MY Book had not been long out, before it fell under the Correction of the Author of a Treatise, Entituled, Some Thoughts concerning the several Causes and Occa­sions of Atheism, especially in the pre­sent Age. No contemptible Adversary I'le assure you; since, as it seems, he has got the Faculty to heigthen every thing that displeases him into the Ca­pital Crime of Atheism; And breaths against those who come in his way a [Page 2] Pestilential Air, whereby every the least Distemper is turned into the Plague, and becomes Mortal. For who­ever does not just say after Mr. Ed's. cannot 'tis evident escape being an A­theist, or a promoter of Atheism. I can­not but approve of any ones Zeal to Guard and Secure that great and Funda­mental Article of all Religion and Mora­lity, That there is a God: But Atheism being a Crime, which for its Madness as well as Guilt, ought to shut a Man out of all Sober and Civil Society, should be very warily charged on any one by deductions and Consequences which he himself does not own, or at least do not manifestly and unavoidably flow from what he asserts. This Caution, Charity, I think, obliges us to: And our Author would possibly think him­self hardly dealt with, if, for neglect­ing some of those Rules he himself gives, p. 31. & 34. against Atheism, he should be pronounced a promoter of it: As rational a Charge, I imagine, as some of those he makes; And as fitly put together, as the Treatise of the Rea­sonableness of Christianity, &c. brought in among the causes of Atheism. However [Page 3] I shall not much complain of him, since he joyns me, p. 104. with no worse Company than two Eminently Pious and Learned Bp. Tay­lor, and the Author of The Naked Truth. Prelates of our Church, whom he makes favourers of the same Conceit, as he calls it. But what has that Conceit to do with Atheism? Ve­ry much. That Conceit is of Kin to Socinianism, and Socinianism to Athe­ism. Let us hear Mr. Ed's. himself. He says, p. 113. I am all over Socinianized: and therefore my Book fit to be placed among the Causes of Atheism. For in the 64. and following Pages, he en­deavours to shew, That a Socinian is an Atheist, or lest that should seem harsh, one that favours the Cause of Atheism, p. 75. For so he has been pleased to mollifie, now it is published as a Treatise, what was much more harsh, and much more confident in it, when it was Preached as a Sermon. In this abatement he seems a little to comply with his own Advice against his fourth Cause of A­theism; which we have in these words, pag. 34. Wherefore that we may effectu­ally prevent this folly in our selves, let us banish Presumption, Confidence, and [Page 4] Self-conceit; let us extirpate all Pride and Arrogance: Let us not List our selves in the Number of Caprioious Opiniators.

I shall leave the Socinians them­selves to answer his Charge against them, and shall Examine his Proof of my being a Socinian. It stands thus, pag. 112. When he[?] [the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c.] proceeds to mention the Advantages and Benefits of Christ's coming into the World, and appearing in the Flesh, he hath not one Syllable of his satisfying for us, or by his Death purchasing Life or Salva­tion, or any thing that sounds like it. This and several other things shew that he is all over Socinianized. Which in effect is, that because I have not set down all that this Author perhaps would have done, therefore I am a So­cinian. But what if I should say, I set down as much as my Argument re­quired, and yet am no Socinian? Would he from my silence and omission give me the Lye, and say, I am one? Sur­mizes that may be over-turned by a single denial, are poor Arguments, and such as some Men would be ashamed [Page 5] of: At least, if they are to be permit­ted to Men of this Gentleman's Skill and Zeal, who knows how to make a good use of Conjectures, Suspicions, and Uncharitable Censures in the Cause of God; yet even there too (if the Cause of God can need such Arts) they require a good Memory to keep them from recoiling upon the Author. He might have taken notice of these words in my Book, pag. 107. ‘From this estate of Death Jesus CHRIST RESTORES all Mankind to Life.’ And a little lower, ‘The Life which Jesus Christ restores to all Men.’ And p. 205. ‘He that hath incurred Death for his own Transgression, cannot LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR ANOTHER, as our Saviour pro­fesses he did.’ This methinks SOUNDS SOMETHING: LIKE Christ's purchasing Life for us by his Death. But this Reverend Gentleman has an An­swer ready; It was not in the place he would have had it in: It was not where I mention the Advantages and Benefits of Christ's coming. And there­fore, I not having one Syllable of Christ's Purchasing Life and Salvation [Page 6] for us by his Death, or any thing that sounds like it; this, and several other things that might be offered, shew that I am all over Socinianized. A very clear and ingenuous Proof, and let him enjoy it.

