wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an
their Fathers transgressions only To whom the Lord asserteth that they had sin enough themselves for which they might be punished doth not at all say that no sin can be imputed to another this meaning we say beside that it is evident from the Context must of necessity be admitted otherwise there shall be a flat contradiction between this and many other texts As for example the second Command This text Mr. Broun pag 119. cleared and everted what the Quakers had said from this place therefore he in his Vindication pag 55. not being in case to force the texâ— to speak for him again saith the words are plain The Son shall not die for the Fathers iniquity And therefore they must stand to the overthrow of his Adversaries Doctrine Such a Combâ—tâ—nt as this is not fit for a second essay CHAP. IV. Of GOD. IN this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Unchristian the maintainer thereof 1. That they deny the holy Trinity with Arrius and Sabellius 2 That their Doctrine maketh God the Author of in 3. That they hold the Soul of Man to be God. First we shall evince that this Sect really denyeth the Trinity of persons in the God-head and is as abominable if not more as the old Arrians Sabellians Macedonians or the latter Arrians as the Socinians And in the first place we shall give you the words of George Fox a Quaker of great note in his â—rimer to Europe pag 37. What is the Trinity in Unity and whether all these words be â—ot of mens Wisdom and Teaching Ans. To every particular Query word that is queried of you here and what was their first ground and root and â—o the light bring it out and the fiâ—st â—uthor of â—hem and whether or no all this body hath not gotten up since the Apostacy in the transgression where mens wisdom teacheth words and the words the Holy Ghost teacheth is foolishness to them Whether or not this is so Answer me yea or no What are the three Persons in the Trinity How are the three Persons subsistences of the Diety How is the Trinity not the number numbering but the number numbered How is the opinion of the Trinity not only a Church Tradition but a Doctrine expressed in the Scriptures How is the word Hypostasis which you acknowledge any singular Substance used Metaleptically or by taking one thing for another for a person Heb 1.2 Since ye say a person is a singular â—ational and compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable property Answer me this and all the Terms and Words and Queries and things before mentioned What be the Wisdom that hath taught them and Ground and Root they are come from And whether or not they have all come up amongst Christians since the days of the Apostles And learned of the Heathens that knew not Gâ—d that transgressed the life that had nothing but their own Wisdom to teach them who was taught by their own Wisdom and whether that is not pleasing to a carnal man that knows not the things of God How are the Words Persons Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ye grant are not found in so many Syllables in the Scriptures yet agree thereto And George Keith in his Quak No Popery pag 47.104 Sayeth that To speak of Persons in the God-head is an uncertain unscriptural Notion and a barbarous heathnish Terme The Doctrine and Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 19 20. It is a lie that the Scripture doth declare of the three persons or of the Trinity Add to all this that in all theiâ— Treatises there iâ— nothing found concerning the Holy Trinity except enough of this kind of Doctrine of which we have given the Reader a taste I will in the second place shew that thiâ— Doctrine is all one if not worse with the Doctrine of the execrable Arrians For their Doctrine was That the Son is separated or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of God the Father In oppositionâ— o which The Council of Nice sayes chap· I. in their Symbol That the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the same individual Substance with the Father Rufin lib. 1. Now it is to be observed whoever hitherto contradicted the Doctrine of this Nicen Symbol were accounted by all Christians Arrians And upon this ground abominated by the whole Church Cane pejus et angue as they speak Next I assert that whosoever denyed that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri that is of the same individual Substance with the Father were by all the Orthodox counted Arrians So that in that unhappy Council of Ariminum when the Arrian Bishops had deceived some of the simpler sort through their Sophistry and made them through their own simpliciâ—y and ignorance of the Greek-tongue to grant that the Son was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri they were judged to involve them in the profession of Arrianism which is clear from Ruf. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1 Cap. 2â— The Argument wherewith they endeavour to prove that the Son was not Consubstantial with the Father was that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in Scripture which appears from this last cited Author They used also this Argument at a Convention at Carthage in the time of Hunnericus with such impudent clamours that they deafned their hearers Christianus Matthias in his Theat Hist. pag 744. So the Reader may seâ— here that the Quakers have learned both their Doctrine and Proofs thereof from the Arrians They ought therefore to have the Name seing they have the thing I will here subjoin the words of a late Arrian in a Pamphlet of his called Antith Christ et Antichristi which the Reader may find inserted and refuted in the 7 Tom. of Zinchius his Works which Words are his 20 Antith to be found in Zaâ—ch Col. 872. 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast the Form of sound Words which thou hast learned of me The Apostle enjoined this to Timothy and aâ—â— tâ—e Ministers of the Church to the end that they may flee strange Words and Phrases in speaking concerning God and the Mysteries of Faith that they may be content with these which he himself used in delivering the Doctrine of Religion these words Trinity Essence three persons â—n one eâ—â—â—nce altho they be neither used by Christ nor Paul but invented by the Councils and Fathers yet say the Orthodox they are necessarily to be keeped in the Church therefore let them confess as the matter is that they are not the disciples of Christ and the Apostles seing so rashly they strive against their precepts and the divine similitude wherewith the Prophets and Apostles did holily expresse the Mystery of the knowledge of God and Christ being laid aside they study new Forms and in teaching the Church they have the same oftentimes in their Mouth not without vile Ignominy boâ—h to the doctrine and Church of Christ.
