believers and unbelievers, all indifferently use this phrase of the Son of God, and apply it to Jesus. The question between the unmasker and me, is, Whether it was used by these several persons, as an appellation of the Mes siah, or (as the unmasker would have it) in a quite dif ferent sense? as such an application of divinity to our Saviour, that he that shall deny that to be the meaning of it in the minds of these speakers, denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. For if they did speak it without that meaning, it is plain it was a phrase known to have another meaning; or else they had talked unintelligible jargon. Now I will ask the unmasker, " Whether he " thinks, that the eternal generation, or, as the un-" masker calls it, filiation of Jesus the Son of God, " was a doctrine that had entered into the thoughts of " all the persons above mentioned, even of the Roman " centurion, and the soldiers that were with him watching " Jesus?" If he says he does, I suppose he thinks so only for this time, and for this occasion: and then it will lie upon him to give the world convincing reasons for his opinion, that they may think so too; or if he does not think so, he must give up his argument, and allow that this phrase, in these places, does not neces sarily import the deity of our Saviour, and the doctrine of his eternal generation: and so a man may take it to be an expression standing for the Messiah, without being a socinian, any more than he himself is one.
" There is one place the unmasker tells us, p. 87, " that confutes all the surmises about the identity of " these terms. It is, says he, that famous confession " of faith which the Ethiopian eunuch made, when " Philip told him, he might be baptized, if he be-" lieved. This, without doubt, was said, according to " that apprehension, which he had of Christ, from " Philip's instructing him; for he said he preached " unto him Jesus, ver. 35. He had acquainted him, " that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed of God, and (t also that he was the Son of God; which includes " in it, that he was God. And accordingly, this noble " proselyte gives this account of his faith, in order to " his being baptized, in order to his being admitted a 372 A Second Vindication of the " member of Christ's church: " I believe that Jesus is " the Son of God:" or you may read it according to the Greek, " I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ." Where there are these two distinct propositions: " 1st, That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.
" 2dly, That he is not only the Messiah, but the Son « of God."
The unmasker is every-where steadily the same subtle arguer. Whether he has proved that the Son of God, in this confession of the eunuch, signifies what he would have, we shall examine by and by. This at least is demonstration, that this passage of his overturns his principles; and reduces his long list of fundamentals to two propositions, the belief whereof is sufficient to make a man a Christian. " This noble proselyte, says " the unmasker, gives this account of his faith, in order " to his being baptized, in order to his being admitted " a member of Christ's church/' And what is that faith, according to the unmasker? he tells you, " there " are in it these two distinct propositions, viz. I be-" lieve, 1st, That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah; " 2dly, That he is not only the Messiah, but the Son of " God.". If this famous confession, containing but these two articles, were enough to his being baptized; if this faith were sufficient to make this noble proselyte a Christian; what is become of all those other articles of the unmasker's system, without the belief whereof, he, in other places, tells us, a man cannot be a Christian?
If he had here told us, that " Philip had not time nor " opportunity," during his short stay with the eunuch, to explain to him all the unmasker's system, and make him understand all his fundamentals; he had had reason on his side: and he might have urged it as a reason why Philip taught him no more. But nevertheless he had, by allowing the eunuch's confession of faith sufficient for his admittance as a member of Christ's church, given up his other fundamentals, as necessary to be be lieved to make a man a Christian; even that of the Holy Trinity; and he has at last reduced his necessary articles to these two, viz. " That Jesus is the Messiah;" and that " Jesus is the Son of God." So that, after his ridi- Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 373 culous calling mine a lank faith, I desire him to con sider what he will now call his own. Mine is next to none, because, as he says, it is but one article. If that reasoning be good, his is not far from none; it consists but in two articles, which is next to one, and very little more remote from none than one is. If any one had but as much wit as the unmasker, and could be but as smart upon the number two, as he has been upon an unit, here were a brave opportunity for him to lay out his parts; and he might make vehement complaints against one, that has thus " cramped our faith, corrupt-" ed men's minds, depraved the gospel, and abused " Christianity." But if it should fall out, as I think it will, that the unmasker's two articles should prove to be but one; he has saved another that labour, and he stands painted to himself with his own charcoal.
The unmasker would have the Son of God, in the confession of the eunuch, to signify something different from the Messiah: and his reason is, because else it would be an absurd tautology. Ans. There are many exegetical expressions put together in scripture, which, though they signify the same thing, yet are not absurd tautologies. The unmasker here inverts the proposi tion, and would have it to signify thus: " The Son of " God is Jesus the Messiah;" which is a proposition so different from what the apostles proposed, every- where else, that he ought to have given a reason why, when, every-where else, they made the proposition to be, of something affirmed of Jesus of Nazareth, the eunuch should make the affirmation to be of something con cerning the Son of God: as if the eunuch knew very well, what the Son of God signified, viz. as the un masker tells us here, that it included or signified God; and that Philip (who, we read, at Samaria preached TOV Xpij-ov, the Messiah, i. e. instructed them who the Messiah was) had here taken pains only to instruct him that this God was Jesus the Messiah, and to bring him to assent to that proposition. Whether this be natural to conceive, I leave to the reader.
The tautology, on which the unmasker builds his whole objection, will be quite removed if we take 37$ A Second Vindication of the Christ here for a proper name, in which way it is used by the evangelists and apostles in other places, and par ticularly by St. Luke, in Acts ii. 38, iii. 6, 20, iv. 10, xxiv. 24, &c. In two of these places it cannot, with any good sense, be taken otherwise; for, if it be not in Acts iii. 6, and iv. 10, used as a proper name, we must read those places thus, "Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth.'* And I think it plain in those others cited, as well as in several other places of the New Testament, that the word Christ is used as a proper name. We may easily con ceive, that long before the Acts were writ, the name of Christ was grown, by a familiar use, to denote the person of our Saviour, as much as Jesus. This is so manifest, that it gave a name to his followers; who, as St. Luke tells us, xi. 26, were called Christians; and that, if chronologists mistake not, twenty years before St.
Luke writ his history of the apostles: and this so gene rally, that Agrippa, a jew, uses it, Acts xxvi. 28. Arid that Christ, as the proper name of our Saviour, was got as far as Rome, before St. Luke writ the Acts, appears out of Suetonius, 1. 5; and by that name he is called in Tacitus, Ann. 1. 15. It is no wonder then, that St. Luke, in writing this history, should sometimes set it down alone, sometimes joined with that of Jesus, as a proper name: which is much easier to conceive he did here, than that Philip proposed more to the eunuch to be be lieved to make him a Christian, than what, in other places, was proposed for the conversion of others, or than what he himself proposed at Samaria.
His 7th chapter is to prove, that I am a socinian, because I omitted Christ's satisfaction. That matter having been answered, p. 265, where it came properly under consideration, I shall only observe here, that the great stress of his argument lies as it did before, not upon my total omission of it out of my book, but on this, that " I have no such thing in the place where the " advantages of Christ's coming are purposely treated " of;" from whence he will have this to be an un avoidable inference, viz. " That I was of opinion, that " Christ came not to satisfy for us." The reason of my omission of it in that place, I told him, was because Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 375 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 unmasker 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, nothingcould 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 uncharitableness. 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 speechmaking1, 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-trinitarians 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 considerable 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 irreed 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 unmasker 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.