or in Divine Revelation and for those Reasons cannot be made evident to the despised common People which the Lord Jesus came to save as well as the Learned He might also have charg'd the sixth Article of the Church of England with this Plausible Coneeit which has so much Evil and Mischief in it tending to reduce the Catholick Faith to nothing pag. 122. For that Article saith thus Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith Observe here that every necessary Article must be read expresly or at least proved thereby and to whom is this Proof to be made even to the WEAKEST NODDLES of those that are requir'd to believe it Absolutely there is not one Man or Woman of the venerable Mob that according to Mr. Edw. can be saved because they cannot possibly have the Article of the three Persons that are one prov'd to them from Scripture for it 's evident the Learned even of the Clergy cannot prove it to one another much less to vulgar Understandings And Mr. Chillingworth the ablest Defender of the Religion of Protestants that the Church ever had says and ingeminates it The BIBLE the BIBLE I say the BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain IRREFRAGABLE and INDVBITABLE Consequences of it well may they hold it as a Matter of Opinion but not as a Matter of Faith or Religion neither can they with consistence to their own Grounds believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it from others without most High and most Schismatical Presumption Ch. 6. N. 56. Will Mr. Edwards say His Fundamentals are such irrefragable and indubitable Truths about which there are among Protestants such hot and irreconcileable Contentions Again that most judicious Author lays this as the unmoveable Foundation of his whole Discourse against the Papists viz. That all things necessary to Salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture as the Church of England does see Pref. N. 30. And he shows in the following Paragraphs to N. 38. That all the Jesuits Arguments against Protestants are confuted by it But that 's not all the same Author after Dr. Potter affirms That the Apostles Creed contains all those points of Belief which were by God's Command of Necessity to be preached to all and believed by all And yet he says in the same Paragraph That all Points in the Creed are not thus necessary See Chap. 4. N. 23. Now what more or less hath our Author asserted in his whole Book For I have shewed out of him and it 's evident to the Impartial that his Proposition that Jesus is the Messiah or Christ does comprehend or clearly imply all the Articles of necessary Christian Faith in the Creed For though it was sufficient to constitute a Believer during the Life of Christ to believe him to be the Christ although they had no explicite Belief of his Death and Resurrection to come yet afterwards those Articles were necessary being undoubted Evidences of his being the Messiah as our Author pag. 31. And therefore Mr. Edw. is very injurious to him in representing his Proposition as if it were only the believing the Man called Jesus to be the Messiah an Hebrew word that signifies in English Anointed without understanding what is meant by that Term see pag. 121. But why should I expect that Mr. Edw. should have any regard to Mr. Chillingworth's Judgment and all those the Vice Chancellour the Divinity-professors and others that licensed and approved his Book when he has none for the Pious and Learned Bishop Jer. Taylor and those others Nay when those numerous plain Testimonies which our Author has quoted out of the Holy Scriptures themselves do but provoke his Opposition and Contempt though the Divine Writers add these Sanctions to the Belief of our Author's Proposition or of those Words and Sentences that are of the same Import and comprehended in it viz. He that believeth shall be saved or shall never thirst or shall have eternal Life and the like On the contrary He that believeth not shall be condemned or shall die in his Sin or perish and the like However I doubt not but my impartial Reader will consider both what my Author and what my self have said in this Point Having thus made it appear that the reducing of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith to a few or even to one plain Article deliver'd in Scripture expresly and often repeated there and in divers equipollent Phrases easy to be understood by the POOR and strongly enforcing the Obedience of the Messiah as is our Author's Proposition is far from having any tendency to Atheism or Deism I shall now retort this charge upon Mr. Edw. and show that on the contrary the multiplying of speculative and mysterious Articles as necessary which are neither contain'd in Scripture expresly nor drawn thence by any clear and evident Consequence but are hard to be understood especially by the common People having no rational Tendency to promote a good Life but directly to the high Dishonour of the one God the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the subversion of the Hope and Peace of Christians as I have manifested in one and the chief of Mr. Edw's Fundamentals and of other Systemers This I say has been and is one great