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
not Authority to feed the Flock and edifie the Body of Jesus from his own Word in the nearest method and have they not Authority to furnish and guard their People against damnable Delusions and Soul-ruining Errors in the most easie and successful manner they can If they have not Authority for and be not bound to do these things then they have not Authority for nor are they bound to do any thing Let all the Quakers in Britain answer but one mouthful of sence to it if Ministers whose Office must continue in the Church to the end of the World and till that day when all the Saints shall be compleatly perfected Matth. 28.19 20. Ephes 4.11 12 13. be not given to the Church for the very forementioned ends and if these be not the Incumbent Works of their Office But it 's vain to demand an answer which can never be found or sence from these who Impugning Grammar declare themselves Enemies to Sencespeaking And have not the Quakers also published a Confession of their black Faith Entituled The Principles of Truth viz. Per Antiphrasin for they should have said of Falshood Fiction Error Blasphemy and Calumnies printed in the year 1668. and we have also seen several of their sweet Catechisms But say the Quakers Is not the Doctrine of Christian Religion as good in the Scriptures as in any Confession or Catechism Ans Yes no doubt but what of that will that infer any thing against a Confession or Catechism in a Church whereby that good Doctrine of the Scriptures may be more speedily and distinctly learned I would rather think that the better the Doctrine of the Scriptures is the means contributing to our more ready and distinct learning thereof should be the more useful and warrantable So unfortunate are the Quakers that their own Weapons turns upon themselves Observe that this Objection of the Quakers if it could have proved any thing at all would have Militated as much against all Preaching as against a Confession or Catechism Hence though the Scriptures be a better Book than any Confession or Catechism in the World as formally Constituted by Ecclesiastical Authority yet a Confession or Catechism are not therefore unlawful or unwarrantable in a Church as I think is clear enough from what I have said But say the Quakers Whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory Confession and Catechism as ye have done Ans Hereby the Quakers refuse that any Man may direct according to the Scripture the External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship or that any Man may Catechize or give an Account or Confession of his Faith which every Man in due Circumstances is bound to do Matth. 10.32 33. Rom. 10.9 10. 1. Pet. 3.15 but much more a Church partly for satisfaction to other Churches partly for distinguishing Orthodox Churches from Heretical Synagogues and partly for a short and clear publick Test of the Principles of her own Members except he be Infallible which any Man may see to tend to the banishing of all these Duties out of the World seeing there is no Man now adays Infallibly Inspired for such things But what great need I pray is there of Mens Infallibility in this Affair They are not to assure their Doctrine from their own Infallibility but from the Infallible Scripture shall not that be sufficient to assure it I cannot but think so To the Law and to the Testimony then instead of your Inspired Parts What should be answered to the last Article of their Query is manifest from what we have said already concerning a Directory and it 's needless to repeat Tenth QUERY Whether or not is your Sanctification your Justification and your Faith and Grace the gifts of these without sin as they are manifested within you Yea or Nay SVRVEY Here is an obscure Riddle a dark Aenigma which where to find the sence of is a little difficult but if it hath any sence they seem to Query Whether or not our Justification Sanctification c. be the gifts of our Directory Confession and Catechism whereof they were last speaking in the preceeding Query But what that term Without Sin stands for here is not easily Divined nor can it have any Errand or Connexion with the present Question and therefore I must throw it by as an insignificant and no less impertinent Cipher I answer therefore to their present Question That our Justification Sanctification c. are the Gifts of God only Rom. 8.32 33. Ephes 2.8 Jam. 1.17 and that the Question is void of sence seeing the bestowing of a gift is an action properly relative to an Intelligent Being for we do not receive gifts from Stocks Stonee or Brutes Notwithstanding this does not presently exclude the use of all ordinary means for their meaning in this Query is plain that our Justification Sanctification c. cannot be the gifts of God but must be the gifts of our Confession Catechism c. because forsooth we make use of these as ordinary means allowed of God for their proper ends above described For albeit our Corns be not the gifts of our Ploughs and Harrows nor the continuance of our Lives the gifts of our Food and Raiment but all these things are the gifts of God yet we may not lay aside all Ploughing and Harrowing and the Quakers I believe will not reject Food and Raiment Let them therefore either permit us the use of Confessions Directories and other inferior helps and means conducible in their own order or else by their own example persuade the world if they can never to Plough or Sow more never to Eat or Drink more This is enough for Answer to this Query which comes in but by way of Objection and Cavillation Eleventh QUERY Whether or not your Directory and Catechism and Confession of Faith be Gospel Yea or Nay and if so Whether it be not another Gospel than that