%u- 
 
 4^j^. 
 
 ''&: 
 
 
 % 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ::P 
 
;i 
 
 1 
 
 DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FRIENDS OF 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Frank Baker 
 
-**, 
 
 y?/^/7 
 
 i-/H > r.4a loL y Y 
 
 '<^ty 
 
 ^ri-e <^^T7<- 
 
 ""^^n^^n 
 
 r' 
 
 ^e^/v ' /^ 
 
 ^^/^/^'S 
 
 / 
 
 
 -^^ 
 
 
 A/-*<__<_ 
 
 'r 
 
f^ 9- 
 
 '■V 
 
 
;-£ . / 
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 TRACTS. 
 
 Publifh'd in Vindication of 
 
 Air. L o c K 'x KeafonableneJI of 
 Cbrijiianityy as deliver d in the 
 Scriptures ; 
 
 And of his ESSAY, 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 Humane Vnderjiar^ding-^ 
 
 A Catalogue of the Tracts is in the 
 following Page. 
 
 5v S A. 8 o L D E, FeH-nr of Sf^enle. Dorfet. 
 
 London : Printed for J, and J, Qhur chilly 
 
 ijLi» <iiii) i'' jA.^ >- j.u»ii . , ^ ei i irj ;u > t. t iua.caij|». i i .■'■"jiii.>^^: i ■' ■ ■ ' 
 

 The G A T A L O G U El 
 
 A Short Difcourfe of the True Knowledge of Chrift 
 Tefus : To which are added, Some Paflfages in the 
 Reafonablenefs of Ghriftianity, and its Vindica- 
 tionl With fome Animadrerfions on Mr. Edwards's Refle- 
 xions on the Reafonablenefs of Chriftianicy ; and on his 
 Book, entituled, Socinianifm Vnmmked. Printed 1697. 
 
 A Reply to Mr. Edxvards's brief ReflecSnons, on a (hort 
 Difcomfeof thetrae Knowledge of Chrift Jefus: To which 
 is prefix'd, A Preface, wherein fomething is faid concerning 
 Reafon and Antiquity in the chief Concroverfies with the 
 Socinians. Printed 1697. 
 
 Obfervations on the Animadverfions (lately Printed at 
 Oxford) on a late Book, enticuled, The I^eafottableneJ? of 
 Chrijtianhj, as delivered in the Scriptures. Printed 1698. 
 
 Some Confiderations on the Principal Objections and 
 Arguments which have been publiftied againft Mr. Locl(s 
 fiflay of Human Vnderftanding, Printed 1699. 
 
 A Difcourfe concerning the Refurredliofi of the fame 
 Body : With two Letters concerning the necelTary Imma- 
 i'^riality of Created thinkjng Suhji.^nce. Printed 1705. 
 
:/ 
 
A SHORT 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 True Know!edD;e 
 
 O F 
 
 CHRIST JESUS. 
 
 To which are Added, 
 
 Some Paflages in the ^eafona- 
 blenefi of Chrifi/anitj^ 6cc. and its 
 Vindication, 
 
 With fome Animadverftons on Mr. 
 EdvoArdi'% ReJieBions outt)'^ Reafonahlenefs 
 of ChrifiUm.y^ and on his Book, Enci- 
 taJed, SocpiUnifm Z/nnjask^d. 
 
 'By S. Bold, Re6tor of Steeple, Dorfet, 
 
 For other Founjatian can no Man lay than that is 
 laid, which is Jefus Cbrij}^ i Cor. j. 1 1. 
 
 LONDON: Printed for J. and J 
 ChHrchil, at the Black, Srvan in Pater 
 Nofier-Row. M DC XC Vil. 
 
 
[ J 3 
 
 Philip. III. 8. 
 
 Tea dotibtlefs^ and I count ail things 
 hut lofs for the excellency of the 
 kno'Sifledge of Chrijl Jefus my 
 Lord, 
 
 THE Apodle doth not here 
 fpeak of any thing that 
 was proper to himfelf either 
 as an Apoflle^ ox2,ChriJiian 
 of an extraordinary ^roivtb^ but what 
 was common to him^ with every True 
 Believer, or fincere Chriflian. For 
 thefe words are but part of the I/Iu- 
 flration he annexes of that Property 
 of true BeHevers or Chrijiians he had 
 laid down in the laft Claufe of the 
 third Verfe of this Chapter, who have 
 ko confidence in the Flefh. 
 
 In the feventh Verfe he relates the 
 
 different Opinion and Jiddgment he had 
 
 of Matters with relation to Juflifica- 
 
 A % ii^ri 
 
(4 ) 
 
 tion and Salvation before he was Con- 
 verted, from what he had oi rhem 
 after his Converfwn. Thofe things 
 which before his Converjion he 
 reckon'd Gj/;^, i.^. which he thought 
 were the waiter of a Perfons Righte- 
 aujnefs^ the things which being en- 
 joy'd would Jujitfie^ and render aPer- 
 fon acceptahle to God, and warrant 
 his being confident of Salvation , he 
 accounted Z^, after he was etTcdu- 
 ally Regenerated : Becaufe he then 
 knew that Chrijl oXoiiQ is our Righte- 
 oufnefsj and that he only can fave 
 us. 
 
 In thefc words he declares again, 
 with great Eamejinefs, that he looks 
 upon the pcfle/Iion and enjoynient of 
 all thofe things he formerly thought 
 would conflitute Ferfons Righteous 
 and Happy, and every thing elfe di- 
 flin^ from Chrifl^ that any can place 
 their confidence in, to be of no more 
 moment and confideration to thefe 
 Purpojes than heaps of Dung , and 
 Drofs cm be to the nourijhing of a 
 Man's natural Life, and to the ma- 
 Jdng of him Wealthy. And as Cbr^Ji 
 i, . ne is our Righteoufnefs , and he 
 
 only 
 
(5) 
 
 only can juflifie snd fave us, fo it i*s 
 by the knowledge of Chr'tft^ that we 
 come to be interefied in Him^ and to 
 receive from him thoje^ and all thofe 
 fmgular and ineftimable Benefits and 
 Blejjings He is tntrufled to difpencc. 
 This knowledge of Chrifl Jefus is fo 
 adapted to this end^ hath fuch a Cori' 
 nexi'in with it, by Divine Ordination 
 and Appointment^ hath fuch an Ex- 
 ec hen. y in it, fuch a Powers Efficacy^ 
 and f^irtue for the deriving of thefe 
 Mercies and Bleflings to us from 
 Chnfl^ that all other things are per- 
 fectly infignificant to this purpofe, but 
 when depended on tor Juflification 
 and S ah at ion ^ are a very great Detri' 
 went and Damage. 
 
 In order to a more diftincSfc under- 
 Handing of tbele words, I will briefly 
 coniider four things in them, and theri 
 conclude with ihewing fome Vfes 
 we lliould make of what ihall be dif- 
 courfed. 
 
 The Four things I (hall briefly 
 confider are, Firil, Tke matter of this 
 Knowledge the Apoftle f peaks of. 
 
 Secondly, What kind of Knowledge 
 
 it is of this point, which the Apojile 
 
 A 3 doth 
 
CO 
 
 doth thus magnifie and extol, and give 
 fuch a preference to ? 
 
 Thirdly, Wherein the excellency 
 of this Knowledge doth confifl ? And, 
 
 Fourthly, The account the Per/on 
 who knows Chrijl j^ejiis aright, doth 
 n,ake of all other things, 
 
 firjl, I fliall confider what is the 
 matter of this Knowltdge the Apoftle 
 here fpeaks of, or what is the ohje^l 
 to be known. This he exprefleth in 
 thefe words, Chnfl Je[m^ that is, that 
 the Perfon God had promifed lo Jend 
 into the World to be the Saviour of 
 Sinners^ was Him who is generally 
 known, and was fignally diflinguifhed 
 from other People by this Name J ejus ; 
 or that He who is commonl> known, 
 and peculiarly fpoken of by this name 
 Jefus, is the Perfon God did defign, 
 and promife to fend into the World to 
 be the Saviour of Sinners. That this 
 Jefiit is the Chrifl, the Perfon God 
 hath anointed and commiffioned to this 
 Office; and that He is the only and 
 the atlfbtfficient^ and mofl gracious Sa- 
 uiour of Sinners. That Jefus is the 
 Chrrji (the Perfon God hath com- 
 miilioned to be the Saviour of Sinners) 
 *' is 
 
is the PropofitioH I conceive th<£ Apo- 
 flle here fpeaks of, the objed of that 
 Knowledge here commended. And 
 this is the Gofpel ftridly and mod 
 properly confidered, Luk, z. lo, u. 
 ^^.4. IX. The fuliilling of the Prophet 
 c'tes which went before concerning the 
 MeJJiahy or the Perfon God had pro- 
 mifed to fen J, in this Jefas ; and his 
 declaring that he was that Perfon, and 
 doing fuch things to confirm the truth 
 of what he Taught^ as could not be 
 wrought and effected but by the ex- 
 traordinary and immediate Power of 
 Gael, afford lufficient Evidence to per- 
 fwade Men of the truth of this Propo- 
 fitiou, that 'jefus is the Chrifl, This 
 I take to be the matter or objed: of 
 that Knowledge the Apoftle here 
 fpeaks of. Not that I think a bare 
 jpeculative Knowledge of this Article 
 or Propojition is the Knowledge the 
 Apoftle doth thus magnifie and fet 
 fuch a value on. Therefore I lliall 
 conflder, 
 
 Secondly, What kind of Knowledge 
 
 of this Propofni -i it is, the Apoftle 
 
 doth here jpeak of. And it is fuch a 
 
 Jinowlcdge as doth efTedually derer. 
 
 . ^ -^ min^ 
 
en 
 
 mine the Pcrfon arid caufe him to 
 rtj:gy: up hirnlelf entirely to Chrifi 
 J ejus to be lav'jd by him irf his own 
 waf. .Such a knowledge oi him, as 
 makei tliC P(^rfon to f^Je him for his 
 Lorcl\ fo thar he will ufe his ferious^ 
 honeji^ and he^ endeavours to under- 
 fland what he hath taught and reveal- 
 ed, and \m11 iff^at to, helieve and oh- 
 y^rz/(? whatever he iliall attain to know 
 He hath taught or revealed ,• and will 
 depend wholly on Him to receive 
 from Him in his evon way^ Jie henefits 
 He is intrufled to dtj pence. The no- 
 tional and fpeculative knowledge of 
 Chhft Jefus, hath its ufefulnefsy being 
 the Foundation on which tl:e other is 
 builded, but itmaj^be without the lat- 
 ter, and therefore is not faving^ but 
 the latter cannot be without the /<?/•- 
 mer\, no more than a S'jperflruHure can 
 be without a Foundation. A Man may 
 have a notional knowledge of a Truth 
 that is of extraordinary wow e-^/ and 
 u(eju!-nfs^ and yet not be duly af[e^' 
 e^ with it; his knowledge may have 
 little or no influence on him, becaufe 
 he does not apply it to its proper endy 
 he does not defccnd to confider how 
 
 much 
 
L9l 
 
 much it doth concern himfelf. Were 
 there a Pcrfon that could infallibly 
 cure fome certain Dijlemper^ and the 
 proof of this Truth were moft ftrong 
 and clear, fo that there were no room 
 for i^ouk and exception^ a Perfon who 
 does not apprehend himfelf annoyed 
 with that Dtflemiisry tho' he is fatif- 
 fied that fuch a Peribn can^fallibly 
 cure it, will not be prevailed with, 
 and determined by his knowledge, to 
 yield up himfelf abfolutcly to his Con- 
 iiu^, tho' when he comes to be con- 
 vinced that he isdangeroufly ill of that 
 Difeafe, and that he cannot be cured 
 any other way, but by committing 
 himfelf entirely to that Perfon, his 
 knowledge will have this effed on 
 him, that he will render himfelf up 
 entirely to his guidance and manage' 
 tnent. When we are throughly fenjjble 
 that we are Sinners^ under the Curje 
 of the Law, and juftly obnoxious to 
 the moft heavy difpleajure and wrath 
 of Almighty God, and that there is no 
 way for our obtaining Peace with 
 Him, Pardon and Salvation^ but by 
 "Jejus Chrifi, then our knowing ■ him 
 xo be the only, the all-fuificient, and a 
 
 moft 
 
C to] 
 
 mofl: companionate and gracious Sa- 
 viour of Sinaers, will difpofe and in- 
 fluence us to rejign up our J elves with- 
 out refervation to his Comlu^^ and to 
 rely and depend on Hjfw to fave us in 
 liis own way. He came to jeek and to 
 fave tfwfe who are lofi, who are truly 
 ■ fevfihle of their lo^ efiate. All your 
 inowle^' will not avail you to Sal- 
 vatio/i, thd you can Difcourfe ever fo 
 accurately on every point in your Bi- 
 ble^ till it have this eiTt^(3: on you, to 
 make you repgn up your felves un- 
 fejgnedly unto Chrisi as your Lord. 
 But the Perfon who is brought to this^ 
 ■is ChrilFs Difciple^ a true Believer^ 
 and real Chriftian^ tho' as yet he does 
 cot know any other Doclnne Chrift 
 bath taught, but only engages hearti- 
 ly to ufe his beft endeavours to know 
 and underjland his Lord's Willy and 
 to aflcnt unto and perform the fame^ 
 as he Ihall attain the knowledge of it '., 
 snd resolvedly applies himfelf to ful- 
 fil and execute that engagement- with 
 sU Fndiiflry and Fidelity. This is that 
 whicli coyiftitutes and makes a Perfon 
 a iincerc Chriftia;^^ a rQ,2.\ Difciple of 
 Chriil, and a true Believer. And 
 
 his 
 
C»'3 
 
 his regular outward figniffing and te- 
 ftifying of this, gives him a Right to 
 the external Denomination of a Chri- 
 fiian^ &c. The true notional know- 
 ledge of Chrift Jefus is the fame for 
 the matter^ with the fpiritual and 
 pradical knowledge of Him ; but this 
 latter makes the Perfon perceive the 
 ujefulnefs and necejjity of Ch^fH Jefus 
 to himfelf, and begets in him frntahle 
 Affetiions to Chrifl. He who thus 
 knows Chrifi Jefus is fenfible, that He 
 is the moft neccflary and ufeful Gooci to 
 him, and therefore cannot but love 
 him, refgn up ^xxmkH entirely to Him, 
 truft in Him, and laLour to under- 
 (land and know his Pf///, that he may 
 explicit ely believe what he hath taught^ 
 and atlually obferve and perform what 
 he hath appointed and commanded^ 
 that thus he may approve his Fidelity y 
 and ohtnin the ends particularly or 
 more efpecially intended by his Lordy, 
 in the feveral inflames he Ihali under^ 
 ftand to be taught by Bim^ relating 
 either to Beliff or Pra^ice, He 
 knows that Chrifl Jefus is worthy of 
 all his Service^ and therefore givrs 
 up himfeH unto Him, implicitly and 
 
 with- 
 
Cit3 
 
 without exceptioHy to rollow his Qon- 
 du^^ both as to Faith and Ohedience. 
 Thus when he finds or underftands, 
 that Jefus Chr'jfl hath taught that He 
 is God^ and that He commifTK ned his 
 Apoftles to teach 7^, and that they 
 did it very exprefly, he heartily af- 
 fents to this Truth^ and beUeves, that 
 He is Goxl^ becaufe He hath taught it. 
 And his not being able to folve all 
 difficulties that curioui and contentious 
 Teople ni'-iy A'art about this matter ; 
 or to lay nnuch, or any thing con- 
 cerning the Modey or way how He is 
 God, is no ohjlacle to his firm and 
 fiedfafi Belief of it, feeing he knows 
 Chrift hath declared it; no more 
 than his not being able to reconcile 
 fbme matter di pratlice he underftands 
 Chrifl hath enjoyned him, to his 
 worldly Interefi^ can excufe him from 
 performing it. Becaufe his Refignation 
 to Chrift was abfolute and entire in 
 both refpetfls, and he did not Capitu- 
 late with Chrift, to believe nothing 
 \mt what he (liould be able to ^ive to. 
 die bottom of, and give a rational ac- 
 t-cunt of the mode and manner of, or 
 %^ obey him only in fuch hflances as 
 
 he 
 
C M 1 
 
 he fhould know how to reconcile to 
 his worldly Interefl and Conuenience, 
 What falls fliort of this pradicjtl 
 knowledge of ChriH Jejus^ is not in 
 Scripture account the knowledge of 
 ChriH Jefus. He that faith I know 
 hirn^ and keepeth not his Command- 
 ments is a Jyar^ and the truth is not 
 in him^ i John 2. 4. This is that 
 knowledge of Chrift Jefus, the e^ce/- 
 /^wcy whereof \s Juch^ n clf cures 2ii>d 
 Jlains the Glory of all things which 
 can come in competition with it. So 
 that the true Chriftian accounts ali 
 things but Infs (as the Apoftle ex- 
 preffeth himlelf) for the excellency 
 of it. Which fhali lead me to con- 
 fide r, 
 
 Thirdly, In what the excellency cf 
 this knowledge of Christ Jtfus doth 
 confifl. Concerning uhich I fhali 
 mention thefe particulars : 
 
 ly?. In the excellency of its ohjelt^ 
 (which is the revelation or difcovery 
 God hath made that Jefus Chrift is 
 the Perfon He hath fen t and commif- 
 fioncd to be the Saviour of Sinners} 
 and in the proportion it hath to the 
 [fecial Intendment of that Revelatt- 
 
 cn^ 
 
E'4 3 
 
 cv, viz. that we may refign up our 
 fc'lves intirely to him, and thereby be 
 made his Difciples, and be interefted 
 in Him, as our Saviour; or more 
 briefly, that we may believe in Him, 
 and be faved by him, or be made true 
 Chrrflians, and partake of the Benefits 
 which belong to them. It is not the 
 bare knowing that there was fuch at 
 ? erf on as Jefus Chrift in the Worlds 
 no nor that He was the Son of Gody 
 and ajfumed our Nature^ &c. but that 
 He was fent^ appointed^ and commift- 
 oned by God to be the Saviour of Sin" 
 ners. This is the immediate ^ the 
 moft proper^ and JiriH ohje^ of Chri- 
 ftian knowledge, and faving Faith, 
 Had the Son of God, meeriy of his 
 own accord, af?umed our Nature, per- 
 formed the moft perfe^ Obedience to 
 the Law, and fu&red Death for our 
 fakes, how great foever the intrinfick 
 value of his Condcfcention, Perfor- 
 mances, and Sufferifigi would have 
 been, this (Would net have confli- 
 tuted or made Him the Saviour oj 
 Sinners : Nor would our knowing and 
 leheving all thisj have ai.Qiled us to 
 ^ufi location and Salvatiok That 
 ^ whiclt 
 
C tj] 
 
 which makes what He did 's.w^ fuffer^ 
 ed to be accepted for »/, and makes 
 Him the Saviour of Sinners^ was his 
 being appointed and commijfioned to 
 be their Saviour. And it is our know- 
 ing Him to be the Perfon that God 
 did /<?»^ and commiffton for this /'//r- 
 ^(?/^, and knowing it y^, as to anfwer 
 the ^eftgn of this Revelation, whidi 
 doth make us Chriflians^ and intereH 
 us in Him as our Saviour. For I 
 have given them the words which thou 
 gaveif mCy and they have received 
 themy and have known furely that I 
 came out from thee^ and they have he^ 
 lieved that thou didH fend me^ 
 John 17. 8. 
 
 idly. In that it is a fpecial effe^ 
 and fruit of the Holy Spirit of God, 
 Iwi/i give them an Heart to know tne, 
 that I am the Lord^ and they jhall he 
 my People^ and I will be their God, for 
 they jhall return unto me with their 
 whole Hearty Jer. 24. 7. Wherefore 
 I give you to underftandy that no Man 
 fpeaking by the Spirit of God, calleth 
 Jefus accurfed^ and that no Man can 
 fay thai Jefus is the Lord, lut by the 
 Holy Ohofff I. Cor. ix. 3. Tho' the 
 
 Lord 
 
Lord Jefus doth not oblige hlmfelf hot 
 to give forth theifpecial Influences of 
 his Holy Spirit to any, but in and 
 with their ferious ufing their natural 
 Abilities, and the common afli (lances 
 of the Spirit generally aflx^rded, in 
 thofc ways he hath appointed, in or- 
 der to Peoples partaking of his fuper^ 
 natural Aids and BIdiings, yet he 
 obliges us thus to make ufe of the 
 means he hath ordained \ and we have 
 not any reafon to expert thefe fuper* 
 natural effects any other way. When 
 he doQS extraordinarily^ and out of 
 ^ his common and Infiituted^zy^ work 
 on, awaken, convince, and effedually 
 convert Sinners, as he did^'d^/, when 
 Travelling on fuch^ a < wretchedly 
 wicked defign towards Dama/cus, he 
 does it not as Alng and Ruler, but as 
 alfolute Lord, And when we find 
 our felves fo inlightned, and power- 
 fully wrought on, in the ufe of /«/?/-i 
 tutet^ means, that we are effectually 
 determined to yield up our felves in-^ 
 tirely to Chrift, as our Lord, this ef- 
 jetl is from t\\t J pec ial influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, and muft be attributed 
 unto Hm, ■ Faith is the gift of GoJ^ 
 
 tho' 
 
tllo' ordinarily conferred. along with 
 our making ufe of the natural Powers 
 we are endued With in the ways and 
 jmethods inftituted for this end, as 
 reading and hearing the Word, Me- 
 ditation, Prayer, Cyc. Tlieite is no na- 
 tural connexion between oyr 'employ- 
 ing of our natural Abihties and Pow- 
 ers in thelc ways, and this happy effeSiy 
 for God hath not obliged himfelf to 
 beftow this Blejling by the Rules and 
 Laws he hath eftabliOied to obferve, 
 in the ordinary way of .his Providence, 
 in ordering and governing the World, 
 fo far as doth concern and relate to 
 Man. The connexion between them 
 is purely Gracious^ by virtue of the 
 Laws and Rules He hath Jixe^/ to pro* 
 ceed by, in the difpenjation of his 
 Grace, We may by that concurrence 
 God affords in the way of his ordi- 
 nary Vrovidence^ attain to as great a 
 meafure of fpeculative, notional, dil- 
 courfive knowledge of what the Gofpel 
 doth teach, as we can of thofe matters 
 which are treated of in other Books, 
 provided we do proportionally apply 
 our Study to them. But when in our 
 ufing our natural Abilities thefe ways, 
 B we 
 
C«8 3 
 
 vve are brought to clofe unfeignedJy 
 with Chriff^ and y/eU up our felves 
 entirely to his Conduti^ this is owing 
 to a divine Influence vouchfafed be- 
 yond the ordinary courfe of Provi" 
 dence, and is from God*s proceeding 
 with us according to his L^w of Grace. 
 The' we cannot apprehend in what 
 way the Spirit doth effe^^ and bring 
 about this excellent and happy change 
 in us, io as certainly to dijHnguiJh 
 vvhjTt is done by the Spirit, from wliat 
 is done by our natural Ahilities co- 
 operating J yec we know by the effect 
 that He hath exerted his wonderful 
 Poivcr , and to Him niuft all the 
 Glory be afcrihed, who is the princi* 
 pal agent in thisbuilnefs. 
 
 idiy. In the fingular and inefiima* 
 hie Benefits which do accrue unto us up' 
 OH our thus knowing of Chriff Jefus* 
 Of which Benefits I will now name 
 but thefe two. 
 
 I. God's jujlifying of uSj and own'- 
 ing us to be in the Covenant of Grace, 
 By Juftification I do mean fomething 
 more than his Pardoning all our pa ft 
 Sins, even a change of our State^ his 
 acquitting and dilcharging us from 
 
 the 
 
C 19] 
 
 the Law of V/orks^ as a Covenant of 
 Life. Were all my Sins freely par*- 
 doned, and I left under the Law of 
 Works, this Pardon would not avail 
 me any thing, if my. Life were at 
 all coKtimed^ for my very next per^ 
 formances would fail {o Jhort oi what 
 that Law requires^ I lliould immedi- 
 ately be in the famejiate I was in be- 
 fore my Tar don. We are all under 
 the Law of Works till we do fo know 
 Chrift Jefus, as to yield up our felves 
 unrefervedly unto his Condud. In- 
 deed, we are not now fo undi*^ the 
 Law of Works, as our firfl Parents 
 were immediately on their Tranfgrejfi- 
 ony aod before that gracious Pronufe 
 that the Seed of the Woman jhould 
 break the Serpent s head^ was given 
 them, for till then they were purely 
 Under the Law of Works, and had no 
 remedying Law to make ufe o! for 
 their Relief We are naturally flili 
 under that Law of Works, only we 
 have this advantage^ that now there 
 is a Law of Pardon, or a remedying 
 Law concurrent with it, if we will 
 make ufe of it. But till we comply 
 with, and accept of that Law, i.e. do 
 B % yield 
 
( 20 ). 
 
 \ield up our felves abfolutely to Chrifi 
 Jefus^ the other Law ftands in full 
 forte againll us. 
 
 Our fo knowing of ChriH Jefns as 
 hath been mentioned , is our atltial 
 confenting to the gracious tender and 
 offer God hath made to all Sinners, 
 without excepting any, whereby we 
 come to be really in the Covenant of 
 Grace. What is ordinarily called the 
 Covenant oj Grace ^ is only the Declara- 
 tion and Teftament which Chrift hath 
 made of the Grace of God, or the Blef- 
 Jings iie will be (low on all thofe who 
 do or ihall unfeignedly confcni to yield 
 up themfelves ahfolutely to Him, It 
 is a Covenant only with thofe who do 
 thus conjent unto it. And upon our 
 giving up our felves thus to Chrift^ 
 God owns us to be in Covenant with 
 Him. Ot this Covenant Chrifi Jefus 
 is the Mediator^ to whom it pertains 
 to fee, that hoth parts of the Covenant 
 thus confented to be performed. We 
 are to do what is alTigned to us, /. e. 
 we mufl follow Chriji's Conduct in e- 
 very thing we fliall know he hath or- 
 dained for «j, and therefore muft ufe 
 our^ honefl endeavours to underftand 
 
 what 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 what he hath taught; and upon our 
 doingT^, we come to be entitled to the 
 Benefit sGodh2it\\promifeel;w\{\Qh Chrifl 
 is alfo to fee accomplijhed^ and made 
 good UBto us. When we know Chriff: 
 Jefus aright, we are delivered from the 
 power of dark fiefs, and tranjlated into 
 the Kingdom of his dear Son, Col. 1. 1 5. 
 2. Power to perform fuch Obedience 
 as God will gracioujly accept. This 
 knowledge of Chrifl Jefus, which is a 
 fpecial efiedt of the Holy Spirit, is not 
 a dead notion, but the Light of Life^ 
 a divine vital principle, which hath 
 an influence on all the Towers of the 
 Soul, and Facultiei of the whole Man, 
 fpiriting and directing them all in a 
 good mea fur e, in ways fuitable to its 
 own Naturej and the end for which 
 it is given. It pofTefTeth the Soul with 
 a predominant Love to Chrisl, and 
 influences the Perfon to labour after 
 a Conformity to Him. It puts the 
 Perfon upon cpnfidcring and enqui- 
 ring what things He, whom be hath 
 taken for his Lord hath revealed, 
 what he doth Command, and in what 
 maniaer it hehoves him, now he hath 
 thus refigned himfelf to Him, to he- 
 B 3 h^ve 
 
1 " ^ 
 
 have himfelf; and it furnidies him 
 with ahility to execute the fame, by 
 deriving frefli fupphes of Jirength 
 from that Holy Spirit who is the Au- 
 thor of this divine vital Principle, ft 
 difpofeth and endineth him to do 
 thofe good Works Chrifl hath com- 
 manded him, and to ufe thofe means 
 Chrift hath enjoyned, in order to his 
 receiving greater meafures of the in- 
 fluences of the Holy Spirit, Epi^'LAO, 
 Such a Perfon's Good Works and O- 
 bedience are accepted with God, not 
 becaufe of their intrinfick worthy but 
 only for the merit of Chrift^ who hath 
 procured the Law of Grace^ and is the 
 -mediator of the new Covenant. Our 
 beft Works cannot merit Salvation, 
 that is the purchafe of Chris's Blood. 
 We are juftified and faved by Faith, 
 and that is the Gift of God ; fo that 
 we have nothing to hoaft of, tho'very 
 much for which we are to be thank- 
 ful. Our good Works are an evidence 
 of the truth of our Faith, and that 
 , our knowledge of Chrifl is of the 
 right kind: And fuch is the Grace of 
 God rhroi^gh ChriH^ that the more we 
 ahound'm them, the greater lliall our 
 
 Reward 
 
Reward ht; not bccaufe of their Me^ 
 rit, but becaufe of liis gracious Fro- 
 mife^ afligning degrees of Glory ^ in 
 proportion to our ahounding in new 
 Oled'tence. We do not ^tnv^ Power 
 from Chrift to merit any thing /or 
 our felves, but we receive from Him 
 Tower to perform fuch Obedience as 
 fhall for his fake be accepted and re- 
 v&arded. Upon our performing fuch 
 Obedience^ we fhall receive freely the 
 Blefftngs He hath merited^ and which 
 for his fake are made over to us in 
 the Covenant of Grace, Our Works of 
 Righteoufnefs and Goodnefs do not 
 make us Righteous and G^f)^/, but they 
 prove and difcover us to be fo^ i. e. 
 that we are endu*d with a divine 
 Principle^ have our Matures changed, 
 and do know ChriH Jefus aright^ as 
 vital a^s do not make a living Crea- 
 ture, but they prove that the Crea- 
 iure which performs them , hath a 
 principle of Life from which thofe 
 a^s do 7?<?«;. 
 
 4^%. Another excellency of this 
 
 l^nowledge is, that it puts a check to 
 
 Vain Cunofity^ to a fearch after empty 
 
 and lefs neceffary Speculations, and de^ 
 
 " B 4 livers 
 
livers us from ail carnal and ground- 
 lefs Confidence^ and engages us to a 
 commendable Diligence^ hy determine 
 ing our ennutrles after fuch things as 
 are moft certain and t rut in themfelveSy 
 and mil he mojl ufeful and profitable 
 unto us^ by advancing us both in intel- 
 letlual and moral Accowplijhments and 
 Terfe^ions. For it obliges us to em- 
 ploy our honefl: and bed endeavours 
 to underfiand, and make a right uje 
 of what Jefiis ChriB hath taught and 
 revealed j which are matters of fuch 
 excellency^ that all ether things are of 
 little account with thofe who under- 
 fland the ufe and importance of thefe^ 
 as the Apoftle plainly teftified, when 
 he faid, he accounted all things but 
 lofsy &c. Which brings me to con- 
 fider, ' 
 
 Fourthly, What account he who 
 knows ChriH Jefus aright doth make 
 ol all other things. The Sence a fin- 
 cere C^iriftian hath of the excellency 
 of this knowledge^ difcovers it felf in 
 the great alteration it makes in his 
 Opinion and Judgment of all other 
 things from what they were before. 
 He doth fet now a ju^ ijiimate upon 
 
 all 
 
[ *5 ] 
 
 all worldly Enjoymenti^ and outvoard 
 Privileges relating to Religion^ and ex' 
 ternal performances in Religion^ ac- 
 cording to their feveral Natures, 
 Places, and Ranks, to their ufe and 
 ends. He does not abfolutely con- 
 demn them, as evii in themfelves, or 
 as altogether ufelefs to any good pur- 
 pofes, for ihould he do fo, he would 
 be faulty. He owns them to be the 
 good Gifts of God, that a vtxy^good 
 life may be made of them, is thank- 
 ful to God for them, if he enjoys 
 them, and praifeth God for bellowing 
 them on others. He acknowledges 
 they have a heauty and excellency con- 
 fidered in their proper place and fea~ 
 fan. But then he efleems them as 
 the. Apodle did, as altogether ufelefs 
 to the lufinefs here fpoken of, -d/s. to 
 be the matter of our Confidence, yea, 
 extreamly hurtful when depended on 
 for Juftification. To be but lofsy yea 
 dung when compar'd with, and let in 
 oppofition to this knowledge of QhriH 
 JeJHS^ which hath an excellency in it, 
 unfpeakabJy greater than all other 
 things have, and which alone can a- 
 yail and profit us to Jujiification and 
 
 - Sal- 
 
Lt6 3 
 
 SalTMtion. That divine Light which 
 difcovers Chnji Jefm to a Perfon, as 
 ?he Perfon commiiTioned by God to 
 be the Saviour of Sinners, and effeciu- 
 sliy caufcth him, from a fence of his 
 own Sin and Guilt, to yieid up him- 
 felf entirely to Him, to be faved by 
 Him in hii own way, doth difcover 
 all other things to bim in iucli a true 
 and difparaging manner, that he plain- 
 ly perceives they cannot bear aay pro- 
 portion with Chrisf ; and therefore he 
 accounts them to be Jo/s, as to the 
 bufinefs of Jujiijication. If I do not 
 cfleem Chrifl Jefus worthy enough to 
 be the fole ohjetl of my dependAuce^ 
 I do not know bim artght. And it I 
 fct up any thing in the World, as that 
 I will truH to, and^dcpend on for Ju- 
 i"lification, more than Chrift, or c- 
 qually with Him, I acknowledge a 
 greater, or an equal virtue and effica- 
 cy in that, with what I pretend to 
 l>elieve is in Chrift for this purpofe. 
 Or if I depend on any thing together 
 lyith Chrift, tho' in an infer iour de^ 
 gree, I do not take him to be the only 
 a/id all-fufficient Saviour of Sinners ^ 
 and fo have not that knowledge of 
 
 Chrift 
 
Chrift Jefus here fpoken of. Indeed, 
 there are other things we may depend 
 on^ and m3ke the ground q{ our Ter- 
 Jwafion and ' Confidence^ that we are 
 Jujitfied and ihall be Savedy as thofe 
 which are fure^ certain^ and never- 
 failing Evidences of our Interest ia 
 ChriH^ as our Saviour, and that wc 
 do know Him aright. But there is 
 not any thing but Chrift and his Righ- 
 teoufnefs^ we may trufl to, and de- 
 pend on for Juftification and Salvati' 
 ony i. e. as that^ for i\iQ fake of which 
 vvc Ihall be Juftified and Saved. 
 
 From what hath been difcourfed we 
 may take notice, 
 
 Firft, That Perfons may have great 
 JHeafures of fpecul-ative Knowledge 
 concerning ChriH Jefus ^ and what he 
 hath taught^ and not he True Chriflians. 
 The Apoftle indeed doth tell us, that 
 whofoever helieveth that Jefus is the 
 Chrirly is horn of God, which is the 
 iame with his being a True Chriflian, 
 I John 5.1. but it is evident, beyond 
 all doubt, by his following difcourfe, 
 that hc; doth not fpeak ot a bare Spe- 
 cula- 
 
C i8 3 
 
 iulative Knowledge , but oS. fuch a 
 Knowledge and Faith as I have been 
 giving an account of. Such a Know- 
 ledge or Belief that Jefus is the Chrift, 
 that is, the Ferfon God hath commtft' 
 oned to he the Saviour of Sinners^ as 
 doth effedually caufe a Perfon to re- 
 fign up himfelf entirely to Him, doth 
 confl'ttute hijji a True Chr'iflian. What- 
 ever Knowledge or Faith People may 
 have, which falls ihort of this, will 
 not profit them to Juflification^ nor 
 have a due effedt and influence on 
 their Lives. The rnoft pompous Pre- 
 sences will not prevail for our accept- 
 ance with Chrifi^ where this is want- 
 ing. Mat, 7. 12, 23. Therefore, 
 
 Secondly, We ought to make a tho- 
 rough and impartial fearch concerning 
 our jehes^ whether we h true Chrifli- 
 ans. Whether we are fo fully per- 
 fwaded that Jefus is the ChriH^ that 
 w^e do fncerely yield up our felves, 
 without any refervation to follow his 
 Conduct. It is not enough that we 
 call our felves Chriflians^ and pretend 
 to ovvn him for our Lord^ as Mat, 7." 
 2x, 23. difcovers. But we muft ju- 
 fiifie the Truth of our owning him to 
 
I t9 3 
 
 be our Lord^ by employing our {t^ves 
 heartily to under Hand what Me hatli 
 taught, and to believe^ and r[\^kcfuch 
 ufeo{ what we attain to knmv He hath 
 taught^ as we fhall perceive he intends 
 and appoints. For, 
 
 Thirdly, TIjo' a right knowledge of 
 this one point, that Jejus is the ChriB, 
 doth conjlitute and make a PerJo» a, 
 Chrijlian : yet there are many points 
 Jejus Qhrisi hath taught and revealed^ 
 which every fine ere Chrifiian Js indi- 
 jpenfihly obliged to endea*uour to «»- 
 derfland^ and make a due uje of. 
 When a Perfon becomes a True Chri- 
 fiian, he doth refign himfelf (as you 
 have been told) entirely unto Chri§i 
 Jefus as his Lord, and obligeth him- 
 felf, without any relervation, to ule 
 his ferious, hone ft, and fincere endea* 
 vours to know what he hath revealed, 
 and to ajfent unto, and make fuch ufe 
 of what he fliall attain to know he hath 
 revealed, as the nature, or particular 
 intendment thereof (fo far as he iliall 
 know the fame) doth direCi, He 
 doth not capitulate and compouvd \x\i\\ 
 ChriBy that he will aflent unto, and 
 make fuch ufe as be ordersj of /«/? 
 
 fucli 
 
Cjo3 
 
 fnch a numher of ArticleSy but will 
 beexcus'd from concerning hiinfelf to 
 extend his knowledge ^ or pra£lice any 
 further. It is out of my /^f^c/; (and 
 I am perfwaded it is out of the reach of 
 any Man, or Body of Men) to aflign 
 a precife numher ot Articles whicii are 
 ncceflary to be explicitly known and 
 believed by ^jincere Chrijiians, and 
 heyond "^h^ich no Chrifti^-n is obliged 
 to endeavour to proceed in his Faith 
 and Obedience. Peoples Capacities^ 
 Opportunities^ and Advantages are ve^ 
 ry various and different. Many 
 things may be neceffary for fome 
 Chriilians to helieve^ which are not 
 neceffary to be beheved by others'^ 
 becaufe fome do attain to the know- 
 ledge of them, and a great many 
 more may never attain to the know- 
 ledge of them, and this not becaufe 
 of any faulty omijTton or negle^ to ufe 
 their honeH endeavours to underftand 
 what Chrisf hath made known to the 
 World, but {torn fome thing elfe which 
 will not be reckoned to them for a 
 fault. I think a certain number of 
 Articles cannot be fixed on (befides 
 this, that Jcfas is the Ghrilf) whicfe' 
 
 we 
 
we may peremptorily determine muft 
 ot neceflity be explicitely known and 
 believed, or no Perjcn can he faveJ. 
 For the helief of the other Dotirines 
 Chrift hath taught^ doth net conjtitute 
 or make a Ptrfon a True Cknjhan. 
 
 Perhaps fome may be now ready to 
 fay, thais well, for then we are fafe 
 tho' we be Ignorant^ and continue Ig- 
 norant of all the Do^rines Chrift hath 
 taught^ befidcs this, that Jefus is the 
 Chrift; or if we fliould corn',- to know 
 them we are fafey tho' we refufe to 
 lelteve them, and make that ufe of 
 them Chrift appoints ; for we do be- 
 lieve moft firmly that J ejus is the 
 Chrisf, and fo we are True Chrift ians^ 
 and therefore fafe^ and need not troti^ 
 lie our felves about knowing or helie* 
 •ving any thing more. 
 
 Nay, now you are out, moft dan- 
 geroufly and wretchedly out. Believe 
 as much as you can^ befides this Arti- 
 cle, your belief will riot make you a 
 True Qhriftian. It is the right know* 
 ledge or bplief of this Article, that 
 Jelus is the QhriB, that makes a Per- 
 Ibn a True Chrifiian. But the be- 
 lieving of thisy doth not exclude your 
 
 'be- 
 
C?^3 
 
 believing of other Articles, or dif- 
 charge you from any obligation to be- 
 lieve other pointSy or make your be- 
 lieving of other matters needlefs. 
 But it brings you under an indifpen- 
 fable obligation to endeavour to know 
 and believe more. Tho' the belief of 
 other points is not necejfary to cori- 
 flitute a Perfon a True Chriftian^ yet 
 other things are neceffary to be believed 
 by him that is a True Chriflian. The 
 true Chriftian is obliged to ufe his be/l 
 endeavours to know what Chrift hath 
 revealed, and to aflent unto, and make 
 a right ufe of what he attains to know 
 Chrift hath revealed. And if you do 
 not do thftSy you do not approve youB 
 felves TrueChrifiians^ you do not ac- 
 quit your lelves as true Chriftians 
 ought, and muft acquit themfelves. 
 It you either negletl to enquire after, . 
 and to ufe your honeft endeavours to 
 know what Chrift hath revealed, or 
 refufe to affent to and make a good uje 
 ot what you know he hath revealed^ 
 you have juft reafon to conclude you 
 are not True Chriftians^ and do not 
 know Chrift Jefus aright < v/hatever 
 you affirm in your words. 
 
 Thersf 
 
There are many things Chrlft liath 
 taught and revealed fo plainly , fo 
 clearly^ h difttyiUly^ you cannot but 
 know, forne of them, If you Jerfoujly 
 endeavour to know what He hath re- 
 vealetl; and wJ,iat ypii know be hatfj 
 revealed, you muft,a{Ient to and n?iik^ 
 tffi.of, if you do rightly know and be- 
 lieve Him to be the only Saviour of 
 Si nam. 
 
 If , it be now ask'cl what are thole 
 particular Points or Articles Chrirt 
 liath revealed, which are ncceflary for 
 Ghriflians %o endeavour to know^. and 
 vvhicli being known to be j|;cvcalc4 
 by Him they inuft indifpehlabjy alt 
 fcnt to, and make ufe of : I anf^yer, 
 that what Chrii h$th reveajetl,; is 
 pre pounce J to , us .m (pertain ,x\>prds 
 \\'hich make diijio^ Sentences^'S.nd^ 
 P.ropofit'ions^ and bein^,thus c^^yf^/j^rf ^Z, 
 they .Of c oljetU o\^'^^tt^x^ and, matters 
 of Faith J tho' yvhcn we eonnder the 
 nature o^ the Trutlis thus propound? 
 ed, and their fpecial intendment, they 
 may be conveniently reduced to par* 
 %\q}Am Heacis^ to wl,iich particular P^-* 
 mmlnationi may be a/Iign'd. Some 
 ^f thefe I will n?me^ together with 
 C fom-i 
 
CU3 
 
 fome particular Propofitions Ghrift 
 hath taught, which properly belong 
 to thefe Heads. 
 
 As ly?. Thofe Propofitions which 
 defcribe his Perfon, and inflrudt us 
 who be waiy whom God did fett^ and 
 commijfion to be the Saviour of Sin* 
 ners. As that He is God^ the Son of 
 God^ the only he^otten of the Father^ 
 God over all^ hlejfed for ever^ John i. 
 I. Rom. 9. 5. The Son of God, and the 
 Meffias are often ufed in the New Te* 
 (lament , as Reciprocal Terms, not as if 
 the flri^ Idea, the term Meffias, doth 
 fland for, were the fame the Son of 
 God d-oth (land for, but becaufe He 
 who is the Son of, God is the Mefftas, 
 and He who is the Meffias is the iSV;; of 
 (>^/; both thefe Prdpofitions I heltevCy 
 becaufe I find that ChriH Jefus and 
 his Apoftles, bf hii order, did l^ach 
 tbe}i7. I do not think that He was 
 the Son of God becaufe He was the 
 Meffias, as the Sdcini'ans afTert ; nor 
 yet, that He was the Mefias becaufe 
 He was the Son of God, as fbme affirm 
 in oppofition to the former, but that 
 the Son of Gcd was the Meffias, be- 
 caufe the Father^d^v^ not think fit to 
 
 com- 
 
Cn3 
 
 commtjftoH any but his own Son to be 
 X\y(i $(iuiour of Sinners, When a true 
 Chriftian underflands that Chrifl Je- 
 lus bath taught that He is Qod^ He 
 mufl aflent unto it, and endeavour to 
 nfeitfor the nourilliing, (trengthening, 
 and confirming of \^\s Faith in Him. 
 To a (Tu re him that He is all-fufficient 
 to fplfil the Work He hath undertaken^ 
 and to which He is commijjioned. And 
 to dire6t and juftifie his paying Divine 
 Honour and Worjhip to Him. So al- 
 fothat He was made Fle/hy did adume 
 QUC whole Nature, and was true Man, 
 Job. I. 14. Mar. I. 16. Ltfke i. 51. 
 which may fatisfie us, that He was in 
 a Condition and Fitnefs for tliat part 
 of His^fi?r;^ which did confiftin His 
 Suffering in our Jlead and on our ^- 
 half'^ and that He hath a moft tender 
 ^nd compajfionate concern ^ox lu^ whofe 
 Nature He did ajfume^ Heb. 2. 14. 
 Heb.4. 15-. 
 
 irfTy, . Thofe Propofitions which 
 acquaint us with the occajion of His 
 undertaking this OJAce, and being 
 commiffioned to it. As, that by the 
 Fa/I of our firft Farents^fin entred into 
 the World. That we are all fallen [hort 
 C % if 
 
( ?6 ) 
 
 iof the Glory of God. And that we are 
 hy Nature the Children of PTrathf 
 Rom, 3. 13. Rom. 5. ii. Eph. z. 3. 
 which may convince us more through- 
 ly, of our great xeed of fuch a 6*^- 
 v/oury make us have more low and 
 humble thoughts of our felves^ and 
 infpire us with mod admiring atid ele- 
 vated gratitude and thankfulnefs, to 
 and for Him. 
 
 "^dly., Thofe Proportions which in- 
 flrud: us that the fending of this Sa- 
 viour did proceed and fpring purely 
 from the Free Crace^ Alercy, and 
 Love of God. Go^ jo loved the florid 
 that He gave his only begotten Son, 
 that whofoever believeth in hiwfhould 
 nor perifh but have eve rlafiinglije, &c. 
 John 3. 16, 17. I John 4. 9. Eph. x. 
 4. to the 9th. This is proper to en- 
 gage our j^dmiration and Love. Here 
 is room for our exerting them in their 
 fullejl ftrength and force, 
 
 ^thly, Thofe Propofitions which 
 teach us in what ways, and by what 
 Heps He did, and doth execute, and 
 will finally accomplifli the ^ork and 
 Ofice He Vndertook. As, i. By Re- 
 vealing the Father^ and making His 
 
 mil 
 
( J7 ) 
 
 Wifl known to the Worlds John i. i8. 
 Heb. I. 1,2. John 15-. 15. Where- 
 by we are furn'ifhed with the mofl 
 lifejul^ pertinent^ neceffary ^Xi^ prcjita- 
 hie InJlrutUons ; do know where we 
 are to employ our Searches and E^fqui- 
 ries to the lefl purpcfe: And what we 
 may without flutluation^ doubt ^ or 
 waverings and with the greatejl confi- 
 dence entertahiy and depend upon for 
 their Truth. 
 
 tdlyy By fulfilling all Right eoufnejs^ 
 and leading the mojl Innocent^ unble^ 
 miftid^ exa^ and holy Ltfe^ Mat. 3. 
 i^. I Pet. z. ai. Ads 10.38. Thus 
 He has fet us an Example in His own 
 Life, Hath vifibly commended and 
 difcovered the amiablenefs of* what 
 He Commands and Enjoyns. And hath 
 fliewn us in the mod convincing and 
 obliging way-, how we ought to de- 
 mean and behave our felves. And 
 hereby we perceive that He was ad- 
 mirabl}^ fitted for another part of what 
 pertained to Him in His EHate of 
 Humiliation, viz. making Himfelf a 
 Sacrifice for our fins, Hcb. 7. 26, &c. 
 
 3<y/y, By fuffe ring very many hardr 
 fhjps , inniifi^erable reproaches , and 
 indignities , enduring the Wrath of 
 C 3 Gc</, 
 
C ?8 ] 
 
 God, and a^tiaily dying ht open view 4s 
 a Makfa^lor on the Crofs^ offering np 
 himfelf a Sacrifice to fatisfie Divine 
 Jufiice for the fins of the World ^ and 
 giving his Soul a Ranfom for Sinners^ 
 Ads 1. 13. and 56. Heb. 9. ^^. t Pet. 
 
 3. 18. I Tim. 2.. 6. which difcovers 
 the moft execrable nature of Sin, how 
 extreamly loathfom and hateful it is 
 to Qod, and therefore iliould be fo to 
 us. This manifefts the Cdndejcentim 
 and Loveof Chriftto m^ in the mod 
 offering manner that can be imagined. 
 And is the mod potent Argument to 
 kindle and excite the truefl Love in 
 our Souls to ///w, and calls for our 
 exerting Love to Him in its mofl: 
 power tml agings, x Cor. 5'. 14. 15". 
 
 t^thly^ By rifing a^ainfrom the dead 
 the third day^ i Cor. i^. 4. Rom. i» 
 
 4. Rom. 4x5. Hereby the /'/-^/'^mf J 
 Which were before concerning Him, 
 and His own Preditiions were moft 
 exatUy verified and fulfilled. This 
 gives a moft certain undeniable demon' 
 ft rat ion that His Sacrificing of Him- 
 felf, and his Death ^tre accepted of 
 God, and are prevalent for all the pur- 
 pofes for which they were intended. 
 
 This 
 
C J9 3 
 
 This ftrengtlicns our Faith and Hope 
 in God. And aflures us of the cer- 
 tainty of our Befurrc^ /on Sit the end of 
 iheVVorldy i Pet. i. 21. Rom. 8. 11. 
 
 Sthly, By Ajcending up into Heaven 
 in the fight of His D/fciples (Rafter He 
 had given full proof of the truth of His 
 Refurredion, and commiflioned them 
 to Preach His Gofpel to all the World) 
 That there He may in Hit exalted 
 Eflate^ perform what further per-- 
 tAins unto Him as the Saviour of Sin- 
 tiers, Mark 16. 19. This a (lures us of 
 the efficacy and prevalence of His 
 Inter ceffion, and the folid ground we 
 have to dependupon Him for whatfo- 
 ever He hath warranted us to ask in 
 His Namey and expect from Him, 
 Hcb. 7. 14, 15. John 14. i,.?., 3. 
 
 6th/y, By fending and giving forth 
 the Holy Spirit for the purpofes and 
 ends for which He hath promifed 
 Hiwy viz. for the making of His Word 
 and Ordinances effedtual, for the Con- 
 verflon of Sinners, and the Edification 
 and Comfort of true Believers, John 
 14. 16, 17, and 26. And here by the 
 way we may take notice, that He hath 
 taught how we are to conceive of 
 C 4 tli2 
 
C 40 
 
 the TJoly Spirit^ certifying thdt He is 
 po^y Ad:s 5". 3, 4". x Cor. 3. 16, 17. 
 Now when a true Chriftian under- 
 ftands, that Chri/i Jefns hath given 
 this account of the Holy Spirit^ He 
 !S as much obliged to believe it, as He 
 is to beheve that Jefiu is the Chrifi ; 
 and wlien h^' ilnderftands that Chrift 
 hath taught that the Father, Himfelf\ 
 aftd the Holy Ghofl are God, that He 
 faith fuch things of themy and requires 
 fuch Homage anjJ fVorfiip to be paid 
 unto^^m, as 2l\q peculiar Unto God^ 
 and certifies that thefe 7/;r<?f are O^d*, 
 (Matth. 28. 19. I John 5. 7.) He 
 is obhged to aiflent unto and beheve 
 this Truths as well as any thing elfe 
 that Chrift hath taught. It is as hard 
 for me to reconcile a Pcrfons denying, 
 or not believing this^ when he knows 
 that Chrift Jefus hath tapght //, with 
 jiis being a facer e Chrtfi ian ^or having 
 iinrefervecily refigaed himfelf up to 
 Jefus ChriJ}, as any Man can pretend 
 It is to him, to tell how thefe three 
 can he God, and yet there be but offe 
 Xjod, I believe that the Father, Son, 
 and" Holy Spirit are God, becaufe I 
 fi^-id \\\Vi Chrift J ej lis \\3X\i taught y^^ 
 " And 
 
i 41 ] 
 
 And if any Man can pretend he hath 
 ground to believe this Article to be 
 falfe^ or to with' ho/^ his ajfent, when 
 he knows that Jefus Chrift hath taught 
 it, he cannot with cokur, pretend 
 he has juft reafon to believe thzt J^efia 
 7Jv the Mejfias^ nor to believe any o»e 
 point upon his Authority. For if we 
 queftion the Truth of any thing wc 
 know He taught^ we have the like rea^ 
 fon to quejiion the Truth of every thing 
 He taught. He that is upon fuch 
 Terms, can hardly dcferve to be ac- 
 counted a true Chriftian, Hemuft be 
 extraordinarily fojt and favourable X.O 
 himfelf, if he can perjuade himfelf 
 that is one. If I were not fully per- 
 fuaded that Chrift Jefm underftood 
 the Divine Nature, ond knew how to 
 peak of it, better tlian any meer Man, 
 1 fliould not take him to be my Lord 
 and Saviour. It may be fome will 
 fay, they do believe what Chrift Jejus 
 hath taught, but they cannot believe 
 the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is 
 taught in certain Creeds, which are 
 but of Humane Compofure. To fuch 
 I would fay, if you really know, and 
 h^rtily believe all that Chrift hath 
 
 taught 
 
C 4^3 
 
 taught conurnin^ this tnatter^ it is as 
 friucli as I can iefire, and as much, 
 as you ought to believe concetnin^ it. 
 But tho' other words are now ordina- 
 rily ufed in teaching of this Dotlrine^ 
 than are ufed about it in the Holy 
 Scriptures ; yet the Dodrine is but 
 th^fante which Chri/l taught. The 
 other Words and Terms which are now 
 ufed, do not add any thing to his 
 Dotlnne ; they were not originally 
 . intended to make the Dothine more 
 ■perfeU than Chrift delivered it. The 
 Doctrine continued as It was taught 
 in the Holy Scriptures, till fome pre^ 
 fumptuom (not to (ay malicious) Per- 
 fons aflumed to themfclves iq affix fuch 
 z/inijler Interpretation and Conftrudi- 
 OH to the Words of Chrift^ as did ex- 
 ceedingly alter His Dothine^ very 
 much depreciating Chrijt Himfelf and 
 the Holy Spirit^ degrading Chiiji into 
 a meer A/i?«(though He Himfelf taught 
 that He was God ) and teaching that 
 the Holy Spirit \yasbut the Power or 
 Virtue of God^ and not God. When 
 this Method was ufed to corrupt the 
 faith of Chrijiy fincere Chriftians 
 fpund it expedient to make ufe of 
 
 other 
 
L4Vl 
 
 other Wbrt/s, which have been fuc 
 cejftvely retained. But they ufed noj; 
 theje words, with a defign to teach 
 more than Chrift had taught, only to 
 deliver what He had taught, with a 
 denial of that corrupt Senfe falfe Tt^- 
 chtrshsid ft amptVi^on His Words. So 
 that the Dodlrine of the Trinity as it 
 is ordinarily taught amongft us, is no 
 other, than that the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghoft are God, as Chrift hath 
 taught they are, and that we do rejedt 
 that Senfe and Confirutlion^ which 
 Men of their own Heads, and with- 
 out any Authority have affixed to 
 Chrifl's Dotlrine, It is but the Do' 
 ^rine Chrift hath taught, with an 
 oppofition to, and denial of that Addi" 
 tion of Words, and Diminution of 
 Senfe, which other People had tntro^ 
 duced touching that which Chrift had 
 taught. 
 
 ToTay that this Dodrine is contrary 
 to Reafon, is in effect to deny that 'je- 
 fits IS the Meftias, or Chrift. Can 
 the Fountain of Light and .Reafon, 
 teach any thing that is contrary to 
 Reafon^ Does not the i^^^jj; He that 
 5*'as ccmmiffioned to teach Men the 
 
 Mind 
 
£44 3 
 
 Min(^ oj'God^ know what is cottfonant 
 \o Reajon, better than we//<7 ? It is not 
 to be exped:ed that People fhould in 
 ^ood earne^ believe this Docirine^ till 
 they are fully perfuaded that Jefus is 
 the Chrifl^ and when they heartily 
 believe that^ there can be no ground 
 to deny their aflent to this^ or any 
 other DoElrtne^ they know he hath 
 taught. We have this notice by Su- 
 pernatural Revelation^ that the Father 
 is God^ and that the Son is God, and 
 that the Hol)i Ghofl is God^ which we 
 could not know by the meer Light of 
 Nature., Now if thcfe who fay this 
 Dodrine is againft and contrary to 
 Reafon^ do mean no more, than that 
 they find (7/;r/i-? hath revealed it ^ but 
 thcy^ cannot underft and any more con- 
 cerning it, than what He hath re- 
 vealed, they are in the r/g^/, but they 
 would do well, to exprels their mean- 
 ing by decent and proper Terms , 
 which may fignifie x\\tSenfe they have 
 of their own and Humane iKeaknefs^znA 
 not throw Unworthy and Blajphemous 
 Aftterfions on a moil certain Divine 
 I ruth and Doctrine. He that heartily 
 believes th^t Jefu^ is the Chrijl, ^qd 
 
 takes 
 
C 45 3 
 
 teikes Him uufei^nedly for his Lor^ 
 and Saviour^ will believe whatfoever 
 he knows Chrift h^iXh taught, and will 
 be contented to wait to know more t\\%r% 
 He hath taught concerning any ^r- 
 tide, till He Ihall be pleajed to make 
 a further dijcovery of it. Our know* 
 ing that the Holy Spirit who is pro^ 
 mifed, is God^ affords us great f;/c-/7;^- 
 ragement to depend upon Him fori 
 and to expe^ from Him Aids and ^^^ 
 fiHances fuitahle to our occafions^ and 
 {vch Influences as will render cur //^/i- 
 fullahours, and endeavours profpervus 
 and fuccefsful. 
 
 ythly. By coming at the end of the 
 World in unconceivable Glory, at ivhici' 
 time He will raife the dead, judge tht 
 World^and render to every me according 
 to his Works,A.d.S lo. 41. Ad:s 17. ^i, 
 a Cor. 5. 10. This, if any thing, 
 Ihouldkeep us'm a continual holy ^ut 
 of Him, and have a ,very powerful 
 and good Influence upon our Conduti 
 at all times, if we have. any care ^or^ 
 or regard to our indifputahly greatcll: 
 Inter efls. And tlieretbre true Chri^ 
 ftians Ihould concern thcmfelves very 
 much to anderftand as particularly g^j 
 
 thev 
 
C4«5] 
 
 they can , and make a good ufe <4 
 what Chrift hath taught relating to 
 what I fhall hint unto you in the next 
 place. 
 
 ^thly , Thofe Propofitions which 
 acquaint us with the Evil Mis and 
 Ficious Inclinations and Litfis^ He re- 
 quires us to abstain {torn and mortifie; 
 and the moral Duties He commands u<5 
 to perjorm^ as alfo in what manner it 
 is His pleafure we Jhould do them, 
 Thefe are either general or particular : 
 Thofe th^t are general y obUge us to 
 renounce all corrupt affections ^ and 
 abflain from every Wickednejs and Sin^ 
 and to exercife our felves in all the 
 Duties we owe to God^ our J^eighbotir^ 
 and onr felves y without defending to 
 mention particular indances, but en- 
 gaging us to employ our enquiries a- 
 bout them, that we obtain as diHinti 
 a knowledge of them as we can ; fuch 
 are Tit. %. ii, 12,. 2 Cor. 7. i. Thofe 
 which are partictdar^ do name cer- 
 tain FiceSy Evil A^s, and Lujls we 
 muft careiully fiun and avoid, and 
 Jubdae certain Graces, Virtues, and 
 goodA^s, we muft employ our felves 
 in. Thcfe may be reduced to three 
 
 Htads^ 
 
C 47 3 
 Heads^ viz. Thofe which concern all 
 Chriflians in common. Thofe which be- 
 long to them according to the fever al 
 Relations they ftand in unto others. 
 And thofe which pertain to them ac- 
 cording to the 'V^riotts EJlaies and 
 Coiditiom the Providence of God doth 
 place them in. We fhou Id endeavour 
 to be as diflindly acquainted with 
 thefe, as we can, that our Condutl 
 may bt Regular, Orderly, and Exady 
 and may heautifie and adorn our Pro- 
 feffion, Thefe make up iUq greaiejl 
 part of that Revelation Jefus Chrifl: 
 hath made of the fi'ill of God untb 
 the World. Thefe are difpafed 
 through the whole Body o{ thofe X;- 
 cred Records which contain the D/j- 
 coveries He hath made of the Father s 
 Mindy fo that we cannot attend la 
 ajiy page of the fame, but we ihall be 
 fure to meet with fome of them, 
 Amongft all the things thuChr/flJeJ'Aii 
 hath taught, thefe are the leajl d/Jpu^ 
 ted, but with profoundefl Grief be it 
 fpoken, none are more neglelled, and 
 more co?!trad/^ed in the P rati ices and 
 Lives of the Many. 
 
C 48 3 
 
 6thly, Thofe Propofitioins which 
 relate what Frivi/eges do pertain to 
 tliem who dcj know Chrifi Je/us aright y 
 .which acquaint us what Benefit s^ Ad- 
 vantages^ and inefltmable Blejfwgs fuch 
 Perfons do partake ot ztp/e/ent, and 
 may further exped with good affurafjce 
 •both in this Ltje and thfe ttepct. As 
 that they partake of the Holy Spirit^ 
 and are made his Temple $>, i Cor. 6. 
 19. Rom.; 8. 19/ Have all their Sins 
 Pardoned, are Juftijied and admitted 
 into the ftevj Covem»t, are SaHCtiJiedy 
 and made partakers oi the Divine 
 Nature, Eph. i. 7. i Con 6, ii.- x Per. 
 I. 3, 4. Rom. 1;. a4. are made the 
 Children of Qod, Joliq i. la. Gal. 3. 
 ad. Rom. 8. 14, 15. Have the //o/y 
 Angels to Miniftcr , and' do- many 
 good Oj^ces to them, Heb. i. i4.Th^t 
 Sill occurences-^ even the moft affiitling 
 that fhall be ordered forth unto them-, 
 iliall be over'rukd to their befl: advan- 
 tage^ Rom. 8. i8. That their Bodies 
 iliall at the end of the World be raifed 
 Glorious Bodiesy Phil. 3. ai, And that 
 they Ihall inherit Eternal Life and 
 Happinefs in the next Wpry, jin«J 
 have their Glorious Recompences ad- 
 vanced 
 
[ 49 : 
 
 vanced in proportion to what they 
 Suffer for the fake of Chrifty and the 
 improvement ^vj make in tl;i^ir Obe- 
 dience unto Him at prefen^t, i 7bef. 
 I. iQ.Matth.ty, XI, 34. Thefe things, 
 and every thing elfe which Chrift hath 
 taughr of t\\Q like Nature^ are very 
 proper and ^o^j^tviiA . Arguments to 
 quicken iis to, ana animate us in the 
 voork and mfnefs He doth afign us. 
 whilft we continue in this WotU\ and 
 tofupport ^nd comfort us under all the 
 Calamities and Sufferings that may 
 befal us /jf r^. 
 
 ythly, li\y^(Q Propofitions vvhich^ 
 inform us what Ordinances He hath 
 Inpituted^ and in what manner they 
 are to be ohferveJ\ As Baptifm^ the 
 Mini [fry of the Word^ ajld his Sup* 
 per, Matth. 18.19, xo. ^P^^-. 4- ii>^c. 
 Matth. 26. 17, 28. I Gor. II. 2^, ^c. 
 Thefe are appointed to be ufed as 
 Pledges and ^jfufances of the Grac'tr 
 m RefpeCt God hath to thofe who 
 heartily believe in ChriHy as Tejiimo' 
 nies of our Submiffion and Love unto 
 our Lord \ and as *wf<i»x by which, 
 we are to receive greater meafures of 
 the Graces and Influences of the //c- 
 
C5o3 
 
 Christ Jefm hath taught many 
 Tropofitions relating to every one of 
 thefe He ads ^ the knowing and un- 
 dering of which^ will contribute much 
 towards our arriving at as cUar^ di' 
 ftM^ zndi full knowledge o\. thdt mat- 
 ters as is expedient for us. And He 
 hath taught very many Propofitions 
 which may be reduced more perti- 
 nently to other Heads to which pro- 
 per Titles may be afTigned. Yet, 
 • 4//;/y, Tho* there is not any thing 
 Jefus Chrifl: hath taught, but it is 
 mosi certainly true^ and hath its^ro- 
 per ufe ; there are feme things of more 
 common and eminent Importance ; the 
 knowledge oUvhich^ hath a moft plain, 
 diredt, and immediate tendency^ to 
 nourifli and ftrengthen our Faith in 
 Him^ to excite and maintain in us, 
 Devout^ PiotUy and Divine Affe^ions, 
 and to aflift and help us in forming 
 our Converfations fo^ that they Ihall 
 not odly be Innocent^ and without Of* 
 fence, but Exemplary, and worthy of 
 imitation. And thefe are the matters 
 a True Chriflian ihould in the frB 
 place, and principally endeavour to 
 be acquainted with, tho' he is not ab- 
 
 folutely 
 
 i 
 
folutely to confine himfelf to thern,^ 
 but mud labour to obtain the know-- 
 ledge of more, if he can, and to be 
 continually growing in True Faith 
 and Godlinefs of living. Therefore, 
 
 ^thly^ A good Celled ion of thofe 
 Proportions^ \n\\\q\\ are of the greateft 
 moment to True ChriHians to have a 
 good knowledge of, and which Chrift 
 and his Apoftlesdid mod of all injfrfl' 
 on, and peculiarly commend to Peoples' 
 fpecial notice^ will be of great ufe to 
 True Chriftians, in order to their at-' 
 taining a more eajie and fpeedy In- 
 formation in matters which will be of 
 notable ufe to them. Tho' we may 
 not fay to true Believers with reference 
 to any certain number of Articles, as 
 God Almighty doth to the TVaves of 
 the Seay Thus jar fhall ye go, and no 
 farther, nor pofitively determine that 
 fuch a number of Articles muft of 
 neceffity be explicitely underftood and 
 believed by every True Chriftian^ 
 yet their being provided with fuch a 
 ColletlionoS. Articles well attefted by 
 the Holy Scriptures^ would be very 
 ferviceahle, and yield them much ad- 
 vantage, if they have not a difl'mtl 
 D 1 notional 
 
C5il 
 
 notional knowledge of them, before 
 they are effedually brought to believe 
 or know (in the manner before rela- 
 ted^ that Jefm is the Perfon God ap- 
 point^ and commifTioned tQ be the 
 only Saviour o{ Smm^ts, ..For, 
 
 6t:hly^\{\s advantage cjoth accrue to 
 People by their being early inftrnded 
 in the; Doctrines ck^i^ Jefus hath 
 taught^ ^jind obtaining a true notional 
 knowledge of the njain matters deli- 
 vered in the i^ew Te lament , , that 
 when they come to know Chrift Jc«i 
 {\^s favhgly they do imtnediately be- 
 lieve thofe Articles \vi another manner^ 
 and make a letter ufe of them tha 
 they did hefore. And thus they wi 
 be excufedfrom a great d(;a;l of P^inSy 
 they muft otherwilW take, tA get the 
 knowledge of thefe points, before they 
 can apply themfelves, to make a/^r- 
 ther Frogrefs. Befides, the notional 
 knowledge of fuch Articles if attended 
 to, with any toleralle Application^ 
 will conduce very much to Peoples 
 Convi^ion^ and difpofe them to fub- 
 rait themfelves to Jejm^ as the ChriB 
 and le/ign up themfelves entirely to 
 his ConduU. 
 
 phly. 
 
f n 3 
 
 'jthlyy It b fo far from being a Bit* 
 mijh. and Difadvantage to the Chriftian 
 Be/igiofi ^thzt Chrift Jefus hath taught 
 fo /w^»y Articles, it is its ineftimahle 
 excellency. \K.\%^fingular Benefit ^ for 
 which every good Chriftiaii ought to 
 be very thankful. Indeed if no Man 
 could be a true Chrifiian^ till he hath 
 an ex flic it e knowledge and belief of 
 every thing Chrift hach taught, then 
 none but Men of extraordinary party 
 and ^ains could be Trtie Chrifltans, if 
 any could be fo. But the matter is 
 fo ordered, that nothing is made 
 ncceflary to conjiitute a Perfon a Chri- 
 flian^ but what the meaneft of Man" 
 kind is capable of; and yet there is no 
 Indulgence to Sloth and Jdlenefs^ nor 
 excufe for wilful Ignorance in any, 
 becaufe there is nothing neceflary to 
 make a Perlon a True Chriftian, but 
 his knowing that Jefuf is the Perfon 
 God hath fent, and commij/ioned to be 
 the only Saviour of S inner Sy fo as to 
 take Him unfeigned ly to be his Lord, 
 And this doth indifpenfably oblige 
 him to ufe his heH endeavours to 
 knowy and make a right ufe of what 
 Chrift hath Revealed, And He hath 
 
 provided 
 
[54 3 
 
 provided fo ahundantly for the impro- 
 ving and bettering of oMx Mindi ^x^A 
 PradJceSy that how long foever we 
 live, wetnay be growing and increafing 
 in the knowledge of thqfe matters^, 
 which will exceedingly improve and 
 beautifie our Inteilelludsy2i6v^ntzg<Q 
 and adorn our Convsrfations and 
 Lives. 
 
 Therefore let us remember what 
 the Wife Man faith, iViJdom is the 
 principal things therefore get Wijj^lom^ 
 anciu>ith all thy getting get Vnder Han- 
 dings Prov. 4. 7. Let us labour to un- 
 derftand aright the Dodtrine of Chrifi 
 JefuSj and get the knowledge of Him 
 as our Lord^ - and endeavour conti- 
 nuilly to grow up more and more in 
 the knowledge of Him, and of what 
 He hath 'Pevealed. Then we fliall 
 know by Experience^ that the excel* 
 lency of t!iis knowledge is fuch, that 
 all thit words can evprefs con- 
 cerning it, fills abundantly fhort of 
 difcovering the whole truth. The 
 pleafure that arilcch from the mofl ac- 
 curate difcourje concerning Chrift 
 Jefus, is as much fnort of what a Per- 
 Iba^perceii'es in himfelf ^ upon his 
 
 know. 
 
 I 
 
C55 3 
 
 knowing Chrift J^(^s favhgfyy as the 
 fatisfa^iion which fprings from the 
 moil Phi/ofophical deknpnon of //o' 
 n^yy is fliort of that pleafurc Jonathan 
 felt in hiwjelf 'wh.tn his Eyes ^tre 
 opened^ and all his jacuUies revived 
 upon his t aft trig it. The excellency oi 
 Food IS unexprelhbly better perceived 
 by an hmgry Perfon, when he finds 
 himfeir refrejhed and ftrengthened 
 upon his eating and digeHhg it, than 
 by any words that can be ulfed to fct 
 forth its Nature and Properties. When 
 you come to know Chrift Jefus fo, as 
 to yield up. your felves entirely to 
 Him, you will be fully of St. Paul's 
 mind, ^ndaccou»t all thhgi lut lofs^ 
 for the excellency of the knowledge of 
 ChriH Jefm your Lord, 
 
 Books 
 
Books lately Printed for Aivftfiam 
 and John ChurchiL 
 
 TJlem*^ Chronological Tables, fol. 
 Cambden's Britannia^ fol. 
 Mr. BeyH General Hiftory of the Air,4'^ 
 MachU'vifs Works. 
 
 Sir Roger LStr4nge*s t/£fof% Fables^ fol. 
 Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle continued. 
 Mr. Loci^of Human Vriderflanding^ fol. 
 
 ■■ of Education^ 
 , of Money y Jntereft and Trade. 
 
 Tanner's Notitia Monaftica^ 
 BHhop Wilkins of Prayer and Preaching, 
 
 enlarged by Dr. Moor Bilhop of Norwich 
 
 and Dr. Williams* 
 Dr. Hody of the Refurreftion. 
 Sir W. Temple's Mifcellania compleat. 
 ©r. Pairiciis New Verfion of the Pfalms. 
 Gentleman's Reliiion, twelves. 
 Le Clare's Lo^ca^ twelves. 
 Dr.Leif>ko»Arch-Bp of <j/4/ro»,his Sermon.^ 
 Royal Grammar^ &c. odavo. 
 Prince y^«fc«r by Or. BlackmorCy fol. 
 Three feveral Letters for Toleration, 
 Bifhop Hopliirii's 4 Vo\.oi Sermons and other 
 
 pieces. 
 Seldens Table Talk, odavo. 
 A Difcourfc concerning the Love of God, 
 
 twelves. 
 Meriton's Guide for Surveyors of High-ways, 
 
 odavo. 
 An Abridgement of Mr.ioc^s Efayoi Hh- 
 
 manVnderftAndin?^ by Mr. f^ff.»?,odavo, 
 
 SOME 
 
SOME 
 
 PASSAGES 
 
 I N T H E 
 
 Reafonablenefs 
 
 O F 
 
 CHRISnjNR% &c. 
 
SOME 
 
 PASSAGES 
 
 I N T H E 
 
 Reafonablenefs 
 
 O F 
 CHRIST lJl<ilTr, &c. 
 
 AND ITS 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 With fome 
 
 Animadversions 
 
 i On Mr. Edwardsh Reficclions on the Rea- 1 
 fonabkrcfs of Chr,flinnuy^ and on his ' 
 
 I By S. Bold, Redtor of Steeple.Dcrfet, 
 
 ^ 
 
 {LONDON: Printed for A. and J. 
 
 ICliHrchH. at tlie Black. Svcan in Pater 
 NojUr.Row, MDGXCVII. 
 
TO THE 
 
 READER, 
 
 FTER J had Preached the 
 far agoing Sermon, Mr. Ed* 
 n\irds's Book Again ft the Rea- 
 lonablenefs of Chriilianity 
 faltifjo into my Hands ^ cccajioned my 
 perujing of that Treatife again a ftcond 
 time With mart attention ; Whereby J 
 ame to be furmfljed with a Truer , and 
 more ^itfi Notion of the main deftgn 
 of that Treatife, thaf^ I had, upon my 
 looking over it Curfory prefently after 
 it was ptibli(hed. 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 If the foUoivhg Papers (hall help 
 mtytoUnderjcand the true St2iiGofthe 
 Con trover fie letivixt thofi two Cele- 
 brated Writers, and induce People to 
 confider tnore fidaTely the Juft grounds 
 of our btlkv'mg Jefas to be the Mef- 
 fias, and the indtffenfable Ohll^ntion 
 thofc ivho do bclitve in him are undtr^ta 
 fcarch after the KrwnHtdge of what he 
 hath T'aHght and CommaKdedy and to 
 helteve and obey tha (ame, by Firttie 
 of the afort^ftid Belief 5 / f^.tll riot be 
 forry that I have ffent a ftw days in 
 /eadin^ ddikrately the Books to which 
 thy Relate. / am a perfect Strangtr 
 to both ^nthors. J am not certain 
 th^t I ever heard the Name of the 
 author of the Reafbnablenefs , drc. 
 fm^itionti. lam per funded 1 ntver fa-^f 
 Mr. Edwards. But h^ is a Perfon 
 for :vh-jm I hxvt a Particular and 
 Great Refpedl: , becanlt of J^.ijeral 
 Treat ifcs he hath publi/J^ed, which do 
 m- 'hound n-ith Magifterial Rant, 
 bu (cover him to be an Excellent 
 Cr!'r:k, a Ptrfm of great Reading, 
 'an eood Judgment, / ^^^pe le 
 ^ -^ mil 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 wiU Mge the Puhlick with mf)tt 
 Treatifes, EnrUyd, with fuch Solid 
 Learning, ^s his formtr Books Art 
 repUnijhed rvith^ And beautified with 
 that Calmnefsof Temper, rvhlch did 
 fecultarly adorn his firft Prociucfiions. 
 That there are more Truths taught in 
 the New Teftament than this^ That 
 Jclus is the Mefliah, and which are 
 thtrefcre to be Learned and Believe^, 
 is moB certain ^ and to make this De^ 
 mor)(hrably Marnfefl ( which J fancy 
 was Mr. Edwards's great defion) whtn 
 it is denied y or called in qntftion, is a 
 very Laudable Undertaking, bat it 
 doth not at ^A'affect the Reafbnablenels 
 of Chriftianity, &:c. whichexccUently 
 dijcovers what is to be believed , to 
 make Men Chriftians, that htreby 
 thty may be engaged to acquaint th^m^ 
 Jelves well with the True Reafbns and 
 Grounds of our believing that Point, 
 aiid may not any longer wear the Pro- 
 feflion of Chriftianity, as they do 
 /^e/z-Cloathsji^^/^tT^zweUnderftanding 
 and Judicious Chriftians, upon found 
 Conviction ; and fo perceive the ObU- 
 gation they are under to Study dill- 
 ^3 gently 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 gtntly the Holy Scriptures, that ihty 
 may advance m the K^owled^e^ Belief 
 and Praiiice of what ^ that JeCus hath 
 reveakd, whom they believe to be 
 the Meflias. Aftd could People he 
 hrought to this, Y^e Adverfaries, to 
 fome of the Great Y^odcnnt^ taught 
 in otir Bibles, rvould haue little ground 
 to hope, they jhouid do any. great Ex- 
 ploits, by their inftjiing on fmall Cri- 
 tical Niceties, or makini a Clamour, 
 hecaufe no mort c '.',?■ be known at prefintj 
 concerning /ome Doctrines, they have 
 no liking to, than what ts Revealed. 
 For it is enough for a good Chriftian, 
 to believe what ' is Revealed. To 
 know Chrift ^efus aright, and fol- 
 low his ConduSi jincerely^ are fo »e- 
 teffary, and of fuch Efficacy to our 
 Safety, Efiablifhment and Contort at 
 ■prefent, and to ofir future Bleffednefs^ 
 that you cannot he prompted to attend 
 to any thing of equal moment^ by 
 
 Your Faithful 
 
 -u4 Servant, &c. 
 
 S.B. 
 SOME 
 
(< k> 
 
 T A • S^'^S '^ A G &'■■■;§ ,. 
 
 •lir).'./ . A to * 
 
 '^fReatoWeaefs , 
 
 CBKIStlJNlTZ 
 
 As delivered, in the t^cript^ur^s. 
 
 N this Tr^tife we have as clear, 
 
 drftina:, ^nd full Pr4)of (I thifrk) 
 as can witii Reafon be deJlrccj, 
 That Jefus, and his Apoilles did 
 not teach any tiding as nece(rar3'.to.b.e 
 behevcd, to 7nak€,-a Man- a-Chftfiian^ 
 J-iutonly this one Propofition,, jtbat 
 ,Jeftts of Nazareth w/u the ChriHr ar 
 ■](k^ Mefiab., Thjit; the proof of tj^js 
 •iP^inti was tJi^J^incLpal thing jjinr^ 
 
{ ^ ) 
 
 at, and intended in that Treatife, 
 feeras fo clear to me, I cannot imagine 
 how any Man can doubt of it, who 
 attentively perufes thefe Words , in 
 Page 191. " I challenge them , to 
 " fhew that there was any other Do- 
 " drine (viz, than this, That Jefits 
 " of Nazareth was the Meffiah) upon 
 " their aflent to which, or disbelief 
 " of it, Men were pronounced Belie- 
 " vers, or Unbelievers, and accord- 
 " ingly received into the Church of 
 *' Chrift, as Members of his Body, as 
 " far as meer believing could make 
 " themfojorelfecaftoutofit.. That 
 it is not a bare notional Knowledge of 
 the before- mentioned Propofition, that 
 isdifcourfed of in this Treatife, is ve- 
 ry evident, by the Author's frequent 
 declaring, that by believing this Pro- 
 pofition , he means fuch a Faith as 
 makes the Perfon believing it, to re- 
 ceive Jefus for his King and Ruler : 
 As in Pages 96, 208, ^c. The Author 
 doth no where teach (that I do ob- 
 ferve) that Jefus Chrift, and his A- 
 poftles did not deliv/er any Do<3:rines 
 to be believed befides this one^ or that 
 Chriftians are not obliged to believe 
 
 any 
 
e t ) 
 
 any more D(>d:i'ines bat this one. He 
 laith exprcfly, '' The other Parts of 
 *': Divine Revelation are ObjedJs of 
 "Faith, ajlcf are fo to be received. 
 
 ** They are Truths whereofnone that 
 " is once known to be Tuch, may, or 
 
 " ought to be disbelieved, Page 299. 
 
 *jii! '» 
 
 Some Animadverfwns on Mr. Edwards s 
 Rejietliorjs on the Reafonablenefs of 
 Chriftianity , as .delivered in the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 MR. Edivarfls begins his Refle- 
 dions on the Reafonahleyiefs of 
 Ofjrijiianity^ diC. Page 105. of for/ie 
 ThoNjihts comernifip^ the Caufes oj A- 
 theifm', wheri* he affirms, that "the 
 " late Pubhlher of the Reafonablenefs 
 " of ChriftianitVj &c, gives it (viz, 
 " The plaudble Conceit he took no- 
 " tice of, Page 104.) us over and o- 
 "' ver again iri thele formal Words ; 
 " njiz. That nothing is required to be 
 " believed by any Chriftian Man, but 
 " this, That Jefus is the MeHiah. 
 Then Mr. Bclwarch beftows fome 
 Pages in reporting feveral Propofitions 
 B 2 taught 
 
taught by our Saviour in theGofpel, 
 which the Author of the Reafonablc- 
 nefs of Chriftianity, ^c. hath omit- 
 ted. ** Thefe (he tells us) ar€ Mat- 
 " ters of our Faith, under theGofpel: 
 And he adds an account of what he 
 takes to be the fenfe of thefe Articles. 
 Tho' I have read over the Reafona- 
 blenefs ofChriftianity, ^c. vvithfome 
 Attention, I have nor obferved thofe 
 formal Words in any part of that Book, 
 nor any Words which are capahle of 
 that Conflru^ion , • provided they be 
 confidered with tlie Relation they 
 have to, and the manifeft dependanfcc 
 they have on what goes before, or fol- 
 lows alter them. I acknowledge the 
 Scripiures Mr. Edwards ^Ki\\\ mention, 
 do contain Matters of Faith to be be- 
 lieved by thole who are Chriflianr^ 
 and attain to know that Jefus Chrift 
 did teach them. But that Mr. Ed- 
 wards ihould have proved^ to make his 
 Difcourfe reach the Reafonablenefs of 
 Chriftianity, fe'^. was This, That the 
 exf licit e Knowledge^ or belief of thofe 
 pa/ticular.S^riptureSi or his Interpre- 
 tation of them, is necejfary by Chrift' s 
 ^pp9.iM[<iAj^i r to conflitute^ or make a 
 ' I, ,..-. • -' Fer- 
 
^ 5 > , 
 
 Ftrfon a ChnfiiaK.' 'Th^fe S^fiptiire^ 
 dp '^fTeOiuaHy overthrow, or cpniute 
 tMt Prv7p(fllnoi1 ' Mr. Etfii>h^d^ hat^i 
 'ftarted, arid tli.eji chiarge'd onrhc A(i- 
 thor of the Rc'sfori^iblenels of Chrifti- 
 anity, (^rr btitthfey do not aflcii: any 
 •proportion that Author b'ath'advan- 
 ced, that I know of. _ '; , 
 
 In the nextpkce Mt,^c!war/ff^m^ 
 fault with the' Aiithor of iHe Reafona- 
 'fclehefs, ^c. " becaufe he di4 h6^ pro- 
 *^'Ceed to the Epiflles, arid^i^y^ an 
 "•account of them, as he dFd 6f the 
 " Gofpels, and the A6ls of the-Apo- 
 ** files : And faith, It is nl^fl^evirierit 
 ^^ to any thinking and'con/iderate 
 " Perfbn that he purpofely omits the 
 "•"■Epiftolary Writings ofthb Apoftles, 
 " becaule they iare -fraught' With other 
 •* Fundamental I)o6lnnes, befides that 
 "'one, which he mentions, P. 109, 
 
 Now what Mr. £'^/Wr^x doth mean 
 by Fundamerttal DodtrincsviJ^nnt ve- 
 ry clear to me. If he means'ail the 
 Dbd:rines taught in the Epi^llles, or ajl 
 the Proportions delivet'ed* in tiae Epi- 
 (lles concerning juft thofe* particular 
 Heads, he immediately mentions, it 
 b I lies 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 lies upoa him to prove, that Jefijs 
 Chrift hath made it necelflary, that i^l 
 very Perfon mufl have an explicit^ 
 Knowledge and Belief of all thefe, be 
 fore he can be a Chriftian ; which I dj 
 not fee he hath attempted. If b] 
 Fundamental Dodrines , Mr. Ei 
 wards doth mean Tome DodirineJ 
 which arjeof^fpecial Importance, and 
 which for that Realbn,- Tmqere Chridi- 
 ans fhould principally endeavour to 
 get the, knowledge of, it cannot with 
 any Juilice be laid tp this Author's 
 charge, that he did not proceed to 
 the Epidies, and give us an account of 
 thofe Do<3:rincs from them : Becaufe 
 that didi not pertain to his Uriderta- 
 Ving; who was nqt enquiring what 
 Dod:rinesare of greatefl moment to 
 be underftood, and believed by them 
 who are Clifillians, but what was ne- 
 ceflary to be known and believed to a 
 Perfon's being a Chriftian. If what 
 Mr. Eiiwarcis doth alledge, can be afr 
 figned for the Reafon why this Author 
 did purpofely omit the Epiflolary Wri-? 
 tings, n;ethinks it is mofl evident to 
 any thinkiog and considerate Perfon, 
 that it , wauld have kept him from gi- 
 ving 
 
(7) 
 
 ving the World that account he hath 
 given, of what the Gofpels and the 
 Ads of the Apollles deliver concern- 
 ing the Subjed of his Enquiry and 
 pifcourfe : For there are many impor-* 
 tant Dodlrines taught both in the 
 Gofpels and the Ads, as well as in the 
 ppiftles, befidesthis, That Jefus is the 
 lijfefljah. But how many fQeVpr'ttic 
 Dodrines be which are taught in the 
 Epiftles, if there be no Do5rine, ibe- 
 fides this, That Jefus is the Melfiah, 
 taught there, as necefTary to be be- 
 lieved, to make a Man a Chriflian, all 
 the Dodlrines taught there, 'will not 
 make any thing at all againfl what 
 this Author hath aflerted, nor againfl 
 the Method he hath obferved : Efpeci- 
 ally confidering we have an Account 
 in the Ads of the Apoftles of wb^i 
 thofe Perfons, by whom the Epiftles 
 were writ, did teach as necefTary to 
 be believed to People's being Chrifli- 
 ans. And whereas Mr. Edwards 
 fpeaks, p. I II. of this Author's *' not 
 * vouchfafing an Abflradt of thefe In- 
 " fpired Writings ; viz. The Epillles : 
 This Author doth not appear to have 
 baj a Defign of giving an Abflrad of 
 B 4 any 
 
Mnyiot]t\]Q Thfpu-eci BoolS, if Dy^-Afe- 
 IflraS bf meanti a fu miliary Account 
 !.of all^the D9^^rrnef contained in^ them. 
 A5 Xq the Gofpets^ aad" the A£ts of^E^ 
 ij^'ph jiles, , hs giyVs,an 'A cccilnt ^f virli^Y 
 tlBfyjnf^!mus,w^s taught byCfitift add 
 hi^ 'Appjiks a? ^iece(]t\Vy to b,e beJi^Vfic 
 
 cofint of the Epi#es^ that^'^'o^^^^ 
 have been as little fa.tisfadory,^'wl^aj: 
 h& hath done already i to thrtft',^1^6 
 are refolved not to ditlinguifh'betWixt 
 what: is', neceftary' to 1o>q believed tb 
 TOke a ManaCbfjftl^ti, and thoYe Ar- 
 ticles which are to'fc-b^lieyed by. thofe 
 who are Chriflians,' as' they can atfairl 
 to know that Clirif! Mh tdughe %€i^. 
 \Ve believe Jefiis t'Si be the, Ciirifl, ^ oir 
 MefTiah, not barely liecaufe hefaid he 
 was the Mediah, but becaufe of other 
 Evidences, manifefting and confirm- 
 ing that Truth. 'But he that is a 
 Chriftian , believes other Dodrines, 
 becaufe he knows that Jefus, Whom 
 he belieyes to be Mefliah, hath taught 
 them. Now had this Author quoted 
 ail thofe PalTages in the Epiftles 
 ^hat are for his purpofe, as i Cor. 
 
$. 11/ and I JoE'^,'1. he would 
 ftill have \tk out all thofe DoQirineis 
 Mr. Edvoards doth reckon up: And 
 no jail dccafion conlc^^ atiy "Man have 
 had from thence, to charge him with 
 difowning thofe Dodrines, or paffing 
 thofe parts of the Epiftles where they 
 are delivered, by, with contempt. 
 
 If there be any true Reafoning in 
 xvhat Mr. Edwards doth further write 
 in this Difcburfe againft the Reafona- 
 llemfi of Chrifiidfiity^ &c. it is to 
 me fo, clouded , by his way of ey- 
 "preffing himfelf, I am too dull to per- 
 ceive what hisReafons are, and where- 
 in the flrength of them doth lie. 
 And therefore fh^ll fay little to his 
 other Pages, til! you come to Page 120. 
 ^\ittQ '^r. Edwards doth hint, tliaX 
 there i^ ;;<?/ any tbhg more difficult hi 
 'this ' propojition [ Tjje Father^ Sof7, an^ 
 JRoly Gho§f are ons: God, or Divine 
 Nature^ than in that other [ Jefus is 
 the MeJIiah.'] Now let that be as 
 IVIr. Edwards faith, yet I fee no proof, 
 that the behefof the former Propo-* 
 fition is, that which doth conditute 
 and make a Man a Chrillian. No 
 nor that tlw belief of that, and all the 
 
 other 
 
( »o ) 
 
 other Propofition« he hath rnentionqd 
 in his Difcourfe, either excluflre of, 
 or in conjundion with the latter, doth 
 make a Man a Chriftian. That whirfi 
 is to be proved in oppofitipn i;o the 
 \Jieafinahlertefs of Chrijiianity^ ^c, is 
 this^ That Jefus Chrift and' his A po- 
 fties iiave taught that the belief of 
 ^ipe one Article, or certain number 
 'ij. Articles, diftind: from this, that 
 ^cff<s is the Mejfiah^ either as exclu- 
 ilve of the belief of this, that Jefus 
 is the Mejfiahy or in conjundion with 
 the belief of this Article, doth con- 
 ftitute and make a Perfon a Chriftian. 
 But tha?: the belief of this, that Jefits 
 is the MeJ/iab, alone doth not make a 
 Man a Chriftian. ' 
 
 Whereas Mr. Edwards faith, /». 1 1 f . 
 Tlie Author of the R^afonahlenefs of 
 Cbrffiiantty^ &c. " pretends to con- 
 " tend for one fingle Article, with the 
 "exclufion of ail the reft, for this 
 *'rcafon, becaufe all M^n ought to 
 *f underhand thqir Religion. I can** 
 not perceive aay ground for fuch an 
 aftertion. The Author of the Keafo- 
 nahicnefs^ 6cc. .afTigns why he alTerts 
 aaii 'Contends that it is the believing 
 
 . that 
 
( •• ) 
 
 that Jefus is the ^^/ejjtah^ which makes 
 a Perfon a Chriftian, is this ( if I un- 
 derftand him aright) becaufe God 
 doth not require the belief of any 
 thing but this, to make a Man a Chii' 
 ftian, or that Jefus Chrift and his H* 
 poftles did not propofe or teach any 
 thing but this, as what was to be be* 
 lieved to make a Man a Chriflian, 
 The Authors words are thefe. " God 
 " out of the Infinitenefs of his Mercy 
 " has dealt with Man as a compailiO' 
 " nate and tender Father. He gave 
 " him Reafon, and with it a Law. — ^ 
 .^' But confidering 'the frailty of Man, 
 " apt to run into Corruption and Mi- 
 " f€ry,He promifed a Deliverer, whom 
 *' in his good time He fent, and then 
 " declared to all Mankind, that who- 
 *' ever would believe Him to be the 
 " Saviour promifed, and take him 
 " rais'd from the Dead, and conftitu- 
 " ted the Lord and Judge of all Men, 
 " to be their King and Ruler, (llould 
 *' be faved. Rea\onahlencfs of Chnfli- 
 anity^ &c. p. 301. So that the Rea- 
 fon why he contends that nothing 
 more is abfoluteiy neceflary to be be- 
 lieved to Salvation, or to make a Per- 
 
 fOR 
 
declared, thk is all trac Hfe abfolutel 
 requii^e^^'fd'feie IseUeved tbthis purpofj 
 Which Itliihk is as good- a Reafon as 
 can pofTibly be given. Then -the Au^ 
 thor oi't\iQ Reafinalih Heft i ^c. ob- 
 ferves,- that> "The All-merciful God 
 ** leems herein to have confulted the 
 **Poor of this World, and the Bulk 
 *' of Mankind. Whiek'words are not 
 propos'd' as 'i Reafon' 'U'hy nothing 
 more is neCeffary to be believed to 
 make a Perfon a Chriftian, but as a 
 Pious Refledion, or Inference how 
 evidently the Goodnefs of Mankind 
 appears, in that He requires no more 
 to a Pcrfons being a Ghriftian^ than 
 t/je lelkf af that pldi» intelUgihle 
 frcpofitioH be fore- mentioned. So far 
 is tliis Ingenious /Vuthorirom aiming 
 at vvhat Mr. Edwavfis affirms, />. 117^ 
 ^i'z, " That we muft ti&i Iwve any 
 *' point of Do5:rine whatfoever in our 
 ^* Religion, that the Mdb doth not 
 "at the 'very firfi: naming of it per- 
 "fedly underftand, and agree, to; 
 That he declares himfelf in thefe very 
 words: The other parts of Divine 
 R€~jtlaitoit\ are Ohjetts of Fa'ith^ and 
 
 are 
 
( M) 
 
 are Jo to he received ^ ReafonableneS, 
 ©c. p' ^99. which is fo farfrem ex- 
 eluding z\\ other Articles of- Faith, or 
 from letting topone Article with the 
 defiance of all the refi^ that it attri- 
 butes the juil Honour to every thing 
 that can be the Objecl.of a Chrillian 
 BeUef. Xhe; ^eftion is not, how 
 many Articles may be neceilary to 
 be believed by one who is a Chriftian? 
 But whether anything more than this, 
 that Jejus is' the ChriH or Mejjiahy is, 
 of neceffity to' be believed, to make a 
 Man a Qhnjlian ? And I do not per- 
 ceive, that Mr. £dward^ hath offered 
 any thing that is at all cogent tor liie 
 Affirmative. 
 
 Some ^ajjages in the Vindication 
 of the Reaionablenefs of 
 Chriftianicy, <frc, 
 
 TH E Findication of the Reaf&na^ 
 llenefs of Chrifiianity confirms 
 me in my Opinion, that I was not 
 miftaken in thinking, that that Au- 
 thor's 
 
thor's defign was not to determine 
 how many Articles of Faith Chrift 
 and his Apoftles have taught, but 
 ivhat they required to he believed t6 
 make a Man a ChrifliKn. " Convince 
 **but Men of the MiflTion of Jefus 
 ^ Chrifl: , make them but fee the 
 ** Truth, Simplicity, and Reafonable- 
 " nefs of what He himfelf taught 
 " and required to be beHeved by his 
 *' Followers ; and you need not doubt 
 '* but being once fully perfwaded of 
 "his Dod:rine, and the advantages 
 "which all Chriftians agree are re- 
 " ceived by him, fuch Converts will 
 " not lay by the Scriptures, but by a 
 " conftant reading and ftudy of them, 
 *'• get all the light they can from this 
 " Divine Revelation , and nouriflt 
 " themfelves up in the words of Faith, 
 ** and of good Doftrine, as St. ?aid 
 " fpeaks to Timothy^ p, 8. Whatever 
 " Dodrines Mr. Edwards wOuld have 
 " to be believed, if they are fuch as 
 " our Saviour and his Apoftles requi- 
 ** red to be believed, to make a Man 
 " a Chriftian, he will be fare to find 
 " them in thofe Preachings tn^ famous 
 *' TeJHmonies of oMr Saviotjr and his 
 
 *' Apoftles 
 
<c 
 
 ( ly ) 
 
 Apoftles that I have quoted. And 
 " if they are not there, he may reft 
 " fatlsfted that they were not propofed 
 " by our Saviour and his Apoftles, as 
 " necefTary to be beheved to make 
 " Men Chrift's Difciples, />. i;. The 
 "Reafon I gave why I had not 
 " gone through the Writings in the 
 " Epiftles to colled: the Fundamental 
 " Articles of Faith, as I had through 
 " the Preachings of our Saviour and 
 *^ his Apoftief, was, bccaufe rhofe 
 " Fundamental Articles were in thofe 
 " Epiftles promifcueufly and without 
 *' diftindion mixed with other Truths. 
 " And therefore we fliall find and di- 
 " fcern thofe great and necefiary points 
 " beft, in the Preachings of our Savi- 
 " our and the Apoftles to thofe wlio 
 " were yet Ignorant of the Faith, and 
 " unconverted, p. 14. Give me leave 
 " now to ask you ferioufly whether 
 " thefe which you have here fet dowtl 
 " under the Title of Funefamental Do- 
 " cirines, are fuch (when reduc'd to 
 " Proportions ) that every one of 
 *'• them is required to be believed to 
 " make a Man a Chriflian, and fuch 
 " as without the adual belief thereof 
 
 "he 
 
" he cannot be favcd. If they are not 
 " fo every one of them, you may call 
 ** them Fundamental Do(5i:rin)es> as 
 " much as you pleafc, they are not 
 " of thofe Dod:rines of Faith I was 
 " fpeaking of, which are only fuch as 
 " are required to be aiftually believed 
 ** to make a Man a Chridian, p. i^,i6, 
 " The neceflary Articles of Faith are 
 *' in the Epiftles promifcuoufly deli- 
 " vered with other Truths, and tbere-t 
 " fore they cannot be diflinguiilied 
 ** but by fome other mark, than being 
 " barely found in the Epiftles. A/. 
 " He fliould have remembred, that I 
 *' fpeak not of all the DoQrines of 
 " Chriftianity,. nor all that is publifli- 
 " ed to the World in it, but of thofe 
 *' Truths only, which are abfolutely 
 *' required to be believed to make any 
 **one a Chriftian, />. 50. This is a 
 "ferious Truth, that what our Savi- 
 " our and his Apoftles Preached &nd 
 " admitted Men into the Church for 
 «*' believing , is all that is abfolutely 
 •*' required to make a Man a Chrrftian. 
 *' But this is without any defiant e of 
 :^* all the refi^ taught in the Word of 
 Ij' God. This excludes not the belief 
 
t V 3 
 
 ** of any one of thofe" many ether 
 " Truths contained irt the Scriptures 
 *' of- the Old and New Teftaments 
 *' which it is the Duty of every Chri- 
 ** ftian to ftiidy ,- and thereby build 
 •' himfelf upon our mod Holy Faith ; 
 ** receiving- with fled fad behcf and 
 " ready obedience , all thofe things 
 "which the Spirit of Truth hath 
 ^*' therein revealed.' But that all the 
 " r>/?of thS Infpired Writings^ or, if 
 " you pleafe, Articles^ of equjjnecef- 
 'fay to be believed to make a Man a 
 *' Chriftian, with what was preached 
 *' by our Saviour and his Apoflles ;. 
 ^' that I deny, p. 30, 31. 
 
 Some Afi'ifyiaJverfions on Mr. Edwilrds'i' 
 Book EntituLed^ Socinianifm Un- 
 mask'd. 
 
 he! filtVoduaioft do«H'-not 
 
 prompt n^'^co expe6t any great 
 
 (Irength of Argumentation in" the foi- 
 lowitTgDifcourfe, if the Author k^ep 
 on in the drain in which he hath writ 
 thefepages, and make his whole 8ook 
 tif^ piece with his Beginning. 
 
 C , Chap. 
 
t '8 3 
 
 Chap. I. were a Man obliged to 
 judge of the Vindication of the Rea- 
 lonablenefs of Chriftianity, (!^c. ^nd 
 of this Book Stiled Socin'tanijm Vh- 
 mask'd^ by the account given of them 
 in the fecond and third pages, and 
 part of t^ie fourth of this Chapter, he 
 would be apt to determine the former, 
 pne of tl^eilleft Books, and worfl writ, 
 that was ever publiihed: And thel^at- 
 ter, the mod AccompUfhed Treatife 
 amongft Humane Writings. 
 
 Mr. Edw. p. ^, perfifls in his repre- 
 ibrttjng this Prppofition, There is hut 
 this one: Truth{y\z. That Jefus u the 
 Meffialj) necejfarily to he ajfented to hy 
 Chriftians (which is his own Propofi- 
 tion) and this Propofition, There' is 
 hut this one Truth,^(y\z. that Jefus is 
 tke] Mefftah^ ahfolutely required to he 
 helieved^ to make a Man a Chrijiian ; 
 (which is the Authors Propofition be 
 lets himfelf to oppofe} to be the very 
 fanie. Yet if he prove in the follow- 
 ing part of his Book, that no peribn 
 can be ;:a Chriftian, or Member of 
 Chriftj .till he explicitly underflands, 
 and a<iually afTents to every thing 
 that any Chriftian may be obliged to 
 
 affent 
 
C «9 3 
 
 afTent unto, or indeed to any one Ar- 
 ticle diftinQ from this, Thai Jefus u 
 the Mtjfiah ; I ihall acknowledge he 
 hath effedually confuted tiic main 
 pviint inHftcd on, in the Reafonahlt^ 
 . nefi of Chriitianit}\^Q. and its Vindica" 
 tion : But wiicreas Mr. Edm. produces 
 fome hncs out of p. 192,. of the Rea- 
 fonahUne[s of Chrijiianity^ &c. to ju- 
 ftifie his charging that Author with 
 the formal words (fpoken of before) 
 I fliall refer any intelligent and fair 
 Reader, to perufe tliat page, and try 
 whether he can difcern any ground 
 (confidering what goes before and at- 
 ter>l to put fuch a conllruition on 
 that Authors words, as Mr. Edw. 
 doth ; for Iconfefs lam not fagacious 
 enough to perceive it. Yet if Mr. 
 Edw. had fet down the Authors Cha- 
 lenge (which I have already tranfcri- 
 bed) which is placed juft betweea 
 thofe words he doth quote ; I think 
 he would have done the Author a 
 great deal of right, and have aflilled 
 his Reader, in conceiving duly, what 
 it is the Author of the Reafonable- 
 nefs, 6:c. doth infift on; and what 
 the point is his Adverfary is tft fpeak 
 C % tOr 
 
C20] 
 
 to,in order to his confuting that Book, 
 and invalidating the large Evidence 
 there produced, from Chrift, and his 
 Apoftles for the confirming of what 
 that Author aflerts. 
 
 Mr. Edw. undertakes, p. 7. to fhew 
 that befides that one Fundamental 
 " Principle or Article which the Au- 
 " thor of the Reafonahlcnejs^ &c. fo 
 " often mentions, there are others that 
 *' are as neceflarily to be believed, to 
 ** make a Man a Chriftian ; yea, to 
 give him the denomination of a Be- 
 liever in the Senfeof the Gofpel. Now, 
 this is the point Mr Eilw. is to keep 
 to ; and if he prove this, which he 
 profefleth he hath undertaken to prove, 
 he doth ef!e6tually confute the Rea- 
 fonahlenefs of Chrifliainty^ &c. if I 
 am capable of making a Judgment in 
 the caie. Yet within a few lines, p. 
 8. Mr. £Jtt'. faith, "He will let the 
 " Reader fee,that it is as necefTary for a 
 " Convert, to Chriftianity to affent to 
 " them (viz, moft of thofe other Ar- 
 " files he had barely enumerated in 
 ''' his former Difcourfe) as to that o- 
 " therhe {yiz. the Author of the Rea'^ 
 ^^ fonahlenefs^ &c.) fo frequently fpc- 
 
 " cifies. 
 
" cifies. Buttliisis quite another point. 
 For the Queftion is not, what Arti- 
 cles a Convert toChriftianity may be 
 obliged neceilarily to believe ; for he 
 muft neceflarily believe as many Ar- 
 ticles, as he fliall attain to know that 
 Chrift Jefus hath taught. The Que- 
 ftion is, what is neceflary to be be- 
 lieved to make a Man a Convert to 
 Chriftianity} For a Convert to Chri" 
 ftianity, is, I conceive, the fame with 
 a Chriftian. 
 
 Mr. Eeliv. then lays down feveral 
 Propofitions, which arc indeed Divine 
 Truths, and of great "ufe and moment 
 to be known and believed, by thofe 
 who are Chriftian s; even fuch Propo- 
 fitions, that the Knowledge of them 
 may conduce much to difpofe People 
 to be Chriftians. But I do not fee 
 any Proof he produceth, that the be- 
 lieving of all or any of thofe Propor- 
 tions doth make a Man a Chriftian^ or 
 that the believing of thefe, together 
 with this, That Je/iu is the ChriJ}^ is 
 neceffary to make a Man a Chriflian : 
 So that the due believing tliat Jefus is 
 the ChriftjOrMelfiahjdoth not of it felf 
 c.oaftiture a Man a Chriftian, which 
 C 3 _ \vas 
 
was the thing he undertook to Proved 
 Yet. 
 
 Chap. 2. Mr. Edw. faith, p. ^^. 
 " He thinks he hath fufficiently proved 
 " that there are other Dodrinesbefides 
 " thar^ That Jefusisthe MeJJiah^ which 
 " are required to be beUeved to nriake 
 " a Man a Chriftian. But I think the 
 utmoft he hath proved, is only this, 
 that there are other Dodtrines whicli 
 thofe who are Converts to Chrirtiani- 
 ty, are obHged to beheve , which is 
 far enough from being the matter in 
 Debate. And then Mr. Ediv. asks, 
 '' Why did the Apollies write thefe 
 " Dodtrines ? Was it not that thofe 
 " they writ to, might give their aflent 
 " to them ? To which it may be 
 anfwered in his own words, Tesver'tlj* 
 But then it may be asked again, were 
 notthefe PerfonsChrifiians, to wiiom 
 the Apoflles ivrit theje Doctrines , 
 and vi'hom they required to aflent 
 unto them ? Tes verily, ./^nd if fo, 
 what was it that made them Chriftians, 
 before their ajfent to thefe Dothmes 
 was required > If it was any thing be- 
 sides their beheving Jefiis io be the 
 M^iah , that ought to be inllanced 
 
 in, 
 
in, and made out. And not thofe 
 Dodrines they were afterwards re- 
 quired to aflent to, upon Jefus his 
 Authority, and by 'virtue of their Le- 
 lieving Him to be the Meffiah. In p. 
 zj. Mr. Edw. fums up all he had faid 
 (in the former Chapter) of his necef- 
 fary Propofitions into a Syllogtfm^ and 
 faith, "Tlie proof of the fecond Pro- 
 " pofitionin t\utS)/kg/ftnjis eafily ef^ 
 "teded thus. The beHcf of thofe 
 ** things which have immediate refpedt 
 " to the Occafion, Author, Way, 
 *' Means, and Ifliie of our Salvation ; 
 " and which are neceflary for know- 
 " ing the trueNature and Defign of it, 
 " is the belief of fuch things, without 
 " the knowing of which,aMan canno4 
 " be Saved.But fuch is the belief of the 
 " preceding Articles, £rgo. Here Mr. 
 Iidiv. (lops, whereas he lliould have 
 proceeded to prove that Jefus Chriftj^ 
 or his Apoflles have taught, that no 
 Man can be a Chriftian, or Ihall be 
 Saved, unlcfs l>e have an explicit 
 Knowledge of all thofe things which 
 have immediate refpedt to the Occa- 
 fion, Author, Way, Means, and IITue 
 of pur Salvation, and which are ne- 
 C ^ ceflary 
 
t M 3 
 
 ccilary for 6ur kncfwingihe true Na- 
 ture and De{\gn of ic. But this he 
 hath Aot done. It is-^uvery god^i 
 Argument, to another purpofe : But 
 without another Medium it will do 
 no Ftats in the prefent Cafe. R^n 
 Edw<, p. 24. takes notice, *' That in 
 '* Vindication of the Reafonah'lenefsy 
 " &c. p. 1 6. the Author asks this 
 " Queflion, Whether thefe which you 
 " have fet down uiider the Title of 
 ■* Fundamental Dodrines, are fuch 
 " ( when reduced to Propofitions } 
 " that every one of them is required 
 "to be believed, to make a Man a 
 *■ Chriftiart ; and fuch as without 
 " the adual belief thereof he 
 "cannot be Saved? And the Sub- 
 {{ance and Strength of Mr. Ediv. An- 
 fwer (if I apprehend him aright) is 
 this, " That no Man befidcs himfelf 
 *'• ever Parted fuch a thing; reprefen- 
 ting the Queftion, as n. the Author 
 had asked, Whether thole Propofi- 
 'tions mull be always aUually believed ^ 
 whereas the Queftion is only. Whe- 
 ther a Perfon cannot be Saved, with- 
 out the a(5tuai belief of thofe Propofi- 
 tions ' Now, tjiat a Man can believe 
 particular PropoficionF, and not actu- 
 ally 
 
( »5 ) 
 
 illy believe them, is much above my 
 capacity to underftand. It is acknbw- 
 ledged thofe Propofitions are in our 
 Bihles ; and they are there for this 
 pftrpofe, that they may be believe A^ as 
 Mr. Edw, laitiij and fo is every other 
 Propofition, which is taught in our 
 Bibles. But how will it thence fol- 
 low^ that no Man can be a Chriftian, 
 till he particularly know, and adually 
 afTentto everyPropofition in ourBibles? 
 Chap. 3. In this Chapter Mr. Edw, 
 reflecSts u^on the Reafons, given by 
 the Author of the Rtafonabknefs^ &c. 
 for his not going through the Epillles^ 
 •to ColIevSl the Fundamental Articles 
 of Faith out of them. And faith, 
 " He afligns this as one Reafon ; the 
 ." Epiftles being writ x.q thofe who 
 ** were already Believers ; it could noc 
 f be fuppofed, that they were writ to 
 "them, to teach them Fundamentals^ 
 To this Mr. Edw. anfwers, " By the 
 *' fame Argument that he would per- 
 " fuadeusj that the Fundamentals are 
 " not to be fought for in the Epiftles ; 
 " we may prove that they were not to 
 ** be fought for in the Gofpcls, and in 
 ** the Adts, for even thefe were writ 
 f* to thofe that believed, p. 38. Now 
 
 the 
 
the force of that Author*s Reafon doth 
 f!ot lie in this, that the Perfons the 
 Epiflleswere writ to, were Believers;; 
 But in this, That the Principal De- 
 sign, and main occafjon of the writing 
 ot thefe Epiftles, was not to teach 
 what Points mud of necelTity be be- 
 lieved, to make Men Chriftians. And 
 the Perfons they were writ to, being 
 Believers, was a very plain Evidence, 
 that that could not be the main Reafon 
 of the writing of thofe Epiftles ; 
 which the Author of the B^eafonahle- 
 nefsj &c. expreileth in thefe words. 
 The Epijiles being all written to thofe ^ 
 who were already Believers and Chri" 
 Jiians ; the occasion and end of writing^ 
 them, could not he to inflrutl them, in 
 that which was necejjary to make them 
 Chrijiians. Reafonablenefs , &C. p. 
 2,94. But the Gofpels, and the Acts of 
 '-he Apoftles being principally writ, to 
 teach People what it was that Jefus 
 Chrifl-, and his Apoftles did require a 
 belief of, in order to tiieir being Chri- 
 ilians, together with the Evidence, 
 and Proot of tliat which is to be be- 
 lieved tor the making of them Chri- 
 flians •. Tiiefj are the Writings where 
 
 we 
 
L^7l 
 
 we are with greateft aflurance to feek 
 for the Knowledge of that, the beleif 
 whereof doth make a Man a Chriftian. 
 Tho' St. Luke did Dedicate his Go- 
 fpel, and the Acts of the Apoflles to 
 the moj} Excellent Theophilus, an E- 
 mtnent Belifver : And both the Go- 
 /pels and Acts are written for the 
 life of Believers ^^s Mr. EJw. obferves ; 
 yet they weie not writ to teach him, 
 or them Fundamentals; that is, to 
 teach them what they mud believe, 
 in order to their becoming Believers 
 or Chriftians. They are of great ufc 
 to Believers, to put them in mind of 
 what they have aflented to, to con- 
 firm and ftrengthen their Faith, and 
 to advance their knowledge of him 
 they believe in, to greater Clearnefs 
 and diftinQnels, kSc. but it cannot 
 reafonably be fuppofed, that they 
 were writ to Believers for this end, to 
 make them Believers, v\ho were fo 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Edw. faith, " Another feigned 
 " ground of his omitting the Bpijiles\ 
 *' is this , bccaufe the fundamental 
 Articles are here promifcoufly, aiid 
 without dillindion, mixed with other 
 
 Truths* 
 
(i8 ) 
 
 "Truths. To which Mr. Edw. makes 
 ihis Reply, " On the fame account he 
 " might have forborn to fearch for 
 -*' Fundamental Articles in the Go}pels\ 
 " for they do not He there together, 
 *' but are difperfed up and down ; the 
 '• Dodrinal and Hiilorical part are • 
 "mixed with one another, but he 
 " pretends to fever them ; why then 
 " did he not make a Separation be- 
 " tween the Doctrines in the Epiftles^ 
 "and thofe other matters that arc 
 "treated of there > He hath nothing 
 ." to reply to this ; and therefore, p. 
 40. Nay , hold theire , and forbear 
 making Inferences from thofe laft 
 words, for Ihould tl^e Old Gentleman 
 at Rome fay fo, e Cathedra^ I believe 
 it more than probable, that he would 
 be foully out, nctwithftanding his 
 conceited, and avowed Infallibility. 
 The Author of the Re^iJonaUeneJs^ &c. 
 owns that the Doctrines neceilary to 
 be believ'd to make a Man a Chriftian, 
 are to be found in the Epijlles^ but 
 thatii.(? fhall fnd and difcern thofe 
 gr€iit and Kecejfary points heU in the 
 Prs.K^biifgs of our Saviour , and the 
 ^■:/pf>fiks^ to thofe ivho were ig-'crant of 
 
 the 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 the Faiih^ and unconverted y'lndiic^t.'^. 
 14. So ihat the reafon here given, 
 why he fought them in the Gofpe/s^and 
 ActSy and not in the Epiftles^ is this, 
 becattfe they were to he jound ar,d ///- 
 fcerned heft there. And ii this be not 
 a good Reafon, I know not what isL 
 Methinks no Learned and Wife Man 
 iliould be aihamed to imitate this Au- 
 thor, in fi.arching for the weightielt 
 Truths, only there where they may 
 be heft ifound and di fcerned. Whereas 
 Mr. Edw. faith, " Neceflary Truths 
 " may be diftinguidied from thoie 
 " which are not fuch, by the Nature 
 *' and high importance oi them, p. 4f, 
 I. wculd mind you, that ntceilary 
 Truths, are Truths or Dc£lrines ne- 
 ceflary to be beUeved for that end, or 
 purpofe they relate to. So that we are 
 not to judge of their necefiity , {q 
 much by their own intrinfick Nature, 
 as by the relation they have to that 
 end we propofe to our lelves, or at 
 leaft ought to propofe. The necedity 
 of a Perfons believing this fingfe 
 Truth, or fuch a number of Trurhj-^ 
 in order to his being a true ChriOiaY^, 
 arifeih from God's declaring and nfa- 
 
 king 
 
C;o3 
 
 king known that the belie if of that 
 Truth, or fuch a number of Truths, 
 is neceflary to make a Man a Chri- 
 ftian. .The necelTity of a Cl^hriflians 
 believing any particular Truths Chrift 
 hath taught, doth not arife fo much 
 from the Nature, and high impor* 
 tanceofthem, as from his knowing 
 that Chrift hath taught and revealed 
 them. 
 
 Chap. 4. What Mr. Edw. here faith 
 «^f Turks and Devils^ &c. is writ after 
 fuch a rate, I think it needle^Ts for me 
 to lay any thing to it. If you read p, 
 193, 194. and 500, 30 r. of thtRea" 
 Jonahlenefs^ &c. I fehink you willeafi- 
 ly perceive the Re aj enable nejs ofChri- 
 Jlianity adminiftred no juil ground 
 for fuch Difcourfc. Yet the moft 
 confiderabie and beft ExprefTions (ex- 
 cepting ftrid: Scripture-Quotations} 
 I have yet met with in this whole Dif- 
 courfe, happen to be dropt amongft 
 the Stuff with which this Chapter is 
 crowded, 'viz. Thofe which declare 
 Mr. Edwards\'^o\\on of Evangelical 
 Faith. As, "That a tiue Evangeli- 
 " cal Faith is a hearty accepting of 
 '' tilt Mejfjah as he is offered in the Go- 
 
 fpel, 
 
E?'3 
 
 " fpel, p. ^6. But whereas Mr. EJiv. 
 "faith this Author brings us noti- 
 " dings of any fuch Faith belonging 
 " to Chriftianity, or difcovcrcd to us 
 " in the Scriptures, which gives us 
 " tounderftand that he verily believes 
 " there is no fuch Chriflian Faich, p. 
 " 5*6, 57. I think Mr. E^/iv. is much 
 miftaken both in his Anertion,and his 
 Inference, for fuch I conceive is the 
 Senfe of his latter words. If the Au- 
 thor of the Reafonahlenefsy f>LC. had 
 not brought any tidings of fpch a 
 Faith, I think, it could not be thence 
 juflly and regularly inferr'd, that he 
 verily believes there is no fuch Chn- 
 (tian Faith. Becaufe his enquiry and 
 fearch was not concerning Chrijlian 
 faith , confidered Suljectively , but 
 Ohjectively^'^\\%tx.\\^ Articles be which 
 mud be beheved to make a Man a 
 Chriflian? And not with what fort of 
 Faith, thefe Articles are to he believ- 
 ed? So that if he had not faid one 
 word concerning Faith Subjed:iveiy 
 confidered ; he might have as true and 
 juft a conception, and belief concern- 
 ing this matter, as any jMan living. 
 And the' Mx,Ee{iv. CQUjy,RGt find oTi'c 
 
ibord ahom this compleat Faith of th^ 
 Gojfel in thofe pages ^ (viz. i^i, 
 tpi. (^c.) where he expe(5ted it ; yet 
 there are feveral words about it in that 
 Book. As in all thofe pages where he 
 fpeaks of taking and accepting Jefus 
 to he our King and Ruler- Where 
 Can you find a truer or more 
 exadt account of Chriflian Faith,than 
 what this Author hath given us in 
 thefe words, But confidering the frail^ 
 ty of Man, apt to run into corruption 
 and mifery, he(^\.. e. God) promijed a 
 Deliverer ^whom in his good time hejenty 
 and then declared to all Mankind, that 
 whoever would believe him to he the 
 Saviour promifed, and take him now 
 raifed from the dead, and conftiiuted 
 the Lord and "judge of all Men, to he 
 their King and Ruler, (houldhe Savedy 
 p. 301. 
 
 Chap. 5. Mr. Edw. continues irt 
 tliis Chapter to give vent to fome- 
 thing, to which I will not adventure 
 to afigna ? roper Name, and pretends 
 it is all againft what the Author of the 
 Reafonablenefs of Chrifiianity hath 
 writ ; when it is all againft a conceit 
 of his own framing, and there is not 
 
 any 
 
any thing that I can find in the Reafo' 
 riAlleneJs^ &c. that hath any hkenefs 
 toiry 'viz. what he affirms (in the for- 
 mer Chapter) . ^* The Author of thel 
 ^['Reajdfiahkfiefs,. &g: tells Mankind 
 "-again and bgairtjvrhat a Chriflian 
 '■'Man, or Mentber of Chrift, need 
 " not know, or believe any more than' 
 ** that one individuiil point which he 
 ** mentions, p. f9i If any Man will 
 Ihewme thofe v^ords, in any part of 
 l\ic ReafomhlenefSy^c. I fliall fufpe<3: 
 I ua^^vnot awake all the time I was 
 readirfg that Book. And I am as certain 
 ^. one awake can well be, that there 
 are fevefral pairsgea in that Book, di^ 
 reQIycontral-y ko thofe words. And 
 there are Ibme e^^prellions in the Vin- 
 dication of the Reajottahlenefs ^ ^d 
 one would think, if Mr. E^w, had 
 obfervedtheni, they would have pre- 
 vented his mifkk^. 
 
 Mr. Eelvo. p 7 5. certifies, " He de- 
 '* fign'd his Papers? for the fatisfying of 
 ''the Readtr's doubts about any 
 *' thing occurring concerning the mat- 
 ** ler beibre us, and for the eftabliih-' 
 *' tng' his waivering Mind ; ancj {ot 
 '* that reafon will anfaer a Qu^ry ot 
 
( ?4 ) I 
 
 *' Objedion, which fomc, and not 
 ** without fome ihew of ground may 
 " be apt to ftart; tjiz, how comes it to 
 ** pafs, that this Article, of Faith, viz, 
 ** That }efus is the MeJ/ias, or Chrift, 
 " is fo often repeated in the NewTefia- 
 " ment ? Why is this fometimes urged 
 ** without the mentioning of any o- 
 ** ther Article of Belief? I think the 
 Quaery ihould be put thus, Why did 
 Jefus Chrift and his Apoftles require 
 aflentto, and belief of this one Article 
 alone, viz. That Jefus is the Meffiaj^ 
 to conftitute and make a Man a Chri- 
 flian, or true Member of Chrift (as it 
 is abundantly evident they did, from 
 ihQReafonahlenefs of Chrift ianityjii the? 
 belief of more Articles is abfolutely 
 necefTary to make and conftitute a 
 Man a Chriftian ? 
 
