Explanations of something before Revealed in the Gospels yet since the Authors of them were Divinely Inspired they are to be received as part of the Rule of Faith as well as the Gospels themselves since an infallible divine Explanation of a Doctrine is as necessary to be believed as the Doctrine it self So that if it should be granted that this was one End of writing the Epistles to set those Things in a clearer Light which were before taught by our Saviour yet this will not be sufficient to invalidate their Authority or render them less necessary to be believed For thus far * Verum tanta est erga genus hominum benignitas divina ut quae in Evangeliis plene ac perfecte tradita sunt etiam in Apostolorum Epistolis saepius repeti à variis objectionibus Vindicari ad majorem fidelium in fide confirmationem ac constantiam singulari Providentia voluerit ibid. Limborch seems to have granted That though all the Doctrines of Christianity are fully and perfectly deliver'd in the Gospels yet God has so much expressed his Goodness towards Mankind as to take care by a particular Providence that they should be very often repeated in the Epistles that they might be freed from all Objections to the greater strengthning and confirming Believers in the Faith And thus it seems very evident for many Reasons that the Gospels alone are not to be made the Measure of our Faith Nor will the Acts of the Apostles together with the Gospels afford us a full and clear Scheme of whatsoever is necessary to be believed For these also are chiefly Historical and contain an account of the Mission of the Holy Ghost of the Miracles that were done by the Apostles of the Converts they made to Christianity and where they Preacht but we have not there any full and large account of their Doctrines We are indeed told that they Preacht Faith in Christ Jesus Act. 20.21 and Repentance towards God But few or no particulars of those Duties or how far they extended which seem on purpose reserved for the Epistles where they are more fully treated of But it is urged That if the Apostles Creed is a Summary of all that is necessary to be believed and if all the Articles of that are to be found in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles then it is in them alone that we are to look for Fundamentals To this it may be answered That it can indeed hardly be denied but that we may draw most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles but these are not to be looked upon as the only Fundamentals unless we also firmly believe the natural Consequences and Conclusions from them and the frequent Explanations of them which are set down in the other parts of Revelation To instance only in the first Article I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth Now we cannot be supposed to be confin'd by this to the believing just so much of Him and no more For we are to understand by these Words whatsoever is implied in them and whatsoever else the Scripture has reveal'd to us concerning Him And the like Rule must be observed in all the other Articles And besides this is justly believed to be the first Fundamental of all Reveal'd Religion which is supposed in our Creed that the Scriptures are of Divine Inspiration and that whatsoever is there laid down as necessary to Salvation must be believed as such And upon this it is that the Creed is built So that as we must believe That Summary of our Faith to be taken from Revelation so also that the only true Explanation of it is to be found there For necessary Deductions from such Truths are as much Fundamentals as the Principles from which they are drawn So that we cannot in a true Sence believe all the Articles of our Creed unless we also are perswaded that those places of Scripture which contain a full and express Explanation of them are necessary parts of our Faith But our Author urges That if all p. 297. or most of the Truths declared in the Epistles were to be received and believed as Fundamental Articles what then became of those Christians that were fallen asleep as St. Paul witnesseth in the 1 Cor. many were before those things in the Epistles were revealed to them Most of the Epistles not being written till above Twenty Years after our Saviour's Ascension and some after Thirty To this we may answer First That some of the Epistles were written before some of the Gospels particularly that of St. John which was not writ till almost Threescore Years after our Saviour's Ascension So that this Argument will exclude that Gospel from containing any part of the Fundamentals of Faith as well as the Epistles Secondly It is to be considered that a great many of the Epistles as the first and second to the Thessalonians which were writ sooner than Twenty Years after Christ's Ascension as also the first and second to the Corinthians to the Galatians and Romans were all written before the History of the Acts of the Apostles which is continued to the time of St. Paul's being first at Rome which was not till near Thirty Years after our Saviour's Ascension and therefore that History which takes in all that time cannot be thought to be of greater Authority than those Epistles which were writ much sooner So that this Argument if it is at all to the Purpose must give the Preference to some of the Epistles at least before the Acts of the Apostles But Thirdly It cannot be supposed but that many Christians were fallen asleep before the writing any of the Gospels since St. Matthew's Gospel which was the first was not written till about Eleven Years after our Saviour's Ascension So that neither can this Argument be any Prejudice to the Authority of the Epistles And therefore Fourthly It remains that all the Rule of Faith to the Believing Christians that were Converted for some Years after our Saviour's Ascension must be taken from what was taught by the Apostles And therefore if what they then taught was the Rule of Faith to those who were Converted to Christianity it is very reasonable to suppose that the Epistles which without doubt contain the very same Doctrines which they then taught are now to be received as absolutely necessary to be believed For this we may be certain of that the contrary can never be proved that the Apostles upon their receiving the Holy Ghost taught the very same Doctrines wherever they Preacht which they afterwards deliver'd in their Epistles And therefore if they writ no other Doctrines than what they taught and what they taught were Fundamentals then what they writ must be the same too And if this should be granted which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity so much contends for p. 294. That the Epistles being all written to those
