An Apology for the True Christian Divinity / Being an explanation and vindication of the principles and doctrines of the people called Quakers

by Robert Barclay

§. IX.

Answ. 1.But is it not strange to see Men so blinded with Partiality? How many Scriptures tenfold more plain do they reject, and yet stick so tenaciously to this, that can receive so many Answers? As First, [If we say we have no Sin, &c.] will not import the Apostle himself to be included. If we say we have no Sin, &c. objected.Sometimes the Scripture useth this Manner of Expression when the Person speaking cannot be included; which Manner of Speech the Grammarians call Metaschematismus. Thus James iii. 9, 10. speaking of the Tongue, saith, Therewith bless we God, and therewith curse we Men; adding, These Things ought not so to be. Who from this will conclude that the Apostle was one of those Cursers? Answ. 2.But Secondly, This Objection hitteth not the Matter; he saith not, We sin daily in Thought, Word, and Deed; far less that the very good Works which God works in us by his Spirit are Sin: Yea, the very next Verse clearly shews, that upon Confession and Repentance we are not only forgiven, but also cleansed; He is faithful to forgive us our Sins, and to cleanse us from all Unrighteousness. Here is both a Forgiveness and Removing of the Guilt, and a Cleansing or Removing of the Filth; for to make Forgiveness and Cleansing to belong both to the Removing of the Guilt, as there is no Reason for it from the Text, so it were a most violent forcing of the Words, and would imply a needless Tautology. The Apostle having shewn how that not the Guilt only, but even the Filth also of Sin is removed, subsumes his Words in the Time past in the 10th Verse, If we say we have not sinned, we make him a Liar. Answ. 3.Thirdly, As Augustine well observed, in his Exposition upon the Epistle to the Galatians, It is one Thing not to sin, and another Thing not to have Sin. It is one Thing, not to sin, and another Thing not to have Sin.The Apostle’s Words are not, If we say we sin not, or commit not Sin daily, but if we say we have no Sin: And betwixt these two there is a manifest Difference; for in respect all have sinned, as we freely acknowledge, all may be said in a Sense to have Sin. Again, Sin may be taken for the Seed of Sin, which may be in those that are redeemed from actual Sinning; but as to the Temptations and Provocations proceeding from it being resisted by the Servants of God, and not yielded to, they are the Devil’s Sin that tempteth, not the Man’s that is preserved. Answ. 4.Fourthly, This being considered, as also how positive and plain once and again the same Apostle is in that very Epistle, as in divers Places above cited, is it equal or rational to strain this one Place, presently after so qualified and subsumed in the Time past, to contradict not only other positive Expressions of his, but the whole Tendency of his Epistle, and of the rest of the holy Commands and Precepts of the Scripture?

Obj. 2.Secondly, Their second Objection is from two Places of Scripture, much of one Signification: The one is, 1 Kings viii. 46. For there is no Man that sinneth not. The other is, Eccles. vii. 20. For there is not a just Man upon Earth, that doeth Good, and sinneth not.

Answ.I answer, First, These affirm nothing of a daily and continual Sinning, so as never to be redeemed from it; but only that all have sinned, or that there is none that doth not sin, though not always, so as never to cease to sin; and in this lies the Question. Yea, in that Place of the Kings he speaks within two Verses of the returning of such with all their Souls and Hearts; which implies a Possibility of leaving off Sin. Diversity of Seasons and Dispensations respected.Secondly, There is a Respect to be had to the Seasons and Dispensations; for if it should be granted that in Solomon’s Time there were none that sinned not, it will not follow that there are none such now, or that it is a Thing not now attainable by the Grace of God under the Gospel: For A non esse ad non posse non valet sequela. And Lastly, This whole Objection hangs upon a false Interpretation; for the Hebrew Word [Hebrew: ycht': יחטא] may be read in the Potential Mood, thus, There is no Man who may not sin, as well as in the Indicative: So both the old Latin, Junius and Tremellius, and Vatablus have it; and the same Word is so used, Psalm cxix. 11. I have hid thy Word in my Heart, [Hebrew: lt'z l' 'cht' lk: לטעז לא אחטא לך׃] that is to say, That I may not sin against thee, in the Potential Mood, and not in the Indicative; which being more answerable to the universal Scope of the Scriptures, the Testimony of the Truth, and the Sense almost of all Interpreters, doubtless ought to be so understood, and the other Interpretation rejected as spurious.

Obj. 3.Thirdly, They object some Expressions of the Apostle Paul, Rom. viii. 19. For the Good that I would, I do not; but the Evil which I would not, that I do. And Ver. 24. O wretched Man that I am! who shall deliver me from the Body of this Death?

