the great doctrines of the Christian faith are dropped here and there, and scattered up and down in most of them." And therefore he might have spared his endeavours, in the next paragraph, to prove that there may be fundamentals found in the epistles, until he finds somebody that denies it. And here again I must repeat my usual question, that with this sincere writer is so often necessary, viz.

XVII. Where it is that I say, "That it cannot be supposed, that there are fundamental articles in the epistles ?"

If he hopes to shift it off by the word Taught, which seems fallaciously put in; as if he meant, that there were some fundamental articles taught, necessary to be believed to make them Christians, in the epistles, which those whom they were writ to knew not before: in this sense I do deny it: and then this will be the

XVIIIth proposition remaining upon him to prove,

viz.

"That there are fundamental articles necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian taught in the epistles, which those, whom they were writ to, knew not before."

The former part of his next paragraph, p. 40, runs thus: "Hear another feigned ground of his omitting the epistles, viz. because the fundamental articles are here promiscuously, and without distinction, mixed with other truths," p. 41. "But who sees not, that this is a mere elusion? For on the same account he might have forborn to search for fundamental articles in the Gospels; for they do not lie there together, but are dispersed up and down. The doctrinal and historical parts are mixed with one another, but he pretends to sever them. Why then did he not make a separation between the doctrines in the epistles, and those other matters that are treated of there? He has nothing

to reply to this, and therefore we must again look upon what he has suggested as a cast of his shuffling faculty."

The argument contained in these words is this: A man cannot well distinguish fundamental from non-fundamental doctrines in the epistles, where they are promiscuously mixed with non-fundamental doctrines: therefore he cannot well distinguish fundamental doctrines from others in the Gospels, and the Acts, where they are mixed with matters of fact. As if he should say, one cannot well distinguish a bachelor of divinity from other divines, where several of them stand together promiscuously in the same habit; therefore one cannot distinguish a bachelor of divinity from a Billingsgate orator, where they stand together in their distinct habits: or that it is as easy to distinguish fine gold from that of a little lower allay, where several pieces of each are mixed together, as it is to distinguish pieces of fine gold from pieces of silver, which they are mixed amongst.

But it seems, the unmasker thinks it as easy to distinguish between fundamental and not fundamental doctrines, in a writing of the same author, where they are promiscuously mixed together, as it is to distinguish between a fundamental doctrine of faith, and a relation of a matter of fact, where they are intermixedly reported in the same history. When he has proved this, the unmasker will have more reason to tax me with elusion, shuffling, and feigning, in the reason I gave for not collecting fundamentals out of the epistles. Until then, all that noise must stand amongst those ridiculous airs of triumph and victory which he so often gives himself, without the least advantage to his cause, or edification of his reader, though he should a thousand times say, "That I have nothing to reply."

"That

In the latter part of his paragraph he says, necessary truths, fundamental principles, may be distinguished from those that are not such, in the epistolary writings, by the nature and importance of them, by their immediate respect to the author and the means of our salvation." Answ. If this be so, I desire him

to give me a definitive collection of fundamentals out of the Epistles, as I have given one out of the Gospels and the Acts. If he cannot do that, it is plain, he hath here given a distinguishing mark of fundamentals, by which he himself cannot distinguish them. But yet I am the shuffler.

The argument in the next paragraph, p. 41, is this: Necessary doctrines of faith, such as God absolutely demands to be believed for justification, may be distinguished from rules of holy living, with which they are mixed in the epistles; therefore doctrines of faith necessary, and not necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, may be distinguished, as they stand mixed in the epistles." Which is as good sense as to say, lambs and kids may easily be distinguished in the same pen, where they are together, by their dif ferent natures: therefore the lambs I absolutely demand of you, as necessary to satisfy me, may be distinguished from others in the same pen, where they are mixed without any distinction. Doctrines of faith, and precepts of practice, are as distinguishable as doing and believing; and those as easily discernible one from another as thinking and walking: but doctrinal propositions, all of them of divine revelation, are of the same authority, and of the same species, in respect of the necessity of believing them; and will be eternally undistinguishable into necessary, and not necessary to be believed, until there be some other way found to distinguish them, than that they are in a book, which is all of divine revelation. Though therefore doctrines of faith, and rules of practice, are very distinguishable in the epistles, yet it does not follow from thence, that fundamental and not fundamental doctrines, points necessary and not necessary to be believed to make men Christians, are easily distinguishable in the epistles. Which, therefore, remains to be proved: and it remains incumbent upon him,

XVIII. "To set down the marks, whereby the doctrines, delivered in the epistles, may easily and

exactly be distinguished into fundamental, and not fundamental articles of faith."

All the rest of that paragraph, containing nothing against me, must be bound up with a great deal of the like stuff, which the unmasker has put into his book, to show the world he does not "imitate me in impertinencies, incoherences, and trifling excursions," as he boasts in his first paragraph. Only I shall desire the reader to take the whole passage concerning this matter, as it stands in my Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 154, "I do not deny but the great doctrines of the Christian faith are dropped here and there, and scattered up and down in most of them. But it is not in the epistles we are to learn what are the fundamental articles of faith, where they are promiscuously, and without distinction, mixed with other truths and discourses, which were, (though for edification indeed, yet) only occasional. We shall find and discern those great and necessary points best, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, to those who were yet strangers and ignorant of the faith, to bring them in, and convert them to it." And then let him read these words, which the unmasker has quoted out of them: "It is not in the epistles that we are to learn what are the fundamental articles of faith; they were written for the resolving of doubts, and reforming of mistakes;" with his introduction of them in these words: "he commands the reader not to stir a jot further than the Acts." If I should ask him where that command appears, he must have recourse to his old shift, that he did not mean as he said, or else stand convicted of a malicious untruth. An orator is not bound to speak strict truth, though a disputant be. But this unmasker's writing against me will excuse him from being of the latter and then why may not falsehoods pass for rhetorical flourishes, in one who hath been used to popular haranguing; to which men are not generally so severe as strictly to examine them, and expect that they should always be found to contain nothing but precise truth and strict reasoning? But yet I must not forget to put

upon his score this other proposition of his, which he has, p. 42, and ask him to show,

XIX. "Where it is that I command my reader not to stir a jot farther than the Acts ?"

In the next two paragraphs, p. 42-46, the unmasker is at his natural play, of declaiming without proving, It is pity the Mishna, out of which he takes his good breeding, as it told him, that "a well-bred and welltaught man answers to the first, in the first place," had not given him this rule too, about order, viz. That proving should go before condemning; else all the fierce exaggerations ill language can heap up, are but empty scurrility. But it is no wonder that the Jewish doctors should not provide rules for a Christian divine, turned unmasker. For where a cause is to be maintained, and a book to be writ, and arguments are not at hand, yet something must be found to fill it; railing in such cases is much easier than reasoning, especially where a man's parts lie that way.

The first of these paragraphs, p. 42, he begins thus: "But let us hear further what this vindicator saith to excuse his rejection of the doctrines contained in the epistles, and his putting us off with one article of faith." And then he quotes these following words of mine: "What if the author designed his treatise, as the title shows, chiefly for those who were not yet thoroughly and firmly Christians: purposing to work upon those, who either wholly disbelieved, or doubted of the truth of the Christian religion ?"

Answ. This, as he has put it, is a downright falsehood. For the words he quotes were not used by me, "to excuse my rejection of the doctrines contained in the epistles," or to prove there was but one article; but as a reason why I omitted the mention of satisfaction.

To demonstrate this, I shall set down the whole passage, as it is, p. 163, 164, of my Vindication, where it runs thus:

"But what will become of me that I have not mentioned satisfaction?