CHAP.
II.
An
Answer
to
Mr.
Eyres
seventh
Chapter
.
What
is
meant
by
Gods
sight
.
Two
parts
or
degrees
thereof
.
Mr.
Eyres
Exposition
contradicts
it selfe
and
the
Truth
.
Gods
Will
or
Purpose
never
called
by
the
name
of
Justification
in
Scripture
.
The
consequences
which
Mr.
Eyre
denies
to
follow
,
upon
his
doctrine
,
necessary
and
unavoidable
.
A
large
enquiry
,
whether
Justification
consist
in
Gods
Purpose
not
to
punish
.
Imputation
and
non-imputation
,
what
in
the
use
of
Scripture
.
Gods
electing
love
no
Justification
,
Rom.
8.
33.
answered
.
Several
Arguments
,
proving
,
that
Justification
is
not
Gods
purpose
of
not
punishing
.
The
foure
objections
which
Mr.
Eyre
makes
against
himselfe
,
not
answered
by
him
.
Not
the
first
.
Nor
the
second
.
Nor
the
third
.
Nor
the
fourth
of
Mr.
Eyres
second
and
third
Proposition
.
SECT.
I.
NExt
we
shall
enquire
,
what
it
is
to
be
justified
before
God
,
or
in
Gods
sight
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Gal.
3.
11.
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Rom.
3.
20.
by
which
the
Septuagint
render
the
Hebrew
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Psal.
143.
2.
a
word
that
hath
many
faces
and
significations
in
[
a
](A96867-e14490-b)
a
Drus
observat.
cap.
17.
Scripture
:
But
in
the
matter
of
Justification
,
(
which
is
a
forensical
terme
,
unlesse
the
whole
body
of
our
Protestants
be
mistaken
)
it
signifies
as
much
as
Gods
judgement
.
As
to
be
justified
in
mans
sight
,
or
before
men
,
is
to
be
justified
in
mans
judgement
,
or
for
man
to
justifie
,
and
to
be
righteous
in
a
mans
own
eyes
,
is
to
be
righteous
in
a
mans
own
judgement
,
or
to
justifie
a
mans
selfe
:
In
like
manner
,
to
be
justified
in
Gods
sight
,
is
to
be
justified
in
Gods
judgement
,
or
for
God
to
justifie
.
Compare
1
Cor.
4.
4.
Luke
16.
15.
Numb
.
32.
22.
and
many
other
places
.
Now
this
judgement
of
God
,
is
either
a
judgement
of
justice
,
by
which
no
flesh
living
shall
be
justified
,
Psal.
143.
2.
or
a
judgement
of
mercy
and
grace
,
2
Sam.
22.
25
,
26.
Col.
1.
22.
Heb.
13.
21.
by
which
only
a
sinner
can
be
justified
;
or
stand
in
the
sight
,
presence
and
judgement
of
God
.
In
this
judgement
of
God
,
we
consider
these
two
degrees
or
parts
.
Rom.
1.
32.
Jus
Vid
Joh.
Dri●d
.
de
capt.
&
Redempt.
c.
2.
mem.
3.
&
de
Reg.
&
dogmat
.
Sac.
Script
l.
3.
p.
96
,
97.
Dei
,
that
Rule
,
Law
,
or
Constitution
of
God
,
determining
of
rewards
and
penalties
,
(
whence
Gods
Precepts
,
Statutes
,
Threatenings
and
Promises
,
are
so
often
called
in
Scripture
his
judgements
)
The
second
is
the
sentence
,
which
God
the
righteous
Judge
shall
passe
upon
all
men
,
according
to
this
Law
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
day
of
judgement
.
Accordingly
,
my
opinion
is
,
that
a
sinner
is
justified
in
Gods
sight
,
either
ipso
jure
,
by
the
Law
or
Constitution
of
grace
,
the
immediate
effect
whereof
is
to
give
the
sinner
a
right
to
impunity
,
and
to
the
heavenly
inheritance
;
or
by
the
sentence
of
the
Judge
at
the
last
day
,
by
which
he
is
adjudged
unto
the
immediate
,
full
and
perfect
possession
of
all
those
immunities
and
blessings
,
which
were
given
him
in
right
by
that
grand
Promise
of
the
Gospel
,
John
.
3.
16.
He
that
believeth
on
me
,
shall
not
perish
;
but
shall
have
everlasting
life
.
Even
as
amongst
men
,
an
Act
of
grace
and
pardon
gives
imprisoned
rebels
a
right
to
deliverance
from
their
present
,
and
legally
future
punishments
:
though
the
effects
of
this
right
he
do
not
possesse
(
any
otherwise
then
in
hope
)
till
his
cause
be
tried
,
and
himself
absolved
in
Court
,
by
the
sentence
of
the
Judge
.
In
reference
to
the
former
,
a
sinner
is
justified
presently
upon
believing
:
in
reference
to
the
latter
,
he
is
not
justified
till
the
day
of
judgement
.
Therefore
Peter
exhorts
the
Jewes
to
repentance
,
that
their
sins
may
be
blotted
out
,
when
the
times
of
refreshing
shall
come
from
the
Presence
of
God
,
And
he
shall
send
Jesus
Christ
,
Acts
3.
19
,
20.
And
Paul
prays
for
Onesiphorus
,
that
God
would
grant
him
,
that
he
may
finde
mercy
of
the
Lord
in
that
day
,
2
Tim.
1.
18.
which
(
questionlesse
)
is
meant
of
the
day
of
judgement
:
of
which
himselfe
also
speaks
a
little
before
,
ver.
12.
I
am
perswaded
that
he
is
able
to
keep
that
which
I
have
committed
to
him
against
that
day
.
And
in
the
name
of
all
Christians
he
tells
us
,
Gal.
5.
5.
That
we
by
the
Spirit
do
wait
for
the
hope
of
righteousnesse
by
faith
:
that
is
,
Justification
through
faith
,
as
it
stands
in
opposition
to
Justification
by
works
,
ver.
4.
and
throughout
the
whole
Epistle
.
So
doth
the
Lord
Jesus
promise
to
him
that
overcometh
,
a
white
stone
,
Rev.
2.
17.
[
c
](A96867-e14730-b)
c
Vid.
Paraeum
Aretium
.
Brightman
.
D●od
Eng.
Annot.
in
loc.
which
having
allusion
to
the
custome
of
the
Romanes
in
judgement
,
condemning
by
a
black
stone
,
and
absolving
by
a
white
,
doth
therefore
signifie
that
eminent
,
eternal
and
universal
absolution
from
all
guilt
,
which
shall
be
given
to
the
Saints
that
overcome
,
and
continue
faithful
to
the
end
.
So
Rom.
2
,
13
,
16.
Not
the
hearers
of
the
Law
,
but
the
doers
of
the
Law
shall
be
justified
,
—
In
the
day
when
God
shall
judge
the
secrets
of
me●
by
Jesus
Christ
(
the
14.
and
15.
verses
are
to
be
read
in
a
parenthesis
.
)
This
is
my
opinion
in
this
matter
:
which
I
have
therefore
set
down
the
more
distinctly
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
may
understand
,
how
ignorant
or
impudent
his
Informer
was
,
that
told
him
,
I
maintained
,
that
we
were
not
justified
till
the
day
of
judgement
,
page
19.
Now
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
he
gives
us
a
threefold
sense
of
the
sight
of
-
1.
As
it
signifies
Gods
knowledge
.
-
2.
As
it
signifies
his
legal
justice
.
-
3.
As
it
signifies
his
making
of
us
to
see
.
To
which
,
I
shall
need
to
give
no
other
answer
then
his
own
words
,
in
the
same
paragraph
:
of
the
last
thus
he
speaks
.
This
phrase
must
have
some
other
meaning
in
this
debate
:
for
else
that
distinctiction
of
Justification
in
foro
Dei
,
&
in
foro
Conscientiae
,
would
be
a
meer
tautology
.
Of
the
first
thus
.
Although
in
articulo
Providentiae
,
in
the
doctrine
of
divine
Providence
,
seeing
and
knowing
are
all
one
:
yet
in
articulo
Justificationis
,
in
the
doctrine
of
Justification
,
they
are
constantly
distinguished
throughout
the
Scripture
,
and
never
promiscuously
used
,
the
one
for
the
other
.
Thus
of
three
senses
of
the
phrase
,
himselfe
rejects
two
,
as
impertinent
to
the
matter
in
hand
,
and
yet
states
his
answer
thus
.
If
we
take
Gods
sight
in
the
last
construction
,
(
viz.
for
his
making
us
to
see
)
then
we
are
not
justified
in
Gods
sight
before
we
believe
.
2.
If
we
referre
it
to
the
justice
of
God
,
we
were
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
,
when
Christ
exhibited
,
and
God
accepted
the
full
satisfaction
in
his
blood
.
3.
If
we
referre
it
to
the
knowledge
of
God
,
we
were
justified
in
his
sight
,
when
he
willed
or
determined
in
himselfe
,
not
to
impute
to
us
our
sins
,
&c.
As
who
should
say
,
If
you
take
Gods
sight
in
such
a
sense
,
in
which
it
is
never
taken
in
all
the
Scripture
,
by
Mr.
Eyres
own
confession
(
such
is
the
first
sense
,
which
is
here
the
last
)
then
thus
.
But
if
you
take
it
in
such
a
sense
,
in
which
it
may
not
be
taken
in
the
present
question
(
such
is
the
last
of
the
three
,
which
is
here
put
first
)
then
so
.
If
some
other
senses
of
the
sight
of
God
,
(
as
when
it
signifies
his
favour
,
his
assistance
,
his
approbation
and
witnessing
,
&c.
)
had
been
set
down
,
that
we
might
have
known
when
we
are
justified
in
Gods
sight
,
in
those
senses
;
it
had
been
every
whit
as
conducible
to
the
clearing
of
the
Question
.
As
first
,
to
tell
us
,
that
Gods
sight
doth
never
signifie
his
knowledge
in
the
matter
of
Justification
;
and
then
to
adde
in
the
same
breath
,
that
to
be
justified
in
Gods
sight
,
is
to
be
justified
in
his
knowledge
.
2.
Nor
is
it
a
lawful
distinction
,
because
the
members
thereof
do
interferre
,
for
Justification
in
the
death
of
Christ
;
and
in
our
own
consciences
,
is
Justification
in
Gods
knowledge
:
for
surely
he
knows
both
these
no
lesse
then
his
Purpose
and
Determination
within
himselfe
.
3.
We
shall
see
by
and
by
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
maintaines
,
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
sinners
,
by
the
eternal
Act
of
Gods
Will
:
I
ask
then
,
whether
that
imputation
be
Justification
in
Gods
legal
justice
?
if
it
be
;
then
there
is
a
farther
implication
in
the
members
of
the
distinction
:
if
it
be
not
,
I
would
know
how
God
doth
justifie
us
in
his
legal
justice
,
and
yet
not
by
imputing
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
to
us
.
4.
God
knows
us
not
to
be
justified
till
we
be
justified
,
for
it
is
impossible
that
the
same
thing
should
be
and
not
be
.
Indeed
he
may
well
know
,
that
he
intends
to
justifie
us
;
but
if
he
know
that
,
then
he
knows
we
are
not
yet
justified
:
for
he
knows
that
what
he
intends
to
do
is
not
yet
done
.
But
because
Mr.
Eyre
refers
us
to
his
following
discourse
;
for
the
better
understanding
of
these
mysteries
,
I
attend
his
motion
,
that
I
may
spare
tautologies
as
much
as
I
can
.
SECT.
II.
He
therefore
delivers
his
judgement
in
three
Propositions
.
The
first
is
this
,
Justification
is
taken
variously
in
Scripture
.
1.
For
the
Will
of
God
,
not
to
punish
or
impute
sinne
unto
his
people
.
2.
For
the
effect
of
Gods
Will
,
to
wit
,
his
not
punishing
,
or
his
setting
of
them
free
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
.
That
Justification
is
put
for
this
latter
act
,
he
supposeth
none
will
question
.
The
only
scruple
is
concerning
the
former
,
which
he
confesseth
he
hath
been
sparing
to
call
by
the
name
of
Justification
,
because
some
grosse
mistakes
have
sought
for
shelter
under
the
wings
of
that
expression
.
As
1.
That
absurd
conceit
,
that
Christ
came
not
to
satisfie
the
justice
,
but
only
to
manifest
the
love
of
God
:
whereas
(
saith
he
)
we
say
,
that
notwithstanding
the
Will
of
God
,
not
to
punish
his
Elect
,
the
Law
must
needs
be
satisfied
for
their
sins
,
no
lesse
then
for
the
sins
of
others
.
And
2.
Their
notion
,
who
upon
this
ground
have
asserted
the
eternal
being
of
the
creature
,
&c.
Answ.
Here
is
the
foundation
of
all
the
following
obscure
discourse
:
which
I
perceive
Mr.
Eyre
had
rather
we
should
take
for
granted
,
then
he
be
put
to
prove
.
I
do
therefore
deny
1.
That
Justification
doth
any where
in
Scripture
signifie
Gods
eternal
Will
or
Purpose
not
to
punish
:
of
which
more
,
presently
.
2.
That
it
is
any
where
in
Scripture
put
pro
re
volitâ
,
for
the
thing
willed
,
formally
,
and
under
that
habitude
or
relation
.
Justification
is
the
discharge
of
a
sinner
from
his
obligation
to
punishment
:
whether
it
were
willed
or
not
willed
from
eternity
,
is
but
extrinsecal
and
accidental
to
the
Act
it selfe
.
3.
That
Justification
is
any
where
used
in
Scripture
for
the
effects
of
Justification
:
though
I
deny
no
man
the
liberty
of
making
use
somtimes
of
such
a
trope
:
but
we
are
now
enquiring
de
nomine
,
concerning
the
use
of
the
Word
.
The
Apostle
makes
that
one
Act
of
Election
the
cause
of
all
spiritual
blessings
,
Eph.
1.
3
,
4.
of
which
our
Justification
is
one
,
ver.
6
,
7.
no
lesse
then
Adoption
,
ver.
5.
which
is
an
Act
of
the
same
common
nature
with
Justification
,
and
by
some
eminent
[
d
](A96867-e15220-b)
d
See
Dr.
Reignolds
Life
of
Christ
page
402.
Divines
made
a
part
of
it
:
and
that
suitably
enough
to
Scripture
phrase
,
even
when
it
is
made
consequent
to
our
faith
,
John
1.
12.
Gal.
3.
25.
with
4.
5
,
6.
4.
Our
discharge
from
the
curse
is
,
either
our
discharge
from
an
obligation
to
it
,
or
from
our
actual
suffering
it
.
In
this
latter
sense
it
is
indeed
an
effect
of
Justification
,
but
in
the
former
sense
it
is
the
very
life
,
being
and
forme
of
it
,
unlesse
it
be
understood
passively
,
and
so
that
also
may
be
called
an
effect
of
Justification
:
because
the
immediate
effect
of
a
discharge
active
,
is
a
person
discharged
.
These
observations
(
Reader
)
thou
wilt
finde
useful
,
in
the
following
debate
.
That
absurd
conceit
(
as
he
calls
it
)
that
some
have
inferred
upon
[
e
](A96867-e15360-b)
e
De
satisfact.
p.
119.
Grotius
hath
well
observed
.
Obligationis
destructio
liberatio
dicitur
.
Hanc
praecedere
potest
solutio
,
sequi
non
potest
:
quia
actus
nullus
versari
potest
circa
id
quod
non
existit
amplius
.
To
the
same
purpose
[
f
](A96867-e15390-b)
f
In
tert.
Tho.
tom.
1.
disp
4.
sect.
8.
p.
58.
edit.
Venet.
Suarez
,
Propriè
non
dicitur
satisfactio
quae
post
remissionem
debiti
sit
:
sed
quae
fit
ad
debiti
remissionem
.
Est
enim
remissio
debiti
terminus
satisfactionis
,
non
principium
,
ut
communi
sensu
omnium
hominum
constat
.
Nec
dici
potest
eandem
peccati
remissionem
quae
facta
fuit
gratis
ante
satisfactionem
,
postea
etiam
fieri
per
satisfactionem
:
quia
repugnat
idem
debitum
gratis
remitti
&
per
justam
solutionem
.
But
what
need
we
the
testimony
of
man
?
the
testimony
of
God
is
greater
.
The
text
is
plain
,
Heb.
10.
18.
where
remission
of
sin
is
,
there
is
no
more
offering
for
sinne
;
Ergo
,
if
sin
were
remitted
from
eternity
,
Christ
neither
did
nor
could
make
any
satisfaction
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
God
did
discharge
us
upon
the
foresight
of
Christs
satisfaction
:
I
beleeve
it
to
be
most
true
of
all
the
godly
that
lived
before
Christ
:
but
Mr.
Eyre
,
that
makes
this
discharge
to
be
an
immanent
(
not
a
transient
)
act
in
God
,
will
not
,
may
not
endure
,
that
it
should
be
caused
by
the
foresight
of
Christs
satisfaction
.
The
next
grosse
mistake
which
Mr.
Eyre
tells
us
some
have
fastened
If
men
are
justified
from
eternity
,
they
are
from
eternity
.
And
I
confesse
Mr.
Eyre
hath
well
removed
this
consequence
,
if
his
principle
be
good
,
that
esse
justificatum
is
a
terme
of
diminution
.
But
verily
,
if
the
Scriptures
have
rightly
informed
us
in
the
nature
of
Justification
,
I
do
not
see
how
the
consequence
can
be
avoided
,
for
Justification
is
one
of
the
most
eminent
blessings
contained
in
that
Promise
,
I
will
be
their
God
.
So
Paul
,
Rom.
3.
29
,
30.
Is
he
the
God
of
the
Jewes
only
,
and
not
of
the
Gentiles
also
?
yea
,
of
the
Gentiles
also
:
seeing
it
is
one
God
,
who
shall
justifie
the
circumcision
by
faith
,
and
the
uncircumcision
through
faith
.
Now
God
is
not
the
God
of
the
dead
,
but
of
the
living
,
Matth.
22.
32.
And
if
not
the
God
of
the
dead
(
who
yet
live
as
to
their
soules
)
then
much
lesse
is
he
the
God
of
them
that
are
not
,
nor
never
were
.
Ergo
he
doth
not
justifie
them
that
are
not
.
Again
,
He
that
is
justified
is
blessed
,
Rom.
4.
And
he
that
is
blessed
from
eternity
,
is
from
eternity
:
for
he
that
is
not
,
is
neither
blessed
nor
miserable
.
To
say
,
he
is
blessed
from
eternity
in
Gods
intention
,
is
no
more
,
then
that
there
was
a
preparation
of
blessednesse
for
him
in
Gods
intention
:
which
I
readily
grant
,
and
it
profits
Mr.
Eyre
nothing
.
But
it
little
concernes
me
to
make
good
the
foresaid
consequence
:
something
more
of
it
the
Reader
shall
finde
a
little
below
;
in
the
mean
time
we
come
to
the
great
Question
,
whether
Justification
consist
formally
in
the
Will
or
Purpose
of
God
,
not
to
punish
?
SECT.
III.
THe
Will
of
God
,
as
Divines
are
wont
to
distinguish
,
is
either
his
Will
,
in
hundreds
of
places
.
By
this
Will
of
God
doth
he
give
Believers
a
right
to
impunity
,
which
is
their
proper
Justification
:
whereof
his
not
punishing
them
de
facto
is
the
effect
.
This
I
shall
prove
(
God
willing
)
when
I
come
to
the
vindication
of
my
first
Argument
against
Mr.
Eyre
.
In
the
meane
time
,
the
thing
which
he
undertakes
to
prove
is
,
That
the
very
essence
and
quiddity
of
a
sinners
Justification
,
is
Gods
Decree
or
Purpose
from
eternity
not
to
punish
him
.
I
deny
it
,
and
shall
subjoyne
some
reasons
against
it
by
and
by
,
besides
those
which
Mr.
Eyre
takes
notice
of
in
his
book
.
But
first
,
let
us
see
what
he
hath
to
say
for
it
.
Thus
then
he
begins
.
Justification
is
Gods
non-imputing
of
sin
,
and
imputing
of
righteousnesse
to
a
person
,
Psal.
32.
1
,
2.
Rom.
4.
6
,
8.
but
Gods
Will
not
to
punish
a
person
,
is
his
non-imputing
sin
to
him
.
Ergo.
Answ.
I
grant
the
major
,
but
I
do
very
much
long
to
see
what
For
proof
of
it
Mr.
Eyre
appeales
to
the
Original
words
,
both
Greek
and
Hebrew
,
both
which
(
saith
he
)
doth
signifie
an
act
of
the
minde
or
will
.
Mr.
Eyre
is
to
prove
,
that
they
signifie
the
purpose
or
resolution
of
the
will
:
in
which
sense
they
appear
,
not
so
much
as
once
,
neither
in
the
Hebrew
,
nor
in
the
Greek
Interpreters
:
nor
do
our
Translators
render
them
at
any
time
in
such
a
sense
:
and
therefore
that
observation
might
have
been
spared
.
2.
An
act
of
the
understanding
they
signifie
often
:
but
it
is
such
an
act
as
will
not
endure
to
be
called
by
the
name
of
imputation
,
but
thinking
,
devising
,
esteeming
,
or
the
like
:
for
example
,
Isa.
10.
7.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
LXX
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
We
render
it
.
Neither
doth
his
heart
think
so
.
Nor
doth
common
sense
permit
that
it
be
rendred
.
Neither
doth
his
heart
impute
se
.
In
like
manner
,
Psal.
41.
7.
Against
me
do
they
devise
my
hurt
:
where
the
words
are
the
same
,
both
in
the
Hebrew
and
the
Septuagint
.
And
cannot
be
rendered
,
Against
me
do
they
impute
my
hurt
.
So
Isa.
53.
3.
He
was
despised
,
and
we
esteemed
him
not
,
(
where
the
words
are
still
the
same
.
)
It
would
be
worthy
sense
,
to
render
them
,
He
was
despised
,
and
we
imputed
him
not
.
Multitudes
of
like
instances
might
be
given
.
But
when
the
words
will
beare
to
be
grammatically
rendered
by
the
name
of
Imputation
,
they
then
signifie
,
not
an
immanent
act
of
the
understanding
or
will
,
but
a
transient
act
,
containing
an
objectum
Quod
,
or
something
that
is
imputed
;
and
an
objectum
cui
,
some
person
to
whom
it
is
imputed
:
who
also
is
thereby
changed
physically
or
morally
.
And
thus
the
word
imputation
is
used
in
Scripture
.
1.
When
by
Law
one
thing
passeth
in
stead
of
another
,
Numb.
18.
27
,
30.
This
your
heave-offering
shall
be
reckoned
(
or
imputed
)
to
you
,
as
though
it
were
the
corne
of
the
threshing
slo●re
,
and
ver.
30.
When
you
have
heaved
the
best
thereof
from
it
,
then
it
shall
be
counted
,
(
or
imputed
)
to
the
Levites
,
as
the
increase
of
the
threshing
floore
,
&c.
Not
that
the
said
heave-offering
was
esteemed
or
thought
to
be
the
corne
of
the
threshing
floore
:
(
for
that
had
been
a
fiction
,
or
an
errour
and
imperfection
of
the
understanding
)
but
because
by
the
determination
of
the
Law
,
it
was
made
equivalent
thereunto
,
or
equally
available
to
all
effects
and
purposes
.
This
is
a
transient
act.
2.
When
a
man
is
charged
as
the
Authour
of
such
or
such
a
fact
,
2
Sam.
3.
8.
Imputas
mihi
iniquitatem
hujus
mulieris
.
Junius
.
This
also
is
a
transient
act.
3.
The
giving
of
a
reward
to
a
man
,
whether
the
reward
be
of
debt
or
of
grace
,
is
Imputation
,
Rom.
4.
4.
and
to
punish
sin
is
to
impute
sin
,
2
Sam.
19.
19.
because
punishment
is
the
wages
of
sin
,
and
not
to
punish
sin
when
punishment
is
due
by
Law
,
is
the
non-imputing
of
sin
,
Psal.
32.
1
,
2.
and
when
the
Law
denies
a
man
that
benefit
of
an
action
,
which
otherwise
he
might
have
expected
,
that
action
is
said
to
be
non-imputed
to
him
,
Lev.
7.
18.
It
shall
not
be
accepted
,
neither
shall
it
be
imputed
to
him
.
This
also
is
a
transient
act
.
In
the
same
sense
is
the
word
used
in
the
New
Testament
.
Righteousnesse
shall
be
imputed
to
us
if
we
beleeve
,
Rom.
4.
24.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Quibus
futurum
est
ut
imputetur
.
Beza
.
(
Mr.
Eyres
glosse
upon
that
text
we
shall
meet
with
in
due
place
)
and
Paul
prayes
for
them
that
deserted
him
in
his
troubles
,
that
their
sin
may
not
be
imputed
to
them
,
2
Tim.
4.
12.
in
both
which
places
imputation
expresseth
a
future
act
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
understood
of
an
immanent
eternal
act
of
God
.
See
also
Rom.
5.
13.
of
which
more
hereafter
.
So
that
I
may
very
well
retort
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
upon
himself
.
If
Justification
be
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
then
it
is
a
transient
act
(
and
not
an
immanent
act
of
Gods
Will.
)
But
the
first
is
true
,
ex
concessis
.
Ergo
so
is
the
last
.
And
I
wonder
Mr
Eyre
should
nor
foresee
the
weaknesse
of
his
proofe
.
The
original
words
note
an
immanent
act
,
when
they
signifie
some
other
thing
then
imputation
:
Ergo
imputation
is
an
immanent
act
.
So
much
for
the
first
Argument
.
The
second
is
this
:
that
which
doth
secure
men
from
wrath
,
and
whereby
they
are
discharged
and
acquitted
from
their
sins
,
is
Justification
.
But
by
this
immanent
act
of
God
,
all
the
Elect
are
discharged
and
acquitted
from
their
sins
,
and
secured
from
wrath
and
destruction
.
Ergo.
Answ.
The
Proposition
I
readily
grant
:
the
Assumption
I
deny
Gal.
2.
21.
If
righteousnesse
come
by
the
Law
,
then
Christ
is
dead
in
vain
.
The
case
is
altogether
the
same
,
as
to
any
other
way
,
by
which
men
may
be
said
to
be
justified
:
for
if
they
be
made
righteous
in
any
other
way
then
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
then
was
it
a
vaine
,
needlesse
thing
,
that
he
should
die
for
our
Justification
.
2.
Nor
was
there
any
need
,
as
to
our
Justification
,
that
he
should
rise
again
from
the
dead
:
whereas
the
Scripture
saith
,
Arose
from
the
dead
for
our
Justification
,
Rom.
4.
25.
And
therefore
,
saith
Paul
,
1
Cor.
15.
17.
If
Christ
be
not
risen
,
ye
are
yet
in
your
sins
:
he
speaks
to
those
that
did
confesse
his
death
:
but
he
was
out
when
he
told
them
,
If
Christ
were
not
ris●n
,
they
were
yet
in
their
sins
,
seeing
they
were
discharged
and
acquitted
from
them
so
long
before
.
3.
His
intercession
is
also
vain
,
for
he
lives
to
intercede
for
us
,
to
save
us
from
wrath
,
Rom.
5.
9
,
10.
Heb.
2.
17.
and
7.
25.
We
are
secured
from
wrath
before
,
sayes
Mr.
Eyre
.
4.
Our
preaching
is
vain
:
for
we
are
to
preach
to
every
creature
under
Heaven
,
That
except
they
beleeve
,
they
shall
be
damned
,
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
and
multitudes
(
even
all
the
Elect
)
are
secured
from
wrath
before
.
5.
It
doth
also
imply
a
contradiction
,
that
a
man
should
be
acquitted
from
sin
,
who
was
never
a
sinner
:
or
discharged
from
condemnation
,
who
was
never
condemned
.
If
it
be
said
,
the
Elect
were
sinners
,
and
condemned
in
Gods
fore-knowledge
:
Mr.
Eyre
is
better
read
in
Dr.
Twisse
,
then
to
be
ignorant
of
what
inextricable
inconveniences
that
answer
is
liable
to
.
But
let
us
heare
Mr.
Eyres
proofes
of
his
Assumption
:
God
(
saith
he
)
loved
the
Elect
from
everlasting
,
and
his
love
is
velle
dare
bonum
,
&c.
Answ.
Which
(
as
was
observed
before
)
is
one
of
the
[
g
](A96867-e16300-b)
g
Vid.
Croll
.
Cont.
Grot.
cap
5.
par.
6.
&
7.
&
cap.
1
p.
1.
Socinians
weapons
,
by
which
they
attempt
the
ruine
of
Christs
satisfaction
:
against
which
our
Divines
have
provided
sufficient
armour
.
A
love
of
benevolence
or
good
will
,
moving
God
to
seek
out
a
way
of
satisfaction
to
his
own
Justice
,
and
of
Justification
of
a
sinner
,
we
readily
grant
.
[
h
](A96867-e16310-b)
h
Vid
Joh.
Cameron
oper.
p.
361.
f.
But
his
love
of
friendship
,
and
well-pleasednesse
with
a
sinner
,
was
not
from
everlasting
,
but
in
time
:
as
being
a
consequent
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
in
whom
he
hath
made
us
accepted
,
Eph.
1.
6.
as
Mr.
Eyre
doth
not
only
yield
,
but
contend
below
,
from
Mat.
3.
17.
and
so
saith
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
9.
25.
I
will
call
her
beloved
,
who
was
not
beloved
:
out
of
the
Prophet
,
Hos.
2.
23.
and
as
for
the
text
which
Mr.
Eyre
quotes
,
Ezek.
16.
6.
I
cannot
divine
to
what
end
it
is
,
unlesse
it
be
to
finde
me
work
:
seeing
the
love
there
spoken
of
is
manifestly
temporal
,
ver.
8.
and
the
life
mentioned
,
ver.
6.
in
the
latter
,
is
the
flourishing
and
honourable
condition
unto
which
God
had
raised
Israel
,
both
in
respect
of
their
Politick
and
Church-State
,
who
were
originally
the
fewest
and
meanest
of
all
people
:
and
in
a
spiritual
sense
,
is
the
life
which
he
breaths
into
sinful
soules
.
But
what
Mr.
Eyre
would
inferre
from
hence
,
himselfe
best
knows
.
In
short
,
I
readily
grant
that
Gods
eternal
love
doth
concurre
,
ut
causa
universalis
prima
,
as
the
first
universal
cause
,
not
only
to
our
Justification
in
time
,
but
to
all
other
our
spiritual
blessings
:
but
an
universal
cause
produceth
nothing
without
particulars
:
and
the
quality
of
the
effect
is
not
to
be
ascribed
to
the
universal
,
but
to
the
particular
cause
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
is
proving
,
that
Gods
velle
non
punire
,
is
that
act
,
by
which
we
are
discharged
and
acquitted
from
sin
,
and
secured
from
wrath
.
I
wish
he
had
shewed
me
how
this
Conclusion
issues
from
these
premisses
.
His
Argument
in
forme
must
run
thus
.
Gods
eternal
love
discharges
the
Elect
from
sin
,
and
secures
them
from
wrath
.
Gods
velle
non
punire
,
is
his
eternal
love
.
Ergo.
The
major
is
already
disproved
.
The
minor
,
if
understood
of
the
love
of
God
in
whole
,
confounds
Election
and
Justification
,
(
which
yet
Mr.
Eyre
is
careful
to
distinguish
a
little
below
)
for
what
is
Gods
Election
,
but
his
Love
,
or
his
velle
dare
bonum
?
If
of
the
Love
of
God
in
part
,
the
Argument
will
run
thus
.
That
which
is
part
of
Gods
eternal
love
,
is
a
sinners
discharge
from
sin
.
Gods
velle
non
punire
,
is
part
of
his
eternal
love
.
Ergo.
If
the
major
be
true
,
Gods
purpose
of
giving
Christ
,
of
calling
sinners
,
of
sanctifying
them
,
yea
,
of
afflicting
them
,
and
of
administring
any
Providence
towards
them
,
which
in
the
issue
proves
for
their
good
,
may
as
well
be
called
their
Justification
,
as
his
velle
non
punire
.
3.
Mr.
Eyre
hath
already
granted
(
at
least
verbo
tenus
)
that
,
notwithstanding
the
Will
of
God
,
not
to
punish
the
Elect
,
the
Law
must
needs
be
satisfied
for
their
sins
,
no
lesse
then
for
the
sins
of
others
.
If
this
be
true
,
then
the
eternal
act
of
Gods
Election
in
it selfe
considered
,
gives
the
Elect
themselves
no
more
security
from
wrath
,
then
if
they
had
not
been
elected
.
Surely
,
that
concession
will
never
be
reconciled
with
the
doctrine
here
delivered
.
But
we
come
on
to
Mr.
Eyres
second
proof
,
and
that
is
from
Rom.
8.
33.
Who
shall
lay
any
thing
to
the
charge
of
Gods
Elect
?
The
Proposition
is
either
an
universal
Negative
,
No
Elect
person
can
be
justly
charged
with
sin
:
or
an
universal
affirmative
,
All
elect
persons
are
free
from
the
charge
of
sin
.
Answ.
Mr.
Eyre
should
have
put
in
the
Apostles
answer
to
the
Question
,
and
then
he
had
prevented
mine
.
The
words
are
these
,
Who
shall
lay
any
thing
to
the
charge
of
Gods
Elect
?
It
is
God
that
justifieth
.
Hence
it
follows
,
either
negatively
,
that
no
elect
person
being
justified
,
can
be
effectually
charged
with
sin
:
or
affirmatively
,
that
all
the
elect
that
are
justified
,
are
free
from
such
a
charge
:
free
(
I
say
)
not
because
elect
,
but
because
justified
:
for
the
charging
of
sin
is
manifestly
opposed
,
not
to
their
Election
,
but
to
their
Justification
:
but
that
their
Justification
is
their
Election
,
or
any
part
of
it
,
or
contemporary
with
it
(
as
I
may
so
speak
)
is
an
inference
,
without
any
foundation
in
the
text
.
2.
Yea
,
it
cannot
be
inferred
according
to
Mr.
Eyres
principles
,
though
we
should
grant
the
Election
here
spoken
of
,
to
be
that
which
is
from
eternity
,
(
of
which
presently
)
for
the
Justification
here
spoken
of
,
is
that
which
is
grounded
in
the
death
of
Jesus
Christ
:
Who
shall
condemn
?
it
is
Christ
that
died
.
But
the
eternal
Justification
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
is
pleading
for
from
the
text
,
is
not
grounded
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
(
for
it
is
an
Act
in
God
from
eternity
.
)
Now
observe
(
Reader
)
that
Mr.
Eyre
denies
Christ
to
have
merited
the
Act
of
Justification
,
but
only
the
effects
.
I
would
know
then
,
whether
the
Apostle
speak
of
the
Act
or
effects
of
Justification
in
those
words
,
Who
shall
lay
any
thing
to
the
charge
of
Gods
Elect
?
if
of
the
Act
,
then
the
Elect
were
from
eternity
unchargeable
:
and
whose
charge
then
did
Christ
beare
?
and
why
doth
Mr.
Eyre
all
along
tell
us
,
that
our
discharge
from
the
curse
is
the
fruit
of
Christs
merits
?
yea
,
and
what
more
(
as
to
the
t●rminus
à
quo
of
our
salvation
)
I
say
,
what
more
could
Christ
merit
possibly
,
then
that
we
should
not
be
chargeable
with
sin
?
And
if
that
were
done
before
by
an
eternal
act
,
there
will
be
no
effects
of
Justification
left
for
Christ
to
merit
,
as
to
our
deliverance
from
sin
.
But
if
the
Justification
here
spoken
of
be
meant
,
not
of
the
act
,
but
of
the
effects
,
Mr.
Eyre
will
grant
me
,
without
farther
disputing
,
that
this
place
is
insufficient
to
prove
,
that
Gods
eternal
purpose
of
not
punishing
is
our
Justification
.
3.
But
I
am
out
of
doubt
,
that
the
Elect
here
,
are
not
so
called
in
reference
to
Election
from
eternity
,
but
rather
in
reference
to
election
temporal
,
(
as
our
[
l
](A96867-e16760-b)
l
Dr
Twisse
.
in
●orv
.
defens
.
Arm.
Cont.
Til.
pag.
202.
Divines
distinguish
:
)
namely
,
in
respect
of
their
effectual
separation
unto
God
,
and
forsaking
the
conversation
of
the
world
,
and
their
admittance
through
faith
,
into
a
state
of
favour
,
and
precious
esteem
with
God
:
as
election
doth
sometimes
signifie
in
Scripture
.
See
1
Cor.
1.
26
,
27
,
28.
James
2.
5.
1
Pet.
2.
4
,
6.
The
reason
is
plain
:
because
such
Elect
are
here
meant
,
who
were
the
present
objects
of
the
worlds
reproaches
,
injurious
sentences
,
false
accusations
and
slanders
,
&c.
for
whose
comfort
,
in
this
their
suffering
condition
,
the
Apostle
speaks
these
words
:
to
assure
them
,
that
all
the
malice
and
abuses
of
the
world
should
do
them
no
harme
,
so
long
as
God
justified
them
,
and
approved
of
them
▪
Compare
ver.
21
,
35
,
37.
And
this
also
is
the
intent
of
the
words
in
the
Prophet
,
who
speaks
them
as
in
the
Person
of
Christ
,
when
he
was
delivered
up
into
the
hands
of
wicked
men
,
Isa.
50.
8
,
9.
Now
the
Elect
themselves
before
Conversion
,
have
their
conversation
according
to
the
course
of
the
world
,
and
are
not
the
objects
of
persecution
from
the
world
,
Eph.
2.
23.
SECT.
IV.
WE
have
heard
what
Mr.
Eyre
can
say
for
himself
.
Before
I
Acts
5.
31.
John
5.
19
,
22
,
26
,
27.
Luke
24.
47.
and
other
places
before
quoted
.
But
Jesus
Christ
our
Mediatour
,
as
Lord
and
King
,
doth
not
will
or
purpose
with
God
from
eternity
not
to
punish
sinners
.
The
reason
is
plain
:
because
himself
from
all
eternity
was
purposed
of
God
to
be
Lord
and
King
.
Ergo
Justification
doth
not
consist
essentially
in
the
Will
or
Purpose
of
God
not
to
punish
.
2.
Justification
is
an
act
of
God
purposed
.
Ergo
it
cannot
consist
in
his
purpose
.
The
reason
is
,
because
else
God
must
purpose
to
purpose
,
which
is
inconvenient
.
The
Antecedent
is
almost
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Gal.
3.
8.
The
Scripture
foreseeing
that
God
would
justifie
the
Gentiles
through
faith
,
preached
before
,
the
Gospel
to
Abraham
We
have
scarce
more
evidence
of
any
truth
,
upon
which
we
lay
the
weight
of
our
salvation
,
then
this
text
affords
us
of
the
point
in
hand
,
saying
,
that
God
would
justifie
,
in
the
future
tense
:
making
Justification
the
object
of
divine
foresight
:
affirming
the
Gospel
to
have
been
preached
to
Abraham
,
many
yeares
before
it
.
3.
If
there
be
no
such
act
in
God
(
at
least
that
we
may
conceive
of
)
as
velle
non
punire
,
precisely
and
formally
,
then
our
Justification
cannot
consist
in
that
act
:
the
reason
is
plaine
,
because
then
our
Justification
were
precisely
nothing
.
But
there
is
no
such
act
in
God
that
we
may
conceive
of
,
as
velle
non
punire
precisely
Ergo.
For
proof
of
the
Assumption
.
(
Reader
)
thou
must
remember
that
the
foregoing
Argument
proves
,
that
there
was
in
God
from
eternity
a
will
to
justifie
believers
in
time
:
that
is
;
1.
To
discharge
them
from
the
obligation
of
the
Law
:
by
which
that
punishment
becomes
legally
undue
,
which
before
was
legally
due
:
and
hence
it
follows
,
2.
That
they
are
not
punished
de
facto
,
so
that
impunity
simply
is
no
part
nor
effect
of
Justification
:
but
as
following
upon
a
legal
disobligation
:
otherwise
every
sinner
in
the
world
that
were
not
presently
punished
,
were
justified
.
The
impunity
of
a
sinner
therfore
,
that
it
may
be
an
effect
or
part
of
Justification
,
must
be
considered
with
its
modus
,
as
the
impunity
of
a
person
discharged
from
the
obligation
of
the
Law
:
for
God
doth
so
free
us
from
punishment
,
as
may
be
without
the
least
prejudice
to
the
truth
,
or
justice
or
authority
of
his
Law
.
Accordingly
I
affirme
,
that
God
never
purposed
not
to
punish
;
precisely
,
praescindendo
à
modo
,
as
impunity
is
severed
from
the
manner
in
which
it
is
given
:
but
he
purposed
not
to
punish
modo
congruo
,
in
a
congruous
way
:
by
disobliging
,
first
from
the
threatning
of
the
Law
,
and
thereby
giving
them
a
legal
right
not
to
be
punished
:
and
not
to
let
them
go
unpunished
,
while
the
Law
stands
in
full
force
against
them
.
1.
That
which
was
never
executed
,
was
never
purposed
.
But
never
sinner
went
unpunished
,
while
the
Law
stood
in
full
force
against
him
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
is
unquestionable
.
In
the
Assumption
Mr.
Eyre
will
agree
with
me
,
for
he
contends
that
all
the
Elect
were
discharged
from
the
Law
,
and
had
a
right
given
them
to
impunity
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
no
elect
person
ever
had
,
or
shall
have
impunity
in
any
other
way
.
Ergo
,
it
was
never
purposed
that
they
should
have
it
in
any
other
way
:
that
is
,
that
it
was
never
purposed
precisely
that
they
should
not
be
punished
.
2.
Gods
Purpose
and
his
Laws
will
else
be
at
enmity
one
with
another
:
for
if
he
purpose
not
to
punish
precisely
(
praescindendo
à
modo
)
and
yet
do
punish
;
then
he
crosseth
his
purpose
:
and
if
he
do
,
not
punish
,
the
Law
being
supposed
to
remain
in
full
force
,
he
is
unfaithful
,
if
not
also
unjust
,
as
some
[
k
](A96867-e17040-b)
k
Dr.
O●en
.
●●atr
.
de
Just.
vind
learned
men
think
.
3.
If
non-punition
[
l
](A96867-e17050-b)
l
Vid.
T●oiss
.
●ind
.
d●
pr●dest
.
lib.
1.
par.
1.
digr.
9.
c.
1
,
2
,
3.
4.
precisely
tend
not
to
the
glory
of
Gods
grace
,
then
did
he
not
will
precisely
not
to
punish
(
for
such
a
will
were
neither
of
the
end
,
nor
of
the
meanes
,
)
but
non-punition
precisely
,
is
no
congruous
meanes
to
glorifie
Gods
grace
.
Ergo.
For
if
a
man
had
continued
obedient
,
and
had
never
broken
Gods
Laws
in
the
least
tittle
,
his
impunity
had
not
been
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
,
Rom.
4.
4.
as
it
is
with
the
holy
Angels
at
this
day
.
Therefore
we
cannot
conceive
of
any
act
in
God
,
purposing
precisely
not
to
punish
,
in
which
yet
Mr.
Eyre
placeth
the
very
formality
of
our
Justification
.
4.
If
Justification
be
velle
n●n
punire
,
then
condemnati●n
is
v●ll●
oppositorum
eadem
●st
ratio
.
But
condemnation
is
not
velle
punire
.
Shall
I
need
to
prove
this
?
who
ever
said
that
Gods
eeternal
purpose
of
punishing
men
for
sin
was
condemnation
?
'T
is
an
expression
that
neither
God
nor
man
will
owne
,
so
farre
as
I
can
finde
.
Dr.
Twisse
is
known
to
reject
it
often
,
not
without
some
passion
and
detestation
.
Condemnation
is
every
where
in
Scripture
made
an
act
of
justice
,
Rom.
3.
8.
and
2.
2.
Matth.
23.
33.
2
Pet.
2.
3.
and
multitudes
of
other
places
.
But
Gods
purpose
of
punishing
is
no
act
of
Justice
.
Both
these
Propositions
doth
Dr.
Twisse
prove
.
Vind.
lib.
1.
par.
1.
digr.
10.
cap.
1
,
2
,
3.
5.
That
which
destroys
not
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
is
not
his
Justification
.
The
reason
is
,
because
Justification
is
causa
c●rrumpens
obligationis
ad
poenam
:
a
discharge
and
acquittance
from
sin
and
condemnation
,
saith
Mr.
Eyre
,
see
Rom.
8.
1
,
33
,
34.
and
5.
8
,
9.
But
Gods
velle
non
punire
destroys
not
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
,
which
I
thus
prove
.
The
obligation
which
this
Will
of
God
destroys
,
either
is
that
which
lies
upon
them
from
eternity
,
by
some
immanent
act
of
God
:
(
I
speak
now
in
Mr.
Eyres
Dialect
:
for
to
me
't
is
very
absurd
,
to
talke
of
an
actual
obligation
upon
a
person
not
existing
)
but
this
will
never
be
endured
,
that
Gods
immanent
acts
should
destroy
one
another
,
or
else
it
is
the
temporal
obligation
which
comes
upon
them
by
the
Law
:
other
obligation
in
time
there
is
none
.
Now
the
foresaid
Will
of
God
destroyes
this
legal
obligation
,
either
from
eternity
,
or
in
time
.
How
it
should
do
it
from
eternity
I
cannot
imagine
:
because
neither
the
Law
,
nor
the
sinner
▪
nor
the
obligation
do
exist
from
eternity
:
and
what
it
is
to
destroy
an
obligation
that
is
not
,
nor
never
was
;
upon
a
person
that
is
not
,
nor
never
was
;
by
a
Law
that
is
not
,
nor
never
was
;
is
a
mystery
beyond
humane
comprehension
.
If
in
time
,
I
would
know
when
?
either
as
soon
as
the
Law
is
made
,
or
as
soon
as
it
is
broken
,
or
in
some
period
of
time
after
?
Not
as
soon
as
the
Law
is
made
,
for
a
sinner
is
not
obliged
to
punishment
by
the
Law
,
till
he
hath
broken
the
Law
:
and
where
there
is
no
obligation
,
there
can
be
no
destruction
thereof
.
If
as
soon
as
the
Law
is
broken
,
I
would
know
how
?
for
if
notwithstanding
the
foresaid
Will
and
Purpose
of
God
,
the
Law
have
power
to
oblige
the
sinner
to
punishment
;
it
hath
power
also
to
hold
him
under
the
same
obligation
;
notwithstanding
the
same
purpose
.
If
it
can
oblige
him
for
a
minute
,
then
for
two
,
then
for
ten
,
then
for
an
houre
,
then
for
a
yeare
,
then
for
ever
,
unlesse
there
be
some
other
act
besides
the
bare
purpose
of
God
,
to
abrogate
or
relaxe
the
Law
.
Causa
eadem
semper
facit
idem
.
Gods
purposes
make
no
changes
immediately
upon
his
Lawes
,
or
any
other
external
objects
.
6.
If
there
may
be
a
will
or
purpose
not
to
punish
,
where
yet
there
Definitio
reciprocatur
cum
definito
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
pardon
is
not
an
act
of
the
will
,
as
a
natural
power
or
faculty
,
but
as
the
will
of
a
man
under
some
other
moral
condition
or
qualification
,
namely
,
as
having
jus
ad
poenam
exequendam
,
a
right
to
inflict
punishment
:
which
because
it
is
peculiar
to
the
Judge
,
therefore
his
will
not
to
punish
is
pardon
,
but
not
the
will
of
the
rest
that
may
be
present
in
the
Court
:
this
is
as
much
as
I
expect
:
for
hence
it
follows
(
if
the
case
be
applied
to
God
)
that
the
name
of
Justification
cannot
be
given
to
his
eternal
Will
or
Purpose
.
I
will
not
meddle
with
the
Question
,
An
Deus
possit
creaturam
immerentem
affligere
?
But
jus
puniendi
,
a
right
of
punishing
accrews
to
none
,
whether
God
or
man
,
but
upon
supposition
of
some
offence
committed
.
But
from
eternity
there
was
no
sin
.
Ergo
,
the
will
or
purpose
of
not
punishing
,
was
not
voluntas
habentis
jus
ad
poenam
infligendam
.
Ergo
,
it
may
not
be
called
by
the
name
of
Justification
.
When
I
speak
of
a
right
of
punishing
,
which
results
from
an
offence
committed
,
understand
it
not
de
jure
potestatis
,
as
if
the
said
offence
gave
any
authority
to
God
or
man
,
which
they
had
not
before
;
but
de
jure
exercitii
:
inasmuch
as
that
authority
cannot
be
justly
exercised
in
the
punishment
of
a
person
,
but
upon
such
offence
committed
by
him
.
7.
If
notwithstanding
this
velle
non
punire
,
God
be
bound
in
justice
to
punish
the
Elect
for
their
sins
,
unlesse
his
justice
be
satisfied
some
other
way
,
then
his
velle
non
punire
is
not
their
Justification
.
The
reason
is
,
1.
Because
Gods
justice
doth
not
binde
him
to
punish
those
whom
he
hath
justified
:
but
rather
not
to
punish
them
.
2.
Because
his
justice
doth
not
binde
him
to
punish
another
for
their
sins
,
whom
he
already
hath
justified
,
(
supposing
their
Justification
to
be
as
well
in
order
of
nature
as
of
time
,
before
the
others
punishment
)
But
Gods
justice
bindes
him
to
punish
the
elect
for
their
sin
,
unlesse
his
justice
be
satisfied
in
some
other
way
:
as
namely
,
by
the
death
of
Christ
.
This
appears
,
because
de
facto
Christ
bare
that
punishment
which
in
justice
was
due
to
sinners
.
Erg●
,
this
velle
non
punire
was
not
their
Justification
.
One
thing
more
I
long
to
know
,
Whether
velle
non
punire
do
define
Justification
in
general
,
as
it
containes
these
two
notable
species
,
Justification
by
works
,
and
Justification
by
faith
or
grace
?
or
whether
it
define
Justification
by
grace
only
,
particularly
,
and
in
specie
?
If
the
former
shew
us
that
special
forme
,
by
which
Justification
by
works
,
and
by
grace
,
are
immediately
differenced
and
opposed
;
If
the
latter
shew
us
the
genus
,
or
common
nature
wherein
they
agree
;
If
neither
of
these
can
be
done
,
(
as
it
is
impossible
either
should
)
then
we
have
here
a
definition
without
genus
and
forma
,
that
is
,
a
thing
defined
without
a
definition
,
or
a
definition
that
defines
nothing
.
SECT.
V.
BEsides
these
Arguments
,
there
be
found
more
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
The
first
objection
then
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
proposeth
against
his
owne
doctrine
of
eternal
Justification
is
this
,
viz.
That
it
confounds
Justification
and
Election
.
His
answer
is
.
That
Election
includes
the
end
,
and
all
the
means
:
but
Gods
Will
,
not
to
punish
precisely
and
formally
,
only
some
part
of
the
meanes
.
Reply
.
1.
Then
the
act
of
Justification
is
precisely
nothing
▪
as
we
have
above
demonstrated
.
2.
And
the
effects
of
this
act
are
like
it selfe
,
just
nothing
;
for
never
man
was
,
nor
ever
shall
be
the
better
for
this
supposed
Will
of
God
precisely
,
of
not
punishing
;
for
if
it
produce
us
any
good
,
it
is
either
from
eternity
,
or
in
time
.
Surely
from
eternity
we
are
never
the
better
for
it
:
if
in
time
,
what
is
that
good
?
I
suppose
,
it
will
be
said
,
freedome
from
punishment
.
Well
▪
But
,
doth
it
effect
this
freedome
mediately
,
or
immediately
?
mediately
it
can
do
nothing
:
for
it
is
determined
precisely
to
a
non-punition
,
and
containes
not
a
preparation
of
any
subordinate
cause
,
for
the
effecting
of
our
deliverance
:
Election
indeed
may
very
well
concurre
to
our
discharge
,
wrought
by
the
death
of
Christ
:
because
it
is
a
pre-ordination
of
Christ
himself
,
and
of
all
other
more
immediate
causes
,
that
work
in
their
several
orders
and
dependances
for
our
d●scharge
.
If
immediately
,
then
the
death
of
Christ
interposeth
no
cau●ality
for
the
effecting
of
the
said
freedome
:
of
which
notwithstanding
Mr.
Eyre
asserts
it
to
be
the
adequate
and
immediate
cause
in
his
next
Proposition
.
3.
To
give
a
peculiar
name
to
the
volition
of
one
part
of
the
meanes
,
as
distinct
from
the
volition
of
all
the
rest
,
unlesse
there
be
some
special
reason
of
such
denomination
,
is
but
to
impose
upon
our
understandings
:
for
why
may
not
Gods
Will
of
sending
Christ
,
of
publishing
the
Gospel
,
of
renewing
our
natures
,
of
raising
our
bodies
,
of
glorifying
our
whole
man
,
each
of
them
deserve
a
more
proper
and
significant
name
,
then
Election
,
as
well
as
his
Will
not
to
punish
?
for
as
to
the
act
of
this
Will
,
e●dem
m●do
se
habet
circa
omnia
objecta
volita
,
it
respecteth
all
the
meanes
willed
equally
and
in
the
same
manner
:
the
persons
to
whom
this
impunity
is
willed
,
lay
under
no
other
consideration
as
the
objects
of
this
will
,
then
as
they
are
the
objects
of
the
will
of
calling
,
sanctifying
,
glorifying
:
so
that
neither
from
the
act
nor
the
object
is
there
any
reason
of
such
denomination
.
Indeed
the
objects
(
I
mean
,
the
media
volita
)
of
election
and
reprobation
,
being
contraries
in
the
utmost
degree
,
and
irreconcileable
in
the
same
person
,
our
weak
understandings
do
therefore
conceive
of
those
acts
,
as
differing
specie
,
and
accordingly
we
diversifie
their
names
.
But
the
objects
of
Election
being
amongst
themselves
consentanies
,
and
subordinate
in
their
execution
one
to
the
other
,
and
having
no
other
entity
or
modality
before
their
own
existence
in
time
,
then
precisely
ut
volita
;
it
is
altogether
beyond
the
reach
of
my
understanding
,
to
imagine
any
reason
,
why
the
volition
of
one
meanes
should
have
a
name
proper
to
it self
,
incommunicable
to
the
volition
of
any
other
means
,
willed
by
the
same
act
,
&
to
the
same
end
.
4
,
But
the
answer
yields
as
much
as
the
objection
seeks
:
for
it
grants
Justification
to
be
part
of
election
,
namely
,
Electio
ad
impunitatem
.
Whereas
,
1.
Scripture-Justification
is
a
forensical
act
,
say
all
our
Protestants
against
the
Papists
.
I
spare
quotations
,
because
the
thing
is
too
well
known
to
be
denied
.
This
cannot
be
affirmed
of
Election
.
2.
The
object
of
Election
is
neither
a
sinner
nor
a
righteous
person
precisely
,
but
one
that
is
not
:
for
we
are
chosen
before
the
foundation
of
the
world
,
Eph.
1.
4.
before
we
have
done
good
or
evil
,
Rom.
9.
11.
but
the
object
of
Scripture-Justification
is
a
sinner
,
Rom.
4.
5.
whether
believing
or
unbelieving
,
we
dispute
below
.
3.
Election
is
not
properly
an
act
of
mercy
,
but
of
absolute
dominion
and
liberty
:
Scripture-Justification
is
every
where
reported
as
an
act
of
mercy
,
Psal.
51.
1.
Luke
1.
78
,
79.
Matth.
18.
33.
Luke
18.
13
,
14.
Heb.
8.
12.
Eph.
2.
4
,
5.
Ergo
,
Justification
is
not
Election
,
nor
any
part
of
it
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
the
name
of
pardon
and
Justification
in
these
and
other
places
,
signifies
not
the
act
,
but
the
effects
;
I
shall
refer
to
my
vindication
of
the
next
objection
,
which
is
as
followeth
.
SECT.
VI.
THe
second
objection
therefore
is
this
:
Justification
imports
a
change
in
a
persons
state
ab
injusto
ad
justum
.
Which
cannot
be
First
,
(
saith
he
)
if
Justification
be
taken
for
the
thing
willed
,
viz.
the
delivery
of
a
sinner
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
then
there
is
a
great
change
made
thereby
:
he
that
was
a
childe
of
wrath
by
nature
,
hath
peace
and
reconciliation
with
God
But
if
we
take
it
for
the
Will
of
God
not
to
punish
,
then
we
say
Justification
doth
not
suppose
any
such
change
:
as
if
God
had
first
a
Will
to
punish
his
Elect
,
but
afterwards
he
altered
his
Will
,
to
a
Will
not
to
punish
them
.
Rep.
Plain
dealing
is
best
in
a
good
cause
.
If
Mr.
Eyre
had
told
me
roundly
,
that
the
effects
of
Justification
make
a
change
in
a
persons
state
,
but
the
act
doth
not
;
I
had
then
known
what
I
had
to
do
.
But
I
know
not
very
well
what
to
make
of
these
lines
.
1.
The
objection
in
forme
is
this
.
Justification
imports
a
change
in
a
persons
state
ab
injusto
ad
justum
.
But
velle
nen
punire
,
or
any
other
eternal
purpose
of
God
,
makes
no
such
change
of
a
persons
state
.
Ergo
,
To
say
now
,
that
the
Will
of
God
not
to
punish
supposeth
no
such
change
,
is
to
yield
the
Conclusion
,
that
therefore
it
is
not
Justification
.
2.
What
means
he
by
a
sinners
delivery
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
?
either
it
.
supposeth
that
a
sinner
doth
actually
suffer
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
or
some
part
of
it
,
till
Justification
deliver
him
:
but
this
he
denieth
of
such
persons
for
whom
Christ
hath
satisfied
(
namely
the
Elect
)
page
60.
61.
§.
2.
or
it
supposeth
an
obligation
of
such
persons
by
Law
unto
future
punishment
,
till
they
be
justified
.
But
this
he
denieth
too
of
the
same
persons
,
page
110.
111.
§.
2
,
3
,
5.
and
what
it
is
to
deliver
a
s●nner
from
the
curse
,
which
he
neither
suffers
at
present
,
nor
is
obliged
to
suffer
for
future
,
I
want
an
Interpreter
to
tell
me
.
3.
Nor
can
I
tell
in
Mr.
Eyres
sense
,
what
it
is
to
have
peace
and
reconciliation
with
God
.
If
he
meane
it
of
peace
of
conscience
,
through
the
sense
of
reconciliation
,
himselfe
will
deny
that
that
is
the
immediate
effect
of
our
delivery
from
the
curse
:
for
faith
apprehending
reconciliation
doth
intervene
,
and
that
as
a
true
proper
cause
of
such
a
peace
.
If
he
mean
it
of
a
state
of
peace
and
reconciliation
before
God
,
he
should
not
need
to
ascribe
that
to
the
thing
willed
:
seeing
the
erernal
Will
of
God
is
most
sufficient
unto
that
(
according
to
him
)
as
being
a
real
discharge
from
condemnation
:
an
actual
and
compleat
non-imputation
of
sin
;
and
he
layes
it
down
for
an
undeniable
truth
,
That
the
Elect
were
in
Covenant
with
God
before
the
foundations
of
the
world
,
page
170
,
171.
4.
The
great
change
which
he
speaks
of
,
made
by
this
delivery
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
viz.
That
he
that
was
a
childe
of
wrath
by
nature
,
hath
peace
and
reconciliation
with
God
,
this
great
change
,
I
say
,
is
a
huge
nothing
:
for
(
saith
he
a
little
below
)
to
be
just
and
unjust
is
not
properly
a
different
state
before
God
,
but
a
different
consideration
of
one
and
the
same
person
.
The
Elect
themselves
then
,
even
when
believers
,
are
children
of
wrath
by
nature
,
yea
,
of
the
Saints
in
glory
,
considered
according
to
what
they
are
by
nature
,
it
may
be
said
,
that
they
are
children
of
wrath
.
And
is
not
that
a
great
change
,
from
wrath
to
reconciliation
,
which
leaves
a
man
every
whit
as
much
a
childe
of
wrath
as
he
was
before
?
5.
I
beleeve
(
with
Mr.
Eyre
)
that
the
Will
or
Purpose
of
God
makes
no
change
in
a
persons
state
:
but
I
wonder
what
he
meanes
by
the
reason
added
.
As
if
(
saith
he
)
God
had
first
a
Will
to
punish
his
Elect
,
but
afterwards
he
altered
his
Will
to
a
Will
not
to
punish
them
.
]
As
if
God
could
not
will
a
mutation
in
the
creature
,
without
a
mutation
in
his
own
Will.
He
made
the
world
by
his
Will
,
and
he
also
wills
the
dissolution
of
it
,
after
such
a
period
of
time
:
this
is
a
mutation
in
the
world
,
but
none
in
God
.
In
like
manner
,
he
may
will
that
the
elect
for
a
time
shall
stand
obliged
by
Law
,
to
the
suffering
of
condemnation
:
and
yet
also
will
,
that
after
a
time
this
obligation
shall
cease
,
and
all
this
without
any
change
in
his
will
.
But
we
shall
prove
hereafter
,
that
is
not
the
Will
of
Gods
purpose
,
but
his
declared
Lawes
by
which
a
sinner
is
constituted
just
or
unjust
.
But
let
us
come
to
a
more
close
encounter
.
Justification
(
saith
the
ab
injusto
ad
justum
.
And
if
Scriptures
be
intelligible
by
the
sons
of
men
,
it
cannot
be
denied
,
Rom.
5.
8
,
9.
While
we
were
yet
sinners
,
Christ
died
for
us
:
much
more
then
,
being
now
justified
in
his
blood
,
we
shall
be
saved
from
wrath
through
him
.
Whether
we
are
justified
by
the
blood
of
Christ
without
faith
,
or
through
faith
,
we
reserve
to
be
debated
in
its
proper
place
;
for
the
present
it
sufficeth
us
to
observe
from
hence
,
that
Justification
makes
a
change
in
a
persons
state
ab
injusto
ad
justum
in
sensu
forensi
.
And
what
can
mans
reason
require
more
for
proof
of
it
,
then
these
words
afford
?
Had
the
Apostle
said
,
You
were
sometimes
cold
,
but
now
you
are
hot
:
you
were
sometimes
servants
,
but
now
you
are
free
:
you
were
sometimes
enemies
,
but
now
you
are
friends
:
he
would
scarcely
be
accounted
a
reasonable
creature
,
that
should
deny
such
expressions
,
to
import
a
mutation
from
one
terme
to
another
.
And
must
not
then
the
like
change
be
signified
,
when
he
saith
,
You
were
sometime
sinners
,
but
now
you
are
justified
?
especially
if
we
consider
(
which
I
perceiv●
all
men
do
not
observe
)
that
the
word
sinners
,
by
which
the
Apostle
expresseth
their
state
before
Justification
,
doth
not
signifie
precisely
transgressours
of
the
Law
:
for
even
they
that
are
justified
are
in
that
regard
sinners
,
1
John
1.
8
,
10.
Nor
yet
only
and
precisely
such
as
are
under
the
reigning
power
of
sin
:
though
it
be
true
,
that
all
the
unjustified
are
so
,
because
their
sinful
condition
is
here
opposed
,
not
to
Sanctification
formally
,
but
unto
Justification
.
And
they
of
all
men
that
maintain
Justification
to
be
perfect
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
may
not
so
understand
the
word
sinners
in
this
place
.
For
these
Romanes
(
for
example
)
were
not
sinners
after
their
Justification
,
in
that
sense
,
in
which
the
Apostle
tells
them
,
they
were
sinners
bef●re
their
Justification
:
for
the
time
of
their
being
sinners
is
directly
opposed
to
the
time
of
their
Justification
.
But
if
they
were
justified
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
;
it
is
beyond
dispute
,
that
sin
might
and
did
reigne
in
them
after
this
Justification
,
even
until
the
time
of
their
Conversion
unto
the
faith
.
By
sinners
therefore
in
this
place
,
are
meant
such
sinners
as
were
by
Law
bound
over
to
condemnation
,
and
had
not
at
present
any
right
to
deliverance
from
wrath
:
for
that
right
was
given
them
in
their
Justification
,
as
appears
by
the
Apostles
arguing
à
majori
ad
minus
,
being
now
justified
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
how
much
more
shall
we
be
saved
from
wrath
.
Nor
is
it
unfrequent
in
Scripture
,
by
the
word
sinner
,
to
signifie
a
ma●
obliged
to
punishment
,
see
1
Kings
1.
21.
Gen.
43.
9.
Rom.
5.
15
Gal.
3.
22.
especially
(
as
(
[
m
](A96867-e18110-b)
m
In●i●
.
l.
3.
c.
11.
●
.
3.
)
Calvin
well
observes
,
)
according
t●
the
Hebrew
Dialect
,
Vbi
etiam
scelesti
vocantur
,
non
modò
qui
sibi
conscii
sunt
sceleris
,
sed
qui
judicium
damnationis
subeunt
.
Neque
enim
Bersabe
(
1
Reg.
1
,
21.
)
dum
se
&
Sol●monem
dicit
fore
scelestos
,
crimen
agnoscit
;
sed
probro
se
&
filium
expositum
iri
conqueritur
,
ut
numerentur
inter
reprobos
&
damnatos
.
Hence
the
Hebrew
(
[
n
](A96867-e18160-b)
n
Vid.
Jo●
.
Mer●er
.
&
H●u
.
A●n
w.
i●
G●r
.
43
9.
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sin
,
doth
sometimes
signifie
precisely
an
obligation
,
yea
,
when
it
results
from
a
fact
which
is
not
sinful
.
As
the
Nazarite
that
was
defiled
against
his
will
by
the
touch
of
a
dead
body
,
is
yet
commanded
to
offer
a
sin-offering
(
the
LXX
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
and
the
reason
is
added
,
because
he
sinned
by
the
dead
,
Numb.
6.
11.
that
is
,
Reus
est
tacti
cadaveris
.
And
what
was
offered
for
the
cleansing
of
leapers
,
and
of
men
and
women
for
natural
and
unavoidable
defilements
,
is
called
an
offering
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Lev.
14.
19.
and
15.
15
,
30.
If
now
Mr.
Eyre
shall
say
,
that
when
the
Apostle
sayes
,
much
more
being
now
justified
;
&c.
he
speaks
not
of
the
act
,
but
of
the
effects
of
Justification
;
I
reply
,
1.
It
is
not
lawful
for
man
to
teach
the
Holy
Ghost
to
speak
.
The
Apostle
tells
us
,
that
God
commendeth
his
love
towards
us
,
in
giving
Christ
to
die
for
us
while
we
were
sinners
,
that
we
might
be
justified
in
his
blood
,
ver.
8
,
9.
therefore
that
which
in
God
is
the
cause
of
our
Justification
,
in
the
blood
of
Christ
,
is
his
love
,
and
so
to
be
called
.
2.
If
yet
it
shall
be
said
,
that
that
love
of
God
is
our
Justification
;
then
whereas
it
is
said
,
God
so
loved
us
,
as
to
justifie
us
in
the
blood
of
his
Sonne
;
it
must
be
said
henceforward
,
God
so
justified
us
,
as
to
justifie
us
in
the
blood
of
his
Sonne
,
which
is
ridiculous
.
3.
If
temporal
Justification
in
the
blood
of
Christ
,
be
but
the
effect
of
a
former
Justification
which
was
from
eternity
;
what
an
empty
noise
hath
the
Apostle
made
,
in
amplifying
the
love
of
God
,
in
giving
Christ
to
die
for
the
Justification
of
sinners
and
enemies
?
whosoever
is
justified
is
not
a
sinner
,
(
in
the
Apostles
sense
of
that
word
)
but
righteous
:
not
an
enemie
,
but
reconciled
.
4.
The
Apostle
(
if
his
judgement
may
be
taken
)
doth
thus
distinguish
the
act
and
the
effects
of
Justification
:
that
the
act
is
that
,
by
which
of
sinners
we
are
made
just
:
the
effect
which
follows
upon
it
is
;
that
we
shall
therefore
be
saved
from
wrath
.
It
seemes
,
the
distinction
between
the
velle
and
the
res
volita
in
the
matter
of
Justification
was
unknown
to
him
.
5.
And
his
discourse
supposeth
,
that
the
love
and
grace
of
God
is
nothing
so
much
commended
by
giving
the
effects
,
as
by
putting
forth
the
act
of
Justification
:
for
herein
God
commends
his
love
towards
us
,
that
while
we
were
yet
sinners
,
he
gave
his
Son
to
death
for
our
Justification
:
and
then
(
as
a
lesser
matter
)
he
infers
,
much
more
being
now
justified
we
shall
be
saved
from
wrath
.
So
also
,
ver.
10.
Now
if
by
Justification
in
Christs
blood
be
meant
the
effects
,
and
not
the
act
of
Justification
;
then
the
love
and
grace
of
God
is
nothing
near
so
great
in
justifying
us
through
the
blood
of
Christ
,
as
in
justifying
us
before
without
his
blood
.
But
this
is
most
notoriously
false
;
as
is
manifest
,
not
from
this
text
only
,
but
from
all
the
Scriptures
,
which
proclaim
that
temporal
Justification
,
which
we
have
through
the
blood
of
Christ
,
to
be
an
act
of
greatest
love
,
and
richest
grace
,
Rom.
3.
24
,
25.
and
5.
20
,
21.
Eph.
1.
6
;
7.
and
2.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
1
Tim.
1.
14.
Tit.
3.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
6.
The
effects
of
Justification
follow
upon
the
act
by
moral
necessity
,
and
without
impediment
.
Ergo
;
the
Justification
here
spoken
of
,
is
not
the
effect
precisely
,
but
the
act
.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
,
because
the
Justification
mentioned
in
the
text
,
follows
not
upon
any
simple
precedent
act
of
Justification
,
but
is
set
forth
as
an
act
of
such
moral
difficulty
,
that
it
required
no
lesse
then
the
precious
blood
of
the
Son
of
God
,
to
remove
the
obstructions
and
hindrances
of
its
existence
,
and
to
make
it
to
exist
.
The
Antecedent
is
proved
from
his
manner
of
arguing
à
majori
ad
minus
:
being
now
justified
,
much
more
shall
we
be
saved
:
implying
that
salvation
follows
,
as
it
were
,
necessarily
,
upon
the
position
of
the
act
of
Justification
.
Yea
,
and
I
appeal
to
Mr.
Eyre
himselfe
,
or
any
man
else
,
whether
that
act
be
not
unworthy
of
the
many
glorious
titles
and
epithets
,
which
are
every
where
in
Scripture
put
upon
Justification
,
and
consequently
unworthy
of
that
name
:
which
being
put
in
actu
completo
,
can
yet
produce
no
good
effect
to
a
sinner
,
nor
set
him
one
degree
farther
from
wrath
then
he
was
before
,
unlesse
some
other
more
sufficient
cause
do
interpose
to
midwise
out
its
effects
.
This
mindes
me
of
another
Argument
,
and
that
is
this
.
7.
Justification
is
not
an
act
of
grace
simply
,
but
of
powerful
grace
,
or
of
grace
prevailing
against
the
power
of
sin
:
for
this
is
that
which
creates
the
difficulty
,
and
so
commends
the
excellency
of
the
grace
of
Justification
,
that
it
is
the
Justification
of
sinners
.
Were
it
the
Justification
of
such
as
had
never
sinned
,
but
had
been
perfectly
righteous
,
there
were
no
such
difficulty
in
that
.
And
therefore
in
the
following
part
of
the
Chapter
,
the
Apostle
expresly
declares
the
quality
of
this
grace
in
justifying
us
,
in
that
it
abounds
,
and
is
powerful
to
justifie
,
above
the
ability
of
sin
to
condemn
,
ver.
15
,
17
,
20
,
Ergo
the
Justification
here
spoken
of
,
is
the
very
act
of
Justification
,
or
there
is
no
such
thing
at
all
:
for
if
we
place
it
in
a
simple
eternal
volition
,
there
could
be
no
moral
difficulty
in
that
,
(
no
more
then
in
the
will
of
creating
the
world
,
)
because
from
eternity
there
could
be
no
opposition
or
hindrance
,
for
an
act
of
grace
to
overcome
.
8.
The
Justification
merited
by
Christ
,
is
not
the
effect
,
but
the
act
.
The
reason
we
shall
shew
anon
,
because
it
is
absurd
to
make
Christ
the
meritour
of
the
effects
,
when
the
act
is
in
being
before
his
merit
.
But
the
Justification
here
spoken
of
is
that
which
is
merited
by
Christ
.
Ergo
,
I
might
also
argue
out
of
the
following
part
of
the
Chapter
,
from
the
opposition
between
Justification
,
and
the
act
of
condemnation
,
which
passeth
upon
all
men
,
by
vertue
of
the
first
transgression
:
(
and
therefore
sure
cannot
consist
in
any
eternal
act
of
Gods
will
)
and
from
the
method
there
used
in
comparing
Adam
and
Christ
,
and
of
our
partaking
first
in
the
image
of
the
first
Adam
,
in
sin
and
the
effects
thereof
,
before
we
be
conformed
to
the
image
of
the
second
Adam
,
in
Justification
and
the
effects
thereof
:
but
these
Arguments
out
of
the
text
it self
shall
suffice
.
Other
Scriptures
also
there
are
in
abundance
which
testifie
,
that
Justification
ab
injusto
ad
justum
.
As
Col.
2.
13.
You
being
dead
in
your
sins
,
and
the
uncircumcision
of
your
flesh
,
hath
he
quickened
together
with
him
,
having
forgiven
you
all
trespasses
.
To
be
dead
in
sins
in
this
place
,
is
clearly
to
be
dead
in
Law
,
that
is
,
to
be
obliged
by
Law
to
the
suffering
of
death
for
sin
;
for
it
is
opposed
to
that
life
which
consists
in
remission
of
sin
or
Justification
;
so
1
Cor.
6.
11.
such
were
some
of
you
,
but
ye
are
justified
:
of
which
place
more
hereafter
.
See
also
Rom.
3.
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
,
23
,
24.
and
5.
18
,
19
,
20
,
21.
Eph.
2.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
And
indeed
all
the
places
of
Scripture
which
speak
of
Gods
justifying
sinners
.
If
there
be
found
out
a
new
Justification
which
the
Scriptures
are
not
acquainted
with
,
may
they
have
joy
of
it
that
have
discovered
it
.
But
I
hasten
to
the
second
part
of
Mr.
Eyres
answer
.
The
change
of
a
persons
state
ab
injusto
ad
justum
,
ariseth
from
the
Law
,
and
the
consideration
of
man
in
reference
thereunto
:
by
whose
sentence
the
transgressour
is
unjust
:
but
being
considered
at
the
Tribunal
of
grace
,
and
cloathed
with
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
he
is
just
and
righteous
:
which
is
not
properly
a
different
state
before
God
,
but
a
different
consideration
of
one
and
the
same
person
.
God
may
be
said
at
the
same
time
to
look
upon
a
person
,
both
as
sinful
and
as
righteous
:
as
sinful
in
reference
to
his
state
by
nature
,
and
as
righteous
in
reference
to
his
state
by
grace
.
Now
this
change
being
but
imputed
,
not
inherent
,
it
supposeth
not
the
being
of
the
creature
,
much
lesse
any
inherent
difference
,
&c.
Answ.
These
words
are
mysteries
to
me
,
and
I
confesse
have
occasioned
just
and
unjust
,
their
importance
in
this
place
is
no
more
,
then
to
have
or
be
without
a
right
to
salvation
and
life
.
Now
to
be
unjust
by
nature
,
or
in
our selves
,
may
be
understood
in
a
threefold
sense
.
1.
Positively
,
and
then
the
meaning
is
,
that
for
the
sin
of
nature
,
or
for
mens
sinfulnesse
in
themselves
,
they
stand
obliged
before
God
,
to
the
suffering
of
eternal
punishment
.
This
is
so
far
from
being
Mr.
Eyres
meaning
,
that
I
suppose
it
is
the
very
thing
which
he
intends
to
deny
by
these
obscure
expressions
:
as
he
also
often
doth
in
other
parts
of
this
book
:
for
it
is
impossible
that
a
man
should
stand
before
God
,
obliged
to
punishment
,
and
disobliged
at
the
same
time
.
2.
Or
purely
negatively
,
as
denying
nature
to
be
the
cause
of
our
Justification
.
But
neither
do
I
think
this
to
be
Mr.
Eyres
meaning
,
because
the
sense
will
be
so
pitifully
jejune
:
for
thus
to
be
just
by
grace
,
and
unjust
by
nature
is
no
more
,
then
that
it
is
grace
and
not
nature
which
justifies
us
:
and
he
that
sayes
a
man
is
justified
by
grace
,
and
not
by
a
piece
of
bread
and
butter
,
or
by
the
flying
of
the
clouds
over
his
head
,
speaks
every
whit
as
much
to
purpose
.
3.
Diminutively
,
in
sensu
diviso
&
secundum
quid
:
that
if
we
suppose
there
were
no
act
of
grace
to
hinder
,
men
must
needs
be
condemned
:
there
being
in
themselves
sufficient
cause
of
condemnation
,
and
in
the
Law
sufficient
power
to
oblige
them
to
it
:
but
the
grace
of
God
doth
hinder
both
the
one
and
the
other
from
coming
forth
into
act
,
so
that
they
never
stand
actually
obliged
to
the
suffering
of
punishment
,
notwithstanding
their
own
sinfulnesse
,
and
the
Lawes
rigour
.
This
if
any
thing
,
must
be
our
Authours
meaning
,
as
best
suiting
with
what
he
sayes
here
and
elsewhere
,
as
page
111.
§.
5.
By
nature
or
in
reference
to
their
state
in
the
first
Adam
,
the
Elect
were
children
of
wrath
,
they
could
expect
nothing
but
wrath
from
God
.
And
again
,
beleevers
considered
in
themselves
,
and
as
they
come
from
the
loines
of
Adam
,
are
sinful
and
cursed
creatures
.
And
again
,
page
113.
§
.
7.
The
Law
shews
not
who
are
condemned
of
God
,
but
who
are
guilty
and
damnable
in
themselves
,
if
God
should
deal
with
them
by
the
Law
.
Let
us
see
then
what
Mr.
Eyre
would
have
:
this
I
think
it
is
.
That
there
is
in
all
men
,
even
the
Elect
themselves
,
sufficient
cause
of
condemnation
:
that
is
,
sufficient
cause
on
their
part
,
why
they
should
lose
all
right
to
salvation
and
life
;
and
be
actually
damned
:
and
also
that
there
is
nothing
wanting
in
the
nature
and
constitution
of
the
Law
,
which
is
required
in
a
Law
,
to
make
it
able
to
binde
or
oblige
men
(
even
the
Elect
themselves
)
unto
punishment
.
And
all
this
is
true
questionlesse
.
But
it
is
withal
affirmed
,
that
the
Elect
,
by
the
gracious
and
eternal
act
of
Gods
Will
,
are
absolutely
just
before
God
:
and
by
the
same
Will
is
the
Law
(
though
broken
by
them
)
disabled
from
binding
them
actually
unto
punishment
.
So
that
they
are
said
to
be
unjust
by
the
Law
,
or
in
themselves
,
or
by
nature
,
not
that
they
are
at
any
time
absolutely
unjust
,
or
without
all
right
to
life
(
for
they
are
supposed
to
be
absolutely
just
from
eternity
)
but
as
it
were
materially
,
because
if
the
foresaid
act
of
Gods
Will
had
not
prevented
,
they
had
been
unjust
simply
and
absolutely
.
Against
which
doctrine
I
have
several
things
to
oppose
.
1.
In
John
3.
17
,
18.
Rom.
8.
1
,
33
,
34.
and
5.
8
,
9.
John
20.
23.
1
Cor.
6.
9
,
11.
and
many
other
places
.
2.
If
an
elect
sinner
be
never
unjust
,
but
in
this
respective
,
diminutive
sense
,
then
it
is
impossible
for
the
act
or
effects
of
Justification
,
to
make
any
change
upon
him
:
because
it
is
impossible
but
that
he
who
is
justified
meerly
of
grace
,
should
be
unjust
in
himself
:
even
glorified
Saints
are
to
all
eternity
unjust
by
nature
,
or
of
themselves
,
or
in
reference
to
their
state
in
the
first
Adam
.
3.
If
this
be
the
whole
of
a
sinners
unrighteousnesse
,
then
by
the
Law
of
nature
sinners
are
not
unjust
simply
and
universally
,
so
as
to
have
no
right
at
all
to
life
:
but
only
in
some
respect
,
so
as
to
have
no
right
by
that
Law
which
they
have
transgressed
.
But
all
sinners
are
universally
unjust
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
which
I
thus
prove
.
1.
If
Adam
,
while
he
continued
obedient
,
had
by
his
obedience
a
right
to
life
,
and
had
no
right
at
all
,
but
by
his
obedience
according
to
the
Law
,
then
upon
his
disobedience
he
became
universally
unjust
by
the
same
Law
.
The
reason
's
plain
,
because
if
there
be
but
one
rule
of
righteousness
in
being
,
then
he
that
is
not
righteous
by
that
rule
,
is
not
righteous
at
all
.
Sublat
â
causà
totali
,
tollitur
effectus
totaliter
.
But
Adam
whiles
he
continued
obedient
,
had
by
his
obedience
and
by
the
Law
a
right
to
life
,
and
had
no
right
at
all
,
but
by
his
obedience
.
Ergo.
The
Assumption
is
thus
confirmed
.
If
Adam
had
any
other
right
then
by
the
Law
,
then
it
must
be
by
some
grace
of
God
.
But
this
cannot
be
according
to
Scripture
:
because
to
have
a
right
by
grace
and
works
too
,
is
inconsistent
according
to
Scripture
,
Rom.
11.
6.
If
by
grace
,
then
not
of
works
,
otherwise
grace
is
no
more
grace
.
If
by
works
,
then
not
of
grace
,
otherwise
work
is
no
more
work
.
How
long
Adam
continued
innocent
,
I
cannot
tell
.
If
but
half
a
day
;
if
but
half
an
houre
,
it
is
all
one
to
my
purpose
:
it
being
concluded
by
Divines
,
that
Adam
and
Eve
,
one
or
both
,
were
saved
,
and
therefore
were
elect
:
and
Adams
case
was
then
the
case
of
all
men
,
one
as
well
as
another
,
he
being
as
it
were
the
epitome
of
all
mankinde
in
what
he
did
,
and
in
what
befell
him
.
2.
The
Apostle
also
witnesseth
,
that
the
Gentiles
,
whiles
they
continued
in
their
Gentilisme
,
were
all
of
them
equally
alienated
from
God
,
Col.
1.
21.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
separate
from
Christ
,
strangers
from
the
Covenant
of
Promise
,
and
without
hope
,
Eph.
2.
11
,
12.
till
by
the
faith
of
that
Gospel
which
the
Apostles
preached
,
ver.
20.
they
ceased
to
be
any
more
strangers
and
forreigners
,
and
became
fellow-Citizens
with
the
Saints
,
and
of
the
houshold
of
God
,
ver.
19.
Had
the
Apostle
spoke
these
words
concerning
reprobate
Gentiles
,
I
am
perswaded
it
would
never
have
come
into
any
mans
minde
,
(
no
,
not
Mr.
Eyres
himselfe
)
to
deny
,
but
that
they
did
signifie
those
Gentiles
,
to
be
without
all
right
to
life
and
salvation
,
and
other
priviledges
,
immunities
and
dignities
,
given
by
the
great
Charter
of
the
Gospel
,
to
the
City
and
Family
of
God
.
But
the
Apostle
doth
here
describe
the
miseries
of
a
Gentile
state
,
and
therefore
of
every
one
that
was
a
Gentile
:
for
their
condition
is
equally
the
same
,
till
they
turne
Christians
.
Ergo
,
these
Gentiles
that
now
beleeved
,
were
yet
sometimes
without
all
right
to
life
,
that
is
,
they
were
universally
unrighteous
or
unjust
:
and
that
by
the
Law
of
nature
,
Rom.
2.
12
,
14
,
15.
4.
If
the
Elect
were
never
simply
and
absolutely
unjust
,
then
Christ
is
not
their
Saviour
.
But
Christ
is
most
surely
the
Saviour
of
the
Elect
.
Ergo.
The
reason
of
the
Proposition
is
,
because
if
Christ
be
properly
a
Saviour
,
then
he
saves
either
from
that
wrath
which
they
do
actually
suffer
,
(
which
neither
Mr.
Eyre
will
grant
,
nor
my selfe
without
limitation
)
or
from
an
actual
obligation
to
the
suffering
of
wrath
when
the
time
is
come
:
and
this
Mr.
Eyre
denies
.
But
tell
me
then
how
is
Christ
called
a
Saviour
?
seeing
none
can
be
properly
saved
,
but
such
as
are
subject
to
perishing
,
either
de
jure
,
or
de
facto
.
If
Adam
had
continued
righteous
,
he
might
well
have
propagated
life
to
his
children
,
but
not
salvation
,
because
they
had
never
been
in
danger
of
death
.
And
he
that
is
simply
and
absolutely
just
,
though
in
some
respect
unjust
,
is
not
in
danger
of
perishing
,
and
therefore
not
capable
of
being
saved
.
If
it
be
said
that
Christ
saves
us
from
wrath
,
because
we
should
have
been
obliged
to
wrath
,
if
some
act
of
grace
in
God
had
not
prevented
,
there
being
matter
enough
in
us
,
for
which
we
should
have
forfeited
our
right
to
life
.
The
answer
is
,
1.
Let
that
act
then
which
prevents
our
obligation
,
be
called
our
Saviour
,
and
not
Christ
.
2.
And
let
the
thing
it selfe
be
proved
,
viz.
That
supposing
the
Elect
do
now
at
no
time
stand
obliged
before
God
to
punishment
,
for
any
or
all
their
sins
:
that
yet
they
should
have
been
so
obliged
,
if
Gods
purpose
had
not
hindred
,
that
is
,
supposing
the
Law
hath
now
no
effect
upon
their
persons
,
as
to
the
binding
of
them
under
wrath
for
sin
,
that
yet
it
should
have
had
,
if
the
foresaid
purpose
had
not
prevented
.
I
deny
it
:
and
if
it
be
true
,
yet
I
conceive
it
impossible
for
man
to
prove
it
.
But
we
must
of
necessity
speak
something
more
of
these
matters
in
another
place
,
and
therefore
here
I
supersede
any
farther
arguings
.
Let
us
therefore
a
little
farther
demurre
upon
Mr.
Eyres
words
,
as
ab
injusto
ad
justum
ariseth
from
the
different
consideration
of
a
person
,
he
may
be
pleased
to
consider
,
that
considerations
make
no
changes
.
Things
are
to
be
considered
as
they
are
,
and
not
by
consideration
made
what
they
are
not
.
Our
understanding
will
conceive
of
a
man
as
cloathed
with
,
or
abstracted
from
all
moral
qualifications
:
and
so
consider
him
sometimes
as
just
and
not
unjust
:
sometimes
as
unjust
,
and
not
just
:
sometimes
as
neither
just
nor
unjust
.
But
to
consider
an
unjust
man
as
he
is
just
,
or
a
just
man
as
he
is
unjust
,
is
to
consider
a
man
as
he
is
a
horse
.
Obj.
A
man
is
not
a
horse
,
therefore
I
cannot
so
consider
him
.
Answ.
No
more
is
a
justified
man
unjust
,
nor
an
unjustified
man
just
before
God
.
Obj.
Yes
that
he
is
,
for
he
may
be
unjust
by
nature
,
and
yet
justified
of
grace
at
the
same
time
.
Answ.
True
.
But
then
observe
(
Reader
)
that
to
be
unjust
by
nature
in
this
sense
,
is
terminus
diminuens
:
and
so
to
consider
a
man
as
unjust
by
nature
,
is
not
to
consider
him
as
unjust
simply
;
because
to
be
unjust
by
nature
,
is
not
to
be
unjust
simply
(
for
a
man
is
supposed
to
be
just
by
grace
at
the
same
time
)
therefore
when
it
is
argued
,
a
man
may
be
unjust
by
nature
,
and
just
by
grace
at
the
same
time
;
Ergo
,
he
may
be
just
and
unjust
at
the
same
time
:
I
deny
the
consequence
.
He
that
hath
nothing
else
to
do
,
may
(
if
he
will
)
consider
the
same
man
as
just
before
God
,
and
unjust
before
man
:
and
according
to
the
variety
of
humane
Law
,
multiply
the
notions
of
injustice
,
and
say
he
is
unjust
by
the
English
Law
,
but
not
by
the
Romane
Law
:
or
by
the
Romane
Law
,
but
not
by
the
Grecian
Law
,
&c.
and
when
all
this
is
done
,
he
may
say
he
hath
proved
,
that
a
man
is
just
and
unjust
at
the
same
time
before
God
:
but
I
will
not
believe
him
.
2.
