QUAKERISM No Popery OR A Particular Answere to that Part of IOHN MENZEIS Professor of Divinity in ABERDEEN as he is called his Book Intituled Roma Mendax Wherein the People called QUAKERS are concerned whom he doth accuse as holding many Popish Doctrins and as if QUAKERISM so he Nick-names our Religion were but Popery-disguised In which Treaâ—ise his alleadged grounds for this his Assertion are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted And also his Accusation of POPERY against us justly retorted upon Himself and his Bretheren Rom. 2.1 3. Therefore Thou art Inexcusable O Man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest do'st the same things c. By GEORGE KEITH Printed in the Year 1675 The Epistle to the Reader Freindly Reader AMong the many Caluâ—nieâ— wherewith those that have opposed this appearance of Truth have endeavoured to aspress it and render it Odious to the People that Imputation of Popery hath been as frequent and constant as â—ny other almost alwayes in the mouthes and hands of such as have spoken and write against us So that I hardly remember I ever saw a book amongst those many hath been written by our Opposers which had not some reflexion of this kind in it This might perhaps have some weight with easie and simple people who understand not how frequent it is for persons of different perswasions even among those called Christians to use such sinistrous means to weaken one another a crime so much the more to be regrated that it is contrary to that truth which all lay claim to it is not unknown to those that are acquainted with the history of the Protestant-reformation how it was a common practise among those that opposed Luther and the Protestants to compare him and them to Mahomet and the Turks because that as the Turks opposed the Pope so did the Protestants And yet it is for this same reason our Adversaries brand us with Popery which can no more conclude us Papists then the former did the Protestants Turks But after the Protestants became divided among themselves and that the suspicion of Popery was a ground to render them odious to their respective people they have all of them branded each other with this crime and compared each other with Papists As first the Lutherans have and doe compared the Calvinistâ— with Papists and Iesuits as in many other of their writings may be seen in Lucas Osiander his Epistle to the last part of his Ecclesiastick History where he classes the Iesuits and Calvinists as equall enemies to the Church Yea and because all the Calvinists were noâ— so rigid in the matter of Justification as excluding all good works from being necessary thereunto the Lutherans have often branded them with Popery So that â—oâ— Himmelius a Lutheran Divine upon this account wrote a book which he called GALVINO-PAPISMUS On the â—â—her hand the Calvinists have often accused the Lutherans of Popery for their keeping up of Images and many other ceremonies How much the Calvinian presbyters doe brand the Prelatick parâ—â— with Popery few in this Nation are ignorant of but especially those that are of age to remember that PULPIT PROVERB which for the frequencie of its use might have past for a piece of the PRESBYTERIAN-DIRECTORY to wit that expression which they used both in their Prayers and Invectives against the Bishops terming them and their followers the POPISH PRELATICK MALIGNANT PARTY And indeed in those dayâ—â— Pâ—pery and prelacy were still classed together as being TWINS of ONE MOTHER and both LIMBS of ANTICHRIST And I suppose such as frequent the Conventicles can bear witness that this dialect is not yet out of use among the Presbyterian Preachers On the other part the Episcopalians doe not scruple often to compare Popery with Presbytery and doe look that the Pope and the Presybter are very near of kin in their presences over the Magistrat and those who are in authority in their method of handling them where they can compass it So that Bishop Spotswood in his Church History lib 7 pag 457. sayes that at the conference of Hampton court Doctor Buckrige Bishop of Rochester preaching upon Rom 1â— 1 Let every soul be subject c did soundly and learnedly handle the matter to the satisfaction of all only it grieved the Scots Ministers to hear the Pope and Presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to Soveraign Princes Yea many Episcopalians doe not scruple to affirm that the COVENANT Which passeth for the SACRED OATH of GOD in the presbyterian account was a IESUITISH INVENTION made and contrived abroad among papists to creat troubles and distractions at home and to defame the protestant Churches But to proceed the Sectarian Congregations of Independency and Anabaptism hade no sooner stept aside from their presbyterian Bretheren and begun to set up for Themselves but the presbyters begin to deterr their proselâ—ts from them with the old imputation of popery alleadging that such seperations was a draught of Popish Policy to defame the glorious fabrick of Presbytry Such as have read the gangren or history of Independency writt by a Zealous presbyter will find enough of this sort of stuff For the gifted but Vnordained Preaching Bretheren among Independents and Anabaptists were alleadged many of them to be Iesuits and Moncks metamorphosed into the shapes and appearance of Souldiers and Tradse men to doe mischeif the more securely In one of the first books printed against the people caled QUAKERS by a presbyterian preist near Bristol lie affirmeth that the Pope sondeth forth his Emissaries to preach in England not only under the shape of QUAKERS but also of Independents and Anabaptists But the Independents have not been farr behind with the presbyters in this matter and therefore have very often compared Presbytry and Papacy Peter Sterry a noted man among them preached a Sermon before the chiefest in authority at that day which Sermon being Printed he intitules it Englands deliverance from Northern Presbytry Compared with its deliverance from Roman Papacy In which Sermon He often classes together the Pope and the Presbyter and proves them One in several particulars And Iohn Owen a man though pretty sparing towards his Presbyterian Brethren doth nevertheless not spare to affirme in his answere to Doctor Cawdrey That since their Ministry is derived through Rome it must needs be a Romish Ministry How much the Anabaptists accuse the Rest of Popery for their retaining the SPRINKLING of INFANTS and Sâ—T SINGING of PSALMES is not unknown Thus READER thou may see this calumny is not New but an OLD THREED-BARE Argument wherewith each of these sects have been long beating one another and therefore no wonder if they also throw it upon us but with how litle reason this smal Treatise will inform thee where the Imputations of Popery cast upon us are fairely and modestly examined and Iustly and rationaly retorted upon the Accuser Also that the subjects treated of might
