The preaching of our Saviour, and his apostles, has sufficiently taught us what is necessary to be proposed to every man, to make him a Christian. He that believes him to be the promised Messiah, takes Jesus for his King, and repenting of his former sins, sincerely re solves to live, for the future, in obedience to his laws, is a subject of his kingdom, is a Christian. If he be not, I desire the unmasker to tell me, what more is requi site to make him so. Until he does that, I rest satisfied, that this is all that was at first, and is still, necessary to make a man a Christian.
This, though it be contained in a few words, and those not hard to be understood; though it be in one voluntary act of the mind, relinquishing all irregular Reasonableness of Christianity, &;c. 353 courses, and submitting itself to the rule of him, whom God hath sent to be our King, and promised to be our Saviour; yet it having relation to the race of mankind, from the first man Adam to the end of the world; it being a contrivance, wherein God has displayed so much of his wisdom and goodness to the corrupt and lost sons of men; and it being a design, to which the Almighty had a peculiar regard in the whole constitu tion and reconomy of the jews, as well as in the pro phecies and history of the Old Testament; this was a foundation capable of large superstructures: 1. In ex- plaining the occasion, necessity, use, and end of his coming. 2. Next in proving him to be the person promised, by a correspondence of his birth, life, suffer ings, death, and resurrection, to all those prophecies and types of him, which had given the expectation of such a Deliverer; and to those descriptions of him, whereby he might be known, when he did come. 3. In the dis covery of the sort, constitution, extent, and manage ment of his kingdom. 4. In showing from what we are delivered by him, and how that deliverance is wrought out, and what are the consequences of it.
These, and a great many more the like, afford great numbers of truths delivered both in the historical, epis tolary, and prophetical writings of the New Testament, wherein the mysteries of the gospel, hidden from for mer ages, were discovered; and that more fully, I grant, after the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon the apos tles. But could nobody take Christ for their promised King, and resolve to obey him, unless he understood all the truths that concerned his kingdom, or, as I may say, mysteries of state of it? The truth of the contrary is manifest, out of the plain and uniform preaching of the apostles, after they had received the Holy Ghost, that was to guide them into all truth. Nay, after the writing of those epistles, wherein were contained the unmasker's sublimest truths; they every-where pro posed to unbelievers Jesus the Messiah, to be their King, ordained of God; and to this joined repentance: and this alone they preached for the conversion of their unbelieving hearers. As soon as any one assented to 354, A Second Vindication of the this he was pronounced a believer; and these inspired rulers of the church, these infallible preachers of the gospel, admitted into Christ's kingdom by baptism. And this after, long " after our Saviour's ascension, " when (as our un masker expresses it) the Holy Ghost " was to be sent in an especial manner to enlighten " men's minds, and to discover to them the great mys- " teries of Christianity," even as long as the apostles lived: and what others were to do, who afterwards were to preach the gospel, St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. iii. 11, " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, " even Jesus the Messiah." Though upon this founda tion men might build variously things that would, or would not hold the touch, yet however as long as they kept firm to this foundation, they should be saved, as appears in the following verses.
And indeed, if all the doctrines of the gospel, which are contained in the writings of the apostles and evan gelists, were necessary to be understood, and explicitly believed in the true sense of those that delivered them, to make a man a Christian; I doubt, whether ever any one, even to this day, was a true Christian; though I believe the unmasker will not deny, but that, ere this, Christianity (as he expresses it) " is by certain steps ** climbed to its height."
But for this the unmasker has found a convenient and wise remedy. It is but for him to have the power to declare, which of the doctrines delivered in holy writ are, and which are not necessary to be believed, with an additional power to add others of his own, that he can not find there; and the business is done. For unless this be allowed him, his system cannot stand; unless his interpretations be received for authentic revelation, we cannot have all the doctrines necessary for our time; in truth, we cannot be Christians. For to this only what he says, concerning the " gradual discovery of the " doctrines of the gospel," tends. " We are not to think," says he, " that all the necessary doctrines of the chris- *• tian religion were clearly published to the world in " our Saviour's time: not but that all that were neces- " sary for that time were published; but some that Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 355 " were necessary for the succeeding one, were not then " discovered, or, at least, not fully."
