of Christians in the truths and ways of God In W. P's conclusion by way of caution he teleth us he doth not disown Father Word and Spirit to be one but he disowneth them to be three Persons which hath been proved out of the Scripture that the Trinity as he saith hath not a foundation in the Scripture that its original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World hath been proved to be false What he speaketh concerning the Council of Sirmia That the controversie concerning the Trinity should not be remembred because the Scriptures made no mention thereof is also falsely alledged for by that very Council the Doctrine of the Trinity is expresly asserted as a chief article of the Christian faith and the distinction of Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost plainly implyed in the Anathema which was pronounced upon those that asserted they were but one Person that which W. P. citeth is concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which this Council was heterodox as it might well be when so much influenced by the Emperor Constantius who himself was infected with Arianisme But W. P. should have looked into the Councils more ancient and authentique than the Sirmian namely the first Nicene Council which condemned the Arian heresie blasphemously denying the Son to be coeternal and coessential with the Father the first Constantinopolitan council which condemned the Macedonian heresie denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost The Council of Ephesus Chalcedon who with other approved oecumenical Councils generally assented to the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of the three Persons What W. P. further addeth concerning the occasion of Idolatry is groundless the scandalizing of Turks c. is no wonder when the preaching of Christ crucified was such a stumbling-block of old After he confesseth that Christ offered unto God a Satisfactory Sacrifice and yet he denieth Christs Satisfaction and Justification by his imputative Righteousness all which three Doctrines being Fundamental established by the Word of Truth W. P's attempts to subvert them are in vain and have discovered him to be both a Blasphemer and an Heretick Since I began my Answer to W. P. there came to my hands a Pamphlet subscribed by Solomon Eccles styled The Quakers Challenge wherein amongst others he challengeth me at two Weapons as he calleth them to Fast seven days and seven nights and to Wake seven days and seven nights and that hereby tryal shall be made who are in the truth Though the Pamphlet be ridiculous yet I was unwilling to let it pass without any remark and my Answer is when the Lord hath appointed these ways for tryal of the Orthodox and Hereticks I shall undertake them but not finding any such Command or Warrant in the Word to forbear Food or Sleep so long but on the contrary because it is a tempting of God and a breach of the sixth Commandment which requireth all lawful endeavors for the preservation of our own life as well as the lives of others therefore it would be a God-provoking sin to endanger self-murther by such Weapons The Scripture Instances of Fasting many days together were miraculous and not for our imitation others I have heard of that have lived as many days together as he speaketh of without meat or drink or sleep but they have been distracted people amongst whom this man deserveth to be numbred and if I should answer him in the way he challengeth I should be accounted by the sober as mad as himself His Lie he venteth concerning me is refuted already in my Narrative CHAP. X. The Call and Exhortation HAving asserted and proved the three great Doctrines of the Trinity Satisfaction and Iustification denyed by W. P. I shall further add by way of premise to the Call and Exhortation what was before intimated that these three are great Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion necessary to be believed in order to Salvation the unbelief and denyal of which will bring unavoidable damnation 1. The Doctrine of the Trinity of distinct Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence is a Fundamental Truth because the Godhead in the three persons is the proper object of saving Faith and right Worship and those that do not savingly believe and rightly worship God cannot possibly be saved besides the denyal of the three distinct persons in the Godhead doth necessarily inferr the denyal of the co-eternal co-essential Deity of the Son and Holy Ghost which is Blasphemy and damnable Heresie so accounted by the most ancient and authentique Councils and by the true Church of God in all Ages II. The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and Justification by his imputed Righteousness are Fundamental Truths also without which there can be no Redemption Reconciliation Remission and consequently no Salvation This being premised I shall now apply my self first to the Quakers and then to others To W. P. and other Quakers who believe these and other Quaker damnable errors I shall propound these four Queries which I shall answer according to truth Que. 1. Do you know what you are 1. You are strangers to Christ whatever your fancy be of Christ within you and I am confident that none of you all that believe these errors have had experience of the new birth and forming of Christs image upon your hearts since there never is a work of regeneration and uniting the souls of any to Christ that leaveth them in such darkness and error as you are left and bound up in No had you been ever truly regenerated you would have been humbled and emptied of your selves you would have seen your selves lost in your selves and your need of Christs satisfaction and imputed Righteousness without which you would have been assured that there is no possibility Gods anger should be appeased and your souls saved It is not turning Quaker that is turning from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to Christ but on the contrary it is a turning from light to darkness and from Christ to Satan and what will be the issue hereof not remission of sins and salvation but the fastening of guilt upon you and eternal destruction 2. You are enemies to Christ and I believe that Jesus Christ hath scarcely greater enemies under the Sun than you who are greater enemies to Christ than those who deny his eternal Deity as I have proved to be the plain consequence of W. P's words and of the denial of the Trinity who are greater enemies to Christ than those that deny his Satisfaction and Justification by his merrits who are greater enemies to Christ than those that oppose his faithful Ministers and Embassadors and that lye in wait to deceive and mislead Christians you are enemies to his truths and ways and ordinances and cause and interest and Ministers and true Disciples and all this with Christ in your mouths and I am confident the Lord doth hate and abhor you for such hypocrisy 3. You are Children of the Devil and
or shew himself There was no need to save my Brethren for I do not remember one word either of Scripture or right reason that was opposed to what they asserted and proved so that it was neither to save my Brethren nor to shew my self that I then appeared but to stop a blasphemer's mouth and to make manifest his wickedness that he might proceed no further 2 Tim. 3. 8 9. Silences our further controverting the Principle Your further reproaching and reviling it you mean for if you would have disputed it without your wicked comparisons and reflections I would not have interposed By a Sylogistical but false and impertinent Reflection upon G. W. his person it runs thus He that scornfully and reproachfully compares the Doctrine of the Trinity of Father Son and Spirit to three finite men as Paul Peter and John is a Blasphemer But you G. W. have so done Ergo That this is a false and impertinent reflection on G. W. his person you assert but prove not I shall therefore prove the contrary And first that the minor is not false nor impertinent appears by his words and your confession for you acknowledge that in scorn to the Doctrine of the Trinity he compar'd it to three finite men viz. Paul Peter and Iohn which you call a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of our Doctrine Secondly that the major is not false nor impertinent as is manifest for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hurt or blast the fame of another is all one as to blaspheme him and hence the perverse disputings and railings of men of corrupt mindes that consent not to wholesom words and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemies 1 Tim. 6. 4. And what can be more derogatory to the glory of the infinite God than to fasten the imperfections and limitations of finite creatures upon him and to assert three separate essences as the necessary consequent of three distinct persons this was the old Arian Plot whereby he and his followers endeavored to prejudice the mindes of well meaning but simple men against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and this is to blaspheme God and the Scriptures A strange way of argumentation to beg what cannot be granted and to take for granted what still remains a question viz. that there are three distinct and separate persons in one essence What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the Divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then I say it was no begging of the question for it had been sufficiently proved that there are in the Divine Essence three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Let them first prove their Trinity and then charge their Blasphemy It is not for want of proof that this Doctrine is rejected and blasphemed and still called our Trinity in a way of reproach assure your self the day is coming when you will wish you had made it yours also but you have a way to scorn all that is offered in defence of it as mens lo here Interpretations and lo there and to brand all the determinations of Councels Fathers c. concerning it as the issues of Faction Prejudice and Cruelty and there is little hope that any Arguments though never so strong will convince men of such proud insolent humors this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible Gen. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Verb of the singular number signifies the Unity of the Divine Effence and the Noun of the plural number denotes the Trinity of persons God that created Heaven and Earth is God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Read also Iob 35. 13. God thy Makers Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54. 5. My Makers is thy husband Heb. in all which Texts the Trinity of persons is denoted by words of the plural number See also Isa. 42. 1. where you have the Father choosing and upholding the Son and the Spirit put on him as Mediator three persons spoken of Mat. 3. 16 17. and 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 16. there is Christ praying the Father and he giving another Comforter the Spirit of Truth what can be more plain than a Trinity of persons in this Text So Ioh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father and Act. 2. 32 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I onely name the Texts I might also adde that the names properties or attributes works and worship of God are frequently in the Scripture given to each of these three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence each of them God and one God by nature but three persons And now having proved the Trinity W. Pen must either deny Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and God himself speaking from Heaven or else confess the Blasphemy But I must not forget this persons self-confutation who to be plainer called them three Hee 's But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three Hee 's you neither do nor can tell that each of them is frequently spoken of in the Scripture as a distinct he is so plain you cannot deny it and expressed by the Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 1. 2 3. and chap. 16. ver 8. 13 14. 27. and I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any Title and you by refusing to call them three Divine Hee 's have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person as some then apprehended but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three persons viz. the modal distinction and essential union or one-ness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is no less than to deny and reject God for though you pretend to own God the Father yet in rejecting the Son you reject the Father for saith Christ he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Luke 10. 16 and the beloved Disciple telleth us that whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father 1 Ioh. 2. 23. If he can finde a he without a substance or prove that a subsistence is any thing else than the form of a he he will do well to justifie himself from the imputation of ignorance That my calling the three persons three Hee 's implies a He without a substance is the first thing that you would here insinuate but this is your gross ignorance of this great mystery For each of these Hee s is by nature God and hath the entire undivided nature substance or essence of God and all that you can say to the contrary is but like childrens shooting Paper-pellets against a Rock your latter phrase discovers your ignorance of Philosophy
Trinity of Persons that three should be one and one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third and that without composition without confusion all related to one another and al distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind and some by prying too much into this mystery and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into grosse apprehensions and denied either the unity of the Godhead affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods or denied the Trinity affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise they have proved themselves to be fools void of true understanding by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him But we having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures which is like a light shining in a dark place ought to give heed thereunto and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word God knoweth himself better than any creature can know and what he hath spoken of himself must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach we adde folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Deity but where reason faileth Faith must supply it's room the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority such are not onely Histories and Prophesies but also Mysteries which reason cannot demonstrate unto us in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing or trample it under foot not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith for though this mystery be above reason yet it is not against reason yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word because he is a God of truth and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain truth and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it there being no such thing to be found in nature cannot be fully comprehended Here then I shall propound my assertion and prove it out of Scripture My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God is this That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The argument bottom'd upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead But the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm that no man of reason can in the least question or deny The minor proposition is that which must be proved and there are five things in the proposition to be proved 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one 2. That the Father is God 3. That the Son is God 4. That the Holy Ghost is God 5. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons 1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God Isa. 45. 21 22. There is no God else besides me a just God and Saviour there is none besides me look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God then the Godhead might be divided it might be limited and by consequence would be finite and so not God because God is infinite I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal 2. The Father is God 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him I need not multiply places of Scripture nor adde arguments to prove that the Father is God since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures 3. The Son is God this William Penn plainly denieth he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God wretched blasphemy that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead His denial of the Divinity of Christ as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough I shall repeat his words as they lye in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead page 13. And since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confesse then unlesse the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods I shall answer the argument in its proper place only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God by a plain consequence for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God and the Son God and the Spirit God which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not
There he pretends to inform the Reader concerning the original of this doctrine and first he would have the Reader assure himself that it is neither from Scripture nor reason But I suppose most Readers will be more wise and cautious than to build their assurance upon the bold assertions and crude reasonings of this presumptuous and Heaven-daring disputant That this doctrine is not from reason will be easily granted yea that it is contrary to corrupt reason such as W. P. hath plainly declared it self to be it is a mystery which flesh and blood cannot reveal but the Father which is in Heaven yet so as it is not contrary to right and truly sanctifyed reason And whereas W. P. asserteth that it is not from Scripture he must not think to impose this upon Christians who have look't into the Word any more than what he further asserts as to the first three hundred years upon those that have look't into the writings of the ancient Fathers The Doctrine of the Trinity is as old as the Scriptures themselves and hath been proved out of the first Chapter of Genesis and other places of the Old Testament by Mr. M. Chap. 4th and abundantly out of the New Testament Chap. 5. The Readers that search and believe the Scriptures will never believe W. Penn. That the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the world above three hundred years after the first preaching of the Gospel by the nice distinctions and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria is one of W. Pen's loud lyes It was indeed opposed by Arius about that time who denied Christ to be equal to and of the same substance with the Father yet not first opposed by him but by other hereticks before him one of whose disciples if not worse W. P. hath in his Pamphlet sufficiently proved himself to be and if it were opposed before sure it was known before so that W. P. might have derived the pedigree of his abomination and blasphemy if he had consulted Church History higher than from Arius The miserable end of which blasphemour and dishonourer of the eternal Son of God who voided his entrails with his excrements in a place of easement and so died by an unheard of death should caution all others from offering the like indignities unto the Son as to disrobe him of his Deity and number him amongst creatures like themselves lest he stretch forth the arm of his Almighty power and make them feel him if they will not otherwise acknowledge him to be God by bringing some remarkable destruction upon them in this world W. P. Thus was it conceived in ignorance brought forth and maintained by cruelty c. What a strange composition is here of impudence and folly thus boldly and blasphemously to assert this great fundamental truth to be conceived in ignorance and maintained by cruelty and yet in the next breath he owns persecution to be as well on the Arians side as the other and so by his own confession the Arian Doctrine was maintained by cruelty and with how great cruelty and bitternesse those which look into the Histories of those times may easily see To say nothing of W. P's so proud censuring so eminent a champion of Jesus Christ as Athanasius was when he shall produce the grounds of his suspecting the Creed commonly called The Athanasian Creed to be the Results of Popish School-men it will be time enough to answer that Clause Next W. P. cautioneth the Reader to take heed of embracing the Determinations of prejudiced Councils c. and yet giveth no reason why the Reader should be prejudic'd against them except the belying of the Scripture testimony be a reason which I suppose was the ground of their Determinations in this point and no further are any Councils to be heeded than they do agree in their Results with the Scriptures I hope the Reader will rather take heed of embracing such damnable Doctrine as this peremptory Dictatour would impose upon the understanding of the weak and indeed weak they must needs be and blinde too and either renounce the Scriptures or their own senses that will suffer their assent to these great Scripture-truths to be in the least enfeebled by any thing that this raw Disputer alledgeth for the maintaining of this Blasphemy and Heresie or oppugning our received and never to be shaken Foundations And here W. P. who had discovered before his skill in Logick by arguing against the conclusion of my Syllogism telling us he opposed the Minor his skill in the Original Tongues in noting the Holy ONE in great letters to prove Gods Unity when the word One is not to be found in the Hebrew Text doth make a third attempt to show something of a Scholar but is as unhappy as before and as grosly as in the two former attempts doth signifie to all that understand Learning that he is a proud boaster and pretender to that which he never attained unto He telleth us the Doctrine of the Trinity was never believed by the Primitive Saints nor ever thus stated by any he hath read in three first Centuries particularly Irenaeus Just in Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophilus Theophilact who lived several hundred after Athanasius was cited by W. P. but I finde in the Errata it is corrected Theophilus with many other who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie But who ever will peruse these Authors W. P. maketh mention of with others who writ in those times will finde both his lies to be very great and his reading to be very little notwithstanding this vain flourish and boasting The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Ecclesia accepit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in Spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophet as praedicavit The Faith which the Church hath received is in one God the Father omnipotent and in Christ the Son of God who was made flesh and in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets Do not these words hold forth a distinction of these three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost And cap. 19. Omnium Deus per verbum spiritum omnia faciens gubernans The God of all things making and governing all things by his Word and Spirit Here the making and governing of all things are attributed to the Word and Spirit as well as to the Father and as the former place doth show that he believed they were three distinct persons so this latter place that he believed they were but one God Iust. Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Title of this Book being concernig faith in the holy Consubstantial Trinity sheweth he was not a stranger to this Doctrine Read some of his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When as the Father doth beget the Son of his substance and of the same doth produce the Holy
Ghost most rightly they do partake of the same Essence and are dignified with one and the same Godhead What can be more plain And he goeth on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. How can any say that he which begetteth doth not differ from him which is begotten that he which proceedeth doth not differ from him from whom he proceedeth Here is Unity of Essence and Trinity of distinct Persons asserted plainly I shall add but one place more of many in Resp. 17. ad Ortho. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore there is but one God in one indistinct Essence and three Persons with distinction of their Persons or Subsistences Tertullian Lib. de Trinitate adversus Proaxnean doth express his faith in this doctrine throughout the whole Book and argueth it strongly from the Scriptures Cap. 