Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	godhead_n	person_n	property_n	2,378	5	9.5846	5	false

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

Card. Pool that when one asked him how be should do to understand the former part of Pauls Epistle to the Romans Replied by practising the latter the former part being Doctrinical and hard the latter Practical and plain In vita Card. Poli. The neglect of such Advice hath provoked God to give men over to strong Delusions to believe Lies gross Figments such as I have here presented thee with Reader I shall not detain thee any longer but recommend thee and this small Piece to the Blessing of God by which if thou art preferved from being led away with the Errours of the Wicked and falling from thy own stedfastness I have obtained my end and shall therein rejoyce for e●er Thy Servant in the Gospel Tho. Danson London Decemb. 13. 1668. A Synopsis of Quakerisme 1. Errour That One God does not subsist in Three Persons THree things I must necessarily premise before I come to the proof of the Proposition which the Quakers deny 1. I must necessarily explain the word Person the usual Definition is Rationalis naturoe individua Substantia or an individual Substance of a rational Nature which Aquinas desends sum Par. 1. Q. 29. art 2. but some think it lyable to some Exception as whereby the humane Soul separated from the Body and the humane Nature of Christ are made Persons and therefore add to it Quoe nec est pars alterius nec ab alio Sustentatur i. e. which is neither the part of an other nor is upheld by an other I shall not interpose my Judgment in the case as remembering that I write for the Unlearned I shall chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wottan on John 1. vers 1. 2. pag. 29. which is the plainest and will not be gain-said I suppose by any Learn●● Man A Person is an individual Subsistence or Subsistent rather in an intellectual Nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self in a nature indued with Vnderstanding 1. The thing which we call a Person is by nature indued with Reason and Understanding A man we call a Person but we give not that name unto a bruit B●ast An individual or singular Creature of that kind is called in the Schools Suppositum 2. A Person notes some one indued with Reason and Understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another And hereby we exclude 1. Qualities or Vertues as Fortitude Temperance c. from being Persons though found in a rational Nature and distinct one from another because they subsist not by themselves but in a subject For a Person is entire of it self and must not depend on any thing as a property thereof And hereby we exclude 2. The Soul separated from the Body for the Soul is a part of the humane Species or of mans Nature and Retinet naturam unibilitatis as Aquin●s speaks Sum. p. 1. Q. 29. art 2. is to be looked upon as a part still in its Separation the Separation of it from the Body being a violence offer'd to it and therefore can no more be called a Person than the hand or foot ●ut off the Body or then a part the foot for instance of a Beast can be call'd a Suppositum 2. That the word person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subfist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should be not only Three Persons but Three God● which need not be a wonder for as Divines say Deus creaturae nihil habent commune praeter nomen God and the Creature have nothing common to them both but names which Rule must be understood with the Limitation that other Rule suggests Nomina de De● creaturis non univoce nec pure aequivoce Sed analogice dicuntur secundum analogiam Creaturarum ad ipsum Aquinas Sum. par 1. Q. 29. Art 3. That the names common to God and the Creatures do not signifie simply the same thing nor wholly different but something wherein the Creature bears some Analogy to God 3. Yet may this word person be used by us and t is used in the Scripture of the Father Heb. 1. 3. to express the distinction of Father Son and Spirit in the God-Head and one from another And the reason why it may be used is this because a person signifies that which is most excellent and perfect in Nature and what the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-Head cannot be apprehended by u● under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we Attribute to God ye● after a most excellent manner For the nature of Man being finite may be multiplyed into many several Men or Persons of the same kind or Nature But the divine nature being infinite cannot possibly admit of a Multiplication For that there should be two infinite Natures implies a Contradiction Therefore when Father Son and Spirit are said to be Three and yet but one God we know not what to call those three but Persons for there is that ascribed to them viz Properties and Operations which cannot agree but either to Three Gods or Three Subsistents that is persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Analogically so call'd in the God-Head And thus I think I have in effect answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians before I meddle with them For their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or grand Errour is that because the word person is