OF
THE
IMPUTATION
OF
Christs
Righteousness
,
&c.
CHAP.
I.
Q.
Is
the
Righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
imputed
to
Believers
?
Answ.
Although
it
be
yielded
,
that
in
Rom.
5.18
.
there
is
express
mention
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
undeniably
to
be
understood
of
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
nevertheless
neither
in
that
Scripture
,
nor
in
any
other
place
is
Christs
Righteousness
expresly
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
.
Q.
1.
IS
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
(
i.e.
)
to
believing
sinners
?
Answ.
That
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
believers
,
is
an
assertion
no where
in
terms
to
be
found
in
Scripture
.
And
whereas
by
the
Righteousness
of
one
,
or
that
one
Righteousness
mentioned
Rom.
5.18
.
is
unquestionably
meant
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
expressed
by
name
in
the
foregoing
verse
:
Yet
this
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
not
there
,
or
in
any
other
place
of
Scripture
(
for
ought
I
know
)
expresly
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
:
and
forasmuch
as
the
Scriptures
are
so
silent
therein
,
I
cannot
but
wonder
,
that
any
one
should
affirm
,
that
the
sound
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
is
in
the
Scriptures
as
shril
,
or
loud
as
was
that
of
the
Trumpet
at
Mount
Sinai
,
as
if
the
sound
thereof
had
gone
forth
ten
times
out
of
the
mouth
of
the
Apostle
in
that
one
Chapter
,
Rom.
4.
whereas
the
truth
is
,
that
although
there
be
frequent
mention
in
that
Chapter
of
the
words
[
Righteousness
and
Imputed
]
nevertheless
as
to
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
there
is
Altum
silentium
,
a
deep
silence
,
it
being
neither
in
that
,
nor
in
any
other
Chapter
of
the
Bible
expresly
asserted
,
that
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
.
I
will
conclude
this
short
Chapter
with
the
suffrage
of
Pareus
de
justitia
Christi
Act.
&
Pass
.
Nunquam
legi
,
humanam
sanctitatem
Christi
nobis
imputatam
esse
justitiam
nostram
,
vel
ejus
partem
.
Si
quis
legit
,
quaeso
mihi
ostendat
,
ut
&
ego
legam
,
&
credam
.
In
this
sort
must
I
needs
say
of
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
whether
Active
,
or
Passive
,
or
both
,
or
without
any
distinction
,
that
I
never
found
it
expresly
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
or
to
be
ours
by
imputation
or
any
part
of
our
righteousness
.
If
any
man
hath
any where
in
the
Bible
read
such
sayings
,
I
beseech
him
to
direct
me
to
the
Repositories
(
Chapter
and
Verse
)
where
they
are
to
be
found
,
that
having
read
them
,
I
may
at
once
believe
both
my
own
eyes
and
his
.
CHAP.
II.
Q.
Have
all
our
Protestant
Preachers
and
Writers
erred
from
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
who
have
spoken
of
Christs
Righteousness
under
the
name
,
or
notion
of
a
Righteousness
imputed
,
or
have
asserted
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
.
Answ.
No
,
God
forbid
,
two
reasons
of
which
answer
are
rendred
.
Q.
2.
FOrasmuch
as
it
hath
been
very
ordinary
with
our
Protestant
Divines
both
in
their
Sermons
and
Writings
(
both
in
polemical
and
positive
Divinity
)
to
say
,
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
and
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
have
all
of
them
erred
from
the
truth
in
so
saying
?
Answ.
No
,
God
forbid
:
for
although
none
of
them
have
precisely
kept
to
the
form
of
wholsom
words
,
but
swerved
or
varied
rather
from
the
language
of
Scripture
in
that
saying
,
nevertheless
there
is
no
necessity
to
conclude
them
all
to
be
under
error
upon
that
account
:
for
1.
A
man
may
possibly
,
yea
,
we
do
very
ordinarily
speak
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
although
not
in
the
words
,
or
terms
of
Scripture
.
An
assertion
may
be
a
Scriptural
truth
,
though
it
be
not
formed
,
or
asserted
in
Scripture-words
,
and
phrase
.
2.
There
are
several
senses
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
respectively
whereunto
it
is
as
well
true
,
as
false
,
to
say
,
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
;
and
this
I
will
endeavour
to
explicate
,
in
answer
to
the
following
Question
,
which
will
be
the
subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
III.
Q.
In
what
sense
is
it
true
,
or
false
,
to
say
,
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
?
In
answer
hereunto
a
twofold
acceptation
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
specified
,
respectively
to
which
different
acceptation
of
the
word
,
it
is
determined
in
what
sense
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
is
to
be
asserted
,
and
in
what
sense
it
is
to
be
renounced
,
with
certain
Reasons
of
the
abrenunciation
thereof
.
Q.
3.
WHat
are
those
divers
acceptations
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
with
respect
whereunto
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
may
be
asserted
as
a
truth
,
or
is
to
be
rejected
as
an
Errour
?
Answ.
The
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
taken
in
a
double
sense
,
viz.
properly
,
or
figuratively
:
1.
It
is
taken
in
Scripture
sometimes
,
yea
very
often
,
improperly
,
or
figuratively
,
not
for
the
thing
it self
,
but
for
the
issue
,
or
benefit
thereof
.
This
kind
of
Trope
is
usual
in
Scripture
and
in
common
speech
,
it
being
ordinary
with
us
to
put
the
name
of
a
thing
in
the
propriety
of
it
instead
of
its
return
in
the
blessed
issue
,
fruits
,
or
products
thereof
.
In
this
sense
the
word
is
taken
Job
33.26
.
where
Elihu
says
,
That
God
will
render
to
a
man
his
righteousness
(
i.e.
)
not
the
thing
it self
,
but
the
fruit
and
comfort
of
it
.
In
this
sense
those
,
who
fear
God
,
are
said
to
eat
the
labour
of
their
hands
(
i.e.
)
that
emolument
,
which
with
their
hands
they
did
labour
for
,
Ps.
28.2
.
In
the
like
sense
he
who
planted
a
Vineyard
,
is
said
to
eat
,
or
not
to
eat
of
it
(
i.e.
)
of
the
fruit
of
it
.
Deut.
20.6
.
Thus
work
is
put
for
the
reward
of
it
,
Rev.
14.13
.
Job
34.11
.
The
work
of
a
man
will
he
render
unto
him
.
Thus
Ephes.
6.8
.
Whatsoever
good
thing
any
man
doth
,
the
same
shall
he
receive
of
the
Lord
(
i.e.
)
not
the
self
same
thing
,
that
is
done
,
but
the
same
in
the
fruit
and
reward
of
it
.
In
the
like
sense
are
those
words
of
St.
John
to
be
understood
,
wherein
he
admonishes
the
Elect
Lady
,
and
her
Children
to
beware
,
That
they
lose
not
the
things
which
they
had
wrought
(
i.e.
)
the
reward
of
the
things
wrought
by
them
.
Now
in
this
sense
it
is
true
to
say
,
and
a
truth
worthy
of
all
acceptation
,
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
that
is
,
in
the
saving
effects
of
it
,
or
blessings
procured
by
it
.
In
this
sense
to
say
,
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
is
the
self
same
thing
as
to
say
,
That
the
fruit
and
benefit
procured
by
his
Righteousness
is
confer'd
upon
us
.
And
this
,
I
doubt
not
,
is
the
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
those
his
saying
,
Rom.
5.18
,
19.
That
by
Christs
Righteousness
the
free
gift
(
of
pardon
,
or
justification
)
comes
to
us
,
and
That
by
his
obedience
we
(
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
many
there
mentioned
)
are
made
righteous
(
i.e.
)
we
for
the
sake
of
his
righteousness
,
or
obedience
,
are
constituted
righteous
(
i.e.
)
pardoned
,
or
justified
.
And
be
it
observed
,
That
as
[
Righteousness
]
so
sin
also
in
the
same
figurative
sense
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
a
sinner
(
i.e.
)
in
the
deserved
fruits
and
effects
of
it
:
When
the
deserved
punishment
thereof
is
,
or
is
not
inflicted
upon
a
sinner
,
then
is
his
sin
said
to
be
imputed
,
or
not
imputed
to
him
.
In
this
sense
those
words
of
Shimei
supplicating
his
Soveraign
for
pardon
,
are
to
be
understood
,
he
saying
,
Let
not
my
Lord
impute
iniquity
unto
me
,
2
Sam.
19.19
.
Where
by
iniquity
he
doth
not
mean
the
thing
it self
in
a
proper
sense
,
Ipsam
culpam
,
the
sinful
action
,
or
the
act
of
sinning
,
but
the
deserved
fruit
and
punishment
of
it
:
In
this
sense
the
word
sin
,
or
iniquity
,
are
very
oftentimes
taken
in
Scripture
,
as
in
Gen.
4.13
.
and
19.15
.
Luke
7.18
.
And
as
touching
the
word
[
impute
]
when
applyed
to
what
is
in
it self
good
,
or
desirable
,
be
it
observed
,
That
it
is
the
manner
of
Scripture
sometimes
to
express
the
collation
of
a
benefit
upon
us
,
or
derivation
thereof
unto
us
by
the
word
[
impute
]
whether
the
benefit
it self
accrues
to
us
by
the
way
of
debt
,
or
free
donation
,
as
appears
Rom.
4.4
.
To
him
,
that
worketh
,
the
reward
is
reckoned
,
or
imputed
(
for
so
the
word
is
rendred
three
times
in
the
same
Chapter
,
v.
22
,
23
,
24.
)
not
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
(
i.e.
)
on
such
a
one
it
is
confer'd
not
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
,
and
so
to
be
reputed
.
In
this
sense
to
say
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
Christs
Righteousness
is
in
the
saving
fruit
and
benefit
thereof
confer'd
upon
us
;
and
he
,
who
says
so
,
speaks
the
very
truth
of
Scripture
.
Having
declared
in
what
sense
the
Imputation
of
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
may
and
ought
to
be
asserted
and
maintained
,
I
shall
in
the
next
place
specifie
the
sense
,
wherein
it
is
to
be
rejected
,
in
order
whereunto
let
it
be
observed
,
that
2.
The
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
sometimes
taken
properly
and
formally
for
the
very
thing
it self
in
its
essential
nature
,
in
which
sense
,
as
it
is
very
oftentimes
taken
,
when
applyed
to
the
righteousness
of
man
,
Prov.
10.2
,
12
,
28.
Acts
10.35
.
Rom.
6.13
,
18
,
20.
so
likewise
to
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
Rom.
5.18
.
where
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
expresly
mentioned
.
And
be
it
observed
,
That
as
Righteousness
in
the
former
sense
may
not
unfitly
(
as
I
think
)
be
styled
a
Passive
,
and
in
the
latter
an
Active
Righteousness
,
so
the
said
two
different
senses
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
do
differ
as
Officium
&
Beneficium
,
the
one
being
the
receiving
of
some
good
,
He
shall
receive
the
blessing
from
the
Lord
,
and
Righteousness
from
the
God
of
his
Salvation
:
Righteousness
in
that
place
being
the
self
same
thing
with
Gods
blessing
,
his
saving
blessing
.
The
phrase
[
doing
righteousness
]
see
in
1
Joh.
3.7
.
He
,
that
doth
righteousness
,
is
righteous
.
As
this
is
stiled
a
sowing
of
righteousness
,
Prov.
11.28
.
so
that
may
very
fitly
and
suitably
to
the
language
of
Scripture
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
be
styled
Reaping
Righteousness
,
Hos.
10.12
.
Gal.
6.7
,
8
,
9.
Now
in
this
proper
,
formal
sense
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
is
a
doctrine
,
however
owned
by
too
too
many
,
yet
by
very
many
others
of
our
own
and
forraign
Protestant
Churches
justly
disowned
as
that
,
which
is
no
where
to
be
found
in
Scripture
,
whether
in
the
words
,
or
meaning
of
any
Text
in
Scripture
:
for
to
assert
,
that
Christs
Righteousness
is
in
this
sense
imputed
to
us
,
is
to
assert
,
That
God
doth
account
or
reckon
,
that
the
Righteousness
which
Christ
wrought
,
we
wrought
in
and
by
him
,
or
that
we
are
reputed
by
God
to
have
fulfilled
the
Law
,
and
satisfied
Divine
Justice
in
and
by
Christ
,
that
what
Christ
did
in
his
own
natural
Person
,
God
doth
account
,
we
did
in
and
by
him
:
for
,
to
have
any
thing
imputed
to
a
man
in
the
propriety
,
formality
,
or
essential
nature
of
the
thing
,
is
to
be
reputed
the
doer
of
what
is
so
imputed
to
him
,
these
being
terms
equivalent
and
explicatory
one
of
another
;
and
as
thus
explicated
do
the
Brethren
,
whom
I
do
take
upon
me
in
this
point
to
oppose
,
openly
own
the
said
doctrine
touching
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
;
it
being
their
errour
to
think
;
that
Christs
Righteousness
cannot
be
accepted
by
God
in
our
behoof
,
or
prove
savingly
beneficial
to
us
,
unless
it
be
imputed
to
us
in
their
said
sense
;
or
to
imagine
(
as
they
do
)
a
necessity
,
that
what
is
imputed
to
,
or
for
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
should
be
reputed
to
be
done
by
him
,
who
is
justified
;
for
it
sufficeth
to
imputation
in
this
case
,
if
that
which
is
done
,
be
accepted
of
God
in
the
behalf
of
sinners
,
or
instead
of
that
,
which
a
justified
person
should
in
his
own
person
have
performed
.
Nor
is
there
any
cause
,
or
colour
for
them
to
suspect
,
that
the
denial
of
the
said
Imputation
in
their
said
sense
doth
infer
,
or
include
a
denyal
of
Christs
satisfaction
,
whether
in
the
thing
it self
,
or
in
the
blessed
effects
of
it
.
I
am
at
once
both
sorry
,
and
I
wonder
to
read
such
passages
as
these
in
some
learned
Authors
,
they
saying
to
this
purpose
,
viz.
That
human
reason
,
or
mans
understanding
cannot
comprehend
,
how
Christs
satisfaction
can
be
of
saving
benefit
to
us
,
unless
it
be
imputed
to
us
in
its
formal
and
essential
nature
:
The
contrary
whereunto
is
as
obvious
to
be
conceived
by
any
unprejudicate
person
,
as
obvious
almost
can
be
.
For
my
own
part
I
do
humbly
conceive
it
to
be
a
great
and
dangerous
mistake
to
think
,
that
Christ
satisfied
Divine
Justice
for
believing
sinners
,
that
they
might
be
reputed
by
God
to
have
satisfied
in
and
by
him
as
their
surety
;
the
truth
of
Scripture
(
to
my
understanding
)
being
this
,
viz.
That
Jesus
Christ
did
in
human
nature
,
and
his
own
person
as
Mediatour
,
or
in
the
person
of
a
Mediatour
betwixt
God
and
Man
satisfie
Divine
Justice
,
not
that
we
might
be
reputed
to
have
satisfied
in
and
by
him
,
or
that
his
very
satisfaction
should
be
imputed
to
us
,
but
that
no
such
satisfaction
should
be
required
of
us
;
and
that
his
fulfilling
of
the
law
of
Mediatorship
was
accepted
of
God
not
as
our
fulfilling
either
of
that
law
(
for
the
law
of
Mediatorship
belonged
not
to
us
,
it
being
peculiar
to
Christ
himself
)
or
of
any
other
law
whatsoever
;
but
it
was
reckoned
,
reputed
,
or
accepted
by
God
as
a
satisfaction
for
our
not
fulfilling
the
law
of
God
imposed
upon
mankind
:
I
mean
,
the
law
in
the
rigour
of
it
,
or
as
a
covenant
of
works
,
and
that
such
an
exact
fulfilling
of
the
law
should
not
be
exacted
of
us
as
the
covenanted
condition
of
our
salvation
,
but
that
faith
and
sincere
obedience
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
should
be
so
required
.
And
I
am
glad
to
perceive
,
that
in
asserting
the
end
of
Christs
satisfaction
for
mankind
,
I
have
the
concurrence
of
the
Authour
of
the
Book
lately
published
,
styled
(
The
interest
of
Reason
in
Religion
—
)
he
saying
pag.
548.
It
was
in
consequence
of
Christs
susception
to
be
our
Sponsor
(
or
Mediator
,
say
I
,
the
word
Sponsor
and
Mediator
being
promiscuously
used
by
the
Apostle
,
as
appears
by
comparing
Heb.
7.22
.
with
chap.
8.6
.
and
this
latter
word
being
of
more
frequent
use
with
the
Apostle
,
than
the
former
,
that
being
only
once
in
its
usage
applyed
to
Christ
in
Scripture
)
and
with
respect
to
the
obedience
of
his
life
and
sacrifice
of
his
death
,
as
the
procuring
and
deserving
cause
,
that
God
entred
into
a
covenant
with
mankind
,
promising
to
pardon
their
sins
,
receive
them
into
favour
,
and
crown
them
with
life
upon
such
terms
and
conditions
as
the
Father
and
Son
thought
fit
to
prescribe
.
In
these
words
the
word
[
Mankind
]
is
remarkable
,
the
Authour
saying
expresly
,
That
for
Christs
sake
[
for
the
obedience
of
his
life
and
sacrifice
of
his
death
as
the
deserving
cause
thereof
]
God
entred
into
a
Covenant
[
not
only
with
a
few
,
with
the
Elect
only
,
but
]
with
Mankind
,
promising
—
And
I
am
the
more
glad
to
perceive
,
that
I
have
the
concurrence
of
the
said
Authour
in
asserting
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
be
procured
for
Mankind
,
because
I
shall
have
occasion
by
and
by
to
mention
some
things
,
wherein
I
am
necessitated
(
much
against
my
will
)
to
dissent
from
him
,
and
certain
others
of
my
Brethren
.
And
I
shall
take
a
fit
occasion
to
do
it
in
answer
to
an
Argument
for
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
(
in
the
sense
disowned
by
my self
with
many
others
)
taken
from
those
words
of
the
Apostle
,
1
Cor.
5.21
.
from
which
words
I
have
seen
in
a
certain
learned
Author
the
Argument
thus
formed
,
as
shall
be
expressed
in
the
beginning
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
IV.
‛
An
Objection
from
2
Cor.
5.21
.
answered
and
also
retorted
.
The
blasphemy
of
Mr.
William
Eyre
in
his
Assize-Sermon
preached
at
Sarum
,
1652.
reproved
.
QUomodo
,
in
what
sort
,
or
manner
Christ
was
made
sin
for
us
,
in
the
same
manner
was
he
made
Righteousness
to
us
.
But
he
was
made
sin
for
us
only
by
Imputation
.
Ergo
—
Answ.
This
Argument
is
not
at
all
to
the
purpose
in
hand
,
or
the
matter
here
in
controversie
,
which
is
not
,
Whether
Christs
Righteousness
be
imputed
to
us
,
or
whether
our
sins
were
imputed
to
him
;
for
although
it
be
not
expresly
,
and
in
terms
asserted
in
any
place
of
the
Bible
,
either
that
our
sins
were
imputed
to
Christ
,
or
that
his
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
nevertheless
it
is
readily
and
unanimously
granted
,
That
both
of
them
may
truly
be
asserted
in
a
certain
sense
to
be
imputed
,
the
only
Question
being
this
,
viz.
In
what
sense
were
our
sins
imputed
to
Christ
,
and
in
what
sense
is
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
to
us
,
whether
as
Sin
and
Righteousness
are
taken
properly
,
and
formally
,
or
else
figuratively
,
and
in
the
effects
thereof
;
whether
Formaliter
,
or
Effective
,
as
are
the
School
termes
:
And
that
either
the
one
,
or
the
other
were
in
their
formal
,
and
essential
nature
imputed
(
our
Sins
to
Christ
,
or
his
Righteousness
to
us
)
or
otherwise
imputed
to
him
,
or
us
,
than
in
the
fruits
and
effects
thereof
,
that
Scripture
in
2
Cor.
5.21
.
doth
not
prove
.
Yea
,
that
Scripture
doth
plainly
and
convincingly
prove
and
disprove
that
sense
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
which
I
have
,
and
still
do
both
own
and
disown
(
i.e.
)
own
in
the
said
figurative
and
improper
,
but
disown
in
the
formal
and
proper
sense
of
the
word
[
Righteousness
.
]
And
for
the
purpose
in
hand
,
an
Argument
from
the
said
Scripture
may
be
thus
formed
:
In
what
manner
,
or
in
what
sense
of
the
word
[
Sin
]
Christ
was
made
Sin
for
us
,
or
our
Sin
was
imputed
to
him
,
after
such
a
manner
,
or
in
the
same
sense
were
we
made
the
Righteousness
of
God
in
him
,
or
his
Righteousness
was
imputed
to
us
;
But
he
was
not
made
Sin
for
us
,
nor
was
our
Sin
[
formally
taken
,
and
in
its
essential
nature
]
imputed
to
him
,
but
only
in
its
poenal
fruits
or
punishment
deserved
by
it
,
Ergo
—
For
proof
of
the
Minor
(
for
the
Major
will
be
yielded
by
all
those
with
whom
I
am
now
in
the
dispute
)
be
it
considered
,
That
if
our
Sin
it self
properly
in
its
essential
nature
had
been
imputed
to
Christ
,
then
had
he
been
reputed
by
God
to
have
deserved
,
or
contracted
the
guilt
of
what
he
suffered
;
which
if
so
,
he
could
not
have
satisfied
for
us
,
or
his
sufferings
be
reckoned
by
God
as
satisfactory
to
Divine
Justice
.
2.
The
Apostle
doth
not
say
,
that
Christ
was
made
a
Sinner
for
us
,
nor
do
I
know
,
how
such
a
saying
can
be
vindicated
from
blaspheming
the
Holy
One
of
God
.
3.
If
Sin
as
properly
taken
was
imputed
to
Christ
,
and
he
in
that
sense
of
the
word
was
made
Sin
for
us
,
I
see
not
,
but
that
this
blasphemy
will
from
thence
follow
,
viz.
That
God
reputed
Christ
to
be
a
Sinner
,
or
made
him
a
Sinner
for
us
.
And
this
is
that
I
find
in
a
printed
Sermon
preached
by
Mr.
William
Eyre
at
the
Assizes
at
Sarum
,
That
such
was
Christs
zeal
for
Righteousness
,
that
to
make
us
righteous
,
he
was
content
himself
to
be
made
a
Sinner
.
And
to
abet
him
in
his
blasphemy
,
he
alledgeth
the
authority
of
the
Apostle
,
saying
,
So
the
Apostle
,
He
was
made
sin
for
us
,
that
we
might
be
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
him
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
What
?
So
the
Apostle
?
Verily
not
so
:
for
the
Apostle
says
,
He
was
made
Sin
for
us
,
the
importance
of
which
word
is
not
,
that
he
was
made
a
Sinner
for
us
,
but
that
he
was
made
a
Sacrifice
for
Sin
,
or
a
Sin-offering
for
us
,
in
which
sense
the
word
Sin
is
frequently
taken
in
the
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
which
being
so
obvious
and
well
known
,
I
need
not
to
specifie
Rom.
8.3
.
CHAP.
V.
Q.
Did
Christ
take
upon
him
the
Guilt
as
well
as
the
Punishment
of
our
Sins
?
Answ.
No.
A
brief
explication
of
the
distinction
of
Guilt
,
commonly
styled
Guilt
of
Fault
,
and
Guilt
of
Punishment
;
together
with
a
Reply
to
what
is
alledged
by
certain
late
Writers
out
of
Bishop
Andrews
.
Q.
DID
not
Christ
take
upon
him
our
guilt
,
or
the
guilt
of
our
sins
as
well
as
the
punishment
of
them
?
Obligatio
ad
luendam
poenam
,
an
obligation
to
suffer
the
punishment
it self
deserved
.
Answ.
No
:
Christ
did
not
take
upon
him
Reatum
culpae
,
guilt
of
fault
,
but
only
that
which
we
call
Reatum
poenae
:
the
former
some
Casuists
do
stile
(
if
I
do
not
mistake
)
Obligation
to
fault
,
the
latter
Obligation
to
punishment
.
See
Bishop
Sanderson
De
juramento
.
lect
.
1.
Sect.
12.
But
,
because
there
are
,
it
seems
,
very
learned
men
,
who
are
otherwise
minded
in
this
matter
,
I
think
my self
obliged
for
the
truths
sake
to
reply
to
certain
passages
,
which
I
have
lately
read
in
some
Authours
,
of
whom
two
,
I
perceive
,
do
alledge
the
authority
of
that
most
learned
Bishop
Andrews
in
his
Sermon
upon
Jer.
23.6
.
wherein
having
quoted
the
said
words
of
the
Apostle
in
2
Cor.
5.21
.
he
says
,
Mark
,
how
every
thing
is
lively
,
and
as
full
as
can
be
imagined
.
Christ
one
,
not
only
that
had
done
no
sin
,
but
that
had
not
so
much
as
known
sin
,
hath
God
made
(
not
a
sinner
,
but
)
sin
it self
,
as
in
another
place
(
not
accursed
,
but
)
a
curse
it self
;
sin
in
respect
of
the
guilt
;
a
curse
in
respect
of
the
punishment
.
Answ.
Under
Episcopal
favour
I
humbly
crave
to
reply
by
suggesting
my
thoughts
,
as
followeth
:
-
1.
If
this
Authour
must
be
supposed
to
insinuate
,
that
to
know
no
sin
doth
imply
more
than
to
do
no
sin
,
I
conceive
it
to
be
a
mistake
;
for
although
To
know
no
sin
may
be
yielded
to
be
a
more
significant
,
or
as
is
here
said
,
a
lively
expression
,
yet
I
do
not
think
that
it
is
significant
of
more
than
we
are
given
to
understand
by
that
other
expression
[
He
did
no
sin
]
these
two
phrases
(
the
one
of
St.
Paul
,
the
other
of
St.
1
Peter
2.22
.
)
being
of
the
self
same
adequate
importance
.
There
be
many
phrases
,
that
are
more
emphatically
significant
of
the
truth
,
or
sense
intended
by
the
speaker
,
that
do
not
imply
more
truth
,
or
more
of
sense
than
other
not
so
emphatical
,
but
plain
and
downright
expressions
.
Besides
,
I
leave
it
to
the
consideration
of
the
Learned
,
whether
the
expression
[
He
knew
no
sin
]
be
not
an
Hebraism
,
the
Apostle
therein
speaking
after
the
manner
of
the
Hebrews
,
in
whose
language
the
word
[
know
]
is
used
for
To
do
,
and
this
both
as
applyed
to
good
and
evil
(
as
were
easie
to
exemplifie
)
to
know
good
and
evil
being
no
more
in
true
sense
and
construction
,
than
to
do
them
.
-
2.
As
it
is
remarkable
indeed
,
that
the
Apostle
doth
not
say
,
that
God
made
Christ
a
Sinner
,
so
withal
it
is
remarkable
,
that
he
doth
not
say
,
that
God
made
him
Sin
it self
,
but
Sin
.
-
3.
The
phrase
[
to
be
made
Sin
it self
]
seems
to
sound
forth
this
sense
,
viz.
To
be
made
Sin
in
it self
;
which
to
say
is
to
imply
,
that
Christ
was
made
a
Sinner
with
a
witness
,
a
great
Sinner
;
the
word
Scelus
being
used
by
Latinists
sometimes
for
Scelestus
.
But
I
do
not
charge
this
sense
as
intended
by
that
Renowned
Authour
,
however
it
be
owned
by
Mr.
William
Eyre
in
his
Sermon
forecited
,
he
quoting
in
the
Margin
of
his
Book
certain
of
the
Ancients
(
Austin
and
Oecumenius
)
as
asserting
the
same
.
-
4.
If
the
said
Authour
must
be
supposed
to
insinuate
,
That
the
phrase
[
To
be
made
sin
]
is
pregnant
of
more
sense
,
or
doth
imply
more
,
than
To
be
made
a
Sinner
,
I
can
say
no
less
,
than
there
is
no
such
implication
,
but
an
implication
of
the
contrary
;
For
To
be
made
sin
is
a
less
thing
,
yea
it
is
quite
another
kind
of
thing
,
than
to
be
made
a
Sinner
,
for
to
be
made
a
Sinner
is
to
be
made
Culpable
,
Reus
culpae
,
or
guilty
of
fault
,
whereas
to
be
made
Sin
doth
imply
no
more
than
respectively
to
suffering
to
be
dealt
with
as
a
Sinner
,
or
to
be
made
a
Sin-offering
,
as
was
afore
said
.
-
5.
As
guilt
is
distinguished
,
or
a
distinct
thing
from
punishment
(
these
two
things
usually
distinguished
by
Reatus
Culpae
,
&
Poenae
,
and
sometimes
by
Obligatio
ad
Culpam
,
&
Obligatio
ad
Poenam
,
as
hath
been
already
said
)
Christ
cannot
be
truly
said
to
have
been
made
Sin
in
respect
of
the
guilt
,
this
being
in
effect
to
say
,
That
he
was
made
Culpable
,
or
a
Sinner
,
and
did
thereupon
deserve
to
suffer
.
-
6.
As
[
to
know
no
Sin
,
and
to
do
no
Sin
]
are
phrases
of
the
self
same
adequate
sense
and
importance
,
so
also
are
the
phrases
[
To
be
made
a
curse
,
and
to
be
made
accursed
]
the
former
,
though
more
emphatically
significant
of
the
Speakers
intended
sense
,
yet
not
importing
more
sense
as
intended
to
be
spoken
.
-
7.
Christ
was
no
otherwise
made
Sin
,
than
he
was
made
a
curse
;
for
in
this
very
respect
he
is
in
one
Scripture
said
by
the
Apostle
to
have
been
made
Sin
for
us
,
in
that
(
as
the
Apostle
expresseth
and
interprets
himself
in
another
Scripture
)
he
was
made
A
Curse
for
us
:
for
he
was
made
a
Sin-offering
by
undergoing
the
cursed
death
of
the
Cross
,
or
as
Saint
Peter
expresseth
the
matter
,
1
Pet.
2.24
.
By
bearing
our
sins
in
his
own
body
upon
the
Tree
,
as
the
Altar
upon
which
he
offered
himself
as
a
Sacrifice
without
any
spot
of
Sin
to
God
.
CHAP.
VI.
An
Answer
to
several
unjustifiable
passages
in
Mr.
Ferguson's
Book
,
styled
[
The
Interest
of
Reason
in
Religion
.
—
]
.
His
false
and
manifold
uncharitable
insinuations
,
answered
.
Wherein
't
is
shewed
what
manner
of
guilt
or
obligation
to
punishment
that
was
,
which
Christ
took
upon
him
.
That
Christ
did
not
suffer
,
however
by
occasion
of
that
Law
(
Gen.
2.17
.
)
as
transgressed
,
yet
not
by
vertue
thereof
,
as
if
that
Law
in
,
or
by
his
sufferings
had
been
executed
.
His
mistake
of
the
true
nature
of
Gospel
justification
,
demonstrated
.
That
it
is
not
against
the
essential
Holiness
of
God
(
as
Mr.
Ferguson
pretends
)
to
justifie
a
sinner
upon
an
obedience
(
Ex
parte
sui
,
seu
peccatoris
)
imperfect
,
with
the
reason
of
his
mistake
.
HAving
thus
replyed
to
the
words
of
that
Learned
Bishop
(
under
whose
authority
the
Adversaries
do
in
this
contest
take
shelter
)
I
shall
address
my self
to
make
answer
to
Mr.
Robert
Ferguson
,
who
being
a
zealous
asserter
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
in
the
sense
here
disclaimed
and
oppugned
by
me
,
doth
endeavour
the
propugnation
and
defence
thereof
in
the
following
passages
of
his
fore-named
Book
[
The
Interest
of
Reason
in
Religion
.
]
I
will
not
here
discourse
how
inconsistent
it
seems
with
the
wisdom
and
sapience
of
God
to
introduce
a
perfect
righteousness
,
such
as
that
of
his
Son
was
,
meerly
to
make
way
for
his
justifying
us
upon
an
imperfect
righteousness
,
such
as
that
of
our
obedience
is
.
Answ.
So
far
as
appears
to
me
by
the
reading
of
his
Book
,
this
Brother
hath
not
the
true
notion
[
I
do
not
say
of
justification
in
general
,
or
of
the
word
as
indefinitely
taken
,
but
]
of
Gospel-justification
,
or
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
which
neither
is
,
nor
can
be
otherwise
than
by
a
pardon
,
and
this
pardon
is
not
ex
nudâ
Dei
voluntate
,
meerly
of
divine
will
and
pleasure
,
but
merited
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
.
Of
this
his
mistake
of
the
quiddity
,
or
true
nature
of
Gospel-justification
,
I
may
have
occasion
to
speak
,
in
reply
to
some
other
passages
of
his
Book
.
In
the
mean
time
,
I
shall
take
it
as
a
truth
not
to
be
gainsaid
,
That
Gospel-justification
is
forgiveness
of
sin
,
this
kind
of
justification
being
it
alone
that
a
sinner
is
a
subject
capable
of
,
and
thereupon
I
do
reply
,
That
however
the
matter
seems
to
this
Author
,
nevertheless
in
truth
it
is
no
way
inconsistent
with
the
wisdom
of
God
,
for
the
sake
of
his
Sons
most
perfect
righteousness
,
to
justifie
or
pardon
sinners
upon
an
imperfect
righteousness
,
such
as
that
of
our
obedience
is
,
which
if
perfect
,
would
have
no
need
of
pardon
.
P.
409.
Nor
shall
I
argue
,
How
that
the
righteousness
of
Christs
life
,
and
sacrifice
of
his
death
,
must
be
imputed
to
us
for
justification
,
in
a
proportionableness
to
our
sins
,
having
been
imputed
to
him
,
in
order
to
his
expiatory
suffering
.
Answ.
I
have
already
granted
,
that
in
what
sence
or
sort
our
sins
may
be
said
to
have
been
imputed
to
Christ
,
his
righteousness
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
but
withal
declared
,
that
neither
of
them
can
be
truly
so
said
to
be
imputed
in
the
proper
sence
of
the
words
(
sin
and
righteousness
)
which
is
the
sence
of
this
Author
and
his
Abettors
,
but
in
an
improper
sence
,
(
i.
e.
)
in
the
fruit
and
effects
both
of
the
one
and
the
other
.
P.
409
,
410.
To
attribute
Christs
sufferings
meerly
to
Gods
dominion
without
any
respect
to
sin
,
is
the
grossest
of
Socinianism
,
and
repugnant
to
the
Scripture
in
an
hundred
places
.
Answ.
They
,
who
deny
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
unto
us
,
in
the
sence
by
this
Author
asserted
,
are
far
from
attributing
Christs
sufferings
meerly
unto
Gods
dominion
,
without
any
respect
to
sin
:
For
as
they
do
unanimously
preach
and
print
,
that
Christs
sufferings
had
a
respect
to
our
sins
,
so
they
do
attribute
his
sufferings
not
meerly
to
Gods
dominion
,
without
any
respect
to
sin
,
but
to
that
voluntary
compact
,
which
was
betwixt
the
Father
and
the
Son
,
that
Jesus
Christ
should
suffer
for
sin
and
sinners
,
and
that
thereby
he
merited
our
pardon
.
2.
Consequently
I
cannot
forbear
to
say
,
That
it
doth
very
ill
become
this
Author
to
insinuate
so
foul
a
slander
against
his
Brethren
,
as
guilty
of
Socinianism
,
gross
Socinianism
,
the
grossest
Socinianism
in
this
matter
.
[
‖
](A44575-e15320-b)
‖
Mr.
F.
See
amongst
other
Scriptures
,
Esa.
53.5
,
6.
1
Pet.
2.24
.
Gal.
3.13
.
and
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
vindication
of
them
from
the
exceptions
of
Crellius
.
P.
410.
To
say
,
That
our
sins
were
imputed
to
Christ
in
the
effects
of
them
,
but
not
in
the
guilt
,
is
to
contradict
all
principles
of
reason
.
For
guilt
and
obnoxiousness
to
punishment
being
equipollent
phrases
,
he
cannot
be
supposed
to
have
been
made
liable
to
the
last
upon
the
account
of
our
sins
,
without
having
been
brought
under
the
first
.
Nor
is
it
imaginable
,
how
without
submitting
to
the
guilt
of
our
sins
he
could
have
been
punished
,
should
it
be
granted
that
without
respect
to
them
he
might
have
suffered
:
Though
without
any
habitude
to
sin
his
sufferings
might
have
been
dolorous
,
yet
they
could
never
have
been
penal
.
Answ.
1.
To
say
,
That
our
sins
were
imputed
to
Christ
in
the
effects
of
them
,
(
i.
e.
)
in
the
deserved
punishment
thereof
,
but
withal
to
deny
,
that
our
guilt
of
fault
was
imputed
to
Christ
,
is
not
to
contradict
all
principles
,
nor
any
one
principle
of
reason
.
2.
Nor
doth
it
at
all
contradict
any
of
those
Scriptures
alledged
by
this
Author
in
the
Margin
of
his
Book
,
which
Scriptures
do
only
prove
an
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
in
the
sence
I
own
and
acknowledg
,
(
i.
e.
)
in
Christ
his
undergoing
suffering
for
them
,
but
not
in
his
taking
our
guilt
upon
him
.
And
as
Dr.
Stillingfleet
doth
well
maintain
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
in
the
former
respect
,
(
i.
e.
)
the
effects
of
them
,
so
I
am
perswaded
,
that
that
most
learned
Doctor
is
a
man
of
more
reason
and
better
principled
,
than
to
maintain
the
imputation
of
our
guilt
to
Christ
,
as
this
Author
would
have
it
.
3.
I
grant
,
That
guilt
and
obnoxiousness
to
punishment
are
equipollent
phrases
;
but
I
deny
,
that
it
will
follow
from
thence
,
that
because
Christ
took
upon
him
to
suffer
the
punishment
,
which
we
for
our
sins
deserved
,
he
did
therefore
take
upon
him
our
guilt
.
He
did
indeed
take
upon
him
a
certain
guilt
,
or
obligation
to
suffering
;
(
i.
e.
)
a
guilt
,
or
obligation
peculiar
to
himself
,
but
not
the
same
guilt
that
lay
upon
us
,
not
our
guilt
,
not
the
same
numerical
guilt
,
(
for
Philosophy
tells
us
,
that
an
accident
being
removed
from
the
subject
perisheth
)
nor
the
same
specifical
guilt
,
(
i.
e.
)
of
the
same
sort
,
but
a
guilt
specifically
different
,
not
having
the
same
,
but
a
far
different
Substratum
,
ground
,
foundation
,
or
efficient
,
from
ours
;
ours
being
Violatae
Legis
,
grounded
or
founded
upon
our
transgression
of
Gods
Law
,
but
his
Sponsionis
propriae
,
an
obligation
of
contract
or
consent
,
founded
upon
the
agreement
betwixt
him
and
his
Father
in
that
behalf
.
Obligation
to
punishment
we
stile
guilt
,
and
our
guilt
was
guilt
of
fault
,
and
of
suffering
for
our
fault
,
from
or
by
vertue
of
Gods
Law
threatning
the
same
;
but
Christs
guilt
was
only
guilt
of
suffering
for
our
fault
,
arising
from
,
or
by
vertue
of
his
voluntary
undertaking
and
compliance
with
the
will
of
his
Father
.
Briefly
,
That
Law
of
God
,
which
did
threaten
man
with
suffering
for
sin
,
did
not
oblige
Christ
to
suffer
for
it
,
or
us
,
nor
did
he
die
by
vertue
of
that
Law
threatning
man
with
death
,
upon
supposition
of
his
sin
,
Gen.
2.17
.
nor
was
that
Law
fulfilled
,
or
executed
in
his
death
,
but
by
occasion
of
that
sin-threatning
Law
transgressed
by
man
,
he
did
voluntarily
oblige
himself
in
the
person
of
a
Mediator
to
suffer
,
and
to
suffer
death
for
us
,
or
for
our
sins
,
(
i.
e.
)
the
expiation
of
them
.
4.
Christ
may
well
be
supposed
to
be
liable
to
suffering
upon
the
account
of
our
sins
,
by
vertue
of
the
said
contract
betwixt
him
and
his
Father
,
without
having
been
brought
under
our
personal
specifical
guilt
.
And
it
is
easily
imaginable
,
that
without
submitting
to
our
personal
guilt
,
he
might
suffer
such
suffering
as
was
equivalent
to
that
punishment
,
which
we
by
our
sins
had
deserved
.
This
is
as
easily
imaginable
,
as
to
imagine
,
how
St.
Paul
should
take
upon
himself
to
satisfie
for
the
damage
,
which
was
done
to
Philemon
,
by
the
injury
of
his
unfaithful
servant
Onesimus
,
and
was
willing
to
have
the
same
imputed
to
him
,
(
as
the
word
signifies
,
Philem.
18.
)
and
yet
not
submit
unto
or
take
upon
him
Onesimus
his
personal
guilt
of
defrauding
,
or
wrong-doing
.
And
(
to
speak
the
very
truth
)
in
such
a
sence
as
St.
Paul
was
willing
to
take
upon
himself
the
wrong
done
to
Philemon
by
Onesimus
,
and
to
have
it
reckoned
to
him
,
saying
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
impute
it
unto
me
,
(
meaning
thereby
not
Onesimus
his
personal
guilt
,
Reatum
culpae
,
or
his
sin
it self
,
but
the
effects
of
it
,
in
the
damage
thereby
sustained
by
his
Master
.
)
In
the
like
sence
(
I
say
)
were
our
sins
reckoned
or
imputed
to
Christ
,
he
taking
upon
him
an
obligation
by
his
doings
and
sufferings
,
to
satisfie
for
the
damage
or
wrong
done
to
God
,
(
as
I
may
so
say
)
I
mean
,
to
vindicate
the
Honour
and
Authority
of
the
Law
and
Law-giver
,
to
demonstrate
the
justice
of
God
,
his
hatred
of
sin
.
—
And
indeed
herein
,
viz.
in
an
aptitude
for
the
attainment
of
these
and
the
like
ends
of
God
our
Maker
,
Ruler
,
Law-giver
,
Benefactor
,
better
than
the
damnation
of
all
mankind
could
have
done
,
consisteth
the
meritoriousness
and
satisfactoriness
of
Christs
doings
and
sufferings
;
and
this
is
the
reason
of
our
styling
them
satisfactory
or
meritorious
.
5.
Though
we
deny
,
that
Christ
took
upon
him
our
guilt
of
sin
,
yet
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
we
deny
his
sufferings
to
have
had
any
habitude
,
or
respect
at
all
to
sin
,
as
is
here
insinuated
by
this
Author
;
for
had
it
not
been
for
our
sin
,
he
had
never
suffered
.
6.
Forasmuch
as
Christs
sufferings
had
not
the
self
same
individual
or
kind
of
habitude
to
sin
,
as
our
sufferings
,
in
case
we
had
suffered
according
to
our
desert
,
would
have
had
,
(
i.
e.
)
forasmuch
as
Christs
sufferings
were
not
merited
,
or
inflicted
on
him
,
by
or
upon
account
of
any
sin
of
his
own
,
therefore
are
his
sufferings
to
be
accounted
rather
dolorous
than
penal
,
I
mean
,
punishments
in
a
strict
,
and
the
most
proper
acceptation
of
the
word
;
punishment
being
properly
and
strictly
Malum
triste
,
inflicted
upon
a
guilty
person
propter
malum
turpe
.
Proper
punishment
I
conceive
to
be
the
effect
of
proper
guilt
,
which
is
Reatus
Criminis
[
Guilt
of
fault
]
not
meerly
Contracius
[
of
Contract
]
as
Christs
was
.
P.
410.
'T
is
a
thing
utterly
unintelligible
,
how
Christ
could
be
made
sin
for
us
,
and
have
our
punishment
transferred
to
him
,
without
a
previous
imputation
of
sin
,
and
the
derivation
of
its
guilt
upon
him
.
Answ.
What
this
Author
hath
asserted
to
be
unsupposable
,
unimaginable
,
and
here
asserts
to
be
utterly
unintelligible
,
I
have
already
,
as
I
am
perswaded
,
made
plain
,
obvious
and
easie
to
be
understood
by
every
intelligent
,
impartial
,
unprepossessed
Reader
,
and
I
shall
shew
my self
ready
to
do
it
further
,
as
this
Author
shall
minister
occasion
.
P.
410.
Now
by
proportion
,
If
our
sins
were
imputed
to
Christ
otherwise
than
meerly
in
the
effects
of
them
,
so
must
likewise
the
righteousness
of
his
life
and
sacrifice
of
his
death
be
otherwise
imputed
to
us
,
than
meerly
in
the
benefits
of
them
.
Answ.
Having
made
it
apparent
in
my
foregoing
Answers
to
this
Authors
arguings
,
that
our
sins
in
the
propriety
of
the
word
were
not
imputed
to
Christ
,
or
otherwise
imputed
to
him
,
than
in
the
effects
of
them
,
I
may
well
and
warrantably
infer
by
proportion
,
that
the
righteousness
of
Christs
life
and
sacrifice
of
his
death
(
his
doings
and
sufferings
formally
and
properly
taken
)
are
not
imputed
unto
us
,
or
otherwise
imputed
than
meerly
in
the
benefits
of
them
.
P.
411.
Neither
will
I
press
,
how
that
secluding
not
only
the
righteousness
of
Christs
life
,
but
the
satisfaction
of
his
death
,
as
the
matter
,
and
the
imputation
of
it
,
as
the
formal
cause
of
justification
,
it
seems
repugnant
to
the
immutability
and
essential
holiness
of
God
to
justifie
us
upon
an
imperfect
obedience
,
the
Law
which
requireth
a
perfect
obedience
remaining
still
in
force
,
and
denouncing
wrath
,
in
case
of
every
failure
.
Answ.
By
these
words
it
appears
again
,
that
this
Author
doth
mistake
the
true
notion
and
right
conception
of
Gospel-justification
,
he
supposing
,
that
the
righteousness
of
Christs
life
and
satisfaction
of
his
death
is
the
matter
,
and
that
the
imputation
of
it
is
the
formal
cause
thereof
;
whereas
the
unquestionable
truth
(
to
my
simple
understanding
)
is
,
that
if
we
speak
of
matter
in
a
proper
sence
,
as
here
,
viz.
for
a
material
cause
,
in
way
of
contradistinction
to
a
formal
cause
,
neither
the
righteousness
of
Christs
life
,
nor
satisfaction
of
his
death
,
can
fitly
be
said
to
be
the
matter
,
or
material
cause
of
a
sinners
justification
;
the
satisfactoriness
both
of
his
life
and
death
(
of
his
doings
and
sufferings
)
being
undoubtedly
the
external
impulsive
,
or
morally
efficient
cause
thereof
;
and
how
one
and
the
same
thing
should
put
on
the
habitude
of
two
causes
so
different
in
kind
,
as
is
the
material
and
efficient
(
that
being
internal
,
and
pars
constitutiva
rei
,
and
this
wholly
external
)
I
do
not
understand
,
such
a
conception
being
altogether
contrary
to
the
Logick
,
which
hitherto
I
have
been
acquainted
with
.
2.
Whereas
this
Author
and
others
make
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
to
be
the
formal
cause
of
justification
,
I
do
clearly
conceive
them
mistaken
,
and
that
the
formalis
ratio
,
or
formal
cause
of
Gospel-justification
,
is
forgiveness
of
sin
,
this
being
Res
ipsa
,
the
very
thing
it self
,
wherein
the
justification
of
a
sinner
doth
consist
.
3.
Had
this
Author
rightly
apprehended
or
minded
,
that
a
sinners
justification
is
,
or
doth
consist
in
,
the
pardon
of
his
sin
,
he
would
scarce
have
questioned
it
as
a
thing
in
the
least
wise
repugnant
to
the
immutability
and
essential
holiness
of
God
,
to
justifie
us
upon
an
imperfect
obedience
:
For
what
though
it
may
be
granted
,
that
the
Law
,
which
requireth
a
perfect
obedience
,
and
denounceth
wrath
in
case
of
every
failure
,
doth
remain
still
in
force
(
i.
e.
)
so
far
forth
as
to
command
the
one
,
and
to
threaten
the
other
,
yet
I
presume
he
will
not
,
I
am
sure
he
ought
not
to
say
,
That
that
original
Law
(
the
Law
of
works
,
I
presume
,
he
means
)
doth
still
stand
in
its
primitive
force
,
as
a
Covenant
of
works
,
both
promising
life
to
sinners
upon
perfect
obedience
,
or
conditionally
upon
their
not
being
sinners
,
and
threatning
death
unavoidably
upon
every
failure
.
Doth
this
Author
forget
,
That
there
is
a
Law
of
Grace
,
of
oblivion
,
a
Lex
remedians
,
a
Law
of
indempnity
enacted
by
God
through
the
blood
of
Christ
,
whereby
the
force
of
that
Law
so
threatning
,
may
as
to
the
execution
of
the
threatning
,
be
vacated
by
a
gracious
pardon
,
and
certainly
so
shall
be
,
upon
a
sinners
sincere
however
imperfect
obedience
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
?
4.
This
Author
seems
to
think
,
that
a
sinner
is
justified
in
respect
of
the
precept
,
or
preceptive
part
of
the
Law
,
(
i.
e.
)
as
one
who
had
in
and
by
Christ
performed
all
manner
of
duty
,
whereas
a
sinner
is
justified
only
in
respect
of
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
(
i.
e.
)
as
one
,
who
notwithstanding
his
failings
,
hath
right
to
impunity
,
and
to
a
discharge
for
Christs
sake
by
a
pardon
.
CHAP.
VII
.
That
the
Scripture
doth
no where
assert
a
surrogation
of
Christ
in
our
room
,
in
such
a
strict
Law-sence
,
as
that
we
may
be
said
in
and
by
him
to
have
done
and
suffered
what
he
did
and
suffered
,
and
in
or
by
him
to
have
redeemed
our selves
.
And
that
Christ
did
not
in
such
a
Law-sence
,
represent
us
as
Proctors
and
Atturneys
do
their
Clients
,
Ambassadors
their
Princes
,
or
Guardians
their
Pupils
,
acting
accordingly
in
our
names
,
but
officiating
as
a
Mediator
betwixt
God
and
Man
.
The
evil
Consequences
charged
by
Mr.
F.
upon
the
contrary
Doctrine
,
are
denied
.
His
thwacking
Contradiction
imputed
to
others
,
avoided
by
them
,
and
retorted
upon
himself
.
P.
411.
NEither
shall
I
urge
,
how
there
can
have
been
no
surrogation
of
Christ
in
our
room
;
nor
can
we
properly
be
said
to
be
redeemed
by
him
as
our
substitute
,
if
all
redounding
to
us
by
his
death
,
be
only
the
procurement
of
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
in
which
God
upon
such
conditions
as
he
there
requires
,
undertakes
to
pardon
our
iniquities
and
sins
.
A
surrogation
in
our
room
and
stead
to
acts
and
sufferings
,
which
are
not
in
a
Law-sence
accounted
ours
,
I
am
so
far
from
understanding
,
that
without
admitting
injustice
in
the
Rector
,
who
allows
the
substitution
,
it
seems
to
me
a
thwacking
contradiction
;
especially
if
we
consider
,
that
Christ
was
our
substitute
to
make
satisfaction
to
the
demands
of
the
Law
and
not
of
the
Gospel
;
and
that
by
his
obedience
and
death
he
hath
only
freed
us
from
what
we
were
obnoxious
to
upon
failure
of
perfect
obedience
,
but
not
at
all
from
what
we
were
liable
to
in
case
of
unbelief
,
and
want
of
sincere
obedience
.
Answ.
1.
The
Scripture
no
where
asserts
such
a
surrogation
of
Christ
in
our
room
,
as
that
we
can
properly
be
said
to
be
redeemed
by
him
as
our
substitute
:
For
had
he
been
in
a
strict
proper
sence
our
substitute
,
there
is
cause
to
assert
,
That
we
have
in
and
by
him
redeemed
our selves
,
yea
that
we
rather
have
redeemed
our selves
than
he
us
,
or
That
we
are
our
own
Redeemers
rather
than
Christ
:
For
what
is
done
by
a
proper
substitute
,
is
not
in
a
Law-sence
so
much
his
act
who
doth
it
,
as
ours
,
whom
he
as
our
surrogate
and
substitute
doth
personate
or
represent
,
let
the
representation
be
Quocunque
modo
,
or
quacunque
ratione
,
(
i.
e.
)
whether
he
represent
us
by
our
own
will
,
consent
,
or
constitution
,
(
as
Proctors
and
Atturneys
do
their
Clients
,
that
pay
and
receive
moneys
,
and
transact
matters
in
their
names
,
and
Ambassadors
,
who
are
imployed
by
Princes
to
deal
with
forreign
States
and
Nations
)
or
by
allowance
and
authority
of
Law
,
(
as
what
Tutors
and
Guardians
do
in
the
name
of
their
Pupils
)
in
these
cases
whatsoever
is
done
by
such
substitutes
in
the
person
of
another
,
is
not
so
properly
and
in
Law-construction
his
act
who
doth
it
,
as
theirs
whose
substitute
he
is
,
and
whose
person
he
doth
represent
.
2.
Forasmuch
as
this
Author
doth
assert
such
a
surrogation
of
Christ
in
our
room
,
as
that
we
can
properly
be
said
to
be
redeemed
by
him
as
our
substitute
,
if
he
shall
notwithstanding
that
assertion
deny
,
That
we
have
in
and
by
Christ
redeemed
our selves
,
or
are
in
and
by
him
our
own
Redeemers
,
it
behoves
him
to
consider
,
how
he
can
avoid
the
just
imputation
of
that
thwacking
contradiction
,
which
upon
his
swopping
mistake
he
insinuates
his
adversaries
in
this
point
to
be
guilty
of
.
