If the omission of other texts in the evangelists (which are all true also, and no one of them to be disbelieved) be a fault, it might have been expected that Mr. Ed wards should have accused me for leaving out Matth. i. 18 — 23, and Matth. xxvii. 24, 35, 50, 60, for these are " plain and obvious passages and famous testimonies in " the evangelists;" and such, whereon these articles of the apostles creed, viz. " born of the virgin Mary, suf-" fered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and " buried," are founded. These, being articles of the apostles creed, are looked upon as " fundamental doc-" trines:" and one would wonder, why Mr. Edwards so quietly passes by their omission; did it not appear, Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 167 that he was so intent on fixing his imputation of socinianism upon me, that, rather than miss that, he was content to drop the other articles of his creed. For I must observe to him, that if he had blamed me for the omission of the places last quoted out of St. Matthew, (as he had as much reason as for any other,) it would plainly have appeared, how idle and ill-grounded his charging socinianism on me was. But, at any rate, he was to give the book an ill name: not because it was socinian; for he has no more reason to charge it with socinianism for the omissions he mentions, than the apostles creed. It is therefore well for the compilers of that creed, that they lived not in Mr. Edwards's days: for he would, no doubt, have found them " all over " socinianized," for omitting the texts he quotes, and the doctrines he collects out of John i. and John xiv. p. 107, 108. Socinianism then is not the fault of the book, whatever else it be. For I repeat it again, there is not one word of socinianism in it. I, that am not so good at conjectures as Mr. Edwards, shall leave it to him to say, or to those who can bear the plainness and simplicity of the gospel, to guess, what its fault is.
Some men are shrewd guessers, and others would be thought to be so; but he must be carried far by his for ward inclination, who does not take notice, that the world is apt to think him a diviner, for any thing ra ther than for the sake of truth, who sets up his own suspicions against the direct evidence of things; and pretends to know other men's thoughts and reasons, better than they themselves. I had said, that the epis tles, being writ to those who were already believers, could not be supposed to be writ to them to teach them fundamentals, without which they could not be be lievers.
And the reason I gave, why I had not gone through the writings in the epistles, to collect the fundamental articles of faith, as I had through the preachings of our Saviour and the apostles, was, because those funda mental articles were in those epistles promiscuously, and without distinction, mixed with other truths. And, therefore, we shall find and discern those great and ne- 168 A Vindication of the cessary points best in the preachings of our Saviour and the apostles, to those who were yet ignorant of the faith, and unconverted. This, as far as I know my own thoughts, was the reason why I did (as Mr. Edwards complains, p. 109) " not proceed to the epistles, and " not give an account of them, as I had done of the " gospels and acts." This, I imagined, I had in the close of my book so fully and clearly expressed, parti cularly p. 152 of this vol. that I supposed no-body, how willing soever, could have mistaken me. But this gentleman is so much better acquainted with me, than I am with myself; sees so" deeply into my heart, and knows so perfectly every thing that passes there; that he, with assurance, tells the world, p. 109, " That I " purposely omitted the epistolary writings of the apo-" sties, because they are fraught with other fundamen-" tai doctrines, besides that one which I mention."
And then he goes to enumerate those fundamental arti cles, p. 110, 111, viz. "The corruption and degeneracy " of human nature, with the true original of it, (the " defection of our first parents,) the propagation of sin " and mortality, our restoration and reconciliation by " Christ's blood, the eminency and excellency of his ts priesthood, the efficacy of his death, the full satisfac-" tion made, thereby, to divine justice, and his being " made an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin. Christ's " righteousness, our justification by it, election, adop-" tion, sarictification, saving faith, the nature of the " gospel, the new covenant, the riches of God's mercy " in the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, the certainty " of the resurrection of human bodies, and of the future " glory."
