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
Verus Patroclus OR The Weapons of Quakerism The Weakness of Quakerism BEING A Discourse wherein the choicest Arguments for their chief Tenets are Enervat and their best Defences Annihilat several Abominations not heretofore so directly Discovered Unmasked WITH A Digression Explicative of the Doctrine anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation AND An Appendix Vindicating Rom. 9. From the Depravations of an Arminian By William Iamison Tit. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject Edinburgh Printed in the Year 1689. TO THE Right Honourable The EARL of DUNDONNALD Lord Cochran c. AS my Lord amongst the innumerable precious Benefits and Blessings which God hath graciously vouchsafed to Mankind or to any part thereof His Word Statutes and sacred Oracles infinitly surpass excel and so to speak obscure all the rest by far more than the Sun doth eclipse the lesser Luminaries so according to that common saying Corruptio optimi pessima Nothing by many degrees is so mischievous noxious and deadly as the Corruption and Depravation of these lively Oracles For thus tho by a cursed accident The Wine of our Fathers Kingdom is turned into Wormwood and that Heavenly and unpressed Honey into Gall whereby the greater part of the visible Church hath perished For the Poison hath this most unhappy advantage above all others that it is of an hydropick nature making the infected the more they have drunk so much the more desirous to drink Hence that sagacious Spirit the grand Enemy of Mankind judged this the choicest expedient and mean for restauration of his falling Kingdom For to speak nothing oâ— the first 4000 years of the World he hath ever since the very infancy of Christianity to his outmost put this in practice always raising up such as were most famous or rather infamous through their corrupting abusing and detorting the Word of Life and Charters of our Salvation Of which kind in the early days of Christianity were Cerinthus Montanus the Cataphrygians Samosatenus Arrius and a multitude beside But these first Essays by reason of their palpable and direct overturning of the undoubted Fundamentals of Christianity which rendred all their sophistry tho never so subtile most suspected proved inefficacious to do the Business tho in some respect infectious enough Therefore the Lord having by many Means and in special by the first four Councils blown away these pestiferous Mists and cleared up to mens minds these grand Truths of the Holy Trinity the Godhead of Christ the Unity of his Person the Distinction of his Natures and the like The Method was altered and the following opposers of Truth acted by the same Spirit that the former were went more subtilly to work not only forbearing to oppose these Fundamentals but in shew at leâ—st endeavouring to defend and assert them By which it came to pass that they were more easily believed in all they said by the too simple people In the mean while they secretly and slily sowed their Tares under the specious pretext of Unity Order Decency Ornament and antient Tradition Under the covert of these the like was the whole Mass of Paganism introduced guilded only with the varnishing Title of Catholick Doctrine For thus in stead of the humility of a Gospel-Ministry was brought in a Prelatick Hierarchy in imitation of the Pagan Protoflamines which at length procreated to the World the Man of Sin to head this degenerating Church in their Wickedness And so they had Unity which was worse than Division and an Order that became the cause of the most horrid Confusion the World hath hitherto seen Thus also the simplicity of the Gospel was turned into Heathnish Pageantry and the glory of the Church of God did degenerat into a meer worldly pomp and grandour But at length how sad and miserable became the case of the Church wheâ— through the power of humane inventions delivered under the name of Tradition the Dictats of the Romish-depute of the old Dragon such poisonous dregs became the best part of the essentials of their Religion Justification before God ascribed to the belief and practice thereof and Justification by Faith in the Son of God decried and maligned Thus were the same fundamental Truths which had been more openly assaulted by the former Hereticks now no less powerfully but more subtilly almost overthrown But so soon as the Lord as it were by the dawning of a second-Christian-day had discovered Romes Abominations and rendered her hateful to all good Men the old Artist his associats changed their method tho not their design impugning again more openly these fundamental Truths they had assaulted in the early days of Christianity But that the Weapon already blunted might yet cut behold a new Artifice For these attempts were not made for the most part by these who persisted in the company of the now deservedly hated Church of Rome but by these who were in appearance the Deserters and Opposers thereof Under the covert of which they far more securely infected many who were in communion with the reformed Church impudently asserting that the chiefest points of Christianity weâ—e Popery on this account that the Papists had not expresly denied them These were known by many names as Servetians Anti-trinitarians Socinians and the like But more general was that of Anabaptists comprising in it self all these and many other such Vipers The true progeny of these Anabaptists are these now known by the Name of Quakers the men with whom Ideal who for design and method are all onâ— with the bulk of both antient and modern Hereticks Two Artifices were alternatively used by the antient Hereticks and by a continued succession derived unto our present Adversaries the one of which was to abuse the Scriptures as if one should mould a Bushel of Jewels into the shape of a Dog Toad or the like hateful Creature The other when in spite of all these shifts they were Convicted out of the Scriptures to turn upon the Scriptures themselves as being not free of their own Errors nor of Divine Authority How exactly the Quakers write after their Copy none acquainted with their Doctrines seeth not I hope therefore it shal not be unprofitable if the following Discourse shall unfold more particularly these practices of our Adversaries which I with a humble confidence can averr and moreover I make some Discoveries in particular of this more spiritual Mystery of Iniquity by none I know hitherto directly undertaken Moreover this my Treatise can be judged by none altogether superfluous who considereth that the whole Land is ready to be overspread with the Hemlock oâ— Pelagianism now known by the name of Arminianism with which the bulk of the Prelatick Clergy is already infected for with this Heresie I have several Rancounters But I will not trouble your Lordship with a further account of this my small Undertaking Yet this I crave leave to say that whatever I intended of this kind it was designed for your Lordship not
