ANIMADVERSIONS On a late BOOK ENTITLED THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY As delivered in the SCRIPTURES. OXFORD, Printed by Leon. Lichfield for George West, and Anthony Piesley, MDCXCVII. THE PREFACE. I Need make no Apology for the following papers. The Liberty which the Author of The Reasonableness of Christianity, etc. has taken in delivering his Thoughts to the World, gives every man a right to examine them, that proposes no other End than to inquire after Truth: which I have endeavoured with as sincere a design, as I hope he published them. I have followed a method which His Treatise naturally led me into, and have chose to build my Observations upon the same Authority, on which he hath founded his Rule of Faith, that of the Scriptures; rather than upon any Systems drawn from them, which I must confess myself to be but little acquainted with. And this I cannot but agree with him to be the most rational means of silencing all Religious controversies. For if all Parties would join Issue in this, that nothing ought to be required to be believed, but what is enjoined by the clear and express declarations of Scripture; nor any Article rejected that is there plainly delivered, there might be some probable grounds to hope for a happy Conclusion of all disputes of that nature, in a very little time. For certainly God has not made it very difficult for us to determine, what we are to believe, how inconceivable soever the manner of some things may appear to us. The main design which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, etc. seems to have had, is to lay down such a Scheme of Faith only, as he finds delivered in scripture, and not to rest satisfied with those Collections of Articles, which are to be met with in the Common Systems, without any sufficient warrant from scripture. And to this End he has run through the Gospels and Acts to discover upon what Terms our Blessed Saviour, who first founded, and his Apostles, who afterwards built up Christianity, admitted men into that Religion. And having declared at large all that he can find required by them to make a man a Christian, which he tells us was only the Believing Jesus to be the Messiah; he concludes that nothing ought to be made necessary to be believed now, which was not so then; nor any Articles imposed upon us, which are not enjoined in order to salvation in those parts of scripture which he has considered: which alone, according to him, declare the Conditions, upon which men are denominated believers or Christians. This way of examining our Faith by the scripture, had been an unexceptionable Method for fixing the measure of it, if he had omitted no Articles which are there made as necessary to be believed by all Christians as what is observed in His Treatise. For that there are others required even to make a man a Christian in these parts of sacred Writ, from whence he has extracted his Article of Faith, is what I propose to make appear in the following Observations. As also to show that there are some distinct Articles from what are set down in the Gospels and Acts, delivered in the Epistles, that are absolutely necessary to be believed to salvation; in answer to that assertion of our Author, P. 295. That it is not in the Epistles that we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of Faith, with some others of the like nature. Which is the Reason that I give the Title of a Vindication of the Epistles to the former part of these Papers. In the next place I have considered the Reasons our Author has assigned for Christ's coming into the World. And how necessary it was to examine both these in order to a more exact consideration of that one Article this Author has so much insisted on, the Reader will easily apprehend. He tells us in his Vindication, p. 6. that he designed the Reasonableness of Christianity, etc. chief for those who were not yet throughly and firmly Christians. I shall not dispute the sincerity of his Intention, though I find no such Intimation in the Treatise itself. Yet a well-meaning Author, who has appeared very warmly in defence of it, Mr. Bold. believes that to be his only design, though he tells us he had considered it with very great care and Application. This Author also is of opinion that there is nothing more required to make a Man a Christian, than the believing Jesus to be the Messiah. But had he given himself a little more leisure to consider into what faith he himself was baptised, or into what he baptises others; he must have acknowledged, that the Explicitly believing in Father and Holy Ghost is as much required of every one initiated into Christianity, as believing Jesus to be the Messiah. For the Faith in the Holy Trinity has always been required in order to Baptism. Indeed at the first, men might be denominated Christians, upon the bare believing Jesus to be the Messiah; yet when there was more revealed concerning Him, and consequently a larger faith required, they could no more have continued Christians, if they had not believed this also, than if they had still been altogether unbelievers. I shall make no other Observation upon what this Author has urged but this, that he has been a little too hasty in concluding, that if the Reasonableness of Christianity merits no worse a Character upon any other Account, than it does justly deserve for advancing this point, P. 52. that Christ and his Apostles did not propound any Article as necessarily to be believed, to make a Man a Christian, but this, that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, I think it may with great justice be reputed one of the best books that has been published for at least this sixteen hundred years, since I suppose he will hardly deny that Mr Hobbs writ within that space, who maintained the very same Assertion, as I have farther observed in the following Remarks, though I am afraid with a far worse Intention, than the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity etc. seems to have had in that Treatise. I need reflect no farther upon any thing propounded by this Author, not only because his Papers came abroad after the following Remarks were drawn up, but because there does not seem to be any thing very material, which was not before observed in the Reasonableness of Christianity etc. or the Author's Vindication of it. I hope there is nothing in the following Papers that will be mistaken for a Reflection; for I am sure there was none designed. For I think an Adversary ought to be treated with respect, how wide soever his Notions may be from Truth, if his design be sincere. Which I must confess I cannot but believe of the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity etc. And though I cannot join in his opinion, yet I think myself obliged to have so much charity as to suppose, that he would not maintain what he was fully satisfied was an Error. Whether I have said enough to convince him he has been in a mistake, I cannot promise. For I may fancy that a demonstration to me which may be no proof to others. I have endeavoured to represent his sense with the utmost justice and sincerity, and if I have any where mistaken it, I can only say it was both against my Intention and Knowledge. And now I have only thus much to assure my Adversary of; that I have not made any Observations upon his Book, out of bigotry to a Party, or prejudice to any set of opinions. For I have no other Interest to serve than that of Truth: nor have I any Bias to incline me besides my own Impartial Inquiries. And if they have misguided me, I shall be very ready to submit to better Information. THE CONTENTS. I. A Vindication of the Epistles Page 1. II. Of the Reason of Christ's coming into the World. pag. 53 III. What we are to believe concerning Christ. pag. 64. A VINDICATION Of The Epistles, etc. WHatsoever Design the Author of The Reasonableness of Christianity might propose in Publishing that Treatise, whether it was for the Benefit of those, who were not throughly and firmly Christians, or to be a General Rule of Faith to all sorts of Men, it does not seem to give such satisfaction to an Inquisitive Mind, as might prevent all Exceptions against it, in relation to either of those Ends. Not only because it introduces a new Scheme of Belief in opposition to the anciently received Doctrine of the Church, but because it does not answer the full Sense and Intent of Revelation, which is the only Reason and Measure of our Faith. I shall not make it my Business to compare it with the Socinian, or any other Hypothesis, or inquire to what Sect or Party the Author seems most inclined, but shall only so far consider his Opinions, as they seem to me to be inconsistent with Truth. For I cannot think myself obliged to fix any Man to a Party, which He will not own himself to be of, though some of his Opinions should chance to have a Tendency towards it. For that is so unfair, as well as an undecent Method of managing a Dispute, that instead of stifling the old, it may serve only to provoke fresh Opposition; and inflame, where perhaps milder Reasons might convince. And besides, since every one that publishes his Thoughts with no other Design, than for the Benefit of others, or to the End he may be better informed if he be in the wrong, has a right to be treated with equal Charity, or Humanity at least by others, it can certainly be no Prejudice even to the right side, to allow him a Civility, which he has so just a claim to. And therefore I shall think myself concerned to examine the Reasonableness of Christianity with such an impartial Temper, as it may justly challenge. And to be the more distinct and methodical in my Examination, I shall consider the chief Parts of it, which are these. First, To show the Reason of Christ's coming into the World. Which the Author tells us, was to restore Mankind to that State, p. 3, 4, 5. etc. which was forfeited by the Sin of our First Parents. But as he makes Adam's Punishment to consist only in a Temporal Death, or a total ceasing to be; p. 10. so does he confine the End and Design of our Saviour's coming into the World, to the freeing us from such a Death only, and restoring us to that Immortality, which our First Parents lost. Which overthrows the Notion of our Saviour's redeeming us from an Eternity of Torments, and makes the effect of Original Gild no more than becoming subject to Death; and so destroys in a great measure the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. But how agreeable this will prove to the Tenor of Scripture, I shall inquire more hereafter. The Second Principal Part of it is, to show what Faith is required to make a Man a Christian. And that he asserts to be only the Belief of this one Proposition, That Jesus is the Messah, p. 30, 31 32. etc. or (which he thinks signifies the same) the Son of God. He does not deny other Doctrines to be true, but maintains that this alone is absolutely necessary to be believed. Indeed we all acknowledge this as the Fundamental Article of our Faith, as Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Prophet that was to come into the world. But here the difference lies between us; Whether there is not something more required, as necessary to be Believed: As that this Messiah was God, as well as Man, and that through the Merits of his Satisfaction, he redeemed us from Eternal Misery, etc. For the Decision of which we can only appeal to Scripture. The Third and Last Part of it, which I shall have occasion to take Notice of, is this: That whatsoever is necessary to be believed to Salvation, is contained in the Holy Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles: p. 291, 292 etc. And that the Epistles, which were only occasional Writings and Directions to particular Churches, were not designed to deliver such Fundamental Articles as must necessarily be Believed explicitly by all Christians. And therefore an actual Belief of any of the Doctrines therein mentioned is not absolutely required to make a Man a Member of the Christian Church: For, he thinks, a Man may be a Christian, and a Believer, Vindis. p. 31. without actually believing them; because those whom our Saviour and his Apostles, by their Preaching and Discourses, converted to the Faith, were made Christians and Believers, barely upon the receiving what they Preached unto them, long before any of the Epistles were written: Upon this Supposition the other two Parts of his Treatise are built; and therefore it shall be my Business in the first place, to prove that there are Doctrines in the Epistles, distinct from those delivered in Gospels, or Acts, which are as absolutely necessary to be Believed, and to be made Fundamental Articles of Faith, as any other Parts of Revelation. It may indeed seem an unnecessary Labour to Vindicate those Sacred Writings, which have almost all of them been received, from the very first Ages of Christianity, with as equal degrees of Assent, as all other Parts of Scripture, and some of the Doctrines there set down, confessed to be altogether as necessary to be actually Believed unto Salvation, as any whatsoever. For what should the reason of all this be, if the Epistles were not real and essential Parts of the Rule of Saving Faith? Was the Church then Imposed upon, or did it of itself enjoin the Belief of any Doctrine as necessary to Salvation, when it had no express Commission from God for it? For one of these we must grant, if the Epistles were not designed to deliver Fundamentals to be actually Believed by all Christians. Now if several of the Doctrines contained in those Parts of Revelation have all along down from the Apostles time been reputed necessary to be Believed to Salvation, then certainly they ought not to be denied to be absolutely subservient to that End, without the Proof of one, or all of these things. First, That the Authors were not Divinely Inspired: But this is already granted us by our Author, that they were Holy Writers inspired from above, p. 297. who writ nothing but Truth. But what sort of Truth he here means, shall hereafter be enquired into. Or Secondly, That the Apostles had no Authority, or Commission to deliver any thing for a necessary Article of Faith. But there can be no pretence for such an Assertion, since it is granted by our Author, that their Doctrine, as delivered in the Acts, does require our actual Belief. Since than what they taught in their Preaching was of so great Authority, why should not their Writings be of the same Consequence, especially since they are allowed by our Author to be of Divine Inspiration? If then the want of sufficient Commission does not seem to be an Argument against the Doctrines contained in the Epistles, it must be made appear in the Third Place, before they should be rejected, that none of the Doctrines were writ with any design, that all Christians should be necessarily required to believe them to Salvation. But how can this be proved? Are there any such hints in the Epistles themselves, or have we any footsteps of a Tradition that informs us, that the Apostles left them to be received with such an Indifference? For if neither of these can be shown, or if the contrary is evident, Namely, that the Apostles did not submit their Doctrines to men's choice, whether they would Believe them or not, without hazarding their Salvation; and if it appear from the design of the Epistles, and from many places of them, which I shall hereafter mention, that they did enjoin the explicit Belief of several of their Doctrines, without which Men could not be saved, than we have still the more reason to be confirmed in acknowledging them for Fundamentals of our Faith. Fourthly, Then there must be some Contradiction in the Epistles to the other parts of Scripture, that can prevent their Doctrines from being as necessary to be Believed, as any other the most important parts of Revelation. But as this can never be made appear, so it is not possible to suppose that the Epistles should contain Contradictions, if we allow what our Author has granted, p. 297. that they were Divinely inspired. Then Fifthly and Lastly, The only Plea remaining why the Doctrines delivered in the Epistles are not to be received with the same degrees of Assent, with those in the Gospels and Acts, or that particular Article so much insisted upon in the Reasonableness of Christianity, must be, because they are none of them of equal necessity to be known to make a Man a Christian. But how does this appear? Are there no great and fundamental Truths inserted in the Epistles, as well as in the Gospels? Vindic. p. 16. But it is urged, That they are promiscuously set down, and have no such Mark of Distinction, as his Article is found to have in the Gospels and Acts. But this Objection seems too precarious. For I question not but I shall make it appear, that there are Doctrines in the Epistles, that are as much distinguished by the great importance which they are declared to be of; and by the necessity that is laid upon all Christians of actually Believing them, by the Inspired Writers, as any other universally acknowledged Article of our Faith. Indeed they are mixed with other things, which are not of such immediate concern to us; but so are the Doctrines contained in the Gospels. And therefore if this is a Prejudice to one, it must be so equally to the other. Indeed this seems objected, That though the Apostles were Divinely Inspired in their Epistolary Writings, and although they had a Divine Commission to teach what was necessary to Salvation, yet their Commission did not extend to the making any other Article necessary to Salvation, than what our Saviour had already declared to be sufficient for it. And this is manifest from the whole Tenor of the Epistles, where there are no Doctrines proposed to be Believed upon the absolute Promise of Salvation, and nothing declared to be so much a Fundamental, distinct from what is delivered in the Gospels, or Acts, as that we cannot be saved without an explicit Belief of it. Since therefore the Apostles have not laid such stress upon any Doctrines in their Epistles, we ought not to do it. And therefore of what use soever the Epistles may be to us otherwise, for the resolving Doubts, and reforming Mistakes, which are of great Advantage to our Knowledge and Practice; p. 295.297. as also for the expounding, clearing and confirming the Christian Doctrine, and establishing those in it, who had embraced it, yet there can be no distinct Truths contained in them of so great Consequence, in order to Salvation, as there are in the Gospels and Acts, were all that is necessary to be Believed, to make a Man a Christian, is declared to be sufficient to that End; and Eternal Life proposed upon such a Faith, and Eternal Damnation denounced upon a Disbelief; which are not annexed to any of the Doctrines in the Epistles. And therefore we must be very unwary Christians, to lay a greater force upon any Doctrines, than the Apostles have done, or make any Terms of Salvation, or Church-Communion absolutely necessary, which were never by the Apostles so declared. For an Answer to this, it will be material to Examine, first, whether nothing is absolutely necessary to be Believed to Salvation, but what is declared to be so, or whether any Doctrine, upon which Salvation is proposed, is singly of itself sufficient for it. And this seems to be a Query of no small importance. For if this is made the only Rule whereby to judge of Fundamentals, viz. A Doctrine's being expressly declared, to be necessary to be actually Believed to Salvation, we should, I fear, by this means raise several Exceptions against a great part of Religion. For if this must universally hold in matters of Faith, it must also in those of Practice, most of which would unavoidably lose their Force and Obligation, if the Observance of no other Duties was required of us, but such alone as the Scripture had declared to be absolutely necessary to Salvation. In like manner, if in matters of Faith, nothing is to be required for a Fundamental, but what is so proposed, and to which Salvation is expressly annexed and promised, it would very probably make way for a very unintelligible Faith, in which Christians could not possibly agree. For if nothing more is to be Believed as necessary to Salvation, than what is so proposed, than it will follow, that no more than the bare Proposition, which is declared to be of that great Importance, is to be assented to. As suppose in that Proposition, which I shall 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 itself sufficient to Salvation, than 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 expressed 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 itself. 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 only true God, as well as Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. Both of which places, if they must be understood in their limited Sense, 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 Sense 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 Virtues, cannot be defective in the Belief of all other Articles, or in the Practice of all other Duties. For as any of these Virtues, when mentioned 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 convinced 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 expressly 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 expressly 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 expressly 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 show 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 explicitly 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 obtained it for us, are to be explicitly Believed by all, in order to their Salvation. So that in both Gospels and Epistles there is a twofold Faith required; 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 show that the Epistles have as much Right and Title to our Faith, as it may be considered in this last sense, 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 Revealed to us, we are under a necessity to believe, upon the Veracity of Him that Revealed it. And here we are not so to divide our Belief, as to confine it to one part of Revelation, and deny it to another, unless we are assured that it has different degrees of Evidence. For this would destroy the force of Revelation, and resolve all Religion into the Wills and Humours of Men. There are indeed (as has been before observed) different Acts of Faith required of us, according to the different Matter of Revelation. But where the Matter is of as great importance in one place, as in another, there also must our Assent be equal: Unless we can prove that there is not the same certainty for the Revelation, i e. That there is not the same Testimony of Divine Miracles to assure us of the Truth of it. But here it is not material to examine, Whether the Apostles worked Miracles, to evince the Truth of their Doctrines in the Epistles: It is enough that their Miracles attested their Divine Mission, and were sufficiently demonstrative, that their Doctrines had a Divine Authority, and Original, and were confirmed by a Divine Power. For the Design of their Miracles was not to give Authority to such a particular Doctrine only, but to testify in general, that they had a Commission from God, to teach what was necessary to be believed, or practised to Salvation. Now that the Apostles wrought many Miracles, such as were before done by our Saviour, for the Confirmation of their Mission and Doctrines, is undeniably evident from the whole History of the Acts, where they are said to heal the Sick, raise the Dead, and to be endued with all other supernatural Gifts, which might be sufficient to convince the World, that they received their Mission and Authority from God. But to what End should the Apostles work Miracles, if after all their Doctrines which they delivered for Fundamentals, were not absolutely necessary to be believed? Now Miracles are never wrought but to convince Men of some great Truths, which would be of great Importance to them, and which perhaps they would not otherwise be induced to believe. If therefore the Apostles had such a Power of working Miracles committed to them, to confirm the Truth of their Doctrines, we are under as great Obligations to make them Articles of our Faith, especially if they were designed for such, as any other parts of Holy Writ. Now what Reason have we to believe the Holy Gospels, but only the undeniable Attestation of Miracles. But are there not the same for the Confirmation of the Epistles too? That is, Were not the Authors Divinely Inspired, and did they not work Miracles, to show that they were so? If then it be granted, that the Apostles had this supernatural Power given them, to be an unquestionable Evidence of their Inspiration, this alone is sufficient to enforce our actual Belief of the Doctrines in the Epistles, as much as in the Gospels; unless we can show, that the Apostles were not Inspired when they writ them, or that their Power of working Miracles, to convince the World that they were so, was then ceased, or else that they did not design any Doctrines in them to be necessary to be believed. But if none of these can with any tolerable Reason be pretended, there can be little excuse for our not admitting them, as necessary and fundamental Parts of the Rule of Faith. And this moreover aught to make us very cautious how we rejected them, because if we deny such an Authority to the Epistles, as requires an absolute necessity of believing any of the Doctrines as therein contained, we shall have no very strong Arguments remaining, whereby to defend those of the Gospels; which have only the Authority of Inspirations confirmed by Miracles; so that they must unavoidably stand, or fall together. For if it be granted, that the Evidence for the Truth of both be the same, and the same Divine Authority stamped upon both, we cannot deny that the Measures of our Belief must be equally taken from them both, where the Matter is of the same importance; And this will necessarily lead us to these Conclusions: First, That whatsoever we are firmly assured is Revealed by God, we are obliged to believe it upon his Veracity, since he neither can, or will Reveal any thing but what is undeniably true. Secondly, That whatsoever is made by this Revelation a fundamental Article of our Faith, we cannot be ignorant of, without great hazard of our Salvation. Thirdly, and Lastly, For the true Knowledge of any Article of Faith, we must not judge of it from some particular Place, but from the universal Consent and Harmony of Revelation. And now, since the Epistles must be granted to be a particular Revelation, I would ask to what End there should be this Revelation, and several Doctrines therein delivered, which concern both our Faith and Practice, if there was no necessity for them in order to Salvation? 1 Cor. 14.37. Why should the Inspired Writers give any Instructions to a Church for the Commandments of God, if yet without the least hazard of Salvation, they might be ignorant of them? For it does not seem consistent with the End, or Nature of Revelation, which under the Christian Dispensation was designed only for the eternal Advantage of Mankind, that no parts of it delivered in the Epistles, which are all of them of Divine Revelation, should be absolutely necessary for that End; and that those who had the Name and Benefit of Christians, should not be indispensably obliged to form their Faith, or govern their Practice according to its Directions. Certainly any one that reads, and considers the Epistles impartially, must judge, that the Authors did design some parts of them, at least, for Rules to guide Men in the way to Happiness; without the Observance of which, those to whom they should be known, could not be saved. For if all the Instructions in the Epistles might be safely disregarded, than their Inspiration was in vain. Since if Men might be as easily saved without them, the Revelation must be confessed to be superfluous. If it be said, that the Doctrines were only writ for the use of particular Churches, yet that (though it should be granted, which there is no reason for,) will prove nothing, unless it appears, that there were no general Directions designed, which are of the same importance to all Christians now, that they could be of, to any particular Church then; for certainly what was necessary to be believed to Salvation by the Members of a Church in the Apostles days, must be so now, and to the end of the World. If it be demanded, that if there are any such Fundamentals in the Epistles, as we contend for, we should draw out a Scheme of them, just so many, and no more, that are to be explicitly believed to Salvation, and which will equally oblige all Mankind; tho' we should not be able to satisfy this Demand, yet it will be sufficient to our present Purpose, if we can produce any Doctrines that are absolutely enjoined to be believed by all Christians; and that are either distinct from, or more fully expressed, than any of those contained in the Gospels, or Acts; as I shall hereafter endeavour to show there are some of that nature, without the Belief of which, though we may grant Men might be saved before they were known, yet when they were divulged, they could no more be styled true Christians without the Belief of them, than if they had not at all believed. To instance in a like case: None could any longer be called Christians, or admitted into that Communion, after that form of Baptism was required, in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, tho' they might have that