Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	faith_n	justify_v	work_n	15,007	5	7.2938	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

and being an Application to Grace supposes that satisfaction to be Solutio recusabilis refusable payment for in Obligations which arise ex delicto from an Offence committed Dum alius solvit aliud solvitur as Grotius speaks De Satis Chr. c. 7. when another Person then what was originally obliged makes payment of the Debt of punishment due to Justice another thing is paid then what the Law required As suppose for one man to offer to die for another is no more in the Eye of the Law than to offer himself to be Whipped to save the others Life For the Judge can no more admit of Exchange of Person than of Penalty 4. Another act of Grace is in the means of Application of that Satisfaction he exacts of Christ I mean Faith in Christ the formal Act whereof as Justifying seems best placed in an Acceptance of Christ for Justification that being the correlate of the offer of Christ for that end in the Gospel Here appears a double act of Grace 1. In the choice of this Means of Application an acceptance looking least like a Meritorious Act. 2. In the bestowing of it Faith being the gift of God The Apostle suggests both when he says We are saved by Grace through that Faith which is not of our selves Eph. 2. 8. W. Pens Scriptures from p. 16. to 20. proves only what we grant viz. That God does freely pardon Sin but not that he pardens Sin without Satisfaction only we may observe how in the Enumeration of those Names of God which import free Forgiveness he leaves out that Name which is sub-joyned to them as a Limitation That will by no means clear the Guilty Exod 34. 7. That is not contrary to the order of Justice which he hath prescribed which order is to require that Satisfaction of the su●ety wh●ch is remitted to the Principal From Mat. 6. 12. Forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors he seems to offer at an Argument Arg. If it be our duty to forgive without a Satifaction received and God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded p. 18. Answ 1. There is an agreement between Gods Forgiveness and ours 1. In respect of the causae Proegumena or inward moving Cause called Kindness Tender-Heart●dness Eph. 4. 32. 2. In respect of the Effect which in both is the Offenders Impurity But it will not follow there must be a similitude every way Pen might with as much shew of Reason infer from Eph. 4. 32. Forgiving one another even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you that seeing we are to ●orgive as God does us therefore we are not to forgive another but for the sake of some Third Person who hath interest in us Answ 2. We are not bound in all cas●s to forgive another without Satisfaction I● be repent forgive him if he t●rn again to thee saying I repent thou shalt forgive him Luke 17. 3 4. Man as a Judge may not forgive without Satisfaction to Law Arg. From Mat. 18. 27 33. he infers that it had been no fault in the Servant not to have forgiven his Brother without Satisfaction if the Kings Mercy had not been proposed for his Example Answ 1. That wherein the Comparison lies is the Forgiveness it self not the manner of Forgiveness There is ground enough for a Co●p●rison between Persons or things if there be a likenesse in any one respect See vers 35. 2. If we stick in the Letter of the Parable God is represented under another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude or Consideration than in the Doctrine of Satisfaction now under debate For here he i● considered as Rector or Governour but there as a Creditor and so as a private Person In the Doctrine of Satisfaction God discharges from Obligations Ex delicto or debts due to Justice by Offence committed against the Law In the Parable God discharges from an Obligation Ex contractu arising from Covenant on Contract So is a man made a debtor to a private Person And there 's not the sam● reason in many r●spect for Forgiveness without Satisfaction in both cases not to Execute Penal Laws is to disparage the Legislative Authority Hence the Rule in Politicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not easily to relax Laws once Established His first Absurdity p. 20. I pass by having declared my sence about the possiblity of pardoning sin without Satisfaction Abs 2. That the Creature is more capable of extending Forgiveness than the Creator Answ All that will follow from our Doctrine is that there is great difference between Gods condition and ours his Majesty and our meannes● that we have no reason to stand so much upon our Terms and to have such a Sentiment of affronts done to us there being an equality between us and our Brethren but an Infinite inequality between God and us Abs 3. That God so Loved the World as to give his only Son for to save it and yet that God stood