which the Apostles Preached who said the Gospel was the Power of God Rom. 1.16 SVRVEY I have above at the Survey of the Ninth Query abundantly justified our Directory in the general as was there explained and proved that God hath given Warrant and Authority to Church-Guides and Judicatories for Making and Constituting these according to the general Precepts of Scripture for maintaining Order and Decency and promoting Edification in the Church and therefore I shall not here needlesly repeat any thing to that purpose Only I shall take notice that seeing the Quakers oppose these things they therefore declare that it is their mind that Church-Officers and Judicatories should not give Obedience to Gods Commands should slight Order and Decency and the Churches Edification There is the new-coined Directory of the Quakers let all Men judge if it be not an Instrument of the Devil But for Answer to their Query I say That there are several Rules in our Directory that materially considered are very Scripture-Rules particularly delivered therein as I shewed before at the Survey of the
his danger or difficulty as yet seeing there is no parity First because we never said that we had sufficient grace here to perfection God hath not seen it fit so to measure forth unto us so soon that he may exercise our Faith Patience Humility Self-Denyal Repentance c. And raise our affections to Heaven where we shall have enough But the Adversaries do say that all men have sufficient grace to Conversion and therefore we cannot be said to resist that which we have not nor plead we have This quite destroyes the pretended retorsion Secondly we never said that the grace of God works at our Inclination Beck and Choice towards perfection or not towards it and so that we are the determiners of his grace in order to growth as we see from your Principles ye Quakers say of that universal pretended grace in order to Conversion but that God by his grace always determins us to the growth he designs it for not our free-will his grace Thirdly we may indeed resist both the means and motions of grace and not improve grace as we should and might too but God makes it still effectual to the growth by him designed and when he pleases not we which ye Quakers deny he does lest he take away the Freedom of your will whereunto he must leave his grace to be turned this way or that as ye choice By all these no Parity there is to be found here for a Retorsion The Quakers against this Doctrine do object the many Exhortations that are in Scripture unto our Conversion and turning to God Whereunto I answer That these Exhortations do not shew what we can do but what we ought to do and that so putting us to it we may know our inability to do that we may see our lostness and flee to Christ And Secondly These Exhortations are given in Scripture as a means by which God does Effectually by his Spirits Efficacy joyned work Conversion in his Elect who promiscuously live amongst the rest of the Multitude And Thirdly They are given to make the wicked the more unexcusable when they will not Obey nor receive Grace offered and turn that they may be saved Upon this universal Grace and their free-will thereby they also build the Apostacy of the Saints alledging that they may totally and finally fall away who have true and real beginnings of Sanctification as George Keith alledges in his Quakerism no Popery page 73. but it 's all in vain for the Scriptures tell us that God causes these to whom he gives a new heart to walk in his Statutes and keep his Judgments without departing from him Jer. 32.40 Ezek. 36.26 and that these that are once planted in the House of God shall still bring forth fruit in old age and so shall persevere Psal 92.13 14. and that whomsoever God effectually calls he also justifies and glorifies them Rom. 8.3 and that he hath made them Heirs and joynt Heirs of God with Christ and given them the Spirit as an earnest thereof Rom. 8.15 17. 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5.5 Ephes 1.13 14. Galat. 4.6 7. and that Believers are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 and that whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin with full consent or unto death for his Seed which is incorruptible 1 Pet. 1.23 remains in him so that he cannot sin viz. with full consent or unto Death 1 Joh. 3.9 because he is born of God I do not here stand to Argument from these Scriptures because both they are of themselves clear and likewise they have been often handled before by our Writers against Jesuits and Arminians But they use to object most ordinarily from the many Exhortations that we have in Scripture to perseverance which they alledge imports that true and real Saints may fall totally and finally away But they mistake for these Exhortations are given as a means by which God by his Spiritual Efficacy joyned designs and carries on the Saints perseverance and to shew others their Duty wherein if they fail to be their ditty as was before said George Keith objects Quakerism no Popery pag. 74. These who received the Seed in stony ground as it is explained Matth. 13.5 Matth. 