Denomination before, who did not acknowledge their Faith in the Holy Trinity; since as none could be Baptised Christians, without the Confession of that Faith, so none could continue in the Number of Christians, that denied it. But of this more in its proper place. And thus we may be convinced, from the Nature of Revelation, that all the parts of it have an equal Authority, and that where the End of the Revelation was the Glory of God, and the Salvation of Mankind, (as I shall hereafter show was the Apostles Designs in writing their Epistles) there the same Acts of Faith are required of us. But before I proceed any farther in the Vindication of these sacred Writings, it will be necessary to consider an Objection, or rather an Evasion of our Author's, in his Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, Vindic. p. 19 which may seem to render what has been hitherto urged superfluous; since it intimates that he believes as much of the Epistles, and in as true a sense as any man whatsoever. And for the Proof of this, he citys what he had before declared in the Reasonableness of Christianity itself, p. 299. These Holy Writers, (viz. The Penmen of the Scriptures) inspired from above, writ nothing but Truth, and in most places, very weighty Truths to us now, for the expounding, clearing and confirming the Christian Doctrine, and establishing those in it, who had embraced it. And again, p. 299. The other parts of Divine Revelation are Objects of Faith, and are so to be received. They are Truths, of which none that is once known to be such, i. e. Revealed, may, or aught to be disbelieved. And if this (as he goes on) does not satisfy you, that I have as high a Veneration for the Epistles, as you, or any one can have, I require you to publish to the World, those Passages which show my contempt of them. Indeed if he said no more concerning the Epistles, than what is mentioned in these Passages, there would not have been so much occasion for a Defense of them. But however even these do not seem altogether unexceptionable; for though these allow the Truths contained in the Epistles, to be Objects of our Faith, yet they do not suppose them, or any parts of them, to be more so, than any other places of Scripture, which have no relation to the Salvation of Mankind; and which we are only bound to believe to be true, upon the Veracity of God that revealed them. For that this is all which the Author meant, is very plain from what he maintains a little after, Vindic. p. 31. viz. That all the rest of the Inspired Writings, or if you please, Articles, are of equal necessity to be believed, to make a Man a Christian, with what was preached by our Saviour and his Apostles, (by which he only means what is recorded in the Gospels and Acts) that I deny. So that it plainly appears, that all the Respect which he professes for the Epistles, consists only in this: That he believes them to be true; but that the Doctrines contained in them are no more necessary to be actually believed, or to be made fundamental Articles of Faith, than any indifferent or Historical Matters in the Bible; all which we believe to be true, because they are contained in that Book, which we are fully persuaded is the Word of God. So that a bare Assent to them only, as they are true, is no higher an Act of Faith, than the believing that there was such an Apostle as St. Paul, and that he was the Author of such Epistles. But if our Author does indeed believe that all is true which is contained in the Epistles, why should he deny that any of the Truths therein mentioned are to be made Fundamentals? For methinks it would be no great Imposition, to be obliged to believe that as a necessary Article of Faith, in order to Salvation, which he is already persuaded is a real Truth. But besides, this is what we contend for, that there are Doctrines contained in the Epistles, that are of equal necessity to be believed, to make a Man a Christian, with those in the Gospels, or in the Acts of the Apostles, as being of as great Importance to us; and therefore they are also to be believed upon another Ground, besides that of mere Revelation. And for the Proof of this, it will be necessary to consider in the second place, the Authority that our Saviour entrusted in his Apostles. Which is expressed in their Commission given them by Christ, immediately before his Ascension, in these words, Go and teach all Nations. And elsewhere, Mat. 28 19 Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Which Commission as it invests them with as full a Power of Teaching whatsoever was necessary to Salvation, so it lays as great a necessity upon others of Believing them, as if Christ himself had taught in his own Person. For whosoever acts by another's Commission, acts in his Name, and whatever he does by virtue of that Commission, it is looked upon to be his, who gave him such Authority. Now that the Apostles did not exceed this Authority, or teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, is very evident, since it is granted they were Divinely Inspired, and taught nothing as necessary to be believed, but what they received from God. So that all that can be here objected, seems to be this; That the Apostles had no Commission to write any fundamental Doctrines in the Epistles, but only in their Sermons, which are set down in the Acts of the Apostles. If this indeed could be proved, it would be a material Objection, but if there is not the least shadow of Reason to countenance such a groundless Supposition, without showing that the Apostles did exceed their Commission, though at the same time they were Divinely Inspired, than we are bound to acknowledge that the Epistles, as well as the Acts, are an indispensible part of the Rule of our Faith; for God himself has put no difference betwixt them. But there is yet something more to be observed in the Epistles written by St. Paul, (which are much the greatest part) and that is, that he received his Doctrines therein contained by a more particular Revelation, than any of the other Apostles. For he was neither instructed by Christ himself while on Earth, as not being his Disciple; nor had he any account of the Doctrines which he taught, from those Apostles who had constantly heard him, but he received all his Instructions immediately from Heaven, as he himself hath told us in the first Chap. of Gal. 11 and 12. Ver. But I certify you Brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. From whence 'tis plain, that his Doctrines were of equal Authority with what were taught by Christ himself; and that the things which he writ (as himself testifies of them in the 1 Cor. 14.37.) were the Commandments of the Lord, i. e. Were of as great necessity to be believed to Salvation, as any other parts of Revelation; which cannot in the least be doubted, if we also consider, that Men are to be Judged by that Gospel which St. Paul taught, at the last Day: As he assures us in Rom. 2.16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of Men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel, which Gospel he must mean that Epistle to be part of: for he had taught those at Rome no otherwise than by this Epistle; for he never had been there when this was writ, nor do we know that he had sent them any Epistle before it. But besides, the Doctrines which St. Paul has delivered in this Epistle to the Romans, are no more than what he had before taught to others, as is plain from his own words to the Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20.27. That he had not shunned to declare unto them all the Counsel of God. Which he would not have said, if he had a Commission to make any thing necessary to be believed to Salvation by others, which was not revealed to them through his Ministry. So that as both what he taught, and writ in his Epistles, are the same Doctrines, so are they both equally Obligatory. But Lastly, There is this more remarkable of St. Paul, that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, and for the most part the first that had preached the Gospel amongst them. And therefore what he taught could be the only Rule of Faith to them, especially till the Gospels were written, which none of them were, till some time after he had begun to preach the Gospel amongst the Gentiles. From whence it follows, that as what he taught was the only Rule of Faith to them, before they could have the Gospels, so neither would his Doctrines after the publishing the Gospels, be less necessary to be believed; since their Authority would be much rather increased than lessened, by the assistance of so great a Foundation as the Gospels to support them. What I have here said of St. Paul, is not with a Design to lessen the Authority of the other Epistles; for they are all Inspired by the same Holy Spirit, and are therefore equally necessary to be believed; but only as we have a greater Number of his transmitted to us, than of all the other Apostles, so I thought it most necessary to show, that the reason why we are obliged to believe them to Salvation, was as great as can possibly be produced, for any thing of that Nature. And thus I hope I have made it fully evident, that the Apostles had a sufficient Commission from God, to make those Doctrines which they taught in their Epistles absolutely necessary to be believed to Salvation. And that they did declare some of their Doctrines to be of this Nature, I shall come now in a little time to prove. And Thirdly, The End and Reason for which the Epistles were written, will make this more fully appear. For to make any thing more firmly believed and assented to, there is not only required a certain knowledge of its being Revealed, but also of the End for which it was Revealed. Now nothing can be more worthy of God, and more beneficial to Man, than the revealing the Conditions, which he has made necessary for our obtaining Happiness; and this is fully done in the Covenant of the Gospel. And as the Conditions are necessary to be known before we can perform them, so God has taken sufficient care to give us a full Revelation of them: First, In a large History of the Method that Christ made use of, for the purchasing our Redemption, and the Miracles which he wrought, for the Confirmation of his Mission and Doctrine. And Secondly, In a more full and clear Manifestation, by the coming of the Holy Ghost, of all those things which were required of us to be believed. And this he entrusted to the Apostles, who were to that End both Divinely Inspired, and had the Power of working Miracles committed to them, to establish and confirm the Truth of their Doctrines. So that it may be no very great Absurdity to affirm, that all things which are necessary to be believed to Salvation, are not fully and clearly contained in the Gospels. Indeed * Tota Religio Christiana, omnia illius dogmata fidei & praecepta vitae ad salutem necessaria, quatuor Evangeliis, imo unico Mathaei Evangelio continentur: neque ex Epistolis Apostolorum, imo nec Apostoli Pauli ullum dogma ad salutem creditu necessarium proferetur, quod non antea in Evangelio clare expressum exstat.— Ausim itaeque dicere etiamsi sola quatuor exstarent Evangelian os perfectum habituros Canonem seu Regulam fidei ac Morum, p. 189. Limborch in his Conference with a Learned Jew, in his Book De Veritate Religionis Christianae, seems to have granted more than he had Authority for, in asserting, that All the Doctrines of Faith and Practice necessary to Salvation, are contained in the four Evangelists, or even in St. Matthew only; and that none of the Epistles of St. Paul, or the rest of the Apostles, contain any Doctrine necessary to be believed to Salvation, which was not clearly and expressly set down before in the Gospels, etc. Whether all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were before laid down in the Gospels, is indeed made by some a matter of Dispute, but that many of them are not there so plain and intelligible, as in the Epistles, is none. For it may be very justly questioned, if the Epistles had not been written, whether we should not have remained wholly ignorant of the true meaning of several things in the Gospels. Particularly as to the Reasons of the Death, and Resurrection of our Saviour; for I much doubt whether we should so unanimously have believed, that Christ's Death was a Sacrifice for our Sins, or that by virtue of his Resurrection alone, we should all be raised again at the last day, from the alone Declaration of the Gospels. Since neither of these can be so clearly proved from the Gospels, as from the Epistles; the latter of which is, I think, no where mentioned in the Gospels, and cannot directly be proved from them. So that all our Belief of it must have been by far-fetched Inferences, which very probably we should never have thought of, had not the Epistles been written. This forementioned Concession of Limborch's, seems occasioned by the Jew's asserting, that all their Religion was contained in the five Books of Moses, and that they were not obliged to the Observation, or absolute necessity of believing any of the rest as part of their Rule of Faith, and thereupon he prefers their Religion before the Christian, as being much more easily understood, because contained in a much lesser compass. But in Answer to this, Limborch was under no necessity in order to prove the Christian superior to the Jewish Religion, on the account of its Brevity, to confine all the Articles of Christianity to one, or all the Gospels. For he might very fairly have denied that Assertion of the Jew, for it was only one Sect amongst the Jews, that of the Sadducees, who were of that Opinion, and who gave such Preference to the Books of Moses. The Pharisees, the more numerous Sect, paid the same Respect to all the other Inspired Writings and Prophecies, and placed their Religion, as much in the Belief of them as in those delivered by Moses. And indeed if no other Books of the Old Testament were to be received for Canonical, or part of the Jewish Revelation, they must have but a very small Esteem for the Prophecies concerning their expected Messiah, in which a great part of their Religion, that wherein their Faith was concerned, aught to consist. For the believing that the Messiah would come, is declared by * Porta Mosis, p. 176. Maimonides to be one of the Fundamentals of the Jewish Religion. But if it be Limborch's Design in this place (as indeed it seems to be) to vindicate the Honour of our Religion, by contracting all the Articles of it into a very narrow Compass, that they may be more easily known; I think that this does not much advance that End. For it seems more for the Honour of God and Religion too, that all the parts, both of Faith and Practice, should be laid down in the largest and plainest Terms imaginable, to take off all occasions of Errors and Mistakes: Which Men would almost unavoidably fall into, if all Matters of Belief and Practice were delivered like the Heathen Oracles of Old, in a short and consequently obscure Form. Indeed it is necessary that there should be a Summary of all the Articles of our Faith, which might be easily remembered by every Capacity: But it is as necessary also, to prevent all Disputes concerning the Meaning of every particular Article, that we should have Recourse to a large, full, and infallible Explanation of them, such as is all the parts of Divine Revelation. But that the Gospels do not fully and clearly contain every thing that is absolutely necessary to be believed, seems plain upon many Accounts. 