Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	article_n	believe_v	creed_n	2,820	5	10.5298	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47166	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.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1675 (1675)	Wing K194; ESTC R213551	62,351	126

not be too sterile and jejunt and so disgust thee if they hade been only simply vindicated from Popery and barely retorted The Author hath for thy further satisfaction found freedom to open our sense and judgement breifly in the severall particulars here handled manifesting not only the falsness of the Accusers calumnies in evidencing that we differ widely from Papists in these paerticulars but also shewing how Our Beleife of them is aggreable to the Scripturs to the purest antiquity and to the judgment of many of the most famous primitive Protestants So that the Author of this treatise hath well observed Iohn 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 termes Rom● Mend●x and as it is usual for the of-spring to resemble its progenitor and according to our countrey proverb Hard for to take out of the Flesh what is bred in the Bone The Impartial Reader will observe by seriou●ly 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 truely 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 hade not been so ingenuous as to acknowledge it Be it also known unto the READER that we are necessitat to this Controversie being drawn thereunto through the implacable malice of Our Opposers for I. M. in his contensions with the Iesuit would needs concern us by often reflecting upon us who otherwayes were not medling 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 doe forbear to publish Because for severall years we have been threatned with a full confutation of all our principles from GEORGE MELDRVM his Collegue as he himselfe and some of his Bretheren 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 penn of a learned and judicious person in this place to wit ABERDEEN Thou must needs judge READER this is a MIGHTY WORK in the mens own esteem that needs such PREAMBLS to goe 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 TRVTHS SAKE to entertain thee in the Interim untill that GREATER VOLVME appear with this small treat●se which if seriously and Impartialy considered will no● a litle contribute to let thee understand how much we are abused Which that thou may rightly observe and by observing truely improve to thy souls advantage is the earnest desire of thy Well-wisher ROBERT BARCLAY THE CONTENTS SECTION I. Containing the Introduction and Occasion of this Treatise Page 1. SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scripturs where also some things are opened concereing the Rule of Faith and Immediat Revelation p. 5. SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined p. 34. SECT IV. Where the alleadged agreement about Iustification is considered and examined p. 42. SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined p. 55. SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphal Books 58. SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the Efficacy of Grace depended upon Man's FREE-WILL is considered and answered p. 65. SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined p. 73. SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling-Concupiscence is considered and answered p. 75. SECT X. Where severall other alleadged 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 acknowledgment concerning the Ministerial Succession through the Chur●h of Rome is breifly 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 truely 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 〈◊〉 breifly resumed and the falsness 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 Iohn 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 Iesuits so particularly page 20 21 22 The Author of Scolding no Scholarship blames Iohn 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 confirme 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 then 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 alleadgeth 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 doctrin is First every doctrin affirmed in words by the Papists is not a Popish doctrin otherwise that there is one onely God that Christ dyed for sinners and rose again and in a word all the Articles of the apostolick-Apostolick-Creed should be Popish doctrines because in words affirmed by Papists A popish doctrin then is A Doctrin taught and believed commonly by Papists repugnant unto or contradicting the testimony of the Scripturs either expresly 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 Iohn Menzies himself Let us then proceed laying down this definition of a Popish doctrine for a rule whereby to examine what doctrines are Popish and what not The instances brought by Iohn Menzies to show that many of the Quakers notions so he calls our Principles are undoubtedly Popish doctrines are these following First That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat Rule of Faith Secondly That a sinless perfection is attainable in time Thirdly That Men are justified by a righteousnesse wrought within them Fourthly That good works are meritorious Fifthly That Apocryphall books are of equall dignity with other Scriptures Sixthly That the efficacy of Grace depends on mans Free-will Seventhly That reall Saints may totally Apostatize Eightly That indwelling Concupiscence is not our own sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof Before I descend to a particular examination of these eight instances I premise this generall consideration viz. That if we should acknowledge that these eight instances as worded and laid down by Iohn Menzies were held by all Papists and Quakers so called which yet is false as afterwards I intend God-willing to make appear yet that the consequence doth not follow that they are Popish doctrines unless he had also proved that they are repugnant unto the Scriptures testimony according unto the definition of a Popish doctrin formerly laid down Now this Iohn Menzies hath not so much as attempted in this place as against the Quakers and some of them he hath not in all his book as I suppose so much as undertaken even against the Papists However most of