he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
their Fathers transgressions only To whom the Lord asserteth that they had sin enough themselves for which they might be punished doth not at all say that no sin can be imputed to another this meaning we say beside that it is evident from the Context must of necessity be admitted otherwise there shall be a flat contradiction between this and many other texts As for example the second Command This text Mr. Broun pag 119. cleared and everted what the Quakers had said from this place therefore he in his Vindication pag 55. not being in case to force the texâ— to speak for him again saith the words are plain The Son shall not die for the Fathers iniquity And therefore they must stand to the overthrow of his Adversaries Doctrine Such a Combâ—tâ—nt as this is not fit for a second essay CHAP. IV. Of GOD. IN this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Unchristian the maintainer thereof 1. That they deny the holy Trinity with Arrius and Sabellius 2 That their Doctrine maketh God the Author of in 3. That they hold the Soul of Man to be God. First we shall evince that this Sect really denyeth the Trinity of persons in the God-head and is as abominable if not more as the old Arrians Sabellians Macedonians or the latter Arrians as the Socinians And in the first place we shall give you the words of George Fox a Quaker of great note in his â—rimer to Europe pag 37. What is the Trinity in Unity and whether all these words be â—ot of mens Wisdom and Teaching Ans. To every particular Query word that is queried of you here and what was their first ground and root and â—o the light bring it out and the fiâ—st â—uthor of â—hem and whether or no all this body hath not gotten up since the Apostacy in the transgression where mens wisdom teacheth words and the words the Holy Ghost teacheth is foolishness to them Whether or not this is so Answer me yea or no What are the three Persons in the Trinity How are the three Persons subsistences of the Diety How is the Trinity not the number numbering but the number numbered How is the opinion of the Trinity not only a Church Tradition but a Doctrine expressed in the Scriptures How is the word Hypostasis which you acknowledge any singular Substance used Metaleptically or by taking one thing for another for a person Heb 1.2 Since ye say a person is a singular â—ational and compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable property Answer me this and all the Terms and Words and Queries and things before mentioned What be the Wisdom that hath taught them and Ground and Root they are come from And whether or not they have all come up amongst Christians since the days of the Apostles And learned of the Heathens that knew not Gâ—d that transgressed the life that had nothing but their own Wisdom to teach them who was taught by their own Wisdom and whether that is not pleasing to a carnal man that knows not the things of God How are the Words Persons Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ye grant are not found in so many Syllables in the Scriptures yet agree thereto And George Keith in his Quak No Popery pag 47.104 Sayeth that To speak of Persons in the God-head is an uncertain unscriptural Notion and a barbarous heathnish Terme The Doctrine and Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 19 20. It is a lie that the Scripture doth declare of the three persons or of the Trinity Add to all this that in all theiâ— Treatises there iâ— nothing found concerning the Holy Trinity except enough of this kind of Doctrine of which we have given the Reader a taste I will in the second place shew that thiâ— Doctrine is all one if not worse with the Doctrine of the execrable Arrians For their Doctrine was That the Son is separated or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of God the Father In oppositionâ— o which The Council of Nice sayes chap· I. in their Symbol That the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the same individual Substance with the Father Rufin lib. 1. Now it is to be observed whoever hitherto contradicted the Doctrine of this Nicen Symbol were accounted by all Christians Arrians And upon this ground abominated by the whole Church Cane pejus et angue as they speak Next I assert that whosoever denyed that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri that is of the same individual Substance with the Father were by all the Orthodox counted Arrians So that in that unhappy Council of Ariminum when the Arrian Bishops had deceived some of the simpler sort through their Sophistry and made them through their own simpliciâ—y and ignorance of the Greek-tongue to grant that the Son was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri they were judged to involve them in the profession of Arrianism which is clear from Ruf. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1 Cap. 2â— The Argument wherewith they endeavour to prove that the Son was not Consubstantial with the Father was that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in Scripture which appears from this last cited Author They used also this Argument at a Convention at Carthage in the time of Hunnericus with such impudent clamours that they deafned their hearers Christianus Matthias in his Theat Hist. pag 744. So the Reader may seâ— here that the Quakers have learned both their Doctrine and Proofs thereof from the Arrians They ought therefore to have the Name seing they have the thing I will here subjoin the words of a late Arrian in a Pamphlet of his called Antith Christ et Antichristi which the Reader may find inserted and refuted in the 7 Tom. of Zinchius his Works which Words are his 20 Antith to be found in Zaâ—ch Col. 872. 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast the Form of sound Words which thou hast learned of me The Apostle enjoined this to Timothy and aâ—â— tâ—e Ministers of the Church to the end that they may flee strange Words and Phrases in speaking concerning God and the Mysteries of Faith that they may be content with these which he himself used in delivering the Doctrine of Religion these words Trinity Essence three persons â—n one eâ—â—â—nce altho they be neither used by Christ nor Paul but invented by the Councils and Fathers yet say the Orthodox they are necessarily to be keeped in the Church therefore let them confess as the matter is that they are not the disciples of Christ and the Apostles seing so rashly they strive against their precepts and the divine similitude wherewith the Prophets and Apostles did holily expresse the Mystery of the knowledge of God and Christ being laid aside they study new Forms and in teaching the Church they have the same oftentimes in their Mouth not without vile Ignominy boâ—h to the doctrine and Church of Christ.