Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	part_n	whole_a	26,351	5	6.3148	4	true

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

Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the Dead but ●f the Living And t is added Luke 20. 38. For all ●●ve unto him To be a God to Abraham notes a Covenant●elation and so an Obligation to confer all the Blessings of the Covenant among which E●ernal Glory is though the last yet not the least Not the God of the Dead that might be meant ●ither of them who are dead simply or of them ●hat are so dead as that they shall never return ●o life Not in the former sence for God pro●laimed himself the God of Abraham c. long ●fter he was dead therefore in the latter sence ●ut of the living that is of them whom God in●ends to restore to Life or whose bodies live Po●entially not only of them whose Souls live ●ctually For all live to him that Clause seems to ●mport a reason of that Denomination living given to those that were truly dead viz. That God calls the things that are not as if they were Rom. 4. 19. Because of his Omnipotency and Immutability of his Counsel Concerning the Scope of these Words the● are different apprehensions some conceive tha● Christ hereby proves the Immortality of th● Soul which the Sadduces denied as appears by Acts 23. 8. For if there be no Soul of a Spiritu●● Nature in man it must needs be Mortal as hi● body and by consequence only the Resurrection of the body The Sadduces denying the Resurrection 〈◊〉 the body because they denyed the Immortali●● of the Soul as these Interpreters conceive others that Christ intends only to prove th● Resurrection of the body so Calvin Other● that Christ intends both directly so Be● Diodati And hence the Argument of our Lor● is somewhat differently framed Either thus They whose God God is shall rise from the Dea● God is Abraham's Isaac's and Jacob's God Therefore they and upon the same ground all other Believers shall rise again The consequence he proves because God is the Go● only of the Living and so seeing they live i● Soul they shall live in Body too Or else thus They whose God God is after death shall rise again But God is the God of Abraham c. an● consequently of all Believers after death therefore Abraham c. shall rise again The reason of the consequence is because otherwise God were not the God of Abraham's Isaac's and Jacob's and so other Believers persons but of their Souls only whereas to be ●he God of their Persons is to be under a Co●enant to give them as other things so Glo●y and so their bodies must be glorified as ●ell as their Souls their Persons being con●●ituted or made up of those two Essential ●arts or the Argument may be framed more ●lainly thus in the sence of Christs Words If God be under a Promise to glorifie the Persons of Abraham Isaac and Jacob then ●heir bodies must rise again But God is under such a Promise therefore their bodies must rise again The antecedent is evident by the Explication of the Terms above The consequence depends upon a double ground partly Gods Fidelity in making good his Promise and partly because Abrahams c. body is uncapable of the benefit of the Promise of Glory made to it without 〈◊〉 Resurrection And the Argument thus phrased suggests a fuller answer to the Exception made against it as first laid down viz. That God might be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob after death if there were no Resurrection because their Souls live in respect of which God were their God Answ First God is said to be the God of Abraham that is of his Person for his Soul is but part of his Person not the whole and to be the God of the Person includes the glorifying of the whole Person not only of a part 2. God were not fully Abraham's God o● did not fully make good his Promise if h● glorified one part of Abraham and not another 3. Nor were the Promise to glorifie Abraham ●● Soul made good without glorifying his body too for the Happiness of the Soul is not perfect without the body it 's dear and belove● Companion the Soul having a strong desi●● and Inclination to a re-union to the body a● the Schools not without good ground determine Vid Calvin Harm Evang. in Mat. 22. 31 32. Luc. 20 38. 