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
just that as I suppose no Protestant will disown it nay not Iohn Menzies himself Let us then proceed laying down this definition of a Popish doctrine for a rule whereby to examine what doctrines are Popish and what not The instances brought by Iohn Menzies to show that many of the Quakers notions so he calls our Principles are undoubtedly Popish doctrines are these following First That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat Rule of Faith Secondly That a sinless perfection is attainable in time Thirdly That Men are justified by a righteousnesse wrought within them Fourthly That good works are meritorious Fifthly That Apocryphall books are of equall dignity with other Scriptures Sixthly That the efficacy of Grace depends on mans Free-will Seventhly That reall Saints may totally Apostatize Eightly That indwelling Concupiscence is not our own sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof Before I descend to a particular examination of these eight instances I premise this generall consideration viz. That if we should acknowledge that these eight instances as worded and laid down by Iohn Menzies were held by all Papists and Quakers so called which yet is false as afterwards I intend God-willing to make appear yet that the consequence doth not follow that they are Popish doctrines unless he had also proved that they are repugnant unto the Scriptures testimony according unto the definition of a Popish doctrin formerly laid down Now this Iohn Menzies hath not so much as attempted in this place as against the Quakers and some of them he hath not in all his book as I suppose so much as undertaken even against the Papists However most of what he saith against them as touching any of these particulars do not so militate against us because we differ very materially from them in the very things alleadged Another generall consideration I shall propose and that grounded upon an express affirmation of Iohn Menzies himself positively laid down by him pag. 162. The same sentiment saith he held upon different accounts may be hereticall in the one and not in the other Very well if then I doe show that in those alleadged instances or any others he can alleadge wherein we seem to agree with Papists they and we hold them upon different accounts it doth manifestly follow from Iohn Menzies his own mouth that those sentiments or doctrines may be hereticall and Popish in Papists and not in us called Quakers This advantage that I have againâ— him out of his own mouth I intend to lay up untill I come to the particulars and then to make a suitable application of it SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures where also some things are opened concerning the rule of Faith and immediat Revelation THe first Popish doctrine that Iohn Menzies chargeth us with is That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat rule of Faith This article hath two branches 1 That the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith 2 That they are not the compleat rule of Faith As to the first that the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith I know not that any Papists say so he ought to have given us his proofe out of their writtings nor will it suffice that he bring the testimony of some privat Doctors among the Papists for a proofe seeing Iohn Menzies denyeth pag. 452. That the testimony of some private Doctors among the Protestants is a sufficient proofe against any Protestant principle I am sure of this that I can bring some of great repute and authority among the Papists who do mantain that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith touching these things revealed or declared particularly and expresly in them as witness Bellarmin oft cited by Iohn Menzies himself lib. 1. cap. 2. De verbo Dei who sayeth expresly That the Scripture is a most certain and sure rule withall affirming that he is certainly a mad man who leaving The most certain testimony of the Scripture betaketh himself unto the judgement of a spirit within him that is oft fallacious and ever uncertain Now that which is a most certain or the most cerrain rule of Faith is the principall rule of Faith I find Iohn Menzies citing Bellarmin against the Papist in his book Roma Mendax pag. 116 Doth not saith Iohn Menzies Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 1. Charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declyning the Scripturs and only flying to the inward dictats of the Spirit By this it appeareth manifestly from I. M. own mouth that Bellarmin is not guilty of declining the Scripturs to be the principall rule or of setting up the dictats of the Spirit seeing He chargeth it as a hainous crime against Swenkfeldius Now I appeall to all sober and impartiall Readers whether Iohn Menzies and Bellarmin the Papist and Iesuit whom some call the Popish Champion be not more a kin to one another in this very particular then the Quakers and the said Bellarmin are Doth not I. M. say that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith and Bellarmin saith they are the most certain and sure rule and consequently the principall Again doth not I. M. blame them who preferre the inward dictats of the Spirit to the outward testimony of the Scripture and the very same doth Bellarmin in the place already cited by I. Ms. own confession Surely one egge is not liker another then the reproachfull speeches of both Papists and Iohn Menzies with his brethren are against the dictats of the blessed Spirit of GOD in the hearts of believers as being to be preferred as the more