1. For first, If in the Gospels, or particularly in St. Matthew was contained the whole Rule of Faith, than the Doctrines therein taught by our Saviour were a sufficient Rule of Faith to the Apostles themselves; but if they were not so to them, they cannot be said to be so to any others. But that they were not so to them before the coming of the Holy Ghost, seems plain from their misunderstanding the Reason of Jesus' being the Messiah; they thought it was to reinstate the Jews in their Temporal Grandeur and Glory: As is evident from that Question they put to our Saviour, Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? But besides, those Words of our Saviour, I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now, necessarily suppose, that there were other Doctrines yet to be known, besides those he had already taught them. 2. The Gospels are for the most part Historical, and contain an account of our Saviour's miraculous Birth, the Miracles which he wrought, to confirm his Mission from God, his Sufferings, Resurrection, and Ascension etc. are intersperst with many excellent Precepts, but contain but few, however not all the Matters of Faith. 3. Our Saviour generally delivered himself very mystically, especially about those things which concerned Himself: And left Men rather to draw Conclusions from his Actions, for their Belief of him, than from any clear Manifestation of himself. So that no adequate Rule of Faith could be drawn from the History of Him. 4. The Inspired Penmen of the Gospels were only to draw up the History, without their own Remarks upon it; and therefore were not in that to tell us what we were to believe, any farther than our Saviour had already done through the Course of his Ministry. And therefore our Faith is not to be measured by the Gospel's only. For tho' St. John, in the beginning of his Gospel, gives us larger Proofs of Christ's Divinity, than is to be found in any other parts of the Gospels, by introducing our Saviour with such Names and Titles as were usually by the † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo. Lib. de Som. And in another place. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. de Agric. ' o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. de Som. In some places he calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Plotinus hath also done. En. 5. lib. 5. c. 3. Jews appropriated to their expected Messiah, and by which both they and the Platonists meant a Divine Person, and which they were at that time commonly known to signify; yet he has not there delivered any adequate Rule of Faith. Fifthly and Lastly, The Promise which our Blessed Saviour made to his Disciples, to send them the Holy Ghost, to instruct them farther what they ought to believe concerning Him, and to guide them into all Truth, (which cannot signify bringing all things to their Remembrance, but teaching them all things, Joh. 14.26.) plainly intimates, that there was something more required, as necessary to be believed, which himself had not fully declared to them. And we no where find, nor have we any reason to think that the Disciples themselves, who were constantly with our Saviour, had any full and distinct Notions of all that was necessary to be believed concerning Him, till they had received the Holy Ghost. And therefore all that our Saviour himself taught in his own Person, or what is revealed in the Gospel's only, cannot be made any adequate Rule of Faith. But however should it be granted, That all things necessary to be believed to Salvation, are contained in the Gospels; yet still it might be justly questioned, Whether the Epistles also, together with the Gospels, are not to be looked upon as part of the Rule of Faith, and whether the Explanations and Illustrations contained in the Epistles of Doctrines more imperfectly set down in the Gospels, are not equally to be believed with the Evangelical Writings. And therefore though it should be admitted, that all, or most of the Truths delivered in the Epistles, are only Explanations of something before Revealed in the Gospels, yet since the Authors of them were Divinely Inspired, they are to be received as part of the Rule of Faith, as well as the Gospels themselves; since an infallible divine Explanation of a Doctrine is as necessary to be believed, as the Doctrine itself. So that if it should be granted, that this was one End of writing the Epistles, to set those Things in a clearer Light, which were before taught by our Saviour, yet this will not be sufficient to invalidate their Authority, or render them less necessary to be believed. For thus far * Verum tanta est erga genus hominum benignitas divina, ut quae in Evangeliis plene ac perfecte tradita sunt, etiam in Apostolorum Epistolis saepius repeti, & à variis objectionibus Vindicari, ad majorem fidelium in fide confirmationem ac constantiam, singulari Providentia voluerit. ibid. Limborch seems to have granted, That though all the Doctrines of Christianity are fully and perfectly delivered in the Gospels, yet God has so much expressed his Goodness towards Mankind, as to take care, by a particular Providence, that they should be very often repeated in the Epistles, that they might be freed from all Objections, to the greater strengthening and confirming Believers in the Faith. And thus it seems very evident for many Reasons, that the Gospels alone are not to be made the Measure of our Faith. Nor will the Acts of the Apostles, together with the Gospels, afford us a full and clear Scheme of whatsoever is necessary to be believed. For these also are chief Historical; and contain an account of the Mission of the Holy Ghost, of the Miracles that were done by the Apostles, of the Converts they made to Christianity, and where they Preached; but we have not there any full and large account of their Doctrines. We are indeed told, that they Preached Faith in Christ Jesus, Act. 20.21. and Repentance towards God: But few or no particulars of those Duties, or how far they extended; which seem on purpose reserved for the Epistles, where they are more fully treated of. But it is urged, That if the Apostles Creed is a Summary of all that is necessary to be believed; and if all the Articles of that are to be found in the Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles, than it is in them alone that we are to look for Fundamentals. To this it may be answered, That it can indeed hardly be denied, but that we may draw most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed from the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; but these are not to be looked upon as the only Fundamentals, unless we also firmly believe the natural Consequences and Conclusions from them, and the frequent Explanations of them, which are set down in the other parts of Revelation. To instance only in the first Article, I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. Now we cannot be supposed to be confined by this to the believing just so much of Him, and no more: For we are to understand by these Words, whatsoever is implied in them, and whatsoever else the Scripture has revealed to us concerning Him. And the like Rule must be observed in all the other Articles. And besides, this is justly believed to be the first Fundamental of all Revealed Religion, which is supposed in our Creed, that the Scriptures are of Divine Inspiration, and that whatsoever is there laid down as necessary to Salvation, must be believed as such: And upon this it is that the Creed is built. So that as we must believe, That Summary of our Faith to be taken from Revelation, so also that the only true Explanation of it is to be found there. For necessary Deductions from such Truths, are as much Fundamentals as the Principles from which they are drawn. So that we cannot in a true Sense believe all the Articles of our Creed, unless we also are persuaded, that those places of Scripture which contain a full and express Explanation of them, are necessary parts of our Faith. But our Author urges, That if all, p. 297. or most of the Truths declared in the Epistles, were to be received and believed as Fundamental Articles, what then became of those Christians that were fallen asleep (as St. Paul witnesseth in the 1 Cor. many were) before those things in the Epistles were revealed to them? Most of the Epistles not being written till above Twenty Years after our Saviour's Ascension, and some after Thirty. To this we may answer, First, That some of the Epistles were written before some of the Gospels, particularly that of St. John, which was not writ till almost Threescore Years after our Saviour's Ascension. So that this Argument will exclude that Gospel from containing any part of the Fundamentals of Faith, as well as the Epistles. Secondly, It is to be considered, that a great many of the Epistles, as the first and second to the Thessalonians, which were writ sooner than Twenty Years after Christ's Ascension, as also the first and second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians and Romans, were all written before the History of the Acts of the Apostles, which is continued to the time of St. Paul's being first at Rome, which was not till near Thirty Years after our Saviour's Ascension; and therefore that History which takes in all that time, cannot be thought to be of greater Authority, than those Epistles which were writ much sooner. So that this Argument, if it is at all to the Purpose, must give the Preference to some of the Epistles, at least before the Acts of the Apostles. But Thirdly, It cannot be supposed but that many Christians were fallen asleep before the writing any of the Gospels, since St. Matthew's Gospel, which was the first, was not written till about Eleven Years after our Saviour's Ascension. So that neither can this Argument be any Prejudice to the Authority of the Epistles. And therefore Fourthly, It remains that all the Rule of Faith to the Believing Christians, that were Converted for some Years after our Saviour's Ascension, must be taken from what was taught by the Apostles. And therefore if what they then taught was the Rule of Faith to those who were Converted to Christianity, it is very reasonable to suppose, that the Epistles, which without doubt contain the very same Doctrines which they then taught, are now to be received as absolutely necessary to be believed. For this we may be certain of, that the contrary can never be proved, that the Apostles, upon their receiving the Holy Ghost, taught the very same Doctrines wherever they Preached, which they afterwards delivered in their Epistles. And therefore if they writ no other Doctrines, than what they taught, and what they taught were Fundamentals, than what they writ must be the same too. And if this should be granted, which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity so much contends for, p. 294. That the Epistles being all written to those who were Believers, and Christians, the occasion and end of writing them could not be to instruct them in that which was necessary to make them Christians; Yet this seems rather to strengthen than lessen the force of the Argument, that the Apostles had taught those same Doctrines for Fundamentals before, which they afterwards communicated as sacred Depositums of their Faith. For it is strange to suppose, that a Doctrine should cease to be a Fundamental, to those who had known it before. For though the Epistles might not be written to those who believed all the Truths contained in them, to instruct them in any thing which they were ignorant of; yet it might be for this End, to put them in remembrance of all the parts of their Profession, to prevent all Disputes that possibly might arise; and to remain as exact Rules and Directions how they might convert and instruct others. But says our Author, p. 294. If those to whom the Epistles were written wanted not such fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion, without a Belief of which they could not be saved, it cannot be supposed that the sending of such Fundamentals was the reason of the Apostles writing to any of them. But how can it be proved, that all those the Epistles were written to, understood all the Fundamentals of Religion? May there not be supposed to be some less knowing amongst them, and some who would not throughly believe several Doctrines of Christianity, without such an Authority as the Apostles had, to convince them of the Truth of them? But however if this Argument of Men's knowing the Fundamentals contained in the Epistles, before they were sent to them, may be sufficient to overthrow their Authority, the Gospels also I am afraid will not escape much better. For we cannot suppose, but almost all Christians were very well acquainted with the Doctrines taught by our Saviour, before the Gospels were written, but 'tis to be hoped that they ought not upon that account to be thought less necessary to be believed, even by those who had been already converted to the Faith. For certainly they cannot be supposed to contain less fundamental Truths, because they have delivered nothing but what was received before for the Doctrine of our Saviour. Nor can it be imagined that the Gospel of St. Luke, which was writ with a particular Design to Theophilus, who was already a Believer and a Christian, should contain less fundamental Truths, or less necessary to be believed, than those which perhaps were written with a more general Design. The Acts were also written to the same Theophilus; and therefore if our Author's Argument will prove any thing, it must exclude both that, and the forementioned Gospel, as well as the Epistles from being any part of the Rule of Faith. For they were more certainly written to a Believer and a Christian, and One who wanted not the fundamental Articles of Christianity, without a Belief of which he could not be saved, than can be proved of so much as any of the Epistles. And therefore it will follow, notwithstanding all our Author has urged to the contrary, that it is from the Epistles as well as the Gospels, that