4. It whole Abraham be not the correlate i● the Cōvenant or party Covenanted with ho● is any thing as in the Text a Resurrection attributed to him in respect of a part of him There cannot be a ground for a Limitation i● respect of a part as here that ●braham shou'd rise as to his body unless the Whole be in Being either Actually as to his Soul or Potentially as to his Body in respect of the Decree and Covenant of God Vid. Vedel Rationale Theolog●cum l. 2. c. 6. To apply the sum of Christs Argument for the proof of the antecedent and consequent o● my Argument for the Resurrection which was this If the bodies that have done Good or Evil must receive their Reward accordingly then the same bodies must rise again c. That the bodies that have done good must receive their reward is evident because God is under a promise to reward them And rise again they must because else God's Promise to the bodies must either not be made good at all or not to t●e same body to which it was made which is contrary to the whole Scope of Christ's Argument If any shall say that Christ's Argument and my Application of it proves but the Resurrection of the good and their Reward in their bodies I answer two things 1. That the Sadduces and Quakers Proposition being That there is no Resurrection from the dead which is an universal Negative therefore a particular Affirmative that some the good shall rise again is contradictory thereto and overthrows their Negative and therefore to prove that all shall rise again is not strictly needful for that were Oppositio contraria not Contradictoria as the Logicians speak Yet Ex abundanti I answer 2. Christs Argument suggests another to us for the proof of the Resurrection of the ba● For by the same Reason that the good must ●ise because of God's Promise to Glorifie their Bodies the wicked also must rise because of God's threatning to torment their Bodies For God is not more bound to fulfill his Promises than his threats when they have some stamp or character upon them as an Oath for instance Heb. 3. 18. Chap. 7. 21. whereby they may be known to be signa beneplaciti discoveries of God's secret will or decree Which limitation I add because 't is evident that some promises and threats have a tacite condition upon which though not the act of Divine will ye● the things willed depend as 1 Sain 2. 30. Jonah 3. 4 10. and in the non-performance of them God does not cross but comply with his secret will Turner's Argument against the

Consession was extorted by clear evidence Luke 4. 34. And Holy Harmless Vndefiled se●●rate from Sinners Heb. 7. 26. since he left the Earth 2. Because Christ Obedience was not originally due to God i● it had one debt could not have paid another I do not mean that Christ as Man was not subject to the Law of God because of the Union of the Humane Nature from the first moment of it's existence to the divine Nature in the Person os the Son of God For this seems contrary to Scripture Gal. 4. 4. Made of a Woman made under the Law and the personal Union seems no more to dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then to take away the Essential Properties Parts or Faculties of Body and Soul whereof his humane Nature did consist And if that Union did dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then Christ as Man could not be Holy by a true Inherent Righ●eousness of the humane Nature which lies in the Conformity to the Law of God given thereunto and so had not been capable of Meriting at all But in two respects may Christ's obedience be said not to be Originally due 1. In that he being a Person before he became Man he was at his Election whither he would become Man or not that is a rational Creature which of course or Ipso facto as we say upon it's existence becomes a Subject as the Connexion imports Made of a Woman mad● under the Law Gal. 4. 4. and so had the refusal of being under the Law● and he becam● Man that he might come under the Law 2. When he was Man he was not under an Obligation to obey to any such ends as to satisfie divine Justice and merit Life for them who had demerited Death For it not being in the compa●● of any meer Mans power there was no such Obligation upon any meer Man as to obey or suffer by way of Satisfaction for another man● Disobedience or to recover thereby the happiness another man had lost and make a new purchase of what he had forfeited and God had sei●ed into his own hands 3. The third Ground of the merit of Chri●● Obedience is the Dignity of the Person know not what other reason but the Digni●● resulting from the Divine Nature to the H●mane that the Blood of the Son of man is ca●led the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. God purchas● the Church with his own Blood The action of o●● Nature is the action of the whole Person Act●ones sunt Suppositorum we say in the Schools an● we distinguish between Principium quo an● quod A man is said to think and to speak because they are both the acts of the Person though the one he does by vertue of his Soul the ther of his Body And as sence is dignified by being under the command of Reason in a man which it is not under in a Bruit so is the Humane Nature by Union to the Divine As for the Cavil of Socinians whose Vomit the Quakers have now licked up that the dignity of the Person comes not under Consideration because t is not the God-head or Divine Nature that suffers it is very futilous They might with as much reason say t is all one whither I strike my Prince or a private Person or an Enemy or my Father because my blows do not fall upon Authority or Relation but on the person in Dignity or related to me as Grotius well observes De Satist