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 Cheapside, 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 only possible for a man to keep the whole Law of God, but that every true Christian doth attain it; That the work of Christ's Redemption does consist in this to bring men up to such a state, to be free not only 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 foams peccati (to use Augustine's expression); yet not that which is peccatum in the regenerate after Baptism, and consequently the righteousness which they through Christ (or grace) perform (the Quaker chooses to call it Christ's Righteousness) being perfect, does not only constitute them just in the sight of God, but enables them to stand before the Throne of God's justice, and so justifyes them and saves them. They now who are read here in the Controversies between us and the Papists, may guests how far these friends are like to be supported; and that they are not therefore to be put off, as some think, with slighting and contempt only. For my part, I will confess it is not the design of these Papers to endeavour so much a refutation of any Party, as to build up others in that Truth which Error on all sides leans upon. Omne falsum innititur vero. And as the best Physicians 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 (says Mr. Bradshaw) is neither the whole, nor any essential part of justification, but only 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 judgement is always 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 follows this, it appeared to me that Remission must not be the form itself, 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 than this. To avoid 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 man's charge whereby he may be condemned. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's 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 only 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 Christ's 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 Lawgiver. Our Faith and Repentance is our Righteousness in regard to the Gospel: but pardon of sin, together with this righteousness, may go both into Universal justification. I cannot indeed but say still, that that justification which is particular in regard to the Gospel Charge, seems to me to be the justification which St. Paul and James mainly intent, if not altogether; for when the one says 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 God's accounting of him righteous upon his believing 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 divers 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 Universal justification. You see how tender I am of persisting in any mistake, wherein I have or may prejudice others. I do 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 that say, we are made righteous also by forgiveness; and that the delivery of us from sin, from the Law, and condemnation by it, is Justification: Though really I am apt to think, that this work is to be attributed rather with the Apostle, to our Redemption. Compare Ephes. 1.7.2 Cor. 5.19. Rom. 3.24. with other places. And so I come to my point, of Perfection. Only I must add this Corollary. Simplicissimum nobis videtur si dicamus, fidem justisicare, quia credenti sua sides imputetur ad justitiam. Fides antem ad justitiam imputari dicitur, quia Dens illum qui viva fide in Christum credit pro justo habet & reputat, cum a paena peccati liberans, & ad vitam aeternam acceptans, propter Christi mortem & obedientiam.  
It is to be acknowledged, that there are, and may be very many Scriptures easily pressed by the Quaker and Papist for the service of their Doctrine, so that there is no doubt but thus much is proved; that it is our duty to be as perfect as they would have. Every sin is forbidden, and every good thing that is so by the Law of innocency, is commanded. But it is one thing to know what is our duty, and another what will be accepted of God in our performance. Our duty is one thing, and what we can, or do attain to, another. God brings not his scales under the Covenant of Grace, that our works should have their full weight, but his touchstone expecting they be right, that they proceed only from a sincere heart, and then he accepts them upon the merits of Christ Jesus. Nay indeed the Duty of the Gospel is one thing, and the Condition of it another.  
The words perfect and perfection in several places of Scripture, may receive an interpretation according to the purpose unto which they are applied. As many as are perfect, let us be thus minded. By perfection there, I apprehend such a degree of knowledge, as the strong Christian is supposed to have otherwhere in opposition to the weak, who understanding not their liberty by the Gospel were scandalised about indifferent things, and so could not walk up to the same rule. Not that I had already attained (says the same Apostle hard by) or were already perfect. In the one verse of the same Chapter he is perfect, in the other he is not; wherein yet there is no more real difficulty than this, that a man may in one thing be said to be perfect, who in another is imperfect, which Augustine shows in the fifteenth chapter of his second book, De peccatorum meritis & remissione.  
Indeed that Father in that book and in another, De spiritu & littera, hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter. Alia est quaestio (says he) utrum esse possit homo in hac vita sine peccato: alia utrum sit? It is one question, whether it be possible for a man to attain to such perfection as to live without sin? and another, whether there be any that do? For the former question, he distinguishes of what is possible by Grace: And what is possible by our own Strength. To hold, that any man by his free will only without grace is able to keep all God's commandments and be without sin, is that grand Pelagian Doctrine against which he sets his face, and detests it: But that it is possible to attain this by grace, or the special assistance of God's Spirit, he thinks it best (it seems) to grant. He thinks it not fit, not safe, to say any (or all) of God's Commandments are impossible. Besides, where God vouchsafes his grace, the work (he pleads) is to be ascribed to him unto whom nothing is impossible. For the second question, whether there is or ever was any man upon earth (Christ only excepted) that does, or did attain hereunto (how great a measure of grace soever it be which he has or had), he is peremptory in the denial, as full in his proof from Scripture, there being several things (he says) which are possible, and yet never shall be in the World.  
There is no doubt now but in the dispute between the Quaker and us the term perfection is understood alike. It is a persection they hold in reference to the whole life, that a man sins not. And if any in the dispute do carry the matter so high against them, as to deny what they contend for, to be possible, they may if they please choose more wariness from St. Austin, for the Quaker ascribes not to themselves, but to the Spirit, the life, the power, or to Christ within, all that they do. On the contrary side, if these Friends will not be content with what is allowed them, that our duty reaches so far as not to sin at all (and consequently to be perfect as the Saints in Heaven, that is, to be in our kind as God in his, is perfect), and that it be not denied (when we cannot grant) that this our whole duty is possible through that spirit by which I hope some of them are lead: but they will go on further to say, that themselves are such as have attained, and that every one who does not attain to the same pitch, to wit, to live without sin, cannot be in a state of Grace and Salvation, I shall think it time to send them, if they be learned, to the same Father and Books, for their reproof and satisfaction. As for my thoughts farther of this impossibility, and what distinction is here wanting, you may see (p. 12. & 19) in my first paper of Election.  
