Fingers If we were to judg of the Matters themselves and to form the Propositions originally our selves there would not be any need of such Revelation as we now have the Messias would not have had any occasion to have said any thing of them but then we must have had new Faculties and those proportioned to what is discoursed of But the Propositions being delivered down to us there is no need of our having new Faculties it is enough to render it most reasonable for us to believe the Propositions that we have new Evidence administred to our old Faculties When our most learned Divines speak of Reason as to these Doctrines they do not speak of the Doctrines as delivered by Christ and his Apostles for no Reason can be assigned for our believing them under that precise Consideration but only the Testimony of Christ But they speak of those Terms in which the Church hath delivered her Sense in opposition to those who represented the Words of Christ when applied to these Matters as signifying no more than the Words of any ordinary Man do when concerned about most obvious and common things And thus they shew that those Terms comprehend a great deal more in them than that other sort of People pretend is signified by our Saviour's Words and that the Notions these Terms do stand for are very consonant to the Reason of Mankind But they do not pretend that these Terms as strictly expressing those Notions do exhaust the whole that is comprized in our Saviour's Words For should they do so they would pretend to comprehend the Matters themselves Christ doth speak of and to set them forth in a clearer Light than he hath done A Doctrine or Proposition is reasonable when it truly relates or expresseth the Reason of the things about which it is concerned that is when the Subject and Predicate have such a Connection in the Proposition as doth truly express and signify the Connection there is betwixt what the Subject and Predicate do stand for and note in the things spoken of Now there is a very great Difference between my understanding the Reason the Order the Relation there is between the things spoken of in the Proposition i. e. wherein that Order doth consist or what it is that constitutes that Order and my having Reason to believe the Proposition which doth relate and declare that there is a certain Order Relation and Reason between them or belonging to them Evidence is the Reason or Ground of my Assent and Belief And tho the things spoken of are in their own Nature above my reach yet there may be such Evidence of the Truth of the Proposition as may be sufficient to oblige my Belief of it The Testimony of my Senses concerning their proper Objects is the Reason of my assenting to the Truth of Propositions which respect those Objects and not my being able to philosophize about those Objects either after the old or new way I believe the Doctrines I know Christ hath taught not because I can comprehend and philosophize on the Matters spoken of but because I know that Jesus whom I believe to be the Messias hath taught them He fully understood the Order of the Things he spake of and his Testimony is as full Evidence to engage my Belief of whatever I know he hath taught as my Sight is to oblige my Assent to Propositions relating to the proper Objects of that Sense These Doctrines are not propos'd to us for Speculation but for our Use and Benefit We have Evidence enough even as much as we can with Reason desire of the Truth of these Propositions if we believe that Jesus is the Messias and our blessed Saviour hath given us full Direction what Vse we are to make of them that we may partake of the singular Advantages he will communicate those ways And if instead of quarrelling and wrangling about Matters which are far above our loftiest Speculations we would submissively betake our selves to the Methods our Lord doth advise and prescribe us we might confidently expect the most exhilarating Satisfaction concerning these Points If any Man will do his Will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of my self John 7.17 Whereas the Socinians pretend that these Doctrines do contradict our natural Notions that is a Suggestion so gross one might wonder how rational Men could ever entertain such a dry and senseless Conceit unless it hath sprung from hence that hearing that these Doctrines must necessarily be believed to make Men Christians they have concluded that the Truth of these Doctrines must be judged of by their natural Notions And to speak the Truth freely I know not how to remove the Difficulty as long as that Prejudice continues But this I dare affirm with the greatest Assurance that it cannot with any Colour be said that any of the Doctrines which Christ hath taught do contradict our natural Notions and therefore not these in particular for they do not treat concerning Matters of which we have any natural Notions Now if these Matters were spoken of in such a way that to speak in the same manner concerning those things of which we have natural Notions would be a Contradiction to our natural Notions