he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by Christ in the new and hath precept or Authority from it as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
swelling with wind can be said to be filled with water yea without all exception or restriction they are called sensual I think few that care what they say will affirm that such have the Spirit of God where doth the Apostle in all this Epistle ever compare these men to these that have money but do not occupy it as the Quakers groundlesly and therefore falsly give out and yet these are the men who cry out upon us for making any Paâ—aphrases upon or Consequences from Scripture though never so clearly deduced from the Text while they themselves by more than a poetick license obâ—rude upon the world flat contradictions of Scripture for the meaning thereof Add â—o these that some things are absolutly necessary to be known in order to Salvation the Knowledge of which can never be evinced that all men had or have therefore it is most groundlesse to assert that all men have a sufficient light to guide them to eternal life to which Robert Barclay replyeth that the knowledge of these things is only necessary necessitate praecepti that is because they are commanded us not necessitate medii i. e. in plain English That Faith in Iesus Christ the knowledge of the Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost or that Christ is God and Man c. is not needful in themselves to be known or believed in order to Salvation but how little soever respect he hath to the Scriptures he ought to have had some care and consideration of his own Doctrine for his first These is these words John 17.3 this is eternal life c. where it is plainly asserted without any distinction or limitation that the Knowledge of the Father and the Son as one sending and one that is sent and therefore distinct the one from the other is called eternal life it self i. e if any thing a mean so necessary to eternal life as that without this knowledge it cannot be obtained Moreover the very Notion of Faith without which none can be saved implyeth nothing lesse than a closing with God through Christ and therefore necessarily and of its own nature and not with a respect to a command only presupposeth the knowledge of the distinction of Father and Son and of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ held forth under the Old Testament as one to be incarnate in the fulness of time and in the New Testament as actually incarnate and really and in due Time come in the Flesh. 9ly Before I come to the Quakers Objections I will overthrow one other of the Quakers Principles upon which the whole Fabrick of Quakerism is builded which is That in fallen man there remain no reliques of the Image of God and that by the fall his understanding is so darkned that he cannot by all the Light of Conscience reason and common notions perceive or gather from all or any of the works of creation and providence that there is a Supâ—em being or a God that created him and all things bâ—side In a word they utterly deny that which is called the natural knowledge of God or natural Theology and deny moreover that man in his fallen state can think or do any thing that is in it self or as to the substance of the action â—ood This Doctrine which the Quakers have learned from their dear Friends the Socinians as they are constrained to defend so seeing they assert that every Son and Daughter of Adam have within them a light and guide sufficient for Salvation and the World clearly perceiveth that there is no Light common to all Mankind except some smal Relicts of that once bright shining Image of God like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lanthorn which are never able to shew the wandring Traveler in the dark night his way homeward They are necessitate to say that this Light is supernatural and a fruit of the purchase of Christ and consequently that man as to the things of God hath no more Natural Light than an Ox or Asse See Rob Barclay's fourth These and his Apology cap 4. and Vindication sect 5. 10ly The falshood of this Doctrine we evince by these following arguments and 1. It is not imaginable how one can be rational and yet not be in case to infer from all the works of Creation that there is a supream cause and beeing we say this is not imaginable except to a Socinian and Quaker who can imagin at least say they can imagin what they will. Now the Quakers Quakerism confirm pag 3. Grant that Conscience and Reason are distinguished from the saving Light of Christ in all men and the Revelation thereof as a natural and super-principle natural are distinguished Well then seing reason is natural and man is rational how can he if he but contemplat these admirable Works of Creation and Providence and exercise his reason in so doing not conclude that these are the Product of an Infinit and Omnipotent Creator who is to be Loved Feared and Adored which thoughts of themselves or as to the substance of the Action are certainly good and more Laudable than the Quakers silent waiting which differeth nothing from sleeping although they place a principal part of their worship therein 11ly Secondly whatever is in man and common to all Mankind is natural but some sparks of the knowledge of a Deity as also some thoughts and desires that are good in themselves as for example the desire of self-preservation are in man and common to all mankind Ergo some Relicts of the knowledge of God and thoughts that are of themselves really good are natural The Major is most evident for I