These sound ill to Christian ears 44. So 33. we may thus reason Either Christ's Redemption is Conditional and Universal as to the Price laid down and Satisfaction made or as to the Application and Actual bestowing of the benefites purchased But neither can be said to the advantage of the Adversaries cause for if the last be said we willingly grant that some of the benefites as Justification Adoption and actuall Glorification are conferred in a manner conditionally but some as faith and the New heart are given absolutely and this cannot help the Adversaries cause for they will not say that either all have faith bestowed upon them or that all are by believing Justified and Adopted c. and so this is not Universall and if the first be said to wit That Christ laid down his life Conditionally it must be said that Christ did not lay down his life Absolutely but upon some condition and what can that Condition be upon which the death of Christ was suspended If it be said that the faith of those to whom it was to be preached was the condition then it must be said that Christ did not die untill these beleeved or that his death was no satisfaction or price untill they actually beleeved and then the Father could not be well pleased with the price as a satisfaction until mens Faith came to make it an Actual price which is both absurd and contrary to Scripture If it be said That Christ did absolutely lay down his life a satisfactory Ransom and that for all yet so as none that would not fulfill the condition should be redeemed I Answer If it was an Absolute satisfactory Ransome and accepted as such something must have been purchased thereby and all behoved actually and really to be delivered from the Law and from the curse or from something by vertue of that Absolute Price and they could not be made to pay over againe what was payed by the price of his blood for Justice could not call for two satisfactions And if all were upon this Absolute Price payed Redeemed from the Law the Curse and the Sentence of the first Covenant no man shall now die for that broken Covenant If it be said No man was Absolutely delivered even from that but only Conditionally I Ans. How then was it an Absolute Price Or what was purchased thereby If it be said That a possibility of Freedom was absolutely purchased Ans. This was rejected above and the Scripture inferreth Actual Redemption from Christs purchase He shall justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Esai 53 11. which saith That all whose iniquities he did bear shall be Actually and Really Justified by him and not have a meer Possibility of justification 45 Further 34. We may thus argue If Christ died for all and every one He either died for all Absolutely or Conditionally The first cannot be said for the reasons already adduced militate against that Nor can it be said that He died for all Conditionally for then either he died to purchase Life and Salvation to all upon condition of their performance of something proposed as a Condition or to purchase salvation and all the meanes thereunto or conditions thereof Conditionally But neither of these can be said Therefore c. The major is clear from this that the enumeration is full and no other way can this Conditional Redemption be conceived or explained The minor may be thus confirmed The first way cannot be said to wit that life and salvation was purchased to all upon a condition to be by them performed that is upon Condition of their believing for either this Condition is in the power of every son of Adam or not if it be not in their power as all but Pelagians will confess then this Redemption is no Redemption for a Redemption of Captives upon a condition impossible to them is as good as no Redemption Nor can the last way be said to wit that Redemption and all the Conditions and Means thereof were Conditionally purchased for what can be assigned as the Condition of these Conditions And though there were a Condition of the Lords working of faith assigned which yet we finde not in Scripture yet that would not help the matter for that Condition of faith would it self be a mean to salvation and so purchased Conditionally upon another Condition and that other Condition must be purchased upon another Condition and so in infinitum which is absurd 46. As also 35. this is considerable That the asserting of Universal Redemption goeth not alone but there are several other Universalities also affirmed and maintained either as Consequences or Concomitants or Grounds thereof which the Scripture knoweth not such as these 1. An Universal Love and Philanthropie towards all and every one without any difference which they lay down as the ground of the Sending of Christ to die for all indiscriminatly 2. An Universal Will in God to save all which they call an Antecedent Will and hold forth as a Velleity or a wish and desire that all might be saved as if God could not effectuat whatever he desired or could have a velleity towards any thing which either he could not or would not effectuat 3. An Universal Predestination conditional which expression Amerald used untill the Synods in France did disswad him therefrom 4. An Universal gift of all to Christ or an Universal gift of Christ to all that is a Will and purpose that Christ should lay down his life for all and Redeem all at least Conditionally 5. An Universal Justification conditional And why not also an Universal Salvation conditional 6. An Universal Covenant of grace made with all mankinde in Adam wherein is a free universal deed of gift of Christ first and of Pardon Spirit and Glory in and by him to all Mankinde without exception upon condition of acceptance as also an offer of Faith Repentance Conversion with all the conâ—equâ—nces thereof 7. An Universal will in God to call into this Covenant and unto the Participation of the benefites thâ—reof all and every man 8. An Universal execution of this will or promulgation of this Gospel or New Covenant unto all and every one by common favours and benefites bestowed or all whereby all are called to believe in a mercâ—ful pardoning God and all have abundance oâ— Mercies and Meanes of Recovery and of life for the Lord now governeth the world only on termes of grace 9. Upon this followeth an Universal Command to all men to use ceâ—taine duties and meanes for their Recovery by Faith and Repâ—nâ—ance 10. An Universal pardon of the first Sin so far at least that no man shall perish for the meer Original sin of Nature alone unless he adde the rejection of grace 11 Hence followeth an Universal Judgment and Sentence on all in the great day only according as they have performed the new Gospel conditions 12. Some also adde an â—niversal Subjective Grace whereby all are enabled to performe the conditions of
of God immediatly so made known unto them for the only formal Object of their Faith But withall I say that all others who believed though still the Word and Authority of God was the formal Object of their Faith and ground of their Obedience had not this formal Object conveyed and made known unto them by Inward and Immediat Revelation and of this beside the manifest and unquestionable evidence of the thing it self we have Instances in that same Chapter dar he say that all who beleeved from the beginning that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God c. had this truth revealed unto them by God Immediatly either by Dreames or Vive Voice or the like where readeth he of Revelations Inward and Immediat made to Abel who yet by Faith offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain Where readeth he to passe by others of the Inward Immediat Revelations upon which their faith was founded who through faith subdued Kingdomes wrought righteousness stopped the mouthes of lions Quenched the violence of fire escaped the edge of the sword out of weakness were made strong waxed valient in fight turned to flight the armies of the aliens received their dead raised to life againe were tortured not accepting deliverance that they might obtaine a better resurrection had tryal of cruel mockings and scourgings and moreover of bonds and imprisonments who were stoned sawne asunder were tempted were slaine with the sword who wandered about in sheep skins and goat skins being destitute afflicted tormented who wandered in deserts and in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth Where readeth he I say of such Revelations made to all these persons who yet had faith and by faith were they Encouraged Enabled Supported and Carried thorow 24. Bâ—cause he foresaw that some would Object That hence it would follow that there is no formal Object of faith now because the Lord doth not reveal his minde by Angels Dreames and Visions and the like Therefore he taketh notice of this Pag. 14. 15. but his answere is so confused and indistinct that you can hardly know what he would say He will not limite the power and liberty of God Wherein he doth wisely But will he say that God eiâ—her did or now doth reveal the whole Object of faith to all beleevers in suâ—h a manner He distinguisheth betwixt what is substantial and universal in the object of faith and what is circumstantial and accidental And hereby he either speaketh non-sense or destroyeth his owne cause for if the Immediat Revelation by those wayes mentioned was but accidental it cannot be called the formal Object of the faith of all believers He distinguisheth next betwixt what was obnoxious to doubting and what was not But he leaveth us in the mist while he explaineth Neither Then he tels us That these vive voices and dreames c. were the thing which they did believe and not the formal object or ground upon which they belâ—eved I should rather think that the word of Truth or Command which was made known unto them by vive voice or dreame c. was the Material Object not the Formal Object quod as he ignorantly speaketh or the thing which they were to believe and receive and that these dreames c. were but the manner of conveyance both of the material Object and of the Formal He addeth a serious truth viz. That they were not ignorant that the Devil could have formed sounds of words in the aire and delude the external senses by false apparitions and this dayly experience proveth Whereby he confirmeth what we formerly said and giveth us faire warning to take heed and beware of such Delusions I wish he and the rest of the Quakers would carry the impress of this Truth alwayes with them But how then was the formal Object of faith secured He answereth There was a secret testimony of the Spirit in their hearts perâ—wading thâ—m that these voices and visions were really from God But was this secret testimony distinct from that which came alongs with these Divine Voices and Dreames c If not what will he gaine hereby or against whom would he fight if it was distinct than it seemeth God's Immediat speaking by Voices Dreames Visions c. were not so clear and evident in themselves as to Compel Move and Bow the intellect that was well disposed by it's owne evidence and clearness unto an assent and were not so clear and evident as the common principles of natural Truthes are viz. That the whole is more than a part Two contradictories cannot be both true and false which move and bow the Minde to a natural Assent and thus he contradicteth what he said in his Thesis See above § 2. Moreover if the matter was so he must say that there was no more Objective Evidence and