have with good Reason replyed that this would not do the turn seing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule to be subjected unto another without the Determination of which they could never acqâ—iesce in the Scriptures decision how clearly soever they speak for the one party and against â—he oâ—â—er I answer 2dly that the words of Christ spoken both before and at that time were binding on the Jews he having given sufficient proofs of his Deity Notwithstanding of which Christ referreth them to those Writings about the divinity of which they were beyond all doubting and had abundance of subjective as well as objective certainty To these I say he referreth them as the Principal Rule and Test whereby to determine the great Controversy then in agitation I say in a Word that the words Christ and his Apostles spake and now recorded in Scriptures were of themselves no lesse binding on the Iews than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets tho the Iews throw their wilfull ignorance and prejudice which was their own great fault the great Cause of which was the neglect of the Scriptures which testifie of Christ did not believe the Divinity of the one as they did that of the other hence one of the horns of this Dilemma is broken and his consequence a meer non sequitur He here grants that if Christs Doctrine ought to be tried by the Scriptures then much more private Enthusiasms But denyeth that it will hence follow that the Scriptures are the primary Rule which I prove for if the Doctrine of Christ be subject to the Scriptures trial then no man can deny that even these things which are divine immediat Revelations may be brought to the Scripture trial that we may know whether they be divine or not as well as the Jews ought to bring the Doctrine of Christ to the Scriptures that they might clearly see whether it was divine or not seing whatever can be said for exemption of these Revelations from trial with good ground might be said for exeeming of the Doctrine of Christ. Moreover by granting that privat Enthusiasms ought to be tryed by the Scripture he yieldeth all he was this whole time pleading for which was that it might be lawful to embrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of God without further examination thereof The third Scripture viz. Act. 17.11 is so clear that our Adversaries can find nothing wherewith to darken and deprave it It is true that Robert Barclay Vind. pag. 44. sayeth It is the same way answered as Iohn 5.39 Therefore I say our meaning is the same way vinâ—icate Nâ—xt all his verbal shifâ—s are wholly excluded here seing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans ought to have no lesse weight with us than a Command The next place assaulted by them is 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of prophecy c. which place thâ—y will have to be understood of the Spirit not â—f the Scriptures of which assertion Robert Barclay pag. 26. giveth this Reason that the Description or Narration of a thing is not more sure than the hearing or seeing of the same and therefore the Scriptures which are but a Narration and Description of such and such things cannot be more sure than the sight or hearing of the same Hence he would infer that the discoverie the Apostles had made to them upon the mount were really surer than the Scriptures but not so sure as the Spirit George Keith Truth Defended pag. 63. hath a long discourse which resolves in this that the Apostle is making a Comparison between Gods outward Word to the Ear and inwâ—rd to the Heart which he sayeth is more sure to a man than Gods immediat speaking if it be heard with the outward ear But such reasoning as this is as easily everthrown as invented for it presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the Testimony of the senses goes along And so their spirit is an enemy to sense Otherwise why should this glorious vision made to the Apostles of the Truth of which they had divine and infallible evidence to whom God spake as immediatly as to Moses on the Mount be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit 2. To talk at this rate is to presuppose that wherever God revealeth himself unto any person some other way than by speaking into his ear that this Revelation bringeth along with it its own evidence and perswadeth the soul to embrace and close with it as divine which is both groundlesse and therefore false and contrary to their own principles who assert that unlesse the understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediat is not evident 3. It insinuateth that the Apostle in this comparison gave out that one of the things compared was in it self really more uncertain than the other which is most false seing considered in themselves both real immediat Revelation and the Scriptures have all certainty possible therefore this is only to be understood in respect of us to whom the Scriptures are more sure in that they are lesse subject to be counterfeited or wrested by either the Devil or our own sancy than immediat Revelations are The Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrey-men the Iews to whom he speaketh who tho they were now Christians gave in special manner credit to the old Testament as Act 17.11 and else where 4. Tho by this more sure word of Prophecy were understood immediat Revelations the advantage that the Quakers could reap thereby could not be great For this Word of Prophecy being studied and attended to is recommended to us by the Apostle as that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures Hence it will follow even according to the Quakers exposition that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of our Faith seing that if any of the two be it the Text to be explained much rather than the means or helps whereby it is to be explained ought to have this Denomination we have seen the invalidity of his Reason as also the small advantage tho it had been valid We shal in the next place shew why by this more sure word of Prophecy we understand the Scriptures And first because any phrase of the like import as for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prophetick Word or Word of Prophecy it is not in all the Scripture beside for any thing I know in so many syllables such as the Prophets Luk. 16.29 Apostles Prophets Eph. 2.20 The Law and the Prophets Math. 7.12 Are always taken for the Scriptures so that when any did utter such expressions but especially while they discoursed of a guide in Faith and Manners they were still understood as speaking of the Scriptures who I pray ever understood that phrase Luk. 16.31 Moses and the Prophets any other way than that Joh. 6.45 It is written in the Prophets And indeed if our Adversaries were not eâ—â—ronted and