illum Articulum non requirebatur Sect. 10. And that Vbicunque legimus servatorem nostrum cujuspiam fidem laudasse vel dixisse fides Tua te salvum fecit vel sanasse quempiam propter fidem ibi propositio credita alia non erat quam haec Jesus est Christus vel directe vel per consequens I need not produce more Instances from Mr. Hobbs to shew that our Author and he agree concerning the necessity of Believing this one Article only and have taken the same Method for the Proof of it by citing several Texts from the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles in the Acts and no farther For if any one will be so curious as to read them both over he will find that they only differ so much as a Copy does from an Original But it is not my Design by this to possess any one with a Belief that our Author's Doctrine is false because it is the very same with that of Mr. Hobbs For it must be granted that can be no good Reason for rejecting it if it be otherwise found agreeable to the whole Tenour of Scripture Which it shall now be my Business to enquire But in order to this it may be necessary to examine whether Son of God and Messiah or Christ always signifie the same in Scripture which our Author as well as Mr. Hobbs so much contend for And indeed it may not perhaps appear that they are of different Signification from some of those Texts which have been made use of to prove it As where Son of God and Christ are mention'd in the same Proposition particularly in Act. 8.37 I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God For there Christ being part of the subject of the Proposition and upon that account might be made use of as a proper Name only to denote the Person may not necessarily imply that in all other places it imports a different Sence from the Son of God Nor do the Confessions of Martha and St. Peter as considered in themselves seem necessarily to infer a difference between Christ and the Son of God We believe and know that thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God For they may possibly express no more than different Denominations of the same Thing and only mean that they believed him to be the Christ who was also called the Son of God which was to be one of the Titles and Characters of their Messiah But if these Passages as singly consider'd should be granted not to prove a Difference yet neither can the contrary be infer'd from them And we can with as much if not more reason conclude that one of those Terms does imply a larger Signification than the other even in these Texts as it can be evinc'd on the other side that they do not especially if we compare them with the Sence they most naturally bear in other places For it seems evident from very many Passages of Scripture that Son of God is an Expression that denotes our Saviour's Divinity and is not a Title only attributed to him either upon account of his Office as Messiah or by reason of his Miraculous Birth or Conception by the Holy Ghost And this appears from those Texts in Heb. 1. God who spake in times past by the Prophets has in these last days spoken unto us by his SON whom he hath appointed Heir of all things and by whom also he made the World Now if by Son in this place is not meant his being so before his coming into the World as Messiah he is very improperly called Heir of all things for it should otherwise have been Heir of those things which were after he had an Existence So also by whom he made the Worlds necessarily shew that he was Son of God before the beginning of the World And again When he bringeth in the first Begotten into the world he saith And let all the Angels of God worship him Which Adoration we can hardly suppose would be required of Angels upon the alone account of his being the Messiah conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin But the cause of this is laid down in the 8 ver For unto the SON he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Which gives a plain reason why he should be worshiped even by Angels as Son of God because himself was GOD from all Eternity To this we may add those words delivered by our Saviour in that Form of Baptism which he commanded his Disciples to observe in initiating Men into Christianity to shew that the term Son must signify a God by Nature Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the SON and of the Holy Ghost Where if Son must be interpreted of his being so only by his Birth and Office it will lead us into a very unintelligible Faith Where an equal Belief is required and yet in very unequal Persons One a God from all Eternity and another of no longer Existence than since his being born of a Virgin So that if Son of God in that place does not mean our Saviour's Divinity we must allow it to be very assuming in our Saviour to oblige his Followers to the same Faith in and Dependance on him who was not God as on him who was so from all Eternity And therefore it appears that Son of God does imply an Equality with the Father and consequently must be understood of Christ's being God by Nature But besides if Son of God does no where necessarily import any more than his being so by his miraculous Conception or from his Office upon what Ground was it thought by the whole Church to signifie A God by Nature or by what Authority was it inserted in our Creeds that he was begotten before all Worlds if there is no intimation of it in Scripture or if the Title of Son of God in Scripture does no where imply that he was so before his being born of a Virgin So that we must either renounce that Article in our Creed or believe that the signification which is there given of the Son of God has its Foundation in Holy Writ Indeed Adam and others are called Sons of God in Scripture but it is plain that Title when attributed to our Saviour signifies very differently from it when spoken of them because our Saviour is called in very many places the only begotten Son of God which could not have been affirmed of him if he was not so upon a very different account from what Adam or others were But besides it seems evident that Messiah and Son of God are not synonimous Terms from what St. John tells us that his Gospel was written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God i.e. Joh. 20.31 That we might be perswaded to believe the one and the other or that there was more to be believed by every Christian than that Jesus was the Messiah for he must
ANIMADVERSIONS On a late BOOK ENTITULED THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY As delivered in the SCRIPTURES OXFORD Printed by Leon. Lichfield for George West and Anthony Piesley MDCXCVII THE PREFACE I Need make no Apology for the following papers The Liberty which the Author of The Reasonableness of Christianity c. has taken in delivering his Thoughts to the World gives every man a right to examine them that proposes no other End than to enquire after Truth which I have endeavoured with as sincere a design as I hope he published them I have followed a method which His Treatise naturally led me into and have chose to build my Observations upon the same Authority on which he hath founded his Rule of Faith that of the Scriptures rather than upon any Systems drawn from them which I must confess my self to be but little acquainted with And this I cannot but agree with him to be the most rational means of silencing all Religious controversies For if all Parties would joyn Issue in this that nothing ought to be required to be believed but what is injoyned by the clear and express declarations of Scripture nor any Article rejected that is there plainly delivered there might be some probable grounds to hope for a happy Conclusion of all disputes of that nature in a very little time For certainly God has not made it very difficult for us to determine what we are to believe how inconceivable soever the manner of some things may appear to us The main design which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. seems to have had is to lay down such a Scheme of Faith only as he finds