THE venerable and sacred Character the Reverend Mr. Whitefield bears, as an incomparable Reformer; and the high Commendations given to his publick Performances and Writings, both from the Pulpit and Press, as well as in pri­vate Conference, and that, by some Ministers and People of our own Denomination, having raised our Expectations very high, we were induced to attend his Sermons, and to read and peruse his Books, hoping to receive much Light and Benefit thereby: But, upon the best Perusal we could make of them, albeit, we find that a great Part of his Writings do answer the Cha­racter given them, as being sound, yet, to our great Sur­prize, we every now and then stumble upon something that seems to jar with those sounder Parts, as well as with o­ther good Books; and, if we be not much mistaken, with Scripture and sound Reason.—Our Jealousies hereanent, whether Right or Wrong, giving us some Uneasiness, we were much perplexed what to do: If we should think of going to some of Mr. Whitefield's warm Ad­herents, we were afrai [...] by reason of the Treatment that others (and it may be some of ourselves) met with, that nothing could be expected thereby, but incensing [Page 8] them against us, to call us blind and carnal Men, as usual. Now, tho' Mr. Whitefield himself, by some Part of his Writings, would seem to be a Man of another Spirit and Sentiments from such warm inconsiderate Adherents, as appears by many Expressions in his Let­ters against Archbishop Tillotson, and the Author of the Book entitled The Whole Duty of Man; particularly by his taxing the Dissenters for acting very partially, for not speaking so explicitely as they ought, against the Arch­bishop's Doctrine, when known to be contrary to the Truth of the Gospel, albeit, the Archbishop was their Friend, and behaved with much Moderation towards them, whilst he lived; we cannot see, how he could, consistent with this, tax any of the Lovers of Truth for acting unchristianly, for enquiring into the Reasons of some of his Assertions, when we judge, that they appear to us as contrary to Truth as some of the said Archbishop's Doctrines: For, if we mistake not, it is the Duty and Priviledge of every doubting Christian, to enquire into the Reasons of the plainest Scripture-Doctrine, when he hesitates about it: But we should not speak explicitly against any Doctrine, but what upon mature Delibera­tion we have found false. But when we consider the Treatment a Neighbouring Minister had from Mr. Whitefield's warm Adherents, and their Cries still against him, for desiring a Conference with Mr. Whitefield, a­bout some Points in his Sermon, which said Minister was in Doubts about; we do despair of Access to him.— The only Remedy therefore left us, to solve us of our Doubts, as we see, is, an Address to you our Teachers, now in Presbytery met, and setting our Scruples in order before you: And we promise, that if you, or any of you, can satisfy us with Scripture and sound Reason, we shall not only chearfully submit to the same, but also return you our most hearty Thanks, [...]counting the Discovery of Truth our Gain and Joy. But if you decline, or cannot agree among yourselves, about solving us here in, [Page 9] we desire your Judgments, whether it be any Breach of order, for us, at our own Expences, and such as shall join with us, to put our Scruples into print, that so there may be an Opportunity given to Mr. Whitefield to clear his Doctrine, if misrepresented or misapprehended by us: And that we may make a fair Essay to have our Doubts cleared, which for the present seem to be Bars and Letts to hinder us to join with our Christian Bre­thren in Matters of common Concern, with that One­ness of Mind and Heart, which is desirable and ne­cessary for our mutual Comfort: For when one Side is as Zealous for, as the other is Jealous of a controverted Point, and Assertions about it in Matters of Conscience, it is well known how difficult it is to go Hand in Hand. We find by Experience, that the other Side have their Difficulties to entertain a good Opinion of those Mini­sters that except against some of Mr. Whitefield's Ex­pressions as unfound: And we, according to our present Light, find it hard to entertain a good Opinion of those that proclaim all his Doctrines sound in the stron­gest Terms. We have therefore endeavoured to put our Scruples in the most inoffensive Way we could, by not only Transcribing some Paragraphs out of Mr. Whitefield's printed Writings; but also, according to our Capacities, we have endeavoured to propose our Doubts by raising proper Queries upon such Paragraphs, as follows.

First, Mr. Whitefield in his Sermon on Acts 19.5. Page 5.^* where speaking of Man's Creation, he hath these Words, viz. ‘He, that is, God, breathed in­to Man the Breath of spiritual Life, and his Soul be­came adorned with all the Perfections of the Deity.’

Q. I. Must not that Man have either very diminutive Thoughts of God, or else monstrously exalted Thoughts of Man, that can think, mu [...] more speak and write, that the Soul of Man in its best State was adorn'd with all the Perfec­tions [Page 10] of the Deity! What then is become of the Distinction, that all sound Divines make between the communicable and incommunicable Attributes of God? Doth not Scrip­ture and Reason support this necessary Distinction? If the Soul of Man was adorned with all the Perfections of the Deity, without Exception of any, what is the native and necessary Consequence therefrom, but that the Soul then was in some sort equal to God; which is too horrid to utter, without a Detestation of it? Were not Ex­pressions of this Import condemn'd for Blasphemies in the Mouths of Fox and Naylor?

II. In the same Sermon, p. 9. [Vol. II. p. 22. 23.] Mr. Whitefield speaking of the Regenerate, when fallen into Sin, hath these Words: ‘He, i. e. the Regenerate Per­son, quickly Rises again, and goes out from the World, and weeps bitterly, washes away the Guilt of Sin, by the Tears of a sincere Repentance, join'd with Faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ.’