And
as
it
is
contrary
to
reason
,
so
to
the
manner
of
speech
in
Scripture
(
as
was
noted
before
)
Rom.
5.
8
,
9.
we
were
sinners
,
but
now
we
are
justified
.
He
doth
not
say
,
we
are
sinners
,
but
are
or
were
justified
,
1
Cor.
6.
9
,
11.
You
were
unrighteous
,
but
now
you
are
justified
.
Must
we
read
it
thus
,
you
are
unrighteous
,
but
you
were
or
are
justified
?
Eph.
2.
3.
you
were
the
children
of
wrath
.
He
doth
not
say
you
are
the
children
of
wrath
,
Col.
1.
21.
You
were
alienated
,
but
now
are
reconciled
.
In
all
which
places
we
finde
a
state
of
righteousnesse
,
succeeding
a
state
of
unrighteousnesse
:
but
of
being
righteous
and
unrighteous
at
the
same
time
,
we
have
no
mention
.
3.
And
what
is
it
to
consider
a
man
as
just
or
unjust
?
either
it
is
a
meer
speculative
consideration
,
apprehending
in
a
man
rationem
justi
,
without
apprehending
rationem
injusti
,
or
è
contra
:
but
how
unreasonably
is
it
said
,
that
the
change
of
a
persons
state
ab
injusto
ad
justum
,
ariseth
from
such
a
consideration
as
this
is
,
which
is
as
compatible
to
man
as
unto
God
,
and
altogether
extrinsecal
and
accidental
to
a
mans
being
just
or
unjust
:
or
else
it
is
a
practical
,
judicial
consideration
,
in
order
to
Gods
dealing
with
a
man
as
just
and
unjust
:
but
surely
Mr.
Eyre
will
abhorre
(
as
well
he
may
)
that
God
should
intend
to
deal
with
his
Elect
as
unjust
.
4.
And
to
what
he
speaks
of
an
imputed
change
,
't
is
an
expression
I
never
heard
before
.
I
have
read
of
an
imputed
righteousnesse
,
which
makes
a
real
change
(
real
I
mean
,
not
as
opposed
to
moral
or
relative
,
but
to
mental
or
notional
)
but
an
imputed
change
is
a
meer
fiction
,
and
good
for
nothing
as
I
know
,
but
to
give
just
ground
to
the
Papists
,
to
reproach
us
with
a
putative
righteousnesse
,
as
they
call
it
in
a
jeer
.
But
there
be
no
fictions
in
God
at
all
:
and
by
how
much
the
more
they
are
found
in
men
,
by
so
much
the
more
phantastical
we
account
them
,
(
unlesse
they
be
rhetorical
fictions
used
for
doctrine
,
or
illustration
,
or
the
like
.
)
5.
And
much
like
all
the
rest
it
is
,
that
he
saith
to
be
just
and
unjust
is
not
a
different
state
:
whereas
himself
so
calls
it
but
just
before
;
and
immediately
after
tells
us
,
that
men
are
accounted
just
in
reference
to
their
state
by
grace
,
and
unjust
in
reference
to
their
state
by
nature
.
Is
a
state
of
nature
then
,
and
a
state
of
grace
different
states
?
if
they
be
not
,
why
doth
Mr.
Eyre
call
them
so
?
if
they
be
,
then
a
state
of
nature
is
a
state
of
unrighteousnesse
,
and
a
state
of
grace
is
a
state
of
righteousnesse
:
and
so
to
be
righteous
and
unrighteous
is
a
different
state
:
or
else
there
is
no
man
in
the
world
unrighteous
before
God
,
or
the
unrighteous
are
in
as
good
a
state
as
the
righteous
.
But
I
will
puzzle
my selfe
no
longer
with
these
ambiguous
Oracles
.
SECT.
VII
.
THe
third
objection
succeeds
,
and
that
is
this
.
If
justification
be
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
although
Gods
Will
not
to
punish
,
be
antecedent
to
the
death
of
Christ
,
yet
for
all
we
may
be
said
to
be
justified
in
him
,
because
the
whole
effect
of
that
Will
,
is
by
and
for
the
sake
of
Christ
.
As
though
electing
love
precede
the
consideration
of
Christ
,
John
3.
16.
yet
are
we
said
to
be
chosen
in
him
,
Eph.
1.
4.
because
all
the
effects
of
that
love
,
are
given
by
,
and
through
,
and
for
him
.
Reply
.
Here
again
I
must
complain
of
Mr.
Eyres
mincing
.
Had
he
said
,
the
Act
of
Justification
goes
before
the
death
of
Christ
,
but
the
effects
follow
,
he
had
spoken
plainly
.
But
when
we
are
disputing
,
that
Gods
Will
is
not
our
Justification
,
because
our
Justification
according
to
Scripture
is
a
fruit
of
Christs
merit
,
which
an
immanent
act
of
Gods
Will
cannot
be
:
to
tell
us
now
,
that
indeed
Gods
Will
is
antecedent
to
Christs
merits
,
is
to
yield
the
Argument
,
that
therefore
it
is
not
our
Justification
:
for
nothing
more
certain
from
Scripture
,
then
that
our
Justification
is
the
fruit
of
the
merits
and
blood
of
Christ
;
Rom.
3.
24
,
25.
and
5.
8
,
9.
and
4.
25.
and
8.
3
,
4.
2
Cor.
5.
19
,
21.
Gal.
3.
13
,
14.
Eph.
1.
7.
Col.
2.
13
,
14.
Heb.
9.
12
,
22.
and
10.
14
,
18.
and
sundry
other
places
.
2.
It
is
also
unworthy
of
the
precious
blood
of
the
Sonne
of
God
,
to
ascribe
no
more
to
it
,
then
that
it
merits
the
effects
of
our
Justification
:
seeing
it
is
a
farre
lesse
matter
to
purchase
the
effects
,
then
to
purchase
the
act
which
is
the
cause
of
them
:
as
I
have
before
observed
from
the
Apostles
manner
of
arguing
,
Rom.
5.
If
while
we
were
sinners
Christ
died
for
us
,
much
more
then
being
now
justified
,
shall
we
be
saved
from
wrath
.
3.
It
is
also
no
little
undervaluing
of
the
glorious
blessing
of
Justification
,
to
suppose
it
so
impotent
,
as
that
it
cannot
produce
its
own
effects
,
nor
do
the
sinner
any
good
at
all
unlesse
the
Son
of
God
interpose
by
his
death
to
make
it
effectual
.
I
desire
to
speak
of
spiritual
things
with
feare
and
trembling
:
But
I
am
not
afraid
to
say
,
such
a
Justification
as
this
is
not
worth
grammercy
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
I
may
say
as
much
of
Gods
electing
love
,
for
neither
doth
that
produce
its
effects
without
the
death
of
Christ
:
I
answer
,
no
such
matter
,
for
the
death
of
Christ
it selfe
,
and
all
other
particular
causes
of
our
salvation
,
are
the
effects
of
election
,
which
it selfe
produceth
in
their
respective
subordinations
.
But
Justification
is
a
particular
cause
,
determined
precisely
to
a
non-punition
,
which
yet
it
cannot
effect
.
Nor
doth
Mr.
Eyre
himself
make
the
death
of
Christ
an
effect
of
Justification
,
and
if
he
did
,
he
must
reade
the
Scriptures
backward
,
but
of
this
more
by
and
by
.
4.
I
deny
,
that
the
effects
of
Justification
can
be
merited
without
the
act
;
for
this
eternal
Justification
(
according
to
Mr.
Eyres
theologie
)
is
an
actual
and
real
discharge
from
all
sin
and
condemnation
:
a
compleat
non-imputation
of
sin
and
imputation
of
righteousnesse
.
Therefore
it
is
impossible
,
but
that
by
this
act
the
Elect
must
have
a
right
given
them
to
deliverance
from
wrath
:
which
is
so
evident
,
that
himselfe
contendeth
,
that
the
Elect
(
even
whiles
they
are
in
actual
rebellion
against
God
)
have
a
right
to
salvation
,
grounded
in
the
Purpose
of
God
,
page
122.
And
what
then
did
Christ
merit
for
them
?
Not
a
right
to
deliverance
from
wrath
,
for
that
they
have
already
:
and
[
o
](A96867-e19530-b)
o
Vid.
Aqui●
1.
q.
62.
4.
●
.
&
12.
q.
1
●4
.
5.
●
,
&
3.
q.
19.
3.
●
.
Nullus
meretur
quod
jam
habet
,
what
one
hath
already
,
that
cannot
be
afterwards
merited
.
Christ
is
dead
in
vain
,
as
to
the
purchasing
of
this
right
,
if
they
had
it
before
.
Upon
this
ground
do
our
[
p
](A96867-e19560-b)
p
Jun.
Animad.
in
Bell.
l.
5.
c.
10.
Divines
deny
that
Christ
merited
any
thing
for
himselfe
,
because
there
was
no
advancement
of
soule
or
body
,
but
was
due
to
him
upon
an
antecedent
title
.
Nor
yet
doth
Christ
merit
the
continuance
of
this
right
:
for
it
is
impossible
it
should
be
forfeited
,
for
a
man
can
forfeit
nothing
with
God
but
by
sin
:
and
sin
,
if
it
be
pardoned
,
(
as
here
it
is
supposed
to
be
,
even
all
sins
,
and
that
from
eternity
)
hath
no
strength
to
work
such
a
forfeiture
,
no
more
then
if
it
never
had
been
committed
.
Nor
doth
he
merit
the
possession
of
that
which
they
have
a
right
to
,
for
the
effect
of
merit
is
properly
acquisitio
juris
,
the
acquiring
or
obtaining
of
the
right
it selfe
.
[
q
](A96867-e19580-b)
q
Duran●
.
●
2.
dist.
5
q
3.
8.
Nullus
meretur
id
quod
est
suum
:
sed
per
meritum
facit
quilibet
,
ut
aliquid
efficiatur
ei
debitum
,
&
per
consequens
suum
,
quod
ei
prius
non
erat
debitum
,
nec
suum
.
Indeed
men
may
by
violence
be
kept
out
of
the
possession
of
that
which
is
their
own
.
But
God
is
not
wont
to
deny
possession
where
himself
hath
given
a
right
;
and
if
sinners
have
from
eternity
a
firme
and
valid
right
to
life
and
salvation
,
Christ
should
not
need
to
have
put
himself
to
the
expence
of
his
blood
to
have
purchased
possession
.
Wherefore
,
the
effects
of
Justification
,
being
inseparable
from
the
act
,
Christ
merited
the
act
as
well
as
the
effect
,
or
else
he
merited
neither
.
The
comparison
brought
in
for
illustration
makes
the
matter
worse
The
fourth
and
last
objection
which
Mr.
Eyre
makes
against
himself
,
His
answer
is
,
Creating
,
calling
,
and
glorifying
import
an
inherent
change
in
the
person
created
,
called
,
glorified
,
which
forgivenesse
doth
not
,
it
being
perfect
and
compleat
in
the
minde
of
God
.
Rep.
1.
The
answer
contradicts
it selfe
;
for
it
yields
it
to
be
a
proper
speech
,
to
say
,
that
God
doth
will
or
purpose
to
justifie
:
(
even
as
proper
,
as
to
say
,
he
doth
will
or
purpose
to
create
,
to
call
,
to
glorifie
)
and
yet
beares
us
in
hand
,
that
Justification
is
perfect
and
compleat
in
the
minde
of
God
.
Whatsoever
is
purposed
is
future
.
If
it
have
already
an
actual
existence
,
it
is
not
capable
of
being
purposed
to
exist
.
But
the
immanent
acts
of
Gods
minde
are
not
future
,
but
from
eternity
.
2.
Though
Justification
do
not
make
an
inherent
change
,
yet
it
makes
an
adherent
change
,
(
as
was
largely
proved
from
Scripture
but
now
)
even
as
if
a
Malefactour
be
condemned
,
and
afterwards
pardoned
:
his
condemnation
and
pardon
make
an
adherent
change
,
that
is
,
a
relative
:
though
he
remain
the
same
man
that
he
was
,
and
be
not
changed
inherently
and
really
.
And
I
wonder
,
why
the
purpose
of
an
act
which
makes
an
adherent
,
relative
change
,
should
be
called
by
the
name
of
that
act
:
rather
then
the
purpose
of
such
an
act
,
which
makes
an
inherent
real
change
,
should
be
called
by
its
name
.
Ars
posterior
utitur
prioris
oper●
.
Morality
supposeth
nature
.
3.
It
is
true
,
that
Creation
,
&c.
do
make
an
inherent
change
.
But
the
question
is
,
whether
we
have
not
as
much
ground
from
Scripture
to
understand
those
words
,
as
signifying
not
the
act
,
but
the
effect
of
Creation
,
&c.
as
Mr.
Eyre
hath
to
interpret
the
word
Justification
in
Scripture
,
for
the
effects
,
not
for
the
act
.
Suppose
a
man
should
be
so
void
of
sobriety
,
as
to
say
,
the
words
,
Creation
,
Vocation
,
Glorification
,
and
what
of
like
nature
,
signifie
not
those
several
acts
,
but
their
effects
;
what
could
Mr.
Eyre
say
against
it
?
To
say
,
Creation
,
&c.
makes
an
inherent
change
,
is
to
say
nothing
:
for
it
will
quickly
be
answered
,
that
the
effects
of
Creation
,
Vocation
,
&c.
do
make
an
inherent
change
,
not
the
acts
.
If
he
tell
me
,
the
words
are
never
used
in
Scripture
,
but
as
importing
such
a
change
;
I
answer
still
as
he
doth
of
Justification
,
that
the
words
,
where-ever
they
are
to
be
found
in
Scripture
,
are
to
be
understood
of
the
effects
,
not
of
the
act
.
If
he
yet
say
,
that
it
is
contrary
to
all
our
Protestant
Divines
,
I
say
so
too
.
Et
nomine
mutato
narratur
fabula
de
te
.
Thus
much
for
the
vindication
of
the
foure
objections
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
proposeth
against
himselfe
.
He
concludes
this
discourse
thus
.
SECT.
VIII
.
HOwever
,
were
it
granted
,
that
there
was
in
God
from
everlasting
,
Answ.
Such
a
purpose
I
acknowledge
in
God
,
to
justifie
his
Elect
,
when
they
should
beleeve
,
and
being
justified
,
not
to
deal
with
them
as
sinners
but
as
with
righteous
persons
;
yet
so
,
as
that
they
are
equally
with
others
obliged
by
the
Law
to
punishment
,
till
they
do
beleeve
,
and
subject
actually
to
the
bearing
of
the
temporal
penalties
of
sin
.
If
this
will
satisfie
Mr.
Eyre
,
let
him
make
his
most
of
it
.
But
let
us
see
how
it
ends
the
controversie
.
First
,
(
saith
he
)
Gods
non-imputation
of
sin
to
his
Elect
,
is
not
purely
negative
,
but
privative
,
being
the
non-imputation
of
sin
realiter
futuri
in
esse
:
as
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
is
Justitiae
realiter
futurae
in
existentia
.
2.
This
non-imputation
of
sin
is
actual
,
though
the
●●n
not
to
be
imputed
be
not
in
actual
being
.
So
is
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
.
3.
This
act
of
justifying
is
compleat
in
it selfe
.
Answ.
If
the
begging
of
the
question
be
the
ending
of
a
controversie
,
we
have
done
.
It
is
here
supposed
,
that
the
aforesaid
Purpose
of
God
is
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
and
the
non-imputation
of
sin
:
which
should
have
been
proved
,
and
not
begged
.
And
therefore
the
foundation
failing
,
there
needs
no
more
to
be
done
to
demolish
the
superstructure
;
yet
a
word
or
two
of
that
also
:
2.
I
say
therefore
,
that
an
eternal
,
actual
,
privative
non-imputation
of
future
sin
,
is
either
non-sense
,
or
a
contradiction
,
(
let
Mr.
Eyre
take
his
choice
,
and
consider
withal
,
what
he
is
like
to
make
of
Justification
at
last
)
for
that
which
is
only
future
,
can
be
deprived
of
nothing
but
its
futurity
:
and
if
it
be
ab
aeter●o
deprived
of
its
futurity
,
then
it
is
ab
aeterno
non
futurum
:
and
if
ab
aeterno
non
futurum
,
then
it
is
ab
aeterno
undepriveable
of
its
futurity
:
for
that
which
is
never
future
,
is
never
capable
of
being
made
non-future
,
unlesse
we
could
in
eternity
conc●●e
one
moment
wherein
it
is
made
future
,
and
another
moment
wherein
it
is
made
non-future
:
which
cannot
be
,
because
in
eternity
there
is
neither
prius
nor
posterius
.
Now
this
privative
non-imputation
of
future
sin
,
what
doth
it
privare
?
Not
the
futurity
of
sin
:
for
then
there
never
was
nor
shall
be
any
such
thing
as
sin
in
the
world
:
for
nothing
exists
in
time
,
which
before
its
existence
was
not
future
.
That
then
which
this
non-imputation
is
privative
of
,
must
be
the
imputation
of
sin
to
a
person
,
cui
debitum
est
imputari
.
(
for
that
is
the
habit
which
only
is
contrary
to
it
)
:
for
as
the
privative
non-imputation
of
sin
present
,
and
in
actual
being
is
privative
only
imputationis
nunc
debitae
;
so
the
like
non-imputation
of
sin
future
,
is
privative
only
imputationis
futurae
debitae
.
The
Argument
therefore
returnes
:
for
if
this
imputation
be
ab
aeterno
non-futura
,
then
is
it
ab
aeterno
undeprivable
of
its
futurity
:
for
nothing
but
that
which
is
future
can
be
deprived
of
its
futurity
:
and
if
it
be
future
ab
aeterno
,
then
it
cannot
be
made
ab
aeterno
non-future
:
for
to
be
future
and
non-future
ab
aeterno
is
a
contradiction
.
3.
But
if
Mr.
Eyre
,
by
his
privative
non-imputation
,
mean
no
more
then
a
positive
act
,
by
which
that
punishment
is
kept
off
,
which
is
,
or
will
become
due
to
a
sinner
,
I
answer
farther
.
That
the
very
essence
of
the
pardon
of
sin
,
consists
in
making
that
punishment
undue
which
before
was
due
,
and
consequently
,
in
freeing
the
sinner
from
all
actual
suffering
for
sin
,
(
for
the
remission
of
sin
is
opposed
to
the
retaining
of
it
,
John
20.
23.
)
or
else
in
preventing
,
that
that
punishment
shall
never
become
due
,
which
otherwise
would
be
due
.
If
in
the
former
sense
sin
be
pardoned
from
eternity
,
(
for
non-imputation
and
pardon
are
all
one
,
both
in
Mr.
Eyres
sense
,
and
of
the
Scriptures
,
Rom.
4.
7
,
8.
)
then
cannot
punishment
become
due
in
time
:
but
it
is
from
eternity
,
non
futurum
debitum
,
even
as
the
pardon
of
sin
present
and
actually
committed
,
makes
that
punishment
remaines
no
longer
due
to
a
person
,
which
till
then
was
due
.
And
if
it
be
from
eternity
a
non-futurum
debitum
▪
then
neither
can
it
be
pardoned
from
eternity
,
(
pardon
being
essentially
a
discharge
from
punishment
,
due
actually
,
or
in
futurition
)
nor
if
it
could
,
can
that
pardon
be
an
act
of
grace
:
because
it
is
no
grace
to
pardon
him
,
who
neither
is
,
nor
never
will
or
can
be
punishable
.
Yet
here
,
Reader
,
distinguish
of
the
duenesse
of
punishment
:
which
may
arise
,
either
from
the
nature
of
sin
in
it self
:
and
in
this
sense
it
is
impossible
that
sin
should
be
pardoned
,
either
from
eternity
or
in
time
;
because
it
is
impossible
,
but
that
sin
should
be
in
it selfe
punishable
,
or
worthy
of
punishment
:
even
as
on
the
contrary
,
vertue
is
in
it self
essentially
laudable
or
rewardable
:
Or
it
may
be
the
act
of
God
by
his
Law
,
making
punishment
due
to
the
sinner
,
or
obliging
the
sinner
unto
punishment
for
his
sin
,
and
in
this
sense
only
is
it
pardonable
:
and
if
it
be
actually
pardoned
from
eternity
,
then
is
punishment
made
from
eternity
non
debita
,
which
,
as
I
said
before
,
destroys
both
the
substance
and
grace
of
pardon
:
let
us
see
if
we
can
clear
it
by
Mr.
Eyres
comparison
.
This
Will
of
God
(
saith
he
)
is
like
the
will
of
a
man
,
not
to
require
that
debt
,
that
shall
,
or
is
about
to
be
contracted
.
Come
on
then
.
Titius
knows
,
that
Caius
will
be
indebted
to
him
:
and
his
purpose
is
before-hand
not
to
require
this
debt
.
I
ask
,
Is
this
purpose
the
pardon
of
the
debt
or
no
?
if
not
,
the
cause
is
yielded
;
if
it
be
,
we
will
suppose
that
Titius
makes
this
purpose
within
himself
in
the
moment
A
:
the
debt
will
be
contracted
in
the
moment
C.
All
the
space
of
time
that
is
between
A
and
C
,
the
debt
is
not
actually
a
debt
,
but
only
future
.
If
then
this
future
debt
be
forgiven
in
the
moment
A
,
then
from
thenceforth
it
ceaseth
to
be
future
,
and
so
cannot
exist
in
the
moment
C
,
because
for
a
debt
to
be
forgiven
,
is
to
be
made
no
debt
:
if
it
be
forgiven
at
present
,
it
is
none
at
present
;
if
it
be
forgiven
for
the
future
,
it
is
not
in
futurition
to
be
a
debt
.
4.
I
will
only
adde
this
.
That
according
to
Mr.
Eyres
own
principles
,
punishment
doth
never
become
due
to
the
Elect
,
so
as
that
they
stand
obliged
before
God
,
to
suffer
for
any
of
their
sins
:
for
that
which
in
the
protas●s
of
the
similitude
,
is
a
debt
between
man
and
man
,
is
a
sinners
obligation
to
punishment
in
the
reddition
.
Now
Mr.
Eyre
denies
,
that
an
elect
sinner
is
at
any
time
unjust
simply
and
absolutely
,
but
only
in
a
diminutive
sense
:
that
is
unjust
by
nature
,
or
of
himself
(
but
positively
just
by
grace
at
the
same
time
)
which
is
but
the
carcasse
of
unrighteousnesse
,
making
the
sinner
unrighteous
,
no
otherwise
then
as
it
were
materially
,
he
doing
that
which
on
his
part
is
sufficient
to
oblige
him
to
condemnation
:
but
he
is
never
formally
unjust
,
because
the
grace
of
his
Judge
prevents
his
actual
obligation
.
Erg●
,
he
doth
never
stand
actually
obliged
to
the
suffering
of
punishment
,
nor
is
ever
actually
and
formally
indebted
.
And
whose
debt
then
it
was
that
Christ
paid
,
or
what
debts
they
are
which
we
are
to
pray
for
forgivenesse
of
,
Matth.
6.
12.
I
must
confesse
I
cannot
tell
;
which
is
all
I
shall
need
to
speak
of
that
second
sense
,
in
which
some
may
take
the
pardon
of
sin
.
Nor
will
I
adde
any
more
animadversions
upon
these
passages
(
though
I
had
once
intended
it
)
because
some
have
been
mentioned
already
before
,
and
others
we
must
make
use
of
in
that
which
follows
SECT.
IX
.
SO
much
for
Mr.
Eyres
first
Proposition
:
upon
which
I
have
been
If
Justification
be
taken
not
for
the
Will
of
God
,
but
for
the
thing
willed
,
to
wit
,
our
discharge
from
the
Law
,
and
deliverance
from
Punishment
;
so
it
hath
for
its
adequate
cause
and
principle
,
the
death
and
satisfaction
of
Jesus
Christ
.
Answ.
The
substance
of
this
Proposition
I
could
gladly
close
with
▪
but
something
is
first
necessary
to
be
animadverted
.
1.
Whereas
Mr.
Eyre
here
makes
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
the
adequate
,
and
(
as
in
his
Explication
he
tells
us
often
)
the
immediate
cause
of
our
Justification
:
if
by
adequate
and
immediate
he
mean
only
in
genere
causae
meritoriae
,
I
consent
,
because
there
is
no
other
meritorious
cause
that
comes
between
the
death
of
Christ
and
our
Justification
.
But
if
he
mean
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
is
simply
the
adequate
and
immediate
cause
,
then
I
deny
it
:
because
the
act
of
God
as
Justifier
,
comes
between
the
death
of
Christ
and
our
Justification
,
Rom.
3.
25.
26
▪
Whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
,
—
that
he
might
be
just
,
and
the
Justifier
of
him
that
believeth
on
Jesus
.
And
the
Lord
Jesus
himselfe
also
,
as
Lord
of
soules
,
and
having
all
judgement
committed
to
him
by
the
Father
,
joynes
in
putting
forth
the
same
act
of
Justification
,
which
was
merited
in
his
blood
,
as
we
before
observed
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
hath
been
disputing
hitherto
,
that
Gods
Will
not
to
punish
is
our
Justification
:
That
by
which
we
are
secured
from
wrath
,
discharged
and
acquitted
from
all
sin
and
wrath
:
yea
,
that
it
was
a
real
discharge
from
condemnation
:
an
actual
and
compleat
non-imputation
of
sin
.
But
now
he
tells
us
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
is
the
adequate
and
immediate
cause
of
our
discharge
from
the
Law
,
and
freedome
from
punishment
.
I
think
(
for
my
part
)
it
is
beyond
mans
ability
to
invent
or
utter
more
palpable
contradictions
.
To
be
secured
from
wrath
,
and
not
secured
:
acquitted
,
and
not
acquitted
:
discharged
and
not
discharged
:
what
can
be
more
contradictorious
?
or
who
can
conceive
what
is
that
security
,
discharge
and
acquittance
from
all
sin
,
wrath
,
punishment
,
condemnation
,
which
yet
leaves
a
man
under
the
power
of
a
condemning
Law
,
and
without
freedome
from
punishment
,
till
Christ
buy
it
with
the
price
of
his
blood
?
3.
Our
discharge
from
the
Law
,
and
freedome
from
punishment
may
be
understood
,
either
de
jure
,
in
taking
off
our
obligation
unto
punishment
;
(
and
this
cannot
be
the
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
;
for
Mr.
Eyre
doth
over
and
over
deny
that
the
Elect
did
ever
stand
obliged
by
the
judgement
of
God
,
to
the
suffering
of
punishment
,
as
the
Reader
shall
largely
see
below
in
the
debate
of
John
3.
18.
and
Eph.
2.
3.
)
or
it
may
be
understood
de
facto
,
in
the
real
and
actual
removal
of
all
kindes
and
degrees
of
punishment
:
but
neither
can
this
be
the
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
by
it self
,
or
with
the
former
.
The
Purpose
of
Gods
Will
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
,
chap.
10.
§.
10.
pag.
108.
)
secures
the
person
sufficiently
,
and
makes
the
Law
of
condemnation
to
be
of
no
force
,
in
regard
of
the
real
execution
of
it
.
So
that
what
is
left
for
the
death
of
Christ
to
do
,
I
must
professe
I
cannot
imagine
;
seeing
the
act
of
our
Justification
,
and
our
disobligation
from
wrath
,
and
our
real
impunity
do
all
exist
by
vertue
of
another
cause
.
But
for
further
confirmation
of
this
Proposition
,
Mr.
Eyre
refers
us
to
chap.
14.
where
we
shall
wait
upon
him
,
and
say
no
more
to
it
till
we
come
thither
:
His
third
Proposition
is
this
.
Justification
is
taken
for
the
declared
sentence
of
absolution
and
and
thus
God
is
said
to
justifie
men
,
when
he
reveales
and
makes
known
to
them
his
grace
and
kindnesse
within
himselfe
.
Answ.
Understand
(
Reader
)
that
when
we
say
,
Justification
is
a
declared
sentence
of
absolution
,
it
is
not
meant
of
a
private
manifestation
made
to
a
particular
person
that
himself
is
justified
or
pardoned
:
but
of
that
publike
declared
Law
of
faith
,
namely
,
the
Gospel
it self
,
which
is
to
be
preached
to
every
creature
under
heaven
,
He
that
believeth
shall
not
perish
,
but
shall
have
everlasting
life
.
By
which
Promise
,
whosoever
believeth
,
shall
receive
remission
of
sin
.
2.
I
wonder
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
give
us
throughout
his
whole
book
,
so
much
as
one
text
,
wherein
Justification
must
signifie
a
manifestation
or
declaration
made
to
a
person
that
he
is
justified
:
and
yet
tell
us
here
that
Justification
is
so
taken
.
If
he
mean
,
it
is
so
taken
in
Gods
language
,
let
him
shew
where
:
if
in
mans
,
I
will
not
dispute
with
him
how
men
take
it
.
And
as
to
that
text
,
Gen.
41.
13.
me
he
restored
,
but
him
he
hanged
,
(
which
Mr.
Eyre
doth
here
instance
in
,
to
prove
that
things
in
Scripture
are
said
to
be
,
when
they
are
only
manifested
)
if
he
had
consulted
Junius
,
he
would
have
told
him
,
that
the
word
(
He
)
relates
not
to
Joseph
,
but
to
Pharaoh
.
Me
Pharaoh
restored
,
but
him
(
that
is
,
the
Baker
)
he
hanged
.
The
following
part
of
this
Chapter
is
spent
in
a
discourse
concerning
The
seed
of
the
woman
shall
break
the
S●rpents
head
.
2.
That
Gods
giving
of
Christ
to
the
death
for
our
sins
,
and
his
raising
of
him
up
for
our
Justification
,
doth
manifest
yet
more
of
the
same
purpose
▪
3.
That
baptisme
,
sealing
to
a
believer
,
(
in
act
or
habit
)
the
remission
of
sins
past
,
and
entring
him
into
a
state
of
remission
for
the
future
,
doth
also
further
declare
something
of
the
same
purpose
.
4.
That
the
same
purpose
of
God
is
sometime
or
other
in
some
measure
manifested
,
to
most
true
Christians
by
the
work
of
the
Spirit
.
But
whether
every
true
Christian
hath
a
full
assurance
of
this
purpose
of
God
towards
himselfe
:
or
any
,
immediately
upon
their
first
believing
(
at
least
in
these
dayes
)
I
am
in
doubt
.
5.
And
that
our
Justification
in
the
great
day
of
judgement
,
doth
most
fully
,
perfectly
and
finally
declare
the
same
purpose
,
as
being
the
most
perfect
,
compleat
and
formal
justification
of
all
.
And
so
much
for
a
discovery
of
the
genius
and
issues
of
Mr.
Eyres
doctrine
:
I
come
next
to
a
vindicaiton
of
my
own
.
CHAP.
III.
My
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
fifth
Chapter
.
His
exceptions
against
the
beginning
and
ending
of
my
Sermon
answered
,
Rom.
5.
1.
vindicated
.
And
the
Antecedency
of
faith
to
Justification
proved
,
from
Gal.
2.
16.
and
Rom.
8.
30.
and
Rom.
4.
24.
and
other
places
of
Scripture
.
SECT.
I.
FOr
proof
of
our
Justification
by
faith
,
(
the
doctrine
That
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
i.
e.
that
we
are
not
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
before
we
beleeve
;
and
that
faith
is
the
condition
on
our
part
,
to
qualifie
us
for
Justification
:
which
is
a
mistake
I
intend
to
live
and
die
in
by
the
grace
of
God
.
The
Apostle
tells
us
himself
,
that
his
scope
is
to
prove
,
that
both
Jewes
and
Gentiles
are
all
under
sin
,
Rom.
3.
9.
and
that
by
the
deeds
of
the
Law
,
neither
Jew
nor
Gentile
shall
be
justified
in
Gods
sight
,
ver.
20.
that
so
he
may
conclude
Justification
by
faith
,
ver.
28.
and
if
this
be
not
to
prove
that
men
are
unjustified
but
by
faith
,
I
know
not
what
is
.
And
that
faith
here
is
to
be
taken
properly
,
we
prove
at
large
below
.
If
this
be
not
the
Apostles
scope
,
what
is
?
Why
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
to
shew
that
we
are
justified
,
not
by
works
or
righteousnesse
in
us
,
but
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
freely
imputed
to
us
:
which
we
apprehend
and
apply
by
faith
.
Very
good
:
and
this
is
as
much
as
I
stand
for
:
namely
,
that
we
are
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
apprehended
by
faith
.
But
know
(
Reader
)
that
when
we
speak
of
apprehending
Christs
righteousnesse
,
we
mean
not
an
intellectual
apprehension
,
when
a
man
comes
to
discern
and
know
that
he
is
justified
,
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
doth
)
but
the
right
and
interest
which
is
given
us
by
the
Promise
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
when
we
believe
.
And
in
this
sense
are
our
Protestants
to
be
understood
,
when
they
say
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
apprehended
by
faith
.
Therefore
when
[
a
](A96867-e20900-b)
a
De
instit
.
lib.
1.
cap.
16.
pag.
992.
in
80.
Bellarmine
denies
,
that
it
is
the
office
or
property
of
faith
to
apprehend
:
our
Protestants
reject
him
as
a
Quibler
.
[
b
](A96867-e20930-b)
b
Ames
Bill
.
ener
.
page
314.
in
12●
.
Non
enim
ignoravit
Bellarminus
longè
aliud
intelligere
per
apprehensionem
,
quàm
speculationem
intellectus
.
Rectè
Contarenus
.
Accipimus
Justificationem
per
fidem
,
Gal.
3.
14.
Hanc
acceptionem
Thomas
appellat
applicationem
.
Protestantes
appellant
apprehensionem
:
non
eâ
significatione
quae
pertinet
ad
cognitionem
intellectus
;
sed
quâ
illud
dicimur
apprehender
quo
pervenimus
,
&
quod
post
motum
nostrum
attingimus
.
This
I
thought
good
here
to
observe
once
for
all
,
that
the
Reader
may
not
be
deceived
with
the
ambignity
of
the
word
apprehend
,
but
might
know
the
different
use
of
it
in
our
Protestants
writings
,
and
Mr.
Eyres
.
The
mistake
in
my
Conclusion
was
,
that
I
told
unbelievers
,
that
Davenant
,
Cameron
,
Testardus
,
Crocius
,
Amyraldus
and
others
,
when
in
the
words
following
he
yields
the
main
foundations
of
their
judgements
in
this
point
;
namely
,
when
he
sayes
,
Our
duty
is
to
exhort
all
men
every
where
to
believe
in
Christ
:
we
were
as
good
bid
the
devils
to
believe
,
as
those
for
whom
Christ
is
not
a
High-Priest
.
I
inferre
,
Ergo
,
Christ
died
for
all
men
,
(
though
I
say
not
for
all
equally
)
or
else
we
were
as
good
preach
the
Gospel
to
divels
as
to
men
.
But
let
that
passe
.
After
Mr.
Eyre
hath
leaped
from
one
end
of
my
Sermon
to
the
other
,
he
comes
to
the
middle
,
which
indeed
doth
most
concern
him
.
And
whether
he
hath
convinced
me
of
errour
in
that
also
,
is
our
next
enquiry
.
And
first
,
he
considers
that
place
,
(
which
was
then
my
text
)
Rom.
5.
1.
Therefore
being
justified
by
faith
,
we
have
peace
with
God
through
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
His
answer
is
double
.
First
,
(
saith
he
)
we
may
,
without
any
violence
to
the
text
,
place
the
comma
after
justified
:
as
thus
,
Being
justified
,
by
faith
we
have
peace
with
God
.
Reply
.
And
yet
gives
us
no
intelligence
of
any
one
copy
,
former
or
[
c
](A96867-e21170-b)
c
Lib.
5.
advers.
Marcion
.
c.
13.
Si
in
eum
competit
pax
cum
quo
suit
belsum
ei
&
justificabimur
:
&
ejus
e●i●
Christus
,
ex
cujus
fide
justificabimur
.
Tertullian
,
[
d
](A96867-e21200-b)
d
Trans
.
lat.
cdit
.
Loud
.
1636.
Justificati
ergo
ex
side
,
pacem
habeamus
Et
Ex●os
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
Theophylact
,
[
e
](A96867-e21250-b)
e
Edit.
Henr.
Savill
.
&
Fronto
.
Duc.
Paris
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
Chrysostome
,
[
f
](A96867-e21290-b)
f
In
loc.
Origen
,
and
our
Protestant
Commentatours
,
both
Lutherans
and
Calvinists
,
agree
with
our
Translation
.
And
if
Mr.
Eyre
will
be
just
,
and
allow
the
same
liberty
to
others
,
which
he
takes
himself
,
as
small
a
matter
as
a
comma
is
,
the
mis-placing
it
may
unravel
a
whole
texture
of
Scripture
.
The
Psycopanycists
and
some
Papists
,
when
they
are
urged
with
the
words
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
To
day
shalt
thou
be
with
me
in
Paradise
,
elude
the
place
,
by
putting
the
comma
after
day
;
and
so
reade
the
words
thus
,
[
g
](A96867-e21340-b)
g
Vid.
Hag.
Grot.
Annot.
in
Luc.
23
43.
Verily
I
say
unto
thee
this
day
,
Thou
shalt
be
with
me
in
Paradise
.
2.
I
accept
of
Mr.
Eyres
observation
,
that
the
illative
particle
therefore
,
shews
,
that
this
place
is
a
corollary
or
deduction
from
the
words
foregoing
;
and
that
the
Apostles
scope
in
the
whole
chapter
foregoing
,
is
to
prove
,
that
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
is
more
plain
then
to
need
proof
.
So
that
these
words
are
the
Conclusion
of
the
former
dispute
,
issuing
into
this
doctrine
,
That
we
are
justified
by
faith
.
The
uses
whereof
the
Apostle
immediately
subjoynes
.
But
this
way
not
taking
,
Mr.
Eyre
is
provided
of
another
,
which
is
this
.
If
(
saith
he
)
we
take
the
words
,
as
commonly
they
are
read
;
the
sense
comes
all
to
one
,
s●il
.
That
being
justified
by
Christ
,
we
have
peace
with
God
:
who
by
the
faith
he
creates
in
us
,
causeth
us
to
enjoy
this
reconciliation
.
Rep.
This
is
somewhat
worse
then
the
former
.
The
Apostle
saith
,
Being
justified
by
faith
,
we
have
peace
with
God
,
through
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
Mr.
Eyre
,
to
turne
out
faith
from
its
office
in
Justification
,
will
have
the
words
read
by
transposition
,
Being
justified
by
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
we
have
peace
with
God
through
faith
:
Or
the
word
faith
in
the
beginning
of
the
verse
,
must
signifie
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
;
and
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
in
the
latter
part
of
the
verse
must
be
put
for
faith
:
which
,
as
it
is
an
intolerable
liberty
of
interpreting
Scriptures
,
so
is
it
without
all
precedent
in
Scripture
,
which
is
neither
wont
to
put
faith
for
Christ
,
nor
Christ
for
faith
,
(
though
both
are
often
included
,
where
but
one
is
mentioned
)
.
Some
(
I
know
)
do
fasten
such
a
sense
on
a
text
or
two
,
but
without
any
necessity
or
compulsory
reason
.
SECT.
II.
THe
next
place
is
Gal.
2.
16.
We
have
believed
in
Jesus
Christ
,
that
we
may
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
,
and
not
by
the
works
of
the
Law
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
That
this
doth
no
more
infer
that
we
are
not
justified
before
we
believe
,
then
that
of
our
Saviour
,
Matth.
5.
44
,
45.
Love
your
enemies
,
&c.
—
that
you
may
be
the
children
of
your
Father
in
Heaven
,
infers
,
That
works
do
go
before
Adoption
.
Things
in
Scripture
are
then
said
to
be
,
when
they
are
known
,
manifested
,
and
declared
to
be
,
Rom.
3.
26.
That
he
might
be
just
,
i.
e.
that
he
might
be
known
and
acknowledged
to
be
just
.
So
John
15.
8.
and
13.
35
,
&c.
So
here
,
That
we
might
be
justified
,
is
,
that
we
might
know
that
we
are
justified
.
Not
the
being
of
our
Justification
,
but
the
knowledge
and
feeling
of
it
is
a
consequent
of
faith
.
Rep.
1.
I
would
never
desire
that
any
Argument
of
mine
should
conclude
more
firmely
,
then
that
text
,
Mat.
5.
will
infer
,
that
none
are
the
children
of
God
in
the
sense
there
meant
,
before
they
love
their
enemies
,
and
performe
the
other
duties
there
enjoyned
:
for
it
is
manifest
the
Lord
there
speaks
of
becoming
the
children
of
God
,
not
by
adoption
,
but
by
similitude
of
manners
.
Reader
,
see
ver.
46
,
47
,
48.
and
give
judgement
impartially
.
Now
in
this
way
it
is
impossible
to
be
a
childe
of
God
,
till
these
things
be
done
,
and
therefore
that
part
of
the
answer
strengthens
my
Argument
.
2.
To
Rom.
3.
26.
where
God
is
said
to
have
set
forth
his
Son
,
&c.
—
that
he
might
be
just
;
I
answer
,
that
there
is
no
necessity
of
understanding
the
word
just
,
of
being
known
and
acknowledged
to
be
just
:
for
it
will
be
a
kinde
of
tautologie
.
To
declare
,
I
say
,
at
this
time
his
righteousnesse
,
That
he
may
be
declared
to
be
righteous
.
Nor
yet
will
it
follow
,
that
God
was
not
just
before
;
but
that
he
had
not
been
just
now
,
if
Christ
had
not
suffered
for
sinners
.
But
if
by
the
word
just
,
be
meant
,
declared
to
be
just
,
it
will
not
reach
our
case
.
We
seek
such
a
sense
of
the
word
Justification
,
when
God
is
the
justifier
,
and
man
the
object
,
(
which
throughout
all
Mr.
Eyres
book
is
a
non-inventus
;
)
when
man
is
the
justifier
,
and
God
the
object
,
such
a
sense
is
necessary
:
because
God
is
capable
of
no
other
Justification
from
man
,
as
man
is
from
God
.
3.
As
to
the
thing
it self
,
I
acknowledge
it
readily
,
That
things
are
many
times
said
to
be
in
Scripture
,
when
they
are
only
manifested
and
declared
to
be
;
but
such
an
interpretation
is
seldom
warrantable
,
unlesse
the
subject-matter
invite
to
it
,
as
in
John
15.
and
13.
where
the
Lord
speaking
to
those
that
were
already
disciples
,
that
if
they
brought
forth
much
fruit
,
they
should
be
his
disciples
;
it
is
most
natural
to
understand
it
of
being
manifested
,
or
of
continuing
his
disciples
.
But
we
may
not
therefore
interpret
Justification
by
faith
,
of
a
manifestation
or
declaration
that
we
are
justified
:
not
only
because
the
texts
wherein
that
phrase
is
used
,
suppose
no
Justification
before
it
;
but
also
,
1.
Because
other
Scriptures
deny
them
that
beleeve
not
,
to
be
justified
,
John
3.
18.
Rom.
3.
19
,
22
,
23
,
24.
1
Cor.
6.
9
,
11.
Eph.
2.
3.
and
other
places
.
And
2.
Because
when
to
be
in
Scripture
,
signifies
to
be
manifested
or
declared
,
it
is
understood
perpetually
of
an
external
publike
manifestation
or
declaration
to
many
;
not
of
an
internal
,
spiritual
,
private
discovery
to
the
soule
or
conscience
of
a
particular
person
:
for
proof
of
which
,
I
desire
no
other
witnesse
then
these
very
texts
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
hath
here
mentioned
,
supposing
them
all
to
be
understood
as
he
would
have
them
.
Our
love
to
our
enemies
declares
us
to
be
the
children
of
God
:
our
bringing
forth
much
fruit
,
declares
us
to
be
the
disciples
of
Christ
,
both
publikely
and
in
the
sight
of
many
witnesses
:
God
is
declared
to
be
just
,
still
publikely
,
and
in
the
judgement
of
many
:
yea
,
of
all
,
good
or
bad
,
men
or
devils
.
But
this
sense
will
by
no
meanes
fit
Mr.
Eyres
turne
,
for
he
contends
for
no
more
then
,
that
Justification
is
manifested
upon
faith
,
to
the
believers
own
conscience
:
nor
do
I
think
he
will
so
much
as
pretend
,
that
he
that
believes
,
is
by
his
faith
publikely
declared
to
the
world
to
be
a
justified
person
.
So
that
neither
can
Justification
by
faith
be
allowed
,
to
be
understood
of
a
declarative
Justification
;
nor
if
it
might
,
could
it
yet
at
all
gratifie
his
design
.
Of
all
places
it
cannot
have
that
sense
in
this
text
.
1.
Because
Knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
but
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
:
even
we
have
believed
in
Jesus
Christ
,
that
we
may
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
,
and
not
by
the
works
of
the
Law
:
for
by
the
works
of
the
Law
shall
no
flesh
be
justified
.
But
it
is
most
certain
,
and
Mr.
Eyre
confesseth
it
roundly
,
that
works
do
manifest
and
declare
our
Justification
,
page
79
,
80.
Ergo
,
by
Justification
here
,
is
not
meant
the
declaration
or
manifestation
that
a
person
is
justified
.
2.
Justification
in
regard
of
its
common
nature
is
the
same
,
whether
it
be
by
faith
or
works
:
namely
,
as
it
signifies
a
constituting
of
us
just
before
God
;
for
Christians
attain
that
righteousnesse
by
faith
,
which
the
Jewes
sought
after
by
works
:
as
the
Apostle
doth
more
largely
expresse
it
,
Rom.
9.
31
,
32.
Israel
which
followed
after
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
have
not
attained
to
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
:
Wherefore
?
because
they
sought
it
not
by
faith
,
but
as
it
were
by
the
works
of
the
Law
.
Ergo
,
Justification
,
when
ascribed
to
faith
,
must
be
taken
in
the
same
sense
,
as
when
it
is
denied
to
works
.
But
the
Jewes
by
their
works
sought
to
be
justified
before
God
,
and
not
simply
,
that
it
should
be
manifested
to
them
,
that
they
were
justified
before
their
works
were
wrought
:
for
they
sought
to
be
justified
by
works
,
as
the
matter
for
which
they
should
be
justified
.
And
therefore
when
the
Apostle
opposeth
himself
directly
to
their
principle
,
it
is
in
these
words
.
By
the
deeds
of
the
Law
shall
no
flesh
living
be
justified
;
that
is
,
in
the
sight
of
God
:
as
it
is
expressed
by
the
Psalmist
,
Psal.
143.
2.
and
by
this
Apostle
in
this
Argument
,
Rom.
3.
20
,
21.
Gal.
3.
11.
Ergo
,
to
be
justified
by
faith
in
this
place
,
is
not
simply
to
be
assured
of
a
mans
Justification
,
but
to
be
justified
before
God
.
3.
And
because
Mr.
Eyre
doth
use
to
oppose
Justification
by
faith
,
to
Justification
by
Christ
;
I
desire
him
to
consider
,
that
Justification
by
faith
,
is
here
the
very
same
with
Justification
by
Christ
;
for
after
he
had
said
,
ver.
16.
We
have
beleeved
in
Christ
,
that
we
may
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
,
he
addes
,
ver.
17.
but
if
while
we
seek
to
be
justified
by
Christ
.
But
to
be
justified
by
Christ
,
is
not
meerly
to
have
it
by
Christ
declared
that
we
are
justified
.
This
is
not
only
a
concession
,
but
a
main
principle
of
Mr.
Eyres
.
Ergo
,
to
be
justified
by
faith
here
,
is
not
simply
to
have
the
knowledge
of
our
Justification
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
hath
another
answer
,
a
very
strange
one
,
and
that
In
the
text
it
is
,
We
have
believed
,
that
we
might
be
justified
by
faith
:
so
that
from
hence
it
can
be
inferred
only
,
that
we
are
not
justified
by
faith
before
believing
.
Rep.
As
if
the
question
between
the
Jewes
and
the
Apostle
were
not
,
whether
a
man
be
justified
simply
by
faith
,
or
works
?
But
whether
a
man
were
justified
by
faith
,
by
faith
or
works
?
and
the
Apostles
answer
is
to
this
effect
;
That
indeed
if
you
speak
of
Justification
by
faith
,
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
and
not
by
works
.
He
that
hath
nothing
else
to
do
,
may
exercise
his
wits
farther
upon
this
acumen
,
if
he
please
.
If
Mr.
Eyre
mean
no
more
,
then
that
we
are
not
justified
in
conscience
before
we
believe
,
(
as
the
latter
words
of
his
answer
seem
to
import
)
then
is
this
second
answer
a
meer
tautologie
,
as
being
the
very
same
with
the
former
.
SECT.
III.
THe
next
Scripture
alleged
is
,
Rom.
8.
30.
Wh●m
he
predestinated
,
them
he
also
called
:
and
whom
he
called
,
them
he
also
justified
:
and
whom
he
justified
,
them
he
also
glorified
.
From
whence
it
is
manifest
,
that
as
glory
follows
Justification
,
so
doth
Justification
follow
vocation
unto
faith
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
That
the
order
of
words
in
Scripture
,
doth
not
shew
the
order
and
dependance
of
the
things
themselves
,
1
Sam.
6.
14
,
15.
2
Tim.
1.
9.
2.
The
Apostles
scope
here
,
is
not
to
shew
in
what
order
these
benefits
are
bestowed
upon
us
;
but
how
inseparably
they
are
linked
to
our
predestination
.
3.
The
Apostle
here
speaks
of
Justification
,
as
it
is
declared
and
terminated
in
our
consciences
.
Rep.
Mr.
Eyre
is
the
first
of
all
Authors
,
that
ever
I
met
with
,
or
heard
of
,
ancient
or
moderne
,
Papist
or
Protestant
,
Remonstrant
or
Contra-Remonstrant
,
that
ever
denied
the
Apostles
scope
in
this
place
,
to
be
principally
to
shew
the
order
in
which
the
benefits
mentioned
are
bestowed
upon
us
.
And
though
I
will
not
build
my
faith
on
humane
authority
;
yet
neither
do
I
account
it
●ngenuous
to
desert
the
sense
of
all
men
gratis
,
without
pretending
at
least
some
reason
for
my
singularity
:
but
to
the
matter
.
I
acknowledge
,
that
the
Scriptures
in
relating
matters
of
fact
,
do
frequently
use
a
Hysteron
pr●teron
,
reporting
those
things
first
,
which
it
may
be
were
acted
last
,
or
è
c●ntra
,
as
in
1
Sam.
6.
14
,
15.
Also
that
in
a
copulate
axiome
,
where
many
things
are
attributed
to
one
subject
,
the
order
many
times
is
not
attended
,
but
the
connexion
only
:
as
if
I
should
say
of
God
,
(
as
the
Apostle
doth
of
the
Law
)
that
he
is
holy
,
and
just
and
good
:
or
the
latter
is
exegetical
of
the
former
:
as
in
that
of
the
Apostle
,
2
Tim.
1.
9.
He
hath
saved
us
,
and
called
us
.
But
2.
I
do
utterly
deny
,
that
such
manner
of
speech
as
is
here
used
(
Rhetoricians
call
it
climax
or
a
gradation
)
where
several
Propositions
are
linked
together
,
the
predicate
of
each
former
being
the
subject
of
the
latter
,
is
any
where
else
to
be
found
,
but
where
the
Speakers
Purpose
is
to
declare
,
not
only
the
connexion
,
but
specially
the
order
of
the
things
themselves
.
[
h
](A96867-e22250-b)
h
Vid.
V●ss●um
.
instit
.
orat
.
lib.
5
cap.
8.
&
And.
Tal●um
.
Rhetor
.
●x
P.
R.
cap.
●1
.
Examples
hereof
,
out
of
Poets
,
Oratours
,
(
Greek
and
Latine
)
and
Ecclesiastical
Writers
;
the
Reader
may
see
in
almost
every
Rhetorician
.
Ovid.
Mars
videt
hanc
,
visámque
cupit
,
potitúrque
cupitâ
.
Cicero
.
In
urbe
luxuries
creatur
:
ex
luxuri●
existat
avaritia
necesse
est
:
ex
avaritiâ
●rumpat
audscia
,
&c.
But
let
the
Scriptures
determine
it
,
Rom.
5.
3
,
4
,
5.
Affliction
worketh
patience
,
and
patience
experience
,
and
experience
hope
,
and
hope
maketh
not
ashamed
:
that
is
,
(
for
the
words
are
a
Meiosis
)
giveth
boldnesse
and
joy
,
which
is
the
thing
the
Apostle
is
proving
;
ver.
3.
so
Rom.
10.
14
,
15.
(
where
the
order
is
retrograde
)
How
can
they
call
on
him
,
on
whom
they
have
not
believed
?
how
can
they
believe
on
him
,
of
whom
they
have
not
heard
?
how
can
they
heare
without
a
Preacher
?
how
can
they
preach
,
unlesse
they
be
sent
?
The
wit
of
man
cannot
digest
words
more
methodically
,
to
shew
the
orderly
dependance
of
things
one
upon
another
.
As
in
the
former
example
,
of
patience
on
affliction
:
experience
on
patience
:
hope
on
experience
:
joy
on
hope
.
And
in
the
second
example
,
of
invocation
on
faith
,
faith
on
hearing
,
hearing
on
preaching
,
preach
〈…〉
3.
In
the
present
text
,
the
matter
is
yet
more
clear
,
because
Predestination
,
5.
But
what
doth
Mr.
Eyre
meane
to
make
us
beleeve
,
when
he
SECT.
IV.
ANother
text
which
doth
manifestly
hold
forth
Justification
to
Rom.
4.
24.
Now
it
was
not
written
for
his
sake
alone
,
that
righteousnesse
was
imputed
to
him
,
but
for
our
sakes
also
,
to
whom
it
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
beleeve
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
that
the
particle
(
if
)
is
used
sometimes
declaratively
,
to
describe
the
person
to
whom
the
benefit
doth
belong
:
as
2
Tim.
2.
21.
If
a
man
purge
himself
from
these
,
he
shall
be
a
vessel
unto
honour
.
And
Heb.
3.
6.
Whose
house
are
we
,
if
we
holdfast
our
confidence
,
and
the
rejoycing
of
hope
,
&c.
Rep.
Which
observation
is
here
misplaced
:
for
I
am
not
yet
disputing
the
conditionality
,
but
meerly
the
antecedency
of
faith
to
Justification
.
Now
suppose
the
particle
(
if
)
be
used
sometimes
declaratively
,
yet
is
it
alwayes
antecedent
to
the
thing
which
it
declares
,
or
rather
to
the
declaration
of
that
thing
.
As
suppose
(
which
yet
I
do
wholly
deny
)
that
a
mans
purging
himself
,
do
only
manifest
and
declare
that
he
is
a
vessel
of
honour
;
yet
surely
his
purging
of
himself
is
antecedent
to
that
declaration
or
manifestation
.
As
the
holding
fast
our
confidence
is
also
antecedent
to
our
being
declared
to
be
the
house
of
God
.
Yea
,
and
Mr.
Eyre
himself
interprets
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
in
the
text
,
of
our
knowing
righteousnesse
to
be
imputed
to
us
:
of
which
knowledge
,
himself
will
not
deny
faith
to
be
the
antecedent
,
yea
,
and
more
then
an
antecedent
,
even
the
proper
effecting
cause
.
And
therefore
to
tell
us
before-hand
,
that
the
particle
(
if
)
doth
not
alwayes
propound
the
cause
,
when
by
his
own
interpretation
it
must
signifie
the
cause
(
which
is
a
great
deal
more
then
a
meer
condition
or
antecedent
)
was
a
very
impertinent
observation
.
His
sense
of
the
text
he
thus
delivers
.
His
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
us
if
we
believe
,
q.
d.
Hereby
we
may
know
and
be
assured
,
that
Christs
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
us
,
if
God
hath
drawn
our
hearts
to
believe
.
Rep.
To
whom
righteousnesse
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
beleeve
,
saith
Quibus
futurum
est
ut
imputetur
.
To
whom
it
shall
come
to
passe
that
it
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
beleeve
.
3.
And
that
this
imputation
of
righteousnesse
cannot
signifie
our
knowing
it
to
be
imputed
,
should
(
methinks
)
be
out
of
question
with
Mr.
Eyre
.
He
disputes
against
me
a
little
below
,
that
when
the
Apostle
pleads
for
Justification
by
faith
,
the
word
faith
must
be
taken
objectively
,
for
Christ
:
because
otherwise
faith
could
not
be
opposed
to
works
,
forasmuch
as
faith
it selfe
is
a
work
of
ours
.
And
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
in
this
chapter
,
ver.
4.
To
him
that
worketh
,
the
reward
is
not
imputed
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
.
Hence
it
follows
,
that
that
imputation
is
here
meant
,
which
hath
no
work
of
ours
for
its
cause
.
But
faith
is
clearly
the
cause
of
our
knowing
righteousnesse
to
be
imputed
:
and
that
as
it
is
a
work
of
ours
.
Ergo
,
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
here
spoken
of
,
is
not
our
knowing
or
being
assured
that
it
is
imputed
.
4.
To
impute
righteousnesse
in
this
verse
,
must
have
the
same
Abrahams
faith
was
imputed
to
him
(
not
for
righteousnesse
,
as
we
render
it
)
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
unto
righteousnesse
,
ver.
3.
9
,
22
,
23.
and
unto
every
son
of
Abrahams
faith
,
ver.
5.
11
,
24
Now
what
is
it
to
impute
faith
unto
righteousnesse
?
I
know
,
that
learned
and
godly
men
give
different
Expositions
.
I
may
be
the
more
excusable
if
I
am
mistaken
.
I
conceive
therefore
that
to
impute
faith
unto
righteousnesse
is
an
Hebraisme
,
and
signifies
properly
,
to
reward
the
believer
with
righteousnesse
,
or
more
plainly
,
[
i
](A96867-e22920-b)
i
Vid.
R
Sol.
Jarchi
in
Gen.
15.
6●
&
Maymon
.
more
Nevoch
.
3.
53.
&
O●cum
.
in
Rom.
4.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Et
Tertull
advers.
Marcion
.
lib.
5.
3.
Abraham
Deo
credidi●
&
deputatum
est
justitiae
:
a●que
exi●de
Pater
multarum
Nationum
meruit
nuncupa●i
.
Nos
autem
credendo
Deo
magis
proinde
justificamur
sicut
Abraham
,
&
vitam
proinde
consequimur
.
to
give
the
believer
a
right
to
blessednesse
,
as
his
reward
:
the
word
Reward
being
taken
in
that
more
laxe
and
metaphorical
sense
,
in
which
the
Scriptures
use
it
,
when
they
call
Heaven
by
glory
,
and
eternal
life
by
that
name
.
And
as
the
whole
salvation
of
believers
is
expressed
by
its
two
termes
,
to
wit
,
They
shall
not
perish
,
but
shall
have
everlasting
life
,
John
3.
16.
so
in
Justification
there
is
a
right
given
to
deliverance
from
punishment
,
(
which
is
the
terminus
à
quo
,
)
in
which
respect
it
is
called
the
pardon
and
non-imputation
of
sin
:
of
which
the
Apostle
gives
an
instance
out
of
David
,
ver.
6.
7
,
8.
and
a
right
to
the
more
positive
blessings
of
heavenly
and
eternal
life
by
the
Promise
,
(
which
is
the
terminus
ad
quem
)
in
which
respect
it
is
called
Justification
of
life
,
Rom.
5.
18.
of
which
also
he
giveth
us
an
instance
in
Abraham
,
ver.
13.
for
the
Promise
,
that
he
should
be
heire
of
the
world
,
&c.
In
reference
to
which
part
or
terme
of
Justification
,
it
is
in
special
manner
,
that
Abrahams
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
:
for
though
those
Promises
were
things
,
which
in
the
letter
were
carnal
;
yet
in
substance
and
signification
they
were
spiritual
,
and
so
did
he
understand
them
,
Heb.
6.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
and
11.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
Now
that
this
is
the
true
notion
of
the
phrase
,
(
imputing
faith
unto
righteousnesse
)
namely
,
a
rewarding
of
the
believer
with
a
right
to
blessednesse
,
I
gather
from
ver.
4
,
5.
To
him
that
worketh
,
the
reward
is
not
imputed
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
:
but
to
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
believeth
,
his
faith
is
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
Where
the
imputing
of
faith
unto
righteousnesse
,
is
directly
opposed
to
the
imputing
a
reward
according
to
works
.
Ergo
,
as
the
imputing
works
unto
righteousnesse
,
were
to
give
a
right
to
blessednesse
according
to
works
,
sub
ratione
mercedis
:
so
on
the
contrary
,
to
impute
faith
unto
righteousnesse
,
is
to
give
the
beleever
a
right
and
title
to
blessednesse
,
sub
ratione
mercedis
.
The
difference
only
is
this
:
the
former
is
of
debt
,
the
latter
of
grace
,
as
we
shall
further
shew
anon
.
2.
Thus
also
we
finde
the
Apostle
interpreting
the
phrase
;
for
after
he
had
said
,
that
Abraham
was
made
the
father
of
all
them
that
beleeve
,
that
righteousnesse
might
be
imputed
unto
them
also
,
ver.
11.
he
explains
himself
,
ver.
13.
for
the
Promise
was
not
to
Abraham
or
his
seed
by
the
Law
,
but
by
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
.
The
reason
whereof
he
renders
,
ver.
16.
That
it
might
be
by
grace
,
that
the
Promise
might
be
sure
to
all
the
seed
.
So
that
the
establishing
of
the
Promise
to
Abraham
,
and
all
that
walk
in
the
steps
of
his
faith
,
(
by
which
a
right
to
life
is
given
both
to
him
and
them
)
is
the
imputation
Phineas
,
Psal.
106.
30
,
31.
Then
stood
up
Phineas
,
and
executed
judgement
,
—
And
it
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
,
unto
all
generations
for
evermore
.
The
meaning
of
which
words
is
easie
to
be
learned
from
the
story
it self
,
Numb.
25.
12
,
13.
Wherefore
say
,
Behold
,
I
give
unto
him
my
Covenant
of
Peace
.
And
he
shall
have
it
,
and
his
seed
after
him
,
even
the
Covenant
of
an
everlasting
Priesthood
.
The
Promise
of
the
continuance
of
the
Priesthood
in
his
line
,
from
one
generation
to
another
,
as
the
reward
of
his
zeal
,
is
that
which
the
Psalmist
calls
,
the
imputing
it
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
to
all
generations
.
Indeed
the
phrase
there
is
not
altogether
so
comprehensive
as
it
is
here
,
because
the
Promise
made
him
was
but
of
one
particular
blessing
,
and
so
could
not
constitute
him
righteous
universally
,
but
only
in
part
,
and
as
to
that
particular
blessing
which
the
Promise
gave
him
right
to
.
Yet
it
shews
the
Scripture-sense
of
the
phrase
as
sufficiently
,
as
when
the
same
phrase
is
used
with
reference
unto
faith
,
to
shew
,
that
thereby
we
obtain
the
reward
of
an
universal
righteousnesse
.
4.
The
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
in
respect
of
the
terminus
à
quo
,
is
all
one
with
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
ver.
6
,
8.
and
what
is
it
to
non-impute
sin
,
but
not
to
render
the
wages
of
sin
,
by
destroying
the
guilt
and
punishment
of
it
?
2
Sam.
19.
19.
2
Tim.
4.
16.
Ergo
,
to
impute
faith
unto
righteousnesse
,
is
to
reward
it
with
a
right
to
impunity
and
blessednesse
:
though
this
reward
be
not
of
debt
,
but
of
grace
.
This
therefore
being
the
sense
of
the
phrase
throughout
the
whole
Chapter
,
we
leave
Mr.
Eyres
glosse
to
go
seek
entertainment
where
it
can
finde
it
.
SECT.
V.
THere
remain
three
texts
more
,
which
I
mentioned
in
my
Sermon
;
Acts
10.
43.
Through
his
Name
,
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
shall
receive
remission
of
sin
.
And
26.
18.
—
To
turne
them
from
darknesse
to
light
,
and
from
the
Power
of
Satan
unto
God
,
that
they
may
receive
forgivenesse
of
sin
,
and
an
inheritance
amongst
all
them
that
are
sanctified
through
faith
.
And
13.
39.
By
him
all
that
believe
are
justified
from
all
things
,
from
which
you
could
not
be
justified
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
To
the
two
former
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
That
the
giving
of
remission
,
and
receiving
it
,
are
two
things
.
The
former
is
Gods
act
,
and
the
latter
is
ours
.
A
Prince
may
pardon
a
Malefactour
,
and
he
thereby
is
secured
from
punishment
,
though
it
come
not
to
his
hands
for
a
good
whiles
after
.
Rep.
The
word
receive
in
Scripture
is
taken
sometimes
actively
;
as
when
we
are
said
to
receive
God
and
Christ
,
and
his
Word
,
Matth.
10.
40.
John
13.
20.
Acts
2.
41.
namely
,
by
believing
.
Sometimes
it
is
taken
passively
,
in
which
sense
,
giving
and
receiving
are
not
two
acts
,
but
one
and
the
same
;
as
when
we
are
said
to
receive
the
reward
of
inheritance
,
Col.
3.
24.
to
receive
eternal
life
,
Luke
18.
30.
to
receive
a
hundred
fold
,
Matth.
19.
29.
In
all
which
(
and
the
like
)
places
,
our
receiving
is
all
one
with
Gods
giving
the
reward
of
inheritance
,
eternal
life
,
a
hundred
fold
.
And
thus
to
receive
remission
of
sin
,
is
all
one
with
Gods
giving
remission
,
or
to
have
our
sins
remitted
and
pardoned
.
In
this
sense
do
our
Protestants
understand
Receiving
remission
through
faith
,
as
was
before
observed
out
of
Contarenus
.
So
do
the
Scriptures
also
,
Gal.
3.
22.
All
are
concluded
under
sin
,
That
the
Promise
(
to
wit
,
of
Justification
)
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
might
be
given
to
them
that
beleeve
.
In
which
place
,
Gods
giving
righteousnesse
by
the
Promise
,
and
our
receiving
it
,
are
one
and
the
same
act
:
compare
ver.
14.
18.
So
Rom.
5.
17.
They
that
receive
abundance
of
grace
,
and
of
the
gift
of
righteousnesse
,
shall
reigne
in
life
,
&c.
Whence
also
it
is
manifest
,
that
Gods
giving
,
and
our
receiving
,
are
both
one
act
.
Therefore
this
giving
or
receiving
of
righteousnesse
,
is
called
,
the
coming
of
grace
or
righteousnesse
upon
us
,
ver.
18.
As
by
the
offence
of
one
,
judgement
came
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
:
even
so
by
the
righteousnesse
of
one
,
the
free
gift
came
upon
all
men
unto
Justification
.
2.
The
receiving
of
remission
must
be
understood
in
the
same
sense
,
as
the
receiving
of
the
inheritance
:
for
they
are
joyned
both
together
in
the
text
,
Acts
26.
18.
That
they
may
receive
forgivenesse
of
sin
,
and
an
inheritance
.
But
for
us
to
receive
the
inheritance
,
is
no
more
,
then
to
be
made
partakers
of
the
inheritance
:
not
by
any
act
of
ours
,
but
by
the
free
and
effectual
gift
of
God
.
3.
To
receive
remission
,
what
act
of
ours
is
it
?
Mr.
Eyre
doth
not
tell
me
plainly
,
but
by
his
answers
to
former
texts
,
and
his
instance
here
of
a
Malefactour
pardoned
before
he
knowes
it
.
I
presume
he
meanes
,
that
it
is
our
knowledge
of
our
sins
being
remitted
.
But
such
a
knowledge
is
not
wont
to
follow
so
presently
and
immediately
upon
believing
,
as
pardon
of
sin
is
every
where
in
Scripture
supposed
to
do
:
(
unlesse
it
be
in
those
who
have
the
perfect
knowledge
of
the
moment
and
minute
of
their
first
Conversion
unto
God
.
)
But
most
Christians
attain
not
to
such
a
knowledge
,
till
after
long
searchings
and
experience
:
and
it
is
very
improper
to
say
,
a
man
receives
such
an
act
of
his
own
,
which
himselfe
works
out
with
much
labour
and
travel
of
minde
:
if
our
knowledge
of
remission
were
by
immediate
revelation
,
or
enthusiastical
inspiration
,
the
expression
were
much
more
tolerable
.
4.
To
the
instance
of
a
Malefactour
that
may
be
pardoned
,
though
he
do
not
know
it
till
a
great
while
after
;
I
answer
in
the
words
of
[
k
](A96867-e23590-b)
k
Christ
set
forth
p.
26
,
●7
.
Reverend
Dr.
Godwin
.
Gods
Promises
of
forgivenesse
are
not
as
the
pardons
of
a
Prince
,
which
meerly
contain
an
expression
of
his
royal
word
for
pardoning
;
—
But
as
if
a
Prince
should
offer
to
pardon
a
Traitour
,
upon
marriage
with
his
childe
,
whom
in
and
with
that
pardon
he
offers
in
such
a
relation
.
So
as
all
that
would
have
pardon
,
must
first
seek
out
for
his
childe
:
and
thus
it
is
in
the
matter
of
believing
.
—
The
Promises
hang
all
upon
Christ
:
and
without
him
there
is
no
interest
to
be
had
in
them
.
He
that
hath
the
Sonne
,
hath
life
.
1
John
5.
12.
Thus
the
Doctor
.
To
Acts
13.
39.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
That
the
Apostle
shews
Rep.
All
which
things
I
readily
grant
.
Yet
,
1.
Some
kinde
of
pardon
there
was
under
the
Law
,
which
did
necessarily
suppose
a
coming
unto
those
sacrifices
,
Heb.
10.
1.
The
people
were
not
first
pardoned
,
and
then
came
to
the
offering
of
sacrifice
,
or
to
the
Priest
.
So
doth
also
the
more
perfect
pardon
under
the
Gospel
,
necessarily
presuppose
a
coming
by
faith
to
the
true
High-Priest
,
the
Lord
Jesus
,
that
sinners
may
partake
therein
.
2.
When
the
Scriptures
do
so
constantly
require
faith
unto
Justification
,
and
faith
only
:
(
for
proof
of
which
,
Mr.
Eyre
confesseth
,
my
Concordance
would
furnish
me
with
many
more
places
then
I
have
taken
notice
of
)
I
will
never
be
brought
to
beleeve
,
that
it
is
required
as
a
consequent
of
Justification
:
for
all
Christian
graces
and
duties
are
required
as
consequents
,
as
well
as
faith
,
(
even
by
Mr.
Eyres
grant
.
)
Nor
yet
that
by
Justification
is
meant
our
knowledge
and
assurance
,
that
we
are
justified
:
because
unto
that
also
many
other
things
may
be
required
,
and
not
faith
only
.
As
for
example
,
self-examination
,
and
proving
of
our selves
,
2
Cor.
13.
5.
diligence
,
in
adding
one
grace
to
another
,
2
Pet.
1.
5
,
6
,
7
,
10.
a
good
conscience
towards
God
and
man
,
and
a
keeping
of
the
Commandments
of
Christ
,
1
John
3.
20
,
21.
John
14.
23.
love
of
the
brethren
,
1
John
3.
18
,
19
,
14.
and
the
like
.
And
thus
much
for
the
Vindication
of
the
Texts
,
proving
Faith's
antecedency
to
Justification
.
By
all
which
the
Reader
may
see
,
that
when
I
said
,
the
only
answer
made
to
these
Texts
was
,
That
Justification
is
to
be
understood
of
that
which
is
evidenced
in
conscience
;
this
account
is
true
and
perfect
,
though
Mr.
Eyre
tell
him
it
be
very
imperfect
;
there
being
not
one
of
all
the
places
mentioned
,
but
what
he
answers
to
by
such
a
temperament
of
the
word
Justification
.
It
was
therefore
necessary
that
I
should
prove
,
that
when
the
Apostle
pleads
for
Justification
by
faith
,
he
is
to
be
understood
of
Justification
before
God
,
and
not
of
that
which
is
in
the
Court
of
Conscience
.
To
which
end
I
advanced
foure
Arguments
in
my
Sermon
:
the
asserting
of
which
against
Mr.
Eyres
exceptions
,
is
my
next
undertaking
.
CHAP.
IV.
An
Answer
to
Mr.
Eyres
eighth
Chapter
,
and
part
of
the
Ninth
.
His
saying
and
unsaying
.
Many
Arguments
proving
,
that
when
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
faith
is
to
be
taken
proving
,
that
when
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
faith
is
be
taken
properly
,
for
the
faith
in
us
,
and
not
for
Christ
.
Faith
and
works
,
how
opposed
in
the
matter
of
Justification
.
That
we
cannot
be
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
in
reference
to
faiths
evidencing
our
Justification
virtually
,
or
axiomatically
,
or
syllogistically
.
Sinners
,
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
the
causes
of
their
own
Justification
.
Nor
is
Justification
taken
properly
in
all
the
Scriptures
,
as
he
expounds
it
.
SECT.
I.
THe
first
Argument
proving
,
that
when
the
Apostle
Rom.
3.
20
,
21.
Gal.
3.
11.
All
this
Mr.
Eyre
grants
;
but
will
have
the
Apostle
by
the
word
faith
to
understand
,
not
the
act
or
habit
of
faith
,
but
the
object
;
scil.
Christs
righteousnesse
,
or
righteousnesse
imputed
.
His
reason
is
,
because
else
there
were
no
opposition
between
faith
and
works
:
seeing
faith
or
the
act
of
believing
is
a
work
of
ours
no
lesse
then
love
.
Yet
when
the
Apostle
disputes
for
Justification
by
faith
,
Gal.
2.
16.
and
that
in
a
direct
opposition
to
works
,
and
for
the
imputation
of
faith
unto
righteousnesse
,
Rom.
4.
still
as
opposed
to
works
,
ver.
4
,
5.
we
were
told
that
justifying
and
imputing
were
the
manifestation
of
Justification
and
Imputation
:
But
now
we
have
another
answer
,
which
overthrows
the
former
;
namely
,
that
faith
is
to
be
taken
for
Christ
and
his
righteousnesse
?
What
aileth
thee
,
O
Jordan
,
that
thou
art
turned
backward
?
Yea
,
he
will
not
allow
,
that
the
Apostle
hath
any
question
with
them
about
the
time
when
,
or
the
con●tion
upon
which
we
are
justified
.
Yet
I
think
all
men
besides
himself
will
grant
,
that
his
designe
is
to
shew
the
way
and
meanes
,
by
which
a
sinner
may
come
to
be
justified
.
Though
I
confesse
I
see
not
how
Mr.
Eyre
can
grant
this
.
For
if
the
Justification
of
all
that
are
justified
,
be
absolute
and
perfect
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
(
as
he
supposeth
)
then
from
that
time
there
can
no
way
be
prescribed
to
a
sinner
,
no
counsel
given
him
,
what
course
to
take
,
that
he
may
be
justified
.
Only
he
may
be
told
,
that
if
he
be
justified
,
the
way
to
know
it
,
is
to
beleeve
.
And
when
the
Jewes
say
,
We
must
be
justified
by
works
,
and
the
Apostle
,
By
faith
:
they
are
both
out
,
for
we
are
justified
by
neither
.
And
the
Gentiles
were
in
an
errour
,
in
seeking
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
as
well
as
the
Jewes
in
seeking
it
by
works
:
if
they
seek
any
thing
more
then
to
know
that
they
are
justified
.
But
because
Mr.
Eyre
doth
so
often
take
Sanctuary
at
this
notion
,
[
a
](A96867-e24060-b)
a
De
re●
on●
p●c
par.
2.
l
1.
c.
15.
Wotton
:
who
also
hath
set
down
the
testimonies
of
no
lesse
then
fourty
Authours
,
Fathers
and
Protestants
,
besides
Papists
,
all
co●senting
with
him
:
I
confesse
,
I
can
hardly
think
it
worth
my
labour
;
yet
something
must
be
done
,
this
only
being
premised
,
(
which
hath
also
been
before
observed
)
That
when
our
Protestants
sometimes
say
,
the
word
faith
,
(
in
this
Proposition
,
we
are
justified
by
faith
)
is
to
be
taken
objectively
:
they
intend
not
to
exclude
faith
it selfe
from
its
concurrence
to
our
Justification
:
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
doth
)
for
we
have
shewed
in
the
first
Chapter
,
their
unanimous
consent
,
in
making
faith
the
instrument
or
condition
of
our
Justification
.
But
only
to
deny
it
to
be
the
matter
or
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
:
which
they
truly
say
is
only
the
righteousnesse
of
Jesus
Christ
,
who
is
the
object
of
our
faith
.
So
that
we
are
justified
by
Christ
as
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
:
and
yet
by
faith
as
the
instrument
or
condition
,
upon
which
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
hath
effect
upon
us
,
to
our
Justification
.
And
so
I
come
to
prove
,
that
faith
is
to
be
taken
subjectively
,
for
the
grace
or
act
of
faith
,
not
objectively
for
Christ
,
throughtout
the
Apostles
discourse
for
Justification
by
faith
.
SECT.
II.
1.
SUch
an
Interpretation
of
the
words
,
as
makes
non-sense
of
most
Rom.
3.
21
,
22.
But
now
the
righteousnesse
of
God
without
the
Law
is
manifested
,
even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
:
put
faith
for
Christ
believed
or
,
and
the
words
run
thus
,
Even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
Christ
of
Jesus
Christ
:
or
put
it
for
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
and
they
run
thus
,
Even
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
righteousnesse
of
Jesus
Christ
,
unto
all
,
and
upon
all
that
beleeve
.
Almost
the
very
same
words
doth
this
Apostle
use
,
Phil.
3.
9.
That
I
may
be
found
in
him
,
not
having
my
own
righteousnesse
,
but
that
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
God
by
faith
.
Where
,
in
like
manner
,
if
faith
be
put
for
righteousnesse
,
we
must
reade
the
words
thus
,
Not
having
my
own
righteousnesse
,
but
that
which
is
through
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
God
through
righteousnesse
.
I
hope
the
Reader
doth
not
expect
,
that
I
should
spend
time
in
confuting
these
absurd
paraphrases
:
I
count
that
sufficiently
done
in
mentioning
them
.
In
the
same
Chapter
to
the
Romanes
,
ver.
25.
Whom
God
h●●h
set
forth
,
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
.
According
to
Mr.
Eyre
we
must
reade
it
,
Whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
Christ
in
his
blood
;
or
at
best
,
through
righteousnesse
in
his
blood
.
But
his
blood
being
here
set
forth
,
as
the
object
of
the
faith
mentioned
in
the
text
:
the
blood
of
Christ
must
be
made
the
object
of
his
righteousnesse
,
if
by
faith
be
meant
righteousnesse
:
which
will
resolve
the
words
into
a
pretty
piece
of
sense
.
Again
,
ver.
26.
God
through
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
said
to
be
the
Justifier
of
him
that
beleeveth
in
Jesus
.
What
's
that
?
of
him
that
christeth
in
Jesus
?
or
what
is
it
?
It
is
an
easie
matter
to
say
,
that
faith
is
put
for
Christ
or
his
righteousnesse
:
but
the
mischief
is
,
the
substantive
cannot
be
varied
into
a
verbe
or
participle
,
to
make
an
intelligible
Proposition
;
for
example
,
We
are
justified
by
faith
:
that
is
,
(
will
Mr.
Eyre
say
)
by
Christ
,
or
his
righteousnesse
.
But
then
change
the
substantive
into
a
verbe
or
participle
,
and
give
me
the
sense
of
it
.
As
,
He
that
beleeveth
in
Christ
is
justified
.
If
faith
be
put
for
Christ
,
what
is
it
to
beleeve
in
Christ
?
or
what
do
we
mean
,
when
we
say
,
We
are
justified
by
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
?
We
are
justified
by
Christ
in
Jesus
Christ
?
or
by
righteousnesse
in
Jesus
Christ
?
This
latter
,
I
confesse
,
hath
a
more
tolerable
sound
,
but
not
a
grain
more
of
sense
.
For
when
we
say
,
We
are
justified
by
faith
in
Christ
,
Christ
in
that
Proposition
is
the
object
of
faith
,
and
we
the
subject
.
But
if
faith
signifie
righteousnesse
,
then
Christ
is
the
object
of
his
own
righteousnesse
.
Of
the
non-sense
of
this
Interpretation
,
the
Reader
shal
see
more
in
that
which
follows
.
2.
Justification
by
Christ
or
his
righteousnesse
was
finished
in
his
death
,
(
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
)
Ergo
,
if
faith
signifie
Christ
or
his
righteousnesse
,
we
were
justified
by
faith
,
as
soon
as
Christ
was
dead
.
But
many
yeares
after
Christs
death
,
there
were
many
who
were
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
Rom.
3.
30.
It
is
one
God
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
in
the
future
tense
)
which
shall
justifie
the
circumcision
and
uncircumcision
,
(
that
is
,
Jewes
and
Gentiles
)
by
faith
,
which
is
the
application
of
the
general
Conclusion
,
ver.
28.
We
conclude
,
That
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
,
without
the
deeds
of
the
Law
.
Ergo
,
they
were
not
justified
by
faith
as
soon
as
Christ
was
dead
.
3.
But
because
Mr.
Eyre
,
by
his
marginal
Annotation
,
referres
us
Abraham
beleeved
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
What
can
be
more
plain
,
then
that
it
was
Abrahams
believing
which
was
imputed
to
him
,
(
of
the
sense
of
that
phrase
we
have
spoke
already
)
even
as
when
it
is
said
of
Phineas
,
Psal.
106.
30
,
31.
Then
stood
up
Phineas
,
and
executed
judgement
.
—
And
it
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
I
appeal
to
common
sense
,
whether
his
executing
of
judgement
were
not
the
thing
that
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
?
or
if
something
be
to
be
understood
which
is
not
expressed
:
let
every
mans
fancie
be
left
to
its
liberty
,
to
supply
what
he
sees
sit
,
and
we
shall
be
much
the
better
for
the
Scriptures
.
2.
The
same
is
also
delivered
more
generally
of
all
believers
,
ver.
5.
To
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
beleeveth
,
his
faith
is
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
If
there
had
been
no
more
spoken
in
all
the
chapter
,
this
had
been
enough
to
prove
,
that
by
faith
here
is
meant
the
act
,
not
the
object
.
For
1.
It
is
the
expresse
letter
of
the
text
,
To
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
believeth
.
2.
That
faith
is
here
meant
,
which
is
a
mans
own
,
before
it
be
imputed
.
His
faith
is
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
But
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
no
mans
before
it
be
imputed
.
If
it
be
,
let
us
know
what
act
that
is
,
distinct
from
imputation
,
and
antecedent
to
it
,
by
which
Christs
righteousnesse
is
made
ours
.
3.
That
faith
is
here
meant
,
which
is
so
a
mans
owne
,
as
that
in
individuo
it
is
no
bodies
else
.
But
Christs
righteousnesse
is
not
so
any
one
mans
,
as
to
be
no
bodies
else
:
for
then
should
be
but
one
man
in
the
world
,
to
whom
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
were
imputed
.
The
Proposition
is
manifest
:
because
the
faith
here
spoken
of
,
is
determined
to
the
person
of
the
beleever
.
To
him
that
beleeveth
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
HIS
faith
is
imputed
.
And
it
is
called
the
faith
which
Abraham
HAD
in
his
uncircumcision
,
ver.
11.
And
the
truth
is
,
that
otherwise
(
I
mean
,
if
His
faith
be
His
Christ
)
Abrahams
faith
,
or
Davids
faith
,
or
any
other
Christians
faith
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
unto
us
,
with
the
very
same
propriety
of
speech
,
as
it
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
or
them
.
4.
If
faith
be
here
put
for
Christ
or
his
righteousness
,
the
words
are
non-sense
.
Put
faith
for
righteousness
,
and
the
words
run
thus
.
But
unto
him
that
believeth
,
his
righteousness
is
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
What
sense
is
that
?
or
put
it
for
Christ
,
and
they
run
thus
,
But
unto
him
that
believeth
,
his
Christ
is
impured
to
him
unto
righteousness
.
But
what
is
it
to
impute
Christ
unto
righteousnesse
?
I
know
he
is
said
to
be
made
unto
us
righteousness
;
1
Cor.
1.
even
as
he
is
made
unto
us
Wisdom
and
Sancti●ication
,
that
is
,
the
Authour
of
both
:
but
to
impute
him
unto
righteousnesse
is
a
barbarisme
.
To
say
nothing
of
the
insolency
of
that
phrase
(
His
Christ
)
in
Scripture
;
and
of
making
Christ
,
as
distinct
from
his
righteousnesse
,
the
object
of
justifying
faith
.
3.
We
have
already
proved
,
that
to
impute
faith
unto
righteousnesse
,
The
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
he
had
in
his
uncircumcision
,
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
And
because
he
could
not
have
it
but
by
imputation
,
therefore
the
full
sense
will
be
this
.
The
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
which
was
imputed
to
him
in
his
uncircumcision
,
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
Spectatum
admissi
,
&c.
5.
Consider
we
also
what
is
said
,
ver.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
from
whence
A
conjugatis
.
Even
as
it
is
the
habit
of
wisdom
,
goodness
,
temperance
,
&c.
from
whence
a
man
is
denominated
wise
,
good
,
temperate
,
&c.
but
the
faith
which
was
imputed
to
him
,
was
that
from
whence
he
was
denominated
faithful
,
and
the
father
of
the
faithful
;
for
faith
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
ver.
9.
and
that
in
his
uncircumcision
,
ver.
10.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
he
might
become
the
father
of
all
the
faithful
,
that
are
in
uncircumcision
,
that
righteousnesse
might
be
imputed
to
them
also
,
ver.
11.
(
for
so
stands
the
connexion
of
the
sentences
:
and
the
beginning
of
this
,
ver.
11.
And
he
received
Circumcision
,
&c.
is
answered
immediately
by
ver.
12.
And
the
father
of
circumcision
,
&c.
)
The
like
Argument
doth
this
Apostle
use
elsewhere
,
Gal.
3.
9.
They
which
be
of
the
faith
,
be
blessed
with
faithful
Abraham
.
2.
If
we
become
children
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
by
believing
,
then
Abrahams
faith
signifies
his
believing
,
and
not
Christs
righteousnesse
.
The
reason
is
,
because
to
be
a
childe
of
Abrahams
faith
,
is
to
follow
or
imitate
him
,
in
that
which
is
called
his
faith
(
as
when
Mr.
Eyre
calls
me
a
sonne
of
Mr.
Baxters
faith
)
.
And
if
we
are
like
him
by
believing
,
then
believing
is
the
quality
wherein
the
similitude
consists
,
between
him
the
Father
,
and
us
the
children
.
But
we
become
the
children
of
Abrahams
faith
,
(
even
that
very
faith
which
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
)
by
believing
,
ver.
10.
The
father
of
all
them
that
beleeve
,
ver.
11.
That
walk
in
the
steps
of
father
Abrahams
faith
,
Who
are
also
called
the
seed
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
ver.
16.
3.
And
I
would
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
or
some
body
else
,
would
make
sense
of
the
Apostles
words
,
if
faith
be
put
for
Christs
righteousnesse
,
ver.
12.
Abraham
became
the
father
of
Circumcision
,
to
them
that
walk
in
the
steps
of
his
faith
.
What
is
that
?
Why
to
them
that
walk
in
his
Christs
righteousnesse
.
I
am
even
sick
of
this
non-sense
:
let
me
adde
one
word
more
,
that
I
may
rid
my self
of
this
naus●ous
work
.
6.
The
faith
spoken
of
throughout
this
chapter
,
is
that
which
is
Abraham
against
hope
,
believed
in
hope
.
And
being
not
weak
in
faith
,
he
considered
not
his
own
nor
Sarahs
age
,
ver.
19.
That
he
staggered
not
at
the
Promise
of
God
through
unbelief
,
but
was
strong
in
faith
,
ver.
20.
And
was
fully
perswaded
,
that
what
God
had
promised
,
he
was
able
also
to
perform
,
ver.
21.
And
that
this
was
the
faith
which
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
,
is
manifest
from
the
very
next
verse
,
ver.
22.
And
therefore
it
●as
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
.
To
make
this
the
description
of
Christs
righteousnesse
,
would
render
the
sense
so
beyond
measure
ridiculous
,
that
I
professe
(
Reader
)
I
am
afraid
to
represent
it
to
thee
in
a
paraphrase
,
lest
some
prophane
wits
should
take
occasion
to
make
this
blessed
Word
of
God
the
object
of
their
derision
and
contempt
.
I
might
adde
,
that
by
the
same
reason
that
Mr.
Eyre
interprets
faith
for
the
Righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
another
may
make
as
bold
to
interpret
it
,
of
the
Wisdome
,
Power
,
Goodness
,
Faithfulness
,
or
any
other
Attribute
of
God
,
(
for
these
also
are
the
objects
of
faith
)
and
so
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
is
to
be
justified
by
the
Wisdome
of
God
,
or
by
his
Goodness
,
&c.
every
line
in
Scripture
that
speaks
of
Justification
by
faith
,
will
be
as
good
sense
thus
expounded
,
as
if
faith
be
put
for
Christs
righteousnesse
,
unless
it
be
in
those
places
,
where
faith
is
particularly
and
expressely
determined
to
Christ
as
its
object
,
and
in
all
such
places
Mr.
