The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Appendix

The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism · Appendix

p. 237AN APPENDIX. IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster, in their Confession of Faith, Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap: to the Romans defended, and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker, and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession, which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto, as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, deduced from that place.

AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves, that of their denying Eternal Election, or at best making it whollie conditionall, uncertain, and depending upon the will of the Creature, so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary, it might so have fallen out, that none should have been saved, is not the least: In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians, but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures, which they sometimes would fain seem to follow, hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able, their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election; Thus dealt Robert Barclay, who in all his Theses and Apology, tho in his account an entire System of Religion, never delivereth his minde thereanent.p. 238And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission, he sayeth only, that all do at times Confess, that it is not safe, nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God, which he prooflesly alledgeth his adversary to have done: and that it is only needful to say, God calleth every Man every where to Repent, and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ: Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election; And yet he feircely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation, and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy, seing none can be ignorant, that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election. Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election, altho he by all Means endeavours to conceal it; for whoever denyeth Reprobation, by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election: And thus, Nill he, will he, we have his mind positively anent Election, and also Confession intimated, that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tryed by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say, That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denyal of Reprobation is much better founded; seing he with a Pythagorical silence, passeth over all his Adversaries arguments, proving all our Doctrine there anent. chap. 7. num: 10.11. These Arguments I say, about twenty in Number, he doth nor so much as mention, and far less attempt a Solution thereof, altho he knew well enough, that except these be untyed, the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely p. 239dissolved. But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments, as he doth all along, he giveth the World a meer Contract of his Apologie, under the cheating Title of a Vindication. But when his adversarie saith, That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine, than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith, Rom. 9, 19. The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things; 1. That this is all one, as if a Quaker should say, confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine, and therefore dispute no more, untill Thou first do that. But the Man is good, where there is little to do: But if he had not intended to play the shifter, he had condescended upon some particular place, as his adversarie did, otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did, when he objected to his pursuing Enemie, That he could not be subdued, because of the …pacious Countries, thorow which it behoved Him to follow him. 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession, chap: 3. Where saith he, he may have his misapprehensions corrected. But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors, as Twiss, Rutherford, Dickson, to whom his Adversarie in this very point did refer him. 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice.

Notwithstanding of which, Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquirie into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place. The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian, called William Parker who p. 240is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth; for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession.

Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author, that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness. I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place: Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine, as clearly as the sun-light: Having therefore made diligent search, at length I found the book, in which Chap: 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place, for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation, which how he hath done, comes now to be weighed. And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection,

that because it is said, that they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, therefore it seems, that all are not elected; To which he answers, that the Apostle intimat…, that the Carnal Israel, or all that are come of Jacob, surnamed Israel, are not the Israel, to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutly and finally made, tho in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel, as the Apostle shews vers. 4. That we may not be misunderstood, know, that among others, there are seven promises made to the overcomers, Rev. 2 & 3: Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race, unto the end, or to the death and burial of sin.

Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect, that are p. 241chosen out of the furnace of affliction. Isa. 48.10. Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim: 4: 7, 8: And so may fullie expect the reward, because God is faithful that hath promised it. Heb: 6, 12: and 10: 36. James 1.12.

I Reply, this commentarie (I shall not say a comment) is founded upon some Scriptures violentlie detorted; for none of them doth in the least insinuat, that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only, & not to glory (which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians, and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox, as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper, and Hilarius Arelatensis) and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption, and the promises of God the Father to Christ, viz. that he should see his seed, and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10, 11. and many such like, for if this Doctrine were true, it might so fall out, that none should come to Glory; for according to it, the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none, and so the Apostle's perswasion, that None could separate him from the Love of God, Rom: 8.35. Should have been vain and groundless. And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgments, to do them, Ext 36, 27. Should be meer words of deceit; these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine. As for the Scriptures cited by him, they hold forth a Character of such a… shall be saved, viz. That they do through grace overcome, love the Lord Jesus, exercise Patience, Faith▪ and the like graces; p. 242but they do not at all hold forth, that these graces, and perseverance therein are in Mans own power, so that he may reject or refuse them, according to the inclinations of his own will, and that God doth not make Men irresistibly, yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing. All which this Neo-Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak, but the verse it self doth sufficiently refute this exposition; for according to it, the word or promises of God, might be without any effect, seing it might fall out, that tho all were elected, none might be saved. Now seing this Exposition cannot Stand, the other, which this Arminian would fain reject, of its own accord follows, viz. That not all, and every one is from all Eternitie elected, and chosen to Salvation, as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate, as we shall evince, while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections, which he frames from this place.

