summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most
require as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case which I know not if indeed used by any of us Nor is it my work at present to bring Arguments for our Doctrine that being already done by others and partly also by me but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same He alledgeth that Paul must needs have been in that very condition which he there describes Rom. 3. 14 15 18 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus as I did alledge except I will say that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God But how weak and frivolous is his â—cason here Could not Paul in the same discourse speak of something that was truly his present conditions and of some other thing that was not Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle when he saith of the Tongue Herewith Bless we God and herewith Curse we men My Brethren these things ought not to be so Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logick Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God and Curser of men at the same time seeing he useth the first person to express both and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of in saying the word cleanseth 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life for the word is also used in the present time And second by I. A. his reason the word justifieth Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification contrary to I. A. his express assertion Again he alledgeth that the words in Ecclesiast 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not Have the Verb in the indicative Mood and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future as I did affirm But this is a bareevasion and no direct Answer to my Assertion And I say again the second future even that of the indicative may be turned into the Potential Mood as it is often at other times because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by it self Again whereas he urgeth That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning and not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who would be ignorant of that To this I Answer that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin if they were not duely watchful And although all men did know this yet they did need to be admonished of it for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition and putting us in remembrance and not barely for Information How oft doth the Scripture tell us that all men are Mortal and must die which yet none are ignorant of although they oft forget that it is so and therefore need often to be remembred But by I. A. his Logick either men are ignorant that they shall die or the Scripture saith so in vain Who seeth not here the weakness of I. A. his Reasons which I am already weary to repeat or spend my time and pains on such stuff and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole Only I cannot but take notice with what confidence I. A. doth conclude That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures was an Action surely defective and iâ—perfect as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men c. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture Or by what consequence doth he prove it Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree that men could attain to this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law if what they did was with all that degree of Love to God and men that was possible for them at that time to perform CHAP. XVII J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th Query first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer As guilty of a leud Calumny in charging his Brethren for holding Salvation by Self-works and Self-Righteousness whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints But I. A. in this as in other things doth grosly abuse his Reader and falsly accuse the Inquirer For doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion either for or against it And albeit the Inquirer did know that in words ye cry down all self-works and self-righteousness yet he had but too much ground to question you about them seeing ye are generally found so much practising them and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them as I. A. hath done at great length for Preaching and Praying and Singing without the Spirit all which are nothing but Self-righteousness Another fault that I. A. committeth here is that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works that are wrought by the Spirit to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation yet generally or for the most part they deny not that they are means of Salvation and necessary in order thereunto which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine than that very place For after that Paul said Not by works of Righteousness which we had done viz. by any power of our own he immediately addeth That God saveth us according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which Regeneration and â—enewing of the Holy Ghost comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints And here I. A. goâ—th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification 2. That in one of our Books called A Confession of Faith p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders for the words in that page 21. say expresly That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ and by his Righteousness made ours or imputed unto us And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith that is the Gift of God but both that Faith and imputation which is only and alone the Creatures act or work without the Spirit of Christ we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification 3. Whereas in the said Book our Friends alledge it is not Acts
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very
willingly and sincerely acknowledge that the Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person is imputed unto us for Justification and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned But we further say that all to whom that is imputed which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ and also to his Holy Life and walk without which all mens imputing it unto themselves is but an airy Dream and Imagination There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question as if the Quakers so called Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship in the time of the Old Testament And thus because it is said in the Query that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice can from this inferr that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures that because God saith in the last days He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and Write his Law in their Hearts That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages scarce any thing but gross mistakes and perversions CHAP. XVIII HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question beginneth with a most gross perversion As if the Quakers because they would have men to cease from all their own works meerly acted in the strength of mans Will and natural Power without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God would have men to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation Another charge little less gross is That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called The Principles of Truth in several pages To which I Answer Although the said Book saith That Babylon c. is â—ithin yet it doth not say it is only within but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth that all who are in outward Worships without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God painted over with glorious Words but inwardly full of Abominations belong to the Kingdom of Babylon And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby be called Babylon by a Figurative Speech even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man which hinders not that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit are Babylon And as for the Pope and Popish Church as we do cordially joyn with the best and most sincere Proantests against them as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope or Popish Church on that or any consideration although we with the Salvation of the worst so we most freely declare that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist and Babylon as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren we cannot acquit them from being Members of the same Antichristian body although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward for being so kind to him as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power for bearing a Testimony against him and them which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done but sit warmly at home without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account Having thus as briefly as I could given an Answer to I. A. his Book against us omitting nothing that seemed to be material I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self with his two Postscripts to Answer them in particular The substance of the first Postscript against me being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets as to what is any wise material Or if he suppose any thing is omitted let him mind me of it in his next and withall Write an intire and thorough Answer to what is already said both here and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery which he hath only but here and there nibled at And I may possibly if God give me freedom and convenience return him a â—urther Answer 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand and needs no more As for his Postscript against or for Doctor Everards Ghost as he calleth it I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein nor defend every word or Opinion of his seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us Albeit I must needs acknowledge both my Friends and I such of them I mean as have read his Book have a great love and respect to his memory which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him shall never be able to defame And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth according to the time and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day whatever imperfections attended him otherwise or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things or not so warily cautioning some of his words as could have been wished Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment of which he is not guilty by reason of deep prejudice against him Partly whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely which is but spoken comparative and by way of some Similitude and but in some respect But before I make a full close I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions waving others to another opportunity in his Postscript to me The one is that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination and calling Ministers before the Reformation neither as Christian nor as Antichristian Not as Christian or else all Christians would have it nor as Antichristian seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary for many things and persons too are neither Christian nor Antichristian To which