Fourthly Melancton in Annot. super Iohan. 6. So they who hear only the externall and bodily voice hear a creature and seeing GOD is a Spirit He is neither seen nor known nor heard but in Spirit therefore to hear the voice of GOD to see and know GOD is to hear the Spirit Again by the Spirit alone GOD is known and his voice is perceived it doth not justifie to have heard bodily or after a bodily manner because justification is to be regenerated by the Spirit of GOD. Again the same Melancton Super epist. ad Rom. Per Lutherum editam cap. 2. on these words the Letter and the Spirit For the Letter signifieth not the written sense or the history as Origen thought but all works and all doctrines that live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Law is letter the Gospell is letter the Historie is letter the Spirituall allegoricall Sense is letter yea all that which lives not in the â—eart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Spirit is that by which the Spirit of Grace liveth in the heart the Spirit is the true love of God and of our neighbour which liveth in the heart which is the law written in the heart by the finger of GOD and not in the tables of stone The Spirit is the faith by which the gospell is truely and from the heart believed And here observe that if all be letter as well the words of the New Testament as of the Old which live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace then it is manifested that every unregenerat man who is a Preacher is at best but a minister of the letter so that his ministry is letter he is not a minister of the new Testament but of the letter which killeth his ministry is nothing else but a killing letter and is good for nothing Now as to the second branch of his first article that the Scripturs are not a compleat rule of faith this he alleageth is a Popish doctrin mantained by Quakers But First I query how is it a Popish doctrin seeing according to I. M. his own confession some of the Popish Doctors yea many Old School-men as Aquinas Scotus Durandus all hold as it seemeth that the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith wherein all supernaturall truths necessary to be believed are revealed pag. 76. yea in the same page he saith the Romanists are so farre from that Unity wherof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion And indeed I M. inâ—inuateth elsewhere little less in his book then that as touching all the differences betwixt them and those of his profession the Popish Doctors are subdivided among themselves so as to contradict one another in those very points which I am apt to believe is a truth And if so then it is apparent that there is no doctrin held in common by Us and some of the Papists but the same is contradicted by others of them and so these others of the Popish Doctors agree with I. M. and his Bretheren wherein they contradict Us. But as I have already said page 2. that which indeed maketh a Popish Doctrin is that it be not only affirmed by Papists and that most generally but that it be contrary unto the Scripturs and by this rule we are most willing to be tryed whether he or we have most of the Popish stuff or Wares Secondly as to the charge it self That the Scripturs are not the compleat rule of Faith I do affirme that this charge doth not at all reach us called Quakers more then it reacheth any true Protestants which that I may make to appear I distinguish of Faith as it is common unto all Christians and as it is peculiar and proper unto some now as to common Faith I say the Scripturs are a compleat secondary rule of all principles both fundamentall or essentiall and integrall of common Faith so as there is no principle of Faith whatsomever that is necessary to be believed by all Christians in common whether essentiall or integrall but is sufficiently declared in the Scripturs so that as to common principles of Faith we say the Scripture is not a partiall rule as do those Papists who say it is but a compleat and totall rule and herein we agree with all true Protestants and doe with them reject all unwritten traditions as being any part of the rule of Faith Yet although we say the Scripture is a compleat rule we understand it in its own kinde to wit a compleat externall rule as when I say a compleat Chart or Map of Scotland or England I mean that it is as full as a Map needeth to be yet it is not so full as the Land it self is otherwise it behoved to be as bigg as the Land Again though I call it a compleat rule yet I deny it to be the Principall It is then a compleat Secondary rule and in this we differ exceeding widely and materially from Papists but as to that Faith that is not common and universall but only peculiar and proper to some if there by any such Faith I. M. must needs acknowledge the Scripture is not the rule thereof as for example when George Wishard Iohn Knox and severall others in our own Nation did prophecy some particular things not to be found in Scripture but which indeed They had by speciall revelation this our Scots Protestants do generally acknowledge and some have thought it a great honour to our Nation particularly Durham and the Author of the fulfilling of the Scripturs Now this speciaell revelation was the rule of that proper and peculiar Faith which those men had as touching those particular things whereof they Prophecied but the Scripture was not