Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	contain_v	doctrine_n	2,322	5	6.1087	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

Confirmation of it I say to urge these Arguments were to launch into an Ocean of Discourse I shall therefore only give a taste of their Arguments and so leave their Tenent to the judgment of the Understanding The Quakers Arguments will discover their meaning without any Explication of the terms Arg. Your Scripture is without but the Word of God is within Rom. 10. 8. The word nigh thee even in thy heart Fisher p. 31. Answ 1. Our Scripture is within as well as without That Command Let the Word of God dwell within you Col. 3. 16. is in a degree obeyed by every Saint And therefore by this Argument Scripture is the Word of God 2. That very Scripture Rom. 10. 8. speaks not of the Light within but of the Scriptures for the Apostle calls it the Word of Faith which he preached latter Clause of the Verse which he tells us was the Doctrine contained in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Acts 26. 22. where we may observe that the Quakers urge th● Scriptures for their Tenents against us only as Argumentum ad hominem to confute us by our own Principles not that they own the Authority of Scripture Arg. 2. If there was a rule before the Scripture wa●●ritten then that is not our rule But there was a rule before the Scripture Fishers Quakers Folly c. p. 29. Whitehead by way of Question to the same effect what was their rule who spake forth the Scriptures Voyce of Wisdom Quest 4. Answ The matter contained now in the Scripture was always the Rule before it was committed in Writing though it was not always in the same manner nor degree conveyed and published Since the Gospel preached to Adam Gen. 3. 15. there hath not been any addition quoad Essentiam but only quoad Explicationem not in substance but in cleerness of Discovery In that respect God is said to have spoken to the Fathers by the Prophets at sundry times or as the Greek Reads by many parts or peece-meal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 1. And the way of conveyance hath been different in diverse manners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the same Verse viz. Visions Dreams c. In opposition to both which God is said to have spoken to us by his Son in his Person and Apostles who have left us a clear Comment on the old Testament And we are not now to expect any new Discovery of Truth Ex parte rei revelatae vel Objecti as to the matter revealed but only Ex parte actus revelandi vel subjecti as to the Persons whom God Inlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Arg. 3. What was the Gentiles Rule who had n●t the Scripture Answ 1. So much of the matter contained in the Scriptures as is written on their Hearts For the Scriptures gives us a Copy of all that is Written there with many Additions a new Object of Faith God in Christ Old Duties inforced by New Arguments Love to one another pressed by the example of Christs redeeming Love John 3. 34. Sins against Light of Nature as Uncleanness disswaded from by Arguments drawn from Union between Christ and our Bodies Christs property in them by Redemption c. 1 Cor. 6. 14. to the end 2. When we affirm the Scriptures to be the only rule we must in reason be supposed to intend to them who have them not who have them not 3. We must understand this Point in Conjunction with the former the Light within and so we say that they who have not the Scripture since it's Publication have not any other way a Discovery of God sufficient to lead them to him and so to Salvation which we intend when we affirm the Scripture to be the Word of God Arg. 4. What is their Rule who cannot Redd the Scriptures Must they be Condemned who cannot Read them Answ 1. The same Rule with thei●'s who can viz. the Matter contained in the Scriptures however conveyed whither by Eye or Ear. 2. They shall not be condemned for their natural Incapacity unless accidentally as their neglect of Learning to Read that they might be able to Read the Scriptures is their Sin but for their Unbelief and Disobedience to the Doctrine of the Scripture by what means soever come to their Knowledge As for that Notion of the Quakers in the Terms of the Question that the Scripture is but a true Declaration of the Word of God in the Hearts of Believers as Whitehead explains p. 16. I say but this Answ 1. The Scripture is a Declaration of what ought to be in the Hearts of Believers and not only of what is 2. The Pen-men understood not all they wrote 1 Pet. 1. 10 12. And there are Prophecies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens Birth as well as personal Experiences Errour 8. That there is no need of any outward Teaching Cease from your out-side lights and return to the Light of Christ in you and this Light is not a Chapter without you in a Book James Naylor in his Glory of the Lord shining out of the North. p. 2. THe only Argument I shall urge is from Eph. 4. 11 12 13. He Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints Whence I draw this Argument If Christ hath setled Officers in his Church till it be made perfect in grace then there is need of outward teaching during its whole state in this life But he hath made such settlement c. The Antecedent is evident in the Text before us The consequence goes upon ● supposition of what I have before proved viz. that no members of the Church arrive to a perfection of grace in this life and therefore cannot be said at any time not to stand in need of teaching The Scriptures which the Quakers urge against the need of outward Teaching are these Their first Scripture Heb. 8. 