Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45141
|
The middle-way of perfection with indifferency between the orthodox and the Quaker by J.H.
|
Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing H3692; ESTC R7480
|
27,096
|
35
|
THE Middle-Way OF PERFECTION With Indifferency between The ORTHODOX AND THE QUAKER By J. H. Doing nothing by Partiality LONDON Printed for T. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheap-side 1674. Of Perfection PErfection is one of the Doctrines of the Quaker that there is a state of perfect separation from sin in this life That it is not onely possible for a man to keep the whole Law of God but that every true Christian doth attain it That the work of Christs Redemption does consist in this to bring men up to such a state to be free not onely in regard of the guilt but the inhabitaton of sin so that it is not indeed so much pardoned as abolished There are no mean Doctors in the Schools have gone before them and taught us that though there remain that which is fomes peccati to use Augustines expression yet not that which is peccatum in the regenerate after Baptisme and consequently the righteousness which they through Christ or grace perform the Quaker chooses to call it Christs Righteousness being perfect does not onely constitute them just in the sight of God but enables them to stand before the Throne of Gods justice and so justifyes them and saves them They now who are read here in the Controversies between us and the Papists may guess how far these friends are like to be supported and that they are not therefore to be put off as some think with sleighting and contempt onely For my part I will confess it is not the designe of these Papers to endeavour so much a refutation of any Party as to build up others in that Truth which Errour on all sides leanes upon Omne falsum innititur vero And as the best Physitians have been noted sometimes to take very great regard to the ordinary receipts of old women and the meanest persons so will it become the modest Divine to endeavour rather to discover and sift out that Truth which lies in his Adversaries meaning then to expose and shame their Opinions Before I come to my present subject it is necessary that I set a little out of my way which may else engender dispute in my last paper It is about pardon of sin which I take to be the effect not formal Reason of justification Pardon sayes Mr. Bradshaw is neither the whole nor any essential part of justification but onely a contingent effect of it Treat of Just c. 8. That a man must repent and believe which is to perform the condition of the Covenant of Grace in order of nature before he be pardoned is out of question That God accounts the person a performer who is so arises of necessity because his judgment is alwayes according to Truth Now when Gods accounting a man Righteous according to the Covenant which is all one with his accounting him a penitent Believer or performer of the condition is justifying him as I say there and pardon followes this it appeared to me that Remission must not be the form it self or part but the effect of justification And it is true remission is the effect and no part of this justification But there may be some other or further justification then this To avoyd needless difference therefore with Brethren I must distinguish justification Justification we agree to be a forensical act opposed to the laying any thing to a mans charge whereby he may be condemned Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that justifieth Now there is a double charge the charge of the Law that we are sinners and so condemnable for violation of it And the charge of the Gospel that we have not performed the remedying condition which God requires of us for the escaping that condemnation Though it be an acquittal of us from the latter charge is that justification which every man is so much concerned to provide for as that which depends upon the plea of what himself does and the acquittal of us from the former depends onely on the plea of what Christ hath done for us which can hardly suffer any debate I think before our Judge yet will I not deny but justification may be taken so comprehensively as to contain in it our discharge from the Law also There is a justification then in regard to a particular charge the charge of the one or a universal justification against all accusation or the charge of both As we must answer the charge of the Gospel by denying that charge and pleading our performance we answer the charge of the Law by confessing it and pleading Christs satisfaction that is we acknowledge that we areguilty and have deserved Death but yet that we are not condemnable because we are pardoned by the Law of Grace through the Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ Jesus supposing such a Charge can find place before our Law-giver Our Faith and Repentance is our Righteousness in regard to the Gospel but pardon of sin together with this righteousness may go both into Vniversal justification I cannot indeed but say still that that justification which is particular in regard to the Gospel Charge seemes to me to be the justification which St. Paul and James mainly intend if not altogether for when the one sayes we are justified by Faith and the other by works also and both prove it from one and the same Text that Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for Righteousness I pray what else can justification be with either but Gods imputing evangelical obedience to a person for Righteousness that is Gods accounting of him righteous upon his believeing repenting or performing the condition of the Gospel That the Apostles Righteousness without Works and Pardon is not the same and consquently that the one is a probation and not a description of the other as I noted upon reflection must be granted by those who make both these to be parts of our justification for such is the nature of parts to be diverse one from another Haec est natura partium ut unum corpus diversa componant Boethius de Cons l. 3. p. 3. Again Quod a qualibet re diversum est id non est illud a quo intelligitur diversum It must be also confessed by me that the diversity of two things as the cause and effect does not hinder those things to be parts of another third which is the compositum of both and consquently that Gods justifiying us by this Righteousness that is by Faith or Evangelical Obedience without the Works of the Law and then pardoning us as the effect of that act may both make up the compositum of Vniversal justification You see how tender I am of persisting in any mistake wherein I have or may prejudice others I doe not find that the Scripture does denominate or pronounce any one righteous or a just Man from one end to the other upon any other account then his doing Righteousness yet will I not quarrel with any
