How much I was pleased with the growing discovery, every day, whilst I was employed in this search, I need not say. The wonderful harmony, that the farther I went disclosed itself, tending to the same points, in all the parts of the sacred history of the gospel, was of no small weight with me and another person, who every day, from the beginning to the end of my search, saw the progress of it, and knew, at my first setting out, that I was ignorant whither it would lead me; and there fore, every day asked me, What more the scripture had taught me? So far was I -from the thoughts of socinian- ism, or an intention to write for that, or any other party, or to publish any thing at all. But, when I had gone through the whole, and saw what a plain, simple, reason able thing Christianity was, suited to all conditions and capacities; and in the morality of it now, with divine authority, established into a legible law, so far surpassing all that philosophy and human reason had attained to, or could possibly make effectual to all degrees of man kind; I was flattered to think it might be of some use in the world; especially to those, who thought either that there was no need of revelation at all, or that the revelation of our Saviour required the belief of such ar ticles for salvation, which the settled notions, and their way of reasoning in some, and want of understanding in others, made impossible to them. Upon these two topics the objections seemed to turn, which were with most assurance made by deists, against Christianity; but against Christianity misunderstood. It seemed to me, 'that there needed no more to show them the weakness of their exceptions, but to lay plainly before them the Preface to the Reader. 189 doctrine of our Saviour and his apostles, as delivered in the scriptures, and not as taught by the several sects of Christians.
This tempted me to publish it, not thinking it de served an opposition from any minister of the gospel; and least of all, from any one in the communion of the church of England. But so it is, that Mr. Edvvards's zeal for.he knows not what (for he does not yet know his own creed, nor what is required to make him a Chris tian) could not brook so plain, simple, and intelligible a religion; but yet, not knowing what to say against it, and the evidence it has from the word of God, he thought fit to let the book alone, and fall upon the author. What great matter he has done in it, I need not tell you, who have seen and showed the weakness of his wranglings. You have here, Sir, the true history of the birth of my " Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the " Scriptures," and my design in publishing it, &c. What it contains, and how much it tends to peace and union among Christians, if they would receive Chris tianity as it is, you have discovered. I am, SIR, Your most humble servant, My readers will pardon me, that, in my preface to them, I make this particular address to Mr. Bold. He hath thought it worth his while to defend my book. How well he has done it, I am too much a party to say. I think it so sufficient to Mr. Edwards, that I needed not to have troubled myself any farther about him, on the account of any argument that remained in his book to be answered. But a great part of the world judging of the contests about truth^ as they do of popular elec tions, that the side carries it where the greatest noise is; it was necessary they should be undeceived, and be let see, that sometimes such writers may be let alone, not because they cannot, but because they deserve not to be answered.
1 90 Preface to the Reader.
This farther I ought to acknowledge to Mr. Bold, and own to the world, that he hath entered into the true sense of my treatise, and his notions do so perfectly agree with mine, that I shall not be afraid, by thoughts and expressions very like his, in this my second vindication, to give Mr. Edwards (who is exceedingly quick-sight ed, and positive in such matters) a handle to tell the world, that either I borrowed this my " vindication" from Mr. Bold, or writ his " animadversions" for him. The former of these I shall count no discredit, if Mr. Edwards think fit to charge me with it; and the latter, Mr. Bold's character is answer enough to. Though the impartial reader, I doubt not, will find, that the same uniform truth considered by us, suggested the same thoughts to us both, without any other communi cation.
There is another author who in a civ Her style hath made it necessary for me to vindicate my book from a reflection or two of his, wherein he seems to come short of that candour he professes. All that I shall say on this occasion here, is, that it is a wonder to me, that having published what I thought the scripture told me was the faith that made a Christian, and desired, that if I was mistaken, anyone that thought so, would have the good ness to inform me better; so many with their tongues, and some in print, should intemperately find fault with a poor man out of his way, who desires to be set right; and no one, who blames his faith, as coming short, will tell him what that faith is, which is required to make him a Christian. But I hope, that amongst so many censurers, I shall at last find one, who knowing himself to be a Christian upon other grounds than I am, will have so much Christian charity, as to show me what more is absolutely necessary to be believed, by me, and every man, to make him a Christian.
