Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	rule_n	scripture_n	word_n	4,947	5	4.8566	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81734	The Quakers folly made manifest to all men: or a true relation of what passed in three disputations at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a minister, viz. Mr. Samuel Fisher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danson wherein many popish tenents were by them maintained, and by him refuted. Occasioned by an imperfect and (in many things) false relation of the said disputations, published by R. Hubberthorn, one of the three Quakers, which said relation is also censur'd and amended. Together with a brief narrative of some remarkable passages. / By Tho. Danson, late fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1659 (1659)	Wing D215; Thomason E2255_3; ESTC R34492	40,882	71

Whether the Scriptures are the VVord of God T. D. Mr. F. You promised to discourse upon this Question I desire to know what you hold about it Mr. F. if you mean by the Scripture the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the writing or the paper and ink we deny it to be the Word of God T. D Sir you cannot believe us so simple surely as to affirm the Scriptures in that sense the Word of God but we mean the matter contained in the writing whether that be our rule of faith and life Mr. F. This I affirm that there are several Books which are as much a rule as those you call the Scripture which are not bound up in your Bibles T. D. This is not to the purpose yet I should be glad to hear your proof Mr. F. 1 Cor. 5.9 I wrote unto you in an Epistle c. But now I have written unto you v. 11. Here you find an Epistle of Paul which was written before this which in your books is called the first T. D. Sir you fall short in your proof you should prove that the Epistle there mentioned was intended as much for our rule as these we have in our books and you prove only that such an Epistle was written by Paul Mr. F. If this Epistle was written to the same end with this you have viz. to instruct the Corinthians how to carry themselves toward grosse sinners then it was intended as much for a rule as this But it was written to the same end Ergo. T. D. I deny your consequence Sermons private religious discourses have the same common end with the written Scriptures yet the latter only are our standing-rule the former our rule but so farre as they agree with the latter in the Scriptures Mr. F. VVhat other evidence or character have you of this Epistles being a rule which the other wants that is not in your books T. D. Pray let me ask you one Question and I will answer yours Have you or any of your friends this first Epistle to the Corinthians or do you know that it is exstant Mr. F. No. T. D. Then I have a signal distinction between that and these we have viz. that God hath preserved these two for our use but not the first whereas had God intended the first for a standing rule to us as he hath the other two his providence which watched over these would also have watched over that Mr. F. But I will give you an instance of a Book which ye have not but we have Col. 4.16 And that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea T D. Though it is certain that God intended not that for a standing rule which is lost yet all that was written by holy men and preserved for our use is not therefore our standing rule for then the discourses of holy Ministers in former and latter times should be our Rule which they are not but to be brought to the written Word as the Rule and Test But pray Sir what is the Title of that Epistle you have Mr. Fisher The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans T. D. So I thought such an Epistle I know there is that go●s under the name of Paul but the place you bring speaks not of an Epistle to Laodice● but from Laodicea And for ought you can prove to the contrary we have the Epistle Paul did intend 1 Tim. Postsc●ipt The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea Mr. Fisher Dost thou own the Postscripts to be Canonical as ye call it T. D. As Canonical for ought ●ppears yet to me as your Epistle to the Laodiceans W● know well enough that your Brethren of the Popish party have laid many such brats at the Apostles doors wh●ch they will not father And you shew what you a●e in abetting their wickedness I shall add that some learned men judge that Epistle mentioned from Laodicea Col. 4.16 to be not an Ep●stle written by Paul either from or to Laodicea but by th● Laodiceans to Paul which he would have read amon● the Collossians that they might understand the case of their Si●●e● Church and how sutable the matter of the Epistle to them was also to the Laodiceans Vid. Rev. Daven in locum And to make the businesse short Mr. Fisher suppose we should grant you there were such an Epistle legitimate yet it will not follow that it was intended for a rule to us For we have already as much as God thought sufficient read John 20.30 31. And many other signs truely did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this book but these are written that ye m●ght believe c. Suppose that we had the signs which are not in the Gospel faithfully recorded in writing yet were they not our Rule because God did not give order for them but has assured us as much as is sufficient to create and preserve Faith in the Gospel which we have Let us come to the Question which I propose to you in these terms Whether the