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
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-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
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
Spirit as it is a more excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture so is it a more excellent Rule because any aptitutde or fitness that the outward testimony hath to be a rule the inward hath it more Yea the inward was a rule before the outward was and is a rule at this day as I. M. must needs confess unto those who are deaff that belong to the number of the Elect who can not make use of the outward Again why is the Scripture fit to be a Rule but because it is of a divine originall is divinely inspired hath somewhat in it that cannot be expressed that doth convince that it is of God but all this aggreeth more immediatly to the inward teaching dictate and word of the Spirit in the heart For it is most absurd to say or think that what God speaketh to us more mediately and remotely in the Scriptures hath a greater self-evidence then what he speaketh immediately and most nearly to us in our hearts as who would say what another hath reported unto me that I. M. had said so or so iâ— more evident unto me that he hath so said then what he hath told me himself out of his own mouth Yea why doth I. M. alleadge that the Scripture hath a self evidencing authority in it but because it is the word of God Hence I thus argue Whatever is the word of God hath a self-evidencing authority But the inward dictats of the Spirit in the heart of Believers are the word of God Therefore I prove the second Proposition That which God speaketh is the word of God But the inward dictats of the Spirit is that which God speaketh Therefore I see no way how I. M. can evade those arguments but by denying that properly and really God doth speak in the hearts of Believers and indeed this is conforme unto their usuall doctrine that the illumination of the Spirit of God in the heart of Believers is not objective but meerly subjective and effective The contrary whereof I have proved at large in my book of IMMEDIAT REVELATION To which I referr the Reader Onely at present I shall say this That if God doth not objectively illuminat and irradiat the souls of Believers and doth not inwardly speak in their hearts by his Spirit and that this be their Faith it is but a sort of deceiving the people when at times they themselves use these words both in preaching and praying as holding forth the necessity of God his speaking inwardly to the heart by his Spirit for if the effective operation of God as it is denyed to be objective may be called the speaking of God then it may be as much said that God speaketh to a Tree or a Horse c when he worketh in them 28 an efficient cause by way of concurrence to help them in the operations proper to their natures as he doth unto the hearts of Believers at least when he acteth in them to wit in the unreasonable creatures in a supernaturall way as when he said to the earth on the third day of the creation let the earth bring forth grass or when he spoke to the great fish to vomit out Ionah Certainly in both these there was a supernaturall influence or operation of God yet is it not absurde to say that God speaketh no more intelligibly or perceptibly in an immediat way unto the souls of his own Children his own sons and daughters then he did to those unreasonable creatures But if it be granted that this inward speaking or illumination of God is in it self intelligible and perceptible unto the souls of Believers then it must be granted that it is objective for what is in it self perceptible is objective and what is not objective is not in it self â—erceptible This consideration hath formerly made me conclude that those who deny inward objective illuminations of the Spirit do also deny all spirituall sensations or senses properly so called And thiâ— I do affirâ—e from as great clearness of â—nderstanding as if I should conclude from a â—â—ns denying that the outward Light is objective â—nd perceptible in it self that therefore there is â—o sense of seeing and from a mans denying that 〈◊〉 outward sound is objective and perceptible that â—herefore there is no sense of hearing c or that â—â—eat and drink as for example Bread Flesh Wine Milk Honey is not objective and perceptible therefore there is no sense of smelling tasting and feeling And if any should reply that the Scriptures are the only objects of those spirituall sensations such a reply would sufficiently declare that they do not mean spirituall senses and sensations properly so called seeing the objects of the spiritual senses are the things whereof the Scriptures are but a declaration as the objects of the naturall senses are things And even as it is most false to say that when I read or hear a declaration or discourse of meat and drinke that I really taste of the same seeing the sense of tasting is not at all answered by the discourse but by the things discoursed of even so it were really as false to say that when I hear or read a verball declaration of God and divine and spirituall things that I really taste of them For indeed those spirituall and divine things are really as distinct from the words declaring of them as meat and drink are distinct from the best of all words declaring of them Now