the King Messiah but that they might be more able to deal with the Hereticks by which he means the Christians it would be more convenient to interpret it of David himself Which is a very fair Confession why they dissented from the Opinions and Interpretations of their Ancestors because they might more strongly oppose the Christians For if they should admit those Interpretations of their ancient Doctors to speak the genuine sence of Scripture they should give too great Advantages to the Christians who by this Means as Dr. Pococke * Ib. hath observed Would be supply'd with Arguments to prove Christ the Son of God and consequently consubstantial with God the Father And if this one Psalm be granted to relate to Christ alone as indeed it is almost impossible to wrest it to any other Sence we cannot but acknowledge him to be GOD begotten of his Father before all Worlds There are also several other places in Scripture which are always applied by the Ancient Jewish Interpreters to our * Vid. Not. in Grot. de Veritat Relig. Christ L. 5. Sect. 21. Saviour which sufficiently shew that they believed he should be GOD As Psal 45. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever And Isa 25.9 And in that day it shall be said Lo this is our God With several other places of the like nature which being constantly interpreted of our Saviour by the Chaldee Paraphrast and all the Ancient Jewish Interpreters do evidently demonstrate that they believed their Messiah should be GOD notwithstanding the Opposition made against it by the latter Jews But last of all that the Jews did expect their Messiah should be GOD is I think very plain from their objecting Blasphemy to our Saviour when he acknowledg'd himself to be the Son of God when the High-Priest adjur'd him to tell him whether he was so or not For they could never have accus'd him of Blasphemy for saying he was the Son of God if they understood no more by that Expression than being the Messiah and if they expected their Messiah should be no more than a meer Man And it was for this Reason according to †Jure Naturali Gentium l. 2. c. 12. Mr. Selden that they accus'd him of Blasphemy for saying he was the Son of God because they so understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Word of God by that Expression that for any one to make himself the Son of God in that Notion was nothing less than to profess himself truly GOD which if he was not he was guilty of the highest Blasphemy And to prove this to be the true Meaning of that Expression he cites the Hebrew Commentaries and Philo Judeus who have commonly used the Son of God to signify GOD himself From all which it appears that the most Learned amongst the Jews before and at the Coming of our Saviour did expect their Messiah to be GOD. And that if they did object Idolatry to the Christians afterwards upon supposition that Jesus was the Messiah yet that they differed very widely from the ancient Opinion of the Jews And this Notion of our Saviour's being GOD seems to be the first that his Disciples had concerning him For they had no just Apprehensions of the true Design of his Coming into the World or of his Death and Passion and the Remission of Sins he thereby obtain'd till they had received the Holy Ghost Yet they before that time certainly believed him to be GOD as is most evident from the frequent Acts of Divine Worship which they then paid him and from that Exstatical Exclamation of the Apostle St. Thomas My Lord and my God As tho' this Knowledge of him was on purpose then reveal'd to them to prevent all Disputes that might hereafter possibly arise concerning his Divinity Since it is not to be supposed that if he was not what they really believed him to be truly and essentially GOD but that he himself would have undeceiv'd and prevented their falling into such dangerous Mistakes as must necessarily produce endless Distractions in the Church and bring gross Idolatry into Religion which has been always forbid under the severest Penalty And we never find that any part of Divine Worship was ever allowed to be paid either to Men or Angels as may be seen by the Example of St. Peter and the Angel in the Revelations And as the Divine Titles and Adorations which were particularly directed to our Saviour by his Apostles and others which he never rebuked them for are a Demonstration of his Divinity so also his own Commission which he invested his Disciples with immediately before his Ascension Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is a strong Evidence that he not only permitted but required Divine Worship should be paid to him since it is all Men's Duty to Worship him in whose Name they are Baptized and that he thought it no Robbery to make himself equal with GOD. But if it be urged as a late * Objections against Mr. Edwards 's Causes of Atheism Socinian Author has objected against the Sence of this Text that the Apostles did not always observe this Command in their Baptizing Christians but only made use of the Name of Jesus without mentioning either Father or Holy Ghost which however was always supposed if not mentioned in the Form tho' the Author of the Acts does not take notice of it because his chief Business was to trace the Progress of Christianity in its first Propagation and to shew that none could be Christians or capable of Salvation but who were Baptized into the Name of Christ yet this will not invalidate the Argument but much rather confirm it