4.5 who afterwards fell finally away Ans These were temporary Believers never really or truly Regenerated and Sanctified as is sure from the Scriptures we have cited presently to the contrary but they had a profession of Conversion and a temporary Current Flood of Affection arising from some Carnal Motives of Pleasure Advantage c. and thereupon also they seemed to the Church to be really and truly Converted albeit it was not so and they were never really Regenerated or Sanctified for if they had been so they had not fallen finally away seeing beside what is above said the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance Rom. 11.29 Secondly He objects from Rom. 11.19 20. where it 's said That the Jews were broken off from the Covenant that we Gentiles might be graffed in But this says nothing either seeing many professed Members are broken off but they were never truly and really Sanctified or Regenerated which are the only Persons concerning whom the Question is nor were these Jews whom the Apostle there speaks of so much as professed Members of the Gospel and Christian Church Thirdly He objects from Heb. 10.29 see the place for I will not stand to repeat the words where the Apostle speaks only of such as had received though in a great degree some common illuminations of the Spirit and some common operations of his Grace but not of these who were truly Regenerated and truly Sanctified though they had once escaped the external Pollutions of the World as Peter says 2 Pet. 2.20 and for all this I appeal the Scriptures which I have produced to the contrary which are both plain and unanswerable And when he again objects from the 2 Pet. 2.18 I answer likewise that the Apostle there means of men that Externally and in the Eyes of the World were clean escaped from them who live in Error but were not really so or really and truly Sanctified for these that go away from us are not of us Joh. 2.19 although they may for a time profess and seem to be of us and in our Judgment of Charity when we know no relevant ground against it be so construed Lastly He objects to us from Jud. 4.5 6. where truly I hardly see any Apostacy but that of the Angels that fell from their Primaeve Condition which will never infer the Apostacy of any mean Saint seeing none of these is so absolutely at the Devils Devotion Or if he means of these in the fourth Verse who were crept in and turn'd the Grace of God into wantonness that is only meant of the means of Grace which are often called Grace Tit. 2.11 and the offers of Grace not of Grace once really and subjectively infused or conferred which would have persevered to
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
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
Questions within the limits of one and the same Query or separating any part thereof from another that it may be seen that I have not in the least injured the Adversaries but have only sometimes for a distincter Method alter'd the place of a Total Query The Quakers also Inscribed their Queries all which here follows and first the Inscription Quakers Inscription Some Queries as followeth from the People called Quakers for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer First QUERY Whether or not Grammar or Logick and the many Tongues and Languages which began in Babylon is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ And whether or not Elisha the Plow-man Amos the Herdsman Peter and John the Fishermen who could hardly read a letter with many others who were not bred up in these things Logick and Grammar and the many Languages if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus Yea or Nay Second QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of Enochs Faith Noahs Faith and holy men in the old world and second world Whether or not they were a Rule to Abrahams Faith Isaacs and Jacobs Faith and Moses 's Faith and all the Patriarchs And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did write them Answer these things by plain Scripture Third QUERY Or how long was it after Christ and the Apostles days That that Grammar Logick and Philosophy and Schools of learning were set up to make Ministers of Christ Jesus Fourth QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word or the words of God seeing the Scriptures say themselves God spake all these words Exod. 20. And he that adds to the words in the last of the Revelation Plagues are added to him And what doth the Scripture signifie doth it not signifie Writings And whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule for your Faith and Manners and every title of it from the one end of the Book to the other both in the Old and New Testament If not distinguish what part is to be obeyed and what not And whether every title from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word or the Words of God Fifth QUERY Whether or not the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and holy men of God did Preach down perfection and said that men should not be perfect while they were on Earth but said men should carry about a body of Death with them while they were on this side of the Grave let us see where this is written by any of them all Sixth QUERY Whether or not your singing of Davids Psalms his Prayers Prophesies Fastings Reproaches Weepings Mournings Lamentations and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture and you bring all these together in Meeter without distinction Have ye not done this your selves Or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times Or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had Or a larger measure of it than the Apostles had by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days And what was the Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs they sang in the Primitive times Answer these things by plain Scripture Seventh QUERY Whether or not your Directory Confession of Faith and Catechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your people to walk by Or whether or not equal with the Scriptures or above the Scriptures And whether of them is the better Book And whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory or Catechism or Confession of Faith as ye have done And whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory than any ye can make which were given forth