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	speak_v	word_n	9,283	5	4.1967	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

now all Witnesses properly so call'd are Persons 2. That is not all but the Apostle joyns Word and Holy-Ghost with the Father whom all acknowledge a Person as Witness of the same kind so that if he be a Person then are they also Persons 3. I add that the attributes of God the Father or instance Omniscience which cannot agree but to a Person are also ascribed to the Word or Son and to the Spirit Jesus knew all things Joh. 2. 22. Acts 5. 9. of which see the Fifth Proposition I know that this proves their Deity too but I produce it only to prove their Person●lity Prop. 3. That Father Word or Son and Spirit are Subsistants or Persons of the same Order In Heaven as to the Father notes the Seat of his Glory and Majesty as appears by the use of that phrase in the Lords Prayer and why not then as to Word and Spirit And some stamp of Divinity more than ordinary is intended for otherwise there are many Witnesses and Persons in Heaven the Angels who from Heaven bore Record of Christ Luke 2. 10 13. Prop. 4. That the Father Word or Son and Spirit are distinct one from another appears from the Text in Conjunction with the story to which they refer Mat. 3. 17. where the Father and Spirit bear Record concerning the Son ●● one distinct from them both And John 8. 18. the Word did bear Record of himself And these did bear Record in a different manner The Father by a Voice from Heaven the Spirit by assuming the shape of a Dove The Son by Word of Mouth on Earth Put all together here were Testimonies given from distinct places Earth Heaven to distinct Sences Ear Eye by distinct actions speaking assuming a shape Then these Witnesses must needs be distinct Again it appears the Father Son and Spirit are distinct one from another 1. From their Incommunicable Properties The Father begets and is not begotten the Son is begotten and does not beget Heb. 1. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee vers 5. The Apostle speaks of an Eternal Generation of the Son of God declared and made manifest in time by the Resurrection of Christ from the dead see Acts 13. 33. compared with Rom. 1. 4. John 1. 18. Christ is called the only begotten Son of God The spirit proceeds from the Father John 15. 26. and Christ says I will send from the Father a mission implies a pr●cession from both 2. From their Order which may be collected from those properties The Father must needs be first in order of Original as in time also a Father is among men and the Son next for Relata sunt simul Naturae The Father and Son are together in Nature and then the spirit proceeding from both must needs in order be after both 3. From their manner of Oper●tion one place will suffice ●ut when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father c. Joh. 16. That Mission was but a manifestation of the presence of the Spirit by a new effect viz. or a clearer Revelation of Christ and the order is the Son sends from the Father or the Father sends by the Son the Spirit to testifie of Christ Prop. 5. To be proved is that every one of these Three distinct Persons are truly God vers 9. He calls the Witnesse given by Three in in Heaven the Witnesse of God therefore each Witness is God not to speak of the names God given to them which is more lyable to cavil as being sometimes given to Creatures 1. It appears by the properties of the God-Head given to Son and Spirit as for the Father he is acknowledged to be God on all hands 1. From their Omnipresence Lo I am with you always to the end of the World Math. 28. ult spoken of Christ Psal 139. 7. Whither shall I go from thy spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence 2. Omniscience John 2. 24. Jesus knew all men Acts 5. 9. Why have yee agreed together to Tempt the spirit of the Lord i. e. to try whither he could discover your Hypocrisie There are other Instances of Divine properties but let these suffice 2. By the Works or Operations proper to God as 1. Creation Eccles 12. 1. Remember thy Creators so the He● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 2. By whom also he made the World T is spoken of God the Father with reference to Christ and 〈◊〉 ●implies that the Son of God joyned with his Father in making the World as an efficient Cause equal in Power not as an Instrument for there can be none in Creation because to make something out of nothing requires Infinite power and between a finite power and nothing there is no proportion Job 33. 4. The spirit of God made me 2. Preservation Heb. 1. 3. Vpholding all things by the Word of his Power spoken of the Son or Christ Gen. 1. 2. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commovens in cubans used of Birds brooding their Yong Deut. 32. 11 and so applied me●aphorically to the spirits Operation in conse●●ing the Chaos 3. That Son and Spirit are truly God Isa ●● 8. by the Right they have to be Objects of Divine Worship And let all the Angels of God Worship him Spoken of the Son who is call●d God and said to have a Throne or Seat of Majesty to the person whereon Worship is given Heb. 1. 