QUAKERISM No Popery, OR, A Particular Answer to that Part of JOHN MENZEIS, Professor of Divinity in ABERDEEN, (as he is called) his Book, Entitled Roma Mendax; Wherein the People called QUAKERS are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many Popish Doctrines, and as if QUAKERISM, (so he Nicknames our Religion,) were but Popery-disguised.  
In which Treatise his alleged grounds for this his Assertion, are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted: And also his Accusation of POPERY against us, justly retorted upon Himself, and his brethren.  Rom. 2.1, 3. 
Therefore Thou art Inexcusable O Man, whosoever thou art that judgest, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, dost the same things, etc.  
By GEORGE KEITH.  
Printed in the Year, 1675▪   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Friendly Reader,  
AMong the many Calumnies wherewith those that have opposed this appearance of Truth, have endeavoured to aspress it, and render it Odious to the People; that Imputation of Popery hath been as frequent and constant as ●ny other, almost always in the mouths and hands of such as have spoken and write against us. So that I hardly remember I ever saw a book, amongst those many hath been written by our Opposers; which had not some reflection of this kind in it▪ This might perhaps have some weight with easy and simple people, who understand not how frequent it is for persons of different persuasions, even among those called Christians, to use such sinistrous means to weaken one another▪ a crime so much the more to be regretted, that it is contrary to that truth, which all lay claim to: it is not unknown to those that are acquainted with the history of the Protestant-reformation; how it was a common practice among those that opposed Luther 
* as in Pope Adrian his Ambassador's speech ●o the Princes of Germany Sl●id. lib. 4. Ibid in the Emperor's letters to the Princes from Spain also book 13 in Cardinal Farnesius Nephew and Legate for Pope Paul the third, his speech to the Emperor Charles the fifth,  and the Protestants, to compare him and them to Mahomet, and the Turks; because that as the Turks opposed the Pope, so did the Protestants. And yet it is for this same reason our Adversaries brand us with Popery, which can no more conclude us Papists, than the former did the Protestants Turks. But after the Protestants became divided among themselves, and that the suspicion of Popery was a ground to render them odious to their respective people, they have all of them branded each other with this crime, and compared each other with Papists. As first the Lutherans have and do compared the Calvinist● with Papists and jesuits, as in many other of their writings may be seen in Lucas Osiander his Epistle to the last part of his Ecclesiastic History, where he classes the jesuits and Calvinists as equal enemies to the Church. Yea and because all the Calvinists were no● so rigid in the matter of Justification as excluding all good works from being necessary thereunto, the Lutherans have often branded them with Popery. So that ●o● Himmelius a Lutheran Divine upon this account wrote a book, which he called GALVINO-PAPISMUS. On the ●●her hand the Calvinists have often accused the Lutherans of Popery, for their keeping up of Images▪ and many other ceremonies. How much the Calvinian presbyters do brand the Prelatic par●● with Popery, few in this Nation are ignorant of, but especially those that are of age to remember that PULPIT PROVERB, which for the frequency of its use, might have passed for a piece of the PRESBYTERIAN-DIRECTORY, (to wit) that expression which they used both in their Prayers and Invectives against the Bishops, terming them and their followers, the POPISH PRELATIC MALIGNANT PARTY. And indeed in those day●●, P●pery and prelacy were still classed together, as being TWINS of ONE MOTHER, and both LIMBS of ANTICHRIST. And I suppose such as frequent the Conventicles can bear witness that this dialect is not yet out of use among the Presbyterian Preachers. On the other part the Episcopalians do not scruple often to compare Popery with Presbytery, and do look that the Pope and the Presybter are very near of kin in their presences over the Magistrate, and those who are in authority, in their method of handling them, where they can compass it: So that Bishop Spotswood in his Church History lib 7, pag 457. says that at the conference of Hampton court, Doctor Buckrige Bishop of Rochester preaching upon Rome 1●. 1. Let every soul be subject &c did sound and learnedly handle the matter to the satisfaction of all: only it grieved the Scots Ministers to hear the Pope and Presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to Sovereign Princes. Yea many Episcopalians do not scruple to affirm that the COVENANT Which passeth for the SACRED OATH of GOD in the presbyterian account was a JESUITISH INVENTION made and contrived abroad among papists to create troubles and distractions at home and to defame the protestant Churches. But to proceed, the Sectarian Congregations of Independency and Anabaptism had no sooner stepped aside from their presbyterian brethren, and begun to set up for Themselves; but the presbyters begin to deter their prosel●ts from them with the old imputation of popery, alleging that such separations was a draught of Popish Policy to defame the glorious fabric of Presbytry. Such as have read the gangrene or history of Independency writ by a Zealous presbyter will find enough of this sort of stuff. For the gifted (but Vnordained) Preaching brethren among Independents and Anabaptists were alleged many of them to be jesuits, and Monks metamorphosed into the shapes and appearance of Soldiers and Tradse men to do mischief the more securely. In one of the first books printed against the people called QUAKERS by a presbyterian priest near Bristol, lie affirmeth that the Pope sondeth forth his Emissaries to preach in England not only under the shape of QUAKERS; but also of Independents and Anabaptists. But the Independents have not been far behind with the presbyters in this matter, and therefore have very often compared Presbytry and Papacy. Peter Sterry a noted man among them preached a Sermon before the chiefest in authority at that day; which Sermon being Printed, he intitules it England's deliverance from Northern Presbytry, Compared with its deliverance from Roman Papacy. In which Sermon, He often classes together the Pope and the Presbyter and proves them One in several particulars. And john Owen a man though pretty sparing towards his Presbyterian Brethren, doth nevertheless not spare to affirm in his answer to Doctor Cawdrey, That since their Ministry is derived through Rome, it must needs be a Romish Ministry. How much the Anabaptists accuse the Rest of Popery for their retaining the SPRINKLING of INFANTS, and S●T SINGING of PSALMS, is not unknown. Thus READER thou may see this calumny is not New; but an OLD THREADBARE Argument, wherewith each of these sects have been long beating one another, and therefore no wonder if they also throw it upon us, but with how little reason, this small Treatise will inform thee, where the Imputations of Popery cast upon us are fairly and modestly examined, and justly and rationaly retorted upon the Accuser. Also that the subjects treated of, might not be too sterile and jejunt, and so disgust thee; if they had been only simply vindicated; from Popery and barely retorted. The Author hath for thy further satisfaction found freedom to open our sense and judgement briefly in the several particulars here handled, manifesting not only the falseness of the Accusers calumnies, in evidencing that we differ widely from Papists in these paerticulars; but also showing how Our Belief of them is agreeable to the Scriptures, to the purest antiquity and to the judgement of many of the most famous primitive Protestants. So that the Author of this treatise hath well observed john Monzeis his affinity and dependency upon Popery, in that he acknowledgeth his Mission and Ministry to be derived to him by Popish Succession, and so is by his own concession a BASTARD of that PAPAL-WHORE the Church of Rome, whom he terms Rom● Mend●x, and as it is usual for the offspring to resemble its progenitor and according to our country proverb, Hard for to take out of the Flesh what is bred in the Bone. The Impartial Reader will observe by seriously Reading this Treatise that I. M. as by his own confession he deduces his Ministry from ROMA MENDAX i. e. LYING ROME; so also he inherits through her as a part of her goods, that property of LYING, so that it may be truly said MENDAX MENESIVS ROMAE MENDACIS FILIOLUS. For one may know him to be a ROMISH-BROOD, he is so like Her in this faculty though he had not been so ingenuous as to acknowledge it.  
Be it also known unto the READER that we are necessitat to this Controversy being drawn thereunto through the implacable malice of Our Opposers; for I. M. in his contensions with the jesuit, would needs concern us by often reflecting upon us who otherways were not meddling in these matters. Also we have several papers by us, vindicating us and our Testimony not only from Popery, but divers other calumnies unjustly laid upon us by the PREACHERS of ABERDEEN, which we have forborn, and yet do forbear to publish. Because for several years we have been threatened with a full confutation of all our principles from GEORGE MELDRUM his Colleague, as he himself and some of his brethren have told us: yea we are informed that the BISHOP and SYNOD of ABERDEEN hath particularly recommended that work unto him▪ and now we are the more confirmed in that expectation, that I. M. in his foresaid book page, 88, shuns (as he saith) to refute the Quaker whimsies, because he hopeth that ere long it shall be accurately done by the pen of a learned and judicious person in this place, to wit ABERDEEN. Thou must needs judge READER, this is a MIGHTY WORK in the men's own esteem, that needs such PREAMBLS to go before it; and though the waiting for it might have also in reason excused us from I. M, his passing Flings; yet we did judge it our Concern for the TRUTH'S SAKE to entertain thee in the Interim, (until that GREATER VOLUME appear;) with this small treatise, which (if seriously and Impartialy considered,) will no● a little contribute to let thee understand how much we are abused; Which that thou may rightly observe, and by observing truly improve to thy souls advantage is the earnest desire of thy Wellwisher,  
ROBERT BARCLAY.   

THE CONTENTS.  
SECTION I. Containing the Introduction, and Occasion of this Treatise. 
Page, 1.  SECT. II. Concerning our alleged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures, where also some things are opened concereing the Rule of Faith, and Immediate Revelation. 
p. 5.  SECT. III. Where the alleged agreement about Perfection is considered, and examined. 
p. 34.  SECT. IV. Where the alleged agreement about justification, is considered and examined, 
p. 42.  SECT. V. Where the alleged agreement about Goodworks, is considered and examined. 
p. 55.  SECT. VI Concerning the Apocryphal Books, 
58.  SECT. VII. Where the alleged agreement, as if the Efficacy of Grace, depended upon Man's freewill, is considered and answered. 
p. 65.  SECT. VIII. Where the alleged Agreement about the Apostasy of the Saints, is considered and examined. 
p. 73.  SECT. IX. Where the alleged Agreement about Indwelling-Concupiscence is considered and answered. 
p. 75.  SECT. X. Where several other alleged lesser agreements in point of Practice, and divers other Calumnies of that kind, are considered and examined. 
p. 78  SECT. XI. Wherein I. M. his acknowledgement concerning the Ministerial Succession through the Church of Rome is briefly considered, and the Imputation of Popery in that respect, justly retorted upon him. 
p. 88  SECT. XII. Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us, and how much more truly it agreeth in our Opposers, is evindenced by a short Account of many weighty particulars, wherein they agree with Romanists against us. 
p. 96.  SECT. XIII. Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue; wherein the whole 〈◊〉 briefly resumed, and the falseness of the Accusation▪ as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the View of the Serious and 〈◊〉 Reader. 
p. 102.    

Quakerism no Popery.  

SECTION I. Containing the Introduction, and Occasion of this Treatise.  
THe Occasion of this Treatise, is a late book of john Menzies (Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen as he is called) published, wherein, as in very many other places of his book, he doth accuse Us, classing Us with Papists and jesuits, so particularly page 20 21 22, The Author of Scolding no Scholarship▪ blames john Menzies as not having candour for saying, that Quakerism is but Popery disguised, He answers, But there is less candour in the accuser for I only said if it were otherwise learned and judicious men were mistaken. His frivolous Apologies are like to confirm these men in their opinion. For many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines. To this I say, if He have no better argument that Quakerism is but Popery disguised, than the bare affirmation of learned and judicious men, His alleadgeance is weak, unless He thinks, or can prove, that His learned and judicious men, are infallible, and cannot be mistaken, which I know he is so far from, that it is a great crime in his esteem for any men however so learned and judicious, to pretend to any such thing. Now whereas he allegeth as a ground of his former insinuation that many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines, in order to the more clear and distinct examination of this his assertion, let us consider what a Popish doctrine is. First, every doctrine affirmed in words by the Papists is not a Popish doctrine, otherwise, that there is one only God, that Christ died for sinners, and rose again, and in a word, all the Articles of the Apostolick-Creed should be Popish doctrines, because in words affirmed by Papists. A popish doctrine than is A Doctrine taught and believed commonly by Papists repugnant unto or contradicting the testimony of the Scriptures either expressly, or by just and necessary consequence of sound reason. This definition of a Popish doctrine, is so fair and just, that as I suppose no Protestant will disown it, nay not john 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 john 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 principal and complete Rule of Faith.  
Secondly, That a sinless perfection is attainable in time.  
Thirdly, That Men are justified by a righteousness wrought within them.  
Fourthly, That good works are meritorious.  
Fifthly, That Apocryphal books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures.  
Sixthly, That the efficacy of Grace depends on man's freewill.  
Seventhly, That real Saints may totally Apostatise.  
Eightly, That indwelling Concupiscence▪ is not our own sin, until we consent to the lusts thereof.   
Before I descend to a particular examination of these eight instances, I premise this general consideration, viz. That if we should acknowledge that these eight instances, as worded and laid down by john Menzies, were held by all Papists, and Quakers so called, which yet is false (as afterwards I intent 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 doctrine formerly laid down. Now this john 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 alleged. Another general consideration I shall propose and that grounded upon an express affirmation of john Menzies himself positively laid down by him pag. 162. The same sentiment (saith he) held upon different accounts may be heretical in the one, and not in the other. Very well, if then I do show, that in those alleged instances or any others he can allege, wherein we seem to agree with Papists, they and we hold them upon different accounts, it doth manifestly follow, from john Menzies his own mouth, that those sentiments or doctrines may be heretical and Popish in Papists, and not in us called Quakers. This advantage that I have against▪ him, out of his own mouth, I intent to lay up, until I come to the particulars, and then to make a suitable application of it.   

