my book was chiefly designed for deists: and therefore I mentioned only those advantages, which all Christians must agree in; and, in omitting of that, complied with the apostle's rule, Rom. xiv. To this he tells me flatly, that was not the design of my book. Whether the un- masker knows with what design I published it better than myself, must be left to the reader to judge: for as for his veracity in what he knows, or knows not, he has given so many instances of it, that I may safely refer that to any body. One instance more of it may be found in this very chapter, where he says, " I pretend " indeed, page 163, that in another place of my book, " I mention Christ's restoring all mankind from the " state of death, and restoring them to life: and his " laying down his life for another, as our Saviour pro- " fesses he did. These few words this vindicator has " picked up in his book since he wrote it. This is all, " through his whole treatise, that he hath dropped con- " cerning that advantage of Christ's incarnation; i. e. " Christ's satisfaction." Answ. But that this is not all that I have dropped through my whole treatise, con cerning that advantage, may appear by those places above mentioned, p. 163, where I say, that the design of Christ's coming was to be offered up, and speak of the work of redemption; which are expressions taken to imply our Saviour's satisfaction. But the unmasker thinking I should have quoted them, if there had been any more, besides those mentioned in my vindication, upon that presumption sticks not boldly to affirm, that there were no more; and so goes on with the veracity of an unmasker. If affirming would do it, nothing- could be wanting in his cause, that might be for his purpose. Whether he be as good at proving, this con sequence (among other propositions, which remain upon him to be proved) will try, viz.
L. That if the satisfaction of Christ be not mentioned in the place where the advantages of Christ's coming are purposely treated of, then I am of opi nion, that Christ came not to satisfy for us: Which is all the argument of his 7th chapter.
376 A Second Vindication of the His last chapter, as his first, begins with a commend ation of himself; particularly, it boasts his freedom from bigotism, dogmatizing, censoriousness, and un- charitableness. I think he hath drawn himself so well with his own pen, that I shall need refer the reader only to what he himself has wrote in this controversy, for his character.
In the next paragraph, p. 104, he tells me, " I laugh " at orthodoxy/' Answ. There is nothing that I think deserves a more serious esteem than right opinion, (as the word signifies,) if taken up with the sense and love of truth. But this way of becoming orthodox has always modesty accompanying it, and a fair acknowledgment of fallibility in ourselves, as well as a supposition of errour in others. On the other side there is nothing more ridiculous, than for any man, or company of men, to assume the title of orthodoxy to their own set of opi nions, as if infallibility were annexed to their systems, and those were to be the standing measure of truth to all the world; from whence they erect to themselves a power to censure and condemn others, for differing at all from the tenets they have pitched upon. The con sideration of human frailty ought to check this vanity; but since it. does not, but that, with a sort of allowance, it shows itself in almost all religious societies, the play ing the trick round sufficiently turns it into ridicule. For each society having an equal right to a good opi nion of themselves, a man by passing but a river, or a hill, loses that orthodoxy in one company, which puffed him up with such assurance and insolence in another; and is there, with equal justice, himself exposed to the like censures of errour and heresy, which he was so for ward to lay on others at home. When it shall appear, that infallibility is intailed upon one set of men of any denomination, or truth confined to any spot of ground, the name and use of orthodoxy, as now it is in fashion every- where, will in that one place be reasonable. Until then, this ridiculous cant will be a foundation too weak to sustain that usurpation that is raised upon it It is not that I do not think every one should be per- Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 377 suaded of the truth of those opinions he professes. It is that I contend for; and it is that which I fear the great sticklers for orthodoxy often fail in. For we see gene rally that numbers of them exactly jump in a whole large collection of doctrines, consisting of abundance of particulars; as if their notions were, by one common stamp, printed on their minds, even to the least linea ment. This is very hard, if not impossible, to be con ceived of those who take up their opinions only from conviction. But, how fully soever I am persuaded of the truth of what I hold, I am in common justice to allow the same sincerity to him that differs from me; and so we are upon equal terms. This persuasion of truth on each side, invests neither of us with a right to censure or condemn the other. I have no more reason to treat him ill for differing from me, than he has to treat me ill for the same cause. Pity him, I may; inform him fairly, I ought; but contemn, malign, revile, or any otherwise prejudice him for not thinking just as I do, that I ought not. My orthodoxy gives me no more au thority over him, than his (for every one is orthodox to himself) gives him over me. When the word orthodoxy (which in effect signifies no more but the opinions of my party) is made use of as a pretence to domineer (as or dinarily it is/) it is, and always will be, ridiculous.
