and the contrary repugnant thereunto Before I pass from this Sixt Instance or Head of Popish doctrin I cannot omitt to take notice how handsomely or rather unhandsomely I. M. in his Roma Mendax goeth about to evade that charge of Novelty concerning free-will imputed unto him and these of his way the Papist chargeth him as denying free-will since the fall of Adam he answereth he and they of his way doe not deny free-will But this answere of I. M. is a faint evasion the charge as to the intent of it is whether there be in all men in the fall a free-will to convert and turn unto GOD by any grace given by GOD. If the Papist did not so word his charge I. M. hath taken the advantage of his failure and oversight but I would willingly know what I. M. doth or will answere to this charge That he and his Brethren doe indeed deny any free-will in any unconverted Men by any Grace of GOD given them to convert and turn to GOD this I charge upon I. M. and his Brethren as a novelty repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity in the purest times that he affirmeth men have free-will to evil in a naturall state doth no way bring him of For the question is not whether there be in man a free-will to evil but unto good whereby it is possible for him to convert by any grace of GOD given him Like unto this is his other evasion about merit he is brought to confess that some of the Fathers in the three first Centuries did use the word merit but in an innocent sense Very well then why may not some Others use it in ane innocent sense also Why doth he accuse the People called Quakers for using the word merit seeing he saith himself that it hath ane innocent sense and also that the Protestant Churches have not abhored from or rejected the word merit where can he prove our of the Quakers books that either they hold merit of good works ratione operis or ratione operis pacti as having a meritorious condignity in them unto Eternall life as many of the Papists teach When he accuseth the Quakers for holding that good works are meriterious may I not justly say unto him as he sayeth unto the Papist pag. 290. Ought he not to have told what he meant by merit of good works I shall conclude this Head with a just and equall retorsion of this very matter of free-will upon I. M. and his brethren who confess that a famous party of the Popish Church doth oppose the doctrin of free-will in all men unto good and these are Dominicans Thomists and Ianseâ—ists pag. 289. Well then and doth not I. M. oppose the same so that if one sort of Papists to witt the Iesuits seem to aggree with us in the matter of free-will although I could easily show very materiall differences betwixt them and us in this very particular Here are three great sorts or tribes of Papists who doe really agree with I. M. and he with them in the contrary doctrin SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined THe Seventh Instance of Popish doctrin charged on the Quakers is that reall Saints may totally apostatize To this I answere if by reall Saints he meaneth those who are come to a confirmed state and condition in holines so as to have obtained the Election and are the Elect of God in the strict sense I say none of these can totaly fall away or Apostatize and that this state is attainable in time and is attained unto by many we doe affirme and if Papists deny any such state as attainable in this life we oppose them but if he mean that men may fall away from some true and reall beginnings of Sanctification who as yet are not come to the state of the Elect in Christ Iesus in the Fore-knowledge of GOD before the World began this is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is a truth conform both to the Scripturs Testimony and the Fathers so called as also unto the most famous of Protestant Writters The Augustan Confession set out by as famous Protestants as any he can name doth expresly condemn it as an Anabaptist error that they who are once justified cannot lose the Holy Spirit And Melancton in many places in his loc com doth affirm That men may commit such gross sins as whereby they may expell the Holy Spirit after having once received him Augustin sayeth expresly lib. de correctione gratia That some love God and yet doe not persevere in that Good unto the end And in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 8. he saith of two that are holy why perseverance is given to the one and is not given to the other the judgments of GOD are the more insâ—rutable Prosper ad septimam sayeth That of the regenerat in CHRIST IESUS some having left the Faith and holy manners doe apostatize from GOD. Cyprian Epistola ad Gratianum The disciplin departing the Grace of the LORD departed also Many other testimonies could be cited for the same but that I intend brevity at present SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling Concupiscence is considered and answered THe Eight and Last Instance of Popish doctrin charged on us is that indwelling concupiscence is not our sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof To this I answere that this principle as he doth represent it I know not that it is owned by any Quaker We doe indeed say that the seed of sin is not imputed unto them for sin who doe not obey it nor consent unto it even as the seed of Grace and righteousness that is in wicked men is not imputed unto them for righteousness because they doe not obey it but if this seed of concupiscence indwell in any it becometh sin unto them seeing it is impossible but they who give it a dwelling in them must also give obedience unto it but it may be in them in whom it doth not indwell for indwelling signifieth Union and kindly reception Cassander doth show that Augustin openly sayeth Aug. exp ad Gal. That concupiscence in the Regenerat is not sin when not consented unto which yet elsewhere he calleth 〈◊〉 And that the controversie in this particular is rather about Name then thing Consult super Articulum secundum It is certain that the Regenerat may and doe find at times a temptation in the flesh or fleshly part unto that which is evil which temptation or inclination or however it be called is an evil thing and inclineth to evil yea to sin and in that respect by a metonymie may be called sin it self but that it maketh the soul guilty of death without its own consent is no where to be found in Scripture It is said The soul that sinneth it shall die Ezek. 18.4 Now to sin importeth a consent of the will which being wanting both in the Regenerat and also
