to shew his Death till he came c. However T. D. construes this it doth not prove the figurative or outward part or sign to be imposed as of absolute necessity upon all Believers till some other coming of Christ not yet come for his coming in the Spirit T. D. owns not to be the end thereof but where then is the mystery and inward and Spiritual Grace signified by the outward Sign so much talked of in your Catechisms but its evident T. D. is ignorant of the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ and Cup of the new Testament in his Blood which the outward Bread and Cup was but the sign and figure of we oppose the Popish opinion of Transubstantiation And however as to the Corinthians at that time among them there was strife and division contention and disorder one being hungry another drunk another asleep one being of Paul another of Apollo another of Cephas which the Apostle reproved therein as being carnal walking as men so that he could not speak unto them as unto Spiritual but as unto Carnal 1 Cor. 3.11 16 17 18 20 21 30. Now suposing that wherein the Apostle might or did condescend to their low capacity as not grown to that Spirituallity so as to see through the outward Shaddows this their Example was not to be a President not could it in Reason or Truth be enjoyned to all other that succeeded who were come truly to know the glory of Christ's appearance in Spirit and Spiritually to enjoy the Communion of the body and Blood of Christ where none of these disorders aforesaid have any place Now Paul in his second Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 13.15 bids them examine and prove themselves saying Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except you are Reprobates So here was the Bread he then referred them to which indeed was always the intent and end of his Labour and Travel to bring those that were weak to a Living and Spiritual sence even of this Spiritual Bread however because of their weakness and low capacity he might condescend unto them as in some things he did And whereas T. D. pleading for his Ordinances as before saith Pag. 72. They do not cease as to our need of them because it is not to be supposed consistant with Christ's Wisdom to continue an obligation upon us to the use of a means when the end is obtained viz the appearance of Christ within that is a full appearance or state of Perfection saith he but we having proved 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 Answ. Where observe first however he hath granted that they are not obliging where the end is attained or not continued by Christ as an obligation where this his appearance is Witnessed which brings to a state of Perfection Secondly T. D. having not proved that such a state is not attainable on this side the Grave but the contrary being proved before against him and all his Brethrens sinfull Pleas Doctrines and Arguments for Sin and Imperfection in this life therefore this Spiritual appearance of Christ brings man beyond all mens Traditions and outward Ordinances so called and indeed who do know a beginning in the Spirit ought to wait for this Spiritual Appearance and Coming of Christ according to the Spirit 's direction which is most perfect and not to turn back again into the Types Shaddows and Figures nor into the weak and beggerly Elements of the World nor yet subject themselves to mens Traditions carnal Commandments imposed Doctrines and Preceps but to wait upon God in Spirit to serve and worship him in the newness of the Spirit that thereby they may know the Spiritual Washing the Baptism into Christ's Death and be Baptized by the one Spirit into one Body and so come into the House of God and to feed at his Table and partake of the Living Bread which comes down from Heaven and to drink of the Fruit of the Vine with Christ in his Fathers Kingdom which Kingdom he promised to his Disciples should come with Power even in their Age or before some of them that stood by should taste of death Mark 9.1 Luke 9.27 And as for T. D's saying The Apostle calls the Doctrine of Baptism a Foundation these are not the Apostles words neither did he teach Sprinkling Infants for saith he but leaving the Principles or beginning of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto Perfection not laying again the Foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards Gods and the Doctrine of Baptisms c. Now if Perfection which was the end of those Baptisms was the thing they were to go on unto as he exhorted surely then it was attainable for the Apostles exhortation was in the Faith and did not oppose Perfection as T. D. erroniously hath done but directed and led them forward out off and beyond the Shaddows and Figures unto the Substance and preached to present men perfect in Christ. And whereas T. D. hath charged us yet further with a great Error which is that there is no Resurrection from the Dead and to prove us guilty hereof he mentioneth a Letter of one R. Turner which Letter I have not seen nor do I know the man as also G. W. in his late Answer to William Burnet and G. F. junior in his Books bound up together Answ. How apparently T. D. hath belyed slandered and abused us in accusing so positively that we hold there is no Resurrection from the Dead is evident in many printed Books of ours and he hath neither mentioned my words nor G. F's I say his slander and false accusation herein against me in particular may be plainly detected out of that very Book of my own wherein Pag. 67. I have expressed these very words But the Resurrection according to the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ and the Apostles we do believe and own as Recorded in John 5.21 24 25 28 29. and Chap. 11.25 Matth. 22.30 31 32. 1 Cor. 15.34 35 36 37 38. and so on 2 Cor. 5.1 Many other places might be cited These very words and Scriptures are thus set down in my Answer to William Burnet after which are some passages of a Dispute I had upon the same subject with that busie yet sorry Contender Matthew Caffin the Baptist whose impertinencies and ignorance at the Dispute was fully manifested as others of his Brethrens have been when they have appeared in the same unprofitable work against us And as concerning what G. F. the younger saith in his Books collected clears him also from T. Danson's impudent slander of holding there is no Resurrection from the Dead for G. F. affirmeth the contrary in pag. 209 210. in these very words Touching the Resurrection it s a Mystery which the carnal mind can never comprehend
THE Divinity of Christ AND Unity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven WITH The blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners confessed and vindicated By his followers called Quakers And the principal matters in Controversie between Them and their present Opposers as Presbyterians Independants c. Considered and Resolved according to the Scriptures of Truth And more particularly to Remove the Aspersions Slanders and Blasphemies cast upon the People called QUAKERS and their Principles in several Books Written By Tho. Vincent Will. Madox their railing Book stil'd The Foundation c. Tho. Danson his Synopsis John Owen his Declaration Which are here Examin'd and Compared by G. W. And their Mistakes Errors and Contradictions both to themselves and each other made manifest As also A short Review of several Passages of Edward Stillingfleet's D.D. and Chaplin in Ordinary so called to his Majesty in his Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ And Sermon preached before the KING wherein he flatly Contradicts the said Opposers Mark 14.56 For many bare false witness against him but their witness agreed not together Coll. 2.8 Beware lest any man spoyl you through Philosophy and vain deceipt 1 Tim. 6.3 4 5 20. If any man consenteth not to the wholsome words of our Lord Jesus Christ c. he is puft up or proud c. Acts 24.14 After the way which they call Heresie do I Worship the God of my Fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets c. London Printed in the Year 1669. An Epistle to the Presbyterians and Independants and their Rough Hearers who profess the Scriptures to be their Rule whereby they are examined and tryed and their wayes discovered 1 st WHether do the Scriptures speak of Three Persons in the God-head according to your own Rule in these express words let us see where it is written Come do not shuffle for we are resolved that the Scriptures shall buffet you about and that you shall be whipped about with the Rule 2 dly Where doth the Scripture speak of Christ's Righteousness imputed unto Unrighteous men who live in their sins and that in their Unrighteousness and Sins they shall live and die seeing that Faith purifies the heart from unrighteousness And he that believes passes from Death to Life and so from Sin that brought Death And he that receives Christ receives Righteousness it self by Faith in him the Lord the Righteousness this is Scripture 3 dly And where doth the Scripture say That a man shall not be made free from sin and that it is not attainable in this Life Let us see where ever Christ or the Prophets or Apostles preached such Doctrine Give us plain Scripture without adding or diminishing for Christ's bids men be perfect and the Apostle spoke Wisdom among them that were perfect 4 thly You that deny Perfection do ye not deny the One Offering Christ Jesus who hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctified Do you not deny the Blood of Christ Jesus in trampling it under your feet and the Blood of the new Covenant which Blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin and whose garments are made white by the Blood of the Lamb and he throughly purges his floor with his Fan and gathers his Wheat into his Garner 5 thly And did Christ make Satisfaction for the sins of men that they should live and die in their sins for he came to save his People from their sins and so he Died for them that they should not live to them but to God through him 6 thly Where do the Scripture speak of a Trinity of distinct Persons from Genesis to the Revelation give us plain Scripture for it without shuffling adding or diminishing you that talk so much of Scripture to be your Rule for the Father Word and Spirit this is owned according to Scripture and they agree in One. And we charge you to give us a plain Scripture that saith there are three separate Persons let us see Scripture we will have Scripture for it or otherwise be silent 7 thly And where do the Scriptures say That Christ the Light of the World which enlighteneth every one that cometh into the World is not sufficient to guide men to Salvation Christ saith Believe in the Light that you may become Children of the Light and Children of the Day and who walk in the Light there is no occasion of stumbling And this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and men love Darkness rather than Light because their deeds be evil And is not the Light sufficient that lets a man see whether his deeds be wrought in God read John 3. 8 thly Where doth the Scripture say from Genesis to the Revelation That the true Faith of God is without Works Hath not Faith works that purifies the heart Doth it not give Victory Will you deny the Works of Faith because the Works of the Law was denyed by the Apostle 9 thly Where doth the Scripture say That it self is the Word of God Do you not belye the Rule here For doth not the Scripture say That Christ is the Word and the Scriptures are Words read Exodus 20 and Revelation 22. He that adds to these Words and takes from these Words the Plagues of God are added to him So see whether you are not adders to these Words as it is made appear before And Christ saith My words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life c. And in many places of Scripture God saith My Words Doth not Scripture signifie Writing For all your high Schollar-ship you may go to the English School-Master and it will tell you what it signifies What is all the writing in Peoples hearts Is Paper and Ink in Peoples hearts Come do not cheat People but confess truth you affirm Scripture to be the Rule but are found contrary to the Rule But what is all the Scripture the Rule from Genesis to the Revelations to walk by and practice Or what part of Scripture is the Rule are Herods words Pharoahs words Nebuchadnezars words Judas words the Jewes words Jobs Friends words the Devils words the Offerings and the Sacrifices c. Come what part of Scripture is your Rule Distinguish For you say the Scripture is your Rule Is it all a Rule for practice Must we obey every tittle of it for we own the Scriptures more then you do which Holy Men of God gave forth Christ Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets and they made a distinction but you make none Do not go with your Malice and envious minds to possess the People and say That we dis-esteem the Scriptures for we esteem Scripture more than you do that have kept People under your Teaching that they might be paying of you and so make a Trade of them The Scriptures speaks plentifully concerning Christ being the Word of God God is the Word is not this Scripture And in the Beginning
get some gain if you had Bawdy-houses but if you go to the People of God's Meetings then you will get no gain Well might William Pen say the Priest prayed whiningly and looked pale when you had lost your Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues Is not the Great Bason holden at Door What this is a new way Is it Whether brings in more profit to the Priests mouths Tythes and Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues or the Great Platter Now do you not cry up Bawdy-houses or any way so that you can get gain I wonder for all this idle time you have had that you could not Answer Samuel Fisher's Book amongst you for it stands upon your heads he hath Answered all your Principles and more then you have questioned Have you forgot your Regiment of Fighting Priests and how the Presbyterians and Priests beat the Quakers Read the Book of Fighting Priests how they tore the Cloaths off Lasses and young Men and drew their Rapiers upon them and broke their heads and shed their blood and yet you must have the Title of Gospelers but more like unto raging Heathens who imagine vain things against God and Christ and his People but the Lord hath broken your horn the wild beast and put him under a chain So we looked you would have given out a Book of Repentance for all your wicked Actions in the other Powers dayes and shewed forth a work of Reformation Do you not remember how you came with your Drums and Fiddles Independants and Presbyterians Is it not clear here to all People That you deny God and Christ and the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles in your saying That God hath ordained some Persons to be damned when God saith Ezek. 18.32 He desires not the death of him that dieth And in Isa. 1.18 it 's said Come let us reason together saith the Lord though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow and though they be red like crimson they shall be like wooll And vers 16. Wash ye make ye clean put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes cease to do evil learn to do well And the Apostle saith in 1 Tim. 2.4 God would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth And Christ hath given himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time And Christ tasted death for every man and is a Propitiation for the sins of the whole world And his Blood was shed for all men And the Gospel is to be Preached to every Creature And Go and teach all Nations Matth. 