the King Messiah but that they might be more able to deal with the Hereticks by which he means the Christians it would be more convenient to interpret it of David himself Which is a very fair Confession why they dissented from the Opinions and Interpretations of their Ancestors because they might more strongly oppose the Christians For if they should admit those Interpretations of their ancient Doctors to speak the genuine sence of Scripture they should give too great Advantages to the Christians who by this Means as Dr. Pococke * Ib. hath observed Would be supply'd with Arguments to prove Christ the Son of God and consequently consubstantial with God the Father And if this one Psalm be granted to relate to Christ alone as indeed it is almost impossible to wrest it to any other Sence we cannot but acknowledge him to be GOD begotten of his Father before all Worlds There are also several other places in Scripture which are always applied by the Ancient Jewish Interpreters to our * Vid. Not. in Grot. de Veritat Relig. Christ L. 5. Sect. 21. Saviour which sufficiently shew that they believed he should be GOD As Psal 45. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever And Isa 25.9 And in that day it shall be said Lo this is our God With several other places of the like nature which being constantly interpreted of our Saviour by the Chaldee Paraphrast and all the Ancient Jewish Interpreters do evidently demonstrate that they believed their Messiah should be GOD notwithstanding the Opposition made against it by the latter Jews But last of all that the Jews did expect their Messiah should be GOD is I think very plain from their objecting Blasphemy to our Saviour when he acknowledg'd himself to be the Son of God when the High-Priest adjur'd him to tell him whether he was so or not For they could never have accus'd him of Blasphemy for saying he was the Son of God if they understood no more by that Expression than being the Messiah and if they expected their Messiah should be no more than a meer Man And it was for this Reason according to †Jure Naturali Gentium l. 2. c. 12. Mr. Selden that they accus'd him of Blasphemy for saying he was the Son of God because they so understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word of God by that Expression that for any one to make himself the Son of God in that Notion was nothing less than to profess himself truly GOD which if he was not he was guilty of the highest Blasphemy And to prove this to be the true Meaning of that Expression he cites the Hebrew Commentaries and Philo Judeus who have commonly used the Son of God to signify GOD himself From all which it appears that the most Learned amongst the Jews before and at the Coming of our Saviour did expect their Messiah to be GOD. And that if they did object Idolatry to the Christians afterwards upon supposition that Jesus was the Messiah yet that they differed very widely from the ancient Opinion of the Jews And this Notion of our Saviour's being GOD seems to be the first that his Disciples had concerning him For they had no just Apprehensions of the true Design of his Coming into the World or of his Death and Passion and the Remission of Sins he thereby obtain'd till they had received the Holy Ghost Yet they before that time certainly believed him to be GOD as is most evident from the frequent Acts of Divine Worship which they then paid him and from that Exstatical Exclamation of the Apostle St. Thomas My Lord and my God As tho' this Knowledge of him was on purpose then reveal'd to them to prevent all Disputes that might hereafter possibly arise concerning his Divinity Since it is not to be supposed that if he was not what they really believed him to be truly and essentially GOD but that he himself would have undeceiv'd and prevented their falling into such dangerous Mistakes as must necessarily produce endless Distractions in the Church and bring gross Idolatry into Religion which has been always forbid under the severest Penalty And we never find that any part of Divine Worship was ever allowed to be paid either to Men or Angels as may be seen by the Example of St. Peter and the Angel in the Revelations And as the Divine Titles and Adorations which were particularly directed to our Saviour by his Apostles and others which he never rebuked them for are a Demonstration of his Divinity so also his own Commission which he invested his Disciples with immediately before his Ascension Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is a strong Evidence that he not only permitted but required Divine Worship should be paid to him since it is all Men's Duty to Worship him in whose Name they are Baptized and that he thought it no Robbery to make himself equal with GOD. But if it be urged as a late * Objections against Mr. Edwards 's Causes of Atheism Socinian Author has objected against the Sence of this Text that the Apostles did not always observe this Command in their Baptizing Christians but only made use of the Name of Jesus without mentioning either Father or Holy Ghost which however was always supposed if not mentioned in the Form tho' the Author of the Acts does not take notice of it because his chief Business was to trace the Progress of Christianity in its first Propagation and to shew that none could be Christians or capable of Salvation but who were Baptized into the Name of Christ yet this will not invalidate the Argument but much rather confirm it since none could be admitted for Members of the Church without the Conditions of acknowledging Christ for their Lord and Saviour by a constant Obedience to his Laws and by continual Acts of Devotion and Adoration to him Which sufficiently establish the Divinity of our Saviour For if paying Divine Worship to him may be justified without acknowledging him to be GOD there can be no good Reason assign'd why any Man should be Condemn'd for the Invocation of Saints and Angels For if Christ be not GOD he is a Creature for there is no Medium betwixt them and therefore to Worship such a One is directly contrary both to Natural and Reveal'd Religion and could hardly I think be justified by an absolute Command of God for it is giving his Glory to another And besides Creature-Worship is fully opposite and contradictory to Natural Reason For Adoration necessarily supposes Omnipresence which is an incommunicable Attribute of God himself And since there may be Ten Thousand Petitions offered up at once in so many different places it is impossible he should be acquainted with them unless he be both Omnipresent and Omniscient the one to be present to all Petitions and by the other to fearch
