The sandy foundation shaken, or, Those so generally believed and applauded doctrines ... refuted from the authority of Scripture testimonies, and right reason / by W.P. ...

A short Confutation, by way of Reca∣pitulation, of what was objected a∣gainst us at Thomas Vincent his 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 Auditory; all which may truly be affirmed of T.V. with his three Brethren, and Congregation.

The Accusation being general, viz. That the Quakers held dam∣nable Doctrines: George Whitehead on their behalf stood up, and as it was his place, willingly would have given the people an in∣formation of our Principles, which if objected against, he was as ready to attest them by the authority of Scripture and Reason: but instead of this better Method, T.V. as one that's often employ'd in Cathechistical Lectures, falls to Interrogatories, begging that himself, he in his slander had taken for granted, to wit, the know∣ledge 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 denyed by us, as a Doctrine no where Scriptural, T.V. frames this Sylogism from the beloved Dis∣ciples words.

There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the VVord,* 1.1 and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.

These are either three Manifestations, three Operations, three Sub∣stances, or three somethings else besides Subsistances:

But they are not three Manifestations, three Operations, three Sub∣stances, nor three anythings else besides Subsistences:

Ergo, Three Subsistences.

G.VV. utterly rejected his tearms, as not to be found in Scrip∣ture, or deduceable from the place he instanced; wherefore he desires their explanation of their Tearms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his Truths up in Heathenish Metaphisicks, but in plain Language: Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better explica∣tion then Person, nor of Person, than the mode of a Substance; to all which G.VV. and my self urged several Scriptures, proving Gods compleat unity: And when we queried how God was to be understood, if in an abstractive sence from his Substance: They con∣cluded it a point more fit for Admiration than Disputation. But a little to review his Syllogysm; the manner of it shows him as little a Scholar, as its 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 Mi∣nor Proposition. No one Substance can have three distinct Subsistan∣ces, and preserve its own Unity, for granting them the most favou∣rable definition, every subsistance will have its own Substance; so that three distinct Subsistances, or manner of beings, will re∣quire three distinct Substances of 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 com∣pleat subsistance without the other two; so parts, and some thing fi∣nite is in God: or if infinite, then three distinct infinite Subsistan∣ces; and what's this but to assert three Gods, since none is infinite but God? And on the contrary, there being an inseparability be∣twixt the Substance and its subsistance, the Unity of Substance will not admit a Trinity of incommunicable or distinct Subsistances.

T.D. being ask'd of whom was Christ the express Image, from his alleadging that Scripture in the Hebrews? answered, of Gods Subsistance, or manner of being; from whence two things in short follow as my Reply, It makes God a Father only by subsistance, and Christ a Son without a Substance. Besides its falsly rendred in the Hebrews,* 1.2 since the Greek does not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Character of Substance.

And if he will peruse a farther discovery of his Error, and expla∣nation 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 Apo∣stles, saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three Persons, and one Apostle, (a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of their Doctrine) one — Maddocks, whose Zeal out∣stript his knowledge, busling hard, as one that had some necessary matter for the decision of our Controversie, instead thereof (per∣haps to save his Brethren, or show himself) silences our farther con∣troverting of the Principle, by a Syllogistical, but false and imperti∣nent reflection upon G.W. his person. It runs thus, He that scorn∣fully 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 persons self-confutation, who to be plainer, called them three Hee's; and if he can find a He without a Sub∣stance, or prove that a subsistance is any other than the form of a He, he would do well to justifie himself from the imputation of Ignorance.

And till their Hipothesis be of better Authority, G.W. neither did, nor does by that Comparison design mens Inventions 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 sence of their Assertion, therefore Blasphemer and Blasphemy are their own.

The Trinity of Distinct and Separate Per∣sons in the Unity of Essence, refu∣ted from Scripture.