it cannot with any Sense be said that there is such a Contradiction when the Matters discoursed of are such as we have no natural Notions of The Application of Words must be according to the Truth of Things otherwise the Propositions would be false and contradict the Truth Jesus Christ delivered his Doctrines in the Words he used because those Words do truly express the Reason there is in the things he spake of and we are to believe those Propositions on his Authority because he hath faithfully related the Truth concerning the Things he speaks of And if we believe him to be the Christ or Messias we can have no Pretence to doubt of the Truth of what we know he hath taught Could we be satisfied that a certain Person hath a distinct Sense from what is common to Mankind and that there are Objects peculiar to that Sense we should have as much Reason to believe what he saith concerning those Objects as we have to be satisfied that he hath such a Sense that there are Objects peculiar to it and that he is a Person of Discernment and Integrity And if he should speak of those Objects in such a manner as would be a Contradiction to our natural Notions did he speak so concerning those things which are the Objects of our Senses and precisely under that Consideration we should have no Reason to say he contradicts our natural Notions whilst he discourses of things which we know nothing at all of but purely by his Information He is to accommodate his Words to the Reason and Truth of the Things he discourses of not to the Notions we have of Matters which are quite different And the Reason we have to believe what be saith of
the Messias and yet will reject or refuse to believe what he knows he hath taught he doth thereby manifest that he is not a true Christian i. e. that he doth not indeed believe that Jesus is the Messias Those who say they would not believe such or such a Doctrine if it were expresly taught in the New Testament do plainly declare they do not own those Books to be divinely inspired And if they should say they would not believe them if Jesus Christ himself did deliver them they would more immediately declare that they do not believe him to be the Messias The Ebionites who out of Design pretended to believe Jesus to be the Messias were so sensible of this that because they would not acknowledg him to be God they rejected the Books of the New Testament and provided themselves another Book which had not that Doctrine in it which they pretended did contain the Doctrines which he taught It hath been the way of those who have set themselves against the Holy Scriptures or some of the Doctrines taught in them either to advance some Doctrines as necessary to be believed which are not taught in those sacred Writings or to alter some of the Doctrines taught in them by annexing their own Sense and Interpretation to the Words in which Jesus Christ and his Apostles delivered them Of this latter sort were those who opposed the Divinity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity which occasioned the Primitive Christians to make it their Business to shew that the Words which Christ and his Apostles used did import a great deal more than what those Persons pretended was the full Sense of them Those false Teachers and their Successors especially those who have of late contended against these Doctrines applied themselves to an Artifice very common amongst them who have set up to combate the Doctrines of our Blessed Saviour and undermine the Christian Religion which is to endeavour to enlarge the Controversy as much as possible that thus they might have the more room to turn in They have by this Means obtained certain unhappy Advantages They have amused and bewildered many of the weaker sort of People They have found out many Evasions and Shifts under which to hide and shelter themselves They have created Persons of prodigious Learning and Parts much unnecessary Trouble Whereas bad they been kept strictly to this one Point that Jesus is the Messias and not suffered to start from that and its immediate Consequence the Controversy would have been brought to a speedy Issue by producing the Messias's own Words For then the utmost they could do would be only to talk of Accents Articles and Copies which I conceive are Topicks they do not much care now to insist on and amongst other Reasons besides their having been so often baffled already because very few Persons in comparison would regard the Debate when those things would be all they could discourse of But they have exceedingly extended the Controversy by prevailing with the Orthodox to fix on other Topicks for Discourse They have greatly indangered the Truth under a Pretence of being revenged on those Terms the Antient Christians had settled for the expressing of their Sense concerning these Doctrines in opposition to those who formerly set themselves against these Doctrines And thus the Controversy is run into Antiquity and Reason By which means the Socinians and the Orthodox have had opportunity to produce very great Proofs of the