Cause or chief occasion of that Atheism and Deism that is in the World 1. Mr. Edw. himself tells us That Undue Apprehensions of a Deity join'd with superstition are the high road to Atheism pag. 34. Therefore imposing of false Doctrines concerning the Attributes of God is very pernicious for they are destructive of his very Being and Nature But I have shew'd that the imposing of the Doctrine of three Almighty Persons or personal Gods is a false Doctrine and destroys one of the chief Attributes of God therefore is according to Mr. Edw. destructive of his very Being and Nature pag. 35. Again another of Mr. Edw's Fundamentals is That full Satisfaction is made by the Death of Christ to the Divine Justice which Doctrine does clearly destroy the Attribute of the Divine Mercy for every one may readily perceive that full satisfaction to Justice by Punishment cannot consist with Pardoning Mercy when a Judg punishes according to full Justice he does not at all forgive or shew Mercy But that they may not be seen to destroy altogether the Mercy of God they make him to inflict that Punishment upon himself in a Human Body and Soul Will not these false conceptions of the Deity expunge at last the Belief of the true one Mr. Edw. says false ones will 2ly Another occasion Mr. Edw. says Atheists take from our Divisions Broils and Animosities from the many Parties and Squadrons of Sects that are in the World to bid defiance to all Religion And is it not manifest
sense of the Word was made Flesh will be this God was Incarnate that is not by being made Flesh or Man but by taking Man into God that is God is now perfect God and Man Well but since God is a Person and Man another Person perfect God and perfect Man must unavoidably be two Persons but this is the Heresy of Nestorius Arch-Bishop of Constantinople An. Dom. 428. but how shall we help it For to believe God and Man not to be two Persons we directly contradict our Belief of God's being perfect God and perfect Man If we say with Apollinarius An. Dom. 370. That God and Man are not two Persons but one because the Man had no Human Soul or Understanding then we contradict God's being a perfect Man and are condemn'd to eternal Damnation as Apollinarian Hereticks And if for solving these Difficulties we should think good to hold that indeed there were two Natures in Christ when God was made Flesh but upon the Union the Human was swallowed up of the Divine and so there was one Nature made of two then we incur the Anathema of the Eutichian Hereticks And it follows saith Mr. Edw. in the same verse of this first Chapter of St. John that this Word is the only begotten of the Father whence we are bound to believe the Eternal tho ineffable Generation of the Son of God Answ Could Mr. Edw. be so weak as to think any Body but one deeply prejudiced would approve of either of his Inferences from that Clause either the Eternal Generation or that we are bound to believe it as an Article necessary to Salvation Does he not know that Jesus is the only Son of God by reason of that Generation which befel him in Time Does he read of any other Son that God generated of a Virgin but Jesus See Luke 1. 35. Did God ever sanctify and send into the World in such a Measure and Manner any that were called Gods or Sons of God as he did Jesus our Lord See John 10. 35 36 37 38. and Chap. 3. 34. Did he ever give such Testimony to any other Did God ever beget any other Son by raising him from the Dead to an immortal Life Acts 13. 33. by anointing him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows Heb. 1. 9. By setting him on his Right-hand making him to inherit a more excellent Name than Angels even that of SON in a more excellent Sense Heb. 1. 3 4 5. By glorifying Christ making him an High-Priest saying unto him Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee Is not Isaac call'd the only begotten Son of Abraham though Abraham had other Sons But for Mr. Edw's Eternal Generation there is not one Tittle either in this Text or in all the Bible and yet he has the Confidence to bind the Belief of it upon Mankind upon pain of Damnation I wish he would not be so rash but more reverent in so tremendous a Point Next he finds our Author faulty in not taking notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son John 14. 10 11. and that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son which expresses their Vnity Wonderful Did our Author indeed take no notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son when he all along in his Treatise makes the Messiah Christ Son of God terms synonimous and that signify the same thing and cites abundance of Texts to that purpose so that the belief of the Father the Son is required by him in the whole three quarters of his Book which Mr. Edw. takes notice he spent in proving his Proposition Did Mr. Edw. write these Remarks Or did some body else add them to his Book of the Causes of Atheism As for the Vnity of the Father and Son exprest he says by these words The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son Does he think his Reader never read that Text in John 17. 