Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	principle_n	prove_v	true_a	3,492	5	6.0076	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

in Infants it is unreasonable as well as contrary to Scripture that it doth infe●r any reall guiltiness where it is not in the least consented unto I remember what Bernard sayeth of it Non nec●t sensus ubi desit concensus The sense of it hurteth not viz. to bring on guiltiness where the consent is wanting Now if it were their sin it would certainly hurt The same Cassander showeth a form of agreement among divers Protestants and Papists how that the Materiale of it doth remain in the Regenerated that is to say a certain evil or infirmity or weakness but that the Formale of it is removed which Formale is the guiltiness of it to wit which it had before This Eight and Last Instance may be justly also re●or●ed upon I. M. and his Brethren who teach That by reason of this Principle in Infants they doe all come into the world guilty of Eternall Damnation and that many Infants doe really perish Eternally which is a Popish doctrin wherein they doe both agree contrarie to the Scripture which sayeth The soul that finneth shall die Importing that the soul that doth not actually sin shall not die which Popish error Zuinglius did manifestly impugne De Baptismo Having thus passed through all the Eight Instances alleadged by I. M. wherein he chargeth us as guiltie of Popish doctrins I desire the Reader to take a serious review of what I have answered on every particular head and he will find that upon all of them I have made it manifest that either we doe not hold the same doctrin with Pap●sts or if some papists seem to hold the same others of the Papists as Numerous and sometimes more hold the contradictory wherein I. M. and his Brethren aggreeth with them And so how the same charge is more justly retorted upon himself and his Brethren And Lastly that there is not one principle or doctrin held by us wherein any of the Papists seem to aggree with us but we have famous protestants whom I. M. doth acknowledge to be Protestants who therein doe aggree with us also And therefore if any of these doctrins can prove that our religion is but Popery disguised it will prove as effectually that the religion of those protestants who agree with us in all these things is also but Popery disguised which yet I suppose he will be loath to acknowledge SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practise and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined AS for his Criminations page 22.23 that Quakers have so much indignation at these who goe under the name of Puritans and so much correspondense with Romanists with whom before they could not converse I answere to the First as we love all men to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans we have a speciall kindness for in whom the true Puritanicall Spirit is alive by which they were seperated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the worlds religion and also from their profane customs And who will narrowly compare them and us will find a greater mearness betwixt us then is indeed betwixt us and any other people and although they differed from us in some of these principles above mentioned yet in others more in number they aggreed with us and which is most we have more unity with their spirit then with the spirit of any other people in the Nation But that spirit is much lost in those dayes among many who bear that name As to the Second for our Converse with Romanists I suppose it is not greater with them then with other people if the Lord hath delivered us from that peevish and narrow humour of some Presbyterians wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured and enlarged our hearts with true love both to Papists so called or any others differing from us so as we can converse with them either about our worldly lawfull occasions or in order to be instrumentall unto their conviction and better information We ought not to be blamed providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinfull thing farr less should I. M. blame us who himself hath been known as I am informed to converse with EXCOMUNICAT PAPISTS so as to eat and drink with some of them a thing repugnant unto the disciplin of their Church Again whereas he querieth have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Brittain who have been known to be professed Priests M●n●ks or Iesuits in France and Italy This informatory question may be returned with another of the same nature have not Papists if not Priests Mon●ks or Iesuits gone under the character of Protestants both in England and Scotland yea in Aberdeen will it therefore follow that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised It is most certain that many Papists so called did outwardly conform to the Protestant religion so farr as to goe to their publick assemblies and be present at their worship as seemingly owning it and yet dissenting from it in their hearts for which I have heard they hade a dispensation from the Pope And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practise which showeth that some have done it yea some in Aberdeen have been known to doe so will it therefore follow that Protestants in Aberdeen are but disguised Papists And yet the Case is the same He proceedeth to tell that he heard a chief Quaker confess before famous witnesses that one giving himsel● out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family was discovered to be a Popish Priest I answere if it hade been so how the thing was whether true or false I have not hade opportunity yet to examin i● proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ou● to be a true christian Hypocrisie is true christiani●ty disguised And if it be true as I. M. saith tha● Romanists espcially Iesuits can transform them●selves into all shapes admitt then that some Iesui● doth transforme himself into the shape of I. M himself or at least of his religion will it fol●●ow that I. M. is a Iesuit or a Romanist but disgu●sed or his religion Iesuitism but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleadged to have given him●self forth to be a Quaker did discover him wha● indeed he was and so did not acknowledge him to be what he pretended This showeth that Quake●rism and Popery are not of so near a relation fa●less one thing If he could prove that any Romanist Priest Monck or Iesuit were received by any of ●he Quakers as one with them in Religion whom yet they did know to be Romanists it would be some presumption but he is so farr to seek for a proof of this that I suppose he can not give any one Instance that ever a Quaker received a Romanist as a Quaker even unwittingly which yet if he could doe could only prove the Quaker at that ●ime was in a

