Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	justify_v	wrought_v	6,761	5	9.1730	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

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

forgiveness which turning is an inward righteousness for to turn to GOD is an act of obedience and consequently is righteousness and it is also inward for it is an act of the soul and heart that is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD. And indeed in this last place of Scripture our whole Iustification as consisting in these two Forgiveness of sin a●d 〈◊〉 R●ght unto eternall life which is the inheritance above mentioned to the receiving of both which our turning unto GOD from the power of Satan is expresly required yet not as if this conversion or inward work of righteouness were the p●●curing cause of our receiving either the one or the other nay not at all but they are the conditions or qualifications most necessarly required in order to the receiving them And seeing I. M. and his brethren affirme that men are justified by faith so as faith is a condition or qualification necessary unto Iustification I ask him and them is not faith inward righteousness though not the whole yet a part I prove it is All true inward obedience is inward righteousnes but faith is true inward obedience therefore c. The first proposition is clear because righteousness is nothing else but obedience unto what God commands The second proposition is no less clear for God hath cōmanded us to believe in Christ therefore faith in him is obedience and it is inward being an act of the soul wrought in it by the Spirit of God concurring with it that it may believe Yea this faith according to I. Ms. principle is not a bare assenting of the understanding unto what is revealed of Christ but it hath in it the consent of the will as also a certain affiance of confidence in GOD and Christ which is commonly called Fiducia that i● of the nature of hope And seeing this faith is an act of the will it must have love in it for indeed all acts of the will are either acts of love or hatred or doe proceed from them so that if faith be ane act of the will as well as of the understanding it must love or desire or both and thus in justifying or saving faith there is both Love and Hope as well as Faith all which three are inward righteousness wrought in us and by us through the help of the Holy Spirit Augustin saith tract evan secundum Ioh. 29. What is it to believe in Him but by believing to love Him and thus he defineth justifying Faith And if it be replyed that it is confessed that faith is an inward work of righteousness but that we are not justified by faith as it is a work or as it is a part of inward righteousness To this I answere first This distinction is too too nice and metaphysicall seing it is the very essence of faith to be ane inward work of righteousness whereby with the greatest love of our hearts we both cleave unto the Lord desire Him and have confidence affiance or hope in Him Now to distinguish betuixt a thing and the essence or that which is essentiall to it is too nice and curious and indeed altogether impertinent in the handling of controve●sies of religion where all things should be proposed with greatest plainess that is possible but to distinguish betwixt a thing and its essence is not plain nor fit to be understood by those of common capacity as consisting in a logicall notion as a meer ens-rationis as who would distinguish betuixt Paul his being a man and his being a reasonable creature made after the image of GOD. I answere secondly the controversie betwixt them and us is not whether we be justified by a righteousness wrought in us as it is a work we leave this to those vaine janglers who delight themselves in such airy and unprofitable questions it sufficeth us to contend for this that men ate justified by a righteousness wrought in them which inward righteousness is indespensibly necessary to our Iustification before GOD. I answere thirdly if they mean that we are not justified by any work of righteousness so as that work is the procuring cause by way of strict merit of our Iustification we doe also most willingly affirme the same for indeed no Faith of ours no Love no Hope no Humility no Patience no Meekness nor Temperance nor any other thing wrought in us or by us through the help of the spirit of GOD doth in a way of strict justice merit or procure either our Iustification or any other favour or thing whatsomever so that we doe indeed renounce all merit on our part strictly and rigidly considered and all debt as owing on Gods-part to us otherwise then as by His promise He hath bound Himself unto us so that as the reward is of grace the merit and debt is of grace also according unto the words of Augustin Fidelis est Dominus qui se nobis debitorem fecit non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed omnia promittendo Faithfull is the LORD who hath made Himself a debitor unto us not by receiving any thing from us but by giving us all things Yea we doe really declare that we are as freely justified as we are sanctified and seeing our being sanctified by inward righteousness doth not hinder it to be by free-grace no more doth our Iustification But for the more distinct understanding of our mind concerning our Iustification before