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
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
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
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
its influence or assistance essential to the matter of their worship So here they set up their own Idols inventions traditions forms ceremonies and observations above the spirit and power of GOD but the Quakers in opposition to both doe the contrarie Fifthly The Papists and Protestants are one in the same spirit of pride vanity lust and envy whereby they both are for fighting swearing persecuting and destroying each other about who shall be uppermost with their Idols and inventions and are both one in the superfluous use of cringing complementing and bowing to each other in abusing and unnecessarly using the creation in the superfluous use of cloaths and meats whilst the Poor among both are ready to starve in the fruitless and sinfull use of games sports and invented recreations in the generall abuse of pretious time and all the good creaturs of GOD beeing equally one in the love of the vain glory pomp pride and vanity of this perishing World so here is the spirit of the world the pride of life the lust of the flesh c and man in his naturall wordly glory and liberty set up by both and the mortified meek self-denyed life of Iesus neglected Whereas the Quakers in opposition to both have witnessed against those things and are in measure by the spirit of Iesus which they follow as their guide gathered into this life for which the world and worldly literall Christians both Papists and Protestants mock and deride them as the Pharisees did Christ their Lord and Master And to conclude both Papist and Protestant religion abstracting from these generall notions of truth as they are assâ—nted to by all in words and is nothing else but the old corrupt first faln man with his notionall witt working forming inventing and imagining in that earthly carnal wisdom about the things of God as they were delivered by these good and holy men that by the spirit of GOD wrot the Scripturs of truth while they are alienated from the spirit of life and power that these holy men lived in and spake from and therefore in the same wilde nature which is one both in Papists and Protestants because their imaginations doe not jump they are wrangling contending yea and sometimes murdering one another But the Quakers Religion in opposition to both is that which stands in mans-will wisdom arts and parts as he is in his naturall unregenerat state but in the spirit power light and wisdom of GOD which reveals and gives the knowledge of GOD in and to man and so purifies sanctifies renues him and makes him conform to the Image of GOD in the holy pure meek undefiled life of Iesus and also acts moves and leads them in his service and worship whereby he comes to know the things of GOD and serve him even as the holy prophets and apostles did not only in meer form and imitation but in the same spirit life and power with them I shall adde no more but that I hope none who will seriously read and consider these things unless they be either deplorably dark and ignorant or desperatly malicious and prejudicat but will easily acknowledge that the Quakers differ more widely and fundamentally from Papists then any other sort of Protestants and therefore that a more Horrid Lye can scarce be hatched then that Great One to witt that Quakerism is but Popery disguised ROBERT BARCLAY Certain QUERIES concerning a CHRISTIANS-RULE Query First Whither is a living Rule or that which lives not the best Rule supposing they point at the same things both yet upon the account that the one is living the other not is not the living Rule to be preferred to the other not living and whither is the Scripture a living Rule or the spirit of Christ yea or nay Qu II Whither is a rule that can be wrested or a Rule that cannot be wrested but is inviolable unalterable the best Rule and whither may the Scripturs be wrested seeing Peter sayes many doe wrest them unto their own destruction or can the spirit of Christ in his inward living and certain manifestation be wrested yea or nay Qu III. Whither is a rule that a man may loss and be robbed of by outward violence or a Rule that cannot be losed by any outward violence the best rule and whether the Scripturs may be losed by outward violence or can the spirit of Christ be losed by any outward violence yea or nay Qu. IV. Whither is a Rule that is manifest evident and certain in it self or a rule which is but evident manifest and certain in and by anothers evidence the best Rule and whither the Scripture be evident manifest and certain to any in themselves without the illumination of the Spirit of Christ or is not the Spirit of Christ evident manifest and certain in his own immediat operation in the heart of a Christian