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
to the Colossians in these Words Col. 4.16 And when this Epistle is read amongst you cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea which very probably is that which is now inscribed to the Ephesians For it seems most likely that it was sent to those of Laodicea where St. Paul had never been at that time they having lately received the Christian Religion and had a wrong Inscription put to it by the Collector of the Epistles into one Body Which was an easy Mistake considering that a Copy of it was very probably at Ephesus as well as Coloss as appears from the Câ—ose of that Epistle and other places Some indeed are of Opinion that St. Paul did not write any Epistle to the Laodiceans and that the Passage in the Colossians that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea must mean an Epistle writ by the Laodiceans to St. Paul Of this Opinion is †Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. D. 60. Baronius and cites both Chrysostom and Theodoret for it who thought that St. Paul never writ any Epistle to the Laodiceans But there is little ground for this Opinion especially from the Words in the Colossians that from Laodicea for the natural Meaning of them is that they of Coloss should receive that Epistle which was writ to Laodicea from thence and read it in their Assembly And this meaning Dr. Hammond applies to it in his Note on the Place And he is of Opinion that a Copy of it was sent from Ephesus to Laodicea since Tertullian affirms that the Epistle which is inscribed to the Ephesians was sent to those of Laodicea But he thinks this solves the Difficulty that Ephesus being the Metropolis of Asia and Laodicea being a Church within that Circuit it might not only be design'd thither as well as Ephesus but that it was also Copied out and communicated to them and so might be called the Epistle to the Laodiceans or which the Church of Laodicea had received But tho' indeed it might have been so yet I think it most probable that it was writ only to those of Laodicea and not to Ephesus For as it is certain that St. Paul did write an Epistle to the Laodiceans which we have not under that Title so is there great reason to imagine that this Epistle was not writ to the Ephesians For St. Paul had liv'd three Years at Ephesus as is plain from the History of the Acts and therefore it is not probable that he would write to them there as in the third Chapter If so be ye have heard of the dispensation of the Gospel given me to you-ward And besides it is very strange that if this was writ to the Ephesians amongst whom St. Paul had so long been there should be no Salutations in it to any particular Persons which is so very usual in the rest of his Epistles And thus it seems most probable that this Epistle was that which was mention'd to be writ to them of Laodicea And this Remark is the more material because if this Epistle is looked upon as it seems designed to contain several Doctrines necessary to be believed by a Church at its first Constitution the Doctrines contain'd in it may carry a greater weight with them especially amongst those who will admit no other Doctrines as necessary to be believed but what have such a reason to confirm them But however it be this is certain that as this Epistle was writ by one Divinely Inspired so it is necessary to be believed to Salvation in those places where the Sense is plain and easy and of the highest Importance to us whether it was written with a Design to instruct or to confirm a Church in the Christian Faith But to return Let us suppose that some of the Epistles contain Matter proper to those Times and Churches to which they were sent May not the same Objection be raised against the Gospels most of our Saviour's Parables and very many of his Discourses relate to the State of the Jews at that time and the Destruction of their Nation and Religion which was soon after accomplished Now there is nothing in the Gospels but what was thought at first by the Apostles to respect the Jews only nay and for some time after the Mission of the Holy Ghost St. Peter particularly amongst the Apostles had such a wrong Notion of our Saviour's coming as to imagine that the Jews were only to reap the Advantage of it as may be seen in the History of the Acts. But tho' in a little time the Reason of our Saviour's coming was more fully understood yet at the first it was looked upon as particular and all his Discourses were interpreted to such a Sence Which ought to caution us in judging of the Epistles which notwithstanding their Directions to particular Churches might be design'd for general Instructions And we have good Reason to judge that there are no Cases set down but what may on some Occasions be of use to all Christians But what if it should be granted that they were writ upon particular Occasions will this hinder them from being necessary to be believed If it will then some of the Gospels must suffer too For the Gospel of St. Luke seems to be writ particularly to give Theophilus a more perfect knowledge of those things in which he had been before instructed as I have already observed of it as well as of the Acts which were writ by the same Evangelist upon the same Occasion In like manner the Gospel of St. John was writ upon a particular Occasion to confute the Heresies of the Cerinthians and Ebionites who denied the Divinity of our Saviour as is confessed by the most Ancient Fathers and has lately been very * Vid. Dr. Williams 's Vindicat. of the late Arch-bishop's Sermons p. 16 17 c. Joan. Cleric