The Principles of the Protestant Religion Maintained, Introduction · Reflections 5
Reflections on Chapt. 5. Of God, His Decrees &c.
Sect. 1. He introduceth this Chapter with a ſad Complaint of abuſe offered by the Presbiterian and Independent Teachers to the poor innocent Quakers, and that for nothing elſe but their uſing of Scripture words to expreſs the Myſtery of God, the Father, Son & Holy Ghoſt by. We ſhould be ſorry if any had ſo done: But before we are gotten over this Chapter, there will ſomething elſe appear, for which they are not abuſed, but deal't juſtly with.
But there's more ſtill; they not only abuſed them in word, but perſecuted them to Death, for nothing elſe but this, and ſome other things of like nature; & them too, precious men-ſervants and maid-ſervants of the Lord. Sure they were irreligious and barbarous people that did this; only there is a bold impudent Lye in the ſtory. The perſons he intends were Quakers; and what precious ſaints they are, we leave others to judge, and the Crime which occaſioned their ſuffering was, They came purpoſely to undermine the Civil Government, and perſwade the people to Renounce it; which is every where accounted Sedition, and a Capital Offence: nevertheleſs, the Rulers uſed utmoſt Lenity towards 'em… and all fair perſwaſions to have 'em depart … yea, they baniſhed and ſent them away, bu… they willfully returned, yea, reſolutely an… daringly affronted them. Now this ſeems to be a diverſe Caſe from what he pretends but a Quaker ſticks at nothing that ſerv's his cauſe.
And now he pretends to give an account of their ſaith about the Trinity;
But it is a new Quakers-Creed, nor is he ſo ignorant as to believe, that that was their faith in thoſe times, or for many years after.
Sect. 2. But all this Harangue was for nothing elſe, but to introduce the Diſcourſe about God's being Light, and vent a few light-headed Notions about it. Firſt he finds fault that in our Confeſſion we omitted the Attribute of Light, and ſmells an ill deſign in it. Truly the Intreague was meerly this, The Reverend Divines intended only to expreſs ſuch Attributes as were proper and not metaphorical; and unto which all ſuch Metaphors might be reduced: of this nature is that of Light, and is included in their ſaying, He is moſt Wiſe: and for G. K. to ſay, It is no figurative or Tropical Expreſſion, argues him either of groſſeſt ignorance, or boldeſt Confidence.
And now he hath gotten the Notion of Light in his head, how ſtrangely doth he plead for Immediate Revelations and Illuminations in ſuch Seraphical terms as muſt needs tranſport his Reader. Well then, we are all in the Light as well as he. GOD is an Immenſe Light, and then, Hell it ſelf dwells in His Light, and Devils muſt needs be full of Immediate Inſpirations: and 'tis a Contradiction for a Quaker to tell us that we are in the dark for we live and move and have our being as much in the Light as he. But all this is Burleſque; a good diſtinction would cure him, were he capable of receiving it. Diſtinguiſh between Divine Light & natural, and their different way of Communicating themſelves. The Sun is a natural Light, & Illuminates all the things that it ſhines upon: the Divine light, is the Infinite Omniſcience & Wiſdom of God; but though in Him it be infinite, yet He derives of it to the Creature, not naturally but voluntarily, not to all alike, Job. 35.10. And He chuſeth what Medium He ſees meet to communicate it by.
We thought he would ſoar till he grew giddy, his brains turn'd, and ſo ſpeaks Nonſenſe; and let it come out; Light, he tells us, is immediate though it comes thro' a Medium; i. e. its immediate, though it be mediate: but let that paſs Whereas he cites Plato (who is with him little inferiour to Moſes) to prove that It is man's Infelitity to converſe with Images of things; we accept not the Teſtimony; for Man was made to Converſe with the Images of things, and ſhall ſo Converſe for ever in his perfect ſtate of glory; this being the nature of his underſtanding, to receive the Knowledge of things by taking in the Images.