not praedicated of Father Son and Holy-Ghost and of the Creature vnivoce that is the same word does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the Creature Therefore they deny Personality of Son and Spirit whereas though the name person does not agree to them in the sence of it's first Imposition yet it does as to what we intend to signifie thereby answerable to the notion the Scripture hath Impressed on our minds Vid. Aquin. Sum. Q. 29. art 3. p. 1. In the next place I shall propose one Scripture and from thence gather some Conclusions the proof whereof will be all I shall offer and as much as will be needful for private Christian's Confirmation in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity 1. John 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Gho●t and these Three are One. The causal Conjunction for implies a re●son of somewhat foregoing viz That Jesus Christ was the Son of God vers 5. And so these words contain an Argument drawn from indubitable Testimonies And from them we may deduce Prop. 1. That there is but one God one in this verse is explained as meant of God vers 9. The Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ vers 7. not to vers 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Prop. 2. That Father Word and Spirit are Three Subsistents or persons 1. He attributes the Act of bearing Record to them

Creature But in God Three Perso● notes a subsisting of Three in one Individu●● Nature in Man a subsisting of Three Pet●● James and John suppose for instance i● Thr●e divided or several Natures of the sam● kind Arg. 2. Either the Divine Persons are Finite 〈◊〉 Infinite if Infinite then Three distinct Infinites and so three Gods Ans 1. We may deny the Disjunction finit●ness and infiniteness are not Personal but Essential properties For in the Notion of the Nature these properties are coutained before you consider that Nature as in a Person So finiteness in respect of man and infiniteness in respect of God And hence though all the properties of the Divine Nature whereof infinit●ness is one agree to each Person subsisting in that Nature yet will it not follow that there are three ●nfinites but only one because there are not three Divine Natures but only one of which one Nature Infiniteness is a property Ans 2. Suppose we grant that these three Persons may be said to be Infinite t is no more in effect than to ●ay that these three Persons are God we may as well attribute to the Person the property included in the Divine Nature as the Divine Nature which includes the property the Nature and Property b●ing one re though not ratione Ans 3. Yet will it not follow that Father Son and Spirit be three distinct Infinites or which is all one three distinct Gods the property and Nature being really one though different according to our way of apprehension as I said above because those three subsist not in three sever●l but in one Individual Nature Arg. 3. If each Person be God and that Go● subsists in Three Persons then in each Pe●son ar● Three Persons or Gods and so from Three they will increase to nine Ans 1. If he understands the Terms God 〈◊〉 we do in the Antecedent of God essentially no such consequence will follow no more than i● this instance If Peter James and John each Person b● Man and that Man subsists in those three Persons then in each of those three Persons 〈◊〉 three Persons or Men and so from three the will increase to nine Take Man here not so a Person but the Nature as we do God in th● Antecedent of Pens Hypothetical Syllogism●● and t is evident that we mean no more then th● the name Man may be attributed to Peter Jame and John because the same humane Nature 〈◊〉 mean specifically agrees to them and so is th● name God attributed to each Person because th● same Divine Nature subsists in each of them 〈◊〉 rather each of them subsists in the same num●rically Divine Nature There is no Cons●quence in Pens Argument unless we held th● each person in the God-Head subsists in 〈◊〉 persons which he goes about unworthily to i● finuate Ans 2. I rather think he hath catched at som● what in our Writers which he did not well u●derstand which he would represent as our Judgments and thence deduce his absurd Conse quence viz that Nature and Person in the God-Head or God are one thing For the Nature of God is so simple that it admits of no parts or Accidents The three Persons are not three parts either essential or Integral of the God-Head nor can the relative properties begetting being begotten proceeding be accidents but substantial attributes as the absolute properties Wisdom Merey Justice for instance yet will it not follow that there are three Persons in each Person that is that the Persons includes each other any more then that these three absolute Attributes include each other For the Conception or Notion that we have of the Father suppose as a subsistent or Person is in●dequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Es●ence considered as affecta Subsistentia or subsisting in divers manners and so does not include the Son and spirit who subsist in two different manners from him And as we cannot say that he Notion of Justice does include Mercy or the Notion of Mercy include Justice though the Divine Essence or God be the same with both those