off in Displeasure till Christ satisfied his Justice page 20. Answ To clear this observe that Divines distinguish of Tria momenta Divinae voluntatis three s●eps or degrees of Divine Love to Mankind 1. Before Christs Satisfaction God is not wholly averse from Reconciliation on good Terms though he be throughly angry with us For if he had been resolved to stand to the Rigor of the Law and not admit of any Satisfaction there had been an end of our Salvation 2. Upon Christs Satisfaction he does not only determine but promise to lay his Anger aside 3. Upon Actual Faith he layes aside his Anger quite and becomes our Friend W. Pens Reasons why Christ could not satisfie Gods Justice as man or as God singly I pass by though I might except against some of them as not cogent though the thing be true and owned by us But his reason why Christ could not satisfie as God-man is absurd in phrase and sence For where two Mediums or middle Propositions are singly inconsistent with the Nature of the end for which they were at first propounded their Conjunction does rather Augment than lessen the difficulty of its accomplishment His meaning is I think that where two things singly will not attain any end for which they are used as means much less will they attain it together As if he should say two men can much less bear a Burden when joyned together which neither of them alone can bear or rather as if he should say Lazarus Soul without his Body could not speak nor his Body without the Soul in their Separation therefore in their Union or Conjunction at his Resurrection muc● less could he speak I refer you to what hath been said before of the value of Christs Obedience arising from the Dignity of his Person To his Consequences I●religious and Irrational I shall say a little In the two first I am not concerned because they militate against the Impossiblity of Forgiveness without Satisfaction which I do not

affirm Cons 3. That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to ●nflict punishment on the Innocent or require a Satisfaction where there was Nothing due Answ 1. I do not say nor do we generally that is was unworthy of God to pardon Sin without Satisfaction because he did not think fit to do it That will be no better Consequence than to say if it had pleased God to Create the World Then it had been unworthy of God not to have Created it For God proceeded on good Grounds in reresolving the contrary 1. For though his Love to Righteousness and Hatred of Sin had been never the less if he had not punished Sin yet man might have been apt to have mis-judged him The sinner concluded God to be such an one as himself i. e. one that made as light a matter of sin as he did because of Gods patience towards him Psal 50. 21. 2. Impunity might have been abused sor an Incouragement to sin Eceles 8 11. and other reasons might be given 3. The reason why it was not unworthy of God to punish the Innocent is because of his free consent and Volenti non fit injuria and because as God he had a Soveraign and as man a special deputed Power over his life and the comforts of it Joh. 10. 18. He had a commandment to lay down his Life 3. According to Pen's Opinion Christ though Innocent and but a meer-Man Suffered only for an Example p. 19. and why not then for Satisfaction to Divine Justice that being a Nobler design 4. Christ when he suffered was not Innocent and when God required Satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he suffered for it For Guilt is but Obligatio ad Poenam an Obligation to undergoe Punishment which Christ was under by Contract Christ was a surety Heb. 7. 22. when our deb● was demanded of him And the surety is a truly a Debtor as the Principal though the manner of becomming such be different Cons 4. It deprives God of the Praise of his Love Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption Cons 8. Then we are not beholding to God Answ I put these together because he here contradicts himself for if the Son was Gods Gift for our Redemption how are we not beholden to God or how is God deprived entirely of the prai●e of his Grace in our Redemption Cons 5. It represents the Son more kind than the Father whereas if he be the same God then either the Father is as loving as the Son or the Son as ●●gry as the Father Answ 1. Consider the Father and Son as God they are equally kind to Mankind and equally angry at mans sin as appears by their purposes of Mercy and Punishment discovered in the Promises and Threatnings 2. Our Doctrine represents not the Son kinder than the Father but intimates a distinct manner and order of Kindness or Operation about our Salvation answerable to the order of their being that as the Father is the first so the Contrivement of our Redemption is more peculiarly his Act the Undertakement of our actual Redemption peculiarly the Act of the Son It is a rule in Divinity Vnum idemque opus or operatio vel actio rather Opus enim est effectus actionis ad extra diverso respectu Personale est essentiale External Actions of God are in a diverse respect Essential and Personal The Decree of the Son of Gods Incernation the Creation of his Body and Soul the parts of that Nature he subsisted in were Acts ●ommon to Father and Son as one God or essential Acts but the Election of the Son to be our Redeemer in our Nature is the peculiar Act of the Father● The assumption of our Nature the peculiar Act of the Son or personal Act. Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption in affirming the Son purchased that Redemption from the Father by giving himself to God as our Compleat Satisfaction Ans No such matter The designation of the Son of God to be our Redeemer considered as the Fathers personal act is a fruit of the meer love of God the Father yet the actual collation of Redemption in its effects and benefits depends on Christs purchase or as the Schools distinguish the actus volendi or the Fathers gift of the Son for our Redemption to use Pen's phrase depends on nothing without himself but the res volita or the Redemption it self our actual freedom from sin and wrath depends on what Christ did and suffer'd as an end upon its means Cons 7. By Christs payment of our debt it is not forgiven but transferd we owing that now to the Son which was owing before to the Father Ans He might as well say when a surety pays the debt the debtor owes that to the surety he owed before to his Creditor and so he is no better provided for than before to use W. P's words which is not true but when counter-security is given the surety by the principal Cons 9. If Gods justice be satisfied for sins past present and to come God and Christ have lost their power of injoyning godliness and punishing disobedience Ans 1. Christs obedience was not intended to exempt us from a personal obedience to the Law but from it only as a condition of life And we are only so far made righteous by Christs obedience as we are unrighteous by our own disobedience 2. God cannot punish disobedience by vertue of the Covenant of works upon a justified person for then he should exact satisfaction of the Debter after he had received it of the surety And why may we not say God cannot do what were unjust for him to do A moral though not a natural impotency may be ascribed to God Error 3. That we are not justified by imputed righteousness W. Pen. THe word justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies justum facere and in the Scripture usage it is a foren-sick word and signifies to pronounce righteous and so is opposed to condemnation and accusation Rom. 8. 33. The word impute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supputo to cast account and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to think imagine and reason and hence in Scripture it is applied to a legal act whereby the righteousness of one viz. Christ is admitted for another and so far accounted and esteemed that others as that he obtains the benefit of it to all intents and purposes as if it had been his personal righteousness I shall produce for the word and thing but one Scripture which is express for us Rom. 4. 6. As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works that is the Righteousness of another without Works of her own else there were contradictio

the Gospel Eph 3 4 5 6. The place may be its own Comment it is so plain 2. Luk. 10. 21. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes The Father is said to hide the Object because he did not inlighten the Subject i. e. To hide the Gospel which was then openly and plainly preached because he did not inlighten their mindes with a saving knowledge of it 3. 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural Man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1. Observe here is an opposition between men and men in respect of the knowledge of the things of God The spiritual man judges all spiritual things verss 15. but the natural man knows not nor judges them Yea he accounts the Doct●ine of the Gospel foolishness 2. The natural man not only does not know them but cannot because they are spiritually discerned which imports a disproportion between the object and faculty such for instance as between s●nce and a rational object Whence the Apostle speaks of an understanding given to know Christ 1 John 5. 20. implying that our old understanding will not serve to apprehend Christ after a spiritual though it may to apprehend him after a rational manner The Scriptures which carry any colour for the Quakers Opinion of all that I have met with are these 1 Joh. 1. 