It is common indeed for the Scripture to speak of men and women as perfect. Mark the perfect Man. Noah was a perfect man. Job a perfect man. The good Kings are said to walk before God with a perfect heart, when yet their failings are recorded in the same chapter. It is less wonder, to have our duty set forth in this manner. Thou shalt be perfect with thy Lord thy God. Let us go on unto perfection. Walk before me and be perfect. Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength. Thy Will be done in Earth as it is done in Heaven. Be followers of Christ. And as his was, so must our conversation be in the world. There is no man hath a sensible knowledge of himself, but he perceives daily how far his duty is above his performance. I am not ignorant neither, how some Texts may be drawn out of their sense, where the place must give them a right construction. by one Offering (says the Apostle) Christ hath perfected them that are sanctified: But we are not to conceive that at once therefore he perfects man's sanctification. I deny not moreover, but the end of Christ's manifestation in the flesh, was to redeem us from iniquity, to destroy the Works of the Devil, to restore us out of sin and unrighteousness, and present us unto God, as a peculiar People, Purified by Faith, Zealous of good Works, Holy and without blame, Entire and wanting nothing, Perfect and complete in all the Will of God. I will not cite here those abundance of Texts which are at my pens end, lest it should engage me to a particular discourse concerning them. It will suffice in the general that we distinguish of the time, and of the perfection which is to be understood in such several places.  
I do remember when the Donatists are pleading, many of the same and the like Scriptures for their Church and separation, this is one answer the Orthodox offer them. There are duo tempora Ecclesiae (say they) quae nunc est: & qualis erit. Illa divina Testimonia quibus commendatur ecclesia cum malorum commixtione hoc tempus ejus significat qualis est in praesenti saeculo; & illa testimonia quibus commendatur non habere commixtos malos, illud ejus tempus, qualis venturo saeculo in aeternum futura est! See Breviculi collationum cum Donatistis. I shall say the same here. There are two Times or States of the Church. The state of this present life, and the state of the life to come. We doubt not but Christ hath purchased for his Church and People such a state as is to be without sin, as well as without misery: But this state which is completing always, must not be expected to be completed till the other life. When Christ shall present her to his Father, a glorious Church then shall she be, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing: but while she is but a gracious Church, that is, while she is in this life, she shall not be without her wrinkles nor her troubles. We shall reconcile the Scripture very well, if when it sets forth every man as a sinner, that stands in need of remission every day, we refer such Texts as speak indeed of perfect freedom, unto the state of the life to come.  
In the first place then, there is perfectio viae, or patriae; viatorum, or comprehensorum, to use the terms of the Schools. A perfection belonging to the state while we are in the way, as travellours: or a perfection belonging to the state when we shall get home, or to our Country, or to such as have already attained, in St. Paul's terms, I hope the Quaker that disputes with us about Perfection, will acknowledge a difference in regard of attainment between the two estates of Grace and Glory. And if that perfection which consists in a freedom from all sin does remain for the Rest above, I see not who the man is, that can free himself from all sinful imperfection, in this World. I press forward (says the Apostle) if by any means I might attain unto the Resurrection of the Dead. Such a Perfection belike as that in Heaven is his duty, but he can by no means here attain unto it.  
In the next place then, that Perfection which belongs to the state of this Life is to be considered in the kind, and in the degrees of it. There is a Perfection of the kind: and of the degree. I do not find any of these friends in their writings do take Perfection for a superlative Word; They acknowledge degrees in their Perfecton, that one hath more of the light and life then another. There are Fathers, young Men, and Children in Grace, as St. John speaks. The Child hath a perfection of parts, that is, hath all its Members, as well as the grown man, but not at the fame maturity. Now I would feign know of the judicious among this sect two things in my way. The one, whether that degree of Holiness which is attained by any man, is not the duty of every man? The other, whether he that fails in the least of what is his Dudy, does not sin? The rule is but one to all: and sin is any want of conformity to that Rule. However in this, we may both come to an accord. They will yield to us, that there is a perfection of de ree which they have not attained, or that there are more degrees still to be sought, so long as they expect another state above in Glory: And we do not deny to them that perfecttion in its kind, which every man (we hold as well as they) does, and must attain unto, that is saved. The great difficulty will be only in a right understanding of what kind of perfection it is, which is to be agreed upon by both.  
In the way for the understanding whereof, I must lay down this note, that when the Scripture speaks of any good man or woman that fears God, or walk righteously; it is all one in Holy Language as the being Perfect is. Noah is said to be a just Man and perfect and one that walked with God. Job a man perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil. To be a just Man then, a righteous man, a man that fears God, is in Scripture to be a perfect man: and to be a perfect man is to be a just man, a righteous man, one that fears God and eschews evil. They are terms I say equivalent in Scripture account. Blessed is the Man that walketh not in the Council of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of Sinners. The man that walketh not in the Council or way of the wicked, is the perfect man in other places of the Psalms. It is a full description, that we have of Zachary and Elizabeth. They were both Righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Now if these friends will be contented with such a Perfection in its kind as was in Noah, in Job, in Jacob, in Abraham, in the good Kings, the Prophets, in the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. 2.6.) Colosse. (Col. 1.28.), in Zachary and Elizabeth, and is indeed in every man and woman once Converted, differing nevertheless in degree one above another, then shall we and they in the end be lead to a perfect accommodation.  
There is in the last place therefore, a double kind of that Perfection which belongs to the state of this life. A Perfection according to the covenant of Nature: and a perfection according to the Covenant of Grave. When God made his Creatures, he appointed an order for them, in reference to which they are all said to obey the Law of their Creation. Man being endued with a reasonable Soul must have the knowledge of this Law, so far as concerns his part in it, and consequently his reason alone could direct him every thing whatsoever (except of positive institution) he was to do in order to that end unto which he was Created. Upon this does arise the Law of Nature, which when he was to observe as the condition of his Happiness and God's favour, or the continuance of both, that law must be also a Covenant, and that is the Covenant of Nature or Works. This Covenant being broken, and we rendered too impotent for it, it pleased God for Christ's sake to vouchsafe another, wherein he proposes his favour and life upon lower Terms as is suitable to our fallen state. Now as a conformity to the Covenant of Nature is man's Righteousness, and when there is no flaw therein his Perfection according to that Covenant: so a conformity to the terms of Grace is our righteousness according to this Covenant; and when there is nothing wanting in our coming up fully to those terms (as if there be, it will not serve our turn), it must be our perfection. And here then is that Perfection upon which we are to be reconciled. Not a perfection which consists in doing every thing in the Earth we are bound to do: but a perfection that notwithstanding our many failings, is not wanting in coming up to the Terms which God accepts for Righteousness to everlasting Salvation, in the Covenant of the Gospel. There is a Righteousness of God declared or set forth under the new Testament in opposition to Works (which I have mentioned in my Paper of Justification, and explained to my content in my last paper of the Covenants), and it is according to this Righteousness, the World is to know, that the Scripture speaks (N B), when it makes Noah, Job, Daniel, Zachary or any other, just men, righteous men, and perfect men in the sight of God: When else, there is no flesh before the infinite Holiness that is clean, or that could be justified and stand in judgement.  