by the Holy Ghost by the holy men of God who had the Infallible Spirit Eighth QUERY Whether or not is your Sanctification your Justification and your Faith and Grace the Gifts of these without sin as they are Manifested within you Yea or Nay Ninth QUERY Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day Let us see where it is written in the Scriptures But the first day of the week the Saints did meet together This is Scripture But let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New Testament which speaks for a rest for the people of God But is this a day Yea or Nay Tenth QUERY Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants Let us see Scripture without adding or diminishing for it that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it for the Plagues are added to them that adds for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this without any shuffling Meanings or Consequences or else never pretend Scripture-Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Consequences that hath been your Rule Eleventh QUERY Whether doth the Scriptures say in the New Testament that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine after Supper was an Ordinance of Christ And whether do ye practise this as Christ and his Apostles did after Supper Do not ye take it before Dinner Did Christ or his Apostles do so What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this for they took it in the night And Christ says as oft as ye eat of this Bread and Drink of this Wine c. is that a standing Command Or is it left to people seeing it s said as oft as ye Eat this and Drink this do it in remembrance of his Death and shewing his Death until he come again Was this coming to the end of the world Or was it until his coming to dwell in his Apostles who said he would come and dwell and walk in them Need they then Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of him And doth not Christ say Eat this and Drink this in remembrance of his Death And doth not the Apostle say that they must die with Christ and to die with him is to come to the Death with him And they that be in the Death of Christ and die with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of his Death Yea or Nay And doth not the Apostle say that they must Die with Christ and be Buried with him And when the people are Dead and Buried with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of Christs Death Answer this yea or nay And the Apostle says they must rise with Christ Jesus and if they be risen with him then seek these things that are above And is not Bread and Wine from below and if the Apostle puts them to seek these things that are above then he brought them off these things that are below for he says to the Corinthians the things that are seen are Temporal but the things that are not seen are Eternal This he spake when they were Jangling and in a disorder about
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.
best right must and ought to gain the Cause except we resolve utterly to abandon our Reason or else determine against clear Justice Let the Quakers then shew us some other day with a better or as good right or else prove from the Text or otherwise that some other day certain or uncertain is meant which I defie them to do otherwise these clear Scripture-grounds must bear more weight than their meer bare word and naked assertions But the Quakers will object against an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament that the Apostle condemns the observation of days and Sabbath-days Galat. 4.10 Colos 2.16 Ans The Apostle does not there or any where else condemn the observation of the Christian Sabbath-day but only of the Jewish Sabbath-days with any others that never had Divine Warrant against which the Argument infers a Fortiori whereof beside their ordinary weekly Sabbath-day they had a great many such as were the first and last days of every one of their three Solemn Feasts viz. of the Passover of Pentecost or Weeks and of Tabernacles as also their Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the seventh Month and the Feast of Expiation or Attonement on the tenth day of the seventh Month and beside all these their New Moons their Sabbath of Years and great Jubilies all which may be seen Levit. 23. and 25. Chap. and Numb 10. Chap. And that it is such days as these and not our Christian Sabbath-day the observing whereof the Apostle condemns is clear in the very Context of these two cited places for in the first Text he expresly names Months and Years that is New Moons and Sabbaths of Years and the intire scope of the Epistle is bent against Jewish Ceremonies pertaining to the then-Bondage-state of the Infant-Church under the Old-Testament as any man reading it may see And in the last Text he ranks these Sabbaths which he rejects with Meats and Drinks and New Moons and calls them shadows of things to come of which kind our Christian Sabbath-day is not Nor is all distinction of days without exception taken away here more than the distinction of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink which that it is not taken away I have proved at the Survey of the last Query seeing both Meats and Drinks and Days are here equally condemned or not so What Does Paul here condemn the observation of the Christian Sabbath-day which Christ teaches we shall have under the New-Testament or Does he rescind the fourth Commandment or Condemns he the observation of the Day which himself and the whole Church observed as set apart for Gods Publick Worship say not so I pray Again they will Object that the same Apostle holds forth the Indistinction and equal Condition of all days Rom. 14.5.6 Ans That is most false for the