3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 1. 2. Grace Mercy and Peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. Eph. 1. 17. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory may give unto you the Spirit c. Col. 1. 2. Grace be unto you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1. 3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Thess 2. 16. Now the Lord Jesus himself and God even our Father c. John 20. 17. Jesus saith to Mary I ascend to my Father and your Father and to my God and to your God Gal. 1. 4. Who gave himself for our Sins according to the will of God and our Father Mat. 27. 46. Jesus cried saying My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Philem. 3. Grace be to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Rev. 3. 12. Him that overcometh will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God and write upon him the Name of my God c. 2 Thess 1. 1. Unto the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ John 17. 1. Jesus lift up his Eyes to Heaven and said Father Glorify thy Son Mat. 23. 9. One is your Father which is in Heaven Psal 115. 3. Our God is in the Heavens Thus we see there is one God and Father of all Ephes 4. 6. both of Christ and Believers the Children of God the same Person is the God and Father of both It 's absurd to say that Christ the Son is his own Father or his own God so it 's plainly contrary to Scripture to say that any other Person is our God or our Father in the highest Sense but the same who is Christ's God and Father That it is so I appeal to the serious Thoughts of every Man and Woman that reads the Scriptures attentively without the prejudice of Scholastick and confus'd Distinctions Now I shall further produce you many couples of Scriptures which prove expresly that the Name of GOD when taken by way of Excellency and the Name of FATHER in Christ's Gospel do signify the same singular Person So that no one is or can be God who is not also the Father which Term is acknowledged to signify but one Person This appears from the Scripture attributing the sending of Christ or the Son sometimes to God sometimes to the Father and both frequently John 3. 34. He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him Chap. 14. 24. The Word which ye hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me Acts 10. 36. The Word which God sent to the Children of Israel preaching Peace by Jesus Christ John 5. 30. I seek not mine own Will but the Will of the Father which hath sent me Acts 3. 26. God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to bless you John 12. 49. The Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak 1 John 4. 10. Not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins Chap. 4. 14. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth his Son made of a Woman John 6. 39. And this is the Father's Will that hath sent me See ver 44. 1 John 4. 9. In this was manifested the Love of God toward us because God sent his only begotten Son into the World c. John 5. 24. He that heareth my Word and believeth on the Father that hath sent me Rom. 8. 3. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh John 20. 21. Then said Jesus As my Father sent me even so send I you Joh. 3. 17. God sent not his Son to condemn the World Chap. 5. 23. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him Joh. 6. 29. Jesus answered This is the Work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent Chap. 17. 25. O Father these have known that thou hast sent me John 17. 3. This is Life Eternal that they might know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Chap. 10. 36. Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God John 16. 27. The Father himself loveth you because ye have believed that I came out from God Ver. 28. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World again I leave the World and go to the Father Ver. 30. By this we believe that thou camest forth from God John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son Chap. 8. 18. I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me John 8. 42. For I proceeded forth and came from God neither came I of my self but he sent me Chap. 5. 36. The Works that I do bear witness that the Father hath sent me Hence it appears most evidently not only that God and the Father are the same Person and that the same is as plainly distinguisht from our Lord Christ as the Sender is distinct from him that is sent but that the Son is no more the same God that sent him than he is the same Father that sent him If Christians will still suffer themselves to be impos'd upon under the Notion of MYSTERY to believe that the Son of God is the same numerical God as his Father who sent him to do his Will not his own and to be the Propitiation or Mercy-seat Heb. 9. 5. for our Sins that the only begotten or well-beloved Son whom the Father first sanctified and then sent into the World is the same God who sanctified and sent him that the miraculous Works which the Son did did bear witness not that the Father even God had sent him but that the Son was that God c. they should no longer pretend that their Faith concerning God and his Son Christ Jesus in what is necessary to eternal Life is clearly and plainly reveal'd in Holy Scripture but that they have learnt it by Tradition from their Teachers which yet they can no more conceive the meaning of without contradiction to Scripture and Reason than the Papists can their Transubstantiation which they also believe under the Notion of Mystery Let none say there is a wide Difference between the Faith of Protestants and Papists in these Cases because Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense the Trinity only by Reason for I appeal to any Man of Sense whether we may not be as certain that one Person is not three Persons nor three Persons one Person as that Bread is not Flesh If Protestants think themselves excusable in that let