And
it
concerns
him
also
to
consider
,
how
his
Hypothesis
can
be
maintained
,
without
admitting
that
injustice
(
which
he
mentions
)
in
the
Rector
,
who
notwithanding
his
allowance
of
the
said
substitution
,
doth
deny
instantly
to
confer
upon
us
the
benefits
of
Christs
redemption
and
satisfaction
,
these
being
no
other
than
what
we
our selves
have
in
and
by
Christ
made
a
full
satisfaction
for
,
and
which
upon
that
account
we
may
fitly
and
properly
be
said
to
have
purchased
for
our selves
.
3.
Whatsoever
bad
consequences
there
be
of
Christs
being
our
surrogate
and
substitute
,
in
such
a
strict
Law-sence
as
he
doth
fancy
to
himself
,
there
is
no
such
repugnancy
or
contradiction
,
as
here
he
speaks
of
,
that
doth
follow
from
what
we
do
assert
in
this
matter
,
viz.
That
Christ
our
Passover
was
sacrificed
for
us
,
that
he
died
for
our
sins
as
a
ransom
,
sacrifice
,
atonement
,
or
propitiation
;
and
forasmuch
as
he
suffered
for
our
sakes
,
and
in
our
stead
,
(
i.
e.
)
such
suffering
as
was
equivalent
to
what
we
deserved
,
and
such
as
was
fit
to
attain
the
ends
designed
by
our
Creator
and
Redeemer
,
better
than
the
damnation
of
all
mankind
could
have
done
,
we
do
not
deny
,
but
that
our
sins
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
Christ
,
and
his
sufferings
to
us
,
but
neither
of
them
properly
and
in
their
essential
nature
,
not
our
sin
it self
to
him
,
or
his
sufferings
themselves
to
us
,
but
both
of
them
in
their
effects
,
our
sin
to
him
in
its
penal
,
and
his
sufferings
to
us
in
its
saving
effects
.
And
this
as
we
do
,
so
we
may
very
well
and
warrantably
maintain
,
notwithstanding
it
be
yielded
(
as
the
truth
is
)
That
Christ
was
substituted
or
given
of
God
,
to
make
satisfaction
to
the
demands
of
the
Law
and
not
of
the
Gospel
,
in
the
sence
here
specified
by
this
Author
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Mr.
Ferguson's
mistake
in
thinking
,
that
a
sinner
by
his
justification
is
freed
from
the
guilt
of
punishment
and
fault
too
.
That
Christs
righteousness
is
not
more
,
or
otherwise
imputed
to
us
for
,
in
,
towards
,
or
in
order
to
our
justification
,
than
the
remission
of
our
sin
.
The
nature
of
justification
[
forensick
]
opened
,
both
of
justification
indefinitely
considered
,
as
also
of
Gospel-justification
in
special
.
The
truth
of
the
matter
laid
down
in
several
Propositions
.
HItherto
I
have
related
the
arguings
of
this
Author
word
for
word
,
as
I
find
them
continued
together
from
p.
409.
to
p.
412.
and
accordingly
the
Reader
may
,
if
he
please
,
take
view
of
them
all
as
contiguous
.
But
forasmuch
as
I
judg'd
it
most
conducive
to
the
conviction
of
gain-sayers
,
and
to
the
edification
of
all
,
to
shape
my
reply
thereunto
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
period
by
period
,
I
have
therefore
accordingly
recited
them
,
and
suited
my
reply
to
every
distinct
period
in
those
pages
.
As
for
his
ensuing
arguings
in
the
same
Chapter
to
the
close
thereof
,
I
cannot
in
such
sort
recite
them
verbatim
,
without
the
transcribing
of
seven
or
eight
whole
pages
,
from
p.
413.
to
p.
421.
nor
will
it
be
at
all
necessary
so
to
do
,
it
being
fully
satisfactory
to
demonstrate
,
that
his
arguings
do
proceed
upon
his
utter
mistake
of
the
true
nature
of
Gospel-justification
,
or
that
peculiar
kind
of
justification
,
whereof
a
sinner
is
the
subject
,
or
subjective
matter
;
and
for
the
manifestation
thereof
be
it
considered
,
That
he
premiseth
these
two
things
,
p.
413
,
414.
-
1.
That
to
justifie
is
in
its
proper
acceptation
here
a
forensick
term
,
signifying
to
acquit
and
absolve
one
that
is
accused
.
-
2.
That
justification
not
only
supposeth
us
to
be
indited
,
but
withal
imports
an
absolution
from
the
charge
of
that
Law
,
of
the
breach
whereof
we
are
accused
,
viz.
The
Law
of
perfect
obedience
,
which
is
not
abrogated
by
the
Law
of
faith
,
but
doth
remain
in
force
,
and
we
being
all
guilty
of
the
violation
of
its
terms
,
there
lyes
accordingly
a
charge
against
us
,
from
which
by
justification
we
are
,
as
he
says
,
to
be
acquitted
.
Now
yielding
to
the
former
of
the
two
premisses
,
which
he
proves
by
several
Scriptures
apt
to
the
purpose
,
I
reply
to
the
latter
,
That
there
being
a
two-fold
guilt
,
which
the
Law
of
God
,
being
violated
,
may
be
supposed
to
accuse
us
of
,
or
charge
us
with
(
the
ignorance
or
non-observance
of
which
distinction
,
is
the
cause
of
great
confusion
and
misunderstanding
in
the
doctrine
of
justification
)
viz.
guilt
of
fault
,
and
guilt
of
punishment
,
(
i.
e.
)
actual
obligation
to
punishment
,
it
is
the
great
mistake
of
this
Author
(
as
of
many
other
of
our
Brethren
)
to
think
,
that
by
justification
we
are
freed
or
acquitted
from
both
the
said
kinds
of
guilt
,
or
(
as
some
do
imagine
)
that
by
pardon
of
sin
we
are
freed
from
the
latter
kind
of
guilt
,
and
by
justification
with
the
perfect
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
from
the
former
.
Whereas
the
truth
is
,
That
the
righteousness
of
Christ
is
no
more
,
nor
otherwise
imputed
to
or
for
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
than
it
is
to
or
for
the
non-imputation
,
(
i.
e.
)
the
pardon
of
his
sins
,
and
that
there
is
no
possibility
for
a
sinner
by
any
plea
whatsoever
,
to
be
justified
or
acquitted
from
the
former
kind
of
guilt
,
I
have
already
manifested
,
and
shall
farther
manifest
according
to
occasion
in
the
sequel
of
this
Treatise
.
In
the
mean
time
I
will
speak
somewhat
more
at
large
for
the
due
understanding
of
the
nature
of
justification
,
both
as
indefinitely
considered
,
and
specially
,
as
the
subject
thereof
is
a
sinner
.
And
in
order
thereunto
I
will
lay
down
the
following
Propositions
.
-
1.
Justification
as
indefinitely
taken
,
-
2.
If
the
person
accused
be
guilty
or
culpable
,
(
i.
e.
)
from
his
being
actually
bound
over
to
suffer
,
and
from
the
suffering
it self
of
that
punishment
,
which
for
his
delinquency
he
deserved
.
With
the
former
kind
of
justification
,
no
flesh
living
(
all
being
sinful
flesh
)
can
possibly
be
justified
.
God
himself
(
with
Reverence
to
the
divine
Majesty
be
it
spoken
)
hath
no
kind
of
power
to
justifie
any
wicked
person
,
no
moral
power
,
(
for
it
is
a
sinful
thing
so
to
justifie
the
wicked
,
Exod.
23.5
.
Prov.
17.15
.
)
nor
physical
power
,
(
for
the
thing
is
simply
impossible
,
and
doth
imply
a
contradiction
.
)
But
with
the
other
kind
of
justification
,
any
flesh
living
(
though
never
so
sinful
)
may
and
shall
through
Gospel-faith
and
obedience
,
or
an
obediential
faith
,
be
justified
.
-
3.
As
justification
and
forgiveness
of
sin
are
obviously
and
vulgarly
taken
,
Jews
,
Act.
24.14
.
)
maintaining
his
innocency
not
only
in
respect
of
the
Law
of
God
,
but
also
of
Caesar
,
Act.
25.8
.
there
being
no
Acts
at
that
time
made
by
any
of
the
Caesars
against
Christian
Religion
,
nor
till
the
fifth
year
of
the
reign
of
Claudius
,
as
History
doth
report
.
So
that
if
a
person
be
justified
in
this
vulgar
sence
of
the
word
,
he
is
not
so
much
as
in
a
natural
capacity
of
being
pardoned
,
nor
if
pardoned
,
of
being
so
justified
as
aforesaid
;
That
as
to
justifie
and
to
pardon
are
not
only
wholly
distinct
in
their
Natures
and
Idea's
,
but
always
separated
in
the
cases
of
such
as
are
arraigned
at
humane
tribunals
,
(
unless
it
be
where
the
substitution
of
one
person
in
the
room
of
another
is
allowed
)
and
even
then
,
though
they
accompany
one
another
,
yet
they
are
both
distinct
acts
,
and
we
have
distinct
notions
of
them
:
For
neither
can
an
accused
innocent
by
being
acquitted
be
said
to
be
pardoned
,
nor
a
condemned
criminal
by
having
the
execution
of
his
sentence
remitted
,
be
said
to
be
justified
.
-
4.
However
in
common
usage
,
justification
and
remission
of
sin
are
not
only
divers
,
but
also
adverse
things
,
nevertheless
if
we
speak
of
that
peculiar
kind
of
justification
frequently
mentioned
in
the
Scripture
,
whereof
a
sinner
is
the
subject
,
and
of
that
kind
of
pardon
,
that
is
peculiar
to
sinners
so
oft
there
mentioned
,
(
a
pardon
conveyed
by
Law
,
and
purchased
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
not
that
kind
of
pardon
,
which
is
ex
nudâ
voluntate
)
if
,
I
say
,
we
do
speak
of
this
kind
of
justification
and
pardon
,
then
I
do
affirm
it
as
an
undoubted
truth
,
That
justification
and
pardon
of
sin
are
words
equivalent
,
importing
one
and
the
self
same
thing
,
without
any
real
or
substantial
difference
,
for
proof
whereof
,
two
or
three
Texts
of
Scriptures
may
suffice
(
among
several
others
)
to
be
produced
.
Act.
13.38
,
39.
Be
it
known
to
you
,
that
through
this
man
is
preach'd
unto
you
the
forgiveness
of
sins
,
and
by
him
all
that
believe
are
justified
from
all
things
,
from
which
you
could
not
be
justified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
(
i.
e.
)
for
which
the
Law
of
Moses
admitted
no
expiatory
sacrifice
in
order
to
pardon
.
Rom.
3.24
,
25.
Being
justified
freely
by
his
grace
,
through
the
redemption
that
is
in
Jesus
Christ
,
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
,
to
declare
his
righteousness
for
the
remission
of
sins
that
are
past
,
through
the
forbearance
of
God
,
to
declare
I
say
at
this
time
his
righteousness
,
that
he
might
be
just
,
and
the
justifier
of
him
who
is
of
the
faith
of
Jesus
,
(
i.
e.
)
of
the
Christian
faith
.
See
also
Rom.
4.
where
that
which
he
calls
blessedness
,
v.
9.
and
Gods
justifying
the
ungodly
,
v.
5.
he
styleth
Gods
forgiving
their
iniquities
,
and
covering
their
sins
.
Thence
that
of
Grotius
de
satisfactione
,
p.
38.
Justificatio
passim
in
sacris
literis
,
maxime
in
Epistolis
Paulinis
,
absolutionem
significat
,
quae
praesupposito
peccato
consistit
in
peccatorum
remissione
,
ipso
Paulo
semet
clare
explicante
,
praesertim
Rom.
4.
I
might
hereto
add
the
testimony
of
other
Authors
famous
in
their
generation
,
were
it
needful
.
By
the
way
take
notice
,
That
I
have
said
nothing
concerning
his
affirming
,
that
the
introduction
of
the
Law
of
faith
hath
not
abrogated
the
Law
of
perfect
obedience
,
but
this
as
well
as
that
doth
remain
in
force
;
nor
do
I
think
it
necessary
so
to
have
done
:
For
although
some
choose
to
say
,
that
that
Law
of
our
Creation
,
or
of
God
our
Creator
,
is
abrogated
or
repealed
,
(
there
being
no
Law
since
the
new
modelling
of
the
government
of
mankind
,
but
the
Law
of
Redemption
,
or
of
God
our
Redeemer
,
the
moral
part
of
the
original
Law
being
taken
into
it
as
the
matter
thereof
)
and
others
choose
to
assert
only
a
dispensation
or
relaxation
of
that
Law
,
nevertheless
I
do
humbly
conceive
,
that
(
all
things
considered
,
yet
not
so
needful
here
to
be
mentioned
,
that
are
said
on
both
sides
)
there
is
no
real
difference
between
them
as
to
substance
of
truth
,
but
only
in
modes
and
manner
of
speaking
,
and
for
that
cause
I
can
give
liberty
to
any
one
to
speak
the
truth
with
due
caution
,
in
what
words
he
pleaseth
.
Only
I
must
say
,
That
I
dare
not
take
liberty
to
my self
to
say
,
That
the
Law
of
works
doth
now
remain
in
force
as
well
as
the
Law
of
faith
,
without
a
just
explication
,
how
far
it
doth
and
doth
not
remain
now
in
force
.
I
well
remember
,
that
two
late
worthy
Authors
do
very
differently
express
themselves
,
touching
the
immediate
effect
of
the
introduction
of
the
Law
of
faith
.
The
most
learned
Mr.
George
Lawson
chooseth
to
say
,
That
the
original
Law
(
of
works
)
is
by
the
Law
of
faith
or
indempnity
abrogated
and
repealed
;
whereas
Mr.
Joseph
Truman
will
not
allow
that
saying
,
instead
thereof
asserting
it
to
be
only
relaxed
,
or
dispenced
with
,
and
he
gives
reasons
for
what
he
says
.
But
because
his
reasons
are
not
(
I
think
)
so
convincing
,
as
to
be
uncapable
of
a
satisfactory
reply
,
and
forasmuch
as
I
do
apprehend
the
difference
betwixt
them
(
all
things
considered
)
to
be
rather
verbal
,
than
real
,
I
can
therefore
leave
every
man
to
his
own
choice
,
in
wording
the
matter
as
he
pleaseth
.
Only
I
shall
say
,
That
although
I
do
not
impute
any
error
of
judgement
to
Mr.
F.
in
saying
,
[
That
the
introduction
of
the
Law
of
faith
,
hath
not
abrogated
the
Law
of
perfect
obedience
,
but
this
as
well
as
that
remaineth
in
force
]
nevertheless
forasmuch
as
such
sayings
do
need
explication
,
I
wish
for
the
truths
sake
,
that
such
sayings
were
not
roundly
and
simply
uttered
,
or
without
due
caution
and
explication
.
The
premisses
considered
,
it
is
easie
what
judgment
to
make
of
several
passages
in
this
Author
,
which
I
will
now
recite
,
and
briefly
animadvert
upon
.
CHAP.
IX
.
That
those
who
assert
,
That
the
Law
of
works
is
abrogated
,
do
in
substance
of
truth
accord
with
those
,
who
choose
rather
to
express
themselves
,
saying
,
It
is
relaxed
or
dispenced
with
.
God
in
justifying
a
sinner
doth
not
pronounce
him
just
and
righteous
,
that
is
,
no
sinner
.
A
sinner
not
otherwise
made
just
and
righteous
by
his
being
justified
,
than
by
his
being
pardoned
through
Christ
.
That
a
sinner
cannot
possibly
be
justified
from
the
accusation
of
the
Law
,
in
its
charging
him
to
be
a
sinner
.
P.
415.
AND
indeed
the
Socinians
express
themselves
in
this
more
consonantly
to
their
principles
,
than
some
others
do
:
For
having
stated
the
whole
of
justification
in
the
remission
of
sin
,
upon
performance
of
the
conditions
of
the
Gospel
,
in
pursuance
of
this
they
accordingly
plead
for
the
utter
abrogation
of
the
Law
.
Answ.
1.
What
the
Socinians
do
hold
concerning
the
abrogation
,
or
non-abrogation
of
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
I
concern
not
my self
to
know
.
This
only
will
I
say
,
That
by
how
much
the
Socinians
are
more
obliged
to
this
Author
,
for
his
charity
towards
them
in
this
matter
,
by
so
much
are
those
his
Brethren
(
the
some
intended
by
him
)
upon
a
contrary
score
bound
to
con
him
the
less
thanks
.
2.
As
I
said
before
,
so
I
say
again
,
That
those
Brethren
who
do
hold
,
that
the
Law
of
works
is
abrogated
,
and
those
who
say
,
it
is
not
abrogated
or
repealed
,
but
dispenced
with
and
relaxed
,
do
both
of
them
agree
in
this
truth
,
viz.
That
there
is
a
Law
still
in
force
,
that
doth
command
perfect
obedience
,
under
the
penalty
of
damnation
,
(
the
only
difference
between
them
,
for
ought
I
know
,
being
in
this
,
viz.
By
what
Law
it
is
now
required
,
or
by
what
name
that
Law
is
to
be
styled
,
whether
the
Law
of
works
,
or
the
Law
of
grace
,
wherein
say
the
former
it
is
indeed
required
,
under
the
penalty
of
damnation
,
but
not
peremptorily
and
unavoidably
ex
parte
Legis
,
as
it
was
in
the
Law
of
works
,
but
with
a
Proviso
,
as
to
the
execution
thereof
.
)
Now
forasmuch
as
our
Brethren
do
universally
accord
as
aforesaid
,
I
judge
this
Author
to
be
unjust
in
determining
,
that
the
Socinians
do
express
themselves
more
consonantly
to
their
principles
,
than
some
others
do
.
The
Author
arguing
for
justification
,
its
being
a
different
thing
from
pardon
of
sin
,
because
otherwise
we
cannot
in
any
propriety
of
speech
,
be
said
to
be
justified
from
the
accusation
of
the
Law
,
he
saith
in
that
case
as
followeth
.
P.
416.
Pardoned
indeed
we
may
be
,
but
justified
in
a
proper
sence
we
cannot
.
For
to
suppose
God
to
pronounce
a
person
just
that
is
unjust
,
or
to
declare
him
righteous
that
is
unrighteous
,
is
to
make
him
pronounce
a
sentence
that
is
unjust
and
false
,
and
to
act
repugnantly
to
his
own
holy
and
righteous
nature
.
Answ.
As
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
from
the
accusation
of
the
Law
,
whether
it
is
,
or
may
be
properly
or
no
so
called
,
I
shall
speak
my
thoughts
by
and
by
,
in
my
Answer
to
a
Question
that
shall
be
put
expresly
for
that
purpose
.
Mean
while
it
may
be
sufficient
to
say
,
1.
That
if
by
just
and
unjust
this
Author
doth
mean
a
sinner
and
no
sinner
,
(
as
for
ought
I
know
he
doth
,
and
agreeably
to
his
principle
,
touching
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
to
us
,
in
its
essential
nature
,
he
must
mean
)
he
doth
utterly
mistake
the
nature
of
justification
in
thinking
,
That
a
sinner
through
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
is
of
unjust
made
just
,
(
i.
e.
)
of
a
sinner
made
perfectly
righteous
,
and
freed
from
guilt
of
fault
,
the
impossibility
whereof
I
have
already
spoken
of
.
2.
A
sinner
is
no
otherwise
of
unjust
and
unrighteous
made
just
and
righteous
,
by
being
justified
,
than
by
being
pardoned
;
and
what
kind
of
righteousness
that
is
,
wherewith
he
is
by
his
justification
or
pardon
made
just
and
righteous
,
I
will
at
large
declare
in
Answer
to
a
Question
,
which
shall
be
the
subject
of
another
Chapter
.
3.
Forasmuch
as
it
hath
been
already
proved
,
that
a
sinner
cannot
possibly
be
discharged
from
the
Law
,
its
accusation
of
him
as
a
sinner
,
or
its
charging
him
with
the
guilt
of
sin
,
this
Author
must
needs
err
in
thinking
,
that
in
any
manner
of
sence
(
proper
or
improper
)
a
sinner
can
be
said
to
be
justified
from
the
same
.
CHAP.
X.
That
the
difference
betwixt
remission
and
Gospel-justification
is
not
at
all
in
this
,
viz.
That
remission
is
the
result
of
mercy
,
and
the
act
of
one
exercising
favour
,
and
justification
the
off-spring
of
justice
,
as
Mr.
F.
says
.
The
usage
of
words
in
common
speech
,
sometimes
in
signification
contrary
to
that
of
Scripture
,
exemplified
in
the
language
of
our
Brethren
of
Scotland
.
Mr.
Ferguson's
notorious
mistake
in
asserting
,
That
to
justifie
is
no
where
in
the
Scripture-usurpation
equipollent
with
to
forgive
.
THE
difference
betwixt
remission
of
sin
and
Justification
,
he
doth
specifie
in
the
following
words
.
P.
417.
Remission
is
the
result
of
mercy
,
and
the
act
of
one
exercising
favour
;
but
Justification
is
the
off-spring
of
justice
,
and
imports
one
transacting
with
us
in
a
juridical
way
,
without
the
infringment
of
Law
or
equity
.
Answ.
These
words
are
true
,
if
understood
of
Remission
,
ex
nudâ
voluntate
,
and
of
the
Justification
of
a
person
innocent
.
But
if
understood
of
Gospel-Justification
[
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
]
and
of
Gospel-pardon
,
(
which
for
kind
is
both
a
pardon
derived
to
us
by
Law
,
and
purchased
for
us
by
a
satisfactory
price
)
they
are
notoriously
untrue
:
For
as
we
are
freely
justified
,
so
we
are
freely
pardoned
by
divine
grace
,
through
the
Redemption
that
is
in
Christ
Jesus
,
Rom.
3.14
.
Eph.
1.7
.
Gods
Justice
and
gracious
favour
joyntly
concurring
no
less
to
the
one
,
than
to
the
other
.
2.
As
it
is
best
known
to
the
Author
himself
,
what
kind
of
Remission
and
Justification
he
intended
in
those
words
,
so
it
is
too
too
suspicious
by
his
words
immediately
following
,
that
he
did
mean
Gospel-Pardon
and
Gospel-Justification
,
which
words
of
his
I
shall
recite
,
and
leave
it
to
the
Judgment
of
the
impartial
Reader
,
what
his
meaning
was
.
P
:
417.
The
word
Justifie
,
neither
in
its
Etymology
,
nor
application
and
usage
,
according
to
the
institution
of
men
,
and
least
of
all
in
the
Scripture-usurpation
,
is
equipollent
to
pardon
,
nor
coincident
with
to
Forgive
.
Answ.
1.
However
it
may
be
in
some
respects
useful
to
know
the
Etymology
and
usage
of
common
speech
,
nevertheless
this
is
not
so
much
to
be
regarded
in
the
stating
or
determining
of
any
Question
pertaining
to
Divinity
,
the
usage
of
words
in
Scripture
being
as
the
Pole-Star
,
to
direct
the
course
of
our
conceptions
(
as
I
may
so
say
)
in
such
matters
:
And
for
that
cause
I
cannot
but
commend
that
passage
of
this
Author
,
he
saying
,
p.
155.
That
that
which
is
chiefly
to
be
attended
unto
in
the
sencing
of
Scripture
,
is
the
use
of
words
in
sacred
Writers
,
God
being
many
times
pleased
to
restrain
or
enlarge
the
signification
of
words
,
as
in
his
wisdom
he
judgeth
meet
.
And
I
do
the
rather
mind
the
Author
of
this
his
saying
,
because
if
we
regard
the
Etymology
of
the
word
Justifie
,
it
will
(
to
speak
the
least
)
as
much
favour
the
Popish
sencing
of
the
word
,
(
th●se
sencing
it
To
Sanctifie
,
or
to
make
just
,
sensu
physico
,
(
i.
e.
)
by
infusion
of
grace
)
as
the
Protestants
interpretation
thereof
,
who
do
construe
it
sensu
juridico
,
to
make
just
by
apology
,
defence
,
or
plea.
2.
As
for
the
usage
of
words
in
common
speech
,
this
is
sometimes
contrary
to
their
common
usage
in
Scripture
,
as
I
have
already
declared
in
the
use
of
the
word
Justifie
,
this
signifying
in
common
usage
,
to
absolve
or
acquit
a
person
à
reatu
culpae
,
(
i.
e.
)
as
innocent
and
not
guilty
.
And
because
this
Author
(
as
I
guess
by
his
name
)
is
a
Scotchman
,
I
shall
therefore
put
him
in
mind
,
That
whereas
to
be
justified
and
to
be
pardoned
are
all
one
in
the
usage
of
Scripture
,
they
are
contrary
in
the
usage
of
Scotland
,
to
be
justified
there
being
not
be
pardoned
,
but
to
be
hang'd
,
our
Scotch
Brethren
using
to
say
,
That
a
man
is
justified
,
when
he
is
hang'd
or
executed
;
as
I
learn
from
the
worthy
Dr.
Hammond
,
in
his
Notes
upon
some
place
of
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
.
3.
It
is
a
most
notorious
mistake
in
this
Author
to
assert
,
as
here
he
doth
expresly
,
That
to
Justifie
is
least
of
all
(
meaning
thereby
in
obvious
construction
not
at
all
)
in
the
Scripture-usurpation
,
equipollent
to
pardon
,
nor
coincident
with
to
forgive
.
The
not
observing
of
the
contrary
truth
,
which
hath
been
already
proved
by
several
Scriptures
,
I
do
judg
to
be
the
occasion
of
other
errors
in
this
matter
,
whereupon
I
may
sadly
take
up
the
old
saying
,
Hinc
illae
lachrymae
.
The
Authors
next
ensuing
words
to
be
animadverted
upon
,
are
as
followeth
.
CHAP.
XI
.
Mr.
Ferguson's
mistake
in
saying
,
That
we
are
made
Righteous
With
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
as
also
Dr.
Owen's
in
his
Book
styled
(
Communion
with
the
Trinity
)
refuted
,
and
that
in
Rom.
5.18
.
alledged
by
him
,
answer'd
,
wherein
is
declared
,
That
it
is
one
thing
to
be
justified
By
,
and
another
thing
to
be
justified
With
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
.
The
Doctor
's
misinterpretation
of
Phil.
3.9
.
and
Eph.
2.8
.
That
the
asserting
of
the
whole
of
Justification
,
to
consist
in
remission
of
sin
,
hath
no
such
evil
consequences
,
as
Mr.
F.
chargeth
it
with
.
P.
413
,
416
,
419.
SO
that
upon
the
whole
,
If
we
be
not
made
Righteous
with
the
perfect
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
but
that
God
only
for
the
sake
of
Christ
will
dispence
with
the
rigour
of
the
Law
,
and
—
I
dare
affirm
,
that
Justification
as
it
is
opposed
to
the
accusation
of
the
Law
,
its
charging
us
with
guilt
,
and
its
passing
sentence
of
condemnation
against
us
thereupon
,
doth
not
admit
a
proper
sence
in
the
whole
Scripture
,
but
must
every
where
be
construed
Metaphorically
;
and
that
the
import
of
it
is
,
not
that
we
are
properly
and
in
a
Law-sence
justified
,
but
that
such
benefits
accrue
to
us
by
Remission
of
sin
,
as
if
we
were
so
.
According
to
the
sentiments
of
our
Author
,
we
are
only
pardoned
,
but
by
reason
of
some
allusion
betwixt
the
advantages
redounding
to
us
by
forgiveness
,
and
the
priviledges
,
immunities
and
benefits
,
which
ensue
upon
a
proper
Justification
,
we
are
therefore
Metaphorically
said
to
be
justified
.
It
were
to
bid
defiance
to
the
Scripture
in
an
hundred
places
,
to
say
that
we
are
not
at
all
justified
,
and
yet
in
effect
their
principles
imply
no
less
:
For
by
stating
the
whole
of
our
assoilment
,
from
the
accusation
of
the
Law
in
remission
of
sin
,
they
indeed
say
,
that
we
are
not
justified
,
only
we
are
improperly
said
to
be
so
.
—
Answ.
1.
It
is
the
error
of
this
Author
,
as
of
many
others
to
say
,
that
we
are
made
Righteous
With
the
perfect
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
.
And
among
others
,
I
perceive
Dr.
Owen
doth
err
in
this
particular
,
which
because
he
pretends
to
prove
by
certain
Scriptures
in
his
late
Vindication
,
p.
102
,
103.
I
will
for
the
truths
sake
reply
thereunto
.
1.
He
alledgeth
,
Rom.
5.18
.
By
his
obedience
we
are
made
Righteous
,
made
so
truly
(
says
he
)
and
accepted
.
To
which
I
answer
,
1.
That
Scripture
proves
not
the
Doctor
's
purpose
,
nor
is
pertinent
thereunto
;
for
the
Apostle
doth
not
say
as
the
Doctor
would
have
him
,
With
whose
obedience
,
but
By
whose
obedience
we
are
made
Righteous
;
now
we
may
be
truly
said
to
be
made
Righteous
By
it
,
though
we
neither
are
,
nor
can
be
truly
said
to
be
made
Righteous
With
it
:
For
,
2.
These
two
Monosyllables
(
By
and
With
)
are
very
much
different
in
signification
,
the
former
particle
[
By
]
implying
the
nature
,
energy
,
or
interest
of
an
efficient
,
and
as
here
applied
,
morally
efficient
,
or
meritorious
cause
,
the
latter
particle
[
With
]
pregnantly
importing
the
nature
,
or
interest
of
a
formal
cause
.
Now
forasmuch
as
the
Doctor
is
a
man
of
such
reading
and
learning
,
as
that
he
cannot
be
ignorant
of
the
true
state
of
the
Question
,
about
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
(
it
being
not
at
all
touching
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
,
whether
we
are
justified
By
Christs
Righteousness
,
but
about
the
formal
cause
,
whether
we
are
justified
With
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
,
as
some
say
,
or
With
the
Imputation
thereof
,
as
say
some
others
,
(
i.
e.
)
with
the
very
thing
if
self
imputed
to
us
,
or
with
the
imputation
thereof
in
its
formal
or
essential
nature
.
)
I
say
,
Forasmuch
as
this
Doctor
cannot
but
know
these
things
,
it
did
ill
become
his
learning
and
ingenuity
,
to
hood-wink
the
eyes
of
the
vulgar
Reader
,
from
seeing
the
true
state
of
the
Question
,
and
consequently
from
perceiving
,
how
nothing
at
all
to
the
purpose
in
hand
this
Scripture
is
,
that
is
alledged
by
him
.
3.
There
is
not
the
least
whisper
of
the
obedience
of
Christ
as
Imputed
to
us
,
or
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
obedience
to
us
,
in
that
of
Rom.
5.18
.
For
though
the
Apostle
says
,
By
his
obedience
,
yet
he
doth
not
say
,
By
his
obedience
Imputed
to
us
,
or
By
the
Imputation
of
his
obedience
we
are
made
Righteous
.
No
,
as
to
the
words
(
Imputed
,
and
Imputation
)
there
is
Altum
silentium
,
not
a
word
or
syllable
.
2.
The
Doctor
adjoyns
thereunto
,
Phil.
3.9
.
saying
,
That
this
is
that
,
which
the
Apostle
desires
to
be
found
in
,
in
opposition
to
his
own
righteousness
.
To
which
I
answer
,
That
the
righteousness
wherein
St.
Paul
did
there
desire
to
be
found
,
was
not
the
obedience
or
righteousness
of
Christ
,
in
opposition
to
his
own
evangelical
obedience
,
(
as
the
Doctor
here
says
,
and
too
too
many
with
him
)
but
his
own
evangelical
obedience
,
or
the
sincere
practice
of
Christian
Religion
,
together
with
the
blessed
consequents
and
benefits
thereof
,
or
promised
through
Christ
thereunto
,
in
opposition
to
a
Judaical
righteousness
(
styled
his
own
,
he
being
a
perfect
Jew
by
descent
,
an
Hebrew
of
the
Hebrews
)
with
all
its
carnal
priviledges
,
of
which
that
Nation
did
so
much
boast
,
which
notwithstanding
being
put
in
competition
with
those
of
Christianity
,
were
in
his
esteem
no
better
than
dung
,
than
that
we
call
Garbage
,
or
Dogs-meat
,
as
is
the
importance
of
the
word
there
used
by
him
,
whereby
to
express
his
contempt
in
the
highest
degree
.
That
this
is
the
true
meaning
of
the
Apostle
,
I
may
have
occasion
farther
to
demonstrate
.
In
the
mean
while
I
shall
take
into
consideration
,
what
the
Doctor
affirms
concerning
our
own
obedience
or
righteousness
,
and
Christs
,
he
saying
in
these
words
,
This
distinction
the
Apostle
doth
evidently
deliver
and
confirm
,
so
as
nothing
can
be
more
clearly
revealed
,
Ephes.
2.
8
,
9
,
10.
To
this
be
it
answered
;
Of
a
truth
I
perceive
,
how
like
to
the
black
or
yellow
Jaundise
that
distemper
of
the
intellect
is
,
which
we
call
Prejudice
or
Prepossession
,
in
that
it
makes
us
as
confident
as
confidence
it self
,
that
we
do
see
,
and
see
evidently
,
and
as
clearly
as
can
be
,
such
entities
,
and
adjuncts
of
entities
,
as
have
no
visible
existence
to
the
eye
or
understanding
of
any
impartial
man
:
For
1.
there
is
ne●
vola
,
nec
vestigium
,
no
sign
or
footstep
of
the
distinction
betwixt
Christs
obedience
and
ours
,
in
that
Scripture
,
for
ought
appears
to
me
.
2.
All
I
see
in
these
words
is
,
A
distinction
betwixt
the
Grace
of
God
,
together
with
the
obedience
or
works
of
faith
,
or
faith
wrought
in
us
by
free
grace
,
and
certain
other
works
,
in
opposition
unto
,
and
contradistinction
from
the
said
Grace
and
Faith
,
(
i.
e.
)
works
wrought
by
their
own
natural
strength
,
without
the
infusion
of
special
graces
,
antecedent
to
the
Ephesians
their
embracing
the
faith
of
Christ
,
and
consequently
such
works
,
as
do
make
for
boasting
.
2.
Hereupon
I
cannot
but
wonder
,
in
what
term
or
terms
of
the
said
Scripture
,
the
most
sharp-sighted
or
Eagle-ey'd
Divine
,
can
perceive
the
obedience
of
Christ
to
be
so
evidently
there
delivered
,
as
that
nothing
can
be
more
clearly
revealed
.
Surely
the
Doctor
will
not
say
,
That
by
Grace
or
by
Faith
visibly
there
mentioned
,
is
meant
the
obedience
of
Christ
;
for
Grace
and
Faith
and
Christs
obedience
,
are
without
all
controversie
several
things
,
whether
physically
,
metaphysically
,
or
theologically
considered
;
so
that
one
member
of
the
Doctor
's
distinction
is
evidently
wanting
in
that
Scripture
;
although
I
readily
grant
,
that
forasmuch
as
every
act
doth
presuppose
an
object
,
faith
must
be
understood
there
not
as
excluding
,
but
as
including
the
person
and
obedience
of
Christ
,
I
will
not
say
(
though
some
peradventure
will
)
as
its
adequate
,
but
as
its
partial
,
however
prime
,
object
.
3.
Were
the
obedience
of
Christ
there
expresly
mentioned
,
nevertheless
it
is
to
be
denied
,
That
this
obedience
of
Christ
is
there
opposed
to
our
obedience
,
(
i.
e.
)
to
our
evangelical
obedience
,
or
to
the
faithful
works
thereof
(
as
the
Docto●
would
have
it
)
but
to
another
kind
of
works
,
which
do
make
for
boasting
,
as
was
afore-said
.
And
this
I
may
perhaps
endeavour
to
make
apparent
in
another
Treatise
,
and
there
manifest
,
how
the
Doctor
doth
mistake
the
true
sence
of
the
word
(
saved
)
in
that
Scripture
,
which
although
he
interprets
for
justified
,
(
and
so
indeed
in
some
Scriptures
it
is
to
be
interpreted
,
and
it
is
an
important
truth
,
that
Gospel-Justification
is
the
self-same
thing
with
salvation
from
the
guilt
of
sin
)
nevertheless
by
[
saved
]
in
that
place
is
meant
sanctified
,
quickned
,
regenerated
,
saved
,
from
the
power
of
sin
.
This
right
interpretation
of
the
word
[
saved
]
doth
utterly
make
void
what
the
Doctor
says
in
the
following
lines
,
whereby
to
confirm
the
distinction
betwixt
Christs
obedience
and
our
evangelical
obedience
,
to
be
there
as
evidently
delivered
,
so
as
that
nothing
can
be
more
clearly
revealed
.
I
shall
now
return
to
the
fore-cited
words
of
Mr.
Ferguson
,
to
which
I
answer
,
1.
I
do
deny
,
That
to
assert
that
the
precise
nature
of
Gospel-Justification
doth
consist
in
Remission
of
sin
,
doth
bid
defiance
to
the
Scripture
in
an
hundred
places
,
or
that
that
Principle
doth
imply
,
That
we
are
not
at
all
justified
.
And
if
I
should
say
,
in
compliance
with
the
language
here
of
this
Author
,
I
do
defie
Mr.
Ferguson
,
to
prove
what
he
hath
charged
,
as
the
effect
of
the
said
Principle
,
I
think
,
I
should
be
blameless
:
But
I
shall
choose
to
forbear
that
word
,
it
being
my
desire
and
design
to
reply
with
words
of
alike
meekness
as
wisdom
,
whatever
provocation
there
be
to
the
contrary
.
2.
I
deny
,
That
to
state
the
whole
of
our
assoilment
,
from
the
accusation
of
the
Law
in
Remission
,
is
indeed
to
say
,
That
we
are
not
justified
.
3.
I
deny
,
That
to
say
,
That
a
sinner
is
in
an
improper
sence
said
to
be
justified
,
is
indeed
to
say
,
That
we
are
not
justified
.
Deus
bone
!
To
say
,
That
God
is
said
in
an
improper
proper
sence
to
render
to
a
man
his
work
,
(
work
being
put
for
wages
,
or
the
reward
of
his
work
)
is
this
indeed
to
say
,
That
God
will
not
render
to
a
man
his
work
,
or
that
his
work
shall
not
be
rewarded
of
God
?
4.
Because
it
is
such
an
abhorring
to
this
Author
to
conceive
,
or
speak
of
a
sinner
his
being
in
an
improper
sence
said
to
be
justified
,
I
will
therefore
(
the
matter
being
now
ripe
for
such
a
purpose
)
put
it
to
the
Question
,
as
followeth
in
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XII
.
Q.
Is
a
sinner
said
in
a
proper
or
improper
sence
to
be
justified
?
In
answer
hereunto
it
is
declared
,
1.
That
the
Question
in
it self
is
immaterial
.
2.
Nevertheless
for
the
satisfaction
of
Mr.
F.
the
Question
is
answered
,
and
therein
it
's
proved
,
That
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
is
of
,
or
in
its
kind
a
proper
Justification
,
and
in
what
respects
so
said
to
be
,
specified
.
An
Objection
answered
.
Q.
IS
a
sinner
said
in
a
proper
or
an
improper
sence
to
be
justified
?
Answ.
1.
I
think
this
Question
to
be
too
too
near
of
affinity
with
those
,
which
St.
Paul
in
one
place
calls
unprofitable
and
vain
,
Tit.
3.9
.
and
the
native
product
whereof
(
as
he
says
in
another
,
1
Tim.
6.4
.
)
are
envy
,
strife
,
railings
,
evil
surmisings
;
and
for
that
cause
I
am
convinc'd
,
that
it
ought
not
much
to
be
disputed
;
it
being
no
whit
material
,
whether
a
sinner
be
said
in
a
proper
or
improper
sence
to
be
justified
;
for
(
to
use
the
Apostles
expression
,
Phil.
1.18
.
)
notwithstanding
every
way
,
whether
properly
or
improperly
a
sinner
is
justified
truly
;
I
therein
do
rejoyce
,
yea
,
and
will
rejoyce
,
yea
and
cannot
otherwise
than
rejoyce
,
and
rejoyce
to
eternity
.
What
need
there
in
effect
to
be
more
said
to
the
comfort
of
a
sinner
,
than
what
our
Saviour
said
to
the
Leper
,
Son
,
be
of
good
chear
,
thy
sins
are
forgiven
thee
,
Mat.
9.2
.
That
Leper
was
as
happy
in
his
having
his
sins
forgiven
him
,
as
was
the
penitent
Publican
in
departing
from
the
Temple
to
his
house
justified
,
Luk.
18.14
.
2.
Nevertheless
forasmuch
as
an
improper
kind
of
Justification
doth
,
I
perceive
,
so
stick
in
the
stomack
of
this
Brother
,
as
that
he
cannot
digest
it
,
I
shall
for
this
once
endeavour
to
prove
,
That
a
pardoned
sinner
may
in
a
proper
sence
be
said
to
be
justified
,
or
That
a
sinner
justified
with
a
pardon
,
is
properly
said
to
be
justified
.
I
am
not
ignorant
,
that
some
very
learned
men
do
distinguish
of
Justification
in
a
Law-sence
,
into
that
which
is
properly
and
that
which
is
improperly
so
denominated
,
assigning
the
Justification
of
an
innocent
person
to
the
former
sence
of
the
word
,
and
of
a
sinner
to
the
latter
.
But
for
my
own
part
I
am
of
opinion
,
That
both
the
innocent
and
the
sinner
may
be
truly
said
to
be
justified
,
sensu
forensi
proprie
dicto
,
in
a
proper
Law-sence
:
For
what
though
the
Justification
of
these
two
sort
of
subjects
,
be
of
a
different
kind
,
yet
both
of
them
for
their
kind
may
be
proper
,
they
being
considered
respectively
to
their
different
habitudes
,
which
I
will
endeavour
to
demonstrate
,
as
followeth
.
The
Charge
from
which
an
innocent
person
is
justified
,
is
guilt
of
fault
,
the
Charge
from
which
a
sinner
is
justified
,
is
guilt
of
,
or
obligation
to
punishment
.
Now
why
may
not
he
,
that
is
justified
from
this
latter
charge
,
be
as
properly
in
his
kind
said
to
be
justified
,
as
the
former
in
his
kind
?
I
know
nothing
should
hinder
,
except
it
be
said
and
prov'd
,
that
the
Law
hinders
;
but
that
the
Law
doth
not
hinder
,
I
prove
,
Because
as
the
case
stands
with
sinners
to
God-wards
,
there
is
a
standing-Law
for
the
Justification
of
the
one
,
as
well
as
of
the
other
;
there
being
a
Gospel-Law
for
the
Justification
of
sinners
,
which
like
the
Law
of
the
Medes
and
Persians
is
not
to
alter
,
but
to
stand
even
to
the
worlds
end
.
And
forasmuch
as
a
sinners
Justification
is
by
the
Law
of
faith
or
the
Gospel
,
and
in
that
respect
is
a
legal
kind
of
Justification
,
I
do
therefore
judge
,
That
this
Author
is
clearly
mistaken
in
his
affirming
,
that
a
sinner
pardoned
,
cannot
be
properly
and
in
a
Law-sence
said
to
be
justified
;
for
is
not
he
,
who
is
justified
by
,
from
,
and
through
Law
(
the
standing-Law
of
faith
)
justified
in
a
Law-sence
?
2.
Forasmuch
as
there
is
a
two-fold
Justice
,
(
1.
Of
obedience
,
when
all
is
done
and
left
undone
,
which
the
Law
did
either
command
or
forbid
,
and
consequently
no
desert
of
penalty
incur'd
.
2.
Of
satisfaction
,
when
,
the
breach
of
the
Law
supposed
,
there
is
due
satisfaction
made
to
the
Law
,
in
consideration
of
that
breach
)
why
may
not
he
,
who
can
plead
the
Justice
of
satisfaction
,
be
properly
said
to
be
justified
,
as
he
in
his
kind
,
who
hath
performed
the
Justice
of
obedience
,
the
former
being
Rectus
in
Curiâ
,
as
well
as
the
latter
?
Where
(
by
the
way
)
if
I
have
offended
this
Brother
,
by
minding
him
of
that
[
to
us
Englishmen
most
uncouth
]
saying
of
his
Countreymen
,
That
a
man
when
he
is
hang'd
,
is
justified
,
or
justified
by
being
hang'd
,
I
will
make
him
satisfaction
,
by
justifying
the
saying
to
be
rational
,
and
this
upon
the
account
of
the
foresaid
distinction
of
a
two-fold
Justice
(
of
obedience
and
of
satisfaction
)
upon
which
latter
account
,
the
Malefactor
executed
may
be
reputed
just
,
(
i.
e.
)
with
that
kind
of
Justice
called
the
Justice
of
satisfaction
,
forasmuch
as
he
,
who
hath
suffered
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
hath
thereby
satisfied
the
Law
.
To
this
sence
is
agreeable
the
use
of
the
word
(
Justifie
)
in
the
form
of
Commission
issued
from
our
King
to
his
Judges
,
(
as
I
have
somewhere
read
)
Praecipimus
tibi
,
quod
tu
justicies
,
We
command
thee
,
that
thou
shalt
justifie
(
i.
e.
)
see
,
that
the
Law
be
every
way
satisfied
.
But
because
I
foresee
an
Objection
,
I
will
therefore
answer
it
.
Obj.
The
alone
satisfaction
,
which
a
sinner
can
plead
for
his
pardon
,
is
not
by
his
own
either
doings
or
sufferings
,
but
only
by
Christs
,
and
therefore
a
pardoned
sinner
is
not
properly
justified
,
or
pardon
of
sin
cannot
in
a
proper
sence
be
styled
Justification
?
Answ.
If
for
this
reason
a
sinners
pardon
cannot
in
a
proper
sence
be
styled
Justification
,
then
his
pardon
cannot
in
a
proper
sence
be
called
pardon
:
For
according
to
the
pretence
or
principle
of
this
Author
,
pardon
of
sin
in
a
proper
sence
is
ex
nudâ
voluntate
,
upon
meer
good
will
and
pleasure
,
and
without
satisfaction
.
And
if
so
,
yet
I
hope
,
that
he
will
not
deny
Gospel-pardon
of
sin
,
because
it
is
not
pardon
in
a
proper
sence
.
Nor
can
I
conceive
any
just
reason
,
why
any
man
should
be
in
less
love
and
liking
with
Gospel-Justification
,
because
it
is
not
properly
such
,
than
with
Gospel-pardon
upon
the
same
account
.
Whereupon
I
shall
say
,
Let
this
Author
reject
,
and
be
displeased
with
both
,
or
else
with
neither
of
them
,
upon
the
poor
pretence
of
the
impropriety
of
the
word
or
words
;
which
if
he
be
with
either
of
them
upon
any
such
score
,
all
that
I
will
say
is
,
that
I
cannot
help
it
.
Only
forasmuch
as
various
ways
of
expressing
the
same
thing
,
do
much
conduce
to
the
better
instruction
,
and
more
effectual
conviction
of
an
adversary
,
I
will
express
my
mind
in
another
manner
of
distinguishing
,
as
followeth
.
As
there
are
two
integral
parts
of
Gods
Law
,
viz.
The
Precept
and
the
Sanction
,
(
the
one
constituting
Debitum
Officii
,
the
other
Debitum
Supplicii
)
so
there
is
Sensu
forensi
,
a
two-fold
Justification
;
-
1.
With
respect
to
the
precept
of
the
Law
,
when
a
person
accused
of
fault
can
say
to
his
Accusers
,
as
our
Saviour
did
,
Which
of
you
convinceth
me
of
sin
?
-
2.
With
respect
to
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
when
a
person
guilty
can
plead
satisfaction
made
for
his
trespass
or
trespasses
against
it
,
and
that
the
Law
therefore
is
disabled
from
condemning
him
.
Now
because
I
do
conceive
,
(
as
will
be
said
more
fitly
in
another
Chapter
)
that
satisfaction
is
a
proper
righteousness
of
its
kind
,
respectively
to
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
even
as
innocency
is
a
proper
righteousness
of
its
kind
,
with
respect
to
the
precepts
thereof
,
I
do
not
therefore
perceive
,
but
that
a
sinner
may
as
well
and
properly
be
said
to
be
justified
,
with
respect
to
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
upon
satisfaction
made
,
as
an
innocent
person
,
with
respect
to
the
precept
of
the
Law
,
upon
perfect
obedience
thereunto
.
But
I
do
so
little
regard
,
what
this
or
any
other
Authors
do
fancy
,
concerning
the
impropriety
of
our
being
justified
By
,
or
(
to
speak
more
properly
)
With
a
pardon
,
that
I
can
give
them
leave
to
think
and
speak
therein
as
they
please
,
being
fully
assured
,
That
I
am
as
properly
said
to
be
justified
,
as
pardoned
;
yea
though
neither
pardoned
nor
justified
properly
,
yet
forasmuch
as
I
am
assured
,
that
being
pardoned
and
justified
(
properly
or
improperly
)
I
am
certainly
pardoned
and
certainly
justified
,
and
shall
be
glorified
,
I
am
well
contented
with
it
,
and
am
abundantly
thankful
to
God
and
Christ
Jesus
for
it
.
Thus
have
I
dared
to
oppose
,
what
this
Author
(
as
he
says
)
hath
dared
to
affirm
,
viz.
That
if
a
sinners
Justification
be
the
same
thing
with
the
Remission
of
his
sins
,
then
doth
that
his
Justification
not
admit
a
proper
sence
in
the
whole
Scripture
,
and
that
to
say
so
,
is
in
effect
to
say
,
we
are
not
at
all
justified
,
and
so
to
bid
defiance
to
the
Scripture
in
a
hundred
places
.
And
I
do
leave
it
to
the
judgement
of
every
learned
and
impartial
Reader
,
what
sentence
to
pronounce
both
upon
the
one
and
the
other
,
this
his
Affirmation
,
and
my
Opposition
.
I
shall
in
the
next
place
address
my self
to
the
answering
of
another
Question
,
as
followeth
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
Q.
Why
,
or
for
what
reasons
,
may
pardon
of
sin
be
called
Justification
,
and
Vice
versâ
?
Or
,
What
reasons
are
there
for
their
promiscuous
use
in
the
N.
T
?
Answ.
In
answer
whereunto
,
1.
It
is
acknowledged
,
That
the
Question
is
in
it self
not
so
considerable
.
2.
Nevertheless
for
the
satisfaction
of
many
dissenting
Brethren
,
in
answer
thereunto
,
several
reasons
of
the
thing
are
assigned
and
specified
.
Q.
FOR
what
reason
or
reasons
,
can
pardon
of
sin
be
styled
Justification
,
and
Justification
pardon
?
Answ.
I
say
concerning
this
Question
,
as
of
the
former
,
That
it
is
not
very
material
:
For
if
I
know
,
that
Gods
pardoning
mercy
,
as
in
Scripture
it
goes
under
divers
other
names
,
(
Redemption
,
Salvation
,
Reconciliation
,
Righteousness
—
)
goes
also
under
the
name
Justification
,
I
may
very
well
rest
assured
,
that
there
is
a
reason
for
it
,
because
the
only
wise
God
will
not
give
a
name
to
any
thing
,
for
which
there
is
no
reason
.
But
because
this
Author
either
is
ignorant
of
the
reasons
usually
rendred
for
it
,
or
else
doth
dissemble
his
knowledge
thereof
,
I
will
therefore
for
his
sake
,
make
answer
to
the
said
Question
,
and
I
desire
,
that
my
Answers
may
be
lookt
upon
as
a
Superpondium
,
or
measure
running
over
,
given
into
his
bosom
.
My
Answers
are
,
-
1.
One
Reason
,
why
Gods
saving
mercy
to
sinners
is
called
by
different
names
,
is
taken
from
the
divers
mischievous
effects
,
or
consequences
of
sin
.
Because
sin
doth
make
the
sinner
obnoxious
unto
,
or
binds
him
over
to
punishment
,
therefore
is
Gods
saving
mercy
in
the
blood
of
Christ
towards
sinners
,
styled
Remission
,
this
being
Gods
loosing
the
bond
,
or
discharging
of
the
sinner
from
the
said
obligation
.
-
2.
If
Mr.
Bradshaw's
opinion
be
right
,
viz.
That
if
an
offendor
be
pardoned
without
any
amends
and
satisfaction
,
he
is
not
at
all
justified
,
and
consequently
where
a
fault
is
of
that
nature
,
as
that
no
sufficient
satisfaction
or
amends
can
be
made
,
there
can
be
no
justification
of
a
person
so
offending
,
then
this
reason
will
well
warrant
Remission
of
sin
to
be
styled
Justification
,
viz.
Because
our
pardon
is
a
peculiar
kind
of
pardon
,
(
i.
e.
)
not
Pura
puta
&
omni
modo
gratuita
,
meerly
and
in
all
respects
free
,
but
some
way
merited
,
viz.
By
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
our
Mediator
,
whereupon
God
is
just
,
and
doth
exercise
justice
in
the
pardoning
of
sinners
,
and
consequently
may
be
said
to
justifie
those
,
whom
he
doth
upon
such
consideration
remit
.
-
3.
But
because
this
ground
perhaps
is
not
so
justifiable
and
satisfactory
,
forasmuch
as
that
Delinquent
,
that
can
Quocunque
modo
,
seu
ratione
qualicunque
produce
a
pardon
,
is
justified
from
the
accusation
of
being
obliged
to
suffer
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
and
by
consequence
respectively
thereunto
is
just
,
Rectus
in
Curiâ
.
If
any
,
I
say
,
be
dissatisfied
in
that
reason
of
Mr.
Bradshaw's
,
I
shall
offer
to
him
instead
thereof
this
reason
,
viz.
