The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of Perfection.
ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers, together with their miserable defence thereof: We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof, trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay, in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles.
The first of which shall be that of Perfection▪
The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point, is, In whom this pure & holy birth is fully brought forth, the Body of death, and sin, cometh to be crucified, and removed, and their hearts united, and subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any Suggestions, or Temptations of the evil one, to be free from actual sinning, and Transgressing of the Law of God, and in that respect, perfect, Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth. And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning; where the mind doeth not most diligently, and watchfully attend unto the Lord.
These are the words of his eight These; And afterward he sayeth, that, there may be a State in this Life, in which a Man cannot sin, it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness.
Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine, which is our main purpose. Having vind: Sect: 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing, and in rejecting his own Brethrens books; such as Sauls errand to Damascus. In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl: pag 30. I say, rejecting these, or denying that they have said them (for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things, although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page, where they are;) In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly, by saying, that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life, is understood a change in the whole man, so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God, though in a small degree, yet that he may seem to say somewhat, he enquireth, How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought, word, & deed? In answer to which question, it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory: Seing he may know if he will, that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees, as well as parts, and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God, and consequently a sin, to be deficient in the one, as well as in the other. And whereas he enquireth; if to break Gods Commands dayly, in thought, word, and deed, be the way to grow in grace? To put off the Old Man, and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom. viz. maliciously to calumniate. For who said such a thing? Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this? We shall attend his proofs of it. Which untill we hear, we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies. For though we say according to the Scripture, that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death, which defileth all their actions: Yet where did any of the reformed teach, that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace, as this Man insinuateth they do? What kind of light is this he has, that teacheth him such a facultie of lying?
He goeth on saying, but he addeth that this perfection, rendereth gospel commands useless, but are the Commands useless, if men obey them? But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law, as the Quakers say, many may be, has no more use of the Law, or need of it to learn any thing from it, in order to the obedience thereof. And where is his vain subter…uge now? But that he may yet. further contradict himself and his Brethren; He sayeth, He has shewn in his Apology, that all have▪ need to repent, and pray for forgiveness. For if some be equal with God, above the breach of the Commands, want a bodie of death: The most that they have to do, is to give thanks, and not to pray, or repent. For I think he will not say, that they pray, or repent which are in heaven. These duties presupponing sorrow, of which they are incapable, And far lesse (Horresco referens) these that are equals with God.
In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride, and security he sayeth, but where freedom from sin is, where can Pride and Security have place? Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3, 27, as to this Argument. For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works. It might then have been as well replyed? If a man be perfectly Just, and so without sin, how can he incur the fault of boasting? 2. How will he shew, but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake, as if they were secure from sinning, when indeed they are not? Whereas he sayeth, that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life, the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others, because they afford more matter, to exercise Repentance, and prayer for forgiveness of God: We only refer him to Rom: 3.8. where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer. And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus. And why? Because, sayes he, they must be made useful in breaking the Commands, in thought, word, and deed. His reason is a Calumnie, if it have sense at all. What Ordinance teacheth, which we maintain, that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God, that the Ordinances may be the more use…l to us? If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two, and three, are not five. But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of, so long as she is militant.
He goeth on, to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat, could sin at all, but would be beyond the possibility of it. Which inference is very clear, for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9. He that is born of God, doeth not commit sin. Which place they abuse, taking it without restriction; not attending to the context, speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin, and of a commission of it from Malice, like the devil, and the wicked, his Children. Which absurdity, that he may evite: He assureth, that a man is not regene▪ rat, and born again at once, or at one instant of time. His ground of which we shall now examine. And it is those two places of Scripture, viz. Phil. 1.6. He which hath begun a good work &c. Gal. 5.7. Ye did run well, &c. Now these Scriptures say nothing for him. For the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus, when this Epistle was writ, V 1. Now I think, none can deny that such are born of God. For the other Place it saith as little for him, except for it he would infer the Saints falling away, which is false.
