Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	righteousness_n	sin_n	20,387	5	5.1345	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

the priviledge he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself som● time is to turn an Apprentice and therefore t is as true an act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of his Chastisments for Sin Arg. 3. If Righteousness were by the Law i e. by our personal Obedience to it then Christ died in vain they are the Apostles own Words Gal. 2 21. which we may make a perfect Hypothetical Syllogisme by adding the Minor But Christ died not in vain and the Conclusion therefore Righteousness comes not by the Law The reason of the Consequence in the Major which the Apostle affords us is because the end of Christs Death was to provide us a Righteousness to be tendred to God acceptance and which supposing the Covenant of Grace he neither would nor could refuse But if we have Righteousness sufficient for the end of Righteousness Justification the Righteousness provided by Christ comes a-day after the Fair as we say too late to bestead us Christ's end in his Death was to do that for us in point of Justification which we could not do for our selves as may well be inferred from the place touched at above Rom. 8. 3 4. The Scriptures they alledge are Arg. 1. James 2. 24. A man is justified by Works and not by Faith onely Answ If we take Justification in a proper sence for the Absolution or Acquitting of a Sinner this place would contradict that in Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith and not by the Deeds of the Law But there is alway a sweet consent though sometimes a seeming dissent between one Scripture and another I therefore distinguish between Justification as it imports the Absolution of a Sinner and as it imports the Approbation of a Believer I also distinguish the word Faith as it is taken for a living or for a dead Faith that is for the reality of Faith or the bare Prosession And then I answer that James tells us how a Man is declared or manifested to be a justified Person viz. not by a profession of Faith only but by Works also we are justified by Works as our Faith is made perfect by Works Jam. 2. 22. that is declaratively Faith is declared or evidenced to be perfect that is sincere and true by Works As the Tree is not made but shewn to be good by the Fruit it bears And hence t is said that Faith without Works is dead vers 20. It is so and appears to be so as the Tree that bears not at all And the scope of the place is to convince the Hypoc●ites that said they had Faith and had none as appears vers 14. and onward Whereas Paul in the other place Rom. 3. 28. shews u● how a Sinner is formally justified in the sight o● God viz. by a True Faith in Christ as will appear to him that observes vers 25. 26. where God is said to justifie him that believes in Jesus Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood Arg. 2. Rom. 8. 2 4. The Law of the Spirit of lif● in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law 〈◊〉 Sin and Death That the Righteousness of the La● may be fulfilled in us who walk not after the Fles● but after the Spirit From the first of these verse● they conclude that we are made free Meritoriously by the Law of the Spirit in us from the Law of Sin and Death because it is the same Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ and the Saints From the second they observe tha● the Righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in th● Persons of the Saints Ans To the second Verse theirs cannot b● the meaning of the Text For supposing a sta●● of freedome from sin attainable in this life an● that by the Law of sin and death is meant only death the fruit of sin yet how can there be an● colour for merit of justification when the ver● priviledge of that state addes to those obligations by which all the service our capacity wil● extend to had been due to God if we had never sinned Two other Sences ind●ed the word● seem to learned Men not uncapable of 1. That the Apostle give● a reason of the connexion between justification and sanctification because the same Christ Jesus that justifies by his blood sanctifies by his spirit So Calvin c. in loc 2. That they contain the meritorious cause of that justification which is evidenced by an holy life viz the active obedience of Christ So Beza And to this I rather incline As for Ver. 4. some understand them to note this end of Christs sending into the World viz. that Gods righteous Laws might not be absolutely contemned and so given in vain but might be observed though imperfectly by believers Others of the imputation of Christs surety righteousness Fide jussoria justitia The Quakers to be sure mistakes for I shall shew under the next head no perfect personal righteousness is attainable in this life Arg. 3. If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation then our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent S. Fishers dispute at Sandwich The consequence he proves from that Rule in Logick Contraria contrariorum ratio of contraries there is a contrary reason or consequence Ans We deny the consequence of the major 1. Because our good and our evil works are not perfectly contrary For our evil works are perfectly evil for malum fit ex quilibet defectu Any one defect makes our works evil but ou● good works are but imperfectly good For Bonum fit ex integris causis There must be a conformity in all respects to the Law to make our work● good For that Rule on which Fisher ground● his consequence holds only of immediate or perfect contraries not of mediate And so his consequence is but like this If cold Water will chil● a Man's body luke-warm Water will scald it 2. Because there is no condignity in our goo● works were they perfectly good There canno● be a proportion between a finite work and infinite reward 'T is true the Apostle says To him that worketh the reward is reckon'd not of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. But it is to be understood of a debt Ex pacto gratiae non ex operis dignitate due by promise not by any merit preceding the promise Arg. 4. Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified Pen. p. 26. Ans The words give the reason of their perishing who had the Law viz. the Jews because God cannot justifie any on the terms of the old Covenant that do not perfectly fulfill it which the Jews were far enough from being able to do or indeed from indeavouring it They pleased themselves in their priviledges and external acts of

Consession was extorted by clear evidence Luke 4. 34. And Holy Harmless Vndefiled se●●rate from Sinners Heb. 7. 26. since he left the Earth 2. Because Christ Obedience was not originally due to God i● it had one debt could not have paid another I do not mean that Christ as Man was not subject to the Law of God because of the Union of the Humane Nature from the first moment of it's existence to the divine Nature in the Person os the Son of God For this seems contrary to Scripture Gal. 4. 4. Made of a Woman made under the Law and the personal Union seems no more to dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then to take away the Essential Properties Parts or Faculties of Body and Soul whereof his humane Nature did consist And if that Union did dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then Christ as Man could not be Holy by a true Inherent Righ●eousness of the humane Nature which lies in the Conformity to the Law of God given thereunto and so had not been capable of Meriting at all But in two respects may Christ's obedience be said not to be Originally due 1. In that he being a Person before he became Man he was at his Election whither he would become Man or not that is a rational Creature which of course or Ipso facto as we say upon it's existence becomes a Subject as the Connexion imports Made of a Woman mad● under the Law Gal. 4. 4. and so had the refusal of being under the Law● and he becam● Man that he might come under the Law 2. When he was Man he was not under an Obligation to obey to any such ends as to satisfie divine Justice and merit Life for them who had demerited Death For it not being in the compa●● of any meer Mans power there was no such Obligation upon any meer Man as to obey or suffer by way of Satisfaction for another man● Disobedience or to recover thereby the happiness another man had lost and make a new purchase of what he had forfeited and God had sei●ed into his own hands 3. The third Ground of the merit of Chri●● Obedience is the Dignity of the Person know not what other reason but the Digni●● resulting from the Divine Nature to the H●mane that the Blood of the Son of man is ca●led the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. God purchas● the Church with his own Blood The action of o●● Nature is the action of the whole Person Act●ones sunt Suppositorum we say in the Schools an● we distinguish between Principium quo an● quod A man is said to think and to speak because they are both the acts of the Person though the one he does by vertue of his Soul the ther of his Body And as sence is dignified by being under the command of Reason in a man which it is not under in a Bruit so is the Humane Nature by Union to the Divine As for the Cavil of Socinians whose Vomit the Quakers have now licked up that the dignity of the Person comes not under Consideration because t is not the God-head or Divine Nature that suffers it is very futilous They might with as much reason say t is all one whither I strike my Prince or a private Person or an Enemy or my Father because my blows do not fall upon Authority or Relation but on the person in Dignity or related to me as Grotius well observes De Satist Chr. c. 8. And it contradicts the common sence of all Nations who proportion their Punishment to the digni●y or the Person injured I shall answer one Objection though not in W. Pens Book Object How can God be said to forgive freely when he requires Satisfaction Are not these two Contradictory Answ 1. There is no contradiction between Forgiveness and Satisfaction because they are not ad idem they respect not the same Persons If Satisfaction were required of us we could not be said to be forgiven Answ 2. There are divers acts of Grace whereby God makes way for Satisfaction and the benefits of it 1. A Relaxation of the Law which term in the Civil Law notes an Act of a Superiour whereby the Obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to some Persons and things In the case before us there was such an act of Gods whereby he admits a surety whereas the Law threatned the Sinner himself A relaxation of the Law I say there was as that is opposed to an Abrogation which is not here for then the Elect whilst Sinners in state were not under the Curse of the Law which to affi●m were to contradict the Apostle Gal. 3. 13. and as a Relaxation is opposed to a favourable Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then the surety were in the primary Obligation as when one Person enters into a Recognisance with another for his appearance in Court But Christ was not bound with Man in the Covenant of Works to see the Law kept or undergo the penalty which Relaxation was an Act of Soveraign●y to the exercise whereof his own grace and nothing foreseen in us did prompt him 2. Another act of Gods Grace is the Nomination and Appointment of a surety Christ was made a surety Heb. 7. 