the Scripture sayeth Taste and see that God is good Here God himself is proposed unto the soul as the object of its spirituall sensation and not the words But to say I can see and taste of the goodness of God in the Scriptures simply as being the onely and alone object of my seeing and tasting is really as much to deriâ—e me as who would discourse to me for an houre or two very effectually of the goodness of meat and drink and then tell me I have sufficiently seen and tasted it whereas I have indeed neither seen nor tasted it and all his discourse doth not answere the sight and taste nor yet the appetite as their proper objects Moreover when the Scripture declareth of God his speaking and witnessing in his children generally and useth the same manner of speach as when He is said to speak in the Prophets we ought to understand it as properly in the one as in the other seeing according to that generall rule agreed upon by all Expositors We are to keep to the proper sense of Scripture words when there is no necessity to reside from them as indeed there is none here but rather on the contrary there is a great necessity that God do indeed speak immediatly to the souls of his Children else they cannot have true peace for it is He who speaketh Peace unto his people and to his Saints and to them who are turned unto the heart as diverse of the Fathers did â—ite these words of the Psalmist Psalm 85.8 and particularly
Bernard yea and as the same Bernard and Augustin citeth Isaiah 46.8 and as the Hebrew doth bear it Even transgressours such as are gross Idolaters are bid return to the heart to wit unto that inward law and teaching of GOD therein Yea Augustin sayeth expresly Nulla est anima c. There is no Soul so perverse in whoâ—e conscience God doth not speak lib. 2. de Serm Domini in monte And indeed that most famous primitive Protestants did not only acknowledge Inward supernaturall operations of the spirit of GOD in the hearts of Believers but did also hold that there was an Inward word spoke by the Spirit into their hearts which was evident and sufficient in it self to beget Faith and be a law and rule to Believers I shall prove ouâ— of manifest Testimonies of Luther Zuinglius OEcolampadius and Melanchton First as to Luther in a Sermon of his on Pentecost The second law sayeth he that is not of the letter but of the Spirit is spirituall which is neither written with pen nor inke nor spoken with the mouth but as we see here in this occurrence the Holy-Ghost descended from Heaven and filled them all that they received Firie-tongues and preached freely otherwise then formerly which astonished all the people there he cometh and overfloweth the heart and maketh a new man which now loveth GOD and doth willingly what he willeth which is nothing else but the Holy Ghost himself or at least the worke which he worketh in the heart there he writteth meer flammes of fire in the heart and maketh it alive that it breaketh forth with firie-tongues and active hands and becometh a new man and sensibly feeleth that he hath received a quite other understanding minde and sense then before So now all is living understanding light minde and heart which burneth and taketh delight in all that pleaseth GOD. Again Here thou seest clearly that his office is not to write books nor make lawâ—s but freely puteth an end unto them and is such a GOD that writs in the heart makes it to burn and creatâ— a new minde c. and this is the office of the Holy Ghost rightly preached c. Such a man is above all law for the Holy Ghost teacheth him better then all books so that he understands the Scripture better then any man can tell him therefore such a man needeth not the use of books any further but to prove that it is so â—ritten therein as the Holy Ghost teacheth him Therefore GOD must tell it thee in thy heart and that is Gods-Word otherwise Gods-Word remains unspoken Note from these words First That Luther did hold that the second law which is the rule of a Christian is not the Scripture but what the Holy Ghost teacheth and writeth in be heart Secondly That this inward teaching of the Holy Ghost is better then the Scripture Thirdly That the service of the Scripture is rather to prove to others what is written therein then to be the foundation and principall rule of Faith Fourthly That the Scripture unless it be spoken by GOD in the heart is not GODS-Word I suppose I. M. will not finde greater Enthusiasm in any of the writtings of the People called Quakers Again Luther upon the Magnificat None can understand GOD or the Word of God aright except he receive it immediatly from the Holy Ghost Again Luther on the 11 Psalm but in our English Psalm 12.6 Eloquia Domini â—asta The words of the LORD are pure The Prophet David here speaks noâ— of the Scripture but of the Word of GOD chiefly And he sayeth further They are therefore Eloquia Domini that is GODS-Word when the Lord speaketh in Us as he did in the Apostles but not when every one bâ—ings forth the Scripture which the Devil and wicked men may doe in whom God speaketh not and therefore it is not Gods Word Here Luther is down right an Enthusiast as much as any Quaker can be If it be objected that Luther wrote against the Enthusiasts I answere I know he did but these were not true Enthusiasts as the Apostles were but such as under a pretence of Enthusiasm both taught