he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
to speak with the Apostle Rom 11.5 of Grace is most certain but he takes again his Confession and soon repents that he hath spoken the Truth while he maketh Election to be of Works tho not wrought by the strength of Nature and maketh these to be Motives moving God to Elect some rather than others quite contrary to the Apostle Rom. 11.6 who makes a clear Opposition betwixt Grace and Works of whatsoever kind in the point of Election But 3ly He is yet more blasphemous and absurd in that while the Apostle telleth us that by these words but of him that calleth work in general or without limitation are excluded he will in spite of him force this very same Phrase to include Works But 4ly That the Apostle here excludeth all kind of Works from being the cause of Election is clear from the Connection of the Words with what goeth before and followeth for these words that the purpose of God c. cite the consequent of the Apostolick Enâ—hymem of which the words going before in this verse and the following is the Antecedent which two propositions the particle that coupleth obtaining the place of the Particle therefore But this Antecedent or the Apostle by it most carefully excludes all kind of Works from being the cause of Gods preferring Iacob to Esau Therefore no kind of Works can be the cause why God elected some while he rejected others Now it is to be observed that even giving and not granting Iacob and Esau to be considered here only as Types that this our conclusion will well follow seing without respect to their future Works it was determined That the younger should have the Inheritance Lordship and Dominion and the elder contrary to the custom of Humane Laws only for the good pleasure of God was to be excluded from them Now we say seing there must be an Analogy betwixt Type and Antitype of necessity some must be appointed to the heavenly Canaan and Spiritual Dominion without consideration of their doing good as the cause moving God to this Election And some must be excluded from this Spiritual Canaan Inheritance and Dominion without the consideration of their evil deeds as the cause moving thereunto If any should say tho the Children had done neither good nor evil yet the Lord foreseeing the good deeds of the one and the evil of the other did so and so decree concerning them they can say nothing more absurd and antiscriptural For 1. then there can be nothing made of these words neither having yet done good or evil neither can any reason be shewed why they were here cast in by the Apostle But 2. and more particularly these words of necessity exclude some kind of works from being the cause of Election or Rejection Ergo they exclude works of whatsoever kind seing they exclude without limitation the doing of good or evil and so render that distinction of Works done by the strength of Nature and by the help of Grace of which he here talketh altogether groundless yea according to this distinction of his one might say that such good works are here only excluded which tho good as to the substance of the Action yet are accompanied with no kind of sincerity and singlness but are intended directly for a sinful end But good works accompanied with any kind of sincerity and having no sinful end directly intended tho they be notwithstanding wrought only by the strength of Nature are not excluded I say according to his distinction this might be said For the Text affords a like ground for both which assertion he that denyeth is bound to give a ground for the one more than for the other from the Text. 3ly The Apostles conclusion drawn from this Text which is as hath been shewed his Antecedent excluding works without limitation from being the cause of Election convinceth all these of contradicting the Scriptures who will notwithstanding pertinaciously assert that only some kind of works is excluded And now from what is said this his distinction of special and general that is certain and uncertain Election falls to the ground For if the cause thereof be not works but the grace and good-pleasure of God then no part of Election can be uncertain except Obstupeo surgunt que comae vox faucibus haeret they make the good pleasure of God that is God himself changeable and then all Election shall be uncertain and so this distinction shall fall to the ground however Behold Reader the blasphemy and absurdity into which these universalists run themselves For Election which is the cause of good works they make to be the Effect of good works and so something which is eternal to be the Effect of that which is in time destroying all kind of order This Argument Augustin useth against their Doctrine Dâ— Predest Sanct. C. 16 and proclaim real changes in the Father of lights in whom is no variableness or shadow of turning But why should we tarry so long in refuting one in whom is not to be perceived the least shadow of reason for what he saith as the Reader may perceive As for the Scriptures brought by him here we have nothing to say but only deny that they make any thing for his vagrant Election seing he doth not essay to infer any thing in its behalf from them contented himself barely to act them which when we have diligently considered we cannot find the least appearance of their Doctrine to flow from them we shall therefore passe on to his ensuing Objection and answer Rom. 9.10 11 12. For the Children not being yet born it was said That the elder shall serve the younger where Jacob and Esau were disposed before they were born Ans. 1. It is granted that all men may be so yea are so both for their temporal estates here eternal condition hereafter but in a most wise and just way 2 We have shewed before that the Apostle relating to Gen. 25.23 doth not speak of the persons of Jacob and Esau but of their seeds The Nations of the Edomites and the people of Israel 3. It is not their eternal state that is there spoken of but their Rank and Place in this World. Now as it is lawful for the Lord to make some Governours and Superiours and others Inferiours or Subjects So it was not any injustice in him to make the Seed of Jacob the greater and superiour Kingdom For even the Edomites were appointed to a good and comfortable condition 4 The Apostle makes this disposal of them before hand to prove that Jacob or Israel 's preferment was of meer Grace and so the Argument was apt for this Discourse and in that book where he asserts Gods grace against our own Natural Works and Merits Lastly there is in this Subordination of Esau to Jacob a Spiritual Document shewing that the Natural or Earthly Man must be subject to the Spiritual and heavenly Man for Edom signifies Earthly Reply It is well that after â—o long struggling for