Remission
of
sin
is
styled
Justification
,
because
it
will
stand
a
sinner
in
as
much
stead
before
the
Tribunal
of
God
(
the
Judge
of
quick
and
dead
)
as
a
Justification
upon
perfect
justice
would
do
a
person
,
who
being
perfectly
innocent
is
impleaded
.
This
reason
,
I
have
cause
to
presume
,
will
not
much
be
regarded
by
this
Author
,
but
distasted
rather
,
because
he
thinks
,
that
for
this
reason
a
sinners
Justification
must
needs
be
wholly
improper
,
and
altogether
Metaphorical
,
which
he
can
by
no
means
endure
.
But
as
I
have
endeavoured
to
cure
him
of
that
his
mis-conception
,
so
I
doubt
not
,
but
that
this
reason
will
be
of
a
perfect
good
relish
,
to
others
of
another
and
more
sound
palate
.
-
4.
Another
Reason
(
as
some
think
)
is
,
because
a
sinner
is
pardoned
by
course
of
Law
,
his
pardon
is
derived
,
or
accrews
to
him
,
not
as
that
of
a
Malefactor
sometimes
doth
,
by
the
meer
will
and
prerogative
of
his
Soveraign
Prince
,
but
by
vertue
of
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
,
enacted
as
an
instrument
for
the
conveyance
thereof
.
As
for
the
Reasons
of
Remission
of
sin
,
its
being
styled
Justification
,
and
Justification
its
being
styled
Remission
of
sin
,
I
think
they
may
be
fitly
to
the
purpose
in
hand
thus
expressed
.
1.
Gospel-Justification
is
styled
Remission
of
sin
,
in
respect
of
the
quality
of
the
person
,
who
is
the
Materia
,
circa
quam
,
the
subject
,
about
which
that
saving
grace
or
mercy
is
conversant
,
the
person
or
recipient
subject
thereof
being
not
an
Innocent
,
but
a
person
in
himself
obnoxious
,
viz.
a
sinner
:
For
Gospel-Justification
though
Justa
(
just
)
yet
it
is
not
Justification
Justi
,
but
Injusti
,
(
i.
e.
)
it
is
the
discharge
of
a
person
,
who
in
himself
is
unjust
,
from
that
obligation
to
punishment
,
wherewith
he
is
charged
by
the
Law
.
2.
Remission
of
sin
is
in
the
N.
T.
frequently
styled
Justification
,
in
regard
of
the
manner
of
its
conveyance
,
which
is
not
as
many
others
,
if
not
most
pardons
from
man
are
,
upon
meer
good
will
and
pleasure
,
but
from
Law
and
Covenant
,
2.
The
second
Law
or
Covenant
is
that
,
wherein
we
sinners
are
the
Restipulators
,
and
which
in
Scripture
is
styled
The
Promise
,
The
Law
of
Faith
,
The
Gospel
,
The
new
Covenant
—
wherein
God
through
Christ
doth
promise
remission
of
sin
upon
certain
conditions
,
upon
performance
whereof
,
he
doth
accordingly
bestow
it
upon
us
.
3.
Remission
of
sin
may
be
styled
Justification
,
in
respect
of
the
profit
or
benefit
thereof
,
and
this
both
special
and
general
.
-
1.
Special
,
In
that
it
doth
prevent
,
remove
,
or
take
away
the
obligation
to
condemnation
,
which
is
due
to
sinners
,
which
condemnation
is
the
direct
opposite
to
Justification
,
as
is
apparent
by
many
Scriptures
.
-
2.
In
general
,
In
that
it
is
equivalent
unto
,
or
will
prove
to
be
of
like
universal
benefit
,
priviledge
,
or
emolument
to
a
sinner
,
with
that
kind
of
Justification
,
which
is
the
justification
of
a
person
,
who
in
himself
is
altogether
just
,
and
never
was
obnoxious
.
Thus
have
I
replyed
to
the
whole
of
what
Mr.
Ferguson
hath
said
in
his
second
Chapter
,
concerning
a
sinners
Justification
,
and
the
imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
him
.
But
before
I
proceed
to
reply
to
any
other
passage
in
his
Book
,
which
concerns
the
matter
in
hand
,
I
will
answer
a
Question
,
that
will
come
in
fitly
to
be
proposed
,
by
occasion
of
what
hath
been
said
upon
this
last
,
namely
,
That
the
justification
of
a
sinner
is
By
a
Law
.
CHAP.
XIV
.
Q.
How
is
the
justification
of
a
sinner
to
be
denominated
,
whether
Evangelical
or
Legal
?
Answ.
Rather
Evangelical
,
and
the
reason
assigned
.
The
Arguments
of
those
on
the
contrary
side
both
answered
and
retorted
,
who
acknowledge
,
that
the
justification
of
a
sinner
is
Evangelical
ex
parte
principii
,
but
would
not
have
it
absolutely
to
be
so
styled
,
but
rather
a
Legal
justification
.
The
reason
why
this
Question
is
debated
and
answered
.
Q.
HOW
is
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
to
be
denominated
,
whether
Evangelical
,
or
rather
Legal
?
Answ.
I
propose
this
Question
,
not
for
the
satisfaction
of
Mr.
Ferguson
,
but
for
the
sake
of
some
other
Brethren
,
who
may
need
a
due
information
therein
:
And
my
answer
is
,
That
forasmuch
as
that
Law
,
by
which
a
sinner
is
justified
,
is
The
Law
of
Faith
,
of
Grace
,
or
of
the
Gospel
,
it
is
therefore
to
be
denominated
not
a
Legal
,
but
an
Evangelical
Justification
.
Herein
[
by
not
Legal
]
I
must
not
in
reason
be
understood
to
mean
Not
in
any
sence
so
,
or
by
no
Law
at
all
,
but
not
by
the
Law
of
works
,
or
as
the
word
Legal
is
opposed
to
,
or
contradistinguished
from
the
word
Evangelical
.
And
there
cannot
be
(
as
I
think
)
a
more
convincing
Argument
to
prove
,
That
Evangelical
in
the
case
,
or
question
in
hand
,
is
the
fittest
name
,
than
by
alledging
that
,
(
i.
e.
)
by
an
appeal
from
which
to
the
Law
of
grace
,
a
sinner
is
and
is
to
be
justified
.
which
will
be
granted
by
all
,
viz.
That
the
Law
,
by
which
a
sinner
is
justified
,
is
an
Evangelical
Law
,
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
:
For
forasmuch
as
the
Law
,
by
which
a
man
was
and
is
to
be
justified
,
is
two-fold
,
-
1.
The
Law
of
God
Creator
,
commonly
styled
Lex
originalis
,
or
Law
of
works
;
-
2.
The
Law
of
God
Redeemer
,
called
Lex
remedians
,
or
the
Law
of
grace
or
faith
;
and
forasmuch
as
the
former
Law
was
enacted
,
as
the
Rule
of
justifying
an
innocent
person
,
and
the
latter
of
a
sinner
,
how
can
we
better
express
the
difference
betwixt
the
justification
of
an
innocent
and
a
sinner
,
than
by
styling
the
former
a
Legal
,
and
the
latter
an
Evangelical
Justification
?
The
peculiar
species
of
the
Law
,
by
which
a
person
is
justified
,
is
that
which
doth
specificate
the
justification
it self
,
and
is
therefore
most
apt
and
fit
to
give
it
its
peculiar
denomination
.
I
desire
,
That
the
answer
here
given
may
the
rather
be
duely
weighed
and
observ'd
,
because
it
may
serve
to
rectifie
the
mistake
of
a
certain
learned
Author
,
(
perhaps
also
of
some
other
Brethren
)
who
albeit
he
doth
allow
a
sinners
justification
to
be
Evangelical
,
ex
parte
principii
,
(
Evangelical
Grace
in
Christ
,
being
the
fountain
of
it
)
and
so
to
be
called
,
with
a
respect
thereunto
,
nevertheless
he
will
not
allow
it
roundly
and
absolutely
to
be
denominated
Evangelical
,
but
rather
Legal
,
for
these
two
reasons
:
Because
it
is
Legal
,
ex
parte
termini
&
medii
.
1.
Ex
parte
termini
,
because
it
is
minated
in
the
satisfaction
,
which
is
to
be
made
or
performed
to
the
Law
:
He
hath
freed
me
from
the
Law
of
sin
and
death
.
—
To
this
I
answer
,
What
he
means
here
by
the
satisfaction
to
be
made
to
the
Law
,
(
upon
which
the
justification
of
a
sinner
is
by
him
said
to
be
terminated
)
I
do
not
know
,
nor
will
I
take
upon
me
so
much
as
to
guess
,
lest
I
should
mistake
his
meaning
;
only
I
will
say
as
followeth
,
1.
That
by
the
Law
of
the
Spirit
of
life
,
(
Rom.
8.2
.
)
is
meant
the
Evangelical
Law
,
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
or
Law
of
Faith
.
2.
That
Justification
is
one
part
at
least
of
that
saving
benefit
,
which
the
Apostle
comprizeth
under
the
expression
of
his
being
by
that
Law
,
made
free
from
the
Law
of
sin
and
death
,
it
being
as
well
the
guilt
of
sin
,
as
the
power
of
sin
,
which
by
that
Law
he
was
made
free
from
.
3.
Consequently
I
say
,
That
that
Scripture
proves
not
the
Author's
purpose
,
but
the
direct
contrary
,
viz.
That
because
it
is
by
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
,
that
we
are
made
free
,
or
justified
from
the
guilt
of
our
sins
,
therefore
our
Justification
is
to
be
called
Evangelical
,
and
not
Legal
.
2.
Respeciu
medii
,
in
respec̄i
of
the
means
(
says
he
)
which
is
the
Legal
Righteousness
of
Chrifr
,
by
,
or
through
faith
imputed
to
us
.
To
this
I
answer
,
1.
As
in
some
respect
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
may
be
styled
Justitia
Legalis
,
(
the
Law
of
his
Mediatorship
requiring
it
,
and
it
being
the
rule
thereof
)
so
in
another
respect
it
may
be
fitly
said
to
be
Justitia
pro-Legalis
,
(
it
being
to
us
instead
,
or
standing
us
instead
of
a
perfect
legal
Righteousness
)
so
also
in
another
respect
it
may
very
fitly
be
styled
(
and
so
I
find
it
styled
by
some
Authors
)
our
evangelical
righteousness
;
and
an
evangelical
righteousness
it
may
,
I
say
,
be
very
fitly
styled
,
-
1.
Because
the
Gospel
is
it
,
and
it
alone
(
not
the
light
of
nature
)
by
which
it
is
revealed
and
made
known
to
the
world
.
-
2.
Because
it
was
of
Gods
grace
to
appoint
it
.
-
3.
To
accept
it
also
,
and
this
for
gracious
or
Gospel-ends
,
viz.
the
pardon
or
justification
of
sinners
.
And
for
this
reason
I
may
well
conclude
,
That
the
justification
of
sinners
is
to
be
denominated
not
a
legal
(
as
the
Author
contends
for
)
but
an
evangelical
Justification
.
2.
As
for
his
saying
,
That
this
legal
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
us
by
,
or
through
faith
;
I
answer
,
1.
It
is
not
at
all
imputed
to
us
in
the
sence
of
this
Author
,
(
i.
e.
)
properly
,
and
in
its
essential
nature
,
but
only
in
the
saving
effects
thereof
,
as
I
have
already
(
I
hope
)
convincingly
demonstrated
.
2.
Nevertheless
I
grant
,
that
[
in
subordination
to
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
]
faith
is
a
Medium
,
or
means
of
a
sinners
justification
,
though
it
is
another
kind
of
Medium
,
than
is
Christs
Righteousness
,
to
which
it
is
subordinate
in
the
justifying
of
a
sinner
;
Christs
Righteousness
being
such
a
Medium
,
as
hath
the
nature
or
efficiency
of
a
meritorious
cause
,
but
our
faith
having
only
the
nature
of
a
condition
simply
so
called
.
I
have
thought
meet
to
intimate
this
for
these
two
reasons
,
1.
To
prevent
the
mis-understanding
of
what
I
said
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
,
wherein
was
said
,
that
Gospel-pardon
was
ex
Christi
satisfactione
,
and
ex
peccatoris
fide
,
which
must
not
be
so
understood
,
as
if
the
word
ex
did
imply
the
self
same
importance
in
both
places
:
For
the
truth
is
,
that
as
the
particle
ex
is
of
different
importance
(
it
importing
sometimes
one
kind
of
cause
,
and
sometimes
another
,
and
sometimes
no
cause
at
all
,
but
an
antecedent
condition
,
and
the
same
I
may
say
of
the
particles
in
English
,
Greek
and
Hebrew
corresponding
to
the
Latine
particle
ex
)
so
in
the
former
application
of
the
particle
,
it
doth
imply
efficiency
,
or
an
efficient
meritorious
cause
,
but
in
the
latter
only
an
antecedent
,
or
a
condition
,
sine
quâ
non
.
2.
To
prevent
the
mis-construction
of
the
word
[
faith
]
in
many
places
of
Scripture
,
where
,
by
faith
many
do
understand
only
its
object
(
Christ
,
or
his
Righteousness
)
whereas
,
as
faith
and
Christs
Righteousness
are
two
things
of
distinct
consideration
,
so
by
faith
in
such
sayings
as
these
(
We
are
justified
By
faith
,
and
saved
By
faith
—
)
we
are
to
understand
not
only
the
object
thereof
as
implyed
(
Christ
,
or
his
Righteousness
)
but
also
the
act
believing
,
or
the
thing
it self
faith
.
Lastly
,
I
answer
,
That
forasmuch
as
God
is
graciously
pleased
in
his
Gospel
,
to
appoint
and
to
declare
his
acceptance
of
faith
,
as
the
condition
of
a
sinners
justification
,
through
,
or
for
the
sake
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
therefore
I
answer
as
before
,
That
a
sinners
justification
is
to
be
denominated
rather
Evangelical
,
than
Legal
.
I
shall
now
return
to
Mr.
Ferguson
,
and
reply
to
certain
other
passages
,
which
I
find
here
and
there
dispersed
in
his
Book
,
as
grounds
for
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
in
the
sence
by
him
contended
for
.
CHAP.
XV.
Several
mistakes
in
Mr.
F.
according
to
the
obvious
construction
of
his
words
,
detected
.
That
Christ
suffered
not
the
Idem
,
but
the
Tantundem
,
manifested
by
three
things
,
distinctly
specified
,
and
two
evil
consequences
of
the
contrary
Doctrine
.
With
a
Caution
in
the
close
.
P.
536.
MAN
having
taken
off
his
dependency
upon
God
,
by
transgressing
the
Law
of
Creation
,
Gods
Rectorship
over
him
,
which
is
regulated
by
his
wisdom
,
holiness
,
veracity
,
and
the
eternal
rectitude
and
righteousness
of
his
nature
,
would
not
allow
,
that
he
should
be
received
into
favour
,
but
in
such
a
way
,
and
by
such
means
,
as
may
secure
the
ends
of
government
,
manifest
the
displicency
that
is
in
God
to
sin
,
evidence
his
truth
and
immutability
,
in
proceeding
according
to
the
penal
Law
,
which
in
pursuance
of
his
own
Attributes
,
and
mans
rational
nature
and
relation
,
he
had
at
first
enacted
.
Answ.
I
assent
to
the
whole
of
what
is
here
recited
,
except
this
,
That
God
did
for
the
ends
specified
,
proceed
according
to
the
penal
Law
,
which
at
first
was
enacted
,
in
which
saying
,
there
is
a
complication
of
mistakes
involved
;
for
1.
That
Law
was
only
dispenced
,
and
not
executed
,
neither
upon
Christ
,
nor
upon
mankind
;
not
upon
Christ
;
for
Christ
was
not
at
all
threatned
in
that
Law
,
neither
did
he
die
the
death
by
vertue
of
that
Law
,
however
by
occasion
of
it
,
as
hath
been
already
said
.
Nor
was
that
Law
executed
upon
all
mankind
,
supposing
,
(
and
taking
it
for
granted
)
that
by
the
death
there
threatned
,
is
meant
eternal
as
well
as
temporal
death
.
2.
A
mistake
of
the
nature
of
that
obligation
,
which
a
divine
commination
doth
induce
,
seems
to
be
implyed
in
the
said
words
of
this
Author
;
for
Comminatio
est
obligatio
Legem
violantis
ad
poenam
ferendam
,
non
Legem
ferentis
ad
inferendam
;
that
commination
did
signifie
what
man
was
bound
to
suffer
,
not
what
God
was
bound
to
do
:
Upon
disobedience
man
was
bound
to
suffer
,
but
God
was
not
thereupon
bound
to
inflict
punishment
;
otherwise
supream
Law-givers
could
have
no
power
to
pardon
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
necessity
,
that
the
punishment
threatned
should
be
executed
,
and
it
is
an
error
to
assert
,
or
imagine
any
such
necessity
:
The
only
inevitable
effect
of
that
threatning
was
,
That
upon
mans
sin
punishment
should
be
his
due
,
and
so
it
was
;
man
being
bound
to
punishment
Ipsofacto
,
upon
his
offence
committed
.
And
herein
is
the
difference
betwixt
a
Commination
and
a
Denunciation
of
punishment
,
this
being
an
act
of
judgment
or
sentence
,
or
else
a
prediction
of
a
decree
to
punish
,
whereupon
the
punishment
denounced
is
always
inflicted
.
3.
There
seems
also
to
be
this
mistake
(
a
mistake
of
very
evil
consequence
)
implyed
in
the
clause
fore-cited
,
viz.
That
Christ
suffered
the
Idem
,
not
the
Tantundem
,
the
same
suffering
,
to
which
that
Commination
did
oblige
,
and
that
a
sinners
liberation
from
the
punishment
,
to
which
he
was
obliged
,
was
by
the
way
of
strict
payment
,
not
satisfaction
,
or
compensation
.
4.
There
seems
also
to
be
this
mistake
implyed
in
the
said
clause
,
viz.
That
the
ends
of
Gods
soveraign
rule
and
government
,
could
not
be
secured
by
a
Compensation
,
or
without
strict
solution
,
or
payment
of
that
very
debt
of
punishment
,
which
was
by
the
sin
of
man
contracted
.
And
if
I
were
sure
,
that
this
Author
would
own
this
opinion
,
(
for
God
forbid
,
that
I
should
causlesly
fasten
any
thing
upon
him
,
or
any
of
my
Brethren
)
viz.
That
the
sufferings
of
Christ
were
Ipsa
debiti
solutio
,
and
not
Pro
debito
satisfactio
,
-
1.
I
will
briefly
set
down
the
substance
of
what
is
commonly
and
truly
(
as
I
believe
)
said
by
the
most
learned
judicious
Divines
,
whose
writings
I
am
acquainted
with
,
in
this
matter
.
-
2.
I
will
suggest
two
or
three
things
,
which
I
conceive
to
be
the
native
consequences
of
Christ
his
suffering
,
the
Idem
of
our
obligation
,
and
not
the
Tantundem
.
For
the
first
be
it
considered
,
1.
That
the
person
who
made
the
payment
,
was
not
the
same
who
was
in
the
obligation
,
but
another
:
For
it
was
not
Christ
,
who
was
in
the
obligation
,
but
the
sinner
,
the
Law
threatning
not
him
in
person
,
or
him
in
our
person
,
but
the
sinner
.
Briefly
,
that
Law
obliged
none
to
die
,
but
the
sinner
,
nor
any
other
to
die
for
or
instead
of
the
sinner
.
2.
The
sufferings
of
Christ
were
not
altogether
of
the
same
kind
.
There
was
that
exclusion
of
sinners
from
the
favour
of
God
,
threatned
in
the
curse
,
and
which
shall
one
day
be
executed
upon
some
sinners
,
which
was
not
suffered
,
or
undergone
by
Christ
:
For
as
the
Apostle
says
,
upon
supposal
of
a
perfect
similitude
betwixt
our
great
High-Priest
,
and
those
after
the
order
of
Aaron
,
(
Then
must
Christ
often
have
suffered
since
the
foundation
of
the
world
,
Heb.
9.26
.
)
Even
so
,
upon
supposition
,
3.
The
ground
and
reason
of
Christs
and
sinners
obligation
to
suffer
,
was
not
of
the
same
kind
,
or
denomination
,
his
being
Obligatio
fidejussoria
,
or
Contractus
,
but
ours
Criminis
,
or
ex
delicto
,
as
hath
been
already
said
.
As
sinners
were
obliged
to
suffer
by
one
Law
,
so
Christs
obligation
did
result
from
another
,
and
that
Law
peculiar
to
himself
.
2.
As
for
the
evil
consequences
of
asserting
,
That
Christ
suffered
the
Idem
,
the
same
thing
which
was
in
a
sinners
obligation
to
suffer
,
be
it
considered
,
that
thence
it
will
follow
,
That
a
sinner
should
Ipso
facto
have
an
immediate
present
right
,
to
be
discharged
from
his
obligation
to
suffer
(
according
to
that
celebrated
saying
of
the
Civilians
,
Solutione
ejus
quod
debetur
,
tollitur
obligatio
)
which
to
say
,
is
a
branch
of
down-right
Antinomian
doctrine
,
which
maintains
the
Justification
of
Infidels
,
or
of
sinners
,
in
their
damnable
unbelief
.
2.
It
follows
,
That
a
sinners
discharge
from
his
obligation
to
suffer
,
is
not
truly
,
and
therefore
cannot
rationally
be
styled
Pardon
of
sin
,
or
that
a
sinner
(
upon
such
a
supposition
)
cannot
rationally
be
said
to
be
pardoned
:
For
I
look
upon
the
sayings
of
those
two
learned
men
(
Grotius
and
Wotton
)
as
undoubted
truths
,
viz.
Vbi
idem
solvitur
vel
à
debitore
,
vel
ab
alio
debitoris
nomine
,
nulla
contingit
remissio
;
nihil
enim
circa
debitum
agit
Creditor
,
aut
Rector
.
Grot.
de
satisf
.
p.
119.
Where
the
same
thing
is
paid
either
by
the
debtor
himself
,
or
by
any
other
in
his
name
,
there
is
no
remission
,
or
pardon
of
the
debt
.
The
Creditor
,
or
Rector
,
doth
in
that
case
act
nothing
,
he
only
receives
the
debt
.
And
says
Mr.
Wotton
,
De
reconcil
.
Pecc
.
p.
157.
Poena
,
ac
venia
diversa
sunt
,
ita
planè
,
ut
qui
poenas
dederit
,
non
sit
absolutus
,
qui
absolutus
est
,
supplicio
affectus
non
fuit
.
Punishment
and
pardon
are
contrary
(
so
the
word
Diversae
is
here
to
be
construed
)
so
as
that
he
,
who
hath
suffered
the
punishment
for
his
sin
,
is
not
pardoned
,
or
absolved
,
and
he
who
is
absolved
(
i.e.
)
absolved
by
a
pardon
,
was
not
punished
.
My
reply
to
what
this
Author
says
in
the
next
Page
,
shall
be
the
subject
of
the
following
Chapter
.
Only
lest
I
should
seem
willing
(
which
is
indeed
a
thing
far
from
me
)
to
charge
this
Author
,
with
the
holding
of
any
point
of
doctrine
,
which
he
doth
dis-own
,
I
think
it
meet
at
the
close
of
this
Chapter
,
to
give
the
Reader
to
understand
,
that
he
doth
else-where
in
effect
say
,
That
Christ
did
not
suffer
the
Idem
,
but
the
Tantundem
;
for
he
says
expresly
,
p.
557.
That
Christ
submitted
to
the
demerit
of
our
sins
,
so
as
to
undergo
the
penalty
in
the
substance
and
kind
of
it
(
though
not
in
the
adjuncts
,
and
consequential
accidents
,
which
would
have
accompanied
it
upon
such
weak
,
finite
,
depraved
subjects
as
we
are
)
that
we
should
have
undergone
.
Hereupon
all
that
I
can
peremptorily
say
is
this
,
viz.
1.
That
I
am
not
able
to
reconcile
this
Author
with
himself
in
both
his
said
sayings
:
For
if
Christ
did
undergo
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
which
we
should
have
undergone
only
in
the
substance
,
and
not
in
the
circumstances
thereof
,
as
here
specified
,
how
was
it
true
to
say
as
he
said
in
Page
536.
That
in
Christs
suffering
for
our
sins
,
God
did
evidence
his
truth
and
immutability
,
in
proceeding
according
to
the
Penal
Law
,
which
in
pursuance
of
his
own
Attributes
,
and
mans
rational
Nature
and
relations
to
God
,
he
had
at
first
enacted
?
For
was
not
the
circumstances
,
adjuncts
,
or
accidents
of
punishment
,
as
well
as
the
substance
of
punishment
,
threatned
to
man
in
that
penal
Law
,
and
which
man
having
sin'd
,
should
accordingly
have
undergone
?
Now
if
Christ
did
undergo
the
penalty
only
in
the
substance
,
but
not
in
the
adjuncts
threatned
,
how
is
this
consistent
with
his
saying
,
That
in
the
sufferings
of
Christ
,
God
did
proceed
according
to
the
penal
Law
,
which
at
first
was
enacted
?
2.
It
is
not
reconcileable
to
,
but
flatly
against
the
truth
to
say
,
That
Christ
suffered
that
punishment
in
kind
,
which
we
should
have
undergone
:
For
I
would
demand
of
him
,
Was
not
eternal
death
comprized
in
the
penalty
threatned
in
that
Law
at
first
enacted
?
3.
If
by
Gods
truth
and
immutability
,
Mr.
F.
means
(
as
it
is
evident
,
he
doth
)
the
immutability
and
truth
of
God
,
in
fulfilling
that
his
threatning-word
,
Gen.
2.17
.
it
is
his
notorious
mistake
so
to
think
,
or
say
:
For
that
penal
Law
was
not
by
the
sufferings
of
Christ
fulfilled
,
or
executed
,
but
through
a
compensation
,
or
through
his
compensatory
sufferings
dispenced
with
,
as
was
upon
occasion
before
said
,
God
therein
manifesting
his
mercy
and
justice
,
but
not
his
truth
and
immutability
,
respectively
to
that
threatning-Law
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
The
Imputation
of
Socinianism
groundlesly
charged
by
Mr.
F.
upon
his
Brethren
.
Mr.
F.
his
charging
his
Antagonists
with
nonsence
,
refuted
.
That
sort
of
union
with
Christ
to
be
renounced
,
the
native
consequence
whereof
is
the
reciprocal
Imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
Righteousness
to
us
,
in
the
sence
of
Mr.
F.
with
his
Adherents
(
i.e.
)
properly
and
formally
,
or
otherwise
than
in
the
fruits
and
effects
of
the
one
,
and
of
the
other
.
The
reason
thereof
rendred
.
P.
537.
To
say
,
That
Christ
suffered
only
for
our
advantage
,
and
not
in
our
room
,
is
plain
Socinianism
;
and
to
say
,
That
he
bare
our
punishment
,
without
being
charged
with
our
guilt
,
is
plain
non-sence
;
and
yet
to
remonstrate
to
such
a
Relation
between
him
and
us
,
as
may
and
ought
to
be
styled
a
Legal
Vnion
,
is
to
vent
repugnancies
in
the
same
breath
.
Answ.
What
is
here
said
,
hath
in
effect
already
been
answered
;
and
to
the
same
purpose
I
say
again
;
1.
The
imputation
of
Socinianism
is
causless
,
forasmuch
as
we
do
acknowledg
what
they
deny
,
viz.
That
Jesus
Christ
being
God
and
man
in
one
person
,
did
make
a
satisfaction
,
or
compensation
to
Gods
justice
,
and
by
his
doings
and
sufferings
did
merit
the
pardon
of
our
sins
.
2.
We
deny
not
,
but
that
Jesus
Christ
may
be
truly
said
to
have
suffered
in
our
room
or
stead
,
(
and
for
that
cause
to
be
styled
in
the
word
of
one
of
the
Ancients
our
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
because
he
suffered
that
which
was
equivalent
to
the
suffering
,
which
being
due
to
us
we
should
have
suffered
,
and
thereby
to
save
us
from
suffering
;
and
we
say
,
That
Christ
suffered
in
the
person
of
a
Mediator
,
to
procure
our
pardon
and
reconciliation
with
God
.
Only
we
do
deny
,
That
Christ
was
in
such
a
sence
our
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
that
he
did
in
such
a
strict
sence
die
in
our
room
and
stead
,
as
that
he
may
be
said
to
die
in
nostrâ
personâ
,
in
such
sort
representing
our
persons
,
as
that
we
can
truly
be
said
to
have
satisfied
in
and
by
him
,
or
that
his
sufferings
are
in
their
essential
nature
imputed
to
us
.
One
King
may
be
said
to
rule
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
room
of
another
,
though
he
may
not
therefore
be
said
to
be
the
Representative
of
that
other
,
as
Archelaus
is
said
to
have
reigned
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
room
of
his
Father
Herod
,
Solomon
in
the
room
of
David
,
1
King
.
5.5
.
Benaiah
to
be
made
Captain-General
of
the
Host
,
in
the
room
of
Joah
,
1
King
.
2.35
.
and
Elisha
to
be
substituted
or
anointed
a
Prophet
,
in
the
room
of
Elijah
,
1
King
.
19.16
.
although
none
of
these
can
be
truly
said
in
a
strict
sence
to
represent
the
persons
of
those
,
in
whose
room
they
were
substituted
.
3.
If
by
Our
punishment
this
Author
meaneth
the
Idem
,
the
self
same
punishment
,
which
we
should
have
born
,
it
hath
been
already
gainsaid
,
and
the
contrary
truth
proved
,
as
also
that
he
did
not
bear
our
guilt
,
neither
our
guilt
of
fact
,
or
fault
at
all
,
nor
the
self
same
guilt
or
obligation
to
punishment
as
was
ours
,
but
another
kind
of
obligation
,
that
was
peculiar
to
himself
.
4.
What
non-sence
soever
there
is
in
saying
,
That
Christ
bare
Idem
supplicium
,
our
very
punishment
,
without
being
charged
with
our
guilt
,
nevertheless
it
is
true
sence
,
and
the
sence
of
Scripture
to
say
,
That
Christ
did
contract
,
or
take
upon
him
an
obligation
to
suffer
,
and
did
actually
undergo
such
sufferings
,
as
were
equivalent
to
that
punishment
which
we
deserved
to
suffer
,
and
this
without
being
charged
with
our
guilt
.
5.
The
things
being
justly
to
be
denied
,
which
he
doth
here
presume
as
granted
,
or
to
be
granted
,
(
viz.
That
Christ
did
at
all
take
upon
him
our
Reatus
facti
,
or
culpae
,
our
guilt
of
fact
,
or
fault
,
or
the
self
same
guilt
,
or
obligation
to
punishment
,
which
was
ours
)
it
follows
,
That
there
is
all
the
reason
in
the
world
,
to
remonstrate
unto
any
such
union
of
Christians
with
Christ
(
by
what
name
soever
dignified
or
distinguished
,
Mystical
,
Conjugal
,
Political
,
Legal
,
Evangelical
,
Supernatural
—
)
the
native
consequence
whereof
is
,
That
Christ
was
charged
with
our
guilt
of
sin
,
That
he
took
upon
him
the
self
same
obligation
to
punishment
,
which
was
ours
,
That
our
sin
really
in
it self
was
imputed
to
him
,
and
undergone
by
him
,
and
That
his
doings
and
sufferings
(
briefly
)
his
Righteousness
,
was
formally
in
it self
imputed
unto
us
.
All
these
Consequents
are
justly
to
be
remonstrated
against
,
and
consequently
so
are
all
the
Antecedents
(
be
they
never
so
specious
)
from
whence
they
do
naturally
and
necessarily
result
,
or
flow
,
for
(
as
the
common
saying
is
)
Ex
vero
nihil
nisi
verum
,
From
truth
nothing
but
truth
doth
natively
and
necessarily
issue
.
These
things
considered
,
it
is
easie
to
answer
his
arguings
in
p.
556
,
557.
which
I
shall
more
at
large
now
recite
and
reply
to
.
CHAP.
XVII
.
That
Christ
may
very
well
be
said
to
be
made
sin
for
us
,
to
bear
our
sins
,
to
die
for
our
offences
—
although
it
cannot
be
truly
said
,
that
he
did
bear
our
sin
it self
,
or
sin
in
it self
,
or
otherwise
than
in
the
fruit
and
effects
of
it
,
the
contrary
whereunto
is
pretended
by
Mr.
F.
Mr.
Ferguson's
mistake
in
confounding
an
Antecedent
impulsive
cause
,
with
a
meritorious
cause
,
the
difference
whereof
is
asserted
and
exemplified
.
His
mistake
in
not
distinguishing
betwixt
An
obligation
,
and
Our
obligation
to
suffer
.
That
though
our
sins
did
properly
merit
Christs
suffering
,
nevertheless
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
Christ
himself
did
merit
it
,
or
took
upon
him
the
meriting
thereof
.
That
Christ
may
be
said
in
an
improper
sence
to
be
punished
.
The
word
[
Demerit
of
punishmeit
]
ambiguous
,
a
two-fold
sence
whereof
is
specified
.
The
Arguments
which
overthrow
the
Popish
doctrine
of
believers
,
being
discharged
from
the
guilt
of
sin
,
but
not
the
punishment
,
altogether
mis-applyed
by
Mr.
F.
to
the
point
in
hand
.
P.
556
,
557.
HAD
not
the
susception
of
our
sins
preceded
,
as
the
antecedent
impulsive
cause
of
Christs
sufferings
,
he
could
neither
be
said
to
be
made
sin
for
us
,
nor
to
bear
them
,
nor
to
have
them
laid
upon
him
,
nor
to
die
for
our
offences
,
nor
to
be
our
ransom
:
Nor
could
the
inflicting
of
sufferings
upon
him
have
been
either
good
in
it self
,
or
an
act
of
Rectoral
justice
in
God
,
or
have
had
any
tendency
to
his
glory
,
or
to
the
honour
of
his
Law
,
or
to
deter
sinners
from
offending
;
yea
,
preclude
once
the
consideration
of
sin
,
as
the
meritorious
cause
of
the
Agonies
which
Christ
underwent
,
and
the
love
,
wisdom
,
justice
,
and
Rectorship
of
God
,
are
obnoxious
to
reflections
,
and
stand
liable
to
be
impeached
.
And
if
it
be
once
obtained
,
that
our
sins
are
the
meritorious
impulsive
cause
of
Christs
death
,
his
susception
of
our
guilt
will
necessarily
follow
.
For
guilt
being
nothing
but
an
obligation
to
punishment
,
and
it
being
impossible
to
conceive
such
a
habitude
betwixt
a
person
and
sin
,
that
it
should
be
the
meritorious
impulsive
cause
of
his
punishment
,
and
yet
he
not
be
under
an
obligation
to
punishment
,
it
plainly
follows
,
that
guilt
must
be
supposed
antecedent
to
a
demerit
of
punishment
.
Guilt
and
punishment
being
Relates
,
he
that
is
obnoxious
to
the
latter
,
must
be
previously
under
the
Imputation
of
the
former
,
as
Bishop
Andrews
expresseth
it
,
Christ
was
first
made
sin
in
respect
of
the
guilt
,
and
then
a
curse
in
respect
of
the
punishment
.
Serm.
of
Justification
on
Jer.
23.6
.
Ans.
Almost
all
of
this
,
either
in
the
same
words
,
or
in
words
to
the
same
effect
,
hath
been
before
recited
out
of
this
Author
,
and
a
reply
accordingly
shaped
thereunto
.
And
for
that
reason
,
it
is
necessary
only
to
repeat
the
Answers
,
which
have
been
already
given
.
I
answer
then
,
1.
Christ
may
very
well
be
said
to
be
made
sin
for
us
,
to
bear
our
sins
,
to
have
them
laid
upon
him
,
to
die
for
our
offences
,
and
to
be
our
ransom
,
in
that
he
did
take
upon
him
an
obligation
to
suffer
,
and
suffer
to
death
for
the
expiation
of
them
,
although
it
cannot
be
truly
said
,
That
Christ
did
bear
our
sin
it self
[
properly
and
formally
taken
]
but
only
in
the
fruit
and
sad
consequents
of
it
,
viz.
suffering
equivalent
punishment
,
to
that
which
was
due
to
us
for
it
.
2.
As
to
the
Authors
expressions
[
Antecedent
Impulsive
Cause
]
1.
It
is
the
Authors
mistake
,
to
confound
an
Antecedent
Impulsive
Cause
with
a
Cause
Meritorious
.
That
he
doth
so
,
is
most
apparent
and
undeniable
by
his
fore-cited
words
.
But
that
it
is
his
mistake
so
to
do
,
be
it
considered
,
1.
That
the
misery
of
an
indigent
Creature
,
may
be
well
said
to
be
an
antecedent
impulsive
cause
of
that
compassion
,
which
is
shewed
towards
it
by
those
,
who
are
conscious
unto
,
or
spectators
of
its
misery
.
And
accordingly
I
doubt
not
to
aver
,
That
the
miserable
effects
of
sin
,
specially
in
making
us
obnoxious
to
the
vengeance
of
eternal
fire
,
was
an
antecedent
impulsive
cause
,
moving
God
,
(
speaking
of
him
after
the
manner
of
men
,
which
we
must
do
,
or
else
we
can
scarce
say
any
thing
of
him
)
fore-ordain
the
sufferings
of
our
Lord
Redeemer
Christ
Jesus
,
whereby
to
rescue
us
out
of
our
wretched
,
and
otherwise
forlorn
condition
.
Yet
who
will
,
or
can
justly
say
,
That
the
misery
of
a
Creature
,
doth
in
a
strict
or
proper
sence
merit
the
pity
,
whether
of
God
or
man
?
This
if
it
did
,
pity
would
scarce
deserve
the
name
of
pity
,
I
mean
,
it
would
not
be
so
thank-worthy
,
forasmuch
as
that
which
is
merited
,
deserves
little
,
if
any
thanks
.
Is
a
Labourer
obliged
to
give
his
Master
thanks
for
his
wages
,
which
he
hath
earned
,
or
merited
?
Misery
may
be
well
said
to
be
Res
apta
nata
;
an
object
naturally
fit
to
move
mercy
,
or
to
be
an
impelling
cause
thereunto
,
and
yet
not
a
Meritorious
cause
thereof
,
in
the
strict
and
proper
usual
sence
of
the
word
Meritorious
.
2.
Though
I
grant
it
as
a
truth
,
and
a
fit
saying
,
That
our
misery
contracted
by
sin
,
was
an
antecedent
impulsive
cause
of
Gods
mercy
,
in
delivering
up
Christ
for
us
all
,
nevertheless
I
do
utterly
deny
,
that
our
sins
were
the
Meritorious
cause
of
Christs
death
,
or
sufferings
.
I
grant
,
that
our
sins
were
the
Occasion
of
Christs
sufferings
,
but
I
deny
,
that
our
sins
did
merit
his
sufferings
.
And
I
have
just
and
great
cause
so
to
do
,
forasmuch
as
our
Logick
tells
us
,
that
there
is
a
great
difference
betwixt
an
Occasion
and
a
Cause
(
truly
so
called
)
as
this
Author
cannot
but
know
very
well
.
I
remember
the
saying
of
David
to
Abiathar
,
1
Sam.
22.22
.
I
have
occasioned
the
death
of
all
the
persons
of
thy
fathers
house
;
which
notwithstanding
it
could
not
be
said
,
That
he
had
caused
their
death
.
In
like
sort
may
we
say
to
God
,
We
have
occasioned
thee
to
bruise
the
Son
of
thy
love
,
and
to
put
him
to
grief
,
we
have
been
the
occasion
of
all
his
sufferings
;
but
we
may
not
say
,
That
our
sins
did
merit
them
.
3.
Forasmuch
as
what
this
Author
hath
sought
,
he
cannot
obtain
,
viz.
an
acknowledgment
,
That
our
sins
were
the
meritorious
cause
of
Christs
death
;
and
forasmuch
as
he
makes
this
the
ground
of
his
following
inferences
,
it
is
not
therefore
needful
,
that
I
should
use
many
words
in
replying
thereunto
:
For
if
the
foundation
of
a
building
be
removed
,
the
superstructure
falls
of
it self
,
and
without
hands
.
Nevertheless
I
add
,
3.
Although
I
do
deny
,
that
our
sins
were
the
meritorious
cause
of
Christs
sufferings
,
nevertheless
I
do
assert
,
that
Christ
was
under
An
obligation
to
suffer
for
our
sins
.
It
is
this
Authors
great
mistake
,
not
to
distinguish
in
this
contest
,
betwixt
Christs
obligation
and
Ours
,
whereas
,
as
hath
been
aforesaid
,
these
are
two
obligations
specifically
different
;
and
all
his
inferences
here
are
utterly
groundless
,
e.
g.
-
1.
That
Christ
could
not
suffer
,
or
be
under
An
obligation
to
suffer
,
except
he
had
been
under
,
or
had
taken
upon
him
,
Our
obligation
to
suffering
.
-
2.
That
he
could
not
else
have
been
said
to
bear
our
sins
,
to
be
made
sin
for
us
,
to
have
our
sins
laid
upon
him
,
to
die
for
them
,
nor
to
be
our
ransom
.
-
3.
That
without
this
,
the
inflicting
of
sufferings
upon
Christ
,
could
not
have
been
either
good
in
it self
,
or
an
act
of
Rectoral
justice
in
God
,
or
have
had
any
tendency
to
his
glory
,
or
—
All
these
inferences
,
I
say
,
are
altogether
groundless
.
-
4.
I
answer
Ex
abundanti
,
If
our
sins
could
properly
be
said
to
have
merited
Christs
sufferings
,
nevertheless
it
will
not
from
thence
follow
,
That
we
meriting
,
that
he
should
suffer
,
then
he
himself
did
merit
it
,
or
took
upon
him
the
meriting
thereof
;
and
therefore
although
guilt
,
as
he
says
,
must
be
supposed
antecedent
to
a
demerit
of
punishment
,
yet
where
there
is
no
such
demerit
(
as
in
Christ
there
was
not
)
there
't
is
not
necessary
to
suppose
any
antecedent
guilt
:
Nor
indeed
in
any
case
,
but
where
the
person
suffering
is
properly
punish'd
,
which
Christ
was
not
,
but
only
a
sufferer
of
that
,
which
we
for
our
sins
deserved
to
have
suffered
in
our
own
persons
,
and
which
if
we
had
personally
suffered
,
it
would
have
been
formally
and
properly
a
punishment
to
us
;
but
was
not
to
him
,
because
he
never
deserved
it
,
nor
was
any
such
guilt
,
or
deserving
it
imputed
to
him
,
or
taken
upon
him
.
And
yet
he
may
be
said
in
some
improper
sence
,
to
be
obliged
to
punishment
;
I
do
not
mean
the
word
[
improperly
]
in
reference
to
Obliged
(
for
Christs
obligation
to
suffering
,
however
it
was
not
at
all
Obligatio
Criminis
,
yet
being
truly
Obligatio
Contractus
,
it
was
therefore
In
suo
genere
,
a
proper
obligation
)
but
to
the
word
[
Punishment
]
and
I
do
therefore
express
the
matter
now
plainly
,
and
say
,
That
Christ
may
be
said
to
be
obliged
to
punishment
improperly
so
called
,
because
he
did
voluntarily
undertake
,
and
obliged
himself
to
suffer
those
pains
,
which
being
inflicted
on
us
,
would
have
been
properly
,
or
proper
punishments
.
-
5.
As
for
the
testimony
of
that
renowned
Bishop
Andrews
,
I
have
made
reply
thereunto
in
an
entire
Chapter
(
Ch.
5.
)
and
I
have
thought
it
my
part
the
rather
so
to
do
,
because
,
as
I
perceive
by
my
late
reading
,
not
Mr.
Ferguson
only
,
but
certain
other
Brethren
,
by
their
allegation
of
that
saying
of
the
Bishop
,
have
adopted
it
as
their
own
.
There
is
but
one
passage
more
,
which
I
have
observed
in
my
reading
of
his
Book
throughout
,
to
refer
to
the
matter
in
hand
(
The
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
or
our
guilt
to
him
)
which
because
it
will
not
need
any
large
reply
,
I
will
not
assign
a
peculiar
Chapter
thereunto
,
but
shall
therewith
close
both
this
Chapter
,
as
also
the
whole
of
what
I
have
here
to
animadvert
upon
,
with
reference
to
him
.
P.
577.
Where
sin
is
so
charged
,
as
to
expose
a
person
to
a
demerit
of
punishment
,
there
is
an
obligation
to
it
,
and
where
there
is
such
an
obligation
to
it
,
there
is
in
some
sence
or
other
,
guilt
.
Those
very
Arguments
,
whereby
we
overthrow
the
Popish
Dogm
of
Believers
,
being
discharged
from
the
guilt
of
sin
,
but
not
the
punishment
,
do
equally
disprove
Christs
undergoing
the
punishment
of
sin
,
without
susception
of
the
guilt
.
Answ.
1.
The
word
[
demerit
of
punishment
]
is
ambiguous
;
for
it
may
signifie
two
things
,
viz.
Either
the
meriting
of
punishment
,
or
punishment
it self
merited
;
in
the
latter
sence
it
's
true
,
That
our
sin
was
so
charged
upon
Christ
,
as
occasionally
to
expose
him
to
demerit
of
punishment
(
i.e.
)
to
suffer
the
punishment
,
which
was
the
demerit
of
our
sin
,
or
which
we
by
our
sin
had
merited
;
but
in
the
former
sence
it
is
a
notorious
untruth
to
say
,
That
our
sin
was
so
charged
upon
Christ
,
as
to
expose
him
to
the
demerit
of
punishment
(
i.
e.
)
That
he
was
charged
with
the
meriting
of
any
punishment
.
2.
Thence
it
follows
,
That
although
there
was
an
obligation
upon
Christ
to
suffer
,
yet
not
our
obligation
,
nor
any
such
obligation
as
was
ours
,
but
an
obligation
of
a
different
kind
from
ours
,
as
hath
several
times
upon
occasion
been
said
before
.
3.
The
Author
speaks
at
random
,
and
not
to
the
purpose
in
hand
,
in
that
his
inference
,
saying
,
There
is
in
some
sence
or
other
,
guilt
:
For
as
there
are
divers
sences
of
the
word
[
Guilt
]
yea
divers
kinds
of
Guilt
[
Guilt
of
fault
,
and
Guilt
of
,
or
obligation
to
punisment
]
so
the
Question
in
hand
is
not
,
Whether
Christ
did
not
take
upon
him
Guilt
in
some
sence
or
other
,
nor
whether
he
took
upon
him
An
obligation
to
punishment
,
but
whether
he
took
upon
him
that
kind
of
Guilt
at
all
,
which
is
called
Guilt
of
fact
,
or
fault
(
i.
e.
)
our
deserving
to
suffer
,
or
due
obligation
to
suffer
what
we
by
our
sin
had
deserved
.
4.
I
conceive
,
That
the
Popish
doctrine
here
reflected
on
is
this
,
viz.
That
Believers
are
discharged
from
the
guilt
of
sin
,
as
to
eternal
punishment
,
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
yet
not
as
to
temporal
punishments
,
but
by
satisfaction
made
by
themselves
;
but
whatever
the
Popish
doctrine
be
in
this
matter
,
I
do
utterly
deny
,
that
those
very
Arguments
,
whereby
we
do
overthrow
that
,
or
any
other
Dogmata
of
the
Papists
,
do
at
all
disprove
,
what
I
my self
with
other
of
my
Brethren
,
do
in
this
contest
,
assert
,
viz.
That
Christ
did
undergo
an
obligation
,
to
suffer
the
punishment
,
which
we
deserved
for
our
sins
,
without
any
undergoing
,
or
taking
upon
him
our
guilt
,
or
deserving
thereof
.
And
as
to
the
distinction
of
Remissio
culpae
and
poenae
,
and
also
as
to
the
common
saying
,
Sublatâ
culpâ
tollitur
poena
,
I
have
twenty
years
ago
plainly
spoken
my
thoughts
,
in
the
10th
.
and
11th
.
Chapters
of
my
Exercitation
,
concerning
the
Nature
of
forgiveness
of
sin
,
and
I
am
still
of
the
same
mind
,
as
I
have
there
expressed
it
in
opposition
to
the
Papists
(
that
I
may
not
say
also
in
way
of
dissent
from
some
of
our
own
)
viz.
That
there
is
no
such
thing
as
Remissio
culpae
[
Remission
of
fault
]
in
way
of
distinction
from
Remissio
poenae
[
Remission
of
the
punishment
]
these
two
being
one
,
and
the
self
same
thing
.
These
are
all
the
passages
,
relating
to
the
reciprocal
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
and
of
our
sins
to
him
,
which
I
have
to
reply
unto
,
upon
a
due
consideration
whereof
,
I
submit
to
the
judgment
of
the
learned
and
impartial
Reader
,
whether
it
may
not
be
truly
said
of
this
Author
,
in
those
words
of
Elihu
,
Job
35.16
.
That
[
as
to
the
foresaid
matters
in
debate
]
he
hath
multiplyed
words
with●ut
knowledg
(
i.e.
)
the
right
knowledg
of
the
nature
of
the
things
,
he
undertook
to
treat
of
.
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Reflections
upon
certain
passages
in
Dr.
J.
Owen's
Book
styled
(
Communion
with
God
)
concerning
Christ
his
being
made
ruddy
in
his
own
blood
,
Morally
by
the
Imputation
of
sin
;
and
concerning
that
blessed
Bartering
and
Exchange
pretended
by
him
,
betwixt
Believers
giving
up
their
sins
to
Christ
,
and
their
taking
from
him
that
Righteousness
,
which
he
wrought
for
them
.
His
obscure
,
ambiguous
,
un-Scriptural
phrases
reproved
,
and
his
mistakes
therein
(
according
to
obvious
construction
)
detected
.
An
Objection
answered
,
wherein
a
two-fold
Taking
or
Receiving
of
a
thing
is
specified
,
and
applyed
to
the
purpose
in
hand
.
His
mistake
in
affirming
,
that
the
Saints
by
giving
up
their
sins
to
Christ
,
and
taking
from
him
his
Righteousness
,
do
fulfil
the
whole
of
that
in
2
Cor.
5.21
.
The
falshood
of
the
reason
asserted
by
the
Doctor
,
why
those
,
who
said
,
Lord
,
Lord
,
were
disappointed
in
their
expectation
,
instead
whereof
,
the
true
reason
or
reasons
are
assigned
.
That
for
sinners
to
plead
their
repentance
and
duties
,
is
not
to
barter
with
themselves
only
,
to
take
Christs
work
out
of
his
hand
,
and
to
ascribe
it
to
other
things
,
or
to
say
,
their
duties
shall
bear
their
iniquities
(
according
as
the
Dr.
misconstrues
the
matter
)
but
it
is
in
very
deed
and
in
true
construction
,
to
put
the
work
of
their
being
actually
saved
,
into
the
hand
of
Christ
,
and
to
keep
it
there
.
The
manner
of
a
sinners
Bartering
with
Christ
laid
open
,
if
it
may
fitly
be
so
styled
.
MY
work
in
the
remainder
of
this
Treatise
,
will
be
for
the
most
part
in
answering
of
such
needful
Questions
,
as
are
(
so
many
as
at
present
I
can
call
to
mind
)
incident
to
the
subject
in
hand
,
which
shall
be
distinctly
proposed
and
handled
in
the
ensuing
Chapters
.
Only
I
shall
desire
the
Reader
to
take
notice
(
now
I
have
in
a
manner
parted
from
Mr.
F.
)
that
what
I
have
replyed
to
him
,
touching
the
Reciprocal
Non-imputation
of
our
sin
to
Christ
,
and
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
in
their
formal
and
essential
nature
,
or
otherwise
than
in
the
cursed
and
blessed
effects
of
the
one
and
of
the
other
,
is
alike
subservient
for
the
refutation
of
several
passages
of
Dr.
J.
Owen
,
(
a
partaker
with
Mr.
F.
in
several
mistakes
,
and
misinterpretations
of
the
sacred
Scriptures
,
as
will
be
manisested
in
certain
Chapters
,
towards
the
close
of
this
Treatise
)
in
his
Book
styled
,
Communion
with
God
,
some
whereof
I
will
here
relate
,
and
reply
to
.
P.
53.
Christ
was
made
ruddy
(
says
the
Doctor
)
in
his
own
blood
two
ways
,
1.
Naturaly
,
in
the
powring
out
of
his
blood
,
Luk.
22.24
.
Joh.
19.34.2
.
Morally
,
by
the
Imputation
of
sin
,
whose
colour
is
red
and
crimson
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
P.
221.
The
Saints
make
an
Actual
commutation
with
the
Lord
Jesus
,
as
to
their
sins
and
his
Righteousness
.
Having
said
,
p.
222.
That
they
do
lay
down
their
sins
at
the
cross
of
Christ
,
upon
his
shoulders
,
he
proceeds
to
express
this
Commuting
of
Believers
,
their
sins
with
Christ
,
and
his
Righteousness
with
them
,
in
the
following
words
,
p.
223.
Having
thus
by
faith
given
up
their
sins
to
Christ
,
and
seen
God
laying
them
all
on
him
,
they
draw
nigh
,
and
take
from
him
that
Righteousness
,
which
he
hath
wrought
out
for
them
:
So
fulfilling
the
whole
of
that
of
the
Apostle
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
He
was
made
sin
for
us
,
that
we
might
become
the
Righteousness
of
God
in
him
.
They
consider
him
tendring
himself
and
his
Righteousness
,
to
be
their
Righteousness
before
God
;
they
take
it
,
and
accept
of
it
,
and
compleat
this
blessed
bartering
and
exchange
of
faith
.
