Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	let_v	people_n	pharaoh_n	1,979	5	10.4708	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	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 Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

against our Confession Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself That it seems there are some to whom God will not shew mercy He answers That the Apostle pre-occupies an Objection which some might make out of the Continuance of Gods Mercy still to the Children of Israel but withdrawn from Edom as before What shall we say is there unrighteousness with God Next that Exod. 33 19. here cited by the Apostle speaks not of Gods first Grace which he gives to all alike but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly and answerably to the first as Moses had done To which I reply 1. That he makes his Objection pre-occupied by the Apostle to be no Objection For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it and his withdrawing the same from Esau upon the abuse thereof none could infer with any colour of reason That there is unrighteousness with God seing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof And so according to him the Apostle was triffling all the while Again any that runneth not into willful prejudice may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason by far than our Author maketh it to have for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse of the absolute rejection of some while others were Elected which Doctrine carnal reason as it doth yet knew too well how to wrest And from this Doctrine according to carnal Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature Yea the most absolute imaginable Now if the objection had been such an one as this Arminian professeth it there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election which distinction we have already rejected for this Distinction of Grace in first and second it is groundless for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text viz. Exod 33 19. That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith causing Moses irresistibly yet sweetly walk in Gods Statutes But leaving him to use well or abuse the grace gotten Now he must prove this from the Text if he would conclude any thing from it moreover If Moses speak only of a second grace here which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceed then this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects whom he ought to reward or punish according to their desert and not to whom he will only And so this Text shall destroy it self Lastly if the exposition of this universalist were sound then the Apostles Conclusion which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow but rather the quite contrary thereof For if God give a first grace to all and that so sufficient that it lyes only in Mans will to come or not to come unto God and that Man hath power either to will or nill at pleasure either to turn or not to turn to God and yet notwithstanding some come and some come not then all that makes the one to differ from the other is certainly of him that willeth The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be meer of Mercy yet Man can both will and run in some sort as this Scripture imports because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose For the Argument which may be framed from this verse and it is not of him that willeth Ergo Election or the purpose of God one of which words must of necessity be supplyed from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of necessity must be understood here shall want a Noun is not an effect of the will of Man or of his good works moving God thereunto Now this Argument is not touched by the answer as is of it self apparent He therefore here delivereth up the cause and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will or run in the way of Gods Commandments than these words in Ezek. 36.22 32. Not for your sake and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses And 1. He desires us To note that here the Lord doth not say for this purpose I have created thee but raised thee up or brought thee upon the Stage But this is the vainest of evasions for none but an Athiest can deny that God from all Eternitie did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end for which in time he raised him up and consequently that he decreed to create him for the same end otherwise God failed of his first end and was forced to betake himself to the next best Which to affirm is to make God a Man and so to profess atheism with open face yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man seing according to it the omniscient God did creat Pharaoh for an end which he knew he was never to obtain But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage but also created to the end that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction is clear from Pro 16.4 Where it is said that God made wrought formed or created for all these will the word Pagnal bear all things for Himself yea even the wicked the Spirit of God holding forth that this is a Paradox unto the day of evil 2. He sayes That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebell as is evident Exod 8.2 But what he would hence inferr is not evident except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it That which he sayes in the third place viz. That God shewed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him As also his fourth observation viz. that he makes him of unwilling willing to let his People go is meer nothing For himself here on the matter grants That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom He was destinat to destruction and his day of grace gone otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense Therefore it follows That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh And that his causing of him to let the people