11. And they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his brother saying know the Lord. Answ That place cannot exclude outward teaching unless it could be no means of knowledge or unless there could be no knowledge of God but what were of ●mmediate revelation to the subject in which it is sound For compare this place taken out of Jer. 31. 34. with Isa 2. 3. speaking of the times of the Gospel in which the promise before us was to receive its full accomplishment and we finde that Out of Zion was to go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem i. e. The knowledge of God to be conveyed by Ordinances for which Zion ●he Hill whereon Jerusalem the City wherein ●he Temple the Seat of Ordinances stood See Psal 87. 2 3. Psal 122. are often put And the fulfilling of it Christ and his Apostles did frequently teach in Zion or the Temple and so in Jerusalem Math. 26. 55. And the great Commission Apostolical was To preach among all Nations

the Gospel Eph 3 4 5 6. The place may be its own Comment it is so plain 2. Luk. 10. 21. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes The Father is said to hide the Object because he did not inlighten the Subject i. e. To hide the Gospel which was then openly and plainly preached because he did not inlighten their mindes with a saving knowledge of it 3. 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural Man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1. Observe here is an opposition between men and men in respect of the knowledge of the things of God The spiritual man judges all spiritual things verss 15. but the natural man knows not nor judges them Yea he accounts the Doct●ine of the Gospel foolishness 2. The natural man not only does not know them but cannot because they are spiritually discerned which imports a disproportion between the object and faculty such for instance as between s●nce and a rational object Whence the Apostle speaks of an understanding given to know Christ 1 John 5. 20. implying that our old understanding will not serve to apprehend Christ after a spiritual though it may to apprehend him after a rational manner The Scriptures which carry any colour for the Quakers Opinion of all that I have met with are these 1 Joh. 1. 9. That was the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World Ans Christ being spoken of before as the Messias or Saviour to whom John did bear witness vers 7. we must therefore understand the place I think not of natural Light but supernatural not of the Light of Reason wherewith as God he indues men but of the Light of the Gospel with which as the Messias he inlightens Men which light may admit of a double consideration according to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies 1. To shine or to light that is afford light by which the object is made visible whether there be an Eye to see it or no so 't is used Luke 11. 36. 1 Cor. 4. 5. 2. 'T is used to inlighten the eye or faculty Eph. 1. 18. That the eyes of your understanding may be inlightned c. If you take it in the former sence Christ by his powerfull preaching and glorious miracles did not shine on every man Many never heard his Doctrine nor saw his Works As some parts of the World see not the Sun when it shines brightly in our Horizon So that the meaning can be no more than this that the Gospel is taught to all comers without exception by Christ and his Ministers not that every particular person hath the benefit Many in all ages never heard no nor perhaps heard of the Gospel 2. If we take the word in the other sence for inlightning the Eyes of the mind 't is certain that many who are lighted as our phrase is when a Candle is carried before us are not inlightned but are like a blind man so lighted that sees never the better And then the meaning can be no more than this that whosoever are inlightned are inlightned by him and answers in sence to Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of Lights And lest we may seem to impose upon the Objector we will turn to a parallel place Psal 145. 14. The Lord upholdeth all that fall and raiseth up all them that be bowed down 'T is evident enough that however the words sound the sence can be but this that all that are upheld from falling or raised again after a fall are in God's debt for the help of his hand 2ly Rom. 2. 15. The Gentiles are said to have the Law in their Hearts Whitehead Voyce of Wisdom Answ They are also said to be without Law and are imposed to them that had the Law vers 12. viz. of Moses vers 17. Called the Oracles of God Chap. 3. 2. and made the Priviledges of the Jewes above the Gentiles vers 1. in this respect because hereby Salvation was of the Jewes John 4. 22. i. e. the knowledge of the way of Salvation therefore it cannot be understood of a saving Knowledge without a Contradiction 2. It is not the Law in their hearts but the Work of the Law viz. these two effects mentioned accusing and excusing For though t is true the Gentiles having some knowledge of the Law the Law may be said to be in thei● hearts me●ning their understandings yet in the Apostles use of th●t Phrase Heb. 8. 11. he seems to include if not mainly intend a sutable disposition to the Law or a delight in the Law after the inner man Rom. 7. 