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
cited after several serpentine windings and turnings to the end he may tho he retain the thing yet evite the Name wholly rejecteth Augustin and therefore giveâ—h up the Cause ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary if he will assert every thing that Augustin said ridiculously I say seing the question is if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point which Pelagians have had many successors tho known by other Names as Socinus and his School and holy and pure Anabaptists as they called themselves and were by contrariety of speech called by others the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast Thomas Muncer The horrid abominations of which Sect and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest that famous reformer Bullinger hath by Scriptures and Reason so hammered that one in reason should have thought that it should never have had a Resurrection as may be seen Lib 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin wherewith first the Council of Trent although contrary to their own Light as judicious Soave observeth and of late Rob Barclay both in his Apology and Vindication hath traduced him Secondly Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely by corrupt men both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied what they have said or can say and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler for managing of this War and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few And First Gen. 2.17 For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die or Dying thou shalt Die where is a clear proof of our Doctrine whence we reason as well against Pelagians Anabaptists Socinians and Quakers as against the Papists who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism Thus Infants Die Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin seeing according to this present Text Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command To this the Pelagians as Augustin in several places and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum 666. And the Socinians as Pareus on the place sheweth with other Enemies of the Christian Religion and at this day the Quakers answer that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false seeing that by this word Death frequently in Scripture Bodily as well as Spiritual is understood and by the Phrase to die the Death the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency But Chap. 3.19 Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men Where God himself describing the punishment of Adams transgression denounceâ—h and foretelleth his return to the dust as not the least part thereof But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text seeing none except Socinians and Pelagians oppose our meaning thereof and the reason adduced by our present adversaries common to them with the Socinians and in particular Crellius for it s overthrown in strength excelleth not a cobweb although they pitched upon it as the only weapon which had any Teeth or keenness therein The reason is Adam died not that day that he did eat therefore say they Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians Socinians which yet for ought any thing I can find the Quakers do not use judging them as it seems unfit to serve their turn Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause his adversary chap. 5. num 8. Having hewed it in pieces in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof only Sect. 5. num 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition adding that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries is a consequence but not a punishment of Sin which distinction is most Blasphemouâ— as here it is made use of seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law by inflicting more miserie on fallen man than was denounced in the Threatning Either this he must say or else that Sickness and Death as they are now circumstantiated are not inflicted by God which I am sure is little better than the former But to shut up all he sayeth that his Adversarie hath not said enough to proselyte him to his Opinion notwithstanding that he had so dâ—shed his reason upon which it was builded that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure not a pain which reason is altogether reasonlesse seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any is its being the port to free Men from all evil especially from Sin without which Adam should have wholly remained if he had persevered in his integrity but it is too evident that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin But I leave this matter only I cannot but here observe which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication that per fas aut nefas as they say the Quakers must have the last words for who will think it requisite to write after one who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own or remove his adversaries reasons as Robert Barclay doth here and yet publishes his book to the world as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth for if Bodily death was included in the threatning then our doctrine of Original sin is proved which doctrine once being evinced all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies which Socinians Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation fall to the Ground and they are if they be Christians obliged to remove these themselves Further its clear from Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is Death where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages not the consequence only of sin as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num 8.