Chr. c. 8. And it contradicts the common sence of all Nations who proportion their Punishment to the digni●y or the Person injured I shall answer one Objection though not in W. Pens Book Object How can God be said to forgive freely when he requires Satisfaction Are not these two Contradictory Answ 1. There is no contradiction between Forgiveness and Satisfaction because they are not ad idem they respect not the same Persons If Satisfaction were required of us we could not be said to be forgiven Answ 2. There are divers acts of Grace whereby God makes way for Satisfaction and the benefits of it 1. A Relaxation of the Law which term in the Civil Law notes an Act of a Superiour whereby the Obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to some Persons and things In the case before us there was such an act of Gods whereby he admits a surety whereas the Law threatned the Sinner himself A relaxation of the Law I say there was as that is opposed to an Abrogation which is not here for then the Elect whilst Sinners in state were not under the Curse of the Law which to affi●m were to contradict the Apostle Gal. 3. 13. and as a Relaxation is opposed to a favourable Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then the surety were in the primary Obligation as when one Person enters into a Recognisance with another for his appearance in Court But Christ was not bound with Man in the Covenant of Works to see the Law kept or undergo the penalty which Relaxation was an Act of Soveraign●y to the exercise whereof his own grace and nothing foreseen in us did prompt him 2. Another act of Gods Grace is the Nomination and Appointment of a surety Christ was made a surety Heb. 7. 21. and by the Father Heb. 10. 7. I come to do thy will sayes Christ to his Father of his undertakement as our surety which is an act of Grace for the Debtor not the Creditor the Malefactor not the Judge is to find a surety A Representation of both these acts we have Gen. 22. 2. 13. where God admitted and provided a Ram for a Sacrifice instead of Isaac though the Letter of the Command was to offer Isaac himself 3. Gods Actual Acceptance the Payment or Satisfaction made and tendered by Christ which appears as otherwise so especially 1. By his Resurrection 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh was justified in the Spirit that is by his God-head so called because t is in Nature Spiritual 1 John 4. 24. compared with 1 Pet. 3. 18. where t is said of Christ That he was put to death in the Flesh but quickned by the Spirit that is his Humane and Divine Nature And they instruct us in this Truth that Christ's Resurrection was not only an Effect of Divine Power but also of Christs Justification from our sin charged upon him in his Death and so a Foundation laid for our Actual Forgiveness to be built on by Faith That passage also contributes some Assistance Math. 28. vers 3. where the Angels of the Lord descended from Heaven and rold away the St●ne from the Door of the Sepulchre which would have been an Impediment to his getting out For what can the Creditors release of the Surety out of Prison signifie but that he is satisfied and the Debt paid 2. By his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat

worship for which hearing is put by a Synecdoche as equivalent in merit to a perfect legal righteousness Errour 5. That a siate of freedome from sin is attainable in this Life AGainst this Error I urge two Arguments 1. If no meer Man ever attained to any such state then it is not attainable But no meer Man ever did c. The consequence carries great probability of truth As for the minor that no Man ever did attain a state of perfection we may prove by the instances of the eminently holy Persons in the Scripture who in all likelihood would have attained it had it been attainable I know the Quakers do give instances of meer Men in Scripture that were perfect but their mistake lies in the different use of that word as we shall see by and by Arg. 2. If there be a continual need and use of faith and repentance in this life then a state of freedome from sin is not attainable in this life But there is a continual need and use of faith and repentance in this life Therefore a state of freedome from sin is attainable in this life The Consequence is evident What need can he have of repentance for sin that hath no sin to repent of or of faith in Christ for pardon and power against sin who is already free from what contracts guilt and defilement That there is continual use of faith and there 's the like reason of repentance appears from 1 Cor. 13. ult Now abide Faith Hope and Charity these three but the greatest of these is Charity See p. 33. By Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to understand love to God as well as to our Neighbour as is evident by Ver. 3. between which and faith and hope the Apostle states the comparison in respect of their duration that when the two former shall cease the latter shall abide Charity or love suits our future perfect as well as our present imperfect state but faith and hope suit only our present and imperfect state The Quakers Arguments are drawn 1. From the word perfect Phil. 3. 