PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

THE Quakers Folly Made manifeſt to all men: Or a True RELATION of what paſſed in Three DISPUTATIONS at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a Miniſter, viz. Mr. Samuel Fiſher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danſon. Wherein many Popiſh Tenents were by them Main­tained, and by him Refuted. OCCASIONED By an imperfect and (in many things) falſe Rela­tion of the ſaid Diſputations, Publiſhed by R. Hub­berthorn, one of the Three Quakers, which ſaid Relation is alſo Cenſur'd and amended. Together with a brief Narrative of ſome re­markable Paſſages.

By Tho. Danſon, late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now Miniſter of the Goſpel at Sandwich in Kent.

The Second Edition.

London, Printed by J. H. for John Allen at the Riſing Sun in Pauls Church-Yard, 1659.

Imprimatur,

Joſeph Caryl.
〈1 page duplicate〉

THE EPISTLE TO the READER.

Reader,

PErhaps thou wilt wonder, that I ſhould meddle with ſuch a Generation, as the Quakers, and thou maiſt be apt to think, that my time hangs on the Lug (as we ſay) and will not off at any conſiderable rate: But that thy wonder may ceaſe, and thy miſtake be rectified, I refer thee to the Narrative hereto annexed; which I hope will give thee ſatisfaction: The rea­ſon of my appearance in Print, the Title Page does truly inform thee of. I can aſ­ſure thee, it never was my ambition to appear ſo publickly, and had I conſidered the likelihood of the Quakers Printing, which would neceſſitate mine, I think I ſhould have waved any diſcourſe with them. But repentance is now too late, and per­haps unmeet, for God can ſerve himſelf by the meaneſt Inſtruments, among which I willingly rank my ſelf: I verily hope thou wilt ſee the men out of their diſ­guiſe, and wilt find cauſe ſufficient to think and ſpeak of them with pity and compaſsion; and of their opinions, with hatred and de­teſtation. I promiſe thee Reader, no more then ſhall be performed (viz.) a true account of our diſcourſes, I mean ſo much of them as was Argumentative, and pertinent to the Queſtions under debate. For thou muſt know, that the Quakers, like wantons, would have their vagaries ever and anon, and then I muſt ſay ſomwhat to them, or let them have all the talk, which by the ignorance of common people, would have been a prejudice to the cauſe of God which I defended. And I therefore choſe rather to out-word them (which is the reaſon why my Anſwers are oftentimes ſo large and laxe.) Many excurſions they made into Arminian points, which I was fain to per­mit, and to defend the Truths they oppo­ſed: All which I ſhall either wholly omit, or mention very ſparingly; becauſe they are not Errours of ſo high a nature, as thoſe which are the natural Members of that deformed Monſter, we call Quakeriſm.

The Names of Gentlemen, Miniſters, and others in the Margin, are a few (of very many) witneſses of the Terms of the Queſtions agreed to by the Quakers, and of other remarkable paſſages, and matters of fact, who will free me from the ſuſ­pition of a partial Relator. That theſe men may proceed no further, but that their folly may be manifeſt to all men, 2 Tim. 3.9. And that we henceforth be no more children, toſſed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, by the ſleight of men, and cunning craftineſſe, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but ſpeaking the Truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Chriſt, is the earneſt Prayer of,

Thy Servant for Jeſus ſake, Tho. Danſon.
1

An ACCOUNT of a DISPUTE April 12th between three QUAKERS, M. S. Fiſher, G. Whithead, R. Hubberthorn, and Tho. Danſon.

AFter a brief account of the occaſion of our meeting, and a ſhort prayer for a bleſ­ſing upon it, we began with this Que­ſtion, Whether every man that cometh into the world be enlightened by Chriſt?

R. Hubberth.

I bear witneſs to the Truth.

T. Danſon.

But what light is it you intend? we grant that every man hath ſome light, by which he diſcerns (though dimly) many ſins, and duties, and ſeveral Di­vine attributes, but the myſtery of godlineſſe, as it is ſumm'd up, 1 Tim 3. ult. God manifeſt in the fleſh, juſtified in the ſpirit, &c. we deny that all men have the know­ledge of.

R Hubberthorn.

The light is but one, and that I teſtifie.

T. Danſon.

The lights mentioned, viz. natural and ſu­pernatural light, are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other.

2R. Hubberthorn.

Thou ſpeakeſt out of thy dark mind, becauſe the true light hath not come over and comprehen­ded thee.

T. Danſon.

Your judgement of me I value not, but pray forbear your cenſures, and let us ſpeak to the buſi­neſſe. If your meaning be that the knowledge of the Goſpel is vouchſafed by Chriſt to every man, I ſhall ei­ther expect your proof, or ſhall prove the contrary my ſelf.

Here the man was ſilent.
T. Danſon.

I take your ſilence for conſent to my offer of proving againſt your Doctrine. And thus I prove it falſe, Pſal 147.19, 20. He ſheweth his Word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Iſrael: He hath not dealt ſo with any Nation, and as for his judgements they have not known them. 'Tis plain from Scripture that by the Word and Statutes and Judgments, are meant the ſupernatural light or knowledge of the Goſpel. And the Pſalmiſt does aſſert that no Nation beſides the Jews had this knowledge at that time; which overthrows your aſ­ſertion, for you ſpeak of a light which every man hath in all ages and generations. And I ſhall add another plain Scripture, Eph. 2.12. where ſpeaking of the ſtate of the whole body of the Gentiles before Chriſts coming in the fleſh, he ſaies, they were without Chriſt, ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world. Obſerve, they who had no hope, that is, no ground ohope of ſalvation, were ignorant of the promi­ſes the gound of hope, and ſo of God in Chriſt the ob­ject of hope, and ſo of the ſumme of the Goſpel, or light of Chriſt.

G. Whithead.

Thou bringeſt a place out of Eph. 2.12. to prve that Chrſt enlightens not every man that com­eth into the world, and thou haſt given us thy meaning cotrary to the Scripture, which ſaies the Gentiles have the Law in their hearts, Rom. 2.15.

3T. Danſon.

You prove not my interpretation of either of the Scriptures I urged unſound, but bringeſt me ano­ther Scripture, and I muſt let you go your own way. As for that Scripture, Rom. 2.15. 'tis ſpoken of the natural light, for 'tis oppoſed to the knowledge of the Jews. And the words are not the law, but the work or effects of the law written in their hearts, ſuch as accuſing and excu­ſing mentioned in the latter end of the verſe; and there is a great deal of difference between the law and the work of it, though you do not (it ſeems) underſtand it. And it is beſides my buſineſſe to inform you.

G. Whithead.

Thou ſayeſt 'tis meant of a natural light, whereas 'tis ſaid to be the knowledge of whatſoever might be known of God, Rom. 1.19.

T. Danſon.

The Apoſtle intends that what might be known of God, without the preaching of the Goſpel, was known to the Gentiles, v. 16, 17. 'tis by the Gospel that the righteouſneſſe of God is revealed, and John 4.22. Chriſt tels the Samartan woman, that the Jews (exclu­ſively) knew what they worſhipped, and that ſalvation was of the Jews. And in reſpect of this knowledge re­vealed by the Goſpel, the Scripture ſaies that the Gen­tiles have their understandings darkned, Eph. 4.18.

