Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	abraham_n	faith_n	perfect_a	4,924	5	9.0614	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

come in at a pinch to help when none else could is a great constraint to obedience upon all the dead for whom Christ died That place is fully parallel and opens this putting but Christ in stead of God into the former clause God commendeth his love toward us speaking of believers v. 1 2. in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.8 G. Whithead Still thou pervertest Scripture by thy meanings T. Danson I pervert it not but I reconcile the Scripture to it self G. Whithead The Scripture is at unity with it self and needs not thy reconciling 'T is said the Scripture cannot be broken T. Danson I say so too that the Scripture is at unity with it self but withall that it seems to disagree and cannot approve it self to our understandings without the mediation of a meaning or interpretation It was an usual thing with Christ to speak words of a doubtful sense as John 3.19 Destroy this Temple which they understood of the material Temple he being in it at the time v. 15. and likely enough speaking with his eye as well as his tongue v. 20. but he meant of the temple of his body v. 21. G. Whithead Thou art such a giver of meanings as they were who gave it contrary to Christs meaning T. Danson Whether I be such a one or no is not for you to judge in your own cause ● leave it to the understanding hearers But in the mean while the place serves my purpose viz. to prove that Christ's meaning may be mistaken when his words are taken in the most ordinary and literal sense and so it would be if by every man we should understand every individual man so that 't is your self and not I that am such a giver of meanings as the Jews G. Whithead How canst thou prove that thou art to give meanings to Scripture T. Danson I do not pretend to power to give meanings to Scripture as your phrase is if you mean thereby adding any thing to the Scripture which is not in it but to find out what already is by causing the Scriptures with the Cherubims to face one another that is my duty and all other mens This the Scripture warrants Neh. 8.8 So they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading And I should be glad to know of any of you who are against meanings how you can understand such Scriptures as these without a meaning God is not a man that he should repent It repenteth me that I have made man God tempted Abraham God tempts no man Answer not a fool according to his folly Answer a fool according to his folly And once more Paul and James The former saies that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 And the other flatly contradicts him in terms that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2.24 When as any of these do sweetly consent if the ambiguity of phrases be once removed As for instance in Paul and James the one speaks of being formally justified the other declaratively Justification in Paul is opposite to the condemnation of a sinner in general and justification in James is opposite to the condemnation of an hypocrite in particular In Pauls sense a sinner is absolved in James's sense a believer is approved So Diodat whose words I used but forgot to name him in the discourse Here the two disputants had nothing to say but what was absurd and impertinent and thereupon I desired we might leave what had been spoken to the hearers judgment and to go on to another Question which at length was agreed to The Second Question was Whether in this life the Saints attain to a state of perfection or freedom from sin This they held in the affirmative T. Danson Your Doctrine of perfection is against the tenour of the Scripture let us hear what you can say for the proof of it R. Hubberthorn 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin T. Danson That cannot be meant of freedom from sin but either there is an emphasis in the word sin intending under that general term one kind or sort of sin which is spoken of 1 John 5.16 There is a sin unto death Or if not on the Substantive on the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes to make a trade or businesse of sin as 't is explain'd v. 8. where he uses the same verb for the Devil sinneth from the beginning He hath never ceased to sinne since he began thus indeed the Saints sin not but a course of sin is broken of● and there is not such a free trade between the soul and sin as in the state of unregeneracy whereof this is given for one character that cannot cease to sin 2 Pet. 2.14 G. Whithead Thou wrestest the Scriptures to thy own destruction T. Danson No I wrest them not if I do shew wherein And if you will observe either it must be meant of all Saints or none for the New birth agrees to all if then the phrase excludes the being of sin in some it must in all and mark the reason given because his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Now the seed remains in all as well as any now lest you should be so mad as to assert all Saints to be free from sin pray read 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and this is spoken of such persons as of whom it is denied that they commit sin persons that had fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ v. 3. Mr. Fisher Pray do not multiply words to no purpose but read v. ult If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar The born of God should lie if they did deny themselves to have sinned before they were in the new birth T. Danson Sir you must not think to put us off so v. 8. 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose the latter verse were to be understood of the sin which preceded the new birth yet the former is expresly de praesenti that we have not have had no sin and yet I see nothing to the contrary but that we hav● not sinned v. ult may relate to particular acts of sin in the state of the new birth denied either in whole or in part G. Whithead Phil. 3.15 As many as he perfect let us ●e thus minded T. Danson For the phrase upon which you ground your notion 't is used in a comparative sense 1 Cor. 2.6 speaks of grown Christians who could fancy the Gospel in a plain dress whom he cals perfect in comparison of others as he cals Babes in Christ carnal in respect of those who are more spiritual Ch. 3.1 And often in Scripture perfect is put for upright and made synonymous or of

