THE EXCEPTIONS Of Mr. EDWARDS in his Causes of Atheism Against the Reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures EXAMIN'D And found Unreasonable Unscriptural and Injurious ALSO It 's clearly proved by many Testimonies of Holy Scripture That the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only God and Father of Christians London Printed in the Year MDCXCV To the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures SIR IN reading your Book of that Title I readily perceived your Design intimated in your Preface to be therein most industriously and piously pursued So that you have with full Evidence of Scripture and Reason shewed against the manifold obscure and tedious Systems that the Fundamentals of Christian Faith necessary to constitute a Man a true Member of Christ's Church are all comprehended or implied in this plain Proposition That Jesus is the Messiah Whereby you have happily provided for the Quiet and Satisfaction of the Minds of the honest Multitude or Bulk of Mankind floating in Doubts and Fears because either they cannot understand or can find no clear Evidence in Holy Scripture of those intricate Points requir'd to be explicitly believ'd upon pain of eternal Damnation You have also argued clearly the Reasonableness and Vsefulness of the Christian Revelation against Atheists and Deists These things consider'd 't was no marvel that the Systematical Men who gain both their Honour and Profit by the Obscurity and Multitude of their Fundamental Articles should raise an Outcry against you like that of the Ephesians magnifying their DIANA They have more cause for it than Demetrius had But that they should traduce your Work as tending to Atheism or Deism is as strange from Reason as many of their Articles are from Scripture And that Mr. Edwards has done it and forc'd it in among his Tendencies to Atheism is I think to be imputed to the Co-incidence of your Book 's being publish'd and striking strongly upon his inventive Faculty just when it was in hot pursuit of the Causes of Atheism rather than to any the least Colour or Inclination that way which Mr. Edwards can spy in it in his cool Thoughts For I am much perswaded on the contrary that there is no Atheist or Deist in England but if he were ask'd the Question would tell Mr. Edwards that their obscure and contradictious Fundamentals were one Cause or Inducement to his casting off and disbelief of Christianity In this Mind I have undertaken to vindicate your Doctrine from the Exceptions of Mr. Edwards against it But whether I have done it as it ought to have been done I cannot be a competent Judg. If I have mistaken your Sense or us'd weak Reasonings in your Defence I crave your Pardon But my Design in this Writing was not to please you whom I know not nor any Man whatsoever but only to honour the One God and vindicate his most useful Truths I am SIR Your very humble Servant Mr. EDWARDS 's Exceptions against the Reasonableness of Christianity examined c. IT seems to me that Mr. Edwards printing his Causes of Atheism whilst the Reasonableness of Christianity was newly publish'd was put upon it by his Bookseller to add some Exceptions against that Treatise so much noted for its Heterodoxy that so the Sale of his own Tract might be the more promoted whence it comes to pass that his Notes being writ in haste are not so well digested as might be expected from a Person of his Learning and Ingenuity In pag. 104. he takes notice of A PLAUSIBLE CONCEIT which hath been growing up a considerable Time c. but tells not his Reader what that Conceit was till he hath charged it upon a very Learned and famous Author whom he is pleased to call a wavering Prelate and another of the same Order and a Third of a lower Degree but more particularly fully and distinctly upon the late Publisher of The Reasonableness of Christianity c. Here at length in his next Page he tells us That this Author gives IT us over and over again in these formal words viz. That nothing is required to be believed by any Christian Man but this THAT JESVS IS THE MESSIAH I think if he had not been in haste he would have cited at least two or three of those Pages wherein we might find those formal Words but he has not one and I do not remember where they are to be found for I am almost in as much haste as Mr. Edwards and will not seek for them It 's true he says That all that was to be believed for Justification or to make a Man a Christian by him that did already believe in and worship one true God maker of Heaven and Earth was no more than this single Proposition That Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or the Messiah But then he takes to be included in this Proposition 1. All synonimous Expressions such as the Son of God The King of Israel The sent of God He that should come He of whom Moses and the Prophets did write The Teacher come from God c. 2. All such Expressions as shew the manner of his being the Christ Messiah or Son of God such as his being conceived by the Holy Ghost and Power of the most High his being anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power his being sanctified and sent into the World his being raised from the Dead and exalted to be a Prince and Saviour after the time he was so c. 3. Such Expressions as import the great Benefits of his being the Messiah as having the Words of Eternal Life his having Power from the Father to remit Sins to raise the Dead to judg the World to give eternal Life to send the H. Spirit upon the Apostles whereby they might work Miracles and preach the Light of Life to Jews and Gentiles and the like For all those Quotations of Scripture which the Author as Mr. Edwards observes has amassed together out of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles which take up about three quarters of his Book for the proof of his Proposition are indeed expository of the meaning of that Proposition and are included in it Not that it was necessary that every one who believed the Proposition should understand and have an explicite Faith of all those particulars for neither the Believers during the Life of Christ nor the Apostles themselves understood many of them no nor presently after his Death and Resurrection for they had still divers erroneous Opinions concerning the Nature of his Kingdom and the preaching to the Gentiles and other things And in the beginning of Christ's preaching though Philip believ'd that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God the King of Israel yet he seems to be ignorant of his being born of a Virgin for he calls him the Son of Joseph John 1. 45. But as he that believes that William the 3d is the true King of England c. believes enough to make
