slander and injury to a man's neighbour. And yet to these shameful arts must he be driven, who finding his strength of managing a cause to lie only in fiction and falsehood, has no other but the dull Billingsgate way of covering it, by endeavouring to divert the reader's observation and censure from himself by a confident repeated imputation of that to his adversary, which he himself is so frequent in the commission of. And of this the instances I have given are a sufficient proof; in which I have been at the pains to set down the words on both sides, and the pages where they are to be found, for the reader's full satisfaction.

The cause in debate between us is of great weight, and concerns every Christian. That any evidence in the proposal, or defence of it, can be sufficient to conquer all men's prejudices, is vanity to imagine. But this, I think, I may justly demand of every reader, that since there are great and visible falsehoods on one side or the other (for the accusations of this kind are positive and frequent) he would examine on which side they are: and upon that I will venture the cause in any reader's judgment, who will but be at the pains of turning to the pages marked out to him; and as for him that will not do that, I care not much what he says.

The creed-maker's following words, p. 258, have the natural mark of their author. They are these: "How can this animadverter come off with peremptorily declaring, that subjective faith is not inquired into in the treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. when in another place, p. 35 and 36, he avers, That Christian faith and Christianity, considered subjectively, are the same ?" Answ. In which words there are two manifest untruths: the one is, "That Mr. Bold peremptorily declares, that subjective faith is not inquired into, i. e. spoken of, in the Reasonableness of Christianity," &c. Whereas Mr. Bold says in that place, p. 31, "If he [i. e. the author] had not said one word concerning faith subjectively considered." The creed-maker's other untruth is his saying, "That the animadverter avers, p. 35, 36, that Christian faith and Christianity, considered subjectively, are the same." Whereas it is evi

dent, that Mr. Bold, arguing against these words of the creed-maker ("The belief of Jesus being the Messiah was one of the first and leading acts of Christian faith"), speaks in that place of an act of faith, as these words of his demonstrate: "Now, I apprehend that Christian faith and Christianity, considered subjectively, (and an act of Christian faith, I think, cannot be understood in any other sense) are the very same." I must therefore desire him to set down the words wherein the animadverter peremptorily declares,

LIII. That subjective faith is not inquired into, or spoken of, in the treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c.

And next, to produce the words wherein the animad

verter avers,

LIV. That Christian faith and Christianity, considered subjectively, are the same.

To the creed-maker's saying, "That the author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, &c. brings us no tidings of evangelical faith belonging to Christianity," Mr. Bold replies: That I have done it in all those pages where I speak of taking and accepting Jesus to be our King and Ruler; and particularly he sets down my words out of pages 119, &c.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

The creed-maker says, p. 59 of his Socinianism unmasked, that the author of the Reasonableness of Christianity" tells men again and again, that a Christian man, or member of Christ, needs not know or believe any more than that one individual point." To which Mr. Bold thus replies, p. 33: "If any man will show me those words in any part of the Reasonableness, &c. I shall suspect I was not awake all the time I was reading that book: and I am as certain as one awake can be that there are several passages in that book directly contrary to these words. And there are some expressions in the Vindication of the Reasonableness, &c. one

would think, if Mr. Edwards had observed them, they would have prevented that mistake."

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Mr. Bold, p. 34, takes notice, that the creed-maker had not put the query, or objection, right, which, he says, "Some, and not without some show of ground, may be apt to start: and therefore Mr. Bold puts the query right, viz. "Why did Jesus Christ, and his apostles, require assent to, and belief of, this one article alone, viz. That Jesus is the Messiah, to constitute and make a man a Christian, or true member of Christ (as it is abundantly evident they did, from the Reasonableness of Christianity), if the belief of more articles is absolutely necessary to make and constitute a man a Christian ?" But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

And therefore I put the objection, or query, to him again, in Mr. Bold's words, and expect an answer to it, viz.

