we prefering the Spirit of GOD sealing and confirming in our hearts the truth of what we outwardly read in the Scriptures according to I. M. his own rule above mentioned that may be a Heresie in them and not in us But as I have already said I know not any Papists who say That the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith I know they say commonly It is not the formall object of Faith but I. M. is not ignorant how they distinguish betwixt the Rule of Faith and the Formall object of Faith how truely they do so we are not concerned But that this assertion to wit that the Spirit witnessing the truth in the hearts of Believers is greater then the outward testimony of the Prophets and Apostles and consequently the principall rule is so farre from being repugnant unto the Scripture that it is in express terms asserted in the Scripture 1. Iohn 5.8.9.10 If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater c. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself c. And surely it is most agreeable to sound reason that what the Spirit of GOD witnesseth or dictateth in the heart of a Beleever hath more evidence and force to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture seeing it is more immediat for although the outward testimony of the Scripture may be called a testimony of the Spirit yet it is not so immediat as what the Spirit speaketh in the heart nor secondly hath it so powerfull an operation upon the Conscience or Spirit of a man aâ— the inward testimony of the Spirit hath I need go no further to prove this then the experience of all those who ever knew any inward touches or working of the Spirit upon their hearts such will declare that what the Spirit speaketh home to their hearts by his secret touches and motions hath fare more abundant power to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture Yea notwithstanding of the outward testimony how many have been in great doubt whether the things declared in Scripture are true as whether there be an eternall reward for the righteous whether the Lord doth regard the righteous more then the wicked and such like truths But when the Spirit hath spoke home those truths to their hearts they could no more question them they were so clear as nothing could be more Yea was not the Psalmist greatly tempted in his minde with doubting If the Lord had a favour to the righteous Psal. 73. What cleared him of this doubt and raised up his minde over this temptation Was it the outward testimony of the Scripture so much as was then vvrit of it He had this before and yet he vvas troubled but vvhen he vvent into the Sanctuary then he vvas cleared not as if the outvvard Sanctuary or Temple had this vertue in it but that the Lord appeared unto him vvhile he vvas there And if there vvas any outvvard testimony given there the Lord did second it vvith the invvard testimony of his Spirit and this vvas it that cleared him as the vvords follovving import verse 26. My flesh and my heart faileth but GOD is the rock of my heart So the margine according to the Hebrevv Here the rock of his heart vvas GOD to vvit revealing himself and his truth in him and this vvas the rock and foundation of his Faith therefore he concludeth in a most svveet strain It is good for me to draw near to GOD and then he adds I have put my trust in the Lord God importing that since he drevv near to the Lord or since the Lord drevv near to him as the vvords may be as well translated he vvas enabled to believe and nor othervvise Moreover the Sanctuary mentioned by him in the place above cited may in a spirituall sense vvell be understood to be that holy principle put by GOD into his heart vvhich is indeed the true sanctuary signified by the outvvard vvherein GOD appeareth and speaketh unto men in their hearts Therefore said the Psalmist I will hear what God the Lord will speak in me Psal. 85.8 So the Septuagint as it were Paraphrastically and that this was the common priviledge of all the people of God in that day see Psal. 50.7 Hear O my people and I will speak O Israel and I will testifie in thee So the words according to the Hebrew yea and this is the very tenour of the new covenant that all his people shall be taught of God Himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import a reall distinct teaching of God over beyond and above all outward teaching by the ministery of men I say a real distinct teaching which I prove thus If men may be outwardly taught by the Scripturâ—s and want this teaching of God here mentioned in the Promise then the one is distinct from the other Buâ— the first is true therefore the second The connexion of the first proposition in manifest from that maxime Quorum unum potest ab alto separari illa realiter distinguâ—tur when one thing can be separated from the other these two are really distinct The second proposition is clear from I. M. his own principles viz. that they may be outwardly taught by the Scripture and want the teaching promised in the new covenant because such a teaching is onely given unto the elect by hiâ— principle and I do confess the Elect are in a speciall way taught of God beyond what others are Now to proceed If this teaching of God be a reall distinct teaching from all outward teaching by the Scripture then I argue It is the greater and more excellent from I. M. his own principle My Argument is this That which is given as a speciall distinguishing priviledge and mercy unto the people of God is a greater and more excellent thing then that which is given indifferently both unto them and others to wit the wicked But this inward teaching of God is given as a speciall dâ—stinguishing priviledge c. Therefore it is a greater and more excellent thing Againe I prove it thus That which a man having it doth him most good that is the greatest and most excellent thing But this teaching of God by the Spirit promised in the new covenant a man having it doth him most good Therefore c. The second Proposition is clear for to be taught of God inwardly by the secret operation of his Spirit doth a man more good then meerly to be taught by the outward testimony of the Scripture Now if it be replyed that the inward teaching of the Spirit is granted to be a more great and excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture and yet it be denyed that it is the greater and more excellent rule As for example Gold is a more excellent thing then Iron yet it is not so serviceable to be a Knife or Sword as Iron is To this I answere That the inward teaching dictate or word of the
Spirit as it is a more excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture so is it a more excellent Rule because any aptitutde or fitness that the outward testimony hath to be a rule the inward hath it more Yea the inward was a rule before the outward was and is a rule at this day as I. M. must needs confess unto those who are deaff that belong to the number of the Elect who can not make use of the outward Again why is the Scripture fit to be a Rule but because it is of a divine originall is divinely inspired hath somewhat in it that cannot be expressed that doth convince that it is of God but all this aggreeth more immediatly to the inward teaching dictate and word of the Spirit in the heart For it is most absurd to say or think that what God speaketh to us more mediately and remotely in the Scriptures hath a greater self-evidence then what he speaketh immediately and most nearly to us in our hearts as who would say what another hath reported unto me that I. M. had said so or so iâ— more evident unto me that he hath so said then what he hath told me himself out of his own mouth Yea why doth I. M. alleadge that the Scripture hath a self evidencing authority in it but because it is the word of God Hence I thus argue Whatever is the word of God hath a self-evidencing authority But the inward dictats of the Spirit in the heart of Believers are the word of God Therefore I prove the second Proposition That which God speaketh is the word of God But the inward dictats of the Spirit is that which God speaketh Therefore I see no way how I. M. can evade those arguments but by denying that properly and really God doth speak in the hearts of Believers and indeed this is conforme unto their usuall doctrine that the illumination of the Spirit of God in the heart of Believers is not objective but meerly subjective and effective The contrary whereof I have proved at large in my book of IMMEDIAT REVELATION To which I referr the Reader Onely at present I shall say this That if God doth not objectively illuminat and irradiat the souls of Believers and doth not inwardly speak in their hearts by his Spirit and that this be their Faith it is but a sort of deceiving the people when at times they themselves use these words both in preaching and praying as holding forth the necessity of God his speaking inwardly to the heart by his Spirit for if the effective operation of God as it is denyed to be objective may be called the speaking of God then it may be as much said that God speaketh to a Tree or a Horse c when he worketh in them 28 an efficient cause by way of concurrence to help them in the operations proper to their natures as he doth unto the hearts of Believers at least when he acteth in them to wit in the unreasonable creatures in a supernaturall way as when he said to the earth on the third day of the creation let the earth bring forth grass or when he spoke to the great fish to vomit out Ionah Certainly in both these there was a supernaturall influence or operation of God yet is it not absurde to say that God speaketh no more intelligibly or perceptibly in an immediat way unto the souls of his own Children his own sons and daughters then he did to those unreasonable creatures But if it be granted that this inward speaking or illumination of God is in it self intelligible and perceptible unto the souls of Believers then it