21. and by the Father Heb. 10. 7. I come to do thy will sayes Christ to his Father of his undertakement as our surety which is an act of Grace for the Debtor not the Creditor the Malefactor not the Judge is to find a surety A Representation of both these acts we have Gen. 22. 2. 13. where God admitted and provided a Ram for a Sacrifice instead of Isaac though the Letter of the Command was to offer Isaac himself 3. Gods Actual Acceptance the Payment or Satisfaction made and tendered by Christ which appears as otherwise so especially 1. By his Resurrection 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh was justified in the Spirit that is by his God-head so called because t is in Nature Spiritual 1 John 4. 24. compared with 1 Pet. 3. 18. where t is said of Christ That he was put to death in the Flesh but quickned by the Spirit that is his Humane and Divine Nature And they instruct us in this Truth that Christ's Resurrection was not only an Effect of Divine Power but also of Christs Justification from our sin charged upon him in his Death and so a Foundation laid for our Actual Forgiveness to be built on by Faith That passage also contributes some Assistance Math. 28. vers 3. where the Angels of the Lord descended from Heaven and rold away the St●ne from the Door of the Sepulchre which would have been an Impediment to his getting out For what can the Creditors release of the Surety out of Prison signifie but that he is satisfied and the Debt paid 2. By his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat

made of a Woman to redeem them that were under the Law Gal. 4. 4 5. which subjection to the precepts of the Law was penal as being a debasement of so great a person a strange metamorphosis of an absolute Soveraign into a subject And therefore 't is spoken of as a wonderful instance of condescention that he was not ashamed to call us brethren Heb. 2. 11. that is fellow-subjects for being one in nature with us he becomes one with us in an obligation to the same Law And if it be weighed the penal nature of what we call penalties or curses lies not barely in the smart of sense but in the brand of insamy thereby set upon us that we rec●ive the due reward of our deeds as the good thi●f gives us his sentiment of his own and fellows case Luke 23. 41. And seeing that Satisfaction in the eye of the Law is strictly not solutio ejusdem but tantidem not of what the letter of the Law requires but of somewhat equivalent therefore it may be made as well agendo as patiendo by doing as by suffering For some actions as they may be circumstantiated may be truly penal to the agent and so equivalent to the corporal punishment which the letter of the Law ex●cts and may be as proper for demonstration of justice maintaining the repute of the Law and example to others 2. Qu. What causality in respect of God's act of forgiveness Christ's obedience was capable of Answ Christ's obedience could satisfie God but in genere causae moralis sc impulsive vel meritoriae as a meritorious cause of which we say that movet aliquem ad talionem reddendam which moves another to recompence the act done by good or ill offices which we thus express popularly One good turn requires another Which kind of cause works on an agent and induces him to produce the effect And that it is such appears by comparing the causality of his obedience in respect of our impunity or freedome from punishment with the causality of sin in respect of punishment which in the latter induces God to punish in the sormer induces God to pardon I● it be said how can this be seeing nothing without God can be said to move him for then somewhat in God should b● an effect of the Creature and so the first cause should have some dependance upon the second which is absurd and impossible I answer There is no cause indeed of the will of God ex parte actus volendi as to the act it self of his will but there may be a cause ex parte volitorum as to the things will'd whence the Schools say Deus vult hoc esse propter hoc sed non propter hoc vult hoc i e. God wills one thing for another but why he Wills one thing for another there 's no cause to be assigned but his Will God wills the preaching of the Word for the production of faith as a means for its end but why he wills that connexion between them no reason can be given but his Will for he can work faith without it And so Christs obedience cannot properly work upon Gods will but if it have the causality of an impulsive cause attributed to it we must understand that properly those terms note but a connexion between means and end Christ's Obedience and the Sinners Pardon which having been joyned together in God's Decree cannot be put asunder in the Execution Quest How does it appear that Christ's Obedience had the Efficacy of a Meritorious Cau●e of our Forgiveness Answ 1. Those places which speak of the turning away of Divine Wrath by Christs Obedience which Wrath is but an Inclination to punish He Christ is a Propitiator for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propitiatio 1 J●h 2. 2. It notes the Act of Appeasing and the means whereby God is Appeased Rom. 3. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propitiatorium The Mercy Seat so rendred Heb. 2. the true as that was the Typical means of Attonement 2. It appears by those Scriptures which speak of Redemption or Freedom from deserved Punishment purchased by a price of Christs Laying-down 1 Pet. 18. 