delivered in scripture and not to rest satisfied with those Collections of Articles which are to be met with in the Common Systems without any sufficient warrant from scripture And to this End he has run through the Gospels and Acts to discover upon what Terms our Blessed Saviour who first founded and his Apostles who afterwards built up Christianity admitted men into that Religion And having declared at large all that he can find required by them to make a man a Christian which he tells us was only the Believing Jesus to be the Messiah he concludes that nothing ought to be made necessary to be believed now which was not so then nor any Articles imposed upon us which are not injoyned in order to salvation in those parts of scripture which he has considered which alone according to him declare the Conditions upon which men are denominated believers or Christians This way of examining our Faith by the scripture had been an unexceptionable Method for fixing the measure of it if he had omitted no Articles which are there made as necessary to be believed by all Christians as what is observed in His Treatise For that there are others required even to make a man a Christian in these parts of sacred Writ from whence he has extracted his Article of Faith is what I propose to make appear in the following Observations As also to shew that there are some distinct Articles from what are set down in the Gospels and Acts delivered in the Epistles that are absolutely necessary to be believed to salvation in answer to that assertion of our Author P. 295. That it is not in the Epistles that we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of Faith with some others of the like nature Which is the Reason that I give the Title of a Vindication of the Epistles to the former part of these Papers In the next place I have consider'd the Reasons our Author has assigned for Christ's coming into the World And how necessary it was to examine both these in order to a more exact consideration of that one Article this Author has so much insisted on the Reader will easily apprehend He tells us in his Vindication p. 6. that he designed the Reasonableness of Christianity c. chiefly for those who were not yet throughly and firmly Christians I shall not dispute the sincerity of his Intention though I find no such Intimation in the Treatise it self Yet a well-meaning Author who has appeared very warmly in defence of it Mr. Bold believes that to be his only design though he tells us he had considered it with very great care and Application This Author also is of opinion that there is nothing more required to make a Man a Christian then the believing Jesus to be the Messias But had he given himself a little more leisure to consider into what faith he himself was baptized or into what he baptizes others he must have acknowledged that the Explicitely believing in Father and Holy Ghost is as much required of every one initiated into Christianity as believing Jesus to be the Messias For the Faith in the Holy Trinity has always been required in order to Baptism Indeed at the first men might be denominated Christians upon the bare believing Jesus to be the Messias yet when there was more revealed concerning Him and consequently a larger faith required they could no more have continued Christians if they had not believed this also than if they had still been altogether unbelievers I shall make no other Observation upon what this Author has urged but this that he has been a little too hasty in concluding that if the Reasonableness of Christianity merits no worse a Character upon any other Account than it does justly deserve for advancing this point P. 52. that Christ and his Apostles did not propound any Article as necessarily to be believed to make a Man a Christian but this that Jesus is the Christ or Messias I think it may with great justice be reputed one of the best books that has been published for at least this sixteen hundred years since I suppose he will hardly deny that Mr Hobbs writ within that space who maintained the very same Assertion as I have farther observed in the following Remarks though I am afraid with a far worse Intention than the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. seems to have had in that Treatise I need reflect no farther upon any thing propounded by this Author not only because his Papers came abroad after the following Remarks were drawn up but because there does not seem to be any thing very material which was not before observed in the Reasonableness of Christianity c. or the Authors Vindication of it I hope there is nothing in the following Papers that will be mistaken for a Reflexion for I am sure there was none designed For I think an Adversary ought to be treated with respect how wide soever his Notions may be from Truth if his design be sincere Which I must confess I cannot but believe of the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. And though I cannot joyn in his opinion yet I think my self obliged to have so much charity as to suppose that he would not maintain what he was
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
hereafter have more occasion to consider He that believeth that Jesus is the Messiah hath eternal Life if what is there required to be believed is singly of it self sufficient to Salvation then it must be so as it is there proposed without any farther Explication of it because there is no Explication proposed to be believed upon the like Promise From whence it will follow that the bare Proposition is alone necessary to be Believed without any other Interpretation if any at all may be admitted than what is agreeable to the particular Humours of Men the unhappy Consequences of which will be endless Wranglings and Distractions For which reason it seems evident that all the Fundamental Parts of Faith cannot be comprehended in those Texts alone which are declared to be of that important Nature unless the full Extent and Meaning was there set down and delivered which I cannot find And therefore it can't be denied but that the other parts of Scripture which relate the Grounds and Reasons of such a Faith which is required to Salvation and that explain the Nature and Extent of it are to be looked upon as equally Obligatory whether exprest in Gospels or Epistles For besides if every Text of Scripture must be looked upon as sufficient to Salvation upon the Belief of which Eternal Life is promised even the very Scripture will hardly be found reconcilable to it self For tho' in some places Salvation is promised to those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah yet in others it is declared to be Life Eternal to know the onely true God as well as Jesus Christ whom he hath sent Both of which places if they must be understood in their limited Sence will be almost found contradictory to each other Because the one proposes a larger Faith to Salvation than is required by the other Wherefore it seems more reasonable to understand these and other places of Scripture of the like nature in that Sence which is applied to Faith Fear of God Love Hope and the like when singly made use of to express the whole Duty of a Christian viz. That one that is endued with such a Faith or such Vertues cannot be defective in the Belief of all other Articles or in the Practice of all other Duties For as any of