him a good Subject though he understands not all the grounds of his Title much less all his Power and Prerogatives that belong to him as King So he that believes upon good Grounds that Jesus is the Messiah and understands so much of this Proposition as makes him or may make him a good Subject of Christ's Kingdom though he be ignorant of many things included in that Proposition he has all the Faith necessary to Salvation as our Author has abundantly proved But Mr. Edwards says This Gentleman forgot or rather wilfully omitted a plain and obvious Passage in one of the Evangelists GO TEACH ALL NATIONS c. Mat. 28. 19. From which it is plain says he that all that are adult Members of the Christian Church must be Taught as well as Baptiz'd into the Faith of the Holy Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost and then they must believe it and consequently more is required to be believed by Christian Men than that Jesus is the Messiah He infers from this You see it is part of the Evangelical Faith and such as is necessary absolutely necessary to make one a Member of the Christian Church to believe a TRINITY in Vnity in the God-head or in plainer Terms that though God is one as to his Essence and Nature yet there are three Persons in that Divine Essence and that these three are really the one God I must confess that if Mr. Edwards's reasoning be good the Author is totally confuted three quarters of his Book at least are writ in vain and the old Systems must stand good and the Bulk of Mankind will certainly be damned or it will be a wonder if any of them be faved But give me leave to tell him I do not see what he says we do see that Text will well enough consist with our Author's Proposition For I would ask him whether the Apostles follow'd this Commission or not If they obey'd it then in Baptizing in the Name of Jesus the Messiah and exhorting those to whom they preached to be baptiz'd in the Name of the Messiah after their preaching the Messiah to them they did in effect baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost otherwise they did not pursue their Commission for we never find them baptizing in those express Terms but always in the Name of Jesus the Messiah or the Lord Jesus or the Lord and the like So that Mr. Edwards must either charge the Holy Apostles with Ignorance of or Disobedience to their Lord's Command or acknowledg that they did really baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost when they did but expresly baptize in the Name of the Son or Messiah forasmuch as all that were so baptiz'd did believe in the Father of that Son of God as implied in the Son and in the Holy Ghost as the Anointing of the Son and which also was given to those that were so baptiz'd But as for his Inference viz. That it 's absolutely necessary to believe a Trinity in Vnity in the Godhead or that God is one as to his Essence and Nature yet there are three Persons in that Divine Essence and that these three Persons are really the one God This will condemn not only the Unitarians and the Bulk of Mankind but the greater part of Trinitarians the Learned as well as the Vulgar For all the real Trinitarians do not believe one Essence but three Numerical Essences Here Dr. Sherlock Dr. Cudworth the Bishop of Gl. the late Arch-bishop Mr. H w and all that hold as the Council of Nice did with that Council it self and the whole Church except some Hereticks for many Centuries are by Mr. Edwards expung'd out of the Catalogue of Christian Believers and consequently condemn'd to the horrible Portion of Infidels or Hereticks The Mystery-men or Ignoramus Trinitarians they are condemn'd too for they admit not any Explication and therefore not Mr. Edwards's There remains only Dr. South and Dr. Wallis and the Philosopher Hobbs who Mr. Edwards says is the great Master and Lawgiver of the profess'd Atheists pag. 129. and that Party which have the absolutely necessary Faith of three Persons in one Essence But if you ask these Men what they mean by three Persons Do they mean according to the common sense of Mankind and especially of the English Nation three singular intellectual Beings No by no means that is Tritheism they mean three Modes in the one God which may be resembled to three Postures in one Man or three external Relations as Creator Redeemer Sanctifier as one Man may be three Persons a Husband a Father and a Master This is that Opinion of Faith which the Antients made Heresy and Sabellius the Head of it Thus it is absolutely necessary to make a Man a Christian that he be a Sabellian Heretick But perhaps Mr. Edwards may be of Mr. H w's Mind for he says These three Persons are really the one God but then no one of them singly is so but every one a Third of God If so Mr. Edwards is indeed a Unitarian for he gives us one God only but then he is no Trinitarian for he has put down the Father himself from being God singly and so the Son and Holy Ghost As to what he says of being Baptized into the Faith and Worship of none but the only true God that has been answer'd a hundred times He cannot look into any of the Unitarian Books but he will find a sufficient Answer to that Inference Were the Israelites baptiz'd into the Worship of Moses but they were baptized into Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. Or when the Apostle Paul supposes he might have baptized in his own Name Did he mean that he should have baptized into the Worship of himself as the most high God Then Mr. Edwards minds his Reader that the Author had left out also that famous Testimony in Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word Jesus Christ and the Word was with God and the Word was God Whence saith he we are obliged to yield assent to this Article That Christ the Word is God Here Mr. Edwards must mean that this is a Fundamental Article and necessary to Salvation otherwise he says nothing against his Author who has prevented his urging any other Text not containing a Fundamental in his Answer to the Objection from the Epistles and other Scriptures For saith he pag. 299. They are Objects of Faith They are Truths whereof none that is once known to be such may be disbelieved But yet a great many of them every one does and must confess a Man may be ignorant of nay disbelieve without Danger to his Salvation As is evident in those who allowing the Authority differ in the Interpretation and Meaning of several Texts Vnless Divine Revelation can mean contrary to it self The whole Paragraph ought to be read which I have abridged And if this Text of John 1. 1. be not one of those that by reason of