Eyre
himself
will
surely
interpret
faith
for
the
act
,
not
for
the
object
.
SECT.
III.
NOw
to
the
great
Argument
which
Mr.
Eyre
opposeth
,
to
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Else
(
saith
he
)
the
Apostle
contradicts
himself
,
in
opposing
Justification
by
faith
,
to
Justification
by
works
:
because
faith
it selfe
is
a
work
of
ours
.
Answ.
But
by
his
favour
,
I
will
rather
beleeve
that
he
contradicts
the
Apostle
,
(
and
that
as
perfectly
,
as
if
he
had
studied
to
do
it
on
purpose
)
then
that
the
Apostle
contradicts
himself
.
For
it
is
as
manifest
as
light
can
make
it
,
that
it
is
the
act
of
believing
which
the
Apostle
opposeth
to
works
,
Rom.
4.
4
,
5.
To
him
that
worketh
,
the
reward
is
imputed
of
debt
.
But
to
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
believeth
,
&c.
Not
working
is
opposed
to
works
.
Beleeving
is
not
working
(
with
the
Apostle
)
Ergo
,
believing
is
opposed
to
works
.
Judge
then
who
will
(
for
I
am
indifferent
in
so
just
a
cause
)
whether
the
Apostle
contradict
himselfe
,
or
Mr.
Eyre
him
.
2.
The
opposition
between
faith
and
works
in
the
matter
of
Justification
,
stands
thus
according
to
Scripture
,
That
he
that
worketh
,
doth
himself
effect
that
righteousnesse
for
which
he
is
justified
:
personal
and
perfect
obedience
being
that
which
the
Law
requireth
of
every
man
,
to
make
him
just
before
God
.
And
hence
righteousnesse
by
works
,
or
by
the
Law
,
is
called
our
own
righteousnesse
,
Phil.
3.
9.
Rom.
10.
3.
But
he
that
believeth
,
doth
by
the
gift
of
God
partake
in
the
righteousnesse
of
another
,
even
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
for
which
only
he
is
justified
.
And
hence
righteousnesse
by
faith
is
opposed
to
our
own
righteousnesse
,
Phil.
3.
9.
Not
having
my
own
righteousnesse
,
which
is
of
the
Law
,
but
that
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
God
by
faith
.
So
that
he
that
is
justified
by
works
,
is
justified
for
his
own
sake
:
but
he
that
is
justified
by
faith
,
is
justified
for
anothers
sake
.
But
because
this
is
the
total
summe
of
all
Mr.
Eyre
hath
to
say
,
for
the
abuse
of
the
word
Faith
,
from
its
own
native
sense
,
to
a
tropical
;
I
shall
set
down
my
answer
more
fully
.
I
distinguish
therefore
,
1.
Of
works
.
2.
Of
the
particle
By.
1.
Works
are
taken
largely
for
any
humane
action
;
and
so
no
doubt
but
faith
is
a
work
;
so
is
laughing
,
crying
,
speaking
,
reasoning
and
the
like
.
2.
Strictly
,
for
that
obedience
by
which
the
righteousnesse
of
the
Law
is
fulfilled
,
(
really
,
or
in
conceit
)
and
so
they
are
uncapable
of
an
ordinability
to
,
or
of
being
made
the
conditions
of
our
Justification
,
by
the
righteousnesse
of
another
.
In
this
sense
doth
the
Apostle
take
works
,
when
he
opposeth
them
to
faith
,
[
b
](A96867-e25380-b)
b
Vid
,
Conra●
.
Vorst
.
Schol.
in
loc.
Rom.
4.
4.
To
him
that
worketh
,
the
reward
is
imputed
of
debt
;
and
ver.
2.
If
Abraham
were
j●stified
by
works
,
he
hath
whereof
to
glory
.
Both
which
Propositions
were
false
,
if
works
were
any
thing
lesse
then
perfect
legal
righteousnesse
:
for
he
had
said
before
,
that
there
is
no
glorying
for
a
sinner
before
God
,
[
*
](A96867-e25420-b)
*
Vid.
Joh.
Piscat
.
Schol.
in
loc.
ex
Olev
.
Calvin
.
Rom.
3.
23.
(
Not
that
I
think
the
Jewes
themselves
,
(
who
sought
righteousnesse
by
works
)
did
conceive
they
were
able
so
to
keep
the
Law
▪
as
not
at
all
to
sin
:
but
rather
thought
(
such
was
their
blindnesse
)
that
the
Law
was
sufficiently
kept
to
Justification
,
if
they
forbore
the
outward
acts
of
sin
,
and
performed
the
outward
act
of
duty
,
[
c
](A96867-e25440-b)
c
Joseph
.
Antiq.
Jud.
l.
12.
c.
13.
&
Joh.
Reynol
.
Co●f
.
with
Hart.
ch.
7.
D.
4.
p.
264.
neglecting
the
inward
purity
▪
of
heart
:
)
[
d
](A96867-e25450-b)
d
Sic
M●rmon
.
in
〈◊〉
Te
〈…〉
.
or
if
their
good
works
were
more
then
their
evil
works
:
or
finally
,
if
they
did
perform
those
ceremonial
observances
,
which
were
required
in
the
Law
for
the
expiation
of
sinne
,
Mat●h.
19.
18
,
19.
and
23.
25
,
26
,
27
,
28.
Luke
18.
11
,
12.
Phil.
3.
6.
Against
which
conceit
of
theirs
,
the
grand
Argument
which
the
Apostle
opposeth
is
this
,
That
all
had
sinned
against
the
Law
.
Rom.
3.
19
,
20
,
23.
and
therefore
none
could
be
justified
by
the
Law
;
for
it
is
written
,
Cursed
is
every
one
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
which
are
written
in
the
Book
of
the
Law
,
to
do
them
,
Gal.
3.
10
,
11.
)
Now
works
being
taken
in
this
strict
sense
,
it
is
manifest
,
that
faith
is
not
works
:
no
[
e
](A96867-e25500-b)
e
Fidem
non
es●e
opus
▪
Vi●
.
C●m●ron
▪
pr●lect
.
in
M●●
.
16.
●7
.
op●r
p.
47
,
48.
nor
a
work
,
as
being
no
part
of
that
obedience
which
the
Law
requires
to
make
a
man
righteous
:
as
the
Apostle
expressely
witnesseth
,
Gal.
2.
12.
The
Law
is
not
of
faith
(
that
is
,
requires
not
faith
in
order
to
Justification
)
but
the
man
that
doth
them
,
shall
live
in
them
.
2.
When
we
speak
of
Justification
by
works
,
and
of
Justification
SECT.
IV.
THe
second
general
Argument
proving
,
that
Justification
by
that
their
sinnes
were
forgiven
them
,
Matth.
9.
2
,
5.
Luke
5.
20
,
23.
and
7.
47
,
48.
If
any
man
now
living
hath
the
like
testimony
from
God
,
that
his
sins
are
forgiven
,
he
hath
no
better
way
to
evidence
it
to
himselfe
,
then
without
any
more
ado
,
to
beleeve
that
they
are
forgiven
.
3.
Faith
doth
also
concurre
to
the
evidencing
of
Justification
syllogistically
,
but
then
the
whole
evidence
is
not
of
faith
,
as
we
shall
shew
by
and
by
.
I
do
therefore
acknowledge
the
use
of
faith
in
evidencing
Justification
,
in
all
those
wayes
by
which
it
may
be
evidenced
;
though
not
of
faith
only
in
the
last
,
nor
at
all
in
the
second
;
unlesse
there
be
any
man
that
hath
heard
God
saying
to
him
,
Thy
sins
are
forgiven
thee
.
Come
we
on
then
to
the
proof
of
particulars
.
And
first
,
that
we
Hereby
we
may
know
and
be
assured
,
that
Christs
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
us
,
that
we
,
whether
Jewes
or
Gentiles
,
are
the
persons
to
whom
this
grace
belongs
;
if
God
hath
drawn
our
hearts
to
beleeve
and
obey
the
Gospel
:
in
regard
that
none
do
or
can
beleeve
,
but
such
as
are
ordained
to
life
,
and
to
obtain
salvation
by
Jesus
Christ
.
What
is
this
,
but
that
faith
doth
evidence
our
Justification
as
an
Argument
:
seeing
that
where
one
is
,
the
other
is
also
:
where
there
is
faith
there
is
Justification
.
It
seems
the
same
thing
is
good
Divinity
out
of
Mr.
Eyres
mouth
:
but
out
of
mine
,
an
errour
.
Yet
though
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
owne
,
that
faith
doth
evidence
Justification
in
this
way
,
he
thinks
fit
to
give
his
Reader
,
his
sense
of
my
Reasons
.
There
are
therefore
three
Reasons
in
my
Sermon
,
why
we
cannot
be
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
in
respect
of
faiths
evidencing
our
Justification
as
an
Argument
.
The
first
is
this
.
Because
then
Justification
by
faith
,
is
not
necessarily
so
much
as
Justification
in
conscience
.
A
Christian
may
have
faith
,
and
yet
not
have
the
evidence
that
he
is
justified
.
As
a
childe
may
laugh
and
cry
,
and
yet
not
have
the
evidence
or
clear
knowledge
,
that
himselfe
hath
reason
,
&c.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
By
intimating
,
that
this
agrees
not
with
what
I
allege
out
of
the
Apostle
,
1
John
3.
20.
to
prove
,
that
if
our
hearts
condemn
us
,
God
doth
much
more
condemn
us
.
2.
If
faith
did
evidence
only
as
a
signe
,
it
would
be
a
dark
and
unsatisfying
evidence
.
3.
Nothing
that
precedes
faith
,
doth
prove
a
man
justified
:
nothing
that
follows
it
,
is
so
apt
to
prove
it
as
faith
it selfe
.
4.
Wheresoever
there
is
faith
,
there
is
some
evidence
of
this
grace
.
In
the
least
spark
of
fire
,
and
the
least
twinkling
starre
,
there
is
some
light
.
Rep.
To
the
first
I
say
,
that
it
never
came
into
my
minde
to
prove
,
that
God
condemns
every
one
,
whom
his
own
conscience
condemns
:
but
that
if
conscience
condemns
truly
,
then
the
judgement
thereof
is
according
to
the
judgement
of
God
,
and
so
God
condemns
as
well
as
conscience
.
But
if
a
beleevers
heart
shall
tell
him
that
he
is
not
justified
,
and
his
sins
not
pardoned
;
his
conscience
is
erroneous
and
judgeth
otherwise
then
God
judgeth
.
2.
The
two
next
answers
are
like
chips
in
pottage
,
that
do
neither
good
nor
hurt
,
as
I
see
.
When
I
can
understand
,
whether
they
make
with
me
or
against
me
;
I
shall
consider
them
farther
.
3.
The
fourth
answer
,
that
whosoever
hath
faith
,
hath
some
evidence
of
his
Justification
,
(
for
that
he
meanes
by
grace
,
or
else
it
s
nothing
to
the
purpose
)
I
deny
utte●ly
:
if
by
evidence
he
mean
,
not
that
which
would
prove
it
,
if
it
were
rightly
understood
:
but
a
mans
actual
knowledge
that
he
is
justified
.
And
how
doth
Mr.
Eyre
prove
it
?
why
,
the
least
spark
of
fire
hath
some
light
,
and
the
least
twinkling
starre
.
True
.
So
the
least
degree
of
true
faith
hath
that
in
it
,
which
if
it
were
rightly
apprehended
would
make
some
discovery
that
a
man
were
justified
.
But
these
sparks
of
fire
give
no
light
at
all
,
when
they
lie
buried
under
heaps
of
ashes
:
and
such
black
and
d●smal
clouds
may
cover
the
face
of
the
Heavens
,
that
we
cannot
see
,
not
only
the
lesser
stars
,
but
not
those
of
greatest
magnitude
.
And
the
Scripture
testifieth
,
not
only
positively
,
that
a
gracious
soule
may
walk
in
darknesse
;
but
to
expresse
the
greatnesse
of
this
darknesse
,
addes
an
universal
negative
.
And
may
see
no
light
,
that
is
,
(
as
[
f
](A96867-e25940-b)
f
Childe
of
light
.
page
5.
6
,
8
,
9
,
10.
Dr.
Godwin
hath
excellently
proved
)
he
may
be
without
all
evidence
of
his
Justification
,
of
which
the
said
Doctor
gives
several
instances
,
in
David
,
Job
,
Heman
,
and
Christ
himself
;
and
proposeth
largely
the
causes
and
cure
of
such
darknesse
:
in
all
which
,
he
hath
bestowed
a
great
deal
of
excellent
and
acceptable
paines
to
no
purpose
,
if
Mr.
Eyres
doctrine
here
be
true
.
How
many
soules
have
I
known
,
and
[
g
](A96867-e25990-b)
g
See
Mr.
Tho.
Brookes
,
Heaven
upon
earth
.
page
65
,
66.
heard
of
in
such
a
condition
?
If
it
be
said
,
we
may
be
mistaken
in
men
;
I
acknowledge
it
.
But
withal
,
I
am
not
bound
to
beleeve
impossibilities
and
contradictions
.
If
I
must
beleeve
that
it
is
possible
for
them
to
have
true
faith
,
even
whiles
they
have
not
the
least
spark
or
twinkling
evidence
of
Gods
justifying
pardoning
love
:
then
I
cannot
beleeve
Mr.
Eyres
affirmation
to
be
universally
true
;
That
wheresoever
there
is
faith
,
there
is
some
evidence
of
Justification
.
And
(
me
thinks
)
he
should
not
have
expected
,
that
we
should
take
his
word
against
Scripture
and
experience
both
.
2.
Yet
if
all
this
were
granted
,
it
comes
not
up
to
our
case
,
when
the
Scriptures
say
,
He
that
believes
shall
be
justified
:
it
surely
speaks
of
a
Justification
,
which
is
the
same
equally
unto
all
that
beleeve
.
And
for
Mr.
Eyre
to
say
,
every
one
that
believes
hath
some
evidence
of
Justification
,
though
it
may
be
not
so
much
as
another
,
is
to
say
,
one
believer
may
be
more
justified
then
another
,
which
we
desire
him
to
prove
,
the
Scriptures
imply
the
contrary
,
Romanes
3.
29
,
30.
and
4.
23
,
24.
and
10.
12.
The
second
Argument
,
to
prove
that
we
are
not
said
to
be
justified
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
justified
;
we
must
say
hence-forward
,
Thou
art
justified
,
therefore
beleeve
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
he
sees
no
absurdity
at
all
,
in
saying
,
That
faith
is
from
Justification
causally
.
That
grace
which
justifies
us
,
is
the
cause
and
fountain
of
all
good
things
,
and
more
especially
of
faith
,
2
Pet.
1.
1.
Phil.
1.
29.
Rep.
Is
it
then
no
absurdity
,
to
set
the
Scriptures
upon
their
heads
?
we
are
said
in
Scripture
to
beleeve
unto
righteousnesse
or
Justification
,
Rom.
10.
10.
and
were
it
no
absurdity
to
say
,
we
are
made
righteous
,
or
justified
unto
believing
?
when
the
Apostle
saith
,
Heb.
10.
39.
we
are
not
of
them
who
draw
back
unto
perdition
:
but
of
them
that
beleeve
unto
the
saving
of
the
soule
.
Surely
the
particle
unto
doth
in
both
sentences
denote
the
issue
and
consequence
:
in
the
former
,
perdition
of
drawing
back
:
in
the
latter
,
salvation
of
believing
.
2.
Faith
cannot
be
the
effect
of
Justification
:
if
Justification
be
what
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
it
is
,
namely
,
the
eternal
Will
of
God
,
not
to
punish
,
precisely
;
for
a
Will
determined
precisely
to
a
non-punition
is
not
the
cause
of
faith
,
unlesse
Gods
not
punishing
be
our
believing
.
3.
And
what
an
Argument
have
we
to
prove
faith
to
be
the
effect
of
Justification
?
That
grace
which
justifies
us
is
the
cause
of
all
good
things
,
and
particularly
of
faith
.
Ergo
,
Justification
is
the
cause
of
faith
.
This
is
Logick
of
the
game
.
The
grace
that
justifies
us
,
is
also
the
grace
that
glorifies
us
:
shall
I
therefore
infer
that
glorification
is
the
cause
of
faith
?
I
did
therefore
truly
say
,
that
according
to
this
doctrine
,
we
must
Beleeve
,
and
thou
shalt
be
justified
;
but
rather
,
thou
art
justified
;
Ergo
beleeve
.
No
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
.
)
because
1.
It
is
not
the
priviledge
of
all
men
.
2.
We
know
not
who
are
justified
,
no
more
then
who
are
elected
.
Though
faith
be
an
effect
of
Election
,
yet
we
may
not
say
,
Thou
art
elected
,
therefore
believe
.
3.
When
the
cause
is
not
noti●r
effectu
,
we
must
ascend
from
the
effect
to
the
cause
.
Rep.
Indeed
to
be
justified
is
not
the
priviledge
of
all
men
:
yet
Justification
is
to
be
preached
as
a
priviledge
attainable
by
all
men
,
if
they
will
beleeve
:
which
yet
it
cannnt
be
,
if
Justification
be
the
cause
of
faith
,
and
not
the
consequent
.
2.
It
is
also
true
,
that
we
cannot
say
,
Thou
art
elected
,
therefore
beleeve
;
neither
may
we
say
,
Beleeve
,
and
thou
shalt
be
elected
.
But
we
may
and
must
say
,
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
justified
;
therefore
the
case
of
Election
and
Justification
is
not
the
same
.
The
third
answer
I
understand
not
,
nor
I
think
no
man
else
;
at
least
,
how
it
should
be
applied
to
the
present
case
:
and
therefore
I
say
nothing
to
it
.
My
last
,
and
indeed
the
main
Argument
for
proof
of
the
position
,
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
By
retortion
.
That
this
follows
from
my
opinion
;
for
if
we
be
justified
by
the
act
of
beleeving
,
we
are
justified
by
a
work
of
our
own
.
For
answer
to
which
,
I
refer
the
Reader
,
to
the
second
and
third
Sections
of
this
chapter
.
If
works
be
taken
largely
,
for
any
humane
action
,
faith
is
a
work
;
but
it
is
(
as
I
may
so
call
it
)
an
unworking
work
;
for
to
beleeve
and
not
to
work
,
are
all
one
with
the
Apostle
,
as
we
have
shewed
before
out
of
Rom.
4.
4
,
5.
His
second
answer
is
a
large
grant
,
that
works
do
declare
and
evidence
Justification
;
and
therefore
I
take
notice
only
of
the
last
line
of
it
,
wherein
he
quotes
Rom.
1.
17.
and
Gal.
2.
16.
as
proving
faith
to
declare
and
evidence
Justification
to
conscience
.
Of
Gal.
2
16.
I
have
already
spoken
largely
:
and
have
proved
,
that
the
Apostles
words
,
We
have
beleeved
that
we
may
be
justified
,
cannot
have
this
sense
,
we
have
beleeved
that
we
may
know
our selves
to
be
justified
.
And
I
wonder
Mr.
Eyre
doth
not
see
how
he
stumbles
again
,
at
the
common
rock
of
contradicting
himself
,
in
alleging
that
text
.
He
here
acknowledgeth
,
that
works
do
evidence
our
Justification
:
but
the
Apostle
there
doth
altogether
remove
works
from
having
any
hand
in
the
Justification
there
spoken
of
.
Ergo
,
The
Justification
there
spoken
of
,
is
not
the
evidencing
of
Justification
.
The
words
in
Rom.
1.
17.
are
these
.
Therein
(
namely
in
the
Gospel
)
is
the
righteousnesse
of
God
revealed
from
faith
to
faith
.
That
is
,
(
as
the
Apostle
expounds
himself
,
chap.
3.
21
,
22.
)
In
the
Gospel
is
manifested
the
righteousnesse
of
God
,
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
unto
all
,
and
upon
all
that
beleeve
:
from
beleeving
Jewes
to
believing
Gentiles
;
for
that
questionlesse
is
the
meaning
of
those
words
,
from
faith
to
faith
;
as
is
manifest
,
by
comparing
them
with
the
foregoing
,
ver.
16.
The
Gospel
is
the
Power
of
God
to
salvation
,
to
every
one
that
bel●eveth
;
to
the
Jew
first
,
and
also
to
the
Greek
.
But
how
this
proves
,
that
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
is
to
have
the
evidence
of
Justification
in
our
consciences
,
I
cannot
divine
.
At
last
,
Mr.
Eyre
gives
us
his
direct
answer
,
or
rather
something
as
well
)
are
not
a
note
of
parity
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
mistakes
them
,
I
doubt
,
not
unwillingly
)
but
of
similitude
:
for
I
do
not
mean
,
that
works
do
evidence
with
an
equal
degree
of
clearnesse
or
certainty
;
but
in
the
same
way
or
manner
,
or
that
they
are
an
evidence
of
the
same
kinde
and
nature
as
faith
is
,
if
faith
evidence
barely
as
an
effect
.
And
so
we
may
be
said
to
be
justified
by
works
,
by
the
very
same
reason
as
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
;
if
to
be
justified
by
faith
be
no
more
,
then
by
faith
as
an
effect
,
to
know
that
we
are
justified
:
which
is
that
which
Mr.
Eyre
will
never
be
able
to
answer
while
he
lives
.
But
let
us
see
what
he
sayes
for
his
denial
of
works
to
evidence
as
well
as
faith
.
First
(
saith
he
)
they
do
not
evidence
so
clearly
and
certainly
as
faith
doth
:
because
works
may
proceed
from
principles
of
natural
ingenuity
and
morality
.
2.
Works
do
evidence
in
the
judgement
of
charity
and
before
men
:
but
not
in
the
judgement
of
infallibility
,
or
with
that
clearnesse
and
demonstrative
certainty
which
the
conscience
requires
.
Rep.
All
this
is
nothing
.
Majus
&
minus
non
variant
speciem
.
If
works
evidence
Justification
in
the
same
way
and
manner
as
faith
doth
,
though
not
with
such
a
perfect
degree
of
evidence
as
faith
doth
;
then
are
we
justified
by
works
as
well
as
by
faith
:
if
to
be
justified
be
to
know
that
we
are
justified
.
2.
The
Scriptures
tell
us
that
works
(
Christian
and
spiritual
works
)
are
a
very
clear
and
certain
evidence
,
1
John
3.
14.
We
know
that
we
are
passed
from
death
to
life
,
because
we
love
the
brethren
.
So
2
Pet.
1.
5
,
6
,
7.
with
ver.
10
,
11.
It
is
true
,
there
may
be
works
like
good
works
,
which
are
not
so
in
truth
;
and
there
may
be
faith
like
true
faith
,
which
yet
is
not
faith
unfeigned
:
but
when
works
are
brought
to
the
light
,
and
manifested
that
they
are
wrought
in
God
,
they
are
a
very
sure
evidence
:
as
sure
(
for
ought
I
know
)
as
faith
it selfe
,
though
I
will
not
dispute
it
,
2
Tim.
4.
7
,
8.
I
have
fought
a
good
sight
,
I
have
finished
my
course
,
I
have
kept
the
faith
:
hencef●rth
there
is
laid
up
for
me
a
Crown
of
righteousnesse
,
&c.
3.
What
he
sayes
in
the
second
place
,
that
works
do
evidence
before
men
,
but
not
with
that
clearnesse
and
certainty
which
the
conscience
requires
,
is
point
blank
against
the
Scriptures
,
1
John
3.
18
,
19.
My
little
children
,
let
us
not
l●ve
in
w●rd
,
neither
in
tongue
,
but
in
deed
and
in
truth
:
And
hereby
we
know
that
we
are
of
the
truth
,
and
shall
assure
our
hearts
before
him
.
4.
Observe
also
(
Reader
)
that
Mr.
Eyre
doth
here
,
(
as
also
in
other
places
)
distinguish
between
faith
and
works
:
and
yet
,
to
oppose
me
,
will
not
allow
that
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
because
faith
is
a
work
.
Before
I
passe
to
the
next
branch
of
this
Argument
,
I
must
acquaint
Whether
works
be
the
first
effect
(
namely
of
Justification
)
or
the
second
,
and
by
consequence
the
first
evidence
or
the
second
,
is
not
at
all
material
in
this
case
:
because
the
Apostle
,
when
he
denies
Justification
by
works
,
excludes
works
altogether
,
Rom.
3.
28.
and
4.
5.
The
Reason
why
I
added
,
this
,
was
,
Because
when
Mr.
Warren
proposed
this
Argument
against
Mr.
Eyre
,
all
the
answer
he
could
get
was
this
Question
;
Whether
Works
were
the
first
evidence
,
or
the
second
?
The
impertinency
of
this
Question
I
thought
fit
to
discover
,
by
observing
that
the
Apostle
denies
to
works
any
influence
at
all
,
into
that
Justification
which
he
speaks
of
:
and
therefore
he
speaks
not
of
Justification
by
way
of
evidence
,
whether
first
or
second
.
But
the
principal
intent
of
the
Argument
,
was
to
prove
the
main
Conclusion
,
That
the
Apostle
,
when
he
disputes
for
Justification
by
faith
,
cannot
be
understood
of
Justification
declared
in
couscience
,
for
works
have
an
efficiency
in
producing
that
Justification
.
But
the
Apostle
rejects
works
from
having
any
hand
at
all
in
that
Justification
which
he
disputes
for
.
Therefore
he
meanes
not
Justification
in
conscience
.
To
this
Mr.
Eyre
hath
held
it
his
wisest
course
to
say
nothing
.
If
he
should
have
distinguished
of
works
(
as
that
he
must
do
,
if
he
do
any
thing
)
he
knows
well
enough
what
advantage
he
had
put
into
my
hands
against
himself
.
Whether
this
be
an
Argument
of
a
minde
desirous
to
advance
the
truth
,
the
day
will
make
manifest
.
SECT.
V.
I
Come
now
to
the
second
branch
of
my
Argument
,
and
that
is
,
[
h
](A96867-e26790-b)
h
In
intellectione
perfecta
reperiuntur
tria
.
Primum
est
conformitas
actus
cum
objecto
:
secundum
,
necessitas
assentiendi
tertium
,
impotentia
ad
falsita●em
.
P●imum
vocatur
veritas
.
Secundum
evidentia
.
Tertium
certitudo
.
P.
H●rt
.
de
Me●doz
.
de
Anim.
d.
8.
sect.
1.
§.
●
.
)
assents
to
it
presently
,
that
it
is
true
.
As
(
in
naturall
things
)
that
every
whole
is
more
then
its
part
.
That
man
is
a
reasonable
creature
.
That
two
make
four
,
or
the
like
.
These
things
are
evident
to
our
reason
at
first
view
,
without
any
farther
proof
.
And
there
is
a
double
evidence
in
all
such
assent
.
The
one
is
the
evidence
of
the
object
,
or
the
truth
assented
to
,
which
must
be
clearly
represented
in
the
Axiome
or
Proposition
.
The
other
of
the
subject
,
which
is
the
light
of
reason
within
us
,
by
which
we
assent
to
a
Proposition
of
evident
truth
,
and
have
the
clear
knowledge
thereof
.
Even
as
unto
our
seeing
of
any
thing
,
there
must
concurre
an
external
light
to
make
the
object
visible
;
and
internal
sight
in
the
eye
,
to
evidence
the
same
object
to
each
man
in
particular
;
for
though
the
light
shine
never
so
clearly
,
a
blinde
man
can
see
nothing
:
nor
the
most
quick-sighted
,
without
outward
light
.
The
case
is
the
same
in
supernatural
verities
:
as
,
That
Jesus
Christ
is
the
Sonne
of
God
;
that
he
is
come
into
the
world
to
save
sinn●rs
;
that
whosoever
believeth
on
him
shall
be
saved
,
and
the
like
.
Which
things
,
because
they
are
above
the
reach
and
comprehension
of
natural
reason
,
therefore
our
mindes
assent
not
to
them
,
nor
have
the
evidence
of
them
,
till
they
be
informed
with
a
more
supernatural
light
and
principle
,
namely
faith
,
which
is
the
eye
and
sight
of
the
soule
,
Heb.
11.
26
,
27.
Hence
the
Apostle
in
that
chapter
,
ver.
1.
describes
faith
to
be
the
evidence
of
things
not
seen
;
and
sayes
,
ver.
3.
By
faith
we
know
the
world
was
made
by
the
Word
of
God
.
That
God
made
the
world
is
evidenced
objectively
by
the
Word
,
which
saith
;
that
God
made
the
Heavens
and
the
earth
,
Gen.
1.
1.
but
it
is
not
evidenced
unto
us
,
unlesse
we
beleeve
that
Word
.
And
so
in
the
present
case
,
if
any
person
(
suppose
Peter
)
have
by
faith
the
evidence
of
his
Justification
,
immediately
or
axiomatically
,
it
must
be
by
assenting
to
some
Axiome
or
Proposition
of
divine
revelation
.
Thou
Peter
art
justified
.
These
things
being
premised
,
we
come
now
to
prove
,
that
we
Mr.
Eyre
saith
,
I
mistake
the
nature
of
justifying
faith
,
conceiving
it
to
be
a
bare
intellectual
assent
to
a
Proposition
:
which
yet
is
quite
against
my
judgement
,
and
that
which
I
do
purposely
oppose
in
my
next
argument
.
I
consent
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
in
placing
faith
,
partly
in
the
understanding
,
and
partly
in
the
will
.
But
our
question
is
now
concerning
that
faith
which
is
in
the
understanding
,
how
Peter
(
for
example
)
comes
to
know
,
or
to
be
assured
by
faith
immediately
that
he
is
justified
?
And
this
(
say
I
)
must
be
by
the
assent
of
faith
to
some
such
Axiome
,
Proposition
,
or
Word
of
God
,
as
was
but
now
mentioned
,
Thou
Peter
art
justified
.
Even
as
Paul
was
assured
,
that
neither
himself
,
nor
any
that
were
in
the
ship
with
him
should
perish
,
by
beleeving
the
testimony
of
God
sent
him
by
an
Angel
,
Acts
27
25.
And
because
there
is
now
a
dayes
no
such
testimony
of
a
particular
mans
Justification
,
therefore
there
is
no
evidence
thereof
to
be
had
this
way
,
(
at
least
ordinarily
)
and
if
there
were
,
yet
I
would
not
call
that
faith
justifying
faith
,
but
rather
evidencing
faith
.
His
Answer
to
the
Argument
is
large
,
and
(
to
me
)
very
confused
.
He
excepts
against
my
terme
of
an
axiomatical
evidence
(
I
would
change
it
,
if
I
could
devise
any
terme
more
significant
)
but
at
last
,
yields
it
me
;
yet
thinks
it
fitter
to
say
,
faith
evidenceth
organically
as
it
is
the
organ
or
instrument
whereby
we
do
apprehend
and
adhere
to
Christ
.
But
we
shall
shew
fully
,
that
this
organical
evidence
,
must
be
reduced
to
one
of
those
three
by
me
mentioned
,
and
cannot
make
a
fourth
way
of
evidence
,
distinct
from
them
.
The
summe
of
his
answer
is
,
That
faith
is
such
an
assent
to
the
truth
of
the
Gospel
,
as
that
withal
the
soule
tastes
an
ineffable
sweetnesse
in
the
same
:
and
he
that
tastes
the
sweetnesse
of
Gospel-Promises
and
grace
,
knows
his
interest
and
propriety
therein
:
for
all
manner
of
sweetnesse
is
a
consequent
and
effect
of
some
propriety
which
we
have
in
that
good
thing
which
causeth
it
.
—
And
so
faith
doth
evidence
our
Justification
axiomatically
,
by
assenting
to
,
and
withal
tasting
and
relishing
those
indefinite
and
general
Propositions
,
Invitations
and
Promises
that
are
held
forth
to
us
in
the
Gospel
,
which
by
a
secret
and
unscrutable
work
of
the
Spirit
,
are
applied
and
made
particular
to
the
soule
of
a
true
beleever
:
for
otherwise
he
could
never
taste
any
sweetnesse
in
them
.
Rep.
How
truly
did
I
say
,
that
Mr.
Eyres
doctrine
would
at
last
[
i
](A96867-e27130-b)
i
Neither
the
letters
nor
pages
are
numbred
,
and
therefo●e
I
cannot
direct
the
Reader
to
the
particular
place
.
)
Bayne
sayes
of
himself
in
one
of
his
letters
.
I
thank
God
,
in
Christ
sustentation
I
have
,
and
some
little
strength
:
suavities
spiritual
I
taste
not
any
.
But
indeed
I
often
tell
my selfe
,
Physick
purgative
and
restorative
are
not
to
be
taken
at
the
same
time
,
&c.
Neither
do
I
dare
to
deny
,
but
that
it
may
be
the
case
of
one
that
is
saved
,
to
die
in
as
much
darknesse
as
Spira
himself
:
if
any
man
can
prove
the
contrary
,
let
him
.
Yea
,
so
separable
is
sweetnesse
from
faith
,
that
sometimes
on
the
contrary
,
excesse
of
sweetnesse
hath
hindred
and
overcome
faith
:
as
it
was
in
the
disciples
,
who
for
very
joy
beleeved
not
,
Luke
24.
41.
and
with
old
Jacob
in
a
like
case
,
Gen.
45.
26.
2.
I
also
deny
,
that
there
can
be
no
manner
of
sweetnesse
tasted
in
the
Gospel
,
but
by
such
as
have
interest
and
propriety
in
the
grace
thereof
.
A
propriety
in
conceit
,
though
not
in
truth
,
or
an
interest
possible
and
attainable
,
though
not
actually
obtained
,
may
make
the
Gospel
taste
not
a
little
sweet
.
The
Scriptures
tell
us
,
that
some
may
be
enlightened
,
and
taste
of
the
heavenly
gift
,
and
of
the
good
Word
of
God
,
Heb.
6.
4
,
5.
and
receive
the
Word
with
joy
,
Matth.
13.
20.
who
yet
were
not
justified
nor
pardoned
.
3.
A
taste
of
sweetnesse
in
the
Gospel
,
doth
evidence
to
the
soule
sensibly
and
experimentally
,
that
God
and
his
Word
are
good
:
which
may
be
an
Argument
to
prove
that
he
is
justified
.
But
it
neither
doth
nor
can
actually
evidence
it
to
him
,
unlesse
there
intervene
another
act
of
the
minde
,
concluding
himself
to
be
justified
,
according
to
the
Promise
made
to
such
a
faith
.
Sugar
will
evidence
its
sweetnesse
to
my
taste
:
but
my
tasting
will
not
evidence
to
me
actually
that
I
am
a
living
creature
,
unlesse
I
conclude
it
by
the
discourse
of
my
minde
:
because
according
to
the
rules
of
Philosophy
,
None
can
taste
but
a
living
creature
.
Beasts
can
taste
as
well
as
men
,
yet-they
do
not
know
that
they
are
living
creatures
:
because
they
cannot
compare
their
act
with
the
rule
according
to
which
they
act
:
which
ability
in
the
reasonable
soule
,
is
usually
called
a
power
of
reflecting
upon
its
own
act
.
The
case
is
much
the
same
in
Infants
.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyres
organical
evidence
is
the
very
same
with
that
which
I
call
faiths
evidencing
as
an
Argument
:
or
if
he
understand
it
of
that
which
is
not
only
affected
to
prove
,
but
doth
actually
prove
,
then
it
is
the
same
with
that
which
I
below
call
syllogistical
:
as
being
an
act
of
the
soule
,
concluding
its
own
Justification
,
from
the
sweetnesse
it
tasteth
in
the
Promises
.
4.
But
the
truth
is
,
it
is
a
most
preposterous
course
,
to
send
the
soul
for
its
evidence
of
right
and
interest
in
the
Promises
,
to
a
taste
of
sweetnesse
in
them
:
which
will
quickly
appear
,
if
Mr.
Eyres
metaphorical
expressions
be
made
more
grammatical
.
Wherefore
,
to
taste
sweetnesse
in
the
Promises
,
is
either
an
act
of
the
understanding
,
judging
of
the
Promise
sub
ratione
b●ni
convenientis
,
as
a
most
suitable
good
:
and
thus
,
it
is
a
knowledge
antecedent
to
faith
,
or
at
most
but
the
beginning
of
faith
it self
,
Gal.
2.
16.
Knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
,
but
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
we
have
believed
,
Or
it
is
an
act
of
the
Will
,
embracing
,
delighting
,
and
taking
complacency
in
the
Promise
,
as
his
best
good
:
and
then
it
follows
immediately
,
not
upon
our
right
and
interest
in
the
Promise
,
but
upon
our
knowledge
of
that
right
:
for
as
we
desire
not
that
which
we
do
not
know
;
so
neither
can
we
rejoyce
in
a
right
which
we
know
not
.
The
Question
then
returnes
,
viz.
how
the
soul
comes
to
know
its
right
and
interest
in
the
Promise
?
To
say
,
it
knows
it
by
taking
complacency
in
it
,
is
to
say
it
delights
in
it
knows
not
what
;
for
the
will
follows
the
judgement
:
and
to
take
complacency
in
a
good
,
which
we
do
not
know
we
have
a
right
in
,
is
naturally
impossible
.
Mr.
Eyre
therefore
may
speak
truly
,
when
he
sayes
,
He
that
tastes
the
sweetnesse
of
Gospel-grace
knows
his
interest
therein
(
such
the
taste
may
be
)
;
but
we
are
never
the
wiser
in
the
understanding
of
the
main
question
:
viz.
How
the
soule
comes
to
the
knowledge
of
his
interest
in
that
Promise
,
in
which
he
tastes
so
much
sweetnesse
?
from
answer
to
this
,
Mr.
Eyre
makes
an
escape
under
the
darknesse
of
his
metaphorical
expressions
.
5.
I
desire
also
to
know
,
whether
it
be
the
Promise
of
pardon
and
Justification
,
in
which
the
soule
tastes
such
sweetnesse
,
as
thereby
to
have
the
evidence
of
his
Justification
,
or
some
other
?
If
some
other
,
how
is
it
possible
that
faith
should
evidence
to
me
my
pardon
and
Justification
,
by
tasting
sweetnesse
in
that
truth
which
promiseth
no
pardon
or
Justification
at
all
?
If
it
be
the
Promise
of
pardon
,
let
Mr.
Eyre
see
that
he
consist
with
himself
.
Promises
are
essentially
boni
futuri
,
of
a
future
good
.
Therefore
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
there
can
be
now
no
Promise
of
pardon
or
Justification
.
Not
of
the
Act
,
for
that
is
past
from
all
eternity
:
not
of
the
Effect
,
for
that
is
past
as
long
as
since
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
therefore
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
can
be
the
object
or
matter
of
a
Promise
.
It
remaines
then
,
that
it
is
the
Promise
of
manifesting
and
declaring
Justification
.
But
then
behold
the
sense
.
My
faith
doth
evidence
to
me
that
I
am
justified
,
by
relishing
the
Promise
which
God
hath
made
of
manifesting
and
declaring
Justification
.
Hence
it
follows
,
that
I
have
the
evidence
of
my
Justification
by
beleeving
that
I
shall
have
it
.
And
then
either
my
faith
must
be
false
,
or
the
Promise
must
be
false
;
for
if
I
do
already
know
that
I
am
justified
,
that
knowledge
cannot
be
future
:
else
the
same
thing
might
be
and
not
be
at
the
same
time
.
But
there
can
be
no
falshood
either
in
a
divine
faith
,
or
in
a
divine
testimony
.
And
I
desire
also
Mr.
Eyre
to
reconcile
what
here
he
speaks
of
faiths
evidencing
,
with
the
Interpretations
given
before
of
those
sayings
in
Scripture
,
whosoever
beleeves
shall
receive
remission
of
sins
,
Acts
10.
43.
and
26.
18.
That
receiving
(
saith
he
)
is
our
act
,
not
Gods
;
namely
,
our
knowing
our selves
to
be
justified
.
Here
he
makes
it
intrinsecal
to
faith
to
beget
assurance
,
as
it
is
a
taste
of
sweetnesse
in
the
Promise
,
that
is
,
in
the
Promise
of
manifesting
Justification
:
for
no
other
Justification
is
capable
of
being
promised
.
Lay
all
this
together
,
and
one
or
both
these
two
things
must
be
the
result
,
either
that
I
know
I
am
justified
,
before
God
manifest
it
to
me
(
for
I
beleeve
,
and
thereby
know
that
I
am
justified
:
and
the
Promise
which
I
beleeve
is
,
that
God
will
manifest
my
Justification
to
me
.
Ergo
,
he
hath
not
yet
manifested
it
,
)
or
else
the
great
Promise
of
justifying
them
that
beleeve
must
be
resolved
into
this
ridiculous
piece
of
non-sense
.
He
that
hath
the
evidence
of
his
Justification
,
shall
have
the
evidence
of
his
Justification
;
for
in
that
he
believes
he
hath
this
evidence
:
and
the
thing
that
is
promised
is
,
that
he
shall
have
this
evidence
.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyre
doth
not
limit
the
evidence
of
faith
,
to
its
relishing
[
k
](A96867-e27400-b)
k
Of
faith
.
sect.
1
cap
9
●
.
4.
)
Dr.
Jackson
,
and
(
[
l
](A96867-e27430-b)
l
Sound
Bel.
pag.
220
,
221.
)
Mr.
Shepheard
.
But
the
former
hath
not
a
word
of
making
the
general
Promise
particular
,
but
saith
only
,
That
the
particular
manner
of
the
Spirits
working
this
alteration
in
our
soules
,
(
namely
,
that
now
we
relish
spiritual
things
,
which
naturally
we
taste
no
sweetnesse
in
)
is
a
mystery
inscrutable
,
to
which
I
consent
.
The
latter
(
whose
memory
is
very
honourable
and
precious
to
me
)
was
the
most
violent
opposer
of
this
doctrine
of
any
man
on
earth
,
that
ever
I
knew
or
heard
of
:
his
works
shew
something
of
it
;
but
they
that
knew
him
can
testifie
more
.
I
heartily
consent
to
him
,
that
in
vocation
the
Spirit
makes
the
general
call
particular
,
according
to
the
sense
in
which
he
explaines
himselfe
in
the
place
quoted
.
The
soule
(
saith
he
)
at
this
instant
,
feeles
such
a
special
stirring
of
the
Spirit
upon
it
,
which
it
feeles
now
,
and
never
felt
before
:
as
also
its
particular
case
so
spoken
to
,
and
its
particular
objections
so
answered
,
and
the
grievousnesse
of
its
sin
,
in
refusing
grace
so
particularly
applied
,
as
if
God
spake
only
unto
it
.
All
this
I
beleeve
to
be
true
,
but
it
is
nothing
in
the
world
to
our
purpose
.
To
make
the
common
motives
and
invitations
unto
faith
,
to
become
in
this
manner
particular
in
their
operation
,
upon
particular
persons
,
doth
neither
affirme
nor
deny
any
thing
concerning
the
state
and
condition
of
those
persons
.
But
to
evidence
to
a
man
immediately
that
he
is
justified
,
must
be
by
a
particular
testimony
:
and
that
as
distinct
from
the
testimony
of
Scripture
(
which
saith
only
that
believers
are
justified
)
as
a
proper
or
particular
Proposition
from
a
general
.
I
say
therefore
,
1.
That
the
Spirit
evidenceth
to
no
man
that
he
is
He
that
beleeveth
is
justified
.
But
I
beleeve
,
Ergo
I
am
justified
.
The
case
is
so
plain
to
me
,
that
I
appeal
to
Mr.
Eyre
himself
for
judgement
.
If
a
man
shall
come
to
him
and
say
,
Sir
,
I
am
assured
by
the
Spirit
of
God
that
I
am
justified
,
and
that
all
my
sins
are
pardoned
,
but
whether
I
beleeve
or
no
,
or
ever
did
,
that
I
cannot
tell
:
Would
he
allow
this
perswasion
to
be
of
God
?
If
not
,
then
doth
not
the
Spirit
testifie
to
any
man
immediately
that
he
is
justified
:
but
the
evidence
of
the
Spirit
(
as
I
said
before
)
is
,
if
not
expressely
,
yet
implicitly
syllogistical
.
If
so
,
I
would
thus
convince
the
Pretender
from
Mr.
Eyres
principles
.
He
that
doth
not
believe
,
cannot
be
assured
that
he
is
justified
.
But
thou
dost
not
believe
,
Ergo
thou
canst
not
have
assurance
(
from
the
Spirit
)
that
thou
art
justified
.
What
will
be
here
denied
?
Not
the
major
,
for
that
's
an
undoubted
truth
,
grounded
in
Mr.
Eyres
interpretation
.
Not
the
minor
:
for
the
man
whom
we
are
now
convincing
.
of
his
errour
,
in
pretending
to
assurance
by
the
Spirit
,
is
supposed
not
to
know
whether
he
have
faith
or
no.
Ergo
,
he
cannot
truly
say
he
hath
faith
,
though
he
have
it
:
because
to
affirme
that
for
truth
,
which
we
do
not
know
to
be
true
,
is
a
lie
,
though
the
thing
should
be
so
as
we
say
.
Ergo
he
must
yield
to
the
Conclusion
,
that
his
assurance
is
not
from
the
Spirit
:
else
the
testimony
of
the
Spirit
is
contradictory
to
that
of
Scripture
.
Secondly
,
Mr.
Eyres
words
do
also
contradict
themselves
notoriously
.
A
mans
faith
(
suppose
Peters
)
can
evidence
no
more
to
him
subjectively
,
He
that
believes
is
justified
,
doth
not
evidence
objectively
immediately
that
Peter
is
justified
;
for
the
former
is
general
,
and
the
latter
is
proper
.
And
otherwise
,
every
one
in
the
world
that
believes
that
Proposition
,
might
thereby
have
the
evidence
of
Peters
Justification
,
as
well
as
of
his
own
.
Even
as
we
know
by
faith
,
that
they
to
whom
the
Lord
said
,
Your
sins
are
forgiven
you
,
were
justified
as
well
as
themselves
.
And
all
believers
(
one
as
well
as
another
)
know
by
faith
,
that
the
world
was
made
by
the
Word
of
God
,
Heb.
11.
3.
because
the
Scriptures
say
so
.
Object
.
But
the
Spirit
makes
this
general
Proposition
to
be
particular
unto
Peter
▪
Answ
.
I
ask
,
whether
the
Scriptures
be
not
equally
the
rule
of
all
mens
faith
?
If
not
,
then
neither
of
their
obedience
:
which
will
introduce
Antinomianisme
with
a
vengeance
.
If
so
,
(
as
most
undoubtedly
so
)
then
this
particular
testimony
of
the
Spirit
,
is
no
object
of
Peters
faith
:
which
I
farther
argue
thus
.
It
is
no
object
of
Pauls
faith
,
that
Peter
is
justified
.
Ergo
,
it
is
no
object
of
Peters
faith
.
The
reason
is
,
because
the
rule
of
all
mens
faith
,
is
one
and
the
same
equally
.
Therefore
the
faith
of
Christians
is
called
a
common
faith
,
Tit.
1.
4.
the
faith
of
Gods
elect
,
ibid.
ver.
1.
which
is
but
one
,
Eph.
4.
5.
But
if
Peter
beleeve
upon
the
testimony
of
the
Spirit
,
that
which
Paul
cannot
,
or
hath
no
ground
to
beleeve
upon
the
testimony
of
Scripture
,
then
Peters
faith
doth
not
act
by
the
same
rule
that
Pauls
doth
:
but
there
will
be
as
many
rules
of
faith
,
as
there
be
persons
in
the
world
,
that
pretend
to
this
particular
testimony
of
the
Spirit
.
5.
To
conclude
,
to
make
a
general
Proposition
particular
,
is
to
Rom.
8.
16.
The
Spirit
beareth
witnesse
with
our
spirits
that
we
are
the
children
of
God
,
(
which
text
Mr.
Eyre
doth
not
mention
,
and
therefore
I
answer
it
,
for
the
sake
of
some
others
.
)
Compare
this
verse
with
the
foregoing
,
and
with
a
parallel
place
to
the
Galatians
,
and
it
will
not
be
difficult
to
give
the
right
sense
of
it
,
Gal.
4.
6.
Because
you
are
sonnes
,
God
hath
sent
forth
the
Spirit
of
his
Sonne
into
our
hearts
,
crying
Abba
Father
.
So
Rom.
8.
15.
Ye
have
received
the
Spirit
of
Adoption
,
whereby
we
cry
Abba
Father
.
Then
it
followes
,
ver.
16.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
That
very
same
Spirit
(
so
I
render
the
words
,
)
beareth
witnesse
,
&c.
Hence
I
gather
,
that
this
witnesse
of
the
Spirit
,
is
not
any
secret
revelation
of
a
Proposition
(
as
this
,
Thou
Peter
or
Paul
art
justified
)
made
by
the
Spirit
to
the
soul
.
But
the
Spirits
working
in
us
liberty
in
our
accesses
unto
God
to
call
him
Father
,
is
the
thing
that
evidenceth
to
us
as
an
infallible
Argument
,
that
we
are
the
children
of
God
.
And
because
Arguments
by
themselves
do
not
[
m
](A96867-e28010-b)
m
Argument●
non
arguunt
extra
dispositionem
.
evidence
actually
,
but
virtually
,
therefore
the
Spirit
by
this
work
,
helping
us
to
conclude
our selves
the
children
of
God
,
doth
thereby
witnesse
that
we
are
Gods
children
.
SECT.
VI.
MY
second
Argument
,
to
prove
that
faith
doth
not
evidence
Justification
Understand
(
Reader
)
that
the
direct
tendency
of
this
Argument
is
to
prove
,
that
justifying
faith
is
not
a
mans
assurance
that
he
is
justified
:
which
I
presumed
was
Mr.
Eyres
judgement
:
because
that
Justification
which
is
in
Scripture
made
an
immediate
consequent
of
believing
,
is
(
with
him
)
a
knowledge
that
we
are
justified
.
I
thought
therefore
that
he
had
held
faith
to
be
an
assurance
:
because
otherwise
a
man
might
beleeve
,
and
yet
not
be
justified
by
faith
.
And
so
the
proving
that
faith
was
not
an
assurance
,
would
withal
have
proved
,
that
it
doth
not
evidence
Justification
axiomatically
or
immediately
.
But
now
I
perceive
,
that
he
doth
not
place
the
formality
of
faith
in
an
assurance
:
but
rather
makes
this
an
essential
property
and
effect
of
that
(
if
I
understand
him
.
)
And
so
I
confesse
this
Argument
is
not
directly
against
him
.
Neverthelesse
,
it
will
not
be
amisse
to
examine
his
answer
:
for
(
if
I
mistake
not
)
either
he
must
make
faith
to
be
an
assurance
tantamount
:
or
else
he
contradicts
himself
.
His
answer
therefore
is
this
.
We
do
not
presse
every
man
to
believe
that
he
is
justified
;
but
to
beleeve
,
1.
Assensu
intellectus
,
to
acknowledge
that
there
is
a
sufficiency
of
merit
in
Christ
for
the
Justification
of
sinners
.
2.
Amplexu
voluntatis
:
to
accept
,
embrace
,
and
cleave
unto
Jesus
Christ
.
Rep.
I
acknowledge
this
to
be
the
very
truth
:
but
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
To
what
he
here
sayes
,
that
we
presse
all
men
to
believe
,
there
is
de
facto
for
any
.
)
This
is
false
.
Or
,
2.
That
Christs
merits
are
indeed
sufficient
for
the
Justification
of
all
sinners
;
but
the
effect
(
which
is
the
actual
Justification
of
sinners
,
)
is
suspended
till
we
beleeve
.
Nor
can
this
be
proposed
to
be
believed
by
all
men
equally
:
for
it
is
false
in
respect
of
the
Elect
,
who
(
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
)
were
justified
actually
sixteen
hundred
yeares
ago
in
the
death
of
Christ
Or
,
3.
That
the
merits
of
Christ
were
sufficient
for
the
Justification
of
all
sinners
:
but
were
never
ordained
to
be
effectual
to
the
Justification
of
all
,
upon
any
termes
or
conditions
whatsoever
.
Nor
can
this
be
the
Promise
or
Proposition
,
which
is
the
object
of
our
justifying
faith
,
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
;
The
reason
is
,
because
supposing
that
every
man
in
the
world
should
beleeve
this
,
(
which
is
no
contradiction
,
and
therefore
may
be
supposed
as
possible
)
yet
they
should
not
be
justified
notwithstanding
:
seeing
Christ
never
intended
that
every
man
should
be
justified
by
his
blood
,
upon
any
termes
.
Or
,
4.
That
the
merits
of
Christ
were
ordained
of
God
and
Christ
,
to
the
obtaining
of
Justification
for
every
sinner
most
sufficiently
,
if
they
should
or
would
believe
.
This
is
most
true
,
but
Mr.
Eyre
rejects
it
,
as
too
much
gratifying
those
that
are
for
Universal
Redemption
in
the
grossest
sense
,
which
is
a
needlesse
feare
:
and
the
two
Arguments
which
he
here
proposeth
against
it
,
he
might
have
seen
long
since
answered
by
Reverend
and
Learned
Bishop
Davenant
,
(
of
famous
memory
)
in
his
Dissertation
De
Morte
Christi
,
cap.
3.
page
22
,
23
,
30
,
31.
In
short
,
let
Mr.
Eyre
state
his
Proposition
how
he
will
:
To
say
,
the
merits
of
Christ
are
sufficient
,
and
but
sufficient
(
before
faith
)
to
Justification
,
is
that
which
the
Elect
cannot
believe
without
errour
.
To
say
they
are
sufficient
in
reference
to
their
own
value
,
and
intrinseca●
greatnesse
,
[
n
](A96867-e28280-b)
n
Vid.
Job
Raynoll
Apolog.
thes
parag.
14.
can
neither
be
a
motive
to
an
unbeliever
to
come
to
Christ
for
righteousnesse
:
nor
can
the
believing
it
,
ever
evidence
any
mans
Justification
.
I
am
perswaded
the
devils
beleeve
it
:
and
it
cannot
be
denied
,
but
that
the
merits
of
Christ
were
a
price
of
themselves
sufficient
to
have
purchased
salvation
for
them
,
(
yea
,
and
to
have
turned
all
the
stones
in
the
streets
into
men
,
and
to
have
glorified
them
in
Heaven
.
)
And
it
is
very
strange
,
that
a
soule
should
be
drawn
to
Christ
,
upon
a
ground
common
to
divels
with
himself
;
or
have
the
evidence
of
his
Justification
by
believing
such
a
truth
,
in
which
the
devils
have
as
much
interest
as
himselfe
.
SECT.
VII
.
THe
third
branch
of
my
Argument
succeeds
.
Namely
,
that
we
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
it
is
not
needful
.
It
is
sufficient
that
faith
it selfe
is
the
medium
,
as
thus
.
He
that
beleeveth
,
was
justified
before
faith
.
But
I
beleeve
.
Ergo.
Rep.
The
Argument
remaines
good
for
the
purpose
,
for
which
I
advanced
it
.
For
I
not
knowing
certainly
in
what
sense
Mr.
Eyre
would
maintain
that
faith
did
evidence
,
could
conjecture
at
none
more
probable
,
then
that
he
placed
the
nature
and
being
of
justifying
faith
in
the
evidence
,
knowledge
or
assurance
of
our
Justification
.
Upon
which
presumption
,
as
I
had
before
proved
,
that
it
was
not
assensus
axiomaticus
,
an
axiomatical
and
immediate
assent
to
this
Proposition
,
I
am
justified
;
so
in
this
Argument
my
intent
was
to
prove
,
that
neither
was
it
assensus
syllogisticus
,
an
assent
to
the
same
Proposition
,
deduced
by
way
of
Conclusion
out
of
premisses
.
And
this
the
Argument
proves
invincibly
.
Let
us
set
Mr.
Eyres
syllogisme
before
us
,
and
the
matter
will
be
plain
.
He
that
beleeves
,
was
justified
before
faith
.
But
I
beleeve
.
Ergo
,
I
was
justified
before
faith
.
Hence
it
is
manifest
,
that
the
faith
which
I
affirme
of
my selfe
in
the
minor
,
cannot
consist
essentially
in
my
assent
to
the
Conclusion
:
for
then
the
Syllogisme
would
consist
but
of
two
Propositions
.
This
is
the
manifest
scope
of
the
Argument
,
which
now
I
know
Mr.
Eyres
minde
better
,
I
see
well
enough
,
doth
him
but
little
hurt
,
and
therefore
I
insist
not
on
the
vindication
of
it
.
Nor
yet
may
the
Reader
charge
me
for
arguing
impertinently
;
seeing
it
was
necessary
I
should
suppose
and
confute
what
might
be
said
,
when
I
did
not
know
what
would
be
said
.
I
know
no
other
way
I
had
to
get
out
of
Mr.
Eyre
his
sense
of
faiths
evidencing
.
Yet
because
I
did
easily
foresee
he
might
give
that
answer
,
which
here
he
doth
,
I
added
the
next
Argument
,
which
meets
with
it
to
the
full
.
If
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
because
faith
doth
evidence
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
the
Conclusion
is
of
faith
.
As
in
this
Syllogisme
.
All
men
shall
rise
from
the
dead
.
I
am
a
man
.
Ergo
,
I
shall
rise
from
the
dead
.
Rep.
That
the
Conclusion
is
de
fide
,
is
said
,
not
proved
(
and
I
would
that
way
of
disputing
were
lesse
frequent
with
Mr.
Eyre
)
.
I
acknowledge
the
Conclusion
to
be
partly
of
faith
,
and
partly
of
reason
and
experience
,
as
Mr.
(
[
o
](A96867-e28610-b)
o
Vindi●
.
grat
.
p●g
41.
fol.
)
Pemble
determines
it
.
And
that
the
Schooles
determine
otherwise
,
I
will
beleeve
when
I
see
.
That
it
is
not
purely
of
faith
,
I
thus
prove
.
The
assent
of
faith
is
grounded
in
the
verity
of
divine
testimony
.
But
the
assent
to
a
Conclusion
is
grounded
in
the
necessity
of
its
(
[
p
](A96867-e28630-b)
p
Vid.
Fr●●
.
B●ur
.
Meneriz
.
d●f
.
P.
R●dial
.
l.
2.
c.
9.
disquis
.
1
&
2.
)
consequence
upon
such
and
such
premisses
,
which
forceth
the
understanding
to
assent
to
it
:
whether
of
it self
it
be
of
necessary
or
contingent
truth
:
or
in
what
matter
soever
it
be
,
whether
grammatical
,
physical
,
theological
,
or
the
like
.
So
that
a
Conclusion
is
said
to
be
de
fide
,
because
it
depends
upon
some
principle
of
saith
,
in
regard
of
its
supernaturality
:
but
formally
,
Et
qu●tenus
attingitur
per
actum
Conclusionis
:
Reason
is
principium
assentiendi
proximum
,
the
nearest
(
[
q
](A96867-e28680-b)
q
De
Mend●z
.
loq
.
disp
1●
.
de
demonstr.
sect.
3.
●
.
47.
)
principle
and
cause
of
my
assent
,
otherwise
we
must
have
some
other
definition
of
a
syllogisme
,
then
our
Universities
have
hitherto
been
acquainted
with
.
2.
In
the
present
case
,
the
matter
is
clearer
then
Mr.
Eyre
is
aware
of
.
We
will
suppose
Peter
to
be
the
man
that
makes
the
Syllogisme
.
He
that
believes
,
is
justified
.
But
I
beleeve
.
Ergo
,
I
am
justified
.
When
he
faith
in
the
minor
,
I
beleeve
;
he
is
supposed
to
speak
,
not
only
of
that
faith
,
which
sin
the
Will
,
accepting
and
embracing
a
promised
good
:
but
of
that
ialso
,
which
is
in
the
understanding
assenting
,
omni
credibili
,
to
all
truths
proposed
to
be
believed
.
But
(
according
to
Mr.
Eyre
)
it
is
a
truth
proposed
to
Peters
faith
,
that
himself
is
justified
.
Let
it
be
expressed
then
in
the
Syllogisme
,
and
it
runs
thus
.
He
that
beleeves
all
the
objects
of
his
faith
,
and
particularly
that
himselfe
is
justified
,
he
is
justified
.
But
(
saith
Peter
)
I
beleeve
all
the
objects
of
my
faith
,
and
particularly
that
my self
am
justified
.
Ergo
,
I
am
justified
.
If
the
Conclusion
be
here
de
side
,
then
Peter
beleeves
he
is
justified
,
because
he
believes
he
is
justified
:
which
Conclusion
(
I
confesse
)
is
no
act
of
reason
.
Neverthelesse
,
if
Reason
be
yielded
,
to
be
principium
assentiendi
,
the
principle
of
assenting
to
the
Conclusion
,
there
will
be
better
sense
in
his
Argumentation
:
namely
,
that
Peter
knows
that
he
is
justified
,
or
is
perswaded
thereof
with
a
certainty
of
Reason
,
because
he
beleeves
it
with
a
divine
Faith
:
and
that
he
could
not
do
,
if
he
were
not
justified
.
As
to
the
Syllogisme
which
Mr.
Eyre
proposeth
for
Illustration
,
All
men
shall
rise
again
.
I
am
a
man
.
Ergo
,
I
shall
rise
again
.
The
Conclusion
is
partly
of
faith
,
and
partly
of
reason
.
Of
reason
formaliter
&
elicitivè
:
of
faith
fundamentaliter
&
imperativè
,
(
as
I
may
so
speak
)
it
being
a
particular
knowledge
grounded
in
a
principle
of
faith
:
for
I
could
not
have
this
knowledge
,
unlesse
I
did
by
faith
assent
to
the
Proposition
.
But
that
it
is
not
purely
of
faith
,
I
thus
prove
.
If
a
man
be
sound
in
the
faith
of
the
Resurrection
,
that
believes
all
men
shall
rise
,
though
he
do
not
believe
that
himself
shall
rise
;
then
to
assent
that
himself
shall
rise
,
is
not
purely
an
act
of
faith
.
Because
a
man
cannot
at
the
same
time
be
sound
and
unsound
in
the
faith
of
the
same
article
.
But
he
is
sound
in
the
faith
of
the
Resurrection
that
believes
all
men
shall
rise
,
though
he
do
not
believe
that
himself
shall
rise
;
for
he
believes
as
much
as
the
Scripture
reports
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
a
man
cannot
assent
to
the
one
,
but
he
must
assent
to
the
other
.
I
think
so
too
.
But
the
ground
of
it
is
,
because
it
is
against
reason
,
not
because
it
is
against
faith
:
and
therefore
the
Conclusion
is
partly
of
reason
,
not
purely
of
faith
:
which
was
that
I
was
to
demonstrate
.
The
Conclusion
is
;
there
can
be
no
way
imagined
,
in
which
faith
may
be
said
to
evidence
our
Justification
,
but
one
of
those
three
mentioned
,
(
Mr.
Eyre
proposeth
a
fourth
:
but
we
have
shewed
,
that
it
must
be
reduced
to
one
of
these
three
,
and
so
differs
in
name
only
,
not
in
thing
)
.
But
we
cannot
be
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
in
reference
to
its
evidencing
our
Justification
either
of
these
wayes
.
Therefore
faith
must
be
said
to
justifie
in
some
other
respect
,
then
that
it
doth
evidence
Justification
:
or
else
we
cannot
be
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
at
all
.
SECT.
VIII
.
MY
third
Argument
comes
next
in
place
.
That
Interpretation
Mr.
Eyre
,
before
he
answers
the
Argument
,
reformes
my
expressions
,
and
sayes
,
That
he
doth
not
say
that
Justification
by
faith
is
meerly
a
Justification
in
conscience
:
faith
is
sometimes
put
objectively
for
Christ
,
&c.
Rep.
Whether
meerly
or
not
meerly
,
is
an
impertinent
quarrel
:
he
doth
it
too
frequently
;
and
to
those
most
eminent
texts
mentioned
before
in
my
third
Chapter
,
which
speak
of
Gods
justifying
sinners
by
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
he
answers
meerly
so
.
And
as
for
his
putting
of
faith
objectively
for
Christ
,
we
have
already
shewed
at
large
what
injury
it
offers
to
the
plain
and
pure
Word
of
God
.
But
I
must
tell
him
,
it
is
most
intolerable
dealing
,
to
build
so
large
a
discourse
,
as
is
the
greatest
part
of
his
book
,
upon
two
Supporters
which
have
no
place
in
Scripture
to
set
their
feet
on
.
The
one
is
,
when
he
pleaseth
to
interpret
Justification
for
the
manifestation
thereof
.
The
other
,
when
he
pleaseth
to
put
faith
for
its
object
,
Christ
.
When
such
a
weight
is
laid
upon
these
foundations
,
had
it
not
been
necessary
to
shew
us
the
places
,
to
clear
and
vindicate
them
,
where
these
words
must
have
this
sense
and
no
other
?
But
to
the
answer
:
(
for
this
is
nothing
but
a
delay
.
)
This
it
is
.
The
pronouncing
of
us
just
,
is
not
the
formal
act
of
our
Justification
:
but
the
imputing
of
righteousnesse
,
which
is
the
Act
of
God
alone
:
Ministers
may
pronounce
us
just
,
without
robbery
done
to
God
.
So
doth
faith
declare
to
our
consciences
the
sentence
of
absolution
,
&c.
Rep.
The
Argument
is
wholly
yielded
,
and
the
sinner
thereby
[
r
](A96867-e29140-b)
r
Medul
theol
.
l.
1.
c.
27
thes
12.
Dr.
Ames
.
Now
that
Justification
,
which
is
in
Scriptures
said
to
be
by
faith
,
is
formally
an
imputation
of
righteousnesses
and
a
non-imputation
of
sin
,
Rom.
4.
2
,
5.
compared
with
ver.
6.
11
,
24.
Ergo
,
by
Mr.
Eyres
concession
,
it
is
only
Gods
act
,
and
no
creature
can
be
joyned
with
him
therein
,
without
robbery
done
to
him
.
But
we
do
joyne
with
him
by
faith
,
in
imputing
righteousnesse
to
our selves
,
if
imputing
righteousnesse
to
believers
,
be
their
knowing
by
faith
,
that
righteousnesse
is
imputed
to
them
,
as
we
heard
Mr.
Eyre
interpreting
it
before
,
in
answer
to
Rom.
4.
24.
3.
If
there
be
any
sense
wherein
Ministers
may
be
said
to
justifie
[
s
](A96867-e29240-b)
s
Vid.
Calv.
in
loc.
&
Altham
.
concil
.
loc.
pugn
.
cap.
194.
&
Dr.
Reynolds
Conference
with
Hart.
Ch.
2.
Divis.
3.
pag.
65.
because
it
comes
to
passe
upon
every
one
according
to
the
Word
which
they
preached
.
He
that
believes
shall
be
saved
,
and
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
As
the
Prophet
in
a
like
sense
is
said
to
be
set
over
Nations
and
Kingdomes
,
to
root
out
and
to
pull
down
,
to
build
and
to
plant
,
Jer.
1.
10.
Yet
was
it
not
they
,
but
the
Word
which
they
preached
,
which
did
justifie
or
condemn
:
and
that
also
received
all
its
efficacy
immediately
from
God
.
So
that
remission
of
sins
is
ascribed
to
the
Apostles
,
but
as
moral
instruments
.
Such
as
they
also
were
in
raising
the
dead
,
healing
the
sick
,
converting
of
sinners
,
and
the
like
.
All
which
works
were
wrought
immediately
by
God
himself
,
immediatione
virtutis
,
without
any
contribution
of
vertue
or
efficacy
from
man
.
But
when
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
if
the
meaning
be
,
that
by
faith
we
know
our selves
to
be
justified
:
in
this
case
,
faith
hath
a
true
,
proper
,
immediate
and
real
efficiency
in
our
Justification
.
And
it
is
every
whit
as
proper
,
yea
,
and
more
proper
,
to
say
we
know
by
faith
that
we
are
justified
,
then
to
say
,
we
know
by
God
that
we
are
justified
:
the
former
expressing
the
effect
from
its
relation
to
its
particular
cause
;
the
latter
,
to
the
universal
.
I
cannot
see
,
unlesse
God
give
me
an
eye
,
and
concurre
with
it
in
the
act
of
seeing
,
yet
is
it
more
proper
to
say
I
see
,
then
that
God
sees
;
so
neither
can
I
know
that
I
am
justified
,
unlesse
God
give
me
faith
,
and
concurre
with
the
act
of
it
,
to
discover
it
to
me
;
yet
am
I
more
properly
said
to
justifie
my self
,
then
God
to
justifie
me
,
if
by
my
Justification
be
meant
my
knowledge
,
that
I
am
justified
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
granteth
faith
to
be
the
instrumental
cause
SECT
,
IX
.
MY
last
Argument
therefore
was
this
.
If
Justification
by
faith
To
this
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
chap.
9.
§.
10
,
11
,
12.
and
his
answer
is
,
1.
That
Justification
in
conscience
,
is
Justification
before
God
.
Yet
himself
told
us
sight
of
God
,
in
this
Question
,
may
not
be
understood
of
Gods
making
it
,
as
it
were
,
evident
to
our
sight
,
that
we
are
justified
:
for
then
the
distinction
of
Justification
,
in
foro
Dei
&
in
foro
conscientiae
,
would
be
a
meer
tautologie
.
Secondly
,
saith
he
,
If
faith
be
taken
metonymically
,
then
Justification
by
faith
is
Justification
before
God
:
for
it
is
a
Justification
by
the
merits
of
Christ
,
to
whom
alone
,
without
works
or
conditions
performed
by
us
,
the
Holy
Ghost
ascribes
our
Justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
Rom.
3.
24.
Eph.
1.
7.
Rep.
I
deny
,
that
faith
is
any
where
in
Scripture
put
for
Christ
,
in
the
Argument
of
Justification
,
though
it
include
him
as
its
object
,
whether
his
name
be
mentioned
or
no.
In
universalibus
latet
dolus
.
Give
us
some
particular
place
or
places
,
where
the
word
must
be
necessarily
so
understood
,
and
we
will
beleeve
it
.
2.
Rom.
3.
24.
speaks
not
of
any
Justification
by
Christ
without
faith
:
but
most
expressely
and
syllabically
of
Justification
by
Christ
through
faith
,
ver.
25.
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
▪
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
.
And
that
faith
here
cannot
be
taken
objectively
,
is
already
proved
.
Yet
if
it
had
not
been
mentioned
,
it
will
by
no
means
follow
that
it
must
be
excluded
:
seeing
there
are
multitudes
of
places
besides
where
it
is
mentioned
.
The
same
I
say
to
Eph.
1.
7.
That
the
remission
of
sins
there
spoken
of
is
by
faith
;
for
the
Apostle
having
said
,
that
we
have
remission
of
sins
,
through
the
blood
of
Christ
,
according
to
the
riches
of
the
grace
of
God
,
he
shewes
the
way
in
which
grace
communicates
this
blessing
both
to
Jew
and
Gentile
;
namely
,
by
the
efficacy
of
the
blessed
Gospel
,
calling
them
both
to
one
and
the
same
faith
,
and
thereby
to
a
common
interest
in
the
same
blessings
,
ver.
8
,
9
,
10.
though
these
blessings
be
given
to
the
Jew
first
,
and
afterward
to
the
Gentile
,
ver.
12
,
13.
and
therefore
Paul
Bayne
observes
from
ver.
8.
That
God
giveth
pardon
of
sins
to
none
,
to
whom
he
hath
not
first
given
wisdome
and
understanding
,
that
is
,
whom
he
hath
not
taught
to
know
and
beleeve
on
his
Christ
.
Howbeit
,
if
faith
had
not
been
here
mentioned
,
it
must
yet
needs
have
been
supposed
:
because
the
Apostle
writes
to
those
Ephesians
,
as
unto
Saints
and
faithful
in
Christ
Jesus
,
ver.
1.
To
whom
as
such
do
all
spiritual
blessings
belong
,
ver.
3.
according
to
the
purpose
of
Gods
Election
,
ver.
4.
So
that
hitherto
we
have
no
intelligence
of
any
Justification
before
God
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
but
by
faith
.
His
third
answer
is
by
way
of
retortion
upon
that
expression
of
That
I
acknowledge
a
threefold
Justification
,
and
yet
neither
of
them
by
faith
,
in
my
Sermon
,
page
23.
Rep.
But
I
do
not
acknowledge
,
that
either
of
them
is
properly
and
formally
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
before
God
.
Nor
yet
that
either
of
them
is
called
by
the
name
of
Justification
in
Scripture
:
but
only
that
our
Justification
may
be
considered
as
purposed
of
God
,
merited
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
exemplified
in
his
Resurrection
.
2.
He
tells
us
,
That
we
have
no
plain
text
for
many
of
our
dictates
:
As
,
1.
That
justification
doth
in
no
sense
precede
the
act
of
faith
.
Answ.
Mr.
Eyre
knows
well
enough
,
that
this
is
a
dictate
of
his
own
,
and
that
it
is
no
part
of
the
quarrel
between
him
and
me
;
as
I
observed
,
page
1.
and
in
his
very
last
words
mentions
three
senses
,
in
which
I
yield
Justification
may
be
before
faith
.
But
we
seek
a
text
of
Scripture
,
wherein
the
true
,
proper
,
formal
Justification
of
a
sinner
is
made
antecedent
to
faith
.
If
there
be
any
such
text
,
why
is
it
not
produced
?
if
there
be
none
,
why
is
it
not
yielded
?
Our
second
dictate
is
,
That
Christ
purchased
only
a
conditional
,
not
an
absolute
Justification
for
his
Elect.
But
where
is
this
said
?
or
by
whom
?
it
is
by
vertue
of
the
Purchase
of
Christ
that
we
are
justified
,
when
we
have
performed
the
condition
of
believing
.
The
third
,
that
our
Evangelical
Righteousnesse
by
which
we
are
iustified
,
is
in
our selves
.
Answ.
This
refers
to
Mr.
Baxter
,
whose
judgement
Mr.
Eyre
represents
as
odiously
as
he
can
.
But
he
knowes
Mr.
Baxter
hath
produced
many
Scriptures
and
reasons
for
proof
of
it
:
which
Mr.
Eyre
should
have
answered
,
before
he
had
complained
for
want
of
a
text
.
The
fourth
,
that
the
tenour
of
the
New
Covenant
is
,
If
thou
believe
,
&c.
Answ.
I
am
sure
,
he
knows
,
that
many
famous
Protestants
assert
this
as
well
as
I
,
and
we
shall
see
proof
sufficient
of
it
in
due
place
:
and
of
the
last
also
,
that
none
were
to
have
any
benefit
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
till
they
beleeve
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
takes
special
notice
of
one
passage
in
this
Argument
,
CHAP.
V.
An
Answer
to
Mr.
Eyres
ninth
Chapter
,
whether
faith
be
the
condition
of
Justification
?
The
Affirmative
proved
from
Scripture
.
Mr.
Eyres
Arguments
to
the
contrary
all
invalid
.
SECT.
I.
TO
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
,
That
if
we
were
justified
by
A
condition
then
is
diversly
described
by
divers
Authours
.
Some
describe
it
thus
.
[
a
](A96867-e30080-b)
a
Navar.
En●h●r
.
page
●8
,
.
Conditi●
est
suspensio
ali
cujus
dispositioni●
,
tantisper
dum
aliquid
futurum
fiat
.
Others
thus
,
[
b
](A96867-e30110-b)
b
Baldus
apud
Joh.
Baptist
.
in
verb
Conditio
est
adjectio
quaedam
per
quam
disp●situm
habet
in
sui
esse
pendentium
existentiam
vel
defectum
.
Others
thus
,
[
c
](A96867-e30130-b)
c
Pet.
de
Perus
.
ibid.
Est
verb●rum
adjectio
in
futurum
suspendentium
,
secundum
quam
d●●ponens
vult
dispositum
regulari
.
[
d
](A96867-e30150-b)
d
In
L.
1.
F.
de
●oud
&
demonstr.
Bartolus
thus
,
Conditio
est
quidam
futurus
eventus
,
in
quem
dispositio
suspenditur
.
Any
of
these
will
serve
my
turn
,
these
things
being
agreed
.
1.
That
it
pertaines
to
him
that
disposeth
of
any
thing
,
to
propound
upon
what
condition
his
will
is
that
it
be
disposed
of
,
or
not
disposed
of
.
2.
That
the
nature
of
a
condition
consists
mainly
in
suspending
the
actual
obligation
of
the
disposer
,
until
the
condition
be
performed
.
3.
That
it
is
the
will
of
him
that
makes
the
condition
,
which
is
the
cause
of
the
obligation
that
comes
upon
him
when
the
condition
is
performed
:
of
which
we
shall
see
more
anon
.
Now
that
faith
is
the
condition
upon
which
God
hath
suspended
[
e
](A96867-e30200-b)
e
Vide
Bartelum
.
late
in
L.
1.
F.
de
cond.
&
Demonstr.
&
Azor.
Inst.
Moral
.
par.
3.
l.
4.
c.
24.
Civilians
and
Moralists
,
as
signes
or
notes
of
a
condition
:
and
scarcely
one
can
I
finde
,
which
the
Scripture
doth
not
use
somewhere
or
other
,
in
describing
the
order
and
habitude
of
faith
to
our
Justification
.
But
I
shall
instance
but
in
one
or
two
.
I
begin
with
that
Rom.
10.
6
,
9.
The
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
speaketh
on
this
wise
,
That
if
thou
shalt
confesse
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
shalt
beleeve
in
thy
heart
that
God
hath
raised
him
from
the
dead
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
That
salvation
here
includes
Justification
,
appears
from
the
very
next
words
,
ver.
10.
For
with
the
heart
man
believeth
unto
righteousnesse
.
And
I
appeal
to
common
sense
,
whether
the
particle
If
in
this
place
be
not
a
manifest
signe
of
a
condition
upon
which
Justification
is
suspended
,
or
whether
it
be
possible
for
mortal
men
to
invent
any
words
,
that
can
more
plainly
expresse
the
matter
of
a
condition
.
Try
it
by
comparison
with
other
Scriptures
,
Gen.
43.
4
,
5.
If
thou
wilt
send
our
brother
with
us
,
we
will
go
down
;
but
if
thou
wilt
not
send
him
,
we
will
not
go
down
;
and
Gen.
34.
22.
Only
herein
will
the
men
consent
to
us
.
—
If
every
male
amongst
us
be
circumcised
.
Herein
will
they
consent
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
upon
this
condition
will
they
consent
:
as
we
render
that
word
,
1
Sam
11.
2.
on
this
condition
will
I
make
a
Covenant
with
you
.
See
Gen.
18.
26.
28
,
30.
Exod.
4.
23.
Prov.
2.
1
,
4.
Jor.
18.
8
,
10.
and
hundreds
of
other
places
.
In
all
which
the
particle
If
is
manifestly
conditional
:
nor
upon
the
strictest
observation
,
which
I
have
made
in
reading
the
Scriptures
,
am
I
able
to
espy
so
much
as
one
place
,
wherein
the
said
particle
hath
any
other
use
,
when
it
supposeth
to
any
thing
that
is
future
,
by
vertue
of
a
Promise
.
Indeed
Mr.
Eyre
did
[
f
](A96867-e30330-b)
f
Chap.
5.
§.
6.
before
mention
two
places
,
wherein
he
will
have
the
particle
If
,
not
to
propound
the
condition
by
which
a
benefit
is
obtained
,
but
only
to
describe
the
person
to
whom
it
belongs
,
viz.
2
Tim.
2.
21.
If
a
man
purge
himself
from
these
,
he
shall
be
a
vessel
unto
honour
,
and
Heb.
3.
6.
whose
house
are
we
,
if
we
hold
fast
our
confidence
unto
the
end
.
As
to
the
former
place
,
it
should
have
been
proved
,
and
not
said
only
,
that
the
particle
If
is
not
a
note
of
a
condition
;
if
to
be
a
vessel
of
honour
be
,
to
be
glorified
in
heaven
.
Or
if
to
be
a
vessel
of
honour
do
signifie
a
man
specially
and
eminently
serviceable
unto
God
,
sanctified
and
meet
for
the
Masters
use
,
and
prepared
unto
every
good
work
(
as
the
Apostle
in
the
same
verse
expounds
it
)
then
the
particle
If
is
a
note
of
more
then
a
condition
,
even
of
a
true
proper
cause
,
of
an
effect
that
follows
naturally
,
and
not
by
Promise
:
for
the
more
a
man
purgeth
himself
from
spiritual
defilements
and
defilers
,
the
more
prepared
and
disposed
he
must
needs
be
to
every
spiritual
employment
.
The
next
place
,
Heb.
3.
6.
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
if
the
particle
If
be
there
granted
to
be
meerly
a
description
of
the
person
;
because
the
consequent
part
of
the
Proposition
is
not
promissory
,
but
simply
affirmative
.
The
text
saith
not
,
whose
house
we
shall
be
if
we
hold
fast
,
but
whose
we
are
if
we
hold
fast
.
Neverthelesse
[
g
](A96867-e30440-b)
g
Parall.
l.
3.
in
loc.
Junius
upon
ver.
14.
(
which
in
sense
is
much
the
same
with
this
)
doubts
not
to
affirme
the
holding
fast
of
our
confidence
to
be
a
condition
.
A
nobis
verò
conditionem
unicam
desiderat
(
scil.
Christus
)
nempe
ut
maneamus
in
ipso
—
atque
hanc
conditionem
n●tat
Apostolus
his
verbis
:
siquidem
principium
illius
subsistentiae
,
&c.
which
testimony
I
quote
the
rather
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
may
know
that
Junius
was
no
enemy
to
faiths
being
a
condition
,
as
he
doth
somewhere
represent
him
:
yea
,
and
on
this
verse
he
is
expresse
,
that
continuance
in
the
faith
,
is
the
condition
of
our
continuing
to
be
Gods
house
.
And
that
the
words
,
Rom.
10.
9.
If
thou
beleeve
with
thine
heart
,
&c.
cannot
be
a
description
of
the
person
meerly
,
I
prove
largely
below
,
in
a
particular
debate
of
that
place
.
I
have
here
only
one
word
to
speak
against
it
.
Either
it
describes
the
person
from
his
faith
,
to
signifie
that
as
such
(
that
is
,
as
a
believer
)
he
is
the
subject
of
Justification
,
and
then
faith
must
needs
be
antecedent
to
Justification
:
and
if
it
be
antecedent
as
an
act
required
of
us
in
point
of-duty
,
to
a
blessing
consequent
by
vertue
of
a
promise
,
then
is
it
antecedent
as
a
condition
.
Or
it
is
a
meer
description
of
the
person
,
shewing
,
that
that
is
the
man
that
shall
be
justified
:
though
his
faith
have
no
order
nor
tendency
to
his
Justification
,
but
may
as
well
follow
after
it
as
go
before
it
.
But
1.
This
cannot
be
current
sense
,
if
Justification
be
either
from
eternity
,
or
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
at
any
time
before
this
description
be
made
:
for
example
,
Is
it
sense
to
say
,
If
thou
be
the
man
that
dost
,
or
at
any
time
shalt
beleeve
,
thou
shalt
be
elected
,
or
Christ
shall
die
for
thee
;
when
both
election
and
the
death
of
Christ
are
long
since
past
?
or
if
a
man
should
say
,
If
thou
shalt
be
glorified
,
thou
shalt
be
justified
,
would
not
such
a
speech
suppose
,
that
the
person
to
whom
those
words
are
spoken
,
was
as
yet
not
justified
?
though
the
Scripture
is
not
wont
to
speak
after
this
manner
in
any
place
.
2.
Let
us
take
some
parallel
place
,
and
see
how
it
will
accord
with
it
.
As
the
words
of
Christ
,
to
the
father
of
the
childe
that
was
possest
,
Mark
9.
23.
If
thou
canst
beleeve
,
all
things
are
possible
to
him
that
believeth
.
Or
the
same
words
to
his
disciples
,
Matth.
17.
20.
If
you
have
faith
as
a
grain
of
mustard-seed
,
nothing
shall
be
unpossible
unto
you
.
If
faith
do
here
only
describe
the
person
,
and
not
propound
the
condition
,
then
whether
the
father
had
at
present
believed
or
no
,
his
childe
must
have
been
presently
healed
notwithstanding
;
supposing
him
to
be
a
person
that
at
any
time
should
believe
:
and
whether
the
disciples
beleeve
or
no
at
present
,
all
things
are
possible
to
them
presently
,
they
being
the
persons
whose
property
it
is
to
believe
some
time
or
other
.
But
more
of
this
hereafter
.
Another
note
of
a
condition
is
the
particle
if
not
,
or
except
:
which
that
if
they
believe
not
,
they
shall
be
damned
.
If
conditionally
,
then
faith
is
the
condition
of
deliverance
from
damnation
.
And
is
not
God
to
be
thus
understood
in
all
his
speeches
of
like
nature
?
Gen.
44.
23.
Except
your
youngest
Brother
come
down
with
you
,
you
shall
see
my
face
no
more
.
Josh.
7.
12.
Neither
will
I
be
with
you
any
more
,
except
you
destroy
the
accursed
from
amongst
you
.
Can
the
Sun
shine
more
bright
in
the
firmament
,
then
it
is
clear
from
hence
,
that
their
destroying
the
accursed
from
amongst
them
,
was
a
necessary
condition
of
their
enjoyment
of
Gods
Presence
?
Acts
27.
31.
Except
these
abide
in
the
ship
,
you
cannot
be
saved
.
See
also
Luke
13.
3
,
5.
Rev.
2.
5
,
22.
and
multitudes
of
other
places
.
In
all
which
the
same
particle
is
a
note
of
a
condition
,
unlesse
we
shall
have
the
modesty
,
to
think
that
the
Scriptures
were
penned
on
purpose
to
puzzle
and
confound
our
understandings
.
All
those
texts
of
Scripture
which
promise
remission
of
sins
to
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
Go
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
.
He
that
believeth
,
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
;
but
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
,
John
3.
16.
God
so
loved
the
world
,
that
he
gave
his
only
begotten
sonne
,
that
whosoever
believeth
on
him
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
;
and
6.
40.
This
is
the
Will
of
him
that
sent
me
,
that
whosoever
seeth
the
Son
,
and
believeth
on
him
,
may
have
everlasting
life
,
with
many
places
of
like
nature
.
To
all
which
I
guesse
what
Mr.
Eyres
answer
will
be
,
by
what
he
saith
of
the
last
of
these
,
chap.
13.
§.
14.
pag.
135.
This
text
(
saith
he
)
and
others
like
it
,
do
only
shew
who
have
the
fruition
and
enjoyment
of
the
benefits
of
Christ
,
to
wit
,
They
that
beleeve
.
Many
such
cathedral
determinations
we
have
from
him
,
without
Numb.
21.
8.
And
it
shall
come
to
passe
,
that
overy
one
(
or
whosoever
)
is
bitten
,
when
he
looketh
upon
it
,
(
namely
upon
the
brazen
Serpent
)
shall
live
.
I
do
the
rather
instance
in
these
words
,
because
the
Lord
illustrateth
the
method
of
Redemption
by
them
,
John
3.
14
,
15.
As
Moses
lifted
up
the
Serpent
in
the
Wildernesse
,
even
so
must
the
Son
of
man
be
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
believeth
on
him
,
should
not
perish
,
&c.
If
the
protasis
had
been
full
,
it
had
run
thus
.
As
Moses
lift
up
the
Serpent
in
the
wildernesse
,
that
whosoever
looked
on
him
might
be
healed
:
even
so
,
&c.
And
do
those
words
(
that
whosoever
looked
on
him
)
only
describe
the
person
that
was
healed
,
but
not
propound
the
condition
or
meanes
of
healing
?
common
sense
cannot
endure
it
.
Their
looking
up
to
the
brazen
Serpent
was
antecedent
to
their
healing
:
and
a
meanes
ordained
for
them
to
use
,
that
they
might
be
healed
:
and
their
healing
followed
by
vertue
of
Gods
power
and
faithfulnesse
.
Ergo
,
it
was
a
condition
of
their
healing
.
And
the
distributive
particle
whosoever
,
doth
sufficiently
shew
,
that
it
was
every
one
promiscuously
,
one
as
well
as
another
,
for
whose
healing
the
Serpent
was
lifted
up
,
through
their
looking
on
it
;
and
not
a
note
of
distinction
to
difference
one
from
another
.
So
Mark
11.
23.
Whosoever
shall
say
unto
this
mountain
(
believingly
)
Be
thou
removed
,
he
shall
have
whatsoever
he
saith
.
Is
this
also
a
description
of
the
person
,
but
not
a
propounding
of
the
meanes
by
which
those
works
may
be
obtained
to
be
wrought
?
see
the
like
expressions
,
Matth.
13.
12.
and
16.
25.
and
18.
4.
Mark
9.
41.
Rev.
22.
17.
and
other
places
without
number
.