in 18. prima Commenta Evang Joan. p. 15 16 c. 80. Learnedly proved and must it upon this account be rejected as not necessary to Salvation So that if all parts of the Scripture must be laid aside that were writ upon particular Occasions our Faith would lie indeed in a much narrower Compass But we should not be I am afraid the better Christians for it For tho' some things might be writ upon particular Occasions yet it will be difficult to prove that the Holy Spirit did not design them for general Directions and as necessary to be believed to Salvation by others as those to whom they were writ But besides whatever particular Occasions there might be for some of the Epistles yet the general Design of them is to settle and strengthen Men in the Faith and to be perpetual Guides and Directions to them in the way to Happiness and indeed if there had been no occasion for this they certainly would not have been written But it was also necessary that the Apostles should dictate and leave
Reason to perswade us to build our Faith upon the Epistles too For it is very absurd to imagine that the very next Ages to the Apostles should be so far imposed upon and so down to the present Time as to receive several of the Doctrines contain'd in the Epistles for fundamental Articles of Faith if they were never design'd either by the Holy Ghost that Inspired them or by the Apostles themselves to be made such So that to assert the contrary is to affirm that either all Christians hitherto have wander'd in the Dark or that they were guilty of very great Folly and Superstition in making those parts of Scripture necessary to be believed to Salvation which were never intended to be so Some of the Epistles have indeed been rejected but so have some of the Gospels too But as this was done but by a very few so were they Men of Heretical Opinions The †Iraen Advers Heres l. 1. c. 26. Ebionites allowed of no more of the Gospels than St. Matthew and rejected all that was writ by St. Paul calling him an Apostate from the Law The * L. 1. C. 29. Marcionites owned but some part of the Epistles of St. Paul to be Canonical but they also denied the Authority of all the Gospels except that of St. Luke and then would admit no more parts of it than would agree with their own Model of Divinity Sed huic quidem says Iraeneus speaking of Marcion quoniam solus manifeste ausus est circumcidere Scripturas c. Which shews what an unpardonable Crime he thought it to be for any Man without a sufficient Warrant for it which can be nothing less than a Divine Commission to pretend to reject any parts of Holy Scripture and to cut them off from the rest which the whole Church had received for Canonical And thus whoever they were that denied the Divine Authority and the necessity of believing all the parts of Scripture such as were also the Valentinians and Manichees with some few others were always looked upon by the Church to be no better than Hereticks There were indeed some of the Primitive Christians that did not receive all the Books of the New Testament for Canonical but the reason was because they were not certain they were writ by the Apostles yet after a little time they were all admitted and universally believed as necessary parts of Faith But now by asserting the necessity of believing the Epistles as part of the Rule of Faith I don't mean that none could ever be saved but who had believed them for what then as our Author well observes would become of those Christians who were fallen asleep before any of the Epistles were written For no question but those who believed all that was taught them and lived up to that Knowledge which their most diligent Enquiries could carry them to should be admitted into Happiness as well as those who had afterwards attained to larger degrees of Faith and Knowledge Since no one can be obliged to believe that which he could not possibly have any knowledge of For should we suppose the Gospel to be spread in some Heathen Parts of the World that had never heard of Christ no Man certainly would be so uncharitable as to deny them Salvation if they believed whatsoever they found there and liv'd up exactly to the Precepts there delivered though they had never heard of the Acts of the Apostles or any of the Epistles or no more than one of the Gospels Or if the Case should be thus that they had no other parts of the New-Testament than barely some of the Epistles if they lived up to them in Matters of Faith and Practice there can no doubt be made but they would be saved So that in Cases of this nature the Argument holds as much for the Epistles as the Gospels and nothing from hence can be drawn to the Prejudice of either But where we have the Priviledge of both and are assured that both are of equal Authority as being equally of Divine Inspiration we are under a necessity of drawing the Articles of our Faith from them both as being a most exact Body of Christian Religion in all the Branches of it But then some may urge That if this should be the Case of those who could attain to the Knowledge of but one part of the Christian Doctrine contain'd in the New Testament that they should as well be saved as those who have all the parts of it and upon that account are required to believe more then certainly the Condition of the other would be much more desirable To this it may be answered That this Objection is of little Force since those are certainly in the safest Condition who have the most Light to guide them For though a wary Traveller may possibly find his way through a very narrow obscure Passage yet those who take the