unanswerable reasons now given Secondly by the Context it self the days there Treated of are such as are in the same order with Ceremonial Meats and Drinks of Jewish observation the estimation whereof above others was an Infirmity in the weaker sort to be born with by the stronger until their better Information and Persuasion But the Christian Sabbath-day is not of that sort as is shewed Nor does Paul here any more overturn the distinction of the Christian Sabbath-day from other common days then of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink which it is certain he does not overturn seeing these in the Lords-Supper are of a very far different Condition from all common Meat and Drink in regard of their Institution Signification Ends Effects c. In the Close of their Query they tell us that the Scriptures speaks for a Rest for the people of God But is this Rest say they limited to a day Ans What then I pray the Scriptures promise the Eternal Rest of Heaven to all true Believers whereof also their Grace and Sanctification is an Earnest and Degree inchoat and begun here though not perfected But will this prove that there should not be or is not an external Sabbath-day under the New Testament then neither should there have been any under the Old either seeing the Rest of Heaven was promised to Believers then as well as now And all true Believers had some measure of Grace and Sanctification then as well as now Or will our resting from sin in some measure begun in this Life or our Eternal Resting in Heaven in the next Life infer that we should rest from our Duty in this Life Forsooth such Consequences are very sutable to the Quakers Logick But say the Quakers which is their last Gun every day is a Holy day to a Christian Ans I grant a Christian should be Holy every day and keep an Internal Sabbath as they call it But it will not from thence follow that we have not an External Sabbath-day also for Adam in Innocency when he maintained and was bound to maintain a continual Internal Sabbath of Sanctification had for all that an External Sabbath-day also Gen. 2.3 and the Jews under the Old Testament were bound to maintain an Internal Sabbath of Sanctification every day and yet they had an External Sabbath-day also For an External Sabbath-day requires not only that we cease from sin and be holy but also that we cease from all our Civil and worldly Imployments and Works that on other days are Lawful excepting works of necessity and mercy which are every day Duties and in that abstraction from the world spend the whole day in the publick and private Exercise of Divine Worship which things could not be done every day even by Adam in Innocency And if every day were a Holy day to us we behoove either to Plow and Sow on Holy day or else not do such things at all both which are utterly absurd Eighth QUERY Whether or not your Singing of Davids Psalms his Prayers Prophecies Fastings Reproaches Weepings Lamentations and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture and you bring all these together in Meeter without distinction Have ye not done this your selves or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had or a larger measure of it then the Apostles had by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days and what was the Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs they Sung in the Primitive times Answer these things by plain Scripture SVRVEY The State of the Question here is very plain The Quakers deny our Singing of Psalms to be an Ordinance of the Gospel or of Divine Institution under the New Testament Contrary unto this I Assert that Singing of Psalms is an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely appointed I prove it Therefore first Singing of Psalms was an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the Old Testament 1 Chron. 16.9 Psal 95.2 and 105.2 Therefore it must be so still under the New The Scriptures Cited prove the Antecedent
viz. Joh. 1.9 and 8.12 is indeed a saving light but the light of Nature and Reason which is the only light that is universally in all men as was proved at the Survey of the fourth Query is not so SECT II. Concerning sufficient Grace in all Men. The Question here is Whether there be sufficient Grace in all Men Turks Pagans Heathens c. able to convert them and so save them The Quakers boldly affirm that there is and they do not mean of objective Grace or Grace offered only to all which some plead for right or wrong my present purpose is not concerned but of subjective Grace whereby the will is made able and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God as George Keith affirms in his Quakerism no Popery page 66. But I utterly deny that there is Grace in all men sufficient for Conversion and though still the Affirmer ought to prove not the Denyer yet I prove my Negative Therefore first There is not sufficient light for Conversion in all men as is proved Therefore neither is there sufficient Grace in all men for Conversion The Consequence is easie seeing Grace without Light will be very blind Grace nor can the will be renewed and the understanding left unrenewed and in darkness for how then shall it behave seeing Nil volitum quin praecognitum ignoti nulla cupido Secondly Every sufficient Cause is able to produce the Effect or else it is no ways sufficient as is palpable But there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men able to convert them subdue the resistance of their will and bring it in subjection to God Therefore there is not a sufficient Grace to Conversion in them The Minor only needs proving and I prove it because the Natural Man cannot by any assistance discern the things of the Spirit and the carnal mind which is enmity against God cannot by any assistance be subject to his Law 1 Cor. 2.14 Rom. 8.7 Nay he must be a Spiritual man that does either seeing a Spiritual act can never proceed from a Natural or Carnal Principle more than a Horse can make a Syllogism or define an Object But Reprobates and Unrenewed men are intirely Natural Men and Carnal minded Therefore there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men whereby they can either discern the things of the Spirit or to be subject to his Law and so I am sure it cannot convert them The Minor of this also only needs proving which is easie for Reprobates and Unrenewed Men neither have Christ nor the Spirit of Christ 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Joh. 5.12 Rom. 8.9 10. Galat. 