Quer. I. Is not the Blood of Christ to be applied by Faith, the sole or only Laver, to wash away the Guilt of Sin, 1 John 1.7. 'Tis true, Faith in grown Believers, to make Application of his Blood to the Soul, must be exercised thereon: And it is true, that a Believer must renew the Exercises of Repentance, in order to regain the Sense of Pardon; but still, what solely obtains the Pardon, and blots out the Guilt, is the Blood of the at­toning Sacrifice. Is it not by our Justification that the Guilt of Sin is washed away? How then can there be any room to join our Tears with Faith in the Blood of Christ, to justify us before God, without we suppose the Satisfaction of the Cross to be incompleat? By what Art can our Tears be joined with Faith in the Blood of Christ to cleanse away the Guilt of Sin? What Quanti­ty of the one and of the other will make a due Composi­tion, without Spoiling the Whole? Why may not some Grains of new Obedience be again added to our Tears to make the Composition more compleat; for surely [Page 11] this is Duty, and a necessary Fruit of Faith as well as godly Sorrow, and as inseparable from it?

Quer. II. How is this consistent with what Mr. Whitefield himself saith, in his Letter against the Book entitled the Whole Duty of Man, p. 6. ‘God's Law was honourable, Jesus Christ fulfilled it in our steads; and upon account of that Righteousness imputed to us, and received by Faith, and not on our hearty Endeavour or Repentance, are we accepted by him?" What is there in our hearty Endeavour or Repentance, to recommend us to the Favour of God, or render them worthy of be­ing joined with the Righteousness of Christ; as tho' that was not sufficient of itself?’ Further, Mr. Whitfield adds the Words of pious Bishop Beveridge to the same purpose, p. 7. who saith, ‘Nay, I cannot confess my Sins, but my very Confessions are still Aggravations of them: My Repentings need to be repented of: My Tears need Washing; and the very Washing of my Tears need still to be washed over again with the Blood of my Redeemer.’ Now, if Mr. Whitefield speaks right in p. 8. of the same Letter; for there is no hopes of bringing People to the right Knowledge of the Gospel, till their favourite, tho' erroneous Authors, are discountenanced and laid aside: and it is therefore accounted a becoming Zeal in Mr. Whitfield to write warmly and keenly against the Writ­ings of others, upon this Account; How then can o­thers be blamed for opposing such Expressions in White­field's Books as are as erroneous as those he condemns in others? Nay, should not Mr. Whitefield, and his warm Adherents, be as careful in Correcting his own Sermons as the Books of others, if found faulty in some of the same Points, or other Points as material? If it be said, that Mr. Whitefield is so busily employ'd in Preach­ing, and Writing against other Men's Writings, that he hath no time to look back upon his former Writ­ings; may not some of his Adherents assist herein to a good Purpose? Or if a By-Stander should mark some [Page 12] of those Expressions that look exceptionable; by what Rule, but that of Contraries, can he be judged an Opposer of God's Work, or of the Gospel?

III. In the same Sermon, p. 18. [vol. 2. p. 33.] He saith, ‘You have passed thro' the Pangs of the New-Birth, and now rejoice, that the Man Christ Jesus is spiritually form­ed in your Hearts.’ To the same purpose, if we rightly apprehend it, is what we find in the Letter aforesaid, p. 5. where paraphrasing upon those Words, The Seed of the Woman shall bruise the Serpent's Head; Mr. Whitefield writes thus, ‘The Seed of the Woman, i. e. Jesus Christ (who in all probability was spiritually con­ceived that Instant in the Heart of Eve) shall bruise the Serpent's Head’: Agreeable to which Notion, we have in Mr. Whitefield, Vol. I. of Sermons, printed at Phila­delphia, p. 53. ‘The many Souls that are nourished weekly by the spiritual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by your Means.’

Quer. I. Had the Man Christ Jesus a real tho' a spiri­tual Being or Conception in the Days of Eve?

Quer. II. What or who was that which was spiritual­ly conceived that Instant in the Heart of Eve, wherein the Promise was given, but the New-Creature, or the Image of Christ? If so, in what sense can the New Creature, or Image of Christ in us, be called the Seed of the Woman, or the Man Christ Jesus? Is the Man Christ Jesus, and the New Creature in us, one and the same? Are we to believe in the New Creature, as the Christ held forth in this Promise? How, or when, did this New Creature, or this spiritual Man Christ Jesus, who then had a Conception, bruise the Serpent's Head by his Obedience and Sufferings? Had the Man Christ Je­sus, as the Seed of the Woman, any other Conception, besides that supernatural One by the Power of the Holy Ghost, in the Womb of the Virgin Mary? We would be glad to know, where there is any scripture Ground to support the spiritual Conception of Christ, [Page 13] as the Seed of the Woman; or the spiritual Manhood of Christ? Are not these Notions as unintelligible as those of Barclay in his Apology, p. 135, 136. where he speaks of the Christ within? It is true, the Apostle speaks of Forming of Christ in us, Gal. 4.19. but are not we to understand that Place as intending the Image, and not the Person of Christ, as God-Man? much less, can we understand it of Christ, as the Seed of the Woman, or as Man. We hope we do (according to our Measure) understand what it is to feed on a crucified Christ, but yet, we would desire to know what is that spiritual Body and spiritual Blood, with which Souls are nourished? Is this spiritual Body and Blood of Christ Humane or Divine? Are these finite or infinite? Was it not the natural Body of Christ that suffered for us? Was it not the natural Blood of Christ that was shed for our Sins? How then can we feed upon the spiritual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which never (as we know of) had a Being in Heaven, nor on Earth? It is true, we own, according to the Scriptures, that Christ's Soul and Body have undergone a glorious and an ineffa­ble Change; so that if we speak of Christ's Body, as it now subsists in an exalted State, it may well be called a spiritual Body: But yet, when we feed by Faith on a crucified Christ, doth not Faith look to Christ's Body as Hanging on the Cross; and to the real Sufferings of Christ in his humane Nature in a State of Humiliation, as what atones Justice for us, and as what feeds and nourishes our Souls?