 - Mt. Edw, to clear this Objedlion 
 (as he hath framed it) and to give a full 
 and fatisfadory anfwer to all doubts 
 in this, affair, offers thefe enfuing par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 I. " It muft be confideredjthat tlie 
 " believing of Jefus to be the promifed 
 " Mefftas, was the firft ftep to Chri* 
 " ftia^ity^^ and therfeore this, rather 
 
 1- than 
 
( n ) 
 
 " than ahy other Article, was pro- 
 " pounded to be believed by all thofe, 
 " whom either our Sayiour or the 
 " Apoflles invited to embrace Chri- 
 " ftianity, p. 74. But here it may be 
 Queried, by M^hofe Authority are we 
 obliged to confider, That the believing 
 of Jefus to he the promifed Meffias^ is 
 hut a flep or the firH fiep to Chri- 
 Jiianity> And not Chriftianity it felfl 
 If Mr. Edw. had proved that Jefus 
 thrift or his Apoftleshad taught fo,the 
 Controverfie had been at an end: But 
 he offers nothing of this nature, only 
 gives us his own word for it. As p. 
 .5-0. he had faid, that **the belief of 
 " Jefus's l^eing thQ MeJ/ias, vras one of 
 " the firil and leading A<fls of Chriftian 
 "Faith. Now Chriftian Faith here, 
 muft be the belief of fomething or 
 ■other; and if it be the belieVe of any 
 thing bcfides this, that Jefus is the 
 Chrift, ot MeJJiasy that other thing 
 ihould be fpecified, and it fhould be 
 made appear, that the belief that Je» 
 fiis is the Mejias or Chrifiy without the 
 belief of that other Proporition, is 
 not Chriftian Faith. Now I apprehend 
 tot Chriftian Faith, and Chrif!ia:nityj" 
 ' O % cbnfidere^ 
 
( ?6 ) 
 
 confrdered fubjeftively (and anadlof 
 Chriftian Faith, I think , cannot' be 
 underftood in any other fenfej are 
 the very fame. And how an ad of 
 Chriftian Faith can be but a ftep to 
 Chriftianity, isaboV€ my Capacity to 
 conceive. For Chriftian Faith , or 
 Chriftianity (if I be not miftaken) is 
 that which conftitutes a Man a Chri- 
 ftian* But Mr. Eflw. perhaps by Chri- 
 ftianity and Chriftian Faith, doth not 
 mean that Faith which conftitutes a 
 Man a Chriftian, but the belief of alJ, 
 Or a conftderable number of Propofi- 
 tions, which are of great importance 
 to be known snd believed by thole 
 who arc Chriftians. Now that Faith 
 which' conftitutes a Man a Chriftian, 
 dif?ers very much in the ground of ir, 
 from that Faith, whereby one that is 
 a Chriftian, believes the particular Do- 
 d:rines which Chrift and his Apoftles 
 have taught. A Chriftian believes what 
 Propofitions he attains to know that 
 Jefus hath taught, for this reafon, bc- 
 caufe he knows they were taught by 
 that Jefus, whom he believes to be the 
 Meffias, But a Man believes Jelusto 
 bo the, M^J/ms, bccaufeof the Evidence 
 
 and 
 
C ?7 3 
 
 and Proof that is given, that this Jefus 
 was the Meficis, And the beheving 
 Jefus to be the MeJ/iaSy is fo far from 
 being but sl Jhp. to Chrifiiamty, or a 
 leading ad of Ckrrftian Faitky it is 
 Chriftianity it feU, or ChriHian Faith 
 it feh. That which ccnuitutes and 
 makes a Man a Chrillian, a Behcver, 
 a Difciple, or Subjedt- of Chrifl, is 
 his believirsg Jefus to be the Chrift, fo 
 as to yield up himfelf unrefervedly to 
 believe and pradife whatfoever he 
 ihall attain to know he hach taught 
 and commanded him. This is all that 
 is ncceflary to make a Man a Difciple, 
 jor Subjeft, ^c. to one who appears to 
 be Commiflioned to admii Perfons in- 
 to fuch Capacity and Relation on 
 thofe terms : II by Qhri(lianity we un** 
 derftand the particular Doctrines or 
 Articles Jefus Chrift hath propofed to 
 be believed by thofe who are Chri^ 
 ftians : The belief of any or all of 
 thefe Dodrines, is not firidly Qhr't- 
 fiian Faiths but the Faith of Perfcns 
 who are Chrijiians, And to determine 
 which is the firft adi: of this fort of 
 Faith, we muft have rccourfc to par- 
 ticular Perfons, unlefs it can be proved 
 D 5 that 
 
( ;8) 
 
 that every Chriftian, doth undoubt- 
 edly obtain the knowledge of one cer- 
 tain Propofition Chrift hath taught,be- 
 foreany ofthem doth know any other. 
 For if one Chriftian attains in the firft 
 place, to know that Jefus hath taught, 
 that by dying on the Crofs, he offe- 
 red up himfelf a Sacrifice to fatisfie 
 Divine Juftice for the Sins of the 
 World ; his believing this point, be«- 
 caufe he knows Jefus hath taught it, 
 is the firft ad of Chriftian Faith in 
 him, taking Chriftian Faith in this 
 larger fenfe. But if another Chriftian 
 doth not attain to know in the firft: 
 place, that Ghrift hath taught this 
 Dodrinc ; nor till after he knows 
 feveral other Truths which Chrift hath 
 taught : His belief of this, when he 
 comes to know Chrift hath taught it, 
 will be fo far from being the firft ad of 
 Faith in htm, that all the DoArines. 
 he knew Chrift had taught, before 
 he knew that he hath taught this,muft 
 take place, and be reckoned in the 
 order of his beiicving before this. 
 That Faith which is ftridty Chriftian 
 Faith , and makes a Man a Chri- 
 ftian, viz, believing Jefus to be the 
 
 Chnft, 
 
r?9) 
 
 Chrif}, doth not barely make way for 
 the embracing ef all other Articles^ or 
 lecome a pajfage to all the reft-, as Mr. 
 jE^w. exprefleth himfclf, p. 75. but it 
 lays an indifpenfible obJigation upon 
 the Perfon, to embrace and believe 
 whatever Articles he Ihall attain to 
 know Jefus Chrift hath taught, and to 
 ufe his beft endeavours to acquire fuch 
 knowledge. This is Chriftianity,pro- 
 perJy fo call'd. And the feveral Truths 
 which Chrift, and his Apoftles have 
 revealed, are the DoQ'rines, which 
 thofe who are Chriftians, muft en- 
 deavour to underftand and believe, be- 
 caufc Jefus, whom they bekeve to be 
 the Chrift, or Mejftas, hath taught 
 and delivered them to the World, and 
 for the fpccial ufe of his Difciples and 
 Followers. A Man may believe fe- 
 veral of the Doc9:rines taught by Chrift 
 and his Apoftles, who does not be- 
 lieve that Jefus is xh^Meffias 5 but then 
 he does not believe them with the 
 Faith of a Chriftian; that is, for that 
 reafon why a Chriftian muft and doth 
 believe them, 'viz. his knowing that 
 they were taught by that Jefus whom 
 he believes to be the Chrift, or Meffiah, 
 D 4 2. Mr^ 
 
E 40 l 
 
 1. Mr. E^w. faith, " It is to be re* 
 ** membred, that though this one Pro- 
 " pofUiion or Article be mentioned 
 " alone in fome places, yet there^ jfij 
 " reafon to think and be perfuadcdi 
 '* liiat at the fame time, orhermditters 
 " of- Faith were propoied, p. 760 jS>«p- 
 pofing is no Proof in itbis cafef v You 
 may fuppofe as ma ny. ma ttcb 6 i Faith 
 difcDurfed of at btie^md the fame time 
 as you pleafe ; but .the\^ point, to. be 
 proved is this, That fome other; poifnt 
 or Article of Faith befides thisi that 
 Jefus is the Chrid:, was propofed to 
 be believed, to make them Chriftians. 
 It is all along acknowledged, there are 
 many Articles propofed lor Chridians 
 to believe, but the Proof is wanting, 
 that more than this' onie Article was 
 propofed to be believed, to make Men 
 Chriftians. If rhere be reafon to think 
 and be perfuaded, that other matters 
 of Faith were difcourled oi at the fame 
 |:ime, it feems very plain and evident 
 to me, that there was not any Article 
 but this one, that Jefus is the Meffiah^ 
 the belief whereof was necefiirily re- 
 <]uired to make them Chriftians, be- 
 -coxik there is nothing but this Recor- 
 
ded, which was infifted on for that 
 purpofe. 
 
 9. Mr. ^e/w. faith, ** Thisalfo mud 
 
 * be thought ot,That though there are 
 
 * feveral Parts and Members of the 
 
 * Chriftian Faith, yet they do not all 
 
 * occur in any one place of Scripture, 
 
 * p. j6r • AnJ conjequently^ if we 
 
 * would give an impartial^ account of 
 
 * our Belief, we mud confult thofe 
 
 * places ct Scripture where the Arti- 
 
 * clespf the Chriftian Faith are; and 
 
 * they are not all together, butdifperft 
 
 * heieand there : Wherefore we muft 
 
 * look them out, and acquaint our 
 
 * felves with the leveral particulars 
 
 * which makeup our Belief, and ren- 
 
 * der it entire andcontummate, p. yj. 
 That there are feveral Propofitions and 
 Articles delivered by Chrift and his 
 Apoftles ; which Chriftians muft en- 
 deavour to know and believe, is very 
 true ; as alio that thefe donot all oc- 
 cur in any one place of Scripture, and 
 therefore Chriftians muft look them 
 out, G'c. But this is no Proof that all 
 that is abfolutely neceftary to be be- 
 lieved to make a Man a Chriftian, is 
 iript to be found in any one place of 
 
 Scripture j 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 Scripture ; mueh Ms that no Man 
 can be a Chriftian, till he hath an: 
 expUcite knowledge of cO^ery Propo- 
 fition Chrift and his Apoftles have 
 taught. The place of Scripture Mr. 
 E^w, here quotes, viz. Rom. lo. ^. 
 I take to be a full confirmation of 
 what the Author of the Reafomhle- 
 nefs of Chrifi'tanity^ &c. aflerts. The 
 words are thefe, If thou Jhdt conjefs 
 with thy Mouth the Lord J ejus, and 
 /halt helieve in thy Hearty that God 
 hath raifed him from the dead^ thou 
 fbalt he faved. The plain meaning 
 and fenfe of which words, I think is 
 this, If thou Hialt con fefs, or make 
 profefTion with thy Mouth, that thou 
 doft take Jefus for thy Lord, and this 
 verbal Confeflion, proceeds fr^m,and 
 is the genuine Fruit of an unfeigned 
 hearty belief, grounded upon folid, 
 fu.bftantial Evidence, fuch as God's 
 raifing him from the dead is, that he 
 is the Mejftas, thou (halt be faved. But 
 how this Scripture fhould have fuch a 
 conflrudiot* faftened to it as this, if 
 thou believe Chrifl's Rcfurre(5tion,and 
 Ml other Truths he and his Apoftles 
 have taught, thou Ihalt be faved, fo 
 as to exclude every Man from Salva- 
 tion, 
 
(4? ) 
 
 tion, that believes Jcfu» to be the 
 Mejfias, and yet attains not to an ex- 
 plicite knowledge and belief of every 
 thing Chrift and his Apoftks have 
 taught, is not obvious to me. 
 
 4. Mr. Edw, faith, '* This (which 
 is the main anfwer to the objedion) 
 " mud be born in our minds, that 
 " Chriftianity was ereded by degrees, 
 " according to that PrediQion and 
 " Promife of our Saviour, That the 
 Spirit fhould teach them all things^ 
 Joh. 14. i6. And that he jhouU guide 
 them into all truths Joh. 16. i 3. " We 
 " are not to think that all the necef- 
 " fary Dodrines of the Chriftian Re- 
 " ligion were clearly publiihed to the 
 " World in our Saviour's time, p. 78- 
 •It is true, all the Dodrincs which 
 Chrift and his Apoftles taught, were 
 not delivered at once, but gradually, 
 and at fcveral times. But what is this 
 to the proving, that all that was ne- 
 ceflary to be believed to make a Man 
 a Chriftian, was not clearly publifhed 
 in our Saviour's time ? Will not that 
 make a Man a Chriftian now, which 
 made the Apoftles themfelves Chri- 
 ftians? Chriftians in different times 
 
 may 
 
C 44}] 
 itjay be furnifted with3ci lefs or grea- 
 ter number of Truths ahd DoQrihes, 
 -which they mull endeavour to under- 
 (land and believe. But the Belief of 
 that^ which makes one Man a Chri- 
 ftian, or ever did make any Man a 
 Chriilian, will at any time to the 
 end of the World , makes another 
 Man a Chriftian. The Faith of Chri- 
 ftians may encreafe and extend to a 
 greater number of Objects, or Arti- 
 cles, as theyare difcovered and made 
 known, but there can be no difference 
 as to that^ the belief whereof^ doth 
 make a Man a Chriftian. What, is ab- 
 folutely neceflary to be believed to 
 make one Man a Chriftian, at any 
 time, isabfolutely neceflary to be be- 
 lie^'cd to make others Chriftians, at 
 any time, and in every part of the 
 World. And nothing elfe is or can 
 beabfolutely neccfTiry to be believed, 
 to make any Man a Chriftian. If 
 Mr. £</;!>. inftead of dijiinguijhing of 
 times , had diftinguiihed between 
 what is neceflarily to be believed, to 
 make a Man a Chrillian, and what 
 Doctrines have been taught and de- 
 livered by Chrift and his Apoftles, 
 wliich thofe who are Chriftians muft 
 
 labour 
 
I 45 D 
 
 labour' to underftand and believe, I 
 fancy he would not have been of the 
 Opinion, that the eriltt^ing of th^ 
 Revelatiok^ did da ke more neceflary 
 to be believed, to make a Man aChri- 
 ilian at one:time, than was neceflary 
 for that purpofe at another;" ^'^ . * 
 
 Chap. 6. Here Mr. Ediv.SzWs ioxA 
 with the Author of the ReafonalU^ 
 nefs^ becaufe he did not treat of mat- 
 ters, which pertained not to his Sub- 
 jedt. Becaule he did not difcourfc of 
 the Trinity^ and the Deity of cur Sor 
 viour^ which are particular Dod:rines 
 propofed to be believed by them who 
 arc Chriflians. Whereas that Author'^ 
 bufinefs was to enquire, not what 
 points are propofed to be believed by 
 Chriftians, but what is nccefTariiy to 
 be believed, to make a Man a Chri- 
 flian. Mr, EJiv. appears mightily 
 out of humour alfo, becaufe the Au- 
 thor of the Reafonahlenefs, &x. did 
 not mention fome paffages in the Go- 
 fpels which did not belong to his En- 
 quiry, and becaufe he did not explain 
 fome Scriptures, as he would have 
 them explained. Now I think it ap- 
 pears evidently enough, by fome of 
 the former Pafers , that there 
 
 is 
 
(46 ) 
 
 ^ no juft ground to accufe any Man to 
 be an Anti'Trinitarian^ or a Sociniarty 
 bccaufe he afferts that believing Jefu^ 
 to be the Mefta^^xs all that is necefTarily 
 fcquired to make a Man a Chriftian. 
 I farther add, that the belief of the 
 Trinity^ and that Jefus the Son of God, 
 Is'OoJj doth not conftitute a Man a 
 Chriftiaq. Nor can any Man believe 
 thefe Dodtrines, or any other Do- 
 iStrines taught in the Gofpel, with the 
 Taith of a Chriftian, till he is a Chri- 
 (lian, and believe them, becaufc he 
 knows they were taught by Jefus 
 Chrifl:, whom upon juft grounds he 
 believes to be the Mefflas, It is not 
 fair and juft to charge a Man with 
 rejecting thefe Dodirines meerly be- 
 caufe he does not interpret fome par- 
 ticular Texts to the fame purpofe 
 others do. For he may believe thefe 
 Doctrines, though he does not think 
 ill thofe Scriptures cogent proofs of 
 them,which fome may alledge for the 
 proof of them. The Author of the Rea- 
 fonahlenefs^ 8cc. had obferved that the 
 MeJIias, and the Son of God^ were fyno- 
 nymoits Terms amongfi the Jews in our 
 Saviour s titne^^. ^7, 49, 50. Hence 
 
 Mr, 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 'Mr.EJw, takes occafion to write 
 many pages about thefc terms. But 
 I do not perceive that he pretends to 
 offer the leaft proof that thefe terms, 
 were not fynonymous terms amongft 
 the Jews at that time, which is the 
 point be fliould have proved, if he 
 defigned to invaHdate what this Au- 
 thor faith about that matter. 
 
 Chap. 7. In this Chapter Mr. E^iw, 
 feems much difturbed, becaufe the 
 Author of the Keafonahlen^fs , &c. 
 ** Makes nothing of the force of that 
 '* Demonftration (as he calls it) of his 
 "being ar Difciple of Soc'tnm^ viz. 
 *' That when he mentions the ad- 
 ** vantages" and benefits of Chrift's 
 *' coming irmo the World, he hath not 
 "one fyllableof his fatistying for us, 
 " or by his' Death purchafing Life and 
 " Salvation, or any thing that founds 
 " like it, p. 94. The Scripture Do- 
 d:rine of Chrift's Satisfaction, is of 
 mighty importance, for a true Chri- 
 flian to be well acquainted with. But 
 that a Perfon muft be a Socinian be- 
 caufe he omitted xh-^X. particular^ when 
 difcourfing of the advantages and be- 
 nefits of Chrift's coming into the 
 
 Wftrld, 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 World ,unlefs he had expreily prolbifed 
 toiiamc every one of them, dpesnot 
 appear Demm^ratively unto me, fup-l 
 pofmg ChHft's <Satisfad;kMi' Were in 
 Stri^nefs to be reckoned artiongft the 
 Benefits anA /^dv^ntages which accrue 
 arid redound, ; either to Siriher^ or Be?* 
 hevers, fromChrift's coming into the 
 World. For the mentioning of jome^ 
 is nodenial of other Advantage^. But 
 I- <^oncei ve, ^Satisfatiion is not fo Jiritl- 
 iyX.0 be ternied an Advantage^ as the 
 Effects and^FrMts of it arci and the 
 cndis themfelves; for which: this Sa- 
 eisfadion was made. Som« ,of , the 
 niaiff cWj fori which Chrift' came into 
 the World, were thefe. To procure 
 us the Pardon af-^^Sin, The Holy Spi- 
 rit to enable us to walk in all pleafing 
 before God, and to fecure to us Ever- 
 lafting Glory and Blejfednefs. Thefe 
 are the great Benefits and Advantages 
 (fpeaking ftridtly) of Chrift's eommg 
 into the World. Of the two lafl the 
 ' Author of the Reafonahlenefs^^c. hath 
 difcourfed araongfl the Benefits, (^o 
 of Chrift's coming into the World 5 
 and the other lie hath fpokeq of in the 
 jorj:pfir part of his Book^ Th^ Do* 
 
C A9 3 
 
 drlne of Satisfaction, in(lru3s us int 
 the way, how Chrift did by Divine 
 Appointment, obtain thefe Advan- 
 tages for u§. -:,;'>ST^. n M 
 
 Chap. 8. This is the- lafl- Chapter 
 Mr. B4iv. vyrites, ddj:^ £lly againft the 
 Ae^fo^n^hlenefs of ChHjHanity<;^.2Lnd tfs 
 V'mdKat'ion^ or rather again (I the ««• 
 kf(^pfi 4^thor, , But; this. €hapt:^ is do 
 ^^tire^l)^ ^f the kvn^ ,Jiraw with tiioiia 
 foregoing pages I- have pad over tn 
 fii9i}ce^ J fhall fay pa more of it ; ;^buii 
 ^i^t^^y dulnefs 15 fuch, I cannot 
 dlffrerrO the leaft appearance of realbn«. 
 
 s,'Ifypu belie Vie. Mf. Edvi;>ard\h tsy 
 Giout^tof the ReapHdl^k^efii -^-c*.. yc«i 
 W;ill conclude it likely to do abittndince 
 of /^mi-efpecially to 5t. PaHrs<2hurch^ 
 yard. And indeed^ I am perluaded 
 it will as certainly be the Cauje of ve- 
 ry, much mijchief^2,% Tenterto^- Steeple 
 was, the Caufeo'i the Goodwin Sands, 
 - , Were the ^ Reafimhlenejs of Chi- 
 ftUnhy^ &c. generally read with de* 
 liheration^ and rightly underftbod , 
 and (what I apprehend to be) its wj/« 
 d^fign well followed, it would be of 
 E eminent 
 
emittefit nfe, vtmongik other good par* 
 /<?/^j. to thefe tw^. 
 
 Firfl, 7i> effeH aft happy alteration in 
 particular Ferjotis. For it more time 
 and pains were employ 'd, in bringing 
 Peopie to ^ found Qonvt^'ton^ and juit 
 perjuafion^ that Jefiu u the ChriB^ and 
 only Saviour of Sinners, and of their 
 own perfonal need of Hiw^ and lefs of 
 each in Squahling abcut Term j, Men 
 have devljed to exprefs their own 
 Conceits relating Points which Chrifi 
 and his y^po files have delivered in ea/k 
 and unaffe^ed words ^ there would not 
 be fuch great numbers every where, 
 who pretend to be QhriHians nieerly 
 becaufe it is the Fafhion and Mode of 
 the Country to make that ProfeJJioni 
 but we might upon good grourldse'x^ 
 pefi that multitudes would be Chri- 
 Jiians Upon a Rational and fVifc 
 Choice : From whence it would fol- 
 low, that as they would be al^le to 
 juftifie their Faith^ and give a good 
 Reafon of their Hope to atiy who 
 ihould dilcourfe with them concerning 
 the fame-, fo they would be more in- 
 q'^ifitive after, and obfervant of the 
 
 Laws 
 
Laws aiChrifiy atid would be iifpofti 
 to yirfd a hecomingAjfent zxi^ Sulmtf* 
 /o»tothe feveral Truths and Do^rtnes 
 they ftiall attain to know were taaght 
 
 Secondly, To overthrow and ruine 
 Fasten in Religtoriy and promote that 
 Concor^^ and good Affe^ ion amongfi 
 Chriflians^ which would render them 
 mightily jerviceahle to one another ^ put 
 them into a condition^ to reapfingulat 
 advantage from all Puhlick mini'' 
 ft rat ions y which woftld make the whole 
 numler , of Chriffia:t^s appear to the 
 World as one entire and \x>eU compacted 
 Body^ and eff equally remove thofe per* 
 nicioiif Prejudices agaihji our mojl Sa* 
 cred^Profeffiony wUch too many tak^ 
 occafion tc entertain^ ffO*i^ the humour-^ 
 fame Separations^ and ground lejs De- 
 vifions which do mofl u)amercijully pre* 
 vail Amongfi Chriftians, The Men of 
 ^rt in all the PartieSy appear agreed 
 (how diftant foever tiiey be one from 
 another in other matters) not to fpeak 
 in favour of the Reafonahlenefs of 
 Chrijiianity^ &c. But if this Agree' 
 '' ment of theirs doth arife from the ob" 
 E 2 vious 
 
C5f3 
 
 fj^us ten^^nc^, th^ t Book ha th tp pro- 
 mojt^ the IJafp^C^jicord beforqmen- 
 tibfied, what caft be thought better 
 of it, than that it is an £v.ilConJpiracy 
 to continue and maintain l/«c|^f)(??<j« 
 Difcords^ for private Selfifh"'Bneisy 
 %o the exceeding great ^ D^tiriment of 
 'keligtorty and the Puhlkk Good > In 
 ihort, if the Reafvnahlenfjs of Chri- 
 ^iimity as delivered in the Scxi^t^^ey 
 doth merit riQ.Worfc ^XhaVa^er^ oa 
 iny other account^ than it do^h j^ft- 
 1^ deferve, bjecaufe it advaac.erli and 
 fo fully proyeth^t|iis l^o'miyJjh'afchriJl 
 andhi^ ApoBles did not propound any 
 i(irticles as,)iec^j[jfartly to he helkved 
 U wake a M.(mAChrijfi^:!tyJ?ut this^ 
 that Jefus is t\^\ &rijfy Mf:J^eJiaSf I 
 thiAk it niay iw'Jth great juftiqe'^e re- 
 puted, one .of the ^^7?, -^i?(?-^j, tjiat hath 
 been pubhiheijjc^^ at leaft thefe.Six- 
 t^en Hundred jTears* 
 
 b3. 
 
 THJS: END. 
 
 
 ft - rn: 
 
REPLY 
 
 T O 
 
 Mr. EDWARDS'S 
 BriefREFLECTIONS 
 
 O N 
 
 A Short Difcourfe of the True 
 Knojpledg ofChriji Jefus^, &c. 
 
 To which is prefixed 
 
 A PREFACE, 
 
 Wherein fomething is faid concerning 
 ^eafon and J?itiquity, in the chief 
 Controverfies with the Socinians. 
 
 By «S. Bold, Redor of Steeple, Dorjet. 
 
 One isyourMafier^ even Chrifi^ Mat. 23. 10. 
 
 London^ Printed for A. and J. Churchill^ at the 
 Black Swan in Paier-nojler-RGVP. 1597. 
 
(iii) 
 
 THE 
 
 pR E F A d E to the Reader. 
 
 IHAvt htm preaching a confiderabk time on the 
 Epiftle of St. Paul to the Philippians, and 
 coming to the 8th Verfe of the third Chapter 
 of that Epiftle, I preached the Sermon on which Mr» 
 Edwards hath beflowed his Refledions. I had not 
 any Thoughts of making that Sermon morepuhlick than 
 the other Sermons I had preached on that Epijile^ till I 
 afterwards found the Propolition laid down in that 
 Sermon^ mo ft unmercifully traduced by Mr, Edwardii 
 in his Booh writ againji the Reafonablenefs of Ghri- 
 ftianity, ^c. The Sermon was publi/hed^ becaufe I 
 thought it did plainly manifeft that the Proportion did 
 not impair any of the Dodrines taught in the New 
 Teftament^ but did ajfert and fc cure to them ally their 
 jiuthority^ did preftrve them in the Places where 
 Chrifi had fet them^ and for the Vfes for which he in- 
 tended them. The j4nimadverJions were dejigned to 
 intimate that i^r. Edwards had mifiakeny or mtfrepre^ 
 fented the Propofitiony and to hint that in certain Rc^ 
 fpeCis the Confiderations Mr^ Edwards had offered 
 againft the Propo/ition were deficient. But Mr. Ed- 
 wards hath fancied other things^ and therefore puts a 
 different Conflru^ion on them both. 
 
 1 fhould be inclined to think it fomething {tr^ugc 
 that the Propofition difcourfed of in the following Pa- 
 pers (the Truth of which Propofition the moft Ingenious 
 Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chriflianity, ifc. 
 hath fo fully proved from the Teflimony of Chrifi and 
 his yipojlles) fhould he fo coarfely treated^ but that I 
 am very well fatisfied that there is no great Caufe to 
 A 2 won 
 
iv The PREFACE. 
 
 wonder, that even learned ayidgood Men do differ in 
 tJjeir Apprehenfions about Matters of no fmall Mo- 
 ment, and that neither Learning^ nor Piety ^ no nor 
 both together^ are always fir ong enough in this imper- 
 fed Eftate, to refiratn the Fondnefe Men hav6 for 
 Notions they have a great while efpoufed, from ex- 
 pr£jjing it f elf in its Natural Dialed. The Primir 
 tive Chriftians had a more honourable Efteem 0/ this 
 Vxo\)o[\xXoxi^ ix!hen they thought it of much greater 
 Confequcnce than their Lives, 'the Chrifiianswere 
 at firfi perfecuted, not fo much for any particuhk 
 Vodrines they profeffed to helienje^ hut for Jefus's 
 Name fake, that is^ for their owning Jefus to be the 
 Meflias. uind afterwards^ when the Chrijlians were 
 murdered with a more immediate Refpe^ to particular 
 'Doctrines they would not renounce^ becaufe they knem 
 Jefus, whom they believed to he the Meflias, had taught 
 them^ or would not embrace Do&rines for which there 
 was no Proof that Chrifi euer taught thera^ it was tjie 
 Refpesft they had to Jefus as the Meflias, that did 
 dignify their Sufferings, and advance them to the 
 Crown of Martyrdom. The great Point 0/ Anti- 
 Chrifliianifm (at leafi next to a pr of eJTcddif owning 
 Jefus to be the Mejfias) confijls in fctttng up an Au- 
 thority to make any thing a part of Religion, which 
 Jefus Chrifi hath not authorized. And the great 
 Malignity of that lies in this^ that it involves a ta- 
 cit denying that Jefns is the Meflias. 
 
 Thofe who are of the Opinion^ that true Chrijiians 
 are obliged to endeavour to encrcafe exteniivelym 
 Kmwledg and Faith^ and yet think that the Belief of 
 more Articles than this^ tiiat Jefus is the Meflias, 
 is indifpcnfably necejj'ary to make or conftituLe a Man 
 a Chriflian, may (if they confidcr Matters well) 
 perceive that the Notion of the AbfoluteNccelTity 
 of the Belief of more Articles to make a Man a 
 
 ■ Chn-i 
 
The PREFACE. v 
 
 iChriJliariy will prove in its jufi Confequences very in- 
 jurious to Cbrifi's Authority, for thofe things^ the 
 Belief whereof doth conflitute a Man a Chri/lian^ 
 muji he the Rule and A^eafure by which he is to ]udg 
 and determine what he is to endeavour to know and be- 
 lieve. So that whatever he can be obliged to endea- 
 vour to know and believe^ by virtue of his being a 
 Chriftian^ mufi have a char and plain Connexion 
 with every one of thofe Articles, which are abfo- 
 lutely necejjary to be believed to make him a Chrijlian. 
 Its having ever fo plain and immediate a Connexion 
 with one^ or trro, or more of thofe Arttcks^ will not 
 prove he is obliged to believe it-, if there be yet more 
 Articles, the Belief of which was neceffary to male 
 him a Chrijlian j becaufe it anfwers not, or comes not 
 up to that entire Rule, by which be is to judg, whether 
 he be obliged to believe it. For in that cafe it falls as 
 really fhort of anfxvtring the Rule by which he is to prO' 
 ceed^ as a Perfon's judging that a due believing that 
 Jefus is the Meffias, makes a Man a Chrijlian, falls 
 fhort of the 'Truth, if the Belief of more Articles is 
 indifpenfably neceffary to make him a Chrijlian. Thus 
 his knowing that Jefus Chris} hath revealed fuch a Do- 
 d:rine, brings him not under an Obligation to believe 
 it^ but he may notwithjlanding that with-hold his Af- 
 fmt. If it fJ J all be faid, that knowing Chrisi hath 
 revealed it, he is by virtue thereof obliged to believe 
 it with refpc&: to the end for which it is revealed : I 
 anfwer, that if a due Belief that Jefus is the McfTias 
 do not conjlitute a Man a Chrijlian^ a Chrijlian is to 
 judg by all that which is necelfarily to be believed 
 to conflitute him a Chriftian, of his being obliged 
 to believe any. Point to any Purpofe in Religion ; 
 for what k neceflary for any Purpofe in Religion, 
 concerns him as he is a Chriflian, and fo' vs not ta be 
 judged of by what doth not conflitute him a Chri- 
 
 A 3 ftian. 
 
vi The PREFACE. 
 
 ftian, but by what doth conftitute him a ChriAiaili 
 be that the Belief of more or fewer Articles. 
 
 Mr- Edwards hath thought fit to reproach the Pro- 
 pofition I fpeak of as a Socinian Dodrine, and a way 
 to extirpate the Chriftian Religion out of the 
 World, and to introduce Infidelity. But I think 
 St is the only Point that can with full Affurance he ad' 
 njanced and infifled on ejf equally ^ and with the great- 
 er Eafe and Speedy to profirate the Oppofers of 
 Ch rift's Divinity, and of the Dodrine ot the ever 
 blelTed Trinity, and to overthrow all the falfe and 
 corrupt Notions which disfigure the Chriftian 
 Church, yea which do prevail in the World. The 
 Do^rines or Articles which Chrijliam are to endea^ 
 tfour to underfland and believe^ are thofe which are de- 
 livered in the New Teftament. And the Reafon 
 nhy they are to believe the Do^rines which are taught 
 there, w the Authority of Jefus, confidered as the 
 Meflias. Whoever believes that Jeftis m the Mejfias^ 
 musi affent to the Truth of every Propofition he knows 
 that Jcfus hath taught ^ for his Teftimony is the 
 Crcat Evidence of the Truth of thofe Propofltions, 
 if any A^an pretends to believe that Jefus is the Mejfi- 
 as^ and yet will rejeff or refufe to believe what he 
 knows he hath taught^ he doth thereby manifest that 
 he is not a true Chriftian, i. e. that he doth not in^ 
 deed believe that jefus is the MefTias. Thofe who fay 
 they would not believe fuch or fuch a DoBrine^ if it 
 wire cxpre/ly taught in the New Teftament, do 
 plainly declare they do not own thofe Books to be di- 
 vinely infpired. Jnd if they fhould fay they would 
 not believe them^ if Jefus Chrift himfelf did deliver 
 tham^ they would more immediately declare that they 
 do not believe him to be the Mejfias. The Ebionites, 
 wh& out of Deftgn pretended to believe Jefus to be the 
 Mejfias^ were fo fenfihle of this^ that becaufe they 
 
 would 
 
The PREFACE, vii 
 
 fpould not aclfiowledg him to be God, they reje^ed the 
 Booh of the New Tefiamenty and provided themfelves 
 another Book (which had not that Dodrine in it) 
 which they pretended did contain the Doctrines which he 
 taught. 
 
 - It hath been the way ofthofe who have fet themfelves 
 again ft the Holy Scriptures , or fome of the Dodrines 
 taught in them, either to advance fome Do&rines cm 
 neceffary to he believed^ which are not taught in thofe 
 facred Writings, or to alter fome of the Do^rines 
 taught in them, by annexing their own Senfe and 
 Interpretation to the Words in which Jefus Chrifi 
 and his jipoftles delivered them. Of this latter fort 
 were thofe who oppofed the Divinity of Chrift, and 
 the Dodrine of the Trinity, which occafioned the 
 Primitive Chrijlians to make it their Buftnefs to fhew 
 that the Words which Chrift and his Apoflles ufed did 
 import a great deal more than what thofe Pcrfons 
 pretended was the full Senfe of them. Thofe falfe 
 Teachers, and their Succeffors, efpeciaUy thofe who 
 have of late contended againfl thefe Do&rines, ap- 
 plied themfelves to an Artifice very common amongft 
 them who have fet up to combate the Do^Vrines of our 
 BlefTed Saviour, and undermine the Chriftian Reli- 
 gion, which is, to endeavour to enlarge the Contro- 
 verfy as much as poffihle, that thus they might have 
 the more room to turn in. They have by this Means 
 obtained certain unhappy Advantages. They have 
 amufed and bewildered many of the weaker fort of 
 People. They have found out many Eva/ions and 
 Shifts under which to hide and fhelter themfelves. 
 They have created Perfonf of prodigious Learning and 
 Parts much unneceffary Trouble. Whereas had they 
 been kept firilily to this one Point, that jefus is the 
 Meffias, and not fuffered to Jlart from that and its 
 immediate Gonfequence, the Coniyoverfy would 
 
 A 4 have 
 
viii The PREFACE. 
 
 have been brought to a fpeedy IfTue^ by producing the 
 MeJTtcvi^s own Words. For then the utmoB they could 
 do would be only to talk of Accents, Articles, and 
 Copies, which I conceive are Topich they do not Much 
 care now to infift on ^ and amongft other Reafons^ 
 (befides their having been fo often- baffied already) be- 
 caufe very few Perfons (in comparifon) would regard 
 the Debate y when thofe things would be all they could 
 difcourfe of. But they have exceedingly extended the 
 Controverfy^ by prevailing with the Orthodox to fix 
 on other Topicks for Difcourfe. They have greatly 
 indangered the Truth, under a Pretence of being re- 
 ven ged on thofe Terms the Antient Chrijlians had fet- 
 tled for the exprejjing of their Senfe concerning thefe 
 Dof/rines^ in oppo/jtion to thofe who formerly ftt them- 
 f elves againji thefe Doflrines. And thus the Controverfy 
 is run into Antiquity and Reafon. By which means the 
 Socinians and the Orthodox have had opportunity to pro- 
 duce very great Proofs of the Strength of their Natu- 
 ral Endowments, and their acquired Accomplifh- 
 nients. Vpon thefe Points we have had of late very 
 notable Encounters. The Orthodox have (all things 
 conffdered) acquitted ihemfelves bravely^ and with 
 fmgular Dexterity (except fome of them falling toge- 
 ther by the Ears one with another^ that their Advcr- 
 faries might have fome breathing Space., and a little 
 Diver fion to boot) hut I am apt to fufpcti that the 
 great Reafon why th^y have done fo little Execution, ts 
 tecaufe they have yielded-, for a while^ to lay afide the 
 Sword of the Sp.'rit, theTcflimony of the MelTi- 
 as, and have confcnted to fight their Adverfaries at 
 their own Weapons. Did I enjoy my former Healthy 
 J fhould think it a very pleafant Diverfion to fee 
 Prizes plaid this way by Perfons who are well-skiWd at 
 thefe fort of Weapons^ provided the Matters in De- 
 hate were of another Nature. But in the prefent 
 
 Mat' 
 
The PREFACE. ix 
 
 Matters thefe Methods feem to tne little other than if 
 David had laid down h'vs Sling and Pouch, and ha^ 
 gone forth to fight the huffing Philiftine in Saul'i Ar- 
 mour. Neither Reafon nor Antiquity can determine 
 any thing immediately concerning thefe Dodrines^ 
 whether they he true or not^ whether we are to believe 
 them or no. Our Certainty of their Truth depends 
 entirely on the Teftimony of Jefus Chrilt. The 
 Proofs that Jefus vs the Mefjias lie level to the Senfes 
 or Reafon of Jidankind. And if we have Reafon to 
 believe that Jefus is the Mejfias^ and are convinced of 
 that, his Teftimony affords us as good and fatiP 
 fadtory Reafon, why we fhould believe what we know 
 he hath taught, as the Teftimony of our Senfes can 
 yield us, why wejhould believe any Propofition which 
 refpe&s their proper Objedls. Our Reafon doth not 
 immediately judg concerning the thing treated of in 
 the Propofition, iut concerning the Evidence, whether 
 itbefuch a6 by virtue of it we ought to affent to the 
 Propofition. The Reafonablenefs of our believing any 
 particular DoSlrine, taught in the New Tefiament^ 
 as delivered there, depends upon the Reafons we have 
 to believe that Jefus is the Mefllas. And if we are 
 fully fatisfied that we have fufficient Reafon to be- 
 lieve him to be the MeJJias, our Reafon mufl certify 
 tis, that it is the mofl reafonable thing in the World 
 to believe whatever we know he hath taught. For could 
 there be any Reafon to doubt whether what he hath faid 
 is true, we could not have fufficient Reafon to believe 
 that he is the Mefftas. If we believe him to he the 
 MeJficLS,his Teflimony is thefuUeB Evidence we can de- 
 fir e oftbe.Truth of what he hath taught. And if we allow 
 the Evidence to he compleat and full, tho we cannot 
 form a diftind Idea of the Matter treated of, we have 
 all imaginable Reafon to believe the Propofition. 
 When our Adverfaries talk of Reafon, Oi to thefe 
 
 Mat- 
 
% The PREFACE. 
 
 Matte? s^ they feem to mean^ that the things dtfcotirfed 
 «fmufl be brought down to that degree^ that laying 
 ajide Revelation^ we may form dijhin{i and clear No* 
 tions of the things themfehes^ by the fole Exercife of 
 6ur natural facultiis^ fo that by contemplating them 
 wt may find out intrinfick Reafons to believe or ajfettt 
 to the Propofitions Chrift hath delivered concerning 
 them. Which is the abfurdelt thing that can be. For 
 herein they require that the Nature 0/ the things /hould 
 le altered, and they renounce Revelationy whilst 
 they pretend to avow and own it. jind they might 
 with every jot as much Reafon^ require that People 
 fijould }ndg of Sounds by their Eyes, and of Colours, 
 by their Fingers. If we were tajudg of the Matters 
 themfelves^ and to form the Propqfttions originally our 
 felves^ there would not be any need of fuch Revelation 
 as we now have, the Mefftas would not have had any 
 mcajion to have faid any thing of them^ but then we 
 must have had new Faculties , and thofe proportioned 
 to what is difcourfed of. But the Propofitions being 
 delivered down to us, there is no need of our having 
 sew Faculties^ it is euough to render it mojl reafona- 
 Me for us to believe the Propofitions^ that we have new; 
 Evidence ad?nim(lred to our old Faculties. 
 
 ■IVhen our mojl learned Divines fpeak of Reafan, 
 as to thefe Do^rines^ thy do not fpeak of the Do^rines 
 el9 delivered by Chrifi and his Apofiles^ for no Reafon 
 son be affjgned for our believing them under that pre- 
 cife Conl id e ration, but only the Tejlimony of Chrijl, 
 But they fpeak of thofe Terms in which the Church 
 hath delivered her Senfe, in oppofttion to thofe who re- 
 pefented the Words of Chrifi when applied to thefe 
 Matters y a^fignifying no more than the Words of any 
 ordinary Aian do, when concerned about moft obvious 
 ttnd common things. And thus they /Ijcw that thofe 
 T:irms comprehend a great deal more in them than that 
 
 atber 
 
The PREFACE. xi 
 
 other fort of People pretend is fignified by our Savi- 
 our^s Words \ and that the Notions thefe Terms do 
 ftandfor, are very confonant to the Reafon of Man- 
 Jtind. But they do not pretend that thefe Terms^ as 
 Jiriffly exprejjing thofe Notions^ do exhauft the whole 
 that is comprized in our Saviour's Words* For 
 fhould they do fo^ they would pretend to comprehend 
 the Matters themfelves Chriji doth fpeak of^ and to 
 fet them forth in a clearer Light than he hath done. 
 
 A "DoHrine or Propofitioti is reafonable, when it 
 truly relates or expreffeth the Reafon of the things about 
 which it is concerned j that w, when the Subjeft and 
 Predicate have fuch a Conneifion in the Propofition^ 
 as doth truly exprefs andfignify the Connection there is 
 betwixt what the Subje^ and Predicate dofiand /or, 
 and note in the things fpoken of. Now there is a very 
 great Difference between my underfianding the Rea- 
 fon, the Order ^ the Relation there is between the things 
 fpoken of in the Propofition^ i. e. wherein that Order 
 doth con/ifl, or what it is that conflitutes that Order^ 
 and my having Reafon to believe the Propoiition, 
 which doth relate and declare that there is a certain Or^ 
 der^ Relation^ and Reafon between them^ or belong- 
 ing to them. Evidence is the Reafon or Ground of my 
 Affent and Belief. And tho the things fpoken of are 
 in their own Nature above my reach, yet there may 
 be fuch Evidence of the Truth of the Propojition^ as 
 may be fufficient to oblige my Belief of it. The Tejii- 
 tnony of my Senfes concerning their proper OhjeBs^ 
 is the Reafon of my affenting to the Truth of Propofi- 
 tions which refpeQ thofe Objeifs, and not my being 
 able to philofophize about thofe OhjeCts^ either after 
 the old or new way. I believe the Doilrines I know 
 Chrifl hath taught^ not becaufe I can comprehend and 
 philofopbiz.e on the Matters fpoken of^ but becaufe I 
 know that Jefus^ whom I believe to be the Jkfejftas^ hath 
 
 taught 
 
xii The PREFACE. 
 
 taught them. He fully underftood the Order of the 
 Things he fpake o/, and his Teftimony w 06 full 
 Evidence to engage my Belief of whatever I know he 
 bath taught^ 06 my Sight w, to oblige my Affent to 
 Propofitions relating to the proper Objeds of that 
 Senfe, Thefe Dodrines are not -props" d to us for 
 Speculation, hut for our life and Benefit. We have 
 Evidence enough^ even as much as we can with Rea- 
 fan dejire^ of the Truth of thefe Propofitions, if we be^ 
 lieve that Jefiis is the Mejfias ^ ayid our hleffed Savi- 
 our hath given us fuU Diredion what Vfe we are to 
 make of them, that we may partake of the fingular 
 Advantages he will communicate thofe ways. And 
 if injlead of quarrelling and wrangling about Matters 
 which are far above our loftieji Speculations, we would 
 - fuhmijfively betake our felves to the Methods our Lord 
 doth advife and prefcribe us, we might confidently ex^ 
 fed the mofi exhilarating SatufaBion concerning thefe 
 Points. If any Man will do his Will, he fhall 
 know of the Doctrine, whether it be of God, or 
 whether I fpeak of my felf. John 7.17- 
 
 Whereas the Socinians pretend that thefe Vo^rines 
 ^0 contradict our natural Notions : that vs a Sug- 
 geftion fografs, one might wonder hove rational Men 
 could ever entertain fuch a dry and fenfelefs Con- 
 ceit, unlcfs it hath fprung from hence, that hearing 
 that th ft' Doctrines w7w/ neccllarily be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians, they have concluded that the 
 Truth of thefe DoBrines mujl be judged of by their 
 natural Motions. And to fpeak the Truth freely, I 
 Inow not how to remove flje DifHculcy, as long as that 
 Prejudice continues. But th'vs I dare affrm with the 
 greateft Affurancc, that it cannot with any Colour be 
 faid that any of the VoCtrines which ChriH hath taught 
 do contradict our natural Notions, and therefore not 
 thefe in particular : for they do not treat concerning 
 
 Mat- 
 
The PREFACE. xiii 
 
 Matters of which we have any natufal Notions. 
 Now if thefe Matters were fpoken of in fuch a way^ 
 that tofpeaJi in the fame manner concerning thofe things 
 of which we have natural Notions^ would be a Contra- 
 didion to our natural Notions, it cannot with any 
 Senfe he faidy that there vs fuch a Contradidion, 
 when the Matters difcourfed of are fuch, Oi we have , 
 no natural Notions of. The Application of 
 Words mttft be according to the Truth of Things, 
 otherwife the Propofitions would be falfe^ and contra" 
 diB the Truth. Jefm Chrijl delivered his Do6}rines 
 in the Words he ufed, becaufe thofe Words do truly ex" ^ 
 prefs the Reafon there w in the things hefpale of', and 
 we are to believe thofe Propojitions on hn Authority, 
 hecaufe he hath faithfully related the Truth concerning 
 the Things he fpeaks of. j^nd if we believe him to be 
 the ChriB or MeJJias^ we can have no Pretence to 
 doubt of the Truth of what we know he hath taught. 
 Could we be fat'vsfkd that a certain Pcrfon hath a di- 
 flinCl Senfe from what is common to Mankind, and 
 that there are Obje^s peculiar to that Senfe ^ we jbould 
 have 05 much Reafon to believe what he- faith concern^ 
 ing thofe Ohjeiis, as we have to be fatisfiedthat he 
 hath fuch a Senfe, that there are Oh]elh peculiar to it^ 
 and that he is a Perfon of Difcernment and Integrity, 
 jind if he fhould fpeak of thofe OhjeiJs in fuch a man- 
 \—ner as would be a Contradiilion to our natural Notions^ 
 did he fpeak fo concerning thofe things which are the 
 Ohjedsof our Scnfes, and prccifely under that Confi- 
 deration, we fhould have no Reafon to fay he contra- 
 diBs our natural Notions, whilft he difcourfes of things 
 \ which we know nothing at all of, but purely by his Inform 
 mat ion. He is to accommodate his Words to the Rea- 
 fon and Truth of the Things he difcourfes ef, not to the 
 Notions we have of Matters which are quite different. 
 And the Reafon we have to believe what he faith of thofe 
 
 things^ 
 
XIV The PREFACE. 
 
 things, bears a Proportion to the Reafons we have tdSt 
 fatisfied of his Credibility, and depends not at aU m 
 our forming clear and diftini} Notions of the things 
 themfelvesy much lefs on our adjufting what he faith 
 to the Notions we have of other things, which are |>*r» 
 feifly 0/ another Nature. 
 
 The main Bufinefs of Antiquity, with relation W 
 thefe Dodrines, is either, lit. Tofhew upon what Oc^ 
 cafion other Words than thofe in which Chriji and his 
 Apojiles delivered thefe DoMnes, were made ufe of in 
 ajjerting and teaching them. Or, 2dly. To Jhevf 
 that the Primitive Chrijiians did manifefi that they 
 did believe the Words in which Chrift and his jipoflles, 
 delivered thefe Doiirines, do comprehend a great deal 
 more than what the Oppofirs of the Divinity of Chrift, 
 and of the Holy Gholt, pretend vs the full Senfe of 
 them. Or, 3dly. Tofhew that the Senfe in which we 
 underftand the Terms, in which we ordinarily fpeah of 
 thefe Dodrines, wcvs the agreed and fettled Senfe of 
 them^ in the Chrijiian Churchy when thefe Terms were 
 fixed on to be ordinarily ufed in difcourjing of, and 
 prof effing our Belief of thefe DoCirims, 
 
 Thus the Difcourfes about Reafon and Antiquity 
 do not immediately reach thefe BoChrines, a& Chriji 
 hath taught them^ but the way of exprejfmg them when 
 we deliver our felves concerning them in other Words 
 than Chrifi hath done. When we ufe other Terms in 
 fpeaking of thefe Dodrines, than Chriji hath deliver^ 
 ed them in^ our Words are accommodated to the natu- 
 ral Notions we have of Things : jind tho thefe No- 
 tions comprehend much more than the Notions do 
 which we oppofe^ yet they do not contain the whole 
 Meaning of Chrtji^ as delivered in the Words he hath 
 iijed^ for that far furpaffes our Capacities. So that 
 when all is done^ we mufl: come to this at laft, to 
 believe thefe Doftrines as Chriil hath delivered 
 
 them, 
 
The PREFACE. xv 
 
 tiicm, and for this very Reafon, becaufe be hadi 
 taught theiHi Now before a Perfon can be brought 
 to thvs^ he ntuft believe that Jefus is the MelTias, 
 And if the due Belief ffctft Jefus is the Meflias doth 
 not conftitute a Man a Chriftian, I cannot imagine 
 how the Belief of other Articles can conftitute him a 
 Chrilbian, feeing that Belief is the formal Reafonof 
 hvi believing the other Articles^ and his believing other 
 Articles is no more but a repeated Belief of that Ar^ 
 ticle^ in proportion to the Occafions which are admim- 
 fired to him for it. Produce as large a Proof as is 
 fojftbley ^at the Church hath aU along taught fucha 
 Dodrine, that fhe hath taught it in fuch Words^ 
 that fhe tmderftood thofe Words in fuch a Senfe, before 
 a Perfon can be fatisfied regularly that he is obliged t» 
 believe it^ he mujl^ be convinced that Jefus is the 
 Meflias, and he muft befatisfied that that Jefus hath 
 taught it. The like may be faid as to Reafon. When 
 you have produced as many Reafonsasyoucan^ thm 
 there may be more Subfiftencics than one in the Di- 
 vine Nature, you can neither prove the Neceflity, 
 fior the Certainty, nor the Number of them^ ^ 
 Reafon, But ai to aU thefe Matters, the Teftlmo- 
 fiy of the Melfias mufi determine our Belief. Our 
 Reafon doth not only fall fhorty as to the manner how 
 thefe things are^ but alfo as to the Truth and Cer- 
 tainty cf them. And our Reafon cannot ajfure us that 
 this is all that is imported by and comprehended in the 
 Words, in which the MeJJias bath delivered his Dih- 
 Urines. 
 
 Mr, Edwards m his Socinian Creed, p. 1 30. doth 
 fille the Propo/ition difcourfed of, (tho he words it 
 orhrrwife than it ought to be J A Muihroom Notion, 
 that hanh no Root and Foundation, and faith. It 
 h probable it will foon decay and come to no- 
 thJiigc But this Notion is not 4)/ fuch a late Originci. 
 
 as 
 
xvi The PREFACE. 
 
 M he pretends^ if Chrifi andhvs Apofiles are to be eve- 
 dited concerning it. And tho I pay Mr. Edwards a 
 great Deference^ yet 1 mufi declare I cannot but pre-^ . 
 fer their Word to his. It is fo far from having no Root 
 and Foundation, that it is the Root of the New 
 Teflanient, and the Foundation on which the CHrir • 
 ftian Church is built. And whereoi befaithy It is 
 probable it will foon decay and come to liothing y 
 Probabilities are of little Weighty when placed in the 
 Ba Uance againjl Certainties. I am perfwaded it wiU~ 
 continue fafe to the end of the Worldy becaufe the. 
 Mejftas hath undertaken that the Gates^qf Hell fliall 
 not prevail againll it. Mat. 1 5, 1 8..^, (i , r. ^ \.^c ^ . ; 
 If all the Deiits, Scepfticks, SociiiUns', Ofc.';^. 
 the Worlds fhould pretend to approve of the Fropofition 
 difcourfed of^ and that they do believe that Jefus is the • 
 MeJfiaSy I /hall not renounce the Fropofition on that - 
 account. But if they continue regardlefs of^ oppofe^ 
 or refufe to endeavour to under ft and and believe the 
 particular Do£irines the MeJJias hath taught^ I will 
 maintain in oppofition to them aU^ that they do not be- 
 lieve that Jefus is the Meflias, with fuch a Faith as 
 is neceffary to make a Man a Chriftian. 
 
 Tho I think I am not miftaken about the Point de- 
 batedy yet I will attend diligently to Scripture and 
 Reafon, and endeavour to yield a jufl Submiflion fo 
 them^ tho offered by the meaneft Mcin living. But if 
 Imperious Ramble Jhall drop from the LearnedeB 
 Ferfon in the whole Vniverfe^ touching this Matter ., 
 it will not be honoured with either of thofe Titles, but 
 be utterly difregarded by^ Reader, 
 
 Xour Faithful Servdnt^ 
 
 S. BOLD. 
 
^ I ) 
 
 A Brief Reply to Mr. Edwards / 
 Brief Reflexions J &c. 
 
 TH E Reverend Mr. Edwards hath caufed 
 a Poftfcript to be tack'd to few Socmian 
 Creed^ incituled, Brief Refit 6hons on a 
 fhort Difcoiirfeoftbe true Knowiedg ofChnjl 
 Jefus^ &:c. That Reverend Author, amongilhis 
 other Excellencies^ is taken notice of for his Skill in 
 Critical Learnings which requires a ^we//;w^ Faculty. 
 This T^/ewt he hath been pleafed to exercife to a 
 confiderable Extent in the prefent Papers, termed 
 Brief RefieCiions^ &c. But as jt is otten the mylap 
 of thofe who indulge much to ConjeiJurcs, that 
 their Gueffes are not always rights fo it happens to 
 Mr. Edwards in the prefent Cafe : For notwith- 
 ftanding his Gatherings ^dind Findings ^^nd. many pro^ 
 bable Shows, there is not (to my particular know-, 
 ledg) owe word of Truth in the whole Lump of 
 his Gueffes. He is every jot as much out in every 
 particular here, as he was in his former Writings, 
 when he both allured his Reader he could not be- 
 lieve Mr. L. was the Author of the Reafonahlenefs 
 of Chriflianity, &c. and fubftituted his Reafons 
 why he could not believe it ^ and yet he is peremp- 
 tory in thefe Papers, that that fame Gentleman was 
 the Author of that Treatife. So that it is evident 
 Mv. Edwards is not fo fur em his Guefjes, no net 
 when he hath declared the Grounds on which they 
 are ere^id^ as, that either otii^r People, or he 
 
 B himfelf 
 
himfelf may depend on them, sl^ infallible Oracles^ 
 or of fuch Credibility., that any ftrefs fliould be laid 
 on them ■-, tho he fincerely protejls that he intends to 
 give vent to Truth (and that Qnly). 
 
 Mr. Edwards hath thought fit to continue his 
 late rcay of Writing in thefe Papers, wherein (con- 
 iidering the number of Pages) there is as much 
 Banter., as in. his Socinianifm Vnmask'd. Thefe 
 parts of his Difcourfe I Ihall pafs over very lightly j 
 for whatever Impreifion fuch Paflages may make 
 on thofe who have not been inured to fuch kind 
 of Treatmenty they make very little on me, who 
 have been accuftomed a long time together, to 
 be entertained with fuch fort of Refledions., not 
 only from Perfons in all Refpeds very much below 
 Mr. Edwards^ but from fome,who wore a more fub- 
 lime Chara^er^ both in Church and State., than Mr. 
 Edwards doth, (I da%iot fay than he deferves in 
 the Church') tho I am of Opinion, if all their 
 Reading were put together, itwould not amount 
 to one half of what y[r. Edwards is Majler of. Thefe 
 things only refpeft my Perfon., not the Caufe .• 
 and as for my felf, I can bear with Peoples deal- 
 ing with that as they pleafe •, they can hardly en- 
 tertain more contemptible Thoughts of me, than 
 I ought to have of my felf. And if their loading 
 me by their words., with all they have a mind to, 
 may but help me to be duly low in my own 
 Thoughts, I (hall reap more Advantage by it, 
 than they can from the Pleafure they feel in the 
 exercife of that faculty. I have met with many, 
 very much beneath Mr. Edwards., in refped: of lau' 
 dable Accom^UPmicnt^., every whit as ready and ex- 
 pert in this fort of Talk as he appears to be, which 
 makes- me conclude, that this kind of Difcourfe 
 
 doth 
 
(?) 
 
 doth not refult from the emimncy of Mens Parts-) 
 but that Mr. Edwardsh having made no greater a 
 Proficiency irtdt, proceeds ixom Nature* s being 
 under the reftraint of thofe mhle Endowments in 
 him, which many want, who have the other in 
 common with him. 
 
 Indeed in fome Pages, Mv. Edwards -doth ufe 
 much fofter, and more kind Exprefllons than I 
 could exped from him '-, for which excefs of Cha- 
 rity, I return him my thanks (provided the King 
 of Ham may not be thought to have a Hand here) 
 as alfo that he hath taken fuch fpecdy Care, by 
 altering his Tbwc, to prevent my being over much 
 fwoln, becaufe of thofe favourable words which 
 happened to drop from his Pen. Wherein his Pru- 
 dence, with refpeft to himTelf, may not be alto- 
 gether unworthy of Obfervation : for not know- 
 ing but my weaknefs mighj; be fuch, thofe gentle 
 Words might from a Perfon of his Figure^ pertedly 
 overwhelm me with Joy^ that he might not be 
 thought to have a Hand in my Death^ he hath 
 been pleafed to determine me a Felo de fe^ faying 
 he hath difpatched himfelf. Mr. Edwards is pleafed to 
 fay, any Man may difcern a Mercenary flroJie all along 
 the Animadverfions, This, it's true, I ought not 
 to look upon as faid to me, becaufe Mr. Edwards 
 is pofitive I did not write them \ but left all who 
 read him, fhould not take his Word for it, afld 
 therefore think the Afperfion fticks on me, I may 
 take leave to fay on my own behalf, that I think I 
 have hardly ever appeared on a fa/hionable Suh]e&^ 
 or to accommodate my Dilcourfe on any Subjeft to 
 a predominant Humour. I am certain I never knew 
 any Man write againft rae, who fail'd of f^eedy 
 l^refierment. And I heartily vvilh Mr, Edwards 
 
 B z may 
 
(4) 
 
 may meet with the fame FortmC', and that in fome 
 proportion to his jufi Deferts, and thofe eminent 
 Qualifications with which he is ftpred, and for 
 which 1 mightily reverence him. For tlio I cannot 
 juftify every Expreffion he ufeth, yet 1 am per- 
 fwaded he is a very good Man^ as well as a Perfon 
 of very much Reading. 'Tis true, there feems to 
 be fome Fincgar in his Ink j but I am fenfible that 
 Men of warm and cholerick Tempers are fomewhat 
 apt to be tefty^ and may need fome Grains of uiU 
 lowance^ (tho they may not apprehend it) as well 
 as rhofe who are of fuch a cold and phlegmatick 
 Confiitution as I am. A pious Zeal is not always 
 in all Circumllances Judicious. A hot Fancy^vfhtn it 
 begins to row, will (without a great deal of Care) 
 take a large Compafs^ and when upon the re- 
 jicBing Pin^ will have a fling at every thing with- 
 in its view. And therefore I do not wonder that 
 the Sermon^ Preface^ Animadverftons^ Author^ nay 
 a Gentleman quite unknown to me, if not to Mr. 
 Edwards alfo, and Bookfcllers fhould have a /harCy 
 yea that the Street or Row fhould be brought in, 
 and that the Sign too, muflcome in for a Rarity. 
 
 The firft thing Mr. Edwards lays to my charge 
 in my Sermon is, that I have contradiBed the njery 
 Propofjtion I had laid down. Now if this be truCj 
 I am undoubtedly ^M/'/fy of a very great fault in 
 Difcourfe. But tho A^ode and Figure were not ne- 
 ceflary to confute what I had faid, they would 
 not have done any hurt if they had been ufed to 
 make the Contradiiiion manifeft: Nor would it 
 have been an imtutation to any Perfon's Ingenuity^ 
 who is profefiediy, and with very good Reafon 
 againft Clipt chri/lianity^ to have fet dov/n my 
 words entirely without clipping of them. 
 
 To 
 
(5) 
 
 To Ihew that I contradi(fl the Propofition I 
 laid down, Mr. Edwards doth firft of all fet down 
 the Propofition it felf in thefe words j There is bui 
 one Point or Article necejfary to be believed for the 
 making a Man a Chrijlian. And then he produceth 
 other words in my Sermon, which he faith do 
 contradid that Propofition. This (faith Mr. Ed- 
 wards^ he pretends to maintain as an undeniable Truth 
 Quiz., the forementioned Propofition) and yet he 
 declares that other Points are necejfary to be believed. 
 Sermon, pg. 32. 
 
 Anfw. My words were thus, |?it^. 32. Thothc 
 belief of other Points (or Articles) is not necef- 
 fary to conftitute a Perfon a Chriftian, yet other 
 things (or Articles) are neceflary to be believed 
 by him who is a true Chriftian. I did not fay 
 that other Articles are neceffarily to be believed 
 to make a Man a Chriftian ^ if I had faid fo, I had 
 contradided the Propofition before mentioned ^ 
 but I only faid there are other Articles neceflary 
 to be believed by him who is already made a 
 Chriftian, when he underftands them, and knows 
 that Jefus Chrift hath taught them. 
 
 Again, Mr. Edwards produceth part of a Sen- 
 tence in p.29. of my Sermon. The words I confefs 
 are all mine, but they do no more contradid the 
 Propofition I laid down, than my words laft dif- 
 courfed of did contradidit ^ as the Reader may 
 plainly fee, if he will take the Pains to read the 
 whole Sentence as it lies in that Page referred to, 
 where he will find my Propofition, and the words 
 Mr. Edwards quotes in the fame Sentence. Af- 
 terwards Mr. Edwards fets down fome other words 
 to make out his Charge^ that I have contradicted 
 ,the Propofition I had laid down,referring to />.33. 
 
 B 3 of 
 
(6) 
 
 of my Serm. which words are not precifcly mine y 
 but I do not infill on that, for as they are fet 
 down by him, they do not contradift my Propo- 
 fition. Mr. Edwards then adds, that I reckon «p 
 fe^'jeral Articles and Propq/itions^ which are the njery 
 fame which he had mentioned in his Difcourfes againfi 
 the Conceit of one Article. I will not ftay to com- 
 pare them, to fee whether they are exactly the 
 fame. The Sermon was writ before I faw his 
 Difcourfes. I may have read them all fomewhere 
 or other, I pretend not to be an Original^ but I 
 did not then mind any particular Author, where 
 I had read them altogether. Upon fuch Occa- 
 fions I only let down what occurs to my Mind, 
 fo far as I apprehend pertinent, without troubling 
 my felf to try whether I can recoiled: whei'e 
 I liave read any Sentence or Phrafe. I am be- 
 holden to fome or other (for ought I know) for 
 every Pallage and Word I write. Now (faith Mn 
 Edwards') if there be other Points^ and particular 
 Articles^ and thofe many^ which a fincere Chrijlian 
 is obliged^ and that necejfdrily and indiffenfahly^ to un- 
 der ft and and believe^ and ajfent unto (he fhould have j 
 f3id, to endeavour to underftand, <^c,) then this \ 
 Writer doth in cjfell yield to that Propo/ition which I 
 tnai'dtaincd^ viz. That the Belief of one Article is not 
 fuffcient to male a Man a Chrijlian^and confiquently he 
 runs counter to the Propofition which he had laid down. 
 
 Anfw. If there are more A.rticles, drc. which a 
 fincere Chriftian is obliged to endeavour to un- 
 derftand, and then believe, it doth not immedi- 
 .ately. follow, that the Belief of more than this | 
 one Article, That fefus is the Mejjias^ is neceflary 
 to make a Man a Chrillian. It mull firll be pro- 
 ved that the explicite Knowledg and Belief of all 
 
 thofe 
 
(7) 
 
 thofe Articles,any Chriftian may be necefrarily,6'c. 
 obliged to endeavour to underftand and believe, 
 is neceflary to make a Man a Chriftian. And then 
 it will follow, that the Belief of this Article, That 
 Jefiis vs the Mejfta/i^ is not fufficient to make a Man 
 a Chriftian. But the Difcourfe now, is not con- 
 cerning the Truth of either Mr. Edwards\ Opimon^ 
 or of mine, touching that Matter, but whether 
 I did contradid the Propofition I had laid down. 
 Now fuppofing the Propofition I had laid down 
 were falfe, my declaring that there are many Ar- 
 ticles which a fmcere Chriftian is neccfiarily 
 obliged to endeavour to underftand and then be- 
 lieve, doth not contradid: my Propofition •, for 
 my Propofition was not, That a fincere Chriftian 
 is not obliged to endeavour to know, and believe 
 any more than this one Article, That Jefus is the 
 MeJTtas. If it were clearly proved, that Jefus 
 Chrift hath taught, that the explicit Knowledg 
 and Belief of allthofc Articles, which any Chri- 
 ftian can be neceflarily obliged to endeavour to 
 know and believe, is abfolutely neceflary to make 
 a Man a Chriftian, then it might very fairly be 
 faid, that my Propofition doth contradidt the 
 Truth ^ but it could not with any colour,even then, 
 be pretended that my declaring that there are 
 other Articles, which fincere Chriftians are ne- 
 ceflarily obliged to endeavour to know and be- 
 lieve, doth contradia the Propofition I had laid 
 down. For (faith Mr. Edwards} I bring the Bufi^ 
 nefs to this ijfue. If the believing of one fingle Article 
 be enough to conjiitute a Man a Chriftian, tl^en the 
 Belief of fomething more is not necej]'ary, and indifpen- 
 fable. 
 
 Anjw. If the right Belief of this fingle Article^ 
 
 B 4 that 
 
(8) 
 
 that Jefus vs the Me^as^ be enough to conftitutc a 
 Man a fincere Chriftian, then the Belief of fome- 
 thing more is not neceflary, indifpenfably ne- 
 celTary to make a Man a Chriftian. Nor hath 
 Mr. Edveards produced any Paflage out of my 
 Sermon, which affirms that any thing more is ne- 
 ceflarily, 6^. to be ■believed, to conftitute a Man a 
 Chriftian. For (faith Isix, Edwards) Ihe knowing or be- 
 lieving of more may he fame Ornament and EmbeUiJh' 
 ment to him^ {viz.. a Chriftian) yet it cannot befaid 
 that it 15 necefjary andindifpenfabk. 
 
 Anjw. True, it cannot be faid to be neceflary 
 to make him a Chriftian, but it may be faid 
 to be neceflary, and that he is indifpenfably 
 obliged to endeavour to know it, and believe it, 
 with refpect to thofe Ends and Purpofes for which 
 it is revealed, and for which he is commanded to 
 endeavour to know and believe it. If Mr. Ed- 
 wards fpeaks here of knowing and believing Dor 
 brines which Jefus Chrift and his Apoftles have 
 taught and revealed, (for if he means knowing 
 and believing other Matters, it is not to our pur- 
 pofe) the diftinguifliing of Gofpel-Dodrines into 
 necejTary^ and fuch as are only for Ornament and 
 Embdlifhment.^ feems fo mew hat W/^ to me: A 
 DtJliyiBion in Matters oi Faith ^ very like to that 
 in Pra^icals^ between Evangelical Precepts and 
 Counfeis. The Reafon Mr. Edwards doth aflign 
 for his faying that the knowing and believing of 
 more than v^^hat is neceflary to conftitute a Man a 
 Chriftian, cannot be faid to be neceflary and in- 
 difpenfable, is tliis, becaufe nothing is fo (viz.. ne- 
 ceflary and indifpenfable) in ChrifHanity^ but what 
 contributes to the snaking a Man a Chriflian^ a, fin" 
 cenChrlfiian, 
 
 ^nfifL 
 
(9) 
 
 jinfw. We are now difcourling concerning the 
 'Atticles which are necefTarily to be believed (whe- 
 ther one or more) not concerning the Faitb with 
 which they are to be believed, therefore what is 
 necellary to a Man's being a linccre Chriftian is 
 not the Subject of our Enquiry here. By this 
 term Chrifiiamty^ therefore Mr. Edwards mull mean 
 the AYtkks necejjarily to be believed to make a Man 
 a Chriftian. And the term Chriftianity^ in this 
 Propolition, There is nothing neceffary and indifpen- 
 fable in Chriftianity^ but what contributes to the 
 making a Man a Chriftian^ mull then lignify either 
 a certain pre cife Number of Articles coUeded out of 
 the New Teftamentj the Belief of every one of 
 which is indifpenfably neceflary to make a Man a 
 Chriftian : Or, all the Dodrines^ Propofitions^ and 
 Articles^ which Chrift and his Apoftles have 
 taught, and are contained in the New Teftament, 
 If Mr. Edwards underftands Chriftianity in this lat' 
 ter Senfe^ then this Propofition, There is nothing 
 indifpenfably neceffary in Chriftianity but what contri" 
 butes to the making a Man a Chriftian^ muft be un- 
 derftood (I think) in one of thefe Senfes. 
 
 I . There is no Do6irine^ Propofition, or Article in 
 the New Teftament, but the explicit Knowledg and 
 Belief of it is indifpenfably neceffary to make a Man 
 a Chriftian ^ becaufe there is no DoBrine^ &:c. in the 
 New Teftament, but what contributes to the making 
 of a Man a Chriftian. And if this be his Mean- 
 ing, then the Articles he hath reckoned^up are 
 not fufficient, when believed, to make a Man a 
 Chriftian, becaufe there are a great many more 
 Articles in the New Teftament than thofe he hath 
 named. And it will be very hard for any Man 
 ^o prove, that no Mancaabe a CiiritoJi till he 
 
 hath 
 
(lo) 
 
 hath an explicit Knowledg and Belief of every 
 particular Article taught in the Nem Tefiament. 
 
 2. There vs no Article^ &c. taught in the JVew 
 Tefiament that is indifpenfably necejfary to any pur' 
 pofe^ but what is indifpenfably necejfary to make a 
 Man aChrifiian ^ and that hecaufs there k no Article 
 there ^ necejfary to any purpofe^ but what contributes to 
 the making a Man a Chrifiian. If this be his Senfe, 
 then no Man who is already a Chriftian, can (in 
 his Judgment) be under an indifpenfable Obliga- 
 tion to endeavour to know and believe any thing 
 more of the Mind of Chrift, than he knoweth 
 already. He is not indifpenfably obliged to en- 
 deavour fo ^rorp in Knowledg andFaith^ at leaft ejc- 
 tenfively : but if there be more Do^rines in the 
 New Tefiament than he already undcjftands and 
 believes, he is perfedly at liberty with refpedt to 
 them all. He may endeavour to know and believe 
 them if he thinks fit, elfe not. Now if this be 
 true^ my faying that there are other Articles, 
 which thofe who are Chriftians already are indif- 
 penfably obliged to endeavour to know and then 
 believe, is falfe, but yet it doth not contradid 
 the Propofition I had laid down. 
 
 3, There is no Article in the New Tefiament in- 
 difpenfably ncceffary to make a Man a Chrifiian^ 
 hut what contributes to make a Man a Chrifiian, If 
 this is Mr. Edwards'^s meaning, there may be much 
 of Truth in it, tho there feems to be more than 
 what « true in it. There is no Article in the 
 New Tefiament indifpenfably necellary to be be- 
 lieved to make a Man a Chrifiian, but what is in- 
 difpenfably necellary to that purpofe. This is 
 raofl true and certain. But if Mr. Edwards doth 
 mean that there is nothing in the New Tefiament 
 
 that 
 
( " ) 
 
 that may contribute to the making a Man a Chri- 
 ftian, but it is indifpenfably neceflary to be be- 
 lieved to make any Man a Chriftian, I think he 
 is much miftaken. For there are many things 
 the Knowledg whereof may contribute to m-ake 
 a Man a Chriftian, and yet the Knowledg of them 
 doth not make him a Chriftian. And more things 
 may contribute to the making of one Man a Chri- 
 ftian, and fewer to the making of another Man a 
 Chriftian. There is a very great Difference be- 
 tween what may contribute to the makingof a Man 
 a Chriftian, and what is indifpenfably neceffary to 
 conflitute and make a Man a Chrifitan. But let this 
 be as it will, it doth not prove the Contradidion 
 iniifted on. Suppofing Mr. Edwards in the right 
 in all thefe Matters, they amount to no more, than 
 that either my Proportion is falfe, or that what I 
 have faid in other Places of my Sermon are falfe ; 
 but they do not prove that thofe PalTages do con- 
 tradid the Propofition I had laid down, which is 
 the thing Mr. Edwards labours to prove. If the 
 term Chriflianlty^ in the Propofition we arefpeak- 
 ing of, be taken in the fir^ Senfe^ then there is 
 fuppofed a certain Number of A rticles neceflarily 
 to be believed to make a Man a Chriftian, and 
 fo the Propofition amounts to this ^ There is no 
 Article amongfl thofe which are neceffarily to he he^ 
 lieved to make a Man a Chrijlian, but what contri- 
 butes to the mahng a Man a Chrijlian. And if 
 there be more Articles than this, that Jcfus vs the 
 Mejfigis^ neceflarily to be believed to make a Man 
 a Chriftian, then it is granted, that every one of 
 them muft contribute as much as pertains unto it, 
 by Chriil's Appointment, to make a Man a Chri- 
 ftian. But whether the Belief of this Article 
 
 alone, 
 
(,2) 
 
 4kKke, that Jefm is the Mijfi^ or wbether the 
 Bdief of more Aitkles be iiidiQ;>eaiably iiecd&. 
 ry \gf Chrift:''s AppoiuiuKiiL to make a Man a 
 Cfariftno, bnotdiePoiiit now betwixt Mi.Ed' 
 Mcn&andme, batwbcdier tbe Pallages he hath 
 prodBced oat of my Sennoa ck> cootzadi& the 
 Fropoitioalhad laid down. But Mr. JE^burir's 
 Propofitkxi, takenmthtsSeofe,bnodiuig to the 
 CoTTradicnog he ipeaks crfl Wherefan (iaithMr. 
 Edmards) k mii e mU ify fAm^kMwhem Ois Gemk- 
 mmt^Amamkdgtt Am rierr an mare .ArudesAMH 
 Ais me fofofed ta be haieved^ tad ikat mtceffmiiy 
 amd mJ^fyeirfifyyhe mm^ meeds gramt tim tkfe j^tf- 
 deswkkkMreAmweceffsjmdim£ffeiifdle^ Mrem? 
 etftryu muke m Mam € Chrifiuou 
 
 jb^. If I had laid there were more Articles 
 thanthatooe, y i op ofed to b&neccflariry bdieyed 
 to make a Man a OhriiBan, I bad granted what 
 Mr. Edmtrdi doth &y I nmft needs grant, and 
 tbcnlhadamcradidcddie Pr^oatkm I had laid 
 dowB^ bet no fiich Fa£ig| is prodooed by Mr. 
 fibflriroatof ray Sennoa. When I laid there 
 were more Aitides necei&ry to be beliered, I 
 find they were necei&ry to be belkred, when 
 known hf him who is a trse Chrifiian, not ne« 
 ce&ry to be bdaered to make him aChriitian, 
 vho b a Qsiftian before he believes or knows 
 them; bet neceSary to thole Ends for which 
 Chrift hath ordained them to be belieredby them 
 iri» are CfcriftiaBS. And when I iky there are 
 ■Bxy PoiutsCT- Artkks whidi JefiisChrii!; hath 
 \mQA iml rereaied, which (incere Chrifiians are 
 i n diljgifCii bly oMiged to endeaTonr to nnder- 
 ftandVnd then be&re *, the indiTpenfable Oblige- 
 Imi fink of aiiftd from Cfanft's exerting Ms 
 
 •- ^ An- 
 
(15) 
 
 Authority in commanding them who are Chrifti- 
 ans to endeavour to know and believe thofe 
 Points, and from their folemn Engagement to do 
 fo, in their refigning up themfelves entirely to 
 him. Which raethinks fhould be very clear to 
 every one who will acknowledg that Chrifl's 
 Command, and a Chrillian's moft folemn Engage- 
 ment, can bring him under an indifpenfable Ob- 
 ligation. And now 1 think the Cafe vs plain ^ and if 
 there be Prejudice on either fide, let the indifferent 
 Reader judg who is moft likely to hemajlereci by it. 
 He goes on (faith Mr. Edwards) fiill to contra- 
 di£t himfelf^ faying a true Chriflian muFi ajfent 
 unto this ^ That Chrift Jefus w God^ P- 35- 
 
 Anfw. My Words were thefe. When a true 
 Chriftian underflands that Chrifl Jefus hath 
 taught that he is God, lie mufl affent unto it. Ob- 
 ferve it (faith Mr. Edwards) He Muft^ he Qwns here 
 that there is an ahfolute Necejfity of this Belief. 
 
 Anfw. What? to make a Man a Chriftian ? I 
 neither faid fo, nor did I fay there was an abfo- 
 lute Neceffity of that Belief. I was fpeaking of 
 one who is a Chriftian ^ and fuch an one, I faid, 
 is under an indifpenfable Obligation to endeavour 
 to underftand what Chrift hath taught concern- 
 ing himfelf^ and underftanding that he hath • 
 taught that he is God, he muit affent to it, it is 
 his Duty to do fo, he is under an Obediential Ne- 
 fejftty to affent to it. IVhereup-on (faith Mr. Ed- 
 wards) I a/ik him^ Is this Belief n^ceffary to make a 
 Man a Chriflian or not ? 
 
 Anfw. Seeing my Words wer'e fo very plain, I 
 cannot underftand what occafioj.! there was to ask 
 this ^eflion. I will not encroach on their Pro- 
 priety.^ who alTume to themfe^iyes the Knack- of 
 
 " Cuejftngj 
 
(H) 
 
 GueJJing^ but will declare my Senfe freely. I 
 mean no 111. And if I am miitaken, or in an 
 Enor^ I am ready to receive Infiruiiion^ to be 
 convinced by good Evidence, and to be reduced 
 to the Truth. I think this Belief is not ahfolutely 
 neceffary to make a Man a Chrijlian ^ and that no 
 Man can believe aright that Jefus is God^ till he is 
 a Chrijlian^ and believes it bccaufe he knows that 
 Jefus, whom he believes to be the Christ or Mejfi- 
 as^ hath taught it, atleaft till he knows that he 
 who was to be the Mefficus is God. Andintfc;s 
 cafe he muft know that Jefus was the Mejfitis^ be- 
 fore he can knov/ he is God. If any Man pretend 
 he can or does rationally believe that Jefus is 
 God, upon any other account, I am pretty cer- 
 tain he doth not believe it as a Chriftian ought to 
 believe it. 'Tis well if a clamorous decrying this 
 Notion.^ that the right Belief that Jefus 16 the Meffi- 
 m^ is that which confiitutes and makes a Man a 
 Chrijlian^ does not contribute to further Socinia- 
 mfm^ &c. tho coiitrary to the Intentions and De- 
 figns of learned and good Men., who happen td 
 yield a little fiirther to their Fafftons than in 
 Itridnefs t\ity ought. That Jefus is God^ isan^r- 
 tick to be bc^lieved by thofe who are Chriflians^ 
 not by thofe v?ho are not yet Chriftians. Men 
 cannot judg of Matters, nor believe any thing 
 but according to the Light and Evidence they do 
 tnjoy. And i f we make the Belief of thi/s and 
 iiiher Articles \Vhich are peculiar to thoie who 
 are already Ci wiflians^ indifpenfably neceffary tO 
 make Men Chriftians, they who are not Chrifti- 
 ans will judg f this and thofe other Articles^^ ac- 
 cording to that . tight they have, whereby to judg 
 of things in thei r pefent State. 1 do not. wonder 
 
 thaC 
 
( 15 > 
 
 that many are Sociniansy and that many do treat 
 the great Ankles of the Gofpel fo very indecently. 
 For hearing that thefe Articles are to be believed 
 to make them Chriftians, they will and mufb judg 
 of them by the mere Light of Nature and Reafon^ 
 and therefore will not admit of any thing but 
 what lies level with, or is proportionate to the 
 Light by which they are to judg. Let the Arti- 
 cles necefTarily to be believed be more or fewer^ 
 they will judg of every one of them by the fame 
 Ruky and muft do fo, till they have another Rule 
 to judg of Matters by. And till a Man is a Ghri- 
 ftian, he hath no Rule whereby to determine his 
 Judgment and Faith abfolutely, but natural Light 
 and Reafon. I think it is as unfair to exact Belief 
 of any Man that Jefus is God, before he is a Chru 
 fiian, as to require a Man to judg aright concern- 
 ing an Object peculiar to a Senfe, that he hath 
 not. Did People generally heartily believe jefun 
 to he the Mejfia^, I am perfwaded a much grtater 
 Feneration would be manifefled for the Books 
 which make up the Ncxq Tefiament, and the Do- 
 Cirines delivered in them, than is commonly dif- 
 covered. I apprehend that the irreverent Oppofi- 
 tion that is made to fome of the greatefl and molt 
 momentous Dodrines taught in the New Tejta- 
 ment, proceeds more from the want of a due Be- 
 lief that Jefus vs the Mejfia/i^ than from an AffeBa- 
 tion to combat thofe DoSfrines. When a Man 
 doth duly believe that Jefus is the Mejfia/i^ he hath 
 as fatisfying Evidence of the Truth of every Arti- 
 cle he attains to know Jefus hath taught, as the 
 hrighteft natural Evidence can be, to Satisfy con- 
 cerning Matters within the Verge and Compafs 
 of Nature, The Grounds, the Motives, the In- 
 ducements 
 
(I6) 
 
 duccments (I fpeak not concerniiig fupernatural 
 Influences on the Mind and Heart) to believe 
 what is indifpenfably neceflary to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians, are accommodated to our 
 natural and rational Powers. But I cannot fay 
 fo concerning the particular Dodrines of the Go- 
 fpel, which are to be believed for this very Rea- 
 ibn^Becaufe Jefus hath revealed and taught them. Na- 
 tural Reafon is of great ufc in order to our being 
 Chriftians, and fo it is after we are Chriftians j 
 but it is not the immediate Rule by which our Be- 
 lief of the Dodtrines delivered in the Gofpel is 
 to be determined ^ for that is to be founded on, 
 and refolved into Chrift's Authority, exerted in 
 his declaring and teaching thofe Points. 
 
 He, cannot fay (faith Mr. Edwards) It w not^ 
 (viz. That the Belief that Jefus is God, is i;ot ne- 
 ceffary to make a Man a Chriftian) becaufe to believe 
 him to be God^ who really is fo, is no indifferent thing 
 in Cbfiflianity. 
 
 Anfw. A Man muft know that Jefus is God, be- 
 fore he can believe him to be God : And if a Man 
 cannot know him to be God, before he is a Chri- 
 ftian, then that Belief is not abfolutely neceflary 
 to conftitute a Man a f.hriftian. But what Mr. 
 Edwards doth mean by Chrifiianity here, is as hard 
 to underftand^ as in fome other Places where the 
 fame Term is ufed by him. If he mean, that when 
 a Chriftian knows tjiat it is taught in the New 
 Teftament, that fuch an one is really God, it is 
 no indifferent thing whether he believe it or no, 
 that is, he is not left to his Liberty to believe it 
 or not, he faith the very Truth. But if he means 
 that a Perfon cannot be a Chriftian,till he believes 
 that whomfoever the New Teftament doth de- 
 clare 
 
(I?) 
 
 dare is really God, is fo ^ I am fo far from fay- 
 ing fo, that I think he muft be a Chriftian before 
 he can believe them to be fo, notwithftanding 
 they really are fo. Indeed no Man can be a true 
 Chriilian till he believes him to be God who really is 
 fo j he muft believe the true and living God : But 
 that is fo far from conftituting a Man a Chriftian, 
 that it is the very firit Principle and Ground of 
 Natural Religion *, therefore -I do not think thajC 
 to be Mr. Edwards's meaning here. But (faith Mr. 
 Edwards} this is abfolutely rec^uifite to conjiitute a Man 
 a Chrijlian ^ for a Aian cannot be fuch^ unkfs he hath 
 a Kmwledg of him that is true God. 
 
 Anfw,. It is abfolutely requifite to conftitute a 
 Man a Chriftian, to know him who is true God 5 
 for otherwife, be who is a Chriftian, could not 
 be under any Obligation to believe Jefus to be 
 God. But notwithftandifig Jefus is really God, 
 and a Man cannot be a Chriftian without know- 
 ing this Jefus^ who is really God ^ it will not fol- 
 low from thence, that the knov.'ing him to be Gody 
 is abfolutely neceftary to make a Man a Chriftian. 
 It is not a Man's believing that Jefus is God, that 
 conftitutes him a Chriftian : what can conjiitute a 
 Man a Chrifiian^ but the right and due believing 
 him to be the Chriji or Meffias^who really is fo ? It was 
 not his being God, that conftituted him the Chrift 
 or Meftias \ for then he would not have been free- 
 ly^ but neceffarjly the Chrifi and Saviour of Sinners, 
 A Man cannot be a true Chriftian, unlefs he knows 
 him who is true God -^ becaufe he who is the Mef- 
 lias or Chrift, is true God j and a Man cannot be 
 a true Chriftian, unlefs he know him who is the 
 Meflias or Chrift. But it is not the knowing him 
 to be true God, but the right knowing of him to 
 
 C be 
 
(.8) 
 
 be the Meflias, orChrift, that doth conftitute or 
 make a Man a Chriftian : could a Man know him 
 to. be God^ without knowing him to be the Chrifty 
 this Knowledg would but conftitute him a Theifi^ 
 not a Chrijlian. Whether it doth inevitably fol- 
 low from what I had faid, that I muft hold, that 
 the alTenting to this Propofition, that Chrifl Je- 
 fus is God, is neceflary to make a Man a Chriftian ^ 
 and whether I have in effcCl pofttively faid (as Mr. 
 Edwards doth phrafe it) that the believing of more 
 than that one Article before mentioned, is abfo- 
 lutely requilite to make a Man a Chriftian, I leave 
 the Reader now to determine. But for my own 
 part, I am not fenfible that I have yet contra- 
 difted the Proportion I had laid down, which is 
 the thing Mr. Edwards is ftill upon. 
 
 In another Place (faith Mr. Edwards} freaking of 
 the Account which the Scripture gives of the Holy Spi- 
 rit ^ viz. That he is God, he adds^ that a true Chriftian 
 is as much obliged to believe this^ as to believe that 
 Jefus is the Chrift, pag. 40. 
 
 Anfw. What my words are, may be feen in the 
 Page referred to. But certainly I did not fay, 
 that a Perfon is as much obliged to believe that, 
 - to make him a Chriftian, as he is to believe that 
 Jefus is the Chrift, to make him a Chriftian. See 
 here (faith Mr. Edwards) the force and energy of 
 Truth J it will make its way through the Teeth of thofe 
 who oppofe it. 
 
 Anfw. Let the Reader confider my words re- 
 ferred to before, and then conclude whether the 
 Force and Strength of Prejudice doth not appear 
 fo great as to prevail fometimes with People to 
 oppofe Truth in fpite of their Teeth, and Ups, 
 yea and Eyes too. 
 
 Mr; 
 
C 19 ) 
 
 Mr. Edwards faith I have plainly and profejfedly 
 contradi^ed the Propofition I had laid down j for this 
 (fi'iith he) is theCafe^ If a true Chrifiian he as much 
 obliged to believe one as the other ^ then it is certain 
 tha't Chrijlianity is as much concerned in the Belief of 
 the cne as of the other ^ and if fo^ then a Man cannot 
 be it Chrifiian without this Belief. 
 
 .Anfw. The former part of that Speech may 
 be true^ or otherwife^ according to the Senfe in 
 which the term Chriflianity ihall be underltood. 
 But there is no confeqnence at all, that becaufe 
 one who vs a Chrifiian^ may be as much obliged to 
 believe that Truth^ or Dodrine^ as the orkr 5 
 therefore the Belief of it is fo neceffary^ that a 
 Man cannot be a Chrifiian without it. It is as ne- 
 ceflary for me to believe that Jefus was at Cana of 
 Galilee^ and turned Water into Wine there, as it is, 
 that he was Crucified without the Gates of Jeru- 
 fakm ., becaufe I have the fame Evidence fof the 
 one, I have for the other. But I cannot fay it is 
 of as much importance for a Man to know the 
 one, as it is to know the other '-, much lefs can I 
 fay that no Man can be a Chrifiian^ till he knows 
 and believes that Jefus was at Cana in Galilee, &c. 
 And tbo I cannot fubmit to this mn-fenfe^ that a 
 Man can he a Chrifiian^ tho he believe not thofe 
 things without which he cannot be a Chrifiian ^ * Yet if 
 any Man will call this non-fenfe^ viz. That a Man 
 may be a Chrifiian without the explicit Belief of 
 feveral Articles, which after he is a Chriftian, he 
 may be obliged to believe, I can fubmit very ea- 
 fily, and with a great deal of Reafon to it. 
 
 Mr. Edwards having thus concluded his Proof 
 of my felf'Contradi&:ion^ is pleafed in the next 
 Pa^e to fet down thefe words. Iho he appears in 
 
 C 2 ths 
 
(20) 
 
 tlx Form of a Preacher^ yet he hath faid nothing an- 
 fwcrabie to the fpecious Title of his Sermon^ The truie 
 Knowledg of Chrift Jefus j but on the contrary^ 
 ly^th faid very ill things^ to the leffening^ and impcti- 
 ring^ yea to the defaming of that Knowledg and Be- 
 lief of our Saviour^ and of the Articles of Chrijliani- 
 ty^ which are neceffarily required of us. 
 
 j4nfw. If Mr. Edwards had affirmed that 1 had 
 faid nothing anfwerable to what he would have 
 faid on that great Subjed, The true Knowledg of 
 Chrijh Jefus^ had he undertaken to difcourfe of 
 it, I fliould readily agree to it : But feeing he 
 faith I have faid nothing anfwerable to the Title 
 of my Sermon^ it would not have been unfair to 
 have fet down the true Title of my Sermon, which 
 was, A fhort Difcourfe of the true Knowledge &c. 
 And if I have faid nothing anfwerable to the Sub- 
 jed, yet the Sermon is fomething anfwerable to the 
 Title •, for then it mufl be acknowledged fhort 
 with a IVitnefs. If I have faid (as Mr. Edwards 
 affirms) any thing to the lejfenivig, impairing^ or 
 defaming of the Knowledg and Belief of our Saviour^ 
 or of any Articles in the New Tcjlament, I can- 
 not be forry enough for it. I am fure I had no 
 Defign to fay any thing of that Nature or Ten- 
 dency ^ I think I have exprefly aiferted, that all 
 the BoBrines in the NewTeftaraent are of Dii>ine 
 ^thority ^ that being known by Chriftians to be 
 taught there, they mull be believed by them; 
 that Chriftians are obliged to ufe their utmoft en- 
 deavours to know them \ and that Peoples attaining 
 to a Knowledg of them before they are true Chri- 
 ftians, may contribute much to the bringing of 
 them to be true Chriftians. Indeed I did not af- 
 fect, that the Belief of them all is indifpenfably 
 
 necelTary 
 
(21) 
 
 rseceffary to make and conftitute a Man a Chrilli- 
 ai.i, but did declare it was my Opinion, that the 
 right Belief of this one Article, That Jefiu is ths 
 Cbrifi or Mejftas^ doth conftitute and make a Man 
 a Chrijlian. Now whether the Belief of this one 
 jirtklc alone ^ or oi more Articles^ be indifpenlably 
 neceHary to make a Man a Chriltian, doth not 
 depend on my Judj^njent^ nor on the Judgment of 
 any other Man. That muft be learned from Chrifi 
 and his Apftles: If they have determined for 
 more than the one before mentioned, then more 
 are neceiTary, let who will fay the contrary. If 
 they have determined for the one abovenamed, 
 then that alone is indifpenfably neceflary to the 
 purpofe fpoken of, tho all the World ihould op- 
 pofe it, and fay it is not fufficient for that end^ 
 but more Articles muft neceflarily be believed to 
 make or conftitute a Man a Chriftian. Every ho- 
 neft and good Man, who difcourfcs of the Point, 
 will fpeak according to the beft of his Judgment. 
 And if any Perfons differ in their Judgments a- 
 bout this, reco'urfc is to be had to the JVew Tejla- 
 ment^ to fee who accords beft with what Chrifi 
 and his u4pofiles have faid upon the Matter. Now 
 this I am certain of, that Jeftis Chrifi^ and his A' 
 pojiles, do infijl upon thvs one Article^ to be be- 
 lieved to make MtnChriJlians, and that they have 
 taught many other Dodrines in order to their be- 
 ing known, believed, and made ufc of. Upon 
 the beft Inquiry I have been able yet to make, I 
 eannot fmd that they have required the Belief of 
 any of thofe other Doftrines, as abfolutely necef- 
 {^XYtoma\e a Man a Chrifi'uiyh The Reverend 
 Mr. Edwards^ and many other Very Learned and 
 Godly Perfons (whom I very greatly honour, 
 C 3 and 
 
(22) 
 
 and reverence for their Labours, Piety, and ey.- 
 traordinary Accomplifhments) do think, th'ey 
 perceive that Chrifl and his Apoftles did tefich 
 and deliver fome of thofe Doftrines, as nece.fla- 
 rily to be believed, to make a Maa a Chrift.ian. 
 There is then fome miltake on one jide, or on the 
 other. Now before 1 entertaia a difpavaging 
 Thought concerning any of thofe, who are of a 
 different Judgment from me ia this Matter, the 
 Point ought to be placed in a very good Light, 
 and be exceeding clear on 7ny fide : And an equi- 
 table Perfon will perhaps reckon I may with Rea- 
 fon exped that the otl^r Torn be made very plain, 
 before thofe who efpoufe it, do grow Stormy and 
 Tempefluous^ becaufe I declare my Opinion, and 
 calmly reprefent v,? herein I conceive the weaknefs 
 of what any of them do offer for the Support or 
 Illuftration of their judgment, doth lie. It is 
 agreed on both fides, that Jefus Chrift and his 
 Apoftles have taught, that the Belief of that one 
 \AYtkk I inlift on, is indifpenfably neceflary to 
 confiitute and make a Man a Chriflian. They 
 alledg feveral Texts to prove certain other Pro- 
 portions, as neceflarily to be believed to make a 
 Man a Chriftian, as that other Article is. I 
 acknowledg the Scriptures they quote, are full 
 Proof that the Propofitions contained jn them, are 
 Divine Truths. But that is not the thing for whicli^ 
 they produce thofe Scriptures, for fo far ^e are 
 agreed ^ but they pr^ duce them as Proofs, that 
 J^fuf Chrifi^ and his ylpofiles^ have taught, ihjt the 
 explicit Belief of thofe Propofitions, is indifpenfa- 
 bly neceflary to make a Man. a Chriftian. I own 
 they iiilly prove the former, but I am utterly at 
 a lofs to find how they prove the latter^ which is 
 
 ' the 
 
(2?) 
 
 the thin£ they aiK brought- to prove^ and the very 
 Point concerning which we differ^ viz. That Jefus 
 Chrifl and his Apoftles have as plainly taught 
 (not that thefe Propofitions are Divine Truths, 
 but) that the Belief of thefe Propofitions, is as 
 neceffary to conftitute or make a Man a Chriftian, 
 as they have taught that the Belief that Jefus is 
 the Chrilt or MeiTias, is neceflary to make a Man 
 a Chriftian. 
 
 Great Care is to be taken to preferve the Do- 
 ftrines of the New Tejiament, in their Purity^ and 
 in their proper Order. All the particular Dodrines 
 there taught, are the Dodrines of Chrift j they 
 arc revealed that they may be learned, and then 
 believed upon his Authority j every one of them 
 hath its peculiar and proper Intendment, and is 
 to be ufed and improved efpecially for that pur- 
 pofe. If a Perfon infifts on the NeceHity of one 
 Article, for a purpofe for which Chrift did noc 
 intend it, he attributes that to it, which doth not 
 belong to it. And if a Perfon oppofe and rejed 
 the NecelTity of any Article, as to the purpole 
 for which it was intended, he does not give 
 it its full due. In this Cafe we are not only to 
 confider, whether Chrift hath taught and revealed 
 fuch or fuch an Article, but alfo for what end and 
 purpofe he doth more efpecially require it fhould 
 be learned and believed. Now it is agreed on all 
 Hands, that the Belief that Jefus vs the Mejficvs^ is 
 by Chrifl'* s appointment^ neceffary to make a Aiana 
 Chriflian. The Notion that the due and right Be- 
 lief of this alone., doth conftitute a Man a Chrifti- 
 an, preferves to all the other Articles, all the 
 Necejftty that Chrift affigns them, unlefs it can 
 be made out, that he hath made the Belief of 
 
 C 4 every 
 
(24) 
 
 every one of them, or of a certain Number of 
 them necefTary to this very purpofe : And till 
 that be very clearly proved, there feems no great 
 Reafon, that he who advanceth the aforefaid No- 
 tion, Ihould be treated prefently as if he came 
 immediately out of the Bottotnlefs-pit^ and would 
 fill the whole World with Locujis^ and worfe 
 Plagues than ever Egyp was afflided with, if not 
 doomed peremptorily and without delay, to bear 
 all the invidiom Charalien and Epithets that an ex- 
 alted fiery Genius can make a Ihift to jumble to- 
 gether. 
 
 The Notion of the one Article ^m^L"^ induce thofe 
 who embrace it, to efteem more Perfons Chrifti- 
 ans than the other Notion can allov/ of i for they 
 of the former, mutt reckon ail thoi'e Chnltians, 
 who give credible Evidence: \\\dX tiicy believe in- 
 deed that Jefus is the Mcj]ia6^ and accept of^ and 
 fuhmit to him ojs their Lord : and thus far I fancy 
 the Advantage is on the former's fide, for I con- 
 ceive there is no hurt in letting Charity^ as well as 
 Patience^ have its perfeB Work. And if I be not 
 much miftaken, that Notion contributes moil to 
 engage People to take particular Care, that the 
 Belief of Jefms being the Mejfia^^ may be very 
 well, and firmly fettled in their Hearts: yea, it 
 feems to me, to be the fureft way to bring them 
 to the found Belief of the other Articles. But 
 let thefe things pafs for Suggeflions^ that come 
 from a cold phkgmatick Temper •, yet methinks this 
 Notion fhould be acknowledged to comport beft 
 iN,ith the Honour of the Go/pel^ lince it acquaints 
 Chriftians, that by virtue of their being Chrifti- 
 ans, on the account of their unfeigned Belief of 
 this Point, they are under an indifpenfable Obli- 
 gation 
 
(=5) 
 
 gatlon to endeavour continually to encreafe in 
 the Knowledg and Belief of what Chriit and his 
 Apoftles have taught. Whereas by the other 
 Notion, (according to Mr. Edwards) when once 
 they believe as much as is neceffary to make them 
 Chrijlians^ they need not concern themfelves to 
 know any thing more of what Chrifland his Apo- 
 ftles have taught, except for Ornament-fake. 
 
 This we are fure of, that "jtjiti Cm^ and his 
 ^jipoftles do lay a particulav flrefs on this one ylrticky 
 for' the Purpofc difcG'urfed of: And it is notiO 
 evident that they require the explicit Belief of 
 any more Articles as abfolutely necelTary to make 
 aManaChriftian. 
 
 Befides, if the Nature of the thing be well 
 confidered, 'viz. what we mean when we ufe the 
 t^rmChriftiany it may afford fome Light to this 
 Matter. Is the true Account of a Chriftian, one 
 who believes juft fuch a number of Dodrines ? 
 or one who believes in Jefus Chrift ? who owns 
 Jefiis to be the C/;r/i?-, and therefore hath devoted 
 and yielded up himfelf entirely to learn from, 
 and be governed and faved by him ? 
 
 Moreover, if all thofe Articles Mr. Edwards in- 
 fifts on are not to be exprefly mentioned in the 
 Definition or Defcription of that Faith which 
 jufiifies a Sinner^ and conjlitutes him a Chrijiian^ 
 then fomething will be left out of it, which muft 
 mcejfarily be explicitely believed^ according to his 
 Notion, in order to his Juflificationy and to his 
 being a Chrifiian ^ but if no particular Article be- 
 fides this, that "Jefiis is the Chrift^ is to be infert- 
 ed into it, then I conceive it muft be granted, 
 that is IS only the Belief of that Article that doth make, 
 and conftitute a Man a Chrifiian. In a word, Vi 
 
 '^\ie 
 
(26) 
 
 the Belief of more Articles be neceflary to make 
 a Man a Chrillian, then thofe who are for the 
 NecefTity of the one Article alone as to this pur- 
 pofe, do not attribute to other Articles their full 
 due; andif the right Belief of that one Article 
 be all that is abfolutcly neceflary to make a Man a 
 Chrillian, then thofe who infift on the explicit 
 Sdief of more_ Articles, as abfolutely neceflary 
 to that purpole, attribute more to them than 
 Chrift Jeius hath ordered* And it may be worth 
 their Confideration, whethfT they do not derQ-* 
 gate therein from the Honour due to Jefus cus the 
 Meffias. If the Lord Jefus hath appropriated 
 this unto himfelf, that the due believing him to 
 be the ChriH or MeJJias^ Ihall of it felf conlli- 
 tute and make a Man a Chriftian, fo that he will 
 own and acknowledg thofe for his Difcipks^ and 
 to be Chrifiiam^ who do fo believe him to be the 
 MeJTtas^ as to confign themfelves entirely to him, 
 we cannot introduce any other Articles (tho on- 
 ly fuch as he hath exprefly taught) to be Sharers 
 with this Article in this Bufinefs, but we raife 
 them to a PoB- he hath not afligned them. Believe 
 as many Articles which Chrilt hath certainly 
 taught as you can, and let them all have all the 
 Honour Chrifl: appoints them to have, and ule 
 them for the Purpofes he affigns them to, but fet 
 not any of them without his certain Order in the 
 Throne with himfelf Jefus Chrift and his Apo- 
 ftles have conflantly infilled on the Neceflity of 
 Peoples believing this Article, thsit Jefus vs the 
 Mejjiius^ to male them Chrijliam : And if they 
 have not as particularly difcriminated fome other 
 j,<^rticles as thus neceflarily to be believed to make 
 Bien Chriftians, from the reft they have taught, 
 • ■ ^ ' ^ " ' Men 
 
(=7) 
 
 Men may fooner exceed the Bounds they ought to 
 obferve, when they betake themfelves tollngle 
 out more Articles as neceflarily to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians ^ I fay, they may fooner ex- 
 ceed their julfc Limits, than even a forward Ima- 
 gination will fuggeft. 
 
 Mr. Edwards in the next place is for addrejjing 
 hjmfelf more clofely to me (if he can do it) than he 
 hath done already. And here he fpeaks of my de- 
 bafing my felf and the PoB I am in. But what he 
 hath faid doth not convince me, that I debafe m/ 
 felf^ or the PoB I am in^ by publifhing the Truth : 
 And the propolition I laid down may 05 the 
 Truth^ tho it were granted I had controSBed it in 
 my Sermon. It is my afTerting the Propfition (I 
 conceive) which he reckons 'my debafing m^ 
 felf, <^c. not the Contradiction. For he hath got 
 over that Part of his Charge, and is to fpeak 
 more clofely to tne (if he ca'n) than that amounted 
 to. Nor do I think it a debafing of my felf to 
 endeavour to fet a Gofrjel-Truth in its, true Light, 
 let who will advance it, when I perceive any 
 Attempts made to o/ofcure and darken it. But if 
 that great and eminent Perfon was the Author of the 
 Reafonablenefs of Chrifiianity, Mr. Edwards now 
 affirms was the Author of it, he can be no Difpa- 
 ragement to the Gaufe. Any rational Perfon 
 may then be fatisfied, there is more to be faid for 
 it than every hafty Oppofer may be aware of. 
 Nor do I wonder Mr. Edxvards Ihould find fo much 
 fault with my way of Writing, fmce he under- 
 takes to blame fome Exprejfwns in that Author^ 
 whofe Words are fo accurately adapted to 
 what he fpeaks of, that I thought no Man 
 who pretended to judg of Stiks^ w^ould have re- 
 
 jfleaed 
 
(2S) 
 
 fie<fled on him on that account. As for thofe 
 forts of Sprh Mr. Edwards reckons up in the next 
 place, I have no Acquaintance with any of them, 
 no more than I have with the Field-Officer, whom 
 I never heard of till now. But if any of thofe 
 kinds of Folk Mr. Edwards doth fpeak of have 
 been induced by reading the Reafonahknefs of Chri- ' 
 flianity, to believe aright that Jefus is the AdeJJlaSy 
 and do therefore ferioufly endeavour to know and 
 believe the other Doftrines Chrift and his Apo- 
 llles have taught, and do behave them agreeably 
 thereunto, they do not deferve the Denominations 
 he gives them. If they continue Deifls, Scep^ 
 ticks, &c. and yet pretend to admire the main 
 Point, the Reafonahknefs of Chrifiianity hath ad- 
 vanced, they exxeedingly pervert it, and carry 
 themfelves mofl unreafonably. But we muft not 
 quit the Truth, becaufe the greateft Enemies to it 
 do pretend to approve it, but rather acquaint the 
 World with the right and true life they fhould 
 make of it. We (hall make but ill Work on't if 
 we will quarrel Divine Truths, and facrificc the 
 DoBrines of the Gofpel, whenever had Men fliall out 
 of Defign fet up for, and cry them up. If they 
 find they can prevail thi5 way, it will not be long 
 before they will get, not this Article, but every 
 one of thofe Mr. Edwards has a mind fhould be 
 abfoluteiy neceflary to be believed to make a Man 
 dChriftian, from us. 
 
 Mr. Edwards being in the mood, hath found out^ 
 a way both to make me a Journey-man to, and to 
 rank me with the Patrons of the fame Pcribn, in 
 lefs than the fpace of one whole Page. But that 
 Eminent Perfon he fpeaks of needeth not any of 
 the Patrons he hath afligned. 
 
 As 
 
(29) 
 
 As for my unknorvn Friends who have fignified 
 their AfFeftion by Mr. Edwards's Pen, I heartily 
 thank them for their Refpeds j and would much 
 rather they fhould fear without,' than with Caufe. 
 I would not willingly difoblige any Man, but be a 
 Friend to every Man, andferveall Men to the 
 utmoft of my Power. But Friends or Enemies 
 make little Alteration with me, when Truth is 
 concerned. Their Expectation from one Article to 
 none^ I fuppofe is brought in rather for Wit than 
 for Friend/hip^ and therefore I mult pafs over that 
 bluntly, for I pretend not to the Faculty. Vet I 
 would tell them ferioufly, that thofe who Ihall 
 infift on the Abfolute Neceffity of twenty Arti- 
 cles to be believed, to make a Man a Chrillian, 
 if they make but little account of that one I infiifc 
 on, may fooner part with their whole fcore, than 
 another who is well fettled in the Belief of that 
 one, will either part with it, or any other Arti- 
 cle he knows is founded upon that one. How- 
 ever, Let him that thinketh he Jlandeth take heed left 
 he fall. If my Friends have by this time, in any 
 mcafure recovered their Amaz.ement^ I would, in 
 order to their better Eftablifhraent, and to pre- 
 vent their being fo eafily Jlaggered again, pro- 
 pound a few Queftions to them, fuppofing all 
 along what Anfwers they would make to them. 
 I would ask them : i . Do you believe or think 
 that you are Chriftians? Anfxv. Yes. 2. Upon 
 what Ground, or for what Reafon do you believe 
 that ? Anfw. Becaufe we do believe all thofe Ar- 
 ticles w^hich are neccITarily to be believed to make 
 People Chriftians. 3. What be thofe Articles 
 which mull necelTarily be believed to make Peo- 
 ple Chriftians ? Anfw. Here I will fuppofe them 
 
 to 
 
( JO ) 
 
 to name all thofe Articles Mr. Edwards hath men- 
 tioned. 4. Upon what Ground do you alTent un- 
 to, and believe thefe Articles ? u4nfw. Becaufe Je- 
 fus Chrifl and his Apoftles have taught that thefe 
 Articles are necefTarily to be believed to make 
 Men Chrillians. Very well ; but not to inter- 
 rupt our Difcourfe now, I will confider at pre- 
 fent but one part of your Anfwer, viz.. That 
 you believe thefe Articles, becaufe you know 
 that Jefus Chrilt and his Apoftles have taught 
 them. For I conceive you here ground your Be- 
 lief upon their Authority, and fo believe them, be- 
 caufe you know they taught them, before you be- 
 lieve them under that precife ^and formal Confider a- 
 tion^ as Articles neceflarily to be believed to 
 make you Chriftians. For I fuppofe you have 
 that Efteera and Veneration for Jefus Chrift, as 
 to look upon your felves obliged to believe what- 
 ever you know he hath taught. Therefore I ask, 
 5. Were you not Chriftians before you belieyed 
 all thefe Articles, becaufe you knew that jefus 
 Ghrift and his Apoftles had taught them ? jinfw. 
 No, for who can fubmit to fuch Nonfenfe as to 
 believe or think they are Chriftians, who do not 
 •believe thofe things, without the Belief of which 
 they cannot be Chriftians ? 6. Why do you be- 
 lieve thefe Articles, becaufe Jefus and his Apo- 
 ftles have taught them, rather than becaufe any 
 other Perfons have taught them? Anfw. We 
 believe them, upon our knowing that the Apo- 
 ftles taught them, becaufe we know the Apoftles 
 were commiflioncd by Jefus to publiih his Mind, 
 and Will, and Doftrines to the World. And 
 we believe what we know Jefus hath taught, be- 
 caufe we believe he was the Chri^ or Mejpas, 
 ■ " " " 7. Why 
 
( ?o 
 
 7. why do you believe, or what hath induced 
 and determined you to believe that Jefus is the 
 MelTias ? Here I doubt, with many Perfons, the 
 main ftop would be. But I will fuppofe my 
 Friends can anfwer this Queftion with very good 
 Judgment ^ tho they might tell me without an- 
 fwering in a Circle, and believing as the Collier 
 did, that they believed Jefus to be the Meffias, 
 becaufe they belioyed the forementioned Arti- 
 cles : that is, they underftood thofe Articles, 
 and did believe them to be Truths, on other Con- 
 Jiderations, diftind from this, that Jefus whom 
 now they believe to be the Meffias had taught 
 them ^ and that Belief of them did contribute 
 much to induce them to believe that Jefus was the 
 IVIeflias. Here I fhall only mind my Friends, that 
 that former Belief of thefe Articles, tho joined 
 with the confequent Belief that Jefus w the MeJJia/s^ 
 is not pretended to be that which made them 
 Chriftians j but their believing thofe fame Arti- 
 cles after another manner, and upon a diflinft 
 Conllderation, after they did duly believe Jefus 
 to be the Chrifl, from that or thofe Coniiderati- 
 ons on which they believed them before, is that 
 which made them Chriftians : for you could not 
 believe them, becaufe they were taught by Jefus 
 as the Meffias, till you did believe him to be the 
 Meffias, tho you might upon other Confiderati- 
 ons be induced to believe thofe Articles to be 
 true. Now if my Friends think they have given 
 very good rational Evidence, from which they 
 may juftly perfwade themfelves that they are 
 Chriftians ^ I muft tell them, they may be very 
 good Chriftians, but they have not produced any 
 Proof that they are Chriftians, according to their 
 ovyn Notion. Indeed if that Propofition be true, 
 
 at 
 
(32) 
 
 at which upon my laying it down Mr. Edwards 
 faith they have been ftaggered, they may this 
 way prove that they are Chriftians. But if the 
 Belief of all thofe Articles be abfolutely necefla- 
 ry to make them Chriftians, the precife Belief of 
 all of them cannot be fuch a Proof or Evidence 
 that they are Chriltians, as we are fpcaking of : 
 For we fpeak not of inward Senfation (if I rnay 
 ufe that term) or Sentiment^ as Monfieur Claud 
 and fome French Authors fpeak, but of difcourfive 
 rational Proofs and thi^ as to Matters of Faith. A 
 Man's believing that Jcfus is the Meffias, is no 
 Proof that he believei any one of the particular 
 Bo&rines taught in the Gofpel. But his believing 
 particular DoCirines for this Reafon^ becaufe Jefus 
 whom he believes to be the Afejjias^ hath taught 
 them, is a good Proof that he does believe that 
 Jefus is the Mejfias. And if the Belief of more 
 Articles than this one, that Jeftis is the MeJJiaSj 
 is abfolutely necefTary to make a Man a Ghriftian, 
 it is utterly impojfible that any Man fhould obtain a 
 rational^ difcour/lve^ argumentative Satisfadion^ 
 that he is a Chriftian^ with refped to Matters of 
 Faith, tho I may fafely enough extend the yiffer^ 
 tion further. For let a Man believe ever fo many 
 particular Dodrines, taught by Chrift and his 
 Apoftles, that Belief will prove no more, but 
 that he believes Jefm is the Meffias. The Belief 
 of thofe Articles can be no Evidence with refped 
 to one another, that is, the Belief of one of 
 thofe Articles cannot be a Proof that you believe 
 another, tho you do really believe it. Now me- 
 thinks the Refolution of this ^ejiion. What is it I 
 that doth make or conflitute a Man a Chriflian^ 
 ought to ifliie in that into which all the Evidences 
 refpeding (I will fay) both Faith and Pradice, 
 
 that 
 
 u 
 
that can be juftly produced to prove a Man-i 
 Chriftian^ mufl be refolded 5 and that is (if I be 
 not much miftakeii) a Belief that Jefus is the MeJJi' 
 as. But now I return to the latter part of the 
 Anfwer given to my /\.th Queftion, and with re- 
 gard to that I would ask my Friends, 8. How do 
 you know that Jefus Chrift hath required the Be- 
 lief of all thofe Articles you have named, as ab- 
 folutely neceflary to make People Chriftians? 
 Here you muft take notice, that it will not ferve 
 your turn, to (hew that Jefus Chrift hath taught 
 them all, and then fay that they are therefore to 
 be believed. For the very fame is to be faid of a 
 great many more Points. But you muft anfwer 
 how you come to be fatisfied, that Jefus Chrift 
 doth require the explicit Belief of every one of 
 thofe Articles, as neceflary to make People Chri- 
 ftians. If you anfwer, that fuch and fuch a 
 learned and godly Man doth fay fo : You are to 
 be minded that that Anfwer is feeble, in the pre- 
 fent cafe j and that you build your Perfwafion, 
 that you are Chriftians, on a very weak bottom. 
 What will you anfwer when you are told, that 
 other learned and godly Men have infifted oil 
 certain other Articles (and I could name fome 
 of no mean Charader who have been very ear- 
 neft for fome Points, which I think Jefus Chrift 
 hath not taught) as neceflary to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians ? If thofe who inlift on fome 
 other Articles as necefl^arily to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians, be in the right, you are 
 not yet Chriftians, notwithftanding you believe 
 all thofe Articles moft firmly, which you have 
 named, becaufe there are more or other Articles 
 neceflarily to be believed to make you Chriftians. 
 But fuppofmg all thofe Articles you have men- 
 
 D tion§4 
 
" (?4) 
 
 tioned are necelTarily to be believed to make 
 Men Ghriflians, I ask you in the lail place, 9. How 
 do you know that thefe are all the Articles whicli 
 are necefTarily to be believed to make Men Ghri- 
 flians ? For it is pafl doubt, that Jefus Chrift hath 
 revealed and taught many more Articles to be be- 
 lieved. Can you fhew now, that he hath more 
 exprefly or plainly declared that ffow peci^e Nunt" 
 her you infift on, are abfolutely neceflary to be be- 
 lieved to make People Chriitians, than he hath 
 that any, or all of the reft are ? If not, who hath 
 Authority to dijlinguijh in this cafe^ where he hath 
 not diflinguifhed^io as to determine this and this AY" 
 tick^&c. are necelTarily to be believed to make Men 
 Chriftians, but that and the other Article are not ne- 
 ceflary, whenas there is the fame Authority for 
 Peoples believing the one as the othcr^ when known ? 
 In the next place, Mr. Edwards doth parti*- 
 cularjy and with Earneftnefs exhort and en- 
 treat me to attend, and apply my felf to what 
 he apprehends of great moment to me on this 
 cccafion. I fnall therefore now more parti- 
 cularly addrefs my felf to him. Reverend Sir^ I 
 deceive your Exhortation and Counfel with a Gratis 
 tude (as near as I can) proportioned to the Kindnefs 
 with which you tender it ^ and will endeavour to 
 mal^e a good life of it, depending for Preferva- 
 tion and Stability in the Faith of the Gofpel^ on Je^ 
 fus a6 the Mejftai. But, 5iV, it is not the firft 
 time I have met with an honeft warm Exhorta- 
 tion that hath had no ConneWon with what has 
 been pretended to be the Ground of it. 1 receive 
 it kindly, confidered in it felf. But, 5ir, if any 
 Ferfons who are not weU-difpofed fhall happen to 
 read it, and perceiving on how fandy a Founda* 
 tion it is built, fhall conclucte all your, and per- 
 haps 
 
(JS) 
 haps other good Mens fervent Exhoytatiens and 
 pathetick Obte[iatiom, are the EfFeds of Indifcnti- 
 cn^ and ftand upon no better a bottom than this^ 
 the Damage would not have been very great if 
 this had been communicated privately, and not 
 tommitted to publick view. And, Sir, having 
 pondered John 6. 67. I am riot fatisfied, that by 
 going hack there, is meant an unfeigned well- 
 grounded Belief, that Jefus wa/s the Chrijl or Mef" 
 fiaiy and an entertaining the Doftrines and Arti- 
 cles he taught, purely upon his Authority; but 
 the direft contrary : Noi: do I fee any Reafon to 
 think, that that kind of Faith was the Caufe of 
 Juda/ih betraying his Lord, but that go'mg awdy^. 
 and betraying^ was from their want of that fort of 
 Faith and Chri/tianity. 
 
 A Reply to Mr. Edwards'j Reflexions oh 
 the AnitfiAdver flans, 
 
 MR. JEdrvdrds employs above two Pages here 
 in relating his Guefles,and his Reafons for, 
 them, and determines I w^as not the Author of 
 them J fo that he is willing to excufe me from th^ 
 crude and /hallow things offered in them to the Publick 5 
 yet he is partly of the Mind I was defired to puhliJB 
 them as my own^ after they had been tranfmitted. id 
 me. And in another Place, afcer he is pofitive 
 that 1 was not the Compiler of the j^nimadverfions^ 
 he faith (becaufe he apprehended that he had 
 fomething for his Advantage, with ref^cB to me)j 
 it vs probable I might prick in hers and there a fine 
 Flower \ Which feems to be faid for no other Rea« 
 ion, but to make way for his bringing in, as ,iie 
 D s thdiigHt^ 
 
(36) 
 
 thought, fome finer Flowers of h'vs ovon. I will not 
 concern my felf about his Guejfes^ nor their Sup- 
 porters^ any further than by taking notice of the 
 Reafon he gives, why I was defired to publifh the 
 Animadverfions as my own, viz. That it might he 
 faid^ that a Man with a Name^ &c, warranted the 
 late Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chrijlianity^ &c. 
 To which I have this to fay, That a much more 
 Reverend (Redor) I am fure I may fay DlriNE^ 
 than the Re^or of Steeple^ hath vouched that Jlrange 
 Notion^ for which fome do decry the Author of the 
 Reafonablenefs^ &c. and the Animadverter. Nor 
 am I afraid, or afliamed to fubfcribe my Name to 
 any one Article I know that Reverend Divine hath 
 taught. That Reverend Man had a Name^ and did 
 with open Face^ and without a Viz^our^ warrant the 
 Propofition laid down by the Author of the Reafo- 
 nablenefs of Chriflianity^ Sec. and contradided not 
 in my Sermon^ but in the Books the Animadverfions 
 relate to. This Reverend Perfon I fpeak of, was 
 the mofl Reverend St. John., who with open Face^ and 
 without a F'iz.our hath taught, That whofoever he- 
 iieveth that Jefus is the Chrtft^ is born of God, i John 
 5. I. which every one, I fuppofe, will acknow- 
 ledg to be as much as to fay, aChriflian, Now if 
 the Belief of more Articles was abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to make a Perfon a Chriftian, let a Man 
 believe th'vi with what fort of Faith foever,it could 
 not with Truth be faid, that whofoever believeth that 
 Jefus is the Chrifi^ is horn of God. But I am very 
 confident St. John knew 05 well^ what was neceffa^ 
 rily to be believed to make a Man a Chriflian^ as the 
 mofl Reverend Man that hath lived fince his Days. 
 Thus there was no need that I Ihould be dejtred to 
 publifh the Ammcidverfiom a/i my owtty that the No- 
 tion 
 
(n) 
 
 tion might come forth with a Name \ for it was o^en^ 
 ly warranted by a much better Name before. 
 
