66

66

66

66

reason: "The epistles being writ to those who were already believers, it could not be supposed that they were writ to them, to teach them fundamentals,"

66

p. 167, Vindic. Certainly no man would have conjectured, that he would have used such an evasion as "this. I will say that for him, he goes beyond all sur"mises, he is above all conjectures, he hath a faculty "which no creature on earth can ever fathom." Thus far the unmasker, in his oratorical strain. In what follows, he comes to his closer reasoning, against what I have said. His words are," do we not know, that the "four gospels were writ to, and for believers, as well "as unbelievers?" Answ. I grant it. Now let us see your inference; therefore what these holy historians recorded, that our Saviour and his apostles said and preached to unbelievers, was said and preached to believers. The discourse which our Saviour had with the woman of Samaria, and her townsmen, was addressed to believers; because St. John writ his gospel (wherein it is recorded as a part of our Saviour's history) for believers, as well as unbelievers. St. Peter's preaching to Cornelius, and St. Paul's preaching at Antioch, at Thessalonica, at Corinth, &c. was not to unbelievers, for their conversion: because St. Luke dedicates his history of the Acts of the apostles to Theophilus, who was a christian, as the unmasker strenuously proves in this paragraph. Just as if he should say, that the discourses, which Cæsar records he had upon several occasions with the Gauls, were not addressed to the Gauls alone, but to the Romans also; because his commentaries were writ for the Romans, as well as others; or that the sayings of the ancient Greeks and Romans in Plutarch, were not spoken by them to their contemporaries only, because they are recorded by him for the benefit of posterity.

.I perused the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles to the unconverted world, to see what they taught and required to be believed, to make men christians: and all these I set down, and leave the world to judge what they contained. The epistles, which were all written to those who had embraced the faith and were all christians already, I thought would not so distinctly

show, what were those doctrines which were absolutely necessary to make men christians; they being not writ to convert unbelievers, but to build up those who were already believers, in their most holy faith. This is plainly expressed in the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. v. 11, &c. "Of whom (i. e. Christ) we have many things "to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are all dull "of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be "teachers, ye have need that one teach you again, which "be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are "become such as have need of milk, and not of strong "meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in "the word of righteousness; for he is a babe: but "strong meat belongeth to him that is full of age, even "those who by reason of use have their senses exercised, "to discern both good and bad. Therefore leaving "the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on "unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of

66

66

repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, and of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on "of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of "eternal judgment." Here the apostle shows, what was his design in writing this epistle, not to teach them the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion, but to lead them on to more perfection; that is, to greater degrees of knowledge, of the wise design, and wonderful contrivance, and carrying on of the gospel, and the evidence of it; which he makes out in this epistle, by showing its correspondence with the Old Testament, and particularly with the economy of the mosaical constitution. Here I might ask the unmasker, Whether those many things which St. Paul tells the Hebrews, he had to say of Christ, (hard to be uttered to them, because they were dull of hearing,) had not an "imme"diate respect to the occasion, author, way, means, or "issue of their redemption and salvation?" And therefore," whether they were such things, without the knowledge of which they could not be saved?" as the unmasker says of such things, p. 23. And the like I might ask him, concerning those things which the apostle tells the Corinthians, 1 epist. chap. iii. 2, that they

66

66

"were not able to bear." For much to the same purpose he speaks to the Corinthians, epist. 1. chap. iii. as in the above-cited places he did to the Hebrews: "That "he, as a wise master-builder, had laid the foundation:" and that foundation he himself tells us, is," Jesus the "Messiah;" and that there is no other foundation to be laid. And that in this he laid the foundation of christianity at Corinth, St. Luke records, Acts xviii. 4, in these words, "Paul, at Corinth, reasoned in the sy→ nagogue every sabbath-day, and testified to the jews, "that Jesus was the Messiah." Upon which foundation, he tells them, there might be a superstructure. But that, what is built on the foundation, is not the foundation, I think I need not prove. He further tells them, that he had desired to build upon this foundation; but withal says, he had fed them until then "with milk, " and not with meat; because they were babes, and had "not been able to bear it, neither were they yet able." And therefore this epistle, we see, is almost wholly spent in reproofs of their miscarriages, and in exhortations and instructions relating to practice; and very little said in it, for the explaining any part of the great mystery of salvation, contained in the gospel.