Strength of their Natural Endowments and their acquired Accomplishments Vpon these Points we have had of late very notable Encounters The Orthodox have all things considered acquitted themselves bravely and with singular Dexterity except some of them falling together by the Ears one with another that their Adversaries might have some breathing Space and a little Diversion to boot but I am apt to suspect that the great Reason why they have done so little Execution is because they have yielded for a while to lay aside the Sword of the Spirit the Testimony of the Messias and have consented to fight their Adversaries at their own Weapons Did I enjoy my former Health I should think it a very pleasant Diversion to see Prizes plaid this way by Persons who are well-skill'd at these sort of Weapons provided the Matters in Debate were of another Nature But in the present Matters these Methods seem to me little other than if David had laid down his Sling and Pouch and had gone forth to fight the huffing Philistine in Saul's Armour Neither Reason nor Antiquity can determine any thing immediately concerning these Doctrines whether they be true or not whether we are to believe them or no. Our Certainty of their Truth depends entirely on the Testimony of Jesus Christ The Proofs that Jesus is the Messias lie level to the Senses or Reason of Mankind And if we have Reason to believe that Jesus is the Messias and are convinced of that his Testimony affords us as good and satisfactory Reason why we should believe what we know he hath taught as the Testimony of our Senses can yield us why we should believe any Proposition which respects their proper Objects Our Reason doth not immediately judg concerning the thing treated of in the Proposition but concerning the Evidence whether it be such as by virtue of it we ought to assent to the Proposition The Reasonableness of our believing any particular Doctrine taught in the New Testament as delivered there depends upon the Reasons we have to believe that Jesus is the Messias And if we are fully satisfied that we have sufficient Reason to believe him to be the Messias our Reason must certify us that it is the most reasonable thing in the World to believe whatever we know he hath taught For could there be any Reason to doubt whether what he hath said is true we could not have sufficient Reason to believe that he is the Messias If we believe him to be the Messias his Testimony is the fullest Evidence we can desire of the Truth of what he hath taught And if we allow the Evidence to be compleat and full tho we cannot form a distinct Idea of the Matter treated of we have all imaginable Reason to believe the Proposition When our Adversaries talk of Reason as to these Matters they seem to mean that the things discoursed of must be brought down to that degree that laying aside Revelation we may form distinct and clear Notions of the things themselves by the sole Exercise of our natural Faculties so that by contemplating them we may find out intrinsick Reasons to believe or assent to the Propositions Christ hath delivered concerning them Which is the absurdest thing that can be For herein they require that the Nature of the things should be altered and they renounce Revelation whilst they pretend to avow and own it And they might with every jot as much Reason require that People should judg of Sounds by their Eyes and of Colours by their
those things bears a Proportion to the Reasons we have to be satisfied of his Credibility and depends not at all on our forming clear and distinct Notions of the things themselves much less on our adjusting what he saith to the Notions we have of other things which are perfectly of another Nature The main Business of Antiquity with relation to these Doctrines is either 1st To shew upon what Occasion other Words than those in which Christ and his Apostles delivered these Doctrines were made use of in asserting and teaching them Or 2dly To shew that the Primitive Christians did manifest that they did believe the Words in which Christ and his Apostles delivered these Doctrines do comprehend a great deal more than what the Opposers of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost pretend is the full Sense of them Or 3dly To shew that the Sense in which we understand the Terms in which we ordinarily speak of these Doctrines was the agreed and settled Sense of them in the Christian Church when these Terms were fixed on to be ordinarily used in discoursing of and professing our Belief of these Doctrines Thus the Discourses about Reason and Antiquity do not immediately reach these Doctrines as Christ hath taught them but the way of expressing them when we deliver our selves concerning them in other Words than Christ hath done When we use other Terms in speaking of these Doctrines than Christ hath delivered them in our Words are accommodated to the natural Notions we have of Things And tho these Notions comprehend much more than the Notions do which we oppose yet they do not contain the whole Meaning of Christ as delivered in