Let us now consider his argument, to prove the ar ticles he has given us to he fundamentals. In his " Thoughts concerning the causes of atheism," p. 119, he argues from 1 Tim. iii. 16, where he says " Chris- " tianity is called a mystery; that all things in chris- " tianity are not plain, and exactly level to every com- " mon apprehension; and that every thing in christi- " anity is not clear, and intelligible and comprehensible " by the weakest noddle." Let us take this for proved as much as he pleases; and then let us see the force of this subtile disputant's argument, for the necessity there is, that every Christian man should believe those, which he has given us for fundamental articles, out of the epistles. The reason of that obligation, and the neces sity of every man's and woman's believing in them, he has laid in this, that they are to be found in the epistles, or in the bible. This argument for them we have, over and over again, in his " Socinianism unmasked," as here, p. 9, thus: " Are they set down to no purpose, " in these inspired epistles? Why did the apostles write " these doctrines, was it not, that those they writ to* " might give their assent to them? " p. 22. " They " are in our bibles, for that very purpose, to be belie v- " ed," p. 25. Now I ask, Can any one more directly invalidate all he says here, for the necessity of believing his articles? Can any one more apparently write booty, than by saying, that " these his doctrines, these his " fundamental articles " (which are, after his fashion, set down between the 8th and 20th pages of this his first chapter) are of necessity to be believed by every one, before he can be a Christian, because they are in the epistles and in the bible; and yet affirm, that in Chris tianity, i. e. in the epistles and in the bible, there are mysteries, there are things " not plain, not clear, not " intelligible to common apprehensions?" If his ar ticles, some of which contain mysteries, are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, because they are in the bible; then, according to this rule, it is ne cessary for many men to believe what is not intelligible 238 A Second Vindication of the to them; what their noddles cannot apprehend, (as the unmasker is pleased to turn the supposition of vulgar people's understanding the fundamentals of their reli gion into ridicule,) i. e. it is necessary for many men to do, what is impossible for them to do, before they can be Christians. But if there be several things in the bible, and in the epistles, that are not necessary for men to be lieve, to make them Christians: then all the unmasker's arguments, upon their being in the epistles, are no proofs, that all his articles are necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, because they are set down in the epistles; much less, because he thinks they may be drawn, according to his system, out of what is set down in the epistles. Let him, therefore, either confess these and the like questions, " Why did the apostles write " these? Was it not, that those they write to, might " give their assent to them? Why should not every one " of these evangelical truths be believed and embraced? " They are in our bibles, for that very purpose; " and the like; to be impertinent and ridiculous. Let him cease to propose them with so much ostentation, for they can serve only to mislead unwary readers: or let him unsay what he has said, of things " not plain to " common apprehensions, not clear and intelligible." Let him recant what he has said of mysteries in Chris tianity. For I ask with him, p. 8, " where can we be " informed, but in the sacred and inspired writings? " It is ridiculous to urge, that any thing is necessary to be explicitly believed, to make a man a Christian, be cause it is writ in the epistles, and in the bible; unless he confess that there is no mystery, nothing not plain, or unintelligible to vulgar understandings, in the epis tles, or in the bible.
This is so evident, that the unmasker himself, who, p. 119, of his " Thoughts concerning the Causes of " Atheism," thought it ridiculous to suppose, that the vulgar should understand Christianity, is here of another mind: and, p. 30, says of his evangelical doctrines and articles, necessary to be assented to, that they are intel ligible and plain; there is no " ambiguity and doubt- " fulness in them; they shine with their own light, and Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 239 to an unprejudiced eye are plain, evident, and illus trious."
To draw the un masker out of the clouds, and prevent his hiding himself in the doubtfulness of his expressions, I shall desire him to say directly, whether the articles, which are necessary to be believed, to make a man a Christian, and particularly those he has set down for such, are all plain and intelligible, and such as may be understood and comprehended (I will not say in the unmasker's ridiculous way, by the weakest noddles, but) by every illiterate country man and woman, capable of church-communion?
If he says, Yes; then all mysteries are excluded out of his articles necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian. For that which can be comprehended by every day-labourer, every poor spinster,.that is a member of the church, cannot be a mystery. And, if what such illiterate people cannot understand be required to be believed, to make them Christians, the greatest part of mankind are shut out from being Christians.