excellent rule Here then this first instance as to the first branch is justly retorted upon I. M. himself The Papists deny that the Spirit of GOD inwardly dictating or revealing the truth is the principall rule of Faith to and in every believer and so doth I. M. and his brethren wherein they manifestly agree with Papists against â—s the people called in deâ—ision Quakers I. M. could not be ignorant how easily this instance could be retorted upon Himself and these of His profession I shall only at present say this to Him as to this and other particulars that may be retorted upon Him and them Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum It is a shame to the Doctor when the same fault he blames in another is found in himself Moreover if some or all Papists did hold that the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith as preferring thereunto the outward testimony of the Church of Rome this doth no wise touch us nor are we concerned with them therein seeing we do no wise prefer the testimony of the Church of Rome or of any other Church unto the Scripture but do indeed prefer the Scripture as the best and greatest outward testimony in the world If then Papists deny that the Scripture is the principall rule on a different account from us they preferring the testimony of the Church thereunto
forgiveness which turning is an inward righteousness for to turn to GOD is an act of obedience and consequently is righteousness and it is also inward for it is an act of the soul and heart that is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD. And indeed in this last place of Scripture our whole Iustification as consisting in these two Forgiveness of sin aâ—d 〈◊〉 Râ—ght unto eternall life which is the inheritance above mentioned to the receiving of both which our turning unto GOD from the power of Satan is expresly required yet not as if this conversion or inward work of righteouness were the pâ—â—curing cause of our receiving either the one or the other nay not at all but they are the conditions or qualifications most necessarly required in order to the receiving them And seeing I. M. and his brethren affirme that men are justified by faith so as faith is a condition or qualification necessary unto Iustification I ask him and them is not faith inward righteousness though not the whole yet a part I prove it is All true inward obedience is inward righteousnes but faith is true inward obedience therefore c. The first proposition is clear because righteousness is nothing else but obedience unto what God commands The second proposition is no less clear for God hath coÌ„manded us to believe in Christ therefore faith in him is obedience and it is inward being an act of the soul wrought in it by the Spirit of God concurring with it that it may believe Yea this faith according to I. Ms. principle is not a bare assenting of the understanding unto what is revealed of Christ but it hath in it the consent of the will as also a certain affiance of confidence in GOD and Christ which is commonly called Fiducia that iâ— of the nature of hope And seeing this faith is an act of the will it must have love in it for indeed all acts of the will are either acts of love or hatred or doe proceed from them so that if faith be ane act of the will as well as of the understanding it must love or desire or both and thus in justifying or saving faith there is both Love and Hope as well as Faith all which three are inward righteousness wrought in us and by us through the help of the Holy Spirit Augustin saith tract evan secundum Ioh. 29. What is it to believe in Him but by believing to love Him and thus he defineth justifying Faith And if it be replyed that it is confessed that faith is an inward work of righteousness but that we are not justified by faith as it is a work or as it is a part of inward righteousness To this I answere first This distinction is too too nice and metaphysicall seing it is the very essence of faith to be ane inward work of righteousness whereby with the greatest love of our hearts we both cleave unto the Lord desire Him and have confidence affiance or hope in Him Now to distinguish betuixt a thing and the essence or that which is essentiall to it is too nice and curious and indeed altogether impertinent in the handling of controveâ—sies of religion where all things should be proposed with greatest plainess that is possible but to distinguish betwixt a thing and its essence is not plain nor fit to be understood by those of common capacity as consisting in a logicall notion as a meer ens-rationis as who would distinguish betuixt Paul his being a man and his being a reasonable creature made after the image of GOD. I answere secondly the controversie betwixt them and us is not whether we be justified by a righteousness wrought in us as it is a work we leave this to those vaine janglers who delight themselves in such airy and unprofitable questions it sufficeth us to contend for this that men ate justified by a righteousness wrought in them which inward righteousness is indespensibly necessary to our Iustification before GOD. I answere thirdly if they mean that we are not justified by any work of righteousness so as that work is the procuring cause by way of strict merit of our Iustification we doe also most willingly affirme the same for indeed no Faith of ours no Love no Hope no Humility no Patience no Meekness nor Temperance nor any other thing wrought in us or by us through the help of the spirit of GOD doth in a way of strict justice merit or procure either our Iustification or any other favour or thing whatsomever so