2. He goeth on thus, Rom: 9.7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18, 19, 20, 21. It may seem then, that only Isaac and not Ismael was chosen. Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God, being a Type, first of Christ, in whom God hath made his Covenant. 2. He being a seed born by Sarah, represents Faith out of the promises, rather then by the Strength of Nature: So is a p. 243Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, which are begotten or born by vertue of the promises. For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is, they which are the Children of the Flesh (of whom Ismael carried the Type) These are not the Children of God, but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed: As for Ismael, who was begotten by the Strength of Nature, and according to the Flesh of Hagar, which represents the the Law, Gal. 4.21, 31: He figured forth these which should be saved, not by the grace of the promises, but by the works of the Law, a people, with whom God has not erected His Covenant, that they should be saved in that way, but tho Ismael carried the Figure of such, it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation: For Abraham praying thus for him, Gen: 17.18. O that Ismael might live before Thee, or in thy presence. v: 20 As for Ismael, I have heard thee. His being such a Type, was no more prejudicial to Him, then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan (They therein being a Figure of those, that should be shut out of Gods Kingdom for unbelief) without any hazard to their own Salvation, as hath been said before.

In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections, we premit. 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter, are brought in by the Apostle, as Arguments, to prove his Proposition laid down, v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel, that are of Israel, therefore whatever p. 244floweth from these Verses, as their immediate Consequents, is the meaning of the sixth Verse. 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge, that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men, in order to their eternal estate, and not as to the things of this Life only, as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant, pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans, Hunnius upon the place in hand, who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination. Yea Arminius himself, in his Analysis of this Chapter, dareth not deny it, tho he fain would. Having premised these things, we come to his Answer, The Substance of which is▪ That Ismael was not himself rejected of God, but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God, which we shal refute, by evincing these two Things. 1. That tho Ismael be considered here as a Type only, this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith, against which he here fighteth. 2. That Ismael himself was not elected. As for the first of these Propositions, it is evident; For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype, and so a Type should not be a Type. I prove it: If Ismael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham, only by the meer good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God, and not conditionally, so that Ismael himself could have caused it to come to pass, that he should have been counted the Legittimate Heir and Lawful begotten p. 245Son of Abraham, of whom the Church and Christ according to the Flesh was to Spring, then there are some passed by in the Eternal Decree of God, and that absolutely, to whom God from all Eternity determined to give no Saving Grace, but punish them for their sins; But the Former is true, yea and so true, that (I am sure) none acknowledging the Scriptures will deny it. The Major is no less clear, except (as we said before) any shal be so absurd, as to deny a Correspondency or Analogy betwixt Type and Antitype, and so deny a Type to be a Type, for in this Ismael was a Type, in that he was not reckoned to be the Seed of Abraham, and a Child of the Flesh, not a Child of Promise, all which came to pass by the absolute Dispensation of God, and not conditionally, so that Ismael might have brought to pass, that he should have been the Legittimate Heir and Seed of Abraham, and born by Vertue of a special Promise: Neither on the other hand was the Election of Isaac unto these Priviledges, from which Ismael was excluded, conditional, but by the absolute Dispensation of God: For I think none will say, that Isaac could have hindered himself to be born by Vertue of a special promise, and so counted the only Son, as we see he is called Gen. 22. 2. Therefore, if there be any Correspondence betwixt Type and Antitype, the Lord from all Eternity did pass by some, that is, decreed that he would not give them Grace, but permit them to remain Children of the Flesh, whom he did not give unto Christ Jesus, to be his Seed by Vertue p. 246of the Promises of the Covenant of Redemption.