known that in the Diospolitan Councel An. Do. 415. this was one of Pelagius errours which was there Condemned Filios Dei non posse vocari nisi qui omni modo absque omni peccato fuerint effecti That they cannot be called Gods Sons who are not in all regards without any manner of sin Which errour also Pelagius himself there retracted In the second place it is worthy our knowing what was the ground or reason of his conviction because it is like that the same consideration or argument may prevail upon one or other and more then so of this Sect that have but the like rational judgments Nono fatetur filios dei posse vocari illos qui quotidie dâ—cunt dimitte nobis debita nostra quod utique veraciter non dicerent si essent omnino absque peccato To the nineth Article he confesses that they may be the Sons of God who say daily forgive us our Trespasses which verily they could not say if they were altogether without sin The Fathers of that Council urged this upon him that if none could be born of God that were not altogether perfect then must none of Christs Disciples be his Children for how could they pray to him to forgive their debts if they had no sin to be forgiven How could they pray daily for pardon if they were any day without transgression Nathaniel was one of the Disciples of whom it is said he was without guile and consequently as perfect as any Quaker dare presume of himself and yet Nathaniel as well as Peter and Peter as well as any other true Believer are taught by these words of their Lord that they have need of daily forgiveness It is sufficient to this Argument if that Prayer be held but a pattern and no form as some will have it so long as they do not I hope yet think they may scratch it out of their Bibles because they leave it unsaid In the third place this opinion is against the uniform constant stream of Gods word and the writings of holy men which still run thus that we are sinners that we must all repent and that we must always be renewing our repentance in making our Prayers Confessions Supplications Doing our Almes and other good works and resting on Christ for grace and pardon Without this supposition the whole course of our Religion as Christian will sink for want of a foundation These things write I to you that you sin not and if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father who is a propitiation for our sins and also for the sius of the world There is our sins St. John's sins that need an Advocate as well as the world When Ezekiel is picking out three of the most holy men that ever were which instance Augustine also uses he names Daniel Noah and Job Of Noah we have the record of Moses that he was overtaken Of Job we have his own acknowledgment If I justifie my self my own mouth shall condemn me if I say I am perfect it shall prove me perverse Of Daniel we have a whole Chapter where he is praying and confess ing his sin as himself speaks and the sins of his people What is man says Eliphaz that he should be Clean and he that is born of a Woman that he should be Righteous Behold he putteth no trust in his Saints and the Heavens are not clean in his sight and how much more abominable and filthy is man who drinketh Iniquity as water We are all unclean says the Church sutably to this in Isay and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy raggs There is one Text most full as most common not to be omitted which is that of David Enter not into judgment with thy Servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified This is applied by the Apostle against justification by the deeds of the Law If there is or ever was any meer mortal on Earth that lived altogether without sin then must this Text be false then may some men living be justified in his sight though he enter into district judgment with them then may some flesh living be justified by works then must salvation alone by Christ and the Doctrine indeed of the whole Gospel come to the ground For In the fourth place as this is against several particular Texts before named and the general current of the Scripture and holy Writers So is it directly against the very drift of what the Apostle delivers to the Romans and Galathians It is common for men to alleadg a few scattered Scriptures against any opinion which yet is true and we Answer those Scriptures but if an opinion does cross any one Text and much more any Epistle in the very scope and purport of it such an opinion must be left or all will come to naught It is manifest now that Paul in those two Epistles is setting forth the Doctrine of justification by Faith through our Redemption by Christ Jesus For the making this good he first shews that all men whatsoever stands guilty before God of the breach of his Law This he most industriously proves of the Gentiles in one Chapter of the Jews in another and in the third What then says he are we better than they no in no wise for we have before proved both Jew and Gemile that they are all under sin Upon this Medium he argues that no man therefore either Jew or Gentile can be justified by the Law for then they should be doers and not breakers of it From this truth that they cannot be justified by the Law it follows that there must be some other means of their justification And this he declares as the great concern and Gospel he has to deliver to be by Faith through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus This is the sum of his doctrine and arguing We may if you will for our advantage put more together If we are justified through Christs Redemption by Faith when none of us have performed the condition which was required of us to our justification by the Law of our Creation then must our justification be of grace or favour as being not else due And if this grace is obtained or purchased for us through Christs Redemption then is God righteous though he accepts of us seeing it is for Christs sake without that condition And if he is righteous in his accepting any without that condition there must be some other procured by Christ upon which he accepts them seeing all are not accepted notwithstanding Christs Redemption That other is Faith as the initium and foundation of all other duty that is Faith working by Love even that Love which fulfils the Law and is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given to us as Augustine that great assertour of grace still speaks From hence does there appear that Righteousness of God which is set out in opposition to our Righteousness by the Law and mentioned before in its