A SECOND VINDICATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF A CAUSE that stands in need of falsehoods to support it, and an adversary that will make use of them, de serve nothing but contempt; which I doubt not but every considerate reader thought answer enough to " Mr. Edwards's Socinianism unmasked." But, since, in his late " Socinian creed," he says, " I would have " answered him if I could," that the interest of Chris tianity may not suffer by my silence, nor the contempti- bleness of his treatise afford him matter of triumph among those who lay any weight on such boasting, it is fit it should be shown what an arguer he is, and how well he deserves, for his performance, to be dubbed, by himself, " irrefragable."
Those who, like Mr. Edwards, dare to publish in ventions of their own, for matters of fact, deserve a 192 A Second Vindication of the name so abhorred, that it finds not room in civil con versation. This secures him from the proper answer, due to his imputations to me, in print, of matters of fact utterly false, which, without any reply of mine, fix upon him that name (which, without a profligate mind, a man cannot expose himself to) till he hath proved them. Till then, he must wear what he has put upon himself. This being1 a rule, which common justice hath prescribed to the private judgments of mankind, as well as to the public judicature of courts, that all allegations of facts, brought by contending parties, should be presumed to be false, till they are proved.
There are two ways of making a book unanswerable. The one is by the clearness, strength, and fairness of the argumentation. Men who know how to write thus, are above bragging what they have done, or boasting to the world that their adversaries are baffled. Another way to make a book unanswerable, is to lay a stress on matters of fact foreign to the question, as well as to truth; and to stuff it with scurrility and fiction. This hath been always so evident to common sense, that no man, who had any regard to truth, or ingenuity, ever thought matters of fact besides the argument, and stories made at pleasure, the way of managing controversies. Which showing only the want of sense and argument, could, if used on both sides, end in nothing but downright railing: and he must always have the better of the cause, who has lying and impudence on his side.
The un masker, in the entrance of his book, sets a great distance between his and my way of writing. I am not sorry that mine differs so much as it does from his. If it were like his, I should think, like his, it wanted the author's commendations. For, in his first paragraph, which is all laid out in his own testimony of his own book, he so earnestly bespeaks an opinion of mastery in politeness, order, coherence, pertinence, strength, seriousness, temper, and all the good qualities requisite in controversy, that I think, since he pleases himself so much with his own good opinion, one in pity ought not to go about to rob him of so considerable an admirer. I shall not, therefore, contest any of those Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 193 excellencies he ascribes to himself, or faults he blames in me, in the management of the dispute between us, any farther than as particular passages of his book, as I come to examine them, shall suggest unavoidable remarks to me. I think the world does not so much concern itself about him, or me, that it need be told in that in ventory, he has given of his own good parts, in his first paragraph, which of us two has the better hand at " flourishes, jesting, and common-places; " if I am, as he says, p. 2, troubled with " angry fits, and passionate " ferments, which, though I strive to palliate, are easily " discernible, &c." and he be more laudably ingenuous in the openness of that temper, which he shows in every leaf; I shall leave to him the entire glory of boasting of it. Whatever we brag of our performances, they will be just as they are, however lie may think to add to his, by his own encomium on them. The difference in style, order, coherence, good breeding, (for all those, amongst others, the unmasker mentions,) the reader will observe, whatever I say of them; and at best they are nothing to the question in hand. For though I am a " tool, " pert, childish, starch'd, impertinent, incoherent, tri- " fling, weak, passionate, &c." commendations I meet with before I get to the 4th page, besides what follows, as " upstart racovian," p. 24, " flourishing scrib- " bier," p. 41, "dissembler," 106, "pedantic," 107: I say, although I am all this, and what else he liberally bestows on me in the rest of his book, I may have truth on my side, and that in the present case serves my turn.
Having thus placed the laurels on his own head, and sung applause to his own performance, "he, p. 4, enters, as he thinks, upon his business, which ought to be, as he confesses, p. 3, " to make good his former charges." The first whereof he sets down in these words: That " I unwarrantably crowded all the necessary articles " of faith into one, with a design of favouring soci- " nianism."
