The Quakers Wisdom Descendeth not from Above, Question 3
QUESTION 3. Concerning Juſtification.
T.D.
VVHereas S. Fiſh … ſpoke of our good work being a m… to …ou cauſe of our juſtification, this P…ieſt hath M…l… much ado to p ove th…t S. F. … a rank Papiſt, and …i…h our good wo…ks are but imperfectly good, and Iſa 64.6. All our righteouſn…ſſ…s are as filthy rags
G.
A…ſ. S. F. never affirme… that imperfect works and the righteouſneſſe which is as il hy rags do deſe…ve Juſt…fication, as this P… hath w…nged him, but good works wh…ch are the fulfilling of th …aw
T.D.
Reply. Whether I have w…nged S. F I leave to the Readers judgment, that ſhall peruſe Qu…kers Folly, p. 14, …5. I urged againſt him, …r though our evil works did cond…mn, yet ou… g…d work… could not juſtifie; becauſe none of ou… good wor… …n this life are perfect, and ſo not the fulfi l…ng of the Law, as evil works are the violation or breaking of the Law. And to prove the imp…rfection of our righteouſneſſe. I brought Iſa. 64 6. To which G.W. hath nor, nor indeed can anſ…er. 'Tis an expreſſe place, The Chu ch c…par…s all her righteouſneſſes to the garments of a per…on legally unclean, which by the Law were unclean, and to be waſhed, becauſe his body had touched them.
T.D.
hath confeſſed, p. 15. that …ood works which are the fulfilling of the Law, deſerve ſalvation, and that the deſert of obedience ariſes from the dignity of the Subject, by which it is performed.
G.W.
Anſ. So then this makes for what S.F. declared, for here it appears then that obedience to God is deſerving.
T.D.
Reply. I did not directly affirm that good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deſerve ſalvation, but that from the rule of contraries (which Mr. Fiſher urged) we might ſo argue. For upon ſuppoſition that any meer man could fulfil the Law, yet he could not be juſtifi…d, unleſſe he had undergone the penalty of his former diſobedience, and ſo made reparations to the Juſtice of God for damages ſuſtain'd. And again, though I aſſerted the deſert of obedience from the dignity of the Subject, yet withal I affirmed that the Subject muſt be an infinite perſon, and one from whom no obedience is due, Quakers Folly, p. 15.
T D.
gives the explication of 1 Cor. 6.11. Where by the Spirit of our God, is interpreted of the Spirits application, i… referring to Juſt fication, or elſe it may relate to Sanctification, ſpoken of in the former clauſe.
G.W.
Anſ. He would divide the Spirit of God, from the Name of Jeſus; when as his Name and Spirit are one. And where doth he prove that juſtified by the Spirit, (which he ignorantly calls the third Perſon in the Trinity) is not the work of Grace? Here he would divide the Grace of God from the Spirit, for the Saints were juſt…fied freely by his Grace, which was one with the Spirit.
T. D
Reply. Though Jeſus and the Spirit are one God, yet they have diſtinct operat…ons, or manner of working about our Juſtification. 'Tis Jeſus alone, and not the Spirit (nor the Father) who merits and makes ſatisfaction for our ſins. The Spirit gives Faith to lay hold on Chriſt for Juſtification, and ſeals the ſouls intereſt when obtained. I have proved that we are not juſtified by the work of Grace, or good works, in the diſcourſe upon Juſtification, Quakers Folly, p. 15. &c. And ſo that the work of Grace cannot be meant in that place (if by Spirit muſt be meant the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, as you aſſert) I do not divide the Grace of God from the Spirit. But I affirm, that the G …ce wrought in us by the Spirit is no meritorious cauſe o… Juſtification. As for that paſſage, justified fre…ly by his Grace, which is in Rom. 3.24. It intends not grace … us, but the grace or favour of God in giving Chriſt for our propitiation, v. 25. As for your accuſation of ignoran…e, I value it not, but look upon it as a juſtifiable ground … account you a blaſphemer, for 'tis an implicite denying of what I expreſly affirmed, (viz) Perſons in the Godhead.