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or persona See the same Author Col. 783 De Libris Ephremi Pariarchae Theopolitani where he confirmeth at large this our assertion Now observe serious Reader of how great a consequence in the Judgement of those who are in this great point most Orthodox the right or wrong use of these words about which we now treat was esteemed and also that they took them in the same sense for which we now plead But I forbear to add more out of the anâ—ients For Calvin Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 2. affirmeth this our proposition of all the Ancient Orthodox without exception and Socinus ingenuously confesseth it Of the Modern writers I affirm the same as is clear from Calvin ibid. and Tremellius in His version of the Text out of the Syriak Pomeâ—ranus on the place and others It is clear then thâ—â— we have both name and thing in Scripture and indeed this Text doth so clearly hold forth this trulie Catholick Doctrine that George Keith is forced to discover that which he by all means endeavoureth to palliat For Truth Defended p. 76.79 He sayeth that this Text is to be understood speaking of Christ as Man only Now I am sure if he could make out this he should do a piece of non such service unto the Arrians and Socinians for this is one of the Texts that they with greatest Care endeavour to pervert and wrest and the Orthodox to vindicate inferring alwayes from it the Divinity of Christ but this he shall never be able to make out for there is nothing more clear than that the whole Context and Scope of the Apostle doth evince that this place speaketh of Christ as God and again who dâ—re say except the Arrians and Socinians with George Keith that Christ as Man can be called the Brightness of the Fathers Glory or the express Image or Character of the Father Man indeed was made according to the Image of God but certain it is that no Creature in Scripture is called the Image of the Father hence when Christ Col 1.15 Is called the Image of the invisible God Divines take the the word GOD for the person of the Father neither at all can it be otherwise understood for Christ is there called the first born of every Creature and he by whom all things were Created and Consist Hence Christ must be called the Image of the invisible God according to his God-head and by â— good Consequence by God must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subsâ—stâ—ncâ— from that of the Son. From all which I conclude that so firm is the Truth of our Doctrine that the very things that seem to infringe and weaken it resolve only into a fair Occasion of and making way for its clearer Evidence and stronger Corroboration Add to all this that the primitive Church carefully retained these Words and Phrases as either being in Scripture in Terminis or bottomed thereon and as being the true Symbols of these Divine Things whereby the Church might most fitly express her mind and repel the Sophistry of Hereticks both before but espâ—cially after the rise of the Arrian Heresie Hâ—nce Iustin Martyr hath a book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes a Person of the Holy â—rinit◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Damasâ—â—â—e Orth. fide and others follow him in this Description These and the like Phrases are generally found in the works of the Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian and others before the rise of Arrianism but especially after it as Augustin Athanasius Hilarius Cyrillus Alexandrinus Eusebius Rufinus Sozomenes and many others divers of which as Augustin Athanasius hath books with Titles expresly concerning the Holy Trinity But as I saâ—d before after the rise of the Arrian and Sabellian Heresies the Church with greater Care and Acuracy distinguished the words Substance and Subsistence as he that pleases may see in Ruf. l. i. Cap. 29 and in the History of Sozomenes writing of the Council of Alexandria Notable also to thâ—â— purpose and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius who in his Symbol thus speaketh Whosoever will be saved before all thingâ— it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Faith except every man keep wholly and inviolat without doubt he shall eternally pâ—rish this truly is the right Cathoâ—ick Faith that we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity without confounding the Persons neither separating the Substance c. From which Time to this day the Church hath Religiously Observed these Words and Phrases whereby She might express the Truth and distinguish her self from that Porphyrian sect of the Arrians as Câ—â—stantin the great called â—hem and other Hereâ—ickâ— By this Time. I am confident that he that will not close his Eyes may perceive that the Doctrine of Quakers is all one with that of Arrians Macedonians Sabellians which is the purpose of this Discourse But yet ex abundanti I will transcrib a Passage or two further The first of which is in Truth Def. This compleat Arrian and self contradicter having said pag 75. That It is only the â—â—scriptural Terms of Trinity and Persons which he denyeth and not the Mystery pag 77. He giveth himself the lie and palpably bewrayeth his Arrianism in these words And if Io Alexander â—ir definition of a Person be received that it is an Intelligent Beeing subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I do not see for my part but that three Persons at this â—ate shall infer 〈◊〉 Intelligent Beeings subsisting incommunicably and consequently three Gods. Behold Reader the the Arrian dashing against the same stumbling-stone upon which Arrians and Socinians have alwayes broken their necks For upon this very Account that it seemed to them to infer three Gods the Arrians and Sabellians of old and the Socinians at this day always malign and endeavour what they can to render odious that most necessary Doctrine of the Holy Trinity With this passage of George Keith well agreeth what Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock impiously belloweh forth pag 19. That there is no Scripture for the Catholick Faith and Trinity and three Persons Before I passe this Matter I cannot but take Notice of the strange dealing of George Keith attempting to make Augustin a Patroniser of his Arrian Doctrine For in Truths Def Cap 5. The Quaker hâ—th these Words And indeed Augustin in his 5 and 7 Books of the Trinity not only sayeth the Words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them as I suppose Io. Alexander for all his School Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able tâ— answer his Argument the substance of which 〈◊〉 my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or relative to say the first is absurd otherways therâ— shall be three absolute Beeings or Essence's in God which is absurd If somewhat Relative which is referred or relative to another as Father is relativâ— to a
