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	pray_v	6,524	5	6.3600	4	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

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

Spirit as it is a more excellent thing then 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 originall is divinely inspired hath somewhat in it that cannot be expressed that doth convince that it is of God but all this aggreeth more immediatly 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 then 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 then what he hath told me himself out of his own mouth Yea why doth I. M. alleadge 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 dictats 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 dictats 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 conforme unto their usuall doctrine that the illumination of the Spirit of God in the heart of Believers is not objective but meerly subjective and effective The contrary whereof I have proved at large in my book of IMMEDIAT REVELATION To which I referr the Reader Onely 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 denyed to be objective may be called the speaking of God then 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 supernaturall 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 Ionah Certainly in both these there was a supernaturall influence or operation of God yet is it not absurde to say that God speaketh no more intelligibly or perceptibly in an immediat way unto the souls of his own Children his own sons and daughters then he did to those unreasonable creatures But if it be granted that this inward speaking or illumination of God is in it self intelligible and perceptible unto the souls of Believers then it must be granted that it is objective for what is in it self perceptible is objective and what is not objective is not in it self ●erceptible This consideration hath formerly made me conclude that those who deny inward objective illuminations of the Spirit do also deny all spirituall sensations or senses properly so called And thi● I do affir●e from as great clearness of ●nderstanding as if I should conclude from a ●●ns denying that the outward Light is objective ●nd perceptible in it self that therefore there is ●o sense of seeing and from a mans 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 spirituall sensations such a reply would sufficiently declare that they do not mean spirituall 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 naturall 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 drinke 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 verball declaration of God and divine and spirituall things that I really taste of them For indeed those spirituall 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 spirituall 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 onely and alone object of my seeing and tasting is really as much to deri●e me as who would discourse to me for an houre 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 answere 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 speach 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 generall 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 immediatly 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 diverse of the Fathers did ●ite these words of the Psalmist Psalm 85.8 and particularly

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

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