Clearness in Gods speaking by Voices Dreames c. than in the Devils speaking so for without this new testimony the Prophets themselves could put no difference betwixt the One and the Other Againe could not the Devil come with a false toaken aâ—d perswade the false Prophets that the voices and visions they had were really from God And may not the Devil do so now especially in such as are given up of God to strong delusions to believe a lie But what would he make of this falshood He would Inferre that this Inward Testimonâ— was the Principal and original Object of their faith A wilde assertion for thâ—s Inward Testimony should rather be called the Principal and Original Cause or thâ— Efficient Cause of faith than the Object of it for its use was according to his owne doctrine not to Declare immediatly the Object of then Faith but to work up their soul and minde to receive and close with the Object which was proposed in these Divine Dreames and Visions as that power which openeth the eyes of the blinde is not the formal Objâ—ct but the efficient Cause of the mans seeing the sun Then he addeth That these expressions The Lord spoke the word of the Lord came or was to such or such an one and the like will not evince that God spoke by audible voices and that he who asserteth it must prove it But we need neither Assert it nor Prove it for it is enough to us if these expressions signifie that singular way whatever it was which the Lord used in communicating his Minde to the Prophets and so a way distinct from that which he used with every individual private and particular Believer The answere to his formal argument with which the closeth this Paragraph may bâ— taken out of what is said and I need not spend time with repeating the same things 25. He cometh § 9. to the maine business the last Proposition viz. That the Object he should meane the formal Object of the faith of the Saints is alwaâ—es the same And thinketh he that any Christian will deny this which yet he must spend words about the proof of
be the object of an Eternal Ordination When we consider Reprobation in respect of its terminus or thing willed purposed by that act of God we divide it into two parts or say there are two maine things intended purposed presupposing not mentioning what is common both to Election Reprobation as Creation c. as first the denyal of Grace whereby they may be recovered from their state of sin the second is the denyal of Glory or adjudging them to eternal death This last Being for sin a just execution of a righteous sentence is not neither can it be without consideration of sin as the meritorious procuring cause So that to speak properly God doth not damne whom he will Damnation not being an act of meer pleasure but an act of justice conforme to an established Law But the other the denying or not giving of grace is an act of Absolute Freedom Good Pleasure for He hath mercy on whom He will and whom He will he hardeneth Rom. 9 15 18. And as God's granting of grace is an absolute act of his good pleasure free not for any merite or goodness in man as all except Pelagians will confess yea Pelagius himself confessed it at the Synod in Palestine so the Lord 's denying of this gâ—ace and mercy must be Absolute and not Conditional an act of the Lords free will and good pleasure for the praise of his glory there being no fixed Law constitute by God according to which he bestoweth Grace or bestoweth it not and there being no Reason imaginable why the Lord should confâ—rre grace upon Iacob and not upon Esau upon Moses and not upon Pharaoh upon Peter and not upon Iudas beside the good pleasure of God as the Lord did set his love upon the people of Israel because he loved them Deut. 7 6 7. so no cause can be given why he would not have mercy on Pharaoh on Esau on Iudas as well as on others beside his God will and Pleasure who hardeneth whom He will 7. We must therefore in this matter carefully distinguish betwixt Gods Decree and the Things decreed Things decreed may have their Causes and one may depend upon another as on the meritorious procuring cause but the Decree of God is absolute having no dependence upon any thing without being the Absolute and Free act of his Will God may and doth Decree that this shall be because of that and yet because of this he cannot be said to Will that So when the Lord decreeth to damne some persons because of their sins though sin be the procureing meritorious cause of damnation yet it is not the procuring meritorious cause of Gods willing or decreeing to damne Therefore though it be true that God decreeth to save none but such as Beleeve and continue in Faith and Obedience to the end and to damne none but such as are Sinners and Continue in sin to the end yet we must not say that as Faith and Obedience in adult persons do preceed salvation as some way disposeing causes thereunto and as Final Perseverance in sin preceedeth damnation as the meritorious cause thereof so the Foresight of Faith Obedience and Final Perseverance in both preceed election or the decree of God as disposeing causes or prerequisites thereunto and the Foresight of Final Perseverance in sin preceed Reprobation or the decree of God as the meritorious cause thereof for as the purpose of God according to Election is not of works but of him that calleth Rom. 9 11. so the purpose of God according to Reprobation cannot be of works for the children being not yet born neither having done good or evil it was said the Elder shall serve the Younger Rom. 9.11 12. As the potter hath power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour Rom. 9 21. so the Lord willing to shew his wrath to make his power known may endure with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to Destruction and he may make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory Rom. 9 vers 22.23 8. As the Scripture holdeth forth Reprobation as we heard and may be further gathered even as to the name from Ier. 6 30. Heb. 6 8. 2 Tim. 3 8. So it holdeth it forth to us sometimes in Negative termes sometimes in Positive termes Hence some speak of a Negative Reprobation called Preterition or passing by which is a real Positive act in God and not purely Negative as some suppose and of a Positive and Affirmative Reprobation which they call Praedamnation By the Negative Reprobation they understand a Positive eternal act of God whereby according to the counsel of his own will he passed by such as he did not Elect and resolved not to give them saving grace whereby they might be delivered from sin as when Châ—ist saith Math. 7 23. I nâ—ver knew you and Mat. 11 25 26. I thank thee ó Father Lord of heaven and earth because thou hast hid these things from the wise Even so father for so it seemed good in thy sight And when mention is made of some in the Revel Chap 13 â— and 20 15. whose names were not written in the Book of Life And when Christ saith Ioh. 10 26. Yee are not of my sheep By the Positive or Affirmative Reprobation they understand the Lord's positive Resolution according to the unsearâ—hable counsel of his owne will whereby he ordaineth such as he hath passed by to dishonour and wrath for their sin Hence such are said to be hated Rom. 9 13. to be vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom. 9 21 22. to be appointed unto stumbling at the word c. 1 Pet. 2 8. ordained to condemnation Iud. vers 4. to which also belongeth the Lord's just and judicial smiteing with blindeness giving up to a Reprobaâ— minde and to their owne hearts lusts hardening their hearts and the like Rom 1 24 26 28. 9 18. 11 7. Psal. 81 12. 9. Now as touching that question that this Quaker is most busied with viz. Whether Reprobation be absolute and without all respect had to sin or not the Reader may see by what is said what is to be Answered thereunto The Quaker loving darkness speaks undistinctly either because Ignorant of the true question or out of a malicious Designe to render the Truth us for maintaining it odious or both But we shall endeavoure in a few words to clear the mater If we consider the act of Reprobation as in God of whose will it is an Immanent and Eternal act there can be no more cause of it in man or aâ—y creature than of any other of his decrees which are all one act and so one with Himself Yet this act of Reprobating that is of appointing and designing such or such individual persons to the condemnation of hell for their sinnes can not be said to be as to its
made up for destruction and that as the first is done that He might make known the riches of his glory so the last is done that He might shew his wrath and make his power known 10. Christ Mat. 11 25 26. referreth the Lords hiding of the Gospel-manifestations of life and salvation from some unto the good pleasure of God! and if this part of the execution of the decree of Reprobation be referred unto this Absolute Soveraignity good Pleasure of God as its first and only spring much more must the Decree it self be reduced to this only Fountain 11. The like we may observe from 1 Pet. 2.8 from Iud vers 4. from Revel 13 8 17 8. 12. We are told that the Lord added to the Church dayly such as should be saved Act. 2 47. and that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed Act. 13 48. where we see that the appointing some to be saved and ordaining them to eternal life is given as the prime ground and cause of their being added to the Church and Beleeving whence it followeth that the Lord did not adde others to the Church nor give them grace to Beleeve because he had not ordained and appointed them to life the consequence of the Negation is as manifest as the consequence of the Affirmation and is clearly intimated when the other is expressed 11. Thus the Scripture confirmeth our point we shall adde a few reasons as 1. No temporal thing such as is mans sin can be the cause of that which is Eternal as is God's act of Reprobation If it be said that the foresight of what is temporal may be the cause of an Eternal Decree I answere This cannot be for how is it imaginable That God's prescience should be the meritorious cause of his Decree can one eternal Act of God be the meritorious cause and of such a cause we speak here of another All the Eternal Acts of God are one and they are the same with himself how absurd is it then to imagine one to be the meritorious cause of another or the same act as terminated on one object to be the meritorious cause of it self as terminated upon another object If it be said that sin foreâ—een can be the cause of an Eternal act of Reprobation Answ. But sin can not be foreseen as a thing that shall exist without a previous decree concerning its existence by the permission of God and so sin must first be permitted or decreed to be by permission before any man can be Reprobated because of sin by this Objection and then when we suppose sin to be permitted by a decree I ask for what end is this decreed permission God decreeth nothing but for a certane end and what is His End in this is it that he may thereby be moved to Reprobat Then his intention of Reprobation is first for the intention of the End is before the Intention of the midss and how absurd and a theological is that to say that God intended an End and then he Intended Meanes to move him to intend that end Againe by this Assertion the decree of Permitting sin should be before the decree of Damning for sin and so we must imagine the same order in the decrees that we see in the things decreed while as how various soever the things decreed be the decrees themselvs are all one pure act in God who is actus purissimus simplicissimus and therefore sin foreseen can no more be the meritorious cause of the decree of Reprobating for sin than of the decree of Permitting sin And if we should imagine an order betwixt these two decrees of Permitting of sin and of Reprobating for sin it must be such an order as is betwixt the Intention of the End and of the Meanes and so the intention of Permitting sin being first should be of the End which is always first in intention and the intention of Reprobation being the last of these two should be of the Means and so we should be damned for sin that we might be Permitted to sin and that which is first in Intention as the End being last in Execution and that which is a Means being first it would follow that man should be first damned and then permitted to sin which is obviously false and absurd 2. if sin be the meritorious cause of Reprobation then it is so either by necessity of Nature or by the free Constitution of God But neither can be said as we saw above â— The decrees of God can have no more a cause than himself can have all the Acts of God's will being his Will and his Will being Himself we cannot imagine a cause in man of an act of his will more than of himself 4 we should reason proportionably of the decree of Election as we do of the decree of Reprobation as we saw the Apostle doing and so if sin foreseen be the cause of Reprobation grace foreseen must be the cause of Election against the whole Scripture and the Apostles expresse argueing Rom. 9. 