of any other article of belief? Doth not this plainly show, that this is all that is required to be believed, as necessary to make a man a Christian? May we not infer, from the frequent and sole repetition of this article in several places of the evangelists and the Acts, that there is no other point of faith of absolute necessity; but that this alone is sufficient to constitute a man a true member of Christ ?"

By which he shows, that he is uncertain which way to put the objection, so as may be easiest to get rid of it and therefore he has turned it several ways, and put several questions about it. As, first,

"Why this article of faith," viz. that Jesus is the Messiah, "is so often repeated in the New Testament?"

His next question is, "Why is this sometimes urged without the mentioning any other article of belief?" which supposes, that sometimes other articles of belief are mentioned with it.

The third question is," May we not infer, from the frequent and sole repetition of this article, in several places of the evangelists and Acts ?”

Which last question is in effect, Why is this so frequently and alone repeated in the evangelists and the Acts? i. e. in the preachings of our Saviour and his Apostles to unbelievers. For of that he must give an account, if he will remove the difficulty. Which three, though put as one, yet are three as distinct questions, and demand a reason for three as distinct matters of fact, as these three are, viz. frequently proposed: sometimes proposed alone; and always proposed alone, in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles: for so in truth it was, all through the Gospels and the Acts, to the unconverted believers of one God alone.

These three questions being thus jumbled together in one objection, let us see how the four particulars, he mentions, will account for them.

The first of them is this: " That believing Jesus to be the promised Messias," was, says he, "the first step to Christianity." Let it be so: What do you infer from thence? The next words show: "therefore this,

rather than any other article, was propounded to be believed by all those, whom either our Saviour or his apostles invited to embrace Christianity." Let your premises be ever so true, and your deduction of this proposition be ever so regular from them, it is all lost labour. This conclusion is not the proposition you were to prove. Your questions were, "Why this article is so often proposed ?" And in those frequent repetitions, "Why sometimes urged alone, and why always proposed alone, viz. to those whom either our Saviour or his apostles invited to embrace Christianity?" And your answer is, Because the believing "Jesus to be the Messias, was the first step to Christianity." This, therefore, remains upon you to be proved:

XXXII. "That, because the believing Jesus to be the Messias is the first step to Christianity, therefore this article is frequently proposed in the New Testament, is sometimes proposed without the mentioning any other article, and always alone to unbelievers."

And when you have proved this, I shall desire you to apply it to our present controversy.

His next answer to those questions is in these words, p. 76, "That though this one proposition, or article, be mentioned alone in some places, yet there is reason to think, and be persuaded, that at the same time other matters of faith were proposed." From whence it lies upon him to make out this reasoning, viz.

XXXIII." That because there is reason to think, and be persuaded, that at the same time that this one article was mentioned alone, (as it was sometimes) other matters of faith were proposed: therefore this article was often proposed in the New Testament; sometimes proposed alone; and always proposed alone, in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles to unbelievers."

This I set down to show the force of his answer to his questions supposing it to be true, not that I grant it to be true, that where" this one article is mentioned alone, we have reason to think, and be persuaded, that at the same time other matters of faith [i. e. articles of faith necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian] were proposed:" and I doubt not but to show the contrary.

His third particular, in answer to the question proposed in his objection, stands thus, p. 76: "That though there are several parts and members of the Christian faith, yet they do not all occur in any one place of the Scripture ;" which answer lays it upon him to prove,

XXXIV. That because "the several parts of the members of the Christian faith do not all occur in any one place of Scripture," therefore this article, that Jesus was the "Messias, was often proposed in the New Testament, sometimes proposed alone, and always proposed alone," in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles, through the history of the evangelists and the Acts.

The fourth and last particular, which he tells us is the main answer to the objection, is in these words, page 78,

"That Christianity was erected by degrees."

Which requires him to make out his argument, viz. XXXV. "That because Christianity was erected by degrees," therefore this article," that Jesus was the Messias, was often proposed in the New Testament, sometimes proposed alone, and always proposed alone in the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles to unbelievers, recorded in the history of the evangelists and Acts."

For, as I said before, in these three questions he has put his objection; to which, he tells us, this is the main

answer.

Of these four particulars it is, that he says, p. 74, "to clear this objection, and to give a full and satisfactory answer to all doubts in this affair, I offer these ensuing particulars, which will lead the reader to the right understanding of the whole case."

How well they have cleared the objection, may be seen by barely setting them down as answers to the questions, wherein he puts the objection.

This is all I have hitherto done; whereby is very visible, how well (supposing them true) they clear the objection and how pertinently they are brought to answer those questions wherein his objection is contained. Perhaps it will be said, that neither these, nor any thing else, can be an apposite answer to those questions put so together. I answer, I am of the same mind. But if the unmasker, through ignorance or shuffling, will talk thus confusedly, he must answer for it. He calls all his three questions, one objection, over and over again and therefore, which of those questions it does or does not lie in, I shall not trouble myself to divine; since I think he himself cannot tell: for whichever he takes of them, it will involve him in equal difficulties. I now proceed to examine his particulars themselves, and the truth contained in them. The first, p. 74, stands thus:

1. "The believing of Jesus to be the promised Messias was the first step to Christianity. It was that which made way for the embracing of all the other articles, a passage to all the rest." Answ.. If this be, as he would have it, only the leading article, amongst a great many other, equally necessary to be believed, to make a man a Christian; this is a reason why it should be constantly preached in the first place: but this is no reason why this alone should be so often repeated, and the other necessary points not be once mentioned. For I desire to know what those other articles are that, in the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, are repeated or urged besides this?

In the next place, if it be true, that this article, viz. that Jesus is the Messiah, was only the first in order amongst a great many articles, as necessary to be be

lieved; how comes it to pass, that barely upon the proposal and believing of this, men were admitted into the church as believers? The history of the New Testament is full of instances of this, as Acts viii. 5, 12, 13. ix. and in other places.

Though it be true, what the unmasker says here, "That if they did not give credit to this in the first place, that Jesus of Nazareth was that eminent and extraordinary person prophesied of long before, and that he was sent and commissioned by God; there could be no hope that they would attend to any other proposals, relating to the Christian religion;" yet what he subjoins, "that this is the true reason, why that article was constantly propounded to be believed by all that looked towards Christianity, and why it is mentioned so often in the evangelical writings," is not true. For, first, this supposes that there were other articles joined with it. This he should have first proved, and then given the reason for it; and not, as he does here, suppose what is in question, and then give a reason why it is so; and such a reason that is inconsistent with the matter of fact, that is every where recorded in holy writ. For if the true reason why the preaching of this article, "that Jesus was the Messiah," as it is recorded in the history of the New Testament, were only to make way for the other articles, one must needs think, that either our Saviour and his apostles (with reverence be it spoken) were very strange preachers; or, that the evangelists, and author of the Acts, were very strange historians. The first were to instruct the world in a new religion, consisting of a great number of articles, says the unmasker, necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, i. e. a great number of propositions, making a large system, every one whereof is so necessary for a man to understand and believe, that if any one be omitted, he cannot be of that religion. What now did our Saviour and his apostles do? Why, if the unmasker may be believed, they went up. and down with danger of their lives, and preached to the world. What did they preach? Even this single proposition to make way for the rest, viz. "This