broadest Road are most certain of finding the surest way to their Journeys end But besides the more Evidence we have for our Faith and the greater the Confirmation of it may be by the abundant Repetition of Inspiration and Miracles for the Establishment of it and lastly the more full clear and express the Articles of our Faith are and the oftner God has been pleased to give us an Explanation of them so much the more likely are we to avoid Mistakes to give our unfeigned Assent to them and to suffer them to make more lasting Impressions upon our Minds And thus I hope I have sufficiently Vindicated the Divine Authority of the Epistles and the necessity of making them part of the Rule of Faith that 's required to Salvation And we ought to be the more concerned for the Defense of them because several Doctrines which have been always maintained by the universal Church such as the Doctrine of the Satisfaction and the true Reason of Christ's coming into the World will not so easily be maintained without a Belief of them But if these sacred Writings are esteemed as they are and were really designed to be the infallible Guides to us in our understanding the Mystery of the great Work of our Redemption and for the more clearly stating and explaining of all that is required for our Belief and Practice we are under an absolute necessity to preserve them inviolably and to vindicate the Belief of them as much as of any other parts of Divine Revelation Of the Reason of CHRIST's Coming into the World AND now I come in the next place to examine the Reason our Author assigns for Christ's coming into the World And this we must allow can be understood no way so well as by considering what the Scripture shews we lost by Adam p. 1. For it is on this that the whole Decision of the Case depends Since which way soever it is that the whole Bent of Scripture inclines there we ought to fix our Faith And here also there is no reason why we should dissent from the
besides if there have been different degrees of Happiness or Misery in the other World from the very beginning as is evident from the whole Tenour of Scripture and if the Souls of Men have been immortal as may be easily evinc'd from Scripture and Philosophy unless we can prove that any of them have been annihilated by God then we have reason to believe that the Punishment due to Adam and all his sinning Posterity was to have been Eternal Misery From all this it is evident that Adam's Punishment does not appear from Scripture to consist only in a Temporal Death but that as he fell from a State of perfect Obedience as our Author has granted p. 3. and was consequently uncapable of pleasing God so the nature of his Punishment and that which all Mankind should have undergone for all were Sinners will be best known from what the Scripture declares concerning the Reason of Christ's coming into the World And that was to make Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World and to restore Mankind to the Favour of God by suffering in our stead and being made Sin for us And that this was the true End of his Coming into the World and of his Sufferings is evident from the Predictions concerning him and from the Consent of both Gospels and Epistles The Prophesy of Isaiah is very full and express in assigning the End of Christ's Coming Surely he hath born our Griefs and carried our Sorrows He was wounded for our Transgression Isa 53. and was bruised for our Iniquities He was numbred with the Transgressors and he bore the sin of many and made Intercession for the Transgressors All which are so very plain and intelligible that the Force of them cannot be evaded So that the true End of Christ's Coming was not only to obtain for us Bliss and Immortality which we lost by Adam but also in order to effect that to redeem us from our Sins and the Guilt of them and to deliver us from the Wrath to come by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of himself for us We have also this End of Christ's Coming to save Sinners often mention'd in the Gospels Thou shalt call his Name Emanuel Mat. 1.21 for he shall save his people from their sins And Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World Joh. 1.29 And our Saviour himself hath assured us if we can believe his own Words That God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish i. e. Should not Die eternally or be for ever Miserable but have everlasting Life For God sent not his Son into the World to condemn the World Joh. 3.16 17. but that the World through him might be saved For would not the Condition of all Mankind have been eternally miserable without Christ's coming into the World but their only Punishment have been only a ceasing to be after Death I think it is neither an Absurdity or Heresy to say That it would have been much more advantagious for Mankind that Christ should never have come into the World since it would have been much better that all Men should have had an End put to their Beings by Death than that part of Mankind only should be saved as it now will be and the rest be Condemned to Eternal Misery though it be by their own Defaults For the Punishment of even all Mankind by such a Death does not seem to bear a sufficient Proportion to the Eternal Misery of but one Soul So that we must allow that Christ's coming into the World was to save those that believe and repent from Eternal Torment in another World or else that his Coming to save us was a general Disadvantage But moreover we have several other Expressions in Scripture Rom. 5.8 of Christ's Dying for us while we were yet Sinners