Hear O House of Israel, is not my ways equal? When the wicked turneth from his wickedness and doth that which is lawful and right be shall save his Soul. This is said to be equal with God. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Not only merciful, but just. In like manner, God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love which ye have shown towards his Name. Again, it is a righteous thing with God to recomperce to you who are troubled rest when Christ shall be revealed from Heaven. Henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness which the Righteous God shall give me. If God, it seems, from such Scriptures as these, should put no difference between the penitent sinner and others, he would not be righteous according to that righteousness which is ascribed to him in these and the like places, although if he should destroy the world for one transgression, we could not accuse him of wrong in the sense of some others. Of what value then that notion about this Righteousness of God which after many years' thoughts I have offered, in the said two former papers (p. 26.27. etc. of the one: p. 7.8 etc. of the other) I leave to Time (when it hath brought the same light into some other more authoritative pen, that is to forget from whence it came) to make the discovery, and improvement. I will add but thus much more, by way of surplusage to it. Justitiam in Deo sacra Scriptura saepe nominat condecentiam bonitatis ipsius, ut Scholaastici lequuntur. & Deum justum vocat, quum facit ea quae congruunt ejus sapientiae, aequitati & benignitati.  
There is no man sinneth not, says Solomon, in his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple. This he enlarges in his Ecclesiastes. There is not a just man upon Earth, that doth good and simmeth not. The Apostle to the Romans confirms this out of the Psalms; There is none that doth good, no not one. St. James likewise gives his Suffrage. In many things we offend all. And St. John is yet most positive. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. On the other side, He that committeth sin (says the same Apostle) is of the Devil. He that is born of God keepeth himself that the wicked one toucheth him not. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin: For his Seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. St. Augustine I remember in several places of his Books does lay some two or three of these Texts together, and offers us this solution. That which is born of God (says he) sins not. Which is as much as to say, There is that which is born of God in the true Christian, and that which is not born of him. In other terms, no man is regenerate but in part, or sanctified but in part. Not as if one faculty was sanctified, and not another: But there remains the principle of Corruption, together with the principle of Grace which is infused, that is both flesh and Spirit, in the same person: And whatsoever proceeds from the one cannot be s●n, as whatsoever proceeds from the other cannot be otherwise. I will add, According to the prevalency there is of any of these two principles in the soul, so is the person to have his denomination. The Apostle therefore speaking of himself when he did the evil he would not, it is no more I (says he) that does it, but sin that dwelleth in me. If it be not be then that does it, the person being denominated from the will, and more generally prevailing part) is said to sin not. And this Itake it, after Austive, is ordinarily received by Divines. Nevertheless, that which I propose here from what is said, seems to me to be more clear and weighty. There are some Texts say that all men are sinners, and others that the regenerated do not sin, and the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. I distinguish then of sin. Sin is the Transgression of a Law, and as there is a twofold Law, so is there a twofold Transgression. There is the transgression of the Law of Works: Or the transgression of the Law of Faith Every man upon Earth does sin against the Law of Works, in leaving undone what it requires, or doing what it forbids in Thought, Word or Deed, even continnually; but there is no man sins against the Law of Grace, so, as to leave undone what that requires as the condition of life, who is saved. It is true, that as all Power is committed to the Son, the Law of Nature is put into Christ's hands to be commanded by him, which together with remedying Grace, are parts of his Law. Distinguish therefore between sinning against one or other Precept of Christ's Law: and sinning against it as a conditional Covenant, by nonperformance.  
It will be for profit, yet, to multiply the same matter. If thou will enter into Life (says Christ) keep the Commandments. Neithe Circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing (says the Apostle) but Faith working by love in one place, but a new Creature in another, but the keeping the Commandments of God in a third. Do we make void the Law through Faith? No, we established it. That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The Doers of the Law shall be justified. It appears by multitudes of such Scriptures as these, that the Law, or commandments of God are to be kept or fulfilled; that the fulfilling them is required as necessary to the person justified, and consequently as the condition (which is all one) of pardon and life. To help us out here therefore, we must distinguish after our more sober and best Divines; The Law of God may be considered rigidly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or not rigidly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, with condescension to human frailty, according to the measure in every one of the gift of Christ, or according to our Model, strength or grace in this Life, & that degree of performance formance God which requires of us, precisely in the new Covenant, to the obtaining Salvation. It is in the latter the mild the gracious, not in the former the rigid sense, that such Texts are to be interpreted; that the Law or Commandments are fulfilled; and that the observation is made necessary to the justified and saved. That is, I say again, not according to the model of our state of innocency, but fallen estate; not according to the Rigour of the Law, but Equity of the Gospel; not according to the tale of Brick or prescript of Do this and live, but according to God's merciful acceptation of what we do through the meritorious obedience and oblation of Christ Jesus. I must bring this yet more home. As the Law is taken for the Law moral or Law of Nature, the matter of the Commandment, is the same (I have said) in the Law of Christ, Grace and Gospel, as in the law of Works: only this materia praecepti, this matter required, may be considered as materia absoluta, or conditionata, as our duty, or as the condition of Salvation. There is no man keeps the Commandments of Christ so as never to fail in any thing of his duty: But every Child of God keeps them so as they are made the condition of Life in the new Covenant. When a man then performs the Covenant, he must be judged Righteous according to that Covenant. As there is nothing lacking in that performance to the Terms, he is Perfect; and as he is Righteous and Perfect, he sins not; that is, he fails not of what is required to the performance of the contition. When St. John therefore speaks of sinning not, we may observe how he counterpoises committing sin with being Righteous or doing Righteousness in the same Chapter. The true Christian sins not so as opposes his being Righteous, he commits not sin, as is contradictory to doing Righteousness. He is Righteous now we know, or doth Righteousness, only in regard to the Covenant of Grace, and he sins not accordingly, in regard to this Covenant; that is (as I sum all up), fails not in the performance of the condition. He performs not materiam absolutam, the whole duty, but he performs materiam conditionatam, the whole condition of the Gospel.  