well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology and Vindication with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters Syllables But I again return to his seventh number and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions or would make Augustin to do it 2. The words of Augustin from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli what do ye think to say And whose eares can hear it Did they sin themselves Where I pray you did they sin When and how did they sin They know neither good nor evil Shall they sin that are under no Command Prove that Infants are sinners prove what is their Sin is it because they weep that they sin Do they Sin because they take pleasure or repell trouble by motion as dumb Animals If these motions be sin they become greater sinners in Baptism for they resist most vehemently But I say another thing You think they have sinned otherwise they had not dyed but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb Will you say they have sinned also You Lye or are deceived c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin did assert that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin of which there is not the least appearance seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin Now what wouâ—d not these Men adventure to say in the dark when they are so audacious as to publish to the world in print that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin when his own works do every where and the World proclaim the contrary yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children are under any Law which is true if he understand it in so many words which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter where the Apostle having said That there is no Sin where there is no Law subjoyneth that nevertheless Death which I have in my former Section proved to be a punishment reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did When he seeth that it cannot be denyed that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus In which or by occasion of which death all have sinned A Pelagian exposition makeing men sin by imitation only and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion and patern only and not the price of our acceptation and Salvation And altho he say that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam as stated by him in his Apology This is not to be regarded seing after an impartial search nothing of this resolution can be perceived He ought therefore to have shewed uâ— how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion or example only whereby to walk and so to be saved But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation but Vltra posse non datur esse But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever in the general only you do not understand our doctrine aright or consider what we say And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches and Cry Victoria 4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all except of the Old and New Pelagians evicted from Eph 2 3. and yet Rob Barclay following Bellarmin who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists Justification to be by Faith would turn our weapons against our selves and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin alledging that Mens evil walking is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath But if the Apostle had so meaned in all likelyhood he should not have spoken so generally as he did but had made some Intimation that Children were excepted which he neither here nor any where else doeth 2. This Phrase by Nature is still taken in Scripture for so soon as a thing hath a beeing or for its very rising or Original which these Scriptures confirm Rom. 2.27 and 11 24. Gal 2.5 and 4.8 1 Cor. 15.44 46. Hence we thus with Calvin in opposition to the Pelagians on the place reason What is naturally in every one is in them from their very Original and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original These Scriptures and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vindâ— Is so far from attempting to answer that he maketh not the least mention thereof From which one Omission though there were no more any may easily see that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindicaâ—tion 3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation that the primitive Châ—rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine which we hold of Original sin in opposition to the Pelagians denying it and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene hold most constantly and without so much aâ— once wavering that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman is born with Original sin under the power of ungodliness subject to death which he explaineth of eternal as well as bodily death Ibid and upon the same very account a Child of wrath concerning which the Apostle saith and we were by nature the Children of wrath And the like Doctrine did Fulgentius and fourteen bishops with him assert as also Theodoretus Primasius and Haimo on the place taking by nature c. to import all carnally born and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all brought
