Scripture is not our Rule if there was a rule before the Scripture was written then that is not our rule but there was a rule before the Scripture Therefore T. D. Your Argument concludes nothing against us for we assert the matter contained in the Scripture is a standing Rule your argument proves but that there was a rule before this writing we grant that God reveal'd himself by visions dreams c. yet it was the same matter Since the Gospel preached to Adam there have not been any increase of truths quoad essentiam sed tantum quoad explicationem as the Learned speak of the Articles of our Faith The manner of conveyance is different then and now but the matter or doctrines conveyed still the same All this while you go about to delude the simple as if you denied only this way of writing to have always been the onely way of conveyance and you magnifie the Spirit that with more security you may throw down the Letter of the Scripture And if you would speak out plainly as some of your friends as you call them do that which you call the Spirit would be found to be the dictates of your own Conscience blind and corrupt as they are the Lord knows and you are no further bound to obey the Letter of the Scripture than you are willing to obey it Mr. F. I am sure your Scripture is not the Word of God for that is within but your Scripture is without This I prove out of Râ—m 10.8 The Word is nigh thee even in thy heart T. D. You read not all 't is in thy mouth too so that 't is without as well as within Mr. F. This is meant of the Light which is in eveâ—y mans Conscience 'T is a word which every man haâ—h heard v. 18. But I say have they not heard yes verily their sound went into all the earth T. D. It seems then the Light within is the Spirit you pleaded for to be the Rule in opposition to the Scriptures But 't is plain enough that v. 18. speaks of the Gospel for it relates to the Preacher spoken of v. 14 15. who were Prophets and Apostles And though the words are taken out of Psal 19.4 yet they intend not that nâ—tuâ—al knowledge of God which David speaks of but the Apostle would intimate that the knowlâ—dge of Christ by thâ— Gospel should be of as large extent in the publication as the knowledge of God by the Ministry of the heavens and Firmament which are Davids Preachers Psal 19.1 And 't is evident that the word spoken of in the heart Rom. 10.8 is meant of the matters contained in the Scriptures for the Apostle saies â—xpresly That is the word of Faith which we preach and Acts 26.22 VVe say none other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come which sayings are contained in the Old Testament And as for your odd notion of the Words being within not without I say but this that it remains without when it is within as the matter in a Book does to instruct others when the Reader hath throughly digested it in his memory and undeâ—standing And that as to the Saints somewhat of the word is alwaies without when some is within that is the Word prevails but in part over their corruption and so far as it does prevail it is within so far as it prevails not it is without Mr. F. In Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly that which is the word of Christ dwells within whereas that which ye call the VVord is without T. D. The VVord spoken of was without or it was the Letter of the Scripture and his exhortation was to get acquaintance therewith and he prescribes means to that end in teaching and admonishing one another and singing Psalms which were part of the Word of Christ as the subject matter and author of them Mr. F. Now thou talkest of singâ—ng Psalms it is a fond custom you get to make the people sing Davids conditions who have not his spirit as to make a proud man sing O Lord I am not puff'd in mind T. D. Though it be besides our businesse yet I shall answer to your cavils against our practice in a word Your objection holds as strongly against the use of them in the times of the Old Testament as against our use of them for the matter of them was no more all the singers conditions then than now and yet they were part of publique Temple-worship 2 Chron. 29.25 30. and the matter of many of them is doctrinal and prophetical and such as cannot be sung with particular application and I know no particular application necessary to singing that 131 Psal more than to reading of it nor is it more a lye to sing than to read them Mr F. VVhereas thou sayest Thomas Danson that the teaching and singing was a means of the words dwelling in them therein thou art out as in many other things for the word of Christ dwelt richly in them and thence they teached admonished and sung T. D. The words are an exhortation to get the word of Christ dwell richly in them or to grow in the knowledge of Christ as elsewhere 't is expressed and there is none that hath so much of the knowledge of the word but it may admit of encrease and therefore though they might teach and admonish from a stock of the word that hinders not but that the use of it in those duties might be the means of adding to it In the next place Richard Hubberthorn undertook to prove his Call in a discourse whâ—ch you have in his own Book to which I referre you the main thing he insisted on was his Infallibility in teaching and the falsehood of our Ministry who are not Infallible T. D. You are much mistaken in thinking you are infallible it appears otherwise to us by the false doctrines which you teach and as for your participation of the infallible Spirit if that were granted which we cannot grant that infers not a participation of the spirits infallibility for that is as incommunicable as omnisciency or omnipotency R. Huâ—berthorn The Apostles had a power of working miracles in them T. D. That iâ— dâ—nyed God himself was the sole subject of that power by which they were wrought and their faith was the means or sign of exerting it Acts 3.16 His Name through faith in his Name hath made this man strong c. Matth. 