He says, " I hate, even with a deadly hatred, all cate- " chisms and confessions, all systems and models." I do not remember, that I have once mentioned the word catechism, either in my Reasonableness of Christianity, or Vindication; but he knows " I hate them deadly," and I know I do not. And as for systems and models, all that I say of them, in the pages he quotes to prove my hatred of them, is only this, viz. in my Vindication, p. 164, 165, " Some had rather you should write booty, " and cross your own design of removing men's prejudices " to Christianity,, than leave out one tittle of what they " put into their systems. — Some men will not bear it, " that any one should speak of religion, but according " to the model that they themselves have made of it." In neither of which places do I speak against systems or models, but the ill use that some men make of them.
A Second Vindication of the He tells me also in the same place, p. 104, that I de ride mysteries. But for this he hath quoted neither words nor place: and where he does not do that, I have reason, from the frequent liberties he takes to impute to me what no-where appears in my books, to desire the reader to take what he says not to be true. For did he mean fairly, he might, by quoting- my words, put all such matters of fact out of doubt; and not force me, so often as he does, to demand where it is: as I do now here again, LI. Where it is that I deride mysteries?
His next words, p. 104, are very remarkable: they are, " O how he [the vindicator] grins at the spirit of " creed-making! p. 169, Vindic. The very thoughts of ** which do so haunt him, so plague and torment him, " that he cannot rest until it be conjured down. And *'* here, by the way, seeing I have mentioned his ran- " cour against systematic books and writings, I might " represent the misery that is coming upon all book- " sellers, if this gentleman and his correspondence go " on successfully. Here is an effectual plot to under- " mine Stationers-hall; for all systems and bodies of " divinity, philosophy, &c. must be cashiered; what- " soever looks like system must not be bought or sold. " This will fall heavy on the gentlemen of St. Paul's a church-yard and other places." Here the politic unmasker seems to threaten me with the posse of Paul's church-yard, because my book might lessen their gain in the sale of theological systems. I remember that u De- " metrius the shrine-maker, which brought no small '•' gain to the craftsmen, whom he called together, with " the workmen of like occupation, and said to this « purpose: Sirs, ye know, that by this craft we have " our wealth: moreover ye see and hear, that this Paul " hath persuaded, and turned away much people, saying, « that they be no gods that are made with hands; so " that this our craft is in danger to be set at nought. " And when they heard these sayings, they were full of " wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 379 M Ephesians." Have you, sir, who are so good at speech- making1, as a worthy successor of the silver-smith, re gulating your zeal for the truth, and your writing di vinity by the profit it will bring, made a speech to this purpose to the craftsmen, and told them, that I say, articles of faith, and creeds, and systems in religion, cannot be made by men's hands or fancies; but must be just such, and no other, than what God hath given us in the scriptures? And are they ready to cry out to your content, " Great is Diana of the Ephesians?" If you have well warmed them with your oratory, it is to be hoped they will heartily join with you, and bestir themselves, and choose you for their champion, to pre vent the misery, you tell them, is coming upon them, in the loss of the sale of systems and bodies of divinity: for, as for philosophy, which you name too, I think you went a little too far; nothing of that kind, as I remem ber, hath been so much as mentioned. But, however, some sort of orators, when their hands are in, omit no thing, true or false, that may move those they would work upon. Is not this a worthy employment, and be coming a preacher of the gospel, to be a solicitor for Stationers-hall? And make the gain of the gentlemen of Paul's church-yard, a consideration for or against any book writ concerning religion? This, if it were ever thought on before, nobody but an un masker, who lays all open, was ever so foolish as to publish. But here you have an account of his zeal: the views of gain are to measure the truths of divinity. Had his zeal, as he pre tends in the next paragraph, no other aims, but the " defence of the gospel;" it is probable this controversy would have been managed after another fashion.