SECT. II. Concerning our alleged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures▪ where also some things are opened concerning the rule of Faith, and immediate Revelation.  
THe first Popish doctrine that john Menzies chargeth us with, is, That the Scriptures are not the principal and complete rule of Faith This article hath two branches, 1▪ That the Scriptures are not the principal rule of Faith. 2, That they are not the complete rule of Faith. As to the first, that the Scriptures are not the principal rule of Faith, I know not that any Papists say so, he ought to have given us his proof out of their writings, nor will it suffice that he bring the testimony of some private Doctors among the Papists for a proof, seeing john Menzies denyeth▪ pag. 452. That the testimony of some private Doctors among the Protestants is a sufficient proof 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 Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith, touching these things revealed or declared particularly and expressly in them as witness Bellarmin oft cited by john Menzies himself, lib. 1. cap. 2. De verbo Dei: who sayeth expressly, That the Scripture is a most certain and sure rule, withal 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 principal rule of Faith.  
I find john Menzies citing Bellarmin against the Papist, in his book Roma Mendax, pag. 116 Doth not (saith john Menzies) Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 1. Charge Gaspar, Swenkfeldius, and the Libertines, as declining the Scriptures, and only flying to the inward dictates of the Spirit? By this it appeareth manifestly from I. M. own mouth, that Bellarmin is not guilty of declining the Scriptures to be the principal rule, or of setting up the dictates of the Spirit, seeing He chargeth it as a heinous crime against Swenkfeldius. Now I appeal to all sober and impartial Readers, whether john Menzies and Bellarmin the Papist, and jesuit, whom some call the Popish Champion be not more a kin to one another in this very particular, than the Quakers and the said Bellarmin are. Doth not I M. say that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith, and Bellarmin saith, they are the most certain and sure rule, and consequently the principal? Again doth not I M. blame them who prefer the inward dictates 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 egg is not liker another than the reproachful speeches of both Papists, and john Menzies with his brethren are, against the dictates 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 principal rule of Faith to, and in every believer, and so doth I. M. and his brethren, wherein they manifestly agree with Papists against ●s the people called in de●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 principal 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 principal rule, on a different account from us, (they preferring the testimony of the Church thereunto, we preferring the Spirit of GOD sealing and confirming in our hearts the truth of what we outwardly read in the Scriptures.) according to I. M. his own rule above mentioned, that may be a Heresy in them, and not in us. But as I have already said, I know not any Papists who say That the Scripture is not the principal rule of Faith, I know they say commonly It is not the formal object of Faith, but I. M. is not ignorant how they distinguish betwixt the Rule of Faith, and the Formal object of Faith, how truly they do so, we are not concerned. But that this assertion (to wit) that the Spirit witnessing the truth in the hearts of Believers, is greater, than the outward testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, and consequently the principal rule, is so far from being repugnant unto the Scripture, that it is in express terms, asserted in the Scripture, 1. john 5.8.9.10. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself etc. And surely it is most agreeable to sound reason, that what the Spirit of GOD witnesseth or dictateth in the heart of a Believer, hath more evidence and force to convince, than the outward testimony of the Scripture, seeing it is more immediate, for although the outward testimony of the Scripture may be called a testimony of the Spirit, yet it is not so immediate as what the Spirit speaketh in the heart; nor secondly, hath it so powerful an operation upon the Conscience or Spirit of a man, a● the inward testimony of the Spirit hath. I need go no further to prove this, than the experience of all those who ever knew any inward touches, or working of the Spirit upon their hearts, such will declare, that what the Spirit speaketh home to their hearts, by his secret touches and motions, hath fare more abundant power to convince, than the outward testimony of the Scripture. Yea notwithstanding of the outward testimony, how many have been in great doubt, whether the things declared in Scripture are true, as whether there be an eternal reward for the righteous, whether the Lord doth regard the righteous more than the wicked, and such like truths. But when the Spirit hath spoke home those truths to their hearts, they could no more question them, they were so clear, as nothing could be more. Yea, was not the Psalmist greatly tempted in his mind with doubting, If the Lord had a favour to the righteous, Psal. 73.? What cleared him of this doubt, and raised up his mind over this temptation? Was it the outward testimony of the Scripture? (so much as was then writ of it) He had this before, and yet he was troubled, but when he went into the Sanctuary, than he was cleared; not as if the outward Sanctuary or Temple had this virtue in it, but that the Lord appeared unto him while he was there. And if there was any outward testimony given there, the Lord did second it, with the inward testimony of his Spirit, and this was it that cleared him, as the words following import, verse 26. My flesh and my heart faileth, but GOD is the rock of my heart, (So the margin according to the Hebrew.) Here the rock of his heart was GOD, (to wit) revealing himself and his truth in him: and this was the rock and foundation of his Faith, therefore he concludeth in a most sweet strain, It is good for me to draw near to GOD, and then he adds, I have put my trust in the Lord God, importing, that since he drawn near to the Lord, or since the Lord drawn near to him, (as the words may be as well translated) he was enabled to believe, and nor otherwise. Moreover the Sanctuary mentioned by him in the place above cited, may in a spiritual sense well be understood to be that holy principle put by GOD into his heart, which is indeed the true sanctuary signified by the outward, wherein GOD appeareth, and speaketh unto men in their hearts. Therefore said the Psalmist, I will hear what God the Lord will speak in me, Psal. 85.8. So the Septuagint as it were Paraphrastically, and that this was the common privilege of all the people of God in that day, see Psal. 50.7. Hear O my people, and I will speak, O Israel, and I will testify in thee, So the words according to the Hebrew; yea, and this is the very tenor of the new covenant, that all his people shall be taught of God Himself, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which import a real distinct teaching of God over, beyond and above all outward teaching by the ministry of men: I say a real distinct teaching, which I prove thus,  
If men may be outwardly taught by the Scriptures, and want this teaching of God here mentioned in the Promise, than the one is distinct from the other, Bu● the first is true, therefore the second.  
The connexion of the first proposition in manifest from that maxim, Quorum unum potest ab alto separari, illa realiter distingu●tur: when one thing can be separated from the other, these two are really distinct. The second proposition is clear from I. M. his own principles, viz. that they may be outwardly taught by the Scripture, and want the teaching promised in the new covenant, because such a teaching is only given unto the elect by hi● principle, and I do confess the Elect are in a special way taught of God, beyond what others are: Now to proceed, If this teaching of God be a real distinct teaching from all outward teaching by the Scripture, than I argue, It is the greater, and more excellent from I. M. his own principle. My Argument is this,  
That which is given as a special distinguishing privilege and mercy unto the people of God, is a greater and more excellent thing, then that which is given indifferently both unto them and others (to wit) the wicked: But this inward teaching of God is given as a special distinguishing privilege, etc. Therefore it is a greater and more excellent thing.  
Again I prove it thus,  
That which a man having it doth him most good, that is the greatest and most excellent thing, But this teaching of God by the Spirit promised in the new covenant, a man having it, doth him most good, Therefore, etc.  
The second Proposition is clear, for to be taught of God inwardly by the secret operation of his Spirit, doth a man more good, then merely to be taught by the outward testimony of the Scripture.  
Now if it be replied, that the inward teaching of the Spirit is granted to be a more great and excellent thing, than the outward testimony of the Scripture, and yet it be denied, that it is the greater and more excellent rule, As for example, Gold is a more excellent thing than Iron, yet it is not so serviceable to be a Knife or Sword, as Iron is. To this I answer, That the inward teaching, dictate, or word of the Spirit as it is a more excellent thing, than the outward testimony of the Scripture, so is it a more excellent Rule, because any aptitutde or fitness that the outward testimony hath to be a rule, the inward hath it more. Yea, the inward was a rule before the outward was, and is a rule at this day, as I. M. must needs confess, unto those who are deaff, that belong to the number of the Elect, who can not make use of the outward. Again, why is the Scripture fit to be a Rule, but because it is of a divine original, is divinely inspired, hath somewhat in it that cannot be expressed, that doth convince that it is of God, but all this aggregeth more immediately to the inward teaching, dictate and word of the Spirit in the heart. For it is most absurd, to say, or think, that what God speaketh to us more mediately and remotely in the Scriptures, hath a greater self-evidence, than what he speaketh immediately and most nearly to us in our hearts, as who would say, what another hath reported unto me, that I. M. had said so or so, i● more evident unto me, that he hath so said, than what he hath told me himself out of his own mouth: Yea, why doth I. M. allege that the Scripture hath a self evidencing authority in it, but because it is the word of God. Hence I thus argue.  
Whatever is the word of God, hath a self-evidencing authority, But the inward dictates of the Spirit in the heart of Believers are the word of God, Therefore.  
I prove the second Proposition.  
That which God speaketh is the word of God, But the inward dictates of the Spirit is that which God speaketh, Therefore.  
I see no way how I. M. can evade those arguments but by denying, that properly and really God doth speak in the hearts of Believers, and indeed this is conform unto their usual doctrine, that the illumination of the Spirit of God in the heart of Believers is not objective, but merely subjective, and effective. The contrary whereof I have proved at large in my book of IMMEDIATE REVELATION, To which I refer the Reader: Only at present I shall say this,  
That if God doth not objectively illuminat and irradiat the souls of Believers, and doth not inwardly speak in their hearts by his Spirit, (and that this be their Faith) it is but a sort of deceiving the people, when at times they themselves use these words both in preaching and praying as holding forth the necessity of God his speaking inwardly to the heart by his Spirit, for if the effective operation of God, as it is denied to be objective, may be called the speaking of God, than it may be as much said that God speaketh to a Tree, or a Horse, &c▪ when he worketh in them 28 an efficient cause, by way of concurrence to help them in the operations proper to, their natures, as he doth unto the hearts of Believers, at least when he acteth in them, (to wit in the unreasonable creatures) in a supernatural way, as when he said to the earth, on the third day of the creation, let the earth bring forth grass, or when he spoke to the great fish, to vomit out jonah. Certainly in both these there was a supernatural influence, or operation of God, yet is it not absurd to say, that God speaketh no more intelligibly or perceptibly in an immediate way unto the souls of his own Children, his own sons and daughters, than he did to those unreasonable creatures: But if it be granted that this inward speaking or illumination of God, is in itself intelligible and perceptible unto the souls of Believers, than it must be granted that it is objective, for what is in itself perceptible is objective, and what is not objective is not in itself perceptible. This consideration hath formerly made me conclude, that those who deny inward objective illuminations of the Spirit, do also deny all spiritual sensations or senses properly so called. And thi● I do affirm, from as great clearness of ●nderstanding, as if I should conclude, from a ●●ns denying that the outward Light is objective ●nd perceptible in itself, that therefore there is ●o sense of seeing, and from a man's denying that 〈◊〉 outward sound is objective and perceptible, that ●herefore there is no sense of hearing &c, or that ●●eat and drink, as for example Bread, Flesh, Wine, Milk, Honey, is not objective and perceptible, therefore there is no sense of smelling, tasting and feeling. And if any should reply, that the Scriptures are the only objects of those spiritual sensations, such a reply would sufficiently declare, that they do not mean spiritual senses and sensations properly so called seeing the objects of the spiritual senses, are the things whereof the Scriptures are but a declaration, as the objects of the natural senses are things▪ And even as it is most false to say, that when I read or hear a declaration or discourse of meat and drink, that I really taste of the same, seeing the sense of tasting is not at all answered by the discourse, but by the things discoursed of, even so it were really as false to say, that when I hear or read a verbal declaration of God, and divine and spiritual things, that I really taste of them. For indeed those spiritual and divine things are really as distinct from the words declaring of them, as meat and drink are distinct from the best of all words declaring of them. Now the Scripture sayeth, Taste and see that God is good, Here God himself is proposed unto the soul, as the object of its spiritual sensation, and not the words. But to say, I can see and taste of the goodness of God in the Scriptures, simply as being the only and alone object of my seeing and tasting, is really as much to deri●e me, as who would discourse to me for an hour or two, very effectually of the goodness of meat and drink, and then tell me, I have sufficiently seen and tasted it, whereas I have indeed neither seen nor tasted it, and all his discourse doth not answer the sight and taste, nor yet the appetite, as their proper objects. Moreover when the Scripture declareth of God his speaking and witnessing in his children generally, and useth the same manner of speech, as when He is said to speak in the Prophets, we ought to understand it, as properly in the one, as in the other, seeing according to that general rule agreed upon by all Expositors, We are to keep to the proper sense of Scripture words, when there is no necessity to reside from them, as indeed there is none here, but rather on the contrary, there is a great necessity, that God do indeed speak immediately to the souls of his Children, else they cannot have true peace, for it is He who speaketh Peace unto his people, and to his Saints, and to them who are turned unto the heart, (as divers of the Fathers did ●ite these words of the Psalmist, Psalm 85.8.) and particularly Bernard, yea, and as the same Bernard and Augustin citeth Isaiah 46.8. (and as the Hebrew doth bear it,) Even transgressors such as are gross Idolaters are bid return to the heart, (to wit) unto that inward law, and teaching of GOD therein: Yea, Augustin sayeth expressly, Nulla est anima, etc. There is no Soul so perverse, in who●e conscience God doth not speak, lib. 2. the Serm Domini in monte. And indeed that most famous primitive Protestants did not only acknowledge Inward supernatural operations of the spirit of GOD in the hearts of Believers, but did also hold, that there was an Inward word spoke by the Spirit into their hearts, which was evident and sufficient in itself to beget Faith, and be a law and rule to Believers, I shall prove ou● of manifest Testimonies of Luther, Zuinglius, OEcolampadius, and Melanchton. First as to Luther in a Sermon of his on Pentecost: The second law (sayeth he) that is not of the letter, but of the Spirit, is spiritual, which is neither written with pen nor ink, nor spoken with the mouth, but as we see here in this occurrence▪ the Holy-Ghost descended from Heaven, and filled them all, that they received Firie-tongues and preached freely otherwise then formerly, which astonished all the people, there he cometh and overfloweth the heart, and maketh a new man, which now loveth GOD, and doth willingly what he willeth, which is nothing else but the Holy Ghost himself, or at least, the work which he worketh in the heart, there he writeth mere flammes of fire in the heart, and maketh it alive, that it breaketh forth with firie-tongues, and active hands, and becometh a new man, and sensibly feeleth that he hath received a quite other understanding, mind and sense then before. So now all is living, understanding, light, mind and heart, which burneth, and taketh delight in all that pleaseth GOD. Again, Here thou seest clearly, that his office is not to write books, nor make law●s, but freely putteth an end unto them, and is such a GOD that writs in the heart, makes it to burn, and creat● a new mind etc. and this is the office of the Holy Ghost rightly preached etc. Such a man is above all law, for the Holy Ghost teacheth him better than all books, so that he understands the Scripture better than any man can tell him, therefore such a man needeth not the use of books any further but to prove, that it is so ●ritten therein, as the Holy Ghost teacheth him. Therefore GOD must tell it thee in thy heart, and that is Gods-Word: otherwise Gods-Word remains unspoken. Note from these words, First, That Luther did hold, that the second law, (which is the rule of a Christian) is not the Scripture, but what the Holy Ghost teacheth and writeth in be heart. Secondly, That this inward teaching of the Holy Ghost is better than the Scripture. Thirdly, That the service of the Scripture is rather to prove to others what is written therein, then to be the foundation and principal rule of Faith. Fourthly, That the Scripture unless it be spoken by GOD in the heart is not GODS-Word. I suppose I. M. will not find greater Enthusiasm in any of the writings of the People called Quakers. Again, Luther upon the Magnificat. None can understand GOD, or the Word of God aright, except he receive it immediately from the Holy Ghost. Again Luther on the 11 Psalm. (but in our English, Psalm 12.6.) Eloquia Domini ●asta: The words of the LORD are pure, The Prophet David here, speaks no● of the Scripture but of the Word of GOD chiefly. And he sayeth further, They are therefore Eloquia Domini, that is GODS-Word, when the Lord speaketh in Us, as he did in the Apostles, but not when every one b●ings forth the Scripture, which the Devil and wicked men may do in whom God speaketh not, and therefore it is not Gods. Word. Here Luther is down right an Enthusiast, as much as any Quaker can be. If it be objected that Luther wrote against the Enthusiasts: I answer, I know he did, but these were not true Enthusiasts, as the Apostles were, but such as under a pretence of Enthusiasm both taught and practised evil things.  