I must ask the unmasker a short question or two; as, first, XLVI. Are not all the doctrines, necessary for our time, contained in his system?
Next, XLVII. Can all the doctrines, necessary for our time, be proposed in the express words of the scripture?
When he has answered these two plain questions, (and an answer to them I shall expect,) the world will then see, what he designs by " doctrines necessary for our " Saviour's time, and doctrines necessary for succeeding " times; " whether he means any thing else by it, but the setting up his system, as the exact standard of the gospel, and the true and unalterable measure of Chris tianity, in which " it has climbed to its height."
Let not good and sincere Christians be deceived, nor perplexed, by this maker of another Christianity, than what the infallible Spirit of God has left us in the scrip tures. It is evident from thence, that whoever takes Jesus the Messiah for his King, with a resolution to live by his laws, and does sincerely repent, as often as he transgresses any of them, is his subject; all such are Christians. What they are to know, or believe more concerning him and his kingdom, when they are his subjects, he has left upon record in the great and sacred code and constitutions of his kingdom; I mean in the holy scriptures. All that is contained therein, as coming from the God of truth, they are to receive as truth, and embrace as such. But since it is impossible explicitly to believe any proposition of the Christian doctrine, but what we understand, or in any other sense, than we understand it to have been delivered in; an explicit belief is, or can be required in no man, of more than what he understands of that doctrine. And thus, 356 A Second Vindication of the whatsoever upon fair endeavours he understands to be contained in that doctrine, is necessary to him to be believed: nor can he continue a subject of Christ upon other terms.
What he is persuaded is the meaning of Christ his Ring in any expression he finds in the sacred code; that, by his allegiance, he is bound to submit his mind to receive for true, or else he denies the authority of Christ, and refuses to believe him; nor can be excused, by calling any one on earth master. And hence it is evidently impossible for a Christian to understand any text, in one sense, and believe it in another, by whom soever dictated.
All that is contained in the inspired writings, is all of divine authority, must all be allowed for such, and re ceived for divine and infallible truth, by every subject of Christ's kingdom, i. e. every Christian. How comes then the unmasker to distinguish these dictates of the Holy Spirit, into necessary and not necessary truths? I desire him to produce his commission, whereby he hath the power given him to tell, which of the divine truths, contained in the holy scripture, are of necessity to be believed, and which not. Who made him a judge or divider between them? Who gave him this power over the oracles of God, to set up one and debase an other, at his pleasure? Some, as he thinks fit, are the choicest truths: and what, I beseech him, are the other? Who made him a chooser, where nobody can pick and choose? Every proposition there, as far as any Christian can understand it, is indispensably necessary to be believed: and farther than he does understand it, it is impossible for him to believe it. The laws of Christ's kingdom do not require impossibilities; for they are all reasonable, and good.
Some of the truths delivered in the holy writ are very plain: it is impossible, I think, to mistake their mean ing; and those certainly are all necessary to be expli citly believed. Others have more difficulty in them, and are not easy to be understood. Is the unmasker appointed Christ's vicegerent here, or the Holy Ghost's interpreter, with authority to pronounce which of these Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 357 are necessary to be believed, and in what sense, and which not? The obscurity, that is to be found in several passages of the scripture, the difficulties that cover and perplex the meaning of several texts, demand of every Christian study, diligence, and attention, in reading and hearing the scriptures; in comparing and examining them; and receiving what light he can from all manner of helps, to understand these books, wherein are con tained the words of life. This the unmasker, and every one, is to do for himself; and thereby find out what is necessary for him to believe. But I do not know that the mi masker is to understand and interpret for me, more than I for him. If he has such a power, I desire him to produce it. Until then, I can acknowledge no other infallible, but that guide, which he directs me to himself, here in these words: " according to our Sa- " viour's promise, the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a " special manner to enlighten men's minds, and to dis- " cover to them the great mysteries of Christianity." For whether by men, he here means those on whom the Holy Ghost was so eminently poured out, Acts ii. or whether he means by these words, that special assist ance of the Holy Ghost, whereby particular men, to the end of the world, are to be led into the truth, by open ing their understandings, that they may understand the scriptures, (for he always loves to speak doubtfully and indefinitely,) I know no other infallible guide, but the Spirit of God in the scriptures. Nor has God left it in my choice to take any man for such. If he had, I should think the unmasker the unlikeliest to be he, and the last man in the world to be chosen for that guide: and herein I appeal to any sober Christian, who hath read what the unmasker has, with so little truth and decency, (for it is not always men's fault if they have not sense,) writ upon this question, whether he would not be of the same mind?