21. That they Believers all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us with ver 23. Or that other Text 1 John 4. 16. He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God and God in him But for the word Vnity which he uses if he means by it any more than a close Union it implies a contradiction that two should be one that a Duality should be an Unity This saith he is made an Article of Faith by our Saviour's particular and express Command He must mean that Mr. Edwards's own sense of that Text is commanded as necessary to Salvation else he says no more of that than the Author allows concerning both that and other Scriptures If he means his own sense then I think he 's an inconsiderate and rash Man for I have shew'd that his sense is contradictious Here Mr. Edw. calls in question the sincerity of our Author and pag. 109. says It is most evident to any thinking and considerate Person that he purposely omits the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he mentions I will not question Mr. Edwards's sincerity in what he writes but I question much his due considering what he writes against Does not our Author make in effect the same Objection against himself pag. 291. and answer it in fourteen pages even to the end of his Book but Mr. Edw. takes notice of very little of it And the most of that he does take notice of he answers with a little Raillery upon the Bulk of Mankind the unlearned Multitude the Mob and our Author His note upon these Phrases is Surely this Gentleman is afraid of Captain Tom and is going to make a Religion for his Myrmidons We are come to a fine pass indeed the venerable Mob must be ask'd what we must believe Thus he ridicules the Doctrine of Faith on which the Salvation or Damnation of the Multitude depends and the Grounds of our Author's Design who finding in Holy Scripture that God would have all Men to be saved and come to the KNOWLEDG of the Truth the Gospel was preach'd to the Poor and the common People heard Christ gladly that God hath chosen the Poor in this World rich in Faith he concluded when he had overcome the prejudices of Education and the contempt of the Learned and those that think themselves so that the Gospel must be a very intelligible and plain Doctrine suted to Vulgar Capacities and the State of Mankind in this World destin'd to Labour and Travel not such as the Writers and Wranglers in Religion have made it To this Mr. Edw. answers besides what I have noted above and is forced to agree That all Men ought to understand their Religion but then asks as of a positive thing not to be doubted if Men may not understand those Articles of Faith which he had mention'd a little before pretended to be found in the Epistolary Writings
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
words who is not as great as his Father though he said My Father is greater than I. They are asham'd of his words who said Of that Day and Hour knoweth none not the Son but the Father only and say in Contradiction to him The Son did know that Day and Hour as well as the Father and not the Father only They are asham'd of his Words who said I can do nothing of my self I came not to do my own Will but the Will of him that sent me my Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me I do nothing of my self but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak The word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the Works These and many other Words and Sayings of the same kind they seem to be asham'd of and say and contend for it that he could do all things of himself that he came to do his own Will that his Doctrine was his own that he had no need of the Father's teaching c. They are ashamed of those words of Christ's Mat. 19. 17. Why dost thou call me good none is good but one the God and say none is good but Three God and God and God or Father Son and Holy Ghost Here let me observe to the Reader as I have hinted above that there is a considerable Difference between that particle one in this Text and the same particle one in that supposititious Text 1 Joh. 5. 7. These three are one for here one is of the Neuter Gender as is manifest both in the Greek and Latin and fignifies as the same word does in 1 Cor. 3. 8. He that planteth and he that watereth are one but in the Text above one is of the Masculine Gender and must be understood of one Person or intelligent Being who is good and none but he to wit the God If they were not hinder'd by strong Preiudices they might easily see that whatsoever they attribute to the Son be it eternal necessary Existence Almightiness or Omniscience c. they take away from the Father thereby not only the Glory of enjoying those Divine Excellencies alone but also the Glory of his free Goodness and the Son 's and our Thankfulness for such unspeakable Benefits both to him and us as he has been graciously pleas'd to give unto the Son either in begetting him or raising him up in Time or in rewarding him both for his and our Good Nay they make the Son uncapable of receiving those great and glorious Rewards of all Power in Heaven and Earth given to him of an everlasting Kingdom of a Name above every Name of exaltation to the Right Hand of God and the like which the Scriptures are full of For how could any of these Blessings be given to him that was God always even from Eternity Could God sit at the Right Hand of God in any sense whatever These are the absurd Doctrines which make the Trinitarians contend so fiercely one with another and with us God will judg the World and between them and us by that Man whom he has ordained to be Judg of the Dead and Living But to return to the Consideration of those Texts that are alledg'd for the Son 's being called God that in John 1. 