22. Whereas the Gentiles in this sence had not the Law in their hearts For they liked not to retain God in their knowledge Rom. 1. 26. but as he was an unbidden so an unwelcome Guest to them so that they could scarce forbear to say to God Depart from us for we desire not the Knowledge of thy Wayes Job 21. 14. 3ly Rom. 1. 19. That which may be known of God is manifested in them for God hath shewed it unto them viz. the Gentiles Answ The next Verse suggests an answer viz. that which might be known of God by arguing from the Effects to the Cause from the Creation to the being of God and his Eternal Power the first Divine property that appeared in giving Being to all things out of nothing and the uniform event of this knowledge is said to be the leaving them without excuse not the leading them to Salvation 4ly Isa 49. 6. I have set thee for a Light to the Gentiles c. Spoken of Christ Answ That is but a Prophecy of the Gentiles mercy in the time● of Christs actual Exhibition in the flesh which was not fulfilled till the Jewes rejection of Christ as appears by Act. 13. 46 47. And the same Apostle Rom. 11. The casting away of them the Jewes was the reconciling of the World viz. the Gentiles vers 15. Errour 7. The Scriptures are not the Word of God but only a true Declaration of it nor are they the only Rule of Faith and Life G. Whitehead Voyce of Wisdom p. 20. Sam. Fisher Quaker● Folly p. 28. TO bring any testimony of Scripture concerning it self were Petitio principii a begging of the Question and were insignificant for their conviction who deny it 's Divine Authority And to urge Arguments drawn from the purity of Scriptures Precepts Sureness of Principles of Trust Excellency of Rewards Sublimity of Doctrine Prediction of future Contingents the Secresy and Efficacy of it's Operation on the hearts of men being such as no other Writing can give us a single instance of the like the Miracles whereof multitudes of Adversaries were eye-Witnesses able and willing to discover th● Impostures if any had been Wrought for the

Card. Pool that when one asked him how be should do to understand the former part of Pauls Epistle to the Romans Replied by practising the latter the former part being Doctrinical and hard the latter Practical and plain In vita Card. Poli. The neglect of such Advice hath provoked God to give men over to strong Delusions to believe Lies gross Figments such as I have here presented thee with Reader I shall not detain thee any longer but recommend thee and this small Piece to the Blessing of God by which if thou art preferved from being led away with the Errours of the Wicked and falling from thy own stedfastness I have obtained my end and shall therein rejoyce for e●er Thy Servant in the Gospel Tho. Danson London Decemb. 13. 1668. A Synopsis of Quakerisme 1. Errour That One God does not subsist in Three Persons THree things I must necessarily premise before I come to the proof of the Proposition which the Quakers deny 1. I must necessarily explain the word Person the usual Definition is Rationalis naturoe individua Substantia or an individual Substance of a rational Nature which Aquinas desends sum Par. 1. Q. 29. art 2. but some think it lyable to some Exception as whereby the humane Soul separated from the Body and the humane Nature of Christ are made Persons and therefore add to it Quoe nec est pars alterius nec ab alio Sustentatur i. e. which is neither the part of an other nor is upheld by an other I shall not interpose my Judgment in the case as remembering that I write for the Unlearned I shall chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wottan on John 1. vers 1. 2. pag. 29. which is the plainest and will not be gain-said I suppose by any Learn●● Man A Person is an individual Subsistence or Subsistent rather in an intellectual Nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self in a nature indued with Vnderstanding 1. The thing which we call a Person is by nature indued with Reason and Understanding A man we call a Person but we give not that name unto a bruit B●ast An individual or singular Creature of that kind is called in the Schools Suppositum 2. A Person notes some one indued with Reason and Understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another And hereby we exclude 1. Qualities or Vertues as Fortitude Temperance c. from being Persons though found in a rational Nature and distinct one from another because they subsist not by themselves but in a subject For a Person is entire of it self and must not depend on any thing as a property thereof And hereby we exclude 2. The Soul separated from the Body for the Soul is a part of the humane Species or of mans Nature and Retinet naturam unibilitatis as Aquin●s speaks Sum. p. 1. Q. 29. art 2. is to be looked upon as a part still in its Separation the Separation of it from the Body being a violence offer'd to it and therefore can no more be called a Person than the hand or foot ●ut off the Body or then a part the foot for instance of a Beast can be call'd a Suppositum 2. That the word person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subfist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should be not only Three Persons but Three God● which need not be a wonder for as Divines say Deus creaturae nihil habent commune praeter nomen God and the Creature have nothing common to them both but names which Rule must be understood with the Limitation that other Rule suggests Nomina de De● creaturis non univoce nec pure aequivoce Sed analogice dicuntur secundum analogiam Creaturarum ad ipsum Aquinas Sum. par 1. Q. 29. Art 3. That the names common to God and the Creatures do not signifie simply the same thing nor wholly different but something wherein the Creature bears some Analogy to God 3. Yet may this word person be used by us and t is used in the Scripture of the Father Heb. 1. 