find " I contended for one single article, so as to exclude " all the rest?" You might have remembered that I say, p. 1, 17, That the article of the one only true God, was also necessary to be believed. This might have satisfied you, that I did not so contend for one ar ticle of faith, as to be at defiance with more than one. However, you insist on the word one with great vigour, from p. 108 to 121. And you did well, you had else lost all the force of that killing stroke reserved for the close, in that sharp jest of Unitarians, and a clench or two more of great moment.
Having found, by a careful perusal of the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles, that the religion they proposed, consisted in that short, plain, easy arid intelli gible summary which I set down, p. 157, in these words: " Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised, and tak- " ing him, now raised from the dead, and constituted " the Lord and Judge of men, to be their King and Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 175 " Ruler;" I could not forbear magnifying the wisdom and goodness of God (which infinitely exceeds the thoughts of ignorant, vain, and narrow-minded man) in these following words: " The All-merciful God seems " herein to have consulted the poor of this world, and " the bulk of mankind: THESE ARE ARTICLES that the " labouring and illiterate man may comprehend." Having thus plainly mentioned more than one article, I might have taken it amiss, that Mr. Edwards should be at so much pains as he is, to blame me for " con- " tending for one" article; because I thought more than one could not be understood; had he not had many fine things to say in his declamation upon one article, which affords him so much matter, that less than seven pages could not hold it. Only here and there, as men of oratory often do, he mistakes the business, as p. 115, where he says, " I urge, that there must be nothing in " Christianity that is not plain, and exactly levelled to " all men's mother-wit." I desire to know where I said so, or that " the very manner of every thing in " Christianity must be clear and intelligible, every thing " must be presently comprehended by the weakest nod- " die, or else it is no part of religion, especially of " Christianity;" as he has it, p. 119. I am sure it is not in p. 133 — 136, 149 — 151, of my book: these, therefore, to convince him that I am of another opinion, I shall desire somebody to read to Mr. Edwards, for he himself reads my book with such spectacles, as make him find meanings and words in it, neither of which I put there. He should have remembered, that I speak not of all the doctrines of Christianity, nor all that is published to the world in it; but of those truths only, which are abso-4 lutely required to be believed to make any one a Chris tian. And these, I find, are so plain and easy, that I see no reason why every body, with me, should not mag nify the goodness and condescension of the Almighty, who having, out of his free grace, proposed a new law of faith to sinful and lost man; hath, by that law, re quired no harder terms, nothing as absolutely necessary to be believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and the comprehension of illiterate men.
176 A Vindication of the You are a little out again, p. 118, where you ironi cally say, as if it were my sense, " Let us have but one " article, though it be with defiance to all the rest." Jesting apart, sir, this is a serious turn, that what our Saviour and his apostles preached, and admitted men into the church for believing, is all that is absolutely required to make a man a Christian. But this is, with out any " defiance to all the rest," taught in the word of God. This excludes not the belief of any of those many other truths contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which it is the duty of every Christian to study, and thereby build himself up in our most holy faith; receiving with stedfast belief, and ready obedience, all those things which the spirit of truth hath therein revealed. But that all the rest of the in spired writings, or, if you please, " articles, are of equal " necessity" to be believed to make a man a Christian, with what was preached by our Saviour and his apostles, that I deny. A man, as I have shown, may be a Chris tian and believer, without actually believing them, because those whom our Saviour and his apostles, by their preaching and discourses,' converted to the faith, were made Christians and believers, barely upon the re ceiving what they preached to them.
I hope it is no derogation to the Christian religion, to say, that the fundamentals of it, i. e. all that is ne cessary to be believed in it, by all men, is easy to be understood by all men. This I thought myself autho rized to say, by the very easy and very intelligible arti* cles, insisted on by our Saviour and his apostles; which contain nothing but what could be understood by the bulk of mankind: a term which, I know not why, Mr. Edwards, p. 117, is offended at; and thereupon is, after his fashion, sharp upon me about captain Tom and his myrmidons, for whom, he tells me, I am " going to " make a religion." The making of religions and creeds I leave to others. I only set down the Christian religion as I find our Saviour and his apostles preached it, and preached it to, and left it for, the " ignorant and un- " learned multitude." For I hope you do not think, how contemptibly soever you speak of the " venerable Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 177 *' mob," as you are pleased to dignify them, p. 117, that the bulk of mankind, or, in your phrase, the " rabble," are not concerned in religion, or ought to understand it, in order to their salvation. Nor are you, 1 hope, acquainted with any who are of that Muscovite divine's mind, who, to one that was talking to him about religion, and the other world, replied, That for the czar, indeed, and bojars, they might be permitted to raise their hopes to heaven; but that for such poor wretches as he, they were not to think of salvation* I remember the pharisees treated the common people with contempt, and said, " Have any of the rulers, or " of the pharisees, believed in him? But this people, " who knoweth not the law, are cursed." But yet these, who in the censure of the pharisees, were cursed, were some of the poor; or, if you please to have it so, the mob, to whom the " gospel was preached " by our Saviour, as he tells John's disciples, Matt. xi. 5.