which are generally form'd not in Scripture-Terms and about which there is such endless Contentions when they be explain'd to them as well as our Author's Article Jesus is the Messiah Nay he is confident that there is no more Difficulty in understanding this Proposition The Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God or Divine Nature than in that other of our Author see pag. 120. when yet the World knows to its Cost that this Article has exercis'd all the greatest Wits of the Church these fourteen or fifteen hundred Years to understand the Terms and take away the Contradictions and at this Day the English Trinitarians have most fierce Contentions among themselves about the meaning of it The nominal Trinitarians agree with the Unitarians that the Realists that hold three real Persons are Tritheists and the Realists agree with the Unitarians that the Nominals or Modalists destroy the Reality of the Eternal Son and Holy Ghost and are Patripassians or Sabellians Besides Mr. Edw. knows that each of these Parties are at vast difference among themselves they easily find Inconsistences or Contradictions in one anothers Explications so that supposing there be but ten different Trinitarian Hypotheses I think there are more every one has mine against him all which he looks upon as faulty and they on the other Hand do all reject his They reject them I say not as the Bishop of Sarum in his Letter to D. W. pag. 56. would paliate Matter as having the same Acts of Piety and Adoration though different ways of Explaining either the Vnity of the Essence or the Trinity of the Persons but as having different Acts except we can have the same Idea's when we worship three Gods as when we worship one only or when we worship one all-perfect Person as when we worship three such or when we worship one real Person and two nominal Ones as when we worship three Equals or when we worship one self-existent God and two dependent Gods not self-existent as when we worship three Self-existents and the like Again Mr. Edw's Proposition is never once found in Holy Writ but our Author 's often expresly He uses Terms in such a Sense as they are never us'd in Scripture for Divine Nature is never put there for God nor does the word GOD or one God ever signify Father Son and H. Ghost but always one singular Person and throughout the Holy Scriptures from the Beginning to the End God is spoken of and spoken to as one only Person and by Terms and Pronouns that signify singularly and never otherwise God indeed does twice or thrice speak of himself Plurally as Persons of Dignity and Dominion do often But our Author both his Words in Form and his Explications are all taken out of Scripture and in the Days of our Saviour and his Apostles there was no difficulty in understanding them The most illiterate Fishermen and Shepherds and Women knew what was meant by JESVs and what by Messiah The only Question was whether the Proposition Jesus is the Messiah was to be affirm'd or denied But notwithstanding all this Mr. Edw. says Truly if there be any Difficulty it is in our Author's Proposition why pray For here is an Hebrew word first to be explain'd before the Mob can understand the Proposition But by his favour the word Messiah is by our Translators adopted into the English Tongue and the common People the Rabble as Mr. Edw. is pleas'd to call them understand it as well as they do the Christ or the Anointed and also the Explications of those Terms provided they use to read either themselves or hear others read the Holy Scriptures But the word Messiah was in our Saviour and the Apostles Time most common among the Jews therefore our Author designing to represent the Preaching and Faith of that Time chose to use it more frequently than any other Term see pag. 30. But I presume Mr. Edw. brought in this Objection only as a Diversion If he really think as he says it 's a sharp Reflection upon all the Learned Trinitarian Controvertists upon this Point except they take it more candidly for an Invitation to their Reverences and right Reverences to come to the most Learned Mr. Edw. to inform their Understandings and solve all the Difficulties that make them at so great Odds one with another And it 's to be hoped he will give such a clear Explication of the Trinity as will satisfy the Mystery-men or Ignoramus-Trinitarians that at length they may understand what they now profess to believe without Understanding But to return for all this will seem a Digression except the Reader please to remember it is for a Vindication of our Author from Mr. Edw's hard charge of purposely omitting the Epistolary Writings because fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he mentions Among those Mr. Edw. reckons chiefly and more especially The Doctrine of the ever to be adored Trinity eminently attested in those Epistles This Doctrine he has given us in his Proposition above discoursed and has attempted to show against Matter of Fact in all Ages and especially in this present Time that this Fundamental ought not to have been omitted because of its Difficulty or Unintelligibleness for it is he saith less difficult than that of our Author Jesus is the Messiah but how successfully I leave to consideration But if it be Unintelligible or Contradictious at least to the Bulk of Mankind then it 's impossible it should be a Fundamental Article and therefore our Author needed not purposely to omit the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles for fear of finding it there since Mr. Edw. himself cannot find it there nor in the Bible But what says he to our Author 's full Answer to the Question about the Usefulness of the Epistles though the Belief of many Doctrines contained in them be not necessary to Salvation Our Author answers 1. That he that will read the Epistles as he ought must observe what 't is in them is principally aim'd at for that is the Truth which is to be receiv'd and believ'd and not scatter'd Sentences in Scripture-Language accommodated to our Notions and Prejudices What says Mr. Edw. to that 2. for I abridg There be many Truths in the Bible which a good Christian may be wholly ignorant of and so not believe which perhaps some lay great stress on and call Fundamental Articles because they are the distinguishing Points of their Communion What says Mr. Edw. to this 3. The Epistles were writ to those who were in the Faith and true Christians already and so could not be design'd to teach them the Fundamental Articles and Points necessary to Salvation This he shows from the Address of all the Epistles or something noted in them 4. Their resolving Doubts and reforming Mistakes are of great Advantage to our Knowledg and Practice 5. The great Doctrines of the Christian Faith are dropt here and there He has cited some such Passages in the Proof
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
them not for shame blame the Papists in this And if both Protestants and Papists are faultless in these Points I see not but the Heathen Polytheists will be capable of the same Charity The New Testament Scriptures are so full of those clear Distinctions and opposite Relations and Works of God from the Son of God that a Man must in a manner transcribe the whole Volume to present them all I have given my Reader a great number of Texts already I will yet point him to some more which he may read at his leisure See then 1 John 4. ver 9 to 16. 2 Pet. 1. 17. Rom. 16. 27. John 6. 69. John 5. 26 27. As the Father hath Life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have Life in himself and hath given him Authority to execute Judgment also because he is the Son of Man The Son of God had not this Life in himself till it was given him by the Living God his Father not because he was God but because he was the Son of Man But what Ears can hear that Life and Authority were given by the same God the Father to the very same God the Son Or that any Life and Authority could be given to him that was God who had always from all Eternity all Life and Authority in himself and could never be without it But I am pointing you to some Texts of Scripture Read also Rom. 1. 9. Chap. 8. 3 29 31. Chap. 5. 10. Ephes 1. 3. 1 John 1. 5 7. Chap. 3. 21 23. Chap. 1. 3. Gal. 1. 15. Col. 1. 10 13. 1 Cor. 1. 9. 1 John 4. 15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God not that he is that God whose Son he is God dwelleth in him and he in God 1 John 5. 9 10 11. Heb. 1. 1 2. John 3. 16 17. Acts 3. 26. 1 Thess 1. 9 10. John 5. 18. 2 John ver 3. Gal. 4. 4. Acts 3. 13. These Texts do undeniably prove that God is one Person only to wit the Father of the Son and as the Son cannot be his own Father so neither that God who is his Father But I proceed see Mat. 14. 33. and 16. 16. Luke 1. 35. Mark 1. 1. John 1. 34. and 20. 31. These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have Life through his Name The Apostle John did not write his Gospel as some pretend to prove that Jesus was God who was his Father but that he was the Christ or a Man anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power the Son of that God who anointed him and that so believing we might have Life through him Mark 1. 11. Mat. 3. 17. Luke 3. 22. Mark 9. 7. Luke 9. 35. Heb. 1. 5. 1 John 4. 14. Mat. 11. 27. Luke 10. 22. John 1. 14. and 3. 18 29. and 14. 28. and 15. 10. and 20. 17. Against all these Scriptures and many more that might be alledged it 's urged that the Son is somewhere called God or rather a God in Scripture To which I answer that both Angels and Men are called God and Gods and Sons of God in Scripture see Exod. 7. 1. I have made thee Moses a God to Pharaoh Exod. 4. 16. compar'd with Chap. 3. 2 5. an Angel is called Jehovah and Elohim in English the Lord and God Psal 8. 5. Thou hast made him Man a little lower than the Angels in Hebrew than the Gods And Judg. 13. 22. Manoah said We shall surely die because we have seen God so he calls the Angel that appeared to him But the word God taken by way of Eminency for the Father of all signifies also the God of Gods Deut. 10. 