By the way here, when the calm Protestant will grant to the Papists such a fulfilling of the Law as does constitute a real true righteousness, and that which is perfect or entire according to the covenant of grace, and so accepted of God unto Life: and the most violent Papists will grant to the Protestant that this righteousness nevertheless (suo modo perfecta, non omni prorsus caret peccato, ideoque ex hac parte perfectu non est) is not without all Sin, but doth both fail in the degree which the Law exacts, and is intermingled with many at least venial transgressions, so that it cannot abide God's district judgement according to the Law of works, without need of Christ's merits & God's mercy, who does not see an agreement in the purpose and mind, where thereis yet so much variance in the words and pens of those that contend about those matters? That Justification is a dispute of the like nature and issue, I doubt not; and it is an excellent pretty book of Mr. Bradshawes on that subject, yet does he seem to me, not to have touched this main thing, which I have noted once and again in my former papers to be that, the want of the notice whereof hath set the Papist and us together by the ears, and the understanding whereof will as presently heal our Controversies: to wit, That it is not by the Law of works, but by the Law of Grace that we are judged, when we stand before God's Bar for Justification. There are but two things to be pleaded (says that worthy Author) by an accused person. Either that he hath not committed the fault: or that he hath satisfied for it. No mortal (says he) can devise any other medium whereby such a person should be justified. Our practical Divines do accordingly thunder against self Righteousness upon this foundation. If we stand on our own Righteousness (say they) then must we be able to satisfy God for our former sins, and cleanse our hearts for the time to come so as to be perfect in his sight. But this is a mistake. That there is a righteousness of ours that we must not wholly cast away in our Justification, appears from the Psalmist, when he tells us by the rule of contraries, that it is the righteous and the righteous only, that shall stand in Judgement. There is a third plea therefore, which is the only true plea which must be brought, and made good or we perish; and that is, not that we are faultless or perfect according to the law of works (either in ourselves or another): but that we are justifyable by the covenant of mercy as performers of the condition, and that this righteous though imperfect is acceptable through the merits of our Redeemer. For the business then of Satisfaction, it must be treated a little otherwise then Mr. Bradshaw does it, and others, that is, not to be made the matter, or formal reason, of that righteousness that justifyes us (let me say, the whole matter or formal reason, for I may be out else on the otherside seeing Christ's merits, our faith or evangelical obedience, and pardon have all their proper parts and office in it): but it must be understood mainly to serve the honour and justice of God, as Rector and Law giver, in regard to his dealing with us otherwise then according to the Law of our creation as else he was bound: for upon this score were the sufferings of Christ penal, and undergone in our stead, to wit, that by means of death for the redemption of us from the transgressions of the first Covenant, a new Law or Covenant might be brought in, according to which we are to be judged. And when it is at that bar we must stand, we easily know both what that righteousness is which must be pleaded, and for whose worthyness sake (so inconsiderable otherwise as it is) it shall be accepted unto remission and life everlasting.  
To return, the Apostle speaking of the Law does tell us, that he that breaks but one of the commandments is guilty of all; and the reason he renders is, because he requires that one, that required the rest. The meaning is, God gave his whole Law to man for a Covenant, and if one part only be transgressed, the condition of that covenant is broken as well as if all were transgressed. For otherwise, he that hath lain with a woman is not therefore to be accused for mnrder; nor he that hath sworn an oath, is therefore guilty of theft. We must understand the like in reference to the Law of faith, or covenant of grace, and its observation. Let a man's sins be what they will, so long as the condition be performed, he may according to this Law be judged no transgressor. In the one, a man hath committed no theft no adultery nor idolatry, and yet in the sense of the Apostle he is guilty of all, In the other he hath been an idolater, an adulterer, a thief (such were some of you but you, are justified), and he is guilty of none. The reason in both I say is, the condition still in the one is broken, but performed in the other. As we distinguish of the Law, Quâ faedus, & Quâ regula: so may we of the performance, Sub genere officii, & Sub genere conditionis. Though we fail in our Duty, we fulfil the Condition, as have said already.  