properties so nor can we say that the Notion of the Father as one Person in the God-Head includes the Son nor the Notion of the Son as one Person in the God-Head includes he Father though each of those Persons are he Divine Essence or God and so nor does he Father nor Son include the Spirit or the Spirit include them by the like Reason which w● may thus Ill●st●ate and indeed confirm by comparing the Acts of those absolute Attributes and the properties of those relative Attributes A● punishing is not an Act of Mercy nor sparing 〈◊〉 Act of Justice nor does the one Act include th● other So nor does the Attributes of Mercy and Justice include each other So as begettin● is not being begotten nor being begotten is 〈◊〉 begetting so nor does the Notion of the Fath●● include the Son nor of the Son include the F●ther 4. The fourth is answered in the answer to t●● second and we do not affirm the Person in the God-Head to be finite but infinite 5. If those three distinct Persons are one wit● the God-Head then are they each one with another That 's the sum though he multiplie● words Answ That Argument is grounded though 〈◊〉 does not express nor perhaps understand it upon that rule Quae conveniunt in uno tertio con●●niunt inter●se Those things which are one 〈◊〉 some third thing are one among themselv●● And I answer That rule is to be understood that they are one among themselves only in r●spect of that wherein they agree not simply 〈◊〉 in this plain instance David was a Man and S●lomon was a Man they two agree in a third thin● viz. in the humane nature Will it therefore f●●low that they are one Person nothing les● 〈◊〉 though the Father be God and the Son God it will not follow that they are one Person for in personality or manner of subsistence they differ but only it will follow that they are one God or one in that Divine nature in which third these two meet And now I shall take notice of my Answer to his Question mentioned p. 10. of his Sandy Foundation shaken and his reply thereto Where first the Reader is to know that W. P. conceals his ignorance or falshood in denying that Person was a Scripture term and his front in demanding an instance with that eagerness as if none could be given when I gave him that Heb. 1. 3. Again whereas he relates my Answer to his Question of whom Christ was the express Image that Christ was the express image of Gods subsistence or manner of being he does me wrong for my answer was that Christ was the express image of God the Fathers Person That which I spake of a subsistence or manner of being was in answer to his question What a Person was From whence he then infer'd that if Christ was the image of his Fathers Person he must

be the image of a mode or manner of being to which he received this reply that Christ was the image of the Father subsisting in the divine nature not of the personality or manner of the Fathers being nor yet of the divine nature in the abstract which was illustrated by the Childs bearing the image of his Father And so my answer to his two absurd consequences will be needless But if he thinks them deducible from this answer I gave him I reply thus to them To the first It makes God a Father only by subsistence that if he means that the relation of a Father arises from a personal not an essential act I see no absurdity the immanent act called begetting is not an act of God absolutely but relatively considered that is of the first Person subsisting in that God-head To the second That Christ is then a Son without a substance I answer that though the Son as God is from himself yet as God the Son he is from the Father the person and substance being inseparable As for the place he refers me to Col 1. 15. Who is the Image of the invisible God I see not how it opposes my exposition God is taken there personally for the Father not essentially for the God-head or divine nature which I prove because Christ is said to be the Image of God which if meant of God essentially then Christ must be the image of himself which cannot be And that Christ is God by nature appears by v. 16. where he is said to be the first cause and last end of all things For the translation it is good enough 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Greek Phylosophers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Aristotle uses for substantia prima and secunda the the former of which is when the common nature expressed in the definition is restrained by certain proprieties to an individual which is called Person● or a Person when the nature is indued with reason Suppositum when it is not And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by a Metalepsis yea must be rendered Person or subsistent or some word to that effect because Christ as God is of himself and so is not the image of any other there being no multiplication of the divine nature but of Persons in the nature three Vid. Amyrald de myst Trin. p. 462 c. And he that reads Justin Martyr who flourished about A. D. 150. will finde that he applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Father Son and Spirit which answers W. P. s cavil that 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used Heb. 1. 