The Doctrine:

‘THat 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, present, and to come, hath wholly born and paid it, (whether for all or but some) to the offended infinite justice of his Father.’

[Note, I do not quote W. P's Scripture Proofs that he brings to Refute this Doctrine, the Point in Controversie between C. Pusey and D. Leeds not being whether the Doctrine be true or false, but whether W. P. calls Christ Finite, Impotent, &c. which I bring the following Quotations to Determine.]

Pag. 20, 21. 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 only Son to save it; and yet that God stood off in high displeasure, and Christ gave [Page 6]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 unwarrantable 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 that Debt, as God, 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 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 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 [Page 7]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 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. Thus far W. P.

Now here you see in his 6th Paragraph he (in express words) says, Christ, as Man, was FINITE; and if Finite, consequently Weak and Impotent in making satisfaction for mens sin, which is the only thing W. P. here is Refuting. But Caleb Pusey in his Pamphlet did not quote this, This did not suit his turn, No, This would have discovered his Knavery under his Cloak, and laid him too open; he thought it his safest way to leave the explaining part out, and quote only that passage where Finite Impotent Creature is named, and not the words, Son of God, or Christ as Man, that he might make weak People believe, by his puzeling Non­sense, that W. P. meant some other things: He also tells a deceitfull story of three distinct Heads, p. 19. as if W. P. wanted this Millers help to draw his matter into Heads and Tails. A thing never done nor intended by W. P. for all [Page 8] who have Eyes may see, 'tis only three Absurdities that W. P. draws up against the Doctrine of Christs satisfying the Of­fended Justice of God.

Now I doubt not but by this time all understanding men, except Quakers, plainly see that W. P's only subject there is to refute the doctrine of satisfaction made by the secon per­son in the Trinity. Nay, Quakers too see it as plain as the Nose of a mans face, who do but lay aside their Religion, and take up Right Reason for one minuites time.

And though I could never believe C. Pusey would accept my Challenge, yet I presented my self at Burlington the 12th of May last, where he sent his Pamphlet instead of appearing in person, so that 'tis apparent that his Letter to me at Egg-harbour, to accept my Challenge, was only a cowardly sham, at best; for else, why could he not as well have allowed me three Weeks time as three dayes? and why cannot he meet me now in six Months time, that I gave him, as well as in three dayes then, if his design had been honest? Nay, he makes it appear in his Pamphlet, that his intentions were deceitfull, and only to mock me, for in p 17. he lets me know, that his design was to chuse Quakers, which is contrary to the Terms of my Challenge: This he kept hid from me in his blind Letter, where he tells me, he accepts my Challenge; yet now he lets me know he never intended to accept it.

But this was only to kidnap me, for they had provided a better argument for me, if they could have got me thither while W. P. was amongst them, even a Prison, their best argument of all; for at a Caball of them at the house of S Carpenter, where W. P. dwelt, one of their Justices, (viz. S. Richardson by name) was heard to say, He would lay this Leeds in Goal for his Scribbling if he could meet him there (viz. at Philadelphia) and doubtless W. P's influence [Page 9] would have extended this argument to Burlington too; and this, a Friend gave me notice of, not long before, who heard this S. R. speak those words: I'll not be ungratefull to name the person at present, to expose my evidence to the Rage and Fury of the Quakers; there is a time for all things.

And thus far is the baseness of C P's design discovered; and let him laugh it out for vexations, if he please. — Mean time, I think it as lawful for me to shun the Malice of the Quakers, as that Paul fled from the Malice of the Jews.

But let me a litle examine his Pamphlet, as to the point in Controversie; for I design to be brief, Therefore I think to pass by the rest of his stuff; yet I will ingage to prove, when need requires, that every page, (in answer to me, is stuft with Perversions, Lyes, Abuses or Slanders. And in the case about the Estate of T. Cross he is deceitful, and base in writing that I exposed him in print before I demanded it of him, whom as I demanded it by R. Toung, my Wifes Father, who brought me his answer, and is ready to testify it to the face of him. But he writes like a Quaker, therefore it doth not much move me.

