THE SANDY FOUNDATION SHAKEN

Title: Sandy Foundation Shaken
      : Digital Quaker Collection Electronic Edition
Penn, William.   Author: Penn, William.  
Elec. Publisher: Earlham School of Religion: Digital Quaker Collection
          Earlham School of Religion
          228 College Ave.
          Richmond, IN 47374
          USA
          url:mailto:DQC@earlham.edu
          url:http://esr.earlham.edu/dqc/
          765-983-1423

Book Number: E2177021A.003
Date: 2003
Num, Pages: 18 pages
Orig. Publisher: J. Sowle
Pub. City: London
Date: 1726
Book Number: Friends Collection: Lilly Library of Earlham, Richmond, IN





1 Cor. viii. 6.
But to us there is but One GOD the Father, of whom are all Things,

Micah vii. 18.
Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth Iniquity? He retaineth not His
Anger for ever, because He delighteth in Mercy,

Exod. xxiii. 7.
For I will not Justifie the Wicked,



To the Unprejudiced READER.

It was the Fault of some in Ancient Times, that they made void God's Law by Men's Traditions; and certainly I may now assume the same Complaint; for whilst I take a Serious Prospect of the Spiritual Nature, and Tendency of the Second Covenant, which God Almighty, in the Fulness of Time, by his Prophets, Prophesied to make and perfect; and also the Accomplishment thereof by JESUS CHRIST, and what was brought to pass amongst the Primitive Believers; methinks I do not only see an utter Abolishment of Ceremonial Worships, but the inscribing that Spiritual Law on the Heart, and Infusion of Holy Fear to the Inward Parts, whereby each Person became capacitated to know so much of God, as suited with his present State, from an infallible Demonstration in himself, and not on the slender Grounds of Men's  Lo-here Interpretations, or Lo-there;  for the Kingdom of God is within, where himself must be the Teacher of His People: But on the other Hand, when from the Noise of every Party's Pretensions to, and Contentions for their own Way, as most infallible, I am induced to an impartial Examination of them: Alas! How have all adulterated from the Purity both of Scripture Record, and Primitive Example? Receiving for Unquestionable Doctrines, the Fallible Apprehensions, and uncertain Determinations of such Councils, whose Faction, Prejudice, and Cruelty Soon parallel'd the foregoing Heathnish Persecutions; and yet that the Results of Persons so incompetently qualified, should at this Day in their Authority remain unquestioned by the Nations, is Matter both of Astonishment and Pity; but an implicit Faith has ever been the Consequence of Ignorance, Idleness and Fear, being strong Impediments to a Judicious Enquiry, how far profest and imposed Opinions have their Consistency with Reason, and the True Religion. But that which most of all deserves a Lamentation, is, that Protestants, whose better Arguments have confuted the Plea of such as made Tradition, and Men's Prescriptions unquestionable in Circumstantials, should themselves, by Print and Practice, so openly declare and contend for its Authority in Essentials; as must be obvious to any that observe their Zealous Anathema's against whomsoever refuse a Compliance with them in Doctrines, manifestly Bottom'd upon Mens nice Inventions.

This is the right State of the Controversie that is maintained by us (contemptibly called Quakers) against the World, and the undoubted Reason of our Severe Treatment at its Hands, the End of God Almighty's raising us, being for no other Purpose, than to declare, That which our Eyes have seen, our Ears heard, and which our Hands have handled of the Eternal Word, in Opposition to the private Opinions, Conjectures, and Interpretations of Men concerning God and Religion, that all People might thereby be reduced to Faith in, and Obedience to the Universal Grace which brings Salvation; which as it only can restore Sound Judgment concerning God, and effect Redemption from Iniquity, so its being relinquish'd by Men, was the very Ground both of their Division in Judgment, and Corruption in Manners.

That this hath been, and is our Case, I shall produce an Instance, which is indeed the Occasion of this Treatise.

Two Persons lately of Thomas Vincent's Auditory in Spittle-Fields, ( who goes under the Notion of a Presbyter) being desirous to prove all Things, and to hold fast the Best, visited our Meeting, to understand if we were as really deserving Blame, as represented by our Enemies; where it then pleased Divine Goodness to visit them with the Call of His Light, from the Inventions, Carnal Observations, Will-worship, and Vain Conversation of those to whom they were formerly related, that they might be made Children of the Day; and though its Appearance might be small, yet sufficient to discover them to have been Inhabitants of the Night, and can never be rejected, but it shall bring that Condemnation which will further testifie it to be of God.

But their relinquishing his Congregation, so incens'd this Presbyterian Preacher, as that his Peevish Zeal transported him beyond, not only the Moderation of Christianity, but the Civility of Education, venting his Folly and Prejudice much to this Purpose, That he had as lieve they should go to a Bawdy-House, as to frequent the Quakers's Meetings, because of their Erroneous and Damnable Doctrines. And pointing to the Window, said, If there should stand a Cup of Poison, I would rather drink it, than suck in their Damnable Doctrines. He further exprest himself in this Manner to one of them: If ever you go again, I will give you up, and God will give you up, that you may believe a Lie, and he Damn'd. Which Storms of soul and railing Accusations, proving ineffectual to shipwrack that Little Grain of Faith, his Hearers, as forgetting they hold their Preaching by Connivance, and the many Appeals made by their Non-Conforming Brethren, for an Indulgence, came with this Caution to the Pater-Familias, ( or he that was both Husband and Father to the concerned Parties) that he would exercise his Authority,  as well to refuse them to all  Quaker-Visitants, as prohibit them the Liberty of their Consciences in frequenting our Meetings.

All which we could not for the Truth-Sake, let pass in Silence, and therefore did require him to let us have a Publick Meeting, in which we might have Liberty to answer on the Behalf both of our selves and Principles; which after some Demur, was granted, the Day he appointed, and at the Second Hour in the Afternoon. But that the might not want the Applause of many Voices, and doubtless to prevent our Friends, as (I am informed) be spoke his usual Auditory to be there at One; and, as a Man that would not over-Spend himself, or incur a Non-plus for Want of Seconds, he had his Third and Fourth, to wit, Thomas Danson, Thomas Doolittle, and —Maddocks, who at their Times (and often out of them) did interpose, to whom George Whitehead mostly answered; nor had there any Thing been spoken by another, but from their own Example.