But yet, as very an unmasker as he is, he will be ex tremely apt to call you names, nay, to declare you no Christian; and boldly affirm, you have no Christianity, if you will not swallow it just as it is of his cooking, You must take it just as he has been pleased to dose it 358 A Second Vindication of the no more, nor no less, than what is in his system. He hath put himself into the throne of Christ, and pretends to tell you which are, and which are not the indis pensable laws of his kingdom: which parts of his di vine revelation you must necessarily know, understand, and believe, and in what sense; and which you need not trouble your head about, but may pass by, as not ne cessary to be believed. He will tell you, that some of his necessary articles are mysteries, and yet (as he does, p. 115, of his " Thoughts concerning the causes of " atheism") that they are easy to be understood by any man, when explained to him. In answer to that I de manded of him, " Who was to explain them? The " papists, I told him, would explain some of them one " way, and the reformed another; the remonstrants " and anti-remonstrants give them different senses; " and probably the trinitarians and Unitarians will pro- " fess, that they understand not each other's explica- " tions." But to this, in his reply, he has not vouch safed to give me any answer; which yet I expect, and I will tell him why; because, as there are different ex plainers, there will be different fundamentals. And therefore unless he can show his authority to be the sole explainer -of fundamentals, he will in vain make such a pother about his fundamentals. Another explainer, of as good authority as he, will set up others against them. And what then shall we be the better for all this stir and noise of fundamentals? All the effect of it will be just the same it has been these thousand years and upwards; schisms, separations, contentions, animosities, quarrels, blood and butchery, and all that train of mischiefs, which have so long harassed and defamed Christianity, and are so contrary to the doctrines, spirit, and end of the gospel; and which must still continue as long as any such unmasker shall take upon him to be the dispenser and dictator to others of fundamentals; and peremp torily to define which parts of divine revelation are ne cessary to be believed, and which Christians may with safety dispense with, and not believe.
To conclude, what was sufficient to make a man a Christian in our Saviour's time, is sufficient still, viz. the Reasonableness of Christianity) §c. 359 taking him for our King and Lord, ordained so by God. What was necessary to be believed by all Christians in our Saviour's time, as an indispensable duty, which they owed to their lord and master, was the believing all di vine revelation, as far as every one could understand it: and just so it is still, neither more nor less. This being so, the un masker may make what use he pleases of his notion, " that Christianity was erected by degrees," it will no way (in that sense, in which it is true) turn to the advantage of his select, fundamental, necessary doc trines.
