The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Chapter 4
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 …rimer to Europe, pag 37. What is the Trinity in Unity? and whether all these words be …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 …o the light bring it out, and the fi…st …uthor of …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, …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 G…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 foreign 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 thei… Treatises, there i… 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 thi… 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 opposition… o which, The Council of Nice, sayes, chap· I. in their Symbol, That the Son is foreign, 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 foreign 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 simplici…y and ignorance of the Greek-tongue, to grant that the Son was not foreign Patri, they were judged to involve them in the profession of Arrianism; which is clear from Ruf. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1 Cap. 2….
The Argument wherewith they endeavour to prove, that the Son was not Consubstantial with the Father, was, that the word foreign 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 se… 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 Za…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 a… t…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 …n one e…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 bo…h to the doctrine, and Church of Christ.
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 impor…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 thing… 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 the…eof it is impious, and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be foreign 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 Scrip…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 …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 d…sputant…, endeavour to draw Consequen…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 Syllabl…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 Sa…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 Con…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 …o us…, being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before …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 Me…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 …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.…. Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren: For if the word foreign 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, …f the word Person, or Subsistence be rejected) then it shall irresisti…ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance, which was the Doctrine of Arrius, both in Ma…ter and Term…; hence it is clear…r than day-light, that these men are his Disciples, yea it is to be observed that if the word foreign 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: A… contrariwise if a Man believe, that the word ought to …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 4ta apud Zanchium, pag 854 of his forecited book, sayes He…, 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 oppose…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 …he Greek Word foreign 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 Ass…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 …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 a… all which truly could be called a Trinitie. Hence we se… that this word Substantia did bea… a twofold Signification▪ in the first of which it may be well put into the re…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 ou… o… 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 foreign 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 an…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, Pome…ranus on the place and others. It is clear then th… 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 d…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 … good Consequence by (God) must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subs…st…nc… 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 esp…cially after the rise of the Arrian Heresie: H…nce Iustin Martyr hath a book intituled foreign, and describes a Person of the Holy …rinit… foreign, &c. And Damas…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 sa…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 th… purpose, and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius, who in his Symbol thus speaketh, Whosoever will be saved; before all thing…, it is necessary, that he hold the Catholick Faith, which Faith, except every man keep wholly, and inviolat, without doubt he shall eternally p… rish; this truly is the right Catho…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 C… stantin the great called …hem) and other Here…ick…. 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 …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 …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 …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 h…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 t… 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 ther… 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 relativ… to a Son (and therefore a Father is Father of a…nother, and no man is his own Father) the… to say, the Father is a person, is to say, the Fathe… is the Person of some other, and so of the rest, which is absurd, to the which Argument, not as mine, but really Augustin's, I leave Joh. Alexander to answer. Thus George Keith. Ans. It seemeth that the Intent of the Quaker is, to fasten a false Contradiction on Augustin; for none ever used the word Person, in Application to the Holy Trinity, more frequently than Augustin hath done, as is obvious to any, that hath but a little acquaintance with his Works. And de Trinit. Lib. 5. Cap 8. He asserteth that the Latine Fathers, yea, and these of greatest Authority among them, still used the word Person, as the most fit that could be imagined, for the expressing of this Holy Mystery. To whom he assenteth both in this place, and else where, in the same Books, Cited by George Keith. We may hence see, what the drift of the Quaker is, even to render both the Persons and Doctrine of the choicest Champions of Christ, odious and contemptable, by making them speak self-contradictions, and that in these very points, anent which, if the Body of the Christian World be not grosly deceived, they were of all men, most Orthodox. 