I do, or have done in any place of my writings? It is plain he does so, p. 49. in these words; as for sin, the gospel assures us that God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness, it being so contrary to his own most holy nature, that if he have any love for himself, and any esteem for his own perfections and works, he must hate sin which is so unlike himself, and which destroys the beauty and perfection of his workmanship. For this end he sent his Son into the world. to destroy the works of the devil,' &c. Here is the substance of what at any time in this subject I have pleaded for ; 'God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness,' that it 'is contrary to his holy nature, so that he must hate it, and therefore sends his Son,' &c. If sin be contrary to God's holy nature, if he must hate it unless he will not love himself, nor value his own perfections, and therefore sent his Son to make satisfaction, we are absolutely agreed in this matter, and our author hath lost'operam et oleum' in his attempt. But for the matter itself, if he be able to come unto any consistency in his thoughts, or to know what is his own mind therein; I do hereby acquaint him, that I have written one entire discourse on that subject, and have lately reinforced the same argument in my exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein my judgment in this point is declared and maintained. Let him attempt an answer if he please unto them, or do it if he can. What he farther discourseth on this subject, p. 46, 47. consisteth only in odious representations and vile reflections on the principal doctrines of the gospel, not to be mentioned without offence and horror. But as to me, he proceeds to except after his scoffing manner against another passage, p. 47, 48. But however sinners have great reasons to rejoice in it, when they consider the nature and end of God's patience and forbearance towards them, viz. That it is God's taking a course in his infinite wisdom and goodness that we should not be destroyed notwithstanding our sins; that as before the least sin could not escape without punishment, justice being so natural to God, that he cannot forgive without punishing; so the justice of God being now satisfied by the death of Christ, the greatest sins can do us no hurt, but we shall escape with a 'notwithstanding our sins' This it seems we learn from an acquaintance with Christ's person, though his gospel instructs us other

6

wise, that without holiness no man shall see God.' But he is here again at a loss, and understands not what he is about. That whereof he was discoursing, is the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, and that must be it which he maketh his inference from; but the passage he insists on, he lays down as expressive of the end of God's patience and forbearance towards sinners, which here is of no place nor consideration. But so it falls out that he is seldom at any agreement with himself in any parts of his discourse; the reason whereof I do somewhat more than guess at. However, for the passage which he cites out of my discourse, I like it so well, as that I shall not trouble myself to inquire whether it be there or no, or on what occasion it is introduced. The words are, that God hath in his justice, wisdom, and goodness, taken a course that we should not be destroyed, notwithstanding our sins' (that is to save sinners), 'for he that believeth although he be a sinner shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned,' as one hath assured us, whom I desire to believe and trust unto. If this be not so, what will become of this man and myself, with all our writings? for I know that we are both sinners; and if God will not save us, or deliver us from destruction, notwithstanding our sins, that is, pardon them through the bloodshedding of Jesus Christ, wherein we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins, it hath been better for us that we had never been born. And I do yet again say, that God doth not, that he will not, pardon the least sin without respect unto the satisfaction of Christ, according as the apostle declares, 2 Cor. v. 18-21. and the expression which must be set on the other side, on the supposition thereof the greatest sin can do us no harm, is this man's addition, which his usual respect unto truth hath produced. But withal, I never said, I never wrote, that the only supposition of the satisfaction of Christ is sufficient of itself to free us from destruction by sin.

There is moreover required on our part, faith and repentance, without which we can have no advantage by it, or interest in it. But he seems to understand by that expression, notwithstanding our sins, though we should live and die in our sins without faith, repentance, or new odedience. For he supposeth it sufficient to manifest the folly of this

assertion, to mention that declaration of the mind of Christ in the gospel, that without holiness no man shall see God.' I wonder whether he thinks that those who believe the satisfaction of Christ, and the necessity thereof, wherein God 'made him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,' do believe that the personal holiness of men is indispensably necessary unto the pleasing and enjoyment of God; if he suppose that the satisfaction of Christ and the necessity of our personal holiness are really inconsistent, he must be treated in another manner; if he suppose that although they are consistent, yet those whom he opposeth do so trust to the satisfaction of Christ, as to judge, that faith, repentance, and holiness, are not indispensably necessary to salvation, he manifests how well skilled he is in their principles and practices. I have always looked on it as a piece of the highest disingenuity among the Quakers, that when any one pleads for the satisfaction of Christ or the imputation of his righteousness, they will clamorously cry out and hear nothing to the contrary; 'yea, you are for the saving of polluted, defiled sinners; let men live in their sins and be all foul within, it is no matter, so long as they have a righteousness and a Christ without them.' I have, I say, always looked upon it as a most disingenuous procedure in them, seeing no one is catechised amongst us, who knoweth not that we press a necessity of sanctification and holiness, equal with that of justification and righteousness. And yet this very course is here steered by this author, contrary to the constant declaration of the judgments of them with whom he hath to do, contrary to the common evidence of their writings, preaching, praying, disputing unto another purpose, and that without relieving or countenancing himself by any one word or expression used or uttered by them, he chargeth [them], as though they made holiness a very indifferent thing, and such as it doth not much concern any man whether he have an interest in or no ; and I know not whether is more marvellous unto me, that some men can so far concoct all principles of conscience and modesty, as to publish such slanderous untruths, or that others can take contentment and satisfaction therein, who cannot but understand their disingenuity and falsehood.