of every Substance Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query sent to Mr Iohn Alexander viz. What is Original Sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay For doth not the Original signifie the Beginning What did Christ come to destroy Was it not the Devil and his Works What is more clear than that in those Queries of the Quakers God is made the Author of Sin seing that unlesse they professe and avow Manicheism God created the Devil and this is yet more clear if clearer can be by George Keiths Defence of this Querie Truth defend pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope saying that the Devil may be called sin in a certain sense by a Metonymy as Christ is called Righteousness or sin called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself that is playeth the ridiculous babler for pag. 59. in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God he sayeth that to query a thing will not conclude that the questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist For if the Quakers understood no other thing then the Devil may get the Name of sin as any cause may get the name of its effect Then both they and he in their Defence prove themselves to be pitiful purposeless wranglers making a stur in the World about nothing And of set purpose involving their Discourseâ— in such nonâ—ensical Niceâ—ies that none shal know the meaning thereof Hence we may see that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers For whatever they have said you cannot fix upon them be as clear as it will they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense as opposite to that which in the Judgment of all rational men their words carry as Black is opposite to White or Light to Darkness For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin it self seing I think no Man except George Keith will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World importing only these things about which there is not the least shadow of a question or doubt for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin Neither is his abuse of Scripture more toâ—lerable seing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech which in a matter known and about which there is no debate as the Matter was about which the Apostle speaketh may contribute much to the illustration and clearing of the purpose but far otherwise was it wheresoever Christ or the Apostles enâ—red intâ— any direct Dâ—sputation or reasoning where they always so spake as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions and Reasonings tended to In a word he that of set purpose involveth and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment in the Judgment of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool or a Knave Therefore whether George Keith will or not we must do these Questionists right and believe that they thought as they spake that is that the Devil is sin it self And therefore God is the Author of sin 3. I come now to the third thing of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty viz. That the Soul is God or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity they deny its Humanity For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit as Angels and the Souls of men are he replyeth saying this is confusion For Christ sayeth God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth And there thou art raced without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock who had accused the Quakers of professing and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God he thus replyeth Thy boasting is excluded without in thy Generation And thou art excluded from the life and mind of the Apostle who said Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus who being in the Form of God thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy and so thou hast shewed what Spirit thou art of contrary to the Apostle here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree and an Equality with God proâ—essed and boasted of For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind Our first Parents fell from their Excellency and most happy Condition And except Christ had interposed had forever lien together with all their Posterity into that whirle pool and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery only for the desire of aspiring unto â—his of which these Heaven darâ—ing blasphemer boast themselves so that what the Poets feigned of the Gyants contending with the gods for an Equal Right to Heaven with them the Quakers act in Reality But the following discourse will evince that an Equality with God will not please them except they have also an Identity For George Fox the great Prophet and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul yet it cannot be infinitness in it self speaketh thus Is not the Soul without beginning coming from God returning to God again who hath it in his hand and Christ the Power of God the Bishop of the Soul which bringeth it up to God which came out from him hath this a beginning or ending and is not this infinite in it self again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus Byne sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in it self but a Creature and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance wherâ—unto George Fox Replyeth Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in they say that which is a spiritual Substance is not infinit in it self but a Creature that which came out of the Creator and is in the Hand of the Creator which bringeth it up unto the Creator again that is infinite in it self Again Great Myst. p. 100. The Quakers are accused for saying there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God Hereunto George Fox thus answereth God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God is in Gods hand part of God from God and to God again from these passages it is most evident that both the Soul of man yea and the Devils themselves which I tremble to think must be God over all Seing according to these