sense of the Word was made Flesh will be this God was Incarnate that is not by being made Flesh or Man but by taking Man into God that is God is now perfect God and Man Well but since God is a Person and Man another Person perfect God and perfect Man must unavoidably be two Persons but this is the Heresy of Nestorius Arch-Bishop of Constantinople An. Dom. 428. but how shall we help it For to believe God and Man not to be two Persons we directly contradict our Belief of God's being perfect God and perfect Man If we say with Apollinarius An. Dom. 370. That God and Man are not two Persons but one because the Man had no Human Soul or Understanding then we contradict God's being a perfect Man and are condemn'd to eternal Damnation as Apollinarian Hereticks And if for solving these Difficulties we should think good to hold that indeed there were two Natures in Christ when God was made Flesh but upon the Union the Human was swallowed up of the Divine and so there was one Nature made of two then we incur the Anathema of the Eutichian Hereticks And it follows saith Mr. Edw. in the same verse of this first Chapter of St. John that this Word is the only begotten of the Father whence we are bound to believe the Eternal tho ineffable Generation of the Son of God Answ Could Mr. Edw. be so weak as to think any Body but one deeply prejudiced would approve of either of his Inferences from that Clause either the Eternal Generation or that we are bound to believe it as an Article necessary to Salvation Does he not know that Jesus is the only Son of God by reason of that Generation which befel him in Time Does he read of any other Son that God generated of a Virgin but Jesus See Luke 1. 35. Did God ever sanctify and send into the World in such a Measure and Manner any that were called Gods or Sons of God as he did Jesus our Lord See John 10. 35 36 37 38. and Chap. 3. 34. Did he ever give such Testimony to any other Did God ever beget any other Son by raising him from the Dead to an immortal Life Acts 13. 33. by anointing him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows Heb. 1. 9. By setting him on his Right-hand making him to inherit a more excellent Name than Angels even that of SON in a more excellent Sense Heb. 1. 3 4 5. By glorifying Christ making him an High-Priest saying unto him Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee Is not Isaac call'd the only begotten Son of Abraham though Abraham had other Sons But for Mr. Edw's Eternal Generation there is not one Tittle either in this Text or in all the Bible and yet he has the Confidence to bind the Belief of it upon Mankind upon pain of Damnation I wish he would not be so rash but more reverent in so tremendous a Point Next he finds our Author faulty in not taking notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son John 14. 10 11. and that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son which expresses their Vnity Wonderful Did our Author indeed take no notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son when he all along in his Treatise makes the Messiah Christ Son of God terms synonimous and that signify the same thing and cites abundance of Texts to that purpose so that the belief of the Father the Son is required by him in the whole three quarters of his Book which Mr. Edw. takes notice he spent in proving his Proposition Did Mr. Edw. write these Remarks Or did some body else add them to his Book of the Causes of Atheism As for the Vnity of the Father and Son exprest he says by these words The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son Does he think his Reader never read that Text in John 17. 21. That they Believers all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us with ver 23. Or that other Text 1 John 4. 16. He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God and God in him But for the word Vnity which he uses if he means by it any more than a close Union it implies a contradiction that two should be one that a Duality should be an Unity This saith he is made an Article of Faith by our Saviour's particular and express Command He must mean that Mr. Edwards's own sense of that Text is commanded as necessary to Salvation else he says no more of that than the Author allows concerning both that and other Scriptures If he means his own sense then I think he 's an inconsiderate and rash Man for I have shew'd that his sense is contradictious Here Mr. Edw. calls in question the sincerity of our Author and pag. 109. says It is most evident to any thinking and considerate Person that he purposely omits the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he mentions I will not question Mr. Edwards's sincerity in what he writes but I question much his due considering what he writes against Does not our Author make in effect the same Objection against himself pag. 291. and answer it in fourteen pages even to the end of his Book but Mr. Edw. takes notice of very little of it And the most of that he does take notice of he answers with a little Raillery upon the Bulk of Mankind the unlearned Multitude the Mob and our Author His note upon these Phrases is Surely this Gentleman is afraid of Captain Tom and is going to make a Religion for his Myrmidons We are come to a fine pass indeed the venerable Mob must be ask'd what we must believe Thus he ridicules the Doctrine of Faith on which the Salvation or Damnation of the Multitude depends and the Grounds of our Author's Design who finding in Holy Scripture that God would have all Men to be saved and come to the KNOWLEDG of the Truth the Gospel was preach'd to the Poor and the common People heard Christ gladly that God hath chosen the Poor in this World rich in Faith he concluded when he had overcome the prejudices of Education and the contempt of the Learned and those that think themselves so that the Gospel must be a very intelligible and plain Doctrine suted to Vulgar Capacities and the State of Mankind in this World destin'd to Labour and Travel not such as the Writers and Wranglers in Religion have made it To this Mr. Edw. answers besides what I have noted above and is forced to agree That all Men ought to understand their Religion but then asks as of a positive thing not to be doubted if Men may not understand those Articles of Faith which he had mention'd a little before pretended to be found in the Epistolary Writings
