by insinuating, there were few or none such amongst us. Hence he says, that by those that are not thoroughly and firmly christians, "I mean a FEW weak christians; as well, as under those who wholly disbelieve, he left the theist 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 christianity amongst us. But if there be not a great number of deists, and that the preventing their increase be not worth every true christian's care and endeavours, those who have been so 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 say, as I did before, that I chiefly designed my book; and shall not be ashamed of this sophistry, as you call it, if it can be sophistry 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 myself. And I shall 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 christians are agreed in; " and that I observed that command of the apostle, "Rom. xiv. 1, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations; " without being "a socinian. I think I did not amiss, that I offered to "the belief of those that stood off, that, and only that, "which our Saviour and his apostles preached for the "reducing the unconverted world. And would any one "think, he in earnest went about to persuade men to be "christians, who should use that as an argument to re“commend the gospel, which he has observed men to lay hold on as an objection against it? To urge such

66

66

66

points of controversy as necessary articles of faith, "when we see our Saviour and the apostles urged them "not as necessary to be believed to make men christians, "is (by our own authority) to add prejudices to pre"judices, and to block up our own way to those men, "whom we would have access to and prevail upon."

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

pose; that the reader may see how fully the unmasker has answered it.

66

Because, I said "Would any one blame my prudence, "if I mentioned only those advantages which all chris"tians are agreed in?" the unmasker adds, p. 44, "so"cinian christians: " and then, as if the naming of that had gained him his point, he goes on victoriously thus: "He has bethought himself better, since he first pub"lished his notions, and (as the result of that) he now begins to resolve what he writ into prudence. I "know whence he had this method, (and it is likely he "has taken more than this from the same hands,) viz. "from the missionary jesuits, that went to preach the gospel to the people of China. We are told, that they "instructed them in some matters relating to our Sa"viour; they let them know that Jesus was the Messias, the person promised to be sent into the world: "but they concealed his sufferings and death, and they "would not let them know any thing of his passion and "crucifixion. So our author (their humble imitator) "undertakes to instruct the world in christianity, with "an omission of its principal articles; and more espe

66

66

66

cially that of the advantage we have by Christ's "death, which was the prime thing designed in his "coming into the world. This he calls prudence: so "that to hide from the people the main articles of the "christian religion, to disguise the faith of the gospel, "to betray christianity itself, is, according to this ex"cellent writer, the cardinal virtue of prudence. May "we be delivered then, say I, from a prudential raco"vian." 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 set a going, he runs on like an alarum, always in the same strain of noisy, empty declamation, (wherein every thing is supposed, and nothing proved,) till his own weight has brought him to the ground and then, being wound up with some 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 distance in our different ways of writing, I shall show the reader, that I say not this at random; but that the place affords me occasion to say so. He begins this paragraph with these words, p. 42, "Let us hear farther, what this vindicator says "to excuse his rejection of the doctrines contained in "the epistles." This rejection of the doctrines contained in the epistles, was the not mentioning the satisfaction of Christ, amongst those advantages I showed that the world received by his coming. This appears by the words he here quotes, as my excuse for that omission. In which place I also produced some passages in my book, which sounded like it, some words of scripture, that are used to prove it; but this will not content him: I am for all that, a "betrayer of christianity, and " contemner of the epistles." Why? because I did not, out of them, make satisfaction. If you will have the truth of it, sir, there is not any such word in any one of the epistles, or other books of the New Testament, in my bible, as satisfying, or satisfaction made by our Saviour; and so I could not put it into my "Christianity as delivered in the Scripture." If mine be not a true bible, I desire you to furnish me with one that is more orthodox; or, if the translators have "hid "that main article of the christian religion," they are the betrayers of christianity, and contemners of the " epistles," 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 scripture, or to the fundamental articles of the christian religion.

66

"

But you will say, satisfaction, though not named in the epistles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. Answ. And so it may out of several places in my "Rea"sonableness of christianity," some whereof, which I took out of the gospels, I mentioned in my vindication, p. 163, 164, and others of them, which I took out of the epistles, I shall point out to you now: as p. 41, I say, the design of our Saviour's coming was to be ofFERED-up; and p. 84, I speak of the work of our REDEMPTION: Words, which in the epistles, are taken to

imply satisfaction. And therefore if that be enough, I see not, but I may be free from betraying christianity; but if it be necessary to name the word Satisfaction, and he that does not so is a betrayer of christianity, you will do well to consider, how you will acquit the holy apostles from that bold imputation; which if it be extended as far as it will go, will scarce come short of blasphemy: for I do not remember, that our Saviour has any-where named satisfaction, or implied it plainer in any words, than those I have quoted from him; and he, I hope, will escape the intemperance of your tongue.

66

You tell me, I had my "prudence from the mission"ary jesuits in China, who concealed our Saviour's sufferings and death, because I undertake to instruct the "world in christianity, with an omission of its principal "articles." And I pray, sir, from whom did you learn your prudence, when, taking upon you to teach the fundamental doctrines of christianity, in your " Thoughts "concerning the causes of atheism," you left out several, that you have been pleased since to add in your "Socinianism unmasked? Or, if I, as you say here, betray christianity by this omission of this principal article; what do you, who are a professed teacher of it, if you omit any principal article, which your prudence is so wary in, that you will not say you have given us all that are necessary to salvation, in that list you have last published? I pray, who acts best the jesuit, (whose humble imitator, you say, I am,) you or I ? when, pretending to give a catalogue of fundamentals, you have not reduced them to direct propositions, but have left some of them indefinite, to be collected as every one pleases: and instead of telling us it is a perfect catalogue of fundamentals, plainly shuffle it off, and tell me, p. 22, “If "that will not content me, you are sure you can do no"thing that will: if I require more, it is folly in you to "comply with me?" One part of what One part of what you here say, Down to you, savours not much of the skill of a jesuit. You confess 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 sure

you can do nothing that will content me," or any

reasonable man that shall demand of you a complete 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 same treatise, where he so severely condemns the imperfection of my list of fundamentals, confesses 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 christian religion; I disguise the faith of the gos

pel, betray christianity itself, and imitate the jesuits "that went to preach the gospel to the people of China, "by my omission of its principal or main articles."

66

Answ. I know not how I disguise the faith of the gospel, &c. in imitation of the jesuits 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 disguising the faith of the gospel, a betraying of christianity, and imitating the jesuits." Besides, sir, if one may ask you, In what school did you learn that prudent wariness and reserve, which so eminently appears, p. 24, of your "Socinianism unmasked," in these words: "These articles" (meaning those which you had before enumerated as fundamental articles) “ of faith, 66 are such as must IN SOME MEASURE be known and "assented to by a christian, such as must GENERALLY "be received and embraced by him?" You will do well the next time, to set down, how far your fundamentals must be known, assented to, and received; to avoid the suspicion, that there is a little more of jesuitism in these expressions, "in some measure known and assented to, " and generally received and embraced;" than what becomes a sincere protestant preacher of the gospel. For your speaking so doubtfully of knowing and assent. ing to those, which you give us for fundamental doctrines, which belong (as you say) to the very essence of christianity, will hardly escape being imputed to your want of knowledge, or want of sincerity. And indeed, the word "general," is in familiar use with you, and stands you in good stead, when you would say some