that we doe indeed renounce all merit on our part strictly and rigidly considered and all debt as owing on Gods-part to us otherwise then as by His promise He hath bound Himself unto us so that as the reward is of grace the merit and debt is of grace also according unto the words of Augustin Fidelis est Dominus qui se nobis debitorem fecit non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed omnia promittendo Faithfull is the LORD who hath made Himself a debitor unto us not by receiving any thing from us but by giving us all things Yea we doe really declare that we are as freely justified as we are sanctified and seeing our being sanctified by inward righteousness doth not hinder it to be by free-grace no more doth our Iustification But for the more distinct understanding of our mind concerning our Iustification before GOD. I thus define it IUSTIFICATION is an Act of GOD whereby He doth acquite absolve and discharge us of sins past and doth own and acknowledge us upon our Repentance and Conversion unto Him as righteous and as having right unto Eternall-life with a respect unto IESUS CHRIST not only in whaâ— He hath done and suffered for us without us but as really and truely indwelling in us and really and truely making us righteous In this definition two things are considerable First as it is an act of GOD. Secondly as in relation to its object the one is Iustification formally considered the other is it objectively considered or as it may be called objective Iustification Now iâ— this whole definition of Iustification I shall show how indeed I. M. and his Brethren are much more A-KIN to the Papists then we the people called Qâ—â—kers First whereas we affirm that this act of GOD is a reall inward act in us whereby the Lord doth by an inward declaration and testimony inwardly and immediatly revealed in us both forgive us our sins and acknowledge us to be righteous and as having a right to Eternal life This definition of Iustification in relation to the act of GOD is denyed and opposed both by Papists and also by I. M. and his Brethren as being Enthusiasm whereof they are most unwilling in any terms to be thought guiltie Secondly in relation to the object I say we are the object of Iustification not only as having our sins pardoned for CHRISTS-Sake but as being righteous in the sight of GOD through CHRIST indwelling in us
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
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
and the contrary repugnant thereunto Before I pass from this Sixt Instance or Head of Popish doctrin I cannot omitt to take notice how handsomely or rather unhandsomely I. M. in his Roma Mendax goeth about to evade that charge of Novelty concerning free-will imputed unto him and these of his way the Papist chargeth him as denying free-will since the fall of Adam he answereth he and they of his way doe not deny free-will But this answere of I. M. is a faint evasion the charge as to the intent of it is whether there be in all men in the fall a free-will to convert and turn unto GOD by any grace given by GOD. If the Papist did not so word his charge I. M. hath taken the advantage of his failure and oversight but I would willingly know what I. M. doth or will answere to this charge That he and his Brethren doe indeed deny any free-will in any unconverted Men by any Grace of GOD given them to convert and turn to GOD this I charge upon I. M. and his Brethren as a novelty repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity in the purest times that he affirmeth men have free-will to evil in a naturall state doth no way bring him of For the question is not whether there be in man a free-will to evil but unto good whereby it is possible for him to convert by any grace of GOD given him Like unto this is his other evasion about merit he is brought to confess that some of the Fathers in the three first Centuries did use the word merit but in an innocent sense Very well then why may not some Others use it in ane innocent sense also Why doth he accuse the People called Quakers for using the word merit seeing he saith himself that it hath ane innocent sense and also that the Protestant Churches have not abhored from or rejected the word merit where can he prove our of the Quakers books that either they hold merit of good works ratione operis or ratione operis pacti as having a meritorious condignity in them unto Eternall life as many of the Papists teach When he accuseth the Quakers for holding that good works are meriterious may I not justly say unto him as he sayeth unto the Papist pag. 290. Ought he not to have told what he meant by merit of good works I shall conclude this Head with a just and equall retorsion of this very matter of free-will upon I. M. and his brethren who confess that a famous party of the Popish Church doth oppose the doctrin of free-will in all men unto good and these are Dominicans Thomists and Ianseâ—ists pag. 289. Well then and doth not I. M. oppose the same so that if one sort of Papists to witt the Iesuits seem to aggree with us in the matter of free-will although I could easily show very materiall differences betwixt them and us in this very particular Here are three great sorts or tribes of Papists who doe really agree with I. M. and he with them in the contrary doctrin SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined THe Seventh Instance of Popish doctrin charged on the Quakers is that reall Saints may totally apostatize To this I answere if by reall Saints he meaneth those who are come to a confirmed state and condition in holines so as to have obtained the