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.
in contradictâ—on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that Hâ—rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be
Doctrine Lastly say they If he deny Christ 〈◊〉 be Man we disown him who do say that Christ is both God and Mâ—n This is a good confession And a man that knew them not might easily thinâ— that we wronged them by charging them witâ— the denyal of the Divinity of Christ. But notwithstanding hereof this confession serveth only to prove these Men guilty of most wicked hypocrisie lying and self Contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover their abominations For whosoever taketh but an overly veiw of the passages above cited of George Keiths way cast up he may clearly see that if these passages be true Doctrine the greatest arguments for establishing the Divinity of Christ are for ever gone For I appeal to the writings of all who have refuâ—ed the Doctrine of Arrius and Socinus if prov 8.23 Be not brought as one of the main texts to prove the Eternity and Divinity of Christ as also Psal. 110 by which Christ himself silenced and for ever stopped the mouths of the Pharisees who denyed his God-head Matth. 22 43 44 45 46. Neither is there a greater argument than that by him all things were Created And yet if these forecited passages be true the denyers of Christs Divinity have an easie answer that all these things are verified of Christ as man only And so the greatest arguments for the Divinitie of Christ fall to the Ground Now let any man judge if the Quakers do not what in them lye to overthrow the Divinity of Christ seeing they endeavour to undermine and destroy all the arguments by which it is underpropped Moreover this Doctrine robbeth God of his incommunicable attributs in ascribing Omnipresence or Ubiquitie to a Man. But before I leave this point I propose this dilemma to the Quakers If all things were created by Christ as Man then either the Manhood of Christ is created or not if created then it is created by it self than which there is nothing more absurd If uncreated then there is an uncreated man and a man that is coeternal with God. Which Blasphemie it s hardly able to equalize far lesse to outdo From all which it is most evident that the Quakers doe what in them lyeth to evert the fundamental Doctrines and basis of the Christian Religion viz. the Godhead of Christ. And in this they are more wicked than the professed Arrians or Socinians that they add deep dissimulation and hypocrisie to their horrid impiety whereas the Arrians and Socinians more ingenuous than they profess in words what they really believe It is also clear that in stead of their Christ they embrace a meer chimerical non entity seing there is nothing more contradictiorie than that either the Soul or the Body of a man which is a meer creature can be every where or from Eternitie Lastly observe that the Quakers put no distinction betwixt their Christ and their light within and that the light within is nothing but the smal dark Relicts of the Image of God or the dimm light of nature as we have already evinced And so their Christ their God and all that is dear unto them resolve at length into this almost quenched spunk in which all who have trusted in stead of finding the safe port of Eternal happiness have alwayes met with certain Shipwrack In favours of this Spiritual AntiChrist or Antichristian figment which they account for their Christ they decry vilifie and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be precious and dear to a Christian for what will they not deny seing they deny the Godhead of Christ they therefore with open mouth blaspheme and deny Jesus Christ as a person without them or as any thing distinct from their Imaginary Christ or light within of many which we could cite take a few passages for proof hereof first Geo Whith Dip. Pl. pag 13. Jesus Christ a person without us is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphits and Mugletonians And in his Appen to Reas against Rail pag 21. The Socinian telleth us of a personal Christ and that the man Christ Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth a humane body but doth he believe him to be the eternal God while he imagineth him to be a personal Christ a humane Body so Limited and confined to a remotness And William Pen counterfit christian pag 77 78. Give me one place that mentioneth Christ to be a distinct person without us art thou destitute of common Sense as to think of proving the Quaker no christian because he denyeth that Doctrine not expressed in the Scripture George Fox Great Myst 206 If there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within he is the false Christ and he that hath not this Christ that was risen and crucified within is a reprobate Though Devils and reprobats may make a talk of him without And Great Myst pag 207 God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints nor his Body for he is within them not distinct from their Spirits Ib. pag 16. Such are deceived that say Christ is distinct from His Saints Moreover the Quakers Doctrins Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 33 in opposition to Mr. Henry Foreside who said that Christ mourned over Jerusalem as He was Humane answer as for the Word Humane it is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language Certainly by this speech of these Quakers no other thing can be understood but that Christ hath no Humane Nature For though the word Humane were not found in the Scripture if the thing imported by it be found in Scripture then they must confesse themselves to have been ridiculous and purposeless pratlers which I believe they will not do and therefore its evident that they deny the Humane Nature of Christ. Again