6 8. and Rev. 1. Grace Mercy and Peace from him which is and is to come and from the seven spirits i. e. the spirit that is manifested in Variety of Gifts which are before the Throne and from Jesus Christ Though John speaks in the Third Person yet ●t is a Prayer and so in effect an add●ess to the Persons as if he had said O Father 〈◊〉 and spirit Grant these Churches Grace Mercy and P●●ce Cant. 4. ult Awake thou North Wind and come thou South i. e. O Blessed spirit bre●th into my heart spirit compared to Wind Jo●n 3. 8 the same Word signifies both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to the son Acts 7. 59. Lord. Jesus receive my spirit Prop. 6. That these Persons are not divided on● from another so as to be Three Gods but on● God appears from the Text in that ●● call● the Witness of Three the Witness of one viz in natu●e or essence which is vers 9. said to b● God not Three Divine natures but one is predicated of the Three Witnesses And thus a way is made to an Answer to W. P s. Arguments Arg. 1. If there be Three distinct Persons then Thr●● distinct Substances Ans I deny the Consequence because as 〈◊〉 shewed before the Word Person is not p●●d●cated of Father Son and Holy Ghost and 〈◊〉 the Creature univoce that is the same Wo●● does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the

beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24. 47. It doe● not then exclude the teachings of men But i● we compare this part of the Verse with the la●● Clause For all shall know me from the least to the greatest the meaning is evident viz. that Go● does not hereby exclude but include the teachings of Men and promise a greater efficacy to them than formerly so that the Christians 〈◊〉 the New Testament should be able to leave the Principles of the Dactrine of Christ and to go on to perfection As the Apostle speaks Heb. 6. 1. i. e. not to forget or unlearn them but not to stick in them without further progress as for a Scholar to be always learning Grammar and never proceed to Rhetorick Logick c. Second Scripture is 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye need n●● that any Man teach you Answ This is spoken in opposition to any o● the seducers vers 26. whos 's teaching the Christians needed not In which sence the Colossian● are said to be compleat in Christ Col. 2. 10 8. 〈◊〉 opposition to Mosaical Ceremonies humane traditions or Phylosophical Principles which might pretend to discover somewhat necessary to salvation not revealed in the Gospel or contrary to that revelation which interpretation of the tex● before us is favoured by the latter clause but 〈◊〉 the same anointing teacheth you all things and is truth and is no lie 1 Joh. 2. 27. 2. This place will bear another interpretation viz. that they were grown Christians such as did not altogether depend upon others but knew somewhat themselves having an inward light or spiritual judgment called metonymically an anointment That Character ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth 2 Tim. 3. 7. However it agreed to other Christians did not agree to them so that in the Quakers interpretation there is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as Logicians speak that is to take those words absolutely which are intended in a certain respect And that theirs cannot be the meaning will appear to any one that shall but remember that after Christs ascention when the spirit was poured out in most plentiful measure so that if at any time on Earth then might the teachings of Man seem needless there was greatest plenty of Teachers extraordinary ordinary as we finde in the Acts of the Apostles Another Branch of the Quakers Errour as to Ordinances refers to Baptism and the Lord's Supper of which they affirm that they cease upon the appearance of Christ within A. P ' s. several Papers p. 19. Farnworth's Discovery of Faith p. 11. Against which Errour I oppose two Arguments one for both Ordinances the other for Baptism in particular Arg. 1. If Baptism and the Lord's Supper are standing Ordinances or such as we are obliged to use during this life then they do not cease upon the appearance of Christ within or are not made useless or unnecessary by any degree of attainments in this life But the former is true therefore the latter That they are standing Ordinances appears because no formal repeal can be produced either in terminis or by any due consequence from Scripture nor yet any virtual repeal as in Laws made for a time and at the expiration thereof of course ceasing to oblige That then they do not cease as to our need of them follows evidently because it is not to be supposed consistent with Christ's wisdome to continue an obligation upon us to the use of a means when the end is obtained already All that can be said with any colour is that they are of perpetual obligation till the appearance of Christ within that is a full appearance or state of perfection But we having proved before that there is no such state attainable in this life then if those Ordinances oblige till we be arrived at perfection they oblige and so are of use during term of life Arg. 2 If Baptism be a Foundation-Doctrine as I may call it then it is of use during this life That it is such appears by Heb. 6. 