THE QUERISTS, The Rev. Mr. Whitefield's ANSWER, The Rev. Mr. Garden's LETTERS, &c.

NEW YORK, Printed by J. P. Z [...]nger, 1740.


THE QUERISTS, OR An EXTRACT of sundry Passages taken out of Mr. Whitefield's prin­ted Sermons, Journals and Let­ters: TOGETHER WITH Some SCRUPLES propos'd in proper QUERIES raised on each Remark.

By some Church-Members of the Presbyterian Persuasion.

2 Tim. i. 13.
Hold fast the Form of sound Words.
Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum.

NEW-YORK. Printed in the Year M,DCC,XL.

[Page iv]


Christian Friends;

THE following Queries and Remarks seem to us to concern Matters of the utmost Im­portance. We are represented in Scripture as Pilgrims and Travellers to a better Country; and as a wrong Choice of the Road may ruin us eternally, we ought to examine every Step we tread, and take Notice that our Guides be not blind nor mistaken, lest they lead us astray. None can blame us when our Souls are in Danger of eternal Ruin, to look to our selves, and to secure the one Thing need­ful; nor dare we allow ourselves to fellow the Multitude, if we fear they go astray; nor re­gard any Man further than he follows Christ: And we hope this will justify us in what we have done in the following Pages; for, if all our Christian Brethren, who may think it worth while to read our Remarks, have such [Page v] superior Attainmments as to see clearly, that all that Mr. Whitfield has printed, is sound and agreeable to the holy Scriptures; yet we hope that their Christian Charity is so great, that they will not condemn us for applying as we have done to our Teachers, and by their Advice to Mr. Whitfield himself, to remove some un­happy Stumbling-Blocks out of our Way. We cannot help thinking for ourselves and judging of Things according to the Light they appear in; and we promise, that when that Gentle­man satisfies us in these Things, we will be­lieve him; and we cannot do it sooner. But when we reflect, that he is but a Man; that great and good Men have been mistaken; and that Infalibility (as far as we know) is entailed neither on him nor his followers, we hope that both he and they are better Christians than to blame us if we can be the Instruments of pointing out their Mistakes, if there be any: We believe, that they regard their Souls, and will look on it as the most eminent Service can be done them, if by our Means they receive a Kindness that will turn to their Account, through a boundless Eternity.

We confess, that we are at a Loss to know what to make of some of his Expressions; if they have any Meaning at all, we fear it is [Page vi] a bad one; and will rejoice to find ourselves disappointed, if he shews us that they are sound and good. But if he pretends Hurry or Want of Time, and does not either justify or condemn them, or give us some Satisfac­tion, he will constrain us to think, that he has his own Glory in View more than the Glory of God or the Good of his Church. He has such high Conceptions of Man, or such low Con­ceptions of God, that we fear he has just Conceptions of neither; to say, "That Man was adorned with all the Perfections of the Deity, That he was the Perfection of the mo­ral and material World," as he does, Pag. 17. Vol. 2d. of Sermons, is what we can neither believe, nor find Ground from Reason nor Revelation to support it. When our Divines prove the Divinity of our blessed Lord, they sometimes do it (we think to a good Purpose) by proving, that the Scriptures attribute to him all the Perfections of the Deity, and of Con­sequence that he is the eternal God, equal with the Father and Holy Spirit; but if a meer Man may be adorned with all these Per­fections, we know not what to make of this Argument, 'till he give us better Light.

Again if Men be baptized into the Nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as he seems [Page vii] to assert, p. 128, vol. 2. is not this to make them, on their Conversion, Partakers of the Godhead, or someway equal to the Supream Being? What shall we think of the Doctrine, that one while finks us into Brutes and Di­vels, and again exalts us to be equal to God? This puts us in Mind of some Antinomian Reveries, of being goded with God, and christed with Christ: And we hope the Rea­ders will pardon us, tho' we desire to get Light in these Things, seeing it is our great Concern to have right Notions of God and ourselves, and to Act accordingly.

When we hear him tell us, "That the Re­generate washes away the Guilt of Sin by the Tears of a sincere Repentance, joined with Faith in the Blood of Christ," p. 22, 23. vol. 2. we think that it savours of Popery and Arminianism, to join any Thing with the Blood of Christ to wash away Sin; and hope it will offend none, that we cannot believe this on his bare Word contrary to many Scrip­ture Texts, for we abhor an implicit Faith. Is not that Expression of the same Stamp? Vol. 1, p. 7. Where he says, "That a sin­gle Aim at God's Glory, — alone can ren­der our Actions acceptable in God's Sight:" If a single Aim at God's Glory alone can ren­der [Page viii] our Actions acceptable in his Sight, what need is there for the Blood of Christ? We hope none of our Brethren will be offended, that we cannot believe this popish Doctrine, till he explain or prove it from Scripture.

He further tells us, p. 128. vol. 2. (if we mistake him not) "That our Lord commanded his Disciples to baptize Men into the Nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost," which is either to convert them, or rather to make them equal with God: And if he has given Men Ability to do either the one or the other, by repeating the Words of the Institution; Why may they not as easily change a Wafer into his Body and Blood? And this smells of Po­pery, and will support the Doctrine of Tran­substantion. — When he tells us, "That we must be justified by the inherent Righteous­ness of Christ, "if by this he intends our Sanc­tification, or good Habits, and good Works per­formed by the Aid of the Spirit, does not he here again give another fair Invitation to bring us to Rome? And we hope we will be excused from setting our Face that Way, till we be once convinced, that it is the sure Road to eternal Happiness. Are not these Doctrines full of Arminianism? And 'tis no Wonder, that we are surprized to find them in his own [Page 9] Writings, and to hear him continually ap­plaud Mr. Westly, who (we are informed) is an Arminian, when we find him cry them down in all but themselves: We detest these Errors in both, and cannot see through this Piece of Management.

But possibly by inherent Righteousness, in vol. 1. p. 16. he understands the Righteous­ness of Christ inherent in us; if so, we hope every one will desire to know, as well as our­selves, how the infinite Righteousness of Jesus Christ can inhere in a finite Creature? Unless, as has been already observed, he make the Believer in some Measure equal with God; but when we compare this with Mr. Flavel's 2d Appendix, vol. 1. Fol. and find it the seventh Antinomian Error, that he there condemns, what can we say? When we find Mr. Whitefield countenancing Mr. West­ly's Preface to Halyburton's Memoirs, which is big with Antinomian Absurdities; when he can applaud that Gentleman, and not discover the false Divinity, that he has there sent a broad to poison the World; Can we think that himself is sound? When he tells us in his Letter against the Book, entitled, The Whole Duty of Man, p. 4, and 5. "That God never made a second Covenant with [Page 10] Adam himself, nor any of his Posterity; That it is a Promise and no Covenant; That there are no Terms nor Conditions in it." We cannot take his bare Word, while we think that above one hundred and Fifty Texts in our Bibles assert the contrary. How many of our ablest Divines have long since re­futed this wild Antinomian Notion? And among others, Mr. Flavel, Vol. 1. Fol. in his 2d Appendix. where he exposes it as the Ninth of their Errors.

When we find him, vol. 1. p. 7. giving Rea­sons why Men must be New Creatures, in order to qualify them to be savingly in Christ, Why does he condemn Archbishop Tillotson; Letter first against the Archbishop, page the 3d. for shewing the Nature of Regeneration and its Necessity, in order to our Justification and Salvation? Is not the New Creature in Mr. Whitefield, and the Regenerate in the Archbishop's Words, of the same Meaning and Import? Is not being savingly in Christ, as the First expresses it, and obtain­ing Justification and Salvation, as the other has it, the very same Thing? Why did not Mr. Whitefield correct this Error in his own Writings, as well as in the others? If it be an Error in the one, to say, That we must be [Page 11] regenerate or be New Creatures, in order to Justification and Salvation, or being saving­ly in Christ, is it not so in the other? Or, does Mr. Whitefield's expressing the same Error in different Words, make it a Gospel Truth? We dislike what looks like the Ar­minian in both, and we hope none of his Friends will blame us for this, when he some­times does it himself.

If we have dropt any Expressions in our Queries, that may in any wise displease any other religious Society, we hope they will par­don our Bluntness; we profess▪ [...]earty Cha­rity and Good Will towards all that hol [...] the fundamental Truths of the Gospel; we claim no Dominion over any Man's Con­science, but chearfully allow every one the Liberty we take, to judge for ourselves, to seek for the best Information he can get in such weighty Concerns, and to adhere to what Doctrines are most agreeable to the holy Scrip­tures: But when we find any Person Pro­fess one Thing, and yet seem to run into another; when any of another Denomination seem to come nearer to us than others of our Neighbours, when at the same Time we ima­gine, that he is at as great or even a greater Distance than they, we cannot help having a [Page 12] worse Opinion of such Practices, than theirs, who plainly tell us in what they agree with us, and in what we differ. If any Weak­ness or Mistakes be discovered in this, and what follows, by Mr. Whitefield, or any of our Christian Brethren, and it be pointed out with a Spirit of Meekness, we gain our End, which is only to be able to find out and maintain the Truth: And that the Holy Spirit may guide us all in the Ways of Truth, and preserve us from Errors, is the earnest Prayer of your sincere Friends,

The Querists.
[Page 13]

The ADDRESS of several Persons of the Presbyterian Persuasion, being Members of several Congregations in our Bounds, to the Presbytery of New-Castle, met at Whiteclay Creek, September the Ninth, 1740.

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 [Page 14] best Perusal we could make of them, al­beit, we find that 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 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 afraid, by Reason of the Treatment that others (and it may be some of ourselves) met with, that nothing could be expected thereby, but incensing 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 Whole Duty of Man; particularly by his taxing the Dis­senters for acting very partially, for not speaking so explicitly as they ought against [Page 15] the Archbishop's Doctrine, when known to be contrary to the Truth of the Gospel, al­beit, the Arch-bishop was their Friend, and behaved with much Moderation towards them, whilst he lived; we cannot see, how be 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. Whitfield's warm Adherents, and their Cries still a­gainst him for desiring a Conference with Mr. Whitfield, about some Points in his Ser­mon, which said Minister was in Doubts about; we do dispair 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 [Page 16] 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, as coun­ting the Discovery of Truth our Gain and Joy. But if you decline, or cannot agree among yourselves, about solving us herein, 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 [Page 17] other side have their Difficulties to enter­tain a good Opinion of those Ministers that except against some of Mr. Whitefield's Expressions as unsound: 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 has 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, much more speak and write, that the Soul of Man in its best State was a­dorned with all the Perfections of the Dei­ty! [Page 18] 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 s [...]rt equal to God; which is too horrid to u [...]er, 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 [Page 19] 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 this is Duty, and a necessary Fruit of Faith as well as godly Sorrow, and as inseperable from it?

Quer. II. How is this consistent with what Mr. Whitefield himself saith, in his Letter against the Book entituled 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 [Page 20] 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. Whitefield 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 Agra­vations 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. White­field 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 [Page 21] 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 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 [Page 22] 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.’

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

Q. 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 suppernatural One by the Power of the Ho­ly [Page 23] 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, 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 we not 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 [Page 24] 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 attones Justice for us, and as what feeds and nourishes our Souls?

IV. In the aforesaid written Letter against the Book entituled, 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 contained in these Words, Gen. 3.15. where God 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 [Page 25] Errors of this Passage: For how can it be proved, that the second Covenant was made with Adam, or that God ever entered 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 will not be amiss to premise a Word or two, to prevent Mistakes, viz.

1. We freely grant that Christ Jesus is our second Adam, our common Head and Surity 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 [Page 26] 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: Yet, whether this may lay 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 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 we not also [Page 27] 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.

Q. 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?

Q. 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?

Q. 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 truly said to be established and made with them in Christ?

[Page 28] Q. IV. How can any justify Mr. White­field's Calling the second Covenant a bare Promise, and that in 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. 2.12. 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 a 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?

Q. 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. 5.2. — 29.10, 15. 2 Sam. 23.5. 1 Kin. 8.9, 21. Is. 55.3. Jer. 31.33. Heb. 8.10. Hos. 2.18, 19. with many more that may be quoted [Page 29] 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. Neh. 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? Would this [...]e 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.

Q. 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 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 [Page 30] there was a Council of Peace from all E­ternity, between the Father and the Son, that therefore there is no Covenant of Peace and Reconciliation transacted in Time, thro' the Mediator, with fallen Sinners? How could the former be of any Use without the latter follow?

Q. VII. If it be said, that the second Co­venant could 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, vir­tualy 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 [Page 31] 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 Faith in Christ, as expressly and explicitly enter under the Bond of the second Covenant, as any of the Sons of A­dam ever entered 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?

Q. 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, [Page 32] 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.—

Q. I. Was not here (besides a Promise of Salvation through Christ) so also the Pro­mise of Christ himself to be a Saviour and [Page 33] Covenant of the People herein included and primarily intended?

Q. II. Tho' we freely grant there is no express Condition mentioned in said Pro­mise, yet we would again ask doth not every Promise in our Bible, in the Nature fo 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 Edition 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?

Q. III. Whether it be not as great an Er­ror in Divinity, to deny consequent Con­ditions [Page 34] for 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 betwen 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?

Q. 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. & 92. of Vol. 1. of his Sermons printed at Phila­delphia?

[Page 35]VI. Mr. Whitefield, in his Sermon on Joh. 7.37, 38, 39. in his opening or explaining the Apostle's Commissiion, p. 8, 9. [Vol. 2. p. 128.] hath these Words, viz. ‘For tho' 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.

Q. 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?

Q. 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 [Page 36] 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 could 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 tho' 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 Christ's spiritual Body and Blood, if it be not a Creature of the Priest's Making?

VII. Q. 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 [Page 37] 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 not there better Divinity in that Paragraph of the Book entituled, 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, e'er we receive the quickning 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 [Page 38] being savingly in Christ,’ be not of the same Purport, and amount to as much He­terodoxy, as what Arch-Bishop Tillotson saith, by entituling 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 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.’

Q. I. How can the Righteousness of Christ, which is infinite Righteousness, in­here [Page 39] 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?

Q. II. If it be said that Mr. Whitefield in­tends no more than the Necessity of inhe­rent Righteousness, as part of our Sanctifi­cation, then we would ask, is this to be de­pended upon as well as imputed Righteous­ness? Or, are we to have and excercise 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.’

[Page 40] 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 Church, or their Guides do? Are such Actions, 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!

[Page 41] 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 Point.

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 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 Judgements that the [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 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 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 overturning 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 [Page 44] 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 worst,’ 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 Expression 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 [Page 45] 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 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.

Q. 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, [Page 46] 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;

Q. 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 making 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 [Page 47] for his using Notes, if he hath a good Inven­tion 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 they 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 Mt. 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 sound 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 Expli­citeness? 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 proceed not from Want of Studying? [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 49] Tythes, adds, ‘But I think their Notions about walking or 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.

Q. 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?

[Page 50] Q. 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 would 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 [Page 51] 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 merely 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 Limitts of the Act of Tolleration? Would 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. Sacheveral, 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, [Page 52] stopped at conforming to the Modes and Ceremonies that were most admired by the Vulgar; at least for a Time?

