Author whom I cited was unmindful oâ—… that in his hot pursuit after his Lordship of Worcester and by the ambiguous matching of Self-existent with Unoriginated labours to fetch his Lordship into the noose which he thought he had prepar'd for him But because this Modern Racovian may make some shew of evading my Charge by pretending his Words were spoken in another's Person and not his own I will not any further insist upon it because the Reader shall thereby be made apprehensive that I am averse from contending in any dubious matter I proceed therefore to the next Attribute viz. the Spirituality of God the denial of which I tax'd the Racovians with And here I will first prove the Charge and then briefly represent the Unreasonableness and Absurdity of this notion which the Socinians frame of God For the sake of the English Reader I will translate out of the Latin the very Words of one of their Principal Authors When we saith he name a Spirit we understand a Substance void of all Grossness such as we behold in visible bodies Thus we say that Angels are SPIRITS and so we call our Diviner Part which Philosophers rather call a SOUL and the Air though it lie open to some of our Senses as the Touch and other bodies like to this Every one of which hath so much the more this name viz. SPIRIT allotted to it by how much it is the more subtile Again he expresses it thus Spirit or Spiritual Essence is that which is opposed to that Essence which is Corporeal that is which is Crass viz. of such things which we behold with our Eyes especially of those that are Terrene And a third time he vouches this for he reckons God and Angels and the Souls of Men in the same rank with Air and Subtile Bodies telling us that these are Spirits in the proper and strict sense Our Home-Socinians think and speak the same as is apparent from J. Bidle who openly declares that God is of a Visible and Corporeal Shape Thus it is plain that the Immaterial Nature of the Deity is discarded by them and the best Notion that they can frame of him is that he is a Thin Airy Body Which how disparaging it is to the Divine Being cannot but be conceiv'd by every Serious Thinking Man For let Matter be never so fine and subtile yet still it is Matter The Animal Spirits as they are generally call'd are bodies as well as any others and when they are never so Agile and Brisk they have still a Corporeal Nature and being such they are Finite and Circumscribable which is unworthy of the Nature of the Supreme Being Therefore this was the rational dictate of Improv'd Minds that God is Incorporeal this was the sense of Plato as Tully tells us and of the all Ancient Philosophers by whom he was acknowledg'd to be an Incorporeal and Infinite Mind Again all Matter of it self is Unactive and Dull because it hath no inward Principle to act and inform it Whatever motion and agitation it hath is from without first of all all its Influence is put into it by another Which to conceive of God is the greatest Blasphemy as well as Absurdity Further all Matter or mere Body is in its own Nature void of Sense and Perception and it is not the Fineness and Agility of it that will make it Think and Apprehend The reason is because Cogitation or Apprehension is another distinct thing and quite different from a Material Being and therefore it is ridiculous to imagine that what is merely Corporeal hath a faculty of Thinking or Conceiving of Understanding or Willing To be Cogitative is far different from being Divisible or Extended and the notion of Cogitation doth not in the least involve in it the notion of Division There is such a disparity between the Ideas of these things that no rational man can bring it into his thoughts that Matter is capable of Perceiving or Performing the acts of the Mind There is an absolute necessity therefore of asserting God to be Incorporeal we must be forced to subscribe to what our Infallible Instructer who was also God himself hath taught us that God is a Spirit John 4. 24. Which Words it is observable Socinus most grosly depraves merely to avoid the acknowledgment of this Attribute Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the Greek he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Accusative Case and will have it refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the foregoing verse as much as to say Goâ—… seeks a Spirit This extravagant work doth he make although the words are a plain Proposition and the Grammer of them is easie and obvious But I have already taken notice of these mens palpable Abusing of Scripture for their own Ends. The next Attribute of God which Socinus's Scholars disallow of is his Omnipresence I had leisure only just to mention this before now I will produce some Evidence of what I said It is not necessary to believe that the Essence of God is Immense saith their Great Patriarch And he hath these strange words in a Fragment of his Catechism Though God's power and wisdom be not circumscribed by any limits yet it follows not thence that his Essence is infinite as if his Essence and Attributes were not alike as to Infinity He hath more of this nature in another place of his Catechism and in other parts of his Writings Smalcius and Crellius two of his fast Friends deny that God is present every where by his Nature and Essence Vorstius limits the presence of God by absolutely denying the Ubiquity of his Essence And Episcopius who is to be taken into the number of the Racovians