We come now to the second Proposition viz. That Ismael himself was not Elected, This by any thing we can learn from Scripture, is most evident. For 1. He was by Gods own Command thrust out of the Church, Gen. 21.12. And that upon the Account of his persecuting the Heir of Promise, and the Church and Image of God in him. Gen. 21.9. Gal. 4.29. Now in Scripture we find no mention made of his Repentance, or Re-admission into the Church: Hence there is no Ground of Charity concerning his Salvation. 2. We find nothing that Ismael exercised all his Life, except Robbery and Blood-shed, as appears from Gen. 16.12. and 20 v. Which Lessons the Saracens his Posterity have exactly learned from him. As for Gen. 17.18, 20. It speaks of nothing lesse than the Salvation of Ismael: for as it appears from verses 19.20. compared together, the Lord clearly intimates, that he will neither establish his Covenant with himself, nor with his Seed, and clearly asserts, that the things in which he heard Abraham for his son Ismael, was only these pertaining to this Life: From all which it is clear, that Ismael lived and died without Grace, or special Favour of God, and therefore was no Elect Vessel; for I believe that none will deny, that the making out by Scripture, that Ismael lived without the Special Favour of God, will abundantly clear this place from all the mist, whereby our Adversaries endeavour to darken it; That which he sayes of Moses and Aaron, their p. 247being Types of these who were to be excluded from Gods spiritual rest, who notwithstanding were godly themselves, is so far from saying any thing to the Purpose, that I am certain he considered not what he was saying: For who did ever infer simply, because he was a Type of those that were passed by in Gods Eternal Decree, therefore he was passed by in it himself, we make no such Inference, as may be seen from what we have already said. I might here take notice of many other things, such as his forming the Objection, so that he dissimulates no small part of the strength thereof, not at all taking notice of the Analogy between the Type and Antitype, he knew to be urged not a little by our Divines, notwithstanding that he himself asserreth Ismael to be a Type, and so considered in this place, 2. I might take notice, that he clearly intimates, that there is now a possibility of Salvation by the Works of the Law and Strength of Nature. If it be Replyed, that he qualifieth what he saith by the following words, viz. that God hath not made a Covenant that men should be saved this way. We return, That if his Principles stand, these words and the former must of Necessity compleat a Contradiction, for all these that were to be born (to use his own Words) by Vertue of the Promises, Isaac represented them, but Ismael represented not these, but others; now seing these represented by Ismael, might be saved, as well as these represented by Isaac, according to the Principles of the Universalists, it inevitably follows, that they must be saved by the Works of the Law.

p. 248His next Objection he gives in these Words together with his answer, is Rom. 9.10, 11.

It is said there is a Purpose of God, according to Election, not of Works, but of him that calleth.

Ans. Altho Election there seems to import nothing but Gods Grace, as the Explanation following (not of Works, but of him that calleth) will in some sort evict, yet we grant there is a Purpose of God, both according to Election of Persons and Things, and that either General or Special, as hath been by us already often acknowledged, and the Eternal Election of Persons in Mankind now fallen, whether General or Particular is out of Grace, and not by their own Works, wrought by the Strength of Nature, howbeit in that Special or Particular Election arising out of the special Foreknowledge of God; Works of Grace and perseverance therein are looked upon as Means and the way to Life, yea as a Condition, and a Motive both in that and the final Election of the Saints, which we call the Election out of the Furnace, Rev. 3.4. Thou hast a few Names in Sardis, which have not defiled their Garments, and they shal walk with me in white, Rev. 3, 8. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it, for thou hast a little Strength, and hast kept my Word, and not denyed my Name. Read more at large, Rev. 7.13, 14, 16, 17.