Q. 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?

Q. 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 [Page 53] Church of Rome? What g [...] to obtain [...] [...]nera­cies 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 has Satan gained over us, by our Brother Kinchin putting off his Gown!’

Q. I. What can be the Meaning of this Outcry, 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 doth 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 [Page 54] as to [...]ed at coat 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, still Good, if foun­ded upon Equity, and lawfully used? How can poor Farmers have the Priviledge 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 [Page 55] are some how put in a Way to obtain the Priviledge of them in proper Seasons? 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 Priviledges? 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 Priviledges 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 Capt. 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 [Page 56] 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 fully by your Answer. Albeit, we be not accurate enough in every Point 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 Judgements.

Quer. I. Whether or no Men's high Pretences to the Spirit, when their Doctrines [Page 57] 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 Suspition?

Quer. II. How can it be supposed, that any regular Reformation can be carried on by a Combination of Antinomians, 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 Colledge, 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 [Page 58] pretend to Conversion and high Degrees of spiritual Attainments, that they manifest more Hatred and Rage against their former pious Ministers and Fellow Members, and declaim worse against them than against the Rabble and Errors of the Times, if cur­rent Reports be true, that many new Con­verts, as they call themselves, do so?

These Remarks and Queries were considered by the Presbytery of New Castle, and it was agreed upon, that Mr. Whitefield being ex­pected soon, to come again into these Parts; therefore, as he best understands his own Inten­tions, in these Expressions that seem to us to have a bad Aspect, we leave it to the People to print their Remarks, and Mr. Whitefield himself to answer them. Mr. Alex. Hutchinson, Mr. Sam. Blair, and Mr Charl. Tennant, voted thus, — Mr. Whitefield being expected soon to come again into these Parts, and as he best understands his own Intentions in such Expressions, in said Re­marks, as seem to us to have a bad Aspect, we leave it to the People to print the Remarks, and Mr. Whitefield himself to answer them. William M'Crea, and John Bravade chose this last State of the Vote likewise.

[Page 59]

A LETTER from the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, to some Church-Members of the Presbyte­rian Perswasion. In Answer to certain Scruples lately Proposed in proper Queries raised on each Remark.

My Dear Friends;

I HAVE Received your Queries and Scruples. — Whether they were compli'd by Church Mem­bers, or Ministers of the Presby­terian Perswasion, I shall not take upon me to Determine. — I think I may say with David, on another Occasion, Joab's Hand is in this. — If your Ministers were really the Authors, and you only their Represen­tatives, they have not acted with simplici­ty, They had better have spoken out, I should have as readily answered them as [Page 60] you. — Solomon says," He that hateth Reproof is Brutish; and If I know any Thing of my own Heart, I should think my self obliged to any one that convinces me of any Errors, either in Principle or Practice. — I therefore assure you I do not find the least resentment stirring in my Soul a­gainst those (whosoever they be) that pro­posed the Queries, or against the Reverend Presbytery that advised you to send them to me in a Publick Manner. — No, I Re­joyce in it, because it gives me an Oppor­tunity of doing what my Friends know I have, for some Time, proposed, viz. to correct some Passages in my Printed Ser­mons. — I think it no dishonour to Retract some Expressions that have formerly drop'd from my Pen, before GOD was pleased to give me a more clear Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. — St. Austin, I think, did so before me. — The Lords Dealings with me was somewhat out of the Com­mon Way I can say to the Honour of rich, free, distinguishing Grace, that I received the Spirit of Adoption before I had convers­ed with one Man, or read a single Book on the Doctrine of free Justification by the imputed Righteousness of JESUS Christ. [Page 61] — No Wonder then that I was not so clear at the first setting out in the Ministry. — Our Lord was pleased to Enlighten me by degrees, and I desire your Prayers that His Grace may shine more and more in my Heart, till it breaks forth into per­fect Day.

But to come to the Exceptionable Passa­ges of my Sermons. You blame me for saying, Pag. 17. vol. 2. That Adam was a­dorn'd with all the Perfection of the Deity. It's a wrong Expression, I would correct it thus, All the Moral Communicable Perfections of the Deity. Again, Man was the Perfec­tion of the Moral and Materail World. — Let it stand thus, The Perfection of all the Visible World.

P. 22. 23. vol. 2. Washes the Guilt of sin away by the Tears of a sincere Repentance, joyn'd with Faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ.' This is false Divinity, I would now alter it thus, Recovers his former Peace by renew­ing his Acts of Faith on the perfect Righteous­ness of Jesus Christ.

P. 78. vol. 1. And which alone can ren­der any of our Actions acceptable in Gods sight, It should be, And without which any [Page 62] of our Actions cannot be acceptable in Gods sight.

P. 16. vol. 1. Who vainly depend on their own Righteousness, and not on the Righteous­ness of Jesus Christ imputed to and inherent in them, as necessary for their Eternal Salva­tion.

To avoid all mistakes, I would express myself in this manner, Who have neither Christ's Righteousness imputed to them for Jus­tification in the sight of God, nor Holiness wrought in their Souls as the Consequence of that, in order to make them meet for the En­joyment of God.

Vol. 1. pag. 7. To qualifie us for being sa­vingly in Christ, Read To qualifie us for living Eternally with Christ.

The seeming Contradiction in my Ser­mon vol. 2. pag. 128. compared with vol. 2. pag. 137. I think may be reconciled by that Passage of the Apostle, After you belie­ved, you were sealed by the Spirit of Promise.

I think your arguing on this pag. 21. Sect. 7. is not quite so clear. Might you not as reasonably have blamed Jesus Christ for saying to a dead Lazarus, Come forth? However, instead of Quickning Spirit, vol. 2. pag. 137. let it be read Sanctifying Spirit.

[Page 63]Vol. 2. pag. 33. The Man Christ Jesus is Spiritually formed in your hearts; I would alter it thus, That Christ is formed within you.

Vol. 1. pag. 53. The many Souls that are nourished weekly by the spiritual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by your Means.— Let it be altered, for these Words, Nourished weekly at the Lord's Supper by your Means.

I see no Reason to alter my Explanation of the Words, Baptizing them into the Na­ture of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and Christ spiritually conceived in the Heart of E [...]e. — I mean no more by these Expres­sions than the Apostle when he says, Know you not that Christ is IN you, except you be Reprobates. And again, No Man can call Christ Lord but by the Holy Ghost. And again, We are made Partakers of a Divine Nature.

Vol 2. p. 128. These Words [in the Lord's Prayer] may be left out. Tho' if the Word [Name] signifies God's Attributes, (according to your own Confession) why may it not signify his Essence? What are God's At­tributes but God himself?

Vol. 1. p. 14. After Essential ones too, in­sert, if Persons are capable of performing them.

These, if I mistake not, are all the Passages in my Sermons which you object against. [Page 64] And now to convince you, that I am not a­shamed to ow [...] my Faults, I can inform you of other Passages as justly exceptionable. In my Sermon on Justification, I seem to as­sert universal Redemption, which I now abso­lutely deny. — In my Almost Christian, I talk of Works procuring us so high a Crown. In my Sermon on the Marks of the new Birth, I say, We shall endure to the End, if we con­tinue, &c.

These, and perhaps some other Passages, tho' capable of a candid Interpretation, I now mislike, and in the next Edition of my Sermons, God willing, I propose to alter them. — In the mean while, I shall be thankful to any that will point out my Er­rors and I promise, by divine Assistance, they shall have no Reason to say, that I am one who hates to be reformed. Let the Righteous smite me, it shall be a Kindness; and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent Oil, which shall not break my Head; for yet my Prayer also shall be in their Calamites.

As for your insinuating, that I counte­nance Mr. Wesly in his Errors, it is no such Thing. I prefaced Haly Burton's Memoirs, before I saw what Mr. Wesly wrote, and since I have seen it, have more than once [Page 65] said, if I ha [...] known what Mr. Wesly had wrote, I would not have prefaced Haly Bur­ton at all. — I do not understand Mr. Wesly in his Interpretation of these Words, He that is born again of God, sinneth not; and therefore have torn that Part out of several of those Books which I have given away lately, and have acquainted him of what I think on this Particular he errs, in sundry Letters.

You wrong me if you think I am an An­tinomian: For when I say, God made no second Covenant with Adam, I mean no more than this, God made no second Covenant with Adam in his own Person, in behalf of his Posterity. Nor did Man's Acceptance in the Sight of God, after the Fall, depend either wholly or in Part on his Works, as before the Fall. Whoever reads the Author of the whole Duty of Man, will find he thinks otherwise, and I believe your Friends in Scotland will not thank you for defend­ing the Whole Duty of Man, as you seeming­ly have done in the late Queries.

Your Objection concerning my favoura­ble Opinion of some particular Quakers, I conversed with, and also about some parti­cular Promises, which I think have been [Page 66] made me; you may be satisfied in my An­swer to the Bishop of London's last Pastoral Letter, and in a Letter sent to the Bishop of Gloucester, and published in one Part of my Journals.

I am no Friend to casting Lots: But I believe on extraordinary Occasions, when Things can be determined no other Way, God, if applied to, and waited on by Pray­er and Fasting, will answer by Lots now, as well as formerly.

Do not condemn me for Preaching extem­pore, and saying, I am helped often immediate­ly in that Exercise, when Thousands can prove as well as my self, it has been so.— Neither should you censure me as one that would lay aside Reading. I am of Bishop Sanderson's Mind▪ Study without Prayer is A­theism. Prayer without Study Presumption.— Blame me not for the Warmth of some of my Adherents, as you call them. One of your Ministers knows how sharply I rebuk­ed one of them for his Warmth at Fogg's Mannor. I am for loving as Brethren, and wish all would copy after the lowly Jesus: But then I cannot discommend those (sup­posing they do it in the Spirit of Meekness) who complain against dry sapless unconverted [Page 67] Ministers. — Such surely are the Bane of the Christian Church.

But my other Affairs will not permit me to enlarge. Some of the latter part of your Queries, for your own, and not for my sake I shall not mention. I hope I can say with more Sincerity than Hazael, Is your Servant a Dog, that he should do what you suggest? But I pray God forgive you. He knows my Heart. My own Design is to bring poor Souls to Jesus Christ. I desire to avoid Ex­treams, so as not to be a Bigot on the one Hand, or confound Order and Decency on the other. And I could heartily wish, the Rev. Presbytery, when they advised you to publish your Queries, had also cautioned you against dipping your Pen in so much Gall. Surely your Insinuations are contra­ry to that Charity, that hopeth and believeth all Things for the best. And I appeal to your own Hearts, whether it was right, especial­ly since you heard the constant Tenour of my Preaching in America, has been Calvi­nistical, to censure me as a Papist or Armini­an, because a few unguarded Expressions dropped from my Pen just as I came out of the University of Oxford. Could Arch-Bi­shop Tillotson or the Author of the whole [Page 68] Duty of Man say so? But I have done.

The Lord be with you. I am a poor frail Creature, and as such, pray for me,

Your affectionate Friend and Servant, G. Whitefield.

Two LETTERS to the Reverend Mr. WHITEFIELD.

Reverend SIR;

I Have seen your printed Answer to certain Queries lately published, and observe with great Satisfaction, the Evidence you there give of a truly Christian Humility. And it is this emboldens me to tell you, That, in my Opinion, you have not in all Points set Things right; but some of your Corrections are as liable to Exceptions as the Passages you have corrected. I will give you a Specimen: Instead of "A­dam was adorned with all the Perfections of the Deity" you correct it, "All the moral communicable Perfections of the Deity. "— Was not Man created a little lower than the Angels? And if so, were there not some [Page 69] moral Perfections communicated to them, which were not communicated to him? For otherwise in what Sense could he be said to be inferior to them? And it would be absurd to say, That any Thing could be communicated that was not communicable.— I hope I have a true Sense of the Power and Usefulness of your Ministry, and wish it, from my Soul and Spirit all the Success it deserves: But at the same Time sincerely wish, that all Errors may be removed, and every Let and Hinderance taken away. I therefore beg, that you will furnish me with the means of Answering what may be objected to the above Passage, by leaving a Letter at Mr. Franklin's, directed to.

Your humble Friend and Servant, Nathanael Lovetruth.
Reverend SIR,

IN your Answer to the Queries you say, That to the Honour of free distinguish­ing Grace, you recieved the Spirit of A­doption, before you had conversed with one Man, or read a single Book, on the Doctrine of Free Justification by the Imputed Righte­ousness [Page 70] of JESUS CHRIST; and therefore, no Wonder that you was not so clear in some Points at your first setting out in the Ministry."— This Declaration to me seems clearly to imply, That the Spirit of A­doption alone, without the Aid of human Conversation or Books, is not sufficient ful­ly to accomplish a Christian Minister, but that human Conversation and Books are absolutely necessary, in order further to enlighten him. — As I understood you in this Sense, and further," That it is not yet perfect Day with you," I concluded you would readily retract any of your Errors, even now, since you are not fully enlight­ened; and more especially, as you say in your Answer to the Queries, "That you shall be thankful to any that shall point out your Errors; and promise, by Divine Assistance, they shall have no Reason to say, That you are one who hates to be reform­ed." — It was the Strength of this Con­clusion, that I thought it proper, not only to pray that God's Grace might shine more and more in your Heart, but also to trou­ble you with my Letter of the 11th Instant.

The high Opinion I had entertained of your great Candour, Sincerity, and Zeal [Page 71] for Truth, induced me to expect to Answer; and I would still gladly recieve that Satis­faction. But as I find you have hitherto declined it, and for which I am at a Loss for a good Reason; I therefore take this Occasion to let you know, that if you any longer decline doing what every Christian Enquirer has a Right to demand of you u­pon such Occasions, I will immediately call upon you in a publick Manner, by printing both this, and my former Letter.

I am Reverend Sir, Yours Nathanael Lovetruth.
[Page 72]

Six LETTERS to the Reverend Mr. G. Whitefield. The first, se­cond and third, on the Subject of Justification. The fourth contain­ing Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitul­ed, The Case between Mr. White­field and Dr. Stebbing stated, &c. The fifth containing Remarks on Mr. Whitefield's two Letters concerning Archbishop Tillotson, and the Book entitled, The whole Duty of Man. The sixth containing Remarks on Mr. Whitefield's second Letter, con­cerning Archb Tillotson, and on his Letter concerning the Negroes. By Alex. Garden, M. A Rector of St. Philip's Charlestown, and Commis­sary in South Carolina. Together with Mr. Whitefield's Answer to the first Letter.

[Page 73]

LETTER I. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.


I Have perused your Sermon, entitled, What think you of Christ; to which you were pleased to refer me t'other Day, in support of your Charge, or rather railing Accusation against the Clergy of the Church of England in general, and the present Bi­shop of London in particular, of their teach­ing false Doctrine, contrary to the Gospel, and the Articles of the Church, in explain­ing that of Justification by Faith alone, in such a Manner, as including good Works a ne­cessary Condition. This Sermon of Yours, I say, I have perused, and made some Observa­tions upon; but of which, I shall at present only Trouble you with the following single one, on a Parag. P. 18. in which your Words are these: ‘Observe my dear Brethren the Words of the Article, good Works are the Fruits of Faith, and follow after Justificati­on. How then can they precede, or be any Ways the Cause of it? No, our Persons must be justified, before our Performances are accepted.’