IV. In the aforesaid written Letter against the Book entitled, The Whole Duty of Man, wherein Mr. White­field quotes the 17th Paragraph of the Preface of that Book, wherein the Author, as Mr. Whitefield observes, talking of the Second Covenant, speaks thus: ‘The Second Covenant, says he, was made with Adam, and us in him, presently after his Fall, and is briefly contain'd in these Words, Gen. 3.15. where God [Page 14] declares, that the Seed of the Woman shall bruise the Serpent's Head: And this was made up, as the First was, of some Mercies to be afforded us by God, and some Duties to be performed by us.’ ‘Who that is any way enlightned, cannot but see the false Divinity and fundamental Errors of this Passage: For how can it be proved, that the Second Covenant was made with Adam, or that God ever entred into any Covenant at all with Man after he had broken the First? It is true, God the Father did enter into a Second Covenant (and that from all Eternity) with the Second Adam, the God-Man Christ Jesus, in our stead: But it can­not be proved, that he made any Second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posterity.’

Before we come to propose Queries on this Head, it may not be amiss to premise a Word or two, to prevent Mistakes, viz.

I. We freely grant that Christ Jesus is our Second Adam, our common Head and Surety in the Second Co­venant, and that the First Adam was only a private Belie­ver or Person, and so must come in, or enter into Cove­nant with God by or thro' a Mediator, and at a Second Hand (if we may so speak) as well as we his Posterity. And when we read the 16th Paragraph of the Preface of that 'fore cited Book, we cannot but judge that the Author thereof doth fully own this, when he saith, ‘For tho' by that Sin of Adam all Mankind were under the Sentence of eternal Condemnation, yet it pleased God so far to pity our Misery, as to give us his Son, and in him to make a new Covenant with us, after we had broken the First.’ Thus far the Author seems sound enough.

Whether the next Paragraph that Mr. Whitefield condemns may bear a favourable Construction, we leave you to judge; but we cannot but heartily join with him in shewing our Dislike to whatsoever in any Author may mislead the Weak or Ignorant, or countenance the Erroneous: [Page 15] Yet, whether this may lay a Foundation for such a hard Censure as that he was not a Real Christian at Heart, or had not so much as a Head Knowledge of the Gospel of Christ, as Mr. Whitefield asserts, is what we are at a Loss to determine? How would Mr. Whitefield, or some of his warm Adherents, like it, if another would take the same Liberty to censure his Writings, and him for them, to the same Degree? Upon the like Ground, we must, and do condemn the Author of The Whole Duty Duty of Man, for Asserting that the Second Covenant was made with Adam, and us in him, if thereby is meant, his being our Publick Head and Surety in the Second Covenant. And may not we also condemn Mr. Whitefield for running into another Extreme and an Error, that seems as dangerous as this, in Asserting that God never made any Second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posterity? And must beg leave to lay before you the following Queries.

Quer. I. How can Christ be a Mediator of the new Covenant, if there be no other Parties in the Cove­nant, but God the Father, and Christ engaging for us? Must not the Elect or Believers, be considered as a third Party in the second Covenant?

Quer. II. How can the new Covenant be called a Testament, and Christ the Testator of it, if there be no Parties in it but the Father and him? He receives all from the Father as Mediator: On whom then doth he bestow Legacies, without there be a third Party in this Covenant?

Quer. III. How is the second Adam, Christ Jesus, a publick Head and Surety of his elect Seed, unless such come under the Bond of the second Covenant; and that not only virtually, as Elect, but also in Time actu­ally as Believers; so that the Covenant may be truely said, to be established and made with them in Christ?

Quer. IV. How can any justify Mr. Whitefield's Cal­ling the Second Covenant a bare Promise, and that in [Page 16] a Way of Distinction from and Opposition to its being a Covenant? when the Apostle calls it, in Respect of the several Editions of it, the Covenants of Promise, Eph. ii. 12. Is there any Promise made to the Sinner or Believer, but what is or may be, yea, must be owned to be a second Covenant Promise? And are not all that are Strangers to the Covenant of Promise, or out of the Bond of the second Covenant, without God, without Christ, and without Hope? How poor then is the Condition of all the Posterity of Adam, if it cannot be proven, that God did make any second Covenant with any of them? Must not then all of them be under the Law as a broken Covenant, and under the Curse thereof, without Remedy?

Quer. V. If there be not any second Covenant at all made with Adam himself, or any of his Posterity; what then can we make of plain Scripture Texts, that speak of God's Covenanting or making a Covenant with Men, Gen. 17.7, Deut. v. 2. xxix. 10.15. 2 Sam. 23.5. 1 Kin. 8.9.2 [...]. Isai. 55.3. Jer. 31.33. Heb. 8.10. Hos. 2.18, 19. with many more that may be quoted to the same Purpose? Do not we on the other Hand, read of Men's covenanting with God, 2 Kin. 23.3. 2 Chron. 34.31. 2 Chron. 29.10. Ne [...]. 9.38? How can we give up the many Scores of Scripture Texts, that seem plainly to import, that the second Co­venant is made with Believers in Christ Jesus? Wou [...]d this be Reformation? May not we as rationally give up the whole Bible, as any considerable Part of it? Will it do, that we believe as Mr. Whitefield speaks or writes contrary to plain Scripture Texts?

Quer. VI. Is it any Thing like a solid Way of Argu­ing, for Men to say, that there is a Covenant of Re­demption, therefore there is no Covenant of Grace; when the very Design of the one was to lay a Founda­tion for the other: Or, because there is a Covenant made with the Redeemer, therefore there is none made [Page 17] with the redeemed Ones, to whom Christ is said to be given as a Covenant of the People? Is it any Argument, that because there was a Covenant made with Christ as Second Adam and publick Head of his Elect-Seed; there­fore there was no Covenant made with his Seed in Time? Is it any Argument that because there was a Counsel of Peace from all Eternity, between the Father and the Son, that therefore there is no Covenant of Peace and Re­conciliation transacted in Time, through the Mediator, with fallen Sinners? How cou'd the former be of any Use without the latter follow?