these Vertues when mention'd alone as sufficient to save us cannot be understood exclusively of all others so when Believing in Christ or any other Proposition of that nature is alone required to make a Man a Christian we ought either to understand it as spoken conditionally upon a supposition of the Belief of all other Articles of the Christian Religion or else as designed to denote that as the believing Jesus to be the Christ is the first step to Christianity so he that is once firmly and throughly convinc'd of that will not deny his assent to any other Article of Faith in the whole Christian Profession that shall be required of him From all which it is natural to infer that there must be other Articles of Faith in the Scriptures that are as absolutely necessary to be Believed to Salvation as those to which Eternal Life is expresly promised and that many of those Texts of Scripture which are required to be believed to Salvation are not of themselves exclusive of all others sufficient for that End So that though it should be granted that there are no Articles of Faith in the Epistles so expresly enjoined to be Believed to Salvation as some delivered in the Gospels and Acts yet it will not follow but that some of them may be of as important a Nature and as much to be thought Fundamentals But however it must be considered Secondly that if it should be granted that no Articles were absolutely necessary to be Believed but what were expresly so declared by the Inspired Writers yet there may be produced some Articles from the Epistles that are as much required to be actually believed to Salvation as any of those delivered in the Gospels or Acts as I shall shew in its proper place So that for both these Reasons some of the Doctrines delivered in the Epistles ought to be as earnestly pressed and enjoined to be explicitely Believed upon hazard of Salvation as any found elsewhere in Scripture There are indeed a great many Truths both in the Gospels and Epistles which are only to be Believed upon the general Ground of Faith which is the Veracity of God But those of a higher Nature which have an immediate Tendency to the Salvation of Mankind and the Method by which our Saviour has obtain'd it for us are to be explicitely Believed by all in order to their Salvation So that in both Gospels and Epistles there is a twofold Faith requir'd the one depends upon the general Ground of our Belief which relies upon the Veracity of God that every thing which he has Revealed is true The other respects the End for which he has Revealed any thing to us and that is only the Eternal Benefit and Happiness of Mankind So that whatsoever in Scripture relates to this End is of more absolute necessity to be Believed to Salvation And this may serve for a General Direction whereby to distinguish fundamental Truths either in Gospels or Epistles or any other parts of Divine Revelation For whatsoever is proposed to our Belief as a necessary Condition in order to our Happiness must be included under this saving Faith And therefore I shall now proceed to shew that the Epistles have as much Right and Title to our Faith as it may be considered in this last sence as any other parts of Revelation since they equally treat of the Covenant of Grace and the Means of Salvation For whatsoever it is that is required of us to be actually believed as a Condition upon which our Happiness depends must be made a Fundamental of our Faith And therefore if the Epistles contain in them any Doctrines of this Nature they cannot be disbelieved without great hazard of our Salvation But First that the Epistles are to be made part of the Rule of Faith by which alone we are to be saved as well as the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles is evident from the Nature of Revelation For if it can be proved that the Epistles are as much a part of Divine Revelation as the other it will be no easy Task to demonstrate that they are not equally to be received especially if it can be made appear that the End of their Revelation was the Eternal Happiness of Mankind which I shall speak to hereafter Now this is the very Reason and Foundation of our Belief of the Christian Religion first that it is Revealed by God and secondly that it has the Attestation of Miracles to confirm it such as can be done by no other Power but Divine For without this we could have no Obligations upon us to believe it because we could have no certain assurance that it came from God But whatsoever is thus
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
also be acknowledged to be the Son of God i.e. God And that this must be the meaning of these Words of St. John is plain from what is generally allowed by the ancient Fathers to have been the Design of his Gospel which was to assert the Divinity of Christ against those that opposed it as he has done at large in his first Chapter And if this cannot be question'd to have been St. John's Design in his Gospel the foremention'd Proposition must mean more than that was all that was requir'd to be believed that Jesus was the Christ and consequently that Son of God is of a larger signification than Messiah For if they mean only the same then St. John himself does not assign the true Reason for his writing that Gospel For it appears that he had certainly another End in it than barely to prove Jesus to be the Messiah But if they mean differently and Son of God does there denote Christ's Divinity then we have in that foremention'd Passage the whole Intention of the Apostles assign'd for his writing that Gospel namely To shew that Jesus was the Christ and that he was God We may add to all this that the Jews from whom we may best understand the meaning of that Expression believed that God was meant by it For a good work Joh. 10.33 say they we stone thee not but for Blasphemy and that because thou being Man makest thy self God which was only by saying that he was the Son of God ver 36. Which shews that they understood more by the Son of God than being only the Messiah And this Interpretation the High-Priest put upon it Mat. 26.63 when he accus'd him of Blasphemy for saying he was the Son of God But it will probably be objected to this that our Saviour has himself explain'd what he meant by Son of God in his Answer to the Jews when they accus'd him of Blasphemy Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods if he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came how say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Joh. 10.34 35 36. But does it appear from hence that our Saviour has declared that there is no more meant by his being called the Son of God than that he was sanctify'd and sent by God All that can be concluded from this Passage is only this That supposing he was no more than one thus sent from Heaven yet it would not then be Blasphemy to assume the Title of Son of God But that is by no means a Concession that that Title did not belong to him upon any other account But besides it may as well be infer'd from hence that our Saviour was not God for he as much there declares that he was not God as that his Title of Son of God was only to denote his Divine Mission and he seems to allow that Son of God or God signifie the same as the Jews understood it So that this Text cannot be brought to shew that Son of God and Messiah are the same But there is one