G. Whithead.

That place ſaies that the Gentiles were not ſo enlightened as afterwards: For 'tis ſaid that Chriſt was given for a light to the Geniles.

T. Danſon.

You give your meaning of the Scripture which you will not allow us to do. But as for that Scri­pture which is Iſa. 49.6. it proves not that Chriſt was a light to the Gentiles in every age and generation, but the contrary, in that Chriſt was not to be a light to them till his coming in the fleſh, and it was fulfilled, Acts 13.46, 47. Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For ſo hath the Lord commanded us ſaying, I have ſet thee to be a light of the Gentiles. As for the place in the Epheſians, it denies that4 the Gentiles had been at all enlightened by Chriſt (un­leſſe you mean as God) ch. 2.13. The Apoſtle ſaies in that eſtate before Chriſts coming, they were afarre off, viz. from God and Chriſt ſpoken of, v. 12. and the knowledge of them. And Eph. 4.18. he ſaies that they were alienated from the life of God, which imports that their underſtand­ings were no more capable of the knowledge of God, then creatures of one kind of life to converſe with thoſe of another. Gods underſtanding is his life, as he is a reaſon­able being, and theſe Gentiles wanted what ſome have by eſpecial gift, 1 John 5.20. an underſtanding to know him that is true; and could no more converſe with ſpiri­tual objects, than bruit beaſts can with ſuch rational ob­jects as mans underſtanding does: So that thoſe Scri­ptures put together do aſſert that the body of the Gen­tiles, for ages and Generations wanted the light of the Goſpel, and light in their underſtandings, the difference of which you may conceive by the light of the Sun which is external light (and ſo the Goſpel) and the light in the eye to which anſwers an underſtanding to know him that is true, and both of them are neceſſary, or elſe a blind man might ſee when there is light, and the ſeeing man when there is none.

G. Whithead.

Thou makeſt the Goſpel to be an outward light (in the darkneſſe of thy own reaſoning) but the Scripture ſaies 'tis an inward light, 2 Cor. 4 6. the Apoſtle ſaies it ſhines out of darkneſſe in their hearts.

T. Danſon.

You ſhew much ignorance in your interpre­tation. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of material light, and argues from the effect of one creating word to another, that by the like word of command he had the light or knowledge of Chriſt in his underſtanding, which was given not for his own uſe only, but to be communicated to others. As for the phraſe in their hearts, it imports but the ſame thing with that expreſſion, Eph. 1.18. The eyes of your5 underſtanding being enlightened. The light by which the Goſpel is diſcerned is inward, but that makes not againſt the Goſpels being an outward light. But what's this to the enlightning of every man by Chriſt? Reply to the Scriptures brought againſt that aſſertion.

G. Whithead.

The Apoſtle ſaies the light of the know­ledge of the glory of God in the face of Chriſt ſhined in their hearts, 2 Cor. 4.6.

T. Danſon.

In whoſe hearts? nor of all mankind, but of the Apoſtles, and ſome others, a ſmall number in com­pariſon of the reſt who were not enlightned; and there­fore the Apoſtle ſaies, that the Goſpel was hid to them that are loſt, v. 3. and that there are ſome, to whom the light of the Goſpel doth not ſhine, v. 4. And 'tis elſewhere ſpoken of as a diſtinguiſhing mercy to know the myſteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 13.11. It was given to the Diſciples, not to others. And to the ſame effect, Luke 10.21. Chriſt gives thanks to his Father, that whilſt he hid the ſecrets of the Goſpel from Scribes and Phariſees, he revealed them to others.

G. Whithead.

The Scripture ſaies that the Kingdom of God was in the Phariſees, Luke 17.21. and therfore it denies not but that they did know the myſteries of the Kingdom.

T. Danſon.

That expreſſion may import that the King­dom which they did upon miſtake look for without them, was indeed a Kingdom within them. [To which I ſhall adde, that upon ſecond thoughts, I judge the moſt ge­nuine interpretation to be〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉among you (ſo the pre­poſ. may be rendred) Mat. 21.43. meaning of the preaching of the Goſpel by Chriſt in perſon and his Diſciples, and this threat of taking away the Kingdom of God from them, is directed againſt the Phariſees, v. 45. The Phariſees perceived that he ſpake of them.]

R. Hubberthorn.

The form ofound words is, that6 Chriſt enlightens every man that cometh into the world, John 1.9.

T. Danſon.

The meanng of thoſe words cannot be as the letter of them does import, for then the Scripture would contradict it ſelf; but it muſt be either that Chriſt inlghtens every man that is inlghtened, or elſe that he inlightens ſome of every Nation, kindred, tongue and people, as the phraſe is, Rev. 5.9.

R. Hubberthorn.

The Scripture ſaies every man, and thou ſaieſt but ſome, who ſhall be believed, thou or the Apo­ſtle? Thou makeſt John a liar.

T. Danſon.

No ſuch matter, I make not the Apoſtle a liar. For the indefinite phraſe hath a reſtrained ſenſe, as elſewhere in the Scripture, Chriſt taſted death for every m n, Heb. 2.9. when as he died but for a certain number, as appears by that very place, v. 10. In bringing many ſos to glory. Thoſe whom Chriſt brings to glory are thoſe for whom he taſted death, but the former are but many ſons, and therefore not the latter: the every man for whom he died muſt be limited by the many ſons whom he brings to glory.

R. Hubberthorn.

Then it ſeems thou denieſt that Chriſt died for all.

T. Danſon.

Yes, that I do, and 'tis more than you can prove.

G. Whithead.

I witneſſe according to the Scripture, that Chriſt died for all, 2 Cor. 5.14. If one died for all, then were all dead.

T. Danſon.

'Tis ſpoken of thoſe who were converts and believers, whoſe ſanctification was the end of Chriſt's death, and for whom Chriſt roſe, and who therefore did rie with him. As for the meaning of the words 'tis this, that the neceſſity of Chriſt's dying imported the miſery of their condition, in that they were dead ſpiritually, and obnoxious to eternal death, and the love of Chriſt which7 made him 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. 'Tis 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 'tis 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?

8T. 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? 9This 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which notes to make a trade or buſineſſe of ſin, as 'tis 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,10 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. 'tis〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the other is,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 havnot 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 use thus minded.

T. Danſon.

For the phraſe upon which you ground your notion, 'tis 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 (meanng Job) was perfect and upright; that perfect is not meant in your ſenſe, appears by c. 9.20. If I ſay I am pefect〈◊〉(his mouth) ſhall alſo prove me perverſe. Sinceriy Job all along avouched, but perfection ſuch as he mght jſtifie hmſelf 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 ad­jnct, that meaſure of holineſſe which accompanies thaſtate, whch we ſhall find to be excluſive of ſin, 1 John 2.2. We ſhall be likhim, meaning Chriſt, when he appears. 11But 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 heffirms, 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. Bleſſedre 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 Commandmns, 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 paſſagesn the Pſalms, ſhew, that he was not free from ſinne, which ſue 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 thguilt 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 Danſn) that I can. 'Tis in Luke 1.6. And they (Zachary and Elizabeth) were boh righteous before God (not before man only, but be­fre God) walkng in all the Commandments (nor in ſme few omany, but all) and Odinances of the Lord blameleſs.

