t, I say, both as to this and the other point of justification, that
Jesus Christ was a _sacrifice for sin_; that He was set forth to be _a
propitiation for the sins of the whole world_; to declare God's
righteousness, _for the remission of sins that are passed_, etc.; to all
that repented and had faith in His Son. Therein the love of God
appeared, that He declared His good-will _thereby_ to be reconciled;
Christ bearing away the sins that are passed, as the scape-goat did of
old; not excluding inward work; for till that is begun, none can be
benefitted; though it is not the work, but God's free love, that remits
and blots out; of which the death of Christ and His sacrificing himself
was a most certain declaration and confirmation. In short, _that_
declared remission to all who believe and obey, for the sins that are
past; which is the _first part_ of Christ's work (as it is a king's to
pardon a traitor before he advanceth him), and hitherto the acquittance
imputes a righteousness--inasmuch as men, _on true repentance_, are
imputed as clean of guilt as if they had never sinned--and thus far are
justified; but the _completion_ of this by the working out of sin
inherent, must be by the Power and Spirit of Christ in the heart,
destroying the old man and his deeds, and bringing in the new and
everlasting righteousness. So that which I wrote against, is such
doctrine as extended Christ's death and obedience, _not to the first_,
but to the second part of justification; not the pacifying of conscience
as to past sin; but to complete salvation without cleansing and purging
from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, by the internal operation of
his holy power and Spirit."

Notwithstanding William Penn is thus clear and explicit in correcting
the misunderstanding of his Christian faith, to which some of his
expressions in "The Sandy Foundation Shaken" had given rise, and in his
full avowal of his belief in the Deity of Christ, and the atonement made
by Him for the sins of mankind; as also in the doctrine of justification
by faith in Him; yet those who are anxious to represent Friends as
Socinians, or as denying the atonement of Christ, are still so unjust to
his unequivocal and widely-published opinions on these points, and so
ungenerous to his character and memory, as well as untruthful in their
representation of Friends, as to claim him as authority for their
disbelief in these fundamental doctrines.

Though he had addressed a c