Anger
,
curse
,
wrath
,
death
,
sin
as
to
its
guilt
,
he
took
it
all
,
and
takes
it
all
away
—
Answ.
As
to
one
of
the
passages
here
recited
,
I
need
not
say
much
more
,
than
what
hath
been
already
said
in
answer
to
Mr.
F.
wherein
I
have
manifested
what
manner
of
guilt
our
Saviour
took
upon
him
.
I
will
only
say
further
,
That
I
have
with
a
complication
of
affections
(
grief
and
sadness
,
with
a
mixture
also
of
some
indignation
and
abhorrency
)
taken
notice
of
three
or
four
things
in
his
express
words
.
1.
I
observe
,
That
in
his
asserting
,
that
Christ
was
made
red
in
his
own
blood
,
Morally
by
the
Imputation
of
sin
,
whose
colour
is
red
and
crimson
,
he
seems
to
say
with
Mr.
F.
that
Christ
did
take
our
sin
upon
him
not
only
in
the
punishment
,
but
also
in
the
guilt
thereof
.
This
,
I
say
,
seems
to
be
his
meaning
.
1.
Because
the
hainous
nature
or
guilt
of
sin
,
is
set
forth
in
Scripture
by
the
Metaphor
here
used
by
him
,
of
redness
,
like
to
that
of
crimson
or
scarlet
,
2.
Because
he
says
expresly
;
not
only
that
Christ
took
upon
him
Anger
,
Curse
,
Wrath
,
Death
,
but
sin
also
as
to
its
guilt
;
in
which
words
,
he
makes
the
guilt
of
sin
a
distinct
thing
from
the
punishment
of
it
,
which
he
expresseth
in
the
four
preceding
words
[
Anger
,
Curse
,
Wrath
,
and
Death
.
]
Now
the
contrary
truth
to
this
his
meaning
(
if
indeed
he
did
mean
as
he
spake
)
I
have
already
made
known
in
my
answer
to
Mr.
F.
and
to
the
words
of
Bishop
Andrews
,
Ch.
5.
2.
I
observe
his
canting
phrases
(
laying
down
our
sins
at
the
cross
of
Christ
,
upon
his
shoulders
,
Commuting
,
Exchanging
,
Bartering
,
By
faith
Giving
up
our
sins
to
Christ
,
and
Taking
from
him
his
Righteousness
)
language
obscure
,
ambiguous
,
most
alien
from
the
Scripture
,
more
fit
to
delude
,
than
to
edifie
any
common
Reader
or
Hearer
.
And
if
any
partial
or
less
intelligent
person
,
shall
be
offended
with
the
word
(
Canting
)
as
in
his
apprehension
Durus
Sermo
,
a
censure
too
harsh
,
I
will
for
his
satisfaction
say
as
followeth
:
1.
As
for
the
Doctor
's
expression
(
The
Saints
giving
up
their
sins
to
Christ
by
faith
,
Laying
down
their
sins
at
his
cross
,
upon
his
shoulders
)
I
know
no
such
sayings
in
Scripture
;
and
I
do
therefore
judg
them
fit
to
be
rejected
,
with
words
like
those
of
the
Apostle
in
another
case
,
The
holy
Scriptures
have
no
such
custom
of
speaking
,
nor
the
Churches
of
God
,
1
Cor.
11.16
.
And
I
do
judg
thus
the
rather
,
because
the
inspired
Scriptures
were
given
of
God
,
to
be
attended
unto
as
the
rule
of
our
speaking
,
in
and
about
the
concernments
of
our
soul
,
and
matters
of
Religion
,
as
well
as
of
our
thinking
.
2.
A
bad
meaning
of
the
phrases
is
very
obvious
to
any
common
understanding
,
That
Christ
did
and
will
own
our
sins
in
the
simple
guilt
thereof
,
or
that
our
guilt
of
sin
was
imputed
to
him
by
God
,
and
being
thus
tendred
to
Christ
,
laid
by
us
at
his
cross
,
on
his
shoulders
,
will
be
welcomed
and
accepted
by
him
as
an
acceptable
offering
,
or
as
a
grateful
present
;
in
which
fond
imagination
we
do
wrong
God
and
Christ
,
and
do
out
of
measure
flatter
our selves
,
as
hath
been
already
manifested
.
3.
The
best
construction
,
which
I
can
(
according
to
the
utmost
of
my
understanding
)
make
,
of
the
said
phrases
,
is
,
That
the
Saints
do
verily
believe
,
that
Christ
did
bear
their
sins
in
the
deserved
punishment
thereof
.
And
if
the
Doctor
's
meaning
was
no
more
than
this
,
I
answer
,
1.
We
may
believe
this
as
an
undoubted
truth
,
and
yet
not
be
Saints
.
An
historical
faith
(
as
it
's
usually
styled
)
is
not
therefore
necessarily
a
sanctifying
or
saving
faith
.
2.
It
was
God
himself
,
who
did
antecedently
to
our
believing
lay
our
sins
upon
Christ
(
i.e.
)
in
his
suffering
for
them
;
but
we
do
no
where
read
in
Scripture
,
that
the
Saints
by
their
faith
do
lay
their
sins
upon
him
,
although
it
is
most
true
,
that
every
sinner
ought
to
make
a
penitential
confession
of
his
sin
to
God
,
with
faith
in
Christ
,
who
was
sacrificed
for
them
.
3.
The
said
true
construction
(
if
that
indeed
was
the
Doctor
's
meaning
)
is
a
thing
so
latent
in
his
said
expressions
,
that
without
an
Interpreter
,
could
scarcely
be
found
out
.
So
that
upon
the
hearing
of
such
uncouth
phrases
,
from
the
mouth
of
any
Minister
,
well
may
the
Auditors
sigh
,
saying
in
allusion
to
that
in
Ezek.
20.
last
.
Ah
Lord
God
,
doth
not
the
Preacher
speak
Parables
?
2.
As
for
the
Doctor
's
other
expressions
(
The
Saints
their
taking
from
Christ
that
Righteousness
,
which
he
hath
wrought
out
for
them
,
and
his
tendring
it
to
them
,
to
be
their
Righteousness
before
God
)
I
say
of
them
much-what
as
I
did
of
the
former
,
viz.
1.
I
do
not
remember
and
such
express
sayings
in
Scripture
,
and
I
cannot
therefore
approve
them
as
agreeable
to
the
form
of
wholesome
words
.
2.
I
see
no
reason
,
upon
which
in
charity
to
presume
,
that
the
Doctor
had
any
good
meaning
in
the
said
phrases
(
i.
e.
)
that
his
particular
meaning
therein
(
for
I
judg
him
not
for
want
of
a
good
meaning
in
general
,
which
a
man
may
have
both
in
speaking
falsly
and
doing
wickedly
,
Joh.
16.2
.
)
was
sound
and
good
:
For
it
appears
by
the
current
of
his
Book
,
That
he
would
have
sinners
to
believe
,
that
that
very
Righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
them
,
is
in
it
self
tendred
to
them
,
and
taken
by
them
,
and
that
it
is
in
its
essential
nature
imputed
to
them
,
and
is
their
Righteousness
before
God
.
I
shall
to
this
purpose
in
this
place
,
transcribe
onely
one
passage
out
of
his
Book
,
p.
200.
Christ
,
says
he
,
tenders
his
Righteousness
to
sinners
,
declares
the
usefulness
and
preciousness
thereof
to
their
souls
,
stirs
them
up
to
a
desire
and
valuation
of
it
,
and
lastly
,
effectually
bestows
it
on
them
,
reckoning
it
to
them
as
theirs
,
that
they
should
By
it
,
and
For
it
,
and
With
it
,
be
perfectly
accepted
with
the
Father
.
Scarce
any
thing
can
be
more
plainly
spoken
,
as
well
in
this
,
as
in
other
passages
of
his
Book
(
hereafter
to
be
mentioned
)
from
whence
to
conclude
,
That
he
asserts
Christs
Righteousness
it self
,
or
in
it self
,
to
be
imputed
to
sinners
,
and
that
with
the
Imputation
of
the
very
thing
it self
,
(
i.
e.
)
in
a
causal
sence
,
Christs
Righteousness
is
a
sinners
Righteousness
before
God
,
nevertheless
(
to
speak
properly
)
a
sinners
personal
Righteousness
,
which
consists
in
his
sanctification
and
Remission
of
sin
,
is
his
Righteousness
before
God
.
In
the
mean
while
,
I
shall
assert
this
to
be
the
plain
truth
of
Scripture
in
this
matter
(
even
as
in
effect
hath
been
before
asserted
by
me
upon
occasion
)
viz.
That
believing
sinners
are
justified
before
God
,
and
accepted
with
him
,
By
and
For
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
as
the
meritorious
cause
thereof
,
but
not
With
the
Imputation
of
the
thing
it self
,
or
With
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
in
it self
imputed
to
them
.
3.
The
best
and
only
true
construction
,
that
I
can
possibly
make
of
the
said
un-Scriptural
phrases
,
is
this
,
viz.
That
the
Saints
do
take
from
Christ
his
Righteousness
,
or
the
Righteousness
he
wrought
out
for
them
,
in
the
saving
fruits
or
effects
thereof
;
in
which
sence
a
like
phrase
is
used
,
and
was
before
upon
occasion
instanc't
in
2
Joh.
8.
where
,
by
the
things
which
Believers
had
wrought
,
are
not
meant
the
very
things
themselves
,
but
the
fruit
or
reward
of
them
.
But
upon
supposition
of
this
true
sence
of
the
said
phrase
or
phrases
,
I
must
say
,
1.
That
the
Doctor
and
his
Adherents
,
in
this
controversie
,
concerning
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
will
not
own
,
or
content
themselves
,
with
the
bare
truth
of
that
construction
.
2.
Were
the
said
construction
the
Doctor
's
true
meaning
,
nevertheless
I
must
needs
say
,
That
his
expression
thereof
is
very
un-scriptural
,
and
upon
that
account
,
not
such
as
becomes
the
Oracles
of
God
:
For
it
is
not
the
manner
of
those
divine
Oracles
to
say
,
That
Believers
do
by
faith
take
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
saving
fruit
or
effect
of
it
,
but
that
the
blessed
effect
thereof
Comes
upon
them
;
for
which
see
Rom.
5.18
.
As
by
the
offence
of
one
,
judgment
Came
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
,
so
by
the
Righteousness
of
One
,
the
free
gift
Came
upon
all
men
to
the
justification
of
life
;
and
Rom.
4.9
.
Cometh
this
Blessedness
upon
the
Circumcision
only
,
or
—
Obj.
1
Pet.
1.9
.
Believers
being
there
said
to
receive
the
end
or
reward
(
for
so
the
word
[
‖
](A44575-e22350-b)
‖
Answerably
to
the
Hebrew
word
(
gnekeb
)
which
signifies
the
like
,
as
appears
by
Ps.
119.33
and
19.11
in
the
former
place
in
signifies
an
End
,
in
the
latter
a
Reward
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
,
viz.
both
end
and
reward
)
of
their
faith
,
is
not
that
all
one
,
as
to
take
it
in
the
Doctor
's
sence
of
the
phrase
here
used
by
him
?
Answ.
No
:
For
there
is
a
two-fold
taking
or
receiving
of
a
thing
,
viz.
Ethical
and
Physical
,
or
Active
and
Passive
,
as
it
may
be
fitly
expressed
;
the
former
implyes
our
duty
,
and
is
a
taking
or
laying
hold
of
a
thing
,
by
an
act
of
faith
or
believing
,
in
which
sence
it
's
taken
in
the
Doctor
's
phrase
or
expression
;
the
latter
imports
our
felicity
,
and
doth
only
imply
our
Having
,
Enjoying
,
or
our
being
partakers
of
the
thing
,
which
we
are
said
to
receive
,
in
which
Physical
or
Passive
sence
it
's
taken
in
1
Pet.
1.9
.
and
in
which
sence
of
the
word
(
Receive
)
we
are
said
to
Receive
evil
as
well
as
good
at
Gods
hand
,
Job
.
2.10
.
and
Rom.
1.27
.
Receiving
in
themselves
that
recompence
of
their
error
,
which
was
meet
.
And
the
word
is
applyed
to
things
as
well
as
persons
,
Heb.
2.2
.
(
Every
transgression
Received
a
just
recompence
of
reward
)
unless
by
sins
there
we
understand
sinners
,
Every
Transgression
(
i.
e.
)
every
Transgressor
received
—
the
abstract
being
put
for
the
concrete
,
a
thing
in
Scripture
not
unusual
,
as
circumcision
for
circumcised
;
the
same
word
also
being
used
in
the
same
sence
(
Transgressions
for
Transgressors
,
as
some
think
,
Heb.
9.15
.
)
Briefly
,
In
such
a
sence
as
Believers
are
said
to
Receive
a
Kingdom
,
which
cannot
be
shaken
,
Heb.
12.28
.
they
may
truly
be
said
to
Receive
Christs
Righteousness
(
i.
e.
)
to
receive
it
in
the
benefit
or
fruit
thereof
;
which
fruit
in
the
final
upshot
,
is
indeed
the
Kingdom
it self
there
spoken
of
,
and
by
which
reception
,
is
not
there
meant
a
Moral
or
Active
Reception
by
the
hand
of
faith
,
or
action
of
believing
(
for
it
is
not
there
commanded
as
a
duty
)
but
a
Passive
Reception
(
it
being
there
mentioned
as
the
blessed
fruit
of
a
divine
promise
)
or
Having
it
,
as
is
the
Apostles
word
,
Rom.
6.22
.
You
Have
your
fruit
unto
holiness
,
and
the
end
everlasting
life
;
and
Mat.
19.27
.
What
shall
we
Have
therefore
?
To
which
our
Saviour
answers
,
v.
29.
You
shall
Receive
an
hundred-fold
.
—
3.
The
third
thing
,
which
I
observe
in
the
Doctor
's
words
,
is
his
Vanity
,
in
calling
the
said
Commuting
with
Christ
(
their
sins
with
him
,
and
his
Righteousness
with
them
)
A
Blessed
Bartering
and
Exchange
:
For
Jesus
Christ
doth
not
like
,
nor
did
he
ever
make
offer
of
such
a
bartering
or
exchange
,
as
seems
here
to
be
intended
by
the
Doctor
(
i.
e.
)
Christs
taking
to
himself
not
only
the
punishment
,
but
also
the
guilt
of
our
sins
,
and
[
in
the
way
of
exchange
]
our
taking
from
Christ
his
Righteousness
it self
.
This
I
have
already
manifested
;
so
that
although
the
Doctor
hath
in
Gods
name
blessed
such
a
Bartering
,
Commuting
,
Exchanging
,
nevertheless
I
may
truly
say
,
That
sinners
do
no
better
than
cheat
themselves
,
by
such
vain
imaginations
and
fancyful
conceits
.
Whereupon
that
admonition
of
the
Apostle
(
Gal.
6.7
.
)
is
in
this
case
to
be
minded
,
Be
not
deceived
,
God
is
not
mocked
.
Though
in
commuting
,
exchanging
,
bartering
commodities
one
with
another
,
we
may
deceive
and
be
deceived
one
by
another
,
yea
although
in
the
barter
and
exchange
here
spoken
of
,
we
may
cozen
and
deceive
our selves
,
yet
God
and
Christ
will
not
be
so
mocked
or
deceiv'd
.
Nevertheless
I
do
acknowledg
,
that
there
is
a
kind
of
giving
and
receiving
betwixt
Christ
and
a
sinner
,
which
if
any
one
lift
to
call
Bartering
,
may
well
and
warrantably
be
styled
A
Blessed
Bartering
,
and
what
this
kind
of
Bartering
is
,
I
will
declare
in
my
reply
to
another
passage
of
the
Doctor
's
,
by
and
by
to
be
recited
,
after
I
have
intimated
one
thing
more
in
his
words
fore-cited
,
wherein
4.
I
observe
his
mistakes
in
saying
,
That
by
the
said
Bartering
,
Believers
do
fulfil
the
whole
of
that
of
the
Apostle
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
For
1.
The
Apostle
by
those
expressions
doth
not
mean
such
a
Commutation
,
Exchange
,
or
Bartering
,
as
aforesaid
,
and
it
is
a
perverting
of
that
Text
,
to
affix
such
a
sence
thereunto
,
as
the
Doctor
doth
.
2.
It
is
not
true
to
say
,
That
Believers
by
ought
,
that
is
,
or
can
be
done
by
them
,
do
fulfil
the
whole
of
that
Scripture
;
for
it
is
God
,
who
made
Christ
,
and
Christ
,
who
made
himself
to
be
sin
for
us
,
and
this
also
antecedently
to
our
believing
;
it
is
not
Believers
,
who
made
him
to
be
sin
for
themselves
,
or
for
any
others
.
Yea
,
as
the
Apostle
said
in
another
case
,
2
Tim.
2.13
.
(
If
we
believe
not
,
yet
he
abideth
faithful
;
he
cannot
deny
himself
)
in
like
sort
may
it
here
be
truly
said
,
Although
sinners
believe
not
,
yet
God
ever
was
,
and
still
abideth
faithful
to
fulfil
,
or
verifie
the
whole
of
that
of
the
Apostle
,
saying
(
God
made
him
to
be
sin
for
us
,
That
we
might
be
made
—
)
together
with
that
in
Joh.
3.16
.
and
other
the
like
sayings
in
Scripture
,
[
God
so
loved
the
world
,
that
he
gave
his
only
begotten
Son
,
that
whosoever
believeth
in
him
,
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
.
]
Our
unbelief
(
as
the
Apostle
says
elsewhere
,
Rom.
3.3
.
)
cannot
make
the
faith
of
God
without
effect
(
i.
e.
)
cannot
hinder
the
fulfilling
of
his
Word
.
The
Doctor
having
pronounced
the
said
Commutation
,
to
be
a
blessed
Bartering
and
Exchange
,
proceeds
to
tell
us
,
how
much
Jesus
Christ
is
therewith
honoured
,
saying
in
the
same
Page
,
Many
indeed
cry
,
Lord
,
Lord
,
and
make
mention
of
him
,
but
honour
him
not
at
all
.
How
so
?
They
take
his
work
out
of
his
band
,
and
ascribe
it
unto
other
things
;
their
repentance
,
their
duties
,
shall
bear
their
iniquities
.
They
do
not
say
so
,
they
do
so
.
The
Commutation
they
make
,
if
they
make
any
,
it
is
with
themselves
.
All
their
Bartering
about
sin
,
is
in
and
with
their
own
souls
.
The
work
that
Christ
came
to
do
in
the
world
,
was
to
bear
our
iniquities
,
and
lay
down
his
life
a
ransom
for
our
sins
.
1.
Although
it
be
very
true
(
and
a
sad
truth
it
is
)
that
many
do
cry
,
Lord
,
Lord
,
and
do
not
honour
him
at
all
(
yea
do
dishonour
him
in
so
saying
)
yet
it
is
no
less
false
to
say
,
as
the
Doctor
hath
here
said
in
his
answer
to
the
Question
,
How
so
?
For
the
reason
is
not
,
as
he
says
,
Because
they
take
Christs
work
out
of
his
hand
,
and
ascribe
it
to
other
things
,
their
repentance
,
and
duties
;
but
the
true
reason
or
reasons
thereof
are
such
as
these
:
1.
Because
perhaps
they
did
never
rightly
understand
the
work
,
which
Christ
did
put
into
their
hand
(
i.
e.
)
which
he
did
impose
upon
them
,
in
order
to
their
enjoyment
of
salvation
,
through
his
sufferings
,
and
blood-shed
.
It
is
thus
with
too
many
,
who
do
deceive
themselves
in
thinking
,
that
a
form
of
godliness
will
sufficiently
serve
for
that
end
,
although
they
deny
the
power
thereof
.
2.
Because
if
they
do
know
the
work
put
into
their
hands
,
or
imposed
upon
them
for
that
end
,
yet
they
will
not
do
it
(
i.
e.
)
they
will
not
so
believe
,
as
to
repent
and
convert
,
that
they
may
be
saved
.
3.
Consequently
,
because
they
do
ascribe
that
to
a
form
of
godliness
,
or
to
the
bare
profession
of
Christianity
,
which
through
the
mercy
of
God
in
Christ
,
is
promised
only
to
the
power
and
practice
of
Christian
Religion
.
The
truth
of
what
I
have
herein
answered
to
the
said
Question
(
How
so
?
)
and
the
falshood
of
the
Doctor
's
answer
thereunto
,
is
apparent
by
that
very
Scripture
in
Mat.
7.21
.
—
1.
It
is
evidently
false
,
that
those
vain
and
empty
Professors
,
did
commute
only
with
themselves
,
and
would
have
no
bartering
with
Christ
;
for
that
they
would
fain
have
commuted
with
Christ
,
is
apparent
by
their
closing
and
scraping
acquaintance
with
him
,
saying
,
Lord
,
Lord
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
Doctor
's
phrase
)
by
laying
down
their
sins
at
his
cross
,
upon
his
shoulders
,
who
had
born
their
iniquities
.
These
words
uttered
by
their
own
mouthes
(
Lord
,
Lord
)
do
audibly
speak
their
presuming
upon
Christ
to
save
them
,
or
their
making
account
,
that
Christ
would
barter
with
them
.
2.
The
truth
of
the
reason
or
reasons
,
as
before
specified
by
me
,
is
most
apparent
also
:
For
they
did
not
repent
,
according
as
were
their
duty
to
have
done
,
but
they
did
continue
to
be
workers
of
iniquity
,
as
our
Saviour
tells
them
to
their
faces
,
v.
23.
and
upon
that
account
he
bad
them
depart
from
him
,
not
upon
any
such
account
as
the
Doctor
would
have
it
,
As
if
they
would
take
Christs
work
out
of
his
hands
,
and
ascribe
it
to
their
repentance
(
which
was
impossible
for
them
to
do
,
who
did
not
repent
,
except
through
self-deceit
,
in
thinking
they
were
penitent
,
whereas
indeed
they
were
not
)
and
would
have
no
bartering
with
him
,
but
with
their
own
duties
.
So
that
if
we
will
believe
our
Saviour
Christ
,
we
cannot
believe
what
the
Doctor
hath
said
,
in
answer
to
the
said
Question
(
How
so
?
)
2.
If
those
carnal
Professors
had
indeed
repented
,
and
converted
from
their
iniquities
,
They
might
well
and
warrantably
have
pleaded
their
repentance
and
conversion
,
as
a
title
(
through
the
mercy
of
God
in
Christ
)
for
their
admittance
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
saying
,
Lord
,
Lord
,
open
unto
us
;
instead
of
saying
(
Hast
not
thou
taught
in
our
street
,
have
not
we
eaten
and
drunk
in
thy
presence
,
in
thy
name
cast
out
devils
—
)
they
had
been
able
to
say
with
David
,
I
have
kept
thy
Word
,
I
have
been
upright
before
thee
,
and
have
kept
my self
from
mine
iniquity
,
or
as
Hezekiah
,
or
Nehemiah
,
or
St.
Paul
said
of
themselves
,
2
King
.
20.3
.
Neh.
14.22
.
2
Tim.
4.7
.
Christ
would
not
doubtless
have
turn'd
them
going
with
that
cutting
word
(
Depart
from
me
)
but
have
said
for
their
comfort
,
as
to
the
good
servant
,
Well
done
good
and
faithful
servants
:
For
thus
to
have
pleaded
,
was
not
to
take
any
work
proper
to
Christ
,
out
of
Christs
hand
,
or
to
ascribe
ought
,
that
was
peculiar
to
Christ
,
to
any
other
thing
;
which
to
have
done
,
was
far
from
those
Old
Testament
and
New
Testament
Saints
before-named
.
Did
David
in
that
saying
(
Lord
save
me
;
for
I
am
holy
,
Ps.
86.2
.
)
renounce
all
bartering
with
Christ
,
or
take
the
work
of
his
salvation
out
of
Christs
hands
,
or
ascribe
that
to
his
own
personal
holiness
,
that
was
peculiar
to
the
person
of
Christ
?
I
trow
not
.
Yea
,
for
professed
Christians
in
such
sort
to
plead
as
aforesaid
,
is
in
very
deed
to
put
the
work
of
their
salvation
into
the
hands
of
Christ
,
who
as
he
did
by
bearing
their
iniquities
,
purchase
their
being
saved
,
conditionally
upon
their
return
to
God
through
him
,
by
faith
and
repentance
,
so
he
gives
repentance
to
sinners
,
that
thereupon
both
he
and
they
may
be
in
a
proximate
,
or
moral
capacity
,
he
of
pardoning
and
saving
them
,
and
they
of
being
pardoned
or
saved
by
him
.
Briefly
then
,
the
sin
and
folly
of
those
carnal
Professors
was
not
,
that
they
would
not
at
all
,
or
upon
any
terms
Barter
with
Christ
(
only
with
themselves
)
but
that
they
would
have
bartered
with
Christ
,
with
coyn
not
currant
,
or
with
counterfeit
ware
(
i.
e.
)
not
with
true
repentance
for
sin
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
and
conversion
from
it
,
but
with
an
outside
profession
of
Christianity
,
owning
Christ
professedly
as
their
Lord
and
Master
,
themselves
in
the
mean
time
being
servants
to
,
or
workers
of
iniquity
:
For
had
they
indeed
parted
from
their
sins
,
they
had
never
parted
from
Christ
,
nor
would
Christ
have
refused
commuting
with
them
,
but
would
have
given
them
the
benefit
of
his
Righteousness
,
in
exchange
for
their
parting
with
their
own
unrighteousness
.
And
because
as
our
Saviour
speaking
concerning
the
worshipping
of
God
in
Spirit
and
in
truth
,
says
(
The
Father
seeketh
such
to
worship
him
)
so
Christ
himself
seeketh
such
Chapmen
,
as
will
forsake
all
their
sinful
ways
,
that
so
they
may
win
him
,
and
the
benefit
of
his
Righteousness
;
I
will
therefore
speak
a
few
words
,
whereby
to
drive
the
bargain
betwixt
the
Saviour
and
the
sinner
;
to
which
end
my
advice
to
every
sinner
,
is
as
followeth
:
1.
If
ever
you
mean
to
drive
a
saving
bargain
with
Christ
,
or
by
bartering
with
him
,
gain
the
benefit
of
his
Righteousness
,
you
must
know
the
market-rate
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
language
of
Scripture
,
Luke
14.28
.
)
You
must
sit
down
,
and
count
the
cost
.
And
in
the
name
of
the
living
God
,
I
beseech
you
to
take
heed
of
thinking
,
That
it
is
enough
for
you
to
lay
down
your
sins
at
the
cross
of
Christ
,
upon
his
shoulders
,
or
to
give
up
your
sins
to
Christ
in
the
guilt
of
them
,
which
some
use
to
call
,
An
applying
of
Christ
to
our selves
:
For
if
this
be
all
,
I
may
well
say
,
in
allusion
to
those
words
of
our
Saviour
(
Mat.
5.47
.
)
What
do
you
more
than
others
?
more
than
those
others
,
who
said
,
Lord
,
Lord
.
2.
You
must
rightly
understand
,
what
are
the
commodities
,
that
Jesus
Christ
doth
offer
or
expose
,
and
withal
the
true
value
and
worth
of
them
,
they
being
the
fruits
of
his
Righteousness
[
Remission
of
sin
,
Reconciliation
with
God
,
Redemption
,
Justification
unto
life
,
Everlasting
salvation
.
]
It
is
the
office
of
Gods
Ministers
,
faithfully
to
acquaint
sinners
,
that
although
Christ
hath
done
his
work
,
in
bearing
the
burden
of
their
iniquities
,
in
the
punishment
thereof
,
nevertheless
there
is
a
certain
burden
or
yoke
of
duty
,
to
which
every
sinner
is
to
submit
his
neck
and
shoulders
,
that
would
have
the
benefit
of
Christs
sufferings
actually
confer'd
upon
him
;
which
yoke
and
burden
(
for
our
comfort
our
Saviour
assures
us
)
is
easie
and
light
.
3.
You
must
after
a
due
deliberation
,
and
count
of
the
cost
,
come
to
a
fixed
resolution
,
to
come
up
to
the
market-price
,
and
to
bid
no
less
than
Christ
doth
demand
:
For
if
we
mean
to
barter
with
him
,
we
must
not
think
to
bring
him
down
to
our
terms
(
the
wearing
of
his
Livery
,
professing
his
name
,
doing
some
more
cheap
,
easie
,
external
duties
—
)
but
we
must
come
up
to
his
terms
(
i.e.
)
we
must
deny
our selves
,
take
up
our
cross
and
follow
him
,
as
he
hath
from
the
beginning
told
us
,
Mat.
16.24
.
For
though
we
may
cozen
or
cheat
our selves
,
yet
Christ
will
neither
cozen
us
,
nor
would
he
,
that
we
should
be
cozened
by
our selves
,
or
by
any
others
.
4.
Let
no
man
deceive
you
with
vain
words
,
as
if
the
doing
according
to
the
foresaid
Resolution
,
were
a
bartering
with
your selves
,
and
not
with
Christ
,
or
a
taking
of
the
work
out
of
Christs
hand
,
and
ascribing
it
to
your
own
faithful
performances
:
For
this
is
but
to
do
our
own
work
under
Christ
,
and
by
his
helping
grace
;
this
is
to
be
workers
together
with
God
;
this
is
under
Christ
to
do
our
own
part
,
for
the
saving
of
our selves
,
which
every
sinner
must
do
,
who
expects
to
be
saved
through
Christ
,
Acts
2.40
.
1
Tim.
4.16
.
'T
is
true
,
as
the
Doctor
says
,
That
the
work
,
which
Christ
came
to
do
in
the
world
,
was
to
bear
our
iniquities
,
and
to
lay
down
his
life
a
ransom
for
our
sins
;
but
withal
it
concerns
us
all
to
remember
,
that
we
have
a
work
or
works
to
do
,
that
the
benefit
of
that
his
ransom
and
sufferings
may
be
ours
,
whereupon
as
to
us
they
may
not
at
last
prove
in
vain
,
and
we
reproached
,
as
those
who
have
rejected
,
or
frustrated
the
counsel
of
God
against
our selves
,
Luk.
7.30
.
Our
only
work
is
not
to
give
up
our
sins
to
Christ
,
to
lay
them
upon
his
shoulders
,
or
to
believe
,
that
he
hath
born
them
.
We
can
never
barter
,
or
commute
with
Christ
meerly
upon
such
terms
.
Nor
let
us
regard
such
vain
words
,
as
are
here
suggested
by
the
Doctor
,
as
if
repenting
for
our
sins
,
and
doing
our
duty
,
that
we
may
be
saved
by
Christ
,
were
in
effect
to
say
,
Our
repentance
,
our
duties
,
shall
bear
our
iniquities
.
The
truth
is
,
in
these
four
things
,
1.
Whether
we
repent
,
or
not
repent
,
whether
we
do
,
or
not
do
our
duty
,
most
undoubtedly
Christ
hath
born
our
iniquities
.
2.
If
Christ
had
not
born
our
iniquities
,
although
we
had
done
our
duty
in
repenting
,
our
repentance
would
have
been
to
no
saving
purpose
;
for
we
must
still
our selves
have
born
our
iniquities
notwithstanding
.
3.
Though
Christ
hath
born
our
iniquities
,
nevertheless
repentance
for
sin
,
and
converting
therefrom
to
God
in
Christ
,
are
our
duties
,
and
duties
of
such
indispensable
necessity
,
that
unless
we
do
repent
and
be
converted
,
we
our selves
must
bear
our
iniquities
in
the
eternal
punishment
thereof
.
4.
To
repent
and
to
do
our
duty
,
that
we
may
not
our selves
in
this
sort
bear
our
iniquities
,
is
not
in
any
rational
construction
to
say
,
as
the
Doctor
,
it
seems
,
doth
interpret
it
,
That
our
repentance
and
duties
shall
bear
our
iniquities
.
I
have
been
the
more
copious
in
answer
to
the
said
passages
of
the
Doctor
,
that
I
might
preserve
,
or
rescue
the
souls
of
men
,
from
being
ensnared
thereby
:
And
although
I
expect
no
thanks
for
my
pains
from
many
,
but
contempt
and
derision
rather
,
nevertheless
forasmuch
as
I
look
upon
the
said
passages
,
as
dangerous
gins
and
snares
,
suited
in
their
own
nature
to
entangle
sinners
,
instead
of
tending
to
their
edification
,
in
ought
that
is
good
,
I
shall
not
repent
of
this
my
work
and
labour
of
love
.
I
will
now
proceed
to
the
proposal
of
such
useful
Questions
,
as
in
the
beginning
of
this
Chapter
,
I
intimated
should
be
the
subject
of
several
the
Chapters
following
.
CHAP.
XIX
.
In
what
sence
may
it
be
truly
said
,
That
we
are
interessed
in
Christs
Merit
or
Satisfaction
.
In
answer
hereunto
it
is
said
,
That
three
things
may
possibly
be
meant
,
by
the
Merit
or
Satisfaction
of
Christ
,
which
being
distinctly
specified
,
the
Question
is
accordingly
determined
.
FOrasmuch
as
such
sayings
as
these
,
are
ordinarily
heard
from
the
mouthes
,
and
to
be
seen
in
the
printed
Sermons
of
many
popular
Preachers
(
Believers
are
interessed
in
the
Merits
of
Christ
,
They
may
lay
claim
to
his
Merits
,
Christs
Satisfaction
is
theirs
,
They
may
challenge
it
as
their
own
—
)
and
forasmuch
as
such
sayings
,
are
by
the
common
sort
of
Hearers
and
Readers
(
not
to
mention
any
the
Authors
accustomed
to
such
words
)
either
not
at
all
understood
,
or
mis-understood
;
and
indeed
forasmuch
as
such
sayings
do
need
a
due
explication
;
as
well
therefore
to
promote
the
truth
,
as
to
prevent
error
,
in
the
minds
of
people
,
by
their
mis-conceptions
,
I
will
propose
,
and
answer
the
following
Question
.
Quest.
In
what
sence
may
it
be
truly
said
,
That
we
are
interessed
in
Christs
merit
and
satisfaction
,
or
,
That
we
may
challenge
,
and
lay
claim
thereunto
as
Ours
?
Answ.
Although
there
hath
been
enough
said
already
,
for
a
due
resolution
of
this
,
in
the
determination
of
the
third
Question
,
nevertheless
for
the
more
abundant
satisfaction
of
any
,
who
perhaps
may
need
it
,
I
will
answer
thereunto
,
as
followeth
.
There
be
three
things
,
which
possibly
may
be
meant
by
the
Merit
and
Satisfaction
of
Christ
.
-
1.
Christs
Righteousness
it self
,
or
his
very
doings
and
sufferings
themselves
,
wherein
his
Righteousness
did
consist
.
-
2.
The
valuableness
,
satisfactoriness
,
or
meritoriousness
of
that
his
Righteousness
and
Obedience
.
-
3.
The
thing
or
things
,
which
by
Christs
meritorious
obedience
were
merited
.
These
three
do
differ
in
sence
and
signification
,
as
Efficient
,
Efficiency
,
and
Effect
;
The
first
(
Christs
Righteousness
or
Obedience
)
hath
the
nature
of
an
Efficient
cause
;
The
second
(
the
satisfactoriness
of
Christs
Obedience
)
of
Causality
;
The
third
(
the
thing
or
things
merited
)
of
an
Effect
so
caused
.
Now
when
we
say
,
that
we
are
interessed
in
Christs
merit
and
satisfaction
,
that
they
are
Ours
,
that
they
are
imputed
to
us
,
or
bestowed
upon
us
,
the
words
(
Merit
or
Satisfaction
)
are
to
be
understood
in
the
third
sence
of
the
words
,
and
in
neither
of
the
two
former
sences
.
If
the
Question
were
thus
formed
or
worded
,
What
is
the
subject
of
Christs
merit
or
satisfaction
?
It
is
truly
to
be
answered
,
-
1.
As
merit
is
taken
in
the
second
sence
,
the
subject
thereof
(
I
mean
,
Subjectum
immediatum
,
seu
inhaesionis
)
is
Christs
merit
or
satisfaction
,
as
taken
in
the
first
sence
of
the
words
before
specified
:
For
the
worthiness
(
the
Vis
aptitudinalis
)
or
aptitude
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
merit
or
satisfie
,
hath
to
that
his
Righteousness
,
the
habitude
of
an
Adjunct
,
even
as
the
keenness
of
a
Knife
,
or
its
aptitude
to
cut
,
hath
to
the
Knife
it self
the
same
kind
of
respect
.
-
2.
As
merit
or
satisfaction
is
taken
in
the
first
sence
,
yea
also
in
the
second
sence
of
the
words
,
as
before
specified
,
so
Christ
himself
is
the
subject
thereof
,
I
mean
,
Subjectum
denominationis
:
In
these
two
sences
,
his
Merit
and
Satisfaction
is
truly
his
own
Merit
and
Satisfaction
,
and
so
to
be
denominated
,
but
not
Ours
,
they
being
in
the
said
sences
of
the
words
Incommunicable
to
us
.
-
3.
As
Christs
Merit
or
Satisfaction
are
taken
in
the
third
sence
of
the
words
before-named
,
Believers
are
the
subject
thereof
;
for
they
are
the
persons
,
who
have
interest
in
,
or
do
partake
of
the
saving
fruits
,
effects
,
or
benefits
thereof
,
or
thereby
purchased
.
Now
in
this
only
sence
(
in
my
apprehension
)
can
Christs
merit
or
satisfaction
,
be
truly
said
to
be
Ours
,
To
be
imputed
to
us
,
or
bestowed
upon
us
,
or
we
to
have
interest
in
it
,
or
(
as
is
the
usual
expression
of
some
Preachers
)
to
have
it
made
over
to
us
.
Briefly
,
In
such
a
sence
as
Our
Demerit
may
be
said
to
be
Christs
,
so
his
Merit
may
be
said
to
be
Ours
.
As
the
word
[
Merit
]
so
the
word
Demerit
may
possibly
mean
three
things
;
-
1.
The
evil
act
,
or
action
of
sinning
.
-
2.
The
demeritoriousness
,
or
deservingness
of
punishment
,
that
doth
necessarily
adhere
to
that
evil
action
.
-
3.
The
punishment
it self
thereby
deserved
.
Now
in
the
two
former
sences
of
the
word
,
a
sinners
Demerit
is
his
own
and
not
Christs
;
nor
did
Christ
ever
assume
to
,
or
take
upon
himself
our
Demerit
in
any
such
sence
,
but
only
in
the
third
sence
of
the
word
,
as
that
word
doth
import
the
punishment
it self
,
which
we
by
our
sins
had
merited
or
deserved
.
CHAP.
XX.
Q.
To
what
profit
would
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
in
it self
,
imputed
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
be
more
than
the
Imputation
of
it
in
the
benefit
thereof
?
Answ.
None
at
all
,
except
that
be
a
benefit
,
which
the
Familists
do
pretend
unto
,
and
which
they
call
Our
being
Christed
with
Christ
.
The
suffrage
of
the
very
learned
Dr.
Henry
More
.
An
Objection
answered
,
taken
from
the
pretence
of
several
benefits
,
which
being
distinctly
specified
in
the
following
Chapters
,
are
there
manifested
to
be
null
and
void
.
Quest.
CUI
bono
,
To
what
purpose
or
profit
,
would
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
,
or
the
imputation
thereof
(
in
the
sence
here
disowned
)
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
be
more
than
the
imputation
of
it
,
in
the
benefit
thereof
unto
him
,
viz.
the
remission
of
his
sin
?
Answ.
None
at
all
,
so
far
as
I
have
been
able
,
by
all
that
I
have
heard
or
read
hitherunto
,
to
comprehend
:
For
what
more
doth
a
sinner
need
,
or
can
he
in
reason
desire
to
receive
from
God
,
or
is
he
capable
of
receiving
from
God
through
Christ
,
than
a
free
and
full
pardon
of
all
his
sins
,
upon
his
faithful
and
penitential
return
to
God
in
him
?
What
more
should
God
do
for
a
penitent
and
believing
soul
,
than
to
be
merciful
to
his
sins
,
or
to
him
a
sinner
(
these
are
Scriptural
expressions
of
Gods
pardoning
mercy
,
Ps.
51.1
.
Luk.
18.13
.
Heb.
8.12
.
)
for
the
Righteousness
sake
of
Christ
,
or
the
meritoriousness
thereof
?
Is
there
any
thing
beyond
Heaven
,
that
a
believing
sinner
,
a
sanctified
soul
,
can
desire
?
And
what
is
it
,
that
can
keep
a
sinner
out
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
but
sin
unpardoned
?
Sin
retained
,
doth
indeed
keep
the
gate
of
Heaven
fast
shut
against
us
,
by
the
arm
of
the
Almighty
;
but
sin
remitted
,
or
the
remission
of
sin
,
makes
those
everlasting
doors
to
fly
open
,
even
as
that
iron
gate
did
to
Peter
of
its
own
accord
,
Act.
12.10
.
whereupon
to
every
pardoned
soul
,
there
is
an
entrance
ministred
abundantly
,
into
the
everlasting
Kingdom
of
our
Lord
and
Saviour
Jesus
Christ
.
I
know
no
benefit
,
that
a
sinner
is
capable
of
receiving
,
by
any
imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
beyond
what
hath
been
said
,
he
doth
,
or
shall
enjoy
,
through
the
pardon
of
his
sin
,
unless
we
shall
account
it
a
benefit
to
be
Christed
with
Christ
;
a
benefit
,
which
as
I
do
not
understand
,
so
neither
do
I
think
it
to
have
any
existence
,
otherwise
than
as
of
old
,
in
the
brains
of
Jacob
Behmen
,
and
Henry
Nicols
,
so
in
those
their
followers
,
styled
,
The
Tribe
or
Family
of
Love
,
who
have
infer'd
Our
being
Christed
with
Christ
,
from
such
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
which
being
by
many
others
unwarrantably
asserted
,
is
in
this
Treatise
deservedly
disclaimed
and
opposed
.
I
do
here
call
to
mind
the
words
of
the
very
learned
Doctor
Henry
More
,
very
pertinent
to
the
present
purpose
.
If
you
prescind
it
(
says
he
)
from
remission
of
sin
,
through
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
on
the
Cross
,
this
phrase
Imputative
Righteousness
,
hath
no
signification
at
all
,
and
that
therefore
there
is
no
damage
done
to
our
Religion
,
if
it
be
not
accounted
a
distinct
Article
,
from
the
Remission
of
sins
in
the
blood
of
Christ
:
For
it
cannot
afford
any
true
and
useful
sence
distinct
there-from
,
nay
I
may
say
,
any
that
is
not
mischievous
and
dangerous
,
and
such
as
tends
to
that
loathsom
and
pestilential
error
of
Antinomianism
.
The
premisses
considered
,
there
is
just
cause
to
conclude
,
that
those
Ministers
,
who
without
affectation
of
new
phrases
,
and
modes
of
speaking
,
do
love
still
to
utter
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
as
is
the
Apostles
expression
,
1
Cor.
14.9
.
)
intelligible
speech
,
or
(
as
our
Translation
renders
it
)
words
easie
to
be
understood
,
I
mean
,
who
do
in
plain
down-right
Scripture-language
,
preach
remission
of
sin
,
through
the
blood
,
righteousness
,
or
obedience
of
Christ
,
do
preach
all
that
is
true
,
or
truly
comfortable
in
that
doctrine
,
which
in
the
Sermons
and
Writings
of
many
,
doth
go
under
the
name
of
Christ
imputed
Righteousness
.
Object
.
But
do
not
the
contrary
minded
pretend
,
that
Justification
,
by
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
it self
to
a
sinner
,
is
a
greater
benefit
,
than
remission
of
sin
,
and
that
also
,
which
a
sinner
,
over
and
above
the
pardon
of
his
sin
,
hath
absolute
need
of
,
in
order
to
his
admittance
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
?
Answ.
I
am
not
altogether
ignorant
,
of
what
is
to
that
purpose
pretended
by
too
too
many
of
my
Brethren
,
whose
pretences
I
shall
faithfully
relate
,
and
because
I
do
judg
them
to
be
weak
and
groundless
,
I
will
endeavour
to
manifest
the
same
in
the
ensuing
Chapters
.
CHAP.
XXI
.
One
benefit
pretended
by
divers
,
That
by
Remission
of
sin
,
a
sinner
is
freed
from
the
punishment
deserved
by
his
fault
,
but
by
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
,
he
is
freed
from
the
fault
it self
,
the
vanity
of
which
pretence
is
discovered
.
Several
Objections
answered
,
wherein
is
shewen
,
That
a
sinner
may
be
disobliged
from
suffering
,
the
punishment
deserved
for
his
fault
,
and
yet
remain
faulty
still
;
and
that
it
is
repugnant
to
the
nature
,
as
well
as
to
the
Law
of
God
,
for
God
to
repute
a
sinner
to
be
that
,
which
he
is
not
,
or
not
to
have
committed
those
faults
,
which
he
hath
committed
.
That
it
is
one
thing
for
God
to
repute
a
person
to
be
innocent
,
and
quite
another
to
be
dealt
with
respectively
to
impunity
as
innocent
.
In
what
sence
a
Thief
having
made
satisfaction
for
his
theft
,
is
in
the
sence
of
the
Law
a
Thief
still
.
The
main
ground
of
mistake
in
this
matter
specified
.
1.
IT
is
pretended
,
that
by
remission
of
sin
,
the
sinner
is
freed
from
the
punishment
deserved
by
his
fault
,
but
by
his
justification
,
through
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
to
him
,
he
is
freed
from
faultiness
,
or
the
fault
it self
.
To
this
purpose
saith
Mr.
John
Warner
,
in
his
Book
styled
,
Diatriba
Fidei
justificantis
qua
justificantis
,
printed
in
the
year
1657
,
the
Book
it self
being
chiefly
written
,
in
opposition
to
Dr.
Hammond
,
Mr.
Baxter
,
Mr.
Woodbridge
,
and
my self
,
as
to
several
passages
in
my
Exercitation
,
concerning
the
nature
of
forgiveness
of
sin
.
His
words
,
p.
139.
are
these
;
Whereas
pardon
of
sin
doth
take
away
Reatum
poenae
,
justification
doth
constitute
a
man
so
righteous
,
as
to
take
away
Reatum
culpae
.
To
the
same
purpose
I
have
read
in
another
Author
,
who
says
,
That
whereas
remission
of
sin
takes
away
the
punishment
,
justification
takes
away
the
fault
,
so
that
the
Law
hath
no
power
to
pronounce
us
faulty
.
So
Mr.
Anth.
Burges
of
Just
.
2d
.
part
,
p.
268.
As
for
the
vanity
of
this
pretence
,
I
have
said
enough
already
,
partly
in
this
Treatise
,
and
partly
in
the
4th
.
Chapter
of
my
Exercitation
,
concerning
the
Nature
of
forgiveness
of
sin
,
and
if
need
be
,
am
ready
to
say
more
,
for
the
discovery
thereof
.
And
for
the
better
understanding
of
the
matter
,
let
the
difference
betwixt
Guilt
of
fault
,
and
Guilt
of
punishment
,
be
rightly
understood
,
and
still
remembred
,
viz.
That
these
two
do
differ
Sicut
Meritum
poenae
,
and
Obligatio
ad
luendum
poenam
,
in
the
former
sence
he
is
guilty
,
who
hath
committed
a
fault
,
and
thereby
hath
deserved
punishment
,
but
in
the
latter
sence
he
only
is
guilty
,
that
remains
actually
obliged
to
suffer
the
punishment
,
which
he
by
his
fault
had
deserved
.
Now
(
as
I
have
said
before
)
as
Christs
Righteousness
is
no
more
,
or
otherwise
imputed
to
a
sinner
,
for
his
justification
,
than
his
pardon
,
so
also
his
justification
doth
stand
him
in
no
more
stead
than
doth
his
pardon
;
albeit
Justification
doth
[
even
as
Remission
of
sin
]
take
away
the
guilt
of
punishment
,
yet
it
neither
doth
,
nor
can
take
away
the
guilt
of
fault
,
or
faultiness
it self
,
from
the
sinner
;
so
that
albeit
the
Law
cannot
pronounce
a
sinner
,
who
is
justified
,
to
be
guilty
,
as
a
person
actually
obliged
to
suffer
for
his
fault
,
yet
it
may
,
and
doth
,
and
cannot
otherwise
choose
but
pronounce
him
faulty
,
or
guilty
of
fault
;
yea
the
Law
,
in
its
express
pronouncing
a
person
to
be
pardoned
,
justified
,
or
not
guilty
of
punishment
,
doth
implicitly
pronounce
him
to
be
guilty
of
fault
.
So
true
are
those
sayings
,
Quod
factum
est
,
fieri
infectum
non
potest
.
Habere
eripitur
,
habuisse
nunquam
,
it
a
peccare
cessat
,
peccavisse
nunquam
.
Hereupon
it
,
was
most
truly
said
by
the
Poet
,
—
Ne
non
peccârim
,
Mors
quoque
non
faciet
.
But
because
I
am
well
assured
,
that
Mr.
Warner
and
Mr.
Burgess
are
not
alone
in
that
their
mistake
,
as
aforesaid
,
I
will
therefore
relate
certain
passages
,
which
I
have
somewhere
read
,
objected
against
the
truth
here
;
and
in
the
4th
.
Chapter
of
my
said
Exercitation
asserted
,
and
return
answer
thereunto
.
Object
.
Either
in
forgiving
sin
,
God
must
Peccantem
non
peccantem
facere
,
or
else
he
doth
nothing
?
Answ.
1.
If
this
be
true
,
that
God
in
forgiving
sin
,
doth
make
a
sinner
to
be
no
sinner
,
or
of
faulty
not
faulty
,
then
there
is
no
difference
at
all
as
to
this
particular
,
betwixt
forgiveness
of
sin
and
justification
,
seeing
God
in
forgiving
the
sinner
,
as
well
as
in
justifying
him
,
doth
make
him
no
sinner
(
i.
e.
)
not
faulty
,
or
culpable
.
Object
.
Gods
taking
off
the
obligation
to
punishment
,
is
in
order
to
his
making
Peccantem
non
peccantem
(
i.
e.
)
a
sinner
to
be
no
sinner
?
Answ.
I
deny
,
that
Gods
taking
off
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
is
in
order
to
any
such
matter
,
as
is
here
pretended
:
For
his
taking
off
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
is
in
order
to
his
non-inflicting
,
or
his
actual
taking
off
the
punishment
it self
,
in
his
appointed
time
.
2.
If
it
were
truly
said
,
that
Gods
taking
off
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
were
in
order
to
his
making
of
a
person
faulty
not
faulty
,
then
the
difference
betwixt
remission
of
sin
and
justification
,
cannot
be
as
is
here
pretended
.
Object
.
As
long
as
a
sinner
is
faulty
,
he
is
still
obliged
to
punishment
?
Answ.
Woe
be
to
us
,
if
this
be
true
.
For
if
there
be
truth
in
that
saying
,
we
have
all
cause
to
say
with
the
Disciples
,
Who
then
can
be
saved
?
2.
Be
it
known
to
sinners
,
for
their
great
Consolation
in
Christ
,
that
what
is
here
objected
,
is
a
notorious
mistake
;
the
very
truth
being
this
,
viz.
That
a
sinner
may
be
disobliged
from
suffering
the
punishment
deserved
by
his
fault
,
even
when
,
and
while
he
stands
faulty
,
yea
although
to
all
eternity
he
doth
stand
faulty
;
and
in
very
deed
,
every
pardoned
or
justified
sinner
shall
so
stand
before
God
,
it
being
a
thing
simply
impossible
,
but
that
he
,
who
is
pardoned
or
justified
by
Gods
free
grace
,
through
the
Redemption
which
is
in
Christ
Jesus
,
should
remain
faulty
or
culpable
,
as
to
his
former
sins
,
even
unto
all
eternity
.
Object
.
It
is
not
a
contradiction
to
say
,
A
sinner
may
become
no
sinner
in
Gods
account
,
or
by
Imputation
,
that
being
done
for
him
,
and
made
over
to
him
,
which
be
should
have
done
himself
?
Answ.
1.
Whereas
the
Scripture
tell
us
,
that
Christ
is
our
Mediator
and
Advocate
with
the
Father
,
this
Objection
supposeth
him
to
have
been
our
Mandatory
,
Proxie
,
or
Delegate
,
and
that
Christs
doings
were
so
done
for
us
,
and
in
such
a
sence
made
over
to
us
,
as
that
God
imputes
the
very
things
done
,
or
the
very
doing
of
the
things
themselves
unto
us
,
the
error
of
which
imagination
,
I
have
already
sufficiently
(
as
I
hope
)
demonstrated
.
2.
As
a
person
having
sin'd
,
or
committed
a
fault
,
is
thereupon
to
be
denominated
a
sinner
,
even
so
doth
God
still
from
thence
forward
account
of
him
,
neither
is
it
possible
,
that
God
should
upon
any
account
whatsoever
,
repute
him
otherwise
than
as
a
person
faulty
:
For
look
upon
what
account
any
one
shall
affirm
,
that
God
doth
repute
any
such
person
not
faulty
,
he
must
upon
the
same
account
attribute
to
the
All-seeing
God
a
mistaken
judgment
(
i.
e.
)
to
repute
a
person
to
be
such
a
manner
of
person
,
as
indeed
he
is
not
,
or
not
to
have
committed
the
fault
or
faults
,
which
indeed
he
hath
.
3.
As
it
is
a
contradiction
for
any
one
to
say
,
That
what
is
done
,
was
never
done
,
so
it
is
a
notorious
untruth
to
say
,
That
God
reputes
a
man
not
to
have
done
the
faults
,
which
he
hath
done
,
or
not
to
have
thereby
deserved
,
what
he
hath
deserved
.
Object
.