And what he ſeems to inſinuate, p. 62. viz. That the Word of God hath no more of God in it than a glaſs window hath of the Sun, is in no wiſe to be admitted: Its true, we are ſaid to ſee in a glaſs, 1. Cor. 13.12. which comprehends the Scripture, but then it is not a Perſpective glaſs, but a Looking-glaſs that is alluded to: and it is certain, that God hath imprinted the image of His preceptive will there: and the Scripture is adapted to diſcover much of God to us by its own light, elſe all the Encomiums given to it Pſal. 19.119. Prov. 6.23. and elſe-where, are Hyperbolical.
Sect. 3. The Blaſphemy charged upon us for Calling (as he ſaith) the light of God in His people, a ſtinking vapour from hell; will light upon their ſide, who call the poor imperfect light of nature, God & Chriſt, as they have done in many of their books: but more of this afterwards.
He here arraigns the Aſſembly for that in Confeſſ. cap. 26. ſect. 3. they ſay, that the Communion of ſaints with Chriſt doth not in any wiſe make them partakers of the ſubſtance of His God-head; and endeavours to prove the contrary to be true. But obſerve, the Aſſembly in this Artitle oppoſe the Swenkfieldian Doctrine, that a beleever is Godded with God, and Chriſted with Chriſt: and this is the thing that G. K. is here to prove, or he does nothing. That we are made partakers of the divine nature, that we have near and intimate Communion with God and Chriſt; that we receive grace out of Chriſts fulneſs, and that God is our portion, we beleeve.
But a right Conception of the Myſtery of our Union and Communion with God and Chriſt, will ſoon detect his Fallacies: Union is the ground of Communion; and therefore, ſuch as is the Union: ſuch is the Communion. Now this Union is one of the Goſpel Myſteries, Eph. 5.32. only this much we know to our preſent purpoſe; 1. That it is an Union between two, Viz. Chriſt and Beleevers. 2. That theſe two are made one by this Union, Joh. 17.21. 3. That they are ſo one, as that they are ſtill two Perſons, two diſtinct in nature; It is an Ʋnion, but not a Confuſion; they are ſo one, as the Husband and Wife are one, who are two perſons, but one in Relation, and the fruits of it, Eph. 5.32. God is God, & man is man ſtill. 4. That this Union is made by Faith on our part, by which we take poſſeſſion of Chriſt: and His Spirit on His part, by which He dwells in us, Gal. 3.26. 1. Cor. 6.7. 5. That by Virtue of this Union God in Chriſt becomes the Beleevers Portion, Lam. 3.24. 6ly. That God in Chriſt communicates Himſelf to them according to their Capacity, and that is by way of Efficacy and Influence. Hence, 1. All His Divine Attributes are employed for their Benefit, Deut. 33.27 Exod. 34 6, 7. 2ndly. the Spirit of Chriſt dwells in them by His Influence, Rom. 8.11. 3dly. Chriſt as a Fountain of Grace derives ſtreames down to them, having a ſtock put into His hands as Mediator, Joh. 1.16. 4thly. They are made to ſhare with Him in His Mediatorial Glory. cap. 17.24. But what is there in all this of our being Deified, or Chriſted? which if he intend not, he hath ſaid nothing to the purpoſe.
When he ſaith, If they partake neither in His God-head nor manhood, they partake not in Him ſubſtantially; wants Logick. We ſay they partake in His graces, and they are ſubſtantial things: and then he chargeth us for ſaying, that Graces are nothing but Accidents, we utterly deny it, we ſay they are neither the ſoul nor the body, but they are Adjuncts: and he might have learn'd to diſtinguiſh between Adjuncts and Accidents. Graces are Adjuncts to men, becauſe they are ſeparable without deſtroying their Humanity; this G. K. beleeves, and all that deny perſeverance muſt believe it: they are not meer Accidents becauſe Accidents cannot receive Accidents nor Qualities as Adjuncts may, and Graces do; hence the Epithetes put upon them in Scripture. But he goes about to make Graces to be the very Divine Subſtance, becauſe they proceed from GOD; When as if he had ſtudied the Doctrine of God's Efficiency, he would have known better. Nor doth the Doctrine of Dr. Owen, or Mr. Rutherford, in the words of theirs which he Cites, at all run into the Quakers Blaſphemy; for who doth not acknowledge the Perſon of the Holy Spirit, and the Perſon of Chriſt in their Operations, for they are perſonal acts, and therefore the Perſon of the Holy Ghoſt dwells in us by his Operations, &c. And in ſumme, we beleeve that that there is a Divine Act or Influence on us, as in Creating ſo in aſſiſting our grace; but our reaction of that grace is not God, but an exerciſe of that principle which is created in us, for Grace it ſelf is a Creature Eph. 4.24.