Text more which may be urged to prove Son of God and Messiah the same and that is Luk. 1.35 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God But if the true Occasion of his being called the Son of God is here set down then it is plain that the other Instance last mention'd was not to the Purpose Because there the reason of that Character is pretended to be by our Saviour's own Confession only upon the account of his being sanctify'd and sent by God So that one of them must be given up as proving nothing in the Case But neither does this latter Text give us a full account of our Saviour's being Son of God It only tells us one Reason why he should be called so in his Humane Nature as being conceiv'd by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin But 't is plain that this was not design'd to take in the full Sence of that Expression because there are other places in Scripture that give that Title to our Saviour where it can only relate to his eternal Existence as has been already shewed But it will farther appear from hence that the Jews thought Son of God to signify more than being the Christ That tho' before and at the time of our Saviour's Coming they gave the Title of Son of God to their expected Messiah and the * Vid. Dr. Pocock Not. ad Maimonid p. 316. Chaldee Paraphrast and all the Learned Rabbins had constantly interpreted that Passage in Psal 2. Thou art my Son c. of the Messiah yet after our Saviour's Coming they not only altered that Interpretation but also denied that they ever expected their †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Advers Cels lib. 1. Messiah should be the Son of God least the Christians should take Advantages of it as one of their Doctors acknowledges Which is sufficient to shew that the Jews who after our Saviour's Coming denied this Title of Son of God to their expected Messiah did believe that it signify'd more than only being the Messiah for they disown'd it because they thought it would prove what the Christians made use of it for the Divinity of the Messiah But this I may have more occasion to consider by and by From all that has been urged it seems evident that as Messiah and Son of God do not signify the same so there is something more necessarily requir'd to be believed besides this Proposition that Jesus is Christ or the Messiah But if we should suppose the believing Jesus to be the Messiah sufficient to make a Man a Christian will it be the believing that bare Proposition that qualifies him for such a Character If it will not of it self what sence must it be taken in Must every one be left to his own private Explication or must it be received according to the general Sence of Scripture Now if we are to believe it as deliver'd in sacred Writ I would know in what Place it is there declar'd that the believing it in such a particular sence just so and no otherwise is requir'd as absolutely necessary to Salvation For if the explicite Belief of that Article only is sufficient why are we not informed from what particular Text of Scripture we must draw the sence of it to be believed in such a manner only upon the Forfeiture of Salvation For it is not much to the Purpose to say that this Proposition is alone requir'd to make a Man a Christian unless there can be produced the same Authority for the absolute necessity of believing it in such a sence But perhaps it will be said in Answer to this that our Author has explain'd this Proposition from the
into the secret Affections of Men. Whether the present Vnitarian Writers will allow Divine Honours to be paid to our Saviour or not is not very material this every one must be convinc'd of that the Adoration of Christ is as much mention'd in the History of the Gospels and as much enjoin'd in those and other parts of Scripture as any other Doctrine whatever So that it would be much more convenient for them to reject all Revelation in general than to out off all those parts of it that are disagreeable to their Hypothesis For to own a Revelation and at the same time to disbelieve what is therein clearly deliver'd is such a Contradiction as I am afraid their Reason can hardly reconcile But since in some of their Pamphlets they have denied Omnipresence and Omniscience to Almighty God and so have left us at a loss for a God Infinitely Perfect they may with the same Assurance call in question either the Truth or Authority of his Revelation But seeing the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity does believe all that is contain'd in the Gospels and Acts I shall endeavour to convince him by one Text more for the Proof of Christ's Divinity and consequently for the necessity of believing more concerning him than barely that he was the Messiah from the Example and Expressions of the first Martyr St. Stephen who suffered some Years before any of the Gospels or Epistles were written and therefore his Authority ought to carry very great Weight along with it since such an Example seems to be of as great Force and Obligation as a Positive Command For as he was full of the Holy Ghost and saw the Glory of God and the Heavens opened whilst yet in the Body so his Dying Words are upon that account more particularly remarkable And they stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my Spirit And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice Lord lay not this sin to their charge Act. 7.59 60. In which Words these Two things are very considerable First The Divine Honours here paid to our Saviour wherein if Christ be not GOD he was guilty of Idolatry Secondly The Expressions contain'd in his Petition which are almost the very same which our Blessed Saviour had before made the subject of his last Petition to God the Father at his Passion upon the Cross Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit And as before in the 34 ver Father forgive them for they know not what they do Both which are as to the Matter the same with those St. Stephen offer'd up to our Blessed Saviour and attribute the same Honour and in almost the very same Words which Christ in his Humane Nature gave to God the Father From whence we may conclude that either both or that neither was God I might bring innumerable Instances from Scripture to prove the necessity of believing Christ's Divinity as where the Creation of all things is attributed to him and other things that declare his Divine Power and Authority But these few I have made use of are as sufficient as Ten Thousand where Men are resolv'd to believe according to the Evidence of Things Now the Question is not Whether Christ's Divinity is to be comprehended by our Reason but whether it is not attested by Revelation And if this be made out beyond all possibility of being denied all the Arguments that can be drawn from Humane Reason will prove much too weak to overthrow it unless we can prove that there is more Truth and Certainty in Man's Reason than in the Testimony of God And thus have I shewn from those places of Scripture which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity does admit of that there is something more to be believed concerning our Blessed Saviour than that he was the Messiah And that those places which I have mention'd are direct Proofs of Christ's Divinity in the most plain and natural Sence of the Words such as they were design'd to have in the Mouths of the