defy all the Socinians and Quakers in the world to give one Instance to the contrary the Minor is no lesse undenyable seing there is no nation in the world tho never so barbarous and inhumane who hath not some notions of a Deity and desire to preserve themselves But I know the Quakers dare not deny it otherwayes they will overthrow all their universal Grace and Light by them pleaded for 12ly Thirdly that which is originally born with every one and groweth up to more and more maturity as he in whom it is groweth up is undoubtedly natural But some remainders of the knowledge of God are Originally i e. in the principle and inclination as they speak born with man and grow up to more and more maturity according to the growth of him in whom they are Ergo they are natural The Major is beyond controversie The Minor therefore they can only deny which yet is no lesse clear than the major for they grant that some things that respect natural Sciences and the prudent management of the affairs of the world are not supernatural See the fore-cited Vindication page 52. But certain it is that some sparkles of the knowledge of a Deity are as common and appear as early as these things which they deny not to be natural 13ly Fourthly That which is common to Devils is not supernatural but to know
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or persona See the same Author Col. 783 De Libris Ephremi Pariarchae Theopolitani where he confirmeth at large this our assertion Now observe serious Reader of how great a consequence in the Judgement of those who are in this great point most Orthodox the right or wrong use of these words about which we now treat was esteemed and also that they took them in the same sense for which we now plead But I forbear to add more out of the anâ—ients For Calvin Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 2. affirmeth this our proposition of all the Ancient Orthodox without exception and Socinus ingenuously confesseth it Of the Modern writers I affirm the same as is clear from Calvin ibid. and Tremellius in His version of the Text out of the Syriak Pomeâ—ranus on the place and others It is clear then thâ—â— we have both name and thing in Scripture and indeed this Text doth so clearly hold forth this trulie Catholick Doctrine that George Keith is forced to discover that which he by all means endeavoureth to palliat For Truth Defended p. 76.79 He sayeth that this Text is to be understood speaking of Christ as Man only Now I am sure if he could make out this he should do a piece of non such service unto the Arrians and Socinians for this is one of the Texts that they with greatest Care endeavour to pervert and wrest and the Orthodox to vindicate inferring alwayes from it the Divinity of Christ but this he shall never be able to make out for there is nothing more clear than that the whole Context and Scope of the Apostle doth evince that this place speaketh of Christ as God and again who dâ—re say except the Arrians and Socinians with George Keith that Christ as Man can be called the Brightness of the Fathers Glory or the express Image or Character of the Father Man indeed was made according to the Image of God but certain it is that no Creature in Scripture is called the Image of the Father hence when Christ Col 1.15 Is called the Image of the invisible God Divines take the the word GOD for the person of the Father neither at all can it be otherwise understood for Christ is there called the first born of every Creature and he by whom all things were Created and Consist Hence Christ must be called the Image of the invisible God according to his God-head and by â— good Consequence by God must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subsâ—stâ—ncâ— from that of the Son. From all which I conclude that so firm is the Truth of our Doctrine that the very things that seem to infringe and weaken it resolve only into a fair Occasion of and making way for its clearer Evidence and stronger Corroboration Add to all this that the primitive Church carefully retained these Words and Phrases as either being in Scripture in Terminis or bottomed thereon and as being the true Symbols of these Divine Things whereby the Church might most fitly express her mind and repel the Sophistry of Hereticks both before but espâ—cially after the rise of the Arrian Heresie Hâ—nce Iustin Martyr hath a book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes a Person of the Holy â—rinit◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Damasâ—â—â—e Orth. fide and others follow him in this Description These and the like Phrases are generally found in the works of the Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian and others before the rise of Arrianism but especially after it as Augustin Athanasius Hilarius Cyrillus Alexandrinus Eusebius Rufinus Sozomenes and many others divers of which as Augustin Athanasius hath books with Titles expresly concerning the Holy Trinity But as I saâ—d before after the rise of the Arrian and Sabellian Heresies the Church with greater Care and Acuracy distinguished the words Substance and Subsistence as he that pleases may see in Ruf. l. i. Cap. 29 and in the History of Sozomenes writing of the Council of Alexandria Notable also to thâ—â— purpose and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius who in his Symbol thus speaketh Whosoever will be saved before all thingâ— it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Faith except every man keep wholly and inviolat without doubt he shall eternally pâ—rish this