Sect. 4. Here he chargeth our Doctrine referring to the Divine Decrees, to be the ſame with that of Ranters; which is an abuſive ſlander and we ſhall make it appear to be far otherwiſe; for, ſuppoſing them to agree with us in one principle, viz. That God doth all, & hath unchangeably ordered all things good & bad; are we therefore Ranters? We deny not every thing that G. K. ſaies, but that does not make us Quakers. May there not, (nay, is there not) a vaſt difference between their Interpretation & Improvement of this Article and ours? But had he well ſtudied the Doctrine of Divine Concurſe, he would never have ſaid, either, That If God decrees all things, He muſt needs be the Doer of them, or, that hence he muſt needs be the Author of Sin, for all our denying any ſuch Conſequences. This Doctrine is ſo fully handled by all that have written Syſtems of Divinity, or that have waded in Controverſies between us and the Jeſuits & Arminians, that it would be ſuperfluous here to ſearch into it. Let only two or three Concluſions that are to our preſent purpoſe be obſerved, Viz. That, firſtly All creatures depend abſolutely upon God, as in reſpect of their Being, ſo of all their Actions, Act. 17.28. 2ndly. That this dependance is not only for a general ſuſtentation of the Being & powers of the Creature, but for influence into every individual Action, Joh. 19.11. 3dly. That Notwitſtanding this Influence upon the creature, in reſpect of its Action, the Creature hath its Action of its own, ſubordinate to, and aſſiſted by this Influence, 1. Cor. 3.9. 4thly. That Sin is a moral reſpect which the Action bears as it is done by the creature, who is under the Law, 1. Joh. 3.4 and therefore it cannot touch God. And his interpretation of that Eph. 1.11. that [all things] intends only all things that He doth, is true; but his Inference, Viz That when we ſay a man doth all things by Wiſdom, none will be ſo fooliſh as to infer that he doth all fooliſh things, is a fooliſh Similitude: for to argue from a particular Agent to an Univerſal Efficient, by making them paralel, is Folly. Beſides, tho' they are Follies of ſecond Cauſes, yet there is the wiſe Conduct, even of theſe things, by the Firſt Cauſe; and it is none of the leaſt-diſcoveries of His Wiſdom, that He conducts the follies of creatures to the Exaltation of His own Glory: but any man may here perceive, that he is reſtoring Manacheiſm to the world, as if there were two principles or firſt Cauſes, the one of good the other of evil.
That we have him (page. 72.) making a large Conceſſion of the Subſtance of what we beleeve, ſeems to intimate that he labours between Conſcience and Intereſt; except it be, that he would perſwade ſilly ſouls to think that we have ſome ſtrange Myſteries in our Doctrine that others cannot ſee.
But this hath been but a Digreſſion from the matter in hand, Viz. the Univerſal Decree, and now he will glance at it agen: endeavouring to enervate our plea from Act. 2.23. (where he joins us agen with Ranters) by a diſtinction between Delivering & Slaying; but we ſo diſtinguiſh too, and yet that God only expoſed Chriſt to them, is not the whole meaning of the Text; for it certifies us that this was done according to an eternal purpoſe of God, who had appointed in that way to bring about mans Redemption, uſing them as Inſtruments (tho wickedly abuſing their free will) in theſe ſufferings of Chriſt, by which we were Redeemed. Compare Chapt. 4. Verſ. 27, 28. and it will clearly appear, that God hath certainly decreed all things from Eternity, which come to paſs in time, to him that ſhall conſider.
1. That God is the Supream Efficient or Worker of all things, according to His Counſil, Eph. 1.11. 2ndly. That God foreknew from all Eternity what ſhould be done by all Creatures in time: this G. K. pretends to beleeve; and let him or any of his Company tell us how He did ſo in reſpect of voluntary Agents, unleſs he had praedetermined them.