28. Now is it not clear That these Presbyterians and Independants who say That Christ died but for some and offered but for some Have they not denied Christ's Blood for all men and his Propitiation for all men And in doing this they deny God's Will who would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth And would they not lay the fault in God when the fault is in man by not believing And do they not make Sects here in saying he died but for some and would have but some to be saved and he shed his Blood but for some And the Scripture saith That all are gone astray both Jew and Gentile that he might have mercy upon All See Rom. 11.32 And they say That he will not have mercy upon all and do not you say That he will have mercy upon some contradicting the Apostle and the Rule For the Scripture saith Christ enlighteneth every man that cometh into the World and you say that he enlighteneth but some And the Scripture saith That the grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men and you say The Grace of God that brings Salvation hath appeared but to some and all have not received Grace And the Scripture saith God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son into the World that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And do not you say he gave him but for a few and loved some of the World And do not you Contradict Scripture and God and Christ and the Prophets and Apostles words and so are found in an Erronicus Principled Spirit And so is it not clear that you deny Christ who died without the Gates at Jerusalem whose Blood was shed for all men and denies the Propitiation and Attonement for all men and denies Jacob's Prophecy who prophesied That the gathering of all Nations shall be to Shilo And you say That some of the Nations shall be saved not all and here do you not deny the very Scripture it self and God and Christ and the Prophets and Apostles words and denies their Doctrine And also Is it not clear that you deny the true Faith of God's Elect that the Just lives by And is not Faith the Gift of God And do you not say That Faith is not perfect Do not you hold Justification without and that it is without Man and Woman And doth not Faith heal See Matth. Mark Luke and the Acts. And was not the Church Established in the Faith Acts 16.5 Is it not called the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.13 And how that the Saints are Heirs by Faith and it is called the Word of Faith Rom. 10. And it is called the Spirit of Faith 2 Cor. 4.13 Gal 5.6 and Faith that works by Love So it 's clear that you are out of this Faith that lives in malice and hatred And the Scripture speaks of one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4. and the Unity is in the Faith and Faith gives Victory over that which hath separated from God And Faith is the Shield And the Saints was to strive together for the Faith of the Gospel 1 Thes. 3. Remember your work of Faith and put on the brestplate of Faith 1 Thes. 5.8 The work of Faith with Power and holding Faith and a good Conscience 1 Tim. 5.19 And have not you made shipwrack of this Faith in Christ Jesus and God to say Christ's Blood was not shed for all men and God would not have all men to be saved and hath ordained some to damnation Is not Faith called a Mystery 1 Tim. 3.9 Were not the Saints to fight the good Fight of Faith 1 Tim. 6.12 Are not you among them that have erred concerning the Faith and have overthrown the Faith of some in not believing the one Offering once for all his Blood for all his Death for all and so are become Reprobates concerning the Common Faith Tit. 1.4 And without Faith it is impossible to please God who is the Author and Finisher of our Faith which you made yours at Savoy in eleven dayes time in Oliver's dayes And the Just shall live by his Faith Heb. 2. and hearts purified by Faith Acts 15. and Sanctified by Faith Acts 26. Rom. 3. a man is Justified by Faith So it 's clear Reader that Faith Justifies Sanctifies and Faith purifies rhe heart and so this
but for a few only for a select number the World of Believers c. as both T. D. and other Professors both Presbyterians and Independants both in Words and Writings and T.V. brings 1 Tim. 2.6 and mentions only gave himself a Ransom and leaves out the words for All pag. 56. And thus minces as if he had no mind to hear that Grace is free for All as well as himself but only for a few perhaps Presbyterians and such-like whom there is no reason or equallity for God to take such special notice and regard of more than others for their Spirits and Hearts are as perverse and corrupt as others if not more ridged and envious and their Garments of Self-Righteousness are as polluted ragged and filthy as others or worse Thus much they will acknowledge in their Prayers but perhaps they 'l take it ill that another should tell them of it Then Secondly The Power of Christ and his blessed Effects in his Death acceptable Sacrifice c. we own more than they for he gave himself to Redeem Man from Sin and Transgression and the servitude of it and his Blood purgeth the Conscience cleanseth from all sin his Flesh is given for the Life of the World that Man may come to rise out of sin and live again to God in perfect Righteousness God hath set him forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of Sins past through the forbearance of God Rom. 3.25 He doth not say for sins past present and to come and that all must be sinful and imperfect all their dayes and yet all forgiven God being satisfied in Christ for all whilst he is not satisfied in them but his Spirit daily grieved where as Christs Appearance was to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself and if it was to put sin away to cleanse man from it and not that he should say that only the Guilt is done away but not the Act and Pollution of Sin which is the gross corruption and false construction of Presbyterians and others And as to T.V. his wonder at W.P. his challenging any Person to give him one Scripture phrase which doth approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction But T.V. has deceitfully left out his following words viz. Considering to what degree it is stretched the degree whereto it is stretched by these Priests is mentioned before not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Father's Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not to pay God as otherwise being unable to save men he saith And further adds And for a Justification by an imputative Righteousness whilst not real it 's meerly an Imagination not a reality and therefore rejected otherwise that which is real which is the Righteousness of Faith really received and injoyed in the true and Living Faith is confessed and known to be justifying before God because there is no abiding in Christ's Love without keeping his Commandements I therefore saith he Caution thee in Love not longer to deceive thy self by the over-fond imbraces of Humane Apprehensions for Divine Mysteries but rather be informed that God hath bestowed a measure of his Grace on thee and me to shew us what is good that we may obey and do it which if thou diligently wilt observe thou shalt be led out of all unrighteousness and in thy obedience shalt thou receive Power to become a Son of God in which happy estate God only can be known by Men and they know themselves to be justified before him whom experimentally to know by Jesus Christ is Life Eternal So that the infinite God in his infinite Love Good Will Kindness Patience Forbearance Long-Suffering fully expressed declared and signified by Christ Jesus the Son of his Love and express Image of his Divine Substance not a separate Person from him and Gods good Pleasure and real Satisfaction in him and all for the regaining restoring redeeming and saving of lost man to himself out of the fallen estate out of sin and corruption and from Wrath to come this we know really own and confess in the Light and Life of the Son of God bestowed upon us which is that alone that can give the true knowledge of the blessed Effects of Gods Love in Christ and of the Righteousness of the true and Living Faith in his Name and Power as also of their true Peace and Satisfaction receiving the Attonement Reconciliation and union with God in Jesus Christ who is the Way Truth and Life to all that truly believe in him T. V. In the Scriptures he alleadgeth against Christ's Satisfaction W. P. Not that we do deny but really confess that Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice Obs. This clears him from alleadging Scripture against Christ or what was really his satisfaction as he is falsely accused T.V. God proclaims himself to be gracious and merciful whereby be declares what he is in his Son whom he had before promised to give and in whom alone all Nations of the Earth that ever should obtain his favour were to be blessed Reply His giving his Son and his Favour and Blessedness in him proceeds from the Graciousness and Mercifulness of God How then does this agree with that of Impossibility freely to Pardon and with that of his being oblieged to take Vengeance upon all and yet ready to forgive and that he hath ingaged himself to do it pag. 60. Can this be deemed to be of the Nature of Debt full Payment c. by the rigour and punishment of Law Secondly If that it be in the Son of God alone in whom God declares what he is and in whom alone his Favour and Blessing is obtained then in him is the knowledge both of his Judgment and Mercy and if blessed in Christ it is not blessed out of Christ nor meerly for what he hath Suffered in the Flesh without being in him for we are accepted only in the Beloved as is confessed and God is well pleased with us only in Christ then not with us in sin And if so be God proclaims himself to be Gracious and Merciful in his Son how was God's infinite Wrath that sinners deserved inflicted upon him as a Person distinct from him Where does the Scripture say so Or were it good Doctrine to say that God so loved the World that he hated his only Son How then was he the Son of his Love who freely gave himself to bear the sins sorrow and burthen of all T.V. Pag. 62 63. I grant that God's Love of Benevolence or Electing Love is not the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction from whence it was that he sent his Son into the World for our Salvation but his Love of Complacency was the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction Matth. 3.17 Reply Where doth the Scriptures use these Expressions or this distinction of an Electing Love and
are Justified by his Death and by his offering up once for all answer in plain words And whether or no you will make a Sect that he died for some ungodly and some sinners only for the sons of Adam were the sinners and ungodly But he that believes is born of God and they receive Christ and he gives them Power to become the sons of God and they know he died for them and have the Testimony of it and have the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection And what was the Light that shined in the Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it not What was the Spirit that the Wicked grieved vexed and quenched Where is it and what is the Spirit of Truth that reproves the World of sin Where is it that leads the Saints into all Truth Come we must have plain Scripture for these things What is the Law that God will write in the Heart and put in the Mind that all shall know Him from the greatest to the least that they shall not every one teach his Brother and shall all know the Lord What is that Light that shines in the Heart to give the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus 2 Cor. 4. What is the Word of God in the Heart the Apostle Preached and the People was to obey it and do it And what was that Rule that Adam had and all the Holy Men in the Old World And what was the Rule of Enoch's Faith by which he was translated And Abraham's Faith who obeyed God and forsook his Countrey Answer these things by Scripture because you say The Writings the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith And Presbyterians and Independants have you forgotten all your Petitions and Addresses you Petitioned and made to the other Powers against the Quakers If you have forgotten them read William Caton 's Book of your Petitions and Addresses gathered up and down the Nation What you said of Oliver and Richard and how the People of God in scorn called Quakers the first beginning of calling them so was at Darby by one Bennet an Independant about 19 year since and then when the People called Quakers were gathered together in divers places to Worship God then you said they were Plotting together against Oliver whom some of you called the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils to bring in King Charles and Oliver said We would not hurt a Mouse at that time though he did cast many of us in Prison through you after that and then you Baptized us in your Prisons by cruel sufferings Of all men you should hold your Tongues in bawling so against us seeing the Light of your Eyes and breath of your Nostrils is gone And what was it not through some of you That the Act against Sturdy Beggars came forth upon which Friends at that time could hardly travel three or four miles from their own Houses but they were Whipped men worth three or four-score pounds or an hundred a year were Whipped for Beggars and Vagrants And then did you not get another Act That we must not speak to you in going or coming from a Steeple-house And how Friends were thronged in Prison up and down in the Nation by you Answer these Queries And thus you may see what a Havock you made in your Day but when Persecution came you durst hardly look out with your heads your selves And was there ever the like known or seen how your Brethren turns from North to South and from South to North and there they can turn and chop and change And yet you could tell us then That the Common-Prayer was Hell and Egyptian Bondage And we could hardly have a Meeting but you were incensing the Rulers against us That we were Plotting to bring in King Charles and how many in those dayes were put in Prison upon that account by you because we went to Meetings We can tell you we have a List of them And yet the Quakers were House Creepers said you when you had gotten the Mass-houses and Tythes and your Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues and straining our Goods for your Bread and Wine And who are become the House Creepers now Then you had gotten the old Mass-houses Oh! your filthiness comes to be made manifest to all men and you have made your selves ridiculous who are fighting against an innocent People that wishes hurt to no man but the good of all men And do you think that the Lord will nor remember and reckon with you for all these things Dare you look into the Book of your Actions and Consciences and see what is written there and see if they be not Recorded How now Presbyterians High Priests What is this your Doctrine that you now Preach up for your Hearers to go to a Bawdy-house as Thomas Vincent speaks What Liberty here do you give to Youth and your Hearers who sayes It 's worse to go to the Quakers Meetings than to a Bawdy-house You pleaded for a body of sin as long as you live but now it 's com'd out indeed when you plead for a Bawdy-house rather than Quakers Meetings it 's like the Presbyterian Priest knows where they are it appears as if he thought more of a Bawdy-house than of Christ and Vertue So it 's clear here you are Them that turn the People to Vice and from the Lord and his Truth Ellimas like seeking to pervert For the Quakers Meetings are in the Fear and Power and Spirit of God who meet together in the Name of Christ Jesus so it 's like you love Meetings at Bawdy-houses more then the Meetings of the People of God who meet to Worship God And if this be your Doctrine then you must enlarge your Brothel and Bawdy-houses as they do at Rome Legorn and Venice and other parts in Italy and then they will give you Tythes and Easter-Reckonings and Midsummer-Dues For have you not called Bawdy-house People good Church Members And have you not taken Tythes of them And would you not say The Peace of God to them for paying you Tythe Who would have thought that we should have had such Unvertuous Expressions from the Presbyterians that this stinking savour should have lyen covered under their Weeds Well the Quakers must Declare against all your Bawdy-houses which thou Vincent sayes Thou hadst rather thy People should go to than to the Quakers Meetings where the Word of God is Preached And so Presbyterians if this be your Doctrine to your People to send them to Bawdy-houses rather then to send them to a Meeting of the People of God we utterly deny you and your Bawdy-house too And is it not a shame to put in Print to tell the World That thou wouldst rather have thy People go to a Bawdy-house than to a Quakers Meeting For it 's like if thou wilt set up that House thou mayst have a yearly Revenue like thy Father the Pope out of your Bawdy-houses it 's like if you were there you might