Speaker is what the meanest Capacity will easily apprehend But it may be said that Christ's Divinity being asserted in Scripture does not make it an Article of Faith or necessary to be believed to Salvation or to make a Man a Christian unless it was there so declared any more than several other parts of Holy Writ which indeed we acknowledge to be true but yet are of no Concern to us In answer to this it may be question'd in the first place whether the Scripture's asserting him to be God does not make it necessary to believe him to be so as well as we are to believe explicitely that God Created all things though it is not mentioned as an Article necessary to be believed to Salvation in Scripture But as we are obliged to know who was the Author of our Being so also must it be equally a Crime not to know clearly who and what he was that could be the Author of our Salvation But Secondly The Design of the Scripture's mentioning him so often with the Characters and Titles of God make it necessary for us to believe him to be so For to what End should St. John so much contend for his being God in opposition to those who denied his Divinity if yet every Man might be at his liberty to believe as he pleased concerning him For there could be no reason for the defending his Divinity with so much Care and Concern if it was not absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian or if there was no danger in believing him to be only Man In like manner the Design of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in asserting so largely the Divinity of Christ by reason of the wrong Opinions that some Men had concerning him makes it necessary for us to entertain true Notions concerning his Divinity And this necessity of believing Christ to be God even to make a Man a Christian will also appear from St. Paul's reasoning in his Epistle to the Colossians where he tells them that all things were created by him and that he is before all things Chap. 1. Ver. 16 17. But chiefly in his second Chapter he admonishes them to Beware lest any man spoil them through Philosophy and vain Deceit after the Tradition of Men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily The design of which Words seems plainly to be this To caution them lest they should fall from their Faith concerning Christ's being GOD through the deceitful Arguments of some sort of Men who might perswade them that it was irreconcilable to Reason For he did assure them with all the Sincerity of a faithful Apostle of Christ that the Godhead was really and substantially in him And thereupon he enjoins them to believe it if they would retain the Profession of Christianity And if this be allowed to be the Force of the Apostle's
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
proceeds from God it is in vain to say there are Contradictions in it for that is as impossible as that God should not be true But Secondly Why all this Concern for the illiterate and Men of weak Capacities as though it would be so very Prejudicial to them to be obliged to believe what they cannot comprehend For they do not seem to receive any Disadvantage by it more than others For if they are able to search the Scriptures they may know what they are obliged to believe and may as easily believe as Men of greater Reaches and stronger Reasons For the Mysteries of Religion which are incomprehensible are equally so to all Indeed had God made a difference in the necessary Parts of Faith between the Learned and Illiterate and requir'd such particular Articles to be believed to Salvation by all sorts of Men which only the Wisest could understand then the Poor of the World would have just Reason to complain But since he has placed all Men on the same Level and has requir'd no harder Terms of the one than the other we have all the Reason in the World to admire his infinite Wisdom in that he has reveal'd himself as much to the Unlearn'd Bulk of Mankind as to the Wise and Prudent For he that reads may understand may know what God has made necessary to Salvation tho' he can understand what he believes but in part Were we to draw our Belief from a long Train of Deductions and infer every Article of Faith from some one Principle though there might be a Mathematical Certainty for the Truth of such a Religion yet the Men of great strength of Judgment and Intenseness of Thought could only reach the perfect Knowledge of it and the poor labouring and illiterate Man must then most unhappily perish through his Ignorance But as now it is all parts of our Belief are equally intelligible by all and what we cannot comprehend as to the Manner of it we can believe to be true upon the Veracity of him that reveal'd it So that how mysterious soever some things may be which are proposed to our Faith they are not more difficult to the weak than those of stronger Capacities But there is yet in the Third Place more to be said in Defence of our common Faith if we consider the Extent and Limits of it For though we are obliged to believe what in its own Nature is a Mystery yet our Faith does not require us to go into the mysterious Parts of it that is We have no Obligations upon us to believe it as a Mystery As for Instance We are obliged to believe that the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity are one GOD but how they are One or how Three what is the adequate Meaning of their Personal Distinction or how consistent with their Unity Revelation has not made necessary to be believed And so as to the Creation of the World and the Hypostatick Vnion of God-Man we are to believe as Scripture has reveal'd but as to the manner of them by what distinct Act of Omnipotence God made the one or how he united the other our Faith is not to determine And in this Sence it may be granted that we are not obliged to believe farther than our Reason can carry us that must determine us how far and what we are to Believe that is It must decide what is required by Revelation to be Believed and what is to be the Extent of that Belief For we are only enjoin'd to believe Articles of Faith as they are delivered in Scripture without any particular Explanations of the Modes how they may be conceived For though the Articles themselves are necessary to be Believed to Salvation yet any particular Explication of them is not because as we can have no just Idea of them our selves so we have no certainty that any Body else can have And therefore it is a meer Scandal cast upon us that we Believe we know not what for we have a perfect Understanding of what is required to be Believed and the Grounds of our Belief are as cogent as any Evidence of Sense For it is as easy to Believe what God has certainly Reveal'd as what we can apprehend by our Senses We may without any great difficulty understand what we are to Believe but as to the Manner or particular Modes of Existence of those things which are required to be Believed as they are above our Comprehensions so are they not made any Parts of our Faith But lastly Since our Author is of Opinion that it would be so very Advantageous to Mankind in general to have only such a Religion as is very easy to be understood by all sorts of Men we ought to consider how very Intelligble his Rule of Faith is if compared with that of our Church and how Agreeable his One Article is to the Comprehension of vulgar Capacities For he that