12T. 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. 'Tis the meſſage of Gabriel the Angel to Zaharias, 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 mntioned of Elizabth, and if there be one inſtance, it ſufficeth.

13T. 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 jſt 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.

14R. Hubberthorn.

In Heb. 12.23. Spirits of juſt men made perfect; this is ſpoken of them to whom the Apoſtle writes.

T. Danſon.

The plce doth not import the perfection of any men on earth, but ſpaking 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. Huberthorn.

Thus with thy meanings thou per­verteſt Scripture.

T. Danſon.

I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers, whether I have perverted Scripture or no, and ſo pray do you.

The third Quſtion debated on was (though with much ado) at length ſtated in theſe terms; Whether our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification? And Mr. Fiſher held it in the Affirmative.

Mr. Fiſher.

Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification, by a rule that you own, Contraria contrariorum ratio, whence I argue thus; If our evil works are the meritorious cauſe of our con­demnation, then out good works are the meritorious cauſe of our non-condemnation or juſtification; But our evil works are the meritorious cauſe of our condemnation, therefore our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our non-condemnation or juſtfication.

T. Danſon.

Now you ſhew your ſelf a rank Papiſt in­deed. We deny your conſequence, becauſe our evil works are perfectly evil, but our good works are but imperfect­ly good, and any one evil is a violation of the Law, and deſerves the penalty of the Law, but any one or more, good work is not the fulfillinof the Law. [Let me add, that there is no conſequence in that Popiſh Argument, notwithſtandng that Canon, becauſe our good and evil works are not abſolute contraries, the one being perfectly15 evil, the other but imperfectly good, Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu, Bonum fi••ex integris cauſis, which latter appears by Iſa. 64.6. All our righteouſneſses (not our un­righteouſneſſes only) are as filthy rags. And again, thus the rule will allow to argue; Evil works which are the violation, of the Law deſerve damnation; Ergo, good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deſerve ſalvati­on. And we know no good works ſuch, but Chriſt's. And once more in reſpect of the ſubject, the Rule will not hold, being one who owes all his good works to God, and is a finite creature, now thoſe works which merit muſt not be due, and they muſt be of infinite value, or elſe there is no proportion between them and the re­ward. And thus we might argue à contrariis. If his evil works from whom only good works are due, as from a finite creature, to an infinite Creator, do truly deſerve damnation, then his good works who owes none, and is an infinite perſon, do truly deſerve non-condemnation. But verum prius, ergo et poſterius. And to underſtand this, we muſt know that the deſert of diſobedience ariſes chiefly from the dignity of the Object againſt which ſin is committed; when as the deſert of obedience ariſes from the dignity of the ſubject by which it is performed.]

Mr. Fiſher.

I will prove my conſequence from Gal. 5.18. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law. Whence I argue, If they who are led by the Spi­rit are not under the Law, then the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cauſe of their not being under the Law, but they who are led by the Spirit, are not under the Law, Ergo.

T. Danſon.

Sir, you are very ſilly your ſelf, or take your hearers to be ſo, that you think this to be a proof of your former conſequence, or that there is any conſe­quence in this Argument. You ſhould have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works. 16And ſurely Sir, the leading of the Spirit, or Sanctifica­tion is a fruit and effect, not a meritorious cauſe of not being under the Law, that is obliged to its penal­ty.

Mr. Fiſher.

I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cauſe of our Ju­ſtification, 1 Cor. 6.11. And ſuch were ſome of you, but ye are waſhed, but ye are ſanctified, but ye are juſtified in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the Spirit of our God. Obſerve, here the Co inthians are ſaid to be justified by the Spirit.

T. Danſon.

I might ſay that perhaps the clauſe ſhould be referred to Sanctification, which is in a more appro­priate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency, as if the order of the words had been, but ye are ſanctified by the Spirit of our God, and ſuch tranſpoſitions are not without inſtance in the Scripture, as, Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither caſt ye your Pearls be­fore ſwine, leſt they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you, where turn again and rent you, is to be joyned to the dogs, for as ſwine do trample under their feet, ſo dogs do fly upon a man, and tear him down. Or elſe juſtified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application; I mean the third Perſon in the Trinity, not of the work of Grace, whereof we are the Subject

Mr. Fiſher.

In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus hath made me free from the Law of ſin and death. Now 'tis the ſame Law of the Spirit of life that is in Chriſt and the Saints.

T. Danſon.

That place is much againſt you: For the Apoſtle aſſerts the Holineſſe of mans Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law, to be the meritoious cauſe of oufreedom from ſin and death; but mark withal, 'tis not that which is in us, but in Chriſt. 17And though 'tis true that the ſame ſpirit is in Chriſt and the Saints, yet neither does the ſpirit in us conform us fully to the Law (notwithſtanding your vain aſſertion of perfection) nor if it did, were that conformity the merit of Jſtification. [Let me add, that the Law of the Spirit of life here ſpoken of, is not only the meritorious cauſe of our freedom from death, but from the Law of ſin, or obeying of ſin as a Law; now I would fain know what precedent holineſſe in the Saints merits ſubſequent holineſſe; or whether the exerciſe of what they have, is the meritorious cauſe of what they have not, or of per­fection, eſpecially if the law of ſin intends the corrupti­on of nature, as the Law of the Spirit of life does holineſs of nature: I would be inſtructed how a nature in part corrupted can deſerve total freedom; and I am ſure the firſt work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part.]

Mr. Fiſher.

Pray read on, Rom. 8.4. That the righte­ouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the fleſh, but after the Spirit. This place ſaies the righteouſneſſe of the Law is fulfilled in the perſons of the Saints.

T. Danſon.

Sure Sir, you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the fleſh; that is un­able to juſtifie us, in regard of our inability (through corruption) to fulfill it which were untrue, if we are able to fulfill it; and what follows, God ſent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedi­ence to the Law; and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God ſent Chriſt, that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us; not in our own perſons, but in Chriſt, his righteouneſſe imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in our ſelves.

Mr. Fiſher.

That is thy meaning, but not the meaning of the Apoſtle.

18T. Danſon.

Yes, but it is the Apoſtles, as I have pro­ved. But pray Sir, let me ask you a queſtion (though it may ſeem beſides, yet it will be to the purpoſe) 'tis this: whether there be any true believers who are not perfect?

Mr. Fſher.

I muſt acknowledg that there are degrees a­mong believers, as the Apoſtle ſaies, 1 John 2.13, 14. Little children, Fathers, Young men.

T. Danſon.

I ſuppoſe you mean, that ſome of theſe have a miture of ſin with their Grace. But let me ask you but one queſtion more, whether the children (for inſtance bin a juſtified eſtate or not?

Mr. Fiſher,

I'le tell thee Tho. Danſon, there are but two eſtates. Juſtification, and condemnation.