* 1.3AND 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. * 1.4 Jehovah is ONE, and his Name ONE. Which with the Cloud of other Testimonies that might be urg'd, evidently demonstrate, that in the dayes of the first Covenant, and Prophets, but ONE was the Holy God, and God but that Holy ONE.* 1.5 — 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 unto 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 Testi∣monies of Scripture, both under the Law, and since the Gospel-Di∣spensation, 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 a 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 a Holy THREE, or THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES.— Neither can this receive the least pre∣judice 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 sub∣sistance; Nor did he require homage from his Creatures, as an in∣compleat 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; A most absurd Blasphemy. — So that either the Testimonies of the aforementioned Scriptures are to be believ'd concerning God, that he is intirely and compleat∣ly, not abstractly and distinctly, the Holy ONE, or else their Au∣thority to be denied by these Trinitarians; and on the contrary, if they pretend to credit their 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 di∣stinct and separate Substances, because every person is inseparable from its own Substance; and as there is no person that's not a Sub∣stance in common acceptation among men, so do the Scriptures plen∣tifully agree herein; and since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion necessitates them to con∣fess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct No∣things, 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 Omnipo∣tents, 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 increase to nine, and so ad infinitum.

4. But if they shall deny the three Persons, or Subsistencies 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 subsisten∣ces, is not greater, then 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 infinit, yet to try if we can make their Principle to approach common sense; Let's conceive that three persons, which may be finite separately, make up an infinite conjunctly; however this will follow, that they are no more in∣communicable or separate, nor properly subsistences, but a subsi∣stance; for the infinite Substance can't find a bottom or substance 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 Do∣ctrine 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 in∣communicable 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 other wise, 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 Spi∣rit 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 proporti∣on of the Divine Nature, as is not communicable to each other; which is a like ridiculous and shameful. 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 the Reader concerning it's 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 their Holy Record. Know then, my Friend, 'twas born above three hundred years after the Antient Gospel was declared; and that through the nice distinctions, and too daring curiosity of the Bishop of Alexandria, who being opposed by Arius,

their Zeal so reciprocally blew the fire of Contention, Ani∣mosity, and Persecution, till at last they sacrific'd each other to their mutual revenge.

Thus it was conceiv'd in ignorance, brought forth and main∣tain'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 Athanatian from Athanatius, an opiniated man, (witness his carriage towards Constantine the Emperor) because suppos'd to have been most concern'd in the framing that Creed in which this Doctrine is asserted; yet have I never seen one Copy void of a suspition, 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 imbrace the determinati∣ons of prejudic'd Councils, for Evangelical Doctrine; to whom the Scriptures bear no certain testimony, neither was believ'd by the Primitive Saints, or thus stated by any I have read in the first, se∣cond, or third Centuries, particularly Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Ter∣tullian, Origen, Theophilact, with many others who appear wholly forreign to the matter in controversie. — But seeing that private Spi∣rits, and those none of the most ingenious, have been the Parents and Guardians of this so generally receiv'd Doctrine; let the time pass 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 a 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 Con∣versations of men, to this Holy Light, in which onely sound Judg∣ment and eternal Life are obtainable; who so many hundred years since, in Person testified the virtue of it, and has communicated un∣to 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 imagin'd Trinity, refuted from Scripture.

* 1.6THat man having transgress'd the Righteous Law of God, and so expos'd 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, pre∣sent, and to come, hath wholly born and paid it, (whether for all or▪ but some) to the offended infinite justice of his Father.

* 1.71. And the Lord passed by before him, (Moses) and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious, keeping mercy for thou∣sands, 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 par∣don, and necessary to exact the payment of the utmost farthing.]—

* 1.82. For if ye turn again to the Lord, the Lord your God is 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 re∣pentance; and not that it's impossible for God to pardon, without a Plenary satisfaction, since the possibility, nay, certainty of the con∣trary, viz. his Grace and Mercy, is the great Motive or Reason of that loving invitation to return.]—

* 1.93. They hardened their Necks, and hearkned not to thy Command∣ments, but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful.

[Can the honest hearted Reader conceive that God should be thus mercifully quallified, whilst executing the rigor of the Law trans∣grest, or not acquitting without the Debt be paid him by another? I suppose not.

