Quakerism no popery, or, A particular answere to that part of Iohn Menzeis, professor of divinity in Aberdeen, (as he is called) his book, intituled Roma mendax Wherein the people called Quakers are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many popish doctrins, and as if Quakerism, (so he nick-names our religion,) were but popery-disguised. In which treatise his alleadged 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 bretheren. By George Keith.

SECT. X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practise, and divers other Calumnies of that kind, are considered and examined.

AS for his Criminations page 22.23. that Qua∣kers have so much indignation at these who goe under the name of Puritans, and so much correspondense with Romanists, with whom before they could not converse. I answere, to the First, as we love all men, to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans, we have a speciall kindness for: in whom the true Puritanicall Spirit is alive, by which they were seperated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the worlds religion, and also from their profane customs. And who will nar∣rowly 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 aggreed 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 dayes a∣mong many who bear that name.

As to the Second, for our Converse with Roma∣nists, 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 Presbyteri∣ans, wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured; and enlarged our hearts with true love, both to Pa∣pists (so called) or any others differing from us, so as we can converse with them, either about our worldly lawfull occasions, or in order to be instrumen∣tall unto their conviction and better information. We ought not to be blamed, providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinfull thing: farr 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 disciplin of their Church. Again whereas he querieth, have not persons gone under the cha∣racter of Quakers in Brittain, who have been known to be professed Priests, M••n••ks or Iesuits in France and Italy. This informatory question, may be return∣ed with another of the same nature, have not Pa∣pists, if not Priests, Mon••ks or Iesuits gone under the character of Protestants, both in England and Scotland; yea in Aberdeen: will it therefore fol∣low, that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised. It is most certain that many Papists [so called] did outwardly conform to the Protestant reli∣gion, so farr as to goe to their publick 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 hade a dispensation from the Pope. And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practise, which showeth that some have done it: yea some in Aber∣deen have been known to doe so, will it therefore follow, that Protestants in Aberdeen are but dis∣guised Papists? And yet the Case is the same. He proceedeth to tell, that he heard a chief Quaker con∣fess before famous witnesses that one giving himsel•• out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family, was discove∣red to be a Popish Priest. I answere, if it hade been so, (how the thing was whether true or false▪ I have not hade opportunity yet to examin,) i•• proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ou•• to be a true christian, Hypocrisie is true christiani••ty disguised. And if it be true as I. M. saith, tha•• Romanists, espcially Iesuits can transform them••selves into all shapes, admitt then that some Iesui•• doth transforme himself into the shape of I. M▪ himself, (or at least of his religion,) will it fol••••ow that I. M. is a Iesuit or a Romanist but disgu••sed▪ or his religion Iesuitism? but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleadged to have given him••self 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, fa••less one thing. If he could prove that any Romanist

Priest, Monck, or Iesuit 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 farr 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 doe, could only prove the Quaker at that ••ime, was in a mistake, without any reflexion upon his Rel••gion.

As to his Instance of Prophetesses among the Pa∣pists such as Hildegardis, Katherin of Sens and Briget, whom he compareth unto the WOMEN PREACHERS among the Quakers. The compa∣rison is unequall; seeing prophecying in that sense, and preaching are two distinct things, we hear no∣thing of those Prophetesses preaching in religious as∣semblies of Men and Women; and seeing the Protes∣tants commonly acknowledge, that GOD may in in those dayes give unto men the knowledg of things to come by a Spirit of prophecy as he hath done unto some: how is I. M. sure, that it shall never be gi∣ven unto Women, for they may be Prophetesses by giving forth their prophecies in writt, although they speak nothing in the Church. As for Hilde∣gardis, She is acknowledged both by Fox in his acts and mon: and by Brightman in his commentary on the Revelation to have been a Prophetesse, whose prophecy is brought in by them both as a witness a∣gainst the Papists, especially the begging Fryars. As for Papists allowing Women to baptise, it con∣cerns

us nothing, who look upon SPRINKLIN•• of INFANTS whether by men, or women, but ••s an•• human tradition. And as to Papesse Ioan, seeing I. M. by his own confession derives his call through Rome, he is one of her Lineall Succesors, through whom it is conveyed to him. But have not there been Women among the Presbyterians, who have spoke in the presence of many both men and women, of their experiences of the things of GOD. I sup∣pose I. M. may have heard of Margaret Mitchelson who spoke to the admiration of many Hearers at Edenburgh, as concerning her experience in the time of Henry Rogue, Preacher there, who is said to have come and heard her himself, and to have given her this testimony (being desired to speak him∣self) that he was to be silent when his Master was speaking, (meaning Christ in that Presbyterian wo∣man.) There is a relation of her speaches going about from hand to hand among Professors at this day, and I my self have heard a Presbyterian wo∣man speak in a meeting of Presbyterians, which were a Church or convention of men and women. Yet hath not I. M. in such meetings, and consequently in assemblies of Churches, invited some women to speak and pray, and declared solemnly (whether he did it meerly in his ordinary customary way of Complementing, that is best known to himself) that he was edified thereby. And if some of those Women for∣merly in that respect so much applauded by I.M. be of those that now open their mouths in the Quakers mee∣tings how comes it now to be Popish and hereticall,

more then in the dayes of old when I. M. did use to frequent the CHAMBER-CONVENTICLES, unless that he now hath forgotten these, because fear hath made them out of fashion with him. Besides that Whores to this day upon the Stool of Repentance (so called) speak in your publick assemblies.