5. That procureing cause of Reprobation God could have prevented or taken out of the way if he had pleased else we must imagine a stoical fate overpowering God himself If he might have taken it out of the way and did not can any reason hereof be given beside his owne good pleasure or his designe to manifest the glory of his justice in the just damnation of such and doth not this referre the decree of damning for sin ultimatly unto His good pleasure 6. what are those sinnes which are the procuring cause of Reprobation This man will not say that Original sin is the cause for he denieth it as we saw in the proceeding Chapter And what can that actual sin be and whatever be supposed it must be such as could be foreseen in no other otherwise the foresight thereof could not be the proper meritorious or moving cause why this man was Reprobated more then that man for what is to be foreseen in an Elect cannot be the meritorious cause why the other is Reprobated Againe whatever actual sin that be final Unbeleef or what you will it must either be such as God could have prevented or taken out of the way if he had pleased or not if the first be said then it is manifest that the decree of Reprobation can not ultimatly be resolved into sin as a procuring cause but into the good pleasure of God who would not take that sin out of the way nor prevent its being If this Last be said then God was under a fatal necessitie of decreeing and doing all which he decreed and did and could not hinder sin nor not create that man nor alter any one circumstance which did occasion that sin and thus God himself shall be bound by the fetters of a fatal Necessity yea and all this fatal Necessity shall have its rise from Man which were most absurd and blasphemous 7. if actual sinnes be the consequent of
pretendeth unto to be more Originally and Principally the Rule than the Revelations which are contained in the Scriptures and by which the Scriptures were given out Againe he must shew us a Reason why the Revelations which he pretendeth unto should be called or accounted one with the Spirit himself more than these Revelations by which the Scriptures were dictate 23. Before we proceed we must take notice of one thing further in his Thesis There he tels us that the Scriptures themselves testifie that the Spirit is that Rector or guide who is given to the Saints by whom they are to be led in all truth And then inferreth that Therefore according to the Scriptures the Spirit is the prime and principal leader And this is very true but maketh nothing for his Cause yea it militateth against him for I would ask whether he beleeveth this testimony of the Scripture or not If not why maketh he thus use of it as an Argument Is he of the same minde with other Quakers who as Mr Hicks reporteth Dial. 1. P. 24 25. speak thus Thou mistakest us we owne not the Scriptures to be our Rule And whereas thou hast said many things to render us guilty of condemning this in others whilst we ourselves seemingly allow it to be so which is but thine own imagination for when we make use of the Scriptures it is only to quiet and stop their clamours that plead for it as their Rule But for us had the Scriptures never been we could have known what is therein contained And againe Pag. 48.49 dost thou deny perfection attainable in this life Is any point more plainly asserted then this NB. in that which thou callest thy Rule the Scriptures not because I owne it to be so but thou dost and I would convince thee by them dost not thou call the Scriptures the word of God and thy Rule I wonder thou should insist so much upon this since I have told thee I owne it not as the Rule only I would convince thee by it If he be of this judgment he could not with a good conscience adduce this Argument where he is thetically laying downe and confirming the grounds of his Faith But if he be of another judgment and beleeveth this to be true I would ask againe Upon what ground Is it because the Scriptures speak thus or because the Light within him or a second Testimony or Inspiration saith that this is Truth If this last be his meaning he cannot say that the Scriptures give this testimony but that the Spirit distinct from that Spirit which speaketh in the Scriptures giveth this testimony for if this distinct testimony did not speak the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures should say nothing or what he said should be of no value Nor can he say that according to the Scriptures but according to the Spirit speaking in him which is distinct and sâ—parable from the Scriptures or the Spirit speaking in them The Spirit is the Principal Leader And thus his argueing is vaine and according to his owne Principles a Falshood But if the first be his meaning to wit That he beleeveth this to â—e true because the Scriptures speak so then he destroyeth what he hath said and oppugneth his owne Principal Assertion for then the Scripture must be the supream Rule of faith and because of what the Scripture saith we must beleeve what is the office and work of the Spirit of God and a new distinct testimony is no requisite to ground our faith of the truth of this which the Scripture saith concerning the Spirits being given to lead the Saints in all truth This Observation may serve once for all both as to his Thesis and Apology where he citeth not a few passages of Scripture to confirme what he saith as we have seen and shall see further but with what consonancy to his Principles I see not As to the thing it self which here he saith the Scriptures confirme we judge it a Truth worthy of all acceptance But I much questione if his and our meaning be the same Partly because of what is said and partly because of what followeth immediatly in his Thesis I shall only ask him How doth the Spirit lead his people into all truth Is it by new Immediat Inspirations and Revelations or is it by clearing up the Rule of the word by Ministers and meanes by God appointed Illuminating their eyes to understand it and by the Influences of his grace causing them Beleeve and Obey the same If this last be granted we have what we desire and his cause is destroyed for then the Scriptures are our Only and Primary Rule If the first be alleiged then the Spirit by a new Immediat Revelation leadeth him into this truth to wit That the Spirit leadeth into all truth and consequently the ground of the faith of this is not the testimony of the Scriptures as he seemeth here to say 24. But now let us see his grounds why he will not have the Scriptures to be looked upon as our Sole and Principal Rule Pag. 39. he draweth an Argument from the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel saying the law is written without bringeth condemnation and killeth the Gospel is written within and is Spiritual giving life c. Ans. 1. This is the common Objection of phanaticks against the Scriptures So reasoned the libertines against whom Calvin wrote as we see Chap. 9. But 2. This man must be acted by a vertiginous Spirit for in the preceeâ—ing Chapter we saw with what earnestness he laboured to prove that the people of God under the Old Test. were led by Revelations and how we under the New Test. must be led the same way because faith is ay the same and must have the same Object however the dispensations vary and I pray must not the same faith have the same Rule under various dispensations 3. If we under the New Test. must have no written Rule why did Christ Inspire his Apostles to write to Churches under the New Testam and give them legible letters to Read and to conforme their Faith and Practice unto why did Luk write that we might know the certanety Luk 1 4. Why did Iohn write that we might beleeve and beleeving might have life Ioh. 20.31 Why did Christ by his servant Iohn write legible letters to the Churches in asia Revel 1 1 3 4 Were all these Killing Letters were these Letters of Condemnation 4. why doth this man prove his Assertions or at least endeavour to prove them by the Letter of the new Testament Scriptures But it is usual with him both to Speak and to Act contradictory to himself and his Principles Doth he not even here cite new Testament Scriptures Rom. 6 14. and 8 2. and 10 8. with act 20 32 5. we know that the Law of God separated from and opposed to Christ as several in the Apostolick dayes were seeking to do is but a killing letter as the Gospel is also when abused