the Rule of this their peculiar Faith And indeed for this distinction of ommon and peculiar Faith the Scripture is plaine as where it saith Rom. 14.22 Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self This is that peculiar and proper Faith as is said unto which belongs that Faith whereby I or any other particular true Christian doeth believe that we are indeed the Children of God For that a man may have ane assurance of Faith that he is a Child of GOD is granted by true Protestants and yet the rule of this particular Faith can not be the Scripture seeing no Scripture in all the Bible saith that such a man by name now living is a Child of GOD for although the Scripture give true and certain markes of a Child of GOD yet it doth not tell me that I have these markes and so can not be the Rule unto me whereby to know or believe that I have them indeed But the Spirit himself beareth witnesse with our Spirits that wee are the Children of GOD. Rom. 8. And this Faith I say whereby a particular person doth believe that he is a true Child of GOD that he is regenerated and sanctified and
be so wide seeing what they doe against you is to bring you back again to the grossest part of Popery what we doe is but to move you foreward that you may leave behind and throw away those too many and hurtfull relicts of Popish principles and practises which hinder you from being a truely Reformed Church that so you may be indeed a Reformed Church and People unto GOD. And so farr as the Reformed Churches so called have forsaken any Popish principles and practises whatsomever in that we allow them and have unity with all the sincere and upright in heart among them which are but a very few in respect of the great multitudes of profane and scandolous Persons nor is it any thing of the Work of GOD that he hath wrought in any whether among Papists or Protestants so called that we seek to break down but indeed to cherish it and build it up But it is the work of the Enemie that our testimony is against and for the breaking of it down where ever it appears both in our selves and in others Finally whereas he saith that we Romanise in denying the Scripturs to be the compleat and principall Rule of Faith I have so sufficiently answered it above that I need say no more here Only for a testimony of our agreement with true Protestants against all Popish superstitions and traditions whatsomever this I affirm that whatever principle or practice in Religion is obtruded by Papists or any other upon the account of tradition that is not to be found declared and witnessed to in the Scripturs or can not by sound evidence of true reason be deduced from the Scripturs is to be rejected utterly and denyed by every true Christian which principle as it is verbaly owned by many Protestants I wish it were as realy practised among them and then it should be known how cordialy and realy we should joyn with them in all things against the common Enemie of true Reformation And as to his charity or rather indeed the defect of it wherewith he concludes this matter in expressing himself jealous that both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World As it relates to us I shall only wish that the LORD may forgive him his hard thoughts conceived against us without any just ground and shall be so farr from thinking so of him or any of his Bâ—ethren that they could wish there were no Scripture that I really believe they are glade that it is in the World For either they have a measure of sincerity and who have this will love the Scripture upon this good principle or they have not as indeed too many of them as I suppose by I. M. his own concession are of that stamp who are but mercenary and covetous men even whose GOD is their belly and mind Earthly things and yet these are glade to have the Scripturs not to conform their lives unto them but to make a trade of them Cauponantes Verbum Dei Making merchandise of the Word of GOD as the Apostle declareth 2. Cor. 2.17 SECT XI Wherein I. M. his acknowledgment concerning the Ministeriall Succession through the Church of Rome is briefly considered and the Imputation of Popery in that respect justly retorted upon him MAny other things I could have observed in his book that might have been of service to us for our Vindication and an occasion further to clear the Truth but we not being so particularly concerned in them I have purposely forborn intending briefness also his frequent naming of us and classing us with Romanists Papists Iesuits c. with his many bitter expressions and insinuations I have waved it being chiefly before me to answere directly to thâ—se particular charges above mentioned Only in the Close I cannot ommit one thing and that is his opnely and professedly avowing that Ordination conâ—erted by Antichristian Ministers such as the Bishops and Popes of Rome even supposing them to be the Great Antichrist may be and is valid and that the Ordination of the first Reformers was such To this I have some things to say First If the Pope of Rome his Ordination and Calâ— be valid which he conferreth and that the Protestants have no other but what was at first received from him and them to wit Popish Bishops then it may easily appear whether they or we be most a-kin to the Pope they owning expresly his authority seeing none can conferr Ordination but who hath authority so to doe we expresly and