ought to receive any Command from any man or thing without him yea or from the Scriptures themselves And further denyeth without any limitation that the Scriptures ought to be called a Rule And all this tho most blasphemously and absurdly yet most consonantly to the Quakers Principles Our Vindicator in stead of doing Service to his Party notably prevaricateth their Cause not sticking to give away their great Principles while other shifts for defence thereof fail him 4. What he addeth without the operation of the Spirit men cannot obey to the good of their own Souls is altogether impertinent as if one should in answer to a Man enquiring what Duties he ought to perform to such a Superiour tell him what for the time he was in case to perform so as to reap any Advantage thereby which would be as the Proverb goes falcem pro ligone dare 5. He quietly slideth over without so much as naming these words of Furley viz. yea it is the greatest error of the World that ever was invented and the Ground of all error to affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians which Doctrine as it rendereth any Lover of God and his Word secure from being tainted with Quakerisme so that the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the Poison in like manner it hath rendered our Vindicator speechless denuding him of his Shifts of Primary and Secondary Rule under the Protection of which distinction the Quakers would fain shroud themselves For in these words of Furley there is no mention of a Primary or Secondary Rule which without doubt Furley had made if he had believed the Scripture to be a secondary Rule seing certainly he was not ignorant that the Quakers were branded with the name of being Enemies to Scripture 6. In the last place our Vindicator declareth that all he hath hitherto said in Dâ—fence of Furley was but the patrociny of a very bad and indefendible Cause in that he would fasten upon his Adversary the Falsification of Furleys Words For if they were falsified why attempted he to defend them as they were while the sense was quite altered and perverted as he insinuateth Moreover if those words of Furley were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them as they were written by Furley which doubtlesse he was in case to do if there had been any such thing seing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter which he doth not professe concerning any Quaker mentioned in his Adversaries Book Hence it is evident that his Adversary is not at all guilty of the ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator but whether or not they light upon the Author I leave it unto men of Judgment to consider 4. From what is said it is most evident that the Scriptures according to the Judgment of Quakers are in no sense to be counted a Rule and lay no obligation upon any to believe and walk according to them Hence William Pen sayeth that the Spirit of God who is God is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian viz. of Faith and Life for of that he is handling Rejoin Pag. 76. And this the most of their Arguments if they prove any thing intend As for Example that common Topick of the Quakers viz. That which was the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith before the Scriptures were written is the Rule of ours now But I subsume that the Scriptures of the old and New Testament were in no respect the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners but finding that the grossnesse of this Doctrine bewrayeth it self and too palpably unmasketh its abettors they have invented several distinctions under the Covert of which they might shroud themselves and elude all the Arguments whereby the Scriptures are proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith which is the Devils Faith but not of saving Faith. Thus speaketh William Pen Rejoin Pag. 71. But that wherein they place their Sacred Anchor or main strength is that of Adequate and Primary inadequate or secondary Rule asserting that the Scriptures are not the adequate or compleat and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners but only an inadequate in-compleat and secondary Rule That is that the Scriptures contain not all that we are bound to believe or do and that we ought to believe or practise nothing tho never so clearly holden forth or commanded in the Scriptures as for example that God sent his Son into the World or that we ought to love God or our Neighbour except by a miraculous Revelation from Heaven as Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock speaketh we be told the same thing over again By which Revelation we ought say they to examine the Scriptures And because we deny this Doctrine and abhorre it as the Flood-gate of all errors They cry out that we are carnal Enemies to the Spirit void of Light upon this ground also the Ministers that make the Scriptures the Rule of their Doctrine they call by the Names of Baals Priests Thieves Devils Enemies of God with a thousand of the like denominations wherefore that the State of the Controversy may appear and our Adversaries be deprived of their lurking places I premit this assertion in order to the production of true and saving Faith two Principles are required First The Declaration of the Object or thing to be believed or practised which is commonly called in the Schools Objective Revelation This may be either immediate as it was of old to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles To whom God himself immediatly did speak and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing as a medium or mids Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles or it may be mediat as it was in respect of those to whom the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles delivered it and as it is in respect of us for whose sake the Prophets and Apostles wrote it Rom. 15.4 The other thing necessary for the Production of Saving Faith is the operation or influence of the Spirit of God whereby the vail of natural blindnesse is removed and the eyes of the soul or the understanding are opened to know and believe the wonderful things contained in Gods written Law and to see these divine Characters that are imprinted upon the Scriptures and to understand the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves so that the Person thus savingly illuminated attendeth to and heartily closeth with what is delivered in the Scriptures And this is ordinarly called Subjective Revelation or more properly Illumination or an application of the Revelation made already hactenus factae as Dr. Baron speaketh This Doctrine is clear and most intelligible to all that will not close their eyes The Truth of which is proven by the following Scriptures Psal. 119. 18. Luk. 24 46. 2 Cor. 3.15 16. Rev.
shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift viâ— That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule especially in Gospel times which shift is the same way removed that Robert Barclays was And here he essayeth to prove that people are sent to the Dictate Word or Light within from 2 Pet. 1.19 Deut. 30.14 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 3.20 21. Iohn 12.36 Which places make not a whiâ— for his purpose yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism as shal be evinced in due time He hath moreover here a harangue by which he would prove as it seemeth that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ which is most abominable and false and tho it were true yet should make nothing for him for God and Christ can only be said to dwell in Believers whose Temples they only are But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers only in respect of the habits of Grace implanted in their Souls whereby they are enlightned quickened and upstirred to believe and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures then he sayeth nothing for this indwelling or God thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith and Manners but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question Argument 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final Decision of the most grave and weighty controversies that ever arose in the world and sent all people unto them as unto a sure and undeceiving Light by the guidance of which we may passe through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the â—lose Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule The Consequence is clear if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29 31 32. Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 and 13 from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Luk. 16.31 Our Adversaries like bats hateing and striking at the Light assault most of these Scriptures And first they endeavour to deprave Matth. 22.29 by telling us that it will no more follow that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners than the Power of God yea the Power of God say they is rather the Rule being that which quickneth the Soul and Body without which none can truly know the Scriptures thus talketh George Keith in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration what be said providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained for here he confoundeth the Rule with the power whereby we walk according to the Rule Hence as I admonished above he fighteth not against our Doctrine but against the fiction of his confounding brain for whoever said that Euclide cannot be a Rule for Geometricians to walk by because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot without which it cannot be understood surely he that should thus Reason would be accounted of all men most ridiculous And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister for he reasoneth the same way But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do the other checks him thus you erre not knowing the Laws of the Land and the power of the King And then proveth from the said Laws that the King hath â—ower to effect that which the other denyed Now should not any man that concluded from this mans discourse that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land or that the power of the King is our Rule in Câ—vils no less than the Laws of the Land are expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons And yet he inference of thiâ— Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion Hence we may see that these Mens design iâ— not to speak well but to speak last The next place is Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt that he is a devout Servant to his Holinesse and a true Roman Catholick stifly asserteth that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed and Body of primitive Interpreters but also the very Iesuits themselves in whom there is any spark of Conscience or Candour who all understand it in the imperative moode and good Reason they have so to do seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded Deut. 17 18 19. Deut. 29.29 Exod. 13.9 Ios. 22.5 Deut. 6.8 and 11.18 Isa. 8.20 1 Tim. 4.13 with many others and commended Deut. 33.10 Neh. 8.2 3. Act. 17.11 and 18.24 2 Tim. 3.15 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Rev. 1.3 Besides many more which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood and blasphemy Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context abundantly to make out our exposition for Christ appeals to the Scriptures as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews saying These are they that testifie of me Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy v. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me But this subterfuge failing him he hath yet some others which we must also remove he asketh therefore in the next place whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews which are recorded in Scripture were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets If they were lesse binding saith he then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative and also he must show how they are binding now upon us and if he say they were binding to the Jews because spoken by Christ his proof falleth to the ground Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument having racked his wit to invent sophistry tho blunt as shal appear presently whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers But I am sure to any rational man that is in earnest it will not have the weight of a Walnut Nor trouble him much even tho he were not in case to answer it seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood as we have even now demonstrat then it is as clear as the noon-sun that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World upon which their one thing depended Otherwise the Jews might still
God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptiâ—ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they haâ—â— any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most â—alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who