T. D.
p. 16. The Apoſtle aſſerts …he holineſſe of mans nature as a work of the Spirit confo…ming it to the Law, to be the meritorious cauſe of our f…e…dom from ſin.
G.W.
Anſ. And yet he hath d…al d good works of obedience to be a deſerving cauſe o… juſtification. What is not juſtification a freedom from in? Acts 13.39. And where doth he prove the holineſſe o… mans nature is a merito…ious cauſe of our freedom from ſin?
T D.
R ply I ſee G. W. thou art ſo far from perfect, that thou wanteſt moral honeſty. Thou ſhouldſt have added, what I did in the ſame period, to make up my ſenſe? but mark withal, 'tis not that [holineſſe of mans nature] which is in us, but in Chriſt. And then thou might'ſt have anſwered thy own Queſtions. The righteouſneſſe of Chriſts humane nature or active obedience, as we uſu…lly call it, in oppoſition to paſſive, is aſſerted to be the cauſe of our freedom from ſin and death, Rom. 8.2. But not righteouſneſſe inherent in the ſame nature, as it ſubſiſts in our perſons. As for Acts 13.39. I find nothing to the purpoſe; it aſſerts not your Popiſh Doctrine, that juſtification is ſanctification, or that the righteouſneſſe whereby we are juſtified, is infuſed or inherent. The words are, And by him all that beli…ve are juſtified from all things, from which ye could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, And it proves that by Faith men are freed from the guilt of all their ſins. And what of that?
T. D.
ſai…h, Rom. 8.4, 5. It impo…ts the end for which God ſent Chriſt, that his righteouſneſſe might be imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in our ſelves.
G. ….
Anſ. If the Apoſtle had not meant the righteouſneſſe of the Law fulfilled in their own perſons, he would not have ſaid, fulfilled in us, neither would he have counted Chriſts righteouſneſſe inherent in themſelves, if he had not counted it … h…m, nor needed he to ſpeak of the …ighteouſneſſe of the Law being …o be fulfilled in Chriſt (as if it had not been fulfilled in him)
T. D.
R…ly. Bold man! Who art thou that teacheſt the Apoſtle how to ſpeak, who canſt not ſpeak ſenſe thy ſelf? (as appears by the middle clauſe of this thy anſwer.) If thou didſt underſtand thy ſelf, thou wouldſt ſay that the Apoſtle would not account that righteouſneſſe in the Saints, which was not in them. Nor indeed do…s the Apoſtle ſo miſtake, but he aſſe…ts that the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt redounds to their benefit, as if it had been their own inherent righteouſneſſe As the principal is diſcharged from the debt, when the ſurety paid it, though the cred…tor cannot, nor does ſay that the principal did make payment. Nor does the Apoſtle ſpeak of Chriſt's fulfill…ng the Law as i… he had not done it, but he tells of what Chriſt ha…h already done, and to what end, (viz) that we might have the benefit of it, as if it had been our perſonal act.
T. D.
Suppoſed S. F. to mean, when he acknowledged degrees among Believers, that ſome of theſe (Bel…evers) have a mixture of ſin with their Grace.
G.W.
Anſ. This is a falſe ſuppoſition, grace is pure, the mixture of ſin is in that which goeth from the grace.
T.D.
Reply. Reader, If thou doſt not judge this latter clauſe in the anſwer to be unintelligible non-ſenſe, thy judgment and mine muſt part her…. Mixture doth ſuppoſe at leaſt two ingredients, but what …hat is which goes f…om grace to mingle with ſin, I cannot divine. He ſhould mean, that when grace decreaſ…s, corruption increaſes, and gathers ſtrength. As for my words, they intended but that ſin and grace are in the ſame ſubj…ct, or in each faculty of the ſoul, not ſucceſſively, but together, at the ſame time, which Paul expreſſes by anot…er Law in his members, rebelling againſt the Law of his mind, Rom 7.23.
[Reader, G.W. quotes a paſſage, p. 18. l. 17. of my Book, wherein he ſaies, I wronged S. F. But I ref…r you to the place, where you may read it, and judge as thou ſeeſt cauſe.]