Whether what he says in the next, p. 105, to excuse his so often pretending to "know my heart and thoughts," will satisfy the reader, I shall not trouble myself. By his so often doing it again, in his Socinianism unmasked, I see he cannot write without it. And so I leave it to the judgment of the readers, whether he can be allowed to know other men's thoughts, who, on many occasions, seems not well to know his own. The railing in the remainder of this chapter I shall pass by, as I have done 380 A Second Vindication of the a great deal of the same strain in his book: only to show how well he understands or represents my sense, I shall set down my words, as they are in the pages he quotes, and his inferences from them.
I know not tut it may be true that the anti-trini- tarians and racovians un derstand those places as I do; but it is more than I know, that they do so. I took not my sense of those texts from those writers, but from the scripture itself, giving light to its own meaning, by one place compared with another. What, in this way, appears to me its true meaning, I shall not decline, because I am told, that it is so un derstood by the racovians, whom I never yet read; nor embrace the contrary, Socinianism Unmasked, " The professed divines of England, you must know, are but a pitiful sort of folks with this great racovian rabbi. He tells us plainly, that he is not mindful of what the generality of divines declare for, p. 171. He labours so concernedly to ingratiate himself with the mob, the multitude (which he so often talks of) that he has no regard to these. The generality of the rabble are more con- siderable with him than the generality of divines."
though the generality of divines I more converse with, should declare for it. If the sense wherein I understand those texts be a mistake, I shall be beholden to you, if you will set me right. But they are not popular authorities, or frightful names, whereby I judge of truth or falsehood.
He tells me here of the generality of divines. If he had aid of the church of England, I could have under stood him: but he says, " The professed divines of Eng- " land;" and there being several sorts of divines in England, who, I think, do not every-where agree in their interpretations of scripture; which of them is it I must have regard to, where they differ? If he cannot tell me that, he complains here of me for a fault, which he himself knows not how to mend.
Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 381 Vindication, p. 169. Socinianism Unmasked, The list of materials for his creed, (for the articles are not yet formed,) Mr. Edwards closes, p. 1 1 1, with these words: " These are " the matters of faith con- " tainedin the epistles; and " This author, as de mure and grave as he would sometimes seem to be, can scoff at the matters of faith con tained in the apostles " they are essential and in- " epistles, p. 169." " tegral parts of the gospel " itself." What! just these, neither more nor less? If you are sure of it, pray let us have them speedily, for the reconciling of differences in the Christian church, which has been so cruelly torn about the articles of the Christian faith, to the great reproach of Christian charity, and scandal of our true religion.
Does the vindicator here " scoff at the matters of " faith contained in the epistles?" or show the vain pretences of the unmasker: who undertakes to give us, out of the epistles, a collection of fundamentals, without being able to say, whether those he sets down be all or no?
I hope you do not think, how contemptibly soever you speak of the venerable mob, as you are pleased to dignify them, p. 117,that the bulk of mankind, or, in your Socinianism Unmasked, " To coax the mob, he profanely brings in that place of scripture; Have any of the rulers believed in him?"
phrase, the rabble, are not concerned in religion; or ought not to understand it, in order to their salvation. I remember the pharisees treated the common people with contempt; and said, " Have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees, believed " in him? But this people, who know not the law, are " cursed." But yet these, who in the censure of the pharisees, were cursed, were some of the poor, or, if you please to have it so, the mob, to whom the gospel 382 A Second Vindication of the was preached by our Saviour, as he tells John's disciples, Matt. xi. 5.
Where the profaneness of this is, I do not see; unless some unknown sacredness of the un masker's person make it profaneness to show, that he, like the pharisees of old, has a great contempt for the common people, i. e. the far greater part of mankind; as if they and their salva tion were below the regard of this elevated rabbi. But this, of profaneness, may be well born from him, since in the next words my mentioning another part of his carriage is no less than irreligion.
