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
God as well as the Advocate is the Person of the Mediator But if the Reader desire to see this Point viz. that the Father only is the most high God fully and learnedly argued and defended let him read Crellius's two Books of One God the Father out of which I have transcribed much In what a many Places of Scripture is Christ called the Son of God and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God In every of which either God must be taken for the Father only or Christ must be the Son of himself and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of himself both which are absurd Again how many places of Holy Scripture are there where some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ as John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I How asham'd are the more ingenuous Trinitarians of that Answer to this Objection against the Deity of the Son which says The Son was less according to his Human Nature John 10. 29. My Father is greater than all It 's manifest from the Context that the Son himself is included in that word ALL. 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Head of Christ is God Christ is not the Head of himself therefore the Father only is God How often do Christ and the Divine Writers call the Father his God John 20. 17. I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God In Rev. 3. 12. he calls the Father my God four times Mat. 27. 46. and Mark 15. 34. he cries out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me His God was only the Person of the Father and not God the Divine Nature which according to Mr. Edw. is common to three Persons Ephes 1. 17. The God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory Heb. 1. 8. Where Christ is called a God he is also said to have a God who anointed him Was he his own God and the God that anointed him or was the Father only John 10. 18. This Commandment have I received of my Father He only is God who gives Commandments to the Son John 12. 49. The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak John 14. 31. As the Father hath given me Commandment so I do John 15. 10. As I have kept my Father's Commandment and abide in his Love See Chap. 4. 34. and 6. 38. and 8. 29 55. and 17. 4. and 18. 11. Add those places wherein it 's clearly taught that Christ obey'd God Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Heb. 5. 8. God calleth Christ his Servant Isa 42. 1. Mat. 12. 18. Isa 49. 5 6. with Acts 13. 47. Isa 2. 13. and 53. 11. Ezek. 34. 23 24. and 37. 24 25. He is called a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb. 8. 2. All these Texts and a hundred more say the Trinitarians are answered by the Distinction of a Divine and Human Nature in one Person or the second Person of God his having a Human Nature So you are to understand that this Person of God who is here said to be a Servant to receive Commands and obey them c. is yet as perfectly Great as he from whom he receiv'd those Commands who has no Prerogative above him The Servant is as great as his Lord and he that Obey'd as he that Commanded and he that is sent as he that sent him yea the same God is Servant and Lord the Obeyer and Commander the Sent and the Sender When all these Prerogatives of the Father above the Son and consequently above the Holy Spirit will not prove the Father only to be the most High God of what use can the Holy Scriptures be to us What shall be the Difference between Holy Scriptures and profane Writings May not all the Greek Fables of their Gods be justified by the same or such like Distinctions O Father of Mercies enlighten their Understandings and remove their Prejudices that they may no longer deny thee the Glory due to thee above all Neither is it to be passed by that to the Father only is ascrib'd in Holy Scripture the Creation of Heaven and Earth to Christ never though in a certain way of speaking common to the Sacred Writers many things or all pertaining to the new Covenant or Gospel are said to be created that is medelled or put into a new and better State by him So in that antient Confession of Faith call'd The Apostles Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is appropriated to the Father and both in those Apostolical Times and to this day Prayers and Praises are offer'd to the Father through-Christ and the Gift of the Holy Spirit is begg'd of him which clearly shews the Prerogative of the Father above the Son and Holy Spirit and consequently that he only is that Person whom we ought to understand by the Name of GOD. In fine The God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob the God of the Fathers and the Father of Christ are Descriptions of one and the same Person So Acts 3. 13. The God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus and Heb. 1. 1. God who spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets hath spoken to us by his Son So that they who make the Son to be the God of the Fathers make him to be his own God and Father But because I think it may give farther Light and Evidence to this great Point wherein the Glory of God even the Father is so much concern'd I will yet further show from many plain Texts set so as they may give Light one to another that the God of the Fathers and the God and Father of Christians or our God and Father and the God and Father of our Lord Christ our Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father his God and our God is one and the same Person I present them by Couples the first speaking of Christ the second of us See Rom. 15. 6. That ye may glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Phil. 4. 20. Now unto God our Father be glory for ever and ever 2 Cor. 1. 3. Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Mercies Rom. 1. 7. Grace be to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Col. 1. 3. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Eph. 1. 2. Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not 1 Thes 1. 1. Grace be to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Heb. 1. 8. Unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever Thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oil of Gladness above thy Fellows Phil. 1. 2. Grace be unto you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Ephes 1.