Reasoning as indeed it seems to be it must be sufficient to inforce the necessity of believing Christ to be GOD to make a Man a Christian But again as we cannot deny that we are obliged to believe Christ to be the Son of God because it is required in several places of Scripture and St. John tells us that his Gospel was written for this End that we should believe Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God so we must also confess him to be GOD because as I have already proved his Divinity is understood by that Expression the ancient Jews both applying it to their expected Messiah and also meaning a Divine Person by it All which seem as fully to require us to believe him to be GOD if we would be Christians as we are in other Passages enjoin'd to acknowledge him to be Christ And Lastly it is most evident that the explicite Belief of Christ's being God is requir'd to make a Man a Christian from the Form of Baptism at our Admission into Christianity in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost Where an equal Belief in all is required as being equally partakers of the same Divine Nature and we may as well say that the Father's Divinity as the Son 's is not here implied But this I have spoken to already And here we may add for a great Confirmation of this Truth of Christ's being God that the Vniversal Church as may be gather'd from the most Primitive Writings and the first General Councils hath always asserted His Divinity as being most undoubtedly expressed in Scripture How comes it therefore to pass that if the Belief of Christ's Divinity was not thought clearly Revealed and necessary to Salvation all those that opposed it from the first Ages of the Church to this present time have been Condemn'd and Censur'd for Hereticks * Vid. Bishop Stillingfleet's Rational Ac. of the Prot. Relig. Not as though the sence of the Catholick Church is pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith But that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked upon as the true meaning of Scripture So that if the denying Christ to be GOD is contrary to the received Interpretation of Scripture in the Catholick Church and also inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Words we must conclude that either his Divinity must necessarily be believed even to make a Man a Christian or that the Revelation is not to be regarded But Secondly We must also believe the Incarnation of Christ For every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God 1 Ep. Joh. 4.3 and therefore we must acknowledge that he was Man as well as God and that he was made like unto his Brethren that he might be a merciful and a faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people Heb. 2.17 And that this is part of the Mystery of Godliness which is necessary to be believed by all Christians that God was manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 And that though he was in the form of God and thought it not Robbery to be equal with God yet made he himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men and being found in fashion as a Man he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the death of the Cross Phil. 2.6 7 8. All which plainly denote to us both his Divine and Humane Nature which we must believe to be united in one Person Agreeable to which are those Words of St. Paul Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood which could only be done by taking the Manhood into God I need not multiply Texts to prove that our Saviour was Man this I suppose none of the Vnitarians will dispute But the difficulty lies in this that he was both God and Man But this also is very frequently and fully asserted in Scripture But Thirdly We must also believe That he died for us and in our stead to free us from the Wrath to come That his Death was a propitiatory Sacrifice for us and That his was the blood of the New Testament as himself testifies of it which was shed for many for the remission of sins Mat. 26.28 And that this is part of the Christian Faith according to St. Paul that he died for our Sins as the Scriptures foretold of him And for this End he saith He was ordained a Preacher to testify that Christ gave himself a ransom for all 1 Tim. 2.6 7. But this I have insisted upon so largely already and shewn that this was the true Reason of his Death from so many Instances in Scripture that I need say no more upon it It is sufficient to shew that this is necessary to be believed since our Salvation depends on the Knowledge of the New Covenant and the Conditions of it and how far we are concern'd both in Faith and Practice In short as the Scripture hath assured us that Christ was the Mediator of the better Covenant and that we must believe in him so must our Belief of him be measured by what is revealed concerning him For Christ himself hath told us That is Life Eternal to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent i.e. The Knowledge of Christ is as much a Condition of Salvation as that of God the Father And the most certain Knowledge of both is to be drawn from Revelation And therefore as we are obliged to believe concerning the Nature of God whatsoever the Scripture has revealed so also we must believe of Christ as the Scripture has made him known to us So that the adequate Measure of our Faith in both must be taken from Scripture For if upon a Supposition of no Revelation we must believe all that of God which Right Reason could dictate to us then certainly since we have a Revelation from God and that Revelation has also obliged us to believe in Christ in order to Salvation we must believe upon the hazard of our Salvation every thing concerning him which is asserted by that Revelation And as in the general Confession of Faith when we say We believe in God the Father c. we are to understand all the other Attributes of God which are made known to us either by Reason or Revelation as that he is Just Good Merciful that he governs all things by his Providence or whatever else can be conceived in a Being infinitely Perfect so when we say We believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord we must also mean by it whatsoever else we can find in Scripture in reference to our clearer understanding that Article as that
