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
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
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