Secondly, Zuinglius speaketh his mind exceeding clearly of the inward word, and that it is preferable to the outward word, so as the outward is to be judged of by the inward. Ex commentario de verâ & falsâ religione, cap. de Ecclesia & verbo Dei. Thou dost now understand (sayeth he) what is the Church which cannot err, [to wit] She alone, which leaneth to the alone Word of GOD nor that (which Emserus thinketh we only regard) which consisteth of letters or words, but that which shineth in the mind. Again, He who heareth in the Church the Scripture of the heavenly Word explained, judgeth that which he heareth, but that which is heard, is not the Word itself whereby we believe, for if we were made faithful by that Word which is heard or read, all should surely be made faithful. It is then manifest, that we are made faithful by that Word, which the heavenly Father preacheth in our hearts, whereby also he enlighteneth us, that we may understand, and draweth us that we may follow who are endued with that word do judge the Word which soundeth in the preaching, and beateth the Ears, but in the mean time, the word of Faith, which sitteth in the minds of the faithful is judged by none, but by the same the outward word is judged, which GOD hath ordained to be brought forth, although faith be nor of the external [or outward] Word. Thirdly, Oecolampadius on Ezek. cap. 3. Thou Son of man receive all the words that I speak unto thee in thy heart, and hear them in thy Ear. This Text is against those that would bind the course of the Word of GOD to external things, but it is necessary, that the only Master be first heard, who is in Heaven that is in the secret opening the heart, and giving Ears to hear, and begetting or stirring up desires in us to learn the truth. Again, Faith is an inward thing, and a spiritual gift of GOD, therefore springeth not from any outward things, as from the outward word or hearing, but from the inward word and inspeaking of GOD it is produced. Again [sayeth he,] We divide not in our ministry the inward from the outward Word of GOD, but we only distinguish them, that we may know, that the inward Word and Work of GOD in us must preceded, that the outward be not taken for the inward, nor the humane for the divine, and so a humane opinion be gotten instead of Faith, we desire that both these words may go together, and do couple them in our ministry. Again a little after, Thus it appears, that the power of GOD is not bound to the Element, nor to our ministry, but the pure Grace of GOD is acknowledged, which is given either with the Word or before the Word, or after the Word as pleaseth him. Fourthly, Melancton in Annot. super johan. 6. So they who hear only the external 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 justify 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 Gospel is letter, the History is letter, the Spiritual allegorical Sense is letter, yea, all that which lives not in the ●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 gospel is truly 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, than 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 kill letter, and is good for nothing.  
Now as to the second branch of his first article, that the Scriptures are not a complete rule of faith, this he allegeth is a Popish doctrine, mantained by Quakers. But First, I query, how is it a Popish doctrine, seeing according to I. M. his own confession, some of the Popish Doctors, yea many Old Schoolmen as Aquinas, Scotus, Durandus all hold [as it seemeth] that the Scripture is the complete rule of Faith, wherein all supernatural truths, necessary to be believed are revealed, pag. 76. yea, in the same page he saith, the Romanists are so far from that Unity whereof they boast, that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions, touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion. And indeed I▪ M. in●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, than it is apparent, that there is no doctrine 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 brethren, wherein they contradict Us. But as I have already said page 2. that which indeed maketh a Popish Doctrine, is, that it be not only affirmed by Papists, and that most generally, but that it be contrary unto the Scriptures, and by this rule we are most willing to be tried, whether he or we have most of the Popish stuff or Wares. Secondly, as to the charge itself, That the Scriptures are not the complete rule of Faith, I do affirm that this charge doth not at all reach us called Quakers, more than 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 Scriptures are a complete secondary rule of all principles both fundamental or essential, and integral of common Faith, so as there is no principle of Faith whatsomever, that is necessary to be believed by all Christians in common, whether essential or integral, but is sufficiently declared in the Scriptures, so that as to common principles of Faith, we say, the Scripture is not a partial rule, [as do those Papists, who say it is] but a complete and total rule, and herein we agree with all true Protestants, and do with them reject all unwritten traditions, as being any part of the rule of Faith. Yet although we say, the Scripture is a complete rule, we understand it in its own kind [to wit] a complete external rule, as when I say a complete 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 itself is, otherwise it behoved to be as big as the Land. Again though I call it a complete rule yet I deny it to be the Principal. It is then a complete Secondary rule, and in this we differ exceeding widely and materially from Papists, but as to that Faith, that is not common and universal, 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, john Knox and several others in our own Nation, did prophesy some particular things not to be found in Scripture, but which indeed They had by special revelation, this our Scots Protestant's do generally acknowledge, and some have thought it a great honour to our Nation, particularly Durham, and the Author of the fulfilling of the Scriptures. Now this speciaell revelation was the rule of that proper and peculiar Faith, which those men had, as touching those particular things, whereof they Prophesied; 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 plain, as where it saith, Rom. 14.22, Hast thou Faith, have it to thyself. This is that peculiar and proper Faith, (as is said:) unto which belongs that Faith, whereby I or any other particular true Christian doth 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 marks of a Child of GOD, yet it doth not tell me, that I have these marks, and so can not be the Rule unto me, whereby to know or believe that I have them indeed. But the Spirit himself beareth witness with our Spirits that we 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 justified, is a peculiar and proper Faith unto him, or them only to whom it is revealed, and is not any part of the common faith of all true Christians; for all true Christians are not required to believe that such a particular man is a true Christian, or Child of GOD seeing perhaps not one of a thousand did ever hear of Him at all, and so are not bound to believe that he hath a being in the World, far less that he is a Christian. Many other examples I could give of this peculiar and proper faith, the rule whereof cannot be the Scripture, but the special Revelation of GOD by his Spirit, in the hearts of GOD'S Children, whereby they have a real knowledge and Faith in all their actings, how far they are approved and justified of GOD, and as their is a peculiar and proper faith, that is not the common faith, so I do affirm, there is many times a peculiar and proper obedience, unto peculiar and proper commands given of GOD, unto some of his Children, and not unto others. Is there not an inward call, whereby the LORD calleth such Preachers as are indeed accepted of Him, in the discharge of their Ministry. Sure I am, I have heard some Protestants acknowledge this. And is not this inward call, a real commandment, seeing it is a transgression to refuse to hearken to it? And may not such a● Preacher have it made known to him from the LORD that he is really called to labour in Word and Doctrine among such a particular people rather than others? And herein he is to give obedience unto the LORD, although he have no outward call, as many true Preachers never had. And surely as there are some special things proper to every person in the World, so as there are not to be found two in all the world, but their way and manner of life doth differ in many observable things, as much as their faces, and that by a secret appointment of GOD, so there are special directions of GOD'S holy Spirit given to those who do attend unto them, whereby they may be safely and comfortably guided in all these various passages. O how happy and blessed are they who have such a Bosome-Guid● as the blessed Spirit of GOD to direct them in their hearts, and are given up to wait for, and receive the Same, when they fall into intricacies, that no Scripture rules can sufficiently extricate? And surely this the LORD hath promised his Children, to guide them continually and to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth. By what I have said, on this head, it is manifest, how far we differ from Papists as touching the first Article charged by I. M. against us, seeing as to all principles of common faith we hold with Protestants against Papists, that the Scripture is a complete and sufficient declaration and testimony, and indeed the best and most complete outward rule that is in the world, unto which all Doctrines and principles of Christian Religion are to be applied, as to a Test, (or Touch stone,) in all external debates and disputations whatsomever, so that whatever Doctrine or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenor of the Scriptures Testimony, is to be denied and disowned for ever. Yea and whatever proper or peculiar faith or obedience doth contradict the principles of common faith and obedience declared in the Scriptures, I do plainly affirm, that it is not a true and right faith and obedience but a delusion. Moreover though I find that I. M. laboureth in his book called Roma Mendax to fix Enthusiasm upon the Papists, so as he may the more conveniently class the Quakers and them together, to render us the more odious, yet I desire both him and all others to consider how I. M. himself doth rather clear the Papists, at least the greatest and more considerable part of them, of this so heinous a crime of Enthusiasm, as he thinks it pag. 44.45. he produc●th Stapleton, and Testefort, as downright Enthusiasts, but in the same page 45. he bringeth Melchior Canus, Alphon●us à Castro, Becanus and Bellarmin as downright Anti-Enthusiasts, who are all ashamed (as saith I. M.) to assert that Popes and Counsels pass out their definitions by immediate revelations. And the University of Paris anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort, [viz] that the Sacred Scripture is partly contained in the Bible, partly in the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome. Very Good: Here are then four, [together with a whole University of Papists the most famous in the world] for two, the two are guilty of Enthusiasm, and the four, with the University of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts, as the other are Enthusiasts. So here is far the greater number of them Anti-Enthusiasts, and I believe, who will search the Popish Doctors and Writers, for one Enthusiast, in pretence, will find ten Anti-Enthusiasts. Let then all impartial men consider, whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrine, seeing that it is most probably a Popish doctrine, that is held by the plurality or greatest number of Popish Writers. As for example, what if I should find some Protestants [so called] whom I. M. doth own for real Protestants, perhaps two or three or more, as down right Enthusiasts, as either Stapleton, or Testefort, were it therefore just for me to conclude that Enthusiasm is a Protestant doctrine. As for Doctor Stillingfleet, whom I. M. citeth as giving an account of the Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome, I suppose the same Author could give as full an account of the Enthusiasms of the Pre●byterians who were I. M. his Brethren but of Late Years; and peradventure I. M. himself could do as much. Sure I am, that divers of the present Church of England have charged Enthusiasm upon the Presbyterians, and Independents, both I. M. his Ancient Friends [as witness] William Sharlock pag. 271. in his discourse, with others could be named. And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorisms of justification pag. says, That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrine as if it were flat Popery, I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accounted among such, and yet I see not how in his brother R. Baxter his judgement be can avoid this censure. Yea may not Calvin himself, whom some call the FATHER of Presbyterians be as much charged with Enthusiasm, as any Papist seeing in his Institutions he affirmeth, that in his time God raised up Apostles or at least Evangelists, whom he calleth Extraordinary Officers in the Church, that were needful to bring back the Church again out of the Apostasy and from those Protestant Apostles or Evangelists he deriveth the ordinary mission of Protestant Preachers, and goeth not back to the Antichristian Church and Bishops of Rome to derive the same, as I. M. doth in his Roma▪ Mendax, and this forsooth lest He should run upon the rock of Enthusiasm, whether he thinks to drive his Popish Antagonists. But I ask I. M. whether he thinks that Geo. Wishart was ●ne Enthusiast, when he Prophesied of the death of the Cardinal, or john Knox (called by some) the APOSTLE of the Scots, whose particular prophecies are mentioned in the History of his life, seeing these me● had immediate revelation which I. M. understands as I suppose by the word Enthusiasm, or if not, I desire him to tell us what he means by Enthusiasm, as for all false and falsely pretended Enthusiasms, whether of Papists or any others, which contradict the tenor of the Scriptures testimony we are as much against them, as any people are, ●or can be, but Enthusiasm in the true sense (that is to say) divine inspiration and revelation, from the in-being of GOD, revealing and illuminating the hearts of His Children [yea and all men, in some manner and measure] and inspiring or inbreathing into them a living knowledge and sense of himself, and His holy mind, will