one Faith I do believe this will trouble him And when he has done these two then he may bring up his Achillean Argument viz. that such as were baptized with water were not baptised Therefore baptism with water is not the baptism of Christ. Which Sophism might have been as well made against Circumcision as Baptism as we have but even now shown He is angry at his Antagonist for telling him that he hath stollen his Arguments from Socinians saying he never read three lines of him Answer neither did ever I hear one line in Socinus his own Book yet I have heard an hundred of Socinus his Arguments He miserably bewrayeth his genious For if he without reading of their Writings still fall upon the Socinian Arguments then how near of kin must he and they be But this he still doth as the whole Series of his Adversaries Book declareth still citing the Book and page of the Socinian Writings where his Arguments are to be found Which he dare not deny whereas he should vindicat pag. 164. his Doctrine built upon 1 Pet. 3.21 he sayeth meer nothing But only that his Adversary giveth meer Assertions But he doth not attempt to impugn them And is this urging and Vindication of his Arguments How desperat must his Cause be When he leaveth the very place upon which they found the Abrogation of Baptism without attempting to prove his own meaning of it Next I say that whatever I can build upon this place against Baptism with Water the same Argument might have still holden against Circumcision in the flesh seing still it was true that he is not a Jew that is one outwardly and that that is not Circumcision which is outward in the flesh but that he is a Jew that is one inwardly and that is Circumcision that is of the Heart and Spirit and not of the Letter c. Rom. 2.28 29. In a word whatever they shal say against Baptism with Water from this place of Peter there is still as much to be said against Circumcision with hands even during the Law flowing from the perpetual Truth of this place of Paul to the Rom But I think themselves will not say it militates any thing against Circumcision made with hands during the Law. Ergo they ought to conclude nothing from this place of Peter against Baptism with Water Here he sayeth that his Adversaries answer to this Argument from this place of Peter and Gal. 3 27. Col. 2 12 is built upon the Supposition that Water-Baptism goeth to the making up of Christs Baptism And then sayeth he will expect his proof of his exposition of these places is not that fair arguing Reader to frame an Argument from a place of Scripture and when the Defendent denyeth such a thing followeth from this Scripture to tell him he has lost the Cause unless that he prove that it will not follow But seing he is the impugner in this place if he had not intended to expose himself and his party to scorn he had certainly at least attempted to prove his own Expositions of these places and urged his two Arguments which in his Apology were in modo figura But this heat of dispute was soon allayed For so hath his Antagonist combated with him that he essayeth not to reinforce them See pag. 473.479 How seared must these Mens Consciences be when they endeavour to put a cheat upon the World in so weighty a business 2. It 's most groundless to say that there is any petitio principij here as the Quaker insinuateth Next he cometh to reply to his adversaries 9. Num Where he had evinced that Iohns Baptism was not a figure of Christs And passing the marrow of what he had said he only compendizeth his Apologie saying that Iohns Baptism was a washing with Water that the Apostle ascribeth the putting on Christ to the Baptism of Christ as washing with water Typifieth or signifieth the washing of regeneration so doth Iohns Baptism that of Christ. But all this was obviat before while his adversary answered his Argument wherewith he intended to prove his third proposition denying that the Baptism of Christ is only the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire asserting also and that upon good grounds that the Baptism with water is Christs Baptism instituted by Him see the Forecited Numb Next I say that Iohns Baptism as being institute by Christ and comprehending the thing signified is not only Baptism with water but Christs whole true Baptism and so this quibling is groundless Neither is that which followeth any solider where he sayeth because his adversary denyeth he must encrease but I must decrease to be meaned of the abolition of Iohns Baptism that then if this be meaned of their persons Iohn grew more decrepit and Christ more tall Spectatum admissi risum teneatis Was there not another member of the disjunction I answer therefore to this miserable cavil that the meaning of the place is that the person of Christ was to grow more and more in honour and glory so that within a little the fame and repute of Iohn was to be eclipsed through the brightness and splendour of Christ. Next he sayeth that though Iohn had a command for baptism it will not follow that it was no legal rite Ans. It will well follow for all the legal Rites such as held forth Christ and his benefits by way of Type to the whole Church which each Member was to practise were either institute by Moses or before him The design of which was that the people might see Christ though darklie as in a Glass untill the time of his coming therefore this could not be a legal Rite which was commanded directly at the coming of the Messias and at his verie appearance preaching to the world when there could be no use of legal Rites but these which were within a little to be abolished 2. All the Legal Rites are abrogat in the New Testament but no where is the command given to John recalled and his Baptism abrogat Otherwise let him show me the place of Scripture But not 1 Pet. 3.21 which they ordinarilie use Either immediatly given by God or the Apostles contrary approved practise equivalent to a Command 3. That the Baptism of John was a Gospel Ordinance is clear from Mat. 11.12 13. Where it is said that the Law and the Prophets prophesied until Ioh. To which place I know they ordinarily answer that untill doth not exclude John But this is refuted abundantly by the former vers For in the time of the Law the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be said to suffer violence and yet it suffered Violence in the dayes of John. And certain it is that this particle if it be not taken exclusively here can be so taken no where else in Scripture as the collation of this with other places will evince 4. No legal thing person or Rite was prophesied of in the Old Testament but John was clearly prophesied of as