1 2. where the Apostle calls the Doctrine of Baptism a Foundation by which phrase of the Apostle the knowledge of the use and intendment of that Ordinance by those who had or were to receive it ●eems to be meant The consequence is good If it be an Ordinance all Christians are to understand and improve then they must receive it Being baptized into Christs death cannot be an argument to induce the unbaptized to a mortification of sin which the Apostle urges upon the baptized Rom. 6. 3 4. If it be said that the Apostle exhorts the Hebrews to leave this Principle or Foundation of Christian Doctrine vers 1. I answer that by leaving it the Apostle cannot mean relinquishing the practice thereof For then by force of the same phrase applyed to Faith and Repentance c. These graces must also be left the contrary whereto I have before proved but the Apostle explains himself that they should not so stick in the foundation as not to proceed to the superstructure or highest points of Christian doctrine I could never meet with any thing that looked like an Argument for their opinion but that place which speaks of shewing forth the Lord's Death in the Supper till he come which they interpret till he come in the spirit 1 Cor. 11. 26. Answ So Christ was come already to the believing Corinthians The Apostle speaking of them and himself says We have received not the spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God 1 Ep. chap. 2. v. 12. And yet that hindred not the Apostles incouragement and direction in their use of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 25 26 28. Errour 9. That there is no Resurrection from the Dead Rob. Turner in a Letter of his to the Baptists and George Whitehead in his late Answer to W. Burnet and George Fox Jun. in his Works bound up together THe Scripture is plentiful in asserting the Resurrection I shall only single out one Argument to evince it Arg. If the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly then the same bodies that dye must rise again But the Antecedent is true therefore also the Consequent That the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly which Proposition is the ancecedent is evident by 2 Cor. 5. 10. And then the Consequence is firm because those bodies receive not their Reward till the universal Judgment and then they cannot receive it having been once dissolved unless they rise again For the further proof of antecedent and consequent I shall first explain the Terms of Christ's Argument to prove the Resurrection from the ●ead which to ordinary Readers may seem inconsequent and then shew how the Argument is ●educed The place is Mat. 22. 31 32. As touching their Resurrection from the Dead have ye not Read that ●hich was spoken unto you by God ● Saying I am ●●e God of

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

the priviledge he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself som● time is to turn an Apprentice and therefore t is as true an act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of his Chastisments for Sin Arg. 3. If Righteousness were by the Law i e. by our personal Obedience to it then Christ died in vain they are the Apostles own Words Gal. 2 21. which we may make a perfect Hypothetical Syllogisme by adding the Minor But Christ died not in vain and the Conclusion therefore Righteousness comes not by the Law The reason of the Consequence in the Major which the Apostle affords us is because the end of Christs Death was to provide us a Righteousness to be tendred to God acceptance and which supposing the Covenant of Grace he neither would nor could refuse But if we have Righteousness sufficient for the end of Righteousness Justification the Righteousness provided by Christ comes a-day after the Fair as we say too late to bestead us Christ's end in his Death was to do that for us in point of Justification which we could not do for our selves as may well be inferred from the place touched at above Rom. 8. 3 4. The Scriptures they alledge are Arg. 1. James 2. 24. A man is justified by Works and not by Faith onely Answ If we take Justification in a proper sence for the Absolution or Acquitting of a Sinner this place would contradict that in Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith and not by the Deeds of the Law But there is alway a sweet consent though sometimes a seeming dissent between one Scripture and another I therefore distinguish between Justification as it imports the Absolution of a Sinner and as it imports the Approbation of a Believer I also distinguish the word Faith as it is taken for a living or for a dead Faith that is for the reality of Faith or the bare Prosession And then I answer that James tells us how a Man is declared or manifested to be a justified Person viz. not by a profession of Faith only but by Works also we are justified by Works as our Faith is made perfect by Works Jam. 2. 22. that is declaratively Faith is declared or evidenced to be perfect that is sincere and true by Works As the Tree is not made but shewn to be good by the Fruit it bears And hence t is said that Faith without Works is dead vers 20. It is so and appears to be so as the Tree that bears not at all And the scope of the place is to convince the Hypoc●ites that said they had Faith and had none as appears vers 14. and onward Whereas Paul in the other place Rom. 3. 