are not all of their own works that be out of the light and the Faith that is the gift of God And are not all in their will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since that is in the Spirit and the truth So must not every man come to the truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up And are not your Catechisms Confession of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to and be Saved by And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship SVRVEY Because this Survey will divide it self into three Subjects and it would be too long together therefore I shall order it into three Sections The First shall Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation or justification by works or Inherent Righteousness and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers The Second shall very breifly confuted their Popish justification The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door SECT 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers The great scope of this Querie is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches against the Papists that the good works of the Saints are not the causes or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun For eternal Life is none of our merit and due but is the Free gift of God Rom. 6 23. And by grace not by works we are Saved Ephēs 2 5 8 9. not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he Saveth us Tit. 3.5 And the best of our works are in this Life imperfect as is proven and so they cannot merit any good but Contrarily every defect and short coming of our Duty Merits Damnation and the Curse Deut. 27 26. Galat. 3 10. And if our good works could merit then we might trust to them which the Apostle dare not do Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works and eternal Life Rom. 8 18. And therefore they cannot merit it The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture for which see Rom. 3 Chap. from Vers 20. to the end and the whole Chap. following As also Galat. 2 16 21. and 3 10 11. and 5 4. Philip. 3 9. and seeing that is still imperfect in this life it can neither be the cause nor Condition of our justification before God in whose sight no man living shall be justified Psal 143 2. viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence or as pure Antecedents without which no man is Saved excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion and Infants from the Actual performance of good works For which see Mat. 3.10 and 5.20 and 25. from vers 34. to the end and Rom. 2.9 10. and 8.13 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Galat. 5.21 and 6.8 Heb. 12.14 And albeit our inherent or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause nor Condition of our justification before God yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith For which see Rom. 8.1 9 10. 2 Cor. 5.17 Jam. 2.17.20 1 Joh. 3.3 But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them and formally inward and inherent in themselves in this they joyn hands with the Papists in one of their most Fundamental Errors which does indeed contradict the very Design and Current of the Gospel which is to Teach us to seek Righteousness for justification in Christ and not in our selves yea and the very plain Design of Christs Death See Rom. 3.25 and 10.4 Galat. 2.16 21. and 5.4 But the Quakers endeavour to elude this our Charge pretending that they are far from holding justification by their own Inherent Righteousness with the Papists but by the alone Imputed Righteousness of Christ Thus they pretend in their Confession of Faith pag. 4.21 22. But the Quakers will not so Cheat and deceive the Christian world for first in that 21. pag. Cited where they purposely handle this Question and pretend as is now said they deny us to be justified by a Righteousness received of us by Faith calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging and a Fiction and Imagination in the Creaturely will and power Hence then they deny us to be justified by the Righteousness received of us by Faith and so consequently by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ seeing the Righteousness of his Obedience and Sufferings Imputed to us in Justification is not a diverse Righteousness from the Righteousness of Faith but is one and the same as is clear from Rom. 3.21 22 24 25. and 4.6 11 13 22 23 24. and 9.30 and 10.4 10. Galat. 2.16 and 3.8 and 5.5 Secondly this justification held by the Quakers must either be by the Righteousness received by Faith or else by the Righteousness of the Law and its works for there is no other third sort of Righteousness known to compet in this point but these are always stated as the only two Members of the Distinction for which see Rom. 3.28 and 4.2 3 4 5. and 9.30 31 32. and 10.3 5 6. Galat. 3.11 12. But the Quakers plainly deny the Justification held by them to be by the former yea they Scoff and Mock at that more than ever Papist did as is evident from their preceeding Language Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter wherein they manifestly joyn hands with the Papists for all their pretexts to cover it Again in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confession they have these words and because say they we are against the latter viz. Justification by a Righteousness received by Faith whereof they were last speaking we are Clamoured upon as if we denied the Imputation of Christs Righteousness when it is only to these that are not made Righteous by it to walk as he also walked Here they hold Justification by a Righteousness Making their walk Righteous which is the plain inherent Righteousness of our Life and Conversation But the Quâkers in that last Cited pag. of their Confession go on and add that it