this that which at best is but of private interpretation that is an Issue of mens Fancies private Conceits and Enthusiasmes if not Satanical Illapses and Delusions This is also plaine from 1 Cor. 4 6. above what is written which implyeth that what is written is sufficient and full as also from Act. 20 27 35 comp with Act. 26 22 23. 27. These and what formerly hath been mentioned to this end and purpose this man thinketh good to overlook as if he had never heard of them We shall now try what he saith to others and First that plaine Testimony Esa. 8 20. to the Law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Whence we see that whoever they be that come to us pretending a divine Commission we must try what they say by this word which is called the Law and the Testimony and if they speak not according to it let their pretensions be never so high they are to be rejected as dark and as coming from darkness So that the Law and the Testimony is the Supreme Râ—le To this he saith we have not proven that by the Law and Testimony is meaned the Scriptures As if any that ever read the Bible could be ignorant what is all along meaned by these words But granting this he hath another reserve viz. That the Law was in a more special manner given to the jewes and more principally than to us And hence forsooth he will retort the Argument against us thus Seing they who were under the Old Covenant were to try all by the outward Law we who are under the new Covenant are to try all by the word of faith which is within us And thus the man rants in his reaving contradicting what was the great pillar of his discourse upon the preceeding Thesis and making differences without ground as we lately manifested and with all destroying by his owne expressions what he mainly intendeth For the Word of Faith that he speaketh of is distinct from Immediat Revelations and these words which he eyeth cited by Paul Rom. 10. were spoken to the people under the Law by Moses Deut. 30. v. 14. and so were true of them even then Hereby also he proveth more than he ought for if this Argument hold the Scriptures shall not be so much as a Lesse Principal and Subordinat Rule which yet he granted it to be or he must say the case is so altered under the New Testament that what was a Principal Rule then is now only subordinat but whence will this be Evinced And will it not hence appear probable that what is now Principal to us was Less Principal to them that is the Immemediat Testimony of the Spirit Let the man rid his feet here if he can as for the 70 Version we have nothing to do with it if he will lay any weight upon such a corrupt Version he should not challenge other versions that agree better with the Original But I wonder how the Man can think that that Version which saith the law was given for an help shoulâ— confirme his Opinion which is that the Law was given them as a Principal Rule even above the Spirits Revelations 27. Another argument to prove the Scriptures our supream Rule is usually taken from Christs saying to the Jewes Ioh. 5 39 search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they that testifie of me Where Câ—râ—st referreth them to the Scriptures that word of God which should have been abideing in them verse 38. as to a Rule whereby he was content that his doctrine should be tryed and judged and if even Christs Doctrines should be tryed by the Scriptures who will think it unreasonable that private Enthusiasmes should be so tryed and who can then deny this privilege of the Scripture to be our Rule what saith he to this passage He imagineth that Christ reproveth them for having too great a veneration for the Scriptures Quite contrare to vers 38 46 47. and to the very word of command search the Scriptures and to his owne Concession granting that it was their Principal Rule It is laid to their charge that they would not come to Christ and one Reason of their Unbeleefe is given viz. that they did not search the Scriptures which did testifie of Him that notwithstanding they professed acknowledged that the Scriptures pointed out the way to eternal life But againe he tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 search is by some taken to be in the Indicative mode and not in the Imperative Which forgery of Papists the cohesion and scope of the words doth abunâ—antly redargue and Tolet and Maldonat both confesse that Chrysostome Theoph. August and all weighty Authors except Cyril understand it imperatively To â—â—is passage of Christs here we might adde others where he confirmeth his doctrine by the Scriptures elsewhere cited and the following verses where he tels them that Moses by his writings should accuse them that their not beleeving of Moses's writings was a cause why they did not beleeve Christs words verse 45 46 47. we might adde also Paul and other Apostles proving their doctrine from the Scriptures and Paul's affirming that he spoke nothing but what Moses the Prophets said But these and the like have been cited already let us take notice but of what the Apostle Iames speaketh concerning this He accounts the Word of Truth that by which we are begotten Chap. 1 18. and Would have us doers of it and not hearers only otherwise we shall but deceive our selves vers 2â— 23. and then vers 25. calleth it the Perfect Law of liberty wherein we continueing and being not forgetful hearers but doers of the work we shall be blessed in our deed So Chap. 2 8. He calleth it the Royal law according to the Scriptures which say we should Love our Nieghbour as our selves and if we do otherwise we commit sin and are convinced of the Law as transgressours and vers 10 11. he sheweth us that by the Law he meaneth the decalogue See also Chap. 4 11 12 28. Another passage of Scripture confirming our point is Act. 17 11. where it is spoken to the commendation of the Beroans that they searched the Scriptures to see if Pauls doctrine did accord therewith which clearly expressed the Scriptures to be that Rule by which even the sayings of such as pretend Immediat Revelations ought to bâ— tryed though he thinketh that hence it will not follow that they are our Only and Supream Rule But he thinketh best to chant over againe his old Song viz. That these were Jewes to whom the Law and the Prophets were a Rule in a more special manner The uselesness of which Evasion hath been showne And further he must grant that these Christians were under the New Testament or Covenant and so cannot say that it is the Priviledge of Christians under the New Testament to be from under
understanding of his meaning Shall we think that it is some thing opposite to the Light which he meaneth by this first Adam and terrestial man But what meaneth he or they by the Light within Others of them have wonderful notions about this Mr Hicks dial 1. P. 3 c. tels us that they use to call this light within some times Christ sometimes the measure of Christ sometimes the divine essence sometimes of the divine essence and that G. Whitehead in a discourse urged from Ioh. 1 4. That if the life be the divine essence the light must be â—o also for such as the cause is such the effect must be and that he affirmed the light within to be God and that to deny it to be so is to deny the omnipresence of God and that the divine life is Immutable To say then the light within is not God is to say God is mutable and so concludeth that it is blasphemy to deny the light within to be God The same Mr Hicks in his Quakers appeal answered Pag. 4 5. showeth us how Will. Pen in his Quakerisme a new nickname P. 9 10. saith that the true light in it self is the Christ of God and the Saviour of the World which is God nâ—t an effect of his power as a created light And that G. Whitehead Dip. Plun P. 13. will not have it called a meer creature but a divine and increated thing That G. Fox Great myst P. 10. will have it to be before conscience was or creature was or created or made light And P. 23. That aâ—l things were made by it and it was glorifyed with the father before the world began So P. 185 331. See further Mr Hicks there citeing at large some sentences of G. Fox younger out of a collection of several of his books Pag 47 49 50 51 52. all to this purpose concerning this Light within This man also hath so me uncouth Notions of which more particularly hereafter when I come to examine his doctrine thereanent only now I observe that Pag 84. he calleth it a real spiritual substance and saith that it subsisteth in the heart of the ungodly even while they remaine in their impieties therefore as to this Mankinde did not degenerate But what is that in respect of which Mankinde did degeneraâ—e we see it not distinctly explained whether it was a Substance or an Accidens if a Substance whether it was a Real or an Imaginary Substance a Spiritual or a Corporeal Substance However this must be his meaning that only as to that which is Opposite unto this Light beareth relation not to Christ the Second Spiritual Adam but to the First terrestial Adam Mankind Fell Died was Degenerate But doth this take-in both Soul and Body if it did what can remaine if not he would do well to tell us which was free Enough of this here 7. His expression here in respect of the first Adam and terrestrial man would import That Adam in Innocency or in the state of Integrity had also a respect to the Second Adam and Celestial man and that as to this he stood and lived and did not become degenerate and hence it would follow that Adam was under two Covenants both under the covenant of Works and under the Covenant of Grace and that he fell as to the Covenant of works but stood as to the Covenant of Grace But these things smell neither of Sense nor of Religion If he thinks that I wrong him in deduceing such Consectaries from his words he must blame himself that doth not express himself more clearly and doth not speak in a language more intelligible His doctrine I confess is strange and his expressions are not ordinary but it seemeth an uncouth doctrine must be expressed in an uncouth dialect that unstable souls that have not their senses exercised to discerne good and evil may be taken herewith but such as are wise and feare the Lord will look about them 8. He hath told us that Mankinde is Dead and Degenerate but as to the true and full meaning hereof we are left in the dark This fall and Death seemeth not to be absolute being as we see restricted unto a certane particular respect and what that respect is and how far it Extendeth or what in Man answereth it whether all of Man or only a part and if only a part what that Part is we â—now not but are left to conjecture He hath three general expressions whereby he would point forth unto us the nature of this Change and Catastrophe when he saith that Mankinde is Fallen is Degenerat is Dead and a right explication of his meaning hereby and of his sense of these words would give great satisfaction and clearness It may be his following expressions are added as a commentary let us therefore consider them Being deprived saith he of the sense or touch of this inward Testimony and Seed of God and subjected to the power of Nature and Seed of Satan which he did sowe into the hearts of men while they remaine in the natural and corrupt state Could we understand this commentary we should be in better case to judge of his sense of the Fall but the truth is these words rather darken than cleare the matter and I fear the words are not more uncouth and unusual than the thing he understandeth thereby is obstruse and hid He speaketh here of a Testimony saying the sense or touch of this Testimony and the relative this hujus if pertinent saith it is a testimony formerly by him mentioned but where or when we are left to conjecture He calleth it an Inward Testimony but what is this It is true in the foregoing Thesis we heard him speaking of an Inward Testimony of the Spirit and in his second Thesis of Inward Revelations and Illuminations Shall I think that by this Testimony whereof he here speaketh he meaneth the Inward Testimony of the Spirit and the Inward Revelations and Illuminations of which he spoke above If indeed he doth meane the same and no other I would faine know How all Mankinde Jewes and Heathens as he speaketh was deprived of the sense and touch of this Inward Testimony seing himself told us above Thesis 2. that by this Inward Testimony or Revelation and only by this the knowledge of God was revealed to the Sones of Men to the Patriaâ—chs Prophets and Apostles and we heard and shall heare more of it out of this Man hereafter that they make the Light within which is their great and only Teacher common to all men Is there a difference with them betwixt this Inward Testimony and that Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world But it may be he meaneth some special distinct thing by this Sense or Touch of this Inward Testimony wherein he would seem to come near to Plato's sensation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Thâ—aeat But what can the touch or sensation of a Testimony import if not
