wilful Seducers and malicious Opposers of the Truth whose Blasphemous Mouths must be stopt and their Heretical fury repressed that the Truth may not be Troden under foot and the simple Seduced who are easily ensnared where such men get way and are not Redargued That which hath deceived and been a Snare unto many simple and ignorant people is some hairy Garments of a few and but a few external Duties of the second Table of the Law wherewith these Instruments of Satan have Clothed themselves But such should remember that false Apostles and Ministers of Satan do Transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ and Ministers of Righteousness even as Satan also Transforms himself into an Angel of light 2 Cor. 11.13 14 15. and false Prophets being inwardly Wolves do notwithstanding come in Sheeps Clothing Mat. 7.15 and even Resisters of the Truth put on a form of Godliness 2 Tim. 3.5 8. and however these Doctors of the Quakers Mask and Vizorn themselves with some few externals of the second Table yet how even in Doctrine they trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table thereof which yet in reason ought to have the first room is not obscure For as for the First Commandment it is notour to all acquaint with the Principles of the Quakers how manifestly even in Doctrine they contradict and oppose the same while they Impudently deny that any man who hath not received the Spirit ought to Worship God This is so known a Tenet of the Quakers that we need hardly to produce Testimonies thereof but it may be seen in a Book of theirs Published in the year 1668 entituled The Principles of Truth or a Declaration of their Faith in the 81 82 and 92 pages whereof they expresly Teach and I shall repeat their very words That all men ought First to wait Vntil they receive the Spirit in Truth Then in the same Truth to worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit In plain Terms that is to say men must first wait until they receive the Spirit before they offer to meddle in worshipping of God The same also may be seen in a most virulent Printed Pamphlet of theirs Intituled in the beginning of the Chapters or Sections thereof for I had it without a Title page The Principles of the Priest so they call the Ministers of Scotland of whom they there speak of such a Place and such a Place in the 14. and 15 pages whereof they directly Impugn and oppose this Position and Principle alledged by them to have been Taught by Mr. John Carstairs Minister at Glasgow viz. That all men whatsoever ought to Worship God Unto this their Atheistical Doctrine is Subalternate that other impious Principle of theirs That no man ought to Pray to God till he be actually moved thereunto and Influenced by the Spirit otherwise Mr. George Keith one of their Chief Apostles affirms it is but Will-worship and Superstition in his Quakerism no Popery page 99. and 100. Good Reader allow me to take a small word of these Mad Principles and I shall do it very briefly Therefore first all men whatsoever they be are bound to Fear Reverence Love and praise God say the Contrary who dare but these are all most principal Arts or parts of the Worship of God Therefore this Principle of the Quakers is both False and Prophane Secondly Obedience to God Essentially and Indispensably includes worshipping of God seeing it includes a subjecting and stooping to his Yoke and Soveraignity and a doing of Homage and Honour unto him and this also includes Reverence all which are no mean parts of his most Substantial and Moral worship Well then if no man ought to Worship God until first he receive the Spirit then no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit seeing obedience Essentially includes Worship and cannot be performed without it as is shewed but it is utterly Atheistical Profane and Absurd to say that no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit for then no unrenewed man ought to obey God seeing such men have not received the Spirit Joh. 14.17 Rom. 8.9 if then unrenewed men ought not to obey God then they are not under any Law of God and he requires no obedience of them for if they be under any Law of his and if he requires any Duty of them I am sure the Quakers will never get them exempted from it Well then if unrenewed men be not under any Command or Law of God and he requires no Duty of them then it follows Infallibly first that let unrenewed men do what they will they cannot sin against God seeing such as are not under any Command or Law of God cannot trasgress any Law of his and so sin against him see Rom. 4.15 1 Joh. 3.4 Such men then in the Quakers Principles may deny disown reject hate and Contemn God Worship the Devil and Debauch at their pleasure and yet they cannot sin against God for all that seeing they are not under any Law of God Secondly it follows thereupon that Reprobates are all most unjustly Condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God as is supposed and so cannot be Guilty of sinning against him Thirdly it follows thereupon that unrenewed men cannot sin albeit they should never so much Counte-ract and Contraveen all the Precepts of the second Table of the Law also seeing these that Transgress no Law of God nor any Command of his cannot be sinners seeing Sin is a Transgression of the Law and where no