fully satisfied was an Error Whether I have said enough to convince him he has been in a mistake I cannot promise For I may fancy that a demonstration to me which may be no proof to others I have endeavoured to represent his sense with the utmost justice and sincerity and if I have any where mistaken it I can only say it was both against my Intention and Knowledge And now I have only thus much to assure my Adversary of that I have not made any Observations upon his Book out of bigottry to a Party or prejudice to any set of opinions For I have no other Interest to serve than that of Truth nor have I any Byass to incline me besides my own Impartial Enquiries And if they have misguided me I shall be very ready to submit to better Information THE CONTENTS I. A Vindication of the Epistles Page 1. II. Of the Reason of Christ's coming into the World pag. 53 III. What we are to believe concerning Christ pag. 64. A VINDICATION Of The Epistles c. WHatsoever Design the Author of The Reasonableness of Christianity might propose in Publishing that Treatise whether it was for the Benefit of those who were not throughly and firmly Christians or to be a General Rule of Faith to all sorts of Men it does not seem to give such satisfaction to an Inquisitive Mind as might prevent all Exceptions against it in relation to either of those Ends. Not only because it introduces a new Scheme of Belief in opposition to the anciently received Doctrine of the Church but because it does not answer the full Sense and Intent of Revelation which is the only Reason and Measure of our Faith I shall not make it my Business to compare it with the Socinian or any other Hypothesis or enquire to what Sect or Party the Author seems most inclined but shall only so far consider his Opinions as they seem to me to be inconsistent with Truth For I cannot think my self obliged to fix any Man to a Party which He will not own himself to be of though some of his Opinions should chance to have a Tendency towards it For that is so unfair as well as an undecent Method of managing a Dispute that instead of stifling the old it may serve only to provoke fresh Opposition and inflame where perhaps milder Reasons might convince And besides since every one that publishes his Thoughts with no other Design than for the Benefit of others or to the End he may be better informed if he be in the wrong has a right to be treated with equal Charity or Humanity at least by others it can certainly be no Prejudice even to the right side to allow him a Civility which he has so just a claim to And therefore I shall think my self concerned to examine the Reasonableness of Christianity with such an impartial Temper as it may justly challenge And to be the more distinct and methodical in my Examination I shall consider the chief Parts of it which are these First To shew the Reason of Christ's coming into the World Which the Author tells us was to restore Mankind to that State p. 3 4 5. c. which was forfeited by the Sin of our First Parents But as he makes Adam's Punishment to consist only in a Temporal Death or a total ceasing to be p. 10. so does he confine the End and Design of our Saviour's coming into the World to the freeing us from such a Death only and restoring us to that Immortality which our First Parents lost Which overthrows the Notion of our Saviour's redeeming us from an Eternity of Torments and makes the effect of Original Guilt no more than becoming subject to Death and so destroys in a great measure the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction But how agreeable this will prove to the Tenour of Scripture I shall enquire more hereafter The Second Principal Part of it is to shew what Faith is required to make a Man a Christian And that he asserts to be only the Belief of this one Proposition That Jesus is the Messah p. 30 31 32. c. or which he thinks signifies the same the Son of God He does not deny other Doctrines to be true but maintains that this alone is absolutely necessary to be believed Indeed we all acknowledge this as the Fundamental Article of our Faith as Christians that Jesus is the Messias the Prophet that was to come into the world But here the difference lies between us Whether there is not something more required as necessary to be Believed As that this Messiah was God as well as Man and that through the Merits of his Satisfaction he redeemed us from Eternal Misery c. For the Decision of which we can only appeal to Scripture The Third and Last Part of it which I shall have occasion to take Notice of is this That whatsoever is necessary to be believed to Salvation is contain'd in the Holy Gospels and Acts of the Apostles p. 291 292 c. And that the Epistles which were only occasional Writings and Directions to particular Churches were not design'd to deliver such Fundamental Articles as must necessarily be Believed explicitely by all Christians And therefore an actual Belief of any of the Doctrines therein mentioned is not absolutely required to make a Man a Member of the Christian Church For he thinks a Man may be a Christian and a Believer Vindis p. 31. 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 receiving what they Preached unto them long before any of the Epistles were written Upon this Supposition the other two Parts of his Treatise are built and therefore it shall be my Business in the first place to prove that there are Doctrines in the Epistles distinct from those delivered in Gospels or Acts which are as absolutely necessary to be Believed and to be made Fundamental Articles of Faith as any other Parts of Revelation It may indeed seem an unnecessary Labour to Vindicate those Sacred Writings which have almost all of them been received from the very first Ages of Christianity with as equal degrees of Assent as all other Parts of Scripture and some of the Doctrines there set down confest to be altogether as necessary to be actually Believed unto Salvation as any whatsoever For what should the reason of all this be if the Epistles were not real and essential Parts of the Rule of Saving Faith Was the Church then Imposed upon or did it of it self enjoin the Belief of any Doctrine as necessary to Salvation when it had no express Commission from God for it For one of these we must grant if the Epistles were not designed to deliver Fundamentals to be actually Believed by all Christians Now if several of the Doctrines contain'd in those Parts of Revelation have all along down from
