And therefore those who deny that Christ died for us in that Sense do in effect deny that he properly died for us at all because they do not assign the true Reasons for it which are declar'd in Scripture But that those Arguments from Scripture of Christ's dying for us and in our stead follow from the easy and natural meaning of those Texts I shall evince from other Expressions in Scripture of the like Nature and from common Customs and Ways of speaking in the World Whereby it will appear that no other Interpretation can possibly be put upon them Thus in the Lamentations Our Fathers have sinned and are not and we have born their Iniquities i. e. Have suffered Punishment for their Sins So Christ's bearing the Sins of many can only be understood of suffering for them So in Ezekiel The Soul that sinneth it shall die Ch. 18. v. 20. the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father that is shall not suffer for his Sin And also by one Man's suffering for another is meant a transferring the Punishment upon himself as in the Words of St. Peter to our Blessed Saviour I will lay down my Life for thee i. e. Joh. 13.38 To save or redeem thine And the Expression of Caiphas does also import the same It is expedient for us that one Man should die for the people and that the whole Nation perish not i.e. It is necessary that One should die to free the rest from Destruction And therefore he advised that Christ should be sacrificed to prevent the Ruine of their Nation by the Romans And to the same sense are the words of John If any of the men escape 2 Kiâ—â— 10 2â— he that letteth him go his Life shall be for the Life of him i. e. He shall suffer the Punishment design'd for the other We may add to this the Expressions that occur in Profane Authors that signifie the suffering of one for another For by their expiare orimina or scelus piaculum fieri populum lustrare and the like they generally meant a freeing others from an impending Evil by suffering the Punishment in their stead And this is very plain by a great many Instances in History particularly in that noted one of the Decij who sacrificed themselves for the good of their Country or offered themselves for an Expiation of the rest And this Custom of sacrificing one for all was very common with the Heathens almost in all Ages And they have used such Expressions for it as are used in Scripture to denote the great Piacular Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World As in the * Euripid. Erecht Tom. 2. p. 468. Ed. Cantab. Tragedian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was not lawful for him to suffer the Destruction of so many things when he might redeem them with the Sacrifice of one Life that of his Daughter And a little after he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That his Daughter would receive abundant Honour by offering her self for a Sacrisice or Expiation to save both the City her Mother Sisters and nearest Relations There might be brought innumerable Instances of this Nature out of the most Ancient Greek and Latin Historians to shew that by a Man's being a Sacrifice they meant a suffering for and in the stead of others to transfer the Faults of others upon himself Which are sufficient to vindicate our interpreting those places of Scripture that mention the Sacrifice of Christ to the sence of a Satisfaction for the Sins of the World since they cannot possibly bear any other Meaning So that the natural Result of all will be this That as the Scripture has in very many places assured us that Christ died for our Sins and in our stead by bearing our Sins in his own Body thereby to deliver us from the Wrath to come and that those are the true Interpretation and Sence of those places which the Words do most naturally import so is it most evident that the End of Christ's Coming into the World was for some other Design than to give us a Title to Immortality And that was to put us in a Condition of saving our selves from Everlasting Misery which we should otherwise most unavoidably have suffered And therefore if either Gospels or Epistles may be allowed to be true that cannot be the only End of Christ's Coming into the World which is assign'd by the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity For certainly that is the most true and most necessary to be believed which is most agreeable to Divine Revelation What we are to Believe concerning CHRIST I Come now to examine that part of the Reasonableness of Christianity which I proposed in the last place to consider And this relates to our Faith in Christ which the Author makes to consist in the Belief of this one Article That he is the Son of God the Saviour of the World or the Messiah And for the Proof of this he cites very many places of Scripture As Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath Eternal Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life And in the next Chapter from the Belief of the Samaritans p. 25 26 c. who said to the Woman We believe not any longer because of thy saying for we have heard our selves and do know that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the World And from the words of St. Peter Lord to whom shall we go Thou hast the words of Eternal Life and we believe and are sure that thou art the Messiah the Son of the Living God And from hence he gathers that this was the Faith which distinguisht them from Apostates and Unbelievers and was sufficient to continue them in the Rank of the Apostles And that it was upon the same Profession that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of the living God owned by St. Peter that our Saviour said he would build his Church Matth. 