obtaine Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever without any difference before that God would open againe the door of salvation and enter into a new Covenant of grace with sinners But this Reconciliation hath no more force or import but that God might enter againe into a Covenant with sinners and so there is no Actual Reconciliation of sinners unto God And all that is obtained is for God and nothing for man save a Possibility of Salvation by a new Covenant nor are we told whether Christ hath satisfied for the breach of the First Covenant so that sin is fully pardoned unto all or not until the condition of the second Covenant be performed nor are we told upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned Or if they be unpardonable 6. Others explaine the matter thus Christ died for all and every man not only that God might without any violation of Justice enter into a new Covenant with sinners upon what condition he pleased but that it should be upon this Condition that man should be united with Christ the Cautioner and not only that Redemption and Salvation should be possible to all but that really most certanly Salvation should be bestowed on such as Christ thought good But seing Christ knew that his death would profite none but these few whom he had designed to what purpose should he have laid downe his life for the rest And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest How can Christ he said to satisfie for the rest Did he purchase Faith to these few and would he not purchase Faith to the rest and yet lay downe the great price for them What was the end obtained for the rest was it only a Possible Call of all Iustice being satisfied But of what import could that Possible Call be if Salvation was not also possible unto them And whereunto is that Call They will not say it is unto Salvation but to Faith But did not Christ know that this call would not be obeyed by them Did He procure Grace unto them to obey it then he procured Faith and if he procured Faith than he procured Salvation Againe if Iustice be satisfied for these others why are they not liberat If they say the new condition is not fulfilled Then it cannot be simply said that Christ satisfied Iustice on their behalfe for he knew before hand that these would not performe the new Condition how can he then be supposed to die for them notwithstanding 7. Thus we see what Difference is among men that hold Universal Redemption about the Proper and Immediat End and Aime of the purpose of God in sending Christ to die and of Christ in comeing to die and how for the most part it cometh all to little or nothing for it was saith Arminius That God might save sinners what way it pleased Him his Iustice which stood in the way being satisfied or as Corvinus That God might will to save sinners and That Christ intended by his death to make such satisfaction to justice as that he might obtaine to himself power of saving upon what conditions the Father pleased And thus Christ is said to have obtained Reconciliation and Redemption to all not that they should actually be partakers thereof but that God his justice now being satisfied might prescribe a condition which when they had preformed he might and would actually make them partakers thereof Some say that all men are put into a new Covenant in which Adam was a common person as well as in the old by vertue whereof none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the condition and fall thereby from that new state whereunto they are borne And this opinion differeth not much from that of Iacobus Andreae at the conference at Mâ—mpelgard which afterward Huberus maintained as Kimedoncius sheweth in his refutation of the same which was this in short That Christ suffered anâ— died for all none excepted Effectually and obtained for all a Reconciliation without any respect to Faith or Unbeleefe so that all who receive this Reconciliation and continue in it shall be saved but as to those who refuse it by unbeleef it is made null and they perish Others say That Christ by his satisfaction removed Original sin in all so that all Infants dying in infancy are undoubtedly saved Others that He died for all sinnes alike but conditionally Some say that after the price was payed it was absolutely undetermined what condition should be prescribed so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works Others that the procuring of a new way was part of the fruit of Christ's death As for this condition some say that man can performe it with the help of such meanes as God affordeth to all and thus establish the Diana of Freewill But others assert the necessity of grace flowing from election hereunto and so destroy Universal Redemption which yet they assert So that some say Christ died for all Conditionally if they beleeve making the Act the cause of its own Object for Faith with them is a beleeving that Christ died for them Some say that he died for all Absolutely Yet so as they partake not of the benefite until they performe the condition which was to be prescribed and thus they affirme that Christ did no more sustaine the persons of the Elect than of the Reprobat but of all alike If we enquire therefore what was the Immediat Result and Product of the death of Christ they agree not to tell us whether it was a Power or a Will or a Right to God to save any he pleased 8. However all the Arminians and Camero with them agree in this That Christ did not purchase faith for any and that as to all say some or as to the most part say others Christ hath only procured a Possibility of salvation And what is this Possibility Some call it an Exemption from that necessity of perishing under which they came by the violation of the former Covenant if a satisfaction had not interveened and by this Exemption the say it coâ—â—th to passe that Christ if he will justice being now satisfied may bring all to life And hereby also say they all may be saved if they will But wâ—at is this else then a meer Possibility What efficaâ—y hath it seing notwithstanding thereof all may perish againe They say it is really Efficacious as to this Possibility which was not before Justice was satisfied But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility it might come to passe that not one should have been saved for how can salvation be possible without faith So that if faith be not hereby purchased it would seem that Salvation is not possible And further it doth hereby appear that all which is procured is but some power to God and to Christ But what is mans advantage They say That a way to life is opened unto man that so he may now come to God by Faith and
Essence of God considered some other way whence it appeareth that all men are partakers of the very Essence of God though not as considered precisely in it self but some other way What blasphemy is wraped up here let any juâ—ge that will 5. But why may not this seed and light be meaned of the Nature and Essence of God simply in it self considered Because saith he that can not be divided into parts and measures being most pure and simple free of all composition and division so can neither be exstinguished nor wounded nor crucified nor killed by all the strength of men Ans. Yet it would seem by him that the Essence and Nature of God though not as considered simply in it self yet as considered some other way may be Divided into parts and Compounded and so Exstinguished Wounded Killed yea Crucified and I would only know of him in what respect we can so consider the Essence and Nature of God as that we may say of it it may can be Wounded Killed Crucified or Exstinguished He leaveth us here in the mist. 6. We have heard what he understandeth not by this Seed Light c. He tels us next what he understandeth by it viz. a Spiritual heavenly and invisible principle principium organ in which God as he is the Father the Son the Spirit dwelleth a measure of which divine and glorious life is in all as a seed which of its own nature inviteth and inlineth all to good and this saith he we call the vehicle of God the spiritual body of Christ the flesh and bloud of Christ which came out of heaven and of which all the Saints do eat and are nourished unto eternal life Here we have a mysterious revelation of their mysterious conceptions by which we can understand as little of their meaning as before for 1. What is this Principium this Principle Is it a principle of Natural Actions Or a principle of Gracious and Saving Actions If of Natural actions how doth it differ from the soul and the Faculties thereof If of saving and gracious actions how is it given to and implanted in every man how Atheistical and wicked soever he be The Scripture tels us of a principle of wickedness in every man by nature whereby they are inclined to all evil and only evil and that continually And we hear of the God of this world in them that are lost blinding their mindes 2 Cor. 4 4. and of the Prince of the power of the aire the Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience Ephes 2 2. And that this is the common condition of all till they be quickened together with Christ and brought out of that state of death by faith in Christ Ephes. 2 3 4 5. and by beleeving the Gospel 2 Cor. 4 3 4. 2. How or what way is this to be called an Organ Of what is it an instrument or Organ Of God or of the Soul Instruments must be instruments of some principal cause Or is this word properly taken or improperly Is it a Suppositum or a Vertue and Principle superadded to the Suppositum siting it for action Or is it to the soul as our members and organs are to the body What he meaneth hereby he would do well to explaine for his expressions are dark and dubious and give no distinct sound 3. In what respect is this Principle and Organ called spiritual Is it spiritual as opposite to Carnal and Bodily as not being Corporeal Or as opposite to Natural Or as opposite to Sinful and Corrupt If he mean the first it may be nothing but the Soul or the Faculties or Natural Qualities thereof and so a meer natural thing But if he take it in the two letter senses how cometh it to passe that every one lying in their natural state are made partakers thereof It must be wrought by the special Operation of the Spirit and this special Operation of the Spirit is not common to all men breathing but is peculiar to the chosen ones and to beleevers as the whole Scripture informeth us 4. We may move the samâ— doubts touching the other two termes Celestial and Invisible The soul may be called Celestial as being immediatly created of God put into the body and it is Invisible as not being the object of our corporeal senses But it may be he taketh these termes in some other more limited sense 5. He saith God dwelleth in this Principle and Organ but how can that be That God is said to dwell among his people in respect of the signes of his Presence and of the effects of his Love Care and Tenderness of them we read Exod. 25 vers 8. 29 45 46. Numb 5 3. 35 34. Deut. 12 11. Ezra 6 12. Deut. 33 12. 1 King 6 13. Ezech. 43 7 9 Zech. 2.10 11. 1 Chron. 23 25. But this was not common to all Nations but was the special privilege of that people So we hear of God's of the Spirits and of Christs dwelling in the souls of his beloved and sanctified ones by more special significations of his Favour and gracious Workings of his Love Rom. 8 9 11. 