since none could be admitted for Members of the Church without the Conditions of acknowledging Christ for their Lord and Saviour by a constant Obedience to his Laws and by continual Acts of Devotion and Adoration to him Which sufficiently establish the Divinity of our Saviour For if paying Divine Worship to him may be justified without acknowledging him to be GOD there can be no good Reason assign'd why any Man should be Condemn'd for the Invocation of Saints and Angels For if Christ be not GOD he is a Creature for there is no Medium betwixt them and therefore to Worship such a One is directly contrary both to Natural and Reveal'd Religion and could hardly I think be justified by an absolute Command of God for it is giving his Glory to another And besides Creature-Worship is fully opposite and contradictory to Natural Reason For Adoration necessarily supposes Omnipresence which is an incommunicable Attribute of God himself And since there may be Ten Thousand Petitions offered up at once in so many different places it is impossible he should be acquainted with them unless he be both Omnipresent and Omniscient the one to be present to all Petitions and by the other to fearch
Reasoning as indeed it seems to be it must be sufficient to inforce the necessity of believing Christ to be GOD to make a Man a Christian But again as we cannot deny that we are obliged to believe Christ to be the Son of God because it is required in several places of Scripture and St. John tells us that his Gospel was written for this End that we should believe Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God so we must also confess him to be GOD because as I have already proved his Divinity is understood by that Expression the ancient Jews both applying it to their expected Messiah and also meaning a Divine Person by it All which seem as fully to require us to believe him to be GOD if we would be Christians as we are in other Passages enjoin'd to acknowledge him to be Christ And Lastly it is most evident that the explicite Belief of Christ's being God is requir'd to make a Man a Christian from the Form of Baptism at our Admission into Christianity in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost Where an equal Belief in all is required as being equally partakers of the same Divine Nature and we may as well say that the Father's Divinity as the Son 's is not here implied But this I have spoken to already And here we may add for a great Confirmation of this Truth of Christ's being God that the Vniversal Church as may be gather'd from the most Primitive Writings and the first General Councils hath always asserted His Divinity as being most undoubtedly expressed in Scripture How comes it therefore to pass that if the Belief of Christ's Divinity was not thought clearly Revealed and necessary to Salvation all those that opposed it from the first Ages of the Church to this present time have been Condemn'd and Censur'd for Hereticks * Vid. Bishop Stillingfleet's Rational Ac. of the Prot. Relig. Not as though the sence of the Catholick Church is pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith But that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked upon as the true meaning of Scripture So that if the denying Christ to be GOD is contrary to the received Interpretation of Scripture in the Catholick Church and also inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Words we must conclude that either his Divinity must necessarily be believed even to make a Man a Christian or that the Revelation is not to be regarded But Secondly We must also believe the Incarnation of Christ For every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God 1 Ep. Joh. 4.3 and therefore we must acknowledge that he was Man as well as God and that he was made like unto his Brethren that he might be a merciful and a faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people Heb. 2.17 And that this is part of the Mystery of Godliness which is necessary to be believed by all Christians that God was manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 And that though he was in the form of God and thought it not Robbery to be equal with God yet made he himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men and being found in fashion as a Man he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the death of the Cross Phil. 2.6 7 8. All which plainly denote to us both his Divine and Humane Nature which we must believe to be united in one Person Agreeable to which are those Words of St. Paul Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood which could only be done by taking the Manhood into God I need not multiply Texts to prove that our Saviour was Man this I suppose none of the Vnitarians will dispute But the difficulty lies in this that he was both God and Man But this also is very frequently and fully asserted in Scripture But Thirdly We must also believe That he died for us and in our stead to free us from the Wrath to come That his Death was a propitiatory Sacrifice for us and That his was the blood of the New Testament as himself testifies of it which was shed for many for the remission of sins Mat. 26.28 And that this is part of the Christian Faith according to St. Paul that he died for our Sins as the Scriptures foretold of him And for this End he saith He was ordained a Preacher to testify that Christ gave himself a ransom for all 1 Tim. 2.6 7. But this I have