Quer. VII. If it be said, that the second Covenant cou'd not be made with Adam, or any of his Posterity, because it was made primarily with Christ; may not we as well say, that the first Covenant was not at all made with us, because it was made primarily with Adam, as our Surety and Covenant-Head? Was not the very making of the first Covenant with Adam, as a publick Person, the making of that Covenant at least virtually with us in him? Was not the making of the second Covenant with Christ as a publick Person, vir­tually the making that Covenant with us? Did not the Consent of our Representative make us Parties in the first Covenant? Why then will not the Consent of the second Adam make his Covenant-Seed Parties in his Covenant as well? If the Consent of our Represen­tative doth not make us Parties in the first Covenant, how are we born under the Guilt of Adam's first Sin? How are Infants in the Womb bereaved of Original Righteousness and born in Sin? Is not the Original Pollutions of our Natures the Fruit and Punishment of the first Transgression of Adam? If an implicite Con­sent to the Terms of the first Covenant in grown Per­sons, and acting accordingly, be a Bond firm enough to keep and hold us Parties in that Covenant; Why will not an explicite Consent to the Terms of the se­cond Covenant make us Covenanters with God? Do not Believers, when they come to believe and profess [Page 18] Faith in Christ, as expressly and explicitely enter un­der the Bond of the second Covenant, as any of the Sons of Adam ever entred into the Bond of the first? Besides, if the Consent of our Head and Surety in the second Covenant, doth not make us Subjects and Par­ties in the Covenant; How then can Infants be rege­nerated and saved?

Quer. VIII. If there be not any second Covenant at all made with Men, how can the Sacraments be called sealing Ordinances? Can they seal the Covenant to us, if it be true there is none made with us? Can the Covenant be confirm­ed to us by Seals, before, or without it is made with us? And doth not Mr. Whitefield seem to allow, that the Sacraments are sealing Ordinances? when he saith in his Journal, p. 110, ‘This Day 24 Years, was I baptized; Lord! to what little Purpose have I lived? However, I sealed my baptismal Covenant with my dear Saviour's most blessed Body and Blood, and trust in his Strength I shall keep and perform it’. Now, what Covenant is that, which is transacted over between God and Believers in all Ages, in the Use of sealing Ordinances, if it be not the Covenant of Grace, or the second Covenant?

V. In the same Letter, p. 4, Mr. Whitefield fur­ther asks, ‘Where any Covenant is contained in these Words, 'The Seed of the Woman shall bruise the Serpent's Head,' and how it is 'made up of some Mercies to be afforded by God and some Duties to be performed by us?' Here is a Free Gift and Promise of Salvation made to Adam, but no Covenant. Here is not a Word of a Condition mentioned. — No, it was the Free Gift of God in Christ.—’

Quer. I. Was not here (besides a Promise of Salva­tion through Christ) so also the Promise of Christ him­self to be a Saviour and Covenant of the People herein included and primarily intended?

Quer. II. Tho' we freely grant there is no express Condition mentioned in said Promise, yet we wou'd a­gain ask, Doth not every Promise in our Bible, in the [Page 19] Nature of it, require Faith to believe and embrace it, before we can reap the Benefit of it, and conse­quently contain an implicit Condition? Besides, what are the both Testaments, but a fuller Explication of this Promise? and is it not evident, that there are many conditional Promises added to the absolute Promises, that so we may have a compleat View of this Covenant? Can any Man expect to have a truer View of the se­cond Covenant, as to the compleat Nature of it, in that initial and first Edition of it, than by a fuller View of all its Editions compared together? Are there not many weighty Truths and Lessons to be learned from the af­ter Editions thereof, touching the Nature of this Cove­nant, which are of absolute Necessity to Salvation, now under the Dispensations we are under? Is not there more required of those that received more?

Quer. III. Whether it be not as great an Error in Divinity, to deny consequent Conditions or Duties in the second Covenant, as to assert antecedent Conditi­ons therein? Doth not the one run as far into the An­tinomian as the other runs in the Arminian Scheme; and so leave the true Gospel Doctrine, or Calvinistical and Lutheran Scheme, in the middle between these two strained Extremes? Doth not the Law as a Rule of Life, require Duties of those that are delivered from under the Law as a Covenant? If there be no Duties required in the second Covenant, to what Purpose are we so often press'd to the Performance of them, in the Old and New Testament; and why are the Neglecters of them so often blamed and reproved?

Quer. IV. Whether Mr. Whitefield well agrees with himself or Truth, in seemingly denying any Condition or Duties in the second Covenant one while, as may be seen in the forecited Letter, p. 4, 5. when he himself elsewhere presses Men to perform those easy Conditions prescribed by our Saviour, as necessary to Salvation, and upon Pain of Damnation, as appears by p. 71 and 92 of Vol. 1. of his Sermons printed at Philadelphia?

[Page 20]VI. Mr. Whitefield, in his Sermon on Job. vii. 37, 38, 39. in his opening or explaining the Apostle's Commission, p. 8, 9. [vol. 2. p. 128.] hath these Words, viz. ‘For though we translate these Words, bap­tizing them in the Name; yet as the Name of God, in the Lord's Prayer, and several other Places, signifies his Nature, they might as well be translated thus, bap­tizing them into the Nature of the Father, into the Na­ture of the Son, and into the Nature of the Holy Ghost?’

Quer. I. Whether it be not an Error to say, that by God's Name, in the Lord's Prayer, we are to under­stand his Nature? Are not we to understand by God's Name there, his Word, his Works, his Ordinances, especially his Titles, Attributes, and every Thing whereby God makes himself known, as we are taught by other Authors?

