Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,725	5	9.4842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

Presbyterian Teachers give such occasion by their light and vain contests confusions and contradictions to stir up the minds of people into such disputations about things which both they themselves are yet to seek in and by which they do the more darken the Enquirers J.O. should seriously review and examine his Bro. Vincent and T. Danson their contests in their late Pamphlets and see how lightly and sorrily they have contended and how they have contradicted themselves and whether such as they be fit Champions in the management of their Cause it concerns them to pause upon their work and examine it and compare their Books together for they have very palpably contradicted one another in divers passages of principle concernment and if several of them write Pamphlets again against the Quakers they had need to compare them very diligently for otherwise in all probability they will contradict one another as they have done as is the nature of Babel's Builders so to do Pag. 150. J. O. For the term of Satisfaction the right understanding of the word it self defends on some notions of Law that as yet we need not take into consideration Answ. It appears J. O. and his Brethren's understanding of their Doctrine herein depends on notions of Law not yet taken into consideration and not on any living experience of the Gospel of Gods Divine Power wherein the Righteousness of Faith is revealed and the living and blessed effect of Christ's suffering and death and here they bring us their notions instead of Gospel so that what they tell us in this matter it is not from a saving knowledge or sence of the work of God in themselves but notions received by tradition from one another though they intermix many Scriptures among their notions and therefore would have all go for Gospel that they divulge but who knows the Power of God within and the fellowship of Christ's Sufferings will own the Scriptures of Truth as we do and not relie upon their uncertain notions about which so much of their confusion and contradiction amongst themselves doth appear that little of their work can certainly be laid hold on as with any confidence of their stability howbeit J. O. has in several things consented to the Truth in words which we do own though we do not believe that he or his Brethren do experience the Life and Power of what they profess as where J. O. Confesseth That God out of his infinite Goodness Grace and Love to mankind sent his only Son to save and deliver them viz. from their sins and that this Love was the same in the Father and Son and that Christ gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time 1 Tim. 2.6 And gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity Titus 2.14 And to finish Transgression and to make an end of Sin to make Reconciliation to bring in Everlasting Righteousness Dan. 9.24 And that God had provided himself a Lamb for a Sacrifice And God doth not pardons Sins freely without requiring Faith Repentance and Obedience in them that are pardoned and it is certain that the prescribing of Faith and Repentance in and unto Sinners antecedently to their participation of it c. We are to be discharged upon Gods terms and under a new obligation unto his Love c. Thus far J.O. Observ. In all which observe that J. O. has confessed unto the Truth much more then some of his Brethren For first to the infinite Goodness of God and his Love the same in Father and Son which declares the freeness of both towards man kind and their union therein for mans deliverance from Sin Death and the Curse Secondly That God sending his Son was to save and deliver from Sin to redeem us from all Iniquity It s well if J. O. truly believes what he sayes herein for his Brethren T. V. and T. D. have pleaded the contrary in their contending for Sin and Imperfection in all Believers term of Life Thirdly Christ giving himself a ransom for all to be testified of in due time instead of For All Presbyterians and Independants were wont to say it was but for a few that he died only for a certain select number wherein they have denied the universal Love and Grace of God in Christ to mankind Fourthly His coming to finish Transgression to make an end of Sins and to bring in Everlasting Righteousness is both beyond and contradicts their sinfull Doctrine for sin and imperfection and their notion of imputation of Christ's Righteousness to sinfull persons whilst they are not at all really partakers of Christ's Righteousness Holiness or Purity in them no more then Christ was guilty of sin when he knew no sin according to T. D's instance and erroneous Argument for a proportion in that case Fifthly And seeing that without Faith Repentance and Obedience on the Creature 's part God doth not pardon sins freely it appears it is not peoples bare application and belief of what Christ hath done and suffered for them that will free and acquit them without the knowledge and sence of his Power which works living Faith and Repentance and makes willing to obey the pure Law of God in the heart and the new Covenant in the inward parts for as J. O. confesseth it would altogether unbecome the holy God to pardon Sinners that continue so to live and die in their sins pag. 179. this is a truth which he and his Brethren had need to look to that they be not found guilty both in Principle and in Practice as namely both contending and preaching up a continuance in sin and imperfection all their dayes