LV. Why did Jesus Christ, and his apostles, require assent to, and belief of, this one article alone, viz. That Jesus is the Messiah, to make a man a Christian (as it is abundantly evident they did, from all their preaching, recorded throughout all the whole history of the Evangelists and the Acts), if the belief of more articles be absolutely necessary to make a man a Christian?

The creed-maker having made believing Jesus to be the Messiah only one of the first and leading acts of Christian faith; Mr. Bold, p. 35, rightly tells him, That "Christian faith must be the belief of something or other and if it be the belief of any thing besides this, that Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah, that other thing should be specified; and it should be made appear, that the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, without the belief of that other proposition, is not Christian faith."

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Mr. B-d, in the four following pages, 36-39, has excellently explained the difference between that faith which constitutes a man a Christian, and that faith

whereby one that is a Christian believes the doctrines taught by our Saviour, and the ground of that differ-. ence and therein has fully overturned this proposition, "That believing Jesus to be the Messiah is but a step, or the first step, to Christianity."

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

To the creed-maker's supposing that other matters of faith were proposed with this, that Jesus is the Messiah; Mr. Bold replies, That this should be proved, viz. that other articles were proposed, as requisite to be believed to make men Christians. And, p. 40, he gives a reason why he is of another mind, viz. "Because there is nothing but this recorded, which was insisted on for that purpose.'

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Mr. Bold, p. 42, shows that Rom. x. 9, which the creed-maker brought against it, confirms the assertion of the author of the Reasonableness, &c. concerning the faith that makes a man a Christian.

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

The creed-maker says, p. 78, "This is the main answer to the objection (or query above proposed), viz. That Christianity was erected by degrees." This Mr. Bold, p. 43, proves to be nothing to the purpose, by this reason, viz. "Because what makes one man a Christian, or ever did make any man a Christian, will at any time, to the end of the world, make another man a Christian:" and asks, “Will not that make a Christian now which made the apostles themselves Christians ?" But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

In answer to his sixth chapter, Mr. Bold, p. 45, tells him, "It was not my business to discourse of the Trinity, or any other particular doctrines, proposed to be believed by them who are Christians; and that it is no fair and just ground to accuse a man with rejecting the doctrines of the Trinity, and that Jesus is God, because he does not interpret some particular texts to the same purpose others do."

But to this Mr. Edwards answers not.

Indeed, he takes notice of these words of Mr. Bold, in this paragraph, viz." Hence Mr. Edwards takes oc

casion to write many pages about these terms [viz. Messiah and Son of God]; but I do not perceive tha he pretends to offer any proof that these were not synonymous terms amongst the Jews at that time, which is the point he should have proved, if he designed to invalidate what this author says about that matter." To this the creed-maker replies, p. 257, "The animadverter doth not so much as offer one syllable to disprove what I delivered, and closely urged on that head." Answ. What need any answer to disprove, where there is no proof brought, that reaches the proposition in question? If there had been any such proof, the producing of it, in short, had been a more convincing argument to the reader than so much bragging of what has been done. For here are more words spent (for I have not set them all down) than would have served to have expressed the proof of this proposition, viz. that the terms above-mentioned were not synonymous amongst the Jews, if there had been any proof of it. But having already examined what the creed-maker brags he has closely urged, I shall say no more of it here.

To the creed-maker's making me a Socinian, in his eighth chapter, for not naming Christ's satisfaction among the advantages and benefits of Christ's coming. into the world; Mr. Bold replies, "1. That it is no proof, because I promised not to name every one of them. And the mention of some is no denial of others." 2. He replies, That "satisfaction is not so strictly to be termed an advantage, as the effects and fruits of it are; and that the doctrine of satisfaction instructs us in the way how Christ did, by divine appointment, obtain those advantages for us." And this was an answer that deserved some reply from the creed-maker.

But to this he answers not. Mr. Bold says right, that this is a doctrine that is of mighty importance for a Christian to be well acquainted with. And I will add to it, that it is very hard for a Christian, who reads the Scripture with attention and an unprejudiced mind, to deny the satisfaction of Christ: but it being a term not used by the Holy Ghost in the

VOL. VII.

E E

12