and believe that there is a God which is of it self a good thought is common to devils To this Robert Barclay Vind pag 51. answers That once the Devils had this knowledge from a spiritual nature and tho they have fallen yet they mey retain the memory of it for that their Fall and mans is every way alike none will affirm But surely if he had not willfully closed his Eyes that he might not see the Truth he might have clearly perceived this to be a most pitiful prevarication for what tho the fall of Angels and the fall of Man were not in all respects alike can any man not altogether void of reason conclude thence that the thing which is common to devils with men can be supernatural or Grace in the one more than in the other Again Surely there is no reason in the world to say that the devils retain their Memory more than their understanding For certainly the understanding is altogether as essential if not more to the rational creature as the memory Moreover to say that the devils retained no knowledge of God but the bare remembrance that they had knowledge of God is compleatly to contradict the Apostle Iames asserting chap 1.19 that the devils believe that there is one God and tremble for to believe a thing in the judgement of all men presupposeth some knowledge thereof and can be no more called an Act of the memory than tasting can be called seeing which is performed by the Eye or Smelling that which is performed by the Ear. Again presupposing which is possible though not true that the Devils had no memory of their knowledge of God It is beyond all doubt that these active Sagacious and skilful Spirits in the works of Nature can easily conclud from these admirable Effects that there is a Supream Cause first beeing the Creator of all things Now to say that they can know that there is one God and conclud from the works of Creation and Providence that this God is most powerful most wise c. and yet to say that they have no principle of knowledge whereby they can know this is to assert that there is a Sream without a Source or a Tree without a Root or a Beam without the Sun. Lastly If the Devils have only the memory of their knowledge of God and yet believe that there is a God and tremble then we may infer that our first Parents before the promise of the Messiah was made unto them had no Divine Light or Seed left in them contrary to Robert Barclay's beleif Vind pag 49. Seing our first Parents might retain the memory of the knowledge of God they had but just now lost But it is needless to dwell upon such nonsensical absurdities for the Quaker may as well affirm that â— man may pay his debt and sustain himself with the memory of the money he once had as that the Devils can know so much of God as without doubt they know by the alone memory of the knowledge they once had 14ly Fifthly That which will accompany the wicked to Hell cannot be called Grace Divine or any thing Supernatural but some relicts of the knowledge of God will accompany the wicked to Hell Therefore these cannot be called Grace Dâ—â—vine or any thing Supernatural The Major iâ— beyond all controversie The Minor is also mosâ— evident for otherwayes the never-dying-worm could not feed upon them whose torment consists most in the extremly bitter and sad reflection upon and consideration of the various Attributes of God with reference to themselves Exem gra from the consideration of his immutable Justice and infinite Power they conclude the impossibility of their releif But we need not insist on this seing none that read Luk 16. can be ignorant that these Souls have some knowledge of God except either willfull prejudice or some thing of that kind hath already preoccupied their minds 15ly Sixthly That men have naturally some relicts of the Image of God and can do some things contained in the Law of God we most firmly conclude from that express Tâ—x Rom 2.14 the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things contained in the Law. The Quakers and amongst others Rob Barclay in his Apology â—lately contradicting the Text Alledgeth that man naturally can know or do nothing contained in the Law of God because v 15. these Gentiles of whom this is spoken are said to have the Law written in their hearts which writing of the Law in mens hearts is elsewhere in Scripture counted a part of the new Covenant But this reason Mâ— Brown chap 5. n. 24. hath fully eâ—ervat shewing by many demonstrations that the writing of the Law in the heart cannot at all be taken in this place for any part of the New Covenant the removal of which arguments the Quaker not so much as attempteth yet can impudently publish a lie to the world that he hath vindicat his Apologie Yea in stead of answering the Arguments he confirmeth what his Adversary sayeth and contradicteth himself For Vind pag 51. He granteth that men by Nature or Natural Light have knowledge of Politicks and the prudent management of worldly affairs and other things of that kind Hence I conclude that even according to the Quaker himself a man may be said to have the Law of God written in his heart and yet have no new Covenant Dispensation Seeing the second table of the Law which is a Rule for Politicks and prudent Administration of worldly affairs is the Law of God as well as the first The Quaker added a second reason in his Apologie to prove that by NATVRE in this place is not to be understood the corrupt nature of man viz because then the Apostle should contradict himself who saith 1 Cor. 2.14 that the natural man cannot know the things of God amongst which things of God the Law must be accounted which Rom. 7.12 Is called Holy Iust and good which contradiction Mr. Broun utterly denyed to follow upon our exposition of this place shewing at large Num. 25. the compleat harmony of these places notwithstanding of our exposition to which the Quaker thinks it enough to reply that the meaning given by Mr Broun to the Text in hand cannot be reconciled with what the Apostle sayeth 1 Cor 2.14 unless upon some supposition but what that is he telleth us not above by him denyed Now Reader had this man a respect either to Cause or Credit who thought to cheat the world with such pitiful nothings as these For this was one of his Apologetick arguments whereby to overthrow the common Exposition of this Text to establish the gloss put upon it by the Socinians whom he never leaveth to follow and instead of urging this Argument taketh the part of the defendant and so giveth up the cause for his answer ridiculously supposeth that we urge this place 1 Cor. 2.14 as an Argument against us which they urge as an Argument against us And