must be granted that it is objective for what is in it self perceptible is objective and what is not objective is not in it self â—erceptible This consideration hath formerly made me conclude that those who deny inward objective illuminations of the Spirit do also deny all spirituall sensations or senses properly so called And thiâ— I do affirâ—e from as great clearness of â—nderstanding as if I should conclude from a â—â—ns denying that the outward Light is objective â—nd perceptible in it self that therefore there is â—o sense of seeing and from a mans denying that 〈◊〉 outward sound is objective and perceptible that â—herefore there is no sense of hearing c or that â—â—eat and drink as for example Bread Flesh Wine Milk Honey is not objective and perceptible therefore there is no sense of smelling tasting and feeling And if any should reply that the Scriptures are the only objects of those spirituall sensations such a reply would sufficiently declare that they do not mean spirituall senses and sensations properly so called seeing the objects of the spiritual senses are the things whereof the Scriptures are but a declaration as the objects of the naturall senses are things And even as it is most false to say that when I read or hear a declaration or discourse of meat and drinke that I really taste of the same seeing the sense of tasting is not at all answered by the discourse but by the things discoursed of even so it were really as false to say that when I hear or read a verball declaration of God and divine and spirituall things that I really taste of them For indeed those spirituall and divine things are really as distinct from the words declaring of them as meat and drink are distinct from the best of all words declaring of them Now the Scripture sayeth Taste and see that God is good Here God himself is proposed unto the soul as the object of its spirituall sensation and not the words But to say I can see and taste of the goodness of God in the Scriptures simply as being the onely and alone object of my seeing and tasting is really as much to deriâ—e me as who would discourse to me for an houre or two very effectually of the goodness of meat and drink and then tell me I have sufficiently seen and tasted it whereas I have indeed neither seen nor tasted it and all his discourse doth not answere the sight and taste nor yet the appetite as their proper objects Moreover when the Scripture declareth of God his speaking and witnessing in his children generally and useth the same manner of speach as when He is said to speak in the Prophets we ought to understand it as properly in the one as in the other seeing according to that generall rule agreed upon by all Expositors We are to keep to the proper sense of Scripture words when there is no necessity to reside from them as indeed there is none here but rather on the contrary there is a great necessity that God do indeed speak immediatly to the souls of his Children else they cannot have true peace for it is He who speaketh Peace unto his people and to his Saints and to them who are turned unto the heart as diverse of the Fathers did â—ite these words of the Psalmist Psalm 85.8 and particularly
Bernard yea and as the same Bernard and Augustin citeth Isaiah 46.8 and as the Hebrew doth bear it Even transgressours such as are gross Idolaters are bid return to the heart to wit unto that inward law and teaching of GOD therein Yea Augustin sayeth expresly Nulla est anima c. There is no Soul so perverse in whoâ—e conscience God doth not speak lib. 2. de Serm Domini in monte And indeed that most famous primitive Protestants did not only acknowledge Inward supernaturall operations of the spirit of GOD in the hearts of Believers but did also hold that there was an Inward word spoke by the Spirit into their hearts which was evident and sufficient in it self to beget Faith and be a law and rule to Believers I shall prove ouâ— of manifest Testimonies of Luther Zuinglius OEcolampadius and Melanchton First as to Luther in a Sermon of his on Pentecost The second law sayeth he that is not of the letter but of the Spirit is spirituall which is neither written with pen nor inke nor spoken with the mouth but as we see here in this occurrence the Holy-Ghost descended from Heaven and filled them all that they received Firie-tongues and preached freely otherwise then formerly which astonished all the people there he cometh and overfloweth the heart and maketh a new man which now loveth GOD and doth willingly what he willeth which is nothing else but the Holy Ghost himself or at least the worke which he worketh in the heart there he writteth meer flammes of fire in the heart and maketh it alive that it breaketh forth with firie-tongues and active hands and becometh a new man and sensibly feeleth that he hath received a quite other understanding minde and sense then before So now all is living understanding light minde and heart which burneth and taketh delight in all that pleaseth GOD. Again Here thou seest clearly that his office is not to write books nor make lawâ—s but freely puteth an end unto them and is such a GOD that writs in the heart makes it to burn and creatâ— a new minde c. and this is the office of the Holy Ghost rightly preached c. Such a man is above all law for the Holy Ghost teacheth him better then all books so that he understands the Scripture better then any man can tell him therefore such a man needeth not the use of books any further but to prove that it is so â—ritten therein as the Holy Ghost teacheth him Therefore GOD must tell it thee in thy heart and that is Gods-Word otherwise Gods-Word remains unspoken Note from these words First That Luther did hold that the second law which is the rule of a Christian is not the Scripture but what the Holy Ghost teacheth and writeth in be heart Secondly That this inward teaching of the Holy Ghost is better then the Scripture Thirdly That the service of the Scripture is rather to prove to others what is written therein then to be the foundation and principall rule of Faith Fourthly That the Scripture unless it be spoken by GOD in the heart is not GODS-Word I suppose I. M. will not finde greater Enthusiasm in any of the writtings of the People called Quakers Again Luther upon the Magnificat None can understand GOD or the Word of God aright except he receive it immediatly from the Holy Ghost Again Luther on the 11 Psalm but in our English Psalm 12.6 Eloquia Domini â—asta The words of the LORD are pure The Prophet David here speaks noâ— of the Scripture but of the Word of GOD chiefly And he sayeth further They are therefore Eloquia Domini that is GODS-Word when the Lord speaketh in Us as he did in the Apostles but not when every one bâ—ings forth the Scripture which the Devil and wicked men may doe in whom God speaketh not and therefore it is not Gods Word Here Luther is down right an Enthusiast as much as any Quaker can be If it be objected that Luther wrote against the Enthusiasts I answere I know he did but these were not true Enthusiasts as the Apostles were but such as under a pretence of Enthusiasm both taught and practised evil things Secondly Zuinglius speaketh his mind exceeding clearly of the inward word and that it is preferable to the outward word so as the outward is to be judged of by the inward Ex commentario de verâ falsâ religione cap. de Ecclesia verbo Dei. Thou dost now understand sayeth he what is the Church which cannot err to wit She alone which leaneth to the alone Word of GOD nor that which Emserus thinketh we only regard which consisteth of letters or words but that which shineth in the mind Again He who heareth in the Church the Scripture of the heavenly Word explained judgeth that which he heareth but that which is heard is not the Word it self whereby we believe for if we were made faithfull by that Word which is heard or read all should surely be made faithfull It is then manifest that we are made faithfull by that Word which the heavenly Father preacheth in our hearts whereby also he enlightneth us that we may understand and draweth us that we may follow who are indued with that word do judge the Word which soundeth in the preaching and beateth the Ears but in the mean time the word of Faith which sitteth in the minds of the faithfull is judged by none but by the same the outward word is judged which GOD hath ordained to be brought forth although faith be nor of the externall or oâ—tward Word Thirdly Oecolampadius on Ezek. cap. 3. Thou Son of man receive all the words that I speak unto thee in thy heart and hear them in thy Ear. This Text is against those that would bind the course of the Word of GOD to externall things but it is necessary that the only Master be first heard who is in Heaven that is in the secret opening the heart and giving Ears to hear and begetting or stirring up desires in us to learn the truth Again Faith is an inward thing and a spirituall gift of GOD therefore springeth not from any outward things as from the outward word or hearing but from the inward word and inspeaking of GOD it is produced Again sayeth he We divide not in our ministry the inward from the outward Word of GOD but we only distinguish them that we may know that the inward Word and Work of GOD in us must preceed that the outward be not taken for the inward nor the humane for the divine and so a humane opinion be gotten instead of Faith we desire that both these words may goe together and doe couple them in our ministry Again a little after Thus it appears that the power of GOD is not bound to the Element nor to our ministry but the pure Grace of GOD is acknowledged which is given either with the Word or before the Word or after the Word as pleaseth him
