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
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.
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
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
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
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
heard let us make out your Contradictions never so clearly nay you impute it to us as a heinous Crime that we make it an Argument against the belief of your Trinity that it cannot be understood without Contradiction You impute to us most injuriously that we are to admit of nothing but what is exactly adjusted to Nature's and Reason's Light pag. 68. That therefore the Trinity is a Doctrine that can't be born because it can't be understood pag. 69. and that the English Vnitarians declare they cannot believe it because Reason does not teach it pag. 72. This is a Topick the Trinitarians do always inlarge upon and urge with a great deal of Pomp in themselves and Ignominy in the Unitarians as Persons that prefer their own Reasonings before Divine Revelation how clear soever And though this Calumny has been answer'd and wip'd away and retorted upon them a hundred Times yet Mr. Edw. will still confidently charge it He cites the Letter of Resolution for proof of it and therefore has read it but passes by the Answer to this Imputation which is to be found in the very first Page of it where thus First 'T is not true that we prefer Reason before Revelation on the contrary Revelation being what GOD himself hath said either immediately or by inspired Persons 't is to be preferr'd before the clearest Demonstration of our Reason And in the Consider on Explic. on 4 Serm. and a Sermon of the Bishop of Worcester the Author says He utterly mistakes in thinking that we deny the Articles of the new Christianity or Athanasian Religion because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we have a clear and distinct Perception that they are not Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Non-sense But now that the Trinitarians do most expresly prefer their Reasoning Consequences and wire-drawn Deductions before Holy Scripture besides that it has been done in the Notes upon the Athanasian Creed and other Tracts I shall shew further from Mr. Edwards's Fundamental Doctrine but now recited if at least the Trinitarians will acknowledg him for their Orthodox Champion 1. It 's manifest he means by the one God not one Divine Almighty Person but three such but nothing is more evident in Holy Scripture than that God is one Person only For proof of it I have referr'd my Reader to the Scriptures from beginning to end in more than twenty thousand Texts even as often as God is spoken of or to or speaks of himself except as I have said But Mr. Edw. says expresly that his God is three distinct Divine Persons to wit the Father of the Son the Son of the Father and the H. Ghost which proceedeth from the Father and the Son 2. He says that these three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God in the most perfect Sense is the only true God or the one God or Divine Nature The Proposition which he advances as necessary to Salvation and more easy to be understood than that Jesus is the Messiah is That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God or Divine Nature Whereby it 's manifest that by ONE GOD he means not one Person but one Divine Nature and by one Divine Nature he means such a Divine Nature as is communicable to three distinct Persons see pag. 79. So that his three Persons which are one God are so one God as they communicate in one Divine Nature in like manner as Peter James and John are one Man because they communicate in one Human Nature as do also all the Men in the World Now I shall cite some Texts of H. Scripture which do expresly declare that God is ONE and that cannot otherwise be understood than that he is one Person or singular intellectual Nature Essence or Substance Here let me premise first How Equivocally Mr. Edw. and the Trinitarians express themselves in this great and necessary Point on which depends our Eternal Salvation and whereby the Bulk of Mankind for I think that 's a far more decent Phrase than Mr. Edw's Rabble or Captain Tom and his Myrmadons or the venerable Mob cannot escape being deluded He and they confess also that there is but one God though three Persons in that one God but by one God they do not mean as I have shewed from Mr. Edw. one singular intellectual Nature Essence or Substance compleat for that is a Person and if they did the Contradiction would presently appear to every Capacity to wit that three Divine Persons are one Divine Person but they as Mr. Edw. say The Father Son and Holy Ghost or the three Divine Persons are one God or Divine Nature Essence or Substance Hereby they conceal from their poor honest Reader thirsting after Truth that God is one intellectual Perfect Nature Essence or Substance and make him believe by that concealment that though there are three Divine intellectual perfect Natures yet there is but one Divine Nature or God I am also willing to premise that the Grecism of a solitary Adjective Masculine or Article without a Substantive where the Discourse is of intellectual Beings doth frequently if not always connote PERSON and our English Translators have in many Texts render'd it Person as the clear Sense of the Greek Text not as a word supplied in another Character to explain the Text but in the same Character as a verbal Translation Instances of this rendring are these among many others Mat. 27. 24. Of this just Person Luke 15. 7. Ninety nine just Persons Acts 17. 17. The devout Persons Eph. 5. 5. unclean Person 2 Pet. 3. 11. What manner of Persons In these places there is nothing in the Greek to answer the word Person but what is implied in the Adjective To come now to the Texts that assert the Vnity or Oneness of God against Mr. Edw's Trinity or Threeness or that God is one intellectual Nature or one Person against Mr. Edws's one Divine Nature or three Persons see Jam. 2. 19. according to the Greek Thou believest that God is ONE thou dost well Gal. 3. 20. But God is ONE Mark 12. 29. The Lord our God the Lord is ONE saith our Saviour out of the Law to the Scribe that asked him which is the first Commandment of all And Jesus answer'd him the first of all the Commandments is Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. And in the 32d ver The Scribe said unto him Well Master thou hast said the Truth for God is ONE and there is none other but he And ver 34. Jesus saw that he answer'd discreetly Our Bibles refer us to Deut. 6. 4 5. whence our Lord takes this his Answer and where we find the same Words which by Ainsworth are also render'd The Lord our God the Lord is one Now in these Scriptures the Numeral Adjective Masculine being without a Substantive and Singular it forces us to understand in
