in Infants it is unreasonable as well as contrary to Scripture that it doth infeâ—r any reall guiltiness where it is not in the least consented unto I remember what Bernard sayeth of it Non necâ—t sensus ubi desit concensus The sense of it hurteth not viz. to bring on guiltiness where the consent is wanting Now if it were their sin it would certainly hurt The same Cassander showeth a form of agreement among divers Protestants and Papists how that the Materiale of it doth remain in the Regenerated that is to say a certain evil or infirmity or weakness but that the Formale of it is removed which Formale is the guiltiness of it to wit which it had before This Eight and Last Instance may be justly also reâ—orâ—ed upon I. M. and his Brethren who teach That by reason of this Principle in Infants they doe all come into the world guilty of Eternall Damnation and that many Infants doe really perish Eternally which is a Popish doctrin wherein they doe both agree contrarie to the Scripture which sayeth The soul that finneth shall die Importing that the soul that doth not actually sin shall not die which Popish error Zuinglius did manifestly impugne De Baptismo Having thus passed through all the Eight Instances alleadged by I. M. wherein he chargeth us as guiltie of Popish doctrins I desire the Reader to take a serious review of what I have answered on every particular head and he will find that upon all of them I have made it manifest that either we doe not hold the same doctrin with Papâ—sts or if some papists seem to hold the same others of the Papists as Numerous and sometimes more hold the contradictory wherein I. M. and his Brethren aggreeth with them And so how the same charge is more justly retorted upon himself and his Brethren And Lastly that there is not one principle or doctrin held by us wherein any of the Papists seem to aggree with us but we have famous protestants whom I. M. doth acknowledge to be Protestants who therein doe aggree with us also And therefore if any of these doctrins can prove that our religion is but Popery disguised it will prove as effectually that the religion of those protestants who agree with us in all these things is also but Popery disguised which yet I suppose he will be loath to acknowledge SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practise and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined AS for his Criminations page 22.23 that Quakers have so much indignation at these who goe under the name of Puritans and so much correspondense with Romanists with whom before they could not converse I answere to the First as we love all men to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans we have a speciall kindness for in whom the true Puritanicall Spirit is alive by which they were seperated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the worlds religion and also from their profane customs And who will narrowly compare them and us will find a greater mearness betwixt us then is indeed betwixt us and any other people and although they differed from us in some of these principles above mentioned yet in others more in number they aggreed with us and which is most we have more unity with their spirit then with the spirit of any other people in the Nation But that spirit is much lost in those dayes among many who bear that name As to the Second for our Converse with Romanists I suppose it is not greater with them then with other people if the Lord hath delivered us from that peevish and narrow humour of some Presbyterians wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured and enlarged our hearts with true love both to Papists so called or any others differing from us so as we can converse with them either about our worldly lawfull occasions or in order to be instrumentall unto their conviction and better information We ought not to be blamed providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinfull thing farr less should I. M. blame us who himself hath been known as I am informed to converse with EXCOMUNICAT PAPISTS so as to eat and drink with some of them a thing repugnant unto the disciplin of their Church Again whereas he querieth have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Brittain who have been known to be professed Priests Mâ—nâ—ks or Iesuits in France and Italy This informatory question may be returned with another of the same nature have not Papists if not Priests Monâ—ks or Iesuits gone under the character of Protestants both in England and Scotland yea in Aberdeen will it therefore follow that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised It is most certain that many Papists so called did outwardly conform to the Protestant religion so farr as to goe to their publick assemblies and be present at their worship as seemingly owning it and yet dissenting from it in their hearts for which I have heard they hade a dispensation from the Pope And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practise which showeth that some have done it yea some in Aberdeen have been known to doe so will it therefore follow that Protestants in Aberdeen are but disguised Papists And yet the Case is the same He proceedeth to tell that he heard a chief Quaker confess before famous witnesses that one giving himselâ— out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family was discovered to be a Popish Priest I answere if it hade been so how the thing was whether true or false I have not hade opportunity yet to examin iâ— proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ouâ— to be a true christian Hypocrisie is true christianiâ—ty disguised And if it be true as I. M. saith thaâ— Romanists espcially Iesuits can transform themâ—selves into all shapes admitt then that some Iesuiâ— doth transforme himself into the shape of I. M himself or at least of his religion will it folâ—â—ow that I. M. is a Iesuit or a Romanist but disguâ—sed or his religion Iesuitism but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleadged to have given himâ—self forth to be a Quaker did discover him whaâ— indeed he was and so did not acknowledge him to be what he pretended This showeth that Quakeâ—rism and Popery are not of so near a relation faâ—less one thing If he could prove that any Romanist Priest Monck or Iesuit were received by any of â—he Quakers as one with them in Religion whom yet they did know to be Romanists it would be some presumption but he is so farr to seek for a proof of this that I suppose he can not give any one Instance that ever a Quaker received a Romanist as a Quaker even unwittingly which yet if he could doe could only prove the Quaker at that â—ime was in a
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