not be too sterile and jejunt and so disgust thee if they hade been only simply vindicated from Popery and barely retorted The Author hath for thy further satisfaction found freedom to open our sense and judgement breifly in the severall particulars here handled manifesting not only the falsness of the Accusers calumnies in evidencing that we differ widely from Papists in these paerticulars but also shewing how Our Beleife of them is aggreable to the Scripturs to the purest antiquity and to the judgment of many of the most famous primitive Protestants So that the Author of this treatise hath well observed Iohn Monzeis his affinity and dependency upon Popery in that he acknowledgeth his Mission and Ministry to be derived to him by Popish Succession and so is by his own concession a BASTARD of that PAPAL-WHORE the Church of Rome whom he termes Româ— Mendâ—x and as it is usual for the of-spring to resemble its progenitor and according to our countrey proverb Hard for to take out of the Flesh what is bred in the Bone The Impartial Reader will observe by seriouâ—ly Reading this Treatise that I. M. as by his own confession he deduces his Ministry from ROMA MENDAX i. e. LYING ROME so also he inherits through her as a part of her goods that property of LYING so that it may be truely said MENDAX MENESIVS ROMAE MENDACIS FILIOLUS For one may know him to be a ROMISH-BROOD he is so like Her in this faculty though he hade not been so ingenuous as to acknowledge it Be it also known unto the READER that we are necessitat to this Controversie being drawn thereunto through the implacable malice of Our Opposers for I. M. in his contensions with the Iesuit would needs concern us by often reflecting upon us who otherwayes were not medling in these matters Also we have several papers by us vindicating us and our Testimony not only from Popery but divers other calumnies unjustly laid upon us by the PREACHERS of ABERDEEN which we have forborn and yet doe forbear to publish Because for severall years we have been threatned with a full confutation of all our principles from GEORGE MELDRVM his Collegue as he himselfe and some of his Bretheren have told us yea we are informed that the BISHOP and SYNOD of ABERDEEN hath particularly recommended that work unto him and now we are the more confirmed in that expectation that I. M. in his foresaid book page 88 shuns as he saith to refute the Quaker whimsies because he hopeth that ere long it shall be accurately done by the penn of a learned and judicious person in this place to wit ABERDEEN Thou must needs judge READER this is a MIGHTY WORK in the mens own esteem that needs such PREAMBLS to goe before it and though the waiting for it might have also in reason excused us from I. M his passing Flings yet we did judge it our Concern for the TRVTHS SAKE to entertain thee in the Interim untill that GREATER VOLVME appear with this small treatâ—se which if seriously and Impartialy considered will noâ— a litle contribute to let thee understand how much we are abused Which that thou may rightly observe and by observing truely improve to thy souls advantage is the earnest desire of thy Well-wisher ROBERT BARCLAY THE CONTENTS SECTION I. Containing the Introduction and Occasion of this Treatise Page 1. SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scripturs where also some things are opened concereing the Rule of Faith and Immediat Revelation p. 5. SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined p. 34. SECT IV. Where the alleadged agreement about Iustification is considered and examined p. 42. SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined p. 55. SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphal Books 58. SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the Efficacy of Grace depended upon Man's FREE-WILL is considered and answered p. 65. SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined p. 73. SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling-Concupiscence is considered and answered p. 75. SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practice and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined p. 78 SECT XI Wherein I. M. his acknowledgment concerning the Ministerial Succession through the Churâ—h of Rome is breifly considered and the Imputation of Popery in that respect justly retorted upon him p. 88. SECT XII Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us and how much more truely it agreeth in our Opposers is evindenced by a short Account of many weighty particulars wherein they agree with Romanists against us p. 96. SECT XIII Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue wherein the whole 〈◊〉 breifly resumed and the falsness of the Accusation as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the View of the Serious and 〈◊〉 Reader p. 102. Quakerism no Popery SECTION I. Containing the Introduction and Occasion of this Treatise THe Occasion of this Treatise is a late book of Iohn Menzies Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen as he is called published wherein as in very many other places of his book he doth accuse Us classing Us with Papists and Iesuits so particularly page 20 21 22 The Author of Scolding no Scholarship blames Iohn Menzies as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguised He answers But there is less candour in the accuser for I only said if it were otherwise learned and judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirme these men in their opinion For many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines To this I say if He have no better argument that Quakerism is but Popery disguised then the bare affirmation of learned and judicious men His alleadgeance is weak unless He thinks or can prove that His learned and judicious men are infallible and cannot be mistaken which I know he is so far from that it is a great crime in his esteem for any men however so learned and judicious to pretend to any such thing Now whereas he alleadgeth as a ground of his former insinuation that many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines in order to the more clear and distinct examination of this his assertion let us consider what a Popish doctrin is First every doctrin affirmed in words by the Papists is not a Popish doctrin otherwise that there is one onely God that Christ dyed for sinners and rose again and in a word all the Articles of the Apostolick-Creed should be Popish doctrines because in words affirmed by Papists A popish doctrin then is A Doctrin taught and believed commonly by Papists repugnant unto or contradicting the testimony of the Scripturs either expresly or by just and necessary consequence of sound reason This definition of a Popish doctrine is so fair and
received As also they have limited GOD from moving or inspiring any men in any age of the world to come to writ any book or books that may be of equal authority with the Scripturs For which bold and presumptuous alleadgeance neither Papists nor they have the least solid ground Finally there are some writtings that both Papists and they reject as not having Scripture authority which yet we find no just cause to reject such as the 151. Psalm that is in the Septuagint and Paul his Epistle to the Laodiceans which are both extant to this day wherein nothing is to be seen unsuitable either to other Scripturs or unto that spirit that gave them forth And if you say they want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Scripturs have I suppose it will be as hard for I. M and his Brethren to evince by any evidence that such books have or have not the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is for any Quaker to evince by any evidence that he hath the Spirit of GOD this I say not as denying but that the Scripturs have a Secondary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known unto them who know the primary of the Spirit in their hearts but seeing our Opposers require of us to show or evidence unto them some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we have the Spirit of GOD I would have I. M. to know that the same difficulty recurreth