Calling God to witness and variable arbitrary Ceremonies of expressing an Oath But the Oath it self you must understand is in reference to Truth the Confirmation of it Heb. 6. 16. not a mode nor ceremony of speaking it As a vow is a Confirmation of virginity and neither a Ceremony nor a mode thereof But among all these which he has given us as modes or ways of expressing Truth he has not shewed us which of all these is an Oath Par. He tells us an Oath is made up out of them p. 119. Min. He cannot mean that it is made up of them all conjunct For the first of these viz. a bare single Affirmation being single excludes all the rest The second viz. an Additional Asseveraton stops there and goes no further And those various Ceremonies of putting the Hand under the Thigh lifting it up to Heaven and the rest cannot be supposed to have ever been used together in the same Oath therefore an Oath cannot be made up of all these conjunct If so then it can be but made up of some of them but T. E. has not told us which of them he meant neither what mode of speaking Truth an Oath is nor of what modes it is made up Par. But T. E. has one scruple which troubles him often to which I pray answer once for alâ—… Consider says he now I pray What act of Natural Religion is that which the more truly Christian men become the less need they have of it And here he thinks he has Bishop Gauden of his side Who lays the necessity of Oaths upon mens evil manners Yea he says You confess as much yourself Which as he thinks plainly shews that an Oath is not an Act of Natural Religion p. 120 121. Min. That evil manners make Oaths more necessary I did and still do consess but all T. E's inferences from thence rely on this false and rotten foundation That no acts of Natural Religion can be founded upon mens evil manners Repentance is an act of Natural Religion yet the more truly Christian men become and the more free from sin the less need they have of it But here in this passage of T. E's we must distinguish between him that needs an Oath and him that takes it for the Holiest man may need a bad mans Oath to assure his testimony c. Ellwood confesses that Iustice is an Act of Natural Religion p. 118 and one part of it is called Distributive which in all its Penal Acts depends wholly upon the ill manners of Men as much as Oaths The like may be said of Mercy as to that part of it which forgives injuries c. And yet the more truly Christian men become the less need there would be of either of these Yea St. Paul says concerning the Law that it is not made for a righteous man 1 Tim. 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Demonax in Lucian And Constantius the Emperor If it were possible all men could be Philosophers there would be no need of Compulsion by Laws for that which now they forbear out of Fear they would then hate out of Iudgment And much more I might cite to this purpose but shall I therefore argue from hence that Justice and Mercy c. are no moral virtues Or that Oaths like many other good Moral Acts and Acts of Natural Religion some in their own Nature some in their immediate ends are nothing else but Remedies against evil Especially seeing T. E. himself p. 118. calls both these viz. doing Iustice and shewing Mercy Moral and eternal Precepts Why then should he here exclude a duly circumstantiated Oath which in its primary designation is an Act of Justice as I told you in the Conference Par. But your second Proposition That an Oath is an Act of necessary justice and charity towards men and that in order to the ending of strife by Evidence T. E. answers that Evidence is necessary but not an Oath for Evidence may be given by a plain affirmation c. And that an Oath is therefore superfluous p. 122. Min. I answer that a bare Affirmation indeed is an Evidence but not so well assured And he wilfully passes by the Answer I gave you to this in the Conference which methinks might satisfie a Reasonable man viz. That Conscience do's not dread all sins alike c. and that multitudes who fear not a Lye yet do dread the solemnity of an Oath and the horrour of Perjury In opposing this he opposeth himself for he seems to grant it pag. 119. However he opposeth common sense for all men are more apt to believe those that are upon their Oaths than if they were not Par. But he says that you must either deny that there is in any man that truth which may make his bare testimony of sufficient credit or yield that there are some men from whom there is no need at all of an Oath p. 124. Min. His consequence is not good I grant there are some men whose reputation may give great credit to their bare testimony But in a case where my life credit or estate is at stake such an one seeing he is not infallible must not take it ill that I require the utmost assurance that may be had viz. his Oath for I see his fact but not his heart By what certain mark shall we knowmens Integrity And though some men may be satisfied concerning this or that mans veracity yet others who may be concern'd in his Testimony may not be so And if some men be believed in publick Evidence without an Oath others who are privy to their own Integrity may censure this as partiality if their Evidences be not so taken also However ill disposed men will readily make it occasion of censure and Contention And though I say not All Oaths are infallible yet this I say that they are the highest and best security we can have in this World and higher assurances we must not expect Par. He abuses you also for saying in the Prophet Darid's words Psal. 116. All men are Lyars p. 124. And tells us that David indeed in his great Affliction let such an expression drop but he quickly recalled himself and confest it was spoken in haste Haste I perceive he takes for rashness and therefore says You catcht up the word at a venture ibid. Min. He has done so I am sure and has accused me here as rashly as he fancies David accused all Mankind David said it in his haste that is when Saul was in pursuit of him in fugâ in his flight saith Gejerus and Dr. Hammond on the place When he was in haste that is hotly pursued by his Enemies he then sound there was no Truth in man and therefore must rely on God and not on the Arm of flesh But suppose David had been guilty of this imperfection and had spoken in haste according to Ellwood's sense Was St. Paul in haste too when he said Let God be