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
just that as I suppose no Protestant will disown it nay not Iohn Menzies himself Let us then proceed laying down this definition of a Popish doctrine for a rule whereby to examine what doctrines are Popish and what not The instances brought by Iohn Menzies to show that many of the Quakers notions so he calls our Principles are undoubtedly Popish doctrines are these following First That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat Rule of Faith Secondly That a sinless perfection is attainable in time Thirdly That Men are justified by a righteousnesse wrought within them Fourthly That good works are meritorious Fifthly That Apocryphall books are of equall dignity with other Scriptures Sixthly That the efficacy of Grace depends on mans Free-will Seventhly That reall Saints may totally Apostatize Eightly That indwelling Concupiscence is not our own sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof Before I descend to a particular examination of these eight instances I premise this generall consideration viz. That if we should acknowledge that these eight instances as worded and laid down by Iohn Menzies were held by all Papists and Quakers so called which yet is false as afterwards I intend God-willing to make appear yet that the consequence doth not follow that they are Popish doctrines unless he had also proved that they are repugnant unto the Scriptures testimony according unto the definition of a Popish doctrin formerly laid down Now this Iohn Menzies hath not so much as attempted in this place as against the Quakers and some of them he hath not in all his book as I suppose so much as undertaken even against the Papists However most of what he saith against them as touching any of these particulars do not so militate against us because we differ very materially from them in the very things alleadged Another generall consideration I shall propose and that grounded upon an express affirmation of Iohn Menzies himself positively laid down by him pag. 162. The same sentiment saith he held upon different accounts may be hereticall in the one and not in the other Very well if then I doe show that in those alleadged instances or any others he can alleadge wherein we seem to agree with Papists they and we hold them upon different accounts it doth manifestly follow from Iohn Menzies his own mouth that those sentiments or doctrines may be hereticall and Popish in Papists and not in us called Quakers This advantage that I have againâ— him out of his own mouth I intend to lay up untill I come to the particulars and then to make a suitable application of it SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures where also some things are opened concerning the rule of Faith and immediat Revelation THe first Popish doctrine that Iohn Menzies chargeth us with is That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat rule of Faith This article hath two branches 1 That the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith 2 That they are not the compleat rule of Faith As to the first that the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith I know not that any Papists say so he ought to have given us his proofe out of their writtings nor will it suffice that he bring the testimony of some privat Doctors among the Papists for a proofe seeing Iohn Menzies denyeth pag. 452. That the testimony of some private Doctors among the Protestants is a sufficient proofe against any Protestant principle I am sure of this that I can bring some of great repute and authority among the Papists who do mantain that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith touching these things revealed or declared particularly and expresly in them as witness Bellarmin oft cited by Iohn Menzies himself lib. 1. cap. 2. De verbo Dei who sayeth expresly That the Scripture is a most certain and sure rule withall affirming that he is certainly a mad man who leaving The most certain testimony of the Scripture betaketh himself unto the judgement of a spirit within him that is oft fallacious and ever uncertain Now that which is a most certain or the most cerrain rule of Faith is the principall rule of Faith I find Iohn Menzies citing Bellarmin against the Papist in his book Roma Mendax pag. 116 Doth not saith Iohn Menzies Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 1. Charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declyning the Scripturs and only flying to the inward dictats of the Spirit By this it appeareth manifestly from I. M. own mouth that Bellarmin is not guilty of declining the Scripturs to be the principall rule or of setting up the dictats of the Spirit seeing He chargeth it as a hainous crime against Swenkfeldius Now I appeall to all sober and impartiall Readers whether Iohn Menzies and Bellarmin the Papist and Iesuit whom some call the Popish Champion be not more a kin to one another in this very particular then the Quakers and the said Bellarmin are Doth not I. M. say that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith and Bellarmin saith they are the most certain and sure rule and consequently the principall Again doth not I. M. blame them who preferre the inward dictats of the Spirit to the outward testimony of the Scripture and the very same doth Bellarmin in the place already cited by I. Ms. own confession Surely one egge is not liker another then the reproachfull speeches of both Papists and Iohn Menzies with his brethren are against the dictats of the blessed Spirit of GOD in the hearts of believers as being to be preferred as the more excellent rule Here then this first instance as to the first branch is justly retorted upon I. M. himself The Papists deny that the Spirit of GOD inwardly dictating or revealing the truth is the principall rule of Faith to and in every believer and so doth I. M. and his brethren wherein they manifestly agree with Papists against â—s the people called in deâ—ision Quakers I. M. could not be ignorant how easily this instance could be retorted upon Himself and these of His profession I shall only at present say this to Him as to this and other particulars that may be retorted upon Him and them Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum It is a shame to the Doctor when the same fault he blames in another is found in himself Moreover if some or all Papists did hold that the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith as preferring thereunto the outward testimony of the Church of Rome this doth no wise touch us nor are we concerned with them therein seeing we do no wise prefer the testimony of the Church of Rome or of any other Church unto the Scripture but do indeed prefer the Scripture as the best and greatest outward testimony in the world If then Papists deny that the Scripture is the principall rule on a different account from us they preferring the testimony of the Church thereunto
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 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
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
its influence or assistance essential to the matter of their worship So here they set up their own Idols inventions traditions forms ceremonies and observations above the spirit and power of GOD but the Quakers in opposition to both doe the contrarie Fifthly The Papists and Protestants are one in the same spirit of pride vanity lust and envy whereby they both are for fighting swearing persecuting and destroying each other about who shall be uppermost with their Idols and inventions and are both one in the superfluous use of cringing complementing and bowing to each other in abusing and unnecessarly using the creation in the superfluous use of cloaths and meats whilst the Poor among both are ready to starve in the fruitless and sinfull use of games sports and invented recreations in the generall abuse of pretious time and all the good creaturs of GOD beeing equally one in the love of the vain glory pomp pride and vanity of this perishing World so here is the spirit of the world the pride of life the lust of the flesh c and man in his naturall wordly glory and liberty set up by both and the mortified meek self-denyed life of Iesus neglected Whereas the Quakers in opposition to both have witnessed against those things and are in measure by the spirit of Iesus which they follow as their guide gathered into this life for which the world and worldly literall Christians both Papists and Protestants mock and deride them as the Pharisees did Christ their Lord and Master And to conclude both Papist and Protestant religion abstracting from these generall notions of truth as they are assâ—nted to by all in words and is nothing else but the old corrupt first faln man with his notionall witt working forming inventing and imagining in that earthly carnal wisdom about the things of God as they were delivered by these good and holy men that by the spirit of GOD wrot the Scripturs of truth while they are alienated from the spirit of life and power that these holy men lived in and spake from and therefore in the same wilde nature which is one both in Papists and Protestants because their imaginations doe not jump they are wrangling contending yea and sometimes murdering one another But the Quakers Religion in opposition to both is that which stands in mans-will wisdom arts and parts as he is in his naturall unregenerat state but in the spirit power light and wisdom of GOD which reveals and gives the knowledge of GOD in and to man and so purifies sanctifies renues him and makes him conform to the Image of GOD in the holy pure meek undefiled life of Iesus and also acts moves and leads them in his service and worship whereby he comes to know the things of GOD and serve him even as the holy prophets and apostles did not only in meer form and imitation but in the same spirit life and power with them I shall adde no more but that I hope none who will seriously read and consider these things unless they be either deplorably dark and ignorant or desperatly malicious and prejudicat but will easily acknowledge that the Quakers differ more widely and fundamentally from Papists then any other sort of Protestants and therefore that a more Horrid Lye can scarce be hatched then that Great One to witt that Quakerism is but Popery disguised ROBERT BARCLAY Certain QUERIES concerning a CHRISTIANS-RULE Query First Whither is a living Rule or that which lives not the best Rule supposing they point at the same things both yet upon the account that the one is living the other not is not the living Rule to be preferred to the other not living and whither is the Scripture a living Rule or the spirit of Christ yea or nay Qu II Whither is a rule that can be wrested or a Rule that cannot be wrested but is inviolable unalterable