Next that the new Birth of Regeneration, as such doeth not admit of degrees, but that every one of the Children of God are really converted, or born again; so that of the Children of …rath, they become the Children of God, at one time, or Instant is clear. For as soon as a man hath true Faith, he becometh a Child of God. But that all that belongeth to the Essence of true Faith is infus…d in the Soul at once, (although some legal work in order to it necessarily preceed) I think none will deny. And the manifold Examples in Scripture, shewing that men in a most short time, were made to turn from Satan to God, prove it. I would fain know if the Thief on the Crosse, and Jailor were not born again? And if they were not perfectly born again? But to speak of any imperfection in his new Birth as such, that is to say, that one may be brought from Nature to Grace, and yet but half born again, or not fully born again; Because he hath not attained unto the ful measure of Grace which is attainable, is no less absurd than to say, that one is not …ully born, because he is but a little Child. Now this Absurdity is not a little removed, because what ever they can say, the like reason holdeth for the one, as well as for the other. These to whom the Apostle writeth, were perfectly born of God, and yet there were some little Children among them; 1 Ioh. 2.12. Now they were perfectly born; Because they had the Seed of God, or the Vnction chap 2.27. which is all one with the Seed. Now the abiding of the Seed, is given as a reason of the perfection of the New-birth, so that they cannot sin. Ergo: If little Children; as well as Fathers, had this unction, or Seed abiding in them, they had this New-birth in the highest perfection pleaded for by Quakers. 3 The Apostle, 1 Ioh 3.9. speaketh without distinction, (Whosoever &c.) and so taketh away the elusion of our Adversaries.
Next, he thinketh here to free himself of Pelagianism, of which he was proved to be guilty, by saying he alwayes denyed that men might keep the Commands by the power of nature, which groundless shi…t is overthrown above. chap 2. He al…ledgeth also, that because the Fathers say, That none by the strength of Grace did live all their days without sin; and the perfection ascribed to some in Scripture, was not from nature, but from grace, therefore they thought men might be free from sin by Grace. What miserable manking and clipping is this? Is it not added in the very following words immediatly? That none attained that measure of holiness in this life, that he could live any long time without sin, and that this perfection was not full, and absolute, but which might encrease, and was mixed with evil deeds, so was a perfection of parts only, not of degrees. These are the very words of the Antithesis of the Orthodox, in opposition to the Pelagians. Vos. Hist. Pel. Par. Prim: Thes, 1. pag 146. Now I would desire any to shew me, what this Doctrine differeth from that which the reformed Churches hold? Let the Reader see Mr. Broun himself pag 333, N 12, 13, where he may see this matter handled at large. I add these words of Orosius Apol. Cont: Pel: I do not undertake, I presume not, I dare not say that I shall be without sin, … long as I shall be in this Corruption, which we have. And again, The man that can be without sin is Christ. He saith here, that what his Adversary addeth of the Fathers arguments against Pelagians, and Socinians It is not his work to meddle with, or to heed what these Sects say. But it is not best to do so. For in so doing, he should fight against himself. For they must divide him from himself▪ that divide him either from a Pelagian, or a Socinian. I was about to admonish the Reader, to read especially this fourteenth chapter of Mr. Broun's Book: But I need not, seing he granteth all we plead for, by saying on the matter, he doth not care though he be proved a Pelagian, and a Socinian. And whereas he sayeth, he considereth the matter as proposed in Scripture. The only way to know the truth of this, is to examine his Doctrine, which we have done in part. And through the Lords assistance, shall yet further do it. We value not his Recriminations, which he hath here, but nameth none, since nothing that he can say can be of weight against us: As these Charges of Pelagianism, and Socinianism are against him, except he bring the fathers as much fighting against the Doctrine of the reformed churches, and the reformed Churches against their Doctrine; as these fight against him, and his Brethren.
Again he cometh to the Vindication of his Arguments, which are answered by his Adversary pag 337 N, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. And for urging of the first, which was, That this Doctrine is against the wisdom of God, he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of God, whereby they may be free from all sin, if they use them well. This I say he insinuateth, for here he mumbleth as one in a confused haste: But this is with as great facility denyed, as any thing he hath hitherto said; For we assert, that it is the will of God, that perfect freedom from sin, be a property of the Church Triumphant only. And for probation of our assertion, it is enough to challenge him to give any example of one, thus freed from sin in the world, except Christ Jesus, who never had it, but by imputation. To me his following words are nonsense. He would fain insist over his Adversary, because he sayeth pag. 339. N 19. That the heart, & the renewed part of the man being for God and God only, and directly against Satan, and all his wayes, doings, and designs, there is no formal service performed unto Satan, Saying, That then there is some material service performed to the devil. But this objection militateth as much against the Apostle, saying, Rom. 7, That with his flesh he served the Law of sin. Which I think the Quakers will hardly distinguish from the Law of Satan▪ 2. If this instance do any thing, it will overdo. For it tendeth to prove that no Action of any that have gotten saith, though in the least degree, can be at all tainted with sin. We mean their gracious Actions: He is angry because his Adversary saith; that it is the will of God, that his people be under a warfare so long as they are here, saying, But … it the will of God, that they alwayes be overcome… Seing if their Actions still be stained with sin, … that they may be called service to Satan, they cannot but be said to be overcome. Ans. They are not alwayes overcome. Because sometimes the man as Spiritual, prevaileth against himself as carnal. And alwayes overcometh at length, and at the end of the War, though oftentimes foiled in particular Battels. The none consideration of which distinction, is the ground of this Cavil, his following words stand, and fall with this Doctrine of Original sin, and universal Grace, according to his own confession, we shall therefore passe them.