what he saith against them as touching any of these particulars do not so militate against us because we differ very materially from them in the very things alleadged Another generall consideration I shall propose and that grounded upon an express affirmation of Iohn Menzies himself positively laid down by him pag. 162. The same sentiment saith he held upon different accounts may be hereticall in the one and not in the other Very well if then I doe show that in those alleadged instances or any others he can alleadge wherein we seem to agree with Papists they and we hold them upon different accounts it doth manifestly follow from Iohn Menzies his own mouth that those sentiments or doctrines may be hereticall and Popish in Papists and not in us called Quakers This advantage that I have again● him out of his own mouth I intend to lay up untill I come to the particulars and then to make a suitable application of it SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scriptures where also some things are opened concerning the rule of Faith and immediat Revelation THe first Popish doctrine that Iohn Menzies chargeth us with is That the Scriptures are not the principall and compleat rule of Faith This article hath two branches 1 That the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith 2 That they are not the compleat rule of Faith As to the first that the Scripturs are not the principall rule of Faith I know not that any Papists say so he ought to have given us his proofe out of their writtings nor will it suffice that he bring the testimony of some privat Doctors among the Papists for a proofe seeing Iohn Menzies denyeth pag. 452. That the testimony of some private Doctors among the Protestants is a sufficient proofe against any Protestant principle I am sure of this that I can bring some of great repute and authority among the Papists who do mantain that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith touching these things revealed or declared particularly and expresly in them as witness Bellarmin oft cited by Iohn Menzies himself lib. 1. cap. 2. De verbo Dei who sayeth expresly That the Scripture is a most certain and sure rule withall affirming that he is certainly a mad man who leaving The most certain testimony of the Scripture betaketh himself unto the judgement of a spirit within him that is oft fallacious and ever uncertain Now that which is a most certain or the most cerrain rule of Faith is the principall rule of Faith I find Iohn Menzies citing Bellarmin against the Papist in his book Roma Mendax pag. 116 Doth not saith Iohn Menzies Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 1. Charge Gaspar Swenkfeldius and the Libertines as declyning the Scripturs and only flying to the inward dictats of the Spirit By this it appeareth manifestly from I. M. own mouth that Bellarmin is not guilty of declining the Scripturs to be the principall rule or of setting up the dictats of the Spirit seeing He chargeth it as a hainous crime against Swenkfeldius Now I appeall to all sober and impartiall Readers whether Iohn Menzies and Bellarmin the Papist and Iesuit whom some call the Popish Champion be not more a kin to one another in this very particular then the Quakers and the said Bellarmin are Doth not I. M. say that the Scripturs are the principall rule of Faith and Bellarmin saith they are the most certain and sure rule and consequently the principall Again doth not I. M. blame them who preferre the inward dictats of the Spirit to the outward testimony of the Scripture and the very same doth Bellarmin in the place already cited by I. Ms. own confession Surely one egge is not liker another then the reproachfull speeches of both Papists and Iohn Menzies with his brethren are against the dictats of the blessed Spirit of GOD in the hearts of believers as being to be preferred as the more excellent rule Here then this first instance as to the first branch is justly retorted upon I. M. himself The Papists deny that the Spirit of GOD inwardly dictating or revealing the truth is the principall rule of Faith to and in every believer and so doth I. M. and his brethren wherein they manifestly agree with Papists against ●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 principall rule of Faith as preferring thereunto the outward testimony of the Church of Rome this doth no wise touch us nor are we concerned with them therein seeing we do no wise prefer the testimony of the Church of Rome or of any other Church unto the Scripture but do indeed prefer the Scripture as the best and greatest outward testimony in the world If then Papists deny that the Scripture is the principall rule on a different account from us they preferring the testimony of the Church thereunto

Fourthly Melancton in Annot. super Iohan. 6. So they who hear only the externall and bodily voice hear a creature and seeing GOD is a Spirit He is neither seen nor known nor heard but in Spirit therefore to hear the voice of GOD to see and know GOD is to hear the Spirit Again by the Spirit alone GOD is known and his voice is perceived it doth not justifie to have heard bodily or after a bodily manner because justification is to be regenerated by the Spirit of GOD. Again the same Melancton Super epist. ad Rom. Per Lutherum editam cap. 2. on these words the Letter and the Spirit For the Letter signifieth not the written sense or the history as Origen thought but all works and all doctrines that live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Law is letter the Gospell is letter the Historie is letter the Spirituall allegoricall Sense is letter yea all that which lives not in the ●eart through the Spirit and Grace is letter The Spirit is that by which the Spirit of Grace liveth in the heart the Spirit is the true love of God and of our neighbour which liveth in the heart which is the law written in the heart by the finger of GOD and not in the tables of stone The Spirit is the faith by which the gospell is truely and from the heart believed And here observe that if all be letter as well the words of the New Testament as of the Old which live not in the heart through the Spirit and Grace then it is manifested that every unregenerat man who is a Preacher is at best but a minister of the letter so that his ministry is letter he is not a minister of the new Testament but of the letter which killeth his ministry is nothing else but a killing letter and is good for nothing Now as to the second branch of his first article that the Scripturs are not a compleat rule of faith this he alleageth is a Popish doctrin mantained by Quakers But First I query how is it a Popish doctrin seeing according to I. M. his own confession some of the Popish Doctors yea many Old School-men as Aquinas Scotus Durandus all hold as it seemeth that the Scripture is the compleat rule of Faith wherein all supernaturall truths necessary to be believed are revealed pag. 76. yea in the same page he saith the Romanists are so farre from that Unity wherof they boast that they are broken into a multitude of Opinions touching the Rule of their Faith and Religion And indeed I M. 