named amongst them as becometh Saints Eph. 5. And how corrupt and grosse is T. V's reason for his wicked and unsavoury Doctrine before in saying Because the defilement of the Soul is more deep and more hard to be washed off than the defilement of Whoredom or Adultry As if they did not defile the Soul but the Body only this is a Doctrine that may gratifie Whoremongers and Adulterers and not only to reject the wholsom Warnings and Reproofs against all such Wickedness which both in their own Consciences and in our Meetings is declared and Preached against but also it tends rather to incourage them to go to Bawdy-houses than to our Innocent and Godly Meetings wherein the Truth Righteousness and Power of God which cleanseth and frees from sin and unrighteousness is exalted and born witness to T.V. having so manifestly discovered his Spirit he had now better go and sit down under the Common Prayer and confess himself a miserable Sinner among the rest and not remain in a separation with his whewling and whineing Prayers feigning himself as one more Holy and Humble than they What sober People could have thought that such foulness should lie under these Presbyterians coverings as is mentioned before and after And T. V. further adds to explain his gross corrupt Doctrine these words viz. I told her if there stood a Cup of Poyson in the Window I would rather drink it than drink in their damnable Doctrines because poysoning of the Body is not so bad as poysoning and damning the Soul By which the Reader may further see how his prejudice and envy hath blinded him thus to imply as if Persons might commit either Whordom or Murder upon their Bodies and their Souls not be defiled or damned thereby and then what actual wickedness may not People commit and their Souls not be damnified nor prejudiced by it from this Doctrine whereas the wicked slayeth his own Soul lifteth up his Soul to vanity the Peoples lusting after evil things caused leanness to enter their Souls tribulation and anguish is to come upon every Soul of man that doth evil And it is only the Power and Life of God which purifies the Soul sanctifies the Creature throughout in Body Soul and Spirit and so leads into Righteousness and thereby saves and brings the Soul to God and gives it Life and indues it with the Image of the Heavenly But after this T. V. hath uttered such corrupt Language and Doctrine as before he is so bold as to justifie himself in these words viz. I am sure I neither did nor spake any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel That I refer all modest and sober Readers to judge of Whether T. V. hath spoken Truth herein yea or nay and whether or no it had not been more prudence for him to have studied quietness and quietly to have followed his Devotion with thankfulness for the Liberty they are permitted to enjoy then thus to have shewed himself in outrage with clamorous reproaches and reviling against us who mean him no harm to the great disgrace both of himself and his Religion and them that adher to him therein And as for his accusing me with confused Discourse and indirect Answers to his Arguments and with filling my Mouth and the Peoples Ears with a multitude of words wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity that the sentiments of my mind were not easily to be perceived as he saith Wherein I have as much cause to complain of not having direct Answers from him as he seems to have against me whilst he was so puzled and put to it with what I said though I answered them in plain Scripture-language And wherein their Questions or pretended Arguments were either indirect or in terms which accorded not with Scripture-language I did not judge my self ingaged so far to admit of the stating their matters as being infallible in the manner and terms of them as to be tyed to Yea or Nay denial of Major or Minor without further scruple Their Arguments appear hereafter And whereas T. V. pleads for using some words in explaining Scripture which are not in the Scripture saying That the Quakers in their Books use many words which are not in the Scripture I Answer We neither contend with words or matters which are not contrary or do not tend to vail or darken the Truth 's or simplicity of the innocent language contained in Scripture neither do we go about to impose one manner and form of expression upon others or limit them therein whilst they speak the Truth or what is in or according to Scripture We are not of Kin to the narrow Spirit of the ridged Presbyters that will count a man a blasphemous Heretick Socinian Arian and what not if he can't repeat his Creed of the Deity or Father Word and Spirit in their invented School-terms although he really believeth and confesseth according to Scripture unto the only true God the eternal Word and Spirit or the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that they are One and in Unity inseparable And whereas T. V. saith That W. P. puts forth the sting of the Serpent in tearming his Prayers strangely affected Whines what more opprobious terms saith he would the Damn-me Blades of the Times have used c. Answ. To which I say That he did not only use a strange affected way of Whineing in his feigned Praying but also therein most falsely accused us for Blasphemers in telling God That we compared Him and his Son and Holy Spirit to three finite Creatures which more justly was charged upon himself and his Brethren from their distinction of Persons in the Deity T. V's lye to God was so apparent in this matter that some that were by said The next time he Prayed he had need to ask God forgiveness for telling him that Lye for our comparison was to evince the natural consequence of their own distinction and the gross tendency of it as further is mainfest and not to represent the infinite God like unto man or finite Creatures as they have done about their Personalities And his comparing W. P's words to such tearms as those use he calls The Dam-me Blades of the Times he should rather have began at home and judged himself for his own wicked opprobious terms in saying It was worse to go to the Quakers Meetings than to a Bawdy-house what more gross terms could the Damners and Sinkers have used but evil words corrupt good manners And as for his Confidence that it is a falshood that they did use such words as impudent villain that there was striking among some of T. V's Hearers There are Persons of repute and credit who can testifie both against them and to my knowledge an honest sober Women did affirm That one of his Hearers thumpt her on the Breast when we were about that Dispute with them besides the malice envy and rudeness that appeared amongst them in clamouring railing and reviling us like the Billings-gate folks though
the Question and presumption in thee especially whilst by your vain Philosophy some of you have either rendered them as Three Gods or denied them to be Infinite as in pag. 45. Yea and it was evident to many That we found fault with your mis-calling and mis-representing the Father the Word and Spirit and never in the least opposed nor questioned their being Three such as mentioned in Scripture viz. The Father Son and Holy Ghost but there openly confessed to the Fundamental Truth of them in Scripture terms And when you fell into your needless Questions and Philosophick terms of incommunicabl properties subsistences c. I to bring the matter to be more obvious to the People to shorten and mittigate the Controversie and to abate your heat did tell you That if you meant by incommunity of properties the Fathers begetting the Son and the Spirits being sent state your Question so in plain English Whether the Son was begotten and the Spirit sent of the Father and it would quickly end the Controversie But nothing would serve you but an Answer to your vain babling and School-terms with such a limitation as Aye or No as if the Scripture terms and expressions were in this to be waved and slighted as insufficient and your confusion vain â—hilosophy and deceit must be set up above the Scriptures of Truth though you profess them to be your Rule at other times But here in plain Contradiction you have gone about to obscure Divine Mysteries under your Traditional terms of Heathenish Metaphysicks and laid such a stress upon them as if all were to be deem'd Blasphemers and Hereticks and so to be damned that cannot confess own and be tyed up to your terms nice and confused distinctions which you presumptuously put upon the Father Word Spirit And as for W. M. his accusing us with rejecting the Son and so the Father It is a gross slander as many more of his accusations are and never was it in our Intention nor Doctrine so to do whilst the Oneness of Father Son and Spirit we really confess to but disown your blind distinctions which deny them Infiniteness And as for W. M. his so much talk of three Hee 's each of which he saith is by nature God We do not read in Scripture that God is called three Hee 's or three distinct Hee 's and therefore three distinct separate Persons indeed Children in the Accidence call Hee the third Person singular But that both the Father and Son speaking of themselves use the word Hee as I am Hee and he that is with you shall be in you Christ speaking of his own manifestation which was that other Comforter I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you But each of these three Hee 's he tells of he hath told us is by nature God so then they are One as God the Word and Spirit are And as to his charge of Ignorance of Philosophy about Subsistence which he sayes is not a form of a Hee but the manner of his being His Charge of Ignorance of his kind of Philosophy and such nice distinctions as this between manner and form we can easily bear and pass by and leave them to feed upon it who will choose such chaff for their food knowing that the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ consists not in such trifles W.M. The form of God the Father is his Divine Nature but his Subsistence is his manner of being in the relative Property of the Father and so he speaks of the Form and Subsistence of the Son and Holy Ghost as his terms of them are Now touching these distinct Subsistences or manners of being wherein stands their Model distinction of Three distinct Personalities to which they say in pag. 45. That infiniteness is not applicable and that there be three distinct Personallities unto which infiniteness is not ascribed Here they have given People to understand what their meaning is about their three distinct Subsistences or Personallities that they are not Infinite What then Is the Father Son and Holy Spirit Finite What gross darkness is this Let the impartial Reader judge whether we have not sufficient ground and cause to oppose them and their vain Philosophy in this so high a matter and whether herein their Doctrine doth not blasphemously oppose the Divinity of Father Son and Spirit and they go about to eclipse and detract from the Glory of the infinite God-head whilst at other times in contradiction they confess each to be God and tell of the Eternal Son of God and say That in the concret every subsistent is infinite but not the subsistance or personallity in the abstract What darkness is here Is God divided or Father Son and Holy Ghost separate or abstract from their Essences and where then is this finite personallity so much contended for Is it in God yea or nay or relating to his Divine Being or Substance But if these distinct personallities or subsistances which they say are not infinite be the relative Properties of the Father Son and Spirit then I ask Hath not this Doctrine denied both Father Son and Holy Spirit to be infinite Let the unbyassed Readers judge And yet in Confutation of themselves again there 's God the Father the first Person God the Son a Person distinct from him God the Holy Ghost a Person proceeding from both How to make sense of these three distinctions comparing them together or how to make them hang together without rendering them Three Gods and not only so but such as are not Infinite doth not yet appear to me And whether my comparison of not understanding Paul Peter and John could be three Persons each of them an Apostle and yet all but one Apostle was not suitable to detect these mens unscriptural Doctrines and Distinctions and to shew the absurdity of the consequences thereof which whilst this railing angry man W. Madox doth so often take it as a comparing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles herein he hath grossely wronged and abused me and his own understanding And his Charge of Blasphemy against me for that he intimates that I should say That God is but equal with man I return back upon him as a most malicious horrid slander and an apparent Lye against me It was never my intent nor saying for if I had said That God is but equal with man or compared the Father Son and Holy Ghost to three Apostles then had I and these ridgid Presbyterians accorded nearer than we did for then had I owned their Dostrine and terms of three distinct and separate persons in the God-head which are not infinite which I can never own nor believe nor depend upon any God or thing which is finite for Salvation Besides I never denied finite man nor three distinct Apostles as Paul Peter and John to be distinct and separate Persons so if I had really compared the Deity to such we had not differed about the distinction of