Pag. 123▪ He repeateth his Argument, which is that our Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ. But he forgetteth to shew how. Only he sayeth in opposition to his Adversary, saying, that the Guilt of sin by by this Sacrifice, is taken away: And also he taketh away the stain thereof piece and piece, till in end he give full Victory. They refer that to another Life. The Question is concerning this.
Ans. If he were minded to make a Difference betwixt Heaven, and Earth, he had not made a Question about full Victory in this life. 2. How profane a Heart must he have, that counteth all the attainments of a Child of God in this Life, as good as nothing: For notwithstanding of them all, he will still have the Sacrifice of Christ to be useless, except a man in this Life, become as sinless as an Angel. He was concerned to have proved this, otherwise not belied the World, by giving out that he had fully answered his Adversary. But especially he lieth here, in that he sayeth he hath fully answered his eight Chapter. In which of all places, he most failed. Of which I shal give the Reader a touch in my Appendix. And may be more fully seen by these who compare the Books themselves. He will not be content, that his Adversary sayeth, that the godly, and the wicked differ; In that the one sinneth with full Purpose of Heart, and the other, viz. the godly mourneth over, and repenteth of his sin, and shortcomings, but sayeth, seing he supposeth the godly to remain in sin, all their lifetime the similitude remaineth. Ans. And is it so? that there is no difference in sinning, between him that sinneth through Malice, and him that sinneth through Infirmity, let him prove this. For until he do it, we account it an abominable Assertion. For the Scripture maketh a clear difference, between the shortcomings of the godly, and wicked departing from God. And is it no difference, that the one repenteth, and the other not?
Next he mentioneth another of his Apologetick Arguments viz. that our Doctrine in this Point, maketh the Ministry uselesse. But in stead of urging, what his Adversary answered, which was, that upon this very head the Necessity of a Ministry appeareth. 2. That it cannot be proved, that this ultimat end of the Ministry mentioned Eph. 4, 13. is attained here, and 3. That there is a Perfection of Parts and another of Degrees. I say in stead of urging of all this, he only sayeth, "but the Question is, whether, or not that perfection is attainable here? Ans. He ought to urge his Argument: And not propone Questions, seing he knoweth well enough that his Adversary, as alwayes, so here denyeth that a sinless perfection is attainable in this life. Now let him prove this from the place, and he may be considered. But in stead of this, for as short as his Book is, he must make a Digression to tell us, that though Christ was sinlesse, yet he admitted of grouth, which is nothing to the purpose, seing Christ is not said to grow in the Love of God, and such moral Perfections, about which the Question is; but only in that kind of Knowledge, the pura nescientia, or want of which, is no sin, or culpable Ignorance.
Next he sayeth it will not follow from Col. 4.12 and 1 Thes. 3, 12. that it is impossible that men should be free of sin here, by the Grace of God. These were the Places, from which he deduced an Argument, for sinless perfection in his Apology. And now being answered, he thinks it enough for urging of them, to bid us prove the contrary, from the same places. Judge Reader, if this man be not pithy. And yet he hath all the pith, that Socinus, and Crellius had, from whom he learned the Argument.
His following Quibles are already answered. Only I must take notice that in this pag. 129. he enquireth, How these can be said, to have renounced the Works of darkness, who have need to be washed from their dayly Defilements? Ans. Let him read the 12, and 13. of Zechariah, and there he may find that these two are consistent. And as for his (how's) seing he will not see from the Scripture, they ought to have no other Answer. And whereas he venteth his Malice here in special, against the Presbyterians, we expect no o…her thing at his hand. For we know though Q…kers, and Jesuits have an inveterat Hatred against all Protestants: Yet in a special Manner thei… hate burneth against Presbyterians, knowing that these are furthest off from the Church of Rome.
Some oth…rs of his Apologetick Arguments he mentioneth, in the following page, but doth not so much, as attempt to urge them.