15. and elsewhere applied to Saints on Earth Ans The word perfect is sometimes used absolutely 1 Cor. 13. 10. opposed to what is in part and sometimes comparatively Phil. 3. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded Yet Ver. 12. he says Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect He denies in one Verse what he affirms in the other and so contradicts himself if the word perfect be in both places understood in the same sence But 't is evident that in the 15. ver perfect is not properly taken for he exhorts to be minded a● he was Following after the Resurrection of the Dead Verse 11. That is that state of holiness which the Saints shall be invested with at the resurrection call'd the resurrection of the dead metonymically which will be in a proper sence perfect and in a word to press after perfection from a lively sence of their own imperfection 2. From the Exhortations to press after perfection Math. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect Answ Such commands are the measure of our duty not of our attainments I mean in this life In the life to come indeed we shall be like God in this life we are Children that bear small resemblance to their Parent See 1 Joh. 3. 2. That which is now our rule shall be then our reward 3. 1 Joh. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin Answ 1. We may interpret it that as he is born of God he does not sin Every Childe of God is mixta persona as our Law says of the King in another sence consists of an old and new nature and so his new nature is the principium quo the Principle from which he acts graciously and the old nature the principle from which he acts sinfully As mortal or immortal ●yable or not lyable to Death is truly assirmed of the same Man in respect of the divers parts of his nature Body and Soul 2. It may intend the manner of sinning So ●he 8. Verse seems to limit it He that committeth in is of the Devil for the Devil sinneth from the ●eginning The comparison is not between the act ●imply for then it should have been said only for ●he Devil sinneth but from the beginning implies ● comparison between the manner of Mans sins and the Devils in respect of which he is said to be of the Devil because he imitates his example who from the Day he began never ceased to sin nor ever did one truly good action Errour 6. That Christ enlightens every Man to Salvation George Whitehead 's Voice of Wisdom WHere note that the word Christ is a mee● blinde to delude the ignorant for the Quakers denying Christ to be God they cannot own him for the Author of illumination The Scriptures I urge against this Tenent are Eph. 2. 12. That at that time ye were without Christ having no hope c. That last clause I intend especially which must needs be understood either of the act of hope or of the ground or warran● of hope not of the former for having no hope is a badge of distinction between Jew and Gentile as appears by the connexion with the foregoing clause Aliens from the Common-wealth o● Isrdel that Common-wealth and Church being commensurate but if we understand it o● the act of hope the want of that did not distinguish the Gentile from the Jewes for many o● the Jewes laboured under the same want Many of them were unbelievers and so had no hope One difference between faith and hope being this that the former looks at the promise of the benefit the latter at the benefit in the promise Fides respicit verbum r●● spes rem verbi Luther We must understand the phrase then of having no ground or warrant of hope and to that interpretation the foregoing clause leads us Strangers from the Covenants of promises And Gentiles thereby were distinguished from the Jews whose the promises are said to be Rom. 9. 4. viz. the promises of Christ and Salvation From the words thus explained ●argue Arg. They that had no promises of Christ and Salvation by him could know of none But the Gentiles for a time had none therefore they knew of none and consequently had not a light or knowledge sufficient to bring them to Salvation The major is evident every act supposes an object I cannot know that which is not The minor is proved by 1 Tim. 3. last where God manifest in the Flesh and as such preached to the Gentiles are made two parts of the mystery of godliness and by that pregnant place the mystery of Christ which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of Men as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit that the Gentiles should be follow-heirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by

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