21.21 If ye have faith and doubt not c. ye shall say to this mountain be removed and it shall be done Mr. Fisher The man Christ Jesus whom ye call God-man was omniscient Joh. 2.24 Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew all men c. T. D. Pray sir Do not you call the man Christ Jesus God-man too Your silence is not consent but dissent Omnisciency agreed not to Christ as man for he says elsewhere the son of man knows not when the day
already perfect which he â—ntends of the resurrection from the dâ—ad v. 11. as he calls the holinâ—sse of that state by a Metonymy of the subject for the adjâ—nct I also quoted 1 â—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 gâ—ft of God is perfect and I suppose 't is spoken of special grace which is still in gâ—owth every least degree of grace tending to perfection That the Law requires more strict and exact obedience then the Gospel To whiâ—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 râ—qâ—ires more strict obedience than the Law Reply I spake those words with reference to what the Law reqâ—ires of us as 't is a Covenanâ— of works and to what the â—ospâ—l accepts of us as 't is a Covenant of grace though the Law g ves not life without perfect obedience the Goâ—pel gives it upon imperfect ob dience The words were not intended of the Leg l and Ev ngelical dispâ—nsations as R. H. seems to understand them in his Socinian interp etatâ—on And as for his interpretation I affirm that Christ intended not to adde any th ng to the spirituality of tâ—e Law for that under Mosâ—s was spiriâ—ual as Paul speaks Rom 7.14 for under the prohibition of the outward act was also prohibitâ—d inward aff ctâ—ons desires whâ—ch appears by Gods pâ—omise of ciâ—cumcising the heart Dâ—ut 30.6 and his commâ—nd to wâ—sh their hearts from wickâ—dnâ—ssâ— that they might be savâ—d But our Lord Chriâ—â— vâ—â—dâ—cates the Law from the corâ—upt glosses of the Pharisees who interpreted those prohâ—bitions to extend no fuâ—ther than the letter which is but to the outward act as wâ—ll appear by the contexâ— especially v. 18.19 That Chrâ—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 commuâ—icate the knowlâ—dg of all things to the humâ—ne nature â—nâ—â—herefore al hough he was a devil when he chose him yet he kâ—ew it not which saies R. H. is a charging of Christ with â—gnorance contrary to John 2.24 25. and Christ saies Judas had the spirit of the Faâ—her in him Mâ—t. 10.20 Reply The ocâ—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 appâ—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 â—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 instanâ—e Mat. 23. The Scribes and Pâ—arisees sit in Mosâ—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 â—xâ—rting it for confirmation of the Gospel was the sign of the time when God put forth act of Omnâ—potency This appears by the places before quotâ—d Mat. 21.21 â—cts 3.16 To which I add v. 12. Why look ye so earnestly on us as though by our own power or holinessâ— we had made this man to walk He calls the power their own not in respâ—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. answâ—rs that the Apostle Paul then preached a Doctâ—ine of Devils Rom. 6.2 7 18 22. And Christ preachâ—d the Doctrine of perfection Mat. 5.48 1 Pet. 1.16 And Paul preached wisdom among them that were perfâ—ct 1 Cor. 2.6 And David prâ—ached that Doctrine Mark the perfect man Psal 3â— 37. Now David did not bid them mark such a man as â—here was not Reply You Quakers aâ—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 Opinâ—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 â—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
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 Quâ—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 justâ—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 fulfillinâ— of the Law Let me add that there is no consequence in that Popish Argument notwithstandâ—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 fiâ—â—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 meritoâ—ious cause of ouâ— 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 Jâ—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
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 suâ—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 â—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 thâ—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 Aâ—d many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciplâ—s which are not wriâ—ten in â—his book but these are written that ye might belâ—eve c. Those things which were not written might have bâ—en usâ—ful if they had been wrâ—tten for thâ—y were done for the same end with thoâ—e which are left uâ— yet because God thought that suffiâ—ient which we have we can look upon no more wiâ—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 râ—vealâ—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 sancâ—ification which I affirmed to be impâ—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