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 then it is apparent that there is no doctrin held in common by Us and some of the Papists but the same is contradicted by others of them and so these others of the Popish Doctors agree with I. M. and his Bretheren wherein they contradict Us. But as I have already said page 2. that which indeed maketh a Popish Doctrin is that it be not only affirmed by Papists and that most generally but that it be contrary unto the Scripturs and by this rule we are most willing to be tryed whether he or we have most of the Popish stuff or Wares Secondly as to the charge it self That the Scripturs are not the compleat rule of Faith I do affirme that this charge doth not at all reach us called Quakers more then it reacheth any true Protestants which that I may make to appear I distinguish of Faith as it is common unto all Christians and as it is peculiar and proper unto some now as to common Faith I say the Scripturs are a compleat secondary rule of all principles both fundamentall or essentiall and integrall of common Faith so as there is no principle of Faith whatsomever that is necessary to be believed by all Christians in common whether essentiall or integrall but is sufficiently declared in the Scripturs so that as to common principles of Faith we say the Scripture is not a partiall rule as do those Papists who say it is but a compleat and totall rule and herein we agree with all true Protestants and doe with them reject all unwritten traditions as being any part of the rule of Faith Yet although we say the Scripture is a compleat rule we understand it in its own kinde to wit a compleat externall rule as when I say a compleat Chart or Map of Scotland or England I mean that it is as full as a Map needeth to be yet it is not so full as the Land it self is otherwise it behoved to be as bigg as the Land Again though I call it a compleat rule yet I deny it to be the Principall It is then a compleat Secondary rule and in this we differ exceeding widely and materially from Papists but as to that Faith that is not common and universall but only peculiar and proper to some if there by any such Faith I. M. must needs acknowledge the Scripture is not the rule thereof as for example when George Wishard Iohn Knox and severall others in our own Nation did prophecy some particular things not to be found in Scripture but which indeed They had by speciall revelation this our Scots Protestants do generally acknowledge and some have thought it a great honour to our Nation particularly Durham and the Author of the fulfilling of the Scripturs Now this speciaell revelation was the rule of that proper and peculiar Faith which those men had as touching those particular things whereof they Prophecied but the Scripture was not the Rule of this their peculiar Faith And indeed for this distinction of ommon and peculiar Faith the Scripture is plaine as where it saith Rom. 14.22 Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self This is that peculiar and proper Faith as is said unto which belongs that Faith whereby I or any other particular true Christian doeth believe that we are indeed the Children of God For that a man may have ane assurance of Faith that he is a Child of GOD is granted by true Protestants and yet the rule of this particular Faith can not be the Scripture seeing no Scripture in all the Bible saith that such a man by name now living is a Child of GOD for although the Scripture give true and certain markes of a Child of GOD yet it doth not tell me that I have these markes and so can not be the Rule unto me whereby to know or believe that I have them indeed But the Spirit himself beareth witnesse with our Spirits that wee are the Children of GOD. Rom. 8. And this Faith I say whereby a particular person doth believe that he is a true Child of GOD that he is regenerated and sanctified and

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 farr 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 reall knowledge and Faith in all their actings how farr they are approved and justified of GOD and as their is a peculiar and proper faith that is not the common faith so I doe 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 reall commandement seing 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 Doctrin among such a particular people rather then 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 speciall 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 speciall 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 farr 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 compleat and sufficient declaration and testimony and indeed the best and most compleat outward rule that is in the world unto which all Doctrins and principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed as to a Test or Touch ston in all externall debates and disputations whatsomever so that whatever Doctrin or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenour of the Scripturs Testimony is to be denyed 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 Scripturs 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 hainou● 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 Councells pass out their definitions by immediat 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 foure together with a whole Universitie of Papists the most famous in the world for two the two are guiltie of Enthusiasm and the four with the Universitie of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts as the other are Enthusiasts So here is farr 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 impartiall men consider whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrin seeing that it is most probably a Pop●sh doctrin 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 reall 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 doctrin 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 doe as much Sure I am that diverse 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 Aphorismes of Iustification pag. sayes That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin 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 judgment 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 seing 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 Apostacy 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