Books commonly called the Old and New Testament were appointed by God for a standing Rule of Faith and life Mr. Fisher I deny those books to be a standing Rule of Faith and life T. D. Now you have spit your venom which I knew you were big with And I will say to you as the Apostle If any man bring any other Gospel than what we have received let him be accursed Mr Fisher I am sure the Gospel you preach will never bring men to heaven Indeed people it will not T. D. Then friends you hear his acknowledgement and how well he deserves the curse denounced against him Mr. F. If there be another standing Rule then the Scripture is not it but there is another standing Rule therefore the Scripture is not it T. D. I deny your Minor there is no other standing rule but the Scripture Mr. Fisher I prove there is from Gal. 5.16 This I say then walk in the spirit We are commanded to walk in or by the Spirit and therefore that is our rule The Scripture it self sends us to another for our rule T. D. That phrase does note the principle not the rule of our obedience in that place Mr. F. You suppose the Letter to be antecedent to the Spirit whereas the Spirit is antecedent to the Letter and none can walk in the Letter till they walk in the Spirit T. D. The Spirit is antecedent to the Letter in respect of the revelation of the Letter but the Spirit is subsequent to the Letter in respect of assistance and ability which he gives to obedience And whereas you affirm none can walk in the Letter till they walk in the Spirit if walking in the Spirit be meant of special assistance 't is false for many walk in many things according to the Letter without the Spirits in-dwelling as Paul while a Pharisee was touching the righteousnesse of the Law blamelesse Phil. 3.6 Mr. F. I will prove the Lette● of the

come in at a pinch to help when none else could is a great constraint to obedience upon all the dead for whom Christ died That place is fully parallel and opens this putting but Christ in stead of God into the former clause God commendeth his love toward us speaking of believers v. 1 2. in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.8 G. Whithead Still thou pervertest Scripture by thy meanings T. Danson I pervert it not but I reconcile the Scripture to it self G. Whithead The Scripture is at unity with it self and needs not thy reconciling 'T is said the Scripture cannot be broken T. Danson I say so too that the Scripture is at unity with it self but withall that it seems to disagree and cannot approve it self to our understandings without the mediation of a meaning or interpretation It was an usual thing with Christ to speak words of a doubtful sense as John 3.19 Destroy this Temple which they understood of the material Temple he being in it at the time v. 15. and likely enough speaking with his eye as well as his tongue v. 20. but he meant of the temple of his body v. 21. G. Whithead Thou art such a giver of meanings as they were who gave it contrary to Christs meaning T. Danson Whether I be such a one or no is not for you to judge in your own cause ● leave it to the understanding hearers But in the mean while the place serves my purpose viz. to prove that Christ's meaning may be mistaken when his words are taken in the most ordinary and literal sense and so it would be if by every man we should understand every individual man so that 't is your self and not I that am such a giver of meanings as the Jews G. Whithead How canst thou prove that thou art to give meanings to Scripture T. Danson I do not pretend to power to give meanings to Scripture as your phrase is if you mean thereby adding any thing to the Scripture which is not in it but to find out what already is by causing the Scriptures with the Cherubims to face one another that is my duty and all other mens This the Scripture warrants Neh. 8.8 So they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading And I should be glad to know of any of you who are against meanings how you can understand such Scriptures as these without a meaning God is not a man that he should repent It repenteth me that I have made man God tempted Abraham God tempts no man Answer not a fool according to his folly Answer a fool according to his folly And once more Paul and James The former saies that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 And the other flatly contradicts him in terms that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2.24 When as any of these do sweetly consent if the ambiguity of phrases be once removed As for instance in Paul and James the one speaks of being formally justified the other declaratively Justification in Paul is opposite to the condemnation of a sinner in general and justification in James is opposite to the condemnation of an hypocrite in particular In Pauls sense a sinner is absolved in James's sense a believer is approved So Diodat whose words I used but forgot to name him in the discourse Here the two disputants had nothing to say but what was absurd and impertinent and thereupon I desired we might leave what had been spoken to the hearers judgment and to go on to another Question which at length was agreed to The Second Question was Whether in this life the Saints attain to a state of perfection or freedom from sin This they held in the affirmative T. Danson Your Doctrine of perfection is against the tenour of the Scripture let us hear what you can say for the proof of it R. Hubberthorn 