What he ſaith of Gods Ha…dning of men, That it is by His withdrawing of His Spirit from them, is a Truth, but not the whole Truth, there is more contained in it; ſometimes it is by denying them ſoftning meanes, ſometimes by preſenting before them Objects, ſometimes by a judicial delivering 'em up to Satan, & their own hearts luſts; and all theſe wayes are according to Scripture.
Sect. 5. Here we are told that the honeſt Quakers believe all that the Scriptures ſay, concerning Election; and who would deſire more? But if they believe not the things which the Scripture neceſſarily intends, they prevaricate, for the mind of the Word is the Word. and now ſee how it will appear, he preſently tells us, that We no-where find in Scripture that God reprobated any part of mankind before the foundation of the world. That He made 'em on purpoſe to damn them, is none of our Doctrine, but Scandalouſly imputed to us: We ſay He made them for the glory of his Juſtice, which is exalted in their Damnation, procured by their own fault; and for proof, follow him but three or four lines, and he confeſſeth as much himſelf, or elſe he ſpeaks he knows not what; for he acknowledgeth an everlaſting counſel about them that Periſh; yea, (p. 76.) that Chriſt in His infinite Juſtice permits ſuch to reſiſt grace; and had he underſtood himſelf, what could he ſay more, His ſaying that God conſiders them in his eternal counſil as having reſiſted all grace, & having hardned themſelves finally, helps him not, for he muſt grant (and does) that if God had done as much for them, as He doth for his elect, it had been otherwiſe, but becauſe He decreed not to do it, they naturally ly and dy in ſin; and certainly He could not fore-ſee all this but in his own purpoſe.
And his Aſſertion is extreamly ridiculous, Viz. That Election and Reprobation are not contradictory, and that Election ſignifies a praeference of ſome before other, it doth not argue a total reprobation of others. Certainly, if it be to glory that ſome are elected and others are not, then they are reprobated i. e. God hath not ſeen meet to chuſe them, which neceſſarily argues His purpoſe to leave them to periſh in their ſins, and what is this but Reprobation? He himſelf therefore grants, that in the end they ſhall be found Reprobates; and how is that, but by appearing not to have been choſen of God? Eſpecially if it be well pondered what he ſaith concerning God's Elect, p. 76.
There is a great fallacy lurks in his ſaying, (p. 76.) that as God hath provided grace whereby ſome ſhall certainly be ſaved; ſo by the ſame all are put under a poſſibility; and that they are not, is not for want of Sufficiency or Efficacy in this grace of its own nature. We grant there is a ſufficiency in the meanes that God affords to ſave all ſuch as enjoy the Goſpel, i. e. a ſufficiency of means Iſa. 5.4. there need no more: nor doth He uſe more with them that are ſaved than with them that periſh, 2. Cor. 2.10.16. But that He hath put a ſufficient efficacy into theſe meanes in reſpect of all that enjoy them, is a paradox, whence is it then that they are not efficacious? The Efficacy is not in the meanes themſelves, but in the Concomitancy of the Spirit with them to give it, and that is voluntary: and the very notion of a ſufficient Efficacy of meanes uſed, without the Effect wrought in them with whom they are uſed, is an unintelligible Quakeriſm.
In p. 77. he tells us that Election goes before Reprobation, and is not coaetanous with it; and yet a little before (pag. 75.) he owns Reprobation (though Conditionally) to be eternal; and who taught him to make Periods in Eternity? Yea, Reaſon it ſelf tells us that in the very nature of Chuſing ſome before others, theſe others are in that very Act and inſtant, neceſſarily left out, which is Reprobation.
Sect. 6. Here he undertakes the Patronage of poor Infants, (and it is pitty but they who cannot ſpeak for themſelves ſhould have ſomebody to ſpeak for them) whom he finds ſadly expoſed by this Doctrine of abſolute Reprobation: and is in no little paſſion for them, to think that we ſhould inſinuate that ſome of theſe are by the decree left finally to periſh: but though we may and ought to commiſerate them, yet we cannot help them, beyond what God hath purpoſed concerning them.
His main Labour in this paragraph is to free Rom. 9.11, 12, 13. from a true interpretation, and force it to accept of a falſe one: and let us ſee what he hath to ſay againſt our gloſſes upon it.