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

the Law and by Christs righteousness that which is in Christ made his by Faith G. Whithead Then it seems you make two righteousnesses of Christ whereas the righteousness of Christ is but one T. D. Yes so I do what of that Do you think that the ri●h●eousness which the Apostle calls his own was not Christs Had he any righteousness which he had not received and yet that righteousness which was in the Apostle never was in Christ as the subj●ct but was wrought in him by Christ as an efficient cause And Christ had an inherent righteousness in respect of which he is said to know no sin and to be a Lamb without spot and blemish Are not here then two righteousnesses and they serve for two different ends the one for our just●fi●ation the other for our sanctification the one gives us a right to the inheritance of the Saints in light and the other makes us meet for possession G W●itehead Let me ask thee a question then are not we just●fied by Christ within us T.D. I answer no but by Christ without us G W●itehead If we are not justified by Christ within us then by another Christ and so thou preachest two Christs whereas Christ is not divided and thou dost that which thou chargest upon us preach another Gospel T. D. I did foresee the catch you intended ●n your question and answered you the more carelesly that I might see how you could improve your supposed advantage by i● But now I will answer you more punctually The Scripture by Christ w thin us understand● not the p●rson of Christ but h●s operat●ons the cause is put for the effect by a Metonymy a word too hard for your capac●ty Compare Col. 1.26 ●r st in you w●th Eph. 3.17 That Christ m●y dwell in your hearts by Faith And therefore it follows not that we make two Christs For we acknowledge that one and the same person just●fi●s us by a righteousness inherent in himself and sanct●fies us by a righteousnesse which he works in us by his Spirit So that when I deny justification by Christ within us however the words may sound to your ears yet to the judicious the meaning is obvious viz. that we deny our justification by that righteousnesse in us whereof Christ is the author but not that I make two Christs Two things are indeed expressed by the name of Christ his person and his operations in us and I deny the latter but assert the former for our righteousnesse to justification The Scripture speaks of two Christs Christ personal and Christ mystical if I should say not Christ mystical but Christ personal is our Saviour would you not speak wisely think you to say oh you make two Christs This distinction you may find Ch●ist pe●sonal Col. 2.8 9. not after Christ For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 As the body is one and hath many members c. so is Christ meaning the Church which v. ●7 he calls the body of Christ G. VVhitehead I will prove by the Scriptures that we are justified by our sanctification whi●h thou saiest does but make us meet not give us a ●itle which thou shalt see it does to the i●heritance Acts 20.32 And now Brethren I commend you to God and to the word of his grace which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified Gods grace gives an inheritance Here there was some disturbance among the people which occasioned VVhiteheads addresse to them and though I call'd to him often to take an answer he would not but at length Mr. Fisher started up and urged another Scripture and so this was omitted to it therefore I shall now return a brief answer That the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot refer to grace as this man would have it or if it did yet grace in●ends not sanctification but the favour of God which is the subject matter of the word which the Apostle cals v. 24. the Gospel of the Grace of God but it refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and should be read who is able c. and so it is nothing to his purpose Mr. Fisher I will prove we are justified by grace or sanctification Tit. 3.7 that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal l fe The grace by which we are said to be justified is the same with that which is called washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost v. 5. T. D. You are much mistaken Sir the grace v. 7. is not meant of sanctification but of the favour of God which is manifested in the donation of his Son to us imputation of his r●ghteousnesse and acceptance of us as righteous in him G. VVhitehead I shall prove that we are justified by Faith as the cause of our justification by the plain words of the Apostle Rom 4.3 Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness T. D. But pray observe how well this agrees with your former Doctrine that we are justified by a personal conformity to the whole Law and now you will prove that a conformity to one part will suffice You interferr and cut one leg against t'other and are not sensible of it Does not the Apostle oppose Faith and Works Now if Faith be considered as a work there 's no opposition between them And does not that opposition exclude Faith as a work Yes surely and is boasting excluded in justification by Faith as a work no but there is more ground of boasting in the vertue of Faith were that equivalent to universal obedience Read Rom. 3.27 Where is boasting then it is excluded By what Law of works nay but by the Law of Faith and chap. 4.5 To him that worketh not but believeth c. which plainly int●mates that Faith is opposed to it self as a work in the businesse of Justification and as for the words of the Text the act is put for the object to which it relates as if it had be●n in expresse terms Christ whom his Faith laid hold upon was imputed to him ●or righteousnesse But that Faith is imputed to us a● be●ng nstead of a perfect righteousness● personal or that 't is the meritorious cause of our justification I utterly deny G. Wh. Thou dost darken counsel by words without knowledge and pervertest the Scripture by thy meanings T. D. That 's your usual charge but I deny it the Scriptures attribute our just●fication to the righteousnesse of Christ in the same s●nce that th●y deny it to works Receiving of Christ and remission of sins is the Office of Faith and not to merit them _____ Here we fell into a discourse very abruptly about several Arminian points which for the Reasons mentioned in the Epistle I omit An Account of a Discourse April 19th between two Quakers Mr. FISHER R. HUBBERTHORN AND THOMAS DANSON THe first Question debated on was