be Jesus and that he and we shall be the subject of one and the same thing and so the same subject seeing one and the same thing cannot be subjected in two divers subjects especially seeing here the redemption of Christ is subjected in his humane nature which is in Heaven and in the divine nature it cannot and so it would in a justified man on the earth be separated from it self in Heaven which is utterly repugnant Thirdly We are not justified by faith as it is any part of our inward righteousness or a work wrought within us albeit George Keith thinks this distinction too nice Ergo we are not justified by any righteousness wrought or inherent within us seeing faith is one of the best parts of that righteousness and first in the order of nature which could not have been past by in the business The Antecedent I prove because in the point of justification faith and works are still Stated in a diametral opposition as I shewed before I will not repeat Which if faith justified as a work would be an opposing of justification by works to a justification by works and would infer that we are justified by works and not by works which is both Contradiction and Nonsence Fourthly The righteousness wrought and inherent in our selves is a righteousness of works or else Adams could not have been such nor do the adversaries deny it but George Keith mocks at our distinction of faith in justification as it is not considered as a work but Correlatively as being too nice curious and altogether Impertinent in handling controversies of Religion and a work only delighted in by vain Janglers Quakerism no Popery pag. 45 46 for which I think him both Impertinent and Blasphemous in reflecting so upon the Spirit of God who as is shewed doth thus distinguish faith in this point But we are not justified before God by the righteousness of works even our works of grace proceeding from the Spirit of God in us for the Apostle never grants any Interest to any of our works in Justification but still excludes all of them and whatever affords any matter of glorying in our selves Rom. 3.27.28 and 4.2 and uncontrollably any man that is justified by his judge because of his inherent righteousness in himself hath still some matter of glorying in himself because the inherent righteousness of his own person in justice brought him off And the same Apostle also most peremptorily says Rom. 4.4 and 11.6 That if we be justified by works then it cannot be by Grace and that because of a clear contradiction for says he that which is of works cannot be of Grace otherwise works are no more works nor Grace any more Grace but their Natures on both hands are quite destroyed We are not then justified by any Righteousness wrought or inherent in our selves Lastly we are not justified before God by our own Law-righteousness as is evident from Rom. 3.20 21. and 10.3 5. Galat. 2.21 and 3.11 12. and 5.4 Philip. 3.9 But all the righteousness wrought or inherent in us is our own Law-righteousness therefore we are not justified before God by any Righteousness wrought or inherent in us The Scriptures Cited clearly prove the Major I prove the Minor for first it s asmuch our Law-righteousness as Adams could have been if he had stood to this day being as Inward and inherent and as formally and subjectively ours as his could have been to him nor could he without the Grace of God have had his more than we ours Secondly it consists in our doing and working and I shewed before that the Righteousness of our doings and works and our Righteousness of the Law are the same thing and so does the Apostle Rom 10.5 Galat. 3.12 when he after Moses Describes the Righteousness of the Law and distinguishes it thereby from the Righteousness of Faith which consists not therein Thirdly the Righteousness wrought or inherent within a man conforms him to the Law in himself though as long as its imperfect it cannot justifie him before God but still leaves him under the Curse Deut. 27.26 and upon the account of its formal and subjective union with him it gives him and only him its Intrinsical Denomination as an Immanent form albeit efficiently and transiently it is wrought by the Spirit of God Upon all these accounts it is a mans Law-righteousness most clearly or else no Righteousness could ever have been such that can be imagined George Keith then must not tell us over again as once he hath in his Quakerism no Popery page 53. that our own Law-righteousness is only that which a man worketh in and by himself without the Grace and Spirit of God for I have briefly demonstrated that all the Righteousness wrought or inherent within us is our own Law-righteousness But George objects Quakerism no Popery page 43 44 45. that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to justification and these are all Inward and are Righteousness Therefore we are justified by an inward Righteousness wrought and inherent within us Ans I deny the Consequence for first though these be necessary to justification by way of Presence and Existence and no man wanting them can be justified which is sure yet they are not necessary thereunto as our immediate Righteousness whereby we must be justified or as the Meritorious