[Page 74]Now, Sir, passing over your using the Word Cause for Condition; pray how was it possible for you, after setting down the Article at large in the next preceding Page, thus to explain it into a Contrad [...]ction to your own Doctrine? As if good Works which are the Fruits of Faith and pleasing to God, did not precede Justification, but fol­low after it only. For as a true and lively Faith, you admit, must precede Justificati­on; so good Works, teacheth the latter Part of this Article, do spring necessarily out of a true and lively Faith. Now, if good Works do necessarily spring out of a true and lively Faith, and a true and lively Faith necessari­ly precedes Justification, the Consequence is plain that good Works must not only follow after but precede Justification also. And there­fore your explaining the Article so, as to se­parate a true and lively Faith from good Works, admitting the one to go before, and the other only to follow after Justification, is explaining the A [...]cle into a Contradic­tion to your own Doctrine.

Please to unite this Knot, if you can, and you may hear further from Sir,

Your very humble Servant, Al. Garden.
[Page 75]

Mr. WHITEFIELD's Answer. To the Reverend Mr. Garden.

Rev. SIR,

BOTH by your Conversation, Sermon and Letter, I perceive that you are angry over­much. Was I never so inclined to dispute, I would stay till the Cool of the Day. Your Letter more and more confirms me, that my Charge against the Clergy is just and reason­able. It would be endless to enter into such a private Debate, as you, Rev. Sir seem de­sirous of. You have read my Sermon; be pleased to read it again. And if there be any Thing contrary to sound Doctrine, or the Articles of the Church of England, be pleased to let the Publick know it from the Press. And then let the World judge, whether you or my Brethren the Clergy have been rashly slan­dered by

Rev. Sir,
Your very humble Servant, Geo. Whitefield.
[Page 76]

LETTER II. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.


I Have receiv'd your Letter of this Day but it will not do. The Difficulty I proposed, is of no small Importance with me, who have not only my own, but the Souls of many others committed to my Charge, concerned in it.

I firmly believe, and have always taught, that good Works do as necessarily spring from, and accompany a true and lively Faith, whether before or after Justification, as Light and Heat do the Sun; or that, as the Body without the Soul is dead, so Faith without Works, whether before or after Justification, is dead also. If this be an Error; if in this I'm departed from the Gospel and the Articles of the Church, will you not endeavour to restore me? Sure, if not the Precept and Example of our great Master, the common Bowels of Hu­manity will induce you to do a Thing, on [Page 77] which so much depends; especially when I assure you, 'tis as much the Cool of the Day with me now, as it has been in any Part of my Life.

I am, SIR, Your very humble Servant, Al. Garden.

LETTER III. To the Rev. Mr. Whitefield.


YOu'll excuse the Trouble of this, by Way of Supplement to my former Letters, and containing also a few Queries concerning your present Behaviour as a Presbyter of the Church of England.

You cannot but know, that to bring a criminal Accusation against any one, with­out sufficient Evidence or Proof to support it, is wilful and malicious Slander: But, this, Sir, you have done against your Bre­thren of the Church of England, in your Sermon entitled, What think ye of Christ. In [Page 78] that Sermon (P. 18.) you have accused them, of not Preaching the Truth as it is in Jesus; of falling from our establish'd Doctrines; and of preaching only the Law and not shew­ing the Way of Salvation by Faith in Christ Jesus; that is of preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only. Thus you have accused your Brethren in that Sermon; but where are the Proofs of your Accusation? What Evidence have you therein brought to support your Charge? Not the least Shadow or Appearance of any such Thing throughout the Whole. — But what Need (you'll say) of Proof in so plain a Case? The Clergy indeed pretend to Preach the true Doctrine of Justification by Faith only; but in explaining, do they not destroy it? Do they not explain it, as the present Bishop of London, in his 4th Pastor [...]l Letter, hopes they do; viz. That the Faith by which only we are justified must be true and lively or productive of good Works, and consequently That good Works are a ne­cessary Condition (included in that Faith) of our being justified in the Sight of God? And is not this explaining the Doctrine into a Contradiction? Is it not preaching a new Gospel? Preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only.

[Page 79]Well then, the Doctrine the Clergy preach, which you are so angry at, and cen­sure as preaching Justification by Works, and not by Faith only, is this; that we are justified by Faith only and not by Works; thus explained, viz. that we are justified by such a Faith only, as is true and lively that is ac­tually producing good Fruits or Works, and consequently implying them as a necessary con­dition (but no meritorious Cause) of our Justification.

This then, I say, is the Doctrine which you censure, and are so angry at: But which notwithstanding is indeed the true Doctrine of the Gospel; — and agreeab­ly, taught by the ancient Fathers, by the Church of England; by her Clergy at all Times; and (be not surprized!) the very Doctrine taught by your Reverence and Bre­thren Methodists, tho' not without apparent Shuffle and Contradiction, disguised under the Distinction of before and after Justification.

1. This Doctrine you condemn, is the true Doctrine of the Gospel. — We are justified by Faith and not by Works, teacheth St. Paul; that is (expoundeth St. James) not by such a Faith as is without Works; for Faith, if it hath not Works, is dead being [Page 80] alone; but by a lively operative Faith, pro­ducing the Fruit of good Works, by Works is Faith made Perfect.

2. This also is the Doctrine of all the ancient Fathers. — We are justified by Faith and not by Works, taught Clemens, Ori­gen, Cyprian, Basil, Chrysostom, Austin, &c. that is, ‘not so meant of them,' (Hom. of Salv. Part 2d.) that the said justifying Faith is alone in Man, without true Re­pentance, Hope, Charity, and the Fear of God at any Time or Season: But this saying that we be justified by Faith only, freely and without Works, is spoken, for to take away clearly ALL MERIT of our Works, as being unable to deserve our Jus­tification at God's Hands; — and whol­ly to ascribe the Merit of our Justification unto Christ only, and his most precious Bloodshedding.’

3. This same Doctrine also teacheth the Church of England. We are accounted righ­teous (or justified) before God only for the Merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deser­vings. Art. 11. ‘That is, (saith Hom. of Faith) not by a dead or barren, but a lively and fruitful Faith. — Good living [Page 81] cannot be separated from true Faith, which worketh by Love; — and Faith of itself is full of good Works; as soon as a Man believeth he is garnished with them. — And by all the Declarations of St. Paul, it is evident, that a true and Christian Faith, is no dead, vain, or un­fruitful Thing; but a Thing of perfect Virtue, of wonderful Operation, Working and Strength, bringing forth all good Motions, and good Works.’ See Hom. of Salvat. and short Declar. of a true and live­ly Faith.

4. And as of the Church, so agreeably is this the Doctrine at all Times preached by her Clergy. — We are justified by Faith on­ly and not by Works;‘And yet (saith Bishop Downam, Treat. of Justific. P. 15.) that Faith which is alone, severed from all other inward Graces, and outward O­bedience, doth not justify either alone, or at all; because it is not a true and lively, but a counterfeit and dead Faith.’ Ag­reeably also Bishop Beveridge on the 39th Art. (Art. 11.) ‘Tho' it be by Faith (saith he) that we are justified, and by Faith only, yet not by such a Faith as hath no Works accompanying it: No, every such [Page 82] Faith is a dead Faith; so that Faith with­out Works is as unable to justify us, as Works without Faith. And yet it is not from our Works that accompany our Faith, but from the Faith that is accom­panied by our Works, that we are justifi­ed.’ —Thus Bishop Burnet also (on the same 11th Art.) ‘A Man is then only justified when he is freed from Wrath, and is at Peace with God. And tho' this is freely offered to us in the Gospel through Jesus Christ, yet it is applied to none, but such as come within those Qua­lifications set before us in the Gospel. That God pardons Sin and receives us in­to Favour, only through the Death of Christ, is so fully expressed in the Gospel, that it is not possible to doubt of it. Nor is it less evident, that it is not offered to us absolutely, and without Conditions and Limitations. These Conditions are Repentance, with which Remission of Sins [...] often joined; and Faith; but a Faith that worketh by Love, that purifies the Heart; and that keeps the Commandments of God. Such a Faith as shews itself to be alive by good Works by Acts of Charity, and every Act of Obedience. Such a [Page 83] Faith as this justifies; but not as it is a Work or meritorious Action, but as it is the Condition upon which the Mercy of God is offered to us by Christ Jesus. — Our Faith and Repentance are not the va­luable Considerations for which God par­dons and justifies; that is done merely for the Death of Christ. — But still our Faith, which includes our Hope, our Love, our Repentance and Obedience, is the Condition that makes us capable of receiving the Benefit of this Redemption and free Grace.’

Agreeably also Bishop Williams (Serm. of Justification by Faith) — ‘It is said here, (Rom. v. 1.) being justified by Faith; by which we are to understand, not a mere notional Faith, (for that is no other than an Assent to the Truth of what is reveal­ed) but a Faith in Operation, a Faith ac­tive and vigorous, and that doth compre­hend in it, all that Duty and those Gra­ces, which are else where in Scripture made the Condition of the Gospel Co­venant, and which gives me a Title to all the Benefits of it, such as Forgiveness of Sin, Adoption and Glorification. And that is a practical Faith, and to which [Page 84] Repentance, Obedience, and Perseverance do belong, as the essential Parts of it.’

5. Finally, This is the very Doctrine taught by your Reverence and Brethren Methodists, tho' not without Shuffle and Contradiction, disguised under the ground­less Distinctions of before and after Justifica­tion, and 'twixt Justification and Salvation. Thus your Reverence (Serm. What think ye of Christ. Pag. 16.) ‘The Faith we preach, is not a lead speculative Faith, an Assent­ing to Things credible as credible, as it is commonly defined; it is not a Faith of the Head only, but a Faith of the Heart. It is a living Principle wrought in the Soul, by the Spirit of the everlasting God, convincing the Sinner of his lost and un­done Condition by Nature, and continu­ally exciting them to shew forth that Faith, by abounding in every good Word and Work.’ Thus also your Brother J. Wesley (Serm. Salvation by Faith, Pag. 14.) —‘The first usual Objection to this (saith he) is that to preach Salvation or Justification by Faith only, is to preach against Holiness and good Works. To which a short Answer might be given; it would be so, if we spake, as some do, of a [Page 85] Faith exclusive of these. But we speak of a Faith which is necessarily inclusive of all good Works, and all Holiness.’

Now Sir, this being the Doctrine of Jus­tification as taught and explained by the Clergy, and by you Methodists; how comes it to be a false Doctrine in the Mouths of the one, and not of the other? How comes it to be preaching only the Law (i. e. Justi­fication by Works, and not by Faith only) in the Clergy's Mouths; and yet to be preach­ing the Gospel (Justification by Faith only, and not by Works) in the Mouths of your­self and Brethren Methodists? — Have not the Clergy as good a Right as you to preach Justification by a true and lively Faith, a Faith, operating and bringing forth good Works, or inclusive of them, withou [...] being accused of preaching Justification by Works? Or rather is it not altogether arrogant and wicked Slander in you, thus to accuse them, and on none other Grounds than will equ­ally support the Charge against your sel­ves?

But this you'll say, is not a fair and ho­nest Representation or State of the Matter in Question. For, the Grounds on which you accuse the Clergy of preaching only the [Page 86] Law or Justification by Works, is not their Preaching, that such good Works as are pleasing to God, are the necessary Fruits or Effects of a justifying Faith; no, but their Preaching, that such good Works as are the Fruits of a justifying Faith, are a necessary Condition of Justification; and consequently must not only follow after Justification, but go before it also; contrary to sound Doctrine, and the 2th Article of the Church. To which I answer,

That is a miserable Distinction; a poor Jingle of Words, not serving to instruct, but to intangle and amuse the Minds of the weak and unwary Populace. For,

1. Is not the Word Condition, used in va­rious Senses? And can good Works be called a Condition of Justification, in no o­ther Sense, than that of a meritorious Cause? See what a Wrangler, in your own Way has said on this Point, (Edwards of New Eng­land; Disc. of Justification, p. 8. prefixed to his Narative of surprizing Conversions &c. The Word (says he) seems ambiguous in com­mon Use and also as used in Divinity. In one Sense Christ alone performs the Condition of our Justification and Salvation; in another Sense, Faith is the Condition of Justification; [Page 87] in another Sense, other Qualifications and Acts, are Conditions of Salvation and Justification too. And again, As the Wor [...] Cond [...]tion is very often understood in the common Use of Language, Faith is not the only Thing in us, that is the Condition of Justification. For by the Word Condition, as perhaps most common­ly used, we mean any Thing that may have Place in a conditional Proposition, and as such is truly connected with the Consequent, especi­ally if the Proposition holds both in the affir­mative and Negative, as the Condition is ei­ther affirmed or denied: And in this Sense, Faith is not the only Condition of Salvation or Justification; for there are many Things that accompany and flow from Faith, that are Things with which Justification shall be, and without which it shall not be; and therefore are found to be put in Scripture, in conditional Propositions with Justification and Salvation, in many Places; such are Love to God, and Love to our Brethren, Forgiving Men their Trespasses, and many other good Qualifications and Acts. Now if in the Judgment of this Wri­ter, of your own Cast, good Works may be and are usually called Conditions of Justifi­cation, in another Sense than that of meri­torious Causes; how dare you, in your [Page 88] Mobb Harangues, attempt to fix that Sense of the Word upon the Clergy in which they use it not, but which they expressly disclaim? And is not your doing it, a ren­dring your self guilty of wilful Slander?