Law is there is no Transgression they are not capable of Trangressng a Law who are not under it and bound to obey it Hence then in the Quakers Principles unrenewed men may Lawfully Dishonour and Defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and what not Is not that a sweet Doctrine that tends so directly to all mischief and wickedness losing all men that have not received the Spirit from all Bonds of God and cutting asunder all the Divine Cords of their Duty are not the Sage Doctors of these black Mysteries of Satan very Divinely Inspired Do they not seem to be very Pious Would it not be a sweet world if these Principles were put in practise God preserve us from from so Impious a Piety and such stark Mad Inspirations which I am sure are the very quintessence of the Devils whole Treasury and the utmost of his strength and endeavour Hence falls that other Lewd and Prophane Principle of the Quakers subalternate to their Doctrine here presently Confuted viz. That no man ought to Pray to God until he be actually moved and influenced thereunto by the Spirit seeing calling upon God is a part of Moral Worship or of our Obedience to the Moral Law whereunto all men are obliged Pour out thy wrath upon the Heathen that know thee not and upon the Kingdoms that call not on thy
name Psal 79.6 Jer. 10.25 But the Quakers have somewhat to say in defence of this their impious Doctrine viz. unrenewed men say they cannot but sin in their Worship to God Ergo they ought not to Worship him Ans By this Quaking-Argument no man on Earth should offer to Worship God seeing there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints hereaway being still defective in the measure and degrees of goodness prescribed by the Law and coming from an heart that is not perfectly clean Prov. 20.9 but the Flesh still lusting against the Spirit so that we cannot do the things that we would Gal. 5.17 much less can we reach the whole Dimensions of our Duty Again even the Plowing and so the Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Prov. 21.4 shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they will go about in a sinful manner I think not And hence we deny the Consequence of their Argument Secondly no man indeed is obliged to sin but yet all men are obliged to worship God which is another thing and is I am sure no thing but a Duty and that unrenewed men sin in the manner of performance it is their own fault proceeding from the corruption of their hearts which can never excuse them from their Duty Does mens Faults that they are Guilty of absolve them from their Duty and Discharge their obligation to the Law say it not for shame And hence again we deny the Consequence Lastly the worship and obedience performed by unrenewed men such as it is or may be called for it is not simply obedience but it is only such and so called in respect of the matter and substance of the Act which is according to the Law though the Principles Manner and End are not is much better than a total rejection of the Commandment seeing that is good in respect of the matter and substance of the Act which agrees with the Law as for example when an unrenewed man gives a poor man an Alms or does any other Action commanded by the Law But the total rejection of the Commandment is upon all accounts and every way evil And hence again we defie the Consequence See this objection in the Quakers Pamphlet fore-mentioned called the Priests Principles in the 14 and 15 pages thereof Again they object that no worship is acceptable to God but that which is in the Spirit and that therefore no man ought to worship God that hath not received the Spirit Ans Albeit no obedience or worship which unrenewed men are in that state able to perform be acceptable to God yet they are still obliged to worship God and that with an acceptable worship nor does or can their Inability to perform acceptable worship take away their obligation to perform it seeing we did all once receive ability in our common Parent and representative head Adam and the losing of it is our fault whereof we are Guilty Rom. 5.12.19 and whereby we can never be excused from our Duty or God and his Law lose their Authority over us And hence the Consequence perishes Secondly we have shewed already that the worship and obedience of unrenewed men such as it is as was explained is better than their total disobedience and utter rejection of the Commandment its better to live Chaste though neither Principles Manner nor End be good than to commit Adultery with our Neighbours Wife And hence again falls the Consequence See this Objection in their forementioned Book called The Principles of Truth or a Declaration of their Faith pag. 81 90 91. The Quakers while they are handling this head in their Book called The Principles of Truth in the pages Cited are so extreamly confident of victory to their Heretical sentiments thereupon That they provoke and appeal all the prudent Orthodox and Learned Divines in Europe and every Quarter of the world with the wisest of the Sons of men to produce their strong reasons and encounter them in this point as if forsooth they had intended to out-strip the Devil not only in the defence of lies but also in his Arrogance and Pride in daring so many learned and worthy Champions of the Truth But they must needs