was so farr from condemning it as hereticall That a man by the Grace of GOD might be free from sin that he expresly affirmeth it himself as possible It is one thing sayeth he to ask whether any man in this life is withouth sin another if he can or may be And as to the question if he may he answereth affirmatively That he may be the Grace of GOD and free-will This he said in opposition to Pelagius who affirmed That a man by free-will without the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin And the very same which Augustin said in this matter lib. 2. de pec mer. remiss we say And seeing as I suppose I. M. will not condemn Augustin as Popish in this particular I see not how he can coâ—demn Us without great partiality Moreover the same Augustin is so farr from holding it to be an error That a man by the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin that he sayeth expresly lib. de spiritu litera cap. 2. If it be defended and thought that some are or have been or shall be perfect with such purity how farr I can judge sayeth he they do not err much nor dangerously and yet I. M. and his Brethren think this a most dangerous error seeing every one that thinketh so doth err with a certain benevolence of mind if notwithstanding he who thinketh this think not himself to be such unless he do really and clearly perceive himself to be such but these are most earnestly and vehemently to be resisted who think that without the help of GOD by the proper power of mans-will they can either perfect righteousness or can profit in aiming after the same This he sayeth against the Pelagians which doth not reach us for we abhoâ—e any such thought that any man without the Grace and supernaturall help of the Spirit of GOD can either finish or begin any good thing Others of the Fathers so called I could cite who do â—avour this perfect doctrin only I shall at present menâ—ion Athanasius the Great a man I suppose whom I. M. doth not suspect as guilty of Popery Who sayeth expresly in his fourth Oration agâ—inst the Aâ—â—â—n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many were born holy and free or clean from all sin And he mentioneth in particular Ieremias and Iohn the Baptist but if I. M. is to be believed both Ieremias and Iohn were sinners and not clean or free from all sin even when born into the world yea when in the womb And in this he agreeth with the Papists and not we both of them holding That many Infants are excluded from the Kingdom of GOD because of Originall sin Now as to these and such like Scripturs that are brought against the doctrin of perfection It hath been shown not only by many of our Friends that they doe not prove that a sinless state is not attainable in time but even the same hath been asserted and the doctrin of perfection in as great a latitude mantained by some famous men among the Protestants as by us particularly by Sebastian Castellio a man much beloved and esteemed by many however Calvinists may think of him Yea and diverse of the present Church of England whom I. M. owneth to be Protestants hath appeared in defence of this doctrin as Hen. More and others As also our Countrey-man William Forbes as may be seen in his book called Considerationes modestae pacificae controversiarum Where he citeth diverse Protestants of the same mind with himself who hold That by the Grace of GOD the Law of GOD may be performed according unto that divine condescension called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he requireth obedience of us according unto that proportion and measure of divine Grace and ability that is given us and in this true sense we own perfection and a perfect state attainable in time which yet doth still admit of a growth in degrees Be ye perfect said Christ Matth. 5.48 as your heavenly Father is perfect Surely this is a sinless perfection that is here commanded and it is as sure that what Christ commandeth He giveth sufficient ability of Grace to perform For His yoke is easie and his burden iâ— light Matth. 11.30 and His commandements are not grievous 1. Iohn 5.3 And according to this sayeth Prosper ad Demetriadem In omnibus monitis Dei c. In all the monitions and commandements of GOD there is one and the same reason both of divine grace and mans obedience And indeed this is the great difference betwixt the Law and the Gospell that the Law did command but was weak as said the Apostle whereas the gospell is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth which salvation is from sin and not in sin And said Christ to his Disciples Now are yee clean through the Word that I have spoken unto you Iohn 15.3 but to that Objection both of Papists and Others out of Iohn 1. Ioh. 1.8 If wee say wee have no sin wee deceive our selves I Ansuere first with Augustin exp ep ad Gal. Aliuà est non peccare aliud non habere peccatum It is one thing not to sin another thing not to have sin This place doth not favour them who say that men cannot be free from actuall sinning iâ— this life Seeing Iohn doth not say if we say we sin not but if we say we have not sin By which sin some doe understand that which the Regenerat find in the flesh as a temptation unto sin or that which tempteth thereunto which nevertheless not being anywise consented unto is not their sin although it be their great tryall and a great occasion unto them to desire to be dissolved tâ—at they may be free of all temptations unto sin as well as of sin it self Secondly the same Apostle saith immediatly after if we confess our sins He is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness Now he that is cleansed from all unrighteousness is cleansed from all sin because sin is unrighteousness and seing it belongeth to the faithfulness and justice of GOD to doe it certainly He will doe it to every one that diligently improveth that Divine grace that is given to that end yea he saith also verse 7. The blood of Iesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin which he speaketh in the present time Now to be defiled with sin and to be cleansed from all sin at one and the same time implyeth a contradiction Therefore the Apostles wordes are to be referred to two severall times and states which looseth sufficâ—ently the contradiction Nor doth it follow that the Apostle Iohn was at this time defiled with sin more then that Iames was a Curser when he said of the Tongue Herewith curse we men Iames. 3.9 But both Iohn and Iames words are to be understood after the manneâ— of ane usuall figure called Metaschematismâ—s as also the Apostle Paul Rom. 7. from
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
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 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
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