be fulfilled in us not in our own persons but in Christ his righteouâ—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. Fâ—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 miâ—ture of sin with their Grace But let me ask you but one question more whether the children for instance bâ— 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 thâ—â— 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. Fâ—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 thuâ— that if Justification be of woâ—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 onâ— that believeth The Apostle here makes a distinction between our own righteousnesse and Gods and finds fault with them who neglectâ—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
the Law and by Christs righteousness that which is in Christ made his by Faith G. Whithead Then it seems you make two righteousnesses of Christ whereas the righteousness of Christ is but one T. D. Yes so I do what of that Do you think that the riâ—hâ—eousness which the Apostle calls his own was not Christs Had he any righteousness which he had not received and yet that righteousness which was in the Apostle never was in Christ as the subjâ—ct but was wrought in him by Christ as an efficient cause And Christ had an inherent righteousness in respect of which he is said to know no sin and to be a Lamb without spot and blemish Are not here then two righteousnesses and they serve for two different ends the one for our justâ—fiâ—ation the other for our sanctification the one gives us a right to the inheritance of the Saints in light and the other makes us meet for possession G Wâ—itehead Let me ask thee a question then are not we justâ—fied by Christ within us T.D. I answer no but by Christ without us G Wâ—itehead If we are not justified by Christ within us then by another Christ and so thou preachest two Christs whereas Christ is not divided and thou dost that which thou chargest upon us preach another Gospel T. D. I did foresee the catch you intended â—n your question and answered you the more carelesly that I might see how you could improve your supposed advantage by iâ— But now I will answer you more punctually The Scripture by Christ w thin us understandâ— not the pâ—rson of Christ but hâ—s operatâ—ons the cause is put for the effect by a Metonymy a word too hard for your capacâ—ty Compare Col. 1.26 â—r st in you wâ—th Eph. 3.17 That Christ mâ—y dwell in your hearts by Faith And therefore it follows not that we make two Christs For we acknowledge that one and the same person justâ—fiâ—s us by a righteousness inherent in himself and sanctâ—fies us by a righteousnesse which he works in us by his Spirit So that when I deny justification by Christ within us however the words may sound to your ears yet to the judicious the meaning is obvious viz. that we deny our justification by that righteousnesse in us whereof Christ is the author but not that I make two Christs Two things are indeed expressed by the name of Christ his person and his operations in us and I deny the latter but assert the former for our righteousnesse to justification The Scripture speaks of two Christs Christ personal and Christ mystical if I should say not Christ mystical but Christ personal is our Saviour would you not speak wisely think you to say oh you make two Christs This distinction you may find Châ—ist peâ—sonal Col. 2.8 9. not after Christ For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 As the body is one and hath many members c. so is Christ meaning the Church which v. â—7 he calls the body of Christ G. VVhitehead I will prove by the Scriptures that we are justified by our sanctification whiâ—h thou saiest does but make us meet not give us a â—itle which thou shalt see it does to the iâ—heritance Acts 20.32 And now Brethren I commend you to God and to the word of his grace which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified Gods grace gives an inheritance Here there was some disturbance among the people which occasioned VVhiteheads addresse to them and though I call'd to him often to take an answer he would not but at length Mr. Fisher started up and urged another Scripture and so this was omitted to it therefore I shall now return a brief answer That the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot refer to grace as this man would have it or if it did yet grace inâ—ends not sanctification but the favour of God which is the subject matter of the word which the Apostle cals v. 24. the Gospel of the Grace of God but it refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and should be read who is able c. and so it is nothing to his purpose Mr. Fisher I will prove we are justified by grace or sanctification Tit. 3.7 that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal l fe The grace by which we are said to be justified is the same with that which is called washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost v. 5. T. D. You are much mistaken Sir the grace v. 7. is not meant of sanctification but of the favour of God which is manifested in the donation of his Son to us imputation of his râ—ghteousnesse and acceptance of us as righteous in him G. VVhitehead I shall prove that we are justified by Faith as the cause of our justification by the plain words of the Apostle Rom 4.3 Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness T. D. But pray observe how well this agrees with your former Doctrine that we are justified by a personal conformity to the whole Law and now you will prove that a conformity to one part will suffice You interferr and cut one leg against t'other and are not sensible of it Does not the Apostle oppose Faith and Works Now if Faith be considered as a work there 's no opposition between them And does not that opposition exclude Faith as a work Yes surely and is boasting excluded in justification by Faith as a work no but there is more ground of boasting in the vertue of Faith were that equivalent to universal obedience Read Rom. 3.27 Where is boasting then it is excluded By what Law of works nay but by the Law of Faith and chap. 4.5 To him that worketh not but believeth c. which plainly intâ—mates that Faith is opposed to it self as a work in the businesse of Justification and as for the words of the Text the act is put for the object to which it relates as if it had beâ—n in expresse terms Christ whom his Faith laid hold upon was imputed to him â—or righteousnesse But that Faith is imputed to us aâ— beâ—ng nstead of a perfect righteousnessâ— personal or that 't is the meritorious cause of our justification I utterly deny G. Wh. Thou dost darken counsel by words without knowledge and pervertest the Scripture by thy meanings T. D. That 's your usual charge but I deny it the Scriptures attribute our justâ—fication to the righteousnesse of Christ in the same sâ—nce that thâ—y deny it to works Receiving of Christ and remission of sins is the Office of Faith and not to merit them _____ Here we fell into a discourse very abruptly about several Arminian points which for the Reasons mentioned in the Epistle I omit An Account of a Discourse April 19th between two Quakers Mr. FISHER R. HUBBERTHORN AND THOMAS DANSON THe first Question debated on was
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 dâ—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 â— 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 anâ— 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 qualâ—fications for the Ministry more is râ—quired to a mission than them Another passâ—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 brâ—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 dispuâ—e upon that principle That the Gospel is an external Light and not invisiâ—le and that it is not the Light within Reply My woâ—ds were that the Gospel is an external Lâ—ght as that of the Sun and that there is an inward Light created in the soul câ—ll'd an understanding gâ—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 intendâ—d 1 John 2.2 Reply I explaâ—n'd my meaning when I so interpâ—eted the phâ—ase by câ—mparing it with Rom. 3 25. Whom God hath set forâ—h to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood the phâ—ase Propâ—tiation intends not the price but the actual attonâ—ment and this lattâ—r is not without the intervention of Faâ—th So thâ—t John intends as Paul that the terms of actual reconciliation wâ—th God are the same to all the world viz. beliâ—ving in the blood of Christ Tâ—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 Dâ—spute the Scriptures are not at variance among themselves but they s em so to be and 't is part of our woâ—k to lâ—t pâ—ople see how well they are agreed And I dare leave it to any Readeâ—s jâ—dgement wheâ—h r these two interpretations which R. H. intends be contrary to one another viz. that Christ enlâ—ghtens every man who is spiâ—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 righteousnâ—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
procure Mr. Fisher to come and debate their Tenents that day moneth being the 12th of April 1659. a time which he pitched because his friends occasions as he pretended would not admit them to come sooner The day being come Witnesses Mr. Oldfield Mr. Foxton c. Mr. Fisher appeared at Peters Church in our Town but pretended that he knew not whether the Lord would open or shut his mouth and therefore declined any discourse and I was fain to wait his leisure and to talk with one Richard Hubberthorn who needed a bridle as much as the other did a spur and made good the Proverb whoso bold as blind Bayard A right Quaker whose discourse wanted all the ingredients that should have made it savoury viz. truth sense and pertinence And when he was silenced came in for a reserve one Gâ—orge Whitehead a man that seemed to have more mother wit than the other but as little of the Spirit of God unlesse that be a Spirit of errour and contradiction and then I judge he had a plentiful measure At length Mr. Fisher came in to help him at a dead lift and with him I discoursed till night And though they had made themselves naked to their shame especially by the Doctrines of perfection and justification by works yet to set a good face on the