But what will become of me, that I have not mentioned Satisfaction!

Possibly this Reverend Gentleman would have had Charity enough for a known Writer of the Brotherhood, to have found it by an Inuendo in those words above quoted, of laying down his Life for another. But every thing is to be strained here the other way. For the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. is of necessity to be represented as a Socinian; or else his Book may be read, and the Truths in it, which Mr. Ed's. likes not, be received, and People put upon ex­amining. Thus one, as full of Happy Conjectures and Suspicions as this Gen­tleman, might be apt to Argue. But what if the Author designed his Trea­tise, as the Title shews, chiefly for those who were not yet throughly or firmly Christians; proposing to work on those who either wholly disbelieved [Page 7] or doubted of the truth of the Chri­stian Religion? Would any one blame his Prudence, if he mentioned only those Advantages which all Christians are agreed in? Might he not remem­ber and observe that Command of the Apostle, Rom. 14. 1. Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubt­ful disputations, without being a Soci­nian? Did he amiss, that he offered to the belief of those who 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 perswade Men to be Christians, who should use that as an Argument to re­commend the Gospel, which he has observed Men to lay hold on as an Ob­jection against it? To urge such Points of Controversie as necessary Articles of Faith, when we see our Saviour and the Apostles in their Preaching urged them not as necessary to be believed, to make Men Christians, is (by our own Authority) to add Prejudices to Pre­judices, and to block up our own way to those Men whom we would have access to, and prevail upon. But some [Page 8] Men had rather you should write Booty, and cross your own design of removing mens Prejudices to Christia­nity, than leave out one tittle of what they put into their Systems. To such I say; Convince but Men of the Mis­sion of Jesus Christ; make them but see the Truth, Simplicity, and Reaso­nableness of what he himself Taught, and required to be believed by his Fol­lowers; and you need not doubt, but, being once fully perswaded of his Do­ctrine, and the Advantages which all Christians agree are received by him, such Converts will not lay by the Scriptures; but by a constant Reading and Study of them, get all the Light they can from this Divine Revelation; and nourish themselves up in the words of Faith, and of good Doctrin, as St. Paul speaks to Timothy. But some Men will not bear it, that any one should speak of Religion, but according to the Model that they themselves have made of it. Nay, though he proposes it upon the very Terms, and in the very Words which our Saviour and his Apostles preached it in, yet he shall not escape Censures, and the severest [Page 9] Insinuations. To deviate in the least, or to omit any thing contained in their Articles, is Heresie under the most in­vidious Names in fashion, and 'tis well if he escapes being a down-right Atheist. Whether this be the way for Teach­ers to make themselves hearkened to, as Men in earnest in Religion, and re­ally concerned for the Salvation of mens Souls, I leave them to consider. What success it has had towards per­swading Men of the Truth of Christia­nity, their own Complaints of the pre­valency of Atheism on the one hand, and the Number of Deists on the o­ther, sufficiently shew.

Another thing laid to my Charge, p. 105. & 107. is my forgetting, or ra­ther wilful omitting some plain and ob­vious Passages, and some Famous Te­stimonies in the Evangelists; namely, Mat. 28. 19. Go teach all Nations, bap­tizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And Iohn 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And verse 14. And the Word was made Flesh. Mine it seems in this Book, are all sins of Omission. [Page 10] And yet when it came out, the buz, and flutter, and noise which was made, and the Reports which were raised, would have perswaded the World that it sub­verted all Morality, and was designed against the Christian Religion. I must confess Discourses of this kind, which I met with spread up and down, at first amazed me; knowing the sincerity of those Thoughts which perswaded me to publish it, (not without some hope of doing some Service to decaying Piety, and mistaken and slandered Christianity.) I satisfied my self a­gainst those Heats with this assurance, that if there was any thing in my Book, against what any one called Re­ligion, it was not against the Religion contained in the Gospel. And for that I appeal to all Mankind.

But to return to Mr. Ed's in particular, I must take leave to tell him, that if omitting plain and obvi­ous Passages, and famous Testimonies in the Evangelists, be a fault in me, I wonder why he, among so many of this kind that I am guilty of, mentions so few. For I must acknowledge I have omitted more, nay, many more, that [Page 11] are plain and obvious Passages, and fa­mous Testimonies in the Evangelists, than those he takes notice of. But if I have left out none of those Passages or Testimonies which contain what our Saviour and his Apostles preached, and required assent to, to make men Belie­vers, I shall think my Omissions (let them be what they will) no faults in the present case. What ever Doctrines Mr. Edwards would have to be belie­ved, if they are such as our Saviour and his Apostles required to be believed to make a Man a Christian, he will be sure to find them in those Preachings and Famous Testimonies of our Saviour and his Apostles that I have quoted. And if they are not there, he may rest satisfied, that they were not proposed by our Saviour and his Apostles, as neces­sary to be believed, to make Men Christ's Disciples.