And whereas it is Objected by Some, That their Church doth not allow unto Whores Authoritative-teaching. To this I answere, First, that at least they permit them to speak in the Church, and so by their own principle, they transgress the words of the Apostle, saying, It is not permitted unto them to speak. 1. Cor. 14.34. And again, I permit not a Woman to teach, 1. Tim. 2.12. Secondly, doe not they command and call them to speak, and there∣fore is not their call to speak or teach as much au∣thoritative from the Preachers, as the Preachers call is from the Pope, seeing none of them pretend to the true authority of the inward call of GOD, which is by IMMEDIAT REVELATION.

Next, he falleth upon Enthusiasm, asking what other grounds hath the Romish Infallible Iudge to walk upon, but Enthusiasms, and pretended Inspi∣rations. I answere, yet, he hath another ground, which the Popish Doctors much more commonly al∣leadge then any Enthusiasm, and that is, an effec∣tive assistance of the Holy Ghost, which is not any objective immediat revelation; but a subjective illu∣mination, and this is also, the very ground, why a Presbyterian who esteems himself a true Christian, thinks he can not erre fundamentally in a point of

faith, (to wit) a blind unknown assistance of the Spirit pretended both by Pope and Presbyterians, without immediat objective revelation. I say a blind unknown assistance, because by confession of both par∣ties, it is meerly effective and not objective, and so Medium incognitum assentiendi, an unknown midst of assenting, as R. Barron did call it. And whence have either Prelaticall or Presbyterian Professors borrowed this deceitfull, and Antichristian-distinction of an effective illumination of the Spirit of GOD, as contradistinct from an objective; yea seperated from it? But from the Popish Doctors: Sacroboscus •• Popish Doctor useth the same distinction of subjective and objective assistance, def. decret. Trident. pag 93. and 94. cited by Iackson, third book of com∣ment. on the Creed. And this I may more justly charge upon I. M. and his Brethren, that they have learned this deceitfull distinction of effective and ob∣jective illumination from Papists, then that where∣with he chargeth us, as having learned from Roma∣nists to call the Scripturs a dead Letter. pag. 71. For we do no otherwise call or esteem the Scripture a dead letter, but as it is not accompanied with an administration of the Spirit, and in this sense, Fa∣mous Protestants have affirmed the same, as both O Ecolampadius, and Calvin, yea and Iohn Owen in the very same bo••k of the divine authority of the Scripturs, doth positively assert the same, that the Scripture is a dead letter, where it is not accompa∣nied with an administration of the Spirit, giving an instance in the unbelieving Iewes, which holdeth no

less in unbelievers professing Christianity,

Next whereas he alleadgeth that the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches, I an∣swere, if it were so this is but an evasion as to that Instance of affinity that the Quakers have with Papists; seeing in this the Quakers rather agree with the Puritans, both whose principle it is, that it is lawfull for Persons to carry on a Reformation, with∣out any publick consent, or allowance of those in outward authority: which sort of Reformation the Author of Scolding no Scholarship, calleth Reforma∣tion by a privat spirit: though what is done by the Spirit of GOD in privat men, is by a publick and universall spirit, such as the Spirit of GOD is, nor doth it answere it, that he calleth the Reformation among the Quakers a Deformation; for besides, that he but beggs the question in that he cannot but know, that the Papist doth as much think, either the Epis∣copall 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, accor∣ding to his rule above mentioned: the Papists designe and ours, as in relation to those he calls Reformed Churches, beeing as farr different as North from South, makes the difference to be so wide, seeing what they doe against you, is to bring you back again to the grossest part of Popery: what we doe is but to move you foreward, that you may leave behind and throw away those too many and hurtfull relicts of Popish principles and practises, which hinder you

from being a truely Reformed Church that so you may be indeed a Reformed Church and People unto GOD. And so farr as the Reformed Churches (so called) have forsaken any Popish principles and prac∣tises whatsomever in that we allow them, and have unity with all the sincere and upright in heart, a∣mong them, which are but a very few in respect of the great multitudes of profane and scandolous Per∣sons: nor is it any thing of the Work of GOD, that he hath wrought in any, whether among Papists or Protestants (so called) that we seek to break down; but indeed to cherish it, and build it up; But it is the work of the Enemie, that our testimony is a∣gainst and for the breaking of it down, where ever it appears, both in our selves and in others. Finally, whereas he saith that we Romanise in denying the Scripturs to be the compleat and principall Rule of Faith. I have so sufficiently answered it above, that I need say no more here: Only for a testimony of our agreement with true Protestants, against all Po∣pish superstitions and traditions whatsomever, this I affirm: that whatever principle or practice in Reli∣gion is obtruded by Papists or any other, upon the account of tradition that is not to be found declared and witnessed to in the Scripturs, or can not by sound evidence of true reason be deduced from the Scripturs is to be rejected utterly, and denyed by every true Christian: which principle as it is verba∣ly owned by many Protestants, I wish it were as re∣aly practised among them, and then it should be known how cordialy and realy we should joyn

with them in all things against the common Enemie of true Reformation. And as to his charity (or ra∣ther indeed the defect of it) wherewith he concludes this matter in expressing himself jealous, that both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scrip∣ture in the World. As it relates to us, I shall only wish that the LORD may forgive him his hard thoughts conceived against us without any just ground, and shall be so farr from thinking so of him or any of his B••ethren that they could wish there were no Scripture, that I really believe they are glade that it is in the World. For either they have a mea∣sure of sincerity, and who have this will love the Scripture upon this good principle, or they have not, as indeed too many of them, as I suppose by I. M. his own concession, are of that stamp, who are but mercenary and covetous men, even whose GOD is their belly, and mind Earthly things, and yet these are glade to have the Scripturs, not to conform their lives unto them; but to make a trade of them, Cauponantes Verbum Dei, Making merchandise of the Word of GOD, as the Apostle declareth. 2. Cor. 2.17.