Dominium Nobilium whereby they have jus praecedentiae a right of precedency and Locus potior decernendi and other things of like nature Therefore they have Ornaments allotted to them which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Titles to adorn them whih are no other than certain marks of their civil valuation For it is past dispute that as some Men are of much more value to the publick than others viz. Able Commanders Iudges c. So publick Governors have power to determine the rates both of Men and Things and to signifie the value they set upon one Man above another by giving him a higher place and a title Ninthly These priviledges being propagated to posterity and made hereditary for Patrum conditionem liberi sequuntur as the Law speaks make different Families in respect of superiority and inferiority These advancements descending to their Children being encouragements to civil vertues and great actions And 't is hard to conceive how these things can be otherwise in this World without danger to that order which is necessary to the subsistence of each civil Society These things and the like must necessarily distinguish persons into several ranks and classes as Servius Tullius distributed the Roman Citizens and this the Scripture freely acknowledges for we read also of Nobles Exod. 24. 11. Ier. 27. 20. and the Sons of Nobles Eccl. 10. 17. The Title of Honourable Isa. 3. 3 5. Mar. 15. 43. Acts 13. 50. and 17. 12. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Scriptures express men of worth was used by the Greeks as a Title to salute a Gentleman For seeing there are different ranks of Men downwards from the King to the Peasant therefore as you see it is agreeable to holy Scripture so all sober men will acknowledge it is agreeable to Reason also to give to each rank such distinct Titles as are proper to express that difference And with what reverence and outward civil respects the Primitive Christians behaved themselves to their Governors may be seen in Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. And what is any where said that true piety is the Fountain of Honour or the like is meant in a Religious sense and concerns the inward man and is not at all intended to exclude those civil distinctions among men in reference to their outward capacities To suppose otherwise were very ridiculous Par. The case is still clearer to me and you have made T. E's way of reasoning appear sufficiently absur'd Min. I shall make it more apparent before I have done by giving you a List both of his Absurdities and Self-contradictions contained in this one Paragraph we are now upon First Absurdity in implying that Christ's death put an end to his Moral documents this of Luk. 14. 10. being one 2 Absur that all Political Government is now at an end and God's People must be now no more an outward National people 3 Absur In making the use of the Sword unlawful now in the time of Reformation in contradiction to Rom. 13. 4. where 't is said that the Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain hereby condemning two good Centurions him in Mat. 8. 9 10. and Cornelius Acts 10. 1 2. who was after Christ's death By this Rule neither forreign invasions nor intestine Rebellions must be opposed nor prevented by any outward means But we have no reason to trust the Quaker here seeing divers of his Brethren bore Arms and Offices in the late Army yet at the same time professed Quakerism and I can name the persons were there occasion for it 4 Absur In going about to prove outward things connived at by Christ and indulged to the Jews for the hardness of their hearts by that very Text in Mat. 19. 8. which is an express and plain instance of his forbidding and reforming those arbitrary divorces which Moses suffer'd 5 Absur in saying in such general terms that the State of the Church in Christ's time was Outward and Worship Outward and in that notion afterwards to vanish as if after Christ's death the Church were not to retain any Outward State or Outward Worship And consequently that all vocal Prayers all gestures of Devotion all Outward Ordinances yea the very notion and being of the visible Church must vanish together 6 Absur in making no difference at all between the State of the Church under Christ's time and under Moses's contrary to these Scriptures Heb. 1. 1. and 2. 1 2 3. and 3. 1 7. making the Doctrine of Christ no Gospel Ellwood's self-contradictions in this passage are these 1 Contrad His putting Outward Respects among those things which he says were indulged by our Saviour to continue till the Reformation and yet venturing to contradict himself in the exposition he gives of Mat. 23. 10. wherein he affirms that civil titles are there forbidden 2 Contrad His saying Outward honour went off after the death of Christ in contradiction to his own acknowledgment of the Epithet as he will have it of Most Noble given by St. Paul to Festus who being a Heathen had no Christian vertue to qualifie him for it according to the Quakers principles 3 Contrad His putting Outward respects among other things that were to cease at the time of Reformation in contradiction to what himself had implicitly yielded concerning the lawfulness of salutation p. 32. which is an outward civil respect Par. But T. E. has another distinction and bids his Readers consider to whom this in Luk. 14. 