16.18 The Belief of this one Article as the only necessary one to Salvation in the New Covenant is the same with what is maintain'd by Mr. Hobbs and proved after the very same manner as may be seen by any one that will take the Pains to read the Eighteenth Chap. of his Book De Cive which treats of Religion Sect. 5. c. His words are Credere in Christum quid est Vel fidei in Christum quaenam propositio est objectum To which he answers Credere in Christum est nihil aliud quam credere Jesum esse Christum nimirum illum qui secundum Mosis Prophetarum Israelitorum vaticinia venturus erat in hunc mundum ad Instituendum Regnum Dei And then after he has brought very many Proofs out of the Gospels and Acts the very same which our Author has done he tells us that Alia fides ad vitam aeternam praeter
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
hereafter have more occasion to consider He that believeth that Jesus is the Messiah hath eternal Life if what is there required to be believed is singly of it self sufficient to Salvation then it must be so as it is there proposed without any farther Explication of it because there is no Explication proposed to be believed upon the like Promise From whence it will follow that the bare Proposition is alone necessary to be Believed without any other Interpretation if any at all may be admitted than what is agreeable to the particular Humours of Men the unhappy Consequences of which will be endless Wranglings and Distractions For which reason it seems evident that all the Fundamental Parts of Faith cannot be comprehended in those Texts alone which are declared to be of that important Nature unless the full Extent and Meaning was there set down and delivered which I cannot find And therefore it can't be denied but that the other parts of Scripture which relate the Grounds and Reasons of such a Faith which is required to Salvation and that explain the Nature and Extent of it are to be looked upon as equally Obligatory whether exprest in Gospels or Epistles For besides if every Text of Scripture must be looked upon as sufficient to Salvation upon the Belief of which Eternal Life is promised even the very Scripture will hardly be found reconcilable to it self For tho' in some places Salvation is promised to those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah yet in others it is declared to be Life Eternal to know the onely true God as well as Jesus Christ whom he hath sent Both of which places if they must be understood in their limited Sence will be almost found contradictory to each other Because the one proposes a larger Faith to Salvation than is required by the other Wherefore it seems more reasonable to understand these and other places of Scripture of the like nature in that Sence which is applied to Faith Fear of God Love Hope and the like when singly made use of to express the whole Duty of a Christian viz. That one that is endued with such a Faith or such Vertues cannot be defective in the Belief of all other Articles or in the Practice of all other Duties For as any of these Vertues when mention'd alone as sufficient to save us cannot be understood exclusively of all others so when Believing in Christ or any other Proposition of that nature is alone required to make a Man a Christian we ought either to understand it as spoken conditionally upon a supposition of the Belief of all other Articles of the Christian Religion or else as designed to denote that as the believing Jesus to be the Christ is the first step to Christianity so he that is once firmly and throughly convinc'd of that will not deny his assent to any other Article of Faith in the whole Christian Profession that shall be required of him From all which it is natural to infer that there must be other Articles of Faith in the Scriptures that are as absolutely necessary to be Believed to Salvation as those to which Eternal Life is expresly promised and that many of those Texts of Scripture which are required to be believed to Salvation are not of themselves exclusive of all others sufficient for that End So that though it should be granted that there are no Articles of Faith in the Epistles so expresly enjoined to be Believed to Salvation as some delivered in the Gospels and Acts yet it will not follow but that some of them may be of as important a Nature and as much to be thought Fundamentals But however it must be considered Secondly that if it should be granted that no Articles were absolutely necessary to be Believed but what were expresly so declared by the Inspired Writers yet there may be produced some Articles from the Epistles that are as much required to be actually believed to Salvation as any of those delivered in the Gospels or Acts as I shall shew in its proper place So that for both these Reasons some of the Doctrines delivered in the Epistles ought to be as earnestly pressed and enjoined to be explicitely Believed upon hazard of Salvation as any found elsewhere in Scripture There are indeed a great many Truths both in the Gospels and Epistles which are only to be Believed upon the general Ground of Faith which is the Veracity of God But those of a higher Nature which have an immediate Tendency to the Salvation of Mankind and the Method by which our Saviour has obtain'd it for us are to be explicitely Believed by all in order to their Salvation