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin T. Danson That cannot be meant of freedom from sin but either there is an emphasis in the word sin intending under that general term one kind or sort of sin which is spoken of 1 John 5.16 There is a sin unto death Or if not on the Substantive on the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes to make a trade or businesse of sin as 't is explain'd v. 8. where he uses the same verb for the Devil sinneth from the beginning He hath never ceased to sinne since he began thus indeed the Saints sin not but a course of sin is broken of● and there is not such a free trade between the soul and sin as in the state of unregeneracy whereof this is given for one character that cannot cease to sin 2 Pet. 2.14 G. Whithead Thou wrestest the Scriptures to thy own destruction T. Danson No I wrest them not if I do shew wherein And if you will observe either it must be meant of all Saints or none for the New birth agrees to all if then the phrase excludes the being of sin in some it must in all and mark the reason given because his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Now the seed remains in all as well as any now lest you should be so mad as to assert all Saints to be free from sin pray read 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and this is spoken of such persons as of whom it is denied that they commit sin persons that had fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ v. 3. Mr. Fisher Pray do not multiply words to no purpose but read v. ult If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar The born of God should lie if they did deny themselves to have sinned before they were in the new birth T. Danson Sir you must not think to put us off so v. 8. 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose the latter verse were to be understood of the sin which preceded the new birth yet the former is expresly de praesenti that we have not have had no sin and yet I see nothing to the contrary but that we hav● not sinned v. ult may relate to particular acts of sin in the state of the new birth denied either in whole or in part G. Whithead Phil. 3.15 As many as he perfect let us ●e thus minded T. Danson For the phrase upon which you ground your notion 't is used in a comparative sense 1 Cor. 2.6 speaks of grown Christians who could fancy the Gospel in a plain dress whom he cals perfect in comparison of others as he cals Babes in Christ carnal in respect of those who are more spiritual Ch. 3.1 And often in Scripture perfect is put for upright and made synonymous or of

be fulfilled in us not in our own persons but in Christ his righteou●nesse imputed to us as if it had been inherent in our selves Mr. Fisher That is thy meaning but not the meaning of the Apostle T. Danson Yes but it is the Apostles as I have proved But pray Sir let me ask you a question though it may seem besides yet it will be to the purpose 't is this whether there be any true believers who are not perfect Mr. F●sher I must acknowledg that there are degrees among believers as the Apostle saies 1 John 2.13 14. Little children Fathers Young men T. Danson I suppose you mean that some of these have a mi●ture of sin with their Grace But let me ask you but one question more whether the children for instance b● in a justified estate or not Mr. Fisher I 'le tell thee Tho. Danson there are but two estates Justification and condemnation T. D. Now Sir you are caught in a manifest contradiction and absurdity for before you maintain'd that our justification was by a personal fulfilling of the Law and now you grant some persons to be justified who never did fulfill it personally That end I proposed in asking you the questions and I have obtain'd it to make your folly manifest to all men Reader observe that though it concern'd Mr. Fisher to wind himself out of this contradiction yet he did not reply but sate down on the top of the seat like a man astonish'd and under the Hereticks judgement I mean self-condemned Tit. 3.11 After a while we fell upon an Arminian point whether a man that is justified may be unjustified which Mr. Fisher affirmed and I would have omitted all the discourse but for the strangenesse of one medium by which he endeavoured to confirm it Mr. Fisher Take the instance of David Psalm 51.4 That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and clear when thou judgest Whence I argue if David was unjustified in his own conscience he was unjustified before God and consequently a man may become unjustified after he hath been justified before God But David was unjustified in his own Conscience Ergo he was so before God T. D. I might deny your minor for it does not appear to me that David was at this time unjustified in his own Conscience but the contrary for he spake these words after the Prophet Nathan had come to him Title of Ps 51. And we find 2 Sam. 12.13 The Prophet told him the Lord hath put away thy sin He might lose much of his joy and yet retain the sense of his interest And for the words David either acknowledged Gods righteousness in the temporal evils threatned against him 2 Sam. 12 11. or the desert of condemnation But I chuse to deny your Sequel Mr. Fisher I prove it 1 John 3.20 If our hearts condemn us God is greater than our hearts and knoweth all things Here the Apostle argues to Gods condemnation from that of our own hearts which is alwayes according to the light of the Spirit T. Danson Your place proves nothing about Davids