and counsel, that is never contrary, but always conform unto the Scriptures of truth, I do plainly and freely declare myself, together with my Brethren to be for it, as a most excellent principle of christian religion and indeed as the only true original and foundation of all saving faith, sound knowledge and sincere obedience, and let both Papists, and degenerated Protestants be ashamed of this principle, fling it and toss it, from hand to hand, as refusing to give it, any shelter or entertainment, (as We see they do in the present debate, one against another) yet true Enthusiasm, [as is above described] we most willingly and cordially own it, and with the greatest reception of kindness do open our very souls and hearts to let in this most harmless, and most helpful Stranger, who was the Friend and Beloved-companion Bosom and Heart-freind of all the holy Patriarches, Fathers, Prophets, and Apostles, and Martyrs of jesus Christ, who all held the Testimony of jesus, which is the Spirit of prophecy, for which the Dragon was wroth, and fought against them, but they overcame by this word o● their Testimony, and Blood of the Lamb, and loved not their lives unto Death. And as to that ordinary objection, This were to make all Christians to be Prophets. I answer not; for to be Prophets is not only to have the same spirit inspiring them, as the Prophets had, but also to be moved by the same to utter and express by words and writings a declaration of their inward Sentiments, Faith, Feeling and knowledge. Now all who are truly inspired have not this gift, for to some, it is given to believe to, others both to believe and speak and writ, and yet the spirit is one and the same in both, and although we do affirm that some do both speak and writ from a measure of the same spirit which the Prophets and Apostles had, yet we neither equal our selves nor our writings unto them, and theirs, they having had such a Solemn and extra-ordinary inward conduct; and guiding of the spirit of GOD (which is generally acknowledged) as did secure them from all error and mistake in writing the Scriptures, the divine spirit so abundantly ceasing and taking hold both upon their understanding and will so as they did not in the least, deviat or decline from following after the inward dictates, leadings and directions of the same, as being overruled by a most sweet and powerful constraining, limiting, and bounding of Them, so as neither to speak or writ, but what They did indeed receive from the LORD, that and at such times, as it pleased GOD to make Them His Instruments, in delivering those holy Records and Oracles of His mind and will, (the Scriptures of Truth) for a general service unto the children of men, so far as by the providence of GOD they came to be spread abroad in the World: Therefore I do freely acknowledge, They have a dignity and excellency in them above our writings; But as for us, and what we speak and write, although we affirm that the least measure of the true leading and moving of the spirit of GOD in our hearts is in itself infallible, and hath a direct tendency to le●de guide and move us infallibly, as it is purely kept unto; yet we are conscious to our seves, that both in speaking and writing, it is possible for us in some measure more or less to decline from those infallible leadings, and consequently both to speak and write in a mixture. As also it is possible to keep unto them in perfect and pure chastity accordingly as the mind is purely exercised in all diligence and watchfulness of attention, unto the directions of the inward guide, the spirit of Truth, or to err as the mind laboureth under any defect of remissness or unwatchfulness.   

SECT. III. Where the alleged agreement about Perfection is considered, and examined.  
THe Second Instance adduced by I. M. to prove the Quakers guilty of Popish Doctrines is, that a sinless perfection is attainable in time; But I miss his proof that this is a Popish Tenet, for indeed I could never find to my best remembrance any Papist, who hold such a principle as, that a sinless perfection is attainable in time by the people of GOD. It's true some of the Papists think that Mary was free of all sin, both mortal, and venial, which others of them deny, affirming that She h●de original sin, but that the People of GOD [Marry only excepted by some few] could attain to a sinless perfection in time, I require I. M. to show out of their writters, or rather out of their public confessions and definitions of Popish counsels, seeing it is not the private opinions of some either Popish or Protestant private Doctors [by I. M. his own confession] that maketh an Opinion Popish or Protestant. Yea doth not I M. know, how eagerly Bellarmin that Popish Champion doth dispute against Pelagius in this very point, pleading from divers Scripture, [such as] There is no man who sinneth not. 1. Kings 8. verse 46. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. 1. john 1.8. [the same I M. and his brethren use to produce against us] That there is no man who can be free in this life from all sin, both mortal and venial, By venial sins he meaneth sins of a lesser size or degree, which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be sins, however they differ otherways, as to the nature of venial sin, that i● extrinsic to the matter in hand. It is true that Pelagius did hold, That a man might be free from all sin in this life; yet it was not for this, that he was generally condemned by the Fathers, nor was that Doctrine generally condemned, but this [viz.] that he taught that men could attain to this freedom from sin by his endeavours without the special grace, and supernatural help and assistance of the holy spirit, so that Augustin who was the greatest impugner of the Pelagian Heresy, was so far from condemning it as heretical, That a man by the Grace of GOD might be free from sin, that he expressly affirmeth it himself as possible. It is one thing [sayeth he] to ask, whether any man in this life is withouth sin, another, if he can, or may be. And as to the question, if he may, he answereth affirmatively, That he may be the Grace of GOD and freewill. This he said in opposition to Pelagius, who affirmed, That a man by freewill without the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin. And the very same which Augustin said in this matter lib. 2. de pec. mer. & remiss. we say. And seeing as I suppose I. M. will not condemn Augustin as Popish in this particular, I see not how he can condemn Us, without great partiality. Moreover the same Augustin is so far from holding it to be an error, That a man by the Grace of GOD may be free from all sin, that he sayeth expressly, lib. de spiritu & litera cap. 2. If it be defended, and thought that some are, or have been, or shall be perfect with such purity, how far I can judge [sayeth he] they do not err much, nor dangerously, [and yet I. M. and his Brethren, think this a most dangerous error,] seeing every one that thinketh so, doth err with a certain benevolence of mind, if notwithstanding he who thinketh this, think not himself to be such, unless he do really and clearly perceive himself to be such, but these are most earnestly and vehemently to be resisted who think that without the help of GOD by the proper power of mans-will they can either perfect righteousness, or can profit, in aiming after the same. This he sayeth against the Pelagians, which doth not reach us, for we abhor any such thought, that any man, without the Grace, and supernatural help of the Spirit of GOD can either finish or begin any good thing. Others of the Fathers [so called] I could cite, who do ●avour this perfect doctrine; only I shall at present men●ion Athanasius the Great, [a man I suppose whom 1 M. doth not suspect as guilty of Popery] Who sayeth expressly in his fourth Oration against the A●●●n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Many were born holy and free or clean from all sin. And he mentioneth in particular jeremias, and john the Baptist, but if I. M. is to be believed, both jeremias and john were sinners and not clean or free from all sin, even when born into the world, yea when in the womb. And in this he agreeth with the Papists and not we, both of them holding That many Infants are excluded from the Kingdom of GOD, because of Original sin. Now as to these and such like Scriptures that are brought against the doctrine of perfection. It hath been shown not only by many of our Friends, that they do not prove, that a sinless state is not attainable in time, but even the same hath been asserted, and the doctrine of perfection in as great a latitude mantained by some famous men among the Protestants, as by us, particularly by Sebastian Castellio, a man much beloved and esteemed by many, however Calvinists may think of him. Yea, and divers of the present Church of England, whom I. M. owneth to be Protestants hath appeared in defence of this doctrine, as Hen. More and others: As also our Countryman William Forbes as may be seen in his book, called, Considerationes modestae & pacificae controversiarum. Where he citeth divers Protestants of the same mind with himself, who hold That by the Grace of GOD, the Law of GOD may be performed, according unto that divine condescension [called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] whereby he requireth obedience of us, according unto that proportion and measure of divine Grace and ability that is given us, and in this true sense we own perfection, and a perfect state attainable in time, which yet doth still admit of a growth in degrees. Be ye perfect [said Christ, Matth. 5.48.] as your heavenly Father is perfect. Surely this is a sinless perfection that is here commanded, and it is as sure, that what Christ commandeth He giveth sufficient ability of Grace to perform. For His yoke is easy, and his burden i● light, Matth. 11.30. and His commandments are not grievous, 1. john 5.3. And according to this sayeth Prosper ad Demetriadem. In omnibus monitis Dei, etc. In all the monitions and commandments of GOD, there is one and the same reason both of divine grace and man's obedience. And indeed this is the great difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel, that the Law did command, but was weak, (as said the Apostle) whereas the gospel is the power of GOD unto salvation to every one that believeth, which salvation is from sin, and not in sin And said Christ to his Disciples, Now are ye clean, through the Word that I have spoken unto you, john 15.3. but to that Objection both of Papists, and Others out of john 1. joh. 1.8. If we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. I Ansuere first with Augustin exp. ep. ad Gal. Aliuà est non peccare, aliud non habere peccatum. It is one thing not to sin, another thing not to have sin. This place doth not favour them who say, that men cannot be free from actual sinning i● this life. Seeing john doth not say, if we say we sin not; but, if we say, we have not sin. By which sin, some do understand that which the Regenerate find in the flesh, as a temptation unto sin, or that which tempteth thereunto, which nevertheless not being anywise consented unto, is not their sin, although it be their great trial, and a great occasion unto them to desire to be dissolved, t●at they may be free of all temptations unto sin, as well as of sin itself. Secondly, the same Apostle saith immediately after, if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Now he that is cleansed from all unrighteousness is cleansed from all sin; because sin is unrighteousness, and seeing it belongeth to the faithfulness and justice of GOD to do it, certainly He will do it to every one that diligently improveth that Divine grace, that is given, to that end: yea he saith also verse. 7. The blood of jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin, which he speaketh in the present time. Now to be defiled with sin, and to be cleansed from all sin at one and the same time implieth a contradiction; Therefore the Apostles words are to be referred to two several times and states which looseth sufficiently the contradiction. Nor doth it follow that the Apostle john, was at this time defiled with sin, more than that james was a Curser when he said of the Tongue, Herewith curse we men. james. 3.9. But both john and james words are to be understood after the manne● of ane usual figure called Metaschematism●s, as also the Apostle Paul Rom. 7. from verse 14. to verse. 25. For to say that Paul at that time when he wrote that Epistle was carnal, sold under sin, being in captivity to the law of sin in his members, i● 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 struggling and warfaire estate before the victory was attained, whereas the same Apostle speake● of a victory both here and eleswhere▪ Here as cap. 8.2. for the law of the spirit of life in Christ jesus 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 jesus 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 i● Chron. 6.36. Eccles. 7.20. To which I answer; that the words being in the second future may be translated in the potential mood, (as indeed junius and Tremellius truly translate it) thus, there is no man who may not sin, this we do not deny, for a possibility of sinning is consistent with a perfect and sinless estate, as w●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 understood of men in the natural unconverted and unjustified state, and so is impertinently alleged against perfection. 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 preceding 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 answer, First, That this place doth no more militate against perfect sanctification, than it doth against perfect justification, which is comprehensive of a forgiuness of all sin. Now doth not I M. and his Brethren acknowledge yea plead for it, that the Saints have all their sins forgiven them in time, yea that the least Saint hath perfect forgiuness, let them see what answer they can give to the one, which we cannot give to the other. I answer Secondly, forgiuness of sin may be understood two ways. 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 far● as ●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 final and signal absolution of them, and for this, the most perfect may and aught to pray. Before I go from this second alleged article of Popish doctrine, 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 do wrest and abuse those and such like Scriptures before mentioned, to plead against a sinless state, and so to uphold the Devills-Kingdom.   

SECT. IV. Where the alleged agreement about justification is considered and examined.  