the case of Divorces and reduced Marriage to its Primitive institution Mat. 19. Denounced eight Woes together against the Scribes and Pharisees He asserted and cleared the Moral Law in his Sermon on the Mount from the false Glosses the Jewish Doctors had put upon it and advanced the Law of Nature whereof the Moral Law is the transcript to the highest pitch And was not all this sufficient to make Christ a Reformer He is our sole Lawgiver and what the Apostles taught after his offering up was his own Law which himself had deliver'd before his death and which the Spirit was promised to bring into their remembrance If therefore Civil Respects were so vain and evil a Custom as T. E. makes them p. 41. is it likely that so severe a Reformer should not only Connive at them but expresly allow them as he does Luke 14. 10 As Ellwood implicitly grants he did not denying it but using an absurd and an odd circuit of words to shuffle it off Though therefore the Pharisees ambition and affectation of the chief Seats was rebuked by our Saviour yet it is evident the distinction of persons and places and such good manners as are founded thereon were none of those things which he disliked or design'd ever to remove What though the State of the Church in the time of the Law was in a great measure Outward and the Legal Ceremonies of the Levitical Priesthood upon Christ's death expired What though a more inward and Spiritual Worship was enjoyn'd under the Gospel and the Spirit of God to that end poured out more plentifully than ever Did this prove that to Christians all outward things are vanisht and such things as no way belonged to that Priesthood Are their Bodies vanisht too What then will become of that injunction Glarific God in your Body 1 Cor. 6. 20. Are we now devested of all outward capacities and concernments Untill he can prove this he must allow Christians such outward Customs and usages as are agreeable to this present State such among the rest are Civil Respects being sutable to that distinction which Providence and the State of this World have made of persons and places in the various relations which we find in all Civil Societies He that is an enemy to this distinction is an enemy to all Government which cannot subsist without it for we must distinguish between Rulers and Subjects Governors and Governed both in Common Wealths and private Families What madness then is it to think that Christ meant to take away Civil Respects and good Manners things that are so necessary to uphold this distinction essential to it as the due acknowledgment and proper expressions of it Therefore he abolish'd not those decentCustoms of them which are upon Record in the Old Testament or any where else But all quotations out of the Old Testament to this purpose must needs be still in force Par. You have thus far given me very good satisfaction in this point if you have any thing further to add to it I pray go on to clear it not only to me but to all others who do ignorantly scruple it as I have done Min. The great duty of a Christian is Universal Friendship but as Friendship is amicitia parium aâ—…t imparium of Equals or Unequals So the signification of that Friendship requires different expressions since the state of the World and the constitution of Societies necessarily infers a distribution of persons into several ranks higher and lower the foundations of which distribution are these following First difference of Age calls for different behaviour Lev. 19. 32. Thou shalt rise before the hoary head and honour the face of the Old man The face of the Old man here is the gavity of his person So that respect to mens persons is not always evil but oft times a duty See also 1 Tim. 5. 1. Intreaâ—…an old man as a Father Secondly Difference of sex 1 Cor. 11. 3 4 5. And the Ordinance of Marriage makes Man the head of the Wife and requires expressions of subjection from the Woman to the Man as T. E. himself acknowledges in the example of Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him Lord. Thirdly All domestick and civil relations implying superiority and inferiority as not only Husband and Wife but Parents and Children Masters and Servants all which T. E. acknowledges Why not then between Magistrates and Subjects seeing Magistrates are Fathers of their Country and every Ruler is properly a Master for Christ himself calls Nicodemus a Master of Israel Iob. 3. 10. Fourthly Different occupations and employments some being honourable and others mean make one rankof menhigher than another Exod. 11. 5. Iud. 16. 21. Acts 17. 5. where you have mention of the baser sort Fifthly By reason of the necessity of publick Offices for civil Governmenment some men must needs be publick some private persons Publick Persons must have an eminency above private And Kings in Scripture are lookt upon as Sacred and the Jewish Rulers and Judges frequently styled Gods Exod. 22. 28. Ps. 82. 6. Io. 10. 34. which is a much higher Title of respect than any we give in our addresses to them therefore it was boldly done of T. E. to quarrel at the Title of Mâ—…st Sacred Majesty and Dread Sovereign as he do's p. 46. seeing all these are essential to the Title of King which the Quakers own and are willing to give him Pray read these places Ps. 21. 5. 1 Chr. 29. 25. Dan. 4. 36 37. Sixthly Nearness to or distance from such as are Eminent Persons thus they that are near the Kings Person gain an eminence by it Est. 1. 14. Ier. 52. 25. And so the Civil Law looketh upon men as more eminent as they are nearer the Emperor And we do find abundance of these reckon'd up in Scripture Dan. 3. 27. and many other places And the Scripture speaks of different Ranks of Nobility and freely gives them their usual titles without any scruple Thus we read of Princes Gen. 17. 20. and 2 Sam. 19. 6 c. of Dukes Exod. 15. 15. Ios. 13. 21. Gen. 36. 15 c. of Lords Dan. 5. 1 9. Ezr. 8. 25. Neh. 7. 5. And in the New Testament Mark 6. 2 1. where 't is said that Herod made a Supper to his Lords c. Note here that St. Mark writes not like a Quaker He do's not say He made a Supper to his Lords as they call them Nor like Ellwood who is so demure that forsooth he dare not name Titles and Civil Respects without this same reserve as they are called Seventhly By civil vertues and great exploits Men justly gain an Eminency and Renown and become famous See Ruth 4. 11 14. Num. 16. 2. and 1. 16. 1 Chron. 5. 24. and 12. 30. Ezek. 23. 23. Eighthly When persons have larger priviledges and immunities granted to them in the Commonwealth they gain an eminency by them thus Noblemen are constituted by that the Lawyers call