2. That Faith is, in some Sense, a Condi­tion of Justification, is generally admitted by Writers of your own Cast, and that both Faith and good Works are Conditions of Salvation, is, I think, denied by none. The Distinct on 'twixt Justification and Salva­tion, w [...]th Respect to good Works, as la­bour'd by Dr. Edwards of Old England (Doctrine of Faith and Justific. &c.) is too much Nonsense to be defended, and which a beloved Brother seems (tho' with usual self Contradiction) to have rejected. See J. Wesley's Serm. (Salvation by Faith, p. 9. Whatever else it (Salvation by Faith) im­plies▪ it is a present Salvation, something at­tainable yea actually atained on Earth by those who are partakers of this Faith. For thus saith the Apostle, not ye shall be (tho' that also be true) but, ye are saved through Faith. Now what other can this present Salvation by Faith be▪ than a State of Par­don and Acceptance with God, that is, a State of Justification? And therefore, if a [Page 89] State of Justification be a present Salvation, or rather a present State of Salvation, the asserting of good Works a necessary Condi­tion of Salvation, but not of Justification, is a Contradiction. And agreeably the lear­ned Dr. Jackson, (Tom. 1. p. 739. of his Works.) That good Works (saith he) are more necessary to Salvation than to Justifica­tion, or that they are less necessary before Ju­stification, than after it, implies a Contradiction in the Terms well expressed and equally com­pared. And Man in that he is justified, is the immediate Heir of Salvation, at the least ac­quitted from the Sentence of Death. Now if we affirm, that good Works are more neces­sary after he is justified, than before, we should in Congruity grant, that Works win Heaven, and Faith only delivers from Hell: Or grant­ing Justification to be the Passage from Death to eternal Life, the Addition of such Works subsequent, as were not precedent, could be serviceable only to supererogate some Excess of Glory; for tho' we stood still at the same Point where Justification found us, we should be in­fallible Heirs of Glory. Or if Faith without Works obtain Justification, having justified us, shall it not much more without them lay sure hold on Salvation, and all the Degrees of Joy [Page 90] that accompany it? Suppose a Man should die in the very Instant wherein he is justified; none would Doubt either of his Absolution or Salva­tion. Is he then saved with Works, or with­out them? If without them, then our Savi­our's Rule doth fail us, (Mat. v. 20. Except your Righteousness exceed, &c.) For this Man enters into the Kingdom of Heaven with­out more strict Observance of the Command­ments than the Scribes and Pharisees used: If with them, then their Presence is necessary to Justification, and in Order of Nature before it, because necessary e'er he can be capable of Entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven; as the Performance of every Condition is in Nature precedent to the Accomplishment of what is not promised without it.

Nor indeed is the admitting of Faith a Condition of Justification, in any Sense, and yet denying it of the necessary Fruits or Ef­fects of Faith less absurd or contradictory.

This you know is the main Point in Di­stress with you, and which drove the above cited Dr. Edwards not only on the Senseless Distinction of Justification and Salvation, but moreover of the silly Subterfuges of scrupling to call Faith a Condition, and de­nying its going before Justification. Because [Page 91] (saith he Doct. of Faith and Justific. p. 318.) Faith is not a Condition in the strict Sense, I chuse to lay that way of speaking aside, and to express my Thoughts thus; the Gospel requires of those that are justified, that they believe in Christ. Curiously thought and expressed too! The Gospel requires of those that are justified, that they believe in Christ: But does it not require of those who are not justified, that they believe in Christ al­so? Rare Champion of Grace! Such Ways of Expression must do wonderful Feats, and enlighten every Mind in the Kingdom. But this is not all. It is an idle Contest (saith he) and yet hath troubled some Heads, which of these (Faith or Justification) is first in Time For I apprehend that they are both together: therefore no Man can tell which is precedent, and which Subsequent. Here is a Matter decided for you; Who dares any longer contest it? I apprehend, &c. That this is an idle Contest, and owing only to such Heads as his own will be easily granted: But his I apprehend, &c. will be deemed a very sorry Decision. — 99 of 100 will apprehend, that his Apprehension of the Matter is absurd, and repugnant to the very Order of Thought or Apprehension in [Page 92] all Cases whatsoever. And you are defied to instance the Case, in which the Condition, Means or Instrument of any Thing, must not in the Order of Thought or Apprehension be conceived to exist before the Thing; or that a Workman's Tools must not be con­ceived to exist previous to the Work done by them. But notwithstanding this Au­thor's Apprehension of this Matter, in the Passage above cited, viz. That Faith and Ju­stification are so instantaneous, as no Man can tell which is precedent and which subsequent; Yet how vastly different do we find his Ap­prehension of it, in his Preface to the same Performance, p. 15. The Passage is curious, and runs thus. So as to Justification by Faith, it may be said that Faith goes before Justification, and yet we are sure it comes af­ter▪ The former is true, because Pardon or Justification is propounded and promised as a Consequence and Reward of Faith. The lat­ter is also true; for we must not believe that we are forgiven, before God hath forgiven us. We must see our Pardon, and then exert our Faith. Thus both are true in different Re­spects. On one Account Faith Precedes Justi­fication; on the other it follows it. This puts an End to the Dispute, and lays all the Qua­rels [Page 93] in the Dust. Whoever can write such a Treatise, and such a Passage in the Preface to it, had need to be at an End of all Di­spute or Controversy. In the Treatise no Man can tell of Faith and Justification which is precedent and which is consequent. In the Preface to it, It may be said that Faith goes before Justification, and we sure also it comes after. So that to make all plain, Faith in one Respect, goes before Justification; in an­other comes after it; and yet in general they are so instantaneous, that no Man can tell which goes before, or which comes after. This is a Doctrine of Grace! Sanctified Logick out of all Question! That Faith goes be­fore Justification is easily admitted, and for the Reason assigned, viz. Because Pardon or Justification (which by the bye are not al­lowed to be synonimous Terms in the Treatise) is propounded and promised as a Consequence or Reward of Faith: But how comes it also to follow after? Why because we must not believe that we are forgiven, be­fore God hath forgiven us. We must see our Pardon, and then exert our Faith. Did ever a more arrant Piece of Nonse drop from the Pen of any Writer! As if Faith or Belief in Christ as the true Mesiah, operat­ing [Page 94] by Love, by which we are justified: And the Faith or Belief that God has actu­ally justified us by that Faith, were the Faith or Belief of the same Thing in diffe­rent Respects, and not of different and di­stinct Things! We must see our Pardon, &c. seeing, says the Proverb, is believing. But how can we see it? By the Eye of Faith. Well then, in plain Language, we must first see our Pardon by the Eye of Faith, and then exert our Faith. Such Logick must surely put an End to the Dispute and lay all the Quarrel in the Dust.

3. As to the 12th Article of the Church it is obvious, that by the Words, and follow after Justification, the Article means not to exclude good Works going before Justifica­tion, from being acceptable or pleasing to God, provided they are the Fruits of Faith, because it has no negative Words to exclude them. And not only so, but which is still confirmed, by the next following Article, intitled, of Works before Justification. Works (saith this Article) done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God: Why so? Forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ. Here it is plain, that by Works before Justification, [Page 95] the Article meaneth Works that are so be­fore it as to be before the Grace of Christ, and consequently Faith in him; that is Works in a State of mere Heathenism or In­fidelity. And therefore according to the Max­im, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis, the Article confirmeth, that Works which are not so before Justification as to be before the Grace of Christ and Faith in him, but after these and springing from them, are pleasing to God, tho' before Justification.

But do not both Articles rather seem to suppose that Faith and Justification are co­existant; or that 'twixt the first Act of a justifying Faith, and that of Justification, there intervenes no Space for good Works to be exerted in? I answer, that however some few have chose to understand them in this Sense, and in which they might re­main undisturbed, if they would not di­sturb, insult and abuse their Neighbours, for differing from them in Judgment; yet more generally 'tis conceived, to be disho­nouring the Articles, to understand them as regarding so silly and speculative a Notion, which never has, nor ever can be proved, to have the least Foundation either in Scripture, or common Reason; or which [Page 96] in it self, whether held or rejected, is not of the least moment or importance so long as the Foundation is held sure, viz. that we are justified by a true and lively Faith, bringing forth the Fruit of good Works; but that neither this Faith nor its Fruit of good Works, are in any Sense, meritorious Causes of either our Justification or Salva [...]ion (to admit the Distinction) but Conditions or Means only. Let one single plain Text of Scripture, or one single conclusive Argu­ment in Reason, be produced in Support of this speculative Notion, that the first mere Act of Faith and that of Justification▪ are co-existent; no one can be under any Temp­tation to reject it: For sure the less we are required to do in the Work of our Salvation, so much the happier for us, who are able to do so little, and so unwilling to do any Thing at all. Or let it be shown, what Moment or Importance the holding or rejecting this Notion is of, so long as this Foundation is held sure.

But without holding this Notion (as you teach and deceive the People) the Foundation is not, and cannot be held: For that the contrary Notion, say you, viz. [Page 97] that Faith and its necessary Fruits pre-exist, and go before Justification as necessary Conditions of it, is destroying the Founda­tion and holding Justification by Works as a meritorious Cause. This is your poisoned Insinuation; false, and insiduous! Have you proved (Sir) or dare you attempt to prove this Insinuation? No you dare not attempt it; not only because you have no Talent at proving any Thing, but chiefly because you are conscious, that such Proof must equally conclude against yourself and Brethren Methodists, in the Case of Salva­tion, as against those you abuse in that of Justification. Do not you and your Bre­thren hold that Faith and good Works are necessary Conditions of Salvation? Well; upstarts a hair-brained Solifidian, and runs about a Mouthing; The Methodists preach up Salvation by Works as meritorious Causes: Will you think it a fair Charge against you? Or not rather disclaim it as false and injurious? Produce (Sir) but one Ar­gument, either from Scripture or Reason, to prove, that the holding Faith and good Works necessary Conditions of Justification, is holding Justification by Works, as meri­torious Causes; that will not equally con­clude [Page 98] in the Mouth of this Solifidian, that your holding Fa [...]th and good Works ne­cessary Conditions of Salvation, is holding Salvation by Works, as meritorious Causes: Produce, I say, but one single Argument that will not equally conclude in the one Case as the other, and I'll become your Pro­selyte the next Moment.

But if this be impossible for you to do, as sure it is, then lay your Hand on your Mouth! Nay rather open it wide, and re­call the Slander you have scatter'd far and wide around you; and undo the Mischief you have already done. You boast indeed, in your Journals, that you have kindled a Fire which all the Devils in Hell shall not be able to exinguish! Alas (Sir) the Fire you have kindled is that of Slander and Defamation. A Fire! which no Devil in Hell, no nor Jesuit nor Deisi on Earth, will ever go about to extinguish; but fagot and foment it with all their Might, as too ef­fectually serving their Interests or Turn. You and your Brethren cry out Pers [...]cution! 'Tis true▪ Persecution there is in the Case; but are not you the Persecutors? Is it not you that falsely accuse the Brethren, de­sturb [Page 99] the Peace of the Church; tram­ple on her Laws and Cannons, tho' solemnly engaged to obey them) and de­spise her Authority? But still Persecution you cry out; for want of it you mean For ours is no Persecuting Country for Religion; every Man may enjoy his own Way in Peace and Safety; but as you may regard being persecuted as something essen­tial to a true Christian, and necessary to keep up the Spirit of Christianity, you seem to be in Quest or Pursuit of it, please only to step into a Neighbouring Country, Spain or Portugal, and you'll bid fair, I dare say, to find it. Or if this be too much, only pursue your first Plan, you amused the World with, viz. the Conversion of the Indians, you'll either meet with it or some­thing equivalent to it. But why, poor Gentleman are you thus to be bantered? Are you not really persecuted? Are you not cast out of the Synagogues; excluded the Church of England Pulpits; and treated as a Disciple of Fox or Muggleton? And is not all this Persecution? But for what Cause are you thus treated? Why, only for the trifling Cause of accusing the Cler­gy, openly and avowedly accusing them in [Page 100] general, for Apostates from Christianity, and ignorant of it as Mahomet; for blind Guides, false Teachers, and leading the Peo­ple to the Gates of Hell. And in all this you speak the Truth in Christ, and lie not. And are not the Clergy of a strange persecuting Spirit, to deny such Men their Pulpits, to insult, traduce and defame them in! But why will you desire our Pulpits, or pre­sume to approach the Altars at which we minister? Is it not Persecution in you to attempt the one or the other? Is it not wholy absurd and inconsistent in you to pretend holding Communion with us, if you believe a Word of the Characters you assure us to be true? Will you hold Com­munion with the Mufti or with the Pope, with the Turkish or the Romish Clergy? And why any more with us, whom you are pleased to set forth to the Multitude in such odious Colours? Sure you ought to get you up from among us, lest you be con­sumed in our Iniquities!

But I have done. I thought indeed to have added some other Queries relating to your Conduct, but since this Letter has been under my Pen, I have seen them put [Page 101] by another Hand; and therefore shall here put an End to this present Trouble.

And remain, SIR, Your very humble Servant, Alex. Garden.

P. S. Will your Reverence be pleased to help out your honoured Friend and Brother, J. Wesley, against the following Charge of a gross Contradiction, inserted in the Gentleman's Magazine for July 1739. Vol. IX. p. 358.

In the Preface to the Hymns and sacred Poems lately published at London, by Mr. John W-sl-y and his Brother, p. v. we are told, that "even the Condition of our Ac­ceptance with God, is not our Holiness either of Heart or Life, but Faith alone; Faith con­tradistinguished from Holiness, as well as from good Works." And then immediately follow these Words, "Other Foundation therefore can no Man lay, without being an Adversary to Christ and his Gospel, than Faith alone, Faith, tho' necessarily producing both, yet not including either good Works or Ho­liness."

But in a Sermon on this Text, "By Grace ye are saved through Faith, Eph. ii. 8. writ­ten [Page 102] and published by the same Mr. John W [...]sl [...]y, p. 14. is the following Expression: "But we speak of a Faith necessarily inclu­sive of all good Works and all Holiness"

Several serious Persons are of Opinion, that Mr. W [...]sl [...]y and his Adherents would behave with greater Modesty, if they left off to rail at the Clergy, and charge them with omitting to preach the funda­mental Doctrines of the Christian Religion, till they reconcile both Sides of this Con­tradiction; or, if that should appear a Task too difficult for them, that they would be pleased to expunge one of those Assertions, in order to let their own Followers, and the rest of the World know, what their own real Sentiments are with R [...]gard to That, which themselves confess to be a Matter of the utmost Importance.

LETTER IV. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.


AS you seem resolved to stick to your very edifying Motto, Answer him not [Page 103] a Word; it is neither for your Sake not my own, that I trouble you with this Fourth Letter, but for such Reasons as may in due Time be assigned.

I have now before me an anonymous Pamphlet, entituled, The Case between Mr. Whitefield and Dr. Stebbing stated, &c. containing, or designed to contain, the en­tire System of the Methodist Doctrine of Re­generation. Whether you approve of all and every Thing it contains, I presume not to know; but to me it appears as elaborate a Peace of dogmatical Theology, as any pro­duc'd in the Oliverian Age, and calculated not to edify, but to puzzle and amuse the Minds of the Populace, or common Readers.

Touching the Foundation of this goodly Structure, either the Author must beg the Question, of the Propagation of Souls, or his Propositions are mere Amusements.

Either he must take for granted, that A­dam begat the Souls, as well as Bodies of his immediate Posterity, or who can understand the Second Proposition? viz. Had Adam ‘continued in his happy State, he should have transmitted to his Posterity, by the Laws of Generation, that Image of God in which he was made.’ Consisting [Page 104] chiefly (Prop. 1st.) ‘In the Indowments of the Soul, viz. Knowledge, Innocence, Righteousness and Holiness. — Can the Endowments or Qualities of any Thing be transmitted to another by any Laws of Generation, without the Substance? The Author dare not say they can; and if they cannot, then how could Adam trans­mit the Endowments and Qualities of Know­ledge, Innocence, Righteousness and Holiness to the Souls of his Posterity, by the Laws of Generation, without transmitting the Substance also?

Again, either the Author must take the same Principle for granted, or to what End or Purpose Prop. vii and its Comment?