He tells us that the Apoſtles deſign is to ſhew that God had choſen the line of Jacob before the line of Eſau, and that only to be His Church in the peculiar diſpenſation of the Moſaical law. That Paul is here treating of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, hath been fully evinced by many learned Orthodox. That he makes way to this by aſſerting the Soveraignty of God, is cleer in the Chapter: That his Inſtance of Jacob and Eſau, did hiſtorically intend what G. K. alledgeth we deny not: But here it is to be noted, that there was a Typical Repreſentation of greater things in theſe inſtances: & it is the Apoſtles manner to argue from the Type to the thing ſignified, ſee Gal. 4.24. &c. but what further needs? G. K. (p. 79.) acknowledgeth that this was a figure of another thing to be ſpiritually fullfilled, and this is it that the Apoſtle uſeth it for; ſo that we may ſafely argue the thing Typified from the Allegation, it therefore hurts not our caſe, that he ſaith (ibid.) that this doth not infer Eſau's perſonal Reprobation as to his eternal ſtate; it is enough that there was a Reprobation in the ſame ſenſe that there was an Election. If therefore he grants an eternal Election to be typified in it, (as he ſeems to do) the Reprobation muſt be of the ſame kind, elſe there is no parallel. It therefore concerns not us to diſpute whether Eſau himſelf were ſaved or not: though his Text cited, Heb. 11.20. proves it not, for there were temporal, as well as ſpiritual & eternal bleſſings: but this whole diſcourſe is aliene, and makes nothing to the purpoſe, and whereas (p. 84.) he aſſerts that, the whole paſſage of Jacob and Eſau, is a figure of two ſeeds, none of which were reprobated, but the other preferred is a contradiction, for there can be no Election without Reprobation, chuſing it out of diverſe, and neceſſarily argues a Leaving.
Sect. 6. p. 84. Here we are challenged to prove that there are Reprobate Infants, or ſuch as go to hell for Adam's ſin only: to which we reply. 1. He himſelf grants (p. 88.) that men generally (and why not univerſally?) are Children of wrath by nature: and he will not deny but that by Nature is intended tha… natural condition they were born into the world in (and then it muſt needs concern Infants a… well as others) and this too is by Adam's ſin transferred upon them, and his corrupt Imag… communicated to them. 2. That hence Childre… in their natural birth are under a ſentence of Condemnation to dye, is a neceſſar… Conſequence. 3. That God hath nowher… revealed to us that He hath accepted of the Satisfaction of Chriſt for all that dy in their Infancy; and where there is no Revelation, there is no ground for Faith. 4. That there is merit enough for Damnation in them, elſe it would be unjuſt that they ſhould be under Condemnation. 5. That this Sentence hath been actually excecuted upon ſome Infants, Rom. 5.14. they never ſinned actually, and yet they died, and it was the ſame death ſpoken of verſ. 12. If therefore the Text which ſome of ours uſe, 1. Cor. 7.14. ſhould not prove it, it follows not that no other can: and yet we ſuppoſe there is thus much in that too, Viz. that till Parents do openly profeſs the Goſpel and ſubmit to it, or as long as they abide in their Gentiliſm, their Children were alſo unclean, and ſo apparent…y lying under guilt, and lyable to eternal Death. And then he chargeth ſome of our Church Covenant, for glorying that none of …heir children were Reprobates while Infants; we …eclare it to be a ſlander: we never affixed Election to a viſible Relation to the Church …f Chriſt.
And how ſtrangely doth he prevaricate, …hen he tells us (p. 85) That it is pl…inly …evealed and declared in Scripture, that the …ondemenation is not ſimply becauſe Adam had ſinned, becauſe of what Chriſt ſaith, Joh. 3.19. he might have read verſ. 18. that he that beleeveth not, is condemned already. The Caſe ſtands plainly thus: In the firſt Covenant we ſtand condemned for the breach of the Law, either as Adam's ſin is ours by imputation, or as we have actually broken the Law. Where the Goſpel comes, Chriſt is offered, a way is diſcovered to life by Him: Now this is the proper Goſpel Condemnation, that men deſpiſe Him and will not follow this Light; and this is added to the former: they were before condemned by the Law, and now the Goſpel condemns them too.