separate Persons or finite subsistances in the God-head which is no less than Blasphemy But then how poorly maliciously and falsely this W. M. comes off in so positively deeming their Doctrine and terms in these matters to be Scripture Truth and charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and blasphemy and damnable speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsely for no such design ever had we as either to blast or over-throw the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in words and writings As also his accusing us with boldly spitting in the face of God is a gross and malicious slander and a presumptuous taking for granted that our opposing their corrupt unscriptural distinctions and vain babling was a spitting in the face of God as if we must believe all what these men say in this matter to be as true as God is and his Glory to be so deeply concern'd in their vain Philosophy Judge whether they ' herein are competent Disputants yea or nay and whether these our opposers or we have compared God or the Father Son and Spirit to men let the Reader judge by what follows In their Answer to that Argument of W. P's viz. The Divine Persons are either finite or infinite if finite then something finite is in God if infinite then there would be three distinct infinites and consequently three distinct Gods thus far W. P. Touching which after they have denied infiniteness to be applicable or ascribed to them as to their subsistences or personallities as they call them they bring a comparison of the subsistance of a man pag. 46. saying It would be improper to ascribe the property that belong to him unto his subsistence to say that his subsistance in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence a great one or a small one a white one or a black one What vain babling and a blind instance is here And so they say It is improper to say that either of the Persons in regard of the personallity or subsistence are finitie or infinite but in regard of their Essence in the concrete are infinite Now the Reader at length may see what 's become of their distinctions of three distinct subsistences or persons in the God-head or Divine Essence wherein they having here undertaken to demonstrate that which Reason cannot demonstrate to them nor they clear to themselves by demonstration as in pag. 26. they have run themselves as into a Wood and Labyrinth as persons bewildered and confounded so as now the subsistences or distinct persons in the Deity they so much contend for are such as are neither learned nor unlearned neither great nor small neither finite nor infinite what are they then what Gods are they that these men would have us believe in before they were not infinite now neither finite nor infinite What grosse Confusion and Contradiction is here for if not infinite then finite but the God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only Wise God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Howbeit since these our Opposers are contending for that which they cannot by Reason demonstrate nor clear to themselves pag. 26. It is very unreasonable in them to Impose it upon others to believe without either reason or demonstration or to pronounce them Blasphemers who cannot own their Doctrine and distinctions therein to be according to the Scriptures whilst they cannot clear them by Reason to themselves but both a mis-calling and grossely mis-representing of Father Son and Holy Spirit as one while with being not infinite another while neither finite nor infinite instancing in the case the subsistence of a man which they say is neither learned nor an unlearned one They have accused W.P. with Blasphemy who never denied the infiniteness of either Father Word or Spirit but what greater Blasphemy can there be than their own And now let the indifferent Reader judge what effect this kind of their vain babling would have in the minds of an Auditory if thus God should be Preached in their blind confused terms and if one of them should exhort People to believe in a Trinity of separate persons or subsistences which are infinite in the concrete but not infinite in the personallity or subsistence in the abstract Another while they are neither finite nor infinite and what they are they cannot tell for by reason they cannot clear this their Mystery to themselves Another while they are three Hee 's that People must believe in and therefore three persons or subsistances with incommunicable properties by all which they go to demonstrate the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are infinite in the Essence but not in their Personallities They say another while neither finite nor infinite as they say what effect would this kind of Preaching have with People do you think and where ever did the Apostles and true Ministers of God Preach in this manner or allow of such Philosophy in Preaching the Mysteries of God Nay did they not Preach in the simplicity of the Gospel and Exhort in simplicity as of the Abilitiy that God gave And did not Paul absolutely forbid such Philosophy and vain deceipt And to avoid opposition of Science falsly so called Coll. 2.8 1 Tim. 6.20 And are there not words sufficient in the Scriptures of Truth to Preach God and Christ in according to the plainness and simplicity thereof but men pretending to be his Ministers and Scripture their Rule must thus run themselves into confusion and darkness by Humane Inventions and Traditions both of words terms and blind distinctions of man's fallen wisom which neither knows God nor can rightly speak of him but hath obscured the Glory of his Appearance from very many but the Light is risen and the Day dawned which hath not only discovered but will expel those thick Mists and Clouds of mens Inventions that the simple may come to be undeceived and unvailed and so be delivered from such as these confussed Babel builders that have made a prey upon them CHAP. III. Something farther Observed in Answer to Tho. Vincent NOw let us a little observe some Passages and Arguments in Tho. Vincent's Work For their distinctions about Trinity of Persons as they call them distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties But such kind of distinctions and terms he hath not learned from Scriptures but from humane Inventions by which they have darkned the simplicity of Truth as also he hath appeared as one in self-contradiction when he saith That one should be in another the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both in the third and all one and the same individual Essence Now if they be in each other they are not separate Persons as at the Dispute was affirmed and if one be in another where are the personal
incommucicable properties wherein they are not Infinite as they have told us Is there finiteness in each person and yet each person God what gross darkness and blasphemy is this But then to mend the matter T. V. tells us This is such a Mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understandings of most inlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend Some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind Surely then if it be such a Mystery as exceeds the understanding of the clear sighted it must needs exceed the dark understanding of T. V. and his Brethren And seeing as appears he was conscious to himself of his own dimness or darkness herein as by what follows also he should have let it alone and not troubled his head with things beyond his reach for he has confounded and marr'd his cause and not at all mended nor cleared it but if he hath assayed to demonstrate this Mystery as he calls it as one more clear sighted than the most inlightned his Work doth manifest the contrary And that God cannot represent himself otherwise than he is It 's true but where doth he thus represent himself as these men do with such invented terms vain tautologies and confusion We do not read such in all the Scriptures of Truth howbeit T. V. takes the boldness to Assert his Doctrine herein to be of Divine Authority and to be the Truth of God revealed in his Word and that if the Scriptures have revealed that there are Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain Truth c. This is sooner said than proved if that Word of God and Scripture could be produced that doth so reveal their Doctrine and say there are three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence Produce us such a Scripture among all the Writings of the Holy men of God in all the Bible and it shall end the Controversie otherwise let T. V. be ashamed of his Asserting it to be revealed in the Word of God And of his saying that in his Sylogism pag. 13. There is not a word but what is to be found in the Scripture whereas neither the matter manner nor expressions of his Arguments are to be found in Scripture As for Instance his Argument Pag. 13. The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are either three Substances or three Manifestations or three Operations or three Persons or something else but they are not three Substances nor three Manifestations nor three Operations nor any thing else therefore they are three Persons To the first part Indeed they must be something to the Minor if they be neither three Substances Manifestations c. nor any thing else this renders them nothing and contradicts both the Major and Conclusion where they are something else which is three Persons he saith so the tenour of his Argument runs thus they are something but they are nothing he meant nothing else but three Persons therefore they are three Persons It would have held better thus but against himself If the Father the Word and Spirit be not three distinct Substances then not three distinct Persons but they are not three distinct Substances Ergo. unless he can shew us a distinct person without its own substance But his Brother T.D. saith A person is rationalis naturae individua substantia an individual substance of a rational nature see how flatly T.D. and T.V. have Contradicted one another herein one affirming they are three Persons because not three Substances the other That a person is an individual substance But if T. V. by saying There is not a word in his Syllogism but what is to be found in Scripture intends that every word particularly is to be found in Scripture the word Substance the word Manifestation Operation Person c. abstractively what proves this of his matter for the contrary may as well be asserted from bare words I never met with more silly kind of Arguing before And if so be his other Argument from the Property of the Father to beget of the Son to be begotten of the Holy Ghost to proceed from them both c. be an Argument sufficient to prove Three distinct Persons in the God-head with three incommunicable Properties c. Then doth it not follow as well That every spiritual perfect Gift that proceeds from God to man must needs be a Person and then so many Gifts or manifold Graces as proceed from him or are begotten by him are so many Persons in him which would be numerous indeed and amount to a Plurallity of Trinities for the Spitit is given variously and in divers Manifestations and the graces gift of God are many and manifold but the shallowness of this mans arguing who is it cannot see besides that Christ being the express Image of the Fathers substance and the Spirit the Life of both it 's neither scriptural nor reasonable to say that the Image and Life of One and the same thing should be either Two distinct and separate Persons from it or from their own substance so that still it follows that if the Three bearing Record in Heaven be One divine substance and not Three substances then not Three distinct or separate Persons As also God is called both the Word and Spirit Farther Mark the manner of T. V. his expressing his Doctrine viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence and the Unity of the Divine Essenee in the Trinity of Persons that three should be one and that one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second the third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third Thus far T.V. for his separate persons Reader Do but mark his Jigg here and what a whirling he has made like one distempered but where is his Scripture for all this see how he manages it pag. 26. he saith Reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity c. but where Reason faileth Faith must supply its room And then tells us of Mysteries which Reason cannot demonstrate to us and that in this Mystery of the Trinity we must Exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration c. But sure whilst Reason hath so much failed T. V. and his Brethren in this matter that thereby they cannot clear it to themselves by demonstration it s very strange and unreasonable they should make such a stir in the dark as they have done to Impose it on the Faith of others and what tends this to but to force People to Exercise an implicite Faith whilst they have neither Scripture Reason Demonstration nor Revelation for that 's ceased they say to ground a Faith upon
confess that W. P. confesseth That Christ offered unto God a satisfactory Sacrifice c. yea a most satisfactory Sacrifice but not to help God as being otherwise unable to save men However it is evident that W. P. has according to Scriptures confessed to God's Power Omnipotency Infiniteness and also That Jesus Christ in Life Doctrine and Death fulfilled his Fathers Will and offered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice so that he hath been wrongfully accused concerning this matter And whereas T. V. saith That God's Righteousness and Truth obliegeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law and his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert his Justice doth ingage him c. Answ. How then is God free in his Attributes as they confess and his Good Will shewed by Christ unto men for their good in order to Salvation or hath God two contrary Wills the one obliging him to take Vengeance or execute Judgement to the uttermost upon All and the other to Exercise Patience Forbearance and shew Mercy and so not to Will the Death of Sinners but rather their Return that they may Live Is there any variableness or shaddow of Change in God or rather is not the Love and Good Will of God held forth in Christ to all men in the first place and that then when he Chasteneth Corrects Reproves any for sin it is not in Vengeance or Fury but in Love and Good Will for his Vengeance is to fall upon his Adversaries that have rejected and turned against him and the free proffers of his Love in Christ Jesus and who have Crucified Christ unto themselves a-fresh and trampled upon the Blood of the Covenant and so despised the one Offering which was offered up once for all as a real Witness of God's Good Will Patience Forbearance Long-suffering towards all And now to T. V. his saying That Sinners must have Divine help to inable them to their duty or in doing good and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and for it brings Luke 17.10 When you have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants our Righteousness is as filthy raggs Isa. 64.6 Answ. If you Presbyterians and Professors were come to know a Divine help in what you do and to do all the things Commanded you would give us a better account of those Works and Performances brought forth by Divine help than to compare them to filthy Raggs Divine help would cloath you with better Garments than filthy Raggs What sad Doctrine is this to say the Good that is done by Divine help and that doing all things Commanded of God are but as filthy Raggs What darkness is this not to distinguish between self-Righteousness which are but as filthy Raggs and the good that 's done by Divine help that hath a beauty and splendour of God's Righteousness with it Is this the construction you make of Christ's Satisfaction or being a Sacrifice to God that you must be cloathed upon all your Life time with your own filthy Raggs of self-Righteousness And then to cover over all these your Babylonish Brats with a pretence of Christ's Satisfaction paying your Debt for you imputation of his Righteousness deceitfully and feignedly applyed by you to your selves in your filthy Raggs whilst you have no share in it nor feel in you the Effect of his sufferings as if you were only to believe and apply and sin all your time you are far from the state of the unprofitable Servant that did all that he was Commanded You are daily breaking the Commands of God and Plead for it much more farther from the state of those whom Christ called no more Servants but Friends T. V. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Justice for their sins Reply But then in Contradiction to himself he saith I shall not concern my self to inquire what God could or might do if he pleased Why then doth he say he never will nor can and seem to lay such an Impossibility upon God in the case as if he could not freely Pardon whereas he could do whatsoever he pleased and certainly he could both please and satisfie himself And then I Query How is this Satisfaction made by Christ T. V. It depends upon him as the second Person in the Trinity pag. 54. Query Does it depend upon him as Man or as God and Man T. V. It was necessary that the Person that should make Satisfaction should be Man because none but a Creature could suffer But then he adds It were necessary he should be God othewise the sufferings and satisfaction would have been but finite Query What then were the Sufferings Infinite that the Wicked inflicted upon the Body of Christ seeing nothing but a Creature could suffer he saith and yet as a Creature could give no proportionable Satisfaction to Infinite Justice What Confusion is here For as God he could not Suffer nor Die as is confessed but God did strengthen the Manhood to bear up under such opressure of Wrath But where doth the Scripture say That Christ the second Person in the Trinity did suffer under infinite Wrath either as God or Man or both He should have produced his plain Scripture for Scripture we own and Christ's Satisfaction as rightly stated and what a most acceptable Sacrifice he was to the Father for All yea his Suffering as Man or in the Flesh without the Gates at Jerusalem was all acceptible to God his Soul was also made an Offering for sin and that he was a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World the Mystery Virtue and Effects of his Sufferings none knows but they that believe in his Name and receive the Righteousness of Faith But indeed the manner of T. V's stating the business I do not see that sense can be made of it whilst he makes it a Payment of a second Person distinct from God and yet not as a Creature for as such the Sufferings were finite as he faith that could not bear a proportionable Satisfaction to infinite Justice and then it being as God united that did bear up and strengthen the man under opressure of Wrath that made this Satisfaction as he hath stated it c. Obs. What amounts this to that God made a satisfaction to and paid himself either by inflicting infinite Wrath upon Christ as God which cannot be or else that he satisfied himself by the finite Suffering of Christ as man when as that which was finite could not satisfie infiniteness they say And as God-man can they say he was the subject of Wrath or vindictive Justice as their term is How these things should be reconciled I leave to the ingenious Readers to judge Answ. Yes still we know that God was ever satisfied and well-pleased in Christ Jesus and in all his Works and it was God that was in him reconciling the World
by him having left out and not stated his Arguments and then rails against his Consequences whereas he and his Brethren would not be so dealt by T. V· Take away Satisfaction then the Word and Spirit and we are false Witnesses then is our Preaching vain and you are all yet in your sins then you must all of you of necessity be damned and punished Eternally Reply Truly so they are like to be for all the help they are like to have from your Preaching especially if their being yet in their sins be a sign of it and that you are false Witnesses and your Preaching vain for so they are like to be in their sins all their Life time if they believe and drink-in your sinful Doctrine for sin and Imperfections remaining in all term of Life And as for T. V's bitter storm he brings forth of accusing and charging W.P. in the same words that Peter said to Simon Magus the Sorcerer or Witch Acts 8.9 21 22 23. and as having no part in Christ's Satisfaction and his heart not being right in the sight of God and to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity And further adds these words to render him worse viz. Wicked Blasphemies and Abominable and Heretical Assertions I hope W.P. will easily bear such vilifying without reviling again there being no matter of Argument nor Proof in them either to Convince or terrifie him and for the matter of Judgment against him he can Appeal to more Competent and Moderate Persons to judg in the case than T.V. hath shewen himself T.V. Pag. 67. God hath engaged to keep Believers out of a Course of Disobedience and if they do transgress in some particulars he hath threatned to chastize them which is not inconsistent with Christ's satisfying his Justice for their sins since chastizing is not an Act of Vindicative Justice but Fatherly Love Reply Here observe 1st That Chastizement and Revenge are two things 2dly If they be to be Chastized for Transgression it is to bring them into more subjection to God and conformity to Christ and not to leave them in sin and Imperfection term of Life under a Plea of the Debt being fully paid and full Satisfaction being made for them by Christ's under-going Wrath and Vindictive Justice which how do these stand with Free Grace Goodness Pardon Remission c. upon Repentance 3dly How does T.V. suppose Vindictive Justice or Eternal Wrath incurred by mans Offences to be laid on Christ which is not Chastizement as confessed and so he makes full Satisfaction the Effect of God's full Revenge on his Innocent Son as if one should say That God could not command Wrath but were bound thereby till he had Executed the Extremities of it upon Christ for so it hath been deserved by sin and sinners as if he had not absolute Power to shew his Love Good Will and Satisfaction therein for his own Names sake And is not this to render God more cruel than man or his Prerogative below that of Earthly Princes which is best known in shewing Mercy and forgiveness God can do whatsoever he will and his Will is chiefly to that which he most delighteth in to wit Goodness Mercy and Forgiveness that he may shew himself Gracious for to restore man to himself And he saith I will not contend for ever neither will I be alwayes wroth for the Spirits should fail before me and the Souls that I have made Isa. 57.16 And T. V. stating it as God's Revenge or Vindictive Justice on Christ and the Chastizement only on the Transgressors is not Scripture Is. 53.5 for it saith He was bruised for our Iniquities and the Chastizement of our peace was upon him Mark He was bruised and the Chastizement of our peace was upon him It is not said Vindicative or rather Vindictive Justice or the Revenge of our Peace was upon him for T.V. has Confessed a difference and Chastizement comes in Fatherly Love and not Revenge O Lord correct me but with Judgment not in thy Anger least thou bring me to nothing Jer. 10.24 And now this Correction or Chastizement from the Lord is known by his People in the time of their spiritual Travel and Warfare that they may be partakers of his Holiness and perfect Righteousness as they have partaken of Christ's Sufferings and known the Fellowship thereof But and if men continue in Rebellion against Christ rejecting his Love and Grace his Sufferings and Satisfaction will not free them from the severity of God nor from the Execution of his Judgement which is given to Christ to do who hath also Power and Authority to Execute Judgement because he is the Son of man that hath suffered and is that man by whom God will Judge the World in Righteousness Joh. 5.22.27 Acts 17.31 and by whom the secrets of men shall be judged according to the Gospel which he and his Ministers have proclaimed which is the acceptable year of the Lord to them that receive it who have thirsted after it and the Day of Vengeance of our God to them that reject the Love of the Truth and hate to be Reformed how highly soever they may boast of Satisfaction and Imputation c. CHAP. V. Touching the Presbyterian Priests and Professors Doctrine of the Justification of the Ungodly by an imputed Righteousness and T. V. his Plea and Proofs for it Examined FIrst he brings 2 Cor. 5.21 for his Proof viz. He hath made him to be sin for us that knew no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him to which he adds as Christ was made sin for us though Innocent by the imputation of our sin to him for which he was condemned and punished so we are made the Righteousness of God in him though guilty by the imputation of his Righteousness unto us whereby we are Justified Reply Here T.V. has given us their sense of Imputation viz. That Guilty Persons are made the Righteousness of God in Christ and so Justified whilst in their sins by the Imputation of his Righteousness as much as to say when they are really unrighteous and actively sinners yet imputedly Justified and made the Righteousness of God in Christ which is a false and corrupt meaning put upon the Apostles words for there 's no Unrighteousness no Guilt nor Impurity in Christ for in him is no sin and he that abides in him sins not besides as Christ was made a Curse or Sin for us the Scripture doth not say So we are made the Righteousness of God in him For if these words As he So we which are added were true the Consequence would be As he was made to be sin for us who knew no sin nor ever could sin So we are made the Righteousness of God in him who never knew Righteousness nor ever can be Righteous What a gross corruption and perverting of Scripture is this and how contrary to the Righteousness of God to suppose guilty and sinful Persons to be
competent judge over them whilst he hath perverted them both in the former Powers days and now also and whilst in those days he did indeavour to insinuate into the Powers that then were against the Quakers he was plainly manifested and his Errors and Falshoods detected by those faithfull Servants of Christ Samuel Fisher Richard Hubberthorn and my self he might now have been silent from raking over his old silly confused stuff so long since answered and confuted since that from the ample Confutation and just reproof and discovery given against him by Samuel Fisher he could never yet clear himself nor hath essayed a Replication thereto but only a slight put off as will appear without either Truth or Reason and as for his commendation of the pains of his worthy Friend Master Thomas Vincent as he calls him he has little ground to applaud his pains for he has sufficiently manifested his envy errors confusion and shallowness as any unbyassed may see as also the palpable contradictions both to himself and T. D. so that they should first have studied to see a reconciliation and harmony between their own Principles before they had come thus publickly to engage but it is the Judgement of God upon them and such giddied spirits that one should oppose and contradict another till they are both overturned and broke to pieces in their war but if his worthy Friend Thomas Vincent hath done so worthily against the Quakers why doth T. D. take so much pains again after him why doth he actum agere as he saith his Answer is because of some reflections upon him also that as experience hath shewed there is a great deal of difference of intellectual gifts and that the Method Phrase and Notions of scarce any one man are acceptable to all he saith by which it appears that he was conscious or at least jealous that his worthy Master Vincent's work would not be so acceptable as his own but would give distaste and therefore he has endeavoured to smooth it over and to new moddel it in another phrase according to what he has imagined and learned out of Writers and old Authors both Popish and others but what saith he for not answering Samuel Fisher's Book against himself Jo. Owen Baxter and Tombs Entituled Rusticus ad Academicos which they were never able to answer nor to reply to T. D. excuseth himself as followeth viz. If any Quaker shall demand why I do not answer Samuel Fisher 's Book against me instead of writing against a new man I answer that I am guided in my neglect by the judgment of abler Persons then my self that that Book is but a Bundle of impertinent cavils c. Indeed this is a very easie way of answering which if we should deal so with T. D. what would he say to it and to such neglect but this doth not clear himself from Samuel Fisher's Answer but it stands over his head and if he was guided by abler persons then himself in not answering S. F. those abler persons for ought as appears might see T. D. so baffled and confuted that it was in vain for him to strive any further and if abler persons then himself did advice him in that case he should have followed the example thereof so as not to have meddled as he hath done to the further manifesting his weakness and folly and as for his instance of Biddles twelve Articles against the Holy Ghost's Diety t is no president nor instance for us as is most falsly insinuated against us whilst we never denied the Diety or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost And how doth he advise the Reader to be at pains to understand the positive grounds of the great Truths opposed by the Quakers as he falsly saith what must give the understanding thereof if not the Light of Christ within and how must sacred mysteries be known and what must bring to the right use of reason and to understand the Scriptures if immediate Revelation or Inspiration be supposed not attainable in these days Can the natural man with his natural understanding know the things that are spiritual surely no or know the right use of the Scriptures without the guidance of that infallible Spirit that gave them forth no sure for it is the Inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding And Seeing also that T.D. confesseth that Reason tells us the Nature and Works of God are above our reach and that God were not Gof if he could be comprehended by a Creature which if so that the Nature and Works of God are above his and their reach and comprehension why has he essayed so much by his natural understanding to define and distinguish the Godhead into three distinct Persons which he has no Scripture for nor yet Reason to demonstrate nor Revelation to ground a Faith upon in that case whilst the Presbyterians were wont to affirm Revelation to be ceased and to be sure God will not put the Seal of his immediate power to a falshood as is confessed so that whilst we have neither Revelation Scriptures Reason nor Seal of immediate Power for their Doctrines and distinctions put upon the Diety we have ground at least to question them if not positively to oppose them as unscriptural irrational implicite Doctrines and Traditions which hath tended to vail both the glory of God Christ and holy Spirit which we confess from people And now to T. D's definition of the word Person first from Aquinas as being an individual substance of a rational nature but his worthy Friend Tho. Vincent hath denied the Father the Word and the Spirit to be three Substances then I ask how they can be three distinct Persons whilst a Person is an individual Substance what contradiction is this But then T. D. saith Some think it viz. Aquinas his Explanation of Person liable to some exception and therefore he chuseth to borrow that of learned Wotton on 1 Joh. 1.2 pag. 2. that a Person is an individual Subsistance or Subsistent rather in an intellectual nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self c. A Man we call a Person a Person notes some one endued with Reason and understanding which is several and distinct from another a Person is intire of it self c. pag. 1 2. Concerning which I query first whether the Father the Word and holy Spirit be three several and singular things that subsist each by himself each one from another yea or nay Secondly whether a man being a Person is a competent instance for proof of his Maker being three several Persons and whether a man subsists by himself Thirdly whether Christ be several and distinct by himself from God and the holy Spirit several and distinct from both If yes where or in what place of the whole world or out of it is the one entire and severed from the other and how far distant one from another Fourthly And if the Father Son and Holy Ghost do
