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
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
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
the rock of Enthusiasm whether he thinks to drive his Popish Antagonists But I ask I. M. whether he thinks that Geo. Wishart was â—ne Enthusiast when he Prophecied of the death of the Cardinall or Iohn Knox called by some the APOSTLE of the Scots whose particular prophecies are mentioned in the History of his life seeing these meâ— had immediat revelation which I. M. understands as I suppose by the word Enthusiasm or if not I desire him to tell us what he means by Enthusiasm as for all false and falsly pretended Enthusiasms whether of Papists or any others which contradict the tenour of the Scripturs testimony wee are as much against them as any people are â—or can be but Enthusiasm in the true sense that is to say divine inspiration and revelation from the in-being of GOD revealing and illuminating the hearts of His Children yea and all men in some manner and measure and inspiring or inbreathing into them a living knowledge and sense of himself and His holy minde will and counsell that is never contrary but alwayes conform unto the Scripturs of truth I doe plainly and freely declare my self together with my Brethren to be for it as a most excellent principle of christian religion and indeed as the only true originall and foundation of all saving faith sound knowledge and sincere obedience and let both Papists and degenerated Protestants be ashamed of this principle fling it and tosse it from hand to hand as refusing to give it any shelter or entertainment as We see they doe in the present debate one against another yet true Enthusiasm as is above described we most willingly and cordially own it and with the greatest reception of kindness doe oppen our very souls and hearts to let in this most harmless and most helpfull Stranger who was the Freind and Beloved-companion Bossome and Heart-freind of all the holy Patriarchs Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Martyrs of Iesus Christ who all held the Testimonie of Iesus which is the Spirit of prophecy for which the Dragon was wroth and fought against them but they overcame by this word oâ— their Testimonie and Blood of the Lamb and loved not their lives unto Death And as to that ordinary objection This were to make all Christians to be Prophets I answer not for to be Prophets is not only to have the same spirit inspiring them as the Prophets had but also to be moved by the same to utter and express by words and writtings a declaration of their inward Sentiments Faith Feeling and knawledge Now all who are truely inspired have not this gift for to some it is given to beleive to others both to belive and speak and writ and yet the spirit is one and the same in both and although we doe affirm that some doe both speak and writ from a measure of the same spirit which the Prophets and Apostles hade yet we neither equall our selves nor our writtings unto them and theirs they having had such a Solemne and extra-ordinary inward conduct and guiding of the spirit of GOD which is generally acknowledged as did seâ—ure them from all error and mistake in writting the Scripturs the divine spirit so aboundantlie ceasing and taking hold both upon their understanding and will so as they did not in the least deviat or decline from following after the inward dictats leadings and directions of the same as being over-ruled by a most sweet and powerfull constraining limiting and bounding of Them so as neither to speak or writ but what They did indeed receive from the LORD that and at such times as it pleased GOD to make Them His Instruments in delivering those holy Records and Oracles of His mind and will the Scriptures of Truth for a generall service unto the children of men so far as by the providence of GOD they came to be spread abroad in the World Therefore I doe freely acknowledge They have a dignity and excellency in them above our writtings But as for us and what we speak and write although we affirme that the least measure of the true leading and moving of the spirit of GOD in our hearts is in it self infallible and hath a direct tendency to leâ—de guide and move us infallibly as it is purely kept unto yet we are conscious to our seves that both in speaking and writting it is possible for us in some measure more or lesse to decline from those infallible leadings and consequently both to speak and write in a mixture As also it is possible to keep unto them in perfect and pure chastitie accordingly as the mind is purely exercised in all diligence and watchfulness of attention unto the directions of the inward guide the spirit of Truth or to err as the minde laboureth under any defect of remissness or unwatchfulness SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined THe Second Instance adduced by I. M. to prove the Quakers guilâ—ie of Popish Doctrins is that a sinless perfection is attainable in time But I miss his proof that this is a Popish Tenet for indeed I could never find to my best remembrance any Papist who hold such a principle as that a sinless perfection is attainable in time by the people of GOD. It s true some of the Papists think that Mary was free of all sin both mortall and veniall which others of them deny affirming that She hâ—de originall sin but that the People of GOD Mary only excepted by some few could attaine to a sinless perfection in time I require I. M. to show out of their writters or rather out of their publick confessions and definitions of Popish counsels seeing it is not the privat opinions of some either Popish or Protestant privat Doctors by I. M. his own confession that maketh an Opinion Popish or Protestant Yea doth not I. M. know how eageâ—ly Bellarmin that Popish Champion doth dispute against Pelagius in this very point pleading from diverse Scripture such as There is no man who sinneth not 1. Kings 8. verse 46. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. 1. Iohn 1.8 the same I. M. and his brethren use to produce against us That there is no man who can be free in this life from all sin both mortall and veniall By veniall sins he meaneth sins of a lesser size or degree which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be sins however they differ otherwayes as to the nature of veniall sin that iâ— extriâ—sick to the matter in hand It is true that Pelagius did hold That a man might be free from all sin in this life yet it was not for this that he was generally condemned by the Fathers nor was that Doctrin generally condemned but this viz. that he taught that men could attain to this freedom from sin by his endeavours without the speciall grace and supernaturall help and assistance of the holy spirit so that Augustin who was the greatest impugner of the Pelagian Heresy
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
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
forgiveness which turning is an inward righteousness for to turn to GOD is an act of obedience and consequently is righteousness and it is also inward for it is an act of the soul and heart that is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD. And indeed in this last place of Scripture our whole Iustification as consisting in these two Forgiveness of sin aâ—d 〈◊〉 Râ—ght unto eternall life which is the inheritance above mentioned to the receiving of both which our turning unto GOD from the power of Satan is expresly required yet not as if this conversion or inward work of righteouness were the pâ—â—curing cause of our receiving either the one or the other nay not at all but they are the conditions or qualifications most necessarly required in order to the receiving them And seeing I. M. and his brethren affirme that men are justified by faith so as faith is a condition or qualification necessary unto Iustification I ask him and them is not faith inward righteousness though not the whole yet a part I prove it is All true inward obedience is inward righteousnes but faith is true inward obedience therefore c. The first proposition is clear because righteousness is nothing else but obedience unto what God commands The second proposition is no less clear for God hath coÌ„manded us to believe in Christ therefore faith in him is obedience and it is inward being an act of the soul wrought in it by the Spirit of God concurring with it that it may believe Yea this faith according to I. Ms. principle is not a bare assenting of the understanding unto what is revealed of Christ but it hath in it the consent of the will as also a certain affiance of confidence in GOD and Christ which is commonly called Fiducia that iâ— of the nature of hope And seeing this faith is an act of the will it must have love in it for indeed all acts of the will are either acts of love or hatred or doe proceed from them so that if faith be ane act of the will as well as of the understanding it must love or desire or both and thus in justifying or saving faith there is both Love and Hope as well as Faith all which three are inward righteousness wrought in us and by us through the help of the Holy Spirit Augustin saith tract evan secundum Ioh. 29. What is it to believe in Him but by believing to love Him and thus he defineth justifying Faith And if it be replyed that it is confessed that faith is an inward work of righteousness but that we are not justified by faith as it is a work or as it is a part of inward righteousness To this I answere first This distinction is too too nice and metaphysicall seing it is the very essence of faith to be ane inward work of righteousness whereby with the greatest love of our hearts we both cleave unto the Lord desire Him and have confidence affiance or hope in Him Now to distinguish betuixt a thing and the essence or that which is essentiall to it is too nice and curious and indeed altogether impertinent in the handling of controveâ—sies of religion where all things should be proposed with greatest plainess that is possible but to distinguish betwixt a thing and its essence is not plain nor fit to be understood by those of common capacity as consisting in a logicall notion as a meer ens-rationis as who would distinguish betuixt Paul his being a man and his being a reasonable creature made after the image of GOD. I answere secondly the controversie betwixt them and us is not whether we be justified by a righteousness wrought in us as it is a work we leave this to those vaine janglers who delight themselves in such airy and unprofitable questions it sufficeth us to contend for this that men ate justified by a righteousness wrought in them which inward righteousness is indespensibly necessary to our Iustification before