we are to learn what are the fundamental Articles of Faith. For if in the History of the Evangelists and the Acts, all things are so plainly set down, that no Body can mistake them, it must unavoidably be granted, That the Apostles, tho' Inspired by the Holy Ghost, were yet very unfaithful to their Trust, in clogging Men's Faith with unnecessary Points of Belief: Since they could not be ignorant that what they writ would be as much thought necessary to be believed, as what was taught by our Saviour himself. And therefore the Apostles ought certainly to be blamed for writing such Doctrines in their Epistles, which tho' they were not necessary to be believed, might yet give occasion to a great many unwary Christians, to think far otherwise, and embrace them as firmly as any other Doctrines whatsoever. But if it can be proved, that the great and principal End of the writing their Epistles, was, to deliver several Doctrines that should be necessarily believed to Salvation by all who were Converted to the Faith, we are obliged to receive them as such. And this might be made appear from very many places of them: St. Paul thus expresses himself, 1 Cor. 14.37. That if any Man think himself to be a Prophet, or Spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I writ unto you, are the Commandments of the Lord. And in the beginning of the next Chapter, Moreover Brethren I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, by which also ye are saved, &c For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our Sins according to the Scriptures. By which Words he reminds them of a Primary Article of their Faith, without the Remembrance of which, he shows they have believed in vain. For the design of the Apostle's Argument is to acquaint them, that they could not be saved, without they kept in Memory what he had before Preached unto them, v. 2. which was amongst other things the forementioned Article, the Belief of which, if there is any Force in his Argument, he declares to be absolutely necessary to Salvation. After this he mentions to them some other Articles, which he enjoins them to believe, that their Faith might not be in vain. And these are the Belief, not only of Christ's Resurrection, but that by virtue of his rising from the Dead, we also should be raised again. And also that in Adam all die: For since by Man came Death, by Man came also the Resurrection of the Dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And these are Articles that are absolutely necessary to be believed; for upon these the Apostle lays the great Foundation of Christianity; and yet the Two last of them are not to be found either in the Gospels or Acts. There are also other places in the Epistles, which are expressly required to be believed to Salvation, as Rom. 10.9. For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. And that in Timothy, Without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness, that is, of the Christian Religion. God was manifest in the Flesh. And in St. Joh. Epist. 1. C. 4. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God, and he that does not confess it, is not of God, which shows the necessity of believing Christ's Incarnation. And again, We have seen and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. And whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God; which is a distinct act of Faith from believing him to be the Messiah, as I shall show in its proper place. These Places of Scripture now mentioned are sufficient to show, that there are Doctrines in the Epistles, that are required to be explicitly believed. And the Apostles did certainly design this End in writing their Epistles, as in the 2 Cor. 1.13. For we writ none other things unto you, than what you read or acknowledge; and I trust you shall acknowledge even to the end. And in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chap. 2. Ver. 15. Therefore Brethren, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word, or our Epistle. All which Places, with innumerable others which might be cited to the same Purpose, undeniably prove, that the Apostles enjoined the Belief of what they writ in their Epistles as necessary to Salvation. And it would be absurd to imagine, that the Apostles should fill their Writings with any of the Doctrines of Christianity, if they did not impose a Necessity upon Men of believing them. And here it is not material whether the Epistles were written to those who were already Christians, and whether designed to teach them any Doctrines, to instruct them in what was necessary to make them Believers; but it is sufficient that they could not continue true Christians or Believers, without acknowledging the Doctrines there delivered for fundamental Articles of Faith, and necessary to be believed by all Christians. But however the word Christians is often used ambiguously, and is promiscuously given to all who are Baptised into the Christian Faith. And therefore tho' most of the Epistles might be written to those who were called Christians, yet they might not be throughly so, i. e. They might not have a perfect knowledge of all the Articles of Faith. As is particularly plain in the Thessalonians, by St. Paul's first Epistle to them, Chap. 3. Ver. 10. Night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your Faith. So that our Author's Argument from the Epistles being written to those who were already Christians, is also upon this account very insufficient to weaken their Authority. But he farther urges, That the Epistles were writ upon particular Occasions, p. 295. and without those Occasions had not been writ, and so cannot be thought necessary to Salvation. But how can it be proved, that all the Epistles were writ upon particular Occasions? For the contrary seems plain in several of the Epistles. For, though they were directed to particular Churches, yet were they designed for whole Provinces; as the Epistles to the Corinthians were intended for the Province of Achaia. That to the Galatians for a whole Country; and those directed to the Thessalonians and Philippians, were designed for the two Provinces of Macedonia. It being usual with the Apostle to give such Pre-eminence to the Metropolis of any Province, as to direct to that, what he intended for the whole: Which is sufficient to show, that those Epistles were not writ upon any particular Occasion to those Churches they were sent to, since they obliged a great Number equally with them. Nor can we suppose them to be designed for those particular Provinces only, tho' they should be known to others; for if they only were obliged by them, than no one could be required to observe them, any longer than he continued in such a Province. For if they affected none out of the Province, than those who went from that to another, must also be freed from all Obligations to them; which is too absurd to imagine. The like Observations may be made upon other Epistles. The first Epistle of St. Peter is directed to the Strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia. His second Epistle is likewise General, and so are the Epistles of St. James, and St. Judas. But there is nothing that can be more General than the first Epistle of St. John, which tho' occasioned by some new raised Heresies, yet is directed to all Christians, to give them true Notions of the Divinity and eternal Existence of the Son of God, which are proved at large in that Epistle, in Opposition to all Heresies that then were, or that possibly might arise concerning them. For all which reasons it is evident, that a great many of the Epistles were designed for all Christians in general. Those indeed to the Romans and the Hebrews seem to have some things in them, which particularly relate to those Churches. But yet there are a great many Truths in them of general use and importance, which seem to be designed on purpose for all Christians in general. But to look a little back upon the Epistle to the Hebrews; which if well considered, cannot be denied to contain some Doctrines absolutely necessary to be believed to Salvation by all Christians, if this may be granted, that the same Faith was required, after Conversion, both from Jew and Gentile. For the design of that Epistle was not only to convince the Jews, that the Reason of the Ceremonial Law was ceased, and consequently that they ought to discontinue their observance of it, and that the Aaronical Priesthood was abolished by our Saviour's Entering upon his Priestly Office, but also to obviate (which the Author has done with very great care) two Conceptions which Men might be tempted to have of our Saviour. The one was to think him some Angelical Being, the other some great Prophet, like Moses, or superior to him. Now the Author of that Epistle does plainly deny our Saviour to be of that sort and order of Being's, that either Angels, or Moses was, in the first, second and third Chapters, etc. He does not only set him above them all in a Style that imports Superiority and Pre-eminence, but does it in a set of Phrases, that show him to be of another Nature than they. And to evince the Truth of this, a great part of this Epistle was designed. For there was a Sect amongst the Jewish Converts to Christianity, that were not only for continuing the Observation of the Mosaic Institutions, but who also opposed the Divinity of our Saviour; and against these the Apostle seems professedly to argue in this Epistle: Which if looked upon to be writ with this Design, is as full a Proof for the Divinity of our Saviour, and the necessity of believing it to Salvation, or without which Church-Communion cannot be maintained, as need be desired for any thing of that Nature. But besides this Epistle to the Hebrews, there is no question but the very first Christians thought almost all the Doctrines in every Epistle, of general Concern, by their constant reading them every Lord's Day in all their public Assemblies; which was done not only amongst those to whom they were written, but also amongst all those who had Copies of them. And that an Epistle which was writ to one Church, should also be read amongst others, (which would never have been commanded, if they were writ upon particular Occasions to any Church,) is enjoined expressly by St. Paul himself, in his Epistle 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 C●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 citys 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 designed 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 lived 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 mentioned 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 contained 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 Sense. Which ought to caution us in judging of the Epistles; which notwithstanding their Directions to particular Churches, might be designed 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, than 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 Archbishop's Sermons, p. 16, 17, etc. Joan. Cleric. in 18. prima Commenta. Evang. Joan. p. 15, 16, etc. 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 persuaded 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 explained in the Epistles, than in any other parts of Holy Writ. And if the Knowledge of them is necessary to Salvation, than 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 expressly 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 delivered in them. But it must yet be confessed, that all that has been proved will be little to the Purpose, if it can be shown in the Fourth Place, that the Doctrines delivered in the Epistles are contradictory to those in the Gospels. But this I done't find in the least pretended; for it would be in vain to show 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 required to be believed in the Epistles, which are not mentioned 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 delivered 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 delivered 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 mixed 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 mixed 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 mixed 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 foreign 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 Sense, by the whole Catholic 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 Reason to persuade us to build our Faith upon the Epistles too. For it is very absurd to imagine, that the very next Ages to the Apostles should be so far imposed upon, and so down to the present Time, as to receive several of the Doctrines contained in the Epistles for fundamental Articles of Faith, if they were never designed, either by the Holy Ghost that Inspired them, or by the Apostles themselves, to be made such. So that to assert the contrary, is to affirm that either all Christians hitherto have wandered in the Dark, or that they were guilty of very great Folly and Superstition, in making those parts of Scripture necessary to be believed to Salvation, which were never intended to be so. Some of the Epistles have indeed been rejected, but so have some of the Gospels too. But as this was done but by a very few, so were they Men of Heretical Opinions. The † Iraen. Advers. Heres. l. 1. c. 26. Ebionites allowed of no more of the Gospels than St. Matthew, and rejected all that was writ by St. Paul, calling him an Apostate from the Law. The * L. 1. C. 29. Marcionites owned but some part of the Epistles of St. Paul to be Canonical, but they also denied the Authority of all the Gospels, except that of St. Luke, and then would admit no more parts of it, than would agree with their own Model of Divinity. Sed huic quidem, says Iraeneus, speaking of Martion, quoniam & solus manifeste ausus est circumcidere Scripturas, etc. Which shows what an unpardonable Crime he thought it to be for any Man, without a sufficient Warrant for it, (which can be nothing less than a Divine Commission) to pretend to reject any parts of Holy Scripture, and to cut them off from the rest, which the whole Church had received for Canonical. And thus whoever they were that denied the Divine Authority, and the necessity of believing all the parts of Scripture, such as were also the Valentinians, and Manichees, with some few others, were always looked upon by the Church, to be no better than Heretics. There were indeed some of the Primitive Christians, that did not receive all the Books of the New Testament for Canonical; but the reason was because they were not certain they were writ by the Apostles, yet after a little time they were all admitted, and universally believed as necessary parts of Faith. But now by asserting the necessity of believing the Epistles as part of the Rule of Faith, I don't mean that none could ever be