Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	holy_a	person_n	23,263	5	5.9853	4	true

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

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 Prophecied of the death of the Cardinall or Iohn Knox called by some the APOSTLE of the Scots whose particular prophecies are mentioned in the History of his life seeing these me● had immediat 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 falsly pretended Enthusiasms whether of Papists or any others which contradict the tenour of the Scripturs testimony wee 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 minde will and counsell that is never contrary but alwayes conform unto the Scripturs of truth I doe plainly and freely declare my self together with my Brethren to be for it as a most excellent principle of christian religion and indeed as the only true originall 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 tosse it from hand to hand as refusing to give it any shelter or entertainment as We see they doe 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 doe oppen our very souls and hearts to let in this most harmless and most helpfull Stranger who was the Freind and Beloved-companion Bossome and Heart-freind of all the holy Patriarchs Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Martyrs of Iesus Christ who all held the Testimonie of Iesus which is the Spirit of prophecy for which the Dragon was wroth and fought against them but they overcame by this word o● their Testimonie 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 writtings a declaration of their inward Sentiments Faith Feeling and knawledge Now all who are truely inspired have not this gift for to some it is given to beleive to others both to belive and speak and writ and yet the spirit is one and the same in both and although we doe affirm that some doe both speak and writ from a measure of the same spirit which the Prophets and Apostles hade yet we neither equall our selves nor our writtings unto them and theirs they having had such a Solemne and extra-ordinary inward conduct and guiding of the spirit of GOD which is generally acknowledged as did se●ure them from all error and mistake in writting the Scripturs the divine spirit so aboundantlie 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 dictats leadings and directions of the same as being over-ruled by a most sweet and powerfull 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 generall 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 doe freely acknowledge They have a dignity and excellency in them above our writtings But as for us and what we speak and write although we affirme that the least measure of the true leading and moving of the spirit of GOD in our hearts is in it self 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 writting it is possible for us in some measure more or lesse 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 chastitie 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 minde laboureth under any defect of remissness or unwatchfulness SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined THe Second Instance adduced by I. M. to prove the Quakers guil●ie of Popish Doctrins 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 mortall and veniall which others of them deny affirming that She h●de originall sin but that the People of GOD Mary only excepted by some few could attaine to a sinless perfection in time I require I. M. to show out of their writters or rather out of their publick confessions and definitions of Popish counsels seeing it is not the privat opinions of some either Popish or Protestant privat Doctors by I. M. his own confession that maketh an Opinion Popish or Protestant Yea doth not I. M. know how eage●ly Bellarmin that Popish Champion doth dispute against Pelagius in this very point pleading from diverse Scripture such as There is no man who sinneth not 1. Kings 8. verse 46. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. 1. Iohn 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 mortall and veniall By veniall sins he meaneth sins of a lesser size or degree which both Papists and Protestants acknowledge to be sins however they differ otherwayes as to the nature of veniall sin that i● extri●sick 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 Doctrin generally condemned but this viz. that he taught that men could attain to this freedom from sin by his endeavours without the speciall grace and supernaturall help and assistance of the holy spirit so that Augustin who was the greatest impugner of the Pelagian Heresy