What
difference
is
there
betwixt
being
imputed
innocent
,
and
dealt
with
as
innocent
?
And
if
justified
persons
be
accounted
innocent
,
then
their
faultiness
is
done
away
by
Imputation
?
Answ.
1.
There
is
a
plain
difference
betwixt
imputed
(
I
think
,
the
Objector
would
or
should
have
said
reputed
)
innocent
,
and
dealt
with
respectively
to
impunity
,
as
innocent
:
For
the
former
doth
imply
,
that
the
person
is
esteemed
to
have
committed
no
fault
,
and
thereupon
that
he
is
justified
by
works
,
the
latter
doth
imply
,
that
although
a
person
be
a
sinner
,
yet
his
punishment
is
remitted
,
and
that
he
is
justified
by
free
grace
.
2.
Persons
that
are
justified
by
grace
,
or
with
a
Gospel-kind
of
justification
,
are
not
accounted
innocent
(
for
upon
the
account
of
innocency
,
they
must
be
justified
by
works
and
not
by
grace
)
and
consequently
their
faultiness
is
not
done
away
,
by
any
imaginary
imputation
whatsoever
.
3.
It
is
one
thing
for
God
to
repute
a
man
Innocent
,
and
quite
another
thing
for
God
to
repute
him
As
Innocent
:
For
,
for
God
to
repute
a
person
Innocent
,
is
to
repute
him
to
have
committed
no
fault
;
but
for
God
to
repute
a
person
As
Innocent
,
is
for
God
to
pardon
him
,
or
not
punish
him
for
his
faults
,
but
to
deal
with
him
as
one
,
who
never
committed
any
.
4.
Though
I
readily
grant
,
that
the
faults
of
a
person
pardoned
,
or
justified
,
are
done
away
,
as
to
the
Non-imputation
of
guilt
of
punishment
(
in
which
respect
,
their
pardon
or
justification
is
styled
a
Non-imputation
of
their
faults
to
them
,
Ps.
32.2
.
2
Cor.
5.18
.
)
nevertheless
I
must
still
deny
,
that
the
faultiness
of
such
a
person
is
done
away
,
and
affirm
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
his
faultiness
,
or
his
sin
in
the
faultiness
thereof
,
is
still
imputed
to
him
(
i.
e.
)
that
he
is
still
reputed
by
God
,
to
have
done
or
committed
a
fault
,
and
thereby
to
have
deserved
punishment
.
Object
.
Though
in
justifying
a
sinner
,
God
doth
not
Peccata
non
peccata
facere
,
yet
he
may
Peccantem
non
peccantem
facere
?
Answ.
Because
God
cannot
do
the
former
,
therefore
he
cannot
do
the
latter
:
For
Peccatum
and
Peccans
being
Conjugata
,
it
doth
necessarily
follow
,
that
whosoever
doth
Peccantem
non
Peccantem
facere
,
he
must
in
order
thereunto
,
Peccatum
non
Peccatum
facere
;
for
that
cannot
be
done
without
this
:
A
man
cannot
of
Peccans
be
made
Non
Peccans
,
till
that
his
Peccatum
be
made
Non
Peccatum
.
Peccatum
must
be
undenominated
Peccatum
,
or
denominated
Non
Peccatum
,
before
Peccans
can
possibly
be
undenominated
Peccans
,
or
denominated
Non
Peccans
.
I
conclude
therefore
,
that
in
his
pardoning
or
justifying
a
sinner
,
God
doth
not
,
yea
cannot
,
do
either
of
the
said
things
,
I
say
,
Cannot
,
because
it
implyes
a
contradiction
,
(
i.
e.
)
to
make
one
,
that
hath
sin'd
,
not
to
have
sin'd
,
or
that
,
which
once
was
a
sin
,
not
to
have
been
a
sin
.
Object
.
A
Thief
having
made
satisfaction
for
his
fault
,
is
in
the
sence
of
the
Law
no
longer
a
Thief
,
or
faulty
as
to
theft
,
and
so
it
is
in
the
case
of
a
sinners
justification
?
Answ.
1.
I
readily
both
give
and
grant
,
that
look
how
it
is
with
a
Thief
,
who
by
himself
hath
made
legal
satisfaction
for
his
fault
,
so
it
is
with
a
justified
sinner
(
I
say
not
,
who
hath
made
satisfaction
for
himself
in
or
by
Christ
,
but
)
for
whom
Christ
hath
made
satisfaction
,
and
which
satisfaction
as
so
made
by
Christ
,
God
hath
accepted
:
And
the
case
of
both
I
judg
to
be
this
,
viz.
That
although
both
of
them
do
still
remain
faulty
,
or
Rei
culpoe
,
yet
neither
of
them
are
Obligati
ad
poenam
(
i.
e.
)
actually
obliged
to
suffer
the
punishment
deserved
by
,
or
for
their
faults
.
2.
Those
words
(
A
Thief
,
that
hath
satisfied
for
his
fault
,
is
in
the
sence
of
the
Law
no
longer
a
Thief
)
are
ambiguous
:
For
as
the
word
Thief
may
signifie
two
things
,
viz.
One
that
hath
stollen
,
and
one
that
is
liable
,
or
obliged
to
suffer
for
his
theft
,
so
the
foresaid
words
may
signifie
,
either
that
the
Law
cannot
say
,
That
such
a
one
hath
stollen
,
or
,
That
such
a
one
is
liable
,
or
obnoxious
to
be
condemned
.
Now
although
the
said
Thief
,
who
hath
made
legal
satisfaction
,
be
in
the
sence
of
the
Law
no
longer
a
Thief
,
in
the
latter
sence
of
the
word
[
Thief
]
yet
he
still
is
a
Thief
in
the
former
sence
of
the
word
,
and
shall
be
still
so
senced
by
the
Law
,
even
so
long
till
theft
be
no
theft
,
or
the
Law
become
never
to
have
been
a
Law
,
or
till
that
which
is
once
done
,
shall
become
a
thing
that
never
was
done
.
Object
.
The
faultiness
of
the
sin
,
and
of
the
person
from
that
sin
,
are
two
things
,
the
act
of
theft
will
be
theft
,
but
the
person
committing
that
,
though
once
a
Thief
,
yet
having
satisfied
the
Law
,
in
the
sence
of
that
Law
is
become
no
Thief
?
Answ.
1.
This
in
part
hath
been
already
answered
,
in
my
reply
to
the
Objection
immediately
foregoing
,
wherein
hath
been
declared
,
in
what
sence
of
the
word
Thief
,
the
said
person
is
in
the
face
of
the
Law
looked
upon
as
no
Thief
,
and
yet
still
as
a
Thief
(
i.
e.
)
though
not
as
one
,
who
is
obliged
to
suffer
for
his
theft
,
yet
as
one
,
who
hath
stollen
or
committed
theft
.
2.
I
deny
,
that
the
faultiness
of
the
sin
,
and
of
the
person
resulting
from
that
sin
,
are
two
things
,
(
i.
e.
)
two
separable
things
,
as
the
Objector
pretends
:
For
there
is
not
one
faultiness
of
the
sin
,
and
another
of
the
person
,
nor
can
the
faultiness
of
theft
,
or
of
any
other
sin
,
be
separated
from
the
person
of
him
,
who
hath
committed
such
sins
;
the
faultiness
of
such
sins
,
will
in
the
simple
faultiness
thereof
,
result
upon
the
persons
of
such
sinners
,
so
long
as
Peccans
and
Peccatum
,
Furtum
and
Furans
are
Conjugata
.
3.
One
special
reason
,
why
some
do
not
perceive
their
mistake
in
this
pretended
difference
,
betwixt
remission
of
sin
and
justification
(
they
asserting
remission
takes
away
the
punishment
,
but
justification
the
fault
)
seems
to
be
this
,
viz.
Because
they
do
not
discern
,
or
mind
the
difference
,
betwixt
that
two-fold
guilt
of
sin
,
which
upon
occasion
hath
oft-times
before
been
mentioned
,
and
once
at
least
explicated
[
Guilt
of
fault
,
and
of
punishment
]
this
being
one
main
difference
betwixt
them
,
viz.
That
guilt
of
punishment
is
a
thing
separable
from
the
sinner
,
but
the
guilt
of
fault
not
so
:
For
although
it
be
most
true
,
that
satisfaction
being
made
for
a
fault
(
which
was
the
case
here
suppos'd
)
the
fault
doth
not
Redundare
in
personam
(
i.
e.
)
result
upon
the
criminal
,
in
the
punishment
thereof
(
this
being
the
case
of
every
pardoned
,
or
justified
sinner
)
nevertheless
the
Reatus
simplex
,
faultiness
it self
(
this
being
a
thing
inseparable
from
the
sin
and
sinner
)
doth
still
result
upon
him
,
and
shall
abide
upon
him
,
till
such
time
as
the
foresaid
contradictions
can
be
verified
,
which
will
be
Ad
Groecas
Calendas
,
neither
in
this
world
,
nor
in
the
world
to
come
.
Thus
have
I
answered
to
what
I
ever
hitherto
have
read
,
touching
the
first
grand
benefit
,
which
is
pretended
to
be
in
a
sinners
justification
,
by
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
him
,
over
and
above
that
,
which
doth
consist
in
the
Remission
of
his
sin
.
I
proceed
to
the
mention
of
another
,
which
shall
be
the
subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XXII
.
Another
benefit
pretended
to
be
had
by
Justification
,
through
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
,
over
and
above
the
pardon
of
our
sins
is
,
That
remission
of
sin
doth
take
off
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
but
justification
by
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
,
doth
put
him
into
a
state
of
favour
and
acceptation
with
God
,
the
vanity
of
which
pretence
is
discovered
.
The
definition
of
Justification
,
given
by
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
,
in
their
lesser
Catechism
explicated
,
so
as
to
reconcile
it
with
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
though
not
from
tautology
.
Three
main
grounds
of
the
mistake
,
in
the
difference
here
pretended
,
to
be
betwixt
remission
of
sin
,
and
justification
by
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
.
2.
A
Second
benefit
pretended
to
be
had
by
justification
,
through
Christs
imputed
Righteousness
,
over
and
above
the
pardon
of
our
sins
,
is
this
,
That
remission
of
sin
doth
take
off
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
but
justification
puts
him
into
a
state
of
favour
and
acceptation
with
God
.
To
this
pretence
I
reply
,
1.
Forasmuch
as
the
punishment
of
sin
is
privative
as
well
as
positive
,
of
loss
as
well
as
of
sence
,
(
as
are
the
common
expressions
)
and
forasmuch
as
the
loss
,
or
privation
of
a
sinners
favour
and
acceptance
with
God
,
is
one
part
of
that
punishment
,
which
is
threatned
for
sin
,
it
cannot
therefore
be
otherwise
,
but
that
if
the
punishment
of
our
sins
,
through
a
pardon
be
remitted
,
but
that
our
persons
should
be
accepted
,
and
restored
into
favour
with
God
.
To
this
purpose
it
is
observable
,
that
Reconciliation
with
God
,
and
remission
of
sin
,
are
used
in
Scripture
as
terms
Synonimous
,
or
of
the
same
importance
;
reconciliation
with
God
,
being
a
part
at
least
of
remission
of
sin
;
for
proof
whereof
,
see
2
Cor.
5.19
.
where
Gods
reconciling
the
world
to
himself
,
is
said
to
be
his
not
imputing
to
them
their
trespasses
,
which
non-imputation
is
(
as
hath
been
before-said
)
all
one
with
remission
of
sin
.
See
also
Heb.
2.17
.
and
9.12
.
where
we
find
it
to
be
all
one
,
for
Christ
to
make
reconciliation
for
sinners
,
as
to
purchase
remission
,
or
redemption
for
them
.
See
Act.
10.43
.
with
Rom.
5.11
.
To
receive
remission
of
sin
,
and
to
receive
atonement
or
reconciliation
with
God
,
are
there
mentioned
as
the
same
thing
.
2.
I
desire
the
Reader
to
consider
,
whether
,
if
a
sinner
through
the
remission
of
his
sins
,
be
not
brought
into
an
estate
of
favour
and
acceptation
with
God
,
[
Blessed
is
the
man
,
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
and
whose
sins
are
covered
,
and
Blessed
is
the
man
,
to
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
no
iniquity
.
]
Quest.
Do
not
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
,
make
justification
to
be
more
than
remission
of
sin
,
as
seems
by
that
description
of
justification
,
which
in
their
lesser
Catechism
,
is
by
them
described
to
be
An
act
of
Gods
free
grace
,
wherein
he
pardoneth
all
our
sins
,
and
accepteth
us
as
righteous
in
his
sight
,
for
the
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
—
Answ.
1.
That
God
accepts
us
as
righteous
,
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
,
is
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
and
a
truth
worthy
of
all
acceptation
;
but
that
this
is
for
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
no
Scripture
doth
expresly
affirm
,
and
forasmuch
as
those
Divines
do
not
explain
the
meaning
of
that
their
saying
,
I
am
willing
to
construe
it
,
in
such
a
sence
as
agrees
with
the
Scriptures
,
and
as
hath
been
opened
in
the
third
Chapter
of
this
Treatise
.
2.
I
am
willing
also
to
make
such
a
construction
of
those
additional
words
,
in
their
description
of
justification
(
And
accepteth
us
as
righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
)
as
to
reconcile
them
to
the
truth
of
Scripture
;
and
the
best
construction
,
that
possibly
(
to
my
understanding
)
can
be
made
thereof
,
is
this
,
viz.
That
those
words
are
a
meer
tautology
.
Gods
pardoning
us
,
is
all
one
with
his
cleansing
us
from
all
unrighteousness
;
whereupon
be
it
seriously
considered
,
How
God
can
be
said
to
cleanse
us
from
all
unrighteousness
,
and
not
eo
nomine
,
accept
us
in
his
sight
as
righteous
:
For
there
being
sins
of
omission
,
as
well
as
commission
,
if
God
pardon
the
former
,
as
well
as
the
latter
,
he
must
of
necessity
accept
of
our
persons
as
righteous
;
for
as
by
pardoning
a
sinner
his
sins
of
commission
,
he
accepts
of
him
as
a
person
,
that
hath
done
no
evil
,
so
by
pardoning
him
his
sins
of
omission
,
God
accepts
him
as
a
person
,
that
hath
performed
all
good
,
and
what
is
this
,
but
to
accept
him
as
righteous
,
positively
righteous
?
There
needs
no
more
therefore
to
righteousness
,
than
pardon
of
sin
:
For
that
which
puts
an
offendor
into
such
a
state
,
as
if
he
had
broken
the
Law
in
nothing
,
and
had
performed
it
in
every
thing
,
that
doth
necessarily
justifie
,
or
constitute
him
righteous
.
The
premisses
considered
,
it
doth
evidently
appear
,
That
to
say
,
By
the
remission
of
our
sins
,
God
dischargeth
us
from
the
punishment
of
them
,
and
by
justification
he
accepts
us
as
Righteous
,
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
That
by
remission
of
sin
God
pardoneth
,
or
dischargeth
us
from
our
sins
of
Commission
,
and
by
Justification
he
pardoneth
,
or
dischargeth
us
from
our
sins
of
Omission
;
and
how
unreasonable
this
assertion
is
,
it
's
easie
to
determine
.
The
main
grounds
of
the
difference
in
this
Chapter
,
pretended
to
be
betwixt
remission
of
sin
and
Justification
,
seem
to
be
these
:
-
1.
Because
such
pretenders
do
not
consider
,
that
there
are
sins
of
Omission
,
as
well
as
of
Commission
,
and
that
whensoever
,
or
to
whomsoever
God
pardons
the
one
,
he
pardons
the
other
.
-
2.
Because
they
fancy
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
a
sinner
,
in
or
towards
his
justification
,
which
is
not
towards
,
or
in
order
to
his
pardon
;
whereas
it
is
the
undoubted
truth
of
Scripture
,
that
Christs
Righteousness
is
no
more
,
or
otherwise
imputed
for
,
or
in
order
to
the
one
,
than
the
other
.
-
3.
Because
they
fancy
such
a
kind
of
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
or
that
it
is
in
such
a
sence
imputed
to
a
sinner
in
his
justification
(
they
making
it
not
the
Medium
unto
a
sinners
righteousness
,
but
the
very
thing
it self
)
as
is
repugnant
both
to
reason
,
and
Scripture
.
CHAP.
XXIII
.
A
third
benefit
pretended
by
a
sinners
justification
,
through
Christs
imputed
Righteousness
,
over
and
above
remission
of
sin
is
,
That
this
latter
doth
only
free
the
sinner
from
eternal
death
,
but
justification
doth
moreover
intitle
him
to
eternal
life
,
the
vanity
of
which
pretence
is
discovered
;
with
an
answer
to
what
is
objected
to
the
contrary
by
Mr.
Anth.
Burges
.
An
Answer
also
to
the
Question
,
Whether
believing
sinners
are
not
restored
by
Christ
,
unto
a
greater
degree
of
felicity
,
by
their
justification
through
Christs
Righteousness
(
supposing
the
Imputation
of
it
)
than
upon
the
bare
score
of
the
forgiveness
of
their
sins
?
The
Contradictions
of
Mr.
Anth.
Burges
,
in
certain
particulars
instanc'd
in
.
A
Third
benefit
(
much-what
of
affinity
with
that
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
)
pretended
by
a
sinners
justification
,
through
Christs
imputed
Righteousness
,
over
and
above
the
Remission
of
his
sins
,
is
,
That
remission
of
sin
doth
only
free
a
sinner
from
eternal
death
,
but
justification
doth
more
(
i.
e.
)
it
entitles
him
to
eternal
life
.
To
this
I
reply
.
That
the
thing
here
pretended
,
hath
been
indeed
asserted
by
several
Writers
and
Preachers
;
but
for
the
discovery
of
their
mistake
therein
,
I
need
not
say
much
more
,
than
to
desire
the
Reader
to
reflect
upon
what
hath
been
already
said
,
specially
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
,
and
withal
to
consider
,
That
forasmuch
as
the
loss
,
or
forfeiture
of
our
title
to
life
,
is
one
part
of
the
deserved
punishment
of
sin
,
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
a
sinners
deserved
punishment
being
remitted
through
a
pardon
,
he
is
Ipso
facto
and
eo
nomine
,
restored
unto
that
title
to
life
eternal
,
which
by
his
sin
he
had
lost
or
forfeited
.
If
a
sinner
being
obliged
to
lose
heaven
,
and
to
be
cast
into
hell
for
his
sin
,
shall
be
once
pardoned
,
through
the
dissolution
of
that
his
obligation
,
by
a
pardon
he
becomes
In
statu
quo
prius
,
he
hath
right
to
impunity
of
both
kinds
,
I
mean
,
to
freedom
from
hell
,
and
to
the
enjoyment
of
heaven
.
If
the
loss
of
the
enjoyment
of
God
be
punishment
of
its
kind
(
called
therefore
Poena
damni
)
then
doth
pardon
of
sin
restore
right
to
that
enjoyment
of
God
,
else
the
sinner
is
not
fully
pardoned
,
no
more
than
justified
,
as
if
a
Traytor
or
Murderer
be
pardoned
,
yet
must
lose
his
goods
,
he
is
then
pardoned
as
to
his
life
and
lands
,
but
not
as
to
his
goods
.
So
that
a
sinner
so
far
forth
as
he
is
pardoned
,
he
is
justified
,
there
being
no
more
in
the
justification
of
an
offendor
,
than
pardon
of
sin
,
as
to
the
form
,
or
formal
nature
of
the
thing
.
I
will
spend
this
Chapter
in
answering
such
Arguments
,
as
I
have
seen
alledged
,
for
the
strengthening
of
the
said
vain
pretence
,
and
shall
begin
with
Mr.
Anthony
Burges
.
He
saith
in
his
Book
of
Justification
,
the
second
part
:
Object
.
It
follows
not
,
where
all
evil
is
removed
in
a
subject
capable
,
all
good
is
introduced
(
if
a
man
shall
not
be
damned
,
he
must
be
saved
)
for
though
these
are
inseparable
,
yet
this
doth
not
follow
Ex
naturâ
rei
,
but
extrinsecally
by
the
order
and
appointment
of
God
,
because
God
might
have
delivered
a
sinner
from
hell
,
and
yet
have
annihilated
him
,
as
a
King
may
forgive
a
Malefactor
by
sparing
his
life
,
and
yet
not
admit
him
for
a
Courtier
,
and
make
him
a
Favourite
.
2.
They
,
who
say
,
That
God
might
have
freed
a
sinner
from
eternal
death
,
and
then
by
annihilation
have
rendred
him
uncapable
of
eternal
life
,
do
in
plain
consequence
say
,
That
God
might
have
pardoned
a
sinner
,
and
then
have
punished
him
.
3.
Though
I
yield
these
three
things
;
-
1.
That
Annihilation
is
rather
to
be
chosen
,
than
hell
,
That
Praestat
non
esse
,
quam
semper
miserum
esse
.
-
2.
That
upon
that
account
,
a
sinner
set
free
from
hell
,
and
yet
annihilated
,
may
be
said
to
be
pardoned
in
a
diminutive
sence
,
that
is
,
to
halves
,
or
comparatively
with
himself
,
if
he
had
been
cast
into
that
lake
,
which
burneth
with
fire
and
brimstone
for
ever
.
-
3.
That
God
in
his
soveraignty
,
or
by
vertue
of
his
absolute
dominion
,
or
à
priori
,
might
,
if
he
had
so
pleased
,
have
in
such
sort
pardoned
a
sinner
to
halves
by
annihilation
.
This
I
yield
:
For
as
it
is
in
Gods
power
to
pardon
a
sinner
upon
what
terms
,
in
what
way
,
and
at
what
time
,
so
also
how
far
forth
,
or
in
what
degrees
it
seemeth
good
to
his
divine
wisdom
and
pleasure
.
But
these
Concessions
notwithstanding
,
be
it
considered
,
That
God
hath
in
his
Word
revealed
his
divine
will
and
pleasure
in
this
point
,
viz.
That
he
is
so
well
pleased
with
the
satisfaction
of
his
only
begotten
Son
(
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
)
as
to
promise
unto
,
and
in
due
time
to
bestow
upon
believing
sinners
,
not
a
partial
pardon
,
but
a
full
and
plenary
pardon
of
sin
;
and
from
this
plenary
pardon
so
promised
,
according
to
Gods
good
pleasure
,
it
doth
,
I
say
,
necessarily
follow
,
That
if
a
sinner
be
pardoned
with
that
pardon
,
which
the
Gospel
promiseth
,
and
which
alone
is
here
in
question
,
he
is
Ipso
facto
,
restored
into
Gods
favour
and
fatherly
acceptation
,
and
entitled
to
life
eternal
.
The
premisses
considered
,
I
infer
these
three
or
four
Conclusions
:
-
1.
That
upon
the
removal
of
eternal
evil
from
a
person
,
who
is
pardoned
,
eternal
good
is
immediately
introduced
,
by
Gods
order
and
appointment
.
-
2.
That
to
grant
(
as
the
Objector
here
doth
)
that
forgiveness
of
sin
doth
remove
the
eternal
evil
,
is
to
yield
the
cause
,
and
to
acknowledg
,
that
by
Gods
order
and
appointment
,
forgiveness
of
sin
doth
introduce
eternal
good
,
or
a
title
to
eternal
life
.
-
3.
That
if
we
do
suppose
a
sinner
pardoned
,
to
be
only
freed
from
hell
,
and
then
annihilated
,
we
do
even
then
,
therein
,
and
thereby
,
suppose
him
not
pardoned
according
to
the
tenor
of
the
Gospel
,
or
with
such
a
plenary
pardon
as
the
Gospel
promiseth
;
and
consequently
,
that
to
argue
after
such
a
rate
,
as
is
here
argued
,
is
to
forsake
,
or
to
depart
from
the
subject
of
the
Question
,
a
thing
much
unbeseeming
a
close
Disputant
,
such
as
this
Author
was
by
many
accounted
.
-
4.
That
it
is
a
groundless
imagination
to
think
,
as
too
too
many
do
,
who
having
first
unnecessarily
distinguished
of
Christs
obedience
,
into
active
and
passive
,
do
sort
them
to
several
distinct
purposes
,
dogmatizing
thereupon
,
That
Christ
by
his
passive
obedience
,
hath
freed
us
from
the
guilt
of
eternal
death
,
and
by
his
active
obedience
,
hath
procured
us
a
title
to
eternal
life
,
and
That
by
forgiveness
of
sin
we
have
freedom
from
the
one
,
and
by
Justification
by
Christs
Righteousness
,
we
have
title
to
the
other
.
As
particularly
Dr.
Owen
speaks
,
in
his
Book
of
Communion
with
God
.
And
because
it
is
much
to
be
desired
,
that
Christians
would
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
as
is
the
Apostles
prayer
for
the
Philippians
,
Ch.
1.10
.
)
first
try
,
and
then
approve
or
disapprove
,
according
to
the
different
nature
of
things
,
my
purpose
is
in
certain
Chapters
of
this
Treatise
,
to
expose
to
an
impartial
examination
,
what
that
Author
hath
dictated
concerning
this
matter
.
In
the
mean
while
,
I
shall
offer
two
things
to
consideration
:
1.
Mr.
Baxter
says
in
those
sheets
,
which
he
wrote
in
reference
to
Mr.
Edw.
Fowler's
Book
styled
(
The
design
of
Christianity
.
)
We
believe
,
says
he
,
p.
17.
That
Christs
habitual
perfection
,
with
his
Active
Righteousness
,
and
his
sacrifice
,
or
sufferings
,
all
set
together
and
advanced
in
value
,
by
their
conjunction
with
his
Divine
Righteousness
,
were
the
true
meritorious
procuring
cause
of
our
pardon
,
justification
,
sanctification
and
salvation
.
Not
one
part
imputed
to
this
effect
,
and
another
to
that
,
but
all
thus
making
up
one
meritorious
cause
of
all
these
effects
,
even
of
the
Covenant
,
and
all
its
benefits
.
He
adds
,
saying
(
and
which
is
the
main
truth
,
which
I
do
by
this
whole
Treatise
contend
for
)
And
thus
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
and
given
to
us
,
not
immediately
in
it self
,
but
in
the
effects
and
fruits
:
As
a
ransom
is
said
to
be
given
to
a
Captive
,
because
it
is
given
For
him
,
though
strictly
the
ransom
is
given
to
another
,
and
only
the
fruits
of
it
to
him
.
This
I
take
to
be
the
Catholick
Faith
,
in
the
Article
before
us
.
2.
Be
it
considered
,
That
there
is
no
Medium
betwixt
Life
and
Death
,
no
middle
condition
rationally
imaginable
betwixt
these
two
.
Hereupon
we
may
certainly
conclude
,
That
he
who
by
the
forgiveness
of
his
sins
,
is
freed
from
eternal
death
,
cannot
otherwise
but
be
conceived
to
have
a
right
to
life
eternal
.
I
proceed
to
answer
certain
other
Arguments
,
objected
from
the
Scriptures
.
Object
.
The
Apostle
having
said
,
he
adds
,
as
a
further
priviledg
or
benefit
,
saying
,
And
by
him
all
that
believe
,
are
justified
.
This
is
objected
(
if
I
do
not
mis-remember
)
in
the
said
Book
styled
Communion
with
God
.
Answ.
1.
The
words
being
translated
out
of
the
original
,
run
thus
,
Be
it
known
unto
you
therefore
Men
and
Brethren
,
that
by
this
man
forgiveness
of
sins
is
preached
unto
you
,
and
from
all
things
,
from
which
you
could
not
be
justified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
this
is
the
entire
v.
38.
in
the
Greek
,
and
then
it
follows
v.
39.
By
him
every
believing
man
is
justified
.
The
words
being
thus
rendred
,
and
an
Emphasis
laid
upon
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
which
is
oft-times
in
Scripture
as
much
as
even
)
do
clearly
make
the
same
thing
to
be
meant
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
meant
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
do
clearly
,
I
say
,
make
justification
and
remission
of
sin
to
be
the
same
thing
,
or
of
the
self
same
adequate
importance
,
that
implying
no
more
priviledg
or
benefit
than
this
.
2.
Read
the
words
as
we
find
them
translated
,
and
it
is
sufficiently
clear
,
that
the
words
(
justification
and
remission
)
are
but
varied
phrases
of
one
and
the
same
thing
,
it
being
the
manner
of
Scripture
,
frequently
to
express
the
self
same
thing
,
by
varied
words
and
phrases
.
3.
The
said
Scripture
,
being
alledged
usually
for
the
proving
,
that
justification
doth
denote
a
further
priviledg
than
forgiveness
of
sin
,
especially
the
Imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
,
must
for
that
purpose
thus
be
paraphrased
,
Through
this
man
is
preached
unto
you
the
forgiveness
of
sins
,
and
by
him
all
that
believe
,
have
Christs
active
obedience
imputed
to
them
from
all
things
,
from
which
you
could
not
have
Christs
active
obedience
imputed
to
you
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
Hereupon
let
any
Reader
judg
,
whether
this
Scripture
makes
for
the
purpose
,
for
which
it
is
alledged
,
whether
by
Dr.
Owen
,
or
any
other
of
the
adverse
Brethren
in
this
controversie
.
Some
other
Objections
there
are
,
but
they
are
so
weak
,
that
no
impartial
or
unprejudicate
person
will
(
I
am
most
assured
)
be
swayed
by
them
;
and
therefore
having
answered
the
most
considerable
,
I
shall
let
pass
the
rest
.
I
shall
now
propound
another
Question
.
Quest.
Are
not
believing
sinners
restored
by
Christ
unto
a
greater
degree
of
felicity
,
than
Adam
did
lose
,
or
forfeit
by
his
sin
,
and
are
not
Believers
entitled
to
this
greater
degree
of
glory
by
their
justification
,
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
them
,
and
not
upon
the
meer
score
of
the
forgiveness
of
their
sins
?
Answ.
In
answer
hereunto
,
I
will
set
down
in
the
first
place
,
what
the
opinion
of
others
is
in
this
matter
,
and
then
speak
my
own
sence
.
1.
There
be
many
,
who
as
they
judg
,
that
Believers
are
restored
to
a
greater
degree
of
felicity
in
this
life
,
than
Adam
did
enjoy
in
Paradise
,
so
also
that
they
shall
enjoy
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
a
greater
degree
of
heavenly
glory
,
than
Adam
should
have
enjoyed
upon
his
continuance
in
a
state
of
innocency
.
But
there
are
others
who
think
,
that
both
of
them
are
justly
questionable
,
and
scarce
proveable
by
the
Scriptures
,
especially
the
latter
.
2.
There
be
others
,
asserting
,
That
there
is
in
the
merits
of
Christ
,
not
only
Plenitudo
sufficientiae
,
but
also
redundantiae
,
or
that
his
satisfaction
was
super-satisfactory
(
not
only
Legalis
justitiae
,
but
also
Super-legalis
meriti
(
as
are
the
expressions
of
the
very
learned
Dr.
Reynolds
,
Bishop
of
Norwich
,
in
some
of
his
Sermons
,
if
I
do
not
mis-remember
)
they
,
I
say
,
thus
asserting
,
do
yield
,
that
Believers
shall
enjoy
through
Christ
,
a
greater
degree
of
glory
in
heaven
,
than
they
lost
by
the
fall
of
Adam
,
or
in
him
:
But
they
say
,
That
they
are
entitled
unto
this
overplus
of
glory
,
not
simply
by
vertue
of
the
remission
of
their
sins
,
or
justification
(
for
this
,
say
they
,
doth
only
restore
them
Adstatum
quo
prius
,
to
such
a
degree
of
happiness
as
they
lost
in
Adam
,
)
but
by
vertue
of
the
super-aded
grace
of
adoption
;
and
of
this
opinion
are
those
two
learned
Authors
,
Mr.
Will
.
Bradshaw
,
and
Mr.
John
Goodwin
;
and
how
far
forth
Mr.
Baxter
is
inclinable
thereunto
,
and
what
his
opinion
more
fully
is
,
himself
hath
declared
in
a
peculiar
Section
thereabout
,
in
his
Book
against
Colvinus
,
if
my
memory
do
not
fail
me
.
2.
As
for
my
own
sence
,
I
conceive
;
1.
That
as
the
loss
of
Gods
fatherly
love
and
favour
,
and
our
becoming
children
of
the
devil
,
was
one
part
of
the
punishment
of
mans
sin
.
2.
As
thereupon
it
follows
,
That
our
adoption
,
or
being
restored
into
Gods
fatherly
love
and
favour
,
is
one
prime
branch
at
least
of
forgiveness
of
sin
:
So
consequently
,
3.
That
Believers
are
no
otherwise
entitled
to
that
farther
degree
of
glory
,
by
vertue
of
their
Adoption
,
than
by
vertue
of
the
remission
of
their
sins
;
and
I
do
the
rather
conceive
this
to
be
the
truth
,
because
whatever
that
higher
degree
of
glory
here
supposed
is
,
I
doubt
not
,
but
the
loss
or
miss
thereof
is
threatned
,
for
sins
committed
against
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
together
with
a
greater
degree
of
positive
punishment
,
than
was
threatned
to
Adam
,
for
breach
of
the
Covenant
of
works
.
Now
forasmuch
as
Jesus
Christ
hath
by
his
satisfaction
,
procured
pardon
for
sins
committed
explicitly
against
the
New
,
as
well
as
the
Old
Covenant
(
always
excepted
to
final
non-performance
of
the
conditions
of
that
New
Covenant
,
which
are
summarily
comprehended
in
Repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
)
and
forasmuch
as
this
pardon
is
promised
,
and
vouchsafed
to
sinners
,
upon
their
repentance
and
faith
in
Christ
,
it
doth
,
as
I
think
,
necessarily
follow
,
That
what
sinner
soever
hath
his
sins
(
all
his
sins
against
both
Covenants
)
pardoned
,
that
person
is
immediately
discharged
,
or
freed
not
only
from
that
punishment
,
and
loss
of
favour
,
which
he
did
incur
,
and
forfeit
in
Adam
,
but
he
is
moreover
set
free
from
that
greater
degree
of
punishment
,
which
is
threatned
for
sins
committed
against
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
is
also
by
his
pardon
,
entitled
to
that
higher
degree
of
glory
and
happiness
,
which
is
supposed
to
be
promised
in
the
same
.
But
that
he
is
entitled
thereunto
by
his
justification
,
with
such
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
is
here
pretended
,
I
see
no
reason
at
all
to
acknowledg
,
and
therefore
I
must
still
deny
it
,
till
I
see
it
proved
,
adding
withal
,
that
as
for
the
said
higher
degree
of
heavenly
glory
,
supposed
to
be
enjoyed
by
Believers
for
Christs
sake
,
I
think
it
to
be
a
matter
rather
of
curious
,
than
necessary
enquiry
,
wherein
we
are
not
to
be
solicitous
of
being
wise
above
what
is
written
.
I
shall
close
this
Chapter
with
the
words
of
Mr.
Anth.
Burges
,
the
said
Author
of
the
Tract
concerning
Justification
(
first
part
,
p.
143
,
144.
)
Remission
of
sin
(
says
he
)
is
not
only
Ablativa
mali
,
but
also
Collativa
boni
,
it
is
not
a
meer
negation
of-punishment
due
to
us
,
but
also
a
plentiful
vouchsafing
of
many
gracious
favours
to
us
,
such
as
a
Son-ship
,
and
right
to
eternal
life
.
These
words
in
his
first
Book
concerning
Justification
,
when
I
compare
with
what
he
says
directly
and
professedly
contrary
thereunto
,
in
his
second
Book
,
which
came
forth
some
years
after
,
which
are
these
,
p.
269.
(
Remission
of
sin
and
justification
differ
in
this
consideration
,
In
forgiveness
of
sin
there
is
Ablatio
mali
,
in
justification
there
is
Collatio
boni
;
when
sin
is
forgiven
,
the
eternal
evil
deserved
is
removed
,
but
when
we
are
justified
,
eternal
good
is
promised
.
)
When
,
I
say
,
I
compare
those
contradictory
sayings
of
the
same
Author
together
,
I
call
to
mind
,
what
is
said
to
have
been
facetiously
replyed
in
Parliament
,
to
one
Mr.
Jordan
,
a
Member
thereof
,
upon
his
declared
change
of
mind
[
What
ailest
thou
,
thou
Jordan
,
that
thou
wast
driven
back
?
]
What
ail'd
this
Author
,
so
plainly
and
palpably
to
contradict
both
the
truth
and
himself
?
It
seems
,
that
that
Greek
Proverb
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
—
Second
thoughts
are
best
)
is
not
always
true
.
There
are
certain
other
contradictory
passages
in
this
Author
,
concerning
the
subject
,
which
I
am
now
treating
upon
.
He
says
,
p.
268.
Whereas
remission
of
sin
doth
only
take
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
justification
doth
remove
the
sin
it self
.
But
he
saith
,
p.
432.
Notwithstanding
the
Imputation
of
Christs
active
obedience
,
God
doth
see
the
imperfect
graces
and
sins
of
his
people
.
Again
,
Although
it
be
this
Author
's
professed
design
in
his
Book
(
second
part
)
to
maintain
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
sence
impugned
in
this
Treatise
(
he
making
Justification
to
consist
of
two
integral
parts
,
viz.
Remission
of
sin
,
and
Imputation
of
righteousness
)
nevertheless
he
seems
plainly
to
contradict
himself
,
and
to
yield
the
cause
by
me
contended
for
in
this
Treatise
,
touching
the
manner
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
my
assertion
,
as
aforesaid
,
being
this
,
viz.
That
it
is
not
in
it self
immediately
,
or
in
its
essential
nature
imputed
to
us
,
but
in
the
blessed
effects
,
or
benefits
thereby
purchased
for
us
,
and
by
God
according
to
promise
,
confer'd
on
us
.
And
he
saith
the
same
,
pag.
135
,
136.
None
say
,
Christs
obedience
is
imputed
unto
us
in
such
a
sence
,
as
that
we
should
be
said
to
be
the
efficients
of
that
righteousness
,
but
that
we
should
be
the
passive
subjects
,
receiving
the
benefit
of
it
.
CHAP.
XXIV
.
Q.
What
are
the
evil
Consequents
,
which
do
naturally
flow
from
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
sence
here
impugned
?
In
answer
hereunto
,
one
mischievous
consequence
is
specified
,
viz.
That
Christ
is
a
sinner
,
and
the
greatest
of
sinners
.
Quest.
WHAT
are
the
evil
Consequents
,
which
do
seem
necessarily
to
follow
from
that
doctrine
,
touching
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
in
the
sence
which
in
this
Treatise
is
disowned
?
Answ.
Having
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
manifested
,
that
no
good
at
all
,
over
and
above
Remission
of
sin
,
doth
,
or
can
come
of
it
,
this
Question
comes
in
very
fitly
to
be
demanded
,
What
are
the
evil
consequents
to
it
?
And
if
besides
the
No
good
,
or
profit
,
I
shall
be
able
to
prove
,
that
there
are
many
mischievous
consequences
thereof
,
I
hope
,
that
those
who
have
espoused
it
,
will
no
longer
be
enamour'd
with
it
,
but
will
be
contented
rather
to
give
it
a
Bill
of
divorce
,
and
fairly
to
dismiss
it
.
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
It
is
the
heart
and
root
of
so
many
errors
,
yea
of
the
whole
body
of
Antinomianism
,
that
he
would
rather
write
a
great
volume
against
it
,
than
leave
it
with
a
brief
touch
.
(
Mr.
Baxter's
Confession
,
p.
229.
and
p.
266.
)
That
it
is
the
root
of
many
dangerous
errors
,
very
plainly
subverting
the
Christian
Religion
.
And
in
those
few
sheets
,
which
he
wrote
in
reference
to
Mr.
Edw.
Fowler's
Book
,
styled
,
The
Design
of
Christianity
,
his
words
are
,
p.
12.
It
is
not
to
be
denied
,
or
hid
,
that
more
than
down-right
Antinomians
,
have
so
ill
expounded
the
points
of
Christs
suretiship
,
and
of
the
Imputation
of
our
sin
to
him
,
and
of
the
Imputation
of
his
Righteousness
to
us
,
as
hath
proved
the
great
occasion
of
some
mens
running
into
the
contrary
error
,
yea
and
as
would
exclude
all
pardon
of
sin
,
and
all
true
Religion
,
had
their
notions
been
practically
and
prevalently
held
.
He
names
also
several
Authors
,
both
of
our
own
and
forreign
Churches
(
Olevian
,
Vrsin
,
Piscator
,
Paraeus
,
Windeline
,
Camero
,
Wotton
,
Gataker
,
Bradshaw
,
Le
Blank
—
)
by
whom
their
opinions
have
been
confuted
.
Mr.
Joseph
Truman
,
in
his
Book
styled
,
The
great
Propitiation
,
p.
92
,
93.
saith
thus
;
You
may
see
,
how
contrary
to
reason
(
as
well
as
Scripture
)
that
way
of
theirs
is
,
who
hold
,
that
Christs
fulfilling
of
,
and
Christs
obedience
to
the
Law
is
accounted
,
imputed
,
as
if
Believers
had
fulfilled
and
obeyed
the
Law
in
his
so
doing
:
You
may
hold
the
active
and
passive
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
a
satisfaction
to
justice
,
for
our
breach
of
the
Law
,
both
of
them
a
valuable
consideration
,
on
which
God
will
acquit
the
Offenders
,
so
they
do
but
perform
the
Gospel-conditions
;
and
I
can
easily
(
says
he
)
answer
all
the
Arguments
I
have
read
,
to
exclude
his
active
obedience
,
from
being
part
of
the
satisfaction
to
justice
,
for
the
breach
of
the
Law
:
But
to
hold
over
and
beside
such
a
satisfaction
for
our
disobedience
,
that
there
is
made
over
to
us
a
right
to
his
obedience
,
so
as
God
to
account
us
,
as
if
we
had
obeyed
the
Law
in
him
,
beside
the
danger
of
making
God
account
men
as
perfect
as
Christ
,
and
accounting
,
that
which
is
not
true
,
it
is
-
1.
Altogether
needless
.
—
-
2.
It
makes
the
death
and
sufferings
of
Christ
needless
.
—
-
3.
It
dissolves
the
Law
,
its
obliging
us
to
obedience
.
—
I
will
instance
in
some
of
the
prime
mischievous
consequences
,
of
the
doctrine
here
opposed
,
which
being
cryed
up
by
some
Authors
,
as
a
Gospel-mystery
(
a
Mystery
of
piety
)
will
manifest
it
to
be
indeed
A
mystery
of
iniquity
.
1.
It
follows
from
thence
,
That
Christ
was
made
a
sinner
,
or
That
by
Gods
Imputation
,
and
mans
Reputation
,
Jesus
Christ
was
the
greatest
sinner
in
the
world
.
Mr.
Eyre
affirms
the
former
,
as
hath
been
said
,
the
latter
is
asserted
by
Dr.
Grew
,
in
his
late
printed
Sermons
upon
Jer.
23.6
.
(
he
quoting
the
Authority
of
Luther
,
for
one
branch
of
the
assertion
,
touching
Gods
Imputation
,
and
that
Scripture
in
Mar.
15.28
.
touching
mans
Reputation
)
as
if
,
because
he
was
reputed
a
transgressor
by
the
unbelieving
Jews
,
therefore
it
's
to
be
concluded
,
that
he
was
,
or
was
to
be
so
reputed
by
all
others
.
What
Christian
ears
can
bear
with
the
sound
of
such
a
saying
as
this
,
That
by
Imputation
of
God
,
Jesus
Christ
was
the
greatest
sinner
in
the
world
?
And
how
false
is
it
to
say
,
That
God
did
repute
Jesus
Christ
to
be
otherwise
,
whether
in
life
or
death
,
than
indeed
he
was
(
i.
e.
)
A
Lamb
without
spot
and
blemish
,
holy
,
harmless
,
undefiled
,
separate
from
sinners
,
as
the
Scriptures
speak
of
him
?
1
Pet.
1.19
.
Heb.
7.26
.
The
truth
is
,
if
any
such
saying
hath
dropt
from
the
pen
of
Luther
,
it
is
not
to
be
justified
,
but
to
be
abhorr'd
:
For
Christ
by
Imputation
was
no
sinner
at
all
,
nor
so
reputed
,
either
by
God
or
man
,
except
such
as
did
not
know
him
,
and
who
therefore
hang'd
him
on
the
tree
.
As
for
the
said
Dr.
Grew
,
he
says
indeed
(
p.
23
,
24.
)
That
in
this
sence
only
Christ
was
made
sin
for
us
,
in
that
he
took
on
him
the
obligation
to
punishment
:
Where
let
two
things
be
observed
;
-
1.
That
the
Doctor
doth
mistake
and
mis-report
the
true
sense
of
that
Scripture
,
wherein
Christ
is
said
to
have
been
made
sin
for
us
,
the
true
sence
whereof
is
(
as
hath
been
already
said
)
not
that
he
was
made
sin
it self
,
or
sin
at
all
for
us
,
but
a
sin-offering
,
or
a
sacrifice
for
sin
.
-
2.
Be
it
observed
,
That
the
Doctor
doth
not
say
,
that
Christ
took
on
him
An
obligation
,
but
The
obligation
to
punishment
;
by
which
saying
,
he
must
rationally
be
understood
to
mean
[
‖
](A44575-e27470-b)
‖
The
error
whereof
I
have
manifested
in
another
Chapter
against
Mr.
Ferguson
.
Our
obligation
to
punishment
,
or
the
same
obligation
,
wherein
,
or
whereby
we
sinners
were
bound
to
punishment
.
And
if
he
had
meant
otherwise
,
his
own
reason
and
understanding
would
no
more
have
suffered
him
,
to
approve
that
saying
fathered
upon
Luther
,
of
Christ
his
being
the
greatest
sinner
in
the
world
by
Imputation
,
than
his
stomack
would
have
served
him
to
have
eaten
his
excrements
.
CHAP.
XXV
.
Another
evil
Consequence
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
sence
disowned
,
viz.
That
Believers
are
as
perfectly
Righteous
,
as
is
Christ
The
Righteous
,
yea
,
that
they
are
more
Righteous
,
than
if
they
had
in
their
own
persons
perfectly
kept
the
whole
Law
,
and
that
they
are
as
acceptable
to
God
the
Father
,
as
is
Christ
himself
.
The
falshood
and
impiety
of
which
sayings
at
large
manifested
,
and
some
Scriptures
which
are
suborned
to
speak
against
the
truth
,
vindicated
.
That
man
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
another
,
and
not
by
his
own
,
three
wayes
,
in
the
Application
of
which
distinction
it
is
plainly
declared
,
in
what
sence
we
are
,
and
in
what
sence
we
are
not
justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
another
,
and
not
by
our
own
.
Several
unjustifiable
and
intolerable
sayings
of
Dr.
Owen
,
in
his
Book
styled
,
Communion
with
God
,
related
,
with
brotherly
and
necessary
animadversions
thereupon
.
2.
ANother
evil
Consequence
of
this
doctrine
,
is
,
That
Believers
are
as
perfectly
Righteous
,
as
is
Jesus
Christ
the
Righteous
.
This
Consequence
is
owned
by
divers
,
among
whom
I
shall
instance
only
in
two
or
three
Authors
;
The
first
shall
be
Mr.
Will
.
Eyre
,
who
in
his
fore-cited
Assize-Sermon
,
says
,
p.
10.
That
upon
Christ
his
becoming
our
Surety
,
and
taking
our
sins
upon
himself
,
sinners
are
thereby
made
as
perfectly
Righteous
,
as
Christ
the
Righteous
.
Nor
doth
he
content
himself
only
to
say
it
,
but
he
doth
also
wrest
that
Scripture
in
1
Joh.
3.7
.
to
prove
it
;
I
say
,
wrest
that
Scripture
to
prove
it
;
for
that
Text
proves
no
such
thing
,
but
only
this
,
viz.
That
he
who
doth
righteousness
,
is
born
of
him
(
as
is
the
expression
,
1
Joh.
2.29
.
)
that
is
,
doth
resemble
him
,
or
is
like
him
,
as
a
child
resembles
the
father
who
begat
him
.
Yea
,
he
doth
bless
that
his
false
doctrine
with
his
subsequent
prayer
,
therein
taking
Gods
holy
Name
in
vain
,
by
saying
,
Now
the
good
Lord
open
all
our
eyes
,
to
see
the
real
and
glorious
excellency
of
this
Priviledg
.
But
while
he
doth
thus
proclaim
the
Priviledg
of
the
Saints
,
have
we
not
cause
to
say
,
That
he
hath
forgotten
that
Prerogative
of
our
Saviour
,
mentioned
by
the
Apostle
,
Col.
1.18
.
it
being
his
right
to
have
the
Preheminence
in
all
things
?
Certainly
St.
Peter's
eyes
were
not
opened
to
see
this
as
his
priviledg
,
when
he
said
to
our
Saviour
,
Depart
from
me
,
for
I
am
a
sinful
man
,
O
Lord
;
for
had
he
owned
any
such
glorious
priviledg
,
or
been
sensible
of
the
excellency
thereof
,
he
would
in
all
reason
have
mated
his
Lord
and
Master
(
as
I
may
so
say
)
or
have
set
himself
cheek
by
chole
with
him
,
and
have
said
,
Abide
by
me
,
keep
not
at
distance
from
me
;
for
I
am
as
perfectly
Righteous
,
as
thou
art
.
The
same
Author
doth
further
amplifie
and
illustrate
the
said
priviledg
of
the
Saints
,
saying
,
p.
12.
This
Priviledg
is
not
only
negative
,
but
positive
,
as
they
are
uncloathed
and
stript
of
their
own
filthy
garments
(
Zech.
3.4
.
)
so
they
are
cloathed
upon
with
the
immaculate
robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
adequate
and
commensurate
to
the
Law
of
God
;
by
the
obedience
of
one
(
says
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
5.19
.
)
many
are
made
righteous
(
i.
e.
)
perfectly
and
compleatly
righteous
,
more
than
if
they
had
kept
the
Law
in
their
own
persons
;
hereby
we
come
to
have
boldness
and
confidence
in
the
sight
of
God
,
his
infinite
purity
and
holiness
doth
not
daunt
,
or
discourage
us
from
going
to
him
;
for
as
Christ
is
before
him
,
so
are
all
they
that
do
believe
in
him
,
through
that
Righteousness
of
his
,
that
is
put
upon
them
,
see
Eph.
3.12
.
Rom.
5.2
.
But
the
meaning
of
those
words
(
By
the
obedience
of
one
many
are
made
Righteous
)
is
not
as
this
Author
expounds
it
(
perfectly
and
compleatly
Righteous
,
more
than
if
they
had
kept
the
Law
in
their
own
persons
)
but
the
meaning
is
,
They
are
,
for
the
meritoriousness
sake
of
Christs
obedience
,
made
Righteous
,
with
another
kind
of
Righteousness
,
than
is
that
,
which
doth
consist
in
their
personal
,
perfect
and
compleat
performance
of
the
Law
of
God
,
yea
,
with
such
a
kind
of
Righteousness
,
as
is
not
competible
with
it
,
viz.
with
the
pardon
of
their
sins
,
or
that
kind
of
evangelical
justification
,
which
is
styled
,
The
gift
of
grace
,
v.
15.
and
the
free
gift
of
many
offences
to
justification
,
v.
16.
and
the
gift
of
Righteousness
,
v.
17.
For
sinners
to
be
made
,
or
constituted
Righteous
,
is
in
the
sence
of
the
Apostle
(
as
appears
by
the
context
)
to
be
justified
,
out
of
the
abundance
of
Gods
grace
in
Christ
,
or
to
be
freely
pardoned
;
which
no
persons
can
be
,
or
be
said
to
be
,
who
are
as
perfectly
and
compleatly
Righteous
,
as
if
they
had
kept
the
Law
in
their
own
persons
:
For
those
who
are
as
perfectly
and
compleatly
righteous
,
and
more
righteous
,
than
if
they
had
kept
the
Law
in
their
own
persons
,
are
not
justified
of
grace
at
all
,
or
are
they
capable
of
a
gracious
pardon
.
And
as
for
the
boldness
and
confidence
,
which
the
Apostle
speaks
of
in
Eph.
3.12
.
and
Rom.
5.2
.
it
is
an
holy
boldness
and
confidence
,
grounded
upon
their
pardon
of
sin
and
justification
,
through
Gods
grace
in
Christ
(
mentioned
in
the
foregoing
Paragraph
)
and
not
upon
any
such
mis-construction
of
the
sacred
Scriptures
,
as
this
Author
was
so
extreamly
over-bold
and
confident
to
suggest
.
And
whether
Believers
may
be
truly
,
Will
.
Eyre
,
I
shall
vindicate
it
from
his
abuse
in
Ch.
34
in
answer
to
Dr.
Owen
,
by
whom
it
is
in
like
sort
perverted
also
.
or
fitly
said
to
be
cloathed
with
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
to
have
Christs
Righteousness
put
upon
them
,
I
shall
speak
my
thoughts
more
at
large
in
a
peculiar
Chapter
,
and
in
answer
to
that
Question
purposely
put
.
In
the
mean
while
I
shall
presume
to
say
,
That
it
is
not
only
false
,
but
(
as
I
am
perswaded
)
blasphemous
to
say
,
as
doth
this
Author
,
That
as
Christ
is
before
God
,
so
are
all
they
that
do
believe
in
him
,
through
his
Righteousness
:
For
Jesus
Christ
is
before
God
a
Saviour
of
sinners
,
and
whereas
Believers
in
Christ
are
before
God
sinners
still
(
i.
e.
)
Rei
culpae
,
guilty
persons
,
and
as
such
(
however
pardoned
)
they
do
still
stand
before
God
,
and
shall
so
stand
to
all
eternity
.