the Quakers speak as contemptibly of the Body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as if he were the basest of Men as these words of Isaac Peningtoun witnesse can outward blood cleanse We must enquire therefore saith he whether it was the blood of the Vail Or of that Spiritual Man viz. of Flesh Blood and bones which took on Him the Vail or Humane Nature And the Mystery of iniquitie Lyeth in the Blood of Christ sayeth Edward Billings And Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlock who had said that Christ was not capable of Faith and Repentance saith here I charge thee to be a lyar and Slanderer for he was capable of Faith and Repentance What then is clearer than that according to these Mens Doctrinâ— the Spotless Lamb of God was really defiled with sin and stood in need of another Saviour to believe in Moreover as we have already heard they still distinguish between the outward inward body of Christ wickedly absurdly ascribing to their imaginarie inward body of Christ all that the Scripture attributeth to the Blessed Body of Christ that dyed at Ierusalem such as sufferings Death Resurrection and â—he like by which distinction
they render as much as in them lyeth the passion Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus at Ierusalem altogether vain and idle actions And in favours of this their inward body they call the body that our Lord took of the Virgin Mary only a garment and that it 's no constituent of Christ and that Luke 2.26 Where it s said that it was revealed to Simeon that he should not dye till he should see the Lord 's Christ is to be understood of a Spiritual sight or of seeing the Christ within Will. Pen. Rej. to Iohn Faldo part 2th c. 9. 4. As these men deny Christ himself so they deny consequently all the benefits purchased by him For they say that Christ dyed only to be a pattern and example to Believers hence Will. Pen sandy found pag. 26 sayeth unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our example to fulfill we can never be Iustified before God Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance but only as their pattern Thus it is evident that the Quakers are altogether Socinians in their Judgments of the ends of the death of Christ and so joyn themselves closs with them and Papists in the Doctrine of Justification yea Rob. Bar. denieth not but that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Counsel of Trent For the proof of which let the reader compare Mr. Brown Chap. 13. N. 8. with Rob. Barclay his Vindication Sect. 8. N. 1. and Apol p. 137.139 He accuseth Luther and the Body of the Primitive protestants as great depravers of the Doctrine of Iustification doers of as great hurt by this their doctrine as ever they did good by what they brok down of Babylon But I will give you their doctrine yet more fully in their own words first Will. Pen serious Apol pag 148. Hath these words and indeed this we deny viz. Justification by the righteousness that Christ fulfilled in his own person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm in the Name of the Lord to be a doctrine of Devils and an arm of the Sea of Corruption which now doth deludge the World. And again Edward Burrows p. 33. To that query of Philip Binnet viz. Whether none be accounted righteous in the sight of God in whom is any Corruption or failing or who do not fulfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice Answereth thus Here thou polluted Beast makes it manifest what thou hast been driving at all this while which is that thou would have thy corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteousness in Gods sight that so thou mayest wallow in filthiness but Iohn sayeth he that commits sin is of the Devil the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil and thou Man of Sin would have it stand God doeth not accept any where there is any failing or who do not fullfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice And Will. Pen Reas against Rail pag 80. We must not conceive that his viz. Abrahams personal offering was not a justifying righteousness but that God was pleased to count it so nor was there any imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham but on the contrary his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation therefore that any should be justified by anothers righteousness imputed and not inherent in him is both ridiculous and dangerous Edward Burrows pag 32. Thou Beast to whom the plagues of God are due and upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished who would have another righteousness than that which Christ worketh in the Saints Pen. San Fund pag 25. Justification is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but from the actual performing and keeping of Gods righteous statutes Ibid. pag 25.30 It is a great abomination to say God should condemn and punish his innocent Son that he having satisfied for our sins we might be justified by the imputation of of his perfect righteousness Why should this horrible thing be contended for by Christians 5. With the like fâ—cility I could shew that the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrarie to the Doctrine of Christ contradicting and vilifying all his Ordinances and denying all his benefits I shall content my self with one great instance viz. Of the Resurrection of the dead Concerning which point the Quakers are downright Sadducees For in the hearing of many witnesses Geo Whitehead said This Body shall not rise again Hicks Quak appeal ans pag 21. and Will pen. Reas. against Rail p. 133. Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with the Scripture Reason and the belief of all Men right in their wits And Ibid pag 34. For shame Let us not make such stirr against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of that is rather outdone than equaled by this carnal Resurrection And the same William Pen in his Invalidity I should have said his Validitie seeing he all along Justifieth his adversaries charges of Mr. Faldos Vindication hath a Chapter prolix enough to defend his down right Sadducism Yea what is more clear in all the Scriptures than Christs visible appearance to judgment And yet Geo Whith Christ Ascended so that according to him he shall never descend pag 22. Sayeth they are like to be deceived who are expecting that Christs second coming will be a personal coming And Ib. he denyeth that he shall come visibly for although sayeth he He shall come in the like manner yet every like is not the same And no wonder it is that the Quakers deny the visible return of Christ to Judgement seing they deny that Christ hath any personal being without men Thus speaketh the same Author pag 18. And again pag 69. Christ in person remot in a Body of Flesh and not in Men is not Scripture Language but added But it is needless to adduce moe passages to shew the detestableness of this Seck enough being said already to discover it I shall only add the words of a Leading Quaker related by Hicks Quak Appeal Ans. pag 12. who being asked what he thought of Christ Jesus born at Bethlehem and dying at Ierusalem answered Iesus Christ at Ierusalem a Type a Figure a shadow that is passed away what have you to do with Christ at Ierusalem have done with him From all this it is evident that according to the Quakers there is not such a thing now in beeing as Christ Jesus that died at Jerusalem And as they deny Christ the Son of God so they arrogat to themselves by a most Diabolical Sacriledge whatsoever the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath appropriated to Christ Jesus of which Lucifer-like aspiring take a taste Iosiah Coal an eminent Quaker thus writeth to Geo Fox Dear Geo Fox who art the Father of many Nations whose life hath reached through us thy Children even to the Isles afar off unto
the begetting of many to a lively hope for which generations to come shall call thee blessed whose beeing and habitation is in the power of the highest in which thou rules and Governs in Righteousness and thy Kingdom is Established in peace and the increase thereof without end Date 21. day of the 12 Moneth 1658. See Tyr detected pag 19. CHAP. VI. Of Perfection ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers together with their miserable defence thereof We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles The first of which shall be that of Perfection The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point is In whom this pure holy birth is fully brought forth the Body of death and sin cometh to be crucified and removed and their hearts united and subjected to the truth so as not to obey any Suggestions or Temptations of the evil one to be free from actual sinning and Transgressing of the Law of God and in that respect perfect Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning where the mind doeth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. These are the words of his eight These And afterward he sayeth that there may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine which is our main purpose Having vind Sect 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing and in rejecting his own Brethrens books such as Sauls errand to Damascus In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl pag 30. I say rejecting these or denying that they have said them for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page where they are In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly by saying that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life is understood a change in the whole man so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God though in a small degree yet that he may seem to say somewhat he enquireth How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought word deed In answer to which question it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory Seing he may know if he will that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as parts and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God and consequently a sin to be deficient in the one as well as in the other And whereas he enquireth if to break Gods Commands dayly in thought word and deed be the way to grow in grace To put off the Old Man and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom viz. maliciously to calumniate For who said such a thing Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this We shall attend his proofs of it Which untill we hear we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies For though we say according to the Scripture that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death which defileth all their actions Yet where did any of the reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace as this Man insinuateth they do What kind of light is this he has that teacheth him such a facultie of lying He goeth on saying but he addeth that this perfection rendereth gospel commands useless but are the Commands useless if men obey them But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law as the Quakers say many may be has no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to the obedience thereof And where is his vain subterâ—uge now But that he may yet further contradict himself and his Brethren He sayeth He has shewn in his Apology that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For if some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a bodie of death The most that they have to do is to give thanks and not to pray or repent For I think he will not say that they