Give me leave now to ask you seriously, whether these, which you have here set down under the title of " fun-" damental doctrines," are such (when reduced to pro positions) that every one of them is required to be be lieved to make a man a Christian, and such as, without the actual belief thereof, he cannot be saved. If they are not so, every one of them, you may call them " fun-" damental doctrines," as much as you please, they are not of those doctrines of faith I was speaking of, which Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 169 are only such as are required to be actually believed to make a man a Christian. If you say, some of them are such necessary points of faith, and others not, you, by this specious list of well-sounding, but unexplained terms, arbitrarily collected, only make good what I have said, viz. that the necessary articles of faith are, in the epistles, promiscuously delivered with other truths, and, therefore, they cannot be distinguished but by some other mark, than being barely found in the epistles. If you say, that they are all of them necessary articles of faith, I shall then desire you to reduce them to so many plain doctrines, and then prove them to be every one of them required to be believed by every Christian man, to make him a member of the Christian church. For, to begin with the first, it is not enough to tell us, as you do, that " the corruption and degeneracy of human na-" ture, with the true original of it, (the defection of our " first parents,) the propagation of sin and mortality, " is one of the great heads of Christian divinity." But you are to tell us, what are the propositions we are re quired to believe concerning this matter: for nothing can be an article of faith, but some proposition; and then it will remain to be proved, that these articles are necessary to be believed to salvation. The apostles creed was taken, in the first ages of the church, to contain all things necessary to salvation; I mean, necessary to be believed: but you have now better thought on it, and are pleased to enlarge it, and we, no doubt, are bound to submit to your orthodoxy.
The list of materials for his creed (for the articles are not yet formed) Mr. Edwards closes, p. Ill, with these words, " These are the matters of faith contained in the " epistles, and they are essential and integral 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 Chris tian 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.
Mr. Edwards, having thus, with two learned terms of " essential and integral parts," sufficiently proved the 170 A Vindication of the matter in question, viz. That all those he has set down are articles of faith necessary to be believed to make a man a Christian, he grows warm at my omission of them. This I cannot complain of as unnatural: the spirit of creed-making always rising from an heat of zeal for our own opinions, and warm endeavours, by all ways possi ble, to decry and bear down those who differ in a tittle from us. What then could I expect more gentle and candid, than what Mr. Edwards has subjoined in these words? " And therefore it is no wonder that our au-" thor, being sensible of this," (viz. That the points he has named were essential and integral parts of the gospel,) " would not vouchsafe to give us an abstract of those " inspired writings [the epistles]; but passes them by " with some contempt." Sir, when your angry fit is over, and the abatement of your passion has given way to the return of your sincerity, I shall beg you to read this passage in page 154 of this vol. " These holy writ-" ers (viz. the pen-men of the scriptures) INSPIRED " from above, writ nothing but truth, and, in most " places, very weighty truths to us now, for the ex-" pounding, clearing, and confirming of the Christian " doctrine; and establishing those in it who had em-" braced it/' And again, p. 156, " The other parts " of DIVINE REVELATION are objects of faith, and are " so to be received. They are truths, of which none " that is once known to be such, i. e. revealed, may or " ought to be disbelieved." And if this does not satisfy you, that I have as high a veneration for the epistles, as you or any one can have, I require you to publish to the world those passages, which show my contempt of them.
In the mean time, I shall desire my reader to examine what I have writ concerning the epistles, which is all contained between p. 151 and 158 of this vol. and then to judge whether I have made bold with the epistles in what I have said of them, or this gentleman made bold with truth in what he has writ of me. Human frailty will not, I see, easily quit its hold; what it loses in one part, it will be ready to regain in another; and not be hindered from taking reprisals, even on the most privi leged sort of men. Mr, Edwards, who is intrenched Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 171 in orthodoxy, and so is as safe in matters of faith almost as infallibility itself, is yet as apt to err as others in matters of fact.
But he has not yet done with me about the epistles: all his fine draught of my slighting that part of the scripture will be lost, unless the strokes complete it into socinianism. In his following words you have the conclusion of the whole matter. His words are these: " And more especially, if I may conjecture/7 (by all means, sir, conjecturing is your proper talent: you have hitherto done nothing else; and I will say that for you, you have a lucky hand at it:) " he doth this (i. e. pass " by the epistles with contempt) because he knew that " there are so many and frequent, and those so illustri-" ous and eminent attestations to the doctrine of the " ever to be adored Trinity, in these epistles." Truly, sir, if you will permit me to know what I know, as well as you do allow yourself to conjecture what you please, you are out for this once; the reason why I went not.
through the epistles, as I did the gospels and the acts, was that very reason I printed, and that will be found so sufficient a one to all considerate readers, that I be lieve, they will think you need not strain your con jectures for another. And, if you think it to be so easy to distinguish fundamentals from non-fundamentals in the epistles, I desire you to try your skill again, in giv ing the world a perfect collection of propositions out of the epistles, that contain all that is required, and no more than what is absolutely required to be believed by all Christians, without which faith they cannot be of Christ's church. For I tell you, notwithstanding the show you have made, you have not yet done it, nor will you affirm that you have.