What he ſaith (p. 86.) That All have an Opportunity or Poſſibility to be converted and become the Children of God, is ambiguous; if the word Poſſibility be exegetical of the former, viz. Opportunity, it is Nonſenſe, for theſe two are Diſpartes, if he intends them disjunctively, we deny not a poſſibility, for all Mankind are ſalvable; but for an Opportunity we renounce that, for where the meanes of Salvation are not, there is no opportunity. But what is all this to the purpoſe? or what doth it make againſt the Reprobation of Infants? We muſt be led a wild-gooſe chaſe if we follow him in all his abſurd Digreſſions.
As for the Contempt which in the ſame page he caſts upon Foederal Holineſs, it argues his ignorance; and as little as he counts the Intereſt of Children in the viſible Covenant worth, we ſhall not ceaſe to bleſs God that ours ſtand ſo related: and when he grants an Holineſs, i. e. a capacity of holineſs, in time to come, in ſome (not all) of our children, we believe if we had talked ſo wildly, nonſenſically, and Self-contradictorily; we ſhould have heard of him. To call a Poſſibility of Holineſs, Holineſs, is ſcarce ſenſe, and to acknowledge a capacity of Holineſs but in ſome, and yet but one page before, to plead a poſſibility of Converſion in all, would have been a Contradicting himſelf, if it had not been G. K.
Sect. 7. We have G. K. here ſpeaking the Scripture fair. The Scripture is a rich treaſure, and he is for Scripture Words, and it is not ſafe to leave them: and what is all this for? why, the Scripture indeed acknowledgeth all to be born in ſin; but what then? Why, the ſeed or principle of ſin and Corruption is, but it is not imputed, till men join their Conſent to it, and actually obey it; and its as clear as midnight from Rom. 5.13. and thus he interprets it; The time of Infancy is the time wherein there is no Law, and therefore (tho children are dead in law) there is no imputation. Excellently well expounded! Paul is there proving that there was a law antecedent to the edition of the law of Moſes and his argument is becauſe there was ſin in the world before: and that it is imputed he might have found, if he had read the following verſe, for there we find the ſentence executed, which neceſſarily preſuppoſeth imputation; nay, the very calling it Sin is a charge or imputation, and a ſuppoſition of a Law condeming men for it: nor do his many Citations at all prove that none dye and finally periſh for the firſt ſin, but for actual ſins of their own; which was now to be proved; for they only intimate that all mens actions are liable to the Judgement, and ſhall be tried and ſentenced; but deny not that man's ſtate in Adam ſhall be ſo too: Becauſe the Scripture ſaith, that men ſhall periſh for actual ſin, doth it thence follow that men ſhall not ſo for original ſin?
But the knack is, they died in Adam, and Chriſt by His death for all that died in Adam hath diſchared all of that Imputation; which is a perfectly Arminian principle, and hath bin enough confuted by all that have written againſt them: That therefore he concludes that none do ſuffer final Deſtruction but for Rejecting the Phyſitian, makes the condition of Pagans better than that of Chriſtians: for theſe are certain to eſcape deſtruction; being incapable of rejecting the Phyſitian who is never offered to them whereas Millions of thoſe do reject Him, and periſh for it. The Goſpel then opens a door to man's Undoing, which elſe he had been out of the danger of, if Chriſt had but died for us and never told us of it.
His wild Aſſertion (p. 91.) That all the children of Adam and Noah, have a foederal Holineſs, i. e. a ſeed of holineſs in them, i. e. a capacity of being made holy (not to call the Coherence of it in queſtion) ſeems to contradict the Apoſtle, who, 1. Cor, 7.14. aſſures us that Unbeleevers children are unclean, i. e. not holy; and he there treats directly about foederal holineſs.
He concludes this Paragraph and Chapter with two Inſinuations (how true, let any judge) 1. That Grace is propagated by our natural parents. (how this is, it may be he will tell us next time.) 2. That there is habitual Sanctification in all men by nature. As to the firſt, David was of another mind, Pſal. 51.5. For the latter, Paul was not acquainted with this principle, Rom. 7.18. But he ſpeaks as yet but in the clouds, we ſhall have him a little more open in the next Chapter.