T. D.

Now Sir, you are caught in a manifeſt contra­diction and abſurdity, for before you maintain'd that our juſtification was by a perſonal fulfilling of the Law, and now you grant ſome perſons to be juſtified who ne­ver did fulfill it perſonally. That end I propoſed in ask­ing you the queſtions, and I have obtain'd it to make your folly manifeſt to all men. [Reader, obſerve that though it concern'd Mr. Fiſher to wind himſelf out of this contradiction, yet he did not reply, but ſate down on the top of the ſeat like a man aſtoniſh'd, and under the Hereticks judgement, I mean ſelf-condemned, Tit. 3.11.] After a while we fell upon an Arminian point, whether a man that is juſtified may be unjuſtified? which Mr. Fiſher affirmed, and I would have omitted all the diſcourſe, but for the ſtrangeneſſe of one medium, by which he endeavoured to confirm it.

Mr. Fiſher.

Take the inſtance of David, Pſalm 51.4. That thou mighteſt be juſtified when thou speakeſt, and clear when thou judgeſt. Whence I argue, if David was un­juſtified in his own conſcience, he was unjuſtified before God, (and conſequently a man may become unjuſtified19 after he hath been juſtified before God) But David was unjuſtified in his own Conſcience, Ergo, he was ſo before God.

T. D.

I might deny your minor, for it does not appear to me, that David was at this time unjuſtified in his own Conſcience, but the contrary, for he ſpake theſe words after the Prophet Nathan had come to him, Title of Pſ. 51. And we find, 2 Sam. 12.13. The Prophet told him, the Lord hath put away thy ſin. He might loſe much of his joy, and yet retain the ſenſe of his intereſt. And for the words, David either acknowledged Gods righteouſneſs in the temporal evils threatned againſt him, 2 Sam. 12 11. or the deſert of condemnation. But I chuſe to deny your Sequel.

Mr. Fiſher.

I prove it, 1 John 3.20. If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things. Here the Apoſtle argues to Gods condemnati­on, from that of our own hearts, which is alwayes ac­cording to the light of the Spirit.

T. Danſon.

Your place proves nothing about Davids ſtate; but to take it as it comes, nor does it prove your aſſertion in the general; the place ſpeaks of ſuch a ſen­tence as is paſſed by a Conſcience not erroneous, but rightly guided. [I ſhall add to what was ſpoken, but theſe Scriptures againſt that tenent, Pſal. 77.8, 9, 10. Joh. 8.54. Compared with v. 44. T t. 1.15. Their con­ſcience is defiled. Of which latter Scripture, I ſay but this, that one of Conſciences Offices being a Witneſſe, its defilement as ſuch in the wicked, is to lead them into a wrong opinion of their eſtares, and Conſcience in the Saints, being but in part cleanſed, as a witneſſe, it teſti­fies falſhood to them alſo, in that th••eſtate is bad, when it is good, as to the wicked, that it is good, when it is nothing leſſe.]

20

An Account of a Diſcourſe April 13 be­tween three QUAKERS, Mr. S. Fiſh­er, G. Whitehead, R. Hubberthorn, and T. Danſon.

T. D.

Mr. Fſher, becauſe you urged ſo hard for ano­ther Conference, I have granted your deſire, yet not for your ſake, ſo much as the hearers, that they may be convinced of the damnableneſſe of your Doctrine, and may loath and deteſt you, as you well deſerve. And againſt it, I ſhall urge one irrefragable Scripture, which I ſhould be glad to hear your anſwer to, or elſe you ſhall oppoſe, and I will anſwer, which I rather deſire: The place is, Rom. 11.6. And if by Grace, then it is no more of works, otherwiſe Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwiſe work is no more work. The Apoſtle having ſpoken of the efficient cauſe of Election, and effectual calling, he here excludes works from being any cauſe of them. And this he does by an argument taken from the oppoſition between im­mediate contraries: And I apply it to the caſe in hand, thu, that if Juſtification be of woks, as you aſſert, then Grace is excluded from any hand in Juſtification, which is contrary to the Scripture, which ſays, we are Juſti­fied by Grace. Our Juſtification cannot be a debt and a free gift, I mean not both in reſpect of us. [To this no reply was made.]

T. D.

I will name another Scripture, Rom. 10.3.4. 21For they being ignorant of Gods righteouſneſs, and going about to establiſh their own righteouſneſs, have not ſubmit­ted themſelves to the righteouſneſſe of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every onthat believ­eth. The Apoſtle here makes a diſtinction between our own righteouſneſſe and Gods, and finds fault with them, who neglectng Gods, went about to eſtabliſh their own. And be makes our own righteouſneſſe to be a per­ſonal conformity to the Law, and Gods righteouſneſſe to be Chriſt made ours by faith, you are therefore guil­ty of this ſin, who make your own righteouſneſs your ju­ſtification.

G. Whitehead.

We do not make our own righteouſneſſe our juſtification, but the righteouſneſſe of God is that we teſtifie, being made manifeſt in us.

T. D.

Do not ye delude your hearers with doubtful words? Ye did yeſterday aſſert that the righteouſneſſe which we are enabled to perform, or our good works are the meri­torious cauſe of our juſtification.

G. Whithead.

We witneſſe to the righteouſneſſe of God according to the Scripture, Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteouſneſs which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith.

T. D.

You could not have brought a Scripture more full againſt you. The righteouſneſs which is of Chriſt, and of God by Faith, is cal'd Chriſt, verſ. 8. That I may win Chriſt. And how he is our righteouſneſs, 2 Cor. 5. ult. tells us, as Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo are we the righteouſneſs of God in him, but the former was by im­putation, not inherence, and therefore ſo the other. So that the Apoſtle by his own righteouſneſs underſtands his perſonal conformity to the Law, and by Chriſts righteouſ­neſs that which is in Chriſt, made his by Faith.

G. Whithead.

Then it ſeems you make two righteouſ­neſſes22 of Chriſt, whereas the righteouſneſs of Chriſt is but one.

T. D.

Yes, ſo I do, what of that? Do you think that the riheouſneſs 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 ſubjct, 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 juſtfiation, 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 Witehead.

Let me ask thee a queſtion then, are not we juſtfied by Chriſt within us?

T.D.

I anſwer, no, but by Chriſt without us.

G Witehead.

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 intendedn 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, underſtandnot the prſon of Chriſt, but hs operatons, the cauſe is put for the effect by a Metonymy (a word too hard for your ca­pacty) Compare Col. 1.26. r ſt in you, wth Eph. 3.17. That Christ my 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 juſtfis us by a righteouſneſs inherent in himſelf, and ſanctfies us by23 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, Chiſt peſonal, 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, whih thou ſaieſt does but make us meet, not give us aitle, which thou ſhalt ſee it does to the iheritance, 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cannot refer to grace as this man would have it, (or if it did, yet grace inends not ſan­ctification, but the favour of God, which is the ſubject24 matter of the word which the Apoſtle cals, v. 24. the Goſpel of the Grace of God) but it refers to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 rghteouſneſſe, 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 in­tmates, that Faith is oppoſed to it ſelf as a work, in the25 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 ben in expreſſe terms. Chriſt whom his Faith laid hold upon, was imputed to himor righteouſneſſe; But that Faith is imputed to us, abeng nſtead of a perfect righteouſneſſperſonal, or that 'tis 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 juſtfication to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, in the ſame ſnce that thy 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, Whether the Scriptures are the VVord of God?

T. D.

Mr. F. You promiſed to diſcourſe upon this Queſtion, I deſire to know what you hold about it.

