To convince the reader what was abfolutely required to be believed to make a man a chriftian, and thereby clear the holy writers from the unmasker's flander, any one need but look a little farther into the history of the Acts, and obferve St. Luke's method in the writing of it. In the beginning, (as we obferved before) and in fome few other places, he fets down at large the difcourses made by the preachers of chriftianity, to their unbelieving auditors. But in the process of his history, he generally contents himself to relate, what it was their difcourfes drive at; what was the doctrine they endeavoured to convince their unbelieving hearers of, to make them believers. This, we may obferve, is never omitted. This is every-where fet down. Thus, Acts v. 42, he tells us, that " daily in the temple, and in « every house, the apoftles ceafed not to teach, and to preach JESUS THE MESSIAH." The particulars of their difcourfes 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 apoftles taught and preached, and would have men believe. The account he gives us of St. Paul's preaching at Theffalonica, is this: That" three fabbath-days he REASONED With "the jews out of the fcriptures, OPENING and AL

rr

LEGING, that the Meffiah muft needs have fuffered, "and rifen again from the dead; and that Jefus was "the Meffiah; Acts xvii. 2, 3. At Corinth, that "he REASONED in the fynagogue every fabbath, and "PERSUADED the jews and the greeks, and TESTIFIED

that Jefus was the Meffiah;" xviii. 4, 5. That Apollos mightily convinced the jews, SHOWING BY "THE SCRIPTURES, that Jefus was the Meffiah;" xviii. 28.

By thefe, and the like places, we may be fatisfied what it was, that the apoftles taught and preached, even this one propofition, That Jefus was the Meffiah: for this was the fole propofition they reafoned about; this alone they teftified, and they fhowed out of the fcriptures; and of this alone they endeavoured to convince the jews and the greeks, that believed one God. Sq that it is plain from hence, that St. Luke omitted no

thing, that the apostles taught and preached; none of thofe doctrines that it was neceffary to convince unbelievers of, to make them chriftians; though he, in most places, omitted, as was fit, the paffages of fcripture which they alleged, and the arguments thofe inspired preachers used to perfuade 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 propofed, as neceffary to be believed, is from that different account he gives us of their preaching in other places, and to auditors otherwise difpofed. 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 alfo 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 Lyftrians, Acts xiv. and to the Athenians, Acts xvii. In the latter of which, St. Luke, to convince his reader, that he, out of concifenefs, omits none of those fundamental articles, that were any where proposed by the preachers of the gospel, as neceffary to be believed to make men chriftians, fets down not only the article of Jefus the Meffiah, but that alfo of the one invifible God, creator of all things; which, if any neceffary one might, this of all other fundamental articles might, by an author that affected brevity, with the faireft excufe, have been omitted, as being implied in that other, of the Meffiah ordained by God. Indeed in the ftory of what Paul and Barnabas faid at Lyftra, the article of the Meffiah is not mentioned. Not that St. Luke omitted that fundamental article, where the apoftles 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 facrificing to them. And, before we hear any more of their preaching, they were, by the inftigation of the jews, fallen upon, and Paul ftoned.

This, by the way, fhows the unmasker's mistake, in his first particular, p. 74. where he fays, (as he does here again, in the fecond particular, which we are now examining) that " believing Jefus to be the Meffiah is "the first step to chriftianity; and therefore this, " rather than any other, was propounded to be be"lieved by all thofe, whom either our Saviour, or the apoftles, invited to embrace chriftianity. The contrary whereof appears here; where the article of one God is proposed in the first place, to those whofe unbelief made fuch a propofal neceffary. And therefore, if his reafon (which he ufes again here, p. 76.) were good, viz. That the article of the Meffiah is exprefly mentioned alone, "because it is a leading arti"cle, and makes way for the reft," this reason would rather conclude for the article of one God; and that alone fhould be exprefly mentioned, inftead of the other. Since, as he argues for the other, p. 74, "they did not believe this, in the first place," viz. that there was one God, "there could be no hopes "that they would attend unto any other propofal, re

If

lating to the chriftian religion.” The vanity and falfhood of which reafoning, viz. that "the article of Jefus the Meffiah was every-where propounded, rather "than any other, because it was the leading article,” we fee in the hiftory of St. Paul's preaching to the Athenians. St. Luke mentions more than one article, where more than one was proposed by St. Paul; though the first of them was that leading article of one God, which if not received, " in the first place, there could be no hope they would attend to the reft."