4.6 and so they cannot be Spiritual but intirely Natural and Carnal being without Christ and without his Spirit Thirdly No Man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6.44 but he draws not all men whatsoever Therefore all men whatsoever have not sufficient Grace enabling them to go to Christ and so to convert and turn to God The Major is Christs plain assertion in the place cited The Minor is clear from Joh. 6.45 where Christ positively affirms That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him But all men whatsoever come not to Christ John 5.40 and 10.26 and 12.39 2 Thes 3.2 Therefore all men whatsoever do not hear and learn of the Father and so are not drawn by him and so the whole Argument is evidently proved Lastly Conversion essentially consists in the Habits Powers and Principles of Grace not in the actual operations of Grace otherwise Believers would lose and recover their Conversion and so be in a state of Nature and Grace as often as they are not and again are in the actual exercise and operations of Grace and so every Convert would be an Apostate fallen from Grace when he sleeps or is not actually exercising his Grace which is utterly absurd so to lose and recover continually his union with and relation to Christ and his right unto Eternal Life But whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace Therefore whosoever hath sufficient Grace is certainly a Convert and so if all men have sufficient grace then they are also all Converts which I do not yet believe The Major is proved clearly already I prove the Minor viz. that whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace because without these there cannot be sufficient Grace for there cannot be sufficient Grace where the actions and operations of Grace are impossible as cannot be denied But where the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace are wanting there the actions and operations of Grace are impossible seeing every action and operation is impossible without the Principles and Powers whereupon it necessarily depends as no man can be ignorant of Therefore without the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace there can be no sufficient Grace They will may be say that habits are not simply necessary for producing of Acts but only for the more easie and ready producing of them Unto this I reply that though that be true in respect of natural and acquired habits as even their acquiring shews that same Acts proceeded the habit viz. these by which it was first acquired yet it is most false in regard of supernatural and infused habits as both their nature and their purchase no ways but by infusion may shew that they necessarily preceed all Acts yea and otherwise a Man might live graciously without grace and grace would be simply needless which a sworn Atheist will not dare to say But they object for universal sufficient grace that the Gentiles do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2 14 therefore they had sufficient grace Ans They did these things by Nature sayes the Text not by grace Secondly a Man may do things Naturaly good and contained in the Law and yet be void of grace seeing he may do them but yet not from gracious principles of Faith and Love nor for gracious ends both which as also the gracious manner are requisit to a gracious action Rom. 14 23. 1 Cor. 10 31. Secondly they object that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all Men Tit. 2 11. Ans By the grace of god the Apostle there means the gracious Doctrine of the Gospel whereunto teaching which is ascribed to it in the following verse is most proper and by all Men is meant Men of all ranks Stations Qualities c. As the word all is often taken for the Gospel was not then come to every Mans ears in the whole world This objection George Keith makes in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66. Thirdly they object that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12 7. Ans The Apostle speaks only of the members of Christs body here by the Context not of all Men whatsoever again laying aside the Context the meaning is easie viz. that to
