To which we have his answer, " Socinianism un- " masked," p. 8, &c. From p. 8 to 20, he has quoted near forty texts of scripture, of which he saith, p. 21, " Thus I have briefly set before the reader, those evan- " gelical truths, those Christian principles, which belong " to the very essence of Christianity: I have proved " them to be such, and I have reduced most of them " to certain propositions, which is a thing the vindi- " cator called for."
Answ. Yes: but that was not all the vindicator call ed for, and had reason to expect. For I asked, " Whe- u ther those the unmasker gave us, in his Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," were the funda mental articles, " without an actual belief whereof, a " man could not be a Christian; just all, neither more " nor less?" This I had reason to demand from him, or from any one, who questions that part of my book; and I shall insist upon it, until he does it, or confesses he cannot. For having set down the articles, which the scripture, upon a diligent search, seemed to me to re quire as necessary, and only necessary; I shall riot lose my time in examining what another says against those fundamentals, which I have gathered out of the preach ings of our Saviour and his apostles, until he gives me a list of his fundamentals, which he will abide by; that so, by comparing them together, I may see which is the true catalogue of necessaries. For after so serious and diligent a search, which has given me light and satisfac tion in this great point, I shall not quit it, and set my self on float again, at the demand of any one, who would have me be of his faith, without telling me what it is. Those fundamentals the scripture has so plainly given, and so evidently determined, that it would be the greatest folly imaginable, to part with this rule for ask ing; and give up myself blindly to the conduct of one, who either knows not, or will not tell me, what are the points necessary to be believed to make me a Christian. He that shall find fault with my collection of funda mentals, only to unsettle me, and not give me a better of his own, I shall not think worth minding, until, like a fair man, he puts himself upon equal terms, and makes A Second Vindication of the up the defects of mine, by a complete one of his own. For a deficiency, or errour, in one necessary, is as fatal, and as certainly excludes a man from being a Christian, as in an hundred. When any one offers me a complete catalogue of his fundamentals, he does not unreasonably demand me to quit mine for nothing: I have then one, that being set by mine, I may compare them; and so be able to choose the true and perfect one, and relinquish the other.
He that does not do this, plainly declares, that, (without showing me the certain way to salvation) he expects, that I should depend on him with an implicit faith, whilst he reserves to himself the liberty to require of me to believe, what he shall think fit, as he sees occa sion; and in effect says thus, " Distrust those funda- " mentals, which the preachings of Our Saviour and his " apostles have showed to be all that is necessary to be " believed to make a man a Christian; and, though I " cannot tell you, what are those other articles which " are necessary and sufficient to make a man a Christian, " yet take me for your guide, and that is as good as if " I made up, in a complete list, the defects of your fun- " damentals?" To which this is a sufficient answer, " Si quid novisti rectius, imperti; si non, his titere " mecum."
The unmasker, of his own accord, p. 110 of his " Thoughts concerning the causes of atheism," sets down several, which he calls " fundamental doctrines." I ask him, whether those be all? For answer, he adds more to them in his " Socinianism unmasked:" but in a great pet refuses to tell me, whether this second list of fundamentals be complete: and, instead of answering so reasonable a demand, pays me with ill language, in these words, p. 22, subjoined to those last quoted, " If " what I have said will not content him, I am sure I " can do nothing that will; and therefore, if he should " capriciously require any thing more, it would be as " great folly in me to comply with it, as it is in him to " move it." If I did ask a question, which troubles you, be not so angry; you yourself were the occasion of it. I proposed my collection of fundamentals, which I had, with great care, sought; and thought I had found clear in the scripture; you tell me no, it is imperfect, and offer me one of your own. I ask, whether that be per fect? Thereupon you grow into choler, and tell me it is a foolish question. Why! then I think it was not very wise in you so forwardly to offer one, unless you had one ready, not liable to the same exception. Would you have me so foolish, to take a list of fundamentals from you, who have not yet one for yourself; nor are yet resolved with yourself, wrhat doctrines are to be put in, or left out of it? Farther, pray tell me, if you had a settled collection of fundamentals, that you would stand to, why should I take them from you, upon your word, rather than from an anabaptist, or a quaker, or an arminian, or a socinian, or a lutheran, or a papist; who, I think, are not perfectly agreed with you, or one another in fundamentals? And yet, there is none amongst them, that I have not as much reason to be lieve, upon his bare word, as an unmasker, who, to my certain knowledge, will make bold with truth. If you set up for infallibility, you may have some claim to have your bare word taken, before any other but the pope. But yet, if you demand to be an unquestionable pro poser, of what is absolutely necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, you must perform it a little better, than hitherto you have done. For it is not enough, sometimes to give us texts of scripture; some times propositions of your own framing, and sometimes texts of scripture, out of which they are to be framed; as p. 14, you say, " These and the like places afford us " such fundamental and necessary doctrines as these:" and again,, p. 16, after the naming several other texts of scripture, you add, " which places yield us such pro- " positions as these;" and then in both places set down what you think fit to draw out of them. And p. 15, you have these words: " and here, likewise, it were easy " to show, that adoption, justification, pardon of sins, " &c. which are privileges and benefits bestowed upon " us by the Messiah, are necessary matters of our be- " lief." By all which, as well as the whole frame, where in you make show of giving us your fundamental arti- 218 A Second Vindication of the cles, it is plain, that what you have given us there, is nothing less than a complete collection of fundamentals, even in your own opinion of it.