as I observ'd before from their own words enclines this way telling us that it is not necessary to believe that God is present every where as to his substance and entity and he proceeds to bring Arguments such as they are to maintain what he saith And other Authors not excepting the Moderns might be alledged to the same purpose but I think it will not be required because their Opinion in this case is so well known But how derogatory is it to the Excellent and Perfect Nature of the Deity It is no other than limiting and confining the Divine Being and making that Finite which is Infinite If God's Ubiquity be denied his Infiniteness must be so too And yet which shews the Absurdity and Inconsistency of their notions these foresaid Writers pretend to acknowledg that his Wisdom and Power are infinite as if Infinite Perfections could be seated in a finite subject Or rather these Perfections may be said to be God Himself and therefore if they be Infinite the Nature of God must needs be such His Transcendent Nature is of that kind that it hath no bounds no dimensions and what is so is Every where and in all places though not circumscribed by any But they have such
an other place he asserts that Souls departed live not the life of Spirits and adds that it is contrary to Scripture to assert otherwise And further If souls lived thus it could not be said that the dead ARE NOT because they ARE as is their chief part If you would know the ground of this opinion it is this The Soul they say can't live without the Body and therefore when this dies the other doth so too The foresaid Author expresses it thus As the body without the spirit is a carkase so the spirit without the body can exert no actions i. e. is as it were a carkase is dead and in an other place he is as peremptory Slichtingius labours to prove that humane souls live not on this side of the last and general Resurrection which appears from their not having a Sense of any thing between the time after their departure hence and the Resurrection The dead are not sensible saith he and accordingly Separate Souls having no sense and perception are concluded to have no life Again in an other place in his Commentary he saith the Souls of the just are not sensible of Happiness till after the Resurrection Volkelius would seem at first to be a Trimmer for he tells us the Soul neither dies nor lives it is neither mortal nor immortal But when he comes to explain himself he lets us see that he is no dissenter from his brethren but concludes with them that the Souls of the departed are insensible of any thing before their re-union with the bodies Nay as you shall hear afterwards he improves this Insensibility into an Extinction I will mention Crellius in the last place though he is a Racovian of the first Rate he gives it us as his perswasion that the souls of the dead have no perception no knowledg of any thing And in an other place he determines that the departed Saints enjoy not the Happiness of Heaven before the End of the World And afterwards he undertakes the Proof of this and produces Eight Arguments for this purpose but he generally founds it on this Hypothesis that there is no Perception without the Body and therefore till there be a Reunion of soul and body the deceased can have no feeling of Celestial Joys they remain destitute of all sâ—…se Thus they all agree that Humane Spirits after death have no Life or Activeness for one is synonymous with the other no capacity of exerting themselves But what can be more contrary to those discoveries which are made to us in the Sacred and Inspired Writings Our Blessed Saviour saith God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. 22. 32. which words are spoken of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who are long since departed this life wherefore it is undeniably evident that these Patriarchs live But they do not live as to their bodies therefore it must be meant of their Souls The same Infallible Instructer ascertains us that he who hears his word and believes in him who sent him is passed from death to life John 5. 24. Which words though they may be interpreted concerning a state of spiritual death and spiritual life in this world yet they have a fuller meaning and comprehend in them the passing of believers at their death into a better life than they had before viz. that which is Everlasting of which he speaks in the very same verse And such are said to be passed as if it were already done which is usual in the Scripture-stile because of the Certainty of the thing hereafter But the Socinian Theology runs counter to this they say believers pass from life to death to a state that is wholly uncapable of sense life or action Those words of our Saviour this day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43. prove that the Soul enjoys it self immediately after death and is in a state of Bliss and Happiness The Apostle had a desire to depart and to be with Christ Phil. 1. 