the Words he hath used for that far surpasses our Capacities So that when all is done we must come to this at last to believe these Doctrines as Christ hath delivered them and for this very Reason because he hath taught them Now before a Person can be brought to this he must believe that Jesus is the Messias And if the due Belief that Jesus is the Messias doth not constitute a Man a Christian I cannot imagine how the Belief of other Articles can constitute him a Christian seeing that Belief is the formal Reason of his believing the other Articles and his believing other Articles is no more but a repeated Belief of that Article in proportion to the Occasions which are administred to him for it Produce as large a Proof as is possible that the Church hath all along taught such a Doctrine that she hath taught it in such Words that she understood those Words in such a Sense before a Person can be satisfied regularly that he is obliged to believe it he must be convinced that Jesus is the Messias and he must be satisfied that that Jesus hath taught it The like may be said as to Reason When you have produced as many Reasons as you can that there may be more Subsistencies than one in the Divine Nature you can neither prove the Necessity nor the Certainty nor the Number of them by Reason But as to all these Matters the Testimony of the Messias must determine our Belief Our Reason doth not only fall short as to the manner how these things are but also as to the Truth and Certainty of them And our Reason cannot assure us that this is all that is imported by and comprehended in the Words in which the Messias hath delivered his Doctrines Mr. Edwards in his Socinian Creed p. 130. doth stile the Proposition discoursed of tho he words it otherwise than it ought to be A Mushroom Notion that hath no Root and Foundation and saith It is probable it will soon decay and come to nothing But this Notion is not of such a late Original as he pretends if Christ and his Apostles are to be credited concerning it And tho I pay Mr. Edwards a great Deference yet I must declare I cannot but prefer their Word to his It is so far from having no Root and Foundation that it is the Root of the New Testament and the Foundation on which the Christian Church is built And whereas be saith It is probable it will soon decay and come to nothing Probabilities are of little Weight when placed in the Ballance against Certainties I am perswaded it will continue safe to the end of the World because the Messias hath undertaken that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16.18 If all the Deists Scepticks Socinians c. in the World should pretend to approve of the Proposition discoursed of and that they do believe that Jesus is the Messias I shall not renounce the Proposition on that account But if they continue regardless of oppose or refuse to endeavour to understand and believe the particular Doctrines the Messias hath taught I will maintain in opposition to them all that they do not believe that Jesus is the Messias with such a Faith as is necessary to make a Man a Christian Tho I think I am not mistaken about the Point debated yet I will attend diligently to Scripture and Reason and endeavour to yield a just Submission to them tho offered by the meanest Man living But if Imperious Ramble shall drop from the Learnedest Person in the whole Vniverse touching this Matter it will not be honoured with either of those Titles but be utterly disregarded by Reader Your Faithful Servant S. BOLD A Brief Reply to Mr. Edwards's Brief Reflections c. THE Reverend Mr. Edwards hath caused a Postscript to be tack'd to his Socinian Creed intituled Brief Reflections on a short Discourse of the true Knowledg of Christ Jesus c. That Reverend Author amongst his other Excellencies is taken notice of for his Skill in Critical Learning which requires a guessing Faculty This Talent he hath been pleased to exercise to a considerable Extent in the present Papers termed Brief Reflections c. But as it is often the mishap of those who indulge much to Conjectures that their Guesses are not always right so it happens to Mr. Edwards in the present Case For notwithstanding his Gatherings and Findings and many probable Shows there is not to my particular knowledg one word of Truth in the whole Lump of his Guesses He is every jot as much out in every particular here as he was in his former Writings when he both assured his Reader he could not believe Mr. L. was the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. and substituted his Reasons why he could not believe it and yet he is peremptory in these Papers that that same Gentleman was the Author of that Treatise So that it is evident Mr. Edwards is not so sure in his Guesses no not when he hath declared the Grounds on which they are erected as that either other People or he himself may depend on them as infallible Oracles or of such Credibility that any stress should be laid on them tho he sincerely protests that he intends to give