9. That was the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World Ans Christ being spoken of before as the Messias or Saviour to whom John did bear witness vers 7. we must therefore understand the place I think not of natural Light but supernatural not of the Light of Reason wherewith as God he indues men but of the Light of the Gospel with which as the Messias he inlightens Men which light may admit of a double consideration according to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies 1. To shine or to light that is afford light by which the object is made visible whether there be an Eye to see it or no so 't is used Luke 11. 36. 1 Cor. 4. 5. 2. 'T is used to inlighten the eye or faculty Eph. 1. 18. That the eyes of your understanding may be inlightned c. If you take it in the former sence Christ by his powerfull preaching and glorious miracles did not shine on every man Many never heard his Doctrine nor saw his Works As some parts of the World see not the Sun when it shines brightly in our Horizon So that the meaning can be no more than this that the Gospel is taught to all comers without exception by Christ and his Ministers not that every particular person hath the benefit Many in all ages never heard no nor perhaps heard of the Gospel 2. If we take the word in the other sence for inlightning the Eyes of the mind 't is certain that many who are lighted as our phrase is when a Candle is carried before us are not inlightned but are like a blind man so lighted that sees never the better And then the meaning can be no more than this that whosoever are inlightned are inlightned by him and answers in sence to Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of Lights And lest we may seem to impose upon the Objector we will turn to a parallel place Psal 145. 14. The Lord upholdeth all that fall and raiseth up all them that be bowed down 'T is evident enough that however the words sound the sence can be but this that all that are upheld from falling or raised again after a fall are in God's debt for the help of his hand 2ly Rom. 2. 15. The Gentiles are said to have the Law in their Hearts Whitehead Voyce of Wisdom Answ They are also said to be without Law and are imposed to them that had the Law vers 12. viz. of Moses vers 17. Called the Oracles of God Chap. 3. 2. and made the Priviledges of the Jewes above the Gentiles vers 1. in this respect because hereby Salvation was of the Jewes John 4. 22. i. e. the knowledge of the way of Salvation therefore it cannot be understood of a saving Knowledge without a Contradiction 2. It is not the Law in their hearts but the Work of the Law viz. these two effects mentioned accusing and excusing For though t is true the Gentiles having some knowledge of the Law the Law may be said to be in thei● hearts me●ning their understandings yet in the Apostles use of th●t Phrase Heb. 8. 11. he seems to include if not mainly intend a sutable disposition to the Law or a delight in the Law after the inner man Rom. 7. 22. Whereas the Gentiles in this sence had not the Law in their hearts For they liked not to retain God in their knowledge Rom. 1. 26. but as he was an unbidden so an unwelcome Guest to them so that they could scarce forbear to say to God Depart from us for we desire not the Knowledge of thy Wayes Job 21. 14. 3ly Rom. 1. 19. That which may be known of God is manifested in them for God hath shewed it unto them viz. the Gentiles Answ The next Verse suggests an answer viz. that which might be known of God by arguing from the Effects to the Cause from the Creation to the being of God and his Eternal Power the first Divine property that appeared in giving Being to all things out of nothing and the uniform event of this knowledge is said to be the leaving them without excuse not the leading them to Salvation 4ly Isa 49. 6. I have set thee for a Light to the Gentiles c. Spoken of Christ Answ That is but a Prophecy of the Gentiles mercy in the time● of Christs actual Exhibition in the flesh which was not fulfilled till the Jewes rejection of Christ as appears by Act. 13. 46 47. And the same Apostle Rom. 11. The casting away of them the Jewes was the reconciling of the World viz. the Gentiles vers 15. Errour 7. The Scriptures are not the Word of God but only a true Declaration of it nor are they the only Rule of Faith and Life G. Whitehead Voyce of Wisdom p. 20. Sam. Fisher Quaker● Folly p. 28. TO bring any testimony of Scripture concerning it self were Petitio principii a begging of the Question and were insignificant for their conviction who deny it 's Divine Authority And to urge Arguments drawn from the purity of Scriptures Precepts Sureness of Principles of Trust Excellency of Rewards Sublimity of Doctrine Prediction of future Contingents the Secresy and Efficacy of it's Operation on the hearts of men being such as no other Writing can give us a single instance of the like the Miracles whereof multitudes of Adversaries were eye-Witnesses able and willing to discover th● Impostures if any had been Wrought for the

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