as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Scripturs it being a thing which cannot be shown or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind which yet is evident unto the spirituall And indeed as the Scripturs have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth that they are of GOD â—o all the Children of GOD have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also who are as a living book or Epistle of Christ which convinceth that both they are of GOD and have the Spirit of GOD and this is a sufficient demonstration unto them that are spiritually minded And here onely I shall mind I. M. how the Protestants themselves are not agreed upon the number of the Canonicall books The Lutherians at this day rejecting some which the Calvinists receive such as the Epistle of Iames the second and third Epistles of Iohn and the book of the Revelation by some yea Luther cal Iames Epistle a STRAWY EPISTLE And if he had charged it as a Popish principle on the Calvinists that with Papists they hold Iames Epistle to be Canonicall I suppose I. M. would noâ— for this have rejected it although Papists at this day doe own it to be Canonicall with him However this Advertisment I give to the Reader that seeing the books commonly called Apocryphall are controverted by some to have that sufficient authority Yet in all matters of debate betwixt our Opsers and us we shall not urge their authority upon any who doe not receive them but are willing to wave them and keep to those books of Scripture acknowledged by them wherein we have sufficient testimonies to all the Principles of Truth mantained by us and furniture enough by the help of our GOD to resist and oppose the contrary It is worth the observing that not only both Papists among themselves and Protestants among themselves have been divided about the number of the Canonicall books as what books be Canonicall and what not but even the Fathers so called and the Councills who did Canonise them have differed greatly also Eusebius in his Ecclesiastick History lib. 3. cap. 22. writteth exceeding uncertainely concerning divers of the books of the New Testament such as the Epistle of Iames The Second Epistle of Peter the second and third Epistles of Iohn The Revelation of Iohn as being received by some at Authentick and gainâ—aâ—d by others The Councill of Laodicea which was the first councill I read of that did determine the Canon of the books of Scripture as it omitteth or passeth by as not Authentick all these books commonly called Apocryphâ— so it also omitteth the Revelation of Iohn But the third Councill of Carthage which â—aâ— not long after where Augustin was present doth put into the canon both the booke of the Revelation and most of these books commonly called Apocrypha yea Augustin himself lib. 2. de Doctrinâ— Christiana cap. 8. Among the other books of the Old Testament numbereth Tobias Hester Iudiâ—h and two books of the Maccabees and two of Esdras and the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus concluding thus In these fourty and four books the authority of the Old Testament is determined Now if to hold some of these books equall to Scipture be a Popish doctrin then Augustin himself did hold Popish doctrin in this very thing And yet I suppose I. M. doth not think that Augustin was a downright Papist for all this But if this prove not Augustin to be a Papist how will it prove us the people called Quakers to be Papists he must either assoilzie us or condemne Augustin in the case SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the efficacy of Grace depended upon Mans FREE-WILL is considered and answered THe Sixt Instance of Popish doctrin charged by I. M. on the people called Quakers is that the efficacy of Grace depends on Mans free will I suppose this is but a consequence of I. M. his making upon the doctrin or principle of Universall Grace mantained by the Quakers As for my self I never heard it nor read it mantained by any of these people that the efficacy of grace depends on mans free will And I doe altogether deny that it is a consequence lawfully deduceable by any principles of sound reason from the doctrin of Universall grace as mantained by us For we deny that there is any free-will in man to any thing that is truly good and acceptable in the sight of GOD but what is of the grace of GOD. The will of man is servum arbitrium as Luther called it and not liberum arbitrium in respect of any obedience acceptable unto GOD that is to say servil and bound over unto Satan and captivated by him but as the grace of GOD doth make it free and that all men at times have some measure of a freedom of will by the grace of GOD we doe with holy boldness affirm conform both to the Scripturs testimony and the consent of the greatest part of Antiquity if not of all generally as both Vosius a learned Antiquary in his Pelagian History and Grotius in his disquisition of the Pelagian Dogma's doe show at great length By the visitations of which Grace of GOD upon the souls of all men at certain times and seasons the prison door is opened unto all who are in captivity as all men are in the unconverted state and the arm of GOD'S Salvation is stretched forth unto them yea it toucheth them and by its touches infuseth into them some measure of ability whereby the soul is put into a capacity to convert and turn
and the contrary repugnant thereunto Before I pass from this Sixt Instance or Head of Popish doctrin I cannot omitt to take notice how handsomely or rather unhandsomely I. M. in his Roma Mendax goeth about to evade that charge of Novelty concerning free-will imputed unto him and these of his way the Papist chargeth him as denying free-will since the fall of Adam he answereth he and they of his way doe not deny free-will But this answere of I. M. is a faint evasion the charge as to the intent of it is whether there be in all men in the fall a free-will to convert and turn unto GOD by any grace given by GOD. If the Papist did not so word his charge I. M. hath taken the advantage of his failure and oversight but I would willingly know what I. M. doth or will answere to this charge That he and his Brethren doe indeed deny any free-will in any unconverted Men by any Grace of GOD given them to convert and turn to GOD this I charge upon I. M. and his Brethren as a novelty repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity in the purest times that he affirmeth men have free-will to evil in a naturall state doth no way bring him of For the question is not whether there be in man a free-will to evil but unto good whereby it is possible for him to convert by any grace of GOD given him Like unto this is his other evasion about merit he is brought to confess that some of the Fathers in the three first Centuries did use the word merit but in an innocent sense Very well then why may not some Others use it in ane innocent sense also Why doth he accuse the People called Quakers for using the word merit seeing he saith himself that it hath ane innocent sense and also that the Protestant Churches have not abhored from or rejected the word merit where can he prove our of the Quakers books that either they hold merit of good works ratione operis or ratione operis pacti as having a meritorious condignity in them unto Eternall life as many of the Papists teach When he accuseth the Quakers for holding that good works are meriterious may I not justly say unto him as he sayeth unto the Papist pag. 290. Ought he not to have told what he meant by merit of good works I