Election and are the Elect of God in the strict sense I say none of these can totaly fall away or Apostatize and that this state is attainable in time and is attained unto by many we doe affirme and if Papists deny any such state as attainable in this life we oppose them but if he mean that men may fall away from some true and reall beginnings of Sanctification who as yet are not come to the state of the Elect in Christ Iesus in the Fore-knowledge of GOD before the World began this is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is a truth conform both to the Scripturs Testimony and the Fathers so called as also unto the most famous of Protestant Writters The Augustan Confession set out by as famous Protestants as any he can name doth expresly condemn it as an Anabaptist error that they who are once justified cannot lose the Holy Spirit And Melancton in many places in his loc com doth affirm That men may commit such gross sins as whereby they may expell the Holy Spirit after having once received him Augustin sayeth expresly lib. de correctione gratia That some love God and yet doe not persevere in that Good unto the end And in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 8. he saith of two that are holy why perseverance is given to the one and is not given to the other the judgments of GOD are the more insâ—rutable Prosper ad septimam sayeth That of the regenerat in CHRIST IESUS some having left the Faith and holy manners doe apostatize from GOD. Cyprian Epistola ad Gratianum The disciplin departing the Grace of the LORD departed also Many other testimonies could be cited for the same but that I intend brevity at present SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling Concupiscence is considered and answered THe Eight and Last Instance of Popish doctrin charged on us is that indwelling concupiscence is not our sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof To this I answere that this principle as he doth represent it I know not that it is owned by any Quaker We doe indeed say that the seed of sin is not imputed unto them for sin who doe not obey it nor consent unto it even as the seed of Grace and righteousness that is in wicked men is not imputed unto them for righteousness because they doe not obey it but if this seed of concupiscence indwell in any it becometh sin unto them seeing it is impossible but they who give it a dwelling in them must also give obedience unto it but it may be in them in whom it doth not indwell for indwelling signifieth Union and kindly reception Cassander doth show that Augustin openly sayeth Aug. exp ad Gal. That concupiscence in the Regenerat is not sin when not consented unto which yet elsewhere he calleth 〈◊〉 And that the controversie in this particular is rather about Name then thing Consult super Articulum secundum It is certain that the Regenerat may and doe find at times a temptation in the flesh or fleshly part unto that which is evil which temptation or inclination or however it be called is an evil thing and inclineth to evil yea to sin and in that respect by a metonymie may be called sin it self but that it maketh the soul guilty of death without its own consent is no where to be found in Scripture It is said The soul that sinneth it shall die Ezek. 18.4 Now to sin importeth a consent of the will which being wanting both in the Regenerat and also
mistake without any reflexion upon his Relâ—gion As to his Instance of Prophetesses among the Papists such as Hildegardis Katherin of Sens and Briget whom he compareth unto the WOMEN PREACHERS among the Quakers The comparison is unequall seeing prophecying in that sense and preaching are two distinct things we hear nothing of those Prophetesses preaching in religious assemblies of Men and Women and seeing the Protestants commonly acknowledge that GOD may in in those dayes give unto men the knowledg of things to come by a Spirit of prophecy as he hath done unto some how is I. M. sure that it shall never be given unto Women for they may be Prophetesses by giving forth their prophecies in writt although they speak nothing in the Church As for Hildegardis She is acknowledged both by Fox in his acts and mon and by Brightman in his commentary on the Revelation to have been a Prophetesse whose prophecy is brought in by them both as a witness against the Papists especially the begging Fryars As for Papists allowing Women to baptise it concerns us nothing who look upon SPRINKLINâ— of INFANTS whether by men or women but â—s anâ— human tradition And as to Papesse Ioan seeing I. M. by his own confession derives his call through Rome he is one of her Lineall Succesors through whom it is conveyed to him But have not there been Women among the Presbyterians who have spoke in the presence of many both men and women of their experiences of the things of GOD. I suppose I. M. may have heard of Margaret Mitchelson who spoke to the admiration of many Hearers at Edenburgh as concerning her experience in the time of Henry Rogue Preacher there who is said to have come and heard her himself and to have given her this testimony being desired to speak himself that he was to be silent when his Master was speaking meaning Christ in that Presbyterian woman There is a relation of her speaches going about from hand to hand among Professors at this day and I my self have heard a Presbyterian woman speak in a meeting of Presbyterians which were a Church or convention of men and women Yet hath not I. M. in such meetings and consequently in assemblies of Churches invited some women to speak and pray and declared solemnly whether he did it meerly