GOD. I thus define it IUSTIFICATION is an Act of GOD whereby He doth acquite absolve and discharge us of sins past and doth own and acknowledge us upon our Repentance and Conversion unto Him as righteous and as having right unto Eternall-life with a respect unto IESUS CHRIST not only in wha● He hath done and suffered for us without us but as really and truely indwelling in us and really and truely making us righteous In this definition two things are considerable First as it is an act of GOD. Secondly as in relation to its object the one is Iustification formally considered the other is it objectively considered or as it may be called objective Iustification Now i● this whole definition of Iustification I shall show how indeed I. M. and his Brethren are much more A-KIN to the Papists then we the people called Q●●kers First whereas we affirm that this act of GOD is a reall inward act in us whereby the Lord doth by an inward declaration and testimony inwardly and immediatly revealed in us both forgive us our sins and acknowledge us to be righteous and as having a right to Eternal life This definition of Iustification in relation to the act of GOD is denyed and opposed both by Papists and also by I. M. and his Brethren as being Enthusiasm whereof they are most unwilling in any terms to be thought guiltie Secondly in relation to the object I say we are the object of Iustification not only as having our sins pardoned for CHRISTS-Sake but as being righteous in the sight of GOD through CHRIST indwelling in us

so as we are cloathed and covered with Christ the LORD our righteousness dwelling in us He made unto us in us Righteousness as well as Sanctification Wisdom and Redemption from which to witt Christ in us all those inward vertues and graces of Love Hope Patience Humility Meekness Temperance as well as Faith doe flow and proceed as streams from a fountain Now it is the fountain which is CHRIST Himself that we regard principally in our Iustification and but in the next place that inward righteousness wrought by Him in us which is but as the streame so it is not the streame that we rely and rest upon for Iustification to speak properly but Christ the fountain to wit whole Christ and not divided both as what He hath been and is without us And also in what He is in us and this we certainly believe and know that who rest upon Christ for Iustification only as without and not as within indwelling in their hearts they have neither true faith nor justification but both their faith and justification is a dream and delusion of Satan Now this sort of justification by the indwelling of Christ in us wherein we affirm that our justification doth principally consist is so farr from being a Popish doctrin that it is expresly denyed by Bellarmin that Popish Champion who undertaketh to refute it And that I. M. is of one and the same mind with Bellarmin as to this particular I doe greatly suspect if otherwise let him clear himself Sure I am he and his Brethren are so farr from thinking that we are justified by Christ indwelling in us that they doe no● acknowledge any reall true and proper indwelling of Christ in the Saints at all for that they affirm That Christ is not in us any other way but by his graces or gracious operations But say we these graces and gracious operations can not be divided from Him so that if they be in us truly really and properly He also who is the fountain of them must be in us as truely really and properly Moreover for the further clearing of our faith touching justification I desire the Reader to consider that to be justified by an inward righteousness is one thing and to be justified by outward works of righteousness done by us even through the Grace of GOD and help of the Spirit is another for as we are first inwardly righteous before we can work good works so the justification by inward righteousness is first or before the justification by works and as some have well observed as it is not the good fruit that makes the good tree but the good tree makes and produceth good fruit So good works make not a man at first righteous but a man must be first righteous or holy and then he ●ringeth forth Good-Works And thus truly is the mind of Agustin to be understood That good works goe not before a mans being justified but follow his being justified even as good fruit goes not before the good tree but the good tree is before the good fruit and so the same may be said of sanctification Good works goe not before a mans sanctification as to the beginning of it and yet a man is sanctified by inward righteousness And thus though it could be proved That a man is not justifyed by good works yet it doth not follow that he is not justifyed by inward righteousness Now I say good works have not any place in the beginning of our justification I mean outward works for the Reason alleadged because a man is first justified or made righteous before he work a good work outwardly and if in that state he should die before he could work any outward good work he should die in a justified state as certainly Infants who are saved die in a justified state without works yet not without inward righteousness Good works then are necessary not to the beginning of our justification but to the continuance and progress of it so that being justified by ane inward