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
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
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
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
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
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
Declarations of Scripture concerning it and that this is the full sence of it which he has deliver'd p. 31. and repeated in his Vindication p. 28. 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 their King and Ruler But it may be demanded whether this is the full Sence and Interpretation of it in Scripture and whether this is all that is required to be believed concerning the Messiah or where it is laid down in Scripture that this Sence and Meaning of Jesus being the Messiah exclusive of all others is to be believed as necessary to Salvation For this cannot be lookt upon as the only Explication unless it can be shewn that it is declared to be so in Scripture and that this alone neither more nor less is to be believed as necessary to Salvation which seems to be a Matter of no small difficulty So that the believing Jesus to be the Messiah tho' we should take in his Interpretation of it if it was design'd for such does not seem of it self to be sufficient to make a Man a Christian But for the clearer Examination of this Assertion we may consider first That what might be sufficient to denominate a Man a Believer or a Christian during the actual Ministry of Christ would not truly Entitle any one to that Character now or during the Ministry of the Apostles after our Saviour's Ascension and that for this Reason because we do not find from the whole History of the Gospels that any of those who believed on our Saviour had a just Knowledge of him or what was the true End of his coming into the World Which I have already observ'd of his Disciples from that Question of their's to our Saviour Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel To which he does not give a direct Answer but shews them their Ignorance by telling them It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own Power but ye shall receive Power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you Acts 1. and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the Earth From whence it is natural to infer that the Apostles had not yet attained to that clear Knowledge of Him and the Design of his Coming which it was necessary they should be endued with And if the Apostles had not arrived to that fullness of Faith who had been with him from the beginning it is absurd to imagine That any others who had believed on Him could have entertain'd any clearer or more distinct Notions of Him So that we cannot form any adequate Rule of Faith from what is deliver'd in the Gospels concerning the believing Jesus to be the Messiah since the just Meaning of that Proposition was not then understood Nor will it alter the Case by saying That those who died then in that Faith were undoubtedly saved for that would be no more an Argument than the proving that because a Jew was saved before Christ's Coming into the World by Vertue of Christ's Mediation in the Observance of the Mosaick Law he might be equally capable of Salvation now in the Profession of that Religion For we are to direct our Faith and Practice according to the most full and clear Revelation of God's Will and to believe that to be necessary to Salvation which appears from the full Extent of Revelation to be requir'd in order to it For that Rule of our Blessed Saviour will always hold That where much is given or much Revealed there is also much required to be believed If therefore the Disciples did not then fully know what is necessary for a Christian now to believe as 't is very evident they did not it will necessarily follow that the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah is not sufficient or all that is necessary to Salvation or even to make a Man a Believer or a Christian For the Disciples did already believe that Jesus was the Messiah as is granted in the Reasonableness of Christianity but did not understand how far his Mediation extended or what he must do in order to become our Mediator And this I shall prove from our Author 's own Concession to be an Argument of no small Force For if all that was necessary to Salvation or to denominate Men truly Christians was the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah why should our Saviour promise the Mission of the Holy Ghost to instruct them farther in what they ought to believe concerning him as in Joh. 16.12 I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot hear them now howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth For he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you And at the 25 Ver. These things have I spoken unto you in Proverbs the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in Proverbs or Parables but shall shew you plainly of the Father Now to what End was all this Was it not to teach them more clearly something that concern'd their Faith and Knowledge But this according to our Author could not be for they had already believed he was the Messiah and if that was all that was necessary why should they need any other Instruction Since our Blessed Saviour had already given God Thanks in one of his last Prayers that they had already believed that God did send him Joh. 17.18 I have given unto them the Words which thou gavest me and they have received them and they have believed that thou didst send me p. 183. i. e. By our Author 's own Interpretation in effect that he was the Messiah promised and sent by God And in the 25 ver Ibid. speaking of his Disciples he says They already know that thou didst send me i.e. Are assured that I am the Messiah Now if they firmly believed all this already according to our Author and this was all required of them to be believed to what End was the Holy Spirit to be given them to instruct them more fully in the Belief of Him or to inform them more particularly of his Dignity and Office For the Coming of the Holy Ghost could not be only to endue them with the Power of working Miracles which were only to be made use of for the Converting of others Nor will that come up to the sence of our Saviour's Words that he should guide them into all Truth so that if they must be allowed to have any Meaning in them they must relate to those larger degrees of Understanding and Knowledge concerning the Mystery of Christ which should be infused into the Apostles by the Holy Ghost But it may be urged that the Apostles after they had received the Holy Ghost made no other Conditions of Faith in Christ than that