That he was a Propitiation for our Sins He was made Sin for us who knew no Sin 1 John 4.10 2 Coâ— 5.21 Hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us who his own self bare our Sins in his own Body on the Tree with innumerable others to the same Purpose which do undeniably evince the true End of Christ's Satisfaction viz. That the suffering for our Sins and the Substitution of himself in our stead 1 Thess 1.10 was to deliver us from the Wrath to come Which Expression can signify no otherwise than that Christ by his Meritorious Oblation and Sacrifice of himself hath delivered us from the Eternal Misery which we must otherwise have suffer'd in the World to come For there is no other Wrath which Good Men are exempted from for they are still as much expos'd to the Troubles and Miseries of this Life as before and as much and in the same manner as before subject to Mortality Nor can this mean a Freedom from an eternal ceasing to be after Death for that would make no sense of the word Wrath or the fiery Indignation of God which very emphatically denotes a future Punishment after this Life But was it possible to wrest the Scriptures to any other sence or to make it appear that they do not signify what we pretend they do yet were not Christ's Suffering a Satisfaction for our Sins his manner of Dying can be no way accounted for wherein he seem'd to shew much less Courage and Resolution than either any of his Disciples or the lower Rank of Martyrs They suffer'd Joyfully and with the greatest Resolutions but he felt in himself dreadful Agonies and endured bloudy Sweats and seem'd almost like One in Despair when he cry'd out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me All which can have no good Reason assign'd for them unless we allow that he suffer'd in our stead to satisfy God's Justice and bore our Sins in his own Body and became a Propitiation for us which is what we mean by Satisfaction But we do not hereby mean that Christ suffered the same Punishment which we should have done but only that the Dignity of his Person made his Sufferings equivalent to the Eternal Punishment of a whole World of Sinners Nor will this Notion of Christ's Satisfaction take away the Belief of God's freely forgiving Sinners as some late Socinian Writers have pretended for as Christ freely offer'd himself to suffer for us so God freely without any Desert of ours accepted of his Satisfaction which he was no way obliged to But besides the Types and Representations of our Saviour's Sacrifice for us by the Goat that was slain for a Sin-offering Lev. 16. to make an Attonement for the People and by the Sins of the People being transferr'd upon the Scape-Goat clearly prove that Christ's Satisfaction must be also for our Sins And thus was God's Justice satisfy'd by the Punishment of Sin not in the Persons offending but in the Eternal Son of God who paid the Ransom for them with his own Bloud
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
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
into the secret Affections of Men. Whether the present Vnitarian Writers will allow Divine Honours to be paid to our Saviour or not is not very material this every one must be convinc'd of that the Adoration of Christ is as much mention'd in the History of the Gospels and as much enjoin'd in those and other parts of Scripture as any other Doctrine whatever So that it would be much more convenient for them to reject all Revelation in general than to out off all those parts of it that are disagreeable to their Hypothesis For to own a Revelation and at the same time to disbelieve what is therein clearly deliver'd is such a Contradiction as I am afraid their Reason can hardly reconcile But since in some of their Pamphlets they have denied Omnipresence and Omniscience to Almighty God and so have left us at a loss for a God Infinitely Perfect they may with the same Assurance call in question either the Truth or Authority of his Revelation But seeing the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity does believe all that is contain'd in the Gospels and Acts I shall endeavour to convince him by one Text more for the Proof of Christ's Divinity and consequently for the necessity of believing more concerning him than barely that he was the Messiah from the Example and Expressions of the first Martyr St. Stephen who suffered some Years before any of the Gospels or Epistles were written and therefore his Authority ought to carry very great Weight along with it since such an Example seems to be of as great Force and Obligation as a Positive Command For as he was full of the Holy Ghost and saw the Glory of God and the Heavens opened whilst yet in the Body so his Dying Words are upon that account more particularly remarkable And they stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my Spirit And he kneeled down and cried with a loud voice Lord lay not this sin to their charge Act. 7.59 60. In which Words these Two things are very considerable First The Divine Honours here paid to our Saviour wherein if Christ be not GOD he was guilty of Idolatry Secondly The Expressions contain'd in his Petition which are almost the very same which our Blessed Saviour had before made the subject of his last Petition to God the Father at his Passion upon the Cross Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit And as before in the 34 ver Father forgive them for they know not what they do Both which are as to the Matter the same with those St. Stephen offer'd up to our Blessed Saviour and attribute the same Honour and in