Fourthly Melancton in Annot. super Iohan. 6. So they who hear only the externall and bodily voice hear a creature and seeing GOD is a Spirit He is neither seen nor known nor heard but in Spirit therefore to hear the voice of GOD to see and know GOD is to hear the Spirit Again by the Spirit alone GOD is known and his voice is perceived it doth not justifie to have heard bodily or after a bodily manner because justification is to be regenerated by the Spirit of GOD. Again the same Melancton Super epist. ad Rom. Per Lutherum editam cap. 2. on these words the Letter and the Spirit For the Letter signifieth not the written sense or the history as Origen thought but all works and all doctrines that live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Law is letter the Gospell is letter the Historie is letter the Spirituall allegoricall Sense is letter yea all that which lives not in the â—eart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Spirit is that by which the Spirit of Grace liveth in the heart the Spirit is the true love of God and of our neighbour which liveth in the heart which is the law written in the heart by the finger of GOD and not in the tables of stone The Spirit is the faith by which the gospell is truely and from the heart believed And here observe that if all be letter as well the words of the New Testament as of the Old which live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace then it is manifested that every unregenerat man who is a Preacher is at best but a minister of the letter so that his ministry is letter he is not a minister of the new Testament but of the letter which killeth his ministry is nothing else but a killing letter and is good for nothing Now as to the second branch of his first article that the Scripturs are not a compleat rule of faith this he alleageth is a Popish doctrin mantained by Quakers But First I query how is it a Popish doctrin seeing according to I. M. his own confession some of the Popish Doctors yea many Old School-men as Aquinas Scotus Durandus all hold as it seemeth that the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith wherein all supernaturall truths necessary to be believed are revealed pag. 76. yea in the same page he saith the Romanists are so farre from that Unity wherof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion And indeed I M. inâ—inuateth elsewhere little less in his book then that as touching all the differences betwixt them and those of his profession the Popish Doctors are subdivided among themselves so as to contradict one another in those very points which I am apt to believe is a truth And if so then it is apparent that there is no doctrin held in common by Us and some of the Papists but the same is contradicted by others of them and so these others of the Popish Doctors agree with I. M. and his Bretheren wherein they contradict Us. But as I have already said page 2. that which indeed maketh a Popish Doctrin is that it be not only affirmed by Papists and that most generally but that it be contrary unto the Scripturs and by this rule we are most willing to be tryed whether he or we have most of the Popish stuff or Wares Secondly as to the charge it self That the Scripturs are not the compleat rule of Faith I do affirme that this charge doth not at all reach us called Quakers more then it reacheth any true Protestants which that I may make to appear I distinguish of Faith as it is common unto all Christians and as it is peculiar and proper unto some now as to common Faith I say the Scripturs are a compleat secondary rule of all principles both fundamentall or essentiall and integrall of common Faith so as there is no principle of Faith whatsomever that is necessary to be believed by all Christians in common whether essentiall or integrall but is sufficiently declared in the Scripturs so that as to common principles of Faith we say the Scripture is not a partiall rule as do those Papists who say it is but a compleat and totall rule and herein we agree with all true Protestants and doe with them reject all unwritten traditions as being any part of the rule of Faith Yet although we say the Scripture is a compleat rule we understand it in its own kinde to wit a compleat externall rule as when I say a compleat Chart or Map of Scotland or England I mean that it is as full as a Map needeth to be yet it is not so full as the Land it self is otherwise it behoved to be as bigg as the Land Again though I call it a compleat rule yet I deny it to be the Principall It is then a compleat Secondary rule and in this we differ exceeding widely and materially from Papists but as to that Faith that is not common and universall but only peculiar and proper to some if there by any such Faith I. M. must needs acknowledge the Scripture is not the rule thereof as for example when George Wishard Iohn Knox and severall others in our own Nation did prophecy some particular things not to be found in Scripture but which indeed They had by speciall revelation this our Scots Protestants do generally acknowledge and some have thought it a great honour to our Nation particularly Durham and the Author of the fulfilling of the Scripturs Now this speciaell revelation was the rule of that proper and peculiar Faith which those men had as touching those particular things whereof they Prophecied but the Scripture was not the Rule of this their peculiar Faith And indeed for this distinction of ommon and peculiar Faith the Scripture is plaine as where it saith Rom. 14.22 Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self This is that peculiar and proper Faith as is said unto which belongs that Faith whereby I or any other particular true Christian doeth believe that we are indeed the Children of God For that a man may have ane assurance of Faith that he is a Child of GOD is granted by true Protestants and yet the rule of this particular Faith can not be the Scripture seeing no Scripture in all the Bible saith that such a man by name now living is a Child of GOD for although the Scripture give true and certain markes of a Child of GOD yet it doth not tell me that I have these markes and so can not be the Rule unto me whereby to know or believe that I have them indeed But the Spirit himself beareth witnesse with our Spirits that wee are the Children of GOD. Rom. 8. And this Faith I say whereby a particular person doth believe that he is a true Child of GOD that he is regenerated and sanctified and
the rock of Enthusiasm whether he thinks to drive his Popish Antagonists But I ask I. M. whether he thinks that Geo. Wishart was â—ne Enthusiast when he Prophecied of the death of the Cardinall or Iohn Knox called by some the APOSTLE of the Scots whose particular prophecies are mentioned in the History of his life seeing these meâ— had immediat revelation which I. M. understands as I suppose by the word Enthusiasm or if not I desire him to tell us what he means by Enthusiasm as for all false and falsly pretended Enthusiasms whether of Papists or any others which contradict the tenour of the Scripturs testimony wee are as much against them as any people are â—or can be but Enthusiasm in the true sense that is to say divine inspiration and revelation from the in-being of GOD revealing and illuminating the hearts of His Children yea and all men in some manner and measure and inspiring or inbreathing into them a living knowledge and sense of himself and His holy minde will and counsell that is never contrary but alwayes conform unto the Scripturs of truth I doe plainly and freely declare my self together with my Brethren to be for it as a most excellent principle of christian religion and indeed as the only true originall and foundation of all saving faith sound knowledge and sincere obedience and let both Papists and degenerated Protestants be ashamed of this principle fling it and tosse it from hand to hand as refusing to give it any shelter or entertainment as We see they doe in the present debate one against another yet true Enthusiasm as is above described we most willingly and cordially own it and with the greatest reception of kindness doe oppen our very souls and hearts to let in this most harmless and most helpfull Stranger who was the Freind and Beloved-companion Bossome and Heart-freind of all the holy Patriarchs Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Martyrs of Iesus Christ who all held the Testimonie of Iesus which is the Spirit of prophecy for which the Dragon was wroth and fought against them but they overcame by this word oâ— their Testimonie and Blood of the Lamb and loved not their lives unto Death And as to that ordinary objection This were to make all Christians to be Prophets I answer not for to be Prophets is not only to have the same spirit inspiring them as the Prophets had but also to be moved by the same to utter and express by words and writtings a declaration of their inward Sentiments Faith Feeling and knawledge Now all who are truely inspired have not this gift for to some it is given to beleive to others both to belive and speak and writ and yet the spirit is one and the same in both and although we doe affirm that some doe both speak and writ from a measure of the same spirit which the Prophets and Apostles hade yet we neither equall our selves nor our writtings unto them and theirs they having had such a Solemne and extra-ordinary inward conduct and guiding of the spirit of GOD which is generally acknowledged as did seâ—ure them from all error and mistake in writting the Scripturs the divine spirit so aboundantlie ceasing and taking hold both upon their understanding and will so as they did not in the least deviat or decline from following after the inward dictats leadings and directions of the same as being over-ruled by a most sweet and powerfull constraining limiting and bounding of Them so as neither to speak or writ but what They did indeed receive from the LORD that and at such times as it pleased GOD to make Them His Instruments in delivering those holy Records and Oracles of His mind and will the Scriptures of Truth for a generall service