Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	earth_n	life_n	8,616	5	4.6117	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the least favour either of them which according to the consent of the best Hebreans is to be taken Metaphorically and efficiently not properly sive instar Causae materialis materially Neither doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help them any more which according to the mind of all sound Interpreters as Pareus on the place sheweth and Lexicographers as Buxtorf Lewsden Bithner Leigh signifieth only the rational Soul of man. Hence the Opinion of Rob Bar. is overthrown Moreover this word is used Isa. 2.22 where the holy Ghost sayeth that Mans breath is in his nostrils to the end that he may demonstrate the frailty of man. Hence we may conclude that nothing of God or of his Divine Nature can by the force or significancy of this word be necessarily imported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifieth Beasts as well as Men All the forecited Authors understand by it the Soul of man And tell us that these who are no more critical considering it is in the plural number take Sensitive as well as Rational here to be meaned Others judge this Criticism to be neglected because that oftentimes in the Hebrew a word is Voce pluralis significatu singularis Vide Leigh Critica Sacra pag 72. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet further confirmeth that no other thing is to be understood in this place but the soul of man. For the Dust of the Earth formed by God into the Body of man and this breath of Life became a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a living Soul as also that the Soul of man is nothing Divine properly so called Seing this word sometimes signifieth the body of man. As Psal. 16.10 and elsewhere signifieth any living creature Moreover the scope of the place which is to repeat more fully the Creation of man which in the former Chapter was more shortly hinted at evinceth that there is nothing here to be understood but the creation of the Soul and Body of man. But we need not insist to prove our negative from this place seing this is the only place on which our Adversaries build their Affirmatives It is enough for us to challenge them to bring forth the least appearance of reason for them which as they have not done hitherto so shall never be able to do Again as they to the horrour of all men elevat the Creature not only to an equality but an Identity with the Creator and so make that which is lesse than nothing all in all and God over

in contradict●on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that H●rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be

assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet wh● 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 M●humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominan● that tho by this Character o●ly it is easi●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 ●wo Instances in the practise of one o● their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversa●ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an un●ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their de●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 〈◊〉 ●rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Advers●ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Lige●wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only ●nfer●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 he●p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burroug●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 Discours●s there is hardly the shadow of so m●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 monstruou● practices that their frui●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 i● that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself ●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 vili●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 Quak●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 u● than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these

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

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 CHAP. V. Of Christ and of his Benefits THE Quakers in words commonly acknowledge that Christ is God and Man and account it a wrong when they are accused of the denyal thereof But beside these two Natures they really maintain a third viz. a Spiritual and Heavenly nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly man Christ Jesus which heavenly man they say did exist before the incarnation of Christ Jesus and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this man the Church in all Ages did feed For George Keith in his way cast up pag 38 93 96. Sayeth Christ as Man was and is before all the first and the last Id pag 90. The Man Christ influenceth all Men by his life and is in them and pag 93. The word made flesh created all things and the word only is is not properly the Christ. And George Keith in that Book contendeth at large that Christ before his Incarnation was as properly the Christ as he is now And in the same book pag. 94 he sayeth Christ as man came down from Heaven Idem ibid. Christs Flesh and Blood came down from Heaven pag. 94 95 Thus Christ hath Spiritual Flesh and Blood pag 95. Of his Spiritual flesh and blood did the Saints of old eat drink pag 97.98 He saith The Man Christ is to be understood prov 8.23 I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was And Ps. 110.1 2 3. and pag 99 100 108. It was this life of Christ as Man that was pressed as a Cart c. Amos 2.13 pag 100.108 109. Thus saith he Apostats crucifie to themselves again the Son of God. Heb. 6.6 pag. 100. Thus hath Christ been crucified by the wicked from the beginning Ibid. Christ the Heavenly man lived in Abraham and Moses pag 102. Christ was true and real Man before he was born of Mary pag 103. The word was made flesh from the beginning and dwelt in us pag 104. According to his Heavenly Nature even as Man He Christ was the son of God. pag. 123. The Man Christ is every where That is his Soul is extended into all in his divine seed and body which is his Heavenly Flesh and Blood. From all which beside other most horrid absurdities and blasphemies which follow upon this their Doctrine this is a clear consequent That Christ hath three Natures To this they answer Quak. Confir p. 33 That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three natures than it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine nature a Body and a Soul. But this answer is easily repelled for a Body a Soul considered both together make up but one humane nature Whereas according to their Doctrine he was Man before his incarnation and again man by incarnation seing every incarnation bringeth a man to the World Which incarnation they have not yet denyed at least in words And therefore Christ hath two entire humane Natures and yet these strictly conjoyned together in one man. Which doctrine maketh our blessed Lord a down-right Monster 2. The Quakers doctrine as it rendereth the Humanitie of Christ altogether Monstruous so it quite annihilateth and destroyeth his Divinity For Christopher Atkinson a known Quaker in a book of his entituled The Sword of the Lord in oposition to the sixth of the propositions which Philip Nye Thomas Godwine and Sidrah Simson drew up at the appointment of Cromwel whereby he might regulate himself in the tolleration of Sectaries viz. Christ is God said Hear Sotish minds your imagined God beyond the Stars and your carnal Christ which ye would make appear through your Heathnish Philosophy is utterly denyed and testified against by the light In these words the God-head of Christ is so evidently denyed ye● and his manhood too that the Quakers are able to put no Commentarie or glosse upon them which is their usual custom whereby to varnish and make any thing speak what they will And therefore to the Students of Aberdeen who Quak. Canvass pag. 82. Have objected this passage unto them they answer Quak. Conf. pag 36 that they cannot light upon Aitkinsons book But it is not to be believed that such active and bussie Spirits for the promotion of Quakerisme as Robert Barclay and George Keith are men of so great acquaintance and correspondence with the Quakers in England could not obtain the sight of a book which certainly is frequent enough there But it mattereth not much what they say for they stick not to deny passages that are verbatim in their own books Of which kind of dealing take one place of many which might easily be given Will Pen Sand Found pag 26 sayeth that Christ fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example And yet Rea● against Rail pag 78 counteth his adversary Hicks a forger for repeating these words and stif●y denyeth that there is such a passage there saying I am very certain that the word only was not there See Hicks Dial. 3. pag 74 75 76. Where you shall find a large bundle of the like impudent and inexcusable lies They say also they can prove that Christopher Aitkinson was not a Quaker which they may easily say but they ought to have proved it not said it only otherwise these words serve only to testifie their dissatisfaction with the ingenuous plainness of Aitkinson in which he unma●keth and ●ayeth open to the World what the rest of the Quakers involve in Clouds of strange and mysterious Language equivocal and hardly intelligible terms being the only covert that they can find under which to shreud their abominable