truly is the right Cathoâ—ick Faith that we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity without confounding the Persons neither separating the Substance c. From which Time to this day the Church hath Religiously Observed these Words and Phrases whereby She might express the Truth and distinguish her self from that Porphyrian sect of the Arrians as Câ—â—stantin the great called â—hem and other Hereâ—ickâ— By this Time. I am confident that he that will not close his Eyes may perceive that the Doctrine of Quakers is all one with that of Arrians Macedonians Sabellians which is the purpose of this Discourse But yet ex abundanti I will transcrib a Passage or two further The first of which is in Truth Def. This compleat Arrian and self contradicter having said pag 75. That It is only the â—â—scriptural Terms of Trinity and Persons which he denyeth and not the Mystery pag 77. He giveth himself the lie and palpably bewrayeth his Arrianism in these words And if Io Alexander â—ir definition of a Person be received that it is an Intelligent Beeing subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I do not see for my part but that three Persons at this â—ate shall infer 〈◊〉 Intelligent Beeings subsisting incommunicably and consequently three Gods. Behold Reader the the Arrian dashing against the same stumbling-stone upon which Arrians and Socinians have alwayes broken their necks For upon this very Account that it seemed to them to infer three Gods the Arrians and Sabellians of old and the Socinians at this day always malign and endeavour what they can to render odious that most necessary Doctrine of the Holy Trinity With this passage of George Keith well agreeth what Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock impiously belloweh forth pag 19. That there is no Scripture for the Catholick Faith and Trinity and three Persons Before I passe this Matter I cannot but take Notice of the strange dealing of George Keith attempting to make Augustin a Patroniser of his Arrian Doctrine For in Truths Def Cap 5. The Quaker hâ—th these Words And indeed Augustin in his 5 and 7 Books of the Trinity not only sayeth the Words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them as I suppose Io. Alexander for all his School Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able tâ— answer his Argument the substance of which 〈◊〉 my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or relative to say the first is absurd otherways therâ— shall be three absolute Beeings or Essence's in God which is absurd If somewhat Relative which is referred or relative to another as Father is relativâ— to a
monsters of men that which is a spiritual Substance is infinit of it self and not a Creature and therefore God himself For none will deny that both the Souls of men and the Devils themselves are spiritual substances Hence it will follow that God or a part of God as they most blasphemously speak committeth sin which confirmeth that which we said before viz. that according to the Quakers Doctrine God is the Author of sin From this Monstruous Doctrine it also followeth that God or a part of God is condemned and is and shall be tormented in Hell for ever It followeth also from this Doctrine that God is divided in parts and that one part of him is Bishop and Ruler over another These and a thousand other such hellish Blasphemies follow upon this Doctrine in which it is needless to insist For as Calvin said Fatuitas dogmatis me securum reddit The very Poison it self being so black and hellish at its very first appearance carrieth along with it a sufficient Antidot For we may well Cry out with Photius Col 403. of the wicked Maniehean and Heathnish â—aâ—er of Christ Agapius who was the Quakers Ancestor in this Blasphemy O hudge madness and indeed if such a sad matter did permit any Jesting One might readily phansie that the Devil were now doting through old Age for certainly he seemeth to be deprived of his ordinarie Slight and Subtility that could find no gilding or Varnishing whereby to cover the Superlative Impiety of this Doctrine but what he wanteth in Deceit he hath requited in Strength who could thus Captivat and Impose upon the Judgement of Rational Animals so that they drunk down this Potion so manifestly pestiferous Several of these passages were cited by Mr. Broun The palpable abominableness of which wholly rendred them incapable of any Defence or shew of any honest meaning And the manifest Evidence thereof from the Quakers own Books made them altogether undenâ—able Therefore Robert Barclay as he dealeth with all the rest passeth them over with Silence And yet as if a Sport could have diverted any serious Man from the abhorrency of Quakerism in the last Section of his Vindication he maketh himself ridiculous saying that Mr. Hicks who cited some of these passages Succumbed in a Disput against the Quakers and from this giveth out that Hicks and such others are not to be believed say what they will of the Quakers notwithstanding that Robert Barclay adventureth not to challenge either Mr. B. or Hicks of any particular miscarriage in their particular Citations of the Quakers Books This was therefore a strange Influence and more admirable than that of the Remora upon a Ship that Hicks his supposed failing had on this multitude of blasphâ—mous passages that it loosed R Bar and his Brethren from any Obligation to answer for them though they be to be found exactly as they are cited He here mentioneth several Books written by Quakers as answers to what Hicks and Faldo hath said