If the Omission of other Texts in the Evangelists (which are all true al­so, and no one of them to be disbelie­ved) be a fault, it might have been expected that Mr. Edwards should have accused me for leaving out Mat. 1. 18. to 23. and Mat. 17. 24. 35. 50. 60. [Page 12] for these are plain and obvious Passages, and famous Testimonies in the Evange­lists; and such whereon these Articles of the Apostles Creed, viz. Born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, are founded. These being Articles of the Apostles Creed, are look'd upon as Fundamental Doctrines: And one would wonder why Mr. Edwards so quietly passes by their Omission; did it not appear that he was so intent on fixing his Imputation of Socinianism upon me, that rather than miss that, he was con­tent to drop the other Articles of his Creed. For I must observe to him, that if he had blamed me for the O­mission of the places last quoted out of St. Matthew (as he had as much reason as for any other) it would planily have appeared how idle and ill-grounded his charging Socinianism on me was. But at any rate he was to give the Book an ill Name. Not because it was Socinian. For he has no more reason to charge it with Socinianism for the Omissions he mentions, than the Apostles Creed. 'Tis therefore well for the Compilers of that Creed, that [Page 13] they lived not in Mr. Edwards's days: For he would no doubt have found them all over Socinianized, for omitting the Texts he quotes, and the Doctrines he collects out of Ioh. 1. & Ioh. 14. p. 107, 108. Socinianism then is not the fault of the Book, whatever else it be. For I repeat it again, there is not one word of Socinianism in it. I that am not so good at Conjectures as Mr. Edwards, shall leave it to him to say; or to those who can bear the plainness and simpli­city of the Gospel, to guess, what its fault is.

Some Men are shrewd guessers, and others would be thought to be so: But he must be carried far by his forward Inclination, who does not take notice, that the World is apt to think him a Diviner, for any thing rather than for the sake of Truth, who sets up his own Suspicions against the direct Evidence of things; and pretends to know other mens Thoughts and Reasons bet­ter than they themselves. I had said, that the Epistles being writ to those who were already Believers, could not be supposed to be writ to them to [Page 14] teach them Fundamentals, without which they could not be Believers.

And the Reason I gave why I had not gone through the Writings in the Epistles, to Collect the Fundamental Articles of Faith, as I had through the Preachings of our Saviour and his A­postles, was, Because those Fundamen­tal Articles were in those Epistles pro­miscuously, and without distinction, mixed with other Truths. And there­fore we shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preachings, of our Saviour and the A­postles, to those who were yet igno­rant of the Faith, and unconverted. This, as far as I know my own thoughts, was the reason why I did (as Mr. Ed­wards complains, p. 109.) not proceed to the Epistles, and not give an Account of them, as I had done of the Gospels and Acts. This I imagined I had in the close of my Book so fully and clearly expressed, particularly p. 125. that I supposed no body, how willing soever, could have mistaken me. But this Gentleman is so much better ac­quainted with me than I am with my self; sees so deeply into my Heart, and [Page 15] knows so perfectly every thing that passes there; that he with assurance tells the World, p. 109. That I purposely omitted the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles, because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines beside that one which I mention. And then he goes on to enumerate those Funda­mental Articles, p. 110, 111. viz. The Corruption and Degeneracy of Humane Nature, with the true Original of it (the Defection of our first Parents) the Propagation of Sin and Mortality, our Restoration and Reconciliation by Christ's Blood, the Eminency and Excellency of his Priesthood, the Efficacy of his Death, the full Satisfaction made there­by to Divine Iustice, and his being made an All sufficient Sacrifice for Sin. Christ's Righteousness, our Iustification by it, Election, Adoption, Sanctification, Sa­ving Faith, The Nature of the Gospel, The New Covenant, The Riches of God's Mercy in the way of Salvation by Iesus Christ, The certainty of the Resurre­ction of Humane Bodies, and of the fu­ture Glory.