GOD. I answere thirdly if they mean that we are not justified by any work of righteousness so as that work is the procuring cause by way of strict merit of our Iustification we doe also most willingly affirme the same for indeed no Faith of ours no Love no Hope no Humility no Patience no Meekness nor Temperance nor any other thing wrought in us or by us through the help of the spirit of GOD doth in a way of strict justice merit or procure either our Iustification or any other favour or thing whatsomever so that we doe indeed renounce all merit on our part strictly and rigidly considered and all debt as owing on Gods-part to us otherwise then as by His promise He hath bound Himself unto us so that as the reward is of grace the merit and debt is of grace also according unto the words of Augustin Fidelis est Dominus qui se nobis debitorem fecit non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed omnia promittendo Faithfull is the LORD who hath made Himself a debitor unto us not by receiving any thing from us but by giving us all things Yea we doe really declare that we are as freely justified as we are sanctified and seeing our being sanctified by inward righteousness doth not hinder it to be by free-grace no more doth our Iustification But for the more distinct understanding of our mind concerning our Iustification before GOD. I thus define it IUSTIFICATION is an Act of GOD whereby He doth acquite absolve and discharge us of sins past and doth own and acknowledge us upon our Repentance and Conversion unto Him as righteous and as having right unto Eternall-life with a respect unto IESUS CHRIST not only in whaâ— He hath done and suffered for us without us but as really and truely indwelling in us and really and truely making us righteous In this definition two things are considerable First as it is an act of GOD. Secondly as in relation to its object the one is Iustification formally considered the other is it objectively considered or as it may be called objective Iustification Now iâ— this whole definition of Iustification I shall show how indeed I. M. and his Brethren are much more A-KIN to the Papists then we the people called Qâ—â—kers First whereas we affirm that this act of GOD is a reall inward act in us whereby the Lord doth by an inward declaration and testimony inwardly and immediatly revealed in us both forgive us our sins and acknowledge us to be righteous and as having a right to Eternal life This definition of Iustification in relation to the act of GOD is denyed and opposed both by Papists and also by I. M. and his Brethren as being Enthusiasm whereof they are most unwilling in any terms to be thought guiltie Secondly in relation to the object I say we are the object of Iustification not only as having our sins pardoned for CHRISTS-Sake but as being righteous in the sight of GOD through CHRIST indwelling in us
and on the breast is not said to live by its works yet it draweth nourishment to it self from the Mother by a certain faculty instinct or power implanted into it of GOD wherein the Child is more passiive then active even so it is as touching faith which is a certain heavenly faculty power or instinct put into those who are Children and Babes in CHRIST whereby they doe draw nourishment that is heavenly and spirituall unto them from GOD whereby they live and grow up as holy and righteous plants of GOD to bring forth the fruits of good works and thus the faith that was at first of a receptive nature becomes now more operative and active so as to put forth that inward vertue by which the heavenly growth is witnessed into reall acts and works of righteousness Consider Fourthly that when the Apostle speaketh of a mans own righteousness as being excluded from our justification by the same he doth not understand that righteousness which is wrought in us by the spirit of GOD but that which man worketh in and by himself without the Grace and Spirit of GOD and the Righteousness of GOD and Christ by which we are most immediatly and nearly justified is Christ himself and His work of righteousness in us by His Spirit even as the faith of the Son of GOD Gal. 2.20 is the faith he worketh in us so his righteousness is that of His working in us And indeed that this is the mind of Augustin is clear from his own words lib. de gratia libero arbitro Quid est non habens meam justitiam quae ex lege est cum sua non esset lex ipsa sed Dei nisi quia suam dicit justitiam quamvis ex lege esset quia sua voluntate legem se posse putabat implere sine adjutorio gratiae quae est per fidem Christi What is it sayeth he not having my righteousness which is of the law wheras the law was not his but Gods but that he calleth it his righteousness although it was of the law because he thought that by his own will he could fulfill the law without the help of Grace which is by the faith of Christ. To the same effect he writeth in his second book against Iulian the â—elagian showing also That the righteousness of faith is said to be of GOD because GOD doth distribute to every one the measure of faith and to faith it pertaineth to believe that GOD worketh in us both to will c. I shall conclude this matter with that observable passage of Luther on the second of the Gal. vers 16. touching justification Christ sayeth he apprehended by faith and indwelling in us is our righteousness for which we are justified