To
all
which
,
if
Mr.
Eyre
can
oppose
but
one
that
will
admit
such
a
sense
,
as
here
he
puts
upon
the
texts
under
debate
,
he
shall
do
more
then
any
Authour
else
that
I
can
yet
meet
with
.
2.
If
these
and
the
like
places
do
only
describe
the
persons
that
shall
be
saved
,
then
do
they
ascribe
no
more
to
faith
in
reference
to
salvation
,
then
unto
works
.
Works
of
righteousnesse
being
as
proper
and
peculiar
to
them
that
shall
be
saved
;
as
faith
it selfe
:
and
therefore
the
description
of
the
person
might
as
well
be
taken
from
them
,
as
from
faith
.
3.
That
which
serves
only
to
describe
a
person
in
specie
,
cannot
be
proposed
to
another
person
as
a
meanes
by
which
he
may
enjoy
a
like
benefit
,
no
more
then
if
the
said
person
had
been
described
in
individuo
;
for
example
,
suppose
the
Lord
had
described
them
that
shall
be
saved
,
not
from
faith
,
(
their
specifick
quality
)
but
by
their
proper
names
,
and
had
said
,
God
gave
his
Son
to
death
,
that
Peter
,
and
Paul
,
and
James
,
and
John
,
&c.
might
be
saved
:
were
it
not
against
all
sense
and
sobriety
to
go
to
Geofry
,
Roger
and
Anthony
,
and
tell
them
if
they
will
be
Peter
and
Paul
they
shall
be
saved
?
or
suppose
the
description
had
been
from
the
species
,
and
the
words
had
run
thus
,
God
gave
his
Son
,
that
whosoever
is
borne
of
Jewish
Parents
should
be
saved
:
were
it
not
ridiculous
,
with
all
seriousnesse
,
earnestnesse
and
tendernesse
of
compassion
,
to
exhort
and
beseech
,
and
charge
the
Gentiles
to
be
borne
of
Jewish
Parents
,
that
they
might
be
saved
?
yea
,
suppose
they
had
been
described
from
their
Election
,
(
as
they
might
have
been
more
properly
then
from
their
faith
)
had
it
not
been
absurd
to
exhort
men
that
they
would
be
elected
,
that
so
they
might
be
saved
?
I
conclude
therefore
▪
that
the
texts
before
us
are
not
a
description
of
the
person
,
but
a
proposing
of
a
condition
,
upon
which
only
salvation
is
attainable
,
words
that
are
meerly
descriptory
,
can
never
be
resolved
into
a
command
or
exhortation
.
SECT.
II.
LEt
us
now
see
whether
Mr.
Eyre
hath
done
any
thing
towards
His
first
Reason
is
this
,
That
interpretation
of
the
phrase
,
which
gives
no
more
to
faith
in
the
businesse
of
Justification
,
then
to
other
works
of
sanctification
,
cannot
be
true
.
But
to
interpret
Justification
by
faith
meerly
thus
,
that
faith
is
a
condition
to
qualifie
us
for
Justification
,
gives
no
more
to
faith
,
then
to
other
works
of
Sanctification
;
as
to
repentance
,
charity
,
new
obedience
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
If
the
Proposition
be
true
,
(
as
I
believe
it
to
be
most
true
)
Mr.
Eyre
hath
hitherto
deluded
us
grossely
in
interpreting
Justification
by
faith
,
for
a
knowledge
or
evidence
that
we
are
justified
:
seeing
works
concur
to
such
an
evidence
,
(
and
that
by
his
own
concession
)
as
was
above
demonstrated
.
2.
The
Assumption
also
(
I
presume
)
proceeds
upon
the
supposed
principles
of
those
whom
he
opposeth
,
and
not
according
to
his
own
sense
:
for
I
think
,
he
will
not
say
,
that
any
works
of
Sanctification
do
qualifie
us
for
Justification
.
3.
I
deny
the
Assumption
.
And
how
doth
Mr.
Eyre
prove
it
?
Why
Mr.
Baxter
and
Dr.
Hammond
say
so
.
Yet
are
neither
of
these
Authours
of
such
authority
with
Mr.
Eyre
in
other
cases
,
as
that
their
word
should
passe
for
a
proof
.
And
yet
hath
he
not
fairly
represented
them
neither
.
Dr.
Hammond
,
I
confesse
,
is
to
me
lesse
plain
and
intelligible
:
but
if
Mr.
Eyre
will
undertake
that
his
notion
is
the
same
with
Mr.
Baxters
,
he
might
have
seen
in
very
many
places
of
Mr.
Baxters
writings
,
that
he
makes
works
but
the
secondary
lesse
principal
conditions
at
most
,
and
denies
them
to
be
any
conditions
at
all
,
in
reference
to
our
first
entrance
into
a
state
of
Justification
.
And
must
we
yet
believe
against
an
Authours
owne
words
,
that
he
ascribes
no
more
to
faith
then
unto
other
works
of
sanctification
,
in
the
matter
of
Justification
?
4.
I
also
do
make
repentance
a
necessary
condition
of
remission
of
sins
,
because
the
Scripture
doth
so
,
Luke
24.
47.
And
that
repentance
and
remission
of
sins
should
be
preached
in
his
name
,
Acts
2.
38.
Repent
and
be
baptized
for
the
remission
of
sins
,
and
3.
19.
Repent
and
be
converted
,
that
your
sins
may
be
blotted
out
,
&c.
But
I
conceive
withal
,
that
the
one
is
included
in
the
other
,
and
that
their
difference
is
rather
respective
then
real
,
if
we
speak
of
faith
as
it
is
in
the
will
;
partly
,
as
to
the
object
,
faith
respecting
Christ
immediately
,
and
repentance
God
,
Acts
20.
21.
partly
,
as
to
the
termes
:
the
same
motion
of
the
soule
,
in
respect
of
the
terminus
à
quo
,
(
namely
,
dead
works
)
being
called
repentance
:
and
in
respect
of
the
terminus
ad
quem
,
(
namely
God
in
Christ
)
more
peculiarly
faith
,
Heb.
6.
1.
Repentance
also
in
its
formal
notion
,
includes
shame
,
and
sorrow
,
and
self-abhorrency
,
&c.
which
faith
precisely
doth
not
.
As
to
the
Conclusion
of
this
paragraph
,
which
concernes
my
subscription
to
the
testimony
to
the
truth
of
Jesus
Christ
,
(
a
book
so
called
)
I
do
not
remember
that
ever
I
subscribed
it
in
this
or
any
other
County
.
The
second
Argument
is
this
.
To
interpret
Justification
by
faith
,
causa
causae
est
causa
causati
.
Answ.
This
Argument
at
the
long
run
overthrows
all
humane
contracts
:
at
least
,
it
fights
as
strongly
against
them
as
against
us
.
Titius
gives
a
hundred
pounds
per
annum
to
Sempronius
,
upon
conditon
he
give
two
pence
a
week
to
Maevius
.
This
two
pence
cannot
be
paid
,
unlesse
the
silver
be
digged
out
of
the
mines
,
and
melted
,
and
stamp't
,
and
delivered
out
of
the
Coyners
hand
,
&c.
Ergo
▪
S●mpronius
his
giving
two
pence
a
week
to
Maevius
,
is
not
the
condition
of
his
holding
his
100.
li.
per
annum
:
at
least
no
more
then
the
mine
or
bank
is
.
Is
not
this
gallant
Logick
?
2.
I
deny
that
legal
sorrows
,
and
the
sight
of
sin
,
&c.
are
necessary
conditions
disposing
to
faith
:
because
God
hath
not
promised
to
give
faith
,
if
we
be
convicted
or
legally
sorry
.
These
Preparations
are
necessary
physically
,
not
morally
:
because
the
soule
cannot
seek
out
for
life
and
salvation
in
another
,
while
it
hath
confidence
of
sufficiency
in
its
selfe
.
If
any
man
beleeve
without
these
,
he
shall
be
saved
notwithstanding
.
3.
The
answer
therefore
is
,
that
the
things
which
are
necessary
naturally
,
are
not
the
conditions
of
gift
,
but
those
only
which
are
made
necessary
by
the
will
of
the
Donour
;
[
h
](A96867-e31440-b)
h
L.
conditiones
eztrinsec
.
F.
de
cond.
&
demonstr.
and
so
doth
the
Civil
Law
determine
.
Caius
gives
Seius
all
the
fruits
that
grow
upon
his
farme
the
next
year
:
it
is
necessary
that
fruits
grow
upon
the
farme
,
or
else
Seius
cannot
have
them
:
yet
Caius
his
gift
is
not
conditional
,
but
absolute
.
4.
As
to
that
logical
axiome
.
Causa
causae
est
causa
causati
.
Mr.
Eyre
knows
it
must
have
more
limitations
then
one
,
or
else
't
is
dangerously
false
.
But
in
the
present
case
't
is
altogether
impertinent
;
for
neither
are
legal
preparations
the
cause
of
faith
,
nor
faith
the
cause
of
Justification
,
but
the
condition
only
,
and
so
the
causa
&
causatum
may
go
whistle
.
The
third
Argument
is
this
,
that
by
which
we
are
justified
is
the
Ergo.
Answ.
I
deny
the
major
.
Mr.
Eyre
proves
it
by
a
threefold
Argument
.
1.
By
the
use
of
these
Propositions
(
particles
he
would
have
said
)
by
and
through
in
ordinary
speech
,
which
note
a
meritorious
or
instrumental
cause
.
As
when
we
say
,
A
souldier
was
raised
by
his
valour
;
a
tradesman
lives
by
his
trade
.
2.
From
the
contrary
phrase
:
as
when
the
Apostle
denies
that
a
man
is
justified
by
works
,
and
by
the
Law
,
he
excludes
works
from
any
causal
influxe
into
our
Justification
.
Now
that
which
he
denies
to
works
,
he
ascribes
to
faith
.
3.
From
other
parallel
phrases
in
Scripture
,
where
we
are
said
to
be
redeemed
,
justified
and
saved
.
Per
Christum
,
per
sanguinem
,
per
mortem
,
per
vulnera
.
Answ.
These
are
[
i
](A96867-e31670-b)
i
De
Justif
.
l.
1.
c.
17.
Bellarmines
wise
Arguments
,
to
prove
that
faith
doth
justifie
per
modum
causae
,
dignitatis
aut
meriti
;
by
way
of
causality
,
worth
or
merit
;
which
it
seems
Mr.
Eyre
accounts
unanswerable
,
otherwise
he
would
not
have
brought
them
again
upon
the
stage
in
an
English
dresse
,
when
our
Protestants
have
beat
them
off
so
often
in
Latine
.
1.
To
the
first
,
I
deny
that
the
particles
By
or
Through
are
alwayes
the
notes
of
a
cause
meritorious
or
instrumental
.
How
many
times
do
we
finde
them
in
one
Chapter
,
where
they
are
not
capable
of
any
such
signification
?
Heb.
11.
5.
By
faith
Enoch
was
translated
that
he
should
not
see
death
,
and
ver.
11.
Through
faith
Sarah
received
strength
to
conceive
seed
,
ver.
30.
By
faith
the
walls
of
Jericho
fell
down
,
ver.
33.
By
faith
they
stopped
the
mouthes
of
Lions
,
ver.
35.
Women
by
faith
received
their
dead
raised
to
life
again
,
with
many
other
passages
in
that
Chapter
.
That
it
is
the
grace
of
faith
which
is
here
spoken
of
▪
appears
from
the
description
of
it
,
ver.
1.
will
Mr.
Eyre
grant
the
Papists
,
that
faith
was
the
meritorious
cause
of
these
effects
?
I
hope
then
he
will
no
more
reproach
me
as
popishly
affected
.
It
may
be
he
will
say
it
was
the
instrumental
cause
:
But
let
him
shew
how
.
What
instrumental
efficacy
did
faith
put
forth
in
Enochs
Translation
?
did
it
either
subtilize
or
immortallize
his
body
?
or
how
was
faith
an
instrument
in
throwing
down
the
walls
of
Jericho
?
It
is
naturally
impossible
agere
in
distans
,
to
act
upon
an
object
which
the
Agent
toucheth
not
,
formally
or
virtually
:
or
what
efficiency
did
faith
put
forth
upon
dead
bodies
,
to
raise
them
to
life
again
?
These
effects
are
no
otherwise
ascribed
to
faith
,
then
as
the
condition
upon
which
they
were
wrought
,
and
without
which
they
could
not
have
been
wrought
,
according
to
Gods
ordination
.
As
it
is
said
concerning
the
Lord
Jesus
,
That
he
could
not
do
many
mighty
works
in
his
own
countrey
,
because
of
their
unbelief
,
Mark
6.
5
,
6.
with
Matth.
13.
58.
Not
that
their
faith
had
contributed
any
thing
to
his
ability
:
but
that
their
unbelief
,
by
vertue
of
Gods
ordination
,
made
them
uncapable
of
being
the
subjects
,
for
and
amongst
whom
those
works
were
to
be
wrought
.
To
the
second
,
I
deny
that
Justification
is
ascribed
to
faith
in
the
R●m.
9.
8.
N●t
the
children
of
the
flesh
,
but
the
children
of
the
Promise
are
counted
for
the
seed
,
and
ver.
11.
Not
of
works
,
but
of
him
that
calleth
,
and
ver.
16.
Not
of
h●m
that
runneth
,
but
of
God
that
sheweth
mercy
,
and
Rom.
11.
6.
Not
of
works
,
but
of
grace
.
Estne
inter
Pontisicios
quisquam
tam
excors
,
●t
audeat
affirmare
,
in
istis
opp●sitioni●us
idem
planè
genus
causae
utrinque
notari
?
Is
any
man
amongst
the
Papists
so
sottish
(
saith
[
k
](A96867-e31910-b)
k
Bell
ene●v
.
Tom
4.
c.
4.
p.
3●6
.
dued
.
Dr.
Ames
)
as
that
he
will
dare
to
affirme
.
that
in
these
oppositions
,
the
same
kinde
of
cause
is
signified
on
both
sides
?
The
like
I
say
to
the
third
,
when
we
are
said
to
be
justi●●ed
by
Christ
,
by
his
death
,
by
his
blood
,
&c.
the
particle
By
doth
denote
the
proper
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
.
But
that
it
may
not
in
other
sentences
signifie
some
other
Argument
,
as
well
as
a
cause
,
must
remain
to
be
proved
,
till
the
time
when
we
are
to
expect
Mr.
Eyres
Rejoynder
.
SECT.
III.
THe
fourth
Argument
succeeds
.
To
make
faith
a
condition
morally
Answ.
I
deny
it
utterly
.
A
double
Argument
Mr.
Eyre
presents
us
with
for
proof
.
1.
We
should
not
be
Justified
freely
by
his
grace
,
if
any
condition
were
required
of
us
in
order
to
our
Justification
:
for
a
condition
,
whensoever
it
is
performed
,
makes
the
thing
covenanted
a
due
debt
,
which
the
Promiser
is
bound
to
give
:
and
then
Justification
should
not
be
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
.
Answ.
Gladly
am
I
come
to
this
objection
:
and
I
shall
give
it
a
large
answer
,
not
for
any
strength
there
is
in
it
;
but
because
Mr.
Eyre
pretends
in
his
title-page
,
and
the
inscription
of
his
book
throughout
,
to
oppose
the
ancient
Protestant
doctrine
of
Justification
by
faith
,
upon
the
quarrel
of
free
grace
.
And
it
is
upon
the
point
the
total
summe
of
all
he
hath
to
say
for
his
neoterick
notion
:
but
they
may
be
taken
with
words
that
will
.
The
place
which
he
alludes
to
in
the
objection
is
,
Rom.
3
24.
Being
justified
freely
by
his
grace
.
But
which
of
these
two
words
is
it
that
excludes
conditions
?
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
?
grace
or
freely
?
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
[
l
](A96867-e32150-b)
l
Vide
●rist
.
Rhet.
l
2.
c
7.
Grace
as
it
is
a
vertue
or
affection
in
man
,
is
that
which
enclines
us
to
bestow
of
what
we
have
to
them
that
are
indigent
and
necessitous
:
not
for
any
thing
we
have
received
,
nor
for
any
profit
and
advantage
we
expect
by
what
we
give
from
him
to
whom
we
give
,
but
that
he
may
be
bene●●ted
by
us
.
Accordingly
it
is
accounted
great
(
and
the
Scriptures
amplisie
the
grace
of
God
from
the
same
Arguments
either
in
respect
of
the
persons
that
receive
our
gratuities
,
if
they
be
extream
[
m
](A96867-e32160-b)
m
Ezek
16.
pertot
.
Rom.
5.
6.
indigent
and
impotent
:
or
in
respect
of
the
things
given
,
if
they
be
Eph
▪
7.
Rom.
5.
7
,
8.
and
v
6.
0
1
John
4.
19.
John
3.
●6
▪
great
,
difficult
,
or
seasonable
:
or
in
respect
of
the
giver
,
if
●e
be
the
first
,
or
only
,
or
principal
.
But
surely
this
grace
doth
not
exclude
all
manner
of
conditions
.
Jacob
sent
a
present
to
Es●u
,
that
he
might
finde
grace
(
●●
)
in
his
sight
,
Gen.
32.
5
,
21.
and
33.
8.
the
LXX
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
and
Prov.
3.
3
,
4
,
Let
not
mercy
and
truth
forsake
thee
.
—
So
shalt
thou
finde
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
grace
in
the
sight
of
God
.
And
the
Apostle
exhorts
that
we
come
to
the
throne
of
grace
,
that
we
may
finde
grace
,
Heb.
4.
16.
Is
grace
any
whit
the
lesse
gracious
,
because
we
are
required
to
seek
it
,
that
we
may
finde
it
?
Rom.
4.
16.
Therefore
it
is
of
faith
,
that
it
may
be
by
grace
.
And
more
places
which
we
shall
mention
below
.
The
Adverb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
but
a
qualification
of
the
former
:
and
expresseth
Mat.
10.
8.
Freely
you
have
received
,
freely
give
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
As
their
power
cost
them
nothing
,
but
was
freely
given
them
;
so
should
they
do
good
with
it
freely
,
without
payment
or
recompence
.
So
the
Hebrew
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
expresseth
an
act
which
is
only
from
the
will
and
inclination
of
the
Agent
,
without
any
sufficient
,
external
,
meritorious
cause
,
Psal.
35.
7.
Without
cause
have
they
hid
for
me
their
net
,
Psal.
69.
4.
They
hate
me
without
a
cause
,
and
119.
161.
Princes
have
persecuted
me
without
a
cause
.
David
saith
,
He
will
not
offer
to
God
gratis
,
or
of
that
which
cost
him
nothing
,
2
Sam.
24.
24.
Thus
servants
went
out
freely
,
when
they
did
not
purchase
their
liberty
,
but
it
was
given
them
without
price
,
Exod.
21.
2
,
11.
as
also
the
[
p
](A96867-e32370-b)
p
L.
mandatum
F.
mand
.
&
contra
C.
L.
6.
7.
§.
Non
est
ignotum
.
Civil
Law
determines
.
And
what
in
Isa.
55.
1.
is
called
a
buying
without
money
,
is
expounded
,
Rev.
22.
17.
A
taking
of
the
water
of
life
freely
.
So
that
unlesse
it
can
be
proved
(
of
which
more
presently
)
that
all
conditions
whatsoever
are
meritorious
causes
,
proportionable
in
value
to
the
benefit
a
man
obtains
upon
performance
of
the
condition
,
the
name
of
free
grace
will
prove
but
an
empty
noise
,
and
a
cloak
of
errour
.
We
must
therefore
with
our
Protestants
distinguish
of
conditions
.
[
q
](A96867-e32430-b)
q
In
disp.
de
satisfact.
p.
365.
Cameron
.
Si
multae
conditiones
requiruntur
in
justificandis
,
quae
habent
proportionem
cum
justitiâ
Dei
,
concedo
:
Sed
si
conditiones
quae
requiruntur
in
justificandis
,
nullam
habent
proportionem
cum
justitiâ
Dei
,
nego
inde
effici
justificationem
non
esse
ex
mera
gratia
:
nam
non
excluduntur
conditiones
omnes
,
sed
eae
quae
possunt
habere
rationem
meriti
.
The
sense
of
which
words
is
given
us
by
[
r
](A96867-e32450-b)
r
Comment.
in
Ep
250.
Paul
Bayne
.
There
are
some
conditions
whereon
,
they
only
interceding
,
we
promise
and
undertake
to
do
a
matter
,
or
bestow
a
kindnesse
on
any
.
As
,
Go
with
me
to
such
a
place
,
and
I
will
give
thee
hidden
treasure
:
or
,
come
to
me
to
morrow
,
and
I
will
give
thee
a
hundred
pounds
.
There
are
other
conditions
which
have
the
reason
of
a
cause
meritorious
:
such
do
not
only
intercede
,
but
deserve
upon
contract
as
much
as
we
promise
.
As
,
Do
my
work
well
,
and
I
will
pay
you
truly
,
&c.
Thus
he
,
[
s
](A96867-e32480-b)
s
Gerhard
de
Evang.
cap.
3.
§.
26.
Quando
Evangelicas
promissiones
conditionales
esse
negamus
,
non
quamvis
conditionem
,
sed
in
specie
,
conditionem
nostrorum
meritorum
excludimus
—
Alia
igitur
est
conditio
fidei
à
conditione
operum
:
illa
non
opponitur
gratuito
dono
,
haec
verò
opponitur
.
In
eundem
se●sum
Rolloc
.
de
vocat
.
p.
16.
and
others
to
the
same
purpose
.
A
distinction
which
we
are
necessitated
to
make
use
of
,
though
it
distinguish
rather
the
matter
of
a
condition
,
then
the
formal
nature
of
it
;
for
if
any
condition
be
proportionable
to
the
reward
promised
,
that
is
not
because
it
is
a
condition
,
but
because
it
is
[
t
](A96867-e32510-b)
t
Aliae
sunt
conditiones
praeter
causas
efficientes
.
Ames
.
contra
Bellarm.
de
neces
.
oper.
ad
salut.
c.
6.
circa
princip.
a
cause
,
which
is
also
made
the
condition
.
Moreover
,
we
must
also
distinguish
of
that
which
Mr.
Eyre
calls
a
[
u
](A96867-e32560-b)
u
Hug.
Grot.
de
jure
Belli
.
l.
2.
c.
7.
§
4.
Covarr●
v.
2
ae
.
part
.
relect.
§.
quartus
.
n.
5
p.
288.
Debitum
vel
strictè
sumitur
,
&c.
A
debt
is
either
taken
strictly
,
for
such
an
obligation
as
ariseth
from
commutative
justice
:
or
largely
,
for
that
which
is
due
in
point
of
honesty
and
faithfulnesse
,
though
it
be
not
due
in
justice
:
so
that
if
it
be
not
done
there
is
no
injustice
to
any
other
person
;
but
he
that
doth
it
not
is
defective
,
as
what
is
due
by
vertue
of
a
free
Promise
.
And
such
an
obligation
as
this
God
himself
refuseth
not
,
1
John
1.
9.
Tit.
1.
2.
Heb.
6.
10.
and
10.
23.
Nor
is
that
which
is
given
by
vertue
of
such
an
obligation
any
whit
lesse
free
,
or
lesse
of
grace
,
then
if
it
were
given
without
it
.
[
x
](A96867-e32590-b)
x
Lessius
de
just.
&
jur.
L.
2.
c
40
d.
8.
p.
548.
Si
obligatio
orta
sit
ex
liberali
promissione
;
quod
ex
eâ
datur
,
etiam
gratis
datur
:
non
enim
obligatio
quae
nascitur
ex
promissione
liberali
repugnat
liberalitati
,
sed
est
ejus
effectus
.
What
is
given
by
vertue
of
a
free
Promise
,
is
also
freely
given
:
because
an
obligation
arising
from
such
a
Promise
,
is
not
repugnant
to
grace
or
liberality
,
but
is
the
effect
thereof
.
And
that
conditional
promises
may
be
such
,
not
only
all
(
I
say
all
that
ever
I
could
get
sight
of
)
our
Protestants
stand
for
,
but
the
Papists
themselves
yield
it
.
[
y
](A96867-e32610-b)
y
Snarez
.
opus
.
relect.
delib
.
divin.
d
2
n.
44.
&
A
Sanct.
Clara.
de
Nat.
Grat.
p.
135.
136.
Durand
.
in
2.
d.
27.
q.
2.
n.
12.
13
,
14.
Promissio
beneficii
sub
conditione
alicujus
operis
requisiti
solummodo
ex
quadam
decentia
vel
dispositione
,
&
non
quia
in
eo
invenitur
valor
respectu
mercedis
,
non
impedit
quin
collatio
boni
promissi
sit
simpliciter
liberalis
,
etiam
tali
conditione
praestita
,
ita
ut
donum
sit
gratuitum
:
quia
tale
opus
non
est
sufficiens
ad
fundandam
justitiam
ac
proinde
non
excludit
gratiam
.
The
Promise
of
a
benefit
,
on
condition
of
a
work
required
,
only
as
of
decency
,
or
as
a
disposition
,
and
not
because
of
its
worthinesse
in
reference
to
the
reward
,
doth
not
hinder
,
but
that
the
giving
of
the
promised
benefit
is
simply
free
,
even
when
the
condition
is
performed
:
because
such
a
work
is
not
sufficient
to
ground
an
obligation
of
justice
,
and
so
doth
not
exclude
grace
.
These
things
being
thus
premised
,
we
shall
now
cast
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
If
faith
be
the
condition
of
our
Justification
,
then
upon
our
believing
we
are
justified
of
debt
,
not
of
grace
.
The
reason
is
,
because
what
is
promised
upon
condition
,
the
condition
being
performed
becomes
a
due
debt
.
But
the
consequence
is
false
,
Ergo
,
so
is
the
antecedent
.
Answ.
To
the
Proposition
I
answer
,
1.
In
general
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
himself
denies
it
,
when
he
thought
it
might
be
for
his
advantage
,
pag.
190.
No
man
(
saith
he
)
will
say
,
that
the
condition
required
of
Adam
,
was
meritorious
of
eternal
life
in
a
strict
and
proper
sense
:
And
yet
urgeth
here
,
that
if
faith
be
the
condition
,
Justification
must
needs
be
of
debt
.
2.
I
distinguish
,
if
the
meaning
of
the
Proposition
be
,
that
Justification
becomes
due
in
that
larger
sense
,
which
we
spake
of
but
now
,
if
faith
be
the
condition
of
it
,
then
I
grant
it
.
But
if
the
meaning
be
(
as
I
believe
Mr.
Eyre
intends
,
by
quoting
Rom.
4.
4.
)
that
it
becomes
due
in
justice
,
then
I
deny
it
.
And
what
's
the
proof
?
why
,
a
condition
performed
makes
the
thing
promised
a
due
debt
.
The
substance
of
this
axiome
I
meet
with
,
I
think
,
not
lesse
then
twenty
times
in
Mr.
Eyres
book
,
but
no
where
else
in
all
the
books
I
have
,
Civilians
or
Canonists
.
And
as
often
as
't
is
used
,
he
doth
not
once
attempt
to
prove
it
,
but
leaves
it
naked
to
the
world
to
shift
for
it selfe
.
Conditions
are
either
causal
,
such
as
have
proportion
of
worth
to
the
benefit
promised
:
and
these
being
performed
,
make
the
thing
promised
a
due
debt
.
As
when
I
promise
my
servant
five
pounds
,
if
he
will
serve
me
for
such
a
terme
of
time
.
Some
be
meerly
illative
or
dispositive
:
as
when
I
promise
a
man
to
give
him
twenty
pounds
,
if
he
will
come
and
fetch
it
.
And
these
conditions
(
of
which
kinde
is
faith
,
)
do
not
make
the
reward
due
in
justice
:
which
I
thus
prove
.
Where
there
is
not
aequalitas
dati
&
accepti
,
an
equality
between
[
z
](A96867-e32800-b)
z
Vide
Vigel
.
de
Dreys
.
Jnst
.
Jur.
l.
3.
c.
8.
&
Wessemb
.
paratit
.
D
l.
50.
tit.
12.
and
so
it
doth
also
in
some
cases
,
upon
the
most
absolute
promise
)
but
we
enquire
not
what
is
just
justitiâ
civili
,
but
what
is
just
justitiâ
naturali
.
And
I
say
again
,
that
a
work
,
which
hath
of
it selfe
no
proportion
to
such
or
such
a
reward
,
receives
no
increase
of
worth
by
the
Promise
,
that
settles
such
a
reward
upon
it
,
or
by
being
made
the
condition
of
such
a
Promise
.
If
it
doth
,
then
the
value
of
the
work
is
to
be
measured
by
the
reward
that
is
promised
to
it
,
and
so
the
mercy
and
liberality
of
the
Promiser
excludes
his
mercy
and
grace
in
fulfilling
his
Promise
.
For
if
the
Promise
make
the
condition
equal
to
the
reward
,
then
in
fulfilling
his
Promise
,
he
doth
but
aequalia
aequalibus
rependere
,
proportion
the
reward
to
the
worth
of
the
action
,
and
so
cannot
exercise
grace
and
liberality
in
performing
his
Promise
;
for
example
,
A
King
promiseth
a
condemned
Traitour
,
that
if
he
will
but
acknowledge
his
offence
,
and
accept
of
his
royal
favour
,
he
will
not
only
give
him
his
life
,
but
advance
him
to
such
honour
,
wealth
and
power
,
as
shall
make
him
the
second
man
in
the
Kingdome
,
yea
,
and
leave
him
his
successour
in
the
Throne
:
That
such
a
Promise
is
of
special
grace
and
favour
,
he
is
not
a
reasonable
creature
that
shall
deny
;
but
if
the
Traitours
acknowledgement
and
acceptance
of
the
Kings
favour
,
by
being
made
the
condition
of
his
deliverance
and
advancement
,
become
forthwith
proportionable
thereunto
,
then
is
it
no
mercy
nor
grace
in
the
King
,
to
bestow
these
favours
upon
him
.
Yea
,
the
same
work
will
be
of
more
and
lesse
value
.
Suppose
another
Traitour
upon
the
same
condition
be
promised
his
life
,
and
no
more
.
In
the
former
,
it
is
of
a
great
deal
more
worth
and
value
then
in
this
,
because
proportionable
to
a
greater
reward
.
Yea
,
and
it
will
be
impossible
that
there
should
be
any
cheating
in
buying
and
selling
,
or
any
other
contract
,
if
things
of
themselves
unequal
become
forthwith
equal
,
by
vertue
of
a
contract
.
Suppose
a
man
give
a
great
price
for
a
Jewel
,
and
the
Jewel
prove
counterfeit
:
yet
by
vertue
of
the
contract
,
it
becomes
equal
to
the
price
he
gave
for
it
,
and
the
buyer
may
not
complain
of
the
injustice
of
the
couzenage
.
Several
other
Arguments
may
the
Reader
see
to
this
purpose
in
learned
[
a
](A96867-e32840-b)
a
De
Just.
Act.
c.
63.
&
Voss
.
The
s●de
bon.
oper
merit
.
p.
72.
Davenant
.
Here
it
may
be
demanded
,
whether
works
in
the
first
Covenant
,
[
b
](A96867-e32920-b)
b
L.
in
conditionib
.
F.
de
Cond
&
domonstr
.
Law
.
Onesimus
accepts
and
performes
the
condition
.
I
do
ask
,
whether
he
do
thereby
merit
his
Masters
favour
and
estate
,
or
no
?
If
not
,
the
question
is
yielded
:
if
so
,
then
contradictions
and
impossibilities
may
be
true
.
For
he
confesseth
,
that
he
neither
hath
nor
can
merit
any
thing
of
his
Master
:
and
yet
in
so
saying
,
he
doth
merit
,
even
all
his
Master
is
worth
.
Now
faith
is
a
condition
of
like
nature
:
as
being
an
act
of
self-dereliction
,
a
kinde
of
holy
despaire
,
a
renouncing
of
all
worthinesse
in
our selves
,
as
Mr.
Eyre
expresseth
it
,
page
76.
and
this
doth
the
Lord
require
as
the
condition
of
our
partaking
in
his
pardoning
mercy
,
Jer.
3.
12
,
13.
I
am
merciful
saith
the
Lord
,
and
I
will
not
keep
anger
for
ever
:
only
acknowledge
thine
iniquity
,
that
thou
hast
transgressed
against
the
Lord
thy
God
.
But
let
us
search
the
Scriptures
.
Jer.
18.
7
,
8.
At
what
instant
I
shall
speak
,
concerning
a
Nation
,
and
concerning
a
Kingdome
,
to
pluck
up
,
and
to
pull
down
,
and
to
destroy
it
:
If
that
Nation
,
against
whom
I
have
pronounced
,
turn
from
their
evil
;
I
will
repent
of
the
evil
which
I
thought
to
do
unto
them
.
A
famous
instance
we
have
of
it
in
Nineveh
,
against
which
Jonah
cries
,
Yet
fourty
dayes
,
and
Nineveh
shall
be
overthrown
.
Jonah
3.
4.
In
the
former
place
,
God
gives
us
a
general
rule
to
understand
his
threatenings
,
as
having
a
tacite
condition
of
repentance
,
by
which
the
evil
threatened
may
be
escaped
.
Otherwise
Janas
had
spoken
false
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
,
in
threatening
destruction
to
Nineveh
within
fourty
dayes
:
for
the
city
was
not
then
destroyed
;
but
upon
their
repentance
,
what
the
Lord
promised
in
Jeremy
,
he
performed
upon
them
,
Jon.
3.
10.
God
saw
their
works
,
that
they
turned
from
their
evil
way
,
and
God
repented
of
the
evil
that
he
had
said
he
would
do
unto
them
,
and
he
did
it
not
.
[
c
](A96867-e33110-b)
c
Vide
Krakevitz
.
in
loc.
p.
341.
Repentance
then
(
if
God
be
a
God
of
truth
,
and
cannot
lie
)
is
the
condition
of
our
deliverance
from
threatened
evils
:
suitable
to
that
of
our
Lord
,
Luke
13.
3.
Except
you
repent
,
you
shall
all
likewise
perish
.
Yet
Gods
saving
men
(
Nineveh
in
particular
)
upon
their
repentance
,
is
an
act
of
his
grace
,
not
of
their
merit
:
and
unto
that
grace
of
God
doth
Jonah
ascribe
it
,
Jon.
4.
2.
I
knew
that
thou
art
a
gracious
God
and
merciful
.
In
like
manner
is
Israels
deliverance
from
the
judgements
threatened
,
ascribed
to
the
free
grace
and
mercy
of
God
,
as
the
only
cause
:
though
not
without
their
own
repentance
and
returning
unto
God
as
the
condition
thereof
,
Joel
2.
12
,
13
,
14.
So
2
Chron.
30.
19.
For
if
you
turne
again
unto
the
Lord
,
(
there
's
the
condition
)
your
brethren
and
your
children
shall
finde
compassion
before
them
that
lead
them
captive
,
so
that
they
shall
come
again
into
this
land
:
for
the
Lord
your
God
is
gracious
and
merciful
,
(
there
's
the
cause
)
and
will
not
turne
away
his
face
from
you
,
if
you
return
to
him
,
Deut.
4.
30
,
31.
When
all
these
things
are
come
upon
thee
,
even
in
the
latter
dayes
,
if
thou
turne
to
the
Lord
thy
God
,
and
shalt
be
obedient
to
his
voice
:
for
the
Lord
thy
God
is
a
merciful
God
,
he
will
not
destroy
thee
,
neither
forsake
thee
,
&c.
So
chap.
30.
2
,
3.
Indeed
the
word
grace
or
gracious
,
is
not
expressely
mentioned
in
this
text
;
but
mercy
is
,
which
is
tantamount
to
it
:
and
likely
they
go
both
together
,
as
before
,
Jonah
4.
2.
Joel
2.
13
,
14.
2
Chron.
30.
9.
Exod.
34.
6.
And
if
their
returning
unto
God
,
be
here
denied
to
be
the
condition
of
their
deliverance
from
destruction
,
of
which
notwithstanding
the
mercy
and
grace
of
God
is
asserted
to
be
the
only
cause
:
I
must
professe
for
my
own
part
I
shall
think
it
a
hard
matter
to
prove
,
that
there
is
one
intelligible
sentence
in
all
the
Scripture
:
yea
,
and
let
me
speak
my
judgement
freely
;
though
I
detest
the
Papists
doctrine
of
merits
,
yet
if
Mr.
Eyre
will
make
good
his
position
,
[
d
](A96867-e33280-b)
d
Donationi
potest
apponi
conditio
;
nec
ideo
minùs
pura
&
vera
dona●io
dicitur
,
dummodo
ex
illa
commodum
non
accedat
donanti
.
Greg.
Tholos
.
Syntag
juris
.
l
28
c.
7
§.
7.
●x
C.
L.
8.
tit
.
55
that
every
condition
is
a
meritorious
cause
,
it
must
of
necessity
be
granted
,
that
they
have
done
more
for
the
proof
of
merits
,
then
all
the
protestants
on
earth
will
ever
be
able
to
answer
:
for
I
do
not
know
one
Protestant
,
but
yields
,
that
there
are
many
Promises
of
grace
,
which
yet
are
conditional
.
And
thus
much
for
the
first
Argument
,
by
which
Mr.
Eyre
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
we
are
concurrent
causes
with
God
in
the
formal
act
of
our
own
Justification
,
if
faith
be
made
the
condition
thereof
.
The
second
succeeds
,
and
that
is
this
.
If
faith
be
a
condition
,
Answ.
1.
The
merits
of
Christ
do
not
concur
in
our
Justification
,
as
any
part
of
that
formal
act
by
which
we
are
justified
.
It
is
God
as
Supreme
Lawgiver
,
and
Judge
,
and
Christ
as
King
under
him
who
is
our
Justifier
.
The
merits
of
Christ
are
a
cause
of
themselves
,
moving
God
to
put
forth
that
act.
2.
I
would
ask
Mr.
Eyre
,
whether
the
death
of
Christ
be
no
more
then
a
condition
without
which
we
are
not
justified
?
if
it
be
,
he
doth
ill
to
talke
of
my
putting
faith
in
the
same
kinde
of
cause
with
Christs
death
:
for
I
ascribe
no
more
to
faith
,
then
that
it
is
a
condition
,
without
which
not
.
If
it
be
not
,
Mr.
Eyre
,
I
doubt
,
will
be
found
guilty
of
degrading
the
blood
of
Christ
,
more
then
I
of
advancing
faith
beyond
its
due
place
.
3.
By
faith
we
concur
to
our
own
Justification
,
not
causally
,
but
objectively
,
&
terminativè
;
as
the
earth
concurs
to
my
going
,
as
the
thing
I
walk
upon
:
a
visible
object
to
my
sight
,
as
the
thing
seen
:
and
other
objects
to
the
acts
that
are
conversant
about
them
.
4.
And
the
Argument
at
last
begs
the
question
:
for
it
supposeth
that
we
ascribe
to
faith
a
causal
influxe
into
our
Justification
,
which
is
the
thing
I
dispute
against
.
SECT.
IV.
THe
fifth
Argument
succeeds
.
That
interpretation
of
this
Luke
6.
43
,
44.
Mat.
12.
33.
John
15.
5.
So
Augustine
,
Parisiensis
,
the
Articles
of
the
Church
of
England
,
&c.
Answ.
The
substance
of
this
is
answered
already
,
chapt.
5.
works
are
taken
largely
or
strictly
:
in
the
former
sense
faith
is
a
work
;
in
the
latter
it
is
opposed
to
works
.
The
Authours
whom
Mr.
Eyre
mentioneth
,
as
[
e
](A96867-e33530-b)
e
Aug.
Serm.
96.
de
Temp.
Nemo
bono
operatur
nisi
fides
praecesserit
.
&
de
Spirit
&
lit
.
c.
8.
opus
non
fit
nisi
à
Justificato
.
Justificatio
autem
ex
fide
impetratur
.
Augustine
,
&c.
Take
works
as
they
are
opposed
to
faith
,
whereof
the
words
quoted
are
an
uncontrollable
evidence
.
If
Mr.
Eyre
had
shewed
us
,
that
his
legion
of
Orthodox
Writers
did
as
much
oppose
the
antecedency
of
faith
as
of
works
to
Justification
,
he
had
spoken
to
purpose
.
The
tree
indeed
must
be
good
before
the
fruit
can
be
good
.
But
the
tree
is
made
good
by
faith
,
and
the
Spirit
of
Sanctification
,
which
is
the
good
treasure
of
the
heart
,
which
bringeth
forth
good
works
,
Luke
6.
45.
John
15.
5.
I
never
heard
before
,
that
Justification
(
which
is
a
grace
without
us
)
was
the
roote
and
inward
principle
,
of
good
actions
.
The
sixth
and
last
Argument
is
this
,
To
say
that
faith
is
a
passive
Answ.
I
deny
it
.
Mr.
Eyre
proves
it
thus
.
To
be
both
active
and
passive
in
reference
to
the
same
effect
,
is
a
flat
contradiction
(
and
yet
this
also
should
be
delivered
with
a
little
more
caution
:
a
Christian
is
both
active
and
passive
in
all
the
good
works
he
doth
,
but
I
stand
not
on
it
.
)
A
condition
is
a
moral
efficient
cause
of
that
which
is
promised
upon
condition
,
in
the
use
of
the
Jurists
:
though
in
the
logical
notion
of
it
,
it
hath
not
the
least
efficiency
.
Answ.
And
why
may
not
we
be
permitted
to
use
it
in
its
logical
notion
?
the
most
logical
sense
is
the
most
rational
.
And
seeing
Mr.
Eyre
confesseth
,
that
in
its
logical
notion
,
a
condition
hath
not
the
least
efficiency
;
he
must
give
me
leave
to
account
his
Argument
illogical
,
that
is
,
irrational
,
that
proceeds
upon
supposition
of
the
contrary
.
2.
It
is
also
notoriously
false
,
that
a
condition
is
a
cause
in
the
use
of
the
Jurists
;
for
they
do
perpetually
distinguish
a
cause
from
a
condition
:
as
appears
by
the
very
title
of
the
thirty
f●fth
book
of
the
Digests
.
De
Conditionibus
&
Demonstrationibus
,
&
Causis
,
&
Modis
eorum
quae
in
Testamento
scribuntur
.
Which
the
[
f
](A96867-e33720-b)
f
Dyon
.
Gotho
▪
●red
Not.
in
hunc
tit
.
W●semb
.
paratit
in
eund.
Cujac
.
l.
2.
observ.
c
39.
G.
Tholos
.
Sy●t
.
juris
.
l.
42.
c.
32.
Jurists
thus
distinguish
,
Causa
exprimit
rationem
quae
nos
movet
ut
alteri
legemus
.
Demonstratio
rem
ipsam
legatam
notat
,
designat
Azor.
Instit.
mor.
par.
3.
l
4.
c.
24.
ao
d●pingit
.
Conditio
suspendit
transmissionem
legati
,
&c.
Which
differences
they
fetch
out
of
the
Law
it selfe
.
3.
If
all
conditions
be
causes
,
then
such
as
the
Law
calls
[
g
](A96867-e33770-b)
g
C.
de
caduc
.
tollend
.
§.
Sin
autem
.
contingent
and
casual
are
causes
also
:
as
having
as
much
of
the
nature
and
use
of
a
condition
,
as
that
which
they
call
arbitrary
or
potestative
.
But
that
a
condition
meerly
casual
should
be
the
cause
of
a
gi●t
,
is
that
which
the
(
[
h
](A96867-e33780-b)
h
Vide
P.
Nic.
Moz
.
de
contract
.
c.
2.
de
do
nat.
p.
141.
Ratio
est
:
quia
cum
con●itio
dependet
à
ca●u
fortuito
,
non
censetur
dona●s
moveri
ad
donandum
contemplatione
illius
casus
,
sed
ex
suâ
liberalitate
:
non
tamen
donare
vult
nisi
casus
eveniat
.
De
quo
etiam
Riminal
.
Instit
de
donat.
in
princip.
n.
59.
)
Jurists
will
never
endure
.
As
if
Titius
promise
Seius
five
hundred
,
if
the
ship
called
Castor
and
Pollùx
come
into
the
river
of
Thames
by
July
next
.
Or
if
he
give
him
the
same
summe
with
a
Proviso
,
that
if
he
die
before
the
age
of
twenty
one
,
then
it
shall
come
to
Caius
his
younger
brother
.
That
an
accidental
effect
should
be
a
meritorious
cause
is
not
imaginable
.
4.
The
case
is
the
same
again
in
all
arbitrary
or
voluntary
conditions
,
(
If
they
be
meerly
such
,
and
have
nothing
beyond
the
nature
of
a
condition
added
or
concurring
)
for
the
distribution
of
conditions
,
in
casuales
&
potestativas
,
is
not
generis
in
species
,
but
subjecti
in
adjuncta
:
for
a
condition
is
one
and
the
same
in
its
nature
and
use
,
whether
the
act
or
event
which
is
made
the
condition
,
be
meerly
casual
or
voluntary
.
And
therefore
when
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
that
if
a
man
do
any
thing
for
obtaining
a
benefit
,
he
is
active
in
procuring
it
,
if
he
mean
physically
,
I
grant
it
;
if
morally
,
I
deny
it
:
because
a
voluntary
act
,
when
it
is
a
condition
,
contributes
no
more
to
the
obtaining
of
a
benefit
,
then
a
contingent
act
,
being
also
a
condition
:
and
yet
by
such
a
casual
condition
doth
a
man
obtain
a
benefit
,
and
yet
acts
nothing
toward
it
.
Let
us
,
for
clearing
and
concluding
this
dispute
,
again
resume
the
motive
cause
,
being
indeed
no
cause
at
all
,
but
the
exiigency
or
moral
capacity
of
a
person
,
to
be
the
object
of
an
act
of
mercy
or
liberality
:
otherwise
,
by
how
much
the
greater
mans
misery
is
,
by
so
much
the
lesse
praise-worthy
is
Gods
mercy
in
relieving
us
:
because
,
by
how
many
the
more
causes
concur
to
an
effect
,
by
so
much
the
lesse
praise
is
due
to
each
.
That
faith
moves
in
this
manner
,
I
will
not
deny
,
but
this
will
not
make
it
a
cause
,
at
least
no
other
then
à
causa
sine
qua
non
:
and
how
a
meer
condition
(
such
as
in
the
instance
given
should
be
any
other
)
I
cannot
conceive
.
Briefly
,
if
the
condition
aforesaid
,
performed
by
Onesimus
,
be
the
cause
of
his
Masters
gift
,
then
either
of
the
Promise
,
or
of
the
execution
of
it
.
But
the
said
condition
is
neither
the
cause
of
the
Promise
,
nor
of
fulfilling
it
.
Ergo.
Not
of
the
Promise
;
for
Philemons
will
is
the
cause
of
the
condition
:
Ergo
,
the
condition
is
not
the
cause
of
Philemons
will
signified
in
his
Promise
:
for
the
effect
cannot
be
the
cause
of
its
cause
.
A
condition
as
such
,
cannot
move
the
Donour
to
promise
,
because
it
is
his
will
,
and
nothing
else
,
that
makes
it
a
condition
,
(
though
I
deny
not
,
but
there
may
be
something
in
the
condition
,
which
may
move
the
will
quoad
specificationem
,
that
is
,
encline
it
to
pitch
upon
this
rather
then
that
:
or
to
make
this
the
condition
rather
then
that
)
Not
of
the
performance
of
the
Promise
,
for
the
same
reason
:
for
it
is
most
absurd
,
that
the
will
should
make
its
own
motive
causes
.
As
if
we
should
suppose
Philemon
saying
thus
,
I
will
make
his
confession
the
condition
of
my
gift
,
and
then
I
will
be
moved
by
it
to
bestow
it
upon
him
.
If
there
be
not
attractive
vertue
enough
,
(
as
I
may
so
call
it
)
in
the
condition
,
till
the
will
resolve
to
be
moved
by
it
,
then
surely
the
motion
of
the
will
is
from
it selfe
,
not
from
it
.
Wherefore
the
cause
,
both
of
the
Promise
and
Performance
,
is
Philemons
good
will
,
who
of
his
own
accord
obligeth
himself
to
give
such
a
gift
,
such
a
condition
being
performed
,
and
will
not
be
obliged
without
it
:
if
he
would
,
he
might
give
it
presently
without
any
condition
:
but
as
it
is
his
will
,
that
the
Donee
shall
be
uncapable
of
receiving
any
benefit
by
him
,
unlesse
such
a
thing
be
done
;
so
is
it
his
will
which
makes
him
capable
of
receiving
it
when
it
is
done
.
SECT.
V.
THis
I
did
illustrate
in
my
Sermon
by
a
double
comparison
:
of
That
an
offendor
saved
by
his
Clergy
,
is
not
passive
,
but
active
in
saving
his
life
,
he
may
properly
be
said
to
save
himself
.
Yea
,
he
doth
more
in
saving
his
life
:
then
either
the
Law
or
the
Judge
:
as
the
welch
man
that
cried
,
God
blesse
her
father
and
mother
that
taught
her
to
reade
.
Rep.
Supposing
that
the
reading
of
the
book
be
a
meer
condition
(
such
as
is
the
acceptance
of
the
pardon
in
the
second
instance
)
abstracted
from
all
considerations
of
the
worth
and
benefit
of
learning
;
I
answer
,
1.
That
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
He
that
reades
may
be
properly
said
to
save
himselfe
;
I
would
have
granted
it
,
if
he
had
left
out
the
word
properly
.
Because
he
may
be
said
to
save
himselfe
,
who
doth
that
without
which
he
should
not
be
saved
,
though
his
doing
do
not
cause
it
,
and
therefore
the
speech
is
improper
.
Nor
doth
the
Scripture
abhorre
from
the
like
manner
of
speech
:
for
thus
saith
the
Lord
,
Luke
7.
50.
Thy
faith
hath
saved
thee
,
go
in
peace
:
which
salvation
is
before
called
forgivenesse
of
sin
,
ver.
48.
and
Mark
5.
34.
Thy
faith
hath
made
thee
whole
,
go
in
peace
.
So
Luke
18.
42.
which
though
it
were
a
bodily
cure
,
yet
was
it
a
representation
and
assurance
of
spiritual
blessings
:
and
the
faith
by
which
she
received
it
,
the
very
same
by
which
we
obtain
remission
of
sins
,
as
our
(
[
i
](A96867-e34250-b)
i
A●●s
.
B●ll
.
enerv
.
tom.
4.
l.
5.
p.
319.
12º
,
Miracula
istiusmodi
fuerunt
singularia
D●i
beneficia
,
quibus
Justificationis
b●nedictio
fuit
adumbra●a
.
Luke
4.
18.
3.
Beneficia
ista
saepe
conjunct●
fuerunt
cum
Justificatione
.
Gerh.
de
.
Justis
.
per
sid.
§.
158
p.
956.
Marc.
5
36.
Luc.
8.
50.
Quamvis
ve●ò
ibi●
.
non
agatur
propriè
de
side
Justificante
,
mani●estum
tamen
est
fidem
st●tui
unicum
illud
medium
per
quod
divino●um
beneficiorum
,
ac
p●oinde
&
●e●issio●i
peccato●um
&
just●tiae
reddamur
participes
,
credenti
enim
omnia
possibilia
.
Mark
9.
23.
S●e
also
Down
.
of
Justif
.
l.
6.
c
15
●
.
11
,
1●
.
)
Protestants
prove
against
the
Papists
.
And
yet
no
question
but
the
speech
is
improper
:
for
in
propriety
of
speech
,
it
was
the
power
and
grace
of
God
,
that
healed
the
one
,
and
saved
the
other
.
In
the
same
phrase
of
speech
are
the
Jewes
exhorted
to
save
themselves
,
Acts
2.
40.
and
Timothy
to
save
himselfe
,
1
Tim.
4.
16.
And
the
Patriarchs
by
faith
,
to
have
done
such
things
as
are
quite
above
all
created
power
,
as
was
hefore
observed
out
of
Heb.
11.
2.
And
whereas
the
welch
man
blesseth
his
father
and
mother
that
taught
him
to
reade
:
A
Christian
may
with
seriousnesse
blesse
God
in
like
manner
,
and
give
thanks
unto
the
father
,
for
making
of
him
meet
,
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
to
be
one
of
the
Partakers
of
the
inheritance
of
the
Saints
in
light
,
Col.
1.
12.
That
we
performe
the
condition
is
from
the
grace
of
God
,
no
lesse
then
the
blessings
we
partake
in
upon
performance
of
it
:
and
therefore
the
praise
of
all
is
due
to
him
only
.
Yet
the
grace
is
greater
in
giving
the
latter
then
the
former
,
by
how
much
the
end
is
better
then
the
meanes
.
And
if
the
welch
man
did
indeed
think
,
that
he
was
more
beholding
to
his
reading
,
then
to
the
courtesie
of
his
Prince
,
for
his
life
:
his
Logick
was
as
ridiculous
as
his
language
;
for
though
the
Law
would
not
have
saved
him
without
his
reading
,
(
and
much
lesse
would
his
reading
have
saved
him
without
that
favourable
Law
)
yet
his
life
is
a
thousand
fold
more
worth
then
his
reading
of
two
or
three
lines
:
and
therefore
he
owes
a
thousand
times
more
thanks
to
his
Prince
,
for
giving
him
his
life
upon
such
a
condition
,
then
to
himself
for
reading
,
supposing
his
reading
to
have
been
the
purchase
of
his
life
.
If
a
man
sell
a
farme
to
his
friend
for
five
hundred
,
for
which
another
would
have
given
him
a
thousand
:
what
more
common
then
to
say
,
He
hath
given
his
friend
five
hundred
in
the
buying
?
3.
But
in
sober
sadnesse
,
doth
Mr.
Eyre
think
the
welch
man
speaks
Sie
r●de
la
C●ambre
.
Charact.
of
the
Passions
,
ch.
4.
of
laughter
.
p.
210.
the
soule
,
so
moving
laughter
?
And
what
can
that
deformity
be
(
except
the
welch
idiome
)
but
the
fallacy
of
non
causa
pro
causa
,
putting
that
for
the
cause
which
is
not
the
cause
:
as
we
are
wont
(
out
of
Cicero
)
when
we
see
a
little
man
girt
with
a
great
sword
,
to
transplace
the
Subject
and
the
Adjunct
,
and
say
,
who
tied
that
man
to
that
sword
?
Had
the
welch
man
cried
as
he
was
bid
,
God
blesse
the
King
and
the
Judge
;
the
propriety
of
the
speech
had
spoiled
the
jest
,
and
deprived
it
of
that
facetiousnesse
and
lepidity
,
which
now
causeth
us
to
make
merry
with
it
.
A
certain
discovery
that
the
speech
is
not
proper
,
nor
the
condition
of
reading
the
cause
of
his
pardon
,
the
speech
becoming
ridiculous
upon
no
other
account
but
because
it
would
insinuate
that
to
be
the
cause
,
which
was
no
more
then
a
condition
.
But
the
serious
judgement
of
all
offendors
,
who
escape
death
by
this
means
,
and
the
wisdome
of
our
stat●
determining
it
to
be
an
act
of
royal
grace
and
favour
to
pardon
a
man
on
this
condition
,
might
(
one
would
think
)
be
of
as
much
authority
,
as
one
welch
mans
word
.
It
is
true
indeed
,
the
Law
,
nor
the
Judge
could
save
him
,
unlesse
he
read
:
nor
will
God
save
us
unle●●●
we
believe
,
Heb.
3.
19.
They
could
not
enter
in
because
of
un●eli●f
.
Not
through
defect
of
power
or
mercy
in
God
(
which
are
both
in●in●te
)
but
because
he
hath
confined
himself
in
the
dispensation
of
pardon
and
salvation
,
that
he
will
bestow
it
upon
none
but
them
that
believe
.
Is
it
therefore
not
of
grace
,
because
not
without
faith
?
Whereas
the
Apostle
sayes
,
It
is
of
faith
that
it
might
be
of
grace
,
Rom.
4.
16.
In
that
which
followes
I
finde
nothing
which
is
not
answered
already
,
that
the
performance
of
the
condition
makes
the
conditional
grant
to
become
absolute
;
the
words
are
ambiguous
.
If
he
mean
,
it
makes
it
absolute
,
as
that
without
which
it
had
never
been
absolute
,
I
grant
it
:
if
he
mean
,
it
makes
it
absolute
by
contributing
any
direct
causality
,
I
deny
it
;
for
upon
performance
of
the
condition
,
the
conditional
grant
doth
indeed
become
absolute
,
not
by
the
worth
or
efficacy
of
the
condition
,
but
by
the
will
of
the
Promiser
,
that
upon
the
existence
of
such
a
thing
or
action
,
will
be
obliged
,
and
not
without
it
.
We
have
already
given
several
instances
of
conditions
,
which
have
nothing
of
worth
in
them
to
engage
the
Donour
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
the
cause
of
the
gift
:
for
nothing
can
produce
an
effect
more
noble
and
excellent
then
it selfe
.
Nor
doth
it
receive
any
addition
of
intrinsecal
worth
,
by
being
made
the
condition
:
otherwise
we
might
work
as
rare
feats
by
the
influence
of
our
wills
,
as
[
l
](A96867-e34560-b)
l
Magnet
.
cure
of
wounds
.
Van
Helmont
thinks
may
be
wrought
by
the
magick
of
the
fancie
.
'T
is
but
willing
a
pin
to
be
worth
a
pound
,
and
it
shall
be
done
.
And
when
he
addes
in
the
next
place
,
that
if
faith
be
the
condition
of
the
New
Covenant
in
such
a
sense
,
as
perfect
obedience
was
the
condition
of
the
old
,
man
must
needs
be
his
own
Justifier
:
if
he
mean
such
in
the
matter
and
particular
nature
of
the
condition
.
It
is
true
,
if
he
mean
such
in
the
common
nature
of
a
condition
,
it
is
false
:
for
we
have
shewed
before
,
both
from
Reason
and
Scripture
,
Divines
and
Lawyers
,
that
some
kinde
of
conditions
are
so
far
from
being
inconsistent
with
grace
,
as
that
they
advance
it
rather
.
As
suppose
some
benefit
of
very
great
value
be
bestowed
on
a
worthlesse
person
,
upon
condition
that
he
acknowledge
the
rich
,
superlative
grace
and
love
of
the
Donour
to
be
the
only
cause
of
it
.
Finally
,
thus
he
speaks
.
As
in
the
old
Covenant
,
it
was
not
Gods
threat
that
brought
death
upon
the
world
,
just
so
in
the
New
(
if
it
be
a
conditional
Promise
,
)
it
is
not
the
Promise
that
justifies
a
beleever
,
but
the
beleever
himself
.
The
answer
is
ready
.
Death
came
into
the
world
by
sin
,
as
the
culpable
meritorious
cause
,
but
sin
could
not
have
slain
us
but
by
the
Law
,
1
Cor.
15.
56.
Rom.
5.
13
,
14.
Ergo.
It
is
not
warily
said
,
that
Gods
threat
did
not
bring
death
upon
the
world
.
2.
And
when
Mr.
Eyre
hath
proved
that
our
performance
of
the
Gospel-conditions
hath
the
same
proportion
to
our
salvation
,
as
sin
hath
to
our
destruction
,
the
Papists
shall
thank
him
,
Rom.
6.
last
.
The
wages
of
sin
is
death
:
but
the
gift
of
God
is
eternal
life
,
through
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
.
Mens
not-accepting
of
the
grace
of
God
,
may
make
that
grace
without
effect
as
to
themselves
,
2
Cor.
6.
1.
Rom.
3.
3.
But
that
therefore
their
acceptance
is
the
cause
of
Gods
being
gracious
to
them
,
is
wilde
reasoning
.
And
as
to
worthy
Dr.
Kendal
,
(
out
of
whom
Mr.
Eyre
quotes
these
passages
,
)
he
hath
publickly
enough
,
(
and
in
Mr.
Eyres
hearing
for
one
)
declared
himself
to
be
no
enemy
against
conditions
of
Justification
or
salvation
.
That
he
that
is
pardoned
upon
his
reading
,
doth
not
pardon
himself
,
This
(
Mr.
Eyre
saith
)
is
an
impertinent
answer
;
because
the
question
is
not
,
whether
a
man
did
concur
in
making
the
Law
and
Rule
of
his
Justification
,
but
whether
he
had
any
causal
influxe
in
producing
the
effect
thereof
.
Rep.
My
answer
(
if
he
will
call
it
so
)
was
very
pertinent
as
to
the
case
of
an
offendor
saved
by
his
Clergy
,
whose
pardon
is
perfected
by
a
Law
(
which
gives
the
remote
right
)
and
sentence
passed
according
to
that
Law
(
which
produceth
his
immunity
it selfe
.
)
If
then
the
said
offendor
cause
his
own
pardon
;
it
must
be
by
concurring
some
way
or
other
to
the
production
of
one
of
these
.
The
case
is
altogether
the
same
in
our
justification
before
God
;
which
consists
in
a
Law
of
grace
,
and
in
sentence
passed
according
to
that
Law
:
which
because
we
must
purposely
prove
by
and
by
,
I
shall
here
supersede
for
a
while
.
One
thing
more
I
added
for
illustration
in
these
words
.
It
is
God
Mr.
Eyres
answer
consists
of
two
parts
:
the
one
is
a
concession
of
what
I
say
,
with
an
explanation
how
glory
is
called
a
reward
:
and
sayes
,
That
a
reward
is
for
a
work
two
wayes
:
1.
When
a
work
is
proportionable
to
the
wages
.
2.
When
it
is
not
answerable
to
the
wages
,
yet
is
due
by
Promise
;
as
when
a
poor
man
hath
twenty
shillings
for
an
houres
labour
:
though
the
work
be
not
worth
it
,
yet
it
is
a
due
debt
,
and
he
may
challenge
it
as
such
.
Rep.
Against
which
I
have
not
much
to
oppose
:
yet
if
the
houres
work
,
neither
in
respect
to
its
selfe
,
nor
any
circumstance
that
attends
it
,
as
the
Art
,
Danger
,
Detriment
of
the
Labourer
,
or
the
necessity
,
pleasure
,
profit
,
&c.
of
him
for
whom
he
labours
(
all
which
corne
into
the
[
m
](A96867-e34860-b)
m
Less
.
de
just.
&
jured
.
2
c.
18.
d.
3.
value
of
the
work
)
deserve
the
said
twenty
shillings
,
then
is
the
reward
,
though
partly
of
debt
,
quia
&
operanti
aliquid
abest
,
because
the
workman
puts
himself
to
expence
of
time
and
strength
;
and
he
for
whom
he
worketh
hath
the
benefit
and
advantage
thereof
:
yet
is
it
also
of
grace
,
[
n
](A96867-e34880-b)
n
Azor.
Insiit
.
Mor.
p
3.
l.
11.
c.
3.
quatenus
excedit
meritum
,
inasmuch
as
it
exceeds
the
value
of
the
work
.
And
that
the
Labourer
may
challenge
it
,
ariseth
from
civil
,
not
from
natural
justice
.
But
I
readily
grant
,
that
glory
is
not
our
reward
in
this
sense
.
But
how
then
is
it
a
reward
?
Because
it
comes
after
,
and
in
the
place
of
the
work
,
saith
Mr.
Eyre
.
Rep.
Of
which
I
shall
speak
more
hereafter
:
for
the
present
,
what
is
said
sufficeth
me
,
viz.
That
the
reward
follows
the
act
,
whereof
it
is
the
reward
:
for
hence
it
follows
,
that
if
Justification
be
given
as
the
reward
of
faith
,
then
must
it
needs
follow
faith
.
But
we
have
proved
before
,
that
Justification
(
even
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
)
is
the
gracious
reward
of
faith
.
Ergo
,
it
must
needs
be
consequent
to
it
.
His
second
answer
is
this
,
Though
the
blessings
of
the
Covenant
be
given
us
freely
,
and
not
upon
conditions
performed
by
us
,
yet
God
hath
his
order
in
bestowing
them
:
first
,
he
gives
grace
imputed
,
and
then
inherent
.
Rep.
My
Argument
is
à
pari
,
we
are
not
glorified
unlesse
we
believe
;
Medium
ad
aliquid
obtinendum
Vindic.
Grat.
de
crrat
.
p.
163.
ex
contractu
vel
foedere
,
illud
demum
est
conditio
.
A
means
ordained
to
obtain
any
thing
by
Contract
or
Covenant
,
is
a
Condition
.
If
he
doth
not
,
what
shall
become
of
those
many
places
,
wherein
God
exhorts
and
commands
men
to
repent
and
beleeve
,
that
they
may
be
saved
?
Then
unbelief
and
impenitency
are
no
sins
:
nor
are
men
thereby
the
causes
of
their
own
ruine
and
destruction
,
contrary
to
Scriptures
,
John
3.
19
,
and
8.
24.
&
passim
.
The
reason
is
plain
,
because
mans
not
being
the
object
of
a
gift
of
God
precisely
,
cannot
be
meritorious
of
his
damnation
.
Indeed
Mr.
Eyre
told
us
before
,
that
he
that
doth
the
least
work
towards
the
procuring
of
a
benefit
,
is
not
only
physically
,
but
morally
active
in
obtaining
it
.
I
wonder
at
my
heart
then
,
why
we
pray
for
grace
and
salvation
:
or
why
we
do
or
suffer
any
thing
for
obtaining
a
Crown
and
Kingdom
.
[
p
](A96867-e35130-b)
p
Authores
elus
primi
fuere
Sadoc
(
unde
Sadducaei
)
&
Baythos
.
de
quibus
videsis
Joh.
Drus
.
de
trib.
sect.
Judaeor
.
l.
3.
c.
3.
&
4.
&
Joh.
Cameron
.
Myroth
.
in
Mat.
22.
23.
This
very
conceit
was
that
which
drew
many
in
former
ages
to
deny
any
resurrection
,
other
then
what
was
past
already
:
and
by
some
improvement
,
may
bid
faire
for
a
resurrection
of
that
and
like
consequences
.
The
very
substance
of
Religion
,
and
the
vital
act
of
faith
,
consists
in
looking
to
the
reward
promised
in
Heaven
,
Heb.
11.
6
,
26.
2
Cor.
4.
16
,
18.
And
had
I
not
known
some
Christians
fallen
and
falling
off
from
prayer
and
ordinances
,
and
other
spiritual
duties
,
upon
this
very
ground
,
that
they
are
passive
altogether
in
their
salvation
,
and
that
they
neither
can
nor
must
do
any
thing
toward
it
,
I
would
not
have
lost
so
much
time
as
to
have
taken
notice
of
it
.
CHAP.
VI.
A
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
tenth
Chapter
.
My
first
Argument
against
Justification
before
faith
,
vindicated
from
all
Mr.
Eyres
exceptions
.
SECT.
I.
HAving
now
asserted
the
antecedency
of
faith
to
Justification
,
If
there
be
no
act
of
grace
declared
and
published
in
the
Word
,
which
may
be
a
legal
discharge
of
the
sinner
while
he
is
in
unbelief
,
then
no
unbelieving
sinner
is
justified
.
But
there
is
no
act
of
grace
declared
and
published
in
the
Word
that
may
be
a
legal
discharge
of
the
sinner
while
he
remains
in
unbelief
.
Ergo.
Mr.
Eyre
first
denies
the
Assumption
;
For
the
Gospel
declares
that
God
hath
transacted
all
the
sins
of
the
Elect
on
Jesus
Christ
:
and
that
he
by
his
offering
hath
made
a
full
and
perfect
atonement
for
them
,
whereby
they
are
really
made
clean
from
all
their
sins
in
the
sight
of
God
as
of
old
,
carnal
Israel
were
typically
clean
upon
the
atonement
made
by
the
High
Priest
,
Lev.
16.
30.
Rep.
1.
Supposing
the
tenour
of
the
Gospel
or
New
Covenant
to
be
such
a
declaration
as
this
:
yet
I
deny
,
that
this
declaration
hath
the
forme
or
force
of
a
Law
,
to
absolve
the
sinner
from
the
sentence
of
a
former
Law
.
The
Reason's
plain
,
because
it
is
but
narratio
rei
gestae
,
a
meer
historical
narration
of
what
hath
been
transacted
between
God
and
Christ
.
And
doth
not
Mr.
Eyre
see
,
that
if
he
yield
it
to
have
the
nature
and
operation
of
a
Law
in
discharging
sinners
,
he
contradicts
himself
in
his
next
answer
?
wherein
he
denies
,
that
Justification
is
the
discharge
of
a
sinner
by
a
declared
act
,
that
is
,
by
a
Law
.
Indeed
,
such
a
Gospel
as
he
here
speaks
of
,
may
declare
the
sinner
to
be
discharged
by
some
former
act
:
but
it selfe
cannot
be
his
discharge
,
and
therefore
the
answer
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
2.
The
atonement
made
by
Christ
,
may
be
said
to
be
perfect
two
wayes
.
1.
In
respect
of
it self
,
and
so
it
was
most
perfect
,
as
wanting
nothing
that
was
requisite
to
constitute
or
make
it
a
compleat
cause
of
our
peace
.
2.
In
reference
to
its
effects
,
and
so
it
is
yet
imperfect
,
and
shall
continue
so
till
the
Saints
be
glorified
,
because
till
then
they
shall
not
have
the
full
effect
,
or
perfection
of
peace
,
purchased
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
If
Mr
Eyre
mean
this
latter
sense
,
when
he
sayes
the
Gospel
declares
a
full
and
perfect
atonement
made
by
Christ
:
he
begs
the
question
.
In
the
former
I
grant
it
.
3.
And
so
that
the
Elect
were
cleansed
from
their
sins
in
the
death
of
Christ
quoad
impetrationem
,
because
he
obtained
eternal
redemption
and
cleansing
for
them
;
but
not
quoad
applicationem
,
till
they
do
beleeve
,
because
the
remission
purchased
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
not
applied
or
given
to
us
till
we
believe
.
4.
Though
the
Priest
made
an
atonement
for
all
the
sins
of
Israel
upon
the
day
of
expiation
,
Lev.
16.
30.
yet
did
God
require
the
concurrence
of
their
afflicting
themselves
,
and
humbling
their
soules
on
that
day
,
ver.
23.
otherwise
they
should
have
no
benefit
by
that
atonement
,
Lev.
23.
29.
Whatsoever
soule
shall
not
be
afflicted
on
that
same
day
,
he
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
his
people
.
Is
not
this
to
teach
us
,
that
without
faith
and
repentance
,
we
shall
not
have
remission
by
the
death
of
Christ
?
Secondly
,
Mr.
Eyre
denies
the
Proposition
;
which
stands
upon
Where
note
(
Reader
)
that
by
a
declared
act
,
I
mean
,
not
an
act
of
God
,
declaring
and
manifesting
to
a
sinner
that
he
is
justified
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
doth
willingly
mistake
me
,
and
thereupon
patcheth
a
non-sequitur
upon
me
,
which
I
intend
not
to
unstitch
)
but
such
a
declaration
of
his
will
,
as
is
essential
to
make
it
a
Law
;
for
the
very
essence
of
a
Law
consisteth
in
this
,
that
it
is
the
declared
will
of
the
Law-giver
,
Deut.
29.
29.
and
30.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
16
,
&c.
which
is
the
only
rule
that
determines
,
both
de
debito
officii
,
of
what
shall
be
our
duty
to
do
,
and
de
debito
poenae
&
praemii
,
of
what
rewards
or
penalties
shall
become
due
to
us
.
Accordingly
,
the
thing
I
maintain
is
,
that
our
discharge
from
punishment
due
by
Law
,
must
be
by
the
revealed
will
,
that
is
,
by
some
contrary
Law
or
Constitution
of
God
.
And
I
very
well
remember
,
that
in
private
conference
with
Mr.
Eyre
,
about
nine
or
ten
yeares
since
,
I
told
him
my
judgement
was
so
then
:
and
that
our
Divines
were
generally
dark
,
in
opening
the
nature
of
Justification
,
for
want
of
taking
notice
of
it
:
to
which
he
then
consented
.
But
Tempora
mutantur
,
&c.
the
thing
it self
I
thus
proved
.
Sin
is
not
imputed
where
there
is
no
Law
,
Rom.
5.
13.
Ergo
,
neither
is
righteousnesse
imputed
without
Law
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
Though
men
will
not
impute
or
charge
sin
upon
themselves
,
where
there
is
not
a
Law
to
convince
them
of
it
,
yet
God
may
:
for
his
hating
of
a
person
,
is
his
imputing
of
sin
.
The
scope
of
Rom.
5.
13.
is
not
to
shew
when
God
begins
to
impute
sin
to
a
person
,
but
that
sin
in
being
supposeth
a
Law
:
and
consequently
,
that
there
was
a
Law
before
the
Law
of
Moses
.
Rep.
Doth
Mr.
Eyre
indeed
think
,
that
when
it
is
said
,
Sin
is
not
imputed
where
there
is
no
Law
,
the
meaning
should
be
,
men
will
not
impute
sin
to
themselves
where
there
is
no
Law
?
To
impute
sin
hath
but
two
senses
in
Scripture
.
1.
To
punish
it
,
2
Sam.
19.
19.
2
Tim.
4.
16.
and
then
the
meaning
is
,
that
men
will
not
punish
themselves
where
there
is
no
Law
;
and
because
the
punishment
which
the
Apostle
doth
here
instance
in
,
is
death
:
therefore
the
full
sense
will
be
this
,
that
men
will
not
kill
themselves
where
there
is
no
Law
:
a
very
probable
glosse
.
Or
2.
To
accuse
or
charge
the
guilt
of
sin
upon
a
person
.
But
the
use
of
the
Word
will
not
allow
us
to
understand
it
of
a
mans
imputing
or
charging
sin
upon
himself
.
[
a
](A96867-e35710-b)
a
Vid
Guil.
Esthi
.
in
loc.
For
it
is
never
used
in
all
the
Scriptures
to
signifie
the
act
of
a
man
upon
himself
,
but
perpetually
the
act
of
another
,
as
Paul
to
Philemon
,
ver.
18.
If
he
owe
thee
any
thing
,
impute
it
to
me
:
especially
when
it
is
put
passively
,
as
here
it
is
,
sin
is
not
imputed
.
See
Rom.
4.
throughout
.
3.
And
I
do
heartily
wish
Mr.
Eyre
would
have
given
us
a
short
paraphrase
upon
the
thirteenth
and
fourteenth
verses
,
that
we
might
have
seen
what
tolerable
sense
could
have
been
made
of
them
according
to
his
Exposition
:
and
whether
the
Apostle
do
affirme
or
deny
that
men
did
impute
sin
to
themselves
before
the
Law
;
especially
if
the
Apostles
scope
be
what
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
it
is
,
namely
,
to
shew
that
sin
in
being
,
supposeth
a
Law
:
how
can
it
be
conducible
to
that
scope
,
to
speak
of
mens
not
imputing
sin
to
themselves
without
a
Law
?
4.
The
grand
designe
of
the
Apostle
is
plainly
to
illustrate
our
salvation
by
Christ
,
by
comparison
of
contraries
:
and
the
similitude
in
its
full
explication
stands
thus
.
As
by
the
disobedience
of
Adam
,
sin
and
death
entred
upon
all
his
children
:
so
by
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
life
and
righteousnesse
betides
all
his
.
The
Proposition
is
set
down
,
ver.
12.
Wherefore
,
as
by
one
man
sin
entred
into
the
world
,
and
death
by
sin
,
and
so
death
passed
upon
all
men
for
that
all
have
sinned
.
This
is
proved
,
ver
,
13
,
14.
and
the
summe
of
the
proof
(
as
I
take
it
)
is
this
.
Sin
was
imputed
,
and
that
unto
death
,
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
.
Ergo
,
there
must
be
some
Law
in
being
,
according
to
which
sin
was
imputed
:
for
it
cannot
be
imputed
where
there
is
no
Law
,
ver.
13.
This
Law
must
be
either
the
Law
of
Moses
,
or
the
Law
given
to
Adam
.
The
former
it
cannot
be
,
for
sin
and
death
were
in
the
world
long
before
that
Law
was
given
,
even
as
long
as
from
Adam
to
Moses
,
ver.
14.
Ergo
,
it
must
be
the
Law
given
to
Adam
.
And
so
hath
the
Apostle
his
purpose
,
That
it
was
by
the
disobedience
of
one
(
namely
Adam
)
that
sin
entred
into
the
world
,
and
death
by
sin
.
From
whence
it
is
manifest
,
that
God
doth
never
impute
sin
without
a
Law
:
that
is
,
doth
neither
charge
persons
as
guilty
of
sin
,
nor
punish
them
for
it
(
other
sense
the
phrase
of
imputing
sin
hath
none
in
all
the
Scripture
)
for
from
the
imputation
of
sin
unto
death
,
the
Apostle
infers
the
necessity
of
a
Law
,
according
to
which
sin
was
imputed
in
the
long
tract
of
time
between
Adam
and
Moses
.
2.
Gods
hatred
of
reprobation
is
not
his
imputing
of
sin
,
as
being
Acts
7.
60.
Lord
,
lay
not
this
sin
to
their
charge
,
both
which
suppose
the
imputation
or
non-imputation
of
sin
to
be
a
consequent
to
it
,
not
antecedent
.
And
against
the
constant
language
of
Scripture
,
and
of
all
men
,
must
we
be
forced
,
upon
no
other
Authority
then
Mr.
Eyres
bare
word
,
to
beleeve
the
imputation
of
sin
to
be
from
eternity
;
and
when
the
Apostle
says
,
sin
is
not
imputed
where
there
is
no
Law
;
we
must
beleeve
,
(
for
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
it
)
that
the
meaning
is
,
There
is
no
sin
where
there
is
no
Law
.
Briefely
,
if
sin
be
imputed
from
eternity
,
men
are
miserable
from
eternity
,
which
is
impossible
;
for
he
that
is
not
,
is
not
miserable
,
Mat.
26.
24.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyre
hath
a
second
answer
,
and
that
is
,
That
Rep.
What
then
?
yet
there
may
be
,
and
is
the
same
reason
of
imputing
sin
,
and
imputing
righteousnesse
,
which
are
both
Gods
acts
.
It
is
but
changing
the
terme
,
and
the
matter
will
be
clear
.
To
impute
righteousnesse
,
and
not
to
impute
sin
,
are
termes
much
of
the
same
signification
with
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
4.
6
,
8.
Now
to
impute
sin
,
and
to
non-impute
sin
,
are
contraries
,
(
though
the
latter
be
expressed
by
a
negative
terme
)
Ergo
,
they
are
both
of
them
actions
of
the
same
kinde
and
common
nature
.
Contraria
sunt
opposita
sub
eodem
genere
proximo
.
Ergo
,
there
is
the
same
reason
for
the
one
and
the
other
,
that
if
sin
cannot
be
imputed
without
Law
,
then
neither
non-imputed
.
More
particularly
thus
I
argued
,
that
as
condemnation
is
no
secret
act
or
resolution
of
God
to
condemn
,
but
the
very
voice
and
sentence
of
the
Law
,
Cursed
is
he
that
sinneth
:
so
on
the
contrary
,
our
Justification
must
be
some
declared
sentence
or
act
of
God
,
which
may
discharge
the
sinner
from
condemnation
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
as
condemnation
comes
upon
men
by
vertue
of
that
Law
or
Covenant
which
was
made
with
the
first
Adam
:
so
our
Justification
descends
to
us
by
vertue
of
that
Law
or
Covenant
which
was
made
with
the
second
Adam
:
which
New
Covenant
,
and
not
the
Conditional
Promise
,
(
as
Mr.
W.
would
have
it
)
is
called
the
Law
of
faith
,
Rom.
3.
27.
and
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
Rom.
9.
31.
Rep.
The
reason
then
is
acknowledged
to
be
the
same
on
both
Cursed
is
every
man
that
continueth
not
in
every
thing
which
is
written
in
the
Law
to
do
it
,
Gal.
3.
9
,
10.
And
by
this
Law
is
every
transgressour
condemned
,
not
with
a
derivative
condemnation
,
(
such
I
mean
,
as
is
derived
,
and
as
it
were
propagated
from
another
)
but
such
whereof
every
sinner
in
his
own
person
is
the
first
and
immediate
subject
.
And
unto
this
condemnation
is
our
Justification
most
frequently
opposed
in
Scripture
.
The
Argument
therefore
hath
yet
no
answer
,
nor
nothing
like
it
.
The
condemnation
of
a
sinner
for
his
own
personal
sins
,
is
an
act
of
God
,
condemning
by
a
Law
:
Ergo
,
the
Justification
which
is
opposed
thereto
,
is
an
act
of
God
by
a
Law
in
like
manner
.
2.
I
deny
that
condemnation
comes
upon
any
man
,
by
vertue
of
the
Law
given
to
Adam
,
till
himself
be
borne
a
childe
of
Adam
.
Ergo
,
from
the
acknowledged
pnrity
of
reason
it
must
follow
,
that
no
man
is
justified
by
the
Covenant
made
with
Christ
,
till
himself
be
borne
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
by
faith
,
Gal.
3.
26.
John
1.
12.
13.
and
3.
5.
so
that
in
this
respect
the
Argument
is
yielded
.
For
clearing
of
the
antecedent
,
note
:
That
when
it
is
wont
to
be
said
,
we
were
condemned
in
Adam
,
it
is
not
to
be
understood
properly
,
but
with
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
an
As
I
may
so
say
,
to
use
the
Apostles
expression
,
in
a
case
not
much
unlike
,
Heb.
7.
9
,
10.
As
I
may
so
say
,
Levi
also
paid
tithes
in
Abraham
,
for
he
was
yet
in
the
loines
of
his
father
.
Not
as
if
we
were
then
actually
condemned
,
who
then
had
no
existence
:
for
he
that
is
not
,
can
be
no
more
under
Law
,
then
he
that
is
dead
and
free
from
Law
,
Rom.
6.
7.
and
7.
3.
and
condemnation
by
Law
,
being
a
transient
act
,
requires
an
object
existent
upon
which
it
may
passe
.
But
because
the
very
same
sentence
which
condemned
him
then
,
takes
hold
without
any
renovation
of
all
his
posterity
successively
unto
the
same
condemnation
.
Even
as
when
it
is
said
,
in
Adam
all
di●
.
1
Cor.
15.
22.
Not
as
if
men
could
die
before
they
are
borne
,
but
because
it
was
appointed
and
determined
by
the
foresaid
Law
,
that
all
borne
of
Adam
should
die
,
Heb.
9
27.
And
in
this
respect
our
spiritual
being
in
the
second
Adam
,
is
as
necessary
to
our
partaking
in
his
righteousnesse
,
as
our
natural
being
in
the
first
Adam
,
to
our
partaking
in
his
condemnation
.
Yea.
3.
It
is
a
great
deal
more
necessary
:
and
therefore
I
deny
[
b
](A96867-e36510-b)
b
Vide
Paul
.
Ferrium
scholast.
Orthod.
spe
c.
20
§.
3.
)
and
his
offence
was
the
act
of
the
whole
humane
nature
,
though
it
be
not
imputed
to
particular
persons
,
till
they
begin
to
exist
:
and
his
condemnation
was
so
far
forth
the
condemnation
of
all
mankinde
,
it
being
the
very
same
sentence
that
condemneth
both
him
and
us
.
But
Christ
Jesus
represented
no
man
as
in
the
same
obligation
with
himselfe
,
either
in
his
obedience
or
Justification
:
otherwise
we
are
justified
by
works
,
or
he
by
grace
:
for
we
must
be
acknowledged
to
have
satisfied
Gods
justice
in
him
,
and
to
have
merited
eternal
life
in
him
,
in
the
very
same
propriety
of
speech
,
as
we
are
said
to
have
sinned
and
dyed
in
Adam
:
which
I
will
never
beleeve
while
I
live
:
because
it
excludes
grace
altogether
from
having
any
hand
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
.
The
grace
of
our
justification
is
usually
placed
in
these
(
[
c
](A96867-e36560-b)
c
See
the
Assemb.
confes
.
cap.
11.
§.
3.
)
two
things
.
1.
In
that
Christ
was
given
freely
of
the
Father
for
us
.
2.
And
his
obedience
and
●●tisfaction
accepted
in
our
stead
.
But
in
neither
of
these
is
there
any
grace
at
all
,
if
we
have
merited
and
satisfied
in
him
,
as
we
are
said
to
sin
and
die
or
be
condemned
in
Adam
.
For
the
Law
it self
will
allow
us
to
make
satisfaction
if
we
are
able
(
for
it
inflicts
the
penalty
but
in
ord●r
to
satisfaction
:
and
the
punishment
of
sinners
is
not
eternall
,
but
because
they
cannot
satisfie
by
bearing
it
)
.
But
if
we
have
satisfied
in
Christ
,
it
seems
we
were
able
to
do
it
.
●b
esse
ad
posse
valet
consequentia
.
And
justice
it self
will
accept
of
satisfaction
being
performed
.
And
as
God
deals
not
more
rigorously
with
us
in
condemning
us
,
then
he
did
with
Adam
in
condemning
him
:
so
neither
doth
he
deale
any
whit
more
mercifully
with
us
in
justifying
us
,
then
he
did
with
Christ
in
justifying
him
,
if
his
satisfaction
and
justification
be
ours
in
the
same
sense
,
in
which
Adams
sinne
and
condemnation
is
ours
.
How
much
safer
is
it
to
say
with
the
Scripture
,
He
is
the
propitiation
for
our
sinnes
,
1
Joh.
2.
2.
and
that
he
hath
obtained
eternall
redemption
for
us
,
Heb.
9.
12.
then
to
talke
of
our
being
in
him
a
propitiation
for
our
owne
sinnes
:
or
of
purchasing
in
him
redemption
for
our selves
?
The
conclusion
is
;
the
Law
that
justified
Christ
cannot
justifie
us
,
though
the
law
that
condemned
Adam
,
were
yeelded
to
be
the
only
law
that
condemneth
us
:
(
which
yet
I
have
already
denyed
)
Erg●
,
there
must
be
some
other
Law
according
to
which
sinners
are
justified
:
and
that
is
,
that
Law
of
grace
preached
in
the
Gospel
,
whosoever
beleeveth
shall
be
saved
:
called
the
law
of
faith
,
Rom.
3
27.
and
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
Rom.
9.
31.
4.
No
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
those
places
are
to
be
understood
of
the
not
of
the
conditionall
promise
,
as
I
would
have
it
.
Rep.
Which
is
spoken
after
the
old
rate
of
Mr.
Eyres
disputing
,
that
is
dictating
.
I
acknowledge
my selfe
unworthy
to
be
compared
with
him
in
any
respect
:
yet
the
truth
(
if
he
think
himself
in
the
truth
)
is
worthy
of
a
more
laborious
defense
then
a
frigid
so
't
is
or
't
is
not
so
,
though
I
may
not
be
worthy
of
a
better
answer
.
I
am
perswaded
himself
will
acknowledge
that
the
propriety
of
the
phrases
favours
me
:
and
he
doth
not
so
much
as
pretend
to
any
Argument
hat
may
compell
me
to
understand
them
improperly
.
1.
For
the
law
of
faith
,
it
is
expresly
opposed
to
the
law
of
works
.
Where
is
boasting
then
?
it
is
excluded
.
By
what
law
?
of
works
?
nay
,
but
by
the
law
of
faith
.
The
law
of
works
is
the
law
that
requires
us
to
performe
works
that
we
may
be
justified
.
Ergo
,
the
law
of
faith
is
the
law
which
requires
faith
unto
justification
;
even
that
doctrine
which
manifesteth
the
righteousnesse
of
God
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
without
the
works
of
the
law
;
as
he
had
before
described
it
,
v.
21
,
22.
Thus
Beza
,
Evangelium
vocat
legem
fidei
,
id
est
,
doctrinum
quae
salutem
prop●nit
sub
conditione
,
si
credideris
—
oppos●tam
doctrinae
quae
justitiam
&
salutem
proponit
cum
conditione
,
si
omnia
feceris
.
To
the
same
purpose
Paraeus
,
Aretius
,
Hemmingius
,
&c.
And
therefore
the
Apostle
having
said
,
that
the
law
of
faith
excludes
boasting
,
he
addes
immediatly
,
v.
28.
we
conclude
therefore
that
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
without
the
deeds
of
the
law
.
To
put
faith
for
Christ
is
such
a
piece
of
boldnesse
as
I
dare
not
adventure
upon
,
as
much
as
Mr.
Eyre
challength
me
for
my
forehead
.
The
reasons
are
mentioned
before
.
2.
And
as
for
the
law
of
righteousnesse
.
Rom.
9.
31.
it
is
called
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
in
the
very
next
foregoing
verse
,
v.
30.
And
I
would
Mr.
Eyre
would
tell
us
how
we
may
otherwise
make
sense
of
the
Apostle
,
when
he
sayes
the
Gentiles
attained
it
by
faith
,
v.
30.
and
the
Jews
fell
short
of
it
by
stumbling
at
Christ
through
unbelief
,
v.
31.
And
a
few
verses
below
chap.
10.
6.
the
Apostle
calls
it
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
,
and
v.