Give me leave now to ask you se­riously whether these, which you [Page 16] have here set down under the Title of Fundamental Doctrines, are such (when reduced to Propositions) that every one of them is required to be believed to make a Man a Christian, and such, as without the actual belief thereof, he cannot be saved. If they are not so every one of them, you may call them Fundamental Doctrines as much as you please, they are not of those Doctrines of Faith I was speak­ing of, which are only such as are re­quired to be actually believed to make a Man a Christian. If you say, some of them are such necessary Points of Faith, and others not, you by this spe­cious List of well-sounding, but un­explained terms arbitrarily collected, only make good what I have said, viz. That the necessary Articles of Faith are in the Epistles promiscuously deli­vered with other Truths, and there­fore they cannot be distinguished but by some other mark than being barely found in the Epistles. If you say, that they are all of them necessary Articles of Faith, I shall then desire you to reduce them to so many plain Do­ctrines, and then prove them to be [Page 17] every one of them required to be be­lieved by every Christian Man to make him a Member of the Christian Church. For to begin with the first, 'tis not enough to tell us, as you do, that the Corruption and Degeneracy of Humane Nature, with the true Original of it, (the Defection of our first Parents) the Propagation of Sin and Mortality, is one of the great Heads of Christian Divinity. But you are to tell us what are the Propositions we are re­quired to believe concerning this mat­ter: For nothing can be an Article of Faith, but some Proposition; and then it will remain to be proved, that these Articles are necessary to be believed to Salvation. The Apostles Creed was taken, in the first Ages of the Church, to contain all things necessary to Sal­vation; I mean, necessary to be be­lieved: But you have now better thought on it, and are pleased to en­large it, and we, no doubt, are bound to submit to your Orthodoxy.

The List of Materials for his Creed (for the Articles are not yet formed) Mr. Ed's. closes, p. 111. with these words: These are the Matters of Faith contained [Page 18] in the Epistles, and they are Essential and Integral parts of the Gospel it self. What, just these? Neither more nor less? If you are sure of it, pray let us have them speedily, for the Recon­ciling of Differences in the Christian Church, which has been so cruelly torn about the Articles of the Chri­stian Faith, to the great Reproach of Christian Charity, and Scandal of our true Religion.

Mr. Ed's. having thus, with two learned Terms of Essential and Integral Parts, sufficiently proved the Matter in Que­stion, viz. That all those, he has set down, are Articles of Faith necessary to be believed to make a Man a Chri­stian, he grows warm at my omission of them. This I cannot complain of as unnatural: The Spirit of Creed-ma­king always arising from an heat of Zeal for our own Opinions, and warm Endeavours, by all ways possible to de­cry and bear down those who differ in a tittle from us. What then could I expect more gentle and candid, than what Mr. Ed's. has subjoyned in these words? And therefore it is no wonder, that our Author, being sensible of this [Page 19] (viz. That the Points he has named were Essential and Integral parts of the Go­spel) would not vouchsafe to give us an Abstract of those inspired Writings [the Epistles] but passes them by with some Contempt. Sir, when your Angry Fit is over, and the abatement of your Passion has given way to the return of your Sincerity, I shall beg you to read this passage in 297 pag. of my Book. ‘These Holy Writers ( viz. the Pen­men of the Scriptures) INSPIRED from above, writ nothing but Truth, and in most places very weighty Truths to us now, for the expound­ing, clearing, and confirming of the Christian Doctrine; and establishing those in it who had embraced it.’ And again, pag. 299. ‘The other parts of DIVINE REVELATION are Objects of Faith, and are so to be received. They are Truths, of which none that is once known to be such, i. e. revealed, may or ought to be disbelieved.’ And if this does not satisfie you that I have as high a Ve­neration for the Epistles, as you or any one can have, I require you to publish to the World those passages which [Page 20] shew my Contempt of them. In the mean time I shall desire my Reader to examine what I have writ concerning the Epistles, which is all contained be­tween p. 290 and 301 of my Book; And then to Judge, whether I have made bold with the Epistles in what I have said of them, or this Gentleman made bold with Truth in what he has writ of me. Humane Frailty will not, I see, easily quit its hold; What it loses in one part, it will be ready to regain in another; and not be hindred from taking Re­prizals, even on the most Priviledged sort of Men. Mr. Ed's. who is en­trenched in Orthodoxy, and so is as safe in Matters of Faith almost as In­fallibility it self, is yet as apt to Err as others in Matter of Fact.