its difficulty and variety of Senses may not be disbeliev'd in Mr. Edwards's Sense then I will be bold to say There 's no such Text in the whole Bible To it I say 1. He dares not trust his Reader with the clear Text but thrusts in his own Sense In the beginning was the Word Jesus Christ and then 2. Makes his Fundamental Article not from the Text but from what he has inserted into the Text thus Christ the Word is God But will Mr. Edw. stick to that Is he of Socinus's Mind that by the Word is meant the Man Jesus Christ born of the Blessed Virgin and anointed with the Holy Ghost I think he is not Or does he mean that Christ was the First-born of every Creature as he is called Col. 1. 14. The beginning of the Creation of God Rev. 3. 14. By whom God made the Worlds and is therefore a God I think Mr. Edw. might be call'd an Arian if that were his Sense What then does he mean He does not mean that either the Body or Soul or both united to constitute a Man or the Anointing of the Holy Ghost added to that Man was the Word though by reason of those he had the Name of Jesus and by reason of this he had the Name of Christ He means by the Word a second Person or Mode of God Now how fairly he calls this second Person a Mode of God Jesus Christ when it was neither Jesus nor Christ nor any part of him let his Reader judg In the beginning was the Word that is according to him before the Beginning and therefore from Eternity God in a second Mode or Person did exist and the Word was with God i. e. God in the second Mode was present with God even himself in the first Mode or Person and the Word was God i. e. God in his second Mode was himself or otherwise was the Father himself and the Holy Ghost for he tells us before that the three Persons or Modes are really the one God but if the Word is really the one God as Mr. Edw. understands the Term God in this Text then the Word is the three Persons or else he is not really the one God which the three Persons only are Now if this be a clear Text to build an Article necessary to Salvation and the Worship of another Almighty and only wise Person upon besides the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ let all that have any reverence for God or his Gospel judg Besides can he alledg one Text out of all the Old Testament or out of the three former Gospels where ever by the WORD or Logos as they love to speak is meant any such preexistent eternal Person If there be none such it seems to be no little Defect in the Holy Scriptures that the World should be 4000 Years old before any part of it heard any thing of a second personal God equal to the First and who had therefore as much Right to be known and worshipped as the First Nay and that that Person the Word should have no mention made of him in the Gospels or Sermons of Christ or the Apostles till above threescore Years after the Ascension for it for it was so long as Ecclesiastical Historians tell us before the Gospel of the Apostle John was written all the Churches and Believers we read of in Scripture having been gather'd and converted before Next Mr. Edw. tells us p. 107. there is added in verse 14. another indispensable point of Faith viz. That the Word was made Flesh i. e. That God was incarnate the same with 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh One would have expected that Mr. Edw. undertaking in short to confute a Proposition that the Author had spent three quarters of his Book which consists of 300 Pages in proving and for which he had alledg'd perhaps an hundred clear Texts of Holy Scripture should have produc'd some clear Texts against him and not such as need Explanations and when he has explain'd them leaves them far more difficult than before We have spoken already of the Word that was said to be God in the first verse of that Chapter and now in the 14th the Word must signify God but 1. Are not the same Words and Terms taken in different senses in the same Context and that too when they come nearer together than at thirteen verses distance Thus the word Light in ver 5. signifies an impersonal Thing but in the 7 8 and 9th verses it denotes a Person which John was not but Jesus was to wit the Revealer of the Word or Gospel 2. The Father was God too and if God was Incarnate how will it be avoided that the Father was Incarnate And if it cannot then Mr. Edw. will be a Patripassian Heretick 3. It must be acknowledged that Mr. Edw. has given a wonderful learned Explanation of the Phrase was made Flesh far more Learned than that of the old Justice Invasion is Invasion The Vulgar and Unlearned may understand something when it is said that one Thing is made another Thing as when Water was made Wine but I doubt they will stare and know nothing when one tells 'em that a Person was Incarnate much more when they read Mr. Edw. saying That God was Incarnate will they not gladly return from the Explanation to the Text and then it will run thus God was made Flesh But was God indeed turn'd into Flesh and ceased to be God as the Water turn'd into Wine ceased to be Water I 'm sure Mr. Edw. never intends to make that an indispensable Point of Faith as he calls this That God was Incarnate But this is a very hard case that the generality of the World which God so loved that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life their Salvation or Damnation should still depend on the belief of not only obscure Texts but of much more obscure Interpretations of those Texts Whether shall we go for the Sense of God was Incarnate He sends us to 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh But he might know that that reading of the Word GOD in that Text is a Corruption and that instead of God was read which in the Council of Nice as the accurate Examination against Mr. Milbourn has fully prov'd however allowing that reading has given a rational Sense of it Thus we are sent for the Sense of an obscurer Interpretation of an obscure Text to a corrupt One Whither shall we go next It 's very like that Mr. Edw. may next time send us to the Athanasian Creed when the Scriptures fail him That Creed saith It is necessary to everlasting Salvation that one believe rightly the INCARNATION of our Lord Jesus Christ That he is God and Man perfect God and perfect Man One Christ not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God So then the