Christ
is
before
God
the
Son
of
God
by
nature
,
and
Righteous
without
a
pardon
,
whereas
Believers
in
Christ
,
are
before
God
his
sons
by
the
adoption
of
grace
,
and
Righteous
by
,
or
with
a
gracious
pardon
,
in
the
blood
of
Christ
.
The
next
to
Mr.
Eyre
I
will
quote
,
is
the
Author
of
the
Book
styled
,
The
Marrow
of
Modern
Divinity
,
who
says
,
p.
127.
That
God
the
Father
,
in
that
voice
from
heaven
,
Mat.
3.17
.
and
Joh.
12.30
.
doth
chear
the
hearts
of
poor
sinners
,
and
greatly
delight
them
with
singular
comfort
,
and
heavenly
sweetness
,
assuring
them
,
that
whosoever
is
married
unto
Christ
,
and
so
in
him
by
faith
,
he
is
as
acceptable
to
God
the
Father
,
as
Christ
himself
,
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
(
He
hath
made
us
acceptable
in
his
beloved
,
Eph.
1.6
.
)
Wherefore
if
you
would
be
acceptable
to
God
,
and
be
made
his
dear
child
,
then
by
faith
cleave
unto
his
beloved
Son
Christ
,
and
hang
about
his
neck
,
yea
,
and
creep
into
his
bosom
,
and
so
shall
the
love
and
favour
of
God
be
as
deeply
insinuated
into
you
,
as
it
is
into
Christ
himself
,
and
so
shall
God
the
Father
,
together
with
his
beloved
Son
,
wholly
possess
you
,
and
be
possessed
of
you
,
and
so
God
and
Christ
and
you
,
shall
become
One
entire
thing
,
according
to
Christs
prayer
,
That
they
may
be
One
in
us
,
as
thou
and
I
are
One.
—
I
need
say
little
more
to
the
words
of
this
Author
,
than
was
said
to
those
of
Mr.
Will
.
Eyre
,
it
being
enough
for
me
to
say
to
every
Reader
of
these
lines
,
as
the
High-Priest
said
to
the
by-standers
at
Christs
arraignment
(
he
indeed
causlesly
,
but
I
justly
)
Ye
have
heard
their
blasphemy
:
Only
I
desire
the
Reader
to
observe
further
;
-
1.
How
he
doth
wrong
the
Apostle
,
by
bringing
him
in
to
abett
him
in
his
said
blasphemy
,
I
mean
,
by
alledging
that
in
Eph.
1.6
.
as
if
the
Apostle
in
saying
,
That
God
hath
made
the
believing
Ephesians
accepted
in
the
Beloved
,
had
said
,
That
they
were
as
acceptable
to
God
,
as
Christ
himself
;
whereas
it
will
appear
,
That
the
Apostle
did
intend
by
that
very
expression
,
to
insinuate
a
peculiarity
of
the
Fathers
Love
,
to
that
his
only
begotten
Son
,
who
lay
in
his
bosom
from
all
eternity
.
-
2.
Observe
,
how
like
a
canting
Familist
he
speaks
,
in
saying
,
That
upon
our
hanging
about
Christs
neck
,
and
creeping
into
his
bosom
(
i.e.
)
upon
our
believing
in
Christ
,
God
the
Father
,
together
with
his
beloved
Son
,
will
wholly
possess
us
,
and
be
possessed
of
us
,
and
so
God
and
Christ
and
we
,
shall
become
One
Entire
Thing
.
-
3.
Observe
,
how
notoriously
he
doth
abuse
the
words
of
our
Saviours
Prayer
,
and
our
Saviour
Christ
himself
in
them
,
as
if
in
praying
,
That
Believers
might
be
one
,
as
the
Father
and
he
were
one
,
he
had
requested
,
That
they
all
may
become
One
entire
thing
.
To
pray
,
That
Believers
may
keep
the
unity
of
the
spirit
in
the
bond
of
peace
,
that
they
may
accord
and
continue
uniformly
in
one
faith
and
doctrine
,
that
this
agreement
of
all
,
(
God
the
Father
,
Son
and
Believers
)
may
be
a
powerful
means
of
convincing
the
world
,
that
Jesus
was
the
Christ
,
sent
by
God
—
To
pray
,
I
say
,
to
this
,
or
the
like
purpose
,
is
this
to
pray
,
That
God
and
Christ
and
Believers
,
may
become
One
entire
thing
?
Thus
have
I
cited
a
second
Author
,
or
Authors
should
I
say
?
forasmuch
as
there
are
so
many
,
who
by
their
several
Epistles
do
applaud
the
Divinity
of
his
Book
,
no
less
than
five
names
.
The
third
Author
is
brought
to
my
hand
by
Mr.
Samnel
Rols
(
a
zealous
Asserter
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
sence
here
challenged
)
in
his
late
Book
styled
Prodromus
,
who
informs
me
,
that
the
words
following
,
are
the
words
of
the
most
excellent
Mr.
Richard
Hooker
,
in
his
Ecclesiastical
Polity
,
or
in
some
of
his
Writings
annexed
thereunto
,
p.
4.
alias
38.
But
the
Righteousness
,
wherein
we
must
be
found
,
if
we
will
be
justified
,
is
not
our
own
,
therefore
we
cannot
be
justified
by
any
inherent
quality
.
Yet
even
the
man
,
that
is
in
himself
full
of
sin
,
being
found
in
Christ
by
faith
,
and
having
his
sin
remitted
through
repentance
,
him
God
beholdeth
with
a
gracious
eye
,
putteth
away
his
sin
,
by
not
imputing
it
,
and
accepteth
him
in
Jesus
Christ
as
perfectly
righteous
,
as
if
he
had
fulfilled
all
that
was
commanded
him
in
the
Law
,
shall
I
say
,
more
perfectly
righteous
,
than
if
himself
had
fulfilled
the
whole
Law
?
I
must
take
heed
what
I
say
,
but
the
Apostle
saith
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
That
we
might
be
made
the
Righteousness
of
God
in
him
.
Such
we
are
in
the
sight
of
God
the
Father
,
as
is
the
very
Son
of
God
himself
.
To
this
my
reply
is
;
2.
A
man
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
another
,
and
not
by
his
own
,
in
a
three-fold
sence
:
-
1.
By
way
of
merit
.
-
2.
By
way
of
form
.
-
3.
By
way
of
a
condition
.
In
the
first
sence
it's
most
true
,
that
the
Righteousness
,
by
which
we
must
be
justified
,
is
the
Righteousness
of
another
(
even
of
Jesus
Christ
the
Righteous
)
and
not
our
own
.
2.
But
in
both
the
other
sences
,
it
is
altogether
untrue
:
For
-
1.
That
Righteousness
,
by
,
or
(
to
speak
more
accurately
)
with
which
a
sinner
is
formally
justified
,
or
made
righteous
,
is
alwayes
a
mans
own
,
viz.
his
pardon
,
or
the
remission
of
his
sins
.
-
2.
That
Righteousness
,
by
which
as
a
condition
of
his
discharge
,
a
sinner
is
justified
,
is
always
his
own
,
and
not
anothers
,
viz.
His
own
faith
.
It
's
true
indeed
,
that
in
respect
of
procurement
,
both
these
Righteousnesses
(
with
and
by
which
a
sinner
is
justified
)
are
Christs
,
and
in
respect
of
collation
,
they
are
Gods
,
but
in
respect
of
possession
,
or
performance
,
they
may
be
well
said
to
be
our
own
Righteousness
,
they
being
freely
given
us
of
God
,
for
the
sake
of
Christ
,
Act.
5.31
.
And
that
sinners
are
in
this
last
sence
of
the
phrase
,
justified
by
some
inherent
quality
,
or
grace
of
their
own
,
certainly
Mr.
Hooker
would
not
deny
,
for
he
in
that
Citation
saith
,
That
it
is
through
repentance
,
that
our
sins
are
remitted
;
which
is
as
much
as
to
say
,
That
by
,
or
through
repentance
a
sinner
is
pardoned
,
justified
,
or
not
condemned
by
God
.
-
3.
The
Apostle
in
saying
(
We
are
made
the
Righteousness
of
God
in
Christ
)
doth
not
say
either
expresly
or
constructively
,
That
we
are
made
more
perfectly
righteous
,
than
if
our selves
had
fulfilled
the
whole
Law
;
no
more
than
he
says
the
same
thing
in
Rom.
5.19
.
which
was
for
that
purpose
alledged
by
Mr.
W.
Eyre
,
but
to
no
purpose
,
as
I
have
manifested
.
-
4.
As
for
the
closing
words
(
Such
we
are
in
the
sight
of
God
the
Father
,
as
is
the
very
Son
of
God
himself
)
I
have
said
enough
already
,
declaring
,
how
such
sayings
are
not
to
be
justified
,
but
to
be
abominated
,
as
most
false
,
if
not
blasphemous
,
there
being
nothing
to
be
alledged
for
the
excuse
thereof
,
save
the
innocent
intention
of
the
Authors
.
I
will
close
this
Chapter
with
a
request
,
That
the
foresaid
distinction
[
touching
the
several
sences
,
wherein
a
man
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
another
,
and
not
by
his
own
]
may
the
rather
be
observed
,
because
it
may
serve
for
a
two-fold
purpose
;
1.
It
may
be
subservient
to
us
,
how
to
give
a
ready
and
satisfactory
answer
to
that
passage
of
Dr.
Owen
[
with
certain
others
]
in
his
often
cited
Book
,
wherein
he
says
,
p.
167.
Christ
is
made
of
God
to
the
Saints
Righteousness
,
and
they
will
own
nothing
else
to
that
purpose
.
To
this
I
answer
:
1.
For
Christ
to
be
made
of
God
Righteousness
to
the
Saints
,
is
not
for
God
to
impute
Christs
Righteousness
immediately
in
it self
to
them
(
as
the
Doctor
would
have
it
,
he
saying
to
that
purpose
as
in
other
places
,
so
p.
110.
That
that
perfection
of
obedience
,
which
we
have
in
Christ
,
is
imputed
to
us
)
but
in
the
saving
effects
of
it
,
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
,
1
Cor.
1.30
.
He
is
of
God
made
unto
us
Wisdom
and
Righteousness
,
and
Sanctification
and
Redemption
(
i.
e.
)
he
is
causally
,
efficiently
,
or
effectually
made
all
these
unto
us
:
And
one
would
think
,
that
this
Doctor
should
content
himself
with
that
sence
of
the
phrase
[
Christ
his
being
made
of
God
Righteousness
unto
us
]
for
he
says
,
p.
104.
That
in
the
Covenant
God
becomes
our
God
,
and
we
his
people
,
and
thereby
all
his
Attributes
are
ours
(
i.
e.
)
as
to
the
benefit
of
them
,
as
else-where
he
interprets
it
.
The
Doctor
doth
not
say
,
That
upon
our
being
in
Covenant
with
God
,
Gods
Attributes
are
imputed
to
us
,
nor
doth
he
barely
and
simply
say
,
Gods
Attributes
are
ours
;
but
he
explicates
that
saying
in
these
words
[
that
is
,
as
to
the
benefit
of
them
]
so
that
there
is
just
cause
to
think
,
that
the
Doctor
of
any
man
should
rest
satisfied
with
that
explication
,
which
others
do
give
of
such
phrases
,
touching
the
manner
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
or
its
being
made
ours
,
they
saying
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
he
says
of
Gods
Attributes
.
2.
Though
the
Saints
will
own
nothing
,
as
the
meritorious
cause
of
their
righteousness
,
pardon
,
or
justification
,
but
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
nevertheless
they
may
,
and
ought
to
own
evangelical
obedience
(
i.
e.
)
their
return
to
God
in
faith
and
repentance
,
as
the
condition
,
without
which
the
said
saving
effect
,
or
benefit
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
shall
not
be
theirs
.
Where
(
by
the
way
)
observe
the
unjustifiableness
of
those
Antinomian
sayings
of
the
Doctor
,
p.
118.
That
Christ
himself
is
the
Righteousness
,
that
he
requires
at
our
hands
.
And
p.
166.
It
will
one
day
appear
,
that
God
abhors
the
janglings
of
men
,
about
the
place
of
their
own
works
and
obedience
,
in
the
business
of
their
acceptation
with
God
.
To
these
sayings
I
reply
;
-
1.
Christ
himself
is
our
Righteousness
,
in
such
a
sence
as
he
is
said
to
be
our
Life
(
i.
e.
)
not
in
a
formal
,
but
in
a
causal
sence
,
the
predication
in
such
Propositions
not
being
Formalis
,
or
Essentialis
,
but
Causalis
,
as
is
the
manner
of
Logicians
to
express
such
matters
.
-
2.
As
it
is
not
truly
said
in
a
literal
,
but
only
in
a
tropical
sence
,
that
Christ
himself
is
our
Righteousness
,
so
it
is
not
true
in
any
sence
(
I
know
)
to
say
,
That
Christ
himself
is
the
Righteousness
,
which
he
requires
at
our
hands
,
neither
do
I
remember
any
such
saying
in
Scripture
,
but
rather
that
Christs
Righteousness
or
Obedience
,
says
Dr.
O.
p.
166
,
167.
)
how
many
distinctions
invented
,
how
many
shifts
and
evasions
studied
,
to
keep
up
something
in
some
place
or
other
,
to
some
purpose
or
other
,
that
men
may
dally
withal
?
Hereby
it
appears
,
that
the
Doctor
will
not
suffer
evangelical
obedience
to
have
any
manner
of
place
(
one
or
another
)
in
order
to
our
acceptance
with
God
.
was
a
thing
required
at
his
hands
,
and
not
at
ours
.
-
3.
As
Christs
Righteousness
was
a
thing
required
at
his
hands
,
so
it
is
apparent
by
the
Scriptures
,
that
there
is
a
personal
evangelical
Righteousness
required
at
our
hands
,
in
order
to
our
acceptation
with
God
,
by
,
through
,
or
for
the
Righteousness
sake
of
Christ
,
and
without
which
evangelical
Righteousness
,
the
unrighteous
shall
not
be
accepted
with
God
,
Mat.
5.20
.
and
25.
last
.
1
Cor.
6.9
.
-
4.
It
will
one
day
appear
,
how
God
abhors
the
vain
janglings
(
that
I
may
not
say
also
the
juglings
)
of
men
,
who
not
perceiving
,
or
acknowledging
the
consistency
,
or
subordination
of
our
own
personal
Righteousness
to
Christs
,
in
the
business
of
our
acceptation
with
God
,
would
thrust
either
of
them
out
of
their
proper
place
(
i.
e.
)
either
Christs
Righteousness
out
of
the
place
,
or
office
of
the
alone
meritorious
cause
,
or
our
own
evangelical
Righteousness
(
i.
e.
)
our
return
to
God
by
faith
and
repentance
,
from
the
office
or
place
of
a
condition
of
our
acceptation
.
What
God
said
to
Cain
(
Gen.
4.7
.
If
thou
dost
well
,
shalt
thou
not
be
accepted
?
)
the
same
in
effect
doth
God
in
his
Gospel
say
to
every
sinner
,
If
thou
dost
well
,
(
i.
e.
)
If
thou
dost
believe
in
Christ
,
if
thou
dost
repent
and
convert
,
thou
shalt
be
accepted
through
Christ
;
if
otherwise
,
sin
lies
at
the
door
,
and
will
obstruct
thy
acceptation
with
God
.
Again
,
Observe
from
the
premisses
,
the
unreasonableness
of
that
other
saying
of
the
Doctor
,
p.
219.
where
having
quoted
1
Cor.
1.30
.
he
says
,
Not
that
Christ
is
this
,
or
that
part
of
our
Acceptation
with
God
,
but
he
is
all
,
he
is
the
whole
.
To
this
I
answer
,
as
the
very
truth
is
;
1.
Although
Christ
be
the
whole
,
and
sole
meritorious
cause
of
our
acceptation
with
God
,
yet
he
is
not
the
whole
,
nor
any
the
least
part
of
our
acceptation
it self
:
For
Christ
being
altogether
a
cause
extrinsecal
to
our
acceptation
with
God
,
he
cannot
possibly
be
any
part
of
,
or
ingredient
into
the
thing
it self
:
For
this
were
to
make
Christ
to
be
a
cause
intrinsecal
to
it
,
and
consequently
either
the
formal
,
or
material
cause
thereof
(
for
these
only
are
Causae
,
or
Partes
Constitutivae
,
which
do
Ingredi
naturam
rei
)
neither
of
which
he
can
be
said
to
be
,
but
the
meritorious
cause
.
2.
As
was
afore
said
,
so
I
say
again
,
That
in
order
to
our
acceptation
with
God
,
both
Christ
hath
his
part
,
and
we
have
our
part
to
act
,
both
of
them
being
severally
and
joyntly
assigned
us
of
God
.
So
that
if
by
the
whole
of
our
acceptation
with
God
,
the
Doctor
doth
mean
,
that
Christ
and
his
Righteousness
,
is
all
that
God
requires
,
in
order
to
our
acceptation
with
him
,
his
saying
is
to
be
rejected
as
false
,
and
a
branch
of
Antinomian
doctrine
.
2.
I
desire
,
that
the
foresaid
distinction
may
the
rather
be
observed
,
because
it
may
serve
to
discover
the
maleyolence
,
or
in-sincerity
,
or
at
least
(
to
speak
most
favourably
,
and
with
the
utmost
of
charity
)
the
ignorance
of
those
,
who
say
,
That
the
dispute
here
is
,
Whether
we
are
justified
before
the
Just
and
Holy
God
,
by
our
own
righteousness
,
or
by
the
Righteousness
of
a
Mediator
?
These
are
the
very
words
of
the
Author
of
the
late
Book
styled
,
[
‖
](A44575-e29130-b)
‖
In
the
last
Page
of
the
Preface
to
his
Book
.
Anti-Sozzo
;
who
should
either
have
had
more
wit
to
know
,
or
more
grace
to
acknowledg
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
the
Dispute
between
Protestant
and
Protestant
is
not
,
Whether
sinners
be
justified
before
God
,
by
their
own
Righteousness
,
or
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
our
Mediator
;
but
whether
there
be
not
also
an
evangelical
Righteousness
(
consisting
in
a
return
to
God
by
faith
and
repentance
)
required
of
every
sinner
,
in
order
to
his
being
justified
,
for
the
sake
of
Christs
Mediatory
Righteousness
,
as
the
alone
meritorious
cause
thereof
.
And
this
is
that
,
which
however
some
Protestants
do
dispute
,
and
seem
to
gainsay
,
yet
others
do
not
,
but
do
professedly
maintain
;
among
whom
I
shall
instance
in
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
,
as
appears
by
the
Confession
of
their
Faith
and
Catechism
;
they
professing
(
Ch.
15.
Sect.
3.
of
their
Confession
)
That
although
repentance
be
not
to
be
rested
in
as
a
satisfaction
for
sin
,
or
any
cause
of
the
pardon
thereof
,
which
is
the
act
of
Gods
free
grace
in
Christ
,
nevertheless
it
is
of
such
necessity
to
all
sinners
,
that
none
may
expect
pardon
without
it
.
And
as
appears
also
by
the
express
answer
,
which
they
do
instruct
every
Catechumen
to
make
unto
this
Question
[
What
doth
God
require
of
us
,
that
we
may
escape
his
wrath
and
curse
due
to
us
,
by
reason
of
the
transgression
of
the
Law
?
]
the
answer
put
into
their
mouths
being
this
,
That
we
may
escape
the
wrath
and
curse
of
God
due
to
us
,
by
reason
of
the
transgression
of
the
Law
,
he
requireth
of
us
repentance
towards
God
,
and
faith
toward
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
and
—
I
might
also
instance
in
the
judgment
of
our
own
Church
,
touching
the
necessity
of
a
personal
Righteousness
in
sinners
,
that
so
they
may
be
justified
before
God
,
through
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
for
his
sake
absolved
from
their
sins
.
This
appears
by
the
tenor
of
that
discharge
,
or
absolution
,
which
after
the
general
Confession
in
the
Liturgy
,
every
Minister
is
in
Gods
Name
,
and
as
his
Commissioner
,
to
pronounce
,
saying
,
He
pardoneth
and
absolveth
all
them
that
do
truly
repent
,
and
—
wherefore
let
us
beseech
him
to
grant
us
true
repentance
,
and
—
so
that
at
the
last
we
may
come
to
his
eternal
joy
,
through
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
.
I
do
well
remember
,
that
in
the
Scotch
Liturgy
,
after
the
Petition
,
That
God
would
grant
us
true
repentance
,
and
his
holy
Spirit
,
the
following
words
are
inserted
(
That
we
may
receive
from
him
absolution
from
all
our
sins
)
which
insertion
I
never
heard
to
have
been
challenged
,
by
any
of
our
Scottish
Brethren
,
as
holding
forth
any
false
,
Popish
,
or
un-Christian
doctrine
,
nor
do
I
know
any
colour
of
reason
for
such
an
accusation
,
or
suspicion
,
albeit
I
do
well
know
,
That
to
pray
to
God
to
grant
unto
us
true
repentance
,
and
his
holy
Spirit
(
That
we
may
receive
from
him
absolution
from
all
our
sins
)
is
all
one
in
effect
,
and
the
self
same
thing
,
as
to
pray
to
God
to
grant
unto
us
those
requests
,
That
we
may
be
justified
,
or
not
condemned
,
but
escape
wrath
to
come
.
But
forasmuch
as
Dr.
O.
is
such
a
professed
adversary
,
to
all
manner
of
set-Liturgies
,
for
the
carrying
on
of
Gods
publick
Worship
(
as
appears
by
what
he
hath
written
,
p.
296
,
297.
)
and
forasmuch
as
I
do
not
know
,
of
what
credit
with
him
,
an
Assembly
of
Divines
at
St.
Peters-Westminster
,
is
more
than
a
Convocation
at
St.
Pauls-London
,
or
what
considerable
valuation
,
he
hath
for
either
of
them
,
I
will
not
therefore
urge
him
with
the
Authority
of
either
the
one
,
or
the
other
,
nor
indeed
with
any
other
Authority
,
but
what
I
am
most
assured
,
he
will
own
,
and
which
indeed
is
all-sufficient
for
my
purpose
,
viz.
The
divine
Authority
of
the
Holy
Scriptures
.
Having
ended
this
Chapter
,
I
shall
now
proceed
to
specifie
the
next
evil
Consequence
,
of
the
said
Imputation
here
disowned
,
which
shall
be
the
subject
of
the
Chapter
next
ensuing
.
CHAP.
XXVI
.
Another
evil
Consequence
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
the
sence
opposed
,
That
God
sees
no
sin
in
the
Saints
,
all
their
sins
being
covered
from
the
sight
of
God
,
by
their
being
clothed
with
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
;
the
falsity
of
which
is
discovered
,
and
certain
Scriptures
vindicated
from
their
abuse
.
A
reply
to
Dr.
Owen
,
who
denies
,
That
it
will
follow
,
from
the
said
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
that
we
are
as
perfectly
righteous
as
Christ
is
.
ANother
evil
Consequence
,
of
the
said
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
Believers
,
in
the
sence
aforesaid
is
,
That
God
sees
no
sin
in
them
.
This
seems
to
be
an
unavoidable
Consequence
of
the
former
;
for
if
Believers
are
as
perfectly
righteous
as
Christ
the
Righteous
,
and
more
perfectly
righteous
,
than
if
they
had
perfectly
kept
the
whole
Law
in
their
own
persons
,
and
if
they
are
in
the
sight
of
God
,
as
the
very
Son
of
God
himself
,
then
doth
it
follow
,
that
God
sees
no
sin
in
them
;
for
how
can
God
see
any
sin
in
any
person
so
perfectly
righteous
?
And
this
is
that
Consequent
,
which
is
owned
by
Mr.
Will
.
Eyre
,
in
his
Assize-Sermon
before
cited
,
he
saying
,
p.
11.
The
soul
,
that
hath
Christs
Righteousness
put
upon
him
,
by
Gods
gracious
Imputation
,
hath
all
his
sins
covered
and
hidden
from
the
sight
of
God
,
the
eye
of
divine
justice
sees
not
the
least
spot
of
sin
(
Eph.
5.27
.
)
or
iniquity
in
those
,
that
are
clothed
with
it
,
the
Saints
through
his
death
are
presented
holy
and
unblameable
,
and
unreproveable
in
his
sight
,
Col.
1.22
.
In
answer
hereunto
,
1.
I
have
in
certain
Chapters
of
my
Exercitation
,
concerning
the
nature
of
forgiveness
of
sin
,
suggested
several
Rules
,
for
a
due
interpretation
of
those
Metaphorical
phrases
,
whereby
forgiveness
of
sin
is
expressed
in
Scripture
,
such
as
these
(
Gods
covering
our
sins
,
blotting
them
out
,
casting
them
behind
his
back
,
hiding
his
face
from
them
—
)
whereby
is
not
meant
a
bare
intuitive
sight
in
God
,
but
Gods
not
seeing
our
sins
,
so
as
to
condemn
us
for
them
,
or
that
the
Saints
shall
no
more
be
condemned
for
their
sins
,
than
if
God
did
not
see
them
,
than
if
they
were
blotted
out
,
covered
,
or
hid
from
his
sight
.
See
Ch.
3.
and
4th
.
and
9th
.
2.
As
for
those
fore-cited
Scriptures
,
Eph.
5.27
.
Col.
1.22
.
they
do
indeed
prove
partly
what
Believers
at
present
are
,
viz.
That
they
are
in
a
present
state
of
reconciliation
with
God
(
reconciled
,
pardoned
,
justified
—
)
and
partly
what
at
last
they
shall
be
,
that
is
,
That
they
shall
be
presented
perfectly
holy
,
as
a
spouse
in
perfect
beauty
—
But
they
do
not
prove
,
what
Mr.
Eyre
doth
insinuate
,
viz.
That
they
are
now
so
presented
,
or
that
God
sees
not
the
least
spot
of
sin
,
or
iniquity
in
them
.
Quest.
Do
not
some
deny
this
and
the
former
evil
Consequence
,
of
the
said
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
?
Answ.
Yes
:
For
so
indeed
Dr.
Owen
in
his
Book
styled
,
Communion
with
God
,
would
seem
to
do
;
but
with
what
success
,
may
appear
by
my
Reply
to
that
his
answer
,
which
he
makes
to
an
Objection
,
both
which
I
shall
recite
as
I
find
them
,
p.
187.
Having
asserted
in
the
foregoing
Pages
,
that
Christs
active
obedience
is
reckoned
,
or
imputed
to
Believers
(
mis-alledging
,
and
mis-interpreting
for
that
purpose
several
Scriptures
,
Phil.
3.9
.
2
Cor.
5.21
.
)
he
objecteth
against
it
,
and
answers
to
it
in
the
words
following
:
Object
.
But
if
this
be
so
,
then
are
we
as
Righteous
as
Christ
himself
,
being
Righteous
with
his
Righteousness
?
Answ.
But
first
here
is
a
great
difference
,
if
it
were
no
more
,
than
that
this
Righteousness
was
inherent
in
Christ
,
and
properly
his
own
,
it
is
only
reckoned
and
imputed
to
us
,
or
freely
bestowed
upon
us
,
and
we
are
made
righteous
with
that
,
which
is
not
ours
.
But
secondly
the
truth
is
,
that
Christ
was
not
righteous
with
that
Righteousness
for
himself
,
but
for
us
,
so
that
there
can
be
no
comparison
;
only
this
we
may
say
,
We
are
righteous
with
his
Righteousness
,
which
he
wrought
for
us
,
and
that
compleatly
.
To
this
Answer
I
reply
;
-
1.
That
the
difference
here
mentioned
by
the
Doctor
,
and
said
to
be
Great
,
is
indeed
Small
:
For
the
difference
is
rather
Modal
,
than
Substantial
,
a
difference
rather
Quoad
Modum
,
than
Quoad
veritatem
rei
,
I
mean
plainly
,
a
difference
about
the
manner
,
how
Christs
Righteousness
was
his
own
,
and
how
it
is
Ours
:
For
he
doth
acknowledg
,
that
the
self
same
individual
Righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
us
,
is
Ours
,
the
only
difference
being
in
the
Modus
,
or
manner
,
how
it
was
His
,
and
how
Ours
(
i.
e.
)
His
properly
,
inherently
,
or
originally
,
Ours
improperly
,
by
Donation
,
Imputation
,
or
at
the
second
hand
.
-
2.
As
the
said
difference
is
comparatively
small
,
so
it
is
nothing
at
all
as
to
the
matter
in
hand
,
or
the
purpose
,
for
which
it
is
alledged
:
For
notwithstanding
this
Modal
difference
,
if
the
self
same
individual
Righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
us
,
be
truly
and
substantially
Ours
,
or
in
it self
imputed
to
us
,
it
will
follow
from
thence
unavoidably
(
as
I
think
)
that
we
are
as
righteous
with
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
Christ
himself
was
with
it
.
-
3.
Although
it
be
true
,
that
Christ
was
not
righteous
with
that
Righteousness
for
himself
,
but
for
us
(
i.
e.
)
for
our
behoof
,
and
that
we
might
reap
the
fruit
and
benefit
of
it
;
and
although
upon
such
a
construction
of
his
Righteousness
,
its
being
not
for
himself
,
but
for
us
,
there
can
be
no
comparison
betwixt
him
and
us
;
nevertheless
if
the
Doctor
will
allow
us
to
say
(
as
indeed
he
doth
)
that
we
are
righteous
with
his
Righteousness
,
which
he
wrought
for
us
,
and
that
compleatly
,
he
must
allow
to
others
the
comparison
aforesaid
,
which
they
make
to
themselves
,
touching
their
being
as
perfectly
righteous
,
as
was
Christ
the
Righteous
,
and
that
God
sees
no
sin
in
them
:
For
how
should
God
see
sin
in
them
,
who
are
compleatly
righteous
with
that
Righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
them
,
more
than
in
Christ
himself
?
-
4.
Though
we
forbear
the
comparison
,
yet
granting
(
as
the
Doctor
doth
)
that
we
may
say
positively
,
That
we
are
righteous
with
his
Righteousness
,
which
he
wrought
for
us
,
and
that
compleatly
,
it
will
from
thence
necessarily
follow
,
that
God
sees
no
sin
in
us
:
For
supposing
Christs
Righteousness
to
be
a
compleat
Righteousness
,
(
which
we
cannot
suppose
,
except
we
suppose
it
to
be
without
the
least
spot
of
sin
)
and
supposing
,
that
we
are
compleatly
righteous
,
with
that
his
spotless
,
sinless
Righteousness
,
how
it
is
possible
for
God
to
see
sin
in
us
,
I
do
not
understand
,
or
can
perceive
.
Having
been
so
large
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
,
touching
the
evil
Consequences
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
asserted
in
the
sence
aforesaid
,
I
will
be
more
brief
in
the
rest
.
CHAP.
XXVII
.
Another
evil
Consequence
of
the
said
Imputation
,
That
it
leaves
no
place
for
remission
of
sin
,
in
persons
made
so
compleatly
righteous
,
with
Christs
Righteousness
,
and
that
it
doth
utterly
overthrow
the
true
nature
of
Gospel-Justification
,
making
the
justification
of
a
sinner
to
be
quite
another
thing
,
and
of
another
kind
,
than
indeed
it
is
.
An
Objection
answered
.
ANother
evil
Consequence
of
the
said
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
is
,
That
it
leaves
no
place
for
remission
of
sins
,
in
persons
made
compleatly
righteous
with
it
.
It
is
certain
,
that
God
forgave
Christ
no
sin
:
And
the
reason
is
obvious
,
because
being
perfectly
righteous
,
he
had
no
sin
to
be
forgiven
,
according
to
that
of
St.
John
(
1
,
3
,
5.
)
And
in
him
is
no
sin
.
Now
if
men
be
righteous
with
the
same
sinless
Righteousness
,
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
they
have
no
sin
to
be
pardoned
,
no
more
than
he
had
.
Whereas
Remission
of
sin
,
as
it
is
a
saving
benefit
which
we
all
have
need
of
,
and
the
great
purchase
of
Christs
blood
,
so
it
is
that
,
which
Christ
hath
taught
Believers
daily
to
pray
for
,
even
after
and
notwithstanding
this
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
them
(
if
any
such
thing
were
)
except
we
will
maintain
,
that
our
Saviour
Christ
composed
that
pattern
of
prayer
,
only
for
the
use
of
Infidels
and
Unbelievers
.
Now
to
ask
Gods
mercy
in
the
forgiveness
of
our
sins
,
and
yet
to
conceive
our selves
to
be
righteous
,
with
the
spotless
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
and
this
compleatly
,
is
rather
to
mock
,
or
dissemble
with
God
,
than
seriously
and
in
good
earnest
to
worship
him
,
whom
we
pray
unto
.
Briefly
,
The
said
Imputation
doth
utterly
overthrow
the
true
nature
of
Gospel-Justification
,
or
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
which
doth
consist
in
the
remission
of
his
sins
,
as
hath
been
already
manifested
:
For
a
legal
or
perfect
Righteousness
,
imputed
to
a
person
in
the
very
formality
thereof
,
doth
not
justifie
him
by
way
of
forgiveness
of
sins
,
but
is
of
it self
intrinsecally
and
essentially
his
justification
,
and
is
such
a
kind
of
justification
,
as
with
which
forgiveness
of
sins
is
not
competible
:
For
what
need
hath
he
,
who
hath
a
legal
Righteousness
imputed
to
him
,
of
forgiveness
of
sins
,
whenas
such
a
Righteousness
excludes
all
sin
?
If
it
be
objected
,
That
a
mans
sins
are
first
forgiven
him
,
and
then
Christs
perfect
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
him
,
and
so
he
is
justified
?
To
this
it
hath
been
already
answered
;
-
1.
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
no
more
,
or
otherwise
imputed
to
a
sinner
,
in
order
to
his
justification
,
than
in
order
to
the
remission
of
his
sin
.
-
2.
That
a
person
,
who
is
a
sinner
,
is
capable
of
no
other
kind
of
justification
,
than
that
,
which
is
by
,
or
doth
consist
in
the
remission
of
his
sins
.
-
3.
That
if
a
mans
sins
be
forgiven
him
,
he
hath
no
need
of
any
Imputation
,
of
any
further
Righteousness
for
his
justification
:
For
when
God
hath
given
men
their
offences
(
according
to
that
expression
of
the
Apostle
,
The
free
gift
is
of
many
offences
unto
justification
)
that
is
,
hath
forgiven
them
,
he
hath
fully
justified
them
.
The
Apostle
in
that
expression
[
the
gift
of
offences
]
alludes
to
that
Metaphor
of
debts
,
under
which
notion
our
Saviour
speaking
of
sin
,
did
teach
his
Disciples
to
pray
for
the
forgiveness
thereof
,
to
give
a
debt
,
and
to
forgive
it
,
being
all
one
,
Mat.
6.12
.
Lastly
,
Whereas
this
Objection
supposeth
,
that
by
the
passive
obedience
of
Christ
,
we
have
remission
of
sin
,
and
by
the
Imputation
of
the
active
part
of
his
obedience
,
we
are
justified
,
as
I
have
already
disproved
it
,
and
asserted
withal
,
that
the
whole
obedience
of
Christ
[
God-man
]
doth
make
up
the
meritorious
cause
of
all
saving
benefits
bestowed
on
us
,
so
I
add
,
If
we
will
needs
distinguish
the
effects
of
Christs
active
and
passive
obedience
,
after
that
manner
,
I
cannot
perceive
,
that
it
is
any
ways
reasonable
,
to
invert
the
order
of
these
effects
,
and
dispose
of
them
thus
Ad
placitum
,
in
a
cross
method
to
their
several
causes
producing
them
,
which
some
Authors
presume
to
do
,
and
in
special
Dr.
Owen
among
others
.
Christ
did
not
first
die
,
and
then
keep
the
Law
for
us
,
but
he
first
kept
the
Law
,
and
then
suffered
death
for
us
.
Therefore
if
we
will
needs
make
the
Imputation
of
the
one
,
a
distinct
benefit
from
the
other
,
reason
(
methinks
)
would
,
that
that
which
is
first
purchased
,
should
be
first
bestowed
,
or
received
,
and
consequently
,
that
Imputation
of
Righteousness
,
should
have
a
precedency
in
order
,
before
remission
of
sin
.
CHAP.
XXVIII
.
Another
evil
Consequence
of
the
said
Imputation
,
That
it
subverts
the
necessity
of
our
repentance
,
in
order
to
our
salvation
by
Christ
,
that
the
non-necessity
thereof
in
Believers
,
hath
been
asserted
by
some
.
MR.
Baxter
having
charged
the
opinion
here
impugned
,
as
many
ways
subverting
Christian
Religion
,
for
proof
of
that
charge
,
I
shall
suggest
to
consideration
,
Whether
in
the
consequence
thereof
,
it
doth
not
subvert
the
necessity
of
repentance
and
new
obedience
,
in
order
to
a
sinners
salvation
by
Christ
.
To
this
end
be
it
considered
,
how
the
matter
is
obvious
to
be
argued
,
e.
g.
If
Adam
had
kept
the
Law
,
he
had
needed
no
repentance
more
,
than
Christ
himself
needed
it
:
Now
,
if
upon
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
in
its
essential
nature
,
we
may
be
said
to
have
kept
the
Law
in
Christ
,
as
exactly
and
perfectly
as
he
did
,
what
need
of
repentance
have
we
,
or
can
we
have
,
more
than
the
first
,
or
the
second
Adam
,
Christ
Jesus
?
For
if
the
exact
and
perfect
obedience
of
Christ
,
be
the
ground
and
reason
,
why
Christ
himself
needed
no
repentance
,
and
this
obedience
in
all
the
exactness
and
perfection
thereof
,
be
as
truly
Ours
by
Imputation
,
as
it
was
his
,
or
as
it
could
have
been
Ours
by
personal
performance
,
how
is
it
possible
,
that
it
being
a
sufficient
ground
,
of
a
non-necessity
of
repentance
in
the
one
,
it
should
not
be
the
same
in
the
other
?
Yea
,
if
it
be
true
,
what
hath
been
related
,
as
owned
by
Mr.
Will
.
Eyre
and
Mr.
S.
Rols
,
viz.
That
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
we
are
not
only
as
perfectly
righteous
,
but
also
more
perfectly
righteous
,
than
if
we
our selves
had
fulfilled
the
whole
Law
,
it
must
follow
from
thence
(
in
all
reason
I
think
)
that
we
have
less
need
of
repentance
,
than
the
first
Adam
ever
had
since
his
creation
.
I
have
somewhere
read
(
the
story
is
told
by
Mr.
John
Godwin
)
that
a
certain
Minister
being
pressed
with
this
Argument
,
was
thereby
constrained
to
acknowledg
to
him
,
That
Believers
being
perfectly
righteous
,
through
the
said
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
have
no
need
of
repentance
.
And
the
self
same
thing
was
asserted
by
Dr.
Crispe
,
Rector
of
Brinkworth
,
near
me
,
as
I
have
heard
it
related
from
the
mouthes
of
two
ear-witnesses
(
Mr.
Tho.
Baily
,
Minister
of
Minal
,
and
Mr.
Nicholas
Proffet
,
Minister
of
Malborough
,
both
of
them
Members
of
the
late
Assembly
)
and
who
gave
me
leave
to
publish
it
in
Print
(
they
professing
themselves
ready
to
attest
the
same
.
)
The
story
in
short
(
for
it
is
needless
here
to
relate
the
circumstances
thereof
,
as
to
the
time
when
,
place
where
,
and
company
among
whom
,
all
which
I
did
set
down
in
writing
)
is
this
;
The
said
Doctor
being
seriously
,
and
not
Disputationis
ergo
(
as
himself
protested
)
maintaining
the
said
assertion
(
That
Believers
have
no
need
to
repent
of
their
sins
)
and
being
urged
by
them
,
with
the
example
of
David's
repenting
,
for
his
horrid
crimes
of
adultery
and
murder
,
he
answered
,
That
David
did
more
,
than
he
ought
to
have
done
,
he
being
not
so
fully
and
clearly
acquainted
with
Gospel-Priviledges
,
as
we
now
under
the
New
Testament
are
.
Thus
we
have
heard
the
mischievous
Consequence
,
of
the
said
doctrine
of
Imputation
,
respectively
to
sin
past
,
and
as
for
the
consequence
thereof
,
respectively
to
future
duty
,
the
next
Chapter
will
discover
.
CHAP.
XXIX
.
Another
evil
Consequence
of
the
said
Imputation
,
That
it
overthrows
the
necessity
of
new
obedience
,
in
order
to
a
sinners
being
saved
by
Christ
;
Whence
it
is
,
that
divers
Authors
,
whereof
some
are
named
,
do
assert
,
That
Christians
are
not
to
do
any
good
duties
,
that
they
may
be
saved
.
Several
passages
to
this
purpose
in
Dr.
Owen's
Book
styled
,
(
Communion
with
God
)
related
,
with
Animadversions
thereupon
more
at
large
.
THat
the
said
opinion
overthrows
the
necessity
of
new
obedience
,
in
order
to
a
sinners
salvation
by
Christ
.
If
God
doth
impute
a
perfect
,
formal
Righteousness
to
men
[
such
as
Christs
was
]
what
need
can
there
be
of
personal
holiness
,
in
order
to
impunity
?
For
in
the
said
case
of
Imputation
,
it
must
be
supposed
,
that
the
rights
and
priviledges
belonging
to
such
a
Righteousness
,
do
accompany
it
in
the
Imputation
;
so
that
the
person
,
to
whom
such
Imputation
is
made
,
stands
really
invested
and
possessed
of
them
:
For
otherwise
God
gives
husks
,
shels
,
shadows
,
and
empty
titles
,
without
the
substance
of
benefit
,
and
true
honour
.
Now
one
main
Priviledg
of
a
perfect
,
formal
Righteousness
,
is
to
invest
with
a
full
and
entire
right
to
life
,
even
of
its
own
intrinsecal
and
inherent
worth
.
Hereupon
some
Preachers
do
not
stick
to
profess
and
teach
,
that
there
is
nothing
necessary
to
be
done
by
sinners
,
That
they
may
be
saved
by
Christ
;
among
whom
I
have
observed
Mr.
Thomas
Shepheard
,
of
New-England
,
in
his
Book
styled
,
The
Sincere
Convert
,
to
be
a
prime
one
,
he
saying
,
That
sinners
are
not
to
do
good
duties
(
to
repent
and
reform
their
sinful
ways
)
that
they
may
be
saved
.
but
for
other
ends
,
and
That
the
doing
of
good
duties
,
that
they
may
be
saved
,
is
the
way
to
be
damned
.
And
some
years
ago
,
I
heard
a
certain
Minister
,
(
eminent
in
the
repute
of
the
Vulgar
,
for
one
of
the
most
able
and
evangelical
Preachers
in
the
whole
County
where
he
lived
)
who
preaching
concerning
those
words
of
the
Psalmist
(
Ps.
98.1
.
)
and
from
thence
having
raised
this
doctrine
,
which
was
the
subject
of
his
whole
Sermon
,
viz.
That
Jesus
Christ
hath
done
marvellous
things
,
and
got
himself
the
victory
;
he
did
in
the
Application
thereof
,
inform
his
Auditors
in
the
first
place
,
That
there
is
nothing
for
the
Saints
to
do
(
meaning
,
as
he
did
interpret
himself
)
that
the
Saints
have
nothing
at
all
to
do
for
their
salvation
:
And
he
did
blame
people
for
thinking
,
That
doing
is
the
way
to
heaven
,
he
only
acknowledging
,
that
we
must
do
good
duties
,
in
the
way
of
love
and
thankfulness
to
Christ
,
who
hath
done
all
for
us
,
and
hath
got
himself
the
victory
.
But
if
it
had
been
objected
to
this
person
,
That
we
must
not
only
fight
,
but
through
Gods
help
also
in
our
own
persons
,
get
the
victory
,
if
we
think
to
be
crowned
(
according
to
that
in
Rev.
2.7
.
)
and
if
it
had
been
further
on
the
other
hand
objected
,
What
need
is
there
of
the
principles
of
Love
and
Gratitude
in
the
Saints
,
seeing
according
to
the
doctrine
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
here
impugned
,
Love
it self
,
and
Gratitude
it self
,
even
the
self
same
Love
and
Gratitude
,
which
was
in
the
Son
of
God
himself
,
as
well
as
other
his
graces
,
or
gracious
actings
,
are
reckoned
to
them
,
and
are
theirs
by
Imputation
,
in
the
very
letter
,
formality
,
or
essential
nature
thereof
.
If
,
I
say
,
such
Objections
had
been
put
to
the
said
Preacher
,
would
they
not
have
put
him
to
a
stand
,
think
we
?
And
whether
Dr.
Owen
be
not
of
the
same
mind
,
with
the
two
fore-named
Authors
in
this
point
,
viz.
That
we
are
not
to
do
good
duties
for
this
end
,
that
we
may
be
saved
,
I
shall
leave
the
judgment
thereof
to
the
Reader
,
by
the
following
passage
,
which
I
shall
immediately
recite
,
and
then
animadvert
upon
.
Dr.
Owen
,
p.
185.
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
but
how
did
he
do
it
?
Purely
,
as
it
stood
in
that
conditional
,
Do
this
,
and
live
.
He
did
it
in
the
strength
of
grace
he
had
received
.
He
did
it
as
a
means
of
life
,
to
procure
life
by
it
,
as
the
tenor
of
a
Covenant
?
Are
we
then
freed
from
this
obedience
?
Yes
,
but
how
far
?
From
doing
it
in
our
own
strength
,
for
doing
it
for
this
end
,
That
we
may
obtain
life
everlasting
.
It
is
vain
,
that
some
say
confidently
,
that
we
must
work
for
life
.
It
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
we
are
yet
under
the
old
Covenant
;
Fac
hoc
,
&
vives
;
We
are
not
freed
from
obedience
,
as
a
way
of
walking
with
God
,
but
we
are
as
a
way
of
working
to
come
to
him
.
Reply
.
1.
The
Doctor
in
saying
,
That
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
seems
to
mean
,
That
he
did
perfectly
obey
every
Law
of
God
,
which
we
in
our
own
persons
should
have
obeyed
;
and
I
presume
,
that
he
would
be
understood
to
mean
thus
,
for
he
says
often
and
expresly
,
p.
179.
That
whatsoever
was
required
of
us
by
vertue
of
any
Law
,
that
Christ
did
,
and
fulfill'd
.
And
if
this
be
his
meaning
(
as
it
seems
plainly
to
be
)
I
must
crave
leave
to
gainsay
,
saying
,
That
God
did
not
require
of
Christ
to
do
,
and
fulfil
whatsoever
was
required
of
us
,
by
vertue
of
any
Law
.
There
are
things
required
of
us
,
by
vertue
of
divine
Laws
peculiar
to
us
,
and
the
doing
whereof
is
inconsistent
with
the
person
of
Christ
,
and
office
of
his
Mediatorship
,
and
he
did
plainly
refuse
,
when
he
was
upon
earth
,
to
do
some
things
,
which
some
of
us
are
by
the
Law
of
God
obliged
to
do
,
because
he
was
under
no
such
Law
for
the
doing
of
them
.
2.
The
Doctor
in
saying
[
That
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
as
it
stood
in
that
conditional
,
Do
this
,
and
live
]
doth
seem
to
mean
,
That
the
Law
,
to
which
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
,
was
the
Law
and
Covenant
of
works
,
made
with
Adam
,
and
that
as
such
he
yielded
obedience
thereunto
,
whereas
the
Law
to
which
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
,
was
the
Law
of
Mediatorship
,
and
a
Law
in
that
respect
peculiar
to
himself
,
there
being
but
one
Mediator
betwixt
God
and
man
,
the
man
Christ
Jesus
.
3.
Whereas
the
Doctor
says
,
That
Christ
yielded
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
,
as
a
Covenant
of
works
,
as
a
means
of
life
,
to
procure
life
by
it
,
as
the
tenor
of
a
Covenant
,
I
conceive
no
such
thing
to
be
true
,
but
that
the
truth
is
,
That
Jesus
Christ
did
yield
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
of
Mediatorship
,
or
that
(
to
speak
in
his
own
words
)
he
did
finish
the
work
,
which
God
gave
him
to
do
,
as
Mediator
,
whereby
to
purchase
life
for
us
,
according
to
the
tenor
of
another
Law
or
Covenant
(
i.
e.
)
the
New
Testament
in
his
blood
.
4.
Although
Christ
hath
freed
us
from
obedience
to
the
Law
of
works
,
as
a
Covenant
of
life
,
and
from
obeying
it
for
this
end
,
that
we
may
obtain
life
everlasting
,
according
to
the
tenor
of
that
Covenant
,
nevertheless
he
hath
not
freed
us
from
obeying
the
Law
,
or
Covenant
of
grace
for
this
end
,
that
we
may
in
so
doing
obtain
everlasting
life
.
It
is
not
vain
(
as
the
Doctor
censures
)
that
some
say
,
confidently
,
but
it
is
the
very
truth
of
Scripture
,
which
all
should
say
with
the
most
assured
confidence
,
That
we
must
work
,
that
according
to
the
Law
of
grace
we
may
have
life
?
For
Seek
good
and
not
evil
,
that
ye
may
live
,
Blessed
are
they
that
do
his
Commandments
,
that
they
may
have
right
to
the
tree
of
life
(
i.
e.
)
life
everlasting
.
5.
The
Doctor
's
charge
is
notoriously
false
and
groundless
to
say
,
That
to
work
for
life
,
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
We
are
under
the
old
Covenant
,
Fac
hoc
,
&
vives
.
Is
it
all
one
to
say
,
Do
this
(
i.
e.
)
perform
perfect
and
perpetual
obedience
,
that
thou
maist
live
,
as
to
say
,
with
St.
Peter
,
Repent
and
be
converted
,
that
your
sins
may
be
blotted
out
?
Or
to
say
with
the
Prophets
Esay
and
Jeremy
,
Let
the
wicked
forsake
his
may
,
and
the
unrighteous
man
his
thoughts
,
and
return
to
the
Lord
—
Esay
55.7
,
8.
And
Jer.
4.14
.
Wash
thine
heart
from
wickedness
,
that
thou
maist
be
saved
?
Or
to
say
with
the
Apostle
,
So
run
,
that
ye
may
obtain
?
obtain
what
?
what
less
,
than
life
everlasting
,
as
appears
by
the
Verse
following
,
wherein
he
interprets
himself
?
1
Cor.
9.24
,
25.
6.
Walking
is
in
truth
working
;
our
Christian
walking
is
our
Christian
working
,
yea
I
will
say
,
it
is
our
Christian
warring
,
fighting
,
running
,
wrestling
,
doing
like
the
Olympian
Athletae
,
even
all
that
belongs
to
the
Champions
of
Christ
,
God
,
Angels
and
Men
being
spectators
.
All
these
are
comprized
under
the
Metaphorical
and
Scriptural
phrase
of
Walking
with
God
.
7.
As
our
obedience
is
a
way
of
walking
with
God
,
so
it
is
a
way
of
working
to
come
to
him
,
nor
are
we
more
freed
from
obedience
(
evangelical
obedience
)
as
a
way
of
working
to
come
to
God
,
than
we
are
freed
from
it
,
as
a
way
of
walking
with
God
.
8.
Evangelical
working
or
obedience
,
as
it
is
the
way
of
walking
with
God
,
so
it
is
eo
nomine
,
the
way
of
coming
to
God
,
or
that
will
(
through
the
mercy
of
God
in
Christ
)
bring
us
to
God
;
and
as
the
means
must
be
used
,
that
by
the
use
thereof
we
may
obtain
the
end
,
so
are
we
[
as
well
in
reason
as
in
conscience
]
to
betake
our selves
to
the
way
of
walking
with
God
,
that
therein
,
or
thereby
,
we
may
be
brought
,
or
come
to
God
.
I
proceed
to
the
examination
of
certain
other
passages
to
the
same
purpose
,
in
the
Doctor
's
forecited
Book
,
wherein
he
says
,
p.
244.
There
being
an
impossibility
of
obtaining
life
by
the
Law
,
we
are
exempted
from
it
as
to
any
such
end
,
and
that
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
Gal.
3.21
,
22
,
23.
To
this
I
answer
,
By
the
Law
in
that
Scripture
is
meant
the
Mosaical
Law
,
by
the
perfect
obedience
whereof
,
there
was
indeed
an
impossibility
,
for
any
persons
of
obtaining
life
,
or
justification
unto
life
:
But
this
doth
not
prove
,
that
there
is
any
impossibility
of
obtaining
life
by
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
,
or
that
we
are
exempted
from
it
as
to
any
such
end
.
2.
It
is
the
promise
of
God
in
Christ
first
made
to
Adam
,
Gen.
3.15
.
and
afterwards
renewed
to
Abraham
,
and
which
promise
is
specified
,
v.
16
,
17.
by
which
sinners
are
exempted
from
absolutely
perfect
obedience
to
any
Law
of
God
,
to
this
end
that
they
thereby
may
have
life
.
3.
Although
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
(
i.
e.
)
the
condition
thereof
being
kept
,
it
can
save
sinners
.
(
included
in
that
promise
)
sinners
were
exempted
from
the
said
perfect
obedience
to
any
Law
,
to
this
end
that
they
may
have
life
,
nevertheless
sinners
are
not
upon
any
account
whatsoever
,
exempted
from
sincere
obedience
,
to
this
end
that
they
may
have
life
,
according
to
the
tenor
of
the
Gospel-promise
,
wherein
life
is
promised
to
those
,
and
only
those
,
who
perform
the
condition
thereof
.
The
Doctor
proceeds
to
say
in
the
following
Page
245.
There
be
Gibeonites
,
outwardly
attending
the
family
of
God
,
that
do
the
service
of
his
house
,
as
the
drudgery
of
their
lives
,
the
principle
they
yield
obedience
upon
,
is
a
Spirit
of
bondage
unto
fear
,
Rom.
