<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>5-7-07</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Latta</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Checked for N=""s. Checked for GROUP tags. Proofed title page; removed one P. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, oes, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected $s and $Word$s. Checked for &amp;cs with incorrect spacing. Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs and endqs, q;s, abq's, Ae's, and Qs. Checked italic I / J and U / V. Checked for missing page GAPs. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTS. Checked proofsheets and made corrections. Checked CLOSERs, TRAILERs, SIGNEDs, OPENERs, SALUTEs, BYLINEs. Sample: 2 minutes. Proofing: 25 minutes. Tag review and corrections: 45 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A70688">
<STC T="W">N1506B</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">12796736</BIBNO>
<VID>93987</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>THE EXCEPTIONS Of Mr. <HI>EDWARDS,</HI> in his <HI>Cau&s;es of Athei&s;m,</HI> Again&s;t <HI>the Rea&s;onablene&s;s of Chri&s;tia|nity, as deliver'd in the Scriptures,</HI> EXAMIN'D; And found Unrea&s;onable, Un&s;criptu|ral, and Injurious. ALSO It's clearly proved by many Te&s;timo|nies of Holy Scripture, That the God and Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, is the only God and Father of Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed in the Year MDCXCV.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="3" REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Author of <HI>the Rea&s;onablene&s;s of Chri|&s;tianity as delivered in the Scriptures.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>IN reading your Book of that Title, I readily perceived your De&s;ign, intimated in your Preface, to be therein most indu|&s;triou&s;ly and piou&s;ly pur&s;ued: So that you have, with full Evidence of Scripture and Rea&s;on, &s;hewed, again&s;t the ma|nifold ob&s;cure and tedious Systems, that the Fundamentals of Chri|&s;tian Faith, nece&s;&s;ary to con&s;titute a Man a true Member of Chri&s;t's Church, are all comprehended or implied in this plain Propo&s;ition, <HI>That Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah:</HI> Whereby you have happily provided for the Quiet and Satisfaction of the Minds of the hone&s;t Multi|tude or <HI>Bulk</HI> of Mankind, floating in Doubts and Fears, becau&s;e either they cannot under&s;tand, or can find no clear Evidence in Holy Scripture, of tho&s;e intricate Points requir'd to be explicitly believ'd upon pain of eternal Damnation. You have al&s;o argued clearly the Rea&s;onablene&s;s and &V;&s;efulne&s;s of the Chri&s;tian Revelation a|gain&s;t Athei&s;ts and Dei&s;ts. The&s;e things con&s;ider'd, 'twas no mar|vel, that the Systematical Men, who gain both their Honour and Profit by the Ob&s;curity and Multitude of their Fundamental Arti|cles, &s;hould rai&s;e an Outcry again&s;t you, like that of the <HI>Ephe&s;ians</HI> magnifying their <HI>DIANA.</HI> They have more cau&s;e for it than <HI>Deme|trius</HI> had. But that they &s;hould traduce your Work as tending to Athe|i&s;m or Dei&s;m, is as &s;trange from Rea&s;on, as many of their Articles are from Scripture. And that Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> has done it, and forc'd it in among his <HI>Tendencies to Athei&s;m,</HI> is, I think, to be imputed to the Co-incidence of your Book's being publi&s;h'd, and &s;triking &s;trongly upon his inventive Faculty, ju&s;t when it was in hot pur&s;uit of the Cau&s;es of Athei&s;m, rather than to any the lea&s;t Colour or In|clination
<PB N="4" REF="3">
that way, which Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> can &s;py in it in his cool Thoughts: For I am much per&s;waded on the contrary, that there is no Athei&s;t or Dei&s;t in <HI>England,</HI> but, if he were ask'd the Que&s;ti|on, would tell Mr. <HI>Edwards,</HI> that their ob&s;cure and contradictious Fundamentals were one Cau&s;e or Inducement to his ca&s;ting off and disbelief of Chri&s;tianity.</P>
<P>In this Mind I have undertaken to vindicate your Doctrine from the Exceptions of Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> again&s;t it. But whether I have done it as it ought to have been done, I cannot be a competent Judg. If I have mi&s;taken your Sen&s;e, or us'd weak Rea&s;onings in your Defence, I crave your Pardon: But my De&s;ign in this Writing was not to plea&s;e you, (whom I know not) nor any Man what|&s;oever, but only to honour the One God, and vindicate his mo&s;t u&s;eful Truths. I am,</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your very humble Servant.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB N="5" REF="3">
<HEAD>Mr. EDWARDS<HI>'s</HI> Exceptions again&s;t <HI>the Rea&s;onablene&s;s of Chri&s;tianity,</HI> examin|ed, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<P>IT &s;eems to me, that Mr. <HI>Ed|wards,</HI> printing his <HI>Cau&s;es of Athei&s;m,</HI> whil&s;t the <HI>Rea&s;ona|blene&s;s of Chri&s;tianity</HI> was newly publi&s;h'd, was put upon it by his Book&s;eller, to add &s;ome Ex|ceptions again&s;t that Treati&s;e &s;o much noted for its Heterodoxy; that &s;o the Sale of his own Tract might be the more promoted: whence it comes to pa&s;s, that his Notes being writ in ha&s;te, are not &s;o well dige&s;ted as might be ex|pected from a Per&s;on of his Learn|ing and Ingenuity. In <HI>pag.</HI> 104. he takes notice of A PLAUSIBLE CONCEIT, <HI>which hath been grow|ing up a con&s;iderable Time,</HI> &amp;c. but tells not his Reader what that Conceit was, till he hath charged it upon a very <HI>Learned</HI> and famous Author, whom he is plea&s;ed to call <HI>a wavering Prelate,</HI> and <HI>another of the &s;ame Order,</HI> and a Third of a lower Degree; but more <HI>particu|larly, fully and di&s;tinctly,</HI> upon the late Publi&s;her of <HI>The Rea&s;onable|ne&s;s of Chri&s;tianity,</HI> &amp;c. Here at length in his next Page, he tells us, That <HI>this Author gives IT us over and over again, in the&s;e formal words,</HI> viz. <HI>That nothing is required to be believed by any Chri&s;tian Man but this, THAT JES&V;S IS THE MESSIAH.</HI> I think if he had not been in ha&s;te, he would have ci|ted at lea&s;t two or three of tho&s;e Pages, wherein we might find tho&s;e formal Words, but he has not one, and I do not remember where they are to be found; for I am almo&s;t in as much ha&s;te as Mr. <HI>Edwards,</HI> and will not &s;eek for them. It's true, he &s;ays, <HI>That all that was to be believed for Ju&s;tifica|tion,</HI> or to make a Man a Chri|&s;tian, by him that did already be|lieve in, and wor&s;hip one true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, <HI>was no more than this &s;ingle Propo&s;i|tion, That Je&s;us of</HI> Nazareth <HI>was the Chri&s;t or the</HI> Me&s;&s;iah. But then he takes to be included in this <HI>Propo&s;ition,</HI> 1. All &s;ynonimous Ex|pre&s;&s;ions, &s;uch as, the Son of God; The King of <HI>I&s;rael;</HI> The &s;ent of God; He that &s;hould come, He of whom <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets did write; The Teacher come from God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 2. All &s;uch Ex|pre&s;&s;ions as &s;hew the manner of his being the Chri&s;t, Me&s;&s;iah, or
<PB N="6" REF="4">
Son of God, &s;uch as his being con|ceived by the Holy Gho&s;t and Power of the mo&s;t High; his be|ing anointed with the Holy Gho&s;t and Power; his being &s;anctified and &s;ent into the World; his be|ing rai&s;ed from the Dead, and ex|alted to be a Prince and Saviour after the time he was &s;o, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 3. Such Expre&s;&s;ions as import the great Benefits of his being the Me&s;|&s;iah; as having the Words of E|ternal Life; his having Power from the Father to remit Sins, to rai&s;e the Dead, to judg the World; to give eternal Life; to &s;end the H. Spirit upon the Apo&s;tles where|by they might work Miracles, and preach the Light of Life to <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Gentiles,</HI> and the like. For all tho&s;e Quotations of Scripture which the Author (as Mr. <HI>Ed|wards</HI> ob&s;erves) <HI>has ama&s;&s;ed toge|ther out of the Go&s;pels, and the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, which take up about three quarters of his Book,</HI> for the proof of his Propo&s;ition, are in|deed expo&s;itory of the meaning of that Propo&s;ition, and are in|cluded in it. Not that it was ne|ce&s;&s;ary that every one, who be|lieved the Propo&s;ition, &s;hould un|der&s;tand and have an <HI>explicite</HI> Faith of all tho&s;e particulars: for nei|ther the Believers during the Life of Chri&s;t, nor the Apo&s;tles them|&s;elves under&s;tood many of them, no nor pre&s;ently after his Death and Re&s;urrection; for they had &s;till divers erroneous Opinions concerning the Nature of his Kingdom, and the preaching to the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> and other things. And in the beginning of Chri&s;t's preaching, though <HI>Philip</HI> believ'd that <HI>Je&s;us was the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> the Son of God, the King of <HI>I&s;rael;</HI> yet he &s;eems to be ignorant of his be|ing born of a Virgin, for he calls him the Son of <HI>Jo&s;eph, John</HI> 1. 45. But as he that believes that <HI>Wil|liam</HI> the <HI>3d</HI> is the true King of <HI>England,</HI> &amp;c. believes enough to make him a good Subject, though he under&s;tands not all the grounds of his Title, much le&s;s all his Power and Prerogatives that be|long to him as King: So he that believes upon good Grounds that <HI>Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> and under|&s;tands &s;o much of this Propo&s;iti|on as makes him, or may make him a good Subject of Chri&s;t's Kingdom, though he be ignorant of many things included in that Propo&s;ition, he has all the Faith nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, as our Au|thor has abundantly proved.</P>
<P>But Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> &s;ays, <HI>This Gen|tleman forgot, or rather wilfully omit|ted a plain and obvious Pa&s;&s;age, in one of the Evangeli&s;ts,</HI> GO TEACH ALL NATIONS, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Mat. 28. 19. <HI>From which it is plain</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>that all that are adult Members of the Chri&s;tian Church, mu&s;t be Taught as well as Baptiz'd into the Faith of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t, and then they mu&s;t be|lieve it: and con&s;equently more is required to be believed by Chri&s;tian Men, than that Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah.</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="4">
He infers from this, <HI>You &s;ee it is part of the Evangelical Faith, and &s;uch as is nece&s;&s;ary, ab&s;olutely nece&s;|&s;ary to make one a Member of the Chri&s;tian Church, to believe a</HI> TRI|NITY <HI>in &V;nity in the God-head; or, in plainer Terms, that though God is one as to his E&s;&s;ence and Nature, yet there are three Per&s;ons in that Di|vine E&s;&s;ence, and that the&s;e three are really the one God.</HI> I mu&s;t con|fe&s;s, that if Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s <HI>rea&s;on|ing</HI> be good, the Author is total|ly confuted, three quarters of his Book at lea&s;t are writ in vain, and the old Sy&s;tems mu&s;t &s;tand good; and the <HI>Bulk of Mankind</HI> will cer|tainly be damned, or it will be a wonder if any of them be faved. But give me leave to tell him I do <HI>not &s;ee,</HI> what he &s;ays <HI>we do &s;ee:</HI> that Text will well enough con&s;i&s;t with our Author's Propo&s;ition. For I would ask him, whether the Apo&s;tles follow'd this Commi&s;&s;ion or not: If they obey'd it, then in Baptizing in the Name of <HI>Je&s;us the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> and exhorting tho&s;e to whom they preached, to be baptiz'd in the Name of the <HI>Me&s;|&s;iah,</HI> after their preaching the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> to them, they did in ef|fect baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t, other|wi&s;e they did not pur&s;ue their Commi&s;&s;ion; for we never find them baptizing in tho&s;e expre&s;s Terms, but always in the Name of <HI>Je&s;us the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> or the Lord Je&s;us, or the Lord, and the like. So that Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> mu&s;t either charge the Holy Apo&s;tles with Ig|norance <HI>of,</HI> or Di&s;obedience <HI>to</HI> their Lord's Command, or ac|knowledg that they did really baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho&s;t, when they did but expre&s;|ly baptize in the Name of the Son or <HI>Me&s;&s;iah;</HI> fora&s;much as all that were &s;o baptiz'd, did believe in the Father of that Son of God, as implied in the Son, and in the Holy Gho&s;t, as the Anointing of the Son, and which al&s;o was given to tho&s;e that were &s;o baptiz'd. But as for his Inference, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>it's ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to believe a Trinity in &V;nity in the Godhead;</HI> or <HI>that God is one as to his E&s;&s;ence and Nature, yet there are three Per&s;ons in that Divine E&s;&s;ence, and that the&s;e three Per&s;ons are really the one God:</HI> This will condemn not only the Unitarians, and <HI>the Bulk of Mankind,</HI> but the greater part of Trinitarians, the Learned as well as the Vulgar. For all the real Trinitarians do not believe <HI>one E&s;&s;ence,</HI> but three Numerical E&s;|&s;ences. Here Dr. <HI>Sherlock,</HI> Dr. <HI>Cudworth,</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Gl.</HI> the late Arch-bi&s;hop, Mr. <HI>H&mdash;w,</HI> and all that hold as the Council of <HI>Nice</HI> did, with that Council it &s;elf, and the whole Church (except &s;ome Hereticks) for many Centu|ries, are by Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> expung'd out of the Catalogue of Chri&s;tian Believers, and con&s;equently con|demn'd to the horrible Portion of Infidels or Hereticks. The My|&s;tery-men,
<PB N="8" REF="5">
or <HI>Ignoramus Trinitari|ans,</HI> they are condemn'd too; for they admit not any Explication, and therefore not Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s. There remains only Dr. <HI>South,</HI> and Dr. <HI>Wallis,</HI> and the Philo&s;opher <HI>Hobbs,</HI> who (Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> &s;ays) <HI>is the great Ma&s;ter and Lawgiver of the profe&s;s'd Athei&s;ts,</HI> pag. 129. and that Party which have the ab&s;o|lutely nece&s;&s;ary Faith of three Per&s;ons in one E&s;&s;ence. But if you ask the&s;e Men what they mean by three Per&s;ons: Do they mean according to the common &s;en&s;e of Mankind, and e&s;pecially of the Engli&s;h Nation, three &s;ingular in|tellectual Beings? No, by no means, that is Trithei&s;m, they mean three <HI>Modes</HI> in the one God, which may be re&s;embled to three <HI>Po&s;tures</HI> in one Man; or three ex|ternal Relations, as Creator, Re|deemer, Sanctifier; as one Man may be three Per&s;ons, a <HI>Husband,</HI> a <HI>Father</HI> and <HI>a Ma&s;ter.</HI> This is that Opinion of Faith, which the Antients made Here&s;y, and <HI>Sabellius</HI> the Head of it. Thus it is ab&s;o|lutely nece&s;&s;ary to make a Man a Chri&s;tian, that he be a <HI>Sabellian</HI> Heretick. But perhaps Mr. <HI>Ed|wards</HI> may be of Mr. <HI>H&mdash;w</HI>'s Mind, for he &s;ays, <HI>The&s;e three Per&s;ons are really the one God;</HI> but then, no one of them &s;ingly is &s;o, but eve|ry one <HI>a Third of God:</HI> If &s;o, Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> is indeed a Unitari|an, for he gives us one God only; but then he is no Trinitarian, for he has put down the Father him|&s;elf from being God &s;ingly, and &s;o the Son and Holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P>As to what he &s;ays of being Baptized into the <HI>Faith and Wor|&s;hip</HI> of none <HI>but the only true God,</HI> that has been an&s;wer'd a hundred times. He cannot look into any of the Unitarian Books, but he will find a &s;ufficient An&s;wer to that Inference. Were the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> bap|tiz'd into the Wor&s;hip of <HI>Mo&s;es?</HI> but they were <HI>baptized into</HI> Mo&s;es, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. 2. Or when the Apo|&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> &s;uppo&s;es he might have <HI>baptized in his own Name;</HI> Did he mean that he &s;hould have baptized into the Wor&s;hip of him&s;elf as the mo&s;t high God?</P>
<P>Then Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> minds his Reader, that the Author had left out al&s;o that famous Te&s;timony in Joh. 1. 1. <HI>In the beginning was the Word</HI> [Je&s;us Chri&s;t] <HI>and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.</HI> Whence (&s;aith he) we are obliged to yield a&s;&s;ent to this Article, <HI>That Chri&s;t the Word is God.</HI> Here Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> mu&s;t mean that this is a Fundamental Article, and nece&s;&s;ary to Salva|tion; otherwi&s;e he &s;ays nothing again&s;t his Author, who has pre|vented his urging any other Text, not containing a Fundamental, in his An&s;wer to the Objection from the Epi&s;tles and other Scriptures. For (&s;aith he) <HI>pag.</HI> 299. <HI>They are Objects of Faith&mdash;They are Truths, whereof none that is once known to be &s;uch may be disbelieved. But yet a great many of them, every one
<PB N="9" REF="5">