matter they urged for another dispute which I granted them the next day at the School house And the Saturday following April 16. I received a challenge from Hubberthorn who looked upon himself as contemned the other two dayes because the people after they had heard him a while cried out to him to hold his tongue or speak to the purpose to defend my own Call to the Ministry and hear the proof of his which I would not answer but upon condition that Mr. Fisher would also debate those two questions Whether the Scriptures he the Word of God and whether the righteousnesse of Christ God-man be satisfactory to the Justice of God for the sin of man Which I confesse I desired the people might hear their judgement in that they might see them in their colours and not mistake them for better men than they are And accordingly we agreed to mâ—et at the School-house the Tuesday following April 19. I presume thou art now listning to hear the issue and I will tell thee truly what it was that many blessed God for the caution they received against their Principles which now they understood plainly though not without much ado did I get them to speak as that every one might know their meaning And some good people who formerly had a favourable opinion of them and thought that they and we differ'd but in terms in the Doctâ—â—ne of Justification and the Scriptureâ— being the Word of God do now loath aâ—d dâ—rest thâ—m as men that preach another Gospel which y is not â—nother and would pâ—â—vert the Gospel of Christ Ga. 1 â— 7 8. And the truth is we have reum confitentem the Malefactors own Confession for Mr. Fisher did opâ—nly declare to the people Mr. S yliâ—rd 〈…〉 D â—â—le Mr. Fox on Jurâ—â—â— the â—ast day of our dispute that the Gospel which I preached wâ—uld never brâ—ng thâ—m to Hâ—aven plainly enough intimating therâ—by that he preached another Go pel And 't is a passage not to be omitted that as often as Mr. Fishâ—â— had occasion to mention the Nâ—me of our Lord Christ Mr Sâ—yliâ—â—d Mr. A â—â—â—â—y Oldfield Mr. Foxâ—on hâ— woâ—ld call him The man Christ Jesus â—hom you call speaking to me God-man and being oâ—ten aâ—ked whether he did not call him lo too I could never gâ—t an answer and truly hiâ— si â—nce may well be interpreted consent to the horrid Aâ—ian Blasphemy 'T is alâ—o observable that Mr. Fisher would not discourse the point of Christs satisfaction Mâ— Seyliâ—rd Mr. Rumsey but put me off w th general terms that all that Chrâ—st did was pleasing to God and so sâ—te down and â—ave way to his compâ—nion And we hâ—vâ— jâ—st ground to bâ—lievâ— that he denies it for many oâ— them do as we find â—n mâ—ny of their printed Papers and they pâ—etend to have no dâ—fferences in opinion among themselves And thou câ—nst not be ignorant that the denial of it in conjunction with their justification by works does not only lop the branches but grub up by the very roots the Gospel which thou hast received I cannot omit another remarkeable passage and 't is this that in the midst of our discourse April 13. one of the Quakers whose name I cannot learn cried out for audience Mr. Domsel Mr. Tho Foxton Mr. Tho. Rumsey pretending that he had somwhat to say from the Lord and varying h s phrase In the Name of the Lord but he was denied liberty because he was none of the Disputants but the man was so oâ—streperous that upon promise of speaking br efly we were glad for quietnesse sake to hear him But what wouldst thou think was his message from the Lord It was to accuse a godly Minister there present of slâ—ndering Samuel Fisheâ— Mr. Peter Domsell by affiâ—ming that the said S. Fisher had been at Rome and received â— Pension from the Pope and the accuser pretended to have a witnesse ready to prove it The Minister stood up at the accusation and demanded when and where he spake these words It was answered the last night meaning April 12. between Sandwich and Staple a Countrey â—arish about 4 miles distant To the answer the Minister replied that he was at that time in Sandwich and was not out of Town that night And to save further trouble abâ—ut defending and proving the Quakers witnesse of his own accord cried out that it was not thâ— Minister accused Mr. Rob. Wilkinson but the Ministeâ— of Staple that spake the words aâ— the time and place mentioned 〈◊〉 suppose good Reader thou wilt be ready to â—xcuse the accuser and to say it was but a mistake of one man for another and truly I should joyn with thee if the man were of any other perswasion then Quakerism for these men pretend to be immediately sent by God about trivial things which if they really were they could no more mistake in the persons to whom than the message whereabout they are sent And surely had God sent this Quaker to convince a man of slander he would have sent him to the right man And I think we may well conclude them as sar from infallibility in Doctrine as in matters of fact And 't is worthy thy consideration that when the accuser had nothing to say for himself Mr. Foxton Mr. Oldfield Mr. Rumsey Jurates but slunk down among his fellow Quakers M. Fisher holp him with a Lie and told us that the man did not say from the Lord or in the Name of the Lord but in the fear of the Lord which the man hearing pluck'd up his Spirits and stood up again boldly affirming the latter words to be his