contradictory and unscriptural as he could but that all lights upon himself and I doubt not but in the end it will appear that I have contended for the Justification of Life whilst his aimes will have been at nothing more in all his Bussle then to promote a Justification in a State of Death where the indwelling Life Power and Virtue of Christ which gives to live to God in the nearness of Life cannot be enjoyed nor known else what means his reputing that Assertion in my Sandy Foundation shaken so Erroneous namely without Good Works there is no Acceptance with God which without any Wrong to him causes me to believe that it is his Faith that Men may be accepted with God without Good Works and consequently that they are not necessary to Salvation I wish for his sake more then mine own he had been no more Injurious to me and the Truth I have defended then I have been to him in expressing but the natural Result and Tendency of his Doctrine I shall now be as good as my Word and that is to produce an Argument or two against the Common Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification as they have been opposed by me in this short Discourse and that out of my Book called The Sandy Foundation Shaken because it has been most in this Adversary's Eye That if he thinks fit to reply he may have something else to employ his Mind about then to write Dialogues filled with Lyes Shifts Forgeries Scoffs Impudence and Scurrility Of SATISFACTION 1. Who is a God like unto thee that pardoneth Iniquity and passeth by the Transgression of the Remnant of his Heritage He retaineth not his Anger forever because he delighteth in Mercy Can there be a more express Passage to clear not only the Possibility but real Inclinations in God to pardon Sin and not retain his Anger for ever since the Prophet seems to challenge all other Gods to try their Excellency by his God herein describing the Supremacy of his Power and Superexcellency of his Nature that he pardoneth Iniquity and retaineth not his Anger for ever so that if the Satisfactionists should ask the Question Who is a God like unto ours that cannot pardon Iniquity nor pass by Transgression but retain his Anger until some-body make him Satisfaction I answer Many amongst the harsh and severe Rulers of the Nation but as for my God he is exalted above them all upon the Throne of his Mercy who pardoneth Iniquity and retaineth not his Anger for ever but will have Compassion upon us 2. And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Where nothing can be more obvious then that which is forgiven is not paid And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction receiv'd and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them then is a Satisfaction totally excluded Christ farther paraphrases upon that part of his Prayer v. 14. For if you forgive their Trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you Where he as well argues the Equity of God's Forgiving them from their Forgiving others as he encourages them to forgive others from the Example of God's Mercy in forgiving them which is more amply exprest in Chap. 18. where the Kingdom of Heaven that consists in Righteousness is represented by a King Who upon his Debtors Petition had Compassion and forgave him but the same treating his Fellow-Servant without the least Forbearance the King condemned his Vnrighteousness and delivered him ever to the Tormenters But how had this been a Fault in the Servant if his Kings Mercy had not been proposed for his Example How most unworthy therefore is it of God and Blasphemous may I justly term it to be in any's daring to assert that Forgiveness impossible to God which is not only possible but enjoyn'd to Men. Consequences Irreligious and Irrational 1 That it 's Unlawful and Impossible for God Almighty to be Gracious and Merciful or to pardon Transgressors then which what 's more Unworthy of God 2 That God was inevitably compell'd to this way of Saving Men the highest Affront to his incontroleable Nature 3. That it was Unworthy of God to Pardon but not to inflict Punishment on the Innocent or require a Satisfaction where there was nothing due 4. It doth not only disacknowledge the true Virtue and real Intent of Christ's Life and Death but intirely deprives God of that Praise which is owing to his greatest Love and Goodness 5. It represents the Son more Kind and Compassionate than the Father whereas if both be the same God then either the Father is as Loving as the Son or the Son as Angry as the Father 6. It robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption which the Scriptures attribute to the unmerited Love he had for the World in affirming the Son purchased that Redemption from the Father by the Gift of himself to God as our compleat Satisfaction 7. Since Christ could not pay what wâ—â— not his own it follows that in the Payment of his own the case still remains equally grievous Since the Debt is not hereby absolv'd or forgiven but transfer'd only and by consequence we are no better provided for Salvation than before owing that now to the Son which was once owing to the Father 8. It no way renders Men beholding or iâ— the least oblieg'd to God since by their Doctrine he would not have abated us nor did he Christ the last Farthing so that the acknowledgments are peculiarly the Sons which destroys the whole current of Scripture Testimony for his Good Will towards Men. O the Infamous Portraiture this Doctrine draws of the Infinite Goodness Is this your Retribution O Injurious Satisfactionists 9. That God's Justice is satisfied for Sins past present and to come whereby God and Christ have lost both their Power of injoyning Godliness and Prerogative of punishing Disobedience for what is once paid is not revokeable and if Punishment should arrest any for their Debts it either argues a Breach on God's or Christ's part or else that it hath not been sufficiently solv'd and the Penalty compleatly sustained by another forgetting that every one must appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ to receive according to things done in the Body Yea every one must give an account of himself to God But many more are the gross Absurdities and Blasphemies that are the genuine Fruits of this so confidently believ'd Doctrine of Satisfaction Of JUSTIFICATION 1. Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but He that doth the Will of my Father Whosoever heareth these Sayings of mine and doth them I will liken him unto a Wise Man which built his House upon a Rock c. How very fruitful are the Scriptures of Truth in Testimonies against this absurd and dangerous Doctrine these Words seem to import a two-fold Righteousness the first consists in Sacrifice the last in Obedience the one makes a
Dialogue Chr. Was not Christ God's Gift Quak. Yea he was so Chr. To what end Quak. His Doctrine Life Miracles Death and Sufferings to God is the Gift and Expression of God's Eternal Love for the Salvation of Men. Penn's Sandy Found Pag. 19. Chr. Thou hast affirmed that God is Christ If so Did God die and suffer to God To which I answer that T. Hicks as in other places so here is basely Unjust and if he accounts me his Adversary or an Opposer of his Principles though I never had to do with him in particular nor any of that People in general It behov'd him to be honest and give me my due Instead of which he leaves out some Words and horribly perverts the rest For first I did in that Book acknowledge and confess to Christ's Bodily Appearance and that he was born of the Virgin Mary after the Flesh and that largely and plainly p. 36. which he wholy omitts to mention Secondly I do not remember that I so exprest my self that God was Christ but whether I did or no to insinuate a Denyal of his Manifestation in Flesh is most perversly wicked and ungodly as well as that it plainly shews notwithstanding his feigned Confession to Christ's Divinity that in truth he owns him not to be God or he has very ill exprest himself when he sayes thou affirmest God is Christ or Christ is God for it implies he does not else what means his following words did God himself dye and suffer to God he thus queries to shew the Absurdity of believing God to be Christ or Christ to be God and tells us that he believes what dyed was the Intire Christ Certainly he is either rank Socinian in the Point which I mention not in Disgrace unless it be to that Party that so impious a Person is of it or he has not well given us his Mind But this proves what elsewhere I observe of him that from our Asserting Christ to be God or God Christ Tho. Hicks is ignorant or malitious enough to infer that we deny that ever he took Flesh whence he would fasten such like Absurdities upon us you say Christ dyed Christ you say is God did then God dye c. But if he has represented us to deny the Bodily Appearance why did he not also make us to deny his Death and Sufferings too and then there had been no room for that preposterous Conclusion But to insinuate a Belief of our Denyal of Christs's coming in the Flesh and not of his Death that he might bring us upon this Pinch of Contradiction to wit that God dyed and not the Body in which he was manifested is such an invented piece of Dishonesty as deserves nothing else then the Abhorrence of all Impartial Persons In short we say that God manifested in Flesh was the true Christ that then appeared that the Flesh and not God dyed and that the whole of the Appearance whether in Life or Death was for Man's Salvation And if Tho. Hicks is not herewith contented we cannot help it but hope others are not so Unreasonable But he proceeds thus Give me leave to ask you directing himself to his foresaid Quaker Whether one great End wherefore Christ was given and came into the World was not to seek and to Save such that were lost Quak. Yea he came to seek and save the lost Christ But who or what is this that was lost He wickedly and with an Aggravation like the Enmity of his Spirit thus makes G. Keith to answer That which is lost is still in Man That Christ came to seek and save and all his Ministers preached People to this the lost in Man a lost God a lost Christ c. To which sayes T.H. Blush O Heavens and be Astonished O Earth Was ever such a thing as this heard of before that Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God a lost Christ c. Was ever God and Christ in a Lost Condition But the Heavens may Blush and the Earth be Astonished indeed at such sordid and base Dealing G. Keith means that Christ came to seek and to save by turning People to enquire after a lost God and a lost Christ the Groat within the Pearl in the Field c. that is to God's Light in them by which God and Christ are revealed to the Soul For whatever may be known of God is manifest within which they Rebelling against had lost the Knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ And this unrighteous Person turns it that G. Keith meant that Christ came to seek and to save a lost God and lost Christ What Sence can there be in so horrible a Perversion as well as that there is no colour for it who endeavours to insinuate that Christ came to save God and Christ not the Soul by turning it to seek after God and Christ and to represent God and Christ's Condition Lost and Perilous instead of theirs who had or have lost God and Christ In short Lost as taken by T.H. is meant of Man's lost Condition and as there used by G. Keith is understood of God and Christ whom Man had and hath lost the Knowledge of and Fellowship with But such sinister Practices savour of the height of Dishonesty The Inventer of BAXTER BAPTIZED IN BLOOD BY ANABAPTISTS is nothing to this horrible kind of Perversion And I doubt not but T. Hick's Recompence will be more terrible from the hand of a Just God irritated by such Irreligious Proceedings However I will return upon T. Hicks what more concerns him then he is aware of If Christ came to seek and to Save that which was Lost then because the whole World was lost he came to seek and to save the whole World And if so then Reprobates because Lost or else there can be no such thing as Eternal Reprobation or Men from Eternity unalterably decreed to Eternal Destruction How much more this confounds his own partial Opinion of Predestination then any thing he has said can the Quakers Principles let the Sober minded judge CHAP. VII Of the Seed and Redemption of the Seed HIs next Stumble and gross Perversion of our Words is concerning the Seed from a passage or two taken out of the Books of J.N. and G.F. That the Seed is Christ that the Seed wants Redemption as being laden by Sinners as a Cart with Sheaves c. He thus argues If then Redemption be of the Seed and this Seed be Christ either there must be more Christs then one or else Christ came to redeem himself Again Christ-without you esteem to be but a Creature but the Seed-within you say is God Tell me seriously whether a Creature can redeem the Creator Can you pretend to be guided by an Infallible Spirit and yet be guilty of such gibberish and folly as this To which before I make my Answer I think fit to insert that which he gives in the Name of the Quakers Here thou shewest
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
Conscience to appeal to God as one not guilty of such vile Injustâ—ce as that of charging us with false things and refer the Reader to Examine the Quotations when here â—s not one Quotation nor the colour of one that the Quakers did ever thus speak of or render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Authority then the Fables of Aesop What will not Envy and Wickedness had this Man to say against us Doth this agree with â—is Pretence That all he intended was only our Conviction and Recovery Dial. p. 10. Is it not rather to do us what Injury and Mischief he can by Slanders and Forgeries Tho. Hicks's Charge against Nicolas Lucas viz. That N.L. a Real Quaker was moved to declare his Mind thus to one I know very well Thou mayst burn thy Bible and when that is done thou mayst serve God as well without it and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture thou mayst write as good a one thy self N. L's Answer follows These words whereof T. Hicks hath thus publickly and positively accused me and that divers times over in his Pamphlet were never spoken by me nor was it ever my Principle Way or Motion to Dis-esteem Undervalue or speak evil of the Holy Scriptures for I really believe that Holy Men of God spake them forth as moved by the Holy Spirit Therefore this Charge against me is an Abominable Lye and Wicked Slander And with a clear Consience I speak it I do neither know nor remember that ever any words past from me whereby Tho. Hicks could so much as colour this Lye and Slander against me And I cannot but look upon my self to be greatly Injur'd and Abus'd by T.H. until he oâ— his Brethren do me Right in this thing in as publick a Manner to the World as he hath done me Wrong Which iâ— they do not I commit my Cause to God to judge between us and clear my Innocency herein London the 29 th of the 3 d Moneth 1673. Nicolas Lucas Whereas Nicolas Lucas was referr'd to Owen Horton and his Wife for Proof of Tho. Hicks's Charge before to whom Nicolas spoke about it and she referr'd her self to Hen. Stout to witness the Charge to which Hen. Stout answers thus viz I Hen. Stout of Hertford never in all my dayes heard Nicolas Lucas speak the Words nor any of the like Import or Tendency as charged on him before nor any Man else before Tho. Hicks that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my Conscience that he hath most grosly Wronged Nicolas Lucas To which I subscribe H. Stout Another Accusation is viz. That S. Eccles discoursing with a Friend of his in London told him The Scriptures were a Lye But that this may appear a very likely Lye against S.E. he adds 'T was replyed Why then dost thou mention them that The Quaker answer'd To silence thee That he should say the Scriptures were a Lye or that he made use of a Lye to silence his Opposer appears a most absurd Slander and where is his Quotation the Reader must examine for Proof Hath he not here Abused his Reader But let S. Eccles's own Words clear him of this Lye and Slander In his Book Mus Lect. he often cites the Scriptures calls them The Holy Scriptures pag. 13. Thou that sayst the Quakers deny the Scriptures belyest the Innocent pag. 20. Do not belye the Scriptures nor the Spirit that gave it forth for Holy Men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost pag. 22 Whereas Tho. Hicks begins his Continuation thus Chr. I have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures the Light Within the Person of Christ and the Resurrection c. I presume by this time you have considered what say you thereunto To this he feigns the Answer thus viz. Quak. I say the Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee G. Whitehead Rep. I testifie against this as a Fiction for this was not my Answer neither has he referred us to any Quotations of mine though upon this he is pleased to accuse me with Passion Furious Replies and Sarcasms for his own Fiction to which he hath counterfeited my Name I question not but the Judgments of God will follow him and such Forgers and Spreaders of Lyes But that was not my Answer to the said Objection This Dialogue-Man's Liberty in these Forgeries and silly Botcheries is neither Christian nor Civil As to what he sayes pag. 3. I answer 1. That the Life which is the Light of Men John 1. is not a Creature but Divine and of the very Being of God I still affirm and have else-where proved though the whole Essence or Being of God is not contained in Man yet enlightens all Men. And 2. That the Inward Speaking or Living Ministration of the Spirit of Truth is of greater Authority then the Scriptures or Writings in the Abstract 3. S. Crisp doth own the True and Real Christ the Son of the Living God in his Spiritual Divine Being to be without either Beginning Date or End This he hath fully answered else-where 4. That the Soul or Spirit of Man as it relates to the Creaturely Being is a distinct Being from the Infinite Being of God and is not properly a Part of God For he is not divided into Parts or Particles but with respect to its Original Life whereby it immortally subsists we are God's Off-spring and the Breath of Life or Immediate Inspiration of God by which Man became a Living Soul or the Original Life of Man's Soul Of this G.F. spoke when he said Is not that of God which cometh out from God viz. the Breath of Life His words are perverted and mis-cited by T.H. For in another Consideration and State he owns the Infinite Being of God and the Soul or Spirit of Man to be distinct Beings where he speaks of the Soul being in Death in Transgression Man's Spirit Vnsanctified the Soul being in Death Transgressing the Law see Great Myst p. 91. This he could never intend or speak of the Infinite Incorruptible Being of God for that never sinned 5. That G.W. denies the Resurrection of the Body that is of the Dead or any Body at all is false nor is this prov'd against G.W. from his Saying Thou sowest not the Body that shall be it 's raised a Spiritual Body and Flesh Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1. Cor. 15. And T.H. may as well charge it upon the Apostle and upon his Brother Tho. Collier who in his Marrow of Christianity p. 40 94 95. plainly saith The Form in which they shall be raised that is in a Spiritual Form not in a Fleshly c. All Flesh shall be swallowed up in Spirit and our Body shall be changed and made like his glorious Body But Tho. Hicks plainly contradicts him saying That the Apostles and all true Christians say This Body of Flesh and Bones shall rise again Dial. p. 59 60. which he could never yet
we affirm viz. 1st That Jesus Christ in the Flesh was more thâ—â— a meet Exemple of Holiness 2dly And his Blood was of peculiar Value and Estimation with God Thomas Hicks Proceeds in his Envy and Falshood stiâ—â—â—â— bring our Sufferings into Dis-esteem viz. 〈…〉 People that ever boasted so vainly of their Sufferings 〈◊〉 you do that scarce a Pamphlet can come out from yo◠〈◊〉 but the World must hear of your Brags of this kind Contin p. 6. A manifest and two-fold Falshood for 1st We do not vainly boast of our Sufferings but have rejâ—yced in Christ Jesus that we have been counted worthy to suffer for his Name when you who now enjoy our Prosperity durst not shew your Heads in publick for your Profession or Worship but fled into Corners and Obscurities and your publick Meetings were deserted and put by For thy part T.H. I do not think thou hast much Suffering for Conscience or any for Christ to boast of 2. Scarce a Pamphlet Is also false for many of our Bookes and Papers relate not our Sufferings but other Subjects much less vainly boast or brag thereof But it seems that it both judges and vexes thee and such Creeping Envious Spirits to hear of our deep Sufferings since they have had such a blessed Effect in the Nation as the inclining the Hearts of many to the Living Truth and the Increase of our Number in it Thou T.H. and such Envious Spirits are most quiet towards us when you see us under Persecution and appear most outragious against us when we have Liberty as if you were discontented and perplexed at our Liberties and as desirous of Persecution and Ruin upon us 3. I am not sorry that I was made Instrumental in obtaining the Liberty of some of thy Brethren the Baptists out of Prison the last Somâ—er who among a great Number of our Friends were released though I am but sorrily and badly requited by thee but thou art one of them who art more ready to persecute and scandalize our Sufferings then to suffer or sympathize with them that suffer for Conscience sake but have not some of thy Brethren both commended of our Sufferings and the Service thereof both to themselves and other Dissenters why then dost thou insinuate as if Carnal Interest Wills and Lusts were our chief Motive to suffer God and his Witness in many Consciences will judge thee for this gross Abuse Again T.H. did most falsly insinuate though by way of Query That our Sufferings were only to satisfie our Wills and Lusts and for Carnal Advantage which to excuse he now saith In this I only queried what it should be that doth influence you to suffer forasmuch as you deny that this Body shall rise And G.F. maintains that the Soul is part of God's Being Contin p. 6. 1. To the first I answer that every Seed shall have its own Body as it pleaseth God and every Man shall be reserved spiritually in his own proper Being though not in the gross fleshly Form Is this either to deny the Resurrection or an Eternal Advantage 2. To the second G.F. doth not so speak of the Soul or Spirit of Man nor are his Words directly and truly cited but of the Immediate Inspiration of God or original Life or Soul of Man's Soul by which Man became Living a Living Soul in this he queries Is not that of God which came out from God 3. It s an absurd and most abusive Insinuation that our Sufferings either were or could be for any carnal Advantage or Interest seeing we freely have often offered up our Lives and our All in this World therein 4. It s still a manifest Slander that we deny any Eternal Advantage to Persons after Death neither is it any much less direct Consequence of our saying Not that Body which thou sowest shall be and Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God or That the Body which God giveth shall not be in a Fleshly but in