Edwards then adds that I reckon up several Articles and Propositions which are the very same which he had mentioned in his Discourses against the Conceit of one Article I will not stay to compare them to see whether they are exactly the same The Sermon was writ before I saw his Discourses I may have read them all somewhere or other I pretend not to be an Original but I did not then mind any particular Author where I had read them altogether Upon such Occasions I only set down what occurs to my Mind so far as I apprehend pertinent without troubling my self to try whether I can recollect where I have read any Sentence or Phrase I am beholden to some or other for ought I know for every Passage and Word I write Now saith Mr. Edwards if there be other Points and particular Articles and those many which a sincere Christian is obliged and that necessarily and indispensably to understand and believe and assent unto he should have said to endeavour to understand c. then this Writer doth in effect yield to that Proposition which I maintained viz. That the Belief of one Article is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian and consequently he runs counter to the Proposition which he had laid down Answ If there are more Articles c. which a sincere Christian is obliged to endeavour to understand and then believe it doth not immediately follow that the Belief of more than this one Article That Jesus is the Messias is necessary to make a Man a Christian It must first be proved that the explicite Knowledg and Belief of all those Articles any Christian may be necessarily c. obliged to endeavour to understand and believe is necessary to make a Man a Christian And then it will follow that the Belief of this Article That Jesus is the Messias is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian But the Discourse now is not concerning the Truth of either Mr. Edwards's Opinion or of mine touching that Matter but whether I did contradict the Proposition I had laid down Now supposing the Proposition I had laid down were false my declaring that there are many Articles which a sincere Christian is necessarily obliged to endeavour to understand and then believe doth not contradict my Proposition for my Proposition was not That a sincere Christian is not obliged to endeavour to know and believe any more than this one Article That Jesus is the Messias If it were clearly proved that Jesus Christ hath taught that the explicit Knowledg and Belief of all those Articles which any Christian can be necessarily obliged to endeavour to know and believe is absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian then it might very fairly be said that my Proposition doth contradict the Truth but it could not with any colour even then be pretended that my declaring that there are other Articles which sincere Christians are necessarily obliged to endeavour to know and believe doth contradict the Proposition I had laid down For saith Mr. Edwards I bring the Business to this issue If the believing of one single Article be enough to constitute a Man a Christian then the Belief of something more is not necessary and indispensable Answ If the right Belief of this single Article that Jesus is the Messias be enough to constitute a Man a sincere Christian then the Belief of something more is not necessary indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian Nor hath Mr. Edwards produced any Passage out of my Sermon which affirms that any thing more is necessarily c. to be believed to constitute a Man a Christian For saith Mr. Edwards the knowing or believing of more may be some Ornament and Embellishment to him viz. a Christian yet it cannot be said that it is necessary and indispensable Answ True it cannot be said to be necessary to make him a Christian but it may be said to be necessary and that he is indispensably obliged to endeavour to know it and believe it with respect to those Ends and Purposes for which it is revealed and for which he is commanded to endeavour to know and believe it If Mr. Edwards speaks here of knowing and believing Doctrines which Jesus Christ and his Apostles have taught and revealed for if he means knowing and believing other Matters it is not to our purpose the distinguishing of Gospel-Doctrines into necessary and such as are only for Ornament and Embellishment seems somewhat harsh to me A Distinction in Matters of Faith very like to that in Practicals between Evangelical Precepts and Counsels The Reason Mr. Edwards doth assign for his saying that the knowing and believing of more than what is necessary to constitute a Man a Christian cannot be said to be necessary and indispensable is this because nothing is so viz. necessary and indispensable in Christianity but what contributes to the making a Man a Christian a sincere Christian Answ We are now discoursing concerning the Articles which are necessarily to be believed whether one or more not concerning the Faith with which they are to be believed therefore what is necessary to a Man's being a sincere Christian is not the Subject of our Enquiry here By this term Christianity