Oath is commanded by the Law of Nature ex hypothesi or from a supposition that it is necessary for the publick good just in the same sense that Magistrates are commanded by the same Law to make Penal Laws against Vice But if we were perfectly innocent neither the one nor the other would be commanded You may remember I told you in the Conference that if there were that truth in men that their bare testimony were infallible and of sufficient credit then there were no need at all of an Oath So that we are commanded by the Law of Nature to use Oaths only upon just and necessary occasions And thus I assert what I did before in the Conference that an Oath rightly taken that is as every honest man will understand me and as I interpreted my self duly circumstantiated and taken in truth in judgment and in righteousness is an Act of Natural Religion and understood plainly by the light of Nature to comprehend a great deal of Religion in it as having God for the immediate object of that appeal which therein is made to Him and by which so many of the Divine Attributes are acknowledged and glorified as I shew'd you in the Conference And an Oath being such and so needful to the ends of justice and charity it remains as I said that it is not made unlawful by the Doctrine of Christ who has prohibited nothing that hath so much of Morality and goodness in it Par. But T. E. lest he should not be understood hath put in a Marginal Note in order to the explaining what Natural Religion means viz. The word Natural hath divers acceptations for there is Pure Nature Corrupt Nature and the Divine Nature ibid. Min. These may be the senses of the word Nature but would any but a Natural have brought in these to expound Natural Religion Let us apply it thereto and then there is Pure Natural Religion Corrupt Natural Religion and Divine Natural Religion Rare distinctions Besides how comes the Divine Nature to be a sense of the word Natural Is Natural ever used for the Divine Nature or are the Saints who are partakers of it any where called Natural men One would suspect T. E. was not in his right mind when he put down this lamentable Note Par. T. E. tells us you enumerate many attributes of God which are acknowledged by an Oath to which he says no other answer need be given than that the Divine Attributes are acknowledged by speaking the truth without an Oath p. 112. Min. Having mudded the Waters by his Captious-exceptions he thinks to escape undiscern'd and to put off the whole force of my reasoning Conf. p. 57 58. with this fallacious and sleight reply but we must not part so What though a Man may believe the Attributes of God in his heart while he speaks the truth yet do's he so openly and so solemnly acknowledge them as he that immediately calls God to witness by an Oath Speaking truth is not so particularly directed unto God but an Oath rightly taken or duly circumstantiated is so direct an application to God and we do so particularly ascribe a Divinity to that we swear by that Lactantius affirms Socrates his swearing by a Goose and a Dog was an acknowledgment of those Creatures being his Gods And Tertullian plainly gives this reason why the Primitive Christians would not swear by the Genius of the Emperor lest they should thereby own them to be Gods And hence Authors generally make solemn Oaths to be Acts of Religion and One sort of the worship of God So Sanderson Pareus Cbemnitius c. But none can say thus of speaking bare truth and therefore the difference is very great that being an Act of Moral vertue but this an Act of the incommunicable Worship of God that being directed to a Man this to the true and Living God Par. But T. E. has a way to avoid this by telling us that God is more Glorified by having redeemed a People from perfidiousness treachery and falshood c. who can now speak truth every man with his neighbour ibid. Min. Though the price of our Redemption be of infinite value yet if men improve not the Grace which was purchased for them this fault which is in them and not in Christ's Redemption will spoil the Quaker's Argument Are all Men are all Quakers themselves purged from hypocrisie c. If they be not T. E. has said nothing to purpose against the use of solemn and Legal Oaths Par. He tells us now that from Reason you are come to Consent of Nations your second Medium to prove swearing an Act of Religion and here he bids his Reader observe that you have wholly let go your hold of Natural Religion ibid. Min. You may remember my words were these which I suppose he durst not cite for fear of exposing himself I shall resume the Method propos'd and prove that an Oath is an Act of Religion out of the Light of Nature and Consent of Nations c. And is not that which can be proved an Act of Religion out of the light of Nature and by the Consent of Nations an Act of Natural Religion what better way nay what other way to prove it Is this letting go my hold of Natural Religion when I prove it by an instance of Religion evident in the Light of Nature with special precept or institution What mark will T. E. assign us to distinguish it from an Act of Positive Religion according to his own distinction p. 110. So that you see here how unfairly he deals with me which surely he would never have done had he thought that the Books would ever have been compared together Par. As to those instances which you gave of Aristotle Cicero and Seneca affirming an Oath an Act of Religion out of the light of Nature He carps only at your Quotation in Seneca who says that Religion is the chief Bond of fidelity in the Militia where he observes that Seneca do's not say that an Oath is the chief bond but Religion and that you would perswade your Readers that by Religion is meant an Oath p. 113. Min. Had T. E. read the place in Seneca surely he would not so grossly have abused himself The whole Sentence is this Even as the first bond of fidelity in the Militia is Religion and the love of the Ensigns and the wickedness of running away and then afterwards other things are easily required and commanded to those who are bound by an Oath Nothing plainer than that he calls that Oath with which Souldiers are bound Religion And so do many other Authors If T. E. have none but Rider by him in the Country or his Capacity extend no higher let him look Religio there and he will find these words viz. Cic. in Flacoum Religioni suae consulere i. e. fidei Sacramento militari And I think it makes much to my purpose that the Romans did not