thereby being to his satisfaction how can men continuing in their sins truly plead they are fully acquitted at once without them and they onely in the implicite belief thereof received from the ridged Presbyters rest satisfied in their sins all their life time And where doth T. D. prove his Doctrine of Christ's being holy by a true inherent righteousness of the humane Nature pag. 25. what Scripture hath he for this or these Expressions was not his Righteousness from the Divine Nature and was it not Everlasting but is not that which is humane Finite And T. D. saying that the Socinians vomit the Quakers have now lickt up pag. 27. herein hath he spoken scornfully and falsly against us which will not at all tend to convince Socinians if they were as bad as rendred but to that they can answer him And his saying the Elect whilst Sinners in state where proves he this that the Elect are Sinners in state seeing the state of the Elect is a sanctified and chosen state out of the World and its wayes chosen in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth 2 Thes. 2.13 the impossibility of deceiving the Elect is signified Matth. 24.24 where the Calling and Election is made sure they shall never fall 2 Pet. 1.10 And that Christ was made surety of a better Covenant Heb. 7.22 And came to do his Fathers Will Hebr. 10.7 And that his being a Surety is an Act of Grace pag. 28. This we confess and own more then you that contend for Sin for the Will of God is our Sanctification and the better Testament and Covenant which Christ is the Surety Mediator and Establisher of is that of Righteousness Life and Peace wherein Sins and Transgressions are done away and wherein true Believers live to God And as for T. D. his so often comparing God to a Creditor Christ to the Surety and Sinners as the Debtors telling of God being considered as a Creditor and as a private Person pag. 32. But where doth the Scripture so call him Reply He does not speak from a true sence of God or Christ or of Gods Covenant but a Notion he hath learned by Tradition and as to Sinners their case is worse then meerly Debtors they not onely owing obedience to God and Christ but are disobedient and rebellious as the case of Fellons Traytors and other Malefactors is worse then that of Debtors yet Christ is our Surety Mediator and Intercessor to make agreement between God and man and to deliver man from the Punishment and Wrath to come by delivering from Sin the cause of it and destroying the Devil the Author of Sin not for us still to live in Sin and daily both contract more Debt and incur tribulation and anguish upon our Souls Howbeit the Wayes of God extend beyond T. D's comparison his Wayes are not as man wayes nor his Thoughts as mans thoughts for as the Heaven is higher then the Earth so are my Thoughts higher then your thoughts saith the Lord whose graciousness also to poor deceived lost man for his restoration is infinitely beyond mans legality and exactions as the Lord said I will not execute the fierceness of mine Anger I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man the Holy One in the midst of thee Hosea 11.9 But is there not perfect obedience now for men to perform must they all live in Sin and Imperfection tearm of life and say all our Debts is paid and if all their Debts be paid why are they not out of Prison Are not all that are in Sin and Bondage of Corruption in Prison and would it be glad Tydings to tell them that though Christ has paid all their Debts and procured their release and ransomed them that they must not expect personal freedom out of Prison nor out of their Chains and Fetters so long as they lived here or if one should tell the Slaves in Turkey that they are ransomed and yet they must not expect personal freedom from their Vassalry and Slavery so long as they live here would this be glad tydings no sure but rather sad news and is just like these Presbyterians and Independants preaching to people and the tendence of their Gospel and pretence of Satisfaction Redemption Ransom c. whilst they hold none of them in Truth nor Righteousness nor in the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures of Truth and Testimonies of Christ or his Apostles T. D. pag. 29. He is satisfied and the debt paid too by his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat Observ. Here it is to be observed that notwithstanding this his Assertion of the Satisfaction both by payment and punishment being compleatly made and the debt fully paid yet he confesseth to Christ's Intercession but what does he ever live to make Intercession for if all be fully done paid satisfied at once by Christ's personal subjection and obedience must there ever be an intercession for that which is already so fully and dearly paid for as they reckon Christ hath done and God hath granted how will this hold consistent But then it appears it supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat saith T. D. pag. 30. So here is now supposition and pretence put upon Christ's Intercession and Satisfaction what sorry shallow work is this but it appears But to proceed from one that hath followed his own conceptions notions weak judgement and humane understanding as also one that by his Logick and Traditional borrowed Notions and Doctrines goes about to make People to believe that from him that he hath no Scripture phrase for as that of God being a private person and other things And therefore like a Lawyer is fain to patch up his work as well as he can though in many things it be very inconsistant and repugnant to it self And whereas our confessing Christ both in Life and Suffering to be a perfect and real Example is so much struck at by these Priests and Professors we still withal confessing both to his Power and Living Effects through all and of all his Sufferings Afflictions Death and Life which we reverently esteem touching which I testifie in the Lord that if Christ be not really owned and confessed as he was a real Example both in Life Conversation and in Patient Suffering neither the Fellowship of his Suffering nor the Power thereof is truly known or experienced for they who would partake of the Benefit and blessed Effects of Christ's Death and Sufferings and yet will not own him for their Example shall never enjoy him therein seeing that Christ also hath suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his steps who did not sin neither was guile found in his mouth 1 Pet. 2.21 22. Again Forasmuch then as Christ hath Suffered for us in the Flesh arm your selves likewise with the same mind for he that hath sufferred
evident that they were troubled condemned and reproved by his Witness in their Consciences or else how should they say depart from us if he never came nigh them nor ever touched their Consciences or why should they say we desire not the knowledge of thy Wayes if the knowledge thereof was not tendred to them And further If so be that the Gentiles as confessed were those in whom that which might be known of God was manifested and shewed unto them from the Creation to the being of God and his Eternal Power which discovery did leave them without excuse what was it that brought them to this understanding of the Eternal Power and Godhead from and through the Creation was it Spiritual yea or nay surely this clear sight and discovery in them did rise from that which might be known of God that was manifest in them and if this had not a sufficiency in it to save how were they left without excuse surely the fault was not to be laid upon God nor on his Light in them but to and upon themselves for disobeying it and not liking to retain him in their knowledge And seeing Christ is confessed page 63. to be set for a Light to the Gentiles Isa. 49.6 which saith T. D. is but a Prophesie of the Gentiles mercy in the time of Christ's actual exhibition in the Flesh. However this Mercy is of a large extent and for ever to be prized as in the fulness of time it is more manifest then before and now especially since it is thus openly declared and manifested it ought not to be thus opposed and slighted by men of corrupt minds which affirm it is an error to say that Christ enlightens ever man that cometh into the World and yet at length are forced to confess it as in these words viz. That it is Supernatural the Light of the Gospel of the Messias c. And thus they are confounded and broken to pieces and their wisdom turned backward by this convincing Light this stumbling stone this Rock of offence which they cannot avoid stumbling at and falling upon and breaking to pieces who set themselves against it and bring forth their vain imaginations to eclipse its glory as too many of this Generation hath done And now touching the Scriptures being a Declaration of the Word of God but not the Word nor the only Rule of Faith and Life which T. D. sets down as an Error wherein he hath no less then accused the Scriptures themselves with being Error For first we in calling them a true Declaration we call them what they call themselves Luke 1. as also that they are Writings given forth by the holy men of God and that which they call the Word we do also the Word was in the beginning with God John 1. and his Name is called the Word of God yet both the Doctrinal part and Historical part of the Scripture contained in the Books of the Old and New Testaments we own and never sleighted nor denied yet if we should look upon them as the only Rule of Faith and Life this would exclude the Rule and guidance of the Spirit for the only Rule must be infallible certain incorruptible obvious c. which leads into all Truth as either not sufficient so to guide or not to be owned as the Rule of Faith and Obedience to God c. and this would be contrary to the Testimonies of the holy men of God concerning it who followed it and directed others to it and to walk in this Spirit and therein they knew their several attainments and measures and herein was the Rule of the new Creature who worshipped not in the oldness of the Letter but in the newness of the Spirit Rom. 7.6 2 Cor. 10.13 14 15. Phil. 3.15 16. Gal. 6.15 16. And we know that without the guidance of this Spirit of Truth men can never come to a right judgment nor understanding of the holy Scriptures or Spiritual things And how then doth T. D. go to prove the Scripture to be the Word and the only Rule of Faith and Life whilst he hath granted that to bring a testimony of Scripture concerning it self were petitio principii a begging the question and were insignificant for their conviction which deny its Divine Authority What course then will he take to convince such seeing he himself doth but follow his notions conceivings and humane understanding while Divine Revelation and immediate Inspiration are laid aside and opposed in these dayes by such as he Pag. 65. he saith he will give a taste of our Arguments and leave our tenents to the judgment of the understanding c. What understanding and what Judgment must be the Guide and Rule of mens judgements and undertandings if the Light within must not be the Rule for after he hath asserted the Scriptures to be the only Rule of Faith presently he hath put himself upon a Hanck and shakes his own Foundation in confessing the Scriptures insufficient for the conviction of such who deny its Divine Authority otherwise it s but a begging the question to go to prove the Scriptures by themselves and now what he will erect as a Rule instead thereof for the conviction of such whilst he hath opposed the Light within and asserted the insufficience of the Scriptures shewing them not to be the only Rule is questionable whether he knoweth himself if he doth let him tell it to them that desire it And Pag. 66. It is to be observed one while he tell us of the Judgment of the Vnderstanding another while the matter contained in the Scriptures was the Rule before it was committed in writing and that the Gospel was preached to Adam And again when they affirm the Scripture to be the only Rule its intended to them who have the Scriptures and not to them that have them not Pag. 67. And presently after we must understand this point with connexion with the former the Light within So do but mark what confusion here is First 't is his own confession that the matter contained in the Scripture was before it was written Secondly That to them who have not the Scriptures something must be the Rule and what is it the Light within having no other way as he saith Now if the Light within and the matter contained in the Scriptures be a sufficient Rule to them which have them not in the Writing surely its sufficiency is not diminished by the writing but rather testified unto neither is it the intent of the Scriptures to draw people from either the matter or Light within which opens them nor to set up Scriptures as the only Rule instead thereof But then saith T. D. that very Scripture Rom. 10.8 speaks not of the Light within but of the Scriptures Answ. It speaks of the very same Word which Moses and the Prophets spake of which was before the Scriptures were written in Moses's time much of them was unwritten and yet he directed the people to