8.15
.
the
rule
they
do
it
by
,
is
the
Law
in
its
dread
and
rigour
,
exacting
it
of
them
to
the
utmost
,
without
mercy
and
mitigation
,
the
end
they
do
it
for
,
is
to
fly
from
the
wrath
to
come
,
to
pacifie
conscience
,
and
seek
righteousness
,
as
it
were
by
the
works
of
the
Law
.
—
The
Saints
obedience
is
a
free
obedience
,
without
fear
,
terror
,
bondage
and
constraint
,
they
go
forth
unto
all
holy
obedience
in
Christ
.
Answ.
1.
What
opinion
the
Doctor
hath
of
the
Gibeonites
,
literally
or
properly
so
called
,
I
know
not
;
but
certain
I
am
,
that
he
had
no
cause
to
use
their
name
as
here
he
doth
,
in
the
way
of
reproach
and
disgrace
,
either
because
they
were
Gibeonites
,
or
because
they
did
the
meaner
sort
of
services
belonging
to
the
Tabernacle
,
one
of
the
meanest
whereof
holy
David
did
value
at
a
high
rate
.
2.
It
is
against
reason
to
say
,
that
there
are
,
or
ever
were
any
such
Gibeonites
,
in
that
full
character
,
whereby
they
are
here
described
by
the
Doctor
:
For
if
sinners
apprehend
no
other
rule
of
their
actings
,
than
the
Law
in
its
dread
and
rigor
,
exacting
of
them
to
the
uttermost
,
without
mercy
and
mitigation
,
it
is
more
rational
to
conceive
,
that
they
should
lye
down
in
utter
despair
,
than
to
drudge
or
trudge
to
no
purpose
.
Otherwise
I
cannot
perceive
the
sence
of
the
Psalmist's
reasoning
,
he
saying
,
There
is
mercy
with
thee
;
therefore
shalt
thou
be
feared
,
Psal.
130.4
.
3.
They
are
not
Gibeonites
necessarily
(
in
the
Doctor
's
disgraceful
sence
)
but
they
may
be
true
Israelites
,
who
do
Gods
service
,
that
they
may
escape
wrath
to
come
,
and
enjoy
peace
of
conscience
here
;
nor
is
any
Christian
the
less
an
Israelite
,
or
in
truth
the
less
a
Nathaneel
,
because
he
serves
God
upon
account
of
the
reward
promised
thereunto
,
it
having
the
promises
both
of
the
life
that
now
is
,
and
of
that
which
is
to
come
,
1
Tim.
4.8
.
4.
The
Doctor
doth
ill
to
jumble
things
together
,
as
synonimous
and
homogeneous
,
which
are
exceeding
disparate
(
I
mean
,
the
doing
Gods
service
as
the
drudgery
of
our
lives
,
and
the
doing
thereof
for
this
end
,
to
fly
from
the
wrath
to
come
)
nor
indeed
are
these
two
things
consistent
:
For
those
,
who
do
regard
Gods
service
as
the
assured
way
,
or
means
of
escaping
wrath
to
come
,
and
do
accordingly
serve
God
for
that
end
,
cannot
in
reason
possibly
be
conceived
to
look
upon
,
or
account
Gods
service
as
the
drudgery
,
but
rather
as
the
felicity
of
their
lives
,
and
in
such
sort
as
St.
Paul
did
account
of
all
his
,
both
active
and
passive
service
of
God
in
Christ
,
viz.
no
way
comparable
to
the
reward
of
escaping
hell
,
and
obtaining
heaven
,
Rom.
8.18
.
5.
It
is
the
Doctors
error
to
insinuate
,
that
they
who
serve
God
for
this
end
to
fly
wrath
to
come
,
do
serve
him
upon
the
principle
of
that
spirit
of
bondage
intended
by
the
Apostle
in
Rom.
8.15
.
Yea
by
his
insinuating
the
said
Principle
to
be
slavish
,
base
,
or
unlawful
,
he
doth
as
much
as
in
him
lies
,
bring
the
souls
of
men
under
a
spirit
of
bondage
,
causing
them
to
doubt
of
their
being
servants
of
God
,
yea
to
accuse
themselves
as
none
of
his
servants
,
because
they
serve
him
for
this
end
,
to
fly
from
wrath
to
come
;
and
also
provoking
them
to
such
a
manner
of
doing
things
,
as
being
not
required
by
God
in
his
word
,
is
not
part
of
true
Religion
,
but
meer
superstition
,
yea
such
things
as
are
impossible
in
nature
,
as
if
we
should
perswade
men
to
put
off
humanity
,
or
not
to
be
men
.
So
that
I
may
well
say
to
those
Readers
,
or
Hearers
of
the
Doctor
,
who
can
swallow
,
applaud
,
or
approve
such
sayings
as
these
in
his
Book
,
as
St.
Paul
said
of
the
seduced
Corinths
,
perverted
by
their
false
Teachers
,
2
Cor.
11.20
.
ye
suffer
if
a
man
bring
you
into
bondage
,
if
a
man
devour
you
;
I
may
truly
say
,
That
the
yoke
,
which
the
Doctor
would
here
put
upon
the
neck
of
Christs
Disciples
,
is
heavier
than
the
yoke
of
Ceremonies
,
and
such
as
neither
we
,
nor
our
Fathers
,
nor
successors
,
were
,
are
,
or
ever
shall
be
able
to
bear
.
6.
The
obedience
of
the
Saints
may
be
a
free
obedience
,
although
they
do
not
go
forth
thereunto
altogether
without
fear
,
and
terror
;
and
it
's
very
ill
done
of
this
Author
to
insinuate
the
contrary
.
Noah
went
forth
with
fear
to
the
obedience
of
God
in
building
the
Ark
,
which
he
did
at
Gods
command
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
says
the
Text
)
to
or
for
the
saving
of
himself
and
family
,
Heb.
11.7
.
And
it
is
not
to
be
doubted
,
but
that
fear
(
among
other
considerations
)
did
make
David
to
run
the
way
of
Gods
Commandments
,
Psal.
119.32
.
for
what
construction
otherwise
can
be
made
of
his
saying
in
the
same
Psalm
v.
120.
My
flesh
trembleth
for
fear
of
thee
,
and
I
am
afraid
of
thy
judgments
?
And
so
it
did
holy
Job
,
as
appears
Job
31.23
.
7.
Judge
Reader
,
whether
it
be
not
a
great
fault
in
the
Doctor
,
so
to
misapply
that
Scripture
Rom.
9.32
.
and
to
pervert
the
sense
thereof
,
as
to
make
a
Christians
serving
of
God
to
fly
from
wrath
to
come
,
to
be
a
seeking
for
righteousness
as
it
were
by
works
of
the
Law
:
for
to
seek
righteousness
by
works
of
the
Law
,
is
to
seek
justification
or
salvation
by
the
external
observances
of
the
Judaical
Law
,
and
consequently
in
a
wrong
way
(
opposite
to
the
true
Gospel-way
of
serving
God
)
and
not
by
faith
in
Christ
,
as
the
Apostle
doth
plainly
interpret
the
matter
in
the
self
same
verse
.
How
unreasonably
therefore
doth
the
Doctor
here
insinuate
,
That
those
Christians
,
who
seek
righteousness
by
faith
in
Christ
(
the
right
Gospel-way
)
that
is
,
do
serve
God
and
live
Christian
lives
,
that
they
may
be
justified
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
,
or
be
saved
from
wrath
to
come
through
his
merits
,
that
those
,
I
say
,
who
do
serve
God
like
Christians
to
that
end
,
do
take
such
a
fatal
course
,
as
those
Jews
did
,
of
whom
the
Apostle
there
speaks
,
saying
,
That
Jesus
Christ
was
a
stumbling
block
to
them
,
That
they
fell
short
of
attaining
the
end
,
they
aimed
at
(
righteousness
,
justification
,
salvation
)
because
they
sought
this
saving
happiness
in
a
wrong
way
,
and
not
by
due
means
,
(
i.e.
)
not
by
faith
in
Christ
,
or
works
of
the
Gospel
,
but
by
external
legal
works
,
as
inconsistent
with
the
faith
of
Christ
incarnate
,
as
is
Judaism
and
Christianity
.
8.
Forasmuch
as
the
Doctor
doth
in
express
words
assert
p.
213.
That
God
hath
appointed
,
that
holiness
shall
be
the
means
,
the
way
to
that
eternal
life
,
which
as
in
it self
and
originally
is
his
gift
by
Jesus
Christ
,
so
with
regard
to
his
constitution
of
our
obedience
as
the
means
of
attaining
it
,
is
a
reward
—
And
again
Ib.
That
it
is
the
way
appointed
of
God
for
us
to
walk
in
,
for
the
obtaining
of
salvation
.
These
assertions
of
the
Doctor
,
I
say
,
being
considered
,
I
must
needs
say
these
two
things
:
First
,
I
am
not
able
to
reconcile
the
Doctor
with
that
foresaid
Preacher
,
who
in
his
Sermon
upon
Psal.
98.1
.
did
reprove
people
for
thinking
,
That
well-doing
was
the
way
to
heaven
.
Secondly
,
Nor
am
I
able
to
reconcile
the
Doctor
with
himself
in
his
acknowledging
holiness
to
be
Gods
appointed
way
and
means
for
the
obtaining
of
eternal
happiness
,
and
yet
making
it
the
part
and
property
of
a
Gibeonite
(
i.e.
)
a
thing
reprovable
,
a
slavish
,
or
disgraceful
thing
in
a
Christian
to
serve
God
to
fly
from
wrath
to
come
;
for
what
is
it
to
fly
,
or
escape
from
wrath
to
come
,
but
to
obtain
salvation
?
And
what
therefore
is
it
to
serve
or
obey
God
to
fly
from
wrath
to
come
,
but
to
serve
God
to
obtain
salvation
?
and
why
should
we
not
take
the
way
,
or
use
the
means
to
obtain
the
end
?
or
why
did
God
constitute
such
and
such
things
as
means
for
such
and
such
ends
,
but
that
,
as
by
him
they
were
appointed
,
so
by
us
they
should
be
used
to
attain
the
same
?
But
for
all
this
the
Doctor
doth
so
spite
at
the
Gibeonites
,
who
are
contented
to
do
the
meanest
services
,
which
God
puts
them
to
,
that
so
they
may
escape
the
wrath
of
God
in
their
own
Consciences
here
,
and
in
the
slames
of
Hell
hereafter
.
I
say
,
he
doth
so
detest
the
whole
race
of
the
said
Gibeonites
,
as
to
fling
another
stone
at
them
in
a
few
pages
after
,
whose
words
I
shall
recite
,
as
I
find
them
pag.
248.
and
with
a
few
Animadversions
thereupon
I
will
conclude
this
Chapter
.
The
Saints
motive
to
obedience
is
love
—
The
rule
of
their
obedience
(
their
walking
with
God
)
is
the
Law
of
liberty
,
as
divested
of
all
its
terrifying
,
threatning
,
damning
,
cursing
power
,
and
rendred
in
the
blood
of
Christ
Jesus
,
sweet
,
tender
,
useful
,
directing
,
helpful
as
a
rule
of
walking
in
the
life
they
have
received
,
not
the
way
of
working
for
the
life
they
have
not
.
These
instances
may
suffice
to
manifest
that
liberty
of
obedience
in
the
family
of
God
,
which
his
sons
and
daughters
have
,
that
the
poor
convinced
Gibeonites
are
not
acquainted
withall
.
Answ.
1.
As
hope
and
fear
are
well
consistent
with
love
,
so
are
those
as
well
as
this
the
motive
of
the
Saints
obedience
;
and
so
they
ought
to
be
,
as
in
part
hath
been
already
proved
,
as
to
fear
in
Noah
,
Job
and
David
,
and
as
is
easily
proveable
,
even
by
the
current
of
the
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
.
See
Heb.
4.1
,
&
12
,
28
,
29.
Rom.
11.20
.
Phil.
2.13
.
And
as
for
hope
,
its
being
a
principle
or
motive
of
the
Saints
obedience
,
see
Act.
26.7
.
1
Joh.
3.3
.
1
Pet.
1.13
,
14
,
15.
To
multiply
Scriptures
for
the
proof
of
this
,
which
is
so
evident
in
nature
,
is
as
needless
as
to
light
a
candle
at
noon
day
.
As
he
that
ploweth
,
is
moved
to
do
it
with
hope
of
a
crop
,
every
other
labourer
with
hope
of
some
gain
,
1
Cor.
9.10
.
so
are
the
Saints
moved
,
and
to
be
moved
with
the
hope
of
the
Gospel
to
be
stedfast
to
it
,
and
immoveable
from
such
a
conversation
as
doth
become
it
.
2.
It
is
not
the
Law
of
God
as
diversed
of
all
its
terrifying
,
threatning
,
damning
,
cursing
power
,
which
is
the
rule
of
the
Saints
obedience
.
Such
doctrine
is
a
branch
of
what
Dr.
More
stiles
that
loathsome
and
pestilential
error
of
Antinomianism
;
and
indeed
it
is
a
root
,
which
(
of
it self
)
beareth
gall
and
wormwood
,
and
therefore
by
all
due
means
to
be
eradicated
out
of
Gods
husbandry
,
(
the
hearts
and
minds
of
his
people
)
where
the
Devil
(
that
envious
one
)
hath
planted
it
.
And
for
the
extirpation
thereof
,
or
confutation
of
this
dangerous
piece
of
Antinomianism
,
what
need
I
say
more
,
than
to
desire
the
Reader
to
open
his
Bible
and
to
read
the
tenour
of
the
Laws
of
God
given
by
him
as
the
rule
of
every
ones
living
(
I
mean
both
as
the
directing
and
obliging
rule
)
and
then
to
speak
his
mind
,
whether
the
Law
of
God
(
the
rule
of
the
Saints
obedience
)
hath
not
the
usual
Sanction
of
Laws
(
i.e.
)
a
commination
of
terror
,
even
the
terrible
curse
of
damnation
,
upon
supposition
of
their
disobedience
thereunto
.
Doth
not
God
command
the
Saints
to
beware
of
Apostasie
,
and
to
persevere
in
faith
and
holiness
upon
peril
of
damnation
,
Ezek.
18.24
.
Rom.
8.13
.
Heb.
4.1
,
&
10.
3.
It
is
the
Doctors
error
(
as
of
many
others
)
to
think
,
that
the
Law
of
God
cannot
be
sweet
,
tender
,
useful
,
directing
,
helpful
to
the
Saints
as
a
rule
of
walking
with
God
,
except
it
be
divested
of
its
sanction
,
as
aforesaid
:
for
although
its
sanction
be
supposed
,
will
not
the
Saints
say
,
as
did
Hezekiah
in
another
case
,
Good
is
the
word
of
the
Lord
,
which
he
hath
spoken
?
Esa.
39.8
.
Yea
,
are
not
the
very
comminations
of
God
useful
and
helpful
(
even
of
their
own
nature
and
proper
tendency
)
to
the
Saints
in
their
walking
with
God
,
as
well
as
his
precepts
,
or
directions
?
He
that
denys
this
,
which
is
so
proveable
,
both
by
Scripture
and
reason
,
is
worthy
to
be
taught
as
Gideon
taught
the
men
of
Succoth
,
with
briars
and
thorns
of
the
wilderness
,
I
mean
,
to
be
confuted
with
stripes
,
rather
than
with
words
or
arguments
.
4.
It
seems
,
this
Doctor
hath
not
sufficiently
studied
the
reason
,
why
Gods
Law
(
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
)
is
styled
a
Law
of
Liberty
:
for
if
he
had
,
he
might
have
known
,
that
it
is
so
styled
for
this
reason
(
among
several
others
)
because
it
imposeth
no
servile
yoaks
like
those
laid
upon
the
Jews
,
and
enjoineth
only
such
services
as
are
suited
and
most
agreeable
to
our
rational
nature
,
and
in
the
performance
of
which
consisteth
our
truest
freedom
and
liberty
.
5.
It
is
another
branch
of
Antinomian
doctrine
to
say
,
That
the
Law
of
God
is
a
rule
of
the
Saints
walking
,
in
the
life
they
have
received
,
not
the
way
of
working
,
for
the
life
they
have
not
.
This
is
an
error
,
which
as
it
hath
been
abundantly
confuted
by
Mr.
Baxter
,
in
several
of
his
Writings
,
so
I
have
already
refuted
in
this
Chapter
,
and
more
at
large
in
the
28th
.
Chapter
of
my
Exercitation
,
concerning
the
nature
of
Forgiveness
of
sin
,
wherein
is
manifested
the
consistency
of
these
two
(
working
From
and
For
life
)
and
that
the
Saints
,
from
the
life
of
grace
they
have
received
,
do
work
and
ought
to
work
For
the
life
of
glory
,
which
as
yet
they
have
not
received
.
Lastly
,
While
the
Doctor
pretends
to
maintain
that
liberty
of
obedience
,
in
the
family
of
God
,
which
(
as
he
says
)
the
sons
and
daughters
of
God
have
,
he
makes
them
worse
slaves
,
than
the
Gibeonites
were
ever
made
by
Joshua
.
Now
alas
for
the
poor
convinced
Gibeonites
!
these
poor
convinced
unconvinced
Gibeonites
!
convinced
in
conscience
,
that
it
is
their
duty
to
serve
God
,
but
not
convinced
,
that
it
is
their
sin
to
serve
Him
to
this
end
,
to
fly
from
wrath
present
in
a
wounded
conscience
,
or
from
wrath
to
come
,
in
the
lake
which
burneth
with
fire
and
brimstone
!
Convinced
,
that
it
is
their
duty
to
love
God
,
but
not
convinced
,
that
the
love
of
God
,
and
the
love
of
their
own
souls
,
are
things
inconsistent
!
Convinced
,
that
a
main
motive
of
their
serving
God
,
should
be
their
love
of
Him
,
but
not
convinced
,
that
love
to
their
souls-safety
and
salvation
,
should
be
no
motive
at
all
unto
,
or
end
of
their
serving
of
God!
I
will
say
to
these
poor
Gibeonites
,
who
cannot
so
easily
put
off
humanity
,
or
be
perswaded
out
of
all
love
to
themselves
,
specially
to
their
souls
,
Let
it
be
a
very
small
thing
with
you
,
to
be
judged
of
this
mistaken
Doctor
,
yea
to
be
judged
by
mans
judgment
;
for
he
that
will
judg
you
at
the
last
is
the
Lord
,
who
will
judg
your
present
Judges
,
who
pass
such
an
harsh
judgment
upon
you
.
But
be
of
good
chear
:
For
if
to
be
moved
to
serve
God
for
this
end
,
to
fly
from
wrath
present
and
to
come
,
be
to
be
made
indeed
a
Gibeonite
,
then
for
your
comfort
be
it
known
to
you
,
that
St.
Paul
was
a
Gibeonite
;
for
he
was
induced
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
upon
consideration
of
that
Woe
,
that
did
hang
over
his
head
,
if
he
did
not
preach
it
,
1
Cor.
9.16
.
And
he
did
mortifie
the
deeds
of
the
flesh
,
lest
himself
having
preached
to
others
,
should
at
last
prove
to
be
a
cast-away
,
1
Cor.
9.27
.
Yea
he
professeth
for
others
as
well
as
himself
,
that
the
end
of
all
his
and
their
Christian
strivings
,
was
to
obtain
for
themselves
an
incorruptible
Crown
,
v.
25.
Briefly
,
as
David
said
to
scoffing
Micol
(
I
will
yet
be
more
vile
)
so
let
us
resolutely
answer
to
the
iterated
scoff
of
this
Doctor
,
If
to
do
as
aforesaid
be
indeed
to
be
a
Gibeonite
,
In
the
Name
of
God
let
there
be
more
Gibeonites
,
Let
them
be
fruitful
and
multiply
,
and
replenish
the
Church
.
There
are
many
other
dangerous
evils
,
which
do
naturally
flow
from
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
in
the
sense
here
opposed
;
but
because
I
have
enlarged
my self
in
the
premises
beyound
my
first
intention
,
I
will
not
so
much
as
mention
them
.
I
will
only
conclude
this
long
Chapter
with
the
words
of
Mr.
Truman
in
his
Book
styled
(
The
great
Propitiation
,
p.
94
,
95.
)
wherein
he
suggesteth
that
mischievous
consequence
of
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
which
hath
in
this
Chapter
been
specified
and
insisted
upon
;
and
I
do
the
rather
think
meet
to
transcribe
the
words
of
that
Author
,
because
some
Readers
may
peradventure
regard
them
as
proceeding
from
his
Pen
,
rather
than
mine
;
for
notwithstanding
every
way
,
whether
by
means
of
one
Author
or
another
,
(
my
labour
of
love
in
this
Treatise
,
or
the
labours
of
any
other
in
theirs
)
so
the
truths
of
the
Gospel
be
entertained
,
I
desire
to
be
affected
as
was
the
Apostle
,
saying
in
another
case
,
I
therein
do
rejoice
,
yea
and
will
rejoice
,
Phil.
1.18
.
If
Christ
(
says
that
Author
)
fulfilled
the
Law
for
us
in
this
sence
,
so
as
it
is
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
as
if
we
had
fulfil'd
the
Law
our selves
,
then
we
should
be
freed
altogether
from
any
obligation
from
the
Law
to
obedience
,
just
as
we
are
freed
from
the
condemnation
of
the
Law
,
because
Christ
underwent
it
as
a
satisfaction
for
us
,
we
should
not
then
sin
in
not
obeying
the
Law
,
and
we
could
not
be
pardoned
by
Christ
for
our
sins
in
not
obeying
the
Law
;
for
they
are
no
sins
according
to
this
Hypothesis
.
If
there
be
a
Law
,
that
if
a
servant
hired
for
a
year
,
shall
refuse
to
serve
his
years
service
(
if
his
Master
require
)
he
shall
lye
in
the
prison
for
a
year
.
Suppose
one
hired
did
not
serve
a
year
,
but
another
served
a
year
good
and
faithful
service
for
him
,
must
this
hired
man
also
serve
a
year
for
himself
,
or
he
is
too
blame
?
and
must
this
man
accepted
to
serve
a
year
for
him
also
,
lie
in
prison
for
him
?
What
if
I
did
not
serve
a
year
,
yet
another
served
for
me
,
and
better
service
than
I
can
perform
?
What
need
is
there
may
he
say
,
that
I
should
serve
it
my self
?
Do
I
think
,
I
can
mend
his
work
,
do
it
better
my self
,
than
I
have
done
it
in
him
?
I
am
almost
ashamed
to
lay
open
the
weakness
of
them
that
hold
these
things
,
after
such
multitudes
of
learned
protestants
have
shewn
their
absurdity
.
The
other
two
Arguments
of
this
Author
in
the
same
and
the
precedent
page
,
are
for
the
weightiness
of
them
well
worthy
to
be
here
transcribed
;
but
I
shall
refer
the
Reader
to
the
perusal
thereof
in
his
Book
it self
.
CHAP.
XXX
.
Q.
May
Believers
be
truly
or
fitly
said
to
be
clothed
with
the
Robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
or
the
like
form
of
words
?
Four
Reasons
why
the
said
Question
is
proposed
and
answered
.
The
Answer
it self
.
1.
That
there
are
no
such
express
sayings
in
Scripture
,
nor
any
Scripture
,
wherein
Christs
Righteousness
is
set
forth
under
the
Metaphor
of
Rayment
.
2.
That
our
own
personal
Righteousness
in
the
several
branches
thereof
,
doth
go
under
the
Metaphorical
expressions
of
Robes
,
comely
rayment
,
and
splendid
array
.
Several
Scriptures
,
objected
to
the
contrary
,
answered
.
In
what
sence
't
is
true
,
and
in
what
,
false
,
to
say
,
that
we
are
clothed
with
the
Robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
:
And
that
it
is
more
fitly
and
intelligibly
said
,
that
it
purchaseth
or
procureth
Clothing
for
us
,
than
that
it
is
it self
our
Clothing
.
Q.
MAY
Believers
be
truly
,
or
fitly
said
to
be
clothed
with
the
Robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
?
To
have
Christs
Righteousness
put
upon
them
?
That
their
persons
,
or
sins
are
covered
with
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
the
like
expressions
?
Answ.
I
have
thought
meet
to
propose
,
and
make
answer
to
this
Question
,
for
three
or
four
Reasons
;
-
1.
Because
such
expressions
have
been
very
usual
in
the
Sermons
and
Books
of
some
Divines
.
-
2.
Because
the
mis-understanding
of
the
true
sence
,
wherein
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
and
the
asserting
of
a
sence
contrary
to
truth
,
hath
been
(
I
doubt
not
)
the
sole
cause
,
or
occasion
of
such
expressions
,
one
un-scriptural
phrase
frequently
begetting
another
,
and
the
daughter
doth
sometimes
happen
to
be
more
deformed
,
than
the
mother
.
-
3.
Because
such
expressions
have
occasioned
strange
and
gross
conceptions
in
the
minds
of
many
people
,
as
if
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
put
upon
them
,
by
Gods
Imputation
,
all
their
sins
were
so
covered
and
hidden
from
the
sight
of
God
,
as
that
the
eye
of
divine
justice
sees
not
the
least
spot
of
sin
in
those
,
who
are
cloathed
with
it
.
Such
sayings
as
these
have
been
already
recited
out
of
certain
Writers
.
-
4.
Because
several
Scriptures
have
been
very
frequently
perverted
,
to
contenance
or
authorize
such
expressions
,
which
I
will
therefore
take
occasion
to
vindicate
,
whereby
to
restore
them
to
their
true
sence
and
meaning
.
I
shall
therefore
return
a
more
copious
Answer
to
the
said
Question
,
and
say
;
1.
I
do
not
remember
any
place
in
all
the
Bible
,
where
the
said
expressions
are
used
,
or
where
Christs
Righteousness
is
mentioned
under
the
Metaphor
of
a
Robe
,
or
Garment
,
which
Believers
are
to
put
on
,
or
wherewith
they
are
,
or
are
to
be
clothed
.
I
do
indeed
well
remember
the
Scripture
,
where
Christ
is
set
forth
[
his
flesh
and
blood
]
under
the
Metaphor
of
food
[
meat
and
drink
]
but
no
place
,
where
his
Righteousness
is
mentioned
under
the
notion
,
or
Metaphor
of
Rayment
.
2.
But
on
the
other
side
,
I
find
many
places
of
Scripture
,
where
our
own
personal
righteousness
,
(
even
in
the
several
branches
thereof
)
doth
go
under
the
said
Metaphorical
expressions
;
for
which
see
Job
29.14
.
I
put
on
righteousness
,
and
it
clothed
me
.
My
judgment
was
as
a
robe
and
a
diadem
.
What
righteousness
doth
Job
there
mean
?
surely
not
Christs
Righteousness
,
but
his
own
(
as
appears
both
by
the
precedent
and
subsequent
verses
,
11
,
12
,
13
,
15
,
16
,
17.
—
)
viz.
Justice
,
pity
,
mercy
,
and
the
like
vertues
.
Col.
3.12
.
Put
on
as
the
elect
of
God
bowels
of
mercies
,
kindness
—
Eph.
4.22
,
23.
Put
off
concerning
the
former
conversation
the
old
man
—
and
v.
24.
Put
on
that
new
man
,
which
after
God
is
created
in
righteousness
and
true
holiness
.
1
Pet.
5.5
.
Be
ye
clothed
with
humility
.
Our
own
righteousness
in
the
several
branches
thereof
is
that
,
which
in
many
Scriptures
is
commended
to
us
under
the
notion
of
splendid
rayment
,
which
adorns
us
,
makes
us
lovely
in
the
eyes
of
God
,
and
which
is
in
his
sight
of
great
price
,
1
Pet.
3.3
,
5.
1
Tim.
2.9
,
10.
To
this
purpose
I
might
instance
in
many
sayings
:
out
of
the
Proverbs
of
Solomon
,
were
it
needful
.
But
forasmuch
as
several
Scriptures
are
objected
to
the
contrary
,
of
what
hath
been
here
said
in
the
first
branch
of
my
Answer
,
I
will
therefore
specifie
some
of
the
chief
of
them
,
and
reply
thereunto
.
Object
.
Rev.
3.18
.
What
else
is
meant
by
the
white
rayment
there
mentioned
,
but
the
Righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
?
Answ.
1.
The
Question
may
as
well
be
demanded
,
What
is
meant
by
the
Gold
there
spoken
of
,
but
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
?
For
we
are
not
otherwise
clothed
with
the
robe
or
rayment
,
than
we
are
enriched
with
the
gold
of
Christs
Righteousness
.
2.
By
the
white
rayment
,
is
there
meant
our
own
righteousness
,
consisting
of
such
gracious
dispositions
,
and
works
of
holiness
,
which
do
adorn
the
Disciples
of
Christ
in
his
sight
,
more
than
the
most
Lilly-white
,
and
splendid
rayment
,
doth
the
greatest
Princes
in
the
eye
of
men
.
And
this
I
conceive
to
be
meant
by
that
rayment
of
needle-work
,
wherein
the
Bride
(
the
Lambs
wife
)
is
said
to
be
brought
unto
him
,
Ps.
45.13
,
14.
And
this
is
that
righteousness
of
the
Saints
,
wherewith
they
are
said
to
be
[
‖
](A44575-e32670-b)
‖
Rev.
19.8
.
arrayed
,
as
in
fine
linnen
,
clean
and
white
;
righteous
works
being
that
rayment
,
wherewith
every
Christian
(
man
and
woman
)
should
be
clothed
,
or
adorned
,
1
Tim.
2.10
.
Object
.
Rom.
13.14
.
Are
not
Christians
there
commanded
to
put
on
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
?
Answ.
1.
Whatever
be
the
thing
,
which
the
believing
Romans
are
there
commanded
to
put
on
,
I
am
perswaded
,
that
the
Apostles
meaning
there
is
,
That
we
should
put
it
on
not
as
a
garment
,
but
rather
as
Armour
,
we
being
as
well
said
to
put
on
this
,
as
that
.
He
prosecutes
that
Metaphor
mentioned
,
v.
12.
[
Put
on
the
Armour
of
light
.
]
2.
Consequently
I
think
,
that
we
have
no
more
reason
to
conclude
,
that
by
the
garment
,
which
we
are
there
commanded
to
put
on
,
is
meant
Christs
Righteousness
,
than
that
his
Righteousness
is
it
,
which
under
the
Metaphor
of
the
Armour
of
light
,
we
are
commanded
to
put
on
in
the
verse
next
before
.
But
I
am
content
,
that
the
Reader
judg
of
them
.
3.
I
know
no
surer
way
rightly
to
understand
,
what
the
Apostles
true
meaning
was
[
That
we
should
put
on
]
than
by
considering
what
we
should
put
off
.
Now
forasmuch
as
the
things
,
which
he
would
have
us
put
off
,
are
what
he
stiles
the
works
of
darkness
(
i.
e.
)
wicked
works
of
all
sorts
,
especially
such
as
are
there
named
,
I
may
therefore
safely
(
I
doubt
not
)
conclude
,
That
by
our
putting
on
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
he
means
our
putting
on
the
graces
,
or
vertues
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
these
being
the
image
of
our
Lord
Christ
;
and
it
being
ordinary
to
call
the
image
of
a
thing
,
or
person
,
by
the
name
of
the
person
or
thing
,
which
it
doth
resemble
.
And
in
this
sence
the
word
[
Christ
]
is
used
,
Gal.
4.19
.
My
little
children
,
of
whom
I
travel
in
birth
again
,
till
Christ
be
formed
in
you
.
Object
.
Gal.
3.27
.
Doth
not
the
Apostle
there
mean
,
that
the
Galatians
having
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
had
put
on
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
?
Answ.
By
Christ
there
is
not
meant
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
;
and
what
is
the
very
thing
there
meant
by
the
Apostle
,
that
the
baptized
Galatians
had
put
on
,
I
know
no
surer
way
to
understand
,
than
by
considering
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
in
that
Epistle
,
what
it
was
,
that
he
would
have
them
to
put
off
.
Now
that
,
which
the
Apostle
in
this
Epistle
especially
would
have
the
Galatians
to
put
off
,
was
Judaism
,
in
all
the
parts
of
it
as
such
.
So
that
as
by
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
in
Rom.
13.14
.
is
meant
Christianity
,
in
opposition
to
Gentilism
,
or
those
heathenish
vices
there
specified
,
so
by
Christ
in
Gal.
3.27
.
I
conceive
is
meant
Christianity
,
or
the
practice
of
Christian
Religion
,
in
opposition
to
Judaism
.
As
many
of
you
as
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
have
put
on
Christ
,
not
Moses
,
you
have
taken
upon
you
the
profession
of
Christian
Religion
,
not
that
of
the
Jewish
,
or
Mosaical
Law
.
Object
.
Is
not
Christs
Righteousness
the
thing
it self
meant
by
the
wedding
garment
?
Mat.
22.12
.
Answ.
No
,
but
those
holy
qualifications
,
and
gracious
dispositions
,
wherewith
a
Christian
should
attend
upon
God
in
his
sacred
Ordinances
,
and
in
his
solemn
approaches
to
God
,
should
be
vested
with
,
even
as
men
upon
festival
occasions
,
do
apparrel
themselves
in
rayment
suitable
thereunto
.
Object
.
Is
not
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
that
garment
of
salvation
,
and
robe
of
righteousness
,
wherewith
God
is
said
Esa.
61.10
.
to
have
clothed
,
or
covered
his
Church
?
Answ.
It
were
easie
to
name
many
Authors
,
who
have
perverted
that
Scripture
to
such
a
sence
;
whereas
the
truth
is
,
that
there
is
no
more
cause
to
think
,
that
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
meant
by
the
garment
there
mentioned
,
than
where
mention
is
made
of
the
same
word
by
the
Prophet
elsewhere
(
Ch.
52.1
.
)
saying
,
Awake
,
awake
,
put
on
thy
strength
O
Zion
,
put
on
thy
beautiful
garments
O
Jerusalem
.
The
very
truth
of
the
matter
is
;
1.
As
the
words
are
a
promise
(
although
after
the
manner
of
Gods
speaking
by
his
Spirit
in
the
Prophets
,
it
is
expressed
in
the
preterperfect
tense
)
and
as
the
good
promised
is
expressed
by
the
name
of
Salvation
and
Righteousness
(
these
in
effect
being
one
thing
)
so
by
Righteousness
is
meant
Gods
beneficence
and
bounty
,
with
the
several
fruits
of
it
confer'd
upon
his
Church
,
in
their
preservations
,
deliverances
,
restorations
—
In
this
sence
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
frequently
taken
in
Scripture
,
Hos.
10.12
.
It
is
time
to
seek
the
Lord
,
till
he
come
and
rain
Righteousness
upon
you
.
Ps.
24.5
.
He
shall
receive
Righteousness
from
the
God
of
his
salvation
;
so
that
there
is
no
more
cause
to
affirm
,
That
by
Righteousness
in
Esa.
61.10
.
is
meant
Christs
personal
Righteousness
,
than
to
make
the
same
construction
of
the
word
in
the
places
fore-cited
,
where
God
promiseth
to
rain
Righteousness
upon
them
,
or
that
they
shall
receive
Righteousness
from
him
,
as
the
God
of
their
salvation
.
2.
As
for
the
Metaphorical
expression
,
of
being
clothed
and
covered
with
the
garment
of
salvation
,
and
robe
of
righteousness
,
it
is
an
allusion
to
the
custom
of
the
Jews
(
and
indeed
of
all
Nations
)
which
was
to
clothe
and
attire
themselves
sutably
to
their
present
condition
,
whether
of
prosperity
,
or
adversity
,
fasting
or
feasting
times
,
as
is
expressed
v.
3.
of
that
Chapter
in
these
words
(
To
appoint
to
them
,
that
mourn
in
Zion
,
to
give
unto
them
beauty
for
ashes
,
the
garment
of
praise
for
the
spirit
of
heaviness
)
So
that
by
the
whole
of
that
expression
,
we
can
understand
no
more
,
than
the
great
goodness
and
bounty
of
God
(
let
the
particulars
in
the
retail
thereof
,
whether
in
temporals
or
spirituals
,
or
in
both
,
be
what
they
will
)
promised
,
or
manifested
to
his
Church
,
and
manifested
by
them
,
in
a
suitable
manner
of
open
and
solemn
rejoycing
for
them
.
Quest.
May
it
not
be
truly
said
in
some
sence
,
that
Believers
are
clothed
with
Christs
Righteousness
?
Answ.
Yes
:
Yet
more
fully
be
it
known
,
that
as
it
may
be
truly
and
falsly
said
,
that
Christs
Righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
[
according
to
the
different
sences
of
the
word
Righteousness
,
mentioned
in
the
third
Chapter
]
so
it
is
both
true
and
false
to
say
,
That
we
are
clothed
with
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
e.
g.
Christs
Righteousness
being
taken
properly
in
its
essential
nature
,
it
is
notoriously
false
to
say
,
that
we
are
clothed
therewith
:
For
so
taken
,
it
is
Christs
own
clothing
,
and
not
ours
,
he
is
glorious
in
this
apparrel
,
and
he
will
not
give
this
his
glory
to
another
;
and
as
Saul's
Armour
would
not
fit
David
,
so
neither
will
Christs
Righteousness
[
taken
in
this
sence
]
suit
with
any
other
but
himself
,
who
was
God
and
man
in
one
person
.
As
it
is
a
point
of
disloyalty
in
a
vassal
,
to
put
on
the
Ensigns
of
Majesty
upon
himself
(
The
Crown
Royal
upon
his
head
—
)
so
it
is
a
disloyal
thought
,
a
most
unbecoming
thing
,
for
a
wretched
sinner
to
imagine
himself
vested
with
the
Royal
Robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
the
only
begotten
Son
of
God
.
But
as
the
word
Righteousness
is
taken
improperly
,
Effectivè
,
for
the
fruits
and
effects
of
it
,
so
it
is
true
to
say
,
That
we
are
clothed
with
his
Righteousness
(
i.
e.
)
we
are
clothed
,
our
spiritual
nakedness
is
covered
,
we
are
arrayed
with
a
garment
,
or
garments
,
procured
or
purchased
with
the
Righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
.
So
that
,
if
the
Question
were
thus
formed
,
May
Christs
Righteousness
be
truly
said
to
be
a
sinners
clothing
?
It
must
be
answered
,
That
this
Proposition
[
Christs
Righteousness
is
a
sinners
clothing
]
is
true
Praedicatione
causali
,
but
not
Essentiali
,
or
formali
(
i.
e.
)
it
it self
,
or
in
it self
,
is
not
our
clothing
,
nor
are
we
vested
in
,
or
with
it
,
but
with
the
fruits
of
it
,
it
being
the
meritorious
cause
,
that
hath
procured
all
necessary
clothing
for
the
covering
of
our
nakedness
,
for
our
comfortable
appearance
before
God
,
and
our
gracious
acceptance
with
him
;
which
clothing
may
summarily
be
refer'd
(
I
think
)
to
these
two
heads
,
viz.
Justification
and
Sanctification
,
both
which
may
be
said
to
be
our
clothing
.
Nevertheless
I
do
judg
it
to
be
more
fitly
and
intelligibly
said
,
That
our
sins
are
covered
with
a
pardon
,
rather
than
with
Christs
Righteousness
,
the
one
being
verified
in
an
immediate
sence
,
the
other
in
a
sence
more
remote
both
in
it self
,
and
from
common
understanding
.
But
it
must
ever
be
remembred
,
that
the
pardon
which
covers
our
sins
,
is
a
blessing
purchased
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
;
and
for
that
reason
,
in
such
a
sence
as
a
ransomed
Captive
,
or
bought
Servant
,
is
said
to
be
his
Masters
,
or
Redeemers
money
,
because
he
was
bought
with
their
money
,
in
a
like
sence
may
the
clothing
,
wherewith
we
are
clothed
,
be
said
to
be
the
Robe
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
because
Christs
Righteousness
was
the
price
,
wherewith
that
our
clothing
(
whatsoever
it
be
,
be
it
sanctification
or
justification
,
grace
or
glory
;
for
even
with
this
Believers
are
said
to
be
clothed
upon
,
2
Cor.
5.2
,
4.
)
was
dearly
bought
or
purchased
.
And
in
this
sence
the
price
,
or
hire
it self
,
which
is
given
for
an
House
,
is
used
to
signifie
the
House
,
wherewith
it
was
hired
,
as
appears
by
Act.
28.30
.
where
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
doth
properly
signifie
the
hire
of
a
thing
(
be
it
of
an
House
,
or
ought
else
)
and
which
was
given
by
St.
Paul
,
or
some
other
in
his
behalf
,
is
styled
,
His
own
hired
House
.
CHAP.
XXXI
.
Dr.
Owen's
mistake
in
thinking
,
That
when
all
sin
is
answered
for
,
all
the
Righteousness
,
which
God
requireth
for
that
time
,
is
not
fulfilled
;
the
contrary
whereunto
is
proved
.
Several
other
of
his
mistakes
discovered
,
and
his
mis-interpretations
of
several
Scriptures
.
FOrasmuch
as
there
are
several
passages
in
Dr.
Owen's
Book
,
of
Communion
with
God
,
wherein
the
contrary
is
asserted
,
to
what
hath
been
maintained
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
(
he
asserting
,
That
over
and
above
the
taking
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
it
is
necessary
in
order
to
our
being
saved
,
that
we
should
be
actually
righteous
,
and
for
that
purpose
,
that
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
should
be
imputed
to
us
)
I
shall
therefore
think
it
not
amiss
,
to
recite
the
chief
of
those
passages
,
and
to
reply
thereunto
,
which
shall
be
the
subject
of
three
or
four
of
the
ensuing
Chapters
.
The
Doctor
having
told
us
,
That
Christ
satisfies
for
sin
,
and
procures
the
remission
of
it
,
p.
116.
he
proceeds
to
say
in
the
following
page
;
There
is
something
more
required
;
it
is
not
enough
,
we
are
not
guilty
.
We
must
also
be
actually
righteous
:
Not
only
all
sin
must
be
answered
for
,
but
all
righteousness
is
to
be
fulfilled
:
By
taking
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
we
are
as
persons
innocent
,
but
something
more
is
required
,
to
make
us
to
be
considered
as
persons
obedient
.
I
know
nothing
to
teach
me
,
that
an
innocent
person
shall
go
to
heaven
,
be
rewarded
,
if
he
be
no
more
,
but
so
.
Adam
was
innocent
at
his
first
creation
,
but
he
was
to
do
this
,
to
keep
the
Commandments
before
he
entred
into
life
,
he
had
no
title
to
life
by
innocency
.
This
then
moreover
is
required
,
that
th●
whole
Law
be
fulfilled
,
and
all
the
obedience
performed
,
that
God
requires
at
our
hands
.
This
is
the
souls
second
enquiry
,
and
it
finds
a
resolution
only
in
the
Lord
Christ
:
For
if
when
we
were
enemies
,
we
were
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
his
Son
,
much
more
being
reconciled
,
we
shall
be
saved
by
his
life
;
his
death
reconciled
us
,
then
are
we
saved
by
his
life
.
The
actual
obedience
,
which
he
yielded
to
the
whole
Law
of
God
,
is
that
Righteousness
,
whereby
we
are
saved
.
If
so
be
we
are
found
in
him
,
not
having
our
own
righteousness
,
which
is
of
the
Law
,
but
the
Righteousness
,
which
is
of
God
by
faith
,
Phil.
3.9
.
This
I
shall
have
occasion
to
handle
more
at
large
hereafter
.
Answ.
Somewhat
to
this
purpose
being
alledged
by
other
Authors
,
hath
been
already
answered
in
Chap.
23.
Nevertheless
I
shall
here
make
reply
,
to
every
dictinct
passage
in
the
words
recited
.
1.
When
all
sin
is
answered
for
,
all
the
righteousness
,
which
God
requireth
for
that
time
,
is
fulfilled
:
For
the
Law
is
fulfill'd
two
ways
,
viz.
Either
by
performance
of
perfect
obedience
to
it
,
or
by
suffering
sufficient
punishment
for
the
breach
of
it
.
Either
of
these
is
a
satisfaction
to
the
justice
of
God
.
Now
Gods
Law
doth
not
bind
to
both
these
Copulativè
(
i.
e.
)
it
binds
not
a
person
to
both
these
at
once
,
but
Disjunctivè
(
i.
e.
)
it
binds
him
to
obedience
,
or
to
punishment
,
primarily
and
absolutely
to
the
one
,
secondarily
and
Ex
hypothesi
(
i.
e.
)
upon
failure
of
that
obedience
,
to
the
other
.
Neither
was
Adam
before
his
fall
,
nor
are
we
since
bound
to
both
at
once
;
not
we
,
I
say
,
more
than
was
Adam
:
For
satisfaction
being
made
for
our
crime
,
we
cease
to
be
sinners
,
and
do
become
righteous
in
this
sence
,
that
we
are
no
longer
bound
to
suffer
,
and
we
are
entitled
to
a
right
of
being
dealt
with
as
righteous
:
We
are
indeed
bound
to
obedience
for
the
future
,
not
to
that
obedience
,
for
the
not
performing
whereof
,
by
punishment
we
have
made
satisfaction
,
but
to
another
new
obedience
,
which
if
we
do
not
perform
,
then
are
we
bound
by
the
Law
to
new
punishment
.
So
that
Christ
having
obliged
himself
to
make
satisfaction
,
by
suffering
such
punishment
as
was
equivalent
to
that
,
which
by
our
sins
was
deserved
,
and
our
sins
being
pardoned
for
the
merit-sake
thereof
,
we
thereupon
are
dealt
with
as
righteous
;
and
for
the
future
we
are
bound
to
new
obedience
,
or
to
new
punishment
,
not
to
both
at
once
,
no
more
than
was
Adam
in
innocency
.
The
Law
requireth
not
of
us
both
suffering
and
obedience
,
in
respect
of
the
same
time
,
and
actions
.
The
consideration
of
this
makes
it
most
apparent
,
that
if
sin
be
pardoned
,
the
Imputation
of
Christs
active
Righteousness
,
or
the
Righteousness
of
the
life
of
Christ
(
as
is
the
Doctor
's
expression
)
is
needless
.
And
it
is
to
no
purpose
to
alledg
,
that
the
Law
requires
suffering
for
the
time
past
,
and
obedience
for
the
future
,
which
hath
been
acknowledged
:
For
Christ
hath
made
satisfaction
for
future
sins
,
and
ere
long
those
future
sins
will
be
past
,
and
if
we
do
not
obey
for
the
future
,
we
sin
,
and
if
we
sin
,
the
Law
requireth
only
our
suffering
for
expiation
,
and
forasmuch
as
Christs
expiatory
suffering
,
or
propitiation
hath
satisfied
for
that
,
the
benefit
whereof
a
sinner
doth
enjoy
in
a
renewed
pardon
,
he
is
no
longer
obliged
to
suffer
.
So
that
the
contrary
opinion
,
to
what
I
here
maintain
,
doth
in
the
consequence
thereof
deny
,
that
Christ
hath
satisfied
for
future
sins
.
2.
It
is
a
palpable
error
in
the
Doctor
to
say
,
That
by
taking
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
we
are
as
persons
innocent
,
but
something
more
is
required
to
make
us
to
be
considered
as
persons
obedient
:
For
forasmuch
as
sin
is
as
well
of
omission
,
as
of
commission
,
it
follows
unavoidably
,
that
if
the
guilt
of
the
former
be
taken
away
,
as
well
as
of
the
latter
,
it
is
impossible
,
but
that
a
sinner
so
pardoned
should
be
considered
,
and
dealt
with
as
obedient
;
for
not
to
transgress
the
Law
,
and
to
fulfil
the
Law
,
are
the
same
thing
,
as
is
easily
proveable
by
the
contrary
:
For
to
transgress
the
Law
,
is
to
violate
it
by
doing
what
it
forbids
,
or
by
omitting
what
it
commands
;
Ergo
,
Not
to
transgress
the
Law
,
is
not
to
violate
it
,
either
by
committing
the
one
,
or
omitting
the
other
;
and
what
is
this
,
but
to
fulfil
the
Law
?
For
he
,
that
doth
neither
commit
the
evil
forbidden
by
the
Law
,
nor
omit
the
good
therein
commanded
,
doth
fulfil
it
.
In
short
I
say
,
1.
That
an
innocent
person
shall
doubtless
go
to
heaven
,
and
be
rewarded
,
though
he
be
no
more
than
so
.
2.
I
am
not
apt
to
think
,
that
any
rational
creature
can
be
more
than
innocent
;
for
to
be
innocent
,
is
to
be
no
transgressor
of
any
Law
(
i.e.
)
of
any
Law
which
commands
good
,
or
forbids
evil
;
and
how
any
one
can
rationally
be
conceived
to
be
more
innocent
,
than
to
be
no
transgressor
of
any
such
Law
,
I
do
not
know
,
except
there
be
works
of
supererrogation
.
3.
It
is
the
Doctor
's
gross
mistake
to
think
,
that
Adam's
obedience
to
the
divine
command
,
(
Do
this
)
was
by
God
constiuted
the
condition
of
his
having
a
right
,
or
title
to
life
(
for
that
right
he
had
already
,
by
vertue
of
that
habitual
innocency
or
holiness
,
in
which
he
was
created
)
whereas
it
was
the
condition
only
of
his
holding
that
right
to
life
,
which
at
present
he
had
.
And
if
Adam
could
not
have
had
a
title
to
life
,
before
he
had
kept
all
the
Commandments
,
he
could
not
have
had
right
so
long
as
he
liv'd
(
I
mean
)
not
till
his
last
gasp
.
4.
The
Doctor
very
absurdly
supposeth
things
contradictory
in
supposing
,
That
Adam
was
,
or
could
be
innocent
any
longer
,
than
he
did
continue
to
keep
Gods
Commandments
:
For
he
,
who
doth
only
forbear
the
evil
,
which
God
forbids
,
but
doth
not
do
the
good
enjoyned
,
is
neither
truly
,
nor
reputatively
innocent
.
5.
It
is
falsly
said
by
the
Doctor
,
That
the
resolution
of
the
said
enquiry
,
is
found
in
the
Righteousness
of
the
life
of
Christ
,
which
he
lived
upon
earth
,
this
being
evidently
his
meaning
,
for
which
he
quotes
two
Scriptures
,
but
abuses
both
of
them
.
For
1.
By
that
life
of
Christ
,
by
which
the
Apostle
says
,
we
shall
be
saved
,
Rom.
5.10
.
is
not
meant
the
life
of
Christ
,
which
in
the
state
of
his
humiliation
he
lived
upon
earth
,
but
the
life
of
glory
,
which
he
(
never
to
die
again
)
doth
now
live
,
in
his
estate
of
exaltation
and
session
at
the
right
hand
of
God
,
of
which
his
life
the
Apostle
speaks
in
Heb.
7.25
.
He
ever
liveth
to
make
intercession
for
us
.
2.
As
for
that
other
Text
alledged
by
him
,
Phil.
3.9
.
he
hath
often
abused
it
,
as
often
as
in
any
place
of
his
Book
he
hath
handled
it
:
For
by
the
Righteousness
there
said
to
be
of
God
by
faith
,
is
not
meant
Christs
personal
Righteousness
(
the
Righteousness
of
Christs
life
imputed
to
Believers
)
but
that
Righteousness
,
which
doth
consist
in
the
faith
of
Christ
,
or
in
being
faithful
Christians
.
CHAP.
XXXII
.
That
it
is
no
where
said
in
Scripture
,
that
we
do
receive
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
.
The
Doctor
's
perverting
that
in
Phil.
3.9
.
from
the
true
meaning
of
the
Apostle
.
That
he
perverts
the
sence
of
1
Cor.
1.30
.
utterly
beside
the
meaning
of
the
Apostle
.
That
he
mistakes
the
sence
of
Rom.
5.10
.
That
Christ
hath
done
no
more
by
the
obedience
of
his
life
for
a
sinners
salvation
,
than
for
his
reconciliation
,
the
contrary
whereunto
is
supposed
by
Dr.
O.
His
iterated
mistake
touching
the
end
of
Adam's
obedience
.
THE
Doctor
saith
,
p.
186.
The
Righteousness
we
receive
,
is
opposed
to
our
own
obedience
to
the
Law
;
opposed
to
it
,
not
as
something
in
another
kind
,
but
as
something
in
the
same
kind
,
excluding
that
from
such
an
end
,
which
the
other
obtains
.
Now
this
is
that
obedience
of
Christ
to
the
Law
;
himself
thereby
being
made
to
us
Righteousness
,
1
Cor.
1.30
.
Answ.
1.
By
the
Righteousness
we
receive
,
it
is
evident
,
that
the
Doctor
means
Christs
obedience
to
the
Law
,
performed
in
his
life-time
;
whereupon
I
answer
,
That
it
is
neither
said
in
that
Scripture
,
neither
is
there
such
a
saying
in
any
other
Scripture
,
That
Believers
do
receive
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
his
obedience
to
the
Law
;
although
it
be
true
,
that
they
do
in
a
passive
sence
of
the
word
receive
it
(
i.
e.
)
they
by
means
of
their
believing
,
do
enjoy
the
righteousness
or
obedience
of
Christ
,
in
the
saving
fruits
and
effects
thereof
.
2.