affirm Cons 3. That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to ●nflict punishment on the Innocent or require a Satisfaction where there was Nothing due Answ 1. I do not say nor do we generally that is was unworthy of God to pardon Sin without Satisfaction because he did not think fit to do it That will be no better Consequence than to say if it had pleased God to Create the World Then it had been unworthy of God not to have Created it For God proceeded on good Grounds in reresolving the contrary 1. For though his Love to Righteousness and Hatred of Sin had been never the less if he had not punished Sin yet man might have been apt to have mis-judged him The sinner concluded God to be such an one as himself i. e. one that made as light a matter of sin as he did because of Gods patience towards him Psal 50. 21. 2. Impunity might have been abused sor an Incouragement to sin Eceles 8 11. and other reasons might be given 3. The reason why it was not unworthy of God to punish the Innocent is because of his free consent and Volenti non fit injuria and because as God he had a Soveraign and as man a special deputed Power over his life and the comforts of it Joh. 10. 18. He had a commandment to lay down his Life 3. According to Pen's Opinion Christ though Innocent and but a meer-Man Suffered only for an Example p. 19. and why not then for Satisfaction to Divine Justice that being a Nobler design 4. Christ when he suffered was not Innocent and when God required Satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he suffered for it For Guilt is but Obligatio ad Poenam an Obligation to undergoe Punishment which Christ was under by Contract Christ was a surety Heb. 7. 22. when our deb● was demanded of him And the surety is a truly a Debtor as the Principal though the manner of becomming such be different Cons 4. It deprives God of the Praise of his Love Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption Cons 8. Then we are not beholding to God Answ I put these together because he here contradicts himself for if the Son was Gods Gift for our Redemption how are we not beholden to God or how is God deprived entirely of the prai●e of his Grace in our Redemption Cons 5. It represents the Son more kind than the Father whereas if he be the same God then either the Father is as loving as the Son or the Son as ●●gry as the Father Answ 1. Consider the Father and Son as God they are equally kind to Mankind and equally angry at mans sin as appears by their purposes of Mercy and Punishment discovered in the Promises and Threatnings 2. Our Doctrine represents not the Son kinder than the Father but intimates a distinct manner and order of Kindness or Operation about our Salvation answerable to the order of their being that as the Father is the first so the Contrivement of our Redemption is more peculiarly his Act the Undertakement of our actual Redemption peculiarly the Act of the Son It is a rule in Divinity Vnum idemque opus or operatio vel actio rather Opus enim est effectus actionis ad extra diverso respectu Personale est essentiale External Actions of God are in a diverse respect Essential and Personal The Decree of the Son of Gods Incernation the Creation of his Body and Soul the parts of that Nature he subsisted in were Acts ●ommon to Father and Son as one God or essential Acts but the Election of the Son to be our Redeemer in our Nature is the peculiar Act of the Father● The assumption of our Nature the peculiar Act of the Son or personal Act. Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption in affirming the Son purchased that Redemption from the Father by giving himself to God as our Compleat Satisfaction Ans No such matter The designation of the Son of God to be our Redeemer considered as the Fathers personal act is a fruit of the meer love of God the Father yet the actual collation of Redemption in its effects and benefits depends on Christs purchase or as the Schools distinguish the actus volendi or the Fathers gift of the Son for our Redemption to use Pen's phrase depends on nothing without himself but the res volita or the Redemption it self our actual freedom from sin and wrath depends on what Christ did and suffer'd as an end upon its means Cons 7. By Christs payment of our debt it is not forgiven but transferd we owing that now to the Son which was owing before to the Father Ans He might as well say when a surety pays the debt the debtor owes that to the surety he owed before to his Creditor and so he is no better provided for than before to use W. P's words which is not true but when counter-security is given the surety by the principal Cons 9. If Gods justice be satisfied for sins past present and to come God and Christ have lost their power of injoyning godliness and punishing disobedience Ans 1. Christs obedience was not intended to exempt us from a personal obedience to the Law but from it only as a condition of life And we are only so far made righteous by Christs obedience as we are unrighteous by our own disobedience 2. God cannot punish disobedience by vertue of the Covenant of works upon a justified person for then he should exact satisfaction of the Debter after he had received it of the surety And why may we not say God cannot do what were unjust for him to do A moral though not a natural impotency may be ascribed to God Error 3. That we are not justified by imputed righteousness W. Pen. THe word justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies justum facere and in the Scripture usage it is a foren-sick word and signifies to pronounce righteous and so is opposed to condemnation and accusation Rom. 8. 