does, and mu&s;t confe&s;s a Man may be ignorant of; nay disbelieve, with|out Danger to his Salvation: As is evident in tho&s;e who allowing the Au|thority, differ in the Interpretation and Meaning of &s;everal Texts.&mdash;&V;nle&s;s Divine Revelation can mean contra|ry to it &s;elf.</HI> The whole Paragraph ought to be read, which I have a|bridged. And if this Text of <HI>John</HI> 1. 1. be not one of tho&s;e, that by rea&s;on of its difficulty and va|riety of Sen&s;es, may not be di&s;|believ'd in Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s Sen&s;e, then I will be bold to &s;ay, There's no &s;uch Text in the whole Bible. To it I &s;ay, 1. He dares not tru&s;t his Reader with the clear Text, but thru&s;ts in his own Sen&s;e, <HI>In the beginning was the Word</HI> (Je&s;us Chri&s;t:) and then 2. Makes his Fundamental Article not from the Text, but from what he has in|&s;erted into the Text thus, <HI>Chri&s;t the Word is God.</HI> But will Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;tick to that? Is he of <HI>Socinus</HI>'s Mind, that by the Word is meant the Man Je&s;us Chri&s;t, born of the Ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, and anointed with the Holy Gho&s;t? I think he is not. Or does he mean that Chri&s;t was <HI>the Fir&s;t-born of every Creature,</HI> as he is called, <HI>Col.</HI> 1. 14. <HI>The begin|ning of the Creation of God,</HI> Rev. 3. 14. <HI>By</HI> whom God made the Worlds, and is therefore <HI>a God?</HI> I think Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> might be call'd an <HI>Ari|an,</HI> if that were his Sen&s;e. What then does he mean? He does not mean that either the Body or Soul, or both united to con&s;titute a Man, or the Anointing of the Holy Gho&s;t added to that Man, was the <HI>Word;</HI> though by rea&s;on of tho&s;e he had the Name of <HI>Je|&s;us,</HI> and by rea&s;on of this he had the Name of <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> He means by the Word, <HI>a &s;econd Per&s;on or Mode of God.</HI> Now how fairly he calls this &s;econd Per&s;on a Mode of God, <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> when it was nei|ther Je&s;us nor Chri&s;t, nor any part of him, let his Reader judg. <HI>In the beginning was the Word]</HI> that is, (according to him) before the Beginning, and therefore from Eternity, God in a &s;econd Mode or Per&s;on did exi&s;t: <HI>and the Word was with God] i. e.</HI> God in the &s;e|cond Mode was pre&s;ent with God, even him&s;elf in the fir&s;t Mode or Per&s;on: <HI>and the Word was God]</HI> i. e. God in his &s;econd Mode was <HI>him|&s;elf;</HI> or otherwi&s;e, was the Father him&s;elf and the Holy Gho&s;t; for he tells us before, that the three Per&s;ons [or Modes] <HI>are really the one God:</HI> but if the <HI>Word</HI> is really the one God, as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> under&s;tands the Term <HI>God</HI> in this Text, then the <HI>Word</HI> is the three Per&s;ons, or el&s;e he is not really the one God, which the three Per&s;ons only are. Now if this be a clear Text to build an Article nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, and the Wor&s;hip of another Almighty and only wi&s;e Per&s;on upon, be&s;ides the God and Father of our Lord Je|&s;us Chri&s;t; let all that have any reverence for God or his Go&s;pel judg! Be&s;ides, can he alledg one
<PB N="10" REF="6">
Text out of all the Old Te&s;ta|ment, or out of the three former Go&s;pels, where ever by the <HI>WORD</HI> or <HI>Logos</HI> (as they love to &s;peak) is meant any &s;uch preexi&s;tent e|ternal Per&s;on? If there be none &s;uch, it &s;eems to be no little De|fect in the Holy Scriptures, that the World &s;hould be 4000 Years old, before any part of it heard any thing of a &s;econd per&s;onal God, equal to the Fir&s;t, and who had therefore as much Right to be known and wor&s;hipped as the Fir&s;t: Nay, and that that Per&s;on, <HI>the Word,</HI> &s;hould have no mention made of him in the Go&s;pels or Sermons of Chri&s;t or the Apo&s;tles till above three&s;core Years after the A&s;cen&s;ion; for it for it was &s;o long (as Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;torians tell us) before the Go&s;pel of the Apo&s;tle <HI>John</HI> was written, all the Churches and Believers we read of in Scripture, having been ga|ther'd and converted before.</P>
<P>Next Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> tells us <HI>(p.</HI> 107.) <HI>there is added</HI> in ver&s;e 14. <HI>another indi&s;pen&s;able point of Faith,</HI> viz. <HI>That the Word was made Fle&s;h,</HI> i. e. <HI>That God was incarnate, the &s;ame with</HI> 1 Tim. 3. 16. <HI>God manife&s;t in the Fle&s;h.</HI></P>
<P>One would have expected that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> undertaking in &s;hort to confute a Propo&s;ition, that the Author had &s;pent <HI>three quarters of his Book</HI> (which con&s;i&s;ts of 300 Pages) in proving; and for which he had alledg'd perhaps an hun|dred clear Texts of Holy Scrip|ture, &s;hould have produc'd &s;ome clear Texts again&s;t him, and not &s;uch as need Explanations; and when he has explain'd them, leaves them far more difficult than be|fore. We have &s;poken already of the <HI>Word</HI> that was &s;aid to be God in the fir&s;t ver&s;e of that Chapter; and now in the <HI>14th</HI> the <HI>Word</HI> mu&s;t &s;ignify God: but, 1. Are not the &s;ame Words and Terms taken in different &s;en|&s;es in the &s;ame Context, and that too, when they come nearer to|gether than at thirteen ver&s;es di|&s;tance? Thus the word <HI>Light</HI> in <HI>ver.</HI> 5. &s;ignifies an imper&s;onal Thing; but in the 7, 8, and <HI>9th</HI> ver&s;es, it denotes a Per&s;on, which <HI>John</HI> was not, but Je&s;us was, to wit, the Revealer of the Word or Go&s;pel. 2. The Father was God too, and if God was <HI>Incar|nate,</HI> how will it be avoided that the Father was <HI>Incarnate?</HI> And if it cannot, then Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> will be a <HI>Patripa&s;&s;ian</HI> Heretick. 3. It mu&s;t be acknowledged, that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> has given a wonderful learned Ex|planation of the Phra&s;e<HI>&mdash;was made Fle&s;h;</HI> far more Learned than that of the old Ju&s;tice<HI>&mdash;In|va&s;ion is Inva&s;ion.</HI> The Vulgar and Unlearned may under&s;tand &s;omething, when it is &s;aid that one Thing is made another Thing, as when <HI>Water was made Wine:</HI> but I doubt they will &s;tare and know nothing, when one tells 'em that <HI>a Per&s;on was Incarnate;</HI> much more when they read Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="6">
&s;aying, That <HI>God was Incarnate,</HI> will they not gladly return from the Explanation to the Text? and then it will run thus, <HI>God was made Fle&s;h.</HI> But was God indeed turn'd into Fle&s;h, and <HI>cea&s;ed to be God,</HI> as the Water turn'd into Wine cea&s;ed to be Water? I'm &s;ure Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> never intends to make that an <HI>indi&s;pen&s;able Point of Faith,</HI> as he calls this, <HI>That God was Incarnate.</HI> But this is a very hard ca&s;e, that the generality of the World (which <HI>God &s;o loved, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who&s;oever believeth in him &s;hould not peri&s;h, but have everla&s;ting Life)</HI> their Salvation or Damnation &s;hould &s;till depend on the belief of, not only <HI>ob&s;cure</HI> Texts, but of <HI>much more ob&s;cure</HI> Interpretations of tho&s;e Texts. Whether &s;hall we go for the Sen&s;e of <HI>God was In|carnate?</HI> He &s;ends us to 1 Tim. 3. 16. <HI>God manife&s;t in the Fle&s;h.</HI> But he might know that that reading of the Word <HI>GOD</HI> in that Text is a Corruption, and that in&s;tead of <HI>God</HI> was read <HI>which</HI> in the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> as the accurate Examination again&s;t Mr. <HI>Milbourn</HI> has fully prov'd; however allow|ing that reading, has given a ra|tional Sen&s;e of it. Thus we are &s;ent for the Sen&s;e of an ob&s;curer Interpretation of an ob&s;cure Text, to a corrupt One. Whither &s;hall we go next? It's very like that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> may next time &s;end us to the <HI>Athana&s;ian Creed,</HI> when the Scriptures fail him; That <HI>Creed</HI> &s;aith, <HI>It is nece&s;&s;ary to everla&s;ting Salvation, that one believe rightly the INCARNATION of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,&mdash;</HI>That he <HI>is God and Man&mdash;perfect God and perfect Man&mdash;One Chri&s;t, not by Conver&s;ion of the Godhead into Fle&s;h, but by taking of the Manhood into God:</HI> So then the &s;en&s;e of <HI>the Word was made Fle&s;h,</HI> will be this, <HI>God was Incarnate,</HI> that is, not by being made Fle&s;h or Man, but by taking Man into God; that is, God is now perfect God and Man. Well, but &s;ince God is a Per&s;on, and Man ano|ther Per&s;on; perfect God and per|fect Man mu&s;t unavoidably be two Per&s;ons: but this is the He|re&s;y of <HI>Ne&s;torius</HI> Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople, An. Dom.</HI> 428. but how &s;hall we help it? For to be|lieve God and Man not to be two Per&s;ons, we directly contradict our Belief of God's being <HI>perfect God</HI> and <HI>perfect Man.</HI> If we &s;ay with <HI>Apollinarius, An. Dom.</HI> 370. That God and Man are not two Per&s;ons but one, becau&s;e the Man had no Human Soul or Under|&s;tanding, then we contradict God's being a perfect Man, and are con|demn'd to eternal Damnation, as <HI>Apollinarian</HI> Hereticks. And if for &s;olving the&s;e Difficulties, we &s;hould think good to hold, that indeed there were two Natures in Chri&s;t when God was made Fle&s;h, but upon the Union the Human was &s;wallowed up of the Divine, and &s;o there was one Nature made of two; then we incur the
<PB N="12" REF="7">
<HI>Anathema</HI> of the <HI>Eutichian</HI> Here|ticks.</P>
<P><Q>And it follows (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Edw.)</HI> in the &s;ame ver&s;e of this fir&s;t Chapter of St. <HI>John,</HI> that <HI>this Word is the only begotten of the Father;</HI> whence we are bound to believe the Eternal, tho ineffable, <HI>Generation of the Son of God.</HI></Q></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Could Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> be &s;o weak as to think any Body but one deeply prejudiced, would ap|prove of either of his Inferences from that Clau&s;e? either the E|ternal Generation, or that we are bound to believe it as an Article nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation? Does he not know that Je&s;us is the <HI>only Son</HI> of God, by rea&s;on of that Gene|ration which befel him in Time? Does he read of any other Son that God generated of a Virgin but Je&s;us? See <HI>Luke</HI> 1. 35. Did God ever <HI>&s;anctify and &s;end into the World</HI> in &s;uch <HI>a Mea&s;ure and Man|ner,</HI> any that were called Gods or Sons of God, as he did Je&s;us our Lord? See <HI>John.</HI> 10. 35, 36, 37, 38. and <HI>Chap.</HI> 3. 34. Did he ever give &s;uch Te&s;timony to any other? Did God ever beget any other Son by rai&s;ing him from the Dead to an immortal Life <HI>(Acts</HI> 13. 33.) <HI>by anointing him with the Oil of Gladne&s;s above his Fellows,</HI> Heb. 1. 9. By <HI>&s;etting him on his Right|hand,</HI> making him <HI>to inherit a more excellent Name than Angels,</HI> even that of <HI>SON</HI> in a more excellent Sen&s;e, <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 3, 4, 5. By <HI>glori|fying</HI> Chri&s;t, making him <HI>an High-Prie&s;t,</HI> &s;aying unto him, <HI>Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee?</HI> Is not <HI>I&s;aac</HI> call'd the only begotten Son of <HI>Abraham,</HI> though <HI>Abraham</HI> had other Sons? But for Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'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 wi&s;h he would not be &s;o ra&s;h, but more reverent in &s;o tremendous a Point.</P>
<P>Next, he finds our Author faul|ty in not <HI>taking notice, that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son,</HI> John 14. 10, 11. <HI>and that the Son is in the Father, and the Fa|ther in the Son, which expre&s;&s;es their &V;nity.</HI> Wonderful! Did our Au|thor indeed take no notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son? when he all along in his Treati&s;e makes the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah, Chri&s;t, Son of God,</HI> terms &s;ynonimous, and that &s;ignify the &s;ame thing; and cites abundance of Texts to that purpo&s;e; &s;o that the belief of the Father &amp; the Son, is required by him in the whole three quarters of his Book, which Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> takes notice he &s;pent in proving his Propo&s;ition. Did Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> write the&s;e Remarks? Or did &s;ome body el&s;e add them to his Book <HI>of the Cau&s;es of Athei&s;m?</HI> As for the <HI>&V;nity of the Father and Son, expre&s;t</HI> he &s;ays by the&s;e words, <HI>The Son is in the Father, and the
<PB N="13" REF="7">
Father in the Son;</HI> Does he think his Reader never read that Text in John 17. 21. <HI>That they</HI> [Be|lievers] <HI>all may be one, as thou Fa|ther art in me, and I in thee, that they al&s;o may be one in us,</HI> with <HI>ver.</HI> 23. Or that other Text, 1 <HI>John</HI> 4. 16. <HI>He that dwelleth in Love, dwelleth in God, and God in him?</HI> But for the word <HI>&V;nity,</HI> which he u&s;es, if he means by it any more than a clo&s;e Union, it implies a contra|diction, that two &s;hould be one; that a Duality &s;hould be an Uni|ty. <HI>This</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is made an Article of Faith by our Saviour's par|ticular and expre&s;s Command.</HI> He mu&s;t mean, that Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s own &s;en&s;e of that Text is com|manded as nece&s;&s;ary to Salvati|on, el&s;e he &s;ays no more of that than the Author allows concern|ing both that and other Scrip|tures. If he means his own &s;en&s;e, then I think he's an incon&s;iderate and ra&s;h Man; for I have &s;hew'd that his &s;en&s;e is contradictious.</P>
<P>Here Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> calls in que&s;ti|on the &s;incerity of our Author, and, <HI>pag.</HI> 109. &s;ays, <Q>It is mo&s;t evident to any thinking and con&s;iderate Per&s;on, that he pur|po&s;ely omits the <HI>Epi&s;tolary Wri|tings</HI> of the Apo&s;tles, becau&s;e they are fraught with <HI>other Fun|damental Doctrines,</HI> be&s;ides that one which he mentions.</Q></P>
<P>I will not que&s;tion Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s &s;incerity in what he writes, but I que&s;tion much his due con&s;idering what he writes again&s;t. Does not our Author make in effect the &s;ame Objection again&s;t him&s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 291. and an&s;wer it in four|teen pages, even to the end of his Book? but Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> takes notice of very little of it. And the mo&s;t of that he does take notice of, he an&s;wers with a little Rail|lery upon the <HI>Bulk of Mankind,</HI> the <HI>unlearned Multitude,</HI> the <HI>Mob,</HI> and <HI>our Author.</HI> His note upon the&s;e Phra&s;es, is, <HI>Surely this Gen|tleman is afraid of Captain</HI> Tom, <HI>and is going to make a Religion for his Myrmidons.&mdash;We are come to a fine pa&s;s indeed; the venerable</HI> Mob <HI>mu&s;t be ask'd what we mu&s;t believe.</HI> Thus he ridicules the Doctrine of Faith, on which the Salvation or Damnation of the Multitude de|pends, and the Grounds of our Author's De&s;ign; who finding in Holy Scripture, <HI>that God would have all Men to be &s;aved, and come to the KNOWLEDG of the Truth; the Go&s;pel was preach'd to the Poor, and the common People heard Chri&s;t gladly; that God hath cho&s;en the Poor in this World, rich in Faith;</HI> he concluded (when he had over|come the prejudices of Educati|on, and the contempt of the Learn|ed, and tho&s;e that think them|&s;elves &s;o) that the Go&s;pel mu&s;t be a very intelligible and plain Doctrine, <HI>&s;uted to Vulgar Capaci|ties, and the State of Mankind in this World de&s;tin'd to Labour and Travel; not &s;uch as the Writers and Wranglers in Religion have made it.</HI> To this Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> an&s;wers (be|&s;ides
<PB N="14" REF="8">
what I have noted above) and is forced to agree, <HI>That all Men ought to under&s;tand their Reli|gion:</HI> but then asks (as of a po|&s;itive thing not to be doubted) <HI>if Men may not under&s;tand tho&s;e Arti|cles of Faith which he had mention'd a little before,</HI> pretended to be found in the Epi&s;tolary Writings, [which are generally form'd not in Scripture-Terms, and a|bout which there is &s;uch endle&s;s Contentions] <HI>when they be ex|plain'd to them, as well as our Au|thor's Article, Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah?</HI> Nay he is confident that there is no more Difficulty in under&s;tand|ing this Propo&s;ition <HI>[The Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t, are one God or Divine Nature]</HI> than in that other of our Author (&s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 120.) when yet the World knows to its Co&s;t, that this Article has exer|cis'd all the greate&s;t Wits of the Church the&s;e fourteen or fifteen hundred Years to under&s;tand the Terms, and take away the Con|tradictions: and at this Day the Engli&s;h Trinitarians have mo&s;t fierce Contentions among them|&s;elves about the meaning of it. The nominal Trinitarians agree with the Unitarians, that the Re|ali&s;ts, that hold three real Per|&s;ons, are Trithei&s;ts; and the Re|ali&s;ts agree with the Unitarians, that the Nominals or Modali&s;ts de&s;troy the <HI>Reality</HI> of the Eternal Son and Holy Gho&s;t, and are <HI>Pa|tripa&s;&s;ians</HI> or <HI>Sabellians.</HI> Be&s;ides, Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> knows that each of the&s;e Parties are at va&s;t difference a|mong them&s;elves; they ea&s;ily find Incon&s;i&s;tences or Contradictions in one anothers Explications; &s;o that &s;uppo&s;ing there be but ten different Trinitarian Hypothe&s;es, (I think there are more) every one has mine again&s;t him, all which he looks upon as faulty; and they on the other Hand do all reject his. They reject them I &s;ay, not, as the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Sarum,</HI> in his Let|ter to D. <HI>W. pag.</HI> 56. would paliate Matter, as having <HI>the &s;ame Acts of Piety and Adoration, though different ways of Explaining, either the &V;nity of the E&s;&s;ence, or the Trinity of the Per&s;ons;</HI> but as having <HI>different Acts,</HI> except we can have the &s;ame Idea's when we wor&s;hip three Gods, as when we wor&s;hip one only; or when we wor&s;hip one all-perfect Per&s;on, as when we wor&s;hip three &s;uch; or when we wor&s;hip one real Per&s;on, and two nominal Ones, as when we wor&s;hip three Equals; or when we wor&s;hip one &s;elf-exi&s;tent God, and two dependent Gods not &s;elf-exi&s;tent, as when we wor|&s;hip three Self-exi&s;tents, and the like. Again, Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Propo|&s;ition is <HI>never once</HI> found in Holy Writ; but our Author's <HI>often</HI> expre&s;ly. He u&s;es Terms in &s;uch a Sen&s;e as they are never us'd in Scripture, for <HI>Divine Nature</HI> is never put there for <HI>God;</HI> nor does the word <HI>GOD,</HI> or <HI>one God,</HI> ever &s;ignify Father, Son and H. Gho&s;t, but always one &s;ingular Per&s;on;
<PB N="15" REF="8">