Vindication, p. 173. Socinianism Unmasked, He prefers what I say to p. 110.
him my self, to what is offer- " Ridiculously and irre- ed to him, from the word of " ligiously he pretends," God, and makes me this that I prefer what he saith compliment, that I begin to to me to what is offered to mend about the close, i. e. me from the word of God, when I leave off quoting of p. 173. scripture, and the dull work was done " of going through the history of the Evan- " gelists and- the Acts," which he computes, p. 105, to take up three quarters of my book.
The matter of fact is as I relate it, and so is beyond pretence; and for this I refer the reader to the 105th and 114th pages of his "Thoughts concerning the " causes of atheism." But had I mistaken, I know not how he could have called it irreligiously. Make the worst of it that can be, how comes it to be irreligious? What is there divine in an unmasker, that one cannot pretend (true or false) that he prefers what I say, to what is offered him from the word of God, without doing it irreligiously? Does the very assuming the power to define articles, and determine who are, and who are not Christians, by a creed not yet made, erect an unmasker presently into God's throne, and bestow on him the title of Dominus Deusque noster, whereby Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 383 offences against him come to be irreligious acts? I have misrepresented his meaning; let it be so: Where is the irreligion of it? Thus it is: the power of making a reli gion for others (and those that make creeds do that) be ing once got into any one's fancy, must at last make alt oppositions to those creeds and creed-makers irreligion. Thus we see, in process of time, it did in the church of Rome: but it was in length of time, and by gentle de grees. The unmasker, it seems, cannot stay, is in haste, and at one jump leaps into the chair. He has given us yet but a piece of his creed, and yet that's enough to set him above the state of human mistakes or frailties; and to mention any such thing in him, is to do irreli giously.
" We may further see," says the unmasker, p. 110, " how counterfeit the vindicator's gravity is, whilst he " condemns frothy and light discourses," p, 173, Vindic. And " yet, in many pages together, most irreverently " treats a great part of the apostolical writings, and " throws aside the main articles of religion as unneces- " sary." Answ. in my Viridic. p. 170, you may remem ber these words: " I require you to publish to the world " those passages, which show my contempt of the epis- " ties." Why do you not (especially having been so called upon to do it) set down those words, wherein " I most " irreverently treat a great part of the apostolical writ- " ings?0 At least, why do you not quote those many pages wherein I do it? This looks a little suspiciously, that you cannot: and the more because you have, in this very page, not been sparing to quote places which you thought to your purpose. I must take leave, therefore, (if it may be done without irreligion) to assure the reader, that this is another of your many mistakes in matters of fact, for which you have not so much as the excuse of inadvertency: for, as he sees, ^ou have been minded of it before. But an unmasker, say what you will to him, will be an unmasker still.
He closes what he has to say to me, in his Socinianism unmasked, as if he were in the pulpit, with an use of exhortation. The false insinuations it is filled with make the conclusion of a piece with the introduction.
384 A Second Vindication of the As he sets out, so he ends, and therein shows wherein he places his strength. A custom of making bold with truth is so seldom curable in a grown man, and the un- masker shows so little sense of shame, where it is charged upon him, beyond a possibility of clearing himself, that nobody is to trouble themselves any farther about that part of his established character. Letting therefore that alone to nature and custom, two sure guides, I shall only intreat him, to prevent his taking railing for argument, (which I fear he too often does,) that upon his entrance, every-where, upon any new argument, he would set it down in syllogism; and when he has done that (that I may know what is to be answered) let him then give vent, as he pleases, to his noble vein of wit and oratory.
The lifting a man's self up in his own opinion, has had the credit, in former ages, to be thought the lowest degradation that human nature could well sink itself to. Hence, says the wise man, Prov. xxvi. 5, " Answer a " fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own " conceit:" hereby showing, that self-conceitedness is a degree beneath ordinary folly. And therefore he there provides a fence against it, to keep even fools from sinking yet lower, by falling into it. Whether what was not so- in Solomon's days be now, by length of time, in ours, grown into a mark of wisdom and parts, and an evidence of great performances, I shall not in quire. Mr. Edwards, who goes beyond all that ever I yet met with, in the commendation of his own, best knows why he so extols what he has done in this con troversy. For fear the praises he has not been sparing of, in his Socinianism unmasked, should not sufficiently trumpet out his worth, or might be forgotten; he, in a new piece, intitled, " the Socinian creed," proclaims again his mighty deeds, and the victory he has establish ed to himself by them, in these words: " But he and " his friends (the one-article men) seem to have made " satisfaction, by their profound silence lately, whereby " they acknowledge to the world, that they have nothing " to say in reply to what I laid to their charge, and fully " proved against them, &c." Socinian creed, p. 128. This fresh testimony of no ordinary conceit, which Mr.
Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 385 Edwards hath, of the excellency and strength of his rea soning, in his Socinianism unmasked, I leave with him and his friends, to be considered of at their leisure: and, if they think I have misapplied the term of conceited- ness, to so wise, understanding, and every way accom plished a disputant, (if we may believe himself), I will teach them a way how he, or any body else, may fully convince me of it. There remains on his score, marked in this reply of mine, several propositions to be proved by him. If he can find but arguments to prove them, that will bear the setting down in form, and will so publish them, I will allow myself to be mistaken. Nay, which is more, if he, or any body, in the 112 pages of his Socinianism unmasked, can find but ten arguments that will bear the test of syllogism, the true touchstone of right arguing; { will grant, that that treatise deserves all those commendations he has bestowed upon it, though it be made up more of his own panegyric, than a con futation of me.
In his socinian creed, (for a creed-maker he will be; and whether he has been as lucky for the socinians as for the orthodox, I know not,) p. 120, he begins with me, and that with the same conquering hand and skill, which can never fail of victory; if a man has but wit enough to know what proposition he is able to confute, and then make that his adversary's tenet. But the re petitions of his old song concerning one article, the epistles, &c. which occur here again, I shall only set down, that none of these excellent things may be lost, whereby this acute and unanswerable writer has so well deserved his own commendations: viz. " That I say, " there is but one single article of the Christian truth " necessary to be believed and assented to by us, p. 121. " That I slight the Christian principles, curtail the ar- " tides of our faith, and ravish Christianity itself from " him, p. 123. And that I turn the epistles of the " apostles into waste paper," p. 127.
These and the like slanders 1 have already given an answer to, in my reply to his former book. Only one new one here I cannot pass over in silence, because of the remarkable profaneness which seems to me to be in it; 386 A Second Vindication of the which, I think, deserves public notice. In my " Rea- " sonableness of Christianity," I have laid together those passages of our Saviour's life, which seemed to me most eminently to show his wisdom, in that conduct of himself, with that reserve and caution which was necessary to preserve him, and carry him through the appointed time of his ministry. Some have thought I had herein done considerable service to the Christian re ligion, by removing those objections which some were apt to make from our Saviour's carriage, not rightly understood. This creed-maker tells me, p. 1ST, " That " I make our Saviour a coward:" a word not to be ap plied to the Saviour of the world by a pious or discrete Christian, upon any pretence, without great necessity, and sure grounds! If he had set down my words, and quoted the page, (which was the least could have been done to excuse such a phrase,) we should then have seen which of us two this impious and irreligious epithet, given to the holy Jesus, has for its author. In the mean time, I leave it with him, to be accounted for, by his piety, to those, 'who b}^ his example shall be en couraged to entertain so vile a thought, or use so pro fane an expression of the Captain of our salvation, who freely gave himself up to death for us.
He also says in the same page, 127, " That I every- " where strike at systems, the design of which is to " establish one of my own, or to foster scepticism, by " beating down all others."
For clear reason, or good sense, I do not think our creed-maker ever had his fellow. In the immediately preceding words of the same sentence he charges me with " a great antipathy against systems;" and, be fore he comes to the end of it, finds out my design to be the " establishing one of my own." So that this, " my antipathy against systems" makes me in love with one. " My design/' he says, is to establish a system of "•' my own, or to foster scepticism, in beating down all " others." Let my book, if he pleases, be my system of Christianity. Now is it in me any more fostering scepticism to say my system is true, and others not, than it is in the creed-maker to say so of all other systems Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 387 but his own? For I hope he does not allow any system of Christianity to be true, that differs from his, any more than I do.