therefore Mr. Edwards must mean the Articles necessarily to be believed to make a Man a Christian And the term Christianity in this Proposition There is nothing necessary and indispensable in Christianity but what contributes to the making a Man a Christian must then signify either a certain precise Number of Articles collected out of the New Testament the Belief of every one of which is indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian Or all the Doctrines Propositions and Articles which Christ and his Apostles have taught and are contained in the New Testament If Mr. Edwards understands Christianity in this latter Sense then this Proposition There is nothing indispensably necessary in Christianity but what contributes to the making a Man a Christian must be understood I think in one of these Senses 1. There is no Doctrine Proposition or Article in the New Testament but the explicit Knowledg and Belief of it is indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian because there is no Doctrine c. in the New Testament but what contributes to the making of a Man a Christian And if this be his Meaning then the Articles he hath reckoned up are not sufficient when believed to make a Man a Christian because there are a great many more Articles in the New Testament than those he hath named And it will be very hard for any Man to prove that no Man can be a Christian till he hath an explicit Knowledg and Belief of every particular Article taught in the New Testament 2. There is no Article c. taught in the New Testament that is indispensably necessary to any purpose but what is indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian and that because there is no Article there
the number of the Pages for if that had been 1200 it had been the same thing to him But he acknowledged the Places of Scripture Mr. Edwards did quote in those Pages were full Proof of the Truth and Divine Authority of the Propositions contained in them yea he owned that the Knowledg of those Propositions might conduce much to dispose People to be Christians But neither of these things was the Matter in Question but this viz. Whether Mr. Edwards had proved that Jesus Christ and his Apostles had taught that the Belief of those Propositions was indispensably necessary to make Men Christians The Animadverter did not affirm that Mr. Edwards had not said he had fully proved what he had undertaken to prove viz. the Point just now mentioned But it seems the Animadverter was so ill natur'd he would not take Mr. Edwards's bare word for Proof but having read those Pages declared what was the utmost that Mr. Edwards's Proof did extend to and that he did not see any Proof produced in those Pages of this Point That Jesus Christ or his Apostles had taught that those Propositions must necessarily be explicitly understood and believed to make a Man a Christian which was the Point to be proved Thus he delivered his own Sense but without the least intimation that all the World must be led either by his or Mr. Edwards's Eyes He left the Reader to try whether he could see in those Pages any Proof that Christ and his Apostles had taught that the Belief of those Propositions is absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian and thither I must refer the Reader too to try his Skill for I cannot see any thing like a Proof of that which was the thing to be proved Now I think an Animadverter deals very fairly if he takes notice how far what is offered for Proof can reach and then observes what was the precise Point to be proved and leaves the Reader to try whether he can stretch what was produced and make it come up to the very Point that was to be proved Then Mr. Edwards finds fault with the Animadverter for passing over those Pages so lightly where he evinced this Truth that the Son of God and the Messias were not Terms of the very same Signification nay that among the Jews they were not reckoned so for the Animadverter says no more to all this but that he did not perceive that Mr. Edwards pretended to offer the least Proof that these Terms were not synonimous Terms in our Saviour's time Answ Mr. Edwards might have evinced both the Points he names and yet not have proved that they were not synonimous Terms amongst the Jews at that time I have looked over those Pages Mr. Edwards refers to and if I understand him aright he doth hardly allow of any synonimous Terms in the same Language For all Terms considered singly in themselves do stand for distinct Ideas Terms I conceive are said to be synonimous on the account of their being alike applied to express or signify one and the same Subject or Thing And thus whether the one or the other be made use of with reference to that thing the whole is signified by that which is used that would be signified if the other were used And when both are used together there is not a Tautology but the latter is brought in by way of Apposition Thus tho Face Ground and Knees stand for distinct Ideas considered simply in themselves yet if these Phrases to fall on the Face to fall on