If it may be permitted to the subdued, to be so bold with one, who is already conqueror, I desire to know, where that proposition is laid down in these terms, as o 194 A Second Vindication of the laid to my charge. Whether it be true, or false, shall, if he pleases, be hereafter examined: but it is not, at present, the matter in question. There are certain propositions, which he having1 affirmed, and I denied, are under debate between us: and that the dispute may not run into an endless ramble, by multiplying of new, before the points in contest are decided, those ought first to be brought to an issue.
To go on, therefore, in the order of his " Socinianism " unmasked," (for, p. 3, he has, out of the Mishna, taught me good breeding, " to answer the first, and so " in order/') The next thing he has against me is p. 5, which that the reader may understand the force of, I must inform him,, that in p. 105 of his " Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," he said, that I " give this plausible conceit," as he calls it, " 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." This I denied. To make it good, " Socinianism unmasked/* p. 5, he thus argues. First, " It is observable, that this " guilty man would be shifting off the indictment, by " excepting against the formality of words, as if such " were not to be found in his book; but when doth he " do this? In the close of it, when this matter was ex- " hausted, and he had nothing else to say/' Vind. p. 113, " then he bethinks himself of his salvo, &c." Answ. As if a falsehood were ever the less a falsehood, because it was not opposed, or would grow into a truth, if it were not taken notice of, before the 38th page of the answer. I desire him to show me these " formal " words over and over again," in my " Reasonableness " of Christianity: " nor let him hope to evade, by saying, I would be " shifting, by excepting against the forma- " lity of the words."
To say, that " I have, over and over again, those for- " mal words," in my book, is an assertion of a matter of fact; let him produce the words, and justify his allegation, or confess, that this is an untruth published to the world: and since he makes so bold with truth, in a matter visible to every body, let the world be Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 195 judge, what credit is to be given to his allegations of matters of fact, in things foreign to what I have print ed; and that are not capable of a negative proof. A sample whereof the reader has at the entrance, in his introduction, p. A. 4, and the three or four following pages. Where he affirms to the world, not only what I know to be false; but that every one must see, he could not know to be true. For he pretends to know and deliver my thoughts. And what the character is of one that confidently affirms what he does not know, nobody need be told.
But he adds, " I had before pleaded to the indict- " ment, and thereby owned it to be true/' This is to make good his promise, p. 3, to keep at a distance from my " feeble stragglings." Here this strong arguer must prove, that what is not answered or denied, in the very beginning of a reply, or before the llth page, " is " owned to be true/' In the mean time, 'till he does that, I shall desire such of my readers, as think the un- masker's veracity worth examining, to see in my Vindi cation, from p. 174, &c. wherein is contained, what I have said about one article, whether I have owned what he charged me with, on that subject.
This proposition then remains upon him still to be proved, viz.
I. " That I have, over and over again, these formal " words in my Reasonableness of Christianity, viz. " That nothing is required to be believed by any " Christian man, but this, That Jesus is the Mes- " siah."
He goes on, p. 5, " And indeed he could do no " other, for it was the main work he set himself about, " to find but one article of faith in all the chapters of " the four evangelists, and the acts of the apostles; " this is to make good his promise, p. 3, " To clear his " book from those sorry objections and cavils 1 had " raised against it." Several of my " sorry objections " and cavils " were to represent to the reader, that a great part of what is said was nothing but suspicions and 196 A Second Vindication of the conjectures; and such he could not but then own them to be. But now he has rid himself of all his conjec tures; and has raised them up into direct, positive af firmations, which, being said with confidence without proof, who can deny but he has cleared, thoroughly cleared, that part from my " sorry objections and ca- " vils? " He says, " it was the main work I set myself " about, to find but one article of faith." This I must take the liberty to deny; and I desire him to prove it. A man may " set himself to find two," or as many as there be, and yet find but one: or a man may " set " himself to find but one/' and yet find two more. It is no argument, from what a man has found, to prove what was his main work to find, unless where his aim was only to find what there was, whether more or less. For a writer may find the reputation of a poor con temptible railer; nay of a downright impudent lyar; and yet nobody will think it was his main work to find that. Therefore, sir, if you will not find what it is like you did not seek, you must prove those many confident assertions you have published, which I shall give you in tale, whereof this is the second, viz.