Revealed to us we are under a necessity to believe upon the Veracity of Him that Revealed it And here we are not so to divide our Belief as to confine it to one part of Revelation and deny it to another unless we are assured that it has different degrees of Evidence For this would destroy the force of Revelation and resolve all Religion into the Wills and Humours of Men. There are indeed as has been before observed different Acts of Faith required of us according to the different Matter of Revelation But where the Matter is of as great importance in one place as in another there also must our Assent be equal Unless we can prove that there is not the same certainty for the Revelation i e. That there is not the same Testimony of Divine Miracles to assure us of the Truth of it But here it is not material to examine Whether the Apostles work'd Miracles to evince the Truth of their Doctrines in the Epistles It is enough that their Miracles attested their Divine Mission and were sufficiently demonstrative that their Doctrines had a Divine Authority and Original and were confirmed by a Divine Power For the Design of their Miracles was not to give Authority to such a particular Doctrine only but to testify in general that they had a Commission from God to teach what was necessary to be believed or practiced to Salvation Now that the Apostles wrought many Miracles such as were before done by our Saviour for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrines is undeniably evident from the whole History of the Acts where they are said to heal the Sick raise the Dead and to be endued with all other supernatural Gifts which might be sufficient to convince the World that they received their Mission and Authority from God But to what End should the Apostles work Miracles if after all their Doctrines which they deliver'd for Fundamentals were not absolutely necessary to be believed Now Miracles are never wrought but to convince Men of some great Truths which would be of great Importance to them and which perhaps they would not otherwise be induced to believe If therefore the Apostles had such a Power of working Miracles committed to them to confirm the Truth of their Doctrines we are under as great Obligations to make them Articles of our Faith especially if they were designed for such as any other parts of Holy Writ Now what Reason have we to believe the Holy Gospels but only the undeniable Attestation of Miracles But are there not the same for the Confirmation of the Epistles too That is Were not the Authors Divinely Inspired and did they not work Miracles to shew that they were so If then it be granted that the Apostles had this supernatural Power given them to be an unquestionable Evidence of their Inspiration this alone is sufficient to enforce our actual Belief of the Doctrines in the Epistles as much as in the Gospels unless we can shew that the Apostles were not Inspired when they writ them or that their Power of working Miracles to convince the World that they were so was then ceased or else that they did not design any Doctrines in them to be necessary to be believed But if none of these can with any tolerable Reason be pretended there can be little excuse for our not admitting them as necessary and fundamental Parts of the Rule of Faith And this moreover ought to make us very cautious how we rejected them because if we deny such an Authority to the Epistles as requires an absolute necessity of believing any of the Doctrines as therein contain'd we shall have no very strong Arguments remaining whereby to defend those of the Gospels which have only the Authority of Inspirations confirmed by Miracles so that they must unavoidably stand or fall together For if it be granted that the Evidence for the Truth of both be the same and the same Divine Authority stampt upon both we cannot deny that the Measures of our Belief must be equally taken from them both where the Matter is of the same importance And this will necessarily lead us to these Conclusions First That whatsoever we are firmly assured is Revealed by God we are obliged to believe it upon his Veracity since he neither can or will Reveal any thing but what is undeniably true Secondly That whatsoever is made by this Revelation a fundamental Article of our Faith we cannot be ignorant of without great hazard of our Salvation Thirdly and Lastly For the true Knowledge of any Article of Faith we must not judge of it from some particular Place but from the universal Consent and Harmony of Revelation And now since the Epistles must be granted to be a particular Revelation I would ask to what End there should be this Revelation and several Doctrines therein deliver'd which concern both our Faith and Practice if there was no necessity for them in order to Salvation 1 Cor. 14.37 Why should the Inspired Writers give any Instructions to a Church for the Commandments of God if yet without the least hazard of Salvation they might be ignorant of them For it does not seem consistent with the End or Nature of Revelation which under the Christian Dispensation was designed only for the eternal Advantage of Mankind that no parts of it deliver'd in the Epistles which are all of them of Divine Revelation should be absolutely necessary for that End and that those who had the Name and Benefit of Christians should not be indispensably obliged to form their Faith or govern their Practice according to its Directions Certainly any one that reads and considers the Epistles impartially must judge that the Authors did design some parts of them at least for Rules to guide Men in the way to Happiness without the Observance of which those to whom they should be known could not be saved For if all the Instructions in the Epistles might be safely disregarded then their Inspiration was in vain Since if Men might be as easily saved without them the Revelation must be confest to be superfluous If it be said that the Doctrines were only writ for the use of particular Churches yet that though it should be granted which there is no reason for will prove nothing unless it appears that there were no general Directions designed which are of the same importance to all Christians now that they could be of to any particular Church then for certainly what was necessary to be believed to Salvation by the Members of a Church in the Apostles days must be so now and to the end of the World If it be demanded that if there are any such Fundamentals in the Epistles as we contend for we should draw out a Scheme of them just so many and no more that are to be explicitely believed to Salvation and which will equally oblige all Mankind tho' we should not be able to satisfy this Demand yet it will be sufficient to our