The Matter in Controversie, will be related in the Beginning of this Treatise, as a necessary Preludium, or Introduction to the following Discourse: The Manner of it was so gross, that I know not how to represent it better, than by the Levity and Rudeness of some Prize; Laughing, Hissing, Shoveing, Striking, and Stigmatizing us with the Opprobrious Terms of Confident Fellow, Impudent Villain, Blasphemer, &c. And, as the usual Refuge of Shallow Persons (when they have little else to say, to prepossess their Hearers with Prejudice against the Principles of such as do oppose them) he questioned much whether I was not some Jesuit; Not remembring, or at least unwilling to let the People know, that none have been, nor are more instant in the Vindication of that Doctrine be and his Brother did assert, (to wit, God Subsisting in Three Distinct Persons) than the Jesuits: So that if I should not as well reflect a Scandal upon their Learning by a Comparison, as he did upon my Principle, I could more truly invert Jesuitism upon himself: In short, they neither would keep to Scripture Terms themselves, nor suffer it in others; but looking upon G. Whitehead's Explanation of their Terms, and Reduction of their Matter (if possible) to a Scripture Sense (thereby fitting it to the Auditors Apprehension) to be an indirect Way of answering (as that which nakedly did expose their Traditional Folly to the Vulgar ) T. V. in an abrupt Manner fell to his Prayer, in which he falsly, and with many strangely affected Whines, accused us for Blasphemers unto God; and that he might prevent the clearing of our selves, he desired the People, when he had finish'd, to be gone, giving them an Example by his and three Brethren's Retreat. But we being desirous further to inform the People of our Innocency, they did not only (as before) endeavour to pull us down, but put the Candles out, though several Persons, of good Esteem, continued whilst we spoke in Vindication of our Selves, from the Invectives of our Adversaries.

The People still remaining undispersed, T. V. came very palely down the Stairs (having a Candle in his Hand) requiring their Dismission, at which Time he promised us, at our Request, another Meeting; but as one that knew not well what he said, or never purpos'd to perform what he promis'd, has given us since to understand, be can't in Conscience spare us so much Time; yet to satisfie G. W. and my self, in Private, he could agree; which surely can't be term'd another Meeting, since then it must relate to the preceding one: But how near the Relation is betwixt an Accusation before Hundreds, and a Satisfaction besore none, must needs be obvious to every unbyas'd Person:—Our Right should have been altogether as publick as our Wrong:—For which Cause we were necessitated to visit his Meeting, where, on a Lecture-Day, (after a continued Silence during all his Worship) we modestly intreated we might be clear'd from those unjust Reflections before his Congregation, leaving a Disputation (if he could not then attend it) to some more seasonable Opportunity: But as one, who resolv'd Injustice to Men's Reputation, as well as Cowardize, in baulking a Defense of his own Principles, be slunk most shamefully away; nor would any there, though urg'd to it, assume his Place to vindicate his Practice towards us, or his Doctrines then deliver'd.

Reader, What's thy Opinion of this Savage Entertainment? Would  Socrates, Cato, or Seneca, whom they call Heathens, have treated us with such unseemly Carriage? I suppose not: And well is it for the Truly Sober and Conscientious, they are not liable to those severe Lashes, and that peevish Usage, which are the inseparable Appendix to a Scotch Directory, whose cold and cutting Gales ever have design'd to nip and blast the fairest Blossoms of greater Reformation. So much for History.

What remains, is to inform the Reader, that with great Brevity I have discust, and endeavoured a total Enervation of those Cardinal Points, and Chief Doctrine so firmly believed, and continually impos'd for Articles of Christian Faith: 1. The Trinity of Separate Persons, in the Unity of Essence. 2. God's Incapacity to forgive, without the fullest Satisfaction paid him by another. 3. A Justification of impure Persons, from am imputative Righteousness. Which Principles let me tell thee, Reader, are not more repugnant to Scripture, Reason, and Souls-Security, than most destructive to God's Honour, in his Unity, Mercy, and Purity.

Therefore I beseech thee to exterminate Passion from her Predominancy, in the Perusal of this abridg'd Discourse, since it was writ in love to thee; that whilst 'tis thy Desire to know, love, and fear God Almighty above Mens Precepts, thou mayst not miss so good an End, by the blind Embraces of Tradition for Truth. But in the Nobility of a true Berean, search and enquire; letting the good old Verity, not a pretended Antiquity, (whilst a meer novelty) and solid Reason, not an over-fond Credulity, sway the Ballance of thy Judgment, that both Stability and Certainty may accompany thy Determinations. Farewel.

A short Confutation by Way of Recapitulation, of what was objected against us at Thomas Vincent's Meeting.

If Disputations prove at any Time ineffectual, it's either to be imputed to the Ignorance and Ambiguity of the Disputants, or to the Rudeness and Prejudice of the Anditory: All which may be truly affirmed of T. V. with his three Brethren, and Congregation.

The Accusation being general, viz. That the Quakers held Damnable Doctrines: George Whitehead on their Behalf stood up, and as it was his place, willingly would have given the People, an Information of our Principles, which if objected against, he was as ready to defend them by the Authority of Scriptnre and Reason; but instead of this better Method, T. V. as one that's often employ'd in Catechistical Lectures, falls to Interrogatories, beging that himself, he in his Slander had taken for granted, to wit, the Knowledge of our Principles.

The Question was this, Whether we own'd one God-head, Subsisting in Three Distinct and Separate Persons, as the Result of various Revises and Amendments; which being denied by us, as a Doctrine no where Scriptural, T. V. frames this Syllogism from the beloved Disciple's Words.

1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one.

These are either three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, or three somethings else beside Subsistences.

But they are not three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, nor three any thing else beside Subsistences:  Ergo, Three Subsistences.

G. W. Utterly rejected his Terms, as not to be found in Scripture, nor deduceable from the Place he instanced: Wherefore he desires their Explanation of their Terms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his Truths up in Heathenish Metaphysicks, but in plain Language: Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better Explication, than Person, or of Person, than the Mode of a Substance; To all which G. W. and my self urged several Scriptures, proving God's compleat Unity: And when we queried how God  was to be understood, if in an abstractive Sense from his Substance: They concluded it a point more fit for Admiration than Disputation. But a little to review his Syllogism; the Manner of it shews him as little a Scholar, as it's Matter does a Christian; but I shall over-look the first, and so much of the second, as might deserve my Objection to his Major, and give in short my Reason, why I flatly deny his Minor Proposition. No one Substance can have three distinct Subsistences, and preserve its own Unity: For granting them the most favourable Definition, every subsistence, will have its own Substance; so that three distinct Subsistences, or Manners of Being, will require three distinct Substances or Beings; consequently three Gods. For if the infinite God-head subsists in three separate Manners or Forms, then is not any one of them a perfect and compleat Subsistence without the other two; so parts, and something finite is in God: Or if infinite, then three distinct infinite Subsistence; and what's this but to assert three Gods, since none is infinite but God? And on the contrary, there being an inseparability betwixt the Substance and its Subsistence, the Unity of Substance will not admit a Trinity of incommunicable or distinct Subsistences.