in the Scripture that is a Duty upon me or which I am obliged to Obey because there recorded Whatsoever is a Command to me I must not receive from any man or thing without me nay not the Scripture it self yea it is the greatest Error in the world that ever was invented and the ground of all Error to Affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians 3. By this time I have abundantly justified my Charge having set down already so much of this blasphemous Doctrine as I am confident hath filled my Reader with Horrour and Indignation if he retain but the least spark of Christianity or love to the Holy Scriptures And O that while we consider these Abominations we could mourn and tremble in Contemplation of our heavy Transgressions that have provocked the Holy God in his just Judgment to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad and pollute the very Air with their poysonous Breath and pestiferous Blasphemy This last passage I should not have set down were it not that Robert Barclay in his Vindication of his Apology of the many scores of passages quoted out of the Quakers own Books by Mr. Brown to prove the blasphemousness and absurdity of their Doctrine in the Defence of this only adventureth to say somewhat I shal therefore set down what he sayeth and refute the same His words are Vind. Pag. 37. But what he urgeth of this further Pag 57. and 59. from the saying of some Quakers affirming that it 's not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the Reasons above Declared upon this occasion yet because he mentions Benjamin Furley in Rotterdam having some Knowledge of that Matter I answer whether will he say All the Commands in Scripture to every Person therein mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and what binds me not must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess enlightening the understanding to make the Distinction Then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty and sure they cannot obey before they know But if he say that tho they should want that operation of the Spirit and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty yet that they are binding upon them neither Benjamin Furley nor any Quaker will deny But even the Commands of Gods Spirit and the Precepts of the Scripture which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shal be justly condemned for not obeying albeit by the perversness of their hearts and Wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them so that his urging of that Pag. 60 and 61. And his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no Answer yet who could say they could obey to any advantage of their souls without this operation of the Spirit since whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be written by Benjamin Furley he is challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it is very well known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the Sense and before he has answered this Challenge and freed himself from the just Censure of a Callumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the Testimony of their Adversaries Thus he All the Reasons he gave above why he ought not to vindicate the blasphemous Passages cited out of several Quakers were because these Passages were cited by these that are adversaries to Quakers such as Hicks Stalham and the like who still cite Book and Page of the Quakers where they are to be found so truly that this Vindicator hath not one instance to give where they have dealt unfaithfully Hence this Reason according to him proveth his Vindication unworthy of an answer seing the citation of Passages is enough to Vindicate these Authors from an unjust charge Therefore let it be observed that the whole multitude of Passages which are fraughted with Blasphemies and Absurdities even to the begetting of an utter detestation at the Principles of this party in the hearts of all the Lovers of the Holy Scriptures which are cited by Mr. Brown remain without any Vindication or Mollification except that which rendereth the Author of this Vindication ridiculous and the Principles of his party more abominable But let us come to the Matter of Furley of which he sayes he has some Knowledge we may therefore expect a sufficient Resolution about it as for other passages of this Nature he insinuateth a profound ignorance concerning them wherefore he meriteth a sharp Censure from his Brethren for undertaking that of which he was altogether ignorant and they the note of folly for the permission of the publication of the same for in Reason we ought to suppose that they revised it In the first place The Dilemma wherewith he endeavoureth the Protection of his Brother is altogether impertinent and helpeth him not a whit for seing he insinuateth that there are no subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any this Dilemma if it can do any thing it will only be Argumentum ad hominem And so according to the Quakers men shal not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God As for Example to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediat objective Revelation such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets enjoined this unto them Behold Reader the dangerous Conclusion The abominablenesse of which maketh this Vindicator use many Shifts and Tergiversations to varnish the same notwithstanding of which it inevitably recurreth and sticketh fast unto him 2. Neither doth this Dilemma involve his Adversary or any of the Reformed in any thing like the absurd Doctrine of the Quakers for although the subjective illumination of the Spirit be very necessary for the true Understanding of the Scriptures yea and of absolute necessity for such a knowledge of them whereby we know God revealed in them so that we have true Love and Fear and Faith in him as the Effects and Concomitants of this knowledge yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound Reason only can distinguish between Commands given to a particular People for a certain time such as to offer Sacrifice or to abstain from Swines-flesh and these who bind at all times as for example Not to prophane the Name of God or to honour Parents must have abandoned the exercise of Reason 3. While he alledgeth That neither Benjamin Furley or any other Quaker will deny that Scripture Precepts which concern all are binding upon all he openly contradicteth Furley who denyeth that he