and practised evil things Secondly Zuinglius speaketh his mind exceeding clearly of the inward word and that it is preferable to the outward word so as the outward is to be judged of by the inward Ex commentario de verâ falsâ religione cap. de Ecclesia verbo Dei. Thou dost now understand sayeth he what is the Church which cannot err to wit She alone which leaneth to the alone Word of GOD nor that which Emserus thinketh we only regard which consisteth of letters or words but that which shineth in the mind Again He who heareth in the Church the Scripture of the heavenly Word explained judgeth that which he heareth but that which is heard is not the Word it self whereby we believe for if we were made faithfull by that Word which is heard or read all should surely be made faithfull It is then manifest that we are made faithfull by that Word which the heavenly Father preacheth in our hearts whereby also he enlightneth us that we may understand and draweth us that we may follow who are indued with that word do judge the Word which soundeth in the preaching and beateth the Ears but in the mean time the word of Faith which sitteth in the minds of the faithfull is judged by none but by the same the outward word is judged which GOD hath ordained to be brought forth although faith be nor of the externall or oâ—tward Word Thirdly Oecolampadius on Ezek. cap. 3. Thou Son of man receive all the words that I speak unto thee in thy heart and hear them in thy Ear. This Text is against those that would bind the course of the Word of GOD to externall things but it is necessary that the only Master be first heard who is in Heaven that is in the secret opening the heart and giving Ears to hear and begetting or stirring up desires in us to learn the truth Again Faith is an inward thing and a spirituall gift of GOD therefore springeth not from any outward things as from the outward word or hearing but from the inward word and inspeaking of GOD it is produced Again sayeth he We divide not in our ministry the inward from the outward Word of GOD but we only distinguish them that we may know that the inward Word and Work of GOD in us must preceed that the outward be not taken for the inward nor the humane for the divine and so a humane opinion be gotten instead of Faith we desire that both these words may goe together and doe couple them in our ministry Again a little after Thus it appears that the power of GOD is not bound to the Element nor to our ministry but the pure Grace of GOD is acknowledged which is given either with the Word or before the Word or after the Word as pleaseth him
was so farr from condemning it as hereticall That a man by the Grace of GOD might be free from sin that he expresly affirmeth it himself as possible It is one thing sayeth he to ask whether any man in this life is withouth sin another if he can or may be And as to the question if he may he answereth affirmatively That he may be the Grace of GOD and free-will This he said in opposition to Pelagius who affirmed That a man by free-will without the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin And the very same which Augustin said in this matter lib. 2. de pec mer. remiss we say And seeing as I suppose I. M. will not condemn Augustin as Popish in this particular I see not how he can coâ—demn Us without great partiality Moreover the same Augustin is so farr from holding it to be an error That a man by the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin that he sayeth expresly lib. de spiritu litera cap. 2. If it be defended and thought that some are or have been or shall be perfect with such purity how farr I can judge sayeth he they do not err much nor dangerously and yet I. M. and his Brethren think this a most dangerous error seeing every one that thinketh so doth err with a certain benevolence of mind if notwithstanding he who thinketh this think not himself to be such unless he do really and clearly perceive himself to be such but these are most earnestly and vehemently to be resisted who think that without the help of GOD by the proper power of mans-will they can either perfect righteousness or can profit in aiming after the same This he sayeth against the Pelagians which doth not reach us for we abhoâ—e any such thought that any man without the Grace and supernaturall help of the Spirit of GOD can either finish or begin any good thing Others of the Fathers so called I could cite who do â—avour this perfect doctrin only I shall at present menâ—ion Athanasius the Great a man I suppose whom I. M. doth not suspect as guilty of Popery Who sayeth expresly in his fourth Oration agâ—inst the Aâ—â—â—n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many were born holy and free or clean from all sin And he mentioneth in particular Ieremias and Iohn the Baptist but if I. M. is to be believed both Ieremias and Iohn were sinners and not clean or free from all sin even when born into the world yea when in the womb And in this he agreeth with the Papists and not we both of them holding That many Infants are excluded from the Kingdom of GOD because of Originall sin Now as to these and such like Scripturs that are brought against the doctrin of perfection It hath been shown not only by many of our Friends that they doe not prove that a sinless state is not attainable in time but even the same hath been