19. Ye were not Redeemed with Corruptible things as Silver and Gold but with the precious Blood of Christ Where the Antithesis cleerly imports that Christ's Blood is a True and Real Price and of far greater Value than Silver and Gold which Yet answer all things Eccles 10. 19. And it hath made a purchase of Freedom from Punishment for that is included in the Vain Conversation spoken of as an Effect in its Cause and elsewhere it is spoken of as a parcel of Christ's purchase Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law 3. By those Scriptures which speak of a Substitution of Christ for us Mat. 20. 28. The Son of Man came to give his Life a Ransome for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Res aut factum quo movetur qu●spiam ut aliquam Incommodo alioqui 〈…〉 liberari Patiatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Preposition when applied to Persons Imports the Succession of one into the room of another so used Mat. 2. 22. and rendred in the room o● his Father 1 Tim. 2. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pret●●● Redemptionis a caunter Priae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Composition notes either Contrarietatem as in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antichrist i. e. one that opposeth Christ or it notes commut ●tionem an exchange of one for another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notes something or Act whereby any one is moved to let him go free whom he hath advantage against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notes such a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Compensation as in which the Deliver undergoes that Evil in kind or Equivalently which he that is delivered should have undergone And if the Word imports an Exchange from one Life to another then we conclude a Satisfaction from the Nature of the thing Either justly or unjustly we were to die not the latter for we had well deserved Death therefore the former And if Christ hath freed us from that Death we were justly obnoxious to what is that but what we call Satisfaction in the sence of the point in hand Quest 4. Whence Christ's Obedience had the Efficiency of a Meritorious Cause of our Forgiveness 1. It was a perfect Obedience 2 Cor. 5. Last he knew no sin i e. by Experience of the working of it in himself which Peter explains when he says He did no sin 1 Pet. 2. 22. Thence the Denomination given him An holy thing in his Conception Luke 1. 35. An Holy Child Acts 4. 27. After his Birth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and puer in the Three Learned Languages signifie a Child and sometimes a Servant perhaps because the Child is born a Subject to the parent Jure diving Naturali The Holy one of God ●n his Man-hood even by the Devils from whom that

beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24. 47. It doe● not then exclude the teachings of men But i● we compare this part of the Verse with the la●● Clause For all shall know me from the least to the greatest the meaning is evident viz. that Go● does not hereby exclude but include the teachings of Men and promise a greater efficacy to them than formerly so that the Christians 〈◊〉 the New Testament should be able to leave the Principles of the Dactrine of Christ and to go on to perfection As the Apostle speaks Heb. 6. 1. i. e. not to forget or unlearn them but not to stick in them without further progress as for a Scholar to be always learning Grammar and never proceed to Rhetorick Logick c. Second Scripture is 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye need n●● that any Man teach you Answ This is spoken in opposition to any o● the seducers vers 26. whos 's teaching the Christians needed not In which sence the Colossian● are said to be compleat in Christ Col. 2. 10 8. 〈◊〉 opposition to Mosaical Ceremonies humane traditions or Phylosophical Principles which might pretend to discover somewhat necessary to salvation not revealed in the Gospel or contrary to that revelation which interpretation of the tex● before us is favoured by the latter clause but 〈◊〉 the same anointing teacheth you all things and is truth and is no lie 1 Joh. 2. 27. 2. This place will bear another interpretation viz. that they were grown Christians such as did not altogether depend upon others but knew somewhat themselves having an inward light or spiritual judgment called metonymically an anointment That Character ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth 2 Tim. 3. 7. However it agreed to other Christians did not agree to them so that in the Quakers interpretation there is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as Logicians speak that is to take those words absolutely which are intended in a certain respect And that theirs cannot be the meaning will appear to any one that shall but remember that after Christs ascention when the spirit was poured out in most plentiful measure so that if at any time on Earth then might the teachings of Man seem needless there was greatest plenty of Teachers extraordinary ordinary as we finde in the Acts of the Apostles Another Branch of the Quakers Errour as to Ordinances refers to Baptism and the Lord's Supper of which they affirm that they cease upon the appearance of Christ within A. P ' s. several Papers p. 19. Farnworth's Discovery of Faith p. 11. Against which Errour I oppose two Arguments one for both Ordinances the other for Baptism in particular Arg. 1. If Baptism and the Lord's