unto the children of men so far as by the providence of GOD they came to be spread abroad in the World Therefore I doe freely acknowledge They have a dignity and excellency in them above our writtings But as for us and what we speak and write although we affirme that the least measure of the true leading and moving of the spirit of GOD in our hearts is in it self infallible and hath a direct tendency to leâ—de guide and move us infallibly as it is purely kept unto yet we are conscious to our seves that both in speaking and writting it is possible for us in some measure more or lesse to decline from those infallible leadings and consequently both to speak and write in a mixture As also it is possible to keep unto them in perfect and pure chastitie accordingly as the mind is purely exercised in all diligence and watchfulness of attention unto the directions of the inward guide the spirit of Truth or to err as the minde laboureth under any defect of remissness or unwatchfulness SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined THe Second Instance adduced by I. M. to prove the Quakers guilâ—ie of Popish Doctrins is that a sinless perfection is attainable in time But I miss his proof that this is a Popish Tenet for indeed I could never find to my best remembrance any Papist who hold such a principle as that a sinless perfection is attainable in time by the people of GOD. It s true some of the Papists think that Mary was free of all sin both mortall and veniall which others of them deny affirming that She hâ—de originall sin but that the People of GOD Mary only excepted by some few could attaine to a sinless perfection in time I require I. M. to show out of their writters or rather out of their publick confessions and definitions of Popish counsels seeing it is not the privat opinions of some either Popish or Protestant privat Doctors by I. M. his own confession that maketh an Opinion Popish or Protestant Yea doth not I. M. know how eageâ—ly Bellarmin that Popish Champion doth dispute against Pelagius in this very point pleading from diverse Scripture such as There is no man who sinneth not 1. Kings 8. verse 46. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. 1. Iohn 1.8 the same I. M. and his brethren use to produce against us That there is no man who can be free in this life from all sin both mortall and veniall By veniall sins he meaneth sins of a lesser size or degree which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be sins however they differ otherwayes as to the nature of veniall sin that iâ— extriâ—sick to the matter in hand It is true that Pelagius did hold That a man might be free from all sin in this life yet it was not for this that he was generally condemned by the Fathers nor was that Doctrin generally condemned but this viz. that he taught that men could attain to this freedom from sin by his endeavours without the speciall grace and supernaturall help and assistance of the holy spirit so that Augustin who was the greatest impugner of the Pelagian Heresy
and aâ—l true Protestants we doe join against the Popish merit either of congruity without the Grace of GOD or of condignity with and by the Grace of GOD as condignity doth signifie an equality betwixt merit and reward as some Papists hold though contradicted by others but when Papists contradict one another one side must hold the truth at least in words but that is not to speak properly a Popish doctrin SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphall-Books THe Fifth Instance adduced by I. M. is that Apocryphall Books are of equall authority with other Scripturs He meaneth those judged by him and his Brethren to be Apocryphall For the question is what Books are Apocryphall and what not also what Apocryphall is in his sense If by Apocryphall he meane writt and not from any measure of the inspiration of the Spirit of GOD. Surely we cannot conclude that all these books called by him so are Apocryphall seing as to some of them we find the testimony of the Spirit of Truth in our hearts to answer to many precious Heavenly and divin sayings contained in them which is as a seal in us that they have proceeded from a measure of the true Spirit yet as to all these books or sayings contained in them we doe not so affirme And I belive I. M. cannot prove out of any of our Friends books that all these books commonly called Apocryphall and the sayings contained in them are of equall authority with the Scripturs however if they hade done so it proveth not that they hold a Popish doctrin because Papists and they hold their judgment concerning them on different accounts which according to I. M. his own rule is sufficient to make that a Heresy in the one and not in the other The Papists on the account of the authority of the Church that is to say the authority of some Popes or Popish councills But the Quakers on the account of the inward testimony of the Spirit of GOD in their hearts whereby the spirituall ear tryeth words whether having proceeded from GOD or not as the Mouth tasteth meat as the Scripture saith So that this may be retorted as a Popish doctrin on I. M and his Brethren who agree with Papists in denying that the inward evidence and testimony of the Spirit of GOD in mens hearts is the principall rule and touchston whereby to judge of words and writtings whether they be of GOD or not Again seeing the Papists are divided among themselves and contradict one another touching the authority of those books some of them holding that they are of equall authority with the Scripturs others denying it and placing them in an inferior degree We have the same advantage to reflect Popish doctrin upon him as he hath upon us if we did hold that either some or all of them are of equal authority with the Scripturs which yet I know not if I. M. can prove out of any writtings of a Quaker so called If perhaps I. M. shall Object that our Freind SAMUEL FISHER that faithful servant of the Lord in His Book Intituled RUSTICUS AD ACADEMICOS Or THE RUSTICKS ALARM To THE RABBIES c. which was writ about sixteen yeares agoe but never as yet Replyed unto by any doth affirm that Some of those books commonly called Apocryphall are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or have proceeded from Men divinely inspired and are of a diviâ— Inspiration â—nd Authority To this I answere First SAMUEL FISHER â—oth not affirm that all these books esteemed by I. M. and his Brethren to be Apocryphall are divinely inspired but that some of them such as First the wisdom of Solomon Secondly the Wiâ—â—om of Iesus the Son of Siraâ—h called Ecclesiâ—sticus Thirdly the Epistle of Ieremiah which 〈◊〉 â—roâ—e to those who were to goe Capâ—ive to Bâ—bylon c. Fourthly the Fourth Book of Esdras or the Second as it stands usualy in the Old English Protestant Bibles which books and especially this last of Esdras which gives so clear a testimony unto Christ as in Chap. 13. are denyed by unbelieving Iewes to be of divin inspiration with whom I. M. and his Brethren are in this matter to be classed together who deny them also Secondly albeit SAMUEL FISHER affirmeth that these afore mentioned books were writt by men divinely inspired yet he doth noâ— affirm that they are of equall authority wiâ—h the Scripturs as I. M. falsly chargeth us for writtings may be from divin inspiration and yet some of them of greater authority then others as proceeding from a greater measure of the Spirit however if I. M. have any convincing reasons why these books aforesaid are not of a divin originall let him produce them Now that some principall and famous men among the Papists doe place thâ—se books commonly called Apocryphall in an inferiour degree to the Scripturs Gratius doth plainly show in his Annotations upon Cassander his consult that both Cajetan and Bellarmin who were Cardinalls did hold them to be placed in an inferiour degree And also that KING IAMES the sixth did approve the same But let me ask I. M. one question or two First doth he think it a matter of faith that these books are not equall to Scripture If he doth I ask Secondly By what rule of faith he doth know or can prove that they are not equall to Scripture The Scripture it self can be no rule in the case seeing no place in all the Scripture saith any thing of these books not indeed of the number of the books of the Scripture If he say there are â—ound in them contradictions to the Scripture I answere if it were so in some of them yet I suppose he will not say in all If he say they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or character which the Scripturs have I ask again By what rule doth he know this that they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the Scripture doâ—h not say they want it and seeing possibly some may as strongly affirm that they have it Who shall be judge in the case Moreover we have this just retortion of Popery to reflect upon I. M. and his Bretheren that both Papists and they have set up such a determined number of books though differing among themselves as to the number of the Old Testament yet agreeing in one as to the number of the New which closeth up the Canon whereby they have both of them limited the GOD of Glory Himself both from bringing to light what other books have been writ that may be of equall authority with the Scriptures such as the Prophecy of Enoch mentioned Iude 14. the Epistle which Paul wrote to the Corinthians not to company with fornicators mentioned in the first of these Epistles which are extant 1. Cor. 5.9 and diverse other books which are mentioned in the Scripturs not â—ow to be found although it is possible they may be found yet if they were found by their principle they are to be rejected as not being in the Canon
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