as T. D. and T. V. hath done and as it s said by many some of the Presbyterian Teachers do more of late revile the Quakers for holding Perfection and Freedom from Sin attainable in this life and to perswade people against the belief of such a state more then they have done heretofore wherein they work as if they would hasten people to Hell and Destruction and do but strengthen the hands of the Evil-Doers that they may not forsake their sins by promising them life as the false Prophets did and promising them pardon and peace on the account of all being fully paid and satisfied for them they living and dying in sin or telling them that perfection is not attainable till after death as namely till the Resurrection as T. D. and others of them have affirmed but they had little need to preach up such Doctrine for their Hearers and Followers are prone and apt enough to run on in sin and transgression without their Leaders tutering them in it they had not need to drive them on to Hell and Destruction the Devil can lead them fast enough thither who continue Sinners to live and die in their sins wherein it does not become the holy God to pardon them as is confessed And now touching your Explication Declaration and Confession

the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain ●hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of

Heavens and is thereby become a most compleat Captain and perfect Example Obs. Here Christ is confest to as the Gift of God's Eternal Love for the Life and Salvation of men that come to receive him and his Appearance to destroy the works of the Devil which his own Light and Grace maketh manifest as it is believed and waited in and so Christ is the Leader and Captain of such and is made unto us Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption And I ask who are those T.V. saith That the Lord extendeth his special Mercies to And whether is Mercy extended to All in sending his Son into the World and what more special Mercies can there be than the only begotten Son of God who is given for a Light for a Leader for a Covenant for Life and Salvation that whosoever receives and believes in him might receive the blessed End and Priviledge of his Coming and Manifestation to wit Life and Salvation in him from Sin Death and Destruction And whereas T.V. in pag. 65. brings an Instance That the Soul cannot see without the Body for want of an Organ and that therefore tho God separately cannot satisfie because he cannot suffer and man separately cannot satisfie because the satisfaction would not be of infinite value yet as God-Man he satisfied c. Reply Do but mark what an Instance and Comparison he has here brought in Competition with the Infinite Omnipotent God to shew us that God separately cannot satisfie any more then the Soul can see without an Organ And who is it that God cannot satisfie Is it himself Can he not satisfie or please himself Is he ever divided or displeased with himself What gross darkness appears in this Comparison Instance and Assertion to say God cannot satisfie c. and thus to bring the Infinite God and his Infinite Power under the Limitations of finite Creatures Is this any less then Blasphemy let but the indifferent judge in this case Have not these our Oppossers been ready to call us Blasphemers but for bringing an Instance to shew the absurdity of their Doctrine whereas this is an Instance from a finite to an infinite tending to lessen the infinite Power of God And as to his telling That the Soul cannot see without an Organ in one sense that 's not true though he meant outwardly yet it hath a spiritual sight As to his saying That God cannot suffer is in one sense not true though he intended as to Death yet the Spirit of God hath suffered and hath been grieved by man's Transgressions The Rebellious Jews grieved and vexed his Holy Spirit until he became their Enemy and fought against them Isa. 63.10 And did not the Lord say Behold I am pressed under you as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves Amos 2.13 So did not he suffer in being pressed by them then and did not he say My heart is turned within me my repentings are kindled together I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hos. 11.8 9. Did not herein his Suffering and Forbearance declare him to be God the Holy One and not man rather then the Execution of the fierceness of his Anger And was not God's being grieved by the rebellious Jews a Suffering when they hardened their hearts and provoked him in the Wilderness for he said Forty years long was I grieved with this generation Psal. 95. therefore to day if ye will hear his voice harden not your heart And did not God suffer long by the old World before he destroyed them seeing when he saw their wickedness it grieved him at his heart Gen. 6.6 Also he said His Spirit should not alwayes strive with them vers 3. So that his Spirit did suffer and was grieved by them before they were destroyed Again How oft did they provoke him and grieve him in the Desart Psal. 78.40 And did not he Complain against the People when they were Rebellious and Polluted saying Your new Moons and your appointed Feasts my Soul hateth they are a trouble to me I am weary to bear them Was not this trouble and being weary with them matter of Suffering and was not this his Suffering for some time before he did ease himself of his Adversaries and avenge him of his Enemies See Isa. 1. And also it 's said Chap. 7.13 Hear ye now ye House of David is it a small thing to weary men but will ye weary my God also And