Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	apostle_n	law_n	sin_n	5,562	5	5.3183	4	false

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

pervertest Scripture T. Danson I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers whether I have perverted Scripture or no and so pray do you The third Qu●stion debated on was though with much ado at length stated in these terms Whether our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification And Mr. Fisher held it in the Affirmative Mr. Fisher Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification by a rule that you own Contraria contrariorum ratio whence I argue thus If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation then out good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or justification But our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation therefore our good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or just●fication T. Danson Now you shew your self a rank Papist indeed We deny your consequence because our evil works are perfectly evil but our good works are but imperfectly good and any one evil is a violation of the Law and deserves the penalty of the Law but any one or more good work is not the fulfillin● of the Law Let me add that there is no consequence in that Popish Argument notwithstand●ng that Canon because our good and evil works are not absolute contraries the one being perfectly evil the other but imperfectly good Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu Bonum fi●●ex integris causis which latter appears by Isa 64.6 All our righteousnesses not our unrighteousnesses only are as filthy rags And again thus the rule will allow to argue Evil works which are the violation of the Law deserve damnation Ergo good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deserve salvation And we know no good works such but Christ's And once more in respect of the subject the Rule will not hold being one who owes all his good works to God and is a finite creature now those works which merit must not be due and they must be of infinite value or else there is no proportion between them and the reward And thus we might argue à contrariis If his evil works from whom only good works are due as from a finite creature to an infinite Creator do truly deserve damnation then his good works who owes none and is an infinite person do truly deserve non-condemnation But verum prius ergo et posterius And to understand this we must know that the desert of disobedience arises chiefly from the dignity of the Object against which sin is committed when as the desert of obedience arises from the dignity of the subject by which it is performed Mr. Fisher I will prove my consequence from Gal. 5.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the Law Whence I argue If they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law then the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cause of their not being under the Law but they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law Ergo. T. Danson Sir you are very silly your self or take your hearers to be so that you think this to be a proof of your former consequence or that there is any consequence in this Argument You should have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works And surely Sir the leading of the Spirit or Sanctification is a fruit and effect not a meritorious cause of not being under the Law that is obliged to its penalty Mr. Fisher I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cause of our Justification 1 Cor. 6.11 And such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Observe here the Co inthians are said to be justified by the Spirit T. Danson I might say that perhaps the clause should be referred to Sanctification which is in a more appropriate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency as if the order of the words had been but ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God and such transpositions are not without instance in the Scripture as Mat. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye your Pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you where turn again and rent you is to be joyned to the dogs for as swine do trample under their feet so dogs do fly upon a man and tear him down Or else justified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application I mean the third Person in the Trinity not of the work of Grace whereof we are the Subject Mr. Fisher In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death Now 't is the same Law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ and the Saints T. Danson That place is much against you For the Apostle asserts the Holinesse of mans Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law to be the merito●ious cause of ou● freedom from sin and death but mark withal 't is not that which is in us but in Christ And though 't is true that the same spirit is in Christ and the Saints yet neither does the spirit in us conform us fully to the Law notwithstanding your vain assertion of perfection nor if it did were that conformity the merit of J●stification Let me add that the Law of the Spirit of life here spoken of is not only the meritorious cause of our freedom from death but from the Law of sin or obeying of sin as a Law now I would fain know what precedent holinesse in the Saints merits subsequent holinesse or whether the exercise of what they have is the meritorious cause of what they have not or of perfection especially if the law of sin intends the corruption of nature as the Law of the Spirit of life does holiness of nature I would be instructed how a nature in part corrupted can deserve total freedom and I am sure the first work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part Mr. Fisher Pray read on Rom. 8.4 That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit This place saies the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in the persons of the Saints T. Danson Sure Sir you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the flesh that is unable to justifie us in regard of our inability through corruption to fulfill it which were untrue if we are able to fulfill it and what follows God sent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedience to the Law and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God sent Christ that the righteousnesse of the Law might