asserted and the doctrin of perfection in as great a latitude mantained by some famous men among the Protestants as by us particularly by Sebastian Castellio a man much beloved and esteemed by many however Calvinists may think of him Yea and diverse of the present Church of England whom I. M. owneth to be Protestants hath appeared in defence of this doctrin as Hen. More and others As also our Countrey-man William Forbes as may be seen in his book called Considerationes modestae pacificae controversiarum Where he citeth diverse Protestants of the same mind with himself who hold That by the Grace of GOD the Law of GOD may be performed according unto that divine condescension called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he requireth obedience of us according unto that proportion and measure of divine Grace and ability that is given us and in this true sense we own perfection and a perfect state attainable in time which yet doth still admit of a growth in degrees Be ye perfect said Christ Matth. 5.48 as your heavenly Father is perfect Surely this is a sinless perfection that is here commanded and it is as sure that what Christ commandeth He giveth sufficient ability of Grace to perform For His yoke is easie and his burden iâ— light Matth. 11.30 and His commandements are not grievous 1. Iohn 5.3 And according to this sayeth Prosper ad Demetriadem In omnibus monitis Dei c. In all the monitions and commandements of GOD there is one and the same reason both of divine grace and mans obedience And indeed this is the great difference betwixt the Law and the Gospell that the Law did command but was weak as said the Apostle whereas the gospell is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth which salvation is from sin and not in sin And said Christ to his Disciples Now are yee clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you Iohn 15.3 but to that Objection both of Papists and Others out of Iohn 1. Ioh. 1.8 If wee say wee have no sin wee deceive our selves I Ansuere first with Augustin exp ep ad Gal. Aliuà est non peccare aliud non habere peccatum It is one thing not to sin another thing not to have sin This place doth not favour them who say that men cannot be free from actuall sinning iâ— this life Seeing Iohn doth not say if we say we sin not but if we say we have not sin By which sin some doe understand that which the Regenerat find in the flesh as a temptation unto sin or that which tempteth thereunto which nevertheless not being anywise consented unto is not their sin although it be their great tryall and a great occasion unto them to desire to be dissolved tâ—at they may be free of all temptations unto sin as well as of sin it self Secondly the same Apostle saith immediatly after if we confess our sins He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness Now he that is cleansed from all unrighteousness is cleansed from all sin because sin is unrighteousness and seing it belongeth to the faithfulness and justice of GOD to doe it certainly He will doe it to every one that diligently improveth that Divine grace that is given to that end yea he saith also verse 7. The blood of Iesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin which he speaketh in the present time Now to be defiled with sin and to be cleansed from all sin at one and the same time implyeth a contradiction Therefore the Apostles wordes are to be referred to two severall times and states which looseth sufficâ—ently the contradiction Nor doth it follow that the Apostle Iohn was at this time defiled with sin more then that Iames was a Curser when he said of the Tongue Herewith curse we men Iames. 3.9 But both Iohn and Iames words are to be understood after the manneâ— of ane usuall figure called Metaschematismâ—s as also the Apostle Paul Rom. 7. from
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
mistake without any reflexion upon his Relâ—gion As to his Instance of Prophetesses among the Papists such as Hildegardis Katherin of Sens and Briget whom he compareth unto the WOMEN PREACHERS among the Quakers The comparison is unequall seeing prophecying in that sense and preaching are two distinct things we hear nothing of those Prophetesses preaching in religious assemblies of Men and Women and seeing the Protestants commonly acknowledge that GOD may in in those dayes give unto men the knowledg of things to come by a Spirit of prophecy as he hath done unto some how is I. M. sure that it shall never be given unto Women for they may be Prophetesses by giving forth their prophecies in writt although they speak nothing in the Church As for Hildegardis She is acknowledged both by Fox in his acts and mon and by Brightman in his commentary on the Revelation to have been a Prophetesse whose prophecy is brought in by them both as a witness against the Papists especially the begging Fryars As for Papists allowing Women to baptise it concerns us nothing who look upon SPRINKLINâ— of INFANTS whether by men or women but â—s anâ— human tradition And as to Papesse Ioan seeing I. M. by his own confession derives his call through Rome he is one of her Lineall Succesors through whom it is conveyed to him But have not there been Women among the Presbyterians who have spoke in the presence of many both men and women of their experiences of the things of GOD. I suppose I. M. may have