Quer. II. Whereas Mr. Whitefield before acknow­ledges, that this Commission authorizes Ministers to baptize the proper Subjects of Baptism in all Ages, we would ask, In what Age of the New Testament Church, could mere Men fulfil it, in the Sense Mr. White­field gives of it, by baptizing Men into the Nature of the Father, and into the Nature of the Son, and Holy Ghost? What can be meant by baptizing Men into the Nature of the Father, &c. unless it be regenerating Men? If so, can one Man regenerate another? How then cou'd this Commission be fulfilled? If the Priest can fulfil this Commission in this Sense of it, why may not he as well turn the Bread and Wine in the other Sacrament, into the true Body and Blood of Christ [...]? And when Mr. Whitefield, as we have noted already, speaks elsewhere of the spiritual Body and spiritual Blood of Jesus Christ, with which Souls are nourished, we would ask, whether this doth not savour something of Transubstantiation? For though we freely own, ac­cording to the Scripture, that God prepared him a na­tural Body, which he offered once a Sacrifice for Sin; yet we would know a Creature of whose making is [Page 21] Christ's spiritual Body and Blood, if it be not a Crea­ture of the Priest's Making?

VII. Quer. I. How doth Mr. Whitefield agree with himself, when in p. 9. [vol 2. p. 128.] of last cited Ser­mon, he saith, ‘It is evident, that we all must actually receive the Holy Ghost, e'er we can say, that we truly believe in Jesus Christ,’ compared with what he saith in p. 18. [vol 2. p. 137.] of the same Sermon, which is as follows, viz. ‘For notwithstanding you are all now sunk into the Nature of the Beast and the Devil, yet if you truly believe on Jesus Christ, you shall receive the quickning Spirit promised in the Text, and be re­stored to the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God?’ Doth not Mr. Whitefield in this last Clause seem to make true Faith an antecedent Condition to Men in the State of Nature, to be performed by them in order to receive the quickning Spirit? May not a dead Man walk as easy as this? Is not there better Divinity in that Paragraph of the Book entitled The Whole Duty of Man, excepted against, than this, when he saith, ‘that the third Thing Christ was to do for us, was to en­able us, or give us Strength, to do what he requires of us?’ Now, if we must ‘truly believe, ere we receive the quickening Spirit,’ are we not left to our own Strength in the first and most difficult Step?

VIII. In the Vol. I. of Whitefield's Sermons, printed at Philadelphia, p. 7. Whether or no Mr. Whitefield's Doctrinal Query or Proposition, which runs thus, ‘why we must be new Creatures, in order to qualify us for being savingly in Christ,’ be not of the same Pur­port, and amount to as much Heterodoxy, as what Arch­bishop Tillotson saith, by entitling his Book, ‘On the Nature of Regeneration, and its Necessity in order to our Justification and Salvation’? And may not the same Consequences be as natively drawn from the former, that Mr. Whitefield draws from the latter, in his first Letter against the Archbishop, p. 3.?

IX. In Vol. I. p. 14. Whether or no Mr. White­field's [Page 22] calling ‘Prayer, Fasting, Hearing, Reading, and the Sacraments, not only Means, but also essential Ones too,’ be not popish Dialect? We own the Means of Grace and Use of them, necessary to us, because commanded; but cannot God save Men without them?

X. In Vol. I. p. 16. Mr. Whitefield hath these Words, ‘It is to be feared we shall be found naked at the great Day, and in the Number of those who vain­ly depend on their own Righteousness, and not on the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to and inherent in them, as necessary to their eternal Salvation.’

Quer. I. How can the Righteousness of Christ, which is infinite Righteousness, inhere in any finite Creature? Must not we be equally righteous with Christ himself, if his Righteousness inhere in us? If Christ's Righteousness inhere in us, where should there be any Room for, or Need of the Imputation of it to us?

Quer. II. If it be said that Mr. Whitefield intends no more than the Necessity of inherent Righteousness, as Part of our Sanctification, then we wou'd ask, is this to be depended upon as well as imputed Righteous­ness? Or, are we to have and exercise a joint Depen­dance upon inherent and imputed Righteousness, as the Righteousness of Christ? Is not this Calvinism and Quakerism mixt together? Is it not the false Notion that Mr. Whitefield elsewhere seems to entertain of a real, tho' a spiritual forming of the Man Christ Jesus in Believers, the Ground of his Error in this Point?

XI. In Vol. I. p. 79. where Mr. Whitefield, speaking of Self-denial and a single Aim at God's Glory, hath these Words, ‘It is this, my Brethren, that distin­guishes the true Christian from the meer Moralist and formal Professor, and which alone can render any of our Actions acceptable in God's Sight.’

Quer. I. Whether Men may not aim at God's Glory in those Actions done in a blind Zeal? And may not some such deny themselves, in giving up their own Un­derstandings and Wills, Believing and Acting as the [Page 23] Church, or their Guides do? Are such Actions, when contrary to Rule, acceptable merely upon Account of a good Aim? It is hard to say, but that Uzzah might have a good Aim in stretching forth his Hand to touch the Ark; but did not the Event prove that the Action was not ac­ceptable?

Quer. II. Must not all good Actions proceed from a good Principle, be done in a right and due Manner, and for a good End; and after all, must not the Merits of Christ be the sole Cause of the Acceptance of such Actions? How Harsh doth it sound in the Ears of all true Protestants, that any Thing in the Action itself, be proclaimed as the alone Cause or Reason of its being ac­ceptable in God's Sight?

XII. Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, p. 20. speaking before of the Scotch and English Protestants keeping dis­tinct Societies at Gibraltar, makes this Remark, ‘What a Pity it is that Christ's seamless Coat should be rent in Pieces on the Account of Things in themselves purely indifferent!’