advances a new Scheme of Faith should take great care that it may not labour under any of those Imperfections for which the other is Condemned Now let us suppose with our Author that the believing Jesus to be the Messiah the Saviour that was to come into the World to be alone necessary to Salvation and let this be proposed to an inquisitive labouring Man that would desire to know a Reason for his Faith Now indeed he might acknowledge that this Proposition Jesus is the Messiah is easy to be remembred but not so easily understood It is then very probable he would enquire what is meant by his being the Messiah If we should tell him that he was the Saviour promised the Question would again recurr What is meant by his being our Saviour or how or from what did he save us If we should say that he was our Saviour by those excellent Precepts which he taught to reform Mankind this would not satisfy because we had most of those Precepts before tho' not so fully explain'd and because this is not consistent with the general Sence of Scripture which tells us that he was our Saviour by suffering for us and in our stead If we should reply that he was indeed put to Death because of our Sins and that we should by the Death of so innocent a Person learn to reform our Lives and follow his Doctrine This would be yet more unintelligible for why should God suffer an innocent Person to be put to Death because the rest of Mankind were Sinners This indeed would be the only Means to encourage Men in their Impieties since there was no safety in a Religious Life And this Reason would also prevent the success of his Doctrine for if all his Design was to prevail with Mankind to receive his Doctrine it would have been much more for his Advantage to have saved himself by a miraculous coming down from the Cross for then there is no question but all Men would have believed what he taught was from God Since this would have been a greater
Evidence for the Truth of his Doctrine than his Death could possibly be But if we should say that he Died to gain us an Immortality which we lost by Adam yet this would not put a stop to his Enquiry for if this was all he Died for what should be the Meaning of those places in Scripture where he is said to be made Sin for us to free us from the Wrath to come For the frequent Repetition of his suffering for our Sins necessarily supposes that there was some severe Punishment due to them which we should otherwise have suffered But if upon his farther Enquiry why this one Article should only be required necessarily to be believed we should inform him that this is all that is required in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and that we are not obliged to an explicite Belief of any Doctrines delivered in other parts of the New Testament yet this would never satisfy because as he would easily perceive the Falsity of the former so it would be difficult to convince him of the other if he was perswaded that the Epistles had as great an Authority stampt upon them by being Divinely Inspired as any other parts of Scripture and that the Apostles had the same Commission from God in the writing their Epistles as in any other parts of their Ministry And Lastly If this Illiterate Man should demand Whether this Messiah is Man or God and whether we are not obliged to believe him to be God because Scripture has in divers places asserted his Divinity and because in the Form of Baptism by which we are made Christians He is represented as equal to God the Father if he should be answered That if those places meant any thing it must be some other Sence than we generally understand by them or at least that they do not require an actual Belief of that Doctrine to Salvation or that it is not material what we believe our Saviour to be so long as we acknowledge him to be the Messiah yet this would run him still into greater Perplexities and make him throw aside all in general rather than take up with such a Partial Religion For whatsoever is irreconcilable with all the parts of Revelation will never perswade any Considering Man to Embrace it that believes there is an Equal Authority from God for the whole Such a Scheme of Faith which our Author has drawn up I am afraid will give no better Satisfaction to those who are for searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so The Holy Bible especially the New Testament is not so very large but that the Knowledge of it particularly where our Salvation is concern'd may be easily attain'd by the meanest Capacities Nor are there such Intricacies in the Matters of Faith but that a willing Mind may see sufficient Reason for assenting to them not because he can comprehend the Depths of them but because he perceives it is his Duty to Believe them since God that cannot Lie has assuredly Reveal'd them and made them necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation And why may not Almighty God that has contrived such a Salvation for us as our greatest Wisdom could never have discovered oblige us to the Belief of some things which our deepest Reasons cannot now comprehend Indeed we might with very great Reason complain if God had laid a necessity upon us of clearly Understanding whatsoever he has required of us to Believe I mean as to the Manner of it because he has not been pleased to explain the Manner But since all that he has enjoin'd us is only a firm Belief of whatsoever he has Reveal'd we ought in all Humility to submit our selves to his Wisdom and wait for a fuller Intuition into those Mysteries in the other World which we must be Ignorant of in this And there is no Question to be made but that a great many Things are hid from our present Views and which yet are required of us to be Believed on purpose to heighten our Desires after those higher Degrees of Knowledge which are particularly reserv'd for the next Life It seems indeed very plain that we are under an Obligation to make nothing more necessary to be Believed than what is clearly laid down in Scripture or necessarily to be drawn from it But this also is as certain that we ought not to deny any thing to be an Article of Faith which the Scripture has made such especially if it be clearly delivered For it is God's Word alone that must guide us in those Cases and it is as dangerous to detract from it as to add to it And thus I have Examined those Parts of the Reasonableness of Christianity which seem'd to me to be Erroneous as for those that treat of the Necessity of Revelation the Conditions of Repentance Good Works c. they seem to carry an Air of Piety along with them and to be writ with such strength of Judgment as may be suppos'd that the Author had thought more upon them than upon any other Parts of that Treatise FINIS POSTSCRIPT WHen these Papers were just coming Abroad there appear'd a Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. by the Author of it I was under Apprehension that some Arguments might be there propounded which ought to be consider'd But since I find they are chiefly directed against Mr. Edwards Reflections which tho' I have not Read I presume are different from these Observations by the Passages cited from them I did not think my self concern'd to examine them especially since they required more Time than the Press would allow If I have urged any Arguments that have been manag'd already by Others it is more than I knew What I have mention'd of Mr. Hobbs was with no Design to possess the Reader with Prejudices against the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity but only to shew that the same Doctrine had been maintain'd before our Author appear'd for it Tho' I don't believe he Borrow'd it from thence since he hath declared the contrary If in that or any thing else I have fall'n upon the same Notion with the Ingenious Author of the Occasional Paper Numb I. it is more than I did or could design since these Remarks were Drawn up long before that came Abroad ERRATA PAg. 4. lin 7. read in the Gospels p. 14. l. 28. r. reject them ibid. l. 33. r. Inspiration p. 20. l. 5. del it p. 35. l. 10. del the p. 44. in Not. r. commata p. 62. l. 1. r. Crimina p. 63. l. 12. for those are r. that is p. 69. l. 24. r. Apostle