10. was spoken They were Pharisees of whom T. E. says there were several ranks and degrees there were chief Pharisees and inferiour Pharisees and they took place one of another c. Nay there were seven ranks among them as Goodwin tells us c. p. 40. Min. The Quaker is out again Where did he ever read of inferiour Pharisees Indeed in ver 1. it 's said one of the chief Pharisees but in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies one of the Sanhedrim as appears from Luk. 24. 20. Io. 3. 1. Acts 3. 17. For though Goodwin tells him that there were seven ranks among the Pharisees he do's not tell him that they took place of one another by virtue of higher or lower ranks for there was no such matter one Rank looking on themselves to be as good as another Hence the learned Scultetus saith Pharisaeorum septem non classes aut ordines sed genera fuisse liquet And we may note by the way that they who go about to explain Scripture upon pretence of their having the Spirit do if they want the ordinary means viz. Learning sanctified by the Spirit soon baffle themselves and demonstrate they have no true Spirit in them Par. But what was that to his Disciples says he He puts them in mind of their Equality p. 41. Min. Was there ever so gross an absurdity As if the Saviour of the World who came to Disciple all mankind should allow that to one sort of Men and prohibit the same thing
Holy Law now incur His displeasure deserve His wrath and need His pardon for Man's present inability to keep the Law in the rigour of it do's by no means excuse him of his duty to keep the whole Law because his weakness is the effect of his own sin and fall and he is accountable for it Thirdly The Perfection of Practice in avoiding all evil and performing every Duty which God requires ought to be endeavour'd after yet such an Absolute sinless Perfection in the whole course of our lives is not attain'd in this life nor was it ever actually attain'd by any meer Man since the fall which though I formerly proved to you in the Conference yet will I now take more pains with you to confirm it Perfection is opposed to Moral imperfection and signifies a state and condition absolutely sinless in rigour of Law such as comes up to the first Measure and our primitive Capacity before we Fell Thus the word ought to be taken in this Controversie And now I shall tell you how far we dispute against it and this I shall do both Negatively and Affirmatively First We do not deny it to be desirable for it is the matter of our highest aims and hopes Nor Secondly As wholly and for ever impossible to us for we believe we shall attain it when we reach the Heavenly Mansions Nor Thirdly As impossible for God to effect now in our present State who can do every thing which implyeth not a contradiction Nor Fourthly Do we discard sincere endeavours after it For we constantly maintain That sincere endeavour to perfect Holiness and to live without all manner of sin is the Condition of Salvation For what Divine ever affirmed it lawful to allow our selves in any sin That therefore we Assert is as followeth We maintain First That the absolute perfection here explained is not the condition of Salvation seeing even Babes in Christ who are far remote from it may be saved Secondly We maintain that it is not the ordinary condition of Christians but is to be reckoned though not among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things simply impossible if God were pleas'd to use His power yet among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things that do not actually come to pass in this World which they that please may call Morally impossible that is so difficult that Men will not actually arrive to it in this lower State wherein it hath pleased God to set us And the Grounds of our Assertion are these First The many expressions of the Saints of God in Scripture who testifie of themselves that they were not absolutely sinless in rigour of Law and the constant experience of the People of God since the Scripture times Secondly The inconsistency of such perfection with the present weakness of Man's Nature and the many deplorable circumstances which are the consequents of his Fall Thirdly The end of Gospel Institutions which are plainly design'd for an Imperfect State and of no use if it were otherwise in the foremention'd explained sense Fourthly Abundance of Scriptures commanding us to grow in Grace therefore we can never be past growing in this life We must abound more and more These and many others suppose plainly that we come not to our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our ultimate perfection in this life Fifthly Those Scriptunes which shew the danger of standing upon terms with God and the misery we are in if God should deal with us in rigour of Law Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no Man living be justified Psal. 143. 2. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand Psal. 130. 3 c. Sixthly Those Scriptures which shew our need of Mercy at death and judgment The Lord grant unto him that he may find Mercy of the Lord in that Day 2 Tim. 1. 18 c. Seventhly We may confirm it with respect to the times of the Old Testament from Lev. 16. 6. and Heb. 9. 