saved, but who had believed them; for what then, as our Author well observes, would become of those Christians who were fallen asleep, before any of the Epistles were written? For no question but those who believed all that was taught them, and lived up to that Knowledge which their most diligent Inquiries could carry them to, should be admitted into Happiness as well as those who had afterwards attained to larger degrees of Faith and Knowledge. Since no one can be obliged to believe that, which he could not possibly have any knowledge of. For should we suppose the Gospel to be spread in some Heathen Parts of the World, that had never heard of Christ, no Man certainly would be so uncharitable, as to deny them Salvation, if they believed whatsoever they found there, and lived up exactly to the Precepts there delivered, though they had never heard of the Acts of the Apostles, or any of the Epistles, or no more than one of the Gospels. Or if the Case should be thus, that they had no other parts of the New-Testament, than barely some of the Epistles, if they lived up to them in Matters of Faith and Practice, there can no doubt be made but they would be saved. So that in Cases of this nature, the Argument holds as much for the Epistles, as the Gospels, and nothing from hence can be drawn to the Prejudice of either. But where we have the Privilege of both, and are assured that both are of equal Authority, as being equally of Divine Inspiration, we are under a necessity of drawing the Articles of our Faith from them both, as being a most exact Body of Christian Religion in all the Branches of it. But then some may urge, That if this should be the Case of those who could attain to the Knowledge of but one part of the Christian Doctrine contained in the New Testament, that they should as well be saved, as those who have all the parts of it, and upon that account are required to believe more, then certainly the Condition of the other would be much more desirable. To this it may be answered, That this Objection is of little Force, since those are certainly in the safest Condition, who have the most Light to guide them. For though a wary Traveller may possibly find his way through a very narrow obscure Passage, yet those who take the broadest Road are most certain of finding the surest way to their Journeys end. But besides, the more Evidence we have for our Faith, and the greater the Confirmation of it may be, by the abundant Repetition of Inspiration and Miracles for the Establishment of it; and lastly, the more full, clear and express the Articles of our Faith are, and the oftener God has been pleased to give us an Explanation of them, so much the more likely are we to avoid Mistakes, to give our unfeigned Assent to them, and to suffer them to make more lasting Impressions upon our Minds. And thus I hope I have sufficiently Vindicated the Divine Authority of the Epistles, and the necessity of making them part of the Rule of Faith that's required to Salvation. And we ought to be the more concerned for the Defense of them, because several Doctrines which have been always maintained by the universal Church, such as the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, and the true Reason of Christ's coming into the World, will not so easily be maintained without a Belief of them. But if these sacred Writings are esteemed, as they are, and were really designed to be, the infallible Guides to us in our understanding the Mystery of the great Work of our Redemption, and for the more clearly stating and explaining of all that is required for our Belief and Practice, we are under an absolute necessity to preserve them inviolably, and to vindicate the Belief of them, as much as of any other parts of Divine Revelation. Of the Reason of CHRIST's Coming into the World. AND now I come in the next place to examine the Reason our Author assigns for Christ's coming into the World. And this, we must allow, can be understood no way so well as by considering what the Scripture shows we lost by Adam. p. 1. For it is on this that the whole Decision of the Case depends: Since which way soever it is that the whole Bend of Scripture inclines, there we ought to fix our Faith. And here also there is no reason why we should descent from the 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 inferred 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 countenanced 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 inferred 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 form 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 form 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 delivered 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 levelled 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 entered 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 gathered from the Sentence denounced against him, which in the plainest Sense 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 entailed 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 denounced 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 die, 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, than 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 shown, that the Mortality of the Soul could not be included in that Sentence of Death denounced against Adam. And 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 Tenor of Scripture, and if the Souls of Men have been immortal, as may be easily evinced from Scripture and Philosophy, unless we can prove that any of them have been annihilated by God, than 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 Prophecy 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 numbered with the Transgressor's, and he bore the sin of many, and made Intercession for the Transgressor's. 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 Gild 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 mentioned 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 advantageous 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 Being's 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 not Sin. 1 John 4.10. 2 Co● 5.21 Hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, who his own self bore 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 suffered in the World to come. For there is no other Wrath which Good Men are exempted from; for they are still as much exposed 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 sense, 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 seemed to show much less Courage and Resolution than either any of his Disciples, or the lower Rank of Martyrs. They suffered Joyfully, and with the greatest Resolutions, but he felt in himself dreadful Agonies, and endured bloody Sweats, and seemed almost like One in Despair, when he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. All which can have no good Reason assigned for them, unless we allow that he suffered 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 offered 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, Leu. 16. to make an Atonement for the People, and by the Sins of the People being transferred upon the Scape-Goat, clearly prove, that Christ's Satisfaction must be also for our Sins. And thus was God's Justice satisfied 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 Blood. 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 declared 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 Ruin of their Nation by the Romans. And to the same sense are the words of John: If any of the men escape, 2 Ki●● 10. 2●. he that letteth him go, his Life shall be for the Life of him, i. e. He shall suffer the Punishment designed for the other. We may add to this the Expressions that occur in Profane Authors, that signify 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 Deccis, 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 herself 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 show 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 sense 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 Sense 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 ourselves 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 assigned 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 citys 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, etc. who said to the Woman, We believe not any longer because of thy saying, for we have heard ourselves, 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 distinguished 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 maintained 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. etc. 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 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 show 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 Tenor of Scripture: Which it shall now be my Business to inquire. But in order to this it may be necessary to examine whether Son of God, and Messiah, or Christ, always signify 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 mentioned 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 Sense 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 considered, should be granted not to prove a Difference, yet neither can the contrary be inferred 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 evinced, on the other side, that they do not; especially if we compare them with the Sense 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 spoke in times passed 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 show, 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 worshipped 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 show that the term Son must signify a God by Nature. Go and teach all Nations, Baptising 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 Dependence 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 signify 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 persuaded 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 also be acknowledged to be the Son of God, i.e. God. And that this must be the meaning of these Words of St. John, is plain from what is generally allowed by the ancient Fathers, to have been the Design of his Gospel, which was to assert the Divinity of Christ, against those that opposed it, as he has done at large in his first Chapter. And if this cannot be questioned to have been St. John's Design in his Gospel, the forementioned Proposition must mean more, than that was all that was required to be believed, that Jesus was the Christ; and consequently that Son of God is of a larger signification than Messiah. For if they mean only the same, then St. John himself does not assign the true Reason for his writing that Gospel: For it appears that he had certainly another End in it, than barely to prove Jesus to be the Messiah. But if they mean differently, and Son of God does there denote Christ's Divinity, than we have in that forementioned Passage the whole Intention of the Apostles assigned for his writing that Gospel, namely, To show that Jesus was the Christ, and that he was God. We may add to all this, that the Jews (from whom we may best understand the meaning of that Expression) believed that God was meant by it. For a good work, Joh. 10.33. say they, we stone thee not, but for Blasphemy, and that because thou being Man, makest thyself God; which was only by saying, that he was the Son of God. ver. 36. Which shows that they understood more by the Son of God, than being only the Messiah. And this Interpretation the Highpriest put upon it, Mat. 26.63. when he accused him of Blasphemy, for saying he was the Son of God, But it will probably be objected to this, that our Saviour has himself explained what he meant by Son of God, in his Answer to the Jews, when they accused him of Blasphemy: Is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods, if he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, how say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the World, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? Joh. 10.34, 35, 36. But does it appear from hence, that our Saviour has declared, that there is no more meant by his being called the Son of God, than that he was sanctified, and sent by God? All that can be concluded from this Passage is only this, That supposing he was no more than one thus sent from Heaven, yet it would not then be Blasphemy to assume the Title of Son of God. But that is by no means a Concession, that that Title did not belong to him upon any other account. But besides, it may as well be inferred from hence, that our Saviour was not God; for he as much there declares, that he was not God, as that his Title of Son of God was only to denote his Divine Mission, and he seems to allow that Son of God, or God signify the same, as the Jews understood it. So that this Text cannot be brought to show, that Son of God and Messiah are the same. But there is one Text more which may be urged to prove Son of God and Messiah the same; and that is Luk. 1.35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. But if the true Occasion of his being called the Son of God is here set down, than it is plain that the other Instance last mentioned was not to the Purpose: Because there the reason of that Character is pretended to be by our Saviour's own Confession, only upon the account of his being sanctified, and sent by God. So that one of them must be given up, as proving nothing in the Case. But neither does this latter Text give us a full account of our Saviour's being Son of God: It only tells us one Reason why he should be called so, in his Humane Nature, as being conceived by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin. But 'tis plain that this was not designed to take in the full Sense of that Expression, because there are other places in Scripture, that give that Title to our Saviour, where it can only relate to his eternal Existence, as has been already showed. But it will farther appear from hence, that the Jews thought Son of God to signify more than being the Christ. That though before, and at the time of our Saviour's Coming, they gave the Title of Son of God to their expected Messiah, and the * Vid. Dr. Pocock Not. ad Maimonid. p. 316. Chaldee Paraphrast, and all the Learned Rabbins had constantly interpreted that Passage in Psal. 2. Thou art my Son, etc. of the Messiah; yet after our Saviour's Coming, they not only altered that Interpretation, but also denied that they ever expected their † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Advers. Cells. lib. 1. Messiah should be the Son of God, lest the Christians should take Advantages of it, as one of their Doctors acknowledges. Which is sufficient to show that the Jews, who after our Saviour's Coming, denied this Title of Son of God to their expected Messiah, did believe