and among thers Pen's Invalidity of Faldo's Vindication In which book Pen sometimes proclaimeth himself a Sadducee as in the point of Resurrection sometimes a Papist as in the point of Justification At other times more Antichristian than most of Pagans Endeavouring with might and main not only to robb the Holy Scriptures of their Divinity but also of common Sense Of which Doctrine the Reader hath gotten a taste above And O that it might be the lot of all the obstinate Opposers of the Truths of God thus to bewray at once both Weakness and wickedness even when they think to appear like so many Goliahs for strength and to Justifie their Adversaries Charge even while they attempt the removal thereof as William Pen hath done This horrible Impiety these men following the Manicheans whom Augustin de Civ Dei. Lib. 7 Cap 2 8. de Genesi ad Lit. refuteth both in principles and Probation father upon the Holy Scriptures viz. Gen 2 7. where it is said That God breathed into mans nostrils the Breath of Life or Lives On this place also Roâ— Bar. Vind Sect 5 par 1 foundeth or at least seemeth to found his opinion of a Substantial Light and Seed distinct from the Soul that remained with Adam after his fall But these Opinions though contrary to one another are both contrary to the Truth For there is nothing either in the Words and Phrases or Scope and Context that favoureth either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the least favour either of them which according to the consent of the best Hebreans is to be taken Metaphorically and efficiently not properly sive instar Causae materialis materially Neither doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help them any more which according to the mind of all sound Interpreters as Pareus on the place sheweth and Lexicographers as Buxtorf Lewsden Bithner Leigh signifieth only the rational Soul of man. Hence the Opinion of Rob Bar. is overthrown Moreover this word is used Isa. 2.22 where the holy Ghost sayeth that Mans breath is in his nostrils to the end that he may demonstrate the frailty of man. Hence we may conclude that nothing of God or of his Divine Nature can by the force or significancy of this word be necessarily imported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifieth Beasts as well as Men All the forecited Authors understand by it the Soul of man And tell us that these who are no more critical considering it is in the plural number take Sensitive as well as Rational here to be meaned Others judge this Criticism to be neglected because that oftentimes in the Hebrew a word is Voce pluralis significatu singularis Vide Leigh Critica Sacra pag 72. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet further confirmeth that no other thing is to be understood in this place but the soul of man. For the Dust of the Earth formed by God into the Body of man and this breath of Life became a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a living Soul as also that the Soul of man is nothing Divine properly so called Seing this word sometimes signifieth the body of man. As Psal. 16.10 and elsewhere signifieth any living creature Moreover the scope of the place which is to repeat more fully the Creation of man which in the former Chapter was more shortly hinted at evinceth that there is nothing here to be understood but the creation of the Soul and Body of man. But we need not insist to prove our negative from this place seing this is the only place on which our Adversaries build their Affirmatives It is enough for us to challenge them to bring forth the least appearance of reason for them which as they have not done hitherto so shall never be able to do Again as they to the horrour of all men elevat the Creature not only to an equality but an Identity with the Creator and so make that which is lesse than nothing all in all and God over
Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians from whom they have learned it But some perhaps may object saying that this identity is only in words to whom I answer Either the things imporâ—ed by these words and phrases and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof and contained in Scripture or not now if the first be true then to stir up strife about these words proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous But 2. Supposing that the thingâ— themselves which Christians understand by these words or phrases are holden forth in Scripture then to deny that we may use them is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning theâ—eof it is impious and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture tho we be never so sure that as to the sense and meaning thereof they be found in the Scripâ—ures but this Hypothesis if true overthroweth all Scripture consequences interpretation of Scripture blasts the hope of ever getting Hereticks refuted which none will deny except â—n Arrian or the like Hereticks and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion seeing they themselves as other dâ—sputantâ— endeavour to draw Consequenâ—es from Scripture and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis appears from no few places of Scripture and among others Math. 22.31 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the meer Letters and Syllablâ—s of Exod. 3.6 I am the God of Abraham c. without deduction of a consequence from them and so an exposition of them he should never from these words have evinced against the Saâ—ducees the Resurrection of the dead But I need not stay longer to evince this for certain it