 As for the unfufferable Blunder Mr. Edwards hath 
 found out in the Epfile to the Reader^ any one who 
 looks upon the Epiflk it felf^ may perceive the 
 right of that Matter (reading curforily inftead of 
 curfory^ as Mr. Edwards hath well and truly ob- 
 ferved) when it is determined whether the word 
 Treatife doth more properly belong to the Reafo- 
 nablenefs of Chrifliamty^ or to a fingle Sermon : 
 For the Prefs was out no more in, printing that 
 inftead of tfew, than it was in the other word Mr. 
 Edwards hath been pleafed to rcdify. Mr. Ed- 
 wards's endeavour to make the Animadverter con- 
 tradid himfelf, is juft the fame with what he did 
 to fliew I had in my Sermon contradifted the Pro- 
 polition I had laid down ^ and that having been 
 anfwered, there is no need of replying to the 
 Charge, here being no auxiliary Strength added to 
 it. But I like his making thofe Doftrines taught 
 in the New Tcftament, which are not abfolutely 
 neceiTary to be believed to make Men Chriftians, 
 meer Conveniencies here,with refped to thofe who 
 are Chriftians, no better than I did his making 
 them meerly Ornamental in his Reflections on my 
 Sermon. There is no one Dodlrine taught in the 
 New Tejlamentj but it is abfolutely neceffary to make 
 up the entire Body of that Revelation Chrift hath 
 committed to his Church \ yet I am not certain that 
 Mr. Edwards will fay, that it is abfolutely necefla- 
 ry to the making of any Man a Chriftian, that he 
 muft explicitly know and believe every Dodrine 
 contained in thofe Writings \ for then there will 
 be nothing left for Conveniency and Ornament, 
 Mv.Edti^ards faith,^? is worth the Reader'' s obferving 
 D 3 f^^f 
 
poat nQtvptthfianding he had in 1 2 Pages together (viz. 
 from the 8th to the 20th) proved that feveral Propo- . 
 fitions arc necejfary to believed in order to our being' 
 Chrijlians j yet this flyam-Animadverter attends not 
 to any one of the Particulars which he had mentionedy 
 fjM. ojfers any thing againfi them^ hut only in a lump- 
 ing way^ dooms them all in thefe magijierial Words ^ 
 l do not fee any Proof he produceth^ pag. 21. 
 
 Anfw. The matter is truly thus ^ The Animad- 
 yerter did not take much notice of the number of 
 ^he Pages, for if that had been 1 200, it had been 
 the fame thing to him. But he acknowledged 
 ihe Places of Scripture Mr. Edwards did quote in 
 thofe Pages, were full Proof of the Truth and 
 pivine Authority of the Propofitions contained in 
 them, yea he owned that the Knowledg of thofe 
 Propofitions might conduce much to difpofe Peo- 
 ple to be Ghriftians. But neither of thefe things 
 Was the Matter in Queflion, but this, viz. Whe- 
 ther Mr. Edwards had proved that Jefus Chrifi and 
 his Apojlks had taught^ that the Belief of thofe Pro- 
 pofitions was indifpenfahly neceffary to make Men Chri- 
 fiians. The Animadverter did not affirm that 
 Mx^ Edwards had not laid he had fully proved what 
 lie had undertaken to prove, o/i^:. the Point juft 
 ^pw mentioned : But it feems the Animadverter 
 ^as fo ill. natur^d, he would not take Mr. Edwards^s 
 ^are word for Proof, but having read thofe Pa- 
 ges, declared what was tht utmofi that Mr. Ed-_ 
 ^ards\?vooi dl<i e::tmdto^ and that he did not 
 fee any Proof produced in thofe Pages of this 
 tgirit,, That Jefus Chrifi or his Apoflks had taught, 
 tjjat. thofe Propofitions mufi nectffarily he explicitly 
 iind'y/floodandbelievedto make a Man a Chrijlian y 
 wjiicli was the, Foint to be proved. Thus he 
 
 delivered 
 
(39) 
 
 delivered his own Senfe, but without the leaH in- 
 timation that all the World mufl he led either hy his, 
 *• or Mr. Edvoards^s Eyes. He left the Reader to 
 ■ try, whether he could fee in thofe Pages any 
 Proof, that Chrijl and h'vs Affiles had tau^ot^ that 
 the Belief of thofe Propofitions is ahfolutely neceffary 
 to make a Man a Chrijlian ^ and thither I muft re- 
 fer the Reader too, to try his Skill, for I cannot 
 fee any thing like a Proof of that which was the 
 thing to be proved. Now I think an Animad- 
 verter deals very fairly, if he takes notice how 
 far what is offered for Proof can reach, and then 
 obferves what was the precife Point to be proved, 
 and leaves the Reader to try whether he can 
 ftretch what was produced, and make it come up 
 to the very Point that was to be proved. 
 
 Then Mr. Edwards finds fault with the Animad- 
 verter for pafTmg over thofe Pages fo lightly, 
 *• where he evinced this Truths that thi Son of God, 
 and the Mejftas, were not Terms of the very fame 
 Signification^ nay that among the Jews they were not 
 reckoned fo \ for the Animadverter fays no more to 
 all this^ hut that he did not perceive that Mr. Ed- 
 wards pretended to offer the leasi Proof that thefe 
 Terms were not fynonimous Terms in our Sctviour^s 
 time. 
 
 Anfw. Mr. Edwards might have evinced both 
 the Points he names, and yet not have proved 
 that they were not fynonimous Terms amongB the 
 Jews at that time. I have looked over thofe Pages 
 Mr. Edwards refers to, and if I underftand him 
 arighty he doth hardly allow of any fynonimous 
 Terms in the fame Language. For all Terras con- 
 fidered fmgly in themfelves, do Hand for diflinct 
 Ideas, Terms (I conceive) are faid tob^fyno- 
 " P 4 mmoiiij, 
 
(4°) 
 
 nitnouSj on the account of their being alike appli* 
 ed, to exprefs or fignify one and the fame Snbjedl 
 or Thing. And thus, whether the one or the 
 other be made ufe of with reference to that thing, 
 the wholeis fignifiedby that wmchisufed, that 
 would be fignified if the other were ufed. And 
 when both are ufed together, there is not a Tau- 
 tology^ but the latter is brought in by way of ^p- 
 fofition. Thus, tho Face^ Ground^ and Knees^ 
 Itand for difiM Ideas^ confidered fimply in thera- 
 felves, yet if thefe Phrafes, to fall on the Face^ 
 to fall on the Ground^ &c. were commonly ufed 
 amongft a People, to fignify om certain Pofiure^ 
 he that Ihould ufe one of thofe Phrafes would fay 
 the very fame thing as he, or another would, 
 jhould he or the other exprefs themfelves by one 
 of the other Phrafes^ notwithftanding Ground, 
 Face, and Knees, be not the fame things, nei-? 
 ther do thofe Words fignify the fame things 
 amongft that People, when confidered fingly in 
 themfelves. But that the terms MeJJias, and the 
 Son of God^ when applied to him whofe Titles they 
 are, were not reckoned amongft the Jews to be 
 terms of the very fame Signification, is a Paffage 
 I cannot find in thofe 5 or 5 Pages where Mr. Ed- 
 wards faith he hath evinced it. That thofe terms, 
 Mt/ftas^ and the Son of God^ fimply confidered, 
 liave not the very fame Signification, is fo evi- 
 dent, there is no need of a Text to prove it. And 
 as for that Text^ Ads 8. 37. what Mr. Edwards 
 doth fay concerning it, amounts to this, that if 
 Chriji and the Son of God are there of the fame Signir 
 fication^ the Words do found thus^ I believe that JC" 
 fus Chrift is ChriB. But I think they amount to 
 ibraewhat more, i'/^. that Jefus Chrilt is The 
 
 Chriit, 
 
(40 
 
 Chrifl. It cannot be denied that Jefus Chrift is 
 fometimes ufed in the New Tejlament a^ a proper 
 Name^ as in John 17. 3. and if it be fo ufed in 
 ui^s 8. 37. that Text will not anfwer Mr. Ed- 
 wards's Defign. But whether there is fuch an ab- 
 furd Tautology^ if thofe Terms be taken in that 
 Text to be of the fame Signification, as Mr. Ed- 
 wards faith there is then, in that Confejfton, I fhall 
 leave the Reader to judg, when I have fet down 
 the Account the Author of the Reafonabknefs^ &c. 
 doth give of the Senfe of that Text, p. 34. I k- 
 lieve that he whom you call Jefus ChriFt^ is really and 
 truly the MeJJiah that was promifed. I acknowledg 
 there were different Grounds of thofe two Denomina' 
 tions, (and fo I am apt to think there were of all 
 fynonimous Terms) but when they came to be 
 indifferently ufed, to defign the fame Perfon, 
 each of them in its full Latitude comprehended 
 all that the other did, tho when confidered a-- 
 part, as to the Grounds and Reafonsof their Ap- 
 plication, they had diftind and peculiar Signifi- 
 cations. The famoufly Learned and Reverend 
 Bifiiop Pierfon faith, that to be the Chrift, and to 
 be the Son of God^ were by the Jews themfehes ac" 
 counted equivalent. Expofit. on the Creed, p. 1 05. 
 I acknowledg Mr. Edwards hath clofely urged what 
 he hath delivered in the Pages hefpeaksof, but 
 I can no more perceive that he hath at all proved 
 that the Terms fpoken of were not jynonimous 
 Terms amongfl the Jews in our Saviour's time, 
 than the Animadverter could. And therefore I 
 may fay that whatever Olaus Magnuses Gladiator 
 might do, by looking on his jidverfaries Weapons^ 
 it was not poffible for the Animadverter to blunv 
 the Edg of Mr. fidmrds's Arg«Jftents here, be- 
 
 caufe 
 
(42) 
 
 caufe they never had any. There may perhaps 
 be fome Keennefs in fome of his Words and 
 JPhrafes^ but as for his other Weapons the Gladiator 
 himfelf would have loft his Labour in looking 
 upon them. 
 
 Mr. Edwards then faith, he had fecured his Pro- 
 pofition before he formed his Syllogifms^ and therefore 
 it was not neceffary to add any further Medium^ and 
 to proceed to another SyUogifm^ as the Reader may fa- 
 tisfy himfelf. 
 
 Anfw. Let the Reader then fatisfy himfelf; I 
 will only mind him that the Point Mr. Edwards 
 was to prove was this, Tloat there are other Dodrines 
 hefides this^ that Jcfus is the Mefftas^ necejfarily to 
 be believed to make a Man a Chriflian. The Me- 
 dium he ufeth to prove this, is, that there are 
 other Dodrines befides this, required (jviz.. by 
 Chrift or his Apoftles, for they are their Words 
 he doth alledg to prove that other Dodrines are 
 required) to be believed to make a Man a Chri- 
 ftian. Now if he hath proved every Propolltion 
 laid down in the Chapter before that in which 
 his Syllogifms are, to be a Doftrine taught by 
 Jefus Chrift or his Apoftles, that is not the Point ; 
 you muft fee whether he hath proved that Jefus 
 Chrift and his Apoflles have required the explicit 
 Xnowledg and Belief of every one of thofe Propofitions 
 to make a Man a Chriflian. It is not enough if he 
 hath proved that they have required them to be 
 believed ; but the Proof muft be, that they have 
 required them to be believed particularly for this 
 ycry purpofe, to make a Man a Chriflian. And 
 if Mr. Edwards hath done that, ftill his Syllo- 
 gifms will be faulty, even according to his own 
 i^Vords. For if the very thing he had been proving 
 
<4J) 
 
 was this, that other Propofitions bcfidcs this, that 
 Jefus is the Meffias, are neceflarily to be known 
 and believed to make a Man a Chriftian, and 
 had been proving this by the Teftimony of Ghrift 
 and his Apoftles, fhewing that they have re- 
 quired the Belief of more Propofitions as indif- 
 penfably neceflary to make a Man a Chri^ian, 
 when he reduced the Sum of his Difcourfe into 
 Syllogifms, that very Medium by which he had 
 been proving his Propofition, fhould be brought 
 into his Syllogifms, otherwife the Sum of his 
 Difcourfe could not be there. And that is not in 
 either of his Syllogifms. What he pretends he 
 hath proved is not this, that all thofe things 
 which have immediate Refpeft to the Occafion^ 
 Author, &c. of our Salvation, are to be be- 
 lieved •-, but this. That Jefus Chrift or hvs Apjiles 
 have required an explicit Kncwkdg and Belief of all 
 thofe things which have immediate Refped to the Oc^ 
 cajion, &c. of our Salvation^ as indifpenfably ne- 
 ceffary to make a Man a Chrijlian. I might alfo ob- 
 ferve to the Reader, that allowing Mr. Edwards's 
 Syllogifm to comprife the Sum of his Difcourfe, 
 it proves a great deal too much \ for it proves that 
 the Belief of all thofe Propofitions he hath laid down. 
 in his former Chapter, is not fufficient to make a 
 Man a Chriflian. for all thofe who do acknow- 
 ledg there is not any thing in the New Teflament 
 but what Jefus Chrift hath revealed, cannot de- 
 ny that every Propofition in the New Teflament 
 hath immediate Refped to the j4uthor of our Salvati^ 
 on. So that by virtue of his Syllogifm no Man 
 can be a true Chriflian, till he hath an explicit 
 Belief of every Propofition that is taught or deli« 
 vered in the New TeftamQnt. 
 
 Mr? 
 
(44) 
 
 Mr. Edwards refleds on the Animadverter's 
 Confidence^ and taking a liberty to ajjert what he 
 fleafes^ becaufe he faith there is no Enquiry in the Rea^ 
 fonabknefs ofChrifiianity concerning Faith fub'ieiiive^ 
 ly conftdered. 
 
 Anfw. I will not retort theAfperiion. But I 
 muftfay, thatthofe are not the Animadverter's 
 Words. He doth take notice that fubje^ive Faith 
 is fpoken of in that Treatife j and fo it might be, 
 and yet not be the Point that Author did chiefly 
 propofe to enquire into. Who is fo fit to fatisfy 
 us what it was he propos'd to enquire after, as 
 the Author hi mfelf? who tells us, itwas what 
 God requires i^ to believe now under the Gofpel^ (viz. 
 to make or conllitute us Chriftians) Reafonabk' 
 nefs of Chriftianity, &:c. p. 25. Yet a little before 
 he fpake of Faith, fubje<4ively confidered. I do 
 not know, neither do I pretend to guefs what 
 that Author's Judgment is concerning certain 
 particular Dodrines taught in the NewTefta- 
 ment. He may be as Orthodox in every one of 
 them, for ought I know, as any Man in the 
 World. But this I am certain of, the Accounts 
 he gives occafionally in this Treatife of Faith 
 confidered fubjedively, comprehend not only the 
 AJfent of the Vnderjlanding^ but the Confent or Ap^ 
 probation of the Willy and alfo a firm Trufi and Reli- 
 ance •, which I think is as full an Account of that 
 Faith as Mr. Edwards hath given of it. But not- 
 witliftanding that Author hath fpoken of Faith, 
 confidered fubjedively, which the Animadverter 
 did not deny, but exprelly affirmed, as may be 
 feen in the Animadverfions, p. 32. yet the thing 
 that Author propofed to enquire after was, what 
 ^^rtkks are required jo be believed to mh a Man a 
 '"" " CbriJlmA 
 
(45) 
 
 Chrijlian, Again faith Mr. Edwards^ How can 
 thh Animadverter come off with peremptorily decla- 
 ring that fubjellive Faith is not enquired into in the 
 Treatife of the Reafonabkmfs of Chrijlianity^ when in 
 another Place ^ p. 35,3^. he avers that Chrijiian 
 Faith^ and Chrijlianity^ confidered fubjed:ively^ are 
 the fame ^ 
 
 Anfw. The Animadverter doth not any where 
 declare what he is here faid to declare, and there- 
 fore cannot fairly be charged with declaring it 
 peremptorily. But if he had declared it peremp- 
 torily, what Connexion is there betwixt that sind 
 his averring that Chriflian Faith and Chriltianity, 
 confidered fubjedively, are the fame, that it 
 fhould be thought in that cafe fo hard a thing for 
 him to come off, unlefs he had likewife pereinpto- 
 rily declared that the Author of the Reafonahk- 
 nefs principally defigned to difcourfe of Chriflia- 
 nity confidered fubjedively ? Perhaps it will llill 
 be faid, the Animadverter hath averred that 
 Chriftian Faith, and Chrillianity, confidered fub- 
 jedlively, are the fame. 'Tis true, there are 
 thofe Words in the Animadverfions. For Mr. 
 Edwards having faid, that the Belief of Jefns's be- 
 ing the Mejftcvs, was one of the fir ft and leading A(is 
 of Chriflian Faith ; the Animadverter took no- 
 tice, that Chriftian Faith in that Propofition Mr. 
 Edwards had laid down, mull be underllood fub- 
 jedively, becaufe an Aft of Chriftian Faith can- 
 not be underftood in any other Senfe, as the Ani- 
 madverter's Words are, in the Parenthefis Mr. 
 Edwards hath been pleas'd to leave out of the Sen- 
 tence he quotes. So that what the Animadverter 
 faid was this, Chriftian Faith confidered fub- 
 jeftively, and Chriftianity confidered fubjedive- 
 
(40 
 
 ly, are tiie very fame. Now is not this very 
 true, and conliftent enough with his laying that 
 the Enquiry the Author of the Reafonahknefs of 
 Chriftianity proposed to make, was not concerning 
 Chriflian Faith confidered fubjedively, but ob- 
 jedively ? Should another Perfon have publifhed 
 fuch weak and [orry Stuff, and have fuggefted it 
 as an invincible Difficulty to be got over, perad- 
 venture fome would have faid, One would have 
 thought a Man might be ajhamed to appear in the 
 World with fuch poor Tackling. 
 
 In the next place, Mr. Edwards is much offend- 
 ed, becaufe the Animadvert er paffed over the 
 4f^ and Sth Chapters of his Socinianifm unmask'd^ 
 and fome of his former Pages^ with a bare Ac- 
 knowledgment that he was too dull to perceive any 
 uippearance of Reafoning in them. In which (faith 
 Mr. Edwards) there is nothing tolerable or excufable^ 
 but this one things his Truth and Modejly^ (by the 
 way, I may take notice that Truth aSd Modefty 
 may pafs for two things with fome who are not 
 over-fraught with an Opinion of their own innu- 
 merable Excellencies \ and that it would be nd 
 inconllderable Ornament to fome Books, if much 
 of either were to be found in them) in confejfing 
 bimfelfto be dull^ which yet the Reader ivas convinced 
 of before this ^Acknowledgment. 
 
 Anfw. Poor Animadverter ! well worthy to be 
 pitied ! who having been at the pains to read 
 bver a great many flaunting Pages, to find out. 
 fomething that had at leaft the Appearance of 
 Reafon, and finding no fuch thing, was forc'd at 
 iaft to entertain the Reader with a raoft obvioui 
 Truthj having the Modefty to appropriate that to 
 himfelf, rather tjian blame Che Author. But why 
 
 iho\m 
 
(47) 
 
 ^ould this Omifllon be fo unexcufahle and intokr4* 
 bk ? The Animadverter did not proraife to re- 
 ply to every thing Mr. Edwards had writ in thofe 
 Books j and he did take notice of as much as 
 concerned the one Article. If a Man could not 
 modeftly lay down his Opinion of the abfolute 
 Neceflity of believing only that Jefus is the Medi- 
 as to make a Man a Chriftian, with an intimation 
 that the due Belief of that one Article brought 
 People under an indifpenfable Obligation to en- 
 deavour to know and believe all the other Arti- 
 cles that Chrift and his Apollles have taught, but 
 immediately an Vnder-j^uUer to Racoviamfm^ Tur^ 
 iijh S^y^ and twenty more fuch fulphureons Erup^ 
 tions mufl blaze abroad againft him j what might 
 be expedted if thofe dainty Stri^ures the Animad- 
 verter hath pafTed over fo gently had been brought 
 under a fevere Examination ? One would think aa 
 Author were grown very petti/h^ if he think him- 
 felf unfufFerably affronted, when his Books are 
 touched by a Reader, who hath not fo much Pe- 
 netration as to perceive Reafon^ where there is 
 none. But the Animadverter was not decijive 
 that there was not Reafon in thofe Parts of Mr. 
 Edwards's Books ^ he only acknowledged he did 
 not perceive the Reafons which might lie hid 
 there, and left the Reader to try his Skill, whe- 
 ther he could find out what had efcaped him when 
 he look'd over thofe Pages. Now I have read 
 over thofe Chapters and Pages the Animadverter 
 paft over in fuch an intolerable and unexcufahle 
 manner, and can find no more Appearance of 
 Reafoning in them than he did. But without any 
 Offence to a piece of Mr. Edwards's one things I 
 may fay I am not fo dull but I can perceive in thofe 
 
 Chap- 
 
(48) 
 
 Chapters and Pages a great many empty Flou- 
 rifties, many obvious Miftakes, and a great many 
 things not confiftent with ftrid Reafoning. In 
 thofe Chapters I meet with thefe and fuch like 
 Sayings, T%V5 great Mufty Quiz, the Author of the 
 Keafonablenefs, &c.) hath given us a hopeful Draught 
 ef Chriftianity \ and it was fit the Engli/h Reader 
 /hould know that a Turk according to him is a Cbrijii- 
 an, for he makes the fame Faith ferve them both. 
 The very Devils are capable of all that Faith which he 
 (viz.. the Author of the Reafonablenefs^ &c.) faith 
 makes a Chrijlian Man. He (viz. the Author of 
 the Reafonabknefs^ &c.) tells them again and again^ 
 that a Chriflian Man, or Member ofChriB, need not 
 hnow or believe any more than that one individual 
 Point which he mentions. Here is an effeBual Plot to 
 undermine Stationers-Hall, for aU Syjlems and Bo- 
 dies of Divinity, Philofophy, &c. mujl be cafhier'^d : 
 whatever looks like Syfiem muft not be bought or fold. 
 This will fall heavy on the Gentlemen of St. PauPi 
 Church-yard, and other Places. If other People 
 can perceive any great Strength of Argumentation 
 in thefe and many like PalTages, much Good may 
 their Sagacity do them. I may be content they 
 fhould pafs for pretty Flowers to enchant the thought- 
 lefs, but I muft decline Truth, if I fliould fay, I 
 can take them for potent Reafons. 
 
 Mr. Edwards, amongft his other Findings, feems 
 to have found a piece of IVit where nothing but 
 Truth was intended. And tho the fame Genius 
 that found out the IVit may hide or fpoil it at 
 pleafure, the Country-man's Saying was as true as 
 the other, which is as much as I was concerned in. 
 Yet it may be his Agoniflick Effort, to fpoil the 
 Wit he had efpied, by jumping from the Steeple of a 
 
 Church 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 Church to the Name of a Pari/h^ will pafs with 
 fomefor no more than a C — Pun. 
 
 In the next place Mr. Edwards gives a very 
 particular Account whom he underftands by A^en 
 of ^rt. And indeed he hatli exceedingly digni- 
 fied the Phrafcj making it fynonimous with other 
 Terms, which properly denote Perfons and So- 
 cieties^ for which I ha.YQ a. njery profound Veneration. 
 (I fee now he is not at utter Defiance with fynoni- 
 mous Terms, provided the word Synonimom be 
 left out.) I value no Man the lefs for his having 
 had the Happinefs of an Vniverjity Education^ but 
 am very ready to pay unto fuch all the Refped 
 due to the Chara^ers they have that way acquired, 
 and to receive from them all the Infiruliion my 
 Ihallow Capacity can admit. I have a very great 
 Efteem for all the foher Heads both of our Churchy 
 and of thofe who diffent from it in the Point of Difci^ 
 pline and Ceremonies. I highly honour the whole 
 Body of Proteftant and Reformed Churches abroad as 
 well 06 at home. But whether thefe are properly 
 to be called Artifls in Religion^ others may deter- 
 mine. I ufe not the Phrafe in that Senfe. I would 
 not difparage any of them to fuch a degree as t 
 conceive that doth import. No, I abhor the 
 Thought of imputing to them I reverence /o much 
 and fo juflly^ that they Ihould be Maflers of the 
 Trick of importing and advancing the rate of 
 Countrehand Goods in Religion. But there are fome 
 things in all the Parties I know any thing of, which 
 are not of Chrifi's Inflitution •, and there are fome 
 Perfons in every Party who appear to lay more 
 ilrefs on thofe things than can be jultified, fo that 
 they feem to appropriate Chrifiianity to them- 
 felveSj and will very hardly ^llovv others to be 
 
(5°) 
 
 Members of the Church of Cbrilt, who come not up 
 to their Terms. Tloefe are the Perfons on every 
 fide, I call the Men of Art. And if any have a 
 mind to applaud their being in a Confederacy on 
 that account^ I do not defire to enter into their Se- 
 cret. I afFed not any divining Denominations 
 and Characters amongfi: thofe who heartily believe 
 Jefus to be the MeffiaSy entirely depend on his Me- 
 rits^ faithfully fubmit to his Authority^ and dili- 
 gently obferve his Laws. I prefer the Comrauni- 
 on of the Church of England, for many Reafons, 
 before any other I know in the World ^ yet there 
 are fome things relating to her, which I do not 
 think to be of her Ejjence^ nor indifpenfably ne- 
 ceflary to her truelt Advantage and Honour. I am 
 not fo fond of fome of thefe things as many fome 
 Years pail appeared to be. My Bufmefs is not to 
 endeavour to draw People to a Party precifely un- 
 der that Confideration^ which imports neither 
 more nor lefs, according to my Apprehenlion, 
 than making them SeCtarifs and Schifmaticks^ pro- 
 perly fo called. I am defirous to contribute what 
 I can to bring People to be true Chriflians, who 
 are not fo, and to further thofe who are fo, to- 
 wards the Knowledg and Belief of all the Do- 
 ■ftrines that Chrift and his Apoftles have taught, 
 and in all Godlinefs of Living. And I am ready, 
 according to what Ability I have, to remove «w- 
 jusi- Prejudices a.nd ill-grounded Scruples, which any 
 have unhappily imbibed with refpedl to that 
 Communion, I think on feveral Accounts molt 
 eligible. But I cannot come up to that Height.^ 
 to think that none are Chrijhians and Members of 
 the Church of ChriH, who are not in every thing 
 of my Perfwafion. I exprefs my felf thus freely, 
 
 that 
 
(50 
 
 that none may harbour unjufl Prejudices concern- 
 ing me, but make what life they pleafe of what 
 I have faid. For I defire not any of the temporal 
 uidnjantages of the Church of England^ if any of 
 thofe things be really of her EJJ'ence^ or any way 
 regularly conducing to her trueB Benefit^ which I 
 think are not fo. 
 
 Mr. Edwards and I have declared our Opinions 
 about the Book called the Reafonablenefs of Chri- 
 Jlianityy &c. and we differ exceedingly in our 
 Opinions. He faith, he is fure he hath proved his. 
 (And in other Places he acquaints his Reader that 
 he hath juUy proved what he hath undertaken againff- 
 that Book.) I will not fay any thing peremptorily 
 in the Matter. But I think a clear plain Proof will 
 difcover it felf I confefs I am apt to fufpecl a 
 Perfon is fomewhat confcious that what he offers 
 for Proof hath fome DefeCl^ when he is very im- 
 portunate with People to take h'vs Word for it, 
 that he hath proved the Matter. And if thofe 
 People Mr. Edwards hath found are more confirmed 
 of late than ever in the Truth of what he hath vc^rit on 
 this Subject, have obtained their Confirmation 
 this way, I think they are Perfons rather to be 
 pitied for their IVeaknefs^ than to be reckoned 
 Patterns worthy to be imitated. 
 
 To conclude, If any Man fliall produce plain 
 and clear Proof that Jefus ChriB or his Apofiks have 
 taught that the Belief of any one Article he fides that 
 which we have been difcourfmg of^ is ahfolutcly neccfja^ 
 ry to make or conjlitute a Man aChriJlian^ I hope I 
 fhall be as ready to offer my right Hand to burn 
 the Sermon, the Animadverfions, and thefe Pa- 
 pers, as any Man in the World fhall be to require 
 it. But Perfons telling me thv^t I from Rsafon and 
 
 AgH^ 
 
(52) 
 
 'Argument ^and multiplying fuch kind of Phrafes,or 
 faying with what AfTurance foevcr that they have 
 froyedj yt3. fully proved it, will not convince me. 
 AsFinesandlmprifonmentsdid not formerly in 
 another cafe, alter my Judgment, (and here by 
 the way I may acquaint thofe who are ftill living, 
 and were molt eager and^erce, and did refmt with 
 an Excefs of PaJJion^ my fuggefting to them whofe 
 Work they were doing, that if they have not been 
 convinced by the Courfe of Affairs fince, they 
 may now receive full Satvsfa(Hon that I was not fo 
 much miilaken as they at leaft in pretence thought 
 I was, if any Credit be due to a certain Book 
 which came to my Hands the latter end of the laft 
 Week, along with the Papers to which I have 
 been replying, entituled. The Secret Hijlory of 
 Whitehall, /ro;wt^^ Refioration of Charles II. down 
 to the Abdication^ &c.) I fay, as Fines^ Imprifon- 
 mentSj .and the predominant Language of thofe 
 Times ^ ^id hot alter my Judgment then in ano- 
 ther cafe, fo Raillery and Banter will not do it in 
 th^prefent Cafe. If all the fearing Writers in Eu- 
 rope fhould bellow their invidious Epithets on me, 
 and vent their fanciful metaphorical Flirts againlt 
 me on this Account, I think I fhall Itand my 
 Groundy and pafs the .whole over with a defervd 
 Contempt. ■'' ^I''' 
 
 FINIS. 
 

 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 Ammadverfions 
 
 {Lately Trinted at Oxford) 
 
 O N A 
 
 Late BOOK, 
 
 ENTITULED, THE 
 
 Keafonablenefs of Chriftianity^ 
 
 As delivered in the 
 
 SCRIPTURES. 
 
 By 5. BOLD, K^Storoi Steeflc^Dorfet. 
 
 Not for that we have Dominion over your Faith, 
 Eut are Helpers of your Joy, for by Faith yt 
 fiand, 2 Cor. i.i^. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for A. and J. Churchill^ at the Black 
 
 Swan in Pater-No/ler-^ow. 1698. 
 
.&' ) 
 
 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS 
 
 O N TH E 
 
 Keafonahlenefs of Chriftianity^ &C, 
 
 Ohfervations on the Preface. 
 
 IT cannot be denied but that a wrong Conftru- 
 (Slion may be put upon a very good and u(e- 
 fal Book : And that what it difcourfss of may 
 be reprefented quite contrary to what the 
 Author deiigned, and hach delivered in moft intel- 
 ligible, appofite, and plain Expreffions. Kowifa 
 Perfbn who pretending to write againft a Book, he 
 does not righdy underll-and, or mis-reprefents, doth 
 propofe any thing that is pertenent in oppofition to 
 that Book, it is very rational to fuppofe his doing fo 
 is rather to be attributed to Chance^ than to the Ex- 
 aStnefs of his Judgmtnty and his certain Intention, 
 For it is hardly to be conceived that a Rational Per- 
 ioa will deliberately and adviledly write any thing 
 
 B but 
 
but what he conceives hath a clear Conne<SlIon 
 with what he directly and immediately propofeth 
 to be the Subjed of his Difcourfe. And though 
 at fome diftance he aims at the Book he talks of, 
 yet he mainly defigns to confirm the Propofitions 
 he lays down (as he conceives^ diredly contrary to 
 thofe delivered in that Book. But if the Propofni- 
 I ons on both fides are in Truth very well confillent, 
 ' though he doth not apprehend fo, he can hardly of- 
 fer any Confiderations to weaken the Force, or ex- 
 pofe the Truth of the Propoficions advanced by 
 the Author he profelTeth to oppofe, but thofe very 
 Confiderations will as certainly wound his own Pro- 
 pofitions,and refled: as unluckily on them as they can 
 on the other ; which it will not be allowed to fuppofe 
 a wife and prudent Writer could defign. Whilft he? 
 milhkes the Author he in Words oppo(eth, let him 
 confirm and eftablifh his own Alfertions ever (a 
 ftronglyj he does not at all diftrefs what that Au-» 
 thor hath indeed Publiilied. One Man affirms, 
 that all the Docirines -whicb are ahjolutely Tiecejfary to he 
 helie'ved to make Men Chrifiiam^ or to Salvatiofjj are 
 laid down in the Gojfels and A^s of the A^ofiles, A- 
 nother profefi'eth to oppofe this, and therefore lays 
 down, and elaborately endeavours to prove this 
 Propofition, That the Efifiles are fart of the Rule of 
 Saving faith. Now both thefe Propofitions are ve- 
 ry true, and confident ; and whatever Arguments 
 can be produc^^d to prove the latter, comport very 
 well with the Truth of the former, and cannot at 
 all invalidate, but may very much confirm it. But 
 if he who un^rtakes to prove the latter, do let fall 
 Paflages which refled on the former Propofition, 
 thofe Paffages have leally the fame ill Afped: with 
 relation to his own Propofition, they have to the o- 
 tber. The whole amounts to no more, than if one 
 
 fliould 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 Ihould declare that all that is abfblutely neceffary to 
 be believed to make a Man a Chriftian, or to Sal- 
 vation, is delivered in theEpiftles. And another 
 out of a (brt of Zeal for the Gofpels and the Ads 
 fhould profelTedly oppofe that Propofitioh , and 
 publifti a Book to prove that the Gofpels and A(^s 
 are part of the Rule of Saving Faich. But when the 
 Queftion is this, feeing the Doctrines abfolntely ne- 
 celTary to bs believed to make Men Chriflians, are 
 laid down both in the Gofpels and Ad:s, and in the 
 Epiftles, In -what parts of the Nevf Tefiament way it 
 be befl dtfcerned ivhich be the Dolhines that are abfo^ 
 lutely necejjary to be believed to make Men Chriflians I 
 Then certain Reafons ni;iy be affigned why they 
 may be better difcerned by confulting the Gofpels 
 and A<5ts, than the Epiftles. 
 
 Peoples mifreprelenting a good Book rnay be de- 
 rived from various Originals, as Wilfulnefs, Inad- 
 vertence, Weaknefs, Prepolleflion, &c. I will not 
 fulped that the Author of the Animad'verjior.s (lately 
 Printed at Oxford) on the Reafcnablenefs of Chrifita- 
 nity as delivered in the Scrtpures, hath mifreprelented 
 that excellent Trearife, through an Indulgence to 
 any thing for which he m^y be juftly blamed, be- 
 caufe he writes for the moft part with fo much 
 Temper, and hath made a Profeffion in the Clcfe 
 of his Preface fo every way becoming a worthy 
 and good Chridian. But if I underftand the trud 
 Meaning of the Author of the Reafcnablenefs of 
 Chrifiianity, Sic. as expreifed in that Treatife, it is 
 mightily mifreprelented in thofe Animadverjions , how 
 innocent and harmlefs foever the Author may be in 
 what he has done. 
 
 That I may do both thefe Authors all the Right I 
 am. able, I will obfeive all along, wherein they dd 
 agree, and give as true, impartial, and diltind Ati 
 
 B z Aceounc 
 
(4) 
 
 Account of the Senfe of the Reafonahtene^ of Chri- 
 fiiamty as I can, in thole Poincs treated of, efpeci- 
 al!y in the Firft and Third Parts of thcfe Animad- 
 verfions ; and take fome notice of what this Author 
 hath offered, againft what^ he hath alledged out of 
 the Reajonahkne^ of Chrifiianity, &c. And that I 
 may proceed the more orderly, I will begin my 
 Obfervations where the Author of the Animadver- 
 /ions begins his; viz. P. i. of his Preface: Where 
 he declares his Agreement with the Author of the 
 ReafwableneJS of Cbrifiiamty, Scc. That the mofi Ra- 
 tional Means of (ilencing all Religious Contro'verfies, it 
 to take the Scriptures for the only Rule of Faith. This 
 I apprehend is a trus Account of the Judgment 
 of the Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chriltiani- 
 ty, concerning this Matter : And I conceive he a- 
 grees with the Author of the Animadverfions, in- 
 the main of that Reafon which he hath annexed to 
 that Propofition. Though to exprefs what I appre- 
 hend, a more clear and full Account of the Senfe 
 of the Author of the Realbnablenels of Chrifliani- 
 ty, &c. I will take the Liberty to word it in feme 
 Places, otherwife than this Author hath done, and 
 to add one Paffage or Claufe he hath not inferted. 
 
 * For there might be (ome probable Grounds to 
 ' hope for a happy Conclufion of all Difputes in 
 ' Religion, if all Parties would joyn ilTae in this,thac 
 ' no Chriftian ought to be required to believe any 
 
 * thing but what is injoyned "by the clear and ex- 
 
 * prefs Declarations of Scripture, nor any thing fo 
 
 * injoyned, till it be made appear to him, that it is 
 ' fo injoyned ; and that noChriftian may rejed, or 
 
 * with- hold his aflent from any Article which ap- 
 
 * pears to him to be plainly delivered in the Holy 
 ' Scriptures. The Claule I Ihall add is this, That 
 tiochine ought to be required to be believed as ab- 
 
 ** folutely 
 
folutely neceffary to make Men Chriftians, but 
 what is injoyned by the dear and exprefi Declarati- 
 on of Scripture to be believed for that purpofe. 
 And I add this Claufe tor <jhis Reafon ataiongfto- 
 thersj becaufe whoever impoleth on People cercaia 
 Doi^rines (though the Dodrines are really Chrift's 
 Dodrines) as abfolutely neceiHry to be believed to 
 make Men ChrilHans, which Chrift and his Apo- 
 ftles have not declared to be abfolutely nereffny to 
 be believed to make Men Chriftians, doth as really 
 advance a Foreign Authority, and fet it up equally 
 with Chrift's, as he doth who impoleth any thing 
 as a neceHary part of the Chriftian Religion, which 
 Chrift and his Apoftles never made a part of it. 
 For notwithftanding the Doctrines which are af- 
 firmed to be abfolutely neceffary to b^ believed to 
 make men Chriftians, be Do<5lrines which Chrift 
 hath taught ; yet if he hath not taught that the Be- 
 lief of them is abfolutely neceffary to make Men 
 Chrift ians, but only requires them to be believed 
 for other Purpofes, the requiring the Belief of them 
 as abfolutely neceffary to make Men Chrift ians, 
 muft be built upon a Foundation and Authority di- 
 ftincft from Chrift's and his Apoftles ; which there- 
 fore at beft can be but Humane Authority. Till 
 this Claufe is agreed to, the former Claufes in the 
 Reafon, will not avail much, to put a happy Con- 
 clufion to Religious Controverfies. BeHdes, I can- 
 not underftand why the affumed Authority of the 
 feveral Parties may not be yielded to, for the deci" 
 ding of particular Controverfies in Religious Mat- 
 ters, as well as for the determining and affigning 
 what Points are to be be believed in order to any 
 Peoples being Chriftians, I leave it to others to en- 
 quire how much, Men's affuming Authority to im- 
 po(e certain of Chrifti Dodrines, without his War- 
 
rant, asabiblutely necelTary to be believed, to make 
 Men Chriftians, hath contributed to their Stretch- 
 ing the like Authority further, even to make fome 
 things Parts of the Chriftian Religion, which Chrift 
 and his Apoftles have not authorized, vi^hich is in- 
 famoufty done in the Church of Rome^ and perhaps 
 in fome degree, in moft of the Parties truly termed 
 Protertant. It may be eafy to prove to thofe who 
 are Chridians, that they are to believe fuch or fuch 
 Dodrines, by (hewing them plainly that Chrift Je- 
 fus, whom they have received to be their Lord, 
 hath taught them. Bat when we require thofe who 
 are not Chriftians to believe them, as abfolutely ne- 
 ceiTary to make them Chriftians, we muft under- 
 take to prove to them, the Truth of thofe Dodrines 
 by fome other Medium than Chrift's Authority. For 
 it cannot rationally be expeded that People who 
 do not believe Jefus to be the Meffiah,or the Chrift, 
 willaffentto, believe, and receive Dodrines, meer- 
 ly becaufe he, they do not believe to be the Chrift", 
 hath taught them. And when they are brought to 
 believe that Jelus is the Mefliah, fo as to take him for 
 their Lord and King, if that do not conftitute them 
 Chriftians, it will not fuffice to make them Chrifti- 
 ans, to prove to them that Chrift hath taught fuch 
 or fuch Doi^rines, which therefore they muft be- 
 lieve, but it muft be proved to them, that that fame 
 Jefus hath taught that thele fame Dodrines are abfo- 
 lutely necefTary to be believed to make them Chri- 
 ftians, unlefs their believing this Branch upon Ibme 
 other Authority will fervethe turn : And if that will 
 do the Bufinefs, why may they not be required to 
 believe that Jefus is the Meffiah upon the fame Au- 
 thority ? and confequendy all the other Dodrines 
 the feid Authority fhall be pleafed to avouch ? The 
 Difference is not much in rational Difcourfe, whe- 
 
 , ther 
 
C7) 
 ther a Peribn believes a certain* Dodlrine to be 
 Chrift's, which he never taught, upon the Telti- 
 mony of fuch a Perfon, or Church ; or whether he 
 believes a Do<ftrine Chrift hath certainly taught, 
 to be abfolutely neceflary to a certain Purpofe, 
 which Chrift never declared to be abfolutely ne- 
 ceflary to that purpoie , upon the lame Tefti- 
 inony or Authoricy. For the Ground, Foundi- 
 tion, and Reafon of the Belief in both Cafes is 
 the very fame, and is an Authority diftind: from 
 Chrifi's, 
 
 In the next place, the Author of the Animad- 
 verfions relates^ what he thought was the main De- 
 fign of the Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chri- 
 flianity, &c. in thefe Words : ' The main Defign 
 
 * which the Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chri- 
 
 * ftianity, &c. (eems to have had, is, to lay down 
 ^ fuch a Scheme of Faith only, as he finds delivered 
 
 * in Scripture, and not to reft fatisfied with thofe 
 
 * Collediions of Arncles, which are to be met with in 
 ' the common Syftems, without any (ufficient war- 
 ' rant from Scriprure. I wil! keep as near as I can 
 to this Author's Words, in relating what I conceive 
 to be the Truth touching this Matter. The main 
 Defign of the Author of cheReafbnableneis of Chri- 
 ftianity, &c. feems to have had, as to one main 
 part of his Book, was to lay down fiich a Scheme 
 of thofe matters of Faidi only, that are abfolutely 
 necelTary to be believed to make a Man a Chriffi- 
 ftian, as he found delivered in the Scripture ; but 
 not to lay down fuch a Scheme of thofe Matters of 
 Faith, as he found in Scripture, which any Man 
 afrer he is a Chriftian, may be necelTarily obli- 
 ged to Believe. The Realon why the Author 
 of the Reafon ablenels did not reft iatisfied jwith 
 thofe Colledions of Articles which are to be 
 
 B 4 met 
 
( 8 ) 
 met with in the common Syftems doth not appear 
 to be, becaufe all or moft, or perhaps any of the 
 Articles in fome of thoie Syftems were without any 
 fufficient Warrant from Scripture : Though it may 
 be, the Compolers of thole Syftems might affert 
 fomething concerning feveral of tho(e Articles, for 
 which there might not be any fufficient Wairant 
 from Scripture. There might be fufficient Warrant 
 from Scripture for the Articles themfelves ; and not 
 the like Warrant for every thing thofe Authors 
 might deliver concerning them. But the Reafons^ 
 why he was not fatisfied with thofe Colledions leem 
 to me to be, i. Eecaufe thofe Colledions did not 
 agree ; (bme of them confifting of more, fome of 
 fewer Articles, and thofe which had the greateft 
 number, left out (bme of the Articles which were 
 infifted on, or inferted in another. 2. Becaufe it 
 was pretended by the Compofers of thofe Syftems, 
 or cheir Followers, or both, that all the Articles col- 
 leded into thofe Syftems were neceffarily to be be- 
 lieved to make Men Chriftians. Now according 
 to that Notion, what certainty could there be, who 
 were Chriftians, or to be admitted and owned as 
 (uch ? whiift there was fo great a Difagreement 
 concerning the Articles which were abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to be believed to make Men Chriftians ? 
 For thofe who were Chriftians according to the 
 Compofers and followers of one Syftem, were not 
 Chriftians according to the Followers of another, 
 becaafe they wanted fomething in their Judg- 
 ment, ablblutely neceflary to make them Chri- 
 ftians, The Defign of thofe who write Syftems of 
 Chriftian Divinity (I apprehend) fhould be to col- 
 lect thofe Articles which are mainly infifted on in 
 the New Teftament, and to which moft or all that is 
 deliyersd in thofe Sagied Writings may be perti- 
 nently 
 
(9) 
 
 nently and conveniently reduced, together with an 
 account of the principal things there taught, con- 
 cerning thofe Articles. And if the Compofers of 
 Syftems did carefully diftinguifh the Articles thofe 
 Sacred Writings teach, are abfolutely neceflary to 
 be believed to make men Chriftians, from thofe 
 which are of great Moment to be known ^nd belie- 
 ved by them who are already Chriftians, I am of 
 Opinion, the Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chri- 
 ftianity would not think their doing fo, any Ble- 
 mish to their Syftems, and that he would not be 
 diffatisfied with any of thofe Articles of which 
 their Syftems ftiould confift, nor with any thing 
 they ftiould fay concerning thofe Articles, which 
 had fufficicnt warrant from Scripture. 
 
 ' And to this end (laith the Author of the A- 
 ' nimadverfions)hehas run through the Gofpels and 
 
 * Ads to difcover upon what Terms our blefled Sa- 
 
 * viour, who firft founded, and his Apoftles, who 
 ' afterwards built up Chriftianity, admitted Men 
 
 * into that Religion. 
 
 Anj-iv. The Author of the Reafonablenefi of Chri- 
 ftianity finding fo great aDifagreement amongft the 
 Writers of Syftems, concerning the Articles which 
 muft neceffarily be believed to make Men Chrifti- 
 ans, did betake himfelf to the fole reading of the Scrip- 
 tures^ to difcover upon what Terms our blefted Sa- 
 viour, and his Apoftles did admit Men for Difciples 
 or Chriftians, or did own them to be Chriftians : 
 And upon his having made an attentive ajjd unhia^ei 
 5f^rc^ throughout the Scriptures, upon what Terms 
 they admitted Men into the Chriftian Religion ; 
 he found that what thofe Terms were, were be(f 
 to be difeerned in the Gofpels and kdi% of the Aoo- 
 poftles ; and for that Reafon, confined himfelf in his 
 giving an account of thofe Term?j to the frequsnc 
 
 and 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 and exa<^ Relations which are given of them in thofe 
 parts of the New Tettament. 
 
 ' And (faith the 'Author of the Animadverfions) 
 ' having declared at large all that he can find requi- 
 ' red by them to make a Man a ChriiHan, which 
 
 * he tells us was only the believing Jefus to be the 
 
 * Meffiah ; he concludes, that nothing ought to be 
 ' made neceflary to be believed now^ which was 
 
 * not fo then ^ nor any Articles impofed upon us, 
 ' which were not injoyned in order to Salvation, 
 ' in thofe parts of Scripture which he has confider- 
 ' ed ; which alone, according to him^ declare the 
 ' Conditions upon which Men are denominated Be- 
 
 * lievers or Chridians. 
 
 An/iv. The Author of the Realbnablenefs of Chri- 
 ftianity having Ihewn at large, that Jefus Chriftand 
 his Apoftles did not require any thing to be belie- 
 ved as ablolutely neceffary to make a Man who be- 
 lieved in the only True and Living God, a Chrifti- 
 an, but only this, that Jefus was the Mefliah: He 
 concluded that nothing ought now to be impofed 
 on Men, as abfolutely neceffary to be bdieved to 
 make Men Chriftians, which is not injoyned as ab- 
 folutely neceffary to be believed in order to Salvati- 
 on, in the Gofpels and Ads, in which parts of 
 Scripture, the Conditions upon which Men are de- 
 nominated Believers or Chriftians,are befl to be dif- 
 cerned. But I do^not remember that he doth any 
 where lay, that the Gofpels and Ads are the Parts 
 of Scripture, which alone declare the Conditions 
 upon which Men are denominated Believers or 
 Chriftians. He doth exprefly declare, that the Ar- 
 ticles necefTarily to be believed to make Men Chri- 
 ftians, are to be found in the Epiftles, Reafonah. 
 of Chrifiianityi 8CC. p. 295". 
 
 'This" 
 
C " ) 
 
 * This way of examining our Faith by the Scrip" 
 
 * ture (faith the Author of the Animadverfions) 
 ' had been an unexceptionable method for fixing the 
 
 * meafure of ir, if he had omitted no Articles which 
 
 * are there made as neceffary to be believed by all 
 
 * Chriftians, as what is obferved in his Treatife. 
 Anfw. The Method then obferved by the Author 
 
 of the Realonablenefs of Chriftianity, &c. was un- 
 exceptionable for the fixing the Meafure of Faith^ 
 fo far as he was inquiring after it ; 'viz,. what Arti- 
 ticles are ablolutely neceffary to be believed to make 
 a Man a Chriftian (not what Articles may be ne- 
 ceffary to be believed by all, or any who are alrea- 
 dy Chriftians) provided he did not omit any Arti- 
 cles which che Scripture makes abfolutely neceffary 
 to be believed to make a Man a Chriftian. And if he 
 hath omitted any fuch Article, that may be a good 
 Exception againlt his ColleBion, but not againft his 
 Method. But had he collected a certain Number of 
 Articles delivered in the Scripture, proper to be be- 
 lieved by them who are Chriltians, and then affirm- 
 ed that every one who is, or ever ihall be a Chrifti- 
 an, muft neceffarily, explicitely believe every one of 
 therri, and no Chriftian muft believe any more ; I 
 think there would have been very juft Ground to 
 have excepted againft his Collection, how unexcep- 
 tionable foever his way of examining our Faith had 
 been ; unlefs he could have proved that every Chri- 
 ftian (hall have both Capacity co underftarid every 
 one of them, and Space enough to be convinced 
 that every one of them is delivered in Scripture. Ma- 
 ny more Articles may be neceffary to be believed by 
 fome Chriftians than may be neceffary to be believed 
 by other Chriftians ; becaufe fbme may attain to the 
 Knowledge of more Articles, and that they are de- 
 livered in Scripture* than many other very good 
 
 Chriftians 
 
Chriftians can. The Author of the Reafonableners 
 of Chriftianity, &c. appears to be a Peribn, whofs 
 Underllanding and Charity are of a different Size 
 from theirs, who are for Perfons fwallowing Arri. 
 cles of Faith, as feme People do Pills, a precife 
 Number (becaufe faid to be taken outof fuch a Box, 
 or of fuch a Perfons prefcribing) to make their O- 
 peration certain, without underitanding either what 
 they are made of, or for what particular Reafbns 
 they are to be adminiftred. 
 
 ' For that there are others required even to make 
 
 * a Man a Chriftian in thele parts of Sacred 
 ' Writ, from whence he hath extraded his Article 
 
 • of Faith, is ( faith the Author of the Animadver- 
 
 • fionsj what I purpofe to make appeat in the fol- 
 
 * lowing Obfervations. 
 
 Anfw. Prove from any part of the New Tefta- 
 ment that there are other Articles diftind from 
 ebofe the Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chrifti- 
 anity doth infift on, which are taught by Chrift 
 and his Apoftles to be abfblucely necelTary to bs be- 
 lieved to make a Man a Chriftian, you do your 
 bufinefs as effcdually, ab if you prove it from the 
 Gofpels and kSts. But this Author intends to prove 
 more than this, not only that there are more Do- 
 ^ftrines in the Gofpels and A(5ts abfolutely neceffary 
 to be believed to make Men Chriftians, than the 
 Author of the Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity hath 
 fet down in his Treatise; but that there are Do- 
 (ftrinesin the Epiftles, vvhich are not in the Gofpels 
 and the A<5ts ; whicfi yet are abfolutely neceffary 
 ito be explicitely believed to make Men Chriftians ; 
 as appears from thefe following Words : 
 ' ' As alfo to fhew that there are fome diftin(a Ar- 
 ^ tides from what are fct down in the Gofpels and 
 
 ' Aars 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 ' Ads, delivered in the Epiftles, that are abfolutely 
 ' neceffary to be believed to Salvation. 
 
 Anfw. Here this Author undertakes to ftiew, noc 
 that there are Articles in the Epiftles diftind from 
 alj which are let down in the Gofpels and Ads, 
 which may be neceflary to be believed to Salvati- 
 on ; for both thefe Authors ^gree as to that: But 
 that thefe diftipd Articles are abfolutely necsflary 
 to be explicitely believed to make Men Chriftians, 
 or to Salvation. So that fliould aPerfon uponfoun-d 
 Convidion, heartily yield up himfelf without any 
 Refervation, unto Jefus Chrift, as the Mefliah ; 
 and unfeignedly receive him for his Lord, to be ab- 
 folutely governed by him; yea, Ihould fincerely 
 follow his Condud as long as he lives, and having 
 attained the Knowledge of all the Articles taught 
 in the Gofpels and Ads, does firmly alTent to, and 
 believe every one of them, and makes fuch u(e of 
 them as Chrift requires , in ftiort, though he re- 
 pents truly of his Sins, turns to the Lord heartily, 
 and cleaves unto him with purpofe of Heart all his 
 Days, yet happening to die before he doth explicite» 
 ly know and believe thefe diftind Articles delivered 
 in the Epiftles, he is no Chriftian, nor can pof- 
 fibly be faved, notwithftanding his being ignorant 
 of them cannot juftly be imputed to him as his 
 Fault. This is a Notion which niuft be very clear- 
 ly proved from Scripture, before I can fubmit to, 
 and embrace ic. This Point, the Author of the A- 
 nitijadverfions undertakes to prove. . He tell us : 
 
 * In anfwer to that AlTertion of our Author, that 
 
 * it is not in the Epiftles that we are to learn what 
 
 * are the Fundamental Articles of Faith, with fome 
 ' others of the like Nature. 
 
^Anfw. The author of the Reafbnablenefs of Chri- 
 ftianity doth not fay the Fundamental Articles of 
 Faith, viz.. thofe Articles which are abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to be believed to make Men Chriftians, are 
 not in the Epiftles, but he faith they are there ; yet 
 what they are may be beft difcerned in the Gofpels 
 and A<3:s : BrH Vindication of the Reafonablenefs^ &C, 
 p. 14. This Point is fo fully cleared, and ftrongly 
 difcourfed in his Second Vindication,^, i ; 2,1 5 3,1 34.the 
 Reafbn of Mankind I think can raife no colourable 
 Objetftion againft it ; I fhall refer theiReader thither 
 for a thorough under Aanding of the Matter, and 
 perfed: Satisfadion concerning it ; unleis what this 
 Author hath undertaken in his Animadverfions can 
 be proved, viz>. That there are certain Articles in 
 the Epiftles which are not in the Gofpels and Ads, 
 which are ablblutely neceffary to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians. If this can be proved, then 
 it will be plain, that it is in the Epiftles that we muft 
 neceffarily look for Ibme of thofe Articles, which 
 are neceffarily to be believed to make Men Chrifti- 
 ans, for then they are not all to be found in the 
 Gofpels, and in the A6ts, and it will be in vain to 
 look for them all there, where they are not all to be 
 found. 
 
 ' Which is the Reafon (faith the Author of the 
 ' Animadverfions) that I give the Title of a Vin- 
 * dication of the Epiftles to the former part of thele 
 ' Papers. 
 
 Anjw. The former Part of thefe Animadverfions 
 being defigned to anfwerthe Reafon why the Title, 
 A Vindication of the EfifHes, is given to it, we are 
 not to look for Proofs of their Divine Authority, 
 that being acknowledged on both fides, or if we 
 find any thing of that Nature there, how ufeful fo- 
 ever the faid Confiderations may be, with Relation 
 
 to 
 
( IS ) 
 
 to that Matter, it is all befides the prefent pnrpole, 
 which is to prove that the Epiftles were writ for this 
 very purpoie, xfiz. to acquaint People with other 
 Articles than what are fet down in the Gofpels and 
 AdSj which are abfolutely neceflary to be believed 
 to make Men ChriOians ; or at leaft, that there are 
 fuch Dodrrines delivered in the Epiftles. If there 
 be any thing then in this Firft part of the Animad- 
 verfions which belongs not to one of thefe Points, 
 it is fo far foreign to the prefent Debate. 
 
 This Author feems to fuggeli in the Third Page 
 of his Preface, by placing my Name in the Mar- 
 gin, that I have given fuch an Account of the de- 
 fign the Author of the Reafonablenefs, &c. had 
 in publiihing his Treatife, as is not confifient with 
 that Account the Author himj^f hath given of 
 the Defign he had therein^ in the Sixth Page of his 
 Firft Vindication, where he faith he chiefly dejigned 
 ii for thofe who were not throughly and f.rtnly Chrtfiians. 
 * Of which, faith this Author, I fTnd^o Intimation 
 ' in the Treatife it felf But a Perfon may find it 
 in the Title, efpecially after the Author hath mind- 
 ed him in the fame Place^ that he is to learn from 
 the Title, for whom he chiefly intended it ; and 
 hath in his Second Vindication manifefted how pro- 
 per the Title was tofurnilh the Reader with a true 
 and juft Account of the Perfons for whom his Trea- 
 tife was chiefly defigned. The Account I gave of 
 his DeHgn, it's true, was different from that the 
 Author hath given of his Defign in the Place quo- 
 ted ; butit is very ccnfilrent wich his : For he gives 
 an account of the Perfons for whom he chiefly de- 
 figned his Treatile : I gave an Account of the prin- 
 cipal Point he defigned to prove and clear in that 
 Treatile. But I do not remember that I any where 
 laid, that "that was his only Defgn^ what way fbever 
 
 this 
 
( t6 ) 
 
 this Author had to know that I helieve that to bt his 
 only Defign^ nor that I have declared that I had con- 
 fidered his Treatife with very great Care and Appli- 
 cation ; though this Author is plealed to lay thofe 
 Words to my Charge. 
 
 * This Author alio obferves, That I am of Opi- 
 ' nion, that there is nothing more required to make 
 
 * a Man a Chriftian, than the believing Jefus to be 
 f the Meffiah. 
 
 Anjw. I acknowledge I have exprefled my felf to 
 this purpofe, That nothing is required as abfolutely 
 necelTary to be believed to make a Man a Chriftian 
 but this, that Jefiis is the Meffiah ; and that a due 
 believing that Jefus is the Meffiah, is the Faith 
 which doth conftitute or make a Man a Chriftian. 
 And the Reafon why I exprefled my Opinion in 
 that manner was, oecaufe Mr. Edwards did fuppole 
 the Belief of the True and Living God, and had 
 expreliy excluded the Confideration of that Article 
 out of the Dilcourfe ; though whether he had rea- 
 fon to do fb, with Relation to the Author of the 
 Reafonablcnefs of Chriftianiiy, may be fully feen 
 in that Author's Second Vindication of his Trea- 
 tife. 
 
 ' But had he (adds this Author) given himfelf a 
 ' little more leifure to confider into what Faith he 
 
 * himfelf was baptized, and into v/hat he bapti- 
 
 * Z5s others, he muft have acknowledged that the 
 ' explicite believing in Father and Holy Ghoft, is 
 
 * as much required of every one initiated into Chri- 
 ' ftianity, as believing Jefus to be the Meffiah: For 
 
 * the Faith in the Holy Trinity has always been re- 
 ' quired in order to Baptifm. 
 
 Anfiv. Whether this Author, or I, have given 
 our ielves moft leifure to confider into what Faith 
 we were baptized^ or others are to be baptized, I 
 
 cannot 
 
C 17 ) 
 
 cannot tell, but I fufpe<5t my Ap^rehenfions con- 
 cerning Baptifm, are not in every relped the fame 
 with his : which of us hath confidered the Matter 
 with moft exa(5tncfs is not to be determined by me: 
 nor can the Reader make a juft Decifion of the 
 Point, whilft I referve my own Thoughts to my 
 (elf; which I continue to do, that no Addition may- 
 be made to the Points now in difpute. But though 
 I acknowledge the Faith in the Trinity, or the ex- 
 plicite Belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity 
 is as much required of every one who is initiated 
 into Chrifiianity J when they underftand that Jeliis 
 Chrift hath taught it, as the explicite Belief of any 
 other Dodrine they know he hath taught, is, or 
 can be ; and that the Perlbn who is to adminilter 
 Baptifm to others, ought explicitely to believe the 
 Dodrine of the Holy Trinity j yet 1 am very far 
 from being certain that every one who is tQ be ini- 
 tiated into Chrifiianity, muft necelTarily explicitely be- 
 lieve the Dodrine of the Holy Trinity. I am not 
 yet convinced that Jefus Chrift or his Apoftles did 
 ever require the explicite Belief of the Do(flrine of 
 the Holy Trinity , as abfblutely neceflary in every 
 Perfbn who was to be Baptized. It may be my O- 
 pinion, that a Perlbn cannot be a Chriltian, with- 
 out partaking of the gracious Influences of the Fa- 
 ther, Son and Holy GhoO: (wherein I may perhaps 
 differ from fbme worthy, learned and 'good Men, 
 as much as I may from this worthy Author about 
 the Point of Baptifm). But I do not perceive any 
 Ground to conclude that aPerfon's psrraking of their 
 gracious Influences, doth neceffarily depend on his 
 explicite 'knowing and believing all that Jefus Chriit 
 hath revealed and taught^ concerning the Father, 
 Son,' and Holy Ghoft 
 
 C ' In- 
 
( «8) 
 
 ^ Indeed (faith this Author) at the firft, Men 
 
 * might be denominated Chriftians upon the bare 
 
 * believing Jefus to be the Meffias ; yet when there 
 
 * was more revealed concerning him, and confe- 
 ^ quendy a larger Faith required, they could no 
 ' more have continued Chriftians, if they had not 
 ' believed this alfo, than if they had ftill been alto- 
 ' gecher Unbelievers. 
 
 jinfiv. The Queftion here will be, whether Men 
 might at firft be truly and juft^ly denominated Chri- 
 ftians, upon the bare believing Jefus to be the Mef- 
 fiah? I think the bare believing Jefus to be the Met 
 fiah, was not at any time enough to denominate 
 Men truly Chriftians: but that believing him to be 
 the Meffiah, fo as to take him for their Lord, King, 
 and Ruler, was at firft abfolutely neceflary to make, 
 and ib denominate them truly Chriftians. And fuch 
 a believing him to be the Mefliah, I think, will 
 make Men Chriftians to the end of the World. But 
 to fpeak ftricStly and properly, it is the due believing 
 of Jefus to be the Mefliah (which confifts in Mens 
 believing him to be the Mefliah, fa as to take him 
 for their abfolute Lord and King) which makes or 
 conftitutes Men Chriftians. And it is their pro- 
 feffing of this Faith, that denominates them Chri- 
 fHans. When more Articles of Faith were revealed, 
 and thofe who profefled themlelvesto be Chriftians, 
 did know they were revealed, and it was known, 
 that they did underftand that Jefus Chrift had re- 
 vealed or taught them', they could not juftly retain 
 the Denomination of Chriftians, if they did not 
 own and acknowledge their Belief of them ; not 
 becaufe the Belief of thefe Doctrines was* abfolute- 
 ly necelTary to continue them Chriftians, but be- 
 caufa their refufing to ack'nowiedge them, when it 
 was known they underftood that that Jefus they 
 
 pro- 
 
( 19 ) 
 profefled to have received for their Lord, had 
 taught them, was a Demonfiration that they did 
 not fincerely take him for their Lord, and lo had 
 not that Faith which was ablblutely neceflary to 
 make them Chriftians. It was not cheir bslieving 
 thele new Articles, which did continue' them Chri- 
 ftians, but that did further Evidence they were Chri- 
 ftians, or did really believe what was abfolutely ne- 
 ceflfary to be believed to make them Chriftians. 
 The continuance of that Faith which makes a Man 
 a Chriftian, continues him a Chriftian ; not )iis 
 obtaining a new fort of Faith, or ad:ing and exert- 
 ing the aforefiid Faith regularly, with relation to 
 new Objeds, as thsy come to be propofecf to, and 
 underftoofl by him 
 
 This Author makes one Obfervation more on 
 what. 1 have writ, which is to this Effe(^, That I 
 have been a little too hafiy in expreffing my Opi- 
 nion of the Reafor,ahle%efs of Chn^tanityy Sic. in 
 the Words fet down in cne Two and Fiftieth 
 Page of my Anim^dverfions. The Reafon he af- 
 figns for this Obfervation, is delivered in thefe 
 VVords, Vref. f. 4. ' Since, I fuppole, he will hard- 
 ' ly deny that Mr. Hobs writ wirhin that fpace, 
 * who maintained xl:e very fame AiT^rcion. 
 
 Anfw. I do not deny that Mr. Hobs writ within 
 thefe Sixteen Hundred Years ; but that he maintain- 
 ed the very fame Point maintained in the Rea- 
 [onaMenefs of Cbrijlianity^ &c. is more thati I Can af- 
 firm. I received fo early, fuch a Charader of 
 hiY.Hobii V/ricings from my aged Tutor, the Learn- 
 ed Mr. Lawfon , as created in me fuch an Aveifion 
 to that Author's Books, I do not remember that 
 ever I read half a Score pages of any thing Mr. Hobs 
 hath publifhed. But I dare fay, if* Mr. Hohi hath 
 maintained this very (ame Aftertion that is main- 
 
 C z tained 
 
( 10 ) . 
 
 tanned in the ReafonabUnefs of Cbrifiianity^ &c. 'viz,. 
 that the believing that Jelus is the Meffiah, fo 
 as to take him heartily for our Lord and King, is 
 all that Jefus and his Apoftles required as abfolutely 
 neceflary to make Men Chriftians, who did believe 
 in the True and Living God, he maintained a very 
 great and important Truth : And if he never pub- 
 liftied any Notion lefs true, and lels uleful than that, 
 he could not juftly fall under the Cenfure of any of 
 .t.hofe who have employed their Pens againft him. 
 But if Mr. Habsy or any other Perlbn had writ on 
 thisj or any other Subjed, a Book that was abfo- 
 lutely tlje beft that has been publifiied this Sixteen 
 Hundred Years, theKeafonahknefsofChri(tiamtyy &c. 
 may for all that, be juflly reputed one 'bf the htsi 
 Books which hath been publifhed within that Space; 
 and this, for the Reafons I laid down in the Clofe 
 of my Animadverfions, which I conceive are of 
 that Nature, they cannot be invalidated by the bare 
 mentioning of Mr. Hobs's Name. And if I am not 
 miftaken, the latter Reafbn this Author gives why 
 he, needed not to refled; any further upon any thing 
 I had propounded, viz,. * becaule there does not 
 ' feem to be any thing very material, which was 
 ' not before obferved in the Keajonablenefs of Cbn- 
 ' ftianity^ &;c. or the Author*s Vindication of it, 
 doth in fome meafure jullify the Character I gave- of 
 that excellent Treatife. For certainly it cannot be 
 a Blemilh to a Treatife, that it difcourles its -Sub- 
 jeA 1(1 clearly and fo fully, that very material An- 
 il wers may be brought from the Treatife it felf, to 
 whatfoeveris produced by way of ObjeAion againft 
 if. Some Authors write after fiich a rate, their own 
 Books may be pertinently made ufe of to confute 
 their Notions. But the Author of f/&? Reafonablenefs 
 ff Chriifianity, 8cc. (whoever he is) feems to have 
 
 this 
 
this peculiar Excellency and Advantipe, that he 
 treats the Points hedilcourfes of in fucn a manner, 
 he fully anfwers his Adverfaries, before they can 
 make their Objedions publick. I write not to jufti- 
 fie my (elf or any one elfe in Errors or Miftakes, 
 but to vindicate, and clear (if I can) difguiled 
 Truth, and wrong'd Innocence, and let thofe who 
 are contrary minded, know, I cannot be of their 
 Judgment till they produce other kind 'of Argu- 
 ments again ft the Book they profefs they oppofe, 
 than are fully anfwered in that Author's Writings, 
 which they knew were publick, betbre theirs were 
 offered to common view. And though there is no- 
 thing very material in thefe Papers, which has not 
 been obferved before in the Writings of the Author 
 of tbe^ Reafonahlenefi of Chrifiianity^ &C. I fhall not 
 account that a jult Prejudice againft them : For if 
 the Anfwers here propounded be very material to 
 what is alledged againft the Renfomzbhnefs of Chrifiia- 
 nitj, &c. it canndt reafonabiy be ruppofed that the 
 Objedions infifted on, ftioiild be of any great weight 
 with me. And my deriving the Anfvvers from that 
 Authors Writings, I hope may pafs wiih Perfbns of 
 Candor, Reafon and Difcernment, for fome juftifi • 
 cition of the Value I fst on' the ReajonabUmfs of 
 Lbrilttanity^ 8cc. 
 
 OiPiervatioits 
 
# • • 
 
 Obfervations on the Vindication of 
 the Epiflks. 
 
 '"T'HIS Author begins his Animadverfions with 
 I tbaf Part to which he gives this Tide, A Vin- 
 dication cf the Epijiks : And he enters on this Part 
 with affigning Two Reafons why the Reafonahkmfs 
 of Chrifiianity ^ doth not (as lie faith) give fuch Sa- 
 ' tisfa^tion to an inquifitive Mind, as might pre- 
 ' vent all Excgption againft it, whether it was de- 
 ' figned for the Benefit of thofe who were not 
 ' throughly and firmly Chriflians, or to bea gene- 
 ' ral Ruie of Faith to. all forts of Men? 
 
 Avj-w. That Author's Defign was to give a clear 
 and diltind Account of v/hac Articles or Dodrines 
 are sbfolurely riecellary to be believed to make Men 
 ChriG'irins: And iheTreatife gives me full Satisfa- 
 cStioa concerning this Matter ; Eecaufe it lays down 
 all thr»t jelus Chrifl: and his Apbftles have declared 
 to be thus necelTary, and nothing but what they 
 have declared to be fo. And his giving fo full and 
 large Proofs that Chrif J and his Apofiles did require 
 the Belief of the Articles he hath laid down, and 
 did not require the Belief of any other Article, as 
 abf/lutely necelTary to make Men Chriflians, ren- 
 dered his Treacife very proper to be publilhed for 
 the Be?? e fit of thofe who were not throu^ly and frmly 
 Chrifiians. For nothing can tend more to the J3ene- 
 neficof fuchPerfons, than a clear, diftind, full and 
 tme Information of what is abfolutely necefTary to 
 be believed by them, in order to their being Chri- 
 ftians. What this Author undsi ftands by a General 
 
 Rnh 
 
C ^3 ) 
 
 "Rule of Faith to aU forts of Men, I do not know. 
 - The whole New Teftamenc is the General Rule of 
 Faith to all Chriftians, as the Author of the Rea- 
 fonablenefs of Chriftianity, &c. hath declared. And 
 the Dodrines he hath infifted on, are the Dodrines 
 abfolutely neceffary to be believed by thofe who are 
 not Chriftians, to make them Chriftian?. 
 
 The Firft Reafon this Author gives why the 
 ReafonahleneJI of Chrijiianity^ &c. does not (eem 
 to give Satisfadion to an inquifitive Mind is, * be- 
 *■ caufe it introduces a new Scheme of Belief, in 
 ' Oppoficioh to. the anciently received Dodrine of 
 ' the Church. 
 
 Anfw. Here I muft obferve, it is not oppofite io 
 the moH anciently received DoBrine of the Church : Ee- 
 caufe it is the very fame Scheme Jefus Chrifi: 
 introduced, and his Apoftles conftandy kept to, in 
 admitting of Unbelievers into the Church. 
 
 His Second Reaibn is, ' Becaufe it doth not an- 
 
 * Twer the full Senle and Intent of Revelation, which 
 
 * is the only Reafon and Meafure of our Faith. 
 
 Anfw. Here I muft obfeive, it doth anfwer the 
 full Senfe and Intent of Revelation, as to what the 
 Author of the Reafonablemfs of Chrifiianity v,/as in- 
 quiring after: I:e-Aufe it delivers ail that Revela- 
 tion requires to be b?-lieved as abfolutely neceflary 
 to make Men Chrifiians ; and we are* not to infift 
 on any thing as abfolutely nsceffary to be believed 
 to make Men Chrifiians, but what Revelation, the 
 only Reafon and Meafure of cur Faith, in this Cafe, 
 doth declare is abfolutely necefTary to be believed 
 to that end. Whoever affirms any Dodrlne (though 
 theDodrine it felf is revealed) is abfolutely neceP 
 fary to be believed to make a Man aChriftianAvhich 
 Revelation doth not declare to be fo, aftirrns it 
 without Reafon (according to this Authors own Ar- 
 
 C 4 'guing) 
 
( 14) 
 
 guiog) bccaufe Revelation is the only Reafon why 
 we are to affirm any Do(5trine is ab(oiutely neceffa- 
 I y to be believed to this purpoie ; and fo he goes be- 
 yond the only Meafure of our Faith in this Matter. 
 The Reafon vvhy we are to infift on fuch of fuch 
 Doctrines as abfolutely necefTary to be *believed to 
 make Men Chriftians, is, becaufe. Revelation re- 
 quires the Belief of them as abfolutely necelTary to 
 make Men Chriftians, not barely becaufe the Do- 
 (ftrines are revealed ; for then every Dodrine which 
 is revealed muft be abfblutel}' necelfaty to be expli- 
 citely believed to make a Man a Chriftian^ bscaufe 
 the Reaibn aflfigned for the Particulars we are mind- 
 ed to infift on, extends to every particular which is 
 revealed, and obliges as much 'o everyone, as to 
 any one. For make your Catalogue as large as you 
 will, if you leave out any one Doftrine, or any 
 Branch of it, that is revealed, your Catalogue can- 
 not poffibly anfwer the full Senfe and Intent of Rtve- 
 lationy unlels a defeAive, partial Scheme of Faith; 
 can anfwer the fall Senle and Intent of Revelation ; 
 or ibme parts of Revelation have no Senfe, and 
 were revealed for no purpofe or intent : Both which 
 are equally uncapable of Proof, and altogether un- 
 reafonable to fu ppofe. 
 
 This Author declares, f. 4. what it is he under- 
 takes to prove in this Firll part of his Book. His 
 Words are thefe : * It fhall be my bufinefs in the 
 ' Firft Place, to prove that there are Dodrines in 
 ^ the Epiftles, diftindt from thofe delivered in the 
 
 * Gofpels or Ads, which are as abfolutely necef- 
 ' fary to be believed , and to be made Fundamental 
 ' Articles of Faith, as any other Parts of Revelati- 
 
 * on. That is^ in fhort, that there are Do<9:rines in 
 the Epiftles diftincft from any delivered in the Go- 
 fpsh and Ads, which are abfolutely neceflary to be 
 
 expli- 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 €xpUcitely be!ieved to make Men Chriflians. The 
 Argument he makes ufe of to prove what he hath 
 undertaken, is this, (to word it fo, as that it may 
 reach the Point he hath undertaken to prove) 
 •*' Some of the Dodrines let down in the Epiftles 
 ' which are diftind from any delivered in the Go- 
 ' fpels and Ads, have been confeft ('viz. by the 
 * Church) from the very Firft Ages of Chriftiani- 
 ' ty, to be altogether as neceffary to be adually (or 
 ' explicitely ) believed unto Salvation , as any 
 ' whatfoever. 
 
 Here I (hall obferve, that before this Argument 
 can do the Bufinefs for which it is brought, the Au- 
 thor muft I, Relate what he means or under- 
 frands by the Term Church, 2. He muft prove 
 clearly, that whatfoever the Church (in the Senfein 
 which he underftands that Term) hath from thefirft 
 Ages of Chriftianity, confeft to be abfolutely necef 
 iary to be believed to make Men ChriHians, is fo^ 
 and that theConfeflion orTeftimony of that Church, 
 is the fole, or ultimate Rule, by which the Que- 
 fti'on concerning whac is abfolutely neceffary to be 
 believed to make Men Chriftians, or to Salvation, 
 is to be relblved and determined . That is. That we 
 are not to be determined in this Matter by the Te- 
 ftimony of Chrift and his Apoftles, but by the 
 Churches Teftimony ; at leaft that it is thus, as to 
 the Doctrines which are divinely revealed and fet 
 down in the New Teftamenr. 5. He is then to fee 
 down the particular Dodrines he hath a regard to, 
 in this place. And 4. He muft prove that from the 
 very Fir ft Ages of Chriftianity, the Church hath 
 confeft that every one of chofe Dodrines is abfo- 
 lutely neceffary to be explicitely believvd to make 
 Men Chriftians, or to Salvation. It is not the bare 
 faying that the Church hath fuch. an. Authority ; 
 
 nor 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 tior the bare affirming fuch a Matter of Fa<3: con- 
 cerning the Chuichj that will prove the Bufinels in 
 Hand. Tlie explaining and full proving the Parti- 
 iCulars already named, will require fbme time and ■ 
 Confideration. And when they are fully cleared; 
 and fiibftamially confirrned, there will not be any 
 need to inquire whether , or how the Church •wot im- 
 fofed on ? In the mean time I fiiall lay down a few 
 Confiderations which I conceive are true, and con- 
 fonant with the judgment of the Author of the 
 Reafonabknefs of Chri(iiamtyy &c. i. That which 
 makes a Dodrine of fupernatural Revelation, ab- 
 folutely necelTary to be believed to make a Man a 
 Chriftian, is not its being placed in one part of the 
 New Teftament or in another, but the Divine De- 
 termination that it muft be neceffarily believed for 
 that purpofe. 2. That our knowing that fuch a Do- 
 jj^lrine is abfblutely neceflary to be believed to make 
 Men Chriftians, depends upon God's declaring that 
 the Belief of it is ablc^utely neceflary to make Men 
 Chriftians, let this Declaration lie in what part of 
 the New Teftament foever. ;. That what is re- 
 vealed to be abibluteiy necefTary to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians, may be better difcerned in 
 the Golpels and Ads, than in the Epiftles, though 
 the fame Dodrinesare like wife to be found in them. 
 And this for the Reafons the Author of the Rea- 
 fonahlenefi of Chrifiianity, &c. hath affign'd. 4. The 
 New Teftament comprehends the entire Revelation 
 the Lord Jefus Chrift hath made of the Mind of 
 (God. In which Sacred Writings, our Blefled Sa- 
 viour declares what Articles are absolutely neceflary 
 to be believed to make Men his Difciples and Sub- 
 jeds, or Chriftians ; and in thefe Holy Scriptures 
 he hath alfo delivered, or declared all the Laws of 
 his Kingdom, by which tho(e be admits for hisSub- 
 
 jeds 
 
C V ) 
 
 jgi(5ls muft be govern'd ; fo that they are not to ad- 
 mit or receive any thing for a Part of their Religi- 
 on, as ChrilHan, but what he hath taughc and de- 
 livered in fome part of thele Holy Writings, f . The 
 enquiry is not how many are the Laws of Chrid's 
 Kingdom, or how many Articles he hath taughc 
 and delivered^ which thole who are his Subjects are 
 obliged to endeavour to underftand , believe and 
 obferve, but what are thoie Articles he doth require 
 to be believed, as abfolutely neceffary to make Men 
 his Subje<a:s or Chriftians ? 6. All the Do(9:rines de- 
 livered in the New Teft anient, are equally Divine 
 Revelations, and are therefore to be received with 
 equal Degrees of AfTent, by all thofe Chriftians 
 who do underftand them, and know that they are 
 revealed or delivered in thofe Sacred Writings. But 
 thefcDodrines are not abfolutely neceffary to be belie- 
 ved to make Men Chriftians. Indeed there are (everal 
 Doctrines which I. know are delivered in the New 
 Teftament,which have not the like Effed and Influ- 
 ence on me ar pre(ent, in proportion to their Na- 
 ture, that other Dodrines have, which I know are 
 taught there : But this Difieience arifeth not from,, 
 the Nature of the former Dodrines, which is always 
 the fame and unalterable ; nor fiom my not recei- 
 ving them with equal Degrees of AlTerit , for 
 I do receive them with equal Degrees of Affenr, be- 
 ing as firmly perfuaded they are Divine Revelati- 
 ons, as the other ; but this Difference ipoken of 
 now, arifeth from fomething eUe, viz,, my prelenc 
 State and Circumftances, or the like. 
 
 ' Now (faith this Author) if feveral of the Do- 
 
 * d:rines contained in thofe parts- of Revelation, 
 
 * (I'iz,, the EpifJles) have all along down from the 
 ' Apofiles Times, been reputed neceffary to be bc^ 
 - iieved to Salvation, then certainly they ought not 
 
 to 
 
(^8} 
 
 * to be denied to be ab(b!utely fubfervient to that 
 
 * end, without the Proof of one, or all thefe things 
 
 * (which are Five in Number). 
 
 Anfw. I. It is not particular Perfons or Churches 
 reputing things to be abfolutely necsflary to be be- 
 lieved to Salvation, that makes them abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to be believed to Salvation. In the very ear- 
 ly times of Chriftianity, even long before the Apo- 
 ftles deceafe, there were People protefling themfelves 
 Chriftians, and who fet up for Teachers in the 
 the Church, who affirmed certain things were ab- 
 folutely neceffary to Salvation, which were not fo ; 
 as is undeniably evident from AB. i f. i« 2* When 
 this Author (hall be pleiled to fet down plainly, the 
 Doctrines his Words feem to have a Secret Relation 
 to, a Judgment may be made, whether they were 
 juftly reputed abfolutely neceffary to be believed ex- 
 plicitly to make Men Chriftians, or not, by conli- 
 dering whether Chrift and his Apoftles reputed 
 them abibiately neceffary or not. 5. If the Church 
 did originally repute any Dodtrines to be abfolutely 
 neceffary to be explicitely believed to Salvation with- 
 out warrant, the iucceffive continuance of that Re- 
 putation, cannot make thofe Do^iirines to be abfo- 
 lutely neceffary. Length of Time, and reiterated 
 Applaule, cannot advance an original Miftake into 
 Truth. The Second Concodion w'ill not in this 
 cafe, red'ify the Error of the FirfV. 4. A Perfon 
 who dorh fuppofe, yea, acknowledge that feveral 
 Do(9:rines delivered in the Epiftles, which are di- 
 flind from any taught in the Gqfpals and A(5ts, 
 have been juff ly reputed neceffary to be believed to 
 Salvation, may regularly, and wich good Warrant 
 deny that they are abfolutely neceffary f for that I 
 fuppofe) this Author means (for otherwife theCon- 
 Sequence he draws is not to his Purpoie) though he 
 
 iifeth 
 
( 19 ) 
 ufeth the Word Subfervient) to be believed to Sal- 
 vation, without being obliged to prove either one, 
 or Five Negatives. For many Dodrines may be ve- 
 ry juftly reputed neceflary to Salvation, which are 
 not abfolutely neceffary to Salvation. And there- 
 fore when it is inferred that (uch and fuch Do- 
 £ttinti are abfolutely necefTary to be explicitely be- 
 lieved to Salvation, if they have all alorjg been re- 
 puted neceflary to be believed to Salvation, the 
 Confequence may be regularly denied,and no necef 
 fity follow thereupon>that thePerfon denying it,muft 
 be obliged to prove : i. That the Authors of the Epi,^Ies 
 were not divine/^ inffired. 2. &c. And for that Rea- 
 ibn 1 fuppofe it is that this Author applies himlelf, in 
 the Remainder of th^s part of his Animadverfions, 
 to prove thefe Five Points : * i. That the Authors 
 
 * of the Epifiles were Divinely Infpired. 2. That 
 
 * the Apoltles had Authority or Commiflion to de- 
 
 * liver (bmc things for neceffary Articles of Faith. 
 ' 5. That (bme of their Dodrines were writ with a 
 
 * Defign that all Chriftians fhould be neceflarily re- 
 
 * quired to believe them to Salvation. 4. That 
 ' there is no Cnntradi(5lion in the Epiftles to the o- 
 
 * ther parts of Scripture, y. That fome of thofe 
 ' Dodrines are of equal Neceffity to be explicitely 
 
 * known to make a Man a Chriftian, with this, that 
 
 * Jefus is the Mefliah. But Fir(l of all, the fuUeft 
 Proof imaginable, of every one of thefe Points, 
 will not in the leaft confirm the Propofition or 
 Argument they are immediately defigned to con- 
 firm, 'viz. ' That all thole Doctrines delivered in 
 
 the Epiftles, which are diftind from any that are 
 taught in the Golpels and Ads, which the Church 
 from the firft Ages of Chriftianity, hath confeft 
 to be abfolutely neceflary to be explicitely believed 
 to make Men Chriftians, are abfolutely necefl^ary 
 
 to 
 
( 3C ) 
 
 ^ to be.explicitely believed to make Men Ghriftians. 
 For there is not any Connexion between the Truth 
 of any , or all of thefe Five Points , and the 
 Churches Authority, by her continual Confeflion to 
 make any Dodrines which are only to be found in 
 the Epiftles, abiblutely necelTary to be believed to 
 make Men Chriftians. If it fhall be faid that it is 
 not pretended that the Churches Confeflion makes 
 them abfblutely neceflary to be believed, but difco* 
 vers and proves that they are abfblutely neceflary to 
 be believed to make Men Chriltians. lanfwer i. 
 The Proof of the forementioned Points, is no Proof 
 at all of the Churches Confeflion, but muft be fup- 
 poled, and is Antecedent to the Churches Confef^ 
 fion. 2. That the Churches Confeflion doth not 
 difcover or prove that thole Dodrines are atfolutely 
 neceflary to be believed to make Men Chriftians : 
 it dilcovers or proves no more, but that the Church 
 did think thofe Do(5trines were abfolutely neceflary 
 to be believed explicitely to make Men Chriftians. 
 Now wrien theQiieftion is whether theChurch hath 
 thought right concerning this Matter ? that Que- 
 ftion muft be determined (if !fce have not Authori- 
 ty to make (at leaft) revealed Doctrines abiblutely 
 necefl'ary to be believed to make Men Chriftians) 
 by afcending higher, and leeing what Jefus Chrift 
 and his Apoftles have. declared is abfblutejy necefla- 
 ry to be believed to make Men Chriftiatxs : which 
 is the way the Author of the Keafinahlenefs of Cbri- 
 ftianityy &c. took, to -difcover what Dodrines are 
 abfolutely neceflary to be believed to the aforefaid 
 purpofe, without making any Hubbub concerning 
 the Church in the matter. The Author, of the 
 ReafoKablemfj of Chrifiianity, oCc. hath not writ 
 one Word, that I can find, that hath any Tenden 
 cy to the Difadvantage of the Chriftian Church ; 
 
 but 
 
( 30 ■ ■ 
 
 but very much that would contribute greatly to her 
 Honour andlntered, were People generally of the 
 Mind to attend her greateft Concernments heartily, 
 without fuffering themlelves to be fwayed by their 
 own petty hiterefts, and peevi-h Humours, which 
 they facrilegioufly dignify with her Name. She 
 might enjoy a profound Reft, and become daily 
 more and more truly Glorious, would other People 
 let her be quiet, and not difmrb her Repofe, by a 
 rude abufing her Name, to juftify their efpoufing 
 and talking for Matters, both Sciipture and Reafon 
 do difclaim. Secondly, The exadeft Proof of the 
 Four Firft Points, will not aiford any Proof of 
 what this Author declares fhall be his Bufinefs to 
 prove in this Firft Part of his Book ; viz. ' That 
 ' there are Doctrines in tl*e Epifties diftind from 
 ' thofe which are delivered in the Gofpels and Ads, 
 ^ which are abfolutely neceflary to be believed to 
 * make Men Chriftians. The Truth of the Four 
 Firft Points is agreed on, on .both Sides, efpecially 
 (bme allowance being made for that Latitude of 
 Expreflion in which the Third is laid down : So that 
 it is only the Fifth and Laft Point on which the 
 Controverly doth depend. It will therefore be need- 
 le(s to make any Obfervations on what this Author 
 offers for the Proof of his Four Firft Points, unle& 
 he happens to miftake any thing in the Reafon- 
 ahknefs of Chrifiianity^^Q. which he brings in under 
 thele Heads, or mifapplies what he hath to fay on 
 ihefe Points, to that Treatife, or ibme Pafl'ages in 
 if. 
 
 This Author beftows his Seventh Page in fetting 
 down an Objedion that hath icme Relation to his 
 Two Firft Points. 1 think the Objedion is not ac- 
 curately exprelTed, but that I fhall pafs over, and 
 .only take notice of his Ipeaking of Doctrines pto- 
 
 pofed 
 
V (3i) 1 
 
 pofed to be believed upon the Ahfolute Tromife of Sal- 5^ 
 nation. This is a PalTage I confeis, I do not well « 
 underftand. I know there are at this time many 
 amongft us,who make a great Noife in affirming That 
 Salvation is abfolutely promised to (bme Perfons^ 
 and the Stir they have made about or with that No- 
 tion, I apprehend, was an occafion of the Author 
 of the Reafonahlenefs of Chrtfiianity ^ &c. apply- 
 ing himfelf to fearch with particular exadnefi into 
 the Holy Scriptures, to find out in what Manner 
 Salvation is there promifed : But I do not conceive 
 that this Author of the Animadverfiom is one of 
 that Party. . Now, I think there is not an ablblute 
 Promiie of Salvation in all the Scripture : And that 
 if there were fuch a Promiie, there could not be 
 any thing abfolutely neceflary to be believed unto 
 Salvation. 
 
 * For an Anfwer to this (was. Objedion fpoken of 
 
 * before) it will (faith this Author) be material to 
 ' examine Firft, whether nothing is abfolutely qe- 
 
 * ceflary to be believed to Salvation, but what is 
 ' declared to be (b, or whether any Do<5lrine, up- 
 ' on which Salvation is propofed, is fingly of itlcU 
 
 * fufficient for it ? P. 8. He immediately adds , 
 ' This feems to be a Query of no fmall Impor- 
 ' tance. 
 
 Here I will i. Propound feme Reafbns why it 
 may be juftly affirmed that a due believing Jefus to 
 be the Chrift or Meffiah, doth conftituteand make 
 Men Chriftians. 2. I will confider what this Au- 
 thor propounds to be examined. 5. I will take 
 Notice of what this Author hath here writ upon 
 this Point. 
 
 FirH, I will lay down fome Reafbns why it may 
 be juftly affirmed that a due believing that Jefus is 
 the Mefliah or Chrift, doth condituce and make a 
 
 Mart 
 
(33) 
 
 Man a Chriftian. As i. Becaufe Jefus Chrift and 
 his Apoftles did admit Perfbns to be his Difciples, 
 and owned them for Chriftians, upon their believing 
 this Dodrine, without requiring the Belief of any 
 other Dodriiie to this purpofe, provided they did 
 believe in the True and Living God : as every where 
 appears in the Accounts given of their ad.r.irting 
 Difciples. 2. Becaufe they have promifed Salvati- 
 tion to the due Belief of this Doftrine, withour re- 
 quiring the explicite Belief of rny other Gofpel- 
 DoArines together with this, as abfolutely neccllary 
 to Salvation. 3. Becaufe Salvation is not promifed 
 to the Belief of any one, or Number of Drxflrines 
 feparately from this Dodrine. 4. Becaufe no other 
 Dod:rine Chrilt or his Apoftles have taught, can ho 
 believed aright, but by virtue of the Perfons belie- 
 ving this Dodlrine. Let a Man believe all the Dc- 
 «$lrines delivered in the New Teft^ament upon Con- 
 fiderations purely difiin(5l from this, that they are 
 DoArines taught by Jefiis Chrift, whom he hath re- 
 ceived for his Lord, he docs not believe them as a 
 Chriftian ought to believe them^ nor will his Be- 
 lief of them on thole Accounts, at ail avail him 
 as to Salvation, by virtue of any Promife in the Gc- 
 fpel. He that believes any of thefe Do<5trines with 
 the Faith of a Chriftian, or as a Chriftian is to be- 
 lieve them, does bat repeat or re-ad his Belief that 
 Jefiis is the Chrift, with apreciie Determination of 
 that Belief to thofe Dodrines as known and con fi- 
 dered to be taught by Chrift. Now if a Man can- 
 not believe any of thefe Dodrines as they ought to 
 be believed, or for that Reaibn for which they are 
 to be believed, till he is a Chriftian, with what 
 confiftency can it be pretended, that the Belief of 
 any of thefe Dodrines is abfbhitely necelBry to 
 malje a Man a Chriftian ? Upon what Evidence 
 
 D upon 
 
C J4 ) 
 
 upon what Authority mult a Man believe any of 
 theie Doctrines to make him a Chriilian ? They 
 are not parts of natural Religion. Will a Man's 
 believing them in Submiffion to humane Authority 
 make him a Chriftian ? If it befaid he muii bslieve 
 them upon Chrift's Authority who hath revealed 
 them, then he muft tirft of all believe that Jetus is 
 the Mefliah or Chrift, and fo as to take him for his 
 Lord. If it fiiall be faidthat is granted, and there- 
 fore it is affirmed that that Belief is the firft Ad of 
 Faith, and the liift Step to Chriftian Faith ; but, 
 that Faith doth not conftiture or make a Man a 
 Chriftian^ till it be compleated and grown up to a 
 certain SizCj by additional Ads of Faith, believing 
 a precife Number of Articles more. It may then 
 be ask'd, what we are to call^ or what we muft un- 
 derftand by that Faith^ of which beUevitig jefus to 
 be the Chrift, is the firft Ad ? It s (aidj ' it is 
 •"' not Chriftian Faith, and if it be properly faid to 
 ■^ be an Aci of Faith, what Name (eever ftiall l^ 
 * given to it,^ it muft be Antecedent lo whac is but 
 ^. the Ad of 'it. But how it can be an Ad of Chri- 
 ftian Faith, and yet but a Seep to Chriftian Faith, 
 has loms more Difficulty in it. But further, it may 
 be enquired, if the due believing Jefus to be the 
 Chrift, do not conftiiute a Man a Chriftian, how 
 can the limited exercifing of this Faith, with lelped 
 to a certain Number of Dodrines, cbnftitute him 
 ^ Chliftian, when all, or the main Excellency of 
 his believing thofe Dodrines, is derived from his 
 believing Jefus to be Chrift? Does a Creature's 
 being endued with Reafon make him a Rational 
 Creature, or his exerting and exercifmg his Reafon 
 to certain degrees .about a precife Number of Ob- 
 Jeds } Again, it may be queried not only what are 
 tliofs additional Articles, but upon whole Authori- 
 ty 
 
ty, or for what Reafon mufl they be believed, to be 
 abfolutely neceflary to be believed to make Men 
 Chriftians ? j. Becaufe it is only the due Belief 
 that Jefus is the Chrift,which doth or can coniliture 
 a Perfon a true Dilciple or Subje(a of Chrift. The 
 Belief of all the other Do(5trines in the Bible, taken 
 (eparately from this, will not make a Man a Chri- 
 ftian : For if it would, a Man might be a Chriftian 
 though he did not believe Jelus to be the Chrifl. 
 And fo believing Jefus to be the Ghrift, could nci- 
 ther be the firlf A6t (as is faid) of Chriftian Faith, 
 nor an abfolutely neceflary Step to Chriflian Faith. 
 Add the Belief of all other Dodrines in the Bible 
 to the Belief that Jefus is the Chrift, tht^y cannot 
 make the Man a Chriflian. The Additional Belief 
 is but Evidence and Proof that he dDthi)elieve that 
 Jefiis is the Meflias, fo as to take him fOT his Lord : 
 And if a due belief that Jelus is the ChriH", doth 
 not conftitute a Man a Chriflian, all other Belief is 
 fo far from confiituting him a Chriflian, it will not 
 amount to a Proof that he is a Chriftian. A due Be- 
 lieving that Jefiis is the Mefliah or Chrifl, is the 
 grand Principle of a Chriftian'sBelief and Practice, 
 as to all the particular Dodrines of Faith , and 
 Rules of Good living laid down by Chrilt in the 
 whole Scripture. This brings the Perfon under an 
 indifpenfable Obligation to endeavour (erioufly to 
 know what Chrilt hath dfttiyered both as to the 
 one and the other. This ctj^ges him to believe 
 whatloever Doctrines he iliall attain to know Chri(f 
 hath taught, and to perform and pradice whatfo- 
 ever he (hall attain to know Chrift hath made his 
 Duty. It is this that prelirves to all the Doctrines 
 of Faith and Rules of Pradice delivered to us in 
 the Holy Scriptures, their full Force and Obligati- 
 on. Hereby we perceive them to be the Doccrines 
 
 D 2 and 
 
■ ( 30 
 and Laws of" him we have received for our Lord, 
 whom we are on that account to believe, and obey 
 in every thing we underftand is his declared Will. 
 
 Secondly y I will now confider what this Author 
 propounds to be examined ; viz,. * whether nothing 
 
 * is abfblutely neceffary to be believed to Salvation, 
 ' but what is declared to be (o, or whether any Do- 
 ' <5trine upon which Salvation is propofed, is fmgly 
 
 * of it feli lufficient for it ? 
 
 Here are Two Queftions, propofed as if they were 
 but one, differently worded : I will fay (bmething 
 in general touching this Matter, and then (peak 
 more particularly to it. In general I fhall obferve, 
 that there is a great difference between thefe Three 
 Things. I. A Dodrincs being declared to be abfb- 
 lutely neceflar/to be believed to Salvation. 2. Sal- 
 vation being promifcd to what is ablolutely neceffa- 
 ry to be believed to Salvation. 3. Salvation being 
 promifed to the Belief of fbmething, but not under 
 this precife Confideradon, as abioKuely neceffary 
 to be believed to Salvation. To believe in the on- 
 ly True God, is declared to be abfoiutely neceffary 
 to Salvation, and it is impofllble that a Man fhould 
 belie^re a right, that Jefus is the MefliAh, without 
 believing in the only True God. For a Man can- 
 not believe that Jeliis was fent by the True God, 
 and is conftituted King by him, except he believe 
 in that God who did fend him, &c. Now, not- 
 withflanding this Belief is ablolutely neceffary to 
 make a Man a Chiiftian, or to Salvation, yet it 
 doth not make him a Chriftian, nor is Salvation 
 promifed to it. Salvation is promifed to that Faith 
 which doth make a Man a Chriftian, which is be- 
 lieving Jefus to be the Chrifl or Meffiah, fo as to 
 take him for our Lord. But Salvation was not pro- 
 poled to any upon their believing J^lus to be the 
 
 Ghrilt, 
 
(37) 
 
 Chrift, but only thole who firft of all acknow- 
 ledged their Belief in the True and Living God : 
 And therefore thole who did not believe in the only 
 TrueGodj were always inftru£led concerning the 
 True God^ and called on to believe in him, before 
 Salvation wjis promifed to thenij upon their belie- 
 ving Jefiis to be the Mefliah. If Salvarion is promifed 
 upon the believing of other Points, or to any Mat- 
 ters of Pradice, it is not promifed to thofe Matters, 
 as abfolutely neceffary to be believed, &c. unto Sal- 
 vation ; but the Promife is made (with refped to 
 thole Matters) to them who do already believe Je- 
 fiis to be the Meffiah. Some things are ablolutely 
 nsceffary to Salvation, to which no Promife of Sal- 
 vation is made. And Salvation may be promifed 
 to fome things which are not abfolutely neceflfary 
 to Salvation. 
 
 More particularly^ hers are Three diftind Que- 
 flions to be confidered. i. Whether nothing is ab- 
 lolurelv necelTary to be believed to Salvation, but 
 what God hath declared to be fo? To this I anfwer 
 AfRrmatively : For God only hath a right to deter- 
 mine and fix the Terms on which he will beftow 
 Salvation : And what his Determination is, can- 
 not be known till it is declared : Nor can any de- 
 clare his Determination but himfelf. The Church 
 hath not a Right or Authority to declare any thing 
 in this Matter, but what God hath declared con- 
 cerning it. And every particular Perfbn hath Right 
 to examine whether the Church doth, or hath de- 
 clared as flie ought. For that Revelation which is 
 the Rule by which the Church is to govern her 
 ielf in her Declaration about this Matter, is the Rule 
 by which every particular Perfon is to examine and 
 judge for himfelf, whether the Church hath decla- 
 
 D X red 
 
(38) 
 
 red rightj and delivers truly what God hath de- 
 clared in his Determination concerning this Mat- 
 ter. 
 
 2. Whether Salvation is promifed to every par- 
 ticular that is required as abfolutely neceflary to 
 Salvation ? To this I anfwer Negatively. If God 
 hath made the Belief of more than one Article ab- 
 iblutely iieceffai y to Salvation, the Promife of Sal- 
 vation is not made to any of them apart, but to 
 them all in Conjundion. Therefore the Belief of 
 the only true God, and that Jefus is the Meffiah, 
 muft go, together, and Salvation is not promifed to 
 one alone, for though the believing Jefus to be the 
 Meffiah cannot be without the former, yet the for- 
 mer may be without the latter. Moreover there is 
 fomething abfolutely necefiary to make a Man a 
 Chriftian, which no Man nor Church can particu- 
 larly determine what it is. For a Man cannot ra- 
 tionally believe that Jefus is the Meffiah, but he 
 muft firft have or underftand fome Evidence and 
 Proof that he is the Meffiah ; but Men cannot de- 
 termine upon what Proof a Man muft neceffarily 
 believe it, becaufe God hath provided Men with 
 great Store of eminent Proofs, proper to convince 
 them that Jefus is the Meffiah, and hath not bound 
 up himfelf that he will not give forth his effediuai 
 Influence and Bleffing with any, bi^ne Inftance a- 
 mongft that great variety of Argument, with which 
 he hath furnilhed Men in order to their Convidion. 
 Now Salvation is not directly promifed to the Be- 
 lief of the Argument proving, but the Article pre 
 ved y though fometimes the one is put for the other, 
 and the Belief of the Article proved, is exprelTed by 
 believing the Argument which proves it. 
 
 i^. Whe- 
 
C39) 
 
 3. Whether any Doctrine, upon the believing of 
 which Salvation is promifed, is Hngly of it felf (uf- 
 ficient for Salvation : I anfwerj Salvation Is not 
 promifed to the Belief of any one Dodrine confi. 
 dered fingly in it (elf; yet Salvation might have 
 been promifed to thofe who fincerely believe Jeliis 
 to be the ChrifVj upon their believii^g certain other 
 Dodrines, and the Belief of thole iSodnnes not 
 be abfolutely neceffary to Salvation. As a Perfon 
 may believe a Doctrine which is abfolutely necelTary 
 to be believed to Salvation, and yet have no true 
 Title to Salvation, becaule Salvation was never 
 promifed to the Belief of that Do(5trine alone. So 
 Salvation might have been promifed to the Belief of 
 certain Dod:rineSj and yet a Perfon might be (aved 
 though he did never attain explicicely to know and 
 believe thole Dodrines, becaufe the explicite Belief 
 of them is not made abfolutely neceffary to Salva- 
 tion. The main, it" not the whole Excellency and 
 Dignity of a Perfon's believing the particular Do- 
 ctiines delivered or taught in die New Teftament, 
 to be believed by Chriflians^confift s in this, that that 
 Faith is an Ad of Submiffion or Obedience to that 
 Jefus, they have received to be their Lord. As a 
 Man may believe in the True Godj and yet not be- 
 lieve in Jefus Chrift, and fo may mifs of Salvation 
 becau(s he doth not believe all that is abfolutely 
 neceffiry to he believed to Salvation, foa Man may 
 believe feveral Dodrines taught in the New Tefta- 
 ment, and not believe that Jefus is the Meffiah, and 
 ib may mifs ot Salvation, becaufe he does not believe 
 all that is abfolutely neceffary to be believed to Sal- 
 vation, though the promife of Salvation had been 
 dnnexed to the Belief of thofe Dodrines, in them 
 who do unfeignedly believe that jefus is the Chnft, 
 and who bslisvs them in obedience to him. But 
 
 D 4. S.\'!ya- 
 
( 4° ) 
 Salvation is not promifed to the Belief of any po- 
 £tr'mQ which does not fuppofe Jefus to be the Mcf- 
 fiah. 
 
 Thirdly , 1 will now take fome Notice of what this 
 Author doth fay to thefe Matters : * If this (faith 
 
 * he) be made the only Rule whereby to judge of 
 
 * Fundamentals, viz,, a Doftrine's being exprefly 
 
 * declared to be neceflary to bead:ually iDelievedto 
 
 * Salvation ; we fhould I fear by this means raile fe- 
 
 * veral Exceptions againft a great part of Religion. 
 ';. 8. 
 
 Anfw. The Queftion here is, by what Rule we 
 are to judge what Articles are abfblutely neceffary 
 to be believed to make Men Chriftians, or to Salva- 
 tion ? The Author of the Reafonabknefs of Chrifiia- 
 mty, &c. fays, the Rule we muft judge of this Mat- 
 ter by, is the Declaration God hath made of his 
 Determination concerning this Matter, by Jefus 
 Chrift and his Apoftlc?. No, faith this Author, and 
 his Reafon is, he fears then Men will raile feveral 
 Exceptions againft a great part of Religion. I do 
 not know what Men will do, but the Queftion will 
 be, whether they will then raife juft Exceptions 
 againft a great part of Religion ? Our Fears muft 
 not rob God of his Right. But I am certain, by 
 keeping dofely to God's Declaration, no juft Excep- 
 tion can be raifed againft any one Part of the Chri- 
 ftian Religion. What this Author faith after, con- 
 cerning Matters of Faith, and of Pra<5lice, I think 
 rs fully anfwered in the SecomI Vindication of the Rea- 
 fonabknefsj &c. ^.85, 84. and thither I refer the 
 Reader for Satisfadion, if he needs any. I ftiall on- 
 ly obferve that Salvation is not promifed in the New 
 Teftament, to any Matter of Faith or Pradice, but 
 but with refpejft to the Belief of this Article, That 
 Jejut is thi Mejfuth. Let any Man produce a Pro- 
 
 ' mile 
 
( 41 ) 
 mife of Salvation to an Unbeliever, (if he can) 
 upon his believing any other Dodrine, or perform- 
 ing any Matter of Practice, confidered feparately 
 from his believing jefus to be the Mefliah. Salvati- 
 tion is not promifrd to any, but thofe who believe 
 • that Jefus is the Mefliah ; and when it is promifed 
 to fuch, with relation to other Matters, the Promife 
 then hath a refped to that Article, to which it was 
 primarily promifed, and refpe(5ts thofe other Matters 
 as Fruits, EffeBs and EvUences of their fincere belie- 
 ving in Jelus Chrift ; except where the Promife rc- 
 (peSs not Salvation in General, but Decrees of Hap- 
 pineis or Glory. 
 
 * If in Matters of Faith (faith this Author) no- 
 » thing is to be required for a Fundamental, but what 
 ' is (b propofed, and to which Salvation is exprefly 
 ' annexed and promifed, it would very probably 
 ' make way for a very unintelligible Faith, in 
 ' which Chriftians could not poflibly agree. 
 
 Anfei/. Here the Author feems to fpeak concern- 
 ing the Dodrines which thofe who are Chriltians 
 muft endeavour to underftand and believe ; and if 
 fo, it is befides the Quedion. Eut that Peoples keep- 
 ing clofeto God's Declaration, either as to Dodrines 
 abfblutely neceflary to be believed to make Men 
 Chriftians, or as to Do<5lrines they are to believe af- 
 terwards, hath a probable tendency to make way 
 for a very unintelligible Faith, is very ftrangeto me. 
 Is the fureft way to have the moft intelligible Faith, 
 for People to go as far as they can from God's ex* 
 preft Declarations ? There will be fome Difference 
 indeed amongif Chriftians as to the particular Do- 
 <5fcrines they believe, fome believing more Articles, 
 fome fewer, and this muft needs be, till they be 
 all equal in their Knowledge. Yet in the way ex- 
 cepted sgainft, they will every one be obliged to be- 
 lieve 
 
( 4-V) 
 
 lieve and pradiie according to the extent of their 
 Knowledge, and to ag- ee in Faith and PracSife, fo 
 far as they do in Knowledge. And let People ad- 
 vance what Notions thsy pleafe, concerning what 
 Arcicles are necelTary to make Men Chriftians, thsy 
 cannot rationally agree any further than they will 
 this way ; unlefs they muft all be ftak'd down to be- 
 lieve jult one fet of DoArines, without extending 
 their Endeavours after Knowledge any further. 
 And if this be a way to prevent Peoples raifing Ex- 
 ceptions againft a great part of Religion, I cannot ex- 
 cufe it from doing unjufferable Wrcrg to a great part 
 of Religion. In believing Jefiis to betheMeffiah, 
 ib as to take him for our Lord and King, we yield 
 up our lelves intirely to him, to believe and pradife 
 whatfoever we (hall know he hath taught and com- 
 manded : And therefore we muft not fufler our 
 ielvcs to be coupt up^ rnd confined to a precile 
 Number of Dodrines and Laws, but muff every 
 one employ our belt Endeavours to be continually 
 .increafing and improving in Knowledge, Faith and 
 Holinefs. This believing Jelus to be- the Mefliah, 
 doth not imply our expUcite believing a certain 
 Number of Doclrines he hath taught, but it is^ 
 fubmitting our Faith implicitly to him, believing 
 thai all he hath taught is true, with a Dilpofition 
 and purpofe to fearch after, and endeavour to know 
 what Dodrines he hath particularly taught, and to 
 believe on liis Authority, whatfoever we fliall un- 
 d^riland he hath taught. 
 
 * For ffaith this Author) if nothing more is to be 
 ^ believed as (it ihould be, abfolutely) necelTary to 
 
 * Salvation, than what is io propoled, then it will 
 ^ follow, that no more than the bare Propofition 
 
 * which is declared to be of that great importance, 
 is CO be arfenicd to. xVs fuppofe in that Propofi-^ 
 
 tioti 
 
C 43 ) 
 
 ' tion - - 'He that helieveth that Jefus « the Mejfiah, 
 ' hath Eternal Life ', if what is there required to be 
 ' believed is fingly of it felf iufficient ro Salvation, 
 
 * chen it mull: be (o as it is there propofed, without 
 ' any farther Explication of it : becaufe there is no 
 ' Explication propofed to be believed to the like 
 
 * Promife. 
 
 J?ifei^. This Aaihor by affenting to a bare Tropofi- 
 tiotiy (eems to mean a Perfon's affenting to, or belie- 
 ving that certain Words he never heard before, nor 
 underllands any thing of rhe Sence or Meaning of 
 any of them (that is an infignificant Sound) com- 
 prehend and exprefs a jj^l Truth, which is abfolute- 
 ly impoflible j for thotjh the Words may be« Pro- 
 pofition to him who utters them, and to ihofe who 
 underftand them, they are no Propcficion to him, 
 who never heard, nor knows any thfng of them ; 
 and theftfore cannot be aiTented ro by him. By 
 Explication of it, this Author here leems to mean, 
 proper Interpretation ; wz,. declaring in another 
 Language what the Terms in the faid PropoHtion 
 did ordinarily fignify, amongft them who v/ere ac- 
 cuftomed to the Language, in which the Propofiti- 
 ot^vas fii ft of ail delivered ; or declaring by other 
 "V^rds in the fame LangU3ge,"'khe ieveral fimple I- 
 deas, of which thofe complex Ideas were made up, 
 for the expreffing of which thofe Terms were ufed. 
 Yet in the next Page he feems to underftand by 
 Explication, ' All thofe Dcdrines which are deli- 
 
 * vered in the Holy Scriptures, that either relate the 
 
 * Grounds and Reafcns (why we are to believe the 
 
 * Propofition he fpeaks of) of fuch a Faith, which 
 
 * is required to Salvation. And that explain the 
 
 * Nature and Extent of it. If this Author be of 
 Opinion, that the expHcife Belitf of all the Grounds 
 
 nd Reafons that are, dssiiversd in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures 
 
C44) 
 tures, why, or upon which, People ought to be- 
 lieve that Jefus is the MefHah, and of every parti- 
 cular that is faid in Scripture concerning Jefus Chriftj 
 and every Branch of his Office is as ab(olutely ne- 
 celfary to make a Man a Chriftian, or to Salvation, 
 as the belief that Jefus is the Meffiah, is, I think it 
 will require a conliderable time to prove clearly the 
 Truth of that Opinion, and if we may introduce 
 an account of our Fears in Difcourles of this Nature 
 I may take Liberty to declare, I am afraid this No- 
 tion, if it prevail, will unavoidably fill the World with 
 endkjs WrangliTjgs and Diftraclions, For I fufpeft all 
 People will not prefently a|i^e how many the Texts 
 be, and which they are, which relate all the things 
 before fpoken of, not to fay any thing of the impro- 
 bability of their fudden Conlent to underftand eve- 
 ry one of the Texts in the fame Senle. Qr if they 
 ihou'd fall immediately into an Accord about all 
 thefe Matters, I fufped the Ground of their Con- 
 fen t will not be very intelligible. '*' 
 It was never pretended (that I know of ) that 
 Eternal Life is promifed to thofe who (hall believe 
 that this Propofition, Jefus is the Mejfiah, is true, 
 without underitanding the Senfe of the Ternnpf 
 which it dorh confift. To believe a Propofition, is 
 not for a Perfon to believe he hears a Sound, but 
 to be fatibfied of the Truth of what is affirmed, or 
 denied in the Propofition j which a Man cannot 
 be, unlefs he underftands the Senfe of every part of 
 the Propofition. For a Man cannot poffihly give his Af- 
 feitt to any A^rmation or Negationy unlefs be under(iand 
 the 'terms as they are joynd tn that Prcpofitiont and has 
 a Conception of the Thing affirmed^ or denied, as they 
 Are there put together. But let the Propofition be what 
 It willy there is no mofe to be underwood than is expreffed 
 tn the Tivms of that Fropofition. Second Vindic. of 
 
 ths 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 the Keafonablenefs of Chrifiianityy &C. p. 99. This 
 Propofitiorij Jefus is the Mefliah, was firlt of all de- 
 livered to the Jews, and confilts of Terms which 
 were very common and familiar amongft them, 
 which had a determined fetled fignification amongft 
 them. The one was the Proper Name of a Perfon, 
 the other ordinarily ftood for the Defcription of a 
 Pel (on they lived in expe<5tation of, according to 
 the Account Mofes had given them of him a long 
 time before. See Deut. 18. ly- to the 20. and A5}. ; 
 22, &c. They did not need any Interpretation of 
 the Propofition. And People of another Language 
 needed no other Interpretation of if, than what 
 was neceffary to furnifli them with the Knowledge 
 of the Senfj in which thofe People to whom the 
 Propofition was firfl delivered, underftood thofe 
 Terms. Whofoever dorh duly brieve that Propo- 
 fition, doth oblige himlelf to hearktn to, that is, to 
 believe and obey whatibever this Jefus hath deliver- 
 ed, lb far as he (hall obtain the Knowledge thereof, 
 and to endeavour ferioufly to know what his Mind 
 and Will is: Which Faith makes a ManaChrifHan, 
 and hath the Promile of Eternal Life made to it. 
 The Propofition doth not comprehend in ic an ex- 
 pllCire Account of all the Matters of Faith which a 
 Chriftian is to endeavour to know and believe, nor 
 is the explicite Knowledge of them necelfary to a 
 Man's believing that Propofition : But his believing 
 of it, brings him under an Obligation toendeavour 
 to know them all, and to believe explicitely whar- 
 foever he fhall attain to know Jefus hath taught ; 
 which is to be the great Work and Bufinefs of the 
 Remainder of his Life, when he is a Chriftian. 
 Thofe Jews, and Lewd Fellows of the bafer fort^ at 
 IbeJJalonica, who itt themfelves againd: Vaul and 5i- 
 la$^ underftood that their preaching thar Jelus was 
 
 the 
 
( 4<5 ) 
 the Chrift (for that was the great Point they opened 
 and alledged in the Synagogue there) amounted to 
 this, that he was the Perlbn they perliiaded the Peo- 
 ple to receive for their Lord and King. For how 
 malicious foever their intent was, in accufing them 
 before the Ruler, ic is moi\ plain from their Accufa- 
 tion^ that they clearly apprehend'^d that Paul by 
 preaching that Jefus was the Chrift, did mean that 
 they were to take him lor .heir King; faying that 
 there is another Kingy one 'Jefp^s^ Ad:. 17. 7. Vid. Se- 
 cond Vindic. of the Reafonabltnefs of Chrifiianity^ &C. 
 f. io8j 109. 
 
 ' For befides (faith this Author) if every Text of 
 ^ Scripture muft be looked upon as lufficienr. to Sal- 
 
 * vation, upon the Belief of which, eternal Life is 
 
 * promifed, eveo the very Scripture will hardly be 
 
 * found reconcilable to it (elf. For though m (ome 
 ' Places Salvation is prcmifed to thofe who believe 
 
 * Jefus to be the Mefliah ; yet in others it is decia- 
 ' red to be Life Eternal to know the only true God, 
 ' as -well as Jefus Chrilf whom he hath lent. Both 
 ' of which Places, if they mult be underftood in 
 
 * their limited Ssnfe, will be zlmoil found contra- 
 ' di<5bory to each other : Becaufe the one pi opoles a 
 
 * larger Faith to Salvation, than is required by the 
 ^ other, f. 9. 
 
 Anfw, The Propofitions here fpoken of, as they 
 are delivered in the €>cripture, are in effcd the 
 fame. For it is not paflfjle for a Man to believe 
 that Jefus is the Meffiah, without believing antece- 
 dently in the only True God. The Word of Sal- 
 vation by Chrift is not lent to any but thofe -who 
 fear God, AB. i;. 26. But I deny that it is any 
 where in Scripture declared to be Eternal Life to 
 know the only True God, as well as Jefus Chrift 
 whom he hath lent : That is, either of them lepa- 
 
 rately. 
 
( 47 ) 
 rately. The Text of Scripture which conies neareft 
 to thefe Words \sJoh. 17. 3. where the Knowledge 
 of the only True God, taken apart from the Know- 
 ledge ofjefus Chriftas fent by him, is not declared 
 to be Eternal Life. But the Knowledge of both is 
 declared to be Eternal Life. I wave a particular 
 confidering what this Author faith^ p. <^, 10. con- 
 cerning the true Notion of believing in CkrtHj when 
 alone re<^uired to make a Man a Chrifiian : Becaufe 
 the plaitt Truth of the Matter we are difcourHng of 
 confifts in this ; 'viz,. That the fincere Belief of all 
 thofe Doctrines Chrift hath declared, areabfolutely 
 necelTary to be believed to Salvation, is of it ielf 
 Sufficient to Salvation. But this is fo far from exclu- 
 Mngy that it doth include a necefficy of believing o- 
 ther Do^rines, if the Perfon is allowed fpace to ob- 
 tain the Knowledge of more Doctrines which Chrift 
 hath revealed, and that he hath revealed them. Yet 
 if the Perfon who fincerely believes the aforefaid 
 Dodrinss, ihould dye before he could obtain the 
 Knowledge of any other Dodrine Chrift hath 
 taught, he will receive the Salvation promiied to the 
 Belief of thofe Dodrines he doth believe : Christ 
 knows his Sincerity, and will nor fail co peiform the 
 Proraife he hath made to him. There are many, e- 
 ven very m^ny Articles Chrift hath revsaled, which 
 thofe v^ho are Chriftians are necelfirily obliged ro 
 endeavour to know, and then explicitely believe ; 
 and as many of thefe Doc5T:rines as they do attain to 
 underftand, whether they be delivered in the Go- 
 ipels, or A(5ts, or Epiftlcs, are Fundamental cothen?- 
 But the Explicite Belief of thefe Dodirines is not 
 abfolutely necelTary to make Men Chriftians, or to 
 Salvation. Our Faith is true, and javifig ^ 7rhe77 it 
 ii fuch as God by the new Covenant requires it to be : 
 Bat it is not iff tire and conftttKTnate tiU we explicitely be- 
 lieve 
 
(48 ) 
 
 lievi aU the Truths contained in the IVord of God. For 
 the whole Revelation of Truth in the Serif ture, being the 
 f roper and entire OhjcB of Faith j our Faith cannot bt 
 entire and consummates till it be adequate to its proper 
 ObjeB, which is the whole Divine Revelation contained 
 in the Scripture. Second Vindic. of the Reafonable- 
 nefs of Chri[lianity , &c. p. ;to. 
 
 This Author p. ii. difiinguiflies betwixt ' Truths 
 
 * which are only to be believed upon the general 
 
 * Ground of Faith, which is the Veracity of God ; 
 
 * and thofe of a higher Nature, which have an im- 
 ' mediate Tendency to the Salvation of Mankind, 
 ' and the Method by which our Saviour has obtain- 
 
 * ed it for us : And thefe latter fort of Truths (he 
 ' faith) are to be explicicely believed by all, in or- 
 
 * der to their Salvation : And the Realbn he gives 
 
 * for this, is, becaule the only End for which he 
 ^ hath revealed thefe Truths, \% the Eternal Bene- 
 ' fit and Happinels of Mankind. 
 
 Anfw. This (eems to be a DiltinAion without a 
 Diiference ; for feeing they are all Divine Revelati- 
 ons, the Ground and Reafon of our believing them 
 is the very (ame, and every Way equal, viz,, becaufe 
 God hath revealed them. It it be revealed that Tome 
 of thefe Doctrines are abfolutely neceffary to be be- 
 lieved to make Men Chriftians, or to Salvation ; 
 we niufk believe them to be fb,and that the Ground 
 or Reafon of that Belief is Divine Revelation. But if 
 Men will believe them to be abfolutely neceffary to 
 be cxplicitely known, &c. in order to Salvation, 
 and God hath not revealed any fuch thing concern- 
 ing them, their Faith in that cafe will want a juft 
 Foundation or Reafon. But it's faid, Thefe Truths 
 of d higher Nature have an immediate Tendency to the 
 Salvation of Mankind. 
 
 Anfw. 
 