and the contrary repugnant thereunto Before I pass from this Sixt Instance or Head of Popish doctrin I cannot omitt to take notice how handsomely or rather unhandsomely I. M. in his Roma Mendax goeth about to evade that charge of Novelty concerning free-will imputed unto him and these of his way the Papist chargeth him as denying free-will since the fall of Adam he answereth he and they of his way doe not deny free-will But this answere of I. M. is a faint evasion the charge as to the intent of it is whether there be in all men in the fall a free-will to convert and turn unto GOD by any grace given by GOD. If the Papist did not so word his charge I. M. hath taken the advantage of his failure and oversight but I would willingly know what I. M. doth or will answere to this charge That he and his Brethren doe indeed deny any free-will in any unconverted Men by any Grace of GOD given them to convert and turn to GOD this I charge upon I. M. and his Brethren as a novelty repugnant both to Scripture and Antiquity in the purest times that he affirmeth men have free-will to evil in a naturall state doth no way bring him of For the question is not whether there be in man a free-will to evil but unto good whereby it is possible for him to convert by any grace of GOD given him Like unto this is his other evasion about merit he is brought to confess that some of the Fathers in the three first Centuries did use the word merit but in an innocent sense Very well then why may not some Others use it in ane innocent sense also Why doth he accuse the People called Quakers for using the word merit seeing he saith himself that it hath ane innocent sense and also that the Protestant Churches have not abhored from or rejected the word merit where can he prove our of the Quakers books that either they hold merit of good works ratione operis or ratione operis pacti as having a meritorious condignity in them unto Eternall life as many of the Papists teach When he accuseth the Quakers for holding that good works are meriterious may I not justly say unto him as he sayeth unto the Papist pag. 290. Ought he not to have told what he meant by merit of good works I shall conclude this Head with a just and equall retorsion of this very matter of free-will upon I. M. and his brethren who confess that a famous party of the Popish Church doth oppose the doctrin of free-will in all men unto good and these are Dominicans Thomists and Ianse●ists pag. 289. Well then and doth not I. M. oppose the same so that if one sort of Papists to witt the Iesuits seem to aggree with us in the matter of free-will although I could easily show very materiall differences betwixt them and us in this very particular Here are three great sorts or tribes of Papists who doe really agree with I. M. and he with them in the contrary doctrin SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined THe Seventh Instance of Popish doctrin charged on the Quakers is that reall Saints may totally apostatize To this I answere if by reall Saints he meaneth those who are come to a confirmed state and condition in holines so as to have obtained the Election and are the Elect of God in the strict sense I say none of these can totaly fall away or Apostatize and that this state is attainable in time and is attained unto by many we doe affirme and if Papists deny any such state as attainable in this life we oppose them but if he mean that men may fall away from some true and reall beginnings of Sanctification who as yet are not come to the state of the Elect in Christ Iesus in the Fore-knowledge of GOD before the World began this is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is a truth conform both to the Scripturs Testimony and the Fathers so called as also unto the most famous of Protestant Writters The Augustan Confession set out by as famous Protestants as any he can name doth expresly condemn it as an Anabaptist error that they who are once justified cannot lose the Holy Spirit And Melancton in many places in his loc com doth affirm That men may commit such gross sins as whereby they may expell the Holy Spirit after having once received him Augustin sayeth expresly lib. de correctione gratia That some love God and yet doe not persevere in that Good unto the end And in his book de bono perseverantiae cap. 8. he saith of two that are holy why perseverance is given to the one and is not given to the other the judgments of GOD are the more ins●rutable Prosper ad septimam sayeth That of the regenerat in CHRIST IESUS some having left the Faith and holy manners doe apostatize from GOD. Cyprian Epistola ad Gratianum The disciplin departing the Grace of the LORD departed also Many other testimonies could be cited for the same but that I intend brevity at present SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling Concupiscence is considered and answered THe Eight and Last Instance of Popish doctrin charged on us is that indwelling concupiscence is not our sin untill we consent to the lusts thereof To this I answere that this principle as he doth represent it I know not that it is owned by any Quaker We doe indeed say that the seed of sin is not imputed unto them for sin who doe not obey it nor consent unto it even as the seed of Grace and righteousness that is in wicked men is not imputed unto them for righteousness because they doe not obey it but if this seed of concupiscence indwell in any it becometh sin unto them seeing it is impossible but they who give it a dwelling in them must also give obedience unto it but it may be in them in whom it doth not indwell for indwelling signifieth Union and kindly reception Cassander doth show that Augustin openly sayeth Aug. exp ad Gal. That concupiscence in the Regenerat is not sin when not consented unto which yet elsewhere he calleth 〈◊〉 And that the controversie in this particular is rather about Name then thing Consult super Articulum secundum It is certain that the Regenerat may and doe find at times a temptation in the flesh or fleshly part unto that which is evil which temptation or inclination or however it be called is an evil thing and inclineth to evil yea to sin and in that respect by a metonymie may be called sin it self but that it maketh the soul guilty of death without its own consent is no where to be found in Scripture It is said The soul that sinneth it shall die Ezek. 18.4 Now to sin importeth a consent of the will which being wanting both in the Regenerat and also