salvation to some who accept not of it out of particular fancy to them but exact of others that acceptance and for default of it deny them salvation then there might be some ground for the cavil but now that 't is offered upon equal terms there is none And for Christ being given for salvation to the ends of the earth that imports not so much as that the offer much lesse the benefit should be of su●h extent in all ages and generations as I shewed before but the fulfilling of that prophecy bears date from the Apostolical Commission Mat. 28.19 and it intends that no Nation how remote soever from Judea should want the offer nor some of it the benefit of salvation That a Minister of the Gospel doth not know who are elected And to this R. H. says there he hath belied the Ministers of the Gospel for they could discern the elect from the world as 't is written Ye shall discern between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not and these Teachers who know not the elect and yet exhort all their hearers to believe their preaching is in vain Reply I see you are hard put to it for a Scripture to bring that Mal. 3. ult I could have fitted you with one that would have been more specious 1 Thes 1.4 Knowing Brethren beloved your Election of God As for Mal. 3. ult 't is not strictly true till the day of judgement Solomon says No man knows love or hatred by all that is before him I should rather think our preaching is to more purpose because we know not who are elect for the ignorance of that gives us a ground to hope well of any man and indeed it were to no purpose to preach to those who are not elected unlesse that of leaving them inexcusable did we certainly know who are elect and so who are not for the latter would have no ground of hope which now they have in the indefinite promise made of none effect through their unbelief did we let them know they were excluded out of Gods purpose of salvation That the sword of the Spirit is ineffectual without the Letter To which R. H. says the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God which was effectual before the Letter was Reply This man is so used to speak non-sense himself that he can understand it as well or better than good sense I did not say as he relates but that the Spirit was not wont to be ●ff ctual without the Letter or that he wrought upon the souls of men in and by the Letter of the Word and I gave that instance Rom. 10.17 Faith which is the Spirits work comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God As for what he sayes that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God if he means like a man in his oppositions he must mean Christ who but once is called the Word of God Rev. 19.13 And Christ cannot be intended Eph. 6.17 because he is not the sword of the Spirit but the Spirit his sword rather for by the Spirit he works in the hearts of men and therefore Gen. 6.3 he sayes My Spirit shall not alwayes strive with man which is meant of the holy Ghost as will appear by comparing it with Act. 7 51. where Stephen tells the Jews Ye do alwayes resist the holy Ghost Christ by the common operations of his Spirit strives with men and by the special operations thereof prevails with them That there was no Scripture written but what is extant and in the Bible Against which assertion R. H. produces the book of Nathan Iddo c. mentioned in the Bible which he sayes were written for the same end and use Reply It does not appear that any of the Books mentioned in the Old Testament and to which we are referr'd for further satisfaction in historical matters were of Divine Inspiration but we may rather conclude that the Holy Ghost mentioning no more of History than was necessary for our Instruction refers us for the rest which was not of the like necessity to books of humane original And though they are the Books of Prophets yet it follows not that they were divinely inspir'd For they might as well write from their own spirits or upon humane credit as sometimes speak from their own spirits 2 Sam. 7.3 Nathan told David when he spake of building a Temple Go do all that is in thine heart for the Lord is with thee whenas God for bad him by the same Prophet which prohibition is call'd the word of the Lo d that came to Nathan v. 4.5 plainly enough intimating that the incouragement he gave David before was but the word of man And indeed 2 Pet. 2. last speaking of the motion of the Holy Ghost to write the Scriptures seems to limit it to that which was intended for a sure word of prophecy wherunto we should do well to take heed c. v. 19. That there was no Scripture appointed of God to be a Rule of Faith and manners but what is bound up in the Bible Reply That was my assertion and besides what I spake I shall adde that 't is not enough if it could be proved that other writings besides those we have were of Divine Inspiration For besides such Inspiration to make a Rule is necessary Gods appointment of a writing to that end Hence 't is observable that John is bidden to write what he saw and heard in the Book of Revelation no lesse than twelve times and some things of the like inspiration he was forbidden to write because not intended for the same end Rev. 10.4 And when the seven thunders had uttered th●ir voices I was about to write and I heard a voice from Heaven saying unto me seal up c. and write them not John 20.30.31 A●d many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Discipl●s which are not wri●ten in ●his book but these are written that ye might bel●eve c. Those things which were not written might have b●en us●ful if they had been wr●tten for th●y were done for the same end with tho●e which are left u● yet because God thought that suffi●ient which we have we can look upon no more wi●h such regard as we do upon that That the letter doth antecede the Spirit in all that walked in the Spirit Reply I opened my own meaning as you may find in the dispute about the Scriptures and 't is this that the Spirits act of r●veal●ng the letter of the Scriptures antecedes the Spirits assistance in walking according to it That the works of Christ in some respect are not perfect To which R. H. saies that is false for every gift of God is perfect Reply I spake those words with reference to the work of sanc●ification which I affirmed to be imp●rfect in this life in comparison of what it is in the life to come For which I produced Phil. 3.12 Not as though I had already attained either were

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