." In all this there is not one word of fatisfaction, no more than in my book, nor fo much neither. And here I ask you, Whether for this omiffion you will pronounce that the church of England difguifes the faith of the gospel? However you think fit to treat me, yet methinks you fhould not let yourself loose fo freely against our first reformers and the fathers of our church ever fince, as to call them "Betrayers of christianity itself;" because they think not fo much neceffary to be believed to make a man a chriftian, as you are pleafed to put down in your articles; but omit, as well as I, your "main article of "fatisfaction.”

Having thus notably harangued upon the occafion of my faying, "Would any one blame my prudence?" and thereby made me a "focinian, a jefuit, and a betrayer of "christianity itself," he has in that anfwered all that fuch a mifcreant as I do, or can fay; and fo paffes 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 defign in printing my "Reasonableness of Chriftianity."

In the next paragraph, p. 45, in anfwer to the words of St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 1, "Him that is weak in the faith "receive ye, but not to doubtful difputations;" which I brought as a reason, why I mentioned not fatisfaction amongst the benefits received by the coming of our Saviour; becaufe, as I tell him in my Vindication, p. 164,

my Reasonablenefs of Chriftianity," as the title fhows, "was defigned chiefly for those who were not yet thoroughly or firmly chriftians." He replies, and I defire him to prove it,

XX. "That

XX. "That I pretend a defign of my book, which "was never fo much as thought of, until I was "folicited by my brethren to vindicate it."

All the reft in this paragraph, being either nothing to this place of the Romans, or what I have answered elfewhere, needs no farther answer.

The next two paragraphs, p. 46-49, are meant for an answer to fomething I had faid concerning the apoftles creed, upon the occafion of his charging my book with focinianifm. They begin thus:

This "author of the new chriftianity" [Anfw. This new christianity is as old as the preaching of our Saviour and his apoftles, and a little older than the unmasker's fyftem] "wifely objects, that the apoftles creed hath

none of thofe articles which I mention," p. 591, &c. Anfw. If that author wifely objects, the unmasker would have done well to have replied wifely. But for a man wifely to reply, it is in the first place requifite, that the objection be truly and fairly fet down in its full force, and not reprefented fhort, and as will beft serve the answerer's turn to reply to. This is neither wife nor honest and this first part of a wife reply the unmasker has failed in. This will appear from my words, and the occafion of them. The unmasker had accused my book of focinianifm, for omitting fome points, which he urged as neceffary articles of faith. To which I. answered, That he had done fo only "to give it an ill "name, not because it was focinian; for he had no

more reason to charge it with focinianifm, for the "omiffions he mentions, than the apoftles creed." These are my words, which he fhould have either fet down out of p. 67, which he quotes, or at leaft given the objection, as I put it, if he had meant to have cleared it by a fair anfwer. But he, instead thereof, contents himself that " I object, that the apoftles creed hath "none of thofe articles and doctrines which the un"masker mentioned." Anfw. This at best is but a part of my objection, and not to the purpose which I there meant, without the reft joined to it; which it has pleased