Supper are standing Ordinances or such as we are obliged to use during this life then they do not cease upon the appearance of Christ within or are not made useless or unnecessary by any degree of attainments in this life But the former is true therefore the latter That they are standing Ordinances appears because no formal repeal can be produced either in terminis or by any due consequence from Scripture nor yet any virtual repeal as in Laws made for a time and at the expiration thereof of course ceasing to oblige That then they do not cease as to our need of them follows evidently because it is not to be supposed consistent with Christ's wisdome to continue an obligation upon us to the use of a means when the end is obtained already All that can be said with any colour is that they are of perpetual obligation till the appearance of Christ within that is a full appearance or state of perfection But we having proved before that there is no such state attainable in this life then if those Ordinances oblige till we be arrived at perfection they oblige and so are of use during term of life Arg. 2 If Baptism be a Foundation-Doctrine as I may call it then it is of use during this life That it is such appears by Heb. 6. 1 2. where the Apostle calls the Doctrine of Baptism a Foundation by which phrase of the Apostle the knowledge of the use and intendment of that Ordinance by those who had or were to receive it ●eems to be meant The consequence is good If it be an Ordinance all Christians are to understand and improve then they must receive it Being baptized into Christs death cannot be an argument to induce the unbaptized to a mortification of sin which the Apostle urges upon the baptized Rom. 6. 3 4. If it be said that the Apostle exhorts the Hebrews to leave this Principle or Foundation of Christian Doctrine vers 1. I answer that by leaving it the Apostle cannot mean relinquishing the practice thereof For then by force of the same phrase applyed to Faith and Repentance c. These graces must also be left the contrary whereto I have before proved but the Apostle explains himself that they should not so stick in the foundation as not to proceed to the superstructure or highest points of Christian doctrine I could never meet with any thing that looked like an Argument for their opinion but that place which speaks of shewing forth the Lord's Death in the Supper till he come which they interpret till he come in the spirit 1 Cor. 11. 26. Answ So Christ was come already to the believing Corinthians The Apostle speaking of them and himself says We have received not the spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God 1 Ep. chap. 2. v. 12. And yet that hindred not the Apostles incouragement and direction in their use of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 25 26 28. Errour 9. That there is no Resurrection from the Dead Rob. Turner in a Letter of his to the Baptists and George Whitehead in his late Answer to W. Burnet and George Fox Jun. in his Works bound up together THe Scripture is plentiful in asserting the Resurrection I shall only single out one Argument to evince it Arg. If the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly then the same bodies that dye must rise again But the Antecedent is true therefore also the Consequent That the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly which Proposition is the ancecedent is evident by 2 Cor. 5. 10. And then the Consequence is firm because those bodies receive not their Reward till the universal Judgment and then they cannot receive it having been once dissolved unless they rise again For the further proof of antecedent and consequent I shall first explain the Terms of Christ's Argument to prove the Resurrection from the ●ead which to ordinary Readers may seem inconsequent and then shew how the Argument is ●educed The place is Mat. 22. 31 32. As touching their Resurrection from the Dead have ye not Read that ●hich was spoken unto you by God ● Saying I am ●●e God of

Resurrection are Arg. From Eccles 3. 19 20 21. Whence he concludes the fleshly Bodies of Men rise not again for if the fleshly Bodies of Men rise again and not the flesh of Beasts then Mens Bodies have a preheminence over a Beasts Body and to affirm the Bodies of Men shall rise again were to give Solomon the lie Answ Men are said to be Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply but in a certain respect viz. in respect of the mortality of the Body which being composed of the same materials with bruit Beasts is as lyable to a dissolution In respect of the immortality of Mans Soul and the Resurrection of his Body He hath preheminence above a Beast As for Verse 21. if they be the Atheists words personated by Solomon they note the Reason of his Opinion because the difference between Man and Beast as to their future state is not visible as their agreement in their dissolution is If they be Solomon's own words he cannot be supposed to mean any more than that the different disposal of the spirits of Man and Beast is not visible to the eye of sence and but dimly to the eye of reason and faith and so may be an occasion of the Atheists conceit that that difference in their future state is but talk and uncertain conjecture For Ch. 12. 7. Solomon tells us that The Spirit of Man returns to God that gave it viz. to be disposed of as Justice or Mercy shall see meet Arg. 2. From Job 7. 