The next chapter has nothing in it but his great bug bear, whereby he hopes to fright people from reading my book, by crying out Socinianism, Sociriianism! Whereas I challenge him again, to show one word of sociniaiiism in it. But, however, it is worth while to write a book to prove me a socinian. Truly, I did not think myself so considerable, that the world need be troubled about me, whether I were a follower of Socinus, Arminius, Calvin, or any other leader of a sect among Christians. A Christian I am sure I am, because I be- / lieve " Jesus to be the Messiah," the King and Saviour promised and sent by God: and, as a subject of his kingdom, I take the rule of my faith and life from his will, declared and left upon record in the inspired writings of the apostles and evangelists in the New- Testament; which I endeavoured to the utmost of my power, as is my duty, to understand in their true sense and meaning. To lead me into their true meaning, I know (as I have above declared) no infallible guide, but the same Holy Spirit, from whom these writings at first came. If the un masker knows any other infallible interpreter of scripture, I desire him to direct me to him: until then, I shall think it according to my master's rule, not to b3 called, nor to call any man on earth, Master. No man, I think, has a right to pre- j scribe to me my faith, or magisterially to impose his; interpretations or opinions on me: nor is it material to any one what mine are any farther than they carry their own evidence with them. If this, which I think makes me of no sect, entitles me to the name of a papist, or a 360 A Second Vindication of the socinian, because the unmasker thinks these the worst and most invidious he can give me: and labours to fix them on me for no other reason, but because I will not take him for my master on earth, and his system for my gospel: I shall leave him to recommend himself to the world by this skill, who, no doubt, will have reason to thank him for the rareness and subtilty of his discovery. For I think, I am the first man that ever was found to be at the same time a socinian, and a factor for Rome. But what is too hard for such an unmasker? I must be what he thinks fit; when he pleases, a papist; and when he pleases, a socinian; and when he pleases, a ma- hometan: and probably, when he has considered a little better, an atheist; for I hardly escaped it when he writ last. My book, he says, had a tendency to it; and if he can but go on, as he has done hitherto, from sur mises to certainties, by that time he writes next, his discovery will be advanced, and he will certainly find me an atheist. Only one thing I dare assure him of, that he shall never find, that I treat the things of God or religion so, as if I made only a trade or a jest of them. But let us now see, how at present he proves me a socinian.
His first argument is, my not answering for my leav ing out Matt, xxviii. 19, and John i. 1, page 82, of his Socinianism unmasked. This he takes to be a con fession, that I am a socinian. I hope he means fairly, and that if it be so on my side, it must be taken for a standing rule between us, that where any thing is not answered, it must be taken for granted. And upon that score I must desire him to remember some passages of my Vindication, which I have already, and others, which I shall mind him of hereafter, which he passed over in silence, and had nothing to say to: which there fore, by his own rule, I shall desire the reader to ob serve, that he has granted.
This being premised, I must tell the unmasker, that I perceive he reads my book with the same understanding that he writes his own. If he had done otherwise, he might have seen, that I had given him a reason for my omission of those two, and other " plain and obvious " passages, and famous testimonies in the evangelists/' as he calls them; where I say, p. 166, " That if I have " left out none of those passages or testimonies, which " contain what our Saviour and his apostles preached " and required assent to, to make men believers, I " shall think my omissions (let them be what they will) "no faults in the present case. Whatever doctrines " Mr. Edwards would have to be believed, to make a " man a Christian, he will be sure to find them in those " preachings, and famous testimonies, of our Saviour " and his apostles, I have quoted. And if they are not " there, he may rest satisfied, that they were not pro- " posed, by our Saviour and his apostles, as necessary " to be believed to make men Christ's disciples." From which words, any one, but an unmasker, could have understood my answer to be, that all that was neces sary to be believed to make men Christians, might be found in what our Saviour and his apostles proposed to unbelievers for their conversion: but the two pas sages above mentioned, as well as a great many others in the evangelists, being none of those, I had no rea son to take notice of them. But the unmasker having, out of his good pleasure, put it once upon me, as he does in his " Thoughts of the causes of atheism," p. 107, that I was an " epitomiser of the evangelical " writings," though every one may see I make not that my business; yet it is no matter for that, I must be always accountable to that fancy of his. But when he has proved, XL VIII. That this is not as just a reasoning for my omitting them, as several other obvious passages and famous testimonies in the evangelists, which I there mention, for whose omission he does not blame me; I will undertake to give him another reason, which I know not whether he were not better let alone.