and throughout the Holy Scrip|tures from the Beginning to the End, God is &s;poken <HI>of,</HI> and &s;poken <HI>to,</HI> as one only Per&s;on, and by Terms and Pronouns that &s;ignify &s;ingularly, and never otherwi&s;e. God indeed does twice or thrice &s;peak of him&s;elf Plurally, as Per|&s;ons of Dignity and Dominion do often. But our Author both his Words in Form, and his Explica|tions are all taken out of Scrip|ture; and in the Days of our Sa|viour and his Apo&s;tles, there was no difficulty in under&s;tanding them. The mo&s;t illiterate Fi&s;her|men and Shepherds, and Women, knew what was meant by <HI>JES&V;s,</HI> and what by <HI>Me&s;&s;iah:</HI> The only Que&s;tion was, whether the Pro|po&s;ition <HI>Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> was to be affirm'd, or denied. But notwith&s;tanding all this, Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays, <HI>Truly if there be any Difficul|ty, it is in our Author's Propo&s;ition;</HI> why pray? <HI>For here is an He|brew word fir&s;t to be explain'd be|fore the Mob can under&s;tand the Pro|po&s;ition:</HI> But by his favour, the word <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> is by our Tran&s;la|tors adopted into the Engli&s;h Tongue, and the common People, <HI>the Rabble</HI> (as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> is pleas'd to call them) under&s;tand it as well as they do <HI>the Chri&s;t</HI> or the <HI>Anointed,</HI> and al&s;o the Explicati|ons of tho&s;e Terms, provided they u&s;e to read either them&s;elves, or hear others read the Holy Scriptures. But the word <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> was in our Saviour and the Apo|&s;tles Time mo&s;t common among the Jews: therefore our Au|thor de&s;igning to repre&s;ent the Preaching and Faith of that Time, cho&s;e to u&s;e it more frequently than any other Term, &s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 30. But I pre&s;ume Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> brought in this Objection, only as a <HI>Diver|&s;ion.</HI> If he really think as he &s;ays, it's a &s;harp <HI>Reflection</HI> upon all the Learned Trinitarian Controver|ti&s;ts upon this Point; except they take it more <HI>candidly</HI> for an Invi|tation to their Reverences and right Reverences, to come to the mo&s;t Learned Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> to inform their Under&s;tandings, and &s;olve all the Difficulties that make them at &s;o great Odds one with ano|ther: And it's to be hoped he will give &s;uch a clear Explication of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> as will &s;atisfy the <HI>My&s;te|ry-men</HI> or Ignoramus-Trinitari|ans, that at length they may un|der&s;tand what they now profe&s;s to believe without Under&s;tand|ing.</P>
<P>But to return, for all this will &s;eem a Digre&s;&s;ion except the Reader plea&s;e to remember it is for a Vindication of our Author from Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s hard charge, <HI>of purpo&s;ely omitting the Epi&s;tolary Writings, becau&s;e fraught with o|ther Fundamental Doctrines be&s;ides that one which he mentions:</HI> Among tho&s;e, Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> reckons chiefly and <HI>more e&s;pecially&mdash;The Doctrine of the ever to be adored Trinity, emi|nently atte&s;ted in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles.</HI> This Doctrine he has given us in his
<PB N="16" REF="9">
Propo&s;ition above di&s;cour&s;ed, and has attempted to &s;how (again&s;t Matter of Fact in all Ages, and e&s;pecially in this pre&s;ent Time) that this Fundamental ought not to have been omitted becau&s;e of its Difficulty or Unintelligiblene&s;s; for it is (he &s;aith) le&s;s difficult than that of our Author, <HI>Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah;</HI> but how &s;ucce&s;sfully I leave to con&s;ideration. But if it be Unintelligible, or Contradicti|ous, at lea&s;t to the Bulk of Man|kind, then it's impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould be a Fundamental Arti|cle; and therefore our Author needed not <HI>purpo&s;ely to omit the E|pi&s;tolary Writings of the Apo&s;tles,</HI> for fear of finding it there, &s;ince Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> him&s;elf cannot find it there, nor in the Bible.</P>
<P>But what &s;ays he to our Au|thor's full An&s;wer to the Que&s;ti|on, about the U&s;efulne&s;s of the Epi&s;tles, though <HI>the Belief of ma|ny Doctrines contained in them be not nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation?</HI> Our Au|thor an&s;wers, <Q>1. That he that will read the Epi&s;tles as he ought, mu&s;t ob&s;erve what 'tis in them is principally aim'd at;&mdash;for that is the Truth which is to be receiv'd and believ'd, and not &s;catter'd Sentences in Scripture-Language, accommo|dated to our Notions and Pre|judices.</Q> What &s;ays Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> to that? 2. [for I abridg] <Q>There be many Truths in the Bible, which a good Chri&s;tian may be wholly ignorant of, and &s;o not believe; which perhaps &s;ome lay great &s;tre&s;s on, and call Fundamental Articles, be|cau&s;e they are the di&s;tingui&s;hing Points of their Communion.</Q> What &s;ays Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> to this? <Q>3. The Epi&s;tles were writ to tho&s;e who were in the Faith, and true Chri&s;tians already; and &s;o could not be de&s;ign'd to teach them the Fundamental Articles and Points nece&s;&s;ary to Salvati|on.</Q> This he &s;hows from the Addre&s;s of all the Epi&s;tles, or &s;omething noted in them. <Q>4. Their re&s;olving Doubts and re|forming Mi&s;takes, are of great Advantage to our Knowledg and Practice. 5. The great Doctrines of the Chri&s;tian Faith are dropt here and there,</Q> [He has cited &s;ome &s;uch Pa&s;&s;ages in the Proof of his Propo&s;ition].&mdash;<Q>We &s;hall find tho&s;e nece&s;&s;ary Points be&s;t in the Preaching of our Sa|viour and the Apo&s;tles. 6. The Epi&s;tles, be&s;ides the main Ar|gument of each of them, do in many places explain the Funda|mentals, and that wi&s;ely, by pro|per Accommodations to the ap|prehen&s;ions of tho&s;e they were writ to.</Q> Which he &s;hows par|ticularly in the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Ro|mans,</HI> and that to the <HI>Hebrews;</HI> al&s;o in the general Epi&s;tles. At length, <Q>The&s;e Holy Writers (&s;aith he) <HI>in&s;pir'd from above</HI> writ nothing but Truth; and in mo&s;t places very weighty Truths to us now;&mdash;But yet
<PB N="17" REF="9">
every Sentence of theirs, mu&s;t not be taken up and look'd upon as a Fundamental nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, without an <HI>explicite</HI> Belief, whereof no Body could be a Member of Chri&s;t's Church, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For (&s;aith he, <HI>pag.</HI> 299.) 'tis plain, the contending Par|ties on one &s;ide or t'other, are ignorant of, nay, disbelieve the Truths deliver'd in Holy Writ, as I noted before.</Q></P>
<P>This little I have tran&s;cribed out of our Author for the &s;ake of tho&s;e, who perhaps have not his Book, but have Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s, and that it may appear how <HI>unfairly</HI> (to &s;ay no wor&s;e) Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> deals with our Author, &s;aying, pag. 111. <HI>He pa&s;&s;es by the&s;e in&s;pired Writings with &s;ome contempt;</HI> al&s;o he &s;ug|ge&s;ts his in&s;incerity to the Reader. But I have &s;een a Letter from a Gentleman of no ordinary Judg|ment, who &s;ays,&mdash;<Q>Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> has not only mi&s;took Mr. <HI>Lock,</HI> but abus'd and belied him: for he &s;ays, Mr. <HI>Lock</HI> cites only the <HI>Go&s;pels</HI> and <HI>Acts,</HI> but declares (or in&s;inuates) his contempt of the Epi&s;tles, as if they were not of like Authority with the Acts or Go&s;pels; but Mr. <HI>Lock</HI> has no where intimated any &s;uch Opinion. His Book <HI>(&s;aith he)</HI> &s;hows, He has read the Scrip|tures with very great Ob&s;erva|tion, as well as Judgment; he &s;uffers nothing to e&s;cape him, that belongs to the Subject he manages.</Q></P>
<P>He names our Author Mr. <HI>Lock,</HI> which I am a&s;&s;ured he does by common Fame and Conjecture; he has no other Grounds for it, as neither have I, no more than Mr. <HI>Edwards.</HI> Whether we are mi&s;|taken or not in his Name I know not, but I think I have proved that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> is much mi&s;taken in his Judgment concerning his Book, or has perver&s;ly cen&s;ur'd him and it. He is &s;o far from con|temning the Epi&s;tles, (as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> accu&s;es him) that whoever will take the Pains to reckon, he will find he has quoted them, and re|fer'd to them near FOURSCORE times. And Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> is no le&s;s Injurious in his Cen&s;ures upon other Writers: <HI>In the very Soci|nian Doctrine it &s;elf</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>there &s;eems to be an Athei&s;tical Tang.</HI> For proof, he cites the <HI>Con&s;iderations on the Explications of Doct. of Trin.</HI> pag. 5. Where (&s;aith he) <HI>the Self-exi&s;tence of God, which is the Pri|mary, Fundamental, and E&s;&s;ential Property&mdash;of the Deity, is peremptorily pronounc'd by them to be a CON|TRADICTION.</HI> It's &s;trange a Man of Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s Under|taking, &s;hould give forth &s;uch a Calumny. His Ldp. of <HI>Worce&s;ter</HI> &s;ays, <HI>If God was from Eternity, he mu&s;t be from him&s;elf.</HI> That Au|thor an&s;wers, that <HI>that is an E|&s;pou&s;ing the Cau&s;e of the Athei&s;ts,</HI> and he gives this Rea&s;on; <HI>If God is from Eternity, he mu&s;t be of none; neither of (or from) him&s;elf, nor from any other; not from him&s;elf, for
<PB N="18" REF="10">
then he mu&s;t be before he was; and neither from him&s;elf, nor from any other, becau&s;e all Origination of what kind &s;oever is incon&s;i&s;tent with an Eternal Being.</HI> Is this now pe|remptorily to pronounce, that the <HI>Self-exi&s;tence</HI> of God is a Contra|diction? or is it not to vindicate the Self-exi&s;tence of God from a fal&s;e Notion of it, occa&s;ion'd by the Bi&s;hop's words? But what will Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ay to the Author of the XXVIII Propo&s;itions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> (who, they &s;ay, is the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Glouc.)</HI> who peremptorily denies, nay &s;ays, <HI>It is a flat Contradicti|on, to &s;ay that the &s;econd and third Per&s;ons</HI> (of the Trinity) <HI>are Self-exi&s;tent?</HI> (Prop. 8.) Con&s;equently neither of them is <HI>God:</HI> becau&s;e (as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays) <HI>Self-exi&s;tence is the Primary, Fundamental, and E&s;|&s;ential Property of God,</HI> which yet neither the Son nor the H. Gho&s;t have. I wi&s;h Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> would either reconcile him&s;elf to the Bi|&s;hop, or the Bi&s;hop to him, be|fore he charges an <HI>Athei&s;tical Tang</HI> upon the Socinian Doctrine, upon account of the denial of God's Self-exi&s;tence, which he may &s;ee &s;trongly affirm'd in the Reflecti|ons on the &s;aid Propo&s;itions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>As for <HI>Socinus</HI>'s denying the Prae&s;cience of Contingencies, I am not, nor is our Author con|cern'd in it; but which is more di&s;honourable to God, to be the Author of all the Sin and Wick|edne&s;s that ever was, or ever will be in the World; or to de|ny his Fore-knowledge of the cer|tainty of that which is not cer|tain. <HI>Socinus</HI> and <HI>Crellius</HI> have de|nied &s;uch an Immen&s;ity of God, which makes him to be e&s;&s;entially and wholly in every point of Space; becau&s;e &s;uch Immen&s;ity would take away all Di&s;tinction between God and Creature, and has indeed an <HI>Athei&s;tical Tang;</HI> for the greater part of Athei&s;ts hold the Univer&s;e to be God; hence <HI>Lucan, Jupiter e&s;t quodcun&abque; vides, quocun&abque; moveris.</HI> Which opinion, &s;ome of the Antient Fa|thers have wrote again&s;t; as <HI>Cle|mens Alexandrinus,</HI> and others. Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> may charge them all with <HI>a Tang of Athei&s;m</HI> if he plea&s;e. As for God's Spirituali|ty, mode&s;t Divines confe&s;s it ea|&s;ier to &s;ay, <HI>What it is not, than what it is.</HI> Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> perhaps has at|tain'd to &s;uch a perfection of Knowledg in that Matter, as may make him able to teach them what they are now ignorant of: But <HI>So|cinus</HI> nor <HI>Crellius,</HI> nor any other of them ever denied, contrary to mo&s;t expre&s;s, and often repeated Scrip|tures, and common Rea&s;on, the mo&s;t glorious Attribute of God's <HI>&V;nity,</HI> which gives Excellency to all his other Attributes: for were Self-exi&s;tence, Omni&s;cience, Im|men&s;ity and Spirituality, and all other Attributes common to more than One; where would the Ex|cellency and Maje&s;ty of God's Name be? How &s;hould we love and adore him with all our Hearts
<PB N="19" REF="10">
and Strength, when there are o|thers that require it and have as equal right to it as he? But Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> will count him&s;elf highly in|jur'd, if I charge him with de|nying God's Unity: but hold a little, be not angry; If you be, Take heed it be not more for your own &s;ake, than for God's &s;ake: Do you not &s;ay, that <HI>the infinite Nature of God is communicable to three di&s;tinct Per&s;ons?</HI> pag. 79. <HI>and</HI> pag. 120. <HI>That the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t are one God, or Divine Nature?</HI> Are not the&s;e Terms convertible? namely, That one God is Father, Son and H. Gho&s;t, that is, three Per&s;ons? and what are three Almighty and only wi&s;e Per&s;ons, but three Gods? The Father is one God, the Son is one God di&s;tinct from the Father, and the Holy Gho&s;t is one God di|&s;tinct from the Father and Son. Thus your Propo&s;ition amounts to this, That one God is three Gods, that the Unity of God is a <HI>Trini|ty</HI> of Gods. That <HI>&V;nity</HI> or <HI>One|ne&s;s</HI> is no longer an Attribute of God, but <HI>Trinity</HI> or <HI>Threene&s;s.</HI> But we cannot be heard, let us make out your Contradictions never &s;o clearly: nay, you impute it to us as a heinous Crime, that we make it an Argument again&s;t the be|lief of your Trinity, that it can|not be under&s;tood without Con|tradiction. You impute to us mo&s;t injuriou&s;ly, that <HI>we are to admit of nothing but what is exactly adju&s;ted to Nature's and Rea&s;on's Light,</HI> pag. 68. That <HI>therefore the Trinity is a Doctrine that can't be born, becau&s;e it can't be under&s;tood,</HI> pag. 69. and that <HI>the Engli&s;h &V;nitarians declare they cannot believe it, becau&s;e Rea&s;on does not teach it,</HI> pag. 72. This is a Topick the Trinitarians do al|ways inlarge upon, and urge with a great deal of Pomp in them|&s;elves, and Ignominy in the Uni|tarians, as Per&s;ons that prefer their own Rea&s;onings before Di|vine Revelation how clear &s;oever. And though this Calumny has been an&s;wer'd and wip'd away, and retorted upon them a hun|dred Times, yet Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> will &s;till confidently charge it. He cites the Letter of Re&s;olution for proof of it, and therefore has read it, but pa&s;&s;es by the An&s;wer to this Imputation, which is to be found in the very fir&s;t Page of it, where thus; <Q>Fir&s;t, 'Tis not true, that we prefer Rea&s;on before Revelation; on the contrary, Revelation being what <HI>GOD</HI> him&s;elf hath &s;aid, either imme|diately, or by in&s;pired Per&s;ons; 'tis to be preferr'd before the cleare&s;t Demon&s;tration of our Rea&s;on.</Q> And in the <HI>Con&s;ider. on Explic. on</HI> 4 <HI>Serm.</HI> and a Sermon of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Worce&s;ter,</HI> the Author &s;ays: <Q>He utterly mi&s;takes in thinking that we deny the Articles of the new Chri&s;tia|nity, or Athana&s;ian Religion, becau&s;e they are My&s;teries, or becau&s;e we do not comprehend them; we have a clear and di|&s;tinct
<PB N="20" REF="11">
<HI>Perception,</HI> that they are not My&s;teries but Contradicti|ons, Impo&s;&s;ibilities, and pure Non-&s;en&s;e.</Q></P>
<P>But now that the Trinitarians do mo&s;t expre&s;ly prefer their Rea|&s;oning, Con&s;equences and wire-drawn Deductions before Holy Scripture; be&s;ides that it has been done in the Notes upon the Athana&s;ian Creed, and other Tracts, I &s;hall &s;hew further from Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s Fundamental Do|ctrine, but now recited; if at lea&s;t the Trinitarians will acknow|ledg him for their Orthodox Champion.</P>
<P N="1">1. It's manife&s;t he means by the one God, not one Divine Al|mighty Per&s;on, but three &s;uch; but nothing is more evident in Holy Scripture, than that God is one Per&s;on only. For proof of it, I have referr'd my Reader to the Scriptures from beginning to end, in more than twenty thou|&s;and Texts, even as often as God is &s;poken of, or to, or &s;peaks of him&s;elf (except as I have &s;aid). But Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays expre&s;ly, that his God is <HI>three di&s;tinct Divine Per&s;ons,</HI> to wit, the Father of the Son, the Son of the Father, and the H. Gho&s;t which proceedeth from the Fa|ther and the Son. 2. He &s;ays, that <HI>the&s;e three di&s;tinct Divine Per|&s;ons,</HI> [each of which is God in the mo&s;t perfect Sen&s;e] <HI>is the only true God, or the one God, or Di|vine Nature.</HI> The Propo&s;ition which he advances, as <HI>nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, and more ea&s;y to be under|&s;tood</HI> than that Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah, is, <HI>That the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t are one God, or Divine Nature.</HI> Whereby it's manife&s;t, that by <HI>ONE GOD</HI> he means not <HI>one Per|&s;on,</HI> but <HI>one Divine Nature;</HI> and by one Divine Nature he means &s;uch a Divine Nature as is <HI>com|municable to three di&s;tinct Per&s;ons,</HI> &s;ee pag. 79. So that his three Per&s;ons which are one God, are <HI>&s;o</HI> one God as they communicate in <HI>one Divine Nature;</HI> in like man|ner as <HI>Peter, James</HI> and <HI>John</HI> are <HI>one Man,</HI> becau&s;e they communi|cate in one Human Nature, as do al&s;o all the Men in the World. Now I &s;hall cite &s;ome Texts of H. Scripture, which do expre&s;ly de|clare that God is ONE; and that cannot otherwi&s;e be under&s;tood than that he is one Per&s;on, or &s;in|gular intellectual Nature, E&s;|&s;ence or Sub&s;tance. Here let me premi&s;e fir&s;t, How <HI>Equivocally</HI> Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> and the Trinitarians ex|pre&s;s them&s;elves in this great and nece&s;&s;ary Point, on which de|pends our Eternal Salvation; and whereby the <HI>Bulk of Mankind</HI> (for I think that's a far more decent Phra&s;e than Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s <HI>Rabble,</HI> or <HI>Captain</HI> Tom <HI>and his Myrmadons,</HI> or <HI>the venerable Mob)</HI> cannot e|&s;cape being deluded. He and they confe&s;s al&s;o, that there is but <HI>one God,</HI> though three Per&s;ons in that one God; but by <HI>one God</HI> they do not mean (as I have &s;hew|ed from Mr. <HI>Edw.) one &s;ingular in|tellectual</HI>
<PB REF="11">