23. and assigns this as a reason which is far better that is far better than to abide in the flesh to continue in this world which he speaks of both before and after these words But according to Socinus's followers it is far worse for after the Soul's departure from the body it hath no understanding no perception at all of Christ or any thing appertaining to him Again these men confront not only Scripture but reason they shew themselves as bad Philosophers as Divines for if they had a right apprehension of the Nature of Humane Souls they would not talk after this rate Their notion destroys the very Soul of man for it deprives it of its Essential and Inseparable Quality which is Thinking And besides they grosly imagine that the Body helps the Soul in its operations yea that this cannot subsist without the assistance of that whereas according to the best notions we can form of the body as it is now corrupted it is a hindrance to the operation of the Soul And as for the Soul it is so far from being worsted by its Separation that it is in a much better condition as to its actings than it was Death is but snuffing of this Candle so 't is call'd Prov. 20. 27. it makes it shine the brighter When the Soul leaves the Body it becomes more brisk and active than ever being freed from that fleshly clog and luggage which depressed it This is True Philosophizing but the other is the very dregs of Epicurism It degrades the Rational Part of Man especially that of Good Men for all Separate Souls according to them go to the same place the wicked and the godly are alike as to that there is no difference between them till the Resurrection and Last Judgment Which is a great deal worse than the doctrine of the Church of Rome which assigns different Limbus's to the good and bad And then they are all equal as to this that they are Senseless and uncapable of knowing or acting or any ways exerting themselves Though the Soul exists yet it is as if it were not it hath nothing of its True Nature which is in a manner thrusting the Rational Spirit out of its being Who doth not see that the belief of the Insensibility and Inactivity of the Soul makes way for the belief of its Non-subsistence after the death of the body And so all Religion is dampt and the hopes of a Future State are quite laid in the dust The Socinian Writers verge upon this thus from the pen of one of the Authors before mention'd we have such words as these concerning the Soul Properly speaking it neither dies nor lives but only causes Life as long as it is joyn'd to the Body wherefore properly speaking it can't be said to be Immortal for Immortality belongs only to those beings which themselves actually live And speaking another time concerning the Souls that are separated from their bodies he
in the writings of the New Testament first the Gospel secondly a firm and certain hope of eternal life This is the only acception of the word Spirit in the New Testament so far as we that are under the present dispensation of the Gospel are concern'd As for the former all Christians enjoy it as to the latter it is given only to those that believe and obey the Gospel whence it necessarily follows that it is not requisite before our belief or obedience There is no such thing as the Spirit in order to these i. e. in order to the producing of them in our hearts and lives But though they thus in plain terms renounce the Spirit is there not some Divine Help necessarily requisite for the begetting of faith and holiness in us Yes they grant there is an Outward Help vouchsafed viz. the Promises and Threatnings in the Scripture And there is an Inward one but what is that It is no other than this God's sealing what he hath promised in the hearts of those that obey him which is the same with what was mentioned before viz. a certain hope of eternal life and this is wrought in those that already believe and obey So that it is manifest when they speak of the Spirit and Divine help they mean no previous assistance or operation in order to believing and obeying These spiritual acts according to them are not the product of Divine Grace and the Help of the Spirit for they do not follow these but go before them This is the exact account of the Racovian Perswasion concerning this matter The present Set of Unitarians hold the same they scoff at the particular aids and efficacy of the Spirit in order to Conversion they mock at the inward word which God speaks to the heart whereby the word written or preach'd is rendred effectual whereby Sinners are first convinc'd and then reclaim'd They with Nicodemus profess that they know nothing of this marvellous doctrine they can't imagine what kind of thing this inward word is They will not by any means allow that all is done in Religion by the Grace of God and the assistance of the Spirit beginning continuing and perfecting good actions in us This was the very Heresie of Pelagiâ—…s he and his abettors held it was in every man's natural power to believe and repent without any inward operation of the Grace of God or influence of the Holy Ghost In this the Socinians agree with the Old Pelagians if the Writers of those times give us a true account of them These let us know that it was confidently affirmed by them that it is in the power of man to choose spiritual good without the special assistance of God yea that it is possible to keep the Commandments so strictly and exactly that they shall not stand in need of Pardon that they may arrive to such a Perfection in this life that they shall be able to live without sin as St. Jerom and St. Augustin who narrowly inquir'd into the Sentiments of these men expresly inform us That the Socinians have a Touch of this last to say no more might easily be proved from what is said by Smalcius and Crellius and Bidle and others of them and indeed it partly follows from the abovesaid Principle But the falseness and impiety of it are discernible by those who regulate