8.
The
word
of
faith
which
we
preach
:
the
voyce
and
tenour
of
which
he
describes
,
v.
9.
If
th●u
shalt
confesse
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Jesus
and
shalt
beleeve
in
thy
heart
that
God
hath
raised
him
from
the
dead
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
:
and
all
this
in
opposition
to
the
righteousnesse
of
the
law
which
the
Jews
sought
after
:
the
summe
of
which
is
comprehended
in
these
words
.
The
man
that
doth
them
shall
live
by
them
,
v.
5.
Hence
it
is
manifest
,
that
the
law
of
righteousnesse
,
is
that
by
which
only
righteousness
is
attainable
:
and
that
is
the
Gospel-promise
of
justifying
them
that
beleeve
in
Jesus
,
though
they
be
not
able
to
fulfill
the
Law
of
Moses
.
SECT.
II.
IN
the
next
place
Mr.
Eyre
offers
us
some
Arguments
to
prove
every
man
is
then
condemned
when
the
Law
condemnes
him
,
I
stay
not
to
answer
him
:
he
might
have
seen
,
if
he
would
,
that
I
intended
no
more
then
,
that
whosoever
is
condemned
,
is
condemned
by
a
Law
.
)
What
then
are
the
Arguments
?
The
first
is
crambe
bis
(
shall
I
say
,
or
)
decies
cocta
,
that
it
will
inferre
justification
by
works
:
for
answer
to
which
I
referre
the
reader
to
chap.
4.
and
5.
having
proved
in
the
former
,
that
it
is
the
Act
or
grace
of
faith
which
the
Apostle
perpetually
opposeth
to
works
:
and
in
the
latter
,
that
benefits
may
be
given
of
grace
,
which
yet
are
given
upon
condition
.
His
second
Argument
therefore
is
this
.
If
justification
be
by
that
signall
promise
,
he
that
beleeves
shall
be
saved
,
then
none
were
justified
before
that
gracious
sentence
was
published
.
But
the
Fathers
of
the
old
Testament
were
justified
before
the
publishing
of
that
gracious
sentence
,
or
any
like
it
,
Ergo.
Rep.
A
particular
explicite
faith
in
Christ
was
not
absolutely
necessary
Enoc●
,
v.
5.
and
N●ah
,
v.
7.
and
Abraham
,
Rom.
4.
&
sic
de
caeteris
:
and
surely
they
could
not
believe
without
a
Preacher
,
by
whom
they
might
heare
of
him
on
whom
they
beleeved
.
But
supposing
the
promise
of
remission
to
be
suitable
to
those
times
of
darker
dispensation
,
and
the
condition
of
that
faith
which
was
then
required
as
sufficient
to
salvation
,
I
passe
the
proposition
.
2.
I
deny
the
assumption
(
which
hath
here
no
other
proofe
then
the
old
Argument
,
so
t
is
)
namely
that
there
was
not
a
promise
of
forgivenesse
preached
unto
the
world
upon
condition
of
repentance
and
returning
unto
God
(
which
is
the
substance
of
faith
)
before
the
incarnation
of
our
Lord
.
There
were
many
Preachers
of
righteousnesse
in
the
old
world
.
Noah
[
d
](A96867-e37190-b)
d
See
Dr
Golls
Sermon
before
the
Astrologers
.
p.
28
,
29.
&
Manasse
Ben.
Israel
.
Concil.
in
Gen.
4.
26.
3.
is
reckoned
the
eighth
,
2
Pet.
2.
5.
beginning
at
Enos
,
Gen.
4.
26.
And
he
(
no
question
)
preached
faith
and
repentance
to
the
world
;
that
they
might
escape
the
destruction
of
soul
and
body
at
once
:
who
notwithstanding
his
preaching
perished
by
their
disobedience
or
unbelief
(
the
Greek
word
signifieth
either
)
1
Pet.
3.
20.
and
he
by
his
faith
is
said
(
in
a
comparative
sense
)
to
have
condemned
them
,
Heb.
11.
7.
And
in
the
book
of
Job
(
who
lived
before
the
law
)
we
finde
the
world
had
notice
of
such
a
conditionall
promise
;
though
not
from
any
written
word
,
but
by
tradition
,
or
by
Preachers
immediatly
raised
up
,
Job
.
8.
4
,
5
,
6.
If
thy
children
have
sinned
against
him
—
If
thou
wouldest
seek
unto
God
betime
,
and
make
thy
supplication
to
the
Almighty
;
if
thou
be
pure
,
and
upright
,
surely
now
he
would
awake
for
thee
,
&c.
and
this
he
tells
us
was
the
faith
of
the
Fathers
many
generations
before
,
v.
8
,
9.
compare
,
v.
20
,
21.
So
chap
,
33.
27
,
28.
he
looketh
upon
men
,
and
if
any
say
I
have
sinned
,
he
will
deliver
his
soul
from
going
down
into
the
pit
.
So
chap.
22.
21
,
22
,
23.
Acquaint
thy self
with
God
—
lay
up
his
words
in
thy
heart
.
If
thou
returne
to
the
Almighty
,
thou
shalt
be
built
up
,
&c.
see
also
chap.
11.
13
,
14
,
15
,
16
,
17
,
18
,
19.
And
what
lesse
doth
the
Lord
say
to
Cain
?
Gen.
4.
7.
If
thou
dost
well
,
shalt
thou
not
be
accepted
?
namely
,
if
thou
dost
well
as
Abel
did
,
shalt
thou
not
be
accepted
as
well
as
he
?
And
wherein
Abel's
well
doing
consisted
,
the
Apostle
tells
us
,
Heb.
11.
4.
By
saith
Abel
offered
unto
God
a
more
excellent
sacrifice
then
Cain
.
So
that
from
Adam
to
Noah
,
and
from
Noah
to
Moses
,
the
world
was
not
altogether
without
notice
of
the
promise
of
salvation
upon
condition
of
faith
and
repentance
.
[
c
](A96867-e37450-b)
c
Vide
Mos.
●myr●●
.
Spec.
anima
l●er
.
special
.
p●r.
3
&
anima
i.
General
.
par
3.
&
.
4.
In
Moses's
time
the
matter
is
clearer
then
to
need
proofe
,
Heb.
4.
1
,
2.
Let
us
therefore
feare
,
least
a
promise
being
left
us
of
entring
into
his
rest
,
any
of
you
should
seem
to
come
short
of
it
:
for
unto
us
was
the
Gospel
preached
as
well
as
unto
them
:
but
the
word
preached
did
not
profit
them
,
being
not
mixed
with
faith
in
them
that
heard
it
.
Hence
1.
it
is
manifest
,
that
salvation
was
promised
Israel
under
the
type
of
rest
in
Canaan
.
2.
That
it
was
not
promised
them
absolutely
,
but
upon
condition
(
whether
the
condition
were
expressed
,
or
understood
)
otherwise
their
non-entrance
into
Rest
must
have
been
imputed
wholly
to
Gods
unfaithfulnesse
,
and
not
to
their
unbelief
:
whereas
the
text
sayes
expresly
,
it
was
their
unbelief
which
made
the
promise
of
no
effect
to
them
;
and
they
could
not
enter
in
because
of
unbelief
,
chap.
3
,
19.
3.
That
the
Gospel
is
preached
to
us
as
it
was
to
them
:
and
therefore
the
same
condition
is
required
of
us
,
as
was
required
of
them
,
namely
faith
:
otherwise
we
also
shall
fall
short
of
the
promised
rest
,
as
they
did
,
v.
1.
The
third
Argument
is
this
.
If
justification
be
only
by
a
declared
Rep.
I
deny
the
consequence
,
where
's
the
proofe
?
I
can
find
no
other
but
this
,
that
infants
are
insensible
of
this
declaration
,
and
unable
to
plead
their
discharge
from
any
such
promise
:
which
is
nothing
in
the
world
to
the
purpose
.
Cannot
infants
have
right
to
a
benefit
by
law
,
or
the
declared
act
of
a
Rector
or
Lawgiver
,
because
they
are
unsensible
of
it
,
and
cannot
plead
it
?
They
are
condemned
by
law
whiles
infants
,
Rom.
5.
14.
They
may
be
servants
or
free
by
law
.
Do
not
our
laws
provide
for
the
rights
of
Minors
,
Pupils
and
Orphans
,
even
in
their
infancy
?
2.
It
doth
also
ruine
the
maine
pillars
of
Mr.
Eyres
discourse
.
All
the
places
which
I
before
alledged
to
prove
justification
by
faith
,
according
to
him
,
are
to
be
understood
of
the
manifestation
of
justification
to
the
conscience
.
Give
me
leave
then
to
retort
his
owne
Argument
.
The
justification
spoken
of
in
the
places
aforesaid
,
Gal.
2.
16.
Rom.
8.
30.
and
4.
24.
Act.
10.
43.
and
13.
39.
&c.
is
,
that
without
which
no
man
can
be
saved
.
But
some
may
be
saved
without
justification
manifested
and
declared
to
the
conscience
:
as
infants
.
Ergo
the
justification
mentioned
in
those
places
is
not
justification
in
conscience
,
or
manifested
unto
conscience
.
The
fourth
Argument
succeeds
.
The
making
justification
a
Rep.
If
this
Argument
be
cast
into
forme
,
it
runs
thus
.
He
that
forgives
sin
by
a
declared
Act
,
is
but
a
notary
or
subordinate
Minister
(
for
their
work
it
is
to
declare
and
publish
the
sentence
of
the
Court.
)
But
God
(
according
to
me
)
pardons
sin
by
a
declared
Act.
Ergo
(
according
to
me
)
God
in
justifying
or
pardoning
sin
is
but
as
a
notary
or
subordinate
Minister
.
I
can
scarcely
believe
that
there
is
any
reader
will
need
my
help
,
to
answer
such
arguings
as
these
.
I
deny
the
proposition
.
The
proofe
of
it
is
,
à
baculo
ad
angulum
.
It
is
the
office
of
a
notary
to
declare
the
sentence
of
the
Court
.
Ergo
,
he
that
pardons
offences
by
a
publique
Act
or
Law
,
is
a
notary
.
2.
And
yet
if
God
publish
his
owne
Laws
,
he
doth
nothing
unbecoming
his
Majesty
and
Soveraignty
.
He
published
his
Law
to
Adam
himself
;
and
will
publish
the
finall
sentence
which
shall
passe
upon
all
men
at
judgement
:
and
our
Lord
Jesus
published
the
Gospel
with
his
owne
mouth
,
Joh.
7.
37.
and
Rev.
22.
16
,
17.
The
fifth
Argument
is
all
one
with
the
first
,
and
so
is
answered
already
.
The
sixth
and
last
Argument
is
à
pari
.
Forgivenesse
amongst
men
is
not
necessarily
by
a
declared
discharge
;
Ergo
,
Gods
is
not
,
for
we
are
bid
to
forgive
one
another
,
as
God
for
Christs
sake
hath
forgiven
us
,
Eph.
4.
32.
Ans.
Supposing
that
the
Antecedent
speak
of
private
men
onely
The
forgivenesse
of
a
Magistrate
being
an
act
of
authority
must
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
1.
That
he
sees
no
reason
why
God
should
not
have
as
much
power
to
forgive
without
a
promulged
Act
,
as
man
;
and
chargeth
me
with
boldnesse
for
limiting
God
to
such
a
way
of
forgivenesse
:
because
Gods
forgivenesse
is
no
lesse
an
act
of
charity
,
then
mans
,
Rom.
5.
8.
Eph.
2.
4.
And
though
God
in
the
act
of
forgivenesse
may
be
looked
upon
as
a
Judge
,
yet
is
he
such
a
Judge
as
proceeds
by
no
other
Law
then
his
own
will
.
Rep.
The
first
part
of
the
answer
is
ridiculous
:
as
if
a
private
man
had
more
power
then
the
supream
Magistrate
,
because
he
forgives
an
injury
without
a
promulged
Act
:
or
as
if
it
were
through
defect
of
power
in
the
Magistrate
that
he
forgives
by
a
Law
or
Act
of
grace
.
A
private
man
remits
an
injury
,
as
it
is
an
injury
and
hurt
to
himself
:
but
as
it
is
a
breach
of
the
Law
of
God
or
man
,
he
neither
doth
nor
can
remit
it
:
as
in
the
case
before-mentioned
of
a
man
forgiving
his
murtherers
.
Therefore
it
is
but
a
very
imperfect
pardon
which
a
private
man
can
give
.
But
it
argues
eminency
and
perfection
of
power
to
pardon
by
an
Act
of
grace
:
because
no
Law
can
contradict
it
,
but
it
disannulls
and
invalidates
them
all
:
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
,
Gal.
3.
17.
The
Covenant
which
was
confirmed
before
of
God
in
Christ
,
the
Law
cannot
disannul
to
make
the
promise
of
no
effect
.
The
confirming
of
the
Covenant
(
according
to
the
significancy
of
the
Greek
(f)
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
is
an
authoritative
and
authentique
ratification
of
it
:
as
humane
testaments
before
,
v.
Budaeus
,
Com●ent
.
Grac
ling.
1058.
&
Bea
in
2
Cor.
2.
8
15.
are
then
ratified
or
confirmed
,
when
they
want
nothing
which
the
Law
of
nature
or
particular
Nations
requires
to
make
them
valid
.
Therefore
to
argue
for
a
power
in
God
,
to
forgive
as
private
men
forgive
,
is
to
plead
for
a
power
in
God
to
become
weak
,
and
to
act
imperfectly
and
unlike
himselfe
.
2.
When
Mr.
Eyre
talkes
of
my
boldnesse
in
limiting
God
,
I
suppose
it
is
for
want
of
a
better
answer
.
I
never
heard
before
that
it
was
a
limiting
of
God
,
to
determine
his
actions
according
to
the
relations
which
they
flow
from
as
their
immediate
principle
.
Thus
do
we
distinguish
the
actions
of
God
,
as
a
Maker
,
a
Soveraigne
,
a
Father
,
a
Lawgiver
and
Judge
,
as
just
,
as
merciful
,
&c.
Belike
if
I
should
say
God
cannot
condemne
men
as
a
Father
,
I
limit
God
:
or
that
he
cannot
save
sinners
as
just
,
(
opposing
justice
to
mercy
)
,
or
that
he
cannot
act
as
the
Governour
and
Judge
of
mankind
in
condemning
and
justifying
,
without
a
Law
.
3
,
When
he
determines
Gods
forgivenesse
to
be
an
act
of
charity
,
if
he
mean
of
charity
as
opposed
to
authority
(
as
he
must
do
,
if
he
speak
any
thing
to
purpose
)
he
overthrows
wholly
the
necessity
and
use
of
Christs
satisfaction
.
For
if
Gods
forgivenesse
of
us
,
be
meerly
an
act
of
charity
(
such
as
private
mens
forgivenesse
one
of
another
)
then
satisfaction
is
no
more
necessary
to
Gods
forgiving
us
then
to
our
forgivenesse
one
of
another
.
Nor
can
it
be
of
any
use
:
for
it
can
neither
put
the
beginning
nor
increase
of
love
in
God
,
which
is
in
him
without
beginning
or
addition
:
nor
doth
it
remove
that
which
hinders
the
effects
of
his
love
from
being
communicated
unto
us
:
for
that
forgivenesse
which
is
purely
an
act
of
charity
is
cedendo
de
jure
suo
,
by
bearing
an
injury
,
and
parting
with
that
right
which
a
man
hath
to
require
satisfaction
:
and
if
God
forgive
after
this
manner
,
the
case
is
too
plaine
to
need
proofe
,
that
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
is
of
no
use
at
all
to
make
way
for
the
forgivenesse
of
sin
,
but
rather
a
hindrance
and
contradiction
thereunto
.
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
be
ignorant
that
the
whole
weight
of
the
cause
between
the
Socinians
&
us
,
depends
upon
the
truth
of
that
which
he
here
denies
,
namely
,
that
condemnation
and
justification
are
the
Acts
of
God
as
Rector
,
and
supream
Judge
of
men
.
If
he
will
but
review
Cameron
,
Gerhard
,
Crotius
,
Suarez
,
or
any
other
,
Papist
or
Protestant
,
who
is
accounted
to
have
wrote
judiciously
and
orthodoxly
upon
that
point
,
he
will
see
that
they
fetch
the
foundation
of
their
defense
from
this
very
principle
.
4.
Rom.
5.
8.
and
Eph.
2.
4.
The
texts
alledged
to
prove
that
Gods
forgivenesse
is
no
lesse
an
act
of
charity
then
mans
,
prove
it
not
.
They
shew
indeed
that
our
justification
in
actu
exercito
is
an
effect
of
the
love
of
God
;
it
being
his
love
only
which
moved
him
to
send
Jesus
Christ
to
purchase
justification
for
us
,
and
thereupon
to
bestow
it
on
us
,
(
but
with
the
preservation
of
the
honour
and
authority
of
his
Law
)
.
Neverthelesse
the
same
justification
is
an
Act
compleat
in
its
kind
,
nature
,
definition
and
essentiall
constitution
,
without
that
love
of
God
.
Even
as
a
King
out
of
special
affection
to
a
malefactour
condemned
(
suppose
it
be
his
owne
sonne
)
may
find
out
.
a
way
to
satisfie
for
his
offence
,
and
consequently
to
discharge
him
:
here
the
discharge
doth
not
exist
but
by
virtue
of
the
Kings
love
and
good
affection
:
yet
the
pardon
it selfe
,
in
actu
signato
,
for
its
kind
and
nature
,
is
a
rectoral
judicial
act
;
not
of
private
charity
.
5.
Mr.
Eyre
yeelds
at
last
,
that
God
in
the
act
of
forgivenesse
[
g
](A96867-e38190-b)
g
L.
A
divo
Pio.
ff.
de
re
judic
.
&
L.
7.
ff.
ad
leg
Jul.
R●p●t●nd
.
exformula
according
to
the
prescription
of
Law
;
nor
an
Arbitratour
who
determines
ex
aequo
&
bono
,
according
to
the
equity
of
the
cause
depending
.
2.
When
he
says
,
God
proceeds
by
no
other
Law
then
his
own
will
:
if
he
mean
by
no
other
Law
then
what
is
of
his
own
making
▪
it
is
true
;
but
if
he
mean
by
his
own
will
as
distinguished
from
a
Law
properly
so
called
,
the
Apostle
contradicts
him
.
Jam.
4.
12.
There
is
one
Lawgiver
who
is
able
to
save
and
to
destroy
.
And
hereby
doth
the
Lord
justifie
the
equity
of
his
own
dispensations
in
punishing
and
pardoning
,
because
he
doth
neither
pro
libitu
,
but
according
to
his
own
declared
Laws
.
Ezek.
18.
18
,
23
,
25
,
29
,
30.
He
doth
not
punish
meerly
to
satisfy
his
own
will
,
as
if
he
delighted
in
punishment
.
ibid.
v.
23
,
32.
Lam.
3.
33
,
34
,
35.
but
according
to
the
exigency
of
mens
demerits
:
so
hath
he
declared
that
he
will
by
no
means
cleare
the
guilty
,
Exod.
34.
7.
Which
yet
by
his
absolute
liberty
and
soveraignty
he
is
free
to
do
,
if
he
had
not
confined
himself
to
a
Law
.
M.
Eyre
answers
secondly
,
The
promulgation
of
an
act
of
Rep.
If
we
can
have
no
better
answers
then
these
,
yet
we
must
be
content
,
for
ought
I
see
.
1.
Doth
Mr.
Eyre
mean
that
the
onely
end
of
promulgation
is
the
direction
of
inferiour
officers
?
If
so
,
why
doth
he
mention
another
in
his
very
next
answer
?
If
not
,
why
doth
he
pretend
that
a
Magistrate
cannot
pardon
his
subjects
involved
in
common
guilt
,
by
a
promulged
Act
,
because
one
end
of
promulgation
is
the
direction
of
inferiour
Ministers
of
State
?
2.
[
h
](A96867-e38360-b)
h
Vid.
Greg.
Sayr
.
Clav.
Reg.
li●
.
3.
cap.
1.
§.
12.
&
Azor.
Instit.
moral
.
par.
1.
l.
5.
cap.
3.
Some
degree
of
promulgation
is
essential
to
a
Law
.
Will
unrevealed
,
is
will
,
not
Law
.
It
cannot
rationally
be
imagined
that
Magistrates
should
intend
to
oblige
their
subjects
by
that
will
which
they
never
intend
to
reveale
:
and
surely
will
without
obligation
,
is
no
Law
.
And
the
first
and
immediate
effect
of
this
Law
(
if
it
be
a
Law
of
grace
)
is
to
give
offendours
a
right
to
impunity
,
any
Act
or
Law
to
the
contrary
in
any
wise
notwithstanding
.
The
direction
of
inferiour
Judges
is
but
the
secondary
use
of
it
(
and
in
the
case
between
God
and
us
,
of
no
use
at
all
,
because
himself
is
both
Lawgiver
and
Judge
;
reserving
each
mans
cause
to
his
own
peculiar
cognizance
)
for
if
it
be
for
their
direction
,
what
doth
it
direct
them
in
?
surely
in
the
administration
of
justice
:
which
consists
in
giving
every
man
his
due
.
But
impunity
is
not
due
to
offendours
but
by
virtue
of
some
Act
of
grace
.
Ergo
,
the
first
effect
of
such
an
Act
is
to
constitute
such
a
right
.
3.
It
is
necessary
that
such
a
generall
pardon
as
is
the
Act
of
the
supream
Judge
and
Lawgiver
,
should
be
by
a
Law
of
grace
:
not
that
God
needs
it
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
insinuates
)
but
because
the
nature
of
the
thing
requires
it
.
If
God
forgives
by
the
purpose
of
his
will
,
then
he
doth
not
forgive
as
a
Rector
.
Mr.
Eyre
hath
before
granted
that
his
purpose
not
to
punish
is
included
in
the
decree
of
election
as
part
of
it
:
but
election
is
neither
an
Act
of
justice
nor
of
mercy
,
but
of
absolute
dominion
and
liberty
.
So
that
the
summe
of
these
sayings
is
this
.
Though
God
forgive
as
supream
Judge
,
yet
it
is
not
necessary
that
he
should
forgive
as
other
Judges
do
,
because
he
may
forgive
as
he
is
not
a
Judge
,
viz.
by
the
secret
purpose
of
his
will
.
And
yet
as
God
may
(
very
improperly
)
be
said
to
need
that
which
is
most
conducible
to
the
glory
of
his
Government
,
so
is
it
needfull
in
respect
of
himself
,
that
his
judgement
,
whether
of
justification
or
condemnation
,
proceed
according
to
his
revealed
promulged
Laws
.
Himself
doth
hereby
vindicate
the
equity
of
his
dealings
and
Government
over
men
,
as
was
before
observed
out
of
Ezek.
18.
throughout
,
adde
D●ut.
30
from
v.
11.
to
the
end
of
the
chapter
.
4.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
tells
us
again
,
that
the
Purpose
of
Gods
Will
doth
sufficiently
secure
the
sinner
,
and
make
the
Law
of
condemnation
to
be
of
no
force
,
as
to
the
real
execution
of
it
:
we
have
before
shewed
at
large
the
mischievous
consequences
of
this
doctrine
.
If
this
be
so
,
to
what
purpose
imaginable
did
Christ
die
?
at
least
,
there
was
no
need
he
should
die
to
redeem
us
from
the
curse
of
an
abrogated
Law
,
which
by
an
eternal
Act
was
made
of
no
force
at
all
to
condemne
.
Before
,
when
the
satisfaction
and
merits
of
Christ
lay
at
stake
for
the
credit
of
an
eternal
Justification
,
Mr.
Eyre
was
content
to
yield
them
this
honour
,
that
they
purchased
the
effects
,
(
though
not
the
act
)
of
Justification
,
which
effect
he
told
us
was
our
non-punition
.
But
here
he
tells
us
,
that
the
purpose
of
Gods
Will
doth
sufficiently
secure
us
from
punishment
:
which
though
(
I
confesse
)
it
be
more
rationally
spoken
,
because
that
act
is
most
unworthy
to
be
called
the
cause
of
our
non-punition
,
or
non-condemnation
,
which
is
not
able
to
effect
it
,
without
the
help
of
another
more
sufficient
cause
;
yet
is
it
most
perniciously
spoken
,
as
not
leaving
so
much
as
the
effects
of
our
Justification
,
and
by
consequence
excluding
both
act
and
effects
from
any
dependance
upon
the
merits
of
Christ
for
their
existence
.
2.
Were
Adam
and
Eve
,
either
or
both
,
obliged
by
the
Law
to
punishment
upon
their
disobedience
,
or
no
?
If
not
,
their
sin
did
them
no
harme
,
nor
was
there
any
truth
in
that
severe
commination
,
In
the
day
you
eat
thereof
,
you
shall
surely
die
:
and
it
is
past
dispute
;
they
died
by
force
of
that
Law
,
and
all
their
posterity
to
this
day
.
Rom.
5.
12
,
13
,
14.
1
Cor.
15.
22
,
56.
And
if
so
,
then
was
not
that
Law
made
of
no
force
by
the
eternal
purpose
of
God
:
for
if
that
Purpose
of
God
do
not
hinder
,
but
that
men
are
legally
obliged
to
condemnation
upon
breach
of
the
Law
;
neither
will
Gods
Justice
and
Faithfulnesse
permit
that
they
go
unpunished
,
unlesse
his
Law
be
satisfied
some
other
way
,
Numb.
23.
19.
God
is
not
a
man
that
he
should
lie
,
neither
the
Son
of
man
that
he
should
repent
:
hath
he
said
,
and
shall
he
not
do
it
?
or
hath
he
speken
,
and
shall
he
not
make
it
good
?
Therefore
it
is
,
that
we
have
before
denied
,
that
there
is
in
God
any
purpose
precisely
of
not
punishing
.
3.
The
Supreme
Magistrate
may
neglect
the
execution
of
Laws
with
impunity
to
himselfe
;
because
if
he
be
Supreme
,
he
is
not
accountable
to
any
other
humane
authority
:
but
not
without
such
a
Prostitution
of
the
authority
of
his
Lawes
,
and
the
honour
of
his
own
Government
to
contempt
and
obloq●y
,
as
God
will
never
endure
to
be
cast
upon
Himselfe
or
his
Law
,
by
men
or
devils
.
His
Honour
and
his
Lawes
are
dearer
to
him
then
a
thousand
worlds
.
M.
Eyre
answers
thirdly
,
the
publishing
of
an
act
of
grace
,
is
for
the
Rep.
Our
question
is
not
precisely
what
is
the
end
of
promulgation
,
but
what
is
the
effect
of
the
Law
promulged
:
which
(
say
I
)
is
to
give
offendors
a
right
to
impunity
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
deny
:
though
it
be
very
true
,
that
such
a
Law
be
also
for
the
comfort
of
an
offendor
,
namely
secondarily
and
consequenter
;
for
it
comforts
him
,
in
that
it
gives
him
a
right
to
deliverance
from
deserved
punishment
.
His
right
and
his
comfort
are
not
opposites
,
but
both
the
effects
of
the
same
Law
,
and
the
latter
subordinate
to
the
former
:
so
that
hitherto
there
is
nothing
that
contradicts
me
.
2.
It
is
also
true
,
that
it
is
not
the
Magistrate
who
needs
an
act
of
grace
,
but
offendors
need
it
:
for
if
the
same
authority
which
bound
them
under
punishment
,
do
not
also
discharge
them
from
it
,
they
cannot
legally
escape
it
.
3.
When
it
is
said
the
Act
of
Oblivion
was
a
real
pardon
when
it
passed
the
House
,
it
hath
reference
to
what
I
said
in
my
Sermon
,
That
a
Vote
in
the
House
,
or
a
Declaration
that
an
Act
of
Pardon
shall
come
out
,
is
no
legal
security
to
a
Delinquent
:
by
which
I
intended
to
declare
,
that
neither
the
Purpose
of
God
within
himself
,
but
the
Law
of
grace
,
which
in
time
he
established
,
according
to
his
eternal
purpose
,
was
that
act
which
pardoned
the
sinner
:
which
if
Mr.
Eyre
would
have
contradicted
,
he
should
have
affirmed
,
that
the
meer
purpose
or
resolution
of
the
House
to
make
such
an
Act
,
is
that
very
pardon
which
dischargeth
Delinquents
.
The
Act
it self
being
once
passed
,
may
be
yielded
to
be
a
Law
,
as
being
the
declared
will
of
the
Lawgivers
constituting
a
right
to
impunity
,
though
by
printing
,
writing
or
proclamation
it
be
afterwards
made
more
publick
.
Neverthelesse
,
I
expected
some
proof
,
that
it
is
a
compleat
Law
before
publishing
:
if
after
the
p●s●ng
it
had
been
[
i
](A96867-e38630-b)
i
Nic.
vig.
de
Dr●is
.
Iust.
Jur.
c.
1.
p.
8.
&c.
2
p.
1●
.
ordered
not
to
be
published
,
till
some
moneths
or
a
yeare
after
,
I
much
question
whether
in
that
interim
it
had
been
Law
or
no
:
though
I
am
not
so
well
acquainted
with
the
customes
of
our
own
Nation
,
as
to
determine
peremptorily
?
The
Senatus-Consulta
amongst
the
Romanes
had
not
the
force
of
a
Law
before
publishing
.
But
it
is
quite
besides
our
question
,
to
debate
what
promulgation
is
necessary
to
the
compleating
of
a
Law
?
It
cannot
be
denied
,
but
that
when
subjects
are
involved
in
common
guilt
,
(
as
all
the
world
is
before
God
)
their
pardon
must
be
by
Law
:
which
is
as
much
as
I
needed
or
intended
for
illustration
of
the
way
and
manner
of
Gods
forgiving
us
,
by
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
grace
.
He
that
believeth
shall
not
perish
,
but
shall
have
everlasting
life
:
which
because
Mr.
Eyre
denies
,
(
not
disproves
,
for
that
s
impossible
,
it
being
a
truth
of
God
)
we
shall
yet
farther
evince
by
the
following
Arguments
.
SECT.
III.
ANd
first
,
from
Mat.
28.
18
,
19.
compared
with
Mark
16.
And
Jesus
came
and
spake
unto
them
,
saying
,
All
power
is
given
to
me
in
heaven
and
in
earth
,
—
Go
ye
therefore
into
all
the
world
,
and
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
.
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
but
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
;
from
hence
I
inferre
,
1.
That
God
hath
given
unto
Christ
the
Kingdome
and
Government
over
all
men
.
2.
That
this
Government
containes
a
power
of
remitting
sins
.
3.
That
this
power
is
exercised
in
enacting
that
gracious
Law
,
He
that
believes
shall
be
saved
,
for
so
doth
the
Lord
speak
,
Go
ye
therefore
into
all
the
world
,
&c.
(
which
particle
therefore
I
have
borrowed
from
Matthew
;
ver.
19.
and
put
it
into
the
words
of
Mark
)
arguing
manifestly
from
the
right
and
authority
which
he
had
received
,
to
the
lawful
exercise
of
it
in
making
and
ordering
to
be
published
that
Law
or
Act
of
Pardon
,
whereof
he
doth
then
and
there
appoint
his
disciples
to
be
Ambassadours
.
I
confesse
I
cannot
imagine
what
can
here
be
said
,
unlesse
it
be
one
of
these
two
things
.
Either
,
1.
That
remission
of
sin
is
not
contained
in
that
salvation
which
is
here
promised
to
them
that
believe
.
But
this
(
me
thinks
)
should
be
too
harsh
for
any
Christians
eares
to
endure
:
seeing
it
must
contain
all
that
good
which
is
opposed
to
condemnation
;
and
therefore
primarily
remission
of
sins
:
which
is
also
expresly
mentioned
by
the
other
Evangelists
,
Luke
24.
47.
John
20.
23.
and
by
the
Apostles
,
in
the
execution
of
this
their
commission
,
as
a
prime
part
of
that
salvation
which
they
preached
in
the
Name
of
Christ
,
Acts
2.
38.
and
3.
19
,
&c.
Or
2.
That
those
words
,
He
that
believes
shall
be
saved
,
are
a
meer
description
of
the
persons
that
shall
be
saved
(
which
I
think
is
the
sense
that
Mr.
Eyre
somewhere
doth
put
upon
them
)
but
this
to
me
is
more
intolerable
then
the
former
:
partly
for
the
reasons
mentioned
before
,
chap.
5.
and
to
be
mentioned
hereafter
:
partly
,
because
according
to
such
an
interpretation
,
the
words
will
be
no
more
then
a
simple
affirmation
or
relation
of
what
shall
come
to
passe
:
whereas
by
their
dependance
upon
the
foregoing
,
All
power
is
given
to
me
in
heaven
and
in
earth
,
it
is
manifest
,
that
they
are
an
authoritative
Sanction
of
the
Lord
Christ's
,
an
act
of
that
jurisdiction
and
legislative
power
,
which
he
hath
received
from
the
Father
,
and
so
the
standing
rule
of
remission
of
sins
.
2.
If
it
be
by
the
Promise
of
the
Gospel
,
He
that
believes
shall
not
perish
,
but
shall
have
everlasting
life
;
If
(
I
say
)
it
be
by
this
Promise
,
that
God
gives
sinners
a
right
to
impunity
and
eternal
life
,
then
by
this
Promise
he
justifies
them
.
But
by
the
foresaid
promise
doth
God
give
sinners
a
right
to
impunity
and
eternal
life
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
I
passe
as
manifest
by
its
own
light
.
The
Assumption
is
delivered
in
several
Scriptures
.
Thus
Paul
,
Gal.
3.
18.
God
gave
the
inheritance
to
Abraham
by
Promise
.
Ergo
,
it
is
by
Promise
also
,
that
a
right
to
life
is
given
to
all
that
have
it
.
This
Promise
is
either
particular
or
general
.
The
former
it
is
not
,
for
God
doth
not
now
make
any
particular
Promises
to
particular
men
,
such
as
was
his
Promise
to
believing
Abraham
:
Ergo
,
it
must
be
the
general
Promise
,
wherein
the
same
blessings
as
were
given
to
Abraham
,
are
proposed
to
all
men
to
be
obtained
by
the
same
faith
that
Abraham
had
,
and
by
the
same
Promise
given
them
when
they
believe
:
which
Promise
is
that
before
mentioned
,
of
life
and
salvation
by
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
the
Apostle
himself
being
Interpreter
,
ver.
22.
But
the
Scripture
hath
concluded
all
under
sin
,
that
the
Promise
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
might
be
given
to
them
that
believe
.
The
same
doth
he
assert
at
large
,
Rom.
4.
13
,
14
,
16
,
23
;
24.
3.
The
Lord
Jesus
sayes
expressely
,
John
12.
48.
That
the
Word
which
he
spake
,
shall
judge
unbelievers
at
the
last
day
.
If
a
judgment
of
condemnation
be
ascribed
to
the
Word
,
in
reference
to
unbelievers
,
how
can
it
be
denied
a
judgement
of
Justification
,
in
reference
to
believers
?
Non
potuit
magis
splendido
elogio
extolli
Evangelii
authoritas
,
quàm
dum
illi
judici●
potestas
defertur
.
Conscendet
quidem
ipse
Christus
Tribunal
,
sed
sententiam
ex
verbo
quod
nunc
praedicatur
laturum
se
asserit
,
(
saith
Calvin
upon
the
place
.
)
Yea
,
the
Lord
ascribes
to
the
same
Word
a
judgement
of
Justification
,
ver.
50.
And
I
know
that
his
Commandment
is
life
everlasting
;
that
is
,
the
cause
of
it
,
as
Moses
also
speaks
,
Deut.
32.
47.
[
i
](A96867-e39100-b)
i
See
also
Deu●
.
●●
.
v
15
▪
●●
.
It
is
your
life
;
though
God
be
the
principal
cause
,
and
the
Word
but
the
[
k
](A96867-e39130-b)
k
Vid.
Synops.
p●r
theol
.
disp.
●3
.
§.
10
&
Down
.
of
J●stif
c.
●
.
●
.
5.
&
●libi
passim
instrumental
:
and
therefore
the
power
which
it
hath
of
judgement
,
it
hath
from
hence
,
that
it
is
the
Word
of
God
,
ver.
49.
For
I
have
not
spoken
of
my selfe
,
but
the
Father
which
sent
me
,
he
gave
me
a
Commandment
what
I
should
say
:
as
the
instrumental
cause
works
not
,
but
in
the
vertue
of
the
principal
.
To
this
plain
testimony
let
me
adde
an
Argument
,
as
plainly
deduced
from
it
.
If
judgement
shall
passe
at
the
last
day
according
to
the
Word
,
then
the
Word
is
that
Law
which
is
the
rule
of
judgement
,
(
and
by
consequence
,
to
one
is
given
by
the
Word
a
right
to
life
,
and
another
is
obliged
to
condemnation
by
the
same
Word
.
)
But
the
antecedent
is
most
true
.
Ergo
,
so
is
the
consequent
.
It
is
the
work
of
judgement
to
give
unto
e●ery
one
according
to
what
is
due
to
him
by
Law
:
if
then
a
judgement
of
Justification
passe
upon
any
,
some
Law
of
grace
must
be
supposed
,
according
to
which
it
becomes
due
,
for
such
a
gracious
sentence
to
passe
upon
him
.
4.
And
this
is
that
which
the
Apostle
James
saith
,
chap.
4.
12.
There
is
one
Lawgiver
,
who
is
able
to
save
,
and
to
destroy
.
Beza
observes
,
that
in
foure
ancient
Greek
Copies
,
[
l
](A96867-e39230-b)
l
As
also
in
the
Kings
MS.
See
D●
.
Hammond
.
Annot.
in
loc
.
as
also
in
the
Syriack
and
the
Latine
Interpreter
,
the
word
Judge
is
extant
.
There
is
one
Lawgiver
and
Judge
who
is
able
to
save
and
destroy
:
that
is
,
to
whom
pertaines
the
soveraign
right
and
power
of
saving
and
destroying
.
But
whether
the
word
be
expressed
or
no
,
it
is
surely
implied
:
for
the
Apostles
scope
is
to
disswade
us
from
judging
one
another
,
ver.
11.
because
there
is
one
Lawgiver
,
to
whom
the
power
of
judgment
,
and
so
of
absolving
and
condemning
,
of
saving
and
destroying
doth
appertain
.
Now
he
that
saves
as
a
Lawgiver
,
saves
by
absolution
;
and
he
that
absolves
as
a
Lawgiver
,
absolves
by
Law
.
Ergo
,
God
absolves
men
,
that
is
,
pardons
and
justifies
them
by
Law
.
And
when
he
shall
judge
all
men
at
the
last
day
;
his
judgement
,
whether
of
salvation
or
destruction
,
shall
proceed
according
to
Law
.
5.
Adde
to
this
,
that
the
Apostle
commends
the
excellency
and
glory
Cor
3.
9.
For
if
the
ministration
of
condemnation
he
glory
,
much
more
doth
the
ministration
of
righteousnesse
exceed
in
glory
.
The
ministration
of
condemnation
is
that
which
ver.
7.
he
calls
the
ministration
of
death
,
written
and
engraven
in
stones
.
His
scope
is
▪
to
shew
the
excellency
of
that
Gospel
,
which
himself
and
other
Apostles
did
preach
and
publish
to
the
world
;
above
the
ministration
of
the
Law
committed
to
Moses
.
As
then
the
ministration
of
death
and
condemnation
was
the
ministration
of
that
Law
,
which
did
condemn
unto
death
,
(
the
effect
being
put
for
the
cause
)
so
the
ministration
of
righteousnesse
is
the
ministration
of
that
Law
or
Word
that
justifies
,
the
effect
being
put
for
the
cause
in
like
manner
.
Ergo
,
Justification
is
by
Law
.
6.
To
this
purpose
speaks
the
same
Apostle
,
Rom.
1.
16
,
17.
I
am
not
ashamed
of
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
for
it
is
the
power
of
God
unto
salvation
to
every
one
that
believeth
,
●o
the
Jew
first
,
and
also
to
the
Greek
;
for
therein
is
the
righteousnesse
of
God
revealed
from
faith
to
faith
.
That
which
I
observe
is
,
1.
That
the
Gospel
is
here
called
the
Power
of
God
to
salvation
:
that
is
,
a
mighty
and
effectual
instrument
of
salvation
(
as
Expositors
agree
.
)
2.
That
the
power
for
which
the
Apostle
here
extolls
it
is
,
in
that
it
saves
them
that
beleeve
.
3.
That
Justification
is
here
included
(
yea
,
and
primarily
intended
)
in
salvation
:
in
which
large
sense
the
word
salvation
is
often
taken
elsewhere
,
Rom.
10.
9
,
10.
Eph.
2.
8.
Tit.
3.
5.
Luke
7.
48
,
50.
for
the
reason
why
he
calls
it
the
Power
of
God
to
salvation
,
is
,
because
it
reveales
the
righteousnesse
of
God
upon
all
that
beleeve
.
Hence
4.
The
Gospel
is
the
Power
of
God
unto
Justification
,
as
it
is
the
revealed
declared
Will
of
God
,
concerning
the
Justification
of
them
that
beleeve
.
[
m
](A96867-e39420-b)
m
Vid
Calv.
Com.
in
loc.
Quia
nos
per
Ev●ng
lium
justificat
Deus
,
because
God
justifies
us
by
the
Gospel
.
I
cannot
better
expresse
my
minde
,
then
in
the
words
of
Beza
.
Hoc
ita
intelligo
,
&c.
This
(
saith
he
)
I
so
understand
not
as
if
Paul
did
therefore
only
commend
the
Gospel
,
because
therein
is
revealed
and
proposed
to
view
,
that
which
the
Gentiles
before
were
ignorant
of
,
(
namely
,
that
by
faith
in
Christ
we
are
to
seek
that
righteousnesse
,
by
vertue
of
which
we
obtain
salvation
of
God
)
and
the
Jewes
beheld
afar
off
,
and
under
shadows
:
but
also
because
it
doth
so
propose
this
way
of
Justification
,
as
that
it
doth
also
really
exhibit
it
:
that
in
this
way
it
may
appear
,
that
the
Gospel
is
truly
the
Power
of
God
to
salvation
,
that
is
▪
a
mighty
and
effectual
instrument
which
God
useth
for
the
saving
of
men
by
faith
.
Thus
he
;
simply
and
historically
,
to
declare
that
some
men
are
justified
,
is
not
enough
to
denominate
the
Gospel
the
Power
of
God
to
salvation
:
but
it
is
required
withal
,
that
it
have
authority
to
give
right
to
salvation
to
them
that
beleeve
it
.
Therefore
the
Gospel
,
wherein
is
manifested
the
righteousn●sse
of
God
,
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
is
called
the
Law
of
faith
,
Rom.
3.
ver.
21.
22
,
27.
compared
.
7.
Justification
by
works
should
have
been
by
that
Law
,
Do
this
and
thou
shalt
live
:
and
if
those
words
cannot
be
denied
to
have
authority
,
to
give
a
right
to
life
to
them
that
fulfilled
the
Law
;
upon
what
pretence
of
reason
is
the
same
authority
denied
to
the
word
of
faith
;
Beleeve
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
Rom.
10.
5
,
8
,
9.
To
conclude
,
Therefore
is
the
Gospel
called
[
n
](A96867-e39540-b)
n
Heb.
●
.
8.
a
Scepter
of
Righteousnesse
,
[
o
](A96867-e39560-b)
o
2
Cor
5.
19.
a
Word
of
reconciliation
,
[
p
](A96867-e39580-b)
p
Eph.
1.
●3
.
a
Gospel
of
salvation
,
[
q
](A96867-e39600-b)
q
Rom.
8.
2
,
3.
&
Dav
Par.
ibid.
a
Law
of
the
Spirit
of
life
,
that
makes
free
from
the
Law
of
sin
and
death
,
[
r
](A96867-e39630-b)
r
Isa.
61.
1
,
2
,
3.
an
opening
of
Prisons
,
[
s
](A96867-e39650-b)
s
See
the
Reverend
and
most
incomparable
Dr
Reynolds
in
Ps.
110.
p.
140.
and
a
proclaiming
of
liberty
to
Captives
,
because
God
doth
thereby
justifie
sinners
.
I
had
also
drawn
up
foure
Reasons
from
the
nature
of
Justification
,
proving
that
it
must
be
by
Law
▪
but
because
I
since
finde
the
substance
of
them
in
Mr.
Baxter
,
(
Red.
Digr
.
page
141.
142
,
143.
)
I
shall
therefore
desire
the
Reader
,
to
have
recourse
to
him
for
his
farther
satisfaction
herein
:
and
shall
excuse
my selfe
from
the
paines
of
transcribing
my
own
Arg●ments
.
CHAP.
VII
.
A
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
eleventh
Chapter
,
John
3
,
18.
and
Eph.
2
,
3.
vindicated
.
All
unbelievers
under
condemnation
.
Ergo
,
none
justified
in
unbelief
.
SECT.
I.
MY
second
Argument
,
by
which
I
proved
that
men
are
not
justified
before
faith
,
was
this
.
They
that
are
under
condemnation
,
cannot
at
the
Mr.
Eyre
first
enters
a
caution
against
the
major
:
which
I
had
briefly
,
and
(
as
I
thought
,
and
yet
think
)
sufficiently
proved
in
my
Sermon
in
these
words
.
Justification
and
Condemnation
are
contraries
:
and
contraries
cannot
be
verified
of
the
same
subject
at
the
same
time
.
Justification
is
a
moral
life
,
and
condemnation
a
moral
death
:
a
man
can
be
no
more
in
a
justified
state
,
and
a
state
of
condemnation
both
at
once
,
then
he
can
be
alive
and
dead
both
at
once
;
or
a
blessed
man
and
a
cursed
man
both
at
once
.
What
?
that
the
Apostle
describes
Justification
by
non-condemnation
,
Rom.
8.
1.
and
opposeth
it
to
condemnation
as
inconsistent
with
it
,
on
the
same
person
at
the
same
time
,
ver.
33
,
34.
and
are
at
as
moral
enmity
one
with
another
,
as
good
and
evil
,
light
and
darknesse
.
Upon
these
grounds
I
said
,
that
the
Proposition
must
needs
be
true
.
This
(
as
if
I
had
not
so
much
as
pretended
any
reason
for
it
)
Mr.
Eyre
tells
his
Reader
is
my
confident
assertion
:
but
in
the
mean
time
,
never
goes
about
to
remove
the
grounds
upon
which
it
stands
.
This
is
a
sad
case
:
but
who
can
help
it
?
Yet
he
will
grant
the
Proposition
with
this
Proviso
,
That
these
seeming
contraries
do
refer
ad
idem
,
i.
e.
to
the
same
Court
and
Judicatory
,
not
otherwise
:
for
he
that
is
condemned
,
and
hath
a
judgement
on
record
against
him
in
one
Court
,
may
be
justified
and
absolved
in
another
.
He
that
is
cast
at
common
Law
,
may
be
quitted
in
a
Court
of
equity
.
He
that
is
condemned
in
the
Court
of
the
Law
,
may
be
justified
in
the
Court
of
the
Gospel
.
Rep.
Which
is
very
true
:
otherwise
our
Justification
were
no
pardon
.
But
I
would
ask
.
Are
these
two
Courts
coordinate
,
and
of
equal
power
?
or
is
the
one
in
power
subordinate
to
the
other
?
If
the
former
,
how
shall
a
man
know
whether
he
be
cast
or
absolved
?
as
in
our
own
case
,
If
the
Law
be
of
as
much
power
to
condemne
,
as
the
Gospel
is
to
justifie
,
how
shall
a
man
know
whether
he
be
condemned
or
justified
?
or
what
sentence
shall
a
poor
soul
expect
,
when
he
is
going
to
appear
before
Gods
Tribunal
?
if
of
absolution
,
why
the
Law
condemnes
him
?
if
of
condemnation
,
the
Gospel
justifies
him
?
and
which
of
these
two
shall
take
place
?
But
if
the
one
be
subordinate
to
the
other
,
then
the
sentence
of
the
superiour
Court
rescindes
the
judgement
of
the
inferiour
,
and
makes
it
of
no
force
,
and
so
the
man
is
not
absolved
and
condemned
both
at
once
.
This
is
the
very
ground
of
[
u
](A96867-e39960-b)
u
L.
1
ss.
de
Appell●●
.
&
L.
Si
▪
q●is
〈◊〉
appeales
from
any
inferiour
Judicatory
to
a
higher
;
otherwise
there
were
no
use
of
them
,
nor
any
possibility
by
appealing
to
bring
controversies
to
an
issue
.
Therefore
it
is
impossible
,
that
the
same
person
at
the
same
time
,
and
in
reference
to
the
same
sins
,
should
stand
condemned
and
justified
before
God
.
2.
Neverthelesse
,
I
also
think
that
a
man
may
be
condemned
(
I
mean
ipso
jure
,
under
an
actual
obligation
to
punishment
)
and
yet
be
in
a
state
of
Justification
,
at
the
same
time
:
which
because
it
is
necessary
,
I
should
explain
,
for
the
better
understanding
of
the
opposition
between
Justification
and
Condemnation
,
I
shall
here
once
for
all
set
down
my
opinion
.
A
state
of
Justification
I
call
it
,
not
simply
,
because
all
sins
are
actually
pardoned
(
for
multitudes
may
not
be
yet
committed
)
but
because
all
past
sins
are
pardoned
,
and
a
Promise
given
to
the
sinner
,
by
which
all
future
sins
shall
be
pardoned
:
mercy
prevailing
against
justice
,
Mount
Sion
against
Mount
Sinai
,
Mount
Gerizim
against
Mount
Ebal
,
even
as
a
man
is
then
in
a
state
of
grace
and
regeneration
,
not
because
he
hath
no
sin
in
him
,
but
because
he
hath
a
spirit
of
life
within
him
,
prevailing
more
and
more
against
the
lusts
and
rebellions
of
his
flesh
,
till
at
last
sin
be
perfectly
destroyed
out
of
the
soule
.
And
so
my
opinion
is
,
1.
That
as
soon
as
a
man
beleeves
,
all
his
sins
past
are
forgiven
him
.
2.
As
often
as
he
falls
into
new
sins
,
he
contracts
upon
himself
a
new
guilt
,
or
obligation
to
punishment
by
vertue
of
the
Law
:
so
as
it
were
just
with
God
to
destroy
him
,
notwithstanding
his
former
sins
be
pardoned
.
3.
The
Lord
Jesus
,
our
Advocate
with
the
father
,
doth
continually
represent
and
plead
the
Promise
of
remission
made
in
his
blood
,
on
the
behalf
of
sinners
:
by
vertue
of
which
,
not
only
the
present
and
speedy
execution
of
punishment
is
suspended
,
but
the
sinners
right
to
salvation
continued
and
renewed
,
notwithstanding
his
new
contracted
guilt
(
[
x
](A96867-e40030-b)
x
Justificatio
toties
si●
,
quoties
homo
veré
Poenitentiam
agit
&
side
ad
Christum
mediatorem
confugit
.
Solin
.
Meth.
theol
.
de
Justif
.
)
(
supposing
the
renewed
acts
of
faith
and
repentance
on
the
sinners
part
;
of
implicite
repentance
for
s●ns
lesse
known
,
and
unobserved
;
and
of
explicite
repentance
for
grosser
sins
,
unlesse
want
of
time
may
alter
the
case
.
)
Even
as
when
God
complaines
,
that
Israel
had
broken
his
Covenant
,
and
were
t●rned
out
of
the
way
that
he
commanded
them
,
and
he
would
therefore
presently
have
consumed
them
:
Moses
opposeth
the
Covenant
of
their
fathers
,
Remember
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Israel
thy
servants
,
to
whom
thou
swarest
by
thine
own
self
,
&c.
Exod.
32.
8
,
10
,
13.
And
thus
far
I
grant
,
that
in
these
vicissitudes
,
Justification
and
Condemnation
may
consist
in
the
same
person
:
but
by
no
meanes
can
I
yield
,
that
a
man
can
at
the
same
time
stand
condemned
for
those
very
sins
,
from
which
the
Gospel
justifies
him
:
or
that
he
can
be
in
a
state
of
Justification
and
a
state
of
Condemnation
both
at
once
.
What
follows
about
the
different
estates
of
grace
and
nature
,
we
shall
consider
below
in
the
debate
of
Ephes.
2.
3.
only
the
last
words
of
this
paragraph
deserve
farther
consideration
.
The
Law
(
sayes
Mr.
Eyre
)
condemns
all
men
living
,
for
that
all
have
sinned
.
The
Law
doth
not
consider
men
as
El●ct
or
Reprobates
,
or
as
believers
or
unbelievers
,
but
as
righteous
or
sinners
.
The
Law
will
not
cease
to
threaten
and
condemn
believers
as
long
as
they
live
.
Ans.
It
seems
then
that
the
elect
and
believers
are
as
much
under
the
by
the
Law
,
(
though
some
other
act
of
God
put
a
difference
betwixt
them
)
I
would
ask
,
2.
What
is
that
curse
of
the
Law
,
which
Christ
hath
redeemed
us
from
?
for
if
the
Law
condemn
only
for
its
own
part
,
or
forasmuch
as
in
it
lies
,
but
never
had
power
to
hold
the
sinner
under
an
obligation
to
wrath
,
neither
was
there
any
need
that
Christ
should
die
to
redeem
us
from
the
curse
of
that
Law
:
nor
can
we
be
redeemed
,
because
the
Law
hath
the
very
same
power
over
us
after
his
death
,
yea
,
and
after
our
faith
,
as
it
had
before
,
even
by
Mr.
Eyres
concession
:
for
it
condemnes
all
men
equally
without
distinction
.
3.
Whether
the
Law
do
condemn
any
man
at
all
?
yes
(
will
it
be
said
)
so
far
as
its
power
reacheth
,
which
is
thus
far
:
that
he
that
transgresseth
the
Law
,
can
expect
no
benefit
by
the
Law
,
or
he
forseits
his
right
to
life
and
blessednesse
,
by
that
Law
which
he
hath
transgressed
.
Neverthelesse
he
may
at
the
same
time
have
right
to
life
by
some
other
act
of
God
:
But
1.
Is
that
saying
true
or
false
,
Cursed
is
he
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Law
to
do
them
?
I
will
not
so
much
as
suspect
that
any
man
that
is
called
a
Christian
,
will
say
there
was
no
truth
in
that
threatening
:
and
if
there
be
truth
in
it
,
then
he
that
transgresseth
the
Law
is
in
a
cursed
estate
(
till
at
last
he
be
delivered
from
it
,
through
faith
in
the
blood
of
Christ
)
:
and
if
he
be
cursed
,
then
surely
the
Law
hath
more
power
over
him
,
then
to
deprive
him
of
his
right
to
life
,
as
to
any
help
it self
can
afford
him
.
He
is
cursed
who
hath
no
right
at
all
to
life
:
if
he
hath
no
right
by
the
Law
,
yet
is
he
never
a
whit
the
more
miserable
for
that
,
as
long
as
he
hath
right
by
any
other
act
of
God
.
2.
And
if
he
hath
no
right
by
any
other
act
,
yet
is
he
not
condemned
.
The
Law
indeed
doth
its
part
towards
his
condemnation
:
but
it
seemes
,
it
condemnes
him
no
farther
,
then
that
as
if
there
be
no
other
act
that
condemnes
him
more
effectually
,
the
sinner
remaines
uncondemned
notwithstanding
:
for
to
be
condemned
by
the
Law
,
is
not
to
be
condemned
simply
in
Mr.
Eyres
sense
;
for
believers
themselves
(
according
to
him
)
are
condemned
by
the
Law
,
who
yet
are
not
simply
condemned
;
something
more
of
this
notion
we
must
speak
by
and
by
.
But
the
Assumption
is
that
against
which
Mr.
Eyre
makes
the
most
Because
it
was
the
Will
of
God
that
none
of
the
elect
should
perish
or
be
condemned
.
Answ.
True
:
not
executively
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
knows
,
we
put
a
difference
between
perishing
and
condemnation
in
this
debate
:
and
that
by
condemnation
we
mean
,
not
the
execution
of
punishment
or
wrath
,
but
a
legal
obligation
to
the
suffering
of
it
.
And
though
God
did
purpose
that
the
elect
should
not
perish
,
or
be
condemned
executively
,
&
quoad
eventum
:
yet
should
Mr.
Eyre
prove
,
that
he
purposed
that
the
elect
should
not
stand
obliged
equally
with
other
sinners
,
for
some
time
,
to
the
suffering
of
wrath
.
This
if
he
prove
,
I
will
yield
the
cause
.
The
purpose
of
God
in
it selfe
makes
no
difference
between
men
,
whose
cause
is
the
same
before
the
just
and
impartial
Judge
.
Do
we
not
know
that
a
Prince
may
purpose
to
save
the
life
of
a
Malefactour
,
against
whom
notwithstanding
the
Law
is
in
force
,
and
judgement
proceeds
,
and
sentence
passeth
,
and
the
man
thereby
as
much
obnoxious
to
death
,
as
any
other
Melefactours
,
till
some
other
act
of
the
Prince
,
besides
his
meer
purpose
,
interpose
and
prevent
his
death
?
But
of
this
we
have
spoken
largely
already
.
The
Assumption
,
namely
,
that
all
the
world
is
under
condemnation
John
3.
18.
He
that
beleeveth
not
,
is
condemned
already
.
That
is
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
He
that
never
believeth
,
as
chap.
8.
24.
If
you
beleeve
not
(
i.
e.
not
at
all
)
you
shall
die
in
your
sins
.
Our
Saviour
had
no
intent
at
all
to
shew
the
state
of
the
elect
before
believing
:
but
the
certain
and
inevitable
misery
of
them
that
beleeve
not
,
by
reason
of
the
sentence
of
the
Law
that
had
passed
upon
them
.
All
the
rest
of
the
answer
consents
well
enough
with
that
Explication
of
the
text
which
I
gave
in
my
Sermon
.
Rep.
First
,
for
that
which
is
pretended
to
be
our
Lords
intent
in
these
words
,
let
me
intreat
thee
(
Reader
)
to
peruse
and
ponder
the
text
;
for
I
think
thou
shalt
hardly
meet
with
the
like
abuse
of
the
Oracles
of
God
,
in
any
Authour
that
acknowledgeth
the
Divinity
of
Scriptures
,
ver.
14.
As
Moses
lift
up
the
Serpent
in
the
wildernesse
,
so
must
the
Son
of
man
be
lifted
up
,
ver.
15.
That
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
should
not
perish
,
but
should
have
everlasting
life
,
ver.
16.
for
God
so
loved
the
world
,
that
he
gave
his
only
begotten
Sonne
,
that
whosoever
believeth
on
him
,
should
not
perish
,
but
should
have
everlasting
life
,
ver.
17.
for
God
sent
not
his
Sonne
into
the
world
,
to
condemn
the
world
,
but
that
the
world
through
him
might
be
saved
,
ver.
18.
He
that
beleeveth
,
is
not
condemned
:
he
that
beleeveth
not
,
is
condemned
already
,
&c.
Thou
seest
(
Reader
)
that
the
words
contain
a
most
serious
and
faithful
testimony
to
a
sinful
world
,
that
though
they
had
brought
upon
themselves
eternal
miseries
,
yet
God
had
sent
his
Sonne
into
the
world
,
not
to
condemn
the
world
,
but
to
save
them
:
and
if
any
man
perish
,
't
is
not
for
want
of
a
sufficient
remedy
provided
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
but
for
their
own
wilful
refusal
to
embrace
and
make
use
of
it
:
as
himselfe
tells
us
,
ver.
19.
And
this
is
the
condemnation
,
that
light
is
come
into
the
world
,
and
men
have
loved
darknesse
rather
then
light
.
Now
what
sayes
Mr.
Eyre
?
why
he
will
have
us
beleeve
,
that
the
Lords
intention
is
quite
against
his
expression
,
and
that
he
is
come
to
testifie
to
the
world
,
that
their
misery
is
certain
and
inevitable
,
by
reason
of
the
sentence
of
the
Law
that
had
passed
upon
them
.
It
is
time
to
burne
our
Bibles
,
if
such
glosses
as
these
must
be
received
for
truth
.
2.
If
the
misery
of
those
that
beleeve
not
be
inevitable
,
by
reason
of
the
sentence
of
the
Law
,
how
is
this
to
be
understood
?
either
that
the
Law
passed
sentence
upon
them
as
unbelievers
:
(
but
this
I
suppose
is
too
unreasonable
to
be
affirmed
:
)
or
that
the
same
men
,
who
afterwards
prove
unbelievers
,
were
before
sentenced
by
the
Law
to
certain
and
unavoidable
misery
.
But
then
their
unbeliefe
contributed
nothing
to
make
their
misery
unavoidable
:
whereas
our
Lord
chargeth
the
unavoidablenesse
of
misery
upon
wilful
unbelief
,
ver.
19.
This
is
the
condemnation
,
(
not
that
men
are
in
darknesse
)
but
that
light
is
come
into
the
world
,
and
men
have
loved
darknesse
rather
then
light
.
Were
it
not
for
this
,
men
might
do
well
enough
,
notwithstanding
all
that
the
Law
had
done
against
them
.
Ergo
,
misery
is
not
made
certain
and
inevitable
to
any
by
the
Law
,
before
unbelief
be
added
.
3.
Mr.
Eyre
told
us
but
now
,
that
the
Law
condemned
all
men
equally
(
that
's
the
sense
of
his
words
,
if
there
be
any
sense
in
them
.
)
The
Law
(
saith
he
)
doth
not
consider
men
as
elect
or
reprobate
(
I
know
not
how
it
should
:
for
the
Law
is
neither
God
,
nor
man
,
nor
Angel
)
as
believers
or
unbelievers
,
&c.
how
comes
it
then
to
passe
that
misery
should
be
made
unavoidable
to
one
,
and
not
to
another
by
the
same
Law
?
Next
,
we
shall
enquire
into
Mr.
Eyres
Exposition
of
ver.
18.
He
that
beleeveth
not
is
condemned
already
;
that
is
,
(
saith
he
)
he
that
never
beleeveth
,
which
is
not
only
gratis
dictum
,
spoken
without
so
much
as
a
pretence
of
Reason
,
but
is
manifestly
inconsistent
with
the
text
.
Indeed
condemnation
is
executed
upon
none
,
but
final
unbelievers
:
but
unbelievers
in
the
text
are
to
be
understood
generally
of
all
unbelievers
whatsoever
,
and
not
to
be
confined
to
final
unbelievers
.
1.
Such
unbelievers
are
here
meant
,
who
are
part
of
that
world
into
which
Christ
is
sent
:
for
after
the
Lord
had
said
,
ver.
17.
God
sent
not
his
Sonne
into
the
world
,
to
condemn
the
world
,
but
that
the
world
by
him
might
be
saved
;
He
distributes
this
world
into
two
parts
,
Beleevers
and
Unbeleevers
,
ver.
18.
He
that
beleeveth
,
is
not
condemned
:
he
that
believeth
not
,
is
condemned
already
.
But
final
unbeleevers
as
such
,
are
no
part
of
that
world
into
which
Christ
is
sent
:
for
a
final
unbeleever
is
he
that
dies
in
unbelief
:
if
he
beleeve
but
one
minute
before
his
death
,
he
is
not
a
final
unbeleever
.
And
Christ
is
not
sent
to
the
dead
,
but
to
the
living
.
2.
Such
unbelievers
are
here
meant
whom
Christ
was
sent
to
save
,
ver.
16
,
17.
But
Christ
was
not
sent
to
save
final
unbelievers
as
such
.
Ergo
,
such
unbelievers
are
not
here
meant
.
3.
We
have
also
mention
of
a
double
condemnation
in
the
text
:
one
which
Christ
findes
men
under
when
he
comes
into
the
world
,
and
which
he
comes
to
deliver
them
from
,
ver.
17
,
18.
The
other
which
men
are
left
under
for
final
unbelief
,
and
rejecting
of
Christ
the
light
of
life
,
ver.
19.
This
is
the
condemnation
,
&c.
for
Christ
could
not
finde
men
condemned
for
a
final
rejecting
of
him
,
till
he
had
been
preached
and
tendered
to
them
.
Ergo
,
they
that
beleeve
not
,
ver.
18.
are
unbeleevers
in
general
.
4.
The
condemnation
here
spoken
of
,
is
that
which
is
avoidable
(
and
is
actually
avoided
)
by
beleeving
.
Ergo
,
it
is
not
the
condemnation
of
final
unbeleevers
.
The
Antecedent
I
proved
in
my
Sermon
,
from
ver.
36.
He
that
believeth
not
,
the
wrath
of
God
abideth
on
him
;
implying
,
that
the
wrath
of
God
by
the
Law
is
upon
every
sinner
(
for
he
is
condemned
already
)
yet
not
so
necessarily
and
remedilesly
,
but
that
by
beleeving
he
may
escape
it
:
but
if
he
beleeves
not
,
then
it
abides
on
him
.
To
this
Mr.
Eyre
tells
me
,
That
to
say
the
place
hints
,
there
is
a
wrath
of
God
which
is
done
away
by
believing
,
is
but
an
attempt
to
suborne
the
Spirit
to
serve
our
turne
.
A
short
way
of
answering
Arguments
.
[
y
](A96867-e40690-b)
y
Contra
Crell
.
p.
452
,
453.
This
very
interpretation
doth
Essenius
vindicate
at
large
against
Mr.
Eyres
friends
(
in
the
point
of
eternal
reconciliation
)
the
Socinians
:
and
urgeth
the
significancy
of
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
abideth
,
according
to
its
constant
use
in
Scripture
:
though
I
stand
not
so
much
upon
the
bare
word
.
The
same
interpretation
doth
[
z
](A96867-e40740-b)
z
Tract.
14.
in
Joan.
Non
dicit
,
Ira
dei
venit
ad
eum
,
sed
manet
super
eum
&c.
Augustine
give
of
it
,
and
many
others
,
Protestants
and
Papists
.
Chemnitius
,
[
a
](A96867-e40770-b)
a
Analys
.
in
loc.
Piscator
,
Aretius
,
Beza
,
Dyke
,
Jansenius
,
Tolet
,
Ferus
,
&c.
Who
being
such
professed
enemies
in
religion
,
cannot
be
rationally
suspected
of
a
confederacy
against
the
Spirit
.
I
had
thought
a
Minister
might
have
said
,
not
only
to
each
man
distributively
,
but
to
the
whole
world
collectively
(
if
he
were
able
to
speak
to
their
hearing
)
believe
in
the
Lord
Jesus
and
you
shall
be
saved
,
without
being
guilty
of
suborning
the
Spirit
to
serve
his
own
turne
.
And
yet
surely
in
so
saying
he
doth
more
then
hint
,
that
the
wrath
of
God
may
be
escaped
by
believing
.
5.
And
that
I
do
not
erre
in
the
meaning
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
I
am
yet
farther
convinced
,
because
the
Lord
came
not
into
the
world
to
de
jure
or
de
facto
:
as
the
Apostle
argues
,
2
Cor.
5.
14.
If
one
died
for
all
,
then
were
all
dead
.
And
to
be
dead
in
Law
,
is
to
be
under
condemnation
.
Now
whom
doth
Christ
save
?
not
final
unbeleevers
,
but
such
as
are
unbeleevers
for
a
time
only
:
Ergo
,
they
who
are
now
beleevers
,
were
sometime
under
condemnation
,
or
else
Christ
never
saved
them
.
If
they
are
only
condemned
in
themselves
,
or
by
the
Law
(
in
that
diminutive
respective
sense
in
which
Mr.
Eyre
useth
that
phrase
)
they
are
never
a
whit
the
more
in
danger
of
perishing
for
that
,
and
therefore
not
capable
of
being
saved
properly
.
6.
The
comparison
which
our
Lord
proposeth
,
v.
14
,
15.
and
upon
which
this
whole
discourse
dependeth
,
puts
it
yet
farther
out
of
doubt
.
As
Moses
lifted
up
the
serpent
in
the
wildernesse
,
even
so
must
the
Sonne
of
man
be
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
should
not
perish
,
but
have
eternal
life
.
Concerning
which
words
we
deba●e
more
particularly
under
the
third
generall
Argument
following
:
and
therefore
here
I
shall
only
make
some
brief
observations
upon
the
co●parison
,
and
passe
on
.
1.
As
then
the
people
for
whom
the
serpent
was
lifted
up
,
were
all
mortally
stung
of
the
fiery
serpents
(
see
the
story
it self
,
Numb.
21.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
)
So
is
all
the
world
become
subject
to
condemnation
through
sin
,
(
for
the
people
that
were
stung
in
the
type
,
are
the
world
in
the
Antitype
:
and
their
mortal
wound
there
,
is
condemnation
here
,
by
our
Lords
own
exposition
,
v.
16
,
17
,
19.
)
2.
That
as
the
serpent
was
by
Gods
appointment
lifted
up
in
the
wildernesse
,
that
whosoever
looked
on
him
might
be
healed
of
the
mortal
bites
of
the
fiery
serpent
and
live
:
so
is
the
Sonne
of
man
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
should
not
perish
,
but
should
have
everlasting
life
,
by
Gods
appointment
in
like
manner
,
v.
15
,
16.
3.
That
as
the
serpent
was
not
lifted
up
to
destroy
any
of
the
people
(
for
they
were
mortally
wounded
before
)
but
to
heale
them
:
so
Christ
was
not
sent
into
the
world
to
condemn
the
world
(
for
they
are
condemned
already
)
but
to
save
them
.
v.
17.
4.
Yet
they
that
looked
not
on
the
serpent
so
lifted
up
,
did
thereby
procure
unto
themselves
a
certaine
death
(
because
it
was
to
be
absolutely
unavoydable
by
any
other
means
whatsoever
:
)
so
they
that
beleeve
not
on
the
Sonne
of
God
,
but
love
darknesse
rather
then
light
,
do
thereby
procure
to
themselves
certaine
and
remedilesse
condemnation
,
v.
18
,
19.
There
remaining
no
more
sacrifice
for
sin
,
as
the
Apostle
speaks
,
Heb.
10.
29.
Hence
I
deduce
these
four
Corollaries
.
1.
That
condemnation
lyes
upon
all
men
,
(
without
difference
)
for
sin
.
2.
Yet
there
is
a
remedy
and
way
of
escape
from
this
condemnation
revealed
in
the
Gospel
.
3.
That
the
way
to
escape
condemnation
,
is
to
beleeve
on
Jesus
Christ
.
4.
The
contempt
of
Christ
by
positive
unbelief
,
makes
condemnation
unavoidable
.
Ergo
,
every
man
in
the
world
,
whiles
an
unbeleever
,
or
so
long
as
he
continues
in
unbelief
,
is
under
condemnation
.
And
as
to
the
Text
which
Mr.
Eyre
brings
in
for
illustration
,
Act.
27.
31.
Except
these
men
abide
in
the
ship
,
you
cannot
be
saved
.
He
shews
them
that
they
were
in
eminent
danger
of
perishing
in
the
waters
:
and
yet
that
they
might
be
safe
enough
if
the
men
aforesaid
continued
in
the
ship
.
That
place
therefore
makes
against
Mr.
Eyre
altogether
.
SECT.
II.
BEfore
we
speak
any
further
of
this
place
,
we
must
attend
M.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
1.
That
the
Text
doth
not
say
that
God
did
condemn
them
,
or
that
they
w●re
under
condemnation
before
conversion
.
Rep.
This
might
have
been
spared
,
if
this
text
had
been
answered
in
the
place
where
I
produced
it
:
and
so
it
may
yet
,
for
wrath
and
condemnation
often
signifie
one
and
the
same
thing
in
Scripture
,
Joh.
3.
19
,
36.
1
Thes.
1.
10.
Rom.
1.
17
,
18.
&
2.
5.
with
Rom.
8.
1
,
34.
And
to
the
same
sense
doth
Mr.
Eyre
himself
expound
it
in
his
maine
answer
,
which
is
this
.
By
nature
,
or
in
reference
to
their
state
in
the
first
Adam
they
were
children
of
wrath
,
they
could
expect
nothing
but
wrath
and
fiery
indignation
from
God
.
Yet
this
hindred
not
,
but
that
by
grace
they
might
be
the
children
of
his
love
:
for
so
all
the
elect
are
while
they
are
in
their
blood
and
pollution
,
Ezek.
16.
4
,
8.
The
Lord
calls
them
his
sonnes
and
children
before
conversion
.
Isa.
43.
6.
and
53.
11.
and
8.
18.
Heb.
2.
9.
For
it
is
not
any
inherent
qualification
,
but
the
good
pleasure
of
God
that
makes
them
his
children
.
Eph.
1.
5.
Rom.
8.
29.
Joh.
17.
6.
Elect
children
have
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
imputed
to
them
,
though
they
know
it
not
:
and
I
know
no
reason
(
saith
he
)
why
it
should
not
be
imputed
to
the
rest
of
the
elect
before
conversion
.
Rep.
Two
things
I
have
here
to
do
.
1.
To
shew
what
the
Apostles
[
b
](A96867-e41330-b)
b
per
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hoc
in
loco
intelligi
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ait
Suidas
in
verbo
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ad
finem
)
lives
.
That
this
is
his
meaning
is
manifest
,
not
only
from
this
verse
,
[
Amongst
whom
we
all
had
our
conversatiou
in
times
past
,
in
the
lusts
of
our
flesh
fulfilling
the
desires
of
the
flesh
and
of
the
mind
,
and
were
by
nature
the
children
of
wrath
,
even
as
others
]
:
and
from
the
words
following
,
v.
4
,
5.
[
But
God
,
when
we
were
dead
in
sins
hath
quickened
us
together
with
Christ
:
]
but
also
from
that
other
place
,
altogether
parallel
to
this
.
Colos.
2.
13.
[
And
you
being
dead
in
your
sins
and
the
uncircumcision
of
your
flesh
,
hath
he
quickened
together
with
him
,
having
forgiven
you
all
trespasses
.
]
(
[
c
](A96867-e41430-b)
c
Vide
Esthium
,
Davenan●
,
B●zam
,
D●odat
.
Hemming
.
alios
.
)
Expositors
are
agreed
,
that
by
the
uncircumcis●on
of
the
flesh
is
meant
the
sinfulnesse
and
corruption
of
nature
:
and
therefore
by
comparing
the
places
together
it
is
manifest
,
that
for
the
sinfulnesse
of
their
nature
and
conversation
(
the
two
parts
of
the
naturall
man
)
the
Apostle
pronounceth
these
Ephesians
to
have
been
in
times
past
children
of
wrath
and
damnation
,
no
lesse
then
any
other
.
Now
for
Mr.
Eyre
,
we
must
a
little
enquire
what
is
his
meaning
,
This
(
if
any
thing
)
being
Mr.
Eyres
sense
,
we
are
next
to
shew
children
of
wrath
,
is
borrowed
from
the
Hebrews
;
who
are
wont
to
call
him
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
sonne
of
death
,
who
is
designed
or
adjudged
to
die
,
or
hath
contracted
upon
himself
an
obligation
unto
death
,
without
any
present
actuall
reversion
:
as
he
that
is
found
guilty
of
stripes
,
and
adjudged
to
be
beaten
,
is
called
a
sonne
of
stripes
.
Deut.
25.
2.
see
also
1
Sam.
20.
31.
and
2
Sam.
12.
5.
Psal.
102.
20.
Therefore
the
same
phrase
applied
here
to
the
elect
in
their
unbelief
,
notes
,
that
they
were
then
under
such
an
ordination
to
death
,
as
did
exclude
their
present
(
[
d
](A96867-e41720-b)
d
C
ram
Deo
damnati
.
Calvin
)
pardon
and
absolution
:
They
that
were
pardoned
,
were
children
of
life
,
not
of
death
.
3.
We
were
also
children
of
wrath
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
even
as
others
.
Will
it
be
said
that
all
the
world
are
children
of
wrath
by
nature
;
but
by
grace
justified
,
and
children
of
life
at
the
same
time
?
If
not
,
it
must
be
yeelded
that
the
elect
and
reprobate
are
both
equally
under
the
same
condemnation
,
both
equally
obnoxious
to
eternall
punishment
,
so
long
as
they
continue
equally
in
a
natural
unregenerate
condition
.
4.
The
parallel
place
before-mentioned
,
Col●s
.
2.
13.
confirmes
all
I
have
said
.
And
you
being
dead
in
your
sinnes
,
and
the
uncircumcision
of
your
flesh
,
hath
he
quickned
together
with
him
,
having
forgiven
you
all
your
trespasses
.
Beleevers
then
themselves
were
sometimes
dead
,
that
is
,
under
condemnation
,
and
so
under
it
,
as
that
they
were
then
without
remission
of
sins
,
for
their
quickning
is
by
remission
:
and
nothing
is
quickned
except
it
be
dead
.
That
the
elect
,
though
children
of
wrath
by
nature
,
may
yet
at
the
Joh.
1.
12.
Gal.
3.
26.
and
4.
5.
&c.
4.
I
also
yeeld
that
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
is
imputed
to
infants
though
they
know
it
not
:
and
that
so
it
is
also
to
multitudes
of
grown
Christians
.
But
it
should
be
proved
that
such
infants
are
uncapable
of
the
habit
of
faith
:
or
that
their
parents
faith
doth
not
supply
their
incapacity
,
as
to
their
justification
:
of
which
more
hereafter
.
SECT.
III.
IN
the
next
place
Mr.
Eyre
gives
us
an
account
in
what
sense
the
elect
,
though
freed
from
wrath
and
condemnation
,
may
yet
Answ.
Whether
Mr.
Eyres
intent
in
this
undertaking
be
to
give
another
exposition
of
the
elects
being
children
of
wrath
,
I
cannot
tell
.
If
it
be
,
he
must
quit
the
former
:
for
this
will
not
consist
with
that
.
There
he
told
us
the
elect
were
children
of
wrath
,
that
is
,
by
nature
,
or
in
themselves
,
or
in
reference
to
their
state
in
the
first
Adam
:
abstracting
or
rather
prescinding
from
any
effect
of
wrath
that
ever
was
,
or
was
to
be
upon
them
.
But
here
they
are
children
of
wrath
in
reference
to
the
effects
of
wrath
in
their
consciences
.
2.
When
he
sayes
,
the
Law
is
called
a
ministration
of
death
and
condemnation
,
2
Cor.
3.
7
,
9.
because
it
did
terrifie
and
affright
the
conscience
:
if
he
mean
that
this
is
the
only
reason
why
it
is
so
called
,
as
if
it
did
not
condemn
persons
as
well
as
their
consciences
,
I
deny
it
altogether
.
Death
and
condemnation
,
when
they
expound
one
another
(
as
there
they
do
)
signifie
that
of
the
person
,
and
not
of
the
conscience
only
,
Rom.
5.
16
,
17.
3.
In
like
manner
when
the
Law
is
said
to
work
wrath
,
Rom.
4.
15.
I
deny
it
to
be
meant
meerly
of
horrour
of
conscience
:
but
principally
of
that
wrath
which
excludes
them
from
a
right
to
the
heavenly
inheritance
,
which
right
is
given
by
the
promise
,
v.
14.
Gal.
3.
10.
As
many
as
are
of
the
w●rkes
of
the
Law
are
under
the
curse
.
Mr.
Eyre
proceeds
.
The
wrath
of
God
ha●h
a
threesold
acception
Rom.
1.
18.
Psal.
6.
1.
Hos.
11.
9.
Jon.
3.
9.
3.
The
execution
of
those
threatnings
,
Eph.
5.
6.
Luk.
21.
23.
Matth.
3.
7.
The
elect
are
under
wrath
in
the
second
sense
only
.
Answ.
If
the
first
sense
be
a
Scripture-sense
,
why
have
we
not
one
word
of
Scripture
to
justifie
it
?
The
reason
's
ready
,
because
that
will
of
God
,
which
we
are
wont
to
call
Reprobation
,
is
neither
wrath
,
nor
an
Act
of
wrath
in
Scripture
language
.
2.
When
Mr.
Eyre
grants
that
the
elect
are
subject
to
the
threatnings
and
comminations
of
the
Law
,
he
explaines
himself
thus
.
The
threatnings
of
the
Law
do
seize
upon
and
arrest
their
consciences
as
well
as
others
:
the
Law
as
a
rigid
Schoole-master
,
doth
never
leave
to
whip
and
lash
them
untill
they
fly
unto
Christ
.
I
asked
then
.
1.
Whether
that
paine
and
anguish
of
Spirit
which
the
elect
(
whiles
unbeleevers
)
feele
,
be
any
part
of
the
evil
threatned
in
the
Law
?
If
it
be
(
as
most
undoubtedly
it
is
)
then
Mr.
Eyre
contradicts
himself
in
saying
the
elect
are
under
the
threatnings
of
the
Law
,
but
not
under
the
execution
of
them
.
If
it
be
not
,
he
contradicts
himself
againe
,
in
saying
the
Law
doth
whip
and
lash
them
.
It
is
not
the
Law
that
torments
them
,
but
somewhat
else
(
what
it
is
I
cannot
tell
)
if
their
torment
be
none
of
that
evil
which
the
Law
threatneth
.
2.
I
would
ask
also
,
what
power
there
is
in
these
arrests
of
the
Law
to
make
them
fly
to
Christ
?
If
by
representing
to
them
that
they
are
under
condemnation
till
they
lay
hold
on
Christ
by
faith
,
then
they
are
under
condemnation
till
they
believe
:
which
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
heare
of
.
If
only
that
they
are
damnable
in
themselves
(
as
he
doth
afterwards
expresse
himself
)
they
are
as
lyable
to
such
an
arrest
of
the
Law
,
after
they
believe
,
as
before
,
even
by
Mr.
Eyres
concession
.
And
that
word
is
not
like
to
move
a
sinner
very
hastily
to
seek
a
change
of
his
condition
,
which
will
pursue
him
as
much
after
his
condition
is
changed
as
before
.
When
it
is
said
that
the
elect
are
never
under
the
execution
of
the
Job
36.
7
,
11
,
12.
Rom.
5.
12.
and
8.
10
,
20
,
21
,
23.
1
Cor.
11.
30
,
31
,
32.
and
15.
22
,
26.
Jam.
5.
15
,
16.
1
Joh.
5.
16.
and
hundreds
of
other
places
.
And
this
section
I
have
written
to
follow
Mr.
Eyre
:
what
is
his
intent
in
all
this
himself
best
knows
.
His
conclusion
is
,
that
the
consciences
of
the
elect
before
faith
are
under
wrath
,
not
their
persons
,
(
though
it
be
a
rule
in
Logick
,
that
(
e
)
omnis
actio
&
passio
est
proprie
totius
compositi
:
and
therefore
to
say
the
conscience
is
under
wrath
,
Vid.
Ames
.
Thes.
Log.
th●
76
in
distinction
from
the
person
,
is
none
of
the
neatest
expressions
)
and
then
tells
his
reader
,
that
against
this
I
have
several
exceptions
.
Whereas
I
never
excepted
against
it
at
all
in
the
generall
,
but
onely
as
not
being
sutable
to
that
particular
text
in
John
3.
18.
Which
I
had
urged
to
prove
,
that
all
unbelievers
are
in
a
state
of
condemnation
.
Nor
doth
Mr.
Eyre
answer
this
text
by
this
distinction
(
though
I
think
I
was
informed
that
he
was
wont
so
to
do
:
which
was
the
reason
that
I
laid
in
the
following
Arguments
against
it
)
and
therefore
Mr.
Eyre
might
have
spared
his
paines
of
attempting
to
answer
the
said
Arguments
,
as
not
prejudicing
that
interpretation
which
he
gives
of
the
text
.
Neverthelesse
it
may
be
usefull
to
examine
his
answers
.
SECT.
IV.
THe
first
Argument
then
proving
that
the
condemnation
mentioned
,
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
that
the
voyce
or
sentence
of
the
Law
,
shews
not
who
are
condemned
of
God
,
but
who
are
guilty
and
damnable
in
themselves
,
if
God
should
deal
with
them
by
the
Law
.
But
the
elect
are
discharged
from
this
rigorous
Court
,
their
cause
is
judged
at
another
Bar.
Rep.
The
words
of
the
text
are
these
.
Whatsoever
the
Law
saith
,
it
saith
to
them
that
are
under
the
Law
,
that
every
mouth
may
be
stopped
,
and
all
the
world
may
become
guilty
before
God
.
The
thing
which
I
inferre
from
this
Text
compared
with
Joh.
3.
18.
(
for
illustration
of
which
I
mentioned
it
)
is
this
.
That
every
unbeliever
(
elect
,
or
not
elect
)
stands
guilty
,
that
is
obliged
to
punishment
in
the
sight
or
judgement
of
God
,
and
not
only
of
his
own
conscience
.
Which
to
be
the
true
sense
of
the
place
,
is
manifest
from
the
importance
of
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
we
render
guilty
:
not
only
as
being
the
same
with
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
properly
signifies
a
debt
or
Vid.
Eli.
Thisb
.
in
verb.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
&
Joh.
S●lden
.
do
Jure
Na●
.
&
Gent
l.
1.
cap.
●
p.
46.
obligation
:
but
also
,
as
being
constantly
used
in
the
same
sense
in
Greek
Authors
.
Therefore
[
g
](A96867-e42500-b)
g
Comment.
Graec.
Ling
p.
166.
Budaeus
expounds
it
,
as
of
the
same
significancy
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Qui
est
obnoxius
è
re
judicatá
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
A
man
condemned
or
adjudged
to
punishment
,
though
he
have
not
yet
suffered
it
.
Accordingly
Beza
upon
the
place
notes
well
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
non
tantum
declarat
judicium
quo
vel
●bsolvi
vel
damnari
possit
aliquis
(
hac
enim
significatione
ipsi
etiam
filii
Dei
sunt
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
quibus
tamen
nulla
est
condemnatio
)
sed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
i.
e.
condemnationem
declarat
,
sicut
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Now
to
what
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
that
the
Law
doth
only
declare
who
1.
To
himself
:
for
remember
(
Reader
)
that
I
brought
in
this
place
as
an
explication
of
that
in
Joh.
3.
18.
He
that
beleeveth
not
,
is
condemned
already
.
Which
condemnation
Mr.
Eyre
hath
already
acknowledged
to
be
by
the
Law
,
(
and
makes
it
the
condemnation
of
finall
unbelievers
onely
)
I
did
rightly
infer
;
if
the
condemnation
there
spoken
of
be
that
which
is
by
the
Law
,
then
is
it
condemnation
before
God
,
Rom.
3.
19.
(
and
not
in
conscience
only
:
which
was
the
thing
I
was
there
proving
.
)
To
this
Mr.
Eyre
tells
me
,
the
Law
shews
not
who
are
condemned
of
God
,
but
who
are
damnable
in
themselves
.
How
?
hath
it
already
condemned
,
and
that
remedilesly
,
the
greatest
part
of
the
world
,
and
yet
doth
it
no
more
then
shew
who
are
damnable
in
themselves
;
not
,
who
are
condemned
of
God
?
me
thinks
he
should
at
last
suspect
the
truth
of
that
cause
,
which
doth
so
often
dash
him
upon
contradictions
.
2.
To
sense
:
for
I
appeale
to
the
experience
of
all
Christians
,
who
have
felt
the
work
of
the
Law
driving
them
out
of
themselves
to
fly
unto
Christ
,
whether
it
have
not
convinced
them
,
not
only
that
they
are
damnable
in
themselves
(
for
that
it
will
do
after
they
are
in
Christ
as
well
as
before
)
but
that
they
are
(
while
out
of
Christ
)
condemned
;
that
is
,
under
an
obligation
and
tendency
to
the
suffering
of
wrath
,
and
out
of
a
state
of
salvation
.
That
it
doth
,
so
is
manifest
from
the
first
question
,
which
a
soul
,
upon
whom
the
Law
comes
with
power
,
will
aske
,
What
shall
I
do
to
be
saved
?
Act.
2
,
37.
and
16.
30.
A
question
which
supposeth
him
to
be
convinced
by
the
Law
that
he
is
a
condemned
creature
:
needing
,
not
only
comfort
,
but
salvation
,
that
is
,
deliverance
from
condemnation
,
in
which
only
he
can
be
comforted
.
Now
if
this
be
the
worke
of
the
Law
,
when
brought
home
by
the
power
of
God
;
then
must
it
needs
be
most
true
that
such
a
soul
is
indeed
in
the
state
of
condemnation
,
till
by
faith
he
be
passed
from
death
to
life
:
and
accordingly
the
Law
must
be
acknowledged
to
declare
not
only
who
are
damnable
in
themselves
,
but
who
are
condemned
of
God
.
It
is
also
against
reason
:
for
demonstration
of
which
we
must
enquire
,
damnable
in
himself
:
If
from
the
former
,
the
meaning
is
this
:
That
all
the
world
(
the
elect
and
all
)
have
wrought
that
evill
which
were
most
sufficient
to
work
the
forfeiture
of
their
right
to
life
,
and
make
them
lyable
to
eternal
death
,
if
there
were
any
Law
in
force
against
them
.
If
this
be
the
sense
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
the
Apostle
speak
in
,
when
he
sayes
all
the
world
is
become
guilty
before
God
,
marke
what
follows
.