or reputed just This of Luther is according unto these Scripturs The LORD our righteousness Ier. 23.6 And again He is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption 1. Cor. 1.30 And indeed none have Him to be their righteousness but who have Him to be their LORD not only dwelling in them but ruling in and over them He must be Lord in and over us by having the obedience and subjection of our souls and whole man that he may be our Righteousness SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined THe Fourth Instance of the Quakers holding Popish doctrins alleadged by I. M. is that Good works are meritorious To this I answere we doe not hold the merit of good works in any other sense then that which both agreeth unto the Scriptur and hath been used generally by those called Fathers such as Augustin Gregory Bernard yea and by some of the most famous Protestants for the clearing of this matter I shall propose two significations of the word Merit First as it signifieth to deserve a reward so as the merit is equall in worth and dignity unto the reward as when a Servant meriteth his wages from his Master this is the strict signification of it and in this sense we altogether deny that good works are meritorious Secondly as it signifieth to obtain from GOD by promise according as He out of His infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow and thus Merit and Reward are relatives so that as the reward is of grace the merit is of grace also and in this sense the Fathers commonly use the word merit particularly Augustin who saith when GOD doth crown our merits He crowneth nothing but His own gifts Where he plainly acknowledgeth merit of grace Now it is certain that the Lord promiseth a reward to good works which showeth that there is a dignity value or worthiness in them though not equall to the reward of eternall life yet such as it pleaseth GOD to take notice of So as it is a suitable thing according to His infinit bounty to reward them so liberally the Apostle saith 1. Pet. 3.4 a meek and quiet spirit is in the sight of God of great price therefor it hath a reall dignity worth and value in it which is of GOD and not of us so that we can not think so meanly and basely of that Righteousness and holiness which the Spirit of GOD worketh in us as those called Calvinists or Presbyterians doe who affirm that the best righteousness or holiness that is wrought in any of the Saints by the Spirit of GOD is defiled and as a menstruous garment yea is such as for the same GOD might justly abhore us We cannot but abhore such unclean and anti-christian doctrin tending to lessen the esteem and love of righteousness among men The Apostle maketh mention of the Faith Love and patience of the Thessalonians as a manifest tocken or demonstration of the righteous judgment of GOD that they may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of GOD. 2. Thes. 1.5 And said the Lord by His Servant Iohn unto those of Sardis who hade not defiled their garments they should walk with Him in white for they are worthy Rev. 3.4 these Scriptures shew a dignity or merit in good works not in the first sense but in the second Now if any Papists hold merit in the first sense we deny them in this as much as any Protestants doe yet that Protestants and some of greatest fame did hold merit in some sense 〈◊〉 evidenâ— both out of Melancton and Bacer Melancton in his common places sayeth expresly That good works in the Reconciled seeing they please GOD through faith or the Mediator menâ— spâ—rituall rewards and corporall both in tâ—is lâ—fe and after this life And Bucer as he is ciâ—ed by Cassander consult cap. de Merit contra Aâ—rinceâ—sem sayeth thus As we acknowledge faith it self the fountain of good works and merits to be the free gift of GOD so also we confess that both the works and merits are the free gifts of GOD c. And of this same mind are we with these men whom I. M. himself and his Brethren own to be Protestants of great note And with them
way to that Spirit which opposeth Him they are the Temple of GOD not realy but seemingly not in truth but in show and that the Scripture sometimes is so to be derstood to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to opinion or appearance only I.M. himself doth well allow But tho we had the Letter of the Bible conveyed to us by the Popes and Church of Rome which yet may be doubted the case is not alike as to Ordination For I may take my Fathers goods from a Thief seeing they are my Fathers and mine by my Father But if that Thief hade killed my Father who was the true KING of the Country and made himself the KING and offereth to make me a Magistrat under him I am not to receive it from him because he is not de jure one himself so that there is one reason or manner of conveying Goods another of conveying an Office seeing the Goods may be mine antecedently to the conveying the Office only becomes mine in the conveying We have a right to the Scripture immediatly of GOD who hath given it us for our profit and comfort and therefore it is ours antecedently to all conveyance But to be ordained is not a mans right before but in the Act it becometh his GEORGE KEITH Write at ABERDEEN in SCOTLAND in the Beginning of the Sixth Moneth 1675. SECT XII BY ANOTHER HAND Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us and how much more truely it agreeth