But the un masker has provided an answer, in these words, p. 31, " There is" says he, "a difficulty in the " doctrine of the trinity, and several truths of the gos- " pel, as to the exact manner of the things themselves, " which we shall never be able to comprehend, at least " on this side of heaven: but there is no difficulty as " to the reality and certainty of them, because we " know they are revealed to us by God in the holy " scriptures."
Which answer of " difficulty in the manner," and " no difficulty in the reality," having the appearance of a distinction, looks like learning; but when it comes to be applied to the case in hand, will scarce afford us sense.
The question is about a proposition to be believed, which must first necessarily be understood. For a man cannot possibly give his assent to any affirmation or ne gation, unless he understand the terms as they are joined in that proposition, and has a conception of the thing affirmed or denied, and also a conception of the thing, concerning which it is affirmed or denied, as they are 240 A Second Vindication of the there put tog-ether. But let the proposition be what it will, there is no more to be understood than is expressed in the terms of that proposition. If it be a proposition concerning a matter of fact, it is enough to conceive, and believe the matter of fact. If it be a proposition concerning the manner of the fact, the manner of the fact must also be believed, as it is intelligibly expressed in that proposition; v. g. should this proposition vtxpot lygipovira* be offered as an article of faith, to an illiterate countryman of England, he could not believe it: be cause, though a true proposition, yet it being proposed in words, whose meaning he understood not, he could not give any assent to it. Put it into English, he un derstands what is meant by the " dead shall rise." For he can conceive, that the same man, who was dead and senseless, should be alive again; as well as he can, that the same man, who is now in a lethargy, should awake again; or the same man that is now out of his sight, and he knows not whether he be alive or dead, should return and be with him again; and so he is capable of believing it, though he conceives nothing of the man ner, how a man revives, wakes or moves. But none of these manners of those actions being included in those propositions, - the proposition concerning the matter of fact (if it imply no contradiction in it) may be believed; and so all that is required may be done, whatever diffi culty may be, as to the exact manner, how it is brought about.
But where the proposition is about the manner, the belief too must be of the manner, v. g. the article is, " The dead shall be raised with spiritual bodies: " and then the belief must be as well of this manner of the fact, as of the fact itself. So that what is said here, by the unmasker, about the manner, signifies nothing at all in the case. What is understood to be expressed in each proposition, whether it be of the manner, or not of the manner, is (by its being a revelation from God) to be believed, as far as it is understood: but no more is required to be believed concerning any article, than is contained in that article.
What the unmasker, for the removing of difficulties, Reasonableness of Christianity, $$c. 241 adds farther, in these words, " But there is no difficulty " as to the reality and certainty of the truths of the " gospel; because we know, they are revealed to us by " God in the holy scripture;" is yet farther from signi fying any thing to the purpose, than the former. The question is about understanding, and in what sense they are understood; not believing several propositions, or articles of faith, which are to be found in the scripture. To this the un masker says, there can be " no difficulty " at all as to their reality and certainty; because they " are revealed by God." Which amounts to no more but this, that there is no difficulty at all in the under standing and believing this proposition, " that whatever " is revealed by God, is really and certainly true." But is the understanding and believing this single proposi tion, the understanding and believing all the articles of faith necessary to be believed? Is this all the explicit faith a Christian need have? If so, then a Christian need explicitly believe no more, but this one proposition, viz. That all the propositions between the two covers of his bible, are certainly true. But I imagine the unmasker will not think the believing this one proposition, is a sufficient belief of all those fundamental articles, which he has given us, as necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian. For, if that will serve the turn, I conclude he may make his set of fundamentals as large and express to his system as he pleases: calvinists, ar- minians, anabaptists, socinians, will all thus own the belief of them, viz. that all that God has revealed in the scripture, is really and certainly true.