1.
Then
the
Law
neither
doth
,
nor
ever
did
condemn
any
man
living
:
for
men
are
supposed
to
be
damnable
,
and
but
damnable
,
not
actually
condemned
,
for
want
of
a
Law
in
sorce
to
condemn
them
,
that
is
,
to
hold
them
under
an
obligation
to
punishment
.
The
Law
doth
but
shew
its
teeth
(
pardon
the
expression
reader
)
but
it
neither
doth
,
nor
ever
did
bite
any
man
,
no
not
the
most
presumptuous
transgressours
of
it
:
though
transgressours
be
as
fit
objects
as
can
be
for
the
Law
to
take
hold
of
,
if
it
had
power
so
to
do
.
Hence
,
secondly
,
I
would
ask
whether
ever
God
did
condemn
any
man
:
If
he
did
,
by
what
Act
?
not
by
the
Law
:
that
shews
indeed
who
are
damnable
in
themselves
▪
not
who
are
condemned
of
God
.
I
suppose
it
will
be
said
,
that
some
are
condemned
by
the
eternall
Act
of
Reprobation
.
●ut
I
leave
it
to
Mr.
Eyre
to
prove
,
that
the
name
or
nature
of
condemnation
can
agree
to
that
Act
according
to
Scripture
:
which
if
he
cannot
prove
,
(
as
sure
enough
he
cannot
,
nor
all
the
men
on
earth
)
it
must
needs
follow
,
that
there
is
no
such
thing
as
the
condemnation
of
any
man
,
according
to
Scripture
.
Against
this
sense
of
the
text
I
could
adde
much
more
,
if
I
could
perswade
my self
to
think
that
it
were
needful
,
for
the
help
of
any
man
.
But
it
may
be
this
damnability
is
opposed
to
damnation
executed
;
whosoever
should
not
humble
himself
upon
the
day
of
expiation
,
should
be
cut
off
Lev.
16.
which
Law
is
now
abrogated
.
Neverthelesse
,
it
may
be
truly
said
,
that
if
a
Jew
,
who
now
keeps
not
that
day
,
were
to
be
tried
and
judged
by
that
Law
,
he
would
be
found
punishable
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
Law
is
now
abrogated
,
and
so
no
man
incurres
the
penalty
,
upon
the
non-observance
of
it
;
It
is
most
true
,
yet
may
he
be
said
to
be
punishable
by
it
in
sensu
diviso
,
in
the
very
same
sense
in
which
Mr.
Eyre
allows
sinners
to
be
damnable
by
the
Law
of
works
,
namely
,
upon
supposition
it
were
in
force
to
make
the
penalty
due
,
and
sinners
were
to
be
tried
and
judged
by
it
.
3.
And
was
it
not
worth
the
while
,
for
the
Lord
Jesus
to
come
down
from
heaven
to
redeem
sinners
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
and
that
at
no
easier
a
rate
,
then
by
being
made
a
curse
for
them
,
when
the
Law
never
cursed
or
condemned
any
man
,
but
only
shews
who
are
damnable
in
themselves
,
if
they
should
be
judged
by
the
Law
?
From
which
way
of
judgement
,
the
Elect
are
supposed
to
be
secured
by
an
antecedent
act
of
God
.
SECT.
V.
MY
second
Argument
to
prove
,
that
the
condemnation
mentioned
,
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
There
is
a
threefold
act
of
conscience
about
sin
.
1.
When
it
witnesseth
to
us
about
the
desart
of
sin
.
2.
When
it
witnesseth
to
us
concerning
the
act
of
sin
.
3.
When
it
witnesseth
to
us
concerning
our
final
state
and
condition
before
God
.
Now
if
conscience
bear
witnesse
to
a
man
concerning
what
he
hath
done
,
and
what
is
his
desart
in
so
doing
,
it
doth
but
its
duty
.
But
if
it
tell
a
man
,
that
for
the
sins
which
he
hath
done
he
is
a
damned
creature
,
and
must
perish
everlastingly
;
such
a
conscience
is
both
penally
and
sinfully
evil
.
Rep.
The
Argument
is
wholly
untouched
.
For
the
question
is
not
,
whether
an
unbelievers
conscience
condemn
him
truly
in
reference
to
his
final
estate
:
but
whether
it
condemn
him
truly
in
reference
to
his
present
state
?
If
it
tell
him
,
that
at
present
he
is
in
a
state
of
condemnation
,
doth
it
speak
true
,
or
false
?
Herein
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
answer
me
,
but
saith
only
,
that
if
it
tell
him
his
case
is
desperate
,
and
without
hope
,
it
speaks
false
.
I
need
not
tell
Mr.
Eyre
that
his
answer
is
impertinent
:
I
am
perswaded
he
knows
it
well
enough
,
conscience
may
tell
an
unbeliever
that
he
is
condemned
(
and
herein
it
speaketh
true
)
though
it
do
not
tell
him
that
there
is
no
way
of
coming
out
of
this
state
of
condemnation
,
(
which
were
false
.
)
2.
The
two
former
answers
also
are
not
much
to
purpose
:
for
to
witnesse
concerning
the
act
and
desart
of
sin
,
is
as
proper
to
the
conscience
of
a
believer
as
of
an
unbeliever
:
whereas
our
question
is
only
concerning
the
unbelievers
conscience
.
And
if
this
be
the
whole
of
what
conscience
can
justly
charge
upon
an
unbeliever
,
then
is
the
believer
as
much
subject
to
condemnation
of
conscience
,
as
the
unbeliever
.
Upon
the
second
branch
of
the
Argument
,
there
is
nothing
I
shall
Rom.
5.
18.
As
by
the
offence
of
one
,
judgement
came
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
:
even
so
by
the
righteousnesse
of
one
,
the
free
gift
came
upon
all
men
unto
Justification
of
life
.
A
third
Argument
,
proving
,
that
the
condemnation
mentioned
,
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
Therefore
we
say
,
no
elect
unbeliever
is
condemned
of
God
,
because
the
wrath
of
God
doth
not
abide
upon
him
.
Rep.
It
is
yielded
then
,
that
the
condemnation
about
which
we
dispute
,
is
not
meerly
condemnation
in
conscience
,
which
is
as
much
as
I
ever
sought
from
the
place
:
and
that
Mr.
Eyre
knows
well
enough
.
2.
We
have
shewed
before
that
the
wrath
of
God
is
upon
every
one
that
is
an
unbeliever
at
present
,
though
it
do
not
abide
upon
any
but
final
unbelievers
.
Lastly
,
thus
I
argued
.
The
condemnation
here
spoken
of
,
is
opposed
v.
17.
Ergo
,
it
is
more
then
condemnation
in
conscience
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
the
condemnation
opposed
to
salvation
,
is
damnation
:
and
then
,
by
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
,
the
Elect
,
because
they
are
sometimes
unbelievers
,
must
all
be
damned
.
Rep.
Sure
,
Mr.
Eyre
believes
not
our
English
Proverb
.
As
good
never
a
whit
as
never
the
better
.
Salvation
is
sometimes
taken
strictly
for
an
executive
deliverance
from
wrath
,
Rom.
5.
9.
And
so
none
are
saved
in
this
life
.
Sometimes
more
largely
,
and
so
it
containes
both
that
compleat
salvation
,
and
the
beginnings
of
it
in
this
life
,
viz.
that
right
which
is
given
us
to
it
in
our
Justification
,
Luke
19.
9.
Rom.
1.
16
,
17.
and
10.
9
,
10.
He
that
beleeveth
not
,
is
under
condemnation
,
as
it
is
opposed
to
salvation
in
the
latter
sense
.
The
second
answer
is
replied
to
already
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
A
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
twelfth
Chapter
.
My
third
,
fourth
and
fifth
Argument
,
for
the
Antecedent
of
faith
to
Justification
vindicated
.
SECT.
I.
A
Third
Argument
by
which
I
proved
Justification
to
John
3.
14
,
15.
As
Moses
lifted
up
the
Serpent
in
the
wildernesse
(
supply
,
that
whosoever
looked
on
him
,
might
recover
of
the
sting
of
the
fiery
Serpent
.
See
the
story
it selfe
,
Numb.
21.
8
,
9.
)
so
must
the
Sonne
of
man
be
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
,
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
.
And
John
6.
40.
It
is
the
Will
of
God
,
that
whosoever
seeth
and
believeth
the
Sonne
,
should
be
justified
.
Mr.
Eyre
doth
utterly
deny
,
that
it
was
the
intent
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
to
shew
by
these
comparisons
,
in
what
order
or
method
we
are
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Wherein
he
fights
,
not
only
against
me
,
but
against
[
a
](A96867-e43450-b)
a
Comparamus
fidem
cum
intuitu
serpentis
aen
.
i.
Intuitus
ille
vim
medicam
in
se
non
habuit
:
sed
ut
instrumentum
&
conditio
est
à
Deo
ad
san●tatem
impetr●ndam
ordinata
Anton.
Wallaeus
.
oper.
Tom.
1.
p.
423.
all
men
that
I
can
read
upon
the
place
,
and
against
common
sense
:
which
upon
the
reading
of
the
words
,
cannot
but
apprehend
the
order
and
method
of
our
spiritual
healing
,
represented
by
that
bodily
cure
,
wrought
upon
those
that
looked
up
to
the
brazen
Serpent
.
But
it
may
be
he
intends
to
deny
Justification
to
be
included
in
the
Promise
of
not
perishing
,
but
having
eternal
life
.
Let
us
try
it
.
His
second
answer
therefore
is
,
The
stinging
of
the
fiery
Serpents
,
did
plainly
shadow
forth
the
effects
of
the
Law
in
conscience
.
Now
as
the
Israelites
when
they
were
stung
by
those
fiery
Serpents
,
found
no
ease
till
they
looked
up
unto
the
brazen
Serpent
:
so
the
soule
that
is
smitten
and
wounded
by
the
Ministry
of
the
Law
,
will
never
finde
rest
,
till
it
look
unto
him
,
in
whose
wounds
and
stripes
is
the
healing
of
sinners
.
Rep.
The
effects
of
the
Law
in
conscience
might
very
well
be
shadowed
So
must
the
Sonne
of
man
be
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
believeth
on
him
,
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
:
which
according
to
Mr.
Eyres
sense
is
this
,
That
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
,
should
not
be
disquieted
in
conscience
,
but
should
have
rest
and
ease
in
his
Spirit
.
This
indeed
,
for
the
most
part
,
doth
in
some
measure
follow
upon
our
Justification
,
(
as
no
doubt
,
but
the
Israelites
recovered
life
and
ease
together
)
.
But
to
be
delivered
from
perishing
,
and
to
have
everlasting
life
,
(
in
right
or
possession
)
is
surely
more
then
to
have
ease
from
present
anguish
of
spirit
.
Should
I
take
this
liberty
of
interpreting
Scripture
,
Mr.
Eyre
might
justly
have
been
angry
with
my
forehead
.
In
the
third
place
,
Mr.
Eyre
tells
his
Reader
,
that
this
very
comparison
As
(
saith
he
)
the
Israelites
were
alive
when
they
looked
upon
the
brazen
Serpent
(
else
they
could
not
have
seen
it
)
:
so
they
that
look
upon
Jesus
Christ
,
i
,
e.
beleeve
in
him
,
are
spiritually
alive
,
or
else
they
could
not
put
forth
such
a
vital
act
.
Rep.
But
wherein
doth
this
make
against
me
?
The
most
that
follows
from
hence
is
,
either
that
the
habit
of
faith
is
before
the
act
,
as
the
faculty
of
sight
before
the
operation
of
it
(
which
is
no
part
of
the
Question
between
Mr.
Eyre
and
me
)
or
that
a
man
is
quickened
internally
by
faith
,
before
he
is
quickened
morally
by
Justification
and
pardon
;
even
as
they
put
forth
the
vital
act
of
seeing
,
before
they
received
that
healing
which
prevented
their
approaching
death
:
which
is
the
very
thing
I
am
proving
.
2.
But
in
every
similitude
there
is
some
dissimilitude
:
and
if
Mr.
Eyre
will
instance
in
things
that
do
not
come
into
the
comparison
,
he
may
as
well
inferre
that
faith
is
an
act
of
natural
power
;
because
their
looking
to
the
brazen
Serpent
(
which
represented
faith
)
was
so
.
I
say
therefore
,
that
they
that
were
stung
with
the
fiery
Serpents
,
though
they
were
not
dead
,
as
to
the
utmost
and
last
act
of
death
,
which
consists
in
the
separation
of
the
soule
from
the
body
:
yet
they
were
dead
in
effect
,
and
as
much
as
the
nature
of
the
type
,
and
the
scope
of
the
comparison
requires
;
as
having
received
their
deaths
wound
:
which
would
soon
have
prevailed
over
the
remainders
of
their
life
,
if
it
had
not
been
prevented
by
looking
up
to
the
brazen
Serpent
.
And
therefore
of
him
that
looked
on
the
Serpent
of
brasse
,
't
is
said
that
he
lived
,
Numb.
21.
9.
That
is
,
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
he
had
ease
from
his
anguish
.
And
A
man
is
said
to
live
when
he
lives
comfortably
and
happily
.
Rep.
Which
is
neither
true
in
the
Proposition
,
nor
Reddition
of
the
comparison
.
Not
in
the
first
:
for
in
the
type
,
the
opposition
is
not
between
ease
and
paine
.
but
between
life
and
death
,
Numb.
21.
6.
The
fiery
Serpents
bit
the
people
,
and
much
people
of
Israel
died
,
and
ver.
9.
It
came
to
passe
,
that
if
a
Serpent
had
bitten
any
man
,
when
he
beheld
the
Serpent
of
brasse
he
lived
;
as
Hezekiah
is
said
to
live
,
Isa.
38.
21.
when
he
recovered
of
a
mortal
disease
:
not
only
from
the
pain
and
anguish
of
it
,
but
principally
from
the
mortality
of
it
.
Nor
in
the
second
:
for
though
life
in
Scripture
may
sometimes
signifie
a
happy
,
prosperous
and
comfortable
life
;
yet
in
our
Saviours
use
of
it
,
it
hath
not
that
sense
precisely
(
though
that
may
very
well
be
included
consequently
)
partly
,
because
the
life
obtained
by
looking
up
to
Christ
is
opposed
(
not
to
pain
and
sickness
precisely
,
but
)
to
the
death
and
destruction
of
the
whole
person
,
John
3.
15.
The
Sonne
of
man
must
be
lifted
up
,
that
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
should
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
life
;
partly
,
because
the
same
life
is
called
salvation
,
ver.
17.
God
sent
not
his
Sonne
into
the
world
to
condemn
the
world
,
but
that
the
world
through
him
should
be
saved
.
Now
though
a
man
may
be
said
to
live
,
when
he
lives
comfortably
,
yet
he
is
never
said
to
be
saved
in
Scripture
precisely
,
because
he
lives
comfortably
.
When
Paul
sayes
,
Now
we
live
,
if
ye
stand
fast
,
1
Thes.
3.
8.
I
think
he
is
to
be
understood
of
a
joyful
comfortable
life
.
But
it
had
been
very
uncouth
to
expresse
the
same
life
thus
.
Now
we
are
saved
,
if
ye
stand
fast
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
hath
a
sad
quarrel
against
me
for
reading
that
It
is
the
Will
of
God
,
that
he
that
seeth
and
beleeveth
the
Sonne
shall
be
justified
;
whereas
the
words
are
,
That
whosoever
seeth
the
Sonne
,
and
beleeveth
on
him
,
may
have
everlasting
life
.
Herein
he
saith
,
I
have
corrupted
and
falsified
the
text
.
Rep.
What
you
please
Sir
:
provided
you
take
in
all
manner
of
Commentators
as
well
as
my selfe
;
for
I
know
no
man
but
you
,
that
excludes
Justification
from
being
there
contained
in
eternal
life
.
As
when
the
Law
sayes
,
Do
this
,
and
thou
shalt
live
;
the
life
promised
includes
Justification
primarily
:
so
when
it
is
said
,
He
that
believes
shall
have
eternal
life
;
life
includes
Justification
in
like
manner
.
And
though
there
be
many
more
blessings
included
,
then
that
single
one
of
Justification
:
yet
that
only
being
to
my
purpose
,
I
thought
I
might
mention
it
only
,
without
being
guilty
o●
corrupting
or
falsifying
the
text
.
I
had
thought
also
,
the
believer
may
be
said
to
have
eternal
life
in
right
,
as
well
as
in
possession
;
as
the
Lord
speaks
a
little
below
,
ver.
47.
He
that
believeth
on
me
,
hath
everlasting
life
.
And
to
have
right
to
life
,
or
life
in
right
,
is
to
be
justified
:
and
therefore
is
our
Justification
called
Justification
of
life
,
Rom.
5.
18.
And
grace
reignes
through
reghteousnesse
unto
eternal
life
,
by
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
,
ver.
21.
SECT.
II.
THe
next
comparison
I
made
use
of
for
illustration
and
proof
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
this
is
a
mistake
like
the
former
:
for
it
is
Christ
himself
,
who
throughout
that
Chapter
is
compared
to
bread
and
food
:
whom
by
faith
we
receive
for
our
refreshment
,
consolation
and
spiritual
nourishment
.
Rep.
As
if
Justification
were
none
of
that
nourishment
which
we
receive
by
faith
,
because
Christ
himself
is
the
meat
on
whom
we
feed
!
This
answer
is
a
plain
yielding
of
the
Argument
,
unlesse
Mr.
Eyre
intend
,
that
it
is
only
comfort
and
refreshment
,
and
not
Justification
and
pardon
,
which
is
the
nourishment
we
receive
by
feeding
on
Christ
;
which
if
he
doth
intend
,
we
oppose
from
the
text
.
1.
That
Christ
invites
us
to
eat
of
his
flesh
that
we
may
live
;
not
simply
that
we
may
be
refreshed
and
comforted
;
it
s
in
vain
to
talk
of
refreshing
and
comforting
him
that
is
dead
,
ver.
33.
The
bread
of
God
giveth
life
to
the
world
,
the
very
substance
and
being
of
life
,
not
only
the
well-being
,
which
consists
in
refreshment
and
consolation
.
And
though
life
may
now
and
then
,
(
though
very
rarely
)
signifie
precisely
a
comfortable
life
,
yet
here
surely
it
signifies
more
;
as
being
opposed
to
eternal
death
,
under
which
the
world
is
supposed
to
be
till
Christ
give
them
life
,
ver.
50.
(
to
be
,
I
mean
,
in
respect
of
guilt
)
and
that
very
life
,
in
the
losse
of
which
consists
the
whole
misery
of
unbelievers
,
ver.
53.
Except
you
eat
the
flesh
of
the
Sonne
of
man
,
and
drink
his
blood
,
you
have
no
life
in
you
.
2.
And
that
Justification
or
pardon
of
sin
,
is
so
far
from
being
excluded
,
as
that
indeed
it
is
the
principal
blessing
included
in
the
life
here
promised
,
is
manifest
from
the
Lords
own
words
(
almost
the
very
same
with
those
used
throughout
this
chapter
)
in
administration
of
his
Supper
.
This
is
my
body
which
is
broken
for
you
,
(
as
Paul
hath
it
,
1
Cor.
11.
24.
)
This
is
my
blood
of
the
New
Testament
,
which
is
shed
for
many
for
the
remission
of
sins
,
Matth.
26.
28.
Ergo
,
remission
of
sins
is
that
life
which
the
flesh
and
blood
of
Christ
gives
to
the
world
.
3.
The
life
mentioned
throughout
the
chapter
,
containes
all
the
blessings
which
Christ
hath
purchased
for
believers
.
Ergo
,
it
containes
Justification
and
pardon
of
sins
,
or
else
Christ
never
purchased
that
for
them
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
Christ
purchased
not
the
act
of
pardon
,
but
that
consolation
and
refreshment
which
is
the
effect
of
it
:
we
have
already
shewed
,
that
neither
is
that
act
worthy
the
name
of
pardon
,
which
cannot
of
it self
produce
the
effects
of
pardon
:
nor
was
it
needful
,
that
where
pardon
is
,
so
great
a
price
should
be
paid
for
the
effects
of
it
.
What
can
hinder
good
things
from
us
but
sin
?
and
sin
,
if
it
be
pardoned
,
can
no
more
hinder
then
if
it
never
had
been
committed
:
that
there
would
be
no
need
for
Christ
to
die
,
to
purchase
any
good
things
for
us
,
if
he
do
not
purchase
the
very
act
of
pardon
.
4.
The
life
which
the
flesh
and
blood
of
Christ
gives
to
the
world
,
is
not
life
simply
,
but
salvation
from
perishing
;
as
appears
,
by
comparing
ver.
40.
with
John
3.
16
,
17.
therefore
surely
containes
more
then
a
life
of
comfort
and
refreshment
precisely
,
as
was
before
observed
.
5.
And
I
leave
it
with
Mr.
Eyre
to
consider
,
whether
there
be
not
some
greater
malignity
against
the
grace
of
God
,
and
salvation
by
Christ
in
his
opinion
,
then
in
the
doctrine
of
those
whom
he
opposeth
(
pretendedly
as
enemies
to
grace
,
)
when
for
the
maintaining
of
it
,
he
is
forced
to
bear
us
in
hand
,
that
God
sent
not
Christ
,
nor
did
Christ
come
to
quicken
a
dead
world
,
but
to
give
ease
to
a
sick
world
,
or
healing
to
a
wounded
world
:
not
to
give
life
to
them
that
were
dead
,
but
comfort
and
refreshment
to
them
that
were
alive
;
or
not
to
restore
them
unto
life
,
but
to
continue
and
perfect
them
in
the
life
they
had
before
,
Eph.
2.
5.
You
that
were
dead
in
sins
hath
he
quickened
;
namely
,
by
remission
,
Col.
2.
13.
If
one
died
for
all
,
then
were
all
dead
,
2
Cor.
5.
15.
Ergo
,
a
lesser
matter
then
the
death
of
Christ
wo●ld
have
served
turne
for
our
Redemption
,
if
our
death
had
been
any
thing
lesse
then
a
total
privation
of
life
:
and
the
flesh
and
blood
of
Christ
,
which
so
often
in
the
Chapter
is
said
to
give
life
to
the
world
,
is
Christ
dying
,
or
Christ
crucified
.
SECT.
III.
MY
fourth
general
Argument
,
proving
faith
to
go
before
Justification
,
Mr.
Eyre
declames
most
tragically
against
the
Proposition
,
as
no
lesse
unsound
,
then
the
worst
point
in
Popery
or
Arminianisme
.
Thus
do
wise
mens
passions
sometimes
out-run
the
Constable
:
and
so
they
may
overtake
their
adversary
,
care
not
how
many
innocent
persons
they
over-run
in
the
way
.
This
very
Proposition
which
Mr.
Eyre
disclaims
as
a
piece
of
Popery
and
Arminianism
,
have
I
received
from
as
worthy
opposers
of
both
,
as
the
world
hath
any
.
Bellarmine
arguing
against
Justification
by
faith
only
,
saith
,
That
it
did
not
please
God
to
give
Justification
upon
the
condition
of
faith
alone
.
[
b
](A96867-e44370-b)
b
Bell
enerv
.
l.
5.
c
4.
p.
3●3
.
in
12.
Dr.
Ames
answers
,
Vel
maximè
hoc
placuit
Deo
.
It
pleased
him
altogether
:
and
addes
,
Apostolus
e●iam
,
Gal.
3.
11
,
12.
clarè
testatur
,
sidem
in
Evangelio
ita
se
habere
,
ut
fac
hoc
in
lege
;
which
I
cannot
better
English
,
then
in
the
words
of
my
Proposition
denied
.
Thus
[
c
](A96867-e44420-b)
c
Com.
i●
Eph.
p.
243.
244.
Bayne
.
Look
as
in
the
Covenant
of
the
Law
,
Do
this
and
live
;
no
deed
,
no
life
:
so
in
this
Covenant
of
the
Gospel
,
wherein
the
Lord
promiseth
for
Christ
to
pardon
sin
,
to
justifie
,
to
accept
to
eternal
life
;
here
it
may
be
said
,
No
saith
,
no
portion
in
the
Pr●mises
of
God
,
in
the
grace
of
God
in
Christ
Jesus
:
for
look
,
as
plaisters
unapplied
so
is
Christ
unbelieved
.
Nay
more
,
hast
thou
not
saith
?
whiles
thus
thou
art
,
God
will
not
justifie
thee
,
nor
accept
thee
to
life
;
for
to
pronounce
thee
just
that
doest
not
beleeve
on
Christ
,
were
to
pronounce
the
guilty
innocent
,
which
is
an
abomination
with
God
.
For
hence
it
is
,
that
Gods
mercy
and
justice
kisse
(
offering
no
violence
to
each
other
)
because
God
doth
so
of
grace
save
us
,
(
sinners
in
our selves
)
that
first
he
maketh
through
Christ
applied
,
righteous
,
&c.
Thus
[
d
](A96867-e44460-b)
d
De
reco●cil
.
●ar
.
1.
l.
2
c.
1●
.
p
101.
Wotton
,
Fides
igitur
est
conditio
:
&
quidem
talis
conditio
ad
Justificationem
per
Christum
in
foedere
grat●it●
,
qualis
●rant
opera
ad
Justificationem
,
ex
operibus
legis
.
The
sense
of
which
is
altogether
the
same
with
Dr.
Ames
.
Thus
Calvin
,
[
e
](A96867-e44500-b)
e
In
Rom.
10.
8
there
quoted
.
Colligimus
,
sicut
lex
opera
exigit
,
Evangelium
nihil
aliud
postulare
nisi
ut
fidem
afferant
homines
ad
recipiendam
Dei
gratiam
.
Thus
[
f
](A96867-e44530-b)
f
Of
the
Coven●nt
part
▪
●
.
ch.
6.
p.
360.
Mr.
Bulkley
,
almost
verbatim
(
though
I
did
not
know
so
much
,
till
a
Minister
that
had
read
the
book
told
me
of
it
)
;
and
were
it
worth
the
while
,
to
transcribe
testimonies
in
so
known
a
case
;
I
could
confirme
the
same
from
the
testimonies
of
Dr.
Twisse
,
Pemble
,
Downham
,
Ball
,
Beza
,
and
I
think
all
the
Protestant
Authours
I
have
(
most
of
whose
names
are
mentioned
,
chap.
1.
)
and
that
according
to
the
constant
language
of
the
[
g
](A96867-e44590-b)
g
Vid
Gasp
.
Laurent
.
Conse●s
Ortho●
.
v●t
Art.
5.
●
.
●
.
per
●●●
.
Ancients
.
And
because
I
foresaw
that
an
adversary
might
be
ready
to
misrepresent
me
,
as
if
I
had
compared
faith
and
works
in
every
respect
,
as
the
same
for
use
and
effect
in
their
respective
Covenants
;
I
therefore
said
,
not
that
they
had
the
same
place
meerly
in
the
two
Covenants
,
but
the
same
place
and
order
,
putting
in
the
latter
word
purposely
as
an
Explication
of
the
former
,
for
preventing
that
very
mistake
which
Mr.
Eyre
is
here
run
into
:
of
which
latter
word
notwithstanding
Mr.
Eyre
takes
no
notice
in
all
he
sayes
against
me
.
My
meaning
therefore
in
the
Proposition
is
this
.
That
as
by
the
Covenant
of
works
it
was
required
that
men
should
fulfil
the
Law
,
that
they
might
be
justified
;
so
by
the
Gospel
it
is
required
,
that
men
beleeve
,
that
they
may
be
justified
:
faith
goes
before
Justification
here
,
as
works
before
it
there
.
And
this
was
plainly
enough
expressed
in
the
Argument
,
to
any
one
but
Mr.
Eyre
.
As
to
all
the
Arguments
he
hath
against
it
;
they
are
such
grosse
non-sequitur's
,
that
I
know
not
whether
it
will
be
worth
while
to
answer
them
;
yet
out
of
civility
,
I
will
take
some
notice
of
them
.
First
,
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
works
were
meritorious
of
eternal
life
:
Rep.
Very
true
,
(
though
the
former
part
about
the
meritoriousnesse
of
works
,
Mr.
Eyre
himself
contradicts
in
terminis
,
page
190.
but
that
's
common
)
and
therefore
we
compare
not
faith
and
works
in
point
of
worth
and
value
,
but
only
in
point
of
place
and
order
;
or
we
compare
them
in
the
general
nature
of
a
condition
,
(
wherein
they
agree
)
not
in
the
special
nature
,
or
in
what
is
accessory
to
either
,
wherein
they
differ
as
much
as
buying
with
money
,
Rom.
4.
4.
and
buying
without
money
,
Isa.
55.
1.
If
a
commodity
may
be
had
for
taking
or
buying
,
he
that
takes
it
hath
as
sure
a
title
as
he
that
buyes
it
;
yet
taking
is
not
buying
.
A
genere
ad
speciem
non
valet
Argumentum
affirmativè
.
Mr.
Eyre
.
2.
Works
in
the
first
Covenant
are
the
matter
of
our
Answ.
This
is
all
one
with
the
former
.
If
it
were
not
,
it
would
only
shew
another
difference
between
faith
and
works
,
notwithstanding
their
agreement
in
point
of
place
and
order
,
and
in
the
geneneral
nature
of
a
condition
in
their
respective
Covenants
.
Works
were
such
a
condition
,
as
that
withal
they
were
that
very
righteousnesse
for
which
a
person
was
justified
:
but
faith
is
the
condition
of
our
being
justified
by
the
righteousnesse
of
a
Mediatour
.
Mr.
Eyre
.
3.
If
faith
hath
the
same
place
in
the
second
Covenant
,
as
works
in
the
first
,
then
must
God
account
saith
to
be
perfect
righteousnesse
,
which
is
contrary
to
his
truth
and
justice
.
Ans.
I
deny
the
consequence
.
What
manner
of
Readers
did
Mr.
Eyre
promise
himself
,
when
he
puts
down
such
sayings
as
these
,
without
one
word
or
pretence
of
proof
?
that
which
made
works
man's
perfect
righteousnesse
,
was
not
the
place
and
order
which
they
had
by
the
Covenant
to
his
Justification
:
but
their
own
essential
natural
perfection
,
as
being
a
punctual
and
exact
conformity
to
the
rule
of
his
Creation
:
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
that
rule
of
Divinity
,
which
by
Creation
was
implanted
in
the
frame
of
mans
nature
.
That
it
was
the
condition
of
his
Justification
,
was
ex
accidenti
;
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
,
promising
a
reward
of
life
upon
the
doing
of
such
works
.
May
not
therefore
faith
have
the
same
place
and
order
,
that
is
,
be
in
like
manner
the
condition
of
the
Justification
of
a
sinner
,
because
it
is
not
mans
natural
perfect
righteousnesse
?
Titius
will
let
Sempronius
have
a
farme
,
if
he
will
give
him
to
the
worth
of
it
:
He
lets
Maeveus
have
another
,
if
he
will
ask
him
for
it
.
Here
,
asking
is
the
condition
:
there
,
the
payment
of
the
full
price
:
both
have
the
same
place
and
order
to
the
obtaining
of
the
farme
:
yet
surely
begging
is
not
the
payment
of
the
full
price
.
Mr.
Eyre
.
4.
Then
is
the
second
Covenant
a
Covenant
of
works
:
Answ.
1.
We
have
already
shewed
at
large
,
that
the
grace
or
act
of
faith
,
is
perpetually
opposed
to
works
in
Scripture-language
.
2.
However
this
Argument
is
inconsequent
;
for
it
will
by
no
means
follow
,
that
if
faith
have
the
same
place
and
order
in
the
New
Covenant
,
as
works
in
the
old
,
then
the
New
Covenant
is
a
Covenant
of
works
.
Suppose
God
had
made
the
world
a
promise
of
pardon
,
upon
the
condition
of
the
existence
of
some
contingent
event
,
v.
g.
That
if
Paul
be
converted
within
seven
years
after
Christs
Ascension
,
all
the
world
shall
be
justified
.
Pauls
conversion
in
this
case
,
would
have
the
very
same
place
and
order
to
the
Justification
of
the
world
,
as
workes
had
in
the
old
Covenant
(
though
it
be
not
a
condition
of
the
same
nature
and
quality
)
yet
surely
this
latter
promise
could
not
therefore
be
proved
to
be
a
Covenant
of
workes
.
M.
Eyre
.
5.
This
assertion
makes
faith
to
be
not
of
grace
,
because
not
from
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
seeing
the
Covenant
it self
depends
on
it
.
Ans.
1.
This
assertion
supposeth
that
nothing
can
be
of
grace
,
which
is
not
by
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
Was
not
the
Covenant
it self
of
grace
?
2.
Of
the
dependance
of
faith
upon
the
Covenant
,
&
of
the
Covenant
upon
faith
,
we
dispute
purposely
below
.
Here
we
speak
only
of
one
blessing
of
the
Covenant
,
namely
justification
.
And
as
soon
as
ever
Mr.
Eyre
hath
proved
that
faith
cannot
be
given
us
of
grace
,
if
it
be
the
condition
of
justification
;
I
will
write
a
book
of
retractations
as
long
as
Augustines
,
if
I
live
to
it
.
In
the
mean
time
he
deals
not
like
a
disputant
to
charge
such
a
consequence
upon
us
,
and
never
go
about
to
prove
it
.
And
whereas
he
suggests
to
his
reader
that
my
proposition
is
contrary
to
all
Protestants
,
't
is
a
vaine
and
empty
flourish
(
to
speak
the
best
of
it
.
)
He
that
hath
any
acquaintance
in
their
writings
,
cannot
but
know
it
to
be
so
.
Of
all
Protestants
Mr.
Eyre
quotes
two
in
his
margine
,
Calvin
and
Pemble
,
of
which
the
former
in
that
very
[
h
](A96867-e45170-b)
h
Instit.
l.
3
c.
●
.
sect.
2.
place
which
Mr.
Eyre
refers
to
,
speaks
as
plainly
to
the
overthrow
of
what
he
is
brought
to
prove
,
as
can
be
.
Nam
quum
dicit
Apostolus
,
&c.
For
when
the
Apostle
saies
,
with
the
heart
man
beleeveth
unto
righteousnesse
,
and
with
the
mouth
confession
is
made
unto
salvation
:
he
shews
that
it
is
not
enough
,
if
a
man
beleeve
implicitly
what
he
understands
n●t
,
nor
makes
any
search
into
:
sed
explicitam
requirit
divinae
b●nitatis
agnitionem
,
in
quâ
consistit
nostra
justitia
:
but
he
requires
an
explicit
ackn●wl●●gement
of
the
divine
goodnesse
,
in
which
consists
our
righteousness●
.
This
is
somewhat
more
then
is
any
where
said
in
my
Sermon
.
P●mbl●
also
is
as
expresly
against
him
,
as
(
I
think
)
is
possible
:
and
that
very
frequently
.
I
shall
transcribe
but
[
i
](A96867-e45220-b)
i
Of
just●●
.
sect.
4.
c.
1.
p
:
1.
7
●
.
one
place
of
multitudes
.
From
hence
(
saith
he
)
we
conclude
firmly
,
that
the
difference
between
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
,
assigned
by
our
Divines
is
most
certaine
and
agreeable
to
Scriptures
.
viz.
That
the
Law
gives
life
unto
the
just
upon
condition
of
perfect
obedience
in
all
things
:
the
Gospel
gives
life
unto
s●nners
,
upon
condition
they
repent
and
believe
in
Christ
Jesus
.
Mr.
Eyr●
the
▪
is
out
,
or
Mr.
Pemble
,
when
the
one
sayes
this
is
the
judgement
of
our
Divines
:
and
the
other
sayes
it
treads
Antipodes
to
the
current
of
all
our
Protestant
writers
.
SECT.
IV.
THe
proposition
,
namely
that
faith
hath
the
same
place
,
and
order
do
this
and
live
by
the
consent
of
all
people
and
Nations
,
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
will
undeniably
evince
that
works
were
necessary
Antecedents
of
justification
in
that
covenant
:
why
then
should
not
,
Beleeve
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
(
which
is
the
tenour
of
the
New
Covenant
,
Rom.
10.
6
,
9.
)
plead
as
strongly
for
the
like
necessity
of
the
Antecedency
of
faith
to
justification
in
this
Covenant
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
That
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
is
not
the
tenor
of
the
new
Covenant
,
for
.
1.
It
's
no
where
called
so
.
2.
In
Jer.
31.
and
Heb.
8.
The
new
Covenant
runs
quite
in
another
straine
.
That
Text
,
Rom.
10.
6
,
9.
is
not
the
tenour
of
the
new
Covenant
,
for
that
requires
confession
as
well
as
faith
.
The
Apostle
there
describes
the
persons
that
shall
be
saved
,
they
are
such
as
do
beleeve
and
professe
the
truth
.
His
scope
is
to
resolve
that
question
,
how
a
man
may
know
that
he
shall
be
saved
?
&c.
Rep.
The
stresse
of
the
Argument
lies
not
at
all
on
this
,
that
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
is
the
tenor
of
the
new
Covenant
,
as
Mr.
Eyre
supposeth
,
(
I
think
)
that
he
may
the
more
colourably
wave
an
answer
.
If
I
had
left
out
the
word
Covenant
in
the
Argument
and
proofe
of
it
,
yet
had
the
Argument
been
the
same
as
to
its
principall
intent
.
Do
this
and
live
,
by
the
consent
of
all
the
world
proves
undeniably
,
that
works
were
to
go
before
justification
,
according
to
the
purport
of
that
saying
.
Ergo
,
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
will
as
necessarily
inferre
that
faith
is
to
go
before
justification
:
though
we
do
not
at
all
dispute
,
whether
that
were
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
workes
,
or
this
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
Now
judge
(
Reader
)
what
weight
there
is
in
Mr.
Eyre's
answer
.
The
tenor
of
the
new
Covenant
(
saith
he
)
is
not
,
Beleeve
and
th●u
shalt
be
saved
.
Suppose
it
:
yet
is
it
that
which
the
Apostles
preached
.
v.
8.
and
one
would
think
should
be
as
plaine
to
prove
the
antecedency
of
faith
,
as
the
other
of
workes
to
justi●●cation
.
2.
And
that
this
is
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
appears
,
1.
That
which
the
Apostle
calleth
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
the
Law
.
v.
5.
is
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
workes
.
Erg●
,
that
which
he
calls
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
.
v.
6.
is
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
that
is
this
:
If
thou
shalt
confesse
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
shall
believe
in
thy
heart
,
that
God
hath
raised
him
from
the
dead
;
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
v.
9.
2.
The
doctrine
whereof
the
Apostles
were
the
special
Ministers
,
is
the
tenor
of
the
new
Covenant
.
2
Cor.
3.
6.
But
,
B●leeve
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
is
the
doctrine
whereof
the
Apostles
were
special
Ministers
.
&c.
Rom.
10.
8
,
9.
The
word
of
faith
which
we
preach
,
that
if
thou
shalt
believe
and
confesse
.
&c.
This
it
seems
is
the
summe
of
what
the
Apostles
preached
:
and
that
according
to
the
commission
and
call
they
had
received
from
God
.
v.
14.
And
that
faith
and
repentance
and
salvation
thereupon
,
was
the
summe
of
the
Apostles
Ministry
,
appears
also
from
other
Texts
of
Scripture
,
Act.
20.
21.
Luk.
24.
47.
Heb.
6.
1.
&c.
3.
The
Gospel
and
the
Covenant
of
grace
is
all
one
.
But
this
is
the
summe
of
the
Gospel
,
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
Mark
.
16.
15
,
16.
Go
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
,
He
that
beleeveth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
.
4.
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
are
words
that
have
the
forme
of
a
Covenant
.
Ergo
,
they
are
either
the
Covenant
of
the
Law
,
or
of
grace
,
or
some
third
Covenant
.
Not
the
Covenant
of
the
Law
:
for
the
Apostle
expresly
opposeth
them
against
that
Covenant
,
Rom.
10.
5
,
6.
a
third
Covenant
they
cannot
be
.
Ergo
,
they
are
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
Let
us
now
see
upon
what
grounds
Mr.
Eyre
denies
these
words
,
Saith
he
,
they
are
no
where
called
so
.
Ans.
Nor
doth
the
name
of
the
Covenant
of
workes
appeare
in
Scripture
(
nor
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
neither
)
is
it
therefore
a
sufficient
ground
to
deny
that
do
this
and
live
is
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
of
workes
?
2.
If
it
be
not
called
by
the
name
of
the
Covenant
,
yet
is
it
called
by
names
of
equipollent
signification
:
as
when
it
is
called
the
Gospel
,
the
word
of
faith
,
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
the
Law
of
faith
,
Rom.
3.
27.
the
Law
of
righteousnesse
,
9.
31.
the
promise
,
Heb.
4.
1.
Gal.
3.
22.
3.
But
neither
is
the
name
wanting
.
Gal.
3.
15
,
16
,
17.
If
it
be
but
a
mans
Covenant
,
no
man
disannulleth
or
addeth
thereto
.
Now
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
were
the
promises
made
—
And
the
Covenant
that
was
confirmed
before
of
God
in
Christ
,
&c.
Compare
these
expressions
with
,
v.
22.
[
But
the
Scripture
hath
concluded
all
under
sin
,
that
the
promise
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
might
be
given
to
them
that
believe
,
And
v.
14.
[
That
the
blessing
of
Abraham
might
come
on
the
Gentiles
through
Jesus
Christ
,
that
we
might
receive
the
promise
of
the
spirit
through
faith
:
]
And
v.
9.
[
So
then
,
they
which
be
of
faith
,
are
blessed
with
faithfull
Abraham
.
]
Hence
the
Argument
is
.
The
promise
of
blessednesse
through
faith
,
is
the
summe
and
substance
of
the
new
Covenant
.
Beleeve
in
the
Lord
Jesus
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
is
the
promise
of
blessednesse
through
faith
.
Ergo
,
it
is
the
summe
and
substance
of
the
new
Covenant
,
or
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
(
These
two
tearms
I
use
as
of
the
same
import
,
to
expresse
that
Covenant
which
is
opposed
to
the
Covenant
of
workes
strictly
so
called
.
)
The
Minor
is
past
denyall
.
The
Major
stands
upon
this
foundation
.
That
the
same
inheritance
and
blessing
which
was
given
by
promise
to
beleeving
Abraham
(
which
promise
is
called
the
Covenant
)
is
now
proposed
to
all
the
world
,
(
Gentiles
as
well
as
Jews
)
to
be
obtained
by
the
same
faith
that
Abraham
had
,
and
given
to
them
when
they
believe
.
As
to
Mr.
Eyres
second
Argument
,
that
when
the
new
Covenant
is
mentioned
,
Jer.
31.
and
Heb.
8.
it
runs
quite
in
another
straine
:
I
must
desire
thee
(
Reader
)
to
have
pati●nce
till
thou
come
to
the
particular
debate
of
those
Texts
which
thou
shalt
meet
with
below
:
wherein
thou
shalt
see
it
fully
proved
,
that
there
is
nothing
spoken
in
them
,
but
what
doth
confirme
the
truth
of
that
which
I
here
assert
.
I
referre
thee
thither
purposely
,
that
I
may
forbeare
tautologies
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
hath
a
speciall
reason
,
why
this
Covenant
,
Rom.
10.
Rep.
The
Apostle
answers
this
fully
,
v.
10.
With
the
heart
man
beleeveth
unto
righteousnesse
:
and
with
the
mouth
confession
is
made
unto
salvation
.
Hence
it
is
manifest
,
that
faith
,
and
faith
only
,
is
requisite
to
justification
:
but
confession
also
is
required
of
them
that
are
justified
,
unto
salvation
,
according
to
what
our
Lord
himself
speaks
;
whosoever
shall
confesse
me
before
men
,
him
will
I
also
▪
confesse
before
my
Father
:
but
whosoever
shall
deny
me
before
men
,
him
will
I
also
deny
before
my
Father
,
Matth.
10.
32
,
33.
Luk.
12.
8.
Indeed
our
compleat
and
final
justification
at
the
day
of
judgement
,
is
no
small
part
of
our
salvation
:
but
the
Apostle
here
distinguishing
justification
as
a
thing
going
before
,
from
salvation
as
a
thing
following
after
,
teacheth
us
to
understand
him
of
our
initial
justification
,
or
of
the
first
right
to
the
inheritance
of
life
,
which
by
the
promise
is
given
a
man
as
soone
as
he
believes
;
which
yet
is
to
be
understood
,
not
as
if
confession
were
of
as
universal
and
absolute
necessity
to
salvation
,
as
faith
it self
(
for
if
a
man
believe
in
the
very
last
moment
of
his
life
,
when
he
hath
neither
opportunity
,
nor
ability
of
body
to
make
confession
,
he
shall
be
saved
notwithstanding
)
but
that
it
is
[
k
](A96867-e46020-b)
k
Vid.
Am●s
.
Cas.
Con.
l.
4
c.
3.
q.
2.
necessary
in
its
time
and
place
:
but
faith
only
absolutely
,
universally
and
indispensably
necessary
:
as
the
Apostle
also
intimates
in
his
proofe
subjoyned
,
v.
11.
mentioning
faith
without
confession
,
whosoever
beleeveth
on
him
shall
not
be
ashamed
.
Even
as
our
[
l
](A96867-e46050-b)
l
Cha●
.
p●nstrat
.
de
Baptis
.
l.
5.
c
9
§.
3.
&
Spanh●●
.
dub
.
evang.
part.
3.
dub.
96.
pag.
493
,
494.
Protestants
argue
against
the
Papists
:
that
though
it
be
said
,
Mark
.
16.
He
that
beleeveth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
;
yet
is
not
Baptisme
hereby
made
as
necessary
to
salvation
as
faith
it self
:
because
it
is
not
mentioned
in
the
negative
proposition
presently
added
:
He
that
beleeveth
not
shall
be
damned
.
Not
,
he
that
is
not
baptized
shall
be
damned
.
Nor
finally
,
is
confession
required
as
by
it self
,
and
in
coordination
with
faith
,
but
as
in
subordination
thereunto
;
being
indeed
the
natural
effect
thereof
,
and
that
wherein
the
truth
and
life
of
faith
doth
exert
it self
.
To
what
is
added
,
that
the
Apostles
scope
is
to
answer
that
question
,
[
m
](A96867-e46110-b)
m
Sound
beleev
.
p.
230.
Mr.
Eyre
referres
to
,
out
of
this
very
Text
,
that
we
are
not
justified
before
we
beleeve
.
Yet
is
it
most
true
,
that
a
man
may
come
by
faith
to
know
that
he
shall
be
saved
:
and
the
ground
of
it
is
,
because
faith
is
appointed
of
God
to
be
medium
fruitionis
,
a
means
of
obtaining
salvation
;
and
therefore
cannot
be
denied
to
be
medium
cognitionis
,
a
means
by
which
a
man
may
know
that
he
shall
be
saved
.
Even
as
the
same
Law
which
made
workes
the
means
of
life
,
do
this
and
live
,
if
a
man
had
kept
it
,
would
have
also
bred
the
assurance
and
knowledge
that
he
should
have
lived
.
But
,
1.
As
it
is
not
the
knowledge
of
life
simply
,
but
life
it self
which
is
promised
in
those
words
(
for
it
were
too
grosse
to
paraphrase
them
thus
,
do
this
,
and
thou
shalt
thereby
know
that
thou
shalt
live
)
so
it
is
not
simply
the
knowledge
of
justification
and
salvation
,
but
salvation
it self
which
is
promised
in
these
,
beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
The
righteousnesse
which
is
of
the
Law
sayes
thus
,
do
this
and
live
,
v.
5.
But
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
sayes
this
,
if
thou
beleeve
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
v.
6
,
8
,
9.
What
can
be
more
plaine
?
2.
When
it
is
said
,
v.
10.
with
the
heart
man
beleeveth
unto
righteousnesse
,
and
with
the
mout●
conf●ssion
is
made
unto
salvation
:
must
we
read
it
thus
?
with
the
heart
man
believeth
unto
the
knowledge
of
righteousnesse
:
and
with
the
mouth
confession
is
made
unto
the
knowledge
of
salvation
.
What
will
become
of
the
Scriptures
,
if
men
may
interpret
them
after
this
rate
?
3.
And
here
(
to
see
how
it
falls
out
)
Mr.
Eyre
is
forced
to
contend
,
that
the
Apostle
mentioneth
faith
as
that
which
evidenceth
justification
as
a
mark
or
character
:
which
way
of
evidencing
he
could
by
no
means
approve
of
,
when
I
urged
it
,
p.
77.
§.
3.
and
4.
of
his
book
.
4.
If
thou
beleeve
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
That
these
words
propound
[
n
](A96867-e46250-b)
n
chap.
●
sect.
1.
before
by
several
Arguments
.
And
according
to
my
promise
there
,
I
shall
adde
something
here
,
that
if
it
be
possible
Mr.
Eyre
may
suspect
the
truth
of
that
notion
which
he
cannot
defend
,
but
by
turning
the
Scriptures
into
a
nose
of
wax
.
And
1.
I
say
,
that
if
the
foresaid
words
do
only
describe
the
persons
that
shall
be
saved
,
then
are
they
here
used
otherwise
then
the
like
words
or
manner
of
speech
is
used
any
where
else
in
Scripture
.
Mr.
Eyre
hath
not
yet
produced
us
one
place
,
where
such
phrase
of
speech
is
a
bare
description
of
a
person
(
at
least
,
unlesse
we
will
take
his
bare
word
that
so
it
is
meant
:
)
And
though
it
be
hard
to
be
peremptory
in
such
a
nicety
,
and
deny
universally
that
there
is
any
example
in
Scripture
of
such
phrase
of
speech
used
in
such
a
sense
;
yet
upon
the
most
diligent
and
critical
observation
which
I
have
made
on
purpose
to
discover
it
,
I
can
find
none
,
neither
in
the
Old
nor
New-Testament
,
and
therefore
shall
deny
it
,
till
Mr.
Eyre
,
not
only
say
it
,
but
prove
it
.
For
if
the
foresaid
words
,
If
thou
beleeve
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
do
only
describe
what
manner
of
persons
they
are
that
shall
be
saved
:
then
do
they
not
suspend
salvation
upon
the
act
of
beleeving
,
but
their
meaning
is
this
,
If
thou
be
one
of
those
who
be
or
shall
be
believers
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
Shew
us
the
like
in
all
the
Scriptures
.
And
hence
,
2.
It
follows
,
that
these
words
do
not
present
believers
as
such
(
reduplicativè
)
as
the
objects
of
salvation
:
but
only
Specificativè
,
the
men
that
are
believers
;
but
under
some
other
respect
and
notion
.
For
example
,
Peter
gives
a
legacy
to
Simon
the
Tanner
that
lives
in
Joppa
by
the
sea
side
.
The
messenger
that
carries
the
legacy
knows
not
the
man
,
but
tells
him
,
if
he
be
the
Tanner
of
Joppa
,
this
legacy
is
his
.
Which
words
do
not
indeed
propound
the
condition
,
but
the
description
of
the
Legatee
from
his
place
and
profession
:
and
the
legacy
is
not
given
him
in
respect
of
either
of
these
circumstances
,
but
immediately
as
the
person
whom
these
circumstances
describe
,
or
it
is
not
given
the
man
Quatenus
he
is
a
Tanner
;
but
it
is
given
the
Tanner
Quatenus
he
is
the
man
whom
Peter
meant
in
his
will
.
In
like
manner
,
when
it
is
said
,
if
thou
beleeve
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
if
the
meaning
be
this
;
if
thou
be
one
of
them
that
do
or
shall
believe
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
;
then
salvation
pertaines
not
to
men
as
believers
,
but
to
believers
as
men
,
under
some
other
notion
and
capacity
.
And
that
must
be
either
.
1.
As
they
are
men
simply
,
or
,
2.
As
they
are
sinful
men
,
or
finally
(
which
I
suppose
Mr.
Eyre
will
say
:
for
to
affirme
either
of
the
former
were
intolerably
absurd
)
as
they
are
elect
.
And
so
the
issue
will
be
this
:
believers
Quatenus
they
are
elect
(
Specificativè
)
are
the
objects
of
salvation
.
Now
see
(
Reader
)
what
this
will
come
to
at
the
long
runne
.
1.
Hereby
is
faith
devested
of
all
necessity
,
and
usefulnesse
in
order
to
salvation
,
farther
then
it
is
a
mark
or
s●gne
(
as
all
other
saving
graces
are
)
of
a
man
that
shall
be
saved
.
Even
as
the
profession
and
place
of
the
Tanner
forementioned
contributed
nothing
to
his
obtaining
of
Peters
legacy
:
it
served
only
to
describe
the
person
to
whom
it
was
given
.
And
is
this
that
precious
faith
,
2
Pet.
1.
1.
more
precious
then
gold
,
1
Pet.
1.
7.
the
Christians
riches
,
Jam.
2.
5.
by
which
he
obtaines
and
inherits
promises
,
Heb.
11.
33.
&
6.
12.
righteousnesse
,
Heb.
11.
7.
salvation
,
Eph.
2.
8.
and
all
good
things
whatsoever
,
2
Pet.
1.
3.
so
highly
every
where
commended
in
Scripture
,
and
urged
upon
such
tearms
of
necessity
?
How
can
we
be
said
to
obtaine
promises
,
righteousnesse
,
and
salvation
by
faith
,
if
faith
serve
only
to
describe
the
person
?
It
may
be
this
new
divinity
will
shortly
produce
a
new
Rhetorick
:
and
that
is
no
more
then
needs
.
2.
If
the
elect
had
been
described
by
their
names
,
parents
,
time
and
place
of
their
birth
and
habitation
,
they
might
be
said
to
obtaine
promises
,
righteousnesse
,
salvation
by
these
as
well
as
by
saith
,
if
there
be
no
other
necessity
of
faith
to
righteousnesse
and
salvation
,
then
as
it
is
a
description
of
the
persons
that
shall
be
saved
.
3.
And
according
to
this
glosse
,
there
can
be
no
ground
of
exhorting
,
beseeching
,
and
commanding
sinners
to
believe
on
and
accept
of
a
Saviour
:
no
more
then
of
exhorting
,
or
commanding
them
to
be
elected
;
as
we
have
demonstrated
in
the
place
before
mentioned
.
4.
Nor
have
the
words
according
to
the
same
glosse
,
the
forme
and
nature
of
a
promise
,
but
of
a
meer
conne●e
Axi
me
,
affirming
the
consequent
upon
supposition
of
the
Antecedent
.
For
,
if
thou
beleeve
,
that
is
,
if
thou
be
such
a
one
as
art
or
shalt
be
a
believer
,
is
but
a
periphrasis
of
election
unto
faith
:
for
the
down
right
meaning
,
without
circumlocutions
is
this
.
If
thou
be
one
of
those
whom
God
from
eternity
purposed
to
make
a
believer
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
And
why
?
not
because
of
the
Promise
by
which
God
hath
obliged
himself
to
give
salvation
upon
their
believing
,
who
before
had
no
right
to
it
,
(
that
will
infer
a
conditional
Promise
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
abhors
)
but
because
he
that
purposed
the
one
,
purposed
the
other
also
:
and
this
he
commanded
to
be
declared
and
published
to
the
world
.
And
I
say
in
like
manner
;
If
the
Sun
rise
,
we
shall
have
light
upon
the
earth
:
and
if
God
make
stones
the
children
of
Abraham
,
they
shall
be
able
to
speak
.
But
we
know
from
the
Scriptures
,
that
the
inheritance
of
life
and
salvation
is
given
by
Promise
,
Gal.
3.
18.
Rom.
4.
13
,
16
,
20.
Heb.
6.
13
,
15.
5.
And
we
know
from
the
same
Scriptures
,
that
righteousnesse
and
salvation
is
not
given
to
believers
quatenus
they
are
elect
,
but
rather
to
the
elect
quatenus
they
are
believers
:
that
is
,
they
are
not
only
given
to
the
men
that
are
believers
,
but
given
to
them
as
they
are
believers
.
It
was
Abrahams
faith
that
was
imputed
to
him
unto
righteousnesse
,
Rom.
4.
3.
and
the
Promise
was
to
him
and
to
his
seed
through
faith
,
ver.
16.
Rom.
3.
22.
The
righteousnesse
of
God
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
unto
all
,
and
upon
all
them
that
beleeve
;
where
we
have
distinctly
set
down
the
righteousnesse
which
justifies
us
.
The
persons
justified
,
They
that
believe
.
The
means
or
condition
of
their
Justification
,
By
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
.
The
same
distinction
is
accurately
observed
,
Gal.
3.
22.
That
the
Promise
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
might
be
given
to
them
that
beleeve
.
The
Promise
is
that
of
salvation
and
blessednesse
.
Compare
,
ver.
6.
9
,
18.
Here
then
we
have
again
the
persons
to
whom
the
Promise
is
given
,
namely
,
believers
;
the
condition
or
meanes
,
by
faith
.
To
teach
us
,
that
the
Promise
of
life
and
salvation
is
not
only
given
to
men
that
are
believers
,
but
given
to
them
as
believers
.
Righteousnesse
,
not
only
upon
them
that
are
faithful
,
but
righteousnesse
by
faith
:
a
Promise
not
only
to
them
that
do
beleeve
,
but
a
Promise
by
believing
.
6.
If
thou
beleeve
,
th●●
sh●lt
be
saved
:
or
,
Beleeve
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
Life
and
salvation
is
here
promised
as
the
reward
of
faith
:
a
reward
,
I
mean
,
not
properly
,
but
metaphorically
,
as
the
word
is
used
in
Scripture
often
,
not
for
a
reward
of
debt
,
but
for
a
reward
of
grace
.
Now
I
would
ask
,
why
it
is
called
a
reward
?
Mr.
Eyre
will
tell
me
,
because
it
follows
faith
.
Be
it
so
,
(
though
I
think
there
is
much
more
in
it
.
)
But
faith
may
be
con●dered
,
either
as
an
act
required
of
us
,
or
as
the
work
of
God
in
●s
.
Now
I
would
know
,
whether
life
and
salvation
be
the
reward
of
faith
as
it
is
our
act
,
or
as
it
is
Gods
work
?
If
the
former
,
(
as
most
certain
,
)
then
Mr.
Eyre
must
quit
his
beloved
glosse
:
for
if
salvation
by
the
Promise
,
be
made
consequent
to
faith
,
as
an
act
required
of
us
,
and
performed
by
us
,
then
faith
is
the
condition
upon
which
we
are
entitled
to
salvation
by
the
same
Promise
:
and
so
salvation
pertaines
to
us
as
believers
formaliter
,
and
not
only
as
to
the
men
,
whose
property
and
priviledge
it
is
to
be
believers
sooner
or
later
.
If
the
second
be
said
,
namely
,
that
salvation
follows
faith
,
and
so
is
the
reward
thereof
,
as
it
is
the
work
of
God
in
us
,
then
God
rewards
himself
,
he
doth
not
reward
us
.
Even
as
if
I
should
call
Gods
preserving
the
world
the
reward
of
his
creating
it
;
or
the
destruction
of
the
world
the
reward
of
his
preserving
it
:
or
his
glorisying
our
bodies
,
the
reward
of
his
raising
them
out
of
their
graves
:
or
his
calling
us
unto
faith
the
reward
of
his
predestinating
us
:
for
each
of
these
actions
is
consequent
to
the
foregoing
.
And
yet
I
doubt
not
,
but
if
a
man
should
talk
after
this
rate
,
he
would
be
accounted
to
utter
strange
kinde
of
tropes
.
7.
Mr.
Eyre
may
do
well
to
remember
that
he
hath
yet
given
me
no
similitude
of
Answer
to
the
main
Argument
.
When
the
Law
sayes
,
Do
this
and
live
:
or
,
If
thou
do
this
,
thou
shalt
live
:
or
,
He
that
doth
these
things
shall
live
:
all
the
world
●cknowledgeth
,
(
and
Mr.
Eyre
dares
not
deny
it
)
that
the
words
do
not
only
describe
the
person
,
but
propound
the
condition
of
life
.
When
then
the
Gospel
sayes
,
Beleeve
and
thou
shalt
b●●saved
:
or
,
If
thou
beleeve
thou
shalt
be
saved
:
or
,
He
that
believes
shall
be
saved
;
wherein
doth
this
forme
of
words
oppose
the
other
,
that
these
must
be
interpreted
as
a
description
of
the
person
rather
then
the
other
?
8.
To
conclude
,
Mr.
Eyre
by
this
glosse
hath
discovered
the
nakednesse
of
those
two
Reasons
he
gave
,
why
the
Apostle
here
did
not
describe
the
tenour
of
the
New
Covenant
,
viz.
Because
he
requires
confession
as
well
as
faith
:
and
when
the
New
Covenant
is
described
,
J●r.
31.
and
Heb.
8.
it
runs
quite
in
another
straine
,
whereas
if
,
when
the
Apostle
sayes
,
If
thou
beleeve
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
his
meaning
be
this
,
If
thou
be
a
person
that
doest
or
shalt
beleeve
,
thou
art
also
a
person
that
shalt
be
saved
:
or
in
short
,
if
his
meaning
be
only
to
describe
the
person
that
shall
be
saved
,
what
manner
of
man
he
is
;
I
suppose
Mr.
Eyre
himself
will
grant
,
that
there
is
no
straine
in
the
New
Covenant
,
wheresoever
described
,
that
will
exclude
the
necessity
of
faith
and
confession
,
if
this
be
the
whole
use
of
them
.
And
therefore
this
may
be
the
tenour
of
the
New
Covenant
,
notwithstanding
any
thing
that
is
in
either
or
both
those
Reasons
to
the
contrary
.
My
next
Argument
to
prove
,
that
faith
hath
the
same
order
to
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
faith
is
put
objectively
for
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
.
Rep.
[
o
](A96867-e46950-b)
o
Chap.
●
sect.
3.
Which
we
have
shewed
before
,
doth
involve
the
Apostle
in
the
guilt
of
such
intolerable
non-sense
and
self-contradiction
,
that
I
shall
need
adde
no
more
now
.
If
the
Arguments
there
advanced
do
not
firmly
prove
,
that
faith
is
to
be
taken
properly
,
not
objectively
,
for
Christ
or
his
righteousnesse
;
I
am
content
to
come
to
the
penance
of
a
publike
recantation
of
all
I
have
written
.
SECT.
V.
MY
fifth
and
last
Argument
for
the
antecedency
of
faith
to
Justification
,
Cor.
6.
11.
Such
were
some
of
you
;
but
you
are
washed
,
but
you
are
sanctified
,
but
you
are
justified
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
&c.
where
there
is
an
evident
opposition
between
the
time
past
and
present
,
in
respect
of
their
Justification
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
That
the
Apostle
sayes
,
In
times
past
they
were
unsanctified
:
He
doth
not
say
they
were
unjustified
before
Conversion
.
Rep.
The
Apostle
says
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
in
so
many
words
:
but
if
that
which
he
doth
say
,
will
not
infer
that
they
were
unjustified
,
as
well
as
unsanctified
,
before
the
time
he
speaks
of
,
what
can
be
thought
of
the
Scriptures
,
but
that
they
are
a
sealed
book
,
which
no
man
can
open
?
Compare
the
ninth
verse
with
this
Know
you
not
that
the
unrighteous
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
God
?
—
And
such
were
some
of
you
,
but
ye
are
justified
.
The
Apostle
in
the
same
verse
,
having
mentioned
fornicatours
,
idolaters
,
&c.
addes
,
And
such
were
s●me
of
you
,
but
you
are
sanctified
.
I
appeal
to
common
sense
,
whether
the
former
word
will
not
as
forcibly
infer
that
they
were
unjusti●●ed
in
times
past
;
as
these
latter
,
that
they
were
unsancti●ied
in
times
past
?
But
the
matter
is
too
clear
to
be
disputed
,
that
in
their
unconverted
estate
,
there
was
a
barre
against
their
entrance
into
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
which
was
now
removed
in
their
Justification
.
Ergo
,
They
were
before
unjustified
.
Hence
2.
I
argue
thus
.
He
that
in
the
condition
he
is
in
,
cannot
enter
into
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
he
in
that
condition
is
not
justified
.
These
Corinthians
,
in
the
condition
they
were
in
before
their
Conversion
,
could
not
enter
into
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
Ergo
,
These
Corinthians
in
their
unconverted
condition
were
not
justified
.
The
Assumption
is
the
words
of
the
text
,
No
unrighteous
can
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
—
And
such
were
some
of
you
.
The
Proposition
stands
upon
this
ground
,
That
he
that
is
justified
is
an
heire
of
the
Kingdome
:
and
therefore
it
is
so
far
from
being
impossible
,
that
being
justified
he
should
inherit
the
Kingdome
,
as
that
he
cannot
be
excluded
from
it
without
being
disinherited
,
Tit.
3.
7.
That
being
justified
by
his
grace
,
we
should
be
made
heires
,
according
to
the
hope
of
eternal
life
.
Compare
Gal.
3.
26
,
29.
Rom.
8.
30.
and
5.
17
,
18
,
21.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyre
tells
us
.
2.
That
if
any
man
will
strain
strain
it
?
)
then
he
will
owne
his
former
answer
,
That
they
were
not
justified
before
conversion
in
foro
conscientiae
,
or
,
in
foro
Ecclesiastico
.
Rep.
1.
Which
he
doth
well
to
professe
not
to
maintain
,
but
upon
supposition
of
the
foresaid
inference
;
for
if
Justification
here
be
meant
,
that
which
is
in
conscience
,
or
before
the
Church
(
which
last
member
of
the
distinction
we
heard
not
of
till
now
:
)
surely
Mr.
Eyre's
principles
will
not
permit
him
to
account
it
a
straining
;
if
a
man
shall
infer
that
these
Corinthians
were
not
justified
in
conscience
before
,
because
the
Apostle
sayes
,
Now
you
are
justified
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
remembers
me
(
when
he
hath
no
reason
in
the
earth
for
it
:
as
the
Reader
shall
see
when
we
come
to
the
place
)
that
Anal●g●m
perse
positum
stat
pro
famosiori
significate
.
That
which
may
be
spoken
analogically
of
many
things
,
is
yet
to
be
understood
in
its
most
native
,
simple
,
proper
sense
,
when
it
is
put
by
its
selfe
:
Ergo
,
when
it
is
here
said
,
You
are
justified
,
it
is
to
be
understood
of
Justification
simply
so
called
,
and
not
of
Justification
in
conscience
,
or
before
the
Church
.
3.
The
Argument
but
now
mentioned
here
returnes
.
The
Justification
here
spoken
of
,
is
that
which
gives
right
to
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
But
Justification
in
cons●ience
or
before
the
Church
,
is
not
the
Justification
which
gives
right
to
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
Ergo
,
neither
of
these
is
the
Justi●●cation
here
meant
.
The
Assumption
is
out
of
question
;
the
Propo●tion
manifest
.
Two
things
the
Apostle
affirmes
of
these
〈◊〉
in
the
time
of
their
●entil●sme
and
unbelief
.
1.
That
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
2.
●●at
therefore
they
could
not
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Now
that
they
were
believers
,
their
condition
is
altered
in
both
respects
;
and
in
opposition
to
the
former
,
he
tells
them
they
were
sanctified
;
and
in
opposition
to
the
latter
,
they
were
justified
.
4.
If
when
it
is
said
You
are
justified
,
it
must
be
meant
of
Justification
You
are
sanctified
,
why
should
not
sanctification
be
understood
of
that
which
is
declared
or
manifested
?
In
answer
to
this
,
Mr.
Eyre
dilates
upon
the
differences
between
Justification
and
Sanctification
;
and
concludes
,
that
when
I
say
,
Nothing
can
be
alledged
for
Justification
before
beleeving
,
which
will
not
hold
as
strongly
for
sanctification
before
beleeving
:
it
hath
nothing
but
my
confidence
to
support
it
.
If
I
had
said
,
Nothing
could
be
said
against
sanctification
before
beleeving
,
which
will
not
hold
as
strongly
against
Justification
before
believing
,
there
had
been
the
more
appearance
of
reason
for
this
censure
:
but
as
my
words
lay
,
I
appeal
to
himself
for
judgement
:
for
Justification
before
believing
he
layes
these
two
foundations
;
namely
,
the
eternal
Will
and
Purpose
of
God
to
justifie
,
and
our
Justification
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
And
it
cannot
be
denied
,
but
that
the
Scriptures
speak
every
whit
as
much
,
concerning
the
Will
of
God
to
sanctifie
,
Eph.
1.
4.
2
Thes.
2.
13.
and
of
our
Sanctification
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
Rom.
6.
6.
Col.
3.
3.
Wherefore
seeing
this
is
all
that
Mr.
Eyre
hath
to
say
for
Justification
before
faith
,
I
was
no
more
confident
then
true
,
in
affirming
,
that
as
much
might
be
said
for
sanctification
before
faith
.
As
to
the
differences
which
here
he
puts
between
Justification
and
[
p
](A96867-e47500-b)
p
Epist.
dedi●
.
fol.
3.
Mr.
Eyre
counts
worthy
of
the
honour
of
his
patronage
)
[
q
](A96867-e47520-b)
q
De●r●
and
E●ton
&c.
quo
〈…〉
.
〈◊〉
.
Christ
dyin●
99.
That
our
m●rtification
is
nothing
else
,
but
the
apprehension
of
sin
slain
by
the
body
of
Christ
;
or
,
we
m●rtifie
our selves
only
declaratively
in
the
sight
of
men
:
If
Mr.
Eyre
should
urge
the
text
under
debate
,
1
Cor
,
6.
11.
against
this
notion
,
and
should
say
,
the
Apostle
tells
the
Corinthians
,
Such
and
su●h
they
were
in
times
past
,
but
now
they
were
sanctified
.
Ergo
,
They
were
not
sanctified
before
:
Doth
not
the
a●swer●ly
as
faire
for
the
foresaid
Authours
,
That
they
were
now
sanctified
in
their
own
apprehension
,
or
declaratively
in
the
sight
of
men
,
as
for
Mr.
Eyre
himselfe
,
who
interprets
Justification
in
such
a
sense
?
And
if
it
be
law
:
ful
for
him
to
fancy
a
distinction
between
the
act
and
effects
of
Justification
,
and
obtrude
it
upon
us
without
one
syllable
of
Scripture
to
countenance
it
:
let
others
be
allowed
on
their
own
heads
,
to
fancie
some
such
like
distinction
of
sanctification
,
and
it
will
be
a
thing
not
worthy
the
name
of
a
work
or
labour
,
to
prove
,
that
men
are
sanctified
(
as
well
as
justified
)
before
they
beleeve
.
The
second
difference
that
Mr.
Eyre
puts
between
Justification
and
That
the
sentence
of
Justification
is
terminated
in
conscience
:
but
Sanctification
is
diffused
throughout
the
whole
man
,
1
Thes.
5.
23.
Rep.
The
intent
and
sense
of
this
,
I
own
also
.
But
1.
I
reject
the
terme
of
Justification
,
terminated
upon
conscience
.
Passio
(
as
well
as
actio
)
est
suppositi
.
It
is
the
man
,
not
his
conscience
,
which
is
justified
.
Again
,
the
meaning
of
it
is
,
that
a
mans
Justification
is
manifested
or
declared
to
him
.
But
this
manifestation
is
either
by
immediate
revelation
,
and
that
is
not
to
the
conscience
(
properly
)
,
but
to
the
understanding
:
or
by
the
assistance
of
the
Spirit
enabling
the
conscience
to
conclude
a
mans
Justification
;
and
then
it
is
the
conscience
that
terminates
,
not
upon
which
Justification
is
terminated
.
2.
Assurance
by
our
Divines
is
wont
to
be
made
a
part
of
sanctification
,
and
may
very
well
be
included
in
the
sanctification
of
the
Spirit
,
1
Thes.
5.
23.
as
distinct
from
soule
and
body
.
If
then
the
Justification
spoken
of
here
(
and
in
other
places
of
Scripture
)
be
our
assurance
that
we
are
justified
,
then
the
distinction
here
proposed
between
Justification
and
Sancti●cation
falls
to
the
ground
.
A
second
Argument
which
I
mentioned
,
to
prove
,
that
Justification
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
The
elect
Corinthians
had
no
more
right
to
salvation
after
their
beleeving
,
then
they
had
before
:
for
their
right
to
salvation
was
grounded
only
upon
the
Purpose
of
God
,
and
the
Purchase
of
Christ
.
2.
Yet
it
will
not
follow
,
that
they
might
have
gone
to
heaven
without
faith
:
seeing
Christ
hath
purchased
faith
for
his
people
no
lesse
then
glory
:
and
God
hath
certainly
appointed
,
that
all
that
live
to
yeares
of
discretion
,
whom
in
his
secret
Justification
he
hath
adjudged
to
life
,
shall
have
this
evidence
of
faith
.
Rep.
The
former
answer
is
such
as
I
never
read
before
,
in
any
writings
of
God
or
man
,
viz.
That
some
men
that
live
in
adulteries
,
idolatries
,
blasphemies
,
murders
,
and
all
manner
of
ungodlinesse
,
yet
have
as
much
right
to
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
,
as
the
most
faithful
,
humble
,
mortified
,
laborious
Christian
or
Apostle
that
lives
upon
the
earth
;
the
height
of
whose
blessednesse
it
is
,
that
they
have
right
to
enter
into
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
Rev.
22.
14.
If
this
blessednesse
may
be
had
in
the
service
of
sin
and
Satan
,
in
the
fulfilling
of
the
lusts
of
the
flesh
,
and
of
the
minde
,
in
the
unfruitful
works
of
darknesse
;
Let
us
eat
and
drink
,
for
to
morrow
shall
be
as
to
day
,
and
much
better
.
2.
None
have
right
to
heaven
,
but
under
the
notion
of
a
reward
;
wicked
and
●ngodly
men
,
that
live
in
contempt
of
God
and
all
good
,
have
no
right
to
heaven
as
a
reward
.
Ergo
,
whiles
such
,
they
have
no
right
to
it
at
all
.
Shall
I
need
to
prove
the
Assumption
?
If
ungodly
Atheistical
wretches
have
right
to
heaven
as
their
reward
,
as
the
reward
of
what
?
of
the
good
service
they
do
to
the
devil
?
for
grace
they
have
none
:
The
Proposition
is
undoubted
:
for
heaven
or
the
inheritance
,
and
the
reward
are
Synonyma's
in
Scripture-language
,
words
of
the
same
import
,
and
reciprocal
.
Col.
2.
18.
and
3.
24.
Heb.
11.
26.
2
John
8.
And
therefore
it
is
well
observed
by
Dr.
Twiss
,
[
r
](A96867-e47910-b)
r
De
●raedest
.
Digr.
3.
c.
5.
p.
34.
f.
Deum
intendisse
manifestationem
,
&c.
God
intended
the
manifestation
of
his
mercy
upon
mankinde
,
—
ex
congruo
,
juxta
obsequium
ejus
qui
salvandus
est
,
suum
.
The
sense
of
which
he
delivers
[
s
](A96867-e47940-b)
s
Against
Mr.
Cotton
.
p.
41.
elsewhere
.
God
will
bestow
salvation
upon
all
his
elect
(
of
ripe
years
,
)
by
way
of
reward
,
and
crown
of
righteousnesse
,
&c.
for
which
he
quotes
at
large
,
2
Thes.
1.
6
,
7
,
8
,
10.
and
then
addes
,
It
is
pity
,
this
is
not
considered
(
as
usually
it
is
not
)
especially
for
the
momentous
consequence
thereof
,
&c.
3.
And
of
be●ievers
the
Apostle
sayes
,
1
Thes.
1.
6
,
7.
It
is
a
righteous
thing
with
God
to
recompence
to
them
rest
:
and
on
the
contrary
,
that
God
were
unjust
if
he
should
not
save
them
,
Heb.
6.
10.
Now
take
righteousnesse
and
unrighteousnesse
in
any
sense
;
the
words
will
bear
according
to
their
use
in
Scripture
,
I
appeal
to
the
conscience
of
any
man
that
is
acquainted
with
the
Scriptures
,
whether
it
be
agreeable
to
them
,
to
say
,
that
God
is
unjust
if
he
doth
not
save
them
that
live
in
all
manner
of
ungodlinesse
and
debauchery
,
(
supposing
them
to
be
elect
.
)
If
there
be
any
expression
in
Scripture
that
doth
sound
to
such
a
sense
:
if
they
do
not
say
the
contrary
,
that
the
justice
of
God
is
engaged
to
take
vengeance
of
such
,
unlesse
they
repent
and
bring
forth
fruits
of
righteousnesse
,
then
must
we
reade
them
backward
,
and
understand
them
in
a
sense
contrary
to
what
the
words
pretend
to
,
See
Ez●k.
18.
20
,
25
,
26
,
27.
to
the
end
.
Exod.
34.
7.
Rom.
3.
9.
Eph.
2.
3.
and
other
places
without
number
.
4.
But
let
us
examine
the
text
:
The
unrighteous
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
God
Be
not
deceived
:
neither
fornicatours
,
nor
idolaters
,
nor
adulterers
,
&c.
shall
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
And
such
were
some
of
you
,
but
you
are
washed
,
but
you
are
sanctified
,
but
you
are
justified
.
The
inference
in
the
affirmative
is
this
.
Ergo
,
now
they
might
and
should
inherit
the
Kingdome
.
That
which
made
them
uncapable
of
inheriting
the
Kingdome
before
,
was
not
only
the
filth
of
sin
(
from
which
they
were
now
washed
in
sanctification
)
but
the
guilt
of
sin
,
from
which
they
were
now
also
washed
in
Justification
.
Hence
the
first
Argument
,
That
Justification
which
washeth
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
upon
the
removal
of
which
they
were
made
capable
of
inheriting
the
Kingdome
,
that
Justification
gave
them
right
to
the
Kingdome
.
But
the
Justification
which
they
now
had
,
and
not
before
,
was
that
which
washed
away
the
guilt
of
sin
,
upon
the
removal
of
which
they
were
capable
of
inheriting
the
Kingdom
.
Ergo
,
This
Justification
is
that
which
gave
them
right
to
the
Kingdom
.
The
Proposition
is
necessary
,
as
consisting
of
termes
immediately
contrary
.
Guilt
is
obligatio
ad
poenam
,
an
obligation
to
punishment
:
that
which
is
contrary
to
it
,
and
destroys
or
expels
it
,
is
a
right
to
impunity
:
if
the
losse
of
heaven
be
part
of
that
punishment
to
which
they
are
obliged
;
that
which
is
contrary
to
it
and
expells
it
,
is
a
right
to
heaven
.
The
Assumption
is
so
plain
in
the
text
,
as
nothing
more
.
Time
was
when
you
could
not
have
inherited
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
because
of
the
fearful
sins
you
lived
in
;
but
now
you
are
justified
,
and
therefore
may
inherit
it
.
2.
The
same
barre
which
lay
against
the
entrance
of
other
sinners
into
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
lay
against
these
Corinthians
also
.
No
fornicatours
,
idolaters
,
&c.
shall
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
God
.
And
such
were
some
of
you
.
But
ye
are
justified
.
But
the
want
of
Justification
and
pardon
is
a
barre
or
hindrance
against
the
entrance
of
other
sinners
into
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
This
,
I
think
,
will
not
be
denied
;
and
if
it
be
,
it
is
easily
proved
:
because
the
Justification
of
these
Corinthians
is
mentioned
by
the
Apostle
▪
as
that
which
changed
the
case
,
and
put
the
difference
between
them
and
other
Gentiles
yet
unconverted
,
in
respect
of
their
capability
of
inheriting
the
Kingdome
.
Now
he
that
perisheth
for
want
of
Justification
or
pardon
,
perisheth
but
for
want
of
a
right
to
heaven
:
Ergo
,
he
that
may
now
inherit
heaven
because
he
is
justified
,
or
by
vertue
of
his
Justification
,
may
therefore
inherit
it
,
because
he
hath
now
a
right
to
it
by
his
Justification
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
that
their
right
to
salvation
was
Ephesians
;
Eph.
2.
12.
)
are
also
without
a
right
to
heaven
.
As
for
Gods
Purpose
;
if
that
give
a
right
to
Heaven
,
it
must
be
proved
either
from
Scripture
or
Reason
.
There
is
not
a
word
in
Scripture
to
proveit
.
Reason
is
against
it
.
Men
may
purpose
many
benefits
to
others
,
without
any
[
t
](A96867-e48180-b)
t
Vid.
Less
.
de
Just
&
Jur.
l.
2.
c.
40.
dub
.
●
.
&
Azor.
Instit.
moral
.
par.
3.
l.
1●
c.
15.
intention
of
obliging
themselves
thereby
,
to
give
them
:
and
if
they
be
not
obliged
to
give
,
others
have
no
right
to
receive
.
Adde
,
if
Purposes
essentially
do
give
right
,
then
the
donation
of
right
is
a
thing
of
its
own
nature
uncapable
of
being
purposed
;
for
the
right
is
given
eo
ipso
,
that
it
is
purposed
to
be
given
:
&
nihil
agit
in
simile
.
The
Purchase
of
Christ
may
with
much
more
reason
be
said
to
give
a
right
to
heaven
.
But
the
Purchase
of
Christ
,
(
though
it
was
made
for
our
good
,
yet
not
in
our
names
(
for
Christ
in
purchasing
,
was
neither
our
Mandatory
,
Proxie
nor
Delegate
)
and
therefore
gives
right
immediately
to
none
,
but
by
the
intervention
of
that
Covenant
which
was
sealed
and
established
in
his
blood
,
even
the
Promise
through
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
as
we
shall
shew
more
particularly
hereafter
.
And
as
to
the
second
answer
,
wherein
Mr.
Eyre
denies
my
consequence
,
[
u
](A96867-e48250-b)
u
Vid.
Sebast
.
à
Costa
.
Com.
in
loc.
&
Decret.
Greg.
l.
4.
Tit.
17.
c.
7
§.
Si
vero
a●
er
c●nnot
.
〈◊〉
Alciat
.
ib.
cum
in
mu●●is
c●sib
.
Lam.
3.
35.
)
Ergo
,
if
wicked
men
,
any
of
them
,
have
right
to
heaven
,
they
must
have
it
,
whether
ever
they
beleeve
or
no.
Here
of
necessity
Mr.
Eyre
must
distinguish
of
right
:
but
whatsoever
distinction
he
apply
,
he
must
quit
his
assertion
.
That
the
elect
have
no
more
right
to
heaven
after
they
beleeve
,
then
before
He
will
not
say
,
the
right
which
the
wicked
have
to
heaven
is
conditional
,
and
so
may
be
lost
for
non-performance
of
the
condition
:
and
if
it
be
absolute
from
eternity
,
it
admits
of
no
condition
in
time
:
[
x
](A96867-e48300-b)
x
L.
Perfecta
C.
de
donat.
quae
sub
modo
.
a
perfect
donation
admits
of
no
after-conditions
:
at
least
,
unlesse
they
be
added
[
y
](A96867-e48310-b)
y
Vide
Covar
ruv.
var.
Resol
.
l.
1.
c.
14.
in
continenti
,
presently
.
If
he
say
this
right
is
given
them
sub
termino
,
or
in
diem
,
as
if
I
give
Titius
ten
pounds
,
when
he
comes
to
the
age
of
twenty
one
;
so
God
gives
ungodly
men
a
right
to
heaven
,
but
they
cannot
enjoy
it
till
they
beleeve
:
yet
even
thus
it
must
be
acknowledged
,
that
they
have
more
right
when
they
beleeve
,
then
they
had
before
:
as
Titius
hath
more
right
to
what
I
gave
him
,
at
the
age
of
twenty
one
,
then
he
had
before
:
for
he
had
before
but
a
remote
right
(
jus
ad
rem
)
,
and
at
that
age
he
hath
an
immediate
right
.
But
neither
will
this
,
(
which
Mr.
Eyre
must
stick
to
,
or
to
nothing
)
salve
the
sore
:
partly
,
because
the
day
when
a
wicked
man
shall
repent
and
beleeve
,
is
in
it self
contingent
and
uncertain
,
(
in
its
self
,
I
say
,
because
it
is
known
to
God
:
but
Gods
knowledge
alters
not
the
nature
of
things
,
he
knows
what
events
shall
come
to
passe
contingently
,
and
what
necessarily
)
.
Now
dies
incerta
aequiparatur
conditioni
,
what
is
given
upon
an
uncertain
day
,
is
all
one
as
if
it
were
given
upon
condition
,
according
to
the
determination
of
the
[
z
](A96867-e48400-b)
z
I.
Stipulatio
ista
.
§.
inter
certam
ff
de
verb.
oblig
.
Civil
Law
:
as
if
I
promise
ten
pounds
to
Titius
upon
the
day
of
his
marriage
:
it
is
all
one
as
if
I
promised
it
upon
condition
he
marry
:
and
if
God
promise
ungodly
men
to
give
them
heaven
when
they
beleeve
,
it
is
all
one
as
if
he
promise
it
on
condition
they
beleeve
:
which
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
away
with
.
Partly
and
principally
(
which
also
is
my
second
Argument
for
proof
of
the
consequence
)
because
the
right
which
is
given
a
man
to
the
Kingdome
by
Justification
,
according
to
Scriptures
,
is
independent
upon
time
,
so
that
if
he
die
the
very
next
moment
that
he
is
justified
,
he
shall
and
must
be
saved
:
yea
,
such
an
immediate
and
necessary
dependance
there
is
of
the
Kingdome
upon
Justification
,
that
nothing
more
is
required
to
make
a
man
morally
and
immediately
capable
of
inheriting
the
Kingdome
,
but
that
he
be
justified
,
Rom.
8.
30.
Whom
he
justified
,
them
he
glorified
.
See
also
Rom.
5.
9
,
10
,
17
,
18
,
21.
Tit.
3.
7.
and
other
texts
before
mentioned
:
all
importing
such
an
immediate
connexion
between
Justification
and
the
inheritance
,
that
though
no
other
change
be
made
in
a
mans
state
,
yet
being
justified
he
shall
be
saved
.
Ergo
,
if
the
elect
have
right
to
heaven
while
they
are
ungodly
,
they
must
be
saved
,
whether
ever
they
be
converted
to
the
faith
of
Christ
,
or
no.
No
,
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
it
will
not
follow
:
because
Christ
hath
Rep.
Both
which
I
grant
in
thesi
:
but
if
Mr.
Eyre
will
take
in
the
hypothesis
too
,
and
tell
us
that
God
did
purpose
,
and
Christ
did
purchase
faith
for
a
people
that
had
right
to
heaven
before
,
I
shall
desire
him
to
prove
it
;
for
I
am
not
like
to
beleeve
it
.
Yet
I
am
out
of
doubt
that
God
never
purposed
faith
to
any
such
person
,
but
to
such
as
are
aliens
,
strangers
and
forreigners
,
that
they
through
faith
might
partake
in
the
rights
,
and
liberties
and
immunities
of
his
Kingdom
,
Eph.
3.
5
,
6
,
9
,
11.
For
,
2.
Give
me
leave
to
ask
,
To
what
end
should
God
purpose
to
give
faith
,
if
men
have
right
to
the
Kingdom
without
it
?
It
must
be
purposed
either
as
a
means
to
the
obtaining
of
righteousnesse
and
life
,
(
and
then
I
have
what
I
would
;
for
then
no
man
hath
a
right
to
heaven
but
by
faith
:
and
if
any
man
hath
right
without
it
,
the
gift
of
faith
as
to
them
,
in
order
to
that
end
,
is
utterly
needlesse
and
superfluous
;
)
or
it
is
purposed
as
part
of
the
natural
essential
perfection
of
mans
nature
,
unto
which
he
is
restored
by
Christ
:
and
this
I
deny
:
at
least
,
I
am
very
doubtful
of
it
,
and
desire
it
may
be
proved
.
[
a
](A96867-e48560-b)
a
Vide
〈◊〉
in
Sent
l.
4
dist.
14
●
.
19.
ad.
3.
There
are
some
things
,
which
in
themselves
are
perfections
of
mans
nature
,
as
love
to
God
and
our
neighbour
,
and
all
the
vertues
pertaining
to
the
first
or
second
table
:
that
faith
which
Adam
had
in
his
innocency
,
and
the
frame
of
righteousnesse
in
which
he
was
created
.
Other
things
are
no
vertues
at
all
,
but
upon
supposition
of
sin
,
and
do
alwayes
imply
imperfection
:
as
shame
for
sin
,
brokennesse
of
heart
,
repentance
,
and
faith
in
a
Mediatour
,
as
it
signifies
an
abnegation
of
our
own
righteousnesse
,
and
a
dependance
upon
another
for
righteousnesse
.
These
of
the
latte●
sort
are
no
part
of
the
essential
perfection
of
man
,
yea
,
they
do
essentially
suppose
imperfection
;
for
faith
in
a
Mediatour
is
at
an
[
b
](A96867-e48600-b)
b
Vide
Aquin.
1.
●
ae
q.
9●
art
3●
o
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
●
.
end
,
when
we
shall
be
perfected
in
glory
,
1
Pet.
1.
9.
2
Cor.