The next proof of my being a socinian, is, that I take the Son of God to be an expression used to signify the Messiah, Slichtingius and Socinus understood it so; A Second Vindication of the and therefore I am, the unmasker says, a socinian. Just as good an argument, as that I believe Jesus to be a prophet, and so do the mahometans; therefore I am a mahometan: or thus, the unmasker holds, that the apostles creed does not contain all things necessary to salvation; and so says Knot the Jesuit; therefore the unmasker is a papist. Let me turn the tables, and by the same argument I am orthodox again. For two or thodox, pious, and very eminent prelates of our church, whom, when I follow authorities, I shall prefer to Slich- tingius and Socinus, understand it as I do; and there fore I am orthodox. Nay, it so falls out, that if it were of force either way, the argument would weigh most on this side; since I am not wholly a stranger to the writings of those two orthodox bishops; but I never read a page in either of those socinian s. The never sufficiently admired and valued archbishop Tillotson's words, which I quoted, the unmasker says, " do not " necessarily import any such thing." I know no words that necessarily import any thing to a caviller. But he was known to have such clear thoughts, and so clear a style, so far from having any thing doubtful or falla cious in what he said, that I shall only set down his words as they are in his sermon of sincerity, p. 2, to show his meaning: " Nathanael," says he, " being " satisfied, that he [our Saviour] was the Messiah, he " presently owned him for such, calling him THE SON " OF GOD, and the King of Israel."
The words of the other eminent prelate, the bishop of Ely, whom our church is still happy in, are these: " To " be the Son of God, and to be Christ, being but " different expressions of the same thing:" witness p. 14. And p. 10, " It is the very same thing to believe " that Jesus is the Christ," and to believe, " that Jesus " is the Son of God, express it how you please." " This " alone is the faith which can regenerate a man, and " put a divine Spirit into him, that it makes him a " conqueror over the world, as Jesus was." Of this the unmasker says, that this reverend author, " speaking " only in a general way, represents these two as the " same thing," viz. that Jesus is the Christ, and that Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc.
Jesus is the Son of God, because these expressions are applied to the same person, and because they are both comprehended in one general name, viz. Jesus. Answ. The question is, Whether these two expressions, " the " Son of God," and " the Messiah," in the learned bishop's opinion, signify the same thing? If his opi nion had been asked in the point, I know not how he could have declared it more clearly. For he says, they are " Expressions of the same thing;" and that it is the very same thing to believe., " that Jesus is the Messiah," and to believe, " that he is the Son of God; " which cannot be so, if Messiah and Son of God have different significations: for then they will make two distinct pro positions in different senses, which it can be no more the same thing to believe, than it is the same thing to believe that Mr. Edwards is a notable preacher, and a notable railer; or than it is to believe one truth, and all truths. For by the same reason, that it is the same thing to believe two distinct truths, it will be the same thing to believe two thousand distinct truths, and con sequently all truths. The un masker, that he might seem to say something, says, that " the reverend author " represents these as the same thing." Answ. The unmasker never fails, like Midas, to turn every thing he touches into his own metal. The learned bishop says, very directly and plainly, that " to be the Son of God, " and to be the Messiah, are expressions of the same " thing:" and the unmasker says, he " represents " these expressions as one thing:" for it is of expres sions that both the bishop and he speak. Now, expres sions can be one thing, but one of these two ways: either in sound, and so these two expressions are not one; or in signification, and so they are. And then the unmasker says, but in other words, what the bishop had said before, viz. That these two, " to be the Son " of God, and to be the Messiah, are expressions of the " same thing." Only the unmasker has put in the word represents, to amuse his reader, as if he had said something; and so indeed he does, after his fashion, i. e. obscurely and fallaciously; which, when it comes to be examined, is but the same thing under show of a 364 A Second Vindication of the difference *, or else, if it has a different meaning, it is demonstratively false. But so it be obscure enough to deceive a willing reader, who will not be at the pains to examine what he says, it serves his turn.
But yet, as if he had said something of weight, he gives reasons for putting " represents these two expres- " sions as one thing," instead of saying " these two " are but different expressions of the same thing."
The first of his reasons is. Because the reverend au thor is here " speaking only in a general way." Answ. What does the unmasker mean by a general way? The learned bishop speaks of two particular expressions ap plied to our Saviour. But was his discourse ever so general how could that alter the plain signification of his words, viz. that those two are but " different ex- " pressions of the same thing?"
Secondly, " Because these expressions are applied to " the same person." Answ. A very demonstrative rea son, is it not? that therefore they cannot be different expressions of the same thing.