Quer. I. What is meant by Christ's seamless Coat that is rent in Pieces by Men's meeting in different Places to worship God in a Way that seems to them most agreeable to God's Word; when in some of those Places, Things in themselves purely indifferent, and more than that (as has been often shewn) some Things of a more dark and doubtful Nature, at least according to the Apprehension of the one Side, are imposed as ne­cessary Terms of Communion? Doth not Men's Agree­ments in Fundamentals save the seamless Coat whole, tho' Men worship in different Places, because of disa­greement in some lesser Points.

Quer. II. Doth not Mr. Whitefield's joining cordially (as we suppose) with both Parties, by conforming to their different Ways and Modes, strengthen the Hands of the one in imposing, and of the other in separating [...] and so help to make the Rent wider? It is true, he may in his Doctrine cry against the one and the other for [Page 24] Bigotry, &c. But how is this convincing, when his Prac­tice seems to justify both Sides? May it not be supposed, that Men who are convinced in their Judgments that the one Side or the other is in the Right, and act accor­dingly, do seem to act as honest a Part as Men, and as Christians, as those who jump in with, and jump out from all Parties in their several differing Ways and Modes, according as the Gale seems to blow? May it not be supposed, that he that hath Catholicism enough to carry him thro' the several differing Sects among Prote­stants, so as to join cordially with each, is in great Dan­ger of falling into a perfect Indifferency in some main Points, and so be prepared to turn Roman at Rome, if a fair Gale drives him there? If Antinomians, Arminians, and Calvinists, and Lutherans, while each of them ad­heres to his different Scheme, should, for some politick End, lay aside their Jarrs, and join Hands, and agree to make one Community or Church; whether there may not be just Grounds to fear that such a Church may sooner turn a Babel, than a Pillar of Truth? Whether it be an advisable Remedy, for Men to swallow whole Pounds of Babel Bigotry, upon the bare Advice of some Hot-headed Empyrick, to purge out a few Grains of Party Bigotry, till we know that the former is of a purging Nature? We grant that Unity among all true Protestants in the Truth, is very desirable, that so upon good Ground all Names of Distinction might cease; but can any imagine, that that good End will be ob­tain'd, by casting a Contempt upon a standing Ministry, and those, that in some good Measure, have given good Proof of their Faithfulness for many Years; and on the other Hand, by Idolizing raw unstable Novices with their unturned Cakes, so as to give up fundamental Truths, standing Judicatures, good Constitutions, scrip­ture Order and Discipline, as a Sacrifice to obtain a golden Dream of supposed Union we know not in what? If any Non-conformists are so happy as to come over their Scruples in the Points of Conformity, is it not all [Page 25] Reason, that Non-conformists should grant a Tolera­tion, as far as their Power reaches, to their Brethren to act accordingly? Only seeing some of their Brethren are so weak as to labour under the same Scruples that they once seemed to labour under, Is it any more but a reasonable Request, that they be not active in over-tur­ning the Constitution, Order and Discipline of the Church of Scotland, till such a Time as we her poor Sons are either buried, or till we have our conscientious Scruples removed so that we may be able to follow the Crowd, who seem for the present to out-run us?

XIII. Journal p. 80. Whether or no Mr. Whitefield bidding Defiance to Satan in these Words, ‘O Satan! Satan! I defy thee to do thy worse,’ be an Expression that calls for the Commendation given it in Mr. Finley's Letter?

XIV. Whether or no there be not an Insinuation of a Claim to immediate Revelation, in the Expressions Mr. Whitefield drops in his Journal, p. 99. saying, ‘I pray God, I may be so blessed as to believe; for there will certainly be a fulfilling of those Things, which God by his Spirit hath spoken unto my Soul;’ com­pared with p. 137. where he saith, 'There are many 'Promises to be fulfilled in me, &c.

XV. What was that Religious Concern which the true Ministers of Christ could or should determine but by Lot, when they remained in Doubt about it after Prayer, and that upon a Day of Fasting and Prayer, of which Mr. Whitefield speaks in his Journal, p. 113? If the Word was silent, what need was there of deter­mining it? If the Word spoke, why was not the Sen­tence there given decisive? What became of the High Degrees of the Spirit, when Men took such a blind Way to solve their Doubts? Did the Spirit, and the Word disagree; or did their several Trumpets give a various Sound? Is not the Use of Lots under the present Dis­pensation, in religious Concerns, a flying out of the or­dinary Road to try an extraordinary expedient? and we [Page 26] would be glad to know how far this may be safe? And further, we desire to know, how far it may be safe to trust to such Guides who are so much in the Dark that they are obliged at Seasons to solve their own Doubts by Lots?

XVI. Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, p. 127. saith, ‘I find I gain greater Light and Knowledge by preach­ing Extempore; so that I fear I should quench the Spi­rit, did I not go on to speak as He gives me Utterance?’

Quer. I. If by preaching Extempore, be meant preaching without Premeditation or Studying, we would ask whether any since the Days of Moses, that were sound in the Faith, have said that they gained more scripture Light and Knowledge by not reading and meditating on God's Word, than by so doing? Doth not Mr. Whitefield in this differ in Judgment from Dr. Edwards, as far as the Doctor differed in other Points from Archbishop Tillotson?

Is it any Way likely, that God should own us the better, because we neglect plain Duties, than if we per­form them? If Mr. Whitefield means any thing else by preaching Extempore, should he not explain himself, that so Quakers and others may not be misled, to depend on immediate Impulses and Revelations by such Hints?