If his Meaning, indeed be, that as every animal Creature, by the Laws of Generation, begets its like; the Toad, the Viper, the Tyger, &c. begets Toads, Vipers, Tygers, &c. So the animal Part or Bodies of our first Parents being degenerate, corrupt and mortal, the animal Part or Bodies of their Posterity, which alone they could beget, must therefore, by the Laws of Generation, be degenerate, corrupt and mortal also: If this, I say, be his Meaning, who will ever dispute the Truth of the Proposition? Nay▪ [Page 105] who will not moreover readily grant, that the corruptible Body presseth down the Soul, and often too easily besets and draws it off, from heavenly and spiritual to earthly and carnal Things? But then, alas! what o­ther End or Purpose will all this be of, to the Author's Scheme of Regeneration, than to destroy it? This Scheme absolutely re­quires the positive innate Degeneracy and Corruption of the Soul for its Foundation. And as the Author must plainly see, that this Degeneracy & Corruption transmitted from Adam by the Laws of Generation, must nece­sarily suppose the Propagation of Souls; it is evident to me, that rather than touch this Point, or expressly beg the Question, he chose to lay its Foundation in Darkness, and to hide its Weakness under general and am­biguous Phrases, and especially the Word Nature; to the no small Puzzle and Per­plexity of common Readers.

It is true, Mention is once made of a Co­venant Adam was under, his being the Re­presentative Head, and of the Imputation of his Sin; but as these, the Author owns, lay [...]ut of his Way, that is, answered not to his Corruption Scheme, they are once, I say, as 'twere, compell'd to make a sort of ex­centrick [Page 106] Appearance, and we hear no more of them.

But to have done with this Head: E­very Body can easily conceive, as Adam was the Root, from which sprang the animal Part or Bodies of his Children, that the animal Patt or Bodies of his Children must therefore, by the Laws of Generation, partake of the Nature and Qualities of that Root, whether they were good or evil; but how their Souls, if they sprung not from that Root, must partake of its Nature and Qua­lities, by any Laws of Generation, I believe a Methodist only can conceive.

The Populace have been strangely amus­ed of late with the Doctrine of Regeneration, as a sudden, instantaneous Work (Act) of the Holy Spirit, and in which the Subjects are entirely passive. But this Author, tho' he still dogmatically insists on some certain cri­tical Act in the Case, yet has a whole Chap. (4th) concerning the Manner, Means and Steps, by which this Work is wrought by the Spirit of God in the Hearts of his Peo­ple. I'm afraid that in this Chap. he has departed from the ancient Testimony, and ad­vanced several Things, which natural Men may take for Inconsistences and Contradictions.

[Page 107] Pag. 52, 53. I find the following remark­able Passages. In all his Ways towards us, and especially in the Work of Regeneration and Con­version, God deals with us as reasonable Crea­tures, however weak degenerate, or corrupt; and always acts in a Way agreeable to our ra­tional Powers; this the Precepts, Admonitions, Promises, Councils and Invitations, &c. of the Word do clearly demonstrate.

How from the Bottom of my Heart do I wish, that this honest and instructive Pas­sage stood in Golden Capitals, at the Head of every Page, throughout the whole Perfor­mance; with [Regeneration is the whole and sole Work of God, in which we are entirely passive] incerted between Hooks in the very Center of it; to expose the Contradiction in direct View, and guard the Judgment of the unwary Reader! The Author goes on, ‘These (that is, Precepts, Admonitions, Promises, &c. of the Word all suppose that we are either capable of doing something or other in a Way of Duty; or, at least, of being excited, disposed and enabled to hear, understand, and do what is required. Tho' we have lost our In­nocence, Righteousness and Holiness, we have not lost our Faculties and Powers. [Page 108] We are not Stocks and Stones, and mere Machines; but, intelligent Agents: And tho' we cannot, in our natural State, know the Things of the Spirit of God, as we should, and as we must, if we would be saved; yet many Things we still know of our Maker, and his Will; yea, and many Things we can also do. In our Renovation, God restores what we have lost, but does it by working upon what remains. He calls and excites us, to the exercise of our rational Faculties, and at the same Time cures the Disorders of them, and frames them in some Measure, for what he enjoins. He commands us, for Example, to hear and read his Word, with Reverence and Seriousness; and in our obeying, as we can, and hearing it with that Reverence, we would do any Thing of Moment, he makes us to under­stand it. He commands us to mix Faith with our Hearing; and in our receiving it, with that Faith which we may have, he confirms our Assent to it. He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the Dead, &c. and when we humble our selves under a deep Sense of our utter Inability, and heartily pray for Almigh­ty [Page 109] quickning Grace, he by the Power of his Spirit, working with the Word, tho­roughly awakens us, and raises us from the Dead. He commands Sinners to cease to do Evil; and in their sincere Care to compply, he many Ways assists them, And, to learn to do well; and in their setting about this Work, in earnest, he by the Word both disposes them farther, and enables them also.’ Now if all this be Methodism, I subscribe to it Heart and Hand; only with this Difference from the Author, that I must insist on these, not as previous Dispositions only, to the Work of Regeneration; but in Reality the Work ado­ing, and part of it actually done. For ac­cording to his own Description of Regene­ration, it consists, ‘In the checking, weak­ning, and in part subduing our Natural De­pravity and Corruption; and the restoring in some Measure, that Image of God, which Adam lost by his Fall.’ But if the Work of Regeneration consists in these, then I must insist, that it is not a sole, critical or instantaneous, but a gradual co-operating Work of the Holy Spirit; commencing at Bap­tism, and gradually advancing throughout the whole course of Christian Life; including [Page 110] all the Steps or Degrees of Faith, Repen­tance, renewed Dispositions of the Mind, and Habits of Obedience, 'till we arive at the Measure of the Stature of the Fulness of Christ; that is, to such a Degree of Chri­stian Perfection, as is attainable here; that which is absolute, being only atainable at the Resurrection hereafter. In a Word, I must insist, that according to the Scriptures, the whole Oeconomy of Grace is, an Oeconomy of CO-OPERATION, where the Subject is capable; and therefore, that the above cited Particulars are not only preparative, or previous Dispositions to Regeneration; but the Work actually adoing, and Part of it actually done.

This, in the Judgment of the Christian Church in all Ages, is the plain Doctrine of the Scripture, and therefore the Passage next following, contains a Contradiction to the above cited Passage, and a manifestly false Assertion, viz. ‘We are never com­manded to regenerate our selves, or beget our selves again; that is God's Work, his wholly and solely. But are we indeed ne­ver commanded to regenerate or beget our selves again; tho' not in the very Words, (for the Word Regenerate occurs not once [Page 111] in the whole English Bible) yet not in this Author's own Sense or Meaning of them? Are we never commanded to check, weaken, or in part subdue our natural Depravity and Corruption, and to improve our selves in Know­ledge, Righteousness and Holiness? Or are not these the Purport of all the Divine Com­mands? Are we never commanded, to purge out the old Leaven, that we may be a new Lump? To put off the Old Man, and to put on the New? To cracify the Flesh with the Affections and Lusts? To mortify our Mem­bers which are upon the Earth? Are we ne­ver commanded to cleanse our selves from all Filthiness both of the Flesh and Spirit, per­fecting Holiness in the Fear of God? To cleanse our Hands and purify our Hearts? &c. And can these, or any like Commands, be understood to import any more, than our doing such Part of these Things as we are a­ble, or that the main or principal part is not the Work of the Holy Spirit, without whose co-operating Aids and Graces, we can do nothing? Nay, but says the Author, this (Regeneration) is God's Work, his whol­ly and solely; and in which we are entirely passive. Are these the Words of him who just before had said, That in all his Ways, [Page 112] and especially the Work of Regeneration, God deals with us as reasonable Creatures, not as with Stocks or Stones, or mere Machines, but intelligent Beings? And a few Lines after says, That in the whole Work of Grace, God treats us as reasonable Creatures, and in a Way congruous to our rational Powers? A­way with such confused and contradictory Gibberish.

But our Author's Eyes being fitted only for Methodist Light, he is over with it a­gain, pag. 60, 61. Taking it for granted, that the Holy Spirit is the Almighty Worker of our Regeneration, in which we are entirely passive; we may observe, that ordinarily there are certain Works which are previous preparative, and some Way dispose to it. — Several Things are required of us in a Way of Duty; which all Men may in some Measure comply with, if not by their own natural Abilities, yet through the Assistance of that common Grace, which is in some Degree, given to all the Hearers of the Gospel, viz. That we seriously read▪ and carefully attend, to all the Dispensations of the Word; that we frequently think of our Ways▪ consider our State and Frame, and be much in Prayer for the holy Spirit to enlighten, renew and sanctify [Page 113] us, &c. Nor has any Man any Reason to expect any such invaluable Blessing, who is either utter negligent of, or only superficial in the Perfor­mance of them. Commonly also in the serious Attention of the Soul, to these Duties, the Ho­ly Ghost much enlightens the Mind, awakens the Conscience, convinces of Sin, fills with Grief, and Shame, and Fear, excites to Con­fession, Prayer and Humiliation, and frequent­ly works strongly upon, and produceth a migh­ty Change, not only in the outward Life, but inward Affections. Now if Regeneration consists in checking, weakning, and in part subduing our natural Depravity and Corrup­tion, &c. must not this Author allow the above Particulars, especially the mighty Change, both of the outward Life and in­ward Affections, to be not only a previous disposing to, but the real Work of Regenera­tion a doing, and part of it actually done? But no such Thing. Tho none of these (in­sists he) nor all of them together be Regene­ration, yea tho' all of them may be wrought, and that in a high Degree, in those who are never born of the Spirit, &c. Is it not plain, that he here shifts the Idea of the Word Re­generation, and instead of meaning by it the gradual and Progressive Work of checking, [Page 114] weakening, subduing, &c. he annexes it to the Idea of an immediate critical Act; or the natural Depravity or Corruption actu­ally checked, weakened and subdued, &c. The same which other Christian Writers or Divines call the highest Degree of Christian Perfection, which thro' a Growth in Grace, is attainable here, if not that, which none shall attain to, till the Resurrection hereafter.

But above all (Sir) what I chiefly design to observe to you is, that either this Au­thor must be in a very great Error, or your self; either his Doctrine must be false, or your own.

This Author Asserts, That several Things are required of us in a Way of Duty, which all Men may in some Measure comply with, if not by their own natural Abilities, yet thro' the Assistance of that common Grace gi­ven to all the Hearers of the Gospel viz. that we seriously read and attend to all the Dispen­sations of the Word, frequently think of our Ways, consider our State, and be much in Prayer, &c.

Now if according to this Author, these Works or Duties, viz. serious reading, care­ful Attention to all the Dispensations of the Word, frequent Meditation, and diligent [Page 115] Prayer, &c. if all these Works or Duties (and which thro' common Grace given to all Gospel Hearers we are able to perform) be required of us as Means naturally dispo­sing to the Work of Regeneration, and without which no one has Reason to expect that Blessing; then of necessary Consequence they must be required to Justification also, which in the Order of Nature, according to this Author, cannot precede Regeneration, but follow after it; but if these Works or Duties be required to our Justification, then what becomes of your remarkable Antino­mian Chalenge, Who dares assert that we are not justified in the Sight of God, merely by an Act of Faith in Jesus Christ, without any Re­gard to Works, past, present, or to come? (Jour. cont. P. 108. Edit. Phil.)

Again, these Works or Duties which God thus requires the Performance of, as Means materially, disposing for Regenera­tion, when through common Grace per­formed, are they acceptable to God or not? If you say they are not, you say, that the Performance of God's own Commands are not acceptable to him: If you say they are, you contradict your own express Doc­trine, (Serm. What think ye of Christ, P. 18.) [Page 116] ‘Our Persons must be justified before our Performances can be accepted.’

I have no Intention to wade through the Farrago of the Pamphlet, which I believe no one breathing will be ever be idle e­nough to do: But if you'll please to satify these few Exceptions I have offered upon it, you'll much oblige.

Your very humble Servant, Alex. Garden.

To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.


TOUCHING your two Letters, which you have caused to be published in this Place, I am in no doubt what Spirit you were when you wroute them. Had you observed common Decency or good Man­ners in them, you had then been only an Object of common Pity; but your contra­ry Behaviour, exposes you to the utmost Scorn and Contempt of every Reader. You [Page 117] know not, you say, how to give flattering Titles in the cause of God; but you know how, pretending the Cause of God, to bring railing Accusations (which an Arch­angel durst not do against the Devil) to support some Crotchets you have got in your own Brains; how to insult and abuse the Memory and Writings of two of the most sound, Pious and learned Authors that ever adorned the English Church or Nation: And how to call God's Truth to witness the Falshood of the Gospel be­ing a Covenant! You know how to do all this, and to dispence it to the Populace in a Vehicle of cant Terms, without Sense or Meaning. And if this be the Spirit of Methodism, my Soul come thou not into their Secrets.

But have you indeed vindicated your Assertion that the Archbishop Tillotson knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet? [...] [...]ay how have you done it? Why in a very suitable Manner; by advancing two other Assertions, equally false and slanderous, and equally wanting a Vindication, viz. That the Archbishop knew of no other than a bare Historical Faith; and that, as to the Method of our Acceptance with God thro' [Page 118] Jesus Christ, and our Justification by Faith alone, he was as ignorant as Mahomet.

Now (Sir) have you proved, or attemp­ted to prove that the Archbishop knew of no more than a bare Historical Faith? No: Every Spiritual Man, you say, that reads his discourses may see it. Did you take this on trust from your honour'd Friend J. W? If you did, you must not lose your Reward. If you grounded it on your own Knowledge of those Discourses; how came this Passage of them in Par­ticular, besides many others, not to con­found you! Vol. II. Fol. Serm. 25. But then this Faith must not be a bare assent and persuasion of the Truth of the Gospel, but such an effectual Belief as expresseth itself in suitable Acts of Obedience and Ho­liness, such as the Apostle here calls a Faith which worketh by Love; a Faith that is inspir'd and acted or rather consummate & made perfect by Charity, (for so the Word doth often signify) and then this Phrase will be just of the same Importance with that of St. James, by Works is Faith made perfect. REMEMBER (Sir) this Passage must look you full in the Face at the great Day.

Have you prov'd for certain that the [Page 119] Archbishop knew no more of our Acceptance with God, &c. than Mahomet? Unfor­tunately then it turns out, that you have proved the same of yourself also. The naughty Passage by which you have prov'd this of the Archbishop you have interpo­lated: Restored with the Interpolation 'twixt Hooks, it runs thus.

‘You see then what it is that must re­commend us to the Favour of God; the real Renovation of our Hearts and Lives, after the Image of him that created us. [This must be repaired in us] before we can be restored to the Grace and Fa­vour of God, or to be capable of the Re­ward of Eternal Life. And what could God have done more reasonable, than to make these very Things the Terms of our Salvation, which are the necessary Causes and Means of it? How could he have dealt more mercifully and kindly with us, than to appoint that to be the Condition of our Happiness, which is the only Qualification that can make us capable of it?’