Pen to defend this passage from the absurdities with which it had been loaded by Hiâ—ks in his first Dialogue pag 3 4. such as that then the Sun Moon Star or Stone is God â—peâ—keth thus George Whitehead inferring from Iohn 1. That if the Life was of the Divine Beeing the Light must be the same for as the Cause is so is the Effect it was never George Whitehead's principle or words that the Life which is the Light of men is but in it self a meer Effect for he owns it in its own beeing to be no other than God himself counterf Christ detect ed pâ—g 56 and again Wil. Pen. Reason against railing pag. 56 We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightned to be in it self the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world The same Willâ— Pen Quakerism a new Nickname pag 9 10. All men are enlightned this Light is Divine because it is the very Light of the world which is God not any effect of his power as a created Light as some men fancy and George Whitehead Dipl pâ— pag 13. to call the Light in every man a meer Creature is conâ—rary to Iohn 1. In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men which Light is Divine and Increated Also George Fox great Myst pag 10. Some câ—ll the Light Consciâ—nce which Light was before Coâ—scâ—ence was or Creature was or Created or made Light was He maâ—e the Sun the Moon and the Light was before thâ—se were made and pâ—g 23. some call it a natural Light which Light was bâ—fore tâ—e word Conscience was or a naâ—ural Light the Sun Moon or Stars either for all things that were made were made by it the natural Light or made Light are created Lights It made the Sun Moon and Stars they were made here it is the natural Light to the naturaâ— Eye and the light that every man is enligâ—tneâ— with that cometh into the world was before thesâ— were made glorified with the Father before the world began Idem pag 185. The Light which every man that cometh into the World is enlightned withal is Christ by whom the world was made And pag 331. The Light which every one that cometh into the world is enlightned withal is not Conscience for the Light was befâ—re any thing was made or Conscience named George Fox younger in a Collection of his Works pag 171. Thus speaketh All mind that Gift of God in your selves which maketh you sensible of your prâ—sent condition you must receive the living principle of God in your own particular vessels which principle I call the Light it being a proper Name for it But I shal not desire to tye up any of you to give this principle of Truth only the name of Light I shall not matter if you call it the Truth or the gift of God are a measure of the eternal Beeing Now Reader did ever the Sun shine upon such a Black and Blasphemous Company of men who durst assert that that dim Light by which most men have enough ado to perceive that there is a Suprem Beeing and notwithstanding of which knowledge they are Ignorant of the true way of the Worship of God the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity the Person of Christ Jesus his Natures and Offices and are at every turn ready to deceive and be deceived I say did ever a company of Men outdo yea or ever equalize these Quakers who dare asâ—eâ—t such a Light as this to be God Notwithstanding of this their matchless exaltation of this Light within every man they again at other times and when occasion serveth depress and bring low the same as much as before they cryed it up For they assert that the Light within any particular person ought to yeild and stoop to the light of their Church or constitut body For William Pen Spirit of Alex pag 14. sayeth We deny that to be a Light which opposeth the judgement of the body Ibid pag 4.5 We as a body have power to determine therefore we abhor renounce rebuke with all severity that rude imagination of the Hat-on in publick prayer and Sp. of the hat pag 21 We have the power and will not such as are in the power do right Ibid. the body will have a true sense feeling and understanding of Motions Visions Revelations and Doctrines therefore it is safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating to God. Behold Reader as the Quakers with the Papists reject the Scriptures from being the Suprem Rule and ultimat Judge So they no less than the grossest of the Romanists ascribe an Infallibility to their Church and make this the suprem Rule and ultimat Judge to which every mans Light within must stoop and yeild though never so clear which is one of the grossest Errors of Popery But yet it is infinitly more gross and impious in the Quakers for in so doing they proclaim the fallibility of that which they maintain to be Christ and God and subject it unto another as capable of deceiving and being deceived which Impiety I am sure is scarcâ— equalized 18ly Although the absurdity of this Doctrine may of it self abundantly secure us that we need not bâ— much concerned let them use what Arguments they will to prove it we being certain that whatever arguments can prove this will equally serve to prove whatever entereth into any mans fancy yet I will propose and enervat these of their arguments which seem to be most strong and plead most for them One of which is proposed by George Keith Truth-defend pag 87. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediat Dictat but there is a Divine Law in all men Of this Argument singled out of all that ever George Keith wrote as the choicest Master-peice to uphold Quakerism and overthrow the authority of the Scriptures he is so confident that by it alone he thinketh to strike the Cause dead But he is hugely mistaken for if by a divine Law he understand any other thing beside Conscience and Reason which he himself together with his Brother Rob Barclay Quakerism confirm pag 3. acknowledgeth to be only natural We deny his Minor the proof of which we expect ad Kalendas Graecas And thus the great Argument of one of the greatest Champions of the Quakers evanisheth into smoak at the very first handling thereof 2ly Rob Barclay Vind pag 39. thus reasoneh what if I should say is not God a Light And is not he in every man and is not this Light within the increated Spirit The Reader may here observe that this Author is diffident of this Argument and fearful to bring it forth and good reason he hath for by this reason he only evinceth that which he elsewhere by all means endeavoureth to evite viz that the Quakers Grace and Light is common to Devils and damned Souls for God can no more be said to be in every Son and Daughter of Adam without exception than in these