state but to take it as it comes nor does it prove your assertion in the general the place speaks of such a sentence as is passed by a Conscience not erroneous but rightly guided I shall add to what was spoken but these Scriptures against that tenent Psal 77.8 9 10. Joh. 8.54 Compared with v. 44. T t. 1.15 Their conscience is defiled Of which latter Scripture I say but this that one of Consciences Offices being a Witnesse its defilement as such in the wicked is to lead them into a wrong opinion of their estares and Conscience in the Saints being but in part cleansed as a witnesse it testifies falshood to them also in that th●● estate is bad when it is good as to the wicked that it is good when it is nothing lesse An Account of a Discourse April 13 between three QUAKERS Mr. S. Fisher G. Whitehead R. Hubberthorn and T. Danson T. D. Mr. F●sher because you urged so hard for another Conference I have granted your desire yet not for your sake so much as the hearers that they may be convinced of the damnablenesse of your Doctrine and may loath and detest you as you well deserve And against it I shall urge one irrefragable Scripture which I should be glad to hear your answer to or else you shall oppose and I will answer which I rather desire The place is Rom. 11.6 And if by Grace then it is no more of works otherwise Grace is no more Grace But if it be of works then it is no more of Grace otherwise work is no more work The Apostle having spoken of the efficient cause of Election and effectual calling he here excludes works from being any cause of them And this he does by an argument taken from the opposition between immediate contraries And I apply it to the case in hand thu● that if Justification be of wo●ks as you assert then Grace is excluded from any hand in Justification which is contrary to the Scripture which says we are Justified by Grace Our Justification cannot be a debt and a free gift I mean not both in respect of us To this no reply was made T. D. I will name another Scripture Rom. 10.3.4 For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousnesse of God For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every on● that believeth The Apostle here makes a distinction between our own righteousnesse and Gods and finds fault with them who neglect●ng Gods went about to establish their own And be makes our own righteousnesse to be a personal conformity to the Law and Gods righteousnesse to be Christ made ours by faith you are therefore guilty of this sin who make your own righteousness your justification G. Whitehead We do not make our own righteousnesse our justification but the righteousnesse of God is that we testifie being made manifest in us T. D. Do not ye delude your hearers with doubtful words Ye did yesterday assert that the righteousnesse which we are enabled to perform or our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification G. Whithead We witnesse to the righteousnesse of God according to the Scripture Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the Faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by Faith T. D. You could not have brought a Scripture more full against you The righteousness which is of Christ and of God by Faith is cal'd Christ vers 8. That I may win Christ And how he is our righteousness 2 Cor. 5. ult tells us as Christ was made sin for us so are we the righteousness of God in him but the former was by imputation not inherence and therefore so the other So that the Apostle by his own righteousness understands his personal conformity to

of judgement shall be but as God You know well enough what communication of Idioms means And the Apostles themselves did not partake of that divine property of Infallibility for then they would have been infallible at all times and in all things which they were not as appears by the instance of Peter Gal. 2.11 But in the delivery of what was to be a standing rule to us they were so guided that they d●d not erre as you may find 2 Pet. 1. ult The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost As for our want of infallibility 't is no valid plea against our Ministry Acts 20.30 the Apostle speaking to the Elders of Ephesus ● 17 Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them And yet he saies the holy Ghost had made these fallible men Overseers over the Church v. 28. 1 Thef 5. Quench not the Spirit vers 19. Despise not prophecying vers 20. Prove all things hold fast that which is good v. 21. The connexion of these verses imports that that prophecying must not be despised nor can be without neglecting the Spirit in it which may teach us somewhat which is not good an● not to be received And both these instances are of an ordinary Ministry which is set in the same universal Church with the extraordinary 1 Cor. 12.28 and for the same end viz. to convert and build up Eph. 4.12 Note that when we had gone thus far I gave a brief account of my Call for which you are referred to Hubberthorns account of the Conference and my answer hereto annexed A short ANSWER to a trifling Pamphlet intituled The Difference of that Call of God to the Ministry c. published by R. Hubberthorn IN the Epistle to the Reader the Questions debated on are falsly stated as will appear by the Narrative hereto annexed In the Book it self you have his Call to the Ministry which is not worthy a further Reply than I made by word of mouth And an account of my Call which except two or three passages was the