So that in both Gospels and Epistles there is a twofold Faith requir'd the one depends upon the general Ground of our Belief which relies upon the Veracity of God that every thing which he has Revealed is true The other respects the End for which he has Revealed any thing to us and that is only the Eternal Benefit and Happiness of Mankind So that whatsoever in Scripture relates to this End is of more absolute necessity to be Believed to Salvation And this may serve for a General Direction whereby to distinguish fundamental Truths either in Gospels or Epistles or any other parts of Divine Revelation For whatsoever is proposed to our Belief as a necessary Condition in order to our Happiness must be included under this saving Faith And therefore I shall now proceed to shew that the Epistles have as much Right and Title to our Faith as it may be considered in this last sence as any other parts of Revelation since they equally treat of the Covenant of Grace and the Means of Salvation For whatsoever it is that is required of us to be actually believed as a Condition upon which our Happiness depends must be made a Fundamental of our Faith And therefore if the Epistles contain in them any Doctrines of this Nature they cannot be disbelieved without great hazard of our Salvation But First that the Epistles are to be made part of the Rule of Faith by which alone we are to be saved as well as the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles is evident from the Nature of Revelation For if it can be proved that the Epistles are as much a part of Divine Revelation as the other it will be no easy Task to demonstrate that they are not equally to be received especially if it can be made appear that the End of their Revelation was the Eternal Happiness of Mankind which I shall speak to hereafter Now this is the very Reason and Foundation of our Belief of the Christian Religion first that it is Revealed by God and secondly that it has the Attestation of Miracles to confirm it such as can be done by no other Power but Divine For without this we could have no Obligations upon us to believe it because we could have no certain assurance that it came from God But whatsoever is thus
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
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
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
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
behind them some certain Measures of Belief since their Authority and the certain Evidence of their Inspiration would have very great Influence on those who were not yet Christians that they might be more easily perswaded to embrace Christianity and also might be of vast Importance for the preventing all Differences that might arise about the Meaning of the Gospels and lastly would be of perpetual use for the teaching all sorts of Christians more easily to comprehend the Method Reasons and Grounds of the great Work of our Redemption The two last of which are more fully laid down and explain'd in the Epistles than in any other parts of Holy Writ And if the Knowledge of them is necessary to Salvation then it will be as necessary to believe those places of Scripture where they are most fully stated and most clearly delivered For since there is no part of Scripture where we are told how we were Redeemed why Christ Redeemed us and from what so clearly and expresly as in the Epistles we must have Recourse to them for our right understanding of those Doctrines And therefore there both was an absolute necessity for the writing of the Epistles and also is for our firm Belief of them as necessary to Salvation And thus far I hope we have established the Divine Authority of the Epistles and the absolute necessity of believing several of the Doctrines deliver'd in them But it must yet be confessed that all that has been proved will be little to the Purpose if it can be shewn in the Fourth Place that the Doctrines deliver'd in the Epistles are contradictory to those in the Gospels But this I don 't find in the least pretended for it would be in vain to shew Contradictions in them after they are allowed to be of Divine Inspiration As for there being several things above our Reason in the Epistles the same Objection may be made against the Gospels but this cannot be sufficient to invalidate the Authority of either of them The Gospels and Epistles both teach the same Christianity And tho' some Points of Faith are more fully and clearly laid down in one than the other and some things requir'd to be believed in the Epistles which are not mention'd in the Gospels yet they do not disagree in any one Particular But both tend to one and the same End the advancing the Happiness of Mankind And this leads me to consider the Fifth Argument whereby it may appear whether or no the Epistles are necessary to be believed and that is the Matter they contain For this is the only Plea remaining why they should be rejected because the Matters which they treat of are of no Concern to us that they have no relation to the Salvation of Mankind and therefore cannot be thought necessary to be believed upon that account which is the great End of Revelation For here the great stress of the Controversy lies whether the Doctrines deliver'd in the Epistles are of such Importance as will make them necessary to be believed or to be an indispensible part of the Rule of Faith But I hope I have already made it appear that there are several Doctrines of this Nature in the Epistles from the Apostle's