is and already proved not only from the Quakers obstinate denyall of a free and positive Conâ—ession of their Faith anent this matter but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this trulie Catholick Doctrine as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced â—o usâ— being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before â—hem that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions which the Orthodox bring from Scripture with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impietie Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words i. e. That which all Christians understand as the Meâ—ning thereof according to the Quakers is not in Scripture And indeed this is the Truth And so the Quakers are Arrians the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse But yet farther that this is Truth viz. That the Quakers are Arrians if not worse and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the â—oly Trinity and that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father and distinct persons from him is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinitie calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine as these that heard them told me and when they were reproved their reply was thou knowest not the Truth Again they demonstrate to the world that they are the Frye of Arrius while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. â— Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendred Person or Subsistence as all the Lexicographers and in particular Scapula Pasor Scrivelius upon the word and all the Interpreters both ancient as Pareus in locum sheweth and modern Dutch Divines and English Translation render it but Substance for certainly thus it must be rendred â—f the word Person or Subsistence be rejected then it shall irresistiâ—ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance which was the Doctrine of Arrius both in Maâ—ter and Termâ— hence it is clearâ—r than day-light that these men are his Disciples yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona then if a man believe the Scriptures and that words are the true Symbols of things it is not possible that he be in Judgment an Arrian Aâ— contrariwise if a Man believe that the word ought to â—e rendered Substance presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures and that words are the true Idea's of things he cannot but be an Arrian Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium pag 854 of his forecited book sayes Heâ— 1. Christ is the splendor of the Glorie of God and figure of His Substance Christ is the invisible God Himself says the Church of Rome For this Arrian still calleth all the opposeâ—s of Arrianism members of the Church of Rome as the Quakers do now But it may be here objected that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place translated â—he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia to which I answer that all the Orthodox both Ancient and Modern while they thus spake did take the word Substantia in the sense that both they and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia This our Assâ—rtion may be most evident to any though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians writers For Augustin who in several places and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances or three Subsistences indifferently yet notwithstanding elswhere carefully distinguisheth them and in particular de fide ad Petrum Diaconum â—ap 1. where he sayeth for if as the substance of the Father and the Son is one so also they were 〈◊〉 one person then there should be nothing aâ— all which truly could be called a Trinitie Hence we seâ— that this word Substantia did beaâ— a twofold Signification in the first of which it may be well put into the reâ—t as Equivalent with or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine it were easie to shew the like ouâ— oâ— Hilarius and others of the Antients I shall content my self to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgment concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor saying as touching the Father and the Son he believeth piously except that he sayeth that they are two Substances and as many Natures howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth he useth the word Substantia for or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and born again at once or at one instant of time His ground of which we shall now examine And it is those two places of Scripture viz. Phil. 1.6 He which hath begun a good work c. Gal. 5.7 Ye did run well c. Now these Scriptures say nothing for him For the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was writ V 1. Now I think none can deny that such are born of God. For the other Place it saith as little for him except for it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false Next that the new Birth of Regeneration as such doeth not admit of degrees but that every one of the Children of God are really converted or born again so that of the Children of â—rath they become the Children of God at one time or Instant is clear For as soon as a man hath true Faith he becometh a Child of God. But that all that belongeth to the Essence of true Faith is infusâ—d in the Soul at once although some legal work in order to it necessarily preceed I think none will deny And the manifold Examples in Scripture shewing that men in a most short time were made to turn from Satan to God prove it I would fain know if the Thief on the Crosse and Jailor were