to our Opposers is evidenced by a short Account of many weighty particulars wherein they agree with Romanists against us I Suppose the Reader by the perusall of the Former Treatise is sufficiently informed and perswaded how much I. M. and his Brethren have abused us in casting upon us the Imputation of Popery and how innocent we are of that charge But their crime is so much the greater that they falsly charge us of that of which themselves are highly guilty which briefly to demonstrat for Thy further satisfaction is the business of these two last Sections If we consider the principles and doctrins of the Romanists and those of I. M. and his Brethren and those of the Quakers there is no man of reason can deny but that they aggree Ten Times more with the Papists then doe the Quakers as will thus easily appear First The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree as to their notions and distinctions of Trinity and Persons which the Quakers deny who though they confess Father Son and Spirit and that these three are one according to the Scripturs yet deny the School-mens uncertain notions and unscripturall terms of TRINITY and PERSONS so here the Papists and I. M. agree against the Quakers Secondly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that Infants are really guiltie of Adams sin before they committ actually any of their own which the Quakers deny they are untill they actually sin though they acknowledge a Seed of sin in Infants conveyed unto them by reason of Adams transgression Thirdly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in denying there is a Saving Evangelicall Supernatural Light in all men by which they may be saved without the use of other outward means if GOD necessarly abstract them from them both affirming that such as have not the Scripturs or some to preach to them or baptise them c must of necessity perish unless the Lord make use of some extraordinary means All which the Quakers deny who though they believe the Scripturs and outward knowledge of CHRIST to be both very usefull and comfortable and absolutly necessary to be believed by such as GOD conveyeth it to yet can not think GOD so unmercifull or unjust as to damne those for not believeing that which he never affordeth them an occasion to hear who if they obey and follow the LIGHT which is the Gospel preached in them may come to be saved Fourthly The Papists and I. M. agree in affirming that humane learning and naturall parts are more Essentiall qualifications to Ministers and Preachers then the Grace of GOD averring that men may be true Ministers without the Grace of GOD but not without the other which the Quakers deny and condemne Fifthly The Papists and I. M. agree in deryving the power of their Ministry by ane outward succession which together with the use of outward ordination they judge sufficient to constitute a Minister though he want ane inward call from GOD'S-Spirit reckning people are obliedged to hear him and look upon him as a Minister because of this outward formality of ordination without questioning his inward call Whereas on the contrary they agree in affirming that whatever inward call from GOD'S Spirit a man have he ought not to be heard nor received as a Preacher untill he obtaine this outward approbation All which the Quakers deny as Antichristian Sixthly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that the Clergie ought to be a distinct sort of Persons distnguished from the rest of the people by their BLACK COATS c. So that it is not lawfull for Honest Trades-men such as was the Apostles to preach who have not past their APPRENTICE-SHIP at the University and there Learned the ART and TRADE of Preaching But the Quakers say the contrary believing all may prophecy if moved thereunto and that ane honest trade is no-wayes inconsistent with a Gospel Minister Seventhly The Papists and I.M. with his Bretheren agree in affirming that Preachers are not to wait to speak as the Spirit gives them utterance but ought to study it in their Closets before hand and then when the BELL ringeth repeat over before the people as the School-boyes doe their Lessons and the Commedians their parts upon the stages But all this is denyed by the Quakers Eightly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree that Ministers ought to have a SET-LIMITED-HIRE and ought not to supply their wants with their hands as did the honest Apostle Paul but sit at ease and feed of the fat and cloath themselves with the finest of the woole and take from such by violence and poinding as cannot for conscience sake hear them and so receive none of their spirituals But all this the Quakers deny as Antichristian Nynthly The Papists and I. M. and his present Prelatick Bretheren not his OLD PRESBYTERIAN and INDEPENDENT FREINDS agree in affirming that all Ministers are not alike but that there ought to be DIOCESIAN BISHOPS over the rest whom men must call MY LORD Which is denyed and condemned by the Quakers as Antichristian Tenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that men may yea and ought to pray preach and doe all other acts of worship when they please whether they be moved and influenced by GOD'S Spirit or not which the Quakers deny as will worship and superstition Eleventhly The Papists and I. M. with his Bretheren agree in
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