pray or repent which are in heaven These duties presupponing sorrow of which they are incapable And far lesse Horresco referens these that are equals with God. In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride and security he sayeth but where freedom from sin is where can Pride and Security have place Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3 27 as to this Argument For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works It might then have been as well replyed If a man be perfectly Just and so without sin how can he incur the fault of boasting 2. How will he shew but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake as if they were secure from sinning when indeed they are not Whereas he sayeth that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and prayer for forgiveness of God We only refer him to Rom 3.8 where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus And why Because sayes he they must be made useful in breaking the Commands in thought word and deed His reason is a Calumnie if it have sense at all What Ordinance teacheth which we maintain that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God that the Ordinances may be the more useâ—â—l to us If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two and three are not five But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of so long as she is militant He goeth on to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat could sin at all but would be beyond the possibility of it Which inference is very clear for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9 He that is born of God doeth not commit sin Which place they abuse taking it without restriction not attending to the context speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin and of a commission of it from Malice like the devil and the wicked his Children Which absurdity that he may evite He assureth that a man is not regene rat
them for their Iniquity than the clay of the same lump hath to complain of the Potters Unjustice because he did not destinat it for as honourable an use as another part of the same Mass. In short if the Objection could be so framed as that there could be an Answer thereto found out suiting the Genius of Humane Reason which is the Scope of our Author here and all the rest of his Brethren then there should be an indissolvable and more than Gordian knot cast to any that were perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures for considering the Apostles Answer in the following Verse they should have but too much Ground to suspect most vehemently that the Apostle was not assisted with the Divine Spirit who betook himself for Sanctuary to the absolute Power of God in the case wherein he or any man else might have sweetly satisfied Reason and not thus stopt its mouth by imposing as it were an imperious silence and left it far less quieted than they found it That which he commenteth upon v. 20 is not a whit lesâ— vain than the rest the Substance of which is that the Apostle in this v. stops the Mouth of these who complained that God created them with Liberty of will and so with power of falling to which saith he it is answered that this Faculty might be improved to the Salvation of the Creature as well as to the glory of Gods grace To which we Reply that no such Interpretation can be gathered from the Text for the Objection proposed in the former v doth not in the least intend from the Liberty of Mans Will to do Good or Evil to conclude that Man is not guilty but rather God. But from the Immutability and Irresistibility of Gods Will and Decree of passing by and rejecting some as he did with Esau the Objecter endeavoureth to free Man from Guilt and fix it upon God neither is he a whit happier in taking up of the Apostles Answer for the Apostle doth not flee to the Liberty of Mans will that he may draw his Answer hence but the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature and that 〈◊〉 an one as he hath who possesseth wood Iron Clay or such Materials and is wilfull to make various Kinds of Instruments which may serve either for honourable or dishonourable uses but these Materials that are appointed by the Owner and Artist thereof cannot be said to be wronged by him or to have any Ground of Complaint and that by Reason of the absolute Power that the Owner and Artist hath over them even as any of Mankind that from all Eternity are passed by and rejected of God and destinat to Destruction for Gods own Glory as it is said Prov. 16.4 have no Reason to complain Now in this Analogy lies the Strength of the Apostles answer which who ever denyes shal never be able to find the Sense of this Text. Hence it appears whether ignorantly or maliciously I know not that this Arminian hath come short of uptaking either Objection or Answer But most of all absurd is what he sayeth in his Commentary rather depravation of the 21 v. viz. That as the Potter makes no Vessels of set Purpose to be broken tho he makes some for dishonourable uses So the Lord makes none of the Sons of men of Purpose to be destroyed tho he makes some Superiours and Inferiours in the Church and Common-wealth I say this is most of all absurd for it is as clear as if written with a Sunbeam that the Apostle is here speaking nothing of high and low Degrees in Church or State but of these who perish and these who are saved Eternally according to this Explication every one that is in low Degree should be a Vessel of Wrath fitted for Destruction Seing none can deny that this is all one with a Vessel of Dishonour as also every one that is in high Degree in Church or State should be a Vessel of Mercy aforetime prepared unto Glory and one of Gods called Ones as the Apostle was whose calling I think was effectual and so