the best Rule and whither may the Scripturs be wrested seeing Peter sayes many doe wrest them unto their own destruction or can the spirit of Christ in his inward living and certain manifestation be wrested yea or nay Qu III. Whither is a rule that a man may loss and be robbed of by outward violence or a Rule that cannot be losed by any outward violence the best rule and whether the Scripturs may be losed by outward violence or can the spirit of Christ be losed by any outward violence yea or nay Qu. IV. Whither is a Rule that is manifest evident and certain in it self or a rule which is but evident manifest and certain in and by anothers evidence the best Rule and whither the Scripture be evident manifest and certain to any in themselves without the illumination of the Spirit of Christ or is not the Spirit of Christ evident manifest and certain in his own immediat operation in the heart of a Christian without any externall or outward evidence whatsomever being spiritually felt and tasted yea or nay and hade not many of the Saints a Rule before Scripture was written and did not such viz Abel Enoch Noah know certainly the Spirit of Christ in his own manifestation without the Scripturs yea or nay Qu. V. Whither is a Rule that gives power and strength to obey whatever it commands or a rule that does not so the best rule and whither a rule that gives life or a rule that kills be the best Rule and doth not the spirit give power and strength to obey what it commands doth it not give life but doth or can the Scripturs doe so doth not the letter kill yea or nay Qu. VI. Whither is a Rule that makes the commands of GOD so farr from being grievous that they are a delight unto the heart and makes it become naturall to doe the will of GOD yea meat and drink so that the yoak of Christ becomes easie and his burden light or a rule that hath not of it self this vertue the best rule and hath not the spirit of Christ in the heart of a Christian this vertue of it self or hath the Scripture this vertue of it self yea or nay Qu. VII Whither is that which makes nothing perfect and is weak and unsufficient of it self or that which makes perfect and is strong and sufficient of it self the best rule and whither of these is true of the Scripturs or of the spirit yea or nay Qu. VIII Whither is the original of the Scripturs or a transcription and translation of them the best rule And is not the spirit of Christ writting the law in the heart the original of the Scripturs and most not all under the new Covenant come to this according to what is promised Ierem. 23. Heb. 8 or is the Hebrew and Greek the first originall yea or nay Qu. IX Whither is the letter of the Scripture which declares of the life and substance which is Christ the living and eternall Word spiritually in the Saints or this life and substance declared by the Scripturs the best Rule also whither the law of God written in the heart by the spirit of the living God or thâ— law writen in any outward book whatsomever with pen and ink be the best rule yea or nay Qu. X. Whither is that which can readily answere all occasions and conditions and infallibly teach man his duty and his place in all cases without burthening either the memory or understanding or going out for seeking counsell from any or that which hath not these advantages the best Rule and whither of these is true of the Spirit or of the Scripturs yea or nay Qu. XI Whither that which is universally accorded upon by all sober reasonable men and hath been the Saints rule in all ages and is the Angels Rule and was Adam's Rule in Paradise and shall be the Saints Rule for ever be the best Rule and whither this is the Spirit of Christ or the Scripturs which many of the Saints never had in any outward book or sound yea or nay Qu. XII Whither is Wisdom it self Goodness it self Righteousnes it â—elf Holiness it self Love it self Honesty Vertue it self an Inward Living Eternal Principle of all Good Actions or any Outward Declaration of this the best Rule and whither is this true of the Spirit of Christ or of the Scripturâ— yea or nay GEORGE KEITH THE END Freindly Reader Thou art desired to excuse the difference of the Printing in this last half sheet from the rest in respect our Adversaries who notwithstanding are so confident and clamorous in falsly accusing us yet dread nothing more then that we be permitted to vindicat our selves and detect their falshoods caused surprise the one half of the preceeding half sheet at the Press which put us to some trouble and necessitat us to take another course which hath hindred this from coming so soon to thy hands As also Thy Caendor must excuse some false Stops Comma's c and with thy pen correct some letters and Verball Errors the most obstructive to the sense are here collected and amended hoping thou wilt pass by the rest ERRATA Page 11. Line 22. Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 14. l. 6. r. hearts p. 17. l. 11. r. recede p. 30. l. 5. dele all these 7. lines begining thus and Richard Baxter c and ending thus this censure these liues by the fault of the transcriber were put in into the wrong place which pag. 51. cometh in their own propper place p 32. l. 24. r â—easing p 43 l. 10 r satisfaction p. 44. 16. after Iustification adde is comprehended p. 45. l. 18 r. have love in it p. 51. l. 10. r. LOOKING ibid. l. 17. r. accounted p. 57. l. 8. r. for p. 66. l. ult r. in Iob 〈◊〉 * as in Pope Adrian his Ambassadors speech â—o the Princes of Germany Slâ—id lib. 4. Ibid in the Emperours letters to the Princes from Spain also book 13 in Cardinall Farnesius Nephew and Legat for Pope Paul the third his speech to the Emperour Charles the fifth †Ioh. 1.9 Rom. 5.18 2. Tit. 10.11 and many other places †Luke 8.13 Rom. 11.19 20. Hebr. 10.29 1. Pet. 2.18 Iude 4.5 6.