in his ordinary customary way of Complementing that is best known to himself that he was edified thereby And if some of those Women formerly in that respect so much applauded by I.M. be of those that now open their mouths in the Quakers meetings how comes it now to be Popish and hereticall more then in the dayes of old when I. M. did use to frequent the CHAMBER-CONVENTICLES unless that he now hath forgotten these because fear hath made them out of fashion with him Besides that Whores to this day upon the Stool of Repentance so called speak in your publick assemblies And whereas it is Objected by Some That their Church doth not allow unto Whores Authoritative-teaching To this I answere First that at least they permit them to speak in the Church and so by their own principle they transgress the words of the Apostle saying It is not permitted unto them to speak 1. Cor. 14.34 And again I permit not a Woman to teach 1. Tim. 2.12 Secondly doe not they command and call them to speak and therefore is not their call to speak or teach as much authoritative from the Preachers as the Preachers call is from the Pope seeing none of them pretend to the true authority of the inward call of GOD which is by IMMEDIAT REVELATION Next he falleth upon Enthusiasm asking what other grounds hath the Romish Infallible Iudge to walk upon but Enthusiasms and pretended Inspirations I answere yet he hath another ground which the Popish Doctors much more commonly alleadge then any Enthusiasm and that is an effective assistance of the Holy Ghost which is not any objective immediat revelation but a subjective illumination and this is also the very ground why a Presbyterian who esteems himself a true Christian thinks he can not erre fundamentally in a point of faith to wit a blind unknown assistance of the Spirit pretended both by Pope and Presbyterians without immediat objective revelation I say a blind unknown assistance because by confession of both parties it is meerly effective and not objective and so Medium incognitum assentiendi an unknown midst of assenting as R. Barron did call it And whence have either Prelaticall or Presbyterian Professors borrowed this deceitfull and Antichristian-distinction of an effective illumination of the Spirit of GOD as contradistinct from an objective yea seperated from it But from the Popish Doctors Sacroboscus â— Popish Doctor useth the same distinction of subjective and objective assistance def decret Trident. pag 93. and 94. cited by Iackson third book of comment on the Creed And this I may more justly charge upon I. M. and his Brethren that they have learned this deceitfull distinction of effective and objective illumination from Papists then that wherewith he chargeth us as having learned from Romanists to call the Scripturs a dead Letter pag. 71. For we do no otherwise call or esteem the Scripture a dead letter but as it is not accompanied with an administration of the Spirit and in this sense Famous Protestants have affirmed the same as both O Ecolampadius and Calvin yea and Iohn Owen in the very same boâ—k of the divine authority of the Scripturs doth positively assert the same that the Scripture is a dead letter where it is not accompanied with an administration of the Spirit giving an instance in the unbelieving Iewes which holdeth no less in unbelievers professing Christianity Next whereas he alleadgeth that the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches I answere if it were so this is but an evasion as to that Instance of affinity that the Quakers have with Papists seeing in this the Quakers rather agree with the Puritans both whose principle it is that it is lawfull for Persons to carry on a Reformation without any publick consent or allowance of those in outward authority which sort of Reformation the Author of Scolding no Scholarship calleth Reformation by a privat spirit though what is done by the Spirit of GOD in privat men is by a publick and universall spirit such as the Spirit of GOD is nor doth it answere it that he calleth the Reformation among the Quakers a Deformation for besides that he but beggs the question in that he cannot but know that the Papist doth as much think either the Episcopall or Presbyterian Reformation a Deformation as these think that ours is such Again seeing the doing one and the same thing on different accounts may be good in the one and bad in the other according to his rule above mentioned the Papists designe and ours as in relation to those he calls Reformed Churches beeing as farr different as North from South makes the difference to
be so wide seeing what they doe against you is to bring you back again to the grossest part of Popery what we doe is but to move you foreward that you may leave behind and throw away those too many and hurtfull relicts of Popish principles and practises which hinder you from being a truely Reformed Church that so you may be indeed a Reformed Church and People unto GOD. And so farr as the Reformed Churches so called have forsaken any Popish principles and practises whatsomever in that we allow them and have unity with all the sincere and upright in heart among them which are but a very few in respect of the great multitudes of profane and scandolous Persons nor is it any thing of the Work of GOD that he hath wrought in any whether among Papists or Protestants so called that we seek to break down but indeed to cherish it and build it up But it is the work of the Enemie that our testimony is against and for the breaking of it down where ever it appears both in our selves and in others Finally whereas he saith that we Romanise