Chap. 43.24 25. Neither hast thou filled me with the Fat of thy Sacrifices but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for my own sake and will not remember thy sins Mark for my own sake So then surely God could satisfie himself seeing it was for his own sake that he blotted out Transgressions and here the infinite Value Ransom and Satisfaction was in himself and what Patience Forbearance Long-Suffering and Forgiveness as was signified by Christ and testified of by his outward Suffering and Death was really in being in God before and in the fullness of time a signal testimony thereof given to man 〈◊〉 induce him to receive the free Love and Grace of God and Life and Salvation in the Son of his Love T.V. Who do ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God than we who do apprehend it in his Son pag. 65. Reply Indeed your apprehensions in that matter are sufficiently manifest before had T.V. added Who do apprehend more Grace and Mercy in God then we that say he cannot Satisfie himself and Christ as man could not satisfie him by finite Suffering and the Grace we ascribe we apprehend it only to extend to a few a select number c. Had T.V. spoke this plainly together People might the more easily have judged whether he has truly ascribed or apprehended concerning the Grace of God and whether many thousands do not ascribe more Grace and Mercy to God that own it in the free and general Extent of it to all men than he hath done Again his confessing That God doth execute his Justice freely as he doth love his Image in his People freely yet both are necessary because Natural and neither forced nor compelled by any External Agent Reply So here 's a better Confession then much of his Work before and it contradict much of it For 1st If his Love be as free as his Justice and neither compelled neither fotced by any External Agent how then is he obliged to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed when upon Repentance he readily pardoneth and passeth by former offences and how then is it impossible for God freely to Pardon 2dly What is that Image in his People he loves freely is it perfect or imperfect if perfect then how do they deny the perfection of any thing within or that 's inherent in the

and his own notions and conceptions which are not grounded on Scripture and therefore we may not have our Faith imposed upon by them as to accept of his humane conceptions and notions which cannot reach the nature of God for divine verities And how says T. D. That infiniteness being a property of the Divine Nature agrees to each Person subsisting in that Nature contrary to his worthy Master Vincent's saying that infiniteness is not ascribed unto the Personality but such like confusion and conrradiction we have enough of from them And indeed such nonsensical stuff as is in both their Pamphlets I have seldom met withal as one while T. D. saith We do not affirm the Person in the Godhead to be finite but infinite another while T. V. saith infiniteness is not ascribed to them another while T. D. saith pag. 14. That they are one among themselves only in respect of that wherein they agree not simply What kind of oneness or agreement doth he reckon is in the Diety if it be not simply Was there ever such darkness and confusion uttered and what blind Sophistry and silly Logick and babling do these men use and put upon the Immortal God whom with all their inventions airy notions and vain conceptions they can never reach the knowledge of neither will nor can their Heathenish Phylosophy tearms of Aristotle nor apostate Christians and Papists demonstrate or discover the Knowledge of either Father Word or Spirit to any people that want the knowledge thereof but make them more dark and ignorant and shut them up in more blindness as they have a long time done And his saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by a metalepsis yea must be rendred Person or Subsistent or some word to that effect and so tells that Just. Martyr applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Father Son and Spirit pag. 17. Reply Surely T. D. is put very hard to it to word his Doctrine by his Anology and Metalepsis for his distinctions of Persons and his thereby rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person of necessity Where proves he this and those tearms by Scripture and if they signifie one and the same thing why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebr. 1.3 and Chap. 11.1 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As in Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the Substance of things hoped for it is not Person of things hoped for the same word that is for Substance in that is Hebr. chap. 2. verse 3. where it is speaking of the Son of God who being the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance Besides what ever Authors or Fathers so called did put names distinctions and tearms upon the Godhead which were either improper or unscriptural we must believe the Scriptures rather then them And do they count all Justin Martyr wrot One hundred fifty years after Christ to be of equal Authority with the Scriptures of Christ and the Apostles Or might not probably Justin bring in some of his Philosophy which is not Scripture And we do not read in the Scriptures either of three distinct Substances in God or three distinct Persons for where are they so rendred either in the Hebrew Greek Latine or English in Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelations But if they be not three Substances as