every place Person So that we nothing doubt but the Translators would have render'd every where God is ONE PERSON if they had not been prepossessed with the Opinion of God's being three Persons the like to which they have done in many other Places But in that Answer of the Holy Jesus to him that called him Good Master Mat. 19. 17. it 's not possible to avoid it 1. That God is a Person 2. That he is but one Person and 3. That he is GOOD in an eminent Sense above all other Persons whatsoever For thus he says Why callest thou me GOOD None or no Person is good but one Person the God How strangely perverse would it be to understand this Text in the Trinitarian sense viz. None or no Person is good but one the Father Son and Holy Ghost or thus None or no Person is good but one i. e. the Divine Nature Again 2. Consider we these Texts and see what sense we can make of them if God be not one Person only Mal. 2. 10. Hath not ONE GOD created us must we say with Mr. Edw. Hath not ONE Father Son and Holy Ghost or one Divine Nature that is not a Person created us Rom. 3. 30. There is one God who justifies c. Trin. There is one Father Son and H. Ghost that justifies Zech. 14. 9. Hebr. In that Day the Lord shall be ONE and his Name ONE How should the Lord be one and his Name one if the Lord be three distinct Persons and his Name Father Son and Holy Ghost Isa 37. 16. O Lord of Hosts God of Israel thou dwellest between the Cherubims thou art the God even thou alone of all the Kingdoms of the Earth thou hast made Heaven and Earth Psal 86. 10. Thou art great and dost wondrous Works thou art God alone 2 King 19. 19. That all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know that thou art the Lord God even thou only Isa 44. 24. c. I am the Lord that maketh all things that stretcheth forth the Heavens alone that spreadeth abroad the Earth by my self Nehem. 9. 6 c. Thou even thou art Lord alone thou hast made Heaven the Host of Heaven worshippeth thee Isa 37. 20. That all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know that thou art the Lord even thou only 2 King 19. 15. Jude 4. denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus Ephes 4. 6. One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all Isa 46. 9. For I am God and there is none else I am God and there is none like me 1 King 8. 23. Lord God of Israel there is no God like thee in Heaven above or in Earth beneath Ver. 60. That all the People of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is none else Isa 44. 6. I am the First and I am the Last and besides me there is no God Ver. 8. Is there a God besides me yea there is no God I know not any Isa 45. 5. I am the Lord there is none else there is no God besides me Verse 6. There is none besides me I am the Lord and there is none else Ver. 14. Saying surely God is in thee and there is none else there is no God Ver. 21. Have not I the Lord and there is no God else beside me a just God and a Saviour there is none beside me Ver. 22. Look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else Deut. 4. 35. Unto thee it was shewed that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God and there is none else beside him 1 Chron. 17. 20. O Lord there is none like thee neither is there any God besides thee Exod. 34. 14. For thou shalt worship no other God for the Lord whose Name is Jealous is a jealous God Deut. 32. 39. See now that I even I am he and there is no God with me 2 King 5. 15. Behold now I know that there is no God in all the Earth but in Israel 2 Sam. 22. 32. For who is God save the Lord See the same words in Psal 18. 31. 1 Cor. 8. 4. There is none other God but one I conclude with the first and chiefest of the Ten Commandments given from Mount Sinai Exod. 20. 3. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me I the Lord thy God am a jealous God and that of the Lord Jesus when himself was tempted Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The meaning plainly is I am a Jew and subject to the Law of the Jews I am commanded therein to worship the Lord my God and to serve him only These Scriptures do so clearly prove that God is a Person or a perfect intellectual Nature or Substance and that he is only one such that to deny either of these Propositions is to me to deny the Truth of Holy Scripture not only in some obscure and doubtful Text but in the Current of it and in the chief Fundamental of all Religion And Mr. Edw. in asserting there are three such Persons in one Divine Nature renders in effect the whole Bible void and useless for the proof of any Proposition whatsoever it be If this that God is an absolutely perfect Being and therefore a Person for Persons are the most perfect of Beings or Substances and but one such cannot be plainly and undeniably prov'd from Scripture it 's utterly in vain to attempt to prove any thing For it 's manifest that to assert THIS is the chief Aim and Design of all the Holy Writers and that they are most zealous and vehement in it And herein lies the Controversy between the Trinitarians and the Unitarians we assert with the greatest plainness and fulness and clearness of Holy Scripture as ever any thing was or can be exprest that God is ONE in the most perfect sense of Oneness which is by all Men that understand the Word in a personal Sense But the Trinitarians do on the contrary contend that God is not One but Three in that personal Sense and One in a less perfect Sense which is not Personal but common to many Which is a Sense that dethrones God and makes him either a Third of the one God or one of the Three that created and governs the World and is to be ador'd by Men and Angels For they cannot deny but that in worshipping the Father our God we worship one God But they rage against us because we do not worship besides him and distinct from him the Son as perfectly God as he as different from him as a real Son is from a real Father and another Person as really God as either the Father or the Son and as really different from the Father and Son as he that is sent is
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
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
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.