To this purpose, it is not to be forgotten what is said of David, that his heart was perfect, that he kept God's Commandments, and that he sinned not but in the matter of Uriah. And how I pray was that? Do not we read of David's Passion, his Lying, his Numbering the people, his dealing with Mephibosheth? was there no sin indeed that David did commit besides this? what makes him then complain so much, that he was born in Iniquity, and that his sins were more than the hairs upon his head? I answer, there are sins consistent with sincerity, and inconsistent with it. Sins inconsistent with sincerity are breaches both of the Law of Works, and Covenant of Grace, and that sub ratione conditionis: Sins consistent with it, are transgressions indeed of the Law, but sub hac ratione, no breach of this Covenant. David's sins of the first sort were very many, and his acknowledgements pious and true: David's sins of the latter sort was but only in that matter, and otherwise it is said that he sinned not. To be clear as I go, even for that matter, As I have distinguished between the breach of our duty, and the condition; or of the preceptive part of the law of grace, and the conditional: So must I distinguish this breach of the condition, into that which may be pro tempore, making the punishment so far due, as that God may cut off the Sinner and damn him: or else final also, making it peremptorily and remedilessly due, which will be ever executed by him. There is a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death, says the Apostle. A sin against the Holy Ghost. Whatsoever instance there may be, in which such a sin hath been committed, as in the obstinacy of the Jews against Christ, that rather than they would believe, they would impute his Miracles to the Devil, the general nature of this sin does lie in this, that it is such, as is inconsistent with, and exclusive of the performance of the terms which are required unto pardon and life. The Spirit and New Testament are one, and this is to sin (N. B.) against the New Testament. De peccato ad mortem quoniam non expressum est, possunt diversa sentiri; Ego autem dico id esse peccatum, fidem quae per dilectionem operatur deserere usque ad mertem, Concerning the sin unto death, because it is not expressed, divers things may be thought of it; but I say that sin is this, to desert (or never come up to) that faith which worketh by love, unto death. Augustine. De Cor. & gra. c. 12. It must be demanded then, what shall we think of David in the matter, wherein he is accounted to have sinned? I say that David (according to our British Divines in the Synod of Dort) in that present state, could not have been saved, if he had died: but God having Elected David, provided Repentance for him, that he could not die in that estate. There is a sin therefore which is inconsistent with sincerity of heart, or the terms of grace, at present; or such a sin, or sins, which are exclusive of it. This I said in other words but now. The latter only are sins unto death. The breach of the Covenant of grace sub ratione conditionis is that sin, and when final, that alone which is unpardonable. I reassume, that whatsoever sins consequently, they be which any man commits, if they be not such as are incompatible with Sincerity, Repentance, and Faith, they are fins against the Law, and our pardon is purchased: but they are no breach (sub hac ratione, I must intent still) of the Law of Grace, no sin unto death, or no sin as can hinder the person from being judged as righteous by that Law or Covenant, and to be accepted accordingly unto everlasting Salvation.  
And now Sirs! Behold here a kind of Heaven opened to you, I mean to you who are the Children of God, and fear his Name, where all your sins and iniquities are removed, and where every one of you are righteous and perfect and sin not. For this is the benefit and fruit of Christ's Death and Redemption, that he hath delivered you from that Law which you break, and would condemn you for every breach; and he hath brought you under a new Law, the Law of Grace, which requires nothing of you, but what sub rat one Conditionis you do keep, for he gives his holy Spirit herein, to enable you to the performance. So that, it is not only your sins are done away, that is not imputed, or forgiven (The Iniquities of Judah, it is faid, shall be sought for, and not found), but this Covenant hath nothing to lay to your charge. And you that were sometimes alienated, hath he now reconciled in the body of his flesh, through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight, if ye continue in the Faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Cospel. And thus we are come to our period. We grant a perfection which Divines call Evangelical to the Quaker, that is an integrity of heart and life which the Gospel requires of every man that shall be saved. If these Friends will have more (who have not understood perhaps before, how much indeed this is, and what truly they impugn), than they must come to that our Divines call Legal righteousness or perfection, which is to live so, as never to break any of God's precepts, both ratione officii, & conditioviss; and if they will maintain this, either that they have it (or have attained it) in themselves, or that it is necessary to others unto salvation, I shall tenderly offer them these ensuing Arguments, Reasons, or Consideratious for reclaiming them from so desperate an opinion.  
In the first place, Be it known, that in the Diospolitan Council, An. Do. 415. this was one of Pelagius errors 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 error 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 than so) of this Sect, that have but the like rational judgements. Nono fatetur filios dei posse vocari illos qui quotidie d●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 Christ's 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 God's 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 Alms 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 writ 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 acknowledgement. If I justify myself, 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, suitably to this in Isay) and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rags. There is one Text most full, as most common, not to be omitted, which is that of David. Enter not into judgement 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 mere 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 judgement 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 allege 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 shows 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 than 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Redemption, then is God righteous, though he accepts of us (seeing it is for Christ's 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 Christ's 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 due place; which indeed is nothing else but this grace itself, even the goodness, kindness, favour, or merciful condescension of God to poor Sinners, in accepting us as Righteous upon other terms, than those which the Law of our Nature requires, and it were but most just we should have performed. Which as he grants for Christ's sake, so does he by his Spirit work in those that are his chosen, that all the glory of their Salvation may be due to him only. Now the perfection of the Quaker does quite overthrow all this which the Apostle teaches; and in short terms, it were all one for them to say, Sir, we deny your Argument, and your Reasoning. We are of opinion that all men do not break the Law of God, but that some are perfect in a Righteousness, answering the Law, and therefore we have no need of any such grace, or Christ's Redemption (that is of any from Christ as without), or other terms, whereby we should be justified and saved. The Righteousness of God, or the Righteousness of Faith you speak of in opposition to Works, is below that of ours, which we build upon for our Salvation.  
In the fifth place, This opinion is not consonant with the Universality of Redemption. There are no greater patrons of universal grace than the Quaker. This is the excellency of his strength, the Reuben of his notions. But if Christ's Redemption lie altogether where they place it, in the bringing men off from Sin and Unrighteousness unto Holiness and Perfection, even such as to live without sin in this world, then cannot Redemption be universal: for the most of men remain in their sins, and are never converted; and those that are, reach not to such a pitch as this is; and consequently, instead of Christ's having Redeemed all the World, or whole Mankind, there are but very sew Redeemed, and indeed none at all. I must confess I do not think that the Quaker alone is in the dark about this matter. Yet these men I count here, are most of all out. They look upon the work of Christ's Redemption to be the work of Christ within; so they speak, and so they think altogether, and then wilfully confound Sanctification and Redemption; whereas Sanctification is a separation of persons from the world, and must be of some only, that is the Elect (supposing Election): but Redemption is of all mankind, according to the Catechism, and the Scripture all over. That which Christ hath done for us without, and in the flesh, is for all. He was put to death in the flesh; his Death was for all. He tasted Death for every man. But what he does for us within, what he does in the Spirit, that is peculiar, and not alike to all; and the one must not be confounded with the other. It is worth our ask therefore, what Redemption and its immediate fruit to mankind is? and this hath been dispatched in my paper about Redemption. The introduction of a new Covenant, and other terms for man to live by, is the main. The Quaker now does place Christ's Redemption in bringing us up to these terms, the performance whereof is indeed our Gospel-perfection; but he is here so miserably out, that he both mistakes the terms, or this perfection, as if it were no less than the fulfilling every jot of the Law itself; & also contradicts himself in the best tenant he has. For how shall the grace of Christ's Redemption be universal, if it be placed in that which is not universal? How shall Christ's death be for all, if the great and immediate effect of it, be that which only belongs to the Elect? On the other hand, our Divines we call Orthodox, do generally stumble upon this same stone, in their denial of Christ's Redemption to be universal. It is not sufficient to them for the holding Christ's Redemption to be universal, that he hath procured that all may be saved, if they believe and repent, which are our new terms; unless he hath procured also that they believe and repent. But it is the Elect only do believe and repent, and therefore they hold the Redemption only of the Elect. These men (how many of them soever they be) have not yet learned to distinguish the conditien from the perfermance; and that Christ's Redemption does lie in procuring the condition, not perfermance, for the world. They know and will say that there is another condition required of us by the Law of our Creation, and if man may be justified without that, then must there be grace in the grant of this. And this grace they are then to understand more, is that grace which is so magnified in the (ofpel, the grace that came by Jesus Christ as the Law by Moses, the grace itself of our Redemption. Let the Quaker then know it is not Christ's bringing man up to the terms of God, but his bringing down God to the terms of man (that is, to such as are suitable to his fallen estate), wherein the great work he hath done for us, is to be fixed. And let these Orthodox know the same likewise, that it must be therefore his procuring salvation upon our Faith and Repentance; and not Repentauce and Faith for our Salvation, which is the direct and immediate effect of his Redemption. But what? Is not our Believing and Repentance then the fruit and purchase of Christ's death? Be not offended Sirs, our Faith and Repentance are a fruit of his Spirit. the work of our Sanctification, and proceeds from Election. See my reasons in p. 29. of my first paper.  