Reason to perswade us to build our Faith upon the Epistles too For it is very absurd to imagine that the very next Ages to the Apostles should be so far imposed upon and so down to the present Time as to receive several of the Doctrines contain'd in the Epistles for fundamental Articles of Faith if they were never design'd either by the Holy Ghost that Inspired them or by the Apostles themselves to be made such So that to assert the contrary is to affirm that either all Christians hitherto have wander'd in the Dark or that they were guilty of very great Folly and Superstition in making those parts of Scripture necessary to be believed to Salvation which were never intended to be so Some of the Epistles have indeed been rejected but so have some of the Gospels too But as this was done but by a very few so were they Men of Heretical Opinions The †Iraen Advers Heres l. 1. c. 26. Ebionites allowed of no more of the Gospels than St. Matthew and rejected all that was writ by St. Paul calling him an Apostate from the Law The * L. 1. C. 29. Marcionites owned but some part of the Epistles of St. Paul to be Canonical but they also denied the Authority of all the Gospels except that of St. Luke and then would admit no more parts of it than would agree with their own Model of Divinity Sed huic quidem says Iraeneus speaking of Marcion quoniam solus manifeste ausus est circumcidere Scripturas c. Which shews what an unpardonable Crime he thought it to be for any Man without a sufficient Warrant for it which can be nothing less than a Divine Commission to pretend to reject any parts of Holy Scripture and to cut them off from the rest which the whole Church had received for Canonical And thus whoever they were that denied the Divine Authority and the necessity of believing all the parts of Scripture such as were also the Valentinians and Manichees with some few others were always looked upon by the Church to be no better than Hereticks There were indeed some of the Primitive Christians that did not receive all the Books of the New Testament for Canonical but the reason was because they were not certain they were writ by the Apostles yet after a little time they were all admitted and universally believed as necessary parts of Faith But now by asserting the necessity of believing the Epistles as part of the Rule of Faith I don't mean that none could ever be saved but who had believed them for what then as our Author well observes would become of those Christians who were fallen asleep before any of the Epistles were written For no question but those who believed all that was taught them and lived up to that Knowledge which their most diligent Enquiries could carry them to should be admitted into Happiness as well as those who had afterwards attained to larger degrees of Faith and Knowledge Since no one can be obliged to believe that which he could not possibly have any knowledge of For should we suppose the Gospel to be spread in some Heathen Parts of the World that had never heard of Christ no Man certainly would be so uncharitable as to deny them Salvation if they believed whatsoever they found there and liv'd up exactly to the Precepts there delivered though they had never heard of the Acts of the Apostles or any of the Epistles or no more than one of the Gospels Or if the Case should be thus that they had no other parts of the New-Testament than barely some of the Epistles if they lived up to them in Matters of Faith and Practice there can no doubt be made but they would be saved So that in Cases of this nature the Argument holds as much for the Epistles as the Gospels and nothing from hence can be drawn to the Prejudice of either But where we have the Priviledge of both and are assured that both are of equal Authority as being equally of Divine Inspiration we are under a necessity of drawing the Articles of our Faith from them both as being a most exact Body of Christian Religion in all the Branches of it But then some may urge That if this should be the Case of those who could attain to the Knowledge of but one part of the Christian Doctrine contain'd in the New Testament that they should as well be saved as those who have all the parts of it and upon that account are required to believe more then certainly the Condition of the other would be much more desirable To this it may be answered That this Objection is of little Force since those are certainly in the safest Condition who have the most Light to guide them For though a wary Traveller may possibly find his way through a very narrow obscure Passage yet those who take the broadest Road are most certain of finding the surest way to their Journeys end But besides the more Evidence we have for our Faith and the greater the Confirmation of it may be by the abundant Repetition of Inspiration and Miracles for the Establishment of it and lastly the more full clear and express the Articles of our Faith are and the oftner God has been pleased to give us an Explanation of them so much the more likely are we to avoid Mistakes to give our unfeigned Assent to them and to suffer them to make more lasting Impressions upon our Minds And thus I hope I have sufficiently Vindicated the Divine Authority of the Epistles and the necessity of making them part of the Rule of Faith that 's required to Salvation And we ought to be the more concerned for the Defense of them because several Doctrines which have been always maintained by the universal Church such as the Doctrine of the Satisfaction and the true Reason of Christ's coming into the World will not so easily be maintained without a Belief of them But if these sacred Writings are esteemed as they are and were really designed to be the infallible Guides to us in our understanding the Mystery of the great Work of our Redemption and for the more clearly stating and explaining of all that is required for our Belief and Practice we are under an absolute necessity to preserve them inviolably and to vindicate the Belief of them as much as of any other parts of Divine Revelation Of the Reason of CHRIST's Coming into the World AND now I come in the next place to examine the Reason our Author assigns for Christ's coming into the World And this we must allow can be understood no way so well as by considering what the Scripture shews we lost by Adam p. 1. For it is on this that the whole Decision of the Case depends Since which way soever it is that the whole Bent of Scripture inclines there we ought to fix our Faith And here also there is no reason why we should dissent from the