or material Cause thereof before God let the Merit be never so Moderate Let George Keith trie his hand if he can prove that they are thus necessary which he has not done as yet nor shall he ever do Nor secondly are they necessary even as a Condition thereunto nor Faith it self as a work qualitatively or as a part of our inward Righteousness but only in its Relative consideration as receiving apprehending and relying upon its object viz. Christs Righteousness as is plainly before proved And many things are necessary in order to a Bargain-making which are not the condition closing the Bargain as here hearing of the Word conviction of Guilt c. in Adult persons are in an ordinary Method necessary to justification though both of them may be where the Bargain shall never be closed And though where these Graces mentioned in the Objection truly are the Bargain is certain yet none of these Formalizes it and receives Christ with his Righteousness nor have they an aptitude so to do but that is proper to Faith in its Relative consideration It s necessary unto Marriage to know of a Party and to hear of some offers and terms yet none of these closes the Marriage-covenant but that is done by the mutual consent and acceptance of the Parties Secondly the Quakers may be will object that much used and abused Text of James Jam. 2.21 where it s said that Abraham was justified by works Ans The Text is not meant of the Pronounciation thereof before God for I am sure Abraham was a justified man before his resolution to offer up Isaac whereof the Text expresly speaks yea before
is not Acts of Righteousness as done by them nor as inherent in them as Acts by which they are accepted of God and justified before him but they are accepted of God and justified before him by Christ the Author and worker of these Acts in them Ans That is well I see then the Quakers hold not themselves to be justified by all Acts done by them or inherent in them as when they commit Blasphemy may be and truly this is all they have yeilded or said for their Vindication for if they were justified by any thing upon the very formal account of its being done by or inherent in them then they should be justified by every thing done by or inherent in them for a Quatenus ad omne sequitur universaliter But why would not the Quakers say if they intended to make any Faith of a vindication that they hold not justification by Acts of Righteousness done by or inherent in them as they are Acts of Righteousness and gracious Acts and not meerly as they are Acts done by or inherent in them Which seeing they inclined not to say especially where they are so purposely endeavouring to purge themselves from the suspicion of a Popish justification we see they do but prevaricat and throw dust in the eyes of the Vulgar But George Keith is in this point most plain in his Quakerism no Popery and as positive as any Papist I have seen For in the 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 53. pages thereof he expresly and positively Teaches that our inward graces and vertues of Repentance Conversion Faith as a Work Love Hope c. are the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God and that immediately page 53. which was never true of Faith it self which does not justifie immediately by it self but only Correlatively by its object which it apprehends and relies upon viz. the Righteousness of Christ And in his Definition of justification there page 47 he gives us no other material Cause of justification before God but our meer graces of Repentance and Conversion And he cunningly pleads moderate Merit page 46 47. but most openly and plainly page 55 56. and he quite confounds justification and sanctification leaving no imaginable Distinction betwixt these two making us to be justified by inward Righteousness and sanctified by the very same pages 46 47 50 53. compared which in his Popish Principles he is I Confess forced to do And is not George Keith plainly Popish in this point who holds justification by inherent Righteousness immediately gives us no other material Cause of our Righteousness before God but that only pleads moderate Merit in us by it allows Faith in the business only as a work with the rest and confounds justification and sanctification together Bellarmine himself was never more Popish than thus which all know that are acquaint with him upon the Controversie But George Keith endeavours to shift our Charge of a Popish justification because he seemingly yields pag. 44 46 47. that our inward Grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of our justification by way of strict Merit and in a way of strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered as when the work is of equal worth and dignity to the Reward as he explains it page 55. But I would fain know the other Member of this distinction from the Author He tells us their inherent grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of their Justification by way of strict Merit and strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered How many Stricts Strictlies and Rigidlies are there here he has certainly been exceedingly concerned and eagerly careful to get his Minute and imperfect inherent Righteousness at least next Neighbour to the strictest Merit and Justice and it would not fail nor he be feared for it in any thing but that and yet he has been as careful as he could to cover his meaning in this which must be the other Member of his distinction We see