His next page, p. 112, is made up of the same, which he calls, not uncharitable conjectures. I expound, he says, " John xiv. 9, &c. after the antitrinitarian mode:" and I make " Christ and Adam to be sons of God, in " the same sense, and by their birth, as the racovians ** generally do." I know not but it may be true, that the antitrinitarians and racovians understand those places as I do: but it is more than I know, that they 172 A Vindication of the 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 understood by the racovians, whom I never yet read; nor embrace the contrary, 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. You will now, no doubt, applaud your conjectures; the point is gained, and I am openly a socinian, since I will not disown, that I think the Son of God was a phrase, that among the jews, in our Saviour's time, was used for the Messiah, though the socinians understand it in the same sense; and therefore I must certainly be of their persuasion in every thing else. I admire the acuteness, force, and fairness of your reasoning, and so I leave you to triumph in your conjectures. Only I must desire you to take notice, that that ornament of our church, and every way eminent prelate, the late archbishop of Canterbury, understood that phrase in the same sense that I do, with out being a socinian. You may read what he says con cerning Nathanael, in his first " Sermon of Sincerity," published this year: his words are these, p. 4, " And ** 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."
Though this gentleman knows my thoughts as per fectly as if he had for several years past lain in my bo som, yet he is mightily at a loss about my person: as if it at all concerned the truth contained in my book, what hand it came from. However, the gentleman is mightily perplexed about the author. Why, sir, what if it were writ by a scribbler of Bartholomew-fair drolls, with all that flourish of declamatory rhetoric, and all that smartness of wit and jest about captain Tom, unitarians, units, and cyphers, &c. which are to be found between pages 115 and 123 of a book that came out Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 173 during the merry time of rope dancing, and puppet plays? What is truth, would, I hope, nevertheless be truth in it, however oddly spruced up by such an author: though perhaps, it is likely some would be apt to say, such merriment became not the gravity of my subject, and that I writ not in the style of a graduate in divinity. I confess (as Mr. Edwards rightly says) my fault lies on the other side, in a want of " vivacity and elevation:" and I cannot wonder, that one of his character and palate, should find out and complain of my flatness, which has so over-charged my book with plain and di rect texts of scripture, in a matter capable of no other proofs. But yet I must acknowledge his excess of civi lity to me; he shows me more kindness than I could expect or wish, since he prefers what I say to him myself to what is offered to him from the word of God; and makes me this compliment, that I begin to mend, about the close, i. e. when I leave off quoting of scrip ture: and the dull work was done, of " going through " the history of the Evangelists and Acts," which he computes, p. 105, to take up three quarters of my book.
Does not all this deserve, at least, that I should, in re turn, take some care of his credit? Which I know not how better to do, than by entreating him, that when he takes next in hand such a subject as this, wherein the salvation of souls is concerned, he would treat it a little more seriously, and with a little more candour; lest men should find in his writings, another cause of atheism, which in this treatise, he has not thought fit to mention. " Ostentation of wit " in general he has made a " cause of atheism/' p. 28. But the world will tell him, that frothy light discourses concerning the serious matters of religion; and ostentation of trifling and mis becoming wit in those who come as ambassadors from God, under the title of successors of the apostles, in the great commission of the gospel; are none of the least causes of atheism.