heard of Margaret Mitchelson who spoke to the admiration of many Hearers at Edenburgh as concerning her experience in the time of Henry Rogue Preacher there who is said to have come and heard her himself and to have given her this testimony being desired to speak himself that he was to be silent when his Master was speaking meaning Christ in that Presbyterian woman There is a relation of her speaches going about from hand to hand among Professors at this day and I my self have heard a Presbyterian woman speak in a meeting of Presbyterians which were a Church or convention of men and women Yet hath not I. M. in such meetings and consequently in assemblies of Churches invited some women to speak and pray and declared solemnly whether he did it meerly in his ordinary customary way of Complementing that is best known to himself that he was edified thereby And if some of those Women formerly in that respect so much applauded by I.M. be of those that now open their mouths in the Quakers meetings how comes it now to be Popish and hereticall more then in the dayes of old when I. M. did use to frequent the CHAMBER-CONVENTICLES unless that he now hath forgotten these because fear hath made them out of fashion with him Besides that Whores to this day upon the Stool of Repentance so called speak in your publick assemblies And whereas it is Objected by Some That their Church doth not allow unto Whores Authoritative-teaching To this I answere First that at least they permit them to speak in the Church and so by their own principle they transgress the words of the Apostle saying It is not permitted unto them to speak 1. Cor. 14.34 And again I permit not a Woman to teach 1. Tim. 2.12 Secondly doe not they command and call them to speak and therefore is not their call to speak or teach as much authoritative from the Preachers as the Preachers call is from the Pope seeing none of them pretend to the true authority of the inward call of GOD which is by IMMEDIAT REVELATION Next he falleth upon Enthusiasm asking what other grounds hath the Romish Infallible Iudge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended Inspirations I answere yet he hath another ground which the Popish Doctors much more commonly alleadge then any Enthusiasm and that is an effective assistance of the Holy Ghost which is not any objective immediat revelation but a subjective illumination and this is also the very ground why a Presbyterian who esteems himself a true Christian thinks he can not erre fundamentally in a point of faith to wit a blind unknown assistance of the Spirit pretended both by Pope and Presbyterians without immediat objective revelation I say a blind unknown assistance because by confession of both parties it is meerly effective and not objective and so Medium incognitum assentiendi an unknown midst of assenting as R. Barron did call it And whence have either Prelaticall or Presbyterian Professors borrowed this deceitfull and Antichristian-distinction of an effective illumination of the Spirit of GOD as contradistinct from an objective yea seperated from it But from the Popish Doctors Sacroboscus â— Popish Doctor useth the same distinction of subjective and objective assistance def decret Trident. pag 93. and 94. cited by Iackson third book of comment on the Creed And this I may more justly charge upon I. M. and his Brethren that they have learned this deceitfull distinction of effective and objective illumination from Papists then that wherewith he chargeth us as having learned from Romanists to call the Scripturs a dead Letter pag. 71. For we do no otherwise call or esteem the Scripture a dead letter but as it is not accompanied with an administration of the Spirit and in this sense Famous Protestants have affirmed the same as both O Ecolampadius and Calvin yea and Iohn Owen in the very same boâ—k of the divine authority of the Scripturs doth positively assert the same that the Scripture is a dead letter where it is not accompanied with an administration of the Spirit giving an instance in the unbelieving Iewes which holdeth no less in unbelievers professing Christianity Next whereas he alleadgeth that the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches I answere if it were so this is but an evasion as to that Instance of affinity that the Quakers have with Papists seeing in this the Quakers rather agree with the Puritans both whose principle it is that it is lawfull for Persons to carry on a Reformation without any publick consent or allowance of those in outward authority which sort of Reformation the Author of Scolding no Scholarship calleth Reformation by a privat spirit though what is done by the Spirit of GOD in privat men is by a publick and universall spirit such as the Spirit of GOD is nor doth it answere it that he calleth the Reformation among the Quakers a Deformation for besides that he but beggs the question in that he cannot but know that the Papist doth as much think either the Episcopall or Presbyterian Reformation a Deformation as these think that ours is such Again seeing the doing one and the same thing on different accounts may be good in the one and bad in the other according to his rule above mentioned the Papists designe and ours as in relation to those he calls Reformed Churches beeing as farr different as North from South makes the difference to