But he has not yet done with me about the Epistles: All his fine Draught of my slighting that part of the Scrip­ture will be lost, unless the last strokes compleat it into Socinianism. In his following words you have the Conclu­sion of the whole Matter. His words are these. And more especially, if I may Conjecture, (by all means, Sir; Conjecturing is your proper Talent; [Page 21] you have hitherto done nothing else; And I will say that for you, you have a lucky Hand at it.) He doth this, (i. e. pass by the Epistles with Contempt) because he knew that there are so ma­ny and frequent, and those so illustri­ous and eminent Attestations to the Doctrine of the ever to be adored Trinity, in these Epistles. Truly, Sir, if you will permit me to know what I know, as well as you do allow your self to conjecture what you please, you are out for this once. The Rea­son why I went not through the Epi­stles, as I did the Gospels and the Acts, was that very Reason I printed, and that will be found so sufficient a one to all considerate Readers, that I be­lieve they will think you need not strain your Conjectures for another. And if you think it be so easie to di­stinguish Fundamentals from not Fun­damentals in the Epistles, I desire you to try your Skill again, in giving the World a perfect Collection of Propo­sitions out of the Epistles, that con­tain all that is required, and no more than what is absolutely required to be believed by all Christians, without [Page 22] which Faith they cannot be of Christ's Church. For I tell you, notwithstand­ing the shew you have made, you have not yet done it, nor will you affirm that you have.

His next Page, viz. 112. is made up of the same, which he calls, Not Uncharitable Conjectures. I ex­pound, he says, Iohn 14. 9. &c. after the Antitrinitarian Mode: And I make Christ and Adam to be Sons of God, in the same sense, and by their Birth, as the Racovians generally do. I know not but it may be true, that the Antitrinitarians and Racovians under­stand those places as I do: But 'tis more than I know that they do so. I took not my sense of those Texts from those Writers, but from the Scripture it self, giving Light to it's own mean­ing, by one place compared with ano­ther: What in this way appears to me its true meaning, I shall not decline, because I am told, that it is so under­stood by the Racovians, whom I never yet read; nor embrace the contrary, though the generality of Divines I more converse with, should declare for it. If the sense wherein I understand those [Page 23] Texts be a mistake, I shall be behold­ing to you if you will set me right. But they are not Popular Authorities, or Frightful Names, whereby I judge of Truth or Falshood. You will now no doubt applaud your Conjectures; The Point is gained, and I am openly a Socinian, since I will not disown that I think the Son of God was a Phrase that among the Iews in our Saviour's time was used for the Messiah, though the Socinians understand it in the same sense; And therefore I must certainly be of their Perswasion in every thing else. I admire the acuteness, force, and fairness of your Reasoning, and so I leave you to Triumph in your Con­jectures. Only I must desire you to take notice, that that Ornament of our Church, and every way Eminent Prelate, the late Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury, understood that Phrase in the same sense that I do, without being a Socinian. You may read what he says concerning Nathanael, in his first Serm. of Sincerity, published this year. His words are these, p. 4. And being satisfied that he [our Saviour] was the Messiah, he presently owned him for such, [Page 24] calling him the SON OF GOD, and the King of Israel.

Though this Gentleman know my Thoughts as perfectly as if he had for several years past lain in my Bosom, yet he is mightily at a loss about my Person: As if it at all concerned the Truth contained in my Book, what Hand it came from. However the Gentleman is mightily perplexed a­bout the Author. Why, Sir? What if it were writ by a Scribler of Bar­tholomew Fair Drolls, with all that flourish of Declamatory Rhetorick, and all that smartness of Wit and Jest about Capt. Tom, Vnitarins, Vnits, and Cy­phers, &c. Which are to be found be­tween 115 and 123 Pages of a Book that came out during the merry time of Rope-Dancing, and Puppet-Plays? What is Truth, would, I hope, never­theless be Truth in it, however odly sprused up by such an Author: Though perhaps 'tis likely some would be apt to say, such Merriment became not the Gravity of my Subject, and that I writ not in the stile of a Graduate in Divinity. I confess, (as Mr. Ed's. rightly says) my fault lyes on the other [Page 25] side, in a want of Vivacity and Eleva­tion: And I cannot wonder that one of his Character and Palate, should find out and complain of my flatness, which has so over-charged my Book with plain and direct Texts of Scrip­ture in a matter capable of no other Proofs. But yet I must acknowledge his excess of Civility to me; He shews me more kindness than I could expect or wish, since he prefers what I say to him my self, to what is offered to him from the Word of God; and makes me this Complement, that I begin to mend, about the Close; i. e. when I leave off quoting of Scripture: And the dull work was done, of going through the History of the Evangelists and Acts, which he computes, p. 105. to take up three quarters of my Book. Does not all this deserve at least that I should in return take some care of his Credit? Which I know not how better to do, than by entreating him, that when he takes next in hand such a Subject as this is, wherein the Salvation of Souls is concerned, he would treat it a little more seriously, and with a little more Candor; left Men should find in his Wri­tings [Page 26] another cause of Atheism, which in this Treatise he has not thought fit, to mention. Ostentation of Wit in gene­ral he has made a Cause of Atheism p. 28. But the World will tell him, That frothy light Discourses concerning the Serious Matters of Religion; and Ostentation of triflng and misbecoming Wit in those who come as Ambassadors from God, under the Title of Successors of the Apostles, in the great Commission of the Gospel, is none of the least Causes of Atheism.