5.
7.
there
being
no
farther
use
of
it
,
nor
object
for
it
;
for
even
Christ
himself
(
as
it
seem●
)
〈◊〉
If
ungracious
men
have
a
right
to
heaven
,
onely
they
cannot
To
this
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
1.
By
this
Argument
not
only
faith
,
but
all
other
works
of
sanctification
,
and
perseverance
in
them
must
be
the
conditions
of
our
justification
:
and
then
we
may
be
said
to
be
justified
and
saved
by
them
:
but
this
is
no
good
Argument
.
No
man
is
saved
or
glorified
without
works
.
Ergo
,
men
are
saved
by
works
.
2.
This
reason
makes
as
much
against
absolute
election
before
faith
,
as
against
absolute
justification
.
3.
The
answer
is
,
election
and
justification
are
absolute
,
because
they
depend
upon
no
antecedent
condition
:
not
because
they
are
without
consequents
that
depend
on
them
.
Rep.
To
the
first
we
reply
.
That
if
the
question
be
concerning
our
first
entrance
into
a
state
of
justification
;
we
have
already
(
with
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
10.
10.
)
excluded
works
from
being
at
all
necessary
thereunto
.
But
if
the
question
be
of
our
last
and
universal
justification
at
the
day
of
judgement
,
which
the
Apostle
there
calls
salvation
,
Mr.
Eyre
knows
we
maintaine
,
that
perseverance
in
the
faith
to
the
end
,
and
in
a
Christian
conversation
,
is
a
necessary
condition
of
salvation
;
according
to
Scriptures
,
Rev.
2.
17.
and
22.
14.
Col●s
.
1.
23.
2
John
.
8.
Heb.
10.
26
,
36.
and
the
places
quoted
by
M.
Eyre
,
Prov.
28.
18.
1
Tim.
4.
16.
Matth.
24.
13.
And
the
consent
of
[
c
](A96867-e48850-b)
c
Ames
.
Bellar.
enervat
.
tom.
4.
lib.
6.
cap.
6.
de
n●ces
.
oper.
ad
salut.
ad
obj.
ex
Rom.
8.
13.
Mortific
.
tio
igitur
est
conditio
a●
vitam
:
quis
negat
?
Gerhard
.
de
bon●●
operib
.
c.
9.
§.
55.
4.
Zanchius
Gry
〈…〉
Sohnius
,
Piscator
.
ibid.
§.
45.
Chamier
.
〈◊〉
.
de
bon
Oper.
Nece●●
cap.
●
.
sect.
7.
11
,
15
,
17
,
20
〈◊〉
&c.
appellat
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
quibus
non
〈◊〉
.
●
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Davenant
de
〈◊〉
Act
cap.
〈◊〉
5.
&
6.
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Protestants
.
But
when
he
infers
,
then
we
may
be
said
to
be
saved
by
works
;
I
deny
the
consequence
:
partly
because
of
the
ambiguity
of
the
word
works
,
which
in
our
use
generally
hath
another
sense
then
with
the
Apostles
,
who
oppose
them
,
not
only
to
faith
(
as
we
have
largely
proved
before
)
but
sometimes
also
to
sanctification
,
Tit.
3.
5.
Not
by
works
of
righteousnesse
which
we
have
done
but
by
the
renewing
of
the
holy
Ghost
:
partly
,
because
the
works
of
sa●ctification
are
not
the
condition
properly
of
our
obtaining
,
but
of
not
losing
our
right
to
the
heavenly
Kingdom
.
As
if
Titius
upon
〈◊〉
his
intreaty
give
him
a
farme
,
to
be
held
by
him
jure
feudi
:
the
non-performance
of
that
homage
and
fidelity
which
the
feudatory
is
bound
to
,
forfeits
his
right
:
neverthelesse
his
title
is
grounded
in
the
Donors
benevolence
.
In
like
manner
we
are
saved
by
grace
through
faith
:
though
if
we
do
not
by
the
spirit
mortifie
the
deeds
of
the
flesh
,
we
forfeit
our
life
,
Rom.
8.
13.
To
the
second
I
reply
,
That
there
is
no
comparison
between
Faith
is
of
such
necessity
,
that
they
that
have
it
not
shall
lose
the
life
to
which
they
are
elected
,
or
not
:
if
not
;
then
whether
the
elect
believe
or
no
,
they
shall
be
saved
:
if
it
be
,
then
there
is
no
absolute
election
before
faith
.
Here
,
1.
The
comparison
is
between
an
Act
that
giveth
a
right
to
life
(
such
is
justification
)
and
an
Act
which
giveth
none
,
such
is
election
:
which
indeed
doth
make
the
donation
of
right
to
be
a
thing
future
,
but
is
not
it selfe
the
Act
which
giveth
it
,
as
we
have
shewed
before
.
Now
if
a
sinner
have
a
right
to
the
inheritance
,
and
yet
it
be
necessary
for
him
to
believe
that
he
may
inherit
,
then
is
his
inheriting
suspended
upon
believing
;
that
is
,
faith
is
the
condition
of
his
inheriting
,
and
so
the
right
he
had
to
it
before
,
must
needs
be
conditional
:
more
then
this
,
neither
reason
,
nor
the
civil
Law
requires
,
to
denominate
a
gift
to
be
conditionall
.
In
election
the
case
is
otherwise
:
which
,
because
it
doth
not
transmit
or
conveigh
any
right
,
but
is
only
a
preparation
or
preordination
in
the
mind
of
God
,
of
those
causes
by
which
it
shall
be
made
to
exist
in
time
,
therefore
may
the
purpose
it self
be
absolute
?
yea
though
it
be
of
things
which
do
not
exist
but
upon
condition
.
Thus
Dr.
[
d
](A96867-e48990-b)
d
In
Co●vin
.
dofens
.
Armin.
Cont.
Tilen
pag.
355.
Twisse
.
Neque
enim
negamus
decreta
Dei
quoad
res
volitas
dici
posse
conditionata
:
quatenus
scil.
neque
vita
aeterna
nisi
sub
conditione
fidei
conferenda
sit
;
nec
damnatio
,
&c.
and
particularly
of
justification
or
pardon
of
sin
he
addes
:
Remissionem
peccatorum
&
salutem
omnes
consentiunt
nemini
contingere
nisi
sub
conditione
fidei
.
i.
e.
All
agree
,
that
pardon
of
sin
and
salvation
betides
none
,
but
upon
condition
of
faith
.
God
may
absolutely
will
or
purpose
to
give
a
right
to
life
upon
condition
of
faith
:
but
he
cannot
absolutely
give
a
right
to
life
,
and
yet
afterwards
require
us
to
believe
under
a
penalty
of
forfeiting
,
or
losing
that
life
:
for
then
the
gift
is
not
absolute
,
but
conditional
.
2.
The
word
necessary
must
be
distinguished
:
for
it
may
be
understood
,
either
in
reference
to
God
;
and
so
whatsoever
he
purposeth
is
necessary
,
because
his
purposes
being
immutable
,
and
his
power
irresistable
,
it
must
needs
be
,
that
whatsoever
he
purposeth
must
come
to
passe
:
or
in
reference
to
us
;
and
so
that
is
necessary
which
is
enjoyned
us
by
precept
,
as
a
means
appointed
and
ordained
of
God
for
such
or
such
an
end
.
The
necessity
of
faith
in
the
former
sense
will
by
no
means
inferre
that
it
is
a
condition
;
but
in
the
latter
sense
it
will
and
if
God
give
a
right
to
life
,
and
yet
our
believing
remaine
necessary
,
as
a
means
appointed
for
the
obtaining
of
life
;
then
the
right
we
had
before
was
but
conditional
.
The
necessity
of
faith
compared
with
election
,
is
only
a
necessity
of
existence
,
upon
supposition
of
a
powerful
and
immutable
cause
.
Obj.
But
I
my self
grant
(
will
it
be
said
)
that
faith
is
necessary
as
a
means
of
obtaining
life
;
yet
are
we
elected
unto
life
:
so
that
hitherto
the
case
is
still
the
same
.
Ans.
Therefore
we
distinguish
farther
.
Gods
giving
life
may
be
considered
either
simply
as
it
is
Gods
act
,
and
the
execution
of
his
eternal
purpose
;
or
as
withal
it
is
our
blessednesse
,
&
reward
.
In
the
former
respect
,
faith
hath
no
other
order
to
life
,
then
purely
of
an
antecedent
:
because
he
that
purposed
to
give
life
,
purposed
also
to
give
faith
before
it
:
but
it
is
neither
means
nor
condition
nor
cause
of
life
no
more
then
Tenderton
steeple
was
the
condition
or
cause
or
means
of
Godwin
sands
:
or
an
earthquake
over
night
of
the
suns
rising
the
next
morning
.
It
is
in
reference
to
life
,
only
as
by
the
promise
it
is
made
our
reward
,
that
faith
hath
the
nature
and
order
of
a
means
to
it
.
Now
,
if
faith
according
to
the
constant
language
of
Scripture
,
be
necessary
as
a
means
to
the
obtaining
of
life
as
a
reward
;
then
whatsoever
justification
adjudgeth
us
to
life
before
faith
,
must
be
conditional
.
But
upon
supposition
of
election
,
both
unto
faith
and
unto
life
,
if
there
were
no
other
act
of
God
which
made
faith
necessary
to
us
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
it
would
be
only
necessary
in
regard
of
its
presence
or
existence
,
but
not
at
all
necessary
as
a
means
to
be
used
by
us
,
in
order
to
our
receiving
of
righteousnesse
and
salvation
;
and
so
election
will
neverthelesse
be
absolute
.
And
therefore
the
third
answer
which
Mr.
Eyre
gives
as
most
direct
And
so
much
for
the
defence
of
the
Arguments
,
which
I
advanced
to
prove
,
that
we
are
not
justified
till
we
beleeve
.
CHAP.
IX
.
A
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
thirteenth
Chapter
;
Containing
a
vindication
of
my
answers
given
to
those
Scriptures
,
which
seeme
to
hold
forth
an
immediate
actual
reconciliation
of
sinners
unto
God
,
upon
the
death
of
Christ
,
without
the
intervention
of
faith
.
SECT.
I.
AGainst
what
we
have
hitherto
been
proving
,
I
know
Matth.
3.
17.
marcheth
in
the
front
.
This
is
my
beloved
sonne
in
whom
I
am
well
pleased
,
that
is
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
with
sinners
.
The
inference
should
be
,
Ergo
,
God
was
well
pleased
with
sinners
(
that
is
,
reconciled
to
them
)
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
To
this
,
in
my
sermon
I
gave
a
double
answer
.
1.
That
the
well-pleasednesse
of
God
need
not
be
extended
beyond
the
person
of
Christ
,
who
gave
himself
unto
the
death
,
an
offering
and
a
sacrifice
unto
God
of
a
sweet
smelling
savour
,
Eph.
5.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
in
his
reply
to
this
,
produceth
many
testimonies
,
of
Musculus
,
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Paraeus
,
Ward
,
Ferus
;
and
some
reasons
,
to
prove
that
which
never
came
into
my
minde
to
deny
,
namely
,
that
God
is
in
Christ
well
pleased
with
sinners
.
To
all
which
I
shall
need
return
no
other
answer
,
then
an
explication
of
that
which
is
given
already
.
The
words
therefore
may
be
understood
either
,
1.
As
a
testimony
of
God
concerning
his
acceptance
of
,
and
well-pleasednesse
in
Christ
,
as
a
sacrifice
most
perfect
and
sufficient
for
obtaining
of
those
ends
,
and
producing
those
effects
for
which
it
was
offered
,
Eph.
5.
2.
And
thus
is
God
well
pleased
with
Christ
only
,
and
above
all
other
,
men
or
Angels
:
or
,
2.
As
they
do
also
note
the
effect
as
then
existing
,
namely
,
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
sinners
for
Christs
sake
.
Now
was
it
such
a
prodigious
crime
in
me
to
say
,
the
words
may
be
taken
only
in
the
former
sense
,
and
so
confined
to
the
person
of
Christ
,
that
I
must
be
printed
as
a
man
that
thinks
my self
worth
a
thousand
such
as
Colvin
,
Beza
,
Paraeus
,
&
c
?
Whose
judgements
I
had
not
then
consulted
,
nor
do
now
finde
any
thing
which
I
consent
not
to
,
except
one
passage
in
Beza
.
When
1.
Mr.
Eyres
exposition
cannot
consist
,
without
an
addition
to
the
Text.
And
whereas
the
Text
is
,
This
is
my
beloved
Sonne
in
whom
I
am
well
pleased
:
he
must
adde
,
in
whom
I
am
well
pleased
with
sinners
.
2.
And
that
such
an
addition
as
neither
the
Greeke
of
the
LXX
interpreters
,
nor
of
the
New
Testament
is
acquainted
with
,
namely
that
the
verbe
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
should
governe
two
dative
cases
,
one
of
the
cause
,
and
the
other
of
the
object
.
Adde
the
word
sinners
,
and
the
Greek
runs
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Let
Mr.
Eyre
match
this
construction
,
if
he
can
.
3.
And
if
he
give
the
right
sense
of
the
words
,
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
whom
,
is
not
the
dative
case
of
the
object
with
whom
God
is
well
pleased
;
but
of
the
means
or
cause
through
which
God
is
well
pleased
with
others
,
namely
with
sinners
:
Whereas
the
same
particles
construed
with
the
same
verbe
,
are
elsewhere
perpetually
a
note
of
the
object
.
1
Cor.
10.
5.
2
Cor.
12.
10.
2
Thes.
2.
12.
Heb.
10.
38.
suitable
to
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
which
they
answer
.
The
Authors
whom
Mr.
Eyre
musters
up
to
face
me
,
have
no
quarrel
with
me
at
all
.
They
do
amplifie
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
the
words
are
a
solemne
declaration
of
Christs
investiture
in
the
office
of
a
mediatour
.
Answ.
What
then
?
do
they
therefore
prove
,
that
the
effects
of
his
mediatourship
,
and
particularly
this
of
Gods
being
well-pleased
with
sinners
,
were
then
presently
communicated
and
applyed
to
sinners
?
may
it
not
suffice
that
they
testifie
Gods
singular
approbation
of
Christ
to
be
a
Mediatour
,
and
of
all
his
mediatory
performances
,
though
they
do
not
produce
their
effects
upon
many
sinners
till
many
ages
after
?
But
(
saith
he
)
the
words
were
spoken
●●r
their
sakes
whom
Christ
represented
!
as
Joh.
12.
30.
Answ
.
But
the
consequence
is
still
abortive
.
Because
the
words
were
spoken
for
their
sakes
,
must
they
therefore
needs
signifie
that
God
was
actually
well-pleased
with
them
,
even
while
they
continue
strangers
and
enemies
against
God
?
might
they
not
be
spoken
for
their
sakes
,
though
they
intend
no
more
then
to
describe
that
person
in
whom
God
is
well
pleased
,
and
to
direct
sinners
to
him
,
that
through
faith
in
him
God
may
also
be
well
pleased
with
them
?
as
those
words
,
J●h.
12.
30.
were
spoken
for
the
sake
of
sinners
,
that
upon
that
testimony
which
was
there
given
unto
Christ
they
might
believe
.
2.
The
second
reason
is
a
plaine
negat●r
,
that
the
Text
quoted
by
me
,
Eph.
5.
2.
makes
for
my
purpose
.
When
it
is
framed
into
some
similitude
of
an
Argument
,
it
shall
have
an
answer
.
3.
The
third
is
,
Because
no
reas●n
can
be
given
,
why
those
words
should
be
terminated
to
the
person
of
Christ
;
seeing
God
was
never
displeased
with
him
.
Answ.
1.
We
have
given
three
reasons
already
from
the
Text.
There
is
no
other
person
mentioned
in
the
Text
,
as
the
object
of
Gods
well-pleasednesse
:
and
if
there
were
no
more
,
that
is
enough
.
2.
God
was
never
displeased
with
Christ
q●oad
affectum
:
but
he
was
displeased
with
him
Oeconomically
&
quoad
effectum
:
for
Christ
bare
his
Fathers
displeasure
.
3.
But
if
God
had
never
been
displeased
with
him
,
what
consequence
is
this
?
God
was
never
displeased
with
Christ
,
nor
had
Christ
any
suspicion
of
it
.
Erg●
,
it
was
needlesse
that
God
should
declare
himselfe
to
be
well
pleased
with
him
?
There
was
ground
enough
of
such
a
declaration
,
if
it
were
for
no
other
end
,
but
only
to
manifest
how
infinitely
acceptable
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
unto
God
,
above
all
the
sacrifices
under
the
Law
:
and
that
he
was
displeased
with
them
in
comparison
of
this
.
In
burnt
offerings
and
sacrifices
for
sin
thou
hadst
no
pleasure
;
then
said
I
,
lo
I
come
,
&c.
Heb.
10.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
The
fourth
and
last
reason
is
this
.
The
well-pleasednesse
of
God
is
to
be
extended
to
them
for
whom
Christ
offered
up
his
sacrifice
.
Ergo
,
to
sinners
,
Answ.
The
Antecedent
,
if
it
be
meant
of
the
extent
of
the
words
which
we
are
debating
,
begs
the
question
.
SECT.
II.
MY
second
answer
was
,
that
if
Gods
well-pleasednesse
spoken
of
in
the
Text
,
be
extended
also
unto
men
,
yet
will
the
words
This
plaine
answer
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
to
be
thus
glossed
,
namely
that
my
sense
of
the
words
,
〈◊〉
well
〈◊〉
,
is
as
much
as
,
I
will
be
well
pleased
,
when
they
have
performed
the
terms
and
conditions
required
on
their
part
;
and
then
very
se●●ously
desires
his
Reader
,
to
observe
how
bold
I
make
with
the
holy
Ghost
,
in
that
when
God
saies
,
He
is
well
pleased
,
I
say
no
,
he
is
not
now
,
but
he
will
be
hereafter
.
But
1.
Mr.
Eyre
makes
more
bold
with
me
then
he
ought
:
for
neither
did
I
say
nor
mean
,
that
the
words
I
●m
well
pl●ased
,
should
be
thus
sensed
,
I
will
●e
well
pleased
;
but
interpret
the
words
as
spoken
inde●initly
in
respect
of
time
,
that
it
i●
through
Christ
that
God
is
well
pleased
whensoever
it
be
that
he
is
well
pleased
.
As
if
I
should
say
God
is
well
pleased
with
obedience
or
with
praise
,
do
not
necessarily
s●ppose
that
there
are
then
any
,
putting
forth
the
act
of
obedience
or
praise
,
with
which
God
is
then
actually
well
pleased
(
for
what
if
all
the
men
in
the
world
were
a
sleep
at
once
?
as
't
is
like
they
were
some
times
in
No●h●
Ark
)
but
that
these
acts
are
pleasing
to
God
whensoever
they
are
put
forth
.
2.
And
if
I
had
given
this
sense
of
the
words
,
putting
the
present
tense
for
the
future
▪
yet
,
doth
not
Mr.
Eyre
make
a
bold
with
the
holy
Ghost
as
I
,
when
towards
the
latter
end
of
his
very
next
paragraph
,
he
acknowledges
such
an
Heterosis
of
Tenses
to
be
very
frequent
in
Scripture
?
Yea
,
hath
he
not
already
made
bolder
?
not
only
here
in
adding
the
words
,
with
sinners
,
to
the
Text
;
but
in
rendring
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
the
pretertense
in
Joh.
3.
18.
as
signifying
not
only
one
that
now
beleeves
not
,
but
one
that
shall
never
beleeve
,
pag.
110.
§
.
3.
Nor
did
I
mention
faith
or
any
other
condition
upon
which
God
is
well
pleased
with
sinners
:
not
that
I
disowne
it
;
but
because
it
is
impertinent
to
my
present
businesse
,
for
we
are
not
now
disputing
,
when
,
or
upon
what
tearms
God
is
well
pleased
with
sinners
;
but
whether
he
be
well
pleased
with
them
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
?
For
justifying
of
my
interpretation
,
I
shewed
from
Scripture
,
that
Ans.
Which
if
it
be
true
,
the
boyes
know
more
then
their
Masters
,
for
it
is
a
rule
in
[
a
](A96867-e49890-b)
a
Vide
Dom.
Busb
.
Gram.
Graec.
pag.
35.
Pfocen
.
de
ling.
grae
.
N.
T.
pur
.
pag.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
Dr.
Hammond
Annot.
in
Mat.
23.
35.
g.
&
Auth
r.
Excerpt
.
ad
sinem
clement
.
Alexand
ex
pantaeno
ubi
etiam
statuit
verbum
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
Psal.
19
4.
Poni
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Grammar
,
Indefinita
sunt
tempora
incertae
significationis
:
sumuntur
enim
pro
praeteritis
:
&
interdum
pro
praes.
&
Futur
.
The
same
doth
Eustathius
observe
on
that
of
[
b
](A96867-e49980-b)
b
Iliad
.
a.
ci●ca
princip.
Homer
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
some
latter
copies
read
it
.
Examples
are
frequent
in
Scripture
,
Joh.
15.
6.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Matth.
23.
35.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Matth.
6.
5
,
16.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
many
other
places
Examples
of
the
present
tense
,
put
in
the
signification
of
the
future
,
I
alledged
these
,
Joh.
4
25.
The
Messiah
cometh
,
that
is
,
will
shortly
come
.
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
this
sense
of
it
.
The
promise
of
the
Messiah
draws
nigh
to
be
fulfilled
.
Rep.
But
we
are
not
now
enquiring
into
the
theological
truth
,
but
grammatical
construction
of
the
words
.
If
Schoole-boyes
should
construe
the
words
,
as
Mr.
Eyre
doth
english
them
:
I
beleeve
their
Master
would
con
them
thanks
.
Another
place
was
,
Joh.
5.
25.
The
houre
is
coming
,
and
now
is
M.
Eyre
,
answers
.
The
dead
then
did
heare
the
voice
of
the
Sonne
of
God
.
Answ.
Whatsoever
be
the
meaning
of
the
words
,
the
same
houre
could
not
be
(
that
is
,
now
exist
)
and
yet
be
coming
too
.
Another
place
was
,
Joh.
14.
3.
If
I
go
,
I
come
againe
.
This
I
think
,
Mr.
Eyre
grants
to
be
for
my
turne
,
for
he
excepts
nothing
against
it
,
and
one
place
is
as
good
as
a
hundred
,
and
if
it
were
worth
while
,
I
would
also
vindicate
the
next
place
,
which
is
,
2
Cor.
3.
16.
In
the
mean
time
,
the
judgement
of
our
translatours
is
sufficient
to
oppose
to
Mr.
Eyres
:
Who
if
they
had
not
thought
verbes
of
the
present
tense
,
might
have
the
signification
of
the
future
,
would
not
so
have
rendred
them
.
Examples
of
verbes
of
the
present
tense
as
notes
of
affirmation
,
Rom.
8.
24.
By
hope
we
are
saved
;
that
is
,
it
is
in
the
way
of
hope
and
patient
expectation
that
men
are
saved
,
whensoever
it
be
that
they
are
saved
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
?
They
are
saved
by
hope
,
that
is
,
they
have
now
the
joy
and
comfort
of
their
salvation
through
faith
and
hope
.
They
are
now
saved
by
hope
,
or
they
shall
never
be
saved
by
hope
:
in
the
world
to
come
they
are
saved
by
sight
,
not
by
faith
or
hope
.
Rep.
1.
But
the
Apostle
supposeth
the
salvation
he
speaks
of
to
be
absent
,
not
present
,
because
we
hope
for
it
.
2.
We
have
observed
before
,
that
joy
and
comfort
are
sometimes
expressed
by
the
name
of
life
;
never
by
the
name
of
salvation
in
the
New-Testament
.
3.
To
be
saved
by
sight
●
little
better
then
non-sense
:
what
Divine
can
be
found
that
ever
penned
such
uncouth
language
?
sight
is
it self
our
positive
salvation
.
And
we
are
saved
in
the
world
to
come
,
by
that
hope
which
we
exercise
in
this
present
life
:
forasmuch
as
salvation
is
the
end
of
our
hope
and
faith
,
1
Pet.
1.
9.
I
must
confesse
,
I
am
so
well
acquainted
with
the
abilities
of
the
Author
whom
I
oppose
,
that
I
know
not
almost
what
interpretation
to
put
upon
these
his
strange
kinde
of
disputings
.
Another
Text
is
,
1
Cor.
15.
57.
Thankes
be
unto
God
,
who
giveth
us
the
victory
through
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
The
meaning
is
,
it
is
through
God
that
we
have
the
victory
over
death
,
be
it
when
it
will
be
that
we
have
it
.
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
it
read
,
th●nks
be
unto
God
who
giveth
us
,
or
hath
given
us
the
victory
;
for
(
saith
he
)
the
Saints
have
already
obtained
victory
over
death
and
the
grave
in
Christ
their
head
.
Rep.
But
the
Apostle
speaketh
manifestly
of
the
victory
which
God
giveth
them
in
their
own
Persons
:
the
time
of
which
he
doth
also
describe
in
general
a
little
before
,
v.
54.
So
when
this
corruptible
shall
have
put
on
incorruption
,
and
this
mortal
shall
have
put
on
immortality
;
then
shall
be
brought
to
passe
the
saying
that
is
written
:
death
is
swallowed
up
in
victory
.
This
therefore
is
the
victory
which
God
giveth
.
So
Heb.
10.
35.
Your
confidence
hath
a
great
recompence
of
reward
.
That
is
(
saith
Mr
Eyre
)
in
the
present
effects
which
it
did
produce
,
as
inward
peace
,
joy
,
&c.
Rep.
And
yet
in
the
very
verse
foregoing
,
v.
34.
it
is
called
that
better
and
enduring
substance
in
heaven
,
and
in
the
following
verse
,
v.
36.
The
promise
which
is
obtained
,
after
that
with
patience
we
have
done
the
will
of
God
,
and
v.
39.
The
saving
of
the
soul
.
The
last
place
I
mentioned
was
Jam.
1.
17.
Every
good
gift
cometh
down
from
above
:
Not
as
if
it
must
needs
be
coming
down
when
the
Apostle
spake
those
words
;
but
that
whensoever
any
one
receives
a
good
gift
,
it
is
from
God
.
Against
this
Mr.
Eyre
excepts
nothing
.
If
then
in
these
and
many
other
places
,
and
that
by
Mr.
Eyres
own
confession
(
for
he
acknowledgeth
an
heterosis
of
tenses
,
to
be
a
trope
very
frequent
in
Scripture
)
verbes
of
the
present
tense
have
sometimes
the
signification
of
verbes
future
,
sometimes
are
only
notes
of
affirmation
,
without
respect
to
any
definite
time
:
Why
doth
Mr.
Eyre
make
such
outcries
against
me
,
to
so
little
purpose
,
for
interpreting
the
present
words
(
In
whom
I
am
well-pleased
)
according
to
the
Analogy
of
other
places
?
Why
(
saith
he
)
I
should
have
shewn
that
it
must
be
so
expounded
here
.
SECT.
III.
NEverthelesse
,
I
did
also
farther
shew
that
his
interpretation
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
The
Apostle
speaks
there
of
mens
works
and
actions
,
not
of
their
persons
.
Rep.
1.
But
the
Greek
[
b
](A96867-e50560-b)
b
See
2
Cor.
5.
9.
Rom
12
1.
&
14.
18.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
when
it
denotes
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
a
person
,
is
never
used
,
but
to
signifie
Gods
complacency
in
or
approbation
of
a
person
because
of
his
qualities
,
or
actions
,
or
both
.
So
doth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
also
,
when
it
notes
,
not
the
decree
or
purpose
of
the
will
(
as
sometimes
it
doth
)
but
the
affection
,
as
when
it
is
said
in
chapter
10.
38.
If
any
man
draw
back
(
namely
by
unbelief
,
Heb.
3.
12.
)
my
soule
shall
have
no
pleasure
in
him
.
Where
Gods
displeasure
is
with
the
person
:
but
grounded
in
his
displeasing
quality
.
viz.
Of
unbelief
,
and
on
the
contrary
:
Enoch
is
here
said
by
faith
to
please
,
or
to
be
pleasing
unto
God
,
v.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Seeing
then
the
word
imports
such
a
delight
in
,
or
approbation
of
a
person
,
as
supposeth
him
endued
with
lovely
and
amiable
qualities
:
and
nothing
in
man
is
lovely
in
Gods
eyes
without
faith
(
for
God
delights
not
in
his
physical
substance
,
or
natural
perfections
of
any
sort
,
Psal.
147.
10.
)
it
follows
,
that
when
we
are
said
by
faith
to
please
God
,
or
to
be
pleasing
to
him
;
or
that
it
is
impossible
to
please
him
without
faith
:
it
must
be
understood
of
the
pleasingnesse
of
the
person
,
as
well
as
of
the
action
.
Indeed
there
is
in
God
a
love
of
benevolence
towards
the
elect
,
even
while
they
are
most
displeasing
to
him
:
but
a
love
of
complacency
or
approbation
he
hath
not
towards
them
till
they
beleeve
.
They
that
are
in
the
flesh
cannot
please
God
,
Rom.
8.
8.
2.
Nor
can
I
imagin
how
God
can
be
perfectly
well-pleased
with
men
,
and
yet
perpetually
displeased
with
every
thing
they
do
:
which
yet
he
must
be
supposed
to
be
,
if
faith
do
only
commend
our
actions
,
not
our
persons
unto
God
.
Amongst
men
it
is
unconceivable
,
how
a
total
displeasure
with
another
mans
actions
,
can
consist
with
well-pleasednesse
with
the
person
.
That
which
commends
the
work
doth
also
commend
the
worker
:
and
if
the
work
be
unacceptable
,
the
worker
also
is
so
far
unacceptable
:
if
all
his
works
be
unacceptable
,
himself
also
is
wholly
unacceptable
.
3.
I
aske
,
whether
faith
it self
be
pleasing
unto
God
?
principally
out
of
doubt
,
Joh
6.
29.
Then
when
we
are
said
by
faith
to
please
God
,
it
is
a
great
deal
too
slender
to
interpret
it
of
pleasing
him
in
obedience
onely
.
4.
And
though
it
be
most
true
,
that
our
obedience
is
not
acceptable
to
God
without
faith
,
yet
cannot
Mr.
Eyre
owne
it
,
if
he
will
be
true
to
his
doctrine
,
that
sins
are
pardoned
before
the
sinner
hath
a
being
;
for
that
obedience
wherein
God
seeth
no
sin
,
is
acceptable
to
him
.
The
obedience
of
the
elect
is
such
wherein
God
seeth
no
sin
(
I
speak
of
those
works
which
they
may
performe
before
they
beleeve
:
as
prayer
,
hearing
of
the
word
,
&c.
)
Ergo
,
it
is
acceptable
to
God
.
The
assumption
is
manifest
:
for
not
to
see
sin
,
and
to
pardon
it
,
are
all
one
:
and
God
hath
from
eternity
pardoned
the
sins
of
the
elect
:
(
as
saith
Mr.
Eyre
.
)
In
the
following
part
of
this
answer
,
he
gives
us
a
reason
why
our
Rep.
Against
which
I
have
no
great
matter
to
except
:
onely
,
1
I
wonder
he
should
not
account
the
Apostles
reason
worth
taking
notice
of
:
who
,
when
he
had
said
,
without
faith
it
is
impossible
to
please
God
,
presently
gives
this
reason
;
for
he
that
cometh
unto
God
must
beleeve
that
he
is
,
and
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
that
diligently
seek
him
.
2.
Whatsoever
effect
there
be
in
the
obedience
of
the
elect
unregenerate
,
yet
are
their
works
never
a
whit
the
more
unacceptable
for
it
,
upon
any
other
account
then
because
that
defect
is
sinful
;
and
the
sinfulnesse
being
supposed
to
be
pardoned
,
and
that
from
eternity
,
it
cannot
make
the
work
unacceptable
:
pardoned
sin
,
and
no
sin
,
are
much
of
the
same
strength
,
as
to
any
harme
it
can
do
us
.
3.
If
works
cannot
please
God
while
there
is
something
wanting
which
should
make
them
entirely
good
,
how
comes
it
to
passe
that
the
person
should
be
so
hugely
well-pleasing
while
there
is
nothing
in
him
but
evil
?
mens
persons
are
under
Law
as
well
as
their
actions
:
Ars
est
in
fabrica
rei
.
[
c
](A96867-e50800-b)
c
See
John
Yates
Mod.
of
Divin
.
pag.
8.
Ex
viro
verè
magno
,
A●exand
.
Richardsono
.
Divinity
was
at
first
impressed
in
the
very
frame
and
constitution
of
mans
nature
.
If
an
action
materially
good
,
be
yet
displeasing
▪
because
of
its
deformity
to
rule
in
respect
of
manner
:
surely
the
person
cannot
be
well-pleasing
,
while
he
is
every
whit
as
much
out
of
frame
,
and
fallen
all
in
pieces
(
as
I
may
so
speak
)
and
not
so
much
as
begun
to
be
repaired
againe
by
a
spirit
of
renovation
.
In
the
next
place
Mr.
Eyre
offers
us
two
Arguments
to
prove
,
that
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
the
elect
,
is
the
immediate
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
.
If
he
mean
immediate
in
respect
of
time
,
and
exclusively
of
every
qualification
in
us
,
without
which
God
will
not
be
well-pleased
with
us
;
let
us
see
his
Arguments
.
The
former
is
from
reason
the
latter
from
testimony
of
Scripture
.
First
(
saith
he
)
,
That
which
raised
a
partition-wall
between
God
and
the
elect
,
was
the
breach
of
the
Law
:
Now
when
the
Law
was
satisfied
for
their
sins
,
this
partition
was
broken
down
;
his
favour
had
as
free
a
current
,
as
if
they
had
not
sinned
.
Answ.
The
Argument
supposeth
that
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
was
no
more
,
and
needed
to
be
no
more
then
a
removens
prohibens
of
our
good
:
which
Mr.
Eyre
chargeth
upon
Mr.
Baxter
(
though
most
unjustly
)
as
a
very
heinous
errour
,
and
exagitates
it
with
a●rimony
▪
sufficient
.
Therefore
I
shall
not
need
to
confute
it
:
yet
one
thing
I
shall
offer
to
the
Readers
consideration
.
If
the
reason
of
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
sinners
be
this
onely
,
that
Christ
hath
removed
that
which
separated
between
God
and
them
,
then
the
elect
are
upon
the
same
terms
with
God
as
Adam
was
(
and
all
mankind
in
him
)
before
the
fall
:
and
Christ
by
his
death
hath
not
made
a
new
Covenant
,
but
established
the
old
.
But
this
is
most
notoriously
false
.
Ergo.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
plaine
:
for
what
follows
immediately
upon
the
removal
of
a
hindrance
,
had
all
its
causes
in
being
before
:
as
,
if
my
house
be
lightsome
immediately
upon
letting
down
of
●he
shuts
of
the
windows
,
it
supposeth
the
sun
to
be
up
.
Now
the
only
means
and
instrument
of
the
communication
of
life
,
before
the
death
of
Christ
,
was
the
Covenant
of
works
made
with
Adam
and
all
mankind
in
him
.
Ergo
,
if
Gods
well-pleasednesse
follow
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
that
which
hath
removed
the
hindrance
,
it
follows
by
virtue
of
that
Covenant
,
or
by
none
at
all
.
2.
But
if
the
well-pleasednesse
of
God
,
do
not
follow
necessarily
and
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
,
Mr.
Eyre
himself
will
acknowledge
his
Argument
to
be
null
.
My
answer
therefore
is
.
That
the
death
of
Christ
did
indeed
immediately
undermine
and
weaken
the
wall
of
partition
,
so
as
that
it
could
not
long
stand
:
but
it
did
not
totally
demolish
and
throw
it
down
,
presently
;
because
it
was
not
so
agreed
upon
between
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
in
his
undertaking
for
our
redemption
:
which
because
I
am
purposely
to
prove
by
and
by
,
I
shall
desire
the
reader
to
have
a
little
patience
till
he
come
to
it
.
3.
In
the
mean
time
,
I
must
confesse
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
I
do
not
understand
what
he
means
to
tell
us
of
a
wall
of
partition
raised
between
God
and
the
elect
.
What
?
are
they
justified
,
and
all
their
sins
pardoned
,
and
that
from
eternity
,
and
yet
is
there
a
wall
of
partition
between
God
and
them
?
Is
pardoned
sinne
able
to
separate
between
the
soul
and
God
?
Woe
to
poore
sinners
,
if
this
be
true
.
But
let
us
see
his
Scriptures
:
(
for
one
Text
of
Scripture
is
of
more
Rep.
To
Ephes.
1.
6
,
7.
we
have
answered
before
;
and
have
shewed
from
the
very
letter
of
the
Text
,
that
it
doth
not
only
not
exclude
faith
from
being
necessary
to
Gods
acceptance
of
us
,
but
also
doth
necessarily
include
it
.
Eph.
2.
13
,
14.
speaks
not
of
a
partition
wall
between
God
and
sinners
,
but
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
.
The
words
are
these
.
But
now
in
Christ
Jesus
,
yea
who
sometimes
were
afarre
of
,
are
made
nigh
by
the
blood
of
Christ
;
for
he
is
our
peace
,
who
hath
made
both
one
,
and
hath
broken
down
the
middle
wall
of
partition
between
us
.
Indeed
in
ver.
16.
there
is
mention
made
of
reconciliation
unto
God
:
but
such
as
throws
down
the
wall
and
bulwarks
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
would
build
upon
it
.
And
that
he
might
reconcile
both
unto
God
,
in
one
body
by
the
Crosse
,
having
slain
the
enmity
thereby
.
Can
any
thing
be
more
plain
,
then
that
Jewes
and
Gentiles
are
first
made
one
body
by
faith
,
before
they
are
actually
reconciled
to
God
by
the
vertue
of
the
Crosse
of
Christ
?
Therefore
holy
Bayne
observes
well
upon
the
place
,
That
we
must
get
fellowship
with
Christ
,
we
must
be
incorporated
with
him
and
with
believers
,
before
we
can
be
reconciled
with
him
.
And
surely
this
incorporation
is
by
faith
,
ver.
13.
17
,
20.
chap.
3.
6
,
12.
and
4.
4.
John
10.
16.
The
same
I
say
to
Col.
1.
20
,
21.
And
(
having
made
peace
(
or
making
through
the
blood
of
his
Crosse
)
by
him
to
reconcile
all
things
to
himselfe
;
by
him
,
I
say
,
whether
they
be
things
in
earth
,
or
things
in
heaven
.
And
you
that
were
sometimes
alienated
,
and
enemies
in
your
minde
by
wicked
works
,
yet
now
hath
he
reconciled
,
in
the
body
of
his
flesh
,
through
death
,
&c.
Doth
not
the
Apostle
speak
as
plainly
,
as
it
is
possible
for
mans
tongue
to
utter
it
,
that
by
the
body
and
death
of
Christ
,
these
Colossians
were
reconciled
now
?
which
particle
now
is
expressely
opposed
to
the
time
wherein
they
were
alienated
,
and
enemies
in
their
mindes
by
wicked
works
.
I
shall
here
transcribe
something
of
a
reverend
and
renowned
[
d
](A96867-e51250-b)
d
●p
Davenant
on
the
place
.
Doctour
of
our
own
,
because
his
words
are
so
cleer
and
full
.
Ex
hoc
loco
colligimus
,
&c.
Out
of
this
place
we
gather
,
that
there
is
a
double
reconciliation
considered
in
Scripture
:
the
one
general
,
finished
in
the
sacrifice
on
the
Crosse
,
of
which
the
Apostle
spake
in
the
verse
foregoing
.
It
pleased
the
Father
by
the
blood
of
the
Crosse
,
to
reconcile
all
things
to
himselfe
;
and
John
chap.
1.
29.
Behold
the
Lamb
of
God
,
which
taketh
away
the
sin
of
the
world
.
This
I
call
general
,
because
it
is
considered
according
to
the
value
of
the
sacrifice
,
which
is
not
only
general
,
but
infinite
;
and
according
to
the
manner
of
proposing
it
in
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
which
is
also
indefinite
and
general
.
—
But
besides
this
reconciliation
in
the
Crosse
,
and
generally
Applicable
unto
all
,
the
Scripture
shews
us
also
a
particular
and
applied
reconciliation
in
the
hearts
and
consciences
of
particular
men
:
namely
,
when
that
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
which
hath
in
it
an
universal
power
of
reconciling
all
men
,
is
actually
applied
to
the
reconciliation
of
this
or
that
man
.
Of
this
speaks
the
Apostle
when
he
says
:
Now
hath
he
reconciled
you
.
2ly
,
we
are
taught
when
and
how
men
are
made
partakers
of
this
particular
reconciliation
,
namely
,
by
the
faith
of
the
Gospel
.
—
As
Rom.
3.
22.
Thus
farre
Davenant
.
If
then
Mr.
Eyre
will
urge
this
place
aright
,
it
overthrows
the
thing
which
he
would
prove
by
.
What
consequence
is
this
?
The
Scriptures
●ear
witnesse
,
that
they
that
believed
,
were
reconciled
unto
God
by
the
death
of
his
Sonne
.
Ergo
,
They
were
reconciled
while
they
were
in
unbelief
.
The
next
place
is
Col.
2.
13
,
14.
And
you
being
dead
in
your
sinnes
,
and
the
uncircumcision
of
your
flesh
,
hath
he
quickened
together
with
him
,
having
forgiven
you
all
trespasses
.
If
Mr.
Eyre
will
argue
from
this
verse
,
his
inference
must
be
this
.
Erg●
,
all
their
trespasses
were
forgiven
them
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
.
But
the
Adverbs
of
time
,
though
they
be
not
here
expressed
,
yet
are
they
necessarily
implied
,
as
appears
plainly
from
the
parallel
place
,
Eph.
2.
1
,
2
,
3.
where
their
death
in
sin
is
expresly
limited
to
the
time
past
,
namely
the
time
of
their
unbelief
,
in
opposition
to
the
time
present
,
namely
,
the
time
of
their
Conversion
;
which
words
if
we
borrow
from
thence
and
put
them
here
,
the
Apostles
sense
is
plainly
this
:
you
were
in
times
past
dead
in
sins
;
but
now
,
since
you
have
believed
,
are
quickened
,
that
is
to
say
,
have
your
sins
pardoned
,
which
to
be
his
meaning
is
undeniable
,
from
ver.
12.
the
verse
next
foregoing
,
where
he
tells
them
,
that
they
were
risen
with
Christ
in
Baptisme
,
through
the
faith
of
the
operation
of
God
:
And
then
presently
addes
,
as
another
excellency
and
priviledge
of
the
same
faith
,
(
if
at
least
the
priviledge
be
not
the
same
in
other
words
)
that
they
were
quickened
together
with
Christ
,
through
the
pardon
of
their
sins
,
where
,
as
their
being
raised
with
Christ
in
Bapptisme
,
doth
by
no
means
note
simultatem
temporis
,
that
they
were
baptized
at
the
same
time
as
Christ
was
raised
,
but
similitudinem
qualitatis
,
that
by
faith
and
baptisme
they
were
conformed
spiritually
unto
the
image
of
Christ
in
his
Resurrection
,
(
See
Rom.
6.
4
,
5
,
6.
)
so
neither
doth
their
being
quickened
with
Christ
in
the
forgivenesse
of
their
trespasses
,
signifie
that
their
sins
were
then
forgiven
when
he
was
quickened
,
(
much
lesse
immediately
upon
his
death
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
should
and
would
prove
:
)
but
our
conformity
to
him
in
our
deliverance
from
death
moral
,
as
he
was
raised
from
death
natural
.
But
it
may
be
't
is
the
next
verse
which
Mr.
Eyre
thinks
more
for
his
purpose
,
ver.
14.
Blotting
out
the
hand-writing
of
Ordinances
which
was
against
us
,
which
was
contrary
to
us
,
and
took
it
out
of
the
way
,
nailing
it
to
his
Crosse
.
The
words
(
as
I
conceive
with
our
Expositors
)
are
to
be
understood
of
the
abrogation
of
the
ceremonial
Law
,
by
which
the
Jewes
were
separated
from
the
Gentiles
,
and
the
Gentiles
from
that
accesse
unto
God
which
the
Jewes
had
.
And
this
indeed
was
a
necessary
and
faire
preparation
to
the
reconciling
of
the
Gentiles
through
faith
:
but
how
it
should
follow
from
hence
,
that
the
Gentiles
,
or
any
sinners
else
,
were
reconciled
to
God
immediately
upon
the
de●th
of
Christ
,
is
beyond
my
comprehension
.
And
yet
(
if
I
may
speak
my
own
judgement
)
I
see
no
reason
why
the
words
may
not
be
understood
metonymically
,
and
that
be
said
to
be
done
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
whereof
the
death
of
Christ
is
the
cause
that
it
is
done
,
though
it
be
not
done
presently
,
but
sometimes
after
:
for
the
death
of
Christ
did
indeed
give
the
ceremonies
their
deaths
wound
;
but
they
did
not
totally
and
perfectly
expire
,
till
sometime
[
e
](A96867-e51510-b)
e
Vide
Scot
in
Sent.
l
4.
d
,
3.
qu
4
n.
7.
8
,
9
,
12
&c.
See
also
D
Godwin
in
Rom.
8.
34.
sect.
5.
p
171
after
the
Gospel
had
been
preached
:
for
surely
,
some
yeares
after
the
death
of
Christ
,
if
the
Jewes
,
(
at
least
multitudes
of
them
,
who
lived
farthest
from
the
sound
of
the
Gospel
)
were
not
bound
to
observe
the
Laws
of
Moses
,
yet
they
might
observe
them
without
sin
,
which
after
the
Gospel
was
fully
preached
,
they
could
not
do
.
But
if
Mr.
Eyre
himself
,
or
any
man
else
,
shall
think
fit
,
hereafter
to
engage
in
this
Argument
;
I
shall
desire
him
to
forme
his
Reasons
from
these
and
the
like
texts
,
into
some
Logical
shape
,
that
we
may
be
assured
of
what
it
is
they
ground
upon
;
otherwise
men
may
accumulate
texts
of
Scripture
in
insinitum
,
and
an
Answerer
be
left
uncertain
what
he
opposeth
.
The
last
text
mentioned
by
Mr.
Eyre
,
is
2
Cor.
5.
19.
God
was
in
Christ
,
reconciling
the
world
unto
himself
:
which
words
Mr.
Eyre
confesseth
I
thus
glossed
.
That
God
was
in
Christ
,
acting
towards
the
reconciliation
of
the
world
to
himself
:
but
this
glosse
Mr.
Eyre
confuteth
;
How
?
Why
,
he
tells
his
Reader
,
It
is
not
so
.
Is
not
this
a
gallant
confutation
?
But
I
am
out
of
doubt
▪
that
it
is
so
,
and
that
the
Apostles
meaning
is
plainly
,
not
that
sinners
were
reconciled
immediately
and
presently
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
but
that
God
appointed
and
accepted
his
death
,
as
a
most
sufficient
meanes
and
cause
by
which
they
should
be
reconciled
,
when
they
believed
,
and
not
before
;
the
death
of
Christ
effecting
this
immediatly
.
That
notwithstanding
all
their
sins
,
yet
there
lies
not
on
them
a
remediles
necessity
of
perishing
,
but
that
if
they
shall
beleeve
on
him
that
died
for
them
,
they
shall
be
justified
and
saved
.
Even
as
if
we
should
say
of
a
Physician
,
that
hath
found
out
a
Catholicon
that
would
cure
all
diseases
;
Here
's
a
man
that
hath
cured
all
diseases
:
not
that
his
remedy
had
actually
cured
them
(
for
there
may
be
many
thousands
to
whom
it
was
never
applied
)
but
that
it
cures
all
who
will
suffer
it
to
be
applied
.
[
f
](A96867-e51660-b)
f
Aquin.
3
●●q
.
49.
art.
1.
ad
3
m.
Christus
in
suâ
passione
nos
liberavit
causaliter
,
id
est
,
instituens
causam
nostrae
liberationis
,
ex
qua
possent
quaecunque
p●ocata
quandoque
remitti
,
vel
praeterita
,
vel
praesentia
,
vel
futura
.
Siout
si
medicus
faciat
medicinam
,
ex
quâ
p●ssent
qu●●unque
morbi
sanari
,
etiam
in
futurum
.
Of
which
more
by
and
by
.
That
the
place
is
thus
to
be
interpreted
,
is
manifest
from
the
context
.
For
after
the
Apostle
had
said
,
God
was
in
Christ
,
or
by
Christ
reconciling
the
world
unto
himself
;
He
addes
,
And
hath
committed
unto
us
the
word
of
reconciliation
.
Now
then
we
are
Ambassadours
for
Christ
;
a●
though
God
did
beseech
you
by
us
,
we
pray
you
in
Christs
stead
be
ye
reconciled
unto
God
.
If
we
were
reconciled
in
the
death
of
Christ
quoad
effectum
,
to
what
purpose
are
Ambassadours
sent
abroad
into
the
world
,
most
earnestly
and
importunately
to
beseech
sinners
that
they
would
be
reconciled
unto
God
?
It
will
be
said
the
meaning
of
that
exhortation
is
,
that
sinners
would
●ay
aside
the
enmity
of
their
hearts
against
God
,
and
returne
to
him
by
faith
in
his
Sonne
Jesus
Christ
.
Answ.
Most
truly
,
if
one
word
more
be
added
,
namely
,
that
we
exhort
men
to
beleeve
on
Christ
,
that
they
may
partake
in
the
reconciliation
prepared
and
purchased
in
his
blood
,
for
all
that
come
unto
him
;
for
surely
the
reconciliation
which
the
Apostle
exhorts
to
,
is
not
only
active
,
in
our
●aying
aside
our
enmity
against
God
,
but
also
passive
in
Gods
being
reconciled
to
us
.
1.
That
is
the
proper
importance
of
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
the
passive
voice
,
though
we
cannot
so
happily
render
it
in
English
,
as
to
expresse
its
significancy
.
It
denotes
properly
,
not
our
act
of
reconciling
our selves
to
God
(
for
the
word
being
of
the
passive
voice
,
notes
that
we
also
are
passive
in
the
reconciliation
spoken
of
)
but
our
doing
of
that
,
upon
which
another
(
namely
God
)
is
reconciled
with
us
.
As
when
the
same
word
is
used
in
the
same
sense
,
1
Cor.
7.
11.
But
if
she
depart
,
let
her
remain
●●married
,
or
be
reconciled
to
her
h●sband
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
which
is
not
meant
of
her
laying
aside
of
enmity
against
her
husband
,
but
of
her
●sing
meanes
to
obtain
the
favour
and
affection
of
her
h●sband
,
that
he
may
be
reconciled
to
her
.
So
Matth
5.
24.
Be
reconciled
to
thy
Brother
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
not
meant
properly
of
a
mans
reconciling
himself
to
his
brother
,
but
of
doing
what
he
can
,
to
gain
his
brothers
good
affection
to
him
.
In
the
like
sense
doth
Peter
use
another
word
,
Acts
2.
40.
Save
your selves
from
this
untoward
generation
.
In
the
Greek
the
verbe
is
passive
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Be
you
saved
from
this
untoward
generation
,
that
is
,
convert
unto
God
,
that
you
may
be
saved
from
the
destruction
which
is
coming
on
this
generation
.
In
like
manner
,
when
the
Apostle
sayes
here
,
Be
ye
reconciled
unto
God
;
he
exhorts
us
indeed
unto
faith
,
not
as
that
by
which
we
reconcile
our selves
to
God
,
but
as
that
by
which
we
partake
in
Gods
reconciliation
with
us
.
If
then
we
be
perfectly
reconciled
before
,
what
needs
this
exhortation
?
2.
Or
that
other
in
the
next
verse
but
one
,
namely
,
chap.
6
,
1.
We
then
as
workers
together
with
him
,
beseech
you
also
,
that
you
receive
not
the
grace
of
God
in
vain
.
This
grace
of
God
is
that
which
before
he
called
the
Ministery
of
reconciliation
,
even
the
Gospel
,
inviting
us
through
faith
to
a
reconciliation
with
God
.
And
what
is
the
receiving
of
this
grace
in
vain
,
but
a
not
believing
of
Christ
and
his
Gospel
,
through
which
unbelief
the
reconciliation
begun
in
the
blood
of
Christ
,
and
preached
in
his
Gospel
,
becomes
of
none
effect
to
us
.
If
we
were
perfectly
reconciled
immediately
upon
his
death
,
our
unbelief
could
not
hinder
our
reconciliation
.
As
to
Mr.
Perkins
testimony
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
in
the
words
following
well
pleased
with
the
elect
,
because
he
loves
them
,
that
is
,
hath
purposes
of
doing
them
good
;
or
because
Parents
love
their
children
,
and
would
do
them
all
the
good
they
can
,
are
they
therefore
well
pleased
with
them
,
even
while
they
are
correcting
them
for
their
vices
?
let
themselves
judge
.
We
have
shewed
before
,
that
well-pleasednesse
imports
an
approbation
of
a
person
,
and
supposeth
him
endued
with
lovely
and
amiable
qualities
.
And
as
for
the
inference
which
I
made
upon
Mr.
Eyres
distinction
,
between
unregenerate
men
and
their
unregeneracy
;
it
was
grounded
upon
presumption
,
that
the
said
distinction
intended
to
shew
the
difference
between
Gods
well-pleasednesse
with
the
Elect
,
before
and
after
their
Conversion
:
otherwise
I
undertake
not
its
defence
.
In
the
next
place
,
Mr.
Eyre
addes
something
to
clear
up
the
difference
That
the
best
actions
of
unregenerate
men
are
impure
and
sinful
:
which
though
they
are
pardoned
unto
all
the
elect
,
yet
are
they
not
acceptable
to
God
,
but
in
themselves
most
abominable
and
loathsome
in
his
sight
.
Answ.
The
best
actions
of
unregenerate
men
are
materially
good
,
(
as
Prayer
,
hearing
of
the
Word
,
Almesdeeds
,
&c.
)
It
is
the
want
of
a
good
principle
,
and
a
good
end
which
makes
them
unacceptable
unto
God
,
2
Chron.
25.
2.
If
the
sinfulnesse
of
them
be
pardoned
,
they
must
needs
be
acceptable
,
as
we
observed
before
.
2.
Saith
he
,
The
best
works
of
good
men
are
acceptable
and
pleasing
unto
God
:
1.
Abstractly
,
and
in
themselves
:
thus
faith
,
hope
,
love
,
are
pleasing
to
God
.
2.
Concretely
,
as
they
are
acted
by
us
:
and
so
they
are
acceptable
to
God
,
as
they
are
washed
and
cleansed
in
the
blood
of
Christ
.
Answ.
1.
Abstracta
dicunt
essentias
;
faith
,
hope
,
and
love
in
their
abstract
nature
,
are
not
considered
as
our
actions
,
but
as
vertues
,
and
in
themselves
good
:
therefore
that
part
of
the
answer
is
impertinent
;
might
we
suppose
that
these
vertues
might
be
found
in
persons
not
elect
,
their
own
goodnesse
would
commend
them
to
God
,
as
much
as
when
they
are
in
persons
elect
.
2.
For
a
work
to
be
washed
and
cleansed
in
the
blood
of
Christ
,
is
to
have
the
sinfulnesse
thereof
for
his
sake
pardoned
:
which
because
it
is
done
to
the
elect
,
as
much
in
their
unregeneracy
as
after
;
the
good
works
they
do
,
when
regenerate
,
can
be
no
more
acceptable
then
before
.
SECT.
IV.
OF
all
the
places
in
Scripture
,
which
speak
of
our
reconciliation
unto
God
by
the
death
of
Christ
;
I
know
none
that
seem
to
ver.
9.
much
more
then
being
n●w
justified
by
his
blood
,
we
shall
be
saved
from
wrath
through
him
,
ver.
10.
for
if
when
we
were
enemies
,
we
were
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
his
Sonne
:
much
more
being
reconciled
we
shall
be
saved
by
his
life
,
ver.
11.
And
not
only
so
,
but
we
also
joy
in
God
through
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
by
whom
we
have
now
received
the
atonement
.
The
main
objection
is
out
of
ver.
10.
We
were
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
his
Sonne
.
The
answer
which
I
gave
to
it
in
short
was
this
,
That
Christs
death
was
the
price
of
our
reconciliation
:
and
so
it
is
through
the
death
of
Christ
that
we
are
reconciled
,
be
it
when
it
will
be
that
we
are
reconciled
,
which
that
it
is
the
Apostles
meaning
,
we
shall
prove
by
and
by
;
in
the
mean
time
let
us
see
what
Mr.
Eyre
hath
against
it
.
His
exceptions
are
six
.
1.
Saith
he
,
It
offers
a
manifest
violence
to
the
text
,
To
say
,
That
we
were
reconciled
,
is
as
much
as
we
shall
be
reconciled
.
Answ.
And
it
is
a
manifest
violence
to
my
words
,
to
say
,
that
I
so
interpret
it
.
I
say
,
we
were
reconciled
quoad
meritum
,
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
his
death
purchased
reconciliation
for
us
:
and
therefore
through
that
death
it
is
,
that
we
are
reconciled
actually
and
effectivè
whensoever
it
be
.
The
second
exception
is
the
old
irrational
notion
,
That
if
reconciliation
depend
upon
conditions
to
be
performed
by
us
,
then
we
are
the
causes
of
our
own
reconciliation
.
Where
,
not
only
the
consequence
is
false
,
(
as
we
have
largely
shewed
above
)
but
the
antecedent
also
impertinent
:
I
am
not
now
disputing
whether
reconciliation
follow
faith
,
but
whether
it
exist
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
?
The
third
.
This
reconciliation
was
made
when
we
were
enemies
.
Ergo
,
before
our
believing
.
Answ.
Yet
will
it
not
follow
,
that
it
was
made
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
which
is
the
thing
Mr.
Eyre
should
prove
.
If
we
be
not
reconciled
before
we
are
born
,
it
is
sufficient
to
prove
,
that
we
were
not
reconciled
in
the
death
of
Christ
immediately
,
whether
faith
be
supposed
to
be
necessary
or
no.
2.
The
word
reconciled
is
used
twice
in
ver.
10.
If
they
both
relate
to
one
and
the
same
reconciliation
,
(
of
which
I
doubt
,
as
I
shall
shew
farther
by
and
by
)
yet
I
readily
grant
that
it
was
made
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
Were
not
my
words
plain
enough
before
?
That
we
are
said
to
be
reconciled
unto
God
in
the
death
of
his
Sonne
,
inasmuch
as
Christs
death
was
the
price
of
our
reconciliation
.
The
cause
was
then
in
being
,
though
the
effect
do
not
follow
till
some
time
after
.
The
fourth
,
If
the
meaning
were
no
more
but
this
,
That
it
is
through
the
death
of
Christ
that
we
are
reconciled
,
be
it
when
it
will
be
that
we
are
reconciled
,
then
this
clause
,
when
we
were
enemies
,
would
be
superfluous
.
Answ.
The
emphasis
of
those
words
is
plain
.
God
reconciles
his
enemies
to
himself
,
whensoever
it
be
that
he
reconciles
them
;
and
Christ
purchased
reconciliation
for
enemies
,
not
for
friends
.
See
C●l.
1.
21.
The
fifth
,
God
was
in
Christ
,
not
imputing
our
sins
to
us
,
2
Cor.
5.
19.
Answ.
That
doth
not
prove
,
but
that
I
rightly
interpret
the
Apostle
here
.
2.
In
2
Cor.
5.
19.
reconciling
and
non-imputing
are
all
one
:
the
latter
interprets
the
former
.
God
did
act
towards
the
reconciliation
of
sinners
,
and
the
non-imputation
of
their
sin
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
but
they
were
not
therefore
presently
reconciled
,
and
their
sin
non-imputed
,
as
we
have
shewed
from
the
text
before
.
God
laid
the
foundation
of
a
future
reconciliation
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
The
sixth
,
That
what
I
grant
yields
the
question
,
viz.
The
immediate
reconciliation
of
sinners
upon
the
death
of
Christ
.
For
if
Christ
,
by
the
shedding
of
his
blood
,
paid
the
total
and
full
price
for
our
deliverance
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
then
were
we
actually
set
free
from
the
obligation
of
it
;
for
when
the
debt
is
paid
,
the
debtour
is
free
in
Law
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
consequent
,
and
the
proof
of
it
.
Christ
purchased
our
Glorification
:
must
we
therefore
needs
be
glorified
as
soon
as
he
was
dead
?
that
is
to
say
,
many
hundreds
of
years
before
we
are
borne
.
And
if
he
purchased
one
benefit
to
follow
not
till
many
yeares
after
the
price
was
paid
,
might
he
not
also
purchase
another
,
and
particularly
our
deliverance
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
to
follow
after
a
like
distance
of
time
?
2
,
The
reason
or
proof
is
most
impertinent
.
Christ
cannot
purchase
our
deliverance
from
the
curse
,
unlesse
the
said
deliverance
follow
presently
and
immediatly
,
because
the
debt
being
paid
,
the
debtour
is
presently
discharged
As
if
I
should
say
,
the
payment
of
the
debt
doth
presently
discharge
the
debtour
.
Ergo
,
men
cannot
purchase
reversions
.
3.
The
payment
of
the
debtour
doth
presently
discharge
him
:
but
if
it
be
not
the
debtour
himself
which
makes
the
payment
,
but
some
other
,
he
is
not
discharged
ipso
facto
,
as
we
shall
shew
anon
.
And
now
,
Reader
,
I
shall
acquaint
thee
with
the
Reasons
,
why
Rom.
5.
10.
We
were
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
his
Sonne
,
not
of
our
actual
and
compleat
reconciliation
,
but
of
that
which
is
purchased
:
and
so
the
meaning
of
the
words
,
we
were
reconciled
,
will
be
this
;
that
our
reconciliation
was
then
purchased
,
yea
,
and
also
perfect
ex
parte
causae
,
on
Christs
part
,
so
that
nothing
can
now
hinder
our
actual
,
personal
and
perfect
reconciliation
with
God
,
but
our
own
refusing
to
be
reconciled
:
God
having
constituted
a
most
sufficient
cause
of
our
reconciliation
in
the
death
of
Christ
.
1.
From
ver.
8.
and
9.
While
we
were
yet
sinners
Christ
died
for
us
,
much
more
then
being
justified
now
by
his
blood
.
&c.
What
in
ver.
9.
is
called
Justification
,
that
in
ver.
10.
is
called
reconciliation
:
and
for
Christ
to
die
for
us
while
we
were
sinners
,
ver.
8.
is
all
one
with
what
is
said
,
ver.
10.
When
we
were
enemies
we
were
reconciled
by
his
death
.
But
the
time
of
their
Justification
is
expressely
separated
from
the
time
of
Christs
death
for
them
,
by
the
particle
now
;
While
we
were
yet
sinners
Christ
died
for
us
;
but
we
are
justified
now
:
which
particle
now
,
though
it
have
several
senses
in
Scripture
(
as
we
shall
shew
by
and
by
,
)
yet
here
,
being
put
after
the
participle
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
separated
from
the
Conjunction
●
,
by
the
interposition
of
two
entire
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
expressely
opposed
to
the
time
past
(
when
we
were
yet
sinners
)
must
therefore
needs
be
an
adverbe
of
time
.
And
the
time
it
notes
,
is
their
present
time
of
Conversion
and
believing
,
opposed
unto
that
whole
time
wherein
they
were
yet
sinners
.
And
so
the
whole
sentence
runs
thus
,
(
most
pertinently
to
the
Apostles
scope
)
If
while
we
were
yet
sinners
(
under
the
power
and
condemnation
of
sin
)
Christ
died
for
us
:
much
more
then
being
justified
now
(
that
we
are
believers
)
by
his
blood
,
&c.
Accordingly
,
if
the
particle
now
be
borrowed
from
ver
9.
and
repeated
in
ver.
10.
the
whole
sense
of
the
verse
will
be
this
.
If
while
we
were
enemies
we
were
reconciled
(
sc.
causaliter
&
quantum
ad
meritum
)
unto
God
in
the
death
of
his
Sonne
;
much
more
being
now
,
(
viz.
since
we
are
believers
)
reconciled
,
(
quoad
effectum
)
we
shall
be
saved
by
his
life
;
and
so
the
first
reconciled
signifies
that
which
is
ex
parte
Christi
,
and
the
second
that
which
is
ex
parte
nostri
:
the
former
,
reconciliation
in
the
cause
;
the
latter
,
in
the
effect
.
Just
as
this
same
Apostle
distinguisheth
the
same
word
,
2
Cor.
5.
19
,
20.
God
was
in
Christ
reconciling
.
—
Be
ye
reconciled
.
And
surely
faith
must
be
supposed
to
the
reconciled
in
the
second
part
of
the
verse
,
or
it
is
of
no
use
at
all
to
salvation
:
for
the
Apostles
discourse
supposeth
that
there
is
a
necessary
and
immediate
connexion
between
reconciliation
and
salvation
:
so
that
he
that
is
reconciled
is
immediately
capable
of
being
saved
.
Much
more
being
reconciled
we
shall
be
saved
.
But
no
unbeliever
is
immediately
capable
of
being
saved
,
though
Christ
have
died
for
him
:
for
he
must
believe
first
,
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
himself
will
grant
:
)
If
it
be
said
,
that
faith
it selfe
is
part
of
our
salvation
;
the
Objector
must
suppose
,
that
the
Apostle
speaks
of
himselfe
and
the
Romanes
,
as
of
unbelievers
,
to
this
sense
:
much
more
being
reconciled
,
we
shall
have
faith
given
us
,
which
is
unreasonable
to
suppose
.
2.
And
that
our
being
reconciled
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
to
be
understood
All
men
are
dead
in
Adam
,
as
in
ver.
15.
though
he
speak
of
the
effect
as
wrought
,
yet
he
must
be
understood
as
intending
no
more
,
then
that
the
cause
of
all
mens
death
was
in
being
,
as
soon
as
Adam
sinned
(
for
surely
men
cannot
be
dead
before
they
are
borne
,
or
have
a
being
)
so
when
it
is
said
,
men
are
reconciled
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
the
word
reconciled
must
be
understood
in
like
manner
,
as
noting
the
vertue
of
the
cause
,
not
the
effect
as
already
produced
.
I
know
Mr.
Eyre
thinks
,
that
all
men
were
actually
&
quoad
effectum
,
condemned
in
Adam
.
But
I
would
he
would
make
this
probable
,
yea
,
or
conceivable
;
for
I
confesse
my
dull
head
cannot
apprehend
it
:
though
I
do
easily
conceive
how
we
may
be
said
to
be
condemned
in
him
causally
(
for
the
common
sin
of
our
nature
)
namely
,
that
the
causes
of
our
condemnation
were
then
in
being
,
which
do
certainly
produce
the
effect
of
condemnation
upon
us
,
as
soon
as
we
exist
.
But
condemnation
is
a
real
transient
act
.
Ergo
,
it
supposeth
its
object
really
existing
:
but
it
is
unconceivable
how
men
should
really
exist
,
five
or
six
thousand
yeares
before
they
are
borne
.
Seeing
then
our
reconciliation
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
by
the
Apostles
own
Explication
,
is
of
the
same
kinde
with
our
condemnation
in
Adam
:
it
is
manifest
it
must
be
understood
of
reconciliation
in
the
cause
,
not
in
the
effect
.
Nor
let
it
trouble
the
Reader
,
that
the
Apostle
speaks
as
if
the
effect
Ezek.
24.
13.
I
have
purged
thee
,
and
thou
wast
not
purged
,
that
is
,
there
was
nothing
wanting
on
Gods
part
that
might
conduce
to
her
purging
,
though
the
effect
did
not
follow
,
Col.
1.
23.
the
Gospel
was
preached
to
every
creature
under
heaven
:
not
that
every
person
and
Nation
had
then
heard
the
Gospel
(
for
they
have
not
yet
heard
it
)
but
that
by
Gods
permission
and
commandment
they
might
hear
it
.
Christ
hath
abolished
death
,
2
Tim.
1.
10.
namely
,
he
is
the
authour
and
cause
of
its
abolition
,
or
he
hath
abolished
it
quoad
meritum
,
for
death
is
not
destroyed
de
facto
&
quoad
effectum
,
till
the
Resurrection
,
1
Cor.
15.
26
,
54.
so
in
verbs
of
active
signification
,
Heb.
4.
12.
The
Word
of
God
is
powerful
,
—
piercing
to
the
dividing
asunder
,
&c.
Psal.
19.
7
,
8.
converting
,
making
wise
,
rejoycing
the
heart
,
enlightening
the
eyes
,
all
which
do
not
so
much
signifie
the
act
,
as
the
vertue
and
sufficiency
of
the
cause
.
In
like
manner
,
when
Christ
is
said
to
be
the
propitiation
for
our
sins
,
and
not
for
ours
only
,
but
for
the
sins
of
the
whole
world
,
1
John
2.
2.
it
is
to
be
understood
of
the
vertue
and
sufficiency
of
his
blood
to
take
away
sin
,
not
of
a
propitiation
then
presently
wrought
and
effected
:
for
there
is
none
such
before
faith
,
if
the
Apostle
may
be
beleeved
,
Rom.
3.
25.
Whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
.
Multitudes
of
like
instances
are
obvious
.
A
third
Argument
is
that
mentioned
in
my
Sermon
out
of
v.
11.
By
whom
we
have
now
also
received
the
atonement
,
which
in
plainer
termes
is
this
,
That
now
,
that
is
,
since
we
are
believers
,
we
are
actually
reconciled
unto
God
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
1.
That
I
might
as
well
argue
,
that
because
the
Apostle
saith
1
Cor.
15.
20.
Now
is
Christ
risen
.
Ergo
,
he
was
not
risen
before
he
wrote
that
Epistle
.
Or
from
Eph.
2.
2.
The
Spirit
that
now
worketh
in
the
children
of
unbelief
.
Ergo
,
he
did
not
work
in
them
before
.
Rep.
Doth
Mr.
Eyre
then
think
,
that
the
particle
now
in
this
place
is
to
be
taken
in
the
same
sense
,
as
in
those
?
if
he
doth
,
his
next
answer
is
a
nullity
:
if
he
doth
not
,
he
might
have
spared
this
.
The
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
now
hath
several
uses
,
sometimes
it
is
a
meer
supplement
or
redundancy
,
Psal.
39.
7.
sometimes
a
note
of
transition
,
as
when
it
is
said
,
Now
it
came
to
passe
.
sometimes
of
a
continued
act
,
as
Eph.
2.
2.
Heb.
9.
24.
sometimes
of
a
supposition
,
Rom.
8.
1.
1
Cor.
7.
14.
sometimes
of
opposition
,
or
of
assumption
,
1
Cor.
15.
20.
Heb.
11.
16.
but
most
commonly
and
naturally
of
time
,
and
particularly
of
the
time
of
mens
being
converted
,
Rom.
6.
19
,
21
,
22.
and
1●
.
30.
Gal.
2.
20.
and
4.
9.
and
elsewhere
often
;
so
is
it
taken
here
,
as
being
distinguished
from
the
time
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
ver.
10.
and
superadding
some
other
benefit
then
what
was
effected
immediately
in
his
death
,
namely
,
the
receiving
of
reconciliation
;
neither
of
which
are
to
be
found
in
either
of
the
places
mentioned
by
Mr.
Eyre
,
nor
will
any
of
the
other
sense
of
the
word
comport
with
this
place
.
His
second
answer
therefore
is
,
We
cannot
receive
or
apply
reconciliation
to
our selves
but
by
faith
,
yet
it
follows
not
,
that
God
did
not
account
it
to
us
before
.
Rep.
The
accounting
of
reconciliation
to
us
,
is
an
expression
I
never
heard
before
.
2.
Justification
and
reconciliation
are
here
used
to
signifie
the
same
thing
.
Ergo
,
to
receive
the
atonement
is
all
one
with
the
receiving
of
Justification
,
or
pardon
of
sin
,
as
Acts
26.
18.
and
10.
43.
which
we
have
shewed
before
,
cannot
be
meant
of
our
knowing
our
sins
to
be
pardoned
.
SECT.
V.
FOr
farther
Explication
of
the
difference
between
our
reconciliation
Against
any
of
these
particulars
Mr.
Eyre
excepts
nothing
,
but
exclaims
against
the
whole
as
extreamly
grosse
;
and
why
?
forsooth
,
because
it
makes
God
changeable
.
But
as
grosse
as
it
is
,
not
our
Protestants
only
,
but
the
Scriptures
also
own
every
syllable
of
it
,
nor
will
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
stand
without
it
.
God
was
in
friendship
with
Adam
,
while
he
continued
righteous
and
without
sin
.
I
conceive
it
is
next
to
an
impossibility
,
that
the
righteous
Lord
should
be
at
enmity
with
a
righteous
man
,
who
neither
is
a
sinner
,
nor
in
the
room
of
a
sinner
.
After
Adam
had
sinned
,
was
not
God
at
enmity
with
him
?
Yes
surely
,
unlesse
Christ
be
dead
in
vaine
:
by
his
death
we
were
reconciled
while
we
were
enemies
.
After
the
death
of
Christ
,
God
is
reconciled
unto
sinners
.
Lo
here
,
God
is
a
friend
,
an
enemy
,
and
reconciled
again
:
and
is
this
such
monstrous
Divinity
with
Mr.
Eyre
?
But
for
the
Readers
farther
information
,
I
shall
endeavour
to
shew
,
how
God
may
be
first
a
friend
,
then
an
enemy
,
then
reconciled
,
without
any
variablenesse
or
shadow
of
changing
in
himselfe
;
and
then
shall
adde
a
word
or
two
more
concerning
our
reconciliation
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
so
return
to
Mr.
Eyre
.
Reconciliation
is
the
redintegration
or
renewing
of
friendship
:
[
g
](A96867-e53610-b)
g
Vide
Arist.
ad
Nichom
.
8.
2
,
7.
)
and
friendship
is
either
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
between
those
who
may
be
equally
serviceable
one
unto
another
,
in
any
office
of
love
and
friendly
communication
of
good
,
in
a
way
of
arithmetical
proportion
:
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
between
those
that
are
of
unequal
condition
,
the
one
excelling
the
other
in
dignity
,
or
age
,
or
power
:
between
whom
there
cannot
therefore
be
any
reciprocal
communication
of
good
,
but
in
a
way
of
geometrical
proportion
:
he
that
is
of
low
degree
and
meaner
rank
,
imparting
love
and
honour
,
and
observance
to
him
that
is
of
high
degree
,
according
to
that
authority
,
dignity
or
eminency
in
any
kinde
,
wherein
he
is
exalted
above
him
.
And
this
(
for
example
)
is
the
friendship
between
(
[
h
](A96867-e53650-b)
h
Aristot
.
ibid
c.
8
,
11.
)
a
Prince
and
Rom.
5.
v.
10.
13.
15
,
16
,
17.
compared
.
As
on
the
other
side
,
mans
love
and
friendship
to
God
,
consisted
in
his
obedience
to
the
Law
,
Matth.
22.
37
,
39.
and
his
enmity
in
rebellion
against
it
,
Rom.
8.
7.
From
which
grounds
it
will
be
easie
to
understand
how
God
may
[
i
](A96867-e53740-b)
i
Antisynod
.
de
morte
Christi
.
c.
1.
p.
●5
12●
.
&
Dav●n
.
dissert.
de
mort
.
Christi
.
p.
65.
68.
)
Ames
)
non
infert
aliquam
intrinsecam
mutationem
in
Deo
,
sed
talem
mutationem
in
dispensatione
extrinseca
,
quâ
fit
,
ut
influentia
propensae
ejus
volunt
atis
in
peccatores
ordinatè
possit
deriv●ri
,
ad
eorum
salutem
perficiendam
:
Sicut
post
Augustinum
,
Lombardum
,
Thomam
,
Commentatores
omnes
&
Calvinus
instit
.
lib.
2.
cap.
16.
&c.
Yea
,
so
farre
is
all
this
from
making
any
change
in
God
,
that
he
must
of
necessity
be
changed
,
unlesse
this
be
true
.
Should
he
be
an
enemy
to
man
perfectly
righteous
,
or
not
an
enemy
to
him
while
a
sinner
,
or
not
reconciled
to
him
when
penitent
,
and
a
believer
,
he
must
deny
himself
;
so
little
cause
hath
Mr.
Eyre
to
charge
us
with
Vorstian
Divinity
.
Then
for
the
second
thing
,
I
wish
Mr.
Eyre
had
told
us
more
[
k
](A96867-e53830-b)
k
Vide
Hug.
Grot.
de
satisfact
p.
172.
ex
Suidâ
.
)
make
peace
:
and
common
sense
informes
us
,
that
there
is
no
need
of
a
Mediatour
where
there
is
no
disagreement
;
and
the
Scripture
is
expresse
,
Gal.
3
20.
A
Mediatour
is
not
of
one
,
that
is
,
of
them
that
are
at
perfect
friendship
and
agreement
one
with
another
.
And
therefore
when
all
enmity
between
God
and
man
shall
be
destroyed
perfectly
,
Christ
shall
cease
to
be
any
longer
a
Mediatour
.
For
he
must
reigne
till
all
enemies
be
put
under
his
fe●t
,
and
then
shall
Christ
deliver
back
his
mediatory
Kingdome
into
his
fathers
hands
,
1
Cor.
15.
24
,
25
,
26
,
27
,
28.
To
say
,
he
a
Mediatour
still
,
not
to
perfect
,
but
to
manifest
reconciliation
,
is
to
say
nothing
:
For
the
want
of
the
manifestation
of
reconciliation
is
some
part
of
enmity
,
or
not
.
If
it
be
,
then
God
and
believers
are
not
yet
perfectly
reconciled
:
if
not
;
then
shall
not
Christ
need
to
be
a
Mediatour
between
God
and
them
for
that
end
.
2.
If
it
be
the
work
of
Christ
in
heaven
to
make
reconciliation
for
sinners
on
earth
,
then
those
sinners
are
not
perfectly
reconciled
to
God
at
present
.
But
the
first
is
true
.
Ergo.
The
text
is
plain
,
Heb.
2.
17.
It
behoved
him
in
all
things
to
be
made
like
unto
his
brethren
,
that
he
might
be
a
merciful
and
faithful
High
Priest
,
in
things
pertaining
unto
God
,
to
make
reconciliation
for
the
sins
of
the
people
.
The
Apostles
scope
is
to
shew
the
necessity
of
Christs
sufferings
on
earth
before
he
went
to
heaven
,
ver.
9
,
10.
namely
,
that
from
the
experience
of
his
own
sufferings
and
temptations
here
,
he
might
be
the
more
merciful
and
faithful
to
make
reconciliation
for
our
sins
.
Compare
Heb.
4.
15.
Nor
can
this
be
meant
of
making
known
or
manifesting
reconciliation
.
For
1.
The
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
notes
such
an
act
as
is
conversant
.
first
about
God
:
that
he
might
be
faithful
in
things
pertaining
to
God
,
sayes
the
text
:
even
as
the
object
of
the
service
of
every
High
Priest
ordained
for
men
,
is
things
pertaining
to
God
,
primarily
and
in
the
first
place
,
Heb.
5.
1.
But
to
manifest
reconciliation
,
is
an
act
primarily
and
totally
conversant
about
us
,
not
an
act
to
God-ward
for
us
.
2.
The
manifestation
of
reconciliation
being
wrought
by
the
Spirit
of
Christ
,
is
most
properly
an
act
of
Christ
,
as
King
:
but
the
reconciliation
here
spoken
of
,
is
precisely
and
formally
the
act
of
Christ
as
Priest
.
3.
And
as
the
Greek
word
is
not
so
much
as
pretended
to
signifie
a
manifestation
in
any
other
place
,
so
in
this
especially
it
cannot
have
that
sense
,
because
the
construction
will
not
bear
it
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
reconcile
sins
,
is
as
much
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
make
a
reconciliation
or
propitiation
with
God
for
their
sins
.
But
if
Mr.
Eyre
mean
no
more
,
then
that
the
death
of
Christ
did
immediately
effect
an
imperfect
and
initial
reconciliation
,
he
knows
that
I
yield
it
in
part
,
viz.
that
God
through
the
death
of
Christ
,
hath
so
far
forth
laid
aside
his
enmity
against
sinners
,
as
that
he
is
ready
to
receive
them
into
his
favour
if
they
will
beleeve
and
repent
:
whereof
also
he
hath
given
them
such
assurance
in
his
Gospel
:
that
if
now
they
be
not
reconciled
,
it
is
because
they
wil
not
be
reconciled
:
if
they
die
,
it
is
because
they
will
die
.
But
if
his
meaning
be
,
that
this
reconciliation
is
begun
to
be
applied
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
;
then
1.
Let
him
no
longer
urge
the
bare
word
:
but
seeing
reconciliation
hath
its
degrees
,
let
him
demonstrate
that
it
must-be
understood
,
not
of
the
first
degree
(
which
I
stand
for
,
)
but
of
the
second
,
which
begins
in
application
.
2.
I
desire
also
to
know
,
by
what
act
God
doth
apply
this
reconciliation
to
men
that
have
no
being
till
many
ages
after
Christs
death
?
Is
it
by
some
act
of
his
minde
?
surely
that
will
be
very
dangerous
to
affirme
,
that
any
immanent
act
of
God
hath
its
beginning
after
the
death
of
Christ
.
Is
it
a
transient
act
?
shew
us
then
its
object
:
it
is
past
imagination
,
how
an
effect
can
be
wrought
and
exist
in
or
upon
an
object
,
which
it selfe
hath
no
existence
.
Lastly
,
i●
the
benefits
purchased
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
be
none
of
them
applied
or
actually
given
us
,
before
Christs
sitting
down
at
the
right
hand
of
God
:
then
neither
was
reconciliation
applied
to
us
,
or
given
us
immediately
in
or
upon
the
death
of
Christ
.
But
the
first
is
true
.
Ergo
,
so
is
the
second
,
Heb.
5.
9.
Being
made
perfect
,
(
that
is
,
exalted
into
glory
,
see
chap.
2.
10.
)
he
became
the
Authour
of
eternal
salvation
to
all
them
that
obey
him
:
without
this
we
could
have
received
(
[
l
](A96867-e54040-b)
l
See
Dr.
Reynol●s
.
in
P●
.
110.
p.
427.
429.
&
Dr.
Go●win
on
Rom.
8
sect
5.
p.
71
,
177.
)
none
of
the
benefits
purchased
in
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
therefore
surely
reconciliation
was
not
begun
to
be
applied
immediately
in
or
upon
his
death
,
Heb.
8.
4.
If
he
were
on
earth
,
he
should
not
be
a
priest
.
Rom.
4.
25.
who
was
delivered
for
our
offences
,
and
was
raised
againe
for
our
justification
,
1
Cor.
15.
17.
If
Christ
be
not
raised
—
you
are
yet
in
your
sins
.
And
a
general
rule
it
is
amongst
Divines
,
that
Christ
in
his
intercession
is
the
applying
cause
of
all
the
benefits
purchased
in
his
death
.
Seeing
then
it
is
certaine
,
that
our
reconciliation
,
though
purchased
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
yet
is
not
applied
and
actually
given
us
till
his
entrance
into
heaven
,
if
now
it
be
asked
when
Christ
in
heaven
doth
give
us
this
reconciliation
?
I
answer
in
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Act.
5.
31.
Him
hath
God
exalted
to
be
a
Prince
and
a
Saviour
,
to
give
repentance
to
Israel
,
and
forgivenesse
of
sin
(
which
is
the
reconciliation
we
speak
of
)
and
2
Cor.
5.
20.
we
are
Ambassadours
for
Christ
;
as
though
God
did
beseech
you
by
us
,
we
pray
you
in
Christs
stead
,
be
you
reconciled
unto
God
.
And
now
I
returne
to
Mr.
Eyre
.
SECT.
VI.
I
Had
said
in
my
Sermon
,
that
it
is
through
the
death
of
Christ
that
This
,
after
Mr.
Eyre
hath
represented
and
paraphrased
as
he
pleased
,
and
charged
it
(
of
course
)
with
the
imputations
of
Arminianisme
and
Popery
,
at
last
he
advanceth
foure
Arguments
against
it
,
as
he
saith
:
but
if
the
Reader
will
peruse
them
,
he
will
find
there
is
not
one
:
I
say
againe
,
not
one
:
but
all
of
them
levelled
against
a
position
,
which
never
came
into
my
mind
to
owne
.
viz.
That
Christ
purchased
only
a
conditional
promise
.
Si
sat
sit
accusasse
,
quis
erit
innocens
?
I
say
therefore
that
Christ
did
indeed
purchase
the
conditional
Covenant
:
but
I
say
withal
,
that
if
we
look
to
the
intention
of
Christ
in
purchasing
,
he
purchased
the
infallible
application
or
donation
of
every
blessing
of
the
Covenant
unto
some
,
namely
the
elect
.
If
this
be
Arminianisme
,
I
am
an
Arminian
:
yea
and
so
strong
in
the
persuasion
,
that
I
cannot
hope
of
my self
,
that
I
shall
be
altered
by
any
mans
writings
which
I
have
seen
,
or
am
like
to
see
while
I
live
.
But
what
?
cannot
a
general
pardon
be
purchased
for
all
,
because
it
is
intended
that
some
shall
infallibly
be
pardoned
and
saved
by
it
?
or
is
not
such
a
pardon
the
first
Act
and
degree
of
our
reconciliation
,
because
other
things
are
purchased
as
well
as
it
?
more
then
this
I
shall
not
need
to
say
to
any
of
Mr.
Eyres
Arguments
:
nor
do
I
intend
to
say
more
to
the
three
last
:
the
first
,
because
it
pretends
some
Scriptures
for
an
immediate
reconciliation
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
I
shall
answer
to
particularly
.
The
Argument
then
is
this
.
The
Scripture
no
where
saies
,
that
Christ
died
to
obtaine
a
conditional
grant
,
but
to
make
an
end
of
sin
,
Dan.
9.
24.
By
the
blood
of
his
crosse
he
hath
made
peace
,
Colos.
1.
20.
Broken
down
the
partition
wall
,
Eph.
2.
14.
Delivered
us
from
the
curse
,
Gal.
3.
13.
And
our
Saviour
doth
not
say
,
Math.
26.
28.
That
he
shed
his
blood
to
procure
a
conditional
promise
,
but
for
the
remission
of
the
sins
of
many
,
i.
e.
of
all
the
elect
.
Answ.
Of
the
first
part
of
the
answer
more
anon
.
As
to
Dan.
to
make
an
end
of
sin
.
[
m
](A96867-e54360-b)
m
Vide
J●nium
.
&
Willet
.
Hexapl.
in
loc.
some
interpreting
it
of
that
end
of
sin
,
not
which
Christ
made
,
but
which
sinners
themselves
make
by
repentance
,
[
n
](A96867-e54370-b)
n
Vid.
Rolloc
.
comment
.
in
loc.
some
of
restraining
and
confirming
the
godly
,
that
they
might
not
be
guilty
of
a
defection
from
God
.
But
understand
it
of
the
end
made
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
what
is
the
inference
?
Ergo
,
it
is
not
through
the
death
of
Christ
that
the
promise
is
made
by
,
and
according
to
which
we
are
reconciled
to
God
when
we
believe
.
Doth
Mr.
Eyre
think
this
consequence
needs
no
proofe
?
If
this
text
afford
him
any
thing
for
his
purpose
,
it
will
exclude
the
intercession
of
Christ
,
and
the
Covenant
of
pardon
made
in
his
blood
from
being
at
all
necessary
or
useful
to
the
making
an
end
of
sin
.
To
Colos.
1.
20.
It
pleased
the
Father
,
having
made
peace
through
the
blood
of
his
crosse
,
by
him
to
reconcile
all
things
to
himself
,
&c.
The
answer
is
ready
.
That
the
making
of
peace
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
here
mentioned
as
the
means
to
that
reconciliation
of
all
things
to
himself
,
which
the
Father
intended
thereby
;
for
both
the
making
of
peace
and
reconciliation
are
here
mentioned
as
the
acts
of
God
,
as
the
first
and
principal
cause
:
and
the
latter
,
the
effect
and
end
of
the
former
.
God
hath
made
peace
in
Christs
death
,
that
he
might
reconcile
us
to
himself
.
I
appeal
to
any
man
that
knows
what
a
consequence
is
,
whether
it
will
hence
follow
,
that
sinners
were
reconciled
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
without
the
intervention
of
a
Covenant
,
that
is
,
without
the
ministry
of
reconciliation
.
Yea
rather
the
just
contrary
follows
:
for
making
of
peace
in
Christs
death
,
is
here
made
the
means
and
cause
of
a
future
reconciliation
that
follows
,
when
?
even
when
by
the
Gospel
sinners
are
converted
unto
God
.
As
is
evident
in
the
example
of
these
Colossians
,
v.
21.
And
you
that
were
sometimes
alienated
,
and
enemies
by
wicked
works
,
yet
now
hath
he
reconciled
.
As
also
by
that
place
altogether
parallel
to
this
,
Eph.
2.