T. D. Being ask'd of whom was Christ the express Image, from his alledging  that Scripture in the Hebrews; answered, of God's Subsistence, or Manner of Being: From whence two Things in short follow as my Reply, It makes God a Father only by Subsistence, and Christ a Son without a Substance. Besides it's falsly rendred in the Hebrews, since the Greek does not Heb. 1. 3. say but the Character of Substance.

And if he will peruse a farther Discovery of his Error, and explanation of the Matter, let him read Col. 1. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God.

And because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine to the Capacity of the People, compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles, saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three Persons, and one Apostle, (a most apt Comparison to detect their Doctrine) one— Maddocks, whose Zeal out-stript his Knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had some necessary Matter for the Decision of our Controversie, instead thereof (perhaps to save his Brethren, or show himself) silences our farther controverting of the Principle, by a Syllogistical, but impertinent Reflection upon G. W's. Person. It runs thus, He that Scornfully and reproachfully compares our Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, one in Essence, but three in Persons, to three finite Men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a Blasphemer. But you G. W. have so done. Ergo A strange Way of Argumentation, to beg what can't be granted him, and take for granted what still remains a Question, viz. That there are three distinct and separate Persons in one Essence: Let them first prove their Trinity, and then charge their Blasphemy: But I must not forget this Person's self-confutation, who to be plainer, called them three He's, and if he can find an He without a Substance, or prove that a Subsistence is any other than the Form of an He, he would do well to justifie himself from the Imputation of Ignorance.

And till their Hypothesis be of better Authority, G. W. neither did, nor does by that Comparison design Men's Invention so much Honour.

For 'tis to be remark'd, that G. W. is no otherwise a Blasphemer, than by drawing direct Consequences from their own Principles, and recharging them upon themselves: So that he did not speak his own Apprehensions by his Comparison, but the Sense of their Assertion; therefore Blasphemer and Blasphemy are their own.

The Trinity of Distinct and Separate Persons, in the unity of Essence, refuted from Scripture.

1 Kings 8.23.
And he said, Lord God, there is no God like unto THEE, To whom  then will ye liken ME? Or shall I be equal, saith the Holy ONE? —I  am the Lord, and there is NONE else, there is no God besides ME. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy ONE of Israel. I will also praise THEE, O my God; unto THEE will I sing, O Holy ONE of Israel. Jehovah  shall be ONE, and his Name ONE.

Isa. 40. 25.
c. 45. 5, 6.
c. 48. 17.
Psal. 71. 22.
Zac. 14. 9.
Mat. 19. 17.
John 17. 3.
Rom. 3. 30.
1 Cor. 8. 6.
Eph. 4. 6.
1 Tim. 2. 5.
Jude ver. 25.

Which with a Cloud of other Testimonies that might be urg'd, evidently demonstrate, that in the Days of the first Covenant, and Prophets, but ONE was the Holy God, and God but that Holy ONE.—Again, And Jesus said unto Him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but ONE, and that is God. And this is Life Eternal, that they might know THEE (Father) the ONLY True God. Seeing it is ONE God that shall justifie. There be Gods many,—but nnto us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all Things. ONE God and Father who is above all Things. For there is ONE God. To the ONLY Wise God be Glory now and ever. From all which I shall lay down this one Assertion, that the Testimonies of Scripture, both under the Law, and since the Gospel Dispensation, declare ONE to be God, and God to be ONE, on which I shall raise this Argument:

If God, as the Scriptures testifie, hath never been declar'd or believ'd, but as the Holy ONE, then will it follow, that God is not an Holy THREE, nor doth subsist in THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES: but the before-cited Scriptures undeniably prove that ONE is God, and God only is that Holy ONE; therefore he can't be divided into, or subsist in an Holy THREE, or THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES—Neither can this receive the least Prejudice from that frequent but impertinent Distinction, that he is ONE in Substance, but THREE in Persons or Subsistences; since God was not declared or believed incompleatly, or without his Subsistence: Nor did he require Homage from his Creatures, as an incompleat or abstracted Being, but as God the Holy ONE: For so he should be manifested and Worshipped without that which was absolutely Necessary to Himself:——So that either the Testimonies of the aforementioned Scriptures are to be believ'd concerning God, that he is intirely and compleatly, not abstractly and distinctly, the Holy ONE, or else their Authority to be denied by these Trinitarians: And on the contrary, if they pretend to credit those Holy Testimonies, they must necessarily conclude their Kind of Trinity a Fiction.

Refuted from Right Reason.

1. If there be three distinct and separate Persons, then three distinct and separate Substances, because every Person is inseparable from its own Substance; and as there is no Person that's not a Substance in common Acceptation among Men, so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein: And since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct Nothings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct Gods.

2. It's farther prov'd, if it be consider'd, that either the Divine Persons are finite or infinite; if the first, then something finite is inseparable to the infinite Substance, whereby something finite is in God; if the last, then Three distinct Infinites, Three Omnipotents, Three Eternals, and so Three GODS.

3. If each Person be God, and that God Subsists in three Persons, then in each Person are three Persons or Gods, and from three, they will encrease to nine, and so ad infinitum.

4. But if they shall deny the three Persons, or Subsistences to be infinite, (for so there would unavoidably be three Gods) it will follow that they must be finite, and so the Absurdity is not abated from what it was; for that of one Substance having three Subsistences, is not greater, than that an infinite Being should have three finite Modes of Subsisting. But though that Mode which is finite can't answer to a Substance that's infinite; yet to try if we can make their Principle to consist, let us conceive that three

Persons, which may be finite Separately, make up an infinite conjunctly; however this will follow, that they are no more incommunicable or separate, nor properly Subsistences, but a Subsistence; for the infinite Substance can't find a Bottom or Subsistence in any one or two, therefore joyntly. And here I am also willing to over look finiteness in the Father, Son, and Spirit, which this Doctrine must Suppose.

5. Again, if these three distinct Persons are one, with some one Thing, as they say they are with the God-head, then are not they incommunicable among themselves; but so much the contrary, as to be one in the Place of another: For if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the Son, and the Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son, and so round. Nor is it possible to stop, or that it should be otherwise, since if the Divine Nature be inseparable from the three Persons, or communicated to each, and each Person have the whole Divine Nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son, unless that the God-head be as incommunicable to the Persons, as they are reported to be amongst themselves; or that the three Persons have distinctly allotted them such a Proportion of the Divine Nature, as it not communicable to each other, which is alike absurd. Much more might be said to manifest the gross Contradiction of this Trinitarian Doctrine, as vulgarly receiv'd; but I must be brief.