Design in writing them and from those Texts I have before produced from them and therefore I shall not insist any more upon this Head But our Author objects that if there are any fundamental Articles in the Epistles yet they are so promiscuously deliver'd with other Truths that they are not to be distinguished from them And this he now tells us was the reason why he did not go through the Writings in the Epistles Vindic. p. 14. to collect the fundamental Articles of Faith as he had through the Preaching of our Saviour and his Apostles because those fundamental Articles were in those Epistles promiscuously and without distinction mixt with other Truths And therefore we shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles to those who were yet ignorant of the Faith and unconverted But how are these Fundamental Points to be found in the Gospels and Acts better than in the Epistles Are there in them nothing but Fundamentals Or are not these Fundamentals mixt with other Truths of a quite different Nature that have no respect to Man's Salvation And if so as is very apparent what mighty Advantage have the Gospels beyond the Epistles upon this account Matters of Faith and Matters of Practice Fundamentals and Things indifferent are promiscuously mixt together in both But yet there is no great difficulty in discerning one from another in them For the meanest Capacity can easily apprehend a difference between those things which are proposed to our Belief and those to our Practice what are those which have a near respect to the Covenant of Grace and the Means of Salvation and those which are more forreign to that End And this difference is as easily perceived in the Epistles as in the Gospels because the Terms of Salvation are as plainly and clearly set down in one as the other But it is objected that several Things in the Epistles are differently interpreted and consequently cannot be absolutely necessary to be believed to Salvation because Men are not agreed in their Opinions concerning them To this it may be answered first That some Men are of different Opinions in their Interpretations of several places of the Gospels as well as of the Epistles But secondly it may be observed that the great and fundamental Truths in both have been always understood in one and the same Sence by the whole Catholick Church and those who have dissented from the universally received Interpretation have been accounted Enemies to the true Christian Faith For in these Cases Mistakes are generally wilful and it is not easy to interpret any Doctrines in Scripture differently from what the Church has already done if we take the most easy and natural Meaning of it For the Sense of Fundamentals is not so obscure but a willing Mind may easily apprehend it But Lastly We may add to all this the Consent of the Universal Church in all Ages for the necessity of believing the Epistles and several Articles delivered in them as necessary to Salvation For they have been hitherto esteemed by all Orthodox Christians as part of the Canon of Scripture or Rule of Saving Faith and received and believed accordingly And if this Argument will be of no Force to convince us of the necessity of believing them to Salvation we must at the same time part with one very good Reason for our belief of the Holy Gospels For this is alleged for an Argument by our Church in the Sixth Article for our belief of all the received parts of Scripture that there has never been any doubt of their Authority in the Church And if this universal Consent will be an Argument for the Gospels it cannot also be denied to be a very great
Reasonableness of Christianity p. 2. that Since these sacred Writings were designed by God for the Instruction of the illiterate Bulk of Mankind in the way to Salvation as well as others of larger Capacities they ought generally and in necessary Points to be understood in the plain direct Meaning of the Words and Phrases such as they may be supposed to have had in the Mouths of the Speakers who used them according to the Language of that Time and Country wherein they lived without putting any artificial and forced Senses upon them Now what we lost by Adam may indeed be seen as our Author urges from the second and third Chapters of Genesis and that was Bliss and Immortality and a perfect State of Righteousness which was without any of the Miseries of Life or fear of Death But what the Punishment of his Transgression was or more properly speaking would have been had not the Messiah been then promised to recover him from his lapsed State and had not the Merits of his future Satisfaction been imputed to him and all his Posterity from his Fall is not so clearly discovered by any part of that History The Sentence denounced against him if he sinned was only this In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die Gen. 2.17 Now this indeed does threaten the Punishment of Death or Mortality to the Body and does not seem to imply any future Expectation of Eternal Misery for he was from that time subject to a state of Death and Mortality And this is a part of the Punishment which devolves on all his Posterity 1 Cor. 15.22 p. 4. In Adam all die i. e. to use our Author's words by reason of his Transgression all Men are mortal and come to die But though this may be admitted as the natural Meaning of those Words yet it cannot be infer'd from them that the Soul also should be subject to the same Death and Mortality with the Body as our Author contends or that the whole Man should