His proceed in the same page is to except against that

revelation of the wisdom of God, which I affirm to have been made in the person and sufferings of Christ, which I thought I might have asserted without offence. But this man will have it, that there is no wisdom therein, if justice be so natural to God that nothing could satisfy him but the death of his own Son.' That any thing else could satisfy divine justice but the sufferings and death of the Son of God, so far as I know, he is the first that found out or discovered, if he hath yet found it out. Some have imagined that God will pardon sin, and doth so, without any satisfaction at all; and some have thought that other ways of the reparation of lost mankind were possible, without this satisfaction of divine justice, which yet God in his wisdom determined on; but that satisfaction could be any otherwise made to divine justice, but by the death of the Son of God incarnate, none have used to say who know what they say in these things. But wisdom,' he saith, 'consists in the choice of the best and fittest means to attain an end, when there were more ways than one of doing it; but it requires no great wisdom to choose when there is but one possible way.' Yea, this it is to measure God, things infinite and divine, by ourselves. Doth this man think that God's ends, as ours, have an existence in themselves out of him, antecedent unto any acts of his divine wisdom? Doth he imagine that he balanceth probable means for the attaining of an end, choosing some and rejecting others? Doth he surmise that the acts of divine wisdom with respect unto the end and means are so really distinct, as the one to have a priority in time before the others? Alas, that men should have the confidence to publish such slight and crude imaginations! Again; the Scripture, which so often expresseth the incarnation of the Son of God, and the whole work of his mediation thereon, as the effect of the infinite wisdom of God, as that wherein the stores, riches, and treasures of it are laid forth, doth nowhere so speak of it in comparison with other means not so suited unto the same end, but absolutely and as it is in its own nature; unless it be when it is compared with those typical institutions which being appointed to resemble it, some did rest in. And lastly, whereas there was but this one way for the redemption of mankind and the restoration of the honour of God's justice and

holiness, as he is the supreme lawgiver and governor of the universe; and whereas this one way was not in the least previous unto any created understanding, angelical or human, nor could the least of its concerns have ever entered into the hearts of any, nor it may be shall they ever know, or be able to find it out unto perfection, but it will be left the object of their admiration unto eternity; if this author can see no wisdom or no great wisdom in the finding out and appointing of this way, who can help it? I wish he would more diligently attend unto their teachings who are able to instruct him better, and from whom, as having no prejudice against them, he may be willing to learn.

But this is the least part of what this worthy censurer of theological discourses rebukes and corrects. For, whereas I had said that we might learn our disability to answer the mind and will of God in all or any part of the obedience he requireth,' that is, without Christ, or out of him; he adds, 'that is, that it is impossible for us to do any thing that is good, but we must be acted like machines by an external force, by the irresistible power of the grace and Spirit of God. This I am sure is a new discovery, we learn no such thing from the gospel, and I do not see how he proves it from an acquaintance with Christ.' But if he intends what he speaks, we can do no good, but must be acted like machines by an external force,' and chargeth this on me, it is a false accusation proceeding from malice or ignorance, or a mixture of both. If he intend that we can of ourselves do any thing that is spiritually good and acceptable before God, without the efficacious work of the Spirit and grace of God in us, which I only deny, he is a Pelagian, and stands anathematized by many councils of the ancient church. And for what is my judgment about the impotency that is in us by nature unto any spiritual good, the necessity of the effectual operation of the Spirit of God in and to our conversion, with his aids and assistances of actual grace in our whole course of obedience, which is no other but that of the ancient church, the most learned fathers, and the church of England itself in former days, I have now sufficiently declared and confirmed it in another discourse, whither this author is remitted either to learn to speak honestly of what he opposeth, or to understand it better, or to answer it if he can.