By these passages we may see (were it not evident to common sense itself, from the nature of things) that the design of these epistles was not to lay the foundations, or teach the principles of the christian religion; they being writ to those who received them, and were christians already. The same holds in all the other epistles; and therefore the epistles seemed not to me the properest parts of scripture to give us that foundation, distinct from all the superstructures built on it; because in the epistles, the latter was the thing proposed, rather than the former. For the main intention of the apostles, in writing their epistles, could not be to do what was done already; to lay down barely the foundations of christianity, to those who were christians already: but to build upon it some farther explication of it, which either their particular circumstances, or a general evidencing of the truth, wisdom, excellencies, and privileges, &c. of the

gospel required. This was the reason that persuaded me to take the articles of faith, absolutely necessary to be received to make a man a christian, only from the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles to the unconverted world, as laid down in the historical part of the New Testament and I thought it a good reason, it being past doubt, that they in their preachings proposed to the unconverted, all that was necessary to be believed, to make them christians; and also, that that faith, upon a profession whereof any one was admitted into the church, as a believer, had all that was necessary in it to make him a christian; because, if it wanted any thing necessary, he had necessarily not been admitted: unless we can suppose, that any one was admitted into the christian church by our Saviour and his apostles, who was not yet a christian; or pronounced a believer, who yet wanted something necessary to make him a believer, i. e. was a believer and not a believer, at the same time. But what those articles were which had been preached to those, to whom the epistles were writ, and upon the belief whereof they had been admitted into the christian church, and became as they are called "believers, "saints, faithful, elect," &c. could not be collected out of the epistles. This, though it were my reason, and must be a reason to every one, who would make this inquiry; and the unmasker quotes the place where I told him it was my reason; yet he, according to his nevererring illumination, flatly tells me, p. 38, that it was not; and adds, "Here then is want of sincerity," &c. I must desire him, therefore, to prove what he says, p. 38, viz.

66

XV. That," by the same argument, that I would persuade, that the fundamentals are not to be "sought for in the epistles, he can prove that they are not to be sought for in the gospels and in "the Acts; because even these were writ to those "that believed."

66

And next I desire him to prove, what he also says in the same page, viz.

66

XVI. That "the epistles being writ to those that "believed, was not an argument that I did make 66 use of."

He tells us, p. 38, that it is the argument whereby I would persuade and in the very same page, a few lines lower, says, "That it is not the argument I did make use of." Who, but an errant unmasker, would contradict himself so flatly in the same breath? And And yet, upon that, he raises a complaint of my "want of sin"cerity."

For" want of sincerity" in one of us, we need not go far for an instance. The next paragraph, p. 38-40, affords us a gross one of it: wherein the unmasker argues strongly, not against any thing I had said, but against an untruth of his own setting up. Towards the latter end of the paragraph, p. 40, he has these words: "It is manifest, that the apostles in their epistles, taught "fundamentals; which is contrary to what this gentle

46

man says, that such a thing could not be supposed." And therefore the unmasker has taken a great deal of pains to show, that there are fundamental doctrines to be found in the epistles; as if I had denied it. And to lead the reader into an opinion that I had said so, he set down these words, "could not be supposed;" as if they were my words. And so they are, but not to that purpose. And therefore he did well not to quote the page, lest the reader, by barely turning to the place, should have a clear sight of falsehood, instead of that sincerity, which he would make the reader believe is wanting in me. My words, p. 153, of "The reasonableness of

66

christianity," are, NOR CAN IT BE SUPPOSED, that "the sending of such fundamentals was the reason of "the apostles writing to any of them." And a little lower: "The epistles therefore being all written to those "that were already believers and christians, the occa"sion and end of writing them could not be, to in"struct them in that which was necessary to make "them christians." The thing then, that I denied, was not, that there were any fundamentals in the epistles. For in the next page I have these express words: