that God condemn'd and punish'd his Innocent Son for other Folkes Sins that he might be satisfied for pardon he neither could nor would And which is most absurd Christ being this same God he at once makes him the Party satisfying the Party satisfied which is absurd and impossible besides 't is such a Satisfaction as hath paid all Debts past present to come whereby all Inward Righteousness though of Christ's Working is not necessary to Justification in any Kind Secondly He has dealt Injuriously with me and that in two Respects 1. In not stating the Doctrine truly which I opposed and my Words at length that they might speak for themselves But in that case perhaps he thought he should have been oblieged to answer them a thing he every where seems afraid of his Trade â—s Caviâ—â—â—g And 2lâ— In that he brings this Passage which opposâ—d sucâ— a Satisfaction as is said to have paid for Sins pâ—st present and to come to answer a Scripture which concerns Justification and that part of it too which relates to Remission of Sins Insinuating that I make Men's own Works sufficient to Justification in the first sense I mean Remission in the second sense I mean daily Acceptance upon being made Just and lastly that I overturn all the Righteousness Death and Sufferings of Christ whilst in Truth and Sincerity of Soul 1. by Justification not by another's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT I only meant That it was Christ's Righteousness wrought in us and not our own which made Inwardly Just and which gave daily Acceptance and brought into the heavenly Fellowship with the Father and with the Son the Justification then intended by me 2 ly Since God has made his Truth known to me I have ever understood Christ's being offered up to signifie the carrying away of Sin the bearing away of Iniquity that by which God declared Remission and Forgiveness of Sins past to all that repented And this Justification called Rom. 4. ver 5 6 7 8 God 's not Imputing Sin I have ever owned to be the Free Unmerited Love of God to the World And was not that Justification by me spoken of in the Passage cited 3 ly That which I opposed was so rigid a Satisfaction as made it absolutely unavoidable or necessary in God to require a Satisfaction thereby robbing him of the Power of his free Mercy and Loving-kindness to remit and pass by and that Christ did not answer or pay by the Act of his Suffering for Sins past present and to come but as he declared Remission by his Blood for the Sins past of the whole World the beginning of his Work so that he doth by his Power and Spirit subdue destroy and cast out Sin out of the Hearts of all who believe in him whereby their Consciences come to be made pure they sanctified throughout in Body Soul and Spirit which necessitates to Good Life and speaks no Peace to the Wicked in their Wickedness nor yet to the sloathful formal and carnal Professor of Religion Therefore such rage and imagine a vain thing against us That the Consequences of the common Notion of both Satisfaction and Justification are Irreligious and Irrational though what has been said might suffice with Sober and Impartial Readers yet I may anon have further Occasion to prove it In the mean time He tells the World that William Penn in Answer to this Question How did Christ fulfil the Law for Sinners says That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Pattern or Example S.F. p. 26. In which he has done exactly like himself For if he can find the Word ONLY there or such an Answer to such a Question or the Matter strictly contained in that Question he has not wronged me but sure I am there is no such Question and as sure that the Fulfilling of the Law was not the Subject treated on and very certain that the Word Only was not there therefore a Forger That which I said with the Scripture on which it was grounded follows If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my Love even as I have kept my Father's Commandments and abide in his Love From whence this Argument doth naturally arise If none are truly Justified that abide not in Christ's Love and that none abide in his Love that keep not his Commandments then consequently none are justified but such as keep his Commandments Besides here is the most palpable Opposition to an Imputative Righteousness that may be For Christ is so far from telling them of such a Way of being Justified as that he infoâ—mâ—th them the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love was his Obedience and is so far from telling them of their being Justified whilst not abiding in his Love by Virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them that unless they keep his Commands and obey for themselves they shall be so remote from an Acceptance as wholely to be cast out in all which Christ is but our Example Now that this concerned not the Whole Law Christ came to fulfil The whole Law he fulfilled the place of Scripture quoted the Nature and Matter of the Argument clearly proves Next If Christ had been other then our Example in that case then he should have fulfilled his own Commandments in our stead who from Obeying his Father's taught us our Duty was to obey His. And supposing that he could have kept his own Commandments and obey'd himself for us or in our stead it would have followed 1. That we needed not to have kept them unless they were to be observed twice over And that 2ly in not keeping of them we had been notwithstanding justified from his alone Fulfilling of them unless his Answering them had been Insufficient The first of which if I understand any thing opens a Door to all Licentiousness however Upright some may be in their Intentions to the contrary And the last strikes dead their own Opinion of the Sufficiency of Christ's Personal Obedience to perfoâ—m all needful on our Account From hence he undertakes to charge me with the Merit of Works My words at length are these which he thought good to conceal Was not Abraham justified by Works when he offered Isaac and by Works was Faith made perfect and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness By which we must not concâ—ive as do the dark Imputarians of this Age that Abraham ' s Offering Personally was not a Justifying Righteousness but that God was pleased to account it so since God never accounts a thing that which it is not nor was there any Imputation of another's Righteousness to Abraham but on the contrary his Personal Obedience was the Ground of that just Imputation therefore that any should be justified from the Imputation of another's Righteousness not inherent or actually possessed by them is both Ridiculous and Dangerous Ridiculous since it is to say A Man is Rich to
Talking the other a Doing Christian I in short argue thus If none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but they that do the Father's Will then none are justified but they who do the Father's Will because none can enter into the Kingdom but such as are justified Since therefore there can be no Admittance had without Performing that Righteous Will and Doing those Holy and perfect Sayings Alas to what Value will an imputative Righteousness amount when a poor Soul shall awake polluted in his Sin by the hasty Calls of Death to make its Appearance before the Judgment Seat where 't is impossible to justifie the Wicked or that any should escape uncondemned but such as do the Will of God 2. For not the Hearers of the Law are just before God but the Doers of the Law shall be justified From whence how unanswerably may I observe Unless we become Doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our Example to fulfil we can never be justified before God wherefore Obedience is so absolutely necessary that short of it there can be no Acceptance Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfill'd it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance but only as their Pattern For unless ye follow me saith Christ ye cannot be my Disciples And it is not only repugnant to Reason but in this place particularly refuted for if Christ had fulfill'd it on our behalf and we not enabled to follow his Example there would not be Doers but One Doer only of the Law justified before God In short if without Obedience to the Righteous Law none can be justified then all the Hearing of the Law with but the meer Imputation of anothers Righteousness whilst actually a Breaker of it is excluded as not justifying before God If you fulfill the Royal Law ye do well so speak ye and so DO as they that shall be judg'd thereby 3. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the Deeds of the Body ye shall live No Man can be dead and justified before God for so He may be justified that lives after the Flesh therefore they only can be justified that are alive from whence this follows If the Living are justified and not the Dead and that none can live to God but such as have mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit then none can be justified but they who have mortified the Deeds of the Body through the Spirit so that justification does not go before but is subsequential to the Mortification of Lusts and Sanctification of the Soul through the Spirit 's operation 4. Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works when he had offered Isaak his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by Works a Man is justified and not by Faith only He that will seriously peruse this Chapter shall doubtless find some to whom this Epistle was writen of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our tâ—me they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in and the Imputation of anothers Righteousness but James an Apostle of the most high God who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant gave them to understand from Abraham's self-denying Example that unless their Faith in the Purity and Power of God's Grace had that effectual Operation to subdue every beloved Lust wean from every Dallila and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaak himself their Faith was a Fable or as a Body without a Spirit and as Righteousness therefore in one Person cannot justify another from Unrighteousness so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth and Works of Righteousness their Faith they will find at last Fiction Consequences Irreligious and Irrational 1. It makes God guilty of what the Scriptures say is an Abomination to wit that he justifieth the Wicked 2. It makes him look upon Persons as they are not or with respect which is unworthy of his most Equal Nature 3. He is hereby at Peace with the Wicked if justified whilst Sinners who said There is no Peace to the Wicked 4. It does only imply Communion with them here in an Imperfect State but so to all Eternity for whom he justifieth them he also glorifieth Therefore whom he justify'd whilst Sinners them he also glorify'd whilst Sinners 5. It only secures from the Wages not the Dominion of Sin whereby something that is sinful becomes justify'd and that which defileth to enter God's Kingdom 6. It renders a Man justify'd and condemn'd dead and alive redeemed and not redeemed at the same time the one by an Imputative Righteousness the last by a Personal Unrighteousness 7. It flatters Men whilst subject to the World's Lusts with a State of Justification and thereby invalids the very End of Christ's Appearance which was to destroy the Works of the Devil and take away the Sins of the World CHAP. X. Of the Doctrine of Sanctification and Perfection The Ignorance or Malice of T. Hicks Detected OF the Doctrine of Sanctification he has several Vnsanctified Passages though he bestows not much time upon that Important Subject some of which I shall take a little notice of Christ Let us understand your Opinion of Sanctification what it is Out of Ed. Burroughs he answereth himself thus Quak. 'T is Christ Hence we conclude to say Sanctification is Imperfect in this Life is as much as to say Christ is Imperfect To which he replies Christ 'T is true 't is Jesus Christ by his Spirit is the Author and Worker of Sanctification but will it therefore follow that the Work of Sanctification in us is Christ or that this Work is perfect in all its Degrees Now let any tell me wherein T. Hicks could have more grosly mistaken E. Burroughs who frequently insults over the Grave and Labours of that Faithful Servant of the Lord then he has done on purpose I doubt not to insinuate his Belief of the contrary to what he opposed But hear Edw. Burrough's Words at large in Answer to Priest Eaton Thou sayest Sanctification is not Perfect in this Life And the New Man the Spirit or Law of the Mind is that Grace or Imperfect Sanctification Then Christ is not Perfect in this Life for He is made of God unto us Sanctification 1 Cor. 1.30 In this it is evident First That the Priest did not so much strike at the Work done in the Creature as at the Perfection of the Principle by which the Work should be perfected in the Creature 2dly E. Burroughs did not in that place meerly intend the Work of Sanctification but the Author and Worker of it who is oftentimes called by the Name of the Work it self the Cause by the Effect as is plain from the Scripture quoted in which he used but Paul's Words How basely done was it
that his Obedience unto Death was in order to make Men Righteous because it was in the Nature of a Sacrifice by which God testified unto the World his Desire of Reconciliation through the Remission of the Sins that are past which was held forth and came and was confirmed by that Obedience even to the Death of the Cross In which Sence the Just sufferd for the Vnjust and whilst we were Sinners Christ dyed He was made Sin that is to take away Sin for us an Hebraism and he justifieth the Vngodly that is remitteth the Vngodly upon Repentance and bore our Iniquities or bore away our Iniquities that is by this Offering for Sin was Remission for Sins past declared and confirmed unto all as an Vniversal Propitiation For God was in all these Sufferings shewing forth his Love and reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them But still Repentance was that which brought home the general Pardon promulgated in and by that holy Offering up of his Body once for all unto every particular Soul Thus by the Obedience of that one Man even to the Death of the Cross many come to be made Righteous that is justified from many Offences see Rom. 5.6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17. But if this first part of Justification which is Remission of Sin be not obtainable by any however general it be in Christ without Repentance from dead Works which implyes Faith Contrition and Amendment of Life How miserably is T. Hicks out who brings this very Scripture we are upon to prove that we are compleatly justified which takes in both Forgiveness of Sin past and a being Inwardly made Just through the casting out of Sin by the just and holy Power and Spirit of God operating in the Heart and Conscience by Christ's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT US I grant it that Forgiveness of Sin is God's free Love meer Grace and rich Mercy declared in and by Christ Jesus to the World and that this Grace abounded unto all for He was a Propitiation not only for the Sins of those that believe but of the Whole World yet the whole Benefit thereof should never redound unto any whilst alienated from God by wicked Works Peter preached another Doctrine For though Christ dyed for the Vngodly yet they were not thereby Justified that is pardon'd for Sin past while Unrepentant Peter sayes Repent and then they should receive Remission of Sins Now I would fain know how this Repentance is wrought by which as a Condition any come to have an Interest in that great Pardon held out to the whole World Is the Spirit of Christ unconcern'd in it Can we think one Good Thought of our selveâ— Are we not altogether degenerated Plants of a Strange Vine by Nature Children of Wrath c. Is not this frequently confest by the Professors of Religion in our times and the most affected piece of their Righteousness too Well then If we cannot repent of our selves and that Repentance is a Condition that it is in the Soul and that it cannot be there without the Spirit of Christ work it tell me plainly if something is not to be done within and therefore of the Nature of Inward Righteousness before any Benefit be procured deriv'd or receiv'd from Christ's Death and Sufferings to any particular Person This is close to our Point for therefore is it that we affirm that such as go on to transgress against the Law of the Spirit of Life and so disobey the Light and grieve the Holy Spirit by wicked Works are not in that State Justified I mean now that they are not so much as forgiven and least of all that they should be look'd upon as compleatly justified that is by Qualification and Participation of the Divine Nature truly and inwardly made Just since it would be to say that by the Obedience of one many shall be made Righteous who notwithstanding remain Disobedient and Rebellious to God's Grace which has appeared unto them We do say again that such a Doctrine so speaking Peace to a State of Sin and Death and shutting out an Inward Work many wayes necessary to the Forgiveness of Sin past or dayly Acceptante with God IS NO LESS THEN THE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS and the worst they have to propagate to the Dishonour of God and the Eternal State of People Souls In short here lyes the gross Mistake of our Adversaries They make the Sufferings of Christ which peculiarly relate to the first part of Justification Remission of Sins past to be that which has answered not only for Sins past but present and to come so as to acquit them from all Inward Work as necessary to Justification compleatly taken contrary to express Scripture Rom. 5.25 and the great End of Christ's Spiritual Manifestation in his People There might be much more said in this matter but because he thinks I have not made a little for him in my Book truly entituled The Sandy Foundation Shaken and that I am to be short I shall proceed to dispatch what remaines as God shall enable me To that Answer he gave out of the Romans by the Obedience of one c. already with other Scriptures explained and vindicated from his Abuse of them he makes me thus to answer him Quak. It is a great Abomination to say God shall condemn and punish his Innocent Son that he having satisfied for our sins we might be justified by the Imputation of his perfect Righteousness O why should this horrible thing be contented for by Christians Penn. ibid. p. 25.30 To which he returns Chr. How now Mr. Penn Is this the Doctrine of Christ's Sufferings for Sinners to make Satisfaction to Divine Justice an horrible thing and an Abomination to you Do you consider what you say And thus brings me in answering him Qu. This I do say that the Consequences of such a Doctrine are both Irreligious Irrational Penn. ibid. P. 16. Now that he has dealt Blasphem ously with God and Injuriously with me as well as that he has given me no account of his thoughts upon the Errour he makes me guilty of in case I held it besides that impertinent Question plainly appears First he has dealt Blasphemously with God in calling Christ's Suffering God's condemning and punishing his Innocent Son c. which his Censure of my so Phrasing their Opinion manifestly implyes Now I appeal to all Impartial People which of us two is most to be blamed I that confess to Christ's Sufferings as the Effect of Gods's Love thereby not to satisfie himself as a Revenger or as he could not forgive for none of that is in the Verse at all which yet is in their Sordid Opinion but as a God full of Mercy Forgiveness and Pardon to all true Penitents to declare to the World his free Remission of Sins and that he would not impute their Iniquities unto them if they would repent believe obey or T. Hicks who holds
the value of a Thousand Pounds whilst he is not really or personally worth a Groat from the Imputation of another who has it all in his Possâ—ssion Dangerous because it begets a confident Peâ—swasion in many People of their being Justified â— whilst in Captivity to those Lusts whose Reward is Condemnation whence came that usual Saying amongst many Professors of Religion That God looks not on them as they are in Themselves but as they are in Christ not considering that none can be in Christ who are not New Creatures which those cannot be reputed who have not disrobed themselves of their old Garments but are still immantled with the Corruptions of the Old Man In all which I see nothing Unsober or Unsound But he thinks he has caught me fast in my Caveat against Popery where in distinguishing betwixt Grace and Merit I say Grace is a Free Gift requiring nothing and now ask sayes he was not Abraham Justified by Works and that Good Works may be said to procure deserve or obtain Apol. 198. Is this writ like an Infallible Dictator Thus far T.H. There is an old Proverb That some love the Treason but hate the Traitor No Man that writes rants it more imperiously then Tho. Hicks It is hard to say whether his Dishonesty or his Impudence be the greater I think I never used Tho. Hicks so ill or any of his Way as to deserve so many Scoffing Taunts Base Detractions and Down-right Scurrilities from his hand But let that pass To the Point Hear what I have said in the Caveat p. 12. Grace and Merit as stated by Calvinists and Papists are taken for Faith without Works and Works without Faith like the two Poles Doctrines the most opposite Now Rewardableness is neither but something in the middle and indeed the most true for Grace is a Free Gift requiring nothing Merit is a Work proportionable to the Wages Rewardableness is a Work without which God will not bestow his Favour and yet not the Meritorious Cause for that there is no Proportion betwixt the Work that is finite and temporary and the Reward which is infinite and eternal in which sense both the Creature obeyes the Commands of God and does not Merit but Obtain only and God rewards the Creature and yet so as that he freely gives too Now what Contradiction is there in all this I plainly distinguish the Word Merit in the strictest Acceptation of it from that which is truly Scriptural respecting us at least That I did not mention Merit in my Sandy Foundation Shaken the Book proves Is there no Difference between obtaining the Justifying Presence of God by the Fruits of the Spirit in our Heart and Lives and strictly meriting his Acceptance of us by Works and those of our own making too as what T.H. doth wickedlâ— suggest I say Abraham was justified in offering up his Son because he had been condemned if he had disobeyed But sayes T. Hicks He was Justified before And why was not his whole Life mention'd to his Justification But I must tell T.H. that as among Men the Will is taken for the Deed so the Lord finding Abraham right in his Heart that he believed and would obey he was as much justified therein as if he had actually done it We have cause to believe T. Hicks never knew what the Consequence of that working Faith and offering up an Isaac to God is Nor was it needful to recite the whole of his Life Measures are frequently taken by some eminent Tryal If he was accepted in that Obedience being the Condition where that was before he was before accepted no doubt But sayes he see the Caveat p. 12. and Apol. p. 198. How do they agree Truly very well For Grace is Free requiring nothing How Nothing at all By no means How then is it free Grace is free because it was the good Pleasure of God both to give Remission of Sins and Eternal Life to as many as should Repent Believe and Obey to the End and thereby come to be conformed to the Image of his Son But may T. Hicks say Is Repenting nothing Believing nothing Obeying nothing No T.H. not one jot of Merit in all that It is the great Grace of God to give us Eternal Life upon so small Conditions They obtain it but that is God's good Pleasure and no Purchase therefore Grace still All that is our Duty the Reward is Free God giveth it but chuses a Way by which to do it If T.H. will understand Grace as my Caveat condemns it I cannot help that sure I am I never writ such Doctrine as my Faith and therefore no Contradiction to my self whatever it may be to him But sayes he Your Apology speaks that good Works may be said to procure deserve or obtain c. My Apology as my self and other Books are not Apology enough for me and my Friends against such Envious Perverters as T.H. though I doubt not but they may be effectually such with more moderate Persons thus it speaks The Word Merit so much snarled at allows a two-fold Signification the First a Proportion or Equaliâ—y betwixt the Work and Wages which is the strictest sense and that which he S. Fisher least of all intended The Second something that may be said to procure AND IN SOME SENSE to deserve or obtain and so good Works do since without them there is no Acceptance with God nor Title to Eternal Life Where it is observable how basely he has left out both my absolute Denyal of the strict Sense of the Word MERIT and those qualifying and distinguishing Words which come after Procure and before Deserve namely AND IN SOME SENSE to deserve or obtain with the last Clause Certain it is that whatever sense I had T. Hicks took me in the worst he could invent yea in that very sense which all along I have most particularly refused and condemned A Baseness and piece of Forgery unworthy of any Man pretending to Good Conscience But he proceeds still much after the same manner he would have People believe That we assert the Ground of our Rejoycing and Acceptance to be not in and from the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by Faith where observe that WHOLELY WITHOUT US is omitted to render us Denyers of Christ's Righteousness in any sense but only in a Righteousness inherent in us and done by us Which great Untruth he gives the Lye to in his own Book But because he pretends to fetch this out of my S.F. Shaken p 27. let 's hear what I have said But let every Man prove his own Work and then shall he have Rejoâ—cing in himself alone and not in another Be not deceived for whatsoever a Man soweth that shall he reap If Rejoycing and Acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the Work that a Man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of Acceptance and Ground of Rejoâ—cing from the
pleading for a Saving Light the necessity of Obedience to it the Eternal Reward of Life or Death Happiness or Misery as it is conformed to or rebelled against prove our Faith in that Matter to be quite another thing If this be your Champion I dare warrant his own Baseness shall be his own Overthrow we need no more against him then his own Ignorance Malice Lyes Forgeries and Slanders to his utter Confutation in the Minds of all Impartial Persons CHAP. IX Of Justification and something of Satisfaction THe Doctrine of Justification is the next Particular that I am to take notice of He begins with the Quaker thus Pray what is your Opinion of Justification by that Righteousness of Christ which He in his own Person fulfilled for us WHOLELY WITHOVT VS Quak. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfills for us in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US we boldly affirm it to be a Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which doth now deluge the World Will. Penn Apol. p. 148. This Apology cited was written against a Malicious Priest in Ireland who in a Book by him published not long afore laid it down as Unscriptural and a very heinous Thing in us to deny Justification without any Distinction exprest by the Righteousness which Christ wrought in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US To whom I made the Answer given by T. Hicks And if therein I have crost the express Testimony of the Scriptures let any shew me But if I have only thwarted a most Sin-pleasing and therefore Dangerous Notion let such as hold it look to that He has not offered me one plain Scripture nor the Shadow of a Reason why this Passage ought to be reputed unsound or condemnable If any Living will produce me but one Passage out of Scripture that tells of a Justification by such a Righteousness as is WHOLELY WITHOUT US I shall fall under its Authority but if we only deny Men's corrupt Conceits and Sin-pleasing Glosses and they offer us nothing to our Confutation or better Information we shall not think bare Quotations of our Books to be sufficient Answers But to the end all may understand the Reason of my so Answering that Priest take those short Reasons then rendered with any one of which I am to suppose T. Hicks desired not to meddle First No Man can be Justified without Faith sayes Jenner No Man hath Faith without Works any more then a Body can live without a Spirit sayes James Therefore the Works of Righteousness by the Spirit of Jesus Christ are necessary to Justification Second If Men may be justified whilst Impure then God quits the Guilty contrary to the Scripture which cannot be I mean while in a Rebellious State Third Death came by Actual Sin not Imputative in his sense therefore Justification unto Life comes by actual Righteousness not Imputative Fourth This speaketh Peace to the Wicked whilst Wicked but there is no Peace to the Wicked saith my God Fifth Men are Dead and Alive at the same time saith this Doctrine for they may be dead in Sin and yet alive in another's Righteousness not Inherent and consequently Men may be damned actually and saved imputatively Sixth But since Men are to reap what they sow and that every one shall be rewarded according to his Works and that none are Justified but the Children of God and that none are Children but who are led by the Spirit of God and that none are so led but those that bring forth Fruits thereof which is Holiness 'T is not the Oyle in anothers Lamp but in our own only which will serve our turns I mean the Rejoycing must be in our selves and not in another yet to Christ's holy Power alone do we ascribe it who works all our Works in us All which was not only not answered but not cited by him He brings me in again thus Justification is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness but from the actual Performing and Keeping God's Righteous Statutes Sand. Found p. 25. To which after this base and disingenuous Citation he returns me this only Answer Is it not written Rom. 5.19 By the Obedience of one many are made Righteous But before I explain the Truth of that Scripture be pleased to hear my Argument as it is laid down in my Book and then give thy Judgment Reader upon the Man The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of his Father The Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him When a Righteous Man turneth away from his Righteousness for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye Again When the Wicked Man turneth away from his Wickedness and doth that which is Lawful and Right he shall save his Soul alive yet saith the House of Israel The Wayes of the Lord are not Equal Are not my Wayes Equal If this was once Equal it s so still for God is Unchangeable And therefore I shall draw this Argument That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness but the actual Performance or not keeping of Gods righteous Statutes or Commandments otherwise God should forget to be Equal Therefore how wickedly Unequal are those who not from Scripture Evidences but their dark Conjectures Interpretations of obscure Passages would frame a Doctrine so manifestly inconsistent with God's most pure and equal Nature making him to condemn the Righteous to Death and justifie the Wicked to Life from the Imputation of another's Righteousness A most Unequal Way indeed Where observe that the Answer he makes me give in his Dialogue is delivered by me with an If it be so fetcht expresly from the Text it self so that the Scripture and not W. Penn is most struck at by him However it be he has offered us no Opposition yet but that Passage out of the Romans which will not be found inconsistent with Ezekiel's Testimony on which my Argument was grounded The whole Verse was thus For as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners so by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righteous which if the whole Chapter be well considered is no more then this that as Adam representative of Mankind from whence he had that Name was he by whom Sin entred into the whole World So Christ was He by whose comeing and Obedience Righteousness had an entrance to the Justification of many In short the Work Christ had to do was two-fold 1 To remit forgive or justify from the Imputation of Sin past all such as truely repented believed and obeyed him And 2ly by his Power and Spirit operating in the Hearts of such to destroy and remove the very Ground and Nature of Sin whereby to make an End of Sin and finish Transgression present and to come that is the first removes the Guilt the second the very Cause of It. Now I grant
Works of another utterly excluded every Man reaping according to what HE hath sown and bearing HIS OWN Burden The Question will now be Whether I meant this of the Creature alone or by the Assistance of God's Holy Spirit by which his Children are led Concerning which I need say no more then what that Book speaks in my Defence yea that very Page from whence he fetches this pretended Dangerous Assertion For as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God How clearly will it appear to any but a Cavilling and Tenacious Spirit that Man can be no further Justified then as he becomes obedient to the Spirit 's Leadings For if none can be a Son of God but HE that 's led by the Spirit of God then none can be justified without being led by the Spirit of God because none can be Justified but he that is a Son of God so that the Way to Justification and Son-ship is through Obedience to the Spirit 's Leadings By all which it appears that I am not speaking of Remission of Sins as if by our Conformity to the Spirit it self we could so justifie our selves No but that by being Led by the Spirit of God and Fulfilling of his Royal Law Men come to be accepted as Children of God and the Ground of their Joy is from their own Experience of the Work of God in them What was it made the Faithful Servants that improved their Talents be accepted and gave an Entrance to the Wise Virgins into the Bride-groom's Chamber Were it not the Improvements of the one and the Oyl in the Lamps of the other And if T. Hicks come not to know that holy State he shall never know Eternal Rejoycings that is the Word of Truth to him For such as he sows such shall he reap in God's Day of Account Wherefore that Scripture by him brought out of Isaiah makes greatly for us Surely shall one say in or from the Lord have I Righteousness that is not in or from my self In the Lord shall all the Seed of Israel be justified and shall glory Is there no being in the Life Power Nature and Virtue of that Seed then no Salvation Also that of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians Christ is made unto us Righteousness wherefore let him that glorieth glory in the Lord. For this I affirm and that with Boldness and Truth that Isaiah and Paul speak of a Real and Inward Righteousness not the less in the Creature because not of the Creature but of Christ Was not Paul's Righteousness the Son of God revealed â—n him that everlasting Righteousness that Christ binding and casting out of the strong Man making an End of Sin and finishing of Transgression he brought and brings into the Soul For that their Righteousness should be in or from him or that he should be made their Righteousness they never know a being cloathed and made Righteous by it were Absurd and Impossible In short As we know no Righteousness out of Christ our Lord so knowing his Appearance in us and that Grace for Grace received of his Fulness in whom are hid the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge and being obedient thereunto we know and witness a Participation of his Everlasting Righteousness Holy Wisdom and Saving Knowledge which qualifie and adorn the Soul for the blessed Marriage of the Lamb who takes away the Sins of the World not only the Guilt of Sins past by Remission upon Repentance but as a Redeemer from under the Power and Nature of Sin present and to come through the Virtue of his Holy Life in the Soul which is the Compleatment of Justification and the Thing now insisted on Lastly he gives under the Quakers name as a dangerous Doctrine this Passage Justification goes not before but is consequential to the mortifying of Lusts and the Sanctification of the Soul Penn Sand. Found Sh. p. 27. To which he answers Doth not this import that a Man must be formally just before he be justified I would ask whether Remission of Sins be not one part of Justification Qua. I suppose it may Chr. Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty It looks like a Contradiction to pardon one that is Innocent Certainly he that is pardoned must be a Sinner To all which I return this much were he True and Honest in his Reasoning I had been to blame for my Ignoronce and T. Hicks to be commendable for his Answer but he dodges basely He would avoid my Argument about the second part of Justification by suggesting that I meant it of the first to wit Remission of Sins as much as if he had said What must all Sin be mortified before a Man be pardoned his old Score and can a Man 's own Good Works so remit Cancel or justifie But his Sleight will not do I have oftâ—n declared that upon Repentance God doth not impute past Iniquity to any therefore that part of his Answer which seems most smart upon me that is Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty c. vanisheth of Course for the Question is not Whether Man in his natural Estate is Guilty before God and such can be no otherwise so justified that is Remitted then by the free Love of God which is the first part of Justification as David speaks Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord will not impute Sin But whether Men are daily accepted as Children of God redeemed and saved of the Lord and justified as such in his Presence further than as they come to be led by his holy Spirit and know Victory over Sin which is the second part of Justification So that he did dishonestly with me to suggest my Denyal of Remission of Sins past upon any other Score then the Mortification of Sin in the Party so pardoned For though Sin may not be mortified yet if there be a Foundation of true Repentance laid the Guilt of former Iniquities I have often said is not imputed It was therefore very unfairly done of him from my Asserting daily Acceptance and Fellowship with God to be the Consequent of a Self-denying and mortified Life through the powerful Working of the Spirit of Christ in Man to infer that before this Work was done there could be no Remission of Sins past as if it were the procuring Cause of Pardon and not the free Love of God upon Repentance In short it is to say that because I deny Men may be justified in the second Sense without being made truly and really Just that therefore Men are to be made Just and Innocent before they are forgiven which is Justification in the first Sense And thus has he dodg'd disingenuously with me throughout this Point Where I meant by Justification Remission of Sins he has run It the other way And when I have understood it of a State of Fellowship and daily Acceptance with God then he has taken it for Remission with manifest Design to render me as confus'd