Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	james_n	justify_v	30,002	5	9.4646	5	true

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 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

Humane Nature and a righteousnesse whereof he is the efficient but not the subject nor was it ever formally existent in him as the spirits were in the brain which are communicated thence to other parts of the body and that is the righteousnesse in the Saints and that these are two righteousnesses though of one species in respect of the subjects and use of them That I denyed that the Saints were justified by that Christ hat was in them Reply I may say to thee R. H. as David to Doeg Thou lovest lying rather than to speak righteousness Psal 52.3 I denyed that the Saints are justified by Christ within them i. e. by the works of Christ within them which have in that phrase the name of the efficient given to them by a metonymy but not that they are justified by that Christ that was in them and when one of the Quakers prated to the same purpose with this man that I made two Christs I expresly told him my meaning to be not by Christ as in the Saints but as far were the words from my mouth as the thoughts from my heart to say that it was not one and the same Christ that justifies and sanctifies That David when he was guilty of adultery and murder was not in a condemned state but in a justified estate Reply I grant the whole and have said more for the proof of it than this man or any of his Brethren can answer That I said the passage Heb. 12.23 Spirits of just men made perfect was meant of them in Heaven not on earth which saies R. H. cannot be because the Apostle wrote to them on earth and did not write to men after they were deceased Reply The Apostle intends that 't is the priviledge of the Saints on earth who are unperfect to be one body and society with them in Heaven who are perfect and this he might say though the persons he wrote to were living That any creature that holds that principle of being Justified by a righteousness within living and dying in that principle cannot come to Heaven And against this R. H. urges that Christ is the Justifier of them that believe and his Doctrine is I in them and they in me so Christ and his Righteousnesse is in the Saints Reply Put in any man instead of any Creature which was not my phrase and add to within but us and I acknowledge the whole sentence and to your argument from the union between Christ and the Saints I say but this that if it makes us to be the subject of whatever Christ was the subject because he is in us then I hope it will make Christ the subject of whatever we are because we are in him and then Christ is a sinner by inherent defilement unlesse all who are united to him be from the fi●st moment of that union free from sin which is a Doctrine as false as falshood can make it That that which fitted men for the inheritance of the Saints in Light did not entitle to the inheritance which saies R. H. is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine Col. 1.12 And the Father both fitted them for the inheritance and did entitle and give them a part in the inheritance Reply See the baseness of this man he would make the Reader believe that I denied the Fathers giving right and possession and making meet for it when as I spake of things not of persons of the cause of our title and of that which made us meet for possession without which Heaven would not be a place or state of blisse and that the righteousnesse in Christ as a subject was the cause of our title and the righteousnesse wrought in us by Christ makes us meet for possession That we cannot contain an infinite righteousness in us To which R. H. replies then you cannot contain the righteousness of God for it is infinite and then you cannot contain Christ in you who is Gods righteousnesse and who is infinite Reply The righteousnesse whi●h God works in us is but finite as well as other effects and the mystical union between Christ and the Saints by Faith does no more conclude their participation of incommunicable attributes than the hypostatical union between Christs humane and Divine Nature does infer that what was before such union proper to one should be common to both natures as Omnipotency Omniscience to the humane weakness mortality to the Divine Nature That it was false Doctrine to say that a man must first partake of the righteousness which justifies before it can be imputed to him as his To which R. H. replies that the Saints did partake of Gods righteousness through Faith except that this Dr. would count that to be a mans which he hath no right to nor part in Reply Mark the juggling of this fellow who would intimate that I denied a participation of Gods righteousnesse through Faith when as that was the thing I contended for and which they denied that we did partake of Gods righteousnesse by Faith to justification That which I affirmed to be false Doctrine was that the righteousnesse which justifies is in us and I asserted that we being justified by the righteousness of another there can be no way of conveying such ri●hteousnesse but by imputation and thereby the benefit of anothers righteousnesse may redound to us as if we were the subjects of it That God offers salvation to all men but he intends it onely to a few which Doctrine saies R. H. makes the offers to no purpose to thousands and is a belying of God and makes God a respecter of persons and how then is Christ given to be salvation to the ends of the earth c. Reply I did not affirm that God offers salvation to all men for many ages and generations never had one offer of it 1 Tim. 3. last The Apostle makes Christ preached to the Gentiles one part of the mystery of godliness but I affirmed and do among those who hear the Gospel salvation is offered to more than to whom it is intended And as for your cavils I answered them in my discourse with Mr. Fisher The offer is to some purpose to the same with natural light viz. to leave men without excuse Rom. 1.20 So that they cannot say as we may suppose Heathens might had we known of a remedy for our misery we would have used it and to other purposes but one instance shall suffice you bely our Doctrine in saying 't is a belying of God for God does not pretend to intend the benefit offered to all to whom it is offered R●m 11.7 The El●ction hath obtained it and the rest were blinded And besides he offers it to all upon condition of acceptance and could you suppose that all would take him at his word and accept his offer they should have the benefit thereof And this last answer will suffice though other considerations might be added to that Objection of making God a respecter of persons Did God give