A Third instance of Popish doctrine 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 doctrine is contradictory unto the Sc●rpturs testimony, it is not a Popish doctrine, although Papists do hold 〈◊〉, more than it is a Popish doctrine to hold, That there is one GOD. Nor is I. M. ignorant how many do hold, justification 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 divers of them, were of the same mind, William Forbes doth show in his book already cited, to which I refer the Reader, ye● james 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 justification and his Sanctification acknowledged, they ought not, who do so to be blamed as guilty of Popery, although they hold, that Repentance, Love and other inward spiritual virtues and graces are necessary to justification 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 do, and the satisfaction of Christ, we do 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 truly believe and repent: Now that repentance is expressly 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 justification, see Acts 3.19. Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be bloated out, etc. Observe, here not only repentance but conversion are both expressly required in order to forgiveness or blotting out of sin, and consequently in order to justification, seeing our Adversaries acknowledge that forgiveness is a part of justification, 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 expressly the turning from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto GOD is required in order to forgiveness, which turning is an inward righteousness; for to turn to GOD is an act of obedience, and consequently is righteousness, and it is also inward, for it is an act of the soul and heart, that is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD. And indeed in this last place of Scripture, our whole justification as consisting in these two, Forgiveness of sin a●d 〈◊〉 R●ght unto eternal life which is the inheritance above mentioned, to the receiving of both which our turning unto GOD from the power of Satan is expressly required; yet not as if this conversion, or inward work of righteouness' were the procuring cause of our receiving either the one or the other, nay not at all, but they are the conditions or qualifications most necessarily required in order to the receiving them. And seeing I. M. and his brethren affirm, that men are justified by faith, so as faith is a condition, or qualification necessary unto justification, 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 righteousness; but faith is true inward obedience therefore, etc. 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 commanded 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 i● 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 do 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 joh. 29. What is it to believe in Him, but by believing to love Him? and thus he defineth justifying Faith. And if it be replied 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 answer first, This distinction is too too nice, and metaphysical, seeing 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 betwixt a thing and the essence [or that which is essential to it] is too nice and curious, and indeed altogether impertinent in the handling of controversies 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 logical notion, as a mere ens-rationis, as who would distinguish betwixt Paul his being a man, and his being a reasonable creature made after the image of GOD. I answer secondly, the controversy 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 vain 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 justification before GOD. I answer 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 justification, we do also most willingly affirm 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 justification, or any other favour, or thing whatsomever, so that we do 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. Faithful is the LORD, who hath made Himself a debtor unto us not by receiving any thing from us, but by giving us all things. Yea, we do 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 freegrace, no more doth our justification. But for the more distinct understanding of our mind, concerning our justification before GOD. I thus define it.  
JUSTIFICATION, is an Act of GOD, whereby He doth acquit (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 JESUS CHRIST not only in wha● He hath done and suffered for us, without us, but as really and truly indwelling in us, and really and truly 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 justification formally considered, the other is, it, objectively considered, [or as it may be called objective justification] Now i● this whole definition of justification, I shall show, how indeed I. M. and his Brethren are much more AKIN to the Papists, than we (the people called Q●●kers.) First, whereas we affirm that this act of GOD is a real inward act in us, whereby the Lord doth by an inward declaration, and testimony inwardly and immediately 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 justification in relation to the act of GOD, is denied 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 guilty. Secondly, in relation to the object I say we are the object of justification, 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 clothed 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 wit] Christ in us, all those inward virtues and graces, of Love, Hope, Patience, Humility, Meekness, Temperance, as well as Faith, do flow and proceed as streams from a fountain. Now it is the fountain which is CHRIST Himself, that we regard principally, in our justification, and but in the next place, that inward righteousness wrought by Him in us, which is but as the stream, so it is not the stream, that we rely and rest upon for justification [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 justification, 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 far from being a Popish doctrine, that it is expressly denied 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 do greatly suspect, if otherwise, let him clear himself. Sure I am, he and his Brethren are so far from thinking that we are justified by Christ indwelling in us, that they do no● acknowledge any real, 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 truly, 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 ●ringeth forth Goodworks. And thus truly is the mind of Agustin to be understood, That good works go not before a man's 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 go not before a man's 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 justified by good works; yet it doth not follow, that he is not justified 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 alleged; 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 than 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 do them, we should fall from our justification, and this is the very doctrine of William tindal, 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 Aphorisms of justification pag. 80. sayeth that some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrine as if it were flat 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 judgement 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 necessary to the obtainment of it; yet it doth not respect it, either as the procuring cause of it, nor yet as its formal reason, the procuring cause being CHRIST alone, who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto GOD for our sins, the formal reason of the remission, being indeed the remission or forgiuness itself; for the formal reason of a thing is the very nature of the thing it self, which consisteth in that act of GOD, whereby He acquitteth 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 virtues, 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 virtues, 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 do inwardly receive it into our hearts from the Spirit of GOD, and do not work it out unto ourselves either by outward working, or by a long continual 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, Conve●ion, Justification and Sanctification, as to its beginning at least, we are rather (or at least) more passive than 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 than 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 do draw nourishment that is heavenly and spiritual, 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 virtue, by which the heavenly growth is witnessed, into real acts and works of righteousness.  
Consider Fourthly, that when the Apostle speaketh of a man's 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 immediately 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, whereas 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 fulfil 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 julian the pelagian, 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 etc. 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 indweling in us is our righteousness, for which we are justified or reputed just. This of Luther is according unto these Scriptures, The LORD our righteousness. jer. 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 alleged agreement about Goodworks, is considered and examined.  
THe Fourth Instance of the Quakers holding Popish doctrines alleged by I. M. is, that Good works are meritorious. To this I answer we do not hold the merit of good works in any other sense, then that which both agreeth unto the Scripture 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 equal 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 equal to the reward of eternal life; yet such as it pleaseth GOD to take notice of. So as it is a suitable thing according to His infinite 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; therefore it hath a real 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 do, 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 abhor us. We cannot but abhor such unclean and anti-christian doctrine, 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 judgement of GOD, that they may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of GOD. 2. Thes. 1.5. And said the Lord by His Servant john, unto those of Sardis, who had not defiled their garments, they should walk with Him in white, for they are worthy. Rev. 3.4. these Scriptures show 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 do; yet that Protestants [and some of greatest fame] did hold merit in some sense, 〈◊〉 evident both out of Melancton, and Bacer. Melancton in his common places sayeth expressly, That good works in the Reconciled, seeing they please GOD through faith [or the Mediator] men● sp●rituall rewards and corporal both in t●is l●fe and after this life. And Bucer [as he is cited by Cassander, consult. cap. de Merit.] contra A●rince●sem, sayeth thus. As we acknowledge faith itself 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 etc. And of this same mind are we, with these men whom 1 M. himself and his Brethren own to be Protestants of great note. And with them, and a●l true Protestants we do join against the Popish merit, either of congruity without the Grace of GOD, or of condignity with and by the Grace of GOD, as condignity doth signify an equality betwixt merit and reward, as some Papists hold, though contradicted by others, but when Papists contradict one another, one side must hold the truth at least in words; but that is not [to speak properly] a Popish doctrine.   

SECT. VI Concerning the Apocryphall-Books.  
THe Fifth Instance adduced by I. M. is, that Apocryphal Books are of equal authority with other Scriptures. He meaneth those judged by him, and his Brethren to be Apocryphal. For the question is what Books are Apocryphal and what not, also what Apocryphal is in his sense. If by Apocryphal he mean, writ and not from any measure of the inspiration of the Spirit of GOD. Surely we cannot conclude that all these books called by him so, are Apocryphal, seeing as to some of them we find the testimony of the Spirit of Truth in our hearts, to answer to many precious, Heavenly and divin sayings contained in them, which is as a seal in us, that they have proceeded from a measure of the true Spirit; yet as to all these books, or sayings contained in them we do not so affirm, And I believe I. M. cannot prove out of any of our Friends books, that all these books commonly called Apocryphal, and the sayings contained in them are of equal authority with the Scriptures: however if they had done so it proveth not, that they hold a Popish doctrine, because Papists and they hold their judgement concerning them on different accounts, [which according to I. M. his own rule is sufficient to make that a Heresy in the one and not in the other] The Papists on the account of the authority of the Church, [that is to say] the authority of some Popes, or Popish councils; But the Quakers on the account of the inward testimony of the Spirit of GOD in their hearts, whereby the spiritual ear trieth words, whether having proceeded from GOD, or not, as the Mouth tasteth meat, [as the Scripture saith.] So that this may be retorted as a Popish doctrine on I. M, and his Brethren, who agree with Papists, in denying that the inward evidence and testimony of the Spirit of GOD in men's hearts, is the principal rule and touchston, whereby to judge of words and writings, whether they be of GOD, or not. Again seeing the Papists are divided among themselves, and contradict one another, touching the authority of those books: some of them holding that they are of equal authority with the Scriptures, others denying it, and placing them in an inferior degree. We have the same advantage to reflect Popish doctrine upon him, as he hath upon us, if we did hold, that either some or all of them are of equal authority with the Scriptures, which yet I know not, if I. M. can prove out of any writings of a Quaker [so called.]  
If perhaps I. M. shall Object that our Friend SAMUEL FISHER (that faithful servant of the Lord) in His Book Entitled RUSTICUS AD ACADEMICOS, Or, THE RUSTICS ALARM To THE RABBIS &c. (which was writ about sixteen years ago; but never as yet Replied unto by any:) doth affirm that Some of those books (commonly called Apocryphal) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or have proceeded from Men divinely inspired, and are of a divi● Inspiration ●nd Authority To this I answer First, SAMUEL FISHER ●oth not affirm, that all these books [esteemed by I. M. and his Brethren to be Apocryphal] are divinely inspired; but that some of them [such as] First, the wisdom of Solomon; Secondly, the Wi●●om of jesus the Son of Sira●h (called Ecclesi●sticus.) Thirdly, the Epistle of jeremiah, which 〈◊〉 ●ro●e to those who were to go Captive to B●bylon etc. Fourthly, the Fourth Book of Esdras [or the Second as it stands usualy in the Old English Protestant Bibles,] which books (and especially this last of Esdras which gives so clear a testimony unto Christ as in Chap. 13.) are denied by unbelieving jews to be of divin inspiration with whom I. M. and his Brethren are in this matter to be classed together, who deny them also. Secondly, albeit SAMUEL FISHER affirmeth, that these afore mentioned books, were writ by men divinely inspired; yet he doth no● affirm, that they are of equal authority wi●h the Scriptures [as I. M. falsely chargeth us;] for writtings may be from divin inspiration, and yet some of them of greater authority than others, as proceeding from a greater measure of the Spirit: however if I M. have any convincing reasons why these books aforesaid are not of a divin original, let him produce them. Now that some principal and famous men among the Papists do place th●se books [commonly called Apocryphal] in an inferior degree to the Scriptures, Gratius doth plainly show, in his Annotations upon Cassander his consult. that both Cajetan, and Bellarmin, who were Cardinals, did hold them to be placed in an inferior degree. And also, that KING JAMES the sixth did approve the same.  
But let me ask I. M. one question or two First, doth he think it a matter of faith that these books are not equal to Scripture? If he doth, I ask Secondly. By what rule of faith, he doth know, or can prove, that they are not equal to Scripture? The Scripture itself can be no rule in the case, seeing no place in all the Scripture saith any thing of these books, not indeed of the number of the books of the Scripture. If he say there are ●ound in them contradictions to the Scripture. I answer, if it were so in some of them; yet I suppose he will not say in all. If he say, they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or character,) which the Scriptures have, I ask again, By what rule doth he know this, that they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing the Scripture do●h not say, they want it, and seeing possibly some may as strongly affirm that they have it: Who shall be judge in the case? Moreover we have this just retortion of Popery to reflect upon I. M. and his brethren, that both Papists and they, have set up such a determined number of books (though differing among themselves, as to the number of the Old Testament; yet agreeing in one as to the number of the New) which closeth up the Canon, whereby they have both of them limited the GOD of Glory Himself, both from bringing to light what other books have been writ, that may be of equal authority with the Scriptures, such as, the Prophecy of Enoch mentioned jude 14. the Epistle which Paul wrote to the Corinthians, not to company with fornicators, mentioned in the first of these Epistles which are extant, 1. Cor. 5.9. and divers other books which are mentioned in the Scriptures not ●ow to be found, although it is possible they may be found; yet if they were found, by their principle, they are to be rejected as not being in the Canon received. As also they have limited GOD from moving or inspiring any men, [in any age of the world to come,] to writ any book or books, that may be of equal authority with the Scriptures. For which bold and presumptuous alleadgeance, neither Papists nor they have the least solid ground. Finally, there are some writings that both Papists and they reject, as not having Scripture authority, which yet we find no just cause to reject, such as the 151. Psalms that is in the Septuagint, and Paul his Epistle to the Laodiceans which are both extant to this day wherein nothing is to be seen unsuitable either to other Scriptures, or unto that spirit that gave them forth. And if you say, they want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Scriptures have, I suppose it will be as hard for I. M, and his Brethren, to evince by any evidence, that such books have, or have not the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is for any Quaker to evince by any evidence that he hath the Spirit of GOD, this I say, not as denying but that the Scriptures have a Secondary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known unto them, who know the primary of the Spirit in their hearts; but seeing our Opposers require of us, to show, or evidence unto them, some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we have the Spirit of GOD, I would have I. M. to know, that the same difficulty recurreth as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures, it being a thing which cannot be shown or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind, which yet is evident unto the spiritual. And indeed as the Scriptures have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which convinceth that they are of GOD, ●o all the Children of GOD have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also, [who are as a living book or Epistle of Christ] which convinceth that both they are of GOD, and have the Spirit of GOD, and this is a sufficient demonstration, unto them that are spiritually minded. And here only I shall mind I. M. how the Protestants themselves are not agreed upon the number of the Canonical books. The Lutherians at this day rejecting some, (which the Calvinists receive,) such as the Epistle of james, the second and third Epistles of john, and the book of the Revelation by some: yea Luther call- james Epistle, a STRAWY EPISTLE. And if he had charged it as a Popish principle on the Calvinists, that with Papists, they hold james Epistle to be Canonical, I suppose I. M. would no● for this have rejected it, although Papists at this day do own it to be Canonical with him.  