shall conclude this Head with a just and equall retorsion of this very matter of free-will upon I. M. and his brethren who confess that a famous party of the Popish Church doth oppose the doctrin of free-will in all men unto good and these are Dominicans Thomists and Ianseâ—ists pag. 289. Well then and doth not I. M. oppose the same so that if one sort of Papists to witt the Iesuits seem to aggree with us in the matter of free-will although I could easily show very materiall differences betwixt them and us in this very particular Here are three great sorts or tribes of Papists who doe really agree with I. M. and he with them in the contrary doctrin SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined THe Seventh Instance of Popish doctrin charged on the Quakers is that reall Saints may totally apostatize To this I answere if by reall Saints he meaneth those who are come to a confirmed state and condition in holines so as to have obtained the Election and are the Elect of God in the strict sense I say none of these can totaly fall away or Apostatize and that this state is attainable in time and is attained unto by many we doe affirme and if Papists deny any such state as attainable in this life we oppose them but if he mean that men may fall away from some true and reall beginnings of Sanctification who as yet are not come to the state of the Elect in Christ Iesus in the Fore-knowledge of GOD before the World began this is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is a truth conform both to the Scripturs Testimony and the Fathers so called as also unto the most famous of Protestant Writters The Augustan Confession set out by as famous Protestants as any he can name doth expresly condemn it as an Anabaptist error that they who are once justified cannot lose the Holy Spirit And Melancton in many places in his loc com doth affirm That men may commit such gross sins as whereby they may expell the Holy Spirit after having once received him Augustin sayeth expresly lib. de correctione gratia That some love God and yet doe not persevere in that Good unto the end And in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 8. he saith of two that are holy why perseverance is given to the one and is not given to the other the judgments of GOD are the more insâ—rutable Prosper ad septimam sayeth That of the regenerat in CHRIST IESUS some having left the Faith and holy manners doe apostatize from GOD. Cyprian Epistola ad Gratianum The disciplin departing the Grace of the LORD departed also Many other testimonies could be cited for the same but that I intend brevity at present SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling Concupiscence is considered and answered THe Eight and Last Instance of Popish doctrin charged on us is that indwelling concupiscence is not our sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof To this I answere that this principle as he doth represent it I know not that it is owned by any Quaker We doe indeed say that the seed of sin is not imputed unto them for sin who doe not obey it nor consent unto it even as the seed of Grace and righteousness that is in wicked men is not imputed unto them for righteousness because they doe not obey it but if this seed of concupiscence indwell in any it becometh sin unto them seeing it is impossible but they who give it a dwelling in them must also give obedience unto it but it may be in them in whom it doth not indwell for indwelling signifieth Union and kindly reception Cassander doth show that Augustin openly sayeth Aug. exp ad Gal. That concupiscence in the Regenerat is not sin when not consented unto which yet elsewhere he calleth 〈◊〉 And that the controversie in this particular is rather about Name then thing Consult super Articulum secundum It is certain that the Regenerat may and doe find at times a temptation in the flesh or fleshly part unto that which is evil which temptation or inclination or however it be called is an evil thing and inclineth to evil yea to sin and in that respect by a metonymie may be called sin it self but that it maketh the soul guilty of death without its own consent is no where to be found in Scripture It is said The soul that sinneth it shall die Ezek. 18.4 Now to sin importeth a consent of the will which being wanting both in the Regenerat and also
just that as I suppose no Protestant will disown it nay not Iohn Menzies himself Let us then proceed laying down this definition of a Popish doctrine for a rule whereby to examine what doctrines are Popish and what not The instances brought by Iohn Menzies to show that many of the Quakers notions so he calls our Principles are undoubtedly Popish doctrines are these following First That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat Rule of Faith Secondly That a sinless perfection is attainable in time Thirdly That Men are justified by a righteousnesse wrought within them Fourthly That good works are meritorious Fifthly That Apocryphall books are of equall dignity with other Scriptures Sixthly That the efficacy of Grace depends on mans Free-will Seventhly That reall Saints may totally Apostatize Eightly That indwelling Concupiscence is not our own sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof Before I descend to a particular examination of these eight instances I premise this generall consideration viz. That if we should acknowledge that these eight instances as worded and laid down by Iohn Menzies were held by all Papists and Quakers so called which yet is false as afterwards I intend God-willing to make appear yet that the consequence doth not follow that they are Popish doctrines unless he had also proved that they are repugnant unto the Scriptures testimony according unto the definition of a Popish doctrin formerly laid down Now this Iohn Menzies hath not so much as attempted in this place as against the Quakers and some of them he hath not in all his book as I suppose so much as undertaken even against the Papists However most of what he saith against them as touching any of these particulars do not so militate against us because we differ very materially from them in the very things alleadged Another generall consideration I shall propose and that grounded upon an express affirmation of Iohn Menzies himself positively laid down by him pag. 162. The same sentiment saith he held upon different accounts may be hereticall in the one and not in the other Very well if then I doe show that in those alleadged instances or any others he can alleadge wherein we seem to agree with Papists they and we hold them upon different accounts it doth manifestly follow from Iohn Menzies his own mouth that those sentiments or doctrines may be hereticall and Popish in Papists and not in us called Quakers This advantage that I have againâ— him out of his own mouth I intend to lay up untill I come to the particulars and then to make a suitable application of it SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures where also some things are opened concerning the rule of Faith and immediat Revelation THe first Popish doctrine that Iohn Menzies chargeth us with is That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat rule of Faith This article hath two branches 1 That the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith 2 That they are not the compleat rule of Faith As to the first that the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith I know not that any Papists say so he ought to have given us his proofe out of their