Nature, E&s;&s;ence, or Sub|&s;tance compleat, for that is a Per&s;on; and if they did, the Contradiction would pre&s;ently ap|pear to every Capacity, to wit, that three Divine Per&s;ons are one Divine Per&s;on; but they (as Mr. <HI>Edw.)</HI> &s;ay, <HI>The Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t, or the three Divine Per|&s;ons, are one God, or Divine Nature, E&s;&s;ence or Sub&s;tance.</HI> Hereby they conceal from their poor hone&s;t Reader, thir&s;ting after Truth, that God is one <HI>intellectual</HI> Per|fect Nature, E&s;&s;ence or Sub&s;tance, and make him believe by that concealment, that though there are three Divine <HI>intellectual</HI> per|fect Natures, yet there is but <HI>one</HI> Divine Nature or <HI>God.</HI></P>
<P>I am al&s;o willing to premi&s;e, that the Greci&s;m of a &s;olitary Ad|jective Ma&s;culine, or Article without a Sub&s;tantive (where the Di&s;cour&s;e is of intellectual Beings) doth frequently, if not always con|note PERSON; and our Engli&s;h Tran&s;lators have in many Texts render'd it <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> as the clear Sen&s;e of the Greek Text, not as a word &s;upplied in another Cha|racter to explain the Text, but in the &s;ame Character as a verbal Tran&s;lation. In&s;tances of this rendring are the&s;e among many others; <HI>Mat.</HI> 27. 24. Of this ju&s;t [Per&s;on] <HI>Luke</HI> 15. 7. Ninety nine ju&s;t [Per&s;ons] <HI>Acts</HI> 17. 17.&mdash;The devout [Per&s;ons] <HI>Eph.</HI> 5. 5.&mdash;un|clean [Per&s;on] 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3. 11. What manner of [Per&s;ons.] In the&s;e places there is nothing in the <HI>Greek</HI> to an&s;wer the word <HI>Per|&s;on,</HI> but what is implied in the Adjective.</P>
<P>To come now to the Texts that a&s;&s;ert the <HI>&V;nity</HI> or <HI>Onene&s;s</HI> of God, again&s;t Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s <HI>Trinity</HI> or <HI>Three|ne&s;s;</HI> or that God is one intel|lectual Nature, or one Per&s;on, a|gain&s;t Mr. <HI>Edws</HI>'s one Divine Na|ture, or three Per&s;ons: &s;ee <HI>Jam.</HI> 2. 19. according to the Greek, Thou believe&s;t that God is ONE, thou do&s;t well. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 20. But God is ONE. <HI>Mark</HI> 12. 29. The Lord our God, the Lord is ONE, &s;aith our Saviour out of the Law, to the Scribe that asked him, <HI>which is the fir&s;t Commandment of all? And Je&s;us an&s;wer'd him, the fir&s;t of all the Commandments is, Hear, O</HI> I&s;rael, <HI>the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And thou &s;halt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart,</HI> &amp;c. And in the <HI>32d ver. The Scribe &s;aid unto him, Well Ma&s;ter, thou ha&s;t &s;aid the Truth, for God is ONE,</HI> and there is <HI>none other</HI> but he. And <HI>ver.</HI> 34.<HI>&mdash;Je&s;us &s;aw that he an|&s;wer'd di&s;creetly.</HI> Our Bibles refer us to <HI>Deut.</HI> 6. 4, 5. whence our Lord takes this his An&s;wer, and where we find the &s;ame Words, which by <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> are al&s;o ren|der'd, The Lord our God, the Lord is <HI>one.</HI> Now in the&s;e Scrip|tures the Numeral Adjective Ma&s;culine, being without a Sub|&s;tantive and Singular, it forces us to under&s;tand in every place <HI>Per&s;on.</HI> So that we nothing doubt
<PB N="22" REF="12">
but the Tran&s;lators would have render'd every where <HI>God is</HI> ONE PERSON, if they had not been prepo&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with the Opinion of God's being three Per&s;ons; the like to which they have done in many other Places. But in that An&s;wer of the Holy Je&s;us to him that called him <HI>Good</HI> Ma&s;ter, <HI>Mat.</HI> 19. 17. it's not po&s;&s;ible to avoid it; 1. That God is a Per&s;on; 2. That he is but <HI>one Per&s;on;</HI> and 3. That he is GOOD in an emi|nent Sen&s;e above all other Per|&s;ons what&s;oever. For thus he &s;ays, <HI>Why calle&s;t thou me GOOD? None</HI> [or no Per&s;on] <HI>is good but one</HI> [Per&s;on] <HI>the God.</HI> How &s;trangely perver&s;e would it be to under&s;tand this Text in the Tri|nitarian &s;en&s;e, <HI>viz. None, or no Per&s;on is good but one, the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t?</HI> or thus, <HI>None, or no Per&s;on is good but one,</HI> i. e. <HI>the Divine Nature?</HI></P>
<P>Again, 2. Con&s;ider we the&s;e Texts, and &s;ee what &s;en&s;e we can make of them, if God be not one Per&s;on only, <HI>Mal.</HI> 2. 10. <HI>Hath not ONE GOD created us?</HI> mu&s;t we &s;ay with Mr. <HI>Edw. Hath not ONE Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t</HI> [or one Divine Nature that is not a Per|&s;on] <HI>created us?</HI> Rom. 3. 30. There is <HI>one God</HI> who ju&s;tifies, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Trin. There is one Father, Son and H. Gho&s;t that ju&s;tifies, <HI>Zech.</HI> 14. 9. Hebr. <HI>In that Day the Lord &s;hall be ONE, and his Name ONE.</HI> How &s;hould the Lord be <HI>one</HI> and his Name <HI>one,</HI> if the Lord be <HI>three</HI> di&s;tinct Per&s;ons, and his Name Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t? <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 37. 16. O Lord of <HI>Ho&s;ts,</HI> God of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> thou dwelle&s;t between the Cherubims, <HI>thou</HI> art the <HI>God,</HI> e|ven <HI>thou alone,</HI> of all the King|doms of the Earth; thou ha&s;t made Heaven and Earth; <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 86. 10. <HI>Thou</HI> art great and do&s;t wondrous Works, <HI>thou</HI> art <HI>God alone.</HI> 2 King. 19. 19.&mdash;That all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know that <HI>thou</HI> art <HI>the Lord God,</HI> even <HI>thou only.</HI> I&s;a. 44. 24. &amp;c. <HI>I am the Lord</HI> that maketh all things, that &s;tretch|eth forth the Heavens <HI>alone,</HI> that &s;preadeth abroad the Earth by <HI>my &s;elf. Nehem.</HI> 9. 6, &amp;c. <HI>Thou</HI> even <HI>thou</HI> art <HI>Lord alone, thou</HI> ha&s;t made Heaven&mdash;the Ho&s;t of Heaven wor&s;hippeth <HI>thee.</HI> I&s;a. 37. 20.&mdash;That all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know, that <HI>thou art the Lord,</HI> even <HI>thou only.</HI> 2 King. 19. 15. <HI>Jude</HI> 4.&mdash;denying <HI>the only Lord God,</HI> and our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 5. There is <HI>one God,</HI> and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chri&s;t Je&s;us. Ephe&s;. 4. 6. <HI>One God</HI> and Father of all, who is above all and through all, and in you all. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 46. 9. For <HI>I</HI> am <HI>God,</HI> and there is <HI>none el&s;e; I</HI> am <HI>God,</HI> and there is <HI>none like me.</HI> 1 King. 8. 23. <HI>Lord God</HI> of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> there is no <HI>God like thee</HI> in Heaven above, or in Earth be|neath.<HI>&mdash;Ver.</HI> 60. That all the Peo|ple of the Earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is <HI>none el&s;e.</HI> I&s;a. 44. 6. <HI>I</HI> am the
<PB N="23" REF="12">
Fir&s;t, and <HI>I am</HI> the La&s;t, and <HI>be|&s;ides me</HI> there is <HI>no God. Ver.</HI> 8. Is there <HI>a God be&s;ides me?</HI> yea, there is <HI>no God,</HI> I know <HI>not any.</HI> I&s;a. 45. 5. <HI>I am the Lord</HI> there is <HI>none el&s;e,</HI> there is <HI>no God be&s;ides me. Ver&s;e</HI> 6.&mdash;There is <HI>none be&s;ides me,</HI> I am the Lord and there is <HI>none el&s;e. Ver.</HI> 14.&mdash;Saying, &s;urely <HI>God is in thee,</HI> and there is <HI>none el&s;e,</HI> there is <HI>no God. Ver.</HI> 21.&mdash;Have not <HI>I the Lord?</HI> and there is <HI>no God el&s;e be&s;ide me,</HI> a ju&s;t God and a Savi|our, there is <HI>none be&s;ide me. Ver.</HI> 22. Look unto me, and be ye &s;aved all the ends of the Earth, for <HI>I am God, and there is none el&s;e. Deut.</HI> 4. 35. Unto thee it was &s;hew|ed, that thou mighte&s;t know that <HI>the Lord he is God,</HI> and there is <HI>none el&s;e be&s;ide him.</HI> 1 Chron. 17. 20. <HI>O Lord</HI> there is <HI>none like thee,</HI> nei|ther is there <HI>any God be&s;ides thee. Exod.</HI> 34. 14. For thou &s;halt wor|&s;hip <HI>no other God,</HI> for the Lord who&s;e Name is Jealous, is a jealous God. <HI>Deut.</HI> 32. 39. See now that <HI>I, even I am he,</HI> and there is <HI>no God with me.</HI> 2 <HI>King.</HI> 5. 15. Be|hold, now I know that there is <HI>no God</HI> in all the Earth, but in <HI>I&s;rael.</HI> 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 22. 32. For who is <HI>God &s;ave the Lord?</HI> See the &s;ame words in <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 18. 31. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 4.&mdash;There is <HI>none other God but one.</HI> I con|clude with the fir&s;t and chiefe&s;t of the Ten Commandments given from Mount <HI>Sinai,</HI> Exod. 20. 3. <HI>Thou &s;halt have no other Gods before me&mdash;I the Lord thy God am a jea|lous God:</HI> and that of the Lord Je&s;us, when him&s;elf was tempted, Matth. 4. 10. <HI>Thou &s;halt wor&s;hip the Lord thy God, and him only</HI> &s;halt thou &s;erve. The meaning plain|ly is, I am a Jew, and &s;ubject to the Law of the Jews, I am com|manded therein to wor&s;hip the Lord my God, and to &s;erve <HI>him only.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e Scriptures do &s;o clearly prove, that <HI>God is a Per&s;on,</HI> or a perfect intellectual Nature or Sub|&s;tance, and that he is <HI>only one</HI> &s;uch; that to deny either of the&s;e Pro|po&s;itions, is to me to deny the Truth of Holy Scripture, not on|ly in &s;ome ob&s;cure and doubtful Text, but in the Current of it, and in the chief Fundamental of all Religion. And Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> in a&s;&s;erting there are three &s;uch Per|&s;ons in one Divine Nature, ren|ders in effect the whole Bible void and u&s;ele&s;s for the proof of any Propo&s;ition what&s;oever it be. If this, that God is an ab&s;olutely perfect Being, and therefore a Per&s;on, (for Per&s;ons are the mo&s;t perfect of Beings or Sub&s;tances) and but one &s;uch, cannot be plain|ly and undeniably prov'd from Scripture, it's utterly in vain to attempt to prove any thing. For it's manife&s;t that to a&s;&s;ert THIS, is the chief Aim and De&s;ign of all the Holy Writers, and that they are mo&s;t zealous and vehement in it. And herein lies the Contro|ver&s;y between the Trinitarians and the Unitarians; we a&s;&s;ert with the greate&s;t plainne&s;s, and
<PB N="24" REF="13">
fulne&s;s, and clearne&s;s of Holy Scripture, as ever any thing was or can be expre&s;t, that God is ONE in the <HI>mo&s;t perfect</HI> &s;en&s;e of Onene&s;s, (which is by all Men that under&s;tand the Word) in a per|&s;onal Sen&s;e. But the Trinitarians do on the contrary contend, that God is <HI>not One,</HI> but <HI>Three</HI> in that per&s;onal Sen&s;e, and One in a le&s;s perfect Sen&s;e; which is not Per|&s;onal, but common to many: Which is a Sen&s;e that dethrones God, and makes him either <HI>a Third</HI> of the one God, or <HI>one of the Three,</HI> that created and go|verns the World, and is to be a|dor'd by Men and Angels. For they cannot deny but that in wor|&s;hipping the Father our God, we wor&s;hip one God; But they rage again&s;t us, becau&s;e we do not wor|&s;hip be&s;ides him, and di&s;tinct from him, <HI>the Son</HI> as perfectly God as he; as different from him as a real Son is from a real Father, and ano|ther Per&s;on as really God as ei|ther the Father, or the Son, and as really different from the Father and Son, as he that is &s;ent is from him that &s;ent him. And this is &s;o evidently true, that (as I have ob&s;erv'd) almo&s;t one half of the Trinitarians con&s;ent with the U|nitarians, in condemning the o|ther Party of Trinitarians as Con|fe&s;&s;ors of three Gods.</P>
<P>But that I may give yet fuller Evidence of this Fundamental Truth of the Unity of the Per|&s;on of God again&s;t the Trinity of Per&s;ons in him, I &s;hall in the third place produce &s;ome Texts that a|&s;cribe &s;ome Perfections to the Per|&s;on of God &s;ingularly, and with exclu&s;ion of all other Per&s;ons in that Sen&s;e and Degree. Such are tho&s;e, where the Holy Je&s;us &s;ays, <HI>None</HI> [or no Per&s;on] <HI>is good but one, the God,</HI> which I have urged before: and that in <HI>John</HI> 17. 3. where the Ble&s;&s;ed Son in his Prayer to God, (wherein it were ab&s;urd to &s;ay that he pray'd to him&s;elf) calls him <HI>Father,</HI> and <HI>the only true God;</HI> and that in di&s;tinction from him&s;elf, whom he de&s;cribes by the Names of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> him <HI>whom the Father hath &s;ent.</HI> This Particle <HI>only,</HI> imports &s;ome Excel|lency in the Attribute of <HI>true,</HI> which is here given to God his Father, above and with exclu&s;ion of all others, or it &s;ignifies no|thing. Rom. 16. 27. <HI>To God only Wi&s;e</HI> be Glory <HI>through Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> for ever. <HI>Amen.</HI> Here again the Attribute of <HI>only Wi&s;e</HI> is a&s;crib'd to the Per&s;on of God in di&s;tinction from <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> as the <HI>Medium</HI> of the Glory which is given to the only Wi&s;e God. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6. 15, 16. God is called, <HI>the ble&s;&s;ed and ONLY Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who ONLY hath Immortality,</HI> &amp;c. which are all per&s;onal Titles, from which all other Per&s;ons are excluded by the exclu&s;ive Particle <HI>only:</HI> for there can be but one Potentate who is King of Kings in the highe&s;t Sen&s;e, and much more when <HI>only</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="13">
is added. When Chri&s;t is called <HI>King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, (Rev.</HI> 17. 14. and 19. 16.) it's manife&s;t it's to be under&s;tood in a derivative Sen&s;e, becau&s;e all Power in Heaven and Earth was given to him as the Lamb that had been &s;lain; and therefore he is repre|&s;ented as clothed with a Ve&s;ture dipt in Blood, in that 19 <HI>Chap. ver.</HI> 13. <HI>Who only hath Immortali|ty:</HI> that is, (as Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> &s;ays) <HI>God is Immortal in him&s;elf,</HI> (not in three Selfs) <HI>and all Immortality of others is derived from him.</HI> In the &s;ame Sen&s;e is the Lord God Al|mighty called, in <HI>Rev.</HI> 15. 4. <HI>only Holy,</HI> becau&s;e he only is Holy of him&s;elf; and as it is under&s;tood, 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 2. 2. <HI>There is none Holy as the Lord.</HI> Now in the&s;e and &s;uch|like Pa&s;&s;ages of Holy Scripture, the Trinitarians and Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> mu&s;t under&s;tand by <HI>God</HI> three Per|&s;ons; by <HI>Father,</HI> the Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t; by <HI>Thou,</HI> Ye; by <HI>Him,</HI> Them; by <HI>Him&s;elf,</HI> Them|&s;elves; and tho&s;e Words the Scripture hath in the &s;ingular Number, mu&s;t be under&s;tood by them plurally. It's no marvel then that they call their Doctrine a <HI>Mystery,</HI> and that there is &s;o much di&s;&s;en&s;ion among them&s;elves concerning it, &s;ince it cannot be under&s;tood in any Sen&s;e, which is not either contradictious in it &s;elf, or <HI>&s;o</HI> to the full Current of Holy Scripture.</P>
<P>In like manner, <HI>4thly,</HI> all tho&s;e Texts (which are not a few) in which God is named <HI>the mo&s;t High, the mo&s;t high God, the Lord the mo&s;t High, God mo&s;t High, the Highe&s;t;</HI> whether the&s;e Titles be Subject or Attribute, mu&s;t all be under|&s;tood, not of one Per&s;on, or <HI>a &s;ingular knowing and willing Sub|&s;tance,</HI> but either of a Sub&s;tance that is not a Per&s;on, or el&s;e of three equal Per&s;ons: And all this by virtue of that &s;chola&s;tic and unrea&s;onable Di&s;tinction between <HI>Per&s;on</HI> and <HI>E&s;&s;ence;</HI> or as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> words it, <HI>The infinite Nature of God communicable to three di&s;tinct Per&s;ons, (Pag.</HI> 79.) which Di&s;tin|ction being ab&s;urd in it &s;elf when under&s;tood, they obtrude upon the World under the Name of <HI>MYSTERY</HI> and <HI>Incomprehen&s;i|ble.</HI></P>
<P><HI>5thly.</HI> Be&s;ides, that the Holy Scriptures are &s;o abundant in tho&s;e Texts that clearly &s;hew him to be <HI>one Per&s;on only,</HI> as I have fully ma|nife&s;ted; yet I may &s;till urge from the &s;ame Texts and others, that the Father only, whom the Trini|tarians acknowledg to be but one Per&s;on, is <HI>that God, that God alone, that one God, that God who is One, the mo&s;t high God,</HI> and no Per&s;on el&s;e be&s;ides him. I produced be|fore the Text in <HI>John</HI> 17. 3. to prove that the Perfection of being THE ONLY TRUE GOD, is a&s;crib'd to him as being one Per|&s;on only. Now I urge from the &s;ame Text, that that Per&s;on is the Father of the Son, in expre&s;s di&s;tinction from the Son and all
<PB N="26" REF="14">
others. Next, that Text in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 5, 6. <HI>Though there be that are called Gods, whether in Hea|ven 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 Je&s;us Chri&s;t, by whom are all things, and we by him.</HI> Which words do plainly a&s;&s;ert, that that Per&s;on who is the one God of Chri&s;tians in exclu&s;ion of all tho&s;e that are called <HI>Gods,</HI> (and in &s;ome Sen&s;e may be &s;o) is none but the Fa|ther; and in di&s;tinction from the Lord Je&s;us, who was made Lord and Chri&s;t in a mo&s;t excellent manner, after his Re&s;urrection. This Text mu&s;t be under&s;tood by the Trinitarians thus; <HI>There is none other God but three Almighty Per|&s;ons:&mdash;There are Gods many, and Lords many, but unto us [Chri&s;ti|ans] there is but one God or Divine Nature, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost;</HI> each of which is the <HI>one God of Christians,</HI> and not the Fa|ther only. See next <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 4, 5, 6. <HI>There is one Spirit&mdash;one Lord&mdash;one God and Father of all.</HI> Where the one God and Father of all is clearly differenced from the one Spirit and the one Lord. Now &s;ee <HI>Mat.</HI> 24. 36. <HI>But of that Day and Hour knoweth none</HI> [or no Per|&s;on] (for of nece&s;&s;ity it mu&s;t be &s;o under&s;tood) <HI>no not the Angels of Heaven, but my Father only.</HI> St. <HI>Mark</HI> hath it<HI>&mdash;neither the Son, but the Father.</HI> The&s;e parallel Texts prove, 1. That the Per&s;on of the Father is the Per&s;on of God; for none but that Per&s;on could then know the Day and Hour of Judg|ment: And, 2. that the Father only is that Per&s;on of God in ex|clu&s;ion of all other Per&s;ons, both Angels and Men, and of the Son him&s;elf. What &s;hall we &s;ay of them, who in flat Contradiction to this Scripture, and the Son him|&s;elf, a&s;&s;ert, That the Son knew the Day and Hour of Judgment as well as the Father? Let us next compare that Pa&s;&s;age in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 5. (which I cited before) with 1 <HI>John</HI> 2. 1. The former &s;aith, <HI>There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Je&s;us.</HI> The latter &s;ays, <HI>If any Man &s;in, we have an Advocate with the Father, Je&s;us Christ the Righteous.</HI> By which con&s;ider'd together, it appears that the <HI>one God and the Father</HI> are the &s;ame Per&s;on, for only a Per&s;on is capa|ble of being interceded to, and the Mediator and Advocate the &s;ame: So that the Father is the Per&s;on of God, as well as the Ad|vocate is the Per&s;on of the Media|tor. But if the Reader de&s;ire to &s;ee this Point <HI>(viz.</HI> that the Father only is the mo&s;t high God) fully and learnedly argued and defend|ed, let him read <HI>Crellius</HI>'s two Books of <HI>One God the Father,</HI> out of which I have tran&s;cribed much. In what a many Places of Scrip|ture is Chri&s;t called <HI>the Son of God,</HI> and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God? In every of which either