But if believing this proposition, that all that is re vealed by God in the scripture is true, be not all the faith which the unmasker requires, what he says about the reality and certainty of all truths revealed by God, removes nothing of the difficulty. A proposition of di vine authority is found in the scripture: it is agreed presently between him and me, that it contains a real, certain truth: but the difficulty is, what is the truth it contains, to which he and I must assent; v. g. the pro fession of faith made by the eunuch, in these words, " Jesus Christ is the son of God," upon which he was A Second Vindication of the admitted into the church, as a Christian, I believe, con tains a " real and certain truth." Is that enough? No, says the unmasker, p. 87, it " includes in it, that Christ " was God;" and therefore it is not enough for me to believe, that these words contain a real certain truth: but I must believe, they contain this truth, that Jesus Christ is God; that the eunuch spoke them in that sense, and in that sense I must assent to them: whereas they appear to me to be spoken, and meant here, as well as in several other places of the " New Testament," in this sense, viz. " That Jesus Christ is the Messiah," and in that sense, in this place, I assent to them. The mean ing then of these words, as spoken by the eunuch, is the difficulty: and I desire the unmasker, by the application of what he has said here, to remove that difficulty. For granting all revelation from God to be really and cer tainly true, (as certainly it is,) how does the believing that general truth remove any difficulty about the sense and interpretation of any particular proposition, found in any passage of the holy scriptures? Or is it possible for any man to understand it in one sense, and believe it in another; because it is a divine revelation, that has reality and certainty in it? Thus much, as to what the unmasker says of the fundamentals, he has given iiSj p. 30, viz. That " no true lover of God and truth 61 need doubt of any of them: for there is no ambi- " guity and doubtfulness in them." If the distinction he has used, " of difficulty as to the exact manner, arid " no difficulty as to the reality and certainty of gospel- (i truths/' will remove all ambiguity and doubtfulness from all those texts of scripture, from whence he and others deduce fundamental articles, so that they will ba " plain and intelligible " to every man, in the sense he understands them; he has done great service to Christianity.
But he seems to distrust that himself, in the following words: " They shine," says he, " with their own light, 6 and to an unprejudiced eye, are plain, evident, and " illustrious; and they would always continue so, if " some ill-minded men did not perplex and entangle " them." I see the matter would go very smooth, if Reasonableness of Christianity, §c. 243 the unmasker might be the sole, authentic interpreter of scripture. He is wisely of that judge's mind, who was against hearing the counsel on the other side, be cause they always perplexed the cause.
But if those who differ from the unmasker, shall in their turns call him the " prejudiced and ill-minded " man," who perplexes these matters (as they may, with as much authority as he), we are but where we were; each must understand for himself, the best he can, until the unmasker be received, as the only unpre judiced man, to whose dictates every one, without exa mination, is with an implicit faith to submit.
Here again, p. 32, the unmasker puts upon me, what I never said: and therefore I must desire him to show, where it is, that I pretend, XI. That this " proposition," that Jesus is the Mes siah, " is more intelligible, than any of those he " has named."
In his " Thoughts concerning the causes of atheism," p. 120, he argues, that this proposition [Jesus is the Messiah] has more difficulty in it, than the article of the holy Trinity. And his proofs are worthy of an un masker. " For," says he, " here is an Hebrew word " first to be explained; " or, (as he has this strong argu ment again, " Socinianism unmasked," p. 32.) " Here " first the name Jesus, which is of Hebrew extraction, " though since grecized, must be expounded."