T. D.
ſaies, p. 19. Conſcience in the Saints being but in part cleanſed, as a witneſs it te…tifies falſhood …o them alſo.
G. W.
Anſ. This man laies falſhood and badneſs to the charge of the Saints Conſciences, …he…eas they witn…ſſed truth to them, Sanctification throughout, 1 Theſ. 5.23. and holineſſe perfect…d in the fear of God
T. D.
Reply. I do ſtill affirm that no faculty in the Saints …s ſanctified wholly, but only in part (And that place you bring, 1 Theſ. 5.23. is a diſtribution of the ſubjects of Grace, it intends not pe…fection of deg…es in each ſubject) And if no faculty, …he… no… C…nſcience, As for 2 Cor. 7 1. which you f…m …o quo…, y… w…ong that Scripture. The words are not … ſ… p…f…cted, but perf…cting holineſs And the Apoſtle …o not ſuppoſ… th…ir holineſſe to be perfected, but exho… them to end…avour after degrees of Grace, nearer perfection, which he expreſſes by cleanſing from all filthineſſe of fleſh and Spirit, in the former clauſe of the verſe, which ſuppoſes that there was filthineſs remaining in both, and then in Conſcience, for that is partly intended under Spirit, See Quakers folly, p. 19.
T. D.
ſaith, p. 21. As Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo are we the righteouſneſs of God in him, but the former was by imputation, not inherence, and therefore ſo the latter.
G.W.
Anſ. If our being made the righteouſneſs of God in Chriſt be but like Chriſt's being made ſi… for us, then this Pr. might as well ſay, that we ſhall have no righteouſneſs in us at all, for Chriſt was made ſ…n for us, who knew no ſin.
T.D.
Reply. There is not the ſame reaſon G.W. for ſaying the one, as for ſaying the other. For 2 Cor. 5. ult. aſſerts ſuch a proportion as I mentioned, but no Scripture ſuch a one as you vainly ſuppoſe. Yet this I ſay, that as there was no neceſſity of inherent ſin in Chriſt, in order to the imputation of our ſin to him, ſo nor of inherent righteouſneſs in us, to the imputation of his righteouſneſs to us. But our Juſt…fication is as independent upon our inherent righteouſneſs, as if we had none. The Surety (though he never contracted penny of the debt) is as much obliged to payment as the Princ…pal; and the Principal is as truly diſcharged by the Su…ety s payment, though he pay nothing out of his own eſtate.
T.D.
ſaid, do you think that the righteouſneſs which the Apoſtle cals his own, was not Chriſt's?
G.W.
Anſ. He might as well ſay, that the Apoſtle deſired no… to have Chriſts righteouſneſs, which is but one.
T. D.
Reply. The Apoſtle askes a queſtion wh…ch implies an affirmation? Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what haſt thou that thou didſt not receive? 1 Cor. 4.7. And 'tis as true of righteouſneſs inherent, as of common gifts, which are there ſpoke of. The righteouſneſs of his perſonal conformity to the Law Paul deſired not to be found in, but in Chriſts imputed to him. But I have ſaid enough, which G.W. takes no notice of, becauſe he cannot reply to it Quakers Folly, p. 21. …2.
[Note Reader, that G.W. ſpends two Pages, 27, 28. of his Book, about my explication of Col. 1.26. and the diſtinction I make between Chriſt perſonal and myſt…cal; for anſwer whereto, to ſave the trouble of repetition, I refer you to Quakers Folly, p. 22, 23. Only whereas he replies to the diſtinction, that Chriſt is but one, I ſay ſo too, yet the Name of Chriſt is applied ſomtimes to the Head, and at other times to …he Body. And they are though one in reſpect of Union, yet of diſtinct conſideration in the buſineſſe of ſalvation, Eph. 5.23. Chriſt the Head is the Saviour, Chriſt the Body the Saved.]
And whereas G.W. denies, that he ſaid, we are juſtified by Sanctification, I am confident that was his word, however, if it was righteouſneſſe within, it comes all to one: 'Tis evident that the d…ift of his diſcourſe was to maintain that aſſertion.