(49) 
 
 'Anfw. Chrift's oblerving the Methods appointed 
 him by the Father, in order to his obtaining Salva- 
 tion for Mankind, had undoubtedly their appoint- 
 ed Tendency to his obtaining Salvation for Man- 
 kind. But the Dodrines which relate what thofe 
 Methods were, have not thefame Tendency to ihe 
 Salvation of Mankind ; nor can a Perfon's be* 
 lieving thole Doctrines which declare that Chrift 
 hath oblerved tbefe Methods, and thereby obtained 
 Salvation for Mankind, be properly faid to have 
 an immediate Tendency to the Salvation of Man- 
 kind. But that which (hould be proved is this, that 
 Chrift or his Apoftles have revealed that the expli- 
 cite Belief of all thofe Doftrines which declare what 
 was necefl'ary on Chrifi's part, in order to his ob- 
 taining Salvation for Mankind, isabfblutely neccfla- 
 ry to make a Man a Chi iftian, or to a Perfon's be- 
 ing entitled to, and partaking of the Salvation which 
 was fo obtained. 
 
 But 'tis faid, Thefe refpell the End for which he has 
 revealed any thing to us, and that is only the Eternal 
 Benefit and Happinefs of Mankind. 
 
 Anfw. If this be only the End for which God hath 
 revealed any thing to us, and therefore thefe are 
 abfolutely neceffary to be believed to Salvation, this 
 will bring in all the other Truths to be ablblutely 
 neceffary to be believed to Salvation ; and (b the 
 general Diredion here laid down to diftinguifh fun- 
 damental Truths, will be of no ufe. For thoie 
 Truths, being things God hath revealed to us, and 
 the Eternal Benefit and Happinefs of Mankind be- 
 ing the only End for which he hath revealed any 
 thing unto us, they muft equally refped the fame 
 End, and coniequently be equally neceffary to bs 
 explicjtely believed in ordei to that End. But I f^n- 
 cy the Author's Meaning was thus ; That the only 
 
 E . End 
 
(JO) 
 
 End for vAiich God revealed thofe Truths of a 
 higher Nature, is the Eternal Benefit and liap^inefs 
 of Mankind. That is (to bring it home to the pre- 
 fent purpofe) the only End wliy God revealed thofe 
 Truths, was to make the explicit^ Belief of them 
 ablblutely necelTary to Salvation. Arid if this weie 
 proved, the Controverfy would be at an End. Bqt 
 I think the great lleafon and End ^hy. God hach 
 revealed thofe Dodrines which declare the way and 
 Method how our Saviour did obtain Salvation for, 
 Mankind, was, that Chriftians might know and 
 believe the way, how the Lord Jefiis Chriil did pro- 
 cure and purcha(e Salvadon. for Sinners, and that 
 ^ihey might makefuch ufe and improvement of thefc 
 Truths, as he particularly diredsj or their own 
 Natures are proper to fUggett. Some Dot^rines may 
 be of greater confequence to be explicicely known 
 and believed by fhole who are Chrillians, than ma- 
 ny others may which are revealed. But the Point 
 in difcourfe is not concerning weighty, or impor-\ 
 tant Truths, with refped to thofe who are Chrifti- 
 ans ; but concerning Dodrines abfolutely necefTary 
 to be explicitely believed to piake Men Chrilfians. 
 See Second Findic, of the Reafonabknejl of Chri^ianity, 
 &c. p. 87, 88. and 172, &c. That the Salvation 
 of Mankind was obtained by Chrift's obferving fuch 
 and fiich Methods, we know only by Divine Re- 
 velation. But notwithftanding our Salvation was 
 obtained in fuch ways, and we are certain of the 
 fame from the Teftimony of Chrift, we are not to 
 affirm that the explieite Belief of the Dodrines 
 which declare thele Truths, is ablblutely neceflary 
 to make Men Chriftians, or to Salvation, without 
 Ghrift*s Warrant, The ways and Methods related 
 in dieie Dodrines, were neceftary to be obferved 
 by Chrift, in order to his obtaining the Salvation of 
 
 Man- 
 
(Si) 
 
 Mankrnd,, and Co might feveral others^ for ought 
 we know, which are not revealed. But it will noe 
 thence follow that the explicite Belief of every 
 thing which necelTariiy pertained to Chrift in order 
 to his obtaining Salvation for Mankind, or of every 
 thing oF that Nature which is revealed, is ablblute- 
 ly neceffary to be believed, in order to our recei- 
 ving from him, the Salvation which he hath purcha- 
 fed. There is no more ablolutely neccflary to be be- 
 lieved in order to Mens partaking of that Salvation, 
 than what Chriit abfolutely requires to be believed, 
 in order to his difpenfing it unto Men. Our belie- 
 ving explicitely the f:;verai Steps Jeliis was to take 
 for the obtaining of Salvation for Mankind, has 
 not the fame Relation, to our receiving that Salva- 
 tion from hiiB, on the account of what he hath 
 done and faiFered, as his doing and fufFering thofe 
 things had, to his obtaining Salvation for Man- 
 kind. He has by certain Methods obtained to him- 
 felf a Right to difpence Salvation to thofe who (hal! 
 unfeignedly take him for their Lord and King. But 
 his Right to bsftow Salvation on Perfons, doth noc 
 depend^n, nor is limited to their explicite believing 
 every Do<5trine whiclT relates any of the Steps, he 
 was indifpenfably obliged to takeand obferve, in or- 
 der to his obtaining and being invefted with thae 
 Right. 
 
 In Matters of revealed Religion, Revelation U 
 the Ground or Reafbn of our Faith, let the -Matter 
 revealed be Vv-bat it will 5 of greater or lefs impor- 
 tance. And where the Reafon of our Affent is the 
 fame, the kd. muft be the fame, 
 
 I agree with this Author, f. 15. That * the De- 
 ^ fign of Miracles was not immediately to give Au- 
 
 * thority to particular Doftrines, but to teftify in 
 
 * general that thofe who wrought them had fuch a 
 
 E 2 ' Com^ 
 
I Commiflion from God as they profefled. And 
 in my Judgment, this is no contemptible Argument 
 to prove, that the due bdieving Jefus to be Chrift 
 doth make Men Chriftians. His Miracles did noc 
 immediately and diredly, but only confequentialiy 
 prove the particular Dodrines he taught. But they 
 did moft eminently prove he was the Mefliah ; and 
 they were wrought for this purpofe to induce Peo- 
 ple to become his DifcipleSj or Chriftians, or to 
 own and acknowledge him to be the Mefliah. If 
 thofe Perfbns whofe Faith dv\ anfwer the Intend- 
 ment of the Miracles, were Chriftians, I think it 
 cannot handfomly be denied, that the Faith which 
 made them Chriftians, was a Eelief that Jefus was 
 the Mefliah. 
 
 Yet if it ihall be clearly proved thatxhe Explicite 
 Belief of any one Article diftin6t from this. That 
 Jefus is the MeJ/iah, is required in any part of the 
 New Teftament, as abfolutely neceffary to make a 
 Man, who acknowledges and believes in the True 
 and Living God, a Chriftian, I will acknowledge 
 that fomething abfolutely necellary to be believed to 
 make a Man a Chriftian, is omitted in the Rea/ona- 
 hknefs of Chrijliamtyy &c. and'l have Reafon from 
 that Author's Books to believe that he will do the 
 fame. But as that Dodrine muft be known, before 
 it can be proved to be abfolutely neceftTary to be be- 
 lieved to make a Man a Chriftian ; io I muft know 
 what it is, before I can be fatisfied that it is fiich a 
 Dodrine. And it may very realbnably be defired 
 of themj^ who affirm that there are more Doctrines 
 abfolutely neceflary to be believed to make Men 
 Chriftians, that they would draw out a juft Scheme 
 of them. No, faith this Author, * It will be fuffi- 
 ' cientto our prefent purpofe, if we can produce 
 * any Do^iu-ines, that are abfolutely enjoyned to be 
 
 ' believed 
 
C 53 ) 
 
 ^ believed by all Chriftians, &c. p. 16. 
 
 Anfu^. This is quite from the prelent pujpolej 
 for the enquiry is not what Dodrines are enjoyned 
 abfolutely to be believed by all Chriftians? but 
 what Do<S.rines are declared by Chrift and his A- 
 poftles to bs abfolutely necelTary to be believed to 
 make Men Ghriftians ? Yet I do not think it an eafy 
 Task to prove a certain Number of Articles abfo- 
 lutely neceflary to be believed by all Chriftians, 
 But if that could be done, it would fignify little to 
 the prefent purpofe. It is acknowledged that there 
 are very many DcArines which thofe who are Chri- 
 ftians are obliged to ule th^^ir beft Endeavours to 
 underfland explicitely, and then believe ; and that 
 fome of thefe Dodrines are not exprefly delivered 
 in the Gofpels, and alfo that fome of thofe Dodrines 
 v/hich are taught in the Gofpels and Ad:s are more 
 fully expreffed and explained in the Epiftles. But 
 the Proof is yet wanting, that the explicite Belief 
 of every one of thele Do(iirines, and the fjlleft Ex- 
 planations of them is abfolutely neceflary to make 
 Men Chriftian?. And before they can all be proved 
 to be Dodrines which are abfolutely neceffary to 
 be believed for this purpofe, their Number mufl be 
 precifely determined, and a particular Account 
 muft be given of every one of them : For can any 
 thing be more abfurd, than to pretend to prov^ 
 that People rauft neceffarily believe, and believe ex- 
 plicitely no one knows what, to make them Chri- 
 ftians ? 
 
 But fuppofing fome Perfon will undertake to 
 draw out a full and juft Scheme of the Doctrines he 
 will affirm, ace abfolutely neceflary to be explicite- 
 ly believed to make Men Chriftians, without wait- 
 ing for his Proof, that the Belief of every one of 
 them is abfolutely neceflary, and that there is not 
 
 E ? om 
 
( H) 
 
 one more abfolutely neceffary to be believed for 
 that purpofe (for 1 doubt either his Colledion or his 
 Proof will not immediately fuisfy all Parties) I will 
 propofe Two or Three QuefUons to be confidered, 
 which I think not altogether itrs pertinent to the pre- 
 !ent purpofe. When a Man is convinced ihat Jefus 
 is the Chrifl", and that it, is both his Duty and his 
 Int^reft to receive him for his I>ord, to believe and 
 do what(bever he ftiall attain to know he hath taught 
 and commanded, mu(l he delay and forbear to re- 
 ceive him for his Lord, till he harh fought out, and 
 learned a certain Number of his DoArines ? If he 
 muft not fo delay, but immediately take him for his 
 Lord, and openly avow and profefs that he doth 
 believe Jefus to be the Meflial), and owns him for 
 his Lord, v/hat Denomination belongs p operly to 
 him, upon his making this Profeffion ? The Deno- 
 mination which belonged to him formerly, does 
 not (I fuppofe.) piOpeily belong to him,now he hath 
 renounced publick;). his former Maflers, and de- 
 clares he ;s peremptaii'y refolved to cleave to and 
 follow Jelus Chrift, wirhout any Refervation. If 
 k /Kail be faid, he muft defer his Refigning up him- 
 self to Chrift, till he hath learned a certain Num- 
 ber, or (perhaps with equal Reafon) all the Do- 
 ^brinSs Chrift hath taught, not only in the Gofpels 
 and A(?<:s, but in the Epiftles too ; I would humbly 
 ask, for what Reafon muft he fb long defer the Re- 
 signation of hiiiifslf to Chrift ? I fuppofe, not be- 
 caufe he hath AfTurance he fhall live long enough to 
 do that, after he hath taken fome or all of his Do- 
 clrines to task, and hath had them under his Exa- 
 mination. Muft he fifft of all fie in Judgment upon 
 Chrift*s Dqdrines^' and fee whether they are reafon- 
 ahle, and fir, and convenient for him to aftent to? 
 and iliac he lliall ad wifsly and prudently to take 
 
 the 
 
the Author of them for his Lord ? If (b^ how fhall 
 It be made appear that fuch a Perfon receives him 
 for his Lord, as Chrilt orders ? and coniequently 
 that he is a Chrifiian in tiie Gofpel Senle ? Is his 
 beHeving thofe Dodlrines before he takes Chrilt for 
 his Lord, a believing them as a Chriftian ihould and 
 muft believe them, purely tor his fake, or becaufe 
 he hMh taught them ? feeing he muft firft know 
 and believe them, before he adventure to receive 
 him for his Lord, and truft him with his Faith ? 
 In this cafs his believing thefe Dodrines, feems ra- 
 thsr the Reafon of his taking Chrift for his Lord, 
 than Chrift's Authority the Reaibn of his believing 
 thofe Doftrines. Our bleffed Saviour tells us plainly 
 with what Difpofition we muft receive him for ouc 
 Lord, fo as if any thing he fhall require us to be- 
 lieve or obey, cannot be acknowledged or perform- 
 ed, without expofing us to the greateft temporal In- 
 conveniencies and Hazards, we muft fuftain and 
 encounter them, and deny our (elves to the hying 
 down of our Lives, rather than relinquiih our Fi- 
 delity to him. But I do not find that he any where 
 requires we fiiould go to work with his Dodrines, 
 and then, if Ave like them, come and fubmitto him, 
 and take him for our Lord. Be fides, how Men 
 can be faid to believe thefe Dod:rines as taught by 
 him who is the Meffiah, or Chrift, before they be- 
 lieve him to be the Chrift, and have yielded up 
 themlelves to him to believe what he hath taught, 
 is not very intelligible to me ; nor how a Man's be- 
 lieving any thing Chrift hath taught, purely be- 
 caufe he hath taught it, can make him Chrift's Dit 
 Cipie : ^ It may difcover that he is Chrift's Difciple, 
 but it cannot conftitute him Chrift's Difciple. 
 
 jE 4 • If 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 If this demand of a juft Scheme of all the Articles 
 that are abfolutely necefTary to be believed to make 
 Men Chriftians (if more than are fet down in the 
 Reafonahlemfs of Chri/I-iamty^ S<,c, are abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary) be not fatisfied, prove what you pleafe of 
 the neceffity of believing more Articles, you get no 
 more by it, than to overthrow the Notion you op- 
 pofe, without advancing one more ufeful ; and you 
 leave People under an utter uncertainty, whether 
 they are, or everfhallbeChflflians, how many Ar- 
 ticles (bever they do, or may explicitely believe ; 
 and what Perfons are to be admitted and owned for 
 Chriftians, yea, whether there were ever any Chri- 
 ilians in the World, at leaft fmcethe ApoftlisDays. 
 People may make what Noife tlTey pleafe with the 
 Word C H U RC H, but this Notion, if ftuck to, 
 will ferve the Church, as thofe did her Lord, who 
 cloathed him in Purple, and cried Hail to him in 
 Derifion. If a Hundred Articles are abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to be explicitely believed to make Men Chri- 
 ftians, and you can name but Ninty Nine of them, 
 he that (hall believe thofe Ninty Nine, and not ex- 
 plicitely know and believe the other one, will fall 
 as really ihort of being a Chrifttan, as another who 
 believes but one of the whole Number, And if this 
 ihould be the Cafe of her, that's called the Church, 
 fhe is perfedly unchurched, and not one of her Mem- 
 bers is a Chriftian, nor can ever obtain a juft Title 
 to thofe Charaders, till they have recovered that 
 one Article from which they have ftrayed. It is ve- 
 ry eafy, according to the Notions offered by them, 
 who oppofe the Reafenablenefs of Chrijiianity, &c. to 
 prove that they are not Chrilf ians. But that which 
 I cannot comprehend is this. For what Reafbn 
 they take fo much Pains to prevail with others to 
 believe, that tljey ar? not what they profefs them- 
 
 lelves 
 
( J7 ) 
 felves to be. For my part, I do hope^ and will 
 believe they are Ghriftians, in fpite of all their Ar- 
 guments to the contrary ; unlefs I had as fiire Evi- 
 dence that they are not fincere in their Profeflion,as 
 they give of the Miftake of their Judgment in the 
 prefent Point. 
 
 This Author certifies he will endeavour hereafter 
 to (hew there are ' Some Doftrines in the Epiftles 
 
 * diftind from thofe contained in the Gofpels or 
 ' Ads, which are of that Nature, without the Be- 
 ' lief of which, though we may grant Men might 
 ' be faved before they were known, yet when they 
 ' were divulged, they could no more be ftiled true 
 
 * Chriftians without the Belief of them , than if 
 ' they had not at all believed, f. 17. 
 
 Anfw. When our belief of a Dodlrine is grounded 
 purely upon the Nature of the Doctrine, we believe 
 it only as we are rational Creatures, and do imploy 
 our Realbn about the Dodrine it felf, confidering 
 it's Nature, and not as Chriftians, for the only 
 Ground of our Belief, as Chriftians, is Divine (u- 
 pernatural Revelation. And let the Nature of the 
 Doctrine be what it will. Revelation is the Ground 
 and Realbn of our believing it. If you will there- 
 fore produce Doctrines ablblutely neceffary to be 
 believed to make Men Chriftians, becaule of the 
 Nature of them, you muft fetch them from Natural 
 Religion, and they are to be judged of as to their 
 Nature, and the Reafon of our believing them, by 
 Natural Reafon, without any regard to Revelation ; 
 which is a Notion that will do Chriftianity, I doubt, 
 but little Service. Hitherto it hath done no incon- 
 iiderable Hurt. 
 
 The divulging of more Dodrines to be believed 
 by Chriftians, as they ihould attain the Knowledge 
 of them, did not make more Doftrines abfolutely 
 
 neceffary 
 
( 58 ) 
 neceffary to be believed to make Men Chriftiaos, 
 than were afolutely necelTary to that purpofe before 
 they were divulged: For if it did, every new Do- 
 dirine, when it was divulged j became a new Con- 
 dition, to be explicitely confented to, in order to 
 any Man's admiffion into the Covenam of Grace; 
 and coniequentl|«Pthere were fo many New Co-ve- 
 nants. Yet thefe other Dodrines, when they were 
 divulgedjwere necelfarily to be believed by thofe 
 particular Chriftians, who did underliand and know 
 them, and io they are now ; not to make them 
 Ghriftians, but by Virtue or Realbn of that Obliga- 
 tion they are under by being Chriftians, to believe 
 whatfoever they ihali know their Lord hath reveal- 
 ed. The Difference between thofe who were Chri- 
 ftians before thele Doctrines were divulged, and 
 thofe who become Chriftians fmce, is this : They 
 were obliged by their being Ghriftians, or believing 
 Jefas to be Meffiah , to believe whatfoever he 
 had or ihould reveal, when> they ihouiii know the 
 fame, now his Revelation is compleated, thofe who 
 believe him heaitily to be thetMefliah, are thereby 
 obliged to believe whatfoever he hath Revealed, as 
 they attain the Knowledge thereof. For a more 
 clear and full underftanding of thefe things, fee 
 SecDiidFindtcat. of the Reafonabfemfs, 8cc. p. 82, 85, 
 »5'2, &:c. ;37, &c 343, !}44. 
 
 Whereas this Author iaith, p 17, ' It will be ne- 
 ' cefTary to confider an Objedion, or rather an E- 
 ' vafion of the Author of the Keafonabhnefs of Chri- 
 ^ ft'tanity^ Scc. fince ic intimates that he believes as 
 '^ much of the Epjftles, and in as true a Senfe as a- 
 ' ny Man whatfoever. And then relating fome Pat 
 figes in p. 299. of the Reajonahlenefs fff Chri/i'ianity^ 
 Sec. afterwards faith, ' They do not feem akoge- 
 ' cher unexceptionable, f, 18; I fhall obferve that 
 
 the 
 
■ ( 59 ) 
 
 the Author of the Reafinablemfs, &C. dothin *.298. 
 b&gin his Answer to an Objedtion concerning the 
 Epililes, or to this QadMon : Whether the Truths de- 
 livered in the Epifiles may he believed or disbelieved by a 
 Chrijlian v-'i:rout any Danger ? To which he anfvvers. 
 That the Law of Faith being a Covenant of Free Grace^ 
 God alone can appoint ivhat jhall be necejjarily believed by 
 every cae "ivbom he will jnfiify ; what is the Faith which 
 he wtll accept^ and account for Right eoufnefsj depends 
 wholly on his good Pleafure. For it is of Grace and not 
 Kigbt that this Faith is accepted • and therefore he alone 
 can ftt the Meafures of it. Where we have the moil 
 Rational Evidence for that Point, that (I think) 
 Words can exprels. Afterwards, in p. 299. he an- 
 fvvers diredly ro the QuelHon, affirming that the c 
 ther Tarts of Divine lievelation^ are ObjeBs of Faith, 
 and are fo to be received ; they are Truths, whereof 
 none that is once known to be [achy may or ought to be 
 disbelieved, &c. Yet notwithftanding, he affirms 
 the Doctrines in the Epiflles, ara DtvmeTruths, ve- 
 ry weighty to us now, and which no Chrifiians who 
 knQ7iJ them, may disbelieve ; This Author Saich, tbefs 
 FaJJages are not altogether unexceptionable. 
 
 * For though thefe allow the Truths contained in 
 ' the Epifdes, to be Objeds of our Faith j yet they 
 
 * do not fuppoie them, or any Parts of them, tobe 
 ' more (b, than any other Places of Scripf^^^eg 
 
 * which have no Relation to the Salvation of Man- 
 ' kindj and which we are only bound to believe 
 ^ to be true, upon the Veracity of God that reveal- 
 
 * ed them. p. 18. 
 
 Anfw. The Author of the Reafonahhnefs of Chrifii- 
 anity, &c. teachetb. That the Truths contained in the 
 Epffilesj are OhjeBs of our Faith j becaufe they are 
 Divine ReveiationSj or Divine Truths. And this 
 Author, p. n, teachetb, TY\2Xtbs only End for ivhich 
 
 God 
 
C6o) 
 
 <^od hath revealed any thing to us, is the Eternal Benffic 
 ^nd Hafpinefs of Mankind. The Author of the Rea- 
 fomh-lenefs, &c. doth not detraft from the Hdnour 
 due to any part of Divine Revelation : But aflerts, 
 Tha: as they are all equally Divine Revelations, fb 
 they are all equally Objects of our Faith, when 
 fenown, and have all a Relation to the Silvation of 
 Mankind But how this Author will reconcile his 
 teaching. That the only End for 'ufbich God hath reveal- 
 ed any thing to us, is the Eternal Benefit and HiSppine/s 
 cf Mankind j with his faying, That [ome Places of 
 Scripture have no Relation to- the Salvation of Mankind^ 
 I cannot tell, without a very lingular Account of 
 what is meant by DoArines having a Relation to the 
 Salvation of Mank-nd. Some DoArines acquaint 
 cs wiih the Gracious Purpole of God towards Sin- 
 ners ; and with the Ways and Methods how Jefas 
 Chrif} obtained Salvation for Mankind, which may 
 be fjid to have an Hifi-orical Relation to the Salvati- 
 on of Mankind. Some Dodrines are abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to be explicitely believed to make and con- 
 ititute Men Chriftians, and "entitle them to that 
 Salvation : Which Dodrines may be faid to have a 
 Conditional Relation to our Salvation. There are 
 D66irines which thole who are Chriftians muft 
 endeavour to underhand, and explicitely believ^, as , 
 they attain to know them. Such are thofe which 
 belong to the Firfl: Head, and a great many more 
 delivered in the New Teftament. Thefe have not 
 an Im?nsdiate Relation to our Salvation : But they 
 may be faid to have a Confequmtialj and Obediential 
 Relation to our Salvation. The Dodrines we are 
 now difcourfingof, are thofe which pertain to the 
 Second Head. Ana if any Min think there are 
 Doctrines in the Epiftles diftind from thole laid 
 down by the Author of thu Reafonahknefsy 6cc. that 
 
 are 
 
( 6. ) 
 
 are abfolutely neceflary to be explicite!y believed 
 to make Men ChriRians, and entitle them to Salva- 
 tion, when he ftiall let down a Lift of them, and 
 produce his Proof that every one of them, is abfo- 
 lutely necelDry to be explicitely believed to make 
 Men ChriRians, &c. a Judgment may be made of 
 them : But till this is done, the diftindion of Re- 
 'veakd Truths^ to be helicved upofi God's Veracity • and 
 Truths of a higher Nature, will be of little or no ufe 
 unto me. 
 
 I ftiall here further obferve, That i. It is certain 
 the Dodrines which relate what Chrift hath done, 
 and iiiffered, have not the fame Relation to the 
 Salvation of Mankind, the Obedience and Suffer- 
 ings of Ghrift had. The Do(5i:rine which inftruds 
 us what was paid to obtain Salvation for Mankind, 
 is not the Price it felf, with which that Salvation 
 was purchafed. 
 
 2. The Belief of thele Dodfines hath no Relati- 
 on to the Salvation of Mankind : The moll: that 
 can be pretended with any Colour, is only chac the 
 Belief of thele Dodrines hath a Relatirn to the 
 Salvation of the Perlbn who doth believe them, or 
 to whom they are delivered and made known. 
 
 %. The Relation the Belief of thefe Dodrines 
 hath to his Salvation, who doth know and believ^ 
 them, is the very fame, which the Belief of any o- 
 thcr Dodrines delivered in the New Teft.^ment, 
 hath to his Salvation who doth know and hviieve 
 them ; which confifls in this. That it is an Ad of 
 Submiflion and Obedience to Jefus, whom he 
 hath taken to be his Lord. Whatever thofe Matters 
 be, which notwithfianding they are revealed in the 
 New Teftament, Ibme are pleafed to Term IrJif- 
 ferent Matters, a fincere Chriftian is as much obli* 
 gfid tobeli?v€ them, when he knows chey are re- 
 vealed 
 
( 6z) 
 
 vealed there, as he is to believe any othei Matters 
 which are' revealed there. 
 
 For 4. The Realbn of my believing any Dodrine 
 as I am a ^hriftian, is, Divine Revelation, and 
 not the Nature of the Doftrine, that is, of the 
 Matter taught : And therefore my believing one 
 Dodrine, hath the fame Relatiorf to my Salvation^ 
 that ray believing another Do(51:rine Chrift hath 
 taught, hath to my Salvation : they being equally 
 Ad:s of Obedience to Chrift, and the Ground and 
 Reafbn of each Belief being the very fame. Yet I 
 will acknowledge, that if our Belief of thefe 
 Doctrines (this Author hadi a refped to) had the 
 fame Relation to our partaking of Salvation, the 
 Obedience and Sufferings of Chrift (which were 
 the real Price, and a proper purchafing of Salvation 
 for Mankind) had to the purchafing of Salvation 
 for Mankind, the Belief of them would be abfc- 
 lately neceffary to Salvation. But then I muft add, 
 we iliould hereby as properly purchafe our own 
 Salvation, as Jefiis Chriftdid Salvation for Mankind, 
 which is a Notion I cannot eafily be reconciled 
 to. 
 
 5-. If a Judgment is to be made from the Nature 
 of Doctrines, what Dodrlnes are abfolutely necef 
 firy to be believed to make Men Chriftians, or to 
 Salvation, then this Neceffity of believing them to 
 this Purpofe, muft be obvious to the Natural Rea- 
 lbn of Mankind ; and every Man muft judge for 
 himfelf f by confidering the Nature of thefe Do- 
 ctrines) which and how many are abfblutely ne- 
 ceffary to be believed to Salvation : which is a No- 
 tion, that as it lays afide Chrift's and his Apoftles 
 Authority to determine the Matter ; fo it will not 
 do the Church any great Service, without pretend- 
 ing that one certain Man, or a Number of Men, is 
 
 to 
 
( 53 J 
 to make this Judgment from the Nature of the Do- 
 brines Chrift and his Apoflles have taugh>, and all 
 ochers muft reft fatisficd with, and Sepend wholly 
 on his or their Determination. This indeed may 
 have a Tendency to rai/e humane Authority to a 
 great height, in the molt important Bufinefs of Re- 
 Jrgion, but then it will befno Advantage to the Na- 
 ture of Doarines: for hereby People will be determi- 
 ned to take them for Dodrines abfoiuteiy neceffary 
 to be believed, not from their perceiving that fuch 
 a neceflity arifes from their Nature, but from bare 
 humane Authoi icy. Nor can they be certain that 
 he or thofs who have judged them to be abfoiuteiy 
 neceffary to be believed to Salvation, have been de- 
 termined in their Judgment, by the Nature of their 
 Docarines, and not by their own arbitrary Plealure, 
 till, they have refolved the Matter themfelyes, by 
 exercifing their own Reafon about the Nature of 
 the particular Doarines, which fhall be recom- 
 mended to, rather impoled on them. 
 
 It plainly appears by what the Autlior of the Rea- 
 jfinahlenefs of Chrifiianity, &c. hath writ, that though 
 he doth not think the Epiftles the molt proper parts 
 of the New Teftament to be confuked, in order to 
 our dilcerning which be the Doarines Chrift and 
 his Apoftles did require to be believed as abfoiuteiy 
 neceffary to make Men Chriftians, or to Salvation 
 yet that he thmks the Dodrines contained in the 
 Epiltles are Fundamental Articles, to be aauallv 
 believed by Chriftians now, as they obtain the 
 Knowledge of them. And that they are to make 
 luch uie of them, as they (hall underftand thev 
 ought to make of them, either by confidering their 
 Nature, or what they find the Scripture doth in- 
 ^lf^,^oncQxmug the fame. See R^afonahlcmfs of 
 C^^mtty, &c. f. 300. to»^ Vindic, of it, />. 20/. 
 ^ ^" - But 
 
(^4 ) 
 
 But, faith this Author, ' Thefe Do(5i:rines which 
 ' have a Relation to the Salvation of Mankind, are 
 * to be believOT upon another Ground, befidesthat 
 ' of mere Revelation, p. 19. 
 
 Anfiv. Upon what Ground are they to be be- 
 lieved, befides the Veracity of God who revealed 
 them? Is that Ground better or worfe? doth it lay 
 a greater or lefs Obligation on People to believe 
 them, than Divine Revelation does? I exps6t not 
 to meet with a better Reafon, why I am to believe 
 any of Chrift's Do<5trines, than this, that he taught 
 them. Thofe who will not acquiefce here, may 
 wander where they pleafe for Satisfaction, provi- 
 ded they will not go about to compel others to rove 
 with them. Moreover, are not thofe places of 
 Scripture, where the(e Doiftrines lie, HiQorical? 
 declaring the Way and Method how Jefus obtained 
 Salvation for Mankind. And is there any way for 
 People to know, that what is declared in thole Do- 
 ctrines, had a Relation to the Salvation of Man- 
 iiind,but Revelation? It had no natural Relation to 
 the Salvation of Mankind. How is it pofliblethen 
 to know from its Nature, that it was gracioufly ap- 
 pointed to have a Relation to that End ? We can- 
 not know any thing more from the Nature of a 
 thing, than the Nature of the thing is fitted to dif- 
 cover. If it be (aid, that the Difcourfe is not con- 
 cerning the Nature of the Thing treated of in the 
 Dodrine.but concerning the Nature of the Dodrine 
 it felf. I anfwer, we can learn no more from the 
 Nature of the Dodrine than the Do(5trine doth de- 
 liver : Therefore if the Dodrine do not declare 
 that the Belief of it is abfolutely neceffary to Salva- 
 tion, we cannot learn any fuch thing from the Na- 
 ture of the Dodrine, becaufe the Nature of the 
 Dodrine doth not deliver any fuch thiflg. Befides, 
 
 the 
 
C6s ) 
 
 the Dodrine it felf being a Divine Revebtion, Di- 
 vine Revelation is the only Reafon and Ground of 
 our believing it : And the Nature of thst Doctrine 
 coniift in this, that ic is a Divine Revelation. 
 
 In the ncxc Place, this Author confiders the Au- 
 thority of our Saviour intrufrcd in his ApofHes 
 which is expreft in their Comrnifli^^n, Mat. 28. 19, 
 pto, 21. Which Commiffion as ic iavefts them with 
 * as full a Power of teaching whatfoeverw^s necef- 
 ' (ary to Salvarion, fo it lays as great a Neccflity 
 ' upon o^h^;::^ of believing them, as if Chriii him- 
 ' felf had taught in his own P.Tfbn. p. 19, 20. 
 
 y^nfiv. Very true : But all that Jdus Chrifi: him- 
 feU did teach, was not, nor is not ab(bi:.i;;ely necef^ 
 fary to be explicitely believed, to make Men Chii- 
 ftians, or to Salvation ; onjy fb much of it as he re- 
 quired to be believed, as abiolutely neceff^ry there- 
 unto. And the fame is to be Tiid as to the Apoft?ei-. 
 Our Saviour intruded his ApoOles with Authority * 
 -to Dtfiiple People to h^m, and upon their avouch- 
 ing him for rlieir Lord, to Baptize and externally 
 admit them into his Church, and then to teach 
 them the other Doddnes he had authorized 
 them to divulge, as the Laws of his Kingdom, and 
 Ivla-ters they were to learn, and having learned, 
 mnll neceHaiily believe. But he did not intruft 
 them with an Authority to make a Ne-iv-Ccvenant 
 with People, and to require the Belief of more Ar- 
 ticles as abiolutely necelfary to make them Chrifti- 
 ans, or to Salvation, chan he himfelf had required 
 as abfblureiy necelTary to be believed for that purpofe. 
 The Epiltlcs are part of that Revelation Chrift hath 
 given to be the Rule of all Chriftians Faith. But no 
 other Doftrines are abfolutely necelfary to be expli- 
 citely believed to make Men Chriftians, or to Sal- 
 vation, than thole, on the believing and owning of 
 
 F which, 
 
C 66) 
 
 which, Chrift and his Apoftles did admit thofe Un- 
 believers, to whom they preached, into the Church 
 and Kingdom of Chrilt; if our Saviour himfelfdid 
 unde^ftand the Covenant of Grace, and the Terms 
 on which People were to be admitted into it ; or if 
 fhe Apoflles did underftand their Commiflion. 
 For they neither required the explicite Belief of 
 thofe Diftin6t Dodrines they have delivered in their 
 Epiftles, as abiblutely neceflary to make Men Chri- 
 ftians, in their Preaching to Unbelievers; if we 
 may credit the Relation given of the Method and 
 Tenour of their Miniftry, in the Ad:s of the Apo- 
 ftles ; Nor do they in their Epiftles any where re- 
 quire the explicite Belief of the(e Dodrines as ab- 
 fblutely necelTary to be explicitely believed to make 
 Men Chriftians. They have in their Epiftles deli- 
 vered many Doctrines which Believers or Chrifti- 
 ans are to be preffed to endeavour to underftand, 
 and explicitely believe on hazaYd of their Salvati- 
 on ; which (I conceive) they had preffed on thofe 
 who were converted, before they writ their Epi~ 
 ftles, as well as they did then, and afterwards. But 
 they do not any where in their Epiftles teach that 
 tbefe Dodrines are abfblutely neceflary to be belie- 
 ved explicitely to make Men Chriftians, or to Sal- 
 vation. See Second Vindic. of the Keafonahknefs of 
 Chriftianityj &c. ?• 76, 85, &c. 
 
 In />. 2;. this Author faith (bmething concerning 
 the Covenant of the Gofpel, but gives not a clear 
 and diftin<a Account (in my Judgment) of that 
 Covenant, and the Conditions thereby made abfo- 
 lutely neceffary for our obtaining Happinefs, though 
 he truly faith, Ihit is fully done in the Covenant of the 
 Go^d. 
 
 The 
 
{67) 
 The Covenant of the Gofpel, in ILort, (I think) 
 is this: That all thofe fliallhave Eternal Life, who 
 do lb heartily bslieve Jefus to be the Meffiah, or 
 Chrift, as to receive him for their Lord, with in- 
 vincible Purpofeand Refolution to be abfolutely go- 
 verned by him , fb far as they fliali obtain the 
 Knowledge of his Plealure, let what Inconvenien- 
 ' cies. Difficulties, or Hardfiiips (bever happen to be 
 in their way, and that they will ferioufly apply 
 themfelves to know his Pleafiire. Eternal Lite is 
 the Benefit or Bleffing here Promifcd by Chrift". 
 The Condition he appoints to be complied with, 
 or performed on our Part, in order to our being 
 entided to receive that Benefit from him, is not an 
 explicite believing a certain Number of particular 
 JDoArines, he, or his Apoftles (hould teach, but OU" 
 ly a believing him to be the Meffiah, or Chrift, 
 fb as to take him abfolutely for our Lord and 
 King. 
 * And as the Conditions are neceflary to be 
 
 * known (faith this Author) before we can per- 
 
 * form them fwhich is very true, and undeniably 
 ^ certain^) fo God has taken fufficient care to give 
 ' us a full Revelation of them ; firft in a large Hi- 
 ' fiory of the Method that Chrift made ufe of, for 
 ' the purchafing of our Redemption, and the Mi- 
 ' racles which he wrought for the Confirmation of 
 
 * his Miffion and Dodrine. p. 2;. 
 
 Anf-w. I. God has given us a large Hiftory of 
 the Method Chrift took by his Order, to purchafe 
 our Redemption, that is, to purchafe to himfelf a 
 Right to publifti the aforefaid Covenant, and to 
 perform what is there promifed, to them who rtiall 
 comply with, and perform the Conditions there 
 expreffedj But neither the Method, nor the expli- 
 cite believing of it, is made the Condition on our 
 
 F 2 parr. 
 
( 68 ) 
 partj of the Covenant. The adual obferving of 
 that Method, was Chriil's part, in order to his ob- 
 taining or purchafing to himfelf the Right before 
 soicntioned. And feeing he hath revealed that he 
 did take this Method for this End, it is an Article, 
 a fundamental Article^ to, be believed by every one 
 who hath received him for his Lord, and is there- 
 by entred into Covenant with him, or with God 
 through him, when he kr.ows that he hath revealed 
 it. 2 The Hiftory of the Miracles Chrift wrought, 
 is a mighty, proper, and powerful Inducement to 
 us, to believe that he is the Meffiah, and a very 
 good Imrodudion to our taking him for our 
 Lord. 
 
 * And Secondly^ In a more full and clear Mani- 
 ' feftation, by the coming of the Holy Ghoft, of 
 ' all thofe things, which were required of us to be 
 * believed. 
 
 Anfuf, The Holy Ghofl was (cnt, or poured forth 
 on the Apoftles, to inable them to work Miracles 
 to prove their Miflion by, or from Chrift, to pub- 
 liih the fame gracious Declaration Jefus Chrift had 
 made before, and to admit thofe who (hould re- 
 ceive Jefiis for their Lord, into his Kingdom, upon 
 their profeffing the fame, and acknowledge them 
 for his Subjeds, and to inftruA and teach them, 
 and leave to the Church, a particular, compleat Ac- 
 count, and Body of all the Laws of Chrift's King- 
 dom, which muft be ftudied, believed and obfer- 
 ved by his SubjeiSls, as long as they live. Thefe are 
 not the Conditions which are abfolutely neceffary 
 to be explicitely believed, or confented to, to make 
 Men Chriftians, bat they are the Laws of Chrift's 
 Kingdom, which thofe who receive him for their 
 Lord and King, are to endaavour to learn, and as 
 they attain to know them, explicitely believe and 
 
 ob- 
 
(69) 
 
 obferre; which is a good, and full Em ploy mem for 
 thenrjj as long as they live, afcer they are Chriftians, 
 lee their Lives be lengthened to everfo gre^t an Ex- 
 tent. But the Holy Ghoft was not given co the 
 Apoftles, to empower theiii to make a Ntw Cove 
 nant with People, by making more Articles abfb- 
 lutely neceflk y to be believed to Make Men Chri- 
 ftians, than Chrifl himlelf had mide fo ; though 
 they were to produce more Proof and Evidence of 
 what he had made ablblutely neceffary to be belie- ^ 
 vedj than wns given before ; and were to furnifh 
 Chriftians with a more compleat Body of the Laws 
 of that Kingdom they Were Members of, than wjs 
 before publi'.hed. See Second Vmdic. of the Reafonab, 
 p. 89, 50, ; 2 5", 350. It may therefore with geac 
 Truth, and I ihink, for that Reafoh, wJchou: any 
 abfurdity beaffi.med, that all tilings which ere ab- 
 folutely necefTiry to be explicitely believed to Sal- 
 vation, are fully and clearly contained in the Gof- 
 pels. See Second Vindtc. of the Reafonabknefs of Cbri- 
 Jfianity, Scc ;?. 75. 
 
 In p. 30. This Author dircourfes concerning the 
 Apoifles Creed ; and faith, That ' The Articles of 
 
 * that Creed are not to be looked on as the only 
 ' Fundamentals, unlefs we alfo firmly believe the 
 
 * natural Confequences and Conclufions fom them, 
 
 * and the frequent Explanations of them which are 
 ' let down in the other Parts of Revelation. That 
 is, thofe Explanations cf them which are fet in the 
 Epiftles diftin<5fc from what is {aid of them in the 
 Gofpels and A<5b. 
 
 Afifw, 1 will wave taking Notice of feveral things 
 which might be obferved here, from the Generality 
 and Extenfivenefs of the Expreflions here ufed : 
 And (hall only put this Author in mind, that the 
 Queftion he fhould peremptorily anfwer to, is this; 
 
 F 3 Whe- 
 
(70) 
 Whether all that is abfolutely neceffary to be expli- 
 citely believed by Chrift's and his Apoltles Appoint- 
 ment, to make Men Chriftians, be contained in 
 that Creed ? If thole who anfwer this Queftion 
 Negatively, be in the Right, let them talk what 
 thsy pleafe of the great Efteem and Venerati9n 
 they have for this Creed, and the Church of E»glam, 
 there is no help for it, but both the one and the 6- 
 ther mud unavoidably fall under a very ugly Refle- 
 , dion J for the more full clearing of which, and an- 
 l^er to what this Author hath further writ on this 
 Subjed, I (hall refer to the Second f^indic. of the Rsa- 
 fonab. p. 74, &c. 77, 163, 169, 8cc. 
 
 In p. 51, and gz. This Author offers confiderati- 
 ons in anfwer to a Paflage he quotes out of p. 297. 
 of the Reafonah, ofChriftianity, &c. I Ihall here only 
 obierve , Fir ft , That thele Confiderations are 
 grounded upon Two great Miftakes : i. A Suppo- 
 fiiion that the Force of the Argument he oppofeth, 
 depends upon the time when the Gofpels and Ads, 
 and when the Epiftles were writ i viz,, which were 
 writ firft. Whereas the Force of the Argument 
 lies in this : That thofe Truths delivered in the E- 
 pifiles cannot be abfolutely neceffary to be explicite- 
 ly believed to make Men Chriftians^ which were 
 not revealed till after the Deceale of many who 
 were Chriitians. By the Epiftles we underftand 
 what Dodrines the Apoftles were intrufted to in- 
 ftrud Chriftians in ; but fuppofing the Ads, and 
 every one of the Gofpels had been writ after all the 
 Epiitles, they acquaint us moft clearly and diftind- 
 \y what were the Dodrines which Chrift and his 
 Apoftles propofed as abfolutely neceffary to be ex- 
 plicitely believed by Unbelievers to make them 
 Chriftians. 2. A Suppoiition that the Author of 
 the ReaJQnabknefs of Chrijiimty^ &c, rejeds the Epi- 
 ' " ^ illes 
 
ftles from being part of that Rule of Faithj that 
 Chrilt hath given to Chrifrians ; for which I can- 
 not perceive the leaft Ground. 
 
 Secondly, that this Paffage this Author pretends to 
 anfwer, hath the full Evidence of Demonftration, 
 with refpedt to the Words immediately before ir. 
 Having declared that the Authors of the Epillles 
 were infpired from above^ and writ nothing buc 
 Truth, and in moft Places very weighty Truths to 
 us, d^c. He adds. But yet every Sentence of theirs 
 muH not he taken up and looked on as a Fundamental 
 Article neceffary to Salvaticnj without an explicite Belief 
 thereof, no Body could be a Member of Chrifi's Church 
 here J nor he admitted into his Eternal Kingdom hereof- 
 ter. Where we fee what he means by Fundamen- 
 tal Articles, in the very next Sentence, which is the 
 PalTags refleded on by this Author, and delivered 
 in thele Words j If all^ or moH of the Truths declared 
 in the Epijlles ivere to be received and believed as Funda- 
 mental Articles J "what then became of thofe Chrtflians 
 •who -were fallen a/leep (as St- Paul witnejjes in his FtrH 
 to the Corinthians, many were) before thefe things in the 
 Epi^les iverejrevealed to them ? 
 
 To this Paflage in the Reafo7iablenefs of Chrijlianity, 
 8cc. p> 294. The Epiftles being aU written to thofe who 
 were Believers and Cbrifiians^ the Occajion and End of 
 writing them, could not he to tnfirutl them ip that which 
 was neccjjary to make them Chrifians. This Author 
 replies in thele Words : 
 
 ' This feems rather to ftrengthen than leflen the 
 
 * Force of the Argument, That the Apoftles had 
 
 * taught thoie fame Do(ftrines for Fundamentals be- 
 ' fore, which they afterwards communicated as fa- 
 
 * cred Depofitums of their Faith, p. ;;. 
 
 F 4 • Anfw,. 
 
( 7^ ) 
 JnfTi/. Suppofing tbey bad taught the very fame 
 Dodrines before, to the Chriftians or Churches 
 they afteiv/ards writ to, and To they were Funda- 
 mentals to thole Chriftians who had been inftrud;ed 
 in them ; yet there is no force in the Argument 
 that thele Dc<5lrines are ablolurely necelTary to be 
 explicitely believed to make Men ChriOians; or 
 were (b to them, till ic be proved, that t-hey had pro- 
 pounded thefe Doctrines co be expiiciteiy believed 
 to make them Chriftians. 
 
 In anfwer to another PalTage quoted out of the 
 fanie Page of tbe Reafonablemfs of Chrtfiiantty, &c. 
 this Author propounds this Queftion ; ' How can 
 ' it be proved, that all "^thofe theEpiiiles weiewrit- 
 '' ten to, underflood all the Fundamentals of Re- 
 ' ligion? 
 
 Anfw. The Quefuon is, whether they were 
 Chriliians, though they did not underftand all tho(e 
 Dodlrines you call Fundamentals here : If they 
 were Chrifiians, then tho(eyou call Fundamentals, 
 were not abfolutely neceffary to be explicitely be- 
 lieved to make them Chriflij^n?. \i any fiiall lay, 
 they were not Chriiiians, to whom the Apoftles 
 writ thrif Epiflles, they may, if they pleafe, cx- 
 cufe my want of CompUifance, in declaring I (hall 
 chufe to believe the Apoftles rather than them. 
 
 Again, faith this Author, ' May there not be 
 ' fuppofed to be Ibme lefs knowing amongft them? 
 
 in anlwer to which, I ask. Were thofe lefs know- 
 ing Perfons, Chriltians? if not, how came they to 
 be concerned in the Epi/ile ? or how came they to 
 be Members of the Church to which the Epiftle 
 was writ ? The latter part of the Queftion, * And 
 
 * lome who would not throughly believe leveral 
 
 * Dcdrines of Chrilb'anity, without fuch an Au- 
 
 * tho- 
 
( 7} ) 
 ' thority the Apofileshad, &c. /eems not to bear a 
 propicious Afpe^t to what this Author formerly ad- 
 vanced, as the way to ^i^wguifh Fundamental "fruiBs 
 f-om other Farts of Divine Revelation. What this Au- 
 thor further faith on chis Subjedt, is no more than 
 what I think is fufficiencly anfwered in my Animad- 
 veriions, p. 16^ 27. But I do not perceive how ic 
 will follow from what this Author hath faid, that 
 it cannot be better difcerned by confulting the Gof- 
 pels and A<5ts, what are the Articles Chrifl and 
 his Apoftles propounded as ablblutely neccffary to 
 be explicitsly believed to make Men ChriftianSj, 
 than the Epiitles: And if that do not follow from 
 his Difcourfe, nothing follows from it, that is to the 
 purpofe again ft the Reafonabknefs of Chrifiianity, &C. 
 Nor will it follow ' The Apoft les were unfaithful 
 ' to their Truff, or that they clog Mens Faith with 
 
 * unneceflary Points of Belief, becaufe they have 
 ' taught feveral Dodrines which are not abfolutely 
 ' neceflary to be explicitely believed to make Men 
 
 * Chriftians, but which Chriftians muft labour to 
 
 * underftand, and which will then be neceffaiy to 
 ^ be explicitely believed by them. The Apoftles 
 Fidelity to their Truft, is not to be judged of by 
 Mens prejudicated Fancies, and therefore Perfons 
 had need take heed of determining that ' The A- 
 
 * poftles ought certainly to be blamed for Writing 
 ' iuch Dodrines in their Epiftles, as are not abfo- 
 ^ lutely necefTary to be explicitely believed to make 
 ' Men Ghriftians. It is no Argument of an unwa- 
 ry Chriftian, but the Duty of a good Chrilfian, to 
 embrace the Doctrines delivered in the Epifiles^ when he 
 knows themj and that they are delivered there, as 
 firmly as any other Do^rines whatfoever, 
 
 ' But 
 
( 74 ) 
 * But (faith this Author j if it can be proved thae 
 ' the great and principal End of the Writing of 
 
 * their EpifHes, was to deliver feveral Dodrines 
 ' that fhould be necelTaiily believed to Salvation by 
 
 * all who were converted to the Faith, we are ob- 
 
 * lieged to believe them as fuch, p. 35. 
 
 Anfiv. Very true : But then i . If what you fiig- 
 ge(t here, was the great and principal End of wri- 
 ting their Epiftles, the Caufe is clearly given up to 
 the Author of the Reafonabknefs of Chrifiianity^ &c. 
 For then the great and principal End of the writing 
 of their Epiitles, was not to deliver feveral Do- 
 dirines ablblutely neceffary to be explicitely believed 
 tcy make Men Chriftians, or Converts to the Faith. 
 3. It will not be ealy to prove that all that are Chri- 
 ftians, muff neceflarily explicitely believe every Do- 
 <3:rine delivered in the Epiftles, though the Dodrines 
 are necefTarily to be believed by all Chriftians who 
 do underftand them. This Author then proceeds to 
 prove, what he hath declared, to be the great and 
 principal End of writing the Epiftles, was really 
 ib, by producing many Places out of ,them : All 
 which i may pafs over without any Obfervation, 
 becaufe it is not pretended that they prove any thing 
 more, than that that thofe who are Chriftiaiis muft 
 neceflarily believe them. But becaufe this Author 
 Ibmetimes infers. That the explicite Belief of them is 
 abfolutely necejjary to Salvation 'y Iwill briefly intimate 
 what I conceive to be the proper import of thofe 
 Places of Scripture he" quotes: i Cor. 14. ^7. (peaks 
 not barely of Chriflians, but Perfons who preten- 
 ded (at leaft) to be infpired. But take it of Chri- 
 (Hans, all who did know what he had writ, or that 
 he had writ things , were to believe explicitely or 
 smplicitely, that the things he writ were the Com- 
 mandments of God, becaufe they knew he hid gi- 
 ven 
 
C 7? ) 
 ven full Proof of his Apoftlefhip ; and in the fame 
 manner are Ghriftians now to acknowledge the 
 fame, i Cor. ij. i. &c. Is a very plain Account 
 how he had preached to them, that Jefus was the 
 Meffiah, and what forts of Proofs he had propoun- 
 ded for their Conviction, and that they had belie- 
 ved this Gofpel, as alfo that this was the Faith by 
 which they were faved and made Chrifiians, with- 
 out the believing of which, whatever elfe they be- 
 lieved would not avail them to Salvation. Vtl Se- 
 cond Vindic. of the Reafonahlenefs of Cbri^tanity, &c. 
 p. 269. The Apoflle in his Third Chapter of this 
 Epiftle had declared, that Jefus Chrift is the Foun- 
 dation, without borrowing other Articles to under- 
 prop it, (fome proof of which he here minds them 
 of) and that all the other Articles of the Chriflian 
 Religion , are Superltruc^ures ereded on that 
 Foundation. Rom. 10. 9. hath been formerly con- 
 fidered. Vid. Second Vindtc. of the Reafonak &c. p, 
 303, Sec. I Jim. ;. 16. Is a Motive to Ttmothy to 
 take care to behave himfelf in the Church of God, 
 as he ought, i Th. 4. i. Is a Direction to Ghriftians 
 to take heed of entertaining the DoArines which 
 falfe Teachers would obtrude on them ; certifying 
 they might juflly conclude thofe to be falfe Teach- 
 ers, who did deny Jefus Chrift to be real Man. 
 The 14th and lyth Verfes are exprefs, that belie- 
 ving Jefus to be the Son of God, or the Mefliah, 
 doth make a Man a Chrifiian. Whether believing 
 him to be the Son of God, be a difiind A<5fc here 
 from the believing him to be the Mefliah, may be 
 confidered when we come to the place where it is 
 to be fhewed. 2 Cor. 1. 15. Doth not, confidered 
 ftridly, declare any thing more than that they did 
 know and own the Truth of what he had writ in 
 ^ ihsi former Verfe concerning his Cohverfation. 
 r 2 Thef 
 
C70 
 iThef. 2. i^-. ihews that Believers <5r Chriftians 
 muft take care to hold fafl whatever Dodrines they 
 have been inftrucSed in , and fully affured arc 
 Chrift's Dodrines. Notoncof thefe Places of Scrip- 
 ture confidercd by it felf, nor all of them confider- 
 ed together, do prove that the Apoftles enjoyned 
 the explicite Bdief of all that they writ in their 
 Epijiles as abfolately necelTary to Saltraiion. Thefe 
 and innumerable other Places of Scripture, are of 
 great ufe to diofe who are of the lame Judgment 
 with the Author of the Reafonabknefs of Cbriflianity, 
 &c. to /hew them that are Chriliians, that they 
 ought to fet a very great value on the Writings of 
 the Apoftles, that they ought to be very diligent 
 in endeavouring to acquire as diftindt a Knowledge 
 as they can, of che Doctrines they have delivered in 
 their Epiities, that they ought to take great care to 
 retain and hold faft what Dodrines they have 
 learned from their Writings, and that they muft not 
 entertain any Doctrines for Articles of their Faith, 
 but what Chrift and his Apoftles have taught. 
 
 ' And (faith this Author) it would be abfurd to 
 ' imagin that the Apoltles fliould fill their Writings 
 * with any of the Doctrines of Chriftianity, if they 
 ' did noc impofe aneccffity upon Men of believing 
 » the:n, ;. 37. 
 
 Aufw. True, if Chrillians when they know they 
 have writ them, fliouid be at liberty not to believe 
 them. Eu: would it be abfurd to imagine they 
 fhould fill their Epiftles to Believers or Chriftians, 
 wii:h Dodrines of Chriftianity, if they did not im- 
 pofe an abfblate necefficy on Unbelievers to believe 
 them all expiicitely to make them Chriftians? Is 
 every particular Dodrine that is to be be believed, 
 to be expiicitely known and believed by Unbelievers 
 to make them Chriftians ? fo that when cnce they 
 
 ar3 
 
( 71 ) 
 are Chriftians, there is nothing more for them to 
 endeavour to know and believe ? 
 
 ' And here (adds this Author) it is not material 
 
 * whether the Epiflles were written to thofe who 
 
 * were already Chriftians, and whether defigocd 
 ' to teach them any DoArines, to inftru£t theui in 
 
 * what was necelTary to make them Believers ; but 
 *■ it is fufficient that they could not continue true 
 ' Chriftians or Believers, without acknowledging 
 
 * the Doctrines there delivered for fundamental Ar- 
 
 * tides of Faith, and neceffary to be believed by alt 
 ' Chriftians. 
 
 An[iv. I am not certain that I comprehend what 
 this Author means by Matmd here, and in (bme 
 other Places. But 1 think the Apoftles would have 
 thought it very impertinent for them to attempt, 
 and utterly impoffibleto teach thofe who were Chri- 
 ftians, any Dodrines they were ignorant of, which 
 were ablblutely neceffary to be explicitrfiy believed 
 to make them Chriflians, or Believers. And accor- 
 ding to the Senfe which I put on the Word Isiau- 
 rial^ on iuch occafions as tfe'i^- 4. conceive it very 
 material, whether the Perlbns the £pil,lcs were 
 writ to, were Chriftians, before they did explicitly 
 know and believe the Dodrines the Epiftlcs were 
 defigned to inftru<5l them in, for if they were, th© 
 explicite Belief of thofe Dodirines, could not be ab- 
 folutely neceflary to make cbem Chriftijm. How 
 Chriftians were under a necefllty of believing chem, 
 when they underftood them, hath been formerly 
 (hewed. But they might continue good Chriftians 
 without acknowledging they were neceffary to be 
 believed by all Chriftianf. It was (ufficient to ac- 
 knowledge that all Chriftians ought to endeavour 
 to know them, and that they are neceffary to be be- 
 
 lisved 
 
C 78 ) 
 
 licvecl by all Chriftians, when they iinderftand 
 them to be Etodrincs taught by the Apoftles. 
 
 To what this Author hath further writ in this 
 Page, I will only fay thefe Two things ; i. That 
 thole to whom the Apoftles writ their Epiftles, did 
 profels to believe all that was abfolutely neceffary 
 to be believed to make Men Chriftians, otherwife 
 they would not have writ to them under the Name 
 of Chriftians. 2. That there are very few, if any 
 Chriftians, who have a perfect Knowledge of all 
 the Articles of Faith delivered in the New Tefta- 
 ment, and yet other People may be very good 
 Chriftians, and take the Epiftles for a part of the 
 Rule of their, and other Chriftians Faith. 
 
 In />. 38. This Author appears not willing to ad- 
 mit * That the Epiftles to the Corinthians, Galatians, 
 ' Tbejjalonians and VhiUfftans, were writ upon par- 
 ' ticular Occasions, becaufe they were defigned for 
 ' whole Provinces, and obliged a great Number e- 
 ' qually with thofe Churches they were fent to. 
 
 Anjw. That which made the Epiftles oblige Chri 
 ftians who were out of the Provinces, made them 
 oblige all the Chriftians in the Provinces; there- 
 fore paffing over Metropolitical Controverfies, I 
 will take Notice of thefe few things : i. AH the 
 Epiftles were defigned for the uie of the whole 
 Church of God, in that and all fucceeding Agesj 
 yet they might be writ upon particular Occafions, 
 and for that Realon be directed immediately to 
 thofe particular Churches or Perfbns, who were 
 more efpecially concerned in thofe parts of them, 
 which have a relped to the particular Occafions of 
 their being written. 2. It will be very hard to give 
 a rational and fatisfadory Account of many Paffa- 
 ges in the Epiftles to the Qorinthians^ &c. if there 
 
 was^ 
 
(79) 
 was no particular occafion of wrirlng them to 
 thofe Churches. Some may be apt to (afptd: 
 they have Ground to think the Apoftles were 
 not well advifed ( which is a Jealoufy , thofe 
 who believe they were infpired, fhould not be 
 forward to iuggcft ) in writing feveral things 
 which are to be found in thefe Epiftles, if there 
 was no particular Occafion of writing them to 
 thofe Churches to which they were lent, and par- 
 ticularly addrefled. 5. That which makes the Epi- 
 ftles oblige all Chriftians, is this, that they are Di- 
 vine Revelations ; and therefore all who acknow- 
 ledge they were writ by infpired Perfons^ and are 
 of Divine Authority, muft be obliged by them : 
 for their being writ on particular Occafions does noc 
 leflen or impair their Authority. 4. What is pre- 
 cifely limited in thefe Epiflles to the particular oc- 
 cafions on which they were writ, did not then ob- 
 lige any directly and immediately, whofe Circum- 
 ftances were not the lame, and they will oblige all 
 whofe Occafions are the fame, to the End of the 
 World. 
 
 This Author further takes notice, That * The- 
 ' Firft Epiflle of St. Jobn^ is dire<aed to all Chrifti- 
 
 * ans, &c. p. 59. 
 
 ATsfiif. From that, I think we may rationally ar- 
 gue, that it can direftly concern none but thole 
 who are Chriftians ; and that its main defign could 
 not be to inftrufl them in the Dodrines abfolutely 
 neceflary to be believed by them, in order to their 
 becoming Chriftians. 
 
 This Author in j>. 44. doth acknowledge. That 
 ' The general Defign of the Epiftles was to fettle 
 
 * and ftrengthen Men in the Faith, &c. 
 
 And 
 
( So) 
 
 And if lb, muft tbcy not be in the Faith, that is, 
 Chriftians, before they could be fetled and ftrength- 
 enedj &c. in the Faith ? And is not the Defign of 
 them the fame (till ? 'viz.. not to teach Articles ab- 
 folutely necelTary to be explicitely believed to make 
 Men Chriftians, but to fettle and (trengthen thofe 
 who are Chriiiians, in the Faith. 
 
 ' But (riirh this Author) it cannot be denied 
 
 * that the EpiPde to the Hebrews doth contain Ibme 
 ' DoiStrines abfolutely necelTary to be believed to 
 
 * Salvation by all ChrilHans, if this may be grant- 
 ' ed, that the fame Faith was required after Con- 
 ' vernon, both from Jew and Gentile, p. 39. 
 
 Anfit^. This is wholly foreign to the prefent Pur- 
 pofe : For the Enquiry is not about what is, or may 
 be necelTary for Chriltians, or Perfons afcer they 
 are converted, to believe ?• But what Do(Sfcrines are 
 ablblutely necelTary to be explicitely believed to 
 make Men Chriftians ? Yet becaufe this Author 
 frequently fpeaks of fome Dodrines being abfolutdy 
 necejjary to be believed to Salvation, by all Chriffi- 
 ans, Ibme of which Dodrines are not to be found 
 any where but in the Epiftles'; I will propofe Two 
 or Three ffeorf Queftions to be confidered by the 
 Reader : i. Muif every Ghriftian explicitely believe 
 thefe Doftrines ? 2. Can any Chriftian explicitely 
 believe a Doctrine he knows nothing of ? 3. If he 
 muft know the Dodrines propnfed to be believed, 
 and muft know that Jefus Chrift hath taught them, 
 before he can be obliged to believe them ; how can 
 any Dodrine be ablblutely necelTary to be believed 
 by Chrif^ians to Salvation, when there are Conditi- 
 ons necelTary to his being obliged to believe them ? 
 There are Dodrines abfolutely necelTary to be be- 
 lieved to make Men Chriftians, becaufe without 
 
 be- 
 
(8i ) 
 
 believing them they cannot be Chriftians. Biiit there 
 cannot be any other Do<^rines abfoluiely neceflary 
 to be belieV^ed by one who is a Chriftian ; for by 
 being a Chriftian, he is obliged not to believe any 
 Dodfine, but upon certain Conditions. He muft 
 explicicely know the Dodiine, before he believes itj 
 and he muft know that it is a Dod:rine which Jefus, 
 whom he hath taken for his Lord harh taught/ A 
 Chriftian is not to believe Dodrines at all adventure, 
 nor upon evety ones Word, who has a mind to 
 thruft Do(5trin2s upon ii;m. His believing a Do- 
 ctrine muft be an incelligejitj rational Ad of Sub- 
 miflion and Obedience to his Lord. All the Do- 
 <5lrines any Chriflians ( whether before Jews of 
 Gentiles) can be obliged to believe, are laid down 
 in the New Teftament. They are not limited to 
 one particular pare of thole Sacred Writings. And 
 all Chriftians muft endeavour to know as many of 
 them as they can, and then believe them. But 
 there is not a precife Number of Do<5lrines fet down 
 in any one Part of Scripcure, ajabfolutely necelTary 
 to be believed by any Chriftian, or beyond which 
 a Chriftian is not to endeavour to extend his 
 Belief. 
 
 In p. 47. This Author by way of Reply to what 
 he hath quoted out of the Firji Vindication- of the 
 Keafonabknefs of Chrifiianitj, &C. f>. 14. where that 
 Aufhor declares the Reafon why he did noc go 
 through the Epiftles to coUe<a the Fundamental Ar- 
 ticles of Faich, &c. propounds certain Queftions, 
 whereof the principal is this : ' But how are thels 
 * Fundamental Points to be found in the>jGofpels 
 ' and A(5ts, better than in the Epiftles ? 
 
 A»fw. Though I think a very folid^ ftrong, rati- 
 onal and invincible Anfwer is given to this and tlw 
 
 G other 
 
C8i) 
 
 Other Queftions, in thofe very Lines this Author 
 hath quoted out of the Firji Vindic, from which he 
 hath taken occafion to propofe thele Queftions ; 
 yet becaufe the fame Author hath expreifed himlelf 
 more largely concerning this Matter, in his Second 
 Vindication of the Reafonahlenefs of Chrifitanity, &c. I 
 fhall refer the Reader to />. 141 , 142. of that Book, 
 whe're 1 think he may find as compleat Satisfadion 
 to thefe Queries, as can realbnably bedefired. But 
 finoe this Author doth here, as well as in feveral o- 
 ther places, fpeak of Truths revealed, or delivered, 
 or taught in the New Teftament, ' Which he faith, 
 ' have no refpeA to Man's Salvation, and which 
 * are things indifferent ; I fliall take leave to ask a 
 few Queftions. For what End were thofe Truths 
 taught in the New Teftament, which have no re- 
 iped to Man's Salvation ? Which be thofe Truths 
 Chrift hath taught, which have no reiped: to thole 
 Peoples Salvation, who do believe them purely be- 
 caufe they know he hath taught them ? hit indif- 
 ferent whether Chriftians believe, or do not believe 
 any thing which they know Jefiw Chrift hath 
 taught ? Are they to govern themfelves in their Sub- 
 miffion to, and believing of what Chrift hath 
 taught, by the Apprehenfions they, or other Men 
 (hall be pleafed to cherifh, of the Refpedor no Re- 
 fpeft his Dodrincs have to Man's Salvation ? Will 
 not ftich a Notion, if it take place, make ihi^wd 
 Work when dexteroufly managed, both with the 
 Truths which are taught, and the Rules of PraAice 
 which are laid down in the New Teftament ? As 
 for thofe Truths which have a nearer, or more re- 
 mote Connexion with what is abfblutely neceffary 
 to be explicirely believed to make Men Chriftians, 
 th€ Reader may advance himfelf much, both in 
 
 Know- 
 
( 8? ) 
 
 Knowledge and Piety, by an attentive ferious peru- 
 fing what the Author of the Reafonabknefs of Cbrifii^ 
 anity^ Scc. hath writ concerning th« fame, in his 
 Second Vindic. of the Keafonab. &c. f, 74, 7f. 
 
 * The Terms of Salvation (faith this Author) are 
 \ as plainly and clearly fet down in the EpiflleSj as 
 '^ in the Gofpels, />. 47. 
 
 Jnfw, Thofe Do<5lrines which are abfolutely ne- 
 cefTary to be believed to Salvation, may be as plain- 
 ly and clearly fet down in the Epiftles, as in the 
 Gofpels, and yet not be as clearly diftinguifhed in 
 the former, as in the latter, from other DodrineSj 
 which are not abfolutely necefTary to be explicitely 
 believed to Salvation. 
 
 This Author hath (I think) in his f oth Page, 
 overturned all that he hath writ againft the Rea^ff 
 ablenefi of Chrifiianity, &c. in this Firfl part of his 
 Book ; efpecially if he will allow that the Perfonshe 
 fpeaks of, before he comes to the middle of chat 
 Page, were Chriflians, before they explicitely be- 
 lieved every particular Truth they were taught, du- 
 ring their Lives. For if they were, the Queftion 
 will not be, how many Articles they did believe in 
 all ? But what thofe Articles were, the Belief of 
 which, made them Chriftians? If they were not 
 Chrifiians, till they did explicitely believe the very 
 lafl Articles which were taught them during theii: 
 Lives, their Belief of thole Articles, joyn'd to thofo 
 they had learned before ( whatever they were ) 
 made them Chriftians : And if they did not every 
 one happen to learn and believe the very fame Ar- 
 ticle in the lafl place, or one that made each Man's 
 Faith exa^ly the fame, the explicite Belief of one 
 Article made one Man a Chrinian, and the expli- 
 cite Belief of another Article made another Man a 
 
 G a Ghri. 
 
. ( 84 ) 
 
 Chrilriiti, which is iitterif ilmpoflible. For no Man 
 eanbe a Chriftian, Without that Which is abibJutely 
 necelTiry to reika aiMan a Chriftian. 
 
 Could I meet with a Paffage in the Rcafonahknejs 
 df ChrijliarAty, &c. which, I could juftly think to 
 have a Teadeacy^xo impair the Divine Authority 
 of the Epifiles, or leiTen Peoples EOeem Jor them, 
 I hope I ihoulvi as heartily diflike it, and be as ready 
 to caution People, again fl it,-as another Periop, 
 n6twithftandjhg I make fb g!*eat acco.unt of the 
 Book it felf. And though I have writ fo many 
 Pages, in order to the cleaj ing, iboie Mi (lakes (as I 
 conceive) in this Fir(t part part of the Animadverfi- 
 ons on the Keafonablenejs of Chrifiianityj &c. yet I 
 iuHy concur with the worthy Author of them, in 
 what I apprehend was- his principal Defign. There 
 are ipany very excellent and ufeful things in this 
 part of his Book: . He writes very well, and like a 
 very good Man ; and had not his raif^pprehending 
 the Reafonahknefs of Cbriftianityj &c. led him 0UG'«f 
 his way, and /omewhat bewildred him, his E>if- 
 cov«^ ^according to ' my Judgment) would have 
 been without a BlemiHi; unlels his ufing Ibmetimes, 
 a greater Latitude in his Expreffions, than is rigidly 
 juftifiable, may be reckoned one, notwithftanding 
 it is but a keeping Pace with the moft Applauded 
 and Learned Writers. 
 
 Our enjoying the Epiftles as well as the Gofpels, 
 and Ads, is a Mercy for which we can never be 
 (u-fficiently thankful. May we all fet a juft Value 
 on them, read them attentively, fiudy them dili- 
 gently, and make that Improvement we ought, of 
 our being favoured with fo ineftimable a Blefling ,; 
 then we fhall reap fingular Benefit from them, and 
 one End aimed at in the Reajonabknefi of Chrifiianipj^ 
 &c. will bs greatly advanced. 
 
 Ohfervatmi 
 
(SO 
 
 Obfervations on the Reafon of 
 ChrifFs coming into the JVorld. 
 
 TH E Title this Author hath given to the Se- 
 cond Part of his Animadverfions is, Q/ the 
 Reafon of Chrifl's coming into the World. 1 will pai^ 
 over this Part very briefly, becaufe this Author 
 feems to find fault with fome PalTages in the Reafon' 
 ablenejs of Chriffianityy &c. on purpofe to take Oc- 
 cafion to dilcourie of Chrift's Sadsfadiion ; whereas 
 the Auihorof the Reafon abUnefs^ ^c. haih laid down 
 very good Reafons (I think) why he did not think 
 it poper, for him to infill on that point, in his 
 Book. 
 
 I do not find that the Author bi the Reafonahlenefsj 
 &c. hath declared it was his Defign to difcourfe 
 of the Reafon of Chrift's coming into the World, 
 in the Pages this Author hath chofen toAnimadvert 
 on, in this p.irt of his Book. The true Realbn of 
 Chrift's coming into the World (I think) was the 
 Father's Appointment. A very true and excellent 
 Account is given in the Reafdnahknefi, &c. of the 
 great End for which Chrift came into the World, 
 though not in the Pages to which this Author doth 
 here confine himfelf In thcfe Pages, the Author 
 of the Reafonahlenep^ Scc. tiikes notice of the Occa- 
 fion of Chrift's coming into the World, and of 
 what Mm are rejlored to by Jefm Chrifi. Thefe Be- 
 nefits may perhaps be properly enough called colla- 
 teral, or concomitant Ends of his coming into the 
 World, beeaufe particularly intended j but they 
 
 G ; com- 
 
( 86) 
 
 comprehend not the whole End of his coming into 
 the World. It is agreed on both fides, that Blifi 
 and Immortality were loji by Adam'j Fall : Immortali- 
 ty, the Author of the Reafonabknefs, &c. faith, is 
 reitored by Chrift to all Men, but Eternal Blifs is 
 not reflored by Chrift ablblutely to any Man. (I 
 meddle not with the Cafe of thofe who dy in their 
 Infancy) and what is abfolutely necefTary. in order 
 to any Man*s obtaining by Chrift, a claim of Right 
 to Eternal Blifs, is the Subject of a great part of the 
 Reafonablenejs of Cbrifiianityy &c. 
 
 The Obedience, and Sufferings of Chrift, can- 
 not, I conceive, be properly called the R^afon of 
 his coming into the World, nor the End thereof, 
 any otherwife than a Means is called a Subordinate 
 End* But though I faid Chrift's reftoring Immor- 
 tality to Man^ was agreed on both fides, yet this 
 Author feems to be difTatisfied with the Account 
 the Author of the ReafonabUnefs, &c. hath given of 
 it, and if I apprehend him aright, becaufe he doth 
 not include Blifs, in his Notion of Immortality, 
 
 Now this I think is the Truth of the Cale^ Im- 
 mortality, as loft by Adam's Tranfgreffion, is refto- 
 red to all Men by Chrift, in that he will raife them 
 all from Death. And he hath purchafed Eternal 
 Blils for them, on the Terms the Author of the Reef 
 fonabknefs, &c. hath given a large and full Account 
 of from the Teftimony of Chrift and his Apoftles. 
 That is, that all who heartily take Jefiis for their 
 Lord, and Faithfully obey and follow him, fhall 
 at the Refurredion be everlaftingly bleffed. The 
 great and famous Athanafiusy who was never reputed 
 an Enemy (that I know of) to Chrift's SatisfaAir 
 on, hath more than once declared it was his Judg- 
 ment, that Cluift came into the World to piirchafe 
 
(87) 
 Immortality for Mankind. I have not hi^ Works 
 by me, and therefore can neither relate his Words, 
 nor refer particularly to the Places, but I think I 
 may depend upon it, that my Memory doth not 
 fiil me, as to his Notion. But without laying any 
 ftrefs upon his Authority, 1 ask what can be pre- 
 tended for Mens being Immortal, any other way 
 than by Chrift, by thofe who acknowledge that Sin 
 hath brought Death upon all Men ? If the Refur- 
 ret^ion be the Fruit of Chrift's Undertaking, and 
 Performance, how could it have been poflible for 
 guilty Man to fuffer, after he was dead, if Chrill 
 had not come ? The Diicourfe is concerning Men^ 
 not concerning fcparate Spirits. 
 
 This Author, p. jy. makes the Realbns of Chrift's 
 coming into the world, and the End of his coming 
 to be the lame, and faith, ' It was to make Satisfa- 
 ' ftion for the Sins of the whole World, and to 
 ' reftore Mankind to the Favour of God by fuffer- 
 ' ing in our ftead, and being made Sin for us. 
 
 Satisfai^ion it (elfj was not the ultimate End of 
 his coming into the World. His Sufferings and 
 Death were parts ol the way and means, by which 
 he was to obtain what was the End of his coming 
 into the World. His Death, and his Relurredion 
 too, had a Relation to a further End, 'viz,^ his be- 
 ing Lord both of the Dead and Living, Rom, 14. 9. 
 In his Sufferings and dying, he had an Eye and Re- 
 gard to what was the great End of his Undertaking 
 Heh. 12. 2. that his Death had a Relation to this, 
 is moft evident from Phil. 2. 7, to the 12th. He 
 hath purchafed Immortality for Mankind abfolutc- 
 ly. But he hath not purchafed Pardon and Blifs for 
 Men abfolutely, but upon certain Conditions, 'viz, 
 their believing in the True God, and in him as lent 
 
 G 4 by 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 by him; fo as tb taks him unfeignedly for their 
 Lord and King. So that the true End of Chrift's 
 coming into the World, was to oBtain to himfelf a 
 Kingdom, or to be a King, and to have a Right to 
 (jilpence and confer Pardon and Eternal Bleffednefs 
 on thofe who Ihould become his ftncere Subje<^s ; 
 which I think is as^ plain as can be^ if we will take 
 his own Word for a Proof of ir, Pilate therefore 
 [aid Unto hintf ar.f^tBau a King then? Jefus anfivered, 
 thou jflyefi that 1 afii a King ; to this' End "was 1 horn, 
 and for this Caufe came I into the World, that I Jhould 
 hear fiitnejs unto the Truths every one that is of the 
 Truth heareth mj Voice, Th. i8. \J. 
 
 Inf. 6o. This Author hath thefe Words concern- 
 ing Chrift's fatisfying for our Sins : ' We do not 
 ' mean that Chrift fofFered the fame Punifhment, 
 ' which we jliould have done/ but only that the 
 ^ Dignity of his Peifon made his Sufferings cquiva- 
 
 * lent to the Eternal Punifhment of a whole World 
 
 * of Sinners. I 
 
 'Anfw. Chrift's Satisfadion is a very great and 
 weighty Point : But either I, or many who have 
 writ concerning it, are under feme Miltakes, with 
 Reference to ic. I conceive Chrift did not fatisfy 
 the Law for Sinners^ which they had broken : For 
 had he fufF'.red.the fime Punifhmept which they 
 (bould have fuffsred, that would not have fatisfied 
 itj becaufe it required Perfonal Pmifliment alone, and 
 did not run, that the Offender or another ftiould 
 fuffer it. And Equivalent Sujferings could not fatisfy 
 if, becaufe there w^s no fuch Provifo in the Law. 
 Chrif^s Satisfadtiottj I conceive, did not confift in 
 his Sufferings bdng equivalent to the Eternal Punifh- 
 ment of a whole World of Sinners, by reafbn of 
 jhe Dignity (f his Perfon : For if the Pignity of his 
 
 Per- 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 Peifon made his Sufferings equivalent to the Eter- 
 nal Puniihment of a whole World of Sinners, the 
 Degrees of his Sufferings could not fignify any thing 
 to his mukin^ Sat isfaiiion ; the Dignity of hisPer- 
 fon was the fame, whether his Sufferings were 
 greater or kis, and coiild confer the fame Vertue to 
 one, as to many Degrees. The laying the whole 
 Strefs of Chrift's Satisfaction on the Dignity of his 
 Perfpn, I fuppofe was that, from whence feme took 
 occaiion to vent, that ungrounded dangerous Noti- 
 on Cwhich ftill infe<9:s too many) That one Drop of 
 Cbrt^'s Blood -was fufficient to fave tnany Worlds of 
 Sinners : Which makes the greateft parts of Chrift's 
 Sufferings utterly ufeleis, as to Satisfadion ; and 
 in the natural and jult Confequences of it, throv^s 
 moft horrid Afperfions both on God, and Chriff. 
 
 1 conceive the Satisfaction of Chrift., confifted in 
 his perfed fulfilling the Law that pertained to him as 
 Mediator here upon Earth, antecedently to his Re- 
 furreiftion. All the Inftances and Degrees of which 
 Obedience and Sufferings were appointed by his 
 Father, with infinite Wifdom, and for moft good 
 and wife Reafons. That his Obedience and Suffer- 
 ings, had the Virtue and Efficacy of making Satif- 
 faCtion for Sinners, provided they fhould comply 
 with the Terms he fhould propofe to them, was 
 from the Father's appointing and accepting them 
 for that Purpofe ; as well as for fev^ral other Purpo- 
 f^ they had by the fame Appointment a Relation 
 to, both with refped to Chrift himfelf, and thofe 
 who fhould believe in him ; not to fay any thing of 
 the refped they had to all Mankind, and the Bener 
 <;ts that redound therefrom to all Men. 
 
 Qhjervntiont 
 
(90) 
 
 Obfervations on the Third Tart. 
 
 THE Title given to this Part is. What we are to 
 helieve concerning ChrtFf, This Author (aith^ 
 p. 65-. That * The Author of /-6e Reafonabhnejs^ &c. 
 
 * and Mr. Hobi agree io exactly concernirig the 
 
 * neceffity of believing this one Article only, (yiz.. 
 
 * that Jefus is the Chrift) and in the Method they 
 
 * have taken for the Proof of it, by citing feveral 
 
 * Texts from the Preaching of our Saviour, and iiis 
 « Apoftles in the Ads, and no further, that they 
 
 * only differ fo much as a Copy does from an Ori- 
 
 * ginal. Yet this Author is (b ingenuous , he grants 
 
 * This can be no good Realbn for rejefting what 
 
 * the Author of the Reafonabknejs of Chrifiianity, &c. 
 
 * hath afferted, if his Dodrine be otherwile found 
 
 * agreeable to the whole Tenour of Scripture. 
 
 Anfii/. I defire no more but that thefe Words may 
 be added, fo far as tt difcourfes conc3rmng what the Au- 
 thor of the Rea(bnableneis, c^c. was enquiring after, 
 viz. what Articki are abfolutely neceffary to he explicite- 
 ly belie'ved by one who acknowledges the true Godj to 
 make him a Chrifiian. A few Days ago, I acciden- 
 tally met with a Book, entituled, Hobss Tripos ; and 
 perceiving that one part of it was entituled De Cor- 
 pore Politico, I was fo curious as to read that Part, 
 to fee whether he did there treat of Religion, and 
 what he did lay concerning it. In the Sixth Chap- 
 ter of the Second Part of it, I found him difcour- 
 fing very agreeably to what this Author quotes out 
 of the Eighteenth Chapter of his Book De Cive, 
 Mr, Hobs doth proceed, in this BooJtt^eak of, fur- 
 ther 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 ther than the ASfs, citing feveral Texts out of the 
 Epifiles. And if I reach his Senfe and Defign, Mr. 
 Hoh\ Notion is vaftly different from that laid down 
 in the Keafonabkmfs of Chriftianitjiy &c. Mr. Hohs*s 
 Notion (eems to be this ; That one 7vho is a Cbriftian 
 cannot be necejjarily obliged to believe any more Articles 
 than this J that Jefm is the Mejjiah. That one who is 
 a Chriftian, is neceflarily .obliged to believe as ma- 
 ny Articles, as he can attain to know are taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures, is the Notion of the Author 
 of the Reafonablenefs of Chrifiianity, &c. 
 
 I think Mr. Hobs*s Difcourfe is neither confiftent 
 with it lelf, nor with that, he intended it ihould 
 fupport. His Expreflions are many times Co gene- 
 ral, they comprehend enough to overthrow all he 
 aims at. He^ems willing that feveral Dii^inA Ar- 
 ticles fhould be ablblutely neceiTary to be explicitely 
 believed to Salvation; though how his bringing in 
 the Belief of the Scriptures amongff them, can be 
 confident with what he principally defigned, is a- 
 bove my Reach. But when he comes to prove his 
 Fundamentals (as he calls them) he pioduceth no 
 Scriptures, but what particularly teach this Do- 
 <arine, that Jefus is the Chnsi, and therefore at laft 
 concludes, this is the only Fundamental Point of Faith. 
 But if he would have fpoken exactly and truly, he 
 ihould have faid, The only Point, ahjolutely neceffa- 
 ry, to be explicitely believed by thole who acknow- 
 ledge the only True and Living God. Though other 
 Points (faith he) may be true^ they are not fo necefjary 
 to be believed y as that a Man may not be {aved, 
 though he believe them not. As to the former Part of 
 this AfTertion, I fhall take Notice, that he only 
 faith, Thej may be true. But the Author of the Rea- 
 fonableneji^ ^c. f^ith, They ^rs Divine Trttths ; and 
 ■ that 
 
C 9i ) 
 that they mufi he received i^ith fedfaft Faith, &c. 
 As to the latter part of Mr. Hohis AfTertion, I 
 ftall obferve, that the Point is not, whether a Man 
 may not be faved, though he believe them not ; 
 But I. Whether the Belief of them is not necefla- 
 ry to Salvation, in him who doth know they are 
 tatight in the iioly Scriptures. 2. Whether a Chri- 
 ftian fubje^ may without hazard of his Salyation, 
 do Adions in Obedience to his Sovereign, which 
 imply a Denial of them, notwithftanding he 
 knows they are revealed in the Scripture ? Mr. Hohs 
 declares for the affirmative, p. 214. Mr. Uohs faith, 
 the Belief of that Voint (viz. That Jefus is the 
 Chrift ) ii fuficient for the Salvation of any Man 
 Tvhofoever he be^ p. 208. That is, let a MaB know 
 ever fo many Doctrines delivered in the New Tefta- 
 ment, iand that they are taught there, he is not ob- 
 liged to believe them. Nothing (faith he) is truly a 
 foint of Faiths hut that Jefus is the ChriB, p. no. Th^ 
 Author of the Reaibnablenefs, &c. delivers the di- 
 red contrary Truths. And thefe are Notions 
 which cannot poflibly confift with a Perfbn's belie- 
 ving Jefus to be the Chrift, fo as to take him hear- 
 tily for his Lord and King, Yet Mr. Hobs faith, 
 Chrijiian Faith conjifieth in acknotvkdging our Saviour 
 Chrift to be King of Heaven j and therefore we muH 
 endeavour to obey his Laivs^ p. 211. But it feems 
 believing what our Saviour hath taught, was not 
 ( with Mr. Hobs) any part of our Obedience to him. 
 The contradictory of this, is what the Author of 
 the Reafonablenefs, &;c. hath delivered moft juftly 
 for the Truth. Mr. Hobs feems to lay much ftrefs 
 on this, that the Controver(tes of Religion ( among B 
 Cbrijlians) are about Points unnecejfary to Salvation ; 
 by which I conceive he means, unneceffary for 
 
 Chri- 
 
( ?3 ) 
 
 Chrlflians to believe. But 4 Points being centro- 
 verted, doth not makef the Belief of it unnecelTary. 
 Men may raife and maintain Controverfies about 
 whac Points they pleafe ; but I am obliged to be- 
 lieve: what I do knowJelusChrift hath taughtjandto 
 endeavour to know as many more Dodiines which 
 he hath taught, as I cap, and to believe explicitly 
 as many as I (hall attain an explicite Knowledge of, 
 let other People difpute and make as many Contro- 
 verfies about them as they pleafe. Controverfy 
 may occafion and engage Chriftians to enquire 
 more accuratelyj whether Ch-rift hath faid any 
 thing concerning the Points and what he hath taught 
 concerning it. And what a ChriO^an underftands 
 Chrift hath taught concerning it, he is neceffarily 
 to believe, let thofe who controvert it, fay what 
 they will. 
 
 1 find Mr. Hobs was for a Vuhhck Confcience, and 
 for- Peoples transferring their Right of Judging in mat- 
 ters of Religion^ to another. Which Notion agrees 
 well enough with that; of a great many Perfons in 
 the World. He differs from them in this, That he 
 is, for having the Right transferred to the Civil Ma- 
 gifiratCj p. 214, 21 J. Perhaps he was then, or had 
 a mind to be in Favour with the Civil Magiftrate. 
 Thole who are willing to part with their Confcien- 
 ces, and put them forth to Trufij no doubt, are de- 
 firous to place them where they think it will be 
 moft for their own Advantage. But I think there 
 cannot be a Notion tr^ore contrary to what the Au- 
 thor of the ReafonableneJ?, &c. delivers, than this is. 
 Many more Particulars might be mentioned, to dis- 
 cover that what is laid down in the Reafonabknefs of 
 Clrifiiamty, &c. hath no Agreement with the No- 
 tions Mr. Hobs advan,ce4, but ftands at the very 
 
 fams 
 
( 94) 
 fame Didance from them, the Do(3:rines delivered 
 by Chrift and his Apoftles do, but I think thefe are 
 enough to fatisfy any indifferent and impartial Per- 
 fon. 
 
 In p, 66. This Author propofeth to examine 
 
 * Whether the Son of God, and Meffiah, or Chrilt 
 
 • always fignify the fame in Scripture. 
 
 ^nfii/. This is not the Qjieftion to be examined, 
 with reiJDeft to what the Author of the ReaJonabUnefs^ 
 &c. dothaffert. But whether the Son of God, and 
 the Mefljah or Ghrift, do always fignify the fame, 
 when they are ufed either alone, or together, in 
 thole Places of Scripture, which declare what it is 
 the due believing whereof doth conftitute or make 
 People Chriftians ? or which relate what Chrift 
 and his Apoftles did propole to People acknowledg- 
 ing the True God, to be believed to make them 
 Chriftians, and upon their believing of which, they 
 did own and acknowledge them for Chriftians? 
 That thefe Terms, when thus made ufe of in Scrip- 
 ture, do fignify the fame, I think the Author of 
 the Reafonahlenefsf &c. hath proved very clearly and 
 fully in that Book, and in his Second Vindicatim of 
 it, they very plainly appear to fignify the (ame 
 with St. Taul on fuch occafions. For ibon after his 
 Gonverfion, 'tis faid, he preached Chrif in the Syna- 
 gogues, that he it the Son of God, AU. 9. 20. That 
 which he propoled to be believed was this, That Jc- 
 fus Chrift of Naz^areth, or that Perfon who was 
 eminently known by the Name Ghrift, is the Son 
 of God. Now in 1/. 22. it is laid, be confounded the 
 Jews (the Perfons who oppofed this DoArine) how 
 did he confound them ? By proving this is the very 
 Chrtp: Now it the Son of God, and the Chrift, or 
 Meffiah, did not here fignify the fame, his proving 
 
 / that 
 
( 9f ) 
 
 that the Peribn he preached of, was 'very Cbrili, 
 could not be a Proof, and fuch a Proof as would 
 confound the Jews, that he was the Sen .{God. 
 I acknowledge the Son of God, is an ExprcHion 
 that denotes our Saviour's Divinity, in very many 
 Places of Scripture, even in all thofe where it is 
 made ufe of, in declaring and teaching th,>t parti- 
 cular Dodrine. But the Author of the E-cafinahle- 
 nefsy &c. was not enquiring in how many Senfes, 
 that Phrale, the Son ot God, was ufed in Scripture, 
 but what its Senfe and Meaning is, in fuch Places 
 of Scripture, as 1 before fpoke of. The Reafonable- 
 nefs, &c. neither treats of our Saviour*s Divinity, 
 nor enquires how many things Chriftians muft en- 
 deavour to know, and then believe, concerning 
 Chriff. But it lays down the Articles which Chrift 
 and his Apoflles have taught, are abfolutely necef* 
 (ary to be expHcitcly believed to make Men Chri- 
 Itians, by Virtue of their believing of which aright, 
 they will be neccffarily obliged to employ their beft 
 Endeavours, to attain to a found Knowledge of 
 what Chrift hath' taught, and to believe our Savi- 
 our's Divinity, and the other Dodrines which are 
 delivered in all thofe Sacred Writings, which make 
 up the entire Rule of Chriftian Faith, when they 
 know that they are taught there. 
 
 This Author urges. That ' The Son of God is of 
 *' a larger Signification than the Chrift^ or Meffiah, 
 
 * in John 20. 51. But thefe things are written that ye 
 
 * might believe that jefm is the ChriH, the Son of God, 
 
 * &:c. Becaufe the Defign of St. Johns Gofpel was 
 ^ 10 affert the Divinity of Chrift, againft thofe 
 
 * that oppofed it. Now if thofe Phralcs mean on- 
 
 * ly the lame, then St. John hinifelf does not aflign 
 ! the true (I fuppole he would iay, the conipleat, 
 
 ^ or 
 
(9« ) 
 
 * or full^ and adequate) Reafon for his writing 
 
 * that Gofpel ; for it appears that he had certainly 
 
 * another End in it, than barely to prove Jefus to 
 
 * be the Meffiah. But if they mean differently, 
 
 * and Sen of God does there denote Chriff 's Divini» 
 
 * ty, then we have in that forementioned Paffage, 
 
 * the whole Intention of the Apoftle, afligned for 
 
 * his writing that Gofpel, namely, to fhew that 
 
 * Jefiis was the Chrift, and that he was God, 
 « />. 68, 69, 
 
 AnpivX acknowledge St.Jobn did defignin his Go- 
 fpel to afTert the Divinity of Chrift, and that he 
 hath proved his Divinity at large, in his Firft Chap- 
 ter Cas this Author moft truly declares) and I think 
 he hath very clearly taught it, in other Parts of 
 his Gofpel too. I think likewile, it is paft doubt, 
 that St. John in writing his Goipel, did defign to 
 inftru6t People in feveral other Dodrines, befides 
 Chrift's Divinity, as he hath adually done ; for I 
 cannot be perfuaded, that thofe other Dodrines 
 were dropt there by Chance; ib that to fhew that 
 Jefus was the Chrift, and that he was God, could 
 not be the Tvbok Intention of the Apoftle, in writing 
 that Golpel. Further, I think this Author and I are 
 agreed, that the Miracles our Saviour wrought, 
 were not immediate Proofs of the Docirines he 
 taught, but of hii MiJJion, or that he was the C/6r//?. 
 Moreover, the Son of God, denotes fomething be- 
 fides our Saviour's Divinity, or being God, in thofe 
 places of Scripture, where it is uied for the Proof 
 of that Point j but St. John is not giving an Ac- 
 count in this Pair.»ge, Chap. 20. 3 1. of his whole 
 defign in writing that Gofpel, but of the Reafons 
 why he did To largely relate the Signs and Miracles 
 which Chrift did j- which Signs and Miracles did 
 
 nos 
 
(97) 
 not prove any thing more, direAly and immediate- 
 ly, than that he was the MeJJiah, Thus the ChriH, 
 and the Son of God, ieem *here to fignify the 
 lame. 
 
 In p. 7^ This Author faith, That ' What 
 
 ' might be mfficient to denominate a Man a Belie- 
 
 . * . ver, or a Chriftian during the adual Miniiiry of 
 
 ' Chrift, would not truly entitle any one to that 
 
 * Charader after our Saviour's AlTsntion, and for 
 ' this Region, becaule we do not find from the 
 ' whole Hiftory of the Gnfpel, that any of thofe 
 
 * who believed on our Saviour, had a juft Know- 
 
 * ledge of him, or what v/as the true End of His 
 
 * coming into the World. 
 
 Anfw. The dired contrary appears by the Adts 
 of the Apoftles, where we conftantly find the A-. 
 poftles propounding juft the fame Articles Jefus him- 
 felf did, to be believed, in order to Peoples being 
 Chriftians, or denominated Believers. And if 
 Chrift admitted Perlbns during his Minift^ry, into 
 the fame Covenant People are admitted into fince 
 his AlTention, what was fufficient before for that 
 purpofe, muft be lb after his AfTention. But what 
 this Author means by a juft Knowledge of Chrifl", 
 and the true End of his coming into the World, I 
 muft not undertake to determine; therefore I fhall 
 only ask, Whether they had a true Knowledge of 
 Chrift, and the End of his coming, fo far as was 
 abfolutely necelTary to make them Chriftians? If 
 they had, their not knowing any thing more than 
 what was then revealed, and made known to them, 
 in order to their being Chriftians, cannot be a 
 good Reafon why what was fufticient to warrant 
 their being denominated Chriftians, fhould not be 
 (ufficient to warrant Perfbns being denominated 
 
 H Chri- 
 
(98) 
 
 Chi iftians now, unleft together with the Proof that 
 there are roore Articles revealed now, than were 
 then, there be al(b at clear Proof that all, or (bme 
 of thefe latter Articles, are now required to be ex- 
 plicicely believed for that Purpofe. 
 
 But (faith this Author) * It is nat^lal to infer 
 ' from AB. i. 6, 7, 8. that the Apoliles had not 
 
 * yet attained to that clear Knowledge of him, 
 
 * and the Defign of his coming, which it was nccet 
 ' fary they ftiould be endewed with, f. 74. 
 
 Anfiv, They had not all that Knowledge of 
 Chrift, and of his Defign, which it was necelTary 
 they fhould be endowed with, in order to their 
 own Advantage, and to their giving the World 
 that entire and complcat Revelation, Chrift would 
 make of his Will by them. But it cannot be infer'd 
 that they had not all that Knowledge which was 
 abfolutely neceifary to make them Chriflians: were 
 there no Chriftians upon Earth, after Chrift's At 
 cention, till after the Defcent of the Holy Ghof^ ? 
 or were not the Apofiles Chriftians, till they were 
 endeued with a clear Knowlededge of all thofe 
 things Chrift would make kftown, for the Benefit 
 of his Church, and which they were gradually 
 to inftrud People in, and commit to writing for 
 the ufe of future Ages ? Can no Man be a ChriiH- 
 an, till he hath an cxplicite Knowledge of every 
 Particular, in the fulleft import of it, which is de- 
 livered in the Scripture, and hath a refpeft to Jefus, 
 as the Meffias ? Which is the true Notion of belie- 
 ving Jefus to be the Meffias, abfolutely neceffary 
 to make Men Chriflians, that he is the Perfon God 
 hath lent to be our King and Saviour, whofe Do- 
 <^rines and Laws we- are confcientioufly to endea- 
 vour to learn, and believe and obferve, as we attain 
 
 to 
 
(99 ) 
 
 to know them' ; Or, That he is the Perfbn fent 
 from God, &c. who hath taught thele and thele 
 particular Dodrines, neither more, nor fewer (and 
 lb as touching his Precepts) every one of which^ 
 we do adlualiy believe and practice ? Can no Per- 
 fon be a Chriftian now, till he hath as expli- 
 cite and full a Knowledge of every thing Chrift 
 hath taught and revealed, as that Apoftle ever had^ 
 who was endowed with the largeft meafure of Re- 
 velation ? whatever he did know this way, had i. 
 relped: to Jefiis as the Mefliah : And the very laft 
 Information he had this way, acquainted him with 
 fomething concerning the Meffiah, which he did 
 not fo clearly and fully know before ; fo that he 
 could nor form a jttH and adequate Rule of Faith con- 
 ctrning him^ till he knew that, 
 
 ' Ic will not (faith this Author) alter the cafe, by 
 
 * faying, That thofe who died then in that Faith, 
 ' were undoubtedly faved ; for that would be no 
 ^ more an Argument, than the proving that be- 
 ' caufe a Jew was faved before Chrift's coming in- 
 
 * to the World, by Virtue of Chrift's Mediation, 
 
 * in the Oblervance of the Moiaick Law , he 
 ' might be equally capable of Salvation now, in 
 
 * the Profeffion of that Religion, f. 74. 
 
 Anfw. What this Author hath delivered in theie 
 Words, would afford room for many Remarks i 
 But I iliall only obferve. That believing that Jeliis 
 is the Meffiah, was not abfolutely neceffary to Sal» 
 vation, before he came into the World ; nor was 
 any thing more abfolutely necelTary to be believed 
 to Salvation , under the Mofaick Difpenfation, 
 than God had made abfolutely neceffary to be be- 
 lieved for that purpofej under it. But at the 
 coming of our Saviour, a New Covenant being 
 
 H 2 fubfti'* 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 (ubf!ituted in the Place of the Mofaick Difpenfati- 
 on, it Wis under a New Condition, 'viz. the be- 
 lieving and taking Jefos to be the Mefliah our 
 King, and fubmitring to his Law. If that Difpen- 
 fation were not abrogated, but did ftill continue 
 the way of Salvation, nothing more would now be 
 abfblutely neceflary to be believed to Salvation, 
 than what was made fo by that Conftitution. And 
 if the Chriftian Difpenfacion were to be abrogated, 
 and another to come into its room, whereby fome- 
 thing diflind: from what is contained in the Gofpel, 
 or Chriftian Difpenfation, (hould be made ablblute- 
 ly neceilary to be believed to Salvation, the Belief of 
 every thing delivered in the New Teftament, would 
 not, when the Gofpel Difpenfation was at an end, 
 be lufficient to Salvation. But the adding of more 
 Revelations, which are to be lludied, and expli- 
 citely believed when known, doth not alter the Di(- 
 penfation , or make more ablblutely neceflary to 
 be believed to Salvation, or to intereft a Perfon in 
 that Difpenlation, than was at firft abfolutely ne- 
 ceflary to that Purpofe; any more than every 
 new Law made in a Nation, doth alter the Con- 
 ftitution of that Government, and make fomething 
 more abfolutely neceflary to be known, and expli- 
 citcly aflfented to, to make a Perfon a Subjed of 
 that Government, than was abfblutely necefliary to 
 that Purpofe before* Will any ferious confidering 
 Chrilfian aflirm, that Jefiis Chrifl: will reje«a any 
 Perfon, who by the gracious Influence of the Holy 
 Ghoff, is efFedually brought to receive him with 
 all his Heart, to be his Lord and King, and fincere- 
 ly endeavours to fulfil that Engagement ? people 
 are generally very willing to believe that Jefiis has 
 ilieu lor them, and fatisfied for their Sins, and they 
 ^ can 
 
can he contented to own him for a Prophet, to 
 furnifti them with Notions •-, but they are not fo 
 eafily prevailed with to give Subftantial Evidences, 
 that they do heartily take him for rheir King. Were 
 they generally brought to a found Belief and A.c- 
 knowledgment of his being their King, they would 
 make a much bstter Improvement of what he hath 
 deliverad in the Holy Scriprure concerning his 
 Priefiboodj and his heing a Prophet j than they com- 
 ' monly do, notwithihnding the great Zeal they 
 pretend to difcover for thole Offices. The Courfes 
 they ordinarily allow them(elves in, are evidently 
 and utterly inconfiftent with their receiving Jefus 
 unfeignedly for their Kwg, and their prelerving a 
 Senfeof that Relation upon their Spirits, whatever 
 way they have got to reconcile them to the 
 Notions they entertain concerning his other O/- 
 
 * For (faith this Author) we are to dired our 
 
 * Faith and Pradice accorJing to the moft full 
 
 * and clear Revelation of God's Will, and to believe * 
 ' that to be neceflary to Salvation, which appears 
 
 ' from the full extent of Revelation, to bS requir'd 
 
 * in order to it, p. 74. , 
 
 Jnjw. Thofe who are Chriftians are to dired 
 their Faith and pradice according to the fulleft 
 Meafure of tlie Knowledge they can attain, of 
 what God hath revealed ; that is. They muft be- 
 lieve explicitely, and actually perform whatfoe- 
 ver they can attain to know Chrift hath taught, 
 and made their Duty. And in order to their at- 
 taining to the cleared and fulleft Knowledge of 
 their Lord's Will, they muft take care they do not 
 confine themielves to a certain Number cf Articles 
 and Precepts of Mens colleaing, but muil diligent- 
 
 H 3 ly 
 
( 102. ) 
 ly read and ftudy the entire and compleat Revela- 
 tion Chrift hath made of his Fathers Pleafure in the 
 Holy Scriptures, Yet we are not to believe any 
 Article is abfolutely neceflary to Salvation , but 
 what he hath revealed to be fo ; for if we do, we 
 tranfgrefs our Bounds, and go furthqr than the ut- 
 moft extent of Revelation reaches, ^s to that Mat- 
 ter, and con(equentiy do that, which we have no 
 warrant for in Divine Revelation. It dorh not fol- 
 low, that becaufe Chriftians are not to believe any 
 thing as an Articls of the Chriftian Faith , but 
 what is taught in the New Teflament, and muft 
 endeavour to know as many of the Dodrines which 
 are taught there, as they can, and believe every one 
 as they attain to know them, therefore every Do- 
 <ftrine delivered in the New Teftament,is ablblutely 
 necelTary to be believed to make Men Chriftians. 
 * But (laith this Author) if all that was abfo- 
 
 * lutely necelTary to Salvation, or to denominate 
 ^ Men truly Chriftians, was the bare believing Je- 
 •* fus to be the Mefl5ah ( the believing Jefus to be 
 ' the Mefltas, fo as to take hiqi abfolutely for their 
 ' King) why Ihould our Saviour promife the Miffi- 
 ' on of the Holy Ghoft, to inftrud them ('viz, 
 ' his Diiciples) farther in what they ought to believe 
 
 * concerning him ^ f>. j^. 
 
 AnJTv. Our Saviour did not promife the Holy 
 ,^hoft to inftrud them in what they were to be- 
 lieve to make them Chriftians (for they were Chri- 
 ftians when the Promife was made to them, or how 
 could they be his Difclples ? ) but in fiich Matters 
 as they muft believe, when inftruded in, by Vir- 
 tue of their having received him for their Lord, 
 and as other Chriftians muft endeavour to under- 
 ftafid, and then believe on the fame Account. 
 
 To 
 
To what purpofe did they obh'ge themfelves in 
 taking Jefus for their Lord, to believe whatever 
 he fhould teach them, if they knew and believed be- 
 fore, all that they fhould ever be obliged to believe? 
 ' This Aiu'lior thinks he hath Realbn to con- 
 ' elude from AB. io.4;.c^<;. That we are to under- 
 
 * ftand hy believing Jefus to be the Mefliah, in 
 ' this and almoft all other Places, the full extent 
 
 * and meaning of thole Words, as they are explain- 
 ' ed by this, and other Apoltles in all Parts of 
 
 * Scripture, becaufe they were all of them infpired 
 
 * by the feme Holy Ghoff, and therefore muft all 
 ' have the fame Meaning. And that therefore the 
 
 * believing Jefus to be the Mefliah, as ic is now re- 
 
 * quired for a Fundamental of our Faith, muft 
 
 * comprehend the full Senfe, that is given of it in 
 ' Scripture, />. 76, 77. 
 
 Anfiv. If I comprehend the Force of this Au^ 
 thor's arguing here, it is thus : The Apoltles, by 
 the Term MeJJlab, did underfiand all thofe particu- 
 lar Dodrines they have delivered throughout the 
 Holy Scriptures, concerning that Jefus of whom 
 they preached, fo that by Peoples believing Jefus 
 to be the MefHah, they meant their believing expli- 
 citely every one of thoie Dod:rines. This Notion 
 now. is built upon this Suppofition, that the Apo- 
 ftles when they preached Jefus to any, they did 
 particularly acquaint them with every one of thofe 
 Dodrines, and then promifing them Pardon, &c. 
 if they did believe Jefus to be the Mefliah, they 
 declared to them, that by believing Jefus to be the 
 MefCah, they meant the explicite believing of eve- 
 I'y one of thofe Dodrines they had propof^d to 
 them. The Reaibn given for this Suppofition, is 
 (as I apprehend) this, They were all inlpired by 
 
 H 4 the 
 
" ( I04 ) 
 
 the fame Holy Ghoft, and therefore muft all have 
 the fame Meaning; that is, I fuppole, they muft 
 all underftand the Term Meffiah in the fame Senfe, 
 'vfx,. as fignifying preciiely every one of thofe Do- 
 ctrines. Many Remarks might be made oft this 
 Occafion. I will only obfcrve, i. That the Suppo- 
 fition is perfedly precarious , without any war- 
 rant at all from Scripture. Several of thefe 
 Dad:r4nes might be proJ3ounded as very proper 
 Inducements, to believe Jefiis to be the Meffiah, 
 but that is not the Point in Difcourfe, but whether 
 the Term Meffiah did with the Apoftles, fignify 
 juft fuch a fet of Dodrines. 2. The Holy Ghoft 
 was not given to the Apoftles to teach them the 
 Meaning of the Term Meffiah, for they under ftood 
 it very well before ; nor did they in preaching to 
 the Jews, ufe the Term Meffiah, in a Senfe they 
 never heard of before, and which would therefore 
 need a particular Explanation j but as a Term (b 
 common and (b diftindly underftood amongft 
 them, as the Term in any Nation is commonly un- 
 derftood by the Inhabitants, which exprelTeth, and 
 fjgnifieth their Supream Governour. All the Apo- 
 ftles underftood the Term Meffiah in the fame 
 Senfe, and ufed it in the fame Senfe, in which 
 thoie who heard them did commonly underftand 
 if. Their Bufmefs was not to preach and explain 
 New Terms, nor to tack New Meanings unto 
 Old Terms. ;. In their preaching to Unbelie- 
 vers they infifted on fiich Confiderations as were 
 moft proper to convince them, that Jefus was the 
 Meffiah , according to the known and common 
 Meaning of the Term, and not fuch as did imme- 
 diately prove the Truth of a certain Number of 
 New Dodrinss, which they were Strangers to, 
 
 and 
 
( lo^ ) 
 
 and which muft make up a New Senfe for an An- 
 cient Word. 4. We have good Warrant from th6 
 Scripture to believe that the Apoflles were net in- 
 ftruded at once, but gradually, in the DoArines 
 concerning jefus, which are delivered in the feve- 
 ral Parts of Scripture, and therefore they could 
 not mean every one of thefe Dodrines^ conftant- 
 ly, by the Term Meffiah, for they could not ac- 
 quaint their Hearers ac firft, with any more of 
 thefe Doctrines, than they were at that time in- 
 ltru6ted in, and if they added more Dotftrines 
 when they were inftru6led in more, as the Senle in 
 which they underftood the Term Meffiah, they 
 nled it then in a New Senfe and Meaning. It may 
 be faid, but now we have a full Account in the 
 Scripture, of the full Meaning in which the Term 
 Meffiah i#'to beufed, and conlequently what is to 
 be underftood by believing Jefus to be the Meffiah, 
 taking the Term Meffiah, to fignify every one 
 of the Dodrines delivered in the Scripture con- 
 cerning Jefus, and therefore thefe are to be col- 
 leded out of the Scripture, and Perfons muft now 
 expUcitely believe every one of them, in order to 
 their believing Jefus to be the Meffias, in the full 
 Senfe given of it* in Scripture. 'Tis very true, all 
 the DoArines we are to believe concerning Jefus, 
 are iet down in the Scripture, But it may be ask'd, 
 feeing all thefe Doctrines are not fet down in any 
 one place of Scripture together, for this End, tf) 
 whom is the Office of coUeding them for this pur- 
 pole committed ? And what affurance ihall People 
 have, if uninfpired Men may undertake it, that 
 their Colledion is compleat ? For if any one Paf- 
 «e be omitted, diftind from what iliall be in the 
 ''<^ion, thofe who ftiall believe every one of 
 
 thoie 
 
C 105 ) 
 
 thole Articles which fliall be propofed to them, 
 will not believe that Jefas is the Meffias, in the full 
 Senfe given of that Term in Scripture^ and there- 
 fore, according to this Notion, will not be Chri- 
 ftians. It may further be enquired, whether thofe 
 who fhall believe explicitely every one of thefe 
 Do(3:rines, will be obliged to endeavour to know 
 and believe any more Dodrines ? If the Anfwer be 
 No, then either thefs are all Dodrines which are 
 delivered in Scripture, or there are fbme Dotftrines 
 taught in the Scripture, which Chriftians are not 
 obliged to endeavour to know, though they have 
 Opportunity to underftand them , or to believe 
 them, though they do know them. If the Anfwer 
 be, Yes, it may be asked, how that comes about ? 
 Perhaps it will be iaid, Uecaufe amongft the Do* 
 drines before fpoken of, this is one, Tll^t Jefus is 
 our King, and therefore to teftify our- Submiffion 
 and Obedience to him, we are to endeavour to 
 fenow and believe other Dodrines. This indeed is 
 a way whereby they may acquire fome affurance 
 to themfelves, and give Evidence and Proof to o- 
 thers, that they believe Jefus to be their King, but 
 not (according to the Notion we are now difcour- 
 iing of) that they believe him to be the Meffiah^ 
 or that they are Chriftians. How comes it to paft, 
 that feeing the explicite Belief of every one of the 
 other Dodrines is equally neceffary to make them 
 Chriftians, with the Belief of this, only a part of 
 ^hat Faith which makes them Chriftians, muft ob- 
 lige and govern them after they are Chriftians ? 
 Whence is it, that fome Do(ftrines delivered in 
 Scripture, muft be believed in Obedience to Jefus, 
 and others not, whjlft he is equally the Teacher of 
 them ail. 
 
 T 
 
C 107 ) 
 
 This Author faith, That ' Though no more is 
 ^ fet down, JB. 8. ;7. but that the Eunuch belie- 
 
 * ved that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God, yet no 
 
 * doubt there is more implied : For Fhtltp in- 
 
 * ftrudcd him in the Chriftian Religion, from that 
 
 * Chapter of Ijaiahj ('viz,, which the Eunuch was 
 
 * reading ) which Dodrines were, no doubt, re- 
 ' quired as ablblutely necelTary to be believed. 
 
 * Befides, fince Philip baptized him, no doubt but 
 
 * he did it in that Form which Chrift himfeif en- 
 ' joined , in the Name of the Father, Son, and 
 
 * Holy Ghoft ; and then it will follow that the Be- 
 ' lief and Confeffion of the Three Perlons wasre- 
 
 * quired, p. 77, 78. 
 
 Anjw, Ic is not at all doubted, but there is fome- 
 thing abfblutely neceffary to be believed by an Vnr 
 believer , in order to his becoming a Chriftian, 
 befides that, the due believing whereof, doth con- 
 ftitute him a Chriftian. For a Map cannot believe 
 a Propofinon to be true, without fome Proof and 
 Bvidence that it is true. Now the enquiry is not 
 what Arguments and Proofs are abiolutely neceffa- 
 ry to be believed to bring a Man to the due Be- 
 lief of what is abfolutely • necelTary to be believed 
 to make him a Chriftian. That is a Quefiion no 
 Man can poffibly determine;, by affigning one in 
 particular, or a precife Number. For the Argu- 
 ments, Proofs, and Evidences are many and vari- 
 ous ; and God has not limited himfeif to make 
 only one of them effedual, nor obliged himfeif 
 that he will not give forth his Bleffing, but with 
 a certain Number of them in conjun<flion. fie 
 that doth duly believe all that is abfolutely necel^ 
 iary to be believed to make Men Chriftians, is a 
 ChriftiaHj whether he was brought to this Belief, 
 
 by 
 
( io8 ) 
 by the Belief of more or fewer Arguments. There 
 are Truths to be believed antecedently to a Man's 
 believing what is abfolutely neceffary to be believed 
 to make him a Chriftian, and fcbere are Truths to 
 be believed by him after he is a Chriftian, the due 
 believing of which, are Proofs and Evidences that 
 he doth believe what is abiblutely neceffary to be 
 believed to make Men Chriftians. But it is not 
 the Belief of the one fort, or the other fort of 
 thele Truths, nor of both together, which is the 
 Faiih that conftitutes Men Chriftians ; but only the 
 Belief of that, to which the Belief of thole other 
 Truths, hath an Antecedent, or Conlequential 
 Relation. How many Dodrines the Eunuch was 
 inftruded in, or what thofe Doctrines were in 
 particular,- we cannot tell, becaufe they are not 
 revealed to us ; but what it was, upon the belie- 
 ving of which, he was owned for a Chriitian, and 
 Baptized, is exprefly declared, and we have Rea- 
 lon to believe, that if the explicite Belief of more 
 Articles had been required of him, as abiblutely 
 neceff<iry to make him a Chriftian, they would 
 have been fee down arsd expreffed in his Confeffi- 
 on. 1 think alio, it is more than probable that the 
 Eunuch was baptized in the Name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy GhoH, unlefs it can be proved, that 
 that Form was in thofe Days confined , or appropri- 
 ated (o the ApoIHes, who were intrufted with con- 
 ferring the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghofi*.- 
 Whatever Articles the Eunuch did exp'icitely be- 
 lieve at prelent, he was by believing Jefi^s to be 
 >xhQ Mfffi^ib, obliged to endeavour to know cxpli- 
 citely and believe as many more as he could, both 
 concerning ths Father, the Son, and the Holy GhoB, 
 even ail that waSj or fhauld bs revealed concerning 
 
 them* 
 
( 109 ) 
 them, which I think reaches the whole extent of 
 the New Teftamenr. 
 
 In p. 78, &c. This Author undertakes ' To 
 
 * fhew that the Gofpels and Ads are di redly op- 
 
 * polite to our Author's Scheme of Dod:rine, and 
 ' this he'will do by fhewing, they do require much 
 
 * more to be believed concerning our Saviour, than 
 ' barely that he was the Meffiah. 
 
 Here this Author proves very well, and learned- 
 ly the Divinity of our BlelTed Saviour, and on that 
 Account we cannot jfet too high a value on his 
 Book. He alio mentions fbme other Dodrines, 
 very clearly delivered in the Gofpels and Ads. But 
 the Reafon why he offers thefs things in Oppofiti- 
 on to the Keafonablenefs of Cbrifiianityl &c. J- fup- 
 pofe, was his miftaking the Defign of that Trea- 
 tilc. The Author of the Reafonabkmfs, Scc. did 
 not propofe to enquire how many Doctrines are 
 delivered ii| the Gofpels and Ads, concerning our 
 Saviour, but what Chrift and his Apoftles did re- 
 quire, as abfolutely neceflary to be explicitely be- 
 lieved to make Men Chriftians. Reckon up there- 
 fore as many Articles as you pleafe, which are 
 clearly and exprefly taught in the Gofpels and 
 Ads, yea, in all the New Teftament, this will 
 not affed, or make any thing againft the Reafon^ 
 abknejs of Chrifiianityy 6cc. unlels withal you prove 
 that Jefus or his Apoftles, required the explicite 
 Belief of all, or fome of them, which are di- 
 flind from this, that he is the Meffiab whom we are 
 to take for our Lord and King, to make Men 
 Chriftians. 
 
 Whereas this Author futh, * That the mod 
 ' Learned amongft the Jews did appropriate the 
 
 * Title hoy©-, to their expeded Msffiah, and alio 
 
 "be- 
 
C no ) 
 ' believed he fhould be God. So tliat this may be 
 ' a very good Reafbn for our Saviour, and his A- 
 
 * poftles requiring no more to be believed in their 
 
 * preachings amongft the Jews, than that Jefus was 
 
 * the Meffiah, fince if they once firmly believed 
 ' that they muft neceffarily believe him to be God, 
 
 ' P- 78, 79- 
 
 I (hall only oblervc, i. That the Senfe of the 
 Term Meffiah is here acknowledged to be very 
 different, from v/hat this Author has before decla- 
 red the Apoftles meant by it. 
 
 2. That here is no Suppofition that the People! 
 did not know what was meant by Meljiah, and 
 therefore muft have it either interpreted or explain- 
 ed to them, but an Acknowledgment that our Sa- 
 viour and his Apoftles did ufe the Term, according 
 to the familiar and commonly known meaning of 
 it amongft the Jews. 
 
 3. That fuppofing the Jews did generally be- 
 lieve the Meffiah [IwuU he God, yet they muft be^ 
 lieve that Jefm of Nazareth was the Meffiah, be- 
 fore they could believe him to be GoJ. And it be- 
 ing this only, that he was the^Meffiah, which was 
 propounded to be believed to make them Chri- 
 ftians, it muft be a right believing of this, that did 
 make them Chriftians ; how near a Connexion 
 foever their believing any thing elfe, which they 
 knew and believed concerning him who (hould be 
 the Meffiah, might have with their believing Jefiis 
 to be the Meffiah. Suppofing they did generally 
 believe that their expe<^ed Meffiah fhould be God, 
 yet thofe who believed other Perlbns to be the 
 Meffiah , and confequently believed them to be 
 God too, were not Chriftians. So that it was 
 not the believing a Perfon to be the Meffiah ^ 
 
 nor 
 
( III ) 
 
 nor a believing that Perfon to be God, that 
 made People Chriftians, but a believing him to 
 be the MeJJiab, who really was the Meffiak 
 
 ' But as we are obliged to know who was the 
 ' Author of our Being, fo alfo muft it be equally 
 
 * a Crime not to know ckarly, who, and what he 
 
 * was, that could be the Author of out; Salvation, 
 
 ' P' 87- 
 
 In anfwer to this, I fhall only fay, That we are 
 
 obliged to endeavour to know as much as we can, 
 
 of that God, who is the Author of cur Being. 
 
 This holds true as to all Men, and fo Chriftians 
 
 are obliged to endeavour to know as much as they 
 
 can of him, who is the Author of their Salvation. 
 
 It is a Crime to be wilfully Ignorant of any thing, 
 
 that is revealed of him who is the Author of our 
 
 Salvation. 
 
 ' There could be no Reafon (faith this Author) 
 
 * for the defending his Divinity (viz. our Saviour's) 
 ' wich fo much Care and Concern (as St. John 
 ' did defend it) if it was not abfolutely necelTa- 
 ' ry to be believed to make a Man a Chriftian, or 
 ' if there was no Danger in believing him to be 
 
 * only Man, p. 87. 
 
 Anfw. I. The Realbn we have to defend Divine 
 Truths, when oppofed and denied by Perlbns, is 
 not to be taken barely from the End for which 
 they are to be believed, but alio from their Nature, 
 viz. becaufe they are Divine Truths, and therefore 
 Truths to be believed, and which may by no means 
 be denied. 
 
 2. He that believes Jefus to be the Meffiah, 
 does not therein believe him to be only Man ; he 
 believes him to be Man , but not only Man^ for 
 that is not proposed to his Belief, when it is propo^ 
 
 fed 
 
(It?-:) 
 
 fed to him, to believe that Jefus is the Meffiah. 
 And by believing him to be the Meffiah, he obli- 
 'ges himfelf to believe whatfoever he fhall attain to 
 know is revealed concerning him. 
 
 ' Believin,,, in Chrift ((aith this Author ) if it 
 
 * mean any thing, muft be interpreted of every 
 ' thing that Scripture has required to be believed 
 
 * concerning him. So that this we may be certain 
 ' 4s a Fundamental, that as Ghrift is the Author 
 ' of our Salvation ; So that Revelation is the juft 
 
 * Meafure of our belief in him, and that we 
 ' muft not believe either more or lefs of him, than 
 ,* we are warranted by Scripture, />. 92. 
 
 Anjw. Revelation is the juft Meafure of what 
 we are to believe concerning Chrift. So that a 
 Chriftian, let his Advances in Knowledge be ever 
 fo great, muft not believe any thing concerning 
 him, but what he is warranted, or at leaft appre- 
 hends upon mature Confideration, he is warranted 
 by Scripture. But that a Man cannot be a Chri- 
 ftian till he doth explicitely believe every thing 
 the Scripture doth warrant People to believe con- 
 cerning Chrift, is a Notion tfce Scripture doth not 
 any where warrant. Were this Notion true, no 
 Man can be a Chriftian, whole Knoiv ledge of e- 
 very thing relating to Chrift, is hot every way. 
 equal to that, of the moft learned, fagacious, and 
 underftanding Perlbn , in the whole Chriftian 
 World, or that ever was, or ever will be in the 
 World. Nay, according to this Notion, it may 
 be juftly queftioned, vyhether ever there was a 
 Chriftian fince the Apoftles Days. For there may 
 be Ground to queftion, whether any uninfpired 
 Man did , or will attain to a juft and adequate 
 
 Know- 
 
( "3 ) 
 
 Knowledge of every thing the Scripture doth re^ 
 veal concerning Chrift. 
 