But, good sir, Why is it a foolish question in me? You have found fault with my summary for being short; the defect in my collection of necessary articles, has raised your zeal into so severe censures, and drawn upon me, from you, so heavy a condemnation, that, if half you have said of me be true, I am in a very ill case, for hav ing so curtailed the fundamental doctrines of Christia nity. Is it folly, then, for me to ask from you a com plete creed? If it be so dangerous (as certainly it is) to fail in any necessary article of faith, Why is it folly in me, to be instant with you, to give me them all? Or why is it folly in you, to grant so reasonable a demand? A short faith, defective in necessaries, is no more tole rable in you, than in me; nay, much more inexcusable, if it were for no other reason but this, that you rest in it yourself, and would impose it on others; and yet do not yourself know,, or believe it to be complete. For if you do, why dare you not say so, and give it us all entire, in plain propositions; and not, as you have in a great measure done here, give only the texts of scripture, from whence, you say, necessary articles are to be drawn? Which is too great an uncertainty for doctrines absolutely necessary. For, possibly, all men do not un derstand those texts alike, and some may draw articles out of them quite different from your system; and so, though they agree in the same texts, may not agree in the same fundamentals; and till you have set down plainly and distinctly your articles, that you think con tained in them, cannot tell whether you will allow them to be Christians, or no. For you know, sir, several infer ences are often drawn from the same text: and the dif ferent systems of dissenting (I was going to say chris- tians, but that none must be so, but those who receive your collection of fundamentals, when you please to give it them) professors are all founded on the scripture, Why, I beseech you, is mine a foolish question to ask, " What are the necessary articles of faith?" It is of no less consequence than, nor much different from the Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c.
jailer's question in the sixteenth of the Acts, " What shall " I do to be saved?" And that was not, that ever I heard, counted by any one a foolish question. You grant, there are articles necessary to be belived for sal vation: Would it not then be wisdom to know them? Nay, is it not our duty to know arid believe them? If not, why do you, with so much outcry, reprehend me, for not knowing them? Why do you fill your books with such variety of invectives, as if you could never say enough, nor bad enough against me, for having left out some of them? And, if it be so dangerous, so criminal to miss any of them. Why is it a folly in me, to move you to give me a complete list?
If fundamentals are to be known, easy to be known, (as without doubt, they are,) then a catalogue may be given of them. But, if they are not, if it cannot cer tainly be determined, which are they; but the doubtful knowledge of them depends upon guesses; Why may not I be permitted to follow my guesses, as well as you yours? Or why, of all others, must you prescribe your guesses to me, when there are so many that are as ready to prescribe as you, and of as good authority? The pre tence, indeed, and clamour is religion, and the saving of souls: but your business, it is plain, is nothing but to over-rule and prescribe, and be hearkened to as a dictator: and not to inform, teach, and instruct in the sure way to salvation. Why else do you so start and fling, when I desire to know of you, what is necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, when this is the only material thing in controversy between us; and my mistake in it has made you begin a quarrel with me, and let loose your pen against me in no ordinary way of reprehension?
Besides, in this way which you take, you will be in no better a case than I. For, another having as good a claim to have his guesses give the rule, as you yours; or to have his system received, as well as you yours; he will complain of you as well; and upon as good grounds, as you do of me; and (if he have but as much zeal for his orthodoxy, as you show for yours) in as civil, well-bred, and christian-like language.
A Second Vindication of the In the next place, pray tell me, Why would it be folly in you, to comply with what I require of you? Would it not be useful to me, to be set right in this matter? If so, Why is it folly in you to set me right? Consider me, if you please, as one of your parishioners, who (after you have resolved which catalogue of fundamentals to give him, either that in your " Thoughts of the Causes of " Atheism/' or this other here, in your " Socinianism " unmasked;" for they are not both the same, nor either of them perfect) asked you, " Are these all fundamental " articles necessary to be believed to make a man a " Christian; and are there no more but these?" Would you answer him, that it was folly in you to comply with him, in what he desired? Is it of no moment to know, what is required of men to be believed; with out a belief of which, they are not Christians, nor can be saved? And is it folly in a minister of the gospel, to in form one committed to his instruction, in so material a point as this, which distinguishes believers from unbe lievers? Is it folly in one, whose business it is to bring men to be Christians, and to salvation, to resolve a ques tion, by which they may know, whether they are christians or no; and, without a resolution of which, they cannot certainly know their condition, and the state they are in? Is it besides your commission and business, and therefore a folly, to extend your care of souls so far as this, to those who are committed to your charge?