to another But to let that pass Did ever Christ establish such an equality as to take away all superiority and subordination How comes then the Quakers to allow that of Master and Servant p. 43. Christians indeed are in reference to Almighty God all Equals as to the capacity to Salvation Gal. 3. 28. But I must ask your Leveller here what is this to their Civil Capacity which cannot be put off while we are in these bodies Par. But he concludes his Comment on Luk. 14. 10. thus The words of the Apostle James may be understood a general prohibition of that vain Custom of respecting persons upon any occasion whatsoever ibid. Min. I shewed you before how this Quaker contradicts himself Now I shall shew how the Quakers contradict one another In a certain pamphlet called a Treatise of Oaths subscribed by thirteen Quakers in the name of the rest and dedicated to the King and Parliament you will find this expression We do with all due RESPECTS present you with our Reasons p. 3. Now do's St. Iames give a general prohibition against all Respects both inward and outward none excepted Why then do the Quakers contradict their own Tenent For according to T. E. the most sincere and cordial respects are unlawful and contrary to the Quakers Principles as you have heard and 't is a vain and evil Custom as he says here to give them upon any occasion whatsoever Why do's he rail against me and tax my honesty Why did he not rather tell his Brethren that they did not observe their Decorum and that They were not a fit Company to represent the Body of the Quakers Yea do's not this passage look like a design laid to mistake their Principles Why do's not T. E. tell them as much yet he finds no fault with his Brethren for that which he condemns in Us And therefore is deeply guilty of that partial respect which both the Scripture and right Reason do every where condemn Par. I cannot imagine what should hold the Quakers unsatisfied in this matter unless it be this weak scruple that they may respect men but not the persons of men Min. Is not respecting men and the persons of men all one Can you make a difference between a man and his person Do the Quakers understand what the word they are contending for signifies Do's it import any more than honour favour and kindness To honour a man is to respect him to favour a man is to respect him to be kind to a man is to shew respects to him Are these sins As Respecting persons relates to partiality either in dispensing of the Gospel or the distribution of justice so far it is a great sin But as it relates to honour civility humanity and kindness it 's in that case so far from being a sin so far from being prohibited that it is expresly enjoyn'd and commanded us Lev. 19. 32. And it was reputed a sin in Israel that they respected not the persons of the Priests and favoured not the Elders Lam. 4. 16. So that we are to respect persons in one sense as we are not to respect them in another Par. To your Exposition on Mat. 23. 10. T. E. I observe agrees so far as to say As little learning as you are willing to allow the Quakers they are not ignorant that Christ did condemn the use of the word Father as it implied an implicit faith in them to whom it was given And also the word Master as it denoted the chief or head of a sect and party p. 43. Min. I would have you to observe also how the Quaker is come down from the conceit of his Revelations so far as at last to yield that Learning may be made use of to the understanding the true sense of Scripture which Concession has taken away the force of his Eighth Chapter Par. But he tells us that in that Text Christ condemned also the use of those Titles Father and Master in every sense where there is not a true relation that is as he explains it by Nature or Law which he calls a direct untruth ibid. Min. As much learning as the Quaker thinks he has it has failed him here seeing this sense which he has added is neither agreeable to the occasion and scope of that Text nor is consistent with other places of Scripture wherein you will find Titles without either of these sorts of Relation I mention'd some in the Conference which he unhandsomly passes by as those of St. Stephen and St. Peter giving even their Persecutors the Title of Fathers Acts 7. 2. and 22. 1. and of our Blessed Saviour who gave the Title of Friend to the Traitor Iudas Mat. 26. 50. Now which of these were due either by Nature or Law Did our Saviour contrary to his Nature speak an untruth Or did he not rather in this passage intimate to us that a Title of Civility is no untruth to whomsoever it is given though to an enemy One thing let me ask you concerning St. Paul Whether think you was he a Married Man or no Par. No the contrary appears from 1 Cor. 7. 7. Min. How comes Ellwood then who acknowledges no Title due but by Nature or Law to tell us that he exhorted his Son Timothy and his Son Titus thus and thus p. 24 So that T. E. has either spoil'd St. Paul's Reputation or his own Comment Par. But St. Paul's piety was above such a reflexion He was their Father in a holy sense in a spiritual relation having begotten them through the truth Min. You are in the right but then this is no thanks to our Quaker who has excluded this of St. Paul's out of the Catalogue of his lawful Titles I will ask you another question concerning David who brought in and used Musical Instruments in the service of God who I pray was his Father Par. Why who but Iesse Min. Yes I shall find another Father for him in Scripture which sure T. E. never dreamt of viz. Old Iubal for he is said to be the Father of all that handle the Harp or Organ Gen. 4. 21. Now how do's this Title hold by Nature or Law Could all the Musicians in the World be Iubal's natural Sons I must ask you one question more What relation was there between Abraham the FATHER of the faithful and the rich Glutton that he should cry Father Abraham Luk. 16. 24 Where was there any such relation as Ellwood talks of Par. I know that after death there can be no relation by Nature or Law But why do you fetch an instance from Hell Min. If that will not serve I will fetch you one from Heaven Abraham replied Son remember c. v. 25. Par. That was a Parable Min. Suppose it were Did Christ use to deliver Parables in such terms as were opposit to his own Commands Par. But is it not an untruth to call them Masters and our selves their Servants who in strictness cannot challenge that relation Min.