4. Let the wicked forsake his way,* 1.10 and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy up∣on 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. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,* 1.11 that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel; I will put my Law in their in∣ward Parts; I will forgive their iniquity, I will remember their sin no more. [Here is God's meer Grace asserted, against the pretend∣ed necessity of a satisfaction to procure his Remission: And this Paul acknowledgeth to be the dispensation of the Gospel, in his eight Chapter to the Hebrews: So that this New Doctrine doth not only contradict the Nature and Design of the second Covenant, but seems in short to discharge God both from his Mercy and Om∣nipotence.]

6. Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity,* 1.12 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 ex∣cellency 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 par∣don iniquity, nor pass by transgression, but retain 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 pardon∣eth iniquity, and retaineth not his anger for ever, but will have com∣passion upon us.]

* 1.137. 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 without a satisfaction received, and that God is to forgive us as we forgive them, then is a satisfaction to∣tally excluded: Christ further paraphrases upon that part of his Prayer, v. 14. For if ye forgive their trespasses, your Heavenly Fa∣ther will also forgive you. Where he as well argues the equity of Gods forgiving them, from their forgiving others, as he encourages them to forgive others, from the example of God's Mercy in for∣giving them; which is more amply exprest in chap. 18. where the Kingdom of Heaven (that consists in Righteousness) is represented by a King; Who upon his Debtors Petition, had compassion, and for∣gave 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 Kings Mercy had not been proposed for his Example? How most unworthy therefore is it of God, and blasphemous, may I justly tearm it, to be in any's daring to assert that forgiveness im∣possible to God, which is not only possible, but enjoyn'd to men.]

* 1.148. For God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believed 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 Gods Love.]

* 1.159. To him gave 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 Pre∣cepts, and not by a pretended satisfaction.]

* 1.1610. 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 de∣clares it to be God's Act of free Love, otherwise if he must be paid; he should be at the charge of his own satisfaction, for he delivered up the Son.]

* 1.1711. 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 unto 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 tearms, 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 Ambassa∣dors, to whom was committed the Ministry of Reconciliation.]

12. In whom we have redemption through his Blood,* 1.18 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 Justice, the meanest understanding may determine.]

13. But the God of all Grace,* 1.19 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 Glo∣ry, but from his Grace.]

14. In this was manifested the love of God towards us,* 1.20 because that God sent his onely 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 Ex∣pression of his Eternal Love, for the Salvation of men.]

1. In abolishing that other Covenant, which consisted in Exter∣nal and shadowy Ordinances, and that made none clean as concern∣ing the Conscience.

2. In promulgating his message of a most free and universal ten∣der 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 on∣ly comes to experiment, as he walks in a 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 re∣signation) 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 onely silent in reference to this Doctrine of Satisfaction, but that it's altogether inconsistent with the Digni∣ty of God, and very repugnant to the Conditions, Nature, and

Tendency of the second Covenant, concerning which their Testimo∣ny is so clear.

The Absurdities that unavoidably follow the Comparison of this Doctrine, with the sence of Scripture.

1. THat God is gracious to forgive, and yet 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 onely 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 satisfying his Fathers Justice, yet so manifest would be the Contradictions, and foul the Repugnances to right Reason, that who had not vail'd his understanding with the dark suggestions of un∣warrantable. Tradition, or contracted his Judgment to the implicit apprehensions of some over-valued acquaintance, might with great facility discriminate to a full resolve 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 payes it on the behalf of man, the Debtor, this question will arise, Whether he paid Debt, as God, Man, or both (to use their own tearms.)

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 Ju∣stice, and redee•••••••• Mercy of requiring a satisfaction, and then paying of it.

2. Because if Christ payes 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 con∣sequently is to be satisfied; and who shall satisfie his infinite Ju∣stice?

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 ne∣ver pay, he being finite, and from a finite cause could not proceed an infinite effect; for so 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 rather does augment than 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 pay∣ment of an infinite Debt; yet, pray observe the most unworthy, and ridiculous consequences that unavoidably will attend the im∣possibility of Gods 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; then which, what's more unworthy of God?

2. That God was inevitably compel'd to this way of saving men; the highest affront to his incontroleable 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 onely disacknowledge 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 grie∣vous; Since the Debt is not hereby absolv'd or forgiven, but trans∣fer'd only; and by consequence we are no better provided for Sal∣vation than before, owing that now to the Son, which was once ow∣ing to the Father.