28. shews u● how a Sinner is formally justified in the sight o● God viz. by a True Faith in Christ as will appear to him that observes vers 25. 26. where God is said to justifie him that believes in Jesus Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood Arg. 2. Rom. 8. 2 4. The Law of the Spirit of lif● in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law 〈◊〉 Sin and Death That the Righteousness of the La● may be fulfilled in us who walk not after the Fles● but after the Spirit From the first of these verse● they conclude that we are made free Meritoriously by the Law of the Spirit in us from the Law of Sin and Death because it is the same Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ and the Saints From the second they observe tha● the Righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in th● Persons of the Saints Ans To the second Verse theirs cannot b● the meaning of the Text For supposing a sta●● of freedome from sin attainable in this life an● that by the Law of sin and death is meant only death the fruit of sin yet how can there be an● colour for merit of justification when the ver● priviledge of that state addes to those obligations by which all the service our capacity wil● extend to had been due to God if we had never sinned Two other Sences ind●ed the word● seem to learned Men not uncapable of 1. That the Apostle give● a reason of the connexion between justification and sanctification because the same Christ Jesus that justifies by his blood sanctifies by his spirit So Calvin c. in loc 2. That they contain the meritorious cause of that justification which is evidenced by an holy life viz the active obedience of Christ So Beza And to this I rather incline As for Ver. 4. some understand them to note this end of Christs sending into the World viz. that Gods righteous Laws might not be absolutely contemned and so given in vain but might be observed though imperfectly by believers Others of the imputation of Christs surety righteousness Fide jussoria justitia The Quakers to be sure mistakes for I shall shew under the next head no perfect personal righteousness is attainable in this life Arg. 3. If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation then our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent S. Fishers dispute at Sandwich The consequence he proves from that Rule in Logick Contraria contrariorum ratio of contraries there is a contrary reason or consequence Ans We deny the consequence of the major 1. Because our good and our evil works are not perfectly contrary For our evil works are perfectly evil for malum fit ex quilibet defectu Any one defect makes our works evil but ou● good works are but imperfectly good For Bonum fit ex integris causis There must be a conformity in all respects to the Law to make our work● good For that Rule on which Fisher ground● his consequence holds only of immediate or perfect contraries not of mediate And so his consequence is but like this If cold Water will chil● a Man's body luke-warm Water will scald it 2. Because there is no condignity in our goo● works were they perfectly good There canno● be a proportion between a finite work and infinite reward 'T is true the Apostle says To him that worketh the reward is reckon'd not of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. But it is to be understood of a debt Ex pacto gratiae non ex operis dignitate due by promise not by any merit preceding the promise Arg. 4. Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the Law are just before God but the doers of the Law shall be justified Pen. p. 26. Ans The words give the reason of their perishing who had the Law viz. the Jews because God cannot justifie any on the terms of the old Covenant that do not perfectly fulfill it which the Jews were far enough from being able to do or indeed from indeavouring it They pleased themselves in their priviledges and external acts of

worship for which hearing is put by a Synecdoche as equivalent in merit to a perfect legal righteousness Errour 5. That a siate of freedome from sin is attainable in this Life AGainst this Error I urge two Arguments 1. If no meer Man ever attained to any such state then it is not attainable But no meer Man ever did c. The consequence carries great probability of truth As for the minor that no Man ever did attain a state of perfection we may prove by the instances of the eminently holy Persons in the Scripture who in all likelihood would have attained it had it been attainable I know the Quakers do give instances of meer Men in Scripture that were perfect but their mistake lies in the different use of that word as we shall see by and by Arg. 2. If there be a continual need and use of faith and repentance in this life then a state of freedome from sin is not attainable in this life But there is a continual need and use of faith and repentance in this life Therefore a state of freedome from sin is attainable in this life The Consequence is evident What need can he have of repentance for sin that hath no sin to repent of or of faith in Christ for pardon and power against sin who is already free from what contracts guilt and defilement That there is continual use of faith and there 's the like reason of repentance appears from 1 Cor. 13. ult Now abide Faith Hope and Charity these three but the greatest of these is Charity See p. 33. By Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand love to God as well as to our Neighbour as is evident by Ver. 3. between which and faith and hope the Apostle states the comparison in respect of their duration that when the two former shall cease the latter shall abide Charity or love suits our future perfect as well as our present imperfect state but faith and hope suit only our present and imperfect state The Quakers Arguments are drawn 1. From the word perfect Phil. 3. 