 • But it will probably be obJe<aed (faith this 
 
 * Author) to all this, that though it is granted, 
 ' that there are ieveral Articles to be believed by 
 
 * thofe who are throughly Chriftians, yet there 
 ' was no more required by our Saviour himfelf, 
 ' or his Apoftles, to make a Man a Chriliian, or 
 ' in order to his Admiflion inro Chriftianity, than 
 ' the believing Jefus to be the Meffiah, and that 
 
 * this is all which the Author of the ReafonahUnefs of 
 
 * Chrifiianity, &c. contends for. 
 
 The Obje<ftion is not propofed in its full weight, 
 but that I need not infift on, for if the Anfwec 
 reach ir,asit is here laid down, it will ferve the turn. 
 
 ' \h anfwer to this (faith this Author) it may be 
 
 * oblervedj Firft, That the forementioned Articles, 
 ' as well as others that might be named, are of the 
 
 * fame Nature with that one Article of believing 
 
 * Jefus to be the Mefliah, and arc a Repetition of 
 
 * it in all its Branches, f. 92, 95. 
 
 Anfw, This Anfwer is not at all fatisfadory, be- 
 caufe it is wholly concerning another matter, than 
 that treated of in the Objedion. The Objedion is 
 concerning what our Saviour and his Apoflles have 
 required to be believed to make Men Chriltians. 
 The Anfwer is concerning the Nature of Articles. 
 Moreover, it is not eafy, to undeVftand what is 
 meant here, by (everal diftind Articles being of the 
 fame Nature 'with this i That Jefus- is^ the MeJJtah. 
 This Author hath formerly diftingujflied betwixt the 
 Nature of feveral Dodrines, and their being Di- 
 vine Revelations. Now, confider feveral particu- 
 lar Dodrines fingly in themfelves, and abftradedly 
 from their being Divine RevelationSj they are not 
 
 I of 
 
of the lime Nature one with another, how cm 
 they then be every one of the fame Nature with 
 thisj that Jefus is the Meffiah ? I agree with this 
 Author, that a Peflbns believing explicirely cer- 
 tain particular Doctrines Jefus hath taught, for thi^ 
 Reafon, becaufe he knows, that Jefiis who is the 
 Meflias, hath taught them, is a Repetition of his 
 Belief of that Article, the Ground and Reafon of 
 his believing every one of the other Dodrrines. 
 But if his believing certain particular Doctrines, 
 be but a Repetition of his believing that Jefus is 
 the Meffiah, how can the repeated, or rather li- 
 mited exercife of that Belief, as to particular 
 Branches or Dofbrines, make Men Chriftians, if 
 the due believing Jefus to be the Meffiah, do net 
 conftitute Men Chriftians ? Befides, the Reafon of 
 our believing JeCis to be the Meffiah, is quite dif- 
 ferent from the Reafon why we believe thele parti- 
 cular Articles. 
 
 * But Secondly, there was more required even 
 ' to make a Man a Chriftian, than the Belief of 
 
 * Jefiis being the Meffiah ; for our Saviour himielf 
 '- required the believing in the whole Trinity : 
 
 * For this was the Commandment which our Sa- 
 
 * viour gave his Diiciples, That they Jhould teach aU 
 
 * Nations^ haptiz.h^ them in the Name of the Father , 
 
 * and of the Son, and of the Holy GhoB. u e. They 
 
 * Ihoald lirft |nftru(5t them in whom they were to 
 "■ believe , M^ t^cn baptize them into that Faith, 
 
 Anjw. The ijommand was to Difciple all Nationry 
 that i^, not fifft inftru6i: them in the particular Dp?> 
 brines. thofe wjio believe Jefiis to be the Meffia6i 
 muft believe upon his Authority, when they knctw 
 ht hath taught thsm, but by propounding ftch 
 ' , Con- 
 
( iry ) 
 
 Confiderations and Arguments as are mod proper 
 to convince and fatisfy them that Jefus Is the Mef- 
 fiah, bring them to own him to be Meffiahj fo as 
 to take him for their King and Ruler, by engaging 
 themlelves without any Relervation to learn of, and 
 obey him. And then they were to baptize them 
 in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 after which, they were to teach them the Particu- 
 lars they were to believe and do, by Virtue of their 
 having taken him to be their Lord, which Particu- 
 lars comprehend the whole Revelation Chrift hath 
 made, concerning the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghoft. That is, the whole Dodrine delivered in 
 the New Teftament. 
 
 In p. 95". This Author faith, He will ' Examine 
 ' the Reaibnablenefs of that Article of Faith, the 
 * Author of the Reafonabknefs of Ckrijtianity ^ &c. 
 ' hath infifted on, and fet down in the largeft 
 ' Terms, ^.301. 
 
 What this Author means by the Reafonablenels 
 of that Article, is not very plain. I fuppofe he 
 doth not mean, that he will examine whether it is 
 realbnable a Man ihould believe that Article. If 
 he means the Reafbn why that Author hath decla- 
 red. That this is the only Article abfblutely necef- 
 fary to be explicitely believed, by thofe who be- 
 lieve in the True God, to make them Chriftians, 
 that Reafon is clearly this, becauie our Saviour and 
 his Apoftles have not required the explicite Belief 
 of any other Article but this, for that purpole. 
 Yet becauie the Author of the Reafonabknefs^ &c. 
 obferved, T^hat the Almerciful God feems herein to 
 have confulted the Poor of the fforld, and the Bulk of 
 Mankind, 
 
 I 2 this 
 
C 116 ) 
 
 This Author, ' For a clearer Examination of 
 ' this, propofeth certain things to be confidered. 
 ' Firhy fuppofing God either had, or fhould re- 
 
 * veal any thing to Mankind, and make the Belief 
 
 * of it a Condition of Salvation, which the Rea- 
 ' ion of Man could not comprehend, and we had 
 
 * all the Evidence the thing was capable ofj that 
 
 * the Revelation proceeded from God, would this 
 ' Jncomfrehefijiblenefs of it, be a (ufficicnt Plea for 
 ' our rejediing it ? 
 
 Anfiv. No : But i. There is a great difference 
 betwixt an Article's being abfolutely neceffary to 
 be explicitely believed to Salvation, and an Article's 
 being abfolutely neceffary to be explicitely belie- 
 ved, when known, by Rcafon of a Perfon's belie- 
 ving what is ablblutcly neceffary to be explicitely 
 believed to Salvation, The Difference is as great 
 as betwixt an abfolute Necefltty, and a conditional 
 Neceffity. There are Articles which the Reafon 
 of Man cannot comprehend, the Belief of which 
 IS neceffary to thofe who know Chrift hath taught 
 them, yet the explicite Belief of them is not made 
 ^blblutely neceffary to Salvation. Nor can the ex- 
 =^licite Belief of any Number of particular Do- 
 ^ftrines taught in the New Teftament, be properly 
 iaid to be the Condition of Salvation ; for if it 
 could, he who (hould explicitely believe them alF, 
 could not be obliged to believe one more. The 
 Condition of Salvation, JVoj^, is believing Jefus 
 to be the Mefliah, fo as to take him without Excep- 
 tion or Limitation to be our Lord and King. And 
 hereby we are obliged to believe as many Doctrines 
 as we can attain to know he hath taught. So 
 that a true Chriftian never believes (o many Do- 
 ^rines, but he is Dill under the fame Obligation 
 
 to 
 
to believe more, wben he attains to know more, 
 and that Chrift hath taught them. It is in Matters 
 of Faith as in Matters of Pradice, let a Man do e- 
 verlb many things which Chrift commands^ if he 
 obftinately allow himfelf in the wilful Violation of 
 any one Command he knows Chrift hath enjoyned 
 him, he is not a fmcere Chriftian. So let a Man 
 believe ever (b many 'Articles, if he obftinately re- 
 fule to aflent to any one Article, he knows Chrift: 
 hath taught, he is not a true Chriftian. His obfti- 
 nate, wilful Refufal to believe that one Article, is 
 a plain Demonftration he hath not that taith, which 
 is the Condition of Salvation ; and that the Ajjint he 
 gives to thole other Dodrines, hath fbme other Ori' 
 ginal, A fincere Chriftian*s believing particular 
 Doctrines when known, is the genuine and necef- 
 fary Fruit and EfFe<5t of that Faith, which is the 
 Condition of Salvation. Thele Ads of Faith, are 
 but a partial, limited exerting of that Faith which 
 made him a Chriftian , and is the Condition of 
 Salvation , in fuch Proportion as his explicite 
 Knowledge doth reach, attended with a prompt* 
 nels and readineft to extend it further, as he fhall 
 attain to know more of his Lord's Mind. This 
 true and fincere believing Jefus to be the Chrift, 
 fo as to take him for our Lord and King, is the 
 Faith which is the Condition of Salvation. And 
 hence it is, that this Faith doth avail, and is efFe- 
 «5bual to the Salvation of them, who are Honeft, 
 and Cordial, notwithftanding they happen to be 
 ever ib much beneath others in natural and acqui- 
 red Accompliftiments. 
 
 2. Should God now reveal any more Articles as 
 abfolutely neceflfary to be explicitely believed to 
 Salvation, than what Chrift and his Apoftles de- 
 
 I 3 live red 
 
( ii8 ) 
 Vivered as abfolutely neceffary to be explicitely be- 
 lieved to Salvation, whether the Reafon of Man 
 could comprehend them or not, they would alter, 
 and make a Ne-w Co-venant. 
 
 3. If the Author of the Keafomhlenefs, &c. had 
 of his own Head declared that no Article is necef^ 
 fary to be explicitely believed to make Men Ghri- 
 llians, but this. That Jefki is the MeJJiah, and for 
 this Reafon, becaufe God could not reafohably re- 
 quire the Belief of any Article, as abfolutely ne- 
 celTary to Salvation, but what illiterate and labour- 
 ing Men can comprehend, there would have been 
 jutt Ground to examine and contradid what he 
 had faid. For this had been an intruding on God's 
 Right and Prerogative, and a prefumptuous prefcri- 
 bing to him, • 
 
 But 4. The Author of the ReafonahkneJS, &c. 
 doth exprefly declare, that -what is the Faith Gsd 
 will accept ^ defends wholly on his good Pleafurey /?. 298, 
 So that he might have made the Belief of Articles, 
 which the Reafon of Man cannot comprehend, ab> 
 fblately neceffary to Salvation/ , 
 
 5. The Author of the Reafonahlenefs, 6cc. did 
 fearch the Scriptures, to find what are the Articles, 
 the Belief of which God hath made abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary to Salvation, and he hath given a full Ac- 
 count of Vt^hat he found there concerning this 
 Matter. 
 
 6. It is an eminent Demonftration of the Con- 
 defcention and Goodnefs of God towards Man^, 
 that whereas he might have made the explicite 
 Belief of incomprchenfible Articles, abfolutely ne- 
 cefTay to Salvation, he hath not made the expli- 
 cite Belief of any, biit that plain and intelligible 
 Propofitloiij the Author of the ReafonMmfi, &cl 
 
 h^th 
 
hsLth. fet down ss abfolutely neceflary to Salvation. 
 This Difcovery of the Divine CondefceDtion and 
 Goodnefs, ought to be taken Notice of, by thofe 
 who have a Senfe of it • and the Refledion the 
 Author of the Keafonahlenefs, &:c. hath made on 
 this Occafion, is fo pertinent and fo pious, 1 do a 
 little wonder that Pious and Good Men, can pre- 
 vail with thsmfslve?, to make invidious Anima^- 
 verfions upon ic. 
 
 ' But Secondly, Why all this Concern for the 
 ' Illiterate, and Men of weak Capacities, as though 
 ' ic would be fo very prejudicial to them, to be ob- 
 ^ liged to believe what they cannot comprehend f 
 * ^ 96. 
 
 Anfw. If God is pleafed to fhevv his Concern for 
 the illiterate, and Men of weak Capacities, it is 
 very fit that Writers and Good Men fiibuld talj^e 
 i^otice of ir. And though we are obliged to hzr 
 lieve explicitly whatibever we (hall attain to know 
 God hath revealed, hz raattefs diicourfed of ever 
 io much above our Comprehenfion ; yet it may 
 be very prejudicial to the iiiiterate Men, and fome 
 Offence againft Jefus Chriit, to require of them the 
 Belief of Articles they cannot comprehend, as ab- 
 :folutely neceffary to cheir Salvation, when Jefus 
 Chrift doth not require the explicite Belief of any 
 ilich Articles, as abfolutely neceiTary to that Pur- 
 pofe ; and more particularly becaufe it is a Sub- 
 jeding their jFaith to fome other Authority than 
 his, who is their only Lord. 
 
 ' For the Miseries of Religion, which are in- 
 " comprehenfible, are equally foto all, f. 96. 
 
 Very true ; But fome learned Men can fay a 
 great many things, whether they underftand 
 )vhat they fay, or not, concerning the Myfteries 
 
 I 4 of 
 
( IIO ) 
 
 of Religion, which illiterate Men cannot compre- 
 hend. And their Authority may as well oblige 
 them to believe their incomprehenfible Speeches^ 
 as abfblutely neceffary to Salvation, as Myfteries, 
 which Jefus Chrilt hath not made abfolutely necef 
 fory to that purpofe. 
 
 ' But laftly, fmce our Author is of Opinion, 
 
 * that it would be very advantageous to Mankind 
 
 * in general, to have only fiich a Religion as is 
 
 * very eafy to be underflood by all Ibrts of Men, 
 ' we ought to confider how very intelligible his 
 
 * Rule of Faith is, if compared with that of our 
 
 * Church, and how agreeable his one Article is, 
 
 * to the Comprehenfion of Vulgar Capacities, 
 
 ' ?■ 98. 
 
 jinfv^. To this, the Author of the Reafonahknefs^ 
 &c. hath given a very full Reply (I think) in thels 
 Words : He jhouU have remembred that 1 (peak not 
 of all the DoSirines of Chrifiianityj nor all that is 
 fublifhed to the World in it ; hut of thofe Truths only 
 vjhtch are ahjolutely required to be believed to wake any 
 cne a Chrtjlian, &c. Firft Vindication of the Rea- 
 fonablenels, &c. p. r^o. 
 
 Here I exped:ed fome Difcovery, that our 
 Church had taught fomewhat contrary, or exceed- 
 ingly different, touching this Matter, from what 
 is delivered in the Keajonablenefs, &c. concerning 
 it. But that Comparilbn is not purftied, I (hall 
 therefore fay no more,but that our Church doth re- 
 quire the explicite Belief of all that Chrift and 
 his Apoftles have made abfolutely neceffary to be 
 believed to make Men Chriftians, and prelTes to 
 a (erious, diligent care, and endeavour to under- 
 ftand as much as may be, of what Chrift and 
 his Apoftles have taught, without limiting People 
 
 . td 
 
( lil ) 
 
 to a precife Number of Articles, beyond which 
 they muft not dare to ftir ; and if fhe had not done 
 Coi I ftould not have that high Eftcem for her, I 
 nioft juftly have. 
 
 * This Author beftows his 99th Page, and moft 
 ' of the Two following Pages in (hewing that 
 ' this Propofuion, Jefus is the Mejfiahj is not eafy 
 * to be underftood. 
 
 I will not undertake to declare what his Defign 
 is, in this, I fuppofe he doth not make a Queftionj 
 whether the Belief of that Propofition, is abfblute- 
 ly neceflary to make Men Chriftians, and therefore 
 that it mufl: be underftood. For he contends. That 
 there are many more PropofitionSjtogether with this, 
 equally necelTary to be expHcitely known and belie- 
 ved to make MenChriftians.So that he doth not ex- 
 clude, but acknowledge that the Belief of this Pro- 
 pofition is abfolutely neceffary. Now this Propo- 
 lition is alike eafy to be underftood, whether the 
 due believing of it, doth make a Man a Chriftian, 
 or the explicite believing of a great many more Pro- 
 pofitions together with ic, be abfolutely neceffary to 
 make a Man a Chriftian. For I fuppofe it will not 
 be den'sd, that it is as ea(y to underftand this one 
 Propofition, ftanding alone, as to underftand this 
 fame Propofition when it is joined with a great ma- 
 ny others which are alfb to be believed. The ma- 
 king the explicite Belief of more Propofitions di- 
 ftind from this, that Jefiis is the Meffiah, abfolute- 
 ly neceffary, together with the explicite Belief of 
 it, to make Men Chriftians, doth not make that 
 Propofition more eafy to be underftood, than it; 
 would be, if the explicite Belief of thofe other Pro- 
 pofitions were not nude abfolutely neceffary to maka 
 Men Chriftian?. 
 
 The 
 
( li^ ) 
 
 The Way this Author takes to Hisw that this Pre- 
 i)orition is not eafy to be underftood, is by fuppo- 
 fmg, an inquyitive^ labouring^ illiterate Afan, who 
 itnows many things which are delivered in the New 
 Teftament, and who undcrftands what it is fbr 
 \^ooks to h Vivindy infpred , but is ignorant what is 
 meant by a Saviour^ asking feveral Queftions con- 
 cerning this Propofition ; and another much more 
 ignorant than him, anfwering to every one of thefe 
 Qifeftions. I neither like the Qrieilions, nor the 
 Anfwers, as they are let down in thefe Pages, iherc° 
 fbre I Ihall only obferve , 
 
 1. That whoever will reply diredily to an inir 
 pertinent Queftionj muft unavoidably give an im- 
 pertinent Anfwer. Wherefore when Quiirijons are 
 not rightly propounded, he that puts them, muft 
 hi made ienfible of his Miflakes, and affifted to 
 form them aright. 
 
 2. That if a Peribn is Inquifitive concerning the 
 Senfe of this Propofition, That Jefus is the Chrift, 
 or only Saviour of Sinners, and doth acknowledge 
 the true God, make him but throughlv ienfible of 
 Ms own Sin and Guilr, and he will then eafily 
 linderitand what is meant by a Saviour. Then his 
 Inquiries will be, how he may be fatisfied that the 
 Peribn difcouriedof, is by God's Appointment, the 
 only Saviour of Sinners ? and on what Terms he 
 may with good warrant expert Salvation from him ? 
 To which Qaeftions there are very proper, clear, 
 and plain Aniwers to be given. 
 
 g. Moft of the Qaeftions propo(ed in this Au- 
 thor's Pages, when rightly formed, muft have fuch 
 Anfwers made to them, as Chrijt doch authorize us 
 In the Scriptures, to give to them. But what En- 
 tertainment can you expert his Atifwers will have 
 
 with 
 
C "3 ) 
 with them, who are not truly cohvince*!, and 
 therefore do not really believe he is the Mefllali. 
 Convince your Queriit, though roughly, of that, 
 'Z'iz. That Jefus is the Chrifl or Meffiah, fb that he 
 does truly receive him to be his Lord and Kin^, 
 and then you wiil find him in a fair v/ay, and very 
 well difpoied to receive Satisfidich, when you 
 make him perceive that your Anfv.'ers to his Que- 
 ftions, are the very fame which Chriit hinilelf 
 has given to them, or fuch as he doth warrant 
 you to offer for Peoples Satisfadion in thofe 
 Cafes. 
 
 This Author concludes his Book with obferving, 
 That tho/e Parts of the R.eafonablenefs of Chriilia- 
 nity, d^c. -which treat of the Necejjity cf Revelation^ 
 the Conditions of Repentance, Good Works, &c. [eem 
 to carry an Air of Piety alon^ -with them^ and to be 
 VJrit with fuch Strength cf Judg-mcnt, as may be fup' 
 fofed that the Author had thought were upon thentf 
 than upon any other parts of that Treatife. 
 
 As 1 think thofe parts cf the Rcafonablenefs of Chri' 
 fiianity^ &c. here approved by this Author, have 
 a very pious Relifh, and are writ v/ich a Strength, 
 Vivacity, and Fineneli, very much above what is 
 common ; (o I fully concur with t:»i5 Worthy Au- 
 thor^ in all, or moft of the Points he hath treated 
 of in his Book, which I have not made fome Re- 
 mark on, in thefe Papers. I will conclude with 
 taking Notice, that as we are very apt to Imagine 
 a Perfon hath thought well on a Point, when he 
 treats it to our liking ^ fb we are very prone to 
 fancy he, is defedive, or in an Error, when his 
 Difcourfe upon a Subjed: , is not fuch as we 
 would have it to be. Yet the Miflake may really 
 be in our (elves, and may arife from our having 
 
 not 
 
C iM ) 
 not cxaAly enough confidered the Matter, when 
 we impute Negled or RemifhcC in Study to him, 
 whole Sentiments are oppofite to ours. In fuch 
 a Cafe, People are not to be concluded by the Opi- 
 tiions of thole who are for the one fide, or the 
 other, but ought to dcfcend into, and impartially 
 weigh the Merits of the Caufe. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 READER. 
 
 READER, 
 
 I Am not concerned to enquire why other Verfons hat/e 
 given fucb accounts as they have, of the main Pro- 
 pofition laid down in the Reafonablcnefe of 
 Chriltianity, &c. of the Defign that Author had in 
 fublijhing his Treatife, and of the Reaf^'n why he ob' 
 ferved the Method he hath taken to clear and prove the 
 great Point treated of there. It may [uffice to declare why 
 I apprehend that bis Propofi ion, b:s Defign, and the 
 Reafon of his Method <2re very different from what they 
 have reprefented them ; which in jhort *f, becaufe I 
 cannot help it. The Author of the Reafbnablenefs of 
 Chriftianity, &c. being perfeEi Mafter of hit own No* 
 tionSf bath expreffed them in Juch perjpicuous and proper 
 Terms, I muff offer Violence to my own Underfiandtng 
 and Reafon, to put that Confiru^ion on them^ which 
 fame have affgned them. 
 
 The worthy Author of the Animadverfions, ^c, ha- 
 ving very particularly related what he took to be the De* 
 y^», 8cc. of the Author of the Ke3i[onab\Qncrs^&c. oc 
 cafioned my fetting down all alon^ as I read his Account ^ 
 what I conceived was the Dcfgn, &c. of the aforefaid Au- 
 tho}' J and my marking fome Obfervations on wht he of- 
 
 A 2 ' fend 
 
Preface to the Reader. 
 
 fered in anfwer to tbofe Tajfagcs he quoted out of the Rea- 
 ionablenefs of Chriftianicy, &c. which are no-w pub- 
 Itfhed to prompt others to perufe attenti'vely that excellent 
 T.reatile,, avd to make themjehei Maimers of the Truths 
 there delivered ; afjd hcaufe I am ferfwaded that neither 
 the Dpiftrines d.livered in the New Teftament, mr 
 Chriftians, can have their fuU Right done themj tiJl Peo- 
 ple do underjland and entertain the great Poifit infified on 
 in the Reaibnablenels of Chriftianicy , &c, and do pre- 
 ferve tbemfelves under the Influence and ConduSi of it. It 
 is a Notion^ that tends not fo much to gratify fome Peo- 
 ple's Ambitiony and ferve their fecular Intereft^ as ano- 
 ther may ; But it is more adapted to the Advantage of 
 pure and wJefiled Religion^ and wiH contribute more to 
 Cbriftians Growth in Scripture Knowledge j and all God- 
 iinefi of living) and to their rationifhComfort and good 
 Ajfurancej than any other Notion I am acquainted with. 
 One thing which hath occajtoned many to entertain a 
 Prejudice againfi the Reaibnablenefs of Chriftianity, 
 d^c. I conceive is a wrong Notion they have imbibed con-^ 
 cerniiJg thofe Compofures we call Creeds, viz. Their 
 fancying that aU the Articles contained in aU^ or fome of 
 the Creeds, are abfolutely necefj'ary to be explicitely helievid 
 to make Mm Chrifiians. Concerning which, 1 fl^all ob- 
 
 firvs» 
 
 1. That not one of the Authors we have, who wrote 
 ip the fir ft Centt&y after ChriH, doth make any mention 
 of a Creed in their Days, So that we cannot have any 
 certainty that there was any fuch thing, during the Brfi 
 Hundred Years after Chrift, though we are very fure there 
 were Chrifiians during that Jpace. 
 
 2. Creeds were not originally defignej, to relate what 
 'Articles were abfolutely necejjary to be explicitely believed 
 to make Men Chriftians (though fome did afterwards 
 turn them to that purpofe) but to dtre^ the Clergy, and 
 
 . thofe who were to in(irii§ Chriftians in the Mitten of Re" 
 
 ligim 
 
 i 
 
Fretace to tne Keader. 
 
 i&onj v)hat Heads y Voints^ or Articles and DoBrinis 
 
 of Faith they -were to take particular Care to Mfcourfe of. 
 and in(ifl on in order to their hisilding up Believers Ut 
 their moH Holy Faith. Of this very good Evidence might 
 he produced from Anti^uityy if there -were occajion. 
 
 5. We have no certainty concerning the prectfe Number 
 of the Articles •which did wake up the Firft Creeds. IV9 
 are certain that jome of the Articles that miv confiitute 
 the oldejl Creeds 7ve have any Knowledge of ivere not at 
 firfi 171 them, but were afterwards added on particular 
 occafiom. 
 
 4. A Do^ fines being placed in a Creed, is fofar ffom 
 making the exphcite Belief of it, abfolutely neceffary to 
 make Men Chrijlians^ that it doth not make it an Obje^ 
 of Chriftan Faith. No Dcarine is an Obje6i of Chri* 
 fiian Faith, hut vfhat Jefm Chrif or his Apoftles have 
 taught. And a Chrifiians Faith mufi be grounded on E- 
 vidence that he or his Apoftles have taught it. N§w 
 the placing of a Dcthine in a Creed, doth not make 
 it a Voclrine that^ Chrifi, &c. have taught, nor dotb 
 it fujfciently evidence that they have taught tt. A Chri- 
 fiian as fuch, is not to believe any Do£frine becaufe it » 
 in a Creed ; though whe-a be js convinced that Chrifi or 
 his Apoflki have ta<^ght fuch or fuch a Doctrine, which 
 is placed in a Creed, he ts to believe it. He that ^ouli 
 fay that Faction fir/t occafonsd Meps eompofing of Cretds, 
 and that the Abufe of Creeds hath contributed no fmai 
 Affifiance to the maintaining and keeping up of Faciicns 
 would not be wholly disbelieved.. Creeds are cf great 
 ufe, if they be ufed aright. We may fay of a Creed as 
 the Apoflle doth of the Law, i Tim. i. 8. We know 
 that it is good, if a Man ufe it lawfully. 
 
 / hear that fome who (having a Mind to talk of what 
 they do not under/land) apply themfelves to rail azainff 
 the Reafonablenefs of Chriirianity, &c. in that 
 Phrafe, jpith which the worft of Men made fuch Noife 
 
 mder 
 
Preface to the Reader.' 
 
 under the late Reigns, affirming confidently upon thei^ 
 cwn Word, that it is contrary to the Chuich of Eng- 
 land. If thefe Veople are capakle of thinkings would 
 they exercife that Faculty to any good purpofe, they might 
 eajily perceive that "when Je[t€S Chrifi and his Apoftks 
 have determined a pointy it is the moH fcandalous and 
 wicked AJperfim that can be devifed^ to pretend to intro' 
 Juce the Church of England in oppofition to them. Had 
 thefe Veople that reJ])eB for, and would they pay to the 
 Ghurch of England that Deference which is due to her, 
 thej would not profiitute her venerable Name at every 
 turn, in Imitation of thofe bad Perfons who neither be- 
 lieving in our Blejfed Saviour, nor in the Living God, 
 do confiantly prophage their Sacred Names, when ever 
 they have a mind to give vent to fome unreafonable 
 TaJJion. 
 
 there is one thing which Jhould particularly recom- 
 mend the Realbnablenefs of Chriftianity, &c. to 
 good Chrifiians, and for which they can hardly fet too 
 great a value en it, viz,. That it fully refolvesjome Dif- 
 ficulties in our Saviours ConduB ( which I think ) were 
 never throughly cleared to the JVorld, till it was pub- 
 lifhed. 
 
 Some time after the following Obfervacions were fent 
 to the Trefs, 1 met with fome Papers writ by Mr. Ed- 
 wards, againft the Author of the Reafonablenefs of \ 
 Chriftianitj^ d^c. and againfi my felf^ hut to pafs 
 them over without faying any thing of them, is the 
 grtateji Civility that can be exprejjed to that Writer, 
 
 h 
 
 Your Faithful Servant, 
 
 S. BOLD. 
 
 O B S E R. 
 
 i 
 
' SOME 
 
 CONSI.DERATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Principal Obje61:ions 
 
 ARGUMENTS 
 
 which have been Publifli'd again ft 
 
 Mr. Loc£s Ellay 
 
 O F 
 
 Humane Understanding. 
 
 By SAMVEL BOLD, Redor of 
 Steeple^ Dorfet. 
 
 Re enim intelUBa^ in verhorum ujufaciles eJJ'e dehemus. 
 
 Cic.de Fin. 1. 5. 
 
 L O JSI V O N : 
 
 Printed for A. and J. Churchill, at the Black 
 
 Swan in Pater-Nofier 'Row. 1^99. 
 
(I 
 
 SOME 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 On the Pfincipil 
 
 ^bitaions and :atgttments 
 
 Which have been Publifh'd again fi: 
 Mr. Locl(s Effay of Humane Dn- 
 derjianding. 
 
 I 
 
 §1. "^P^T is no Difparagement, I conceive, to 
 any Book, nor an Artributing more tq 
 Mr. Lock'i EjJ'ay of Humane Underdand- 
 jvg, than it mod jultly delerves, to lay> 
 That ElTay is a Book the bed Adapted 
 of any I know, to (erve the Intereft of Truth, 
 Natural, Moral, and Divine : And that it is the 
 moft Worthy, mod Noble, and bed Book I 
 ever read, excepting thofe which vvere wrt by 
 Perfbns Divinely inlpir'd. This excellent Tiea- 
 tife having been publiHied feveral Yeass, ar »i 
 received through all the Learned World with 
 very great Approbation, by thr.fe v^ho nncer- 
 ftood Englilb, a mighty Out c/y was at lal^, all 
 
 B ofi 
 
(O 
 
 on the fuilden, raifed againft it here at Home. 
 There was, no doubt, (Sme realon or other, 
 why lo many hands (hould be employed, juft 
 at the fame time, to Attack and Batter this 
 Eff^iy J tho' what was the weighty confidera- 
 tion, which put them all in motion, may, per- 
 haps, continue a long time a Secret. Several 
 Perlbns have difcovered their Inclination to find 
 fault with this Treatile, by nibbling at feveral 
 paiTagcs in it, which it appears they did not un- 
 derftand, and concerning which they have been 
 at a \oi\ how to exprefs themfelves Intelligibly. 
 Some have (poken handfomly of the Author, 
 others have treated that Incomparable Gentleman 
 with a rudenefs peculiar ro fome, who make a 
 Profeffion of the Ghriftian Religion, and leem 
 to pride themfelves in being of the Clergy of 
 the Church of England. But whatever Repu- 
 tation may accrue to them on cither of thofe 
 accounts, their Condud doth not contribute any 
 thing to the Honour either of the one or of the 
 other. 
 
 § II. The principal PafTages in this excellent 
 Treatife, which have been infifted on as faulty, 
 are theie two : Firft, Certainty of Knowledge is, 
 to perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas, 
 as exprejjed in any Vrofofitton. This (faith 
 Mr. Lock) "we ujually call Knowings or being cer- 
 tain of the Truth of any Propofiion. Effay of 
 Humane Underftanding, B. 4. c. 6. § ;. Se- 
 condly, We have the Ideas of Matter and Think- 
 ing, hut poffihly jhaU never be able to know, whether 
 any tneer natural Being thinks or no ; it being im- 
 foftblt for uSf by the contemplation of our own 
 
 Ideas, 
 
(3 ) 
 
 Ideasy without Re'veUtion, to difcover whether Om- 
 ntpotency has not given to jome Syfiems of Matter 
 fitly Mfpofed, a power to pa-ceivs and think, or elfe 
 joined and fixed to Matter [o difpofsdj a thinking^ 
 immaterial Subfl-ance : It being, in refpeU of out 
 Not ions J not much more remote from our compreben • 
 fion to conceive, that God can, if he pleafes, fup^r- 
 add to our Idea of Matter a faculty of thinkings 
 than that he JJjould fuper-add to it another fuhfiance, 
 Tvith a facTilty of thinking J fince we know not 
 wherein thinking confifts, nor to what f$rt of Suh- 
 fiances the Almighty has been pleafed to give that 
 power, which cannot be in any created Being, but 
 meerly by the good pleafure and bounty of the Creator. 
 Effay, &c, B. A. c.T,.^ 6. To which I will 
 add, the better tofnew Mr. Loc;^*s (enle, the fol- 
 lowing words, which he immediately lubjoyns 
 on this occafion ; which thofe, who have thought 
 fit to except againft what he fays here^ have 
 thought fie always to omit, how fairly t will 
 not fay. Wv. Lock's following words are, For t 
 fee no contradiBion in it^ that the fir fi Eternal think- 
 ing Being, or Omnipotent Spirit^ (hould, if he plea- 
 fed, give to certain Syfiems of created fenfelefs 
 Matter, put together as he thinks fit, fame degrees 
 of fenfe, perception and thought ; tho\ as I thmk, 
 I have proved, lib. 4. c. ic. it is nolefs than a con-^ 
 tradtciim to fuppofe. Matter (which is evidently in 
 its own nature void of fenfe and thought) jhould he 
 that Eternal fir/l thinking Being. 
 
 § III. Againft the firft paffage, viz^ Certainty 
 
 of Knowledge, is to perceive the Agreement or Dif 
 
 agreement of Ideas, as expreffed in 4*iy Propoption. 
 
 There are two Charges exhibited : Firft, That 
 
 B 2 the 
 
_ _ (4) 
 the Proportion is not true. In con(equence of 
 
 which, the "way of Ideas is condemned as no ivay 
 at all to Ccrtamtyy or Knowledge j and in oppofi- 
 tion to the way of Ideas, we are told, That to 
 argue or make Inferences from Maximsy is the 
 way to Knowledge or Certainty. Secondly, That 
 the Propofition is inconfiiient with, and of dan- 
 gerous confequsnce co the Articles of tbeChriflian 
 Faith. 
 
 § IV. Firff, Ic is Tiid that the Piopofition is 
 nor true. Now, in o;der to make a right deter- 
 mination, whether the Propofuion be true or 
 no, it may be (ic to conHder in what the Truth 
 of a Propofuion doth confift : For, 1 fuppofe it 
 will be allowed; that our being certain of, or 
 knowing the Truth of a Propofition, doth con- 
 (](!• in obr perceiving that wherein the truth of 
 the Propofition doih confift ; otherwife we may 
 know, or be ceitain, that a Propofition is true, 
 the' it be not true, which carries luch a found 
 with it, 1 conceive few will be ambitious to 
 grant ir, whatever way they take to attain to 
 Certainty, The truth of a Propofition confifts 
 in words being [o put together in the Propo/jtion,' as 
 exactly to exprejs the agreement or difagreement of 
 the Ideas they fiand for^ as redly it is. This 
 Mr. Lock calls Certainty of Iruth, juft before 
 thofe words in his Bock which are pretended 
 lobe faulty. This pafTage 1 take for granted, 
 will be permitted to paft for true, not only be- 
 caufe no objedion hath been liarted agsipft ir, 
 after fo flrict a icrutiny, to find out foniething 
 from whence a colour might be taken, to give 
 the Book an ill Name, but becaufe othsrwile it 
 
 mult 
 
(5) 
 muft be owned, that a Propcfition may be true 
 tho' it is not true ; or tho' the agreement or 
 difagreemeiit of the Ideas, fignified bv the terms 
 which make up the Propofition, is notllich as 
 the Propofl ion doth exprefs. And if the truth 
 of a Propoficioh doth corifiit in what hath been 
 related, i: is moli evident rhat our being certain 
 o\] or knowing the truth of z Propcficion, muft 
 confiit in our perceiving that the Ideas, for 
 which the words, which mal^e up the Propo- 
 fition (or of which the Propofition doth con- 
 fii\) do (land, do Co agree, or difagree, 2S the 
 Propofition doth exprefs. For there is no way, 
 by which we can attain to be certain, or to 
 know that the Ideas do fo agree, or difagree. 
 as the Propofition doth declare they do, but by 
 perceiving that they do fo agree, cr difagree, 
 unle(s certainty, or knowledge of the truth of 
 PrOjiofition?, may be had without perception^ or 
 without perceiving the truth of what is expref- 
 led. And if it may be had, without percei- 
 ving the truth of what is exprelTed, perception 
 is of Co litcle momene, or ufe to certainty, or 
 knowledge, that thofe who can digeft that No- 
 tion, may eafily be of the opinion. That Mat- 
 ter confidered meeriy as an extended, bulky^ 
 figur'd Subflance, may be certain of, or know 
 the truth of Propofitions, tho' it cannot think 
 or perceive. This I fuppofe may fuffice, toma- 
 nifeff that Mr. Lock's Propofition is true j and 
 confequently, that the way of Ideas is a f-:!^, 
 and Indeed the only way to Cerrainty or Know- 
 ledge, fo far as Men are capable of attaitiir.g to 
 know the truth of Propofitions. Yet bccaufs 
 B ; another 
 
CO 
 
 ^another way to Certainty or Knowledge is pro- 
 pofed in oppolition to the way of Ideas, -viz,. 
 The way of Maxims, or of Arguing, and ma- 
 king or drawing Inferences from Maxims, I 
 will briefly confider that way, and what oppo- 
 sition it hath to the way of Ideas. Butfevera! 
 Propofjtions, common ly reputed and looked on 
 as Maxims, being not true, unlefs taken in a 
 very limited fenife, I will change the term 
 Maxims, and place Self evident Propofitions in 
 its roon^. Now Self evident Proportions have 
 this in common with other Propofitions, That 
 they confili of Words, which (land for Ideas. 
 And there is no way, by which a Perfon can 
 be certain, or know the truth of a Propofition, 
 we call Self-evident, but by perceiving that the 
 Ideas, fignifted by the words of which the Pro- 
 pofition dothr confift, have fuch a connedlion 
 ox agreement, or repugnancy, or difagreement, 
 as the Propofition doth exprefs j for tho' the 
 Propofition beliich, that no other Idea is need- 
 ful, or can be made ufe of to help any Man 
 to a certainty, or knowledge, that the Propo- 
 fition is true, becaufe the Ideas fignified by the 
 words, have, by an immediate comparifon of 
 them, a vifible agreement, «r difigreement, yet 
 no Perfon c;in be certain, or can know that the 
 Propofition is true, v/ho does not perceive that 
 the ideas, fignifted by the ternis of which the 
 Propofition doth confift, do fo agree, or dif- 
 agree, as the Propofition doth exprefs. Nor 
 can it he laid to be a Self evident Propofition, 
 to him who doth not perceive that the Ideas do 
 fo agree, or difagree^ as the Propofition de- 
 clares 
 
(r ) 
 
 dares they do. And if there can be no way, 
 by which Perfons cm nttain to be certain of the 
 truth of thofe Propofitions we call Self-evident, 
 but this of perceiving the agreement or di(a- 
 grsement of Ideas, as exprefled in them, the 
 only way, by which we can attain to know the 
 truth of other PropofitLons, muft be that of com' 
 paring Ideas, that being the only way whereby 
 we can attain to perceive their agreement or 
 difagreement. 
 
 § V. A Perfbn's being certain of the truth 
 of a Propofition we call Self-evident, doth not 
 make him know the truth of another Propor- 
 tion. It may be a great help to his attaining to 
 know the truth of other Propofitions, but it 
 will not contribute any other way to his being 
 certain of the truth of other Propofitions, than 
 as it helps him to percti/e that the agreement, 
 or difagreement of the ideas, fignified by the 
 words which m^ke up thole Propofitions, is 
 fuch as the Propofitions expreis. He that knows 
 the truth of a Self evident Propofition, may, by 
 the help of that Propofition, eafily attain to be 
 certain of the truth of another Propofition, 
 which hath an immediate connexion with it j 
 but his knowledge of the truth of the latter Pro- 
 pofition, will confift in his perceiving that the 
 Ideas, fignified by the words of which it con- 
 fifts, have ftich agreement, or difagreement, as 
 the Propofition doth expreis : For, if he does 
 not perceive that, he cannot be certain that the 
 Propofition is true, tho' he is moft certain that 
 the former Propofition is true. If the Propo- 
 Hcion he would know the truth of^ be fome- 
 B 4 what 
 
(8) 
 
 what remote from the Self evident Propofition, 
 by the means of which he may attain to kno\y 
 the truth of it, he niuft make ufe of interme- 
 diate Ideas : And v/heeher the procels be from 
 the Propofition to be proved, to the Self-evident 
 Propofition, or from the Self-evident Propofi- 
 ti n to that he \X/ould know the truth of, all the 
 intermediate Ideas rauft have a Self evident 
 agreement, or difagreemenr, with one another, 
 throughout the whole train of the Argumenta- 
 tion : And this agreement, or difagreemenr, 
 murt, all along, in every fiep be perceived, or 
 certainty of the truth, of the Proportion to be 
 proved, cmnot be obtained. If any one of the 
 intermediate Ideas, have not a Self-evident 
 agreement, or difagreement, with thofe ne^ct 
 unto it ; or if it have fuch agreement or dif- 
 agreement with them, but tbe Perlbn who 
 would know the truth of the Propofition doth 
 not perceive it, his knowledge will unavoidably 
 if op there, and cmnot poSibly proceed any 
 further, any more than the parts of a Chain cati 
 hang together, when one of the Links is broken 
 and loff ; or than a Perfon can from One, make 
 up the Numl.erF/'ve, and yet leave out either 
 2, 3, or 4. This I take to be demonlf ratively 
 certain, unlefs Certainty or Knowledge may be 
 had without Perception, Perhaps it will be 
 pretended, that we come to Certainty or Know- 
 jedge, not by perceiving the agreement or dif- 
 ggrcement of Ideas, but by Inferring, or ma- 
 king Rational Dedudions from known Self- 
 evident Principles, or Propofitions. To this I 
 uniwcTi That he vi^ho doth Rationally ipfer 
 
(9) 
 
 any thing, or makes a Rational Deduftion.does 
 not do it, that by that means he may attain to 
 Certainty or Knowledge, but that he may aflift 
 and help others to that Knowledge or Certainty 
 he hath already obtained, by laying before them, 
 in a train of Propofitions, the connexion of all 
 the intermediate ideas, whereby the firft and 
 the laft are tied together. For a Perlbn to 
 make a dedudion Rationally, doth fuppofe his 
 being Certain, or Knowing, or perceiving that 
 what he deduces, hath fuch an agreement or 
 difagreement, with the Propofitions from which 
 he doth deduce it, as his Inference doth exprefs. 
 If a Man will infer, and make deductions Ra- 
 tionally, he muft antecedently perceive the 
 agreement, or difagreement, of the Ideas about 
 which he is concerned, otherwife he can have 
 no reafon to make Deductions : And if he does 
 make Deductions, and they prove to be Ratio- 
 nal, it is mserly by chance that they do fo ; and 
 he cannot be properly faid to have made them 
 Rationally. If a Man will infer, and make 
 Dedu<aions at all Adventures, before he can be 
 certain that his Inferences are true, he muft ex- 
 amine them, and compare the Ideas in the Pro- 
 profitions from which he hath deduced them. 
 He cannot be certain that his Inferences, confi- 
 der'd barely as Propofitions, are true, any o:her 
 way, than by perceiving that, the Ideas, figni- 
 fied by the words of which they confilt, do fo 
 agree, or difagree, as thole Propofitions exprefs. 
 He cannot be certain that they are true, confi- 
 der'd as Inferences, any '*^her way than by per- 
 ^csiving the agreemenr, or difagreement, they 
 
 have 
 
have with the Propofuions from which they 
 were deduced. Inferring, and making De- 
 dudions, feems not to me to be the only way 
 to Certainty^ but comparing Ideas, which is 
 the only way to perceive their agreement or 
 difagreement. And Self- evident Principles, or 
 PropofitionSj and the ufe that can be made of 
 them to help us to Certainty, are fb far from 
 having any oppofition to the way of Ideas, that 
 neither their Truth can be known, nor any Pro- 
 fitable Ufe (with refped to Truth) be made of 
 them, but by the way of Ideas. 
 
 § VI. The fecond Charge produced againft 
 this Propofition, is. That it is of dangerous 
 confequence to, and inconfiftent with the At- 
 tides of the Chrifiian Faith. This Charge ieems 
 to be grounded on the laft words of Mr. Lock*s 
 Proportion J 'viz.. As exprej/ed in any Tropofition. 
 Now fome Propofitions come to us by Divine 
 Revelation ;, and feveral of thefe Propofitions 
 are fuch, we cannot perceive by comparing the 
 Ideas, fignify'd by the words of which they 
 confift, that they do lb agree or difagree, as the 
 Propofitions do exprefs. It follows therefore, 
 from Mr. Lock\ Propofition, that we cannot be 
 certain of, or know the Truth of thofe Propo- 
 fitions I and this is faid to be#inconfiftent with, 
 or of dangerous confequence to the Articles of 
 the Chrifiian Faifh, but I cannot underftand for 
 what reafon it is faid to be fb. For as the truth 
 of all Pfopafitions, come they to us by what 
 way foever, confifts in what hath been before 
 mentioned, io our bsing certain of, or knowing 
 the truth of any Propofition, let it come to us 
 
 by 
 
(II) 
 
 by what way foever, muft confift in that, 
 wherein our being certain of, or knowing thfc 
 truth of any Propofition doth confift : For the 
 way how a Propofition is brought to us, doth 
 not aher its nature, confider'd as a Propofition^ 
 nor the nature of Certainty, or Knowledge, 
 which are fixed, and unchangeable, and always 
 the fame, and therefore cannot make Certain- 
 ty, or Knowledge of its truth, to confift in any 
 thing, but what Certainty or knowledge of the 
 truth of a Propofition, brought to usfomeother 
 way, doth confift in. If it (hall now beask'd. 
 Whether, feeing there are certain Propofitions 
 which come to us by Divine Revelation, and 
 we cannot perceive that the agreement or dif- 
 agrcement of the Ideas^ fignify'd by the words 
 in thofe Propofitions, is fuch as the Propofitions 
 exprefs, Mr. Lock's Propofition is not incon- 
 fiftent with, and of dangerous confequence to 
 thofe Articles of the Chriltian Faith ? I anfwer. 
 That when an account is given of the determi- 
 ned Ideas, for which thofe phrafes, incovfifent 
 v^itb, and of dangerotti confequence, do itand, 
 whether they are ufed in different fenfes, or 
 both be defigned to fignify one and the (ame 
 thing : And what that, or thofe precife Ideas 
 are, which are meant by them, diftinA and 
 proper Anfwers may be given to the Queftion, 
 or Queftions propounded. If by inconfiftenc 
 with thofe Articles, is meant inconfiftenc with 
 the truth of thofe Articles ; and fo the Queftion 
 amounts to this. Whether that Propofition of 
 Mr. Locks can be true, and thofe Articles true 
 too ? The Anfv/er is Yes, very well j for the 
 
 truth 
 
( IS ) 
 
 truth of thofePropofitions doth not depend on 
 pur being certain of, or knowing the truth of 
 ihetn. If by inconfiftenc with thofe Articles be 
 meant, that we cannot be csrrain of, or know 
 the truth of thofe Articles, then the Qijcflion 
 will be. Whether it will not follow from 
 Mr. LocW PrOpofition, that vjq cannot be cer- 
 tain of, or know the truth of thofe Articles ? 
 To which the Anfvver ts, Yes. But the Propo- 
 fiiion, for all that, is inconfiltent enough with 
 thofe Articles, thV it cannot confift well with 
 Peoples pretending to kiiow what God hath fee 
 out of their reach, and which they cannot at- 
 tain to know. It is no wrong at all to thofe Ar- 
 ticles, to (ay we cannot be certain of, or know 
 the truth of them ; it is afpeaking of the truth, 
 and an attributing unto them the prelieminence 
 which God hath given them. If Perfbns are 
 refolv'd they will u(e thi« phrafe, inconfiftent 
 wicli Articles of the Chriltjan Faith in this fenfe, 
 there is no help for it ; yet Mr. LocKs Propo- 
 fition will continue true) and cannot do any 
 injury to any one Article of the Cbrijtian Faith. 
 But what will become then (may fome fay) of 
 tho(e Articles of the Chriftian Faith, or of 
 thole Propofitions which come to us by Divine 
 Revelation, and the truth of which we cannot 
 be certain of, or know ? Anfwer : They will 
 continue juft as they are, very great, even Di- 
 vine and Incomprehenfible Truths ; and they 
 are to have all the Entertainment given them by 
 us, that Divine Revelation defigns they fhould 
 have. Whatever Fropoiitions are brought to 
 us by Divine Revelation, and propofed to us 
 
 by 
 
( '3) 
 
 by it, to be the Objeds of our Knowledge* 
 they are fo formed, that 've may perceive that 
 the agreement or difagreement of the Ideas, 
 fignified by the words of which they do con- 
 filt, is fuch as the Propoficions exprcfs. And 
 we have no other way to be certain of, or to 
 know the truth of thofe Propofitions, but by 
 perceiving that the Ideas do ib agree, or dif- 
 agree, as the Propofitions exprefs. But as for 
 thofe Propofitionjj which come to us by Di- 
 vine Revelations, and are fuch, that we cannot 
 perceive that the Ideas, fignify'd by the woids 
 of which they confift, have fuch agreement or 
 difagreementj as the Propofuions exprefs, they 
 are not propofed to us, by Divine Revelation, to 
 be OhjeBs of our KnowUcJge, but only of our 
 Faith. And tho' we do not, nor can know, or 
 be certain of the truth of thefs Propolltion?, 
 yet if we do firmly, and with full affjrance, 
 believe them to be true, becaufe we have gootl 
 fatisfadlion that God hath revealed them ,• and' 
 if our belief of their truth, hath ail that effi- 
 cacy and influence on us, which Divine Reve- 
 lation requires, we do fully anfwer ihe defign 
 of Divine Revelation, with refpecS: to thcfe 
 Articles-of the ChriRlan Faith. But is noc 
 Faith (may Ibme fay) a Reafonable Ad: ? Yej : 
 But all reafonable Affent is noc Certainty or 
 Knowledge. My affent to the truth of a Pro- 
 pofition, or my believing it to be true, is a 
 Reafonable Ad:, not becaufe I am cer^-ain, or 
 do know that it is true, but becaufemy AlTeot 
 is founded on fuch Evidence that it is true, as 
 ii. evc:ry way fuffic!>;;ar to ju'tifie my AlT'jriei-ng 
 
 lo 
 
C '4 ) 
 to it. There cannot be a more Reafonable Ad, 
 than to believe the truth of that Propofition, 
 which we are on good grounds latisfied is decla- 
 red to be true, by that God who cannot Lye. 
 Let any Man prodcce a Pjopofition, that Di- 
 vine Revelation iiath brought to Light, and 
 make it appear to me that it came to Men by 
 Divine Revelation, I fhall believe it, or aiTent 
 moft firmly to the truth of ir, tho' I cannot 
 know the truth of it ; and my doing (b^ will be 
 a moft Reafonab'ie A<5i, bccaufe my aftent will 
 be grounded on Divine TefHmony. But let that 
 Perfbn, or any other Perions, frame another 
 Propofition in Phiiofbphical Terms, concerning 
 the fame matter, and then pretend, that that 
 Propofition declares fomething more concern- 
 ing that matter, than God hath revealed con- 
 cerning it, if I caniiot perceive that the Ideas, 
 fignify*d by the words oi that Propofition, do 
 agree or difagree as the Propofition exprefles, I 
 cannot be certain, or know that the Propofi- 
 tion is true ; nor will my afTenting to the truth 
 of it, upon his or their faying it is true, be a 
 Reafbnable Ad. For the Propofition being 
 about a matter out of his or their reach, I have 
 not fufficient evidence to allure me that it is 
 true ^ yet,notwith(}anding the latter Propofition 
 dothconfift of different words from the former, 
 if it be declared that neither more nor lefs is 
 meant by thefe words, than is fignify'd by thofe 
 in the other Propofition, I can alTent to the 
 truth of it, and my affent will be a Reafonable 
 Ad, becaufe tho' they are two diftind Propo- 
 fitions confider'd as to the words, yet as to fenfe 
 
 they 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 they are but one, and exactly the fame. Well,, 
 but at this race, what becomes of the Certainty' 
 of Faith ? Anfwer. Certainty ^ and Faith^ are 
 two words, which ftand for, or fignifie two 
 diftin<ft A(5ls of the Mind ; and they can no 
 more be properly affirmed of one another, than 
 thofe diftind kSts can be faid to be one and the 
 fame. Indeed, a Perfon may ufe the word 
 Certainty, or Knovjkdge^ if he pleafe, for AlTent, 
 grounded upon probable Evidence, or for AfTent 
 iounded on Authority, or for any other Idea he 
 hath a mind to call by that Name ; and If he 
 certifies what the Idea is, he hath a mind to fig- 
 nifie by that word, his Difcourfe may be Intel- 
 ligible, if he conftantly ufe the word in that 
 /enfe. But if he will oppofe another Perfon, 
 who hath declared that he ufeththe word Cer- 
 tainty, and Kmivledge, (Iridly taken, in the 
 lame fenle, and doth not declare that he takes 
 the word Certainty in another fenfe, his Dif- 
 courfe will unavoidably be very obfcure, if not 
 perfectly unintelligible : For it will be prefu- 
 med he ufeth the word in that fenfe, in which 
 the other Perfon had declared he did ufe it, 
 when all the while he means another thing by 
 it. 
 
 § VII. When it is faid that Mr. Locks Pro- 
 poiition is of dangerous confequence to the Ar- 
 ticles of the Chriftian Faith, if fomethingelfe 
 is fignify'd by it, than what was meant by the 
 former phrafe, a diftind Account fhould be gi- 
 ven of what is intended by this phrafe. If any 
 (hall pretend that the true and juft confequence 
 of Mr. Lock\ Pfopofition is this. That the Ar- 
 ticles 
 
( i6 ) 
 
 clescf theChriftian Faith are not to be believed j 
 the Propofition pretended to be deduced is a 
 very wicked Propofition. But then it is as 
 plain, and certain as any thing can be, That it 
 can no way be drawn from Mr. Locks Propo- 
 fition, which has no relation at all to any Arti- 
 cles of Faith, or Belief, either Chriftian, or 
 -Other. If Mv.Lockh Propofition can concern, 
 or affbift any Chrifitan Articles, they muft be 
 Articles »f Cbrifiian KnovfleJge, not of Chriflian 
 Faitb. And his Propofition is (o far from being 
 of dangerous confequence to Articles of Chriftian 
 Knowledge, that it gives the true Account 
 wherein the knowledge of thofe Articles doth 
 confili", as will moft evidently appear, when 
 any of thofe Articles Ihall be inftanced in and 
 confidered. If it fha'.l be pretended, that from 
 Mr. Lock's Propofition it may be regularly in- 
 ferred. That no Man ought to believe, that any 
 Propofition is true, but what he can attain to 
 know the truth of, and that he ought not to 
 afiTent to the truth of it, till he attains to be 
 certain of, or to know the truth oi it, and 
 that this is what is meant, when ir is (aid to ba 
 of dangerous cortfequencs to the Articles of the 
 Chsiilian Faiih; then, in the firft pl.ice it is to 
 be acknowledged, that the Propofition intended 
 to bo regularly deduced from the other, is cer- 
 niniy of mofl dangerous confequence to thofe 
 Perfons, who ihall luffer themfelves to be enfl:i-. 
 ved by it, and this with refped to Ar:ides of 
 the Chriftian- Faith. But then, in the (econd 
 (V?ace, it is great Injuftice to charge Mr. LocJii 
 Propjfition wich that, which can only in Julfice 
 
 bej 
 
( 17) 
 be laid to the charge of another Propofition , 
 efpccially ro do io before it is proved, and 
 made to appear, that that dangerous Propofi- 
 tion can regularly be inferred from Mr. Lock^s 
 Propofition, which is a point altogether uncapa- 
 ble of being proved, for there is no poffibility 
 of fhewing any connexion between them : The 
 two Propofitions are as far diftant from one 
 another, as the Eaft is from the Wefl-. From 
 what hath been already faid, I think it may with 
 realon enough be concluded, that the principal 
 Accufations, advanced againft Mi\ Locks Propo- 
 fition, are altogether groundlefi. 
 
 § VIII. Certainty, or Knowledge did, and 
 wiil, always confift, in what Mr. Lock declares 
 it doth confift ; and the way to attain Certain- 
 ty was always by comparing Ideas. What mea- 
 lures of knowing foever thofe have, who fjaeak 
 moft flightingly of the way of Ideas, all their 
 knowledge is owing to it, how little foever 
 they are aware of it, or how ftrongly foever 
 they arc inclined to attribute it to fomething 
 elfe. There were Perfons, in all Ages, who 
 attained to certain meafures of knowledge, and 
 were never able to declare diftin<5tly and fully 
 how they came by their Knowledge. They 
 generally flopped in their Accounts, at the Ar- 
 tificial Methods, whereby they were aflifted in 
 comparing of Ideas, (tho* they took no notice 
 of that) which was the true and natural way 
 by which they perceived their agreement or 
 difagreement, and obtained knowledge. Mr.Lock 
 is the firft Perfon I have heard of, who hath 
 obfervedj and acquainted the World, in what 
 C Know^- 
 
(i8) 
 
 Knowledge, or Certainty doth confift. By 
 which difcovery he hath done Mankind io 
 great a. kindneis, in dircAing Men plainly to 
 the moft certain, eafie, iand fpeedy way to at- 
 tain Knowledge, (b far as they are capable of 
 it : And how to bound their Enquiries, fo as 
 not to fpend their Labours in fruitlefs Endea- 
 vours, to know what is out of Humane reach, 
 and what they can never attain to certainty in, 
 that Men will never be able to pay him 
 thanks enough, for the good Offices he hath 
 done to the World,nor to teftifie fufficientPraifes 
 untoGodjfor theLight andFavcui he hath reach- 
 ed forth, and imparted unto Mankind by him. 
 § IX. The fecond paffage which hath been 
 thought faulty in Mr. Lock's EjJ'ay of Humane Un- 
 derfianding, is this : We ha've the Ideas of Matter, 
 and Tbinkingy hut foffihly jhall never be able to 
 know whether any meer Material Being thinks tr 
 no -J it being impcjjible for us^ by the contemplation 
 of our own Ideas, without Revelation, to dtf cover 
 •whether Ommpotency has not given to fome Syfiems 
 of Matter fitly dijpofed^ a Power to perceive and 
 think^ or elje joyned and fixed to Matter jo difpojedy 
 a thinking immaterial Suhfiance. h being in refpeB 
 of our Notions, not much more remote from our com- 
 p-ehenfion to conceive, that God can, if he pleafes^ 
 fuperadd to our Idea of Matter a Faculty of Think' 
 ing, than that be Jhould fuperadd to it another Sub- 
 fiance, with a faculty of Thinking, fince we know 
 not wherein Thinking confifis, nor to what fort of 
 Subfiances the Almighty has been pleafed to give that 
 power, which cannot be in any created Being, but 
 pjecrly by the goodpleafure and bounty of the Creator, 
 
 &c. 
 
(I?) 
 
 &;c. Ejfay of Humane Underftanding, B. 4. <:.;.§ ^. 
 Againlt this paffage, two things are offered : 
 Firft, It is (iiggefted that it is not confiftent 
 with the Souls Immortality ; or at leaft, takes 
 off very much from the evidence of ics Immor- 
 tality. Secondly, It is pretended, that from the 
 Nature of Matter, it may be proved to be falfe, 
 § X. Firft, It is fuggefted, that what Mr. Lock 
 hath here faid, is not confiftent with the Souls 
 Immortality, or at leaft takes off very much 
 from the evidence of its Immortality , for if 
 what Mr. Lock doth fay be true, it cannot be 
 Demonftratively proved that the Soul is noc 
 Material. And if the Soul be nothing but a 
 Material Subftance, it muft be made upas others 
 are, of the cohefion of folid and feparable parts, 
 how minute and invifible fbever they be, and 
 muft be diflolved when Life is ended. And it 
 takes off very much from the evidence of Im- 
 mortality, if it depend wholly^ upon God's gi- 
 ving that, which of its own nature it is not ca- 
 pable of. i^w/u/. I. The Immortality of the Soul 
 doth not depend on our knowing,or perceiving 
 by demonftrative proof, in the way of Reafon, 
 that it is Immaterial ; nor doth our having a 
 Rational Perfwafion, that the Soul is Immortal, 
 depend on our knowing that it is Immaterial. 
 • § XI. Mr. Lock doth not fay that the Soul is 
 Material ; He owns that we have the higheft 
 degree of probability that it is Immaterial , but 
 that we cannot attain to demonftrative Certain- 
 ty or Knowledgej by comparing the Ideas of 
 Matter and Thinking, that the Soul is an Im* 
 material Subftance, iho' we may this way know 
 
 C % that 
 
(20) 
 
 that it is a Spiritual Subftance. What Mr. Lock 
 faith is thi?, TVe cannot ^ by the ccntemflation of our 
 oun Ideas, without Rcvdation^ difcovcr wbetber 
 OrcfJipotencj/ has not given tc/ome Sy^ems of Aiau 
 tety fitly dtjfofcd^ a fewer to perceive and think ; or 
 that we cannot demonflranvel- prove, by meer 
 Principles of ReafoDj or Philofophy, either the 
 Matcriahty or Immateriality of the Soul, but 
 that the point is above our Reafon, and what 
 we cannot be fully afTured of but by Divine Re- 
 velation. For this his Affertion, hs hath pro- 
 duced feme Reafons, which have not been pro- 
 ved to be invalid, or weak, by any of thofe 
 Authors I have feen, who have declared their 
 diflike of this AiTertion. And if the Reafcns 
 he hath given for his Affertion cannot be re- 
 futed^ but are folid and unanfwerable, it will 
 not be eafie to prove that his Affertion may juft- 
 \y be blamed. To prove Mr. Locks Propofition 
 iaife, eicher the Materiality, or Immateriality 
 of the Soul, fiiculd be demonftratively proved, 
 for he denies that either of them can be demon- 
 firatively proved. The fureft way to prove the 
 falfensls of a Propofition, which denies that a 
 thing can be demonftrated, is to demonftrate 
 that thing. I know an Attempt hath been made, 
 by one who condemns the way of Ideas,as no way 
 at all to Certainty ,to demonftrate that Matter can* 
 not Think,or that God cannot fufer add to any S)/lem 
 cf Matter a Fewer of Thinking '^ which demonlira- 
 lion is manag'd in the way of Ideas. But tho' 
 what is offer'd th^re,foT demonftrationjwouldliif- 
 ficiently prove that Solidity is not a Tower of Think' 
 ing, if that needed proof, yet I think it doth not 
 afford any fort of evidence that Omnipotency 
 
 can- 
 
(21 ) 
 
 cannot fuperadd hothSoltdity^^nd nfovjer ofThink- 
 ing^to one and the fame Subftance,which was the 
 point to be demonitratedBefides^the way ofldeas 
 being condemned, as no way at all to Certainty, 
 thole who are of that mindjCannot with any reafbn 
 pretend,that what hath been offered for a demon- 
 llration of this point,is really a demonftration of it. 
 For if they can think it to be ^ Demonftration of 
 the point, they cannot avoid being obliged to re- 
 nounce their other thought, ^nd think the quite con- 
 trary,whether they may judge it proper and con- 
 venient to acknowledge the fame openly or no. 
 If what hath been offered for a Demonftration 
 of this point, be really a Demonftration of it, 
 the way of Ideas is undoubtedly a way to Cer- 
 tainty 'j yea, and a way to Certainty about a 
 point, which I am inclined to think cannot be 
 demonftrated any other way. 
 
 § XII. ;. If the Soul wer^ nothing hut a mate- 
 rial Suhfiancej what follows thofe words in the 
 objedion might perhaps pals with fome for a 
 plain Truth : but for my part, I cannot com- 
 prehend how any things that hath life, fliould 
 be nothing but a material Subftance j for Life 
 is no part of, nor hath any necefl'ary conne6bion 
 with the Idea, fignified by thefe words, Mate- 
 rial Subftance. , Nor do I perceive any neceffity, 
 that a Material Subftance endued with Life, 
 muft lofe its Life, becaufe by fome Accident, 
 or within a certain period, the gro^ and fenfi- 
 ble parts of it muft fall off from thole more 
 fine and infenfible parts which God hath order- 
 ed to be the Seat of Life. And thofe who think 
 they can prove deraonftratively, that the Soul 
 , is a created Immaterial Subftancej muft take 
 
 C ^ heed 
 
heed of affirminjz; that the Soul is nothing hut a 
 created Immaterial Subflance, left that Aflertion 
 prove of dangerous coniequence to, and incon- 
 fiftenr with the Articles of the Chriftian Faith ; 
 for if the Soal be nothing but a created Imma- 
 terial Subftance, it is not a Spiritual, or Think- 
 ing Subftance ; for the power of Thinking, is 
 a power which God jfuperadds to our Idea, 
 whether of Material, or created Immaterial 
 Subftance, and which neither the one, nor the 
 other can have, but meerly by the good pkafure, 
 and bounty of the Creator, as Mr. Lock moft Judi- 
 cioufly and Pioufly obferves. But M.T.Lock 
 doth not any where fay, That the Soul is no- 
 thing but a Material Subftance, or that we can- 
 not know, by contemplating our Ideas, that 
 tha Soul is nothing but a Material Subftance. 
 Indeed, Mr. Lock hath thefe words, We have 
 the Ideas of Matter and Thinking, but foffibly JljaU 
 ne<ver be able to know^ "whether any Material Be^ 
 ing thinks or no. From thefe words. Any mcer 
 Material Beitig, fome may, perhaps, in their 
 hafte, have taken occafion to think, that 
 Mr. Lock\ Notion was, that for ought we could 
 Jcnow, the Soul might be nothing but a Material 
 Subftance. To rec^ifie which miftake, I think 
 it may be fufficient tc note, that weer Material^ 
 in Mr. Lock's Senfe, is not oppos'd to a power 
 of Thinking, ('which we cannot know but God 
 may fupperadd to our Idea of Matter) but to an 
 immaterial Subftance, confidered as joyned to 
 a Material Being. 
 
 ^ Xin* 4' It is not very eafie to comprehend 
 What is meant by thefe words. It takes off very 
 
 piueb , 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 much from the evidence of Immortality, if it defend 
 "wholly upon God's giving that, wbieb of its oivn 
 nature it is not capable of. For no created Sub- 
 ftance can have any thing more, than God is 
 plea(ed to give ir. It is not very intelligible to 
 me, that God fhould give to any thing, that 
 which its nature is not capable of, efpecially 
 if by Nature be here meant, what I find fome 
 Perfons do fometimes mean by that word, viz.. 
 Subftance ; for what Subftance is capable of, 
 even after that folidity is added to it, is more 
 than any Man can know. And if Omnipo- 
 tency can add a power of Thinking to fblid 
 Subftance fitly difpofed, no Man can be certain 
 that folid Thinking Subftance is not of its own 
 nature capable of Immortality ; but whether a 
 created Being lliall be Mortal or Immortal, is 
 not to be deter.mined by oar confidering its na- 
 ture, but by underftandingthepleafureof God 
 concerning it. The Humane Nature is the fame 
 now it was in the firft Ages of the World ; but 
 that Men do not now ordinarily live above a 
 hundred Years, is not to be refolved into this^ 
 that the Humane Nature is not capable of being 
 continued longer in Life, than that Ipace, but 
 into the pleafure of God, that now Men /hall 
 not ordinarily live to a greater Age ; for Men 
 did ordinarily, in the firlt Ages of the World, 
 live many hundreds of Years ; and that they 
 did fo, was purely to be attributed to the Di- 
 vine Pleafure. And had it been the pleafure of 
 him, who kept Men then fo long in Life, that 
 Men fhould not die, they would have been 
 Immortal. }f the evidence of Immortality, 
 C 4 conniis 
 
confifts in Immateriality, the Immateriality of 
 the Soul mu(t be demonftratively proved,before 
 Perlbns can perceive the evidence of the Souls 
 Immortality. For if any perfon takes it for 
 granted, that the Souls Immateriality may be 
 demonftratively proved from, or by certain Prin- 
 ciples of Reafon, and from thence perfwades 
 himfelf that the Soul is Immortal, and upon 
 after-trial and examination he Ihall find that his 
 Principles he depended on are uncertain, and 
 cannot afford him fuch proof as he was per{wa- 
 dedthey would yield, his difcoveiing the uncer- 
 tainty of his own Principles, which he went 
 upon in point of Reafon, will, according to a 
 Notion lately advanced, weaken the Credibili- 
 ty of the Souls Immortalityj when confidered 
 purely as a Matter of Faith. And if this be 
 true, great and fpeedy care ftiould be taken to 
 produce demonftrative proof, that" the Soul is an 
 Immaterial Subftance, not only to make Men 
 certain that their Souls are Immortal, but to 
 lecure the Credibility of Divine Teftimony. 
 But blefled be God, we have a fare Foundation 
 for our Faith to reft onj for the Teftimony of 
 God will never fail, but always remain firm 
 and true, how fliort foever the Principles of 
 Reafon may fall, of bringing us to Certainty 
 or Knowledge, concerning feveral Articles of 
 Faith, or Propofitions, which come to us by Di- 
 vine Revelation. It may be proved,to the high- 
 eft degree of probability, that the Soul is Im- 
 material ; but no demonftrative proof being yet 
 produced in the way of Reafon, that the Soul is 
 Immaterial, I cannot underftand why any per- 
 
 foa 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 ion (hould pretend it muft follow that the Soul 
 muft be Mortal, if it be a Material Subftance, 
 with a fuperadded power or ficuky of Thinking ; 
 and in that refped, or on that account, a Spi- 
 ritual Subftance, tho' not Immaterial, fof Ma- 
 terial and Mortal have no neceffary connexion. 
 And therefore we cannot be certain, by con- 
 templating the Ideas thole words ftand for, 
 that every Material Subftance muft be Mortal. 
 And he who (hall affirm, that every Material 
 Subftance muft nccclTarily be Mortal, will, if 
 he adhere to his Allertion, find himfelf obliged 
 to deny, at leaft, two Articles of the Chriftian 
 Faith, or two Propofitions which come to us 
 by Divine Revelation, i. That Man became 
 Mortal by Sin, or that the Wages of Sm is Death \ 
 for it is paft doubt, that one part of Man,when 
 firft created, was Material. And if every Ma- 
 terial Subftance muft necelTarily die, Man muft 
 have died, tho' he had never finned. 2. That 
 after the Refurredion Men will be Immortal ; 
 for, after the Refuiredion, one part of Man 
 will be Material. 
 
 § XIV. Secondly, It is pretended that this 
 palTage, in Mr. Locke's Eflay, which I have 
 been difcourfing of, may from the Nature of 
 Matter be proved to be falfe. I will, ift. Say 
 (bmething of this point in general ; and then, 
 2dly. Confider particularly what the laft Au- 
 thor I have feen,who finds fault with this paflage, 
 doth fay concerning it, who I think takes in 
 the whole ftrength of what others have propo- 
 fed, who have on < this Account formed ob- 
 jeAions againft it. 
 
 §XV. 
 
(26) 
 
 § XV. Firftj I will fay fomething concerning 
 this point in general. Subftance, I conceive, 
 will be acknowledged on all hands to be right- 
 ly divided into Material and Immaterial ; but 
 how many various, different Powers, or Fa- 
 culties, thefe forts of Subltances are capable of 
 receiving, is what furpalles Man's Underftand- 
 ing. Yet whatever Powers they are capable of 
 receiving, God can give or fuperadd unto thera 
 if he pleafes ; whether he hath given to cither 
 Ibrt all the Powers it is capable of, is more 
 than we can be certain of, by the bare Exercife 
 of our Reaion. He may, for any thing we 
 know to the contrary, give to certain Material 
 Syftems fitly dilpofed, fome Powers, which he 
 alfo gives to Immaterial Subftances. Amongft 
 thefe we may reckon the power of Thinking, 
 which neither Material, noi- Immaterial Sub- 
 ftances, can have, whether God will or no. 
 And whether it hath been his pleafure to fuper- 
 add this power only to the Idea we exprels by 
 Immaterial Subftance,or alfo to the Idea we ex- 
 prels by Material Subftance, is a point we can- 
 not be fully afliired of but by Divine Revela- 
 tion. The power of Thinking, added to a 
 Sublhnce, whether Material, or Immaterial, 
 makes that Subftance, Spirit. Material Sub- 
 ftance, Immaterial Subftance, and Spirit, are 
 terms which ftand for three diftinft Ideas. And 
 tho' Spirit, or Spiritual Subftance, doth not im- 
 ply Matter, or Material Subftance in its Idea, 
 yet the power of Thinking being fuperadded to 
 Matter, will make it Spirit, or Spiritual Sub- 
 ftance. Juft as Spirit doth not imply Immate- 
 rial 
 
(27) 
 rial Subftance in its Idea, yet the power of 
 Thinking being; fuperadded to Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance, makes k Spirit or Spiritual Subftance, 
 which it could not be, without a power of 
 Thinking added to it. To ask therefore pe- 
 remptorily, whether Matter can think or not ? 
 is to propofe an obfcure Qaeftion which wants 
 explaining. If by the Queftion be meant, Can 
 God add a pow<jr of Thinking to Matter or 
 no ? The AnfweE will be. We have no demon- 
 iirative proof for either part of the Queftion ; 
 and therefore carenot be certain concerning the 
 Matter. But if b)^ the Queftion be meant, Can 
 Matter Think without having a power of Think- 
 ing fuperadded to it ? The Anfwer is plainly. 
 No. But the way of Arguftg, that then the 
 Subftance which Thinks muft be Immaterial, 
 is not very clear, for Immaterial Subftance can 
 no more Think, than Matter can, without a 
 power of Thinking added to it : And whether 
 it be Material, or Immaterial Subftance, to 
 which the power of Thinking is added, that 
 Subftance thinks, iho' it be by virtue of a pow- 
 er fuperadded to it, without which it could 
 not think, or confidered barely as Material, or 
 Immaterial Subftance. Solidity, and a power 
 of Thinking, are perfedly diftind, and quite 
 different Powers ; yet if God can fuperadd a 
 power of Thinking to a (olid Subftance, there 
 is no neceflity that the Subftance which Thinks 
 muft be Immaterial, for Subftance, and a pow- 
 er of Thinking, are as diftin<ft as Material and 
 Immaterial The Material Subftance thinks, 
 tho* not precifely under this confideration, but 
 
 as 
 
C 28 ) 
 
 as having another Power added to it, whereby 
 it is enabled to do that, which it could not do 
 without it, 'VIZ,, to Think. And tho' the Idea 
 of Thinking will not prove the fubltance which 
 thinks to be immaterial, it will, if fuperadded 
 to Matter, prove that the fubftance which 
 thinks hath another power than that which 
 made it Matter, and will as certainly prove it 
 to be a Spiritual Subftance, as Solidity can prove 
 it to be a Material Subftance \ Solidity, and 4 
 power of thinking, are very different powers, 
 but they are not contradidory. And there 15 
 no inconfiftency, in fuppofing that the lame 
 fubftance may have more diftindt modifications 
 than one, let them be ever fo different one 
 from the other, «^hiift they are not contra- 
 dictory. We cannot attain to Certainty, that 
 God cannot add a power of Thinking to Mat- 
 ter, tho' we may that he cannot make the fame 
 fubftance to be material and immaterial at the 
 fame time, becaufe this laiter is a contra- 
 didion. 
 
 §XVI. Secondly, I willnow confider what 
 the laft Author I Isave feen, who finds fault with 
 this paiTage in Mr. Lock\ EiTay, doth fay con- 
 cerning it. This Author is the Reverend 
 Mr. Jenkirij who having quoted out of Mr. Lock*^ 
 Ejfay of Humane Underfianding^ part of what I 
 have before tranfcribed out of that Book, hath 
 (in the 46 and 47 pages of his Vreface before his 
 'Reafonablenejs and Certainty of the Chrift^ian Reli- 
 gion) the words which (hall be marked all along 
 as I come to them, as thefe following words 
 (with which he begins his Reply to what he quo- 
 ted 
 
(29 ) 
 t€d out of Mr. Lock) are, '^ But it feems not 
 " intelligible, how God (hould fuperadd to 
 '' Matter this faculty, or power, or modifica- 
 ^' tion, of thinking, unlefs he change the na- 
 ** tureof Matter, and make ic quite another 
 '* thing than it is, or joyn a fubftance of ano- 
 *' ther nature to it. Anfw. It is very common, 
 even with noted Authors, to exprefs themfelves 
 in fuch a manner, that tho' at firft view their 
 Sentences feem to have a very plaufible appear- 
 ance, yer, upon a ftrider confideration, their 
 Senfe proves to be fo uncertain, and undetermi- 
 ned, chat it is very hard to know what they do 
 mean. I will fuppole that here, by, Ic Jeems not 
 Intelligible that Godfijould, &c. is meant, That 
 Men cannot underftand, how God fhould, or 
 can fuperadd a Power, &c. of Thinking to 
 Matter, but either, by changing the nature of 
 Matter, or by joyning a Subftance of another 
 nature to it. And I think it not Tntelligible, 
 how this proves any thing againft Mr. Locks 
 Propofition, to which it is oppofed. For tho' 
 we cannot underftand how God fhould do this, 
 but by one of the ways before-m.entioned, (and 
 it feems fuppofed by this Author that we can un- 
 derftand how God can do it, either of thoie 
 waysj yet he may do it fbme other way, which 
 15 not intelligible to us. And if he can do it, 
 in a way, which we cannot underftand how he 
 ihould do it, it is moft certain, that we cannot 
 know, or be certain that he cannot do it. God 
 hath done, and does do many things, which 
 we cannot underftand the njanner how he did, 
 or does do them. Therefore it is no proof that 
 
 God 
 
(30) 
 God cannot do a thing, becaufe we do not, or 
 cannot underftand the manner how he can do 
 it. But feeing God can do things, and we can- 
 not underftand how he can do them, this is a 
 very juft and good Reafon, why we fhould not 
 pretend to know he hath not done fuch a thing, 
 when we cannot alledge any thii)g more to jufti- 
 fie our pretence^ but this, that we cannot un- 
 derftand how he Ihould do ir. If we could un- 
 derftand how God might fuperadd a power of 
 Thinking to Matter,, this would not prove that 
 he has done it. In like manner, our not being 
 able to underftand how he (hould do it, can be 
 no proof that he hath not done it. Thefe words 
 confidered as they are ofEred for an Anfwer to 
 what Mr. Lock hath faid, feem to carry with 
 them two fappofitions, which fliould be taken 
 for true: i. Here is fuppofed, that God hath 
 not done any thing, which we cannot under- 
 ftand how he Hiould do ; which fuppofition is 
 apparently a miftake, and void of Truth. 
 2. Here is fuppoied, that it is intelligible how 
 God iliould add a Thinking Power to Matter, 
 either of the ways here afligned, but with this 
 intimationj That it can be demonftratively pro- 
 ved, that he hath not done it either of thoie 
 ways, and therefore that he hath not done it at 
 all. Without thefe fappofitions, I think it not 
 intelligible, how thefe words can concern what 
 Mr. Lock hath laid, who doth not fide with ei- 
 ther part of the; Queftion, Whether God has, 
 or has not, addod a Thinking Power to Matter, 
 but faith, Thast neither part of the Queftion 
 can be demonstratively proved. To prove this 
 
 way, 
 
Csi ) 
 
 Way, againft Mr. Lock^ That God has not added 
 a Power of Thinking to any Syftem of Matter, 
 the truth of both the Sappofitions ftiould be 
 nxade undeniably plain and clear, and then the 
 intimated demonltration fhould be produced. 
 The demonftration not being laid down, no 
 Judgment can be made of it, nor by if. But 
 the two ways afligned, by which it is fuppofed 
 intelligible how God ftould add a Power of 
 Thinking to Matter, may be a little confidered. 
 The firit way by which it is fuppofed intelli- 
 gible, how God might add a power of Think- 
 ing to Matter, is, by changing the nature of 
 Matter. And by changing the nature of Mat- 
 ter, I conceive, by the words following, we 
 are to underdand, making it quite another 
 thing than it is. Now, I think it is altogether 
 unintelligible, how God fhould fuperadd to 
 Matter a Power of Thinking, by making it 
 quite another thing than it is ; for then it muft 
 ceale to be Matter. Indeed, it is not intelligi- 
 ble that God fhould fuperadd aThinking Power 
 to Matter, and not make it another thing, (tho' 
 not quite another thing) than it was before that 
 Power of Thinking was fuperadded to it. But 
 tho* by fuperadding that Power to it, it would 
 be made another thing, yet it would not ceafe 
 to be what it was before : It would ftill be 
 Matter, tho' nothing but Matter. A new 
 Power cannot be fuperadded to any thing, but 
 that thing muft continue what it was before,the* 
 by that (uper-addition it hath what it had not 
 before. Should Matter ceafe to be Matter, no 
 Power or Faculty could be added to it, Mr. Lock 
 
 faiclf. 
 
(3=) 
 faith, We cannot be fully affured, any other 
 way than by. Divine Revelation, whether God 
 has, or has not, fuper added a Power of Think- 
 ing to any Syftem of matter fitly difpofed. Now 
 to fay in oppofifion to this, That God cannot 
 doit, but by making matter quite another thing 
 than it is, doth carry along with it an unintel- 
 ligible Suppofuion, or rather an exprefsContra- 
 di<9:ion, viz,. That God can fuper-add fbme- 
 thing to matter, by making that fame matter 
 ceafe to be matter. But ic is undeniably cer- 
 tain, thatiffolid Subftance be capable of having 
 a Thinking Power fuper-added to it, God can 
 fuper-add that Power or Faculty to it, tho' we 
 cannot underftand the way or manner how he 
 fliould do it. And we cannot, by comparing 
 our Ideas, attain to Certainty, or Knowledge, 
 whether matter is capable, or not, of having a 
 Power of Thinking fuper-added to it, becaufe 
 we cannot this way reach to know the utmoft 
 Capacity of matter. And if matter be capable 
 of having that Power fuper-added to it, we 
 cannot be fully affured any other way than by 
 Divine Revelation^ whether God has fuper- 
 added that Power to any Syftems of Matter : 
 For God is not neceffarilj obliged to fuper-add 
 to any thing, everv Power it may be capable 
 of. 
 
 § XVII. The (econd way propofed, how 
 God might fu per add a Power of Thinking to 
 Matter, is. By joyning o-Subfiance of anotberna* 
 tun to it. Anfw. i. The joyhing of a Sub- 
 fiance of another natuVe to matter, will not 
 fuper-add a Ppwcr ot Thinking, unlefs that 
 -^ ' Sub- 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 Subftance of another nature has the Power of 
 Thinking joyned to it. The Power of Think, 
 ing, is a Power fuper-added to Subftance, whe- 
 ther the Subftance be material, or immaterial, 
 to which God is pleafed tofuperadd it. 2. The 
 joyning of an immaterial Thinking Subllance 
 to Matter, is not a fuper-adding to matter the 
 Facuky of Thinking. The Faculty or Power 
 of Thinking in this Cafe, is appropriated to the 
 immaterial Subftances, and is not a Power 
 fuper-added to matter. ;. It is every jot as 
 unintelligible to us, hoiv an immaterial fubflaince 
 fhould be joyned to a material fubftance, as 
 how a Power of Thinking fliould be fuper- 
 added to a material fubifance. And I think it 
 altogether unintelligible, that God fhould fuper- 
 add a Power of Thinking to Matter, this way. 
 Tho' we cannot underft and how God ftiould 
 joyn an immaterial Thinking Subftance to fome 
 Syftems of Matter, yet this cannot be a good 
 Reafon why any Man fiiould pretend to be cer- 
 tain, or to know that God cannot, or has not 
 joyned an immaterial Thinking Subftance to 
 fome Syftems of Matter. Neither isit a demon- 
 ftrative proof, that God cannot, or has nor, 
 fuper-added a Power of Thinking to fome Sy- 
 ftems of Matter, becaufe, for ought we know, 
 he can, or has joyned an immaterial Thinking 
 Subftance to fome Syftetps of Matter. We 
 cannot attain to Certainty concerning what he 
 has done as to thefe matters, nor can we be ful- 
 ly aflured what he has done, but by Divine 
 Revelation. Tho, as Mr. Lock faith, we have 
 the higheft degree of probability, that the Power 
 
 D of* 
 
(34) 
 of Thinking is fuper-added to immaterial fub- 
 llances ; and that thofe Syftems of Matter, in 
 which there is a Power of Thinking, have an 
 immaterial lubftance joyned to them, to which 
 that Power of Thinking is fuper-added. 
 
 § XVIII. " But the Queftion is, Whether a Fa- 
 ** culty of Thinking can be produced out of the 
 Powers, and various Modifications of Matter ? 
 /infjT. If this be the Queftion, it is a very dark 
 and obfcure one. The Queftion, as here word- 
 ed, feems to (uppole, or grant, that Powers are 
 fuper-added to our Idea of Matter, upon its be- 
 ing varioufly modified. And then enquires, 
 whether out of thole Powers, another Power 
 (jviz. The Power of Thinking, if that be the 
 meaning here, of the Phrafe, a Faculty of 
 Thinking) diftinft from them, can be produ- 
 ced ? Now, as one Power cannot operate on 
 another Power, lb neither can one Power be 
 produced out of other Powers. To talk of one 
 Power of Matter being produced out of another 
 Power of Matter, feems to me altogether unin- 
 telligible ; for I cannot imagine what can be 
 meant by it, unlefi it be either that one Power 
 of Matter contains, in the Bowels of it, another 
 Power, which may one way or other be er- 
 traded out of it, the former flill continuing^ 
 which I conceive is not confiftent with good 
 lenfe ; or that one Pfijver of Matter doth contri- 
 bute to its having another Power, which is as 
 little intelligible as the former. And is much 
 the fame thing, as to fay, That that Power of 
 Matter which makes it >o», contributes fome- 
 thine to its having that Power which makes it 
 ^ ^ Gold: 
 
( 35 ) 
 GoU : Or that that Power which makes Matter 
 to be WaXy contributes to its having that Power 
 which makes it a Loadjtone : Whereas the Pow- 
 ers which make Matter to be Gold^ and Lead- 
 fionesj are as perfectly different from the Pow- 
 ers which make Matter to be Iron, and Wax^ as 
 they are from that Power which makes Matter 
 to be Woody or from thole Powers which make 
 Matter to be any of thofe other things to which 
 we aflign other Specifick Names. As Matter be- 
 ing modified a certain way, has a certain pow- 
 er fuper-added to it, which it had not before ic 
 was fo modified, (b, being modified another 
 way, it hath another power fuper-added to it, 
 different from the former. Now it is not poffi- 
 ble we fhould know how many powers may be 
 fuper-added to Subf^ance, whether having, or 
 not having, the modification of Solidity, unlets 
 we could accurately underftand how many 
 ways it can be modified. A thoufand Queftions 
 may be propofed concerning Powers, whether 
 they can be fuper-added to a Subftance that has' 
 the modification of Solidity upon its being va- 
 rioufly modified, to which no Anfwer can be gi- 
 ven, which can be demonftratively proved. 
 And amongH: other Reafons, becaufe we cannot 
 know the precife modifications, on which thofe 
 Powers muft depend, we are not admitted fo 
 far into the Secrets of Nature, as to be able to 
 take cognizance of all the various real Conftitu- 
 tions, on which all the Powers, which may be 
 fuper-addedtoourldeaof Matter, may depend 
 If before any Man knew any thing of the Load- 
 ftone, this QueiUon had been put, viz. Whether 
 God had fuper-added to a Syftem of Matter, 
 
 D 2 fitly 
 
C 50 
 fitly difpofed, a power to draw Iron to it ? No 
 Man then living could have given an Anfwer to 
 it, which he could have proved demonftratively. 
 Had the Queftion been anrwer'd negatively, we 
 are now very well alTured, the Anfwer had been 
 falfe. If the Anfwer had been affirmative, the' 
 it had been leally true, yet the Anfwer could 
 not then have been proved demonftratively. 
 The Queftion, with relation to what Mr. Lock 
 hath fdid, feems to me to be this. Whether a 
 denionftrative proof can be produced that it is, 
 or is not the pleafure of God, that a Power of 
 Thinking (hall be fuper- added to our Idea of 
 Matter, upon a Syftem of Matter being modi- 
 fied in a certain manner ? And this Queftion 
 cannot be fatisfaAorily refolved any other way, 
 than by producing a demonftrative proof cither 
 of the one part of the Queftion, or of the other j 
 for till the demonftrative proof is produced, we 
 muft continue uncertain, and ought to acknoW' 
 ledge, that the point furmounts our view, is too 
 difficult for us to refolve demonftratively, and 
 that It doth not come within our notice. 
 Mr. Lock doth not difcourfe there, of what may 
 be produced out oi the Powers, and various mo- 
 difications of Matter, but of what God can fu- 
 per-add, if he pleafe, to Matter fitly difpofed : 
 So that, the Queftion here cannot be. Whether 
 a Power or Faculty of Thinking will neceffarily 
 refult out of the Powers of Matter, upon its be- 
 ing in a certain manner modified ? But whether 
 Omnipotency cannot give to a Syftem of Mat- 
 ter, fitly difpofed, a power of Thinking, which 
 could not be produced out of the Powers and 
 
 various 
 
(3?:) 
 
 Various Modifications of Matter ? There is no 
 reafon at all to imagine, that the Power of 
 Thinking muft be produced out of the Powen 
 and various Modifications of Matter, becaufe a 
 Syftem of Matter^ fitly difpofed, is taken notice of 
 as requifite, or neceflary, in order to its having 
 a Power of Thinking fuper-added to it. For 
 that the Matter be fitly difpofed is neceflary, 
 whether God give the power of Thinking im- 
 mediately to it, or mediately, viz.. By joyning 
 to it an immaterial Thinking Subftance. And 
 as it doth not follow, that becaulethe Syftem of 
 Matter muft be fidy difpofed, to have an imma- 
 terial Thinking Subftance joyned to it, therefore 
 this immaterial Thinking Subftance can be, or 
 is produced out of ^he Powers, and various mo- 
 difications of Matter ; fo neither doth it follow, 
 that becaufe the Matter muft be fidy dilpoied^to 
 have a Power of Thinking, given or fuper- 
 added to it, therefore the Power of Thinking 
 can be, or is produced out of the Powers and 
 various Modifications of Matter. Which ever 
 way it is, that a power of Thinking is lodged in, 
 or fuper-added to a Syftem of Matter fitly diP 
 pofed, there is (omething added to the Syftem 
 of matter To difpofed, by the good Pleafure and 
 Boutvty of God, which could not be produced 
 out of the Powers, and various modifications of 
 matter. But ho-w God does it, which ever way 
 it is, is alike unintelligible to us J nor can we 
 demonftrate which way it is. 
 
 ^ XIX. " And we can have no more Con- 
 
 " ception, how any modification of matter can 
 
 " produce Thinking, than we can how any 
 
 D i " modi* 
 
" modification of Sound fliould produce Seeing. 
 Anfw. Allowing all this to be true, it is no de- 
 mon'iration of that for which it is brought. If 
 there is any ftrength in this PropofitioHj with 
 relation to what ic (hould prove, it muft 'lie 
 either in the term How, or in thefe words. We 
 can have no Concepti&n ; or elfe. In the comparing 
 of the Modifications of Matter^ with the Modtfica' 
 tiom of Sound i And Arguing, or Inferring, that 
 becaufe, or if no modification of found can pro- 
 duce Seeing, then no modification of matter can 
 produce Thinking. That which this Propofi- 
 tion ihould prove is this, That the Power of 
 Thinking cannot be fiiper-added ; or that it is 
 not die pleafure of God, that the Power of 
 Thinking ihall be fuper-added to Solid Subftance, 
 let it be modified in what manner foever. Now, 
 firft of all. If the farce of the Propofition 
 brought to prove this, do lie in the term How^ 
 it muft derive its force from this Suppofition, 
 That no power can be fuper-added to Solid Sub- 
 Dance, however modified, but what we can 
 conceive How it fhould be fuper-added to it. 
 That is, That no Syftem of Matter, whofe real 
 Conftitution we cannot accurately underftand, 
 can have any power ; which is, in efFe<5t, to 
 affirm, That (olid Subflance cannot have any 
 power fuper-added to it. For allthePoweis 
 that all Syftems of Matter can have, depending 
 entirely on their real Conftitutions, to which 
 we are perfed Strangers, none ot them muil 
 have any powers at all, /becaufe we cannot con- 
 ceive how any powers fliould be fuper-added to 
 folid fubftance, or cannot conceive their real 
 
 Confti- 
 
(39) 
 Conftitutions, or not exadly underftand the 
 preciCe modifications of Matter, whereby they 
 are made fuch Syftems. Secondly, If the force 
 of the Propofition fpoken of, confifts in the(e 
 words, IVe can have no Conception^ then it derives 
 its force from this Suppofition, That no power 
 can be fuper added to (olid fubftance, but what 
 we can conceive can be fuper-added to it, tho' 
 we may not be able to conceive how it can be 
 fuper-added to ir. Now this is a Suppofition 
 that makes all the Powers of all Syftems of mat- 
 ter, 10 depend not on their real Conftitutions, 
 but on our Ability, to conceive that they can 
 have them ; whereas there are innumerable Pow- 
 ers fuper-added to fblid Subftance, which we 
 cannot conceive can be added to it, becaufe 
 thofe Syftems of Matter, which have them, come 
 not under our oblervation and notice. This 
 muft needs be acknowledged by all, who do not 
 fancy that all Material Beings fall under their 
 infpedions, and that they can take a Survey of 
 every one of them. Moreover, we can con- 
 ceive certain Powers to be fuper-added to certain 
 Syftems of matter, which are not fuper-added 
 to them ; of which, a multitude of Inftances 
 might be given, there being nothing almofi 
 more common, than for Perfons to conceive 
 that certain Syftems of matter have (iich Powers 
 as they really have not. Thirdly, If the force 
 of this Propofition doth lie in comparing the mo- 
 dlfieatims of Mattej with/i&e modifications of Sound, 
 and inferring, that if no modification of Sound 
 can produce Seeing^ that then no modification 
 of matter can produce Thinking, then the term 
 
 D 4 How^ 
 
(40) 
 
 HoWj and thefe words, We can have no Concef-: 
 tion, arc fuper-numerary ; for if they cannot- 
 impart any ftrength to either part of the Propo- 
 fition confidered abfolutely, they cannot add 
 any weight- to the comparifon. Leaving out 
 therefore thofe words^ the Propofition is thus. 
 Any modifications of matter can no more pro- 
 duce Thinking, than any modifications of found 
 can produce Seeing, This Propofition is true, 
 both the parts of it arefo j but then it is not any 
 thing to the purpole, for which it was intended. 
 Turn it into an Hypothetical Propofition, that 
 it may have the form or appearance of an Argu- 
 ment, and it muff run thus, If no modification 
 of found can produce Seeing, then no modifica- 
 tion of matter can produce Thinking. Here 
 both the Antecedent and Confequent are true, 
 but then the Confcquence can never be proved ; 
 there is no connection between the Propofition 
 inferred, tho' it is true, and the Propofition 
 from which it is inferred, tho' that alfo is true. 
 The realbn why both the Antecedent and Con- 
 sequent are true, is, becaufe no modification 
 can produce an A6t : And therefore, had the 
 Propofition run thus, If no modification can 
 produce an Ad, then no modification of matter 
 Can produce Thinking, then the confequence 
 had been unexceptionable. But in the lormer 
 Propofnion, the Inference hath no ground at all 
 to fupport it, becaufe the deduAion is not from 
 this. That modifications cannot a(5l:, but frofn 
 (uch a fort of modifications, as could not produce 
 the A(5t Ipecified, fuppofing that modifications 
 could produce Ads j for if a modification could 
 
 produce 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 produce an A<2:, a modification of matter might 
 produce Thinking, tho' no modification of 
 Sound could produce Seeing. But Thinkings and 
 Seeing, being both A6ts, they muft fuppofe Pow- 
 ers, and the enquiry not being whether modi- 
 fications can ad, for it is paft doubt that modi> 
 fications cannot ad ; For not modifications, but 
 (ubftances lb and ft) modified, or having fuch 
 and fuch Powers, are Agents, and do produce 
 Ads, The Propofition will come nearer to the 
 fubjed we are difcourfing of, if it be worded 
 thus, If no modification of found can produce the 
 power of feeing, then no modification of matter 
 can produce the power of thinking. Now be- 
 caufe I do not know what Notions Ibme Perlbns 
 may have of modifications producing powers, or 
 in what fenfe they may underlf and thofe words, 
 I will ftate the prefent Enquiry as plainly as I 
 can, and then confider this Propofition or Argu- 
 ment more particularly. We are very lenfible 
 that it is the pleafiire of Almighty God, that fo- 
 lid fubOances being variouOy modified, fhould 
 have feveral Powers, by which Powers they arc 
 fitted and enabled to do feveral (brts of Ads, or 
 produce various EfFeds. The Enquiry there- 
 fore is. Whether it can be demonfiratively pro- 
 ved that it is, or is not the pleafure of God, that; 
 matter being in a certain manner modified, fhould 
 have a power of thinkings whereby it may be 
 enabled to think ? And to demonftrate that it is 
 not the pleafure of God, that matter, however 
 modified, fhould have a power of thinking fu- 
 per-added to it, this Argument is propofed, viz^ 
 That if no modification of found can produce 
 
 the 
 
C40 
 the power of feeing, then no modification of 
 matter can produce the power of thinking. The 
 (enfe then of this Argument muft be this. If it 
 is not the pleafare of God, that a power of fee- 
 ing fhould be fuper-added to found, what way 
 foever it can be modified, then it is not the plea- 
 lure of God, that a power of thinking fhould 
 be fuper-added to matter, whatever way it can 
 be modified. Now, this is apparently fo un. 
 concluding a Propoficion, 1 cannot think any 
 Man will infift on it, or pretend, that by modi- 
 fications of found producing a power of feeing, 
 can be meant producing that power in it felf ; 
 buc that, becaufe various modifications of found 
 do produce various (enfations in other things, 
 therefore producing the power of (eeing, muft 
 be underftood of producing it in other fubjeds. 
 Let the Argument then, to its utmoft advantage, 
 run thus, If it is not the ple?^ e of God, that a 
 power of feeing fiiould b ^r added upon any 
 modification of ibunt' r .iofe fubjetfts in which 
 the various modifu: 'ions of (bund do ordinarily 
 produce certain (enfations, then it is not the 
 pleafure of God that a power of thinking fliould 
 be fuper-added to folid fubftance, in what man- 
 ner foever it can be modified. That I may nei- 
 ther pafs over this Argument, without taking 
 any notice of it, nor yet bear too hard upon ir, 
 1 will only offer tjjjpfe three Confiderations con- 
 cerning it, I. That fuppofing the Argument to 
 have any ftrength in it, it would labour under 
 this unhappinefs, That it would prove a great 
 deal more than it fiiould. 2. Thatfuch a Rea- 
 ibn may be alligned, why no modification of 
 
 (bund 
 
( 43 ) 
 found can produce Seeing, or why it is not the 
 pleafure of God that a power of feeing (hould 
 be fuper'added upon any modification of found, 
 &c, as the like cannot be aflignedj that it is not 
 the pleafure of God, that a power of thinking 
 fhould be fupsr-added to matter upon its being 
 in a certain manner modified. 3. That we can- 
 not argue regularly from the modifications of 
 founds^ to the modifications of matter. Firff, 
 That fuppofing this Argument to have any 
 Ifrength in it, it hath too much : It would la- 
 bour under this unhappinefi. That it would 
 prove a great deal more than it ihould, and 
 quite over-iurn the whole courfe and order of 
 Nature, and the ordinary Pi evidence of God 
 in the material World. For the Argument can- 
 not be reftrained and limited to the power of 
 thinking, but muff, and will reach, to all pow- 
 ers in matter, and fo prove that it is not the 
 pleafure of God, that any power (hould be fuper- 
 at^ded to matter, upon its being any way mo- 
 dified ; which, to me, has this found with ir. 
 That tho' it is the pleafure of God, that matter 
 may be varioufly modified, yet it is not the 
 pleafure of God that it Ihould have any power at 
 all, i.e. Be capable of any Adion. Place any 
 other powers in the room of thofe which are na- 
 med, the Argument will be every jot as good 
 as it is, and the Propofitions, of which it con- 
 fills, will be every whit as tru^ as they are with 
 thefe that are mentioned. And therefore I for- 
 bear to refled on the fundamental Error that 
 prelTeth the Argument, and on that faulty Pre- 
 fumption this way of Arguing imports, in under- 
 taking 
 
f 44 ) 
 taking to determine what is, or is not the plea- 
 fure of God, without any either Real, or Verbal 
 Difcovery from him, concerning it. Secondly, 
 Such a Reafbn may be affigned why it is not the 
 pleafurc of God, that a power of Seeing Ihould 
 be fupefTadded upon any modification o\ found, 
 to thofe Subjeds, in which the various modifi- 
 cations of founds do ufually produce certain Scn- 
 fations ; the like to wdich, cannot be affigned, 
 Why it is not the pleafure of God that a power 
 of Thinking Ihould be fuper-added to miteer, 
 upon its being in a certain manner modified, for 
 found, and the various modifications A it, are 
 only Ideas in our Minds, and are t -) the Bodies 
 we denominate from them, only powers to pro- 
 duce thofe Ssnfations in us, <:o which we give 
 the Names by which wp call them. Loud, 
 Shrill, &c. in Idea, are but the certain Bulk, 
 Figure and Motion., of the infenfible parts in the 
 Bodies themfelves, which caufe tho(e Senfations 
 in us. They are bu^ certain Powers, that are 
 in Bodies, by reafbn of the particular Gonftitu- 
 dons of their primary Qualifies, to operate after 
 a particular manner on one certain Senfe, or Or- 
 gan of Senfe, viz. The Ear, by agitating vari- 
 oufly rhe Animal Spirits, which are in that Or- 
 gan when duly difpofed to receive their impref^ 
 fions. The fame modification of matter may 
 produce in it a power, which will produce in us 
 different Senfations, but by operating on diffe- 
 rent Organs of Senile, fitted to receive its impref- 
 fions. One and the lame modification in the 
 external ObjeA, may produce different Effects 
 or Senfations in us^ becaule it operateth on diffe- 
 rent 
 
( 45 ) 
 rent Organs, adapted in us for different purpofes. 
 The various modifications of found cannot pro- 
 duce in us feeing, becaufe it is the pleafure of 
 G^d, that the Ideas thole Bodies communicate 
 to us, which we call in general various modifi^ 
 cations of found, fhould be conveighed to us not 
 by the Eye, but only by the Liar, from whence 
 they are diftinguilhed from thole Ideas we are 
 to receive by our Eyes. We have in this matter 
 a plain real dilcovery of the pleafure of God, but 
 we have not the like in the other cafe, about 
 which the Argument I am Ipeaking of is con- 
 cerned. But the true reafon why no modifica- 
 tion of found can produce a power of Seeing, is 
 becaufe neither (bund, nor any modification of 
 it, can produce sny power at all :, They can no 
 more produce a Power of Hearing, than they 
 can a Power of Seeing. Let the Organ of 
 Hearing be difbrdered, and have no Animal 
 Spirits in it, that can be agitated by external 
 Objeds, no lounds, nor modifications of found, 
 can produce a Power of Hearing in it. Third- 
 ly, That we cannot argue regularly from the 
 modifications of (bund, or of any fenfible qua- 
 lities to the modifications of matter ^ and the 
 reaibn of this is evident, 'vix,* Becaufe they do 
 differ Toto Coslo. The modifications of founds, 
 are only Ideas in our minds ; the modifications 
 of matter, are the real, but unknown Confti- 
 tutions of things exifting in Nature. If there can 
 be any room to argue concerning Thinking, 
 from the modifications of Sound, it cannot be 
 concerning the Power of ■ Thinking, but only 
 about the modifications of Thought. Thus, if 
 
 any 
 
C40 
 any Man fiiould offer any thing concerning the 
 modifications of Thought, fo incoherent as this 
 is, i/is. That the modifications of (bund can 
 produce Seeing, this obvious inconfiftency may 
 be made ufe of regularly enough, to convince 
 him, and others, of the Abfurdity and Incohe- 
 rence of the other AfTertion. But to fay that a 
 power of Thinking cannot be fuperadded tothe 
 fttbrtance of matter in any cale, becaufe the 
 Ideas we receive only by one fenfe, cannot be 
 got by another fenfe, hath no connexion at all, 
 and is fb far from being a demonftration, it is 
 not good (enfe. In ihort, the whole of this Ar- 
 gument amounts to no more than this. If fecon- 
 dary qualities cannot produ^ce Powers (which it 
 is certain they cannot) then God cannot, by the 
 modification of its primary qualities, give Pow- 
 ers to matter j whereas all thePoweis of matter, 
 fo far as we can obferve, depend on them, as 
 their Source, Spring, and Original, by the Plea- 
 fure and Ordination of God., as appears by the 
 whole Series and Order of Nature and Provi- 
 dence. Thele words, fpe can have no^wore Con- 
 ception how any modification of matter can produce 
 Thinking, than we can, how any modtficatton of 
 Sound fhould produce Seeing, muft be underftood 
 concerning the Reality of a Confequent or 
 Effect, following upon a Syftem of matter being 
 fitly difpoled or modified, either to receive a 
 Power which it had not before, or to occafion 
 an Ad in a Subject endowed with a certain 
 Power to Ad in a certain manner upon certain 
 occafions. Now, I conceive, it is paft all 
 doubt, that various modifications of matter are 
 
 neceffary 
 
(47 ) 
 
 necefTary to occafion, if not produce, certain 
 different Ads in ^ubjeds which are endued with 
 Powers to exert thofe different A(^s, on diiferent 
 Occafions, tho' we may not know how thole 
 different modifications of matters do occafion 
 or produce thofe different A<fts. And tho' no 
 modifications of matter can produce Thinking 
 in<heSyftem of Matter, which is the Subjed of 
 thole modifications, yet a certain modification 
 of matter, may be requifite and neceffary to the 
 preparing and making a Syftem of Matter meet 
 to receive a Power of Thinking. And I think 
 it equally eafie to conceive, how any modifica- 
 tion of Sound fhould produce Seeing in the Bell^ 
 or Harp, &c. that makes the found, as how ic 
 Ihould produce Hearing in it. 
 
 § XX. '* All Modifications of Matter are the 
 fame as to this point. Anjw. If it is not the 
 pleafure of God, that a Power of Thinking 
 Ihould be fuper- added to our Idea of Matter, up. 
 on any modification of it, then all modifications 
 of Matter are the fame as to that point. And it 
 is acknowledged very probable, that it is not the 
 plealiire of God to fuper-add a Power of Think- 
 ing to matter any way modified. Yet bare 
 laying, that all modifications are the fame as to 
 that point, is not proving it ^ and it is not pro- 
 bable proof we are looking after, (tho' fuch hath 
 not yet come under confideration) but demon- 
 ftrative proof. Mr. Lock faith we have the 
 higheft degree of probability ; thofe therefore 
 who will oppole him, ought to take care, that 
 what they offer be true demonftration, other- 
 wife all they fay will be to no purpofe. That 
 
 Matter 
 
(48) 
 Matter being varioufly modified hath different 
 Powers, the (everal Objeds we converle with do 
 clearly demonftrate. And we (hall hardly be 
 able todemonfhatej that all modifications of onat- 
 ter are the fame, as to the power of Thinking, 
 till we attain to know what are all the Modifi- 
 cations and Powers that Matter is capible of^ 
 unlefs we can give fuch true Accounts of the ^- 
 ture of Matter, and the nature of Thought, as 
 will demonftrate that thefe two are incompatible; 
 which we cannot do, without underftanding ex- 
 adly in what the nature ef each doth confift. 
 All modifications of Matter are no more the 
 lame, as to Matter having a Power of Thinking 
 fuper-added to it, than they are the fame as to 
 Matter having an Immaterial Thinking Sub- 
 Hance joyned to ir. And I believe all modifi- 
 cations of Matter are not thought by this Reve- 
 rend Author, to be the fame as to this point; 
 for if they be, a Thinking Koch, er a Thinking 
 Tofiy would be every whit as intelligible as a 
 Thinking Man. 
 
 §XXI. '* And Matter may as well be made 
 '* no Matter, by modifying, as be made to 
 " Think by it. Anfiv. This is Affirming, but 
 not Demonftrating. That Matter fhould be 
 made no Matter by modifying it, is altogether 
 unintelligible, and impoflible j for let it be mo- 
 dify'd ever fo many ways, it will ftill be Mat- 
 ter. It may be proved Demonftratively,*that 
 Matter cannot be made no Matter, by modi- 
 fying it; and if demonftrative proof were pro- 
 duced, that Matter, however modify'd, can- 
 not have a Power of Thinking, the Difpute 
 
 would 
 
C 49 ) 
 would be at an end. But that Matter, under ^ 
 certain modifieation, fhould think, when a 
 Power of Thinking is fuper-added to it, is con- 
 fiftent enough, and as intelligible, as that it 
 jhould exert any other Ad, when it hath a 
 Power fuper- added to it, to exert that A^, 
 It is not laid that Matter is made to think by 
 any modifications, that are proper to it confi- 
 der'ed barely as Matter, tho' by fbme of thefe 
 modifications of the Subftance, which we know 
 not, it may, for ought we know, be difpofed 
 and made fit to have a Power of Thinking liiper- 
 added to it, by which it fliall be enabled to 
 think. This Power of Thinking is not proper 
 or peculiar to material Subftance 5 nor Can we 
 prove demonftratively that it is lb to Immaterial 
 Subftance ; but for any thing we kaow to the 
 contrary, it may be fupcr-added both to the 
 one and to the other. For if the fame Subftance 
 may be Co modified as to be fometimes material, 
 and Ibmetimes immaterial, (as is granted in this 
 very Difpute) it is not impoflible to fuppofe it 
 may have the Power of Thinking, when it is 
 material, as when it is immaterial : For as thei 
 Power of Thinking, when fuper-added to Im- 
 material Subftance, doth not make it ceale to 
 be Immaterial, fo being fuper-added to material 
 Subftance, it doth not make it ceale to be mate- 
 rial ; tho' being fuper-added to both, it makes 
 both to be Spiritual Subftances, which neither 
 of them could be without it. 
 
 §XXU. " Thisisjuft as if a Man fliould 
 " maintain. That tho' all Immaterial Subftan- 
 *' ces ^re not extended and divifible, yet fome 
 
 E ■ ■ of 
 
( 50 ) 
 *' of them may poffibly be ; or Omnipotence 
 " may fuper add to them a Faculty of Exten- 
 '* lionandDivifibilityj for Immaterial Subftan- 
 '* ces may become Divifible and Material by the 
 '* fame Philofophy, by which we may con- 
 " elude that Matter may Think ; which is the 
 " fame thing as to become Immaterial, and to 
 " furpafs all the Powers and Capacities of Mat- 
 *' ter. Anfw. Our Author is here got as far 
 from his point as he was before, when upon 
 the Modifications of Sound ; for here he is gone 
 from the Modifications of Matter, to the Trans- 
 mutation of Subflances. That 1 may do this 
 Paragraph, and the Point difcourfed of, what' 
 Right I can in a few words, I will, j. Offer one 
 Confideration concerning the Subje(5t of our 
 Difcourfe. 2. Shew what 1 apprehend is the 
 great mif^ake of thofe who write againft what 
 Mr. Z,otfi& hath faid concerning it. 3. Take no- 
 tice of fome miffakes in this Paragraph. Firff , I 
 will propofe one Confideration concerning the 
 Subject of our Difcourfe, tfiz. That the Power 
 of Thinking being a Power fuper-added to Sub- 
 Itance, and all Subffance being either Material 
 or Immaterial, the Subftance to which this 
 Power of Thinking is fuper-added muft be of 
 one of thole foris. It is not made either the 
 one or the other, by having that Power fuper- 
 added to it ; tho' being fuper-added, it makes 
 the Subffance, to which it is fiiper-added. Spi- 
 ritual Subfiance. As the Power of producing 
 in any Senfitive Animal the Idea of Bluenels or 
 Acidity, or any other diftinA Power being 
 fuper-added to any folid Subftance, doth not 
 
 make 
 
(5.) 
 
 make thae Subftance Marrer, but only makes it 
 to be a Subilance to which (uch a Denomina- 
 tion will belong, as doth arife from irs having 
 fuch aPowerfuper-added to it, when the Sub- 
 (lance is confidered preciiely as having that 
 Power. The precife Denomination to be added 
 to Subftance, upon its having any Power fuper- 
 added to it, is to be taken from the Power which 
 is fuper-added to it, without confidering what 
 other Power that Subftance hath ; from which it 
 will be denominated, when confider d as having 
 that Power. If it be laid, that to be Immate- 
 rial, and to Think, be the fame, that is not true, 
 for the Negation of one Modiftcktion in Sub- 
 ftance, viz. Solidity, is not the Pofjiion of ano- 
 ther Modification in Subftance, vtz. Thought. 
 Immaierial Subftance is alike capable of having 
 Solidity, or Thought, or both thofe Modifica- 
 tions, or any other Modifications fuper-added to 
 it, which it {hall pleafe God to fuperadd to it. 
 Perhaps, it will be faid, that the fame Subftance 
 has indeed a Power, or is capable of Thought, 
 or of Solidity, whenever God p'eales to beftow 
 either of them on it, but that God cannot give 
 Solidity, and Thought, to any Subftance both 
 together. Now, this is the very Queftion in 
 Debate, and remains to be demonftrate^. If it 
 be faid that Adual Thinking is to Immaterial 
 Subftance as A<5tual Solidity is to Material Sub- 
 ftance, infeparable from it, thefe two things are 
 to be demonft rated, i. That God has crea- 
 ted any Subftances that muft be always in Adion, 
 or eUe ceale to be Subftances, i. e. Subftances of 
 fuch a nature, from which God cannot take 
 
 E 2 away 
 
(50 
 
 away the Adlon they have, without deftroying 
 the Subftance it ielf ; or that God haih created 
 a Subftance that muft always Think, for 1 hink- 
 ing is an Adion. a. That it it be (o, how it 
 will follow fiom thence, that bccaufe God has 
 made Ibme Subftances not Solid which Think 
 always, therefoje he cannot give to Subflances, 
 that have the Modification of Solidity, a Pou er 
 to Think fometimes. Solidity, and Thinking, 
 are evidently diftind Ideas, and we not know- 
 ing what Modifications may be fuper-added to 
 our Idea of Subifancc without Solidify, cannot 
 prove that every Immaterial Subftance has the 
 Modification of Thinking luper-added to it ; * 
 and therefore we cannot prove that it has the 
 fame proportion to Immaterial Subftance, that 
 Solidity has to Material. If it be faid. But we 
 know that fome Immaterial Subffances have the 
 Power of Thinking, 1 aniwer, true. But can 
 we thence demonftratively infer, that the Power 
 of Thinking cannot be fupcr added to any Ma- 
 terial Subftances without making them Immate- 
 rial ? We know ihar Mobility is fuper-added to 
 fome Material Syftems, c^n we thence demon- 
 ftratively infer, that Mobility cannot be (aper- 
 added to Immaterial Subftances, without making 
 them M'aterial ? 
 
 § XXIII. Secondly, I will mention what I 
 apprehend is the Grand mifrake of thofs who 
 argue againft what Mr. Lock hath faid concern- 
 ing this Point. Their Difcourles feem to inti- 
 mate, that they think that there are but two 
 fcrts of Modification which can be fuper-adde4 
 to our General Idea of Subftance, vix^. Solidi- 
 ty, 
 
(53 ) 
 ty, and Thinking. Hence I conceive it is, that 
 they m^\{Q. Immaterial^ ant' the Fewer ofTbinhng^ 
 tofland for the fame Idea ; and that they are lb 
 pofitive, that ihould a Power of Thinking ba 
 fuper-added to Matter, Matter would be made 
 no Matter ; and that fbme, with an exprefs re- 
 jeding of the confideration of modified Matter, 
 do ask, Gan Matter Think ? Which Que{Hoq 
 fo put, feems to me, to be in other words. This, 
 is Solidity, Thinking ? If Matter can Think, 
 it is not by vinue or Solidity, but by virtue of 
 fuch a Power fupsr- added to theSubfl:ance,under 
 a certain Modification, that it may Think, tho' 
 it be Solid. If the Power of Thinking can be 
 fiiper-added to Matter, it is not the Power or 
 Modification which can Think, but that to 
 which the Modification or Power is fuper-added, 
 vix^. The Subftance which has the Modification 
 of Solidity. To ask therefore, whether Matter 
 can Think, and at the fame time exprefly ex- 
 clude all confideration of the Power of Thinking, 
 is to ask whether Subdance can Think by the 
 Ible virtue of Solidity ? Or whether the Power 
 of Thinking is included in our Idea of Solidity ? 
 Which is much what, as to ask whether Sub- 
 ftance can produce that Ad by virtue of one 
 Power, which it cannot produce but by virtue 
 of another. What occafion can there be to ask 
 fuch a queftion, unlefs it proceed from an opi- 
 nion that Subftance, having the Modification 
 of Solidity, cannot have any other Power fuper- 
 added to it, but what muft depend upon its So- 
 lidity ? For if it can, and amongft others this of 
 Thinking, then tho' (olid Subftance cannot think 
 
 E 3 meerly 
 
C 54 ) 
 
 meerly as it is Solid, yet having the Power of 
 Thinking (uper-ndcltd to it, it may thiiik. How 
 many forts ot modifications can be fuper-added 
 to our Idea of Sub.'iance, furpalles our compre- 
 henfion, but any modification fuper added to it, 
 will entitle it to a denomination anfwerable to 
 that modification ; and that denomination, to- 
 gether with anothei Name, or with words fig- 
 nifying a denial of if, added to fubftance, will 
 as perfedly divide fubitance, as the Terms Ma- 
 terial and Immaterial do. Upon another modi- 
 fication being fuper-addedtn either of thofe kinds 
 of fubftances, another denominatbn will belong 
 to it, when confideied meerly with relation to 
 that modification. Should the modification of 
 Morion be alone fuper-added to our Idea of Tub- 
 fiance, it would make it Subftance with motion. 
 And Mobile and Immobile Sub(bnce, would as 
 perfedly divide Subftance, as folid and unfblid 
 Subftance, /. e. Material and Immaterial do. 
 This Mobile Subftance could n( t certainly.be 
 concluded by us to have ei;her the modification 
 of Solidity, or of Thinking, by reafon of its 
 Mobility. Slvmld Mobility he (bper-added to 
 a fubftance, which hath the modification of So- 
 lidity, it would be a (ubftance with Solidity and 
 Mobility. Should the modification of Thinking 
 be fuper' added to a Subftance uhicli hath thofe 
 other modifications, it Wbnldbea lubfrancewith 
 Solidity, Mobility, and the Power of Thinking. 
 That which would move, and think, would be 
 Matter, or fblid Subftance ; the fuper-adding of 
 the modification of Thinking, would not de- 
 ftroy theoiherniodificationsj that which would 
 
 think 
 
(55) 
 
 think would be Matter, as well as that which 
 would move : For the modification could not 
 think, but tS at which had the modification of 
 Solidity, viz.. The SubOance. We are fenfible 
 that it is thepleafuieof God, that various Pow- 
 ers fhould be fupcr added to (olid Subftance, up- 
 on its being varioufly difpofed or modify *d. How 
 many the Powers be, which it is the pleafure of 
 God IhaU be faper-added to our Idea of Matter, 
 upon its bc'ng varioufly difpoled, we cannot tell. 
 Hereupon this Queftion is put, whether it is the 
 pleafiire of God, that the modification or power 
 of Thinking Ihall be fuper-adJed to fome Sy- 
 ftems of Matter fitly dilpofed ? Mr. Lock faith. 
 The Queftion is too abftrufe and difficult for us 
 to relolvc demonfVratively. In oppofition to 
 this, or to prove the contrary, it is ask'd whether 
 Matter, without any regard to modifications, can 
 think? Now can this import any thing eHe,than 
 eiiher that the fuper-adding of modifications, to 
 cur Idea of Matter, fignifies not any thing to 
 Matter's producing certain Ads, or that no mo- 
 difications can be fuper-added to our Idea of 
 Matter .'' If modifications can be fuper-added, 
 neither this Qaeftion, nor the Anfwer that be- 
 longs to it, can contribute any thing to the pro- 
 ving that the modification of Thinking cannot 
 be fuperadded to our Idea of Matter. 
 