certainly a Saint such a mark of Believers and Unbelievers was never heard before To Corroborat what he sayes on this Verse he gives us his notes on Jer. 18.3 4 5. among which one is that the Lord expostulates with Israel for not suffering him to mould them a new To which we answer that it will no more follow from this place that the Heart of corrupt man is stronger in resisting than the Power of God and that God cannot make men of unwilling to become willing which is the meaning of our Adversaries Words than real ignorance of what was to come may be concluded to be in God from Isa. 5.4 and 59.16 Other notes he has upon this place such as That the Lord forms men a new by Force or Violence but works with them as free Agents serving for nothing except to declare this Authors maliciousnesse for he here insmuates that the Reformed Churches judge that God deals with a sinner in his Conversion as if he were a Stone or a Bruit the contrair of which appeareth from their Confessions and in special in the Confession which he here impugneth Ch. 10.1 He goeth on to comment upon the 22 verse where he says That it is not so much as implyed that these Vessels of wrath spoken of in this verse by the Apostle were fitted by the Lord to Destruction Yea saith he the contrary is imported where the Apostle sayes That 〈◊〉 endureth them with much long suffering For if God created them or designed them of purpose to Destruction things had succeeded according to his hearts desire In Reply to these Cavils we find no difficulty for God may be as well said to fit men to Destruction as he is said to harden some verse 18. For I think none will deny but hardening is a fitting to Destruction 2. I think none dare deny that even while God was hardening Pharaohs heart he was exercising his long suffering patience in permitting him to fulfill his course of sin Augustin de Civit. Dei Lib. 16. sayes God of the same Mass condemned through Original sin did as a Potter make one to honour and another to dishonour Our Author sayeth moreover That it is not said they were created but fitted for Destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reply Altho our Adversary loves alwayes to pass over the Connection of the verses of this Chapter as indeed he hath good reason to do he notwithstanding may permit us to consider it In which we shall find that men may be said to be fitted to wrath even as some part of the lump of clay is fitted by the Potter for Vessels of Dishonour But it is appointed for this dishonourable use as soon as it is appointed to be vessels But so it is That the Lord so ordereth of men as the Potter of his Clay as the Apostle here shewes It is clear therefore That by this word Fitted must be understood among other things Appointed or Decreed He goeth on to Comment on the 23 verse where among some other things which he hath not to the Purpose that he intendeth he asserts That this preparing of the Vessels of Glory is not attributed to Gods Eternal Decree And in this he is but like himself who as we have heard above denyeth on the matter that there is any Decree of God concerning the Salvation or Damnation of men in particular before death Altho at another time as we have also heard he sticketh not to contradict this But that this preparation is Attributed to the Decree of God is clear not only from the Scope of the Apostle and the Energie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also from no few other Scriptures such as Eph. 1. 4 5 6 7. A length to shut up this Discourse Let the Reader Observe with me 1. That tho men bring full Wain-loads of Arguments in appearance like Goliâ—h's Sword from the Armorie of corrupt Reason whereby to overthrow the genuine meaning of this place they are not to be regarded neither on this account are we to be moved or shaken as touching the behalf of this place For in so far as we are shaken from it through the force of these Reasons We yield to these great Adversaries of Christ Jesus the Socinians that grand Principle of all Orthodox Christians viz. that Reason as well as the rest of the Scriptures Rivals ought to strike fail and yeild preheminency thereto as being the entire and ultimat Rule of the Faith and Mannerâ— of a Christian. This I have good reason to note here For there be many that though they cannot but perceive this Text to be without the highest violenting and detorting thereof utterly incapable of any other sense than what the Reformed and in especial our Reverend Westminister Assembly give upon it still notwithstanding alledge that on the account of their most powerful Reasons to the contrary This our meaning is not to be received seek another where we will. 2. That if there be a Doctrine in all the Holy Scriptures out of the râ—â—ch of and far above the Line of Humane Reason contrary to Corrupt Reason and in its Estimat repugnant to all Reason as certainly there is then no man will deny but that this Doctrine of Eternal Election and Reprobation is one of the chief oâ— such Doctrines as having for its Object that which iâ— no less Impervestigable than Eternity no less unfathomable than Immensity no less Incomprehensible than he whose very name is Wonderful and so wonderful that none can know it even God himself according to his Eternal actings and workings 3ly That this place of Scripture is one of the chief Seats of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation Hence we most rationally infer that in agitation of this great Controversy If any Scriptures be brought which seemingly for none do it really speak contrary to this Text Light is to be brought from this place for expounding and clearing up the meaning of these seemingly repugnant Scriptures 〈◊〉 rather that ê contra these should be made 〈◊〉 Standard and Guide in exposition of this FINIS