their thoughts and apprehensions by the Holy Scriptures and who attend to that Article of our Church The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will There is nothing plainer and clearer in the New Testament than this that man can do nothing without the particular assistance of God that will be available to his Salvation And if any man asserts the contrary he makes void the Undertakings of Jesus Christ for he came to redeem us and save us because we were not able of our selves to effect any such thing Wherefore to say we that can of our selves and by our own natural strength do the things that are acceptable to God and will be conducible to our Eternal Salvation is to render the Redemption of Christ useless and unnecessary And this is that which the persons I am speaking of drive at and thereby undermine Christianity it self In brief judg of the Doctrines of the Socinians from what we find in one of the Heartiest Souls of them all who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians reckons these following Particulars among Vain and Lying Words i. e. Groundless and False Doctrines viz. Justification by the grace of God and not by good works Christ's Obedience and his dying for our sins Faith in Christ Confession Repentance Remission of Sins Baptism and the other Sacrament Also he reckons up among these the Fall of Adam Divine Predestination and Election and afterwards false opinions concerning God and Christ and the Holy Spirit i. e. according to his meaning the believing of the Sacred Trinity Need I now come with my old Charge Do not these men talk like Infidels Fourthly I proceed to display their strange conceptions concerning the Future State and those things which relate to it and to examine whether upon that account they deserve the Character that was given them I will reduce all to these Four Heads viz. their perswasions concerning the Souls of the deceased concerning the General Resurrection concerning the Last Judgment and concerning the Punishment that follows it And the Reader will soon perceive that their apprehensions about all these speak them to be Irreligiously disposed Nay it will be as plain and evident as any Demonstration in Mathematicks that these Writers promote the Cause of Atheists in the world First As to the Souls of those that are dead Socinus holds that till the Resurrection they are devoid of all perception and sensation In these formal words he speaks The Soul of Man after this life doth not so subsist of it self as that it is sensible of any rewards or pains or that it is capable of feeling them And he adds that this is his firm opinion And that we may not mistake him he adjoyns this It sufficiently appears that my sentiment is this viz. that the soul of man doth not so live after his death as that of it self it is capable of rewards and punishments His friend Smalcius is more positive and down-right for these are his words We firmly believe that the deceased Saints exist not for as he explains himself the body perishes and the soul hath no life and perception therefore it may be said that the Saints exist not at all nullâ—… modo In
nothing is rais'd but what fell or was laid down for Rising answers to these but that Matter which is supposed to be substituted in the room of our bodies did not fall was not laid down therefore it cannot Rise and consequently there is no Rising again at all This Argument is thus represented by a Great Man The Identity of the body rais'd from death is so necessary that the very name of the Resurrection doth include or suppose it so that when I say there shall be a Resurrection of the dead I must intend thus much that the bodies of Men which lived and are dead shall revive and rise again For at the death of man nothing falleth but his Body the spirit goeth upward and no other body falleth but his own and therefore the body and no other but that body must rise again to make a Resurrection So that it follows hence that those who disbelieve the Resurrection of the same body in effect deny the Article of the Resurrection of the body for the same body must rise or none at all This is evident from 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body The same individual body that died must revive that the same bodies wherein sin was committed may be punished for sinning And who can resist the force of those plain words Rev. 20. 13. which are spoken of the general Resurrection at the last day The sea shall give up the dead that are in it and death and the grave deliver up the dead which are in them What means this giving and delivering up the dead in those places unless the very same bodies that fell are to rise For bodies might be made and shaped out of matter in any other Places if the dead were not to appear at the day of Judgment in their own bodies in the very bodies they laid down in the grave or in the sea or any other Place It is true they shall not be the same as to their condition and quality for this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality but their identity shall be preserv'd in respect of their nature and substance these being the same that they were at their fall This doctrine saith that Excellent Writer before named is most agreeable to the language of the Scriptures to the Principles of Religion to the constant Profession of the Church And being so it is no wonder that it is disrelish'd by the Persons I am speaking of who are wont to disregard the