1. I have spoken of already as also that in 1 Tim. 3. 16. That in Rom. 9. 5. is read without the word God in the Syriac and in the Writings of St. Cyprian Hilary and Chrysostom whereby it 's probable it was not originally in that Text. But Erasmus acknowledges that for a good Reading which points the Clause so as to render it a Thanksgiving to the Father thus The God over all be blessed for ever to wit for his Benefits in raising up Christ of the Fathers c. And it seems to have been so read by some of the Antients for they reckon it among the Heresies to say that Christ was God over all as Origen contr Cels and others In 1 John 3. 16. The word God is not found but in very few Greek Copies and if it be read there admits of a good Sense without making God to die who only hath Immortality As also doth that Text in Acts 20. 28. which may be render'd Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with the Blood of his own Son but the truer Reading according to the Syriac the Armenian and most antient Greek Bibles is Christ instead of God Most of the Antient Fathers read Christ or Lord. Those words in 1 John 5. 21. This is the true God which some refer to the Son are plainly to be refer'd to the Father signified by him that is true through his Son Jesus This He that is true whose Son Christ is is the true God Lastly They urge that in John 20. 28. where Thomas being convinced by the clear Testimony of his Senses that Christ was risen from the Dead answered and said unto him My Lord and my God which words whether they are words of Admiration respecting God that raised him from the Dead or him that was raised to be a Prince and Saviour Acts 5. 30 31. a Lord and a God the term God cannot signify in this latter sense any other than a God or Christ made so by Resurrection 'T is a clear Case that the Evangelist could not intend by these words to teach us that Jesus was God when he tells in the last Verse that they and his whole Book were written That we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the SON of God and that believing we might have Life through his Name I have insisted long upon this Point of the Oneness of God partly because it is a Matter of the highest Moment in Religion partly to shew that if our Author had a Design as Mr. Edw. says he had to exclude the Belies of the Trinity or Threeness of God from being a Point necessary to Salvation it was a Pious and Christian Design and that Mr. Edw. has been so far from offering any thing to prove that Faith to be so necessary that he has not proved it a true Doctrine but on the contrary I have proved it to be false and highly dishonourable to the ever-blessed God and Father of Christ contrary to the clear and full Current of Scripture obscuring the true Glory of Christ and very injurious to the Peace and Hope of Christians But after all whether our Author is of my mind in this Matter or whether he believes that the Doctrine of three coequal Almighty Persons is a Truth but not Fundamental I cannot determine but methinks Mr. Edwards's concluding him all over Socinianiz'd in this Point is done upon such Grounds as will argue the Holy Evangelists to be also Socinians for he says This Writer interprets the Son of God to be no
more than the Messiah and I am much perswaded that whoever shall read the Gospels with any attention will find the Holy Writers to be of the same Mind and our Author has fully prov'd it in his Book but more particularly from pag. 48. to 61. and pag. 95. Yea the comparing the Evangelists in the relation of one and the same Story alone may do it for what in Matthew is exprest by Thou art the Messiah the Son of the Living God chap. 16. 16. the same is in Mark Chap. 8. 29. Thou art the Messiah and in Luke 9. 18. The Messiah of God And if you compare 1 John 5. 1. with ver 4 5. you will easily see the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God are Terms of the same Import Besides the very word Messiah or Christ signifying Anointed and so interpreted in the Margin of our Bibles John 1. 41. is in the 49th verse understood by Nathanael to be the Son of God the King of Israel For the Kings of Israel in the Letter and Type were constituted Kings by Anointing hence God is said to anoint David King over Israel 2 Sam. 12. 7. and Psal 2. 2. he is called the Lord 's Anointed but in verse 7. upon that very account the Lord said Thou art MY SON this Day have I begotten thee Now as the first and second verses of this Psalm are by the Apostles and Believers applied to God's Holy Child or Son Jesus who as David is called the Lord's Christ Acts 4. 