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
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
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
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
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
that those Divisions c. arise chiefly from those Doctrines that are Mr. Edw's Fundamentals I have intimated already there are many Divisions of Trinitarians and how hotly they contend with one another and upon Unitarian Principles And whoever shall but peep into Ecclesiastical History may soon see that their Trinity has been such a bone of Contention as has exercis'd the Wits and Pens of Church-men these 1400 Years for so long it is and longer since Christians departed from the simplicity of the Faith as it was preached by our Lord Christ and his Apostles And now when the Unitarians and our Author would bring Christians back to that simplicity in which the Gospel was preached to the Poor and they understood it and receiv'd it this pious Design is ridicul'd and the Salvation of the Bulk of Mankind is set at nought Mr. Edw. may well conclude that this conduct gives occasion to Atheistical Persons 3ly He says pag. 63. When Persons observe that the very Divinity of our Blessed Lord and Saviour is toss'd and torn by rude Pens what can they think of the other great Verities of Christianity But Mr. Edw. mistakes it 's not the opposition that is made to the supreme Divinity of the Son of God but the asserting it that inclines Men to disbelieve Christianity Had many that are now Deists been sooner acquainted with the Doctrine of one God even the Father and of one Man the Mediator between God and Men it 's very probable they would have continued Christians for there are some that of Deists have been reconcil'd to the Christian Faith by the Unitarian Books and have profess'd much Satisfaction therein But I must confess it 's a very handsome rebuke Mr. Edw. gives to his own Party when he blames the Antitrinitarians That they have provok'd some of them to an undecent sort of Language concerning these Holy Mysteries so that some of these latter have hurt the Cause it may be almost as much by their Defending it as the others have by their Opposing it I must lay up this for a curious Figure in Rhetorick He cuts some dignified Persons through the Unitarians sides and so whoever is in Fault they must bear the Blame But if the Unitarians have Truth and necessary Truth on their side then they are not faulty even as Christ and the Apostles were not faulty though they preach'd the Gospel which set the Son against the Father c. and produc'd not Peace but a Sword And the Reformers were not faulty in vigorously opposing the Popish Faith even unto Blood But whoever will attentively consider it may see it 's the Nature of the Trinitarian Doctrine that it cannot be defended without being exposed so that when the most Learned of the Party labour to defend it they necessarily run into one Absurdity or other which being perceived by the next Learned Man he exposes him and a Third sees the weakness of each of them and a Fourth Man spies Flaws in every of them This produces various Hypotheses and makes them a Scorn to Atheists and enclines others to Deism For the obscuring of a Contradiction will not take it away Contradictions are stubborn Things and will never yield to any Reconciliation whatsoever God will never be more than One real Person and One Person will never be Three real Persons And if Trinitarians will as they do make that a Fundamental of Religion which contradicts the best Reasonings of Mankind whereby they prove the Existence of God and his Unity viz. That he is that Being which IS necessarily and by himself and so consider'd not in Kind but in Act wherefore if you suppose more Gods then you will necessarily find nothing in each of them why any of them should be Grotius de verit Chr. Relig. in initio And if the Trinitarians cannot explain their Doctrine to one another so as to clear it from introducing more Gods than one no marvel then that loose Men who yet reason as the incomparable Grotius and other Learned Men do do thence deny there is any God at all The Learned allow there is not necessarily any God if you suppose more than one The Trinitarians say he is more than one Men who think it their Interest there should be no God conclude thence it 's equal in reason to believe there is no God as three And Mr. Norris joins them with his Suffrage in the Point I think it saith he a greater Absurdity that there should be more Gods than one than that there should be none at all Reason and Relig. p. 59. And if some Men take occasion from such reasonings as these to turn Atheists it may easily be conceiv'd that Men that are more Sober and find strong and irresistible Reasons for the Existence and Unity of God but see clearly that Christians worship Three and besides that hold divers other absurd Doctrines for Fundamentals such Men I say must of necessity forsake Christianity and turn Deists Thus it 's most manifest that the Unitarians take the direct Course to prevent Atheism and Deism by letting the World see that those Fundamentals are no Doctrines of Christ but that the necessary Faith of Christ is a plain and short Doctrine easy to be understood by the Poor and clearly exprest in Scripture most reasonable in it self and most agreeable to the Unity and Goodness of God and other the Divine Attributes I shall now in the 4th Place shew how the Obscurity Numerousness and Difficulty of understanding Systematical Fundamentals promotes Deism and subverts the Christian Faith and that in a notorious Instance It 's matter of Fact and evident to the whole World that the Quakers are a very numerous People and form'd into a compact Body in which they exercise strict Discipline as to what concerns their Party They will not own any other Denomination of Christians or others for the People of God but themselves only all others are of the World They utterly disown the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith they decry it as Letter Carnal Dust c. Their Principle is that their Religion is taught them by Inspiration or Revelation of a Light within whereof every Man has a Measure but they only hearken to it and obey it They give the Scripture the place of bearing witness to their inward Light as the Woman of Samaria to Christ They turn the Gospel into an Allegory and consequently make use of the Words and Phrases of the Scripture as that Christ is the Word the Light the Teacher the Word in the Mouth and Heart that Christ died and rose and ascended and is in Heaven and the like but all in a mystical or spiritual Sense as they call it By all which things and indeed by the whole Tenour of their Books Preachings and Professions they appear to be Deists and not Christians George Fox's Book titled The great Mystery will give full satisfaction in this Point And they have all along been charg'd by other Denominations to be