Quer. II. Is there any Grounds of Fear of quenching God's Spirit, whether in his ordinary or extraordinary Gifts, by performing the plain Duties of reading of and meditating on God's Word? Is not here a plain Insinuation of immediate Impulses, and Dependance thereupon? If Mr. Whitefield will allow us to try the Spirits, what Spirit is that Mr. White­field fears to quench by reading the Scriptures, or meditating on them? or by reading and studying other good Books, or by writing his Sermons, and making a moderate Use of his Notes to help his Memory? yea, would not this be much better than ma [...]kng plain Blunders for want thereof, if Men's Memories do not serve them without this Care? for tho' we own, that we like no Preacher the better for his using Notes, if he hath a good Invention [Page 27] and Memory to do well without them; yet, doth not preaching with Notes, if done to Purpose, require as much, if not more Premeditation and Study, than when [...] are not used? for tho' we own, that Confidence and Assurance may help Men to rub along, and a good Utterance may please many who regard Sound more than Matter; yet, is it not evident, by comparing Mr. Whitefield's printed Sermons with other good Sermon-Books, that some of our old Scots Divines have more Matter in one Page than he hath in several Pages? And is it not true, that tho' Mr. Whitefield speaks many [...]ound Truths on some common Heads of Divinity, yet, we desire to know, what Point in Divinity is that which some other Divines of our own have not more than trebbled him in Distinctness, Exactness and Explicitness? And will any tell us what is the Reason, that many late Sermons preached by Mr. Whitefield's warm Adherents, are (if we mistake not) more barren of Matter and Me­thod, than some of their former Sermons, as being more hung on a common String, if this [...]eed not from Want of Studying?

Quer. III. Did not the Prophets themselves, when destitute of divine immediate Inspiration, use Reading and Meditating, in order to gain further Light and Knowledge? 1 Pet. 1.10. Dan. 9.2. Did not Paul give it in Charge to Timothy, tho' an Evangelist, to give Attendance to Reading, as well as Exhortation and Doctrine? 1. Tim. 4.13, 15.

XVII. Mr. Whitefield, in his Journal, p. 129. saith, ‘Now know I, that I have received the Holy Ghost at the Imposition of Hands.—For, I feel it as much as Elisha did, when Elijah dropped his Mantle. Nay, others see it also.’

Quer. I. Whether the giving the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of Hands, was not an extraordinary Gift, and now long ago ceased?

Quer. II. Can any suppose, that the ordinary Gifts and Operations of God's Spirit, are so sensibly felt, or [Page 28] carry with them so clear a Demonstration, as the ex­traordinary Ones did to the Prophets? When, or how could Mr. Whitefield compare Feelings with Elisha?

XVIII. Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, p. 181. speak­ing of some Quakers, with whom he conversed; and of his Disagreement with them about the Sacraments and paying Tythes, adds, ‘But I think their Notions a­bout walking and being led by the Spirit, right and good.’

Quer. I. Do not Quakers in general cast off the written Word from being a primary Rule of Faith and Practice, and make it at best but a secondary Rule, which only some of them will grant; which, in Effect, is to say, that it is none at all; for if Scripture be only a secondary Rule, then it is no Rule, for a Rule must be primary in its Kind; for if so, the Scripture is no further a Rule than thus, If the Spirit at Seasons, speaks well of any Part, that is then to be followed; but if the Spirit doth prompt to throw off any Part of it, then it is not to be regarded; for the Spirit is not to be tryed by the Rule of the Scripture, as being a higher Rule? If this be not their Notion, we do not under­stand their Writings.

Quer. II. How can Mr. Whitefield be thought sound and orthodox in this Point, if he judges those that pre­tend to walk by immediate Revelations and Impulses, have right and good Notions? Is not this different from the professed Judgment of sound Churchmen and Dissenters in this Point?

Quer. III. If it be supposed these Quakers might have different Sentiments from what their Sect have published to the World, should not Mr. Whitefield then have told us, what their Notions were? Might not that be instructive to their Friends, and prevent them from being misled by him, to think their own Notions good, because Quakers?

XIX. Mr. Whitefield, in his Journal, p. 212. partly speaking and partly writing to Mr. Kinchin, who, as it [Page 29] wou'd seem, was under some Scruples about the Habits, and some other Things, probably the Ceremonies and Canons in the establish'd Church, and so was like to leave the Church and turn Dissenter, says thus, ‘This, I must needs confess, gave me a great Shock: For I knew what dreadful Consequences would attend a needless Separation from the establish'd Church. — As for my own Part, I can see no Reason for leaving the Church, however I am treated by the corrupt Members and Ministers of it: For I judge the State of the Church, not from the Practice of its Members, but its primitive and publick Constitutions.’

Quer. I. Whether a regular orderly Separation from the established Church, upon the Account of conscientious Scruples, about the Vestments, Ceremonies, &c. be a needless Separation? Is it not evident, to those that are any way conversant in the late History of the Puritans, that many conscientious Churchmen suffered severe Penalties, by Exclusions and Imprisonments, for not conforming to those, before there was a separate Dissenter in England? Did not many of the Bishops then declare against the Vestments, in plain Terms, who complied afterwards meerly in Obedience to their Sovereign, as Head of the Church? What are the dreadful Consequences that have attended such a Sepa­ration, in conscientious and orthodox Dissenters, who have kept themselves within the Limits of the Act of Toleration? Wou'd not more dreadful Consequences attend Men's conforming against the Dictates of their own Consciences? Do not more dreadful Consequences attend Men's making Schisms, or Factions in the Church, than by a quiet and peaceable Separation from it? Did not Dr. Sacheverel, in his Time, make more Disturbance and Uproar, by raising the Mobs and warming them, than all the Dissenters in England? In what Country was it, that de­signing Men, that aimed to draw a Party after them, stopped at conforming to the Modes and Ceremonies that were most ad­mired by the Vulgar; at least for a Time?

Quer. II. Whether Corruption in Ministers and Members, when incurable, either for Want of Discipline, or the due Exer­cise of it, be not a just Cause of Separation, to every one that judges in Conscience that Ministers and Members are generally become corrupt? How far can such an one be judged to walk regularly and conscientiously himself, who judgeth that Ministers and Members are become corrupt in a Church, and yet with­draweth not from such disorderly and corrupt Brethren?