writtings nor will it suffice that he bring the testimony of some privat Doctors among the Papists for a proofe seeing Iohn Menzies denyeth pag. 452. That the testimony of some private Doctors among the Protestants is a sufficient proofe against any Protestant principle I am sure of this that I can bring some of great repute and authority among the Papists who do mantain that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith touching these things revealed or declared particularly and expresly in them as witness Bellarmin oft cited by Iohn Menzies himself lib. 1. cap. 2. De verbo Dei who sayeth expresly That the Scripture is a most certain and sure rule withall affirming that he is certainly a mad man who leaving The most certain testimony of the Scripture betaketh himself unto the judgement of a spirit within him that is oft fallacious and ever uncertain Now that which is a most certain or the most cerrain rule of Faith is the principall rule of Faith I find Iohn Menzies citing Bellarmin against the Papist in his book Roma Mendax pag. 116 Doth not saith Iohn Menzies Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 1. Charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declyning the Scripturs and only flying to the inward dictats of the Spirit By this it appeareth manifestly from I. M. own mouth that Bellarmin is not guilty of declining the Scripturs to be the principall rule or of setting up the dictats of the Spirit seeing He chargeth it as a hainous crime against Swenkfeldius Now I appeall to all sober and impartiall Readers whether Iohn Menzies and Bellarmin the Papist and Iesuit whom some call the Popish Champion be not more a kin to one another in this very particular then the Quakers and the said Bellarmin are Doth not I. M. say that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith and Bellarmin saith they are the most certain and sure rule and consequently the principall Again doth not I. M. blame them who preferre the inward dictats of the Spirit to the outward testimony of the Scripture and the very same doth Bellarmin in the place already cited by I. Ms. own confession Surely one egge is not liker another then the reproachfull speeches of both Papists and Iohn Menzies with his brethren are against the dictats of the blessed Spirit of GOD in the hearts of believers as being to be preferred as the more excellent rule Here then this first instance as to the first branch is justly retorted upon I. M. himself The Papists deny that the Spirit of GOD inwardly dictating or revealing the truth is the principall rule of Faith to and in every believer and so doth I. M. and his brethren wherein they manifestly agree with Papists against â—s the people called in deâ—ision Quakers I. M. could not be ignorant how easily this instance could be retorted upon Himself and these of His profession I shall only at present say this to Him as to this and other particulars that may be retorted upon Him and them Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum It is a shame to the Doctor when the same fault he blames in another is found in himself Moreover if some or all Papists did hold that the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith as preferring thereunto the outward testimony of the Church of Rome this doth no wise touch us nor are we concerned with them therein seeing we do no wise prefer the testimony of the Church of Rome or of any other Church unto the Scripture but do indeed prefer the Scripture as the best and greatest outward testimony in the world If then Papists deny that the Scripture is the principall rule on a different account from us they preferring the testimony of the Church thereunto
justified is a peculiar and proper Faith unto him or them only to whom it is revealed and is not any part of the common faith of all true Christians for all true Christians are not required to believe that such a particular man is a true Christian or Child of GOD seeing perhaps not one of a thousand did ever hear of Him at all and so are not bound to believe that he hath a being in the World farr less that he is a Christian. Many other examples I could give of this peculiar and proper faith the rule whereof cannot be the Scripture but the special Revelation of GOD by his Spirit in the hearts of GOD'S Children whereby they have a reall knowledge and Faith in all their actings how farr they are approved and justified of GOD and as their is a peculiar and proper faith that is not the common faith so I doe affirm there is many times a peculiar and proper obedience unto peculiar and proper commands given of GOD unto some of his Children and not unto others Is there not an inward call whereby the LORD calleth such Preachers as are indeed accepted of Him in the discharge of their Ministry Sure I am I have heard some Protestants acknowledge this And is not this inward call a reall commandement seing it is a transgression to refuse to hearken to it And may not such aâ— Preacher have it made known to him from the LORD that he is really called to labour in Word and Doctrin among such a particular people rather then others And herein he is to give obedience unto the LORD although he have no outward call as many true Preachers never had And surely as there are some speciall things proper to every person in the World so as there are not to be found two in all the world but their way and manner of life doth differ in many observable things as much as their faces and that by a secret appointment of GOD so there are speciall directions of GOD'S holy Spirit given to those who do attend unto them whereby they may be safely and comfortably guided in all these various passages O how happy and blessed are they who have such a Bosome-Guidâ— as the blessed Spirit of GOD to direct them in their hearts and are given up to wait for and receive the Same when they fall into intricacies that no Scripture rules can sufficiently extricate And surely this the LORD hath promised his Children to guide them continually and to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth By what I have said on this head it is manifest how farr we differ from Papists as touching the first Article charged by I. M. against us seeing as to all principles of common faith we hold with Protestants against Papists that the Scripture is a compleat and sufficient declaration and testimony and indeed the best and most compleat outward rule that is in the world unto which all Doctrins and principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed as to a Test or Touch ston in all externall debates and disputations whatsomever so that whatever Doctrin or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenour of the Scripturs Testimony is to be denyed and disowned for ever Yea and whatever proper or peculiar faith or obedience doth contradict the principles of common faith and obedience declared in the Scripturs I do plainly affirm that it is not a true and right faith and obedience but a delusion Moreover though I find that I. M. laboureth in his book called Roma Mendax to fix Enthusiasm upon the Papists so as he may the more conveniently class the Quakers and them together to render us the more odious yet I desire both him and all others to consider how I. M. himself doth rather clear the Papists at least the greatest and more considerable part of them of this so hainouâ— a crime of Enthusiasm as he thinks it pag. 44.45 he producâ—th Stapleton and Testefort as downright Enthusiasts but in the same page 45. he bringeth Melchior