righteousness we are more justified by doing good works which are necessary if not to bring us at first into favour with GOD yet to continue us in the favour of GOD so as if we did not work good works if we live and are in a capacity to doe them we should fall from our Iustification and this is the very doctrin of William Tindall that famous Protestant and Martyr as I have declared in that little book called A LOCKING GLASS FOR ALL PROTESTANTS And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of justification pag. 80. sayeth that some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flatt popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accommodat among such and yet I see not how in his Brother R. Baxter his judgment he can avoid this censure Secondly consider that justificaton as it is taken for a remission of sin although it doth indeed respect inward righteousness as a condition necessar to the obtainment of it yet it doth not respect it either as the procuring cause of it nor yet as its formall reason the procuring cause being CHRIST alone who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto GOD for our sins the formall reason of the remission being indeed the remission or forgivness it self for the formall reason of a thing is the very nature of the thing it self which consisteth in that act of GOD whereby He acquiteth and dischargeth us in our hearts by the testimony and dictat of His Spirit in us Consider Thirdly that the reason why we are said to be justified by faith and not by works as to the beginning of our justification is not to exclude inward righteousness from our justification but indeed because it is by faith and not by works that inward righteousness at first is received for of all other graces and vertues faith is most of a receptive nature for as it is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD we not resisting but complying with His motion and operation in us so by faith being once received in us we receive all other inward graces and vertues so that as by faith alone we receive inward righteousness by which we are justified as to the beginning of it so it may be said that by faith alone we are at first justified that is to say That righteousness by which we are justified we doe inwardly receive it into our hearts from the Spirit of GOD and doe not work it out unto our selves either by outward working or by a long continuall inward activity of our minds as being a thing rather received in us as to say ingenerated and wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD then wrought by us for indeed in our Regeneration Conve●ion Justification and Sanctification as to its beginning at least we are rather or at least more passive then active and as the Child both in the womb

and on the breast is not said to live by its works yet it draweth nourishment to it self from the Mother by a certain faculty instinct or power implanted into it of GOD wherein the Child is more passiive then active even so it is as touching faith which is a certain heavenly faculty power or instinct put into those who are Children and Babes in CHRIST whereby they doe draw nourishment that is heavenly and spirituall unto them from GOD whereby they live and grow up as holy and righteous plants of GOD to bring forth the fruits of good works and thus the faith that was at first of a receptive nature becomes now more operative and active so as to put forth that inward vertue by which the heavenly growth is witnessed into reall acts and works of righteousness Consider Fourthly that when the Apostle speaketh of a mans own righteousness as being excluded from our justification by the same he doth not understand that righteousness which is wrought in us by the spirit of GOD but that which man worketh in and by himself without the Grace and Spirit of GOD and the Righteousness of GOD and Christ by which we are most immediatly and nearly justified is Christ himself and His work of righteousness in us by His Spirit even as the faith of the Son of GOD Gal. 2.20 is the faith he worketh in us so his righteousness is that of His working in us And indeed that this is the mind of Augustin is clear from his own words lib. de gratia libero arbitro Quid est non habens meam justitiam quae ex lege est cum sua non esset lex ipsa sed Dei nisi quia suam dicit justitiam quamvis ex lege esset quia sua voluntate legem se posse putabat implere sine adjutorio gratiae quae est per fidem Christi What is it sayeth he not having my righteousness which is of the law wheras the law was not his but Gods but that he calleth it his righteousness although it was of the law because he thought that by his own will he could fulfill the law without the help of Grace which is by the faith of Christ. To the same effect he writeth in his second book against Iulian the ●elagian showing also That the righteousness of faith is said to be of GOD because GOD doth distribute to every one the measure of faith and to faith it pertaineth to believe that GOD worketh in us both to will c. I shall conclude this matter with that observable passage of Luther on the second of the Gal. vers 16. touching justification Christ sayeth he apprehended by faith and indwelling in us is our righteousness for which we are justified or reputed just This of Luther is according unto these