Sacred Writings to subvert the Principles of Christianity and to slight the suffrage of the Universal Church In all which they manifest an Irreligious temper and more especially in disbelieving and opposing this Explication of the Article of the Creed they have shew'd an Atheistical Spirit which always disgusts that Truth which flows from the Scriptures and is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit in them for herein they let us see that they are backward to give credit to the Supreme Truth God himself And besides there is a farther Tang of Impiety in this Opinion of theirs because it bereaves God of the Glory of his Infinite Power in reuniting the same bodies to the same souls at the last day it eclipses the honour of his Mercy in rewarding believers in the same flesh wherein they serv'd and worship'd him in this life it obscures his Justice in punishing sinners in those very fleshly Vehicles which they had here on earth and wherein they did so much mischief in the world And lastly it being such a Diminishment of the doctrine of the Resurrection it is to be fear'd it will have too great an influence on the lives and conversations of men They being dissetled as to the full belief of this they will waver in their Faith of the Future State they will be regardless of that Mighty Concern and they will be backward to fit themselves for it Thus the Racovian doctrine is an impediment to Religion and a nourisher of Vice and Ungodliness CHAP. V. Their false apprehensions concerning the Last Judgment are detected They are not consentaneous to the design of that Great Transaction They are contrary to that Description which is given of it in Scripture They are a gratification to Atheists It is their belief and profession that the Ungodly after the Resurrection shall not suffer Torment but shall be Annihilated This is disproved from Luk. 10. 14. Mat. 18. 8. Mark 9. 44. 2 Cor. 5. 10. An Objection answered The Perniciousness of this doctrine and its tendendency to Atheism on several accounts Iâ—… is no wonder that Socinianism for the sake of this doctrine is plausible Nevertheless the doctrine is irrational and groundless and exploded by some of the Wisest Pagans THIS will be further discover'd in their notion concerning the Last Judgment which say they consists not in any Trial or Judging of the World in any calling them to Account but only in assigning them their different lots and conditions To be judg'd saith Slichtingius is to be rewarded or punish'd Volkelius makes no distinction between the Judging and Punishing of the wicked The Judg knows who are to be saved and who to be damn'd and therefore need not use any Formal Citation or lay open mens lives But those who talk thus should remember that human actions are to be exposed at that day not because God hath not a perfect knowledg of them but because it is his Pleasure that Men should be acquainted with them that the Good Actions of the righteous may be applauded and that the Evil ones of the unrighteous may be condemned in the face of the whole World That this is the will of God we learn from the Sacred Writ and where can it be learnt but there Therefore for these men to Argue and reason the matter notwithstanding the express will and appointment of God is a sign of a very perverse and irreligious frame of mind Is not the Transaction of the Last day represented to us as a Formal Judiciary Process Doth not the Scripture speak of the Judg Acts 10. 42. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 23. Jam. 5. 9. of the Judgment-seat Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. or the Throne or Tribunal for Judgment Rev. 20. 11 and yet will there be no Judging Is it not said with particular respect to that day that God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts 1 Cor. 4. 5. Is it not said he will bring every work into Judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil Eccl. 12. 14. And do we question then whether there will be this Judicial Action which we properly call Judging or Trying Iâ—… there shall be this Manifestation of the Hearts and Actions of Men can we imagine that rewarding and punishing at that day are the very same with Judging Further
sophistry shall offer any thing as substantial in way of Reply to what I have said I shall not be backward to meet him with a Rejoynder Otherwise I shall not think my self concern'd to attend to what he saith If he appears like a Generous Man of War I will engage him but if I see him come on in a Privateering way I tell him before hand I will make off from him I will not refuse to encounter any Fair Adversary but if any man shall make it his business to cavil and raise trifling Objections against what I have said I will take no other notice of him than to despise him He must not think that I will throw away my Time and Arguments upon every Squib that is flirted I have something else to do than to mind the wagging of every Goose-quill In a word I think not my self obliged to write a Vindication every time a Perverse Scribler will be dashing Ink against me A POSTSCRIPT BEING Brief Reflections On a late Book Entituled A short Discourse of the True Knowledge of Christ Jesus With Animadversions on Mr. Edwards 's Reflections on the Reasonableness of Christianity and on his book entituled Socinianism Unmask'd By S. Bold Rector of Steeple Dorset REFLECTIONS ON Mr. Bold's SERMON WHEN half of the sheets of my foregoing Discourse were