a Spiritual Form as Tho. Collier confesseth dare he say this is to deny any Eternal Advantage But with T.H. This is no more then the Genuine and a direct Consequence of denying the Resurrection of this Body Is it not then the reaping Eternal Advantage must be placed upon this Earthly Tabernacle or Carnal Body though it must be dissolved and no New one to be created according to his former Doctrine Dial. p. 58. O wonderful Philosophy Eternal Advantage placed upon these same Earthly Bodies yet they not to be renewed by Creation after dissolved and turned to Dust and how contrary to the Apostles Testimony is his so much placing Eternal Advantage upon this Earthly disolvable Body see the 2. Cor. 5 1 2 8. Phil. 1.21.23 Our experiencing Christ's second Appearance without Sin unto Salvation in Answer to our Hope and testifying to Eternal Life and Felicity as Inwardly and Spiritually receiv'd by those that now suffer for Christ can be no Denyal of any Future or Eternal Advantage according to his Instance against me p. 7. seeing we know that to live is Christ and to dy is Gain unto us they that walk up to his Light in them here cannot miss of an Eternal Advantage hereafter Our light Affliction which is but for a moment worketh for is a far more exceeding weight of Glory see 2 Cor. 4 10 11. to the end of the Chapter Concerning Justification Imputation and Sanctification p. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 wherein we differ he is fully answered in our Books viz. Divin Chr. Serious Apol. But where he saith viz. I know of none that hold Justification of Persons in their Vngodliness p. 55. Are there not those that hold Justification before Sanctification or in a sinful Estate by a meer Imputatation And those that thus argue for it by the Rule of Contraries As Christ was made to be Sin for us who knew no Sin i.e. by an inherent Guilt or Operations of Sin in him so we are made the Righteousness of God in him they adding as and so as he so we i.e. we are not actually made Righteous by any inherent Righteousness or Holiness of Christ wrought in us any more then Christ was made Sin but reckened Righteous only from his active and passive Obedience without us This Doctrine we have not only opposed but refuted Divin Christ Ser. Apol. The wicked Slander he calls upon us in this is his own T.H. we plead not for a Righteousness Imputed to overthrow a Righteousness Inherent or the Exercise of Christian Virtue p. 55. But do you not oppose a Righteousness inherent as to Justification or deny that those Christian Virtues within are reckoned or esteemed of God unto Justification T.H. 'T is you would separate and divide them not we p. 55. False we make no such Separation between Christ's Righteousness Inherent in us and Justification on the Imputation as ours we experiencing a Participation thereof Christ being made unto us both Righteousness Sanctification Redemption
T.H. Doth not this import that a Man must be formally Just before he be Justified for nothing is imputed or reckoned to us according to your Reasoning but what is inherent in us p. 55. Answ Your Reasoning It seems 't is not his then would he not here separate and divide between a Righteousness imputed and a Righteousness inherent or the Exercise of Christian Virtues if so be that a man must be justified i.e. in his Sense imputed or accounted Righteous before he be formally just how agrees this with his Concession before viz. that they would not separate divide between Imputed Inherent Righteousness T.H. I would ask you Whether Remission of Sins be not one part of Justification Answ yes 't is a Degreee of it the next Step to an absolute Justification Remission is of Sins past receiv'd upon true Repentance and Conversion from â—in to newness of Life Justification and Acceptance with God in Christ is enjoyed in the Newness of Life by such as continue in sincere Obedience to Christ This Remission Pardon or Justification from Sins past though not inherent in the Natural Fallen or Sinful Man yet 't is inwardly received through Faith in the Name of Christ by such as truly depart from Sin and Evil and give up to serve the Living God T.H. Certainly he that 's pardon'd must be a Sinner p. 56. Answ No He must be one that ceaseth from Sin for if I sin then thou markest me and thou wilt not acquit me from mine Iniquity Job 10.14 And certainly he that 's not acquited is not pardon'd nor justify'd But I must confess â—e somewhat mends the Matter in adding viz. That is such that were so viz. Sinners till Justified not such as remain so being Justified p. 56. At length we agree in this 1st That such as are pardoned were sometimes Sinners Disobedient before 2. But being pardoned