that it signified more than only being the Messiah; for they disowned it, because they thought it would prove what the Christians made use of it for, the Divinity of the Messiah. But this I may have more occasion to consider by and by. From all that has been urged it seems evident, that as Messiah and Son of God do not signify the same, so there is something more necessarily required to be believed besides this Proposition, that Jesus is Christ, or the Messiah. But if we should suppose the believing Jesus to be the Messiah sufficient to make a Man a Christian, will it be the believing that bare Proposition that qualifies him for such a Character? If it will not of itself, what sense must it be taken in? Must every one be left to his own private Explication, or must it be received according to the general Sense of Scripture? Now if we are to believe it as delivered in sacred Writ, I would know in what Place it is there declared, that the believing it in such a particular sense, just so, and no otherwise, is required as absolutely necessary to Salvation. For if the explicit Belief of that Article only is sufficient, why are we not informed from what particular Text of Scripture we must draw the sense of it, to be believed in such a manner only, upon the Forfeiture of Salvation. For it is not much to the Purpose, to say that this Proposition is alone required to make a Man a Christian, unless there can be produced the same Authority for the absolute necessity of believing it in such a sense. But perhaps it will be said in Answer to this, that our Author has explained this Proposition from the Declarations of Scripture concerning it; and that this is the full sense of it, which he has delivered 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 Sense 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 Sense and Meaning of Jesus being the Messiah, exclusive of all others, is to be believed as necessary to Salvation. For this cannot be looked upon as the only Explication, unless it can be shown, 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 designed for such, does not seem of itself 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 observed of his Disciples, from that Question of theirs to our Saviour, Lord wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? To which he does not give a direct Answer, but shows 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 entertained any clearer, or more distinct Notions of Him. So that we cannot form any adequate Rule of Faith from what is delivered in the Gospel's 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 Virtue of Christ's Mediation, in the Observance of the Mosaic 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 required 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 'tis 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 show 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 show you plainly of the Father. Now to what End was all this? Was it not to teach them more clearly something that concerned 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 sense 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 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 Virtue 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 explained 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 required for a Fundamental of our Faith, must comprehend the full Sense 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 Baptised, 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 Preached to him, but that he instructed him in the Christian Religion, from that Chapter of Isaiah, which is a Prophecy 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 required as absolutely necessary to be believed; and besides, since Philip Baptised him, no question but he did it in that Form which Christ himself enjoined, 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 mentioned, we ought to understand it to be the same which was Instituted and Commanded by Christ himself, and which was observed by the Primitive Church. But Secondly, I shall show 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, etc. 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 lived 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 Preach 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 Christians, upon supposition that he was the Messiah, whom they Worshipped; which certainly they would have done, had they not expected their Messiah should be God: Which is an Argument managed with such Strength and Judgement, in a late Discourse, by a Learned Prelate of our Church, that it may seem of itself 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. Martur. 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 sense 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 gained 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 Messiah, 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 the King Messiah, but that they might be more able to deal with the Heretics, by which he means the Christians, it would be more convenient to interpret it of David himself. Which is a very fair Confession why they dissented from the Opinions and Interpretations of their Ancestors; because they might more strongly oppose the Christians. For if they should admit those Interpretations of their ancient Doctors, to speak the genuine sense of Scripture, they should give too great Advantages to the Christians, who by this Means (as Dr. Pococke * Ib. hath observed) Would be supplied with Arguments, to prove Christ the Son of God, and consequently consubstantial with God the Father. And if this one Psalms be granted to relate to Christ alone (as indeed it is almost impossible to wrest it to any other Sense) we cannot but acknowledge him to be GOD, begotten of his Father before all Worlds. There are also several other places in Scripture, which are always applied by the Ancient Jewish Interpreters to our * Vid. Not. in Grot. de Veritat. Relig. Christ. L. 5. Sect. 21. Saviour, which sufficiently show, that they believed he should be GOD: As Psal. 45. Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever. And Isa. 25.9. And in that day it shall be said, Lo this is our God. With several other places of the like nature, which being constantly interpreted of our Saviour, by the Chaldee Paraphrast, and all the Ancient Jewish Interpreters, do evidently demonstrate, that they believed their Messiah should be GOD, notwithstanding the Opposition made against it by the latter Jews. But last of all, that the Jews did expect their Messiah should be GOD, is I think very plain, from their objecting Blasphemy to our Saviour, when he acknowledged himself to be the Son of God, when the Highpriest adjured him to tell him, whether he was so, or not. For they could never have accused him of Blasphemy, for saying he was the Son of God, if they understood no more by that Expression, than being the Messiah, and if they expected their Messiah should be no more than a mere Man. And it was for this Reason, according to † Jure Naturali & Gentium, l. 2. c. 12. Mr. Selden, that they accused him of Blasphemy, for saying he was the Son of God, because they so understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Word of God by that Expression, that for any one to make himself the Son of God in that Notion, was nothing less than to profess himself truly GOD, which if he was not, he was guilty of the highest Blasphemy. And to prove this to be the true Meaning of that Expression, he citys the Hebrew Commentaries, and Philo Judeus, who have commonly used the Son of God, to signify GOD himself. From all which it appears, that the most Learned amongst the Jews, before, and at the Coming of our Saviour, did expect their Messiah to be GOD. And that if they did object Idolatry to the Christians afterwards, upon supposition that Jesus was the Messiah, yet that they differed very widely from the ancient Opinion of the Jews. And this Notion of our Saviour's being GOD, seems to be the first that his Disciples had concerning him. For they had no just Apprehensions of the true Design of his Coming into the World, or of his Death and Passion, and the Remission of Sins he thereby obtained, till they had received the Holy Ghost. Yet they before that time certainly believed him to be GOD, as is most evident from the frequent Acts of Divine Worship which they then paid him, and from that Exstatical Exclamation of the Apostle St. Thomas, My Lord, and my God. As tho' this Knowledge of him was on purpose then revealed to them, to prevent all Disputes that might hereafter possibly arise concerning his Divinity. Since it is not to be supposed, that if he was not what they really believed him to be, truly and essentially GOD, but that he himself would have undeceived, and prevented their falling into such dangerous Mistakes, as must necessarily produce endless Distractions in the Church, and bring gross Idolatry into Religion, which has been always forbid under the severest Penalty. And we never find, that any part of Divine Worship was ever allowed to be paid either to Men, or Angels, as may be seen by the Example of St. Peter, and the Angel in the Revelations. And as the Divine Titles and Adorations which were particularly directed to our Saviour, by his Apostles and others, which he never rebuked them for, are a Demonstration of his Divinity; so also his own Commission, which he invested his Disciples with immediately before his Ascension: Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is a strong Evidence, that he not only permitted, but required Divine Worship should be paid to him, since it is all Men's Duty to Worship him, in whose Name they are Baptised, and that he thought it no Robbery to make himself equal with GOD. But if it be urged, (as a late * Objections against Mr. Edward's 's Causes of Atheism. Socinian Author has objected against the Sense of this Text) that the Apostles did not always observe this Command in their Baptising Christians, but only made use of the Name of Jesus, without mentioning either Father, or Holy Ghost, (which however was always supposed, if not mentioned in the Form, tho' the Author of the Acts does not take notice of it, because his chief Business was to trace the Progress of Christianity in its first Propagation, and to show that none could be Christians, or capable of Salvation, but who were Baptised into the Name of Christ) yet this will not invalidate the Argument, but much rather confirm it, since none could be admitted for Members of the Church, without the Conditions of acknowledging Christ for their Lord and Saviour, by a constant Obedience to his Laws, and by continual Acts of Devotion and Adoration to him: Which sufficiently establish the Divinity of our Saviour. For if paying Divine Worship to him may be justified, without acknowledging him to be GOD, there can be no good Reason assigned why any Man should be Condemned for the Invocation of Saints and Angels. For if Christ be not GOD, he is a Creature, for there is no Medium betwixt them, and therefore to Worship such a One, is directly contrary both to Natural and Revealed Religion; and could hardly, I think, be justified by an absolute Command of God; for it is giving his Glory to another. And besides, Creature-Worship is fully opposite and contradictory to Natural Reason. For Adoration necessarily supposes Omnipresence, which is an incommunicable Attribute of God himself. And since there may be Ten Thousand Petitions offered up at once in so many different places, it is impossible he should be acquainted with them, unless he be both Omnipresent and Omniscient; the one to be present to all Petitions, and by the other to search 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 convinced of, that the Adoration of Christ is as much mentioned in the History of the Gospels, and as much enjoined 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 delivered, 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 contained 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 contained 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 offered 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 resolved 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 shown 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 mentioned, are direct Proofs of Christ's Divinity in the most plain and natural Sense of the Words, such as they were designed 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 questioned 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 explicitly 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 chief 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 fullness 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 persuade them, that it was irreconcilable to Reason. For he did assure them, with all the Sincerity of a faithful Apostle of Christ, that the Godhead was really and substantially in him. And thereupon he enjoins them to believe it, if they would retain the Profession of Christianity. And if this be allowed to be the Force of the Apostle's Reasoning, as indeed it seems to be, it must be sufficient to enforce 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 enjoined to acknowledge him to be Christ. And Lastly, it is most evident that the explicit Belief of Christ's being God, is required 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 Universal Church, as may be gathered 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 Condemned and Censured for Heretics? * Vid. Bishop Stillingfleet's Rational Ac. of the Prot. Relig. Not as though the sense of the Catholic 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 alleged out of Scripture, that if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Highpriest, 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 unitarians 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 shown 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 show 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 concerned 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, etc. 