to the Colossians in these Words Col. 4.16 And when this Epistle is read amongst you cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea which very probably is that which is now inscribed to the Ephesians For it seems most likely that it was sent to those of Laodicea where St. Paul had never been at that time they having lately received the Christian Religion and had a wrong Inscription put to it by the Collector of the Epistles into one Body Which was an easy Mistake considering that a Copy of it was very probably at Ephesus as well as Coloss as appears from the Câ—ose of that Epistle and other places Some indeed are of Opinion that St. Paul did not write any Epistle to the Laodiceans and that the Passage in the Colossians that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea must mean an Epistle writ by the Laodiceans to St. Paul Of this Opinion is †Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. D. 60. Baronius and cites both Chrysostom and Theodoret for it who thought that St. Paul never writ any Epistle to the Laodiceans But there is little ground for this Opinion especially from the Words in the Colossians that from Laodicea for the natural Meaning of them is that they of Coloss should receive that Epistle which was writ to Laodicea from thence and read it in their Assembly And this meaning Dr. Hammond applies to it in his Note on the Place And he is of Opinion that a Copy of it was sent from Ephesus to Laodicea since Tertullian affirms that the Epistle which is inscribed to the Ephesians was sent to those of Laodicea But he thinks this solves the Difficulty that Ephesus being the Metropolis of Asia and Laodicea being a Church within that Circuit it might not only be design'd thither as well as Ephesus but that it was also Copied out and communicated to them and so might be called the Epistle to the Laodiceans or which the Church of Laodicea had received But tho' indeed it might have been so yet I think it most probable that it was writ only to those of Laodicea and not to Ephesus For as it is certain that St. Paul did write an Epistle to the Laodiceans which we have not under that Title so is there great reason to imagine that this Epistle was not writ to the Ephesians For St. Paul had liv'd three Years at Ephesus as is plain from the History of the Acts and therefore it is not probable that he would write to them there as in the third Chapter If so be ye have heard of the dispensation of the Gospel given me to you-ward And besides it is very strange that if this was writ to the Ephesians amongst whom St. Paul had so long been there should be no Salutations in it to any particular Persons which is so very usual in the rest of his Epistles And thus it seems most probable that this Epistle was that which was mention'd to be writ to them of Laodicea And this Remark is the more material because if this Epistle is looked upon as it seems designed to contain several Doctrines necessary to be believed by a Church at its first Constitution the Doctrines contain'd in it may carry a greater weight with them especially amongst those who will admit no other Doctrines as necessary to be believed but what have such a reason to confirm them But however it be this is certain that as this Epistle was writ by one Divinely Inspired so it is necessary to be believed to Salvation in those places where the Sense is plain and easy and of the highest Importance to us whether it was written with a Design to instruct or to confirm a Church in the Christian Faith But to return Let us suppose that some of the Epistles contain Matter proper to those Times and Churches to which they were sent May not the same Objection be raised against the Gospels most of our Saviour's Parables and very many of his Discourses relate to the State of the Jews at that time and the Destruction of their Nation and Religion which was soon after accomplished Now there is nothing in the Gospels but what was thought at first by the Apostles to respect the Jews only nay and for some time after the Mission of the Holy Ghost St. Peter particularly amongst the Apostles had such a wrong Notion of our Saviour's coming as to imagine that the Jews were only to reap the Advantage of it as may be seen in the History of the Acts. But tho' in a little time the Reason of our Saviour's coming was more fully understood yet at the first it was looked upon as particular and all his Discourses were interpreted to such a Sence Which ought to caution us in judging of the Epistles which notwithstanding their Directions to particular Churches might be design'd for general Instructions And we have good Reason to judge that there are no Cases set down but what may on some Occasions be of use to all Christians But what if it should be granted that they were writ upon particular Occasions will this hinder them from being necessary to be believed If it will then some of the Gospels must suffer too For the Gospel of St. Luke seems to be writ particularly to give Theophilus a more perfect knowledge of those things in which he had been before instructed as I have already observed of it as well as of the Acts which were writ by the same Evangelist upon the same Occasion In like manner the Gospel of St. John was writ upon a particular Occasion to confute the Heresies of the Cerinthians and Ebionites who denied the Divinity of our Saviour as is confessed by the most Ancient Fathers and has lately been very * Vid. Dr. Williams 's Vindicat. of the late Arch-bishop's Sermons p. 16 17 c. Joan. Cleric in 18. prima Commenta Evang Joan. p. 15 16 c. 80. Learnedly proved and must it upon this account be rejected as not necessary to Salvation So that if all parts of the Scripture must be laid aside that were writ upon particular Occasions our Faith would lie indeed in a much narrower Compass But we should not be I am afraid the better Christians for it For tho' some things might be writ upon particular Occasions yet it will be difficult to prove that the Holy Spirit did not design them for general Directions and as necessary to be believed to Salvation by others as those to whom they were writ But besides whatever particular Occasions there might be for some of the Epistles yet the general Design of them is to settle and strengthen Men in the Faith and to be perpetual Guides and Directions to them in the way to Happiness and indeed if there had been no occasion for this they certainly would not have been written But it was also necessary that the Apostles should dictate and leave
