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
Brother will you Pray No Brother I am not so well able as you are Let Brother such a one Pray he is better gifted for the Work c. Complementing Shifting and at last Praying c. in their own Wills and not in God's Motion This God hates Next Since the Pouring forth of the Spirit is the great Gospel Gift and that the Children of God are to be led by it In what should we more diligently wait for its Heavenly Assistance then in that part of our Duty which we owe to God Is his Worship Spiritual and can we perform it out of the Motion of his own Spirit For what then was his Spirit given Again If Men should pray in a known Tongue much more with the Spirit as the Apostle speaks No Wonder the Professors ask Pardon for their Prayers Indeed God's Spirit gives them to see the Emptiness of their Righteousness and condemns them for it wherfore they are at times dissatisfy'd in them yet they will not learn of him to be guided by him who would cover them with Everlasting Righteousness Blessed would they be if their Minds were stayed in his Counsel But instead thereof T.H. does as good as say that if he should stay till the Spirit moved him he might stay long enough rendring the Spirit Wanting in that for which he was shed abroad in the Heart Because through his Enmity and Darkness hasty Running in his own Spirit he feels it not to lead him else he would never infer from our Asserting the Necessity of the Spirit 's Moving to Right Acceptable Worship that we are acquitted from any Fault in omitting to do that which is Good and the Blame must be laid upon the Spirit But let me ask him Can any Man do Good of himself Surely he will say No. How then shall Man do that Good he ought to do but by the Holy Ghost Canst thou call Jesus Lord by any other Power or Spirit Read the Scriptures What greater Contradiction can there be then to believe Man of himself can do no Good and yet to say he can do it without God's Spirit to incline and assist him thereunto But if the Spirit do not what does Tell me what can tender the Heart prepare the Soul raise the Affections give true Feeling of Wants and help to perform all in that Fear Reverence and deep Sense which becomes all New Covenant Spiritual Worshippers if this cannot or do not Nay what an Affront is it to God since it is to suppose that Man wants him not that his Spirit neither moves to Duty that ought to be performed nor yet condemns for Duty omitted Behold the Impudence of the Man He talks of Gospel Christ the Mysteries of his Glorious Kingdom c. What grosser Opposer of the New Covenant can there be who denies the very Life Virtue and Soul of all true Gospel-Worship and Discipline and without which the otherwise best Christian-Church that ever was would be worse then Legal For they that worship not from the Motions of God's Spirit offer strange Fire set up their own Worship and are Image Makers such ask but they receive not because they ask not aright For if no Man can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost no Man can pray to the Lord or in his Name without the Holy Ghost yet a Sigh or Groan from its holy Operation that Sacrifice though without Words is manifold more engaging and effectual with the Lord then the most excellent Performance of Man 's own Spirit 'T is the Fear and Heavenly Sense of God in the Soul that recommends the Performance and that the holy Spirit begets And as the Minds of Men and Women are exercised in the Law of this pure and quickening Spirit as it appears in them they shall know the true Worship which stands in Life and Power whose End is Everlasting Peace when the LORD LORD-CRYERS that have Prayed and Preached in their own Wills and Wisdom as well as to their own Ends and Advantages shall be cast out forever with a DEPART FROM ME YE WORKERS OF INIQUITY But there is one Objection taken from my Book called The Spirit of Alexander the Copper-Smith c. which he thinks splits us irrecoverably It runs thus Either there is such a thing as a Christian-Church or there is not if there be then this Church either hath Power or hath not If no Power then no Church If a Body or a Church then there must be a Power within it self to determine To which sayes Tho. Hicks For Christians to plead this who own the Scriptures for their Rule and not the meer Light within the Argument may safely be allowed But you cannot stand by this For will you say what a Man doth without an Inward Motion is accurst and yet disown him for not doing what he is not moved unto But though this be plausible it is no more For the Difficulty remains in Case the Scripture be admitted for the Rule for Instance The Church unto which Tho. Hicks belongs own the Scripture to be the Rule But suppose Tho. Hicks in some one Point believes the Scripture not to intend the same thing the rest of the Church understand it to mean as in Case of Free-Will I query how this Matter shall be reconciled They affirm the Scripture to be the Rule and say This is the true Sense of the Scripture Thomas Hicks also affirms the Scripture to be the Rule but that his Sense is the Mind of the Scripture This occurs almost daily among those who believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith Now observe the Parallel The Quakers by the Light within them as their Rule judge that rude Imagination of keeping the Hat on in time of publick Prayer The Anabaptists by the Scripture as their Rule censure Thomas Hicks for upholding a Contrary Sense to the Scripture The Dissenter from the Quakers sayes The Light which he calls his Rule manifests no such thing to him nor doth he believe it to be the Mind of the Light to him Thomas Hicks makes Answer to the Church that by the Scripture he understands quite another thing and the Scripture is his Rule for what he sayes and maintains in the Matter I would ask any Man of Common Sence if the Scripture is not as well set in Opposition to it self by these two Pretenders as the Light within and if the Church of Anabaptists would not therefore doubt the Truth of their Interpretation but proceed to censure Thomas Hicks as a Disturber of their Church in its Doctrine or Discipline by the Introduction of New and Unprofitable Opinions Neither are the Body of the Quakers to question their Judgment given by the Light within as their Rule to be a true and unquestionable Determination against such Alexanders and Enemies to the Peace of their Jerusalem But I would further tell Thomas Hicks that though we renounce all Worship not led to by God's Spirit his Reflection
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