Now (Sir) if this Passage proves, that the Archb [...]shop knew no more of the Method of our Acceptance, &c. then what [Page 120] must these following Passages of yours, prove of you.

Whitefield's Sermon on Regeneration, P. 14, 17. The Apostle declares it to be the irre­vocable Decree of the Almighty, that whith­out Holiness, i. e. without being made pure by Regeneration, and having the Image of God thereby reinstamp'd upon the Soul, no Man living shall see the Lord. And it is very observable, that our Divine Master, in the famous Passage before referred to, concerning the absol [...]te Necessity of Regeneration, does not say unless a Man be born again he shall not, but unless a Man be born again he can­not enter into the Kingdom of God, For it is founded on the very Nature of Things, that unless we have Dispositions wrought in us suitable and answerable to the Objects that are to entertain us, we can take no Manner of Complacency or Satisfaction in them, &c. Nay, in one Place of Scripture, Sanctification is put before Justification, on purpose as it were, to shew that there is no Salvation with­out it. But ye are washed, says the Apostle, but ye are sanctified. Another indispu­table Argument why we must be new Crea­tures, viz. because without it Christ is dead in vain.

[Page 121]If St. Paul would pronounce an Anathema against the Archbishop on that naughty Pas­sage of his, how much more would he do so against you on these of yours! Here (in these Passages of yours) is not a Word about the All sufficient perfect and everlasting Righte­ousness and Death of Christ, as the sole Cause and Condition of our being accepted by the Father; (but what asserts the direct contra­ry, viz. That the Righteousness and Death of Christ are not Allsufficient as the sole Cause of our being accepted by the Father, but that without Regeneration Christ is dead in vain) Our Sanctification which is the Ef­fect and not the Cause of Christ's Righteous­ness being imputed to us, is here as elsewhere represented, as the sole Cause of our Justifica­tion and Salvation. So that (a monstrous Inference!) our Righteousness, which is but as filthy Rags, is here valued at so high a Price, as to be made to purchase, or which is the same, is made the Cause of our enjoying Christ, and Heaven and eternal Happiness. And what is this but Deisin refined? No, Sir, I'll tell you what it is; Arrant Gibberish and Nonsense; and equally so, applied to the Archbishop's Passage, or your own.

[Page 122]The Archbishop has asserted Regeneration, or the Image of God being repaired in us, as a necessary Cause, that is instrumental Cause, and Means of our Salvation: And have not you asserted, that without this no Man shall see the Lord? without it, we can­not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? with­out it, there is no Salvation? and without it Christ is dead in vain? The Archbishop has asserted it the only Qualification that makes us capable of Happiness: And have not you asserted it as such, founded in the very Nature of Things? Or is the Asserting it the only Qualification of our Happiness, repre­senting it as the SOLE CAUSE of our Salvation? Lay your Hand upon your Heart (Sir) and say, whether the Archbi­shop has not asserted a supreme Cause of that very Qualification! But above all; supposing the Archbishop and yourself from him▪ (for let even a Methodist say) whether on the Comparison, there be no Grounds to presume, that you had the chief Materials of your Discourse from his; especially from the Paragraphs next preceeding that you censure) had worded your Sentiments in such a Manner, as to leave it doubtful, whether you meant Regeneration the SOLE [Page 123] CAUSE of Justification and Salvation or no; yet how will this support your monstrous Inference, — So that our Righteousness, &c. How long is it since you have made Rege­neration, or Sanctification (for you love dearly to shuffle among Terms) OUR RIGHTE­OUSNESS? Alas, my old Friend! whi­ther is your poor Head now wandring?

And thus, Sir, (in your Mountebank Way) you have, young David like, as you fancy, slain your Goliah: But whether it be not in the Pride and Naughtiness of your Heart, you have made so absurd an Attempt, and so foolishly manag'd it, the World is at no loss to determine; for the great and good Archbishop is still quite alive and well (his Works and Memory I mean) and will doubt­less long survive in the highest Honour and E­steem, after you and your dirty Pamphlets are sunk into Oblivion. But might not one such Conquest have sufficed you, as it did young David, at a Time? No, your noble Spirit scorns only to imitate, but must excel. No sooner have you dispatch'd this Cham­pion of the uncircumcised in Heart and Ears, but advancing from a David into a Knight of Lamanca, you go strait in Pursuit of new Adventures! And who unhapily falls in [Page 124] your Way, but another Son of Anak, the Author of the Whole Duty of Man? Down he must come; and thus you gird your self for the Battle!

Since it has pleased God to give me a True Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace. Choice Armour indeed! Who shall be able to stand before you? None sure but the Pope or the Mufti; and it must be deemed not so honourable in you, to attack any one not equally arm'd for the Combat. A mo [...]ly Triumverate of Infallibles! Your Reverence, the Pope, and the Mufti! Each of you claiming the Gift of the True Know­ledge of the Doctrines of Grace, yet each denying his Claim to the other; and which therefore ought to be denied equally to you all; and regarded only as the Result of the most consummate Assurance, wherewith you jointly and severally disturb and confound the World.

But it has pleased God to give you a True Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace; and therefore who dares dispute your Infalli­bility in pronouncing the false Ones! Who dares dispute when you pronounce, the Clery's falling away from the Principles of the Reformation; that such or such Books [Page 125] are founded on the Arminian Scheme; and the Chief Cause why many have built their hopes of Salvation on a false Bottom? And agreeably as you have pronounced, or born your noble Testimony concerning the Writings of Arbishop Tillotson, as directly contrary to the Gospel of Christ; if any dares to dispute the Matter, let them but remember, it has pleased God to give you the true Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace, this must Command Assent, and hush e­very Tongue to Silence. Thus an elder Brother of yours, the ever memorable GEORGE FOX, (an Infallible also in his Days, to whom God had given the true Know­ledge of the Doctrines of Grace) bore his Testimony concerning the BIBLE, as on­ly a Dead Letter; and which was impli­citly recieved by his Followers, at least of that Age.

And thus equip'd you advance on the Author of the Whole Duty of Man. ‘This Book (you pronounce) is in general cal-to civilize, but you're persuaded never was a means of converting one single Soul.’ Will your Reverence stay your Hand here a little? ‘The Book (you say) is calcu­lated to civilize; Something then 'tis [Page 126] good for; please not utterly to destroy it. The Wrath, you know, of another noble Champion of Grace, See Edwards's Preacher, P. 49, 50.) was kindled against this Book; but his went no farther than the Title, Yours extends to the Preface, general Titles, and Index. ‘The Book (saith he) pretends to treat of the Whole Duty of Man, and puts us off with Half of it.’ Bad indeed! But is there no way to salve the Affair? Let the Title be altered, and for the future run, One half of the Whole Duty of Man; or rather let your Reverence, some spare Day or other, supply the other Half that's wanting, under the Title of the first or second Part, as you please, to be added next Edition, and then the first general Title and Book itself may stand. And this, I hope, you'll the more readily fall in with, because of the Judgment of this Brother Champion of yours, who with some Tem­per and Modesty says: ‘I deny not that the aforesaid Book is of very good Use in its Kind, and is in some Respects an excel­lent Piece; and it is probable that if the worthy Author had lived longer, he would have made those necessary Additions to it which I have hinted.’ Will either of [Page 127] these proposals do? By no means, ‘You have look'd over the general Titles and Index, and cannot find the WORD Rege­neration so much as once mentioned.’ A fatal Defect indeed! I have just been looking into my Concordance, and almost tremble to tell you, that I find this WORD but twice mentioned in the whole Bible; and in neither Place anywise to your Pur­pose! What the Consequence may be, when you have considered the Matter, I cannot say.

But neither is this all. ‘The whole Treatise (you say) is built on such a false Foundation, as not only proves the Author to be no real Christian at Heart; but also that he had not so much as a Head-Know­ledge of the true Gospel of Christ.’ All Heads, 'tis certain, are not alike furnished, nor capable of the same Furniture; and therefore, saving your Infalibility, this Pas­sage plainly shews your Head sufficiently furnished, with what I forbear to name. But what is this false Foundation this Treatise is built upon? Why it is contained in these Words of the Preface, This second Covenant was made with Adam, and us in him, present­ly after his Fall; and is briefly contained, Gen. [Page 128] iii. 15. where God declares, that the Seed of the Woman shall break the Serpents Head. And this was made up as the first was, of some Mercies to be offered by God, and some Duties to be performed by us. In this Passage lies the false Divinity, or Fundamental Error that poisons the whole Book: But, alas, who that is not some Way Enlightned, nay, who that is not equally Enlightened with your Reverence, shall be able to find it? The Scotch second sight People pretend often to see strange Things, which no Body else can see but themselves; and the Pope and the Mufti pretend to see all the Fundamental Errors, and false Divinity in the World; but what is all that to me, except they can open my Eyes to see the same also? If they can open my Eyes to see the same Things as they pretend to see, the Obligation of doing it will be very great; but their pre­tending to see this or the other, which yet I cannot see is of no Avail to me, who am not disposed to rely on their Pretences, or to see with their Eyes, but with my own.

This Passage asserts, ‘that God made a second Covenant with Adam, and us in him, presently after his Fall; Gen. 3d. 15th.’ — This you say, is false Divinity [Page 129] and fundamental Error; and that it cannot be proved that God made any second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posteri­ty. — Pray, Sir, are you in a Jest or Ear­nest in this Matter? Have you not been dabling with, the Marrow of modern Divini­ty, or some such precious Book, which puz­zles your Head, and lies crude on your Understanding? Or are you deputed by some other Head or Hand behind the Cur­tain, to put off such Stuff upon the World? Or finally, do you really mean to burle­sque the Bible, and try Practices on the weak and unstable of Mankind? Here you say, (Gen. [...]d. and 15th.) is a Free Gift and Pro­mise of Salvation made to Adam; but no Cove­nant, not a Word of any Condition mentioned. There are certain People in the Word cal­led Deists, who will contend it with you▪ that this Text contains no free Gift, nor any Promise of Salvation to Adam, or any other. Please try a Cast of your masterly Hand a­gainst these same Diests; and if the same Arguments by which you prove the Text to contain a Free Gift, or Promise of Salvati­on to Adam, do not equally prove that it contains or implies a Covenant also, then let it be given up without further Contention.

[Page 130]But suppose this Text given up, and wholly out of the Question, will it thence follow, that it cannot be proved that God made any second Covenant at all with Adam himself, or any of his Posterity? Have you never read of the Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the Oath which he sware unto Isaac? Know you nothing of the Covenant which God made at Horeb, with the Seed of Abraham his chosen? or the Two Tables of it wrote with his own Finger, nor the Ark wherein they were kept? Are you wholly ignorant, how often God complains by his Prophets, of that chosen People's breaking his Cove­nant, and how often he punished them for such Breaches? Does not St. Paul (Gal. 4.) expressly assert two Covenants, represented by the two Sons of Abraham; that of the Law represented by the Son of the Bond-Woman, and that of the Gospel, by the Son of the Free? And is not Christ expressly stiled by the same Apostle, the Mediator of the NEW Covenant; of a better Covenant, which was established on better Promises? See Heb. 8th passim. — More-over, (Sir) if you are thus persuaded, that God never [...] any second Covenant with Adam, [Page 131] nor any of his Posterity; how can you with­out Hypocrisy or Dissimulation presume to baptize according to the Office of the Church of England, or to teach her Catechism? How can you with a good Conscience, oblige any Person in Bap­tism, to the solemn Vows and Promi­ses; First, Of renouncing the Devil and all his Works, the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World, and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh: Secondly, Of believing all the Arti­cles of the Christian Faith: And, Thirdly, Of keeping God's Holy Will and Command­ments, and walking in the same all the Days of their Life? How can you, I say, with an honest and upright Conscience, lay this Yoke on the Necks of the Disciples, which God himself never laid, nor ever im­powered Men to lay; if so be that he never made any second Covenant with them, and that the Gospel is a Free Gift in such a Sense, as to exclude its being a Covenant Dispensation?

Here I should lay down my Pen, and wait your Answers to the above Particu­lars; but one more Remark, and it will probably drop from my Hand.

[Page 132]After having quoted the 21st Paragraph of the Preface, viz. The Third Thing that Christ was to do for us, &c. You go on to ask, ‘Where has God taken off from the Hardness of the Law given to Adam? And required of us an holy and hearty Endeavour to do what we are able; and when we fail accepting of sincere Repen­tance?’ I answer, in every Page of the Bible: But to which your Answer is, This is all as false as God is true. Presumptu­ous Man! What more can the holdest In­fidel presume, than to call God's Truth to witness the Falshood of the Bible! My trembling Hand can no longer, than to subsribe myself,

Your very humble Servant, Alex. Garden.
[Page 133]

LETTER VI. To the Reverend Mr. Whitefield.

ALAS Sir is it come to this at last! That you to whom God has given a true Knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace! And who in the Fulness of that Knowledge had so absolutely vindicated your modest and christian Assertion, viz. That Archbishop Tillotson knew no more of Christianity than Mahomet! That you, I say, instead of de­fending your noble Vindication, are fain to run for Shelter under the Wings of the poor shatter'd Dr. Edwards, (as dogmatical cap­tious, unfair and confuted a Writer as any of his Time) and to throw out his ex­ploded Snarling Stuff to your Opposers, and bid them Answer it! Are these the Arts of a Man of your Gifts and Graces? Or can you think your Opposers simple enough to be catch'd by them; and set to Work to confute such Stuff, as has been confuted and exploded above 30 Years a­go? It is a Maxim, I am told among the Jesuits in Controversy, never to regard the [Page 134] Objections of an Adversary; but to ne­glect them, and always return to their own Assertion, as if nothing had been of­fered against it. A Maxim worthy indeed of that singular Order! Do not you also pursue this Trick of theirs in your Pole­micks? Did you learn it of them? Or is it the Fruit of your own Genius? Do you Sir, first vindicate Dr. Edwards against his Opposers in the Case, and your Oppo­sers may probably take some Notice of your Vindication.

But mean-time, as this Letter, tho' di­rected to you, is design'd to be publish'd, and as many of the Readers of your Epistle in these Parts, may never have seen ei­ther Dr. Edwards's PREACHER, nor any Vindication the Archbishop from the injurious Treatment contain'd in it; I shall therefore take leave, in a few Words, to put such Readers in the Way, to avoid Imposition in the Case, and to do common Justice to the Parties con­cern'd. And to this Purpose the follow­ing single Rule, and a few Instances to shew the Necessity and Usefulness of it, shall suffice.

[Page 135]The Rule is this, That such Readers do by no Means trust to the Authority either of Dr. Edwards, your Reverence, or any other, concerning any Passages excepted to, of the Writings of the Archbishop; but that they see with their own Eyes, by reading them in Connection as they stand in the said Writings, and with due Regard to the Scope and Argu­ment of the respective Discourses in which they are found. This is the Rule, and the Necessity and Usefulness of it will appear in these following Instances.