Reply, This answer, tho I will not say the best, is the rarest that any man could have readily lighted on: for to assert the cause of Election to be Grace, p. 249and yet to be some stages behind good works, as he doth here, while he acknowledgeth Election to be of works, not wrought by the strength of Nature, as saying somewhat more, then when he granted Election to be of Grace, is certainly so absurd, that one can invent nothing more absurd, tho he bend his wit to the very purpose, for then it were all one to say, that works done by the strength of Nature are the cause of Election, and Grace is the cause of Election: or Election is of Grace, and Election is of works, done by the strength of Nature were Equipollent. 2. That Election is Grace, or rather 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 En…hymem, of which the words going p. 250before 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, p. 251why 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 p. 252of 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. D…. 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 p. 253are 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 …o long struggling for a desperate Cause, he conceds all at length: For if God hath disposed of the Eternal Estate of every one, universal Election is a bottomless Fiction, except his Patrons affirm, That either all obtain Eternal Life, or else that matters fall out otherwise than God hath disposed, and determined concerning them. 2ly. Whatever he hath said relating to Gen. 25.23. For his Opinion before, we refuted p. 254it before, except he mean some other place beside this, which he handleth this present Text. viz. Rom. 9. 3ly. That their Eternal Estates are there spoken of is clear, seing the Apostle without the least shadow of ambiguity, speaks of the Children themselves, and that the Election of the one, and the Rejection of the other, was antecedent to their doing good or evil. And that this is spoken of the Children themselves in some respect, he himself here asserteth: Then I say, If this be true, their Eternal State must be here spoken of, seing the Lord loved the Person of Iacob, and hated the Person of Esau, before they were born, or had done either good or evil: And that this Assertion may the more evidently appear (viz. That God loved the Person of Jacob, and hated the Person of Esau, even before they were born, I shall more particularly vindicat Mal. 1.2.3. from his depravations, which follow in his next Objection, and Answer thereto: The first of which is, That this place Mal. 1.2, 3. cited here by the Apostle v. 13. to confirm that which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau in the former verses, is not to be understood of their Persons, but of their Seeds. For then this place of Malachi should be adduced by the Apostle to no purpose, seing he is here speaking of the Person of Iacob and Esau, which to say, is both blasphemous and absurd. Moreover, the Prophet Malachi clearly intimats, That he is speaking of the Persons of Iacob and Esau, at least rhat he is not speaking of their Seeds, so as to exclude their Persons, Was not Esau Jacob's brother? which Phrase must be understood p. 255in the first place of Iacob & Esau themselves▪ and secondly of their Seeds: Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight, drawn f…om the words of the 3 verse, And hath laid his Mountain waste, to prove his point, yea, the very contrary follows from the words. Thus I have hated Esau, Therefore, I have laid his Mountain waste, for the Vastation of the Idumean Mountains is mentioned as the effect of divine hatred against the Person of Esau, extending it self in a secondary manner to his Posterity: Even as the love of God to Iacob did extend it self to his Posterity, as is clear from Deut. 10.15. with many other places of Scripture. Where it is evident, that the love of God did principally and chiefly terminat upon the person of Iacob, and secondarly on his Seed and off-spring. Furthermore, our exposition is clear from the very words of the Text it self: For the good Condition or Freedom from Devastat…on, in which then the Jews were, is holden forth by the Prophet, to be an Effect of the Love of God to Iacob, extending it self to his posterity, even as the Destruction of the Edomites was an Effect of his hatred of God to Esau. In a word, the good Condition of the Israelites hath the same kind of Relation to the love of God towards Iacob, which the Devastation of Edom hath to the hatred of God towards Esau: But that the good Condition of the Children of Israel, was the Effect of the free love of God to Jacob, the Prophet there clearly intimateth, and as we said before, many other places assert; Therefore the Devastation of Edom, was the Effect of the hatred of God to p. 256Esau, extending it selt to his wicked Posterity: He sayeth moreover, That the cause why God hated Esau's Posterity at that time, is declared in the 4 v. In these words, We are impoverished, but will return &c. In which words, saith he, Their Incorrigible wickedness is declared. Reply, That Edom was an incorrigible wicked people is true, but nothing to his purpose: For in this their Resolution, considered in it self, of which Resolution alone the Prophet speaketh, and in reposing themselves in their own Lands, there can no wickedness be shewed. Hence we conclude with Junius, that noble Interpreter of Scripture, on the words, That in this 4 v. is contained a Decument, that God is about to confirm Israel, now brought back from Captivity, to defend the Land, and to magnifie himself in all things; but on the other hand, that he was about to deprive the Idumeans, whom he had Reprob…t, of all power to return or rebuild their Common wealth, tho they had endeavoured to do it. Add to all this the body of Orthodox writers, both Ancient and Modern, approving our meaning of this place, we shall name two; But as Gylippus was to the Lacaedemonians, they me accounted in stare omnium: The one is Hierom among the Ancients, upon the place, who saith, He doth not only say, I loved Jacob before he was born, but also I hated Esau before he was brought forth; But I also have reserved my love and hatred for their Posterity. The other is Luther, De servo Arbitrio, Cap, 161▪ who sayes It is not therefore the temerity of the Idumeans which is reproved, but the ingratitude p. 257of the Children of Israel, who see not what God bestoweth upon them, and of what he depriveth their Brethren, the Idumites, for no other cause, but because he loved the one, and hated the other. In which place Luther largely demonstrats, that the Prophet here speaks of these things which he did to Israel and Edom, as the Effect of his eternal love and hatred, in opposition to Erasmus, who by special Command of the Pope, did undertake the defence of the Pelagian Doctrine, in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio. Add to all these the History of Jacob and Esau, as a good Commentarie on both places, now in hand, which declareth that Esau was a profane Person Heb 12.16. and elsewhere, and that Jacob got grace, and so was saved, which is more than a demonstration, that the Lord determined from all Eternity, to save the one, and passe by the other, which is the thing we plead for; That which he sayes in the fourth place is true, but nothing to his purpose. Seing the Question is, whether or not the Apostle in this place handleth the matter of Eternal Election and Reprobation: In the fifth place, he taketh the place of the old Libertins, who denyed that any godly man ought to be subject to any Magistrat, tho never so just, if he want true Grace; by reason of which Doctrines huge Confusions were raised in Germany, as also by Venner, who with his Complices began to raise great Tumults in England, while he minded to make this Doctrine of our Author practicable.