from him that sent him And this is so evidently true that as I have observ'd almost one half of the Trinitarians consent with the Unitarians in condemning the other Party of Trinitarians as Confessors of three Gods But that I may give yet fuller Evidence of this Fundamental Truth of the Unity of the Person of God against the Trinity of Persons in him I shall in the third place produce some Texts that ascribe some Perfections to the Person of God singularly and with exclusion of all other Persons in that Sense and Degree Such are those where the Holy Jesus says None or no Person is good but one the God which I have urged before and that in John 17. 3. where the Blessed Son in his Prayer to God wherein it were absurd to say that he pray'd to himself calls him Father and the only true God and that in distinction from himself whom he describes by the Names of Jesus Christ him whom the Father hath sent This Particle only imports some Excellency in the Attribute of true which is here given to God his Father above and with exclusion of all others or it signifies nothing Rom. 16. 27. To God only Wise be Glory through Jesus Christ for ever Amen Here again the Attribute of only Wise is ascrib'd to the Person of God in distinction from Jesus Christ as the Medium of the Glory which is given to the only Wise God 1 Tim. 6. 15 16. God is called the blessed and ONLY Potentate the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who ONLY hath Immortality c. which are all personal Titles from which all other Persons are excluded by the exclusive Particle only for there can be but one Potentate who is King of Kings in the highest Sense and much more when only is added When Christ is called King of Kings and Lord of Lords Rev. 17. 14. and 19. 16. it 's manifest it 's to be understood in a derivative Sense because all Power in Heaven and Earth was given to him as the Lamb that had been slain and therefore he is represented as clothed with a Vesture dipt in Blood in that 19 Chap. ver 13. Who only hath Immortality that is as Dr. Hammond says God is Immortal in himself not in three Selfs and all Immortality of others is derived from him In the same Sense is the Lord God Almighty called in Rev. 15. 4. only Holy because he only is Holy of himself and as it is understood 1 Sam. 2. 2. There is none Holy as the Lord. Now in these and such-like Passages of Holy Scripture the Trinitarians and Mr. Edw. must understand by God three Persons by Father the Father Son and Holy Ghost by Thou Ye by Him Them by Himself Themselves and those Words the Scripture hath in the singular Number must be understood by them plurally It 's no marvel then that they call their Doctrine a Mystery and that there is so much dissension among themselves concerning it since it cannot be understood in any Sense which is not either contradictious in it self or so to the full Current of Holy Scripture In like manner 4thly all those Texts which are not a few in which God is named the most High the most high God the Lord the most High God most High the Highest whether these Titles be Subject or Attribute must all be understood not of one Person or a singular knowing and willing Substance but either of a Substance that is not a Person or else of three equal Persons And all this by virtue of that scholastic and unreasonable Distinction between Person and Essence or as Mr. Edw. words it The infinite Nature of God communicable to three distinct Persons Pag. 79. which Distinction being absurd in it self when understood they obtrude upon the World under the Name of MYSTERY and Incomprehensible 5thly Besides that the Holy Scriptures are so abundant in those Texts that clearly shew him to be one Person only as I have fully manifested yet I may still urge from the same Texts and others that the Father only whom the Trinitarians acknowledg to be but one Person is that God that God alone that one God that God who is One the most high God and no Person else besides him I produced before the Text in John 17. 3. to prove that the Perfection of being THE ONLY TRUE GOD is ascrib'd to him as being one Person only Now I urge from the same Text that that Person is the Father of the Son in express distinction from the Son and all others Next that Text in 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. Though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom were all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Which words do plainly assert that that Person who is the one God of Christians in exclusion of all those that are called Gods and in some Sense may be so is none but the Father and in distinction from the Lord Jesus who was made Lord and Christ in a most excellent manner after his Resurrection This Text must be understood by the Trinitarians thus There is none other God but three Almighty Persons There are Gods many and Lords many but unto us Christians there is but one God or Divine Nature the Father Son and Holy Ghost each of which is the one God of Christians and not the Father only See next Ephes 4. 4 5 6. There is one Spirit one Lord one God and Father of all Where the one God and Father of all is clearly differenced from the one Spirit and the one Lord. Now see Mat. 24. 36. But of that Day and Hour knoweth none or no Person for of necessity it must be so understood no not the Angels of Heaven but my Father only St. Mark hath it neither the Son but the Father These parallel Texts prove 1. That the Person of the Father is the Person of God for none but that Person could then know the Day and Hour of Judgment And 2. that the Father only is that Person of God in exclusion of all other Persons both Angels and Men and of the Son himself What shall we say of them who in flat Contradiction to this Scripture and the Son himself assert That the Son knew the Day and Hour of Judgment as well as the Father Let us next compare that Passage in 1 Tim. 2. 5. which I cited before with 1 John 2. 1. The former saith There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus The latter says If any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous By which consider'd together it appears that the one God and the Father are the same Person for only a Person is capable of being interceded to and the Mediator and Advocate the same So that the Father is the Person of