Canus Alphonâ—us à Castro Becanus and Bellarmin as downright Anti-Enthusiasts who are all ashamed as saith I. M. to assert that Popes and Councells pass out their definitions by immediat revelations And the University of Paris anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort viz that the Sacred Scripture is partly contained in the Bible partly in the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome Very Good Here are then foure together with a whole Universitie of Papists the most famous in the world for two the two are guiltie of Enthusiasm and the four with the Universitie of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts as the other are Enthusiasts So here is farr the greater number of them Anti-Enthusiasts and I believe who will search the Popish Doctors and Writers for one Enthusiast in pretence will find ten Anti-Enthusiasts Let then all impartiall men consider whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrin seeing that it is most probably a Popâ—sh doctrin that is held by the plurality or greatest number of Popish Writers As for example what if I should find some Protestants so called whom I. M. doth own for reall Protestants perhaps two or three or more as down right Enthusiasts as either Stapleton or Testefort were it therefore just for me to conclude that Enthusiasm is a Protestant doctrin As for Doctor Stillingfleet whom I. M. citeth as giving an account of the Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I suppose the same Author could give as full an account of the Enthusiasms of the Preâ—byterians who were I. M. his Brethren but of Late Years and peradventure I. M. himself could doe as much Sure I am that diverse of the present Church of England have charged Enthusiasm upon the Presbyterians and Independents both I. M. his Ancient Friends as witness William Sharlock pag. 271. in his discourse with others could be named And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of Iustification pag. sayes That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flat Popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accounted among such and yet I see not how in his brother R. Baxter his judgment be can avoid this censure Yea may not Calvin himself whom some call the FATHER of Presbyterians be as much charged with Enthusiasm as any Papist seing in his Institutions he affirmeth that in his time God raised up Apostles or at least Evangelists whom he calleth Extraordinary Officers in the Church that were needful to bring back the Church again out of the Apostacy and from those Protestant Apostles or Evangelists he deriveth the ordinary mission of Protestant Preachers and goeth not back to the Antichristian Church and Bishops of Rome to derive the same as I. M. doth in his Roma Mendax and this forsooth lest He should run upon
so as we are cloathed and covered with Christ the LORD our righteousness dwelling in us He made unto us in us Righteousness as well as Sanctification Wisdom and Redemption from which to witt Christ in us all those inward vertues and graces of Love Hope Patience Humility Meekness Temperance as well as Faith doe flow and proceed as streams from a fountain Now it is the fountain which is CHRIST Himself that we regard principally in our Iustification and but in the next place that inward righteousness wrought by Him in us which is but as the streame so it is not the streame that we rely and rest upon for Iustification to speak properly but Christ the fountain to wit whole Christ and not divided both as what He hath been and is without us And also in what He is in us and this we certainly believe and know that who rest upon Christ for Iustification only as without and not as within indwelling in their hearts they have neither true faith nor justification but both their faith and justification is a dream and delusion of Satan Now this sort of justification by the indwelling of Christ in us wherein we affirm that our justification doth principally consist is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is expresly denyed by Bellarmin that Popish Champion who undertaketh to refute it And that I. M. is of one and the same mind with Bellarmin as to this particular I doe greatly suspect if otherwise let him clear himself Sure I am he and his Brethren are so farr from thinking that we are justified by Christ indwelling in us that they doe noâ— acknowledge any reall true and proper indwelling of Christ in the Saints at all for that they affirm That Christ is not in us any other way but by his graces or gracious operations But say we these graces and gracious operations can not be divided from Him so that if they be in us truly really and properly He also who is the fountain of them must be in us as truely really and properly Moreover for the further clearing of our faith touching justification I desire the Reader to consider that to be justified by an inward righteousness is one thing and to be justified by outward works of righteousness done by us even through the Grace of GOD and help of the Spirit is another for as we are first inwardly righteous before we can work good works so the justification by inward righteousness is first or before the justification by works and as some have well observed as it is not the good fruit that makes the good tree but the good tree makes and produceth good fruit So good works make not a man at first righteous but a man must be first righteous or holy and then he â—ringeth forth Good-Works And thus truly is the mind of Agustin to be understood That good works goe not before a mans being justified but follow his being justified even as good fruit goes not before the good tree but the good tree is before the good fruit and so the same may be said of sanctification Good works goe not before a mans sanctification as to the beginning of it and yet a man is sanctified by inward righteousness And thus though it could be proved That a man is not justifyed by good works yet it doth not follow that he is not justifyed by inward righteousness Now I say good works have not any place in the beginning of our justification I mean outward works for the Reason alleadged because a man is first justified or made righteous before he work a good work outwardly and if in that state he should die before he could work any outward good work he should die in a justified state as certainly Infants who are saved die in a justified state without works yet not without inward righteousness Good works then are necessary not to the beginning of our justification but to the continuance and progress of it so that being justified by ane inward righteousness we are more justified by doing good works which are necessary if not to bring us at first into favour with GOD yet to continue us in the favour of GOD so as if we did not work good works if we live and are in a capacity to doe them we should fall from our Iustification and this is the very doctrin of William Tindall that famous Protestant and Martyr as I have declared in that little book called A LOCKING GLASS FOR ALL PROTESTANTS And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of justification pag. 80. sayeth that some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flatt popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accommodat among such and yet I see not how in his Brother R. Baxter his judgment he can avoid this censure Secondly consider that justificaton as it is taken for a remission of sin although it doth indeed respect inward righteousness as a condition