Tho. Vincent saith how doth T. Danson make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equivolent or apply both to Father Son and Spirit Is not here a manifest contradiction between these two Brethren unto themselves and their own Doctrine in this matter As for T. D. his Discourse about satisfaction there needs not much to be said unto it for that the matter hath been answered before as also in part he assents to W. P. in what he hath said for he T. D. doth not affirm any impossibility of forgiviness without a plenary satisfaction made as in the sence and notion some of them have c. And though he knows some worthy Persons do deny W. P's Affirmative yet he cannot joyn with them therein He saith also God is free in his determinations what attribute he will manifest and in what degree and manner and that between Justice and Mercy and their effects and all of his meer will interveens c. By all which in a great measure he hath confest to what W. P. hath writ in that case though in contradiction to his Brother Vincent as is evident But where he speakes of Vindictive Justice that God might onely have manifested when man fell as he does upon the reprobate Angels or Devils c. Now I query then Is this Vindictive Justice that which Christ under-went at God's hand and satisfied according to their Doctrine if they say it is where do the Scriptures say so or that God inflicted the same revengefull justice as I think they mean upon Christ that he doth upon the reprobate Angels or Devils and then make this the means and manner of full satisfaction for mankind let us have plain Scripture for this Doctrine was God's Love to man purchased by such revenge upon his innocent Son as he lays upon reprobate Angels or Devils or is it not rather blasphemous to suppose that Christ could ever be so far out of Gods favour as to construe his Sufferings to the height of revenge as goes against reprobate Angels and Devils and doth not this also accord with T. V. his Doctrine whereas Chrit was the beloved of the Father even his onely begotten the Son of his Love in whom his Soul delighted and was always well pleased both in his works and Sufferings both in his life and death for Sinners but angry with the wicked such as persecuted him and crucified him afresh unto themselves as he was also crucified in Spiritual Sodom and Egypt such Adversaries God will be avenged of but his pleasure shall prosper in the hand of his Anointed Seed Christ but these things T. D. his weak judgement as he confesseth it to be pag. 18. cannot reach And indeed in much of his Discourse about this matter he has talked more like a Lawyer then a Divine and has brought several similitudes which will not hold in matters of such high concernment But I shall not need much to take notice of his dark kind of reasoning in this particular which proceeds but from his weak judgemnt and private conceptions since the matter is answered elsewhere and the extent of his and their Principles therein is further manifest and handled about his and their Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness and his Arguments for Sin and Imperfection in all tearm of life yet a little to some particulars I may observe by the way of this point after he saith he shall give us his sence confessing that Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase pag. 19. However we will chuse Scripture phrase rather then T. D's weak judgment and conceptions therein having

thereby being to his satisfaction how can men continuing in their sins truly plead they are fully acquitted at once without them and they onely in the implicite belief thereof received from the ridged Presbyters rest satisfied in their sins all their life time And where doth T. D. prove his Doctrine of Christ's being holy by a true inherent righteousness of the humane Nature pag. 25. what Scripture hath he for this or these Expressions was not his Righteousness from the Divine Nature and was it not Everlasting but is not that which is humane Finite And T. D. saying that the Socinians vomit the Quakers have now lickt up pag. 27. herein hath he spoken scornfully and falsly against us which will not at all tend to convince Socinians if they were as bad as rendred but to that they can answer him And his saying the Elect whilst Sinners in state where proves he this that the Elect are Sinners in state seeing the state of the Elect is a sanctified and chosen state out of the World and its wayes chosen in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth 2 Thes. 2.13 the impossibility of deceiving the Elect is signified Matth. 24.24 where the Calling and Election is made sure they shall never fall 2 Pet. 1.10 And that Christ was made surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 And came to do his Fathers Will Hebr. 10.7 And that his being a Surety is an Act of Grace pag. 28. This we confess and own more then you that contend for Sin for the Will of God is our Sanctification and the better Testament and Covenant which Christ is the Surety Mediator and Establisher of is that of Righteousness Life and Peace wherein Sins and Transgressions are done away and wherein true Believers live to God And as for T. D. his so often comparing God to a Creditor Christ to the Surety and Sinners as the Debtors telling of God being considered as a Creditor and as a private Person pag. 32. But where doth the Scripture so call him Reply He does not speak from a true sence of God or Christ or of Gods Covenant but a Notion he hath learned by Tradition and as to Sinners their