then that if Justice will not exact the very rigid Rigour of the Law from the Quakers and take the very summum Jus which uses to be called the summum Nefas they think to merit their justification by their inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal And this and what this great Ringleader of the Quakers we see hath said before shews that they hold as Popish a justification as the Pope himself I believe does But George Keith is yet resolved to shake off this Popish justification in the eyes of the world and to fix it forsooth upon us too in his Quakerism no Popery page 48. first because they differ both from the Papists and us in holding the Act of God in justification to be really Inward which the Papists and we says he do not Ans Indeed it is true that upon our believing the Gospel-promises pronounces the Sentence nor have we nor need we any immediate Dictates to warrand that but we may soon or late get a Transcript thereof Inwardly for our Formal assurance and so we do not differ wholly from this point that George Keith would have us differ as to the Inwardness of the Act or Copy of the Act rather out of these Divine Records but we differ hugely from them as to the Immediateness of the Act I grant but I never heard that that was called Popish till now but that a Popish justification was always reckoned upon inherent Righteousness as the Meritorious or material Cause thereof although George Keith denies that a man can Taste of Spiritual Food except he get it in his Enthusiastick way immediately Quakerism no Popery page 16. as if forsooth a man could not Taste Meat conveighed to him in any Vessel or Dish and this fully answers a long Discourse which he there has upon this matter seeing the Promises are the Vessels conveighing to us all our Spiritual Comforts of Justification Salvation c. Secondly to shake it off himself and fix it upon us he says page 48. that in regard of the Object they Teach that we are the Object thereof not only as having our sins Pardoned for Christs sake but as being Righteous in the sight of God viz. by inherent Righteousness whereof he still speaks through Christ dwelling in us But in this he is still Popish not we in holding himself to be the Object of Justification as being or because he is for all is one Antecedently Inherently Righteous and therefore justified which we never held but that we are justified by Faith as laying hold and relying on Christs Righteousness where Faith is not considered as a work or immediately in it self or as it qualifies its subject But Correlatively as apprehending and getting hold of the Object viz. Christs Righteousness let George Keith think this Distinction as nice as he will as he calls it scornfully in his Quakerism no Popery page 45 46. which was not so nice to the Apostle Paul who still opposes justification by Faith and by works and so does not consider Faith
day of general judgment pag. 99. Conditions of the two Covenants described and distinguished pag. 187. A Confession requisite in a Church and why pag. 123. Our Confession of Westminster materially Scripture-sentence p. 128. Consequential fundamental errors do not Physically and Entitatively unchurch pag. 200. Consequential Scripture is Infallible Scripture-rule p. 63. Consequential Scripture necessary to prove Jesus the true Messias pag. 64. Consequential Scripture necessary against Idolatry pag. 65. Consequential Scripture not founded upon Principles of meer humane reason pag. 66. Consequential Scripture no addition to the Scripture ibid. Conversion wherein it essentially consists pag. 157. The Disciples converted before the first Gospel Supper pag. 97. The Covenant the same in substance under both Testaments p. 85. Courtesie and Capping lawful among Christians pag. 205. D ONe day of seven a Sabbath-day Moral and perpetual pag. 104. Every day not a Christian Holy-day proved pag. 111. The Lords day mentioned Revel 1.10 not meant of any indeterminate day pag. 108. The Lords day meant determinately of the first day of the week ibid. Death described pag. 100. The Decrees of God are eternal pag. 141. Conditional Decrees in God depending upon conditions not by him determined vain and repugnant pag. 143. The Dictate in all men not the principal Rule pag. 33. The Dictate in all men not Essentially right ibid. The Dictate in all men subjected to the Scriptures pag. 35. A Dictate of the Spirit Immediate and Objective in no man p. 49. A Dictate within Immediate and Objective not needful pag. 32. Christ died not for all men but only for the Elect proved p. 138. A Directory of a Church distinguisht into two Notions pag. 120. A Directory warrantable in a Church pag. 122. Church Directories not Infallible pag. 123. A Directory formed rightly of a mixed nature depending partly upon Scripture general Precepts and partly flowing from Christian prudence pag. 128. E EFfective enlightning of the Spirit distinct from Objective p. 32. Effective enlightning of the Spirit sufficient without Immediate Objective ibid. Efficacy of grace not dependent on mans free will pag. 159. Efficacy of grace from whence pag. 161. The Quakers alternative Efficacy of grace confuted pag. 160. Christs enlightning of every man that comes into the world how to be understood pag. 154. F FAith the only condition of the new Covenant pag. 181. Faith not considered as a work in justification pag. 183. Fighting lawful for Christians against unjust Invaders pag. 204. Free will to Convert not in any