Sir, I have a title to demand this of you, as if I were your parishioner: you have forced yourself upon me for a teacher, in this very point, as if you wanted a pa rishioner to instruct: and therefore I demand it of you, and shall insist upon it, till you either do it, or confess you cannot. Nor shall it excuse you, to say it is capriciously required. For this is no otherwise ca pricious, than all questions are capricious to a man, that cannot answer them; and such an one, I think, this is to you. For, if you could answer it, nobody can doubt, but that you would, and that with confi dence: for nobody will suspect it is the want of that makes you so reserved. This is, indeed, a frequent way of answering questions, by men, that cannot otherwise Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 221 cover the absurdities of their opinions, and their inso lence of expecting to be believed upon their bare words, by saying they are capriciously asked, and deserve no other answer.
But how far soever capriciousness (when proved, for saying is not enough) may excuse from answering a ma terial question, yet your own words here will clear this from this being a capricious question in me. For that those texts of scripture which you have set down, do not, upon your own grounds, contain all the fundamental doctrines of religion, all that is necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian; what you say a little lower, in this very page, as well as in other places, does demon strate. Your words are, " I think I have sufficiently " proved, that there are other doctrines besides that " [Jesus is the Messiah] which are required to be believ- " ed to make a man a Christian; Why did the apostles " write these doctrines? Was it not, that those they writ " to, might give their assent to them?" This argument, for the necessity of believing the texts you cite from their being set down in the " New Testament," you urged thus, p. 9, " Is this set down to no purpose in these " inspired epistles? Is it not requisite that we should " know it and believe?" And again, p. 29> " they are in " our bibles to that very purpose, to be believed." If then it be necessary to know and believe those texts of scripture you have collected, because the apostles writ them, and they were not " set down to no purpose: and " they are set down in our bibles on purpose to be be- " lieved:" I have reason to demand of you other texts, besides those you have enumerated, as containing points necessary to be believed; because there are other texts which the apostles writ, and were not " set down to no " purpose, and are in our bibles, on purpose to be be- " lieved," as well as those which you have cited.
Another reason of doubting, and consequently of de manding, whether those propositions you have set down for fundamental doctrines, be every one of them necessary to be believed, and all that are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, I have from your next argu ment; which, joined to the former, stands thus, p. 22: A Second Vindication of the " Why did the apostles write these doctrines? Was it " not that those they writ to, might give their assent to " them? Nay, did they not require assent to them? " Yes verily; for this is to be proved from the nature " of the things contained in these doctrines, which are " such as had immediate respect to the occasion, au- t( thor, way, means and issue, of their redemption and " salvation." If therefore all " things which have an " immediate respect to the occasion, author, way, " means and issue of men's redemption and salvation," are those and those only, which are necessary to be be lieved to make a man a Christian; may a man not justly doubt, whether those propositions, which the unmasker has set down, contain all those things, and whether there be not other things contained in other texts of scripture, or in some of those cited by him, but otherwise under stood, that have as immediate a " respect to the occa- " sion, author, way, means arid issue, of men's redemp- " tion and salvation," as those he has set down? and therefore I have reason to demand a completer list. For at best, to tell us of " all things that have an im- " mediate respect to the occasion, author, way, means " and issue, of men's redemption and salvation," is but a general description of fundamentals, with which some may think some articles agree, and others, others: and the terms, " immediate respect," may give ground enough for difference about them, to those who agree that the rest of your description is right. My demand therefore is not a general description of fundamentals, but, for the reasons above mentioned, the particular ar ticles themselves, which are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian.
It is not my business at present, to examine the va lidity of these arguments of his, to prove all the proposi tions to be necessary to be believed, which he has here, in his " Socinianism unmasked," set down as such. The use I make of them now, is to show the reason they afford me to doubt, that those propositions, which he has given us, for doctrines necessary to be believed, are either not all such, or more than all, by his own rule: and therefore, I must desire him to give us a completer Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 223 creed, that we may know, what in his sense, is neces sary, and enough to make a man a Christian.