Mr. F.

if you mean by the Scripture the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the wri­ting,26 or the paper and ink, we deny it to be the Word of God.

T. D

Sir you cannot believe us ſo ſimple (ſurely) as to affirm the Scriptures in that ſenſe the Word of God, but we mean the matter contained in the writing, whe­ther that be our rule of faith and life.

Mr. F.

This I affirm, that there are ſeveral Books which are as much a rule (as thoſe you call the Scripture) which are not bound up in your Bibles.

T. D.

This is not to the purpoſe, yet I ſhould be glad to hear your proof.

Mr. F.

1 Cor. 5.9. I wrote unto you in an Epiſtle, &c. But now I have written unto you, v. 11. Here you find an Epiſtle of Paul, which was written before this which in your books is called the firſt.

T. D.

Sir, you fall ſhort in your proof, you ſhould prove that the Epiſtle there mentioned was intended as much for our rule, as theſe we have in our books, and you prove only that ſuch an Epiſtle was written by Paul.

Mr. F.

If this Epiſtle was written to the ſame end with this you have, viz. to inſtruct the Corinthians how to carry themſelves toward groſſe ſinners, then it was inten­ded as much for a rule as this; But it was written to the ſame end, Ergo.

T. D.

I deny your conſequence; Sermons, private re­ligious diſcourſes have the ſame common end with the written Scriptures, yet the latter only are our ſtanding-rule, the former our rule, but ſo farre as they agree with the latter in the Scriptures.

Mr. F.

VVhat other evidence or character have you of this Epiſtles being a rule, which the other wants, that is not in your books.

T. D.

Pray let me ask you one Queſtion, and I will anſwer yours. Have you or any of your friends this firſt27 Epiſtle to the Corinthians, or do you know that it is ex­ſtant?

Mr. F.

No.

T. D.

Then I have a ſignal diſtinction between that and theſe we have, viz. that God hath preſerved theſe two for our uſe, but not the firſt, whereas had God inten­ded the firſt for a ſtanding rule to us, as he hath the other two, his providence which watched over theſe, would alſo have watched over that.

Mr. F.

But I will give you an inſtance of a Book which ye have not, but we have, Col. 4.16. And that ye likewiſe read the Epiſtle from Laodicea.

T D.

Though it is certain that God intended not that for a ſtanding rule, which is loſt yet all that was written by holy men, and preſerved for our uſe, is not therefore our ſtanding rule, for then the diſcourſes of holy Miniſters in former and latter times ſhould be our Rule, which they are not, but to be brought to the written Word, as the Rule and Teſt. But pray Sir, what is the Title of that Epiſtle you have?

Mr. Fiſher.

The Epiſtle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

T. D.

So I thought; ſuch an Epiſtle I know there is that gos under the name of Paul, but the place you bring ſpeaks not of an Epiſtle to Laodice, but from Laodicea: And for ought you can prove to the contrary, we have the Epiſtle Paul did intend, 1 Tim. Poſtſcipt. The firſt to Timothy was written from Laodicea.

Mr. Fiſher.

Doſt thou own the Poſtſcripts to be Cano­nical (as ye call it.)

T. D.

As Canonical for oughtppears yet to me, as your Epiſtle to the Laodiceans. Wknow well enough that your Brethren of the Popiſh party, have laid many ſuch brats at the Apoſtles doors, whch they will not fa­ther. And you ſhew what you ae, in abetting their wickedneſs. [I ſhall add, that ſome learned men judge28 that Epiſtle mentioned from Laodicea, Col. 4.16. to be not an Epſtle written by Paul either from or to Laodicea, but by thLaodiceans, to Paul, which he would have read amonthe Colloſſians, that they might underſtand the caſe of their Si••eChurch, and how ſutable the matter of the Epiſtle to them, was alſo to the Laodiceans. Vid. Rev. Daven. in locum.] And to make the buſineſſe ſhort, Mr. Fiſher, ſuppoſe we ſhould grant you there were ſuch an Epiſtle legitimate, yet it will not follow that it was in­tended for a rule to us. For we have already as much as God thought ſufficient, read John 20.30, 31. And ma­ny other ſigns truely did Jeſus in the preſence of his Diſciples, which are not written in this book, but theſe are written that ye mght believe, &c. Suppoſe that we had the ſigns which are not in the Goſpel, faithfully recorded in wri­ting, yet were they not our Rule, becauſe God did not give order for them, but has aſſured us as much as is ſuf­ficient to create and preſerve Faith in the Goſpel which we have. Let us come to the Queſtion, which I propoſe to you in theſe terms, Whether the Books commonly called the Old and New Teſtament, were appointed by God for a ſtand­ing Rule of Faith and life?

Mr. Fiſher.

I deny thoſe books to be a ſtanding Rule of Faith and life.

T. D.

Now you have ſpit your venom, which I knew you were big with. And I will ſay to you (as the Apo­ſtle) If any man bring any other Goſpel than what we have received, let him be accurſed.

Mr Fiſher.

I am ſure the Goſpel you preach will never bring men to heaven. Indeed people it will not.

T. D.

Then friends, you hear his acknowledgement, and how well he deſerves the curſe denounced againſt him.

Mr. F.

If there be another ſtanding Rule, then the Scripture is not it, but there is another ſtanding Rule,29 therefore the Scripture is not it.

T. D.

I deny your Minor; there is no other ſtanding rule but the Scripture.

Mr. Fiſher.

I prove there is, from Gal. 5.16. This I ſay then, walk in the ſpirit: We are commanded to walk in or by the Spirit, and therefore that is our rule. The Scripture it ſelf ſends us to another for our rule.

T. D.

That phraſe does note the principle, not the rule of our obedience in that place.

Mr. F.

You ſuppoſe the Letter to be antecedent to the Spirit, whereas the Spirit is antecedent to the Letter, and none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit.

T. D.

The Spirit is antecedent to the Letter in reſpect of the revelation of the Letter, but the Spirit is ſubſe­quent to the Letter in reſpect of aſſiſtance and ability which he gives to obedience. And whereas you affirm, none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit, if walking in the Spirit be meant of ſpecial aſſiſtance 'tis falſe, for many walk in many things according to the Letter, without the Spirits in-dwelling, as Paul, while a Phariſee was touching the righteouſneſse of the Law blameleſse, Phil. 3.6.

Mr. F.

I will prove the Letteof the Scripture is not our Rule: if there was a rule before the Scripture was written, then that is not our rule; but there was a rule before the Scripture, Therefore.

T. D.

Your Argument concludes nothing againſt us, for we aſſert the matter contained in the Scripture is a ſtanding Rule, your argument proves but that there was a rule before this writing, we grant that God reveal'd himſelf by viſions, dreams, &c. yet it was the ſame matter: Since the Goſpel preached to Adam, there have not been any increaſe of truths quoad eſſentiam, ſed tan­tum quoad explicationem (as the Learned ſpeak of the30 Articles of our Faith) The manner of conveyance is dif­ferent then and now, but the matter or doctrines con­veyed ſtill the ſame. All this while you go about to de­lude the ſimple, as if you denied only this way of writing to have always been the onely way of conveyance, and you magnifie the Spirit, that with more ſecurity you may throw down the Letter of the Scripture. And if you would ſpeak out plainly, as ſome of your friends (as you call them do) that which you call the Spirit would be found to be the dictates of your own Conſcience (blind and corrupt, as they are the Lord knows) and you are no further bound to obey the Letter of the Scripture than you are willing to obey it.