unrenewed man pag. 159. Free will in unrenewed men to gracious actions inconsistent with the Efficacy of grace pag. 160. G EXtraordinary Gifts not an Infallible evidence of saving grace pag. 74. The Gospel not Properly but only Synecdochically called the power of God pag. 130. Grace without light proportionable can do nothing p. 156. Grammar described and explained pag. 3. Grammar lawful among Christians and necessary for some men pag. 4. How the Spirit Guides us into all truth pag. 42. H INward habits nourished and maintained by external means p. 41. Supernatural habits simply necessary for supernatural actions pag. 157. Holiness of Believers Children 1 Cor. 7.14 what it does import pag. 85. I SInning by meer Imitation confuted pag. 133. Infants have interest into the Kingdom of Heaven pag. 88. Immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of grace ceased in the Church and not now upon any ground of promise to be lookt for p. 55. Interpretation of Scripture is needful in the Church pag. 52. Interpretation of Scripture is of Divine Institution and explained what it is pag. 55. Scriptures may be Interpreted by men whose gifts are fallible p. 59. Scriptures are the rule of Interpreting Scriptures pag. 58. The meaning of Scripture Interpreted by Scripture is Scripture-rule pag. 61. Interpreting of Scriptures is no adding to the Scriptures ibid. Justification how it is held by Protestants pag. 174. Justification how it is held by the Quakers pag. 175. Justification by inherent or inward Righteousness either as a cause or condition refuted pag. 181. K KIlling in just defence against the unjust Invaders of a Kingdom lawful vid. fighting lawful for Christians How the kingdom of God is said to be within us Luk. 17.2 p. 40. Knowledge in Divine things how it differs in renewed and unrenewed men pag. 37. L LAnguages how necessary to be learnt and why pag. 4. Christ as God was never under the Law pag. 212. How the Law is said to be written upon our hearts Jer. 30.33 pag. 38. Learning how necessary for a Minister pag. 5. Sufficient light in all men to Salvation confuted pag. 151. Light within all men not the principal Rule pag. 33. Christ how said to live in a true Christian explained pag. 213. Logick described and divided pag. 5. Logick a gift of God pag. 6. Logick lawful and necessary among Christians ibid. Lies reported in the Scripture not Scripture-sentence pag. 19. M MErit of good works pregnant with contradictions and confuted pag. 186. An External Ministery to continue to the worlds end in the Church pag. 60. N BY Nature all men are corrupt pag. 132. Natural men are not sufficiently enlightened to Conversion or Salvation pag. 151. Natural parts are necessary for a Minister pag. 202. O IT is not God that obeys God in us pag. 212. Ordination of our first Reformers in time of Popery was valid quoad substantiam pag. 199. Ordination in the time of Popery before the Reformation did not necessarily make these Ordained the Popes Emissaries p. 198. Ministerial Authority received by external Ordination pag. 202. P A Great difference betwixt Papists now and before the Council of Trent pag. 200. Perfection distinguished and described pag. 165. Perfection of degrees in this life confuted ibid. Perfection in a Moral sence not inferred upon the agent or action by Scripture writing pag. 171. Perfection not inferred from the acceptance of our good works ibid. Paul not perfect when be wrote to the Romans pag. 167. The persons in the God-head proved pag. 29. The persons in the God-head Eternal pag. 214. Philosophy described and explained pag. 8. Philosophy among Christians lawful pag. 9. Philosophy a gift of God ibid. Philosophy how rightly used and how not ibid. The Dictate within the principal rule of Faith according to the Quakers pag. 28. The principal rule the Scriptures not the Dictate within pag. 30. Psalms-metring requires not immediate Inspiration pag. 118. Psalms-singing of Divine Institution pag. 112. Psalms made upon sad lots may be Sung pag. 115. Psalms that are not our case may be Sung pag. 116. Psalms threatning Curses against notorious wicked men may be Sung pag. 117. What Psalms were sung in the Primitive Church pag. 118. Punishing of evil doers a duty incumbent to the Magistrates p. 205. Q QUakers Jesuitical and Popish in their Principles pag. 206. Quakers smell deeply of Supererogation pag. 208. Quakers great Slanderers pag. 206. A Quakers Minister described according to their own Principles pag.
Isaac was born Comparing Rom. 4.10 with Gen. 17. chap. But of the Solemn Declaration thereof before the world by the clear Fruits and Evidences of one in that State and that it cannot be meant of his justification before God is sure seeing the Scriptures Cited shew very peremptorily that he was a justified man before he offered that work by which James there says he was justified And the Apostles clear Scope in the place is to hold forth that justifying Faith cannot be alone but must and will be accompanied with other graces and vertues and good works which give Lustre and Glory thereunto which there he calls the perfecting of it and without which it will be found but a dead Faith And when thirdly it is objected that men will be judged according to or by their words and works as the Scriptures often say the same answer is to be given viz. they will be judged according to or by them Declaratively as Solemn Witnesses and Testimonies of the State they are in manifesting before all the Equity of