without any externall or outward evidence whatsomever being spiritually felt and tasted yea or nay and hade not many of the Saints a Rule before Scripture was written and did not such viz Abel Enoch Noah know certainly the Spirit of Christ in his own manifestation without the Scripturs yea or nay Qu. V. Whither is a Rule that gives power and strength to obey whatever it commands or a rule that does not so the best rule and whither a rule that gives life or a rule that kills be the best Rule and doth not the spirit give power and strength to obey what it commands doth it not give life but doth or can the Scripturs doe so doth not the letter kill yea or nay Qu. VI. Whither is a Rule that makes the commands of GOD so farr from being grievous that they are a delight unto the heart and makes it become naturall to doe the will of GOD yea meat and drink so that the yoak of Christ becomes easie and his burden light or a rule that hath not of it self this vertue the best rule and hath not the spirit of Christ in the heart of a Christian this vertue of it self or hath the Scripture this vertue of it self yea or nay Qu. VII Whither is that which makes nothing perfect and is weak and unsufficient of it self or that which makes perfect and is strong and sufficient of it self the best rule and whither of these is true of the Scripturs or of the spirit yea or nay Qu. VIII Whither is the original of the Scripturs or a transcription and translation of them the best rule And is not the spirit of Christ writting the law in the heart the original of the Scripturs and most not all under the new Covenant come to this according to what is promised Ierem. 23. Heb. 8 or is the Hebrew and Greek the first originall yea or nay Qu. IX Whither is the letter of the Scripture which declares of the life and substance which is Christ the living and eternall Word spiritually in the Saints or this life and substance declared by the Scripturs the best Rule also whither the law of God written in the heart by the spirit of the living God or thâ— law writen in any outward book whatsomever with pen and ink be the best rule yea or nay Qu. X. Whither is that which can readily answere all occasions and conditions and infallibly teach man his duty and his place in all cases without burthening either the memory or understanding or going out for seeking counsell from any or that which hath not these advantages the best Rule and whither of these is true of the Spirit or of the Scripturs yea or nay Qu. XI Whither that which is universally accorded upon by all sober reasonable men and hath been the Saints rule in all ages and is the Angels Rule and was Adam's Rule in Paradise and shall be the Saints Rule for ever be the best Rule and whither this is the Spirit of Christ or the Scripturs which many of the Saints never had in any outward book or sound yea or nay Qu. XII Whither is Wisdom it self Goodness it self Righteousnes it â—elf Holiness it self Love it self Honesty Vertue it self an Inward Living Eternal Principle of all Good Actions or any Outward Declaration of this the best Rule and whither is this true of the Spirit of Christ or of the Scripturâ— yea or nay GEORGE KEITH THE END Freindly Reader Thou art desired to excuse the difference of the Printing in this last half sheet from the rest in respect our Adversaries who notwithstanding are so confident and clamorous in falsly accusing us yet dread nothing more then that we be permitted to vindicat our selves and detect their falshoods caused surprise the one half of the preceeding half sheet at the Press which put us to some trouble and necessitat us to take another course which hath hindred this from coming so soon to thy hands As also Thy Caendor must excuse some false Stops Comma's c and with thy pen correct some letters and Verball Errors the most obstructive to the sense are here collected and amended hoping thou wilt pass by the rest ERRATA Page 11. Line 22. Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 14. l. 6. r. hearts p. 17. l. 11. r. recede p. 30. l. 5. dele all these 7. lines begining thus and Richard Baxter c and ending thus this censure these liues by the fault of the transcriber were put in into the wrong place which pag. 51. cometh in their own propper place p 32. l. 24. r â—easing p 43 l. 10 r satisfaction p. 44. 16. after Iustification adde is comprehended p. 45. l. 18 r. have love in it p. 51. l. 10. r. LOOKING ibid. l. 17. r. accounted p. 57. l. 8. r. for p. 66. l. ult r. in Iob 〈◊〉 * as in Pope Adrian his Ambassadors speech â—o the Princes of Germany Slâ—id lib. 4. Ibid in the Emperours letters to the Princes from Spain also book 13 in Cardinall Farnesius Nephew and Legat for Pope Paul the third his speech to the Emperour Charles the fifth †Ioh. 1.9 Rom. 5.18 2. Tit. 10.11 and many other places †Luke 8.13 Rom. 11.19 20. Hebr. 10.29 1. Pet. 2.18 Iude 4.5 6.