Pardon me, sir, that I have here laid these examples and considerations before you; a little to prevail with you not to let loose such a torrent of wit and eloquence against the " bulk of mankind," another time, and that for a mere fancy of your own: for I do not see how they here came in your way; but that you were resolved to set up something to have a fling at, and show your parts, in what you call your " different strain," though besides the purpose. I know nobody was going to " ask " the mob, What you must believe?'* And as for me, I suppose you will take my word for it, that I think no mob, no, not your " venerable mob," is to be asked, what I am to believe; nor that " Articles of faith" are to be " received by the vote of club-men," or any other sort of men, you will name instead of them.
In the following words, p. 115, you ask, " Whether " a man may not understand those articles of faith, " which you mentioned out of the gospels and epistles, " if they be explained to him, as well as that one, I " speak of? " It is as the articles are, and as they are explained. There are articles that have been some hundreds of years explaining; which there are many, and those not of the most illiterate, who profess they dp K K 1 78 A Vindication of the not yet understand. And to instance in no other, but " He descended into hell," the learned are not yet agreed in the sense of it, though great pains have been taken to explain it.
Next, I ask, Who are to explain your articles? The papists will explain some of them one way, and the reformed another. The remonstrants, and anti-remon strants, give them different senses. And probably, the trinitarians and Unitarians will profess, that they un derstand not each others explications. And at last, I think it may be doubted, whether any articles, which need men's explications, can be so clearly and certainly understood, as one which is made so very plain by the scripture itself, as not to need any explication at all. Such is this, that Jesus is the Messiah. For though you learnedly tell us, that Messiah is a Hebrew word, and no better understood by the vulgar, than Arabic; yet I guess it is so fully explained in the New Testament, and in those places I have quoted out of it, that nobody, who can understand any ordinary sentence in the scrip ture, can be at a loss about it. And it is plain, it needs no other explication, than what our Saviour and the apostles gave it in their preaching; for, as they preached it, men received it, and that sufficed to make them be lievers.
To conclude, when I heard that this learned gentle man, who had a name for his study of the scriptures, and writings on them, had done me the honour to con sider my treatise, I promised myself, that his degree, calling, and fame in the world, would have secured to me something of weight in his remarks, which might have convinced me of my mistakes; and, if he had found any in it, justified my quitting of them. But having ex amined what, in his, concerns my book, I to my wonder find, that he has only taken pains to give it an ill name, without so much as attempting to refute any one position in it, how much soever he is pleased to make a noise against several propositions, which he might be free with, because they are his own: and I have no rea son to take it amiss if he has shown his zeal and skill against them. He has been so favourable to what is Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 1 79 mine, as not to use any one argument against any pas sage in my book. This, which I take for a public testi mony of his approbation, I shall return him my thanks for, when I know whether I owe it to his mistake, con viction, or kindness. But if he writ only for his book seller's sake, he alone ought to thank him.
AFTER the foregoing papers were sent to the press, the " Witnesses to Christianity," of the reverend and learned Dr. Patrick, now lord bishop of Ely, fell into my hands. I regretted the not having seen it, before I writ my treatise of the " Reasonableness of Christianity, " &c." I should then, possibly, by the light given me by so good a guide, and so great a man, with more con fidence directly have fallen into the knowledge of Christianity; which, in the way T sought it, in its source, required the comparing of texts with texts, and the more than once reading over the Evangelists and Acts, besides other parts of scripture. But I had the ill luck not to see that treatise, until so few hours since, that I have had time only to read as far as the end of the in troduction or first chapter: and there Mr. Edwards may find, that this pious bishop (whose writings show he studies, as well as his life that he believes, the scrip tures) owns what Mr. Edwards is pleased to call, " a " plausible conceit," which, he says, " I give over and " over again in these formal words, viz. That nothing " is required to be believed by any Christian man, but " this, That Jesus is the Messiah."
The liberty Mr. Edwards takes, in other places, de serves not it should be taken upon his word, " That " these formal words " are to be found " over and over " again " in my book, unless he had quoted the pages. But I will set him down the " formal words,'* which are to be found in this reverend prelate's book, p. 14, " To be the Son of God, and to be Christ, being but " different expressions of the same thing." Arid, p. 10, 4< It is the very same thing to believe, that Jesus is the " Christ, and to believe, that Jesus is the Son of God; " express it how you please. This ALONE is the faith " which can regenerate a man, and put a divine spirit 180 A Vindication, fyc.