Mr. F.

I am ſure your Scripture is not the Word of God, for that is within, but your Scripture is without. This I prove out of Rm. 10.8. The Word is nigh thee, even in thy heart.

T. D.

You read not all, 'tis in thy mouth too, ſo that 'tis without as well as within.

Mr. F.

This is meant of the Light which is in evey mans Conſcience. 'Tis a word which every man hah heard, v. 18. But I ſay have they not heard? yes verily, their ſound went into all the earth.

T. D.

It ſeems then the Light within is the Spirit you pleaded for to be the Rule, in oppoſition to the Scrip­tures. But 'tis plain enough that v. 18. ſpeaks of the Go­ſpel, for it relates to the Preacher ſpoken of v. 14, 15. who were Prophets and Apoſtles. And though the words are taken out of Pſal. 19.4. yet they intend not that ntual knowledge of God which David ſpeaks of, but the Apoſtle would intimate that the knowldge of Chriſt by thGo­ſpel ſhould be of as large extent in the publication, as the knowledge of God by the Miniſtry of the heavens and Firmament, which are Davids Preachers, Pſal. 19.1. And 'tis evident that the word ſpoken of in the heart,31 Rom. 10.8. is meant of the matters contained in the Scriptures, for the Apoſtle ſaiesxpreſly, That is the word of Faith which we preach, and Acts 26.22. VVe ſay none other things than thoſe which Moſes and the Prophets did ſay ſhould come; which ſayings are contained in the Old Teſtament. And as for your odd notion of the Words being within not without, I ſay but this, that it remains without when it is within, as the matter in a Book does to inſtruct others, when the Reader hath throughly digeſted it in his memory and undeſtanding. And that as to the Saints ſomewhat of the word is alwaies without, when ſome is within, that is, the Word pre­vails but in part over their corruption, and ſo far as it does prevail, it is within, ſo far as it prevails not, it is without.

Mr. F.

In Col. 3.16. Let the word of Chriſt dwell in you richly; that which is the word of Chriſt dwells with­in, whereas that which ye call the VVord is without.

T. D.

The VVord ſpoken of was without, or it was the Letter of the Scripture, and his exhortation was to get acquaintance therewith, and he preſcribes means to that end, in teaching and admoniſhing one another, and ſinging Pſalms which were part of the Word of Chriſt, as the ſubject matter and author of them.

Mr. F.

Now thou talkeſt of ſingng Pſalms, it is a fond cuſtom you get to make the people ſing Davids conditions, who have not his ſpirit, as to make a proud man ſing, O Lord I am not puff'd in mind.

T. D.

Though it be beſides our buſineſſe, yet I ſhall anſwer to your cavils againſt our practice in a word. Your objection holds as ſtrongly againſt the uſe of them in the times of the Old Teſtament, as againſt our uſe of them; for the matter of them was no more all the ſingers conditions then than now, and yet they were part of publique Temple-worſhip, 2 Chron. 29.25, 30. and the32 matter of many of them is doctrinal, and prophetical, and ſuch as cannot be ſung with particular application; and I know no particular application neceſſary to ſinging that 131 Pſal. more than to reading of it, nor is it more a lye to ſing than to read them.

Mr F.

VVhereas thou ſayeſt Thomas Danſon that the teaching and ſinging was a means of the words dwelling in them; therein thou art out (as in many other things) for the word of Chriſt dwelt richly in them, and thence they teached, admoniſhed, and ſung.

T. D.

The words are an exhortation to get the word of Chriſt dwell richly in them, or to grow in the know­ledge of Chriſt (as elſewhere 'tis expreſſed) and there is none that hath ſo much of the knowledge of the word, but it may admit of encreaſe; and therefore though they might teach and admoniſh from a ſtock of the word, that hinders not but that the uſe of it in thoſe duties might be the means of adding to it.

In the next place Richard Hubberthorn undertook to prove his Call in a diſcourſe whch you have in his own Book, to which I referre you; the main thing he inſiſted on was his Infallibility in teaching, and the falſehood of our Miniſtry, who are not Infallible.

T. D.

You are much miſtaken in thinking you are infallible, it appears otherwiſe to us by the falſe doctrines which you teach; and as for your participation of the infallible Spirit (if that were granted, which we cannot grant) that infers not a participation of the ſpirits infalli­bility, for that is as incommunicable, as omniſciency or omnipotency.

R. Huberthorn.

The Apoſtles had a power of working miracles in them.

T. D.

That idnyed; God himſelf was the ſole ſubject of that power by which they were wrought, and their33 faith was the means or ſign of exerting it, Acts 3.16. His Name, through faith in his Name hath made this man strong, &c. Matth. 21.21. If ye have faith and doubt not, &c. ye ſhall ſay to this mountain be removed, and it ſhall be done.

Mr. Fiſher.

The man Chriſt Jeſus whom ye call God­man, was omniſcient, Joh. 2.24. Jeſus did not commit himſelf to them, becauſe he knew all men, &c.

T. D.

Pray ſir, Do not you call the man Chriſt Jeſus God-man too? Your ſilence is not conſent, but diſ­ſent. Omniſciency agreed not to Chriſt as man (for he ſays elſewhere, the ſon of man knows not when the day of judgement ſhall be) but as God. You know well e­nough what communication of Idioms means. And the Apoſtles themſelves did not partake of that divine pro­perty of Infallibility, for then they would have been in­fallible at all times, and in all things, which they were not, as appears by the inſtance of Peter, Gal. 2.11. But in the delivery of what was to be a ſtanding rule to us, they were ſo guided that they dd not erre, as you may find. 2 Pet. 1. ult. The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God ſpake as they were moved by the holy Ghoſt. As for our want of infallibility 'tis no valid plea againſt our Miniſtry, Acts 20.30. the Apoſtle ſpeaking to the Elders of Epheſus,.17. Alſo of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things, to draw away Diſciples after them. And yet he ſaies the holy Ghoſt had made theſe fallible men Overſeers over the Church, v. 28. 1 Thef. 5. Quench not the Spirit, verſ. 19. Deſpiſe not prophecying, verſ. 20. Prove all things, hold faſt that which is good, v. 21. The connexion of theſe verſes im­ports, that that prophecying muſt not be deſpiſed, nor can be, without neglecting the Spirit in it, which may teach us ſomewhat which is not good, annot to be re­ceived. And both theſe inſtances are of an ordinary Miniſtry, which is ſet in the ſame univerſal Church with34 the extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.28. and for the ſame end, viz. to convert and build up, Eph. 4.12. [Note that when we had gone thus far, I gave a brief account of my Call, for which you are referred to Hubberthorns ac­count of the Conference, and my anſwer hereto annex­ed.]

A ſhort ANSWER to a trifling Pamphlet intituled, The Difference of that Call of God to the Miniſtry, &c. pub­liſhed by R. Hubberthorn.

IN the Epiſtle to the Reader, the Queſtions debated on are falſly ſtated, as will appear by the Narrative here­to annexed.