7. where Aaron the Saint of the Lord with his Successors is enjoyned yearly to offer a Sin-offering as well for himself as for the errors of the people Which shews plainly that the Saints in the Old time had not attain'd to an unsinning perfection And with respect to the New Testament the same is proved by the description of the Gospel Righteousness consisting in having sin pardon'd Rom. 3. 6 7 8. Eph. 1. 7. 1 Ioh. 1. 8 9. So that after all this Fourthly We ought not to be discouraged as to our final estate because this unsinning Perfection is not the terms of our acceptance with God nor will the want of it cause our final rejection For to assert this would make void the Covenant of Grace which admits repentance proposeth forgiveness and accepts sincerity because though it be as I said the design of the Gospel to prohibit all sin and to allow none yet if through infirmity a Man fall it provides a Remedy 1 Ioh. 2. 1. And upon performance of the conditions of our acceptance secures Salvation Par. I see not why Men should require more than God is pleas'd to accept and we in a capacity to perform So that you need enlarge no further in the proof of these Only let me understand What is the result tendency and consequent of denying the Quakers absolute unsinning State and asserting the Evangelical Perfection which was your Third particular Min. We deny the Quakers absolute Perfection not only as unattainable and inconsistent with the condition of faln Man but as it is apt to deceive some Men into a Groundless pride to make them neglect the means of remission despise the mercy of the Death of Jesus Christ and rely on their own Merits as it confounds the Covenant of Works and Grace and as it stands as that two-edged sword Gen. 3. 24. keeping the way of the Tree of life and making them despair of ever attaining everlasting Glory when they once find themselves deceived But then there are no ill Consequents as is falsly pretended by our denying this absolute unsinning righteousness or perfection First 'T is no discouragement to Christian care and diligence and the most vigorous endeavours that any Christian can use while he attains at present an Evangelical Perfection and peace and reconciliation with God and the favour to be owned as his child and an heir of Glory and of that State of absolute Perfection in Heaven yea and of a greater degree of Glory according to his growth in Grace here Secondly It 's no Doctrine of looseness or encouragement to sin since that Grace which tenders remission of sin to the sincere and penitent will never accept the slothful and careless And it 's sufficiently proved that the Gospel gives no allowance to sin but promiseth greater rewards to greater degrees of Piety Lastly The asserting this Evangelical Perfection hath many good consequents For it directs to the performance of many considerable Duties which else would have
as saith St. Augustine not perfect possessors and our Perfection is capable of increase For no Man is perfect saith St. Bernard who desires not to be still more perfect c. But if this be all the Quakers Perfection they are but like their Neighbours and is it not unreasonable that T. E. should dispute against his own definition I wish he and his Brethren would stand to this sense of perfection for then we should be agreed as to this point but I fear from what follows the Quaker thinks that he had overshot himself and his Brethren perhaps will charge him to have betrayed their Cause Par. I doubt as much for p. 59. he infers not only a possibility of living without sin but in the next page he is expresly for an unsinning State affirming that the commands for it are plainly produced Now indeed one would think if God command us to be perfectly free from all sin there might be some who in this life are truly so because he commands no impossibility Min. This is an usual fallacy with T. E. especially in p. 96 97. to argue from the Precept to the Performance and falsly to suppose that some Men are actually and absolutely perfect because we are commanded to endeavour and press after our being so But St. Augustin's Answer to Celestinus the Pelagian on the same occasion will suffice to shew the sophistry of this pretence Those exhortations by which we are commanded to be Perfect do not so much shew what we Are as what we Ought to be The Law indeed still demands Perfect Obedience though we are utterly unable to perform it and this most righteously because it is not God but our selves who are the causes of our own inability It is the effect of our own sin and therefore both our Obedience to the whole Law and all our primitive Righteousness which we had before the Fall are by the Law justly required of us But then the Gospel Covenant in Jesus Christ who has satisfied the rigour of the Law for us requires no such thing as necessary to Salvation of us though it requires our utmost endeavours after it as has been said Par. I produced the instances of Noah Ioh and David who had actually attained this State of Perfection But in regard you proved that as to matter of fact they were all guilty of sin I was satisfied that their Perfection could not mean an unsinning State or a State of freedom from all sin But T. E. is not so perswaded but replies that to blemish Noah's Perfection you object that he