25 26 27. so upon God's raising again of Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour the Apostle Paul does expresly apply to him that glorious Proclamation in the 7th verse saying As it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art MY SON THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN THEE Acts 13. 33. And the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 1. 4 5. speaking of the Son 's being made better than the Angels proves it from this that God said not at any time to any of them as he did unto Jesus in his Type David Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee and in his Type Solomon I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son 2 Sam. 7. 14. Moreover we have seen before that our Lord vindicates to himself the Name of the Son of God by a Text out of the 82d Psalm where the mighty Judges and Princes are called Gods and Sons of the most High John 10. These things consider'd will I think justify our Author in interpreting the Son of God to be no more than the Messiah or will condemn the Divine Writers if not the Messiah himself in the same Crime Another Evidence of our Author's being Socinian is according to Mr. Edw. that he expounds Joh. 14. 9 c. after the Antitrinitarian Mode whereas generally Divines understand some part of those words concerning the Divinity of our Saviour He says generally Divines c. By this mark those Divines that do not so interpret must be Socinians the Socinians owe Mr. Edw. their thanks for adding to their Number many Learned and able Divines but I doubt those Divines will not thank him for it But Mr. Edw. has Courage enough to call a most Learned and right Reverend Father Wavering Prelate and to bring in his Doctrine about Fundamentals as favouring the Causes of Atheism if he and those other Divines agree not with him in their Sentiments Another mark of Socinianism is that our Author Makes Christ and Adam to be the Sons of God by their BIRTH as the Racovians generally do That they both make Christ to be the Son of God by his Birth and that truly according to that Text of Luke 1. 35. cannot I think be denied by any that duly considers the Place but that either the one or the other make Adam who was never born to be so in like manner by his Birth is Mr. Edwards's Blunder and not their Assertion I have not taken notice of the other Fundamentals which Mr. Edw. reckons in his System divers of which are not found in Holy Scripture either Name or Thing expresly or by consequence because he insists chiefly on the Doctrine of the Trinity which however it is believed by Learned Men to be in some sense or other they cannot agree in what sense a Truth yet some of the most Learned of them do not believe it a Fundamental and necessary Truth particularly Mr. Limborch than whom this present Learned Age does not afford a more Learned and able Divine could not defend Christian Religion in his most famous and weighty Disputations against the Jews without waving that Point one of which we have in his Amica Collatio cum erudito Judaeo c. the ablest Jew I presume that ever wrote in Defence of Judaism against Christianity Another Conference I am informed we may hope shortly to see in his Reduction of an eminent Person who was upon the Point of forsaking the Christian Religion and embracing for it that of the Jews at Amsterdam when first the ablest Systemers had tried their utmost skill and could not effect it Perhaps Mr. Edw. means him for one when he says our Author 's Plausible Conceit found reception if it had not its birth among some Foreign Authors besides Socinians pag. 104. Indeed he had cause enough for Mr. Limborch tells the Jew expresly in the Book I named Chap. 9. Pag. 218. Quando exigitur fides in Jesum Christum nusquam in toto novo Testamento exigi ut credamus Jesum esse ipsum Deum sed Jesum esse Christum seu Messiam olim promissum vel quod idem est esse Filium Dei quoniam appellationes Christi filii Dei inter se permutantur When we are requir'd to believe in Jesus Christ we are no where in all the New Testament requir'd to believe that Jesus is the very God but that Jesus is the Christ or the Messiah that was of old promised or which is the same that he is the Son of God because those Appellations of Christ and of Son of God are put one for another So that in Company of Mr. Limborch and other eminent Divines as well as our English Bishops and Doctors our Author may still believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Truth though not necessary absolutely necessary to make one a Christian as Mr. Edwards contends But why does he make mention of only the Right Reverend Fathers one Reverend Doctor and the foreign Divines and Socinians as Favourers of this Plausible Conceit of making nothing necessary and Fundamental but what is EVIDENTLY contain'd in Holy Scripture as such and so is accommodated to the apprehension of the Poor that hear and read the Scriptures making them also capable of being saved though they are either ignorant of or do not believe aright those Truths which though deliver'd in Scripture are yet either hard to be understood or difficultly infer'd or have no mark of Fundamental either in themselves
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.