Next the Examples of Enoch, and Noah, he also …entioneth, and again taketh his old Shift viz. the Defendents part; …aying, how can we prove tha… they were never without sin? whileas affirmanti incumbit probatio. He doth not deny but they had once sin. Now, seing he asserteth that at another time they were free of it altogether, he ought to prove it: And that by another Argument, than saying If they had not been altogether free of sin, they would not have been called perfect. Seing that perfection is variously taken in Scripture, and not only for being free of sin, as himself confessed above; seing he did not contradict what his Adversary said, about the Diversity of the Signification of the Word.
He cometh in the next place to remove our Arguments. The first of them is drawn from 1 Joh. 2.8. If we say we have no sin &c. and here he sayeth first, that this will no more prove, that the Apostle Iohn himself sinned dayly, than what is said Iames 3.9.10. can be affirmed of the Apostle Iames himself. Ans. There is no parity. For James speaketh of grosse outbreakings, from which the L…rds People are ordinarly kept. But here the Apostle speaketh simply of the Nature of sin. 2. Certain it is, that the Apostle John, even in his best frame, had sinful Actions, and his own Errors. Which none will deny that readeth Rev. 19.10, 11, and 22, 8, 9. and I think no Quaker will deny that John was perfectly born again if any ever was. Now let them quible what they will, these two Texts are enough to refu…e them. He alledgeth next, that his Adversary only proveth from this place, that men may sin in the present time, not that they do really and actually sin in the present time. Which is false. For he from the Context fully refuteth the Socinian Cavil, see among other places; v. 9. he den…eth here that the Seed of sin, maketh its Subject sinful. But we know no Seed of Sin, but that which is really Sin, neither doth the Scripture make any Mention of it. But this Doctrine is all one with the popish Doctrine of Concupiscence mutato nomine.
He alledgeth pag. 126. That it will not follow from Eccles. 7.20. That men sin dayly, or that all their Actions are imperfect through sinning. But he forgetteth to apply that Law to himself, which he would impose upon others. For though the Text speaketh absolutly, without exception: yet he will not give a Reason of a Restriction. And here again he talketh of his absolute Regeneration. But to as little purpose as before. He leaveth the Consideration of the Hebrew Text, which he thought made for him, to the Reader, therefore I considered it, and found it in the Indicative mood. And consequently nothing for him.
He cometh next to vindicate the meaning of the Socinians and Quakers of Rom. 7, 17, which is, that the Apostle there speaketh of another, in his own person. But he passeth all his Adversaries Reasons of our Meaning, with one blunt scoffe, saying he giveth us a Preachment. Which effrontedness I Judge can hardly be parallelled. Next he sayeth, except he prove that Paul was a Carnal man; in respect of sinning at that time, he sayeth nothing. But his Adversary hath done it, from this present Text already, so that he durst not so much as present one of his Reasons, to his Reader, though never so manked, and clipped (as his Custom is) but thought it safest, to pass by them whole sale: Otherwise perhaps some of the Vulgar Quakers, who deluded by this Emissary of the Jesuits, might have seen how absurd their Rabbies are in explication of the Scripture, and so looked about them; before they had been further involved. 2. All this effronted, and false dealing will not do the turn; For the Reason why they reject such a plain meaning of the words, and admit such a strange figurative meaning. The reason I say, moving them to this, is because they think the Apostle Paul was above sinning, and that they may have him to be an Example of sinless perfection, but this helpeth him not a whit, For the Apostle Iohn, was one of the chief Apostles, as well as Paul, and yet his sinning in his choicest Frame, and under the greatest outlettings of Grace, is so manifest, that all the Sophistry of Satan hath not yet invented a Shift, for the Elusion thereof. The like may be said of Peter. Gal. 2. and many others which we passe.
Next he cometh to answer Mr. Browns Argument which is this.
If we find no instances in Scripture of such Persons, as were so perfect, as that they did not sin, then to imagine such a Perfection, is but a groundless fancy, and dream.
But the Former is true.
The Consequence he denyeth. And consequently he denyeth that we ought to walk according to the guidance of the Scripture. And where is his holding by the Scriptures now, which we lately heard of? Let Quakers therefore no more cheat the World, with saying, that they walk according to the Scriptures, while with open face they assert, that they ought not to be a guide to us, or that we ought to believe points of Faith not contained there. 2. He sayeth that the Argument concludeth not in the Terms of the Question. But the Conclusion is, that such a Perfection, as the Quakers maintain, is but a fancy, and a Dream. And if he will admit this, we are agreed. And if he will not, he must deny some of the proposition…. Neither let him object to me, that this is not the Argument; which he answered unto (for the Argument was proponed three different wayes, the first of which he choosed to answer unto,) For either it is it, or another; if it be it, it is well: the same Argument then is now urged, if it be not it, then let him confesse he skipt over, that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the jugular Vein.