In the sixth place. It seems to me, that the want of more light to discern between truth and truth, is the occasion of persisting to these Friends in their error, and to us in our opposition. It is true what we say, that no men but sin; and it is true what they say, the Regenerate sin not: The Scripture says both. The Child of God sins not, so as that sin hath dominion over him when he sins. The prevailing interest of his Soul is for God above the flesh and the world, and so long he is right in God's sight; right, Righteous, or Perfect, according to the Law of Crace; although there be a thousand things wherein he might do more good, or less evil than he does, and so is imperfect, unrighteous, and a manifold sinner according to the Law of work. The truth is, there is something here at the bottom, which these men see, and our common Protestants do not see, which makes them think they see more than we, and more than they do see. It is this. that there can be indeed no justification of any, but according to some Law, where we can plead that we are innocent, or that we have kept that Law, and that perfectly, so that we are Righteous according to it. This being seen, they come on too fast, that they sin not; before they have learned to distinguish between Law and Law, Righteousness and Righteousness, Justification and Justification, Sin and Sin. They sin not, they are Righteous, and by that Righteousness I must say with them (where they have our Divines on the blind side) are justified, to wit, according to the Law of Faith, or as they are judged at the Throne of Grace; but they do sin, they are Unrighteous, and no flesh living can be justified according to the Law of Works, or at the bar of the Ten Commandments. When the Apostle argues against justification by the Law, he proves none can be justified by it, because all do break it. Those that will follow truth shall argue as strongly; if we be justified by grace, than we must be righteous and perfect, according to the Law of it. The Orthodox are quite out that will have any justified without a Righteousness that is perfect according to the Law that justifies him (to wit, in regard to the conditional, though not the preceptive part of it). The Quaker is quite out that will have this Righteousness perfect according to the ten Commandments which does not justify him. The lover of Truth and Mediocrity will have every man have the Righteousness of a perfect heart for his justification, and yet no man be justified but by the grace of God, through the Redemption which we have in Christ Jesus. There is pardon of sin, and justification; these may be distinguished, not divided. Pardon refers to the law of works; justification to the law of Faith, or the Gospel. For this cause (saith the Apostle) he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called may receive the promise of eternal Inheritance. The first Covenant originally is that of Nature, and the first Testament belonging to the Jew, represented that first Covenant, and the Transgressions for which Christ shed his blood, are our sins only against that Covenant: If there be any body sins against the new Covenant, there is no Redemption for such. We have a pardon then in reference to the law of works, but we are justified in reference to the law of Faith. To wit, If we are accused as Transgressor's of the Law, we may confess it that we are guilty, and plead our pardon through Christ's Redemption; but if we are charged as Transgressor's of the law of grace, we must not plead ourselves guilty but righteous, and such as perfectly come up to the terms required in the Gospel, or else we are gone. It is true, Christ hath purchased forgiveness, but it is upon condition. Pardon is of the Transgressions of the Law, but this condition is of Righteousness according to the Gospel, and our justification lies in the performance of the condition.  