II. " That the main business I set myself about, was " to find but one article of faith."
In the following part of this sentence, he quotes my own words with the pages where they are to be found: the first time, that, in either of his two books against me, he has vouchsafed to do so, concerning one article, wherewith he has made so much noise. My words in (p. 102 of) my " Reasonableness of Christianity" stand thus: " for that this is the sole doctrine pressed and re- " quired to be believed, in the whole tenour of our Sa- " viour's and his apostles preaching, we have showed, " through the whole history of the Evangelists and Acts, " and I challenge them to show, that there was any " other doctrine upon their assent to which, or disbelief " of it, men were pronounced believers, or unbelievers, * and accordingly received into the church of Christ, " as members of his body, as far as mere believing Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 197 " could make them so; or else kept out. This was the " only gospel article of faith, which was preached to " them." Out of this passage, the unmasker sets down these words, " This is the SOLE doctrine pressed and " required to be believed, in the whole tenour of our " Saviour's and his apostles preaching," p. 129, " this " was the ONLY gospel article of faith, which was " preached to them."
I shall pass by all other observations, that this way of citing these words would suggest, and only remark, that, if he brought these words, to prove the immediately preceding assertion of his, viz. That " to find out but " one article of faith was the main work I set myself " about/' this argument, reduced into form, will stand thus: He who says, that this is the sole doctrine pressed and required to be believed in the whole tenour of our Sa viour's and his apostles preaching, upon their assent to which, or disbelief of it, men were pronounced believers, or unbelievers, and accordingly received into the church of Christ, as members of his body, as far as mere believ ing could make them so, or else kept out; sets himself to find out but one article of faith, as his main work. But the vindicator did so: ergo, If this were the use he would make of those words of mine cited, I must desire him to prove the major. But he talks so freely, and without book every-where, that I suppose he thought himself, by the privilege of a de- claimer, exempt from being called strictly to an account, for what he loosely says, and from proving what he should be called to an account for. Rail lustily, is a good rule; something of it will stick, true or false, proved or not proved.
If he' alleges these words of mine, to answer my de mand, Vind. p. 175, where he found that " I contended " for one single article of faith, with the exclusion and " defiance of all the rest," which he had charged me with; I say, it proves this as little as the former. For to say, " That I had showed through the whole history " of the Evangelists, and the Acts, that this is the sole " doctrine, or only gospel article pressed and required 198 A Second Vindication of the " to be believed in the whole ten our of our Saviour and " his apostles preaching; upon their assent to which, " or disbelieving of it, men were pronounced believers " or unbelievers, and accordingly received into the " church of Christ, or kept out; " is the simple asser tion of a positive matter of fact, and so carries in it no defiance, no,, nor exclusion of any other doctrinal, or historical truth, contained in the scripture: and there fore it remains still on the unmasker to show, where it is I express any defiance of any other truth contained in the word of God; or where I exclude any one doctrine of the scriptures. So that if it be true, that " I contend " for one article," my contention may be without any defiance, or so much as exclusion, of any of the rest, notwithstanding any thing contained in these words. Nay, if it should happen that I am in a mistake, and that this was not the sole doctrine, which our Saviour and his apostles preached, and, upon their assent to which, men were admitted into the church: yet the un masker's accusation would be never the truer for that, unless it be necessary, that he that mistakes in one matter of fact, should be at defiance with all other truths; or, that he who erroneously says, that our Saviour and his apostles admitted men into the church, upon the believing him to be the Messiah, does thereby exclude all other truths published to the jews before, or to Christian believers afterwards.