8. It no way renders men beholding, or in the least oblieg'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 pe∣culiarly the Sons: which destroys the whole current of Scripture-Testimony, for his good will towards men.— O the infamous por∣traiture 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 injoyning 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 Christs part, or else that it has not been sufficiently solv'd, and the penalty com∣pleatly sustain'd by an other;* 1.21 forgetting that every one must appear be∣fore the Judgment Seat of Christ, to receive according to things done in the body: 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 Satis∣faction.

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 Pow∣er, both to pardon and punish, but as certainly insinuates a licen∣tiousness, at least a liberty that unbecomes the nature of that antient 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 lead into all Righteousness; At the Tri∣bunal of the Great Judge thy Plea shall prove invalid, and thou re∣ceive they reward without respect to any other thing than the Deeds done in the Body. Be not deceived, God will not be mocked;* 1.22 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.

* 1.23THat there is no other way for sinners to be justified in the sight of God, than by the imputation of that Righteousness Christ long since performed Personally, and that Sanctification is consequenti∣al, not antecedent.

* 1.241. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the Innocent and Righ∣teous 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 only can 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 Righ∣teousness had that effectual influence, as to regenerate and redeem the Soul from sin, on which the malidiction 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, they cannot be in a state of Justification; and as God will not justifie the Wicked, so by the acknowledg'd reason of con∣traries, the Just he will never condemn, but they, and they onely are the justified of God.

* 1.252. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord. [It would very op∣portunely be observ'd, that if its 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 Righteousnes ne∣cessarily does imply, that so far disengages God from the person justified, as that his guilt shall not condemn him, nor his innocen∣cy justifie him? but will not the abomination appear greatest of all, when God shall be found condemning of the Just, on purpose to ju∣stifie the Wicked, and that he is there to compel, or else no Salva∣tion:

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. The Son shall not bear the iniquity of his Father;* 1.26 the Righteous∣ness 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 he die; a∣gain when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, and doth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his Soul alive; yet saith the House of Israel, The Ways of the Lord are not equal; Are not my Wayes equal? If this was once equal, it's so still, for Gods unchange∣able; and therefore I shall draw this Argument, That the condem∣nation or justification of persons is not from the imputation of an others 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 dark conjectures and inter∣pretations 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 an others Righteousness: —a most unequal way indeed.

4. Not every one that saith unto me Lord Lord,* 1.27 shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father. Whoso∣ever 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 ab∣surd and dangerous Doctrine; these words seem to import a two-fold Righteousness, the first consists in Sacrifice, the last in Obedi∣ence; 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 Fathers Will; then none are justified, but they who do the Fathers 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 Righte∣ousness

amount when a poor Soul shall awake polluted in his sin, by the hasty calls of death, to make its appearance before the Judg∣ment Seat, where 'tis impossible to justifie the wicked, or that any should escape uncondemned, but such as do the Will of God.]

* 1.285. If ye keep my Commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Fathers Commandments, and abide in his love. [From whence this Argument doth naturally arise; If none are truly ju∣stified 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 ju∣stified, as that he informs them the reason why he abode in his Fa∣thers 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 obedi∣ence 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 but our Example.]

* 1.296. 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 Christ's Friend, there's no being justified, but unless we keep his Commandments, it's im∣possible 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 Command∣ments, then the way to be justified is to keep the Commandments, because none can obtain the quality of a Friend, and remain unju∣stified, or be truly justified, whilst an Enemy, which he certainly is, that keeps not his Commandments.]

* 1.307. 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 ju∣stified 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 only 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 particular∣ly refuted; for if Christ had fulfil'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 the hearing of the Law, with but the meer imputation of anothers Righ∣teousness, whilst actually a breaker of it, is excluded as not justi∣fying before God. If you fulfil the Royal Law, ye do well; so speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judg'd thereby.]

8. If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;* 1.31 but if ye through the Spi∣rit 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 subsequential to the mortification of lusts, and sanctification of the Soul through the Spirits operation.]

9. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,* 1.32 are the Sons of God. [How clearly will it appear to any but a cavelling and tenati∣ous Spirit; that man can be no farther justified, then as he be∣comes obedient to the Spirits leadings; for if none can be a Son of God, but he that's lead by the Spirit of God, then none can be ju∣stified 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 Justificati∣on and Son-ship, is through obedience to the Spirits leadings, that is, manifesting the holy Fruits thereof by an innocent life and con∣versation.]

10. But let every man prove his own work,* 1.33 and then shall he have rejoyceing in himself alone, and not in another. Be not deceived, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap. [If rejoycing and accep∣tance 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.

* 1.3411. 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 per∣use 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 anothers Righteousness; but James an Apostle of the most high God, who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant, gave them to understand from Abra∣hams 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 Dallila, and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaac himself, their Faith was a Fable, or as a Body with∣out a Spirit; and as Righteousness therefore in one person cannot justifie another from unrighteousness, so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith, whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth, and Works of Righteouness, their Faith they will find at last Fiction.]

* 1.3512. Little Children, let no man deceive you, he that doth Righte∣ousness, is Righteous, as God is Righteous, (but) he that commit∣teth sin is of the Devil. [From whence it may be very clearly ar∣gued, that none can be in a state of Justification from the Righte∣ousness performed by an other imputed unto them, but as they are actually redeemed from the commision of sin: For if he that com∣mits 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 cap∣tivity of lust; since then the Devil's Seed or Off-spring may be ju∣stified, but that's impossible; It there 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 derrogates from the works of that Faith, which is held in a pure Conscience, he is no longer Righteous or justifi'd, but under condemnation as a Trans∣gressor, or dissobedient person to the Righteous Commandment; and if any would obtain the true state of Justification, let them circum∣spectly observe the Holy Guidings and Instructions of that Unction, to which the Apostle recommended the Antient Churches, that thereby they may be led out of all ungodliness into Truth and Holi∣ness; so shall they find acceptance with the Lord, who has deter∣mined 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 anothers Righteousness.

2. Since man was justified before God, whilst in his native Inno∣cency, 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 justifi'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; se∣condly, That the power of the first Adam to death, was more pre∣valent then the power of the second Adam unto life.

4. Its therefore contrary to sound reason, that if actual sinning brought death and condemnation, any thing besides actual obedi∣ence unto Righteousness, should bring Life and Justification; for Death and Life, Condemnation and Justification, being vastly op∣posite, no man can be actually dead and imputatively alive: there∣fore this Doctrine so much contended for, carries this gross absurdity with it, that a man may be actually sinful, yet imputatively righte∣ous; actually judged and condemned, yet imputatively justified and glorified. In short, he may be actually damned, and yet im∣putatively saved; otherwise it must be acknowledged that obedience to Justification ought to be as personally extensive as was disobedi∣ence to condemnation: In which real, not imputative sense, those various tearms of Sanctification, Righteousness, Resurrection, Life, Redemption, Justification, &c. are most infallibly to be understood?

5. Nor are their words, Impute, Imputed, Imputeth, Imputing, used in Scripture by way of application, to that which is actual and inherent, as the Asserters 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:* 1.36 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. And Sh••mei said unto the King, Let not my Lord impute Iniquity unto me, for thy servant doth know that I have sinned.

* 1.376. But sin is not imputed where there is no Law. 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 Re∣mission:* 1.38 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniqui∣ty; or as the foregoing words have it, Whose transgression is forgi∣ven. 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 onely imputative, which according to the sence of this Doctrine I call Imaginary. Again,* 1.39 God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not im∣puting their trespasses unto them. Where also non-imputation, be∣ing 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?* 1.40 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. By which we must not conceive, as do the dark Imputarians of this age, that Abra∣ham'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 an imputation of anothers righ∣teouss 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 anothers righteousness, not inhe∣rent, or actually possessed by them, is both ridiculous and dange∣rous: — 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 re∣ward

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 ••criptures say is an abomina∣tion, to wit, that he justifieth the wicked.

2. It makes him look upon persons as they are not, or with re∣spect, 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 only imply communion with them here, in an imper∣fect state, but so to all eternity, for whom he justified,* 1.41 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, where∣by something that is sinful becomes 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 im∣putative Righteousness, the last by a personal unrighteousness.