1st. Tillot. Works, Vol. III. P. 414. You do not find any where revealed in all the Scripture, that there is a God. ‘And yet (excepts Dr. Edwards) it is agreed by all sober and intelligent Christians, that there is express Mention and Confirmation of a Deity in the Scriptures.’ Is this a fair and honest Quotation from the Archbi­shop? Or is this a fair and honest Ex­ception to it? It is not any where REVEA­LED, says the Archbishop; there is express Mention and Confirmation of it, says Dr. Edwards: What Inconsistency or Contra­dicton in these? The Archbishop denies not the express Mention and Confirmation; The Dr. asserts not the Revelation. But [Page 136] let the Reader see the Passage in this follow­ing Connection (as it ought to have been quo­ted) with his own Eyes. ‘A divine Reve­lation cannot possibly be an Argument inducing me to believe the Existence of a God, for this plain Reason; because a divine Revelation can be no Argument to any, that is not persuaded that it is a di­vine Revelation: But before I can be per­suaded that any Revelation is from God, I must be persuaded there is a God; and if so, there is no Need of this Argument to prove to me there is one. And therefore you do not find it any where revealed in all the Scripture, that there is a God. The Scripture often declares, that Jeho­vah is the true and living God; and that, besides him there is no other: But it doth not reveal but every where suppose, that there is one.’ Thus stands the Passage in Connection, containing as plain and de­monstrable a Truth, as any Proposition in Euclid.

2. From the same Vol. and Page of the Archbishop's Works, Dr. Edwards quotes these Words; I do not find the Immortality of the Soul, or a future State is expressly re­vealed in the Bible; and excepts to them as [Page 137] denying the express Mention and Confirma­tion of these Particulars, in the Scriptures. The Words indeed are in the same Vol. and Page, but not together as they are quo­ted. The Passage in Connection runs thus: As for the other two Principles of Natural Religion, the Immortality of the S [...]ul, and a future State; after we believe a God▪ we may be persuaded of these from Divine Reve­lation; and that doth give the highest and firmest Assurance of them, in the Resurrec­tion of Christ from the Dead. Yet I do not find but that these also are rather supposed, than expresly revealed in the Bible. Indeed the Immortality of the Soul may be inferred from several Places of Scripture, and the Te­nour of the whole Bible. And so a future State, which as for the Thing it self, seems to he supposed as a Thing acknowledged by Natu­ral [...]ight; only the Scripture hath revealed the Circumstances more particularly to us, and given us higher Assurance of the Thing. Thus let the Reader see with his own Eyes, and not trust the Quotations of Edwards, your Reverence, or any like foul and partial Writer.

3. As to the Archbishop's denying such Power or Prerogative to the Devil, as to im­print [Page 138] wicked Thoughts on the Minds of Men, (Vol. II. P. 532, 533, not 352, 353. as you directed) I must beg the Reader to consult that whole Sermon, intitled, the Knowledge of God. Of the several Passages relating to this Particular, I shall here set down but this one. — I do not see, how by any Means it can be granted, without Prejudice to this Prerogative of God, which the Scripture plain­ly gives him, of being the only Knower of the Heart, that the Devil can have so immediate an Access to our Minds, as to put wicked Thoughts into them; nor can I think that when it is said, that Satan provoked David to Number the People, that the Devil entred into Judas; that Satan had filled the Heart of Ananias, &c. that any or all of these Ex­pressions do amount to such an immediate Po­wer, of putting wicked Thoughts into Men's Minds; but they only signify, that the Devil hath a greater Hand in some Sins than others; and that a Heart wickedly bent and inclined, gives him a great Advantage to tempt Men more powerfully, by presenting the Occasions of such wicked Thoughts and Actions to them: For it is usual, in Scripture Phrase, as to as­cribe all good Motions to God's Spirit, so all e­vil Thoughts and Actions to the Devil; not that [Page 139] he is the immediate Cause of them, but because he is always ready to tempt Men to them, and one Way or other to promote them.' — Thus every Reader may see, from this Passage, but more fully from the whole Tenor of the Sermon, that the Archbishop is only assert­ing the Knowledge of Men's Hearts to be the sole Prerogative of God, and therefore deny­ing the same Prerogative to the Devil. But the unparalleled Abuse of the latter Part of this Passage by Dr. Edwards, and yourself his Voucher, must not be passed over in Silence. The lat [...]er Part of this Passage you cite from Dr. Edwards's Preacher, P. 117. Word for Word, thus; — As it is usual, in the Scripture Phrase, to ascribe all good Motions to God's Spirit, so all evil thoughts to the Devil; not that he is the immediate Cause of these, no more than God's Spirit is the Au­thor of the other. Thus Word for Word, I say, you have cited from Dr. Edwards, and all in I [...]aliks, as if they all were the Words of the Archbishop. In this Sir, you have injure [...] both the Archbishop and the Dr. For neither are these last Words, viz. NO MORE THAN GOD'S SPIRIT IS THE AUTHOR OF THE OTHER, the Words of the Archbishop at all; nor indeed has [Page 140] Dr. Edwards set them down as such in his Book, but in a different Character, as an Addition of his own. Rare juggling Work indeed! Dr. Edwards injuriously adds to the Archbishop's Words, and still more in­juriously censures him on that Addition. You, to mend the Matter, put the added Words directly into the Archbishop's Mouth, and vouch the same Censure, viz. Is not this a strange Comparison between these two contrary Spirits? And doth not the Framer of it discover what new Models of Divinity he affects? He is pleased to excuse the Devil from ejecting any bad Thoughts in­to Men's Minds, and he exempts God's Spirit from being the Cause or Author of any good or holy Thoughts. The Comparison is strange enough indeed! But whether Dr. Edwards and your Reverence are not the Framers of it, let the Reader see. You, Sir, and your Brother Champion are the Framers of it, and as stupidly as injuriously have you framed it. For so far is the Archbishop from exemp­ting God's Spirit from being the Author of any good or holy Thoughts, that it is the whole Scope or Argument of that very Discourse, to prove it the sole Prerogative of God, to know the Hearts of Men; and [Page 141] consequently his Power of being the im­mediate Author of good and holy Thoughts there; and denying this Prerogative to the Devil, and consequently his Power of be­ing the immediate Author of bad or evil ones.

Dr. Edwards is now dead and before his Maker, but you are yet alive, and therefore upon you I call, either to vindi­cate or retract your Testimony in this Matter, in as publick a Manner as you have bore it, or to rest under the Charge of being a wilful Deciever.

These few Instances are sufficient to shew the Necessity and Usefulness of observing the above Rule in the present Case, and in­deed in all like Cases of Controversy what­soever. Let no Reader trust the Citations of either Party or Parties concerned; but consult and see them with his own Eyes. For how easy a Matter is it for a dishonest Adversary to mis-represent and abuse the Writings of any Author, specially if gone to rest from his Labours? It is but expos­ing them in Shreds, Scraps, or Sentences de­tached from their Connection, with some few Addition of Words, Glosses, Inuendoes, &c. in order to give a wrong Turn; and [Page 142] the Work is done: By these and like Means, the poor Author is demolished; made to speak the very Reverse of his true Sentiments, the very contrary of what he meant and intended. Let Readers take Care; the best of Writers are not exempt­ed from this Usage. The sacred Pages have not escaped it, at the Hands of Collins, Tin­dal, and other Infidel Writers.

As to the Archbishop's Sentiments of Christianity in general, so charitably repre­sented by Dr. Edwards and your Reverence, as mean and disparaging, and his either giv­ing a very crude Account of Christian Duties, or jumbling them with mere Acts of Morality; I shall only lay before the Reader, the fol­lowing Paragraph from the Bishop of Lon­don's 2d Pastoral Letter, P. 64. 65. 4th Edit. ‘It may not be improper, before I shut up this Head, to observe that several of our most eminent Divines after the Restoration, set themselves both by Preaching and Writing to enlarge upon the Importance of Moral Duties, and to recommend them with great Earnestness to the Regard of the People; to such a Degree, as to stand charg'd by others with too great a Disre­gard of the D [...]ctrines and Duties peculiar [Page 143] to Christianity. Whereas, the Case in reality was this. During the Times of Confusion, many of the Preachers had not only forborn to inculcate the Duties of Morality, but had labour'd to depreciate them; to persuade the People that Faith was All, and Works Nothing. And there­fore the Clergy after the Restoration, in order to take off those unhappy Impres­sions, found themselves obliged to incul­cate with more than ordinary Diligence, the Necessity of moral Duties in the Chris­tain Life, and to labour to restore them to their proper Share in the Christian Scheme. But those of them, who with the honest View I have mention'd, labour'd the most zealously in that Way, were at the same Time as zealous to explain to the People the great Work of our Redemption by Jesus Christ, as the Means of Salvation which God has appointed: (a) The Cor­ruption and Misery into which Mankind was sunk by the Fall of our first Parents; (b) The Necessity of a Mediator to reco­ver them, and restore them to the Favour of God; (c) The Incarnation of [...]he Son of God for that End; (d) The Goodness of God in appointing his own Son to be [Page 144] the Mediator between him and Us;(e) The Comfort of having a Mediator of our own Nature;(f) The Expiation made for Sin by the Suffering of Christ;(g) The Wisdom of God in making Christ a Sacrifice for Sin;(h) The inestimable Value of his Sufferings, for the Redemption of all Mankind;(i) Our Justification by Faith in him,(k) and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and his Intercession for us at God's Right Hand. In general; what can be more express, than the Doctrine laid down by(m) Archbishop Tillotson, concerning our Redemption by Christ, That Men are to place all their Hope and Con­fidence of Salvation in Jesus Christ the Son of God; that is, to believe that through the a­lone Merit of his Death and Sufferings, God is reconciled to us; and that, only upon the Ac­count of the Satisfaction which he hath made to Divine Justice, we are restor'd to the Favour of God, and our Sins are pardon'd to us, and we have a Title to Eternal Life. Not but that there are Conditions on our (a) (b) (c) (d)[Page 145] Part to make us capable of these Benefits, Faith and Repentance, and sincere Obedience, and Holiness of Life, without which we shall never be made Partakers of them; but that the Satisfaction of Christ is the only merito­rious Cause of those Blessings.

I should here put an End to this Trouble, but as your Letter to the Inhabitants of Ma­riland, &c. is annexed to this I have now remark'd upon, I shall take Leave to sub­join a few Remarks on that valuable Per­formance.

In my humble Opinion, Sir, had you caused another Edition to be printed at Phi­ladelphia, of the Bishop of London's Letter to the Masters and Mistresses of Slaves in these Parts, and dispersed the Copies on your Way, as you came through the several Pro­vinces, you had done much more effectual Service, than by the Publication of your own. But if you knew of any such Let­ter of His Lordship's being extant, I suppose you'll plead a special Call for the Publica­tion of your own, and that answers all Ob­jections.

You must inform them (the Inhabitants of Maryland, &c.) you say, In the Meekness and Gentleness of Christ, &c. the Invective [Page 146] is so apparent throughout this notable Epistle, that these can only be taken for some Cant-Terms you accustom yourself to in all your Scriblings. But what is it you Must thus inform them of? Why, that you Think God has a Quarrel with them, &c. Had God sent you charged with this special Message, you might well say, that you MUST inform them of it; but as 'tis only a Matter of your own Thoughts, the Necessity does not so well appear. Your Thoughts in this Case may possibly be idle or ill grounded▪ and so better kept at home. But God you THINK has a Quarrel with them, and for their Abuse of and Cruelty to the poor Negroes. That God will have a Quarrel with any of the Human Race, for their Abuse of and Cruelty to others, is a very just Thought; and sin­ful out of all Doubt it is, for any of those Inhabitants to use their Negroes as bad, nay worse, than as tho' they were Brutes. But pray, Sir, on what Grounds do you bring this Charge against the Generality of those In­habitants who own Negroes, of using them as had, nay worse than as tho' they were Brutes? Do you know this Charge to be just and honest? Or have you sufficient Evidence to support it? No; you only [Page 147] think it to be so, and fear it, and believe it. But on the contrary, I shall presume, and on much better Grounds, to think, fear, and believe, that your Charge is false and inju­rious! and that the very Reverse of it is true, viz. that what particular Exceptions soever there may be as to good Usage of Slaves (as some doubtless there are) yet that the Generality of Owners use their Slaves with all due Humanity, whether in respect of Work, of Food, or Raiment. And therefore I farther think and believe, that the Generality of Owners of Slaves in the respective Colonies, may bring their Actions of Slander against you; and that in a certain Country I know, you would be indicted for meddling, as you have done in this Matter, which may endanger the Peace and Safety of the Community.

Hitherto we have only your Thoughts, your Fears, and your Belief on the Matter; you advance a-pace into positive Assertions. And perhaps, you say, it might be better for the poor Creatures themselves to be hurried out of Life, than to be made so miserable, as they generally are in it. And indeed, con­sidering what Usage they commonly meet with, &c. — I suppress the remainder of this [Page 148] and the next following Paragraph of your Epistle, as judging it both sinful, and dan­gerous to the publick Safety to reprint them. More Virulence and Falsehood cannot be contained in so few Lines. For so far are the generality of Slaves in these Colonies, from being miserable, that I dare confident­ly vouch and affirm, and partly on my own Knowledge, that their Lives in gene­ral are more happy and comfortable in all temporal Respects (the Point of Liberty only excepted) than the Lives of three fourths of the hired farming Servants, and Day Labourers, either in Scotland, Ireland, or even in many Parts of England, who not only labour harder, and fare worse, but have moreover the Care and Concern on their Minds how to provide for their Fa­milies; which Slaves are entirely exemp­ted from, their Children being all provi­ded for at the Owner's Charge.

Now, Sir, if this be really the Case with respect to the generality of Slaves in these Colonies, which can fully be proved it is; what Apology can suffice either for the Matter or Manner of your Letter, specially the two modest Paragraphs above mention­ed? Will you plead Hearsay or Report? [Page 149] Alas, Sir, this Plea will never do! I have heard by Report, of your Abuse and Cruelty to the poor Orphans under your Care, not only in Pinching their Bellies, but giving them up also to Task-Master [...] or Mistresses, who Plow upon their Backs, and make lomg Furrows, in a very inhuman Manner. And would you think it a fair and honest Thing in me, should I, on such Hearsay or Report, print and publish a Let­ter directed to you, pretending a Necessity of informing you, that God had a Quarrel with you, for your Cruelty to the poor Orphans; that perhaps they had better be hurried out of Life, than be made so miserable as they are in it; and that I wondered, they did not either put an End to their own Lives or Yours, rather than bear such Usage: Would you think this, I say, a fair and honest Proceed­ing in me, and not rather foul and injuri­ous, and having no good meaning, either towards yourself or the Orphans? And tho' it came prefaced in the Meekness and Gentleness of Christ, would you not regard it rather as a Burlesque of the Words? No, Sir, I know ther [...] must be a due Discipline, or Rod of Correction exercis'd among Chil­dren; and this may be, and often is misre­presented [Page 150] for Cruelty and bad Usage. I know also, that like Discipline and Correc­tion must be observed among every Parcel of Slaves; and which in like Manner, may be, and often is misrepresented in the same Light: And therefore no such Re­ports, in either Case, can justify a direct Accusation.