necessar to the obtainment of it yet it doth not respect it either as the procuring cause of it nor yet as its formall reason the procuring cause being CHRIST alone who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto GOD for our sins the formall reason of the remission being indeed the remission or forgivness it self for the formall reason of a thing is the very nature of the thing it self which consisteth in that act of GOD whereby He acquiteth and dischargeth us in our hearts by the testimony and dictat of His Spirit in us Consider Thirdly that the reason why we are said to be justified by faith and not by works as to the beginning of our justification is not to exclude inward righteousness from our justification but indeed because it is by faith and not by works that inward righteousness at first is received for of all other graces and vertues faith is most of a receptive nature for as it is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD we not resisting but complying with His motion and operation in us so by faith being once received in us we receive all other inward graces and vertues so that as by faith alone we receive inward righteousness by which we are justified as to the beginning of it so it may be said that by faith alone we are at first justified that is to say That righteousness by which we are justified we doe inwardly receive it into our hearts from the Spirit of GOD and doe not work it out unto our selves either by outward working or by a long continuall inward activity of our minds as being a thing rather received in us as to say ingenerated and wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD then wrought by us for indeed in our Regeneration Conveâ—ion Justification and Sanctification as to its beginning at least we are rather or at least more passive then active and as the Child both in the womb
and on the breast is not said to live by its works yet it draweth nourishment to it self from the Mother by a certain faculty instinct or power implanted into it of GOD wherein the Child is more passiive then active even so it is as touching faith which is a certain heavenly faculty power or instinct put into those who are Children and Babes in CHRIST whereby they doe draw nourishment that is heavenly and spirituall unto them from GOD whereby they live and grow up as holy and righteous plants of GOD to bring forth the fruits of good works and thus the faith that was at first of a receptive nature becomes now more operative and active so as to put forth that inward vertue by which the heavenly growth is witnessed into reall acts and works of righteousness Consider Fourthly that when the Apostle speaketh of a mans own righteousness as being excluded from our justification by the same he doth not understand that righteousness which is wrought in us by the spirit of GOD but that which man worketh in and by himself without the Grace and Spirit of GOD and the Righteousness of GOD and Christ by which we are most immediatly and nearly justified is Christ himself and His work of righteousness in us by His Spirit even as the faith of the Son of GOD Gal. 2.20 is the faith he worketh in us so his righteousness is that of His working in us And indeed that this is the mind of Augustin is clear from his own words lib. de gratia libero arbitro Quid est non habens meam justitiam quae ex lege est cum sua non esset lex ipsa sed Dei nisi quia suam dicit justitiam quamvis ex lege esset quia sua voluntate legem se posse putabat implere sine adjutorio gratiae quae est per fidem Christi What is it sayeth he not having my righteousness which is of the law wheras the law was not his but Gods but that he calleth it his righteousness although it was of the law because he thought that by his own will he could fulfill the law without the help of Grace which is by the faith of Christ. To the same effect he writeth in his second book against Iulian the â—elagian showing also That the righteousness of faith is said to be of GOD because GOD doth distribute to every one the measure of faith and to faith it pertaineth to believe that GOD worketh in us both to will c. I shall conclude this matter with that observable passage of Luther on the second of the Gal. vers 16. touching justification Christ sayeth he apprehended by faith and indwelling in us is our righteousness for which we are justified or reputed just This of Luther is according unto these Scripturs The LORD our righteousness Ier. 23.6 And again He is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption 1. Cor. 1.30 And indeed none have Him to be their righteousness but who have Him to be their LORD not only dwelling in them but ruling in and over them He must be Lord in and over us by having the obedience and subjection of our souls and whole man that he may be our Righteousness SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined THe Fourth Instance of the Quakers holding Popish doctrins alleadged by I. M. is that Good works are meritorious To this I answere we doe not hold the merit of good works in any other sense then that which both agreeth unto the Scriptur and hath been used generally by those called Fathers such as Augustin Gregory Bernard yea and by some of the most famous Protestants for the clearing of this matter I shall propose two significations of the word Merit First as it signifieth to deserve a reward so as the merit is equall in worth and dignity unto the reward as when a Servant meriteth his wages from his Master this is the strict signification of it and in this sense we altogether deny that good works are meritorious Secondly as it signifieth to obtain from GOD by promise according as He out of His infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow and thus Merit and Reward are relatives so that as the reward is of grace the merit is of grace also and in this sense the Fathers commonly use the word merit particularly Augustin who saith when GOD doth crown our merits He crowneth nothing but His own gifts Where he plainly acknowledgeth merit of grace Now it is certain that the Lord promiseth a reward to good works which showeth that there is a dignity value or worthiness in them though not equall to the reward of eternall life yet such as it pleaseth GOD to take notice of So as it is a suitable thing according to His infinit bounty to reward them so liberally the Apostle saith 1. Pet. 3.4 a meek and quiet spirit is in the sight of God of great price therefor it hath a reall dignity worth and value in it which is of GOD and not of us so that we can not think so meanly and basely of that Righteousness and holiness which the Spirit of GOD worketh in us as those called Calvinists or Presbyterians doe who affirm that the best righteousness or holiness that is wrought in any of the Saints by the Spirit of GOD is defiled and as a menstruous garment yea is such as for the same GOD might justly abhore us We cannot but abhore such unclean and anti-christian doctrin tending to lessen the esteem and love of righteousness among men The Apostle maketh mention of the Faith Love and patience of the Thessalonians as a manifest tocken or demonstration of the righteous judgment of GOD that they may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of GOD. 2. Thes. 1.5 And said the Lord by His Servant Iohn unto those of Sardis who hade not defiled their garments they should walk with Him in white for they are worthy Rev. 3.4 these Scriptures shew a dignity or merit in good works not in the first sense but in the second Now if any Papists hold merit in the first sense we deny them in this as much as any Protestants doe yet that Protestants and some of greatest fame did hold merit in some sense 〈◊〉 evidenâ— both out of Melancton and Bacer Melancton in his common places sayeth expresly That good works in the Reconciled seeing they please GOD through faith or the Mediator menâ— spâ—rituall rewards and corporall both in tâ—is lâ—fe and after this life And Bucer as he is ciâ—ed by Cassander consult cap. de Merit contra Aâ—rinceâ—sem sayeth thus As we acknowledge faith it self the fountain of good works and merits to be the free gift of GOD so also we confess that both the works and merits are the free gifts of GOD c. And of this same mind are we with these men whom I. M. himself and his Brethren own to be Protestants of great note And with them