and withal T. E. as you cannot but observe is so unconstant to his own assertions and confused in his notions of Perfection and the right fixing the notion of things being necessary in order to the clear proceeding in affirming or denying any thing concerning them I will digress a little to state the Case and that in three particulars By which many of my Adversarie's objections will fall without taking any further notice of them We shall therefore consider 1. What is meant by Perfection and what is to be granted or denyed concerning it 2. Whether the best of Men can attain such a Perfection as that they need not or ought not to acknowledge themselves sinners and Offenders 3. What is the result tendency and consequent of asserting or denying such a Perfection Par. I shall be very glad to have a just account of these particulars Min. I begin with the first It 's very evident that Perfection or being Perfect is taken in different senses in Holy Scripture sometimes in a Positive sense and sometimes in a Comparative A positive Perfection is that which includes such a compleatness wherein nothing is wanting or deficient to the answering and coming up to those measures by which it is to be judged and examined Now the measures by which the Perfection of Men must be judged of are of two sorts First The Capacity of our Nature taken in its best and sinless estate and the holy and perfect Law of God to which it is in every respect exactly conformable And hence the first sense of Perfection is when a Man is in a state of enjoying as great good and satisfaction and as high purity and freedom from all stain of evil as either the Nature of Man can arrive unto or as the perfect Law of God do's require This was our state in Paradise and will be in Heaven This is the Perfection spoken of 1 Cor. 13. 10. and probably Eph. 4. 13. Heb. 12. 23. and elsewhere The second Measure by which a Man's Perfection is to be judged of is the capacity of our Nature since the â—…all and the terms which the Gospel Covenant prescribeth and the Mercy of God accepteth Hence the second sense of Perfection is when a Man lives as holily as ever he can in this frail estate sincerely striving to do all Christian duties and to avoid all sin and supplying his failings by Faith and Repentance So that God accepts him upon the terms of the Gospel as perfectly righteous in and through Christ This may be call'd Evangelical Perfection and is spoken of Heb. 10. 14. and 13. 21. Iam. 3. 2. And this is oft exprest by the Perfect heart And in this sense Perfect is opposed to Wicked Iob. 9. 22. and is explain'd by being upright Psal. 37. 37. And this may be consistent with some failings That there are two measures of Perfection appears by that instance I gave you of St. Paul who acknowledges himself Perfect according to one measure and yet not perfect according to another Phil. 3. 12 and 15. compared So according to this second measure and God's gracious acceptance Asa's heart is said to have been perfect all his days 1 King 15. 14. yet came he far short of a sinless perfection For the high places were not taken away ibid. And he was sinfully passionate against Hanani 2 Chron. 16. 10. Who did but his Office in reproving him for relying on the King of Syria ver 7 And being lame on his feet sought not to the Lord but to the Physicians ver 12. Now let Ellwood ask what Notion the Holy Ghost has of Perfection who records Asa both perfect and a sinner Therefore upon the account of this second sense of Perfection the Hebrew word for perfect is by our Translators often render'd upright and made use of to express the necessary qualification for obtaining God's favour Psal. 15. 2. compared with ver 1 5. and Psal. 18. 23. Elsewhere it is exprest by a heart that is sound in God's Statutes and made to be a ground of sure hope and confidence in God's mercy Psal. 119. 80. Yea the Hebrew word signifying perfection is translated sincerity Ios. 24. 14. which T. E. seems to deny p. 72. This for the Positive sense of Perfection The next sense of Perfection is Comparative by which is meant such a Perfection as is not exactly compleat in it self in respect to the first and highest Measures but only more compleat than some other to which it is compared And this applied to our case consists in outdoing the lower sorts of Christians and coming up to the higher measures and degrees of knowledge and practice and in this sense Perfection is taken Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 6. Now to apply this threefold distinction of Perfection The attaining a comparative perfection is not only desirable and useful but possible nay 't is actually arrived to by some though not by all who notwithstanding may be true Christians The attaining an Evangelical perfection is not only possible but also absolutely necessary to all true Christians But an absolute Perfection in the first sense about which the dispute lies though it be the Crown we aim at yet is not attain'd by any in this life which is my next particular of which I shall now give you an account Par. As you propounded it before it was this Whether the best of Men can in this World attain to such a perfection as they need not or ought not to acknowledge themselves sinners and Offenders Min. To which query I reply by laying down these propositions First That there being two Measures by which we may judge of our Perfection Namely the perfect and exact Law of God and the Terms of the Gospel Covenant the first of these is the Rule of our Duty the second is the condition of our acceptance which are not one and the same under the Gospel The Covenant of Grace as a Covenant requires not the first sort of perfection in order to our acceptance though the Law do's still call for it For if it did Salvation were impossible for us in our faln and frail estate Yet still the Gospel is a dispensation of purity as well as grace nor is it the design thereof to cancel our Obligation to obedience but rather to advance it and therefore it rejects not any Moral duty nor allows any thing that is Morally evil For as it cannot be that any thing Good or Evil should cease to be so under the Gospel So it is unsuitable to the design of that Doctrine that establisheth God's Kingdom to discharge Man from the obedience which he owes as a Creature Whence it follows Secondly That all even the least evil is a sin because the transgression of a Law as well as the grosser Acts of sin All evil thoughts irregular desires and disorderly passions and also the omission of the due exercise of good thoughts and desires as well as of good words and actions are breaches of God's
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
rest of his discourse on this subject is spent in artifices to render me and my Doctrine odious but upon the Principles I have already laid down in the stating of this Case of Perfection they will appear neither to need nor deserve an Answer Par. But there is one thing which must not be omitted T. E. thinks you and others who set your selves in opposition to this truly Gospel Doctrine of being perfectly deliver'd and preserved from sin to be as the Evil Spies who discouraged the heart of the Children of Israel that they should not go into the Land which the Lord had given them c. p. 98 99. Min. The Quaker has brought this comparison to his Disadvantage Did the Good Spies Ioshuah and Caleb ever tell the Children of Israel as T. E. do's the Quakers that they should get such a perfect victory over those Canaanites as that no remainders of them should be left to disturb and vex them any more No such thing but the Scriptures tell them the contrary just as we do to Christians concerning their Spiritual Enemies See Deut. 7. 22. thou mayst not consume them at once and in matter of fact 't is evident they were not wholly driven out or consumed 'T is the Quakers therefore and not Ours that is the discouraging Doctrine For â—…f a perfect freedom from all sins and infirmities here be taught as the necessary condition of obtaining Heaven hereafter then all humble Souls sincerely thirsting after Righteousness standing upon their constant watch and yet finding imperfections wants and infirmities in themselves will if they believe this Doctrine be driven into inevitable despair There are sins of Omission as well as of Commission How many accidents may hinder us from performing our Devotions with that vigour intentness and exactness as the purity and sublimity of the Precepts do require The very Constitutions of our Bodies the influence of the Clime and Season may hinder the performance of our Duties with an exact perfection And therefore we flee to God for Mercy in the performance of our best Services See Nehem. 13. 14 22. So that they do most effectually keep Men from coming to Heaven who build this fools Paradise of imaginary unsinning Perfection for them to dwell in on Earth wherein they grow so proud and conceited that they sit down on this side Iordan and fansie they have no need of Ioshua to conduct them into the true Land of Promise In effect they deny the Gospel despise the death of Christ rely on their own Perfection and I fear tumble into Hell while they vainly dream of Heaven CHAP. VI. Of Swearing Par. NOW we are come to T. E's Chapter of Swearing which is so very long that it consists of no less than 104. pages therefore I shall only propound to you the most material passages in it He begins with a reflexion on that short digression which you made upon the two Covenants and very gravely tells us that you tread in an unbeaten Path p. 101. Min. Had he been acquainted with Authors and not taken things upon trust he would not have accused the account I gave off the two Covenants as a peculiar Notion oâ—… my own when the same has been asserted by the greatest Clerks in Christendom I could fill a Page with Citations of such Authors if it were needful as concurr in the same Notion I shall only name two viz. Dr. Hammond in his Practical Catechism and the excellent Author of the Whole Duty of Man in the Preface of that same Treatise which when T. E. hath consulted he will be be satisfied that I have trodden in no unbeaten Path But seeing T. E. will have it my own Notion and there being so much matter before us upon this Subject of Oaths which in the Conference was primarily intended I will pass on to that and examine my Adversaries Objections and extravagances on this Subject Par. He would gladly clear R. Hubberthorn from that impertinence and dishonesty where with you charged him in acknowledging Oaths lawful in the times of the Old Testament yet alledging Hos. 4. 3. Zech. 5. 3. Texts out of the Old Testament to prove them unlawful now which he says you call his proofs though he do not so himself and hints as if they were only set in the Title-page of the Book p. 106. Min. However they were at first in the Title-page I found them in the Book it self And if they be not Proofs what are they then So here is an implicit acknowledgment of a Quaker's bringing Scripture to prove nothing Par. He thinks you mistake the Case for they are not says he brought against that which was then lawful but against that which was then unlawful namely the wrong use and abuse of Oaths ibid. Min. Wonderful ingenuity I thought the question had not been Whether perjury but whether any Oaths were lawful Now to what end is a quotation brought but to prove the Subject in hand In a word then I desire the Quakers to take notice that these Scriptures viz. Hos. 4. 3. Zech. 5. 3. do not reprove all Oaths as unlawful Par. You told me that an Oath is an Act of Natural Religion but he tells us that all acts of Religion are not acts of Natural Religion as in the case of Circumcision p. 110. Min. 'T is very true that all such acts of Religion as owe their original to a Positive Command and have no reason in the nature of the thing to put mankind upon the observation of them as in the case of Circumcision these are not acts of Natural Religion for T. E. may read the definition of Natural Religion in Bishop Wilkins's Discourse upon that Subject pag. 39. That is Natural Religion which Men might know and should be obliged unto by the meer Principles of Reason improved by consideration and experience without the help of Revelation Now an Oath came into use among men from the meer Principles of Reason improved by consideration without the help of Revelation So that if an Oath be an Act of Religion it must be an act or part of Natural Religion For the first that ever required an Oath was Abimelech a Gentile Gen. 21. 23. He required Abraham to swear And Abraham said I will swear ver 24. Yet we read not that either Abimelech's requiring or Abraham's consenting to it was by any positive command from God So that T. E. must grant that Men were led to bind their Covenants by a solemn calling of God to witness and that by the light of Nature of which more anon But when I say an Oath is an act or part of Natural Religion I do not insist that it is by Natural Religion commanded primarily simply and per se towards God but subordinately implicitly and by consequence as a necessary medium for the publick good in this state of things For the Law of Nature that commands the end must also command the only means So that the use of an