However this Advertisement I give to the Reader, that seeing the books (commonly called Apocryphal) are controverted by some, to have that sufficient authority; Yet in all matters of debate betwixt our Opsers and us, we shall not urge their authority upon any who do not receive them; but are willing to wave them; and keep to those books of Scripture, acknowledged by them, wherein we have sufficient testimonies to all the Principles of Truth, mantained by us, and furniture enough by the help of our GOD, to resist and oppose the contrary.  
It is worth the observing, that not only both Papists among themselves, and Protestants among themselves, have been divided about the number of the Canonical books, as what books be Canonical, and what not; but even the Fathers (so called,) and the Councils who did Canonize them, have differed greatly also. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastic History lib. 3. cap. 22. writeth exceeding uncertainely concerning divers of the books of the New Testament [such as] the Epistle of james, The Second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of john, The Revelation of john, as being received by some at Authentic, and gainsaid by others. The Council of Laodicea, (which was the first council I read of, that did determine the Canon of the books of Scripture,) as it omitteth, or passeth by, as not Authentic▪ all these books [commonly called Apocryphas:] so it also omitteth the Revelation of john. But the third Council of Carthage, which ●a● not long after, where Augustin was present, doth put into the canon both the book of the Revelation and most of these books (commonly called Apocrypha) yea Augustin himself lib. 2. the Doctrine Christiana. cap. 8. Among the other books of the Old Testament numbereth Tobias Hester, Iudi●h, and two books of the Maccabees, and two of Esdras, and the book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, concluding thus. In these forty and four books, the authority of the Old Testament is determined. Now if to hold some of these books equal to Scripture be a Popish doctrine than Augustin himself did hold Popish doctrine in this very thing: And yet I suppose I. M. doth not think that Augustin was a downright Papist, for all this. But if this prove not Augustin to be a Papist how will it prove us the people called Quakers to be Papists? he must either assoilzie us, or condemn Augustin, in the case.   

SECT. VII. Where the alleged agreement, as if the efficacy of Grace, depended upon Man's freewill, is considered and answered.  
THe sixth Instance of Popish doctrine charged by I. M. on the people called Quakers is, that the efficacy of Grace depends on Man's free will. I suppose this is but a consequence of I. M. his making upon the doctrine or principle of Universal Grace mantained by the Quakers. As for myself, I never heard it, nor read it, mantained by any of these people, that the efficacy of grace depends on man's free will. And I do altogether deny, that it is a consequence lawfully deduceable by any principles of sound reason from the doctrine of Universal grace as mantained by us. For we deny that there is any freewill in man, to any thing that is truly good, and acceptable in the sight of GOD, but what is of the grace of GOD. The will of man is servum arbitrium, [as Luther called it,) and not liberum arbitrium, in respect of any obedience acceptable unto GOD, that is to say, servile and bound over unto Satan, and captivated by him; but as the grace of GOD doth make it free: and that all men at times have some measure of a freedom of will, by the grace of GOD we do with holy boldness affirm, conform both to the Scriptures testimony, 
† joh. 1.9. Rom. 5.18. 2. Tit. 10.11. and many other places.  and the consent of the greatest part of Antiquity if not of all generally, as both Vosius [a learned Antiquary,] in his Pelagian History, and Grotius in his disquisition of the Pelagian Dogmas do show at great length." By the visitations of which Grace of GOD upon the souls of all men, at certain times and seasons, the prison door is opened unto all who are in captivity, (as all men are in the unconverted state) and the arm of GOD'S Salvation is stretched forth unto them, yea it toucheth them, and by its touches infuseth into them some measure of ability, whereby the soul is put into a capacity to convert and turn unto GOD, that so it may become Light in the LORD, which was darkness, according to which Augustin sayeth expressly lib. Annot. in fol. ult. In voluntate enim cujusque est, utrum tenebrae sit, an lux etc. 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 sin●, which are his own. But when he is light, he is not it in himself; but in the LORD.  
Now seeing we do expressly hold, and believe it as a most certain truth, that all freewill in man, unto any good thing acceptable unto GOD, hath a most absolute and necessary dependence upon the grace of GOD, and the efficacy thereof, we cannot in any justice of reasons, be thought to affirm, that the efficacy of grace depends on man's freewill; seeing a mutual dependency implieth 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 man's freewill. 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, po●ere obicem) to their conversion; yet the Grace of GOD hath its efficacy still of its own nature, and loseth nothing of its virtue 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, john 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 GOD'S intention was only, that the Grace of GOD should convert them, who do not resist it, and be a just ground of condemnation against those who do resist, and reject it. Moreover, the same consequence may be drawn 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 yieldeth unto it, and complyeth fully therewith. Now if resisting in the one sense infer● that the efficacy of Grace depends on man's freewill, resisting in the other sense will infer the same also, seeing it is the will of man that resisteth in both, and if it doth not infer in the one, neither doth it in the other.  
But if I. M. allege that the doctrine itself of Universal Grace and freewill in all men, by virtue of that Grace be a Popish doctrine, I altogether deny it, though Papists seem in words to affirm it, as they do many other Christian truths, which are not Popish doctrines; for their holding them in unrighteousness, that being a Popish doctrine (according to my former definition that I. M. I conceive will not deny) which is mantained generally by Papists, and is repugnant unto the Scriptures, 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 four first Centuries.  
Now that this doctrine of Universal Grace, and freewill 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 general testimony of Antiquity in the purest times; but on the contrary most agreeable thereunto, I offer myself ●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 doctrine of freewill unto good in all men, was taught by justin Martyr, (one of the most Authentic 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 freewill: So doth he Tatianus, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and those two Theophilus and Clemens Alexandrinus, he blameth both for the doctrine of freewill, and justification by works, also he blameth Clemens Alexandrinus for the doctrine of perfection. He blameth Tertulian both for the doctrine of freewill and for the merit of goodworks. Moreover he blameth Cyprian about the matter of freewill, justification by works, and merit: Also he blameth Lactantius for holding justification by works and merit, and perfection. But these doctrines 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 writer, [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 matters, and do find that in the mater of Universal grace, freewill, justification, Mirit in a sound and sober sense, and Perfection, they go much along winth 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 permit] I may make known, and intent so to do, 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 Scriptures and most approved of the Ancient Writers and Fathers [so called.] Now as touching the aforesaid particulars of freewill in all men, by the Grace of GOD, justification by works, Merit, Perfection, I propose this alternative: that seeing the Fathers held these doctrines, 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 sixth Instance or Head of Popish doctrine, I cannot omit to take notice how handsomely, (or rather unhandsomely) I. M. in his Roma Mendax goeth about to evade that charge of Novelty concerning freewill imputed unto him, and these of his way; the Papist chargeth him as denying freewill, since the fall of Adam, he answereth he and they of his way do not deny freewill. But this answer 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 freewill 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 answer to this charge. That he and his Brethren do indeed deny any freewill 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 freewill to evil, in a natural state, doth no way bring him of. For the question is not whether there be in man a freewill 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 Eternal 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 equal retorsion of this very matter of freewill upon I. M. and his brethren, who confess that a famous party of the Popish Church, doth oppose the doctrine of freewill in all men unto good, and these are Dominicans, Thomists and jansenists pag. 289. Well then, and doth not I M. oppose the same? so that if one sort of Papists (to wit) the jesuits seem to aggree with us in the matter of freewill (although I could easily show very material differences betwixt them and us in this very particular.] Here are three great sorts or tribes of Papists, who do really agree with I. M. and he with them in the contrary doctrine.   

SECT. VIII. Where the alleged Agreement about the Apostasy of the Saints, is considered and examined.  
THe Seventh Instance of Popish doctrine charged on the Quakers is, that real Saints may totally apostatise. To this I answer, if by real Saints he meaneth those who are come to a confirmed state and condition in holiness, 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 Apostatise, and that this state is attainable in time, and is attained unto by many we do affirm, 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 real beginnings of Sanctification, who as yet are not come to the state of the Elect in Christ jesus, (in the Foreknowledge of GOD before the World began) this is so far from being a Popish doctrine, that it is a truth conform both to the Scriptures Testimony, 
† Luke 8.13. Rom. 11.19, 20. Hebr. 10.29. 1. Pet. 2.18. jude 4.5, 6.  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 expressly 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. come. doth affirm, That men may commit such gross sins as whereby they may expel the Holy Spirit, after having once received him. Augustin sayeth expressly lib. de correctione & gratia, That some love God, and yet do 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 judgements of GOD are the more inscrutable. Prosper ad septimam sayeth, That of the regenerate in CHRIST JESUS, some having left the Faith, and holy manners do apostatise from GOD. Cyprian, Epistola ad Gratianum, The discipline departing, the Grace of the LORD departed also. Many other testimonies could be cited for the same; but that I intent brevity at present.   

SECT. IX. Where the alleged Agreement about Indwelling— Concupiscence is considered and answered.  
THe Eight and Last Instance of Popish doctrine charged on us, is, that indwelling concupiscence is not our sin, until we consent to the lusts thereof. To this I answer, that this principle as he doth represent it, I know not, that it is owned by any Quaker. We do indeed say, that the seed of sin, is not imputed unto them for sin, who do 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 do 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 Regenerate is not sin when not consented unto, which yet elsewhere he calleth 〈◊〉. And that the controversy in this particular is rather about Name then thing. Consult. super Articulum secundum. It is certain that the Regenerate may, and do 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 metonymy may be called sin itself, 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 Regenerate, and also in Infants, it is unreasonable, as well as contrary to Scripture▪ that it doth infer any real guiltiness, where it is not in the least consented unto. I remember what Bernard sayeth of it, Non necked sensus, ubi desit concensus. The sense of it, hurteth not, (viz. to bring on guiltiness) where the consent is wanting. Now if it were their sin, it would certainly hurt. The same Cassander showeth a form of agreement among divers Protestants and Papists, how that the Materiale of it, doth remain in the Regenerated, (that is to say) a certain evil, or infirmity, or weakness; but that the Formale of it is removed, which Formale is the guiltiness of it, (to wit) which it had before. This Eight and Last Instance may be justly also re●or●ed upon I. M. and his Brethren, who teach, That by reason of this Principle in Infants, they do all come into the world guilty of Eternal Damnation, and that many Infants do really perish Eternally, which is a Popish doctrine, wherein they do both agree, contrary to the Scripture, which sayeth, The soul that finneth shall die, Importing that the soul that doth not actually sin shall not die; which Popish error, Zuinglius did manifestly impugn. De Baptismo.  
Having thus passed through all the Eight Instances alleged by I. M. wherein he chargeth us as guilty of Popish doctrines, I desire the Reader to take a serious review of what I have answered on every particular head, and he will find that upon all of them I have made it manifest, that either we do not hold the same doctrine with Pap●sts, or if some papists seem to hold the same, others of the Papists as Numerous and sometimes more, hold the contradictory, wherein I. M. and his Brethren aggregeth with them. And so how the same charge is more justly retorted upon himself and his Brethren. And Lastly, that there is not one principle or doctrine held by us wherein any of the Papists seem to aggree with us, but we have famous protestants, whom I. M. doth acknowledge to be Protestants, who therein do aggree with us also. And therefore if any of these doctrines can prove that our religion is but Popery disguised, it will prove as effectually, that the religion of those protestants, who agree with us in all these things, is also but Popery disguised; which yet I suppose he will be loath to acknowledge.   

SECT. X. Where several other alleged lesser agreements in point of Practice, and divers other Calumnies of that kind, are considered and examined.  
AS for his Criminations page 22.23. that Quakers have so much indignation at these who go under the name of Puritans, and so much correspondense with Romanists, with whom before they could not converse. I answer, to the First, as we love all men, to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans, we have a special kindness for: in whom the true Puritanical Spirit is alive, by which they were separated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the world's religion, and also from their profane customs. And who will narrowly compare them and us, will find a greater mearness betwixt us, then is indeed betwixt us, and any other people, and although they differed from us, in some of these principles above mentioned; yet in others, more in number, they agreed with us, and which is most, we have more unity with their spirit, then with the spirit of any other people in the Nation. But that spirit is much lost in those days among many who bear that name.  