was drunk and uncovered in his Tent And that he walked with God before this and after this also and while he was in his sin he did not walk with God c. p. 61. Min. I suppose your design was to find out the Truth as his is to cavil and darken it Therefore he will speak absurdly rather than say nothing If it was ill done in me to mâ—…ntion the failings of Noah Iob and David as he suggests Do's not he also blasphemously accuse the Holy Ghost for recording it However this I am sure of that this instance shews Noah's Perfection to be such that he needed pardon and that his life was not all of a piece not free from all stain of sin And the Quaker's rare discovery amounts to no more than this Noah was perfect while he did not sin that is while he was perfect he was perfect wonderful Par. I would have you answer this more fully for I perceive he is not a little pleased with this Device but relies much upon it And for Iob he conceives that it cannot be fairly infer'd that he was not deliver'd and kept from sin in the precedent and subsequent parts of his life p. 64. And of David he says that he was not a Man after God's own heart c. while he was guilty of sin and that when he was after God's own heart he was free from it p. 69. And he grows mighty big and thinks if it be possible to attain the State of Perfection it is not impossible to retain it for the same Divine Power that brings a Man to it is equally able to preserve him in it and if it he possible for a Man to be preserved in this State an Hour it is not impossible to be preserved a Day if a Day a Year if a Year an Age p. 68. Min. The notion this Quaker has got of Perfection will amount to no more than this that a Man may be perfect at Morning fall at Noon and be Perfect again at Night This perfect Man of his mindeth me of Mercury in Homer Who was born in the Morning invented Musick at Noon and stole Apollo's Oxen at Night I thought perfection had been a State and Condition absolutely sinless and inconsistent with Relapses into sin I 'm sure I may more justly argue thus The Saints have sinned Once and therefore may sin Twice and consequently Many times They have the same Enemies without and propensities within And for all T. E.'s fallacious Argument 't is not so probable that a Good man shall abstain from sin a whole Year as it is he shall abstain from sin one Day much less an Hour because the mind cannot be so long fixt and intent to avoid the innumerable occasions of Falling I can keep awake one Night but not many not therefore a Week or a Year or an Age yet by Ellwood's Argument we may stand in a Posture for ever Par. But cannot God's mighty Power keep us as well as Age as an Hour from sin Min. We are not disputing what God can do but what he sees fit to do and what he actually doth Let him prove de facto that God useth His irresistible Power in this Case and that actually He hath so preserved any Man I doubt the Quaker must be forced here to leave the Scriptures and go to the Popish Legend to prove that Bonaventure never committed any sin in his whole life which story has as little of Truth in it as Ellwood's Argument has of solid Reason Finally if T. E. can go no higher than to prove The Saints are perfect only while they do not sin And that the Divine power can preserve them from sin for an Age together All this may be said of Sinners who yet are no more perfect then is his Discourse Par. But T. E. says If in this life freedom from sin be not attainable when and where is it As Death leaves Iudgment finds p. 91. Min. 'T is true as death leaves Judgment will find us as to the general State of Regeneracy or Unregeneracy but this is far from being true concerning all perfections or imperfections of Body or Soul and many other things relating to the State of the whole Man The Body which dying is Gorruptible will not be such when raised again The Assaults of Satan and Allurements from various objects both men and things in the World after departure hence
have no place He that to the time of death lived by Faith with respect to things above will then have a more present sight of another World and the State of Happiness and of the Glorious Majesty of God and our Saviour Nor will his State then be as here it is unto death subject to weariness and dulness and such imperfections whereby he is here oft indisposed for constant vigorous actions and such compleat perfection of holiness as by his Original strength Man was able to exercise before his fall and which therefore in the strictness of the Divine Law is still required of him and the least defect whereof is therefore sinful and hath need of that Pardon purchased for us by Jesus Christ. Now as to that State of absolute Perfection without Spot and that Prize of the High Calling which true Christians press after and hope assuredly to arrive to hereafter there is a great Accession in order hereunto when the person whose heart was truly Upright becomes freed from all the imperfections and infirmities of this Low estate and out of the reach of all temptations and assaults of Enemies and all allurements to evil and where he is affected with the fullest sense of the highest Good which are the most powerful motives to determine his Actions and his Soul and in the Resurrection his Body also shall be fitted and