But is this done? Do all your members adorn the gospel? Are they all _holy as he which hath called us is holy_? I fear not. I have known some instances to the contrary; and doubtless you know many more. There are unholy, outwardly unholy men, in _your_ congregations also: men that prophane either the name or the day of the Lord; that do not honour their natural or civil parents; that know not how to possess their bodies in sanctification and honour; that are intemperate, either in meat or drink, gluttonous, sensual, luxurious; that variously offend against justice, mercy or truth, in their intercourse with their neighbour, and do not walk by that _royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself_.
But how is this consistent with your leading principle, “That no man ought to be admitted to baptism, till he has that repentance whereby we forsake sin, and living faith in God, through Christ?”
For if no man ought to be admitted into a church or congregation, who has not actual faith and repentance, then neither ought any who has them not, to continue in any congregation. And consequently an open sinner cannot remain among you, unless you practically renounce your main principle.
4. I refer it to your own serious consideration, whether one reason, why unholy men are still suffered to remain among you, may not be this; that many of you have unawares put _opinion_ in the room of _faith_ and _repentance_? But how fatal a mistake is this? Supposing your opinion to be true, yet a _true opinion_ concerning _repentance_ is wholly different from the thing itself. And you may have a _true opinion_ concerning _faith_ all your life and yet die an unbeliever.
Supposing therefore the _opinion_ of _particular redemption_ true, yet how little does it avail toward salvation? Nay, were we to suppose, that _none can be saved_ who do not hold it, it does not follow, that _all will be saved_ who do. So that if the one proved a man to be in ever so _bad a state_, the other would not prove him to be _in a good one_. And consequently, whosoever leans on this opinion, _leans on the staff of a broken reed_.
Would to God that ye would mind this one thing, To _make your own calling and election sure_! That every one of you (leaving the rest of the world to him that made it) would himself _repent and believe the gospel_! Not repent alone (for then you know only the baptism of _John_) but believe and be _baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire_. Are you still a stranger to that inward baptism, wherewith all true believers are baptized? May the Lord constrain you to cry out, _How am I straitened till it be accomplished_! Even till the love of God inflame your heart, and consume all your vile affections. Be not content with any thing less than this! It is this loving faith alone which opens our way into _the general church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven_! Which giveth us to _enter within the veil, where_ Jesus _our fore-runner is gone before us_!
5. There is a still wider difference in _some_ points, between us and the people usually termed _Quakers_. But not in _these_ points. You, as well as we, condemn _all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men_; all those _works_ of the devil which were recited above, and all those _tempers_ from which they spring.
You ♦agree, That we are all to be _taught of_ God; and to be _led by his Spirit_: that the Spirit alone _reveals_ all truth, and _inspires_ all holiness: that by his inspiration men attain _perfect love_, the love which _purifies them as he is pure_: and that through this knowledge and love of God, they have power to _do always such things as please him_; to worship God, a Spirit, according to his own will, that is, _in spirit and in truth_.
♦ “argree” replaced with “agree” per Errata
Hence you infer, That _formal worship_ is not acceptable to God, but that alone that springs from God in the heart: you infer also, that they who are led by him, will use great _plainness of speech_, and great _plainness of dress_, seeking no _outward adorning_, but _only the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit_.
I will look no farther now, than simply to ♦enquire, Whether you are consistent with these principles?
♦ “equire” replaced with “enquire” per Errata
To begin with the latter: “He that is led by the Spirit will use great plainness of speech.”
* _You_ would have said, “will use the plain language.” But that term leads you into a grand mistake. That term, “_the_ plain language,” naturally leads you to think of _one particular_ way of speaking; as if _plainness of speech_ implied no more, than the use of that _particular form_.
* Alas! my brethren! Know ye not, that your ancestors designed this, only as a _specimen_ of _plain language_? And is it possible that you should mistake the sample for the whole bale of cloth?