the same import Job 1.1 that man mean●ng Job was perfect and upright that perfect is not meant in your sense appears by c. 9.20 If I say I am pe●fect 〈◊〉 his mouth shall also prove me perverse Sinceri●y Job all along avouched but perfection such as he m●ght j●stifie h●mself by he denies But to return to the place Phi● 3.12 He denies that he was yet perfect whilst in a breath he affirms himself so The perfection he denies is the resurrection of the dead v. 11. that is by an usual Metonymy of the subject for the adj●nct that measure of holinesse which accompanies tha● state wh●ch we shall find to be exclusive of sin 1 John 2.2 We shall be lik● him meaning Christ when he appears But how shall Christ appear Heb. 9. ult appear the second time without sin Put it together and the perfection Paul denies is the state of the resurrection which is to be without sin The perfection he ●ffirms is comparative in respect of Christians of lower attainments who could not assent to all the Doctrines of the Gospel v. 15. If in any thing ye i. e. some of you be otherwise minded M. Fisher I will prove from the Scripture such a state of perfection Psal 119. Blessed ●re the undefiled in the way v. 1. They also do no iniquity v. 2. Do you mark every word T. Danson Yes Sir we mark the words but I might expect a reply to what I have urged against the Scriptures brought by your friend As for the phrases they are hyperbolical v. 6. Then I shall not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandm●n●s in respect of design and endeavour though falling short in accomplishment that v. explains the other two you brought I shall add that David excludes himself out of a blessed state if undefiled and doing no iniquity be meant strictly His wish vers 5. and other passages ●n the Psalms shew that he was not free from sinne which su●e David did not intend for Psal 32 2. he pronounces the man blessed which hath no guilt in his spirit or sincere which himself was at that time though under th● guilt of a great sinne vers 5. which is by interpreters supposed to be the same sins for which Psal 51. was composed But Mr. Fisher can you produce one single example of a perfect Saint in your sense Mr. Fisher Yes Thomas Dans●n that I can 'T is in Luke 1.6 And they Zachary and Elizabeth were bo●h righteous before God not before man only but bef●re God walk●ng in all the Commandments nor in s●me few o● many but all and O●dinances of the Lord blameless T. Danson Methinks Sir you bring in this Scripture with pomp and ceremony yet it will not do For first how doth it appear that righteous before God is meant a perfect inherent righteousnesse seeing a believers person with his works are accepted with God though his works be not perfect Heb. 11.4 By Faith Abel offered to God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain by which he obtained witness that he was righteous c. And secondly how do you prove blamelesse to be meant otherwise than comparatively Phil. 2.15 Blameless without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse Nation among whom ye shine as lights in the world In the same sense may Luke understand the phrase And if you mark the very same phrase is used of Pauls external conformity to the Law when he was so far from perfect that he had no Grace at all Phil. 3.6 Touching the righteousnesse which is in the Law blamelesse v. 5. Touching the Law a Pharisce Now how they were blamelesse you find by instance Luke 18.10 11. Not as other men are I fast twice in the week c. I bring this instance to let you know that the phrase simply considered will be so far from importing perfection of Grace that it will not import any Grace But in a word to put it out of doubt Zacharias of whom these words are used whence you gather him to be free from sin is found guilty at the very time that this description agreed to him of unbelief and was with dumbnesse punished for it Luke 1.10 Behold thou shalt be dumb and not able to speak until the day that these things be performed because thou believest not my words c. 'T is the message of Gabriel the Angel to Za●harias v. 19. You see Mr. Fisher your pomp in the bringing in of this Scripture was meer wast Mr. Fisher But Tho. Danson there is no such thing m●ntioned of Elizab●th and if there be one instance it sufficeth T. Danson But Sir your Argument is drawn from the import of the phrases and if the phrases are applicable to him though guilty of actual sin then they will not argue her to be more free from sin than him though there be no mention of any of her sins Pray Sir seeing you have nothing to reply but God has stopped your mouth let me hear what answer you can give to that Scripture which hath run much in my mind against this Doctrine Eccles 7.20 There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not R. Hubberthorn It cannot be meant as thou wouldst have it for the man Christ then were not a just man which I think thou wilt not say T. Danson I desir'd Mr. Fishers answer and not yours But seeing he is silenced I will answer you What a wretch are you to make such an Inference was not Christ God as well as man And could a nature tainted with sin be taken into a personal union with the Divine Nature The place I urge excludes any meer man from perfection in this life Mr. Fisher I will give thee an answer Tho. Danson We grant the truth in that Scripture the just man there spoken of is not on earth for he is redeemed from the earth and in the Revelation he is said to be a dweller in Heaven whereas the wrath of God is said to come upon the Inhabitants of the earth T. Danson Mr. Fisher you run very low at last this is a meer evasion I verily believe in your own judgment and intention because you think you must say somwhat Can you possibly think that the j●st mans being in Heaven in respect of his disposition and affection and in his Head Christ excludes his local abode on earth We say indeed that no such just man as Solomon speaks of is to be found on earth but in Heaven which is a place of abode as well as a state of blisse R. Hubberthorn In Heb. 12.23 Spirits of just men made perfect this is spoken of them to whom the Apostle writes T. Danson The pl●ce doth not import the perfection of any men on earth but sp●aking of the state we are advanced to under the Gospel by Christ he saies we are one body with them in Heaven and have the same title with them in possession R. Hu●berthorn Thus with thy meanings thou