3. and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used in that sense till Athanasiu's time Errour 2. The impossibility of God's pardoning sinners without plenary satisfaction refuted So Pen. Title page WHere I observe that he argues against the impossibility of God's forgiveness of sin without Satisfaction Concerning which stating of the Question I shall say that either he did or ought to have known that many of us who deny any forgiveness without satisfaction do not affirm any impossibility of forgiveness without it And for my own part though I know some worthy persons do deny W. P's affirmative yet I cannot joyn with them therein For to me it seems evident that God is free in his determinations what attribute he will manifest and in what degree and manner Had Man stood God had only manifested remunerative justice as he does in the elect Angels when Man fell God might only have manifested vindictive justice as he does upon the reprobate Angels or Devils or sparing mercy only as he does in the Persons of elect Men. This variety gives ground to believe that between these properties or attributes of justice and mercy not to speak of others and their effects an act of his meer will intervenes And neither of these is wronged by the manifestation of the other and concealment of it self For the internal glory of none of the divine attributes receives either addition or diminution by the external glory or manifestation of them in their proper effects And as for the way of redemption by Christ we may well conclude it to be a free choice by those emphatical phrases whereby it is set forth The counsel of Gods own will Eph. 1. 11. The mystery of his will his good pleasure v. 9. He that desires may in my weak judgment receive much satisfaction in this point by that short but scholastick Tract of the learned Gilbert intituled Vinditiae Supremi Dei Dominii c. In this we all agree that God does not pardon sin without satisfaction first made to his justice by Christ and he that can make clear proof of this assertion hath won the Goal from the Socinians and their partakers As for the possibility or impossibility of forgiveness without satisfaction we need not much contest seeing the cause does not depend upon either apprehension It was a wise observation of Aquinas Cumquis ad probandam fidem Christianam inducit rationes quae non sunt cog●ntes cedit in irrisionem infidelium credunt enim quod hujusmodi rationibus innitamur propter eas credimus c. Sum. par 1. Q. 32. art 1. Q. 46. art 2. I need not English the passage for they who are concerned understand the School-man without an Interpreter But because W. Pen does also oppose the fact and affirms that God pardons sin without satisfaction made by Christ to his justice I shall therefore briefly explain the terms and then give you my sense in answer to four Questions By pardon of sin we understand a gracious absolution or dissolving of the obligation the sinner is under to sustain punishment for his sin That absolution which is not some way gracious cannot be call'd a pardon Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase but the thing is found there viz. a compensation or recompence made to God for the injury done him by our sin which may be by doing or suffering or both Justice that is Vindictive God must be considered as a supream Rector or Judge and not as Pars Laes● the party offended only in the satisfaction made and if any thing be done for satisfaction when the letter of the Law requires suffering or undergoing of a penalty therein expressed it must in some respect or other have rationem poenae as suppose in regard of the person by w●om be penal and in merit equivalent to what the Law required and so esteemed by the person to whose acceptance it is tende●'d The Q●erys I shall answer to are Qu. 1. What did Christ tender to God for Satisfaction Answ His obedience or subjection to the Law in its penalties or curses Therefore he is said to be made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. And also to the Law in its precepts whence he is said to be made under the Law ipso facto upon his being

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

Confirmation of it I say to urge these Arguments were to launch into an Ocean of Discourse I shall therefore only give a taste of their Arguments and so leave their Tenent to the judgment of the Understanding The Quakers Arguments will discover their meaning without any Explication of the terms Arg. Your Scripture is without but the Word of God is within Rom. 10. 8. The word nigh thee even in thy heart Fisher p. 31. Answ 1. Our Scripture is within as well as without That Command Let the Word of God dwell within you Col. 3. 16. is in a degree obeyed by every Saint And therefore by this Argument Scripture is the Word of God 2. That very Scripture Rom. 10. 8. speaks not of the Light within but of the Scriptures for the Apostle calls it the Word of Faith which he preached latter Clause of the Verse which he tells us was the Doctrine contained in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Acts 26. 