indulged unto them But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest seing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num and there he asserteth That that which the Christians were enjoyned to Observe Act 15 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law but an Apostolick Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper But taketh no notice that his Antagonist shewed that there is no little Vanity and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17 Col. 2.16 To prove this and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause For he that is a Socinian in this point he doeth not deny he sayeth That this Command seing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit hath as much of a Gospel Institution as any thing commanded before by Christ can have Ans. Well then I see we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers seing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly it will as well follow from Col. 2.20 that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat and not allowed now by Christ as from v 16 and Rom. 14 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat and not allowed by Christ. Now let both old and new Socinians I mean the Quakers try to infringe this if they can And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground as they can do the other Which Consideration and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit say what they will in its defence AN APPENDIX IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster in their Confession of Faith Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap to the Romans defended and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation deduced from that place AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves that of their denying Eternal Election or at best making it whollie conditionall uncertain and depending upon the will of the Creature so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary it might so have fallen out that none should have been saved is not the least In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures which they sometimes would fain seem to follow hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election Thus dealt Robert Barclay who in all his Theses and Apology tho in his account an entire System of Religion never delivereth his minde thereanent And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission he sayeth only that all do at times Confess that it is not safe nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God which he prooflesly alledgeth his adversary to have done and that it is only needful to say God calleth every Man every where to Repent and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election And yet he feircely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy seing none can be ignorant that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election altho he by all Means endeavours to conceal it for whoever denyeth Reprobation by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election And thus Nill he will he we have his mind positively anent Election and also Confession intimated that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tryed by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denyal of Reprobation is much better founded seing he with a Pythagorical silence passeth over all his Adversaries arguments proving all our Doctrine there anent chap. 7. num 10.11 These Arguments I say about twenty in Number he doth nor so much as mention and far less attempt a Solution thereof altho he knew well enough that except these be untyed the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely dissolved But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments as he doth all along he giveth the World a meer Contract of his Apologie under the cheating Title of a Vindication But when his adversarie saith That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith Rom. 9 19. The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things 1. That this is all one as if a Quaker should say confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine and therefore dispute no more untill Thou first do that But the Man is good where there is little to do But if he had not intended to play the shifter he had condescended upon some particular place as his adversarie did otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did when he objected to his pursuing Enemie That he could not be subdued because of the â—pacious Countries thorow which it behoved Him to follow him 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession chap 3. Where saith he he may have his misapprehensions corrected But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors as Twiss Rutherford Dickson to whom his Adversarie in this very point did refer him 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice Notwithstanding of which Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquirie into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian called William Parker who is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine as clearly as the sun-light Having therefore made diligent search at length I found the book in which Chap 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation which how he hath done comes now to be weighed And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection