" Necessary doctrines of faith, such as God abso- " lutely demands to he believed for justification, may be " distinguished from rules of holy living, with which " they are mixed in the epistles: therefore doctrines of " faith necessary, and not necessary to be believed to " make a man a Christian, may be distinguished, as " they stand mixed in the epistles." Which is as good sense as to say, lambs and kids may easily be distin guished in the same pen, where they are together, by their different natures: therefore the lambs I absolutely demand of you, as necessary to satisfy me, may be dis tinguished from others in the same pen, where they are mixed without any distinction. Doctrines of faith, and precepts of practice}, are as distinguishable as doing and believing; and those as easily discernible one from another, as -thinking and walking: but doctrinal propo sitions, all of them of divine revelation, are of the same authority, and of the same species, in respect of the necessity of believing them; and will be eternally un- distinguishable into necessary, and not necessary to be believed, until there be some other way found to distin guish them, than that they are in a book, which is all of divine revelation. Though therefore doctrines of faith and rules of practice are very distinguishable in the epistles, yet it does not follow from thence, that fundamental and not fundamental doctrines, points ne cessary and not necessary to be believed to make men Christians, are easily distinguishable in the epistles. Which, therefore, remains to be proved: and it remains incumbent upon him, XVIII. " To set down the marks, whereby the doc- " trines, delivered in the epistles, may easily and Reasonableness of Christiartitg, fyc. £61 " exactly be distinguished into fundamental, arid " not fundamental articles of faith."
All the rest of that paragraph containing nothing against me, must be bound up with a great deal of the like stuff, which the tinmasker has put into his book, to show the world he does not " imitate me in imperti- " nencies, incoherences, and trifling excursions/' as he boasts in his first paragraph. Only I shall desire the reader to take the whole passage concerning this matter, as it stands in my (C Reasonableness of Christianity," p. 154. " I do not deny but the great doctrines of the " Christian faith are dropt here and there, and scat- " tered up and down in most of them. But it is not " in the epistles we are to learn what are the funda- " mental articles of faith, where they are promiscu- " ously, and without distinction, mixed with other " truths and discourses, which were (though for edifi- " cation indeed, yet) only occasional. We shall find " and discern those great and necessary points best, in " the preaching of our Saviour and his apostles, to " those who were yet strangers and ignorant of the " faith, to bring them in and convert them to it." And then let him read these words, which the unmasker has quoted out of them: " It is not in the epistles that " we are to learn what are the fundamental articles of " faith; they were written for the resolving of doubts, " and reforming of mistakes; " with his introduction of them in these words: " he commands the reader not " to stir a jot further than the Acts." If 1 should ask him where that command appears, he must have re course to his old shift, that he did not mean as he said, or else stand convicted of a malicious untruth. An orator is not bound to speak strict truth, though a dis putant be. But this unmasker's writing against me will excuse him from being of the latter: and then why may not falsehoods pass for rhetorical flourishes, in one who has been used to popular haranguing; to which men are not generally so severe, as strictly to examine them, and expect that they should always be found to con tain nothing but precise truth and strict reasoning? But 262 A 'Second Vindication of the yet Imust not forget to put upon his score this other pro position of his, which he has, p. 42, and ask him to show, XIX. " Where it is that I command my reader not " to stir a jot farther than the Acts? " In the next two paragraphs, p. 42 — 46, theunmasker is at his natural play, of declaiming without proving. It is pity the Mishna, out of which he takes his good breeding, as it told him, that " a well-bred and well- " taught man answers to the first, in the first place," had not given him this rule too, about order, viz. That proving should go before condemning; else all the fierce exaggerations ill language can heap up, are but empty scurrility. But it is no wonder that the Jewish doctors should not provide rules for a Christian divine, turned unmasker. For where a cause is to be main tained, and a book to be writ, and arguments are not at hand, yet something must be found to fill it; railing in such cases is much easier than reasoning, especially where a man's parts lie that way.
The first of these paragraphs, p. 42, he begins thus: " But let us hear further what this vindicator saith to " excuse his rejection of the doctrines contained in the " epistles, and his putting us off with one article of " faith." And then he quotes these following words of mine: " What if the author designed his treatise, as " the title shows, chiefly for those who were not yet " thoroughly and firmly Christians: purposing to work " those, who either wholly disbelieved, or doubted of " the truth of the Christian religion?
Aris. This, as he has put it, is a downright falsehood. For the words he quotes were not used by me, " to ex- " cuse my rejection of the doctrines contained in the " epistles," or to prove there was but one article; but as a reason why I omitted the mention of satisfaction.
To demonstrate this, I shall set down the whole pas sage, as it is, p. 163, 164, of my Vindication, where it runs thus: " But what will become of me that I have not men- " tioned satisfaction? " Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc.
" Possibly this reverend gentleman would have had " charity enough for a known writer of the brother- " hood, to have found it by an innuendo in those words " above quoted, of laying down his life for another. " But every thing is to be strained here the other way. " For the author of the " Reasonableness of christi- " anity, &c." is of necessity to be represented as a soci- " nian; or else his book may be read, and the truths " in it, wliich Mr. Edwards likes not, be received; " and people put upon examining. Thus one, as full " of happy conjectures and suspicions as this gentle- " man, might be apt to argue. But what if the author " designed his treatise, as the title shows, chiefly for " those who were not yet thoroughly or firmly chris- " tians; proposing to work on those, who either wholly " disbelieved, or doubted of the truth of the Christian " religion? " To this he tells rne, p. 43, that my " title says no- " thing for me," i. e. shows not that I designed my book for those that disbelieved, or doubted of the Chris tian religion.
Answ. I thought that a title that professed the rea- j sonableness of any doctrine, showed it was intended for \ those that were not fully satisfied of the reasonableness of it; unless books are to be writ to convince those of any thing, who are convinced already. But possibly this may be the unmasker's way: and if one should judge by his manner of treating this subject, with declamation instead of argument, one would think that he meant it for nobody but those who were of his mind already. I thought therefore, " the Reasonableness of Christi- " anity, as delivered in the Scripture," a proper title to signify whom it was chiefly meant for: and, I thank God, I can with satisfaction say, it has not wanted its effect upon some of them. But the unmasker proves for all that, that I could not design it chiefly for disbe lievers or doubters of the Christian religion. <; For, " says, he, p. 43, how those that wholly disregard and " disbelieve the scriptures of the New Testament, as " gentiles, jews, mahometans, and atheists do," (I crave leave to put in theists, instead of atheists, for a £64 A Second Vindication of the reason presently to be mentioned) " are like to attend " to the Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in " the Scripture, is not to be conceived: and therefore " we look upon this as all mere sham and sophistry." Answ. Though the unmasker teaches good breeding out of the JVIishna, yet I thought he had been a minister of the gospel, and had taught Christianity out of the scripture, Why! good sir, would you teach jews and mahometans Christianity out of the talmud and alcoran; because they are the books that at present they attend to, and believe? Or would you, laying by the authority of all books, preach religion to infidels, in your own name, and by your own authority, laying aside the scripture? " Is it not to be conceived," no not by a Christian divine, that the way to make unbelievers chris- tians, is to show them the reasonableness of the religion contained in the scriptures? But it seems the unmasker has a peculiar way of preaching and propagating Chris tianity without the scripture; as some men have a pe culiar way of disputing without reason.
In the beginning of this paragraph, p. 43, the un masker, that is always a fair interpreter of my meaning, and never fails to know it better than I do, tells me, That by those that wholly disbelieve, " I must mean " atheists, turks, jews, arid pagans; and by those that " are not firmly Christians, a few weak Christians." But did our unmasker never hear of unbelievers, under a denomination distinct from that of atheists, turks, jews, and pagans? Whilst the pulpit and the press have so often had up the name of theists or deists, has that name wholly escaped him? It was these I chiefly de signed, and I believe, nobody of all that read my Vin dication, but the unmasker, mistook me, if he did. But, there at least, p. 165., he might have found the name, as of a sort of unbelievers not unknown amongst us. But, whatever he thought, it was convenient, and a sort of prudence in him (when he would persuade others that I had not a design, which I say I had) to lessen as much as he could, and cover the need of any such design; and so make it, that I could not intend my book to work upon those that disbelieved, or did not firmly believe; Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 265 by insinuating, there were few or none such amongst us. Hence he says, that by those that are not thoroughly and firmly Christians, " I mean a FEW weak Christians; " as well, as under those who wholly disbelieve, he left the theist out of my meaning. I am very glad to hear from the un masker, that there are but few weak Christians, few that have doubts about the truth of Christianity amongst us. But if there be not a great number of deists, and that the preventing their increase be not worth every true Christian's care and endeavours, those who have been so loud against them, have been much to blame; and I wish to God there were no reason for their complaints. For these, therefore, I take the liberty to say, as I did before, that I chiefly designed my book; and shall not be ashamed of this sophistry, as you call it, if it can be sophistry to allege a matter of fact that I know; until you have arguments to convince me, that you know my intention in publishing it, better than I do myself. And I shall think it still no blameable pru dence, however you exclaim against prudence, (as per haps you have some reason,) that " I mentioned only " those advantages, that all Christians are agreed in; " and that I observed that command of the apostle, " Rom. xiv. 1, " Him that is weak in the faith receive " ye, but not to doubtful disputations; " without being " a socinian. I think I did not amiss, that I offered to " the belief of those that stood off, that, and only that, " which our Saviour and his apostles preached for the " reducing the unconverted world. And would any one 6- think, he in earnest went about to persuade men to be " Christians, who should use that as an argument to re- " commend the gospel, which he has observed men to " lay hold on as an objection against it? To urge such " points of controversy as necessary articles of faith, " when we see our Saviour and the apostles urged them " not as necessary to be believed to make men Christians, " is (by our own authority) to add prejudices to pre- " judices, and to block up our own way to those men, " whom we would have access to and prevail upon."
I have repeated this again out of the 164th page of my Vindication, where there is more to the same pur- 266 A Second Vindication of the pose; that the reader may see how fully the unmasker has answered it.
Because,, I said " Would any one blame my prudence, " if I mentioned only those advantages which all chris- " tians are agreed in? " the unmasker adds, p. 44, " so- " cinian Christians: " and then, as if the naming of that had gained him his point, he goes on victoriously thus: " He has bethought himself better, since he first pub- " lished his notions, and (as the result of that) he now " begins to resolve what he writ into prudence. I " know whence he had this method, (and it is likely he " has taken more than this from the same hands,) viz. " from the missionary Jesuits, that went to preach the " gospel to the people of China. We are told, that they " instructed them in some matters relating to our Sa- " viour; they let them know that Jesus was the JMes- " sias, the person promised to be sent into the world: " but they concealed his sufferings and death, and they " would not let them know any thing of his passion and " crucifixion. So our author (their humble imitator) " undertakes to instruct the world in Christianity, with " an omission of its principal articles; and more espe- " cially that of the advantage we have by Christ's " death, which was the prime thing designed in his " coming into the world. This he calls prudence: so " that to hide from the people the main articles of the " Christian religion, to disguise the faith of the gospel, " to betray Christianity itself, is, according to this ex- " cellent writer, the cardinal virtue of prudence. May " we be delivered then, say I, from a prudential raco- " vian." And there ends the rattling for this time; not to be outdone by any piece of clock-work in the town. When he is once set a going, he runs on like an alarum, always in the same strain of noisy, empty declama tion, (wherein every thing is supposed, and nothing proved,) till his own weight has brought him to the ground: and then, being wound up with some new topic, takes another run, whether it makes for or against him, it matters not; he has laid about him with ill lan guage, let it light where it will, and the vindicator is paid off.
Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 267 That I may keep the due distance in our different ways of writing, I shall show the reader, that I say not this at random; but that the place affords me occasion to say so. He begins this paragraph with these words, p. 42, " Let us hear farther, what this vindicator says " to excuse his rejection of the doctrines contained in " the epistles." This rejection of the doctrines con tained in the epistles, was the not mentioning the satis faction of Christ, amongst those advantages I showed that the world received by his coming. This appears by the words he here quotes, as my excuse for that omission. In which place I also produced some passages in my book, which sounded like it, some words of scrip ture, that are used to prove it; but this will not content him: I am for all that, a " betrayer of Christianity, and " contemner of the epistles." Why? because I did not, out of them, make satisfaction. If you will have the truth of it, sir, there is not any such word in any one of the epistles, or other books of the New Testa ment, in my bible, as satisfying, or satisfaction made by our Saviour; and so I could not put it into my " Christianity as delivered in the Scripture." If mine be not a true bible, I desire you to furnish me with one that is more orthodox; or, if the translators have " hid " that main article of the Christian religion/' they are the " betrayers of Christianity, and contemners of the " epistles," who did not put it there; and not I who did not take a word from thence, which they did not put there. For truly I am not a maker of creeds; nor dare add either to the scripture, or to the fundamental articles of the Christian religion.
But you will say, satisfaction, though not named in the epistles, yet may plainly be collected out of them. Answ. And so it may out of several places in my " Rea- " sonableness of Christianity," some whereof, which I took out of the gospels, I mentioned in my vindication, p. 163, 164, and others of them, which I took out of the epistles, I shall point out to you now: as p. 417, I say, the design of our Saviour's coming was to be OF FERED up; and p. 84, I speak of the work of our RE DEMPTION: words, which in the epistles, are taken to £68 A Second Vindication of the imply satisfaction. And therefore if that be enough, I see not, but I may be free from betraying Christianity; but if it be necessary to name the word Satisfaction, and he that does not so is a betrayer of Christianity, you will do well to consider, how you will acquit the holy apos tles from that bold imputation; which if it be extended as far as it will go, will scarce come short of blasphemy: for I do not remember, that our Saviour has any- where named satisfaction, or implied it plainer in any words, than those I have quoted from him; and he, I hope, will escape the intemperance of your tongue.
You tell me, I had my " prudence from the mission- " ary Jesuits in China, who concealed our Saviour's suf- " ferings and death, because I undertake to instruct the " world in Christianity, with an omission of its principal " articles." And I pray, sir, from whom did you learn your prudence, when, taking upon you to teach the fun damental doctrines of Christianity, in your " Thoughts " concerning the causes of atheism," you left out se veral, that you have been pleased since to add in your " Socinianism unmasked? " Or, if I, as you say here, betray Christianity by this omission of this principal ar ticle; what do you, who are a professed teacher of it, if you omit any principal article, which your prudence is so wary in, that you will not say you have given us all that are necessary to salvation, in that list you have last published? I pray, who acts best the Jesuit, (whose hum ble imitator, you say, I am,) you or I? when, pretending to give a catalogue of fundamentals, you have not re duced them to direct propositions, but have left some of them indefinite, to be collected as every one pleases: and instead of telling us it is a perfect catalogue of fun damentals, plainly shuffle it off, and tell me, p. 22, " If " that will not content me, you are sure you can do no- " thing that will: if I require more, it is folly in you to " comply with me? " One part of what you here say, I own to you, savours not much of the skill of a Jesuit. You confess your inability, and I believe it to be per fectly true: that if what you have done already [which is nothing at all) " will not content me," you are sure " you can do nothing that will content me, " or any Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 269 reasonable man that shall demand of you a complete catalogue of fundamentals. But you make it up pretty well, with a confidence becoming one of that order. For he must have rubbed his forehead hard, who in the same treatise, where he so severely condemns the imperfection of my list of fundamentals, confesses that he cannot give a complete catalogue of his own.