summe of what I spake One passage is He said I said 't is non sence to say that a man is made a Minister by the gift of grace Reply My words were that he had spoken a great deal of non-sence in his discourse not that that particular passage was non sense Yet I said and do still stand to it that if by gift of grace he means qual●fications for the Ministry more is r●quired to a mission than them Another pass●ge is That I said my qualifications were such that I might have been cloathed in Scarlet Reply I said not so of my self particularly but in general that many of us who had chosen the Ministry for our calling were capable of other callings and had opportunities of entring into them which might have cloathed us with scarlet as they did other men who followed them VVhereas he saies that T. D. provoked his Church to laughter rudeness c. Reply I confess the Assembly did laugh oftentimes at their sorry shifts and poor evasions in our discourse but that I did compose them I have many witnesses And I deny not but that now and then I could not forbear smiling at them which I presume as justifiable in me as Elijah the Prophets scoffing at Bauls Priests 1 Kings 18.27 Whereas he sayes that none of my people can set to their seal that my Ministry hath brought them to a perfect man c. Reply 'T is readily granted nor was the Ministry intended for that end but only to br●ng the Saints to that degree of Grace in this life which might make them immediatly capable of perfection in the next life Note that R. H. brings in several passages as mine some of which I own and others which I own not I shall name them briefly That every individual man is not enlightened by Christ and he complaines that I brought two meanings of that Scripture and know not which is the meaning of the holy Ghost Reply I still affirm the Proposition mentioned and I would have him to know that both the meanings are the Holy Ghosts though but one is intended in that place the phrases will bear either senses and either of them cross his Interpretation That the whole body of the Gentiles was not enlightned Reply He leaves out what I added viz. by Christ or with the knowledg of salvation As for his answer I refer you to the dispu●e upon that principle That the Gospel is an external Light and not invisi●le and that it is not the Light within Reply My wo●ds were that the Gospel is an external L●ght as that of the Sun and that there is an inward Light created in the soul c●ll'd an understanding g●ven us c. 1 John 5.20 which is as the Light in the eye and that the light of the Gospel is not the light which every man naturally hath with in him That Christ is a propitiation but for the world of believers intend●d 1 John 2.2 Reply I expla●n'd my meaning when I so interp●eted the ph●ase by c●mparing it with Rom. 3 25. Whom God hath set for●h to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood the ph●ase Prop●tiation intends not the price but the actual atton●ment and this latt●r is not without the intervention of Fa●th So th●t John intends as Paul that the terms of actual reconciliation w●th God are the same to all the world viz. beli●ving in the blood of Christ T●at we must reconcile Scriptures and he saies I gave two contrary meanings of one Scripture Reply I have said enough to this in the D●spute the Scriptures are not at variance among themselves but they s em so to be and 't is part of our wo●k to l●t p●ople see how well they are agreed And I dare leave it to any Reade●s j●dgement whe●h r these two interpretations which R. H. intends be contrary to one another viz. that Christ enl●ghtens every man who is spi●itually enlightened or that he enlightens a number of every Nation which were the two meanings to use his phrase of John 1.8 That the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ was not the Law of the Spirit in the Saints but that they were two Laws c. Reply My words were that by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus Rom. 8 2. was not meant our personal righteousn●sse but Christs imputed to us and that though the righteousnesse in Christ and in us are of the same kind yet they have not the same use the former being alone our justification the latter our sanctification That there are two righteousnesses of Christ the one without the Saints to justifie them and the other within the Saints that did sanctifie them Reply My words were that there is a righteousness whereof Christ is the subject and the efficient viz. that of his

salvation to some who accept not of it out of particular fancy to them but exact of others that acceptance and for default of it deny them salvation then there might be some ground for the cavil but now that 't is offered upon equal terms there is none And for Christ being given for salvation to the ends of the earth that imports not so much as that the offer much lesse the benefit should be of su●h extent in all ages and generations as I shewed before but the fulfilling of that prophecy bears date from the Apostolical Commission Mat. 28.19 and it intends that no Nation how remote soever from Judea should want the offer nor some of it the benefit of salvation That a Minister of the Gospel doth not know who are elected And to this R. H. says there he hath belied the Ministers of the Gospel for they could discern the elect from the world as 't is written Ye shall discern between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not and these Teachers who know not the elect