Some Men have so peculiar a way of Arguing, that one may see it influences them in the repeating another Man's Reasoning, and seldom fails to make it their own. In the next Paragraph▪ I find these words: What makes him contend for one single Article, with the exclusion of all the rest? He pretends it is this, That all Men ought to understand their Religion. This, I confess, is a Reason­ing I did not think of; nor would it hardly, I fear, have been used but by one, who had first took up his Opinion from the Recommendation of Fashion or Interest, and then sought Topicks to make it good. Perhaps the defe­rence [Page 27] due to your Character excused you from the trouble of quoting the Page where I pretend, as you say; and it is so little like my way of Reason­ing, that I shall not look for it in a Book where I remember nothing of it, and where, without your Direction, I fear the Reader will scarce find it. Though I have not that vivacity of Thought, that elevation of Mind, which Mr. Ed's. demands, yet common sense would have kept me from con­tending that there is but one Article, because all Men ought to understand their Religion. Numbers of Proposi­tions may be harder to be remembred, but 'tis the abstruseness of the Notions, or obscurity, inconsistency, or doubt­fulness of the Terms or Expressions that makes them hard to be under­stood: And one single Proposition may more perplex the Understanding than twenty other. But where did you find I contended for one single Ar­ticle, so as to exclude all the rest? You might have remembred, that I say, p. 44. That the Article of the One only true God, was also necessary to be believed. This might have sa­tisfied [Page 28] you, that I did not so contend for one Article of Faith, as to be at defiance with more than one. How­ever you insist on the word one with great vigour▪ from p. 108. to 121. And you did well, you had else lost all the force of that killing stroke, reserved for the Close, in that sharp Jest of Vnitarians, and a clinch or two more of great moment.

Having found by a careful perusal of the Preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles, that the Religion they propo­sed, consisted in that short, plain, easie, and intelligible Summary which I set down, p. 301. in these words: ‘Be­lieving Jesus to be the Saviour pro­mised, and taking him now raised from the Dead, and constituted the Lord and Judge of Men, to be their King and Ruler.’ I could not forbear magnifying the Wisdom and Goodness of God (which infinitely exceeds the thoughts of ignorant, vain, and nar­row-minded Man) in these following words. ‘The All-Merciful God seems herein to have consulted the Poor of this World, and the Bulk of Man­kind: THESE ARE ARTICLES [Page 29] that the Labouring and Illiterate Man may comprehend.’ Having thus plainly mentioned more than one Article, I might have taken it amiss, that Mr. Ed's. should be at so much pains as he is, to blame me for contending for one Article; because I thought more than one could not be understood; had he not had ma­ny fine things to say in his declamation upon one Article, which affords him so much Matter, that less than seven pages could not hold it. Only here and there, as Men of Oratory often do, he mi­stakes the business, as p. 115. where he says, I urge, that there must be nothing in Christianity, that is not plain and ex­actly levelled to all mens Mother Wit. I desire to know where I said so, or that the very manner of every thing in Christianity must be clear and intelli­gible, every thing must be presently comprehended by the weakest Noddle, or else it's no part of Religion, especi­ally of Christianity; As he has it, p. 119. I am sure it is not in pag. 255. 289. 292. of my Book: These, therefore to convince him that I am of another Opinion, I shall desire some body to read to Mr. Edwards: For he himself [Page 30] reads my Book with such Spectacles, as make him find Meanings and Words in it, neither of which I put there. He should have remembred, that I speak not of all the Doctrines of Christianity, nor all that is pub­lished to the World in it; but of those Truths only, which are absolutely re­quired to be believed to make any one a Christian. And these I find are so plain and easie, that I see no Reason why every body, with me, should not Magnifie the Goodness and Condescension of the Almighty; who having out of his free Grace propo­sed a new Law of Faith to sinful and lost Man, hath by that Law required no harder terms, nothing as absolutely necessary to be believed, but what is suited to Vulgar Capacities, and the Comprehension of Illiterate Men.