[Page 30] Quer. III. What Sort of a Reformer can he be, as to Doctrine or practical Godliness, that judges the State of the Church from its primitive and publick Constitutions, and not from the Practice of its Members? If it be the Practice of the Ministers to preach corrupt Doctrine, and the Practice of Members to profess corrupt Principles, and to act accordingly, who can believe the State of that Church to be good, let their primitive and publick Consti­tutions be never so good and orthodox? Who can doubt, but that the primitive Constitutions were good in the Church of Rome? What great Degeneracies must Men run into, before they have Courage enough to alter their publick Constitutions, who think after this Manner?

XX. Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, p. 216. cries out with some Emphasis, 'Oh! what Advantage hath Satan gained over 'us, by our Brother Kinchin putting off his Gown!

Quer. I. What can be the Meaning of this O [...]tery▪ if some­thing more than is spoken be not intended? If the Gown be a thing entirely indifferent, what Damage could it be to the main Cause that Mr Kinchin should put it off upon conscientious Scru­ples, as well as Mr. Whitefield does at Seasons in point of Liberty when among Dissenters? Doth not Mr. Whitefield seem to hint in p. 214. ‘That the Kingdom of God doth not consist in Ex­ternals?’ and what, but a Cloak, is more external than a Gown? If a Catholicism be intended, why might not a good Dissenter be of use in England as well as America, to carry it on? Hath not Mr. Whitefield made the Experiment of praying and preaching without it? and doth he find any more odds then, than when he hath it on? Can any of Whitefield's Opposers think, that he was so mean as to think that the Gown was any of our spiritual Ar­mour? Doth not Bishop Latimer, at the Time of his being strip­ped of the Vestments, seem to hint that the main Loss was that he could make no more Holy Water? and unless that would help somewhat, why may not a Man as well, in the Strength of Christ, wrestle with the Devil in his Coat?

XXI. Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, p. 234. in Answer to a Query proposed in p. 233. saith, ‘as for the Business of an Attor­ney, I think it unlawful for a Christian, at least exceeding dange­rous: Avoid it therefore, and glorify God in some other Station.’

Quer. I. Why should the Business of an Attorney be thought unlawful, or at least exceeding dangerous, if conscientiously dis­charged? Is not the Civil Law, in its Place, as well as the Divine, [Page 31] still Good, if founded upon Equity, and lawfully used? How can poor Farmers have the Privilege of the Law, unless they are brought up to it themselves, without the Help of conscientious Attornies, well versed in the Law, to plead for them? What signifies our having good Laws, without all the Subjects are some­how put in a Way to obtain the Privilege of them in proper Season? Is it not more dangerous by far, for Men to trust Lives and For­tunes in the Hands of unchristian Advocates and Judges? Are not Honest and Christian Attornies one great Defence, under God and the King, of our Christian and Civil Privileges? What will en­gage Men to Faithfulness in such Places, more than the true Fear of God, and the firm Attachment to true Christian Principles, and their viewing of the Sacred and Civil Privileges of others as their own in common with others? Have not even Quakers now a­days in Pennsylvania, come over their Scruples in this Point?

Quer. II. If a Civil Office in the Common-Wealth be un­lawful, at least exceeding dangerous, how dangerous and unlawful must a Military-Office be? Must it not of Consequence follow, that the Office of a General or Captain in an Army be unlawful and dangerous with a Witness? And if any English Subject could convert a great Part of the Fellow-Subjects into such Principles as these now in a Time of War, would it not be a Piece of com­mon Justice for the Crown of Spain to allow them at least as large a Pension as would maintain an Army equal to the Number of that converted Party, if not a little larger, and let them share in the Plunder, in case the Victory be got over the unconverted Party, who hazard Lives and Fortunes for the publick Defence of the Nation?

Thus we have laid before you what now occurs of conscientious Scruples. If we have misunderstood any Paragraph herein cited, and thereby have been misled to ask any improper Questions there­upon, we are willing to be set right in what we are wrong; our Aim being to get right Information in these Points, and a fair Resolution of our Doubts; hoping you will allow us the Liberty to lay our Scruples before you in their full Strength, without which we see not how you can be in a Way to resolve us full [...] [...] our Answers. Albeit, we be not accurate enough in every [...]t to suit our Queries to your proper Paragraphs, as Men of Learning might be able to do, by reason of their better Education. We shall now conclude with a few general Queries upon the whole, and then submit all to your mature Judgments.

Quer. I. Whether or no Men's high Pretences to the Spirit, [Page 32] when their Doctrines appear not to come up to that Degree of Accuracy which other Divines have attained to, who never pre­tended to any thing extraordinary, be not liable to Suspicion?

Quer. II. How can it be supposed, that any regular Refor­mation can be carried on by a Combination of Anti [...]nians, Armin­ians and Calvinists joining Hand in Hand?

Quer. III. Whether or no the strange Fits and Convulsions, and the Noise of Visions and Revelations, that seem to prevail along with this Scheme, be Matter of Joy and Comfort, or of Grief?

Quer. IV. How could the Oxford Methodists, being at first a Company of young Students in the College, be so liberal in making Alms and Deeds of Charity, so as to be able to raise their Charac­ters to an high Pitch upon this Account, while poor Scholars, un­less they had a large publick Fund?

Quer. V. How comes it to pass, that many who never appear­ed to have any Regard for Religion, nor seem to come nearer to join with any religious Society of any Denomination, yet are, or seem to be very zealous for this new Scheme?

Quer. VI. Whether it be any true Sign of Reformation in Men, that when they pretend to Conversion and high Degrees [...]f spiritual Attainments, that they manifest more Hatred and R [...] against their former pious Ministers and Fellow-Members, and de­claim worse against them than against the Rabble and Error [...]f the Times, if current Reports be true, that many new Converts, they call themselves, do so?