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

justified is a peculiar and proper Faith unto him or them only to whom it is revealed and is not any part of the common faith of all true Christians for all true Christians are not required to believe that such a particular man is a true Christian or Child of GOD seeing perhaps not one of a thousand did ever hear of Him at all and so are not bound to believe that he hath a being in the World farr less that he is a Christian. Many other examples I could give of this peculiar and proper faith the rule whereof cannot be the Scripture but the special Revelation of GOD by his Spirit in the hearts of GOD'S Children whereby they have a reall knowledge and Faith in all their actings how farr they are approved and justified of GOD and as their is a peculiar and proper faith that is not the common faith so I doe affirm there is many times a peculiar and proper obedience unto peculiar and proper commands given of GOD unto some of his Children and not unto others Is there not an inward call whereby the LORD calleth such Preachers as are indeed accepted of Him in the discharge of their Ministry Sure I am I have heard some Protestants acknowledge this And is not this inward call a reall commandement seing it is a transgression to refuse to hearken to it And may not such a● Preacher have it made known to him from the LORD that he is really called to labour in Word and Doctrin among such a particular people rather then others And herein he is to give obedience unto the LORD although he have no outward call as many true Preachers never had And surely as there are some speciall things proper to every person in the World so as there are not to be found two in all the world but their way and manner of life doth differ in many observable things as much as their faces and that by a secret appointment of GOD so there are speciall directions of GOD'S holy Spirit given to those who do attend unto them whereby they may be safely and comfortably guided in all these various passages O how happy and blessed are they who have such a Bosome-Guid● as the blessed Spirit of GOD to direct them in their hearts and are given up to wait for and receive the Same when they fall into intricacies that no Scripture rules can sufficiently extricate And surely this the LORD hath promised his Children to guide them continually and to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth By what I have said on this head it is manifest how farr we differ from Papists as touching the first Article charged by I. M. against us seeing as to all principles of common faith we hold with Protestants against Papists that the Scripture is a compleat and sufficient declaration and testimony and indeed the best and most compleat outward rule that is in the world unto which all Doctrins and principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed as to a Test or Touch ston in all externall debates and disputations whatsomever so that whatever Doctrin or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenour of the Scripturs Testimony is to be denyed and disowned for ever Yea and whatever proper or peculiar faith or obedience doth contradict the principles of common faith and obedience declared in the Scripturs I do plainly affirm that it is not a true and right faith and obedience but a delusion Moreover though I find that I. M. laboureth in his book called Roma Mendax to fix Enthusiasm upon the Papists so as he may the more conveniently class the Quakers and them together to render us the more odious yet I desire both him and all others to consider how I. M. himself doth rather clear the Papists at least the greatest and more considerable part of them of this so hainou● a crime of Enthusiasm as he thinks it pag. 44.45 he produc●th Stapleton and Testefort as downright Enthusiasts but in the same page 45. he bringeth Melchior Canus Alphon●us à Castro Becanus and Bellarmin as downright Anti-Enthusiasts who are all ashamed as saith I. M. to assert that Popes and Councells pass out their definitions by immediat revelations And the University of Paris anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort viz that the Sacred Scripture is partly contained in the Bible partly in the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome Very Good Here are then foure together with a whole Universitie of Papists the most famous in the world for two the two are guiltie of Enthusiasm and the four with the Universitie of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts as the other are Enthusiasts So here is farr the greater number of them Anti-Enthusiasts and I believe who will search the Popish Doctors and Writers for one Enthusiast in pretence will find ten Anti-Enthusiasts Let then all impartiall men consider whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrin seeing that it is most probably a Pop●sh doctrin that is held by the plurality or greatest number of Popish Writers As for example what if I should find some Protestants so called whom I. M. doth own for reall Protestants perhaps two or three or more as down right Enthusiasts as either Stapleton or Testefort were it therefore just for me to conclude that Enthusiasm is a Protestant doctrin As for Doctor Stillingfleet whom I. M. citeth as giving an account of the Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I suppose the same Author could give as full an account of the Enthusiasms of the Pre●byterians who were I. M. his Brethren but of Late Years and peradventure I. M. himself could doe as much Sure I am that diverse of the present Church of England have charged Enthusiasm upon the Presbyterians and Independents both I. M. his Ancient Friends as witness William Sharlock pag. 271. in his discourse with others could be named And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of Iustification pag. sayes That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flat Popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accounted among such and yet I see not how in his brother R. Baxter his judgment be can avoid this censure Yea may not Calvin himself whom some call the FATHER of Presbyterians be as much charged with Enthusiasm as any Papist seing in his Institutions he affirmeth that in his time God raised up Apostles or at least Evangelists whom he calleth Extraordinary Officers in the Church that were needful to bring back the Church again out of the Apostacy and from those Protestant Apostles or Evangelists he deriveth the ordinary mission of Protestant Preachers and goeth not back to the Antichristian Church and Bishops of Rome to derive the same as I. M. doth in his Roma Mendax and this forsooth lest He should run upon