cease to be p. 15. or that By the loss of Men's Souls in Scripture could only be meant the loss of their Lives For besides this Opinion seems wholly precarious and is no way countenanc'd by this other part of the Sentence Cursed is the Ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life in the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat Bread till thou return unto the Ground for out of it wast thou taken for Dust thou art and to Dust shalt thou return Which words will by no means infer that Conclusion which our Author draws from them p. 7. viz. That his Life should end in the Dust out of which he was made and to which he should return and then have no more Life or Sense than the Dust had out of which he was taken For it is not possible that the Mortality of the Soul should be infer'd from hence Nay the directly contrary seems necessarily implied For the returning unto the Ground for Dust thou art and to Dust shalt thou return can relate only to that part of Man which was formed out of the Dust And therefore if the Soul was of a different Original and of a Divine Extract as we are told in Gen. 2.7 And God formed Man of the Dust of the Ground and breathed into his Nostrils the breath of Life and Man became a living Soul It is plain that the Soul could not be included in the Sentence And therefore by this Sentence of Death or that of to Dust shalt thou return cannot be understood a total ceasing to be or a losing of all Actions of Life and Sense p. 6. which the Reasonableness of Christianity so much contends for But moreover if we are to understand no more of the Nature and Extent of the Sentence than is to be found in the second and third Chapters of Genesis and may have no Recourse to the Gospel Dispensation especially to that part of it deliver'd in the Epistles I would desire to know by what Authority our Author includes the Posterity of Adam in the Punishment p. 6. and makes them subject to Death for his Disobedience since there is not the least mention of them in the Sentence For that seems directly level'd against him and not to include any others in it Indeed our Author proves it from Rom. 5.12 p. 4. By one man Sin entred into the world and Death by Sin But if he has no other Proof for it than from the Epistles this would be no sufficient Reason to make it an Article of our Faith since according to him we are not to fetch any Articles of Faith from the Epistles So that this is all would be left for us to believe as to this that all Men are subject to Death but that God has not indispensibly required us to believe that it was a Punishment due to all Men for Adam's Transgression From whence it appears that the full Extent even of Adam's Punishment cannot be gather'd from the Sentence denounc'd against him which in the plainest Sence of the Words could only threaten Death or Mortality to the Body and not a Death of the same kind to the Soul Nor that even this can be proved from the Nature of the Sentence as we find it recorded in the second and third Chapters of Genesis that Death was entail'd upon all Adam's Posterity for his Offence And therefore it must be from the New Testament where we have more Light and larger Discoveries to guide us that we must expect a clearer Account of the Nature of the Punishment that was due to Adam and what sort of Death it was that his Posterity was freed from by Christ's Coming into the World But by the way since his chief Argument for his Notion of Adam's Punishment is that nothing more is meant in the Sentence denounc'd against him I would desire to know why by Death in that place may not be meant an Eternal Loss of God's Favour in a State of Existence as well as by never Dying in many other places is to be understood an Eternal Enjoyment of Happiness or a Freedom from Eternal Misery For by not Dying in such like places is not meant an Exemption from the common Fate of all Men but only not Dying after that manner which others do who believe not in Christ And if by this Joh. 11.26 He that believeth on me shall never dye or as in another place He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting Life and shall not come into condemnation Joh. 5.24 can only be interpreted of an Immortal State of Bliss and Immortality then I see no Reason why the Sentence of Death or Condemnation may not imply an Eternal Loss of that Happiness in a State of Misery especially since I have already shewn that the Mortality of the Soul could not be included in that Sentence of Death denounc'd against Adam And
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
Declarations of Scripture concerning it and that this is the full sence of it which he has deliver'd p. 31. and repeated in his Vindication p. 28. Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised and taking him now raised from the Dead and constituted the Lord and Judge of Men to be their King and Ruler But it may be demanded whether this is the full Sence and Interpretation of it in Scripture and whether this is all that is required to be believed concerning the Messiah or where it is laid down in Scripture that this Sence and Meaning of Jesus being the Messiah exclusive of all others is to be believed as necessary to Salvation For this cannot be lookt upon as the only Explication unless it can be shewn that it is declared to be so in Scripture and that this alone neither more nor less is to be believed as necessary to Salvation which seems to be a Matter of no small difficulty So that the believing Jesus to be the Messiah tho' we should take in his Interpretation of it if it was design'd for such does not seem of it self to be sufficient to make a Man a Christian But for the clearer Examination of this Assertion we may consider first That what might be sufficient to denominate a Man a Believer or a Christian during the actual Ministry of Christ would not truly Entitle any one to that Character now or during the Ministry of the Apostles after our Saviour's Ascension and that for this Reason because we do not find from the whole History of the Gospels that any of those who believed on our Saviour had a just Knowledge of him or what was the true End of his coming into the World Which I have already observ'd of his Disciples from that Question of their's to our Saviour Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel To which he does not give a direct Answer but shews them their Ignorance by telling them It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own Power but ye shall receive Power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you Acts 1. and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the Earth From whence it is natural to infer that the Apostles had not yet attained to that clear Knowledge of Him and the Design of his Coming which it was necessary they should be endued with And if the Apostles had not arrived to that fullness of Faith who had been with him from the beginning it is absurd to imagine That any others who had believed on Him could have entertain'd any clearer or more distinct Notions of Him So that we cannot form any adequate Rule of Faith from what is deliver'd in the Gospels concerning the believing Jesus to be the Messiah since the just Meaning of that Proposition was not then understood Nor will it alter the Case by saying That those who died then in that Faith were undoubtedly saved for that would be no more an Argument than the proving that because a Jew was saved before Christ's Coming into the World by Vertue of Christ's Mediation in the Observance of the Mosaick Law he might be equally capable of Salvation now in the Profession of that Religion For we are to direct our Faith and Practice according to the most full and clear Revelation of God's Will and to believe that to be necessary to Salvation which appears from the full Extent of Revelation to be requir'd in order to it For that Rule of our Blessed Saviour will always hold That where much is given or much Revealed there is also much required to be believed If therefore the Disciples did not then fully know what is necessary for a Christian now to believe as 't is very evident they did not it will necessarily follow that the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah is not sufficient or all that is necessary to Salvation or even to make a Man a Believer or a Christian For the Disciples did already believe that Jesus was the Messiah as is granted in the Reasonableness of Christianity but did not understand how far his Mediation extended or what he must do in order to become our Mediator And this I shall prove from our Author 's own Concession to be an Argument of no small Force For if all that was necessary to Salvation or to denominate Men truly Christians was the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah why should our Saviour promise the Mission of the Holy Ghost to instruct them farther in what they ought to believe concerning him as in Joh. 16.12 I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot hear them now howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth For he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you And at the 25 Ver. These things have I spoken unto you in Proverbs the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in Proverbs or Parables but shall shew you plainly of the Father Now to what End was all this Was it not to teach them more clearly something that concern'd their Faith and Knowledge But this according to our Author could not be for they had already believed he was the Messiah and if that was all that was necessary why should they need any other Instruction Since our Blessed Saviour had already given God Thanks in one of his last Prayers that they had already believed that God did send him Joh. 17.18 I have given unto them the Words which thou gavest me and they have received them and they have believed that thou didst send me p. 183. i. e. By our Author 's own Interpretation in effect that he was the Messiah promised and sent by God And in the 25 ver Ibid. speaking of his Disciples he says They already know that thou didst send me i.e. Are assured that I am the Messiah Now if they firmly believed all this already according to our Author and this was all required of them to be believed to what End was the Holy Spirit to be given them to instruct them more fully in the Belief of Him or to inform them more particularly of his Dignity and Office For the Coming of the Holy Ghost could not be only to endue them with the Power of working Miracles which were only to be made use of for the Converting of others Nor will that come up to the sence of our Saviour's Words that he should guide them into all Truth so that if they must be allowed to have any Meaning in them they must relate to those larger degrees of Understanding and Knowledge concerning the Mystery of Christ which should be infused into the Apostles by the Holy Ghost But it may be urged that the Apostles after they had received the Holy Ghost made no other Conditions of Faith in Christ than that