Nor will it be sufficient, in this case, to do what he tells us he has done, in these words, p. 21, "I have " briefly set before the reader those evangelical truths, " those Christian principles, which belong to the very " essence of Christianity;" and " I have reduced " most of them to certain propositions, which is a thing " the vindicator called for," p. 16. With submission, I think he mistakes the vindicator. What I called for, was, not that, " most of them should be reduced to cer- " tain propositions," but that all of them should: and the reason of my demanding that was plain, viz. that then, having the unmasker's creed in clear and distinct propositions, I might be able to examine whether it was what God in the scriptures indispensably required of every man to make him a Christian, that so I might thereby correct the errours or defects of what I at pre sent apprehend the scripture taught me in the case.
The unmasker endeavours to excuse himself from answering my question by another exception against it, p. 24, in these words: " Surely none, but this upstart " racovian, will have the confidence to deny, that these " articles of faith are such as are necessary to constitute " a Christian, as to the intellectual and doctrinal part of " Christianity; such as must, IN SOME MEASURE, be " known and assented to by him. Not that a man is " supposed, every moment, actually to exert his assent " and belief; for none of the moral virtues, none of the " evangelical graces, are exerted thus always. Where- " fore that question," in p. 168, " though he says he " asks it" (seriously) " might have been spared," " Whe- (( ther every one of these fundamentals is required to 66 be believed to make a man a Christian, and such as, " without the actual belief thereof, he cannot be saved?" " Here is seriousness pretended where there is none; " for the design is only to cavil, and (if he can) to ex- «' pose my assertion. But he is not able to do it; for »' all his critical demands are answered in these few / words, viz. That the intellectual (as well as moral 4 endowments) are never supposed to be always in act: A Second Vindication of the " they are exerted upon occasion, not all of them at a " time. And therefore he mistakes, if he thinks, or " rather as he objects without thinking, that these doc- " trines, if they be fundamental and necessary, must be " always actually believed. No man, besides himself, " ever started such a thing."
This terrible long combat has the unmasker managed with his own shadow, to confound the seriousness of my question; and, as he says himself, is come off, not only safe and sound, but triumphant. But for all that, sir, may not a man's question be serious, though he should chance to express it ill? I think you and I were not best to set up for critics in language, and nicety of expres sion, for fear we should set the world a laughing. Yet for this once, I shall take the liberty to defend mine here. For I demand in what expression of mine, I said or supposed, that a man should, every moment, actually exert his assent to any proposition required to be be lieved? Cannot a man say, that the unmasker cannot be admitted to any preferment in the church of Eng land, without an actual assent to, or subscribing of the thirty-nine articles; unless it be supposed, that he must every moment, from the time he first read, assented to, and subscribed those articles, until he received institu tion and induction, " actually exert his assent" to every one of them, and repeat his subscription? In the same sense it is literally true, that a man cannot be admitted into the church of Christ, or into heaven, without actu ally believing all the articles necessary to make a man a Christian, without supposing that he must cc actually " exert that assent every moment," from the time that he first gave it, until the moment that he is admitted into heaven. He may eat, drink, make bargains, study Euclid, and think of other things between; nay, some times sleep, and neither think of those articles, nor any thing else; and yet it be true, that he shall not be ad mitted into the church, or heaven, without an actual assent to them: that condition of an actual assent, he has performed, and until he recall that assent, by actual unbelief, it stands good: and though a lunacy, or le thargy, should seize on him presently after, and he Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc.
should never think of it again as long as he lived, yet it is literally true, he is not saved without an actual assent. You might therefore have spared your pains, in saying, " that none of the moral virtues, none of the evangelical " graces, are exerted THUS always," until you had met with somebody who said THUS. That I did so, I think, would have entered into no body's thoughts but yours, it being evident from p. 156, of my book, that by actual, I meant explicit. You should rather have given a di rect answer to my question, which I here again seriously ask you, viz. Whether IX. Those you called " fundamental doctrines/' in your " Thoughts concerning the causes of athe- " ism," or those Christian principles, which be- " long to the very essence of Christianity/' so many as you have given us of them in your " So- " cinianism unmasked," (for you may take which of your two creeds you please,) are just those, nei ther more or less, that are every one of them re quired to be believed to make a man a Christian, and such as, without the actual, or (since that word displeases you) the explicit belief whereof, he can not be saved?
When you have answered this question, we shall then see which of us two is nearest the right: but if you shall forbear railing, which, I fear, you take for arguing, against that summary of faith, which our Saviour and his apostles taught, and which only they proposed to their hearers to be believed, to make them Christians^ until you have found another perfect creed, of only ne cessary articles, that you dare own for such; you are like to have a large time of silence. Before I leave the pas sage above cited, I must desire the reader to take no tice of what he says, concerning his list of fundamentals, viz. That " these his articles of faith," necessary to con stitute a Christian, are such as must, IN SOME MEASURE, be known and assented to by him: a very wary expres sion concerning fundamentals! The question is about articles necessary to be explicitly believed to make a 226 A Second Vindication of the