Scripturs The LORD our righteousness Ier. 23.6 And again He is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption 1. Cor. 1.30 And indeed none have Him to be their righteousness but who have Him to be their LORD not only dwelling in them but ruling in and over them He must be Lord in and over us by having the obedience and subjection of our souls and whole man that he may be our Righteousness SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined THe Fourth Instance of the Quakers holding Popish doctrins alleadged by I. M. is that Good works are meritorious To this I answere we doe not hold the merit of good works in any other sense then that which both agreeth unto the Scriptur and hath been used generally by those called Fathers such as Augustin Gregory Bernard yea and by some of the most famous Protestants for the clearing of this matter I shall propose two significations of the word Merit First as it signifieth to deserve a reward so as the merit is equall in worth and dignity unto the reward as when a Servant meriteth his wages from his Master this is the strict signification of it and in this sense we altogether deny that good works are meritorious Secondly as it signifieth to obtain from GOD by promise according as He out of His infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow and thus Merit and Reward are relatives so that as the reward is of grace the merit is of grace also and in this sense the Fathers commonly use the word merit particularly Augustin who saith when GOD doth crown our merits He crowneth nothing but His own gifts Where he plainly acknowledgeth merit of grace Now it is certain that the Lord promiseth a reward to good works which showeth that there is a dignity value or worthiness in them though not equall to the reward of eternall life yet such as it pleaseth GOD to take notice of So as it is a suitable thing according to His infinit bounty to reward them so liberally the Apostle saith 1. Pet. 3.4 a meek and quiet spirit is in the sight of God of great price therefor it hath a reall dignity worth and value in it which is of GOD and not of us so that we can not think so meanly and basely of that Righteousness and holiness which the Spirit of GOD worketh in us as those called Calvinists or Presbyterians doe who affirm that the best righteousness or holiness that is wrought in any of the Saints by the Spirit of GOD is defiled and as a menstruous garment yea is such as for the same GOD might justly abhore us We cannot but abhore such unclean and anti-christian doctrin tending to lessen the esteem and love of righteousness among men The Apostle maketh mention of the Faith Love and patience of the Thessalonians as a manifest tocken or demonstration of the righteous judgment of GOD that they may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of GOD. 2. Thes. 1.5 And said the Lord by His Servant Iohn unto those of Sardis who hade not defiled their garments they should walk with Him in white for they are worthy Rev. 3.4 these Scriptures shew a dignity or merit in good works not in the first sense but in the second Now if any Papists hold merit in the first sense we deny them in this as much as any Protestants doe yet that Protestants and some of greatest fame did hold merit in some sense 〈◊〉 eviden● both out of Melancton and Bacer Melancton in his common places sayeth expresly That good works in the Reconciled seeing they please GOD through faith or the Mediator men● sp●rituall rewards and corporall both in t●is l●fe and after this life And Bucer as he is ci●ed by Cassander consult cap. de Merit contra A●rince●sem sayeth thus As we acknowledge faith it self the fountain of good works and merits to be the free gift of GOD so also we confess that both the works and merits are the free gifts of GOD c. And of this same mind are we with these men whom I. M. himself and his Brethren own to be Protestants of great note And with them

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

be so wide seeing what they doe against you is to bring you back again to the grossest part of Popery what we doe is but to move you foreward that you may leave behind and throw away those too many and hurtfull relicts of Popish principles and practises which hinder you from being a truely Reformed Church that so you may be indeed a Reformed Church and People unto GOD. And so farr as the Reformed Churches so called have forsaken any Popish principles and practises whatsomever in that we allow them and have unity with all the sincere and upright in heart among them which are but a very few in respect of the great multitudes of profane and scandolous Persons nor is it any thing of the Work of GOD that he hath wrought in any whether among Papists or Protestants so called that we seek to break down but indeed to cherish it and build it up But it is the work of the Enemie that our testimony is against and for the breaking of it down where ever it appears both in our selves and in others Finally whereas he saith that we Romanise in denying the Scripturs to be the compleat and principall Rule of Faith I have so sufficiently answered it above that I need say no more here Only for a testimony of our agreement with true Protestants against all Popish superstitions and traditions whatsomever this I affirm that whatever