almost the very same Words which Christ in his Humane Nature gave to God the Father From whence we may conclude that either both or that neither was God I might bring innumerable Instances from Scripture to prove the necessity of believing Christ's Divinity as where the Creation of all things is attributed to him and other things that declare his Divine Power and Authority But these few I have made use of are as sufficient as Ten Thousand where Men are resolv'd to believe according to the Evidence of Things Now the Question is not Whether Christ's Divinity is to be comprehended by our Reason but whether it is not attested by Revelation And if this be made out beyond all possibility of being denied all the Arguments that can be drawn from Humane Reason will prove much too weak to overthrow it unless we can prove that there is more Truth and Certainty in Man's Reason than in the Testimony of God And thus have I shewn from those places of Scripture which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity does admit of that there is something more to be believed concerning our Blessed Saviour than that he was the Messiah And that those places which I have mention'd are direct Proofs of Christ's Divinity in the most plain and natural Sence of the Words such as they were design'd to have in the Mouths of the Speaker is what the meanest Capacity will easily apprehend But it may be said that Christ's Divinity being asserted in Scripture does not make it an Article of Faith or necessary to be believed to Salvation or to make a Man a Christian unless it was there so declared any more than several other parts of Holy Writ which indeed we acknowledge to be true but yet are of no Concern to us In answer to this it may be question'd in the first place whether the Scripture's asserting him to be God does not make it necessary to believe him to be so as well as we are to believe explicitely that God Created all things though it is not mentioned as an Article necessary to be believed to Salvation in Scripture But as we are obliged to know who was the Author of our Being so also must it be equally a Crime not to know clearly who and what he was that could be the Author of our Salvation But Secondly The Design of the Scripture's mentioning him so often with the Characters and Titles of God make it necessary for us to believe him to be so For to what End should St. John so much contend for his being God in opposition to those who denied his Divinity if yet every Man might be at his liberty to believe as he pleased concerning him For there could be no reason for the defending his Divinity with so much Care and Concern if it was not absolutely necessary to be believed to make a Man a Christian or if there was no danger in believing him to be only Man In like manner the Design of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in asserting so largely the Divinity of Christ by reason of the wrong Opinions that some Men had concerning him makes it necessary for us to entertain true Notions concerning his Divinity And this necessity of believing Christ to be God even to make a Man a Christian will also appear from St. Paul's reasoning in his Epistle to the Colossians where he tells them that all things were created by him and that he is before all things Chap. 1. Ver. 16 17. But chiefly in his second Chapter he admonishes them to Beware lest any man spoil them through Philosophy and vain Deceit after the Tradition of Men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily The design of which Words seems plainly to be this To caution them lest they should fall from their Faith concerning Christ's being GOD through the deceitful Arguments of some sort of Men who might perswade them that it was irreconcilable to Reason For he did assure them with all the Sincerity of a faithful Apostle of Christ that the Godhead was really and substantially in him And thereupon he enjoins them to believe it if they would retain the Profession of Christianity And if this be allowed to be the Force of the Apostle's
Reasoning as indeed it seems to be it must be sufficient to inforce the necessity of believing Christ to be GOD to make a Man a Christian But again as we cannot deny that we are obliged to believe Christ to be the Son of God because it is required in several places of Scripture and St. John tells us that his Gospel was written for this End that we should believe Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of God so we must also confess him to be GOD because as I have already proved his Divinity is understood by that Expression the ancient Jews both applying it to their expected Messiah and also meaning a Divine Person by it All which seem as fully to require us to believe him to be GOD if we would be Christians as we are in other Passages enjoin'd to acknowledge him to be Christ And Lastly it is most evident that the explicite Belief of Christ's being God is requir'd to make a Man a Christian from the Form of Baptism at our Admission into Christianity in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost Where an equal Belief in all is required as being equally partakers of the same Divine Nature and we may as well say that the Father's Divinity as the Son 's is not here implied But this I have spoken to already And here we may add for a great Confirmation of this Truth of Christ's being God that the Vniversal Church as may be gather'd from the most Primitive Writings and the first General Councils hath always asserted His Divinity as being most undoubtedly expressed in Scripture How comes it therefore