the Ground c. were commonly used amongst a People to signify one certain Posture he that should use one of those Phrases would say the very same thing as he or another would should he or the other express themselves by one of the other Phrases notwithstanding Ground Face and Knees be not the same things neither do those Words signify the same things amongst that People when considered singly in themselves But that the terms Messias and the Son of God when applied to him whose Titles they are were not reckoned amongst the Jews to be terms of the very same Signification is a Passage I cannot find in those 5 or 6 Pages where Mr. Edwards saith he hath evinced it That those terms Messias and the Son of God simply considered have not the very same Signification is so evident there is no need of a Text to prove it And as for that Text Acts 8.37 what Mr. Edwards doth say concerning it amounts to this that if Christ and the Son of God are there of the same Signification the Words do sound thus I believe that Jesus Christ is Christ. But I think they amount to somewhat more viz. that Jesus Christ is The Christ It cannot be denied that Jesus Christ is sometimes used in the New Testament as a proper Name as in John 17.3 and if it be so used in Acts 8.37 that Text will not answer Mr. Edwards's Design But whether there is such an absurd Tautology if those Terms be taken in that Text to be of the same Signification as Mr. Edwards saith there is then in that Confession I shall leave the Reader to judg when I have set down the Account the Author of the Reasonableness c. doth give of the Sense of that Text p. 34. I believe that he whom you call Jesus Christ is really and truly the Messiah that was promised I acknowledg there were different Grounds of those two Denominations and so I am apt to think there were of all synonimous Terms but when they came to be indifferently used to design the same Person each of them in its full Latitude comprehended all that the other did tho when considered apart as to the Grounds and Reasons of their Application they had distinct and peculiar Significations The famously Learned and Reverend Bishop Pierson saith that to be the Christ and to be the Son of God were by the Jews themselves accounted equivalent Exposit on the Creed p. 105. I acknowledg Mr. Edwards hath closely urged what he hath delivered in the Pages he speaks of but I can no more perceive that he hath at all proved that the Terms spoken of were not synonimous Terms amongst the Jews in our Saviour's time than the Animadverter could And therefore I may say that whatever Olaus Magnus's Gladiator might do by looking on his Adversaries Weapons it was not possible for the Animadverter to blunt the Edg of Mr. Edwards's Arguments here because they never had any There may perhaps be some Keenness in some of his Words and Phrases but as for his other Weapons the Gladiator himself would have lost his Labour in looking upon them Mr. Edwards then saith he had secured his Proposition before he formed his Syllogisms and therefore it was not necessary to add any further Medium and to proceed to another Syllogism as the Reader may satisfy himself Answ Let the Reader then satisfy himself I will only mind him that the Point Mr. Edwards was
to prove was this That there are other Doctrines besides this that Jesus is the Messias necessarily to be believed to make a Man a Christian The Medium he useth to prove this is that there are other Doctrines besides this required viz. by Christ or his Apostles for they are their Words he doth alledg to prove that other Doctrines are required to be believed to make a Man a Christian Now if he hath proved every Proposition laid down in the Chapter before that in which his Syllogisms are to be a Doctrine taught by Jesus Christ or his Apostles that is not the Point you must see whether he hath proved that Jesus Christ and his Apostles have required the explicit Knowledg and Belief of every one of those Propositions to make a Man a Christian It is not enough if he hath proved that they have required them to be believed but the Proof must be that they have required them to be believed particularly for this very purpose to make a Man a Christian And if Mr. Edwards hath done that still his Syllogisms will be faulty even according to his own Words For if the very thing he had been proving was this that other Propositions besides this that Jesus is the Messias are necessarily to be known and believed to make a Man a Christian and had been proving this by the Testimony of Christ and his Apostles shewing that they have required the Belief of more Propositions as indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian when he reduced the Sum of his Discourse into Syllogisms that very Medium by which he had been proving his Proposition should be brought into his Syllogisms otherwise the Sum of his Discourse could not be there And that is not in either of his Syllogisms What he pretends he hath proved is not this that all those things which have immediate Respect to the Occasion Author c. of