not born again And if they were not perfectly born again But to speak of any imperfection in his new Birth as such that is to say that one may be brought from Nature to Grace and yet but half born again or not fully born again Because he hath not attained unto the ful measure of Grace which is attainable is no less absurd than to say that one is not â—ully born because he is but a little Child Now this Absurdity is not a little removed because what ever they can say the like reason holdeth for the one as well as for the other These to whom the Apostle writeth were perfectly born of God and yet there were some little Children among them 1 Ioh. 2.12 Now they were perfectly born Because they had the Seed of God or the Vnction chap 2.27 which is all one with the Seed Now the abiding of the Seed is given as a reason of the perfection of the New-birth so that they cannot sin Ergo If little Children as well as Fathers had this unction or Seed abiding in them they had this New-birth in the highest perfection pleaded for by Quakers 3 The Apostle 1 Ioh 3.9 speaketh without distinction Whosoever c. and so taketh away the elusion of our Adversaries Next he thinketh here to free himself of Pelagianism of which he was proved to be guilty by saying he alwayes denyed that men might keep the Commands by the power of nature which groundless shiâ—t is overthrown above chap 2. He alâ—ledgeth also that because the Fathers say That none by the strength of Grace did live all their days without sin and the perfection ascribed to some in Scripture was not from nature but from grace therefore they thought men might be free from sin by Grace What miserable manking and clipping is this Is it not added in the very following words immediatly That none attained that measure of holiness in this life that he could live any long time without sin and that this perfection was not full and absolute but which might encrease and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees These are the very words of the Antithesis of the Orthodox in opposition to the Pelagians Vos Hist. Pel. Par. Prim Thes 1. pag 146. Now I would desire any to shew me what this Doctrine differeth from that which the reformed Churches hold Let the Reader see Mr. Broun himself pag 333 N 12 13 where he may see this matter handled at large I add these words of Orosius Apol. Cont Pel I do not undertake I presume not I dare not say that I shall be without sin 〈◊〉 long as I shall be in this Corruption which we have And again The man that can be without sin is Christ. He saith here that what his Adversary addeth of the Fathers arguments against Pelagians and Socinians It is not his work to meddle with or to heed what these Sects say But it is not best to do so For in so doing he should fight against himself For they must divide him from himself that divide him either from a Pelagian or a Socinian I was about to admonish the Reader to read especially this fourteenth chapter of Mr. Broun's Book But I need not seing he granteth all we plead for by saying on the matter he doth not care though he be proved a Pelagian and a Socinian And whereas he sayeth he considereth the matter as proposed in Scripture The only way to know the truth of this is to examine his Doctrine which we have done in part And through the Lords assistance shall yet further do it We value not his Recriminations which he hath here but nameth none since nothing that he can say can be of weight against us As these Charges of Pelagianism and Socinianism are against him except he bring the fathers as much fighting against the Doctrine of the reformed churches and the reformed Churches against their Doctrine as these fight against him and his Brethren Again he cometh to the Vindication of his Arguments which are answered by his Adversary pag 337 N 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. And for urging of the first which was That this Doctrine is against the wisdom of God he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of God whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well This I say he insinuateth for here he mumbleth as one in a confused haste But this is with as great facility denyed as any thing he hath hitherto said For we assert that it is the will of God that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church Triumphant only And for probation of our assertion it is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the world except Christ Jesus who never had it but by imputation To me his following words are nonsense He would fain insist over his Adversary because he sayeth pag. 339. N 19. That the heart the renewed part of the man being for God and God only and directly against Satan and all his wayes doings and designs there is no formal service performed unto Satan Saying That then there is some material service performed to the devil But this objection militateth as much against the Apostle saying Rom. 7 That with his flesh he served the Law of sin Which I think the Quakers will hardly distinguish from the Law of Satan 2. If this instance do any thing it will overdo For it tendeth to prove that no Action of any that have gotten saith though in the least degree can be at all tainted with sin We mean their gracious Actions