a desperate Cause he conceds all at length For if God hath disposed of the Eternal Estate of every one universal Election is a bottomless Fiction except his Patrons affirm That either all obtain Eternal Life or else that matters fall out otherwise than God hath disposed and determined concerning them 2ly Whatever he hath said relating to Gen. 25.23 For his Opinion before we refuted it before except he mean some other place beside this which he handleth this present Text. viz. Rom. 9. 3ly That their Eternal Estates are there spoken of is clear seing the Apostle without the least shadow of ambiguity speaks of the Children themselves and that the Election of the one and the Rejection of the other was antecedent to their doing good or evil And that this is spoken of the Children themselves in some respect he himself here asserteth Then I say If this be true their Eternal State must be here spoken of seing the Lord loved the Person of Iacob and hated the Person of Esau before they were born or had done either good or evil And that this Assertion may the more evidently appear viz. That God loved the Person of Jacob and hated the Person of Esau even before they were born I shall more particularly vindicat Mal. 1.2.3 from his depravations which follow in his next Objection and Answer thereto The first of which is That this place Mal. 1.2 3. cited here by the Apostle v. 13. to confirm that which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau in the former verses is not to be understood of their Persons but of their Seeds For then this place of Malachi should be adduced by the Apostle to no purpose seing he is here speaking of the Person of Iacob and Esau which to say is both blasphemous and absurd Moreover the Prophet Malachi clearly intimats That he is speaking of the Persons of Iacob and Esau at least rhat he is not speaking of their Seeds so as to exclude their Persons Was not Esau Jacob's brother which Phrase must be understood in the first place of Iacob Esau themselves and secondly of their Seeds Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight drawn fâ—om the words of the 3 verse And hath laid his Mountain waste to prove his point yea the very contrary follows from the words Thus I have hated Esau Therefore I have laid his Mountain waste for the Vastation of the Idumean Mountains is mentioned as the effect of divine hatred against the Person of Esau extending it self in a secondary manner to his Posterity Even as the love of God to Iacob did extend it self to his Posterity as is clear from Deut. 10.15 with many other places of Scripture Where it is evident that the love of God did principally and chiefly terminat upon the person of Iacob and secondarly on his Seed and off-spring Furthermore our exposition is clear from the very words of the Text it self For the good Condition or Freedom from Devastatâ—on in which then the Jews were is holden forth by the Prophet to be an Effect of the Love of God to Iacob extending it self to his posterity even as the Destruction of the Edomites was an Effect of his hatred of God to Esau. In a word the good Condition of the Israelites hath the same kind of Relation to the love of God towards Iacob which the Devastation of Edom hath to the hatred of God towards Esau But that the good Condition of the Children of Israel was the Effect of the free love of God to Jacob the Prophet there clearly intimateth and as we said before many other places assert Therefore the Devastation of Edom was the Effect of the hatred of God to Esau extending it selt to his wicked Posterity He sayeth moreover That the cause why God hated Esau's Posterity at that time is declared in the 4 v. In these words We are impoverished but will return c. In which words saith he Their Incorrigible wickedness is declared Reply That Edom was an incorrigible wicked people is true but nothing to his purpose For in this their Resolution considered in it self of which Resolution alone the Prophet speaketh and in reposing themselves in their own Lands there can no wickedness be shewed Hence we conclude with Junius that noble Interpreter of Scripture on the words That in this 4 v. is contained a Decument that God is about to confirm Israel now brought back from Captivity to defend the Land and to magnifie himself in all things but on the other hand that he was about to deprive the Idumeans whom he had Reprobâ—t of all power to return or rebuild their Common wealth tho they had endeavoured to do it Add to all this the body of Orthodox writers both Ancient and Modern approving our meaning of this place we shall name two But as Gylippus was to the Lacaedemonians they me accounted in stare omnium The one is Hierom among the Ancients upon the place who saith He doth not only say I loved Jacob before he was born but also I hated Esau before he was brought forth But I also have reserved my love and hatred for their Posterity The other is Luther De servo Arbitrio Cap 161 who sayes It is not therefore the temerity of the Idumeans which is reproved but the ingratitude of the Children of Israel who see not what God bestoweth upon them and of what he depriveth their Brethren the Idumites for no other cause but because he loved the one and hated the other In which place Luther largely demonstrats that the Prophet here speaks of these things which he did to Israel and Edom as the Effect of his eternal love and hatred in opposition to Erasmus who by special Command of the Pope did undertake the defence of the Pelagian Doctrine in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio Add to all these the History of Jacob and Esau as a good Commentarie on both places now in hand which declareth that Esau was a profane Person Heb 12.16 and elsewhere and that Jacob got grace and so was saved which is more than a demonstration that the Lord determined from all Eternity to save the one and passe by the other which is the thing we plead for That which he sayes in the fourth place is true but nothing to his purpose Seing the Question is whether or not the Apostle in this place handleth the matter of Eternal Election and Reprobation In the fifth place he taketh the place of the old Libertins who denyed that any godly man ought to be subject to any Magistrat tho never so just if he want true Grace by reason of which Doctrines huge Confusions were raised in Germany as also by Venner who with his Complices began to raise great Tumults in England while he minded to make this Doctrine of our Author practicable He goeth on to deprave the 14. and 15. verses The substance of what he saith we shall faithfully deliver in so far as he militats