33. The word impute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supputo to cast account and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to think imagine and reason and hence in Scripture it is applied to a legal act whereby the righteousness of one viz. Christ is admitted for another and so far accounted and esteemed that others as that he obtains the benefit of it to all intents and purposes as if it had been his personal righteousness I shall produce for the word and thing but one Scripture which is express for us Rom. 4. 6. As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works that is the Righteousness of another without Works of her own else there were contradictio

man is actually poor not worth a Groat but imputatively Rich as having by his Surety paid his debt of Thousands or to say the nine Men throughout a mutinous Army are actually Guilty and yet imputatively Innocent when the tenth man is admitted to sustain the punishment due to the rest Yet there 's not the like reason to say a man is actually Damned and imputatively Saved no more th●n to say a man is actually dead and imputatively alive for Imputation is an act of Law and makes only a relative not a real change as from being condemned to be justified not from being dead to be a alive W. P's Consequences are some the same with his Arguments as 1 2 3 6. and so answered already and the other three are co-incident upon the matter and the sum of them is that if we be justified by imputed Righteousness there is no need of Inherent Righteousness Answ There is no need of Inherent righteousness for Justification but yet there is need of it as to other ends as to make us meet for Heaven Col. 1. 12. The different use or need of imputed and personal Righteousness may be expressed by this Similitude I egitimation gives ● right in Law to our Parents estate The use of reason gives a natural capacity of injoying it Imputed Righteousness gives us a Title to the Heavenly Inheritance Inherent gives us a fitness for the enjoying of it it lying in communion with God without likeness of disposition there can be no liking of each other Errour 4. That our Good Works as they are wrought in the Spirit are a Meritorious or deserving Cause of our Justification Geo. Whitehead Voyce of Wisdom p. 19. Printed 1659. The Arguments I urge against this Errour are Three Arg. 1. OUr good Works fall short of the rule of Justification which is the whole Law Rom. 8. 3. What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son c. The sum of the Verse is that Christ was sent to fulfull the Law for our Justification which we could not do our selves through our corruption which makes us as a verse so impotent to Obedience of the Law Arg. 2. That we should be justified by our good Works is inconsistent with the professed end of God in the way of our Justification which is that whosoever Glorieth may Glory in the Lord vers 31. Which Affirmative implies the Negative spoken of on another account vers 29. That no Flesh may Glory in his presence But if we be justified by our good Works all Glorying is not taken away from us as appears by Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then it is excluded By what Law of Works Nay but by the Law of Faith I mean and so does the Apostle such glorying or boasting as the creature is capable of The Apostle tells us indeed that if Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to Glory but not before God Rom. 4. 2. I suppose partly because all his strength and so proportionably any of ours so justified to do those Works was originally from God which consideration is suggested to check our boasting either of Gifts or Graces What hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou did●t receive it why dost thou Glory as if thou hadst not received it 1 Cor. 4. 7. And partly because we have an immediate dependance upon God in our Operations John 15. 