run whom the Devil drives As for the 〈◊〉 Commandment it is most manifest how they do oppose themselves thereunto by their rejecting wresting and abusing the word of God which is a most glorious peice of his name and in their opposing and trampling upon his precious Truth and avowing of Error and Blasphemy yea it is evident how lightly they regard this Commandment by their very swallowing down of their Meat and Drink as so many Brutes without Prayer and Thanksgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4.3 4 5. they are not sanctified Let them seriously consider the Text for the Apostle does there expresly say that God hath created our Meat to be received with Thanksgiving and so the receiving of it without that is contrary to Gods appointment and that every Creature of God is good and nothing to be refused upon this condition taken in and so no otherwise viz. to us if it be received with Thanksgiving and he adds a reason to prove that its good viz. because it is Sanctified by the Word of God allowing us the use of it and Prayer which asketh Gods blessing thereupon And albeit the same Apostle says Tit. 1.15 Vnto the pure all things are pure yet he does not say that without Prayer and Thanksgiving they will be so or blessed in their use nor does he in this Text contradict or retract what he says in the fore-cited Text where he explains how they are Sanctified and made pure to us viz. by the Word of God and Prayer and so the one Text supplies and explains the other The Fourth Commandment they do openly impugn in one of their following Queries unto which place we refer the Controversie The Quakers respects unto the Fifth Commandment is sufficiently known by their denying to all men that external Civil Reverence which it plainly enjoyns and their opposing and condemning the practice thereof in others as unlawful and Idolatrous Thus Mr. George Keith one of their chiefest Antesignani declares all bowing and taking off of Hats unlawful in his Quakerism no Popery page 100 101. Now that this command enjoyns us to give Civil Reverence to men is most manifest seeing it enjoyns to give Civil honour to men Ergo Civil Reverence seeing honour void of all Reverence is a plain contradiction honour being nothing else but a paying of Reverence and regard And that this command enjoyns the external part as well as the internal cannot be doubted seeing the Precept is given unto the whole man not the Soul only nor can the Body being capable of the Duty be exempted from the Law of God more than the Soul they being equally liable to his Soveraignity and the Law and the Law-giver not distinguishing or
not be Creatures but the Devil is a Creature therefore certainly God made him Secondly If God made not the Devil then the Devil is an Uncreated Independent Being for a Being he is existing from himself and so there is not one but two Uncreated Independent Beings the one of them Essentially Good the other Essentially Evil being the very same thing with Sin as the Quakers would which is the demented Ghost of old Manicheus before the time arisen from the dead but that is most absurd Blasphemy Thirdly If Original Sin be the Devil then the Original Sin of all Mankind was existent before any Man had Sinned and would have been to this day though never Man had Sinned seeing Mankinds continuance in Obedience would not have destroyed the Devils Being but these things are ridiculous and yet that which is aimed in this Query hath been often said by Quakers in my face and hearing Lastly If Original Sin be the Devil then there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man but we must be all born as Innocent and Spotless as ever Adam was Created for the Devil being a compleat Substantial Being can never inhere as an accident into any other Subject But it 's most false that we have no Original Sin but are born Innocent and Clean which by these few Scriptures I prove Rom. 5.12 Death hath passed upon all Men because all have Sinned but all have not sinned actually viz. Infants have not Therefore it must be meant of Original Sin seeing of one of the two it must be meant or else the Apostle ignorantly mistakes the reason why Death passes upon all Men viz. because of Sin but that cannot be said John 3.6 That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh Job 4.14 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean no not one viz. naturally and in an ordinary course Again I have proved that God Ordains Infants to be Baptized which is given us for the Remission of our Sins as is shewed Infants then must have Sin to be Remitted otherwise there needed no Remission of Sin but they have no actual Sin Therefore Original Sin Again Except a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 But Infants as well as others partake of the Kingdom of God as is before proved Therefore there are Infants born again and so they must surely be sinful naturally or else they could not be born again or Regenerated Again David for the deeper sence of his own Vileness ascends to the fountain and source of all the Evil and Uncleanness that he was liable unto confessing that in iniquity he was formed and in sin his Mother conceived him Psal 51.5 where what I pray would it have done to Davids deeper sence and further acknowledgment of his Vileness which