of his Proposition We shall find those necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles 6. The Epistles besides the main Argument of each of them do in many places explain the Fundamentals and that wisely by proper Accommodations to the apprehensions of those they were writ to Which he shows particularly in the Epistle to the Romans and that to the Hebrews also in the general Epistles At length These Holy Writers saith he inspir'd from above writ nothing but Truth and in most places very weighty Truths to us now But yet every Sentence of theirs must not be taken up and look'd upon as a Fundamental necessary to Salvation without an explicite Belief whereof no Body could be a Member of Christ's Church c. For saith he pag. 299. 't is plain the contending Parties on one side or t'other are ignorant of nay disbelieve the Truths deliver'd in Holy Writ as I noted before This little I have transcribed out of our Author for the sake of those who perhaps have not his Book but have Mr. Edwards's and that it may appear how unfairly to say no worse Mr. Edw. deals with our Author saying pag. 111. He passes by these inspired Writings with some contempt also he suggests his insincerity to the Reader But I have seen a Letter from a Gentleman of no ordinary Judgment who says Mr. Edwards has not only mistook Mr. Lock but abus'd and belied him for he says Mr. Lock cites only the Gospels and Acts but declares or insinuates his contempt of the Epistles as if they were not of like Authority with the Acts or Gospels but Mr. Lock has no where intimated any such Opinion His Book saith he shows He has read the Scriptures with very great Observation as well as Judgment he suffers nothing to escape him that belongs to the Subject he manages He names our Author Mr. Lock which I am assured he does by common Fame and Conjecture he has no other Grounds for it as neither have I no more than Mr. Edwards Whether we are mistaken or not in his Name I know not but I think I have proved that Mr. Edw. is much mistaken in his Judgment concerning his Book or has perversly censur'd him and it He is so far from contemning the Epistles as Mr. Edw. accuses him that whoever will take the Pains to reckon he will find he has quoted them and refer'd to them near FOURSCORE times And Mr. Edw. is no less Injurious in his Censures upon other Writers In the very Socinian Doctrine it self saith he there seems to be an Atheistical Tang. For proof he cites the Considerations on the Explications of Doct. of Trin. pag. 5. Where saith he the Self-existence of God which is the Primary Fundamental and Essential Property of the Deity is peremptorily pronounc'd by them to be a CONTRADICTION It 's strange a Man of Mr. Edwards's Undertaking should give forth such a Calumny His Ldp. of Worcester says If God was from Eternity he must be from himself That Author answers that that is an Espousing the Cause of the Atheists and he gives this Reason If God is from Eternity he must be of none neither of or from himself nor from any other not from himself for then he must be before he was and neither from himself nor from any other because all Origination of what kind soever is inconsistent with an Eternal Being Is this now peremptorily to pronounce that the Self-existence of God is a Contradiction or is it not to vindicate the Self-existence of God from a false Notion of it occasion'd by the Bishop's words But what will Mr. Edw. say to the Author of the XXVIII Propositions c. who they say is the Bishop of Glouc. who peremptorily denies nay says It is a flat Contradiction to say that the second and third Persons of the Trinity are Self-existent Prop. 8. Consequently neither of them is God because as Mr. Edw. says Self-existence is the Primary Fundamental and Essential Property of God which yet neither the Son nor the H. Ghost have I wish Mr. Edw. would either reconcile himself to the Bishop or the Bishop to him before he charges an Atheistical Tang upon the Socinian Doctrine upon account of the denial of God's Self-existence which he may see strongly affirm'd in the Reflections on the said Propositions c. As for Socinus's denying the Praescience of Contingencies I am not nor is our Author concern'd in it but which is more dishonourable to God to be the Author of all the Sin and Wickedness that ever was or ever will be in the World or to deny his Fore-knowledge of the certainty of that which is not certain Socinus and Crellius have denied such an Immensity of God which makes him to be essentially and wholly in every point of Space because such Immensity would take away all Distinction between God and Creature and has indeed an Atheistical Tang for the greater part of Atheists hold the Universe to be God hence Lucan Jupiter est quodcunque vides quocunque moveris Which opinion some of the Antient Fathers have wrote against as Clemens Alexandrinus and others Mr. Edw. may charge them all with a Tang of Atheism if he please As for God's Spirituality modest Divines confess it easier to say What it is not than what it is Mr. Edw. perhaps has attain'd to such a perfection of Knowledg in that Matter as may make him able to teach them what they are now ignorant of But Socinus nor Crellius nor any other of them ever denied contrary to most express and often repeated Scriptures and common Reason the most glorious Attribute of God's Vnity which gives Excellency to all his other Attributes for were Self-existence Omniscience Immensity and Spirituality and all other Attributes common to more than One where would the Excellency and Majesty of God's Name be How should we love and adore him with all our Hearts and Strength when there are others that require it and have as equal right to it as he But Mr. Edw. will count himself highly injur'd if I charge him with denying God's Unity but hold a little be not angry If you be Take heed it be not more for your own sake than for God's sake Do you not say that the infinite Nature of God is communicable to three distinct Persons pag. 79. and pag. 120. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God or Divine Nature Are not these Terms convertible namely That one God is Father Son and H. Ghost that is three Persons and what are three Almighty and only wise Persons but three Gods The Father is one God the Son is one God distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost is one God distinct from the Father and Son Thus your Proposition amounts to this That one God is three Gods that the Unity of God is a Trinity of Gods That Vnity or Oneness is no longer an Attribute of God but Trinity or Threeness But we cannot be