behind them some certain Measures of Belief since their Authority and the certain Evidence of their Inspiration would have very great Influence on those who were not yet Christians that they might be more easily perswaded to embrace Christianity and also might be of vast Importance for the preventing all Differences that might arise about the Meaning of the Gospels and lastly would be of perpetual use for the teaching all sorts of Christians more easily to comprehend the Method Reasons and Grounds of the great Work of our Redemption The two last of which are more fully laid down and explain'd in the Epistles than in any other parts of Holy Writ And if the Knowledge of them is necessary to Salvation then it will be as necessary to believe those places of Scripture where they are most fully stated and most clearly delivered For since there is no part of Scripture where we are told how we were Redeemed why Christ Redeemed us and from what so clearly and expresly as in the Epistles we must have Recourse to them for our right understanding of those Doctrines And therefore there both was an absolute necessity for the writing of the Epistles and also is for our firm Belief of them as necessary to Salvation And thus far I hope we have established the Divine Authority of the Epistles and the absolute necessity of believing several of the Doctrines deliver'd in them But it must yet be confessed that all that has been proved will be little to the Purpose if it can be shewn in the Fourth Place that the Doctrines deliver'd in the Epistles are contradictory to those in the Gospels But this I don 't find in the least pretended for it would be in vain to shew Contradictions in them after they are allowed to be of Divine Inspiration As for there being several things above our Reason in the Epistles the same Objection may be made against the Gospels but this cannot be sufficient to invalidate the Authority of either of them The Gospels and Epistles both teach the same Christianity And tho' some Points of Faith are more fully and clearly laid down in one than the other and some things requir'd to be believed in the Epistles which are not mention'd in the Gospels yet they do not disagree in any one Particular But both tend to one and the same End the advancing the Happiness of Mankind And this leads me to consider the Fifth Argument whereby it may appear whether or no the Epistles are necessary to be believed and that is the Matter they contain For this is the only Plea remaining why they should be rejected because the Matters which they treat of are of no Concern to us that they have no relation to the Salvation of Mankind and therefore cannot be thought necessary to be believed upon that account which is the great End of Revelation For here the great stress of the Controversy lies whether the Doctrines deliver'd in the Epistles are of such Importance as will make them necessary to be believed or to be an indispensible part of the Rule of Faith But I hope I have already made it appear that there are several Doctrines of this Nature in the Epistles from the Apostle's Design in writing them and from those Texts I have before produced from them and therefore I shall not insist any more upon this Head But our Author objects that if there are any fundamental Articles in the Epistles yet they are so promiscuously deliver'd with other Truths that they are not to be distinguished from them And this he now tells us was the reason why he did not go through the Writings in the Epistles Vindic. p. 14. to collect the fundamental Articles of Faith as he had through the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles because those fundamental Articles were in those Epistles promiscuously and without distinction mixt with other Truths And therefore we shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles to those who were yet ignorant of the Faith and unconverted But how are these Fundamental Points to be found in the Gospels and Acts better than in the Epistles Are there in them nothing but Fundamentals Or are not these Fundamentals mixt with other Truths of a quite different Nature that have no respect to Man's Salvation And if so as is very apparent what mighty Advantage have the Gospels beyond the Epistles upon this account Matters of Faith and Matters of Practice Fundamentals and Things indifferent are promiscuously mixt together in both But yet there is no great difficulty in discerning one from another in them For the meanest Capacity can easily apprehend a difference between those things which are proposed to our Belief and those to our Practice what are those which have a near respect to the Covenant of Grace and the Means of Salvation and those which are more forreign to that End And this difference is as easily perceived in the Epistles as in the Gospels because the Terms of Salvation are as plainly and clearly set down in one as the other But it is objected that several Things in the Epistles are differently interpreted and consequently cannot be absolutely necessary to be believed to Salvation because Men are not agreed in their Opinions concerning them To this it may be answered first That some Men are of different Opinions in their Interpretations of several places of the Gospels as well as of the Epistles But secondly it may be observed that the great and fundamental Truths in both have been always understood in one and the same Sence by the whole Catholick Church and those who have dissented from the universally received Interpretation have been accounted Enemies to the true Christian Faith For in these Cases Mistakes are generally wilful and it is not easy to interpret any Doctrines in Scripture differently from what the Church has already done if we take the most easy and natural Meaning of it For the Sense of Fundamentals is not so obscure but a willing Mind may easily apprehend it But Lastly We may add to all this the Consent of the Universal Church in all Ages for the necessity of believing the Epistles and several Articles delivered in them as necessary to Salvation For they have been hitherto esteemed by all Orthodox Christians as part of the Canon of Scripture or Rule of Saving Faith and received and believed accordingly And if this Argument will be of no Force to convince us of the necessity of believing them to Salvation we must at the same time part with one very good Reason for our belief of the Holy Gospels For this is alleged for an Argument by our Church in the Sixth Article for our belief of all the received parts of Scripture that there has never been any doubt of their Authority in the Church And if this universal Consent will be an Argument for the Gospels it cannot also be denied to be a very great