Information and Caution.

Before I shall conclude this Head, it's requisite I should inform Thee, Reader, concerning its Original: Thou may'st assure thy self, it's not from the Scriptures, nor Reason, since so expresly repugnant; although all Broachers of their own Inventions strongly endeavour to reconcile them with that Holy Record. Know then, my Friend, 'twas born above three Hundred  Years after the Ancient Gospel was declared; and that through the nice Distinctions, and too daring Curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, who being as hotly opposed by Arrius, their Zeal so reciprocally blew the Fire of Contention, Animosity, and Persecution, till at last they sacrific'd each other to their mutual Revenge.

Thus it was conceived in Ignorance, brought forth and maintain'd by Cruelty; for though he that was strongest, impos'd his Opinion, persecuting the contrary, yet the Scale turning on the Trinitarian side, it has there continued through all the Romish Generations: And notwithstanding it hath obtain'd the Name of Athanasian from Athanasius, (a stiff Man, witness his Carriage towards Constantine the Emperor) because suppos'd to have been most concerned in the framing that Creed in which this Doctrine is asserted; yet have I never seen one Copy void of a Suspicion, rather to have been the Results of Popish School-Men; which I could render more perspicuous, did not Brevity necessitate me to an Omission.

Be therefore caution'd, Reader, not to embrace the Determination of prejudic'd Councils, for Evangelical Doctrine; which the Scriptures bear no certain Testimony to; neither was believ'd by the primitive Saints, or thus stated by any I have read of in the first, second, or third Centuries; particularly Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, with many others who appear wholly foreign to the Matter in Controversie.—But seeing that private Spirits, and those none of the most ingenious, have been the Parents and Guardians of this so generally receiv'd Doctrine; let the Time past suffice, and be admonish'd to apply thy Mind unto that Light and Grace which brings Salvation; that by Obedience thereunto, those Mists Tradition hath cast before thy Eyes, may be expel'd, and thou receive a certain Knowledge of that God, whom to know is Life Eternal, not to be divided, but ONE pure intire and eternal Being; who in the Fulness of Time sent forth his Son, as the true Light which enlightneth every Man; that whosoever follow'd him (the Light) might be translated from the dark Notions, and vain Conversations of Men, to this Holy Light, in  which only sound Judgment and Eternal Life are obtainable: Who so many Hundred Years since, in Person testified the Virtue of it, and has communicated unto all such a Proportion, as may enable them to follow his Example.

The Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction, being dependent on the Second Person of the Trinity, refuted from Scripture.

That Man having transgress'd Righteous Law of God, and so expos'd Doctr. to the Penalty of Eternal Wrath, it's altogether impossible for God to remit or forgive without a Plenary Satisfaction; and that there was no other Way by which God could obtain Satisfaction, or save Men, than by inflicting the Penalty of infinite Wrath and Vengeance on Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, who for Sins past, present, and to come, hath wholly born and paid it, (whether for all, or but some) to the offended infinite Justice of His Father.


1. Exod. 34. 6. 7.  And the Lord passed by before him, (Moses) and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, Merciful and Gracious, keeping Mercy for Thousands, forgiving Iniquity, Transgression and Sin. [From whence I shall draw this Position, that since God has proclaim'd himself a Gracious, Merciful, and forgiving God, it's not inconsistent with his Nature to remit, without any other Consideration than his own Love: Otherwise he could not justly come under the Imputation of so many Gracious Attributes, with whom it is impossible to pardon, and necessary to exact the Payment of the utmost Farthing.]


2. 2 Chron. 30.9. For if ye turn again to the Lord, the Lord your God Gracious and Merciful, and will not turn away his Face from you. [Where how natural is it to observe that God's remission is grounded on their repentance; and not that it's impossible for God to pardon, without plenary Satisfaction, since the Possibility, nay, certainty of the Contrary, viz. His Grace and Mercy, is the great Motive or Reason, of that Loving Invitation to return.]

3.   Neh. 9. 16, 17.  They hardened their Necks, and hearkened not to thy Commandments; but  thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful. [Can the honest-Hearted Reader conceive, that God should thus be mercifully qualified, whilst executing the Rigor of the Law transgrest, or not acquitting without the Debt be paid him by another? I suppose not.]

4. Isa. 55. 7.  Let the Wicked for sake his Way, and the Unrighteous Man his Thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and be will have Mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. [Come, let the unprejudiced Judge, if this Scripture Doctrine, is not very remote from saying his Nature cannot forgive Sin, therefore let Christ pay him full Satisfaction, or he will certainly be avenged; which is the Substance of that strange Opinion.

5.  Jer. 31. 31, 33. 34.  Behold the Days come, faith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel; I will put my Law in their Inward Parts; I will forgive their Iniquity, and I will remember their Sin no more. [Here is God's meer Grace asserted, against the pretended Necessity of a Satisfaction to procure his Remission; And this Paul acknowledgeth, to be the Dispensation of the Gospel, in his eighth Chapter to the Hebrews: So that this New Doctrine, doth not only contradict the Nature and Design of the second Convenant, but seems in short, to discharge God, both from his Mercy and Omnipotence.]

6. Micah 7. 18.  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 for ever, 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 retaineth his Anger until some-body make him Satisfaction? I answer, Many amongst the harsh and severe Rulers of the Nations; 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 Compossion upon us. ]

7. Mat. 6. 12. And forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors. [Where nothing can be more obvious, than that which is forgiven, is not paid: And if it is our Duty to forgive our Debtors, without a Satisfaction received, and that God is to forgive us, as we forgive them, then is a Satisfaction totally excluded: Christ farther paraphrates upon that Part of his Prayer, V. 14. For if ye 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, Cap. 18. where the Kiugdom of Heaven (that consists in Righteousness ) is represented by a King; Who upon his Debtor's Petition, had Compassion, and forgave him; but the same treating his Fellow-Servant without the least Forbearance, the King Condemned his Unrighteousness, and delivered him over to the Tormentors. But how had this been a Fault in the Servant, if his King's Mercy had not been proposed for his Example? How most unworthy therefore is it of God, and Blasphemous, may I jnstly term it, for any to dare to assert that Forgiveness impossible to God, which is not only possible, but enjoy'd to Men.]

8. John 3. 16. For God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who soever believeth in him should not perish, but have Everlasting Life. [By which it appears, that God's Love is not the Effect of Christ's Satisfaction, but Christ is the proper Gift and Effect of God's Love.]

9. Acts 10. 43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive Remission of Sins. [So that Remission came by believing his Testimony, and obeying his Precepts, and not by a Strict Satisfaction.]

10. Rom. 8. 31. 32. If God be for us, who can be against us? He that Spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. [Which evidently declares it to be God's Act of Love, otherwise, if he must be paid, he should be at the Charge of his own Satisfaction, for he delivered up the Son.]

11. 2. Cor. 5. 18, 19. And all Things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them. [How undeniably apparent is it, that God is so far from standing off in high Displeasure, and upon his own Terms, contracting with his Son for a Satisfaction, as being otherwise uncapable to be reconciled, that he became himself the Reconciler by Christ, and afterwards by the Apostles, his Ambassadors, to whom was committed, the Ministry of Reconciliation. ]

12. Eph. 1. 7. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, the Forgiveness of Sins, according to the Riches of his Grace. [Now what Relation, Satisfaction has to Forgiveness of Sins, or how any can construe Grace, to be strict Justice, the meanest Understanding may determine.]

13. 1. Pet. 5. 10. But the God of all Grace, who hath called us unto his Eternal Glory, by Christ Jesus. [He does not say that God's Justice, in Consideration of Christ's Satisfaction, acquitted us from Sins past, present, and to come, and therefore hath called us to his Eternal Glory; but from his Grace.]

14. 1. John 4. 9. In this was manifest was Love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son, into the World, that we might live through him. [Which plainly attributes Christ in his Doctrine, Life, Miracles, Death, and Sufferings, to God, as the Gift and Expression of his Eternal Love, for the Salvation of Men.]

1. In abolishing that other Covenant, which consisted in External and shadowy Ordinances, and that made none clean as concerning the Conscience.

2. In promulgating his Message, of a most Free and universal Tender of Life and Salvation, unto all that believed and followed him, (the Light) in all his Righteousness, the very end of his Appearance being to destroy the Works of the Devil, and which every Man only comes to Experience, as he walks in an holy Subjection, to that Measure of Light and Grace, wherewith the Fulness hath enlightned him.

3. In seconding his Doctrines with Signs, Miracles, and a most Innocent self-denying Life.

4. In Ratifying and confirming all (with great Love and holy Resignation) by the offering up of his Body, to be crucified by wicked Hands: who is now ascended far above all Heavens, and is thereby become a most compleat Captain, and Perfect Example.

So that I can by no Means conclude, but openly declare, that the Scriptures of Truth, are not only silent in Reference to this Doctrine of Rigid Satisfaction, but that its altogether inconsistent with the Dignity of God,  and very repugnant to the Conditions, Nature, and Tendency of that Second Covenant, concerning which their Testimony is so clear. The Absurdities, that unavoidably follow the Comparison of this Doctrine, with the Sense of Scripture.

1. That God is gracious to forgive, and yet 'tis impossible for Him, unless the Debt be fully satisfied.

2. That the Finite and Impotent Creature, is more capable of extending Mercy and Forgiveness, than the Infinite and Omnipotent Creator.

3. That God so loved the World, he gave his only Son to save it; and yet that God stood off in high Displeasure, and Christ gave himself to God as a compleat Satisfaction to his offended Justice: With many more such like gross Consequences that might be drawn. 

Refuted from Right Reason.

But if we should grant a Scripture-Silence, as to the Necessity of Christ's so satisfying his Fathers Justice; yet so manifest would be the Contradictions, and foul the Repugnancies to Right Reason, that who had not vail'd his Understanding with the dark Suggestions of unwarrantable Tradition, or contracted his Judgment to the implicit Apprehensions of some overvalued Acquaintance, might with great Facility discriminate to a full Resolution in this Point: For admitting God to be a Creditor, or he to whom the Debt should be paid, and Christ, he that satisfies or pays it on the Behalf of Man, the Debtor, this Question will arise, whether he paid that Debt, as God, or Man, or both (to use their own Terms.)

Not as God.

1. In that it divides the Unity of the God-head, by two distinct Acts, of being offended, and not offended; of condemning Justice and redeeming Mercy; of requiring a Satisfaction, and then making of it.

2. Because if Christ pays the Debt as God, then the Father and the Spirit being God, they also pay the Debt.

3. Since God is to be satisfied, and that Christ is God, he consequently is to be satisfied; and who shall Satisfie his infinite Justice?

4. But if Christ has satisfied God the Father, Christ being also God, 'twill follow then that he has satisfied himself, (which can't be.)

5. But since God the Father was once to be satisfied, and that it's impossible he should do it himself, nor yet the Son or Spirit, because the same God; it naturally follows, that the Debt remains unpaid, and these Satisfactionists thus far are still at a Loss.


Not as Man.

6. The Justice offended being Infinite, his Satisfaction ought to bear a Proportion therewith, which Jesus Christ, as Man, could never pay, he being Finite, and from a finite Cause, could not proceed an infinite Effect; for -o Man may be said to bring forth God, since nothing below the Divinity it self, can rightly be stiled Infinite.

Not as God and Man.

7. For where two Mediums, or Middle Propositions, are singly inconsistent with the Nature of the End, for which they were at first propounded, their Conjunction does rather augment, then lessen the Difficulty of its Accomplishment; and this I am perswaded must be obvious to every unbyas'd Understanding.

But admitting one of these three Mediums possible for the Payment of an infinite Debt; yet, pray observe the most unworthy, and ridiculous consequences, that unavoidably will attend the Impossibility of God's Pardoning Sinners without a Satisfaction.

Consequences Irreligious and Irrational.

1. That it's Unlawful and Impossible for God Almighty to be Gracious and Merciful, or to Pardon Transgressors; than 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 incontroulable 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 dis-acknowledge 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 purchas'd that Redemption from the Father, by the Gift of himself to God, as our compleat Satisfaction.

7. Since Christ could not pay what was 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 Man beholding, or in the least oblig'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 Son's; 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 enjoyning 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, or Christ's Part, or else that it has not been sufficiently solv'd, and the Penalty compleatly sustain'd by another; forgetting, Rom. 14. 12.   That every one must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ, to receive according to the Things done in the Body: 2 Cor. 15. 10.  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 believed Doctrine of Satisfaction.


A CAUTION.