Answ. Jesus being a proper name, only denoting a certain person, needs not to be expounded, of what ex traction soever it be. Is this proposition, Jonathan, was the son of Saul, king of Israel, any thing the harder, because the three proper names in it, Jonathan, Saul, and Israel, are of Hebrew extraction? And is it not as easy, and as "level to the understanding of the vulgar," as this, Arthur was the son of Henry, king of England; though neither of these names be of Hebrew extraction? Or cannot any vulgar capacity understand this proposi tion, John Edwards writ a book, intitled, " Socinian- " ism unmasked;" until the name of John, which is of Hebrew extraction, be explained to him? If this be so, parents were best beware, how hereafter they give their 244 A Second Vindication of the children scripture-names, if they cannot understand what they say to one another about them, until these names of Hebrew extraction are expounded to them; and every proposition, that is in writings and contracts, made concerning persons, that have names of Hebrew extraction, become thereby as hard to be understood, as the doctrine of the holy trinity, His next argument is just of the same size. The word Messias must, he says, be explained too. Of what ex traction soever it be, there needs no more explication of it, than what our English bible gives of it, where it is plain to any vulgar capacity, that it was used to denote that King and Deliverer, whom God had promised. So that this proposition, " Jesus is the Messiah," has no more difficulty in it than this, Jesus is the promised King and Deliverer; or than this, Cyrus was king and deliverer of Persia; which, I think, requires not much depth of Hebrew to be understood. He that understood this proposition, and took Cyrus for his king, was a sub ject, and a member of his kingdom; and he that un derstands the other, and takes Jesus to be his king, is his subject, and a member of his kingdom. But if this be as hard as it is to some men, to understand the doc trine of the trinity, I fear many of the kings in the world have but few true subjects. To believe Jesus to be the Messiah, is (as he has been told, over and over again) to take him for our King and Ruler, promised, and sent by God. This is that which will make any one from a jew, or heathen, to be a Christian. In this sense it is very in telligible to vulgar capacities. Those who so understand and believe it, are so far from " pronouncing these words " as a spell/' (as the unmasker ridiculously suggests, p. 33,) that they thereby become Christians.
But what if I tell the unmasker, that there is one Mr. Edwards, who (when he speaks his mind without con sidering how it will make for, or against him) in an other place, thinks this proposition, " Jesus is the Mes- " sias/' very easy and intelligible? To convince him of it, I shall desire him to turn to the 74th page of his " Socinianism unmasked/' where he will find that Mr. Edwards, without any great search into Hebrew extrac tions, interprets " Jesus the Messiah," to signify this, Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 245 " That Jesus of Nazareth was that eminent and ex- " traordinary person prophesied of long before, and " that he was sent and commissioned by God: " which, I think, is no very hard proposition to be understood. But it is no strange thing, that that which was very easy to an unmasker in one place, should be terribly hard in another, where want of something better requires to have it so.
Another argument that he uses to prove the articles he has given us to be necessary to salvation, p. 22, is, because they are doctrines which contain things, that in their nature have an " immediate respect to the occa- " sion, author, way, end, means, and issue of men's " redemption and salvation." And here I desire him to prove, XII. That every one of his articles contains things so immediately relating to the " occasion, author, " way, means, and issue of our redemption and " salvation, that no-body can be saved, without " understanding the texts from whence he draws " them, in the very same sense that he does; and " explicitly believing all these propositions that he " has deduced, and all that he will deduce from " scripture, when he shall please to complete his " creed."
Page 23, he says of his fundamentals, " Not without f( good reason, THEREFORE, I called them essential and " integral parts of our Christian and evangelical faith: " and why the Vindicator fleers at these terms, I know " no reason, but that he cannot confute the application " of them."
Answ. One would think by the word, Therefore, which he uses here, that in the preceding paragraph, he had produced some reason to justify his ridiculous use of those terms, in his " Thoughts concerning atheism," p. 111. But nothing therein will be found tending to it. Indeed, the foregoing paragraph begins with these words, " Thus I have briefly set before the reader those evan- " gelical truths, those Christian principles, which belong 24(5 A Second Vindication of the " to the very essence of Christianity." Amongst these, there is the word Essence: but that from thence, or any thing else in that paragraph, the unmasked could, with good sense, or any sense at all, infer, as he does, " not " without good reason, THEREFORE I called them the " ESSENTIAL and INTEGRAL parts of our Christian and " evangelical faith; " requires an extraordinary sort of logic to make out. What, I beseech you, is your good reason too, here, upon which you infer, cc Therefore," &c.? For it is impossible for any one, but an un masker, to find one word, justifying his use of the terms essen tial and integral. But it would be a great restraint to the running of the unmasker's pen, if you should not allow him the free use of illative particles, where there are no premises to support them: and if you should not take affirmations without proof, for reasoning, you at once strike off above three quarters of his book; and he will often, for several pages together, have nothing to say. As for example, from p. 28 to p. 35.