 § XXIV. Thirdly,! will mention fome of the 
 miliakes which may be obfervcd in the Para- 
 graph before fet down. Firft , It fuppoles feveral 
 things, eveiy one of which is wrong, as i. The 
 words, referring equally to both the parts of the 
 fentence which goes immediately before them, 
 
 £ 4 2nd 
 
C50 
 
 and taking them to be the fame in fenfe, tho' 
 different in words, fuppofe Mr. Lock td fay, in 
 effed, vhat matter may, by modifying, be made 
 no matter ; ror which there is not any 
 groundjbut a mil«'iken Imagination. 2. It fiip- 
 pofes that it hath been demonftratively proved, 
 that the modinca'ion of thinking cannot be (ii- 
 peradded to a folid fubftance. 3. That itisa^ 
 » Intelligible, that Immateriality may be fuper- 
 added to our Idea of Matter, as that that modi- 
 fication, which makes fubflance to be matter, 
 may be fuper-added to our Idea of fubftance. 
 4. That Mr. Lock concludes, that the modifica- 
 tion of Thinking may be fuper added to matter, 
 whereas he faith it cannot be demonftratively 
 concluded, j. That Immaterial, intheftn<3;eft 
 fenle of that Term, as contradiftinguijlied from 
 matter, (for fo the word is to be underftood ?n 
 the prefent Difpute) and the Power of Thinking, 
 ftand for the fame Idea. 6. That we can know 
 all the modifications or powers Matter is capable 
 of; for without that, we cannot know what 
 furpaffesallthe Powers and Capacities of Matter, 
 except what is a contradiction to our Idea of 
 Matter, which a Power of Thinking cannot 
 be proved to be, by bare faying. That Immate- 
 rial, and a Power of Thinking, are the lame. 
 In fliortj the point is thus : We have full Gon- 
 viGticw that there is a Power of Thinking in fome 
 Syftems of Matper. Hereupon a Queftion ari- 
 fes. Whether this modification of Thinking be 
 the modification of the fame fubftance that has 
 the modification of Solidity, or the modifica- 
 tion of another Subftance« which not being fo- 
 lid, 
 
( 57 ) 
 lid, is united to the material fubftance ? Some 
 anfwer it is a modification of the fubftance of 
 that matter ; others anfAcr it is a modification 
 of an Imm.ueri.il (ubilance, joyned to thofe Sy- 
 ftems of Matter. Mr. Lock faith the Queftion 
 cannot be demonftratively determined, but 
 that the higheft degree of probability is on their 
 fide, who lay it is a modification of an iminate- 
 rial fabftance. This difpleafes : Therefore to 
 demonftrate that a Power of Thinking cannot 
 be fuper-added to our Idea of Matter, or be a 
 modification of Matter, we ate told that Im- 
 material, and a Power of Thinking, are the fame 
 Idea ; and that a Power of Thinking cannot be 
 fuper-added to our Idea of matter, but matter 
 muft be made Immaterial, or no matter. Now, 
 it is mofl evident, that Immaterialy and a Power 
 of Thinking, are as diftind Ideas, as Material and 
 Immaterialbe, And that ihould Matter be made 
 no Matter, or be changed into Immaterial Sub- 
 fiance, Sublhnce would only loie that modifi- 
 cation which made it matter, ;and that it could 
 not fhini? till the modification or power of think- 
 ing ftiould be fuperadded to it. Secondly, The 
 Inltance propofed in this Paragraph is not right- 
 ly ftated : If we would propofe a Cafe concern- 
 ing Immaterial Subftances, that fliould be pa- 
 rallel to that which hath been under our confide- 
 ration, we fhould firft fix on (bme pofitive modi- 
 fication, which is as eifential to all Subflances 
 which have not the modification of Solidity, as 
 Solidity is to all thofe which are material. To 
 fay, the modification of Thinking is Co, is but 
 Jajing, How can we know that every fiibftance 
 
 that 
 
that is not folid, hath the power of thinking fu- 
 per added to it ? Having fixed on this modifica- 
 tion, we fliould fix on another modification, 
 that the Queftion being propofed, Whether ic is 
 a modification of immaterial fubftance, or no ? 
 More probable Arguments might be produced 
 OP the one fide vhan on the other, but no de- 
 monftrative proof could be brought either way. 
 If in this cafe, fome ihouM be poJitive that it 
 is a modification g6 Immaterial Subftance, and 
 the highell probability was on their fide, others 
 ftiould be as peremptory on the other fide; and 
 at laft, a Perion of gr-sater Confideration and 
 Temper, (bould f^y the point does not admit of 
 any denionltrative proof, but probability carries 
 it for them, who fay, it is a modification of Im- 
 maferial (ubdance, and that therefore we muft 
 !eave the poiru (till denwnftrative proof can be 
 produced cne way or other) as God hath laid 
 it before us, and follow, and be contented with 
 probabil'ty, whilft God is not pleafed to afford 
 us any greater Light concerning it,'what damage 
 would any way redound from this perfons fay- 
 ing thus ? Would that Wife, Prudent, and Good 
 Man, and Lover of Truth, deferve to be evilly 
 retiedred on, becaufe he would check Peoples 
 vain Guriofitv, convince the Materiaiifh that 
 they fight ag^iiifl the highelt degrees of Proba- 
 bility, and put others in mind that they fhould 
 not give the Adverferies to a good Caufe, the 
 Advantages they do, by prefuming to know 
 more of the point, than it is thepleafure of God 
 they ftiould know of it in this imperfe<5t Eftate ? 
 I (peak not this with refped to the Reverend 
 
 Mr. 
 
(59) 
 
 Mr. Jtnkin, Cwho concludes his D5fcourfc with 
 thefe words, But tho I have^ upon this occafon, 
 m< nt toned this Gentleman here, yet it would he a 
 great injury done bint, to rank htm with the Authors 
 of the Oracles of Reajon) but fome other Writers, 
 who have on this occafion Indulged a Ltcentiouf 
 nrfs, which Moral Heathens would be afliaraed 
 of. Thirdly, There is not any thing in this Pa- 
 ragraph, nor in all that this Learned Author hath 
 faid, with relation to what Mr. Lock hath deli- 
 vered, that cm any more prove that the modi- 
 fication of Thinking cannot be fiiper-added to 
 our Idea of Matter, than it can that other modi- 
 fications cannot be fuper-added to it. For In- 
 ftance. Let a Perfon, who hath a mind to affirm 
 that the modification, or power of adive mo- 
 ving/ or motivity, cannot be fuper-added to our 
 Idea of Matter, but that it is a modification pe-> 
 culiar to Immaterial Subftance, place a power 
 of moving in this, and the forejgoing Sentences, 
 in the room of a power of Thinking, and thofe 
 very words will as fully demonftrate his point, 
 as they do the other. 
 
 § XXV. That which may be regularly de- 
 duced from the paffage in Mr. Lock's EjJ'ay of 
 Humane Under ft andtng before quoted, and oq 
 which fo manr have thought fit to refled, is this. 
 That People fhould not pretend a demonftrative 
 certainty concerning Things, which cannot be 
 demonftratively proved ; which is a very great 
 Truth, and which would be of extraordinary 
 good ufe, would People ftridljr and rigidly go- 
 vern themfelves by it. The greateft Service chat 
 cap be done co Truth and Godlinefs, is to preierve 
 
 our 
 
( <So) 
 our Reafon within its proper Bounds, and to let 
 Faith have its juft fcope. I very much queftion, 
 whether any thing can give bad Men greater 
 advantage in their endeavouring to promote 
 Scepticifm, and in their oppofing and talking 
 again(l the Articles of the Chri(tian taith, than 
 GhriftianSj and efpecially Divines, or Clergy- 
 tnens detrading any way from the Credibility of 
 Divine lefiimonyy and making an Oftentation of 
 knowing Things which God hath placed per- 
 fedly out of Humane reach j And treating others 
 (curriloufly, who are more modeft, and more 
 inquifitive than themfelves, becaule they will 
 not acknowledge that the Truth ot certain Pro- 
 pofitions can be demonftrated, meerly becaufe 
 they fay. They can, tho' they will not be pre- 
 vailed with, to be at the pains to demonflrate 
 their Truth. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAge 2. 1. 35. for Vdtwal k. Material, p. 12. 1. 10. r.Con- 
 ftflent. p. 1 3.1. II. r. Revelation, p. 16. 1. 27. r. pretended. 
 p. 1 7. 1. 18. r. hiowledge. p. 22. 1. 2c. after any r. meer. p. 31, 
 I. 29. after ffo' r. tot. p. 33. 1. 10. r. Subflance, p. 45. 1. i* 
 for of er r.a^rni. 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 Concerning the 
 
 RESURRECTION 
 
 OF THE 
 WITH TWO 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 Concerning the Ncceflary 
 
 IMMATERIALITY of Cr^- 
 
 ated Thinking Subfia^ce. 
 
 Secret things belong unto the Lord our God^ 
 Deut. 29. 29. 
 
 London : Printed by S. Holt, for A. 
 and J. Ckurchill at the BUck-Swan 
 in Pater-NoJler-RoiVy 1705. 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 READER. 
 
 THE DiSCOVRSES rvhtcb 
 follow y are not deftgn^d to prove ei^ 
 ther^ I . That the Raifed Body will 
 not be Fhilofofhkally the fame ^ which was be^ 
 fore vitally united to the Soul, Or 2(11^. 
 That God has fuper added a Power of Thinking 
 to fame Syfte?ns of Matter fitly dijpofed ; But^ 
 to enquire into the Jfrength of t-hofe Argu- 
 ments which the very Learned and Reverend 
 Dr. Whitby, and fame other Authors have 
 lately Publijhed to prove the Refurre6iion of 
 the fame Body Philofophically Confidered^ is 
 a NecefTary Article of Chriftian Faith ; 
 And of thofe Conjidefations^ which Mr. 
 A % Brough- 
 
The Preface. 
 
 Broughton, afjd the Ingenious Mr, Norris 
 hdve ifjfified on us Demonfirative Proofs^ 
 that God canmt add a Porver of Thinking to 
 Any Sjftem of Matter^ in what manner foever 
 difpofed ; And fo to reduce thefe Points into 
 the State in which the infinitely wife God has 
 thofight fit to leave them^ with r effect to Men* 
 
 It is not fit that Rational Creatures jhould 
 have any thing put upon them^ as Demonflra- 
 tively Certain J as long as the proofs produc'*d 
 to fupport fo mighty an JJfertion, are intrin- 
 fcally Defective^ a^id fail of fettmg the Pro- 
 pofition in fo clear a Light as is boafled of 
 Nor is itfafe, that Chri/lians /hould have any 
 Propofttions intruded on them^ as Neceffary 
 Articles of Chriflian Faithy which are not 
 evidently Parts of Divine Revelatim^ yea^ 
 clearly taught in the New Teftament, Admit 
 a Breach to he made on People in thefe mat- 
 ters^ you fap the foundation of all True Re- 
 ligion ; you do in effect ^ throw up the whole of 
 Proteftantifm at once. If the generality of 
 People's Minds be tainted as to thefe matters ^ 
 it is not to he wondred at, if the Numbers be 
 great amongfi t^s^ who are impatiently deftroui 
 to have x Prince Reign over them^ who will 
 he fure to Countenance their A5ling with a 
 Jiditablenefs to thefe Sentiments^ That Reafon 
 
 and 
 
The Preface- 
 
 dnd Scri^ure are to be Sacrificed : That 7/»- 
 plicitg Fdith is the file Privilege of M/wkind ; 
 And hli^d Submiffisn ts the vrhole Duty of 4. 
 Chrijiian : md rvh$ will not be fat is fed with 
 any thing lefs^ than Entire Communion rvitk 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 It is of the mojl dangerous confequence^ to 
 impofe on People in thefe forts of ^natters. 
 Make them Slaves here, fljackle their Reajon^ 
 and their Faith, All is gone, Difcretion^ 
 Morality, and Religion, rvillfoon he quite lojl* 
 It is very man if eft, my Thoughts about the 
 matters difcourjed of, agree rvith thofe an Ex^ 
 cellent Gentleman lately Deteafed, had of 
 them : Not becaufe they were his thoughts \ 
 for J think it a very unworthy thing, 4 great 
 diffaragement to a Rational Creature, to en^. 
 tertain and efpoufe Notions, meerly becaufe 
 they are tther Mens : Yet I do not think it 
 any prejudice tg what I have Writ, that that 
 Great Man was of the fame mind* \Z have 
 good reafon to think he under food tu well, if 
 not better, than any Man in Europe, how far 
 Humane Reafon, unafjifted by fuper natural 
 Revelation, can reach in fuch a Cafe as two 
 of the following Difcourfes are concerned about ; 
 And that he underftood the Holy Scriptures 
 much better than any \ yea^ all thofe who have 
 
 Pub^ 
 
The Preface; 
 
 Pul>lijhed their Explications and Inteypretd^ 
 tions of them ; at leaft^ all whoje Writings 
 of that Nature have come within mj Fien>, 
 
 it may he^ fome will think me out hire^ 
 becaufe I do not appropriate the tinder ft anding 
 of Scripture to a particular Sett of Men" 
 They may enjoy the fatisf action they take in 
 their own Opinion, without being difturhed by 
 me. But I hope I may ( without damage to 
 any ) declare it is my Opinion, That thofi 
 who judge pf the Senfe of Scripture by Girdle Sy 
 or CapSy or any Habit, are as likely to be mi- 
 Jlaken as any cf their Neighbours, It was 
 the J-Jfertion of a Man of great 
 Mr, Selden. Fame, that Lay-men have 
 beft Interpreted the hard Pla- 
 ces in the Bible, fuch as Johannes Picus, 
 Scahger, Grotius, SalmafiuSjHeinfius, &c. 
 He that produces better Reafom for his Inter ^ 
 pretations of Scripture, than can be produced 
 for any other Interpretations of thtm, paffes 
 with mi for the befi Interpreter or Explainer 
 of Scripture^ without concerning my felf at 
 all about his Garb, his Chara^er^ or Pr§' 
 felJio», 
 
 I am not If nor ant that many have Writ 4- 
 gainfi that Excel Itnt Gentleman I fpake of', 
 
 And 
 
The Preface. 
 
 And. thdf fome of the?n hud, Admlrahle T4- 
 lents : But I am dpt to think thofe Great 
 Men^ by ajfeSting^ to oppofihim, had the lH 
 Luck to fir Aggie ; It was their Misfortune 
 they were get quite out of their proper Provin- 
 ces. This I am fun of whenever I Read 
 their Produ^ions of this kindy I cannot avoid 
 calling to mind a Saying of the Celebrated 
 Monfieur de la Bruyere j with which Pajfage 
 I will conclude this Addrefs^ but without any 
 Application^ fave what Mr. 
 Bruyere himfelf gives it, A Choral, Sec, 
 certain Magiftrate arriving p- 6. 
 by his Merit to the firfl: Dig- 
 nities of the Gown, thought himfelf qua- 
 lified for every thing : He Printed a Trea- 
 tife of Morality, and Publilhed himfelf 
 a Coxcomb. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 A RTICLESof Chriftian Faith, are 
 /\ Truths of ve^y ^reat Importance. Theif 
 ^ jL Au. hiY has ftt them before the World in 
 fuck a Light ^ And with fuch Evidence^ as is fufjici^ 
 ent to obtain them Credit^ with all Vnprejudiced 
 Men. ^Ti/s very manifeji-.^ that every ^ood Man 
 ought to have an affedionate concern for them^ be-- 
 caufe their Original is undoubtedly Divine : The 
 Relation they have to the Happinefs of Mankind^ is 
 plain and dirc^ : And the Jnfiueree they mil have 
 on People^ when Entertained aright.^ to make them 
 RcguUr and Exemplary in their Converfations^ is 
 Mighty and Invincible, But we cannot do the 
 Articles of Chriftian faith their jujl Right^ un^ 
 lefs we guard our felves effedually againjt all the 
 Artifices and Wiles., which have been^ are^ or (hall 
 he made ufe of., to prevail with People to entertain 
 certain Doclrines^ as Neceflary Articles 0/ Chii- 
 Itian Faith, which are not fo in Reality^ and which 
 therefore ought not to be made Ec^al with^ and to 
 have that Honour attributed to them^ which peculi* 
 arly belorgs to thofe Do^rints which wtre Revealed 
 and Taught by our Lord Jefus Chrijl, and his 
 Ape/lies. 
 
 B /^ 
 
.0The Introduaion. 
 
 It has been often ohferved^ that the Beauty of the 
 Chriftian Faith hath been much defaced^ and its 
 Purity much corrupted^ by Foreign Mixtures. This 
 hoi been matter of frequent and loud Complaints ^ 
 and many Attempts have been made towards a Re- 
 formation. Jnfome Places very confiderabk EffeHs 
 have followed •, yet in very few, if in any Places^ 
 hath the Goffelof Chrifi had its juji and full yem- 
 ration paid to it. 
 
 Chrijlianity fuffers much in the World^ not only 
 by the Grand Blatches which in fame Places do almoji 
 overfpread the Face, and Profejfion of the Chriftian 
 Faith, but alfo by thofe Encrodchments that are 
 made on the Chriftian Faith, by advancing Hu- 
 man Interpretations of Gofpel Do&rines, into 
 Necefiary Articles of Chriftian Faith. It may 
 with too much Reafon befufpeO^ed that the Faith of a 
 great pan cf thofe who projefs the Reformed Re- 
 ligion, is but a meer Medley ; conftjling of Ar- 
 ticles which have no jujl Foundation tn the Holy 
 Scriptures, ( or which they do not knew to have any 
 fuch Foundation there ) fvs wcU as of fome which are 
 certainly taught in the Bible. Who can relate di- 
 Jliit^ily the many and the great Advantages which 
 would accrue to the Chriftian Church, // all the 
 Doihines^ which are purely ^uman Interpretations, 
 but are Dignified with the f^enerable CharaHer of 
 Necefiary Articles of Chriftian Faith, were cul- 
 led out from thofe which Chrift hath taught -, and 
 that the Profeffors of the Chriftian Faith would be 
 prevailed with^ to give the Latter aU the feneration 
 which is due to them, and to pay the Former no 
 more RefpeQ than they jnfily defcrve ? With what 
 an amiable and winning Luflre would the Chriftian 
 
 Faith 
 
The introduflion. 
 
 Faith appear to all the World? Mow entire andun^ 
 fnangkd an Honour would he paid ever}' where to the 
 Oily Head of the Chriftiaa Church ? IVtth vohat 
 Cordial Love and Friend (>jip would Believers be 
 Beautified ? With what wondtrfj Succefs would they 
 then mutually build up one amther in their mofl Holy 
 Faith ? Then fhould we be infpired with Devotion^ 
 Genuine and Nohle^ Pure cnid Rational^ and our 
 Prayers W3uld be both Fervent and Effcliu.il ! This 
 would have a mighty power on our Lives^ ayid caufe 
 our Coffuerfations to comport with the Purity and 
 Tendency of our Faith! This would give fQ A'fortal a 
 Wound toH^T^iic and Sdn^m^tbat neither thsNamei 
 nor Things would find place any more ! Then then 
 would be an e.id of tnercilcfs Wranglings and Quar- 
 rellings about obfcure and ufelcfs Conceptions^ and 
 H'Aman Syflems would no longer deflower the Bible* 
 But tbts is a Work which requires time^ as it defer Ves 
 the conjoy»ed Pains of the clear ejl Pleads^ and moji 
 difinterefrcd Spirits. 
 
 It may not perhaps be amifs to take notice cf one 
 Fropofition^ which hath lately been contended for^ 
 ivhicb has been e.iYneJlly affirmed to be a Neceffary 
 \rticle of Chriftiaa Faith, by fome Istte Writers^ 
 [find particularly by a very worthy 
 Reverend ^ DoHor in Divinity, who * Dr. Whitby, 
 has been a5 indnjhious to ftrvj the 
 Proreftant Caufe as any Ai.m Uvi'/tg, and is a 
 Per/on of extraordinary great Learniyig, Modera- 
 tion and Piety ) and to enquire whether what has 
 beenfcJdonits bcbalf, doth .afford fatisfaftory Proof 
 that it deferva to we.tr the Char a^er they have put 
 '■'pcn it. 
 
 B i Tl:af 
 
The Introduction. 
 
 That the Refnrredion of the Same Body 
 Philofophically Confidered, w a Neceflary Ar- 
 ticle of Chnllian Faith, vpas fome time ago Af- 
 ferted^ in ordtr to create in People an Opinion^ that 
 there was fotf-ething in Mr. Locke'5 Eflay concer- 
 ning Human Underftanding, which is ef dange- 
 Yous Confe^inence to Articles of Chriftian Faith; 
 which gave Mr. Locke an ccc a/ion to enquire 
 flriClly into the Grounds cf that ^jfertion. Since 
 th^t time two or thru Authors have undertaken to 
 Vindicate th-rt Ajfertion^ and to reply to fon*e Paf- 
 jages Writ by Mr. Locke on that Subjeh. Thefe 
 Authors have acquitted thtmfelves in the Contefi^ 
 with a Warmth.^ avd I think Confufion too^ which 
 feldom fnil to accompany the Defence of thofe Do- 
 Brines J which having thtir Rife from Men^ are af- 
 firmed to he Defcendedfrom Heaven. 
 
 My Deftgn atprefent^ is toConfider briefly what 
 thefe Authors have produced to make out the Triith 
 of what they ^ffert j and what they have offered a- 
 gain'l the Pajfages they bring out of Mr. Lockc'^ 
 3d. Letter to the B'fhop of Vv''orcefl:er. Jn order 
 to a more diflin^ apprehending the Strength and 
 Pertinency of what they have delivered abont this 
 Aiattcr^ and how Confonant their Difcourfes are 
 with thctr onn avowed Notions^ it may be proper to 
 I onfider the Scnfe of fome of the Ternis in the Pro- 
 fofition they contend for ^ what they do fay concerning 
 them^ and concerning fome other Points^ nza ly re- 
 lating to the Matter in Difpute. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
[ I ] 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The true Notion of the Same Body, 
 
 HE SiTwe^o^maybeconfidered two 
 ways ;, either in a popular Vulgar 
 Senfe, or in a flrift Philofopliical 
 Senfe, Being confidered in this lat- 
 ter Senfe, it mull confiit of the fame Numeri- 
 cal Particles of xMatter. " The Mafs conlift- 
 " ing of the fame Atoms, mull; be the fame 
 " Mafs, or the fame Body, let the Parts be 
 " never fo differently tumbled \ but if one of 
 " thefe Atoms be taken away, or one new one 
 " added, it is no longer the fame Mafs, or the 
 *' fame Body. Mr. LgcW% Ejfay^ &c. B. 2. 
 Chap. i-j. 83. " No Body^ upon the removal 
 " or change of fome of the Particles that at 
 " any time make it up, is the very fameMatc- 
 " rial Subftance, or the fame Body. Mr. Lockis 
 " 3d. Letter, /?. 173. This is the true and juft 
 meaning of thefe words. The fame Body ^ v/hen 
 confider'd ftridly and Philofophically. In this 
 fenfe. The fame Body is to be underflood ia 
 the prefent Enquiry, concerning the Raifing of 
 the fame Body, at the General Refurrection. 
 Thofe who atfert the Refurrcdlion of the fame 
 Body, do not except againft this account of the 
 B 3 meaning 
 
g A Dtjcourfe concerning the 
 
 meaning of thefe words, The fame Body ^ when 
 iPhilorophically confidered. 
 
 Yea, they exprefs themfelves to the fame 
 EfFecf, when they declare in what fenfe they 
 underftand thefe words, The fame Body^ in this 
 Enquiry. The fame Body^ is the fame Material 
 Siibflance which was vitally united to the Soul 
 here^ Bp. of liorcejler'^s id. Letter, p. 25. The 
 jRatfcd B.dy is the {^m?. Suhfiamc^ Numerically 
 with the Body foivn^ Dr. IVljitby''^ Comment on the 
 Epiflks p. 1 09. col. I . The proper Notion of the Jden^ 
 (ientity of the Bitdy^ impovts an ahjolute Samenefs in 
 Quantity as well as A latter^ fays 51 r. Parker^ p. 5. 
 of hhs Sylvce, &c. 
 
 And as thefe lail Authors do mean the fame 
 Body in this ftrid fenfe, fo they do affirm that 
 this Propofition, The very fame Body Philofophi- 
 cally conlidered, which was vitally united to 
 the Human Soul in this World, fliail at the Ge, 
 neralRefurredion, be raifed again, is an Ar- 
 ticle of Chriftian Faith ncceiTary to be expllcite- 
 ly believed by every one. The Bilhop of Jfor- 
 cefter having affirmed that the fame Body|[ In 
 the fenfe mentionM above, fhall be raifed a- 
 gain, is an Article of Chi iftian Faith, Mr. Locke 
 propounded this Qjieftion ^ " Is it an Article 
 " neceflary to be believed by every one? And 
 it is on the account of what Mr. Locke replied 
 to the Bifliop concerning this Matter, that thofe 
 who have fmce ailcrted the Propofition, a Nc- 
 ceiTary Article of Chriftian Faith, have thought 
 fit to pubiiffi V7hat they have to lay in Vindica- 
 tion of that Point. They do not except againll 
 ^he (iueftion, nor do they give any exprefs An- 
 
 fwev 
 
RefurreBiou of the fame Body. ^ 
 
 fiver to it, fo that they plainly allow the Qiie- 
 ftion, and would have People underftand, their 
 meaning is, That every one mull neceiTarily 
 explicitely believe that Propofition. That 
 which prevail'd with Dr. Whitby to write on 
 this Subjed, he declares, was his perceiving that 
 the Do&rine of the Refune^ion of the fame Body 
 which dieth, is now either quefiiomd^ or thought un- 
 neceffary to he believed^ p. 102. This Neceflity 
 they infift on, muft have relation to fome Ends, 
 concerning which, they would have done well, 
 to have declared their Minds in exprefs Terras : 
 For if it is Salvation^ either they, or fome 
 others may be in a very dangerous EJtate. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Comerning^ Fropofitions of Man^s Compoft^ig^ 
 when ■profofed as Articles of Chrifiian 
 Faith. 
 
 TH E Terms of that Propofition, which is 
 of Man's Compofing, and is affirmed to 
 be an Article of Chriftian Faith, necelTary to 
 be Explicitely believed by every one, muft have 
 a precife determined Senfe, which every one 
 muft underftand and comprehend, in order to 
 its being Explicitely believed by every one. 
 For if the Terms are capable of feveral Senfes, 
 he that does believe the Propofition, but in a 
 Senfe different from that which is the jirecife 
 B 4 de- 
 
^ A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 determinate Scnfe of them, as they exprefs an 
 Article of Faith neceflary to be believed by 
 every one, does not believe that Propofition, 
 which is an Article of Faith neceflary for every 
 one to believe ^ tho' he does profefs and declare 
 his Faith by the very fame words that others 
 do, who do really believe what is truly an 
 Article of the Chriilian Faith. 
 
 It will not here ferve their turn to fay. The 
 v/ords in which Chrift hath delivered his Fa- 
 ther's Mind about the fame matter, are equiva- 
 lent, and of the fame import with thofe they 
 ufe : For this is no more than to fay, They un* 
 derlland Chrifl's Words in the fame Senfethey 
 do thofe Terms, which they rather chufe to 
 make ufe of, in declaring their own Notions 
 concerning the matter. Bur, what aflurance 
 doth this give that they have neither taken in 
 more, than what makes up the true and juil 
 Senfe of the Words in which Chrift hath deli- 
 vered to all Men what they are to believe, nor 
 left out any thing that is necelTary to it ? Men 
 have an undoubted right to aflign the precife 
 fenfe and meaning of their own words ^ what 
 it is they deljgn to exprefs, and would have 
 other People underftand by them. And if 
 they defign well and honeftly, efpecially if 
 what they fpeak of, is of confequence to o- 
 thers, and neceffary for them to underfirand and 
 believe, they cannot doubt of their being un- 
 der a mighty Obligation to do fo. But it is 
 not fo evident that they have a Right to affign 
 to every one, the determ.inate Senfe in which 
 they Hjuft necelTarily underftand all the Words 
 
 in 
 
RefurreSiion of the fame Body. 5 
 
 in which Chrift hath delivered any of his Do- 
 ctrines. They may declare in their own words, 
 what they conceive is the true Seufe of thofe 
 Propofitions Chrift hath taught, and the Rea- 
 fons which induce them to think that the true 
 and juft Senfe of them, is what they think fit to 
 exprefs by thofe other Words. But when 
 they have done fo, none are obliged without 
 any more ado, to take their Propofitions for 
 Neceflary Articles of Faith. They may, they 
 have a Right, and they ought to confider, whe- 
 ther they exprefs themfelvcs pertinently, and 
 to examine whether what they deliver is true 
 or not, and accordingly to admit or rejed it. 
 Thofe who are convinced and fatisfied by the 
 Reafons they produce for what they fay, and 
 that they are in the right, will be of their 
 Minds, and perhaps will chufe to exprefs their 
 Faith in their Dialed. But they have no right 
 to expedl others Ihould believe their Declara- 
 tions, becaufe they fay they give a true account 
 of the Senfe which Jefus Chrift thought fit to 
 deliver to all Men in other Words \ nor have 
 they a Right to oblige all People to fubmit to 
 what they offer, as the Reafons why they put 
 fuch a Conftrudion on what Chrift hath faid, 
 whilft they either do not perceive the ftrength 
 of their Reafons, or perceiving the full force 
 of them, are on good Grounds perfwaded they 
 arc miftaken, and cqn produce much better, 
 much ftronger Reafons why Chrift's Declara- 
 tions (hould beunderftood in another Senfe. 
 
 If the Refurredion of the fame Body ftridly 
 confid^sred, was an Article of Chriftian Faith • 
 
 If 
 
6 A Difcourfe coHcerning the 
 
 If it were taught in thofc very words, or ia 
 words evidently Equivalent to them in the 
 New-Teftament, the Propofitions affirmed to 
 he NecefTary Articles of Chriftian Faith, by 
 thofe who contend for the Refurredion of the 
 fame Body, are fome of them moft certainly 
 not Articles of Chriftian Faith. Thofe who 
 arc agreed what it is which Conftitutcs the fame 
 Body confidered itridly ♦, and who arealfo a- 
 greed that the Refurredion of the fame Body 
 fo confidered, is a NeceiTary Article of the 
 Chriftian Faith, are -nsverthelefs fo far from 
 agreeing which is that veryf^me Body which muft 
 be raifed at t|ie General Refurre£iioh, that they 
 Jay down Propofitions, which they affirm are 
 NecefTary Articles of Chriftian Faith, that are 
 not confiftent, but moft plainly contrary to 
 one another. N^twithftanding their agree- 
 ment in Sounds, dnd their zeal for the fame 
 Words, yet on one fide or other, they are fo 
 very defedive, they do not believe an Article 
 of Faith neceflary for every one to believe, ac- 
 cording to the declared Judgment of each fide. 
 The late Learned Bifhop of WorcejleYh Article 
 of Chriftian Faith touching the Refurredtion 
 was, That the Body that fiidl he raifed^ is not to 
 conftfl only of thofe Particles which made up the 
 Body when laid in the Grave^ hut of Particles of 
 Matter which were fome time or other p^itally united 
 to the Soul. Dr. Whitby and Mr. Parker fay. 
 The Article of Chriftian Faith neceflary t-o be 
 believed by every one, is, That the Body TPhich 
 Jhall be raffed., fjaU confijl of all., and only thofe 
 Far tides J which made up the Body when it w. 04 laid 
 
 in 
 
Refi4YreBion of the fame Body. 7 
 
 in the Grave, The Author of a fort of a Book 
 Entituled, 'iAn Account of Mr. Loch's Religion^'} 
 declares peremptorily that the very fame Bsdy 
 (hall be raffed again. But which Body he means, 
 I cannot fix on, any farther, than as to St. PauVs 
 Body, and the Bodies of thofe People at Rome^ 
 and Philippic to whom he wrote his Epiftles. 
 His Article is plainly different from theirs, 
 who believe either of the former Dodrines. 
 He faith f&rtt 5f. P^«/, Rom. 8. 11. 23. Phil. 3. 
 21. certainly underjlood tJje Bodies, which he, and 
 the Romans^ and Philippiam then had^ p. 149. 
 Whereby he plainly means the Bodies of all 
 Ages, for he has no reafon to think there were 
 not in thofe Churches Perfons of all Ages. 
 And in refpeft of St. Paul, who writ thofe E- 
 piftles at different times, it is a plain contra- 
 diftion •, whofe Body ftriftly confidered could 
 not be the very fame at writing both of them. 
 Thefe Propofitions are fo oppofite and contra- 
 ry, they cannot all of them be true. And 
 then certainly they cannot all of them be Ar- 
 ticles of Chriftian Faith, neceflary to be Ex- 
 plicitely believed by every one. Fix on which 
 of them you will, to be the NecefTary Article, 
 all who believe the Refurredion of the fame 
 Body in either of the other Senfes, ( if in one 
 of thofe Senfes, it can be faid to be the fame 
 Body) do not believe the Neceflary Article, 
 tho' they exprefs their Faith by the very fame 
 words. Thus, either the Bifhop did not, and 
 thofe who fide with him do not, or the Dodor 
 and thofe who believe his way in this Matter, 
 do not believe an Article of Chriflian Faith 
 
 necefr 
 
S, A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 ncccgary to be believed by every one. If the 
 Anonymous Author's Article (what it is I know- 
 not) be the Neceflary Article, all of both the 
 former forts, are wretchedly out of the way. 
 And if any of the named, or intended Propo- 
 fitions, is a Neceflary Article of Chrilfian 
 Faith, all, of two of the Parties are every jot 
 in as bad plight, with refped to the Faith of 
 the Refurredion, as any Man who believes not 
 any one of them. What a condition muft Mul- 
 titudes of People be in at this rate, if at the 
 great Judgment, they were to be proceeded 
 with according to the Meafiircs decreed by Men 
 of too much Heat, and Byafs'd AfFedions ! 
 And who, not being duly mindful of their 
 own Infirmities, do advance their own, oro- 
 ther Mens Interpretations, into Articles of 
 Chrillian Faith neceflary to be believed by every 
 one J. Suppofing the Refurredion of the fame 
 Body was ex^prefly taught in the New-Tefl:a- 
 menc, many more Propolitions may be formed 
 concerning the fame Body philofophically con- 
 fldeved -^ and, for ought I know, be affirmed 
 with as much Reafon to be Neceflary Articles of 
 Chrillian Faith, as any of thofe already named, 
 or that referred to, becaufe not yet difcove- 
 rcd. 
 
 The late Afl'v:rtorsof theRefurreftionof the 
 very f-jme Body, are not contented that the Re- 
 fur recticn of the fame Body fliould be an Ar- 
 ticle of Faiih •, But it mull be the Refurrefti- 
 onof that very fame Body, which they are 
 pleafed to determine and alfign, which they 
 think fit to diliinguifti from all tfhe Bodies Phi- 
 
 lofophi- 
 
Refurreciion of the fame Body. 9 
 lofophically confidered, People have, from their 
 coming in, to their going out of the World. 
 J only ajfert (faith Dr. Whitby j the Refurreciion 
 of that Body which died ^ or vpas corrupted, and am 
 not in the leajl concerned for any Changes that it un- 
 derwent before^ p. T07. If by/f, here, the Dr. 
 underllands the fame Body Philofophically con- 
 fidered, there cannot be any ground to fuppofe 
 it could undergo any Change before. This 1 
 conceive is very plain. That all the Bodies fo 
 coniidered, the Perfon had befor?, were as 
 much his, as That was, and are as really dead 
 and corrupted, as That is, or will be. And I 
 do not remember any Reafon afligned, why 
 the Refurredtion, when ftiled the Quicke/.ing of 
 the Dead^ if the Body is only then fpoken of, 
 may .not as well be underllood of thofe Par- 
 ticles of Matter, which made up the firfl Body 
 the Perfon had, or which Conltituted his Body 
 in any part of his Life, as of thofe which make 
 up his Body in the very lafl: part of it. Indeed 
 Mr. Pa^hr faith. The Holy Script ttres do promife 
 that the Rat fed Body fliaU be Materially tie fame 
 with that laid in the GrAve^ or confifi of the fame 
 Individual Particles which were united at the point of 
 Deaths p. 5. But he did not (I fuppofe) think it 
 convenient to difcover to the V\ orld any more, 
 than that upon his Word they may take it, 
 that there is fuch a Promife, and that it. is 
 fomewhere in the Holy Scriptures : For he nei- 
 ther reports the Words in which the Promife is 
 delivered, nor refers to any part of the Holy 
 Scriptures, where it may be found. And no 
 Man's bare Affirmation does in fuch a Cafe, phfs 
 with me for a Satisfadory Reafon, C H A P. 
 
10 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 CHAP. Hi. 
 
 Thofe ivko ajjert the Refurre^ion of the [Ami 
 Body, a >!ecel[ary Article of Chrifiian Faith f 
 appear fomewhat Dijlruflful about it, 
 
 NOtwithftanding thofe who affirm, the 
 very fame Body fhall be raifed again at 
 the general Refurreftion, is a neceflary Article 
 of Chriftian Faith, do know fo well what the 
 fame Body ftridly confider'd doth fignify, and 
 do fo often declare in exprefs Words, that they 
 mean the fame Body in that fenfe, which they 
 rauft, if they oppofe Mr. Locke^ yet they ap- 
 pear diftraftful of the matter^ And are not fo 
 coriflant and fteddy in their Difcourfes, as might 
 be expeded from Men who are fatisfied they 
 have a promife in the Holy Scriptures to war- 
 rant and fupport what they fay. Dr. f^Vhithy 
 ( if I take him aright ) clearly gives up the 
 point, after all the pains he had bellowed on 
 it. Thefe are his Words, / am far from thinks 
 ing that to the raifing of the fame Body^ it can be 
 requiftte that thefe Bodies (hould be made (^ wholly 
 of the fame particulars which were once vitally uni' 
 ted to their Souls in their farmer Lrfe^ without the 
 mixture of any other particle of Adatter ^ For were 
 this neceffary to the fame living Body^ we could not 
 have the fame Bodies for a day -^ And if it he not 
 
 neceffary 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body, 1 1 
 necejfary to make the Body continue fliU the 
 fame^ rvhile we live : It cannot be neceffary to 
 make the raifed Body the fame with that which died. 
 p. 107. It is certain our Bodies during tiiis 
 life, are continually altered, and remain not 
 the fame, Philofophically confidered, for one 
 hour, or minute together, but only according 
 to popular acceptation. And it is as certain, 
 that if the raifed Body have any particles of 
 matter, which were not in the Body when laid 
 in the Grave, it will not be the fame Body in 
 that fenfe in which it hath all along bin pre- 
 tended, every one ought to believe it to be the 
 fame ^ if the Doftor intended to contend for 
 no more, but that the Body at the Refurredi- 
 on, will be the fame Body, in the fame fenfe 
 that a man's Body is faid to be the fame, all the 
 time of his Life in this World, that Excellent 
 Author, whom he pretends to write againit 
 ( whofe Name, indeed, he does not mention, 
 but whofe words he quotes, tho' not with that 
 exaftnefs and fairnefs, as might have been ex- 
 peSed from him ) is not at all concerned in the 
 controverfy. 
 
 Mr. Parhr alfo grants It may pleafe God at 
 the Refurrecfion of the Dead^ to add to the Body 
 Ytfmg^ or rifen^ fuch new far ticks , as may com- 
 pkat the perfedion cf a Cloriffd Body. It 
 feems, he thinks fome particles of Matter have 
 a peculiar Dignity above others. But indeed^ 
 this Gentlemans Difcourfes are fo Falhioncd, 1 
 cannot \3nderftand them. New particles of Mat- 
 ter^ he faith may be added, and yet it ihatl be 
 the very fame Body Philofophically confidered^ 
 
 having 
 
1 2 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 having an abfolute famenefs in quantity as well 
 as matter. How can tiiis be? very well it 
 feems. For he adds, But then thofe particles are 
 purely /Additional. One particle taken away, 
 would make it another Body, or not the fame 
 Body, but new particles added, make no altera- 
 tion, it is ftriftly the very fame Body ftilj. How 
 fo ? Becaufe thofe new particles are purely ad- 
 ditional. He may believe ( faith he ) that the 
 fame particles of matter .^ which the Grave received^ 
 fhall he all raifedf and united again ^ which is the 
 fenfe of the Article of the RefurreBion, whether we 
 believe other perfedionative particles fhall be added 
 to them or not. For ought I perceive , this 
 Gentleman will Liccnfe people to believe con- 
 tradidtions. But if he has a promife in the 
 Holy Scriptures, as he pretends, that ^he very 
 fame Body which is laid in the Grave fhall be 
 raifed again, and that doth import an abfolute 
 famenefs in quantity as well as matter ^ How 
 comes he to grant, that God may add new par- 
 ticles to it ? It is paft doubt, if God has made 
 any fuch promife, he will perform it, and not 
 break it, by vertue of this Gentlemans con- 
 celfipn. Some men are as fmgular in their Faith, 
 as they are in their way of Reafoning. They 
 can believe that God will raife the very fame 
 Body in the ftridteft fenfe, which was laid in 
 the Grave, That is, that when it is raifed, it 
 Ihall confift of all, and none but thofe particles 
 of which it was made up, when it was laid in 
 the Grave. And this they believe, becaufe 
 God, who cannot lye, has promifed to do fo, 
 which is the fureft foundation for Faith that 
 
 can 
 
Refurrection of the fume Body. i ^ 
 
 can be. And yet, they can believe that he may 
 add new particles to the raifed, or riling Body, 
 becaufe thofe new particles are purely additi- 
 onal particles, that is, do make ic perfcdly 
 another Body, and not the fame Body which 
 was laid in the Qva-ve. Mr. Parker slfo tells us, 
 the rifing Body (hall in matter and quantity be the 
 Body that was Buried^ as a grain of Wheat wanges 
 its qualities^ or that modification of parts upon which 
 its qnalities depend after it ku been forvn, and yet 
 the parts after that change are materially the fame 
 with thofe that were fown^ and in quantity too ^ tha* 
 indeed a new quantity of matter once dijlinff from 
 it^ be fo fuper added to the quantity of flatter vchich 
 made up the Seed when it was firfi foxvn^ as to con-* 
 pi tut e firfl the Blade ^ then the Ear^ after that the 
 ripe Corn in the Ear. p. 8. Be it fo ; but is iC 
 the fame Body when fo many more parts are 
 added than it had before ? 
 
 CHAP, IV. 
 
 The Scrip nire Do[lrine cf ths, KefuYreUioit 
 of the Dead., 
 
 MK. Lo:\e faith (for very jaft and good ) 
 
 Rejfons hs had laid down juil before ) I 
 
 ^' It fufficeth that all the Dead fliall be Raifed, I 
 
 *' and every one appear and anfwer for the * 
 
 ** things done in this Life, and receive accor* j 
 
 ' C " ding \ 
 
14 -A Difcotirje concerning the 
 
 '^ ding to the things he hath done in his Body, 
 *' whether Good or Bad. He that believes 
 " this, and hath faid nothing inconfiltent 
 " herewith, I prefume may and mult be ac- 
 " quitted from being guilty of any thing in- 
 " condftent with ihe Article of the Refur- 
 " reftion of the Dead, Lei. ■^d. p. 178. This 
 feems to me to be the Scripture Account of 
 the Refurrection, ajid of the Reafon why the 
 Dead are to be Raifed : But the Oppofers of 
 Mr. Locke will not allow this to fuffice. They 
 will have the Refurreftion of Their fame Body 
 to be a NeceflTary Article of Chriftian Faith, 
 and they affign a particular Reafon why that 
 lame Body muft be Raifed. 
 
 That we may comprehend what they fay of 
 rhh Matter, it will be requilite to tai^e notice 
 ot three Things. 
 
 firjl-^ What it is which they fay Dies. 
 
 Secondly^ In what they make the Raiflng of 
 their Same Body to confifl:. 
 
 njficUy^ The Reafon they affign why t^at 
 Same Body muft be R.aifed. 
 
 Thefe tilings are the more diftinclly to be 
 confidered, hecaufe the truth of that Account 
 they give of rbofc Places of Scripture, by 
 ■which they would prove that Propofition to be 
 ^n Article of Chrillian Faith which they affirm 
 is fo, dcth depend on the truth of what they 
 lay ot all, or feme of thefe Points. If they 
 
 are 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body, 1 5 
 
 are in the Right, the Scripture Doftvine oi 
 the Refurredion doch not at all concern Dead 
 Perfons, nor indeed Dead Men j but only Dead 
 Bodies. And if fo^ then what they fc^y of the 
 Points already mentioned, will not coniiit with 
 their own Notion of a iMan, or Hiniian Per- 
 fon ^ for they make not any difference that [ 
 can perceive, betwixt them, but both go with 
 them for one and the fame. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 What their Notion of a, Man^ cr Human. 
 l?erfon is, 
 
 I Will begin with the Account they give of 
 what they underfland by the word Man, or 
 Human Perfon, or what they fay doth confli- 
 tute a Man. Mr. Locke in his Excellent EjUy 
 concerning HumanVnd'.rjl a'::ding^ B. 2. Chap. 27. 
 gives a very diftinS and clear account in whait 
 the Identity of th;j Dme Body doth confift j In 
 what the Identity of the fame Man doch con=> 
 lift • And what conft'tutes the fame Perfonc 
 But fome Men feeir. to aifect Ignorance, and 
 Confulion in their Writings about Matters of 
 this Nature •, and more efpecially, becaufc 
 they were not Taught them fooner, orbecaufe 
 thelnformation conies not from the pl2ce,or per- 
 ion, or in the way they Ijk?, " The Identity of 
 Q ^ '' th9 
 
1 6 j1 Dijcourfe concerning the 
 
 " the ffeinc Man (Mr. Locke faith) confifts in 
 " nothing bnc the Participation of the fame 
 *' continued Life, by conftantly fleeting Par- 
 '' tides of Matter in Succefllon, vitally United 
 " to the fame Organized Body, B. 2. C. 27. 
 p. 6. Had this one thing been minded by 
 thofe who make the Raifmg of the fame Body 
 a Neccilary Article of Chrillian Faith, it might 
 have prevented fome grofs PalTages which they 
 •have Publilh'd in their Difcourfes about the 
 fame Body. Mr. Parker ftarts an Objedion 
 with relation to the Railing again of the very 
 fame Body •, which, if it had been exprefled 
 with Exadneff, it would have been very hard 
 for him, or any Man elfe, to have given a Ra- 
 tional Anfwerto. His Reply to it, isfetdown 
 in thefe words : This Ohjc^ion is of no force^ pro- 
 vided vi>€ aljtrt thofe Particles fliall be reunited into a 
 Body^ which wtrs Buried , becaufe whatever we make 
 to be the Principle and Foundation of Identity^ his 
 agreed on all fides, that fa long as the life of the 
 Body is uninterrupted^ whatever Particles it may 
 font time to timg have lop by Perforation^ cr ac- 
 quir'd by Nutrition, the fever al Athons performed 
 at diflunt times ^ by the Body of the fame Pcrfon^ 
 a<e to be imp'~ted to it as to o?,e and the fame Indi- 
 vidual^ the Pt inciple of Mlion in Human Bodies^ 
 remaining unintcrrupttd as long as the Vnion be- 
 tween Scul and Body ^ p. 10, II. What a heap 
 of Grard Abfnrdities are contained in this 
 AnPvver? And mofl:, if not all of them, do 
 JVn ing from either an ignorant, or an heedlefs, 
 or vv'ilful Confounding the Identity of the Bo- 
 dy, with the Ide^itity of the Man. 
 
 Both 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body. 1 7 
 
 Both Dr. Whitby and Mr. Parker, do make 
 the Vital Union of Soul and Body, to be thac 
 which Confticutes a Man, or Human Perfon ; 
 for they are with them the fame, as was ob- 
 ferved before, tho' the latter is as diftind from 
 the former, as the former is from the Body. 
 They exprefs their Thoughts thus. /45 for a 
 Man to be horn at firjl^ ftgnifies the prodaffion and 
 union of the Effential Farts of an Individual Man, 
 Hvs Body and Soul • fo to he born again ^ or horn 
 from the Dead, iniflies the Fejlitution and Feunion 
 (f his Body, and his Soul-^ a Man only by that, 
 becoming the fame entire Verfon wktch he vcivs before^ 
 Dr. Whitby, p. 106. iVb /l/^n (faith Mr. P^rkr) 
 pridlyfpeaking, qowcs into the World with a Soul and 
 Body, hut hvs Soul and Body inahe up that fjim^which 
 comes into the World, p. 27. Vital Union of Soul 
 and Body, they both acknowledge, makes or con- 
 ftitutes a Man And would they conlider a 
 little, they might eafily perceive, that Vital 
 Union of the fame Soul v^'iih a Body, makes or 
 conftitutes the fame Man, Vv'hether the Union 
 hath been interrupted or not, and whether the 
 Body confift only of the fame or other Particles 
 of Matter. The Body to which the Soul was 
 at firft united, did at that time coniiH of a cev- 
 taia number of Particles of Matter, which 
 made it Precifely and Philofophically that fame 
 Body, to which the Soul was hill United. 
 When any Particles of that Matter were any 
 way loft, or more and new Particles were ad- 
 ded to them, the Body was no longer that 
 fame Body, to which the Soul was firft of all 
 United. Thefe Authors own, that as long as 
 . C 3 the 
 
1 8 A Difcourfe com^Ynifig the 
 
 the fame Soul continues Vitally United to a 
 Body, there is the very fame Man, tho' the 
 Body is not Philofopiucally the fame all that 
 time. The fame Body Philofophicallv confi- 
 dered then, is not neceRary to a Man's being 
 ; the fame Man \ for if it were, a Man would 
 r continue no longer the fame Man, than his Bo- 
 dy did confilt of the very fame Individual Par- 
 ticks. And to me it appears as certain, that 
 the very fame Body ftridly confidered, is as 
 peceflavy to continue the fame Entire Man in 
 being here, as it can be at the Refurrection, 
 to make the fame Entire Man again, if the 
 Vital Union of the fame Soul, and a Body 
 makes the fame Man from Birth to Death,thoMn 
 that time the Body perhaps is fo much altered, 
 that at Death there is not any one Particle of 
 that Matter i;i the Body,vvhich made that Body 
 to which theSoul was firlt uni-;ed,wiil not a Vital 
 Union of the fame Soul to a Body duly Orga- 
 \ nized, make the very fame Man at the Refur- 
 ' rectioQ, whether that Body be made up only of 
 the fame Individi:al Particles which made up 
 j the Body at Death, or fome other Particles be 
 ■ mixed with them ? 
 
 Perhaps it will be faid, '^is true, if the Do- 
 ctrine of the Refurrection did relate to Men, 
 the very fame Men would be Raifed again, if 
 the fame Souls were united vitally again to Bo- 
 dies, tho' thofe Bodies fliouid have other Par- 
 ticles of Matter in them, than what made up 
 their Bodies at Death. But the Doftrine of 
 t;he Refurreftion relates only to that which 
 pics. Let us therefore now confider what 
 
 Pies, 
 
RefurreBiou of the fame Body. 1 9 
 
 Dies, according to the Opinion of thefe Au- 
 thors. And then in what they fay tl^ Refur- 
 redlion of Their fame Body doth confiih And 
 for what End, they declare that very fame Bo- 
 dy muft be Raifed. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 What Dies, According to thefe Authors, 
 
 THAT which Dies (they fay j is only the 
 Body. Death only haj>pcnetb to this cor- 
 YHptible Mortal Body^ Dr. Whitby^ p. 103. The 
 Body being that alone which is by Death bereft of 
 Life, mufi be that only xi'bicb in propriety of Speech 
 isJaidtoDie^ Id. p. 104. That Epithet (venpSv 
 of the Dead ) can agree to nothing but the Body^ 
 Mr. Parker^ p. 24. Death, according to thefe 
 Authors, happeneth only to the Body ^ and in 
 propriety of Speech we are told, it is the Bo- 
 dy only that dies. Now, I (hould think that 
 in propriety of Speech, Death rather hap- 
 peneth to the Man ^ and fo the Scripture tea- 
 ches. The Death of the Body, if fuch a Phrafe 
 may be ufed in ftridt Difcourfe, is only the de- 
 ftroying of its Compages, its mouldering into 
 Duft, or the deftroyingof its Fafhion, ^hape, 
 Strudure and Figure, but it muft be only the 
 Body which Dies, becaufe it is only the Body 
 which is bereft of life. If fo, pray where is the 
 C 4 Man ? 
 
2b A Difcourfe concerning th^ 
 
 Man ? What is become of the Perfon ? Is he 
 ftill living? The Vital Union of Soul and Bo- 
 dy, they fay, conftitntes the Man, makes the 
 PeiTon. And this Vital Union is by Death 
 undoubtedly broken, yet the Man is not Dead. 
 That which Confl-itutes the Man, isdeftrcyed, 
 but the Man continues fafe and found. This, 1 
 inuflconfefs,istoomyfteriousfor me to compre- 
 hend. But faith the Dr. Did St. Paul and his 
 Cbrijlinn Companions ^ 2 Cor. i. 9. believe that 
 the whole Alan jlmdd be kilVd by their Perfecntors ? 
 Or as their Lorti had taught rhem^ that they could 
 hll the Body^ but could mt kill the Soul ? Matth 10. 
 25. p. 105. I anfwer. They did not believe 
 their Perfecutors could make them miferable in 
 the future World. But the Soul orBodycon- 
 fidered feparately, not making the whole Man^ 
 but the Vital Union of them. They did not 
 doubt but their Perfecutors might break or dif- 
 folve that Union. And if the Vital Union of 
 Soul and Body doth Conflitute the whole Man, 
 and after Death there is no reiloring or rai- 
 fmg the fame Entire Man or Perfon, as the Dr. 
 faith there is not, but by a Vital Reunion of 
 the fame Soul and Body, then the breaking or 
 dilfolving of that Vital Union, niuft necelTari- 
 ly be the Kiliing or Death of the whole 
 IVIan. 
 
 It may be, it will ftlll be infilled on that it is 
 only the Body that is bereft of life. But what is that 
 to the bulinefs in hand ? According to the No- 
 tion ot a Man, or Human Perfon, which they 
 Aflert and Eftablifli, the dilfolving of the Vi- 
 tal Union inuft unavoidably be tbe Death of' 
 
 th§ 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body, 2 1 
 
 the Man. And that, one Eflential part is af- 
 terwards without life, is but a Confequence of 
 the Diflblution of the former Union. The 
 Body's being bereft of life, is fo far from being 
 the true and proper Notion of Death, as it re- 
 fpeds a Man according to their own Notion of 
 him i that if the Body after it's reparation 
 from the Soul, did continue in life, did retain 
 in it a principle of life, or was immediately 
 vitally united to fome other vital Principle, 
 yet that Vital Union being diflblved which 
 Conftituted the Man, would be as really dead, 
 as he would be, if both Soul and Body were 
 bereft of life. 
 
 And tho' the Dr. is pleafed to argue, that 
 the Body only dies, becaufe it is the Body 
 only that is bereft of life, yet neither he, nor 
 Mr. Parker do make the Death of the Body to 
 confift in its being bereft of Life, but in its 
 being corrupted, and having its Figure, and 
 the Contexture of its Parts broken and chan- 
 ged, after the Vital Union isdilTolved. Which 
 will plainly appear by the Account they give 
 of what they take to be the Senfe of the. Ar- 
 ticle of the Refurreftion j which is the next 
 thing to be Confidered. 
 
 SECT, 
 
itH A Difiourfe concerning thi 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 /;; vohitt they make the RefurfeBion of thefa^e 
 Body to co-^ffi, 
 
 THey acquaint us with thtiv opinidn of the 
 Refurredion of their fame Body •, decla- 
 ring ia what the raififig of that fame Body doth 
 confift^ They exprefs their Notions of it in 
 thefe Words. We may believe that the fame par- 
 ticks of A fatter which the Grave received fliall be all 
 faifed^ and united again , which is the fenfe of the 
 .Article of the Kefurredion. Mr. Parker p. 6. 
 The proper notim of a RefurreSion confifls in this^ 
 That it k a fubjlanfial change^ by tvhicb that which 
 was before^ drid died^ or was corrupted, is produced 
 the fame thing again. Dr. Whitby p. 1 06. The 
 Refurredion of the Dead can only flgnify the Refur- 
 reiiion of the Bodies of the Deadi with the reunion 
 of them to thofe Souls to which they were before united, 
 which makes this RefurreBion advance into a Refur- 
 reilion ef Life. And feeing that which never fell, 
 cannot be faid to he raifed up, that which did never 
 die, cannot bs reftored from Death, Men cannot 
 properly be faid to rife again from the Dead, but 
 in refpeit to that part, or that fl ate which had fallen ^ 
 and woi Dead-, And as for a Man to be Born at 
 firflj jignifies the produdion and union of the efftn- 
 tial parts of an individual Man, hvs Body and 
 
 SmU 
 
Refurre6tion of the fame Body, 2J 
 
 Soul^ fo to be Born again^ or Born from the Dead^ 
 implies the reftitHtion and reunion of his Body and 
 h'vs Soul^ a Man only by that becoming the famt 
 entire perfon which he Wivs before. Id. 
 
 The Senfe of the Article of theRefurreftion, 
 Mr. Tarker faith, is this, the raifing and uniting 
 again all the particles of Matter which the Grave 
 received. That is (as I apprehend) TheRefur- 
 redion of the fame Body, doth confift in colle- 
 ding or gathering together all the particles of 
 Matter, of which the Body was made up at 
 Death,and comparing and falbioflingthem again 
 into the very fame Body they formerly made. 
 Ur Whitby appears to be of the fame mind. For 
 tho' a fubjtantial change^ importing a change of 
 the Subftance , and fo , that the very fame 
 thing ftiould be reproduced, by changing it's 
 Subftance, is what I cannot underftand ^ Yet 
 his faying that the refurredion of the Dead, can 
 only ftgnify therefurreciion of the Bodies of the Dead^ 
 And declaring that the reunion of them to thofe 
 Souls, to which they were formerly united, 
 makes that refurredion advance into a refur- 
 redion of Life, feem's clearly to fignify that by 
 the reforredion of the fame Body, he means, 
 the gathering together, and uniting all the par- 
 ticles which formerly made up the Body into 
 the fame Body again •, and that the uniting this 
 Body thus raifed, to the fame Soul, to which 
 it was before united, is fometbingdillindtfrom 
 the Refurredionof the Body, which was com- 
 pleat before, and advances the Refurredion 
 which was paft, into a Refurrection of Life ^ 
 that is, makes the Body which is raifed, a living 
 
 Body. 
 
i4 ^ Difcourfe concermng the 
 
 Body. When the Doftor faid, the Refurredi- 
 oa of the Dead, can only fignify the Refurredi- 
 on of the Bodies of the Dead, he negleded to 
 acquaint his Readers, what was to be under- 
 ftood by the Dead^ in the lafl; part of that fen- 
 tence. The Bodies of the Dead. The enquiry 
 might be -here, of the Dead what ? If the anfwer 
 is, Bodies, The Bodies of the Dead Bodies, 
 win not be very Intelligible If the anfwer 
 be. Men. That will contradict what was faid, 
 when we were told what dies, viz.. That Death 
 happeneth only to the Body. And if the Re- 
 furredtion of the Dead can only fignify the 
 Refurredion of the Bodies of Dead Men, the 
 Dead Men, will notwithftauding the Refur- 
 rcdion of their Bodies, continue Dead. 
 
 The proper notion of a RefurreAion ( fays the 
 Dr. ) confijis in th'vs^ Th.it it vs afuhflantial change^ 
 by which that rvhich xca/s before .^ and died^ or was . 
 corrupted, ii reproduced the fame thing again. Now, 
 paffing over a fubftantial change, it is plain 
 the Dodor takes the proper notion of a Re- 
 furredion to import the reproducing that 
 which was beforehand died.the fame thing : And 
 that which was before, and died, was the Body ^ 
 Death happening only to the Body. But this 
 Body, when Dead, that is, without Life, con- 
 tinues the fame thing it was before, till it cor- 
 rupts, and therefore cannot be raifed, that is, 
 be reproduced the fame thing again before it 
 is corrupted^ for till then, it remains the fame 
 thing or the fame Body it\vas before. If it be 
 iaid, it is now without Life, whereas before it 
 was vitally united to a Soul, and the Refurrcdi- 
 
 on 
 
Refurreciion of the fame Body, '2^5 
 
 on with refped to fuch a Body, is a repro- 
 ducing it the fame thing it was before, that is, 
 a Living Body, or a Body vitally united to a 
 principle of Life, (and I will fuppofe, to the 
 very fame principle of Life, to the very fame 
 Soul, to which it was before united.) Then 
 I muft take notice that the vital union of it 
 to the fame Soul, makes the very fame Man 
 which was before. And if this is the proper 
 notion of a Refurre^ion, the proper notion 
 of a Refurredtion, muft confilt in reproducing 
 the fame Man which Died. For it is not pof- 
 fiblc in this cafe that the fame Body fhould be 
 reproduced ^ becaufe that actually Exifts, and 
 the vital union is a reproducing of the fame 
 Man. Thus, the proper notion of a Refur- 
 rection, when the Body is without Life, and 
 not corrupted, or any of its particles difllpa- 
 ted, is the reproducing the fame Man. 
 
 But if the Body is corrupted, what is the 
 proper notion of a Refurredtion then ? I An- 
 fwer,It is the reproducing the fame thing again. 
 Now, what muft be underftood by the fame 
 thing here ? I fuppofe. The fame Body it was, 
 before it was corrupted ^ which muft confift in 
 gathering and uniting together all the indivi- 
 dual particles of Matter which made up the 
 Body before it was corrupted. So that the 
 proper notion of a Refurredion, v*rhen the Body 
 is net corrupted, relates to the M*an ^ But when 
 the Body is corrupted, then the proper notion 
 of a Refurrcdion relates only to the Body. 
 Now fome may be apt to fay, if this laft be the 
 proper notion of a Refurreftion, the very fam.e 
 
 Body 
 
a6 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 Body may be raifed, and yet continue as Dead, 
 or 9S much without life, as it was, when laid 
 in the Grave ^ And to what purpofe muft the 
 Body be thus raifed? The Anfwer thefe Au- 
 thors give to that Queftion is another thing to 
 be taken notice of; And is to this eflfed. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 ^or vpliAt end the fame Body is to be raifed 
 again. 
 
 TH E very fame .Body fbridly confidered, 
 muft be raifed up again at the general 
 Refurredion, that it may receive Rewards or 
 Punilhments for the Good or 111 things it for- 
 merly did. Mr. Parker faith. The end for which 
 the jipfile fays the Body (haU be raifed^ is^ that 
 it may fuffer for thofe III things^ cr be rewarded 
 for thofe Good things^ to the doing of which it has 
 been infirumental. p. lo. Dr. Whitby faith, The 
 Body is to be raifed and reunited to the to the Soul^ 
 to receive Rewards or Tunif^ments with it^ or to be 
 inflruments by which the Soul fhall be Rewarded or 
 fhnifhed. p. 1 07. Without enquiring where the 
 Apoftle doth fay, what,it isafErm'dhe does fay, 
 for it is eafy for any one to produce pieces ot 
 Scripture, which he would have to be interpre- 
 ted and underftood according to his own mind ; 
 I (hall obferve, that if the Body can any way 
 be the proper fubjed of Rewards and Puniili- 
 ments, it cannot be capable of either, whilfl: 
 
 it 
 
Refurreition of the fume Body. 27 
 
 it is without Life. And therefore being raifed, 
 it muft be vitally united to a principle of Life 
 to render it capable of Rewards and Punifh- 
 ments. Now at this rate, the very fame Body 
 may be raifed, and continue as void of Life, as 
 it was when laid in the Grave ^ Yea it may be 
 made the fame Living Body it was before, and 
 and fo as capable of Rewards and Punifhments, 
 as Life can render it, and the fame Man not 
 exift. The fame Soul is neceflary , tho' not 
 tie fame particles of Matter, to conflitute the 
 fame Man ^ But the fame Soul is not necelTary 
 to make the fame Body, the fame living Body; 
 becaufe a vital union to any principle of Life, 
 will ferve for that. But the Dr. faith, there 
 muft be a reunion of the Body to the fame Soul 
 to which it was before united^ which makes that Ke- 
 furreBion advance into a RefurreBion of Life. Now, 
 if by Refurreciion of Life he means, doth make 
 the raifed Body, a living Body ^ then there is 
 Tto neceffity of the fame Soul for that purpofe, 
 becaufe it may be effe^ed another way. If by 
 Refurre^Vion of Life, he means what that phrafe 
 is defigned to lignify in the New Teirament, I 
 conceive he is m^Uch miftakcn ^ for the Dr. 
 fpeaks o-f the Rcforre^ion in general, whereas 
 in Scripture that Phrafe relates only to the 
 Refurredtion of the Juil, in exprefs oppofitioji 
 to the Reforrtclion of the Wicked. I conceive 
 this is plain, that if the reunion of the fame 
 Souls with Bodies, whether Philofophically 
 the fame or not, is an Article of Chriitiau- 
 Faith, it is an Article cURind from that of the 
 Refiiirc&ion of the Dead, as taught by them, 
 
 who 
 
2^ A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 who aiEnii that the Refurredtion of the Dead 
 , in Scripture, relates only to the Body, and 
 that Men do not die, and therefore are not to 
 be raifed. It feems clear to me, that accor- 
 ding to their account of a Refurredion, the 
 fame Body may be raifed, and be without life; 
 the fame Body may be made anew the fame 
 living Body, and the fame Man not Exift. The 
 fame Body, and the fame Soul may be again 
 vitally united, and fo the fame Man be repro- 
 duced, and the fame Perfon not exift. And 
 whereas they fay, the End, why at laft: the 
 fame Body muft be again made a living Body, 
 yea, and be vitally united to the fame Soul to 
 which it was before united, is, that it may be 
 rewarded or punilhed ^ Yet, if Life will make 
 the Body capable of rewards and punifhments, 
 the fame Soul is not NecefTary. And if the 
 fame Soul be vitally united to it, there will of 
 neceffity be the fame Man^ and then it will not 
 be the Body, but the Man which will be re- 
 warded or pnnifhed, if Rewards or Punifh- 
 ments Ihall without any more adoe be termi- 
 nated on that Subjed. But Rewards and Pu- 
 nifhments coming into Confideration, it may 
 be fit to take notice, that they cannot be Righ- 
 teoufly difpens'd but into Perfons ; And that 
 the Scripture Doftrine of the Refurredioa 
 plainly refers to Perfons. The Term Refur- 
 reBion^ when the raifing of the Dead is fpoken 
 of, doth not properly belong either to the 
 Soul, or to the Body, but only fignifies fuch a 
 vital union of the fame Soul with a Body, as is 
 neceflary to the Reproduftion of t,he very fam« 
 Perfon who Died. Mr, 
 
Rdfur region of the fame Body, ^gi 
 
 Mr. Parker faith, p. 29. Vnkfs we alledge th'vi 
 Propo/itioh^ the Dead /hall be raifed with the very 
 fame Bodies that they had before in this life, to be an 
 Article of Faith^ as it /lands for the Svnfe of this 
 Propo/ition^ The Bead /hall Rife^ we canmt bdieve 
 the Article of the Refhrredion to be true in a Senfe 
 wherein we are obliged to believe it to be true. And 
 all the Ground, I find, he has to fay To, is, be- 
 caufe the Body only Dies. He is poiitive and 
 exprefs. That the Body only Dies : And that 
 nothing is raifed but that which Dies- And in 
 what he makes the railing of the Body to con- 
 fift, has been already related. Now let any 
 Man living, take the words of the Propofitioii 
 above-mentioned, ( and affirmed to be an Ar- 
 ticle of Faith neceffary to be Explicitcly be- 
 lieved by every one ) in iMr. Parherh declared 
 Meaning of them; and make Senfe of them as 
 they are there put together,if he can. The Dead 
 fhall Rife, is a very plain Propofition, which 
 every one may eafily nnderfland- But what an 
 extravagant Arrogance mufl: it be, for any Man. 
 to alRime to himfelf Authority to oblige every 
 pione to believe it is Unintelligible, and does 
 compt ehcnd in it, the Abfurdefc Nonfenfe tha^ 
 cm polfibly be devifed ? 
 
 D chap! 
 
u4 Difcoiirje concerning the 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Arguments /tf frove the RefurreStion of the 
 Jiime Body, a Neceffary Article of Chri- 
 Jlim Faith. 
 
 THE Subftance, and entire Strength of 
 what has been produced from Scripture, 
 to prove the very fame Body ftridly confidc- 
 red, fcall be Raifed again at the General Refur- 
 redion, is an Article of Chriflian Faith, is to 
 be found in the very Learned and Reverend 
 Dr. Whithfs Difcourfe upon this Subjed, in his 
 Preface to the firft Epiftle to the Cormthians, : 
 And he hath added fuch other Confiderations, 
 as he thought proper to induce People to reckon 
 it an Arrjcle of Chriflian Faith. For whicli 
 Reafons, I fhall take little or no notice of the^ 
 other Writer';, and confider particularly what 
 the Learned Dr. offers , in Proof of that 
 Point. 
 
 SECT. 
 
Refur region of thi^fams Body^ ^ I 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 The Opimon of Heathens^ that ChriflUm 
 believed the RefurreBion of the verjfams 
 Body J Conpdered, 
 
 IN the firft place he informs us. The very 
 Heathens loolCd upon it^ as a Fundaynental Do- 
 Urine of Chrijliantty^ and the Ground of their mofl 
 raifed Hopes ^ and therefore to defeat their Hopes^ 
 burnt the very Bf^nes of Chrifli.m Martyrs^ and re- 
 duced them to Jfhes^ and then threw thofe S^fhes into 
 the River Rhodanus^ p. 102. It is very certain, 
 the Heathens did mifreprefent fome of the Do- 
 £l:rine5 of Chriftianity, v^hich one would hav$ 
 thought it hardly poffible for them not to un- 
 derftand aright : And it is not very unlikely, 
 ••that they might roiftake, or notunderftande:^- 
 aiUy ether of its Dodrines, However, their 
 Fads will not certainly prove^ They pcrfedly 
 underdood what the Chriftians believed con- 
 cerning the Refiirredion of the Dead. If they 
 thought ChrilHans did believe that the very 
 fame Body Philofophically conlidered, ftould 
 be raifed asain, they had no occafion for the 
 Purpofe affigned, to fcatteer the Alhes of their 
 Bones into the River, when fo many Particles 
 of their Bodies had been diffipatei^ by Burning 
 P 2 thepj. 
 
J 2 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 them. Their taking this method to defeat 
 the Chrijitians Hope, is a much plainer Argu- 
 ment, that they underflood not the Faith 
 of ChriHians concerning God's Omnipotence, 
 than that they were acquainted aright with 
 their Belief touching the Refurredion of the 
 Dead. Thefe Fafts of theirs, were efFedts of 
 their PalTion and Rage, not of their Reafon : 
 And their Irrational Fads, will hardly amount 
 to a Folid Proof, that the Propofition contend- 
 ed for, was a Do^ftrine believed by all Chrilti- 
 ans in their days. But fuppofe Chriftians did 
 at that time, believe the ReFurredion of the 
 very lame Body in the ftridtefb Scnfej That 
 will at moft, prove no more than that they did 
 then underltand the Scriptures which deliver 
 the Dodrine of the ReFurrcdion of the Dead, 
 in that determinate Senfe. It will not prove 
 that he who believes what the Scriptures teach 
 concerning the General Refurredion, muft ne- 
 celFarily believe the ReCurredion of the Dead 
 in that SenFe. Men of eminent Piety, and fer- 
 vent Devotion, are not Infallible Interpreters 
 of Holy Scripture. But alas ! how few, if any 
 of the Martyrs and Primitive Chriftians did de- 
 Fcend into this Philofophick Enquiry, but un- 
 derftood the Fame Body in the vulgar SenFe? 
 The Primitive Chriftians and Martyrs apply'd 
 themFelves to more uFeful and noble BufmeFs, 
 than forging Articles of Faith for all People, 
 by jumbling Philofophick Notions with the 
 plain Didates and Inftrudions of their Lord. 
 This was a Work that fuited better with Men, 
 who living in a more corrupt ft ate of the 
 
 Church, 
 
Refurre^tiofJ of the fame Body. ^3 
 
 Church, were not more intent on winning Sin- 
 ners to Chrift, than they were indnftrious to 
 makeProfelytesto a Sea or Party. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 The Tefiimony of Ancieut Orthodox Writtrs 
 
 Confidered^ as to this Point. 
 
 Secondly^ ^ ■ ''H E Dr. endeavours to prove by 
 H fome Qiiotations out of Anti- 
 ent Chriftian Writers, That the Refurreftion 
 of the fame Body ftriftly confidered, was the 
 jinticnt and Received Dodrine of tke Orthodox 
 Profejfors of ths Chrijiian Faith. Now, whether 
 they were Orthodox in what they profeflTed to 
 believe, as to this, and other matters, can be 
 known no other way, than by comparing the 
 Doftrines they profelTed to believe, with what 
 is taught in the Holy Scriptures concerning 
 thofe Points. As for their Interpretations, 
 they are like other Mens ; Juft of fo much 
 Weight and Authority, as the Reafons and E- 
 vidences are, which they produce to fhew that 
 the Senfe in which they underRand fuch Por- 
 tions of Scripture, is the Proper and Genuine 
 Senfe of them -^ and that, in which they ought 
 to be underftood, rather than in any other. 
 The Paflages the Dr. quotes out of iome of the 
 Antieat Chriftian V/riters, may prove that 
 D 3 feme 
 
14 -^ Difcourfe coficerning the 
 
 fotTi6 of the Antient Chriftians did believe 
 what thofe Sentences exprefs • but they will 
 not prove that all Orthodox Chriftians did be- 
 lieve the fame. Thofe Quotations do not prove 
 thofe Authors Orthodox in believing what is 
 contained in' 'them. And by what the Dr. 
 quotes out of thofe Antients he alledges in this 
 Matter, it feems pretty clear tome, that thofe 
 Authors did not confider or underftand the 
 Body Philofophically, or in the Dr's Senfe, in 
 the Doflrine of the Refurreaion. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 Thdt the Kefurreciion of the fume Body is 
 truly Grounded on the Scrtpures^ Coff* 
 ftdered, 
 
 Thirdly ^~'V^U E Dr. proceeds to fhew, ( as he 
 X faith ) that Tim Do^rine of the 
 Primitii/e Cbri(lJam^ is truly Grounded on the 
 Scriptures^ and therejfore ough to he received and 
 owned as an Article of Chripian Fai(h. But here^ 
 it may properly enough be ask'd, which Do- 
 ctrine of the Primitive Chriftians he will fnew 
 is truly Grounded on the Scriptures ^ For the 
 Doftriries concerning the Refuvredion, as de- 
 livered in the Palfages he Quotes out of the 
 Antients^ are various, and (as I conceive) 
 not one of them the fame, with that he aflerts 
 
 is 
 
t KefurreSfiou of the fume Bodj. g 5 
 
 is an Article of Chriftian Faith. According 
 to St. Clement^ People are to come to Judg- 
 ment in that very Fle[h, in which they were 
 called to the Chriflrian Faith : And therefore 
 not necelTarily with thofe very Bodies they had 
 jufl: before they died. According to Ifanem^ 
 all the Flefh of all Mankind mult be raifed. 
 And according to Tertullian^ it is Man's Flelh, 
 indeterminately as to any part of his Life, 
 which mult be raifed. Thus thefe Primitive 
 Chriftians did not agree abowt the Matter one 
 with another, nor any of them with the Dr. 
 and with thofe who affirm that this Propofiti- 
 •n. The very fame Body rbilofophically conftdcred^ 
 that is laid in the Grave^ fl^all be raifed up again at 
 the General RefurreEiwn^ is an Article of Chri- 
 ftian Faith necelTary to be Explicitely believed 
 by every one. 
 
 I cannot therefore exped the Dr. fhoiiid 
 ftriftly prove their various Sentiments, to be 
 truly Grounded on the Scriptures. For tho' i 
 know he hath been a very diligent laborious 
 Reader of the Fathers, and doth very jallly 
 pay them a great Veneration, Yet I am fatisfi- 
 ed, he hath fuch a regard to Rcafon and Good 
 Senfe, he doth not take the Primitive Chriilians 
 to be Orthodox in thofe Points, in which he doth 
 not agree with them. He did not therefore 
 defign, ( I may fafely conclude) to (hew that 
 their Dodrines were truly Grounded on the 
 Scriptures, any further than he apprehended 
 them to be the fame with that, which he aflcrts 
 is a NecelTary Article of Chriftian Faiih. The 
 Dodrine then, which he purpofed to fliew, is 
 D 4 truly 
 
56 A Difcourfe concerning the • 
 
 truly Grounded oa the Scriptures, is, That the 
 very fame Body which is laid in the Grave, 
 Ihall be raifed again at the General Refurrefti- 
 on. This Dc«^nne, it is faid, is truly Groun- 
 ded on the Scriptures. It is not expi efly taught 
 there : For if it was, there would not be any 
 occaUon to graft it on thofe Texts of Scripture, 
 ■which are alledged by them who affirm, it is a 
 NecCiTary Article of ChriUian Faith. 
 
 The late Aflertors of this Doftrine, are at 
 prefent peremptory, that it is a Neceffary Ar- 
 ticle of Chriltian Faith, and that it is truly 
 Grounded on the Scriptures. Yet it may be- 
 hove them to confider calmly, whether they 
 will Hand to it, and undertake to maintain and 
 make all this good, at the General Refurrefti- 
 on, if it faall then appear, that fdme new Par- 
 ticles of Matter are in the Bodies with which 
 the pead fnail then come ? And whether they 
 are certain they iliall at that time, if the Cafe 
 prove fo, have afiurance enough to Impeach 
 the Almighty and moft -Righteous God, for 
 acting contrary to, and inconfiitently with 
 their Neceflary Article of Chrillian Faith ? 
 Whether they will then dai c to affirm he has 
 not raifed the Dead ? That the very fame Per- 
 Ibns are not reproduced, which lived formerly, 
 becaufe wh^t he hath done in the buiinefs of the 
 Refurreaion-, doth not exsftly agree with 
 their Philofophick -Scheme, and the Interpre- 
 tations they have Magiilerially Tack'dto what 
 he has taught ? It may with great leafon be 
 cueilioned, whether fomc Men will as confi- 
 dently s0crt St the Great Judjiment, that cerr 
 
 tain 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body. 37 
 
 tain Propofitions were NecefTary Articles of 
 Chriftian Faith, to be Explicitely believed by 
 every one, as they have affirmed them to be fo 
 in this World ^ and efpecially when they had 
 got the Secular Power to fupport them in what 
 they faid, and to degrade and difparsge it felf, 
 by executing their Revenge on them who 
 would not flavifhly fubmit to an Authority 
 they chim'd, but had no right to. This be- 
 ing defigned only with refpeft to the haughty, 
 infolent Intruders on Chrift's Prerogative, is 
 exprefs'd by much, too mildly. They have 
 great reafon to queftion or. debate the Matter 
 with themfelyes. Yet becaufe moft People, 
 when heated with a mighty Conceit of the Do- 
 ctrines they do believe, and finding it is ne- 
 cefTary at leafl for the prefent, that they be- 
 lieve them, are too much inclined to have 
 their own Perfuafions the Meafure of other 
 People's Belief, It is very fit they fedately con- 
 fider, whether they have right, to affirm any 
 Propofition is an Article of Chriftian Faith 
 necelTary to be believed by every one, but 
 which they are fure they may without any Hae- 
 fitancy or Trepidation, juftify to be fo at the 
 Great Day. 
 
 Thofe who alTert the Propofition I am fpca- 
 king of, is a Necefiary Article of Chriftian 
 Faith, have provided fuch a NecelTary Article 
 for allChriftiansto believe, as no Man can in 
 an ordinary way know is True. Yea, which (if 
 itisan Article of Chriftian Faith) will render it 
 impoffible for any Man after the Refurreiftion, 
 to know that he is the fame Man or Perfon he 
 
^8 ADifcourfe cancerning the 
 
 was formerly : For feeing he is abfolutely ig- 
 norant of, and cannot know the Numerical 
 Particles his Body did con flit of, when laid in 
 the Grave •, and he cannot by this Article be 
 the fame Man or Perfon, unlefs his Body do 
 confift jufl of the fame Numerical Particles 
 that Body did confill of, which was laid in the 
 Grave, he will never be able to know, or be 
 ftridly certain, that he is the very fame Man 
 or Perfon which formerly lived in the World. 
 
 Thofe who have attempted to prove the 
 Propolition under Confideration, a Neceffary 
 Article of Chriftian Paith, and truly Grounded 
 on the Scriptures, fhould firft of all have con- 
 fldered, whether they can produce good -Evi- 
 dence that the Notion of the fame Body Phi- 
 lofophically Confidered, ever entred into the 
 Minds of them v/ho Writ the Books of the New 
 Teftament ? And that if they could prove 
 that. Yet iinlcfs they could alfo prove, that they 
 had given publick Notice to all for whom their 
 Writings Avere defigned, that they ufed the 
 Words by which they have delivered the Do- 
 ctrine of the Refurredion of the Dead, to 
 lignify precifely the very fame Body Philofo- 
 phically Conlldered, we ought in reafon, to 
 nnderliaud them in a popular and common 
 Senfe. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
Refurre^iion of the f4me Uody, * ^9 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Proofs from Scripture Confidered. 
 
 TH E fure way to prove a Propolition an 
 Article of Ghrillian Faith, is to fliew it 
 is taught in the New Teftament. Thofe who 
 are fully perfwaded that the whole Mind of 
 God, revealed by Jefus Chrifl; to the World, 
 is contained in thofe Sacred Records, wiU not 
 admit any Dodlrine, whatever Character it 
 may have on other accounts, to be an Article 
 of Chriftian Faith, which cannot be made ap- 
 pear to be delivered in fome part of that Book j 
 And they readily entertain, and firmly believe 
 any Propofition, when clearly and fully mani- 
 fefted to be taught there. To prove that the 
 fame Body ftri(^ly confidered, Ihall be raifed 
 again at the General Refurredion, feveral Por- 
 tions of Scripture are alledged. And the o- 
 ther Confiderations which have been offered in 
 favour of, and to countenance the Aflertion, 
 that that Propofition is an Article of Faith, 
 Yea, to prove it is one, having been taken no- 
 tice of in tlie preceding Chapter, I fliall now 
 confider what has been produced from Scri- 
 pture to prove the truth of what they affirm. 
 
 The Places of Scripture produced out of the 
 New Teftament^ to prove the Refuneftion of 
 
 the 
 
40 * A Difeourfe concerning the 
 
 1 the very fame Body ftridly confidered, an Ar- 
 il tide of Chriftian Faith, are thefe, Rom. 2, ii. 
 \| Some Verfes in the T5th Chap, of the Firft 
 iH Epiftleof St. Paul to the Corinthians. John 5th. 
 ^^ 2S. Rom. 8th. 23. and Philip. 3d. 20,21. But the 
 Proportion pretended to be a neceflTary Article 
 of Chriftian Faith, is not taught in any of thefe 
 portions of Scripture, nor is it grounded on any 
 of them confidered by themfelves, nor on all of 
 them confidered together ; But upon the In- 
 terpretations or Senfes they who quote thefe 
 places of Scripture to countenance their Afler- 
 tion do put upon them. Now, if their Inter- 
 pretations of thefe Scriptures be not undoubt- 
 edly true, the proportion they would fupport 
 and juftify by thofe Interpretations, cannot by 
 vertue of them, be an undoubted and neceffary 
 Article. of Chriftian Faith. And their Inter- 
 ' pretations of moft of thefe places of Scripture, 
 do fuppofe the Truth of one or both of thefe 
 Propofitions, 'uiz.. i. That the Man or Hu- 
 mane Perfon doth not properly Die, but only 
 the Body. 2. That a Man, or Humane Perfon, 
 is no longer the fame Man, or Humane Perfon, 
 than his Body doth confift of the very fame 
 numerical particles of Matter. Both which 
 Propofitions are moft apparently not true^ 
 utterly inconfifteat v^^ith their own eftabliftied 
 notion of a' Man, or Human Perfon-, And do 
 obvioufly contradid the common fenfe of man- 
 kind. The fame perfon (^ fays Dr.VJ hithy ) can- 
 not be ra'ifid again without the raifwg of his Body^ 
 .to be united to his Soul^ much lefs be raifed from 
 .the Dead J ivithout raifmg that of him which wa/^ 
 
 Dead., 
 
Refurrection of the fame Bod), 41 
 Dead., which only vpcvs hw orvn^ and not another 
 JBody, rohich before was no part of him. p. 1 07.^ 
 Thus much in general concerning their Scrip- 
 ture proof. Let us now confider the particular 
 places of Scripture, they alledge to make good 
 what they affirm. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 Ram, Chaf, 8th. V' ii,Conftdered* 
 
 TH E firft portion of Scripture brought to 
 prove their propofition an Article of 
 Faith is Rom. 8.11. But if the Sprit of him 
 that raifed up Jeftis dwell in you., he that raifed ifp 
 Chriji from the Dead^ /hall aljo quicken or make 
 alive your Agonal Bodies by hvs Sprit that dwclletb 
 in you. That {5, (.fays £)>'. Whitby) IJe /]:aU 
 raife them from the Dead ., for that loio-noiw^ 
 and lyefeeiv, to quicken and raife «p, are with 
 relation to this tnatta., words of the fame import ., 
 we learn from 5^o/j« 5. 21. p. 103. Butnotv/ith- 
 wanding fuch good evidence that thefe phrafes 
 are on this occafion of the fame import, they 
 are often ufed by the Dr. in his Difcourfe re- 
 lating to this Matter, as fignifying two things 
 perfectly diilind. And if the Body only dies, 
 and the railing of the Dead, is the fame thing- 
 with quickningof the Body, then the Scripture 
 Dcdlrine of the Refurrcdion of the Dead, is 
 only, that the fame Dead Bodies (hall be quick- 
 n-iid, or made living Bodies again, without dc-. 
 
 termining 
 
42 A Difcourfe comer mng the 
 
 rermining that they Ihall be reunited to the 
 fame fouls to which they were before united. 
 But notwithftanding thofe two Greek Words 
 may be of the fame import, when ufed with 
 relation to the fame thing, yet neither the 
 one, nor the other, nor both of them do ne- 
 ceifarily note, that the general Pvcfurreftion at 
 the Laft Day is fpoken of, when they are ufed j 
 But the fenfe of them muft be learnt from the 
 matter which is difcourfed of. And it appears 
 plain to me, that in this i \xh. v. of the 8tfe. 
 Cha^. to the Romans^ the general Refurre^ion 
 at the Laft Day is not fo much as hinted at. 
 I ji The Apoftle here declares and proves that fin- 
 '^ cere Chriftians mult and wiH lead truly Regular 
 and Obedient Lives, becaufc the Spirit of Chrift 
 in them, is a vital principle, effedually influ- 
 encing them in whom he dwells to a Holy and 
 new Obedience. Shall make alive your mortal 
 Bodies^ that is, fliall enable you to offer up your 
 frail decaying Bodies, living facrifices unto 
 God, to yield them, and the members of them, 
 inltruments of Righteoufnefs unto Holinefs. 
 and to employ and ufe them in the adual and 
 fteddy performing of that Obedience and Duty 
 which Chrilt your Lord enjoyns you. This 
 feems to me the genuine fenf? of the Words, 
 confideving what goes before, and what fol- 
 lows after them. This is what St. Paul often 
 puts them in mind, is their great duty, and to 
 which he exhorts and preifes Chriltians with va- 
 riety of very pertitient and powerful confidera- 
 tions, and in phrafes very like, and near a kin to 
 thofe ufed in this verfe as in the 6 and 1 2 Chap, 
 and other parts of this Epiftle, Seft. 
 
Refurre[iion of the fame Body. 43 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 The Quotdtiom out of i Cor. 1 5 th. con fl- 
 eered* 
 
 TH E fecond portion of Scripture alledged 
 to prove that the fame Body (tridtly con- 
 fider'd muft be raifed again, confifts of forae 
 Verfcs in the i %xh, Chapt. of the i/. Epiltlc 
 of St. Paul to the Corimliuns^ viz. V. 35, 42, 43. 
 and $3. Yet this whole proof depends entirely 
 on this fnppofition ^ That it is only the Body 
 that Dies. For the fake of which notion. The 
 Dead^m\}i\: fignify the Bodies of the Dead. Andto 
 give more countenance to it, two Queftionsarc 
 propounded, which it is pretended cannot be 
 anfweredbut^by the help of fi-^S/xo, The Body, 
 viz,. What is the fubjiarltive to the pronoun and 
 adjeBive fuur times mmtiomd} and vehat vs the 
 Nominative Cafe to -zyciptTai, ;/ o-<SjUflf is not ? 
 Tea (faith the Dr. ) the ^poflle argues thus^ The 
 Dead fljall be raifed up^ cAfc? }<xc^ for this Corruptible 
 (^Body) mufi put on Incorrupt ion.^ p. IC3. And 
 again, The Jpojlle proves o\ vtKfol kycpiBio-oinai 
 the Dead fhall be Raifed^ becaufe thi£ Corruptible 
 mup put on Incorruptibn, v. 5 3 p. 1 04. Here I 
 take the Dr. to be very much out, not only be- 
 caufe he exprelly declares in this Difcourfe, that 
 the aj)oil:ie is npt proving the trutii of the Re- 
 
 arredion 
 
44 ^ Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 furre£tion ia this part of the Chapter, but had 
 entirely difpatch'd the queftion concerning the 
 truth of the Refurredion of the Dead, in that 
 part of the Chapter which precedes, v. 3 5, But 
 
 I aifobecaufe, thefe words, tof this corruptible mujl 
 i put on Incorruptiofj^ do not at all refer to the rai- 
 
 II ling of the Dead ^ But are a reafon given by the 
 ! Apoftle why thofe people who fhall be found a- 
 jlive,whofliall notDie,and therefore will have no 
 /need, nor be in a Condition to be raifed from th« 
 
 ] Dead, nauft be changed. As will appear moft 
 
 1 plain by comparing this 5 3. v. with that before it. 
 
 * But what can be faid to the Queftions that are 
 
 propounded ? If atofxoc^is not the Nomnative 
 Cafe to (Tnipircu v. 42, 43. what is? Several 
 Anfwersmay be given totheQueftion,Tao-7r£'y- 
 1^^. That which is fown, may be the Nomi- 
 native Cafe. And if thereupon it be ask'd. Is 
 not that which is Sown, the Body? I Anfwer, 
 no. That which is here fpoken of as Sown, is 
 the Perfon, or Man, who is to Die. Man du- 
 ring his abode in this World, is compared to a 
 Seed Sown, and as the Seed after it is Sown, 
 muft die in order to its Springing up again, and 
 producing Fruit, fo Man, whilft he Lives in 
 this World, is faid to be Sown, and he muft 
 die in order to his being raifed again , for unlcfs 
 Death intervene there can be no Refurreftion. 
 The Rejurredion of the Dead^ that vs^ ( faith the 
 Dr. ) of tlje Bodies ef the Dead. I will fuppofc, 
 he means Dead Bodies, Bodies Corrupted, or 
 without Life, (for otherwife he mnll own 
 that Death, does not happen, only to the 
 Body, or elfe what he faith will not be Intelli- 
 gible. ) 
 
Refurrecfion of the fdmi Body, 4^ 
 
 gible.) Now , the Dead Body cannot be the 
 Nominative Cafe to the Verb. For by that 
 which is fown, we cannot with Reafon, or 
 Senfe, underftand the dead Body , becaufe 
 that which is Town, is to die, or mufl: die, 
 in order to a Refurredioa. But if the 
 Dodtor will difcover what that It is, v. 38. 
 to which God giveth a Body, he wiil eafily 
 find out another Nominati'/e-Cafe, fo that 
 there will be no need to call the dead Body 
 out of the Grave to refolve Difficulties. And 
 that which is the Nominative-Cafe to the 
 Verb, may properly enough be the SubHan- 
 tive to the Pronoun, and Adjective fpoken 
 of. If v,o-^\'.Q<; is the Subflantive to the Pro- 
 noun, TO in V. 36. 37. and unto auTci) in v^ 
 38. Where the Apoftle fpeaks of Grain that 
 is fown, and muft Die, in order to its being 
 Quickened, what hinders that avG^OTroc; may 
 not be the Subftantive to the Pronoun, and 
 Adjeftive, and Nominative-Cafe to the Verb, 
 in the Places infilled on ? Where Man is 
 comparM to a Grain fown, is call'd a Seed, 
 ^nd is faid to be Sown vvhilfl; he lives on 
 Earth, and muft Die, that he may be raifed 
 Incorruptible, and Immortal. Yet, 2. If 
 (Taw.a muft be the Nominative-Cafe to the 
 Verb, &c. I do not perceive how thac will 
 contribute to prove, that the Body, at the 
 Refarrecrion, muit be Philofophically the 
 fame with that laid in the Grave. Mr. Lock 
 hath faid that, which if it had been well con- 
 lider'd, might have prevented propofing thofe 
 Qiiellions, which are veprefented. as of huge 
 E Weight, 
 
46 A Difcourje concernwg the 
 
 Weig,ht, and that cannot be anfwrer'd but 
 by the help of (3-&)/^a. His Words are thefe. 
 ' The Scripture being exprefs, that the fame 
 ' Perfons fliould be raifed and appear before the 
 ' judgment Seat of Chrift, that every one 
 / ' may receive according to what he had done 
 I ' ill his Body ^ it was very well fuited to com- 
 I 'men Apprehenfion which refin'd not about 
 I ' Particles, that had been vitally united to 
 1 ' the Soul) to fpeak of a Body which each. 
 \ ' one was to have after the Refurredion, as 
 I ' he would be apt to fpeak of it himfelf. For 
 I * it being his Body, both before and after 
 \ ' the Refurredion, every one ordinarily fpeaks 
 I ' of his Body as the fame, though in a ftrift, 
 I * and Philofophical Senfe, as your Lordfhip 
 'fpeaks, it be not the very fame Let. 3. p. 
 ipd. But, 3. To giveacompleat Anfwer, and 
 fully msnitefl, that thcQuellions are ground- 
 lefs, and fuch as no ftrefs at all is to be laid 
 on. It may be obferv'd, that to 4)3acTov t^To, 
 fc, TO ^wnov tSto. V, 53, 54. has not ^^i^aa for 
 the Siibflantive, as the Dodor fnppofes, but 
 is pri'c in the Neuter Gender abfoiutely, and « 
 fiands to reprefeat the Perfons, in whom fo 
 great a Change fliall be wrought. This ap- 
 pears pi;:inj -v. 42. iiT6) &c. dt' (p^opx^ i. e. to 
 q9(y.fj'c\' Tv-Tc, crnufiiJcui. That is Mortal corrup- 
 tible Men are fown, being corruptible and 
 weak. Nor let it be thought ftrangc, that 
 1 interpret cp3o:p'ov and ^niiov two Adjectives 
 of the Neuter Gender, to fignifie Perfons, 
 feeing in this very Chapter, the Apoftle ufes 
 two Adjec^iives of th.c Neuter Gender, to fig- 
 nifie 
 
RefufreBionof thifafikBody, 4jr 
 
 nific the Perfons of yidam^ and Chrift, 'V. 4cr. 
 To vv'hich might be added, Matth. i. 20. and 
 Luke I. 3^. In which Places the Perfon of our 
 Saviour is fpoken of in the Neuter Gender. 
 To either of which Places here mcntion'd, 
 I hope the Doctor will not add the Subftan« 
 tive (r6o/^a, to make out the Senfe. Thus i 
 think it is very nianifefi:, that here is meant, 
 ^his MoYtdl Man /hall put on Immortality^ and 
 • this Corruptive A4an p^ll put on Incorrupti^ 
 hility. As as for the Nominative-Cafe to 
 ffTrsfptfou, I am perfwaded the Dodor will 
 eafily find one,without introducing co^p^a^ When 
 he has a little better confider'd the Senfe 
 . of the Place, where the Apoftles Purpofe is 
 to fpeak of ven^/. Mortal Men being Dead, 
 atid rais'd again, and made Immortal. And 
 the better to lead him into it, fince Gram* 
 matical Conftrudtion , and the Nominative 
 Cafs do weigh fo much with him, I will quote 
 him a Verfe out of Firgil ^ where, by find- 
 ing the Nominative-Cafe to the two Verbs 
 in it, he may come to difcover, that Perfo- 
 j ilality, as contradiftinguifhed both to Body, 
 1 and Soul , may be the Nominative-Cafe to 
 Verbs. The Verfe is, 
 
 Linquehant dulces animas^ aut agra trahebant 
 Corpora — "- Enead. lib, 3. v. 140. 
 
 The Apoille had in this fifteenth Chapter 
 of his firft Epiflle to the Corinthians^ prov'd 
 the Truth of the RefbrreQion of the Dead 
 !to that degree, it mufi: be acknowledged 
 People are in Reafon oblig'd to believe it' 
 E 2 And' 
 
48 J Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 And by the Tenour of his Difcoufe, it ap- 
 pears plain, that he was fpcaking of Per- 
 fons, and prov'd that Dead Perfons ihall 
 Rife again. But the Doftor, and thefe other 
 Writers fay, No. For, by the De^d^ we are 
 to underltand Dead Bodies. But this is un- 
 queftionably certain, viz.. That the Apoftle 
 proves the Refurredtion of the Dead, in oppo- 
 fition to thofe who denied the Refurredion of 
 the Dead. Hon?,fay fome among you,that there is 
 noRefurredionof the Dead? v. 12. The Apo- 
 ftle then muft mean theRefurredlionofthe Dead, 
 in the fame fenfe thofe did againft whomhe ar- 
 gued, and who did deny the Refurredion of 
 the Dead. And if thofe who denied the Re- 
 fiirredionof the Dead, did mean by the Dead, 
 not Dead Men, but Dead Bodies, the only 
 thing they denied, was, that Dead Bodies 
 fhould be quickned or made living Bodies again. 
 So that they might (for ought I perceive) or 
 did believe the Refurredion of dead Men, or 
 dead Perfons -, but they did not believe that 
 the very fame Bodies which were laid in the 
 Grave, (hould be made again living Bodies. 
 If it be faid. They could not believe the Re- 
 furreftion of dead Men, vvhilft they did not 
 believe the Refurreftion of the fame Bodies j 
 becaufe dead Men cannot be raifed again, but 
 by a vital union of thofe very Bodies which 
 were laid in the Grave, to the very fame Souls 
 to which they were united before ^ I anfwer, 
 this is no Argument or Reafon at all. For, 
 fuppoling that Notion of what is necellary to 
 the raifing of the fame Man, right. They m.ight 
 
 tl)ink 
 
Refurrection of the fame Body. 49 
 
 think that the fame Soul vitally united to a 
 Body, tho'not confifting jull of thofe Particles 
 of Matter which were laid in the Grave, would 
 conftitute the very fame Man, If they only 
 denied that the fame Body {hall be quickned, 
 or made a living Body again, yhey might very 
 firmly "believe that dead Perfons Ihall be raifed 
 again. And if it were true, that dead Men 
 cannot be raifed again, unlefs the very fame 
 Bodies be vitally united to the fame Souls, 
 their fault or miftake might only be an Error 
 in Philofophy, viz.. In thinking that a Man 
 might be the very fame Man, tho' his Body did 
 not confift of the very fame Numerical Particles 
 Befides, Is there the leafl: probability, that 
 if the Identity of the Body at the Refurreftion, 
 had been the thing denied, that it would not 
 have been more plainly Exprefs'd ? or that the 
 Apoftle fetting himfelf to prove it, would 
 have argued in the manner he did ? Where he 
 neither mentions exprefly what he was to prove, 
 nor fays any thing that without the extreameft 
 violence imaginable, can be wrefted to favour 
 thatSenfe ? Can it r^afonably bethought, the 
 Apoftle would take fo much pains to contradift 
 a Notion, demonftratively true in Philofophy ? 
 And which being overturned, rauft moft evi- 
 dently demonftrate the future Jcds;ment to be 
 Unrighteous, if at that time Men {hall be Sen- 
 tenced to receive Rewards or Punifhinents ac- 
 cording to any Anions or Works, done in 
 Bodies which did confift of any Particles of 
 Matter, but what made up the Bodies which 
 were laid in the Grave. 
 
 E 3 1'b« 
 
50 A Dlfioarfe concerning thp 
 
 The Error held by them, the Apoftle op- 
 pos'd, appears to me plainly, That dead per- 
 fons fliall not be raifed again ^ And his Dif- 
 comTe fully proves that dead ferfons fhali rife 
 again, withouc faying any thing exprefly con- 
 cerning the Body. Having finifhed his Proof, 
 that the Dead ftSu be raifed, he introduces one, 
 ?/v 35. fpeaking to this EfFed. The' no dire^ 
 anfwer can be made to what yqu have offered, 
 to prove that dead Perfons (hall be raifed again. 
 Yet there are certain Difficulties attending this 
 podrine, which till they are folved, may jufti- 
 ly or excufe People's fi;ifpeHdiag their belief 
 of it. Thefe Difficulties, to which you have 
 iiotfaid any thing in your Difcourfe of the 
 Eefurred^ion, are, i. How the Dead (hall be 
 raifed ? 2. With what Bodies (hall they then 
 co^ne ? You have been proving that dead Per- 
 fons fliall be raifed again, but have not given 
 any account of the manner how they (hall be 
 iraifed \ Nor have you given any information 
 what Bodies they ffiall have at that time ^ whe- 
 ther they fliall come with the fame Bodies they 
 had formerly, or with other Bodies ? I there^ 
 fore defire to hear what you have to fay to 
 thefe Queftions, How are tlie Dead raifed? 
 And witk what Body do they come ? There is 
 no need to underhand any thing more by irom 
 (TCbfJic^i^ than rvbich^ or xobat Body ^ viz. 
 Whether ftriftly the fame Bodies they had for-, 
 jnerly, or other Bodies ? The word •co((^, 
 does not make the Enquiry to be neceifarily con- 
 (cerning Qualities, as is evident from St. John 
 ;o. 32, (Ajoc. -sToTov dc'vjZv tpyov AiOa^tTe (a,i ? 
 
 fop 
 
KeftirreEiion of the fame Bodj. 51 
 
 For which ( not for what kiixl ) of thofe good 
 Works do ye Stone me ? and many other places 
 of Scripture. In anfwer to thefe Queftions, 
 the Apoftle faith it is a foolifii thing to make 
 fuch Enquiries, and refufe to believe the Do- 
 ftrine of the Refiirredion fo clearly proved, 
 and fo well Eftablifhed, if I^eople's Cnriofity 
 be not gratified about Enquiries, which nei- 
 ther concern them, nor the truth of the Do- 
 ctrine propos'd to be believed ; as thefe are, 
 eren the lalt, which demands what Body the 
 Dead fliallcome with. For it no way concerns t 
 us to know oflwhat Particles of Matter the | 
 Bodies fhall be made up, which Men fhall I 
 have at the Refurredlion, any more than it does ' 
 one who foweth Grains of any fort of Corn, 
 to know of what Particles of Matter t!ie Bo* , 
 dies of thofe Grains fhall be made up, which ' 
 Ihall fpring and grow from thofe which are 
 fown. That which is fown, mnft die before it 
 can be quickned. And when Men fow Grain 
 in order to their receiving Fruit, or a Crop, 
 they do not fow meerly the Body of the Grain, 
 andexpedto reap jufl: the fame Body again; 
 
 but they fow the bare Grain, and God giveth I 
 
 ( we know not how) not the very fame Bodies I 
 
 the Grains had when they were fovvm • yet to \ 
 every Grain or Seed that fpringeth up, or 
 
 groweth, or is produced, a Body as pleafctb him -^ ,? 
 
 fo that every Seed fprings up in, and produceth 1 
 
 its own fort of Body, And whether Men's 1 
 Bodies at the Refurreftion, fhall be made up of 
 
 th« fame Particles their Bodies did formerly j 
 
 confiil of, or of other, is perfedly indifferent, l 
 
 E 4 They • 
 
52 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 j They will then be as much their own Bodies, 
 I as thofc were they formerly had. And how 
 \ different foever they will then he in Qualities, 
 'A from what their former Bodies were, that de* 
 <j pends not on the Particles of which they Ihall 
 " be made, whether the fame of which their Bo- 
 dies were formerly compos'd, or other. Their 
 ', Bodies fhall at the Refurred^iion be made up of 
 ■j fuch Particles of Matter, as pleafeth God. 
 is This we are fure of, and we know not any 
 || more of that matter, nor is it needful or ex- 
 ij pedient for us, to hare any further Inftrudion 
 I; concerning it. What God r^uires us to be- 
 p lieve, is, that the Dead fhall be raifed again. 
 I He doth not oblige our Faith, as to Particles 
 I of Matter. He having not thought fit to ac- 
 ;■; quaint us with what he will do as to that, if we 
 i' of our own accord adventure to determine, 
 I and prefcribe to him, we muft be unavoidably 
 guilty of very great Prefumption : And if we 
 . Ihall pretend to fcruple yielding our aflent to 
 what he hath revealed of the Refurredlion, 
 t unlefs we may be informed what Particles or 
 j Matter Men's Bodies fhall confift of at the Re- 
 ji lurreftion, the moft favourable Epithet and 
 ] Charafter our feeming iV/ccwf/j can deferve, is 
 • down-right JFoU}\ 
 
 SECT. 
 
Refurre^ion of the fame Body. 53 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 St. "John Chap. 5th. Ver, 28, 29. Coh-^ 
 Jidered, 
 
 THe third Portion of Scripture which is al- 
 ledged to prove the Refurrcftion of the 
 fame Body, is John 5th. 28, 2p. Jli that are 
 in the Crave jloall hear his voice ^ and /hall come 
 forth. The way taken to make this Portion of 
 Scripture appear pertinent, is declaring that 
 TretvTf? 0/ e^ to?^ /uvu/xdo? , j^U that are in 
 the\Graves^ and all the Bodies that arejn the 
 Graves, are plainly! words of the fame import. 
 But it would have been fomething plainer, that 
 Bodies were intended, if inftead of mvTs^ o\ 
 im-VToc Tijc (TCoyMTot. had been ufed. And if 
 we muft here keep ftriftly to the very words, 
 liere is no account of the Refurreftion of any,' 
 but thofe who have been formally Buried, 
 whofe Bodies have been aftually laid in Graves ; 
 whereas thefe words, jiU that are in the Graves^ 
 when ufed or fpoken with reference to the Ge- 
 neral Refurredion, is a Phrafe of the fame im- 
 port with, AU Dead Perfons^ whether their Bo- 
 dies were laid in Graves, or in what manner 
 foever they have been difpofed of, after their 
 Peceafe. But fome Men are fuch Criticks, 
 they will not give the Spirit of God leave to 
 
 exprefs 
 
54 ^ t>ifcouffe concerning the 
 
 exprefs it felf in the Phrafes that are in ufea- 
 mong Men. This place of Scripture can be 
 made to favour the Article contended for, no 
 other way» than by vertue of this Propofition, 
 The Body only dieth. Which People may be- 
 lieve True, when it Ihall be proved, either that 
 M^n never die : So that ^ben their Bodies art 
 laid in the Graves, they are as much alive, and 
 in good health as ever they were ^ Or that the 
 Body is properly the Man, or Perfon. Both 
 which are MonflrOus Abfijrdities, according to 
 the account thefe Gentkiflen give of a Man, or 
 Htimane Perfon. 
 
 -^ 
 
 SEC T. IV. 
 
 Rom. Chctp. 8th. Vey, 2^d. a?iii Philip. 3d. 
 ; 20, 21. Co?7ftder'* d. 
 
 THere are two other places of Scripture 
 from which ( 'tis faid ) this Propofition, 
 The very fame Body which is laid iri the Grave Jhall 
 be raifed again^ may be proved i NecelTary Ar- 
 ticle of Chriltian Faith, viz.. Rom. 8th. 23d. 
 We Txiho have the firft fruits of the Spirit^ i^oati 
 within our felves^ eiKpcBing noGeo-fai', the Sonjhip^ 
 even the Redemption of our Bodies, yind Philip. 
 3. 20, 2r. We cxpeB that Saviour^ the Lord 
 Jefw Chrift from Heaven^ who (hall change to 
 ca.ua Tvi? T^'.-'rsriiVtco^ viaSv our vile Body 
 
 into 
 
[ 
 
 RefurnEiion of the fame Body, 55 
 
 into the likenefs bf bis glorious Body. Now, 
 the force of thefe Scriptures, with reference to 
 that for which they are produced, depends on 
 thefe words. Out Bodies. And if it had been 
 well obferved, what it is that makes any Par- 
 ticles of Matter, our Bodies^ it is very pro- 
 bable thefe places of Scripture would not have 
 been alledged ^ becaufe then they would have 
 plainly appeared not at all pertinent to the 
 purpofe for which they are quoted. Befides, 
 if the Apoftle had defigned in thefe places to 
 teach the Proportion infifted on, as a Neceflary 
 Article of Chriftian Faith, it might reafonably 
 be exped^ed, that in teaching fuch a ftriftly 
 Philofophical Do&rine, he would have ex- 
 prefs'd himfelf more plainly, and have ufed 
 Terms appropriated to that fenfe. For, if his 
 Intention was to teach precifely with what 
 Bodies Men ( even Believers ) fhall be raifed 
 at the laft day, it feems very plain to me, that 
 he intended to teach a Doctrine very different 
 from that which is contended for, as a Necef- 
 fary Article of Chriftian Faith ; viz.. That Be- 
 lievers when raifed at the laft day, fhall come, 
 mt with thofe Bodies vohich were laid in the Grave^ 
 but v/ith other Bodies. Our Bodies^ muft in 
 thefe places of Scripture, fignify either the 
 Bodies Believers had when the Apoftle writ 
 thefe Epiftles, or the words alledged out of 
 them, or the Bodies Believers have when they 
 read thefe words. Our Bodies^ if confider'd 
 Philofophically, muft fignify the Bodies we 
 have at fome certain time of life ; The Bodies 
 we have at the time when we hear or read 
 
 thefe 
 
 ^\ 
 
5 6 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 thefe words of the Apoflle, are the only Bodies 
 which can properly and ftridtly be then called 
 our Bodies. And if the Apollle defigned to 
 teach that the Bodies Believers fhall have juft 
 before they die, (hall be raifed again, it might 
 reafonably be expeftcd he would have exprefs'd 
 himfelf tothisEffe£c, IVe wait for the Redemption 
 cf thofe Bodies which will be ours ]i*li before we fhall 
 dle-'^ And who fhall change the vile Bodies we /hall 
 haveJMjl before we die^ &c. The plain meaning 
 of the Apoftle in thefe places, I conceive a- 
 mpunts to this, viz. Rom. 8. 23. We wait for 
 the Happinefs Believers Ihall enjoy after the 
 General Refurredion. And Phil. ^. 21. feems 
 to note only this. Who inftead of the mean 
 corruptible Bodies we have, and Ihall have du- 
 ring this life, will raife us with incorruptible 
 and glorious Bodies. The Dr. indeed, ap- 
 pears very much concern'd for the Particles 
 of Matter which (hill be laid in the Grave : 
 But if he pleafe to confider the matter through- 
 ly, he wiilbefatisiied that the tendernefs, paf- 
 fion and affeftion he feems to have for that Bo- 
 dy which mull be laid in the Grave, rather re- 
 lates to, and is a concernednefsfor the Body he 
 has atprefent •, and that confidered, not Phi- 
 lofophically, but Vulgarly, than for Particles 
 of Matter which he is a perfeA flranger to, 
 and which cannot be of any moment to him, 
 but a very few hours before he muft lay them 
 afide again. There is a Palfage in Mr. Lockers 
 third Letter, which if duly weighed by thofe 
 who have a fondnefs for their Bodies, as made 
 up of a certain number of Particles of Matter, 
 
 woukL 
 
Refurreciion of the fame Body. 57 
 
 would efFeft a rational Cure of that Difeafe 
 which fo much infedts their Minds. Mr. Locker 
 words are thcfe. " What greater Congruity* 
 " the Soul hath with any Particles of Matter 
 *' which were once vitally united to it, but are 
 " now fo no longer, than it hath with Particles 
 " of Matter, which it was never united to, 
 " would be hard to determine, if that fhould 
 " be demanded, p. 177. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 What hath been Anfrvered to Mr, Lockei 
 Examined, 
 
 HAving thus far confidered what the late 
 Writers have produced to juftify their 
 affirming the Refurredion of the fame Body, 
 a NecelTary Article of Chriftian Faith, I will 
 now take notice of what they have reply'd to 
 fome Paflages writ by Mr. Locke concerning this 
 Matter. Tho' they cannot vindicate the Bi- 
 fliop, but have forfaken him and his Neceflary 
 Article of the Chriftian Faith,as not to be defen- 
 ded, yet they would have the World believe 
 they can Anfwcr Mr. Lode. Now to fet this 
 matter in a clear light, becaufe they have not 
 always faithfully reported Mr. Leek's Words, 
 nor fet down fo much of his Difcourfes in fome 
 places as is neceflary, that the Reader may 
 
 com- 
 
58 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 comprehend aright what he hath faid, I will 
 tranfcribe exadly and fully what Mr. Loch hath 
 delivered in thofe Pages, where they pretend 
 they have fpied Defeds. Then I will relate 
 the Subftance of what they anfwer, and cori- 
 fider whether what they fay is pertinent. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Thefirfi thing AnJmr^A to Mr, Locke, Qon^ 
 jidered. 
 
 THE firft Advantage they pretend they 
 have againft Mr. Loc\e^ is, That they 
 can acquaint him with, or bring to his remem- 
 brance, fomeching that he did not remember. 
 (Mr. Locke's words are thefe. " In the New 
 *' Teftament ( wherein I think, are contained 
 " all the Articles of the Chriftian Faith) I find 
 i " our Saviour and the Apoftles to Preach the 
 J " Refurredion of the Dead, and the Refiir- 
 " redion from the Dead, in many places ^ but 
 I *' I do not remember any place, where the 
 J *' Refurredion of the fame Body is fo much as 
 I *' mentioned. Nay, which is very remarkable 
 \ " in the Cafe, I do not remember in any place 
 I " of the New Teftament ( where the General 
 I" Refurredion at the laft day is fpoken of ) 
 \ " any fuch Expreffion, as the Refurredion of 
 1" the Body, much lefs of the fame Body, 
 
 ;' 3d. Leu 
 
RefurreBion, of the frnte Body, 59 
 
 '* 3d. Let, p. 166. Dr. Whitby hath left out 
 thofe words ( wlieie ihe Refurredion at the 
 laft day is Ipoken of,) And both he, and the 
 other Writers, to refrelh Mr. Locke\ Memory, 
 quote the places of Scripture which have been 
 already Confidered ^ and which are ( Except 
 Rom. 8. II.) but fome of thofe places of 
 Scripture Mr. Locke had before taken notice of, 
 where the Dodtrine of the Refarredion of the 
 Dead, ^c. was delivered. So that it is plain, 
 he remembred thofe places of Scripture, and 
 what Expreifions were mentioned in them. 
 Yet, foY his fake^ thefe are produced as places, 
 where the Body, or the fame Body are men- 
 tioned, tho' thofe Expreifions are not to be 
 found there. 
 
 Butitisfaid, the words there, are Equivalent to 
 them. And I pray what does this Story amount 
 to ? But only this, if the World will take thefe 
 Gentlemen to be Infallible Interpreters of thefe 
 Scriptures, then the words in ihefe places of 
 Scripture are of the fame import with The Bo- 
 dy^ and The very fame Body, But unlefs their 
 Infallibility had been before Eftablilhed, their 
 reckoning up thofe Texts of Scripture, could 
 not with any reafon be expected to alTift Mr. 
 Lode's Memory in the Cafe. No, nor that 
 what they fay upon thofe places of Scripture 
 fhould do it, unlefs it could v/ith reafon be ex- 
 pedted Mr. Locke would believe Nonfenfe, and 
 Self-contradidions to be the import of what 
 our Saviour and his Apoltles taught : Whereas 
 no Man living is moreaffured, and knows bet- 
 ter than he, that they did always fpeak Truth^ 
 Re^fon^ and very good Senfe. Mr, 
 
6o A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 Mr. Parker^ becaufe there are Articles of Faith 
 in the Old Tefiament ( which was very fingularly 
 obferved, if he thereby intended to deny that 
 all the Articles of the Chriftian Faith are con- 
 tained in the New Teftament ) aUedges Job 1 9 . 
 25, &€. Which place of Scripture, if con- 
 fidered as relating to the General Refurredion, 
 is not at all to the purpofe for which it is 
 brought : For Joh does not fay that at the Re- 
 furredion, he fhall have the very fame Body 
 which the Worms after his Deceafe fhould de- 
 vour. He no doubt fpake of the Body he then 
 had, when he faid this Body ; which was fo far 
 from being Philofophically the fame Body with 
 that he had juft before he died, it is very pro- 
 bable not one Particle of the Matter, which 
 made up his Body when he fpake thofe words, 
 was in that Body of his which was laid in the 
 Grave. Take thefe words of Joh in a ftridt 
 •Philofophick fenfe, and underftand the whole 
 Paffage concerning the General Rcfurredtion, 
 This Portion of Scripture will be a full De- 
 monflration, that the Body after the Refurre- 
 dion will not be that fame Body Mr. Parker 
 contends for. 
 
 Mr. Parker alfo quotes Ifaiah 16. 19. as a 
 mojl clear and exprefs Proof of the Refurredion of 
 the fame Body^ and a plain Scripture^ where an 
 Exprejfion is ufed evidently E({uivalent to the fame 
 Body. And it is true, there are thefe words. 
 My Dead Body •, by which Mr. Parher^ it feems, 
 did think the Prophet meant his own Dead Bo- 
 dy. But let any Man attentively confider the 
 Chapter, he may perceive reafon enough to be 
 
 fatisfied, 
 
Refurre^io?i of the fame Body, 6 1 
 
 fatisfied, that the Dead Body there fpoken of, 
 was the Carkafs of a City, and fignified the ru- 
 inous State of Jernjakm. 
 
 It appears very plain by Mr. Locke's words, 
 what it was he did not remember. Thefe Au- 
 thors produce feveral places of Scripture •, and 
 one of them a Portion of Job^ and a Verfe in 
 the Prophecy of Jfaiah^ to help him to remem- 
 ber that thofe very words he fpake of, are to be 
 found in the New Teftament, and lb Circum* 
 ftanced as his Limitations require. Mr. Locke 
 fays, he doth not remember fuch an Expreflion 
 in the New Teftament. Is that Expreffion in 
 any of thofe places they quote from the New 
 Teftament ? No. How could they then pre- 
 tend to refrefli his Memory by them ? O ! very 
 well 1 Becaufe the words which are there ufcd, 
 are Equivalent to thofe he did not remember 
 were there. But,' i. Mr. Lode is not concern- 
 ed in fome of them, for they do not fpeak of 
 the General Refurredion. And 2. as to thofe 
 places which treat of the General Refurredion, 
 the words there ufed, are not Equivalent to 
 thofe Mr. Locke faid he did not remember were 
 in any parts of the New Teftament, where the 
 General Refurredion at the laft Day is fpoken 
 of- That the words difcourfed of^ are ijot in 
 the places alledged, is obvious to every Man's 
 fenfe. But tbat^ Mr. Parker fays, is Sopbiji'ry 
 and Evnfton. Why fo ? Becaufe there are 
 words Equivalent to thofe infifted on, and 
 which are not there. How doth that appear? 
 It is proved to the bighejl degree •, And that b/ 
 vertue of the neweft Diicoveries that have 
 F beea 
 
62 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 been made in Natural Philofophy, viz„ That 
 Mtn never die : jind that Afen continue not the 
 fame Aden , any longer than their Bodies do con/iji 
 of the fame Numerical Particles. Is itnotfome- 
 thing ftrange, iP our Saviour and his Apoftles 
 intended to teach, that the very fame Body Phi- 
 lofophically confidered fhall be raifed again, is 
 a certain Truth, and NecelTary Article of 
 Chriftian Faith, They fliould not at any time 
 deliver this Dodrine in exprefs words, nor in 
 fuch words as might plainly fignify wliat Peo- 
 ple ought to believe, and was intended to be 
 taught ? But that they Ihould conftantly exprefs 
 their Dodrine in fuch words, as cannot be 
 wrefted to that Meaning, without fuppofing 
 the truth of certain Propofitions, which corn- 
 bate the Senfes of Mankind, and contradift 
 their molt Original Conceptions. 
 
 S E C T. 11. 
 
 The Second thing Anfrvered to Mr* Lock 
 e^quir'*d into, 
 
 ANother paflTagein Mr. LocJCs 3d. Letter to 
 the Bifiiop of Wcrccjler^ which is found 
 lank with, is in p. 169. where are thefc 
 Words. " Your hrft Argument to prove, 
 " that it mufl be the fame Body, in this Senfe 
 '' of th^ fame Body, is taken from thefe words 
 
 " of 
 
RefuneBion of the fame Bodji 6j 
 
 '* of our Saviour, ^U thaP are in the Craws (fmlt 
 " hs,ir his roice^and /hall come forth^joh.^. 2^,29^ 
 " From whence your Lordfhip argues, that thefs 
 *' words, All that are in their Graves^ relate 
 *' to no other fubftance than what was united 
 " to the Soul in Life, becaufe a different fnb- 
 *' ftance cannot be faid to be in the Graves, and 
 " to come out of them. Which words of 
 " your Lordfhip, if they prove ony things 
 " prove that the Soul too is lod;^cd in the 
 " Grave, and raifed out of it at the laft day. 
 " For your Lordfhip fay's, can a different fub- 
 " ftance be faid to be in their Graves and come 
 " out of them? fo that according to this In- 
 " terpretation of thefe words of our Saviour^ 
 " no other fubflance being raifed but vvhat 
 " hears his Voice, and no other fubilance hear- 
 " ing his Voice but what being called, comes 
 " out oi the Grave, and no other fabilance 
 " coming out of the Grave, but what v; :. , irl 
 " the Grave, any one muft conclude, thiit th^ 
 *' Soul, unlefs it be in the Grave, will mak^ 
 " no part of the perfon that is raifed, unlefs 
 " as your Lordfliip argues againft me, you 
 '' can make it out, that a fubflance which never 
 " was in the Grave, may come out of ir, or 
 " that the Soul is no fubflance. 
 
 To this. Dr. Whitby Anfvvers, That any end 
 may reafonably hence conclude^ that the Soul makes 
 no raifed part of him that is raifed^ or that it is not 
 called or raifed out of the Grave as the Body t5^ 
 But by ivhat Logick can vpc hence conclude, it 
 makes no part of the raifed perfon ? p, 1 04. The 
 enquiry here, is not concerning the true meaning 
 F 2 of 
 
64 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 of that place of Scripture, John%. 28,29. but 
 whether fuppoiing the fenfe afiigncd by the 
 Biihop to them, is true, Mr. Lod's Inference 
 be Juft and Regular, viz.. that then the Soul 
 makes no part of the raifed perfon, unlefs it 
 is in the Grave. Which Inference, is fo Juft, 
 one would wonder how it fhould be poffible 
 for any one who pretends to argue, not to 
 perceive it. The thing to be confidered, is 
 the Juftnefs of Mr. Lock's Inference from the 
 Bifnops words. Now, if thofe words in John 
 5. 28, 29. do relate to no fubRance, but that 
 which was formerly united to the Soul, then, 
 the particles of matter laid in the Grave, muft 
 be the immediate and only fubftance to which 
 that confcioufnefs mnft beannext, which is ne- 
 ceflaiy to make the fame perfon, which lived 
 formerly, and did thofe good or bad Works, 
 which were done by him in this World ^ And 
 if fo ( make the befl: fenfe that is poflible of an 
 •iinraifed part of a raifed perfon ) the Soul will 
 be no raifed part at all of the raifed perfon. 
 Or if the Soul mull be the Subllance to which 
 that Confcioufnefs is, or mult be immediately 
 annexed, and muit therefore be vitally united 
 to rhofe particles of matter which were laid 
 in the Grave, then the words miUit neceffarily 
 reiatc to feme other fubftance than that which 
 was laid in the Grave, or the Soul mult cer- 
 tainly be lodged in the Grave. 
 