in denying the Scripturs to be the compleat and principall Rule of Faith I have so sufficiently answered it above that I need say no more here Only for a testimony of our agreement with true Protestants against all Popish superstitions and traditions whatsomever this I affirm that whatever principle or practice in Religion is obtruded by Papists or any other upon the account of tradition that is not to be found declared and witnessed to in the Scripturs or can not by sound evidence of true reason be deduced from the Scripturs is to be rejected utterly and denyed by every true Christian which principle as it is verbaly owned by many Protestants I wish it were as realy practised among them and then it should be known how cordialy and realy we should joyn with them in all things against the common Enemie of true Reformation And as to his charity or rather indeed the defect of it wherewith he concludes this matter in expressing himself jealous that both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World As it relates to us I shall only wish that the LORD may forgive him his hard thoughts conceived against us without any just ground and shall be so farr from thinking so of him or any of his Bâ—ethren that they could wish there were no Scripture that I really believe they are glade that it is in the World For either they have a measure of sincerity and who have this will love the Scripture upon this good principle or they have not as indeed too many of them as I suppose by I. M. his own concession are of that stamp who are but mercenary and covetous men even whose GOD is their belly and mind Earthly things and yet these are glade to have the Scripturs not to conform their lives unto them but to make a trade of them Cauponantes Verbum Dei Making merchandise of the Word of GOD as the Apostle declareth 2. Cor. 2.17 SECT XI Wherein I. M. his acknowledgment concerning the Ministeriall Succession through the Church of Rome is briefly considered and the Imputation of Popery in that respect justly retorted upon him MAny other things I could have observed in his book that might have been of service to us for our Vindication and an occasion further to clear the Truth but we not being so particularly concerned in them I have purposely forborn intending briefness also his frequent naming of us and classing us with Romanists Papists Iesuits c. with his many bitter expressions and insinuations I have waved it being chiefly before me to answere directly to thâ—se particular charges above mentioned Only in the Close I cannot ommit one thing and that is his opnely and professedly avowing that Ordination conâ—erted by Antichristian Ministers such as the Bishops and Popes of Rome even supposing them to be the Great Antichrist may be and is valid and that the Ordination of the first Reformers was such To this I have some things to say First If the Pope of Rome his Ordination and Calâ— be valid which he conferreth and that the Protestants have no other but what was at first received from him and them to wit Popish Bishops then it may easily appear whether they or we be most a-kin to the Pope they owning expresly his authority seeing none can conferr Ordination but who hath authority so to doe we expresly and altogether rejecting and denying it as meer usurpation surely I. M. and his Brethren may henceforth be ashamed to call us the Popes Emissaries seeing we never directly â—or indirectly owned him or his call and yet so in the face of the World to print himself and his Brethren to be indeed the Popes Emissaries for Emissarie is one sent by the Pope as he confesseth his Ordination Call or sending to be seeing his is derived by them who had it first from the Pope And if an Emissarie of the Pope he is also an Emissarie of Papesse Ioan who is in the line of Papall succession by I. M. his confession Secondly it is a very strange thing how a Minister of Antichrist yea how he who is Antichrist himself the Great Antichrist as I. M. admitteth the supposition can make or ordain a true and lawfull Minister of Christ. If I. M. can show us any where in Scripture that Christ conferred this power to Antichrist we shall confess him to be a Minister of Christ but till then he must excuse us to hold him as in that respect at least a Minister of Antichrist But I. M. seems to come of with a distinction he gives pag. 379. not in so farr as Antichristian saith he but as retaining some of Christs Goods this distinction I fear will be found too Metaphysicall and fitter for men who have Philosophicall Consciences who can defend any thing by a distinction then men of plainness and simplicity but I ask I. M. how or in what relation doth the Pope hold some of Christ his Goods whether as Christian or Antichristian if as Antichristian the distinction destroyeth it self in making the members of the distinction to coincide as to say the Pope not as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods and yet as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods this were to make two contradictory propositions both true together which is absurd But if he say that the Pope as Christian holdeth some of Christs Goods then it followeth that he is both Christian and Antichristian together which is indeed as reall an impossibility as for one and the same man to be both a man and a beast in a strict and proper sence seeing Christian and Antichristian differ really as much as man and beast especially in the sense acknowledged that the Pope is so Antichristian that he is in the Abstract the Great Antichrist himself for to say that he who is in the least measure a true Christian