" into him; that is, make him a conqueror over the " world, as Jesus was." I have quoted only these few words; but Mr. Edwards, if he pleases, or any body else, may, in this first chapter, satisfy himself more fully, that the design of it is to show, that in our Sa viour's time, " Son of God," was a known and received name and appellation of the Messiah, and so used in the holy writers. And that the faith that was to make men Christians, was only the believing, '* that Jesus is " the Messiah." It is to the truth of this proposition that he " examines his witnesses/* as he speaks, p. 21. And this, if I mistake not, in his epistle dedicatory, he calls " Christianity; " fol. A 3, where he calls them " witnesses to Christianity." But these two proposi tions, viz. That " SON OF GOD," in the gospel, stands for Messiah; and that the faith, which alone makes men Christians, is the believing " Jesus to be the Mes- " siah," displeases Mr. Edwards so much in my book, that he thinks himself authorized from them, to charge me with socinianism, and want of sincerity. How he will be pleased to treat this reverend prelate, whilst he is alive (for the dead may, with good manners, be made bold with) must be left to his decisive authority. This, I am sure, which way soever he determine, he must, for the future, either afford me more good company, or fairer quarter.
A SECOND VINDICATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY, &c.
PREFACE TO THfi READER, IT hath pleased Mr. Edwards, in answer to the " Rea- " sonableness of Christianity, &c." and its " Vindi- " cation," to turn one of the most weighty and import ant points that can come into question (even no less, than the very fundamentals of the Christian religion), into a mere quarrel against the author: as every one, with Mr. Bold, may observe. In my reply to him., I have endeavoured, as much as his objections would al low me, to bring him to the subject-matter of my book, and the merits of the cause; though his peculiar way of writing controversy has made it necessary for me in fol lowing him step by step, to wipe off the dirt he has thrown on me, and clear myself from those falsehoods he has filled his book with. This I could not but do, in dealing with such an antagonist; that by the untruths I have proved upon him, the reader may judge of those other allegations of his, whereof the proof lying on his side, the bare denial is enough on mine, and, indeed, are wholly nothing to the truth or falsehood of what is contained in my " Reasonableness of Christianity, &c." To which I shall desire the reader to add this farther consideration from his way of writing, not against my 184 Preface to the Reader.
book, but against me, for writing it, that if he had had a real concern for truth and religion in this dispute, he would have treated it after another manner; and we should have had from him more argument, reasoning, and clearness, and less boasting declamation, and rail ing. It has been unavoidable for me to take notice of a great deal of this sort of stuff, in answering a writer, who has very little else to say in the controversy, and places his strength in things beside the question: but yet I have been so careful, to take all occasions to ex plain the doctrine of my book, that I hope the reader will not think his pains wholly lost labour, in perusing this reply; wherein he will find some farther, and, I hope, satisfying account, concerning the writings of the New Testament, and the Christian Religion contained in it.
Mr. Edwards's ill language, which I thought person ally to me (though I know not how I had provoked a man whom I had never had to do with), I am now satis fied, by his rude and scurrilous treating of Mr. Bold, is his way and strength in management of controversy; and therefore requires a little more consideration in this disputant, than otherwise it would deserve. Mr. Bold, with the calmness of a Christian, the gravity of a divine, the clearness of a man of parts, and the civility of a well-bred man, made some " animadversions " on his u Socinianism unmasked;" which, with a sermon preach ed on the same subject with my " Reasonableness of " Christianity," he published: and how he has been used by Mr. Edwards, let the world judge.
I was extremely surprised with Mr. Bold's book, at a time when there was so great an outcry against mine, on all hands. But, it seems, he is a man that does not take up things upon hearsay; nor is afraid to own truth, whatever clamour or calumny it may lie under. Mr. Edwards confidently tells the world, that Mr. Bold has been drawn in to espouse this cause, upon base and mean considerations. Whose picture of the two, such a de scription is most likely to give us, I shall leave to the reader to judge, from what he will find in their writings on this subject. For as to the persons themselves, I am Preface to the Reader. 185 equally a stranger to them both: I know not the face of either of them: and having hitherto never had any communication with Mr. Bold, I shall begin with him, as I did with Mr. Edwards in print; and here publicly return him this following acknowledgment, for what he has printed in this controversy.
To Mr. BOLD.
SIR, To Mr. BOLD.