3. to express the distinction of Father Son and Spirit in the God-Head and one from another And the reason why it may be used is this because a person signifies that which is most excellent and perfect in Nature and what the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-Head cannot be apprehended by u● under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we Attribute to God ye● after a most excellent manner For the nature of Man being finite may be multiplyed into many several Men or Persons of the same kind or Nature But the divine nature being infinite cannot possibly admit of a Multiplication For that there should be two infinite Natures implies a Contradiction Therefore when Father Son and Spirit are said to be Three and yet but one God we know not what to call those three but Persons for there is that ascribed to them viz Properties and Operations which cannot agree but either to Three Gods or Three Subsistents that is persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Analogically so call'd in the God-Head And thus I think I have in effect answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians before I meddle with them For their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or grand Errour is that because the word person is not praedicated of Father Son and Holy-Ghost and of the Creature vnivoce that is the same word does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the Creature Therefore they deny Personality of Son and Spirit whereas though the name person does not agree to them in the sence of it's first Imposition yet it does as to what we intend to signifie thereby answerable to the notion the Scripture hath Impressed on our minds Vid. Aquin. Sum. Q. 29. art 3. p. 1. In the next place I shall propose one Scripture and from thence gather some Conclusions the proof whereof will be all I shall offer and as much as will be needful for private Christian's Confirmation in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity 1. John 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Gho●t and these Three are One. The causal Conjunction for implies a re●son of somewhat foregoing viz That Jesus Christ was the Son of God vers 5. And so these words contain an Argument drawn from indubitable Testimonies And from them we may deduce Prop. 1. That there is but one God one in this verse is explained as meant of God vers 9. The Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ vers 7. not to vers 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Prop. 2. That Father Word and Spirit are Three Subsistents or persons 1. He attributes the Act of bearing Record to them

and being an Application to Grace supposes that satisfaction to be Solutio recusabilis refusable payment for in Obligations which arise ex delicto from an Offence committed Dum alius solvit aliud solvitur as Grotius speaks De Satis Chr. c. 7. when another Person then what was originally obliged makes payment of the Debt of punishment due to Justice another thing is paid then what the Law required As suppose for one man to offer to die for another is no more in the Eye of the Law than to offer himself to be Whipped to save the others Life For the Judge can no more admit of Exchange of Person than of Penalty 4. Another act of Grace is in the means of Application of that Satisfaction he exacts of Christ I mean Faith in Christ the formal Act whereof as Justifying seems best placed in an Acceptance of Christ for Justification that being the correlate of the offer of Christ for that end in the Gospel Here appears a double act of Grace 1. In the choice of this Means of Application an acceptance looking least like a Meritorious Act. 2. In the bestowing of it Faith being the gift of God The Apostle suggests both when he says We are saved by Grace through that Faith which is not of our selves Eph. 2. 8. W. Pens Scriptures from p. 16. to 20. proves only what we grant viz. That God does freely pardon Sin but not that he pardens Sin without Satisfaction only we may observe how in the Enumeration of those Names of God which import free Forgiveness he leaves out that Name which is sub-joyned to them as a Limitation That will by no means clear the Guilty Exod 34. 7. That is not contrary to the order of Justice which he hath prescribed which order is to require that Satisfaction of the su●ety wh●ch is remitted to the Principal From Mat. 6. 12. Forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors he seems to offer at an Argument Arg. If it be our duty to forgive without a Satifaction received and God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded p. 18. Answ 1. There is an agreement between Gods Forgiveness and ours 1. In respect of the causae Proegumena or inward moving Cause called Kindness Tender-Heart●dness Eph. 4. 32. 2. In respect of the Effect which in both is the Offenders Impurity But it will not follow there must be a similitude every way Pen might with as much shew of Reason infer from Eph. 4. 