Something the unmasker would make of this argument, of a leading article, for want of a better, though he knows not what. In his firft particular, p. 74, he makes use of it to fhow, why there was but that one article propofed by the firft preachers of the gofpel; and how well that fucceeds with him, we have feen. For this is demonstration, that if there were but that one propofed by our Saviour and the apostles, there was but that one neceffary to be believed to make men chriftians; unlefs he will impioufly fay, that our Saviour

Saviour and the apoftles went about preaching to no purpose: for if they propofed not all that was necessary to make men chriftians, it was in vain for them to preach, and others to hear; if when they heard and believed all that was propofed to them, they were not yet christians for if any article was omitted in the propofal, which was neceffary to make a man a christian, though they believed all that was proposed to them, they could not yet be chriftians; unless a man can, from an infidel, become a chriftian, without doing what was neceffary to make him a chriftian.

Further, if his argument, of its being a leading article, proves, that that alone was proposed, it is a contradiction to give it as a reason, why it was fet down alone by the hiftorian, where it was not propofed alone by the preacher, but other neceffary "matters of faith.

were propofed with it;" unless it can be true, that this article, of" Jefus is the Meffiah," was proposed alone by our Saviour and his apoftles, because it was a leading article, and was mentioned alone in the history of what they preached, because it was a leading article, though it were not propofed alone, but jointly with other neceffary matters of faith. For this is the ufe he makes here again, p. 76, of his leading article, under his fecond particular, viz. to fhow why the historians mentioned this neceffary article of Jefus the Meffiah alone, in places where the preachers of the gospel propofed it not alone, but with other neceffary articles. But, in this latter cafe, it has no fhow of a reafon at all. It may be granted as reasonable for the teachers of any religion not to go any farther, where they fee the firft article, which they propose is rejected; where the leading truth, on which all the reft depends, is not received. But it can be no reason at all, for an historian, who writes the hiftory of these first preachers, to fet down only the first and leading article, and omit all the reft, in inftances where more were not only propofed, but believed and embraced, and upon that the hearers and believers admitted into the church. It is not for hiftorians to put any diftinction between leading, or not leading articles; but, if they will give a true and

ufeful

ufeful account of the religion, whofe original they are writing, and of the converts made to it, they must tell, not one, but all thofe neceffary articles, upon affent to which, converts were baptized into that religion, and admitted into the church. Whoever fays otherwife, accufes them of falfifying the ftory, mifleading the readers, and giving a wrong account of the religion which they pretend to teach the world, and to preferve and propagate to future ages. This (if it were fo) no pretence of concifenefs could excufe or palliate.

There is yet remaining one confideration, which were fufficient of itfelf to convince us, that it was the fole article of faith which was preached; and that if there had been other articles neceffary to be known and believed by converts, they could not, upon any pretence of concifenefs, be fuppofed to be omitted: and that is the commiffions of thofe, that were fent to preach the gofpel. Which fince the facred hiftorians mention, they cannot be fuppofed to leave out any of the material and main heads of thofe commiffions.

St. Luke records it, chap. iv. 43, that our Saviour fays of himfelf, I must go into the other towns to "tell the good news of the kingdom; for (is tŏto)

upon this errand am I SENT.” This St. Mark calls fimply preaching, This preaching, what it contained, St. Matthew tells us, chap. iv. 23, "And Jefus went "about all Galilee, teaching in their fynagogues, and

preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing all manner of fickness and all manner of diseases έσ among the people." Here we have his commiffion, or end of his being fent, and the execution of it; both terminating in this, that he declared the good news, that the kingdom of the Meffiah was come; and gave them to understand, by the miracles he did, that he himself was he. Nor does St. Matthew feem to affect fuch concifenefs, that he would have left it out, if the gospel had contained any other fundamental parts neceffary to be believed to make men chriftians. For he here fays, "All manner of fickness, and all manner of "difeafes," when either of them might have been better

left