In the seaventh place, This Opinion, instead of leading these friends to the Spirit and the Life as they speak, does lead them from both, and bring them back to the letter, and the flesh, and ministration of death. To understand this, The Apostle we know does distinguish between the Letter and the Spirit. The Letter killeth, the Spirit giveth Life. This distinction is expressed otherwhere by the Law of the Spirit of life, and the Law of sin and death. The Law of Faith, and Law of Works. The Covenant of Nature, and Covenant of Grace. The Law of Works is called the Letter, as having been writ in stone, and is the ministration of death, the Law of sin and death, or that which killeth, because there is none but break it, and so are guilty of fin and death by it. The Covenant of grace is the Law of Faith, that being the condition of it; it is the Law of the spirit of life, or the ministration of life for the contrary reason, because we are enabled through grace or this spirit, to the performance of this Law, so as to be Righteous according to it, and live by it. The just man shall live by his Faith. And unto the Law of the spirit of life, is added, in Christ Jesus, because it is he hath procured this Law for us, which is indeed the great benefit of our Redemption. Now while the Spirit is given us for the performance of the condition of this Covenant, (it being the New Testament, not the Law which is the ministration of the Spirit) it is a great mistake in these Friends to expect such help from it, as to perform the condition of the Covenant of Nature, or Law of Works. The Spirit indeed does help us, but it is to keep his own Law, the Law of the Spirit, and that Law whereby we may have life. If we do look to fulfil the Covenant of Nature, we must return to our original Righteousness, and our free will which we lost in Adam, and that is to go from the Spirit to ourselves who are but flesh. But what? Is not the Law of God the rule of our lives? and does not the Spirit of God lead us according to rule, and bring us to a conformity to his law? I answer no doubt of it: but that is a conformity so far as reaches the fulfilling the terms of the Gospel, but not those of Works. The law of grace does require a sincere walking before Go! in all his Commandments, and the Spirit of God does certainly help us so far as we sin not against that sincerity, or sin, no sins inconsistent with these terms: but the spirit is not given to bring us up to the terms of the Law, and that we should not sin at all. What shall we say that Abraham as pertaining to the flesh hath found? By the flesh we are to understand works as appears in the next verse: and so is the spirit opposed to the flesh, as it is opposed to the law of works. If we seek therefore for a Righteousness by our works, that is according to that law, we shall find what Abraham did, as pertaining to the flesh. We shall find no such matter. O ye foolish Galathians (says the Apostle) having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? The Galathians belike who had received the doctrine of grace by Paul, were come to be seduced to the opinion that they must keep Moses Law, or else they could not be saved; and this is their seeking to be made perfect by the flesh. The flesh and nature are Synonymous terms, and as in respect of those who were Jews by Nature, the works of the Law, as given by Moses are called flesh: so must the works of the Law, as a Covenant by Nature, be flesh in respect to the rest of mankind. If the Quaker then is come to seek life by such a following his light as must answer the Covenant of Nature itself; that is by a perfection as is without sin against the Law, he is plainly under the notion of the spirit, brought at last to the flesh for what he seeks.  
In the last place, It is an ancient saying that he who looks but one thing is easily misled. It seems that these Friends do apprehend that our doctrine which opposes perfection does serve for the boulstring up men in their sins, and lull them into security, that though they live and die in their wickedness, they must be saved; and this being taught especially among us Protestants, who believe that we are justified by Christ's Righteousness without works, does appear very destructive to many souls, which makes them out of an intention which we may suppose zealous for godliness, and the promotion of a good life, to fall on our Divines with so much tragical exclamation as they do on this point: When in the mean time they neither have considered what our Divines do say that removes all ground for any such abuse; nor what indeed are the consequences of their own doctrine, which under Pelagianism, Donatism, and the like names, hath been so often exploded, as utterly intolerable in the Church of God. For their conviction in both these, I would not in the way have them ignorant what doctrine it was Paul Preached, and upon which the like consequences was fastened by some persons at that time, that if grace abounded, they might therefore live in sin: It is but the same doctrine of Gods abounding free grace, mercy, and forgiveness through Christ to poor Sinners that our Divines do bring against the doctrine of perfection (setting the unsound sense of imputed Righteousness aside), which Paul Preached, and pleaded against those who would bring in the works of the Law for their justification. And when these Friends have pondered the Apostles answer to what was alleged against him, there will need but little more to be said by us here unto the same. There are two things particularly our Divines teach. The one is, that notwithstanding grace be imperfect in this life, there is no man may sin for all that, in any the least thing whatsoever: That is, though our holiness be imperfect, yet is it our duty to be perfect, and we are still to be pressed to go on to perfection. The other is that a state of grace will not stand with any sin in dominion. That is, that whosoever does willingly and wilfully live in any known sin without Repentance unto death, he cannot be saved. And what is the reason then, when these two things are still taught, that these men should charge the Orthodox with that consequence which they do so effectually disclaim? Let them look into any practical Books of ours, and see if obedience, which is universal, be not given as the chief note still of an upright man, and of that Faith which is saving? And what would they themselves now say more? If this rather, without some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as so far as human frailty, according to the several complexions, circumstances, and temptations of persons, by infinite goodness and wisdom will be allowed) be not more strict than can be borne. Will it not indeed suffice that a man is upright before God in his desires and endeavours after perfection, that is the having respect to all his commandments, unless he also be perfect, and his works overtake his will? What then shall become of the generation of the most just? Let us see when this one inconvenience they apprehend as consequent to our doctrine is wiped off, whether the several inconveniences that follow their doctrine do not require more heed.  
First then, where they say our doctrine does lead men into security, remissness of life, neglect of their duty, a sinful course: how must their doctrine hurl men into despair, and lead them by that to the casting off the whole care of God and their souls altogether? There is no means under Heaven so likely to bring a man to give up all, as to make him desperate. If it will not serve a man for his acceptance with God that he is sincere in his desires and endeavours of walking before him, unless he attain to perfection, or to a life that is wholly without sin in this world, then must the heart of the most holy and mortified man upon earth be quite broke and discouraged for ever. There is mercy with thee (says David) that thou mayst be feared, If God were nor good and merciful to consider man's frailty, to pardon his shortnesses and imperfections, and bear with him, we should not fear him, that is worship or serve him, for it were to no purpose to go about it, seeing we could never please him. Alas! that these folks did but know what they do, when they bring in such doctrine, who themselves must tremble to be judged by it. O ye foolish Galathians! who hath bewiched you, that you should departed from that comfort and peace which some of you I believe sometimes had in believing and tru●ting on Christ altogether for your pardon and reconciliation with God, that you should be brought now to the works of the Law, and these terms, that if you do them you shall live in them? Is there any indeed of you think that you are able, and do continue in all things that are written in the book of the Law, or in all things that are written in the tables of your hearts to do them? And are you ignorant that upon that account, and that alone, that none do, or are able to do so the Apostle tells you, As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse? Alas Sirs! what mean you, when we are under the ministration of the New-Testament, which brings the Spirit and liberty (where the Spirit is there is liberty), and righteousness (for by the law of faith the Christian hath a righteousness to plead and to be justified by) and so life, you should be ready to return into a Jewish or Natural bondage, to seek for it from that only which can bring death, and is the ministration of sin and condemnation?  