7. It flatters men, whilst subject to the Worlds lusts, with a state of Justification, and thereby invallids the very ••••d of Christs appearance, which was to destroy the works of the Devil and take away the sins of the World; a quite contrary purpose then what the Satisfastionists, 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 Devils works, which were not in himself, for that Holy One saw no cor∣ruption, consequently in man-kind; what can therefore be conclud∣ed more evidently true, then that such in whom sin is untaken a∣way, and the Devils works undestroyed, are strangers (notwith∣standing

their conceits) to the very end and purpose of Christs ma∣nifestation.

Conclusion by way of Caution.

THus Reader have I lead 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 be∣low 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 hold by Counter-plots, to obstruct the exaltation of Truth, and to betray Evangelical Doctrines, to Idle Traditions: But God will re∣buke 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 mens Inventions; for, 1. Their Trinity has not so much as a Foundation in the Scriptures. 2. That its Original was three hundred years after Christianity was in the World. 3. It having cost much blood, in the Council of Sirmium,* 1.42 Anno 355. it was Decreed, That thenceforth the con∣troversie should not once 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 said on the be∣half 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 Fathers Will, and of∣fered up a most satisfactory Sacrifice, but not to pay God, or help him (as otherwise being unable) to save men, and for a Justifica∣tion:

by an Imputative Righteousness, whilst not real, it's meerly an imagination, not a reality, and therefore rejected; otherwise con∣fest and known to be justifying before God, because there is no a∣biding in Christ's Love, without keeping his Commandments. I therefore caution thee in love, of whatsoever Tribe or Family of Re∣ligion thou mayest be, not longer to deceive thy self by the over∣fond imbraces 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 shalt be led out of all unrighteousness, and in thy obedience shalt 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 Post-script of Animadversions upon T.V's Contra∣dictions, delivered in his Sermon from 1. John 5.4. at his evening Lecture in Spittle-Yard; For whatsoever is born of God, over∣cometh the World.

Whatsoever Person is born of God, overcometh the World.

There is a two-fold Victory,* 1.43 the first Compleat, the second In∣compleat.

This is as well a contradiction to his Text and Doctrine,* 1.44 as com∣mon sence; for besides that they neither of them say, He that's born of God, cannot perfectly overcome the World, but much the contra∣ry; I fain would understand his intention by an incompleat victo∣ry: If he means not such a one as is obtained by the slaughter of every individual, but that which onely 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 mis∣chieve,

the dispute is properly determined: but whatsoever is incom∣pleat, is but overcoming, or in the way to victory, and victory is the compleating of what was before imperfect.

* 1.45Such overcome as are born a∣gain, who are in Christ, that have cast off the old Man, and known a change altogether new.

Worldly lusts can't be extirpa∣ted out of God's People in this World.

* 1.46If 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?

* 1.47Gods Children are the greatest Conquerors; Alexander and Cae∣sar were Conquerors, but these overcome their lusts.

God's Children can't perfectly overcome the lusts of the World, they sometimes take them cap∣tive.

* 1.48What strange Divinity is this! that God's People should be Con∣querors, and yet Captives; overcome the World, and yet be over∣come thereby.

* 1.49Sin may tyrannize over Belie∣vers.

But not have dominion; it's in captivity, it's in chains.

* 1.50Who is so absolutely injurious and incontrolable, as a Tyrant? and notwithstanding that he should have no dominion, but be in captivity, and in chains, at best are Bedlam distinctions, and conse∣quently unworthy of any mans mouth that has a share of common sence.

* 1.51You must kill or be kil'd; either you must overcome the World, or the World you. If ye fight, ye shall overcome.

2. Incompleatly; he overcomes, when he breaks their force, leads them captive, and puts them into chains; but they are not at all slain, they sometimes take him captive.

To kill or be kill'd, admits no middle way to escape;* 1.52 yet that both Sin and Gods Children should lead one another captive; and that he which fights shall overcome, and yet in danger of being led captive, because incompleatly a Conqueror; to me seems very strange Doctrine.