insisted upon so largely already and shewn that this was the true Reason of his Death from so many Instances in Scripture that I need say no more upon it It is sufficient to shew that this is necessary to be believed since our Salvation depends on the Knowledge of the New Covenant and the Conditions of it and how far we are concern'd both in Faith and Practice In short as the Scripture hath assured us that Christ was the Mediator of the better Covenant and that we must believe in him so must our Belief of him be measured by what is revealed concerning him For Christ himself hath told us That is Life Eternal to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent i.e. The Knowledge of Christ is as much a Condition of Salvation as that of God the Father And the most certain Knowledge of both is to be drawn from Revelation And therefore as we are obliged to believe concerning the Nature of God whatsoever the Scripture has revealed so also we must believe of Christ as the Scripture has made him known to us So that the adequate Measure of our Faith in both must be taken from Scripture For if upon a Supposition of no Revelation we must believe all that of God which Right Reason could dictate to us then certainly since we have a Revelation from God and that Revelation has also obliged us to believe in Christ in order to Salvation we must believe upon the hazard of our Salvation every thing concerning him which is asserted by that Revelation And as in the general Confession of Faith when we say We believe in God the Father c. we are to understand all the other Attributes of God which are made known to us either by Reason or Revelation as that he is Just Good Merciful that he governs all things by his Providence or whatever else can be conceived in a Being infinitely Perfect so when we say We believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord we must also mean by it whatsoever else we can find in Scripture in reference to our clearer understanding that Article as that
present Purpose if we can produce any Doctrines that are absolutely enjoined to be believed by all Christians and that are either distinct from or more fully exprest than any of those contain'd in the Gospels or Acts as I shall hereafter endeavour to shew there are some of that nature without the Belief of which though we may grant Men might be saved before they were known yet when they were divulged they could no more be stiled true Christians without the Belief of them than if they had not at all believed To instance in a like case None could any longer be called Christians or admitted into that Communion after that form of Baptism was requir'd in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost tho' they might have that Denomination before who did not acknowledge their Faith in the Holy Trinity since as none could be Baptized Christians without the Confession of that Faith so none could continue in the Number of Christians that denied it But of this more in its proper place And thus we may be convinced from the Nature of Revelation that all the parts of it have an equal Authority and that where the End of the Revelation was the Glory of God and the Salvation of Mankind as I shall hereafter shew was the Apostles Designs in writing their Epistles there the same Acts of Faith are required of us But before I proceed any farther in the Vindication of these sacred Writings it will be necessary to consider an Objection or rather an Evasion of our Author's in his Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity Vindic. p. 19. which may seem to render what has been hitherto urged superfluous since it intimates that he believes as much of the Epistles and in as true a sence as any man whatsoever And for the Proof of this he cites what he had before declared in the Reasonableness of Christianity it self p. 299. These Holy Writers viz. The Pen-men of the Scriptures inspired from above writ nothing but Truth and in most places very weighty Truths to us now for the expounding clearing and confirming the Christian Doctrine and establishing those in it who had embraced it And again p. 299. The other parts of Divine Revelation are Objects of Faith and are so to be received They are Truths of which none that is once known to be such i. e. Revealed may or ought to be disbelieved And if this as he goes on does not satisfy you that I have as high a Veneration for the Epistles as you or any one can have I require you to publish to the World those Passages which shew my contempt of them Indeed if he said no more concerning the Epistles than what is mention'd in these Passages there would not have been so much occasion for a Defense of them But however even these do not seem altogether unexceptionable for though these allow the Truths contain'd in the Epistles to be Objects of our Faith yet they do not suppose them or any parts of them to be more so than any other places of Scripture which have no relation to the Salvation of Mankind and which we are only bound to believe to be true upon the Veracity of God that reveal'd them For that this is all which the Author meant is very plain from what he maintains a little after Vindic. p. 31. viz. That all the rest of the Inspired Writings or if you please Articles are of equal necessity to be believed to make a Man a Christian with what was preacht by our Saviour and his Apostles by which he only means what is recorded in the Gospels and Acts that I