undeniably is his scope that his Mother being in sin as Pelagianizers have learned to answer did conceive him spotless and without sin Nay surely the wanting of Original Sin would have made him to be the less vile not the more and beside it was his own Sin not his Mothers which he came to confess and again lastly We are by Nature Children of Wrath Ephes 2.3 therefore by nature we must be sinful which must be Original Sin seeing we have no other Sin by nature and that we are born in The Consequence is Infallible seeing we cannot be Children of wrath in that very respect and under that very consideration in which respect and under which consideration we are sinless and pure for then as we are sinless and pure we should be heirs of wrath which is an absurd Blasphemy and cannot stand with the justice of God to curse a Man when he is Innocent tell me not the instance of Christ Jesus who though he was altogether spotless in himself inherently yet he stood in our room as our Cautioner and all our sins were laid upon him Isa 53.6 Pelagianizers answer us that the Posterity of Adam Sins only by Imitation of their Predecessors But Contrariwise then we are only by Imitation and not by Nature Children of wrath contrary to the Apostles Doctrine For we cannot by nature be Children of wrath and yet by nature be pure and sinless Secondly I have shewed that Infants have sin in them but not by imitation surely seeing they are not capable to imitate therein Therefore they must be sinful by nature not by imitation Thirdly if we were made sinners only by Imitation then some men might escape from that for we are not such perfect Apes as to imitate necessarily what we see in others Lastly if Adams sin be propagat to us only by Imitation then we shall be made righteous in Christ only by imitation of his righteousness also But the consequent is utterly false Therefore so is the antecedent from which it followes The connexion of the Major which only needs proving I prove from Rom. 5 19. Where the Apostle declares that as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Which comparison requires some special proportion betwixt these members so exactly compared whereof there is scarce any shadow betwixt the imitation and true and real Communication Pelagianizers again answer that though we be by nature corrupt yet that corruption is not our sin but our affliction and punishment only Contrariwise as the habit principle and seed of grace is grace and so also all habits are still of the same nature with their acts so also the seed and principle of sin must be sin Rom. 7.23 is called the Law of sin Warring against the Law of the mind and so it s an enemy to grace and the Image of God Rom 8.7 it s called in the very abstract to shew its wicked nature Enmity against God and that it is not neither can be Subject to this Law Galat. 5.17 Paul sayes it lusteth against the Spirit and is contrary thereunto Shall that then which is the source principle and spring of all our actual sins is enmity against God his whole Image and his Laws and a contrary enemy to the Spirit shall that I say not be sinful nay then surely there is no sin in the World nor is it possible to render a definition of sin if that be not sin George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 75 76 answers that our natural concupiscence doth not infer any real guiltiness upon us nor makes us guilty of death without our actual consent thereunto and which is more strange that it doth not indwell in any except where it is kindly received and obeyed and that therefore which is his direct scope our natural corruption is none of our sin untill we consent actually unto it But contrariwise the Scripture which I beleive much better shews that by the sin of Adam all were made sinners and guilty of death Rom. 5.16 17 18 19. and that by nature we are Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 and so George Keith
Epistle to the Romans and certainly he had got the Victory over his Corruption then I mean in the very time that he points at whether it were present or past seeing it was thrown out of his affection and he hated it ver 15. and he was come the length of delighting in the Law of God after the Inward Man ver 22. and with the mind he served the Law of God ver 25. all which import a great Victory although the Enemies were not all utterly destroyed and gone yet their force was broken And albeit the Law in his Members was still drawing him into or towards captivity which George Keith thinks absurd to say of the Apostle at that time yet this expresses only the endeavours of his Natural Corruption not it's success for his unrenewed part was Carnal sold under Sin and no good thing dwelt in it and what absurdity is there here and when the Apostle summs all into one Conclusion ver 25. that with the mind then he himself served the Law of God c. I see not a possibility for George Keiths Metaschematismus except he will say that the Apostle did not at that time when he wrote this Epistle to the Romans with the mind serve the Law of God but that he did it only before when he was in the strugling and warfare-Estate before he had got the Victory which will both be false enough and absurd enough as I judge Sixthly There is not a just man upon Earth says Solomon Eccles 7.20 that doth good and