justified is a peculiar and proper Faith unto him or them only to whom it is revealed and is not any part of the common faith of all true Christians for all true Christians are not required to believe that such a particular man is a true Christian or Child of GOD seeing perhaps not one of a thousand did ever hear of Him at all and so are not bound to believe that he hath a being in the World farr less that he is a Christian. Many other examples I could give of this peculiar and proper faith the rule whereof cannot be the Scripture but the special Revelation of GOD by his Spirit in the hearts of GOD'S Children whereby they have a reall knowledge and Faith in all their actings how farr they are approved and justified of GOD and as their is a peculiar and proper faith that is not the common faith so I doe affirm there is many times a peculiar and proper obedience unto peculiar and proper commands given of GOD unto some of his Children and not unto others Is there not an inward call whereby the LORD calleth such Preachers as are indeed accepted of Him in the discharge of their Ministry Sure I am I have heard some Protestants acknowledge this And is not this inward call a reall commandement seing it is a transgression to refuse to hearken to it And may not such aâ— Preacher have it made known to him from the LORD that he is really called to labour in Word and Doctrin among such a particular people rather then others And herein he is to give obedience unto the LORD although he have no outward call as many true Preachers never had And surely as there are some speciall things proper to every person in the World so as there are not to be found two in all the world but their way and manner of life doth differ in many observable things as much as their faces and that by a secret appointment of GOD so there are speciall directions of GOD'S holy Spirit given to those who do attend unto them whereby they may be safely and comfortably guided in all these various passages O how happy and blessed are they who have such a Bosome-Guidâ— as the blessed Spirit of GOD to direct them in their hearts and are given up to wait for and receive the Same when they fall into intricacies that no Scripture rules can sufficiently extricate And surely this the LORD hath promised his Children to guide them continually and to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth By what I have said on this head it is manifest how farr we differ from Papists as touching the first Article charged by I. M. against us seeing as to all principles of common faith we hold with Protestants against Papists that the Scripture is a compleat and sufficient declaration and testimony and indeed the best and most compleat outward rule that is in the world unto which all Doctrins and principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed as to a Test or Touch ston in all externall debates and disputations whatsomever so that whatever Doctrin or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenour of the Scripturs Testimony is to be denyed and disowned for ever Yea and whatever proper or peculiar faith or obedience doth contradict the principles of common faith and obedience declared in the Scripturs I do plainly affirm that it is not a true and right faith and obedience but a delusion Moreover though I find that I. M. laboureth in his book called Roma Mendax to fix Enthusiasm upon the Papists so as he may the more conveniently class the Quakers and them together to render us the more odious yet I desire both him and all others to consider how I. M. himself doth rather clear the Papists at least the greatest and more considerable part of them of this so hainouâ— a crime of Enthusiasm as he thinks it pag. 44.45 he producâ—th Stapleton and Testefort as downright Enthusiasts but in the same page 45. he bringeth Melchior Canus Alphonâ—us à Castro Becanus and Bellarmin as downright Anti-Enthusiasts who are all ashamed as saith I. M. to assert that Popes and Councells pass out their definitions by immediat revelations And the University of Paris anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort viz that the Sacred Scripture is partly contained in the Bible partly in the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome Very Good Here are then foure together with a whole Universitie of Papists the most famous in the world for two the two are guiltie of Enthusiasm and the four with the Universitie of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts as the other are Enthusiasts So here is farr the greater number of them Anti-Enthusiasts and I believe who will search the Popish Doctors and Writers for one Enthusiast in pretence will find ten Anti-Enthusiasts Let then all impartiall men consider whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrin seeing that it is most probably a Popâ—sh doctrin that is held by the plurality or greatest number of Popish Writers As for example what if I should find some Protestants so called whom I. M. doth own for reall Protestants perhaps two or three or more as down right Enthusiasts as either Stapleton or Testefort were it therefore just for me to conclude that Enthusiasm is a Protestant doctrin As for Doctor Stillingfleet whom I. M. citeth as giving an account of the Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I suppose the same Author could give as full an account of the Enthusiasms of the Preâ—byterians who were I. M. his Brethren but of Late Years and peradventure I. M. himself could doe as much Sure I am that diverse of the present Church of England have charged Enthusiasm upon the Presbyterians and Independents both I. M. his Ancient Friends as witness William Sharlock pag. 271. in his discourse with others could be named And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of Iustification pag. sayes That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flat Popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accounted among such and yet I see not how in his brother R. Baxter his judgment be can avoid this censure Yea may not Calvin himself whom some call the FATHER of Presbyterians be as much charged with Enthusiasm as any Papist seing in his Institutions he affirmeth that in his time God raised up Apostles or at least Evangelists whom he calleth Extraordinary Officers in the Church that were needful to bring back the Church again out of the Apostacy and from those Protestant Apostles or Evangelists he deriveth the ordinary mission of Protestant Preachers and goeth not back to the Antichristian Church and Bishops of Rome to derive the same as I. M. doth in his Roma Mendax and this forsooth lest He should run upon
verse 14. to verse 25. For to say that Paul at that time when he wrot that Epistle was carnall sold under sin being in captivity to the law of sin in his members iâ— a very absurd thing and condemned by sundry judicious and famous Protestants as Bucer and Musculus as they are cited by Arminius The Apostle therefore is describing not his present condition but the condition of others and of himself as they were in the strugling and warfaire estate before the victory was attained wheras the same Apostle speakeâ— of a victory both here and eleswhere Here as cap. 8.2 for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Iesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death Elsewhere as 1. Cor. 15. verse 55.56.57 O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law but thanks be to GOD which giveth us the victory through our Lord Iesus Christ see also Rom. 8.57 2. Tim 4.7 Another objection they make from 1. Kings 8.46 There is no man that sinneth not Like unto this iâ— Chron. 6.36 Eccles. 7.20 To which I answere that the words being in the second future may be translated in the potentiall mood as indeed Iunius and Tremellius truly translate it thus there is no man who may not sin this we doe not deny for a possibility of sinning is consistent with a perfect and sinless estate as wâ—s the state of Adam before he fell he was innocent and yet he could sin it is one thing non posse peccare that a man cannot sin which is the highest perfection Another thing posse non peccare that a man is able not to sin As for that place Rom. 3.10 taken out of Psal. 14.1.23 there is none righteous no not one It is manifest that it is understâ—od of men in the naturall unconverted and unjustified state and so is impertinently alleadged against perâ—ection But the main and most ordinary Objection is from the words of the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Forgive us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us Matthew 6.12 Which Prayer is to be daily put up unto GOD as appears by the preceeding petition Give us this day our daily bread so that as the best on earth need daily bread they need also daily to say Forgive us our sins To which I answere First That this place doth no more militate against perfect sanctification then it doth against perfect justification which is comprehensive of a forgivness of all sin Now doth not I. M. and his Brethren acknowledge yea plead for it that the Saiâ—ts have all their sins forgiven them in time yea that the least Saint hath perfect forgivness let them see what answere they can give to the one which we cannot give to the other I answere Secondly forgivness of sin may be understood two wayes First As it is received by every particular Saint and Child of GOD in his heart and conscience by the secret intimation of the Spirit of GOD and so farâ— as â—e having received this secret intimation he desireth to retain it and that it may be continued with him he may pray for it as he doth for his bread which yet he hath for many have daily bread although they are to pray for it that they may have it as a gift out of the Fathers-hand and in that they acknowledge him to be the giver of it and every good thing Secondly As it signifieth that solemn absolution which God by Christ shall give to all the Saints at the last-day and so to pray for forgiveness of sin is to pray that none of our