You are a little out again, p. 118. where you Ironically say, as if it were my sense, Let us have but one Article, though it be with defiance to all the rest. Jesting apart, Sir. This is a serious Truth, That what our Sa­viour and his Apostles preached, and admitted Men into the Church for [Page 31] believing, is all that is absolutely re­quired to make a Man a Christian. But this is without any Defiance of all the rest, taught in the Word of God. This excludes not the belief of any one of those many other Truths contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which it is the Duty of every Christian to study, and thereby build himself up on our most Holy Faith; receiving with stedfast Belief, and ready Obedi­ence all those things which the Spirit of Truth hath therein revealed. But that all the rest of the inspired Wri­tings, or, if you please, Articles, are of equal necessity to be believed to make a Man a Christian, with what was preached by our Saviour and his Apostles; that I deny. A Man, as I have shewn, may be a Christian and a Believer without actually believing them; Because those whom our Savi­our and his Apostles, by their Preach­ing and Discourses, converted to the Faith, were made Christians and Be­lievers barely upon the receiving what they preached to them.

[Page 32] I hope it is no derogation to the Christian Religion, to say, that the Fundamentals of it, i. e. all that is ne­cessary to be believed in it by all Men, is easie to be understood by all Men. This I thought my self autho­rized to say by the very easie, and very intelligible Articles insisted on by our Saviour and his Apostles, which contain nothing but what could be understood by the bulk of Mankind; a Term which, I know not why, Mr. Ed's. p. 117. is offended at, and thereupon is, after his fashion, sharp upon me about Captain Tom and his Myrmidons, for whom he tells me I am going to make a Religion. The making of Religions and Creeds I leave to others. I only set down the Christian Religion, as I find our Sa­viour and his Apostles preached it, and preached it to, and left it for the Ignorant and unlearned Multitude. For I hope you do not think, how con­temptibly soever you speak of the Ve­nerable Mob, as you are pleased to dig­nifie them, p. 117. that the Bulk of Man­kind, or in your Phrase, the Rabble, [Page 33] are not concerned in Religion, or ought not to understand it, in order to their Salvation. Nor are you, I hope, acquainted with any, who are of that Muscovite Divine's Mind, who to one, that was talking to him about Religion, and the other World, re­plyed, That for the Czar indeed, and Bojars, they might be permitted to raise their hopes to Heaven; But that for such Poor Wretches as he, they were not to think of Salvation.

I remember the Pharisees treated the Common People with Contempt, and said, Have any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this People, who knoweth not the Law, are cursed. But yet these, who in the Cen­sure of the Pharisees were cursed, were some of the Poor, or if you please to have it so, the Mobb, to whom the Go­spel was preached by our Saviour, as he tells Iohn's Disciples, Matth. XI. 5.

Pardon me, Sir, that I have here laid these Examples and Considerati­ons before you; a little to prevail with you, not to let loose such a Torrent of Wit and Eloquence [Page 34] against the Bulk of Mankind another time; and that for a meer Fancy of your own: For I do not see how they here came in your way; but that you were resolved to set up something to have a fling at, and shew your Parts, in what you call your Different Preface. strain, though besides the purpose. I know no body was going to ask the Mob what you must believe? And as for me, I suppose you will take my word for it, that I think no Mob, (no, not your Venerable Mob) is to be asked, what I am to believe; Nor that Articles of Faith are to be received by the Vote of Club-men, or any other sort of Men you will name instead of them.

In the following words, pag. 115. you ask, Whether a Man may not un­derstand those Articles of Faith which you mentioned out of the Gospels and Epistles, if they be explained to him, as well as that one I speak of? 'Tis as the Articles are, and as they are ex­plained. There are Articles that have been some Hundreds of Years explain­ing; Which, there are many, and those not of the most illiterate, who [Page 35] profess, they do not yet understand. And to instance in no other but He descended into Hell, the learned are not yet agreed in the sense of it, the great pains has been taken to explain it.