whomsoever the manifestation of the Spirit is given it is given them for profiting as when Paul says Colos 1 28. whom we preach warning every Man in all wisdom he does not mean that they had then got every Man in the World warned but that whomsoever they warned they warned them wisely and not imprudently as when I say such a Man speakes to every Man wisely I doe not mean that he hath spoken to all the World but whomsoever he speakes to he does it wisely and discreetly And just so when I say such a Man honoureth every Man or all Men for advantage Fourthly George Keith object in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66 from Rom. 5 18. That as by the offence of one judgment come upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all Men unto justification of life Ans the meaning is plainly as in the former objection that as on whomsoever the offence came it came unto Condemnation so on whomsoever the righteousness came it came unto justification so he is comparing the force and effects of the offence of Adam and the force and effects of Christ's righteousness and merits together which is his scope in the whole Context as may easily be seen but especially in the 16 Ver. And if he were comparing the quantity and latitude of the objects together upon whom the offence and the righteousness came making them equal as the Quakers objection intends then it would prove that all Men were as actually in a State of justification by Christ as ever they were in a State of Damnation by Adam which is utterly false From this universal grace the Quakers draw their free-will in all Men even natural and unrenewed Men to convert and turn unto God at their option and choice as George Keith boldly with holy boldness himself calls it affirms in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66 67 68 69. But the Scriptures says Jer. 24 7. Ezek. 11 19 and 36 26 that its God that gives us the new heart which we cannot make our selves by the help of universal grace nor does that universal grace bestow it or else in the Quakers principles all Men would be converts nor can we turn to God without it They declare that it's God that converts us and not our selves by our free-will and universal grace assisting Jer. 31 18. Joh. 3 5. and 6 44. Jam. 1 18. 1 Pet. 1 3. They also positively teach that men that want a true Spiritual union with Christ by Faith can doe nothing viz. that 's acceptable and Spiritually good Joh. 15 5. and all unrenewed men are such And it 's most absurd to say that there is an ability and free-will in Reprobates and unrenewed men by means of a sufficient grace in them to convert and turn to god or forbear at their Devotion and choice for so the efficacy of grace in the point of Conversion is made plainly dependent on man's free-will which that I may prove we must know that the Quakers with their dear Friends the Jesuits doe say that God bestowes this his grace upon all men only to make them capable and able and their free will to Convert or not at their choice and consent or Dissent but that he does not make his grace so Powerful on theâ— as Infallibly and peremptorily to through and effect the work so as it cannot but come to pass for this he will not doe left he take away the Freedom of their will whereunto he still leaves them to chuse or refuse consent or dissent Now then First this universal grace is not effectual of it self to Convert any man or else seing every man hath it aswell as another as the Adversaries affirm it would Convert them all otherwise it cannot be called effectual as not throughing and effecting that work in many From whom then hath it to be effectual not from God for he only makes men able and free thereby to be Converted leaving them to their free-will to chuse or refuse not from the Devil I am sure Ergo it must Infallibly have its efficacy from mans free-will which by chusing and Inclining applies it that way effectually which otherwise had misgiven Secondly this universal grace in the business of Conversion works at mens Option and Choice for if they Incline it concurs if not it forbears Therefore it is therein clearly Subordinate to mans free-will and determined thereunto by his Promotion and so in effecting that work plainly depends on him and his free-will The consequence is plain from the Definition of a Predetermining and Predetermined and a Subordinant and Subordinate cause contained in the Antecedent from whence I infer to the things defined in the consequence But George Keith denies Quakerism no Popery pag. 67 68. that so the efficacy of grace shall depend upon mans free-will because when it hath not its efficacy in order to Conversion in men who stop and resist it yet it hath its efficacy in rendring them unexcusable and in being a just ground of their Condemnation which is all that God Intended by it in such Resisters for God intended only that it should convert such as resist it not and be a ground of just Condemnation against Resisters But First it cannot be so said to be effectual to Conversion concerning which the debate here is but only that its either Effectually to it or the other thing mentioned which also every good Advice and Exhortation will be Here there is no efficacy to Conversion more then to Non-conversion seeing it can consist with either of them at the parties option Secondly you say it was not intended for their conversion who resist it How do they then resist it who are not thereby converted when they do not cross its Errand and Intent I am sure if they crossed its Intent and Errand they would plainly resist it And so it s still resisted be it crossed or not What an ill natur'd grace is this that nothing can please Thirdly it s asmuch Intended for the Conversion of them that resist as of them that resist not seeing its Intended for the Conversion of any of them that resist not and of none of them if they resist you say And so if it be not Intended for the Conversion of the one neither is it of the other and so it cannot concur to any mans conversion Except it do it without God's Intention and Design and so if it Convert any man its false to its Master and Author I le have nothing to do with this Ill-natur'd and false grace God send me better George Keith in the 68 pag. of his foresaid Book endeavours to retort our Arguments here alledging that as they say their universal grace is resistible in order to Conversion so we say that the grace of God may be resisted in order to perfection and so we are in the same difficulty as he will But George Keith is hugely mistaken as when not for we are not in