sins which we have committed may be laid to our charge in that day but that we may receive that finall and signall absolution of them and for this the most perfect may and ought to pray Before I goe from this second alleadged article of Popish doctrin I shall only remind I. M. how it is and how it may be very safely retorted upon Himself and his Brethren who together with Papists doe wrest and abuse those and such like Scripturs before mentioned to plead against a sinless state and so to uphold the Devills-Kingdom SECT IV. Where the alleadged agreement about Iustification is considered and examined A Third instance of Popish doctrin charged by I. M. upon the people called Quakers is That men are justified by a righteousness wrought in them But unless he can prove that this doctrin is contradictory unto the Scâ—rpturs testimony it is not a Popish doctrin although Papists doe hold 〈◊〉 more then it is a Popish doctrin to hold That there is one GOD. Nor is I. M. ignorant how many doe hold Iustification to be by an inward righteousness whom he doth notwithstanding acknowledge to be true Protestants and these not only some of them Presbyterians such as Baxter but of the Episcopall-way not a few if not the greatest number as witness their books on that subject Also that the primitive Protestants diverse of them were of the same mind William Forbes doth show in his book already cited to which I refer the Reader yeâ— Iames Durham a noted Presbyterian doth sufficiently clear us of Popery as where he declareth in his commentary on the Revelation degr 11 That where Christ is rested upon for Iustification and his Sanctification acknowledged they ought not who doe so to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other inward spirituall vertues and graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Now we indeed rest upon Christ alone and not upon Mary nor any other of the Saints as the Papists are said to doe and the satisfaction of Christ we doe acknowledge in the true sense of it so as that by his obedience death and sufferings he hath indeed obtained remission of sins unto all who truely believe and repent Now that repentance is expresly required in Scripture as necessary unto remission of sins which I. M. doth hold at least to be a great part if not the whole of our Iustification see Acts 3.19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be bloted out c. Observe here not only repentance but conversion are both expresly required in order to forgiveness or blotting out of sin and consequently in order to Iustification seeing our Adversaries acknowledge that forgiveness is a part of Iustification and Calvin seemeth to place it wholly therein But that repentance and conversion are a great part if not comprehensive of the whole work of inward righteousness wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD I suppose I. M. will not deny See Acts 26.18 To turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto GOD that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified Here expresly the turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto GOD is required in order to
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
so as we are cloathed and covered with Christ the LORD our righteousness dwelling in us He made unto us in us Righteousness as well as Sanctification Wisdom and Redemption from which to witt Christ in us all those inward vertues and graces of Love Hope Patience Humility Meekness Temperance as well as Faith doe flow and proceed as streams from a fountain Now it is the fountain which is CHRIST Himself that we regard principally in our Iustification and but in the next place that inward righteousness wrought by Him in us which is but as the streame so it is not the streame that we rely and rest upon for Iustification to speak properly but Christ the fountain to wit whole Christ and not divided both as what He hath been and is without us And also in what He is in us and this we certainly believe and know that who rest upon Christ for Iustification only as without and not as within indwelling in their hearts they have neither true faith nor justification but both their faith and justification is a dream and delusion of Satan Now this sort of justification by the indwelling of Christ in us wherein we affirm that our justification doth principally consist is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is expresly denyed by Bellarmin that Popish Champion who undertaketh to refute it And that I. M. is of one and the same mind with Bellarmin as to this particular I doe greatly suspect if otherwise let him clear himself Sure I am he and his Brethren are so farr from thinking that we are justified by Christ indwelling in us that they doe noâ— acknowledge any reall true and proper indwelling of Christ in the Saints at all for that they affirm That Christ is not in us any other way but by his graces or gracious operations But say we these graces and gracious operations can not be divided from Him so that if they be in us truly really and properly He also who is the fountain of them must be in us as truely really and properly Moreover for the further clearing of our faith touching justification I desire the Reader to consider that to be justified by an inward righteousness is one thing and to be justified by outward works of righteousness done by us even through the Grace of GOD and help of the Spirit is another for as we are first inwardly righteous before we can work good works so the justification by inward righteousness is first or before the justification by works and as some have well observed as it is not the good fruit that makes the good tree but the good tree makes and produceth good fruit So good works make not a man at first righteous but a man must be first righteous or holy and then he â—ringeth forth Good-Works And thus truly is the mind of Agustin to be understood That good works goe not before a mans being justified but follow his being justified even as good fruit goes not before the good tree but the good tree is before the good fruit and so the same may be said of sanctification Good works goe not before a mans sanctification as to the beginning of it and yet a man is sanctified by inward righteousness And thus though it could be proved That a man is not justifyed by good works yet it doth not follow that he is not justifyed by inward righteousness Now I say good works have not any place in the beginning of our justification I mean outward works for the Reason alleadged because a man is first justified or made righteous before he work a good work outwardly and if in that state he should die before he could work any outward good work he should die in a justified state as certainly Infants who are saved die in a justified state without works yet not without inward righteousness Good works then are necessary not to the beginning of our justification but to the continuance and progress of it so that being justified by ane inward righteousness we are more justified by doing good works which are necessary if not to bring us at first into favour with GOD yet to continue us in the favour of GOD so as if we did not work good works if we live and are in a capacity to doe them we should fall from our Iustification and this is the very doctrin of William Tindall that famous Protestant and Martyr as I have declared in that little book called A LOCKING GLASS FOR ALL PROTESTANTS And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of justification pag. 80. sayeth that some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flatt popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accommodat among such and yet I see not how in his Brother R. Baxter his judgment he can avoid this censure Secondly consider that justificaton as it is taken for a remission of sin although it doth indeed respect inward righteousness as a condition necessar to the obtainment of it yet it doth not respect it either as the procuring cause of it nor yet as its formall reason the procuring cause being CHRIST alone who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto GOD for our sins the formall reason of the remission being indeed the remission or forgivness it self for the formall reason of a thing is the very nature of the thing it self which consisteth in that act of GOD whereby He acquiteth and dischargeth us in our hearts by the testimony and dictat of His Spirit in us Consider Thirdly that the reason why we are said to be justified by faith and not by works as to the beginning of our justification is not to exclude inward righteousness from our justification but indeed because it is by faith and not by works that inward righteousness at first is received for of all other graces and vertues faith is most of a receptive nature for as it is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD we not resisting but complying with His motion and operation in us so by faith being once received in us we receive all other inward graces and vertues so that as by faith alone we receive inward righteousness by which we are justified as to the beginning of it so it may be said that by faith alone we are at first justified that is to say That righteousness by which we are justified we doe inwardly receive it into our hearts from the Spirit of GOD and doe not work it out unto our selves either by outward working or by a long continuall inward activity of our minds as being a thing rather received in us as to say ingenerated and wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD then wrought by us for indeed in our Regeneration Conveâ—ion Justification and Sanctification as to its beginning at least we are rather or at least more passive then active and as the Child both in the womb
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