to pass that if the Belief of Christ's Divinity was not thought clearly Revealed and necessary to Salvation all those that opposed it from the first Ages of the Church to this present time have been Condemn'd and Censur'd for Hereticks * Vid. Bishop Stillingfleet's Rational Ac. of the Prot. Relig. Not as though the sence of the Catholick Church is pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith But that it is a sufficient Prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that if it appear contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning it ought not to be looked upon as the true meaning of Scripture So that if the denying Christ to be GOD is contrary to the received Interpretation of Scripture in the Catholick Church and also inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Words we must conclude that either his Divinity must necessarily be believed even to make a Man a Christian or that the Revelation is not to be regarded But Secondly We must also believe the Incarnation of Christ For every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God 1 Ep. Joh. 4.3 and therefore we must acknowledge that he was Man as well as God and that he was made like unto his Brethren that he might be a merciful and a faithful High-Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people Heb. 2.17 And that this is part of the Mystery of Godliness which is necessary to be believed by all Christians that God was manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 And that though he was in the form of God and thought it not Robbery to be equal with God yet made he himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant and was made in the likeness of Men and being found in fashion as a Man he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the death of the Cross Phil. 2.6 7 8. All which plainly denote to us both his Divine and Humane Nature which we must believe to be united in one Person Agreeable to which are those Words of St. Paul Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood which could only be done by taking the Manhood into God I need not multiply Texts to prove that our Saviour was Man this I suppose none of the Vnitarians will dispute But the difficulty lies in this that he was both God and Man But this also is very frequently and fully asserted in Scripture But Thirdly We must also believe That he died for us and in our stead to free us from the Wrath to come That his Death was a propitiatory Sacrifice for us and That his was the blood of the New Testament as himself testifies of it which was shed for many for the remission of sins Mat. 26.28 And that this is part of the Christian Faith according to St. Paul that he died for our Sins as the Scriptures foretold of him And for this End he saith He was ordained a Preacher to testify that Christ gave himself a ransom for all 1 Tim. 2.6 7. But this I have insisted upon so largely already and shewn that this was the true Reason of his Death from so many Instances in Scripture that I need say no more upon it It is sufficient to shew that this is necessary to be believed since our Salvation depends on the Knowledge of the New Covenant and the Conditions of it and how far we are concern'd both in Faith and Practice In short as the Scripture hath assured us that Christ was the Mediator of the better Covenant and that we must believe in him so must our Belief of him be measured by what is revealed concerning him For Christ himself hath told us That is Life Eternal to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent i.e. The Knowledge of Christ is as much a Condition of Salvation as that of God the Father And the most certain Knowledge of both is to be drawn from Revelation And therefore as we are obliged to believe concerning the Nature of God whatsoever the Scripture has revealed so also we must believe of Christ as the Scripture has made him known to us So that the adequate Measure of our Faith in both must be taken from Scripture For if upon a Supposition of no Revelation we must believe all that of God which Right Reason could dictate to us then certainly since we have a Revelation from God and that Revelation has also obliged us to believe in Christ in order to Salvation we must believe upon the hazard of our Salvation every thing concerning him which is asserted by that Revelation And as in the general Confession of Faith when we say We believe in God the Father c. we are to understand all the other Attributes of God which are made known to us either by Reason or Revelation as that he is Just Good Merciful that he governs all things by his Providence or whatever else can be conceived in a Being infinitely Perfect so when we say We believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord we must also mean by it whatsoever else we can find in Scripture in reference to our clearer understanding that Article as that