against our Confession Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself That it seems there are some to whom God will not shew mercy He answers That the Apostle pre-occupies an Objection which some might make out of the Continuance of Gods Mercy still to the Children of Israel but withdrawn from Edom as before What shall we say is there unrighteousness with God Next that Exod. 33 19. here cited by the Apostle speaks not of Gods first Grace which he gives to all alike but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly and answerably to the first as Moses had done To which I reply 1. That he makes his Objection pre-occupied by the Apostle to be no Objection For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it and his withdrawing the same from Esau upon the abuse thereof none could infer with any colour of reason That there is unrighteousness with God seing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof And so according to him the Apostle was triffling all the while Again any that runneth not into willful prejudice may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason by far than our Author maketh it to have for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse of the absolute rejection of some while others were Elected which Doctrine carnal reason as it doth yet knew too well how to wrest And from this Doctrine according to carnal Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature Yea the most absolute imaginable Now if the objection had been such an one as this Arminian professeth it there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election which distinction we have already rejected for this Distinction of Grace in first and second it is groundless for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text viz. Exod 33 19. That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith causing Moses irresistibly yet sweetly walk in Gods Statutes But leaving him to use well or abuse the grace gotten Now he must prove this from the Text if he would conclude any thing from it moreover If Moses speak only of a second grace here which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceed then this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects whom he ought to reward or punish according to their desert and not to whom he will only And so this Text shall destroy it self Lastly if the exposition of this universalist were sound then the Apostles Conclusion which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow but rather the quite contrary thereof For if God give a first grace to all and that so sufficient that it lyes only in Mans will to come or not to come unto God and that Man hath power either to will or nill at pleasure either to turn or not to turn to God and yet notwithstanding some come and some come not then all that makes the one to differ from the other is certainly of him that willeth The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be meer of Mercy yet Man can both will and run in some sort as this Scripture imports because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose For the Argument which may be framed from this verse and it is not of him that willeth Ergo Election or the purpose of God one of which words must of necessity be supplyed from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of necessity must be understood here shall want a Noun is not an effect of the will of Man or of his good works moving God thereunto Now this Argument is not touched by the answer as is of it self apparent He therefore here delivereth up the cause and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will or run in the way of Gods Commandments than these words in Ezek. 36.22 32. Not for your sake and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses And 1. He desires us To note that here the Lord doth not say for this purpose I have created thee but raised thee up or brought thee upon the Stage But this is the vainest of evasions for none but an Athiest can deny that God from all Eternitie did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end for which in time he raised him up and consequently that he decreed to create him for the same end otherwise God failed of his first end and was forced to betake himself to the next best Which to affirm is to make God a Man and so to profess atheism with open face yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man seing according to it the omniscient God did creat Pharaoh for an end which he knew he was never to obtain But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage but also created to the end that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction is clear from Pro 16.4 Where it is said that God made wrought formed or created for all these will the word Pagnal bear all things for Himself yea even the wicked the Spirit of God holding forth that this is a Paradox unto the day of evil 2. He sayes That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebell as is evident Exod 8.2 But what he would hence inferr is not evident except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it That which he sayes in the third place viz. That God shewed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him As also his fourth observation viz. that he makes him of unwilling willing to let his People go is meer nothing For himself here on the matter grants That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom He was destinat to destruction and his day of grace gone otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense Therefore it follows That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh And that his causing of him to let the people