Some men have so peculiar a way of arguing, that one may see it influences them in the repeating another man's reasoning, and seldom fails to make it their own. In the next paragraph I find these words; " what makes 174- A Vindication of the " him contend for one single article, with the exclusion " of all the rest? He pretends it is this, that all men " ought to understand their religion." This, I con fess, is a reasoning I did not think of; nor could it hardly, I fear, have been used but by one who had first took up his opinion from the recommendation of fashion or interest, and then sought topics to make it good. Perhaps the deference due to your character, excused you from the trouble of quoting the page, where I pretend, as you say; and it is so little like my way of reasoning, that I shall not look for it in a book where I remember nothing of it, and where, without your di rection, I fear the reader will scarce find it. Though I have not " that vivacity of thought, that elevation of " mind," which Mr. Edwards demands, yet common sense would have kept me from contending that there is but one article, because all men ought to understand their religion. Numbers of propositions may be harder to be remembered,, but it is the abstruseness of the no tions, or obscurity, inconsistency, or doubtfulness of the terms or expressions that makes them hard to be under stood; and one single proposition may more perplex the understanding than twenty others. But where did you find " I contended for one single article, so as to exclude " all the rest?" You might have remembered that I say, p. 1, 17, That the article of the one only true God, was also necessary to be believed. This might have satisfied you, that I did not so contend for one ar ticle of faith, as to be at defiance with more than one.
However, you insist on the word one with great vigour, from p. 108 to 121. And you did well, you had else lost all the force of that killing stroke reserved for the close, in that sharp jest of Unitarians, and a clench or two more of great moment.
Having found, by a careful perusal of the preachings of our Saviour and his apostles, that the religion they proposed, consisted in that short, plain, easy arid intelli gible summary which I set down, p. 157, in these words: " Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised, and tak-" ing him, now raised from the dead, and constituted " the Lord and Judge of men, to be their King and Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 175 " Ruler;" I could not forbear magnifying the wisdom and goodness of God (which infinitely exceeds the thoughts of ignorant, vain, and narrow-minded man) in these following words: " The All-merciful God seems " herein to have consulted the poor of this world, and " the bulk of mankind: THESE ARE ARTICLES that the " labouring and illiterate man may comprehend."
Having thus plainly mentioned more than one article, I might have taken it amiss, that Mr. Edwards should be at so much pains as he is, to blame me for " con-" tending for one" article; because I thought more than one could not be understood; had he not had many fine things to say in his declamation upon one article, which affords him so much matter, that less than seven pages could not hold it. Only here and there, as men of oratory often do, he mistakes the business, as p. 115, where he says, " I urge, that there must be nothing in " Christianity that is not plain, and exactly levelled to " all men's mother-wit." I desire to know where I said so, or that " the very manner of every thing in " Christianity must be clear and intelligible, every thing " must be presently comprehended by the weakest nod-" die, or else it is no part of religion, especially of " Christianity;" as he has it, p. 119. I am sure it is not in p. 133 — 136, 149 — 151, of my book: these, therefore, to convince him that I am of another opinion, I shall desire somebody to read to Mr. Edwards, for he himself reads my book with such spectacles, as make him find meanings and words in it, neither of which I put there.
He should have remembered, that I speak not of all the doctrines of Christianity, nor all that is published to the world in it; but of those truths only, which are abso-4 lutely required to be believed to make any one a Chris tian. And these, I find, are so plain and easy, that I see no reason why every body, with me, should not mag nify the goodness and condescension of the Almighty, who having, out of his free grace, proposed a new law of faith to sinful and lost man; hath, by that law, re quired no harder terms, nothing as absolutely necessary to be believed, but what is suited to vulgar capacities, and the comprehension of illiterate men.
176 A Vindication of the You are a little out again, p. 118, where you ironi cally say, as if it were my sense, " Let us have but one " article, though it be with defiance to all the rest." Jesting apart, sir, this is a serious turn, that what our Saviour and his apostles preached, and admitted men into the church for believing, is all that is absolutely required to make a man a Christian. But this is, with out any " defiance to all the rest," taught in the word of God. This excludes not the belief of any of those many other truths contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which it is the duty of every Christian to study, and thereby build himself up in our most holy faith; receiving with stedfast belief, and ready obedience, all those things which the spirit of truth hath therein revealed. But that all the rest of the in spired writings, or, if you please, " articles, are of equal " necessity" to be believed to make a man a Christian, with what was preached by our Saviour and his apostles, that I deny. A man, as I have shown, may be a Chris tian and believer, without actually believing them, because those whom our Saviour and his apostles, by their preaching and discourses,' converted to the faith, were made Christians and believers, barely upon the re ceiving what they preached to them.