<PB N="27" REF="14">
God mu&s;t be taken for the Father only, or Chri&s;t mu&s;t be the Son of him&s;elf, and the Holy Spirit the Spirit of him&s;elf, both which are ab&s;urd.</P>
<P>Again, how many places of Holy Scripture are there, where &s;ome Prerogative is given to the Father above Chri&s;t, as <HI>John</HI> 14. 28. <HI>My Father is greater than I?</HI> How a&s;ham'd are the more inge|nuous Trinitarians of that An|&s;wer, to this Objection again&s;t the Deity of the Son, which &s;ays, <HI>The Son was le&s;s according to his Hu|man Nature?</HI> John 10. 29. <HI>My Father is greater than all.</HI> It's ma|nife&s;t from the Context, that the Son him&s;elf is included in that word ALL. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 3. <HI>The Head of Chri&s;t is God.</HI> Chri&s;t is not the Head of him&s;elf, there|fore the Father only is God. How often do Chri&s;t and the Divine Writers call the Father his God? <HI>John</HI> 20. 17. I a&s;cend to my Fa|ther and your Father, to my God and your God. In <HI>Rev.</HI> 3. 12. he calls the Father <HI>my God</HI> four times. <HI>Mat.</HI> 27. 46. and <HI>Mark</HI> 15. 34. he cries out, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me!</HI> His God was only the Per&s;on of the Father, and not God the Di|vine Nature, which according to Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> is common to three Per|&s;ons. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 17.&mdash;The God of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the Father of Glory. <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 8. Where Chri&s;t is called a God, he is al&s;o &s;aid to have a God, who anointed him. Was he his own God, and the God that anointed him? or was the Father only? <HI>John</HI> 10. 18. <HI>This Commandment have I received of my Father.</HI> He only is God who gives Commandments to the Son. John 12. 49. <HI>The Father that &s;ent me, he gave me a Command|ment what I &s;hould &s;ay, and what I &s;hould &s;peak.</HI> John 14. 31. <HI>As the Father hath given me Command|ment, &s;o I do.</HI> John 15. 10. <HI>As I have kept my Father's Command|ment, and abide in his Love.</HI> See Chap. 4. 34. and 6. 38. and 8. 29, 55. and 17. 4. and 18. 11. Add tho&s;e places wherein it's clearly taught that Chri&s;t obey'd God, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5. 19. <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 8. <HI>Heb.</HI> 5. 8. <HI>God calleth Chri&s;t his Servant, I&s;a.</HI> 42. 1. <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 18. <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 49. 5, 6. with <HI>Acts</HI> 13. 47. <HI>I&s;a.,</HI> 2. 13. and 53. 11. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 34. 23, 24. and 37. 24, 25. He is called<HI>&mdash;a Mini&s;ter of the Sanctuary,</HI> Heb. 8. 2. All the&s;e Texts, and a hundred more (&s;ay the Trinitarians) are an|&s;wered by the Di&s;tinction of <HI>a Di|vine and Human Nature in one Per|&s;on,</HI> or the &s;econd Per&s;on of God his having a Human Nature: So you are to under&s;tand that this Per&s;on of God, who is here &s;aid to be a Servant, to receive Com|mands and obey them, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is yet as perfectly Great as he, from whom he receiv'd tho&s;e Com|mands, who has no Prerogative above him. The Servant is as great as his Lord, and he that O|bey'd as he that Commanded, and
<PB N="28" REF="15">
he that is &s;ent as he that &s;ent him; yea, the &s;ame God is Servant and Lord, the Obeyer and Com|mander, the Sent and the Sender. When all the&s;e Prerogatives of the Father above the Son, and con&s;e|quently above the Holy Spirit, will not prove the Father only to be the mo&s;t High God; of what u&s;e can the Holy Scriptures be to us? What &s;hall be the Difference between Holy Scriptures and pro|fane Writings? May not all the Greek Fables of their Gods, be ju&s;tified by the &s;ame, or &s;uch like Di&s;tinctions? O Father of Mer|cies, enlighten their Under&s;tand|ings, and remove their Prejudi|ces, that they may no longer, de|ny thee the Glory due to thee a|bove all!</P>
<P>Neither is it to be pa&s;&s;ed by, that to the Father only is a&s;crib'd in Holy Scripture, the Creation of Heaven and Earth, to Chri&s;t never; though in a certain way of &s;peaking, common to the Sa|cred Writers, many things, or all pertaining to the new Covenant or Go&s;pel, are &s;aid to be created (that is, medelled or put into a new and better State) by him. So in that antient Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, call'd, <HI>The Apo&s;tles Creed,</HI> the Cre|ation of Heaven and Earth is appropriated to the Father; and both in tho&s;e Apo&s;tolical Times, and to this day, Prayers and Prai|&s;es are offer'd to the Father through-Chri&s;t, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit is begg'd of him; which clearly &s;hews the Preroga|tive of the Father above the Son and Holy Spirit; and con&s;equently that he only is that Per&s;on, whom we ought to under&s;tand by the Name of GOD.</P>
<P>In fine, The God of <HI>Abraham,</HI> of <HI>I&s;aac,</HI> and of <HI>Jacob,</HI> the God of the Fathers, and the Father of Chri&s;t, are De&s;criptions of one and the &s;ame Per&s;on: So <HI>Acts</HI> 3. 13.<HI>&mdash;The God of our Fathers hath glorifi|ed his Son Je&s;us:</HI> and Heb. 1. 1. <HI>God who&mdash;&s;pake in times pa&s;t to the Fathers by the Prophets, hath&mdash;&s;poken to us by his Son.</HI> So that they who make the Son to be the God of the Fathers, make him to be <HI>his own God</HI> and Father.</P>
<P>But becau&s;e I think it may give farther Light and Evidence to this great Point, wherein the Glory of God, even the Father, is &s;o much concern'd; I will yet fur|ther &s;how from many plain Texts, &s;et &s;o as they may give Light one to another; that the God of the Fathers, and the God and Father of Chri&s;tians; or <HI>our</HI> God and Fa|ther, and the God and Father of our Lord Chri&s;t; our Heavenly Father and his Heavenly Father; his God and our God, is one and the &s;ame Per&s;on. I pre&s;ent them by Couples, the fir&s;t &s;peaking of Chri&s;t, the &s;econd of us.</P>
<P>See <HI>Rom.</HI> 15. 6. That ye may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><PB N="29" REF="15">
<HI>Phil.</HI> 4. 20. Now unto God our Father, be glory for ever and ever.</P>
<P>2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 3. Ble&s;&s;ed be God, even the Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the Father of Mercies.</P>
<P><HI>Rom.</HI> 1. 7. Grace be to you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Col.</HI> 1. 3. We give thanks to God, and the Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Eph.</HI> 1. 2. Grace to you, and Peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 31. The God and Fa|ther of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t knoweth that I lie not.</P>
<P>1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1. 1. Grace be to you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 8. Unto the Son he &s;aith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Thou ha&s;t loved Righ|teou&s;ne&s;s, and hated Iniquity, therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oil of Gladne&s;s above thy Fellows.</P>
<P><HI>Phil.</HI> 1. 2. Grace be unto you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 3. Ble&s;&s;ed be the God and Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. 2. Grace, Mercy and Peace from God our Father, and Je&s;us Chri&s;t our Lord.</P>
<P><HI>Eph.</HI> 1. 17. That the God of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the Father of Glory, may give unto you the Spirit, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Col.</HI> 1. 2. Grace be unto you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 3. Ble&s;&s;ed be the God and Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 2. 16. Now the Lord Je|&s;us him&s;elf, and God even our Father, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 20. 17. Je&s;us &s;aith to <HI>Ma|ry,</HI> I a&s;cend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and to your God.</P>
<P><HI>Gal.</HI> 1. 4. Who gave him&s;elf for our Sins&mdash;according to the will of God and our Father.</P>
<P><HI>Mat.</HI> 27. 46. Je&s;us cried&mdash;&s;ay|ing, My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</P>
<P><HI>Philem.</HI> 3. Grace be to you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>Rev.</HI> 3. 12. Him that overcom|eth, will I make a Pillar in the Temple of my God, and write up|on him the Name of my God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 1.&mdash;Unto the Church of the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians</HI> in God our Father, and the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 17. 1.&mdash;Je&s;us lift up his Eyes to Heaven, and &s;aid&mdash;Fa|ther, Glorify thy Son.</P>
<P><PB N="30" REF="16">
<HI>Mat.</HI> 23. 9. One is your Father which is in Heaven. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 115. 3. Our God is in the Heavens.</P>
<P>Thus we &s;ee there is one God and Father of all <HI>(Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 6.) both of Chri&s;t, and Believers the Children of God; the &s;ame Per|&s;on is the God and Father of both. It's ab&s;urd to &s;ay, that Chri&s;t the Son is his own Father, or his own God; &s;o it's plainly contrary to Scripture to &s;ay, that any other Per&s;on is our God or our Father (in the highe&s;t Sen&s;e) but the &s;ame who is Chri&s;t's God and Father. That it is &s;o, I appeal to the &s;e|rious Thoughts of every Man and Woman that reads the Scriptures attentively, without the preju|dice of Schola&s;tick and confus'd Di&s;tinctions.</P>
<P>Now I &s;hall further produce you many couples of Scriptures, which prove expre&s;ly, that the Name of GOD (when taken by way of Excellency) and the Name of FATHER (in Chri&s;t's Go&s;pel) do &s;ignify the &s;ame &s;ingular Per|&s;on. So that no one is or can be <HI>God,</HI> who is not al&s;o the <HI>Father;</HI> which Term is acknowledged to &s;ignify but one Per&s;on. This ap|pears from the Scripture, attri|buting the &s;ending of Chri&s;t, or the Son, &s;ometimes to God, &s;ome|times to the Father, and both fre|quently.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 3. 34. He whom <HI>God hath &s;ent,</HI> &s;peaketh the Words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by mea&s;ure unto him.</P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 14. 24. The Word which ye hear is not mine, but the Fa|ther's who &s;ent me.</P>
<P><HI>Acts</HI> 10. 36. The Word which <HI>God &s;ent</HI> to the Children of <HI>I&s;|rael,</HI> preaching Peace by Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 5. 30. I &s;eek not mine own Will, but the Will of <HI>the Father which hath &s;ent me.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Acts</HI> 3. 26. <HI>God</HI> having rai&s;ed up <HI>his Son</HI> Je&s;us, <HI>&s;ent him</HI> to ble&s;s you.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 12. 49. The <HI>Father</HI> which &s;ent me, he gave me a Command|ment what I &s;hould &s;ay, and what I &s;hould &s;peak.</P>
<P>1 <HI>John</HI> 4. 10. Not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and &s;ent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins.</P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 4. 14. And we have &s;een and do te&s;tify, that the <HI>Father</HI> &s;ent the Son to be the Saviour of the World.</P>
<P><HI>Gal.</HI> 4. 4. God &s;ent forth his Son made of a Woman.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 6. 39. And this is the <HI>Fa|ther</HI>'s Will that hath <HI>&s;ent me.</HI> See <HI>ver.</HI> 44.</P>
<P>1 <HI>John</HI> 4. 9. In this was mani|fe&s;ted the Love of God toward us, becau&s;e <HI>God &s;ent</HI> his only be|gotten Son into the World, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="31" REF="16">
<HI>John</HI> 5. 24. He that heareth my Word, and believeth on the <HI>Fa|ther that hath &s;ent me.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 3. God &s;ending his own Son in the likene&s;s of &s;inful Fle&s;h.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 20. 21. Then &s;aid Je&s;us, As my Father &s;ent me, even &s;o &s;end I you.</P>
<P><HI>Joh.</HI> 3. 17. <HI>God</HI> &s;ent not his Son to condemn the World.</P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 5. 23. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not <HI>the Father which &s;ent him.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Joh.</HI> 6. 29. Je&s;us an&s;wered, This is the Work of <HI>God,</HI> that ye be|lieve on him whom <HI>he hath &s;ent.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 17. 25. O Father, the&s;e have known that thou ha&s;t &s;ent me.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 17. 3. This is Life Eternal, that they might know thee (Fa|ther) the only true God, and Je|&s;us Chri&s;t whom thou ha&s;t <HI>&s;ent.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 10. 36. Say ye of him whom <HI>the Father</HI> hath &s;anctified <HI>and &s;ent</HI> into the World, Thou bla&s;pheme&s;t, becau&s;e I &s;aid, I am the Son of God?</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 16. 27. The Father him|&s;elf loveth you, becau&s;e ye have&mdash;believed that I came out from God.</P>
<P><HI>Ver.</HI> 28. <HI>I came forth from the Father,</HI> and am come into the World; again, I leave the World, and <HI>go to the Father.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Ver.</HI> 30. By this we believe that thou came&s;t forth from God.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 3. 16. God &s;o loved the World, that he gave his only be|gotten Son&mdash;.</P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 8. 18. I am one that bear witne&s;s of my &s;elf; and the Fa|ther that &s;ent me beareth witne&s;s of me.</P>
<P><HI>John</HI> 8. 42. For I proceeded forth and <HI>came from God;</HI> neither came I of my &s;elf, but he <HI>&s;ent</HI> me.</P>
<P><HI>Chap.</HI> 5. 36. The Works that I do, bear witne&s;s that <HI>the Father hath &s;ent me.</HI></P>
<P>Hence it appears mo&s;t evident|ly, not only that God and the Fa|ther are the &s;ame Per&s;on, and that the &s;ame is as plainly di&s;tingui&s;ht from our Lord Chri&s;t, as the <HI>Sen|der</HI> is di&s;tinct from him that is <HI>&s;ent;</HI> but that the Son is no more the &s;ame God that &s;ent him, than he is the &s;ame Father that &s;ent him.</P>
<P>If Chri&s;tians will &s;till &s;uffer them&s;elves to be impos'd up|on, under the Notion of <HI>MY|STERY,</HI> to believe that the Son of God is the &s;ame numerical God as his Father, who &s;ent him to do his Will, (not his own) and to be the <HI>Propitiation</HI> (or Mercy-&s;eat, <HI>Heb.</HI> 9. 5.) for our Sins; that the <HI>only begotten</HI> or well-be|loved Son, whom the Father (fir&s;t) <HI>&s;anctified and</HI> (then) <HI>&s;ent into the World,</HI> is the &s;ame God who &s;an|ctified
<PB N="32" REF="17">
and &s;ent him, that the mi|raculous Works which the Son did, did bear witne&s;s, not that the Father even God had &s;ent him, but that the Son was that God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> they &s;hould no longer pretend, that their Faith concern|ing God and his Son Chri&s;t Je&s;us, in what is nece&s;&s;ary 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 mean|ing of, without contradiction to Scripture and Rea&s;on, than the Papi&s;ts can their Tran&s;ub&s;tanti|ation, which they al&s;o believe un|der the Notion of <HI>My&s;tery.</HI> Let none &s;ay there is a wide Diffe|rence between the Faith of Pro|te&s;tants and Papi&s;ts in the&s;e Ca|&s;es, becau&s;e Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation is contradicted by Sen&s;e, the Tri|nity only by Rea&s;on; for I appeal to any Man of Sen&s;e, whether we may not be as certain that one Per&s;on is not three Per&s;ons, nor three Per&s;ons one Per&s;on, as that Bread is not Fle&s;h. If Prote&s;tants think them&s;elves excu&s;able in <HI>that,</HI> let them not for &s;hame blame the Papi&s;ts in this. And if both Pro|te&s;tants and Papi&s;ts are faultle&s;s in the&s;e Points, I &s;ee not but the Heathen Polythei&s;ts will be capa|ble of the &s;ame Charity.</P>
<P>The New Te&s;tament Scrip|tures are &s;o full of tho&s;e clear Di&s;tinctions, and oppo&s;ite Relati|ons, and Works of <HI>God,</HI> from the <HI>Son of God,</HI> that a Man mu&s;t in a manner tran&s;cribe the whole Vo|lume to pre&s;ent them all. I have given my Reader a great number of Texts already; I will yet point him to &s;ome more, which he may read at his lei&s;ure. See then 1 <HI>John</HI> 4. <HI>ver.</HI> 9 to 16. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 17. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. 27. <HI>John</HI> 6. 69. <HI>John</HI> 5. 26, 27. <HI>As the Father hath Life in him&s;elf, &s;o hath he given to the Son to have Life in him&s;elf, and hath given him Authority to execute Judgment al&s;o, becau&s;e he is the Son of Man.</HI> The Son of God had not this Life in him&s;elf, till it was given him by the Living God his Father, not becau&s;e he was God, but becau&s;e he was the Son of Man. But what Ears can hear, that Life and Au|thority were given by the &s;ame God the Father, to the very &s;ame God the Son? Or that any Life and Authority could be given to him that was God, who had al|ways from all Eternity, all Life and Authority in him&s;elf, and could never be without it? But I am pointing you to &s;ome Texts of Scripture. Read al&s;o <HI>Rom.</HI> 1. 9. <HI>Chap.</HI> 8. 3, 29, 31. <HI>Chap.</HI> 5. 10. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 3. 1 <HI>John</HI> 1. 5, 7. <HI>Chap.</HI> 3. 21, 23. <HI>Chap.</HI> 1. 3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 1. 15. <HI>Col.</HI> 1. 10, 13. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 9. 1 <HI>John</HI> 4. 15. Who&s;oever &s;hall confe&s;s that Je&s;us is the Son of God [not that he is that God who&s;e Son he is] God dwelleth in him and he in God. 1 <HI>John</HI> 5. 9, 10, 11. <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 1, 2. <HI>John</HI> 3. 16, 17. <HI>Acts</HI> 3. 26. 1 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 9, 10. <HI>John</HI> 5. 18.