The
Doctor
doth
err●
grosly
in
thinking
,
That
by
the
righteousness
of
the
Law
,
the
Apostle
means
his
own
evangelical
righteousness
,
or
obedience
to
the
Gospel-Law
,
and
that
this
is
it
,
which
heopposes
to
Christs
personal
righteousness
,
or
to
Christs
obedience
to
the
Law
:
For
it
is
plain
both
by
the
Text
it self
,
and
Context
,
That
by
the
Law
he
means
the
Jewish
Law
,
and
that
by
his
own
righteousness
,
he
means
that
which
was
his
own
,
when
a
Jew
(
not
that
which
was
his
own
,
when
a
Convert
to
the
Christian
faith
)
and
that
the
things
there
opposed
are
Judaism
and
Christianity
,
or
Judaical
observances
,
and
the
practical
knowledg
of
Christ
.
So
that
our
own
evangelical
righteousness
,
is
neither
in
the
same
kind
,
nor
in
any
other
kind
,
there
opposed
to
the
obedience
of
Christ
;
nor
is
it
either
in
that
Scripture
,
or
in
any
other
,
excluded
from
such
an
end
,
which
Christs
Righteousness
doth
obtain
,
I
mean
,
the
salvation
of
a
sinner
:
For
in
order
to
this
end
,
our
evangelical
righteousness
stands
not
in
any
opposition
,
but
in
a
due
subordination
to
Christs
.
As
Christs
Righteousness
doth
,
after
a
manner
peculiar
to
it self
,
so
doth
our
own
righteousness
,
in
its
manner
,
tend
to
our
obtaining
that
,
which
St.
Peter
styles
,
The
end
of
our
faith
,
even
the
salvation
of
our
souls
.
Whence
that
command
of
the
Apostle
,
So
run
,
that
ye
may
obtain
,
1
Cor.
9.24
.
It
is
by
running
,
that
(
through
,
by
,
or
under
Christ
)
we
do
obtain
.
3.
The
Doctor
perverts
the
sence
of
1
Cor.
1.30
.
that
Scripture
in
no
fort
proving
the
thing
,
for
the
proof
whereof
it
is
alledged
by
him
:
For
the
Apostle
doth
not
there
say
(
as
he
would
have
him
)
That
Christ
is
made
Righteousness
unto
us
by
Gods
reckoning
,
or
imputing
Christs
perfect
and
compleat
obedience
of
the
Law
unto
us
,
this
being
the
thing
undertaken
by
him
to
be
proved
by
that
Scripture
;
which
as
that
Scripture
doth
not
prove
,
(
for
it
proves
only
,
that
Christ
was
of
God
made
Righteousness
unto
us
)
so
another
place
of
Scripture
(
2
Cor.
5.21
.
)
doth
most
convincingly
disprove
it
;
it
being
there
asserted
,
that
we
are
made
in
Christ
the
Righteousness
of
God
(
i.
e.
)
very
righteous
by
God
(
the
abstract
being
put
for
the
concrete
,
as
is
very
usual
in
the
language
of
Scripture
,
and
particularly
so
used
,
Esa.
60.17
.
where
God
promiseth
to
his
Church
,
that
he
will
make
all
their
Exactors
Righteousness
(
i.
e.
)
very
just
,
honest
,
or
righteous
)
it
being
,
I
say
,
there
asserted
,
that
we
are
of
God
made
in
Christ
most
righteous
,
by
means
of
his
being
made
sin
(
i.
e.
)
a
sin-offering
for
us
,
not
by
Gods
reckoning
to
us
Christs
perfect
and
compleat
obedience
to
the
Law
.
In
the
same
Page
again
he
abuses
that
Text
in
Rom.
5.10
.
saying
,
The
issue
of
the
death
of
Christ
is
placed
upon
reconciliation
,
that
is
a
slaying
of
the
enmity
,
and
restoring
us
into
that
condition
of
peace
and
friendship
,
wherein
Adam
was
before
his
fall
.
But
is
there
no
more
to
be
done
?
Notwithstanding
that
there
was
no
wrath
due
to
Adam
,
yet
be
was
to
obey
,
if
he
would
enjoy
eternal
life
:
Something
moreover
there
is
to
be
done
in
respect
of
us
,
if
after
the
slaying
of
the
enmity
and
reconciliation
made
,
we
shall
enjoy
life
;
being
reconciled
by
his
death
,
we
are
saved
by
that
perfect
obedience
,
which
in
his
life
he
yielded
to
the
Law
of
God
.
Answ.
1.
I
have
already
vindicated
that
Scripture
,
from
the
same
abuse
put
upon
it
by
the
Doctor
,
having
manifested
,
that
by
the
life
of
Christ
,
is
there
meant
the
life
which
he
now
lives
in
glory
,
interceding
for
us
at
the
right
hand
of
God
,
not
the
life
which
he
lived
on
earth
.
2.
Had
the
Apostle
meant
the
life
,
which
Christ
lived
on
earth
,
it
will
not
thence
follow
,
that
his
meaning
was
,
that
we
are
saved
,
by
Gods
reckoning
to
us
the
perfect
and
compleat
obedience
of
that
his
life
(
i.
e.
)
imputing
his
obedience
it self
unto
us
.
3.
Though
being
reconciled
to
God
,
there
is
somewhat
to
be
done
by
us
(
i.
e.
)
in
order
to
the
continuing
of
our
friendship
with
God
—
nevertheless
there
needs
no
more
to
a
sinners
salvation
at
present
,
than
his
present
reconciliation
,
nor
doth
there
need
more
to
his
future
and
final
salvation
,
than
the
continuance
of
his
reconciliation
and
friendship
with
God
:
For
if
being
reconciled
to
God
,
he
and
we
do
continue
friends
,
we
shall
as
certainly
be
saved
,
as
it
is
certain
,
that
Christ
at
the
right
hand
of
God
,
ever
liveth
to
make
intercession
for
us
.
4.
It
is
salsly
insinuated
by
the
Doctor
,
That
Christ
hath
done
more
,
or
that
it
is
needful
,
that
he
should
do
more
for
our
salvation
,
than
for
our
reconciliation
,
I
mean
,
for
the
beginning
,
continuing
,
or
perfecting
of
the
one
,
than
of
the
other
,
salvation
from
the
guilt
of
sin
,
whether
it
be
initial
,
progressive
,
or
consummate
,
being
in
effect
the
same
benefit
with
Reconciliation
with
God
,
in
its
being
begun
,
continued
,
and
made
perfect
in
the
fruit
thereof
.
5.
If
there
was
no
wrath
due
to
Adam
,
nothing
could
ever
have
obstructed
his
entrance
into
life
,
the
contrary
whereunto
is
presumed
by
the
Doctor
.
6.
As
it
was
once
already
said
,
so
I
say
again
,
That
Adam
was
to
obey
,
not
that
he
might
enjoy
a
right
to
eternal
life
,
which
he
had
not
antecedently
to
that
his
actual
obedience
,
but
that
his
title
thereunto
might
be
continued
,
and
he
thereupon
might
be
brought
at
last
to
the
full
enjoyment
thereof
.
The
Doctor
proceeds
in
the
same
Page
,
to
abuse
the
Scriptures
by
whole
clusters
,
which
I
will
endeavour
to
manifest
in
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XXXIII
.
The
Doctor
's
allegation
of
several
Scriptures
,
to
no
purpose
.
That
we
are
no
otherwise
justified
,
than
we
are
reconciled
,
or
pardoned
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
the
contrary
whereunto
is
pretended
by
Dr.
O.
That
none
of
those
Scriptures
alledged
by
him
,
to
prove
the
Imputation
of
Christs
obedience
it self
unto
us
,
do
evince
the
same
.
His
error
in
attributing
our
justification
to
the
Life
of
Christ
,
whereas
the
Apostle
doth
(
Rom.
5.9
.
)
expresly
attribute
it
to
his
Death
,
however
it
is
not
to
be
understood
,
as
excluding
the
obedience
of
his
Life
.
HE
saith
,
p.
186.
There
is
distinct
mention
made
of
Reconciliation
,
through
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
as
Psal.
32.1
.
Luk.
1.77
.
Rom.
3.25
.
2
Cor.
5.19
.
and
justification
,
through
an
Imputation
of
righteousness
,
Jer.
23.6
.
Rom.
4.5
.
1
Cor.
1.30
.
although
these
things
are
so
far
from
being
separated
,
that
they
are
reciprocally
affirmed
of
one
another
,
which
as
it
doth
not
evince
an
identity
,
so
it
doth
an
eminent
conjunction
.
And
this
last
we
have
by
the
life
of
Christ
.
Answ.
1.
There
is
no
mention
at
all
so
much
as
of
the
word
Reconciliation
,
in
three
of
the
four
recited
Scriptures
,
viz.
Psal.
32.1
.
Luk.
1.77
.
Rom.
3.25
.
And
by
perusing
the
places
the
Reader
may
know
,
whether
he
should
believe
the
Doctor
,
or
his
own
eyes
.
2.
Much
less
is
there
mention
of
Reconciliation
,
through
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
as
distinct
from
justification
,
in
any
of
those
three
Texts
of
Scripture
.
3.
Though
there
be
mention
of
Reconciliation
,
and
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
in
one
of
the
fore-cited
Scriptures
,
2
Cor.
5.19
.
yet
neither
is
the
one
,
or
the
other
there
mentioned
,
as
distinct
from
justification
,
through
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
the
Doctor
says
.
4.
We
are
no
otherwise
justified
,
than
we
are
pardoned
,
or
reconciled
to
God
,
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
Christs
Righteousness
it self
being
no
more
necessary
,
nor
acting
any
otherwise
for
the
effecting
of
the
one
,
than
of
the
other
,
the
agency
thereof
being
that
of
a
morally
efficient
,
or
meritorious
cause
,
towards
our
remission
,
reconciliation
,
and
justification
.
5.
If
by
the
Doctor
's
confession
,
reconciliation
and
justification
are
reciprocally
affirmed
one
of
another
,
I
am
apt
to
think
,
that
Philosophy
will
warrant
us
from
thence
to
conclude
an
identity
.
And
by
the
last
fore-cited
Scripture
,
the
identity
,
which
the
Doctor
denies
,
may
undoubtedly
be
evinced
:
For
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
together
with
our
reconciliation
with
God
,
is
there
mentioned
as
all
one
,
even
the
self
same
thing
,
with
our
being
made
the
Righteousness
of
God
in
Christ
,
which
may
be
truly
paraphrased
,
with
our
being
justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
;
but
is
falsly
glossed
,
as
the
Doctor
would
have
it
,
with
the
Imputation
of
the
perfect
and
compleat
righteousness
,
or
obedience
of
Christ
to
the
Law
of
God
.
As
for
the
other
three
places
of
Scripture
alledged
by
him
,
he
doth
manifestly
wrest
them
:
For
-
1.
Though
it
be
said
in
Jer.
23.6
.
That
this
is
his
name
,
whereby
he
shall
be
called
,
The
Lord
our
Righteousness
(
let
who
will
be
there
meant
by
the
Lord
,
whether
God
the
Father
,
as
Mr.
John
Humfreys
thinks
,
or
God
the
Son
,
as
many
others
,
it
matters
not
here
to
make
enquiry
)
yet
there
is
no
such
thing
there
either
mentioned
,
or
meant
,
as
Justification
,
through
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
.
-
2.
Although
in
Rom.
4.5
.
there
is
mention
made
of
Gods
Imputing
Righteousness
unto
us
,
yet
by
Righteousness
is
not
there
meant
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
(
i.
e.
)
his
perfect
and
compleat
obedience
to
the
Law
,
nor
are
we
by
that
expression
of
the
Apostle
given
to
understand
,
that
the
said
righteousness
,
or
obedience
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
us
,
but
by
it
is
meant
a
certain
righteousness
,
which
is
the
effect
and
fruit
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
and
which
for
the
sake
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
is
imputed
to
us
,
or
confer'd
upon
us
.
-
3.
There
is
not
the
least
sound
,
or
whisper
,
of
a
sinners
justification
,
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
in
1
Cor.
1.30
.
although
the
Doctor
hath
endeavoured
several
times
,
to
pervert
that
Text
to
such
a
sence
,
as
was
never
intended
by
the
Apostle
.
-
4.
Whereas
he
says
(
as
he
hath
said
often
)
that
this
last
(
i.
e.
)
justification
,
through
an
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
we
have
by
the
life
of
Christ
,
he
doth
expresly
contradict
the
Apostle
,
who
affirms
,
That
we
are
justified
by
the
Blood
of
Christ
(
i.
e.
)
by
his
bloody
death
.
The
Doctor
proceeds
in
his
perverting
the
true
sence
of
certain
other
Scriptures
,
as
after
the
recital
of
his
words
,
I
will
demonstrate
in
the
following
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XXXIV
.
Doctor
Owen's
mis-interpretation
of
Zech.
3.3
,
4.
That
remission
of
sin
is
no
more
the
proper
fruit
of
Christs
death
(
as
the
Doctor
would
have
it
)
than
is
Justification
.
That
there
is
not
required
a
collation
of
Righteousness
,
over
and
above
remission
of
sin
(
as
he
asserts
)
in
order
to
a
right
to
heaven
.
His
allegation
of
Esa.
61.10
.
to
no
purpose
.
P.
187.
THIS
(
that
is
,
the
distinct
mention
of
Reconciliation
,
through
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
and
Justification
,
through
an
Imputation
of
righteousness
)
is
fully
expressed
,
in
that
Typical
representation
of
our
justification
before
the
Lord
,
Zech.
3.3
,
4
,
5.
Two
things
are
there
expressed
,
to
belong
to
our
free
Acceptation
before
God
,
1.
The
taking
away
the
guilt
of
our
sin
,
our
filthy
robes
:
This
is
done
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
remission
of
sin
is
the
proper
fruit
thereof
;
but
there
is
more
also
required
,
even
a
Collation
of
righteousness
,
and
thereby
a
right
to
life
eternal
;
this
is
here
called
fine
change
of
rayment
:
So
the
Holy
Ghost
expresseth
it
again
,
Esa.
61.10
.
where
he
calls
it
plainly
the
garment
of
salvation
,
and
the
robe
of
righteousness
:
Now
this
is
only
made
ours
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
as
the
other
by
his
death
.
Answ.
We
are
now
come
to
Visions
and
Revelations
of
the
Lord
,
in
the
Expositions
whereof
,
I
do
confess
my self
to
have
little
exercised
my
talent
;
nevertheless
I
reply
;
1.
In
a
flat
gainsaying
his
interpretation
,
and
denial
,
that
this
(
i.
e.
)
that
reconciliation
with
God
,
and
justification
,
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
things
distinct
,
is
fully
expressed
,
in
that
Typical
representation
of
the
matter
in
Zech.
3.
For
although
I
do
yield
,
that
remission
of
sins
is
represented
by
that
visible
sign
,
(
I
have
caused
thine
iniquities
(
i.
e.
)
in
the
guilt
and
punishment
of
them
,
to
pass
from
thee
(
i.
e.
)
I
have
pardoned
them
)
nevertheless
I
deny
,
that
by
the
fine
change
of
rayment
,
is
there
meant
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
justification
,
through
the
Imputation
of
it
unto
us
;
but
I
rather
think
,
that
by
it
is
meant
our
own
personal
righteousness
,
or
holiness
,
which
doth
oft-times
in
Scripture
,
go
under
the
Metaphorical
expression
of
a
splendid
vest
,
fine
linnen
,
robe
,
or
the
like
,
as
I
have
already
manifested
.
Briefly
,
My
opinion
is
,
That
in
the
said
vision
of
the
Prophet
,
there
is
a
representation
of
justification
(
or
remission
of
sin
)
and
sanctification
,
as
distinct
things
,
but
not
(
as
the
Doctor
will
have
it
expounded
)
of
reconciliation
(
or
remission
)
and
of
justification
,
through
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
.
2.
Remission
of
sin
is
no
more
the
proper
fruit
of
Christs
death
(
as
the
Doctor
says
)
than
is
our
justification
;
for
as
the
Apostle
somewhere
says
,
(
We
have
redemption
through
his
Blood
,
even
the
Forgiveness
of
our
sins
)
so
he
doth
elsewhere
say
,
We
are
justified
by
his
Blood
,
Rom.
5.9
.
I
doubt
not
to
say
,
It
is
a
great
mistake
in
this
Doctor
(
as
in
many
others
)
to
assign
our
Reconciliation
,
or
remission
of
sin
,
and
our
Justification
,
to
several
distinct
causes
,
the
former
to
Christs
passive
obedience
(
his
death
)
the
other
to
his
active
(
the
obedience
of
his
life
imputed
)
whereas
the
truth
is
in
these
two
things
;
-
1.
That
reconciliation
,
or
remission
of
sin
,
and
justification
,
are
the
self
same
thing
in
effect
,
as
was
aforesaid
.
-
2.
Being
the
same
thing
in
effect
,
although
they
are
expressed
by
divers
names
,
yet
they
are
wholly
to
be
ascribed
to
the
whole
obedience
of
Christ
(
both
of
his
life
and
death
)
as
joyntly
constituting
the
meritorious
cause
thereof
;
so
that
neither
is
remission
of
sin
,
to
be
more
said
to
be
the
proper
fruit
of
Christs
death
,
than
justification
,
nor
justification
,
more
properly
the
fruit
of
Christs
life
,
than
remission
of
sin
.
-
3.
I
deny
what
the
Doctor
here
affirms
,
viz.
That
over
and
above
remission
of
sin
,
there
is
required
a
collation
of
righteousness
,
in
order
to
a
right
to
heaven
.
This
hath
been
at
large
already
disproved
in
Ch.
23.
-
4.
Whether
the
Doctor
doth
here
assert
Christs
Righteousness
it self
,
or
a
right
to
eternal
life
thereby
confer'd
,
to
be
the
fine
linnen
spoken
of
in
Zech.
3.
is
questionable
:
For
it
is
doubtful
,
what
construction
he
would
have
his
Readers
to
make
of
the
Relative
This
,
(
he
saying
,
This
is
here
called
fine
change
of
rayment
)
I
mean
,
whether
he
would
have
it
understood
concerning
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
concerning
the
right
to
life
eternal
by
it
.
This
latter
construction
is
of
the
two
more
obvious
and
rational
,
because
right
to
eternal
life
,
is
in
the
order
of
his
words
the
nearest
Antecedent
,
the
other
(
a
collation
of
righteousness
)
being
a
little
more
remote
.
But
let
him
be
understood
of
either
,
as
I
said
before
,
so
I
say
again
,
That
by
the
fine
change
of
rayment
,
neither
of
these
are
to
be
understood
,
but
the
righteousness
of
sanctification
,
or
fine
vestment
of
holiness
.
-
5.
In
the
Exposition
of
Esay
61.10
.
I
perceive
a
great
difference
betwixt
the
Doctor
,
and
very
many
of
the
Brethren
of
his
mind
in
this
controversie
:
For
they
undertaking
to
shew
the
meaning
of
the
Holy
Ghost
therein
,
do
confidently
say
,
That
the
Holy
Ghost
,
by
the
robe
of
righteousness
,
and
garment
of
salvation
there
mentioned
,
doth
mean
,
The
Righteousness
of
Christ
himself
;
and
thence
it
is
,
that
they
do
rhetorically
set
forth
the
properties
thereof
,
under
the
notion
of
a
Vest
,
how
that
it
is
Fine
,
Pure
,
White
,
Rich
,
Splendid
—
But
the
Doctor
tells
us
,
That
the
Holy
Ghost
says
not
so
;
for
that
,
which
the
Holy
Ghost
doth
there
mean
by
the
garment
of
salvation
,
is
not
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
but
a
right
to
eternal
life
collated
upon
us
,
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
.
Upon
this
occasion
,
I
call
to
mind
what
is
charged
upon
the
false
Prophets
of
old
,
Ezek.
13.7
.
They
said
,
the
Lord
saith
it
,
albeit
the
Lord
never
spoke
it
.
In
like
sort
may
it
be
said
,
concerning
the
Authors
of
both
the
said
Interpretations
,
They
say
,
The
Holy
Ghost
means
this
and
that
by
the
garment
of
salvation
,
and
the
Robe
of
Righteousness
,
whereas
the
truth
is
,
the
Holy
Ghost
in
the
Prophets
words
,
did
mean
neither
this
,
nor
that
,
but
some
other
thing
(
as
I
have
already
demonstrated
in
Chap.
30.
)
-
6.
Whereas
the
Doctor
concludes
,
saying
(
This
is
only
made
ours
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
)
and
whereas
his
meaning
therein
is
,
that
the
other
,
viz.
Remission
of
sin
,
or
reconciliation
,
is
made
ours
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
I
shall
still
deny
it
Toties
Quoties
,
even
as
oft
as
the
Doctor
shall
affirm
it
.
The
Doctor
proceeds
to
answer
an
Objection
,
which
in
his
sagacity
,
he
fore-saw
would
be
made
against
the
doctrine
by
him
maintained
,
touching
the
Imputation
of
Christs
perfect
obedience
to
the
Law
(
even
it
it self
)
unto
us
,
viz.
That
it
will
follow
from
thence
,
that
we
are
as
righteous
as
is
Christ
himself
.
But
this
Objection
,
together
with
the
Doctor
's
unsatisfactory
Answer
thereunto
,
I
have
already
mentioned
,
and
made
a
reply
to
upon
a
fit
occasion
,
in
Chap.
25.
to
which
I
shall
refer
the
Reader
.
There
is
only
a
passage
or
two
more
in
p.
193.
(
wherein
the
Doctor
speaks
to
the
same
purpose
as
before
)
which
I
will
recite
,
and
make
reply
unto
.
CHAP.
XXXV
.
That
our
deliverance
from
a
state
of
rejection
,
or
un-acceptation
,
and
our
Acceptation
with
God
,
are
not
two
things
,
and
to
be
ascribed
to
two
several
causes
,
as
the
Doctor
pretends
.
That
in
2
Cor.
5.21
.
mis-alledged
by
him
for
his
purpose
,
retorted
to
the
purpose
against
him
.
His
unreasonableness
in
supposing
,
the
old
quarrel
betwixt
God
and
us
to
be
taken
away
,
and
yet
no
new
friendship
contracted
.
His
senseless
contradiction
in
supposing
,
That
Adam
was
guilty
of
no
sin
,
and
yet
not
to
have
had
thereupon
a
positive
as
well
as
a
negative
holiness
.
That
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
and
the
Imputation
of
righteousness
,
are
not
two
things
,
but
one
and
the
same
thing
.
That
Christs
Righteousness
is
not
our
righteousness
before
God
,
otherwise
than
in
a
causal
sence
,
and
that
our
righteousness
it self
before
God
is
our
own
personal
righteousness
.
That
in
Rom.
5.18
.
vainly
alledged
by
the
Doctor
,
to
prove
his
purpose
.
That
the
non
imputation
of
sin
,
and
the
Imputation
of
righteousness
(
as
they
are
the
same
thing
)
so
they
are
to
be
ascribed
to
one
and
the
same
cause
.
P.
193.
BY
his
death
Christ
bearing
the
curse
,
undergoing
the
punishment
,
that
was
due
to
us
,
paying
the
ransom
,
that
was
due
for
us
,
delivers
us
from
this
condition
(
that
is
,
a
state
of
rejection
,
and
our
un-acceptation
)
and
thus
far
the
death
of
Christ
is
the
cause
of
our
Acceptation
with
God
,
that
all
cause
of
quarrel
and
rejection
of
us
is
thereby
taken
away
;
and
to
that
end
are
his
sufferings
reckoned
to
us
:
For
being
made
sin
for
us
,
2
Cor.
5.21
.
he
is
made
righteousness
unto
us
,
1
Cor.
1.30
.
Answ.
1.
The
Doctor
doth
most
unreasonably
make
a
sinners
deliverance
,
from
a
state
of
rejection
or
un-acceptation
,
and
his
Acceptation
with
God
,
to
be
two
things
,
whereas
they
are
indeed
but
one
and
the
same
thing
,
and
done
at
the
same
time
,
by
one
and
the
same
divine
act
:
For
as
the
Physician
doth
not
remove
the
disease
by
one
act
,
and
restore
health
to
the
Patient
by
another
act
(
healing
the
disease
,
and
restoring
health
,
being
but
two
different
names
,
or
considerations
of
one
and
the
same
thing
)
in
like
manner
God
doth
not
deliver
from
a
state
of
un-acceptation
by
one
act
,
and
restore
us
to
a
state
of
Acceptation
by
another
,
these
two
being
but
two
different
names
,
expressions
,
notions
,
or
considerations
of
the
same
thing
.
2.
As
our
deliverance
from
a
state
of
un-acceptation
,
and
our
Acceptation
with
God
,
are
the
self
same
thing
,
and
done
by
one
and
the
same
act
of
God
,
so
they
are
to
be
ascribed
to
the
self
same
cause
,
and
not
unto
different
causes
,
as
the
Doctor
would
have
them
to
be
assigned
,
to
wit
,
the
former
precisely
to
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
the
Imputation
of
Christs
sufferings
to
us
,
the
latter
to
the
life
of
Christ
,
or
Imputation
of
the
obedience
of
his
life
to
us
,
neither
of
which
indeed
(
whether
his
doings
,
or
sufferings
)
are
properly
,
and
in
themselves
reckoned
to
us
,
but
only
is
the
effects
thereof
,
as
hath
oft
upon
occasion
been
before
said
.
3.
The
whole
of
our
reconciliation
to
God
,
(
our
deliverance
from
enmity
,
and
restoration
into
divine
favour
,
or
friendship
,
if
any
one
list
to
divide
it
into
those
two
parts
)
our
Acceptation
with
God
,
or
Justification
before
God
,
is
ascribed
to
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
hath
been
already
proved
from
Rom.
5.9
.
the
same
being
also
proveable
from
Col.
1.20
.
4.
As
one
of
those
Scriptures
alledged
by
the
Doctor
(
1
Cor.
1.30
.
)
makes
nothing
for
him
,
so
the
other
(
2
Cor.
5.21
.
)
makes
point
blank
,
and
most
fully
against
him
,
as
hath
been
already
demonstrated
.
The
Doctor
goes
on
,
saying
,
in
the
same
Page
,
and
in
the
words
immediately
following
;
But
yet
farther
,
This
(
that
is
,
the
removal
of
our
guilt
,
or
deliverance
from
a
state
of
rejection
,
or
un-acceptation
)
will
not
compleat
our
Acceptation
with
God
.
The
old
quarrel
may
be
laid
aside
,
and
yet
no
new
friendship
begun
.
We
may
be
not
sinners
,
and
yet
not
be
so
far
righteous
,
as
to
have
a
right
to
the
kingdom
of
heaven
.
Adam
had
no
right
to
life
,
because
he
was
innocent
,
he
must
moreover
do
This
,
and
then
he
shall
live
.
He
must
not
only
have
a
negative
righteousness
,
he
was
not
guilty
of
any
thing
,
but
also
a
positive
righteousness
,
he
must
do
all
things
.
This
then
is
required
in
the
second
place
,
to
our
Compleat
Acceptation
,
that
we
have
not
only
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
but
also
a
reckoning
of
righteousness
.
Now
this
we
have
in
the
obedience
of
the
life
of
Christ
.
This
also
was
discovered
in
the
last
Chapter
.
The
obedience
of
the
life
of
Christ
was
for
us
,
is
imputed
to
us
,
and
is
our
Righteousness
before
God
:
By
his
obedience
are
we
made
righteous
,
Rom.
5.18
.
Answ.
All
this
in
effect
hath
been
already
answered
,
the
repetition
whereof
being
needless
,
I
add
,
that
,
1.
It
is
here
contrary
to
sense
and
reason
,
supposed
by
the
Doctor
,
that
the
old
quarrel
betwixt
God
and
us
may
be
taken
away
,
and
yet
no
new
friendship
begun
:
For
it
is
alike
as
to
suppose
darkness
to
be
expel'd
,
and
yet
no
new
light
to
be
introduced
,
or
sickness
removed
,
and
no
health
brought
in
place
.
And
as
for
the
word
(
Reconciliation
)
I
have
always
hitherunto
understood
the
meaning
of
the
word
(
passively
taken
)
that
it
is
To
be
made
friends
;
and
I
cannot
reconcile
it
to
sense
or
reason
,
to
make
any
other
construction
of
it
,
as
if
persons
could
be
Reconciled
,
and
yet
not
made
Friends
.
2.
It
is
a
senseless
contradiction
for
the
Doctor
to
imagine
(
as
he
doth
)
that
Adam
was
not
guilty
of
any
thing
,
and
yet
that
he
had
not
a
positive
as
well
as
a
negative
righteousness
:
For
to
imagine
,
or
suppose
this
,
is
to
suppose
him
to
be
guilty
of
no
sin
at
all
,
and
yet
to
suppose
him
guilty
of
some
sin
(
i.
e.
)
of
sin
,
or
sins
of
omission
.
3.
Suppose
that
Adam
must
have
a
positive
as
well
as
a
negative
righteousness
,
in
order
to
his
right
to
life
,
yet
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
That
in
order
to
our
right
to
life
,
we
must
have
the
positive
righteousness
,
or
perfect
obedience
of
Christs
life
,
in
it self
imputed
to
us
for
that
end
,
the
Imputation
of
Christs
positive
Righteousness
unto
us
for
that
purpose
,
being
no
more
necessary
,
than
the
Imputation
of
his
negative
Righteousness
.
4.
A
non-imputation
of
sin
,
and
a
reckoning
of
righteousness
,
are
the
self
same
thing
in
effect
,
as
appears
evidently
by
Rom.
4.5
,
6.
and
so
likewise
is
reconciliation
,
or
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
all
one
with
righteousness
,
or
our
being
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
Christ
,
as
appears
by
2
Cor.
5.19
,
21.
That
act
of
God
,
whereby
he
doth
perfectly
pardon
our
sin
,
is
interpretatively
nothing
else
,
but
an
Imputation
of
a
perfect
righteousness
,
or
a
fulfilling
of
the
Law
,
even
as
that
act
,
by
which
the
Sun
dispels
the
darkness
,
doth
fill
the
air
with
light
.
5.
The
obedience
of
Christ
verily
was
for
us
,
but
it
may
not
therefore
be
truly
said
in
it self
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
nor
is
it
our
righteousness
before
God
otherwise
,
than
in
a
causal
sence
.
6.
Nor
doth
that
Text
here
alledged
by
the
Doctor
(
Rom.
5.18
.
)
prove
in
the
least
,
that
the
obedience
of
Christs
life
is
imputed
to
us
,
it
having
been
oft
times
for
this
purpose
alledged
by
him
,
but
still
I
must
say
,
to
no
purpose
.
7.
The
Imputation
of
righteousness
(
which
is
indeed
all
one
with
the
non-imputation
of
sin
)
we
have
from
the
joynt
obedience
of
Christs
life
and
death
,
but
not
from
both
of
them
,
or
from
either
of
them
,
in
themselves
imputed
to
us
.
CHAP.
XXXVI
.
The
difference
betwixt
Dr.
Owen
and
Mr.
Ferguson
in
their
opinion
,
concerning
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
or
Obedience
unto
us
,
plainly
laid
open
in
their
own
words
,
recited
.
That
the
Doctor
denies
Christs
death
to
have
been
in
our
stead
,
but
only
as
it
was
penal
.
The
Author's
opinion
plainly
and
expresly
declared
,
in
opposition
to
the
Doctor
's
.
That
satisfaction
was
no
otherwise
the
effect
of
Christs
death
as
a
penalty
,
than
as
a
price
,
and
as
a
sacrifice
.
I
Shall
close
what
I
have
to
say
,
concerning
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
unto
us
,
by
acquainting
the
Reader
,
that
the
fore-named
Authors
(
Dr.
O.
and
Mr.
F.
)
do
to
my
seeming
,
so
plainly
differ
betwixt
themselves
,
touching
that
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
by
them
asserted
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
that
I
am
not
able
to
reconcile
them
,
Mr.
F.
asserting
the
Imputation
of
all
Christs
Mediatory
Obedience
unto
us
,
but
the
Doctor
only
one
part
thereof
:
And
that
what
seems
thus
to
me
,
may
appear
to
others
,
I
will
more
at
large
recite
the
words
of
them
both
,
and
thereupon
leave
the
judgment
thereof
,
to
every
indifferent
and
intelligent
Reader
.
God
(
says
Mr.
F.
p.
558
,
559.
)
having
admitted
the
interposure
of
Christ
on
our
behalf
,
and
having
inflicted
sufferings
upon
him
,
as
a
punishment
for
our
sins
,
and
having
accepted
those
sufferings
,
as
a
sacrifice
of
atonement
for
the
expiation
of
our
guilt
,
and
having
also
agreed
with
his
Son
,
and
declared
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
the
terms
,
on
which
we
are
made
partakers
of
the
benefits
thereof
,
we
upon
the
performance
of
these
conditions
,
come
to
have
all
that
Christ
did
and
suffered
as
our
Mediator
,
Imputed
to
us
in
a
Law-sence
.
And
this
being
all
,
that
we
do
intend
by
a
Legal
Vnion
with
Christ
,
namely
,
That
by
the
Covenant
of
redemption
,
Christ
so
becomes
our
Surrogate
,
as
to
have
our
sins
in
a
Law-sence
imputed
to
him
,
and
we
through
fulfilling
the
terms
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
have
all
that
Christ
did
and
suffered
as
our
Mediator
,
Imputed
in
a
Law-sence
to
us
:
He
must
not
only
disclaim
Christs
being
Mediator
in
any
proper
sence
,
but
renounce
the
whole
Gospel
,
that
donies
it
.
Thus
we
perceive
plainly
,
that
Mr.
F.
is
for
the
Imputation
of
all
Christs
Mediatory
obedience
unto
us
(
as
of
our
sins
to
him
)
in
a
Law-sence
,
that
is
,
and
as
that
phrase
is
usually
explained
,
in
such
sort
,
as
if
we
had
done
all
that
he
did
,
and
suffered
all
that
he
suffered
,
or
as
if
God
did
repute
,
that
we
in
and
by
Christ
had
done
and
suffered
the
whole
thereof
:
Thus
Mr.
Rols
in
his
Prodromus
explains
the
sence
,
saying
(
p.
86.
)
God
reckons
Believers
in
and
by
Christ
their
Surety
,
to
have
satisfied
divine
justice
.
And
we
perceive
also
by
the
words
fore-cited
,
what
a
dreadful
sentence
Mr.
F.
passes
upon
all
those
,
who
gainsay
the
said
Imputation
of
all
Christs
Mediatory
obedience
;
which
(
for
ought
I
can
perceive
)
will
light
heavily
upon
Dr.
O.
himself
,
as
well
as
any
others
:
For
the
Doctor
doth
distinguish
concerning
a
double
Law
,
to
which
Christ
as
our
Mediator
did
perform
obedience
;
1.
General
(
i.
e.
)
the
Law
of
nature
,
or
moral
Law
,
comprizing
every
Law
of
God
,
whereto
we
were
subject
and
obnoxious
.
2.
Special
,
or
the
peculiar
Law
of
Mediatorship
,
which
respected
himself
meerly
;
and
to
this
peculiar
Law
he
refers
Christs
obedience
in
dying
,
Joh.
10.18
.
Thus
he
doth
distinguish
in
his
Book
,
(
Comm.
p.
178
,
179.
)
Now
what
obedience
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
us
,
or
to
which
of
those
Laws
[
to
one
,
or
both
]
as
he
doth
there
determine
,
so
he
doth
fully
explain
in
his
late
Vindication
,
p.
213
,
214.
whose
words
I
shall
transcribe
,
as
followeth
;
Plainly
(
says
he
)
I
have
shewed
,
that
there
was
an
especial
Law
of
Mediatorship
,
which
Christ
was
subject
unto
,
as
the
commandment
of
the
Father
,
That
he
should
be
incarnate
,
that
he
should
be
the
King
,
Priest
and
Prophet
of
his
Church
,
that
he
should
bear
our
iniquities
,
make
his
soul
an
offering
for
sin
,
and
give
his
life
a
ransom
for
many
,
were
the
principal
parts
of
this
Law
.
The
whole
of
it
I
have
lately
explain'd
,
in
my
Exercitations
unto
the
second
part
of
the
Exposition
,
on
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
.
This
Law
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
did
not
yield
obedience
to
in
our
stead
,
as
if
we
had
been
obliged
originally
unto
the
duties
of
it
,
which
we
neither
were
,
nor
could
be
;
although
what
he
suffered
penally
in
any
of
them
,
was
in
our
stead
,
without
which
consideration
he
could
not
have
righteously
suffered
in
any
kind
.
And
the
following
trivial
exception
of
this
Author
,
about
the
obligation
on
us
to
lay
down
our
lives
for
the
Brethren
,
is
meet
for
him
to
put
in
;
seeing
we
are
not
obliged
so
to
die
for
any
one
,
as
Christ
died
for
us
.
Was
Paul
crucified
for
you
?
But
secondly
,
Christ
our
Mediator
,
and
as
Mediator
,
was
obliged
unto
all
that
obedience
unto
the
moral
Law
,
and
all
other
Laws
of
God
,
that
the
Church
was
obliged
unto
;
and
that
,
which
I
have
asserted
hereon
is
,
That
the
effects
of
the
former
obedience
of
Christ
are
communicated
unto
us
,
but
the
latter
obedience
it self
is
imputed
unto
us
.
And
as
for
the
former
obedience
,
his
express
words
are
,
(
Comm.
p.
181.
)
It
is
not
Imputed
unto
us
,
as
though
we
had
done
it
,
though
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
fruits
of
it
are
.
Thus
by
comparing
the
words
of
the
said
Authors
together
,
we
may
palpably
perceive
the
difference
betwixt
them
,
reconcile
them
,
who
can
for
me
;
for
I
cannot
;
so
that
,
how
the
Doctor
can
avoid
coming
under
the
said
terrible
censure
,
or
sentence
of
his
Brother
Mr.
F.
I
know
not
.
But
the
comfort
truly
is
,
That
as
the
curse
causeless
shall
not
come
,
and
is
not
therefore
to
be
dreaded
,
so
Mr.
Ferguson's
sentence
being
groundless
,
need
not
therefore
to
be
feared
,
whether
by
the
Doctor
,
or
by
any
other
:
For
he
,
who
denies
the
Imputation
of
our
sin
to
Christ
,
and
of
all
he
did
and
suffered
(
all
his
active
,
and
all
his
passive
obedience
)
to
us
,
in
Mr.
Ferguson's
Law-sence
,
doth
not
disclaim
Christ
his
being
our
Mediator
,
in
any
proper
sence
,
nor
doth
he
renounce
any
part
,
or
tittle
of
the
Gospel
,
as
hath
been
already
manifested
in
this
Treatise
;
nor
doth
the
said
denial
impeach
any
such
Union
of
Believers
with
Christ
,
which
the
Scriptures
do
assert
,
by
what
name
soever
it
be
entitled
,
whether
Legal
,
or
Moral
,
or
any
other
name
of
mans
imposing
:
Nor
doth
it
properly
belong
to
the
office
of
Mediation
,
or
to
a
proper
Mediator
,
that
what
is
done
by
him
in
person
,
should
be
in
it self
(
properly
and
formally
considered
)
imputed
unto
,
or
reckoned
as
done
by
the
person
,
in
whose
behalf
he
doth
mediate
.
Yet
if
instead
of
the
word
Mediator
,
Mr.
F.
had
used
the
word
Surety
,
I
would
have
yielded
,
That
Christ
is
not
in
any
place
of
Scripture
said
to
be
our
Surety
,
in
a
strict
and
proper
sence
of
the
word
:
For
so
far
as
hitherto
I
have
apprehended
the
sence
of
the
word
,
in
the
propriety
thereof
,
a
proper
Surety
is
bound
to
the
Creditor
in
the
self
same
Bond
or
obligation
,
with
the
principal
Debtor
:
Now
the
case
betwixt
Christ
and
us
is
otherwise
;
for
he
is
not
bound
in
the
same
Bond
with
us
,
nor
was
our
obligation
translated
upon
him
,
or
assumed
by
him
,
but
he
took
upon
him
an
obligation
peculiar
to
himself
,
which
obligation
was
not
only
individually
,
but
also
specifically
different
from
ours
,
ours
being
Obligatio
Criminis
,
and
his
only
Contractus
,
as
hath
been
before
said
,
and
prov'd
.
Moreover
,
Christ
is
not
our
Surety
in
any
more
proper
sence
,
than
our
sins
are
proper
debts
,
or
God
a
proper
Creditor
,
which
expressions
are
not
proper
,
but
Metaphorical
.
And
withal
I
will
say
,
That
although
I
should
deny
,
that
Christ
is
in
any
place
of
Scripture
said
to
be
our
Surety
in
a
proper
sence
,
yet
it
will
not
from
thence
follow
,
that
I
do
deny
the
whole
Gospel
,
or
any
the
least
scruple
of
the
Gospel
.
I
shall
now
return
to
the
words
of
Dr.
O.
forecited
,
whereupon
I
desire
it
may
be
observed
;
1.
That
having
asserted
Christs
dying
for
our
sins
,
to
be
a
principal
part
of
the
Law
of
Mediation
peculiar
to
himself
,
he
doth
both
affirm
and
deny
his
obedience
thereunto
to
have
been
in
our
stead
.
-
1.
He
doth
simply
deny
,
that
his
obedience
thereunto
,
or
dying
for
us
,
was
in
our
stead
.
-
2.
He
doth
affirm
it
in
some
respect
to
have
been
in
our
stead
,
viz.
as
his
death
was
penal
,
and
so
likewise
that
all
which
he
suffered
penally
,
in
what
pertained
to
the
peculiar
Law
of
the
Mediator
,
was
in
our
stead
;
and
this
he
affirms
for
this
reason
,
viz.
because
otherwise
he
could
not
have
righteously
suffered
in
any
kind
.
To
which
I
reply
;
1.
To
the
reason
of
his
affirmation
,
and
that
by
denying
the
force
of
it
,
and
by
asserting
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
although
Christs
death
as
penal
,
had
not
been
in
our
stead
(
i.
e.
)
imputed
to
us
,
in
the
Law-sence
as
aforesaid
,
as
if
we
had
suffered
in
and
by
him
what
he
suffered
(
which
is
the
Doctor
's
meaning
of
the
word
[
instead
]
nevertheless
he
might
righteously
suffer
,
and
he
did
righteously
suffer
in
that
kind
,
and
in
many
other
kinds
besides
death
it self
:
For
he
did
no
less
spontaneously
,
than
at
the
will
of
his
Father
,
take
upon
him
an
obligation
so
to
do
(
i.
e.
)
to
be
obedient
,
even
unto
death
,
for
the
expiation
of
our
sins
;
whereupon
the
Doctor
may
remember
the
old
and
true
saying
,
Volenti
non
fit
injuria
.
2.
As
to
what
was
both
affirmed
and
denied
by
the
Doctor
,
I
reply
;
-
1.
What
he
denies
simply
,
I
shall
simply
affirm
,
That
Christs
death
was
in
our
stead
,
yea
in
all
manner
of
considerations
of
it
,
it
was
in
our
stead
.
-
2.
What
he
affirms
concerning
the
death
of
Christ
in
one
respect
,
or
under
one
consideration
of
his
death
,
I
shall
deny
under
consideration
of
the
sence
of
the
phrase
[
instead
]
as
by
him
intended
,
saying
,
Christ
did
not
either
in
that
,
or
any
other
consideration
of
his
death
,
die
in
our
stead
,
(
i.
e.
)
strictly
,
and
in
a
Law-sence
,
In
personâ
nostrâ
,
as
if
so
be
God
had
reckoned
his
death
to
be
our
death
,
or
that
we
had
suffered
death
in
and
by
him
,
or
as
if
our
obligation
to
suffer
punishment
,
had
been
transfer'd
upon
him
.
-
3.
Forasmuch
as
the
Doctor
doth
simply
deny
,
that
,
which
for
my
own
part
I
never
did
,
but
do
simply
and
positively
affirm
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
the
death
of
Christ
was
in
our
stead
,
I
may
well
think
it
strange
,
that
he
hath
hitherto
escaped
the
charge
of
Socinianism
;
whereas
if
my self
,
or
any
of
my
Brethren
,
who
maintain
what
I
have
professedly
asserted
in
this
controversie
,
should
simply
deny
,
That
Christs
death
was
in
our
stead
,
I
am
much
afraid
,
that
we
should
not
so
escape
,
but
that
rather
our
names
would
be
enrolled
in
that
black
List
.
But
that
it
may
farther
appear
,
what
a
great
gulf
there
is
fixed
betwixt
us
and
the
Socinians
,
I
do
here
profess
in
my
own
(
and
I
do
not
know
,
but
that
I
may
sincerely
make
the
same
profession
,
in
the
name
of
all
those
my
Brethren
)
saying
,
After
all
this
Dispute
,
I
do
freely
and
plainly
confess
and
acknowledg
,
and
this
I
do
without
any
of
Dr.
Owen's
distinctions
,
That
All
Christs
Mediatory
Obedience
,
To
Any
Law
Whatsoever
,
[
Common
To
Us
,
Or
Peculiar
To
Himself
]
Especially
His
Obedience
To
The
Death
Of
The
Cross
,
Was
Under
All
Considerations
[
Both
As
A
Penalty
,
As
A
Price
,
And
As
A
Sacrifice
]
In
Our
Stead
;
And
Forasmuch
As
The
Dignity
,
Or
Value
Of
All
His
Obedience
,
Did
Depend
Upon
The
Dignity
Of
His
Person
(
He
Being
Both
God
,
And
Man
)
I
Do
Confess
,
That
All
His
Obedience
Was
In
Our
Stead
(
That
is
)
To
Bestead
Us
,
And
That
It
Did
Bestead
Us
,
In
The
Purchasing
Of
A
Pardon
,
And
Life
Eternal
For
Us
,
Upon
Terms
Expressed
In
the
Gospel
,
Promised
To
Us
,
And
Upon
Performance
Thereof
,
To
Be
Confer'd
Upon
Us
;
And
That
the
Said
Obedience
Of
Christ
(
Both
Active
,
and
Passive
,
As
It
Is
Usually
Stiled
)
Is
Imputed
To
Us
,
Although
Not
Immediately
,
And
In
It Self
,
Yet
To
As
Much
Purpose
,
And
Real
Benefit
,
As
If
It
Were
Actually
,
Or
Could
Possibly
Be
So
Imputed
,
(
that
is
)
That
It
Is
Imputed
To
Us
In
All
Its
Saving
Fruits
,
And
Blessed
Effects
,
All
That
His
Foresaid
Obedience
,
Making
Up
One
Entire
Meritorious
Cause
Of
All
The
Said
Benefits
,
And
Blessings
.
Hereupon
as
God
makes
his
appeal
,
saying
,
(
And
now
O
Inhabitants
of
Jerusalem
,
and
men
of
Judah
,
judge
I
pray
you
between
me
and
my
vineyard
,
what
could
have
been
done
more
,
than
—
)
in
like
sort
shall
I
make
my
appeal
to
all
,
saying
,
And
now
(
Men
,
Brethren
and
Fathers
)
judge
I
pray
you
betwixt
us
,
who
do
make
the
said
Confession
of
our
faith
in
this
matter
,
and
our
adversaries
,
who
notwithstanding
will
clamour
against
us
,
and
stigmatize
us
with
that
odious
name
of
Socinianism
;
what
need
we
?
what
can
we
[
sa●vâ
veritate
]
say
more
,
whereby
to
acquit
our selves
from
all
cause
,
or
colour
of
being
accused
as
Socinians
.
Lastly
,
I
reply
upon
occasion
of
the
Doctor
's
fore-cited
words
,
That
forasmuch
as
he
doth
acknowledg
Christs
death
to
have
been
in
our
stead
,
only
as
it
was
penal
,
or
a
punishment
,
it
is
therefore
justly
enquirable
,
under
what
consideration
,
or
in
what
respect
his
death
was
not
in
our
stead
;
and
by
observing
what
he
says
concerning
the
death
of
Christ
(
p.
188.
Comm.
)
it
seems
to
me
,
That
he
denies
it
to
be
in
our
stead
,
as
it
was
a
Price
,
and
as
it
was
a
Sacrifice
;
and
that
this
may
appear
to
others
as
well
as
to
my self
,
I
will
recite
his
words
,
as
followeth
;
The
death
of
Christ
is
in
Scripture
proposed
under
a
three-fold
consideration
,
Of
a
Price
,
of
a
Sacrifice
,
and
of
a
Penalty
.
-
1.
It
is
a
Price
,
1
Cor.
6.20
.
1
Pet.
1.19
.
1
Tim.
4.6
.
Now
the
proper
effect
and
issue
of
the
death
of
Christ
as
a
price
,
or
ransom
,
is
Redemption
—
-
2.
P.
189.
It
was
a
Sacrifice
also
,
Heb.
10.5
.
Esa.
53.10
.
Eph.
5.2
.
Now
the
end
of
Sacrifices
,
such
as
his
was
,
bloody
,
and
for
sin
,
Rom.
4.3
.
Heb.
2.17
.
was
Atonement
and
Reconciliation
,
Eph.
5.2
.
Esa.
53.10
.
Dan.
9.24
.
Rom.
5.10
.
—
-
3.
It
was
also
a
Punishment
,
a
punishment
in
our
stead
,
Esa.
53.5.6.12
.
1
Pet.
2.34
.
—
Now
bearing
of
punishment
tends
directly
,
to
the
giving
satisfaction
to
him
,
who
was
offended
,
and
on
that
account
inflicted
the
punishment
—
His
substituting
himself
in
our
room
,
being
allowed
of
by
the
Righteous
Judg
,
satisfaction
to
him
doth
thence
properly
ensue
.
To
this
I
reply
,
saying
,
1.
Redemption
and
Reconciliation
are
not
at
all
distinct
benefits
of
the
death
of
Christ
;
for
they
are
one
and
the
self
same
saving
benefit
,
they
being
but
distinct
or
several
names
,
given
in
several
respects
to
one
and
the
same
thing
:
And
the
very
truth
is
,
That
Redemption
(
i.
e.
)
redemption
from
the
guilt
of
sin
(
I
mean
the
word
Redemption
passively
taken
)
and
Reconciliation
with
God
,
even
as
also
forgiveness
of
sin
,
and
justification
,
with
many
other
words
which
might
be
named
,
are
Synonimous
expressions
in
Scripture
,
importing
in
effect
the
self
same
thing
,
as
may
appear
by
the
current
of
the
Scriptures
,
many
whereof
have
been
already
named
,
to
which
,
more
,
were
it
needful
,
may
easily
be
added
,
2
Cor.
5.18
,
19.
Eph.
1.7
.
Col.
1.14
.
Rom.
5.9
,
10.
and
4.24
,
25.
Gal.
3.
13
,
14.
with
v.
8.
2.
As
Redemption
and
Reconciliation
are
one
and
the
same
saving
benefit
of
Christs
death
,
so
much
less
do
they
flow
from
any
such
nice
,
or
distinct
consideration
,
as
the
Doctor
affirms
(
i.
e.
)
the
one
from
the
consideration
of
Christs
death
,
as
a
Price
,
and
the
other
as
a
Sacrifice
:
But
as
they
are
in
effect
one
saving
benefit
,
so
they
flow
from
one
cause
,
the
death
of
Christ
,
our
reconciliation
flowing
no
more
,
or
otherwise
from
the
death
of
Christ
as
a
Sacrifice
,
than
as
a
Price
;
nor
doth
our
redemption
more
flow
from
the
death
of
Christ
as
a
Price
(
however
it
may
be
thence
denominated
)
than
from
it
as
a
Sacrifice
,
but
entirely
from
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
a
meritorious
cause
,
it
being
all
one
in
effect
to
say
,
it
follows
from
it
as
an
expiatory
Sacrifice
,
as
to
say
,
it
follows
from
it
as
a
valuable
Price
.
3.
I
know
no
more
reason
to
say
,
That
satisfaction
is
the
issue
of
Christs
death
,
considered
as
a
Penalty
,
than
as
it
was
a
Price
,
or
Sacrifice
;
for
Christs
death
was
as
well
a
Price
satisfactory
,
and
a
Sacrifice
satisfactory
,
as
a
Punishment
satisfactory
:
For
the
end
of
paying
a
Price
,
and
the
end
of
Sacrifices
,
was
satisfaction
of
its
kind
,
and
to
say
,
that
Christs
death
was
a
Propitiatory
,
or
Expiatory
Sacrifice
,
is
all
one
(
I
ever
thought
)
as
to
say
,
it
is
a
Satisfactory
Sacrifice
.
So
that
I
am
altogether
dissatisfied
,
as
to
the
fountain
,
or
rise
of
the
Satisfaction
here
mentioned
by
the
Doctor
,
God
being
as
well
satisfied
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
under
the
notion
of
a
Price
,
or
Sacrifice
,
as
of
a
Penalty
.
4.
In
what
sence
the
death
of
Christ
was
,
or
may
be
said
to
be
a
Punishment
,
I
have
already
declared
in
answer
to
Mr.
F.
and
it
will
not
be
needful
here
,
to
repeat
what
hath
been
there
said
.
5.
Finally
,
Whereas
the
Doctor
doth
only
affirm
,
That
Christs
death
was
in
our
stead
,
under
the
consideration
of
a
Penalty
,
I
have
already
in
the
third
Branch
of
my
Reply
,
shewed
,
That
it
was
under
all
considerations
in
our
stead
(
both
as
a
Penalty
,
as
a
Price
,
and
as
a
Sacrifice
)
and
I
have
explained
moreover
,
in
what
sence
it
was
in
our
stead
;
and
I
desire
the
Reader
,
that
he
would
again
so
peruse
it
,
as
if
it
had
been
in
this
place
[
together
with
my
said
Appeal
]
again
inserted
.
I
will
conclude
with
that
Prayer
of
Calvin
,
which
Beza
his
Scholar
tells
us
was
his
constant
form
,
before
his
Lectures
in
the
publick
Schools
;
Det
nobis
Dominus
in
Coelestis
suae
sapientiae
mysteriis
cum
verae
pietatis
profructu
versari
,
in
gloriam
suam
,
&
aedificationem
nostram
.
Amen
.