words who is not as great as his Father though he said My Father is greater than I. They are asham'd of his words who said Of that Day and Hour knoweth none not the Son but the Father only and say in Contradiction to him The Son did know that Day and Hour as well as the Father and not the Father only They are asham'd of his Words who said I can do nothing of my self I came not to do my own Will but the Will of him that sent me my Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me I do nothing of my self but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak The word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the Works These and many other Words and Sayings of the same kind they seem to be asham'd of and say and contend for it that he could do all things of himself that he came to do his own Will that his Doctrine was his own that he had no need of the Father's teaching c. They are ashamed of those words of Christ's Mat. 19. 17. Why dost thou call me good none is good but one the God and say none is good but Three God and God and God or Father Son and Holy Ghost Here let me observe to the Reader as I have hinted above that there is a considerable Difference between that particle one in this Text and the same particle one in that supposititious Text 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one for here one is of the Neuter Gender as is manifest both in the Greek and Latin and fignifies as the same word does in 1 Cor. 3. 8. He that planteth and he that watereth are one but in the Text above one is of the Masculine Gender and must be understood of one Person or intelligent Being who is good and none but he to wit the God If they were not hinder'd by strong Preiudices they might easily see that whatsoever they attribute to the Son be it eternal necessary Existence Almightiness or Omniscience c. they take away from the Father thereby not only the Glory of enjoying those Divine Excellencies alone but also the Glory of his free Goodness and the Son 's and our Thankfulness for such unspeakable Benefits both to him and us as he has been graciously pleas'd to give unto the Son either in begetting him or raising him up in Time or in rewarding him both for his and our Good Nay they make the Son uncapable of receiving those great and glorious Rewards of all Power in Heaven and Earth given to him of an everlasting Kingdom of a Name above every Name of exaltation to the Right Hand of God and the like which the Scriptures are full of For how could any of these Blessings be given to him that was God always even from Eternity Could God sit at the Right Hand of God in any sense whatever These are the absurd Doctrines which make the Trinitarians contend so fiercely one with another and with us God will judg the World and between them and us by that Man whom he has ordained to be Judg of the Dead and Living But to return to the Consideration of those Texts that are alledg'd for the Son 's being called God that in John 1. 1. I have spoken of already as also that in 1 Tim. 3. 16. That in Rom. 9. 5. is read without the word God in the Syriac and in the Writings of St. Cyprian Hilary and Chrysostom whereby it 's probable it was not originally in that Text. But Erasmus acknowledges that for a good Reading which points the Clause so as to render it a Thanksgiving to the Father thus The God over all be blessed for ever to wit for his Benefits in raising up Christ of the Fathers c. And it seems to have been so read by some of the Antients for they reckon it among the Heresies to say that Christ was God over all as Origen contr Cels and others In 1 John 3. 16. The word God is not found but in very few Greek Copies and if it be read there admits of a good Sense without making God to die who only hath Immortality As also doth that Text in Acts 20. 28. which may be render'd Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with the Blood of his own Son but the truer Reading according to the Syriac the Armenian and most antient Greek Bibles is Christ instead of God Most of the Antient Fathers read Christ or Lord. Those words in 1 John 5. 21. This is the true God which some refer to the Son are plainly to be refer'd to the Father signified by him that is true through his Son Jesus This He that is true whose Son Christ is is the true God Lastly They urge that in John 20. 28. where Thomas being convinced by the clear Testimony of his Senses that Christ was risen from the Dead answered and said unto him My Lord and my God which words whether they are words of Admiration respecting God that raised him from the Dead or him that was raised to be a Prince and Saviour Acts 5. 30 31. a Lord and a God the term God cannot signify in this latter sense any other than a God or Christ made so by Resurrection 'T is a clear Case that the Evangelist could not intend by these words to teach us that Jesus was God when he tells in the last Verse that they and his whole Book were written That we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the SON of God and that believing we might have Life through his Name I have insisted long upon this Point of the Oneness of God partly because it is a Matter of the highest Moment in Religion partly to shew that if our Author had a Design as Mr. Edw. says he had to exclude the Belies of the Trinity or Threeness of God from being a Point necessary to Salvation it was a Pious and Christian Design and that Mr. Edw. has been so far from offering any thing to prove that Faith to be so necessary that he has not proved it a true Doctrine but on the contrary I have proved it to be false and highly dishonourable to the ever-blessed God and Father of Christ contrary to the clear and full Current of Scripture obscuring the true Glory of Christ and very injurious to the Peace and Hope of Christians But after all whether our Author is of my mind in this Matter or whether he believes that the Doctrine of three coequal Almighty Persons is a Truth but not Fundamental I cannot determine but methinks Mr. Edwards's concluding him all over Socinianiz'd in this Point is done upon such Grounds as will argue the Holy Evangelists to be also Socinians for he says This Writer interprets the Son of God to be no