altogether rejecting and denying it as meer usurpation surely I. M. and his Brethren may henceforth be ashamed to call us the Popes Emissaries seeing we never directly â—or indirectly owned him or his call and yet so in the face of the World to print himself and his Brethren to be indeed the Popes Emissaries for Emissarie is one sent by the Pope as he confesseth his Ordination Call or sending to be seeing his is derived by them who had it first from the Pope And if an Emissarie of the Pope he is also an Emissarie of Papesse Ioan who is in the line of Papall succession by I. M. his confession Secondly it is a very strange thing how a Minister of Antichrist yea how he who is Antichrist himself the Great Antichrist as I. M. admitteth the supposition can make or ordain a true and lawfull Minister of Christ. If I. M. can show us any where in Scripture that Christ conferred this power to Antichrist we shall confess him to be a Minister of Christ but till then he must excuse us to hold him as in that respect at least a Minister of Antichrist But I. M. seems to come of with a distinction he gives pag. 379. not in so farr as Antichristian saith he but as retaining some of Christs Goods this distinction I fear will be found too Metaphysicall and fitter for men who have Philosophicall Consciences who can defend any thing by a distinction then men of plainness and simplicity but I ask I. M. how or in what relation doth the Pope hold some of Christ his Goods whether as Christian or Antichristian if as Antichristian the distinction destroyeth it self in making the members of the distinction to coincide as to say the Pope not as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods and yet as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods this were to make two contradictory propositions both true together which is absurd But if he say that the Pope as Christian holdeth some of Christs Goods then it followeth that he is both Christian and Antichristian together which is indeed as reall an impossibility as for one and the same man to be both a man and a beast in a strict and proper sence seeing Christian and Antichristian differ really as much as man and beast especially in the sense acknowledged that the Pope is so Antichristian that he is in the Abstract the Great Antichrist himself for to say that he who is in the least measure a true Christian
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
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
we prefering the Spirit of GOD sealing and confirming in our hearts the truth of what we outwardly read in the Scriptures according to I. M. his own rule above mentioned that may be a Heresie in them and not in us But as I have already said I know not any Papists who say That the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith I know they say commonly It is not the formall object of Faith but I. M. is not ignorant how they distinguish betwixt the Rule of Faith and the Formall object of Faith how truely they do so we are not concerned But that this assertion to wit that the Spirit witnessing the truth in the hearts of Believers is greater then the outward testimony of the Prophets and Apostles and consequently the principall rule is so farre from being repugnant unto the Scripture that it is in express terms asserted in the Scripture 1. Iohn 5.8.9.10 If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater c. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself c. And surely it is most agreeable to sound reason that what the Spirit of GOD witnesseth or dictateth in the heart of a Beleever hath more evidence and force to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture seeing it is more immediat for although the outward testimony of the Scripture may be called a testimony of the Spirit yet it is not so immediat as what the Spirit speaketh in the heart nor secondly hath it so powerfull an operation upon the Conscience or Spirit of a man aâ— the inward testimony of the Spirit hath I need go no further to prove this then the experience of all those who ever knew any inward touches or working of the Spirit upon their hearts such will declare that what the Spirit speaketh home to their hearts by his secret touches and motions hath fare more abundant power to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture Yea notwithstanding of the outward testimony how many have been in great doubt whether the things declared in Scripture are true as whether there be an eternall reward for the righteous whether the Lord doth regard the righteous more then the wicked and such like truths But when the Spirit hath spoke home those truths to their hearts they could no more question them they were so clear as nothing could be more Yea was not the Psalmist greatly tempted in his minde with doubting If the Lord had a favour to the righteous Psal. 73. What cleared him of this doubt and raised up his minde over this temptation Was it the outward testimony of the Scripture so much as was then vvrit of it He had this before and yet he vvas troubled but vvhen he vvent into the Sanctuary then he vvas cleared not as if the outvvard Sanctuary or Temple had this vertue in it but that the Lord appeared unto him vvhile he vvas there And if there vvas any outvvard testimony given there the Lord did second it vvith the invvard testimony of his Spirit and this