the Word and the Apostle called it the Word of Faith which was nigh them in their mouthes and in their hearts but saith T. D. It is not the Light within but the Scriptures as if he should say the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were in their mouthes and hearts but this Word of which they give testimony was in the hearts of all the holy men of God that gave forth the Scriptures before they writ them and it was a Lamp to David's feet and a Light to his path and he hid it in his heart that he might not sin c. Psal. 119.11 verse 115. and the Word is for ever setled in Heaven verse 89. this was that which quickned sanctified and saved the Righteous in and thorow all Generations and of this the Scriptures or Writings do testifie in which are words of God but the Word was before they were spoke or writ And T. D.'s accusing the Quakers for not owning the Authority of the Scriptures is false for we are in the Spirit that gave forth and openeth and brings to the right use and end of them and in the same Spirit can and do make use of them not only to prove our Tenents and to Confute our Opposers but also to obey and practice the things contained in them which are truly moral and Christian as the Spirit of Truth doth direct and enable T. D. We are not now to expect any new discovery of Truth as to the matter revealed but only as to the person whom God enlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Answ. First If no new Discovery then what is in Scriptures then no need of Popish and Heathenish Authors to prove distinct and separate personal Subsistances in God nor any other such traditional distinctions which obscures the simplicity of Scripture Truth and darkens the minds of People but people should rather be referred singly to the Scripture Phrase and Language and to search them in the Light of Christ within Secondly if the discerning of the Scripture is from God's enlightning them people ought to be recommended to God to wait in his Light to know his Counsel and direction therein or otherwise they will remain ignorant of the Scriptures and Revelation of the things declared Again it s well that T. D. confesseth that there are Prophesies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens birth as also personal experiences c. So now at length he doth a little assent to Truth as if he were a little convinced by S. Fisher's Answer to him that he doth not now bind up all to the Scriptures but confesseth that Prophesies Histories and personal experiences to be before the Pen-mens birth But herein he hath but manifested his uncertainty and wavering to and again one while opposing the Sufficiency of the Light and placing all upon the Scriptures as the only Rule another while upon the matter contained in the Scriptures which was before the Scriptures were written and was written on the heart of the Gentiles another while the Light within he seems to assent unto as in pag. 67. for them that have not Scripture another while Prophesies and Experiences where before the Scripture and thus at length the Spirit or Light that gave forth the Scriptures must be preferred as the most certain and universal Guide and Rule as indeed it is to all them who follow obey and believe in it and this Light the blind corrupt imaginary Teachers whose knowledge and profession is but natural and traditional cannot corrupt as they have done the Scriptures by their false glosses meanings and private interpretations contrary to the intent and end of the Spirit of God which gave them forth and which leads into all Truth and Righteousness for a further Answer to T. D. touching this matter I do refer the Reader to S. Fisher's Book titled Rusticus ad Accademicos And as for his accusing Quakers with error touching Baptism and the Lords Supper as to their ceasing and setting up the appearance of Christ within c. Answ. The one Baptism Ephes. 4.5 into the one Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and the eating drinking and supping with Christ at the table of the Lord in his house and Kingdom we own and experience but what Baptism it is he intends whether sprinkling Infants or John's Baptism he hath not discovered neither indeed doth it concern him now to make such a frivolous pudder against the Quakers upon this account for indeed we do not look upon him either as a true Minister nor as having a call either from God or man as one impowered to impose things he calls Ordinances its probable when he was Parish Priest at Sandwich in Kent in Cromwel's time he could shew a greater force for his impositions then now he can in Houses and Corners where he and his Brethren can creep and not only so but be ready to obscure and hide themselves if but a little Storm and Trial come He stiles himself sometime Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich but is not rather that report of him true that there he was given to Gaming Bowls and Nine-pins c But as to the appearance and enjoyment of Christ within we do confess him to be the Substance and the Living Bread and in him we are kept not only in a Living remembrance but also in a real Possession of the Power and Vertue of his Life having known a conformity to his Death which is more then a remembrance of it and we know him to be the enduring Divine Substance which ends all Types Shaddows and Figures and his Coming and Appearance in the Flesh wherein he went through the Types and Shaddows as Circumcision John's Baptism observing the Passover at his Supper and his Sufferings did make way for his coming in the Spirit as he consecrated a new and living way through the Vail that is to say his Flesh now the coming of Christ until which his Dispiples were to shew forth his Death in the observation of the figure this coming they did not put afar off as our Opposers yet do how long they know not it being already above Sixteen hundred years since and yet this his coming is still put off whereas the Disciples after they were with Christ at his last Supper were Witnesses of his coming after his Resurrection and also of his Spiritual Coming and Revelation in their hearts and now to suppose that what the Disciples did to shew his Death was till a third Coming not yet manifest is to overlook the two former as no Comings as also to render Christs own words and Promises ineffectual who said Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Matth. 16.28 Mark 9. Luke 9.27 And as to 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. wherein the Apostle repeats what Christ did the same night he was betrayed in giving the Bread and Cup
not subsist in a several and distinct nature of the same kind so as they are not three Gods as is confessed pag. 3. how are they three distinct or separate persons subsisting each by himself These things being considered by the impartial Readers the absurdity of the Presbyterians Doctrine and Comparison touching the Deity will easily appear And what was this Aquinas quoted as T. D's Author so much cited and commented by him as a wise Observant pag. 19 Was not he a great Writer for the Romish Religion and the Pope's Doctrine of Transubstantiation and so a promoter of Popery in his time and canonized 〈◊〉 Saint among them see his large Volums his Sums and others he is highly applauded by the Papists as being an industrious Promoter of their Faith and Religion and was he not a Dominican Fryer To whom it appears that T. D. is very much beholding for his Doctrine of three distinct or sever'd Persons in the Godhead more then he is to Scripture for that is silent concerning it but I have of late Read it in Aquinas his Sums who is Tho. Danson's wise Observant And further mark that after T. D. has confessed that the word Person cannot be properly attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost and that the Names common to God and the Creatures do signifie somthing wherein the Creatures bears some anology to God and three Persons not strictly yet anologically in the Godhead pag. 3 4. Where proves he this by Scripture and wherein doth man bear a proportion or likeness in his Person with his Maker this is strange Doctrine importing that the Diety hath the resemblance or likeness of persons but not properly which if improperly why do they stand so much upon their improper distinctions in the Godhead Yet saith T. D. may this word Person be used by us to distinguish the Father Son and Spirit in the Godhead and one from another Answer So it appears he pleads for a liberty to put improper names upon God from his pretence of anology the Scripture he mentions Hebr. 1.3 makes against him it being the express Image of his Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as it is in some English Copies express Image of his Person however it is not the express Person of his Person much less the express singular Person or rational Substance subsisting by it self distinct from the Father For I and my Father are one said Christ and the Son doth nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do and the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and if so be that the Soul separated from the Body cannot be called a Person as T. D. saith pag. 2 3. how can he presume to call the Spirit which is the Life or Breath of God a Person distinct from God whilst God is never distinct and separate from his own Life But then it appears that T. D. is necessitated to call the Glorious Divine three in Heaven somthing and therefore he saith that distinction in the Godhead cannot be apprehended by us by any other notion or resemblance then Person and saith he we know not what to call these three but Persons pag. 4. For the conception or notion that we have of the Father suppose as a Subsistent or Person is in adaequatus conceptus in respect of the Divine Essence c. pag. 17. Reply But by what doth he and his Brethren apprehend this concerning God surely neither by the Scripture not by immediate Revelation or Inspiration nor yet by reason for that has failed them in this matter as also the nature and works of God is above their reach and the comprehension of the Creature so that their conceptions and notions being unscriptural we have no ground to believe them whilst we have but their conceptions words and notions for what they say derived from Popish and Heathen Authors and not from any immediate Power Revelation or Scripture and his saying they do not know what to call these three but Persons shews they were hard put to it as being necessitated to call them something but what are they ignorant of the Scripture or would not the Scripture satisfie them and yet profess it their Rule they had better search the Scriptures instead of Aquinas and Aristotle and see what they are called there viz. The Father the Word and Holy Ghost which are One besides these three bearing record in Heaven T. D. hath elsewhere called them Witnesses pag. 5 7 and 10. and thus he contradicts himself one while he knows not what to call them but Persons and another while calls them three Witnesses from their bearing Record and thus in contradiction he knows what to call them besides Persons but then he saith all Witnesses properly so called are Persons How proves he that Are not all things that bear record Witnesses Are Heaven and Earth Persons and are the Water and the Blood Persons seeing they bear record in the Earth and is Conscience in a man a Person distinct from the man seeing Conscience beareth witness if it be how then is the Soul distinct from the Body no Person page 3 5. T. D. upon 1 John 5.9 the Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ verse 7. not to verse 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Reply And yet those Witnesses verse 8. are the Spirit the Water and the Blood herein T. D. hath denied the Spirit to be God contrary to their former pretence and so is come under that they have so unjustly charged us withal but we own the Divinity of that Spirit that bears record in the Earth and know the Water and Blood which agree in one with it to be therefore Spiritual and of this water and Spirit a man must be born or else he cannot enter the Kingdom of God Joh. 13.5 and by this Blood his Conscience must be sprinkled from dead works who ever comes to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary And we may further observe how dubious T. D. in his Work hath appeared from what he saith pag. 83. viz. If my Answers seem not so clear as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a Mystery so by that it rebates the sharpest edge of humane understanding c. By which the Reader may take notice that he was conscious to himself that his Answers in this case might not seem so clear as the Objections and that he has but made use of his humane understanding and not of Scripture therein the Edge of which is so rebated and grown so dull that it will take very little impression upon any that are in a right mind and understanding even none at all upon such who rely not nor lean to their own understandings but upon the guidance of the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth which it appears he has refused and gone from whilst he is now fain to make use of his humane understanding
and his own notions and conceptions which are not grounded on Scripture and therefore we may not have our Faith imposed upon by them as to accept of his humane conceptions and notions which cannot reach the nature of God for divine verities And how says T. D. That infiniteness being a property of the Divine Nature agrees to each Person subsisting in that Nature contrary to his worthy Master Vincent's saying that infiniteness is not ascribed unto the Personality but such like confusion and conrradiction we have enough of from them And indeed such nonsensical stuff as is in both their Pamphlets I have seldom met withal as one while T. D. saith We do not affirm the Person in the Godhead to be finite but infinite another while T. V. saith infiniteness is not ascribed to them another while T. D. saith pag. 14. That they are one among themselves only in respect of that wherein they agree not simply What kind of oneness or agreement doth he reckon is in the Diety if it be not simply Was there ever such darkness and confusion uttered and what blind Sophistry and silly Logick and babling do these men use and put upon the Immortal God whom with all their inventions airy notions and vain conceptions they can never reach the knowledge of neither will nor can their Heathenish Phylosophy tearms of Aristotle nor apostate Christians and Papists demonstrate or discover the Knowledge of either Father Word or Spirit to any people that want the knowledge thereof but make them more dark and ignorant and shut them up in more blindness as they have a long time done And his saying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may by a metalepsis yea must be rendred Person or Subsistent or some word to that effect and so tells that Just. Martyr applies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Father Son and Spirit pag. 17. Reply Surely T. D. is put very hard to it to word his Doctrine by his Anology and Metalepsis for his distinctions of Persons and his thereby rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person of necessity Where proves he this and those tearms by Scripture and if they signifie one and the same thing why is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebr. 1.3 and Chap. 11.1 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As in Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the Substance of things hoped for it is not Person of things hoped for the same word that is for Substance in that is Hebr. chap. 2. verse 3. where it is speaking of the Son of God who being the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance Besides what ever Authors or Fathers so called did put names distinctions and tearms upon the Godhead which were either improper or unscriptural we must believe the Scriptures rather then them And do they count all Justin Martyr wrot One hundred fifty years after Christ to be of equal Authority with the Scriptures of Christ and the Apostles Or might not probably Justin bring in some of his Philosophy which is not Scripture And we do not read in the Scriptures either of three distinct Substances in God or three distinct Persons for where are they so rendred either in the Hebrew Greek Latine or English in Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelations But if they be not three Substances as Tho. Vincent saith how doth T. Danson make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equivolent or apply both to Father Son and Spirit Is not here a manifest contradiction between these two Brethren unto themselves and their own Doctrine in this matter As for T. D. his Discourse about satisfaction there needs not much to be said unto it for that the matter hath been answered before as also in part he assents to W. P. in what he hath said for he T. D. doth not affirm any impossibility of forgiviness without a plenary satisfaction made as in the sence and notion some of them have c. And though he knows some worthy Persons do deny W. P's Affirmative yet he cannot joyn with them therein He saith also God is free in his determinations what attribute he will manifest and in what degree and manner and that between