As to the Second, for our Converse with Romanists, I suppose it is not greater with them, then with other people, if the Lord hath delivered us from that peevish and narrow humour of some Presbyterians, wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured; and enlarged our hearts with true love, both to Papists (so called) or any others differing from us, so as we can converse with them, either about our worldly lawful occasions, or in order to be instrumental unto their conviction and better information. We ought not to be blamed, providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinful thing: far less should I. M. blame us, who himself hath been known [as I am informed] to converse with EXCOMUNICAT PAPISTS, so as to eat and drink with some of them, a thing repugnant unto the discipline of their Church. Again whereas he querieth, have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Britain, who have been known to be professed Priests, Minx or jesuits in France and Italy. This informatory question, may be returned with another of the same nature, have not Papists, if not Priests, Monks or jesuits gone under the character of Protestants, both in England and Scotland; yea in Aberdeen: will it therefore follow, that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised. It is most certain that many Papists [so called] did outwardly conform to the Protestant religion, so far as to go to their public assemblies, and be present at their worship as seemingly owning it, and yet dissenting from it in their hearts; for which, I have heard they had a dispensation from the Pope. And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practice, which showeth that some have done it: yea some in Aberdeen have been known to do so, will it therefore follow, that Protestants in Aberdeen are but disguised Papists? And yet the Case is the same. He proceedeth to tell, that he heard a chief Quaker confess before famous witnesses that one giving himself out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family, was discovered to be a Popish Priest. I answer, if it had been so, (how the thing was whether true or false▪ I have not had opportunity yet to examine,) i● proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ou● to be a true christian, Hypocrisy is true christiani●ty disguised. And if it be true as I. M. saith, tha● Romanists, espcially jesuits can transform themselves into all shapes, admit then that some Iesui● doth transform himself into the shape of I. M▪ himself, (or at least of his religion,) will it fol●●ow that I. M. is a jesuit or a Romanist but disguised▪ or his religion jesuitism? but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleged to have given himself forth to be a Quaker, did discover him, wha● indeed he was, and so did not acknowledge him to be what he pretended. This showeth that Quake●rism and Popery are not of so near a relation, farless one thing. If he could prove that any Romanist Priest, Monck, or jesuit were received by any of ●he Quakers, as one with them in Religion, whom yet they did know to be Romanists, it would be some presumption, but he is so far to seek for a proof of this, that I suppose, he can not give any one Instance that ever a Quaker received a Romanist as a Quaker even unwittingly; which yet if he could do, could only prove the Quaker at that ●ime, was in a mistake, without any reflection upon his Religion.  
As to his Instance of Prophetesses among the Papists such as Hildegardis, Katherine of Sens and Bridget, whom he compareth unto the WOMEN PREACHERS among the Quakers. The comparison is unequal; seeing prophesying 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 days give unto men the knowledge 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 writ, 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 Prophetess, whose prophecy is brought in by them both as a witness against the Papists, especially the begging Friars. As for Papists allowing Women to baptise, it concerns us nothing, who look upon SPRINKLING of INFANTS whether by men, or women, but ●s an● human tradition. And as to Papesse joan, seeing I M. by his own confession derives his call through Rome, he is one of her Lineal 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 Edinburgh, 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 speeches going about from hand to hand among Professors at this day, and I myself 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 merely 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 heretical, more than in the days 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 public assemblies.  
And whereas it is Objected by Some, That their Church doth not allow unto Whores Authoritative-teaching. To this I answer, 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, do 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 IMMEDIATE REVELATION.  
Next, he falleth upon Enthusiasm, ask what other grounds hath the Romish Infallible judge to walk upon, but Enthusiasms, and pretended Inspirations. I answer, yet, he hath another ground, which the Popish Doctors much more commonly allege then any Enthusiasm, and that is, an effective assistance of the Holy Ghost, which is not any objective immediate 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 err fundamentally in a point of faith, (to wit) a blind unknown assistance of the Spirit pretended both by Pope and Presbyterians, without immediate objective revelation. I say a blind unknown assistance, because by confession of both parties, it is merely effective and not objective, and so Medium incognitum assentiendi, an unknown midst of assenting, as R. Barron did call it. And whence have either Prelatical or Presbyterian Professors borrowed this deceitful, and Antichristian-distinction of an effective illumination of the Spirit of GOD, as contradistinct from an objective; yea separated from it? But from the Popish Doctors: Sacroboscus ● Popish Doctor useth the same distinction of subjective and objective assistance, def. decret. Trident. pag 93. and 94. cited by jackson, 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 deceitful distinction of effective and objective illumination from Papists, then that wherewith he chargeth us, as having learned from Romanists to call the Scriptures 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 john Owen in the very same bo●k of the divine authority of the Scriptures, 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 jews, which holdeth no less in unbelievers professing Christianity,  
Next whereas he allegeth that the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches, I answer, 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 lawful for Persons to carry on a Reformation, without any public consent, or allowance of those in outward authority: which sort of Reformation the Author of Scolding no Scholarship, calleth Reformation by a private spirit: though what is done by the Spirit of GOD in private men, is by a public and universal spirit, such as the Spirit of GOD is, nor doth it answer it, that he calleth the Reformation among the Quakers a Deformation; for besides, that he but begs the question in that he cannot but know, that the Papist doth as much think, either the Episcopal 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 design and ours, as in relation to those he calls Reform Churches, being as far different as North from South, makes the difference to be so wide, seeing what they do against you, is to bring you back again to the grossest part of Popery: what we do is but to move you forward, that you may leave behind and throw away those too many and hurtful relics of Popish principles and practices, which hinder you from being a truly Reformed Church that so you may be indeed a Reformed Church and People unto GOD. And so far as the Reformed Churches (so called) have forsaken any Popish principles and practices 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 scandalous 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 Enemy, that our testimony is against and for the breaking of it down, where ever it appears, both in ourselves and in others. Finally, whereas he saith that we Romanise in denying the Scriptures to be the complete and principal 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 Scriptures, or can not by sound evidence of true reason be deduced from the Scriptures is to be rejected utterly, and denied 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 join with them in all things against the common Enemy 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 far from thinking so of him or any of his Brothers 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 glad to have the Scriptures, 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 acknowledgement concerning the Ministerial 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, jesuits, etc. with his many bitter expressions, and insinuations I have waved, it being chiefly before me to answer directly to th●se particular charges above mentioned▪ Only in the Close, I cannot ommit one thing, and that is, his opnely and professedly avowing that Ordination con●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 Cal● 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, than it may easily appear, whether they or we be most akin to the Pope, they owning expressly his authority (seeing none can confer Ordination but who hath authority so to do) we expressly and altogether rejecting and denying it, as mere usurpation: surely 1 M. and his Brethren may henceforth be ashamed to call us the Pope's Emissaries, seeing we never directly ●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 Pope's Emissaries; for Emissary 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 Emissary of the Pope, he is also an Emissary of Papesse joan, who is in the line of Papal 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 lawful 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 far as Antichristian [saith he] but as retaining some of Christ's Goods:] this distinction I fear will be found too Metaphysical, and fitter for men, who have Philosophical Consciences, (who can defend any thing by a distinction) than 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 itself, in making the members of the distinction to coincide, as to say the Pope not as Antichristian, holdeth some of Christ's Goods and yet as Antichristian holdeth some of Christ's 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 Christ's Goods, than it followeth that he is both Christian and Antichristian together, which is indeed as real an impossibility, as for one and the same man, to be both a man and a beast, in a strict and proper sense; 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, can be the Antichrist, yea the Great Antichrist is to reconcile the greatest contradictions. As who would say Whiteness is Blackness, Life is Death. Not doth it suffice to say, as a thing can be partly white and partly black, so the Pope may be partly Christian and partly Antichristian, for to be the Great Antichrist (as I. M. supposeth him to be in the case and I am sure formerly used really to judge him so) is to be wholly Antichristian, and not partly. Now a thing cannot be partly such, and wholly the contrary▪ And besides I. M knoweth out of his own School rules, that the Essences of things are indivisible, and so cannot be parted, (as for example,) the Essence of a Horse is so indivisible that we cannot say, a Horse can be partly a Horse, and partly an Ass; for a living creature that is generated of a Horse and an Ass, is neither a Horse nor an Ass, but a third kind.  
Thirdly, Moreover seeing I. M. affirmeth, that the Roman Church hath neither doctrinal, nor personal succession, some of the Pope's having taken the Chair by force, some by Fraud, some by Simony, some by Magical Arts. It is manifest then that She hath no real and lawful succession at all; but merely usurped: even as if an ordinary Thief or Robber, should by theft or violence, steal or rob the Rights of any civil Authority, and fraudulently insert his Name to be KING: how can this Usurper, who hath no lawful Authority, convey it down to others, and here let us see, if I. M. his distinction can do any good. He conveyeth it down, not as a Thief, or a Robber, but as having the King's-Goods. Ay but I ask, how he hath the KING'S- Goods? it is by stealing of them, and consequently as a Thief, and yet according to the distinction, not as a Thief: so both as a Thief, and as no Thief which is a contradiction, and indeed it is so impossible to conceive that a man can be a Thief, and no Thief, that it is hard to conceive how he can be a Thief and an Honest man together. And seeing some have taken the Popedom by Simony, (as O●e well observeth) The Pope is the Successor rather of Simon Magus, then of Simon Peter and consequently 1 M. who is the Pope's successor, by his own confession must be the successor of Simon Magus also. I desire him not to be offended, for I call not him so, only I tell him what I judge to follow from his own assertion, and indeed I am a shamed, that he should derive either his own or any other of the Protestants call, or Ordination, through so unclean a conduit as the great Antichrist, and through confessed Symoniacks, Magicians and Negromancers yea through Papesse joan, a vile Harlot. Sure I am the most famous of the Primitive Protestants abhorred such a thing, and if at any time any of them alleged that outward Ordination, it was but ane Argument ad hominem, [as we use to say] by way of Retortion to stop the Papists mouths, otherwise acknowledging their Call to be Extraordinary and Immediate, as Calvin, Beza, Sadeel, Fulk and many others, And I believe that distinction of quoad Substantiam, and quoad modum, never came into their heads, for they hade no need of it, and many of the First Reformers, without all question hade no outward Ordination, nor call at all; seeing they were not All in Orders, who were the First Reformers, not so much as Priests but Laymen, and being among the first, they could not be ordained by Protestant Ministers, seeing None were to ordain them. But Lastly, seeing I M. doth hold that the Church of Rome doth err Fundamentaly, and did so before the Reformation, as in being guilty of gross Idolatry, in worshipping a piece of bread for the true GOD, beside other Fundamental Errors; he cannot in reason hold her for a true Church; seeing a Fundamental error destroyeth the Nature of a true Church, otherwise he may say, The Turks are a true Church. Now if she be not a true Church, she can not convey Ordination; because it is a thing only proper to a true Church; for if a false Church can ordain, than the Mahumetants may ordain, or indeed the most abominable People in the World; seeing they are a false Church as well as She. But it seems for all this I. M. holds her to be a true Church, or at least a Church truly, if not Vera, yet Vere. Strange and ridicolous distinctions! as to say, not a true Horse, but truly a Horse, not true Gold, but truly Gold, not true Fire, but truly Fire. Whoever first invented this distinction, seemeth plainly not to have been in his right wits. For indeed every thing is both true and truly what it is, even a Liar is both truly a Liar and a true one, though he is not moraly a true, [that is to say] ● faithful man. But his reason is this, Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of GOD, therefore Rome where the Pope [Antichrist] sitteth is the Temple of GOD. To this, it is easy to answer. That it is one thing to be the Temple of GOD, de jure, another thing, de facto. I confess, Rome is the Church of GOD de jure, of right, and that in a special way, as having been formerly a true and faithful Church of GOD, and though Antichrist hath stepped in, and taken Usurpation; yet the Lord loseth not His right, She is still His de jure, or of right and so are the other places, where the Gospel once flourished, as jerusalem and Alexandria now overrun with Paganism or Mahumetanism, all these places are as much the Temple of GOD, as Rome de jure, and yet I suppose I. M. will not say that de facto they are the Temple of GOD; so that by an easy Metonymy, Rome may be called the Temple of GOD, both as to what She should be, and as to what She once was, even a● Britain, was called the KING'S Dominions and He KING of Britain in the time of His Exile; because it was His formerly and His title to it remained, yet de facto and actually it was in the possession of an Usurper. Nor will this Argument any more prove that Rome is the Church of GOD, than those Pagans are the Church of GOD; because they live in a place, where once the Church of GOD was. And indeed if we take Antichrist more strictly as he is a Spirit, properly the Temple where he sits, is Man's Heart, there opposing the Spirit of Christ, under a pretence of being for Christ, and thus every wicked man under a profession of Christ, hath Antichrist sitting in the Temple of GOD, (to wit) in man, who is the jure GOD'S Temple, but de facto, Antichrists Synagogue: and in some respect, every man on Earth and all men though never so wicked, are the Temple of GOD, (that is to say,) of Right, but not Actually or in Fact; But more especially, they, who have a profession of Christ, and yet give way to that Spirit which opposeth Him, they are the Temple of GOD, not realy, but seemingly, not in truth, but in show, and that the Scripture sometimes is so to be derstood [to wit] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or according to opinion or appearance only I.M. himself doth well allow. But though we had the Letter of the Bible conveyed to us, by the Popes and Church of Rome, which yet may be doubted, the case is not alike as to Ordination. For I may take my Father's goods from a Thief, seeing they are my Fathers, and mine by my Father; But if that Thief hade killed my Father, who was the true KING of the Country, and made himself the KING and offereth to make me a Magistrate under him, I am not to receive it from him; because he is not the jure, one himself, so that there is one reason or manner of conveying Goods, another of conveying an Office, seeing the Goods may be mine antecedently to the conveying, the Office only becomes mine in the conveying. We have a right to the Scripture immediately of GOD, who hath given it us for our profit and comfort, and therefore it is ours antecedently to all conveyance. But to be ordained is not a man's right before, but in the Act it becometh his.  