Let me advise, nay warn thee, Reader, by no Means to admit an Entertainment of this Principle, by whomsoever recommended; since it does not only divest the Glorious God of His Sovereign Power, both to Pardon and Punish, but as certainly insinuates a Licentiousness, at least a Liberty that unbecomes the Nature of that Ancient Gospel once preached among the Primitive Saints, and that from an Apprehension of a Satisfaction once paid for all. Whereas I must tell thee, That unless thou seriously repent, and no more Grieve God's Holy Spirit, placed in thy inmost Parts, but art thereby taught to deny all Ungodliness, and led into all Righteousness; at the Tribunal of the Great Judge, thy Plea shall prove invalid, and thou receive thy Reward without Respect to any other Thing than the Deeds done in the Body: Gal. 6. 7. Be not deceived, God will not be mocked; such as thou Sowest, such shalt thou Reap, which leads me to the Consideration of my third Head, viz. Justification by an Imputative Righteousness.

The Justification of impure Persons, by an imputative Righteousness, refuted from Scripture.

That there is no other Way for Sinners to be Justified in the Sight of Doctrine; God, than by the Imputation of that Righteousness of CHRIST, long since performed Personally; and that Sanctification is Consequential, not Antecedent.

1. Ex. 23. 7.  Keep thee far from a false Matter; and the Innocent and Righteous  slay thou not; for I will not justifie the Wicked. Whereon I ground this Argument, That since God has prescribed an inoffensive Life, as that which can only give Acceptance with him, and on the contrary hath determined never to justifie the Wicked, then will it necessarily follow, that unless this so much believ'd Imputative Righteousness, had that effectual Influence, as to regenerate and redeem the Soul from Sin, on which the Malediction lies, he is as far to seek for Justification as before; for whilst a Person is really guilty of a false Matter, I positively assert from the Authority and Force of this Scripture, he cannot be in a State of Justification; and as God will not justifie the Wicked, so by the acknowledg'd Reason of Contraries, the Just he will never Condemn, but They, and They only, are the Justified of God.

2. Prov. 17. 15.  He that Justifieth the Wicked, and he that Condemneth the Just, even they both are an Abomination to the Lord. [It would very opportunely be observ'd, that if it's so great an Abomination in Men to justifie the Wicked, and Condemn the Just, how much greater would it be in God, which this Doctrine of Imputative Righteousness necessarily does imply, that so far disengages God from the Person Justified, as that his Guilt shall not Condemn him, nor his Innocency Justifie him? But will not the Abomination appear greatest of all, when God shall be found Condemning of the Just, on Purpose to Justifie the Wicked, and that He is thereto compell'd, or else no Salvation, which is the Tendency of their Doctrine, Who imagine the Righteous and Merciful God, to Condemn and Punish His Innocent Son, that He having satisfied for our Sins, we might be Justified (whilst Unsanctified) by the Imputation of His Perfect Righteousness. O! Why should this Horrible Thing be contended for by Christians?

3. Ezek. 18. 20, 26, 27, 28.;  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 hath done shall be die. 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 faith the House of Israel, The Ways of the Lord are not equal: Are not my Ways Equal? If this was once Equal, it's so still,  for God's 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 and keeping of God's Righteous Statutes or Commandments, otherwise God should forget to be Equal: Therefore how wickedly unequal are those, who not from Scripture Evidences, but their own dark Conjectures and 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.

4. Mat. 7. 21, 24, 25. Not every one that faith 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 Twofold Righteousness, the first consists in Sacrifice, the last in Obedience; the one makes a 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 'tis impossible to justifie the Wicked, or that any should escape Uncondemned, but such as do the Will of God.

5. John 15. 10.  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, who 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 informs 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 wholly to be cast out; in all which Christ is our Example.]

6. John 15. 14.  Ye are my Friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. [We have almost here the very Words, but altogether the same Matter, which affords us thus much, without being Christs Friends, there's no being Justified, but unless we keep his Commandments, it's impossible we should be his Friends; it therefore necessarily follows, that except we keep his Commandments, there is no being Justified: Or, in short thus: If the Way to be a Friend, is to keep the Commandments, then the Way to be Justified is to keep the Commandments, because none can obtain the Quality of a Friend, and remain Unjustified, or be truly Justified, whilst an Enemy, which he certainly is, that keeps not the Commandments.]

7. Rom. 2. 13.  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 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 our Hearing of the Law, with but the meer Imputation of another's Righteousness, whilst we are actually Breakers of it, is excluded, as not Justifying before God. If you fulfil the Royal Law, ye do well; so speak ye, and so do ye, as they that shall be Judg'd thereby.]

8. Rom. 8. 13.  If ye Live after the Flesh, ye shall die; 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 Subseqnential to the Mortification of Lusts, and Sanctification of the Soul, through the Spirit's Operation.]

9. Rom. 8. 14.  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 farther 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, that is, manifesting the Holy Fruits thereof by an innocent Life and Conversation.]

10. Gal. 6. 4,7. But let every Man prove his own Work, and then shall he have Rejoycing  in himself alone, and not in another. Be not deceived, for whatsoever a Man Soweth, that shall be 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 Rejoycing, from the Works of another, utterly excluded, every Man Reaping according to what he hath Sown, and bearing his own Burden.

11. Jam. 2. 21,24.  Was not Abraham our Father justified by Works, when he had offered Isaac 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 wrote, of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our Time, they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in the Imputation of another's 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 Delilah, and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaac himself, their Faith was a Fable, or as a Body without a Spirit; and as Righteousness therefore in one Person cannot Justifie another from Unrighteousness, so whoever now pretend to be Justified by Faith, whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Ways of Truth, and Works of Righteousness, their Faith they will find at last a Fiction.]

12. 1 John 3. 7, 8.Little Children, let no Man deceive you, he that doth Righteousness, is Righteous, as God is Righteous, (but) he that committeth Sin is of the Devil. [From whence it may be very clearly argued, that none can be in a State of Justification, from the Righteousness performed by another imputed unto them, but as they are actually redeemed from the Commission of Sin: For, if He that committeth Sin is of the Devil, then cannot any be Justified compleatly before God, who is so incompleatly redeem'd, as yet to be under the Captivity of Lust, since then the Devil's Seed, or Offspring may be Justified; but that's impossible: It therefore follows, that as he who doth Righteousness, is Righteous, as God is Righteous; so no farther is he like God, or Justifiable; for in whatsoever he derogates from  the Works of that Faith, which is held in a Pure Conscience, he is no longer Righteous or Justify'd, but under Condemnation as a Transgressor, or disobedient Person to the Righteous Commandment; and if any would obtain the True State of Justification, let them circumspectly observe the Holy Guidings and Instructions of that Unction, to which the Apostle recommended the Ancient Churches, that thereby they may be led out of all Ungodliness, into Truth and Holiness; so shall they find Acceptance with the Lord, who has determined, Never to Justifie the Wicked. ]

Refuted from Right Reason.