He goeth on to deprave the 14. and 15. verses; The substance of what he saith, we shall faithfully p. 258deliver in so far as he militats against our Confession. Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself, That it seems there are some to whom God will not shew mercy. He answers, That the Apostle pre-occupies an Objection, which some might make out of the Continuance of Gods Mercy, still to the Children of Israel, but withdrawn from Edom, as before; What shall we say, is there unrighteousness with God? Next that Exod. 33, 19. here cited by the Apostle, speaks not of Gods first Grace, which he gives to all alike, but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly, and answerably to the first, as Moses had done. To which I reply. 1. That he makes his Objection, pre-occupied by the Apostle, to be no Objection: For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it, and his withdrawing the same from Esau, upon the abuse thereof, none could infer with any colour of reason, That there is unrighteousness with God, seing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof: And so according to him, the Apostle was triffling all the while. Again any that runneth not into willful prejudice, may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason, by far than our Author maketh it to have; for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse, of the absolute rejection of some, while others were Elected, which Doctrine carnal reason, as it doth yet, knew too well how to wrest; And from this Doctrine according to carnal p. 259Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow: Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures, yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature. Yea the most absolute imaginable. Now if the objection had been such an one; as this Arminian professeth it, there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture. 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace, stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election, which distinction we have already rejected; for this Distinction of Grace in first and second, it is groundless, for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text, viz. Exod: 33: 19. That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace, which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith, causing Moses irresistibly, yet sweetly walk in Gods Statutes. But leaving him to use well, or abuse the grace gotten. Now he must prove this from the Text, if he would conclude any thing from it; moreover, If Moses speak only of a second grace here, which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceed, then this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures, than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects, whom he ought to reward or punish, according to their desert, and not to whom he will only: And so this Text shall destroy it self. Lastly, if the exposition of this universalist were sound, then the Apostles Conclusion, which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow, but rather the quite p. 260contrary thereof. For if God give a first grace to all, and that so sufficient, that it lyes only in Mans will to come, or not to come unto God, and that Man hath power either to will or nill, at pleasure, either to turn, or not to turn to God: and yet notwithstanding, some come, and some come not, then all that makes the one to differ from the other, is certainly of him that willeth. The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be meer of Mercy, yet Man can both will and run in some sort, as this Scripture imports; because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose: For the Argument which may be framed from this verse, and it is not of him that willeth, Ergo Election, or the purpose of God, (one of which words must of necessity be supplyed from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion, and the verb foreign which of necessity must be understood here, shall want a Noun) is not an effect of the will of Man, or of his good works moving God thereunto. Now this Argument is not touched by the answer, as is of it self apparent: He therefore here delivereth up the cause, and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader. 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will, or run in the way of Gods Commandments, than these words in Ezek. 36.22, 32. Not for your sake, and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses. And 1. He desires us, To note that here the Lord doth not say, for this purpose I have created thee, but raised thee up p. 261or brought thee upon the Stage. But this is the vainest of evasions, for none but an Athiest can deny, that God from all Eternitie did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end, for which in time he raised him up: and consequently, that he decreed to create him for the same end, otherwise God failed of his first end, and was forced to betake himself to the next best: Which to affirm is to make God a Man, and so to profess atheism with open face; yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man, seing according to it the omniscient God, did creat Pharaoh for an end, which he knew he was never to obtain. But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage, but also created to the end, that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction, is clear from Pro▪ 16.4. Where it is said, that God made, wrought, formed, or created, for all these will the word Pagnal bear, all things for Himself, yea even the wicked, the Spirit of God holding forth, that this is a Paradox, unto the day of evil. 2. He sayes, That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebell, as is evident, Exod: 8.2. But what he would hence inferr is not evident, except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God: To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it. That which he sayes in the third place, viz. That God shewed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him: As also his fourth observation, viz. that he makes him of unwilling p. 262willing to let his People go, is meer nothing: For himself here on the matter grants, That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom, He was destinat to destruction, and his day of grace gone, otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense: Therefore it follows, That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh: And that his causing of him to let the people go, was no infusion of grace in him. His 5. note viz▪ That God did not harden Pharaohs heart, by infusing any hardness into it, but rather used means to soften it, and bend his heart to obedience, we imbrace withall our heart, as to the first part; for the second part thereof, it is ambiguous; For if we understand these words of a real design in God to soften the heart of Pharaoh by these means, it is false, seing God himself declareth, Exod: 4.21. Even before these were used toward Pharaoh, that he had no such intent, but the contrarie thereof. He sayes 6ly. That the Lord destroyed him not, untill his heart byassed and willfully revolted from that inclination of letting Israel go, to which the Lord had brought and wrought him: So that the Lords pleasure in hardening, must out of this example be understood of such as are first or last refractory against his grace and gracious requiring Motions. Reply, upon as good a ground he might assert, that Dives in hell had such inclinations and workings of grace, together with power to use them aright, if he had pleased, which if he had improved aright, he might have passed p. 263thorow the impenetrable gulf, to the place where Lazarus was. For Dives, Luk. 16.27, 28. Had an inclination and a vehement desire, that his five Brethren might shun the place of torment, in which he was: And surely this inclination and desire was as good in it self as Pharaohs, of letting Israel go; and surely the Motive that prompted Pharaoh to yield to the peoples departure, was not a whit better than the motive of this desire in Dives, for both were acted by the fear of punishment: Hence let the Universalists be ashamed of their first grace, seing it is common to these in Hell as well as to these in the World. 2. If this his Doctrine (viz. that Pharaoh and every Man else had a sufficient Measure of Grace given them, and power to use it well or ill at pleasure, according to the good or ill improvement of which, they might have been saved or damned) be true, and this Arminians exposition of Exod: 9.16. Here cited by the Apostle be to be received, then the Apostles Conclusion vers, 16. is a meer Non sequitur; for according to his exposition, the Lord should not have mercy on whom he will, and harden whom he will, but these only who will, or desire to have Mercy, or to be hardned; seing this Universalistick Doctrine makes the main and Chief difference, betwixt these that are actually saved, and not saved, to flow from the will of Man, which they say has a power to receive or reject Grace, and so to be mollified, or hardned absolutely, at pleasure; now I say, to say this, and yet to assert that God hath mercy on whom he will have p. 264mercy, and hardneth whom he will, is no less ridiculouslie contradictorie, than if one should say that such a judge had absolute power over such a guilty City, to save alive or put to Death all the Citizens at pleasure, and yet in the mean while that there were such and such Conditions proposed to this City, which they could imbrace or respect as they listed, upon the performance of which Conditions, this judge could not, nor might not put to death any, nor save the rejectors thereof.