more than the Messiah and I am much perswaded that whoever shall read the Gospels with any attention will find the Holy Writers to be of the same Mind and our Author has fully prov'd it in his Book but more particularly from pag. 48. to 61. and pag. 95. Yea the comparing the Evangelists in the relation of one and the same Story alone may do it for what in Matthew is exprest by Thou art the Messiah the Son of the Living God chap. 16. 16. the same is in Mark Chap. 8. 29. Thou art the Messiah and in Luke 9. 18. The Messiah of God And if you compare 1 John 5. 1. with ver 4 5. you will easily see the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God are Terms of the same Import Besides the very word Messiah or Christ signifying Anointed and so interpreted in the Margin of our Bibles John 1. 41. is in the 49th verse understood by Nathanael to be the Son of God the King of Israel For the Kings of Israel in the Letter and Type were constituted Kings by Anointing hence God is said to anoint David King over Israel 2 Sam. 12. 7. and Psal 2. 2. he is called the Lord 's Anointed but in verse 7. upon that very account the Lord said Thou art MY SON this Day have I begotten thee Now as the first and second verses of this Psalm are by the Apostles and Believers applied to God's Holy Child or Son Jesus who as David is called the Lord's Christ Acts 4. 25 26 27. so upon God's raising again of Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour the Apostle Paul does expresly apply to him that glorious Proclamation in the 7th verse saying As it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art MY SON THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN THEE Acts 13. 33. And the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 1. 4 5. speaking of the Son 's being made better than the Angels proves it from this that God said not at any time to any of them as he did unto Jesus in his Type David Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee and in his Type Solomon I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son 2 Sam. 7. 14. Moreover we have seen before that our Lord vindicates to himself the Name of the Son of God by a Text out of the 82d Psalm where the mighty Judges and Princes are called Gods and Sons of the most High John 10. These things consider'd will I think justify our Author in interpreting the Son of God to be no more than the Messiah or will condemn the Divine Writers if not the Messiah himself in the same Crime Another Evidence of our Author's being Socinian is according to Mr. Edw. that he expounds Joh. 14. 9 c. after the Antitrinitarian Mode whereas generally Divines understand some part of those words concerning the Divinity of our Saviour He says generally Divines c. By this mark those Divines that do not so interpret must be Socinians the Socinians owe Mr. Edw. their thanks for adding to their Number many Learned and able Divines but I doubt those Divines will not thank him for it But Mr. Edw. has Courage enough to call a most Learned and right Reverend Father Wavering Prelate and to bring in his Doctrine about Fundamentals as favouring the Causes of Atheism if he and those other Divines agree not with him in their Sentiments Another mark of Socinianism is that our Author Makes Christ and Adam to be the Sons of God by their BIRTH as the Racovians generally do That they both make Christ to be the Son of God by his Birth and that truly according to that Text of Luke 1. 35. cannot I think be denied by any that duly considers the Place but that either the one or the other make Adam who was never born to be so in like manner by his Birth is Mr. Edwards's Blunder and not their Assertion I have not taken notice of the other Fundamentals which Mr. Edw. reckons in his System divers of which are not found in Holy Scripture either Name or Thing expresly or by consequence because he insists chiefly on the Doctrine of the Trinity which however it is believed by Learned Men to be in some sense or other they cannot agree in what sense a Truth yet some of the most Learned of them do not believe it a Fundamental and necessary Truth particularly Mr. Limborch than whom this present Learned Age does not afford a more Learned and able Divine could not defend Christian Religion in his most famous and weighty Disputations against the Jews without waving that Point one of which we have in his Amica Collatio cum erudito Judaeo c. the ablest Jew I presume that ever wrote in Defence of Judaism against Christianity Another Conference I am informed we may hope shortly to see in his Reduction of an eminent Person who was upon the Point of forsaking the Christian Religion and embracing for it that of the Jews at Amsterdam when first the ablest Systemers had tried their utmost skill and could not effect it Perhaps Mr. Edw. means him for one when he says our Author 's Plausible Conceit found reception if it had not its birth among some Foreign Authors besides Socinians pag. 104. Indeed he had cause enough for Mr. Limborch tells the Jew expresly in the Book I named Chap. 9. Pag. 218. Quando exigitur fides in Jesum Christum nusquam in toto novo Testamento exigi ut credamus Jesum esse ipsum Deum sed Jesum esse Christum seu Messiam olim promissum vel quod idem est esse Filium Dei quoniam appellationes Christi filii Dei inter se permutantur When we are requir'd to believe in Jesus Christ we are no where in all the New Testament requir'd to believe that Jesus is the very God but that Jesus is the Christ or the Messiah that was of old promised or which is the same that he is the Son of God because those Appellations of Christ and of Son of God are put one for another So that in Company of Mr. Limborch and other eminent Divines as well as our English Bishops and Doctors our Author may still believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Truth though not necessary absolutely necessary to make one a Christian as Mr. Edwards contends But why does he make mention of only the Right Reverend Fathers one Reverend Doctor and the foreign Divines and Socinians as Favourers of this Plausible Conceit of making nothing necessary and Fundamental but what is EVIDENTLY contain'd in Holy Scripture as such and so is accommodated to the apprehension of the Poor that hear and read the Scriptures making them also capable of being saved though they are either ignorant of or do not believe aright those Truths which though deliver'd in Scripture are yet either hard to be understood or difficultly infer'd or have no mark of Fundamental either in themselves