If these words be brought to prove that I contended " for one article/' barely " one article," without any defiance or exclusion annexed to that contention; I say neither do they prove that, as is manifest from the words themselves, as well as from what I said elsewhere, con cerning the article of one God. For here, I say, this is the only gospel article, &c. upon which men were pronounced believers; which plainly intimates some other article, known and believed in the world before, and without the preaching of the gospel.
To this the unmasker thinks he has provided a salvo, in these words, " Socinianism unmasked," p. 6, " And " when I told him of this one article, he knew well " enough, that I did not exclude the article of the Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 199 " Deity, for that is a principle of natural religion/' If it be fit for an un masker to perceive what is in debate, he would know, that the question is not, what he excluded, or excluded not, but what articles he charged me to have excluded.
Taking it therefore to be his meaning, (which it must be, if he meant any thing to the purpose), viz. That when he charged me so often and positively, for contest ing for " one article," viz. that " Jesus was the Mes- " siah," he did not intend to accuse me for excluding " the article of the Deity." To prove that he did not so intend it, he tells me, that " I knew that he did not."
Answ. How should I know it? He never told me so, either in his book, or otherwise. This I know, that he said, p. 115, that " I contended for one article, with the " exclusion of all the rest." If then the belief of the Deity be an article of faith, and be not the article of Jesus being the Messiah, it is one " of the rest;" and if " all the rest " were excluded, certainly that, being one of " all the rest," must be excluded. How then he could say, " I knew that he excluded it not/' i. e. meant not that I excluded it, when he positively says, I did " exclude it," I cannot tell, unless he thought that I knew him so well, that when he said one thing, I knew that he meant another, and that the quite contrary.
He now, it seems, acknowledges that I affirmed, that the belief of the Deity, as well as of Jesus being the Messiah, was required to make a man a believer. The believing in " one God, the Father Almighty, " maker of heaven and earth," is one article; and in " Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord," is another ar ticle. These, therefore, being " two articles," and both asserted by me, to be required to make a man a Christian, let us see with what truth or ingenuity the un- masker could apply, besides that above mentioned, these following expressions to me, as he does without any ex ception: " Why then must there be one article and no " more?" p. 115. " Going to make a religion for his " myrmidons, he contracts all into one article, and will " trouble them with no more," p. 117. " Away with " systems, away with creeds, let us have but one article, 200 A Second Vindication of the " though it be with defiance to all the rest," p. 118. " Thus we see, why he reduces ail belief to that one " article before rehearsed," p. 120. And all this with out any the least exception of the article of a Deity, as he now pretends. Nor could he,.indeed, as is evident from his own words, p. 121, 122: " To conclude, this " gentleman and his fellows are resolved to be unita- " rians; they are for one article of faith, as well as " One person in the Godhead: — But, if these learned " men were not prejudiced, — they would perceive, that, " when the catholic faith is thus brought down to one " single article, it will soon be reduced to none; the " unit will dwindle into a cypher." By which the reader may see that his intention was,, to persuade the world, that I reduced ALL BELIEF, the CATHOLIC FAITH, (they are in his own words,) " to one single ar- " tide, and no more." For if he had given but the least hint, that I allowed of Two, all the wit and strength of argument, contained in Unitarians., unit and cypher, with which he winds up all, had been utterly lost, and dwindled into palpable nonsense.
To demonstrate that this was the sense he would be understood in, we are but to observe what he says again, p. 50 of his " Socinianism unmasked," where he tells his readers, that " I and my friends have new-modelled " the apostles creed; yea, indeed, have presented them " with ONE article, instead of TWELVE." And hence we may see, what sincerity there is, in the reason he brings, to prove that he did not exclude the " article " of the Deity." " For, says he, p. 6, that is a prin- " ciple of natural religion."
Answ. Ergo, he did not in positive words, without any exception, say, I reduced " all belief, the catholic " faith, to one single article, and no more." But to make good his promise, " not to resemble me in the " little artifices of evading," he wipes his mouth, and says at the bottom of this page, " But the reader sees " his [the vindicator's] shuffling." Whilst the article of " One God" is a part of " ALL belief, a part of the " catholic faith," ALL which he affirmed I excluded, but the one article concerning the Messiah; every one Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. £01