But to show that I did not, without reason, say, his use of the terms essential and integral, in the place be fore quoted, was ridiculous; I must mind my reader, that, p. 109 of his " Thoughts concerning the causes " of atheism," he having said that " the epistolary " writings are fraught with other fundamentals, besides " that one which I mention; " and then having set them down, he closes his catalogue of them thus: " These are matters of faith contained in the epistles, " and they are essential and integral parts of the gospel " itself," p. 111. Now what could be more ridicu lous, than, where the question is about fundamental doctrines, which are essentials of the Christian religion, without an assent to which a man cannot be a Christian; and so he himself calls them, p. 21, of his " Socinianism " unmasked; " that he should close the list he had made of fundamental doctrines, i. e. essential points of the Christian religion, with telling his reader, " These are " essential and integral parts of the gospel itself? " i. e. These, which I have given you for fundamental, for es sential doctrines of the gospel, are the fundamental and not fundamental, essential and not essential, parts of the Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. £47 gospel mixed together. For integral parts, in all the writers I have met with, besides the unmasker, are con tradistinguished to essential; and signify such parts as the thing can be without, but without them will not be so complete and entire as with them. Just such an acuteness, as our unmasker, would any one show, who taking upon him to set down the parts essential to a man, without the having of which he could not be a man, should name the soul, the head, the heart, lungs, stomach, liver, spleen, eyes, ears, tongue, arms, legs, hair, and nails; and, to make all sure, should conclude with these words; " These are parts contained " in a man, " and are essential and integral parts of a man " himself;" i.e. they are parts, without some of which he cannot be a man; and others, which though they make the man entire, yet he may be a man without them; as a man ceases not to be a man, though he wants a nail, a finger, or an arm, which are integral parts of a man: " Risum teneatis! " If the unmasker can make any better sense of his " essential and integral parts of " the gospel itself," I will ask his pardon for my laugh- ing: until then he must not be angry, if the reader and I laugh too. Besides, I must tell him, that those, which he has set down, are not the " integral parts of the *6 Christian faith," any more than the head, the trunk, and the arms, hands, and thighs, are the integral parts of a man: for a man is not entire without the legs and feet too. They are some of the integral parts indeed; but cannot be called the integral parts, where any, that go to make up the whole man, are left out; nor those the integral, but some of the integral parts of the Chris tian faith, out of which any of the doctrines, proposed in the " New Testament," are omitted: for whatever is there proposed, is proposed to be believed, and so is a part of the Christian faith.
Before I leave his catalogue of the " essential and in- " tegral parts" of the gospel, which he has given us, instead of one, containing the articles necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian,, I must take notice of what he says, whilst he is making1 it, p. 9 ' " Why " then is there a treatise published, to tell the world, 248 A Second Vindication of the (f that the bare belief of a Messiah, is all that is required " of a Christian?" As if there were no difference be tween believing a Messiah, and believing Jesus to be the Messiah; no difference between " required of a chris- " tian," and required to make a man a Christian. As if you should say, renouncing his former idolatry, and being circumcised and baptized into Moses, was all that was required to make a man an israelite; therefore it was all that was required of an israelite. For these two falsehoods has he, in this one short sentence, thought fit slily to father upon me, the " humble imitator of the " Jesuits," as he is pleased to call me. And, therefore, I must desire him to show, XIII. Where the " world is told, in the treatise that " I published, That the bare belief of a Messiah is " all that is required of a Christian."
The six next pages, i. e. from the twenty-eighth to the end of his second chapter, being taken up with no thing but pulpit oratory, out of its place; and without any reply, applied, or applicable to any thing I have said, in my Vindication; I shall pass by, until he shows any thing in them that is so.
In page 36, this giant in argument falls on me, and mauls me unmercifully, about the epistles. He begins thus: " The gentleman is not without his evasions, and " he sees it is high time to make use of them. This puts " him in some disorder. For, when he comes to speak " of my mentioning his ill treatment of the epistles, — " you may observe, that he begins to grow warmer than " before. Now this meek man is nettled, and one may " perceive he is sensible of the scandal that lie hath " given to good people, by his slighting the epistolary " writings of the holy apostles; yet he is so cunning as " to disguise his passion as well as he can." Let all this impertinent and inconsistent stuff be so. I am angry and cannot disguise it, I am cunning and would disguise it, but yet, the quick-sighted unmasker has found me out, that I am nettled. What does all this notable pro logue of " hictius doctius/' of a cunning man, and in Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 249