32. Forgiving one another even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you that seeing we are to ●orgive as God does us therefore we are not to forgive another but for the sake of some Third Person who hath interest in us Answ 2. We are not bound in all cas●s to forgive another without Satisfaction I● be repent forgive him if he t●rn again to thee saying I repent thou shalt forgive him Luke 17. 3 4. Man as a Judge may not forgive without Satisfaction to Law Arg. From Mat. 18. 27 33. he infers that it had been no fault in the Servant not to have forgiven his Brother without Satisfaction if the Kings Mercy had not been proposed for his Example Answ 1. That wherein the Comparison lies is the Forgiveness it self not the manner of Forgiveness There is ground enough for a Co●p●rison between Persons or things if there be a likenesse in any one respect See vers 35. 2. If we stick in the Letter of the Parable God is represented under another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude or Consideration than in the Doctrine of Satisfaction now under debate For here he i● considered as Rector or Governour but there as a Creditor and so as a private Person In the Doctrine of Satisfaction God discharges from Obligations Ex delicto or debts due to Justice by Offence committed against the Law In the Parable God discharges from an Obligation Ex contractu arising from Covenant on Contract So is a man made a debtor to a private Person And there 's not the sam● reason in many r●spect for Forgiveness without Satisfaction in both cases not to Execute Penal Laws is to disparage the Legislative Authority Hence the Rule in Politicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not easily to relax Laws once Established His first Absurdity p. 20. I pass by having declared my sence about the possiblity of pardoning sin without Satisfaction Abs 2. That the Creature is more capable of extending Forgiveness than the Creator Answ All that will follow from our Doctrine is that there is great difference between Gods condition and ours his Majesty and our meannes● that we have no reason to stand so much upon our Terms and to have such a Sentiment of affronts done to us there being an equality between us and our Brethren but an Infinite inequality between God and us Abs 3. That God so Loved the World as to give his only Son for to save it and yet that God stood off in Displeasure till Christ satisfied his Justice page 20. Answ To clear this observe that Divines distinguish of Tria momenta Divinae voluntatis three s●eps or degrees of Divine Love to Mankind 1. Before Christs Satisfaction God is not wholly averse from Reconciliation on good Terms though he be throughly angry with us For if he had been resolved to stand to the Rigor of the Law and not admit of any Satisfaction there had been an end of our Salvation 2. Upon Christs Satisfaction he does not only determine but promise to lay his Anger aside 3. Upon Actual Faith he layes aside his Anger quite and becomes our Friend W. Pens Reasons why Christ could not satisfie Gods Justice as man or as God singly I pass by though I might except against some of them as not cogent though the thing be true and owned by us But his reason why Christ could not satisfie as God-man is absurd in phrase and sence For where two Mediums or middle Propositions are singly inconsistent with the Nature of the end for which they were at first propounded their Conjunction does rather Augment than lessen the difficulty of its accomplishment His meaning is I think that where two things singly will not attain any end for which they are used as means much less will they attain it together As if he should say two men can much less bear a Burden when joyned together which neither of them alone can bear or rather as if he should say Lazarus Soul without his Body could not speak nor his Body without the Soul in their Separation therefore in their Union or Conjunction at his Resurrection muc● less could he speak I refer you to what hath been said before of the value of Christs Obedience arising from the Dignity of his Person To his Consequences I●religious and Irrational I shall say a little In the two first I am not concerned because they militate against the Impossiblity of Forgiveness without Satisfaction which I do not

beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24. 47. It doe● not then exclude the teachings of men But i● we compare this part of the Verse with the la●● Clause For all shall know me from the least to the greatest the meaning is evident viz. that Go● does not hereby exclude but include the teachings of Men and promise a greater efficacy to them than formerly so that the Christians 〈◊〉 the New Testament should be able to leave the Principles of the Dactrine of Christ and to go on to perfection As the Apostle speaks Heb. 6. 1. i. e. not to forget or unlearn them but not to stick in them without further progress as for a Scholar to be always learning Grammar and never proceed to Rhetorick Logick c. Second Scripture is 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye need n●● that any Man teach you Answ This is spoken in opposition to any o● the seducers vers 26. whos 's teaching the Christians needed not In which sence the Colossian● are said to be compleat in Christ Col. 2. 10 8. 〈◊〉 opposition to Mosaical Ceremonies humane traditions or Phylosophical Principles which might pretend to discover somewhat necessary to salvation not revealed in the Gospel or contrary to that revelation which interpretation of the tex● before us is favoured by the latter clause but 〈◊〉 the same anointing teacheth you all things and is truth and is no lie 1 Joh. 2. 