Justice and Mercy and their effects and all of his meer will interveens c. By all which in a great measure he hath confest to what W. P. hath writ in that case though in contradiction to his Brother Vincent as is evident But where he speakes of Vindictive Justice that God might onely have manifested when man fell as he does upon the reprobate Angels or Devils c. Now I query then Is this Vindictive Justice that which Christ under-went at God's hand and satisfied according to their Doctrine if they say it is where do the Scriptures say so or that God inflicted the same revengefull justice as I think they mean upon Christ that he doth upon the reprobate Angels or Devils and then make this the means and manner of full satisfaction for mankind let us have plain Scripture for this Doctrine was God's Love to man purchased by such revenge upon his innocent Son as he lays upon reprobate Angels or Devils or is it not rather blasphemous to suppose that Christ could ever be so far out of Gods favour as to construe his Sufferings to the height of revenge as goes against reprobate Angels and Devils and doth not this also accord with T. V. his Doctrine whereas Chrit was the beloved of the Father even his onely begotten the Son of his Love in whom his Soul delighted and was always well pleased both in his works and Sufferings both in his life and death for Sinners but angry with the wicked such as persecuted him and crucified him afresh unto themselves as he was also crucified in Spiritual Sodom and Egypt such Adversaries God will be avenged of but his pleasure shall prosper in the hand of his Anointed Seed Christ but these things T. D. his weak judgement as he confesseth it to be pag. 18. cannot reach And indeed in much of his Discourse about this matter he has talked more like a Lawyer then a Divine and has brought several similitudes which will not hold in matters of such high concernment But I shall not need much to take notice of his dark kind of reasoning in this particular which proceeds but from his weak judgemnt and private conceptions since the matter is answered elsewhere and the extent of his and their Principles therein is further manifest and handled about his and their Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness and his Arguments for Sin and Imperfection in all tearm of life yet a little to some particulars I may observe by the way of this point after he saith he shall give us his sence confessing that Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase pag. 19. However we will chuse Scripture phrase rather then T. D's weak judgment and conceptions therein having
could suffer pag. 55. Contrad T. V. It being impossible for any finite Creature to make plenary Satisfation to the infinite Justice of God which requireth an infinite Satisfaction pag. 54 55. If Christ had not been God as well as Man the Sufferings and Satisfaction would have been but finite Obs. First This Person that should make satisfaction by suffering and death it seems now is counted a Creature which yet as such could not satisfie infinite Justice as Contradictorily is confessed But as before it 's said He was the Eternal Son of God proved to be God equal with the Father but now in Contradiction again it was as God and Man that he satisfied whereas it was not as God that he suffered and died but we confess that God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself T.V. Christ did bear the punishment of our sins viz. the curse and punishment our sins deserved that he might give Satisfaction unto God's Justice pag. 57 58. Obs. Query But did God undergo that punishment surely nay Or did Christ as man undergo that eternal Punishment Death and Curse due to sinners Could Christ's Death or Temporal Sufferings be Eternal Yet still we confess That God both had and hath still full satisfaction and pleasure in his Son Christ the Anointed the Lamb that was offered without spot to God a Sacrifice for sin though your abuse of Christ confusion and darkness in stating your Matter we cannot own as proceeding from any sence or savour of Christ either as a Sacrifice or Saviour T.V. His Righteousness obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law pag. 54. Our righteousness are as filthy Raggs Contrad T. V. He doth Exercise his Justice freely as he doth love his Image in his people freely pag. 65. Obs. Then your filthy Raggs cannot cover you from his vengeance for therein you are not in his Image which he loves freely in his People and yet you would be accounted his People where you are it 's high time for you to Repent and no longer cover your selves with such Raggs polluted Garments For God will lay you bare and naked 3. Of Justification T.D. There is no need of inherent Righteousness for Justification Contradiction But yet there is need of it to make us meet for Heaven Col. 1.12 pag. 45. Contrad Inherent gives us a fitness for the injoying of it it lying in Communion with God without likeness of disposition there can be no liking of each other pag. 46. Obs. What then are persons in a Justified state while they are neither meet for Heaven not fit to enjoy it nor yet partakers of that which makes like to God and brings into Communion with him Which is this inherent Righteousness of Christ as it is called which T.D. hath shut out as not needful for Justification contrary to plain Scripture 1 Cor. 6.11 Rom. 2.13 Jam. 2.21 Heb. 12.14 T.D. Satisfaction is a compensation or recompence made to God for injury done him by sin which may be both by doing and suffering Vindictive Justice Contrad T. V. Godliness is enjoyned upon all pag. 67. Obs. How then did Christ undergo infinite Wrath from offended infinite Justice that sinners and sin deserved when he never sinned For here every one is to obey and answer the pure Law of God viz. by Godliness and if Godliness be enjoyned upon all I ask must all remain in a sinful ungodly state and Commands to Perfection be construed but as the measure of our duty according as T. D. saith pag. 57. who formerly affirmed also That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us was meant in Christ and not in our persons so then must we look on Christ as his being Godly Righteous Obedient to Death for men fully to satisfie and take off the Righteous Injunction laid upon them to Godliness perfect Obedience c. That it is to be meant Christ must be perfect for us he is to be only the subject of all those Commands enjoyning perfect Obedience Righteousness and Holiness and not we which is as absurd and all one as to say That when God Commands us by his Grace not to sin but to be perfect or perfectly to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live godly soberly c. That he all this while intends his Son Jesus Christ as the subject of these Commands And whereas he never said Son Jesus Christ Do not thou sin be not thou ungodly do thou deny worldly lusts live thou godly soberly be thou perfect for all and it shall satisfie me fully instead of Perfection or Righteousness in men seeing none can be perfect or free from sin in this life c. But this absurd Course is the current tenour and intent of our Opposers Doctrine And yet they must confess That Christ never sinned nor could sin neither was there guile found in his mouth so their presenting him only as the subject of perfect Obedience and not Men or Believers is all one as to say That all those Commands directed to us for that end was only intended to Christ for T.D. construes his Satisfaction and Payment in men's stead to consist in both Doing and Suffering viz. Both in Christ's Obedience and Subjection to the Law and God's Precepts as also to its Penalties and Curses pag. 19 20. But T. V. layeth it upon his Death in their room and thus they manifestly Contradict themselves whereas God was alwayes well pleased or satisfied in Christ both in his active obedience and also in his passive subjection to suffering death as man even in all his whole Conversation Ministry Life and Death for Mankind he being a perfect Sacrifice for sin but God is not therefore satisfied with man out of Christ or out of obedience to the Law of his Spirit but as he comes to be found in Christ having and possessing his Righteousness within and the Life and Effects thereof which doth not admit of sin and imperfection term of life seeing as is Confessed by T.D. and T.V. That God loves his Image in his People freely and without likeness of disposition there can be no likeing of each other And surely the Image likeness and disposition of God in his People is pure and perfect which sin and imperfection bears no resemblance of T.V. No persons being the subjects of Gospel Justification but as ungodly that is as having sinned Contrad T. V. Where he removeth the guilt of sin he also removeth the filth of sin Justification and Sanctification being unseparable Companions Justification is never without Sanctification Obs. See the apparent Contradiction here in this latter to the former for here note then That no Persons are the subjects of Gospel Justification as ungodly or as in their sins but as being sanctified and the filth of sin removed so then justified not in sin but in the Truth and Righteousness of Christ they being washed cleansed and sanctified and only such are they that are Justified in the Name
of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 6.11 T. D. Satisfaction is not a Scripture phrase but the thing is found there to wit a Compensation made to God for the injury done him by our sin which may be by doing or suffering or both Justice that is Vindictive pag. 19. Contrad T. D. Those places that speaks of the turning away of Divine Wrath by Christ's Obedience which Wrath is but an Inclination to punish pag. 22. Christ's Obedience cannot properly work upon God's Will Contradiction again Contrad T.D. The Deliverer undergoes that Evil in kind or equivalently which he that is Delivered should have undergone pag. 24. Obs. What Evil was it that sinners deserved or should have undergone do you not confess it was the Wrath and Vengeance of God Hell Everlasting Damnation and Punishment from his just hand And did Christ the Deliverer undergo all that What a strange Object is he here rendred and yet he was both God and innocent Man But how doth this hold with that before That it was but an Inclination to punish What apparent Ignorance and Contradiction is here And is this the great Glory Power Soveraignty Divine Love Mercy and Goodness that you ascribe to the infinite God to lay such a limit upon him as that he could not forgive pardon or pass by former offences without exacting not only full Payment but Revenge and Punishment upon the Surety viz. his innocent beloved Son even the same in kind due to the Transgressors whereas the Scripture saith The Chastizement of our Peace was upon him which is not the same with Everlasting Wrath and Vengeance from the immediate hand of God which I cannot believe was so laid on Christ whose Mercies are over all his Works and particularly mankind but his Wrath is revealed against all ungodliness T.D. Upon actual Faith he layeth aside his anger quite and becomes our friend pag. 33. Obs. Then it appears his Anger is not quite laid aside nor Friendship with him obtained till Actual Faith How has T. D. overthrown and given away their Cause herein Faith and Repentance must be Experienced or else Anger is not quite laid aside T. D. Though the thing be true and owned by us viz. That Christ could not satisfie God's Justice as Man or as God singly p. 34. Obs. Could not God satisfie himself What a strange limitation is here laid upon the infinite God And surely as God-Man as your term is he was not under the same Evil Wrath or Everlasting Punishment which was due to the Transgressors For God did not deal so with himself but he commended his Love to us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us he died for our sins but was raised for our Justification it was Christ that died yeâ— rather that he is risen again T. D. The Father's gift of the Son for our Redemption depends on nothing but himself Our Doctrine represents not the Son kinder than the Father The Father and Son as God are equally kind to man and equally angry at man's sin p. 36 37 38. Obs. If equally kind to man then why did T.V. lay such an Impossibility on God of freely pardoning But then doth T. D. think he amends it by considering God as a Creditor and so as a private Person pag. 32. Where proves he this in all the Scriptures And if the Father and Son be equally angry at man's sin then man must Repent and forsake his sins before their anger be wholly removed or either fully pleased or satisfied concerning man For where was there a third Person substituted to pacifie the Anger of both Howbeit God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christ and concerning all his Works Sufferings and Sacrifice in order to man's Salvation and we are accepted in the Beloved of God for whose sake and in whom we have received Remission Righteousness Life and Peace with God having received Christ the Righteousness of God for that end T. D. A state of freedom from sin is not attainable in this life and yet commanded Matth. 5.48 and that no man ever did attain a state of Perfection pag. 55.57 T.D. Christ was not ashamed to call us Brethren Heb. 2.11 that is fellow subjects for being one in nature with us he becoms one with us in an obligation c. pag. 20. J.O. Christ gave himself for us that he might Redeem us from all iniquity 1 Pet. 1.18 pag. 160. It would altogether unbecome the Holy God to pardon sinners that continue so to live and die in their sins p. 179. T. D. That Mystical Union betwixt Christ and his People by their dependance upon him in all the good they do is as near and intimate as that of the branches upon the Vine by vertue of their natural Union in bearing fruit pag. 47. Some Passages out of Edward Stillingfleet's Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ which are evidently Contradictory to John Owen and Tho. Danson PAges 269 270. The state of the Controversie hath been rendered more abscure by the mistakes of some who have managed it with greater zeal than judgment they have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to Assaults It is easie to observe That most of Socinus his Arguments are Levelled against an Opinion which few who have considered those things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and ridgid Satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of Debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict Payment Against this Socinus Disputes from the Impossibility of Christ's paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was eternal death and that as the consequence of inherent Guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo If a Mediator could have paid the same then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the Old pag. 271. But if there be a Relaxation or Dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows That what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the Obligation But if it be said That the dignity of the Person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment this is a plain confession That it is not the same c. Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense there would have followed a deliverance ipso facto for the Release immediately follows the payment of the same and it had been Injustice to have required any thing further in order to the discharge of the offender when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the Obligation But we see that Faith and Repentance and the Consequences of