5. Without me ye can do nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seorsima me separate or apart from me rela●ing to that mystical Union between Christ and his People whereby their dependance upon him in all the good they do is as neer and intimate as that of the Branches upon the Vine by vertue of their natural Union in the bearing any Fruit. So the 4 verse states the Comparison As the Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self except it abide in the Vine no more can ●ee except ye abide in me 3. There is no natural Equivalency between our good Works and a Reward as there seem● to be between our Evil Works and Punishment though the Law had expressed no penalty What boasting then you will ask is the Creature capable of and hath he ground for in Justification by his own good Works or Righteousness I answer That there comes nothing as the reason or Me●itorious Cause of the reward promised between the promise of Reward to our Good Works and the performance of it but the goodness of our Works or their conformity to the rule the Law of God The truth of this will appear if we compare the Tenor of the Covenant of Works and Grace Gal. 3. That no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident For the just shall live by Faith and the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them i. e. the many things contained in the Law shall live in them vers 11. 12. T is evident to any attentive Reader that a comparison is here made between the two Covenants in point of Justification and their difference lies in this that in the one the doe● of the Law lives in o● by it but the just Evangelically lives by Faith not by Faith as a Work for considered as such Faith being opposed to the deeds of the Law is opposed to and excludes it self but Faith i● metonymically put for its object Christ closed with for Justification or Righteousness of Christ made ours by Faith called therefore ●● Righteousness through the Faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by Faith viz. in respect of the actual Collation or bestowing of it not of the Provision or Preparation of it for that is before Faith Phil. 3. 9. And because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a Walking humbly with God Micah 6. 8. That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not di●ectly to the Law of Providence or Submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no answer which be seems plainly to designe to the Query what the Lo●d will be pleased with or what Satisfaction shall be given him for Israels sin which is the sum of the Questions vers 7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams or with ten thousands of Rivers of Oyl Shall I give my first-Born for my Transgression the fruit of my Body for the Sin of my Soul But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy gift but of thy acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of mans heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to acce●t of the punishment of his Iniquity justly afflicted It makes him as loath to part with

Resurrection are Arg. From Eccles 3. 19 20 21. Whence he concludes the fleshly Bodies of Men rise not again for if the fleshly Bodies of Men rise again and not the flesh of Beasts then Mens Bodies have a preheminence over a Beasts Body and to affirm the Bodies of Men shall rise again were to give Solomon the lie Answ Men are said to be Beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply but in a certain respect viz. in respect of the mortality of the Body which being composed of the same materials with bruit Beasts is as lyable to a dissolution In respect of the immortality of Mans Soul and the Resurrection of his Body He hath preheminence above a Beast As for Verse 21. if they be the Atheists words personated by Solomon they note the Reason of his Opinion because the difference between Man and Beast as to their future state is not visible as their agreement in their dissolution is If they be Solomon's own words he cannot be supposed to mean any more than that the different disposal of the spirits of Man and Beast is not visible to the eye of sence and but dimly to the eye of reason and faith and so may be an occasion of the Atheists conceit that that difference in their future state is but talk and uncertain conjecture For Ch. 12. 7. Solomon tells us that The Spirit of Man returns to God that gave it viz. to be disposed of as Justice or Mercy shall see meet Arg. 2. From Job 7. 8. The Fye of him that bath seen me shall see me no more But if all rise again then the Eye that hath seen him may see him again which Opinion giveth Job the lie Answ The meaning of Job can be but that the Eye that had seen him should after his death see him no more in statu quo not with such worldly comforts about him as now he had Verse 10. he instances in a return to his House They that had seen him and Inhabitant in the Land of Vz should never see him there again in that capacity Vers 7. He says his Eye should see no more good compare that passage with this in hand and they amount to this that Job should after death no more in joy the accommodations of this life and therefore no Eye could be witness of any such in joyment That Job did not intend a denial of the Resu●●●ction of his Bod● unless we will make Job give himsel● the lie is evident by Chap. 19. 