See his 12. Proposition and his Apology thereto annexed Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetick arguments against these Sacraments in general viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them prove them to be a real pharisie To which when his adversary replyeth that if this argument hold it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones And then he cryeth out upon his adversary as shewing a malicious genious Judge Reader if he had reason so to cry out and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise But to the main purpose Iulian or Porphyry might as well have used this instance as he for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion And he doeth but meerly think that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments as in the Sequel shall appear However in the mean time we may observe that this argument as the most part of the rest is borrowed from the Pagans For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians they improved what they could to overthrow Christianitie From them the Papists borrowed it wherewith to impugne the Protestants And lastly the Quakers from them and hath placed it where it was again at the first to be a battering piece against Christianitie in general So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo Next he cometh to vindiâ—at another argument borrowed from the Papists in their pleadings for traditions against the Scriptures viz. that the word Sacrament is not to be found in Scripture take heed to the consequence Reader E. The thing is not in them Is not this valid But this Argument in its very defence he is forced to let go while he sayeth he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments For the thing signified is in the Scriptures and the words Sign or Seal by which though he denyed we very ordinarily express that which we mean by Sacraments is very frequent in Scripture And yet before he want something to say he will cavil though he grant all we plead for before the close as here Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism And first Eph. 4.5 where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469 sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth there is but one only Baptism To which he replyeth that it will as well prove that there is but one only Baptism as there is one only God. Ans First true it is that this Phrase one only Baptism is not found in Scripture 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other For these ones must be exponed according to the subject matter seing it is beyond debate that it cannot be proved from this place that there is but one only Faith or no kinds thereof but one The Phrase therefore One Baptism will no more prove that there are not diverse kinds thereof than the phrase one Faith can do it in respect of diverse kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove it seing he is the opponent Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire And hence saith he concludeth that this Baptism is ceased Ans. This is most true which to prove let him compare Act. 1.5 with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise which is together with its fulfilling chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth 3.11 For the clearing of which I assert that Iohns Baptism was no figure of the New Testament Baptism in opposition to Papists and Quakers who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism Otherwise if the sign which Iohn could only administrat be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification Next he sayeth It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptized with the Spirit but such as have extraordinary Gifts But do they not still boast of their Revelations and inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect and I think these are extraordinary things And as for others beside them they call them only carnal and say they are in darkness these are the most modest of their Expressions and yet enough to prove the thing denyed When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism then there should be two Baptisms contrary to Eph. 4.5 I say when he telleth him that it might as wel be said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament one in the heart another in the flesh he granteth the Consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument Well then with as little absurdity we grant his Consequence viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church though in another Sense there be but one viz. considered complexly of the Sign it is understood in the place in hand and indeed one might as well have reasoned to presse Unity among the Jews that there was but one Circumcision as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism And for any thing I know the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures And if he say that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28 29 I answer so is Baptism spoken of 1 Pet. 3.21 Another Reason of his Antagonist against his meaning of this place is that he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture as sometimes for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23 And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19 The Faith of Miracles or the like To which he answereth that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise let him prove it But he thinketh it rather fit to shift and give naked assertions For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism more than that these other kinds of Faith are not included He may shew this if he please for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove That Baptism with Water is not included as well as these various Kinds of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this
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