GEORGE KEITH. Write at ABERDEEN in SCOTLAND, in the Beginning of the Sixth Month, 1675.   

SECT. XII, BY ANOTHER HAND. Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us, and how much more truly it agreeth to our Opposers, is evidenced by a short Account of many weighty particulars, wherein they agree with Romanists against us.  
I Suppose the Reader by the perusal of the Former Treatise is sufficiently informed and persuaded how much I. M. and his Brethren have abused us in casting upon us the Imputation of Popery, and how innocent we are of that charge. But their crime is so much the greater that they falsely charge us of that, of which, themselves are highly guilty, which briefly to demonstrat for Thy further satisfaction is the business of these two last Sections. If we consider the principles and doctrines of the Romanists and those of I. M. and his Brethren and those of the Quakers; there is no man of reason can deny, but that they aggree Ten Times more with the Papists, then do the Quakers, as will thus easily appear.  
First, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree as to their notions and distinctions of Trinity and Persons: which the Quakers deny; who though they confess Father, Son, and Spirit, and that these three are one, (according to the Scriptures;) yet deny the School-mens uncertain notions and unscriptural, terms of TRINITY and PERSONS so here the Papists and I. M. agree against the Quakers  
Secondly, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that Infants are really guilty of Adam's sin before they commit actually any of their own, which the Quakers deny they are, until they actually sin; though they acknowledge a Seed of sin in Infants conveyed unto them by reason of Adam's transgression.  
Thirdly, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in denying there is a Saving, Evangelicall, Supernatural Light in all men, by which, they may be saved without the use of other outward means, if GOD necessarily abstract them from them, both affirming that such as have not the Scriptures or some to preach to them or baptise them &c must of necessity perish, unless the Lord make use of some extraordinary means. All which the Quakers deny, who though they believe the Scriptures and outward knowledge of CHRIST to be both very useful and comfortable, and absolutely necessary to be believed by such as GOD conveyeth it to; yet can not think GOD so unmerciful or unjust as to damn those for not believing that, which he never affordeth them an occasion to hear, who if they obey and follow the LIGHT, (which is the Gospel preached in them,) may come to be saved.  
Fourthly, The Papists and I. M. agree in affirming that humane learning and natural parts are more Essential qualifications to Ministers and Preachers than the Grace of GOD, averring that men may be true Ministers without the Grace of GOD, but not without the other, which the Quakers deny and condemn.  
Fifthly, The Papists and I. M. agree in deryving the power of their Ministry by ane outward succession, which together with the use of outward ordination they judge sufficient to constitute a Minister though he want ane inward call from GOD'S-Spirit reckoning people are obliedged to hear him and look upon him as a Minister, because of this outward formality of ordination, without questioning his inward call. Whereas on the contrary they agree in affirming that whatever inward call from GOD'S- Spirit a man have, he ought not to be heard nor received as a Preacher, until he obtain this outward approbation. All which the Quakers deny as Antichristian.  
Sixthly, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that the Clergy ought to be a distinct sort of Persons distnguished from the rest of the people by their BLACK COATS etc. So that it is not lawful for Honest Tradesmen, such as was the Apostles to preach, who have not past their APPRENTICE-SHIP at the University, and there Learned the ART and TRADE of Preaching. But the Quakers say the contrary, believing all may prophesy if moved thereunto, and that ane honest trade is noways inconsistent with a Gospel Minister.  
Seventhly, The Papists and I.M. with his brethren agree in affirming that Preachers are not to wait to speak as the Spirit gives them utterance; but aught to study it in their Closets before hand, and then when the BELL ringeth repeat over before the people, as the Schoolboys do their Lessons, and the Commedians their parts upon the stages. But all this is denied by the Quakers.  
Eightly, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree that Ministers ought to have a SET-LIMITED-HIRE; and ought not to supply their wants with their hands, as did the honest Apostle Paul, but sit at ease and feed of the fat, and clothe themselves with the finest of the wool, and take from such by violence and poinding, as cannot for conscience sake hear them, and so receive none of their spirituals. But all this the Quakers deny as Antichristian  
Nynthly, The Papists and I. M. and his present Prelatic brethren (not his OLD PRESBYTERIAN and INDEPENDENT FRIENDS) agree in affirming that all Ministers are not alike; but that there ought to be DIOCESIAN BISHOPS over the rest, whom men must call MY LORD. Which is denied and condemned by the Quakers as Antichristian.  
Tenthly, The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree, in affirming that men may, yea, and aught to pray, preach and do all other acts of worship, when they please, whether they be moved and influenced by GOD'S Spirit or not, which the Quakers deny as will worship and superstition.  
Eleventhly, The Papists and I. M. with his brethren agree, in 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 brethren agree, in affirming that INFANT-SPRINKLING is an Ordinance of the Gospel, which the Quakers deny,  
Thirteenthly, The Papists and I. M. and his brethren agree, in affirming that the partaking of the visible Signs of B●ead and Wine, is a Sacrament or standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ, Which the Quakers deny.  
Fourteen, The Papists and I. M. and his brethren agree, that it is lawful for Christians to swear which the Quakers according to the express command of Christ, do deny.  
Fifteenthly, The Papists and I. M. and his brethren agree, that it is lawful for Christians, to fight and KILL ONE-ANOTHER in fight, which the Quakers deny.  
Sixteenthly, The Papists and I. M. and his brethren agree, in the bloody Antichristian Tenet of PERSECUTION, in affirming that the Civil Magistrate may lawfully Kill, Banish, Imprison and poinded men for their Opinions in matters of Worship and Doctrine, which Doctrine the Quakers deny.  
Seventeenthly, The Papists and I. M. with his brethren agree, in affirming it lawful for men to Knell, Bow, and take off their Hats One to another, and in the use of vain Titles, Compliments and Cringeing, etc. all which things the Quakers deny.  
Eighteenthly, The Papists and I. M. and his brethren agree, in asserting the lawfulness of Gaming, Sporting, Playing, and all such● other things, as Danceing, Sing, acting of Comedies, useing of Lace, Ribbons, plating the Hair, and such other kind of Superfluities, all which the Quakers deny.  
I could have instanced several 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 denied, but that I. M. and his brethren do agree in those before mentioned particulars, and that jointly in opposition to the Quakers, who then can deny but that there is more affinity betwixt I. M. and the Papists, then betwixt the Quakers and them. And if I. M. and the Papists agree in many more particulars, and that more weighty against the Quakers, than he himself can allege the Quakers do 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 far more near a kin. As for his Popish charges against us, we have vindicated ourselves 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 far 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 brethren have already proven how they and Papists do in these agreements against us contradict both Truth and Scripture, and that in several Books already published, which lie at their door unanswered.   

SECT. XIII. Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue; wherein the whole is briefly resumed, and the falseness of the Accusation, as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the view of the Serious and Impartial-Reader.  
THe Sum of what is said, results here, that the Quakers do as much, yea more than any Protestants deny these Gross, Abominable, Idolatrous and Superstitious Popish Doctrines, upon the occasion whereof the Reformation first took place, and therefore in no true respect can be said to return to Popery.  
But upon the contrary the principles, doctrines and practices 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 i●. The root and ground of Popery, and all Apostasy standing principally and fundamentaly in this one thing, (to wit) a forsaking, neglecting, overlooking and despising the gift of GOD, the spirit of GOD, the inward Anointing, which should be the constant immediate and only guide of Christians, as that whereby is signified their daily dependence, relying upon, and trusting to the Lord above, and being ruled by him, and a setting up exalting and following man's own will, spirit and wisdom, as he stands in his fallen degenerate state; in which great error and Apostasy, Papists, and Protestants are one in the root and spring; however subdivided in the branches and streams, as will appear by this short resumption of the former particulars  
First, in that both Papists and Protestants do not derive the ground of their knowledge from the inward immediate 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 external testimony, and is by mere 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 immediate witness of GOD. But the Quakers do the contrary.  
Secondly, Being strangers then to this inward testimony, they have invented in their imaginations several strange and wild notions of GOD, darkened and clouded the clear knowledge of Him, with many heathenish and barbarous terms, distinctions and nycities, the useless fruit of man's fallen, 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 wrote the Scriptures, which terms as of a Trinity (a word not to be found in all the Bible) of separate distinct persons, the Quakers in opposition to both Papists and Protestants reject, as being such as are neither revealed in them by the spirit, nor testified of in the Scriptures.  
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 immediate call of GOD'S Spirit, nor the assistance and influence of His Grace, a necessary qualification. So here is man with his fallen 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 do the contrary. Fourthly, The Worship both of Papists and Protestants is a voluntary will-worship, stands in man's will and traditional appointments of meats and drinks divers 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 do the contrary.  
Fifthly, The Papists and Protestants are one in the same spirit of pride▪ vanity, lust and envy, whereby they both are for fight, 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 clothes and meats, whilst the Poor among both are ready to starve in the fruitless and sinful use of games, sports and invented recreations in the general abuse of precious time, and all the good creatures of GOD, being 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 natural worldly glory and liberty set up by both and the mortified, meek, self-denied life of jesus neglected. Whereas the Quakers in opposition to both have witnessed against those things, and are in measure by the spirit of jesus, (which they follow as their guide) gathered into this life, for which the world and worldly literal 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 general notions of truth as they are assented to by all in words) and is nothing else, but the old corrupt first fallen man with his notional wit, 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 wrote the Scriptures of truth, while they are alienated from the spirit of life and power that these holy men lived in, and spoke from, and therefore in the same wild nature which is one both in Papists and Protestants because their imaginations do 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 natural, 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, renews him, and makes him conform to the Image of GOD in the holy pure, meek, undefiled life of jesus, 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 mere form and imitation; but in the same spirit, life and power with them.  
I shall add no more but that I hope none who will seriously read and consider these things, unless they be either deplorably dark and ignorant, or desperately malicious and prejudicated; but will easily acknowledge that the Quakers differ more widely and fundamentally from Papists, than any other sort of Protestants and therefore that a more Horrid Lie can scarce be hatched then, that Great One (to wit) 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?  
Queen TWO 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 Scriptures be wrested? seeing Peter says, many do wrest them unto their own destruction, or can the spirit of Christ in his inward living and certain manifestation be wrested, yea or nay?  
Queen▪ III. Whither is a rule that a man may loss and be robbed of▪ by outward violence or a Rule that cannot be loosed by any outward violence the best rule? and whether the Scriptures may be loosed by outward violence? or can the spirit of Christ be loosed by any outward violence yea or nay?  
Qu. IU. Whither is a Rule that is manifest evident and certain in itself, or a rule which is but evident, manifest and certain in and by another's 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 immediate operation, in the heart of a Christian, without any external, 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 Scriptures, 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 Scriptures do so? doth not the letter kill, yea or nay?  
Qu. VI Whither is a Rule that makes the commands of GOD, so far from being grievous, that they are a delight unto the heart, and makes it become natural to do the will of GOD, yea meat and drink, so that the yoke of Christ becomes easy and his burden light, or a rule that hath not of itself this virtue, the best rule? and hath not the spirit of Christ in the heart of a Christian, this virtue of itself, or hath the Scripture this virtue of itself, yea or nay?  
Qu. VII. Whither is that which makes nothing perfect, and is weak and unsufficient of itself or that which makes perfect and is strong and sufficient of itself the best rule? and whither of these is true, of the Scriptures, or of the spirit, yea or nay?  
Qu. VIII. Whither is the original of the Scriptures, or a transcription and translation of them the best rule? And is not the spirit of Christ writing the law in the heart, the original of the Scriptures? and most not all under the new Covenant come to this, according to what is promised, jerem. 23. Heb. 8? or is the Hebrew and Greek the first original, 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 eternal Word, spiritually in the Saints, or this life and substance declared by the Scriptures the best Rule? also, whither the law of God written in the heart by the spirit of the living God, or th● law written in any outward book whatsomever with pen and ink, be the best rule, yea or nay?  
Qu. X. Whither is that which can readily answer all occasions and conditions, and infallibly teach man his duty and his place in all cases, without burdening either the memory, or understanding, or going out for seeking counsel from any, or that which hath not these advantages the best Rule? and whither of these is true of the Spirit, or of the Scriptures, 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 Angel's 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 Scriptures, which many of the Saints never had in any outward book or sound, yea or nay?  
Qu. XII Whither is Wisdom itself Goodness itself Righteousness it ●elf, Holiness itself, Love itself, Honesty, Virtue itself, 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 Scripture, yea or nay?  
GEORGE KEITH.  
THE END.   

Friendly 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 falsely accusing us, yet dread nothing more than that we be permitted to vindicat ourselves, and detect their falsehoods) caused surprise the one half of the preceding half sheet at the Press, which put us to some trouble, and necessitat us to take another course, which hath hindered this from coming so soon to thy hands.  
As also, Thy Caendor must excuse some false Stops Commas &c and with thy pen correct some letters and Verbal 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. deal all these 7. lines beginning thus, and Richard Baxter, &c and ending thus, this censure, these lives by the fault of the transcriber, were put in into the wrong place, which pag. 51. cometh in their own proper place. p 32. l. 24. r ●easing p 43 l. 10 r satisfaction p. 44. 16. after justification add 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 job 〈◊〉.