7.13 compared with 10. These Scriptures and many others that might be Cited unanswerably prove that the Scriptures are and ought to be called the Word of God. Several of these Passages with many others calling the Scriptures or a part thereof the Word of God or of the Lord in the singular number are adduced by Mr Brown Chap. 4. N. 2. To all which Robert Barclay's reply Vind pag. 31 is a flat contradiction of these Scriptures saying That the thing which the Prophets spake was only the words which came from the Word of God. Judge therefore Reader if such replies as these can either help the Author or hurt his adversaries Notwithstanding these Men have something to say for themselves and so had they who denyed the fire to be hot or the snow white Their first Reason why the Scriptures are not the Word of God is Because Christ is called the Word of God but this reason sayeth nothing but upon supposition that one word or phrase cannot undergo divers acceptations which is most false yet Robert Barclay in the Vindication of his Apology Pag. 31. to strengthen this Reason sayeth that one epithete or attribute cannot be predicated or affirmed of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence without a grosse contradiction But in this he only bewrayes his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a shew of Reason For whether by the Word of God Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elogie is still ascribed to either of them with a peculiar eminency But by the diversity of the acceptation the Contradiction is removed which diversity may be easily Perceived by any that read or hear the Scriptures or other Discourses in which mention is made of the Word of God As for Example who could read these two Texts of Scripture Mark. 7.13 and Rev. 19.13 but they would presently see that in the latter of the Texts by the Word of God Christ is to be understood and in the former the Scriptures except he were altogether stupid and so there is not the least appearance of a Contradiction Therefore in short where by the Word Christ is understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken improperly viz. For a Person the essential and substantial Word of God in so much as Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of God or upon other such accounts such improper Attributes being frequently ascribed to Christ as a Door a Vine and the like But on the other hand where by the Word of God we are to understand the Scriptures there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken in a more proper acceptation for a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The same Author hath yet another Reason and it is a rare one viz. That there are moe words in the Scriptures than one Therefore they cannot be called the Word of God. Behold Reader with what ridiculous Shifts these men endeavour to uphold their impiety and oppose themselves to God! Who but he that desired the Fools Coat would thus reason It is a lie to name an Epistle sent from one Person to another a Letter because in it there are moe Letters than one Not only the Jews who were Christs Enemies but even the Apostles themselves had done right in the judgment of this Quaker if when Christ Mark 7.13 called the Scriptures the Word of God they had flatly contradicted him and said this is a lye seing there are moe Words in the Scriptures than one Here is ridiculous folly and impious Blasphemy mixed together And yet worse if worse can be unavoidably followeth this their Doctrine even that the Son of God was not from Eternity For according to them when it is said Hos. 1.2 The Beginning of the Word of the Lord the meaning must be the beginning of Christ. With the like sacrilegious audacity they endeavour to bereave the Scriptures of that sweet and heart-melting Title of the Gospel saying Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are not the Gospel but the Letter The Defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Pen undertaketh in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo Pag. 117. His Reasons whereby he would prove it are 1. Because the Gospel is called the Power of God to Salvation so are not the Scriptures To which I answer That the Scriptures may as well be called the Power of God to Salvation as the Gospel seeing it was the same Doctrine which the Apostles both preached to the People and committed to Writing And the Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith by this Doctrine when it is committed to writing as well as when it was Preached by the Apostles 2. By the Power of God to Salvation no other thing can be understood but the Mean Organ or Instrument whereby God exerteth or putteth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners Which kind of Metonymie is frequent in Scripture The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel which the Mans copious invention brancheth into two is That the Gospel is everlasting and was Preached before the Scriptures were therefore they are not the Gospel Ans. 1. The Principles of Truth are everlasting and were before any Quakers Books were extant Therefore a Pamphlet which the Quakers have entituled The Principles of Truth carrieth as a token of what is within a lie in the Frontispiece thereof which I believe William Pen will hardly admit Ans. 2. The Doctrine contained in those Books is the same with and therefore no lesse everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel Rev. 14.6 cited by Pen. His two last Reasons whereby he would prove those Books not to be the Gospel are that the Gospel is but one and that it is glad Tidings but the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are four and but Narratives and not glad Tidings are of the like nature with the former For he knoweth well enough that Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn deliver not a contrair Doctrine one to another but only divers Narratives of the same Doctrine All which Books contain the glad Tidings of the Birth Life Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World And this I assert in opposition to this Quaker who here discovereth himself in his own Colours in that he denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn contain glad Tidings what could the Devil himself utter more black and Hellish than this Behold Reader with what ridiculous Sophistry these men can cheat their own Souls which is so blunt that a school-boy would be ashamed to bring it forth and what black and Hellish Impieties they not only swallow down themselves but with open face avouch before the world Lastly if these Books as for example Mark ought not to be called the Gospel and by the Gospel ought alwayes to be understood the power of God or the essential Attribute of