15. and elsewhere applied to Saints on Earth Ans The word perfect is sometimes used absolutely 1 Cor. 13. 10. opposed to what is in part and sometimes comparatively Phil. 3. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded Yet Ver. 12. he says Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect He denies in one Verse what he affirms in the other and so contradicts himself if the word perfect be in both places understood in the same sence But 't is evident that in the 15. ver perfect is not properly taken for he exhorts to be minded a● he was Following after the Resurrection of the Dead Verse 11. That is that state of holiness which the Saints shall be invested with at the resurrection call'd the resurrection of the dead metonymically which will be in a proper sence perfect and in a word to press after perfection from a lively sence of their own imperfection 2. From the Exhortations to press after perfection Math. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect Answ Such commands are the measure of our duty not of our attainments I mean in this life In the life to come indeed we shall be like God in this life we are Children that bear small resemblance to their Parent See 1 Joh. 3. 2. That which is now our rule shall be then our reward 3. 1 Joh. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin Answ 1. We may interpret it that as he is born of God he does not sin Every Childe of God is mixta persona as our Law says of the King in another sence consists of an old and new nature and so his new nature is the principium quo the Principle from which he acts graciously and the old nature the principle from which he acts sinfully As mortal or immortal ●yable or not lyable to Death is truly assirmed of the same Man in respect of the divers parts of his nature Body and Soul 2. It may intend the manner of sinning So ●he 8. Verse seems to limit it He that committeth in is of the Devil for the Devil sinneth from the ●eginning The comparison is not between the act ●imply for then it should have been said only for ●he Devil sinneth but from the beginning implies ● comparison between the manner of Mans sins and the Devils in respect of which he is said to be of the Devil because he imitates his example who from the Day he began never ceased to sin nor ever did one truly good action Errour 6. That Christ enlightens every Man to Salvation George Whitehead 's Voice of Wisdom WHere note that the word Christ is a mee● blinde to delude the ignorant for the Quakers denying Christ to be God they cannot own him for the Author of illumination The Scriptures I urge against this Tenent are Eph. 2. 12. That at that time ye were without Christ having no hope c. That last clause I intend especially which must needs be understood either of the act of hope or of the ground or warran● of hope not of the former for having no hope is a badge of distinction between Jew and Gentile as appears by the connexion with the foregoing clause Aliens from the Common-wealth o● Isrdel that Common-wealth and Church being commensurate but if we understand it o● the act of hope the want of that did not distinguish the Gentile from the Jewes for many o● the Jewes laboured under the same want Many of them were unbelievers and so had no hope One difference between faith and hope being this that the former looks at the promise of the benefit the latter at the benefit in the promise Fides respicit verbum r●● spes rem verbi Luther We must understand the phrase then of having no ground or warrant of hope and to that interpretation the foregoing clause leads us Strangers from the Covenants of promises And Gentiles thereby were distinguished from the Jews whose the promises are said to be Rom. 9. 4. viz. the promises of Christ and Salvation From the words thus explained ●argue Arg. They that had no promises of Christ and Salvation by him could know of none But the Gentiles for a time had none therefore they knew of none and consequently had not a light or knowledge sufficient to bring them to Salvation The major is evident every act supposes an object I cannot know that which is not The minor is proved by 1 Tim. 3. last where God manifest in the Flesh and as such preached to the Gentiles are made two parts of the mystery of godliness and by that pregnant place the mystery of Christ which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of Men as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit that the Gentiles should be follow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by

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