He goeth on to comment upon the 9. verse. Why doth he yet find fault? Who hath resisted his will! Thus, it seems then that his will in condemning the wicked is irresistible. Answer, the will of God is manifold. First voluntas Signi, that which he would have done by Men, and that may be resisted or dissobeyed. 2ly. Voluntas Beneplaciti, that which he is pleased to effect, and that either absolutly, to be done by himself alone, or with others, which cannot be withstood; or conditionally in case the Creature act his part, this Conditional will may also be repugned; So that wicked Men can not excuse themselves by the irresistibilitie of the first or last mentioned will of Gods irrevocable decree, at length past upon the obstinat and incorrigible sinner, which like his powerful and efficacious will, is inexpugnable: But it is the obdured Mans refractory and inflexible will, that hath now made this will or decree of God so peremptorie against him. So that God hath just cause to fault and blame the Man that perisheth, but not è Contra.

p. 265Reply in the framing of his Objection, he should have inferred that it seems that the Will of God, in passing by some, while he from all Eternity elected others to Glory, and of hardning them in time, is irresistible, or unchangeable, for of these two the Apostle here speaks: But let us come to his Answer, in which we may observe, that this distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti, in absolute and conditionat, is a meer fiction, as appeareth even by the Testimony of Arminius himself, who in his Book against Perkins, acknowledgeth that voluntas beneplaciti is without limitation effi…acious. But 2dly this Distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti in absolute and conditionat, makes God as changeable as a man; for if the Lord have a real Will and Intention, that such and such things be done by some men, in order to obtaining such and such Priviledges, v. g. Eternal Life, then there can be nothing imagined, able to hinder the bringing to pass of this desire, but two things, viz. either the want of Power, or a real Change in the Will of God; but both those are equally absurd: neither let any say here, that this will of God is only conditionat in respect of the ends only, and not of the Means and Conditions thereof: For whosoever willeth any thing, he willeth and desireth all the Means and Conditions, in order to its bringing to pass, and will give a Beeing to all those Conditions, if it be in his Power, which Power none dare derogat from God. 3dly. This Objection, as this Arminian propones it, is no Objection, for in Substance it is this, If the Lord p. 266hath proposed such Conditions, as men can perform and so obtain Salvation, and yet obstinatly refuse them, so that at length the Lord after their rejection thereof, decreeth their Eternal Ruine, then he hath no Reason to find fault with Man, but the Blame thereof lieth upon himself. Now I say to propose the O…jection thus, is to render the Apostle ridiculous, for there is no more appearance of Reason here, than a Subject should have to grumble and repine, when he is punished by his Prince, for denying Obedience to him, which to have performed was in his Power. 4ly▪ If the Objection had been of no more seeming strength, than this Arminian or Pelagian (for all is one) alledgeth it to be, the Apostle had easily found out another Answer, than that which he doth in the following Verses, where he stops the Mouth of the Objecter with the absolute Power of God over the Creature, shewing that the Creature hath no more Reason to complain that God decreed, to pass by some, and condemn them for their Iniquity, than the clay of the same lump hath to complain of the Potters Unjustice, because he did not destinat it for as honourable an use, as another part of the same Mass. In short, if the Objection could be so framed, as that there could be an Answer thereto found out, suiting the Genius of Humane Reason (which is the Scope of our Author here, and all the rest of his Brethren) then there should be an indissolvable, and more than Gordian knot cast to any that were perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures, for considering p. 267the Apostles Answer in the following Verse, they should have but too much Ground, to suspect most vehemently, that the Apostle was not assisted