Gods procedure not as Causes or Conditions except in the Damned whose evil works are indeed the Meritorious Cause of their Misery An Appendix concerning the Merit of our good Works George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 55 56 57. Teaches also that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happiness though not in the strictest sort of merit which he calls Condignity or deserving a Reward so as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward yet so as to obtain viz. Meritoriously for positively he pleads for their merit here from God by promise as he out of his Infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow viz. unto such a merit and though he refuses all Condign merit both here and likewise in the 72 page of the book as that signifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward yet he still sticks though subtilly to a Condignity below an equality page 57 and in all his Arguments he still aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works themselves But I must Assert that there is no merit in any of our good or best works in any sense of merit that 's proper whatsoever to obtain from God any good thing much less the Reward of Heaven I shortly prove it Therefore first the best of our works in this life are imperfect as we have before now proved and comes far short of that which we owe Ergo they can never merit any good at the hands of God but upon the contrary the Curse and Damnation Eternally which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God Deut. 27.26 Galat. 3.10 Secondly Eternal Life is the Gift of God says the Apostle Rom. 6.23 therefore it is no ways merited by any good work of ours for that which a man merits is not Gifted to him but it is his due George Keith answers to this that both the Works and Merits are a free Gift and the Reward too But I rejoyn how can I merit at a mans hand by his free Gift unto me Can I merit at his hand because he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor viz. I merit from him because I owe him When I give a Beggar a Farthing then I become his Debtor and must give him another in payment of my Debt to him and then we are free and if I give him a third because now this is a free Gift again I over again become his Debtor Is not that fine Non-sense and strong Contradiction Thirdly the Apostle says Ephes 2.5.8 that by Grace we are saved and not by works Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper signification of merit be it never so moderate and remote from strictness especially seeing the same Apostle tells us Rom. 11.6 that that which is of works cannot be of grace nor that which is of grace be of works because of a clear contradiction and the destroying of both their Natures which he their shews The Quakers then with their dear Friends the Papists must either confess Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works or else they must deny it to be by Grace flat contrary to the Scriptures George Keith's Answer that as the Reward is of Grace so the Merit is of Grace is already destroyed for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace seeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man for then the more I receive from him he should be the more my Debtor not I his whereas in all sense and reason I must owe him the more instead of meriting Now when George Keith yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward I cannot but commend his Modesty for its very much that the Quakers cannot merit above Adams merit if he had stood in his Obedience for nothing that he could have done all being still due to his great Sovereign could have merited properly nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happiness And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not that under the first good works would have Merit Condignly not so under the Second for as to the First that is false But it lies here that under the First good works behooved to be compleatly performed as the Condition before we got or had a right unto the reward but in the Second Covenant we have right upon our first Entering into and closing of the Covenant by Faith unto the Inheritance before the performance of good works But George Keith objects there pag. 56 that the Saints are said to be worthy of the Kingdom of God and of walking with Christ in white 2 Thes 1.5 Revel 3 4 which Infers at least a suitableness Ans First their worth is not reckoned in themselves but in Christ Secondly a sutableness doth not Infer a dignity and merit A poor man in great need yea though no good man is a sutable object of an Alms though he does not merit it from us he hath no Jus personae into it Again he objects that God rewards our good works and therefore they must have some worthiness in them Ans God's rewarding so far beyond any worth that dare be pretended in our good works proves that it is not for their worth but upon some other account that we obtain the reward viz. upon Christs account in whom by his free grace we have obtained Redemption and Salvation Thirdly he objects that a meek and quiet Spirit is in the sight of God of great price 1 Pet. 3 4. Ans First our Souls also are of great price in the sight of God yet we do not for that merit Heaven Secondly doubtless God has a great esteem of vertues of one of which the Apostle here speaks in the abstract consideration from vice but in us they are mixed with Relicks of vice and imperfect and so cannot merit Thirdly