he is God and Man our King Prophet and Priest and what more the Scripture has comprehended under each of those distinct Offices For believing in Christ if it mean any thing must be interpreted of every thing that Scripture has requir'd to be believed concerning him So that this we may be certain is a Fundamental that as Christ is the Author of our Salvation so that Revelation is the just measure of our Belief in him and that we must not believe either more or less of him than we are warranted by Scripture But it will probably be objected to all this that though it be granted that there are several Articles to be believed by those who are throughly Christians yet there was no more required by our Saviour himself or his Apostles to make a Man a Christian or in order to his Admission into Christianity than the believing Jesus to be the Messiah and that this is all which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity contends for In answer to this it may be observed first that the foremention'd Articles as well as others that might be named are of the same Nature with that one Article of Believing Jesus to be the Messiah and are a Repetition of it in all its Branches for without the Knowledge of them the Nature of the New Covenant and the Meaning of Jesus being the Messiah would be altogether Unintelligible For which Reason they seem as necessary to be Believed to make a Man a Christian as that one Article Since we cannot suppose that Persons should be admitted into the Christian Faith without understanding the Meaning and Extent at least of that one Article But secondly there was more required even to make a Man a Christian than the Belief of Jesus being the Messiah For besides the Obligations that all those were under who would be Christians to acknowledge him to be the Son of God which we have already proved to signify more than his being the Messiah there was also required by our Saviour himself the Believing in Father and Holy Ghost or in the whole Trinity if it be granted which cannot be deny'd that all Christians were obliged to Believe in those in whose Names they were Baptized For this was the Commandment which our Saviour gave his Disciples That they should teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost i. e. They should first instruct them in whom they were to Believe and then Baptize them into that Faith And it was upon the Believing the ever Blessed Trinity that Men were admitted Members of the Christian Church and upon the Denial of any part of that Faith Church Communion was refused and has been so down from the Apostles time If therefore Men could not be truly Christians without being Baptized into that Faith and were not looked upon as Christians if they Deny'd it then certainly it must be confest that there was more required even to make a Man a Christian in whatsoever Sence it be understood either for the first Embracing that Profession or for the Continuance in it than that Jesus was the Messiah or even the Son of God the Faith in the other Two Persons of the Blessed Trinity being also indispensably required in the very Initiation into the Christian Profession But here the Objection will recur that the foremention'd Form was never made use of in the Baptizing of Christians and therefore that the Faith in Christ was only required his Name alone being mention'd in the Form as may be proved from several Instances in the Acts. To this it may be answered that it is certain that the Form prescribed by our Saviour was used in Baptism though the Name of Christ be only taken notice of by the Author of the Acts. And this is plain from St. Paul's Question to those who said unto him We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost Act. 19.2 3. Vnto what then were ye Baptized Which evidently shews that they could not be Baptized into the Christian Faith without Believing in the Holy Ghost But yet after this when they were Baptized there is no more set down than that it was in the Name of the Lord Jesus ver 5. though it is very evident from St. Paul's Question to them that they could not be truly Baptized or made Members of the Christian Church but by Acknowledging and Believing in the Holy Ghost So that we ought always to suppose that when Men are only said in Scripture to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus that it was in the Form enjoin'd by Him In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost And this we must either grant or suppose that the Apostles did not faithfully discharge the Trust committed to them And this is sufficient to shew that there was more required and still ought to be to make a Man a Christian than our Author 's One Article And thus have I vindicated the necessity of believing more of our Ever-blessed Saviour than that he is the Messiah I shall now in the last place examine the Reasonableness of this Author's Article of Faith set down in the largest Terms in p. 301. in the Treatise it self and repeated in his Vindication p. 28. which he summs up in these Words Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised and taking him now raised from the Dead and constituted the Lord and Judge of Men to be our King and Ruler And that by the All-merciful God's requiring no more as absolutely necessary to be believed he seems to have consulted the Poor of this World and the Bulk of Mankind these are Articles that the labouring and illiterate Man may comprehend So that this he thinks to be the great Advantage of his One Article above all other Schemes of Religion That it is suited to vulgar Capacities and the Comprehension of illiterate Men. But for the clearer Examination of this we may consider first that supposing God either had or should reveal any thing to Mankind and make the Belief of it a Condition of Salvation which the Reason of Man could not comprehend and we had all the Evidence the thing was capable of that the Revelation proceeded from God would this Incomprehensibleness of it be a sufficient Plea for our rejecting it If it would it must be because it would be unjust in God to require any thing so reveal'd as absolutely necessary to be believed by us But this can be no Injustice since it is as easy for us to believe any thing upon the Testimony of God as upon the Evidence of our own Senses if we are fully perswaded that God has all those Perfections which are attributed to him and that he can neither deceive nor be deceived Indeed if there are direct Contradictions in that Revelation we ought to disbelieve them i. e. We ought to reject the Revelation but if we allow the Revelation and are assured that it