with the Divine Spirit, who betook himself for Sanctuary to the absolute Power of God, in the case wherein he, or any man else might have sweetly satisfied Reason, and not thus stopt its mouth, by imposing as it were an imperious silence, and left it far less quieted, than they found it; That which he commenteth upon v. 20 is not a whit les… vain than the rest: the Substance of which is, that the Apostle in this v. stops the Mouth of these, who complained, that God created them with Liberty of will, and so with power of falling, to which saith he, it is answered, that this Faculty might be improved to the Salvation of the Creature, as well as to the glory of Gods grace.

To which we Reply, that no such Interpretation can be gathered from the Text, for the Objection proposed in the former v, doth not in the least intend, from the Liberty of Mans Will, to do Good or Evil, to conclude that Man is not guilty, but rather God. But from the Immutability and Irresistibility of Gods Will and Decree of passing by and rejecting some, (as he did with Esau) the Objecter endeavoureth to free Man from Guilt, and fix it upon God, neither is he a whit happier in taking up of the Apostles Answer; for the Apostle doth not flee to the Liberty of Mans will, that he may draw his Answer hence, but the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature, and that … p. 266duplicate page p. 267duplicate page p. 268an one as he hath, who possesseth wood, Iron, Clay, or such Materials, and is wilfull to make various Kinds of Instruments, which may serve either for honourable or dishonourable uses; but these Materials that are appointed by the Owner and Artist thereof, cannot be said to be wronged by him, or to have any Ground of Complaint, and that by Reason of the absolute Power, that the Owner and Artist hath over them; even as any of Mankind that from all Eternity are passed by and rejected of God, and destinat to Destruction for Gods own Glory, as it is said Prov. 16.4. have no Reason to complain. Now in this Analogy lies the Strength of the Apostles answer, which who ever denyes shal never be able to find the Sense of this Text. Hence it appears (whether ignorantly or maliciously, I know not) that this Arminian hath come short of uptaking either Objection or Answer: But most of all absurd is what he sayeth, in his Commentary (rather depravation) of the 21 v. viz. That as the Potter makes no Vessels of set Purpose to be broken, tho he makes some for dishonourable uses: So the Lord makes none of the Sons of men of Purpose to be destroyed, tho he makes some Superiours and Inferiours in the Church and Common-wealth; I say this is most of all absurd, for it is as clear as if written with a Sunbeam, that the Apostle is here speaking nothing of high and low Degrees in Church or State, but of these who perish, and these who are saved Eternally; according to this Explication, every one that is in low Degree should be a Vessel p. 269of Wrath, fitted for Destruction: Seing none can deny, that this is all one with a Vessel of Dishonour: as also every one that is in high Degree in Church or State should be a Vessel of Mercy, aforetime prepared unto Glory, and one of Gods called Ones, as the Apostle was, (whose calling I think was effectual, and so certainly a Saint) such a mark of Believers and Unbelievers was never heard before.

To Corroborat what he sayes on this Verse he gives us his notes on Jer. 18.3, 4, 5. among which one is, that the Lord expostulates with Israel for not suffering him to mould them a new. To which we answer, that it will no more follow from this place, that the Heart of corrupt man is stronger in resisting than the Power of God, and that God cannot make men of unwilling to become willing, which is the meaning of our Adversaries Words, than real ignorance of what was to come, may be concluded to be in God from Isa. 5.4. and 59.16. Other notes he has upon this place, such as, That the Lord forms men a new by Force or Violence, but works with them as free Agents, serving for nothing except to declare this Authors maliciousnesse; for he here insmuates, that the Reformed Churches judge, that God deals with a sinner in his Conversion, as if he were a Stone or a Bruit, the contrair of which appeareth from their Confessions, and in special in the Confession, which he here impugneth. Ch. 10.1.