deny So that it plainly appears that all the Respect which he professes for the Epistles consists only in this That he believes them to be true but that the Doctrines contain'd in them are no more necessary to be actually believed or to be made fundamental Articles of Faith than any indifferent or Historical Matters in the Bible all which we believe to be true because they are contain'd in that Book which we are fully perswaded is the Word of God So that a bare Assent to them only as they are true is no higher an Act of Faith than the believing that there was such an Apostle as St. Paul and that he was the Author of such Epistles But if our Author does indeed believe that all is true which is contain'd in the Epistles why should he deny that any of the Truths therein mention'd are to be made Fundamentals For methinks it would be no great Imposition to be obliged to believe that as a necessary Article of Faith in order to Salvation which he is already perswaded is a real Truth But besides this is what we contend for that there are Doctrines contain'd in the Epistles that are of equal necessity to be believed to make a Man a Christian with those in the Gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles as being of as great Importance to us and therefore they are also to be believed upon another Ground besides that of meer Revelation And for the Proof of this it will be necessary to consider in the second place the Authority that our Saviour intrusted in his Apostles Which is exprest in their Commission given them by Christ immediately before his Ascension in these words Go and teach all Nations And elsewhere Mat. 28 19. Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Which Commission as it invests them with as full a Power of Teaching whatsoever was necessary to Salvation so it lays as great a necessity upon others of Believing them as if Christ himself had taught in his own Person For whosoever acts by another's Commission acts in his Name and whatever he does by vertue of that Commission it is look'd upon to be his who gave him such Authority Now that the Apostles did not exceed this Authority or teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men is very evident since it is granted they were Divinely Inspired and taught nothing as necessary to be believ'd but what they received from God So that all that can be here objected seems to be this That the Apostles had no Commission to write any fundamental Doctrines in the Epistles but only in their Sermons which are set down in the Acts of the Apostles If this indeed could be proved it would be a material Objection but if there is not the least shadow of Reason to countenance such a groundless Supposition without shewing that the Apostles did exceed their Commission though at the same time they were Divinely Inspired then we are bound to acknowledge that the Epistles as well as the Acts are an indispensible part of the Rule of our Faith for God himself has put no difference betwixt them But there is yet something more to be observed in the Epistles written by St. Paul which are much the greatest part and that is that he received his Doctrines therein contain'd by a more particular
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
he was the Messiah as our Author instances in St. Peter's Sermon to Cornelius that whosoever believeth on him should receive remission of Sins Act. 10.43 But will our Author assert that this implies no more than the bare believing him to be the Messiah without knowing what is meant by the Word Does it not also in the same place intimate that he by Vertue of his Dignity and Office had Power to forgive Sins which none can do but God alone And thus in the 36 ver that this Messiah was Lord of all i.e. Was over all God blessed for ever All which as they are implied in the Sermon of St. Peter so they there seem necessarily required to be believed in order to Baptism and consequently to Salvation And we cannot besides imagine that the Apostle would so far impose upon Men as to oblige them to believe what they knew nothing of or to build their Faith upon Words without Meaning Which we must suppose them to do if they made the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah to be all that was necessary without explaining what they meant by Messiah how he was our Messiah or what he must be either God Man or both that he might be capacitated to be the Messiah And therefore we are to understand by believing Jesus to be the Messiah in this and almost all other places the full Extent and Meaning of those Words as they are explain'd by this and other Apostles in all parts of Scripture Which were all of them Inspired by the same Holy Ghost and therefore must all have the same Meaning unless the Holy Spirit dictated different or contradictory kinds of Doctrine which would be too impious to assert And therefore the believing Jesus to be the Messiah as it is now requir'd for a Fundamental of our Faith must comprehend the full Sence that is given of it in Scripture unless we can prove that there was not the same Inspiration and consequently not the same Reason for our Faith Nor does the believing Jesus to be the Messiah appear to be all that is necessary to make a Man a Christian from that place of the Acts where the Eunuch is mentioned to have been Baptized upon that Confession of his Faith to Philip I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Act. 8.37 For though here