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici interrogo quomodo unicus singularis pluraliter loquitur Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis quia adhunc adhaerebat illi Filius secundae persona tertia Spiritus ideo pluraliter pronunciavit Faciamus nostram nobis If the number of the Trinity doth offend thee as if it could not be joyned in the simple unity I ask thee how thee one and single God doth speak pluraly Let us make Man after our Image Adam is become like one of us because the Son the second person and the Spirit the third did adhere to him therefore he spake pluraly Let us make our us Chap. 13. Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus Sanctus Deus the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God Chap. 31. Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres crediti unum Deum sistunt The Father Son and Holy Ghost the three we are to believe in bold forth but one God Theophilus Lib. 1. Com in Evang doth acknowledge the Trinity Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit The Holy Trinity is a precious Iewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in unity Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in preaemio and Cap. 2. I am informed by a learned Author doth expresse his Faith in this Doctrine but I have not that Peice of Origen by me as I have the rest to consult I could adde the testimony of other Fathers who lived before the time W. P. maketh mention of but it is enough to cite these for the detection of the falshood of W. P. who telleth us that these Fathers were strangers to the Doctrine of the Trinity wherefore the weakness absurdity falshood and folly of this man being made manifest I suppose people will be more cautious than to follow him and the guidance of the light which W. P. saith is communicated unto all and forsake the true Light of the Word and Spirit which alone can guide men into all truth CHAP. VII The Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ the second person of the real and glorious Trinity asserted and proved IF the doctrine of the ever glorious Trinity or three persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in one Godhead had been overthrown by W. P. or could be indeed shaken by the Sociniant which with all the argument they can device in vain they do endeavour if he or they could prove which they never can that there is but one person in the God-head then it would follow that Christ could not be the eternal Son of God the second person of this glorious Trinity as W. P. most blasphemously stileth him the second person of the imagin'd Trinity and by consequence the Doctrine of satisfaction depending upon this person would fall to the ground and might by invincible argument be refuted it being impossible for any meer finite creature to make plenary satisfaction to the infinite Justice of God But the Doctrine of the Trinity being established by Scripture Testimony and the Lord Jesus Christ proved to be God equal with the Father the Doctrine also of satisfaction dependent upon this second person of the real and ever glorious Trinity will remain firm against all Quaker and Socinian attempts to overthrow it and before I give answer unto the objections and cavils against this Doctrine I shall breifly assert and prove the doctrine by the Word of Truth in the Holy Scripture W. P. in his title The impossibility of Gods pardoning offin without a plenary satisfaction refuted seemeth to infinuate that he denyeth onely the impossibility of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction but whoever readeth his arguments shall finde them to be the very same which the Socinians use against Satisfaction it self and that he plainly denyeth the thing therefore I shall not concern my self to enquire what God could or might do if he pleased but what he hath decreed and determined to do and declared in the Scripture to be his will and here I affirm 1. That God never doth nor will nor can pardon any sinner without satisfaction made to his offended Iustice for their sins And that because his holiness righteousness and truth obligeth him to take vengeance upon all that have transgressed his Law the Lord is so Holy that he hateth all the workers of iniquity Psal. 5. 5. and what is Gods hatred but Percatum pro merito suo velle punire as Bradsh de Iust. his will to punish sin and sinners according to their desert His Justice doth engage him by no means to clear the guilty Exod. 34. 7. and his truth would be enfringed if he should not curse every one that centinueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. II. That no sinners themselves by any thing they can do or suffer in this life can give satisfaction unto Gods Iustice for their sins And the reason is because whatever good they do is no more than duty wherein also they must have Divine help to enable them and when they have done their duty their works are but imperfect and they unprofitable servants and this can make no compensation for their faults before Luk. 17. 10. When have done all the things commanded say we are unprofitable servants c. Our righteousnesses are as filthy raggs Isa. 64. 6. And what ever sinners suffer in this life it is infinitely short of what their sins have deserved Gods Justice is infinite and requierth an infinite satisfaction sinners are finite and therefore there is no porportion between any thing they can bring and what Gods Justice doth require for satisfaction III. That Iesus Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person was onely fit to make and hath actually made satisfaction unto Gods infinite and offended Iustice for the sins of Men. It was necessary that the person that should make satisfaction should be man because none but a creature could suffer and none but a man could be a fit