<PB N="33" REF="17">
2 <HI>John ver.</HI> 3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 4. 4. <HI>Acts</HI> 3. 13. The&s;e Texts do undeniably prove, that God is one Per&s;on only, to wit, the Father of the Son; and as the Son cannot be his own Fa|ther, &s;o neither that God who is his Father. But I proceed, &s;ee <HI>Mat.</HI> 14. 33. and 16. 16. <HI>Luke</HI> 1. 35. <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 1. <HI>John</HI> 1. 34. and 20. 31. The&s;e are written that ye may believe that Je&s;us is the Chri&s;t the Son of God, and that believing ye might have Life through his Name. The Apo|&s;tle <HI>John</HI> did not write his Go&s;pel (as &s;ome pretend) to prove that Je&s;us was God, who was his Father, but that he was the Chri&s;t, or a Man anointed with the Holy Gho&s;t and Power, the Son of that God who anointed him; and that &s;o believing we might have Life through him. <HI>Mark</HI> 1. 11. <HI>Mat.</HI> 3. 17. <HI>Luke</HI> 3. 22. <HI>Mark</HI> 9. 7. <HI>Luke</HI> 9. 35. <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 5. 1 <HI>John</HI> 4. 14. <HI>Mat.</HI> 11. 27. <HI>Luke</HI> 10. 22. <HI>John</HI> 1. 14. and 3. 18, 29. and 14. 28. and 15. 10. and 20. 17.</P>
<P>Again&s;t all the&s;e Scriptures, and many more that might be alledg|ed, it's urged that the Son is &s;ome|where called <HI>God</HI> [or rather <HI>a God]</HI> in Scripture. To which I an&s;wer, that both Angels and Men are called <HI>God,</HI> and <HI>Gods,</HI> and Sons of God in Scripture; &s;ee <HI>Exod.</HI> 7. 1.<HI>&mdash;I have made thee</HI> [Mo&s;es] <HI>a God to</HI> Pharaoh. <HI>Exod.</HI> 4. 16. compar'd with <HI>Chap.</HI> 3. 2, 5. an Angel is called <HI>Jehovah</HI> and <HI>E|lohim;</HI> in Engli&s;h, <HI>the Lord</HI> and <HI>God.</HI> P&s;al. 8. 5. <HI>Thou ha&s;t made him</HI> [Man] <HI>a little lower than the Angels;</HI> in Hebrew, <HI>than the Gods.</HI> And Judg. 13. 22. <HI>Manoah</HI> &s;aid&mdash;We &s;hall &s;urely die, becau&s;e we have &s;een <HI>God;</HI> &s;o he calls the Angel that appeared to him. But the word <HI>God</HI> taken by way of Eminency for the Father of all, &s;ignifies al&s;o <HI>the God of Gods,</HI> Deut. 10. 17. Jo&s;hua 22. 22. P&s;al. 136. 2, <HI>&amp;c. The mo&s;t high God,</HI> Gen. 14. 18. Heb. 7. 1. And the Lord Je&s;us being &s;toned and charged with Bla&s;phemy by the Jews, for &s;aying, that he and his Father were <HI>one,</HI> as we read <HI>John</HI> 10. 29, 30, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> he vindicates him|&s;elf by the Authority of that Text, in <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 82. 6. where it's Divinely written, <HI>I &s;aid ye are Gods,</HI> &s;peaking of the Judges and Princes, who receiv'd their Au|thority and Power from God; <HI>and all of you Sons of the mo&s;t High:</HI> and argues from it thus, <HI>Say ye of him, whom the Father hath &s;anctifi|ed and &s;ent into the World, Thou bla&s;pheme&s;t, becau&s;e I &s;aid, I am THE SON of God?</HI> Which is in effect to &s;ay, I may with far great|er right than they, be called a <HI>God,</HI> or <HI>the Son of God,</HI> who have received from God far greater Authority and Power; being &s;anctified to &s;uch a Degree, and &s;ent among Men to preach &s;uch a Doctrine and Work, &s;uch Mi|raculous Works, as plainly &s;hew, that the <HI>Father is in me, and I in him;</HI> that is, there is &s;uch a clo&s;e
<PB N="34" REF="18">
Union between us, as if the Fa|ther 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, Je&s;us is &s;aid to be God or a God, (tho he him|&s;elf never &s;aid he was God; <HI>Nun|quam &s;eip&s;e Deum dixit,</HI> as &s;aith <HI>Lactantius)</HI> it is to be under&s;tood of that Godlike Power, Autho|rity and Glory, which God his Father has conferr'd upon him; for which he is to be honoured as the Father who &s;ent him, who a|nointed him, who rai&s;ed him from the Dead, and &s;et him at his own Right Hand. So in <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. 8, 9. where in the Words &s;poken of <HI>Solomon, P&s;al.</HI> 45. he is called <HI>God,</HI> he is &s;aid to have a God above him, who anointed him. Let them con&s;ider who &s;ay, the Son is <HI>God</HI> in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e as the Fa|ther, how they can clear them|&s;elves of Bla&s;phemy. Such Per|&s;ons look upon the Unitarians with Amazement and Horrour, becau&s;e they will not take the term <HI>God</HI> in that Sen&s;e as them&s;elves do: <HI>What! Deny Chri&s;t to be God, &s;o expre&s;ly &s;poken of him in Holy Scripture!</HI> In the mean time, they do not reflect upon them&s;elves, who make to them&s;elves (by un|der&s;tanding Scripture in another Sen&s;e than Chri&s;t under&s;tood it in) another God be&s;ides the Fa|ther, who only is the true God. The Unitarians acknowledg and celebrate <HI>one God</HI> the Father, the Trinitarians do &s;o too, but they al&s;o acknowledg and celebrate <HI>two other Per&s;ons,</HI> each of which is God in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e as the Fa|ther, neither of which is the Fa|ther. Which of us are &s;afer, and in le&s;s danger of being Bla&s;phe|mers, and wor&s;hippers of more Gods than one?</P>
<P>There's nothing more manife&s;t in Holy Scripture, than that the only true God hath given to the Son both his Being, and all what|&s;oever that he enjoys; he has ex|alted him to his Right Hand, given him all Power in Heaven and in Earth, as <HI>Pharaoh</HI> exalted <HI>Jo&s;eph</HI> in <HI>Egypt; only in the Throne</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>will I be greater than thou.</HI> But the Trinitarians will not &s;uffer the Father to enjoy that Privilege; They are a&s;ham'd of that Son of God (and his words) who is not as great as his Father; though he &s;aid, <HI>My Father is greater than I.</HI> They are a&s;ham'd of his words, who &s;aid, <HI>Of that Day and Hour&mdash;knoweth none, not the Son, but the Father only:</HI> and &s;ay in Contra|diction to him, <HI>The Son did know that Day and Hour as well as the Fa|ther, and not the Father only.</HI> They are a&s;ham'd of his Words who &s;aid, <HI>I can do nothing of my &s;elf; I came not to do my own Will, but the Will of him that &s;ent me; my Doctrine is not mine, but his that &s;ent me; I&mdash;do nothing of my &s;elf, but as the Father hath taught me I &s;peak the&s;e things; I have not &s;poken
<PB N="35" REF="18">
of my &s;elf, but the Father that &s;ent me, he gave me a Commandment what I &s;hould &s;ay, and what I &s;hould &s;peak; The word that I &s;peak, I &s;peak not of my &s;elf, but the Father that abideth in me he doth the Works.</HI> The&s;e and many other Words and Sayings of the &s;ame kind, they &s;eem to be a&s;ham'd of, and &s;ay, and contend for it, that he could do all things of him&s;elf, that he came to do his own Will, that his Doctrine was his own, that he had no need of the Father's teaching, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> They are a&s;hamed of tho&s;e words of Chri&s;t's; Mat. 19. 17. <HI>Why do&s;t thou call me good? none is good but one, the God;</HI> and &s;ay none is good but <HI>Three,</HI> God and God and God, or Father, Son and Holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P>Here let me ob&s;erve to the Rea|der (as I have hinted above) that there is a con&s;iderable Difference between that particle <HI>one</HI> in this Text, and the &s;ame particle <HI>one</HI> in that &s;uppo&s;ititious Text, 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 7. The&s;e three are <HI>one;</HI> for here <HI>one</HI> is of the Neuter Gender, as is manife&s;t both in the Greek and Latin, and fignifies as the &s;ame word does in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 8. <HI>He that planteth and he that watereth are one:</HI> but in the Text above, <HI>one</HI> is of the Ma&s;culine Gender, and mu&s;t be under&s;tood of one Per&s;on (or intelligent Being) who is good, and none but he, to wit, <HI>the God.</HI> If they were not hinder'd by &s;trong Preiudices, they might ea&s;ily &s;ee, that what&s;oever they attribute to the Son, be it eter|nal nece&s;&s;ary Exi&s;tence, Almigh|tine&s;s, or Omni&s;cience, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> they take away from the Father there|by, not only the Glory of enjoy|ing tho&s;e Divine Excellencies a|lone, but al&s;o the Glory of his free Goodne&s;s, and the Son's, and our Thankfulne&s;s for &s;uch un|&s;peakable Benefits both to him and us, as he has been graciou&s;ly pleas'd to give unto the Son, either in begetting him, or rai|&s;ing him up in Time, or in re|warding him both for his and our Good. Nay, they make the Son uncapable of receiving tho&s;e great and glorious Rewards, of <HI>all Pow|er in Heaven and Earth</HI> given to him, of an <HI>everla&s;ting Kingdom,</HI> of a <HI>Name above every Name,</HI> of exaltation <HI>to the Right Hand of God,</HI> and the like, which the Scrip|tures are full of: For how could any of the&s;e Ble&s;&s;ings be given to him that was God always, even from Eternity? Could God &s;it at the Right Hand of God in any &s;en&s;e whatever? The&s;e are the ab&s;urd Doctrines, which make the Trinitarians contend &s;o fierce|ly one with another, and with us. God will judg the World, and be|tween them and us, <HI>by that Man whom he has ordained to be Judg of the Dead and Living.</HI></P>
<P>But to return to the Con&s;idera|tion of tho&s;e Texts that are al|ledg'd for the Son's being called <HI>God;</HI> that in <HI>John</HI> 1. 1. I have &s;poken of already, as al&s;o that
<PB N="36" REF="19">
in 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 16. That in <HI>Rom.</HI> 9. 5. is read without the word <HI>God</HI> in the <HI>Syriac,</HI> and in the Writings of St. <HI>Cyprian, Hilary</HI> and <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom;</HI> whereby it's probable it was not originally in that Text. But <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> acknowledges <HI>that</HI> for a good Reading, which points the Clau&s;e &s;o as to render it a Thank&s;giving to the Father thus, <HI>The God over all be ble&s;&s;ed for ever,</HI> to wit, for his Benefits in rai&s;ing up Chri&s;t of the Fathers, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And it &s;eems to have been &s;o read by &s;ome of the Antients, for they reckon it among the Here&s;ies to &s;ay, that <HI>Chri&s;t was God over all,</HI> as <HI>Origen contr. Cel&s;.</HI> and others. In 1 <HI>John</HI> 3. 16. The word <HI>God</HI> is not found but in very few Greek Copies; and if it be read there, admits of a good Sen&s;e, without making God to die, who only hath Immortality. As al&s;o doth that Text in <HI>Acts</HI> 20. 28. which may be render'd, Feed the Church of <HI>God,</HI> which <HI>he</HI> hath purcha&s;ed with the Blood of his own Son; but the truer Reading according to the <HI>Syriac,</HI> the <HI>Armenian,</HI> and mo&s;t antient Greek Bibles, is, <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in&s;tead of <HI>God.</HI> Mo&s;t of the Antient Fathers read <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> or <HI>Lord.</HI> Tho&s;e words in 1 <HI>John</HI> 5. 21. <HI>This is the true God,</HI> which &s;ome refer to the Son, are plain|ly to be refer'd to the Father, &s;ig|nified by <HI>him that is true,</HI> through his Son Je&s;us. <HI>This</HI> [He that is true] (who&s;e Son Chri&s;t is) <HI>is the true God.</HI> La&s;tly, They urge that in <HI>John</HI> 20. 28. where <HI>Thomas</HI> be|ing convinced by the clear Te&s;ti|mony of his Sen&s;es, that Chri&s;t was ri&s;en from the Dead, an|&s;wered and &s;aid unto him, <HI>My Lord and my God:</HI> which words, whether they are words of Ad|miration, re&s;pecting God that rai&s;ed him from the Dead, or him that was rai&s;ed to be a Prince and Saviour <HI>(Acts</HI> 5. 30, 31.) a Lord and a God; the term <HI>God</HI> cannot &s;ignify in this latter &s;en&s;e, any o|ther than a God or Chri&s;t, made &s;o by Re&s;urrection. 'Tis a clear Ca&s;e, that the Evangeli&s;t could not intend by the&s;e words, to teach us that Je&s;us was <HI>God,</HI> when he tells in the la&s;t Ver&s;e, that they and his whole Book were written, <HI>That we might believe that Je&s;us is the Chri&s;t the SON of God, and that believing we might have Life through his Name.</HI></P>
<P>I have in&s;i&s;ted long upon this Point of the Onene&s;s of God, partly becau&s;e it is a Matter of the highe&s;t Moment in Religion; partly to &s;hew, that if our Au|thor <HI>had a De&s;ign</HI> (as Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays he had) <HI>to exclude the Belie&s; of the Trinity</HI> (or Threene&s;s of God) from being a Point nece&s;&s;a|ry to Salvation, it was a Pious and Chri&s;tian De&s;ign; and that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> has been &s;o far from of|fering any thing to prove that Faith to be &s;o nece&s;&s;ary, that he has not proved it a true Doctrine; but on the contrary, I have proved it to be fal&s;e, and highly di&s;ho|nourable
<PB N="37" REF="19">
to the ever-ble&s;&s;ed God and Father of Chri&s;t, contrary to the clear and full Current of Scripture, ob&s;curing the true Glory of Chri&s;t, and very inju|rious to the Peace and Hope of Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>But after all, whether our Au|thor is of my mind in this Mat|ter; or whether he believes that the Doctrine of three coequal Al|mighty Per&s;ons is a Truth, but not Fundamental, I cannot determine: but methinks Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s con|cluding him <HI>all over Socinianiz'd</HI> in this Point, is done upon &s;uch Grounds, as will argue the Holy Evangeli&s;ts to be al&s;o <HI>Socinians:</HI> for he &s;ays, <HI>This Writer interprets</HI> the Son of God <HI>to be no more than the Me&s;&s;iah:</HI> and I am much per&s;wad|ed, that whoever &s;hall read the Go&s;pels with any attention, will find the Holy Writers to be of the &s;ame Mind; and our Author has fully prov'd it in his Book, but more particularly from <HI>pag.</HI> 48. to 61. and <HI>pag.</HI> 95. Yea the com|paring the Evangeli&s;ts in the re|lation of one and the &s;ame Story alone may do it; for what in <HI>Matthew</HI> is expre&s;t by, <HI>Thou art the Me&s;&s;iah the Son of the Living God,</HI> chap. 16. 16. the &s;ame is in <HI>Mark,</HI> Chap. 8. 29. <HI>Thou art the Me&s;&s;iah;</HI> and in <HI>Luke</HI> 9. 18. <HI>The Me&s;&s;iah of God.</HI> And if you com|pare 1 <HI>John</HI> 5. 1. with <HI>ver.</HI> 4, 5. you will ea&s;ily &s;ee the <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> or <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> and the <HI>Son of God,</HI> are Terms of the &s;ame Import. Be|&s;ides, the very word <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> or Chri&s;t &s;ignifying <HI>Anointed,</HI> and &s;o interpreted in the Margin of our Bibles, <HI>John</HI> 1. 41. is in the <HI>49th ver&s;e,</HI> under&s;tood by <HI>Nathanael</HI> to be <HI>the Son of God, the King of</HI> I&s;|rael. For the Kings of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> in the Letter and Type, were con|&s;tituted Kings by Anointing; hence God is &s;aid <HI>to anoint</HI> David <HI>King over</HI> I&s;rael, 2 <HI>Sam.</HI> 12. 7. and <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 2. 2. he is called <HI>the Lord's Anointed;</HI> but in <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 7. upon that very account, the Lord &s;aid, <HI>Thou art MY SON, this Day have I begotten thee.</HI> Now as the fir&s;t and &s;econd ver&s;es of this P&s;alm, are by the Apo&s;tles and Believers, applied to God's Holy Child [or Son] Je&s;us, who as <HI>David</HI> is called <HI>the Lord's Chri&s;t,</HI> Acts 4. 25, 26, 27. &s;o upon God's rai&s;ing again of Je&s;us to be a Prince and a Saviour, the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> does expre&s;ly apply to him that glorious Proclamation in the <HI>7th</HI> ver&s;e, &s;aying, <HI>As it is al&s;o written in the &s;econd</HI> P&s;alm, <HI>Thou art MY SON, THIS DAY have I BEGOT|TEN THEE,</HI> Acts 13. 33. And the Author to the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> Chap. 1. 4, 5. &s;peaking of the Son's <HI>be|ing made better than the Angels,</HI> proves it from this, that <HI>God &s;aid not at any time to any of them,</HI> as he did unto Je&s;us, [in his Type <HI>David] Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee;</HI> and in his Type <HI>Solomon, I will be to him a Father, and he &s;hall be to me a Son,</HI> 2 Sam. 7. 14. Moreover we have