2 Cor. 6 16. Ephes. 3 17. Revel 21 3. Ioh. 14 17. 1 Cor. 3 16. 2 Tim 1 14. 1 Ioh. 3 24. 4 12 15 16. But that this in dwelling of God or of his Spirit or of Christ is common to all men and not the peculiar privilege of the Saints the places cited do abundantly manifest to be false Of God's dwelling in such a Principle or Organ the Scripture maketh no mention and we must not be wise above what is wriâ—en He would do well to explaine this out of the Scriptures for we value not his dreames and phancies 6. What meaneth that expression That God dwelleth there as the Father as the Son and as the Spirit Doth God Father Son and Spirit dwell in all the ungodly Heathens Barbarians any other wayes than as He is omnipresent or by his Natural and Common works in and about them as in and about all his creatures who proportionably live move and have their being in Him as men and women have for all are his workmanship and get life and breath anâ— all things from him Act. 17 24 25 28. 14 15 But what meaneth that as the Father c. It may be he doth not acknowledge a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence as sure Other Quakers do not And then all the Trinity of Persons whereoâ— the Scripture speaketh must be nothing but some different unintelligible wayes of God's manifesting himself and dwelling in all and every one of Adam's posteritâ— and it may be too in all â—he Creatures sensible insensible 7. He calleth this a divine and glorious life whereof all are partakers in some measure It is a divine life indeed and glorious to have God dwelling in the soul in love and power But by vertue of what Covenant cometh He to dwell in every man Not sure
are changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord 2 Cor. 3 18. The text saith not that this light is and was shall be in every man Quakers are good at dreaming 30. Then be saith That Iohn tels us vers 7. to what end this light is given viz. that all might beleeve by it for he will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be meaned of the Light and not of Iohn But the man is busie here seeking a knot in a rush The Euangelist tels us what was the end for which Iohn was sent to wit to bear witness of the Light that all through him might beleeve that is through him as an instrument for he was the Eliah the Prophet that was to come to turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers Mal. 4 5.6 Mat. 11 14. Mark 9 11. he was to turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God for he was to go before him in the Spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and disobedient to the wisdome of the just to make ready a people prepared for the Lord Luk. 1 16 17. He was the prophet of the Highest and was to goe before the face of the Lord to prepare his wayes To give knowledg of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sinnes c. Luk. 1 76 77 78 79. So that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly referre to Iohn who was but an Instrument by whom his hearers were brought to beleeve in Christ the true Light And to Iohn do Cyrillus Chrysostomus and all the Latine Greek Commentators except Theophylact referre it And the very genuine aspect and series of the words enforce it this being the end of Iohns ministrie and witness-bearing that by him and through his Ministrie all his hearers might be brought to faith in the true Light for this was the intendment of all his labour and paines as we see Ioh. 3 36. Act. 19 4. But this Quaker would make us beleeve that to interpret the words so is to contradict the scope of the context for it is Christ sayes he that enlightens all with this light And is not this that they might beleeve by it Ans. It is true it is the true Light that enlighteneth all And He as an efficient cause doth thereby work faith in all that are enlightened but nevertheless by Iohn Baptist as an Instrument might his hearers be brought to beleeve in Christ the true Light and what way doth this contradict the scope He addeth All could not beleeve by Iohn for his Ministrie came not to all Ans. Thence let him learne how to interpret these universal particles So it is said Mat. 21 26. all held Iohn for a prophet yet many in the world never heard of Iohn but the meaning is all that knew his ministrie and so here all to whom his ministrie came indefinitely without exception of any But all sayes he enlightened with the light might have beleeved thereby Ans. Nay all enlightened with this saving light should certainly have believed for this Illumination giveth not a bare power to believe but certainly worketh the effect Iohn saith he further did not shine in darkness but this Light shineth in darkness that darkness being dissipated it might beget faith Ans. And what then Ergo by Iohns ministrie men could not be brought to beleeve in the true light This is a Quakers Consequence that is ridiculous But lastly he sayes we must beleeve by that in which communion is had with God but by walking in the Light we obtaine this communion not by walking in Iohn Answ. Our walking in the light is our enjoying communion with God as the text at which he glanceth 1 Ioh. 1 7. doth cleare Our walking in the light is a fruite of faith and not the cause of it though it may be a cause of its increase and confirmation What is that to beleeve by walking in the light Though not by walking in Iohn yet by hearing receiving of his doctrine men might be brought to beleeve in Christ for he came to beare witness of the true Light and faith cometh by hearing As we have received Christ so must we walk in him Col. 2 6. but receiving goeth before walking and is not effectuated by walking 31. He spends sometime Pag. 99. to prove that this Light here mentioned is supernatural saving sufficient and foundeth all upon this that it is the light of Christ whereby all ought to beleeve And thus subdolously foisteth-in his corrupt errours his Pelagian and Arminian conceipts with a special artifice that the unwarry Reader may be infected with his poison But 1 we know no Supernatural and Saving Light or Grace which is only Sufficient and not Efficacious and Effectual or such as will certainly produce the effect Supernatural sufficient grace to believe not only giveth the man a spiritual Power to beleeve but powerfully insuperably invincibly effectually Inclineth Moveth Draweth and Determineth the heart to beleeve and efficaciously worketh the Effect and produceth Faith in the soul. As for his meerly Sufficient Grace he hath learned it in the Iesuites Arminians and Pelagians school not in the Scriptures Though there be a Light granted even in the works of Creation and Providence which may convince of a Deity and of several duties called for at the hands of men which may and doth render such as come short inexcusable Rom. 1 20. And though a greater Light be granted in the dispensation of the Gospel to convince and render more inexcusable such as beleeve not yet we know of no Saving Light Sufficient to salvation granted to all even of such as heare the Gospel far less to all Heathens for as to this all naturally are blinde and dead and no grace can be sufficient but that which quickeneth and giveth eyes to see and eares to hear and hearts to understand and overpowereth all in the man that maketh head against Christ. In what sense then can it be true that saving sufficient Light is given to all Can that which is a meerly Natural Power produce a spiritual and Supernatural effect As soon may a beast produce acts of reason or a vegetable plant do acts of sense for these are effects of another Nature and of an higher sphere and require a suteable principle If it be said By acting that which is Natural we may procure or make way for what is Spiritual and Supernatural We enquire where there is any such promise or appointment of God giving ground for this assertion Nay if it were so we should be called according to our works and not according to his grace contrare to 2 Tim. 1 9. Tit. 3 5. Rom. 9 15 16. If it be said That these words To him that hath shall be given include such a promise that such as improve nature aright shall obtaine grace
the Iesuites or Molinists and Arminians with whom we may joine as to this the Lutherans that upon which dependeth the efficacy of grace and it self is not the proper Effect of grace because they will not grant that God whatever way he work upon the will doth by his Preventing and Antecedent grace produce and infallibly effectuate this Non-resistance or Consent or that he doth more by this Grace to produce and effectuate this non-resisting in him that yeeldeth than in him that yeeldeth not 8. Though the man can make no progress out of his natural state until grace lay hold upon him as sufficient grace in the judgment of Quakers and Arminians layeth hold on all he can and may resist and all that grace of God can cause no progress till the man of his owne Free accord and good will yeeld and lay aside his resistance And this yeelding or laying aside of the resisting humore is not caused by grace because the same measure yea a greater measure of the same grace could not cause it in another who would continue in his unwillingness and resistance 9. Though it be possible for man in that case to suffer and not resist because it is possible with Quakers Iesuites and Arminians that Lord Free will shall be good natured and well disposed yet all the grace of God cannot make it certain and infallible for Grace must not enter within the Wills Iurisdiction but stand cap in hand without doors Lord Free will must not be encroached upon 10. One thing more I would desire to know of this Quaker what he meaneth properly by this Sufficient grace Hitherto he hath given us big words but yet upon the mater nothing but the meer Light of Nature or some common gifts and favoures wherein he is worse then some Arminians Pelagians and Iesuites who will grant the necessity of the outward preaching and dispensation of the Gospel which this our Quaker plainely slighteth and undervalueth But among theâ— all where is that grace of God that effectually draweth teacheth and causeth the soul to come and consent where is that heart of flesh c. Ier. 31 33 34. 32 39 40. Ezech. 11 19 20. 36 26 27. Ioh. 6 44 45. Phil. 2 13. Ephes. 1 18 19. 2 Thes. 1 11. 2 Pet. 1 3. Psal. 119 36. 1 King 8 vers 37. â— Thes. 5 23. 1 Cor. 3 5 6. 