received As also they have limited GOD from moving or inspiring any men in any age of the world to come to writ any book or books that may be of equal authority with the Scripturs For which bold and presumptuous alleadgeance neither Papists nor they have the least solid ground Finally there are some writtings that both Papists and they reject as not having Scripture authority which yet we find no just cause to reject such as the 151. Psalm that is in the Septuagint and Paul his Epistle to the Laodiceans which are both extant to this day wherein nothing is to be seen unsuitable either to other Scripturs or unto that spirit that gave them forth And if you say they want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Scripturs have I suppose it will be as hard for I. M and his Brethren to evince by any evidence that such books have or have not the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is for any Quaker to evince by any evidence that he hath the Spirit of GOD this I say not as denying but that the Scripturs have a Secondary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known unto them who know the primary of the Spirit in their hearts but seeing our Opposers require of us to show or evidence unto them some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we have the Spirit of GOD I would have I. M. to know that the same difficulty recurreth as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Scripturs it being a thing which cannot be shown or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind which yet is evident unto the spirituall And indeed as the Scripturs have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth that they are of GOD â—o all the Children of GOD have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also who are as a living book or Epistle of Christ which convinceth that both they are of GOD and have the Spirit of GOD and this is a sufficient demonstration unto them that are spiritually minded And here onely I shall mind I. M. how the Protestants themselves are not agreed upon the number of the Canonicall books The Lutherians at this day rejecting some which the Calvinists receive such as the Epistle of Iames the second and third Epistles of Iohn and the book of the Revelation by some yea Luther cal Iames Epistle a STRAWY EPISTLE And if he had charged it as a Popish principle on the Calvinists that with Papists they hold Iames Epistle to be Canonicall I suppose I. M. would noâ— for this have rejected it although Papists at this day doe own it to be Canonicall with him However this Advertisment I give to the Reader that seeing the books commonly called Apocryphall are controverted by some to have that sufficient authority Yet in all matters of debate betwixt our Opsers and us we shall not urge their authority upon any who doe not receive them but are willing to wave them and keep to those books of Scripture acknowledged by them wherein we have sufficient testimonies to all the Principles of Truth mantained by us and furniture enough by the help of our GOD to resist and oppose the contrary It is worth the observing that not only both Papists among themselves and Protestants among themselves have been divided about the number of the Canonicall books as what books be Canonicall and what not but even the Fathers so called and the Councills who did Canonise them have differed greatly also Eusebius in his Ecclesiastick History lib. 3. cap. 22. writteth exceeding uncertainely concerning divers of the books of the New Testament such as the Epistle of Iames The Second Epistle of Peter the second and third Epistles of Iohn The Revelation of Iohn as being received by some at Authentick and gainâ—aâ—d by others The Councill of Laodicea which was the first councill I read of that did determine the Canon of the books of Scripture as it omitteth or passeth by as not Authentick all these books commonly called Apocryphâ— so it also omitteth the Revelation of Iohn But the third Councill of Carthage which â—aâ— not long after where Augustin was present doth put into the canon both the booke of the Revelation and most of these books commonly called Apocrypha yea Augustin himself lib. 2. de Doctrinâ— Christiana cap. 8. Among the other books of the Old Testament numbereth Tobias Hester Iudiâ—h and two books of the Maccabees and two of Esdras and the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus concluding thus In these fourty and four books the authority of the Old Testament is determined Now if to hold some of these books equall to Scipture be a Popish doctrin then Augustin himself did hold Popish doctrin in this very thing And yet I suppose I. M. doth not think that Augustin was a downright Papist for all this But if this prove not Augustin to be a Papist how will it prove us the people called Quakers to be Papists he must either assoilzie us or condemne Augustin in the case SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the efficacy of Grace depended upon Mans FREE-WILL is considered and answered THe Sixt Instance of Popish doctrin charged by I. M. on the people called Quakers is that the efficacy of Grace depends on Mans free will I suppose this is but a consequence of I. M. his making upon the doctrin or principle of Universall Grace mantained by the Quakers As for my self I never heard it nor read it mantained by any of these people that the efficacy of grace depends on mans free will And I doe altogether deny that it is a consequence lawfully deduceable by any principles of sound reason from the doctrin of Universall grace as mantained by us For we deny that there is any free-will in man to any thing that is truly good and acceptable in the sight of GOD but what is of the grace of GOD. The will of man is servum arbitrium as Luther called it and not liberum arbitrium in respect of any obedience acceptable unto GOD that is to say servil and bound over unto Satan and captivated by him but as the grace of GOD doth make it free and that all men at times have some measure of a freedom of will by the grace of GOD we doe with holy boldness affirm conform both to the Scripturs testimony and the consent of the greatest part of Antiquity if not of all generally as both Vosius a learned Antiquary in his Pelagian History and Grotius in his disquisition of the Pelagian Dogma's doe show at great length By the visitations of which Grace of GOD upon the souls of all men at certain times and seasons the prison door is opened unto all who are in captivity as all men are in the unconverted state and the arm of GOD'S Salvation is stretched forth unto them yea it toucheth them and by its touches infuseth into them some measure of ability whereby the soul is put into a capacity to convert and turn
unto GOD that so it may become Light in the LORD which was darkness according to which Augustin sayeth expresly lib. Annot. in fol. ult In voluntate enim cujusque est utrum tenebrae sit an lux c. It is in the will of every man whether he be darkness or light but when he is darkness it is in himself that is by his sinâ— which are his own But when he is light he is not it in himself but in the LORD Now seeing we doe expresly hold and believe it as a most certaine truth that all free-will in man unto any good thing acceptable unto GOD hath a most absolut and necessary dependance upon the grace of GOD and the efficacy thereof we cannot in any justice of reasons be thought to affirme that the efficacy of grace depends on mans free-will seeing a mutuall dependency implyeth a manifest contradiction I conceive that I. M. draweth his consequence from this that we say the Grace of GOD many times worketh so gently upon the souls and hearts of men that they may resist it and so put a stop in the way of their Conversion therefore he concludeth according to our principle the efficacy of grace depends on mans free-will But this consequence I deny for although a man may resist the Spirit of grace and so put a stop some have named it so poâ—ere obicem to their conversion yet the Grace of GOD hath its efficacy still of its own nature and loseth nothing of its vertue thereby yea it hath its due effect upon these who resist it as to Conversion namely to render them without excuse and be against them a just ground of their condemnation as Christ said Iohn 3.19 This is the condemnation that Light is come into the World Nor is the intent of GOD frustrated thereby but sufficiently answered for GODS intention was only that the Grace of GOD should convert them who doe not resist it and be a just ground of condemnation against those who doe resist and reject it Moreover the same consequence may be drawne against I. M. himself and his Brethren by way of retorsion seeing the Grace of GOD may be resisted in order to Perfection as indeed it is according unto their principle as according unto ours it may be in order to Conversion We say men may hinder their conversion by resisting the spirit of Grace they say men hinder their perfection by resisting the Spirit of Grace for certainly he is a perfect man and in a sinless state who maketh no resistance unto the spirit of GOD in him but in all things yeeldeth unto it and complyeth fully therewith Now if resisting in the one sense inferâ— that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free-will resisting in the other sense will inferr the same also seeing it is the will of man that resisteth in both and if it doth not inferr in the one neither doth it in the other But if I. M. alleadge that the doctrin it self of Universall Grace and Free-will in all men by vertue of that Grace be a Popish doctrin I altogether deny it though Papists seem in words to affirm it as they doe many other Christian truths which are not Popish doctrins for their holding them in unrighteousness that being a Popish doctrin according to my former definition that I. M. I conceive will not deny which is mantained generally by Papists and is repugnant unto the Scripturs to which I may add as I suppose with I. M. his consent