Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	concern_v	faith_n	justification_n	2,843	5	9.2516	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

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 Trea●ise 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 Rom. 2.1 3. Therefore Thou art Inexcusable O Man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest do'st the same things c. By GEORGE KEITH Printed in the Year 1675 The Epistle to the Reader Freindly Reader AMong the many Calu●nie● wherewith those that have opposed this appearance of Truth have endeavoured to aspress it and render it Odious to the People that Imputation of Popery hath been as frequent and constant as ●ny other almost alwayes in the mouthes and hands of such as have spoken and write against us So that I hardly remember I ever saw a book amongst those many hath been written by our Opposers which had not some reflexion of this kind in it This might perhaps have some weight with easie and simple people who understand not how frequent it is for persons of different perswasions even among those called Christians to use such sinistrous means to weaken one another a crime so much the more to be regrated that it is contrary to that truth which all lay claim to it is not unknown to those that are acquainted with the history of the Protestant-reformation how it was a common practise among those that opposed Luther and the Protestants to compare him and them to Mahomet and the Turks because that as the Turks opposed the Pope so did the Protestants And yet it is for this same reason our Adversaries brand us with Popery which can no more conclude us Papists then the former did the Protestants Turks But after the Protestants became divided among themselves and that the suspicion of Popery was a ground to render them odious to their respective people they have all of them branded each other with this crime and compared each other with Papists As first the Lutherans have and doe compared the Calvinist● with Papists and Iesuits as in many other of their writings may be seen in Lucas Osiander his Epistle to the last part of his Ecclesiastick History where he classes the Iesuits and Calvinists as equall enemies to the Church Yea and because all the Calvinists were no● so rigid in the matter of Justification as excluding all good works from being necessary thereunto the Lutherans have often branded them with Popery So that ●o● Himmelius a Lutheran Divine upon this account wrote a book which he called GALVINO-PAPISMUS On the ●●her hand the Calvinists have often accused the Lutherans of Popery for their keeping up of Images and many other ceremonies How much the Calvinian presbyters doe brand the Prelatick par●● with Popery few in this Nation are ignorant of but especially those that are of age to remember that PULPIT PROVERB which for the frequencie of its use might have past for a piece of the PRESBYTERIAN-DIRECTORY to wit that expression which they used both in their Prayers and Invectives against the Bishops terming them and their followers the POPISH PRELATICK MALIGNANT PARTY And indeed in those day●● P●pery and prelacy were still classed together as being TWINS of ONE MOTHER and both LIMBS of ANTICHRIST And I suppose such as frequent the Conventicles can bear witness that this dialect is not yet out of use among the Presbyterian Preachers On the other part the Episcopalians doe not scruple often to compare Popery with Presbytery and doe look that the Pope and the Presybter are very near of kin in their presences over the Magistrat and those who are in authority in their method of handling them where they can compass it So that Bishop Spotswood in his Church History lib 7 pag 457. sayes that at the conference of Hampton court Doctor Buckrige Bishop of Rochester preaching upon Rom 1● 1 Let every soul be subject c did soundly and learnedly handle the matter to the satisfaction of all only it grieved the Scots Ministers to hear the Pope and Presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to Soveraign Princes Yea many Episcopalians doe not scruple to affirm that the COVENANT Which passeth for the SACRED OATH of GOD in the presbyterian account was a IESUITISH INVENTION made and contrived abroad among papists to creat troubles and distractions at home and to defame the protestant Churches But to proceed the Sectarian Congregations of Independency and Anabaptism hade no sooner stept aside from their presbyterian Bretheren and begun to set up for Themselves but the presbyters begin to deterr their prosel●ts from them with the old imputation of popery alleadging that such seperations was a draught of Popish Policy to defame the glorious fabrick of Presbytry Such as have read the gangren or history of Independency writt by a Zealous presbyter will find enough of this sort of stuff For the gifted but Vnordained Preaching Bretheren among Independents and Anabaptists were alleadged many of them to be Iesuits and Moncks metamorphosed into the shapes and appearance of Souldiers and Tradse men to doe mischeif the more securely In one of the first books printed against the people caled QUAKERS by a presbyterian preist near Bristol lie affirmeth that the Pope sondeth forth his Emissaries to preach in England not only under the shape of QUAKERS but also of Independents and Anabaptists But the Independents have not been farr behind with the presbyters in this matter and therefore have very often compared Presbytry and Papacy Peter Sterry a noted man among them preached a Sermon before the chiefest in authority at that day which Sermon being Printed he intitules it Englands deliverance from Northern Presbytry Compared with its deliverance from Roman Papacy In which Sermon He often classes together the Pope and the Presbyter and proves them One in several particulars And Iohn Owen a man though pretty sparing towards his Presbyterian Brethren doth nevertheless not spare to affirme in his answere to Doctor Cawdrey That since their Ministry is derived through Rome it must needs be a Romish Ministry How much the Anabaptists accuse the Rest of Popery for their retaining the SPRINKLING of INFANTS and S●T SINGING of PSALMES is not unknown Thus READER thou may see this calumny is not New but an OLD THREED-BARE Argument wherewith each of these sects have been long beating one another and therefore no wonder if they also throw it upon us but with how litle reason this smal Treatise will inform thee where the Imputations of Popery cast upon us are fairely and modestly examined and Iustly and rationaly retorted upon the Accuser Also that the subjects treated of might

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

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

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