However he goes on to tell them, Whosoever is born of God, over∣comes the lusts of the World, and he that overcomes 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 sence; 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 Mann•• I will give him a white Stone, a new Name, Power over Natons, whi••e Rayment; 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 Con∣querors? I judge not. Reader, by this thou mayest be able to give a probable conjecture of the rest; and ••s I have begun with him and his Co-disputants, with them Il'e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 who notwithstanding all their boasts and calumnies against us, have so evaded those many op∣portunities 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 am I credibly inform'd, through the too busie and malitious inquisi∣tion of some concerning it, (which have amounted to no less than po∣sitive Reports) its currantly discours'd, How that a certain Qua∣ker hath lately espoused the controversie against R.F. and therein has perverted the Christian Religion, to that degree, as plainly to deny Christs coming in the flesh; with much more then was fit to be said, or is fit 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 never did design directly such a thing, being unwil∣ling to seek more Adversaries than what more nearly seek the over∣throw 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 never the less false: for I declare, on the behalf of that de∣spised People, vulgarly called Quakers, the Grace of which we te∣stifie hath never taught us to acknowledge another God then he that's the Father of all things, who fills Heaven and Earth; Nei∣ther to confess another Lord Jesus Christ, than he that appeared so many hundred years agoe, 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 wery mouth be stopt for ever opening more, in blasphemy against God's Innocent Heritage, who in Principle, Life and Death, bea•• an unanimous Testimony for the on∣ly True God, True Christ, and Heavenly Doctrine, which in their Vindication is openly attested by

William Penn, jun.

Notes

• * 1.1

  John 5.7.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 1.3.
• * 1.3

  1 King. 8.23. Isa. 40 25 c. 45.5, 6. c. 48.17. Ps. 71.22 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zac. 14.9
• * 1.5

  Mat. 19.17. Joh. 17.8. Rom. 3.30. 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.6. 1 Tim. 2.5 Jude 25.
• * 1.6

  Doctr.
• * 1.7

  Exod. 34.6, 7.
• * 1.8

  2. Chron. 3••.••.
• * 1.9

  Neh. 1••.17.
• * 1.10

  Isa. 55.7.
• * 1.11

  Jer. 31.31, 33, 34.
• * 1.12

  Mich. 7.18.
• * 1.13

  Mat. 6.12.
• * 1.14

  John 3.16.
• * 1.15

  Act. 10.34.
• * 1.16

  Rom. 8.31, 32.
• * 1.17

  2 Cor. 11.5.18, 19.
• * 1.18

  Eph. 1.7.
• * 1.19

  1. Pet. 5.10.
• * 1.20

  1. John 4.9.
• * 1.21

  Rom. 14 12. 2 Cor. 15.10.
• * 1.22

  Gal. 6.7.
• * 1.23

  Doctr.
• * 1.24

  Exod. 23.1.
• * 1.25

  Prov. 17 15.
• * 1.26

  Ezek. 18.20, 26, 27, 28.
• * 1.27

  Mat. 7.21, 24, 25.
• * 1.28

  John 15.10.
• * 1.29

  Joh. 15.14.
• * 1.30

  Rom. 2.13.
• * 1.31

  Rom. 8.13.
• * 1.32

  Rom. 8.14.
• * 1.33

  Gal. 6.7
• * 1.34

  Jam. 2.21, 24.
• * 1.35

  1 John 3.7, 8.
• * 1.36

  Lev. 17 4. 2 Sam. 19.18, 19, 20.
• * 1.37

  Rom. 5.13.
• * 1.38

  Psal. 32 2.
• * 1.39

  2 Cor. 5.19.
• * 1.40

  Jam. 2.21, 22, 23.
• * 1.41

  Rom. 8.30.
• * 1.42

  Socrat. Schol. an. 355. Conc. Sirm. cap. 25. p. 275.
• * 1.43

  Doctr.
• * 1.44

  Animad
• * 1.45

  Cont.
• * 1.46

  Anim.
• * 1.47

  Cont.
• * 1.48

  Anim.
• * 1.49

  Cont.
• * 1.50

  Anim.
• * 1.51

  Cont.
• * 1.52

  Anim.