vvas it that cleared him as the vvords follovving import verse 26. My flesh and my heart faileth but GOD is the rock of my heart So the margine according to the Hebrevv Here the rock of his heart vvas GOD to vvit revealing himself and his truth in him and this vvas the rock and foundation of his Faith therefore he concludeth in a most svveet strain It is good for me to draw near to GOD and then he adds I have put my trust in the Lord God importing that since he drevv near to the Lord or since the Lord drevv near to him as the vvords may be as well translated he vvas enabled to believe and nor othervvise Moreover the Sanctuary mentioned by him in the place above cited may in a spirituall sense vvell be understood to be that holy principle put by GOD into his heart vvhich is indeed the true sanctuary signified by the outvvard vvherein GOD appeareth and speaketh unto men in their hearts Therefore said the Psalmist I will hear what God the Lord will speak in me Psal. 85.8 So the Septuagint as it were Paraphrastically and that this was the common priviledge of all the people of God in that day see Psal. 50.7 Hear O my people and I will speak O Israel and I will testifie in thee So the words according to the Hebrew yea and this is the very tenour of the new covenant that all his people shall be taught of God Himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import a reall distinct teaching of God over beyond and above all outward teaching by the ministery of men I say a real distinct teaching which I prove thus If men may be outwardly taught by the Scripturâ—s and want this teaching of God here mentioned in the Promise then the one is distinct from the other Buâ— the first is true therefore the second The connexion of the first proposition in manifest from that maxime Quorum unum potest ab alto separari illa realiter distinguâ—tur when one thing can be separated from the other these two are really distinct The second proposition is clear from I. M. his own principles viz. that they may be outwardly taught by the Scripture and want the teaching promised in the new covenant because such a teaching is onely given unto the elect by hiâ— principle and I do confess the Elect are in a speciall way taught of God beyond what others are Now to proceed If this teaching of God be a reall distinct teaching from all outward teaching by the Scripture then I argue It is the greater and more excellent from I. M. his own principle My Argument is this That which is given as a speciall distinguishing priviledge and mercy unto the people of God is a greater and more excellent thing then that which is given indifferently both unto them and others to wit the wicked But this inward teaching of God is given as a speciall dâ—stinguishing priviledge c. Therefore it is a greater and more excellent thing Againe I prove it thus That which a man having it doth him most good that is the greatest and most excellent thing But this teaching of God by the Spirit promised in the new covenant a man having it doth him most good Therefore c. The second Proposition is clear for to be taught of God inwardly by the secret operation of his Spirit doth a man more good then meerly to be taught by the outward testimony of the Scripture Now if it be replyed that the inward teaching of the Spirit is granted to be a more great and excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture and yet it be denyed that it is the greater and more excellent rule As for example Gold is a more excellent thing then Iron yet it is not so serviceable to be a Knife or Sword as Iron is To this I answere That the inward teaching dictate or word of the
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
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
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
affirming that Water-Baptism is the Baptism of Christ and a standing Ordinance of the Church of Christ which the Quakers deny Twelfthly The Papists and I. M. with his Bretheren agree in affirming that INFANT-SPRINKLING is an Ordinance of the Gospell which the Quakers deny Thirteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree in affirming that the partaking of the visible Signs of Bâ—ead and Wine is a Sacrament or standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ Which the Quakers deny Fourteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree that it is lawfull for Christians to swear which the Quâ—kers according to the express command of Christ doe deny Fifteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree that it is lawfull for Christians to fight and KILL ONE-ANOTHER in fighting which the Quakers deny Sixteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree in the bloody Antichristian Tenet of PERSECUTION in affirming that the Civil Magistrat may lawfully Kill Banish Imprison and poynd men for their Opinions in matters of Worship and Doctrin which Doctrin the Quakers deny Seventeenthly The Papists and I. M. with his Bretheren agree in affirming it lawfull for men to Knell Bow and take off their Hatts One to another and in the use of vain Titles Complements and Cringeings c. all which things the Quakers deny Eighteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree in asserting the lawfulness of Gameing Sporting Playing and all suchâ— other things as Danceings Singings acting of Commedies useing of