17. Joshua 22. 22. Psal 136. 2 c. The most high God Gen. 14. 18. Heb. 7. 1. And the Lord Jesus being stoned and charged with Blasphemy by the Jews for saying that he and his Father were one as we read John 10. 29 30 c. he vindicates himself by the Authority of that Text in Psal 82. 6. where it's Divinely written I said ye are Gods speaking of the Judges and Princes who receiv'd their Authority and Power from God and all of you Sons of the most High and argues from it thus Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am THE SON of God Which is in effect to say I may with far greater right than they be called a God or the Son of God who have received from God far greater Authority and Power being sanctified to such a Degree and sent among Men to preach such a Doctrine and Work such Miraculous Works as plainly shew that the Father is in me and I in him that is there is such a close Union between us as if the Father dwelt in me and did the Works which I do dwelling as it were in him and which cannot be done by any other Power Whence I argue that if in any Text of Scripture Jesus is said to be God or a God tho he himself never said he was God Nunquam seipse Deum dixit as saith Lactantius it is to be understood of that Godlike Power Authority and Glory which God his Father has conferr'd upon him for which he is to be honoured as the Father who sent him who anointed him who raised him from the Dead and set him at his own Right Hand So in Heb. 1. 8 9. where in the Words spoken of Solomon Psal 45. he is called God he is said to have a God above him who anointed him Let them consider who say the Son is God in the same sense as the Father how they can clear themselves of Blasphemy Such Persons look upon the Unitarians with Amazement and Horrour because they will not take the term God in that Sense as themselves do What! Deny Christ to be God so expresly spoken of him in Holy Scripture In the mean time they do not reflect upon themselves who make to themselves by understanding Scripture in another Sense than Christ understood it in another God besides the Father who only is the true God The Unitarians acknowledg and celebrate one God the Father the Trinitarians do so too but they also acknowledg and celebrate two other Persons each of which is God in the same sense as the Father neither of which is the Father Which of us are safer and in less danger of being Blasphemers and worshippers of more Gods than one There 's nothing more manifest in Holy Scripture than that the only true God hath given to the Son both his Being and all whatsoever that he enjoys he has exalted him to his Right Hand given him all Power in Heaven and in Earth as Pharaoh exalted Joseph in Egypt only in the Throne saith he will I be greater than thou But the Trinitarians will not suffer the Father to enjoy that Privilege They are asham'd of that Son of God and his
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
no Christians and that Quakerism is no Christianity However retaining still the Words wherein the Christian Faith is exprest though in an equivocal Sense and having some among them as George Keith and others who still believ'd the Gospel in the proper Sense they made a shift to be reputed generally Christians And indeed this Conduct of theirs deceived even many of their own Party which is manifest in William Rogers of Bristol Francis Bugg Thomas Crispe John Pennyman and especially in George Keith who having been a Quaker about 30 Years yet did not till within these three or four Years discover the Infidelity of the Primitive and true Quakers who are deservedly call'd Foxonians because holding the Principles of George Fox their Author But G. Keith living in Pensylvania where the Quakers were Governours and might be free to open their Minds plainly did then perceive they did not believe the Doctrine of the Apostles Creed the summary of Christian Faith which made him preach it and contend for it more earnestly This provok'd the Foxonians so far that it came to a Breach and Separation and at length to Impeachment Fines and Imprisonment Then G. Keich returns to London where the matters in Contest between him and the Foxonians of Pensylvania was taken into Consideration and had divers Hearings by the general Annual Meeting of Quakers 1694 who gave a kind of a Judgment in the Case but no clearer Determination of the principal Matter concerning Christ within and Christ without and the other Articles of Christian Faith than their former equivocal Expressions The next Year 1695 at the like General Meeting they absolutely excommunicate G. Keith and make this the Ground of it viz. that he had not given due observance to their former Order and was troublesome to them in his Declarations c. For he had still continued to preach frequently Christianity as before See a late Book titled Gross Error and Hypocrisy detected c. The Reader I hope will excuse it that I have detain'd him in this long Story because it was necessary for me first to prove the Quakers are Deists and then to proceed and shew Secondly That the Obscurity Ambiguity and Numerousness of Systematical Fundamentals is that which is the chief Cause of their being so For not being able to satisfy themselves in understanding and determining the Truth and Certainty of those Fundamentals for the proof of which Scriptures were alledg'd but those of so doubtful a sense and variously interpreted by opposite Parties that they readily embrac'd George Fox's only Fundamental of the Light in every Man that is in reality the natural Light whereby we distinguish between Good and Evil in ordinary whence it is that as saith the Apostle Paul We as the Gentiles are a Law to our selves and our Thoughts accuse or excuse Rom. 2. 