And therefore those who deny that Christ died for us in that Sense do in effect deny that he properly died for us at all because they do not assign the true Reasons for it which are declar'd in Scripture But that those Arguments from Scripture of Christ's dying for us and in our stead follow from the easy and natural meaning of those Texts I shall evince from other Expressions in Scripture of the like Nature and from common Customs and Ways of speaking in the World Whereby it will appear that no other Interpretation can possibly be put upon them Thus in the Lamentations Our Fathers have sinned and are not and we have born their Iniquities i. e. Have suffered Punishment for their Sins So Christ's bearing the Sins of many can only be understood of suffering for them So in Ezekiel The Soul that sinneth it shall die Ch. 18. v. 20. the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father that is shall not suffer for his Sin And also by one Man's suffering for another is meant a transferring the Punishment upon himself as in the Words of St. Peter to our Blessed Saviour I will lay down my Life for thee i. e. Joh. 13.38 To save or redeem thine And the Expression of Caiphas does also import the same It is expedient for us that one Man should die for the people and that the whole Nation perish not i.e. It is necessary that One should die to free the rest from Destruction And therefore he advised that Christ should be sacrificed to prevent the Ruine of their Nation by the Romans And to the same sense are the words of John If any of the men escape 2 Kiâ—â— 10 2â— he that letteth him go his Life shall be for the Life of him i. e. He shall suffer the Punishment design'd for the other We may add to this the Expressions that occur in Profane Authors that signifie the suffering of one for another For by their expiare orimina or scelus piaculum fieri populum lustrare and the like they generally meant a freeing others from an impending Evil by suffering the Punishment in their stead And this is very plain by a great many Instances in History particularly in that noted one of the Decij who sacrificed themselves for the good of their Country or offered themselves for an Expiation of the rest And this Custom of sacrificing one for all was very common with the Heathens almost in all Ages And they have used such Expressions for it as are used in Scripture to denote the great Piacular Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World As in the * Euripid. Erecht Tom. 2. p. 468. Ed. Cantab. Tragedian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was not lawful for him to suffer the Destruction of so many things when he might redeem them with the Sacrifice of one Life that of his Daughter And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That his Daughter would receive abundant Honour by offering her self for a Sacrisice or Expiation to save both the City her Mother Sisters and nearest Relations There might be brought innumerable Instances of this Nature out of the most Ancient Greek and Latin Historians to shew that by a Man's being a Sacrifice they meant a suffering for and in the stead of others to transfer the Faults of others upon himself Which are sufficient to vindicate our interpreting those places of Scripture that mention the Sacrifice of Christ to the sence of a Satisfaction for the Sins of the World since they cannot possibly bear any other Meaning So that the natural Result of all will be this That as the Scripture has in very many places assured us that Christ died for our Sins and in our stead by bearing our Sins in his own Body thereby to deliver us from the Wrath to come and that those are the true Interpretation and Sence of those places which the Words do most naturally import so is it most evident that the End of Christ's Coming into the World was for some other Design than to give us a Title to Immortality And that was to put us in a Condition of saving our selves from Everlasting Misery which we should otherwise most unavoidably have suffered And therefore if either Gospels or Epistles may be allowed to be true that cannot be the only End of Christ's Coming into the World which is assign'd by the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity For certainly that is the most true and most necessary to be believed which is most agreeable to Divine Revelation What we are to Believe concerning CHRIST I Come now to examine that part of the Reasonableness of Christianity which I proposed in the last place to consider And this relates to our Faith in Christ which the Author makes to consist in the Belief of this one Article That he is the Son of God the Saviour of the World or the Messiah And for the Proof of this he cites very many places of Scripture As Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath Eternal Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life And in the next Chapter from the Belief of the Samaritans p. 25 26 c. who said to the Woman We believe not any longer because of thy saying for we have heard our selves and do know that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the World And from the words of St. Peter Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the words of Eternal Life and we believe and are sure that thou art the Messiah the Son of the Living God And from hence he gathers that this was the Faith which distinguisht them from Apostates and Unbelievers and was sufficient to continue them in the Rank of the Apostles And that it was upon the same Profession that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of the living God owned by St. Peter that our Saviour said he would build his Church Matth. 16.18 The Belief of this one Article as the only necessary one to Salvation in the New Covenant is the same with what is maintain'd by Mr. Hobbs and proved after the very same manner as may be seen by any one that will take the Pains to read the Eighteenth Chap. of his Book De Cive which treats of Religion Sect. 5. c. His words are Credere in Christum quid est Vel fidei in Christum quaenam propositio est objectum To which he answers Credere in Christum est nihil aliud quam credere Jesum esse Christum nimirum illum qui secundum Mosis Prophetarum Israelitorum vaticinia venturus erat in hunc mundum ad Instituendum Regnum Dei And then after he has brought very many Proofs out of the Gospels and Acts the very same which our Author has done he tells us that Alia fides ad vitam aeternam praeter
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