and justified by the Grace of God in his beloved Son they do not remain Disobedient therefore they that remain Sinners and Disobedient are not in a Justified State I had writ something against T. Hicks's gross Abuse of our Reputation as we are Men as well as Christians by his most false and Unjust Consequences he draws from our Owning the Light within as the Rule Immediate Motions Directions of the Spirit of Christ within especially in Matters of Worship T.H. his Persecuting Spirit in his falsly Accusing us with Disrespect to Parents Magistrates c. being destructive to all Humane Society But W.P. having reprehended him in these things in his part before I forbear to publish mine at present for I have in this endeavoured Brevity G.W. THE Present Controversie Drawing to an End Or those Doctrines and Principles which have been chiefly Controverted between us Granted and Confest to by our present Opposer Thomas Hicks and his Brethren Here the Reader may see how like to us called Quakers divers of the Baptist-Teachers have been made some times to speak and hold forth Truth in Words which I would have them seriously to review and lay aside all Envy and Prejudice which hath caused so much Contradiction and Gain-saying on their parts both to themselves and the Truth professed by us Our Principles and their Concessions truly Stated and Compared 1. Quaker THat God is and that he is Light the Eternal Word of Life and Power which was with God c was God was that in which was Life and the Life was the Light of Men and that was the True Light that enlightens every Man coming into the World John 1.1 4 9. Baptist Christ in you and he is the Life and Light of Men Dial. p. 22. And Jesus Christ is God the most high God of the same Substance and Essence H.G. Light from the Sun p. 83 84 c. II. Qua. The Light of Christ or the Eternal Word in Man is Divine and Increated Bap. The Lord Jesus Christ as the Eternal Word enlightens all Men and Women that come into the World Light from the Sun of Righteousness p. 8. III. Qua. God is Infinite and Omni-present and his Presence doth both afford Life Virtue and Light to Man and Jesus Christ as God over all in respect of his Divinity or Divine Nature is therefore in all through all and over all though not revealedly nor unitedly Bap. Christ in respect of his Divine Nature is in all places Contin pag. 34. How could you call the Light Within Christ if some Scriptures had not mentioned Christ in you and that he is the Life and Light of Men Dial. p. 22. IV. Qua. The Light of Christ in Man is a certain Rule and Guide to direct Man out of Sin and Death into the Way of Life and Peace and for that End ought to be obeyed Bap. I grant it ought to be Obeyed I acknowledge there is something within that checks for many Evils and excites to many Good Things and that I ought to shun those Evils and do that Good It will be our Wisdom yea our Duty to attend to the Light Within we being accountable to God for every Dispensation of Light Dial. p. 7 8 13. V. Qua. Though this Divine Life or Light of the Son of God be manifest by Degrees in Man yet the Degrees alter not the Property of it and it ought to be obeyed with respect to God and Man 's own Salvation Bap. No Disparagement to the Light Within Each Degree of Light is Serviceable to its End Dial. p. 36. VI. Qua. This Light Within is that General Rule extending to Man alwayes or throughout Ages and that is the Will of God that Man should alwayes be under the Obligation of this Rule that he might acknowledg God's Soveraignity and Power and be in Subjection to him as having the sole right to Rule in the Creation that Man may truly discharge the Duty he owes to his Maker in true Obedience and Worship Bap. Indeed 't is not to be denyed but that Man was alwayes under an Obligation of a Rule that God's Soveraignity over him and his Inferiority unto God might be acknowledged This Rule must be the Will of God revealed to us for it is the Will of God which is the Formal Reason of the Obligation The Will of God being the Ground of the Creation of Men and Angeâ—s therefore as it is the Ground of their Being it must be the Rule of their Acting Dial. pag. 31. There was something commendable in the Heathens p. 36. That Light in every Man that doth convince of Sin and reprove him for Sin Christ as he was the Woâ—â— with Gâ—d so he was the Light of the World c. W. Burnet's Capitâ—â— pâ—in p. 8 10 16 17. VII Qua. That the Holy Spirit Unction or Living Word within which is received by them that wait in and obey the Light thereof is to be preferred as a more Eminent and Universal Rule then the Scriptures and it opens them and brings Man to the true Understanding of them and leads