and unto the testimony of Antiquity in the purest times before that Bastard Religion of Popery was born into the World especially the three or foure first Centuries Now that this doctrin of Universall Grace and Free-will in all men by reason of this grace or any other principle affirmed by us held in common as it may seem by those called Papists and us is neither repugnant unto the Scripture testimony or the most generall testimony of Antiquity in the purest times but on the contrary most agreeable thereunto I offer my self â—y the Grace and help of GOD to defend against the said I. M. or any of his Brethren who will undertake it for him either in word or writ as they please And indeed that the doctrin of Free-will unto good in all men was taught by Iustin Martyr one of the most Authentick of the Fathers in the primitive times is confessed by Abraham Scultetus a Calvinist in his Medulla Theologia Patrum also that he did hold that men might merit or live worthy of GOD which he imputeth to him as his Errors Again he blameth Athenagoras another of the Fathers in the purest times for the matter of free-will So doth he Tatianus Irenaeus Theophilus Clemens Alexandrinus and those two Theophilus and Clemens Alexandrinus he blameth both for the doctrin of free-will and justification by works also he blameth Clemens Alexandrinus for the doctrin of perfection He blameth Tertulian both for the doctrin of free-will and for the merit of good-works Moreover he blameth Cyprian about the matter of free-will justification by works and merit Also he blameth Lactantius for holding justification by works and merit and perfection But these doctrins are not the more erroneous taken in the sound sense of those writters who were neither Pelagians nor Papists because a Calvinist so judgeth of them through prejudice as clashing with his narrow spirit and principles however this is certain both out of this writter whose fidelity I suppose I. M. doth not suspect in his citations and also out of these Fathers their own writers most of whom I have searched upon these maters and doe find that in the mater of Universall grace Free-will Iustification Mirit in a sound and sober sense and Perfection they goe much along wiÌ„th us in opposition to our Adversaries who oppose us in these things whose particular testimonies as also of others in after times of the most famous of those called Fathers unto those principles of Truth owned by us and opposed by I. M. and his Brethren in due time if GOD permitt I may make known and intend so to doe for the sake of the Simple that it may be seen that our Holy Religion and Faith which they reproachfully call by the name of QUAKERISM is neither Popery nor any other Heresy but the Truth owned by the Scripturs and most approved of the Ancient Writers and Fathers so called Now as touching the aforesaid particulars of Free-will in all men by the Grace of GOD Iustification by works Merit Perfection I propose this alternative that seeing the Fathers held these doctrins as Scultetus and Others acknowledge it will follow that either they are not Popish errors or that Popish errors were mantained by the Fathers in the first three Centuries If I. M. grant the first he cleareth the Quakers as to these things If he grant the second he contradicteth himself who did undertake to defend the principles owned by him to be conform to the Fathers in that time
can be the Antichrist yea the Great Antichrist is to reconcile the greatest contradictions As who would say Whiteness is Blackness Life is Death Not doth it suffice to say as a thing can be partly white and partly black so the Pope may be partly Christian and partly Antichristian for to be the Great Antichrist as I. M. supposeth him to be in the case and I am sure formerly used really to judge him so is to be wholly Antichristian and not partly Now a thing cannot be partly such and wholly the contrary And besides I. M knoweth out of his own School rules that the Essences of things are indivisible and so cannot be parted as for example the Essence of a Horse is so indivisible that we cannot say a Horse can be partly a Horse and partly an Ass for a living creature that is generated of a Horse and an Ass is neither a Horse nor an Ass but a third kind Thirdly Moreover seeing I. M. affirmeth that the Roman Church hath neither doctrinall nor personall succession some of the Popes having taken the Chair by force some by Fraud some by Simony some by Magicall Arts. It is manifest then that She hath no reall and lawfull succession at all but meerly usurped even as if an ordinary Thief or Robber should by theft or violence steal or rob the Rights of any civil Authority and fraudulently insert his Name to be KING how can this Usurpâ—r who hath no lawfull Authority convey it down to others and here let us see if I. M. his distinction can doe any good He conveyeth it down not as a Thief or a Robber but as having the KING' 's Goods Ay but I ask how he hath the KING'S Goods it is by stealing of them and consequently as a Thief and yet according to the distinction not as a Thief so both as a Thief and as no Thief which is a contradiction and indeed it is so impossible to conceive that a man can be a Thief and no Thief that it is hard to conceive how he can be a Thief and an Honest man together And seeing some have taken the Popedom by Simony as Oâ—e well observeth The Pope is the Successor rather of Simon Magus then of Simon Peter and consequently I. M. who is the Popes successor by his own confession must be the successor of Simon Magus also I desire him not to be offended for I call not him so onely I tell him what I judge to follow from his own assertion and indeed I am a shamed that he should derive either his own or any other of the Protestants call or Ordination through so unclean a conduit as the great Antichrist and through confessed Symoniacks Magicians and Negro-mancers yea through Papesse Ioan a vile Harlot Sure I am the most famous of the Primitive Protestants abhorred such a thing and if at any time any of them alleadged that outward Ordination it was but ane Argument ad hominem as we use to say by way of Retortion to stop the Papists mouths otherwise acknowledging their Call to be Extraordinary and Immediat as Calvin Beza Sadeel Fulk and many others And I believe that distinction of quoad Substantiam and quoad modum never came into their heads for they hade no need of it and many of the First Reformers without all question hade no owtward Ordination nor call at all seeing they were not All in Orders who were the First Reformers not so much as Priests but Lay-men and beeing among the first they could not be ordained by Protestant Ministers seeing None were to ordain them But Lastly seeing I. M. doth hold that the Church of Rome doth err Fundamentaly and did so before the Reformation as in beeing guilty of gross Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread for the true GOD beside other Fundamentall Errors he cannot in reason hold her for a true Church seeing a Fundamentall error destroyeth the Nature of a true Church otherwise he may say The Turks are a true Church Now if she be not a true Church she can not convey Ordination because it is a thing onely proper to a true Church for if a false Church can ordain then the Mahumetants may ordain or indeed the most abominable People in the World seeing they are a false Church as well as She. But it seems for all this I. M. holds her to be a true Church or at least a Church truely if not Vera yet Vere Strange and ridicolous distinctions as to say not a true Horse but truely a Horse not true Gold but truely Gold not true Fire but truely Fire Whoever first invented this distinction seemeth plainly not to have been in his right wits For indeed every thing is both true and truely what it is even a Lyar is both truely a Lyar and a true one though he is not moraly a true that is to say â— faithfull man But his reason is this Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of GOD therefore Rome where the Pope Antichrist sitteth is the Temple of GOD. To this it is easie to answere That it is one thing to be the Temple of GOD de jure another thing de facto I confess Rome is the Church of GOD de jure of right and that in a speciall way as having been formerly a true and faithfull Church of GOD and though Antichrist hath stept in and taken Usurpation yet the Lord loseth not His right She is still His de jure or of right and so are the other places where the Gospell once flourished as Ierusalem and Alexandria now over-run with Paganism or Mahumetanism all these places are as much the Temple of GOD as Rome de jure and yet I suppose I. M. will not say that de facto they are the Temple of GOD so that by an easie Metonymie Rome may be called the Temple of GOD both as to what She should be and as to what She once was even aâ— Brittain was called the KING'S Dominions and He KING of Brittain in the time of His Exile because it was His formerly and His title to it remained yet de facto and actually it was in the possession of an Usurper Nor will this Argument any more prove that Rome is the Church of GOD then those Pagans are the Church of GOD because they live in a place where once the Church of GOD was And indeed if we take Antichrist more strictly as he is a Spirit properly the Temple where he sits is Mans Heart there opposing the Spirit of Christ under a pretence of being for Christ and thus every wicked man under a profession of Christ hath Antichrist sitting in the Temple of GOD to wit in man who is de jure GODS Temple but de facto Antichrists Synagogue and in some respect every man on Earth and all men though never so wicked are the Temple of GOD that is to say of Right but not Actually or in Fact But more especially they who have a profession of Christ and yet give
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
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.