our Salvation are to be believed but this That Jesus Christ or his Apostles have required an explicit Knowledg and Belief of all those things which have immediate Respect to the Occasion c. of our Salvation as indispensably necessary to make a Man a Christian I might also observe to the Reader that allowing Mr. Edwards's Syllogism to comprise the Sum of his Discourse it proves a great deal too much for it proves that the Belief of all those Propositions he hath laid down in his former Chapter is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian For all those who do acknowledg there is not any thing in the New Testament but what Jesus Christ hath revealed cannot deny that every Proposition in the New Testament hath immediate Respect to the Author of our Salvation So that by virtue of his Syllogism no Man can be a true Christian till he hath an explicit Belief of every Proposition that is taught or delivered in the New Testament Mr. Edwards reflects on the Animadverter's Confidence and taking a liberty to assert what he pleases because he saith there is no Enquiry in the Reasonableness of Christianity concerning Faith subjectively considered Answ I will not retort the Aspersion But I must say that those are not the Animadverter's Words He doth take notice that subjective Faith is spoken of in that Treatise and so it might be and yet not be the Point that Author did chiefly propose to enquire into Who is so fit to satisfy us what it was he propos'd to enquire after as the Author himself who tells us it was what God requires us to believe now under the Gospel viz. to make or constitute us Christians Reasonableness of Christianity c. p. 25. Yet a little before he spake of Faith subjectively considered I do not know neither do I pretend to guess what that Author's Judgment is concerning certain particular Doctrines taught in the New Testament He may be as Orthodox in every one of them for ought I know as any Man in the World But this I am certain of the Accounts he gives occasionally in this Treatise of Faith considered subjectively comprehend not only the Assent of the Vnderstanding but the Consent or Approbation of the Will and also a firm Trust and Reliance which I think is as full an Account of that Faith as Mr. Edwards hath given of it But notwithstanding that Author hath spoken of Faith considered subjectively which the Animadverter did not deny but expresly affirmed as may be seen in the Animadversions p. 32. yet the thing that Author proposed to enquire after was what Articles are required to be believed to make a Man a Christian Again saith Mr. Edwards How can this Animadverter come off with peremptorily declaring that subjective Faith is not enquired into in the Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity when in another Place p. 35 36. he avers that Christian Faith and Christianity considered subjectively are the same Answ The Animadverter doth not any where declare what he is here said to declare and therefore cannot fairly be charged with declaring it peremptorily But if he had declared it peremptorily what Connection is there betwixt that and his averring that Christian Faith and Christianity considered subjectively are the same that it should be thought in that case so hard a thing for him to come off unless he had likewise peremptorily declared that the Author of the Reasonableness principally designed to discourse of Christianity considered subjectively Perhaps it will still be said the Animadverter hath averred that Christian Faith and Christianity considered subjectively are the same 'T is true there are those Words in the Animadversions For Mr. Edwards having said that the Belief of Jesus's being the Messias was one of the first and leading Acts of Christian Faith the Animadverter took notice that Christian Faith in that Proposition Mr. Edwards had laid down must be understood subjectively because an Act of Christian Faith cannot be understood in any other Sense as the Animadverter's Words are in the Parenthesis Mr. Edwards hath been pleas'd to leave out of the Sentence he quotes So that what the Animadverter said was this Christian Faith considered subjectively and Christianity considered subjectively are the very same Now is not this very true and consistent enough with his saying that the Enquiry the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity propos'd to make was not concerning Christian Faith considered subjectively but objectively Should another Person have published such weak and sorry Stuff and have suggested it as an invincible Difficulty to be got over peradventure some would have said One would have thought a Man might be ashamed to appear in the World with such poor Tackling In the next place Mr. Edwards is much offended because the Animadverter passed over the 4th and 8th Chapters of his Socinianism unmask'd and some of his former Pages with a bare Acknowledgment that he was too dull to perceive any Appearance of Reasoning in them In which saith Mr. Edwards there is nothing tolerable or excusable but this one thing his