E. reason well or have got the victory That an Oath duly circumstantiated is an Act of Natural Religion of a Religious nature in it self I proved before in that it glorifies God in the acknowledgment of His Attributes For to make any action of a Religious nature it 's sufficient that the Attributes of God are Glorified in the thing that is done notwithstanding the occasion of the Action be but rare and accidental and though it be no prescribed way of the constant Worship of God but secondary and occasional in the designation of it yet it is real when thus occasioned and performed with reverence to the Divine NAME Par. From instances of Particular Persons he gives one of a Nation in general namely the Scythians whose Embassadors treating with Alexander the Great thus deliver themselves Think not that the Scythians confirm their Amity by Oaths They swear by keeping their Word That it is the security of the Greeks who Seal Deeds and call upon their Gods We are bound by our very promise p. 115 116. Min. This is one of the fairest Quotations I see in his Book and to this I have much to answer First This very saying declares that it was however the custom of the Greeks to seal Deeds to swear by calling on their Gods yea that swearing is a Calling upon God which overthrows all his Greek Authorities before produced Secondly The Embassadors say not they never swore only they confirmed not their Amity or Leagues by Oaths In other Cases the Scythians did swear by their King's Throne by the Wind or their Sword And indeed they worshipped their Sword and so might well swear by it The Scythians hanging up a Sword are wont to sacrifice to it as to Mars Mars is the God of this people and instead of an Image they worship a Sword Thirdly One instance especially of so barbarous a Nation as the Scythians who were without Towns or Houses do's not overthrow a Law of Nature nor do's the exception of some few rude people make a thing to be no Act of Religion which the more knowing and more General Part of Mankind observe as such I hope T. E. will not deny that Incest is against the Law of Nature yet there were some whole Nations that allowed it Iustice is saith T. E. a part of Natural Religion p. 117. yet among the Spartans it was commendable to steal And the old Spaniards account Robbery not only Lawful but Glorious To Worship the Supreme God is confestly the Main of Natural Religion yet the Chineses and Tartars were sunk so much below the principles of Natural Light that they gave no worship at all to Him whom they accounted so So that if it were true as it is not that the Scythians did never swear it will not at all follow from thence that Swearing is no part of Natural Religion since the Generality of Mankind has used it as such And now after so many discoveries of Ellwood's Untruths and Sophistries I may justly retort his own question here upon himself Might he not have come off with less shame if he had used more modesty p. 116. Par. That Oaths were used among the Heathen and by many of them reputed Religious T. E. at length denies not but this says he do's not prove that Oaths were Acts of Natural Religion ibid. And tells us It is evident that the Heathen borrowed many Ceremonies from their Neighbours the Iews p. 117. Min. You have been shewed that the first Oath that is mention'd was tender'd by Abimelech an Heathen to Abraham and accepted of and taken by him before any positive Law was given about it So that to these things I answer First All real acts of Religion used by the Heathen must be Acts of Natural Religion because they were under no Positive Commands Rom. 2. 14. Secondly Though All that some particular Persons or people among the Heathen did account Religious actions were not really so yet that which is so not only in the suffrage of the most sober Heathen and such an universal Consent of Nations as I have proved but also was used as an Act of Religion by invocation of God as Witness not only by Abimelech but by the Holy Patriarchs before I say any Positive Law was given about it must needs be an Act of Natural Religion as being dictated by nothing else but the Universal Law of Nature This is so plain that I hope T. E. himself will be so ingenuous as to consider of it But I have now a great complaint to make against him That whereas you may remember I gave you the Definition of an Oath and told you it was a religious appeal unto God the seareher of all hearts as a Witness of what wâ—… assert or promise and the Avenger of Perjury T. E. wholly passes this by it being indeed for His interest so to do while he well consider'd How absurd it would have been for him to have denied either that a Religious Appeal to God is an Act of Religion or that being granted to be so even in the Nature and Definition of it it is an Act of Natural Religion So that the passing this by is plainly yielding the Cause Another thing I complain of as a grand Omission is that all this while he has given us no definition of his own nor any such express description of an Oath as to make us understand what he means by it This is an Omission very injurious to Peace for as he may state the Case we may be as much against Oaths in his sense as himself Par. I have often thought of this yet though I cannot excuse T. E's passing by your definition if you mind he has given one himself though he do's not call it so For he says An Oath is but the mode or manner of speaking truth p. 118. Min. A false Oath is an Oath but a false Oath sure is not a mode of speaking Truth I suppose then he means an Oath is a manner of asserting any thing whether true or false Par. And he tells us further that The manner of performing this has been various sometimes by a bare affirmation sometimes by an additional asseveration sometimes by calling God verbally to witness sometimes by an Imprecation on the Party himself sometimes by putting the Hand under the Thigh sometimes by lifting it up to Heaven sometimes by laying it upon the Breast sometimes by laying it upon the Altar sometimes by laying it upon a Book sometimes by Kissing the Book c. p. 118 119. Min. Did ever Man tye unequal things together at this rate Calling God to Witness this is an Oath in the true nature and formal reason of it and has an Imprecation either expresly added to it or implied in it but all the rest that follow are neither various ways or modes of speaking Truth nor essential to an Oath but only modes or Signs rather of