of sin Peace of Conscience Immunity from the Curse and Condemnation of the Law Take away Satisfaction then the Word and Spirit and we are false Witnesses thereof then is our preaching vain and your Faith also is vain then you are all yet in your sins then you must all of you of necessity be damned and punished eternally Take away Satisfaction and you take away Christ and you take away all And therefore let not W. P. think to easily to perswade people to let go this Principle which whosoever doth it hath made Shipwrack of his Faith and of necessity must fall into the Ocean of Gods Wrath which none can escape without this Satisfaction And therefore I would here caution W. P. with more reason then he doth the people and speak to him according to the Words of the Apostle Peter to Simon Magus Acts 8. 21. 22 23. I perceive thou hast no part in this matter namely Christ's Satisfaction which thou deniest neither is thy heart right in the sight of God but hereby evidently dost declare thy self to be in the Gall of Bitterness and the bond of Iniquity yet repent of thy wicked Blasphemies and Abominable heretical Assertions if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee CHAP. IX The Iustification of the Vngodly by the imputed Righteousness of Christ asserted and proved HAving proved and vindicated the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction from the Cavils of W. P. The Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness doth evidently follow from it for since there can be no Remission of sin therefore no Justification without Satisfaction to Gods offended Justice as hath been proved and since this Satisfaction cannot be given to God by Sinners themselves and Christ only hath given it which also hath been proved there is no way imaginable how we can be justified but by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us 2 Cor. 5. 21. For he hath made him to be Sin for us who knew no Sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him As Christ was made sin for us though Innocent by the Imputation of our sin to him for which he was condemned and punished So we are made the Righteousness of God in him though guilty by the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us whereby we are justified And what other meaning than Iustification by Christ's imputed Righteousness can that Scripture have which speaketh of the Blessedness of the Man unto whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works Rom. 4. 6. That this Blessedness spoken of is Iustification appeareth from the scope of the place which is to prove the Doctrine of Iustification and the following words also do evince it vers 7. Blessed is the Man whose Iniquities are forgiven c. That this Righteousness is not a mans own is evident because it is a Righteousness without Works and then whose Righteousness can it be but the Righteousness of Christ and that this Righteousness is imputed are the words of the Scripture therefore the proof is firm that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Unto which Scripture I may add for the further clearing and Confirmation of this Doctrine of Iustification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness this Argument grounded upon Scripture If there be no other way for Sinners to be iustified but by Faith in Iesus Christ then Iustification is by the Imputed righteousness of Christ. But there is no other way for Sinners to be justified but by Faith in Iesus Christ. Therefore Iustification is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ. The Consequence of the Major is evident because Faith justifieth only with a respect to Christ's Righteousness without us called therefore Righteousness by Faith distinguished from our own Righteousness Phil. 3. 9. and how is this Righteousness by Faith but as it is applied by us and imputed by God to us through Faith Faith cannot justifie as a work because all works are excluded in the matter of Justification therefore it must Justifie as an Instrument applying Christ Righteousness which being without us can be made ours no other way than by Imputation The Minor that Sinners are justified only by Faith in Jesus Christ is as clear as any Doctrine in the whole Book of God it being the design of the Apostle Paul to prove this expresly in the first part of Epistle to the Romans and in the second and third Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians How many times doth he say we are justified by Faith without Works and how strongly doth he Argue the necessity of Iustification this way because of the universal Guilt upon Mankind and deficiency of Righteousness inherent therefore that they must seek for a Righteousness without themselves which is Christs Righteousness therefore that they can be justified only by Faith which Faith he putteth in opposition to all works not only of the Ceremonial and Morral Law but also to all Works wrought in Faith which are works still such as Abrahams Works and Davids Works were who yet were not justified upon the account of any of their Works that all Boasting might be excluded Rom. 4. 2. And the Apostle telleth us plainly vers 5. That God justifieth the Vngodly no Persons being the Subjects of Gospel Iustification but as Vngodly that is as having sinned and as having no Works no Righteousness of their own to procure Justification for them The sence is that God findeth every one Ungodly Guilty Filthy whom he doth justifie freely by his Grace through the Redemption and Righteousness of Christ but he doth not leave them Ungodly where he removeth the guilt of sin he removeth also the filth of sin Iustification and Sanctification being inseparable Companions and though Justification be altogether distinct from Sanctification yet it is never without Sanctification which if W. P's cloudy Brains had rightly apprehended it would have given an answer in the making of them to most of his Objections which he hath brought against this Doctrine where he argueth from the Concomitant unto the Cause and his deductions or most pittiful non sequitur's I intended to have run thorow them all and given particular Answers to them but that Mr. Danson who is concerned to reply to something in his Book Intendeth to answer him in this Point and withall to give a Synopsis of Quakerisme in other points besides these three Namely their asserting 1. Good Works to be the Meritorious cause of our Iustification 2. That a State of Freedome from sin is attainable in this life 3. That there is a leight in every Man sufficient to guide him to salvation 4. That the Scripture is not the Word of God nor a standing rule of faith and life 5. That there is no resurrection of the body 6. That there is no need or use of Ordinances Baptisme Lords Supper c. The book he intendeth will be small but the use of it may be great in this day when the Quakers are so busie to gain proselites for the establishment