Further Discovery of the Quakers, Reply · Position 6
Poſition 6. That men are not juſtified by that righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which he in his owne Perſon did fulfill, without us.
Reader, thou wilt ſee in our Booke we had foure proofes for this; three of which Nayler denyeth not; and for the fourth we referre thee to Mr. Iaque… teſtimony: ſo that as to the truth of the aſſertion we muſt take it for granted eſpecially conſidering what George Fox ſaith, in Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, pag. 12. He that is borne of God is iuſtified by Chriſt alone without imputation. This gives us to underſtand the meaning of Naylers anſwer to that Poſition thus;
Except That righteouſneſſe Chriſt hath performed without me, was not my juſtification, &c. untill Chriſt appeared in me, &c. and appeared in me my righteouſneſſe, ſanctification, juſtification, and redemption, &c.
Reply. Fox denying imputed righteouſneſse in plaine tearmes.1. Let but the Reader compare this of Iames Nayler, with that expreſſi…n of George Fox viz. he is juſtified by that alone without imputation; and that of Authory Hodgſon viz I beleeve to be ſaved, not by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to me, but by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt inherent in me, which he doth not deny, he w…ll learne the meaning of Naylers wor…s to be clearly this that Chriſt in a man is the matter of his juſt fication; ſo that though he labour to colour over the buſineſſe in this anſwer, by ſaying, Chriſt was not his juſtification, till he appeared in him; yet comparing his anſwer with theſe teſtimonies, it will appeare to be downe-right equivocation and ſhuffling.
Queſtion betwixt Quakers & u…concerning the matter of juſtification, but the time.2. For Nayler cannot but know, that the queſtion is not at all concerning the time when Ieſus Chriſt becomes actual y my juſtification, but concerning what is the matter of our juſtification whether the righteouſneſſe which Chriſt in his Perſon did performe, or the holineſſe which he worketh in us, be the matter of our juſtification when we are juſtified? Now notſtithſtanding Naylers ſhuffling its cleare their ſenſe is that whenſoever the ſoule is juſtified (for we ſpeake not of the time) the matter of its juſtification is not that righteouſneſſe which Ieſus Chriſt in his owne Per on did performe without us. N yler himſelfe at Appleby in diſcourſe aſſerted, He was juſtified by Chriſt in him; and being there told by one of us, that juſtification is an act of God for Chriſts ſake abſolving me from the guilt of ſinne not done in me, but without me in the Court of Heaven. Nayler ſaid nothing to this but, that which is wi hout is without. See Mr. Higginſons Booke, pag. 78.
Further proof that Chriſts righteouſnes is the matter of our juſtification.Now that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt performed without us, is the matter of our juſtification whenſoever we are juſtified, heſides what we have layd downe undeniably from the Scriptures in the Perfect Phariſce, pag. 10. will further appeare by theſe teſtimonies, Rom 3.24. Being juſtified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Ieſus Chriſt; whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation, &c. Iſay 53. He was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, and through his ſtripes we are healed. Ver. 5.6. he layd on him the iniquities of us all, ver. 11. he ſhall beare their iniquities: where Chriſts merit or righteouſneſſe, is the reaſon of the non-imputation of ſinne to the ſoule. But what need we adde more in a caſe, which is ſo full a Principle of the Goſpel. But of this enough, we ſhall adde more in the next Poſition. As for reckoning Drunkards and Swearers to have as much right to what Chriſt did and ſuffered at Ieruſalem, as we, we looke upon it as one of his reviling fits and paſſions, and leave him to the Lord to rebuke him. But this is all the anſwer he gives to the many Scriptures againſt his Doctrine layd downe by us.