26 27. And though after my Skin worms destroy this body yet in my Flesh shall I see God whom I shall see for my self and mine Eyes shall behold and not another though my Reins be consumed within me Of which place he that would see a full explication let him read the Learned Caryl Comm on Job All that I shall infer from the summe of the words discernable by an ordinary judgment is that if Job had the same body after the Resurrection that he had before then he was as visible after as before it Arg. 3. From 1 Cor. 15. 50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God then not the body of Man says the Quaker for that is flesh and in it is blood Answ The latter Clause of this Verse explains the former Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption where the Apostle gives us to understand that a corruptible Body shall not inherit a state of immortality the adjunct being put for the subject in both words And the Quakers interpretation crosses the whole drift of the Apostle in a great part of the Chapter which is to shew that the same Body shall rise but with so different qualities that it shall be as unlike to what it was before as the standing Corn to the Seed p●t into the Earth or as one Star is to another in brightness and lustre Vers 37 38 41. And the Apostle enumerates those qualities Vers 42 43 44. The sum whereof is that that body which was before mortal i. e. liable to death natural i. e. supported by food rest c. dishonoured by being used as an Instrument of sin and by weaknesses blemishes the fruits of sin shall become immortal i. e. not liable to death spiritual i. e. not needing nor using its former props glorious neither subject to sin or the punishment of it I might have been much larger on these points but I know great Books finde sew buyers and fewer Readers and therefore I resolved not to exceed Six Sheets I wish what I have done may prove profitable If my Answers seem not so cleer as the Objections which I hope I need not fear unless in the point of the Trinity that being a mystery so high that it re●ates the sharpest edge of humane understanding I desire the Reader to ponder upon this grave saying of a learned Man It is easier to oppose than to defend the Christian Religion for it having something in it above the capacity of Man's understanding 't is no hard matter by reason to oppose such a Religion Villeroy in his Counceller of State FINIS AN ADVERTISEMENT ONe of W. Pens Arguments against the Trinity I had almost omitted it being out of its proper Place in his Book viz. that in p. 10. If the God-head subsist in Three distinct Manners or Forms then one of them cannot be a compleat Subsistence without the other two and so parts and something sinite would be in God or if in finite then Three distinct in finite Subsistences and by consquence Three distinct Gods Answ Not to Quarrel at the Impropriety of Pens Phrase nor at the Coincidence in effect of this with his Third Arguments I answer by denying the consequence For as every Person is compleat In esse quid ditativo per Essentiam i. e. is truly God by having the Divine Nature So is every Person compleat In esse Personali per Subsistentiam as the Schools speak i. e. is a compleat Subsistent or Person by his proper manner of Subsisting And I wonder he should not see that his Argument may be retorted upon him thus If the God-head be in Three Manners or Forms then the God-head in one manner must needs be a compleat Subsistent and distinct from the God-head in the other two manners Or more plainly thus If the same God-head be in Father Son and Spirit then they must needs be distinct one from another and any one compleat without the other two God the Father cannot be God the Son nor can God the Son be God the Father Though both Father and Son are one God For the Persons are formally Constituted by their relative Properties and so the God-head considered with its Three relative Properties admits of a Three-sold distinction from it self absolutely considered If any shall wonder at the Distance of Time between the Date of the Epistle and Publication he may please to know that the Whole Book except the Advertisement was flnished before the Epistle but by reason of some intervening Accidents not needful nor altogether Convenient to be mentioned could not get through the Press till now ERRATA Title page dele Collected Ep. to Reader p. 1. l. 15. for referd r. refin'd l. 19. for charitably devout r. charitable and devout p. 4. l. 4. for and like this r. as in this instance Book p. ● l. 3. dele or p. 14. l. 4. dele the properties of and after attributes r. among themselves and with their Subjects p. 17. l. 7. for of Persons in the nature Three r. Three Persons in the nature p. 24. l. 1. far counterpriae r. counterprice p. 35. l. 8. dele had The Literal Faults may easily be seen and amended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratis immerito without sufficient Cause