verse 14. to verse 25. For to say that Paul at that time when he wrot that Epistle was carnall sold under sin being in captivity to the law of sin in his members 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 strugling and warfaire estate before the victory was attained wheras 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 Iesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death Elsewhere as 1. Cor. 15. verse 55.56.57 O death where is thy sting O grave where is thy victory The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law but thanks be to GOD which giveth us the victory through our Lord Iesus Christ see also Rom. 8.57 2. Tim 4.7 Another objection they make from 1. Kings 8.46 There is no man that sinneth not Like unto this i● Chron. 6.36 Eccles. 7.20 To which I answere that the words being in the second future may be translated in the potentiall mood as indeed Iunius and Tremellius truly translate it thus there is no man who may not sin this we doe not deny for a possibility of sinning is consistent with a perfect and sinless estate as 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 underst●od of men in the naturall unconverted and unjustified state and so is impertinently alleadged against per●ection But the main and most ordinary Objection is from the words of the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples Forgive us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us Matthew 6.12 Which Prayer is to be daily put up unto GOD as appears by the preceeding petition Give us this day our daily bread so that as the best on earth need daily bread they need also daily to say Forgive us our sins To which I answere First That this place doth no more militate against perfect sanctification then it doth against perfect justification which is comprehensive of a forgivness of all sin Now doth not I. M. and his Brethren acknowledge yea plead for it that the Sai●ts have all their sins forgiven them in time yea that the least Saint hath perfect forgivness let them see what answere they can give to the one which we cannot give to the other I answere Secondly forgivness of sin may be understood two wayes First As it is received by every particular Saint and Child of GOD in his heart and conscience by the secret intimation of the Spirit of GOD and so 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 finall and signall absolution of them and for this the most perfect may and ought to pray Before I goe from this second alleadged article of Popish doctrin I shall only remind I. M. how it is and how it may be very safely retorted upon Himself and his Brethren who together with Papists doe wrest and abuse those and such like Scripturs before mentioned to plead against a sinless state and so to uphold the Devills-Kingdom SECT IV. Where the alleadged agreement about Iustification is considered and examined A Third instance of Popish doctrin charged by I. M. upon the people called Quakers is That men are justified by a righteousness wrought in them But unless he can prove that this doctrin is contradictory unto the Sc●rpturs testimony it is not a Popish doctrin although Papists doe hold 〈◊〉 more then it is a Popish doctrin to hold That there is one GOD. Nor is I. M. ignorant how many doe hold Iustification to be by an inward righteousness whom he doth notwithstanding acknowledge to be true Protestants and these not only some of them Presbyterians such as Baxter but of the Episcopall-way not a few if not the greatest number as witness their books on that subject Also that the primitive Protestants diverse of them were of the same mind William Forbes doth show in his book already cited to which I refer the Reader ye● Iames Durham a noted Presbyterian doth sufficiently clear us of Popery as where he declareth in his commentary on the Revelation degr 11 That where Christ is rested upon for Iustification and his Sanctification acknowledged they ought not who doe so to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other inward spirituall vertues and graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Now we indeed rest upon Christ alone and not upon Mary nor any other of the Saints as the Papists are said to doe and the satisfaction of Christ we doe acknowledge in the true sense of it so as that by his obedience death and sufferings he hath indeed obtained remission of sins unto all who truely believe and repent Now that repentance is expresly required in Scripture as necessary unto remission of sins which I. M. doth hold at least to be a great part if not the whole of our Iustification see Acts 3.19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be bloted out c. Observe here not only repentance but conversion are both expresly required in order to forgiveness or blotting out of sin and consequently in order to Iustification seeing our Adversaries acknowledge that forgiveness is a part of Iustification and Calvin seemeth to place it wholly therein But that repentance and conversion are a great part if not comprehensive of the whole work of inward righteousness wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD I suppose I. M. will not deny See Acts 26.18 To turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto GOD that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified Here expresly the turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto GOD is required in order to