Son and therefore a Father is Father of aâ—nother and no man is his own Father theâ— to say the Father is a person is to say the Fatheâ— 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 Deiâ—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 â—rought not by Augustin but by the Quaker for the overthâ—ow of the Truth tendeth to the Illustration and clearing thereof From all this Leaâ—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 Wortâ—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 laâ—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
they render as much as in them lyeth the passion Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus at Ierusalem altogether vain and idle actions And in favours of this their inward body they call the body that our Lord took of the Virgin Mary only a garment and that it 's no constituent of Christ and that Luke 2.26 Where it s said that it was revealed to Simeon that he should not dye till he should see the Lord 's Christ is to be understood of a Spiritual sight or of seeing the Christ within Will. Pen. Rej. to Iohn Faldo part 2th c. 9. 4. As these men deny Christ himself so they deny consequently all the benefits purchased by him For they say that Christ dyed only to be a pattern and example to Believers hence Will. Pen sandy found pag. 26 sayeth unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our example to fulfill we can never be Iustified before God Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance but only as their pattern Thus it is evident that the Quakers are altogether Socinians in their Judgments of the ends of the death of Christ and so joyn themselves closs with them and Papists in the Doctrine of Justification yea Rob. Bar. denieth not but that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Counsel of Trent For the proof of which let the reader compare Mr. Brown Chap. 13. N. 8. with Rob. Barclay his Vindication Sect. 8. N. 1. and Apol p. 137.139 He accuseth Luther and the Body of the Primitive protestants as great depravers of the Doctrine of Iustification doers of as great hurt by this their doctrine as ever they did good by what they brok down of Babylon But I will give you their doctrine yet more fully in their own words first Will. Pen serious Apol pag 148. Hath these words and indeed this we deny viz. Justification by the righteousness that Christ fulfilled in his own person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm in the Name of the Lord to be a doctrine of Devils and an arm of the Sea of Corruption which now doth deludge the World. And again Edward Burrows p. 33. To that query of Philip Binnet viz. Whether none be accounted righteous in the sight of God in whom is any Corruption or failing or who do not fulfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice Answereth thus Here thou polluted Beast makes it manifest what thou hast been driving at all this while which is that thou would have thy corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteousness in Gods sight that so thou mayest wallow in filthiness but Iohn sayeth he that commits sin is of the Devil the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil and thou Man of Sin would have it stand God doeth not accept any where there is any failing or who do not fullfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice And Will. Pen Reas against Rail pag 80. We must not conceive that his viz. Abrahams personal offering was not a justifying righteousness but that God was pleased to count it so nor was there any imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham but on the contrary his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation therefore that any should be justified by anothers righteousness imputed and not inherent in him is both ridiculous and dangerous Edward Burrows pag 32. Thou Beast to whom the plagues of God are due and upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished who would have another righteousness than that which Christ worketh in the Saints Pen. San Fund pag 25. Justification is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but from the actual performing and keeping of Gods righteous statutes Ibid. pag 25.30 It is a great abomination to say God should condemn and punish his innocent Son that he having satisfied for our sins we might be justified by the imputation of of his perfect righteousness Why should this horrible thing be contended for by Christians 5. With the like fâ—cility I could shew that the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrarie to the Doctrine of Christ contradicting and vilifying all his Ordinances and denying all his benefits I shall content my self with one great instance viz. Of the Resurrection of the dead Concerning which point the Quakers are downright Sadducees For in the hearing of many witnesses Geo Whitehead said This Body shall not rise again Hicks Quak appeal ans pag 21. and Will pen. Reas. against Rail p. 133. Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with the Scripture Reason and the belief of all Men right in their wits And Ibid pag 34. For shame Let us not make such stirr against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of that is rather outdone than equaled by this carnal Resurrection And the same William Pen in his Invalidity I should have said his Validitie seeing he all along Justifieth his adversaries charges of Mr. Faldos Vindication hath a Chapter prolix enough to defend his down right Sadducism Yea what is more clear in all the Scriptures than Christs visible appearance to judgment And yet Geo Whith Christ Ascended so that according to him he shall never descend pag 22. Sayeth they are like to be deceived who are expecting that Christs second coming will be a personal coming And Ib. he denyeth that he shall come visibly for although sayeth he He shall come in the like manner yet every like is not the same And no wonder it is that the Quakers deny the visible return of Christ to Judgement seing they deny that Christ hath any personal being without men Thus speaketh the same Author pag 18. And again pag 69. Christ in person remot in a Body of Flesh and not in Men is not Scripture Language but added But it is needless to adduce moe passages to shew the detestableness of this Seck enough being said already to discover it I shall only add the words of a Leading Quaker related by Hicks Quak Appeal Ans. pag 12. who being asked what he thought of Christ Jesus born at Bethlehem and dying at Ierusalem answered Iesus Christ at Ierusalem a Type a Figure a shadow that is passed away what have you to do with Christ at Ierusalem have done with him From all this it is evident that according to the Quakers there is not such a thing now in beeing as Christ Jesus that died at Jerusalem And as they deny Christ the Son of God so they arrogat to themselves by a most Diabolical Sacriledge whatsoever the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath appropriated to Christ Jesus of which Lucifer-like aspiring take a taste Iosiah Coal an eminent Quaker thus writeth to Geo Fox Dear Geo Fox who art the Father of many Nations whose life hath reached through us thy Children even to the Isles afar off unto
See his 12. Proposition and his Apology thereto annexed Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetick arguments against these Sacraments in general viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them prove them to be a real pharisie To which when his adversary replyeth that if this argument hold it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones And then he cryeth out upon his adversary as shewing a malicious genious Judge Reader if he had reason so to cry out and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise But to the main purpose Iulian or Porphyry might as well have used this instance as he for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion And he doeth but meerly think that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments as in the Sequel shall appear However in the mean time we may observe that this argument as the most part of the rest is borrowed from the Pagans For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians they improved what they could to overthrow Christianitie From them the Papists borrowed it wherewith to impugne the Protestants And lastly the Quakers from them and hath placed it where it was again at the first to be a battering piece against Christianitie in general So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo Next he cometh to vindiâ—at another argument borrowed from the Papists in their pleadings for traditions against the Scriptures viz. that the word Sacrament is not to be found in Scripture take heed to the consequence Reader E. The thing is not in them Is not this valid But this Argument in its very defence he is forced to let go while he sayeth he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments For the thing signified is in the Scriptures and the words Sign or Seal by which though he denyed we very ordinarily express that which we mean by Sacraments is very frequent in Scripture And yet before he want something to say he will cavil though he grant all we plead for before the close as here Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism And first Eph. 4.5 where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469 sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth there is but one only Baptism To which he replyeth that it will as well prove that there is but one only Baptism as there is one only God. Ans First true it is that this Phrase one only Baptism is not found in Scripture 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other For these ones must be exponed according to the subject matter seing it is beyond debate that it cannot be proved from this place that there is but one only Faith or no kinds thereof but one The Phrase therefore One Baptism will no more prove that there are not diverse kinds thereof than the phrase one Faith can do it in respect of diverse kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove it seing he is the opponent Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire And hence saith he concludeth that this Baptism is ceased Ans. This is most true which to prove let him compare Act. 1.5 with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise which is together with its fulfilling chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth 3.11 For the clearing of which I assert that Iohns Baptism was no figure of the New Testament Baptism in opposition to Papists and Quakers who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism Otherwise if the sign which Iohn could only administrat be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification Next he sayeth It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptized with the Spirit but such as have extraordinary Gifts But do they not still boast of their Revelations and inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect and I think these are extraordinary things And as for others beside them they call them only carnal and say they are in darkness these are the most modest of their Expressions and yet enough to prove the thing denyed When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism then there should be two Baptisms contrary to Eph. 4.5 I say when he telleth him that it might as wel be said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament one in the heart another in the flesh he granteth the Consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument Well then with as little absurdity we grant his Consequence viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church though in another Sense there be but one viz. considered complexly of the Sign it is understood in the place in hand and indeed one might as well have reasoned to presse Unity among the Jews that there was but one Circumcision as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism And for any thing I know the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures And if he say that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28 29 I answer so is Baptism spoken of 1 Pet. 3.21 Another Reason of his Antagonist against his meaning of this place is that he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture as sometimes for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23 And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19 The Faith of Miracles or the like To which he answereth that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise let him prove it But he thinketh it rather fit to shift and give naked assertions For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism more than that these other kinds of Faith are not included He may shew this if he please for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove That Baptism with Water is not included as well as these various Kinds of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this