sinneth not Ergo there is no man upon Earth Perfect George Keith answers to this Quakerism no Popery pag. 40. That the Verb being in the second future may be turned in the Potential Mood There is not a just man upon Earth that doth good and may not Sin But first The Verb is in the Indicative Mood and therefore our Translation has the advantage Secondly Solomon is explaining something that people might be ignorant of which was not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who could be ignorant of that but it must be meant of their actual sinning and short-coming and that even in their best performances in regard of the manner Thirdly No man can say he is pure from his Sin Prov. 20.9 and the Apostle Paul was not fully pure from it when he wrote to the Romans and Philippians Rom. 7.23.24 Philip. 3.12 and as long as a man is not pure from his Sin he is not perfect nor can his actions morally considered be perfect either a Fountain not fully pure sends not forth perfect pure water and still proportionably the goodness and perfection of the Fruit follows upon the goodness and perfection of the Tree Matth. 7.17 and that it can no ways exceed Add also these three Scriptures 1 King 8.46 Isai 64.6 Jam. 3.2 Lastly I canot but admire that any man should so far lose all sence of sin and short-coming in his Duty as to think that he is come up to the full measure required in Gods Law to love the Lord his God with all his Heart Soul and Mind and his Neighbour as himself Surely there is no man that dare pretend to an exact performance hereof and therefore there is no man compleatly perfect and exactly sinless But the Adversaries object That all the works and gifts of God are perfect and that therefore our Sanctification being a work and gift of God must be perfect Ans This objection endeavours to prove that our Sanctification is perfect in the very first moment of our Conversion and Regeneration seeing even then it is a work and gift of God as well as afterwards and this undoes the Argument Secondly All Gods works and gifts are perfect if they be considered Abstractively and meerly as flowing and depending from him for Who can impute evil unto him Not so always if they be considered Concretively and as inhering and existing into us who are impure and in whom they are mixed with the remainders of Corruption as water that is pure as it comes from the Fountain may be mudded by running through a miry place and so the Argument proves nothing Secondly They object That David pleaded often with God upon the account of his Righteousness praying that God would judge him according thereunto Therefore his Righteousness behooved to be perfect Ans David meant of the Righteousness of his Cause compared with his Enemies Cause who wrongfully Persecuted him but not of the inherent Righteousness of his Person before God Psal 19.12 and 143.2 and when sometimes in confidence of his Sincerity he desires God to judge him he does not mean of being judged by him according to the severity and strictness of the Law Secundum justitiam districtam which sincerity without perfection cannot satisfie as may be understood from the Scriptures last cited but he means of being judged according to the lenity and compassion of a merciful Father in Christ Thirdly They object That the heart of several of the Kings of Judah is in Scripture expresly said to have been perfect 2 King 20.30 2 Chron. 15.17 Ans Perfection is there meant of the Perfection of Parts or sincerity which are both one not of the Perfection of Degrees for that none of these were gradually perfect may be seen from 2 Chron. 16.7.10 and 32.25 26. Isai 38.17 the same is to be said of that large Commendation given to good Josias 2 King 23.25 for that he was not gradually perfect is also clear from 2 Chron. 35.22 In this sence Job is also called perfect Job 1.8 and yet he peremptorily denies himself to be gradually perfect Job 9.20 and sometimes again Perfection is taken in the Scriptures comparatively for a greater growth in the knowledge of God and his ways than others have reached to as 1 Cor. 2.6 Philip. 3.15 where the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will render Adult or Grown and so it is rendred Heb. 5.14 where the whole Context which I may not stand upon shews it to be meant comparatively and so also it best agrees with the Scope and Context of the particular places themselves and where Paul claims unto himself that comparative Perfection Philip. 3.15 he for all that denies himself to have reached an absolute gradual perfection ver 12. there Fourthly They object from 1 Joh. 17 9. Quakerism no Popery pag. 39. where it 's said He is faithful upon our Confession to forgive us our Sins and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin Ans As to justification I yield this cleansing to be perfect as to all sins past and a sure ground thereby laid for pardon of future Sins seeing the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance and whom he justifies he glorifies Rom. 8.39 and 11.29 But of sanctification it must be understood only Inchoatively not perfectly and the Verb Cleanseth in the Present Tense imports the work not to be ended in this life but still adoing albeit George Keith would infer the contrary
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And