Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	fulfil_v	law_n	6,597	5	5.9828	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

THE Quakers Folly Made manifest to all men Or a True RELATION of what passed in Three DISPUTATIONS at Sandwich April 12 13 19 1659. between three Quakers and a Minister viz. Mr. Samuel Fisher George Whithead Richard Hubberthorn and Thomas Danson Wherein many Popish Tenents were by them Maintained and by him Refuted OCCASIONED By an imperfect and in many things false Relation of the said Disputations Published by R. Hubberthorn one of the Three Quakers which said Relation is also Censur'd and amended Together with a brief Narrative of some remarkable Passages By Tho. Danson late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon and now Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent The Second Edition London Printed by J. H. for John Allen at the Rising Sun in Pauls Church-Yard 1659. Imprimatur Joseph Caryl June 3d 1659. THE EPISTLE TO the READER Reader PErhaps thou wilt wonder that I should meddle with such a Generation as the Quakers and thou maist be apt to think that my time hangs on the Lug as we say and will not off at any considerable rate But that thy wonder may cease and thy mistake be rectified I refer thee to the Narrative hereto annexed which I hope will give thee satisfaction The reason of my appearance in Print the Title Page does truly inform thee of I can assure thee it never was my ambition to appear so publickly and had I considered the likelihood of the Quakers Printing which would necessitate mine I think I should have waved any discourse with them But repentance is now too late and perhaps unmeet for God can serve himself by the meanest Instruments among which I willingly rank my self I verily hope thou wilt see the men out of their disguise and wilt find cause sufficient to think and speak of them with pity and compassion and of their opinions with hatred and detestation I promise thee Reader no more then shall be performed viz. a true account of our discourses I mean so much of them as was Argumentative and pertinent to the Questions under debate For thou must know that the Quakers like wantons would have their vagaries ever and anon and then I must say somwhat to them or let them have all the talk which by the ignorance of common people would have been a prejudice to the cause of God which I defended And I therefore chose rather to out-word them which is the reason why my Answers are oftentimes so large and laxe Many excursions they made into Arminian points which I was fain to permit and to defend the Truths they opposed All which I shall either wholly omit or mention very sparingly because they are not Errours of so high a nature as those which are the natural Members of that deformed Monster we call Quakerism The Names of Gentlemen Ministers and others in the Margin are a few of very many witnesses of the Terms of the Questions agreed to by the Quakers and of other remarkable passages and matters of fact who will free me from the suspition of a partial Relator That these men may proceed no further but that their folly may be manifest to all men 2 Tim. 3.9 And that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lie in wait to deceive but speaking the Truth in love may grow up into him in all things which is the Head even Christ is the earnest Prayer of Thy Servant for Jesus sake Tho. Danson Sandwich May 24 1659. An ACCOUNT of a DISPUTE April 12th between three QUAKERS M. S. Fisher G. Whithead R. Hubberthorn and Tho. Danson AFter a brief account of the occasion of our meeting and a short prayer for a blessing upon it we began with this Question Whether every man that cometh into the world be enlightened by Christ R. Hubberth I bear witness to the Truth T. Danson But what light is it you intend we grant that every man hath some light by which he discerns though dimly many sins and duties and several Divine attributes but the mystery of godlinesse as it is summ'd up 1 Tim 3. ult God manifest in the flesh justified in the spirit c. we deny that all men have the knowledge of R Hubberthorn The light is but one and that I testifie T. Danson The lights mentioned viz. natural and supernatural light are two and though all have the one yet but few have the other R. Hubberthorn Thou speakest out of thy dark mind because the true light hath not come over and comprehended thee T. Danson Your judgement of me I value not but pray forbear your censures and let us speak to the businesse If your meaning be that the knowledge of the Gospel is vouchsafed by Christ to every man I shall either expect your proof or shall prove the contrary my self Here the man was silent T. Danson I take your silence for consent to my offer of proving against your Doctrine And thus I prove it false Psal 147.19 20. He sheweth his Word unto Jacob his statutes and his judgements unto Israel He hath not dealt so with any Nation and as for his judgements they have not known them 'T is plain from Scripture that by the Word and Statutes and Judgments are meant the supernatural light or knowledge of the Gospel And the Psalmist does assert that no Nation besides the Jews had this knowledge at that time which overthrows your assertion for you speak of a light which every man hath in all ages and generations And I shall add another plain Scripture Eph. 2.12 where speaking of the state of the whole body of the Gentiles before Christs coming in the flesh he saies they were without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world Observe they who had no hope that is no ground o● hope of salvation were ignorant of the promises the g●ound of hope and so of God in Christ the object of hope and so of the summe of the Gospel or light of Christ G. Whithead Thou bringest a place out of Eph. 2.12 to pr●ve that Chr●st enlightens not every man that cometh into the world and thou hast given us thy meaning co●trary to the Scripture which saies the Gentiles have the Law in their hearts Rom. 2.15 T. Danson You prove not my interpretation of either of the Scriptures I urged unsound but bringest me another Scripture and I must let you go your own way As for that Scripture Rom. 2.15 't is spoken of the natural light for 't is opposed to the knowledge of the Jews And the words are not the law but the work or effects of the law written in their hearts such as accusing and excusing mentioned in the latter end of the verse and there is a great deal of difference between the law and the work of it though you do not it seems understand it And it is besides my businesse to inform you G. Whithead

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

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