1. Because it's impossible for God to Justifie that which is both opposite and destructive to the Purity of His own Nature, as this Doctrine necessarily obliges Him to do, in accepting the Wicked, as not such, from the Imputation of another's Righteousness.

2. Since Man was Justified before God, whilst in his Native Innocency, and never Condemned, till he had err'd from that Pure State; he never can be Justified, whilst in the frequent Commission of that for which the Condemnation came; therefore to be Justify'd, his Redemption must be as intire as his Fall.

3. Because Sin came not by Imputation, but actual Transgression; for God did not condemn his Creature for what he did not, but what he did; therefore must the Righteousness be as Personal for Acceptance, otherwise  these Two Things will necessarily follow: First, That he may be actually a Sinner, and yet not under the Curse. Secondly, That the Power of the First Adam to Death, was more prevalent than the Power of the Second Adam unto Life.

4. It's therefore contrary to Sound Reason, that if actual Sinning brought Death and Condemnation, any Thing besides actual Obedience unto Righteousness, should bring Life and Justification; for Death and Life, Condemnation and Justification, being vastly opposite, no Man can be actually Dead and imputatively alive; therefore this Doctrine so much contended for, carries this gross Absurdity with it, that a Man may be actually Sinful, yet imputatively Righteous; actually Judged and Condemned, yet imputatively Justified and Glorified. In short, he may be actually Damned, and yet imputatively Saved; otherwise it must be acknowledged, that Obedience to Justification ought to be as personally extensive, as was Disobedience to Condemnation: In which real, not imputative Sense, those various Terms of Sanctification, Righteousness, Resurrection, Life, Redemption, Justification, &c. are most infallibly to be understood.

5. Nor are those Words, Impute, Imputed, Imputeth, Imputing, used in Scripture by Way of Opposition, to that which is actual and inherent, as the Assertors of an Imputative Righteousness do by their Doctrine plainly intimate; but so much the contrary, as that they are never mentioned, but to express Men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them, whether as Guilty, as Remitted, or as Righteous: For Instance: What Man soever of the House of Israel, that killeth an Ox, and bringeth it not to the Door of the Tabernacle, to offer unto the Lord, Blood shall be imputed unto that Man, or charg'd upon him as Guilty thereof (Lev. 17. 4. ). And Shimei said unto the King, Let not my Lord impute Iniquity unto me, for thy Servant doth know that I have sinned (2 Sam. 19. 18, 19, 20. ).

6. But Sin is not imputed where there is no Law (Rom. 5. 13.). From whence it is apparent that there could be no Imputation, or charging of Guilt upon any, but such as really were Guilty. Next, it is used about Remission: Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord imputeth not Iniquity (Psal. 32. 2.); or, as the foregoing Words have it, Whose Transgression is forgiven. Where the Non-Imputation doth not argue a Non-Reality of Sin, but the Reality of God's Pardon; for otherwise there would be nothing to forgive, nor yet a real Pardon, but only imputative, which according to the Sense of this Doctrine, I call Imaginary. Again, God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself,  not imputing their Trespasses unto them (2 Cor. 5. 19.).  Where also Non-Imputation, being a real Discharge for actual Trespasses, argues an Imputation, by the Reason of Contraries, to be a real charging of actual Guilt. Lastly, it's used in Relation to Righteousness, 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 unto him for Righteousness (Jam. 2. 21, 22, 23.). By which we must not conceive, 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; and 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 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 Possession. Dangerous, because it begets a confident Perswasion in many People of their being Justified, 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 can't be reputed, who have not disrob'd themselves of their old Garments, but are still inmantled with the Corruptions of the Old Man.


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 not only imply Communion with them here, in an imperfect State, but so to all Eternity,  Rom. 8. 30. For whom He Justified, them he also Glorified.  Therefore whom He Justified, whilst Sinners, them he also Glorified, whilst Sinners.


5. It only secures from the Wages, not the Dominion of Sin, whereby something, that is Sinful comes to be Justified, and that which defileth, to enter God's Kingdom.


6. It renders a Man Justified and Condemned, Dead and Alive, Redeemed and not Redeemed at the same Time, the one by an Imputative Righteousness, the other a Personal Unrighteousness.


7. It flatters Men, whilst subject to the World's Lusts, with a State of Justification, and thereby invalidates the very End of Christ's Appearance, which was to destroy the Works of the Devil, and take away the Sins of the World; a quite contrary Purpose than what the Satisfactionists, and Imputarians of our Times have imagined, viz. to satisfie for their Sins, and by his Imputed Righteousness, to represent them Holy in him, whilst Unholy in themselves: Therefore since it was to take away Sin, and destroy the Devil's Works, which were not in himself, for that Holy One saw no
Corruption, consequently in Mankind; what can therefore be concluded more evidently true, than that such in whom Sin is taken away, and the Devil's Works undestroyed, are Strangers (not withstanding their Conceits) to the very End and Purpose of Christ's Manifestation.


Conclusion, by Way of Caution.

Thus Reader, have I led thee through those three so generally applauded Doctrines, whose Confutation I hope, though thou hast run, thou hast read; and now I call the Righteous God of Heaven to bear me Record,  that I have herein sought nothing below the Defence of His Unity, Mercy, and Purity, against the rude and impetuous Assaults of Tradition, Press and Pulpit, from whence I daily hear, what Rationally induceth me to believe, a Conspiracy is held by Counter Plots, to obstruct the Exaltation of Truth, and to betray Evangelical Doctrines, to idle Traditions: But God will rebuke the Winds, and Destruction shall attend the Enemies of His Anointed.—Mistake me not, we never have disowned a Father, Word, and Spirit, which are ONE, but Men's Inventions: For,

1. Their Trinity has not so much as a Foundation in the Scriptures.

2. Its Original was Three Hundred Years after Christianity was in the World.

3. It having cost much Blood; in the Council of Sirmium, Anno 355, it was decreed, That thenceforth Socrat. Schol.  (An. 355. Conc. Sirm. cap. 25. pag. 275.)  the Controverfie should not be remembred, because the Scriptures of God made no Mention thereof. Why then should it be mentioned now with a Maranatha, on all that will not bow to this abstruse Opinion.