<PB N="38" REF="20">
&s;een before, that our Lord vindi|cates to him&s;elf the Name of the <HI>Son of God,</HI> by a Text out of the <HI>82d</HI> P&s;alm, where the mighty Judg|es and Princes are called <HI>Gods,</HI> and <HI>Sons of the mo&s;t High,</HI> John 10.</P>
<P>The&s;e things con&s;ider'd, will I think ju&s;tify our Author in inter|preting the <HI>Son of God</HI> to be no more than <HI>the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> or will condemn the Divine Writers (if not the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah</HI> him&s;elf) in the &s;ame Crime.</P>
<P>Another Evidence of our Au|thor's being <HI>Socinian,</HI> is (accord|ing to Mr. <HI>Edw.)</HI> that <HI>he expounds</HI> Joh. 14. 9, &amp;c. <HI>after the Antitrinita|rian Mode, whereas generally Divines under&s;tand &s;ome part of tho&s;e words concerning the Divinity of our Sa|viour.</HI> He &s;ays,<HI>&mdash;generally Di|vines,</HI> &amp;c. By this mark tho&s;e Di|vines that do not &s;o interpret, mu&s;t be <HI>Socinians:</HI> the <HI>Socinians</HI> owe Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> their thanks, for adding to their Number many Learned and able Divines; but I doubt tho&s;e Divines will not thank him for it. But Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> has Courage enough to call a mo&s;t Learned and right Reverend Fa|ther, <HI>Wavering Prelate,</HI> and to bring in his Doctrine about Fundamentals, as favouring the Cau&s;es of Athei&s;m, if he and tho&s;e other Divines agree not with him in their Sentiments.</P>
<P>Another mark of Sociniani&s;m is, that our Author <HI>Makes Chri&s;t and</HI> Adam, <HI>to be the Sons of God&mdash;by their BIRTH, as the Racovians generally do.</HI> That they both make Chri&s;t to be the Son of God by his Birth, and that truly accord|ing to that Text of <HI>Luke</HI> 1. 35. cannot I think be denied by any that duly con&s;iders the Place; but that either the one or the other make <HI>Adam,</HI> who was never born to be <HI>&s;o,</HI> in like manner by his <HI>Birth,</HI> is Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI>'s Blunder, and not their A&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P>I have not taken notice of the other Fundamentals which Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> reckons in his Sy&s;tem, (di|vers of which are not found in Holy Scripture, either Name or Thing, expre&s;ly, or by con&s;e|quence) becau&s;e he in&s;i&s;ts chiefly on the Doctrine of the Trinity; which however it is believed by Learned Men, to be in &s;ome &s;en&s;e or other (they cannot agree in what &s;en&s;e) a Truth; yet &s;ome of the mo&s;t Learned of them do not believe it a Fundamental and nece&s;&s;ary Truth, particularly Mr. <HI>Limborch</HI> (than whom this pre|&s;ent Learned Age does not afford a more Learned and able Divine) could not defend Chri&s;tian Reli|gion, in his mo&s;t famous and weighty Di&s;putations again&s;t the Jews, without waving that Point; one of which we have in his <HI>Ami|ca Collatio cum erudito Judaeo,</HI> &amp;c. the able&s;t Jew (I pre&s;ume) that ever wrote in Defence of <HI>Judai&s;m</HI> again&s;t Chri&s;tianity. Another Conference I am informed we may hope &s;hortly to &s;ee, in his Reduction of an eminent Per&s;on,
<PB N="39" REF="20">
who was upon the Point of for|&s;aking the Chri&s;tian Religion, and embracing for it that of the Jews at <HI>Am&s;terdam,</HI> when fir&s;t the a|ble&s;t Sy&s;temers had tried their ut|mo&s;t skill and could not effect it. Perhaps Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> means him for one, when he &s;ays, our Author's <HI>Plau&s;ible Conceit</HI> found <HI>reception (if it had not its birth) among &s;ome Fo|reign Authors</HI> be&s;ides <HI>Socinians,</HI> pag. 104. Indeed he had cau&s;e e|nough, for Mr. <HI>Limborch</HI> tells the Jew expre&s;ly (in the Book I na|med, <HI>Chap.</HI> 9. <HI>Pag.</HI> 218.) <HI>Quando exigitur fides in Je&s;um Chri&s;tum, nu&s;quam in toto novo Te&s;tamento exigi ut credamus Je&s;um e&s;&s;e ip&s;um Deum, &s;ed Je&s;um e&s;&s;e Chri&s;tum, &s;eu Me&s;&s;iam olim promi&s;&s;um, vel quod idem e&s;t, e&s;&s;e Filium Dei; quoniam appellationes Chri&s;ti &amp; filii Dei inter &s;e permutantur.</HI> <Q>When we are requir'd to believe in Je&s;us Chri&s;t, we are no where in all the New Te&s;tament requir'd to believe that Je&s;us is the very God, but that Je&s;us is the Chri&s;t or the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> that was of old promi&s;ed, or which is the &s;ame, that he is <HI>the Son of God;</HI> be|cau&s;e tho&s;e Appellations of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> and of <HI>Son of God</HI> are put one for another.</Q> So that in Company of Mr. <HI>Limborch</HI> and other eminent Divines, as well as our Engli&s;h Bi&s;hops and Doctors, our Author may &s;till believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Truth, though not <HI>nece&s;&s;ary, ab|&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to make one a Chri&s;tian,</HI> as Mr. <HI>Edwards</HI> con|tends.</P>
<P>But why does he make mention of only the Right Reverend Fa|thers, one Reverend Doctor, and the foreign Divines and <HI>Socinians,</HI> as Favourers of this <HI>Plau&s;ible Con|ceit, of making nothing nece&s;&s;ary and Fundamental,</HI> but what is <HI>E|VIDENTLY contain'd in Holy Scripture as &s;uch;</HI> and &s;o is accom|modated to the apprehen&s;ion of the Poor, that hear and read the Scriptures, making them al&s;o ca|pable of being &s;aved, though they are either ignorant of, or do not believe aright tho&s;e Truths, which, though deliver'd in Scrip|ture, are yet either hard to be under&s;tood, or difficultly infer'd, or have no mark of Fundamental, either in them&s;elves, or in Divine Revelation; and for tho&s;e Rea|&s;ons cannot be made evident to the <HI>de&s;pi&s;ed</HI> common People, which the Lord Je&s;us came to &s;ave as well as the Learned? He might al&s;o have charg'd the &s;ixth Arti|cle of the Church of <HI>England</HI> with this <HI>Plau&s;ible Coneeit,</HI> which has &s;o much <HI>Evil and Mi&s;chief in it, tending to reduce the Catholick Faith to nothing,</HI> pag. 122. For that Article &s;aith thus; <Q>Holy Scripture containeth all things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, &s;o that what&s;oever is not <HI>read</HI> therein, nor may be <HI>proved thereby,</HI> is not to be required of any Man, that it &s;hould be believed as an <HI>Article</HI> of Faith.</Q> Ob&s;erve here,
<PB N="40" REF="21">
that every nece&s;&s;ary Article mu&s;t be <HI>read</HI> expre&s;ly, or at lea&s;t <HI>proved thereby,</HI> and to whom is this Proof to be made? even to the WEAK|EST NODDLES of tho&s;e that are requir'd to believe it. Ab&s;olute|ly there is not one Man or Wo|man of the <HI>venerable Mob,</HI> that (according to Mr. <HI>Edw.)</HI> can be &s;aved, becau&s;e they cannot po&s;|&s;ibly have the Article of <HI>the three Per&s;ons that are one</HI> prov'd to them from Scripture; for it's evident the Learned, even of the Clergy, cannot prove it to one another, much le&s;s to vulgar Under&s;tand|ings. And Mr. <HI>Chillingworth</HI> (the able&s;t Defender of <HI>the Religion of Prote&s;tants,</HI> that the Church ever had) &s;ays (and ingeminates it)<HI>&mdash;The BIBLE, the BIBLE, I &s;ay the BIBLE only is the Religion of Prote&s;tants; what&s;oever el&s;e they be|lieve be&s;ides it, and the plain IRRE|FRAGABLE and IND&V;BITA|BLE Con&s;equences of it, well may they hold it as a Matter of Opinion, but not as a Matter of Faith or Re|ligion; neither can they with con&s;i|&s;tence to their own Grounds believe it them&s;elves, nor require the Belief of it from others, without mo&s;t High and mo&s;t Schi&s;matical Pre&s;umption,</HI> Ch. 6. N. 56. Will Mr. <HI>Ed|wards</HI> &s;ay, His Fundamentals are &s;uch irrefragable and indubitable Truths, about which there are among Prote&s;tants &s;uch hot and irreconcileable Contentions? A|gain, that mo&s;t judicious Author lays this as the unmoveable Foun|dation of his whole Di&s;cour&s;e again&s;t the Papi&s;ts, viz. <HI>That all things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation are</HI> e|vidently <HI>contain'd in Scripture;</HI> as the Church of <HI>England</HI> does, (&s;ee <HI>Pref. N.</HI> 30.) And he &s;hows in the following Paragraphs, to <HI>N.</HI> 38. That all the Je&s;uits Ar|guments again&s;t Prote&s;tants are confuted by it. But that's not all, the &s;ame Author after Dr. <HI>Potter</HI> affirms, <HI>That the Apo&s;tles Creed contains all tho&s;e points of Belief, which were by God's Com|mand of Nece&s;&s;ity to be preached to all, and believed by all:</HI> And yet he &s;ays in the &s;ame Paragraph, <HI>That all Points in the Creed are not thus nece&s;&s;ary;</HI> See Chap. 4. N. 23. Now what more or le&s;s hath our Author a&s;&s;erted in his whole Book? For I have &s;hewed out of him, and it's evident to the Impartial; that his Propo&s;ition, that <HI>Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah or Chri&s;t,</HI> does com|prehend or clearly imply all the Articles of nece&s;&s;ary Chri&s;tian Faith in the Creed. For, though it was &s;ufficient to con&s;titute a Believer during the Life of Chri&s;t, to believe him to be the Chri&s;t, although they had no explicite Belief of his Death and Re&s;ur|rection to come; yet afterwards tho&s;e Articles <HI>were nece&s;&s;ary, being undoubted Evidences of his being the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> as our Author <HI>pag.</HI> 31. And therefore Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> is very injurious to him, in repre&s;enting his Propo&s;ition, as if it were only the believing the Man called <HI>Je&s;us</HI>
<PB N="41" REF="21">
to be <HI>the Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> an <HI>Hebrew word,</HI> that &s;ignifies in Engli&s;h <HI>Anointed,</HI> without under&s;tanding what is meant by that Term, &s;ee <HI>pag.</HI> 121.</P>
<P>But why &s;hould I expect that Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;hould have any regard to Mr. <HI>Chillingworth</HI>'s Judgment, and all tho&s;e, the Vice Chancel|lour, the Divinity-profe&s;&s;ors, and others that licen&s;ed and approv|ed his Book, when he has none for the Pious and Learned Bi&s;hop <HI>Jer. Taylor,</HI> and tho&s;e others? Nay, when tho&s;e numerous plain Te&s;timonies, which our Author has quoted out of the Holy Scrip|tures them&s;elves, do but provoke his Oppo&s;ition and Contempt; though the Divine Writers add the&s;e Sanctions to the Belief of our Author's Propo&s;ition, or of tho&s;e Words and Sentences that are of the &s;ame Import, and compre|hended in it, viz. <HI>He that believeth &s;hall be &s;aved,</HI> or <HI>&s;hall never thir&s;t,</HI> or <HI>&s;hall have eternal Life,</HI> and the like: On the contrary, <HI>He that be|lieveth not &s;hall be condemned,</HI> or <HI>&s;hall die in his Sin,</HI> or <HI>peri&s;h,</HI> and the like. However I doubt not but my impartial Reader will con&s;ider both what my Author, and what my &s;elf have &s;aid in this Point.</P>
<P>Having thus made it appear, that the reducing of the Funda|mentals of Chri&s;tian Faith to a few, or even to one plain Arti|cle deliver'd in Scripture expre&s;|ly, and often repeated there, and in divers equipollent Phra&s;es, ea&s;y to be under&s;tood by the POOR, and &s;trongly enforcing the Obe|dience of the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> (as is our Author's Propo&s;ition) is far from having any tendency to Athei&s;m or Dei&s;m; I &s;hall now retort this charge upon Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> and &s;how that on the contrary, the multi|plying of &s;peculative and my&s;teri|ous Articles as nece&s;&s;ary, which are neither contain'd in Scripture expre&s;ly, nor drawn thence by any clear and evident Con&s;equence, but are hard to be under&s;tood, e&s;peci|ally by the <HI>common People,</HI> having no rational Tendency to promote a good Life, but directly to the high Di&s;honour of the one God, the God and Father of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and the &s;ubver&s;ion of the Hope and Peace of Chri|&s;tians, as I have manife&s;ted in one and the chief of Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Fun|damentals, and of other Sy&s;te|mers: This I &s;ay has been, and is one great Cau&s;e, or chief occa|&s;ion of that Athei&s;m and Dei&s;m that is in the World.</P>
<P N="1">1. Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> him&s;elf tells us, That <Q>Undue Apprehen&s;ions of a Deity join'd with &s;uper&s;titi|on, are the high road to Athe|i&s;m, <HI>pag.</HI> 34.&mdash;Therefore im|po&s;ing of fal&s;e Doctrines, con|cerning the Attributes of God, is very pernicious, for they are de&s;tructive of his very Being and Nature.</Q> But I have &s;hew'd that the impo&s;ing of the Doctrine of <HI>three Almighty Per&s;ons,</HI> or per|&s;onal Gods, is a fal&s;e Doctrine, and de&s;troys one of the chief At|tributes
<PB N="42" REF="22">
of God, therefore is (ac|cording to Mr. <HI>Edw.) de&s;tructive of his very Being and Nature,</HI> pag. 35. Again, another of Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Fundamentals is, <HI>That full Sati&s;|faction is made by the Death of Chri&s;t to the Divine Ju&s;tice;</HI> which Do|ctrine does clearly de&s;troy the At|tribute of the <HI>Divine Mercy:</HI> for every one may readily perceive, that full &s;atisfaction to Ju&s;tice by Puni&s;hment, cannot con&s;i&s;t with Pardoning Mercy; when a Judg puni&s;hes according to full Ju&s;tice, he does not at all forgive or &s;hew Mercy. But that they may not be &s;een to de&s;troy altogether the Mercy of God, they make him to inflict that Puni&s;hment upon him&s;elf in a Human Body and Soul. Will not the&s;e <HI>fal&s;e concep|tions of the Deity expunge at la&s;t the Belief of the true one?</HI> Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays fal&s;e ones will.</P>
<P><HI>2ly. Another occa&s;ion,</HI> Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;ays, <HI>Athei&s;ts take from our Divi|&s;ions, Broils and Animo&s;ities, from the many Parties and Squadrons of Sects that are in the World, to bid defiance to all Religion.</HI> And is it not manife&s;t that tho&s;e Divi&s;ions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> ari&s;e chiefly from tho&s;e Do|ctrines that are Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Funda|mentals? I have intimated alrea|dy, there are many Divi&s;ions of Trinitarians, and how hotly they contend with one another, and upon Unitarian Principles. And whoever &s;hall but peep into Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical Hi&s;tory, may &s;oon &s;ee that their <HI>Trinity</HI> has been &s;uch a bone of Contention as has exer|cis'd the Wits and Pens of Church|men the&s;e 1400 Years; for &s;o long it is, and longer &s;ince Chri|&s;tians departed from the &s;impli|city of the Faith, as it was preach|ed by our Lord Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles. And now when the Unitarians and our Author would bring Chri&s;tians back to that &s;im|plicity, in which the <HI>Go&s;pel was preached to the Poor,</HI> and they un|der&s;tood it and receiv'd it; this pious De&s;ign is ridicul'd, and the Salvation of the Bulk of Mankind is &s;et at nought; Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> may well conclude that this conduct gives occa&s;ion to Athei&s;tical Per&s;ons.</P>