22. where we may observe that the Quakers urge th● Scriptures for their Tenents against us only as Argumentum ad hominem to confute us by our own Principles not that they own the Authority of Scripture Arg. 2. If there was a rule before the Scripture wa●●ritten then that is not our rule But there was a rule before the Scripture Fishers Quakers Folly c. p. 29. Whitehead by way of Question to the same effect what was their rule who spake forth the Scriptures Voyce of Wisdom Quest 4. Answ The matter contained now in the Scripture was always the Rule before it was committed in Writing though it was not always in the same manner nor degree conveyed and published Since the Gospel preached to Adam Gen. 3. 15. there hath not been any addition quoad Essentiam but only quoad Explicationem not in substance but in cleerness of Discovery In that respect God is said to have spoken to the Fathers by the Prophets at sundry times or as the Greek Reads by many parts or peece-meal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 1. And the way of conveyance hath been different in diverse manners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the same Verse viz. Visions Dreams c. In opposition to both which God is said to have spoken to us by his Son in his Person and Apostles who have left us a clear Comment on the old Testament And we are not now to expect any new Discovery of Truth Ex parte rei revelatae vel Objecti as to the matter revealed but only Ex parte actus revelandi vel subjecti as to the Persons whom God Inlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Arg. 3. What was the Gentiles Rule who had n●t the Scripture Answ 1. So much of the matter contained in the Scriptures as is written on their Hearts For the Scriptures gives us a Copy of all that is Written there with many Additions a new Object of Faith God in Christ Old Duties inforced by New Arguments Love to one another pressed by the example of Christs redeeming Love John 3. 34. Sins against Light of Nature as Uncleanness disswaded from by Arguments drawn from Union between Christ and our Bodies Christs property in them by Redemption c. 1 Cor. 6. 14. to the end 2. When we affirm the Scriptures to be the only rule we must in reason be supposed to intend to them who have them not who have them not 3. We must understand this Point in Conjunction with the former the Light within and so we say that they who have not the Scripture since it's Publication have not any other way a Discovery of God sufficient to lead them to him and so to Salvation which we intend when we affirm the Scripture to be the Word of God Arg. 4. What is their Rule who cannot Redd the Scriptures Must they be Condemned who cannot Read them Answ 1. The same Rule with thei●'s who can viz. the Matter contained in the Scriptures however conveyed whither by Eye or Ear. 2. They shall not be condemned for their natural Incapacity unless accidentally as their neglect of Learning to Read that they might be able to Read the Scriptures is their Sin but for their Unbelief and Disobedience to the Doctrine of the Scripture by what means soever come to their Knowledge As for that Notion of the Quakers in the Terms of the Question that the Scripture is but a true Declaration of the Word of God in the Hearts of Believers as Whitehead explains p. 16. I say but this Answ 1. The Scripture is a Declaration of what ought to be in the Hearts of Believers and not only of what is 2. The Pen-men understood not all they wrote 1 Pet. 1. 10 12. And there are Prophecies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens Birth as well as personal Experiences Errour 8. That there is no need of any outward Teaching Cease from your out-side lights and return to the Light of Christ in you and this Light is not a Chapter without you in a Book James Naylor in his Glory of the Lord shining out of the North. p. 2. THe only Argument I shall urge is from Eph. 4. 11 12 13. He Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints Whence I draw this Argument If Christ hath setled Officers in his Church till it be made perfect in grace then there is need of outward teaching during its whole state in this life But he hath made such settlement c. The Antecedent is evident in the Text before us The consequence goes upon ● supposition of what I have before proved viz. that no members of the Church arrive to a perfection of grace in this life and therefore cannot be said at any time not to stand in need of teaching The Scriptures which the Quakers urge against the need of outward Teaching are these Their first Scripture Heb. 8. 11. And they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his brother saying know the Lord. Answ That place cannot exclude outward teaching unless it could be no means of knowledge or unless there could be no knowledge of God but what were of ●mmediate revelation to the subject in which it is sound For compare this place taken out of Jer. 31. 34. with Isa 2. 3. speaking of the times of the Gospel in which the promise before us was to receive its full accomplishment and we finde that Out of Zion was to go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem i. e. The knowledge of God to be conveyed by Ordinances for which Zion ●he Hill whereon Jerusalem the City wherein ●he Temple the Seat of Ordinances stood See Psal 87. 2 3. Psal 122. are often put And the fulfilling of it Christ and his Apostles did frequently teach in Zion or the Temple and so in Jerusalem Math. 26. 55. And the great Commission Apostolical was To preach among all Nations