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
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
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
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
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.