Evidence for the Truth of his Doctrine than his Death could possibly be But if we should say that he Died to gain us an Immortality which we lost by Adam yet this would not put a stop to his Enquiry for if this was all he Died for what should be the Meaning of those places in Scripture where he is said to be made Sin for us to free us from the Wrath to come For the frequent Repetition of his suffering for our Sins necessarily supposes that there was some severe Punishment due to them which we should otherwise have suffered But if upon his farther Enquiry why this one Article should only be required necessarily to be believed we should inform him that this is all that is required in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and that we are not obliged to an explicite Belief of any Doctrines delivered in other parts of the New Testament yet this would never satisfy because as he would easily perceive the Falsity of the former so it would be difficult to convince him of the other if he was perswaded that the Epistles had as great an Authority stampt upon them by being Divinely Inspired as any other parts of Scripture and that the Apostles had the same Commission from God in the writing their Epistles as in any other parts of their Ministry And Lastly If this Illiterate Man should demand Whether this Messiah is Man or God and whether we are not obliged to believe him to be God because Scripture has in divers places asserted his Divinity and because in the Form of Baptism by which we are made Christians He is represented as equal to God the Father if he should be answered That if those places meant any thing it must be some other Sence than we generally understand by them or at least that they do not require an actual Belief of that Doctrine to Salvation or that it is not material what we believe our Saviour to be so long as we acknowledge him to be the Messiah yet this would run him still into greater Perplexities and make him throw aside all in general rather than take up with such a Partial Religion For whatsoever is irreconcilable with all the parts of Revelation will never perswade any Considering Man to Embrace it that believes there is an Equal Authority from God for the whole Such a Scheme of Faith which our Author has drawn up I am afraid will give no better Satisfaction to those who are for searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so The Holy Bible especially the New Testament is not so very large but that the Knowledge of it particularly where our Salvation is concern'd may be easily attain'd by the meanest Capacities Nor are there such Intricacies in the Matters of Faith but that a willing Mind may see sufficient Reason for assenting to them not because he can comprehend the Depths of them but because he perceives it is his Duty to Believe them since God that cannot Lie has assuredly Reveal'd them and made them necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation And why may not Almighty God that has contrived such a Salvation for us as our greatest Wisdom could never have discovered oblige us to the Belief of some things which our deepest Reasons cannot now comprehend Indeed we might with very great Reason complain if God had laid a necessity upon us of clearly Understanding whatsoever he has required of us to Believe I mean as to the Manner of it because he has not been pleased to explain the Manner But since all that he has enjoin'd us is only a firm Belief of whatsoever he has Reveal'd we ought in all Humility to submit our selves to his Wisdom and wait for a fuller Intuition into those Mysteries in the other World which we must be Ignorant of in this And there is no Question to be made but that a great many Things are hid from our present Views and which yet are required of us to be Believed on purpose to heighten our Desires after those higher Degrees of Knowledge which are particularly reserv'd for the next Life It seems indeed very plain that we are under an Obligation to make nothing more necessary to be Believed than what is clearly laid down in Scripture or necessarily to be drawn from it But this also is as certain that we ought not to deny any thing to be an Article of Faith which the Scripture has made such especially if it be clearly delivered For it is God's Word alone that must guide us in those Cases and it is as dangerous to detract from it as to add to it And thus I have Examined those Parts of the Reasonableness of Christianity which seem'd to me to be Erroneous as for those that treat of the Necessity of Revelation the Conditions of Repentance Good Works c. they seem to carry an Air of Piety along with them and to be writ with such strength of Judgment as may be suppos'd that the Author had thought more upon them than upon any other Parts of that Treatise FINIS POSTSCRIPT WHen these Papers were just coming Abroad there appear'd a Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. by the Author of it I was under Apprehension that some Arguments might be there propounded which ought to be consider'd But since I find they are chiefly directed against Mr. Edwards Reflections which tho' I have not Read I presume are different from these Observations by the Passages cited from them I did not think my self concern'd to examine them especially since they required more Time than the Press would allow If I have urged any Arguments that have been manag'd already by Others it is more than I knew What I have mention'd of Mr. Hobbs was with no Design to possess the Reader with Prejudices against the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity but only to shew that the same Doctrine had been maintain'd before our Author appear'd for it Tho' I don't believe he Borrow'd it from thence since he hath declared the contrary If in that or any thing else I have fall'n upon the same Notion with the Ingenious Author of the Occasional Paper Numb I. it is more than I did or could design since these Remarks were Drawn up long before that came Abroad ERRATA PAg. 4. lin 7. read in the Gospels p. 14. l. 28. r. reject them ibid. l. 33. r. Inspiration p. 20. l. 5. del it p. 35. l. 10. del the p. 44. in Not. r. commata p. 62. l. 1. r. Crimina p. 63. l. 12. for those are r. that is p. 69. l. 24. r. Apostle