principle or practice in Religion is obtruded by Papists or any other upon the account of tradition that is not to be found declared and witnessed to in the Scripturs or can not by sound evidence of true reason be deduced from the Scripturs is to be rejected utterly and denyed by every true Christian which principle as it is verbaly owned by many Protestants I wish it were as realy practised among them and then it should be known how cordialy and realy we should joyn with them in all things against the common Enemie of true Reformation And as to his charity or rather indeed the defect of it wherewith he concludes this matter in expressing himself jealous that both Papists and Quakers could wish there were not Scripture in the World As it relates to us I shall only wish that the LORD may forgive him his hard thoughts conceived against us without any just ground and shall be so farr from thinking so of him or any of his B●ethren that they could wish there were no Scripture that I really believe they are glade that it is in the World For either they have a measure of sincerity and who have this will love the Scripture upon this good principle or they have not as indeed too many of them as I suppose by I. M. his own concession are of that stamp who are but mercenary and covetous men even whose GOD is their belly and mind Earthly things and yet these are glade to have the Scripturs not to conform their lives unto them but to make a trade of them Cauponantes Verbum Dei Making merchandise of the Word of GOD as the Apostle declareth 2. Cor. 2.17 SECT XI Wherein I. M. his acknowledgment concerning the Ministeriall Succession through the Church of Rome is briefly considered and the Imputation of Popery in that respect justly retorted upon him MAny other things I could have observed in his book that might have been of service to us for our Vindication and an occasion further to clear the Truth but we not being so particularly concerned in them I have purposely forborn intending briefness also his frequent naming of us and classing us with Romanists Papists Iesuits c. with his many bitter expressions and insinuations I have waved it being chiefly before me to answere directly to th●se particular charges above mentioned Only in the Close I cannot ommit one thing and that is his opnely and professedly avowing that Ordination con●erted by Antichristian Ministers such as the Bishops and Popes of Rome even supposing them to be the Great Antichrist may be and is valid and that the Ordination of the first Reformers was such To this I have some things to say First If the Pope of Rome his Ordination and Cal● be valid which he conferreth and that the Protestants have no other but what was at first received from him and them to wit Popish Bishops then it may easily appear whether they or we be most a-kin to the Pope they owning expresly his authority seeing none can conferr Ordination but who hath authority so to doe we expresly and altogether rejecting and denying it as meer usurpation surely I. M. and his Brethren may henceforth be ashamed to call us the Popes Emissaries seeing we never directly ●or indirectly owned him or his call and yet so in the face of the World to print himself and his Brethren to be indeed the Popes Emissaries for Emissarie is one sent by the Pope as he confesseth his Ordination Call or sending to be seeing his is derived by them who had it first from the Pope And if an Emissarie of the Pope he is also an Emissarie of Papesse Ioan who is in the line of Papall succession by I. M. his confession Secondly it is a very strange thing how a Minister of Antichrist yea how he who is Antichrist himself the Great Antichrist as I. M. admitteth the supposition can make or ordain a true and lawfull Minister of Christ. If I. M. can show us any where in Scripture that Christ conferred this power to Antichrist we shall confess him to be a Minister of Christ but till then he must excuse us to hold him as in that respect at least a Minister of Antichrist But I. M. seems to come of with a distinction he gives pag. 379. not in so farr as Antichristian saith he but as retaining some of Christs Goods this distinction I fear will be found too Metaphysicall and fitter for men who have Philosophicall Consciences who can defend any thing by a distinction then men of plainness and simplicity but I ask I. M. how or in what relation doth the Pope hold some of Christ his Goods whether as Christian or Antichristian if as Antichristian the distinction destroyeth it self in making the members of the distinction to coincide as to say the Pope not as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods and yet as Antichristian holdeth some of Christs Goods this were to make two contradictory propositions both true together which is absurd But if he say that the Pope as Christian holdeth some of Christs Goods then it followeth that he is both Christian and Antichristian together which is indeed as reall an impossibility as for one and the same man to be both a man and a beast in a strict and proper sence seeing Christian and Antichristian differ really as much as man and beast especially in the sense acknowledged that the Pope is so Antichristian that he is in the Abstract the Great Antichrist himself for to say that he who is in the least measure a true Christian