 Withrefcreaceto this 5^/;. of St. Johns Go- 
 fpe], v, 2S, 29. the Dr. ask's this Queftion, 
 Shall they come forth with the fame Body^ rvbkh was 
 laid in the Grave^ or with another': p. 106. Now, 
 
 if 
 
Refurrecfion of the fdmeBody, 65 
 
 if by They^ he means, all that are in the Graves, 
 and by all that are in their Graves, he under- 
 flands all the Bodies that are in their Graves, 
 the Queftion will not be Intelligible ; viz,. 
 Shall all the Bodies which are in their Graves, 
 come forth with the fan.e Bodies which were 
 laid in the Graves, or with other Bodies ? It by 
 They J he means the perfons which are dead, 
 and enquires whether dead perfons fhall come 
 out of their Graves with the fame Bodies which 
 were laid in the grave, then the Soul can be 
 no part of theperfon raifed, unlefs thefe words, 
 AU that are in thtir Graves, relate to forae other 
 fubftance befides what was laid in the Grave, 
 or the Soul be lodged in the Grave. The 
 words do manifeitly relate to perfons, who 
 have done Good, and who have done Evil, 
 and who mull be Raifed, that they may be Re- 
 warded, or Punilhed according to the Good or 
 Evil they have done. And if the words re- 
 late to no other fubftance but what is in the 
 Grave, can any thing be more clear, than that 
 the Soul either is not a Subflancc, or is 
 lodged in the Grave, or will make no part of 
 the raifed perfon ? 
 
 F 3 SECT. 
 
 k 
 
(S^ A Difcourje concefning the 
 
 \ 
 
 SECT. in. 
 
 Qther things anfivered to Mr. Locke fully 
 reprefented md examimd, 
 
 SOME exceptions have been made againft 
 whai Mr. Locke hath faid, p. 119. and 201. 
 'When I !iave Tranfcribed the whole Difcourfe, 
 I will take notice of what hath been offered to 
 invalidate feme parts of that Difcourfe. " From 
 ''' yew prececoing words, your Lordfhip con- 
 ^'* eludes thus, And fo if the Scripture be the 
 " fole fonndntion of our Faith, this is an Ar- 
 ;*' tide of it. My Lord, to make the Conclu- 
 " fion unqneflicnable, I humbly conceive the 
 ^* words mull run thus. And lb if the Scrip- 
 ^' ture and your Lord (hips Interpretation of 
 ^' it, be the fole foundation of our Faith, the 
 *' Refurredion of the fame Body, is ah Article 
 *' of it. For, vv^ith Submiffion-, your Lord- 
 " Ihip neither produced exprefs words of Scrip- 
 ^' ture for it, nor To proved that to be the 
 ^' meaning of any of thofe words of Scripture 
 ^' which you have produced for it, that a Maa 
 *' who Pleads and finccrely endeavours to ua- 
 *' derftnnd the Stripture, cannot but find hira- 
 ^' felf obliged to believe, as exprefly that the 
 ^' fame Bodies of the Dead in your Lordfhips 
 ^- fenfe, Ihall be raifed , as that the Dead Ihall 
 
 *' be 
 
Kefurre^iion of the fame Bodj. 67 
 
 " be raifed. And I crave leave to give your 
 " Lordfhip this one Reafon for it. He who 
 " reads with attention this Difcourfe of St. 
 " VaiAl^ (\ Cor. i^tb.) where he difcourfes 
 " of the Refurrection, will fee that he plainly 
 " difttnguifhes between the Dead that fhali be 
 " raifed, and the Bodies of the Dead : For it is 
 " vgjipoj, -c-avTec^ ol, are the Nominative Cafes 
 " to fc-yef^ciTca, ^aoTTom^iKro'^cUy l^pOi^crovTou, 
 " all along, and not o-^jua^oc Bodies, which 
 " one may with reafon think would fome- 
 " where or other have been exprefled, if all 
 " this had been faid to propofe it as an Article 
 " of Chriftian Faith, that the very fame Bodies 
 " fliould be raifed. The fame manner of 
 " Speaking the Spirit of God obferves all 
 " through the New Teftament ; where it is 
 *' faid, raife the Dead, quicken or make alive 
 the Dead, the RefurredHon of the -ead. 
 Nay, thefe very v^ords of our Saviour, 
 (Johnf^. 28, 29. J urged by your Lordfhip 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 (C 
 
 'mi\\7TJL\\i^ d^ hS:s<x.(ji') |^6.)ii?, ol J^X tcI (pscvXoc 
 zTpaloi'/Tes" €(^ avas'ac/v v.p'Kna^c. Would a 
 well-meaning Searcher of the Scriptures be 
 apt to think, that if the thing here inten- 
 ded by our Saviour, v/ere to teach and pro- 
 pofe it as an Article of Faith, necefTarV to 
 be believed by every one, that the very fame 
 Bodies of the Dead Ihould be raifed : Would 
 not, I fay, any one be apt to think, that if 
 our Saviour meant fo, the words fhould ra- 
 F 4 " ther 
 
6o A D/fcourfe concerning the 
 
 '' ther have been, -c^olxIh rk c-d^f^.oHoc « g^ Tor; 
 " (Avvix^oic^ i. e. All the Bodies that are in the 
 " Graves, rather than all who are in the 
 ^-^ I " Graves, which muft denote Perfons, andnot 
 ^ I " precifely Bodies ? 
 
 : *■' Another Evidence that St. Paul makes a 
 
 • " diftinction between the Dead, and the Bodies 
 
 *' of the Dead, To that the Dead cannot be 
 
 " taken in this i Cor, Chap. 15. to Hand pre- 
 
 ** cifcly for the Bodies of the Dead, are thcfe 
 
 I, *' words of the Apoltle, (v. 35. j But fome 
 
 \ '' Men will fay^ how are the Dead raifed^ and 
 
 ; " with rvhat Body do they come ? Which words 
 
 I*' Dead^ and Tcey^ if fuppofed to ftand pre- 
 
 j*' cifely fcr the Bodies of the Dead, thequefti- 
 
 I **" on will run thus. How are the Dead Bodies 
 
 ' " raifed, and with what Bodies do the Dead 
 
 *^ Bodies come ? Which feems to have no very 
 
 V " agreeable Senfe. 
 
 ^ '' This therefore being fo, that the Spirit 
 
 T " of God keeps fo exprefiy tothisPhrare,or 
 *' form of Speaking in the New-Teitament, of 
 " Raifmg, Qaickning, Riling, Refurre£tion,crc. 
 " of the Dead, where the Refurrection at the 
 *' Lall Day is ipoken of, and that the Body 
 " is not mention'd, but in anfwer to this 
 ^' Qiieftion, with what Bodies fhallthofe Dead 
 " who are raifed, come ? So that by the Dead 
 *' cannot precifely be meant the dead Bodies : I 
 *' do not fee but a good Chriftian, who reads 
 ^' the Scripture, with an Intention to believe 
 ^' all that is there revealed to him concern- 
 *' ing the Refcrrection , may acquit himfelf 
 ^' of his duty therein, without entring into 
 
 the 
 
Refurreciion of the fame Body. 6g 
 
 *' the Enquiry whether the Dead (hall have 
 " the very fame Bodies or no , which forti 
 " of Enquiry, the Apoflle, by the Appel- 
 " lation he bellows here on him that makes it, 
 ** feems not much to encourage. Nor if 
 " he (hall think himfelf bound to determine 
 " concerning the Identity of the Bodies of 
 ''.of the Dead raifed at the Laft Day ^• 
 -V'wili heby the remainder of St. Paul's, An- 
 •*^ fwer, find the determination of the Apo- 
 ■*5 ftie to be much in favour of the very fame 
 '* Body, unlefs the being told, that the Bo- 
 " dy fown is not that Body that Ihall be ? 
 " That the Body raifed, is as different from 
 " that which was laid down, as the Flefh of 
 " Man is from the Fieih of Beafts, Fifhes, 
 " and Birds, or as the Sun, Moon, and Stars 
 .^** are different one from another, or asdif- 
 " ferent as a Corruptible, Weak, Natural, 
 '* Mortal Body is from an Incorruptible , 
 " Powerful, Spiritual, Immortal Body, and 
 '* laftly, as different as a Body which is Flefh 
 " and Blood, is from a Body which is not 
 " Flefli and Blood. For Flefii nnd Blood, fays" 
 " St. Paul in this very place, cannot Inherit 
 *' the Kingdom of God, {v. 50.) Unlefs, I 
 •* fay, all this, which is contained in St. 
 *' Paufs, Words, can be fuppofed to be the 
 '* way to deliver this as an Article of Faith, 
 I'' which is required to be believ'd by every 
 ' " one, viz,. That the Dead fhould be raifed 
 " with the very fame Bodies that they had 
 I" before in this Life^ which Article pro- 
 *'' pofed in thefe, or the like plain, and ex* 
 
 pj-eu 
 
»jO A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 ' " preft Words, could have left no room 
 " for doubt in the m^aneft Capacities, nor 
 " for Contell in the molt perverfe Minds. 
 \ Let. 3. p. 198. to 202. 
 
 Three things are laid down in oppofition 
 to what is faid in thofc Pages. 
 
 Firit, It is faid. The Jfoflle in the Places of 
 Scripture mention d^ or refcrr'd to, doth not 
 plainly dijlinguijh between the Dead, and the BO' 
 dies of the Dead, And the reafon given for 
 fayittg fo, is this, Becaufe by the Dead^ the A- 
 pojile meant the Bodies of the Dead. Which 
 'tis faid, appears thefc two Ways, i . There 
 is no Suhfiantive hut Body to he found to the 
 Adje^iive and Pronoun^ nor Nominative-Cafe to 
 the yerh^ in fome other Verfes of the 15th. 
 Chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Corinthi- 
 ans^ and in that part of the Chapter too, in 
 which the Doctor exprefly declares the A- 
 poflle is not proving the Truth of the De- 
 furrection of the Dead. 2 It is only the Bo- 
 dy^ which in Propriety of Speech^ is faid to Die. 
 Thefe things having been conlidered already, 
 there is no need to infill on them here. Yet 
 it may be obferved, that though thefe Au- 
 thors will not albw that St. Paul doth plainly 
 diftinguiih between the Dead, and the Bodies 
 of the Dead, they themfelves cannot avoid di- 
 ftinguifhing betwixt them, in their endeavour- 
 ing to inform the World, what they have a 
 mind people fhould believe, the Apoftle did 
 mean by the Dead. For they fay, by the Dead, 
 the Apoftle meant the Bodies of the Dead^ in 
 which words , they themfelves diftinguifhed 
 
 be- 
 
R efurreciion of t he fume Body . 7 1 
 
 between the Bcad^ and the Bodies of the Dead. 
 But that which they ihould have proved , it 
 they would have faidany thing to the purpofe 
 againft what Mr. Locke hath faid, is either, 
 I. That the Spirit of God has not kept fo ex- 
 ^reQy all along in the New Tcftament to that 
 form of Speaking , mentioned by Mr. Loche^ 
 where the Refurreftion at the Lafl: Day is fpo- 
 ken of^ as Mr. Locke faith he has, but has at 
 leaft in fome odc place made gclilocux. Bodies, 
 the Nominative Cafe to the Verbs before men- 
 tioned. Or, 1. That a Man may not with 
 reafon think that «>a{/x<xTa Bodies , would 
 fome where or other have been expreifed , if 
 all before I'ehearfed had been faid to propofe 
 it as an Article of Faith, that the very fame 
 Body lliall be raifed. But they have not offered 
 any thing with refpeft to either of thcfe points. 
 The Dr. might have fpared fome of the pains 
 he has been at, if he had obferved that Mr. Locke 
 doth not infift on this,that cr^/^.afais not expref- 
 fed in every place where the Refurreftion of 
 the Dead at the Laft Day is difcourfed of, but 
 on this, that it is not exprefied in any of 
 them. For if it had once been exprefly taught 
 that the very fame Bodies fhall be raifed again 
 at the Laft Day, that would have given light, 
 and have guided people fafely in underftanding 
 the Sacred Records, where the Dodrine was 
 fo exprefied , that without fo particular and 
 cxprefs Inftruftions concerning it, an attentive 
 Reader, who cOmes not to the Holy Scripture 
 to feek Arguments to defend Notions and Do- 
 drines, which he is refolved to maintain, but 
 
 applies 
 
72 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 applies himfelf to them, purely to learn what 
 they teach , would think himfelf obliged to 
 believe that the Doftrine taught, did not pre- 
 cifely refpcd Bodies, but Perfons. 
 
 Secondly, Mr. Locke having fet down our Sa- 
 viours Words in John 5. 28, 29. which had 
 been urged by the Bifhop to prove the Refur- 
 redtion of the fame Body, propounds this Que- 
 ftion, " Would a well meaning fearcher of the 
 " Scriptures be apt to think, that if the thing 
 " here intended by our Saviour were to teach 
 " and propofe it as an Article of Faith necef- 
 *' fary to be believed by every one, that the 
 " very fame Bodies of the Dead fliould be 
 *^ raifed, would not, I fay, any one be apt to 
 " think, that if our Saviour meant fo , the 
 *' words fhould rather have been, Wvtijc rot 
 '' (Td^ixccTx cc (I* ToT? ^avM^e/o/^, ;'. e. all the 
 " Bodies that are in the Graves, than all 
 ** who are m the Graves, which muft de- 
 ! *' note pci fons, and not precifely Bodies ? 
 
 To this, ( favs the Dr. ) / anfwer ( iji. ) 
 •sj-avTt^ 01 df 70?^ ^vnjudoi-;, aU that are in the 
 GravcSf and thj^vtoc tcc (scbix&^a. tcl g^ (xVi^/LUioic^ 
 all the Bodies that are in the Graves^ are plainly 
 words of the fame import, p. 104. Now, this 
 Anfwer is not fatisfaftory. For Mr. Lode's 
 enquiry is not what fome learned Men will 
 fay is the import of all th.xt are in the Grave, 
 But in what manner people might in reafon cx- 
 ped our Saviour v\^ould have exprcfTed the Do- 
 drine he intended to Teach, if it was his de- 
 fign to propofe this proportion to be believed 
 by every one, viz., Th^t the very fame Bodies 
 
 phi- 
 
RefitrreBion of the fame Body, 75 
 
 Philofophically confidered , which are in the 
 Graves, Ihall be raifcd at the Lafl: Day ? This 
 is clear to every one, that if our Saviours in- 
 tention had been only to teach, that dead per- 
 fons Ihall be raifed again, without any defi2,n 
 to determine any thing concerning the particles 
 of matter of which their Bodies fhall confifl; aC 
 that time, he could hardly have ufed more lig- 
 nificative words for that end , than thofe in 
 John 5. 28. are. Whereas, if he intended to 
 propofe this propofition as a necefTary Article 
 of Faith, 'viz.. The very fame Bodies which 
 are laid in the Graves, ihall be raifed again, 
 •zravTot ccoixa:ct would have been much more 
 exprefs, much plainer for his purpofe, than 
 -zs-avtt^ 0' are. If he only defigned the for- 
 mer, he could fcarce have exprelTed himfelf 
 more plainly for that end, than he did. If he 
 intended the latter, he might have declared his 
 meaning in words much more clear and exprefs 
 for that purpofe than thofe were he did ufe. 
 The enquiry then is, in what fenfe would a 
 well-meaning fearcher of the Scripture be apt 
 to underftand our Saviour ? This is the Que- 
 ftion which (hould have been Anfwered. To 
 which no reply being made, it retains its full 
 force. 
 
 The Dr. Anfwers (^idly.) by enquiring irk- 
 ther anyone will be tempted from thefe Ferfonal De- 
 monjlfative Pronouns^ 1 hou, and He, in Gen. 
 3. 19. andVh], 145. 5. to fay ^ thefe words mufi 
 denote the Perfons^ and not preciftly the Bodies of 
 Men •, yind thence infer ^ that the rrhole Perfon of 
 Adam voas taken out of the Earthy and was but 
 
 Dufl, 
 
•74 -^ Difcourfe concetmng the 
 
 D«/?, and> that the whole P erf on of Man retumeth 
 to his Earth : If not^ why vs it argued that the like 
 Pronoun ol. They mufi here denote Perfom^ and not 
 precifely Bodies ? This may pafs fqr an Anfwer 
 to Mr. Locke's Queftion, when it (hall be made 
 out clearly, t\\^t Gen, 3. 19, and Pfal. 145. 5. 
 were intended to teach that jAdam was not at 
 that time Mortal, but only his Body •, and that 
 Men do not Die, but their Bodies only : And 
 that thefe Notions are taught more plainly by 
 the ufe of Perfonal Pronouns, than they would 
 be by inferting Body, or Bodies into the Pro- 
 pofitions. Till then, it will not be of any 
 weight. And I am of Opinion, that well- 
 meaning Readers, when they (hall fearch after 
 the fenfe of thofe places of Scripture, will be 
 apt to think that Men are there fpoken of, and 
 not precifely Bodies ^ and that the Perfonal 
 Pronouns may contribute fomewhat to juftify 
 their thinking fo. 
 
 Thirdly^ Dr, Whithy fays. It feetns a great 
 tniflake^ to fay the yipojlle in that ^ppeUation^ 
 Thou Fool, refie&s upon him -that enquires whe- 
 ther the fame Body which wot dead fhould be raifed 
 or no -J And that the remainder of the Jpofik's 
 Anfwer feems not to be fnuch in favour of the very 
 fame Body^ unlefs^ being told that the Body fown, 
 is not that Body thatfhaUhe^ &c. can he juppofed to 
 he the way to deliver this^ viz. That the Dead fhaU 
 he raifed with the very fame Bodies that they hud 
 before in this Life^ 05 an Article of Faith which vs 
 required to be believed by every me. A nd to prove 
 there is, or feems to be a great miftake in what 
 Mr. Loch hath faid, he fays. The Apoftle had 
 
 entirely 
 
RefurreBion of the fame Body, 7 5 
 
 entirtly difpatch'd the O^ueftion about the truth of the 
 RefuneQion in theforr/ier p.irt of the Chapter •, j^nd 
 V. 35. ffe begins the Enquirjf not about the truth 
 of the Refurreiiion^ but about the manner in which 
 it (hall be made^ and the qnalities which the raifed 
 Bodies fhouldhave^ asking the-QueJlion of Philo- 
 fophers, zroioi ci^fjux^i^ nith what kind of Bodies^ 
 or with what .qualified Bodies do they come ? p. 1 08, 
 I op. 
 
 The Grounds on which Mr. Loch faith he 
 does not fee but a good Chriflrian, who reads 
 the Scripture, with an intention to believe all 
 that is there revealed to him concerning the 
 RefurredUon, may acquit himfelf of his Duty 
 therein, without entring into the Enquiry whe- 
 ther the Dead (hall have the very fame Bodies 
 or no, appear fi.Jilantial, firm, and unmove- 
 able ; And if thofe who affirm. The fame Bo- 
 dy ftridtly confidered, fhall be raifed again at 
 the Laft Day, is a Neceffary Article of Chri- 
 ftian Faith, were not facisfied that they are fo, 
 one would think they Ihould have endeavoured 
 to have given a fair Anfwer to that part of 
 Mr. Locked Difcourfe, when they undertook to 
 vindicate the Prcpufition difcourfed of. The 
 ■ Dignity They had conferred on it, fliould have 
 caus'd 'em not to have contented themfelves 
 with producing forae (light Obfervations, which 
 only relate a pretended fenfe of feme Scripture 
 Expreffions they met with, in fome of the fol- 
 lowing parts of Mr. Lockers Difcourfe. 
 f It the Qaeftion -z/. 35. is to be underflood 
 I thus, Ihall the Dead come with the very fame 
 I Bodies they had formerly, or with other Bo- 
 dies ? 
 
76 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 ? dies ? It is not poffible to make a rational Rc-» 
 ply to what Mr. Locke hath faid, nor to prove 
 ij any Miftake in the PaiTages quoted one of him 
 } as faulty. The Dr. therefore, ( I conceive) 
 without any more ado, determines that the 
 ' Quellion is not whether the Dead fliall at the 
 Refurrection, have the fame Bodies they had 
 formerly, but what Qualities their former Bo- 
 dies Ihall have at the Rerurre(^ion ? But 
 what ground is there to imagine this is the 
 fenfe of the QjQeftion, feeing the Body is not 
 mentioned in any other part of the New Tefta- 
 ment, where the Refurredion at the Laft Day 
 isfpokenof^ norm this Chapter, till we come 
 to this very V'erfe where the Queftion is put ? 
 And if we mull underftand the Qiieftion ■z/. 35. 
 concerning the qualities of the Bodies, the 
 queftion fo undeiitood, would be every jot as 
 pertinent, if it had been before determined 
 tiiat People's Bodies fhall not be the very fame 
 at the Refurredion, they had formerly, as it 
 would, if it had been determined that they 
 lliocld be the very fame. But the Body having 
 not been mentioned before, how can it be 
 made out, that the Queftion, Whether the 
 fame Body, or another, had been moved ? 
 And then on which fide the Determination had 
 been made ? 
 
 The Dr. faith. The Apoftle here asks the 
 Qjieftion of Philofophers, -^clcc 6c-(xciii^ with 
 What kind of Bodies, or with what qualified 
 Bodies do they come ? And he quotes Minutius 
 Pelix to confirm or evidence what he faith of 
 Philofophers. I enquire not concerning the 
 
 power 
 
Kefurre^ion of the fame Body, -y 7 
 
 power and evtent of A<fmutius^s Authority ia 
 the cafe : But' if the Point muft be determined 
 by the words the Dr. has produced from him, 
 I will tranfcribe them from the Dr. and leave 
 them to be improved to the purpofe for which 
 they were alledged, by any one who knows 
 how to turn them that way. The words are 
 thefe. Vtrum fine corpore^ an cum co-'poribiis ? 
 Et corporibtis ([uibi^u^ ipfisne ? A^i in .ov.itis refur^ 
 gatur ? Here I will but juftobferve, i. That 
 the Nominative Cafe cannot be Body •, for it is 
 fuppofed her*e, that the Dead may be raifed 
 without a Body. 2. That the Queftion is not 
 about the Qiialities, but about the Body, whe- 
 ther the fartie, or a new one. 3. That tho' I 
 do not think A^finutius^ or any one elfe hath 
 Authority to determine the Senfe of any Text 
 of Scripture, any further than his Reafohs e- 
 vince it ^ Yet A^tn. Fel. being here the Doctor's 
 own Witnefs produced by himfelf, is good Evi- 
 dence as to him. The words in v. 35. arc 
 thefe, ocM' lp?t tic, tt^^ tyd^vTou o\ vex-^^t 1 
 7n)i(i) (Al (^cc^MTi 'ipyolax ^ Which words are 
 thus Tranflated in our E^glijh Bible, Btit fome 
 Man will Jay^ Hoxq are the Dead railed up ? and 
 with what Body do they come ? And there ap- 
 pears not to me any need of altering our 
 Tranflation in this place, unlefs it be to ferve 
 a Turn. 'Tis true, the Apoftle doth after- 
 wards difcourfe of the different qualities the 
 Bodies of Good People (hall have at the Refar- 
 re.^ion, from thofe their Bodies had formerly. 
 But he who fiiall ]lric\ly obferve the Thread of 
 his l-lipjourfe, will not perceive much reafon to 
 
 G tkiak 
 
 k 
 
t8 a Difcourje concerning .the 
 
 think that what he faith on that Subjed, wa* 
 defigned by him as aa Anfwer to the Queftion 
 in V. 35. 
 
 Befides, if what the Dr. pretends is the 
 meaning of the Queftion, was the dired and 
 proper fenfe of the Qijeftion, for which the 
 Apoflle gave to him who propos'd it, the Epi- 
 thet, Thou Fool^ what account can be given of 
 the Apollle's affixing that Appellation on him, 
 for asking a queftion fo very pertinent, if, as is 
 pretended, the raifing of the very f^ne Body 
 had been juft before determined ^ and a quefti^ 
 on to which the Apoftle thought fit to givefo 
 large and fatisfadory an anfwer, as it is preten- 
 ded he did in the following part of the Chap- 
 ter ? 
 
 The Dr. faith, the Apoftle had entirely dif- 
 patch'd the Qiieftion concerning the truth of 
 the Refurrection of the Dead, (by which, I 
 fuppofe he means, he had determined, or pro- 
 ved that the very fame Body Ihall be raifed a- 
 gain ) in the former part of the Chapter. And 
 fo, from v. 35. he was only concerned with 
 the Enquiry about the Qiialities of the Raifed 
 B/>dy. 
 
 Yet, when he undertook to prove out of 
 this Chapter, U\3t the very fame Body fhall be 
 raifed again, he did not alledge any thing out 
 of the former part of the Chapter, where, it, 
 is now faid, the whole of the Apoftle's Proof 
 of the Point doth he ^ But all that was quoted 
 to prove the Rcfurreftion of the fame Body, 
 was taken out of that part of the Chapter, 
 where, we are now told, the Apoftle doth not 
 
 dif- 
 
RefurreBJon of the fame Body, j§ 
 
 diicourfe of that matter. And if here is hoc 
 sny Enquiry concerning the fanxe Body, not 
 any thing anfwered touching that Enquiry^ 
 then it is pretty plain that in this part of tine 
 Chapter, there is not any thing faid of the Re* 
 fnrredion of the fame Body, nor any Deter-i 
 inination or f^roof that the vevy fame Body 
 fliall be raifcd agatn. So that all tlie Proof be* 
 fore, pretended to be brought fr6m this Ch^-^ 
 tcr, is, by the Doftor's- ConfeHlon novV, ho 
 Proof at all. For he tells us here, that whae 
 he brought out of this Chapter, concerns not 
 that at all for which it was produced by hiraj 
 but relates only to the Qiialitics of the Body 
 Raifed, and not its Identity ^ that being fully 
 difpatch'd in the former part of the Ghapten 
 Nor can any Proof of the Rerurre<^ion of th^ 
 lame Body, be produced out of the tormet 
 part of the Chapter, there being no raentioif 
 of the Body in ali the Apoltle's Difcourfecon^ 
 ccrning the Refurredion, till we come td 
 v. 35. '^p^'^- 
 
 When the Jpoflk adds (fty^tlieDr.) v. 3% 
 that which thou fowefl^ &c. it is evident he fpeaket^ 
 there not of the Body of Man^ but of the Body if 
 Wheat or of fome other Gram. Very tru6. Tiie 
 Body he there fpeaks of, is the Body. of fome 
 Grain. But I conceive, the Dr. thinks he 
 fpeaks Itri£lly in the Application, of the Body 
 of Man \j tho* I do not fee any good Reafon ^^ 
 why he ihould be thought to fpeak fo. The ' ^ 
 Apoftle fays, it is a foolifn thing to enquire 
 with what Body the Dead Iball come, at the 
 general Refurre<f>ion : For Men muft die in 
 G 2 order 
 
So A Difconrfe concerning the 
 
 , , order to their beitig rais'd again j And at the 
 1 1 Refurreftion, Cod mil give thsm fuch Bodies as 
 II ^e»feth him. This fhould fatisfy lis : This is all 
 i wc know of tbe-martter : Andhere we ought 
 tQaccJuiefe. This he reprefents, and illuftrates 
 by Seed fown •, obferving that Seed when fown, 
 muft die before vit can be qnickned. Now 
 (faith St. Paul) it. is not the meer Body of a 
 Grain which thou foweft, and which muft rife 
 •^again, but that which thou foweft is meer 
 Qra.in ; and tho' the Grain has a Body when 
 _; -thou foweft it, , yet it is not the Body that 
 i Ifpringsup, but the Grain, 16 yvhkh Cod giveth 
 \'la Body as'pltaftth him., •> ,.■ ej \\'\jj.' 
 ■^» Yet, fuppofe it tobeas the- Dri faith, 'viz:. 
 Thou fowefi a naked Crain^ but God raifeth it up 
 chathcd^ nith a HuU or Shelly &c. (tho' the A- 
 . ppftle doth not fjy. fo ) ^nd that fo it rvill be 
 vitb our Bodies at the KefurreUion ; they will not he 
 rajfed nahd^ hut clnatbed upon^ and that this U 
 the whole Intendnunt of this Similitude^ and that it 
 ' ought not to he urged any further : Yet all this is 
 nothing at all to the Article of the very fame 
 Body. But niethi.aks, the Dr. manifeftly mi^s 
 flakes, when he faith, fo will it be mth our Bodies 
 at the RefurreBion. For can any thing be more 
 plain' than this, that the Apoirle compares not 
 OiiT Bodies^ but Vs^ not the Bodies of Men, but 
 A^en themfelves to Grain : And if their Bodies 
 are to be compared in this buluiefs, they muft 
 be compared with the Bodies of the Grains 
 that are fown. The Grain, after it is fown, 
 dips, and fo does Man. The Grain is after- 
 ward to be quickned, and God giveth it a Body 
 
 as 
 
Kefurre^ion of the fame Body. :8^i 
 
 as pleafeth him. The Man is to be raifed^ and 
 then God giveth him a Body as pleafeth him. 
 And it is not the Body of the Grain that is 
 cloathed, but the Grain it felf : Nor is it the 
 Body, but the Man which at the Refurredion 
 muft be cloathed, according to the places of 
 Scripture quoted by the Dodtor. : / 
 
 But take the Grain, and the Man, or if yon 
 pleafe, the Body, and conlider them either as 
 naked, or cloathed. Yet what Particles the Bo^ 
 dy Ihall be made up of at the Rcfurreftion, is 
 left undecided ^ And we are referred as to that 
 matter, to the good pleafure of God. And 
 therefore no Article of Faith necelTary to be 
 believed by every Chriftian, can be framed con- 
 cerning it, till God Ihall fee fit to declare his 
 pleafure about it. 
 
 The Anonymous Author before fpoken of, 
 affirms, 7l?<r Vroof of the Refurrellion of the fame 
 Body^ (tho' what fame Body he means is not 
 known ) in v. 53, 54. of the 1 *;^th. Chapt. of tl^e 
 Firjl Epjpie to the Corinthians, is fo clear^ that 
 the light of the brightcft day cannot he mure clear ^ 
 p. 149- The light this Portion of Scripture 
 affords, is fo great and clear, it feems either 
 quite to have blinded this Author, or to have 
 very much injured the fight of the late Bifhbp 
 of IVorcefler, and of all tbofe who reach that 
 the Body which (hall be raifed, fhall be that 
 very Body which (hall be laid in the Grave. 
 For tho' they all quote thcfe fame Verfes to 
 prove what they affirm is a Neceflliry Article 
 of Chriftian Faith, yet they have Opinions 
 very different about that very Body which is to 
 G 3 be 
 
:ft| A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 be iraifed, and tvhich they on every fide fay, 
 «very one ought to believe fliall be railed, frotit 
 the Oj inion this Author muft have of it, if his 
 opinion of it in general, be coniiltent with 
 what he has faid of the bodies of Tome parti- 
 cukr People, And if this Author had obfer- 
 ved the pertinency and force of what Mr. Locke 
 hath Writ, p. 1 95, 1 97, i $8. one would think 
 ht fhould hardly have prevailed with himfetf 
 to fay, Mr. Lock^ returned no anfwer to what 
 the Biftiop had (aid concerning thofe two Ver- 
 fes ^ At leaft, that he would have underftood 
 the Point better, than to have quoted a Portion 
 of Scripture to prove the Refurredion of the 
 fame Body, ahd talk of it with fo much Often- 
 ^iation, which does not relate to the Refur- 
 rection, but refers to thofe People who fhall not 
 bs in a capacity of being raifed from the Dead, 
 ■becav.re they ftiall not die-, and gives a reafon 
 ^hy itiiofe vvho fhall be found alive when the 
 •Dead fhall he raifed Incorruptible, mull be 
 changed. 
 
 Mr. Loch having obferv'd that the Body ij 
 not mentioned, but in anfwer to this Qieftion, 
 with what Bodies fhall thofe Dead who are 
 faifedcome? fo thatby the D-^ad, cannot pre- 
 cifely be meant the Dead Bodies ^ doth after- 
 Wards take notice, that ' if an attentive fear-^ 
 
 * cher of the Scripture, fhould think himfelf 
 ' bound to determine concerning the Identity of 
 
 * the Bodies of the Dead raifed at the Lafl 
 ^ Day^ he will 'not by the remainder of St» 
 ^ Vaul\ Anfwer, find the Determination of the 
 
 * Apoftle to be much in favour of the very fame 
 
 ■ Body, 
 
KefurreBion of the fame Body. J 5 
 
 ' Body, unlefs the being told that the Body 
 ' fown, is not that Body which Ihall be, &c. 
 ' can be fuppofed to be the way to deliver 
 ' this, as an Article of Faith which is required 
 * to be believed by every one, viz.. That the 
 *" Dead (hould be raifed with the very fame 
 ' Bodies they had before in this Life. Now in 
 anfwer to this, the Dr. takes for granted, and 
 affirms, that the fame Body fhall be raifed, and 
 that St. Paul had proved it in the former pare 
 of the Chapter, tho' the Body is not once 
 mentioned there : And what he himfelf had 
 produced out or this Chapter, to prove the 
 Refurreftion of the fame Body, was entirely 
 taken out of that part of the Chapter which 
 follows the Queftion propounded, v. 55. And 
 then he is at fome pains to (hew that Men's Bo- 
 dies at the Reforredlion, may be the very feme 
 for Subftance they were formerly, and yet dif- 
 fer very much in Qualities from what' they 
 were formerly. 
 
 It is very true, the Bodies good People fliall 
 have at the Refurredion, will be invefted with 
 Qualities vaftly different from thole their Bo- 
 dies had before they died, and which will be 
 wonderfully to advantage. The Scripture is 
 very plain and exprefs as to that. Thus it will 
 be, whether their Bodies fliall then confift only 
 of thofe Particles which were laid in the Grave, 
 or of others. Whether the fame, or not the 
 fame, is, for ought we know, perfedly indif- 
 ferent as to this matter. 
 
 But thefe things do not at all concern what 
 
 Mr. Loch faid. If the Dr. would have an- 
 
 G 4 fwered 
 
$4 A Difcourfe concerning th^ 
 
 fwei'ed direif^ly to that, he lhould.have (bcwft 
 that St. VauW difcourfing in that manner Mi". 
 hockt mentions, on occafion of the Queftiorf, 
 ■y* 35. concerning the Body the Dead fhaH 
 come with, was a proper way to deliver the 
 Propofition fpoken of, as a Neceffary Artick 
 of Chriftian Faith. For if it was not a proper 
 way to deliver, ^irr. w^hat Mr. Locke faid, juft 
 before, is undifputably true, fo clear and plain-, 
 that no Man who underflands the Words, and 
 takes notice of their Cdnnei^ion, -can poffibly 
 doubt of. ft 
 
 1 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Of Admitting Propdjitiovs to he Neceffary Af*- 
 tides of Chrifiian Faith ^ if we cannot with 
 good Reafon deny they may be true, 
 
 THO' Mr. Looke could not perceive any 
 fufficient Proof brought to make it out, 
 that the Refurred"tion of the fame Body is a 
 Neceflary Article of Chriftian Faith ^ and doth 
 fuggcft that St. FauW Difcourfe in i Cor, 1 5. 
 inanfvver to this Qiieftion, With what Bodies 
 Ihall thofe Dead who are raifed come? was 
 not adapted to perfwade People that the Refur- 
 redion of the fame. Body is a Necefiary Article 
 of Faith ^ He is very far from affirming, that 
 .,. the 
 
Refune^ioff of the fame Body. 8^ 
 
 the Body at the Refurreftian Ihall, or will bo^' 
 made up of other Panicles of Matter, thaa. 
 tbofe which made np the Body formerly, 
 ^ihat he does not deny that the fame Body Ihall 
 be raifed, is mpft plain and undeniable from 
 bis own words. ' For though I do by no means 
 f, deny that the fame Bodies fhall be raifed at 
 *;,the Lafl Day, Yet I fee nothing your Lord- 
 *r, fbip has faid to prove it to be an Article of 
 * Faith, f. 195. 
 
 But (fays Mr. Parker^) if Mr. Locke dott 
 by no means deny that the fame Body fhaU be raifed 
 at the lafl day^ why is he not at leafl content to 
 leave that Tofttion which he denies to be an Jlrticle 
 of Faith^ as a Tofition of an indifferent Nature ? 
 Why would he wake out the Tofttion H felf to be In- 
 defenfible ? p. 31. -^gain ( faith he, ) if A^r, 
 Locke bad fupprejfed what he ha6 publifhed a^ainfi . 
 the Samenefs of the Body at the RefurreHion^ hq, 
 haYm had been done hyh'vs own Cenfejfwn^ p. 2., 
 Another Author propounds his Queflions a- 
 bout this matter, in the following words, ijj 
 he do not deny ity why doth he dif^utefo earneflly a- 
 gainfl it ? Why doth hs endeavour to the utmojl of 
 his power ^ to baffle the Arguments that are urged 
 for the Proof of it ? An account of Mr. Lockers 
 Religion, p. 15®. 
 
 Thefe are Queflions, I fhould not hav©; 
 thought worth any xMan's taking notice of, ex*< 
 cept on the account of their being Impertinent 
 beyond what is ufual, and difcovering, that if 
 the Publifhers of them were not very much 
 difoidered in their Heads when they writ 
 them, they are Men of very wqak Judgments, 
 
 and 
 
8 J A Difcourfe concerning tht ' 
 
 andperfeft Strangers to juft and true Re^foii* 
 ing. Nor would I have faid any thing to them, 
 if thefe Writers had not on this oceafion, ex- 
 prefs'd themfelves in fuch an Air, as manifiri!s 
 they thought themfelves very lucky in hitting 
 on thefe Enquiries ^ That they are of mighty 
 weight, and do carry Conviftion along with 
 them ; Yea, that they do good Service in en- 
 deavouring to poflefs People with an Opinion, 
 that it is Unaccountable, and even Monftrous, 
 for Men not to acknowledge Propofitions to be 
 Neceflary Articles of Chriftian Faith, if they 
 cannot deny but that they may poffibly be true. 
 Which is a Notion that offers fuch an Affront 
 to Almighty God, fo horribly derogates from 
 the Lord Jefus Ghrift, is fo contrary to the 
 whole Tenour of the New Teilament ^ and in- 
 deed of all Divine Revelation, tends fo di- 
 rcftly to overturn the Fundamental Principle 
 of the Proteftant Religion, and is fo incon- 
 fillent with True Reafon, it may with great 
 Jultice be reckoned one of the wickedefl Con- 
 ceits, the Grand Enemy of all Truth and Good- 
 nefs, did ever fuggeft to any of the Children 
 of Men. 
 
 In what I have quoted from thefe Writers, 
 and which they have Publifhed with fuch a Ihew 
 of Triumph, there are evidently two infamous 
 Faults. T. What may poffibly be true-, is not 
 diflinguifhed from a Neceifary Article of Chri- 
 ftian Faith ^ but they are jumbled together as 
 if they were one and the fame. Can a greater 
 Wrong be done to the Chrillian Religion, and 
 Abufe to Chriftians, than fetting the neceifary 
 
 Articles 
 
Refurre5iion of the fame Body. if 
 
 Articles of Chtiftian Faith, on the fame Foot 
 and Level with bare Poflibilities ? and repre- 
 fenting meer Poffibilities, as equal to, and the 
 farne with the necelTary Articles of Chriftiaa 
 Faith? Certainly no. Unlcfs they will fay it is 
 abfdlutely impoflible that the neceflary Articles 
 of Chriftian Faith can be true. 2. Matters of 
 Fa£k are here reprefented and affirmed to be 
 done, which were not done. Mr. Locke has 
 not publilhcd any thing againflr, has not dif' 
 puted againft the Pofition fpoken of, has not 
 made any fuch Confeffion as is talk'd of, has 
 not done any one of thofe things they fuggeft, 
 and fignify that he has done. They reprefent Mr. 
 Locke^ as writing induftrioufly againft the Pof- 
 iibility ot the fame Body being raifed ; where- 
 as they know, are convinced in their own 
 Minds, that he does acknowledge the Pofii- 
 bility of it ; and has not writ one word a- 
 gainft it, but only againft Men's affirming and 
 teaching without warrant from Scripture, that 
 the fame Body fhall be raifed at the Laft Day, 
 is a Neceffary Article of Chriftian Faith. Thofe 
 who have any fenfe of Morality, cannot but 
 rcfent Mens treating them they choofe to write 
 againft in this manner. I Ihall pafs over the 
 mighty Difmgenuity of the Pradlice • and on- 
 ly obferve, that if thofe who are moft earneft 
 to have Propofitions, no v/here taught in the 
 New Teftament, received for neceflary Articles 
 of Chriftian Faith, vi'ould have a becoming re- 
 gard to thofe Laws and Rules of Praftice, which 
 are neceflary parts of the Chriftian Religion, 
 and exprefly taught, and often inculcated in 
 
 the 
 
Sf A T>ifc(Hirfe concerning the 
 
 the Hew Teftament, their way of managing 
 Controverfies would not be fo jijftly liable to be 
 blamed, as hitherto it has generaHy been. 
 
 The jaft and neceflary occafion Mr. Loc^f had 
 to Publifh what he' has writ, tOifhew that the 
 Identity of the Body at the general Refur- 
 red:ion, is not a necelFary Article of Chriftiaa 
 Faith, is well known, to all who have with any 
 tolerable care read the Controverfy begun, 
 and for fome time continued with him, by the 
 late Bilhop of IVoneJler. ^ndiko^Q who have 
 read Mr. Loch\ 3d. Letter without prejudice, 
 and do uaderlland ftrid Reafoning and good 
 Senfe, cannot but perceive that he leaves the 
 Poiition of the Refurreftion of the fame Body, 
 as a Pofition of an indifferent Nature. And if 
 others had left it fo, there had been no Contro- 
 veify concerning it: But whereas God has left 
 it, as it is in it felf, of an indifferent Natur^ 
 Men have pretended to exalt it into a neceflary 
 Article of Chriftian Faith , And under that 
 Confideration, viz.. as a. neceflary Article of 
 Chrifti m Faith, It was brought into the Con- 
 troverfy with Mr. Locle^ who did not write a- 
 gainfb the Pofition, but againlt Mens pretend- 
 ing to clap God's Stamp upon it, without war- 
 rant from God, 
 
 A Fault is imputed to Mr. Lcch^ here, by 
 thcfe Writers. Now, what is the Fault they 
 lay to his charge ? They fay it is, that He did 
 not leave the Pofition fpoken of^ as a Pofition of an 
 Jndi^aent Nature.. How does the truth of 
 this Accufation appear ? how does it appeai' 
 that he does not leave it, as a Pofition of aa 
 
 Indiifc- 
 
R efurreBion of the faini Wdy. 8^ 
 
 Indifferent Nature? Does he any where fay, 
 that the Dead (hall not be raifed with the fame 
 Bodies, or that they Ihall be raifed with otl'ier 
 Bodies, is a neceflary Article of Chriftian 
 Faith ? No. Does he then fay, that the Dead 
 (hall be raifed with the fame Bodies they had 
 formerly ? No. That is what they affirm, 
 and would have him to fay, but which he fliews 
 the Scripture no where teaches. Now, can 
 any thing be more clear, than that he leaves 
 the Pofition, as a Pofition of an Indifferent 
 Nature ? ■ . '' ; 
 
 '?. No doubt thefe Writers are difpleafed with 
 Mr. /.od-e amongft other Reafons perhaps, be- 
 caufe he Oppofed the Notion they have Elpou- 
 fed. And in fhort, the matter lies thus. 
 Mr. Locke had been charged with Publifliing in 
 Yii^ Ejfay concernmg HumaneVnckrftdndtng^ forae- 
 thing that was 6f dangerous Confequence to 
 Articles of Chriftian Faith. And to make 
 good this Charge, the Refurredion of the 
 fame Body, is produced as a- neceflary Article 
 of Chriftian Faith ^ And it wns pretended, 
 tliere was fomething in Mr. Loch's Book, that 
 was of dangerous Confequence to this neceflary 
 Article of Chriftian Faith. Mr. Lode's Re- 
 plies vindicate the Chriftian Faith, and vindi- 
 cate his own Book ; difcover a double Cheat, 
 or Miftake at the fame time, and fee Truth 
 upon its own Bafis. And this is that 
 which has thrown fome People into fome 
 diforder. 
 
 Affect- 
 
go A Difcoarfe concerning the 
 
 AfFefting Dominion over the Faith of Chri- 
 ftians, is aa old Diftemper \ It too e^fily pre- 
 vails on Mankind, and where it gets pofleffion, 
 it makes Men very Jealous, inapatient of Oppofi- 
 tion, extreamly Surly and Wafpilh. Thefcarq 
 the belt things that can be faid of it. Men adiime 
 to themfelves a power to transform Proporti- 
 ons which are poffibly true, into Articles of 
 Chriftian Faith j and Authority to obtrude 
 them as neceflfary to be believed by all Chrifti- 
 ans. Thus they attempt in Effcd, to over- 
 turn the Kingdom of God amonglt Men, fee 
 themfelves in the Throne of the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, vacate all Supernatural Revelation, 
 and throw up the New Teftaraent as an Infig- 
 nificant Cypher. Where the Conftitution is 
 fuch, Implicite Faith, and Blind Obedience are 
 reputed the fafeft and moft laudable Qualities, 
 and the furelt way People can take to be efteem- 
 ed Orthodox. To exercife Reafon ftridly, 
 fearch the Holy Scriptures impartially, and 
 aflert Chrifbianity in its Truth and Simplicity, 
 are fure, where what People call Religion is in 
 that State, to be refleded on with great feve- 
 rity, to be reprefented under the moll odious 
 Characters, to draw on People the moft En- 
 venomed Cenfures, and to expofe them to a 
 . Treatment Tragical and Barbarous, beyond 
 what undifciplin'd Nations are acquainted with. 
 Some Neighbouring Nations afford abundant 
 Proof of all this at prefeut : And Hiftory 
 will inform, it was thus in this Land fome 
 Ages ago. Introducing Propofitions as iiecef- 
 
 fary 
 
Refurre^iofi of the fame Body, ^t 
 fary Articles of Chriftian Faitb, v;hich wer^ 
 not warranted . aqd taught in the New Tefta- 
 ment, opened the way to all that Corruptioa 
 in Dodrine, which in many Places overfpread 
 the ProfelTion, and in a manner, threatned the 
 utter Extirpation of the Chriftian Reliiiion 
 there, 
 
 \ The firft Reformers fixed on the true an4 
 iirtain Rule, wife and good Men fhould pror 
 ceed by, with refped to Articles of Faith. By 
 a regard to which Principle, it is, that the Pro- 
 teftant Churches have in great meafure, been 
 freed from a Coocern for a great number both 
 of Impertinent and Evil Dodrines, which Mul- 
 titudes of People, who are either ignorant or 
 regardlefs of that Principle, have fr.ch a Bigo- 
 try for, as hardly permits them to have any 
 regard to thofe Articles, which are indeed Ar- 
 ticles of Chriftian Faith. The clofer the ProT 
 teftant Churches have kept to that Principle, 
 the more they have advanced in Reformation : 
 And if they had all fteddily adhered to, and 
 faithfully purfued that Principle, their Faith 
 would by this time, have been as pure and un~ 
 mix'd, as the Gofpel it felf is j which is the 
 only and the entire Rule and Meafure of Chri- 
 ftian Faith. ,j^ <'.\i:- 
 But, to return to the Article j The Writers 
 I before quoted, have Ihewa their concern for, 
 and which they would have had Mr. Locke have 
 left undifturbed, in the PolTcflion Tome had 
 given it, of a Neceflary Article of Chriftian 
 Faith. A Man's not acknowledging the Re- 
 fur- 
 
^2 A Difcourfe co»cerhtffgf^e 
 
 Furreftion of the fame Body, a Neceflary Ar- 
 ticle of the Chriftian Faith, is not from a {yip- 
 pofed impoflibility, or improbability of the 
 fame Body's being vaifed agaiii,' but purely b^-; 
 caiife the New Teftament dbes no where teacn 
 cither in general that the fame Body fliall ^^ 
 raifed, or with particular Limitations to any 
 J)art of Man's Life, if God raife the Dead, 
 whether they have the fame Bodies Philofophi- 
 cally Confidered, they had formerly, or whe- 
 ther fome other Particles of Matter be in the 
 Gompofition of them, he does what he has 
 declared he will do. If he pleafe he can raife 
 them with the very lame Bodies, and he h^s 
 not any where declared that he will not raife 
 them with the fame Bodies ^ for which reafon, 
 we may not deny that he will raife them with 
 the fame Bodies. On the other fide, he has 
 not any where tanght that he will raife them' 
 with the fame Bodies •, and therefore we m^ 
 not affirm that^ a Neceflary Article of Chrifti- 
 an Faith, becaufe we have not in that cafe' h!$ 
 Authority, bis Word to be the Ground of ouV 
 Faith, which is the fole Foundation of Chrifti- 
 an Faith. It is of dangerous confequence, a 
 very evil thing, to obtrude on People PropoilV 
 tions, as Neceflary Articles of Chriftian Faith,- 
 which Chrift: has not taught. Mr. Locke there-r 
 fore truly dcferves to be very highly Efteemed 
 and Honoured, by every good Chriftian 
 throughout the whole World, on the account 
 ©f what he has publiQied on this Subjed -^ be- 
 caufe of the juft Concern he hath manifefted for 
 
 ChriU's 
 
Kefurr£^ion of the fame Body, 9 J 
 
 Chi ill's Authority, and the Purity of the Chri* 
 ftian Faith. 
 
 When the Pleafure of God concerning any 
 Matter, is declared only in general in the New 
 Teftament, and he has not thought fit to de-i 
 fcend to make particular Difcoveries what he 
 will do as to that matter, Chriftians muft con- 
 tent themfelves with what he has revealed. 
 They mult not make Articles of Faith neceflTa- 
 ry to be believed by every one, of what they 
 or other Men have a mind he fliould do v/ith 
 refpect unto it. Men take too much on them^ 
 if, when God has not thought fit to oblige 
 himfelf by particular Pvcvclations concerning 
 any matter, They will make Limiting Inter* 
 pretations Neeeilary Articles of Chriltian 
 Faith. For let fuch Interpretations be of ever 
 fo ancient a Date, and tho' they have obtained 
 ever fo generally thofe Gonfiderations, and all 
 that Men can poffibly devife, will not raife 
 them one degree above what they were in their 
 firlt Original, i. e. meer Humane Opinions. 
 All the Authority Men's Notions and Inter- 
 pretations can in thefe Cafes truly have, mull 
 be derived from the llrength of the Arguments 
 they produce to Evidence they think right. 
 
 To conclude, Thofe who publifh to the 
 World, they are prepared to avouch any Pro- 
 portions for neceiTary Articles of C^irillian 
 Faith, the truth of which they cannot with 
 good warrant peremptorily deny, nfay per- 
 haps on fecond thoughts, apprehend they have 
 been ibmewhat coo forward, and have a little 
 H too 
 
94 ^ Difcourje concerning the^ &c. 
 
 too violently folicited People to fufped their 
 Concern about Articles of Chriftian Faith, is 
 not fo much for the faving of their own or 
 other Peoples Souls, as for other Confidcra- 
 tions. 
 
C95] 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 Concerning the 
 
 IMMATERIALITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OUL 
 
 SIR, 
 
 FTER I receivVl Mv < Brougkon'z 
 Pfychologia^ I took the firft oppor- 
 tunity \ could get, to read orer the 
 
 firft part of it. I need not tell 
 
 you what Expectations were raifed in me by 
 fome parts of the Preface, nor whether thofe 
 Expectations were an^A'cred by what is con- 
 tained in that part of his Book I look'd over. 
 H .2 Bet 
 
96 J Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 But in the following Papers you will find, 
 ■iji, feme of thofe more; general Thoughtgs 
 whicb occurred to ine, whillt I was reading 
 thofe SecUons that are defigned againft fome 
 Psfiages the very Learned and Ingenious Mr. 
 Loch hath writ •, and idly, fome Reafons why 
 I cannot think his Difcourfes fo concluding, as 
 he takes them to be. 
 
 Firj};^ I fiiall fet down fome general Confide- 
 rations which came to my Mind, as I read over 
 the firll part of Mr. BroughtorCs Book ^ by 
 which it may appear he hath not Exprefs'd him- 
 felf To clearly find dillindtly, nor been fo fair 
 and candid in this part of his Book, as was 
 needful to render it, either ufeful or pleafing 
 to an Indifferent, Unprejudiced, Honell Reader. 
 
 r . He hath negleded to define, or if you will^ 
 deicribe feveral Terms of which he makes fre- 
 quent ufe, and which do no lefs need to be 
 ]• xplained, than any of thofe he hath defined. 
 The Term, Nature^ is very familiar with him ; 
 and perhaps no Man ever ufed a Word more 
 unlleadily than he does that. Pyincipk^ is alfo 
 a f^reat Term with him, yet has not any deter- 
 minate fettled meaning. For, if I miitakenot, 
 irfomctimes fignificsa Propoiition, foinetimes 
 a piece of a Propofition, fomctimes a fingle 
 Word. Cajjacit)', and Incapacity^ are Terms 
 of fuch Moment with him, that he feems to 
 lay the whole ftrefs of his Difcourfe upon 
 them i and therefore what is to be undcrftood 
 by them, ihould have 'been made very plain ^ . 
 
 wliereas 
 
Immateriality of the Soul. ^j 
 
 whereas they are left undefined, and fecm to 
 be iifed fometimes in one Senfe, and fometimes 
 in another. The like negle^Y, and the like 
 uncertainty might be taken notice of, as to 
 feveral other Terms which are often to be met 
 with in thofe Pages. 
 
 2. As to the Terms he hath defined, fome 
 of his Definitions do not clearly difcover in 
 what fenfe he intended to ufe them ^ nor do 
 they reach the fenfe in which he has ufed them. 
 E. G. His Definition of Subflance, is, Tmt to 
 us Hnkmwn Nature^ upon which all that we do 
 know of the Nature of any thing depends^ and 
 which vs a$ to its Ejfence in general^ independent 
 on every thifjg butGod^ p. 2. If this is a Defini- 
 tion of Siibftance, it is fuch an one, as leaves 
 me as mnch in the dark, every jot asignotant 
 of what was to be defined, as I was v\ithouL it. 
 Here arc feveral Terms that want Explanati- 
 ons. It is fo far from being a Definition of 
 Sobftance, that to me, it feems to fnppofe Sub- 
 flance as fomething unknown, and to be a fort 
 of a Defci iption of fomething belonging to in- 
 dividual Subftanccs, which is as much unknown 
 to us, as what Subftance it felf is. Whether 
 Mr. Broughton intended it fo, I linow not : But 
 if I were to look for a Definition of Subit^nce 
 in the beginning of a Book, which was to 
 ;^.j:reat of Material and Immiterial SubRance, \ 
 (hould expeft another fort of Definition than 
 this is. If his Definition of Snblhncs here, 
 had nothing of obfcurity and confnlion in it, 
 yet there might be jiilt ground to doubt whe- 
 H 3 thcr 
 
^8 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 ther ic will reach the ufe iMr, Broughton makes 
 of the Term he fo de(ir.es \ And whether he 
 defign'd it for a Definition of created Sub- 
 ftance, or for a Definition of Subftance, when 
 he makes ufe of that Terra, with reference un- 
 to God, as well as to other things ? If this De- 
 finition declares the meaning of the word 
 Sublbnce, when ufed concerning God, (hould 
 the firil parts of it be acknowledge pertinent, 
 the propriety of tke lafl; Claufein it, may by 
 fomc be thought not very evident. If the De- 
 finition was defigned by Mr. Bfoughton to make 
 known what he did mean by created Subltance, 
 then it may be proper to obferve, that in his 
 Arguing, he ufes the Term in a different fenfe 
 from that, which by his Definition he certifieis 
 he would be underltood to ufe it in ^ And the 
 ftrength of his Argument confifting in his ta- 
 king the Term in another, than his declared 
 fcnfe, it mnfc be perfectly infignificant, if not 
 extrearaly pcrnkious in its Confcquences ^ as 
 being with \i. fort of Art prepared to impofe 
 upon the Eafie, and to qualify fuch to Exult, 
 who having no great regard for Truth, are al- 
 ways ready to make a Noife, if they can but 
 be furnilhed with a plaulible Appearance. Mr. 
 Broughton bellows fome Pages in proving there 
 mtiji be an Immaterial Thinking Subfiance, Eternal, 
 and the ftrfi caufe "f Motion ^ And having pro- 
 duced v.'hat Evidence he thought fit for this, 
 he concludes he hath fuffcicntly proved^ that 
 Thought cannot be the Pyoperty of any Subjlance, 
 hut what w Immaterial^ p. lo, ii,d?'c. But 
 proviflg th^t God is Immaterial Thinking Sub- 
 ltance, 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, 99 
 
 fiance, will not prove the Exiftenceof created 
 Immaterial Subftance •, nor can the power of 
 Thinking, this way prove, that fuch Subftance 
 muft neccfTarily be the Subjei^t of it. If it 
 prove any thing, it muft be this, viz.. That 
 uncreated Immaterial Subftance is the only Sub- 
 jed of Thought. For proving Thought to 
 belong only to Immaterial Subftance, by prov- 
 ing that God is Immaterial, is not to prove 
 that Thought belongs to created Immaterial 
 Subftance, but to unaeated Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance. 
 
 3. Mr. Broughton feeras not to underftand 
 what hath been writ by Mr. Jjoch^ whom he 
 profefies to Anfwer. He reprefents Mr. Loch 
 ibmetimes as affirming that Matter may Think, 
 He never takes notice that Mr. lj)ch acknow- 
 ledges the higheft degree of Probability on the 
 other fide, and confequently that whofoever 
 will effeftually anfwer what Mr. Locke hath 
 writ about this Subjeft, muft both underftand 
 Demonftration, and produce ftrift Demon- 
 ftrative Proof that God cannot fuperadd a 
 power of Thinking tofome Syftems of Matter 
 fitly difpofed. 'Tis true, Mr. Broughton doth 
 fometimes in his Difcourfe, applaud what he 
 hath done, and calls it Demonftration ^ but 
 when he had in Cool-Blood lookd it all over, 
 and acquaints his Readers vvhat fort of Proof 
 moft of them muft hope to find, hefpeaksof 
 it with an Air that doth not advance it above 
 the higheft degree of Probability, p. 5, 6, 
 Again, he reprefents Mr. Locks as much mi- 
 H 4 ftaken. 
 
I oo A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 ilaken, in faying we know nothing of Sub* 
 itance \ ( by which it is moft Evident, he means 
 we do not know what it is ) becaufe we know it 
 doth ExiH:. Wheveas Mr. Locke affirms we 
 niay know that it doth Exill, and what \% 
 does ^ and he hinifelf acknowledges. It is an 
 unknown Nature^ or Ejfenre •, And that to know 
 what it,vs^ may tranfcend all created Vnderjlan-! 
 di-y-i^ p. 10. 
 
 4. Mr. Broughton appears very careful to ob- 
 ferve the ufual Mode of Writing againffc Mr. 
 Locke^ and to accommodate his Book to the 
 Reliili of that fort of People, who are fufRci- 
 ently pleas'd with finding the Man, or Book 
 they do not like, loaded with Execrable Afper- 
 fions. Indeed Mr. Broughton does not always, 
 when he charges the Notion he oppofes with a 
 tendency to A theifm, or Scepticifm (the ufual 
 Cry ) exprefiy involve Mr. Locke in the Guilty 
 or affirm him to be either A theiit or Sceptick, 
 but doth fooietimes exprefly take notice that he 
 Excepts his Perfon ^ tho' this is done in fuch a 
 way, perhaps fome will be apt to think it was 
 not fo much out of refpeft to Mr. Locke^ or 
 regard to JuRice, as to put a Complement on 
 himfelf, and to fuggeft; to his Readers, that 
 they ought to look upon him as a Man of a 
 very profound Reach, fuch an uncommon 
 Thinker, he can fpie Confequences which o- 
 thers cannot fee. Atheifm, Scepticifm, and 
 fuch kind of difingenuous, and unchriflian In- 
 fmuations, have taken up too much room in 
 the Writings of thofe who h^ve endeavoured 
 
 to 
 
ImntAterMty of the Sout. loi 
 
 to do themfelves fome kindnefs, by profefling- 
 to oppofe Mr. Locke -^ whom, all who are ac^ 
 quainted with him, do very much Honour, 
 becaufe they cannot but obferve that he hath a 
 very profound Veneration for Almighty God, 
 and a very great, and moft Rational Elleem for 
 the Sacred Scriptures ^ And who therefore 
 inuft conclude, when they meet wiih Books 
 where he is treated Rudely, that the Authors 
 do not know him, nor underftand aright what 
 he hath writ, or that they are Men of very 
 unworthy and ill tempers of Mind. Many 
 have Publifh'd their Writings againit Mr. 
 LocWs Ejjaji ^ and that moft of them have been 
 very liberal in difperfing their groiuidlefs and 
 falfe Accufations, their ra(h, unjuft, unreafon- 
 able, and unchriftian Cenfures, cannoi be de-r 
 nied : And this they have done to as much pur- 
 pofe, as that Troop of Writers, who feme 
 time ago fet themfelves againft, and thought to 
 run down the Notion of the Circulation of the 
 Blood, by charging it with No-Body knows how 
 many terrible and mifchievous Confequences. 
 It has been obferved, that thofe pretenders to 
 Learning, v;ho had not much Knowledge, and 
 a mighty Stock of Confidence, were the boi- 
 ftrous and rude Oppofers of that Notion ^ 
 which ftill maintains its ground, is approved 
 and jultificd, and built on, by ail the Men of 
 good Senfe, Reafon, Learning and judgment, 
 through the whole World ^ whilft the Names 
 and Books of thofe who furiouflj oppcs'd ir, 
 are either perfeftly forgot, or not thought fin 
 by Men of Reputation and Credit, to be men- 
 tioned or taken notice of. Notr 
 
 i 
 
1 02 A Dijcourfe eojtcermng the 
 
 Notwithftanding thofe who have writ againft 
 Mr. Loch^ have taken a great deal of care not 
 to forget to infert very ill-favour'd Infinuati- 
 ons into their Writings, and to reprefcnt what 
 they write againfl:, as of very dangerous Con- 
 fequcnce -. and do ordinarily abound very much 
 with thefe fort of Ornaments, whether to gra- 
 tifie others, or to fupply the want of Reafon 
 and Confideration in themfelves, I do not de- 
 termine •, Yet it is mod certain, that many of 
 ihem are really guilty of what they, withov^t 
 any Reafon, impute to Mr. Locke. I have 
 fcarce met with one Book writ againfh Mr. 
 Jjoc\e^ but the Author has had the ill Luck, 
 whilft he has been endeavouring to afperfe 
 Mr. Locke^ to advance Notions which have a 
 direft tendency to weaken very much, or over- 
 turn the Credibility of Divine Teftimony, or 
 Supernatural Revelation ^ or to open a broad 
 way for Immorality to enter into the World 
 with Privilege and Prote-^ion, or which may 
 afford fome feeming Afliftance and Colour to 
 Athciits in their contending againfl: Argu- 
 ments, which without fuch Countenance, they 
 mnfl: have acknowledged to have been infupe- 
 rable. You know how unfortunate the late 
 Eifhopof iVorcefler was, who earnellly Arriving, 
 tho'invain, to fallen fome odious Infinuations 
 on what Mr. Locke had writ, has publilhed 
 fome Notions as dangerous perhaps to the 
 ChriiLian Religion, as any that ever were ven- 
 ted. And what pernicious ufe ill Men would 
 make of them, if Mr. Locke had not furnifhed 
 the World with an Antidote, none can tell j 
 
 tho' 
 
JmmMteriality of the SouU i o J 
 
 tho' the pretendcdly Religious Oppofers of Mr. 
 Jjockc cannot perceive any hurt in them, or 
 will not take notice of, and warn People con- 
 cerning them, becaufe they were advanced in 
 oppofition to Mr. Locke. It is an Argument 
 that People arc extreamly depraved, when the 
 fole or principal Enquiry in order to Dodrines 
 being approved or condemned, is who did pub- 
 lifh them ? It would take up too much time to 
 mention the Notions of apparently dangerous 
 Confcquence, which I have taken notice of in 
 the other Books writ againft Mr. Locke^ that I 
 have met with. Yet with reference to Mr. 
 Brought<m\, I may mind you of one thing, with- 
 out enquiring into the tendency of fome other 
 Notions which are to be met with in the Firft 
 Part of his Tfychologia^ and that is, 
 
 5. That his Zeal in oppoling Mr. Loch^ 
 hath prevailed with him to difcover a vehe- 
 ment Inclination to afford Atheifts the utmolt 
 afliftance he could, to enable them to make 
 fome oppofition againft the beft Arguments 
 that can be produced, to prove the Exiftence 
 and Immateriality of the Deity. Mr. Locke 
 in the Tepth Chapter of his Fourth Book, had 
 produced Demonftrative Proof of the Exift- 
 ence of God : Healfo produced there Demon- 
 ftrative Proof that he is not Material. Now, 
 to furnilh the Atheift with fomething to an- 
 fwer to that Proof, Mr. Broughton takes a great 
 deal of pains in his Eighth Seftion • And if I 
 am not much miftaken, the whole of his Dif- 
 courfe amounts but to this, That if God can 
 
 fufcradd 
 
jo4 ^ Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 fuperadd a Power cf Thinkmg to Mattery then 
 Matter may have a Power of Thinking in it felf-^ 
 that if, without God's fupcradding of it. But 
 muft not that Man be an Atheifl: in Grain, 
 who can tiike this for a Rational Reply ? That 
 I may not fail to fet down the entire ftrength 
 of what he offers on this occafion, I will con- 
 iider more particularlv what he faith. / can- 
 not ( faith he ) hut think ^ that recurring to the 
 Power of O^nnipotence^ to evade the nxelfity of 
 owning a-'t Immaterial Subjla»ce in Humane Na- 
 ture, is fo far an apparatus to Atheifm, that I 
 /hould be loth to dtfpute with an j4thei(t, and mam- 
 tain at ths fame time this as an avowed Principle of 
 mine^ That A^^tter may Think. For who knows 
 then, hut granting fomething Eternal, this fame- 
 thing may be Matter with Thought, tho* not fuptr- 
 added, yet Etermlly inherent in it, p. 52, 53. 
 In thefe words, here is fomething Mr. Broughton 
 finds fault with ;, The-Fault he attributes to k, 
 and the Reafon he gives, why he does lay that 
 to its charge. That which he finds fault with, 
 is having recourfe to the Power of Omnipotence, to 
 evade the neccfjity of owning an Immaterial Sub- 
 fiance in tivnane Nature. This appears to be 
 lludioufly ExprefsM, in fuch a manner as 
 fhould fuggeit there is fomething Criminal in 
 it. I fuppofe he would not have the thoughts, 
 or acknowledgment of God's Omnipor.ency to 
 be banifti'd the World. Philofophers them- 
 felves, even thofe who are heft ftor'd with Axi- 
 oms, are fometimes at a lofs •, Their Hypo- 
 thecs will reach no further, and then they can- 
 not help it J but they muft have recourfe to 
 
 God'$ 
 
Immdteriaiity of the Soul, 105 
 
 God's Omnipotency. Mr. Broughtm is at laft 
 fain to take Rctcge there, Sed. XI. So that it 
 is not a Fault to liave recourfe to God's Omni- 
 potency, Where lies the Fault then ? Why, 
 in having recourfe to it^ to evade the necejjity of 
 orvning an Immaterial Subflance in Humane Na- 
 ture. Which feems to be much the fame, as 
 doing it without his Licence. He will have it, 
 that there is a necellity of owning an Immate- 
 rial Subftance in Humane Nature ^ It is his 
 pleafure, it feems, it Ihould be fo ^ And to 
 have recourfe to God's Omnipotency in the Cafe, 
 is an offence againft thefaid Pleafure, and there- 
 fore cannot deferve a more favourable Con- 
 ftrudion, than that it is done to evade the a- 
 foremention'd Necefllty. Had Mr. Broughtm 
 declared what he means by the Keceffltyof own- 
 ing, &c. he would have freed his Reader from 
 a great deal of trouble he muft be at, if he 
 will throughly examine this PalTage, in which 
 hisExpreffions are fo very obfcure. 
 
 To be as brief and as plain as I can, I will 
 offer this to your Confideration, That a Man 
 cannot be rationally faid to be under a neceffi- 
 ty of believing and owning the ttuth of a 
 Propofition, but in proportion to the Evidence 
 he hath that it is True. If the Propofition, 
 E. C. That there is an Immaterial Subftance in 
 Humane Nature, ^an be provfd to me only by 
 probable Evidence, there is no neceffity that 
 I (hould own it to be more than a probable ' ' 
 Truth. If any fliould require me to own it 
 to be demonftratively true, and ftjould infift 
 
 on 
 
1g6 a Difeourfe concerning the 
 
 on it, that it is demonltratively true, I am in 
 rcafon fo far from being under a neceffity to 
 own it to b€ demonftratively true, I am under 
 a neceffity to the contrary, and am obliged not 
 to own it neceflarily true j becaufe in doing fo, 
 I fhould offend againft God's Rights, by put- 
 ting a Neceffity on him, when I do not know 
 that he hath fo Limited himfelf. Can a Rea- 
 fon be fhewn why I fhould pretend to lay a ne- 
 ceffity on God to do a thing, when he lays no 
 neceflity on me to believe it ? When it is re- 
 quired by any, that we believe or own a Pro- 
 pofition to be demonftratively and neceflarily 
 true, and the utmoft Evidence we have of its 
 troth, is but probable, we cannot believe itis de- 
 monftratively and neceffarily true ^ the thing 
 is impoffible, and we ought not to own it to be 
 demonftratively true, we do wickedly, if we 
 do it. And in fuch Cafe to have recourfe to 
 God's Omnipotency, affigning this as our Rea- 
 fon why we cannot believe it neceflarily true, 
 becaufe we do not know but Omnipotence may 
 do otherwife ^ is to adt according to the Prin^ 
 ciples of true Rcafon, as becomes Philofophers, 
 and is the certain Duty of good Chriftians^ 
 And to endeavour to blemilh and ftigmatize 
 fuch recourfe to God's Omnipotency, by ftiling 
 it an Evafiorij is very little, if at all fhort of 
 Execrable Blafphemy. Mr. Broughton could 
 not but know, that Mr. Locke affirmed the 
 highefl degree of Probability ; And I am in- 
 clined to think, that if he is really perfuaded 
 that he hath demonftrated the Propodtion, he 
 is not of the Opinion it was demonftrated be- 
 fore 
 
hrmtateridity of the Soul, io7 
 
 fore Mr. Locke wrote, what he oppofes. For 
 thea he might have fpared his pains, and only 
 have produced, or reterr'd to the former De- 
 monftration ^ nor do I fee how he could then, 
 mthofit vanity^ fay he hath carried kis Proof fur- 
 ther than vchere he found it, pief. It is indeed a 
 fault, to pretend we do not know but Omni- 
 potency can do a thing in another way, purely 
 to avoid owning the truth of a Propofition 
 which is demonstrated , and proved to be ne- 
 ceflarily true, as that we do not know but Om* 
 nipotency can make the Drops of Rain to 
 ftream from the Sun. A Propo- 
 fition which Mr. BroHghton would p 
 have parallel to this, that God 
 for ought we know, can fuper- 
 add a Power of Thinking to Matter. He fub- 
 mits it to Judgment, and fo do I. Let any 
 Man confider the whole Evidence, with refped 
 to the Atmofphere, and to Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance, and if it be equal on both fides, let 
 him judge alike. That then, which Mr. 
 Broughion finds fault with, ( that it may be per- 
 tinent here, and concern Mr. Locked mult be 
 worded to this EfFeft, Hazing rccourfe to the 
 power of Ommpotence, to evade 1t/;e neceffity of 
 owning upon probable Evidence, that an Imtnateri^ 
 al Subfiance is in Httmane Nature, is a Propofition 
 demonflratively and necejfarily true. This, ( he 
 faith ) he cannot but think vs fo far an jippttrattu 
 to jithcifm, that he fhould be loth to difpute with 
 an Atheiji, and maintain at the fume time this, as 
 an avowed Principle of his. That Matter may 
 Think So that what he chargeth on that he 
 
 found 
 
loS A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 found fault with, is, that it is an y^pparatus to 
 j4theifm. If he hath a private peculiar No- 
 tion of Atheifm, which he referves to him- 
 felf, it is not for me to difturb his pofTeflion 
 of it, nor to be folicitous in enquiring after it. 
 But I c3nnot underliand how a Man's owning 
 a Divine Being, and having a rccourfe to God's 
 Omnipotence upon neceflary Occafions ^ no, 
 Jiov fometimes without a necelTity, is an Appa- 
 ratus to Atheifm, according to the ufuaVahd 
 ordinary Importance of that Word ^ but ra- 
 ther that it hath the dirett contrary tendency. 
 Here the Charge is, that it is an Jp^aratw td 
 jitbtifm^ in other places he faith it is Vn^ilo. 
 fophical. I conceive by what hath been faid, ic 
 may appear that there is not any juft ground 
 for either of the Imputations. But faith he, 
 J fljould be loth to difpute with an yltheifl^ and main- 
 tain at the fame time^ as an avowed Principle of 
 mine^ that Matter may Think. But the Cafe is 
 here perfe£tly alter'd : A Man may recur to 
 the power of Omnipotence in the former Cafe, 
 and not maintain at the fame time this, as his 
 avowed Principle, that Matter may Think. 
 Here Mr. Broughton muft be confidercd, as re- 
 prefenting Mr. Locke as owning it for his a- 
 vowed Principle, that Matter may Think ^ 
 whereas Mr. Locke declares the truth of this 
 Propolkion, that God can fuperadd a Power of 
 Thinking to Matter, is fo in the dark, that it 
 cannot be an avowed Principle, that Mattef 
 can Think. Whether God can luperadd a 
 Power of Thinking to Matter, or can not, he 
 faith is not level to our Underftanding j we 
 
 have 
 
Immateriality of the Sodi, 109 
 
 have not demonftrative Proof on either fide, 
 Yea, further, Mr. Locke is here reprefented as 
 owning for a Principle of his, that Matter aA 
 Matter, may Think : Whereas he is exprefs^ 
 that Matter as Matter, cannot Think. Mr; 
 BroughtorCs Reafon for all he had faid, is deli- 
 vered in thefe words. For who hrws then, but 
 granting fomahing Eternal, this fomething may b^ 
 Adatttr with Thought^ tho' not fuper added, yet E^ 
 ternally inherent in it ? Here ieems to be an In- 
 timation, that Mr* Locke affirms that Matter 
 cannot Think, unlefs God fuperadded a Power 
 of Thinking to it ^ yet this uiirnot hinder it 
 from being an Apparatus to Atheifm. How 
 fo ? why, who knows but the Eternal Somei 
 thing may be Matter with Thought Eternally 
 inherent in it ? that is, tho' we may be certain 
 that Matter cannot Think, unlefs it have a Power 
 of Thinking fuperadded by God to it, yet we 
 cannot knov/ or be certain, that Matter cannot 
 have Thought Eternally inherent in it.. Whei 
 ther this be clofe Reafoning, or a perfei?: Con- 
 tradiction, I leave you to jadge ^ And ho'."? 
 contradictory what Mr. Broughton fays, is to 
 what Mr. Locke affirms and denionltratively 
 proves, may appear from the following Qi-.o^ 
 tation I (hall tianfcribe out of Mr. Locke's Ejj'ay^ 
 and the very Chapter Mr. Broughton is oppofing. 
 It u impojjible to conceive that Alatter^ either with 
 or without motion, could have Originally in, and 
 from it ftlf, Senfe^ Perception, and Knowledge ; Oi 
 t6 evident from hence, that then 5i nfe. Perception 
 and Knowledge, mujl be a Proptrty Eternally infe- 
 parahh' from Afattsr, and every Particle of it^ 
 
 \ Efiay^ 
 
ijo A Difcoarje concernwg the 
 
 EOay, B. IV. C. X. §. lo. Mr. Broughton 
 hath not declgred what he would aim at, in 
 difputing with an Atheift ^ but if his defign 
 would be to convince him that there is a God, 
 there would be no neccffity to Intereft either 
 Materiality, or Immateriality in the difputc. 
 Let him fully convince his Atheift, and bring 
 him to believe there is an Eternal, Omnifci- 
 cut, Omnipotent Being, and he will ceafc to 
 be an Atheift. And if he fhould conceive that 
 Eternal, Omnifcient, Ommpotent Being to be 
 Material, that would notmak^him an Atheift; 
 Together with his believing a God, he would 
 indeed have a wrong, an erroneous, and falfe 
 Conception concerning him. And the way to 
 deliver him from that miftake and error, 
 would not be to treat him with thofe Argu- 
 ments which barely prove the Exiftence of a 
 God, concerning which he is fatisfied already ^ 
 but with fuch as are proper and adapted to con- 
 vince him of the miftake and "error he is in. 
 Mr. Broi'ghton goes on thus ^ It's true^ Mr. Locke 
 has fuhjlanti ally proved that the firjl Eternal Being 
 cannot be A fatter ^ but then as 'tis plain from the 
 nature of his Argument^ and what he expre/ly fays 
 at the IntroduBion of tt, he means Jncogitative 
 Matter. How fliall I underftand tliis ? muft I 
 take the meaning of it fo be, that Mr. Z^ocke 
 hath fubftniuially proved that the firft Eternal 
 Being cannot be Matter, but his Proof amounts 
 to no more, than that he cannot be Incogita-, 
 tive Matter ? fo that notwitbftanding all his 
 Proof, the firft Eternal Being may be Cogita- 
 tive Matter ? If fo, then what Mr, Broughton 
 
 affirms, 
 
Lnmnteridity of the Soul. in 
 
 affirms, is a flat Contradiftion : That he hath 
 fubftantially proved that the firft Eternal Being 
 cannot be Matter, and yet hath not proved, 
 but that he may be Matter. For Matter, whe- 
 ther Cogitative or Incogitative, is Matter, 
 Befides, I cannot conceive that any one can 
 prove that the firft Eternal Being, who is a 
 Cogitative Being, cannot be Incogitative Mat- 
 ter : For the Propofition is felf-evident, and 
 therefore not capable of Proof. Or muft I 
 take his meaning to be, That Mr. Loch hath 
 proved more than he intended to prove, viz. 
 That he hath fubftantially proved the firft E- 
 ternal Being cannot be Matter ^ but this was 
 more than he defign'd, for he meant to prove 
 no more than that the firft Eternal Being can- 
 not be Incogitative Matter ? If I muft under- 
 ftand Mr. Broughton in this fenfe, then I fup- 
 pofe he had no reafon to be loth to difpute with 
 an Atheift, on the account of any advantage 
 the Atheift might hope to have, by bringing 
 Matter into the difpute ^ no, tho' he himfelf 
 fhould be fo frank, as to own he does not know 
 but God can fuperadd a Power of Thinking to 
 feme parcels of Matter fitly difpofed ; And 
 this, becaufe Mr. Locke had furnifh'd him with 
 fiibftantial Proof, that the firft Eternal Being 
 cannot be Matter. But no thanks to Mr. Locke j 
 for he meant no fuch thing, he means Incogita- 
 tive Matttr. How does this appear ? Why 
 two ways, Firft, 'Tis plain from the natHYe of 
 his Argument^ and what he expre fly fays at the hi- 
 troduCiion cf it. Here he refers his Reader to 
 ElFay, B. IV. C X. §. 9. And to that Chap- 
 I 2 tcr 
 
112 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 ter I refer you, to fee whether there is any 
 foundation to think that Mr. Locke meant 
 there, only to prove that God cannot be In- 
 cogitative Matter. He had proved Demon- 
 Itratively in that Chapter that there is an Eter- 
 nal, mofl Powerful, and moft Knowing Being, 
 or God. At §. p. he begins his Proof that 
 this God cannot be Material ; and his Proof is 
 fnlly Demonftrative. Yes, fays Mr. Broughton, 
 but he means Incogitative Matter. Would 
 one have thought it poflible, that any Man 
 would have pretended Mr. Locke did induftri- 
 oufly fet himfelf to prove that an Eternal moft 
 knowing Being cannot be an unknowing Being, 
 or Incogitative Matter ? and efpecially after he 
 had given fo particular and full an anfwer to it's 
 being faid, that mtvcithjianding there muft be an 
 Eternal Beings and that Being mufl alfo be know- 
 ing^ yet it does not follow but that thinking Being 
 may alfo be Material ? But if Men did not de- 
 vifc odd forts of meanings for Mr. Locke^ they 
 would find no Colour to pretend to write a- 
 gainfl: him. And, Secondly, to this purpofe dre 
 h'vs fecond thoughts upon this SuhjeB. Perception 
 add. Knowledge in that one Eternal Bting^where it has 
 its fource^ H'vs wfibhmujl be efftntially infep arable 
 from it ^ therefore the adual want of Perception in 
 fo great a part of the particular parcels of Matter^ 
 K a Dcmonflration that the firji Being from whom 
 Pe-ccption and Knowledge is infeparable^ is not 
 Jtlatter. This appears to me very clear, jult 
 and ftrong Reafoning. But how to make it 
 piove that, for which it is alledged, I appre- 
 hend is not very eafie. Yet Mr. Broughton la- 
 bours 
 
Immxteridity of the Soul, 115 
 
 bours it thus. Which J hnmhly conceive^ proves 
 not that Perceftien is not, or may not he Ejfential to 
 fome parts of Matter ^ hut only that tlx>fe parts, 
 to which it 15 not Ejfmtial, a/s we find it vs not to 
 fome of them, cannot he that one Eternal Being. 
 Here is a pretty fort of diftinguilhing betwixt 
 what is EfTential to one part of Matter, and 
 what is EfTential to another part of Matter; 
 as if any thing could be Matter, and not have 
 that which is Eflential to Matter, or could be 
 Matter and not Matter at the fame time. But 
 to let that pafs, how does this prove that 
 Mr. Locke did mean as is pretended 1 I do not 
 find he declares here, that he had any fuch 
 meaning. I fhould rather think he here plain- 
 ly means that Perception is not Eflential to 
 any part of Matter, and that no part of Mat- 
 ter as Matter can Think. Bnt Mr. Broughton 
 goes on thus. For I think there is no more reafon to 
 conclude, that becaufe it is not Ejfential to fome, 
 it is not therefore Ejfential to any ptrt of matter, 
 than there is, that becaufe it is not actually in fome, 
 it is not therefore aClually in any parcel of it, which 
 vs an Inference he muft deny, fince our Ignorance 
 in thii Point may equally defeat our concluding a-. 
 gainfi ejfential, as well as a^ual Properties^ for we 
 under fl and the former, no ctherrrife than by our 
 knowledge of the latter. If Mr. Broughton had 
 related what he means by matter, it would 
 eafily have appeared whether he had reafon to 
 think, as he faith he doth think. But taking 
 matter in Mr. Locke's fenfe, it is impofTible, it 
 is a contradidion, that Perception fliould be 
 Eflential to any part of matter. And I dare 
 I 3 under? 
 
114 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 undertake, that let Mr. Broughton have any 
 one fixed Idea, he will be pleas d to fignify by 
 the word matter, it will prefently appear to 
 all underftanding- People, when he hath made 
 it known, that if Perception is Effential to 
 any part of it, it mult neceflarily be EflTential 
 to every part of it. But how Mr. Broughton 
 came to fet Effential, and Adual Properties 
 on the fame Foot, I cannot imagine, nnlefs he 
 thought his doing fo might ferve a turn with 
 fome People. When he hath proved that there 
 cannot be any Property actually in any parcel 
 or fyftem of matter, but what is Effential to 
 matter, he win wonderfully Enlighten the 
 World ^ and all People will then with a great 
 deal of eafe be fully fatisfied, that the Sun, 
 the Moon, and all material Syfteras have all 
 the fame Properties, and arc in truth, but fo 
 many Green-Cheefes. The truth, 1 think ia 
 fliort, is thus. What is EflTential to matter, is 
 Efl!ential to every part of it ^ and therefore 
 every part of it, mulb have whatfocver is Ef- 
 fential to it, otherwife fomething may he a part 
 of matter, and at the fame time may not be a 
 part of matter ^ for there cannot be any thing 
 more plain and true, than this, that that is not 
 matter, which wants, or is without what is 
 necefl^ry to make it matter, or is EflTential to 
 matter. But yet fome parts of 
 ^y%T7rt!:Z:. matter, tho-they cannot be 
 ef compUifwce, than wlthout what Is effcutial to 
 'o:::;c{°;ir:Lt;: matter, maybe without certain 
 ffttifitd by tht word ^ Propcrtlcs, which God may 
 ^''"^* confer on other Syftems of 
 
 matter. 
 
Immateria.lity of the SouL 115 
 
 matter. And we cannot with reafon conclude, 
 that becaufe fome Syftems of matter are with- 
 out, or have not aftually fuchorfuch Proper- 
 ties, therefore God has not beftowcd them on 
 any. I may rationally conclude, that what is 
 Effential to matter, or belongs to it as matter, 
 is in every part of it. And when I find any 
 Property aftually in a Syftem of matter, which 
 docs not belong to it as matter, I with reafon 
 conclude, it is a property fuperadded to mat- 
 ter, becaufe not Effential to it. And other 
 parts of matter being without that property, 
 do abundantly manifeit, that it is not Effential 
 to matter, but cannot prove that it is not con- 
 ferr'd on, or fuperadded to any parcel of mat- 
 ter. I can be certain, it is not a property of 
 matter confider'd as matter, for then it muft 
 neceffarily be in every part of matter. I can 
 be affur'd, it is a property lodg'd in thofe 
 Syftems of matter in which I find it, which 
 are only fuch as God thinks fit to bellow it on ; 
 And yet I may not certainly know, whether it 
 is a property immediately fuperadded to thofc 
 material Syftems, or immediately feated in an 
 immaterial Subftance, and then united to the 
 others. But faith Mr. Brou^hton^ we knovp Ef- 
 fential Attrihutei no otberwife^ than by our kriow* 
 ledge of AEiual ones. This is a clear miftake, 
 'tis true, Effential Properties are aftually in 
 the Subjedt to which they are Effential, but I 
 cannot know them to be Effential, purely by 
 their being actually in it ^ becaufe Attributes 
 which are not Effential, may be aftually in it, 
 and I may know them to be actually in it. 
 I 4. Now 
 
Ii6 A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 Now if there be no way to know Eflential 
 Attributes, but by knowing them to be adur 
 ally ina'^ubje^:, then there is no way at all to 
 know them \ for this is a way that doth notac 
 all diftinguilh Eflential Attributes, from Attri- 
 butes which are not Eflential : For both Eflfen* 
 tial and Accidentalj or not EflTential Attri- 
 butes may be in the fame Subje(fV, and we may 
 know them to be aftually there. He that hath 
 form'd in his own Mind a determinate Idea of 
 any Subjedl, can eailly and certainly tell what 
 Properties are Eflential, and what are not Ef- 
 fential to it, and needs not rove or hunt about 
 to find out adual Exiftencies. I cannot know 
 that feveral Properties I find in material Syr 
 flems, are EflTential to matter, but by confidcr- 
 ingthe Idea I fignify and exprefs by the word 
 matter, I can certainly know they are not Ef- 
 fential to matter. A Man may eafily know 
 whether a property he perceives to be aftually 
 in a material Syftem, or hears difcourfed of^ 
 is EflTential to matter or not : But no Man can 
 comprehend how many difl:inGt Properties 
 which are not EflTential, God can, or will fuper- 
 add, or has fuperadded to varioufly difpofed 
 Syflems of matter, becaufe he cannot comprc* 
 bend God's Omnipotency, nor his unrevealed 
 Pieafure. Whether a power of thinking can 
 be fuperadded to fome material Syfl:em, I do 
 not know ; but I do know that thought is not 
 EflTential to what I mean by matter, nor to 
 what Mr. Loch hath declared he means by that 
 word. But if any Man means by that word, 
 iplid fogitatiye Subitance, I do not know whe- 
 ther 
 
tmntAterUUty of the Soul. 117 
 
 tlier any fuch thing dfth Exifl. And if there 
 does, I cannot know the truth thereof, till I 
 perceive a Subftance which hath adually thefc 
 two Properties, Extenfion and Thought. In- 
 deed I perceive both in Man, but I do not 
 know that Thought is a property fuperadded 
 to that Subftance which is extended : It may 
 for any thing I know, be immediately feated 
 in an Immaterial Subftance, which is united to 
 the other. But as for tffentiaUy co^tative mat' 
 t€r^ it is perfectly unintelligible to me, and 
 nothing lefs than a Contradidion. Eflentially 
 Cogitative Matter \ what is that ? It is Mat- 
 ter Eflentially Cogitative. And I pray what is 
 that ? It is matter whofe Eflence does conlift in 
 Thinking ; that is, matter, the Eflence of 
 which doth confift, in that which the Eflence 
 of matter doth not confift in. With the help 
 of this, 1 think I may truly fay unintelligible 
 and nonfenfical Expreflion, Ejjentially Cogita- 
 tive Matter, does Mr. Broughton endeavour to 
 overturn all that Mr. Lode hath faid, with fuch 
 a cleamefs and ftrength of Reafoning, as is pe- 
 culiar to hinfelf, to prove that God is not 
 Material. Whether he hath any ground to 
 make fuch Conclufions as he doth, p. 54, and 
 55. you will readily perceive. But I do not 
 much wonder that ftrange and injurious Con- 
 clufions fliould be forced into a Difcourfe, where 
 I find an Author has aflurance enough to tell 
 the World, that it is Mr. Lochh avowed Frin- 
 cipk^ That Matter may think : And that Efjcii- 
 tially Cogitative Matter^ is by his Ob'ie^ion becotne 
 pojjibk. I have given you an account of what 
 
 Mr. 
 
1 1 8 j4 Difcourfe concerning the ' 
 
 Mr. Broughton hath ofFer^ to keep Athcifts in 
 Countenance ^ what pains he hath been at to 
 dired them how they may, amongft unthiak- 
 ing People, expofe the moft Rational Difcourfe 
 that was ever PublifhM, to prove the Exift- 
 cncc and Immateriality of a God. How great 
 and aftonilhing is the acquired Depravity of 
 Mankind in this Age ! To what Extravagan- 
 cies will a fondnefs for a Hypothecs carry Men ! 
 That Men (hould fufFer themfelves without any 
 provocation, to be tranfported by their Paffions, 
 or in their Studies beyond all regard to Truth, 
 and beyond all Rational Bounds ! To take no 
 care to get a right Notion of what they do op- 
 pofe ! Yea, to manifefl: a Concern that People 
 ftould rather not believe there is a God, or 
 but a material one, than that they ftiould own 
 Man's underftanding to be fo weak, it cannot 
 reach to a Demonftrative Certainty, that God 
 cannot fuperadd a Power of Thinking to fuch 
 Syftems of. Matter as he fhall think fit. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have gone over fome of the 
 Coniiderations which came to my mind, as I 
 read over the Firft Part of Mr. Broughton's 
 Tfychologia. And now I will proceed to take 
 notice of what he writes againit what Mr. 
 Loch hath faid, in the order he himfelf takes ; 
 whereby I (hall have an opportunity, idly, to 
 lay before you fome Reafons why I cannot think 
 Mr. Broughton's Difcourfes fo concluding as he 
 takes them to be. 
 
 In 
 
Imtnateriality of the SouU 119 
 
 In his Treface^ he declares, The Reafon is hut 
 e»e, which rum thro the greatejl part of his EJfay^ 
 and this Reafon in fhort^ is the aufonivelov, or 
 Self-moving Tower of the Soul^ exerting it felf in 
 all the Operations of Thought and Spontaneous Mo- 
 tion. This he faitb^ is an Argument of old Bate ^ 
 and he likes it the better for that. All the hep? 
 ^feemed Philofophers of Old^ ( fome of whole 
 Names he mentions, and many rnore^ he faith ; 
 and we cannot doubt, but having read them 
 all, he is very well acquainted with their Minds, 
 tho' he has forgot fome of their Names \ or 
 how much foever they might be elleem'd of 
 Old, he does not think them worthy to be fo 
 Honoured,as having a Room in one of his Pages 
 comes to,) unanimohjly Centre in this. He can* 
 not ( he tells us) hut fuppofe thty xvere led to it^ 
 and dwelt up6n it by the fame Reafon • which rviU^ I 
 prefume, incline any Man that believes God has 
 created Spirit a/s voeU as Body. His Argument or 
 Reafon, you fee, he is mightily pleas'd with ; 
 and perhaps be likes it better, becaufe he thinks 
 'tis Gray^ than becaufe he is certain that it is 
 Good. I am contented to fuppofe, he hath 
 all the Philofophers he hath nam*d, or would 
 have nam'd, if they had been in his way, per- 
 feftlyonhis fide. TThe force of his Argument 
 is to be enquir'd into, and if it be not fully to 
 the purpofe for which it is brought, his Philo- 
 fophers, if they were an hundred times more 
 than he can make them, will not be able to add 
 any real ftrength to it. I know not any Ad- 
 vantage that can accrue to a Notion, if it be 
 
 falfe. 
 
1 2» A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 falfe, becaufe many Philofophers, and of great 
 Fame, have approved that this Advantage may 
 accrue to him that Efpoiifes it after theoa 5 
 that if it (hall appear he is miftaken, he may 
 comfort himfelf with this, That fome wife 
 Men have been miftaken too. Whereas he de- 
 clares exprefly, that he liUi the Argument the 
 better for that it is of old Date ^ if he did not ex- 
 prefs himfelf fo, barely becaufe he thought it 
 was witty to fay fo, I cannot but like his Ho- 
 nefty and Plain-hearted nefs in fo openly own- 
 ing to the World, that fomething fways with 
 him, more than Truth doth. I will now take 
 a little notice of his Argument, or Reafon, 
 and the Foundation on which it leans ; But firft 
 1 muft remind you, what is to be proved by 
 this Argument, and that the Argument muft 
 prove it Demonftratively, otherwife the Ar- 
 gum.ent figniiies nothing in the prefent Cafe. 
 Now, that which is to be proved, is this, 
 *That God cannot fuperadd a Poxver of Thinking to 
 any Syjlem of Matter however difpofed. The 
 Reafon or Argument to Demonftrate this, is. 
 The felf -moving Power of the Soul. The Argu- 
 ment, if I miilakc not, may lie thus. If the 
 Soul move it felf in all the Operations of 
 Thought and Spontaneous Motion, then the 
 Soul hath a Power of moving it felf, but the 
 former is true. Therefore, this is clear and 
 plain ^ thus far the Argument is true, and Sci- 
 entifick : For nothing can be more certain than 
 this, That that which doth move it felf, hath 
 a power to move it felf. This would be an 
 Excellent Argument, would it as fully and 
 
 clearly 
 
Jmmaieriality of the Soul, 1 2 1 
 
 clearly prove that for which it is alledged, if 
 we could with equal truth argue thus. If the 
 Soul doth move it felf in all the Operations 
 of Thought and Spontaneous Motion, then 
 God cannot fuperadd a Power of Thinking to 
 any Syftem of Matter. Here the Connexion 
 is not fo clear and plain, but fome Intermediate 
 Ideas are neceflary to make out a Demonftra- 
 tion, I will at prefent fuppofe Demonftrativc 
 Proof, that the Soul is Immaterial Subltance, 
 and that God hath fuperadded a Power of Self- 
 moving to certain Immaterial Subftances : Yet 
 this will not Demonftratively prove, that he 
 cannot fuperadd a Power of Self-moving to 
 fome Syftems of Matter fitly difpofed. Nay, 
 this Reafon, fo well lik'd for its Antiquity, 
 and for its being attended, as is faid, with the 
 unanimous Approbation of I know not how 
 many old Philofophers, is built upon another 
 Reafon, not Exprefs'd, but which is deduced 
 from the belief of fomething that is not De- 
 monftrated. So that for ought I fee, this 
 mighty Reafon is Ercfted at fome diilance, and 
 leans upon a Foundation that is not pretended 
 to be Demonftratively true. The whole, if I 
 undcrltand the Connexion, is thus. Any Man 
 that believes God has created Spirit as well as 
 Body, may meet with a Reafon which will in- 
 cline him to ufe the Self-moving Power of the 
 Soul, as a Demonftrative Reafon that God can- 
 not fuperadd a Power of Thinking to any Sy- 
 ftem of Matter. To which I fliall only fay 
 this one thing in general, v'^z.. That if the 
 Pio^f produced for Demonftrative, be built 
 
122 Jl Difcourfe concernwg the 
 
 opon a Belief, and this Belief is not grounded 
 upon Supernatural Revelation, the pretended 
 Demonftration mult unavoidably at laft be re- 
 foived and dwindle into probability. But 
 feeing created Spirit, as well as Body is pro- 
 pofed to be believed, here arifeth another Dif- 
 ficuky, VIZ.. What we are to underftand by 
 Spirit, here ? For according to the Senfe in 
 which that Tenir '5 underltood, fo will the 
 Argument be ftronger or weaker, which is 
 to be Ereded on the belief of God's having 
 created Spirit as well as Body. By Body, I 
 conceive is here meant Matter, or Materia! 
 Subftance ^ And Spirit being here ufed by way 
 of diftindtion, or being opposed here to Body, 
 Ihould be thought to lignify only Immaterial 
 Subftance, or Subftance without that property 
 which makes Subftance Matter. Now, a Man 
 may believe God hath created both Immaterial 
 and Material Subftance, and not perceive any 
 reafon to ufe the Self-moving Power of the 
 Soul as a Demonftrative Reafon that God can- 
 not fuperadd a Power of Thinking to any Sy- 
 ftem of Matter. Our believing he hath crea- 
 ted both Immaterial and Material Subftance, 
 cannot make us certain of all the Purpofes for 
 which he created them, nor what Properties 
 or Powers he will beftow on the one, which 
 he will not beftow on the other. Mr. Broiighton 
 in his Sect, of Vnion^ becaufe the Cobaifion of 
 rhe parts of Mutter is what furpafles moft Men's 
 C^omprehenlion, has found out a particular ufe 
 for, and confequently a very good reafon why 
 we ftiould believe God hath created Immaterial 
 
 Subftance, 
 
hnmiuerUlity of the SouL 123 
 
 Subftance, as well as Material : For he appears 
 very much inclined to have Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance, the Cement to join and unite the Par- 
 ticles of Matter one to another. And perhaps 
 when he hath Demonftrated Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance was Created for this purpofe, he will 
 not find it very eafie to Demonftrate it was 
 Created for any other, or is ufed for any other 
 purpofe. One purpofe, for anything I know, 
 may with equal reafon be improved to the ex- 
 cluding of aH other, as well as one Property. 
 Andif fo, the Confequence ivill be dangerous; 
 and inftead of ufmg the Argument and Reafon 
 abovementioned, to Demonftrate what it was 
 brought for, it will be well if the maintain- 
 ers of thefe Notions, do not find themfclves 
 obliged to deny that the Soul doth exert a 
 Self-moving Power in all the Operations of 
 Thought and Spontaneous Motion, left other- 
 wife they fhould be neceflitated to own, that 
 two diftind and independant Powers may be in 
 the fame Subftance, or the fame Subftance may 
 be created or ufed for more Purpofes than one, 
 and thofe independant too. And it may deferve 
 a little Confideration, whether the latter does 
 not neceflarily prove the former, viz.. That a 
 Subftance cannot ferve or anfwer to two diftinft 
 independant Purpofes, but by fuftaining two 
 diftiniTt independant Powers, or Proj)erties 
 Yet Mr. Broughton^ it muft be acknowledged, 
 doth often ufe the word Spirit in another fenfe ^ 
 as he doth alfo Immaterial Subftance, uling 
 them indifferently one for another, and both 
 to llguify Inwiatirinl Sttbpancc nhh a Pgwer cf 
 
124 A Difcourfe concernwg the 
 
 Thinking^ or Thinking Immaterial Subftancc. 
 Whereas Immaterial Subftance, fignifies no 
 more in the prefent Difpute, than Subftance 
 without Extenfion or Solidity, or that Proper- 
 ty which makes Subftance to be Matter \ And 
 Spirit fignifies Thinking Subftance, or Sub- 
 ftance to which the Power of Thinking is fu^ 
 pcradded, whether the Subftance is Material 
 or Immaterial. This Mr. Broughton appears 
 aware of, p. 82. where he exprefleth himfelf 
 in thefe words. The Word Immaterial is indeed a 
 Negative Term^ but conftdering it 06 exprejjing 
 fomething that Thinks^ tphich Matter cannot doy &c. 
 Now what doth all this amount to ? But only 
 this. That if by Immaterial, you will under- 
 ftand fomething that Thinks, and by Matter 
 fomething that cannot Think ^ that is, fome- 
 thing to which God cannot fuperadd a Power 
 of Thinking ; then when you fay any thing 
 Thinks, you mean it is Immaterial ; and when 
 you fay any thing is Material, you mean it can- 
 not Think, or is fomething to which God can- 
 cot fuperadd a Power of Thinking. Is not this 
 very inftrudive, and very proper to convince, 
 when the Queftion is, whether it can be De- 
 monftrated that God cannot fuperadd a Power 
 of Thinking to Matter ? Certainly nothing 
 «;an be more evident than this, that if by Mat- 
 ter we undcrftand fomething to which God can^ 
 not fuperadd a Power of Thinking, then God 
 cannot fuperadd a Power of Thinking to it. 
 And if any Men take Spirit, and Body in thefo 
 fenfes, and the belief that God hath Created 
 Spirit as well as Boiy, they may perhaps bs led 
 
t - 
 
 ImrnAterulity of the Soul* 125 
 
 by fomc Reafon which will incline them to ufc 
 a power of thinking, orof felf-raoiion, (which 
 mult here be taken to be of the fame import) 
 to prove dcmonitrativeiy that God cannot fn- 
 pcradd a power of felf-motion, to what they 
 believe he cannot add it to. But then an un- 
 happinefs attends all this, v'tz.. That the Pro- 
 pofition believed, is the Propofition which 
 Ihould be demonftrated ; And a power of felfr 
 motion can be of no ufe in this biifmefs, till it 
 be demonftrated^ that God cannot fuperadd 
 any power to any«thing, to which they believe 
 he cannot fuperadd it. Taking thofe words in 
 the aforefaid Senfe?, wc rault ufe them for 
 Ideas, which are not included in the benfes ia 
 which they are ordinarily underltood. The 
 power of thinking is not included in the Idea 
 ordinarily fignified by the word Matter \ and 
 therefore it cannot belong to any Syllem of 
 matter, unlefs it be fuperaddedto it. So nei- 
 ther is the power of thinking, or of felf-mo- 
 tion included in the Idea figniiied ordinarily, 
 by Immaterial Subltanee, when confider'd as 
 oppos'dto Matter ; And therefore Immaterial 
 Subltanee can no more think or move it felf, 
 than Matter can, till a power to do fo, is fu- 
 peradded to it. This is molt certam, and niuit 
 be acknowledged by e\^ery one, who will not 
 affirm that Subltanee, barely as Subltanee, doth 
 neccflariiy think. For Immaterial Subltanee, 
 asfuch, is nothing but Subltanee ^ And if Sub- 
 fi'ance, as Subltanee, doth neceflarily think, 
 there will be no avoiding of it ^ but Matter 
 Riyli t;hink •, yea.^ muft necellarily think, be- 
 K ciuf? 
 
1 26 A bijcoiirje comer ning the 
 
 caufe it is neceifarily Subflance, If created 
 Subllance mull have a power of thinking fu- 
 peradded to it, to make it Spirit, or thinking 
 SubftaBce, it is undeniable that Subftance whe- 
 ther material or immaterial, to which that 
 power is fuperadded, will be Spirit or thinking 
 Subflance. Tho' we not only believe, but are 
 certain that God hath created Subftance to 
 which he hath fuperadded a power of Self- 
 motion, and that he hath created Matter or 
 Body to great quantities of which he hath not 
 Ibperadded a power of- Self-motion, yet, a 
 power of Self-motion will not prove demon- 
 ih'atively that he cannot fuperadd it to certain 
 Syftems of Matter duly difpofed. It depends 
 wholly on hjs Pleafure. Mr. Broughton pro- 
 ceeds tlins. For in Ccnfequence of this, he wiUfind 
 it highly reajonahle^ to fuppofe that Spirit is the 
 J-rinciple of Life and Senjation^ and Body of A/e- 
 chamfin and local Motion, "\yhat he means by 
 ■^•pirit here, in which of the foremention'd 
 Ssnfes he would have the World underlland, I 
 cannot tell. And the meaning of the word 
 Principle, here, is fo undeterminate, it in- 
 trcafes the doubt. Rut whether the one or the 
 other fenfe, or any new one be defigned, is 
 not very material ^ becaufe both here, and in 
 the following words, not Demonflration, but 
 a high degree of Probability is all that is pre- 
 tended. But ty what Effential Character can ne 
 d'!iVw£^iu(h thefc tivo^ viz. Spirit^ and Body^ if 
 ihey arc two dijlin[i Species of Btings ? Anfvver, 
 make known what you mean, or fettle deter- 
 minate Ideas in your own Minds, which you 
 
 delign 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, 127 
 
 deugti to fignify by thofe words, and you may 
 foon find out the Efllntial Charader whereby 
 they are to be diftinguilhed. E.G. If by Spi- 
 rit, is meant Immaterial SubHance, it is ElFen- 
 tially diftinguilhed from Matter, by its being 
 without that Property which makes Subftance 
 Matter. If by Spirit, you mean thinking Sub- 
 ftance, whether the Subftance be material or 
 immaterial, it is EfTentially diftinguilhed, both 
 from raecr immaterial Subftance, and from 
 raeer Body or Matter, by the power of Think- 
 ing which is fuperadded to it. Mr. Broughton 
 goes on in thefe words, I grant vohat Mr. Locke 
 contends for ^ that "'tis pojjible to conceive a Spirit de- 
 vefted of the Operation of Thought^ and barely in 
 h'vs own Term^ as an iinfolid Subftance ^ but it is 
 fufficient^ that ive place the dijiinCiion upon the capa- 
 city and incapacity of Thought • For the other of 
 C folid and unfolid 5 « no way ferviceable to u!^ 
 becaufe we did not come by the knowledge of Spirit., 
 as really Exifling.^ by our Idea of fomcthing unfolid.^ 
 but only by our Idea of fomething that Thinks : So 
 that our Idea of an unfolid Subjlance.^ is not fornCd 
 from the Contemplation of any thing without us^ 
 Oi that of Solidity ?^,' but is a bare Hypothe/is to 
 tofolve the Ph^nomrnon ^f Thought. I fuppofe Mr. 
 Broughton in the {irft place means, that he grants 
 that immaterial Subft3nce,and a power of Think- 
 ing are not iaf.'parabie. Bat nb pbce in Mr. 
 L%h\ Book. being referr'd to, for what is pre- 
 tended 10 be faid by him, 1 am inclin'd to think 
 there is a mikakc, and that no fuch Pailage can 
 be found in Mr. Locked EOay, or any Book he 
 hath writj He does not Difcourfe fo bofely. 
 K 2 What 
 
128 A Difiourfe concerning the 
 What is granted, Mr. Locke never contends 
 for : And 'tis a thing utterly impoflible. What 
 follows, I cannot eafily conceive ^ only I ap- 
 prehend that he means our Idea of Spirit is 
 fomething that thinks, and that neither folid, 
 nor unfolid is included in it •, fo far he is clearly 
 right. And had he gone one ftep further, 
 and concluded from thence, that as our Idea of 
 Spirit doth not include, fo neither doth it ne- 
 cefTarily exclude either ^ and therefore that 
 from thence we cannot be certain whether God 
 can fnperadd the power of Thinking to both, 
 or only to one of them : Then perhaps he 
 would not have laid fo great a ftrefs on Capa- 
 city or Incapacity, as he feenis to do, without 
 explaining what he means by them, whilft he 
 rejeiTis the Confiderationof Solid and Unfolid. 
 As for the Exiftcnce of unfolid Subftance, (asfer 
 Hi I perceive here) he could contentedly give it 
 np, if it were not, that thofe who will have it 
 to be certain that God cmnot fnperadd a power 
 of Thinking to any Syftem of Matter, have 
 been neceflltated to multiply Beings, and there- 
 fore to form the Idea of unfolid Subftance, as 
 an Hypothefis to folve the Phaenomenon of 
 Thongbr, Yet in other places of his Book, 
 he hath provided other ufe for unfolid Sub- 
 ftijn^e ^ fothatnotwithftanding, if a folid Sub- 
 fla-nct (as he goes on) be pojjiily capable of this 
 faculty of Thou^ht^ then there is ro necefyty to re^ 
 cur to the Hypothefis of an unfolid Suhflance^ to 
 folve that VhAnomcnon ; Yet there may, to folve 
 oLlicr Phxnonienons, as the Coha'fion of the 
 parts of Matter, crc. And thus both the fo 
 
 cared 
 
ImmAterinlity of the Soul, 129 
 
 cared for Hypothefis, and the Philofophical 
 Axiom, Entia non funt tnultiplicanda fine nec^Jft- 
 tate^ are in no danger to beCafhier'd, but will 
 retain all their Force, and ftill ferve as many 
 good Purpofes as ever. And perhaps the Axi- 
 om may be of ufe to one Purpofe not mindei 
 before, viz,. That Men fhou'd not unneceffiriiy 
 forge Hypothefes, nor affirm their Hypothefes 
 to be abfolutely neceflary with reference unto 
 God, to particular Purpofes, when the utmoft 
 Evidence they have of their being neceflary to 
 thofe Purpofes, is but probable. IVhat is tbis^ 
 ( viz., if there is not a necellity to recuf to the 
 Hypothefis of an unfolid Subftance to folve 
 that Phsenomenon ) lut to introduce ZJniverfd 
 Corporealifm ? which is mithcr better nor worfe 
 than Atheifm. This is very lufl:ily pi onounc'd. 
 The Cenfure of Atheifm is become fo Trite 
 and Fafhionable, the true fenfe of the word is 
 almoft loft amongfc lome People. Every thing 
 that pleafes not a Sett of Men, is prefently 
 branded with Atheifin, Wh.re it fhail be 
 demonftrated that a Power of Thinking and of 
 Self-motion are nothing \ for ic is pafl: doubt, 
 they are not Matter, And that the true Notion 
 of Atheifm conlifts in not being certain, but 
 that fome thinking Creatures may not be equal- 
 ly Immaterial with the Creator of all things, 
 then it will be time to be affefted with Mr. 
 Broughtonh Expoftulation, and to have fome 
 regard to his Judgment about Atheifm. It is 
 not our bufinefs to make Worlds, nor to frame 
 Hypothefes at pleafure •, that by vertp-" of 
 them we may arerr that God hath made as 
 K 3 raaay 
 
 / 
 
1 ^o A Dijcourje concerning the 
 
 many forts of Beings as we have a mind to. 
 God has made the World to our hands, with- 
 out asking our advice, iwA his ways are unfear- 
 chabie to us ^ And- it becomes not us to be pbfi- 
 tive further than we can demonftratc. He did 
 not in creating the World, and framing of 
 Man, borrov/ Hypothefes or Axioms devifed 
 by Men a long time after the World was crea- 
 ted, and Man formed. We do not know but 
 that God can fo frame and fafliion, if he pleafes, 
 certain Syftems of Matter, as to make them 
 capable of many more Powers than he will ever 
 beiliow on any. And perhaps he will hereafter 
 bothfo model certain Syflem.s of Matter, as to 
 make them capable of, and aftually beftow on 
 them fuch Properties as he doth not ordinarily 
 bcfcow on any now. 
 
 Mr. Broughton in Se^. III. Difcourfes of Im- 
 material Subllance, and applies himfelf i!o 
 prove the Exigence of Immaterial Subftance, 
 by endeavouring to proye there mujl be one Im- 
 material Subfiance^ Eternal ^ and the jirji c.mfe of 
 Motion. And tlicn concludes thus. It is not in- 
 cumbent upon me to prove ^ as a farther confirmation 
 of my Primiple^ ( which Principle he faith^ p. 8. is 
 Immaterial Sub/lance) that there are Ukewife finite 
 created Immaterial Subjlances : It is ahmdantly 
 fujjident that there is no contradiBion in the things 
 and that Im>r.ateriiil^ as wellies A^faterialSubJlance^ 
 may he conceived the Objed ,and Effeti of Divine 
 Tower 5 which it certainly may he ^ finceit does not 
 imply in its Idea any thing ef abfclute Perfediofr^ 
 p. 13. If this isKeafoning, it is much above 
 
 my 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, i ^ i 
 
 my Comprehenfion : And I fnppofe will al- 
 ways remain fo, till it can be dearly proved 
 that God mull necelTarily Create whatever 
 there is no Contradiftion in, or can be an Ob- 
 je6t of Divine Power, or that does not imply 
 in its Idea abfolute Perfection. If what he 
 fays be true, he may abundantly prove that 
 either Mo^es was very much out in the account 
 he gives of the Creation of the World, or than 
 there was a World, or a great many Worlds 
 made, innumerable Ages before that, of the 
 Creation of which Mofts gives a Relation. In 
 this fame Section, he tells ns he ventures to 
 lay down this as a Propofttion next to Self-evident^ 
 viz. That from the difference we find in the nature 
 of Accidents^ we mujl conclude a Uke d'fferemc in 
 the nature of thofe Sahflanccs to which they behn^^ 
 p. 10. If this be fo, I apprehend we mult con- 
 clude there are a great many more forts of Sub- 
 ftances, than Material and Immaterial ; For 
 there are many Accidents or Properties, which 
 are equally different from Thought, as from 
 Solidity, ( or Extenfion, which word pleafeth 
 Mr. Broughton belt. ) And Mr. Brou^hton having 
 feiz'd on Subftance, fo far as Thoui^ht and Ex- 
 tenfion can reach, and ftuff 'd it fo full with 
 thefe two Properties, which make or divide 
 Subftance into Material and Immaterial, that 
 they are not capable of admitting any other 
 Property, he mnft either provide more forts of 
 Siibltances, (for there are other Accidents, 
 vv'hich differ as much one from another in their 
 Natures, as they do from both the foremen- 
 tioned ) or elfc there will be Accidents where 
 K 4 thct.j 
 
1J2 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 there is no Subftance, to the Irrcpairablc 
 Damage of his Self-evident Propofition. But 
 what reafon can there be to facrifice a Self-evi- 
 dent Propofition to the Honour, and for the 
 Safety of One which is but next to Self-evi- 
 dent ? If Mr. Broughton had made known in 
 what fenfe the word Nature is to be underltood, 
 in both parts of his Propofition, it would have 
 appeared plain whether both his Propofitions 
 can confill together, or whether the Elder mult 
 Veil and give place to the Younger. If he 
 means by a difference in the nature of the Sub- 
 Hance, iThat the Internal Conftitution of an In- 
 dividual Subftance muft be fuch, as it is the 
 pleafure of God it (hould be, in order to its 
 being duly difpofed to have what we call a Spe- 
 cifick Property fupcradded to it ; and that the 
 Internal Conftitution of another Individual 
 Subftance, muft be different from that of the 
 former, in order to its being duly difpofcd to 
 receive, or to have a Property Specifically dif- 
 ferent from the other fapeiadded to it : 1 fay, 
 if this is v/hat was meant, there will be little 
 room for difputc ^ but I wifli he had explained 
 his own Terms, and hsd here declared clearly 
 his own Senfe : For I very muchfufpcdhe in- 
 tended fomething elfe, becanfe this account of 
 the different Nature of Subftancer., will not be 
 very much for his turn. We can very well 
 underftand that Material Subftances may be 
 varioully difpofed ^ And we are fenfible that 
 God does fuperadd very different Properties to 
 Material Subftances, variouily model'd, fram'd, 
 and difpofed. How great s variety he hath, or 
 
 caa 
 
ImmAterUlity of the Soul. i ^ j 
 
 Can make in the Internal Conftitutions of Ma* 
 terial Subftances, tranfcends our Underfland^ 
 ings ^ And fo doth the number of the diffe- 
 rent Properties which God hath, or can fuper- 
 add to Material Syftems fo difpofed and rao- 
 del'dashe fees fit. The different Natures of 
 Subftances here fpoken of, c'o not concern 
 Subftance as Material and Immaterial, for Ma- 
 terial does not come within their Verge. The 
 Propofition only direfts how to diftinguifh Ma- 
 terial Subftances one from another : By the 
 fpecifick Properties w€ find in them, we are to 
 conclude that they arc differently fram'd and 
 model'd, in fome proportion to the difference 
 there is betwixt the Properties or Powers with 
 which they are invefted, or which arc fuperr 
 added to them. But (hould a Man talk of part- 
 ing and dividing Immaterial Subftance into In- 
 dividual Syftems, and varioufly modelling, fa- 
 ftiioning, and framing, and difpofing the parts 
 of them, that they may be fitted to have dif- 
 ferent Powers fuperadded to them, People 
 who had their fenfes about them, would be fo 
 far from hoping to be much Enlightned by him, 
 they would be apt to fufpedt him not well in 
 his Wits. 
 
 Tho'Mr. Broughton would venture in ScB. I If. 
 f. I©, to lay down the Propofition abovemen- 
 tioned, as next to Self-evident, Yet in Sc{t. IV. 
 f« 15, 16. he acknowledges it ha*^^h its Infirmi- 
 ties, it is not univerlally true, but does fail in 
 fome Cafes ; but however to make amends for 
 its wcaknefs on the fide of Matter, he hath 
 
 f0UD(J 
 
I J4 ADifcourfe concerning the 
 
 found a way how to. bring Immaterial Sub- 
 llance within its Clutches. It mufi be granted^ 
 (faith Mr. Broughton^ p. 15, i5. ) that aU kind 
 of diference in Properties^ does not argue different 
 Subfiances : For in^ance^ Our Ideivs of Solidity 
 and Colour^ me very different^ and we find no im- 
 mediate Comixion between them^ and yet we find 
 them con/iflent in the fame Material Stthfiance • 
 iVj>', we fi:d cmtradi&o^y Qualities^ v. 9. Hard- 
 nefs and Fluidity to Exiji alternately in the fame 
 Subjlartce. And this leads us to conftder where 
 their Coyvcxion liss^ :f they have any ; and we 
 prrfently find their agree;mnt in a third thing : We 
 find Extenfton fufceptible of Solidity and Colour 
 at onca^ of Hardnefs and Fluidity at different times ; 
 and being thus united in one Attribute^ they rejolve 
 into one Nature and EiTence. But when we find 
 any tiro Propertic^^ which after a thorough Exami- 
 nzi'fcn^ are neither immediately ConneCied them- 
 fdves^ nor mediately by any third thing • we muji 
 oncUde by the fame Rule^ ( and 'tis the only Rule 
 we hjve in fiich Cafes ^ ) that they do appertain 
 unto two d'ffe'rent Natures and Effences, 
 
 I do not underlland what it is for different 
 Properties t-) refolve into one Nature and Effcnce. 
 I apprehend that by one Nature and EfTence, 
 he here means one parcel of Matter ^ other- 
 wife, he had no need of different times, to find 
 hardnefs and f^nidity in Matter. I alfo appre- 
 hend that he would have Exteniion to be the 
 Property, which fuperadded to Subftance, 
 makes it Mitter, I will not ftickle with him 
 about that, tho' I think him greatly miitaken ; 
 
 and 
 
ImmAteriality of the Soul* i^ 5 
 
 and if I reach bis meaning at leaft in one part 
 of his Book, he fhould have laboured hard to 
 have reconcil'd himfelf to fome other Notion 
 of Matter ^ bccaufe he feems to be of the opi- 
 nion, that Extenfion is infeparable from God. 
 I may be pofitive, that he grants that feveral 
 diftinft Properties, may at the fame time, be 
 in the fame Material Subftance, provided it be 
 by the Mediation of Extenfion, which makes 
 the Subftance tolDe Matter. There is one thing 
 more, I may be pofitive he delivers his Judg- 
 ment about, 'viz. That Extenfion is fufceptible 
 of Properties, and at different times of con- 
 tradictory Properties. In this I miift diffent 
 from Mr. Broughton^ till it Ihall be made \i2ry 
 plain, that one Property is fufceptible of other 
 Properties : Which I take to be no better,ifnot 
 worfe, in Mr. Broughtonh own words, in fome 
 part of his Book, than Mloxving a Sclf-f/ipport to 
 Occidents. It is only Subftance that is fufcepti- 
 ble of Properties ^ And there is no way by 
 which Properties can be Conneded, but by be- 
 ing in the fame Subftance. When we perceive 
 any Property doth Exift, we can rationally and 
 demonftratively conclude, that fome Subftance 
 hath that Property fuperadded to it ; but we 
 cannot conclude fo, barely from our perceiving 
 that that Property doth Exift ; that the Sub- 
 ftance to which it is fuperadded, hath another 
 Property fuperadded to it. If we perceive 
 two diftinft Properties in the fame Subftance, 
 we cannot have any reafon to conclude they are 
 either immediately connefted to one another, 
 or that they are mediately connected by bring 
 
 both 
 
!j6 A Difcouyfe eoHeermng the 
 
 both in a third Property, which is fuperadded 
 to the Subflance ^ for then neither of the 
 other two Properties would be the Properties 
 of the Subftance, but only the Properties of 
 the Property which mufb fupport them, and 
 is Hiperadded to, and fupported by the Sub- 
 ibnce. Can any thing be more abfurd than 
 this ? The third thing by which they arc con- 
 nefted, is the Subftance, to which they are 
 equally fuperadded. There is no more need 
 that a third thing mult intervene, that two, 
 or more diftind Properties may be fuperadded 
 to the fame Subftance, than there is that one 
 Property may be fuperadded to it. But 'twill 
 ft ill be pretended, that from the nature of the 
 froperty^ we may conclude what is the natnre of 
 the Subftance to which it is fuperadded^ viz. whe- 
 ther the Subftance is Material, or Immaterial. 
 Let the nature of the Property be what it will, 
 I can certainly and demonftratively conclude 
 no more from that, than that it is fuperadded 
 to a Subftance ^ I cannot from that Property 
 alone, ( whilft it is not the Property which 
 makes Subftance Matter ) demonftratively con- 
 clude, that the Subftance to which it is fuper- 
 added, is Material : Before I can fo conclude, 
 )that the Subftance it belongs to is Material, I 
 muft fome way perceive that the Property 
 which makes Subftance Matter, is fuperadded 
 to it. I fee fomcthing A ttraded : From thence 
 I with good reafon conclude, there is fomeSub- 
 fbance to which a Power of Attrafting is fu- 
 peradded ; but 1 cannot demonftratively con- 
 clude from the nature of this property, that 
 
 the 
 
Jtnmatemlity of the Soul, 1^7 
 
 the Subftance to which it belongs, lias alfo 
 that Property which makes Subftance to be 
 Matter ^ nor can I demonftratively conclude 
 from that Property, or its Nature, that the 
 Subftance to which it is fuperadded, hath not 
 that other Property. The fame may be faid 
 concerning Thought ; Tho' I muft add, that if 
 we may conclude any thing more from the na- 
 ture of Thought, concerning the nature of the 
 Subftance to which it belongs, than that the 
 Subftance to which the Power of 1 hinking is 
 fuperadded, is Thinking Subftance, we muft 
 know what the nature of Thought is, i.e. 
 vrherein Thought doth confift^ which Mr. BroKghton 
 hath not yet difcovered to the World : For 
 tho' we are, as he faith, corfckus cf Thought^ 
 that goes no further than its Exiftence ^ fo that 
 notwithftanding that great Evicience of its Ex- 
 iftence, Yet of its Nature we may be pcifedly 
 ignorant : And if we muft conclude concern- 
 ing the nature of the Subftance it belongs to, 
 from its own Nature, what conclufion can wc 
 rationally make, but that both their Natures 
 are unknown to us? 
 