SIR, THOUGH I do not think I ought to return thanks to any one, for being of my opinion, any more than to fall out with him, for differing from me; yet I cannot but own to all the world, the esteem, that I think is due to you, for that proof you have given, of a mind and temper becoming a true minister of the gospel; in appearing as you have done, in the defence of a point, a great point of Christianity, which it is evident you could have no other temptation to declare for, but the love of truth. It has fared with you herein no better than with me. For Mr. Edwards not being able to answer your arguments, he has found out already, that you are a mercenary, defending a cause against your per suasion for hire; and that you " are sailing to Racovia " by a side-wind:" such inconsistencies can one (whose business it is to rail for a cause he cannot defend) put together to make a noise with: and he tells you plainly, what you must expect, if you write any more on this argument, viz. to be pronounced a downright apostate and renegade.
As soon as I saw your sermon and animadversions, I wondered what scarecrow Mr. Edwards would set up wherewith he might hope to deter men of more caution than sense, from reading of them; since socinianism, from which you were known to be as remote as he, I concluded would not do. The unknown author of the " Reasonableness of Christianity," he might make a socinian, mahometan, atheist, or what sort of raw-head and bloody-bones he pleased. But I imagined he had had more sense than to venture any such aspersions, on 186 Preface to the Reader.
a man whom, though I have not yet the happiness per sonally to know; yet, I know, hath justly a great and settled reputation amongst worthy men: and I thought that that coat, which you had worn with so much repu tation, might have preserved you from the bespatterings of Mr. Edwards's dunghill. But what is to be expected from a warrior that hath no other ammunition, and yet ascribes to himself victory from hence, and, with this artillery, imagines he carries all before him? And so Skimmington rides in triumph, driving all before him, by the ordures that he bestows on those that come in his way. And, were not Christianity concerned in the case, a man would scarce excuse to himself the ridiculousness of entering into the list with such a combatant. I do not, therefore, wonder that this mighty boaster, having no other way to answer the books of his opponents, but by popular calumnies, is fain to have recourse to his only refuge, and lay out his natural talent in vilifying and slandering the author. But I see, by what you have already writ, how much you are above that; and as you take not up your opinions from fashion or interest, so you quit them not, to avoid the malicious reports of those that do: out of which number, they can hardly be left, who (unprovoked) mix, with the management of their cause, injuries and ill-language, to those they differ from. This, at least, I am sure, zeal or love for truth can never permit falsehood to be used in the de fence of it.
Your mind, I see, prepared for truth, by resignation of itself, not to the traditions of men, but the doctrine of the gospel, has made you more readily entertain, and more easily enter into the meaning of my book, than most I have heard speak of it. And since you seem to me to comprehend what I have laid together, with the same disposition of mind, and in the same sense that I received it from the holy scriptures, I shall, as a mark of my respect to you, give you a particular accoun of it.
The beginning of the year in which it was published the controversy that made so much noise and heat amongst some of the dissenters, coming one day acci- Preface to the Reader. 187 dentally into my mind, drew me, by degrees, into a stricter and more thorough inquiry into the question about justification. The scripture was direct and plain, that it was faith that justified: The next question then, was, What faith that was that justified; what it was which, if a man believed, it should be imputed to him for righteousness? To find out this, I thought the*right way was, to search the scriptures; and thereupon be took myself seriously to the reading of the New Testa-j ment, only to that purpose. What that produced, you and the world have seen.
The first view I had of it seemed mightily to satisfy my mind, in the reasonableness and plainness of this doctrine; but yet the general silence I had in my little reading met with, concerning any such thing, awed ine with the apprehension of singularity; until going on in| the gospel-history, the whole tenour of it made it so clearA and visible, that I more wondered that every body did, not see and embrace it; than that I should assent to what was so plainly laid down, and so frequently incul cated in holy writ, though systems of divinity said no thing of it. That which added to my satisfaction was, that it led me into a discovery of the marvellous and* divine wisdom of our Saviour's conduct, in all the ci cumstances of his promulgating this doctrine; as well as of the necessity that such a law-giver should be sent from God, for the reforming the morality of the world; two points, that, I must confess, I had not found so fully and advantageously explained in the books of divinity I had met with, as the history of the gospel seemed to me, upon an attentive perusal, to give occasion and mat ter for. But the necessity and wisdom of our Saviour's opening the doctrine (which he came to publish) as he did in parables and figurative ways of speaking, carries such a thread of evidence through the whole history of the evangelists, as, I think, is impossible to be resisted; and makes it a demonstration, that the sacred historians did not write by concert, as advocates for a bad cause, or to give colour and credit to an imposture they would usher into the world: since they, every one of them, in some place or other, omit some passages of our Saviour's 188 Preface to the Reader.
life, or circumstance of his actions; which show the wisdom and wariness of his conduct; and which, even those of the evangelists who have recorded, do barely and transiently mention, without laying any stress on them, or making the least remark of what consequence they are, to give us our Saviour's true character, and to prove the truth of their history. These are evidences of truth and sincerity, which result alone from the na ture of things, and cannot be produced by any art or contrivance.