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 he is God and Man, our King, Prophet and Priest; and what more the Scripture has comprehended under each of those distinct Offices. For believing in Christ, if it mean any thing, must be interpreted of every thing that Scripture has required to be believed concerning him. So that this we may be certain is a Fundamental, that as Christ is the Author of our Salvation, so that Revelation is the just measure of our Belief in him; and that we must not believe either more, or less of him, than we are warranted by Scripture. But it will probably be objected to all this, that though it be granted, that there are several Articles to be believed by those who are thoroughly Christians, yet there was no more required by our Saviour himself, or his Apostles, to make a Man a Christian, or in order to his Admission into Christianity, than the believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and that this is all which the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity contends for. In answer to this it may be observed, first, that the Articles, as well as others that might be named, are of the same Nature with that one Article, of Believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and are a Repetition of it in all its Branches; for without the Knowledge of them, the Nature of the New Covenant, and the Meaning of Jesus being the Messiah, would be altogether Unintelligible. For which Reason they seem as necessary to be Believed, to make a Man a Christian, as that one Article: Since we cannot suppose, that Persons should be admitted into the Christian Faith, without understanding the Meaning and Extent at least of that one Article. But, secondly, there was more required even to make a Man a Christian, than the Belief of Jesus being the Messiah. For besides the Obligations that all those were under, who would be Christians, to acknowledge him to be the Son of God, which we have already proved to signify more than his being the Messiah; there was also required, by our Saviour himself, the Believing in Father and Holy Ghost, or in the whole Trinity; if it be granted, which cannot be denied, that all Christians were obliged to Believe in those in whose Names they were Baptised. For this was the Commandment which our Saviour gave his Disciples, That they should teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, i. e. They should first instruct them in whom they were to Believe, and then Baptise them into that Faith. And it was upon the Believing the ever Blessed Trinity, that Men were admitted Members of the Christian Church, and upon the Denial of any part of that Faith, Church Communion was refused and has been so down from the Apostles time. If therefore Men could not be truly Christians, without being Baptised into that Faith, and were not looked upon as Christians if they Denied it, then certainly it must be confessed, that there was more required even to make a Man a Christian, in whatsoever Sense it be understood, either for the first Embracing that Profession, or for the Continuance in it, than that Jesus was the Messiah, or even the Son of God; the Faith in the other Two Persons of the Blessed Trinity being also indispensably required in the very Initiation into the Christian Profession. But here the Objection will recur, that the forementioned Form was never made use of in the Baptising of Christians; and therefore that the Faith in Christ was only required, his Name alone being mentioned in the Form, as may be proved from several Instances in the Acts. To this it may be answered, that it is certain, that the Form prescribed by our Saviour was used in Baptism, though the Name of Christ be only taken notice of by the Author of the Acts. And this is plain from St. Paul's Question to those who said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost, Act. 19.2, 3. Unto what then were ye Baptised? Which evidently shows, that they could not be Baptised into the Christian Faith, without Believing in the Holy Ghost. But yet after this when they were Baptised, there is no more set down, than that it was in the Name of the Lord Jesus; ver. 5. though it is very evident from St. Paul's Question to them, that they could not be truly Baptised, or made Members of the Christian Church, but by Acknowledging and Believing in the Holy Ghost. So that we ought always to suppose, that when Men are only said in Scripture to be Baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus, that it was in the Form enjoined by Him, In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And this we must either grant, or suppose, that the Apostles did not faithfully discharge the Trust committed to them. And this is sufficient to show, that there was more required, and still ought to be, to make a Man a Christian, than our Author's One Article. And thus have I vindicated the necessity of believing more of our Ever-blessed Saviour, than that he is the Messiah: I shall now in the last place examine the Reasonableness of this Author's Article of Faith, set down in the largest Terms in p. 301. in the Treatise itself, and repeated in his Vindication, p. 28. which he sums up in these Words, Believing Jesus to be the Saviour promised, and taking him now raised from the Dead, and constituted the Lord and Judge of Men, to be our King and Ruler. And that by the All-merciful God's requiring no more as absolutely necessary to be believed, he seems to have consulted the Poor of this World, and the Bulk of Mankind; these are Articles that the labouring and illiterate Man may comprehend. So that this he thinks to be the great Advantage of his One Article, above all other Schemes of Religion, That it is suited to vulgar Capacities, and the Comprehension of illiterate Men. But for the clearer Examination of this, we may consider, first, that supposing God either had, or should reveal any thing to Mankind, and make the Belief of it a Condition of Salvation, which the Reason of Man could not comprehend, and we had all the Evidence the thing was capable of, that the Revelation proceeded from God, would this Incomprehensibleness of it be a sufficient Plea for our rejecting it? If it would, it must be because it would be unjust in God to require any thing so revealed, as absolutely necessary to be believed by us. But this can be no Injustice, since it is as easy for us to believe any thing upon the Testimony of God, as upon the Evidence of our own Senses; if we are fully persuaded that God has all those Perfections, which are attributed to him, and that he can neither deceive, nor be deceived. Indeed if there are direct Contradictions in that Revelation, we ought to disbelieve them, i. e. We ought to reject the Revelation; but if we allow the Revelation, and are assured that it proceeds from God, it is in vain to say there are Contradictions in it, for that is as impossible, as that God should not be true. But Secondly, Why all this Concern for the illiterate and Men of weak Capacities, as though it would be so very Prejudicial to them, to be obliged to believe what they cannot comprehend? For they do not seem to receive any Disadvantage by it more than others. For if they are able to search the Scriptures, they may know what they are obliged to believe, and may as easily believe as Men of greater Reaches, and stronger Reasons. For the Mysteries of Religion which are incomprehensible, are equally so to all. Indeed had God made a difference in the necessary Parts of Faith, between the Learned and Illiterate, and required such particular Articles to be believed to Salvation by all sorts of Men, which only the Wisest could understand, than the Poor of the World would have just Reason to complain. But since he has placed all Men on the same Level, and has required no harder Terms of the one than the other, we have all the Reason in the World to admire his infinite Wisdom, in that he has revealed himself as much to the Unlearned Bulk of Mankind, as to the Wise and Prudent. For he that reads may understand, may know what God has made necessary to Salvation, tho' he can understand what he believes but in part. Were we to draw our Belief from a long Train of Deductions, and infer every Article of Faith from some one Principle, though there might be a Mathematical Certainty for the Truth of such a Religion, yet the Men of great strength of Judgement, and Intenseness of Thought, could only reach the perfect Knowledge of it, and the poor, labouring and illiterate Man must then most unhappily perish through his Ignorance. But as now it is, all parts of our Belief are equally intelligible by all; and what we cannot comprehend as to the Manner of it, we can believe to be true upon the Veracity of him that revealed it. So that how mysterious soever some things may be which are proposed to our Faith, they are not more difficult to the weak, than those of stronger Capacities. But there is yet in the Third Place more to be said in Defence of our common Faith, if we consider the Extent and Limits of it. For though we are obliged to believe what in its own Nature is a Mystery, yet our Faith does not require us to go into the mysterious Parts of it, that is, We have no Obligations upon us to believe it as a Mystery. As for Instance: We are obliged to believe that the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity are one GOD, but how they are One, or how Three, what is the adequate Meaning of their Personal Distinction, or how consistent with their Unity, Revelation has not made necessary to be believed. And so as to the Creation of the World, and the Hypostatick Union of God-Man, we are to believe as Scripture has revealed, but as to the manner of them, by what distinct Act of Omnipotence God made the one, or how he united the other, our Faith is not to determine. And in this Sense it may be granted, that we are not obliged to believe farther than our Reason can carry us; that must determine us how far, and what we are to Believe; that is, It must decide what is required by Revelation to be Believed, and what is to be the Extent of that Belief. For we are only enjoined to believe Articles of Faith as they are delivered in Scripture, without any particular Explanations of the Modes how they may be conceived. For though the Articles themselves are necessary to be Believed to Salvation, yet any particular Explication of them is not; because as we can have no just Idea of them ourselves, so we have no certainty that any Body else can have. And therefore it is a mere Scandal cast upon us, that we Believe we know not what; for we have a perfect Understanding of what is required to be Believed, and the Grounds of our Belief are as cogent as any Evidence of Sense. For it is as easy to Believe what God has certainly Revealed, as what we can apprehend by our Senses. We may without any great difficulty understand what we are to Believe; but as to the Manner, or particular Modes of Existence of those things, which are required to be Believed, as they are above our Comprehensions, so are they not made any Parts of our Faith. But, lastly, Since our Author is of Opinion, that it would be so very Advantageous to Mankind in general, to have only such a Religion as is very easy to be understood by all sorts of Men, we ought to consider how very Intelligble his Rule of Faith is, if compared with that of our Church, and how Agreeable his One Article is to the Comprehension of vulgar Capacities. For he that advances a new Scheme of Faith should take great care, that it may not labour under any of those Imperfections, for which the other is Condemned. Now let us suppose with our Author, that the believing Jesus to be the Messiah, the Saviour that was to come into the World, to be alone necessary to Salvation; and let this be proposed to an inquisitive labouring Man, that would desire to know a Reason for his Faith. Now indeed he might acknowledge that this Proposition, Jesus is the Messiah, is easy to be remembered, but not so easily understood. It is then very probable he would inquire what is meant by his being the Messiah. If we should tell him, that he was the Saviour promised; the Question would again recur, What is meant by his being our Saviour, or how, or from what did he save us? If we should say, that he was our Saviour by those excellent Precepts which he taught, to reform Mankind; this would not satisfy, because we had most of those Precepts before, tho' not so fully explained; and because this is not consistent with the general Sense of Scripture, which tells us that he was our Saviour by suffering for us, and in our stead. If we should reply, that he was indeed put to Death because of our Sins, and that we should by the Death of so innocent a Person, learn to reform our Lives, and follow his Doctrine. This would be yet more unintelligible; for why should God suffer an innocent Person to be put to Death, because the rest of Mankind were Sinners: This indeed would be the only Means to encourage Men in their Impieties, since there was no safety in a Religious Life. And this Reason would also prevent the success of his Doctrine; for if all his Design was to prevail with Mankind to receive his Doctrine, it would have been much more for his Advantage, to have saved himself by a miraculous coming down from the Cross; for then there is no question but all Men would have believed what he taught was from God. Since this would have been a greater 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 explicit 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 persuaded, that the Epistles had as great an Authority stamped 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 Sense 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 persuade 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 concerned, may be easily attained 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 Revealed 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 enjoined us, is only a firm Belief of whatsoever he has Revealed, we ought in all Humility to submit ourselves 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 reserved 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 seemed to me to be Erroneous; as for those that treat of the Necessity of Revelation, the Conditions of Repentance, Good Works, etc. they seem to carry an Air of Piety along with them, and to be writ with such strength of Judgement, as may be supposed 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 appeared a Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, etc. by the Author of it. I was under Apprehension, that some Arguments might be there propounded, which ought to be considered: But since I find they are chief directed against Mr. Edward's Reflections, which tho' I have not Read, I presume are different from these Observations, by the Passages cited from them, I did not think myself concerned to examine them; especially since they required more Time than the Press would allow. If I have urged any Arguments that have been managed already by Others, it is more than I knew. What I have mentioned of Mr. Hobbs was with no Design to possess the Reader with Prejudices against the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity; but only to show, that the same Doctrine had been maintained before our Author appeared for it: Tho' I don't believe he Borrowed it from thence, since he hath declared the contrary. If in that, or any thing else, I have fallen 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.