As to the little or no proper Care taken by Owners of the Souls of their Slaves, it is too sad a Truth; and I tremble to think, what Account they will give of it at the great Day! A sore Evil indeed! But for which, your Letter, I conceive, will afford but a poor Remedy. I cannot think so ill of any, as you do of most of them, viz. that on Purpose, they keep their Slaves ignorant of Christianity. I believe the Reason of their being so kept, is the want of one certain u­niform Method of teaching them, and which I hope will soon be established with Success. I readily agree, that the Objection to teaching them Christianity, viz. that it would tend to make them less governable, or worse Slaves, is wild and extravagant: But wish you had a little explained, what you mean by the Phrases, Christianizing; and MADE thorough Christians; and the Gospel [Page 151] preach'd with Power; whether by these Phrases you mean Things in the Power of Men? For sure I am, that Paul may plant, and Apollos may water, but God alone can give the Encrease. Men may teach true Chri­stianity, but no Man can MAKE a true Chri­stian.

Your Complement on Pastors and People, and apprehended Difference 'twixt the Im­portation of Rum and Bibles, are no Excep­tions to the usual Stile, Modesty, or Man­ners of your Epistles, and particularly of this under Consideration, which I have now done with, and remain,

Your very humble Servant, Alex. Garden.
[Page 152]

A Short Trip to ROME, OR A DIALOGUE between the famous Roman Casuist Escabar, and a Missionary lately employed.


ALL hail! Father Escabar,


Whence comes my Son


Sir, you know 'tis my hard fate to be lately appointed to propagate our Holy Religion in a C [...]un­try where the darling Idol is Liberty; where Men will take nothing upon Trust, where they hate some of the fundamental Tenets of our Catholick Faith, and as I de­desire faithfully to discharge my Duty; so I want your Assistance to pair off the Roughness of some of those Things, till once we have engaged 'em into our Party, and then there is hope they will be easily reconciled to what seems most severe in our holy Religion.


What in particular thinkest thou deserves my Care?


Why this Doctrine of Infalibiliiy, or implicit Faith in their spiritual Guides, is what they abhor; they read their Bibles, and have learnt to refuse us the Privilege of thinking for them, or explaining the Scrip­tures by our Traditions.

[Page 153]

I have a Remedy provided in this Case that will bring them by degrees to be true Sons of our Church. The greatest Number of People in every Place never think for themselves, but follow the Man they admire. Your Business is to set up for uncommon Degrees of Sanctity, make bold Pretences to Illuminations and the Indwelling of the Spirit, and who can contradict you; Ply these Hereticks with Scripture, fix on that Text the moral Man exerciseth not the Things of the Spirit of God, for they are Foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned; but he that is spi­ritual judgeth all Things, and is judged of none. Insist on it that all who differ from you in their Notions are carnal Men, who never felt the Power of Godliness in their own Souls; produce your own Experiences, as the best Commentaries on the Scriptures, and this will suit your Purpose as well as our Traditions, and will keep Men from explaining any Text contrary to Experiences of the Godly. These Hereticks themselves depend on the Spirit? Take a little Advantage of what is natural to their Tempers to expect, and what there is ground for the Righteous to wait for, turn to mechanick Im­pulses and violent Movings, and this will not fail to suit most Tempers, pretend that the same Spirit who inspired the Apostles is freely bestowed on you, and since natural Men cannot understand the Scriptures; and you have the Spirit in such extraordinary Measure, you may surely claim the Rights to shew them the true Meaning of the Word, and to think for them in religious Matters, and this will effectually wrest the Bible cut of their Hands who think not as you do, nor receive your Doctrine as the true Mind of God. For if any will dare to oppose the Sentiments of such a holy Man, proclaim him an Enemy to God and his Interest, and set the Mobb on him, and it will pass for Merrit to make a Sacrifice of such an Hererick.


But how shall I introduce auricular Confession amongst 'em; for they hate to be under the Jurisdiction of the Clergy, or, in their Language, to be Priest ridden?


Ply 'em with the same Weapons, tell them, The spiritual Man judgeth all Things; tell 'em That you have [Page 154] such Feelings of the Spirit, that by a certain Simpathy, by com­paring your Experiences with theirs, you can know certainly whether they be Christians or not. Thunder 'em out of their Senses with dreadful Sounds; that will do as well with the Ignorant as all the Thunders of the Vatican. And since they themselves confess, there may be Men sound in the Faith, and regular in their Lives, an [...] yet not real Christians. Hence you may easily perswade 'em not to trust their own Judgement or Examination of their State, but to give themselves up to their spiritual Guides, who can clearly see thro' 'em, and learn from their Confession how Matters are between God and their Souls. And since none but real Christians, as they all grant, have a Right to sealing Ordinances, here is their Hold; shew 'em the Danger of Partaking if they are not Christians; insist that they confess their Cases, under a Pretence of Reciting their Experiences, 'till you school and accustom 'em to confess themselves to you upon all Occasions; and as you know they cannot tell their Ex­periences without mixing amongst them some of their Relapses and Miscarriages, this will bring them by De­grees to lay their Sins before you, and introduce Confes­sions of all Sorts, and gently bring them home to our holy Mother.


But their Teachers will prevent this, and we shall labour in vain, unless we can spoil their Credit, and bring the People to believe that the Blessing depends o [...] the Intention of the Preacher.


That's too bold a stroak all at once▪ but act your Part nicely, and the Thing will be manag'd, you must, as I said, make very great Pretences to the Spirit, and endeavour for a while to live stricter than their Teach­ers, and these Things in any Man, especially a Stranger, never fail to gain the good Opinions and Admiration of the Multitude, proclaim their Teachers Carnal Men, Enemies to God, and strangers to those Christian Experi­ences which you have, and by consequence unfitt for their Office, and unable to direct Men in their great Concerns and then the more they oppose you, the more family will People believe your Report; because they will imagine you see further than they do, and are [Page 155] able and ready to discover such Hypocrites; by this means you will bring them to confine the Blessings of God on his Ordinances to the Piety of Men, and having once got it, thus restrained to the Piety: The next re­move will be to the Intentions of the Spiritual Guides, and if once you can bring them to believe that their Salvation or Damnation is so much in their Power, and depending on your Intentions, your point is fully gained.


But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to the Carnal reason of those Hereticks, that I dispair to introduce it amongst them without your Assistance.


Courage my Son, cride quod habes & habes. Believe that you are able to do Wonders, and you shall succeede, if you can bring them to renounce Reason and depend on their Spiritual Guides. What difficulty can there be in this? You know that the Plan is laid to wrest the BIBLE out of their Hands, by giving it up to your pious Explications, and you know that in Scrip­ture it is said that Christ is form'd in believers: By Christ in this Place tell them (Vol. 2. P 33.) that they are to understand the Man Christ, or the human Nature of our bles­sed Lord; and if the Man Christ or his human Nature is form'd in every true believer, what a vast Number of human Bodies must be all in different Places; at the same Time that his individual Body is in Heaven? And what is still more surprizing, The Man Christ must be in another Man, or two different Bodies be in one and the same Place at one and the same Time without just [...]ing one another, and without altering the external visible, bodily appearance in the least, that the Person had before the Man Christ was formed in him; and when this Doctrine is swallow'd, which I promise you many will do very readily; how easily may you again bring them to be­lieve, that the Body of Christ may be in Heaven, and in a Thousand consecrated Wafers at the same Time, without altering their outward Appearance? If it be reasonable to believe that the Man Christ [...]r his Body is in the Believer, when he tells us that he is form'd in the Believer, is there not as good ground to conclude, that it is in the consecrated Wafer, when he says this is my Body? If it be possible that the Man Christ Jesus is [Page 156] now exalted in Heaven, and at the same Time is in Thousands of Believers. Why is it not as easily to con­cieve, that he is at once in Heaven and in Thousands of consecrated Wafers? But you may possibly think that it will star [...]e the People to imagine that the Priest by repeating a few Words can convert a piece of Bread in­to the Body of his Redeemer; no my Son, there's no ground for such fears, you may easily bring them to so strong a Faith as to swallow all you Teach them, with­out ever examining it by saying with bold Assurance you speak the Truth in Christ, and Lie not: But to make the Thing take more readily, I have a Salve to Cure all. Tell them with a Holy Grimace that the Words which in the other Sacrament, we Translate Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, may as well be render'd, Baptizing them into the Nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And upon this turn given to the Text, which none must venture to Question, there is a suffici­ent Foundation laid for this Power which we Claim, and it will effectually support the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation: For if the Priest by Baptism may change Men who are by Nature half Beasts and half Devils, into the Nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, certainly he may with as much ease by repeating the Words of the Institution in the Lords Supper change a bit of Bread, which is not near so bad as a Devil or a Beast into the real Body and Blood of Christ; if the one change can be made in Baptism; why not the other in the Lords Sup­per? 'Tis as easy to change a Wafer into Christs Body, as a Man into a God, and he that believes the last, will soon be brought to swollow the first.


But how shall I introduce Monks, Fryers, Abbots, and all the lay Brotherhood, when they have been long since exploded, who are so very usefull to promote our Designs and raise Divisions.


Very easy my Son, persuade them, that the weak­est, most ignorant Person is a true Christian, has a better acqu [...]intance with the Christian Religion, than the grea­test Letter learned Rabbi amongst them, and whenever you find any pragmatical Fellow, that has impudence and self-conciet enough to be a Fool, and industry e­nough [Page 157] to serve your turn, Teach him his Lesson, per­suade him to dispise an orderly call to the Ministry, as only the call of Men, and to follow the inward call of the Spirit, going about doing good to Souls, tell them, that Learning sig­nifies nothing; and that the Spirit which is now promis'd to all Believers, as well as it was in the Apostles Days, will guide them to a clear infallible experimental Explanation of all the difficult Passages in the Old and New Testament; prompt the Sighing Sisters, not to bury their Talents, but employ their Tongues: And thus you may send Hundreds on your Errands without knowing whose Interest they serve: And if the designed Revolution can be accom­plished, they will every skin of them serve for Monks, Fryers and Nuns; and if we fail of Success our Holy Fathers will cannonize all of them, that deserve our Notice, for Saints under the pious Names of Monks and Confessors, 50 Years after their Death, or as soon as they are purified from their Heresy, in the sacred Flames of Purgatory.


But their Teachers are all or most of them inclined to Marry, therefore please to propose a method to oblige the Clergy to live single.


My Son you must set a good Example your­self obstinately refuse to alter your Condition, and I allow you always the priviledge to carry about with you some pious Ladies for the good of their Souls; but if our Scheme takes, and you succeed in the other Things proposed, you shall introduce this of Course. At present you need do no more then to plead, that it is the indisputable Priviledge of every Christian to hear the Minister he reaps most benefit by; and of consequence the Mi­nisters will be obliged to Preach where they can do most good, and get most hearers; which will prove so inconvenient to those who have Families and lay them under such hardships and uncomfortable tossings to and fro, as will effectually discourage all the gifted Brethren that are single, from ever thinking to alter their single State, unless they be Fools or Madmen.


But how shall I introduce Pennance 'tis a Doct­rine. So contrary to Flesh and Blood, that these carnal Herriticks, will scarce [...]ver be brought to embrace it

[Page 158]

This may easily be done, for Men have naturally a desire to make some expiation for their crimes and what can they think will better or more easily recom­mend 'em to the favour of God, then some gentle Auste­rities, you know the Scheme you go upon excludes re­pentance and good Works▪ instead of these insist upon The necessity of Strong Convictions, a high degree of Law work, in all attended with bodily convulsions; much Crying and pub­lick Lamentations persuade 'em they must go thro' all these before they are fit for the grace of God; and when this pious Fraud of Michanical Conversion has taken place they will be content to be brought to it by undergoing any outward Labour and fatigue, by joining in a Cho­rus of Mourners, undertaking Pilgrimage, and enduring Scourgings and which is still better parting with their Pence for the pious use of the kind instruments, who have freely bestow'd their Labour to bring 'em to so hopefull a Pass.


One thing more, Father Escaber, and I have done for this seems to Crown all and compleat our Work.


Speak on my Son,


There will always be some bold inquirers who will not submit to our Doctrines and may Spoil all; and you know these Heriticks will not be brought to use proper Severity's against those who are out of the Pale, and may prevent others from coming in; for they keep Faith with those that differ from 'em, and allow Civil priviledges to such as are not of the same Faith with themselves.


This Doctrine of cutting off Heriticks must be a little pair'd to suite their Palates for a while but take Courage, the thing may be accomplish'd, all Men are (as themselves confess) while in a State of nature, the Chil­dren of wrath; upon this priviledge then, that you can judge their State, and know who are, and who are not, the Dear Children of God, you may plausibly advise all that are Holy in your Eyes to refuse to converse with such as you see fit, to pronounce Children and Emissaries of the Devil, & would hinder the good Works you are employed in, and this will unavoidablie beget Shyness des [...]ike Ill-Na­ture and an unfriendly unsociable temper for when Men [Page 159] are once brought to look on their Neighbours as Heirs of Hell and inca [...]nate Devils (and this you must imprint dee­ply on their minds) they will soon think no treatment too bad for; and so by an insensible Gradation. Fines Im­presonment. Loss of Civil Rights may fire a [...]d Fagot a [...]d the most wholesome Severities, will be introduced [...]o Cur [...] the insolence of these bold inquirors who dare scruple to re­ceive our dictates and will not submit to our Holy Catholick Faith.


Well Father Escabar, I will carefully endeavour to observe these Directions, and what other instructions you shall be pleased to send by the Secret conveyances agreed on, for my Conduct amongst the Heriticks to whom I am sent,


According to the Accounts of your Success, my Son, you shall be supported and directed; you may some­time for a blind rail a little against Mother Rome, but let all your Lo [...]d aproaches fall upon the Church of Eng­land, lift up your voice like a Trumpet against her, and every one of her ablest Rabbies, whether Living or Dead; but by all means avoid entering into Arguments with them, your Talent lies not that way, call them Car [...]a [...] unregene­rated Men, Strangers to the Spirit, Life and Power of true Godliness and Solemnly declare, that you never intend to Rea­son with such. Court the Favours of all Parties, especi­ally their Teachers, but when you find Men of Letters amongst them, loudly proclaim them unregenerated and Carnal Men. And seriously advise their Hearers to join themselves to Congregations who are happy, and believe under the Inspection of the most ignorant and stupid holders forth, whom you must cry up for Spirit­ual, at least seemingly Spiritual Men; they will be e­lated and proud of such a Character, and in return will publish your Praises, and publickly Pray for your Success, that you may go on Conquering and to Conquer, besides having neither Capacity nor Ability, when you drop the Mark they will be an easy Prey, and will naturally fall into our Scheme, as it happens some important Affairs laid before the Congregation de propaganda demand my im­mediate [Page 160] Attendance. The Prayers of Mother Church▪ for your Success shall be offered up to the Blessed Virgin, to St. Anthony, and all the Saints, and may the blessing of our Holy Father who has employ'd thee, be with thee.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.