go was no infusion of grace in him His 5. note viz That God did not harden Pharaohs heart by infusing any hardness into it but rather used means to soften it and bend his heart to obedience we imbrace withall our heart as to the first part for the second part thereof it is ambiguous For if we understand these words of a real design in God to soften the heart of Pharaoh by these means it is false seing God himself declareth Exod 4.21 Even before these were used toward Pharaoh that he had no such intent but the contrarie thereof He sayes 6ly That the Lord destroyed him not untill his heart byassed and willfully revolted from that inclination of letting Israel go to which the Lord had brought and wrought him So that the Lords pleasure in hardening must out of this example be understood of such as are first or last refractory against his grace and gracious requiring Motions Reply upon as good a ground he might assert that Dives in hell had such inclinations and workings of grace together with power to use them aright if he had pleased which if he had improved aright he might have passed thorow the impenetrable gulf to the place where Lazarus was For Dives Luk. 16.27 28. Had an inclination and a vehement desire that his five Brethren might shun the place of torment in which he was And surely this inclination and desire was as good in it self as Pharaohs of letting Israel go and surely the Motive that prompted Pharaoh to yield to the peoples departure was not a whit better than the motive of this desire in Dives for both were acted by the fear of punishment Hence let the Universalists be ashamed of their first grace seing it is common to these in Hell as well as to these in the World. 2. If this his Doctrine viz. that Pharaoh and every Man else had a sufficient Measure of Grace given them and power to use it well or ill at pleasure according to the good or ill improvement of which they might have been saved or damned be true and this Arminians exposition of Exod 9.16 Here cited by the Apostle be to be received then the Apostles Conclusion vers 16. is a meer Non sequitur for according to his exposition the Lord should not have mercy on whom he will and harden whom he will but these only who will or desire to have Mercy or to be hardned seing this Universalistick Doctrine makes the main and Chief difference betwixt these that are actually saved and not saved to flow from the will of Man which they say has a power to receive or reject Grace and so to be mollified or hardned absolutely at pleasure now I say to say this and yet to assert that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardneth whom he will is no less ridiculouslie contradictorie than if one should say that such a judge had absolute power over such a guilty City to save alive or put to Death all the Citizens at pleasure and yet in the mean while that there were such and such Conditions proposed to this City which they could imbrace or respect as they listed upon the performance of which Conditions this judge could not nor might not put to death any nor save the rejectors thereof He goeth on to comment upon the 9. verse Why doth he yet find fault Who hath resisted his will Thus it seems then that his will in condemning the wicked is irresistible Answer the will of God is manifold First voluntas Signi that which he would have done by Men and that may be resisted or dissobeyed 2 ly Voluntas Beneplaciti that which he is pleased to effect and that either absolutly to be done by himself alone or with others which cannot be withstood or conditionally in case the Creature act his part this Conditional will may also be repugned So that wicked Men can not excuse themselves by the irresistibilitie of the first or last mentioned will of Gods irrevocable decree at length past upon the obstinat and incorrigible sinner which like his powerful and efficacious will is inexpugnable But it is the obdured Mans refractory and inflexible will that hath now made this will or decree of God so peremptorie against him So that God hath just cause to fault and blame the Man that perisheth but not è Contra. Reply in the framing of his Objection he should have inferred that it seems that the Will of God in passing by some while he from all Eternity elected others to Glory and of hardning them in time is irresistible or unchangeable for of these two the Apostle here speaks But let us come to his Answer in which we may observe that this distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti in absolute and conditionat is a meer fiction as appeareth even by the Testimony of Arminius himself who in his Book against Perkins acknowledgeth that voluntas beneplaciti is without limitation effi●acious But 2dly this Distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti in absolute and conditionat makes God as changeable as a man for if the Lord have a real Will and Intention that such and such things be done by some men in order to obtaining such and such Priviledges v. g. Eternal Life then there can be nothing imagined able to hinder the bringing to pass of this desire but two things viz. either the want of Power or a real Change in the Will of God but both those are equally absurd neither let any say here that this will of God is only conditionat in respect of the ends only and not of the Means and Conditions thereof For whosoever willeth any thing he willeth and desireth all the Means and Conditions in order to its bringing to pass and will give a Beeing to all those Conditions if it be in his Power which Power none dare derogat from God. 3dly This Objection as this Arminian propones it is no Objection for in Substance it is this If the Lord hath proposed such Conditions as men can perform and so obtain Salvation and yet obstinatly refuse them so that at length the Lord after their rejection thereof decreeth their Eternal Ruine then he hath no Reason to find fault with Man but the Blame thereof lieth upon himself Now I say to propose the O●jection thus is to render the Apostle ridiculous for there is no more appearance of Reason here than a Subject should have to grumble and repine when he is punished by his Prince for denying Obedience to him which to have performed was in his Power 4ly If the Objection had been of no more seeming strength than this Arminian or Pelagian for all is one alledgeth it to be the Apostle had easily found out another Answer than that which he doth in the following Verses where he stops the Mouth of the Objecter with the absolute Power of God over the Creature shewing that the Creature hath no more Reason to complain that God decreed to pass by some and condemn