Answ.I answer, This Place infers nothing, unless it were apparent that the Apostle here were speaking of his own Condition, and not rather in the Person of others, or what he himself had sometimes borne; which is frequent in Scripture, as in the Case of cursing, in James before mentioned. But there is nothing in the Text that doth clearly signify the Apostle to be speaking of himself, or of a Condition he was then under, or was always to be under; yea, on the Contrary, in the former Chapter, as afore is at large shewn, he declares, they were dead to Sin; demanding how such should yet live any longer therein? Paul personates the Wretched Man, to shew them the Redeemer.Secondly, It appears that the Apostle personated one not yet come to a spiritual Condition, in that he saith, Ver. 14. But I am carnal, sold under Sin. Now is it to be imagined, that the Apostle Paul, as to his own proper Condition, when he wrote that Epistle, was a carnal Man, who in Chap. i. testifies of himself, That he was separated to be an Apostle, capable to impart to the Romans spiritual Gifts; and Chap. viii. Ver. 2. That the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the Law of Sin and Death? So then he was not carnal. And seeing there are spiritual Men in this Life, as our Adversaries will not deny, and is intimated through the whole viiith Chapter to the Romans, it will not be denied but the Apostle was one of them: So then as his calling himself carnal in Chap. vii. cannot be understood of his own proper State, neither can the rest of what he speaks there of that Kind be so understood: Yea after, Ver. 24. where he makes that Exclamation, he adds in the next Verse, I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord; signifying that by him he witnessed Deliverance; and so goeth on, shewing how he had obtained it in the next Chapter, viz. viii. Ver. 35. Who shall separate us from the Love of Christ? And Ver. 37. But in all these Things we are more than Conquerors: And in the last Verse, Nothing shall be able to separate us, &c. But wherever there is a continuing in Sin, there is a Separation in some Degree, seeing every Sin is contrary to God, and [Greek: anomia: ανομια], i. e. a Transgression of the Law, 1 John iii. 4. Whom Sin has conquered, he is no Conqueror.and whoever committeth the least Sin, is overcome of it, and so in that Respect is not a Conqueror, but conquered. This Condition then, which the Apostle plainly testified he with some others had obtained, could not consist with continual remaining and abiding in Sin.

Obj. 4.Fourthly, They object the Faults and Sins of several eminent Saints, as Noah, David, &c.

Answ.I answer, That doth not at all prove the Case: For the Question is not, Whether good Men may not fall into Sin, which is not denied; but whether it be not possible for them not to sin? Can they that sin, be never freed from Sin.It will not follow because these Men sinned, that therefore they were never free of Sin, but always sinned: For at this Rate of arguing, it might be urged, according to this Rule (Contrariorum par ratio, i. e. The Reason of Contraries is alike) that if, because a good Man hath sinned once or twice, he can never be free from Sin, but must always be daily and continually a Sinner all his Life long; then by the Rule of Contraries, if a wicked Man have done Good once or twice, he can never be free from Righteousness, but must always be a righteous Man all his Life-time: Which as it is most absurd in itself, so it is contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture, Ezek. xxxiii. 12. to 18.

Obj.Lastly, They object, That if Perfection or Freedom from Sin be attainable, this will render Mortification of Sin useless, and make the Blood of Christ of no Service to us, neither need we any more pray for Forgiveness of Sins.

Answ.I answer, I had almost omitted this Objection, because of the manifest Absurdity of it: For can Mortification of Sin be useless, where the End of it is obtained? Seeing there is no attaining of this Perfection but by Mortification. Who fights and not in Hopes to overcome his Foe?Doth the Hope and Belief of overcoming render the Fight unnecessary? Let rational Men judge which hath most Sense in it, to say as our Adversaries do, It is necessary that we fight and wrestle, but we must never think of overcoming, we must resolve still to be overcome; or to say, Let us fight, because we may overcome? Whether do such as believe they may be cleansed by it, or those that believe they can never be cleansed by it, render the Blood of Christ most effectual? If two Men were both grievously diseased, and applied themselves to a Physician for Remedy, which of those do most commend the Physician and his Cure, he that believeth he may be cured by him, and as he feels himself cured, confesseth that he is so, and so can say this is a skilful Physician, this is a good Medicine, behold I am made whole by it; or he that never is cured, nor ever believes that he can so long as he lives? Praying for Forgiveness of Sins.As for praying for Forgiveness, we deny it not; for that all have sinned, and therefore all need to pray that their Sins past may be blotted out, and that they may be daily preserved from sinning. And if hoping or believing to be made free from Sin hinders praying for Forgiveness of Sin, it would follow by the same Inference that Men ought not to forsake Murder, Adultery, or any of these gross Evils, seeing the more Men are sinful, the more plentiful Occasion there would be of asking Forgiveness of Sin, and the more Work for Mortification. But the Apostle had sufficiently refuted such sin-pleasing Cavils in these Words, Rom. vi. 1, 2. Shall we continue in Sin that Grace may abound? God forbid.

But Lastly, It may be easily answered, by a Retortion to those that press this from the Words of the Lord’s Prayer, forgive us our Debts, that this militates no less against perfect Justification than against perfect Sanctification: For if all the Saints, the least as well as the greatest, be perfectly justified in that very Hour wherein they are converted, as our Adversaries will have it, then they have Remission of Sins long before they die. May it not then be said to them, What Need have ye to pray for Remission of Sin, who are already justified, whose Sins are long ago forgiven, both past and to come?