unto GOD that so it may become Light in the LORD which was darkness according to which Augustin sayeth expresly lib. Annot. in fol. ult In voluntate enim cujusque est utrum tenebrae sit an lux c. It is in the will of every man whether he be darkness or light but when he is darkness it is in himself that is by his sin● which are his own But when he is light he is not it in himself but in the LORD Now seeing we doe expresly hold and believe it as a most certaine truth that all free-will in man unto any good thing acceptable unto GOD hath a most absolut and necessary dependance upon the grace of GOD and the efficacy thereof we cannot in any justice of reasons be thought to affirme that the efficacy of grace depends on mans free-will seeing a mutuall dependency implyeth a manifest contradiction I conceive that I. M. draweth his consequence from this that we say the Grace of GOD many times worketh so gently upon the souls and hearts of men that they may resist it and so put a stop in the way of their Conversion therefore he concludeth according to our principle the efficacy of grace depends on mans free-will But this consequence I deny for although a man may resist the Spirit of grace and so put a stop some have named it so po●ere obicem to their conversion yet the Grace of GOD hath its efficacy still of its own nature and loseth nothing of its vertue thereby yea it hath its due effect upon these who resist it as to Conversion namely to render them without excuse and be against them a just ground of their condemnation as Christ said Iohn 3.19 This is the condemnation that Light is come into the World Nor is the intent of GOD frustrated thereby but sufficiently answered for GODS intention was only that the Grace of GOD should convert them who doe not resist it and be a just ground of condemnation against those who doe resist and reject it Moreover the same consequence may be drawne against I. M. himself and his Brethren by way of retorsion seeing the Grace of GOD may be resisted in order to Perfection as indeed it is according unto their principle as according unto ours it may be in order to Conversion We say men may hinder their conversion by resisting the spirit of Grace they say men hinder their perfection by resisting the Spirit of Grace for certainly he is a perfect man and in a sinless state who maketh no resistance unto the spirit of GOD in him but in all things yeeldeth unto it and complyeth fully therewith Now if resisting in the one sense infer● that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free-will resisting in the other sense will inferr the same also seeing it is the will of man that resisteth in both and if it doth not inferr in the one neither doth it in the other But if I. M. alleadge that the doctrin it self of Universall Grace and Free-will in all men by vertue of that Grace be a Popish doctrin I altogether deny it though Papists seem in words to affirm it as they doe many other Christian truths which are not Popish doctrins for their holding them in unrighteousness that being a Popish doctrin according to my former definition that I. M. I conceive will not deny which is mantained generally by Papists and is repugnant unto the Scripturs to which I may add as I suppose with I. M. his consent and unto the testimony of Antiquity in the purest times before that Bastard Religion of Popery was born into the World especially the three or foure first Centuries Now that this doctrin of Universall Grace and Free-will in all men by reason of this grace or any other principle affirmed by us held in common as it may seem by those called Papists and us is neither repugnant unto the Scripture testimony or the most generall testimony of Antiquity in the purest times but on the contrary most agreeable thereunto I offer my self ●y the Grace and help of GOD to defend against the said I. M. or any of his Brethren who will undertake it for him either in word or writ as they please And indeed that the doctrin of Free-will unto good in all men was taught by Iustin Martyr one of the most Authentick of the Fathers in the primitive times is confessed by Abraham Scultetus a Calvinist in his Medulla Theologia Patrum also that he did hold that men might merit or live worthy of GOD which he imputeth to him as his Errors Again he blameth Athenagoras another of the Fathers in the purest times for the matter of free-will So doth he Tatianus Irenaeus Theophilus Clemens Alexandrinus and those two Theophilus and Clemens Alexandrinus he blameth both for the doctrin of free-will and justification by works also he blameth Clemens Alexandrinus for the doctrin of perfection He blameth Tertulian both for the doctrin of free-will and for the merit of good-works Moreover he blameth Cyprian about the matter of free-will justification by works and merit Also he blameth Lactantius for holding justification by works and merit and perfection But these doctrins are not the more erroneous taken in the sound sense of those writters who were neither Pelagians nor Papists because a Calvinist so judgeth of them through prejudice as clashing with his narrow spirit and principles however this is certain both out of this writter whose fidelity I suppose I. M. doth not suspect in his citations and also out of these Fathers their own writers most of whom I have searched upon these maters and doe find that in the mater of Universall grace Free-will Iustification Mirit in a sound and sober sense and Perfection they goe much along wīth us in opposition to our Adversaries who oppose us in these things whose particular testimonies as also of others in after times of the most famous of those called Fathers unto those principles of Truth owned by us and opposed by I. M. and his Brethren in due time if GOD permitt I may make known and intend so to doe for the sake of the Simple that it may be seen that our Holy Religion and Faith which they reproachfully call by the name of QUAKERISM is neither Popery nor any other Heresy but the Truth owned by the Scripturs and most approved of the Ancient Writers and Fathers so called Now as touching the aforesaid particulars of Free-will in all men by the Grace of GOD Iustification by works Merit Perfection I propose this alternative that seeing the Fathers held these doctrins as Scultetus and Others acknowledge it will follow that either they are not Popish errors or that Popish errors were mantained by the Fathers in the first three Centuries If I. M. grant the first he cleareth the Quakers as to these things If he grant the second he contradicteth himself who did undertake to defend the principles owned by him to be conform to the Fathers in that time