and yet exhort all their hearers to believe their preaching is in vain Reply I see you are hard put to it for a Scripture to bring that Mal. 3. ult I could have fitted you with one that would have been more specious 1 Thes 1.4 Knowing Brethren beloved your Election of God As for Mal. 3. ult 't is not strictly true till the day of judgement Solomon says No man knows love or hatred by all that is before him I should rather think our preaching is to more purpose because we know not who are elect for the ignorance of that gives us a ground to hope well of any man and indeed it were to no purpose to preach to those who are not elected unlesse that of leaving them inexcusable did we certainly know who are elect and so who are not for the latter would have no ground of hope which now they have in the indefinite promise made of none effect through their unbelief did we let them know they were excluded out of Gods purpose of salvation That the sword of the Spirit is ineffectual without the Letter To which R. H. says the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God which was effectual before the Letter was Reply This man is so used to speak non-sense himself that he can understand it as well or better than good sense I did not say as he relates but that the Spirit was not wont to be ●ff ctual without the Letter or that he wrought upon the souls of men in and by the Letter of the Word and I gave that instance Rom. 10.17 Faith which is the Spirits work comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God As for what he sayes that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God if he means like a man in his oppositions he must mean Christ who but once is called the Word of God Rev. 19.13 And Christ cannot be intended Eph. 6.17 because he is not the sword of the Spirit but the Spirit his sword rather for by the Spirit he works in the hearts of men and therefore Gen. 6.3 he sayes My Spirit shall not alwayes strive with man which is meant of the holy Ghost as will appear by comparing it with Act. 7 51. where Stephen tells the Jews Ye do alwayes resist the holy Ghost Christ by the common operations of his Spirit strives with men and by the special operations thereof prevails with them That there was no Scripture written but what is extant and in the Bible Against which assertion R. H. produces the book of Nathan Iddo c. mentioned in the Bible which he sayes were written for the same end and use Reply It does not appear that any of the Books mentioned in the Old Testament and to which we are referr'd for further satisfaction in historical matters were of Divine Inspiration but we may rather conclude that the Holy Ghost mentioning no more of History than was necessary for our Instruction refers us for the rest which was not of the like necessity to books of humane original And though they are the Books of Prophets yet it follows not that they were divinely inspir'd For they might as well write from their own spirits or upon humane credit as sometimes speak from their own spirits 2 Sam. 7.3 Nathan told David when he spake of building a Temple Go do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee whenas God for bad him by the same Prophet which prohibition is call'd the word of the Lo d that came to Nathan v. 4.5 plainly enough intimating that the incouragement he gave David before was but the word of man And indeed 2 Pet. 2. last speaking of the motion of the Holy Ghost to write the Scriptures seems to limit it to that which was intended for a sure word of prophecy wherunto we should do well to take heed c. v. 19. That there was no Scripture appointed of God to be a Rule of Faith and manners but what is bound up in the Bible Reply That was my assertion and besides what I spake I shall adde that 't is not enough if it could be proved that other writings besides those we have were of Divine Inspiration For besides such Inspiration to make a Rule is necessary Gods appointment of a writing to that end Hence 't is observable that John is bidden to write what he saw and heard in the Book of Revelation no lesse than twelve times and some things of the like inspiration he was forbidden to write because not intended for the same end Rev. 10.4 And when the seven thunders had uttered th●ir voices I was about to write and I heard a voice from Heaven saying unto me seal up c. and write them not John 20.30.31 A●d many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Discipl●s which are not wri●ten in ●his book but these are written that ye might bel●eve c. Those things which were not written might have b●en us●ful if they had been wr●tten for th●y were done for the same end with tho●e which are left u● yet because God thought that suffi●ient which we have we can look upon no more wi●h such regard as we do upon that That the letter doth antecede the Spirit in all that walked in the Spirit Reply I opened my own meaning as you may find in the dispute about the Scriptures and 't is this that the Spirits act of r●veal●ng the letter of the Scriptures antecedes the Spirits assistance in walking according to it That the works of Christ in some respect are not perfect To which R. H. saies that is false for every gift of God is perfect Reply I spake those words with reference to the work of sanc●ification which I affirmed to be imp●rfect in this life in comparison of what it is in the life to come For which I produced Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained either were