and aâ—l true Protestants we doe join against the Popish merit either of congruity without the Grace of GOD or of condignity with and by the Grace of GOD as condignity doth signifie an equality betwixt merit and reward as some Papists hold though contradicted by others but when Papists contradict one another one side must hold the truth at least in words but that is not to speak properly a Popish doctrin SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphall-Books THe Fifth Instance adduced by I. M. is that Apocryphall Books are of equall authority with other Scripturs He meaneth those judged by him and his Brethren to be Apocryphall For the question is what Books are Apocryphall and what not also what Apocryphall is in his sense If by Apocryphall he meane writt and not from any measure of the inspiration of the Spirit of GOD. Surely we cannot conclude that all these books called by him so are Apocryphall seing as to some of them we find the testimony of the Spirit of Truth in our hearts to answer to many precious Heavenly and divin sayings contained in them which is as a seal in us that they have proceeded from a measure of the true Spirit yet as to all these books or sayings contained in them we doe not so affirme And I belive I. M. cannot prove out of any of our Friends books that all these books commonly called Apocryphall and the sayings contained in them are of equall authority with the Scripturs however if they hade done so it proveth not that they hold a Popish doctrin because Papists and they hold their judgment concerning them on different accounts which according to I. M. his own rule is sufficient to make that a Heresy in the one and not in the other The Papists on the account of the authority of the Church that is to say the authority of some Popes or Popish councills But the Quakers on the account of the inward testimony of the Spirit of GOD in their hearts whereby the spirituall ear tryeth words whether having proceeded from GOD or not as the Mouth tasteth meat as the Scripture saith So that this may be retorted as a Popish doctrin on I. M and his Brethren who agree with Papists in denying that the inward evidence and testimony of the Spirit of GOD in mens hearts is the principall rule and touchston whereby to judge of words and writtings whether they be of GOD or not Again seeing the Papists are divided among themselves and contradict one another touching the authority of those books some of them holding that they are of equall authority with the Scripturs others denying it and placing them in an inferior degree We have the same advantage to reflect Popish doctrin upon him as he hath upon us if we did hold that either some or all of them are of equal authority with the Scripturs which yet I know not if I. M. can prove out of any writtings of a Quaker so called If perhaps I. M. shall Object that our Freind SAMUEL FISHER that faithful servant of the Lord in His Book Intituled RUSTICUS AD ACADEMICOS Or THE RUSTICKS ALARM To THE RABBIES c. which was writ about sixteen yeares agoe but never as yet Replyed unto by any doth affirm that Some of those books commonly called Apocryphall are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or have proceeded from Men divinely inspired and are of a diviâ— Inspiration â—nd Authority To this I answere First SAMUEL FISHER â—oth not affirm that all these books esteemed by I. M. and his Brethren to be Apocryphall are divinely inspired but that some of them such as First the wisdom of Solomon Secondly the Wiâ—â—om of Iesus the Son of Siraâ—h called Ecclesiâ—sticus Thirdly the Epistle of Ieremiah which 〈◊〉 â—roâ—e to those who were to goe Capâ—ive to Bâ—bylon c. Fourthly the Fourth Book of Esdras or the Second as it stands usualy in the Old English Protestant Bibles which books and especially this last of Esdras which gives so clear a testimony unto Christ as in Chap. 13. are denyed by unbelieving Iewes to be of divin inspiration with whom I. M. and his Brethren are in this matter to be classed together who deny them also Secondly albeit SAMUEL FISHER affirmeth that these afore mentioned books were writt by men divinely inspired yet he doth noâ— affirm that they are of equall authority wiâ—h the Scripturs as I. M. falsly chargeth us for writtings may be from divin inspiration and yet some of them of greater authority then others as proceeding from a greater measure of the Spirit however if I. M. have any convincing reasons why these books aforesaid are not of a divin originall let him produce them Now that some principall and famous men among the Papists doe place thâ—se books commonly called Apocryphall in an inferiour degree to the Scripturs Gratius doth plainly show in his Annotations upon Cassander his consult that both Cajetan and Bellarmin who were Cardinalls did hold them to be placed in an inferiour degree And also that KING IAMES the sixth did approve the same But let me ask I. M. one question or two First doth he think it a matter of faith that these books are not equall to Scripture If he doth I ask Secondly By what rule of faith he doth know or can prove that they are not equall to Scripture The Scripture it self can be no rule in the case seeing no place in all the Scripture saith any thing of these books not indeed of the number of the books of the Scripture If he say there are â—ound in them contradictions to the Scripture I answere if it were so in some of them yet I suppose he will not say in all If he say they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or character which the Scripturs have I ask again By what rule doth he know this that they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the Scripture doâ—h not say they want it and seeing possibly some may as strongly affirm that they have it Who shall be judge in the case Moreover we have this just retortion of Popery to reflect upon I. M. and his Bretheren that both Papists and they have set up such a determined number of books though differing among themselves as to the number of the Old Testament yet agreeing in one as to the number of the New which closeth up the Canon whereby they have both of them limited the GOD of Glory Himself both from bringing to light what other books have been writ that may be of equall authority with the Scriptures such as the Prophecy of Enoch mentioned Iude 14. the Epistle which Paul wrote to the Corinthians not to company with fornicators mentioned in the first of these Epistles which are extant 1. Cor. 5.9 and diverse other books which are mentioned in the Scripturs not â—ow to be found although it is possible they may be found yet if they were found by their principle they are to be rejected as not being in the Canon