In the Book it ſelf, you have his Call to the Miniſtry, which is not worthy a further Reply than I made by word of mouth. And an account of my Call, which ex­cept two or three paſſages, was the ſumme of what I ſpake.

One paſſage is, He ſaid, I ſaid 'tis non ſence to ſay that a man is made a Minister by the gift of grace.

Reply. My words were, that he had ſpoken a great deal of non-ſence in his diſcourſe, not that that particular paſ­ſage was non ſenſe. Yet I ſaid, and do ſtill ſtand to it, that if by gift of grace he means qualfications for the Mi­niſtry, more is rquired to a miſſion than them.

Another paſſge is, That I ſaid, my qualifications were ſuch, that I might have been cloathed in Scarlet.

35

Reply. I ſaid not ſo of my ſelf particularly, but in ge­neral, that many of us who had choſen the Miniſtry for our calling, were capable of other callings, and had opportunities of entring into them, which might have cloathed us with ſcarlet, as they did other men who fol­lowed them.

VVhereas he ſaies, that T. D. provoked his Church to laughter, rudeneſs, &c.

Reply. I confeſs the Aſſembly did laugh oftentimes at their ſorry ſhifts, and poor evaſions in our diſcourſe, but that I did compoſe them, I have many witneſſes: And I deny not but that now and then I could not forbear ſmiling at them, which I preſume as juſtifiable in me, as Elijah the Prophets ſcoffing at Bauls Prieſts, 1 Kings 18.27.

Whereas he ſayes, that none of my people can ſet to their ſeal that my Miniſtry hath brought them to a perfect man, &c.

Reply. 'Tis readily granted, nor was the Miniſtry in­tended for that end, but only to brng the Saints to that degree of Grace in this life, which might make them im­mediatly capable of perfection in the next life

Note that R. H. brings in ſeveral paſſages as mine, ſome of which I own, and others which I own not, I ſhall name them briefly.

That every individual man is not enlightened by Chriſt; and he complaines that I brought two meanings of that Scripture, and know not which is the meaning of the ho­ly Ghoſt.

Reply. I ſtill affirm the Propoſition mentioned; and I would have him to know, that both the meanings are the Holy Ghoſts, though but one is intended in that place: the phraſes will bear either ſenſes, and either of them croſs his Interpretation.

That the whole body of the Gentiles was not enlightned.

36

Reply. He leaves out what I added, viz. by Chriſt, or with the knowledg of ſalvation. As for his anſwer, I refer you to the diſpue upon that principle.

That the Gospel is an external Light, and not inviſile, and that it is not the Light within.

Reply. My wods were that the Goſpel is an external Lght, as that of the Sun, and that there is an inward Light created in the ſoul (cll'd an underſtanding gven us &c. 1 John 5.20. ) which is as the Light in the eye; and that the light of the Goſpel is not the light which every man naturally hath with in him.

That Chriſt is a propitiation but for the world of believers intendd, 1 John 2.2.

Reply. I explan'd my meaning when I ſo interpeted the phaſe, by cmparing it with Rom. 3 25. Whom God hath ſet forh to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood; the phaſe Proptiation intends not the price, but the actual attonment, and this lattr is not without the in­tervention of Fath: So tht John intends as Paul, that the terms of actual reconciliation wth God are the ſame to all the world, viz. beliving in the blood of Chriſt.

Tat we muſt reconcile Scriptures, and he ſaies I gave two contrary meanings of one Scripture.

Reply. I have ſaid enough to this in the Dſpute, the Scriptures are not at variance among themſelves, but they ſ em ſo to be, and 'tis part of our wok to lt pople ſee how well they are agreed. And I dare leave it to any Reades jdgement, wheh r theſe two interpretations which R. H. intends be contrary to one another, viz. that Chriſt enlghtens every man who is (ſpiitually) enlightened, or that he enlightens a number of every Nation, which were the two meanings (to uſe his phraſe) of John 1.8.

That the Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt, was not the37 Law of the Spirit in the Saints, but that they were two Laws, &c.

Reply. My words were, that by the Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8 2. was not meant our per­ſonal righteouſnſſe, but Chriſts imputed to us, and that though the righteouſneſſe in Chriſt, and in us, are of the ſame kind yet they have not the ſame uſe, the for­mer being alone our juſtification, the latter our ſanctifi­cation.

That there are two righteouſneſſes of Chriſt, the one with­out the Saints to juſtifie them, and the other within the Saints, that did ſanctifie them.

Reply. My words were, that there is a righteouſneſs whereof Chriſt is the ſubject and the efficient (viz. that of his 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.

38

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 'tis 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 fiſt 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, which39 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 whih 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 righteouſ­neſſe40 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 rihteouſneſſe, 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 'tis a belying of God, for God does not pretend, to intend the benefit offered to all to whom it is offered, Rm. 11.7. The Elction 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, they41 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 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 'tis 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 ſuh 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 'tis 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. 'tis 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 ſo42 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 beff 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 men­tioned43 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 'tis 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 'tis 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 thir voices, I was about to write, and I heard a voice from Heaven ſaying unto me, ſeal up, &c. and write44 them not. John 20.30.31. Ad many other ſigns truly did Jeſus in the preſence of his Diſcipls, which are not writen inhis book, but theſe are written that ye might beleve, &c. Thoſe things which were not written might have ben uſful if they had been wrtten, for thy were done for the ſame end with thoe which are left u, yet becauſe God thought that ſuffiient which we have, we can look upon no more wih 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 'tis this, that the Spirits act of rvealng 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 ſancification, which I affirmed to be imprfect 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 hentends of the reſurrection from the dad, v. 11. (as he calls the holi­nſſe of that ſtate by a Metonymy of the ſubject for the adjnct.) I alſo quoted 1or 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 gft of God is per­fect; and I ſuppoſe 'tis ſpoken of ſpecial grace, which is ſtill in gowth; every leaſt degree of grace tending to perfection.

That the Law requires more ſtrict and exact obedience then the Gospel. To whih R. H. replies nay, the Law ſaith,45 Thou ſhalt not commit adul ery, but the Goſpel ſaith, Thou ſhalt not luſt, &c and ſo the Goſpel rqires more ſtrict obedience than the Law.

Reply. I ſpake thoſe words with reference to what the Law reqires of us, as 'tis a Covenanof works, and to what theoſpl accepts of us as 'tis a Covenant of grace; though the Law g ves not life without perfect obedience, the Gopel gives it upon imperfect ob dience. The words were not intended of the Leg l and Ev ngelical diſpnſa­tions, as R. H. ſeems to underſtand them in his Socinian interp etaton. And as for his interpretation, I affirm that Chriſt intended not to adde any th ng to the ſpiritu­ality of te Law, for that under Moſs was ſpiriual, as Paul ſpeaks. Rom 7.14. for under the prohibition of the outward act, was alſo prohibitd inward aff ctons, deſires, whch appears by Gods pomiſe, of cicumciſing the heart, Dut 30.6. and his commnd to wſh their hearts from wickdnſſthat they might be ſavd. But our Lord Chri••v••dcates the Law from the corupt gloſſes of the Phariſees, who interpreted thoſe prohbitions to extend no futher than the letter, which is but to the outward act, as wll appear by the contex, eſpecially v. 18.19.