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 it 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 in the first place of Iacob Esau themselves and secondly of their Seeds Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight drawn fâ—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 Devastatâ—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 Esau 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 Reprobâ—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 of 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 deliver in so far as he militats
that is to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction but the many Instances not only of other Antiscriptâ—rians but even of themselves who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil whom they notwithstanding took for God might teach them at length to suspect their Spirit and try before they trust As for the Prophesies of future Events they may well be brought to the Scripture Test to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected without contradicting the Scriptures as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination it is most irrationally Objected Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired and a Writer of Scripture himself 2â—y This Action was most Consonant to Scripture being abundantly warranted by that promise of Christ Matth 10 to his Apostles that they should cast out Devils They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest with which they stand and fall and therefore meriteth particular Consideration is this the Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners thus reasoned Rob Barclay in his Appology This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous saying who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God or the Spirit of God To which 〈◊〉 Barclay Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth he sayeth I come nearer to the Core of my design which is to set up Enthusiasms in affirming that the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain and yet the Man within three or four lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus â—e goeth backward and forward which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blamed that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners will appear when the Arguments and Objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned and whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my Design because God Himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me For I argue that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge but God not simply considered but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children which being the new Covenants Dispensation is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam Thus he Answer in his Apol. he thus reasoned the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation which is all one with fallacia plurium interrogationum hath a consequent made up of two parts and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences of which the first or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly as proving that which never man denyed viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice for in this his ridiculous argumentation he would perswade the world that the Reformed Churches for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons assert that the Scriptures are God himself Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly now in stead of a better off-coming he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent and then again presently confessed it whereas he never impugned the Antecedent but blameth him for his consequence of which as we have already said the first part is very ridiculous proving the thing that never one denyed and malicious belieing the whole Reformed Churches and the second part viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith a Rope of sand The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas He sayeth that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear when the Arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned which is nothing to the purpose in hand for unless he prove that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick that they are not the Fountain but a Declaration thereof the argument is gone Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice In his following Words he confoundeth the Principal Rule and the Original Ground together which are things most distinct and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense or at best they are ridiculous in that they speak nothing to the purpose For he might well have known if he had pleased that by the Primary Rule is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines and opinions of men or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things and reject or receive as they disagree or agree with this Rule If in this sense he had understood the primary Rule he had not given such mysterious Niceties But the Question is not if God be greater than the Scriptures for as man is above the word of a man so is he above them But the Question is whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith and practise and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them and if swerving from them we ought to reject it tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it Thus we understand the primary Rule and while he doth not so he but mistaketh the Question 2. This Acyrology or improper speech to call a person a Rule is a grand inductive of Confusion for who ever called a teacher a Rule for only the dictats taught are the Rule Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines But whereas he sayeth that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God simply or in abstracto a Rule but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills for these Rules imprinted