He goeth on to comment upon the 22 verse where p. 270he says, That it is not so much as implyed, that these Vessels of wrath, spoken of in this verse, by the Apostle, were fitted by the Lord to Destruction. Yea saith he, the contrary is imported, where the Apostle sayes, That … endureth them with much long suffering; For if God created them, or designed them of purpose to Destruction, things had succeeded according to his hearts desire.

In Reply to these Cavils we find no difficulty; for God may be as well said to fit men to Destruction, as he is said to harden some. verse 18. For I think none will deny, but hardening is a fitting to Destruction. 2. I think none dare deny, that even while God was hardening Pharaohs heart, he was exercising his long suffering patience, in permitting him to fulfill his course of sin. Augustin de Civit. Dei Lib. 16. sayes. God of the same Mass, condemned through Original sin, did as a Potter make one to honour, and another to dishonour: Our Author sayeth moreover, That it is not said, they were created but fitted for Destruction foreign Reply, Altho our Adversary loves alwayes to pass over the Connection of the verses of this Chapter, as indeed he hath good reason to do, he notwithstanding may permit us to consider it: In which we shall find, that men may be said to be fitted to wrath, even as some part of the lump of clay is fitted by the Potter, for Vessels of Dishonour: But it is appointed for this dishonourable use as soon as it is appointed to be vessels: But so it is, That the Lord so ordereth of men as the Potter of his Clay, as the Apostle here shewes. It is clear p. 271therefore, That by this word Fitted, must be understood among other things, Appointed or Decreed.

He goeth on to Comment on the 23 verse, where among some other things, which he hath not to the Purpose that he intendeth, he asserts, That this preparing of the Vessels of Glory, is not attributed to Gods Eternal Decree. And in this he is but like himself, who, as we have heard above denyeth on the matter, that there is any Decree of God concerning the Salvation or Damnation of men in particular before death: Altho at another time, as we have also heard, he sticketh not to contradict this; But that this preparation is Attributed to the Decree of God, is clear, not only from the Scope of the Apostle, and the Energie of the word foreign but also from no few other Scriptures, such as Eph. 1. 4, 5, 6, 7.

A length to shut up this Discourse, Let the Reader Observe with me. 1. That tho men bring full Wain-loads of Arguments, in appearance like Goli…h's Sword, from the Armorie of corrupt Reason whereby to overthrow the genuine meaning of this place, they are not to be regarded, neither on this account are we to be moved or shaken, as touching the behalf of this place. For in so far as we are shaken from it through the force of these Reasons, We yield to these great Adversaries of Christ Jesus, the Socinians, that grand Principle of all Orthodox Christians viz. that Reason as well as the rest of the Scriptures Rivals, ought to strike fail, and yeild preheminency thereto, as being the entire and ultimat Rule of the Faith and Manner… of p. 272a Christian. This I have good reason to note here; For there be many that though they cannot but perceive this Text to be, without the highest violenting and detorting thereof, utterly incapable of any other sense, than what the Reformed, and in especial our Reverend Westminister Assembly, give upon it still, notwithstanding alledge, that on the account of their most powerful Reasons to the contrary, This our meaning is not to be received, seek another where we will. 2. That if there be a Doctrine in all the Holy Scriptures, out of the r…ch of, and far above the Line of Humane Reason, contrary to Corrupt Reason, and in its Estimat repugnant to all Reason (as certainly there is) then no man will deny, but that this Doctrine of Eternal Election, and Reprobation, is one of the chief o… such Doctrines, as having for its Object, that which i… no less Impervestigable than Eternity, no less unfathomable than Immensity, no less Incomprehensible, than he whose very name is Wonderful, and so wonderful that none can know it, even God himself, according to his Eternal actings and workings, 3ly. That this place of Scripture, is one of the chief Seats of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation: Hence we most rationally infer, that in agitation of this great Controversy; If any Scriptures be brought, which seemingly (for none do it really) speak contrary to this Text, Light is to be brought from this place, for expounding and clearing up the meaning of these seemingly repugnant Scriptures, … rather, that ê contra, these should be made … Standard and Guide in exposition of this.

FINIS.

End of the text · William Jameson, The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism (1689)