is no more set down yet no doubt there is more implied For we have none of the Doctrines recorded that Philip Preacht to him but that he instructed him in the Christian Religion from that Chapter of Isaiah which is a Prophesy of the Sacrifice of Christ and that he was to Die for our Sins which Doctrines as they must be part of what Philip taught so no doubt they were requir'd as absolutely necessary to be believed and besides since Philip Baptized him no question but he did it in that Form which Christ himself enjoin'd In the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and then it will follow that the Belief and Confession of the Three Persons was required For where the Form of Baptism is not mention'd we ought to understand it to be the same which was Instituted and Commanded by Christ himself and which was observ'd by the Primitive Church But Secondly I shall shew that the Gospels and Acts are directly opposite to our Author's Scheme of Doctrine and do require much more to be believed concerning our Saviour than barely that he was the Messiah As first It is plainly laid down in those Holy Writings that he was God nay his Divinity is so plainly asserted by St. John in the first Chapter of his Gospel that it seems almost impossible for Words to express it more clearly In the beginning was the word and the word was God c. Now it is most certain as has been already observed that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Jewish and Heathen Writers was meant a Divine Person and was much used by the Platonists that liv'd in this Apostle's Time and that the most Learned a mongst the Jews did appropriate that Title to their expected Messiah as well as they believed he should be God So that this may be a very good Reason for our Saviour and his Apostles requiring no more to be believed in their Preachings amongst the Jews than that Jesus was the Messiah since if they once firmly believed that they must necessarily believe him also to be God And this is also evident from the Jews never objecting Idolatry at the first to the Christans upon supposition that he was the Messiah whom they Worshiped which certainly they would have done had they not expected their Messiah should be God Which is an Argument manag'd with such Strength and Judgment in a late Discourse by a Learned Prelate of our Church that it may seem of it self sufficient to silence all Opposition except that of Malice that can be made against it or against the Divinity of Christ Indeed Trypho the Jew in his Dispute with * Justin Martvr Dialog cum Tryphon Judaeo p. 2668. Ed. Paris Justin Martyr asserts that the Jews did not expect their Messiah to be God but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he expresseth it but that he does not here speak the true sence of the Jews who lived before him is evident from what †Dem. Evang. l. 4. c. 1. Eusebius declares that the Jews had the same Opinion with the Christians concerning Christ's Divinity till they changed it in direct Opposition to the Christians Which gives us a very good account of the Reason why Trypho and the rest of the Jews fell from their Notion concerning the Divinity of their expected Messiah the Christians having gain'd great Advantages over them from the Opinions of the ancient Rabbins about it And therefore we may best judge of the Opinions of the Jews concerning the Divinity of the Messiah from those who lived before our Saviour since the latter Jews have differed very much from them And this is plain from their different Interpretation of the second Psalm For †R. David sunt qui interpretantur Psalmum istum de Gog Magog estque Messiah Rex Messias atque ita exposuerunt Doctores nostri Estque Psalmus hoc modo explicatus perspicuus at vero proprius est dixisse ipsum Davidem de seipso uti a vobis expositum Not. Miscel in Maimon C. 8. p. 314. One of them ingeniously confesses That all their Doctors had expounded it it of the Messiah which he allows to be a clear Explication of it but however that it would be more to the Purpose for them now to understand it as spoken by David of himself And * Doctores nostri exposuerunt hujus Psalmi significatum de Rege Messiah at prout sonat ut respondeatur Menaeis seu Hereticis expedit intepretari ipsum de ipso Davide R. Salamo Jarchi p. 315. another of them also acknowledges That this Psalm was constantly interpreted by their Doctors to signify
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
who were Believers and Christians the occasion and end of writing them could not be to instruct them in that which was necessary to make them Christians Yet this seems rather to strengthen than lessen the force of the Argument that the Apostles had taught those same Doctrines for Fundamentals before which they afterwards communicated as sacred Depositums of their Faith For it is strange to suppose that a Doctrine should cease to be a Fundamental to those who had known it before For though the Epistles might not be written to those who believed all the Truths contain'd in them to instruct them in any thing which they were ignorant of yet it might be for this End to put them in remembrance of all the parts of their Profession to prevent all Disputes that possibly might arise and to remain as exact Rules and Directions how they might convert and instruct others But says our Author p. 294. If those to whom the Epistles were written wanted not such fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion without a Belief of which they could not be saved it cannot be supposed that the sending of such Fundamentals was the reason of the Apostles writing to any of them But how can it be proved that all those the Epistles were written to understood all the Fundamentals of Religion May there not be supposed to be some less knowing amongst them and some who would not throughly believe several Doctrines of Christianity without such an Authority as the Apostles had to convince them of the Truth of them But however if this Argument of Men's knowing the Fundamentals contain'd in the Epistles before they were sent to them may be sufficient to overthrow their Authority the Gospels also I am afraid will not escape much better For we cannot suppose but almost all Christians were very well acquainted with the Doctrines taught by our Saviour before the Gospels were written but 't is to be hoped that they ought not upon that account to be thought less necessary to be believed even by those who had been already converted to the Faith For certainly they cannot be supposed to contain less fundamental Truths because they have deliver'd nothing but what was received before for the Doctrine of our Saviour Nor can it be imagined that the Gospel of St. Luke which was writ with a particular Design to Theophilus who was already a Believer and a Christian should contain less fundamental Truths or less necessary to be believed than those which perhaps were written with a more general Design The Acts were also written to the same Theophilus and therefore if our Author's Argument will prove any thing it must exclude both that and the foremention'd Gospel as well as the Epistles from being any part of the Rule of Faith For they were more certainly written to a Believer and a Christian and One who wanted not the fundamental Articles of Christianity without a Belief of which he could not be saved than can be proved of so much as any of the Epistles And therefore it will follow notwithstanding all our Author has urged to the contrary that it is from the Epistles as well as the Gospels that we are to learn what are the fundamental Articles of Faith For if in the History of the Evangelists and the Acts all things are so plainly set down that no Body can mistake them it must unavoidably be granted That the Apostles tho' Inspired by the Holy Ghost were yet very unfaithful to their Trust in clogging Men's Faith with unnecessary Points of Belief Since they could not be ignorant that what they writ would be as much thought necessary to be believed as what was taught by our Saviour himself And therefore the Apostles ought certainly to be blamed for writing such Doctrines in their Epistles which tho' they were not necessary to be believed might yet give occasion to a great many unwary Christians to think far otherwise and embrace them as firmly as any other Doctrines whatsoever But if it can be proved that the great and principal End of the writing their Epistles was to deliver several Doctrines that should be necessarily believed to Salvation by all who were Converted to the Faith we are obliged to receive them as such And this might be made appear from very many places of them St. Paul thus expresses himself 1 Cor. 14.37 That if any Man think himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. And in the beginning of the next Chapter Moreover Brethren I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you by which also ye are saved c For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received how that Christ died for our Sins according to the Scriptures By which Words he re-minds them of a Primary Article of their Faith without the Remembrance of which he shews they have believed in vain For the design of the Apostle's Argument is to acquaint them that they could not be saved without they kept in Memory what he had before Preached unto them v. 2. which was amongst other things the fore-mention'd Article the Belief of which if there is any Force in his Argument he declares to be absolutely necessary to Salvation After this he mentions to them some other Articles which he enjoins them to believe that their Faith might not be in vain And these are the Belief not only of Christ's Resurrection but that by vertue of his rising from the Dead we also should be raised again And also that in Adam all die For since by Man came Death by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive And these are Articles that are absolutely necessary to be believed for upon these the Apostle lays the great Foundation of Christianity and yet the Two last of them are not to be found either in the Gospels or Acts. There are also other places in the Epistles which are expresly required to be believed to Salvation as Rom. 10.9 For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved And that in Timothy Without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness that is of the Christian Religion God was manifest in the Flesh And in St. Joh. Epist 1. C. 4. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God and he that does not confess it is not of God which shews the necessity of believing Christ's Incarnation And again We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world And whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him and he in God which is a distinct act of Faith from believing him to be the Messiah as I shall shew
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