or in Divine Revelation and for those Reasons cannot be made evident to the despised common People which the Lord Jesus came to save as well as the Learned He might also have charg'd the sixth Article of the Church of England with this Plausible Coneeit which has so much Evil and Mischief in it tending to reduce the Catholick Faith to nothing pag. 122. For that Article saith thus Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith Observe here that every necessary Article must be read expresly or at least proved thereby and to whom is this Proof to be made even to the WEAKEST NODDLES of those that are requir'd to believe it Absolutely there is not one Man or Woman of the venerable Mob that according to Mr. Edw. can be saved because they cannot possibly have the Article of the three Persons that are one prov'd to them from Scripture for it 's evident the Learned even of the Clergy cannot prove it to one another much less to vulgar Understandings And Mr. Chillingworth the ablest Defender of the Religion of Protestants that the Church ever had says and ingeminates it The BIBLE the BIBLE I say the BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain IRREFRAGABLE and INDVBITABLE Consequences of it well may they hold it as a Matter of Opinion but not as a Matter of Faith or Religion neither can they with consistence to their own Grounds believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it from others without most High and most Schismatical Presumption Ch. 6. N. 56. Will Mr. Edwards say His Fundamentals are such irrefragable and indubitable Truths about which there are among Protestants such hot and irreconcileable Contentions Again that most judicious Author lays this as the unmoveable Foundation of his whole Discourse against the Papists viz. That all things necessary to Salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture as the Church of England does see Pref. N. 30. And he shows in the following Paragraphs to N. 38. That all the Jesuits Arguments against Protestants are confuted by it But that 's not all the same Author after Dr. Potter affirms That the Apostles Creed contains all those points of Belief which were by God's Command of Necessity to be preached to all and believed by all And yet he says in the same Paragraph That all Points in the Creed are not thus necessary See Chap. 4. N. 23. Now what more or less hath our Author asserted in his whole Book For I have shewed out of him and it 's evident to the Impartial that his Proposition that Jesus is the Messiah or Christ does comprehend or clearly imply all the Articles of necessary Christian Faith in the Creed For though it was sufficient to constitute a Believer during the Life of Christ to believe him to be the Christ although they had no explicite Belief of his Death and Resurrection to come yet afterwards those Articles were necessary being undoubted Evidences of his being the Messiah as our Author pag. 31. And therefore Mr. Edw. is very injurious to him in representing his Proposition as if it were only the believing the Man called Jesus to be the Messiah an Hebrew word that signifies in English Anointed without understanding what is meant by that Term see pag. 121. But why should I expect that Mr. Edw. should have any regard to Mr. Chillingworth's Judgment and all those the Vice Chancellour the Divinity-professors and others that licensed and approved his Book when he has none for the Pious and Learned Bishop Jer. Taylor and those others Nay when those numerous plain Testimonies which our Author has quoted out of the Holy Scriptures themselves do but provoke his Opposition and Contempt though the Divine Writers add these Sanctions to the Belief of our Author's Proposition or of those Words and Sentences that are of the same Import and comprehended in it viz. He that believeth shall be saved or shall never thirst or shall have eternal Life and the like On the contrary He that believeth not shall be condemned or shall die in his Sin or perish and the like However I doubt not but my impartial Reader will consider both what my Author and what my self have said in this Point Having thus made it appear that the reducing of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith to a few or even to one plain Article deliver'd in Scripture expresly and often repeated there and in divers equipollent Phrases easy to be understood by the POOR and strongly enforcing the Obedience of the Messiah as is our Author's Proposition is far from having any tendency to Atheism or Deism I shall now retort this charge upon Mr. Edw. and show that on the contrary the multiplying of speculative and mysterious Articles as necessary which are neither contain'd in Scripture expresly nor drawn thence by any clear and evident Consequence but are hard to be understood especially by the common People having no rational Tendency to promote a good Life but directly to the high Dishonour of the one God the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the subversion of the Hope and Peace of Christians as I have manifested in one and the chief of Mr. Edw's Fundamentals and of other Systemers This I say has been and is one great Cause or chief occasion of that Atheism and Deism that is in the World 1. Mr. Edw. himself tells us That Undue Apprehensions of a Deity join'd with superstition are the high road to Atheism pag. 34. Therefore imposing of false Doctrines concerning the Attributes of God is very pernicious for they are destructive of his very Being and Nature But I have shew'd that the imposing of the Doctrine of three Almighty Persons or personal Gods is a false Doctrine and destroys one of the chief Attributes of God therefore is according to Mr. Edw. destructive of his very Being and Nature pag. 35. Again another of Mr. Edw's Fundamentals is That full Satisfaction is made by the Death of Christ to the Divine Justice which Doctrine does clearly destroy the Attribute of the Divine Mercy for every one may readily perceive that full satisfaction to Justice by Punishment cannot consist with Pardoning Mercy when a Judg punishes according to full Justice he does not at all forgive or shew Mercy But that they may not be seen to destroy altogether the Mercy of God they make him to inflict that Punishment upon himself in a Human Body and Soul Will not these false conceptions of the Deity expunge at last the Belief of the true one Mr. Edw. says false ones will 2ly Another occasion Mr. Edw. says Atheists take from our Divisions Broils and Animosities from the many Parties and Squadrons of Sects that are in the World to bid defiance to all Religion And is it not manifest