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 tho 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 Fathers 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 Magistrat under him I am not to receive it from him because he is not de 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 immediatly 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 mans right before but in the Act it becometh his GEORGE KEITH Write at ABERDEEN in SCOTLAND in the Beginning of the Sixth Moneth 1675. SECT XII BY ANOTHER HAND Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us and how much more truely 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 perusall of the Former Treatise is sufficiently informed and perswaded 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 falsly 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 doctrins 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 doe 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 Scripturs yet deny the School-mens uncertain notions and unscripturall 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 guiltie of Adams sin before they committ actually any of their own which the Quakers deny they are untill they actually sin though they acknowledge a Seed of sin in Infants conveyed unto them by reason of Adams 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 necessarly abstract them from them both affirming that such as have not the Scripturs 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 Scripturs and outward knowledge of CHRIST to be both very usefull and comfortable and absolutly necessary to be believed by such as GOD conveyeth it to yet can not think GOD so unmercifull or unjust as to damne those for not believeing 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 naturall parts are more Essentiall qualifications to Ministers and Preachers then 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 condemne 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 reckning 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 untill he obtaine this outward approbation All which the Quakers deny as Antichristian Sixthly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that the Clergie ought to be a distinct sort of Persons distnguished from the rest of the people by their BLACK COATS c. So that it is not lawfull for Honest Trades-men 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 prophecy if moved thereunto and that ane honest trade is no-wayes inconsistent with a Gospel Minister Seventhly The Papists and I.M. with his Bretheren agree in affirming that Preachers are not to wait to speak as the Spirit gives them utterance but ought to study it in their Closets before hand and then when the BELL ringeth repeat over before the people as the School-boyes doe their Lessons and the Commedians their parts upon the stages But all this is denyed 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 cloath themselves with the finest of the woole 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 Prelatick Bretheren not his OLD PRESBYTERIAN and INDEPENDENT FREINDS 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 denyed and condemned by the Quakers as Antichristian Tenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Brethren agree in affirming that men may yea and ought to pray preach and doe 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 Bretheren agree in

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

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 Bretheren agree in affirming that INFANT-SPRINKLING is an Ordinance of the Gospell which the Quakers deny Thirteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren 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 Fourteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree that it is lawfull for Christians to swear which the Qu●kers according to the express command of Christ doe deny Fifteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree that it is lawfull for Christians to fight and KILL ONE-ANOTHER in fighting which the Quakers deny Sixteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree in the bloody Antichristian Tenet of PERSECUTION in affirming that the Civil Magistrat may lawfully Kill Banish Imprison and poynd men for their Opinions in matters of Worship and Doctrin which Doctrin the Quakers deny Seventeenthly The Papists and I. M. with his Bretheren agree in affirming it lawfull for men to Knell Bow and take off their Hatts One to another and in the use of vain Titles Complements and Cringeings c. all which things the Quakers deny Eighteenthly The Papists and I. M. and his Bretheren agree in asserting the lawfulness of Gameing Sporting Playing and all such● other things as Danceings Singings acting of Commedies useing of Lace Ribbands plating the Hair and such other kinde of Superfluities all which the Quakers deny I could have instanced severall 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 denyed but that I. M. and his Bretheren doe agree in those before mentioned particulars and that joyntly in opposition to the Quakers who then can deny but that there is more affinity betwixt I. M. and the Papists then betwix● the Quakers and them And if I. M. and the Papists agree in many more particulars and that more weighty against the Quakers then he himself can alleadge the Quakers doe 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 farr more near a kin As for his Popish charges against us we have vindicated our selves 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 farr 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 Bretheren have already proven how they and Papists doe in these agreements against us contradict both Truth and Scripture and that in severall Books already published which lye at their door unanswered SECT XIII Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue wherein the whole is briefly resumed and the falsness of the Accusation as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the view of the Serious and Impartial-Reader THe Summe of what is said results here that the Quakers doe as much yea more then any Protestants deny these Gross Abominable Idolatrous and Superstitious Popish Doctrins upon the occasion whereof the Reformation first tooke place and therefore in no true respect can be said to return to Popery But upon the contrary the principles doctrins and practises 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 Apostacy standing principaly and fundamentaly in this one thing to wit a forsaking neglecting over-looking and despising the gift of GOD the spirit of GOD the inward Anointing which should be the constant immediat and only guide of Christians as that whereby is signified their daily dependence relying upon and trusting to the Lord above and beeing ruled by him and a setting up exalting and following mans own will spirit and wisdom as he stands in his faln degenerat state in which great error and Apostacy Papists and Protestants are one in the root and spring however subdivided in the branches and streames as will appear by this short resumption of the former particulars First in that both Papists and Protestants doe not derive the ground of their knowledge from the inward immediat 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 externall testimony and is by meer 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 immediat witness of GOD. But the Quakers doe the contrary Secondly Beeing strangers then to this inward testimony they have invented in their imaginations severall strange and wild notions of GOD darkned and clouded the clear knowledge of Him with many heathnish and barbarous terms distinctions and nycities the useless fruit of mans faln 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 wrot the Scripturs which terms as of a Trinity a word not to be found in all the Bible of seperat distinct persons the Quakers in opposition to both Papists and Protestants reject as beeing such as are neither revealed in them by the spirit nor testified of in the Scripturs 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 immediat call of GOD'S Spirit nor the assistance and influence of His Grace a necessary qualification So here is man with his faln 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 doe the contrary Fourthly The Worship both of Papists and Protestants is a voluntary will-worship stands in mans will and traditionall appointments of meats and drinks diverse 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