4. And it doubtless hath occasioned Idolatry, witness the Popish Images of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

5. It scandalizeth Turks, Jews, and Infidels, and palpably obstructs their Reception of the Christian Doctrine.

—Nor is there more to be faid on the Behalf of the other Two; for I can boldly challenge any Person to give me one Scripture Phrase which does approach the Doctrine of Satisfaction, (much less the Name) considering to what Degree it's stretched; not that we do deny, but really confess, that JESUS CHRIST, in Life, Doctrine, and Death, fulfilled His Father's Will, and offered up a most Satisfactory Sacrifice, but not to pay God, or help him (as otherwise being unable) to save Men; and for a Justification by an Imputative Righteousness, whilst not Real, it's meerly an Imagination, not a Reality, and therefore rejected; otherwise confest and known to be Justifying before God, because there is no abiding in Christ's Love without keeping His Commandments. I therefore caution thee in Love, of whatsoever Tribe, or Family of Religion thou mayst be, not longer to deceive thy self, by the over-fond Embraces of Humane Apprehensions, for Divine Mysteries; but rather be informed that God hath bestowed A Measure of His Grace on thee and me, to shew us what is Good, that we may obey and do it; which if thou diligently wilt observe, thou shall be led out of all Unrighteousness, and in thy Obedience, shall thou Receive Power to become a Son of God; in which happy Estate God only can be known by Men, and they know themselves to be Justified before him, whom experimentally to know, by Jesus Christ, is Life Eternal.

A Postcript of Animadversions, upon T. V's.

Contradictions, delivered in his Sermon from 1 John v. 4. at the Evening-Lecture in Spittle-Yard: For whatsoever is Born of God, Overcometh the World.

Doctriue.

What soever Person is Born of God, Overcometh the World.     There is a Twofold Victory; the First Compleat, the Second Incompleat.

Animad.

This is as well a Contradiction to his Text and Doctrine, as to Common  Sense; for besides that they neither of them say, He that's Born of God, cannot perfectly overcome the World, but much the contrary; I fain would understand his Intention by an incompleat Victory: If he means not such a one as is obtained by the Slaughter of every individual, but that which only does subdue the Force, and lead Captive their Enemies, yet will the Victory prove compleat; for if they be so far overcome as to be disarmed of farther Power to Mischief, the Dispute is properly determined: But whatsoever is incompleat, is but overcoming, or in the Way to Victory, and Victory is the compleating of what was before imperfect.



Such overcome as are born again, who are in Christ, that have east off the old Man, and know a change altogether new.    

Contradict.

Worldly Lusts can't be extirpated out of God's People in this World.



Animad.

If Sin, must have a Place in them, how can they be Born of God, and have a Place in Christ, or cast off the Old Man, and know a Change altogether New?



God's Children are the greatest Conquerors; Alexander and Caesar were Conquerors, but these overcome their Lusts.    

Contradict.

God's Children can't perfectly overcome the Lusts of this World, they sometimes take them Captive.



Animad.

What strange Divinity is this! That God's People should be Conquerors, and yet Captives; Overcome the World, and yet be Overcome thereby.



Sin may Tyrannize over Believers.    

Contradict.

But not have Dominion; it's in Captivity; it's in Chains.


Animad.

Who is so absolutely injurious and incontroulable, as a Tyrant? And notwithstanding that he should have no Dominion, but be in Captivity, and in Chains, at best are Bedlam Distinctions, and consequently unworthy of any Man's Mouth that has a Share of Common Sense.




You must Kill, or be Kill'd; either you must Overcome the World, or the World you. If ye Fight, ye shall Overcome.    

Contradict.

Incompleatly; He overcomes, when He breaks their Force, leads them Captive, and puts them into Chains; but they are not at all stain, they sometimes take him Captive.



Animad.:

To Kill, or be Kill'd, admits no middle Way to escape; yet that both Sin and God's Children should lead one another Captive; and that he which Fights shall Overcome, and yet be in Danger of being led Captive, because compleatly a Conqueror, to me seems very strange Doctrine.



However, he goes on to tell them, Whosoever is Born of God, overcometh the Lusts of the World, and he that overcometh the Lusts of the World, overcomes the Devils of Hell; God's Children have to do with a Conquered Enemy. Yet he would all this While be understood in an incompleat Sense; and to excite all to Fight for this incompleat Victory, he recommended to their Consideration, the excellent Rewards of Conquerors, that is, To him that overcometh, will I give to Eat of the Tree of Life, the Hidden Manna. I will give him a White Stone, a New Name, Power over Nations, White Raiment: Yea, I will make him a Pillar in the Temple of my God; he shall go no more out, and I will grant him to Sit with me in my Throne. Admirable Priviledges, I acknowledge! But are they promis'd to incompleat Conquerors? I judge not.

Reader, by this thou mayst be able to give a probable Conjecture of the rest; and as I have begun with him and his Co-Disputants, with them I'le end; who, not withstanding all their Boasts and Calumnies against us, have  so evaded those many Opportunities we have offered them by Letters, Verbal Messages, and Personal Visits, that had they any Zeal for their Principles, Love for their Reputation, or Conscience in their Promises, they would have been induc'd to a more direct and candid Treaty.

But as it hath occasioned the Publication of this little Treatise, so I am credibly inform'd, through the too busie and malicious Inquisition of some concerning it, (which have amounted to no less than positive Reports) it's currantly discours'd, How that a certain Quaker hath lately espoused the Controversie against R. F. and therein has perverted the Christian Religion, to that Degree, as plainly to deny Christ's coming in the Flesh; with much more than was fit to be said, or is sit to be answered.

But, Reader, I shall ask no other Judge to clear me from that most uncharitable Accusation, since first I am altogether unacquainted with R. F. nor ever did design directly such a Thing, being unwilling to seek more Adversaries than what more nearly seek the Overthrow of TRUTH, although I doubt not but this plain and simple Treatise may prove some Confutation of his Sentiments.

And lastly, as concerning Christ; although the slander is not new, yet nevertheless false: For I declare on the Behalf of that despised People, vulgarly called Quakers, the Grace, of which we testfie, hath never taught us to acknowledge another God than he that's the Father of all Things, who fills Heaven and Earth: Neither to confess another Lord Jesus Christ, than he that appeared so many Hundred Years ago, made of a Virgin, like unto us in all Things, Sin excepted; or any other Doctrine than was by him declared and practised: Therefore let every Mouth be stopt for ever opening more, in Blasphemy against God's Innocent Heritage, who in Principle, Life and Death, bear an unanimous Testimony for the only True God, True Christ, and Heavenly Doctrine, which in their Vindication is openly attested by William Penn, Jun.