Secondly, I wish, into whatsoever consequence our doctrine may lead some of our people, that your doctrine does not lead your people into some evils more secret and spiritual, but much more deadly to the soul, than our ordinary sins are. When we shall see a person (suppose some Youth of either Sex) as soon as they are but wrought over to your party, be ready immediately to look on all the rest of people at a distance to a neglect, nay even to a contempt of the most grave, serious, holy of professors which they before conversed withal, and so talk to them as if they knew nothing straight in comparison of them, but as men altogether in the dark without light or life were to be separated from, till they arrive to their attainment, or higher state. I know not what you yourselves may say at such a sight, nor what some others may think who pass it by with a smile or jest at the folly, or else with wrath, scorn, and indignation at the insolence, and infinite presumption: but I for my part must profess it, as to my own soul, to be a matter of a very deep, sad, and afflictive apprehension, to behold such a novice falling into the condemnation of the Devil. Alas! what is it if the Devil himself were again in his first station that he would say, but I am now in that Seraphical state, as is above all Cherubims, Thrones, Dominions, Angels, archangels. I am like God, and none of these are like to me. If pride, if Spiritual pride, if the most damnable pride, to be proud of God's grace, which consists in such a monstrous overweening conceit of a man's self as this, that he is perfect (and in one too who hath scarce broken the shell yet in Religion), to the neglect, despising, continual censuring, and setting at naught of others, be no evil, then may the prudent, the sober, and pious amongst you who are best able to see, and to mourn for the miscarriages of your sect, have less reason to fear the tendency of this doctrine of Perfection: But if it be the way of Christians to be humble, to look on themselves as vile, as nothing, to live altogether on dependence upon God, each man in lowliness of mind esteeming of others better than themselves, then will it be your duty to have more care of what you are to rebuke, and of what you are to teach. Lest that which is lame be turned out of the way, and that which is weak be destroyed.  
Last of all, There is the danger, that exceeding danger in the very entainment of this opinion, that I am afraid at my heart it cannot consist (if prevalent) with the grace of God, and justification of a sinner by Christ. It is a high text, that of the Apostle. Behold I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. Circumcision was a bond to the keeping the whole law, and if the Galathians upon the opinion that the Law must be kept for their justification were circumcised, they are like as it seems here to bring themselves into that condition as to stand or fall by it. Let them look to it then, if they break but one of the commandments, to the whole whereof they are debtors, the bond is forfeit. The like instance is that we have in the Jews themselves. God had given them his Law, which was indeed to direct them in a holy life; but the chief end of it was through conviction of sin to drive them to God for his pardon and grace, which was to be received through the promise, by their Faith. Now the Jews being ignorant of this end, look to the Law only for Righteousness, and are lost. I am really afraid at my very heart Sirs, lest your case be the very same in effect with these. You have the Gospel Preached, and if you accept of your pardon through Christ there is no more required, but the walking sincerely before him, and acknowledging him your Advocate if you sin, and you may be safe; but you have taken up an opinion that the whole Law must be kept, that you must live without sin, and unless you come up to this pitch, you cannot be saved. What is here then, I say, but such an Opinion as that of the Galathians, and such an establishing of your own Righteousness as the Jews was; only with this difference indeed in both, that it is more. For the Righteousness of the Law, as given by Moses, was not thought by them so strict as we know it to be, as given by Nature. And if they shall stand for their lives upon these terms, who is not apprehensive of the danger of such Doctrine? For I testify again to every man, that whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. I remember when Festus had brought Paul out to Agrippa, and he had opened and pleaded his cause before him, Agrippa said unto Festiu, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Caesar. If these Friends, being at the Bar of the Gospel, would stand to that grace we have there, they might be freed by course with other honest Christian folks, through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Who hath any thing to charge upon them? But if they will appeal from those terms under which we are brought by Christ, unto their persection, which is the terms of the Law, to be judged by that; what can we say else, but they have appealed unto Caesar, and to Caesar must they go. Unto your perfection you have appealed, and when you shall be found imperfect, as all flesh living must be, what shall become of you before the great Tribunal of God? O Lord! Thou seest man's foolishness, and knowest his danger. If any of these poor people are indeed upon such a precipice, as my Soul fears for them, deliver them, save them from it, bring them to a right mind, that they may not departed from thy grace, to go to their own Cisterns. They went to the Wells, and there was no Water; they returned with their Vessels empty, and were ashamed. We have a singular precedent in Job. A man may wonder sometimes why God should deal so severely with that Saint. It was not perhaps without cause. Job was a holy person, and he knew it, he stood upon it; and it is possible he might by that temper of his, be one who in the establishing this Righteousness of his own, was apt to forget to submit to the Righteousness of God, and that this was the very secret cause which makes him have need of so sufficient a course to be taken for reducing him out of that danger. Friends! Let me speak to you here in those words which Eliphaz did to his Friend. Surely you have spoken in my hearing, and I have heard the voice of your words, saying, We are Clean without Transgression; we are Innocent, neither is there Iniquity in us. Let me then speak to you in the words also of God. Who are these that darken Counsel with words without knowledge? I humbly beseech the Lord, that what is offered here unto you, to the like end (supposing the end of the Lord to Job, herein to be such), may be received with the like effect. That you may say, Behold we are vile, what shall we answer thee? we will lay our hands on our mouths. Once have we spoken, but we will not answer; yea twice, but we will proceed no further.  Augustine. Cont. Ep. Parmen. l. 2. c. 6. 
Quamvis in quantum ex deo nati sumus non peccemus, inest tamen adhuc etiam quod ex Adamo nati sumus. Et quamdiu expectamus per patientiam corporis nostri redemptionem, non audeamus dicere carere nos omni vitio, ne ipsa superbia sit immanissimum vitium. Although in so much as we are born of God, we sin not, yet does there remain in us that too, which is born of Adam; and so long as we, through patience, do wait for the Redemption of the body, we dare not say that we are without all sin, lest that very Pride itself be a most monstrous sin.  
The End.   

An Advertisement.  
Reader,  
I Intended more Papers under this Title of the Middle Way; but being Discouraged, this (I suppose) is the last. You have one Paper of Election and Redemption, put that first: Another of Justification: A third of the Covenants, Law, and Gospel: And this fourth of Perfection. Expect no more. The Bookseller now will Bind them together. The letters (N. B.) are Nota bene. Valete omnes, & condonate.  
I. H  
Deo Gloria.