14 15. Which is in Truth an excellent Doctrine and has great certainty and clearness in it But G. Fox preaches this not as a natural Principle but 1. As a supernatural Revelation And 2. Christ being call'd in Scripture the Light that lighteth every Man and the Light of the World because be brought the Light of the Gospel into the World George Fox applies these Terms and Phrases and almost every thing that is spoken of Christ to the Light in every Man and so turns the plain sense of the Gospel into a Parabolical or Mystical Sense and makes the Christian Scripture to speak nothing but Deism 3. G. Fox adds certain Observances of giving no respect in Word or Gesture or Title nor speaking as others speak nor saluting as others salute nor paying Tithes nor using the Sword nor swearing in common Form c. and all as inspired Dictates that so the only People of God might be separated from all the World and they serve admirably for that purpose Now if you consider the experimented certainty of their Principle the Light within that accuses and excuses and their Perswasion that it was a Divine Inspiration which also was confirm'd to them by their giving obedience to those Ceremonies which were so contrary and offensive to the World and expos'd them to much Suffering All suffering for Religion especially for a clear Revelation from God confirming the Sufferers in their Perswasion You may clearly perceive it was the Uncertainty Obscurity and Intricacy of their former Principles which induced them to embrace G. Fox's Religion which is all dictated by the Spirit of God in every Man Whence it is they upbraid other Professors with Doubtfulness and Fallibility and every one of them counts himself as infallible as the Papists do the Pope How can ye but delude People says G. Fox that are not infallible Myst p. 33. Lastly The Obscurity Uncertainty and Multiplicity of Fundamentals is that which has given an Argument to Popish Priests and Jesuits wherewith to seduce Protestants to Popery For evidence of this I shall mind you of a Paper written by a Jesuit in the late King James's time titled An Address presented to the Reverend and Learned Ministers of the Church of England c. The purport of which is That all things necessary to Salvation are not clearly contained in Scripture as Protestants hold because the Belief of a Trinity one God and three Persons is necessary to Salvation but not clearly contain'd in Scripture Then he goes about to shew that the Scriptures commonly alledged for the Trinity admit of another sense He goes the same way in the Article of the Incarnation Thus supposing these Articles to be necessary to Salvation as Protestants hold and not clearly contain'd in Scripture it follows that the undoubted Certainty of them must be found in the Determinations of the Church and then that Church which professes Infallibility is the only Refuge and I believe as the Church believes supplies all other Articles No Certainty any where else but Certainty must be had in these Points Here the making of those Articles Fundamental which cannot be clearly prov'd from Scripture subverts the Sufficiency and Clearness of Scripture and sends poor Protestants to Rome for the Certainty and Infallibility of the Christian Faith They did so glory in the strength of this Argument that the Jesuit-Preacher in Limestreet read their Paper and made the same Challenge in his Pulpit where he had a great number of Protestants that went out of Curiosity to hear him Having thus as I presume vindicated our Author and shewn the Mischiefs of Mr. Edw's Fundamentals I may now take my leave of my Reader Only I am first willing to let Mr. Edw. know that I have not undertaken this Defence out of any ambitious Humour of contending with so Learned a Man as he is nor would I have made opposition to him in any other Point of Learning or Divinity but Fundamentals every Man is concern'd in and ought to know and to be assured that he holds them all Eternal Salvation is a greater thing by far than any Empire and will therefore justify and exact our utmost Care and Endeavour for the obtaining it So that in these Considerations of Mr. Edw's Exceptions I have done my Duty to my self and that I have publish'd them I am perswaded I have therein done a great Charity to my Neighbours the Poor and Bulk of Mankind for whose Salvation I hope I should not think it too much to lay down my Life however Mr. Edw. speaks so scoffingly of them even where their eternal Happiness or Misery is deeply concern'd THE END ERRATA Pag. 9. Col. 2 l. 0. for a read or P. 11. col 2. l. 14. r. perfect Man P. 14. col 2. l. 8. f. mine r. nine l. 14. r. palliate the.
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.
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