27. 2. This place will bear another interpretation viz. that they were grown Christians such as did not altogether depend upon others but knew somewhat themselves having an inward light or spiritual judgment called metonymically an anointment That Character ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth 2 Tim. 3. 7. However it agreed to other Christians did not agree to them so that in the Quakers interpretation there is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as Logicians speak that is to take those words absolutely which are intended in a certain respect And that theirs cannot be the meaning will appear to any one that shall but remember that after Christs ascention when the spirit was poured out in most plentiful measure so that if at any time on Earth then might the teachings of Man seem needless there was greatest plenty of Teachers extraordinary ordinary as we finde in the Acts of the Apostles Another Branch of the Quakers Errour as to Ordinances refers to Baptism and the Lord's Supper of which they affirm that they cease upon the appearance of Christ within A. P ' s. several Papers p. 19. Farnworth's Discovery of Faith p. 11. Against which Errour I oppose two Arguments one for both Ordinances the other for Baptism in particular Arg. 1. If Baptism and the Lord's Supper are standing Ordinances or such as we are obliged to use during this life then they do not cease upon the appearance of Christ within or are not made useless or unnecessary by any degree of attainments in this life But the former is true therefore the latter That they are standing Ordinances appears because no formal repeal can be produced either in terminis or by any due consequence from Scripture nor yet any virtual repeal as in Laws made for a time and at the expiration thereof of course ceasing to oblige That then they do not cease as to our need of them follows evidently because it is not to be supposed consistent with Christ's wisdome to continue an obligation upon us to the use of a means when the end is obtained already All that can be said with any colour is that they are of perpetual obligation till the appearance of Christ within that is a full appearance or state of perfection But we having proved before that there is no such state attainable in this life then if those Ordinances oblige till we be arrived at perfection they oblige and so are of use during term of life Arg. 2 If Baptism be a Foundation-Doctrine as I may call it then it is of use during this life That it is such appears by Heb. 6. 1 2. where the Apostle calls the Doctrine of Baptism a Foundation by which phrase of the Apostle the knowledge of the use and intendment of that Ordinance by those who had or were to receive it ●eems to be meant The consequence is good If it be an Ordinance all Christians are to understand and improve then they must receive it Being baptized into Christs death cannot be an argument to induce the unbaptized to a mortification of sin which the Apostle urges upon the baptized Rom. 6. 3 4. If it be said that the Apostle exhorts the Hebrews to leave this Principle or Foundation of Christian Doctrine vers 1. I answer that by leaving it the Apostle cannot mean relinquishing the practice thereof For then by force of the same phrase applyed to Faith and Repentance c. These graces must also be left the contrary whereto I have before proved but the Apostle explains himself that they should not so stick in the foundation as not to proceed to the superstructure or highest points of Christian doctrine I could never meet with any thing that looked like an Argument for their opinion but that place which speaks of shewing forth the Lord's Death in the Supper till he come which they interpret till he come in the spirit 1 Cor. 11. 26. Answ So Christ was come already to the believing Corinthians The Apostle speaking of them and himself says We have received not the spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God 1 Ep. chap. 2. v. 12. And yet that hindred not the Apostles incouragement and direction in their use of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 25 26 28. Errour 9. That there is no Resurrection from the Dead Rob. Turner in a Letter of his to the Baptists and George Whitehead in his late Answer to W. Burnet and George Fox Jun. in his Works bound up together THe Scripture is plentiful in asserting the Resurrection I shall only single out one Argument to evince it Arg. If the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly then the same bodies that dye must rise again But the Antecedent is true therefore also the Consequent That the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their reward accordingly which Proposition is the ancecedent is evident by 2 Cor. 5. 10. And then the Consequence is firm because those bodies receive not their Reward till the universal Judgment and then they cannot receive it having been once dissolved unless they rise again For the further proof of antecedent and consequent I shall first explain the Terms of Christ's Argument to prove the Resurrection from the ●ead which to ordinary Readers may seem inconsequent and then shew how the Argument is ●educed The place is Mat. 22. 31 32. As touching their Resurrection from the Dead have ye not Read that ●hich was spoken unto you by God ● Saying I am ●●e God of