Lace Ribbands plating the Hair and such other kinde of Superfluities all which the Quakers deny I could have instanced severall other particulars some whereof are in the former part of this Treatise included but this may serve abundantly to prove the matter in hand for since it cannot be denyed but that I. M. and his Bretheren doe agree in those before mentioned particulars and that joyntly in opposition to the Quakers who then can deny but that there is more affinity betwixt I. M. and the Papists then betwixâ— the Quakers and them And if I. M. and the Papists agree in many more particulars and that more weighty against the Quakers then he himself can alleadge the Quakers doe with Papists against him then let the Rational Reader judge whether he had any reason to upbraid us with affinity with Papists to whom he is farr more near a kin As for his Popish charges against us we have vindicated our selves from them let him if he can clear himself from these he is here charged with If he confess the agreement but affirm that both he and Papists are right in these things and we wrong in denying them However this will be hence so farr apparent that he is more one with Papists then we and therefore had no reason to accuse us of Popery But as to these particulars both I and some others of my Bretheren have already proven how they and Papists doe in these agreements against us contradict both Truth and Scripture and that in severall Books already published which lye at their door unanswered SECT XIII Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue wherein the whole is briefly resumed and the falsness of the Accusation as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the view of the Serious and Impartial-Reader THe Summe of what is said results here that the Quakers doe as much yea more then any Protestants deny these Gross Abominable Idolatrous and Superstitious Popish Doctrins upon the occasion whereof the Reformation first tooke place and therefore in no true respect can be said to return to Popery But upon the contrary the principles doctrins and practises of the Quakers are a further step of Reformation from Popery in many things wherein Protestants adhere to them who have only cut of some of the grossest branches and fruit that was most obviously putrified but we strick at the very root and foundation of iâ— The root and ground of Popery and all Apostacy standing principaly and fundamentaly in this one thing to wit a forsaking neglecting over-looking and despising the gift of GOD the spirit of GOD the inward Anointing which should be the constant immediat and only guide of Christians as that whereby is signified their daily dependence relying upon and trusting to the Lord above and beeing ruled by him and a setting up exalting and following mans own will spirit and wisdom as he stands in his faln degenerat state in which great error and Apostacy Papists and Protestants are one in the root and spring however subdivided in the branches and streames as will appear by this short resumption of the former particulars First in that both Papists and Protestants doe not derive the ground of their knowledge from the inward immediat objective revelation of GOD 'S Light and Spirit manifesting to and revealing in them the things of His Kingdom as all the holy men of GOD ever did But all the knowledge of GOD they have and consequently the very ground and foundation of their Faith is built upon ane externall testimony and is by meer hear-say tradition and the report of others and not by any intuitive infallible Knowledge in themselves So here the testimony of man is set above the immediat witness of GOD. But the Quakers doe the contrary Secondly Beeing strangers then to this inward testimony they have invented in their imaginations severall strange and wild notions of GOD darkned and clouded the clear knowledge of Him with many heathnish and barbarous terms distinctions and nycities the useless fruit of mans faln carnal wisdom who confess themselves not led by GOD'S spirit Which terms have no resemblance to the plain simple testimony of these good men who by the leadings of GOD'S spirit wrot the Scripturs which terms as of a Trinity a word not to be found in all the Bible of seperat distinct persons the Quakers in opposition to both Papists and Protestants reject as beeing such as are neither revealed in them by the spirit nor testified of in the Scripturs Thirdly The Ministry both of Papists and Protestants is a MAN-MADE-MINISTRY founded upon a traditional succession qualified by natural and acquired parts performed by the art and wisdom of man to which they neither judge the inward and immediat call of GOD'S Spirit nor the assistance and influence of His Grace a necessary qualification So here is man with his faln natural wisdom set up and exalted but the Grace Spirit and Power of GOD despised neglected accounted at best but as an accidental and no essential qualification But the Quakers doe the contrary Fourthly The Worship both of Papists and Protestants is a voluntary will-worship stands in mans will and traditionall appointments of meats and drinks diverse washings and carnal observations wherein consists the substance of both their worships which they go about at their own times seasons and in their own strength not minding the Spirit of GOD to act move lead or order them therein nor judging