case is worse then meerly Debtors they not onely owing obedience to God and Christ but are disobedient and rebellious as the case of Fellons Traytors and other Malefactors is worse then that of Debtors yet Christ is our Surety Mediator and Intercessor to make agreement between God and man and to deliver man from the Punishment and Wrath to come by delivering from Sin the cause of it and destroying the Devil the Author of Sin not for us still to live in Sin and daily both contract more Debt and incur tribulation and anguish upon our Souls Howbeit the Wayes of God extend beyond T. D's comparison his Wayes are not as man wayes nor his Thoughts as mans thoughts for as the Heaven is higher then the Earth so are my Thoughts higher then your thoughts saith the Lord whose graciousness also to poor deceived lost man for his restoration is infinitely beyond mans legality and exactions as the Lord said I will not execute the fierceness of mine Anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hosea 11.9 But is there not perfect obedience now for men to perform must they all live in Sin and Imperfection tearm of life and say all our Debts is paid and if all their Debts be paid why are they not out of Prison Are not all that are in Sin and Bondage of Corruption in Prison and would it be glad Tydings to tell them that though Christ has paid all their Debts and procured their release and ransomed them that they must not expect personal freedom out of Prison nor out of their Chains and Fetters so long as they lived here or if one should tell the Slaves in Turkey that they are ransomed and yet they must not expect personal freedom from their Vassalry and Slavery so long as they live here would this be glad tydings no sure but rather sad news and is just like these Presbyterians and Independants preaching to people and the tendence of their Gospel and pretence of Satisfaction Redemption Ransom c. whilst they hold none of them in Truth nor Righteousness nor in the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ or his Apostles T. D. pag. 29. He is satisfied and the debt paid too by his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat Observ. Here it is to be observed that notwithstanding this his Assertion of the Satisfaction both by payment and punishment being compleatly made and the debt fully paid yet he confesseth to Christ's Intercession but what does he ever live to make Intercession for if all be fully done paid satisfied at once by Christ's personal subjection and obedience must there ever be an intercession for that which is already so fully and dearly paid for as they reckon Christ hath done and God hath granted how will this hold consistent But then it appears it supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat saith T. D. pag. 30. So here is now supposition and pretence put upon Christ's Intercession and Satisfaction what sorry shallow work is this but it appears But to proceed from one that hath followed his own conceptions notions weak judgement and humane understanding as also one that by his Logick and Traditional borrowed Notions and Doctrines goes about to make People to believe that from him that he hath no Scripture phrase for as that of God being a private person and other things And therefore like a Lawyer is fain to patch up his work as well as he can though in many things it be very inconsistant and repugnant to it self And whereas our confessing Christ both in Life and Suffering to be a perfect and real Example is so much struck at by these Priests and Professors we still withal confessing both to his Power and Living Effects through all and of all his Sufferings Afflictions Death and Life which we reverently esteem touching which I testifie in the Lord that if Christ be not really owned and confessed as he was a real Example both in Life Conversation and in Patient Suffering neither the Fellowship of his Suffering nor the Power thereof is truly known or experienced for they who would partake of the Benefit and blessed Effects of Christ's Death and Sufferings and yet will not own him for their Example shall never enjoy him therein seeing that Christ also hath suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Again Forasmuch then as Christ hath Suffered for us in the Flesh arm your selves likewise with the same mind for he that hath sufferred

of the Godhead or Divinity of Christ or his Spirit we never denied nor scrupled Therefore for J. O. to require any that except against their terms and inventions positively to deny the Unity of the Deity is both sad Doctrine and unreasonableness as also shews an imperious lording spirit though its probable among the Independants and Professors he can make a shew of more humility then he did formerly for he now wants Cromwel to promote him However he and others of his Fraternity might by this time have in reallity learned more lowliness and humility then yet appears in them towards such as cannot be screwed up to their way and method of expressing the Invisible things of God which are Heavenly Divine and Spiritual as his being and properties are absolutely above the comprehension of J. O's reason as is confest pag. 128. We cannot by searching find out God we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection And yet vain man would be wise and imploy his natural reason and fallen wisdom both to find and set out God to evince him and his things unto the natural reason of others which still falls short both of any true knowledg and spiritual understanding for vain by