8. The Fye of him that bath seen me shall see me no more But if all rise again then the Eye that hath seen him may see him again which Opinion giveth Job the lie Answ The meaning of Job can be but that the Eye that had seen him should after his death see him no more in statu quo not with such worldly comforts about him as now he had Verse 10. he instances in a return to his House They that had seen him and Inhabitant in the Land of Vz should never see him there again in that capacity Vers 7. He says his Eye should see no more good compare that passage with this in hand and they amount to this that Job should after death no more in joy the accommodations of this life and therefore no Eye could be witness of any such in joyment That Job did not intend a denial of the Resu●●●ction of his Bod● unless we will make Job give himsel● the lie is evident by Chap. 19. 26 27. And though after my Skin worms destroy this body yet in my Flesh shall I see God whom I shall see for my self and mine Eyes shall behold and not another though my Reins be consumed within me Of which place he that would see a full explication let him read the Learned Caryl Comm on Job All that I shall infer from the summe of the words discernable by an ordinary judgment is that if Job had the same body after the Resurrection that he had before then he was as visible after as before it Arg. 3. From 1 Cor. 15. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God then not the body of Man says the Quaker for that is flesh and in it is blood Answ The latter Clause of this Verse explains the former Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption where the Apostle gives us to understand that a corruptible Body shall not inherit a state of immortality the adjunct being put for the subject in both words And the Quakers interpretation crosses the whole drift of the Apostle in a great part of the Chapter which is to shew that the same Body shall rise but with so different qualities that it shall be as unlike to what it was before as the standing Corn to the Seed p●t into the Earth or as one Star is to another in brightness and lustre Vers 37 38 41. And the Apostle enumerates those qualities Vers 42 43 44. The sum whereof is that that body which was before mortal i. e. liable to death natural i. e. supported by food rest c. dishonoured by being used as an Instrument of sin and by weaknesses blemishes the fruits of sin shall become immortal i. e. not liable to death spiritual i. e. not needing nor using its former props glorious neither subject to sin or the punishment of it I might have been much larger on these points but I know great Books finde sew buyers and fewer Readers and therefore I resolved not to exceed Six Sheets I wish what I have done may prove profitable If my Answers seem not so cleer as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a mystery so high that it re●ates the sharpest edge of humane understanding I desire the Reader to ponder upon this grave saying of a learned Man It is easier to oppose than to defend the Christian Religion for it having something in it above the capacity of Man's understanding 't is no hard matter by reason to oppose such a Religion Villeroy in his Counceller of State FINIS AN ADVERTISEMENT ONe of W. Pens Arguments against the Trinity I had almost omitted it being out of its proper Place in his Book viz. that in p. 10. If the God-head subsist in Three distinct Manners or Forms then one of them cannot be a compleat Subsistence without the other two and so parts and something sinite would be in God or if in finite then Three distinct in finite Subsistences and by consquence Three distinct Gods Answ Not to Quarrel at the Impropriety of Pens Phrase nor at the Coincidence in effect of this with his Third Arguments I answer by denying the consequence For as every Person is compleat In esse quid ditativo per Essentiam i. e. is truly God by having the Divine Nature So is every Person compleat In esse Personali per Subsistentiam as the Schools speak i. e. is a compleat Subsistent or Person by his proper manner of Subsisting And I wonder he should not see that his Argument may be retorted upon him thus If the God-head be in Three Manners or Forms then the God-head in one manner must needs be a compleat Subsistent and distinct from the God-head in the other two manners Or more plainly thus If the same God-head be in Father Son and Spirit then they must needs be distinct one from another and any one compleat without the other two God the Father cannot be God the Son nor can God the Son be God the Father Though both Father and Son are one God For the Persons are formally Constituted by their relative Properties and so the God-head considered with its Three relative Properties admits of a Three-sold distinction from it self absolutely considered If any shall wonder at the Distance of Time between the Date of the Epistle and Publication he may please to know that the Whole Book except the Advertisement was flnished before the Epistle but by reason of some intervening Accidents not needful nor altogether Convenient to be mentioned could not get through the Press till now ERRATA Title page dele Collected Ep. to Reader p. 1. l. 15. for referd r. refin'd l. 19. for charitably devout r. charitable and devout p. 4. l. 4. for and like this r. as in this instance Book p. ● l. 3. dele or p. 14. l. 4. dele the properties of and after attributes r. among themselves and with their Subjects p. 17. l. 7. for of Persons in the nature Three r. Three Persons in the nature p. 24. l. 1. far counterpriae r. counterprice p. 35. l. 8. dele had The Literal Faults may easily be seen and amended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratis immerito without sufficient Cause