2 Tim. 2 25. Col. 1 12.13 It seemeth all our prayers must be made to Lord Free will for that is the supreme Master of all if the doctrine of our Quakers and their Masters the Iesuites and Arminians be true 6. Next the saith That though our nature be corrupt and polluted and prone to all evil yet grace can work upon it as fire can make yron soft But can grace change the will with him Can grace work upon it immediatly and cause it bow willingly and consent Why doth he not say this No Arminian Pelagian Socinian nor Iesuite will say that grace cannot work upon nature He addeth as yron removed from the fire returneth to its old hardness so the heart of man when it resisteth or recedeth from grace returneth to its old condition And will not Arminiaâ—s say the same Is not this manifest pleading for the Apostasie of the saints It seemeth then grace can make some change upon nature but cannot alter it as fire though it can make yron warm and soft yet it cannot change the yron so for all that grace can do corrupt nature shall remaine corrupt nature still though a little softened and mollified is this all that grace doth Where is then the new heart and where is the heart of flesh that grace worketh He saith the â—eart of man returneth to its old condition when it resisteth But doth not grace take away this resistance It would seem then that at the first the heart resisteth not and how can this be seing the heart naturally is prone to all evil yea is enmity against God and is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be 7. He adduceth Pag. 91. some similitudes which may serve indeed to illustrate what is already confirmed but are of no use to confirme any thing that is in question Yet let us see what the mater is He compareth a man in his natural state to one that is very sick Which already discovereth the mans vanity and dâ—clarth his simile to be a dissimile for man in his natural state should be compared rather to one that is dead for the Scripture doth so point him out Ioh. 6 53 57 and 5 21 24 25. Ephes 2 1 5. and so is he indeed What would he say more He compareth God to a Physitian that putteth the Physick in the sick mans mouth and layeth him on his bed and if the sick man will but be passive the physick will work but if he be unwilling and rise up eat what he should not eat it cannot work because he hindereth its operation and so though the physick of its own nature be wholesome tend to health yet it proveth deadly to that man he is the cause of his owne death yet if he had been quiet passive the physick had wrought he could not have said that he healed himself but that the physick did it Ans. 1. Physick cannot work upon a dead man but must have some strength of Natuâ—e concurring and cooperating How agreeth this simile with his owne doctrine He told us before that in the first progress man doth not co-operat and yet here nature must co-operate or nothing will be done 2. Bodily physick worketh only upon the body and humors but reacheth not the will of the man but the soul humors lye most in the will and grace that would cure these must work upon the will for till the will be cured the man is never cured So that 3. This simile doth more sufficiently demonstrate him to be a Pelagian Arminian and Iesuite than any thing he hath yet said for let the physician give what physick he will the patients will is wholly at liberty so let God work what he will and employ all his grace the mans will is at freedome and so at freedome that all that God can do shall not availe the man will if he be ill disposed hinder the physick to work as the patient may do in the similitude 4. Though the man cannot properly say that he purged away his own humors because the physick did that yet he was truely the concurring cause of his owne health and may thank himself therefore For had he been so ill disposed as his neighbour all the physick should not have saved his life more than it saved his neighbours who hindered its operation 5. Have we not here enough to Demonstrate to us how devoted the Quakers are unto Lord Free will And how according to them Christ and the grace of God must be beholden to Free will for every soul that is saved and must come
science wherein I know none more expert and skilled than are our Quakers He may read Calvin on the place if he will And for a close to this How great a prejudice so ever he hath against Philosophy yet in the primitive times Christians who had been Philosophers was not by their Philosophy less fitted but more to defend the truth against heathen Philosophers as Iustin Martyr against Valentinus Tertullian against Marcion Origen against Celsus Chrysostome against Libanius and Prudentius against Symmachus 10. The last part of humane literature which he inveigheth against is that which is called Scholastical Theology by which I suppose he meaneth that only which now commonly goeth under that name as distinct from Polemick divinity handling controversies debated betwixt the orthodox and heretical or erroneous persons such as Pelagians Socinians Arminians Anabaptists Antinomians Quakers and the rest And as to it I shall say no more than I have said Chap. 1. § 12. and suffer him to go on in his ranting Only I must take notice of some expressions which he hath here and there in this discourse Though I cannot understand how Origen should be among the first who by this art gave himself to interpret Scriptures nor how hereby Arius fell into his errour seing this Theology is commonly commenced from Peter Lombard yet I am glade to hear him Pag. 201. calling that heresie of Arius who denyed the Son to be equal with the Father in power and glory and of the same essence horride for many of his Brethren the Quakers either doubt of or directly deny the Trinity Yea Mr Clapham in his book against the Quakers Sect. 3. tels us they call this doctrine a lie and citeth for it Saul's errand to Damascus p. 12. and the sword of the Lord drawn p. 4. And in this if he thinketh as he speaketh I would know how he will reconcile himself unto them but it may be he taketh Father Son and holy Ghost for one Person as well as for one essence as some other Quakers do He speaketh like a Quaker that is calumniously when he saith § 22. that this knowledge is accounted a necessary qualification for a Minister when the pure teaching of the Spirit of truth is contemned He may speak thus if he thinketh good against his old friends the Iesuites for we are for the teaching of the Spirit and preferre it to all other whatsomever but we are for the teaching of the Spirit in the way he hath appointed that is by waiting upon him in his ordinances meditating on his word and useing all other lawful meanes to come to the right understanding of his meaning in his word especially prayer But we dar not with this deluded bold generation tempt the Lord by looking for immediat Revelations and laying aside all Meanes and Ordinances in coming to the saving knowledge of his Name as revealed in the Gospel of his Son Jesus Christ. We account it also a calumny for him to say ibid. that he who is to be a Minister must lairne the airt of playing a hookster in the word because we say he must attend unto reading of what is written for the understanding of Scripture And whereas he thinketh the Devil could make as good a sermon as the most learned I only demand and may he not also make as good a discourse without book as they do I fear he hath too great a hand in all their discourses and scriblings too 11. What he saith Pag. 202. § 23. is but a groundless commendation of their way and of themselves as the only men raised up of God to be witnesses foâ— him If they have shaken the foundations of Babylon as he saith how cometh it that Babylon and they are so well agreed and that in principal matters as 1. In vilifying the Ministers of Christ and calling them deceivers 2. Denying our Churches to be true Churches 3. In calling the Scriptures but a dead letter 4. In denying it to be the judge of controversies 5. In refuseing to have all Spirits tryed by the written word 6. In crying up the sufficiency of a common light within 7. In maintaining Free will 8. Perfection 9. Apostasie of the Saints 10. Justification by inherent holiness 11. In confounding Justification and Sanctification 12. In mocking at the â—mputed righteousness of Christ. 13. In placeing holiness in outward observations of their owne deviseing 14. In Pretending so much to Revelations Visions Raptures c. 15. In pretending to Infallibility As for the Increase of their number whereof he boasteth it is a clear verification of that 2 Thes. 2 9 10 11 12. whoâ—e coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders with all deceivablenes of unrighteousness in them that perish because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie That they all might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness Wâ—at he talketh further of his owne experience of the power of their discourses is but a further demonstration of what we said to wit of his being given up to strong delusion as this volumne of his putteth beyond all question with such as believe the Scriptures And for a recompense of his exhortation to us in the close I shall also obtest him in the Lord to consider his wayes over againe and search after the procuring cause of this dreadful judgment of the Lord 's giving him to up to those delusions that he may repent and be saved for what high thoughts soever he may now have of that way he will finde his delusion in end either here which I shall wish or when it shall be too late which the Lord prevent in mercy CHAP. XIX Of the Ministerial Office 1. WHen our Quaker beginneth to speak of this matter Pag 203. § 24. he followeth his usual manner of crying up themselves and loading all their Opposites with what expressions of disrespect and contempt he thinketh meet We are the men with him as the orthodox were of old with the Swenkfeldians Familists and Antinomians who alwayes adhere to Externals following our External Rule and Methods devised by our carnal and humane Wisdom because we follow and desire to cleave unto the Rules and Methods and all the Orders prescribed by Christ to be observed in his owne House And upon the other hand They are the men who follow the wayes of the Spirit and his immediat Help and Influence and he leadeth them as he saith in such an Order and Methode as becometh the Church of God though this order and methode of theirs wherein they suppose the Spirit leadeth them be no prescribed Order in the word but the meer Invention of their owne fantastick â—raine blasphemously Fathered upon the Immediat Teaching and Leading of the Spirit of God for we know no ground to imagine that the true Spirit of God will lead