2. This same Father, de Doctrina Christi. Lib 1. Cap 5. Alledgeth, that the word Causa, cannot sufficiently enough agree to God. And Cap 6. That the word Deus, is not fit enough, whereby God can be expressed. Sure I am, that in both these Books, mentioned by the Quaker, he saith nothing whereby we may conclude, that he is more disliking the word Person, than the word Causa, or Deus. But shall I think, that George Keith judgeth, that according to the mind of Augustin, God is not the Creator, or first cause of all things? And that we sin in expressing him by the Name of God? I do not think that the Quaker will assent to this, and yet no more Reason hath he to say, that according to Augustin, it is dangerous to say, that there are three Persons in the Trinity. For the main Reason why he thinketh that there is some inconsistency in the word (Person) for the full expressing of that inexpressible Mystery, he giveth de Trinit. Lib 7. Cap 4 In these words, When they enquire of us, what Three? or how these Three shall be called? we set our selves to find some special or general Name, neither can we find it, because the supereminency of the Dei…y exceeds the strength of our Eloquence, and God is more truely Comprehended by the Mind, than expressed by the Tongue, and more truly existeth, than comprehended in the Mind. This I say, is the Reason, why Augustin thinketh the word (Person) not sufficient enough, for the Declaration of this incomprehensible Mystery: But the same is the Reason why, de Doctrina Christ. Lib 1. Cap 5. He thinketh that the word Cause cannot agree to God: Hence it is apparent, That an Atheist might as well, and with as good ground alledge, that Augustin in the forecited places did patronize his Atheism, and publish to the world that God is not the Supream cause of all things, or that there is not a God. 3. I have with care perused these Books of Augustin, but could not at all find this Argument which George Keith fathereth upon him: I Answer therefore the Argument not as Augustin's, but as a sinnowless Argument of George Keith, drawn from a simily of natural things, which hath little or no proportion to that which is Infinit. Hence I say, that it can have little or no weight. But again the Argument is false, and Ridiculous, on this Account, that the Quakers make every Father, the Person of his Son, which I am sure is absurd enough. For as a Father is the Father of another, and yet a distinct Person from another, so God the Father, is the Father of God the Son, and yet a distinct Person from God the Son. Hence the similie …rought, not by Augustin, but by the Quaker, for the overth…ow of the Truth, tendeth to the Illustration, and clearing thereof. From all this Lea…n how disingenuous Dealers these men are, that can find no better Means for the defence, and propagation of their Doctrine, than to deceive the Simple, by borrowing the Names of the Antient Wort…ies, whereby to cover their blasphemous Doctrine. Thus their best refuge is to broach Lies, in Hypocrisies.
2. I shall prove that according to the Quakers Doctrine, God is the Author of sin, which I thus Evince.
God is the Author of every Substance, but according to the Quakers Doctrine, Sin is a Substance. The Minor I prove, Grace is a Substance, which is their Common Doctrine, therefore sin is a Substance also. The consequence Rob: Barclay Vind: pag 49. denyeth, which I thus prove, the Antecedent viz. that Grace is a Substance, they endeavour to prove by these Reasons. First because it is in and by this inward, and substantial Seed in their hearts, as it cometh to receive nourishment, and to have a Birth, and Geniture in them, they come to have these Spiritual Senses raised, by which they are made capable of Tasting, Smelling, Seeing, and Handling the things of God. Thus reasoned Robert Barclay In his Apology pag 95. This is also the Doctrine of George Keith in his Immed. Rev. That this Light, or Seed, or Grace, is a Substance, because it may feel, hear &c.
Robert Barclays second Reason is, because it subsists in the hearts of wicked men, even while they are in their wickedness. Now if Sin may hear, feel, and perceive, as well as Grace and Light, and if it may feel, or perceive the things of Satan, as really as Grace feels, or perceiveth the things of God, and if sin may be in the. heart of a real godly person, then sin is a Substance, according to the Quakers; Otherwise these Reasons are reasonlesse: But the former is true, therefore the la…ter. The Consequence of the Major is most firm. For sin in the heart of one that is truly godly, is the same way to be considered, as Grace, and Light in the heart of the ungodly in this point. For I judge this be the Reason, why the Quakers Judge that this is the Reason, that the Beeing of Grace in the Heart of a wicked Man, while in his wickedness proveth it to be a substance viz. Because it can be where its contrary is, and strive, and wrestle with it, which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a godly man, as is clear from Rom. 7. Gal. 5, 17, and also from Experience, which I believe our Adversaries themselves would hardly deny, seing they grant that all Persons, that have real Grace are not at all times, after Conversion free of sin, and wrestling with it. Hence the Charge that they most maliciously lay to the Reformed Churches viz. that they make God the Author of Sin, is justly returned upon themselves, seing God is the Author of every Substance. Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query, sent to Mr Iohn Alexander viz. What is Original Sin? Whether it be not the Devil? yea or nay? For doth not the Original signifie the Beginning? What did Christ come to destroy? Was it not the Devil and his Works? What is more clear, than that in those Queries of the Quakers, God is made the Author of Sin? seing that unlesse they professe, and avow Manicheism, God created the Devil, and this is yet more clear, if clearer can be, by George Keiths Defence of this Querie Truth defend: pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy, than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope, saying, that the Devil may be called sin, in a certain sense by a Metonymy, as Christ is called Righteousness, or sin, called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself, that is playeth the ridiculous babler, for pag. 59. in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God? he sayeth, that to query a thing, will not conclude, that the questionist doth positively affirm, or deny what is queried. The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist. For if the Quakers understood no other thing, then the Devil may get the Name of sin, as any cause may get the name of its effect: Then both they, and he in their Defence, prove themselves to be pitiful, purposeless wranglers, making a stur in the World about nothing: And of set purpose involving their Discourse… in such non…ensical Nice…ies, that none shal know the meaning thereof: Hence we may see, that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers. For whatever they have said, you cannot fix upon them, be as clear as it will; they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense, as opposite to that, which in the Judgment of all rational men, their words carry; as Black is opposite to White, or Light to Darkness. For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin it self? seing I think no Man, except George Keith, will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World, importing only these things; about which there is not the least shadow of a question, or doubt, for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin? Neither is his abuse of Scripture more to…lerable: seing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech, which in a matter known, and about which there is no debate; as the Matter was, about which the Apostle speaketh, may contribute much to the illustration, and clearing of the purpose: but far otherwise was it, wheresoever Christ, or the Apostles en…red int… any direct D…sputation, or reasoning, where they always so spake, as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions, and Reasonings tended to. In a word he that of set purpose involveth, and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment, in the Judgment of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool, or a Knave: Therefore whether George Keith will, or not, we must do these Questionists right, and believe that they thought as they spake, that is, that the Devil is sin it self. And therefore God is the Author of sin.