 SuppofjKg (faith Mr. Bronghton) that our 
 hnoniedge of Extenfton poves the Ex'tjlence of 
 Corpertcil Subjlance ^ we are to etJ^uire whither our 
 kmnkdge cf Cogitation proves the fame of Jncor- 
 poreal i' p. 15. I anfwer. No. It does not. 
 Upon our perceiving Extenfion any where, wc 
 may demonftratively prove there is fome Sub- 
 ftance to which Extenfion is fuperadded, or 
 that there is Extended Subftance, which pa.(fes 
 
 with 
 
1^8 A Difcourfe comer ning the 
 
 with Mr. Broughton for Corporeal Subflaace. 
 And perceiving Cogitation in any Created Be- 
 ing, we may demonllratively prove, there is 
 Subftance to which a Power of Thinking is 
 fnperadded, or Cogitative Subflance. But 
 whether the Subfcance to which the Power of 
 Thinking is fuperadded, is Extended Subftance, 
 or not, cannot be demonftratively proved by 
 the bare knowledge of Cogitation. From Co- 
 gitation, when perceived, we may prove a 
 Power iuperadded to Subftance, whether Ma- 
 terial, or Immaterial ; which neither of them 
 has of it fcif, or as Tuch ^ but we cannot d«- 
 monllratively prove from thence, either the 
 Abfence, or the Prefcnce of another Property. 
 We can prove demonftratively that all Crea- 
 ted Subftance, is either Material or Immate- 
 rial. But our diltinguifliing Created Subftance 
 thus, doth not prove that God hath Created 
 pure Immaterial Subftance: But, taking it for 
 granted, or fappofing that he hath Created 
 pure Immuerial Subftance, our knowledge of 
 Cogitation and Extenfion, will not prove that 
 every Created Subftance is either Cogitative or 
 Extended, nor thit every unextended Subftance 
 is Cogitative. Other Properties may, for 
 ought we know, belong to, or be fuperadded 
 to Immaterial Subftance, which may render 
 it as uncapablc of Thought, as Extendon or 
 Solidity can, when fuperadded to Subftance. 
 But God doth not neceflarily fo cramp, or 
 limit himreli" by beftowing one Property on 
 Subftance, as to make it impoftible for him to 
 fuperadd another to it, without depriving it of 
 
 the 
 
Immateridity of the SouL 1^9 
 
 the former ; At leaft, we cannot demonltrate 
 that he hath laid any fuch Reltridtion on him- 
 felf. 
 
 Whoever ftall ferioufly Read the 6th. Sed. 
 of the 3d. Chapt. of the 41b. Book of Mr. 
 Locke' ^ Ejfay, 1 am perfwaded will receive fo 
 much light and fatisfadion, he cannot avoid 
 concluding that the Errantfl Ruftick in the 
 World, did he underftand that Sed^ion, would 
 fee very good reafon to blufh, and be alhamed 
 of fuch Talk as is to be found in p. 20, 21. of 
 the Tfychologia. 
 
 But ( faith Mr. Broughton ) things are only di^ 
 ftingui/hable by their Froperties^ p. 22. Very 
 true. But what Mr. Broughtcn fhould have 
 proved, was, that by the Nature of any Pro- 
 perty fuperadded to Subltance, we may know 
 whether the Subftance to which it is fuper- 
 added, is Material or Imraateriiil 'Tis cer- 
 tain. Individual Beings are only diflinguilhable 
 by their Properties j every one having forae 
 one, at lealt, peculiar to it felf, whereby it is 
 diflinguifhed fiom all others^ but it does not 
 follow that therefore their Subftanccs are di- 
 flinguilhable by thofe peculiar Properties, in- 
 to Material, and Immaterial. The Subftances 
 may be every one of them Material, tho' the 
 Properties are different : Yea, The Power of 
 Thinking being iuperadded to Created Imma- 
 terial Subllance, doth not difringuiili imma- 
 terial Sublhnce from Material ^ -t diilia- 
 guillici thinkjng Immaterial Subltance, from 
 
 un- 
 
14© A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 unthinking Immaterial and Material SubftanccSj 
 juft as being fuperadded to fome fyllems ot 
 Matter fitly difpofed, it would diltingiiifh 
 thinking Material Subftance from unthinking 
 Subftance, both Material and Immaterial. 
 
 Mr. Brought oYi in his 5th. SeU. has made a 
 wonderful Difcovery, vix^ The difference he- 
 tween Extenfmi and Thought w fo v)idc that 
 there is no third Idea to unite them in ont Subftance j 
 and this ntuft render our Endeavours to conceive 
 them^ 05 fo united^ for ever fruitlefs : Jnd what- 
 foever we cannot conceive in Created Nature^ to be 
 fomuchaspojjible^ is a repugnancy in the nature of 
 the things p. 23. How wide the difference 15 
 between them, cannot be precifely deter- 
 mined, without an exaft knowledge of what 
 each of them doth confift in. But be the difFe* 
 rcnce wider or narrower, that fignifies not 
 any thing to the want of a third Idea, to unite 
 them in one Subftance. And if any Man en^^ 
 dcavours to conceive them fo united, viz» by 
 a third Idea, he deferves to lofe his labour. 
 Yet, that whatfoever we cannot conceive in 
 Created Nature, to be fo much as this way 
 pofijble, (for fo he muft mean, or what he 
 faith is tonopurpofc here,) is a Repugnancy 
 in the nature of the thing, is not a Propofition 
 felf-cvidently true. It is rather felf-evidcntly 
 falfe. There is, to ufe his own words, a Re- 
 pugnancy in the nature of the thing, viz.. That 
 a Property ihould not be a Property, but 
 ihould be a Subftance, and ftiould do the bufi- 
 aefsof a Subftance j that is, fupport Proper- 
 ties. 
 
tmmaieriality of the Soul, 541 
 
 ties. And yet by this ftringing of Properties^ 
 does he pretend to prove that it is both abfurd 
 and mifchievous, not to be certain that God 
 cannot fuperadd a Power of Thinking to a 
 fyftem of Matter, fo difpofed as he fhall think 
 fit. For a Man to fay, he does not know thac 
 God cannot fuperadd a Power of Thinking to 
 any Material Syllem, is Vnphilofophical^ Jibfurd 
 to the lafl degree, Sceptical^ and a denying of 
 the Truth of our Faculties • And all this by the 
 ftrength and vertue ot our not being able to 
 conceive a third Idea, by which Properties cart 
 bs tyed unto Snbftance. This is the fumm of 
 this St&io}t^ and is faid to hz as fill an Evidence 
 that Cogitation^ and Extenfton cannot he in the 
 fame Subftance, as Demonjlrative Knowledge will 
 bear. Yet, one would have thought .Mr. 
 Broughton (hould hardly have faid fo ; becaufe 
 in p. 31. one reafon he gives why he likes not 
 this Definition of Extenfion, That it conftjis in 
 having partes extra partes, is th'vs^ That accor- 
 ding to it, be can have no Idea 'of the Omnipotence 
 of God ^ ylndfo it offends ( faith he ) againft that 
 Rule, Debet cum definito reciprocari. Here, me- 
 thinks, he plainly afierts that Extenfion be- 
 longs to God ^ and 1 hope hd has no defign to 
 ' exclude Cogitation from him, becaufe he can- 
 not conceive a third Idea, by the help of 
 which, he might Tack it unto him. Jt is eafy 
 ( faith he ) for any one to experience in hvs Mind^ 
 this Repugnmcy of conceiving Extenfton and 
 Thouglot^ as the Properties of one and the fame 
 Subjlance. Let him^ as Method requires^ frame 
 R^ cle^ and dijlin^ an IdeA as he can^ of each of 
 
 L th'^ni 
 
142 ^ Difcourje concerning ^he 
 
 them feparately ; and then let him endeavonr what 
 be can to conpyn them ^ let him try to mark out 
 an Inch of Reafon^ cr an Ell of Contemplation ^ 
 xvhich would he as ealy to do, were the two Proper- 
 ties confident ^ 06 to conceive a Reafoning Jnch^ or 
 Contemplating Ell of Matter ', for wherever two 
 Properties are united in one Suhfiance^ they may be 
 reciprocally predicated. Thus J can conceive an ex^ 
 t:nded Whitenefs^ as well as a white Extenfwn. 
 This Difconrfe is fo very proper for Diverlion, 
 I may well leave it to be an Entertainment to 
 thofe Vvfho are inclined to be merry. I fhall 
 only take notice. That if there is a Repug- 
 nancy between thefe two Properties being in 
 the fame Subftance, the Repugnancy doth not 
 ^oniifl in their being perfedly different Pro- 
 perties, ( for they are not contradictory, ) 
 which have not any dependance on each other ^ 
 but in the nature of Subftance, which is not to 
 be corrected by a third Idea, and which mult 
 render it utterly uncapabic of both. Now 
 the nature^^of Subftance being acknowledged by 
 Mr. Broi'ghton to be unktiown to us, it is plain 
 even to Denjonftration, that it is Eot pofTible 
 we Ihould be able to determine whether it is;, 
 or is not capable of both Properties ^ And 
 it appears ftrange, or rather pleafant, that 
 one who acknowledges Subft'anceis an unknown 
 Nature, fnould take pains to prove that two 
 Properties, and particularly by a pretended 
 comparing them two together, cannot be both 
 together, the Properties of he does not know 
 what : Or that the fame Subitance is not capa- 
 ble of Cor-itation and Extenfion, of the Na- 
 ture 
 
Immateriality of the SouL i 43I 
 
 *lure and Capacities of which Subftance he ac- 
 ^ knowledges, that hiaifelf and all Men are per- 
 fediy ignorant. As for his Inches, and his 
 Ells, I may obierve that a Man can no more 
 conceive an Inch of Heat, and an Ell of Sweet- 
 nefs j no, nor of hisown Inftances, Extenfion 
 and Whitenefs, nor indeed of any fuch Qiia- 
 lities, than of Reafon and Contemplation. 
 Two Properties being in a Subftance, may 
 each of them be predicated of the Subftance^ 
 and as having in it the other Property : but 
 they cannot be predicated of one another 5 
 Nor can thofe Terms which may be properly 
 applied to the Subftance, purely by vertue of 
 its having one Property, be properly applied 
 to it, as having another Property perfei^ly di- 
 ftinQ: from the former, and much lefs to the 
 Property it felf. Mr. Broughton^ to prove the 
 abfurdity of what he pretends to oppofe, 
 p. 25, 26. builds upon feveral precarious Suppo-^ 
 fttipns^ viz. That Mr. Locke doth affirm that 
 Gpd can fuperadd both Extenfion, and the 
 Power of Thinking to the fame Subftance. 
 That it is demonltrativefy clear, that no par- 
 cel of Matter can be made capable of having 
 the Power of Thinking fuperadded to it 5 
 That it hath been demontlratively proved that 
 God has fuperadded a Power of Thinking to 
 Immaterial Subfcances, and hath united them 
 to certain fyftems of Matter •, And that Mn 
 Locke to avoid acknowledging the truth of 
 what hath been demonftrated, has recourfe to 
 Omnipotency, as a fiifficient Reafon in it felf, 
 ^ why we fcould fiOt aflent to a truth demonftra- 
 ■ La lively 
 
144 -^ Difcourfe concerning the 
 tively Evident, without taking thefe Suppo- 
 fiiions for granted ^ for none of which there 
 is any reafon or ground at all • What he faith 
 in this SeSiion^ and in many other parts of his 
 Book, is not of any weight. There i/s no diffi^ 
 culty in fi^ppofwg ( faith he ) that the Creator can 
 Eecapacitate fenfelefs Matter^ for a Reunion with 
 Spiritual Suhftance. In all thefe Cafes^ ( viz. that 
 jufl now mentioned^ and Prophecy^ and fufpending 
 the Laws of Gravitation in one place^ ) we clearly 
 apprehend^ that the Sftbjeii is capable^ and the 
 Power fuffcient^ which two are the only Prerequi/ites 
 to any Operation^ p. 26. Thefe words I take 
 notice of, not becaufe I apprehend they are of 
 any great ufe to his purpofe, tho' all I can find 
 that he appears to lay a flrefs on ; but becaufe 
 they do deferve on another account, fome Con- 
 ilderation. For here he clearly owns, that 
 fenfelefs Matter is not of it felf capable of U- 
 nion with a fpiritual Subftance : But yet that 
 the Creator can capacitate it for, or make it 
 capable of Union with it. And when he hath 
 fliewn what this Capacitating of it for that 
 Union confills in, more than in difpofing it 
 fo, as he thinks fit for that purpofe, it will be 
 fccn, whether he had ground to Exclaim a- 
 gainll Mr. Locke ^ for not ever atte*iding to the 
 Capacity of the SubjtcJ. And perhaps when he 
 compofcdly thinks on this, he will find no 
 greater dilficuky to conceive that God can, 
 for any thing we can demonltrate to the con- 
 trary, as well Capacitate fenfelefs Matter to 
 have a Power of Thinking fuperadded by him 
 to it j And that if he pleafe, he can then fuper- 
 
 add 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, 145 
 
 add it, as he can Capacitate fenfelefs Matter 
 for a Union with fpiritual Subftance. And if 
 fo, he will perceive the remainder of his Dif- 
 courfe in this Sedtion, not very pertinent •, and 
 that the truth of our Faculties is fafe enough, 
 allowing all that Mr. Loch hath faid ^ and that 
 he had no very good reafon to charge Mif- 
 chief, and in particular Scepticifm, or a great 
 tendency to it, on what Mr. Locke had faid, or 
 to applaud his own quick-fightednefs, in efpy- 
 ing a Confequence which Mr. Locke neither did 
 forefeey nor can difprove. As for that Notion of 
 Mr. Broughton's^ That a capable Snbjeif^ and a 
 fnfficient Power ( for the Difcourfe is wholly of 
 God's Power ) are the only Prerequtfites to any 
 Operation ^ I take it to be a very abfurd Notion, 
 and of mifchievous Confequence. It excludes 
 the Divine Will and Pleafure, and alferts 
 God's being under a necedity to confer on all 
 Subjefts, all the Properties and Powers they 
 are capable of. 
 
 What is not pojjible ( faith Mr. Broughton ) ar^y 
 way to be conceived^ argues as much a Repugnancy 
 in Conception^ as what vs cmtradidory Not that 
 this is ay prejudice to the belief of things that are 
 above our Conception^ upon an Authority which we 
 do conceive to be fujflcitnt ^ but that^ in our rea- 
 foning upon things^ we mtijl reje{I as falfhood^ what 
 is tmpojjible to be underjlond as truth : For indeed 
 the very nature of a Contradidion lies in this^ 7 hat 
 it is a thing impo^ble to be conceived^ p. 27, And 
 in p. 28, &c. he faith, / conclude that Cogitation 
 omit Extenfion are found upon the Comparifon^ to 
 L 3 b(i 
 
146 ^ Difcourje concerning the 
 
 he inconfijlent and incompatible in one and the 
 fame Suhjiance^ and that tlm their Inconftjlency in 
 one-f is cvs full an Evidence cf their appertaining to 
 tvDo Suhflances^ as Demonjlrative Inovoledge wili 
 bear. I Ihould rather think, that fince upon 
 coaiparing thefe Properties, they are found 
 not to be contradidory, and that Subftance 
 is an unknown Nature, the conclufion Ihould 
 be, that it is not poffible to have as full Evi- 
 dence as Demonftrative Knowledge will bear^ 
 that they are inconiiftent and incompatible in 
 one and the fame Subftance. But what he did 
 mean by what is not poffible any way to be 
 conceived, and v;hat follows thofe words, and 
 for what purpofe he delivered his fe'nfe in that 
 manner, is not eafie, if any way poffibk to 
 be conceived, by confidering them juft as they 
 lie in that part of his Book. I ^m not willing 
 to think, he had a mind to advance this No- 
 tion, that God cannot do any thing, but what 
 we can conceive he can do. I think he. fays 
 fomething in feme parts of his Book, that 
 will not well confilt with that, as, that wtmt 
 of Conception mil not prove the Impojfibility of a 
 thing. Moreover, I cannot apprehend how 
 any Man can believe, what it is not poffible 
 for him any vvay to conceive, nor how any 
 Authority can contribute to his believing fuch 
 a thing. And if Mr. Broughton did think 
 what Mr. Locke faid, could not poffibly any 
 vvay be conceived, iome People may be apt 
 to think it ftrange that he fhould fet himfelf 
 to write againft what he was fenfible he did 
 not underftand. However, if they find his 
 
 Dif- 
 
ImmAteridity of the SoaL 1 47 
 
 Difcourfe confufed and obfcure, and his Ar- 
 guments weak, and not at all to the purpofc, 
 they have a fatisfa^ftory Reafon of it at hand. 
 But I conceive the true meaning and fenfe of 
 this part of his Book, is to be had from ob- 
 ferving the intent of this Seftion, in which 
 the words are found. The forementioned Pro- 
 perties cannot be poflibly conceived to belong 
 Xo one and the fame Subftance, but they are 
 mconfiftent and incompatible in one and the 
 fame Subftance ; And this becaufe we cannot 
 conceive them as united in one Subftance by a 
 third Idea. So that after all the talk of what 
 is not pojjible any way to be conceived^ and that 
 what is not fo^ argues a Repignancy in Conccptioyr^ 
 equal to a Contradillion ^ It conies to no more, 
 than our not conceiving the manner how thefe 
 Properties can be in the fame Subflan'ce -^ Yea^ 
 of their being in it, in fuch a particular way, 
 as does indeed argue a Repugnancy in Conception. 
 And at this rate a Man ra-iy bring in the charge 
 of Scepticifm, and the denial of the truth of 
 our Faculties j and produce as full Evidence 
 as Demonftrative Knowledge will bear, a- 
 gainlt any Notions whatfoevcr, which lie has 
 a mind not to like, but to brand and difgrace. 
 With as much reafon, perhaps, it may be faid, 
 that it is llnphilofophical, Abfurd, Mifchie-x 
 vous, and tending to Scepticifm, to fay that 
 God can fuj;;^radd Extenlion and Cogitation to 
 '^■''bilance, or that they do belong to, or are 
 opertiesof Subftance. For neither the one, 
 iior the other is Eflential to Subftance ; for if 
 cither, or both were fo, the one, or both of 
 L 4 them. 
 
148 Ji Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 them, muft unavoidably and infeparably be in 
 j^ll Subltance : And being not eflential, and in- 
 feparably connected to Subftance, it may be 
 proved in the way abovementioned, that there 
 is a Repugnancy, and Inconfiftency to be found 
 in their being in Subftance ^ And this, becaufc 
 it is not pcffible any way to conceive that they 
 ihould be in, or united unto Subftance ; and 
 that, becaufe there is no third Idea to unite 
 either of them to Subftance: A third Idea 
 being every whit as neceftary to unite one Pro- 
 perty to Subftance, as to unite two unto it. 
 By this way of demonftrating Points, a Man 
 may demonftrate that People onght to lejed 
 as a Falftvood, what Mr. Brcughton aflerts for 
 a certain Truth, viz.. That an Immaterial Sub- 
 ftance is united to a Material Subftance. For 
 what third Idea can be found to unite Immate^ 
 pal Subftance to Material .'' Certainly the dif- 
 ference between thefe two, is fomewhat wider 
 than that between Exteniion snd Thought. 
 Exttnhon, that diftinguiftics and feparates ma- 
 terial fubftance from immaterial, will hardly 
 be thought a proper idea to unite them, nor 
 to be that v%hich can make matter capable of 
 having immaterial fubftance united to it. But 
 ^f any one ft^.oiild entertain that Thought, ip 
 would be perfedly unferviceable ;, becaufe there 
 would ftill want a third Idea, and not only be- 
 caufe this fafiCy of the necelliCy of a third Idea 
 to unite things, would unavoidably carry Peo- 
 ple away in thequeft of Thiid Idea's in Infini- 
 tum, bnt becaufe Extenfion is not in tiie pre- 
 fent C afe a third Idea j bijt accordii>g to Mr, 
 
 Lroiighton^ 
 
ImmAterulity of the Soul. 149 
 
 BYoughton^ the very property which makes fub- 
 ftance material, and is the only thing we can 
 poffibly conceive that hinders the fubftances 
 from Hniting. Thus, there being no third 
 Idea to unite them, their Union, according to 
 this Mode of demonftrating matters, muft be 
 concluded repugnant, inconceivable, contra- 
 dictory, and inconllftent. To this, it may 
 be replied that Mr. Broughton^ p. 99. hath 
 thefe words, // we cannot conceive borv ma- 
 terial fuhjiances which lie nearefi our Vriderjlanding^ 
 tho' not level with /t, are united^ in vain do we 
 endeavour to conceive^ or complain for want of Con- 
 ception^ bow an immaterial fuhflance is united to 
 fnaterial. 'Tis true, he hath thofe words 
 there, and perhaps he perceived he had ccca- 
 fion to exprefs himfelf to that purpofe. And 
 if there be not fome very great difference, be- 
 tween uniting of fubltances differing as widely 
 as poflible from one another, and fuperadding 
 of different properties to one and the fame 
 fubftance, This agreeable Thought, had it 
 come to mind fooner, might have faved a great 
 deal of pains. Yet in this place. That an im- 
 material fubftance is united to a material, is 
 fuppofed, and taken for a demonftrated Truth, 
 without proving it demonftratively. If it be 
 lijjd, that he delivers himfelf, p. 88. in thefe 
 v.'otds, j4s to the Soul's moving the Body^ 1 have 
 I evinc'd that Matter was once moved by fcmething 
 \ Immaterial ; And I think there needs no other Jir- 
 ^ gument to clear this from contradidion^ than the Old 
 or,e^ What has heen^ may be. Our want of Con- 
 ception is fo fir from proving the thing impoffihle^ 
 
 that 
 
1 5© Jl Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 that it is no Ohjs^ion at all^ when leveWd agmln^ 
 Fdi. As to the lait Sentence here, I fhall only 
 propofe this, fuppofethe Fai^fee the matter in 
 queftion ^ So that here is ftill taking for gran- 
 ted, that there is demonftrative Proof on one 
 fide. He before faith, he hath evinc'd that Mat- 
 ter was once moved hy fomething Immaterial. It is 
 acknowledged that it may be demonftratively 
 proved, that there is a Cogitative Being, who 
 is^Iramaterial, and who hath not only moved, 
 but created Matter. But Mr. Broughton hath 
 not proved, nor can any Man ever prove, that 
 fomething iromiterial, confidered purely as 
 immaterial, did ever move matter. Neither 
 has he produced demonftrative Proof that a cre- 
 ated immaterial fubflance did ever move matter. 
 Neither material, nor created immaterial fub- 
 ftancs can move matter, without a Power of mo- 
 ving it, fuperadded to it. And either of them 
 with that Power fuperadded, will be able to do 
 it. But ht hath evinced that Matter was once moved 
 by fomething Immaterial-, And what has been^ may 
 be. But That fomething Immaterial^ he fpeaks 
 of, was uncreated ^ And it is certain, that 
 God can do, what He has done. Nay, he 
 may create, for any thing we know, or can 
 prove to the contrary, immaterial fubftancc • 
 Yea, and fuperadd to it more Properties than 
 we cm reckon up •, But if any Man will affirm, 
 that created immaterial fubltance may do every 
 thing that uncreated immaterial fubfcance ever 
 did, I fliall not believe it. That fomething 
 Immaterial Mr. Bmughton fpeaks of, did create 
 tlie World out of Nothing :" Will he therefore 
 • ' con* 
 
Immateriality of the Souh 151 
 
 conclude, that a created immaterial fubllancc 
 may createa World orft of nothing ? 
 
 Mr. Broughton in his fixth Sedion, makes it 
 his bufinefs to prove that Cogitation doth reejuire 
 an Immaterial Subfiance. And he tells us, that 
 Senfatton is properly a Thought : And that this 
 Jdta of Senfation^ does of it [elf difcover fomething 
 Immaterial in us. Very right : For it difcovers 
 a Power of Tlnnhng to be in us •, But what is 
 that to an Immaterial Subfiance ? but there is 
 another way whereby it difcovers of it felf 
 fomething immaterial, viz.. Immaterial Sub- 
 ilance in us : Which is in diort, thus, Becaufe 
 different degrees of Heat give m the fenfe cf Plea- 
 fure and of Pain^ which are tvpo contrary Ideas. 
 If pure immaterial fubftance, united to mate- 
 rial, were fufficient for all this, there would 
 be fome Colour to fay that Senfation did of it 
 felf difcover fome immaterial fubftance in us ; 
 but then by immaterial fubftance, we muft un- 
 derftand, only a Power of thinking, or of 
 perceiving. Let immaterial fubftance, proper- 
 ly, taken, be united to material fubftance, there 
 will neither be degrees of heat, nor health, 
 nor pleafure, nor pain, till a Power of think- 
 ing, or of perceiving is fuperaddcd to one of 
 thefubftances •, And that Power fuperadded to 
 cither of the fubftances, wiil folve the Pheno- 
 menon •, but will not difcover to which fort of 
 the fubftances it is fuperadded. It is certain 
 there muft -be both material fubftance, and a 
 Povver of perceiving, or there cannot be any 
 of the Seniations mentioned, but the abfolute 
 neceffity of immaterial fabftance, cannot be 
 demonftrated by any or all of them. In 
 
152 A Difeourfe concerning the 
 
 In Sc£t. 7th. Mr. Bro^ghton undertakes to 
 prove, that Phyfically extended Suhjiance^ is in 
 its nature utterly uncapabk of Thought, And he 
 endeavours to execute his Enterprize, by (hew- 
 ing that Matter is of a pa/Jive Nature^ and that 
 it is Div'tfible •, both which Properties^ he faith, do 
 prove that it is utterly uncapahle of Thought. Mat- 
 ter is of a pa/Jive Nature ; that is^ it can extrt no 
 operation^ nor any way pojjihly modify it f elf ^ p. 35. 
 There needs not much labour to prove^ that a Sidf- 
 ^ance with this ejfential Property is utterly incapable 
 of Thought^ fuch (Vi we experience in our felves^ 
 p. 38. As an EffeB of our thinking Faculty^ we 
 are confcious of Spontaneous Motion in owf Jelves^ 
 which ts a Motion neither rais'd^ mr ■determined 
 mechanicaUy : We both move and reafon from our 
 fdves ^ which necejfarily infers the Power of motion 
 within our felves • and this is a Power abfolutely in- 
 conftjlent with the paffive Nature of Matter. 
 Therefore fo long oa our firft Idea of Matter^ in- 
 cludes in it a pajftve Nature^ it includes alfo an ut- 
 ter incapacity of Thought^ p. 38, 39. There is a- 
 nother Property of Matter refultirjg from our firfi 
 Contemplation of it^ which renders it incapable of 
 Thought^ and that is Diviftbility^ p. 39. -^^d in 
 p. 1 04. he certifies that according to his Argument^ 
 a capacity of Divtfibility^ makes incapable of 
 Thought. And if he himfelf had not declared 
 that^ the extent of his Argument, I Hiould 
 not have thought it had reached fo far. For 
 immaterial fubllancc is capable of divi nihility, 
 becaufe folidity may be fuperadded to it \ and 
 if being capable of divifibikty, makes incapable 
 
 of 
 
Im7fi(it£riality of the Soul. 153 
 
 of thought, immaterial fubftance mull be in- 
 capable of it, as well as material. I fhould 
 have thought that inftead of a capacity of di- 
 vifibility, a neceffity to be actually divided, 
 (hould be neceflary to make fubftance uncapable 
 of thought. But if Mr. Broughton had in plain 
 and exprefs Terms, declared what he means by 
 Ca^acity^ and Jrtcapacity^ the force of his Dif- 
 courfe would have been more eafily underftood, 
 and perhaps this whole Sedion would have ap- 
 peared perfectly needlefs. By what he fays in 
 p. 40, 41. I am in. lined to think, that he 
 means by matter being utterly incapable of 
 thought, that matter confidered as matper, 
 cannot think, or has not as matter, the power 
 of thinking in it felf j and the Title of his 
 next Section would alfo prompt the fame 
 Thought. If this was his meaning, the Point 
 is fo plain, it needed no Proof. And it is 
 equally true of immaterial fubftance, that it 
 cannot, as fuch, think, or has not in it felf a 
 power of thinking. No created fubftance can 
 think, till God doth fuperadd to it a power of 
 thinking. So that when he faith, as our firfi 
 Idea of Matter includes in it a pajfive Nature^ it 
 inclhdes alfo an utter Incapacity of Thought^ we 
 are to underftand by thefe laft words, only an 
 abfence of the power of thinking : But if he 
 means, that its being of a paffive Nature 
 renders it fuch, that it is impofTible for God 
 to difpofe and order any parcels of it fo, that 
 he can fuperadd a power of thinking to them, 
 what he affirms, is not proved • but is impof- 
 fible to be prov'd, without proving that God 
 
 can- 
 
154 -^ Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 cannot fuperadd a power of thinking to any 
 created fubftance. For created immaterial fub- 
 ftance is in it felf of as palTive a Nature, as 
 matter is ^ that is. It cannot exert any Operation^ 
 nor an)i voay fojfMy modify it felf. Therefore, 
 Mr. BroHghton fays right, when he faith, We 
 both move and reafon from our felves, which 
 nccefTarily infers tke power of motion within our 
 feives • whcyeas he would have been Egregi- 
 oufly out, if he had faid. Which infers ne- 
 cciTarilT immaterial fubftance within our Bo- 
 dies, tor immaterial fubftance united to our 
 Bodies, without a fupcradded power of mo- 
 tion, would leave our Bodies as perfedly paf- 
 five, as they vvere without it, and be as per- 
 fedly paffiveastheyare. Now, if the power 
 of Spontaneous motion is abfolutely incon- 
 fillent with matter, becaufe matter is in it felf 
 of a paJTive nature, as Mr. Broughton faith, 
 then it mnft be abfolutely inconliftent witft 
 created immaterial fubftance,' becaufe that is in 
 it felf of a paffive nature. What Ends are 
 likelieft to be terved, and what kind of People 
 are moft likely to be gratified' by fuch Argu- 
 ments, when obtruded for Demonftration, 
 may be fit to be confidered by thofe who 
 broach and maintain them. 
 
 Mr. Broughton's Eighth Se^lion wears this 
 Title, That Cogitation cannot be fuperadded to 
 A fatter. In this Sedion, it is, that he hath 
 furniflied the Atheift with fomething to fay 
 in anfwerto that Chapter in Mr. Locks's Ejjay^ 
 where the Exiftence of God and bis Immate- 
 riality 
 
Immateridity of the SouL 155 
 
 riality are demonftratively proved. That 
 part of the. Section I have taken fome notice 
 of already, and will therefore now pafs it 
 over without faying any thing to it. Mr. Lccle 
 having fa id, that voe cannot by the Contemplation 
 of our oivn Ideas of Matter ar.d Thinkings dtfcovir 
 whether Onm'tptency has not given to fome Syjiems 
 of Matter fitly difpofed^ a power to Perceive and 
 Think, Mr. Broughton tells us, the fenfe of it he 
 takes to confifi in one of thefe two things, i . That 
 Thought may he one of the many to us unknown Pro^ 
 perties, which Omnipotence has bejlowed upon Mat- 
 ter. Or, 2. That there may he in Matttr a capa- 
 city j)f Thought^ when ever it pleafes Omnipotence 
 to confer it j tho* it does not lye within the compafs 
 of our Apprehcnfton. This Account is very ob- 
 fcure, and needs Explanation -, tho' I think 
 what he calls the Objedion, is ckar and intelli- 
 gible enough. Mr. Broughton^ firil things is 
 delivered in fuch a manner, 1 fhonld have been 
 very uncertain in v.'hat fenfe to underftand it, 
 if he had not been pleas'd to explain ithiinfelf : 
 And feeing he hath done it, it is very fit we 
 fhould take it according to his meaning ; which 
 is, that aUAdatttr as fuch doth aBnally Think^ p. 57, 
 I cannot conceive how it could come into his 
 head, to put fuch a ConllruAion on Mr. Locke's 
 words. But he owns that v;as not Mr. Lockers 
 fenfe, but the fecond thing (he faith) ts doubtlefs 
 the fenfe of A-lr. LocIlc and o'hers^ p. 58. only 
 he pretends to have mended the wording of it, 
 . by putting in the words, Capacity of Thought in 
 Alatter^ inftead, I fuppofe, of fome Syllems 
 of Matter fitly difpofed. But what he means 
 
 by 
 
1 5^ A Difcourfe concerning the 
 
 by Capacity, needs Explaining j And the juft 
 importance of his fecond Thing, will, without 
 that, I doubt, be (carce Intelligible. My own 
 Thoughts I will exprefs to you briefly, con- 
 cerning Matter, its Powers and Capacity : So 
 that I think a very little will afterwards need 
 to be faid, to what Mr. Broughton writes on 
 this Subjed, viz.. That the Power of Thinking 
 cannot be fuperadded by Omnipotency to any Syjlem 
 of Matter^ in what manner foever difpofed. Mat- 
 ter, conlidered as matter, hath no other pro- 
 perty, but that which makes fubftance to be 
 matter. By the word Matter, we defign to 
 fignify only fubftance with that property, 
 which we conceive makes fubftance matter, 
 E. G. Solidity. By matter then, we mean 
 folid fubftance : Yet there arc not any fyftems 
 of folid fubftance, or matter, but what have 
 fomc other properties, than folidity •, which I 
 take to be the property that makes fubftance 
 matter, or that wherein the Eflence of matter 
 confifts. Thefe "other Properties, whatever 
 they be, do not belong to thofe fyfteras, meer- 
 ly as they are matter, but are Superadded to 
 thofe fyftems of matter, or of folid fubftance. 
 Thefe Properties are not the fame with folidi- 
 ty ; they are not contained in the Eflence of 
 matter, but are perfectly different Properties, 
 and do every one afford as juft ground to de 
 nominate the fubftance from it, as folidity 
 doth, to denominate it from it. VVe evident- 
 ly perceive that it is not the pleafure of God, 
 that all fyftems of matter fliall have all the 
 fame properties ; But that it is his pleafure tci 
 
 fnper- 
 
tmmaterialiPy of the SouL i>^j 
 
 fdperadd Powers or Properties to fy Items o^" 
 Matter, according as they are differently mo- 
 dified and difpoied. He does not fupcradd 
 Properties indifferently to fyftems of Matter, 
 but in fome proportion to their being fitted 
 fox thofe he will confer on them. So that cer- 
 tain fyftems of Matter modified or difpofed, 
 after certain, ways or manners, to us pcrfeftly 
 unknown, /do thereby become, through the 
 appointment and pleafure of God, capable of 
 certain Powers or Properties which God doth 
 thereupon fuperadd to them, and which he 
 doth not (at leafl: ordinarily) fuperadd to 
 any fyftems of Matter which are not fo modi- 
 fied and difpofed. Thefe are Powers or Pro- 
 perties not contained in the EfiTence of Matter, 
 nor doth the prefence of them deftroy, or 
 take away the Elfence of Matter from the fub- 
 ftance in which they likewife are. They are 
 the Properties of the fame fubftance, in which 
 there is Solidity, and are as much fuperadded 
 to it, as Solidity is : They do not make the 
 Subftance, by their being fuperadded to it, to 
 to befolid, nor intitlc it to the Name, Matter, 
 which belongs to it only by reafon of its being 
 folid : Nor docs the fuperadding Solidity to 
 the Subftance, make it what it is, purely by 
 virtue of other fuperadded Properties, or 
 entitle it to the Names which may belong to it, 
 by reafon of their being in it. They are Pro- 
 perties not CQntvadidory, but very widely dif- 
 ferent one from another 5 Properties faper- 
 added to the very fame Subftance, without E- 
 jeding one another, or Quarreling j one with 
 M another ^ 
 
1 ^8 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 another ; They continue quietly, diftinft Pro- 
 perties of one and the fame Subftanee. Thefe 
 Syftems continue to be Matter, as folid as 
 ever, yet they have Properties which do not 
 belong to Matter, as Matter, and which all 
 fyftems of Matter have not. Thefe Powers 
 do not neceflarily refult from Matter's being in 
 a certain manner modified, exclulivcly of the 
 good Pleafure and Ordination of God, but as 
 it is his pleafure to fuperadd them to fyftems 
 of Matter in fuch or fuch a way modified, ra- 
 ther than to other fyftems of Matter modified 
 after another manner 5 and to which he alfo 
 fuperadds other Properties, as he fees fit. Thus 
 a fyftem of Matter in a certain way modified, 
 may be faid to be capable of a Property which 
 it was not capable of, confidered barely as 
 Matter, or before it was fo modified, or be- 
 fore it was fitted according to the pleafure of 
 God, to have a certain Property fuperadded to 
 it. Which Property may be fo far from being 
 contained in the Eflence of Matter, it may 
 very much excel that Property which makes 
 Subftanee to be Matter. Thofe Properties, 
 which are evidently fuperadded to certain 
 lyftems of Matter, are as really diftinft from 
 Solidity or Extenfion, as Thought is. But we 
 neither knowing what Subftanee is, nor being 
 able to penetrate the unrevcaied Counfels of 
 the Almighty, cannot arrive at a certainty 
 whether Omnipotency has given to feme fy- 
 ftems of Matter fitly difpofed, a power to 
 perceive and think. 
 
 Mr. 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, 159 
 
 Mr. Broughton fays, God cannot fuperadd Co- 
 gitation and Solidity^ or Extenfton to the fame Sub- 
 fiance^ becahfe it appears to him no lefs than a Con- 
 tradition that it/hould be done. This is the rca~ 
 fon why he afierts that God cannot do it : And 
 it is a good reafon why he may aflert, that it 
 appears to him that God cannot do it. But 
 that may appear to fome no lefs than a Gontra- 
 didion, which is not in truth a Contradiction^ 
 nor any thing like it. But (faith he) fo long 
 as our Idea of Phyfical Extcnjion^ and vf Cogita- 
 tion^ continues the fame^ they mujl remain Proper- 
 ties inconfijlent in the fame Suhjiance^ for the Rea- 
 fons alledged^ Sed. 6, andj. p. 59, 60. when he 
 fhall be pleas'd to difcover what Ideas he de- 
 figns thofe words (hould fignify, it will appear 
 whether they be contradidory or not ; but 
 thofe Ideas which are commonly fignified by 
 thofe words, are very far from being contra- 
 didtory : And as for the Reafons alledg'd in 
 Se^. 6, and 7. they have been already confide- 
 red. But in Bar to this Jjfertion (faith Mr. 
 Broughton) it i5 pleaded J That we are doubt lefsig- 
 HQrant of many Trope-tics of Matter 5 one of 
 XQhicb may he either adual Thought^ or at kajl a 
 Capacity of it : And then he attempts ^ formal 
 Anfwer, by difcourfing of Indu^iion and Incon- 
 f'^ency^ p. 5o, <b'c. whereas he miftakcs the 
 Point clearly. Every Man may eafily know 
 that Matter, as Matter, has but one Proper- 
 ty : But we cannot kno<,v how many different 
 Properties God can add to fyftems of Matter 
 .^.tly difpofed for them, And whether the 
 M 2 Power 
 
l6o J Difeourfe concerning the 
 Power of Thinking may be one, that he can 
 iiiperadd to fome fyftems of Matter, we can- 
 not know •, But Mr. Locke doth not fay, one of 
 them may he either adud Thought^ or at kafi a 
 Capacity of it. \ cannot fee any thing in what 
 he calls his Anfwer, that is pertinent to what 
 I have proposed ^ efpecially if it be rcraem- 
 bred, that N&tter continues paffive in its own 
 Nature, at the very time when it ads by ver- 
 Lue of a power of Action fuperadded to it. 
 Cut what way he has to know whether Ideas 
 are Inconfiftent and Contradidory, and which 
 makes him afiert thofe to be Contradidory, 
 which otiiers cannot perceive to be fo, I cannot 
 imagine •, only I fuppofe it is not that common 
 one of Conildering and Comparing them • for 
 if it was, it is fomcthing wonderful to me, 
 that when he was difcouriing of the Inconfift- 
 ency of Properties, he ihould declare he judges 
 Mr. Locke had forgot the more common obvious 
 roay, nhcn hefaidy It wcui impoffibk for Uf^ by the 
 Contemplation of our own Idccui^ to difc&ver^ &c. 
 p. 6:>. • . 
 
 It is agreed that Thought is not included in 
 theEirt;nce of Matter. But when wc come (faith 
 Mr. Broughton ) to ccnfider and compare our Idea 
 of Thought^ in fome of tts Efftntial Properties.^ 
 ■Vith our Idea of Matter.^ thcn^ J tbmh^ vre have 
 j'omething more to fay^ viz. That neither is /t, nor 
 (\.'n n he included in the Effence of Matter.^ p. ^3, 
 fxA' MoiL prodigious LJifcovery ! And yet 
 vyitbout fo much ado, A Man might have been 
 'jtrfain, that wha^ is not incloded in the Ef- 
 fence 
 
ImmaterUlity of the Soul, i6i 
 
 fence of Matter, can never be included in its 
 Eflence. To confirm, or illuflrate, or do 
 fomething to, or for his Difcovery, he tells a 
 very honefl, harmlefs Story of a real and rt- 
 markahle difference between -fir fl and fecondary Pro- 
 per ties ; And of a Stone rolling down a Hill : And 
 withal acquaints us, that a Man finding no J&iz'i- 
 ty included in the fir fh Property of Matter^ he con- 
 chides it cannot affume yiBivity in any fubordinate 
 polity. For my part, I know not how to find 
 afirlt Property, where there is but one. If I 
 find Matter any where, and find more Proper- 
 ties than one, I find Matter, and fomething 
 more than Matter, yet that which the Man 
 concludes is of no ufe in our bufinefs. He 
 ftiould have concluded at leaft, that Omnipc- 
 . tence cannot fuperadd a power of A^9:ion, or a 
 more excellent Property to it, than that 
 which made it Matter. And if he had con- 
 cluded fo, not one ftep would have been ad- 
 vanced towards the difcovering of truth. 
 
 Yet it feems to be a very fortunate Thought ; 
 and tho' a Man might eafily have light on ir, 
 yet it deferved to be introduc'd with fome 
 Pomp, for a great deal of Work, much Exe- 
 cution may be done with it. It is of ufe for 
 feveral great Purpofes : It will anfwer Mr. 
 ■LockCj and it will enlighten Mr. Newton. 
 
 I'hii Confideratim anfwers ( faith Mr. Brought 
 
 ion ) all that he^ viz. Mr. Locke, objects from the 
 
 Variety of Qualities found in A^atter^ and the Ex- 
 
 cellincy of fomt above others^ as of yegetation 
 
 M 3 above 
 
x62 A Difcourje concerning the 
 
 above hare Motion ^ for thefe are all reconcilahk td 
 its firjl Property^ and fo may have a dependance 
 upon it^ tbf VQe know mt the manner how they de- 
 pnd, p. 6^. I will not enquire what we afc 
 to underlland by Reconcilable to its firft Pro- 
 perty, and having a dependance upon it ^ for 
 thefe are not the things we are concerned about. 
 The Confideration he fpeaks of, is this. That 
 Thought neither is^ nor can he included in the Ef- 
 fence of Matter^ i.e. in that Property which 
 makes Subitance Matter, therefore God cannot 
 fuperadd it to any material Syflem \ for it is a Con- 
 'tradiHion^ that a Property which neither w, mr can 
 ^e inchvded in the Ejfence of Matter^ fhouldhefu- 
 per added to a material Syficm. Mr. Locke takes 
 notice of feveral Properties, as Motion, Vege- 
 tation, (lire, which are not included in the Ef-. 
 fence of Matter, nor cannot be included in the 
 Elfence of Matter, and are fuperadded to ma- 
 terial Syftems, which Itill continue Matter. 
 Now the difficulty to me, is, how his Confide- 
 ration doth anfwer what Mr. Locke hath 
 objefted ? How does finding that Thought 
 neither is, nor can be included in the Effence of 
 Matter, anfwer what Mr. Loch hathobjefted ? 
 It cannot anfwer what he bath faid, unlefs it 
 prove, either that Motion^ Vegetation, &c. 
 are included in the Ellence ot Matter, i. e. that 
 they are nothing but Solidity or Extenfion, or 
 that God neither has, nor can fuperadd them 
 to material Syflems : And I cannot conceive. 
 how it ihould prove either of thofe Points. 
 But let that be as it will, he feems pretty fure 
 that he hath ground to accufe Mr. Locke of 
 
Immateriality of the Soul, i6j 
 
 being a little unfair in fomething that he has writ 
 on this occalion. But when he proceeds to inftance 
 in Brutes, and then adds, // one venture to go one 
 ftep farther^ and fay God may give to Matter^ 
 Thought^ Reafon, and Kolition, as well as Senfe^ 
 and fpontaneous Motion, there are Men ready to 
 limit the Power of the Omnipotent Creator , he is a 
 little unfair ♦, for thefe Men deny Senfe dnd fpon- 
 taneous Motion, as well as Thought, Reafon, and 
 yoUtion to Matter : And therefore, injiead of 
 bearkning to his Complaint, of being fiopt here, I 
 tnufl complain that he has gone a flep too far, p. 55 . 
 The words he finds fault with, and which hs 
 improves into an occafion to charge Mr. Locke 
 with being a little unfair, and to complain 
 that he hath gone a ftep too far, are taken out 
 of the 397, p. of Mr. Locked Reply to the Bi- 
 Ihop of Worcefler''^ Anfwer to his id. Letter. 
 Now, in anfwer to all he hath faid on this oc- 
 cafion, I will tranfcribe part of the 405. p. of 
 the fame Reply, And leave you to judge whe- 
 ther Mr. JSroughton had any ground cither for 
 his Accufation, or Complaint, and whether he 
 has not been more than a little unfair in this 
 matter. Mr. Locke's words in the p. men- 
 tioned, are. Though to me Senfation be compre- 
 hended under Thinking in general, Tet in the fore- 
 going Difcourfe, J have fpoken of fenfe in Brutes, 
 as difiinU from Thinking : Becaufe your Lordpnp, 
 as I remember, fpeaks of fenfe in Brutes. But 
 here I take liberty to obferve. That if your Lord- 
 [hip allows Brutes to have Senfation, it :vill follow 
 either that God can, afid doth give to fome parcels 
 of Matter, a Power of Perception and Thiriking-^ 
 M 4 ox 
 
1^4 A T>ifiourfe concerning the 
 
 or that (tU j4ninJals have Immaterial^ and confe- 
 quently^ according to your Lord/hipj Immortal 
 i>ouhi, as well as Men: Jir^d to fay t/;<«t Fleas, 
 and Mites, b'c. have Immortal Souls as voell as 
 'Men, will ppJf^^l)' ^ look' don as going agr^at way 
 toferve an Hypothecs ^ and it would not very weU 
 agree with what your Lord/hip fays^ 2. Anfw- 
 p. 64. to the words of Solomon tfuoted out of 
 pcclef. C. 3. 
 
 But to return to his former Confideratioo, 
 vvhich he tell§ us, will anfwer what he ohjeBs 
 from Mr. Newton concerning Gravitation, But 
 how does it anfwer in this Cafe ? Why, juft as 
 before. Mr. Broughton would choofe, in the 
 tufinefs of Gravitation, to have recpurfe to an 
 Immaterial^ ( 1 fuppofe he means ) Created Im- 
 material Principle, or elfe vvhat he fuggefts is 
 to no purpofe, and altogether groundlefs. 
 Thus Gravitation is owing to an Immaterial Trin» 
 ciple in all Matter, in the vi/ible World at leaf ^ 
 2nd the Union of the parts of Matter muft be 
 Effedtd alfo by an Immaterial Subltance, in 
 every part of Matter in the whole World • 
 And yet with Mr. Broughton.^ Immaterial Sub- 
 ^ance is the fame with Thinking Subltance ; 
 So thatifor ought I fee, by his Scheme and Hy- 
 pothefis, there is no Material Being irr the 
 whole VVorld, but what is a Thinking Being, 
 or has an Immaterial or Thinking Subftance 
 united to it. But if this Notion will not take, 
 his Confideration helps him to a ready An- 
 fwer, viz.. That Gravitation does not come up to 
 JSenfe <r Or if Matter hath thk Poi;rer, viz. of 
 
 Gra- 
 
JmmAterUUty of the Soul. 165 
 
 (Gravitation^ gwm it^ it has not in that^ received 
 the power of Thought^ p. 66. Well fliot ! of a 
 Certainty. Can any thing be truer than this? 
 It is very true, but not to the purpofe : For 
 what is this, to proving that Gravitation is in- 
 cluded in the Eflence of Matter ? For if Gra- 
 vitation is fuperadded to Matter, and is not 
 included in the Eflence of Matter, what Mr. 
 iofitf produc'd it for, is fully Eftabliib'd by it, 
 And Mr. Broughton\ Confideration does pot af- 
 feditatall. 
 
 In p. 6q. and 68. Mr. Broughton fays, that 
 an Elaborate j^nfcver to this Objeiiion^ That we 
 cannot conceive the manner how Aiatter thinks^ 
 leoks to him like an Elaborate piece of Triflings be- 
 fore we are fatisfyd that it can be dene. And he 
 affirms, that it is not only above, but contrary to 
 our Conceptions^ that we not only cannot conceive 
 how it fhould think^ hut that we do conceive that it 
 cannot think. We find infuperable Obje^ions ;>: 
 our way^ not only againjl the manner of the thing, 
 but againfl the thing it felf, and the bare po^bilky 
 cf it ; and thefe amounting to a Demonftration, 
 fetched from fucb Properties as we hww infeparably 
 belong nnto Matter. It was objeded, or at leafl, 
 it was a prejudice fuggefled before Mr. Locke 
 writ what is referr'd to here, that Matter 
 could not poflibly be made to think, or have a 
 power of thinking, becaufe we cannot conceive 
 how it fhould think : And Mr. Loch in anfwer- 
 ing that Objedion, hath done it fo fully, that 
 ivien may very well be afham'd to infill on it. 
 And in anfwerin^ of it, he hath moll clearly 
 
 proved 
 
i66 A Difiourfi eoHcer ning the 
 
 proved that there are Properties and Powers 
 fuperadded to fyflems of Matter which are 
 not contained, are not included in the Eflence 
 of Matter • Perfeifiom, Powers^ and Qualities^ 
 which have no natural^ or viftbly necejfary Con- 
 nexion with Solidity and Extcnfion^ hut are much 
 mare nohle and excellent than the Property which 
 makes Suhjiance Matter, Whereby he hath for 
 ever confuted, and manifefted the Abfurdity 
 of that mighty reputed Argument, that Mat- 
 ter cannot poffibly be made to think, becaufe 
 Thought is not, nor cannot be included in the 
 EflTence of Matter j And which, together with 
 the want of a third Idea to couple Thought 
 and Extenfion, and unite them to the fame Sub* 
 ftance, are all the Reafons Mr. Broughton hath 
 alledged, why he and others can conceive that 
 Matter cannot think. As to the Demonftra- 
 tion he talks of, it being, by his own Confeffi- 
 on, fetched from Properties infeparably be- 
 longing to Matter, it can reach no further, 
 than that Matter, as fuch, cannot think ^ For 
 they do not prove that Thought, and Extenfion 
 are ContradiQions. But, perhaps Mr. Brought 
 ton would have had Mr. Locke to have prov'd, 
 that God can fuperadd a power of Thinking to 
 fome fyftems of Matter : Tho' he had no rea- 
 fon to expeft that from him, he having de- 
 clared that there is no demonftrative Proof ei- 
 ther that he can, or that he cannot fuperadd a 
 power of Thinking to fome fyftems of Matter 
 Stlydifpofed. In this, I conceive Mr. Ijich is 
 perfedly in the right -^ And I am inclin'd to 
 think, that all Men will conceive fo too, who 
 
 (hall 
 
Immnttriality of the Soul* 167 
 
 ftall impartially confider, that we cannot pof- 
 fibly know God's undifcovered Plcafure, nor 
 comprehend how far his Power can extend, 
 nor be certain of the Capacity of Subltancc, 
 which is an unknown Nature. The moft which 
 has been demonftrated by thofe who have un- 
 dertaken to prove, that God cannot fuperadd a 
 power of Thinking to fome fyftems of Matter 
 fitly difpofed, is. That their Intel] efts are not 
 fo Comprehenfivc as they have fanfied, and 
 would fain have others believe they are : For 
 let them talk as much as they pleafe of Demon- 
 ftration from the Properties of Matter, and 
 that therefore they can conceive, that God can- 
 not fuperadd a power of Thinking to any fy- 
 ftems of Matter, it amounts juft to a Fanta- 
 ftick advancing themfelves above the unavoid- 
 able weaknefs and imperfedion of Humane Un- 
 derftanding. It is impoffible Men (hould any 
 more conceive it Demonftratively true, that 
 God cannot, than that he can fuperadd a pow- 
 er of Thinking to fome Material Syllems j 
 whilft the Particulars abovementioned, which 
 obftruft our attaining to Demonftrative Cer- 
 tainty, do fo unconceivably furmount the ut- 
 moft Extent of our Underftandings. 
 
 But ( faith Mr. Brou^htoyi ) here is the Point ^ 
 We are confctous of our Thinkings and have all the 
 reafon in the World to believe that many other Be^ 
 ings arc endued with the fame Faculty : And hence ^ 
 that is^ from what we do perceive and know of 
 Ihought^ we coUeCi^ that it belongs to a Suhjed 
 uniform^ and felf'a^ive in its Nature \ which is 
 
 ■ fuf^ 
 
1 68 A Difcourfe ioneermng the 
 
 fugicient to Satisfy us thatfuch a Being can thini^ o? 
 is capable of Thought^ p. 68. From our being 
 confcious of our thinking, and from what we 
 perceive and know of Thought, wc may de- 
 monftratively colleiSc, that there is a Subftance 
 to which the power of Thinking is fuperadd- 
 ed. But this will not ferve Mr. Brought on'% 
 turn ^ He therefore will colled more from the 
 Premifes, viz,. That Thought belongs to a Subjeii 
 uniform and felf-aCtive in its Nature, What he 
 means by thefelaft words, he does not inform 
 us • but oppofmg them to Matter, we muft 
 conceive he means Created Immaterial Sub- 
 ilance ; tho' he has not proved that pure Ira- 
 ^naterial Subftance is Created. But fuppofing 
 it to Exift, Created Immaterial Subftance is no 
 more felf-a^ive in its Nature, than Material 
 Subftance is : Neither the one, nor the other, 
 has any fuch Power, originally or inherently 
 inic feif:^ and therefore, as from our perceiv- 
 ing Thought in our felves, we cannot certainly 
 conclude whether the Subftance, the power of 
 Thinking is fuperadded to, is Material, or Im- 
 material : So our colleding of our own accord, 
 rhat the Subjeft it belongs to, is felf-ailive., can- 
 not, according to Mr. Broughton's Notions, fa^ 
 tisfy us, that fuch a Being can think.^ or rather is 
 capable of thought. For if felf-adivity, con- 
 iidered as a power, diftinft from the power of 
 thinking, as here he feems to make it, muft firft 
 be fnperadded to Immaterial Subftance, how 
 can we be fure, that that power will not till up 
 the whole Capacity of Immaterial Subftance ^ 
 .Or how will you iind-out a third Idea to unite 
 
 this 
 
Jmmateridlity of the SouL i6() 
 
 this Property, and a Power of Thinking in th^ 
 fame Subftance ? Here, at beft, he makes a' 
 Subllaace which hath a felf-aftive Property fiT- 
 peradded to it, neceflary to fupport Thought ; 
 Self-aftivity mult be fuperadded to Immaterial 
 Subftance, to make it a Foundation to bear 
 Thought \ Yet, ]>. 71. he faith, fpontaneotu or 
 felf -motion in a Body tnuft be fuch^ that it can 
 move or reft of it f elf ^ bnt this fower is a WiU, 
 properly fo called j and that Will is a mode ef Think- 
 ing : Therefore if the Almighty hoi given it felf 
 Motion^ he has firft in the Order of Nature, given 
 it ThoHght^ as the only Fonndation to bear it. In 
 the one place, the Subjeft muft firft in the Or- 
 der of Nature, have Self-adtivity, as the only 
 Foundation to bear Thought : Irt the other 
 place, the Sub)eft muft firft in the Order of 
 Nature, have Thought given it, as the only 
 Foundation to bear Self-adivity. This, I ac- 
 knowledge, would look very unhandfom in a 
 ftaid and compofed Writer : But when a 
 Man's thoughts are Ihatter'd, and he becomes ; 
 big with a conceit that he continually fees Re- 
 pugnancy, Inconfiftency, Abfurdity, and Con- 
 tradidion in what he oppofes, there is nothing 
 more natural, than for him to fall into the 
 groflefl; Contradidions that can be -, And to 
 advance Notions, to which all the Ill-founding 
 Epithets he would faften on what others have 
 faid, do moft properly belong. 
 
 In the la ft place, Mr. Brought on comes to An- 
 fwer a QiieiUon proposed and explain'd by 
 Mr. Locke^ Lett, 3d. p. 402,403. viz. Why 
 
17© -^ Difcourfe comer ning the 
 
 Ommfotency cannot give to either of thefe SuhJ^An- 
 ttSy {viz.. Immaterial, and Material) which 
 are e^jnatly in d State of perfe^ 1 nativity, tht fame 
 foxoer that it can give to the other ? To this, he 
 faith he hath feveral things to offer. As, 
 I . Let it he conjidered that God has not Created all 
 Natures or Suhfiances foy as to be fufceptihle of aU 
 manner of Properties. The Queftion is fet 
 down before, and the Anfwer is adjoyned ; 
 And whether the Anfwer does not very well 
 become an Accomplifh'd Philofopher, 1 leave 
 you to judge. What would he have faid, if 
 he had been put to prove that God had Crea- 
 ted pure Immaterial Subltancc ? He hath fo 
 Exprefs'd himfelf, as might occafion fome to 
 think, it is his Opinion that there are Com- 
 municable Properties^ which neither Material, 
 nor Immaterial Subftance is fufceptible of : 
 But what he adds, looks as if he defign'd it 
 for a Rcafon of what he had laid. // he has^ 
 all our reafoning from the nature of the things is at 
 an end. By the Nature of the thing, we mult 
 here underftand its Subftance, or what he faith, 
 can have no relation to what goes before. For- 
 merly, we were to argue from the nature of 
 the Accident, to the nature of the Subltance, 
 and to know the nature of the Subftance, by 
 that of the Accident j Now we muft reafon 
 from the Subftance, to I know not what. Muft 
 it not be a very inftruftive and convincing v/ay, 
 to Reafon from an unknown Nature, as Sub- 
 ftance is acknowiedg'd to be, and an unknown 
 Nature devoid of all Properties - and fuch 
 is Irr.ra?terial Subftance, confider'd as Imma- 
 terial ^ 
 
ImmAteriditj of the $puL ? 7 1 
 
 Urial? Anti (faith he) fence we can poterly 
 Reafon no otherwife^ the old Pi incite is Efijmfhed^ 
 7bAt Cod may have deceived hs. I can name you 
 a Gentleman, who likes an Argument the bet- 
 ter for its being old : If he likes Principles the 
 better for their being of old Date, it is to be 
 defired he would Except, That, fo lately dig- 
 nified with that Charafter. If Men will pre- 
 tend to reafon from they do not know what, 
 and affirm we cannot properly reafon other- 
 wife, they will unavoidably deceive them- 
 felves i But it will be Impious, when they 
 have put a Cheat upon themfelves, to fay God 
 has deceived thera. It furmounts ray Under- 
 Itanding, to conceive how thefe laft words, 
 or indeed any of thofe before them, can be 
 brought in with any pertinency, with any Co- 
 herence, as an anfwcr to the Queftion that 
 was under Confideration. Mr. Bron^hton goes 
 on in thefe words. But asfure as our Faculties Mfe 
 trne^ and as fure as our Creator has imparted va^ 
 rioHfly differing Natures to his Creatures^ fo fure 
 it «, that he has tied himfelf to that Rule in con- 
 ferrirtg Properties upon them ^ that if^ has confer^ 
 redfuchy and only fuch as are fuitable to their re* 
 fpe&ive Natures^ p. 70. Here I may take no- 
 tice, I . That from the truth of our Faculties, 
 when regularly employed about their proper 
 Objefts, we cannot in reafon conclude the truth 
 of our Notions, and Suppolitions, and Affir- 
 mations, about things that are out of their 
 reach. 2. That it is very rational on fuch an 
 occalion as this, to ask whether it is demon- 
 llratively f^re^ that our Creator has imparted 
 
 vafioHjly 
 
172 A Difcourfe tdncerning the 
 
 varioufiy differing Subflances to his Creatures ? 
 
 3. That there is ground enough to Enquire 
 i^hether Material, and Immaterial Subltances, 
 are varioufly differing Subftances ? And if 
 thefe are only differing Subltances, what other 
 differing Subftances our Creator has imparted 
 to his Creatures, to make up the varioufly 
 differing Subftances, Mr. Broughton is fo fure 
 our Creator has imparted to his Creatures? 
 
 4. That no Proof is produc'd that God has 
 tied himfelf, in conferring Properties upon 
 his Creatures, to confer fuch, and only fuch, 
 as Mr. Broughton {hall conceive fuitable to the 
 Subftances he Ihall be pleafed iefpe^tivefy to 
 affign them. Perhaps you will fay, thefe arc 
 not Mr. Broughton^s words. Very true : But I 
 have faithfully delivered his words before. 
 And I am not now concerned about his words, 
 but his fenfe. Can you think his meaning was, 
 that God hath tied himfelf to confer only fuch 
 Properties, as he himfelf fhall judge fuitable 
 to the Subftance > When he exprelly declares, 
 we cannot properly Reafon otherwife, than 
 from the Subftance of the thing ? And not- 
 withftanding yoii have fuch abundant Evidence, 
 that if God fhould think fit tofuperadd a po- 
 perty to a fyftem of Matter fitly difpofed, 
 which Mr. Broughton does not approve of, but 
 thinks not fuitable to Material Subftance, he 
 wiH ft rait Demonftrate that God cannot doir, 
 beccjufe he can conceive that he cannot do it j 
 and he will give it under his Hand, that there 
 is a Repugnancy, and Inconfiftency in it ^ tho* 
 it is a Contradiction : And that for a Perfon to- 
 
 ray, 
 
hm^xierlality of the Sou!-, !^ j 
 
 iijy, he is not certain that Goa cannot do itj' 
 is Abfual and Mifchievous, has a tendency td 
 Scepticifm, and flull certainly be difgrac'd, as' 
 Unphilofophical ? It would fatisfy fouie Peo- 
 ple, that God in conferring Properties on his 
 Creatures, doth fuit th-:in to the Ends for 
 which he defigns them. 2dly. But then (faith: 
 Mr. Byoughion^ hove do we und.r^iand that fficb 
 and [neb Natures^ ate capable of fuch^ and only 
 fuch Properties ? To which he anfwers, Incon- 
 fiftemy, as 1 faid, rvith fomc knovrn Property in 
 tbeSubje^. bs the chief Ruk^ &c. f>. 71. This is 
 what he had faid before, as he here owns ; 
 and it having been confideied already, I ftiall 
 fay no more to it here, only 1 cannot con- 
 ceive how this Ihould be an Anfwer to Mn 
 Locke's Qucftion, nor how any thing in the 
 faid Page, or the following Page, can be 
 thought pertinent in anfwer to his Demand : 
 For Spontaneous and Self-motion, tho' the word 
 Thought is not joyned with them, i^ a Power 
 that 'tis fuppofed God can j^'.ve to an unJoUd Snb' 
 fiance^ but den ed tbnt be can give to a folid Suh- 
 jlance. The Reafon for the Denial is enquired 
 after, and he who writ the Anfwer, was lefn 
 at liberty to produce what Example or In- 
 ftance he plcafsd. Mis lad Anfwer is. That 
 SvUdity is a Rcdutlitious^ mt a firj} Property of 
 Body J p. 72, Now, fuppoilng this wds true, 
 
 ''.what is it to the Qaeilion ? But when (faith 
 Mr, Bi'oughtoyi ) ive find every foltd Subj'Unce phy-^ 
 
 ! f-caliy extcndtd^ and diviftbk^ and fatfive^ then 
 
 we clfnrly corjceiv^^ that fuch a folid Subjlance is 
 
 iM.ipMe of ■Thoii-^ht^ p, 72, I-^ pnc this a very 
 
 . M clear 
 
1^4 -^ Difcourje cone erm fig the 
 
 clear Anfwer to the Demand ? We clearly 
 conceive it incapable of Thought. Seeing and 
 conceiving clearly, ( or pretending to do fo ) 
 without either Light or Reafon, are of mighty 
 ufe to Tome People, on certain Occafions. Sub- 
 ftance, confidcred as extended, divifible, and 
 paflive, does not, cannot Think, but is in a 
 ftate of per fed Inactivity ;, but it is not its 
 being extended, and divifible, that makes it 
 pafiive J that makes it to be in a ftate of per- 
 fect Inadivity : For Subftance, whether it is, 
 or is not extended, and divifible, is, till a 
 a power of Adfion be fuperadded, paflive, and 
 in a ftate of perfei^: Inadivity. The Queftion 
 is, why Omnipotency cannot give to either of 
 thefe Subftances, viz.. Extended and divifible 
 Snbflance, and unex tended indivifible Sub- 
 ftance, which are equally paffive, equally in a 
 frgte of perfed Inadivity, the fame power 
 th^l it can give to the other ? To which it is 
 anfwcicd, We clearly conceive that extended, di- 
 'mfihle^ l'a(five Suhjlanr.e^ u incapable of Thought. 
 V\0'^ff^ ;wc arable of Thoi*gk, do ilgnify any thing 
 UiOie, tlijn that it is in a ftate of perfed In- 
 .idiviiy, 1 fl'ioiild be very glad to fird the full 
 Importance of the Phrale laid open. And if 
 x.\rat be the whole meaning of it, Mr. Broughton 
 niight, vvith equal light and ftrength, have 
 aiifwered the Qjieftlon at once, by laying that 
 Omnipotency c;innot fuperadd the power of 
 Thinking to cither Material, or Immattrial 
 SubflaiiCe ^ and then have confirmed his An- 
 fwer by aftirming, v;e cleavly conceive that 
 both forts of Subftances are incapable of 
 
 Thought. 
 
LnmAteridity of the SouL 17) 
 
 Thought. They are both in a ftare of perfcd 
 fnactivicy ^ c^in neither of them Think, as fiich, 
 ox of theitileh'es, And therefore Omnipotert- 
 ^cy cannot fuperp.dd the power of Thinking to 
 either. Theie. arc not good Reafonings : {t 
 behoves iis to have move Honourable Thoughts 
 of God ; To be contented with, and make 
 a good ufe of t-lie Light he is plcafed to affora 
 ns ^ Not to infult the Divine Perfeftions, or 
 narrow God's Power to the mean Extent of 
 our Feeble Conceits. 
 
 Mr. JlYoughton declares, p 73. That he takes 
 n-'hat he has f aid, to be a FoundaUou for a full Ar.- 
 fver to ail that Mr. Locke h:is objdhd upon thii 
 Head, to the late great Bifliop of VVorceftet^ 
 I fo far differ froui liim concerning what he 
 hath faid, that I am perfwaded, if the 6th. ^§. 
 of the 3d. Chap, of the 4th. Book of Mr. Locke's 
 Ejfiy^ and the whole loth. Chap, of theiams 
 Book, And wliat Ml\ Locke hath faid in hh 
 \eply to the Bifnop of lVorce/ler\ Anfwer to 
 uis 2d. Letter, from p. 395. to f. 414. were 
 Publilhed together, every one would ip. thar. 
 fmall Volume, find, a moil fatlsfaccory and 
 comnleat Anfwer to every thing Mr. Brough' 
 tm hath faid on this Subject. 
 
 Sir, I have now gone thro'.igh both Parts of 
 what i propos'd in the beginning. The re- 
 maining Scdions in thehrft part of ih'Z Pfycho- 
 lofta^ I kiive a3 I found them, without making 
 any Reirnirks on them. And as for the fecond 
 n^rt of the Book, I have no; any tbin^ to fay 
 N 2 of 
 
I*) 6 A Difcourfe concerning the^ Sf c . 
 of it •, for I have not read it. I never faw the 
 Book it is writ againft ^ And I have found Au- 
 thors fo unfair, when they have pretended to 
 quote the words, and deliver the fenfe of thoft 
 they write againft, as makes me to lay very 
 little ftrefs on Quotations. Without reading 
 calmly what is writ on both fides in a Contro- 
 verfy, a Man will hardly be able to make a 
 true Judgment, whether either, or which fide 
 is in the right. When you {hall be at leifureto 
 read thefe Papers, I exped you will read Mr. 
 BroHghton's Book ^ at leaft, fo much of it as 
 thefe Papers are concern'd with. And if you 
 apprehend me miftaken in any thing, or that I 
 have omitted any thing faid by Mr. BroHghton 
 that is of weight, with relation to the Subjeft 
 of thefe Papers, Your giving me notice of the 
 fame, will very particularly oblige 
 
 Tour Humble y 
 Sept. icth- 
 
 1703. 
 
 Andmuch obliged Serv ant ^'^c* 
 
 RE- 
 
C 177] 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 OfJ what Mr, Norris hath /aid in his Ftrfi 
 Chapter of the Theory of the Ideal 
 World, />. 2. to Demonfirate the Imma- 
 teriality of the SOUL. 
 
 Sept. -jth. 1704. 
 SIR, 
 
 TH E firft Chapter in the fecond Part of 
 Mr. NoYrvs% EiT^yy towards the Theory 
 of the Ideal WoHd^ is defigned to prove that 
 Matter cannot think^ or that Matter vs utterly 
 mca])able of Thought ; The very Subjed about 
 which Mr. Broughton bellowed fo much pains 
 in the firll Part of his Pfychologia. \ did fome- 
 time the lalt Year, give you an account of the 
 Reafons which induced me to think Mr. Brought 
 ton had not EfFeded what he undertook, but 
 had left his Subjed much what in the fame 
 ftateand poflure in which he found it. By the 
 following Papers, you will perceive why I 
 think Mr. Norris has not fucceeded much bet- 
 ter, and that the Point Hill continues Llnde- 
 monflrated. It feems a little ftrange, that 
 Men of Thought fliould hunt fo much about 
 tor probable Evidence, when they cannot but 
 N 3 know 
 
i7S Remarks en M% NorrisV 
 
 know ttie Enqniry is concerning Demonftra- 
 ticn, and that nothing lefs than Demonflra- 
 tive Proof can be at all to the purpofe. If An- 
 thors had no other defign in their Writings, 
 but to Bubble ignorant, unthinking People, I 
 {Viould not wonder if they did plcafe tbcai- 
 felves with Noife, altera tipn/of Terms, ajid 
 proving things that are forergir to what Is In 
 QjcieUion. But that is a thing fo very fordid*, 
 fo jufcly ignominious and deteltable, Men of 
 Ixarning, Integrity, and good Chara(-ler, will 
 be {lire to keep at as great a diftance from it as 
 may be. Were it not for the Commonnefs of 
 the tiling, I fliould be tempted to wonder, how 
 Authors of any Ingenuity can prevail with 
 ihcnifelve?, to ftrive to poiTefs their Readers 
 with wiorig Notions ot what is laid down bs"! 
 the Writers they pvofefs to oppofe, attributing; 
 to tlicm in exprefi; Terms,^ u-hat is no where to 
 be found in their Books. fv)r. Norm has, p. 34, 
 thefe words, The Anthor of the Letters againfi 
 the Bifjopof Woicefter, iiJo- liberM of'Tloought^ 
 njs tubejiotp a Capacity of it upon Matter. Which 
 woids^ look as if he would have People be- 
 iicve, that Ain;hor did afcli, -that Matter is 
 capable of Thought ^ wbeveas, the moil that 
 can be iuferr'd from any thing that Antjior has 
 publifiied on tlje Subjet^t, is, that it cannot be 
 demonfliHted tliat Tvlaticr is not capable or 
 Thought. ( dare not atnibijte the aforetneu- 
 tioned words, 10 want of difcernment in Mr. N. 
 Perhaps, when he ftiall feriouUy reflett on the 
 temper of Mind, he was in, when he adven- 
 tpi,'j4topubiifhthol^words^: w any Reg- 
 
 ion 
 
Ided WORLD, 179 
 
 fon, and without any Provocation, he- will be 
 conicious that he has reafon X.o diflike that Hu- 
 mour which has fo long had the Afcendant in 
 him, and has lb evidently all along occadoned 
 in him a Solicitude how to make die Author he 
 fpeaks of, his Adverfary. 
 
 The Arguments Mr. Norm produces to 
 prove that Matter, or Extended Snbftance, 
 ( for with him they arc the ftrme, whtrein ( to 
 ufehisown Phrafe, p. 43.) we wifl allow him to 
 pleafe his fancy ) is utterly uncapable of 
 Thought, are in number. Three, viz^ 
 
 Firft^ That if Matter be capable of Thought, 
 then the natural Immortality of the Soul can- ' 
 not poflibly be proved. 
 
 Secondly, That the Ideas of ah Extended 
 Being, and of a Thinking Being, are diftinft 
 Ideas. 
 
 Thirdly, That if God fhould fupcradd .a 
 power of Thinking to Matter, the Species 
 would thereby be changed ^ and fo it would 
 not be Matter, but fomething elfe that would 
 think. 
 
 His firll Argument is to this purpofe ; If 
 matter vs capable of thought, then the natural Im- 
 fr.Qrtality of the Soul cannot poffibly be proyed. 
 Now, to fee the full ftrengch of this Argu- 
 ment, and of what he fays upon it, it will be 
 requiilte to underltand his Terms in his own 
 i^fhfe -: Therefore I Ihall fet down what by his 
 . N 4 own 
 
I So Kemarks on Mr, Nonis'i 
 
 own account, we are to underftand, i . by the 
 
 ^vord Soul. Then 2. What by the word Matter. 
 
 3. What he means by the term Imuortal. And 
 
 4. The fenfe in which weave to underftanda 
 thing is naturally Immortal. 
 
 1. By the term Soi4, it is nioft certain, he 
 pieans unextended Subftancc. J principle or fub- 
 Jtance dijlinli frotn matter .^ p. 5. // matter can 
 ihink^ it i$ impojjible to prove xce have any fuch 
 ^\>ing as a Soul., p. 8. By Soul, it is plain he 
 does not mean, a thinking fubftance, but a fub- 
 ftance diftindt from matter. For that we do 
 think^ (and therefore have a thinking fubftance) 
 [le fays, vs what we an inwardly confaotn of to our 
 felves ; what we feel and know by a Sentiment ., cLi 
 ch*ar and evident m that of plcafure andpain., p. 5. 
 Yet he dothfoppofe we do not know that we 
 have a Soul \ that is, a fubftance diftindt from 
 matter. And what a fubftance diftind from 
 matter muftfignify, will beft appear by taking 
 notice, 
 
 2. Of what Idea the word i^^ffer ftands for 
 with him, which he declares, hThatef an Ex- 
 tended Being., p. 13. And in the next Page he 
 tells us, tbii is the general rrafon or ejjeme of 
 matter. The pifcourfe being about a SodI, 
 which Mr. Norrls hath faid figiiifies a fubftance • 
 diftind from matter, he (houjd hav.e ufed the 
 word Subjlance^ inftead of Bang^ in this place ^ 
 and therefore I ftiallkeepto the word Subftance 
 all along, inftead of Being, v;hjch Mr. Norrts 
 doth frequently ufe. Thus, by MAtttr, we 
 
 ave 
 
Ued WORLD. iSi 
 
 Are to under ftand, an extended fuhjiance -^ And 
 a fubftance diftind from extended lubftance, 
 muft be unextended fubftance. 
 
 3. The term Immortal^ is not ufed by Mr. 
 NoYYVs to fignifie Vnperi/hable^ and 06 it vs op^ 
 pofed to Annihilation^ but he means by it Vndif- 
 folvable^ and ufes it 06 oppofed to Corruption. Js 
 Immortal vs taken for Indijfolvablc^ and as 'tis op- 
 pofed to Corruption^ fo nothing but what is Imma- 
 terial can be ImmoYtal •, fince if Material^ it will 
 he Divifibk^ and fo Mortal^ or Corruptible^ p. 9. 
 Thus, Mortal, Corruptible, and Divifible, are 
 three words or the very fame Importance, and 
 by Immortal, we are to underftand Indivifible. 
 
 4. For any thing to be Immortal in its own 
 Nature, is to be above the force of any created 
 Tower to dejlroy it^ p. 8. 
 
 This is the account Mr. Norris has given of 
 what he means by the feveral Terms which 
 make up his firft Argument : So that his Ar- 
 gument is really thus. If extended fubftance 
 be capable of thought, then it cannot polFibly 
 be proved, that unextended fubftance cannot 
 be divided by the force of any created Power. 
 Which feems to me, very like faying. If ex- 
 tended fubftance be capable of thought, then 
 it cannot poffibly be proved that nothing can- 
 not be dsftroy'd or divided by the force of 
 any created Power. But fuppofing the Exi- 
 ftcnce of unextended fubftance, can any thing 
 be more evident, than that it cannot be divi_ 
 ^.t^ dcjd 
 
1 8 2 Remarks on Mr, Nor risV 
 
 dcd by the force of any created Power, tho' 
 extended fiibitance fhould be capable of 
 thought ? Thought has aothing to do in this 
 bufmefs •, for wherever it be lodg'd, nnexten- 
 ded fubftance will be neceflarily indiflblvable, 
 and indivifibie. Thought does not contribute 
 any thing to the Indivifibility of uncxtended 
 fubftance, for it |s in it felf indivifible. Tho* 
 I do not agree with Mr. Narrvs in his Opinion, 
 ttyt Extenlion makes fubftancedivifible, (which, 
 by the^^a^, fully overturns his Argument,) 
 yet 1 am very well fatisfied, that whatfoever 
 is divifiblc, whatfoever can be divided by the 
 force of any created Power, muft be exten- 
 ded. 
 
 Thi Immateriality^ and confeqmntly natural 
 Immortality of the Soul^ is plainly impoffible to be 
 poved^ if Matter can think • Tea^ that there is 
 any fuch thing d5 a Soul in us. Thefe are Mr. 
 iV's words, f. 8. And what a ghaftly Afpe(f]: 
 have they, juft as they Ue there !• what a ter- 
 rible Dinn mull; they make in the Ears of thofe 
 who fnall hear them, and not know any thing 
 of the peculiar meaning he affigns them. It 
 feems there are two things Mr. Narris has a 
 mind fhould be proved, or at leaft that it 
 rr.ould be polTible to prove them. And it is 
 plainly impollible to prove them, he fays, if 
 o^atter, if extended fubfiance can tiunk. What 
 r.hen is to be done ? In fhort, we arc therefore 
 to conclude, that extended fubllance is utterly 
 iincapable of thought : And thus the Point is 
 prefently difpatch'd. Yet we need not be in 
 ius-h great hafte j for the firft thing that is faid 
 
 to 
 
Ideal WORLD. 183 
 
 to be impoffible to be prov'd, taken in its pro- 
 per fenfe, will appear certainly true, if ex- 
 tended fubftance can think. The firfl thing he 
 fays, is plainly impoffible to be proved, if 
 matter can think3 is this, viz.. The Immateri- 
 ality^ and confe<jHently natural Immortality of the 
 Soul. Now, the true fenfe and meaning of 
 thefe words, according to his own account, is, 
 that unextended fubftance is iinextended, and 
 confequently indivifible, or cannot be divided 
 by the force of any created Power. And this 
 carries fo much light with it, there is no need to 
 conclude extended fubftance cannot think, that 
 from thence we may borrow a Proof it. 
 
 But if that Point is fafe enough, had we not 
 much better, without any more a-do, deter- 
 mine that God cannot add a power of thinking 
 to any fyftem of matter, in what manner fo- 
 cvcr difpos'd, than want a Proof that there is 
 any fv.ch thing as a Soul m us ? which is the fe- 
 cond thing he fays is plainly impoffible to be 
 proved, if extended fubftance can think. Yet, 
 ir we confidcr the true fenfe and meaning of 
 all this, it amounts to no more, than that it 
 cannot be proved there is unextended fub- 
 ftance in us ^ That is, it is impoffible to prove 
 there is we do not know what, in us ;, or any 
 fuch thing in us, as we have no Idea of, Now^ 
 what is the Inconvenience, that we cannot 
 prove there i$ fomething in us, of which we 
 have no kka? We havq^an Idea of a thinking 
 ^'tibftance, and we have the fulleft Evidence we 
 
 n defire, that there is a thinking fubftance 
 ( which is what the word 5o«/ is commonly ufed' 
 to fignify ) in us. Mr. 
 
1S4 Remarks on Mr. NorrisV 
 
 Ml. Nofx'vi fays, Ifrideed^ had I but a clear Idea 
 of my ovpn Soul^ filch as I have of Extenfion^ 
 Numbers^ or Figures^ 1 might then^ without trou- 
 Uing my felf about Matter^ barely by confiilting 
 that Jdea^ fee in one and the fame f^ieWy what 
 Properties and A<fodifications it includes^ and con- 
 fecjuently whether Thinking be one of tbem^ p. 7. 
 Here Mr. Norris takes it for granted, that he 
 has a Soul \ that is, unextended Subllance, and 
 tells ns what he could fee in it, if he had a 
 dear Idea oi' it ^ whereas if he had fuch a clear 
 Idea as he fpeaks of, of fubftance, the' exten- 
 ded, he might with equal truth fay the fame 
 of it. He would fee in it all the Properties and 
 Modifications included in the clear Idea of 
 fubftance. For, tho' confidering it as exten- 
 ded, he would find in it an additional Idea, 
 not belonging to it barely as fubftance ^ Yet 
 the adding of a new Property, not being the 
 Exclufion of any of the Properties that belong 
 to fubftance, as fubftance, he would in that 
 clear Idea, fee all the Properties, ^c. which he 
 could fee in the clear Idea he talks of, of un- 
 extended fubftance, or what he calls his own 
 Soul. Eut further. If he had fuch an Idea of 
 unextended fubftance, as he fpeaks of, he 
 might perhaps infer that it is capable of having 
 all manner or kinds of Properties fuperadded 
 to it. But he would not find ExtenfioH, or 
 Thought, or any additional Property included 
 in the Idea of pure ^unextended fubftance. 
 Again, we have but an obfaire Idea of fub- 
 ftance at the beft. When we perceive any 
 Property or AtfeiTiion actually to Exift, we 
 
 have 
 
Ued WORLD. 1S5 
 
 have an obfcure Idea of fubftance that doth 
 fupport it ^ but ot unextended fubftance, or 
 fubftance without any property or afFedion, 
 we have no Idea at all. 
 
 Since unextended fubftance cannot be proved 
 to be the fubjed of thought, by the Idea of 
 unextended fubftance, we having no Idea at all 
 of it j or becaufe as Mr. N. acknowledges, 
 we have not an Idea of it/o clear as is fufficienc 
 for this purpofe, what way is there, to prove 
 there isfuch a thing as a Soul^ as Mr. Norris fpeaks ; 
 that is, unextended fubftance .? There is but 
 one way to prove it, Mr. N, owns, and that is 
 by thought. / camot ( faith he ) be ajfur^d of 
 wy having a Soul, but by my thinking, p. 6. And 
 again, / cannot know that J have any fuhflance in 
 me dijlin^ from my Body, ( he {hould have wrin 
 diftindt from the fubftance of my Body) but 
 by my thinking, p. 9. But if there be no other 
 way to prove the Point, 1 fufped it will never 
 be prov'd. For tho' thought will prove a fub- 
 ftance refted with the power of thinking, 
 (which with fome ordinary People will pafs 
 well enough for a Soul ) yet it will not prove 
 either the prefence, or abfence of another pro- 
 perty in, or from the fame fubftance, and 
 therefore cannot prove that the fubftance in 
 which it is, is unextended. Subftance, w.ith 
 the power of thinking added to it, is thinking 
 fubftance, whether extended or unextended : 
 By Thought, we can know there is thinking 
 fubftance, or fubftance v/hich has a power of 
 thinking added to it ; And that is as much as 
 we can know of ic, by Thought. ' When we 
 
 per- 
 
i86 Remarks on Mr, Norris'i 
 
 perceive any diftind property or afFedion, we 
 can by it know, there is a fubltance that has 
 that afFedion or property added to it • but 
 whether that fubftance has, or has not any 
 other property added to it, or how many other 
 properties are added to it, we cannot knovr, 
 nor fo much as guefs at, by that one Proper- 
 ty. 
 
 But after all, what fhali we do to prove the 
 natural Immortality of the Soul ? For Mr. M 
 fays, the Soul cannot be Immortal • ( that is, it m 
 impojjibk for m /o hiow or prove that it vs Immor- 
 tal ) unlefs it be Immaterial. Now, I do not 
 know what need wc have to concern our felves 
 about the Immortality of fenfelefs, unthink- 
 ing, unextended Subftance • which is the whole 
 that the word Soul is ufed for in this Contro- 
 verfy, more than about the Immortality of 
 fenfelefs, unthinking, extended Subftance. Yet 
 it is certain, that if there be fuch a thing as un- 
 extended Subftance, it is Immortal j that is, 
 Undilfolvable, But Mr. Morris's words come 
 only to this. That unextended Subftance can- 
 not be Immortal, or Undilfolvable, unlefs ir 
 be Unextended. But what is all this talk of 
 the Immortality^ natural Immortality of the Soul^ 
 to the Immortality of a thinking Subftance, or 
 if you will, ot a thinking Soul ? For fuppof^ 
 unextended Subftance the fnbjed of Thought,' 
 tho* pure unextended Subftance be Immortal ^ 
 that is, Undilfolvable, Yet when the power 
 of Thinking is added to it, it is not pure un- 
 extended Subftance, but is a Compound or 
 Complex Being ; And whatever is compoun- 
 ded 
 
Ideal WORLD, 187 
 
 ded, if not material, or unextended, is as re- 
 ally diflblvable, as what is material or exten- 
 ded. If a thinking Being, is, as fuch, natu- 
 rally Immortal, or undiflblvable, then it will 
 be fo, if the power of thinking fhould be ad- 
 ded to extended fubftance. If a thinking Be- 
 ing, is not as a thinking Being, naturally Im- 
 mortal, or undifiblvable, then the natural Im- 
 mortality of unextended fubftance, Ihould the 
 power of Thinking be added to it, would not 
 make the thinking Being naturally Immortal 5 
 no more than it would hinder it from being 
 then a Complex Being. This is Mr. NQYm\ 
 firft Argument, to prove extended fubfirance 
 utterly uncapable ot thought : But I needed 
 not to have faid fo much to it, as I have, be- 
 caufe in the clofe of his Difcourfe on this To- 
 pick, he does in effect, confefs it no Demon- 
 ftration of the Point. But he intimates he will 
 in the following part of his Dilcourfe, pro- 
 duce more direct and convinchiji Proof of it, 
 f will therefore now go to his fecond Argu- 
 ment, which is this, viz. 
 
 Secondly^ That tbe Ideas rf an extended Behig^. 
 ar>d of a thinking Beings arc diJlinCt Ideas, li 
 there were nothing eife to obftruft my expec*t- 
 ing Demonilrative Evidence of the Point under 
 Confidcration this way, than this, that here 
 the V/ hole Itrength of Mr. Norris's Argument, 
 as he manages ir, depends on the truth of an 
 Hypothells tliat is at molt but probable, and 
 cannot pofilbly be demonflratcd -^ this would 
 make me iiifpcd, that when we ave got as fir 
 
 as 
 
1 8 8 Remarks on Mr. NoiTis'i 
 
 as this Argument will lead us, we fhall be as 
 much in the dark as we were at firft, and not 
 one jOt more certain that extended fubftance is 
 utterly uncapable of thought, than at the be- 
 ginning. I (hall not have any occafion to fay 
 any thing to a great part of what he has thought 
 fit to publifh, in treating on this Subjeft. I 
 mult pafs over fome PalTages without taking 
 notice of them, unlefs I would undertake to 
 confute them by his own Hypothefis, or at- 
 tempt a Difcourfe of the Ideal World ^ which 
 may pafs for a pretty Conceit, for a Man to 
 fport and divert himfelf with at times. But I 
 am apt to think it is Mr. Norris^s unhappinefs, 
 who can think fo very well in train, to make 
 it fo much of his bufmefs, to be Twurling Mr. 
 A/albranche's Gig. 
 
 Mr. iVorrw difcourfes to this EfFe£t, Extmfion 
 and Thought are two dijlinU Jdeas^ dijlinCt in their 
 whole kind : and therefore I can ajfuredly fay^ that 
 Extenfion is not Thought, And as thefe are di- 
 ftin&^ becaufe the Idem we have of them are fo^ 
 fo an extended Beings and a thinhng Beiyig, are 
 no lefs difiinli^ becaiifc ire have as dijlind Ideas of 
 them. An extended Being then^ is one things and 
 a thinking Being is another :, and therefore as a 
 thinking Being is not an extended Beings fo neither 
 is an extended Being a thmking Being : And if an 
 extended Being be not a thinking Beings then ts it 
 not a plain Confe([uencc^ that an extended Being 
 cannot think ? p. 15, i5. Th'^s indeed is (faith. 
 Mr. Norris ) a dif patching Demon (Iratlan^ if it 
 be one : But we fhall be the Utter (tbk to judge of it, 
 if jve reduce it to Form^ and then it vpillflaniin this 
 pojlure, if 
 
Id€al WORLD. 189 
 
 // an extended Bein^ he really dijlin^ 
 from a thinking Being, thm an ex^ 
 tended Bei>i2 cannot think ; 
 But an extenddd Bein^^ is really dij^inu 
 
 from A thinking Being • 
 Therefore an extended Being cannot 
 think. 
 All the Queflion (faith Mr. Norris ) voill light 
 upon the Aiinor Propofttion^ K'hetkr an extended 
 Being be really diftinl^ from a tkinling Being ? 
 Which is proved again thus^ 
 
 If the Ideas of an eictendtd Beings and 
 ef a thinking Being are diltincl\ 
 then an extended Bern [ and a think- 
 ing Being are really dijlini}. 
 But the Ideas of theft things are diflinB : 
 Therefore the things themfelvcs are re* 
 allyfo,ip.j6^i7. 
 
 Now, after all the pains Mr. Noiris has been 
 at, to put his Argument into form, his Syllo- 
 gifms are not at all to the purpofe : For that 
 which was to be enquir'd after, that which 
 fhould be proved, is not in either of the Syl- 
 iogifms. The Qiieftion is not about the di- 
 ftiadion of Beings : Not whcrhcr a think'rig 
 Bein^, and an extended Being be diftinfl: Be- 
 ings :' The Enquiry is about the diltindtion of 
 Subftances : Which is not in cither of the Syl- 
 logifms. Beings may be really diflindt, and 
 • their Subilanees be of the very fame kind. The: 
 Qjieftion was. Whether extended Subfianse be ut- 
 terly uncap able of Thoi'ght > And his Arguments 
 fhovdd have been reduced into form thus. 
 
 Q It 
 
190 Remarks on Mr* Norris'i 
 
 If the fubftaace of an extended Be- 
 ing be really diftinft from the 
 fubftaace of a thinking Being, 
 then extended Subftance is utter- 
 ly uncapable of Thought, or 
 cannot think. 
 
 But the fubftance of an extended 
 Being, is really diftinft from the 
 fubftance of a thinking Being ^ 
 
 Therefore extended Subftance is ut- 
 terly uncapable of Thought, or 
 cannot think- 
 All the Queftion now will light upon the Minor 
 Propofition, whether the fubftance of an ex- 
 tended Being be really diftinft from the fub- 
 ftance of a thinking Being ? Which, according 
 to Mr. A^omVs way, rauft be proved thus. 
 
 If the Ideas of the fubftance of an 
 extended Being, and of the fub- 
 ftance of a thinking Being, be 
 really diftin^t, then the fubftance 
 of an extended Being is really di- 
 ftinft from the fubftance of a 
 thinking Being. 
 
 But the Ideas of the fubftance of an 
 extended Being, and of the fub- 
 ftance of a thinking Being, are 
 really diftinct ; 
 
 Therefore the fubftance of an ex- 
 tended Being is really diftind 
 from the fubftance of a thinking* 
 Being. 
 
 When] 
 
Ideal WORLD, 191 
 
 When Ut. Norris Ihall furnifh the World 
 with two really diftind Ideas of Subftance, it 
 may be allowed that one of them is the Idea of 
 Subllance, which fupports ExtenUon : And that 
 the other is the Idea of Subltance which has the 
 power of Thinking appropriated to it •, And 
 chat he has efFedtually proved the Mmor Fropo- 
 fition of the laft Argument, and made his De- 
 monflntion compleat. But till he Ihall do that, 
 he will feem to me to be very much out, ^. 10. 
 when he fays, AH the Queftion will be, whether 
 the Ideas of an extended Suhfiance, and of a 
 thinking Subflance are truly dt^ind ^ that is, di- 
 jlinCt in themfelves, or no ? For all the Queftioii 
 will be, whether there be two really diftin(5i 
 Ideas of Subftance i Whether the Idea of Sub- 
 ltance, to which Extenfion is added, is really 
 diftindt from the Idea of Subftance, to which 
 the Power of Thinking is added ? 
 
 We have no other way ( faith Mr. Norris ) to 
 \udge of the real dijlin^icn of things^ than by the 
 dijUnHion of tkofe Ideas we have of them^ when 
 we think abom them, p. 1 8. Again, ( faith he ) 
 Some will fay diverjity of Ideas does not always 
 infer diverjity of things. But I ask, does it fo?ne- 
 times infer it? If they fay. No, I fay we have then 
 no poffible way whereby to judge of the diverfity of 
 one thing from another .* // they fay, Tes, then they 
 tonfefs the Rule rightly Jlated and (Qualified to be good. 
 And there is bnt one Confideration wanting to fet it 
 right, and to jufiify the Confe^uence from the di- 
 verfity of Ideoi, to the diverfity of things, \h: 
 That the Ideas he dtjlin^ not by Ab^raClion, or in- 
 ad^quatt ConcepioHj but in thttHftives^ arta in their 
 O 7. . own 
 
192 Remarks on Mr. Norris'i 
 
 oirn ahfoluu Nature •, that «, that they be entire 
 and cofti^le^t^ not inada^uate Idtoji^ p. lb. &€. 
 Here Mr. Norrts continues his former miftake, 
 fpeaking of the real diftindion of Things, 
 when the real diftin£tion of Subftances is the 
 Point that fhould be proved. Nothing is more 
 clear, than that things may be really diftinft 
 from one another ^ and we may know them to 
 be fo, and yet their fubllance may be of the 
 fame kind. Ltt fubjlances be placed in the room 
 of things^ and then any Man may eafily perceive 
 how true, and how pertinent thofe Lines are, 
 v^wM refpedt to what was to be proved. To 
 infer regularly a diverfity of Subftances, we 
 111 u ft have divers Ideas of Subftance : But to 
 talk of inferring diverfity of Subftances, from 
 the diverfity of the Ideas we have of Things, 
 would be extrcamly loofe and fulfome. But 
 further, if there be a Creature that agrees 
 with, or anfwers to the Idea of an extended 
 thinktyig Beings neither the Idea of an extended 
 Being,, nor the Idea of a thinking Being, can 
 be an adsequate Idea of that Creature. Now, 
 if it be ask'd, whether the fame Subftance fup- 
 ports both thofe Properties ? Upon its being 
 smfvvered that it is not demonftratively cer- 
 r -lia that it is, or is not ^ he who (hall deny 
 that, will be oblig'd to demonftrate either the 
 one 01 the other. And 'tis certain, he will ne- 
 ver be able to demonfi rate either, by telling a 
 Story of Ideas by which things are made ; and 
 that the Ideas of an extended Being, and of a 
 thinking Being, are entire and compleat Ideas : 
 Tor they are neither of them entire and com- 
 pleat 
 
Ideal WORLD' igi 
 
 pleat Ideas of the Creature fpokenof, but are 
 very inadaequate Ideas of it. 
 
 Moreover, Ideas do not prove the Exigence 
 of things: And our Ideas of things which re- 
 ally Exilt, muft be judged of by their agree- 
 ment with the things themfelves ^ They are 
 adequate or inadaequatc, as they are a regular 
 and compleat, or aconfus'd and imperfect Gol- 
 leftion of all the fimple Ideas, which the pow- 
 ers or properties of the things can furniih an . 
 Obferver with. But, as was hinted above, we 
 have no other Idea of the fubftance of one 
 thing, than we have of the fubftance of ano- 
 ther : Nor can we regularly infer a diverfity 
 of fubftances, from the diverfity of things, or 
 the diverfity of Ideas we have of them. 
 
 One and the fame fnbjiunce ( Mr. N. faith ) 
 may have different Modes^ or manners of Being in 
 *^ f^^ft P« 22. He will mightily oblige Man- 
 kind, if he pleafe todifcover what Idea he has 
 of the Modification of unextended Subflance. 
 
 Mr. Norris^ p. 27, 28. has thefe words. 
 IVhen I can fo far divide and feparate one thing 
 from another in my thoughts^ as to be able not only to 
 conceive one of them without concei uing the other ^ 
 but to have a clear anddijlin^i Concpnon of one^ as 
 Existing ^ tbo* the other were removed out of bein^^ 
 or were fuppofed never to have been ^ / may thm 
 conclude this to be a fure Sign — that the Jdeci6 are 
 abfolute and compleat^ Juch as have no dependance 
 upon^ or Communication with one arrther^ [[Here, 
 by the way, I may take notice, that when he 
 can do foas to Subftance, he will have no caufe 
 to complain of wanting a clear Idea of hi^ own 
 O 5 Sci'.l- 
 
194 Remarks 0ft Mr, i^om%^s 
 Soul ^ that is, of unextcnded Subftancc, and 
 jnay truly apply all he faith in thofe latter 
 times, to his different Ideas of SiflbHance.] 
 and ccnfecjuently that the things rvhofe Ideas they 
 are^ are of a Kind and Order wholly dijlinft. Now, 
 fhis is not the Confequence, confidering what 
 he undertook to prove, which (hould be drawn 
 from his preceding Difcourfe. But his words 
 Jhould have run thus. And confequently, that 
 the Subftances of the things whofe Ideas they 
 are, are of a Kind and Order wiriolly difl:in<ft; 
 Which I conceive every one will eafily perceive 
 has no Conneftion with the Premifes. Hq 
 goes on in thefe words, There hev/ig no further 
 Condition wanting to confirm the Confequence front 
 the diflindion of Ideas^ to the diflinilion of things^ 
 ( he fhould have faid, to the diftinftion of the 
 fubllances of things) than the compleatnefs and 
 intirenefs of thofe fdeas. We may know that 
 things are really diftin(^ one from another, and 
 not know that their Subftances are of as diffe- 
 rent kiiids as their Properties and AfFedions 
 are. But as for the things which God has made, 
 we muft fetch our Ideas of them, from the 
 things themfelves, and not forge Ideas in our 
 Head?, and then determine the Works of God 
 mufl: anfwer to them, becaufe we are willing 
 to dignify them with the Charafter of Ideas. 
 that are in the Divine A<find, and to commend 
 our felves as People who can ftare and gaze 
 upon the Divide Effence. 
 
 Men cannot by the meer E'xercife of their 
 own Faculties, arrive at certainty, that Gcd 
 has not thought fit to put feveral diftind in- 
 " •■ ' ^ depen- 
 
Ides/ WORLD. 195 
 
 dependant Properties or Affe(2^ions, into one 
 and the fame Subftance. But fome who are 
 wedded to an Hypothefis, would have a feve- 
 ral Subftance for every Property, if Creatures 
 were to be formed according to their Model ^ 
 yet it will not become any to be pofitive, that 
 God has produced his Creatures, not according 
 to his own Counfel, but their Fancies, becaufe 
 they arc moft pieas'd with the latter. When 
 we have nothing but the fenfible or evident 
 concurrence of more Properties and Powers 
 in the fame Being, to guide our felves by, we 
 are to acquiefce in this, that there are fuch 
 and fuch Properties and Powers added to Sub- 
 ftance 'y but whether there is only one Sub- 
 ftance to which they are all added, or whe- 
 ther there are more Subftances, is what tran- 
 fcends our knowledge : And we ought to be 
 fatisfied, notwithftanding the darknefs and ob- 
 fcurity in which we are involved as to that 
 matter ; and not grow peevi(h, and throw up 
 all po/Jibility of hnorvv/i^ any thhj^^- bccauie we 
 cannot know that the fubltances of things arc 
 of different kinds, 
 
 Mr. Norris argues thus, // f can mhhcr doubt 
 of my tbinktng^ nor of my Being while I think ^ ^tis 
 plain 7 can conceive a thinking Being to be^ ( as 
 conceiving my felf to be both thinking and being ) 
 and that while I doubt whether there be any Jvch 
 thing as Matter or no. And if I can conceive a think- 
 ing Being to be^ even while I doubt whether there be ariy 
 fuch thing as Matter or no^ th'vs (Ijcws that my con- 
 ceiving a thinking Being to be^ does no way defend 
 upon my ftfpofrig the Exijlcnce of Alatter ^ and 
 O 4 con- 
 
1 96 Remarks on Mr, Norris'i ; 
 
 conjtcjuently^ that I might concave it as weU as / 
 do woip, tho'' I fhould Juppofe Matter not to Exijl ^ 
 as indeed it does not^ as to mc^ while J doubt of it^ 
 p. 29. This does indeed make fome (how^ yet 
 there is a fmall Queftion that docs even of 
 couiTe arife ^ which being conlldercd, will go 
 near to manifcil that it is all but Show. The 
 thinking Being here fpoken of, Mr. Nonis owns 
 is hirtrfelf : And the queition that ftarts up, 
 and demands a folution, is this, J'Fhether that 
 Idea of a thinking Being fpoken of^ be an en- 
 tire and compleat Idea of Mr. Norris ? Thought 
 lidded to Svibftance, makes a thinking Sub- 
 il'ance : And a thinking Subltance may con- 
 ceive it felf to be both thinking, and fubftance, 
 without thinking either of exteided or unex* 
 tended Subftance ; or, as Mr. Norris fays, 
 vvhilfi: it doubts of the Exiftenceof either, or 
 both ; that is, whether there is any thing but 
 thinking Subftance that does Exift. If Thought 
 he added to extended Subflance, that exten- 
 ded Subfbance may conceive it felf to be both 
 jr.bflance and thinking, without conceiving it 
 felf to be extended : But tho' its conceiving a 
 thinking Being (th^t is, it felf) to be, would 
 not defend on its flip fo [in g the Exillence of exten- 
 ded Subftance, yet that would by no means 
 prove that its conceiving a thinking Being ! 
 (viz.. it felf) to be, does no way depend on 
 the Exiflencc of extended Subdance. 
 
 The /, Mr. Norris fpeajss of, is himfclf : 
 And it is more certain Mr. Norris is an exten- 
 ded Subltance, than that he is uncxtended Sub- 
 itance. How let hip doubt as much as he can, 
 
 whe- m 
 
"%' 
 
 Ideal WORLD. 197 
 
 whether there be any fuch thing as extended 
 Subftance, that will never prove that his con- 
 ceiving a thinking Being (wz.. himfelf) to be, 
 does no way depend on the Exiftence of exten- 
 ided Subftance. If he doubts whether there is 
 any fuch thing as extended Subftance, yet he is 
 not certain that that thinking Subftance is not 
 extended : And to make his Argument con- 
 clude, he muft be certain there is no fuch thing 
 as extended Subftance ; for other wife he can- 
 not be fure the thinking Subftance he fpeaks of, 
 is not extended. His doubting alters not the 
 nature or truth of things : Yea, his doubting 
 plainly manifefts, that for ought he knows, 
 that tliinking Subftance may be extended. Afy 
 conceiving a thinking Beings does no way defend 
 upon my fi*ppo/ing the Exiftence of Matter^ p. lb. 
 But that thinking Subftance may be extended, 
 without your fuppofing it to be fo, / might con- 
 ceive it 06 well 06 I do now^ tho* J fiiould fuppofe 
 Matter to Exijl. But if that thinking Subftance 
 be extended, will your conceiving it to be a 
 thinking Being, and fuppofing extended Sub- 
 ftance not to Exift, alter the cafe ? Or will 
 that your Idea be an entire, compleat, and adse- 
 quate Idea of it ? / am fully fure there is fuch a 
 thinking Being as I conceive, even while J doubt of 
 the Exiftence of Matter. Are you fully fure, 
 that thinking Subftance is not extended ? / am 
 certain it is a thinki}ig Being, and that which I am 
 ctrtain of, can no way depend upon that which 1 am 
 ili doubt of •, fince if it did, it would be as dcnbtful 
 ai the ether, p. lb. Your certainty arifes from 
 your conffioufnefs of Thought, which muft 
 
 be 
 
1 9^ Rem/trks on Mr, Norr isV 
 
 be in fome Subftance, but does not determine, 
 or make you certain, what kind of Subftancc 
 it is in : And that there is not any thing of 
 rcafon, any ftrength in what you fay, will evi- 
 dently appear from this one Conlideration, 
 viz^. You will be as certain that you are athinkr 
 ing Being, or that there is fuch a thinking Be- 
 ing as you conceive, tho' you doubt as much of 
 the Exiftence of created immaterial Subflance, 
 and fuppofe as violently that unextended Sub- 
 ftance is a pure Non Ens. Mr. Norris faith, / 
 can have an Idea of a thinking Beings tbo* I had no 
 Idea, of Matter : Nayy ( were fuch a fuppo/ition 
 fojftbk ) tho^ there were indeed no fuch Idea at all, 
 p. 3 2. To which I anfwer. He may have an 
 Idea of a thinking Being, without having an 
 Idea of unextended Subftance ; and for this 
 Reafon, that it is not pofTible to have any 
 Idea at all of unextended Subftance. 
 
 The Ideas of thinking Beings (faith Mr. Norris^ 
 and extended Beifg^ are compleat and really difiind 
 Ideas, and not one and the fame Idea incompleatly 
 confidered. jind if the Ideas of thefe things are 
 really dijlin^, then the things conceived by thefe 
 Ideas, are as really and verily diflind, as the Ideas 
 themfelves are,p. S9- To this I "anfwer, i. That 
 things are as really diftind one from the other, 
 as the Ideas are diftinft from one another. 
 3. Tbc Confequence was not to be, as it is here, 
 then the things conceived by thefe Ideas, are as 
 really difliaft, &c^ but thus. Then the Snb- 
 Jltances of the things conceived by thsfe Ideas, 
 arc as really and verily diftinct as the Ideas 
 themfelves are : Which is what was to be pro- 
 ved, 
 
Ideal WORLD. 199 
 
 ved, but has no manner of Connexion with 
 the foregoing Difcourfe. To have prov'd his 
 Point, he (hould have difcours'd in this man- 
 ner. The Ideas of the fubftance of thinking 
 Being, and of the fubftance of extended Being, 
 are compleat and really diflinft Ideas, and not 
 one and the fame Idea incompleatly confidered. 
 And if the Ideas of thefe Subftances are really 
 diftind:, then the Subftances conceived by thefe 
 Ideas, are as really and verily diltind as the 
 Ideas themfelves arc. Here the Confequence is 
 to the purpofe : And it is clear, obvious, and 
 undeniable, and nothing remains to be proved, 
 but that the Ideas of the fubftance of thinking 
 Being, and of the fubftance of extended Being, 
 are compleat and really diftinft Ideas : Which 
 will be done, as foon as ever they are produc'd 
 and brought to light. 
 
 Things will be really diftin£V, and the Ideas 
 which agree with them, will be really diftind 
 too, tho* the Subftancc be of the fame kind. 
 The diftindion of Ideas, is from the diftindti- 
 onof Properties of which the Ideas mainly con- 
 fift ; as diftinft Properties and AfFedtions do 
 make things to be diftinO: : For, as to Sub- 
 ftance, we know no more of it, than that it 
 does fupport thofc Properties, &c. The di- 
 ftinftion of things, is not grounded on their 
 Subftances being of diftinft kinds, but on di- 
 ftinft Properties added to Subftance, without 
 regarding, whether other Properties are added 
 to the fame Subftance or no, or how many. 
 
 jin extended Subjl once ( Mr. iVorm iaith) wiil 
 be af difiin&fYom a thinking Subftance ^ as Extenfion 
 
 ii 
 
200 Remarks on Mr, NorrJsV 
 
 h from Thoughtj p. 41 . In this, I think Mr- 
 iVbrm is right. My reafon is, becaufe Exten- 
 fion and Thought make all the difference. But 
 Mr. Norris fliould have proved, that Subltancc 
 which has Extenfion added to it, is as diftindt 
 from Subftance, which has Thought added to it^ 
 as Extenfion is diftin6: from Thought. An 
 extended Subftance, is Subftance veftcd with 
 Extenfion. Now, what Idea has any Man of 
 that Subftance, that excludes Thought, more 
 than Extenfion ? We have an Idea of Extenfion, 
 and we fee that Thought has no neceiTary Con- 
 neftio;i with it, nor any confequential Refult 
 from it ^ and therefore is not any AfFedion of 
 Extenfion, nor does naturally belong to it : 
 But how does it follow from hence, that it may 
 not be made an AfFedion of, or be annexed to 
 that Subftance to which Extenfion is added ? 
 Something m^ift be found in the Idea of that 
 Sirtjftance that excludes Thought, more than 
 fextenfion,-or elfe all that can befaid of diftinft 
 Ideas, and diftindl: Beings, will not make it out 
 demonftratively that Thought cannot be added 
 to extended Subftance. 
 
 //' an extended Subftance ( faith Mr. Norris ) 
 can think ^ that is^ a Sub fiance whofe Efftnce is to 
 be extended^ then it rrill be neceffary that Thought 
 fhould proceed from Extenfion, [_ as every Property 
 that is in a thvng^ mujl proceed mediately er imme- 
 diatsly from the Nature or Ejfence of that thi}ig^~\ 
 p. 42, &c. This Difcourfe would afford jiift 
 ground for variety of Refledions : But I will 
 content my felf with taking notice, i. That I 
 apprehend the words within the Crotchets, 
 
 Ihoiild 
 
Ident WORLD, 201 
 
 (hould have been a little altered, to make them 
 agree more exactly with the Importance of 
 thofe before them ^ and that they fhould have 
 run thus, [ As every Property that is in a Sub- 
 ftance, muft proceed mediately or immediately 
 from the Nature or EfTence of that Subftaace. j 
 2. That thus, from the whole Difcourfe, Mr. 
 AVm muft intimate he has fuch a compleat di- 
 ftinft Idea of Subftance which is extended, he 
 finds in it fomething that excludes Thought 
 ftiore than Extenfion, and from which Exten- 
 fion muft proceed mediately or immediately. 
 Yet, 3. That he exprefleth himfelf fo in the 
 former part of this Difcourfe, as if he had no 
 Idea at all of Subftance, confidered dittindly 
 from Matter ^ but did take Matter and Sub- 
 ftance, to be tw© words fignifying and expref- 
 fing the fame Idea. For extended Subftance, 
 is, according to Mr. Nonis^ the EfTence of 
 Matter • or to be Extended, is the Nature 
 and EflTence of what we lignify by the word 
 Matter. And here he fpeaks of a Subftance, 
 vohofe Ejjence is to be Extended. New, if to be 
 Extended, is the ElTence of Subftance, Sub- 
 ftance and Matter, muft be only-two words to 
 fignify and exprefs one and the fame Idea. If 
 he makes the Effence of the Subjlance^ which is 
 Extended, to he Extended ; then, according to 
 him, there cannot be unextended Subftance ^ 
 for nothing can be Subftance, which has not 
 the EfTence of Subftance : And at this rate, 
 thinking Subftance muft necefTarily be Exten- 
 ded. If all Subftance is not Extended, then 
 to be Extended, cannot be the EfTence of that 
 
 Sub- 
 
202 Remarks on Mr. NorrisV 
 
 Subftancc which is Material : For the Eflence 
 of that Subftance which is Matter, muft be the 
 fame with what is the Eflence of ail other Sub- 
 ftances, be that what it will j unlefs the word 
 Subftancc, when ufed with refpcd to Matter, 
 has no fenfe, or is ufed very improperly. But, 
 4. If by a Subftance whofe Eflence is to be Ex- 
 tended, he means no more than Matter or Sub- 
 ftance to which that Property or AfFeftion is 
 added, which makes it to be Extended, what 
 he hath faid here, will ferve his Purpofe very 
 little : Not one jot more, becaufe he has 
 brought in the words, Ejfence and Nature^ than 
 \f he had left them both out. For, if a power 
 of Thinking fliould be added to a Subftancc to 
 which Extenfion is added. To be able to think^ 
 will be as much the Effence of that Subftance, 
 as to be Extended is the Eflence of it : And 
 Thought, with the various Modes of it, will 
 proceed, not from Extenfion, as Mr. Norris 
 fays, or from the Subftance as Extended ; but 
 from it, as having a power of Thinking. To 
 fay then. An Extended Subftance is a Subftance 
 whofe Eflence is to be Extended, is no more in 
 plain Englifh, than to fay. It is Matter, or a 
 Subftance which has that Property or AfFedtion 
 added to it, that makes it to be Extended. 
 And if any other diftinft, indcpendant Pro- 
 perty or Affe6tion be added to the fame Sub- 
 ftance, it's Eflence will be, to be what that 
 Property makes k. And it will have equal 
 Right to be denominated from that Property, 
 as from Extenlion ^ and the Modifications be- 
 longing to it, will not be to be accounted for, 
 
 a? 
 
Ideal WORLD, 20^ 
 
 as proceeding only from Extenfion : For none 
 will dircdly belong to it on that account, but 
 what would have belong'd to it, if no other 
 Property bad been added to it. The other 
 Modifications belonging to it, are to be accoua- 
 ted for, as proceeding from it by vertue of it's 
 baring one, or more, other Properties added 
 to it. 
 
 Mr. Norm's Third Argument is this, 
 
 Thirdly, That if Cod fhould fuperadd a power 
 of thinhng to Matter, the Species would thereby be 
 changed •, andfo tt would not be Matter, butfome- 
 thing elfe that would think. To give Matter a 
 Power or terftBion that is no way contained in the 
 Idea or Intelligible EJfence of Matter, this would be 
 to alter the Species ; and injlead of making Matter 
 to do this or that, to male fomething elfe to do it, 
 which w not Matter. Jf then God can make Mat- 
 ter think, it mufi be by fomething contain' d in the 
 Idea or Effence of Matter ; for a/i for any fuperin- 
 duced Terfcdion that is not within the comprehenfton 
 of that Bffence, that would make a change in the 
 Species, p. 5 ' . By Species here, is meant Ex- 
 tended Subftance, the Idea Mr. Norris fignifies 
 by the word Matter. The altering of this 
 Species here fpoken of, is not the taking of 
 Extenfion away from the Subftance vefted with 
 it , but the giving to the fame Subftance, which 
 ftill continues to be Extended, a Power, viz.. z 
 Power of Thinking, that is no way contained 
 in the Idea of Extenfion, or of Extended Sub- 
 ftance j which with Mr, Norris^ is Matter, 
 
 Thus. 
 
) 
 
 2C>\ Remarks on Mr, Norn's'j 
 
 Thus, notwithfVaading the alteration of the 
 Species fpoken of, the Subftance does not ceafb 
 to be Extended, but continues Extended Sub- 
 ftance after that the Power of Thinking is 
 given to it. Now, if any thing is done^ after 
 the Power of Thinking is given •, tliat is, if 
 there be Thought, it is not the Power that 
 docs it, it is not the Power of Thinking that 
 thinks •, for Powers cannot operate, but that 
 to which the Power is given. And if the Power 
 of Thinking be given to Extended Subftance, 
 then Extended Subftance can think : For what 
 has a Power to think, can think. If it fhall be 
 ftill faid. But the Species is alter'd, and there- 
 fore it is not Extended Subftance, or Matter, 
 but fomething elfe that fhinks, I would ask 
 what that fomething elfe is, that thinks ? If 
 the anfvver be. It is thinking Subftance, I 
 would enquire whether that thinking Subftance 
 is not Extended ? Which muft be acknow- 
 ledge, fince we are fpeaking of Extended Sub- 
 ftance, to which the Power of Thinking is 
 given : And if that Subftance which thinks, is 
 Extended, can any thing be plainer than this, 
 that it is Extended Subftance that thinks ? Nei- 
 ther Extended, nor Unextended Subftance is 
 contained in the Idea of thinking Subftance: 
 Add either of them to that Idea, you alter 
 the Species. But it is certain, if the Power of 
 Thinking be given to an Extended Subftance, 
 that Extended Subftance can think, not by 
 Virtue of its being Extended, but notwith» 
 
 ftanding it is Extended. 
 
 Accor- 
 
Ided py RLD, 205 
 
 According to Mr. Norrh\ way of Arguing 
 here, it may with equal llrength be Argued 
 that Subitance cannot think : For Thought is 
 not cofttain'd in the Idea of Subitance ^ And 
 Subftance cannoc think, except a Power of 
 Thinking be given to it. Nor will that do : 
 For, if God can make Subjlance think^ it -rauft be 
 by fomething contain'' d in the Idea or Effence of Sub" 
 fiance: For as for any fiiper induced Perfe^ion^ that 
 is not within the com^rehenfton of that Ejfence^ 
 that would make a change in the Species ^ andfo in- 
 fiead of making Subjlance to think^ he would make 
 fomething elfe to think^ which is not Subjlance. For 
 the Idea of a thing (Mr. iVbmjfays) is themea- 
 fure of its Species ^ and if any thing be fupcrad- 
 dedj that i/s not in the Idea of a thing • it mujl 
 necejjarily vary the Species of it. The Idea of a 
 thing does one way or other comprehend within its 
 Extent^ whatever belongs to the thing xvhofe Idea it 
 "1 P- 53- Thus, according to this way of 
 Arguing, God, inltead of making Subftance to 
 think, .by giving it a Power of Thinking, will 
 make fomething elfe to think : Which founds 
 to me very like a Contradidion ^ and is, as if 
 he had faid, that God by giving a Power of 
 Thinking to one thing, will not make- that 
 thing able to think, but will make fomething 
 clfc able to think, to v/hich he has not given 
 that Power. 
 
 Mr, Norris^akh^ 'Tis plain ^ Matter^ (or Ex- 
 tended Subftance ) cannot have Thought^ and re- 
 main what it if^ p. 54,. With equal truth and 
 evidence, we may fay, A Soul canaot have 
 Thought, and remain what it is, vix,. Unex- 
 
 P tende;! 
 
CLo6 Remarks on Mr, NorrisV, &c. 
 
 tended Subftaace. Who would have imagined 
 that Thought ftiould be fo deftruftive both to 
 Extended and Unextended Subftance, or which 
 ever may have it ? Or that if Mr. Norris^s 
 Soul, fhould once think, he muft unavoidably fall 
 under that Grand Misfortune of infallibly lo- 
 fing his own Soul ? 
 
 The PaiTages already quoted, comprehend 
 ( I think ) the whole force of what Mr. Norm 
 hath faid about the Point in quellion ; and 
 what has been reply'd, appears to me to make 
 it manifeft it hath not been demonftratively 
 proved, that Extended Suhflance is utterly unca- 
 p ible of Thought. 
 
 I am J 
 SIR, 
 
 Tour mofi Humble Servant^ 
 
 FINIS, 
 
.i 
 
%A:,- 7 
 
 
f(ich^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^^ ^ <dSi^^fr?f/^ 
 
 <^a^ru. 
 
 «^ 
 
 ^^'-^^fi /0^ 
 
 -^^ 
 
■>^ •■ ■iy -^^^'-^ifi^^^ ^H*J*-';:^ji :W'i 
 
 tizyy'^ 
 
 ■:i\ 
 
F:'^'^ 
 
 »■". **. V.