Next, I ask, who are to explain your Articles? The Papists will ex­plain some of them one way, and the Reformed another. The Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants give them dif­ferent senses. And probably the Tri­nitarians and Vnitarians will profess, that they understand not each others explications. And at last, I think it may be doubted whether any Articles, which need mens Explications, can be so clearly and certainly understood, as one which is made so very plain by the Scripture it self, as not to need any Explication at all. Such is this, That Jesus is the Messiah. For though you learnedly tell us, that Messiah is a Hebrew word, and no better under­stood by the Vulgar than Arabick[?]; Yet I guess it is so fully explained in the New Testament, and in those places I have quoted out of it, that [Page 36] no body, who can understand any or­dinary Sentence in the Scripture, can be at a loss about it: And 'tis plain it needs no other Explication than what our Saviour and the Apostles gave it in their Preaching; for as they preach­ed it men received it, and that sufficed to make them Believers.

To conclude, when I heard that this Learned Gentleman, who had a Name for his study of the Scriptures, and Writings on them, had done me the Honour to consider my Treatise, I promised my self, that his Degree, Calling, and Fame in the World, would have secured to me something of weight in his Remarques, which might have convinced me of my Mistakes; and if he had found any in it, justified my quitting of them. But having ex­amined what in his concerns my Book, I, to my wonder, find, that he has on­ly taken pains to give it an ill Name; without so much as attempting to re­fute any one Position in it, how much soever he is pleased to make a noise against several Propositions; which he might be free with, because they [Page 37] are his own: And I have no reason to take it amiss, if he has shewn his Zeal and Skill against them. He has been so favourable to what is mine, as not to use any one Argument against any Passage in my Book. This, which I take for a Publick Testimony of his Approbation, I shall return him my Thanks for, when I know whether I owe it to his Mistake, Conviction, or Kindness. But if he writ only for his Bookseller's sake, he alone ought to thank him.

AFter the foregoing Papers were sent to the Press, The Witnesses to Christianity, of the Reverend and Learned Dr. Patrick, now Lord Bishop of Ely, fell into my hands. I regret­ted the not having seen it before I writ my Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. I should then pos­sibly, by the Light given me by so good a Guide, and so great a Man, with more confidence directly have fallen into the knowledge of Christia­nity; which in the way I sought it, in its source, required the comparing [Page 38] of Texts with Texts, and the more than once reading over the Evange­lists and Acts, besides other parts of Scripture. But I had the ill luck not to see that Treatise till so few hours since, that I have had time only to read as far as the end of the Introdu­ction, or first Chapter: And there Mr. Ed's. may find, that this Pious Bishop (whose Writings shew he Stu­dies, as well as his Life that he believes the Scriptures) owns what Mr. Ed's. is pleased to call a plausible Conceit, which, he says, I give over and over again in these formal words, viz. That nothing is required to be believed by any Christian Man but this, That Iesus is the Messiah.

The Liberty Mr. Ed's. takes in o­ther places deserves not it should be taken upon his word, that these for­mal words are to be found over and over again in my Book, unless he had quoted the Pages. But I will set him down the formal words which are to be found in this Reverend Prelate's Book, p. 14. To be the Son of God, and to be Christ, being but different expressions of [Page 39] the same thing. And p. 10. It is the very same thing to believe that Iesus is the Christ, and to believe that Iesus is the Son of God; Express it how you please. This ALONE is the Faith which can regenerate a Man, and put a Divine Spirit into him; that is, makes him a Conquerour over the World, as Iesus was. I have quoted only these few words; but Mr. Ed's if he pleases, or any body else, may, in this first Chap­ter, satisfie himself more fully, that the Design of it is to shew, that in our Saviour's time, Son of God was a known and received Name or Appella­tion of the Messiah, and so used in the Holy Writers. And that the Faith that was to make Men Christians, was only the believing that Iesus is the Messiah. 'Tis to the truth of this Pro­position that he examines his Witnesses, as he speaks, pag. 21. And this, if I mistake not, in his Epist. Dedicatory he calls Christianity. Fol. A. 3. where he calls them Witnesses to Christianity. But these two Propositions, viz. That SON of God in the Gospel stands for Messiah; And that the Faith which [Page 40] alone makes Men Christians, is the believing Iesus to be the Messiah; dis­pleases Mr. Ed's. so much in my Book, that he thinks himself Authorized from them to charge me with Socinianism, and want of Sincerity. How he will be pleased to treat this Reverend Pre­late whilest he is alive (for the Dead may with good Manners be made bold with) must be left to his decisive Au­thority. This I am sure, which way soever he determine, he must for the future either afford me more good Company, or fairer Quarter.