of hâ—…s dislike of that exposition I gave of Iam. 2. 1 2 3 4 Par. Because the Epistle of Saint Iames was written to the dispersed believing Jews thereupon he bids his Reader consider what consistories or Courts of Iudicature those poor scatter'd believers could then have p. 35. Min. That they had such places in the Gentile Cities may be confirmed from Epiphanius and Ensebius And there were Jews at this time in all the eminent Cities of the Roman Empire who had Officers and Judges of their own and by the Rescripts of Augustus they were allowed to use their own Laws and Customs all which priviledges they retained till their Rebellion against the Romans but afterwards they were restored by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius Par. But were not those the unbelieving Jews Min. Let it be consider'd that the Primitive Christians were by the Romans long esteemed a sect of the Jews and so they had a share in all the priviledges of that People Nor were the forreign Jews so malicious against the Christians as those in and about Ierusalem Acts 13. 15. and 28. 17 31. So that the believing Jews might have justice administred in those Courts belonging to their Nation or else might have private Consistories among themselves which we may believe they would rather chuse because St. Paul had forbid them to go to Law before the Unbelievers and advised them to end their questions among themselves 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3. So that it is the Quakrs old disease of ignorance which makes him wonder how they should have any Courts of Iudicature in their dispersion Par. To that Law you mention'd of both parties sitting or standing to avoid partiality c. T. E. answers Whence had they it If given them by God we should have found it among those Laws which they received from him If it was not from God but an invention and tradition of their own it 's altogether improbable that the Apostle of Iesus Christ would have reference thereunto p. 36. Min. What thinks he of the Feasts of Purim and that other of Dedication which our Saviour countenanc'd by his presence Iob. 10. These were no institutions immediately received from God but of the Jews own making Pliny tells us of a vain Painter who being to draw a Goddess made it exactly like his own Mistress such is the fansie of this Quaker who being about to describe Jesus and his Apostles thinks they are altogether such as himself and since their practice is unknown to him he fancies They were as much for innovation and novelty as himself And hence it is that he is for throwing away all Laws and Traditions Christ and his Apostles were not so They were not for throwing away any Traditions that promoted either piety or morality and none but one of T. E.'s capacity will question it Our Lord would not suffer a Vessel to be carried through the Temple to teach us Reverence to the place of God's Worship which was an Antient Tradition and is recorded in the Talmud So likewise Saint Paul orders the Christians to receive their meat with thanksgiving which Custom has been religiously observed by the Ancient Christians Which I note the rather because the Quakers so brutishly neglect this piece of universal Religion Again this very Apostle Iames ch 4. 15. commands the Christians to say If the Lord will we will do this or that which is known to be a Tradition of the old Rabbins recorded also by Ben. Syra Why then may not St. Iames as probably relate to this Custom which is founded upon so much equity and which is but an instance of that Divine precept Deut. 1. 17. in the Rabbinical way of illustration This seditious passage of his would set Christianity at odds with all the Civil sanctions in the world and make it indeed inconsistent with all Government because every Magistrate do's not receive his Laws immediately from God Par. If this Law says he was but a sanction of their own the Iews were so superstitiously zealous for the Traditions of their Forefathers that it 's no way likely that they would so positively violate a Law of their making Ibid. And he goes on to tell us that this was a thing they were seldom guilty of for they too often preferred their own Traditions even to the Law of God p. 37. Min. What his fideles Iudaei his poor scatter'd believers who as he had just immediately before said were then coming off not only from the Traditions of their Elders but even from the whole Iewish polity I assure you he wrongs them as much as he contradicts himself Par. You told me that if St. Iames had forbidden Civil respects he had contradicted what our Lord plainly alloweth in Luk. 14. 8 9 10. when thou art bidden of any man to a wedding sit not down in the highest room lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him c. Now for the understanding this Scripture T. E. tells us that it must be considered in what time and to whom those words were spoken For the time it was under the Law before the one Offering was actually offer'd up That was an Outward state the People of God was then an Outward National People their Religion and Worship was much outward and shadowy their Wars were outward their Ornaments were outward their Honours and Respects to one another were outward And in this State many things were indulged to the Iews many things permitted connived at partly because of the hardness of their Hearts and partly by reason of their Weakness But this State was to last but till the Time of Reformation and when the Time of Reformation was fully come these things grew out of use c. p. 37 38. Min. Was Christ's time then no time of Reformation What though the Levitical Priesthood it's Rites and Sacrifices being Types of the Sacrifice of Christ were to continue till they were fulfilled in their Antitype and then to expire of themselves though that Dâ—…spensation was in this respect reformed after Do's this prove that whatsoever in reference to the Moral Law or to good manners he found less perfect he might not or did not in his own person reform before his Offering up Do's this prove that Christ was no Reformer What though the Reformation was not so general till the more plentiful effusion of the Spirit do's this prove it was not actually begun and set on foot before Christ's death both by his Doctrine and visible effects of it upon both Jews and Gentiles Mark 1. 15. Mat. 11. 5. and 8. 10 13. and 15. 28 Were all Christ's Sermons the calling of the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples and sending them forth to Preach His healing of Mens Bodies and Souls together Was all this no method of Reformation He disproved the corrupt Traditions of the Elders whereby they made void the Commandments of God He reformed the imperfection of Moses's Law in