defate they changed the question vers 23 26 c. He saith 3. Their warres against the nations were figures of the inward war of Christians against the World the Flesh and the Devil Answ. 1. This is said but not proved 2. What saith this to the warres among themselves or betwixt Iudah and Israel This was said by Saltmarsh the Familist before now He saith 4. Something is prohibited by Christ Mat. 5 26. which was permitted to the Iewes because of their rudeness Answ. The contrary is manifest as appeareth from what is said It is but a groundless notion of Socinians to say that Christ there giveth any new precepts while as he who came not to dissolve or weaken the Law in the least did only vindicate the lasting moral Law from corrupt glosses and interpretations as is manifest 7. To a second Argument to wit That defence is of the Law of nature which Religion doth not destroy he Answereth Be it so yet by obedience to commend ourselves to God in faith and patience is not to destroy nature but to perfect it Answere But the argument is not taken from the corrupt nature of man which grace changeth but from the standing Law of Nature which is Gods perpetually obligeing Law and is not weakened or altered by the Gospel whatever alteration grace maketh in us To a 3 Argum. taken from Iohn Baptists not disproving of warres in the Souldiers that came unto him to ask him what they should do Luk. 3 14. He answereth What then The question is not of Iohns but of Christs doctrine Iohn was not that Prophet yet Iohn did prohibite them what is proper to Souldiers to wit violence and deceit without which there is no warre Answ. 1. Though Iohn was not that Prophet yet he was his fore-runner and preached Repentance and would have taught Repentance from warring if it had been unlawful 2. Even Christ himself when he spoke with the friends of the Centurion at whose faith he marvelled saving he had not found so great faith no not in Israel Luk. 7 9. Yet doth not say to them that the Centurion should warre no more And Mat. 22. He bids render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars among which things was tribute wherewith the Souldiers were payed but if war had simply been unlawful Christ would not have permitted this for that end 3. He foâ—baâ— them to use violence or deceit towards friends to use any rapine c. and for a remedie prescribeth to them to be satisfied with their wages whereby it is manifest that he meaneth not their actions against enemies for if they were not to fight against enemies why were they to receive wages The Roman Lawes though they allowed Souldiers to take prey from enemies yet did not permit the least injury to friends nor suffer the taking so much as a chicken or eâ—ge See what Beza on the place citeth to this purpose He may consult Calvin also on the place who expresly saith it is a frivolous cavil to think that Iohn here prescribeth to rude persons what is not consistent with Christian perfection seing his work was to fit them perfectly for his Master and that they load the Gospel with a sacrilegious calumny that would thus set it in opposition to all humane command as if Christ would destroy what his Father had ordained and without the sword Lawes die and justice hath no efficacy nor can the Magistrate without souldiers maintaine peace 8. To our Arg. taken from that Centurion mentioned Mat. 8 5 and him of whom we read Act. 10. He might have added another instance Act. 13 12. He answereth we do not read that they did continue in that office Answ. But our Argument is not taken from their not laying downe that office but from Christ and his Apostles their not enjoyning them so to do or not showing that it was repugnant unto their Christian state As for what hâ— cireth out of Marcus Aurelius and others is sufficiently confuted by the Legio fulminatrix which consisted of Christians and did serve in the warres To that Luk. 22 36. and he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one He tels us that Ambrose thought that this was only for that occasion and that Origen interpreteth the words mystically And himself addeth that Christ by his answere saying that two was enough would not have the rest selling their garments to buy swords but however sayes he the use of Armes is unlawful under the Gospel Answ. Then the Quakers conclusion must be good whatever the Scripture say to the contrary But the Disciples saying they had two swords of metal and Christ saying it was enough without the least hint of their being in a mistake is enough to prove that there is no allegory here Nor have we warrand to suppose that this was only for that occasion as if Christ after would have none of his followers thinking it lawful to fight for their civil Magistrates and Masters against their enemies be the cause never so just 9. To that which we say to wit That though the Scripture prohibiteth privat revenge Yet it doth not prohibite Subjects under the command and conduct of their Magistrate to fight in defence of their Lands Lives Wives Children and Goods he answereth That if the Magistrate be a Christian he himself should love his enemies and so not command his Subjects to fight but if he be not a true Christian the Subjects should obey Christ. Answ. We have showne above that lawful warâ—es are not inconsistent with this duty which was required under the Law as well as under the Gospel He addeth Pag. 370. As concerning the present Magistrates who are in the world though by reason of the publick profession they make of the name of Christ we do not deny them the title of Christians Yet we may confidently say that they are far from the perfection of the Christian religion and while they are in that state we grant that war is lawful for them upon just causes as the use of circumciâ—ion and Iewish ceremonies was permitted for a time not as being either necessary or yet lawful in themselves aftâ—r Christ's resurrection but because as yet that Spirit was not risen in them whereby they were to be delivered from these rudiments Answ. 1. He taketh that here for granted which is denied and which he will never be able to prove to wit that warring was a part of the ceremonial Law or a Law peculiarly given to the Jewes And why doth he not once tell us where and when this Law was first made and where we shall finde it among the ceremonies 2. If it were granted to have been a ceremonial Law how can he now say that it is lawful in any case to any person whether Christian or not Christian Is it lawful now to use circumcision or the passeover and other such ceremonies Will he say that Christians who are not become Quakers or are not come to that pitch
the earth shall swear by the God of truth he answereth That it was usual with the Prophets to express the great duties of the Gospel times in Mosaick termes as Ier. 31 38 39 40. Ezech. 36 25. 40. Esa. 45 23. And what the Prophet here speaketh of swearing Paul interpreteth it of confessing Rom. 14 11. Answ. That the Prophets use this way I confess But see no ground for this from Ier. 31 38. c. where the Prophet is foretelling the rebuilding of Iâ—rusalem which was accomplished in the dayes of Nehemiah And that Ezech. 36 25. is but a poor ground Nor doth that place Esai 45 23. give any countenance unto this though the Apostle Rom. 14 11. useth another word for swearing which is but exegitical thereof and the same upon the mater The only doubt remaineth whether swearing was properly ceremonial or not which the Apostles frequent practice mentioned in the preceeding argument and other arguments mentioned and to be mentioned evince not to have been ceremonial And there is more ground to make the bowing of the knee ceremonial then swearing by the name of the Lord. 12. In the tenth place he mentioneth that argument taken from Heb. 6 16. For men verily swear by the greater and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife he answereth Pag. 359. That Paul only sheweth what men in those dayes of controversie were wont to do but not what they should have done nor what the Saints did Answ. This being a practice not of any one age or people but of all ages and people whereby a principal end of swearing to wit the ending of a controversie and the right manner of going about it to wit in swearing by the greater is held forth and this being brought-in hereas an argument from the less to the more as if the Apostle had said if we believe a man who by nature is a liar when he sweareth and confirmeth what he saith by attesting God how much more ought we to believe God who is truth it self when he sweareth by himself having no greater to swear by sheweth the lawfulness and usefulness of this practice So that if this had been or were in it self a thing â—imply evil the Apostles argument would want its due force and cause men question if ever Gâ—d did or would swear it being such a sinful and an abominable thing â—roceeding from the Devil And so the whole argument and conclusion of the Apostle should be annulled and the maine pillar of our assurance and hope sâ—aken And though this differeth from these instances 1 Cor. 9 ver 24. and Luk. 14 vers 31. which he adduceth to invalidate this Yet neither can he prove that these are simply sinful and unlawful in all cases 13. As for the argument he proposeth next I owne it not and so am less concerned in his answere Only I would know what he meaneth by that expression a Christian whom God hath called unto his essential verity may no way swear What meaneth he by this essential verity And was not Paul called thereunto whatever it be How came it then that he did swear some way Were not the holy men of old called unto this essential verity how came it then that they did also sweare Such as Abraham Gen. 21 24. Iacob Gen 31 53. Ioseph Gen 47 35. Moses Iosh. 14 9. David 1 Sam. 20 3. 24 22 Ionathan 1 Sam. 20 16. Eliah 1 King 17 1. Gedaliah 2 King 25 24. Asa. 2 Chron. 15 14. Obadiah 1 King 18 10. Elisha 2 King 2 6 Are not Angels called unto this essential verity How came it then that they did swear Dan. 12 17. Revel 10 5 6 He citeth some passages of some heathens Pag. 360. who would not swear And what can this prove And what will Pythagoras prohibition evince Or Socrates his requireing that mens words should be firmer than oaths Or Plato's appearing against it These and the like may be good arguments for him whose Religion is but Paganish but have no force with us though I grant these and the like may shame Christians who regard even oathes so little He hath Pag. 361. a number of bare citations of places of some Fathers and Others without giving us their words any who hath these books may peruse them and see what they say All that I shall say is this Though it be true that many of the Fathers did in this assent to Pelagius yet the more common opinion was that Christians might in some cases lawfully sweare which they grounded upon the practice of Paul See Vossius Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. par 2. Antith 1. Pag. 513. c. And let the Reader peruse the citations he hath there adduced and he will see that some of this Quakers citations and Authors are against himself such as Cyprian Tertullian Augustine Polycarp and others The primitive Christians would not swear it is true neither by the Genius nor by the fortune of the Emperious See Tertul. Apol. Cap. 31. and from this some might gather that they would not swear at all which was certainly a mistake And we read that the Primitive Christians did sweare to be faithful to the Emperour as Vossius sheweth out of Vegetius lib 2. Cap. 5. Arnobius lib. 4. see also Dio in M. Antonino Tertul. de Cor. mil. c. 1. Eusebii histor lib 5. c. 5. He sheweth also how they used to sweare by the Eucharist out of Eusebii Histor. lib. 6. Chap. 35 The last argument which he mentioneth is not worth the naming and so I leave it 14. For a Conclusion to this let us take notice that Augustine was only labouring to keep oft unnecessary oathes and would have one and other shuning what they could the giving of oathes But would not simply condemne the taking or giving of oathes in weighty maters even under the Gospel And therefore speaking upon that sermon of Christ on the mount and having mentioned the expressions of Paul formerly spoken of he addeth Ita intelligitur praecepisse Deum ne Iuretur ne quisquam sicut bonum appetat jusjurandum assiduitate jurandi ad perjurium per consuetudinem delabatur Quapropter qui intelligit non in bonis sed necessariis jurationem habendam refrenet se quantum potest ut non eâ uâ—atur nisi necessitate cum videt pigros esse homines ad credendum quod ets utile est credere nisi juratione firmetur CHAP. XXXI Of Civil Honour 1. BEside what belongeth properly to Civil Honour of which we are now to speak there are other two particulars which he is pleased to speak something to in his Vindication of his last Thesis to wit against Vanity Prodigality in apparel and against Comoedies and such Playes concerning which I minde to be no adversary unto him only I must say he must be very affronted and shameless to suppose let be to say That all his Adversaries contenâ— for these as lawful and as no way contrary to Christian Religion