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

already perfect which he ●ntends of the resurrection from the d●ad v. 11. as he calls the holin●sse of that state by a Metonymy of the subject for the adj●nct I also quoted 1 ●or 13.10 When that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away And for the Scripture he quotes intending I suppose James 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above are the words of the Holy Ghost not every g●ft of God is perfect and I suppose 't is spoken of special grace which is still in g●owth every least degree of grace tending to perfection That the Law requires more strict and exact obedience then the Gospel To whi●h R. H. replies nay the Law saith Thou shalt not commit adul ery but the Gospel saith Thou shalt not lust c and so the Gospel r●q●ires more strict obedience than the Law Reply I spake those words with reference to what the Law req●ires of us as 't is a Covenan● of works and to what the ●osp●l accepts of us as 't is a Covenant of grace though the Law g ves not life without perfect obedience the Go●pel gives it upon imperfect ob dience The words were not intended of the Leg l and Ev ngelical disp●nsations as R. H. seems to understand them in his Socinian interp etat●on And as for his interpretation I affirm that Christ intended not to adde any th ng to the spirituality of t●e Law for that under Mos●s was spiri●ual as Paul speaks Rom 7.14 for under the prohibition of the outward act was also prohibit●d inward aff ct●ons desires wh●ch appears by Gods p●omise of ci●cumcising the heart D●ut 30.6 and his comm●nd to w●sh their hearts from wick●dn●ss● that they might be sav●d But our Lord Chri●● v●●d●cates the Law from the cor●upt glosses of the Pharisees who interpreted those proh●bitions to extend no fu●ther than the letter which is but to the outward act as w●ll appear by the contex● especially v. 18.19 That Chr●st chose a devil to be one of his Ministers in chusing Judas and his pro f saies R. H. was That the Divine nature did not see it good to commu●icate the knowl●dg of all things to the hum●ne nature ●n●●herefore al hough he was a devil when he chose him yet he k●ew it not which saies R. H. is a charging of Christ with ●gnorance contrary to John 2.24 25. and Christ saies Judas had the spirit of the Fa●her in him M●t. 10.20 Reply The oc●asion of my words was a little discourse I had with Mr. F sher about falling from grace who urged that Judas had the Spirit of the Father in him as well as the rest To which I answered that seeing he appeared to be a devil in the end he was so from the beginning according to 1 Joh. 2.19 speaking of Christians They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us no doubt they would have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us And that Christ spake so to him because he was a visible Christian and it app●ars not that from the first moment of Christs choice he knew him to be a Devill and thereupon I urged the principle above-named and instanced in the Son of mans ignorance of the day of judgement But whether Christs humane Nature did know him or not he was not openly scandalous as appears by the Disciples suspition of themselves rather than him and therefore might be treated as one that had the Spirit That the Spirit of God may ●ccompany a Ministry and the Minister not have the Spirit Which R. H. saies he never read in the Scriptures and bids me prove it when and where it was so at any time Reply It is no great matter what you read in the Scriptures for it appears by the dispute about them that you care not for them but only to beat us as you think with our own weapon and to obey your command I have an instan●e Mat. 23. The Scribes and P●arisees sit in Mos●s seat i. e. sustain the place of Teachers all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do but do not ye after their works for they say and do not v. 2 3. This command imports as much as the Apostle elsewhere expresses viz. to obey from the heart the form of Doctrine which was delivered to them Rom. 6.17 and to be sure the Pharisees had not the spirit of holinesse though they had his blessing upon their Ministry That the power that went forth in the Apostles Ministry was in God not in them but as they have it communicated to them by the exercise of faith Reply You abuse me in the repetition of what I spake either through ignorance or wilfulnesse for my words were that the power by which the Apostles wrought Miracles was not inherent in them but that their exercise of Faith upon the promise of ●x●rting it for confirmation of the Gospel was the sign of the time when God put forth act of Omn●potency This appears by the places before quot●d Mat. 21.21 ●cts 3.16 To which I add v. 12. Why look ye so earnestly on us as though by our own power or holiness● we had made this man to walk He calls the power their own not in resp●ct of the Original for all things are of God but in respect of the subject of it Thomas Rumsey said that we preach a Doctrine of Devils in saying that men may be free from sin in this life To which R. H. answ●rs that the Apostle Paul then preached a Doct●ine of Devils Rom. 6.2 7 18 22. And Christ preach●d the Doctrine of perfection Mat. 5.48 1 Pet. 1.16 And Paul preached wisdom among them that were perf●ct 1 Cor. 2.6 And David pr●ached that Doctrine Mark the perfect man Psal 3● 37. Now David did not bid them mark such a man as ●here was not Reply You Quakers a●e an unmannerly Generation You might have given a Magistrate the Title of Mr. As for Mr. Rumsey's speech he desires me to let you know that he is confirm'd in his Opin●on notwithstanding the Scriptures you alledge which being unlearned and unstable you wrest to your own destruction and he desires me to return you an answer to each As for Rom. 6. The expressions of freed from sin do not note freedom from the being but the dominion vers 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you v. 12. Let not sin reign in ●our mortal bodies c. And that it cannot be meant simply will appear by c. 14.10 Why dost thou judge thy Brother or why dost thou set at nought thy Brother The Apostle speaks of judging as the sin of weaker Christians and setting at nought his brother as the sin of stronger Christians And if sin was consistent with that freedom from sin before affirmed of them then the phrase denotes not freedom from the being of sin as I have told you