<P><HI>3ly.</HI> He &s;ays, <HI>pag.</HI> 63. <HI>When Per&s;ons ob&s;erve that the very Divi|nity of our Ble&s;&s;ed Lord and Saviour is to&s;s'd and torn by rude Pens&mdash;what can they think of the other great Ve|rities of Chri&s;tianity?</HI> But Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> mi&s;takes, it's not the oppo&s;ition that is made to the &s;upreme Di|vinity of the Son of God, but the a&s;&s;erting it, that inclines Men to disbelieve Chri&s;tianity. Had ma|ny that are now Dei&s;ts, been &s;oon|er acquainted with the Doctrine of one God even the Father, and of one Man the Mediator between God and Men, it's very probable they would have continued Chri|&s;tians; for there are &s;ome that of Dei&s;ts have been reconcil'd to the Chri&s;tian Faith by the Unitarian Books, and have profe&s;s'd much Satisfaction therein. But I mu&s;t confe&s;s it's a very hand&s;ome re|buke
<PB N="43" REF="22">
Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> gives to his own Party, when he blames the <HI>Anti|trinitarians, That they have provok'd &s;ome of them to an undecent &s;ort of Language concerning the&s;e Holy My|&s;teries: &s;o that &s;ome of the&s;e latter have hurt the Cau&s;e, it may be almo&s;t as much by their Defending it, as the others have by their Oppo&s;ing it.</HI> I mu&s;t lay up this for a curious Fi|gure in Rhetorick: He cuts &s;ome dignified Per&s;ons through the Uni|tarians &s;ides; and &s;o whoever is in Fault, they mu&s;t bear the Blame. But if the Unitarians have <HI>Truth,</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Truth</HI> on their &s;ide, then they are not faulty, even as Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles were not faulty, though they preach'd the Go&s;pel which &s;et <HI>the Son again&s;t the Father,</HI> &amp;c. and produc'd not <HI>Peace but a Sword:</HI> And the Reformers were not faulty in vigorou&s;ly op|po&s;ing the Popi&s;h Faith, even un|to Blood. But whoever will at|tentively con&s;ider it, may &s;ee it's the Nature of the Trinitarian Doctrine, that it cannot be defend|ed without being expo&s;ed, &s;o that when the mo&s;t Learned of the Party labour to defend it, they nece&s;&s;arily run into one Ab|&s;urdity or other; which being perceived by the next Learned Man, he expo&s;es him: and a Third &s;ees the weakne&s;s of each of them: and a Fourth Man &s;pies Flaws in every of them. This produces various Hypothe&s;es, and makes them a Scorn to Athei&s;ts, and enclines others to Dei&s;m. For the ob&s;curing of a Contra|diction will not take it away. Con|tradictions are &s;tubborn Things, and will never yield to any Re|conciliation what&s;oever. God will never be more than One real Per&s;on, and One Per&s;on will never be Three real Per&s;ons. And if Trinitarians will (as they do) make that a Fundamental of Religion, which contradicts the be&s;t Rea&s;onings of Mankind, whereby they prove the Exi&s;tence of God and his Unity, <HI>viz. That he is that Being which IS nece&s;&s;arily and by him&s;elf, and &s;o con&s;ider'd not in Kind, but in Act; wherefore if you &s;up|po&s;e more Gods, then you will nece&s;&s;arily find nothing in each of them why any of them &s;hould be.</HI> Grotius de ve|rit. Chr. Relig. in initio. And if the Trinitarians cannot explain their Doctrine to one another, &s;o as to clear it from introducing more Gods than one, no marvel then that loo&s;e Men (who yet rea&s;on as the incomparable <HI>Gro|tius,</HI> and other Learned Men do) do thence deny there is <HI>any God at all.</HI> The Learned allow there is not nece&s;&s;arily any God, if you &s;uppo&s;e more than one: The Trinitarians &s;ay he is more than <HI>one;</HI> Men who think it their In|tere&s;t there &s;hould be no God, conclude thence, it's equal in rea|&s;on to believe there is no God as three. And Mr. <HI>Norris</HI> joins them with his Suffrage in the Point; <HI>I think it</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>a greater Ab|&s;urdity, that there &s;hould be more
<PB N="44" REF="23">
Gods than one, than that there &s;hould be none at all. Rea&s;on and Relig.</HI> p. 59.</P>
<P>And if &s;ome Men take occa&s;ion from &s;uch rea&s;onings as the&s;e to turn Athei&s;ts it may ea&s;ily be con|ceiv'd, that Men that are more Sober, and find &s;trong and irre|&s;i&s;tible Rea&s;ons for the Exi&s;tence and Unity of God, but &s;ee clear|ly that Chri&s;tians wor&s;hip Three, and be&s;ides that, hold divers o|ther ab&s;urd Doctrines for Funda|mentals; &s;uch Men (I &s;ay) mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity for&s;ake Chri&s;tianity; and turn Dei&s;ts. Thus it's mo&s;t manife&s;t, that the Unitarians take the direct Cour&s;e to prevent A|thei&s;m and Dei&s;m, by letting the World &s;ee, that tho&s;e Fundamen|tals are no Doctrines of Chri&s;t; but that the nece&s;&s;ary Faith of Chri&s;t is a plain and &s;hort Doctrine, ea&s;y to be under&s;tood by the Poor, and clearly expre&s;t in Scripture, mo&s;t rea&s;onable in it &s;elf, and mo&s;t agreeable to the Unity and Good|ne&s;s of God, and other the Di|vine Attributes.</P>
<P>I &s;hall now in the <HI>4th</HI> Place &s;hew how the Ob&s;curity, Numerou&s;ne&s;s, and Difficulty of under&s;tanding Sy&s;tematical Fundamentals pro|motes Dei&s;m, and &s;ubverts the Chri&s;tian Faith, and that in a no|torious In&s;tance. It's matter of Fact, and evident to the whole World, that the <HI>Quakers</HI> are a very numerous People, and form'd into a compact Body, in which they exerci&s;e &s;trict Di&s;cipline, as to what concerns their Party. They will not own any other De|nomination of Chri&s;tians or o|thers for <HI>the People of God,</HI> but them&s;elves <HI>only;</HI> all others are of the World. They utterly di&s;own the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith; they decry it as <HI>Letter, Carnal, Du&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. Their Principle is, that their Religion is taught them by In&s;piration or Revelation of a Light within, whereof every Man has a Mea&s;ure, but <HI>they</HI> only hearken to it, and obey it; They give the Scripture the place of bearing witne&s;s to their inward Light, as the Woman of <HI>Samaria</HI> to Chri&s;t. They turn the Go&s;pel into an Allegory, and con&s;equent|ly make u&s;e of the Words and Phra&s;es of the Scripture; as that <HI>Chri&s;t is the Word, the Light, the Teacher, the Word in the Mouth and Heart; that Chri&s;t died, and ro&s;e, and a&s;cended, and is in Heaven,</HI> and the like; but all in a my&s;tical or &s;piritual Sen&s;e, as they call it. By all which things, and indeed by the whole Tenour of their Books, Preachings and Profe&s;&s;ions, they appear to be <HI>Dei&s;ts</HI> and not Chri&s;tians. <HI>George Fox's</HI> Book; titled, <HI>The great My&s;tery,</HI> will give full &s;atisfaction in this Point. And they have all along been charg'd by other Denominations to be <HI>no Chri&s;tians,</HI> and that <HI>Qua|keri&s;m is no Chri&s;tianity.</HI> However retaining &s;till the Words where|in the Chri&s;tian Faith is expre&s;t, though in an <HI>equivocal</HI> Sen&s;e; and having &s;ome among them (as
<PB N="45" REF="23">
<HI>George Keith</HI> and others) who &s;till believ'd the Go&s;pel in the proper Sen&s;e, they made a &s;hift to be re|puted <HI>generally</HI> Chri&s;tians. And indeed this Conduct of theirs de|ceived even many of their own Party, which is manife&s;t in <HI>Wil|liam Rogers</HI> of <HI>Bri&s;tol, Francis Bugg, Thomas Cri&s;pe, John Penny|man,</HI> and e&s;pecially in <HI>George Keith;</HI> who having been a Quaker about 30 Years, yet did not till within the&s;e three or four Years di&s;cover the Infidelity of the Pri|mitive and true Quakers, who are de&s;ervedly call'd <HI>Foxonians,</HI> be|cau&s;e holding the Principles of <HI>George Fox</HI> their Author. But <HI>G. Keith</HI> living in <HI>Pen&s;ylvania,</HI> (where the Quakers were <HI>Governours,</HI> and might be free to open their Minds plainly) did then perceive they did not believe the Doctrine of <HI>the Apo&s;tles Creed,</HI> the &s;ummary of Chri&s;tian Faith, which made him preach it and contend for it more earne&s;tly. This provok'd the <HI>Foxonians</HI> &s;o far, that it came to a Breach and Separation, and at length to Impeachment, Fines and Impri&s;onment. Then <HI>G. Keich</HI> returns to <HI>London,</HI> where the mat|ters in Conte&s;t between him and the <HI>Foxonians</HI> of <HI>Pen&s;ylvania,</HI> was taken into Con&s;ideration, and had divers Hearings by the general Annual Meeting of Quakers, 1694, who gave a kind of a Judgment in the Ca&s;e, but no clearer Deter|mination of the principal Matter concerning <HI>Chri&s;t within,</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t without,</HI> and the other Articles of Chri&s;tian Faith, than their for|mer <HI>equivocal</HI> Expre&s;&s;ions. The next Year 1695, at the like Ge|neral Meeting, they ab&s;olutely ex|communicate <HI>G. Keith,</HI> and make this the Ground of it, <HI>viz.</HI> that he had not given due ob&s;ervance to their former Order, and was trou|ble&s;ome to them in his Declara|tions, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For he had &s;till conti|nued to preach frequently <HI>Chri&s;ti|anity</HI> as before. See a late Book, titled, <HI>Gro&s;s Error and Hypocri&s;y detected,</HI> &amp;c. The Reader I hope will excu&s;e it, that I have de|tain'd him in this long Story, be|cau&s;e it was nece&s;&s;ary for me fir&s;t, to prove the Quakers are <HI>Dei&s;ts,</HI> and then to proceed and &s;hew,</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> That the Ob&s;curity, Ambiguity, and Numerou&s;ne&s;s of <HI>Sy&s;tematical</HI> Fundamentals, is that which is the chief Cau&s;e of their being <HI>&s;o:</HI> For not being able to &s;atisfy them&s;elves in under&s;tand|ing and determining the Truth and Certainty of tho&s;e Funda|mentals, for the proof of which Scriptures were alledg'd; but <HI>tho&s;e</HI> of &s;o doubtful a &s;en&s;e, and vari|ou&s;ly interpreted by oppo&s;ite Par|ties, that they readily embrac'd <HI>George Fox</HI>'s only Fundamental of <HI>the Light in every Man;</HI> that is in reality the <HI>natural Light,</HI> whereby we di&s;tingui&s;h between Good and Evil in ordinary; whence it is that (as &s;aith the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul) We</HI> (as <HI>the Gentiles) are a Law to our &s;elves, and our Thoughts accu&s;e
<PB N="46" REF="24">
or excu&s;e,</HI> Rom. 2. 14, 15. Which is in Truth an excellent Doctrine, and has great certainty and clear|ne&s;s in it. But <HI>G. Fox</HI> preaches this, not as a natural Principle, but 1. As a &s;upernatural Revela|tion: And 2. Chri&s;t being call'd in Scripture, <HI>the Light that light|eth every Man,</HI> and the <HI>Light of the World,</HI> becau&s;e be brought the Light of the Go&s;pel into the World; <HI>George Fox</HI> applies the&s;e Terms and Phra&s;es, and almo&s;t every thing that is &s;poken of Chri&s;t, to <HI>the Light in every Man,</HI> and &s;o turns the plain &s;en&s;e of the Go&s;pel into a Parabolical or My|&s;tical Sen&s;e, and makes the Chri|&s;tian Scripture to &s;peak nothing but Dei&s;m. 3. <HI>G. Fox</HI> adds cer|tain Ob&s;ervances of giving no re&s;pect in Word or Ge&s;ture, or Title, nor &s;peaking as others &s;peak, nor &s;aluting as others &s;a|lute, nor paying Tithes, nor u&s;ing the Sword, nor &s;wearing in com|mon Form, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and all as in&s;pired Dictates, that &s;o the <HI>only People of God</HI> might be &s;eparated from all the World, and they &s;erve ad|mirably for that purpo&s;e. Now if you con&s;ider the experimented <HI>certainty</HI> of their Principle, <HI>the Light within,</HI> that accu&s;es and ex|cu&s;es, and their Per&s;wa&s;ion that it was <HI>a Divine In&s;piration,</HI> which al|&s;o was confirm'd to them by their giving <HI>obedience</HI> to tho&s;e Cere|monies which were &s;o contrary and offen&s;ive to the World, and expos'd them to much Suffering; [All &s;uffering for Religion, e&s;pe|cially for a clear Revelation from God, confirming the Sufferers in their Per&s;wa&s;ion:] You may clearly perceive it was the Un|certainty, Ob&s;curity, and Intri|cacy of their former Principles, which induced them to embrace <HI>G. Fox</HI>'s Religion, which is all dictated by the Spirit of God in every Man. Whence it is, they upbraid other Profe&s;&s;ors with <HI>Doubtfulne&s;s</HI> and <HI>Fallibility;</HI> and e|very one of them counts him&s;elf <HI>as infallible</HI> as the Papi&s;ts do the <HI>Pope. How can ye but delude Peo|ple</HI> (&s;ays <HI>G. Fox)</HI> that <HI>are not in|fallible?</HI> My&s;t. p. 33.</P>
<P><HI>La&s;tly,</HI> The Ob&s;curity, Uncer|tainty, and Multiplicity of Fun|damentals, is that which has given an Argument to Popi&s;h Prie&s;ts and Je&s;uits, wherewith to &s;educe Prote&s;tants to Popery. For evi|dence of <HI>this,</HI> I &s;hall mind you of a Paper written by a Je&s;uit, in the late King <HI>James</HI>'s time, titled, <HI>An Addre&s;s pre&s;ented to the Reve|rend and Learned Mini&s;ters of the Church of</HI> England, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The pur|port of which is, <HI>That all things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation are not clearly contained in Scripture,</HI> as Prote&s;tants hold; becau&s;e the <HI>Belief of a Tri|nity, one God and three Per&s;ons, is nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, but not clearly contain'd in Scripture.</HI> Then he goes about to &s;hew, that the Scriptures commonly alledged for the Trinity, admit of another &s;en&s;e. He goes the &s;ame way in
<PB N="47" REF="24">
the Article of the <HI>Incarnation.</HI> Thus &s;uppo&s;ing the&s;e Articles to be nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation (as Pro|te&s;tants hold) and not clearly con|tain'd in Scripture; it follows that the undoubted Certainty of them mu&s;t be found in the Deter|minations of the Church; and then that Church which profe&s;&s;es <HI>Infallibility</HI> is the only Refuge; and <HI>I believe as the Church believes,</HI> &s;up|plies all other Articles. No Cer|tainty any where el&s;e; but Cer|tainty mu&s;t be had in the&s;e Points. Here the making of tho&s;e Articles Fundamental, which cannot be clearly prov'd from Scripture, &s;ub|verts the Sufficiency and Clearne&s;s of Scripture, and &s;ends poor Pro|te&s;tants to <HI>Rome,</HI> for the Certain|ty and Infallibility of the Chri&s;ti|an Faith.</P>
<P>They did &s;o glory in the &s;trength of this Argument, that the Je&s;uit-Preacher in <HI>Lime&s;treet,</HI> read their Paper, and made the &s;ame Challenge in his Pulpit, where he had a great number of Prote&s;tants that went out of Cu|rio&s;ity to hear him.</P>
<P>Having thus (as I pre&s;ume) vindicated our Author, and &s;hewn the Mi&s;chiefs of Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Fun|damentals, I may now take my leave of my Reader. Only I am fir&s;t willing to let Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> know, that I have not undertaken this Defence out of any ambitious Hu|mour of contending with &s;o Learned a Man as he is; nor would I have made oppo&s;ition to him in any other Point of Learn|ing or Divinity: but Fundamen|tals every Man is concern'd in, and ought to know, and to be a&s;&s;ured that he holds them all. <HI>Eternal Salvation</HI> is a greater thing by far than any Empire, and will there|fore ju&s;tify and exact our utmo&s;t Care and Endeavour for the ob|taining it. So that in the&s;e Con|&s;iderations of Mr. <HI>Edw</HI>'s Excep|tions&mdash;I have done my Duty to my &s;elf; and that I have publi&s;h'd them, I am per&s;waded I have therein done a great Charity to my Neighbours, <HI>the Poor and Bulk of Mankind,</HI> for who&s;e Salvation (I hope) I &s;hould not think it too much to lay down my Life, how|ever Mr. <HI>Edw.</HI> &s;peaks &s;o &s;coffingly of them, even where their eter|nal Happine&s;s or Mi&s;ery is deeply concern'd.</P>
<TRAILER>THE END.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>Pag. 9. Col. 2 l. 0. for <HI>a</HI> read <HI>or.</HI> P. 11. col. 2. l. 14. r. <HI>perfect Man.</HI> P. 14. col. 2. l. 8. f. <HI>mine</HI> r. <HI>nine;</HI> l. 14. r. <HI>palliate the.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