printed off my Bookseller sent me a little Piece with Mr. Bold's name to it but I presently cast my eye upon the bottom of the Title-page and there saw that these Papers came from the lower end of Pater-Noster-Row and thence I gather'd who had a hand in them I found that the Manager of the Reasonableness of Christianity had prevailed with a Gentleman to make a Sermon I thank him for doing me that honour upon my Refutation of that Treatise and the Vindication of it Indeed it was a great Master-piece of Procuration and we can't but think that that Man must speak the Truth and defend it very impartially and substantially who is thus brought on to undertake the Cause But truly I am exceedingly oblig'd to the Penman for the course he hath taken for he hath saved me the labour of a Formal Confutation in Mode and Figure he having himself contradicted the very Proposition which he lays down viz. that there is but One Point or Article necessary to be believ'd for the making a Man a Christian. This he pretends to maintain as an undeniable Truth and yet he declares that Other Points are necessary to be believ'd Serm. page 32. And again There are Many Points besides this which Jesus Christ hath taught and revealed and which every sincere Christian is indispensably oblig'd to endeavour to understand p. 29. And afterwards There are particular Points and Articles which being known to be reveal'd by Christ Christians must indispensably assent to p. 33. And he reckons up several of these Articles and Propositions which are the very same which I had mention'd in my Discourses against the Conceit of One Article Now if there be Other Points and Particular Articles and those Many which a sincere Christian is obliged and that necessarily and indispensably to understand and believe and assent to then this Writer doth in effect yield to that Proposition which I maintain'd viz. that the belief of One Article is not sufficient to make a Man a Christian and consequently he runs counter to the Proposition which he had laid down For I bring the business to this issue If the believing of one single Article be enough to constitute a Man a Christian yea a Sincere Christian then the belief of something more is not Necessary and Indispensable for though the knowing or believing of more may be some ornament and embelishment to him yet it can't be said that it is Necessary and Indispensable because nothing is so in Christianity but what contributes to the making a Man a Christian a Sincere Christian. Wherefore it undeniably follows that when this Gentleman acknowledges that there are More Articles than this One proposed to be believ'd and that Necessarily and Indispensably he must needs grant that those Articles which are thus necessary and indispensable are necessary to make a Man a Christian and consequently the assenting to that Single Article Jesus is the Messias doth not constitute a man a Member of Christ or a True Christian. For if More Propositions and Articles are Necessary Indispensably Necessary then that One is not sufficient This is a plain case and none but such as are master'd with Prejudice can possibly resist the evidence of it He goes on still to confute himself saying A True Christian must assent unto this that Christ Jesus is God p. 35. Observe it he MUST he owns here that there is an absolute Necessity of this belief Whereupon I ask him is this belief necessary to make a Man a Christian or not He cannot say it is not because to believe Him to be God who really is so is no indifferent thing in Christianity it is absolutely requisite to constitute a Man a Christian a True Christian for a Man can't be such unless he hath a knowledg of Him that is True God This surely none will undertake to deny Hence then it inevitably follows that this Author must hold that the assenting to this Proposition that Christ Jesus is God is necessary to make a Man a Christian. And if this be necessary then something else besides the believing of Jesus to be the Messias as the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity and â—…his Abettors understand and explain that Proposition for they include not the Divinity of Christ in it is absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian. Which is the thing that Mr. Bold denies and yet we see it is a natural and unavoidable Consequence from what he asserts in his Sermon So that in effect he positively saith The believing of more than that One Article before mention'd is absolutely requisite to make a Man a Christian. In another place speaking of the account which the Scripture gives of the Holy Spirit viz. that he is God he adds that a true Christian is as much obliged to believe this as to believe that Jesus is the Christ p. 40. See here the force and energy of Truth it will make its way through the teeth of those that oppose it He that had professedly asserted and maintain'd that the knowledg of this One Point that Jesus is the Christ constitutes a person a Christian now as plainly and professedly contradicts this Position by declaring that we are as MUCH obliged to give assent to this viz. that the Holy Spirit is the True God as to that One Point For this is the case if a True Christian be as MUCH obliged to believe one as the other then 't is certain that Christianity is as much concerned in the belief of one as of the other and if so then a Man can't be a Christian without this belief whence it irrefragably follows that the One Point