strengthen'd to the most constant and vigorous actions of compleat Perfection and act under the higher supplies of Influence from God together with the Advantage of the Heavenly Society of God Angels and Saints in that State where God will fulfil all Promises which relate to Happiness And when perfection in knowledge and Incorruption and the most excellent State of Soul and Body both with respect to their Actions Capacities of enjoying perfection of State and the being immediately possessed of the Highest Good are none of them fully enjoyed in this life what pretence can reasonably be made against the then entring into the most absolute Perfection of Purity Par. Your instance of Iob's confessing that he had sinned T. E. says speaks of the time past not present p. 62. Min. He might in this Confession mean some sin or sins newly committed either in thought or word through weakness in this present State of Imperfection And this would require the Praeter-perfect tense as well as sins committed long since But one thing here I would have you to take notice of That according to Ellwood's own sense which he gives of this passage Here is Iob a perfect man one therefore whose sins were all pardon'd and forsaken yet confessing his sins yea and in the next verse begging the pardon of them too in these words Why dost thou not pardon my transgression and take away mine iniquity I hope therefore T. E. will no more declaim so much against Confession of sins though past and forsaken But that Iob was then a sinner when he spake those words T. E. may be sufficiently convinced by that confession of his own mouth which relates too to the time present Chap. 9. 20. If I say I am perfect my own mouth shall prove me perverse Par. This is very plain Min. Therefore I have not stained Iob's Perfection as T. E. vainly charges me but only recite what the Holy Scriptures have recorded of Him Par. But against your instance of that saying of Iob's Behold I am vile Iob 40. 4. T. E. quotes Authors to prove the word vile there not properly to signifie wicked but only mean small and of little account ibid. Min. But in this place the word is used with respect to sin as by the circumstances of the place it is manifest it being said in answer to the Expostulation of the Almighty in whose dreadful presence Iob sees and confesses himself Vile and Base by reason of his sinfulness Hence Iob 42. 6. I repent and abhor my self c. What should he repent of if he had no sin And for what did he abhor himself but for his sin And doubtless when Iob had the Divine Purity before his eyes nothing made him think himself so vile and mean as his sins Par. But says the text in all this Job sinned not p. 66. Min. In that particular carriage in All this he sinned not that is he cursed not God he charged not God foolishly But do's the Text say that he had never sinned or that he had no sin in him But I pray you mark that here he wholly passes by the account I gave you in the Conference of the word Perfect not always meaning an absolute unsinning State but frequently no more than sincerity as you have it sometimes in the Margin of the larger Bibles Gen. 17. 6. Deut. 18. 13. This was very unfairly and disingenuously done of him You have more reason to believe the Saints Confessions of their own State than this Quaker's incoherent Arguments And what can be more full than Holy David's confession of his being actually a sinner and liable to commit more Psal. 19. 12. Who can tell how oft he offendeth O cleanse thou me from my secret faults See Psal. 38. 18. and 51. 1 2 5 9. and 130. 3 4. We know but in part saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 13. 9. If our knowledge be imperfect our other Graces bear a proportion to it and are imperfect likewise What can be more plain than that saying of St. Paul Not as though I had already attained either were already perfect Phil. 3. 12 And therefore when he says ver 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect c. it must needs refer to some lower degree of Perfection and not to an absolute unsinning Perfection Otherwise the Apostle cannot be freed from a contradiction in saying He was perfect yet he was not perfect For sometimes the same word even in all Languages has divers significations And I could herein give many instances in the Holy Scriptures take one for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies liberality 1 Cor. 16. 3. And yet in ver 23. of the same Chapter it signifies Grace However this cannot be denyed as being evident in express words that St. Paul confesses himself not to be already Perfect It is clear then that St. Paul was not Perfect And if not He what Holyer Man will T. E. find for an example of Perfection than St. Paul was who in a vision was rapt up into the third Heaven Is T. E. the Man think you But this plain Confession of St. Paul T. E. very unfairly here le ts slip and says nothing to it very unkindly endeavouring to shut not his own only but all mens eyes to the plain and open Truth and attempting to shift off the matter by meer evasions Par. But he has one shift left that by Resurrection of the dead ver 11. is not meant the Last and General which he endeavours to prove by two reasons 1. Because the Apostle would not seem so dubious of obtaining that 2. He would not