You publish to the world in this 44th, and the next page, that, " I hide from the people the main articles of " the Christian religion; I disguise the faith of the gos- " pel, betray Christianity itself, and imitate the Jesuits " that went to preach the gospel to the people of China, " by my omission of its principal or main articles."
Answ. I know not how I disguise the faith of the gospel, &c. in imitation of the Jesuits in China; unless taking men off from the inventions of men, and recom mending to them the reading and study of the holy scripture, to find what the gospel is, and requires, be " a disguising the faith of the gospel, a betraying of " Christianity, and imitating the Jesuits." Besides, sir, if one may ask you, In what school did you learn that prudent wariness and reserve, which so eminently ap pears, p. 24, of your " Socinianism unmasked/' in these words: " These articles" (meaning those which you had before enumerated as fundamental articles) " of faith, " are such as must IN SOME MEASURE be known and " assented to by a Christian, such as must GENERALLY " be received and embraced by him? " You will do well the next time, to set down, how far your fundamentals must be known, assented to, and received; to avoid the suspicion, that there is a little more of Jesuitism in these expressions, " in some measure known and assented to, " and generally received and embraced;" than what becomes a sincere protestant preacher of the gospel. For your speaking so doubtfully of knowing and assent ing to those, which you give us for fundamental doc trines, which belong (as you say) to the very essence of Christianity, will hardly escape being imputed to your want of knowledge, or want of sincerity. And indeed, the word " general," is in familiar use with you, and stands you in good stead, when you would say some- 270 A Second Vindication of the thing1, you know not what; as I shall have occasion to remark to you, when I come to your 91st page.
Further, I do not remember where it was, that I mentioned or undertook to set down all the " principal " or main articles of Christianity." To change the terms of the question, from articles necessary to be be lieved to make a man a Christian, into principal or main articles, looks a little Jesuitical. But to pass by that: the apostles, when they " went to preach the " gospel to people," as much strangers to it as the Chinese were, when the Europeans came first amongst them, " Did they hide from the people the main arti- " cles of the Christian religion, disguise the faith of the " gospel, and betray Christianity itself?" If they did not, I am sure I have not: for I have not omitted any of the main articles, which they preached to the unbe lieving world. Those I have set down, with so much care, not to omit any of them, that you blame me for it more than once, and call it tedious. However you are pleased to acquit or condemn the apostles in the case, by your supreme determination, I am very indifferent. If you think fit to condemn them for " disguising or " betraying the Christian religion," because they said no more of satisfaction, than I have done, in their preaching at first, to their unbelieving auditors, jews or heathens, to make them, as I think, Christians, (for that I am now speaking of,) I shall not be sorry to be found in their company, under what censure soever. If you are pleased graciously to take off this your censure from them, for this omission, I shall claim a share in the same indulgence.
But to come to what, perhaps, you will think yourself a little more concerned not to censure, and what the apostles did so long since; for you have given instances of being very apt to make bold with the dead: pray tell me, does the church of England admit people into the church of Christ at hap-hazard? Or without pro posing arid requiring a profession of all that is necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian? If she does not, I desire you to turn to the baptism of those of riper years in our liturgy: where the priest, asking the con- Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 271 vert particularly, whether he believes the apostles creed,, which he repeats to him; upon his profession that he does, and that he desires to be baptized into that faith, without one word of any other articles, baptizes him; and then declares him a Christian in these words: " We " receive this person into the congregation of Christ's " flock, and sign him with the sign of the cross, in to- " ken that he shall not be ashamed — to CONTINUE " Christ's faithful soldier and servant." In all this there is not one word of satisfaction, no more than in my book, nor so much neither. And here I ask you, Whether for this omission you will pronounce that the church of England disguises the faith of the gospel? However you think fit to treat me, yet methinks you should not let yourself loose so freely against our first reformers and the fathers of our church ever since, as to call them " Betrayers of Christianity itself;" because they think not so much necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, as you are pleased to put down in your articles; but omit, as well as I, your " main " article of satisfaction."