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by Christ in the new and hath precept or Authority from it as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians from whom they have learned it But some perhaps may object saying that this identity is only in words to whom I answer Either the things imporâ—ed by these words and phrases and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof and contained in Scripture or not now if the first be true then to stir up strife about these words proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous But 2. Supposing that the thingâ— themselves which Christians understand by these words or phrases are holden forth in Scripture then to deny that we may use them is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning theâ—eof it is impious and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture tho we be never so sure that as to the sense and meaning thereof they be found in the Scripâ—ures but this Hypothesis if true overthroweth all Scripture consequences interpretation of Scripture blasts the hope of ever getting Hereticks refuted which none will deny except â—n Arrian or the like Hereticks and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion seeing they themselves as other dâ—sputantâ— endeavour to draw Consequenâ—es from Scripture and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis appears from no few places of Scripture and among others Math. 22.31 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the meer Letters and Syllablâ—s of Exod. 3.6 I am the God of Abraham c. without deduction of a consequence from them and so an exposition of them he should never from these words have evinced against the Saâ—ducees the Resurrection of the dead But I need not stay longer to evince this for certain it is and already proved not only from the Quakers obstinate denyall of a free and positive Conâ—ession of their Faith anent this matter but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this trulie Catholick Doctrine as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced â—o usâ— being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before â—hem that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions which the Orthodox bring from Scripture with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impietie Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words i. e. That which all Christians understand as the Meâ—ning thereof according to the Quakers is not in Scripture And indeed this is the Truth And so the Quakers are Arrians the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse But yet farther that this is Truth viz. That the Quakers are Arrians if not worse and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the â—oly Trinity and that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father and distinct persons from him is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinitie calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine as these that heard them told me and when they were reproved their reply was thou knowest not the Truth Again they demonstrate to the world that they are the Frye of Arrius while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. â— Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendred Person or Subsistence as all the Lexicographers and in particular Scapula Pasor Scrivelius upon the word and all the Interpreters both ancient as Pareus in locum sheweth and modern Dutch Divines and English Translation render it but Substance for certainly thus it must be rendred â—f the word Person or Subsistence be rejected then it shall irresistiâ—ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance which was the Doctrine of Arrius both in Maâ—ter and Termâ— hence it is clearâ—r than day-light that these men are his Disciples yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona then if a man believe the Scriptures and that words are the true Symbols of things it is not possible that he be in Judgment an Arrian Aâ— contrariwise if a Man believe that the word ought to â—e rendered Substance presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures and that words are the true Idea's of things he cannot but be an Arrian Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium pag 854 of his forecited book sayes Heâ— 1. Christ is the splendor of the Glorie of God and figure of His Substance Christ is the invisible God Himself says the Church of Rome For this Arrian still calleth all the opposeâ—s of Arrianism members of the Church of Rome as the Quakers do now But it may be here objected that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place translated â—he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia to which I answer that all the Orthodox both Ancient and Modern while they thus spake did take the word Substantia in the sense that both they and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia This our Assâ—rtion may be most evident to any though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians writers For Augustin who in several places and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances or three Subsistences indifferently yet notwithstanding elswhere carefully distinguisheth them and in particular de fide ad Petrum Diaconum â—ap 1. where he sayeth for if as the substance of the Father and the Son is one so also they were 〈◊〉 one person then there should be nothing aâ— all which truly could be called a Trinitie Hence we seâ— that this word Substantia did beaâ— a twofold Signification in the first of which it may be well put into the reâ—t as Equivalent with or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine it were easie to shew the like ouâ— oâ— Hilarius and others of the Antients I shall content my self to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgment concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor saying as touching the Father and the Son he believeth piously except that he sayeth that they are two Substances and as many Natures howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth he useth the word Substantia for or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