But as to the point in hand, I perceive he is in pain about it; for he labours hard, and as the Maxim is, Who so labours to prove a thing to another, himself distrusts it? And at last I find it so, for he falls a few Coggs lower, even to a confession of my Charge; for though he denyes that W. P. held Christ as Man to be a Finite Impotent Creature, yet in P. 25 he in effect confesses it, as if he were Mumbling of [...]. And because he had called it a blasphemous Charge in me, so to affirm of W. P. therefore he blunders at it, and will needs thrust in the Priests along with W P. as holding the same, Both the Priests and W. P. did own (sayes he) that [Page 10] Christ as man was Finite. Nay, in P. 26. he brings G. Keith in too, as holding Christ as Man to be a Creature, and then he adds, surely nothing created can be either Infinite or Omnipotent. Here now he grants, that if Christ, as Man be Created, he must needs be a Finite Impotent Creature; yea, he is very willing we should know, that if it be false Doctrine, that G. K. and the Priests are of that faith, but loath he is that W. Penn should be said to hold so But alas! this is a shameful begging of the Question; for I never denyed or disputed this point; I know Persons of several Societies of Christans (as well as W. P.) hold Christ, as Man, to be Finite and Impotent, but as God, Infinite and Omnipotent, and I dare not call it Blasphemy so to affirm, as he has ignorantly and rashly done; 'tis a point beyond my capacity to determine, whether it be Orthodox or not. The point between Caleb Pusey and me, is not whether the Doctrine be True or false, but Whether W. P. holds so or not; nor did I ever bring it against W. P. as false Doctrine, but as Contradictory to other of his and his Brethrens Books.

Hence now may be seen what sort of stuff the rest of his Book is; for I proposed this as the Rule and Touchstone of Tryal between us, to try the rest of his Book by, This being by him reputed a Capital, or the Cheif Article or Crime against me, which now he dare not show his head to vindicate, but on the contrary has at last (with a blundering unwillingness) confessed it, as by me charged; and now I expect he must again open his Muster-Rool of Rattles and Nonsense and compose another Book in answer to this, that when his Neighbours tell him of this, he may stop their voyces, by saying, he has or will answer it.

Lastly, Whereas he insinuates, p. 17. That I would take [Page 11] men of my own party to judge of the case, but ty him from Chusing of his Party. But this is a false insinuation, I never designed to take men of my own Party, nor can any such thing be gathered from any words in my Challenge; so that this is a Quibbling Evasion, like the rest.

I observe he tells, p. 12. That W. P. says, 'tis a horrid Abuse put on him; but if W. P. says so, 'tis evident that he speaks it not as a Man or a Gentleman, but as a Quaker, & his Religion obliges him to say it. For Why? the Quakers say the same in their answer to G. K's broad Sheet of about Fifty Quotations out of their Books, which though eight Ministers have attested to the truth of them and my self by comparing the Quotations have certain knowledge they are true, yet they boldly call them horrid Lyes: So that what Truth is it that in such cases they will not call horrid Lyes? Hence I appeal to all Christendom, Whether such men are fit judges in their own cases? and whether by these sore of Writings, Sayings and Unsayings, &c. of the Quakers, they do not make the whole body of Christians look Black and Odious (to use C. P's Terms) in the eyes of Runigadoes, Julian Apostates, Scavengers, Atheists, Infidels, Turks and Jews? Though indeed these are the terms that C. P. in his Pamphlet, from his modest Quaker Property bestows on me, and on those who have been so kind to him (it seems) as to answer his Call, in shewing him and his (pretended Perfect) Brethren their Sin and Imperfection. But enough of this, least I move him to call for the Names of more of his Unclean Tribe, next time he Prints.