3. I come now to the third thing, of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty, viz. That the Soul is God, or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity, they deny its Humanity; For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth, there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit, as Angels, and the Souls of men are; he replyeth, saying this is confusion: For Christ sayeth, God is a Spirit, and they that worship him; must worship him in Spirit, and Truth. And there thou art raced without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock, who had accused the Quakers of professing, and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God, he thus replyeth▪ Thy boasting is excluded without, in thy Generation. And thou art excluded from the life, and mind of the Apostle, who said, Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the Form of God, thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5, 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy, and so thou hast shewed what Spirit thou art of; contrary to the Apostle, here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree, and an Equality with God pro…essed, and boasted of; For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind, Our first Parents fell from their Excellency, and most happy Condition: And except Christ had interposed, had forever lien together, with all their Posterity into that whirle pool, and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery, only for the desire of aspiring unto …his, of which these Heaven dar…ing blasphemer▪ boast themselves: so that what the Poets feigned of the Gyants contending with the gods, for an Equal Right to Heaven with them, the Quakers act in Reality. But the following discourse will evince, that an Equality with God will not please them, except they have also an Identity: For George Fox the great Prophet, and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one, that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul, yet it cannot be infinitness in it self, speaketh thus, Is not the Soul without beginning▪ coming from God, returning to God again▪ who hath it in his hand, and Christ the Power of God, the Bishop of the Soul, which bringeth it up to God, which came out from him? hath this a beginning, or ending? and is not this infinite in it self? again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus Byne sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in it self, but a Creature, and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance, wher…unto George Fox Replyeth, Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in: they say that which is a spiritual Substance, is not infinit in it self, but a Creature: that which came out of the Creator, and is in the Hand of the Creator, which bringeth it up unto the Creator again, that is infinite in it self. Again Great Myst. p. 100. The Quakers are accused for saying, there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul: And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God; Hereunto George Fox thus answereth, God breathed into Man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God? is in Gods hand? part of God? from God? and to God again?from these passages it is most evident, that both the Soul of man; yea and the Devils themselves (which I tremble to think) must be God over all; Seing according to these 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 …a…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 unden…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 blasph…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 Ro… 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 foreign 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 foreign 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, foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign 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 all blessed for ever, so with equal Impiety they bring down the glorious God, levelling him with the dust, and subject that most pure and Impassible beeing, to the weakest frailties of Mankind, Alledging that Christ weeped as God, and not as man over Ierusalem, but that they may want all ground of Complaint; Let us hear themselves, who in the principles of the Priests of Scotland pag 33. say It was asked of him viz. Henry Foreside, of a fore ordained number to destruction, and for what Christ wept over Ierusalem. He answered, as he was Human, he mourned and his god-head decreed them to hell, this is a lying Doctrine of the devil, for after, many of them of Ierusalem came to be converted, as ye may read in Acts 2. And many of the Priests came to be obedient to the Faith, for all being gone astray both Iews, and Gentiles, Rom 2.9. concluded under sin, the pure, the Eternal tendered over them; who had stopped their ears, and closed their eyes to that which was pure of God in them, that they might have come to that which is pure, and have been gathered under Christs wings, Mat. 23, 37. Who is pure, and so have been converted, and healed, and have heard with their ears, and seen with their Eyes. And as for the word (Humane) that is not Scripture Language, it speaketh not that Language.