nature is every man and ignorant of God It is the spiritually minded who are begotten to God who are spiritually and immediately taught by his Spirit that have a true and spiritual understanding of Divine Matters and Mysteries Pag. 118. J. O. Every person hath distinctly its own Substance But then in contradiction he adds for the one Substance of the Deity is the Substance of each Person but each Person hath not its own distinct Substance Reply A strange Riddle and invention that each person hath distinctly its own Substance and yet not its own distinct Substance what Scripture hath he for this Critick and nice distinction how is a person then an individual Substance of a rational nature that is not upheld by another if it hath not its own distinct Substance whilst yet it hath distinctly its own Substance but the Divine Substance of the Deity of the Father the Word and Spirit is but one as often hath been granted so then the Holy Ghost though confessed to be a Substance pag. 101. yet I say not a Personal Substance distinct from the Father and the Son as there is ignorantly asserted But then J. O. to tell us pag. 118. That all Divine properties such as to be infinite is belong not to the Persons on the account of their Personallity but of their nature c. Observ. Then it appears they are not three Infinite Persons but one Infinite God and yet those Persons are the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost were it not both Blasphemy and contradiction to say they are finite and what better have our Opposers said but at other times they are Eternal God Eternal the Eternal Son and Eternal Spirit and thus they wheel about and say and unsay Answ. It were better for them nakedly to apply themselves to the plain Language of Scripture and keep to it to lay aside and avoid confusion and absurdities about distinct finite personallities which the Scripture does not put upon the Infinite God in whom there is neither finiteness nor variableness I am God I change not saith he the Lord is one and his name one from Everlasting to Everlasting he is God unchangable And the Father Son and Holy Ghost being one Divine Infinite Substance are one Infinite God Away with your vain babling and invented erroneous distinctions of finite Persons in him who is infinite you are not worthy therein to talk of God nor to take his holy precious and pure Name in your mouthes who are in your sins and pollutions corrupting your selves in your carnal conceptions and imaginations about those things that you know not who are gone a whoring after humane inventions invented words names terms and distinctions such as neither the Holy Ghost nor the Scriptures ever taught you Pag. 117. And as for them that will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms about terms and expressions I know not who J. O. may intend hereby but if he intend us called Quakers because we do not own but oppose his and their dark unscriptural terms and expressions which darken both counsel and knowledge we do reject his Accusation and Charge herein for Cavils and Sophisms are rather his and his Brethrens who have been trained up in Sophistry and School-craft in order to be furnished to a Trade of Preaching to make a Trade of the Scriptures corrupting them by their dark meanings and School-terms and Philosophick distinctions by which poor people have been kept even learning that they might be always paying them Pag. 117. But then J. O. addeth against such as he supposeth will keep to their Cavils and Sophisms That all further debate or conference with them may justly and ought both conscientiously and rationally to be refused and rejected Reply If herein he may intend us as it s probably he may as well as others among whom he has numbred us though unrighteously as his debating or conference is of little value or esteem with us whilst it proceeds neither from a sence of God's Divine Power nor from any Living experience of God or his work within but from humane inventions and traditions So J. O. and his Brethrens work in these matters whether they go on in it or stop from further debate it will be of very little weight to us since we see to the far end of their subtilty and beyond their spirits and confusion however J. O. laying it as their duty not to debate any further with such as he censures as before he hath brought himself and those that own him under a Law and Limitation that if they further contend with us they must either not accuse us with Cavils and Sophisms or else not debate nor contend any further with us for if they do so accuse and censure us and yet further debate or contend with us they transgress their own Law so strictly here urged by J.O. and by the same reason when he and they are found guilty of Cavils and Sophisms may not others as much slight him and them therein But however he or they judge or censure us I hope we shall not be backward nor negligent to vindicate the Truth and clear our innocency from reproaches and scandals of men of perverse and envious spirits when we have occasion given us thereby J. O. These sacred Mysteries of God and the Gospel are not lightly to be made the subject of mens contest and disputations Observ. It is very true that sacred Mysteries of God and Gospel are not lightly nor yet slightly to be made subjects of contests nor yet ought they to be medled with by light airy minds nor by perverse and prejudiced spirits which are apt to bring forth perverse disputes as it is too common to men of corrupt minds who are destitute of the Truth But why then do