That Chrſt 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 commuicate the knowldg of all things to the humne nature,nherefore al hough he was a devil when he choſe him, yet he kew it not, which ſaies R. H. is a charging of Chriſt withgnorance, contra­ry to John 2.24 25. and Chriſt ſaies Judas had the ſpirit of the Faher in him Mt. 10.20.

Reply The ocaſion 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,46 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 appars 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 mayccompany 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 inſtane, Mat. 23. The Scribes and Pariſees ſit in Moſs 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.

47

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 ofxrting it for confir­mation of the Goſpel, was the ſign of the time when God put forth act, of Omnpotency. This appears by the places before quotd, 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 holineſſwe had made this man to walk? He calls the power their own, not in reſpct 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. anſwrs that the Apoſtle Paul then preached a Doctine of Devils, Rom. 6.2, 7, 18, 22. And Chriſt preachd the Doctrine of perfection, Mat. 5.48. 1 Pet. 1.16. And Paul preached wiſdom among them that were perfct, 1 Cor. 2.6. And David prached that Do­ctrine, Mark the perfect man, Pſal. 337. Now David did not bid them mark ſuch a man ashere was not.

Reply. You Quakers ae 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 Opinon, 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 inour 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? The48 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. As for Mat. 5. ult. The command intends the rule, not the degree of Grace attainable in this life, for this is re­ſerved for our reward in Heaven, (as I have proved in the diſpute) 1 Pet. 1.16. urges Gods Holineſſe as an argument to enforce our endeavors after it; but that is no proof of your aſſertion. As for 1 Cor. 2.6. I have already anſwered it in the diſpute And for Davids Do­ctrines, the ſecond clauſe, and behold the upright, is ex­egerical, or explanative of the firſt. Had David bid them mark a perfect man in your ſenſe, he had bid them mark a man that was not (as you ſpeak) for he him­ſelf was a Saul for ſpiritual ſtature in his generation (as appears, becauſe he is made a pattern to new Teſta­ment Saints, Zech. 12.8. ) and yet he was not free from the being of ſin, but a ſad inſtance of the power of it in real Saints. But take the meaning of it as I have given, himſelf was one of the men he ſpake of.

49

THE NARRATIVE.

Reader,

THou maiſt pleaſe to underſtand, that theſe Qua­kers, who like the Scribes and Phariſees, compaſſe ſea and land to make one Proſelyte, came to our Town, March 15, 1658. and made a challenge to the Prieſts (as they term Miniſters of Chriſt) to defend their own Do­ctrine and Call, which they came to oppugn; whereupon I was much urged by ſome good people, Inhabitants of the Town, to appear at their place of meeting, which at firſt I was ſomwhat unwilling to, partly becauſe I was in­formed that the men who intended to ſpeak were ſuch as the Apoſtle deſcribes, unreaſonable and wicked men, 2 Th. 2. and partly becauſe of the uſual unſucceſsfulneſſe of50 diſputes, eſpecially with men who cannot feel the ſtreſſe of an argument. But at length I reſolved to gratifie good peoples deſire, having given this ſolution to my own objctions; to the firſt, that though the men would not admit of any orderly diſpute, yet ſomwhat might in a more looſe diſcourſe be ſpokn, which might be an an­tidote to preſerve from the malignity of their venom caſt abroad at a venture, and ſo the devil might be beat at his own weapn, and out-ſhot in his own bow, and a leſſe rational way of argung might God uſe for good, as the Devil did fohurt. And I did hope thatf I did thus anſwer a foolcco ding to his folly, I ſhould eſcape the cen­ſure of being alſo like him, Pov 26.4. To the ſecond Obje­ction I replied, that want of ſucceſſe was no more cogent an argumnt againſt diſputing than preaching; and I added, that God had not left diſputes without witneſſe of his approbtion (if that muſt needs be meaſured by the event) Acts 6.9, 10. Then there aroſe certain of the Synagogue, which is calld the Synagogue of the Libertines, &c, dispuing with Stephen, and they were not able to re­ſiſt the wiſdom and spirit by which he ſpake. And ſeeing the Quakers were Libertines (or worſe) though I was not Stephen for like meaſure of wiſdom and ſpirit, I need not altogether deſpair of his ſucceſſe. And beſides theſe, other conſiderations offer'd their ſervice, viz. that they are a people who triumph and brag when we decline diſ­pute, forgetting the wiſe caution of King Ahab, a fa­vourer of their way (I mean enmity againſt the true Prophets) Let not him that girdeth on his harneſſe, boaſt himſelf as he that putteth it off, 1 King20.21. And many ſimple people are apt to ſuſpect our Call and Doctrine, when we ſeem unwilling openly to m••ntain them againſt oppoſers. And me thought that Scripture (which came to mind) did import a liberty, if not a du­ty. Anſwer a fool according to his folly, leſt he be wiſe in51 his own conceit, Prov. 26.5 And I mut confeſſe that the example of ſo Rverend and Leand a perſon, as Mr. Richard Baxte, who yilded to a vrbl d••courſe with an unreaſonable railing fellw, wanot wthout its influne upon me, betwen whom and the Quakers, I was to deal with (though inorant and unerned men) the inequality is very inconſiderable, in c mpariſon or what it is between him and them. But eſpcially the reans which he gives of printing againſt them, in his Epiſtle to the Quakrs Catch••m, as alo aganſt other like wrtches, in the Preface to the Defence of t e Woc••terſhire Petition, did maſter my underſtanding, and hepd to fix my wa­vering thoughts, in a reſolution to diſcourſe with them. When I came among them, they aſſered that there is a Light in every man, which is Christ; tht in this life men may be perfect, and free from ſin, that mn areutified not by Christ without, but wi hin them. Thy al o urgd ſe­veral trivial arguments againſt our Miniſty, as,kig hire, being call'd Maſters, wearing lo••robes, addng meanings to the Scripture. To evey whch aſſertions I ſaid ſomwhat, andeplied toheia guments againſt our Miniſtry (as their unmannerly clamour would give leave) for they wouldndeavour to drown my voce by theirs, when I ſpke anything that pinched them; and partiu­larly when I urged 2 Cor. 5. ult. That look as Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo were we made the righteouſneſſe of God in him, but the former was by imutation, not by inherence, Chriſt knowing no ſin (byxperience of its workingn himſelf) and therefore ſo thlatter: I was interrupted by the twopeakers, Luke Ho••rd, and Stephen Hubberdy, with ſuch rude langug, as thou liet, thou leſt, and they did not once offer any other confutation, though I uged thm to the attempt, andeld my tongue in expctation, but in ſtead of a reply, loked upon one another like men aſtoniſhd, and made ſo longpauſe52 that many of the hearers cried out, they are ſilenced, they have nothing to ſay. At length they recovered them­ſelves, and talked on in a diſcourſe ſo impertinent and independent, that I began to admire the men, for order­ing their words ſo warily, as that they were all birds of a feather, and not one bird of another feather ſuch as reaſon and pertinency to be found in the whole flock. At the end of the day, the former of the two men above mentioned (being conſcious to himſelf how little he had done for his cauſe) made an open challenge of diſpute between me and other of their friends (m