15
,
16
,
17.
Having
abolished
in
his
flesh
the
enmity
,
even
the
Law
of
commandments
—
so
making
peace
.
And
that
he
might
reconcile
both
unto
God
in
one
body
by
the
crosse
,
and
came
and
preached
peace
unto
you
,
&c.
Here
we
see
.
1.
What
is
meant
by
making
of
peace
.
viz.
A
plucking
up
the
bounds
,
and
throwing
down
the
wall
that
separated
the
Gentiles
from
the
Jews
,
and
by
consequence
from
God
:
or
an
obtaining
of
a
Covenant
of
peace
that
might
reach
even
unto
the
Gentiles
,
(
who
before
w●re
afar
off
,
and
strangers
from
the
Covenants
of
promise
,
v.
12
,
13.
)
that
they
also
might
be
fellow
heires
,
and
of
the
same
body
,
and
partakers
of
the
promise
in
Christ
by
the
Gospel
,
chap.
3.
6.
2.
Here
is
the
end
of
this
peace
made
by
the
crosse
.
viz.
That
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
in
one
body
might
be
reconciled
to
God
:
that
is
,
through
the
same
faith
in
the
same
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
in
whom
there
is
neither
Jew
nor
Gentile
,
neither
circumcision
nor
uncircumcision
,
but
all
are
one
in
him
through
the
same
saith
,
Gal.
3.
28.
and
5.
6.
3.
The
means
by
which
they
came
to
be
of
the
same
body
,
namely
,
by
the
preaching
of
peace
,
v.
17.
Can
any
thing
be
spoken
more
fully
against
the
immediate
reconciliation
of
sinners
in
the
death
of
Christ
?
or
for
proofe
,
that
Christ
obtained
that
Covenant
of
peace
,
through
the
preaching
of
which
the
Gentiles
were
converted
,
and
so
reconciled
unto
God
?
Gal.
3.
13.
saith
that
Christ
hath
redeemed
us
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
:
that
is
,
paid
the
price
of
our
redemption
,
or
obtained
eternal
redemption
for
us
,
as
Heb.
9.
12.
but
doth
it
say
that
we
are
delivered
without
a
Covenant
made
in
the
same
blood
and
death
of
Christ
?
nay
the
Apostle
supposeth
the
just
contrary
,
namely
that
blessednesse
(
whereof
sure
our
reconciliation
with
God
is
no
small
part
)
is
given
to
us
by
Covenant
,
v.
11
,
14
,
15
,
16.
Even
that
which
he
calls
the
promise
by
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
v.
22.
The
last
text
is
that
mentioned
in
my
sermon
,
Matth.
26.
28.
Christ
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
doth
not
say
that
he
shed
his
blood
to
procure
a
conditional
promise
,
but
for
the
remission
of
the
sins
of
many
.
Ans.
But
he
sayes
,
his
blood
was
the
blood
of
the
New-Testament
,
which
was
shed
for
the
remission
of
sins
.
Of
which
former
words
Mr.
Eyre
is
content
to
take
no
notice
.
But
out
of
doubt
they
teach
us
this
,
(
or
they
teach
us
nothing
)
that
by
the
blood
of
Christ
was
the
Covenant
of
remission
obtained
and
sealed
:
or
that
Covenant
by
which
sin
is
pardoned
to
them
that
beleeve
,
for
the
blood
of
Christ
pardons
not
sin
immediately
,
but
unto
them
onely
that
drink
it
by
faith
,
Joh.
6.
53
,
54
,
55
,
56
,
57.
Hence
the
Apostate
from
the
faith
,
is
said
to
count
the
blood
of
the
Covenant
by
which
he
was
sanctified
,
an
unholy
thing
,
Heb.
10.
29.
SECT.
VII
.
HAving
thus
shewed
from
the
Scriptures
that
sinners
are
not
immediately
Mr.
Eyre
answers
to
the
former
.
Whether
the
death
of
Christ
be
solutio
ejusdem
or
●antidem
,
as
it
is
a
satisfaction
or
payment
of
a
debt
,
so
the
discharge
thereby
procured
must
needs
be
immediate
:
for
that
a
debt
should
be
paid
and
satisfied
,
and
yet
justly
chargeable
,
implies
a
contradiction
.
Rep.
Yea
?
Then
the
Lawyers
abuse
both
themselves
and
us
:
for
there
is
scarcely
a
determination
more
common
in
the
Law
,
then
[
o
](A96867-e54730-b)
o
L.
mutuum
.
§.
2.
ff.
de
reb
cred
.
l.
cum
.
●
.
de
sol.
l.
Debitor
.
ff.
de
sol.
(
ubi
pro
debitorem
legendum
creditorem
)
l.
si
●c
.
§.
3.
ff.
de
re
ju●
.
that
a
debtor
is
not
discharged
ipso
facto
,
upon
the
payment
of
any
other
thing
,
then
of
that
same
which
is
in
the
obligation
.
Titius
is
bound
to
pay
Sempronius
a
hundred
pounds
in
current
mony
of
England
:
when
the
day
of
payment
is
come
,
he
brings
the
full
value
in
corne
,
or
he
is
bound
to
pay
silver
,
and
he
brings
gold
:
is
he
hereby
discharged
?
No.
But
if
he
bring
the
very
same
thing
which
he
was
bound
to
,
he
is
discharged
ipso
facto
.
Now
if
when
he
brings
gold
instead
of
silver
,
or
corne
instead
of
mony
,
some
act
of
the
creditour
is
requisite
to
admit
the
payment
of
one
instead
of
the
other
,
that
so
the
debtor
may
be
freed
:
then
is
it
also
in
the
creditors
power
(
especially
the
debtor
also
consenting
)
to
propose
upon
what
tearms
he
will
that
the
debtor
shall
be
freed
:
either
presently
or
after
some
time
,
either
upon
condition
or
without
,
which
is
all
I
seek
for
at
present
:
the
consequence
of
this
we
shall
see
by
and
by
.
In
the
mean
time
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
me
prove
that
the
death
of
Christ
is
not
solutio
ejusdem
.
A
service
which
I
little
expected
to
be
put
upon
,
by
an
English
Divine
.
[
p
](A96867-e54860-b)
p
Vide
librum
●vi
mei
reverendissimi
Robert●●
arkeri
de
descensu
.
l.
3.
§.
57
,
58.
p
g.
108
109
The
Assemb
larg
.
Catech.
o●
justi
.
q.
2.
1.
All
our
Divines
acknowledge
that
Christ
made
a
true
proper
satisfaction
unto
God
for
our
sins
.
[
q
](A96867-e54900-b)
q
L.
●●tisfact
.
ff
de
solut
.
Ergo
,
his
death
was
not
solutio
ejusdem
:
the
payment
of
the
very
same
which
was
in
the
obligation
,
but
of
the
equivalent
onely
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
himself
but
just
before
,
did
intimate
some
kind
of
acknowledgement
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
was
a
payment
of
it self
refusable
.
Ergo
,
it
was
not
solutio
ejusdem
,
[
r
](A96867-e54980-b)
r
L.
quod
in
di
em
ff
de
sol.
&
l.
quod
quis
49.
ff
●●
Action
.
&
l.
Accept
19.
c.
de
usur
.
for
no
creature
can
refuse
to
admit
of
that
.
3.
It
was
not
Christs
death
but
ours
,
that
was
in
the
obligation
:
for
the
Law
requires
that
he
that
sins
dye
,
and
no
man
else
.
If
he
that
sinneth
not
dye
,
that
death
cannot
be
the
same
which
was
in
the
obligation
[
s
](A96867-e54990-b)
s
Ut
&
in
contractu
ersenali
de
facto
.
Ulpian
.
in
l.
inter
●
rtif
.
31.
ff.
de
sol.
.
In
corporal
punishments
,
which
metaphorically
may
be
called
the
payments
of
debts
to
the
Law
,
the
sameness
of
the
person
is
essential
to
the
sameness
of
the
payment
:
so
that
si
alius
s●lvat
,
aliud
s●laitur
:
if
another
person
pay
,
't
is
another
thing
that
's
paid
.
4.
If
Christ
paid
the
idem
,
then
no
mans
sins
are
pardoned
.
The
Law
it self
would
admit
of
satisfaction
from
the
sinner
,
if
he
were
able
to
make
it
:
if
sinners
by
suffering
of
punishment
,
could
satisfie
for
their
sins
,
they
should
be
discharged
from
farther
punishment
without
pardon
:
it
would
be
no
grace
to
free
them
.
[
t
](A96867-e55020-b)
t
Grot.
de
satisfact.
Christi
.
c.
6.
p.
119.
&
videsis
Andr.
Essen
.
de
satisfact.
l.
2
sect.
3
●
.
3.
p.
519
,
520
,
521
&c.
Vbi
idem
solvitur
,
out
à
debitore
,
aut
ab
alio
nomine
debitoris
,
nulla
contingit
remissio
,
nihil
enim
circa
debitum
agit
Creditor
aut
Rector
.
5.
Our
obligation
was
ex
delicto
:
Christs
ex
contractu
voluntario
.
It
was
not
any
breach
of
the
Law
that
subjected
him
to
death
,
but
his
own
voluntary
act
,
Joh.
10.
17
,
18.
Wherefore
,
though
the
things
which
Christ
suffered
were
much
of
the
same
kind
(
though
not
altogether
)
with
what
sinners
were
by
the
Law
obliged
to
suffer
;
yet
was
not
he
obliged
to
suffer
by
the
same
Law
that
they
were
,
but
by
a
Law
peculiar
to
himself
,
as
a
voluntary
surety
for
them
;
in
which
respect
it
is
,
that
we
say
his
payment
was
not
[
u
](A96867-e55070-b)
u
Vide
Cameron
.
disp.
de
satisf
.
p.
363
Respons.
ad
obj.
1.
m.
ejusdem
,
but
tantidem
.
And
these
are
the
common
Arguments
,
which
are
wont
to
be
made
use
of
in
this
matter
:
which
Mr.
Eyre
might
have
spared
me
the
paines
of
transcribing
if
he
had
pleased
,
and
instead
thereof
(
seeing
they
are
so
well
known
)
have
given
them
some
answer
.
In
the
next
place
he
advanceth
foure
Arguments
to
prove
,
that
the
1.
Saith
he
,
Christ
was
held
in
the
same
obligation
which
we
were
under
:
he
was
made
under
the
same
Law
,
Gal.
4.
3
,
4.
Ans.
Why
?
Is
a
surety
held
in
the
same
obligation
,
because
he
is
bound
to
pay
the
same
summe
?
then
is
there
no
difference
between
the
surety
and
the
principal
debtour
.
The
Apostle
in
Gal.
4.
3
,
4.
saith
that
Christ
was
made
of
a
woman
,
made
under
the
Law
.
As
the
former
expression
implies
;
that
though
he
were
of
a
woman
quoad
corpulentam
substantiam
,
yet
he
came
not
from
her
quoad
rationem
seminalem
,
according
to
the
common
rule
of
nature
,
by
which
children
are
wont
to
be
borne
into
the
world
:
so
doth
the
latter
imply
,
that
though
his
obedience
for
substance
,
were
the
same
which
the
Law
required
of
us
;
yet
was
it
not
performed
by
virtue
of
that
common
obligation
which
lyes
upon
us
,
but
by
special
oeconomy
and
appointment
.
[
x
](A96867-e55190-b)
x
S●e
P.
Ushers
Immanu●●
.
pag.
10.
f
at
the
end
of
his
Body
of
Divinity
,
and
Essen
.
ubi
s●pra
lib.
1.
sect.
4.
cap.
9.
pag.
288.
&
Joh
Dried
.
de
capt.
&
Redempt.
tract.
3.
pag.
242
,
243
,
244
,
&c.
He
that
was
Lord
of
the
Law
,
might
have
exempted
himself
from
subjection
to
it
if
he
had
pleased
.
See
Philip.
2.
6
,
7
,
8.
So
that
Christs
obedience
,
though
in
some
respect
the
same
with
ours
,
as
having
the
same
rule
and
object
,
yet
was
it
of
another
kind
then
ours
in
regard
of
the
principle
and
manner
of
performance
,
in
that
the
Law
which
bound
others
,
did
yet
bind
him
no
farther
then
himself
pleased
to
be
bound
.
The
same
answer
I
give
to
the
second
text
.
Gal.
3.
13.
Christ
was
made
a
curse
for
us
,
and
dyed
for
us
,
Heb.
2.
9
,
14.
Isa●
53.
4
,
5.
for
none
of
these
things
prove
that
he
was
any
of
those
,
who
by
the
Law
were
obliged
to
die
:
yea
it
is
certaine
he
was
not
:
for
the
Law
obligeth
none
to
death
but
sinners
:
yea
and
for
the
very
matter
of
the
curse
and
death
which
Christ
suffered
,
(
though
that
do
not
immediately
concerne
our
question
:
for
though
he
had
suffered
the
idem
in
regard
of
the
matter
of
his
punishment
;
yet
formally
,
as
his
death
was
a
satisfaction
or
payment
,
that
idem
was
no
more
then
the
tantundem
which
I
plead
for
)
yet
I
say
it
is
certaine
that
there
is
some
kind
of
evil
in
the
curse
executed
upon
sinners
,
which
was
never
executed
upon
Christ
,
as
an
exclusion
from
all
interest
in
Gods
favour
;
the
defacing
of
his
image
in
his
soul
,
rage
and
despaire
of
conscience
,
and
the
like
.
The
answer
therefore
is
,
Christ
was
indeed
made
a
curse
for
us
,
not
that
the
Law
did
curse
him
,
or
had
power
so
to
do
:
but
because
by
special
compact
between
his
father
and
himself
he
endured
that
punishment
(
for
the
maine
)
which
the
Law
threatned
against
sinners
,
Heb.
10.
5
,
7.
A
body
hast
thou
prepared
me
—
Lo●
come
to
do
thy
will
,
even
as
it
was
by
a
special
Law
,
that
beasts
were
slaine
and
sacrificed
unto
God
of
old
:
and
not
by
that
general
Law
,
which
curseth
every
one
that
sinneth
.
Hence
it
follows
thirdly
,
that
when
our
sins
are
said
to
be
laid
upon
Christ
,
Isa.
53.
6.
(
Which
is
Mr.
Eyres
third
Argument
)
it
doth
by
no
means
follow
that
the
death
of
Christ
was
that
which
the
Law
required
,
but
that
Christ
was
made
to
beare
that
punishment
,
which
in
weight
and
value
was
the
same
which
we
should
else
have
borne
,
though
it
be
not
arithmetically
the
same
.
If
any
man
can
make
more
of
those
words
,
let
him
.
His
fourth
and
last
Argument
is
this
.
If
God
would
have
dispensed
with
the
idem
in
the
first
obligation
,
Christ
need
not
have
died
.
Which
is
a
very
strange
consequence
:
for
God
did
therefore
dispence
with
the
idem
,
that
there
might
be
way
made
for
the
death
of
Christ
.
That
which
was
in
the
obligation
was
our
punishment
:
if
God
did
not
dispense
with
this
,
it
had
been
impossible
for
Christ
to
have
died
for
us
,
but
the
Law
must
be
executed
upon
every
sinner
in
his
own
person
.
But
behold
the
proofe
.
If
the
justice
of
God
would
be
satisfied
with
lesse
then
the
penalty
of
the
Law
,
he
might
as
well
have
dispensed
with
the
whole
.
Ans.
As
if
that
which
is
not
the
same
must
needs
be
lesse
.
I
confesse
I
account
it
no
better
then
losse
of
time
to
answer
these
things
under
the
notion
of
Arguments
.
Hitherto
then
the
matter
is
safe
.
That
the
death
of
Christ
was
not
Why
not
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
Amongst
men
there
is
no
difference
:
so
the
debt
be
paid
,
it
matters
not
whether
it
be
by
the
principal
,
or
his
surety
:
the
obligation
is
void
in
respect
of
both
.
Ans.
Which
if
they
be
both
in
the
very
same
bond
and
obligation
,
hath
some
thing
of
truth
in
it
:
(
though
then
also
the
surety
hath
the
same
action
against
the
debtour
,
which
the
creditor
had
before
)
otherwise
it
is
most
notoriously
false
,
and
the
contrary
determined
frequently
in
the
[
y
](A96867-e55500-b)
y
I.
in
summa
l.
Si
poenae
.
D.
de
condict
.
in
deb
.
l
Si
quid
possessor
ff.
de
Pet.
Haered.
l.
Papin
.
ff.
Ma●d
.
civil
Law
.
If
the
payment
of
the
surety
do
presently
discharge
the
debtour
,
it
is
because
he
agrees
with
the
creditour
,
that
the
payment
which
he
makes
shall
be
accepted
for
the
present
and
immediate
discharge
of
the
debtour
,
which
is
the
second
thing
I
beganne
to
mention
before
,
and
shall
now
farther
explaine
.
The
death
of
Christ
being
not
the
very
same
which
was
in
the
obligation
;
therefore
that
it
may
be
effectual
for
our
deliverance
,
there
is
a
double
act
required
on
Gods
part
,
to
whom
this
payment
is
made
:
the
one
is
,
to
admit
or
give
way
that
satisfaction
be
made
;
the
other
factam
ratam
habere
to
accept
it
when
made
,
and
consequently
to
discharge
and
free
the
debtour
:
for
Christs
satisfaction
was
admitted
,
that
our
obligation
might
he
destroyed
by
the
intervening
act
of
God
,
the
supream
Governour
of
mankind
,
Rom.
3.
25.
Whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
—
that
he
may
be
the
justifier
of
him
that
beleeveth
in
Jesus
.
Moreover
,
Christ
being
not
a
sinner
,
but
a
surety
,
and
his
payment
not
the
payment
of
the
principal
debtour
,
but
of
a
surety
;
therefore
it
is
in
his
power
to
agree
,
whether
his
payment
shall
be
accepted
and
be
effectual
for
the
discharge
of
the
sinner
presently
,
or
for
some
time
to
come
:
absolutely
,
or
upon
condition
.
Whence
(
by
the
way
)
appears
what
little
strength
there
is
in
Mr.
Eyres
second
exception
,
viz.
That
Christs
payment
is
lesse
efficacious
,
then
if
we
had
paid
our selves
,
if
we
be
not
thereby
discharged
presently
,
because
Christs
satisfaction
produceth
its
effects
according
to
the
agreement
between
his
Father
and
himself
,
and
no
otherwise
:
and
the
virtue
of
it
is
to
be
measured
by
the
greatnesse
of
the
effect
,
which
could
not
be
wrought
by
any
meer
created
cause
:
whether
it
produce
it
sooner
or
later
,
upon
condition
or
without
.
Wherefore
if
we
prove
that
the
Father
and
Son
agreed
,
that
none
must
needs
be
present
and
immediate
?
as
pag.
68.
§
.
7.
Our
discharge
from
the
Law
was
●
not
to
be
sub
termino
or
in
diem
,
but
present
and
immediate
.
And
in
this
chapter
,
§
.
13.
The
death
of
Christ
,
as
it
is
a
satisfaction
or
payment
,
so
the
discharge
thereby
procured
must
needs
be
present
and
immediate
.
As
if
it
were
a
contradiction
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
that
we
should
not
presently
be
discharged
,
if
Christ
hath
made
satisfaction
.
And
yet
here
yeelds
that
by
a
contract
or
agreement
between
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
the
discharge
obtained
in
Christs
satisfaction
may
be
suspended
.
It
is
therefore
a
thing
possible
that
Christ
may
have
satisfied
,
and
yet
we
(
the
elect
I
mean
)
not
be
presently
discharged
.
And
what
then
means
the
must
needs
?
were
it
a
thing
denyed
,
it
were
easie
to
give
innumerable
instances
of
satisfaction
made
,
when
yet
the
person
for
whom
it
is
made
,
is
not
presently
freed
:
but
because
it
is
not
denied
,
I
hasten
to
the
service
which
Mr.
Eyre
challengeth
me
to
performe
,
with
a
promise
,
that
if
it
be
performed
he
will
yeeld
the
cause
:
and
that
is
to
shew
,
that
it
was
the
will
of
the
Father
and
of
the
Sonne
that
none
should
have
actual
reconciliation
by
the
death
of
Christ
till
they
do
beleeve
.
For
proofe
of
this
,
I
quoted
the
words
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
wherein
Joh.
6.
40.
This
is
the
will
of
him
that
sent
me
,
that
whosoever
seeth
the
Sonne
and
beleeveth
on
him
,
may
have
everlasting
life
.
To
which
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
This
Text
and
others
like
it
,
do
only
shew
who
have
the
fruition
and
enjoyment
of
the
benefits
of
Christ
,
to
wit
,
th●y
that
beleeve
.
Rep.
An
answer
which
lets
me
see
something
of
what
the
wit
of
man
can
do
in
darkening
plaine
testimonies
,
whose
sense
is
obvious
at
first
view
,
even
to
vulgar
capacities
.
This
is
not
the
first
time
we
have
met
with
this
answer
in
Mr.
Eyre
:
and
it
hath
been
already
convicted
,
and
cast
by
more
then
a
jury
of
Arguments
in
in
se●s●
〈◊〉
)
are
the
subjects
of
that
life
which
is
here
promised
:
and
then
I
have
what
I
would
have
;
for
if
men
as
beleevers
,
are
the
subjects
of
this
life
,
then
the
proo●●s
full
,
that
they
do
not
begin
to
partake
in
this
life
before
they
are
beleevers
:
much
lesse
before
they
are
borne
:
and
least
of
all
at
the
time
of
the
death
of
Christ
:
nor
was
it
the
will
of
the
Father
or
of
the
Sonne
,
that
they
should
so
do
.
Or
the
meaning
is
,
that
the
persons
who
enjoy
this
life
,
are
such
whose
property
and
priviledge
it
is
to
be
beleevers
some
time
or
other
,
sooner
or
later
,
though
they
may
not
be
beleevers
when
they
first
begin
to
partake
therein
:
and
so
they
are
described
à
c●ns●quenti
,
from
their
faith
as
a
consequent
of
their
first
partaking
in
this
life
.
And
if
so
,
I
shall
return
Mr.
Eyre
his
offer
:
namely
,
that
if
he
will
shew
me
but
one
place
of
Scripture
,
from
the
beginning
of
Genesis
to
the
end
of
the
Revelation
,
wherein
persons
that
shall
enjoy
a
benefit
,
are
described
from
the
consequent
of
that
benefit
,
with
a
distributive
particle
preposed
(
such
as
is
the
particle
whosoever
in
the
present
Text
)
and
I
will
yeeld
him
the
cause
:
at
lest
so
farre
forth
as
it
is
concerned
in
these
Texts
.
But
if
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
give
one
instance
of
the
like
phrase
of
speech
in
all
the
Bible
(
as
I
know
he
cannot
)
then
let
him
take
heed
least
he
become
guilty
of
that
,
which
he
doth
elsewhere
groundlesly
charge
upon
me
:
I
meane
,
of
attempting
to
suborne
the
spirit
to
serve
his
own
turne
.
And
what
I
speak
of
the
description
of
a
person
in
order
to
his
receiving
of
a
benefit
,
is
true
also
in
respect
of
any
evil
threatned
.
How
many
hundreds
of
times
are
such
sentences
in
Scripture
?
As
for
example
,
Matth.
5.
22.
Whosoever
is
angry
with
his
brother
without
a
cause
—
Whosoever
shall
say
unto
his
br●ther
Racha
—
Whosoever
shall
say
,
thou
foole
,
shall
be
in
dang●r
of
such
and
such
punishments
.
Can
these
(
or
the
like
expressions
any
where
else
)
be
onely
the
descriptions
of
persons
that
shall
be
punished
?
and
that
from
the
consequent
of
their
punishment
as
already
begun
.
2.
The
Lord
by
comparing
faith
to
seeing
,
seems
to
allude
to
Israels
Whosoever
se●●
and
beleeveth
the
Sonne
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
life
,
must
be
understood
in
the
same
sense
.
If
the
former
,
th●n
the
Israelites
might
also
have
been
healed
before
they
looked
up
to
the
serpent
:
for
to
denominate
them
lookers
,
it
is
sufficient
that
they
looked
up
at
any
time
,
whether
before
or
after
they
●●re
healed
.
But
I
will
not
do
one
work
twice
:
enough
hath
been
spoken
already
against
this
notion
,
unlesse
it
had
some
better
authority
then
meerly
mans
invention
.
The
next
place
I
mentioned
was
,
●●l.
5.
2
,
4.
without
faith
Christ
shall
profit
us
n●thing
.
〈◊〉
,
it
was
not
the
will
of
God
nor
of
Christ
,
that
any
man
should
be
justified
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
till
he
doth
beleeve
.
But
(
s●ith
Mr.
Eyre
)
this
place
is
p●lp●●ly
ab●●e●
.
Th●
Apostle
doth
n●t
〈◊〉
witho●t
faith
Christ
shall
profit
●s
nothing
;
but
if
we
〈◊〉
any
thing
〈◊〉
Christ
as
necessary
to
attaine
salvation
,
we
are
not
bele●vers
:
our
profession
of
Christ
shall
profit
us
nothing
.
Rep.
Where
doth
the
Apostle
say
these
words
?
If
M.
Eyre
give
us
onely
the
sense
of
them
;
we
shall
shew
presently
,
that
what
I
say
is
included
as
part
of
the
sense
.
But
I
will
never
beleeve
while
I
live
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
hath
rightly
expressed
the
Apostles
sense
.
As
if
the
Apostle
spake
against
joyning
of
any
thing
with
Christ
as
necessary
to
attaine
salvation
(
unlesse
by
joyning
with
Christ
,
he
mean
in
an
equal
degree
of
causality
,
or
as
sharing
in
that
kind
of
causality
which
Christ
put
forth
for
our
salvation
)
.
For
out
of
doubt
,
Faith
and
Repentance
are
necessary
to
be
joyned
with
Christ
,
that
we
may
be
saved
.
2.
But
to
discover
how
palpably
Mr.
Eyre
hath
abused
me
in
charging
me
with
an
abuse
of
the
Text
,
let
us
transcribe
the
words
.
v.
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
If
you
be
circumcised
,
Christ
shall
profit
you
nothing
.
For
I
testifie
againe
to
every
man
that
is
circumcised
,
that
he
is
a
debtor
to
the
whole
Law
.
Christ
is
become
of
no
effect
to
you
:
whosoever
of
you
are
justified
by
the
Law
,
you
are
fallen
from
grace
.
For
we
through
the
Spirit
wait
for
the
hope
of
righteousness
by
faith
.
For
in
Jesus
Christ
,
neither
circumcision
availeth
any
thing
,
nor
uncircumcision
;
but
faith
which
worketh
by
Love
.
1.
I
do
here
observe
the
Apostles
Argument
by
which
he
proves
,
that
if
they
be
circumcised
,
Christ
shall
profit
them
nothing
.
Thus
it
runs
.
He
that
is
bound
to
keep
the
whole
Law
for
justification
,
to
him
is
Christ
of
no
effect
for
justification
.
He
that
is
circumcised
is
bound
to
keep
the
whole
Law
for
justification
.
v.
3.
Ergo
,
Christ
is
of
no
effect
to
him
:
or
as
the
Apostle
varies
the
words
,
v.
4.
Ergo
,
he
is
fallen
from
grace
,
whosoever
he
be
that
expects
to
be
justified
by
the
Law
.
In
opposition
to
this
he
declares
in
his
own
,
and
other
Christians
example
the
only
way
how
Christ
may
become
profitable
,
and
of
effect
to
us
for
justification
,
and
that
is
by
faith
,
without
legal
performances
,
v.
5.
For
we
through
the
Spirit
wait
for
the
hope
of
righteousnesse
by
faith
.
And
have
I
yet
abused
the
Text
,
because
I
say
it
hath
this
sense
,
that
without
faith
Christ
shall
profit
us
nothing
?
yea
.
2.
The
whole
discourse
of
the
Apostle
proceeds
upon
this
ground
,
that
legal
observances
make
Christ
of
none
effect
to
us
,
because
they
overthrow
faith
.
For
he
that
will
be
justified
by
the
Law
,
must
keep
the
whole
Law
;
and
that
destroys
faith
:
as
he
had
also
often
and
plainly
told
them
before
,
chap.
3.
12.
10
,
11
,
17
,
18.
compare
Rom.
4.
14.
3.
Mr.
Eyre
himself
acknowledgeth
in
the
very
next
words
that
the
Apostle
attributes
that
to
faith
which
he
denyes
●o
other
works
,
v.
6.
In
Christ
Jesus
neither
circumcision
availeth
any
thing
nor
uncircumcision
,
but
faith
which
worketh
by
love
.
I
assu●●
But
the
thing
denied
to
other
works
,
is
,
that
they
are
able
to
justifie●
yea
rather
that
they
make
it
impossible
for
us
to
be
justified
,
because
they
make
Christ
to
become
of
none
effect
to
us
,
v.
●
,
4.
Ergo
,
the
thing
ascribed
to
faith
is
,
that
by
it
we
are
justified
,
and
through
it
doth
Christ
become
profitable
,
and
grace
of
effect
to
our
Justification
.
Ergo
,
without
it
Christ
profits
us
nothing
,
as
to
that
end
and
purpose
.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyre
contradicts
himself
immediately
,
in
his
Comment
upon
that
,
v.
6.
When
he
sayes
,
that
the
intent
of
the
Apostle
here
,
was
not
to
shew
what
it
is
that
doth
justifie
,
but
what
are
the
exercises
of
divine
worship
in
which
Christians
should
be
conversant
.
But
out
of
doubt
his
meaning
was
to
shew
,
how
Christ
and
grace
become
effectual
to
our
Justification
,
if
he
do
here
ascribe
to
faith
that
which
before
he
had
denied
to
other
works
:
which
is
Mr.
Eyres
own
grant
,
and
the
Apostles
unquestionable
intent
:
for
the
words
(
as
appears
by
the
particle
for
,
in
the
beginning
of
the
verse
)
are
the
reason
why
through
faith
he
expected
Justification
,
and
not
in
the
way
of
circumcision
,
ver.
5.
to
wit
,
because
circumcision
availeth
nothing
,
no
,
nor
uncircumcision
neither
,
but
faith
which
worketh
by
love
,
which
reason
of
his
faith
he
had
also
given
before
,
chapt.
2.
16.
As
to
those
two
truly
godly
learned
Authours
,
Calvin
and
Perkins
,
whom
Mr.
Eyre
alledgeth
as
abetting
what
he
saith
,
concerning
the
Apostles
intent
,
if
the
cause
were
to
be
carried
by
number
of
voices
,
we
could
quickly
dispatch
it
.
But
neither
do
either
of
these
gratifie
Mr.
Eyre
a
whit
.
Calvins
words
are
these
,
Quantum
ad
praesentem
locum
attinet
,
Paulus
nequaquam
disputat
an
charitas
ad
justificandum
cooperetur
fidei
,
sed
tantùm
indicat
quae
nunc
sint
vera
fidelium
exercitia
.
i.
e.
As
to
the
present
place
,
Paul
doth
by
no
meanes
dispute
,
whether
love
do
cooperate
with
faith
unto
Justification
,
but
only
intimates
what
are
now
the
true
exercises
of
the
faithful
.
Is
this
all
one
,
as
if
he
had
said
,
faith
availes
us
nothing
in
order
to
our
Justification
before
God
?
the
contrary
to
which
he
had
spoke
but
just
before
,
upon
v.
5.
Obj.
Nulláne
igitur
utilitas
erit
circumcisionis
?
Respondet
,
in
Christo
nihil
valere
:
ideoque
justitiam
in
fide
sitam
esse
,
&c.
Perkins
his
words
are
these
,
in
answer
to
the
objection
of
the
Papists
from
those
words
,
Faith
worketh
by
love
.
Paul
(
saith
he
)
doth
not
shew
in
this
verse
what
justifieth
,
but
what
are
the
exercises
of
godlinesse
in
which
Christians
must
be
occupied
.
And
he
doth
not
shew
how
faith
justifieth
,
but
how
it
may
be
discerned
to
be
true
faith
,
namely
,
by
love
.
But
neither
doth
this
intend
any
thing
more
,
then
to
shew
the
reason
why
Paul
describes
justifying
faith
as
working
by
love
,
viz.
not
that
it
justifieth
as
working
by
love
,
though
it
be
the
property
of
that
faith
by
which
we
are
justified
,
to
work
by
love
.
But
he
was
far
from
thinking
,
that
faith
was
no
whit
available
to
our
Justification
before
God
.
It
is
his
own
observation
upon
this
very
verse
,
not
far
before
.
The
second
Conclusion
,
Faith
is
of
great
use
and
acceptation
in
the
Kingdome
of
Christ
.
By
it
,
first
our
persons
,
and
then
our
actions
please
God
:
and
without
it
nothing
pleaseth
God
.
And
immediately
after
these
words
which
Mr.
Eyre
refers
to
,
disputes
for
Justification
by
faith
without
works
,
against
the
Papists
.
The
last
place
I
mentioned
was
1
John
5.
11.
He
that
hath
the
Sonne
,
hath
life
:
he
that
hath
not
the
Sonne
,
hath
not
life
.
Mr.
Eyre
answers
,
He
doth
not
say
,
that
all
who
have
not
faith
,
(
except
final
vnbelievers
,
)
have
not
the
Sonne
or
any
bene●t
by
him
.
Rep.
This
upon
the
matter
is
to
deny
that
the
testimony
is
true
.
1.
Life
doth
here
signifie
all
that
blessednesse
which
God
hath
given
us
in
Jesus
Christ
,
ver.
11.
Ergo
,
he
that
hath
not
the
Son
,
hath
no
benefit
by
him
.
But
he
that
believeth
not
,
hath
not
the
Sonne
;
for
to
have
the
Sonne
is
to
believe
on
him
.
Ergo
,
he
that
believeth
not
,
hath
not
the
Sonne
,
nor
any
benefit
by
him
.
That
we
have
the
Sonne
by
believing
on
him
is
manifest
:
1.
From
the
Apostles
own
interpretation
;
for
having
spoke
in
general
,
He
that
hath
the
Son
hath
life
,
he
applies
it
particularly
to
those
to
whom
he
writes
,
v.
13.
And
these
things
have
I
written
unto
you
that
believe
on
the
Name
of
the
Sonne
of
God
,
that
you
may
know
that
you
have
eternal
life
.
2.
From
the
perpetual
sense
of
the
phrase
,
throughout
all
these
Epistles
,
as
chap.
2.
23.
Whosoever
denieth
the
Sonne
,
the
same
hath
not
the
Father
:
but
he
that
acknowledgeth
the
Sonne
,
hath
the
Father
also
;
suitable
to
what
this
John
records
in
his
Gospel
.
chap.
12.
44
,
45.
He
that
beleeveth
on
me
,
believeth
not
on
me
,
but
on
him
that
sent
me
:
And
he
that
seeth
me
,
seeth
him
that
sent
me
.
And
more
expressely
in
his
Epistle
,
2
ep
▪
v.
9.
Whosoever
transgresseth
,
and
abideth
not
in
the
doctrine
of
Christ
,
HATH
NOT
GOD
:
But
he
that
abideth
in
the
doctrine
of
Christ
,
HE
HATH
both
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
.
Compare
1
ep.
2.
24.
2.
If
we
are
said
in
Scripture
,
any
where
to
have
the
Son
,
in
any
other
sense
then
by
believing
,
or
as
excluding
believing
,
why
have
we
no
intelligence
of
it
?
Mr.
Eyre
might
very
well
think
we
should
interpret
his
silence
(
partly
,
in
that
he
declares
not
how
we
may
be
said
to
have
Christ
any
otherwise
then
by
faith
;
partly
,
in
not
attempting
to
justifie
it
from
the
phrase
of
Scripture
)
as
an
argument
that
himself
is
conscious
,
that
the
doctrine
which
he
here
suggests
hath
no
footing
in
the
Scriptures
.
Briefly
,
the
Apostle
speaks
without
distinction
or
limitation
,
He
that
hath
the
Sonne
,
hath
life
:
even
that
eternal
life
whereof
he
spake
in
the
verse
immediately
foregoing
.
If
the
Son
may
be
had
without
believing
,
then
eternal
life
may
be
had
without
believing
also
;
wherefore
we
winde
up
the
Argument
.
If
it
were
the
Will
of
God
that
none
should
have
the
life
which
is
in
his
Sonne
,
till
by
believing
he
had
the
Sonne
;
then
was
it
his
Will
that
none
should
be
justified
by
the
death
of
Christ
till
they
did
beleeve
.
The
reason
is
:
because
the
life
of
pardon
or
Justification
is
an
eminent
part
of
that
life
which
God
hath
given
us
in
his
Sonne
,
and
virtually
includes
all
that
life
we
have
by
Christ
.
But
the
antecedent
is
proved
true
from
the
text
.
Ergo
,
the
consequent
is
true
.
To
these
texts
mentioned
in
my
Sermon
,
and
now
vindicated
,
let
[
z
](A96867-e56720-b)
z
Inseri●
fidem
,
ut
doceat
,
fidem
esse
conditionem
,
sub
quà
Christus
nobis
datus
est
propitiatorium
.
Dav.
Paraeus
in
loc.
through
faith
,
but
without
it
.
Not
that
our
faith
contributes
any
degree
of
worth
or
sufficiency
to
the
blood
of
Christ
,
by
which
it
may
be
made
in
its
kinde
a
more
perfect
cause
of
our
remission
:
but
because
God
hath
so
constituted
,
that
our
remission
shall
not
follow
,
and
so
our
sins
not
be
propitiated
quoad
●ffectum
in
the
blood
of
Christ
till
we
beleeve
.
Again
,
the
Compact
and
Agreement
between
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
in
his
undertaking
the
work
of
Redemption
,
is
set
down
at
large
,
Isa.
53.
throughout
;
particularly
,
ver.
10.
11
,
12.
where
also
the
Justification
of
those
for
whom
he
died
is
mentioned
,
as
the
fruit
and
effect
of
Christs
offering
himselfe
for
them
,
and
bearing
their
iniquities
,
but
not
before
their
faith
,
but
through
it
,
ver.
11.
By
his
knowledge
shall
my
righteous
servant
justifie
many
,
that
is
,
by
the
knowledge
of
him
,
where
knowledge
(
as
elsewhere
in
Scripture
often
)
signifies
faith
.
And
what
shall
I
say
more
?
we
have
proved
from
multitudes
of
Scriptures
,
that
God
requires
,
commands
and
exhorts
all
men
to
beleeve
,
that
they
may
be
justified
by
the
blood
of
Christ
.
And
what
stronger
evidence
can
we
need
then
this
,
that
it
was
not
the
Will
of
God
that
men
should
be
justified
by
that
blood
before
they
did
beleeve
?
even
as
under
the
Law
there
was
no
propitiation
by
sacrifice
typical
,
but
supposed
on
the
offendors
part
,
the
concurrence
of
some
act
(
as
[
a
](A96867-e56790-b)
a
Lev.
5.
5.
c●nfession
,
[
b
](A96867-e56800-b)
b
Chap.
23.
●9
30.
humiliation
,
[
c
](A96867-e56810-b)
c
●b
.
1.
4
,
3
,
2
&
●assim
.
laying
his
hand
on
the
head
of
the
sacrifice
,
[
d
](A96867-e56820-b)
d
L●v.
●
.
16.
&
●ide
Joma
.
Pe●r●k.
8
8
,
●
.
or
the
like
,
)
signifying
that
faith
,
by
which
sinners
should
be
justified
,
when
Christ
the
true
sacrifice
should
be
offered
up
.
And
as
to
Mr.
Eyres
two
evasions
,
that
to
be
justified
by
faith
doth
sometimes
signifie
,
By
faith
to
know
that
we
are
justified
;
(
He
might
as
well
say
,
the
world
was
made
by
faith
:
For
by
faith
we
know
that
the
world
was
made
,
Heb.
11.
3.
)
And
that
otherwhile
faith
signifies
Christ
believed
on
:
we
have
often
(
and
I
trust
satisfactorily
)
discovered
,
that
they
are
inventions
from
beneath
,
not
doctrines
from
above
.
Let
us
now
see
what
Mr.
Eyre
brings
to
prove
,
that
it
was
the
1.
Christ
by
the
Will
of
God
,
gave
himse●f
a
ransome
and
sacrifice
of
a
sweet
smelling
savour
unto
God
.
Answ.
But
the
Question
is
,
Whether
it
were
the
Will
of
God
,
that
remission
should
follow
immediately
upon
the
offering
up
of
this
sacrifice
,
before
the
sinner
beleeves
and
repents
?
2.
That
this
ransome
was
alone
,
and
by
it selfe
,
a
full
,
adequate
,
and
perfect
satisfaction
to
divine
Justice
for
all
their
sins
.
Answ.
But
the
Question
is
,
whether
satisfaction
may
not
be
made
by
a
voluntary
surety
,
with
this
agreement
,
that
they
for
whom
it
is
made
,
shall
not
be
freed
by
it
,
till
they
performe
such
or
such
a
condition
?
If
it
may
,
(
as
Mr.
Eyre
granted
but
now
)
then
he
should
have
told
us
,
not
only
that
Christ
made
satisfaction
,
but
that
he
made
it
with
this
intent
,
that
the
elect
should
be
presently
discharged
by
it
.
Otherwise
he
begs
the
Question
a
second
time
.
3.
God
accepted
it
,
and
declared
himself
well-pleased
therewith
:
insomuch
that
he
hath
thereupon
covenanted
and
sworne
,
that
he
will
never
remember
their
sins
,
nor
be
wroth
with
them
any
more
,
Isa.
43.
25.
and
54.
9
,
10.
Answ.
The
Question
is
still
begg'd
.
No
doubt
but
God
was
well-pleased
with
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
with
a
sacrifice
or
satisfaction
in
it self
so
perfect
,
that
his
justice
could
not
require
more
.
But
whether
he
accepted
it
and
was
well-pleased
with
it
,
so
as
that
it
should
presently
,
without
the
intervention
of
faith
,
produce
the
pardon
of
any
,
is
the
question
:
which
is
here
resolved
by
a
go-by
.
It
is
certain
,
that
some
effects
of
Christs
satisfaction
are
not
communicated
to
the
elect
,
before
they
believe
,
much
lesse
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
seeing
we
are
to
grow
up
in
him
in
all
things
,
till
we
have
attained
to
the
fulnesse
of
the
life
of
Christ
;
I
confesse
it
is
beyond
my
comprehension
,
how
we
come
to
be
perfect
in
one
part
of
his
life
,
that
is
,
in
one
fruit
and
effect
of
his
death
,
while
we
remain
imperfect
in
all
the
rest
.
As
to
the
Covenant
which
Mr.
Eyre
speaks
of
,
that
God
will
never
remember
the
sins
of
the
elect
,
nor
be
wroth
with
them
any
more
,
Isa.
43.
25.
and
54.
9
,
10.
The
former
place
proves
no
more
,
then
that
God
takes
it
as
one
of
his
royal
prerogatives
,
to
be
a
God
that
pardoneth
sin
(
as
he
also
doth
elsewhere
,
Exod.
34.
6
,
7.
Mich.
7.
18.
)
the
latter
,
that
the
pardon
which
he
gives
is
eternal
:
neither
,
that
the
elect
are
pardoned
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
while
they
continue
in
unbelief
.
But
the
contrary
is
plainly
supposed
,
Isa.
54.
1
▪
2
,
3.
4.
That
by
this
ransome
of
Christ
they
are
freed
and
delivered
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
Gal.
4.
4.
and
3.
13.
Answ.
Quoad
meritum
,
not
quoad
eff●ctum
till
they
believe
,
as
we
have
shewed
before
:
Christs
death
hath
redeemed
us
from
the
power
of
sin
,
as
well
as
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
1
Pet.
1.
18.
were
the
elect
therefore
sanctified
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
?
He
hath
redeemed
our
bodies
as
well
as
our
soules
:
yet
are
not
our
bodies
redeemed
quoad
eff●ctum
till
the
Resurrection
,
R●●
.
8.
23.
till
then
they
lie
in
their
graves
,
by
vertue
of
that
common
obligation
unto
death
,
which
the
first
Adam
brought
upon
all
men
,
1
Cor.
15.
22
,
49
,
56.
And
thus
thou
seest
(
Reader
)
with
what
successe
Mr.
Eyr●
hath
attempted
to
prove
,
That
it
was
the
Will
of
God
in
giving
his
〈◊〉
death
,
and
the
Will
of
Christ
in
giving
himself
,
that
his
〈◊〉
should
be
available
,
to
the
immediate
and
actual
reconciliation
of
sinners
,
without
any
condition
performed
on
their
part
.
●is
next
undertaking
is
to
prove
.
That
there
was
no
such
compact
and
agreement
between
the
Father
and
the
Son
,
that
his
death
should
not
be
available
to
the
immediate
reconciliation
of
sinners
,
but
only
upon
conditions
performed
by
them
.
In
the
issue
of
which
,
whether
he
hath
been
any
whit
more
happy
then
in
the
former
,
we
come
now
CHAP.
X.
An
Answer
to
Mr.
Eyres
fourteenth
Chapter
,
and
all
the
Arguments
therein
contained
,
by
which
he
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
there
was
not
any
Covenant
passed
between
God
and
Christ
,
to
hinder
the
immediate
and
actual
reconciliation
of
Gods
elect
by
his
death
,
and
to
suspend
this
effect
thereof
upon
termes
and
conditions
to
be
performed
by
them
:
but
contrariwise
,
that
it
was
the
Will
both
of
God
and
Christ
,
that
his
death
should
be
available
to
their
immediat●
and
actual
reconciliation
and
Justification
,
without
any
Condition
performed
on
their
part
.
SECT.
I.
HIs
first
Argument
is
this
:
There
is
no
such
Covenant
doth
appear
in
Scripture
.
Erg●
;
there
is
none
.
Answ.
That
the
Antecedent
●s
false
,
hath
been
already
proved
from
John
6.
40.
and
3.
15
,
16
,
19.
and
Gal.
5.
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
and
1
Joh.
5.
11.
and
Rom.
3.
25.
and
Isa.
53.
11.
and
all
those
places
which
declare
Justification
to
be
consequent
to
faith
:
or
wherein
men
are
perswaded
and
commanded
to
turne
unto
God
,
that
their
sins
may
be
forgiven
them
.
Many
such
places
have
been
already
produced
and
vindicated
against
Mr.
Eyres
exceptions
:
and
it
were
no
hard
matter
to
produce
many
more
,
as
J●r.
26.
2
,
3.
Stand
in
the
Court
of
the
Lords
house
,
and
speak
unto
all
the
Cities
of
Judah
,
all
the
words
that
I
command
thee
,
diminish
not
a
word
.
If
so
be
they
will
hearken
.
and
turne
ev●ry
man
from
his
evil
way
,
that
I
may
repent
me
of
the
evil
which
I
p●rpose
to
do
unto
them
.
And
Jer.
36.
3.
It
may
be
that
the
house
of
Judah
will
heare
all
the
evil
which
I
purpose
to
do
unto
them
:
that
they
may
returne
every
man
fr●m
his
evil
way
,
that
I
may
forgive
their
iniquity
and
their
sin
:
Plainly
discovering
our
conversion
unto
God
,
to
be
the
condition
of
our
partaking
in
his
pardoning
mercy
.
Which
doth
also
notably
appear
by
the
contrary
steps
which
sinners
tread
,
in
working
out
their
owne
damnation
,
Mark
4.
12.
That
seeing
they
may
see
and
not
perceive
,
and
hearing
they
may
heare
and
not
understand
,
lest
at
any
time
they
should
be
converted
,
and
their
sins
should
be
forgiven
them
.
But
of
this
we
have
spoken
enough
before
.
His
second
Argument
is
this
,
The
Covenant
between
God
Answ.
What
's
the
inference
?
Ergo
,
it
was
the
Will
of
God
that
Christs
death
should
be
av●●able
to
their
immediate
reconciliation
.
Can
any
man
divine
how
this
inference
follows
?
especially
when
it
is
against
the
expresse
letter
of
the
text
,
which
I
wonder
.
Mr.
Eyre
would
take
no
notice
of
,
v.
11.
By
his
knowledge
shall
my
righ●●●us
s●●v●nt
justifie
many
.
And
for
the
other
text
which
follows
,
H●●
.
2.
13.
〈◊〉
I
and
the
children
whom
God
hath
given
me
;
The
Apostle
mentions
it
to
prove
,
that
both
he
that
sanctifieth
,
and
they
that
are
sanctified
are
all
of
one
,
v.
11.
But
what
it
is
Mr.
Eyre
would
conclude
from
hence
,
at
least
,
how
these
words
should
afford
him
that
which
he
would
conclude
from
them
,
is
that
which
I
have
no
hope
to
understand
till
he
hath
informed
me
.
He
must
needs
be
unanswerable
that
so
writes
,
as
his
Reader
shall
never
be
sure
of
his
meaning
.
The
third
Argument
is
this
:
If
it
were
the
Will
of
God
that
the
death
of
Christ
should
be
the
payment
of
our
debt
,
and
a
full
Answ.
I
see
now
I
was
mistaken
in
the
former
chapter
.
I
thought
there
Mr.
Eyr●
had
yielded
it
a
thing
possible
for
such
an
agreement
to
have
passed
between
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
as
that
the
Sons
satisfaction
should
not
presently
and
immediately
effect
the
discharge
of
those
for
whom
he
satisfied
.
But
this
argument
supposeth
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
was
neither
payment
nor
satisfaction
,
if
such
a
Covenant
passed
between
them
.
If
it
be
possible
that
there
might
be
such
an
Agreement
passe
between
the
Father
and
the
Sonne
,
(
as
it
is
most
certain
it
did
)
then
must
this
Argument
needs
be
inconsequent
,
which
infers
the
actual
and
immediate
freedome
of
the
elect
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
because
his
death
was
a
satisfaction
.
We
shall
therefore
prove
by
and
by
,
that
satisfaction
doth
not
necessarily
infer
the
discharge
of
the
debtour
.
In
the
mean
time
,
I
except
,
1.
Against
the
confused
use
of
those
two
termes
,
payment
and
satisfaction
,
which
in
this
Argument
ought
to
be
distinguished
;
the
former
noting
such
a
payment
as
is
of
the
thing
it self
in
the
obligation
,
the
latter
a
payment
refusable
.
2.
That
the
will
of
God
is
here
made
the
cause
of
Christs
death
,
being
a
satisfaction
:
in
which
(
though
I
beleeve
Mr.
Eyre
means
no
ill
)
there
may
be
a
very
great
mistake
:
for
it
seems
to
imply
that
it
was
not
so
much
the
value
and
worth
of
Christs
offering
which
made
it
a
satisfaction
,
as
the
will
of
God
who
would
accept
it
as
satisfactory
.
3.
But
to
the
Argument
it self
;
That
Christ
paid
our
debt
,
is
an
ambiguous
expression
:
either
it
signifies
,
1.
That
he
was
punished
for
our
sins
▪
and
so
paid
that
summe
which
otherwise
should
have
been
required
of
us
,
(
and
in
this
sense
it
is
most
true
)
or
,
2.
That
he
translated
our
very
obligation
upon
himself
,
and
so
paid
as
in
our
names
,
and
as
representing
us
in
making
payment
:
and
thus
I
deny
it
,
as
dangerously
false
.
The
reason
is
ready
:
because
what
is
done
,
as
in
our
name
and
person
,
is
not
so
much
his
Act
that
doth
it
as
ours
,
whom
he
represents
in
doing
it
:
whether
he
represent
us
by
our
will
and
consent
(
as
Proctors
and
Atturnies
that
pay
and
receive
monies
,
or
transact
businesse
in
our
name
,
and
Ambassadours
whom
Princes
send
into
forraigne
Nations
)
or
by
the
authority
of
Law
(
as
what
Tutors
do
in
the
name
of
their
Pupills
and
Minors
:
)
in
all
which
,
whatsoever
is
done
as
in
the
person
of
another
,
is
not
so
properly
his
Act
that
doth
it
,
as
theirs
whose
person
he
represents
.
And
if
Christ
thus
paid
our
debt
,
then
his
payment
was
more
properly
our
Act
then
his
own
;
we
our selves
have
satisfied
,
merited
and
redeemed
our selves
:
which
a
Christians
eares
can
never
endure
.
Now
to
apply
the
distinction
.
When
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
that
Christs
death
was
the
payment
of
our
debts
,
if
he
mean
it
in
the
former
sense
,
of
what
is
●quivalentèr
the
payment
of
our
debt
,
I
deny
his
proposition
:
If
he
mean
it
in
the
latter
sense
,
of
what
is
our
debt
subjectivè
,
I
deny
his
assumption
,
and
say
,
that
it
was
never
the
will
of
God
that
Christs
death
should
in
this
sense
be
the
payment
of
our
debt
.
And
the
phrases
of
Scripture
,
which
declare
that
Christ
dyed
for
us
,
and
for
our
sins
,
do
indeed
well
prove
the
former
,
that
Christ
was
substituted
in
our
roome
to
make
satisfaction
to
the
Law
for
our
sins
;
but
they
do
by
no
means
prove
that
he
paid
our
debt
in
the
latter
sense
,
viz.
as
standing
in
the
same
obligation
with
us
,
and
representing
our
persons
in
the
payment
which
he
made
:
no
more
,
then
those
words
,
[
a
](A96867-e57660-b)
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Matth.
2.
22.
Archelaus
reigned
in
the
roome
of
his
father
Herod
,
will
prove
,
that
Archelaus
represented
the
person
of
his
deceased
father
,
as
then
King
in
Judea
.
Though
I
will
not
deny
that
our
Divines
are
sometimes
wont
so
to
understand
the
phrase
of
Christs
satisfying
in
our
names
and
in
our
person
,
as
meaning
no
more
then
simply
a
commutation
of
persons
,
he
suffering
that
which
otherwise
we
should
have
suffered
.
But
if
we
will
speak
properly
,
Christ
stood
not
as
a
sinner
,
or
as
a
debtor
,
ex
delict●
,
but
as
a
surety
for
sinners
,
and
a
debtor
by
voluntary
contract
,
in
dying
for
us
.
But
the
assumption
will
not
be
disputed
,
if
Mr.
Eyre
,
by
his
payment
of
our
debt
,
mean
no
more
,
then
satisfaction
for
our
debt
.
The
proposition
is
most
faulty
,
and
that
which
I
deny
.
The
proofe
of
it
is
this
.
It
is
contrary
to
justice
and
equity
,
that
a
debt
when
it
is
payed
,
should
be
charged
either
upon
the
surety
or
principal
.
Ans.
Which
is
very
true
,
when
that
which
is
paid
is
the
same
which
was
in
the
obligation
.
Solutione
ejus
quod
debetur
,
tollitur
obligatio
.
Now
the
obligation
of
Christ
was
obligatio
fidejussoria
,
which
he
hath
fully
discharged
in
his
death
,
so
that
it
cannot
be
required
of
him
a
second
time
:
being
once
dead
he
dieth
no
more
,
but
is
sate
downe
at
the
right
hand
of
God
for
ever
.
Neverthelesse
the
sinner
(
who
is
obliged
ex
delicto
)
is
not
freed
in
the
sureties
discharge
,
unlesse
it
be
proved
that
the
surety
made
payment
with
this
[
b
](A96867-e57840-b)
b
Videl
.
Cassi●s
16
&
l.
quoties
37.
●●f
de
silut
.
&
liberat
.
intent
,
that
the
debtor
(
that
is
,
the
sinner
)
should
be
presently
discharged
as
wel
as
himself
.
That
Christ
had
such
an
intent
,
Mr.
Eyre
proves
,
because
his
death
was
a
payment
or
satisfaction
.
The
question
then
between
him
and
me
now
is
,
whether
an
agreement
between
a
credit●r
and
a
surety
,
that
the
debtor
shall
not
be
discharged
immediately
upon
the
sureties
payment
,
be
possible
,
or
consistent
with
the
nature
of
that
payment
and
satisfaction
which
a
surety
makes
?
Mr.
Eyre
is
for
the
negative
(
and
the
Reader
hath
his
word
for
it
,
and
nothing
else
,
instead
of
Argument
)
.
I
am
for
the
affirmative
,
upon
the
following
grounds
.
Peter
owes
James
a
100.
l.
whereof
he
is
not
able
to
pay
him
one
farthing
.
John
out
of
love
and
compassion
to
Peter
,
and
without
his
knowledge
,
interposeth
as
a
surety
.
●●gageth
to
James
,
that
if
he
will
accept
of
payment
from
him
,
he
will
pay
him
the
said
100.
l.
provided
and
agreed
between
them
both
,
that
Peters
bond
shall
remaine
in
full
force
,
and
so
himself
not
be
discharged
till
a
month
after
;
upon
these
terms
John
payes
his
mony
,
and
James
receives
it
.
Here
the
summe
is
paid
,
and
yet
the
debtor
remains
for
a
time
obliged
.
Ergo
,
he
is
not
discharged
immediately
upon
the
sureties
payment
.
Nor
is
there
any
thing
in
this
agreement
inconsistent
with
the
nature
of
payment
or
satisfaction
.
1.
John
the
surety
might
have
chosen
whether
he
would
have
paid
or
engage
to
pay
the
said
100.
l.
2.
James
the
creditor
also
might
have
chosen
whether
he
would
have
admitted
John
to
be
paymaster
or
no.
3.
Forasmuch
therefore
as
there
is
no
Law
to
compel
the
one
to
pay
,
or
the
other
to
receive
,
but
it
is
meerly
the
voluntary
act
of
both
which
mutually
engageth
them
;
it
followes
necessarily
,
that
it
is
in
the
power
of
them
both
to
agree
upon
the
tearms
and
time
when
Peter
shall
be
discharged
by
virtue
of
this
payment
:
because
it
is
in
our
power
to
put
what
Laws
we
please
upon
actions
which
depend
meerly
on
our
own
will
:
otherwise
a
man
might
be
free
and
not
free
at
the
same
time
,
and
in
reference
to
the
same
action
,
which
is
a
contradiction
.
Therefore
payment
is
made
(
for
the
creditor
is
possessed
of
as
much
as
the
debtor
ought
him
)
yet
the
debtor
is
not
presently
discharged
.
Ergo
,
the
payment
of
a
debt
(
or
rather
satisfaction
for
a
debt
)
doth
not
in
all
cases
presently
discharge
the
debtor
.
Other
cases
the
Reader
may
see
in
the
civil
Law
:
which
I
desire
him
to
looke
in
the
places
which
I
have
directed
him
to
,
in
this
and
the
former
chapter
:
to
spare
my self
the
paines
of
transcribing
them
.
Nor
is
there
any
thing
,
in
all
this
,
contrary
to
justice
and
equity
,
as
maxime
,
volenti
non
sit
injuria
.
Not
against
the
debtor
,
for
he
hath
not
paid
his
debt
;
nor
did
the
surety
pay
it
with
this
purpose
and
will
,
that
he
(
the
said
debtor
)
should
be
presently
disobliged
,
but
in
convenient
time
.
Yet
that
which
follows
,
That
the
same
debt
cannot
be
paid
and
unpaid
,
is
true
;
but
nothing
to
the
purpose
:
because
our
question
is
not
whether
payment
or
satisfaction
be
made
;
but
whether
he
that
payes
for
another
may
not
agree
with
the
creditor
,
that
the
person
for
whom
he
payeth
shall
not
presently
be
discharged
,
but
at
some
distance
of
time
after
?
Mr.
Eyre
acknowledgeth
.
That
the
effects
of
Christs
death
,
as
it
is
the
meritorious
price
of
faith
,
holinesse
,
glory
,
are
not
present
but
future
.
But
was
not
the
death
of
Christ
the
meritorious
price
of
our
discharge
from
sin
and
the
curse
,
as
well
as
of
those
blessings
?
and
if
Christ
did
merit
them
,
to
be
given
,
not
presently
,
but
many
years
after
his
death
,
why
not
this
?
But
let
us
see
how
Mr.
Eyre
illustrates
this
(
for
proofe
we
have
none
.
)
As
when
a
man
that
is
a
trespasser
,
or
any
one
for
him
,
payes
a
summe
of
money
,
which
is
sufficient
,
both
for
discharge
of
his
trespasse
,
as
also
for
the
purchase
of
a
piece
of
land
;
from
the
trespasse
his
discharge
must
be
present
,
if
the
satisfaction
be
full
,
though
the
enjoyment
of
the
land
may
be
in
Diem
.
Ans.
1.
But
neither
yet
do
we
hit
the
mark
:
for
the
question
is
not
,
whether
it
be
possible
for
a
debtor
to
be
discharged
presently
and
immediately
upon
the
payment
which
another
makes
for
him
(
which
is
the
utmost
this
instance
can
reach
to
:
)
but
whether
it
be
not
possible
for
him
,
not
to
be
discharged
upon
such
a
payment
,
presently
?
which
universal
negative
one
particular
instance
can
never
well
prove
:
especially
when
other
instances
without
number
may
be
invented
,
which
will
infallibly
prove
the
contrary
.
2.
Still
I
long
to
know
the
reason
of
that
peremptory
necessity
,
expressed
in
those
words
,
From
the
trespasse
the
discharge
must
be
present
,
if
the
satisfaction
be
full
.
Cassius
hath
Maevius
in
suite
,
for
that
his
cattle
have
broke
into
his
corne
,
and
done
him
dammage
to
the
value
of
5.
l.
Lucius
gives
the
said
5.
l.
to
Cassius
,
that
the
next
Term
(
and
not
before
)
he
may
discharge
Maevius
:
which
accordingly
he
doth
.
Is
this
contract
impossible
?
If
it
be
,
shew
us
what
contradiction
there
is
in
the
tearms
:
if
it
be
not
,
we
are
not
bound
to
beleeve
,
that
the
discharge
must
needs
be
immediate
,
though
Mr.
Eyre
say
it
.
3.
Nor
yet
am
I
able
to
conceive
,
(
such
is
my
dulnesse
)
why
the
effects
of
satisfaction
should
be
more
immediate
,
then
those
of
merit
:
Especially
considering
that
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
is
also
the
price
of
our
peace
and
pardon
:
and
that
the
difference
between
them
is
rather
respective
then
real
:
the
same
obedience
being
called
satisfaction
,
as
it
is
ordered
to
Gods
honour
:
and
merit
,
as
it
is
ordered
to
our
benefit
and
advantage
.
The
piece
of
land
which
one
purchaseth
for
another
,
might
it
not
be
enjoyed
presently
,
if
the
vendee
and
purchaser
did
so
agree
?
it
might
,
(
especially
if
the
price
be
full
:
as
that
is
,
which
Christ
paid
for
us
many
years
ago
.
)
Is
it
not
then
the
agreement
between
the
vendee
and
purchaser
which
defers
the
possession
till
such
a
time
?
it
is
so
.
Why
then
should
not
the
case
be
the
same
in
satisfaction
?
why
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
a
debt
cannot
be
paid
and
unpaid
.
No
more
can
a
price
be
paid
and
unpaid
(
say
I
)
.
But
neither
doth
the
price
nor
satisfaction
produce
their
effects
necessarily
,
or
by
way
of
natural
causality
:
but
voluntarily
according
to
the
compact
between
the
party
paying
and
receiving
:
which
if
it
did
not
hinder
,
the
vendee
were
as
much
bound
to
give
present
possession
of
the
goods
bought
(
having
received
the
full
price
of
them
)
as
the
creditor
to
forbear
the
inflicting
of
evil
upon
the
trespasser
(
upon
satisfaction
made
by
a
third
person
.
)
SECT.
II.
THe
fourth
Argument
is
this
.
If
nothing
hindred
the
reconciliation
Ergo.
Ans.
This
Argument
were
something
if
the
sinner
himself
had
suffered
according
to
the
Law
.
As
if
it
might
be
supposed
that
Adam
after
his
sin
could
by
suffering
have
satisfied
for
his
disobedience
:
no
doubt
but
he
had
been
presently
restored
into
the
same
state
of
favour
which
he
was
in
before
,
and
might
have
gone
to
work
againe
for
life
upon
the
security
of
the
very
same
Covenant
,
with
good
successe
.
And
if
Christ
had
paid
the
idem
(
a
thing
impossible
,
unlesse
he
were
a
sinner
,
or
we
were
Christ
)
then
indeed
had
his
sufferings
delivered
us
ipso
facto
,
and
we
had
not
needed
a
Covenant
of
grace
to
pardon
or
save
us
,
but
are
in
as
good
a
capacity
of
life
without
it
,
as
Adam
was
before
he
fell
:
as
we
have
observed
before
.
But
that
first
Covenant
being
violated
,
and
no
satisfaction
made
(
or
possibly
to
be
made
)
but
by
a
voluntary
surety
;
God
is
left
at
liberty
(
as
I
may
so
speak
)
to
propose
what
tearms
and
time
he
pleaseth
,
for
the
restoring
of
sinners
into
a
state
of
life
and
peace
,
Gal.
3.
21
,
22.
Now
when
Mr.
Eyre
says
,
that
nothing
hindred
the
reconciliation
of
sinners
with
God
but
the
breach
of
the
Law
,
the
speech
is
somewhat
improper
;
for
though
sin
made
the
breach
between
God
and
them
,
yet
it
is
not
that
properly
which
hinders
reconciliation
,
but
the
sinners
inability
to
make
satisfaction
:
could
he
have
satisfied
,
sin
could
have
had
no
power
to
have
kept
him
at
a
distance
from
God
:
and
so
I
perceive
doth
Mr.
Eyre
mean
,
by
his
explication
.
God
(
saith
he
)
having
made
a
Law
that
the
soul
which
sins
shall
die
,
the
justice
and
truth
of
God
required
that
satisfaction
should
be
made
for
the
sins
of
the
elect
,
no
lesse
then
of
other
men
.
To
the
Argument
therefore
the
answer
is
ready
.
If
satisfaction
were
made
so
(
which
it
was
not
)
as
that
the
Law
had
been
answered
in
the
very
thing
which
it
required
,
viz.
the
sinners
punishment
,
then
I
would
yeeld
it
wholly
,
and
more
then
Mr.
Eyre
will
thank
me
for
:
namely
that
life
is
given
us
by
the
very
same
Covenant
which
was
made
with
Adam
in
his
innocency
.
But
satisfaction
being
taken
strictly
for
a
payment
refusable
,
which
one
is
admitted
to
make
for
another
;
and
then
it
produceth
the
effect
of
our
reconciliation
no
otherwise
,
then
as
he
that
admitteth
and
he
that
is
admitted
to
make
payment
shall
agree
.
Wherefore
I
deny
the
proposition
as
being
grounded
in
the
former
false
supposal
,
viz.
That
satisfaction
cannot
be
made
in
any
way
,
but
it
must
needs
effect
a
present
discharge
:
which
I
have
already
disproved
.
The
explication
of
this
Argument
I
●nd
no
fault
with
(
more
then
that
one
expression
,
That
the
onely
cause
of
Christs
death
,
was
to
satisfie
the
Law
:
whereas
they
that
deny
his
death
to
have
been
satisfactory
at
all
,
do
yet
assigne
many
causes
of
his
death
,
which
our selves
allow
of
)
but
there
is
nothing
in
it
which
tends
to
prove
the
thing
denied
,
more
then
a
comparison
or
two
,
which
need
a
little
consideration
.
As
when
the
cloud
is
dissolved
,
the
Sun
shines
out
:
when
the
partition
wall
is
broken
down
,
they
that
were
separated
are
againe
united
:
so
the
cloud
of
our
sins
being
blotted
out
,
the
beams
of
Gods
love
have
as
free
a
passage
towards
us
,
as
if
we
had
not
sinned
.
Ans.
Now
would
I
know
what
is
that
moral
necessity
of
Gods
communicating
life
to
us
upon
Christs
satisfaction
,
which
answers
to
the
natural
necessity
of
the
Suns
shining
forth
upon
the
dissolution
of
the
cloud
:
(
for
to
say
that
God
may
salvâ
justitiâ
communicate
life
to
sinners
,
Christ
having
satisfied
,
is
not
to
the
purpose
:
't
is
a
must
and
not
a
may
which
must
make
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
consequent
,
)
one
of
these
three
it
must
needs
be
:
either
,
1.
A
necessity
of
obligation
by
virtue
of
some
Law
or
Covenant
:
but
the
onely
Covenant
which
God
made
with
man
before
the
fall
,
was
that
made
with
Adam
in
innocency
,
promising
life
upon
perfect
obedience
.
If
by
virtue
of
that
Covenant
God
stands
still
engaged
to
give
life
to
men
,
supposing
satisfaction
to
be
made
for
disobedience
:
then
doth
that
Covenant
made
with
man
in
innocency
,
stand
still
in
force
as
the
onely
way
of
life
,
and
men
(
at
least
the
elect
)
are
legally
and
in
strict
justice
as
innocent
as
if
they
had
never
sinned
:
both
which
are
desperately
false
and
overthrow
the
very
foundations
of
faith
,
or
,
2.
The
necessity
of
a
decree
:
God
having
decreed
that
the
elect
shall
be
reconciled
immediately
upon
Christs
satisfaction
for
their
sins
;
it
must
needs
be
that
he
having
satisfied
,
they
must
be
immediately
reconciled
.
But
the
very
supposing
of
such
a
decree
,
is
the
begging
of
the
question
:
and
being
supposed
,
it
will
not
inferre
that
the
elect
must
needs
be
reconciled
by
the
death
of
Christ
immediately
,
quatenus
it
was
a
satisfaction
;
but
simply
quatenus
it
was
decreed
to
be
immediately
antecedent
to
their
reconciliation
:
or
,
3.
A
kind
of
natural
necessity
:
God
being
essentially
good
,
cannot
but
do
good
to
an
innocent
sinlesse
creature
,
or
to
a
sinful
creature
,
supposing
satisfaction
to
be
made
for
his
sin
:
which
is
all
one
,
as
if
himself
had
never
sinned
.
But
this
is
wider
of
truth
then
either
of
the
former
:
for
(
whatsoever
may
be
said
of
it
in
reference
to
a
creature
perfectly
righteous
)
out
of
doubt
there
was
no
other
necessity
of
Gods
accepting
Christs
satisfaction
,
then
his
own
good
pleasure
.
He
might
justly
have
destroyed
sinners
,
and
never
provided
a
propitiation
for
them
.
It
is
therefore
as
clear
as
the
Sun
when
the
clouds
are
dissolved
,
that
there
is
no
necessity
of
an
immediate
reconciliation
between
God
and
sinners
upon
the
death
of
Christ
:
but
only
of
a
reconciliation
to
follow
then
,
and
upon
such
tearms
as
God
and
Christ
agree
.
2.
Wherefore
to
the
comparison
I
answer
:
that
Christ
died
not
meerly
to
dissolve
and
scatter
the
clouds
of
sin
;
but
to
create
a
[
d
](A96867-e58590-b)
d
Malac.
4.
2.
Sun
of
righteousnesse
,
and
to
dispel
the
clouds
and
darknesse
of
sin
:
my
meaning
is
,
Christ
died
not
to
repaire
the
old
Covenant
;
nor
by
removing
of
hindrances
,
to
make
us
capable
of
the
influences
of
life
and
love
,
in
that
way
in
which
they
should
have
been
derived
to
us
by
the
first
Covenant
:
but
therefore
died
he
,
that
by
means
of
death
for
the
redemption
of
transgressions
,
he
might
become
that
new
and
living
way
,
through
which
we
might
come
unto
God
by
faith
,
and
partake
in
life
and
remission
of
sins
.
Heb.
9.
15.
and
10.
17
,
20
,
22.
compared
.
3.
Observe
one
thing
more
(
Reader
)
from
M.
Eyres
application
of
his
similitude
.
So
(
saith
he
)
the
cloud
of
our
sins
being
blotted
out
;
the
beams
of
Gods
love
have
as
free
a
passage
towards
us
,
as
if
we
had
not
sinned
.
What
are
these
beams
of
love
?
Is
pardon
of
sin
any
of
them
?
if
it
be
,
then
behold
the
sense
of
the
comparison
:
viz.
Christ
having
satisfied
,
God
can
now
pardon
sin
as
freely
as
if
men
had
no
sin
,
and
so
had
never
needed
pardon
.
This
is
a
rare
notion
:
but
there
is
yet
something
worse
then
non-sense
included
in
it
;
namely
,
that
sinners
are
discharged
without
pardon
:
as
having
(
in
Christ
)
paid
to
the
full
the
debt
which
they
owed
:
as
swearers
and
drunkards
are
discharged
upon
payment
of
the
mulct
enjoyned
by
Law
,
without
the
Magistrates
pardon
;
and
become
from
thenceforth
immediately
as
capable
of
the
benefit
and
protection
of
the
Law
,
as
if
they
had
never
broken
it
.
If
immediately
upon
Christs
satisfaction
the
elect
become
in
like
manner
as
capable
of
the
blessings
of
the
promise
as
if
they
had
never
sinned
,
there
is
then
no
need
that
they
should
beleeve
and
repent
in
order
to
the
obtaining
of
life
and
salvation
.
The
fifth
Argument
succeeds
.
If
it
were
the
will
of
God
that
the
sin
of
Adam
should
immediately
overspread
his
posterity
,
then
it
was
his
will
that
the
satisfaction
and
righteousnesse
of
Christ
should
immediately
redound
to
the
benefit
of
Gods
elect
:
for
there
is
the
same
reason
for
the
immediate
transmission
of
both
to
their
respective
subjects
:
for
both
of
them
were
heads
and
roots
of
mankind
.
But
the
sin
of
Adam
did
immediately
over
spread
his
posterity
.
All
men
sinned
in
him
,
Rom.
5.
12.
before
ever
they
committed
any
actual
sin
.
Ergo.
Ans.
I
deny
both
proposition
and
assumption
.
First
,
for
the
assumption
:
I
deny
that
any
man
is
guilty
of
Adams
sin
,
till
he
exist
and
be
a
child
of
Adam
.
He
that
is
not
,
is
not
under
Law
,
to
be
capable
of
breaking
it
or
fulfilling
it
:
of
receiving
or
enduring
any
good
or
evil
effects
of
it
.
And
as
to
Rom.
5.
12.
which
M.
Eyre
quotes
to
prove
that
all
men
sinned
in
Adam
before
they
had
any
being
of
their
own
:
neither
doth
the
text
say
so
,
but
only
that
death
passed
upon
all
men
,
f●r
that
all
have
sinned
:
which
if
M.
Eyre
will
render
in
whom
all
have
sinned
(
as
I
deny
not
but
he
may
by
the
help
of
an
ellipsis
,
thus
.
Death
passed
upon
all
men
by
him
in
whom
all
have
sinned
)
yet
will
it
be
short
of
his
purpose
.
Doth
not
the
Apostle
say
in
the
same
verse
,
Death
hath
passed
upon
all
men
?
and
v.
15.
through
the
offence
of
one
,
many
be
dead
:
which
many
himself
interprets
of
all
.
v.
18.
for
(
as
Beza
notes
well
,
v.
15.
)
many
in
this
comparison
is
not
opposed
to
all
,
but
to
one
.
Is
it
therefore
lawfull
to
inferre
,
that
men
are
actually
dead
before
they
are
borne
?
Nothing
lesse
.
The
meaning
then
of
this
speech
,
All
men
are
dead
in
Adam
,
is
no
more
but
this
:
That
sentence
of
death
passed
upon
Adam
,
by
virtue
of
which
all
that
are
borne
of
him
,
eo
ipso
that
they
derive
their
being
from
him
,
become
subject
unto
the
same
death
.
In
like
manner
,
all
are
said
to
have
sinned
in
him
:
not
that
his
posterity
then
unborne
and
unbegotten
(
that
is
,
no
body
)
were
immediately
guilty
of
his
fact
:
but
because
by
the
just
dispensation
of
God
,
it
was
to
be
imputed
to
them
as
soone
as
they
had
so
much
being
as
to
be
denominated
children
of
Adam
.
His
offence
tainted
the
blood
,
and
according
to
Gods
Covenant
and
way
of
dealing
with
him
,
was
interpreted
as
the
act
of
the
humane
nature
,
then
existing
in
himself
(
for
tota
natura
generis
est
in
qualibet
specie
)
but
was
neither
imputed
nor
imputable
to
particular
persons
partaking
in
that
nature
before
their
own
personal
existence
.
In
short
:
we
sinned
in
Adam
no
otherwise
then
we
did
exist
in
him
;
for
operatio
sequitur
esse
:
but
to
exist
in
Adam
,
is
not
to
exist
simply
,
(
but
rather
the
contrary
:
for
when
men
are
men
and
have
a
personal
existence
of
their
own
,
they
exist
no
longer
in
Adam
,
but
out
of
him
:
as
every
effect
wrought
exists
out
of
its
causes
)
but
onely
notes
a
virtue
or
power
in
him
productive
of
us
(
positis
omnibus
ad
ag●ndum
requisitis
.
)
So
to
sin
or
be
guilty
in
him
,
is
not
to
sin
or
be
guilty
simply
;
but
onely
notes
the
cause
of
the
propagation
of
guilt
,
together
with
our
substance
,
to
be
then
in
being
.
If
we
apply
this
,
it
will
follow
,
that
as
no
man
partakes
in
Adams
guilt
,
till
he
be
borne
a
child
of
Adam
;
so
none
partake
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
nor
the
benefit
of
his
satisfaction
,
till
they
be
borne
unto
him
by
faith
.
And
that
doth
the
Apostle
put
out
of
question
in
this
very
dispute
,
Rom.
5.
19.
For
as
by
one
mans
disobedience
many
were
made
sinners
;
so
by
the
obedience
of
one
shall
many
be
made
righteous
:
which
words
were
written
many
years
after
Christs
death
:
and
yet
then
there
were
many
who
in
times
and
ages
to
come
were
to
be
made
righteous
by
Christs
obedience
:
Ergo
,
they
were
not
made
righteous
immediately
in
his
death
.
That
for
the
minor
.
The
proposition
comes
next
to
be
canvased
:
where
I
deny
that
free
gift
in
opposition
to
that
judgement
which
by
one
came
upon
all
to
condemnation
,
v.
15
,
16.
implying
the
obedience
of
Christ
to
be
so
performed
,
as
that
there
is
yet
required
an
act
of
grace
on
Gods
part
,
to
give
us
the
effect
of
it
:
(
as
well
as
an
act
of
faith
on
our
part
,
that
it
may
be
given
to
us
,
or
that
we
may
receive
it
:
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
in
the
next
verse
,
v.
17.
They
that
receive
abundance
of
grace
—
shall
raigne
in
life
:
for
we
receive
the
grace
of
God
by
faith
,
2
Cor.
6.
1.
)
suitable
to
what
this
Apostle
had
said
before
,
chap.
3.
25
,
26.
that
Christ
was
set
forth
to
declare
the
righteousnesse
of
God
—
that
he
might
be
th●
justifier
of
him
that
beleeveth
in
Jesus
.
But
the
effects
of
Adams
disobedience
came
upon
his
posterity
by
the
necessity
of
the
same
judgement
which
passed
upon
himself
,
as
the
natural
father
of
all
men
:
so
as
there
needs
no
other
act
,
either
on
Gods
part
,
or
on
our
part
;
but
eo
ipso
that
we
are
borne
of
Adam
we
become
liable
both
to
guilt
and
punishment
.
But
of
this
we
have
spoken
more
largely
before
.
The
sixth
Argument
follows
.
If
the
sacrifices
of
the
Law
were
immediately
available
for
the
typicall
cleansing
under
that
administration
;
then
the
sacrifice
which
Christ
hath
offered
was
immediately
availeable
,
to
make
a
real
atonement
for
all
those
sins
for
which
he
suffered
.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
,
because
the
real
sacrifice
is
not
lesse
efficacious
then
the
typical
.
But
those
legal
sacrifices
did
immediately
make
atonement
without
any
condition
performed
on
the
sinners
part
,
Lev.
16.
30.
Ergo.
Ans.
1.
I
except
against
the
proposition
:
because
there
is
no
necessity
of
the
consequence
.
The
atonement
made
by
sacrifices
might
be
available
to
an
immediate
cleansing
,
though
Christs
be
not
,
because
,
1.
God
might
will
the
former
,
though
not
the
latter
.
2.
The
people
cleansed
by
sacrifice
were
all
in
being
.
3.
And
all
actually
guilty
of
those
sins
from
which
they
were
cleansed
by
sacrifice
.
4.
And
the
punishments
from
which
they
were
delivered
,
were
for
the
most
part
carnal
and
outward
,
and
as
it
were
present
,
being
either
actually
upon
them
(
as
their
,
separations
from
the
congregation
for
leprosie
or
other
defilements
,
suddaine
plagues
destroying
multitudes
of
them
&c.
)
or
in
sight
(
as
it
were
)
and
neere
at
hand
:
in
which
respect
it
was
necessary
that
the
atonement
made
by
sacrifice
should
have
the
more
immediate
effect
.
But
they
who
are
purged
by
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
many
of
them
were
not
in
being
when
his
sacrifice
was
offered
,
nor
multitudes
of
them
,
yet
much
lesse
had
they
then
committed
those
sins
from
which
his
sacrifice
doth
afterwards
purge
them
:
nor
is
the
punishment
of
their
sins
already
upon
them
,
but
put
off
in
expectation
of
repentance
.
If
Mr.
Eyre
will
give
me
that
liberty
which
●e
takes
himself
,
I
might
as
well
argue
thus
.
If
the
sacrifices
under
the
Law
obtained
no
pardon
but
for
sins
committed
,
then
neither
doth
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
obtaine
present
pardon
for
sins
to
come
,
not
yet
committed
.
But
the
first
is
true
,
Ergo
,
so
is
the
last
.
I
doubt
he
would
not
grant
my
proposition
.
The
reason
which
he
addes
for
confirmation
of
his
own
,
hath
no
weight
:
for
the
efficacy
of
the
sacrifices
typical
and
real
is
rather
to
be
measured
by
the
greatnesse
of
the
effect
wrought
,
then
by
their
quicknesse
in
working
them
.
That
sacrifice
is
of
greatest
efficacy
which
produceth
the
greatest
effect
,
whether
it
produce
it
immediately
or
no
:
for
example
.
The
sacrifice
of
Christ
is
of
greater
efficacy
then
those
under
the
Law
:
because
they
sanctified
to
the
purifying
of
the
flesh
,
but
the
blood
of
Christ
purgeth
the
conscience
,
Heb.
9.
13
,
14.
But
it
did
not
purge
our
consciences
immediately
as
soon
as
it
was
offered
:
for
we
had
then
no
consciences
to
purge
.
Yet
(
I
hope
)
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
say
,
that
Christs
sacrifice
is
therefore
of
lesse
efficacy
then
the
other
.
But
the
assumption
is
that
which
I
do
most
except
against
.
viz.
Lev.
16.
30.
the
Priest
shall
make
an
atonement
for
you
.
Ergo
,
there
was
no
condition
required
on
the
peoples
part
.
But
neither
was
the
atonement
perfectly
made
by
the
offering
of
the
sacrifice
:
but
it
was
moreover
required
on
the
Priests
part
that
he
entred
into
the
holy
of
holies
,
and
made
atonement
there
,
to
v.
12
,
15.
(
a
type
of
our
Lords
entrance
into
heaven
to
make
reconciliation
there
for
our
sins
,
Heb.
9.
24.
and
2.
17
,
18.
and
4.
14
,
15.
)
and
on
the
peoples
part
,
that
they
did
upon
that
day
humble
and
afflict
their
soules
:
otherwise
they
could
not
have
any
benefit
by
that
atonement
:
as
we
have
observed
before
out
of
v.
29
,
30.
and
Lev.
23.
27
,
28
,
29.
We
have
also
already
shewed
that
in
some
other
cases
some
actions
were
required
,
as
conditions
without
which
sinners
received
not
the
benefit
of
that
typical
atonement
.
But
for
the
general
this
may
suffice
,
that
the
people
who
received
the
benefit
of
those
sacrifices
were
a
people
in
Covenant
with
God
,
and
worshippers
of
him
,
Heb.
10.
1
,
2.
which
was
the
grand
condition
of
their
partaking
in
the
effects
of
that
whole
ceremonial
service
,
and
were
therein
types
of
the
spiritual
worshippers
of
the
new
Testament
,
who
come
by
faith
to
the
blood
of
sprinkling
,
even
to
Christ
crucified
,
for
a
spiritual
and
eternal
cleansing
.
SECT.
III.
WE
come
now
to
Mr.
Eyres
seventh
Argument
.
Some
of
Ergo
,
all
the
elect
are
so
reconciled
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
consequence
,
because
it
infers
an
universal
from
a
particular
.
The
Apostle
sayes
,
It
is
appointed
unto
all
men
once
to
die
,
Heb.
9.
27.
and
through
death
to
enter
into
Heaven
:
shall
I
say
this
is
false
,
because
Enoch
and
Elijah
went
to
Heaven
,
and
never
saw
death
?
If
the
general
directions
,
commands
and
promises
in
Scripture
,
must
all
be
arraigned
of
falshood
,
if
they
be
not
applicable
to
Infants
,
as
well
as
unto
persons
that
have
understanding
to
know
their
Masters
will
▪
we
shall
make
sad
work
:
exceptions
of
particular
persons
make
no
breach
upon
a
general
rule
.
The
Apostle
sayes
,
He
that
will
not
work
,
must
not
eat
:
If
we
should
give
Infants
no
more
food
then
they
work
for
,
the
world
would
be
soon
at
an
end
.
2.
But
I
deny
the
antecedent
also
.
viz.
That
elect
Infants
are
immediately
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
Christ
,
without
any
condition
performed
on
their
part
.
A
double
answer
therefore
are
our
Divines
wont
to
make
to
this
objection
.
1.
That
Infants
may
have
the
seed
or
habit
of
faith
,
though
it
be
not
wrought
in
them
in
the
ordinary
way
of
preaching
.
2.
That
their
Parents
faith
is
the
condition
of
their
salvation
,
if
they
die
before
they
are
capable
of
putting
forth
the
act
of
faith
themselves
.
Mr.
Eyre
will
not
hear
of
either
of
these
answers
,
but
invades
them
both
.
The
former
,
1.
Because
Infants
have
no
knowledge
of
good
or
evil
,
Faith
cometh
by
hearing
of
the
Word
preach't
,
Rom.
10.
Now
Infants
heare
not
;
or
if
they
do
,
they
understand
not
what
they
hear
.
Answ.
1.
Wilt
thou
see
then
(
Reader
)
what
is
the
aime
and
upshot
of
all
Mr.
Eyres
discourse
?
this
it
is
,
that
there
is
no
necessity
of
believing
or
repenting
,
that
men
may
be
saved
:
for
Infants
are
saved
without
it
,
as
not
being
capable
of
so
much
as
the
habit
of
either
:
and
God
doth
not
give
salvation
unto
Infants
in
one
manner
,
and
to
men
in
another
;
(
these
are
his
own
words
)
therefore
men
also
may
be
saved
without
it
.
2.
Or
if
he
shall
say
(
as
he
doth
somewhere
else
)
that
God
hath
purposed
to
give
faith
to
all
that
are
of
yeares
of
discretion
,
before
he
give
them
salvation
:
yet
still
we
retort
upon
him
what
he
requires
of
us
,
Let
him
clear
it
up
from
Scripture
,
l●t
him
shew
us
the
text
that
saith
,
that
God
hath
purposed
to
have
Infants
in
one
way
,
and
men
in
another
.
3.
And
yet
I
know
not
whether
he
hath
so
much
charity
to
Infants
,
as
to
allow
them
any
room
in
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
:
he
cannot
,
if
his
Argument
be
good
;
for
the
text
is
expresse
,
Mark
16.
He
that
believeth
not
,
shall
be
damned
;
and
Infants
are
uncapable
of
believing
:
for
they
cannot
hear
the
Word
,
nor
have
they
any
knowledge
of
good
or
evil
:
nor
doth
God
save
them
in
one
way
,
and
men
in
another
.
4.
But
to
what
he
speaks
here
of
the
incapacity
of
Infants
,
having
the
seed
or
habit
of
grace
,
the
answer
is
easie
.
It
is
true
,
they
know
neither
good
nor
evil
:
but
it
will
not
follow
(
I
trow
)
that
they
are
neither
good
nor
evil
.
They
have
the
habits
of
sin
in
them
,
even
whiles
they
are
uncapable
of
the
act
,
Ergo
,
they
are
capable
of
the
habits
of
grace
too
:
otherwise
sin
and
grace
were
not
contraries
;
for
contraria
tribuuntur
eidem
.
And
it
is
certain
,
that
as
all
are
now
borne
in
sinne
;
so
all
should
have
been
borne
righteous
,
if
Adam
(
the
father
of
us
all
)
had
not
transgressed
.
And
to
the
second
exception
,
viz.
That
faith
cometh
by
hearing
of
the
Word
preached
,
Rom.
10.
17.
the
same
answer
will
suffice
:
faith
may
be
considered
,
either
in
its
compleat
act
,
(
and
so
no
doubt
it
comes
by
hearing
;
the
reason
is
rendred
by
the
Apostle
in
the
same
chapter
,
ver.
14.
How
shall
they
beleeve
on
him
of
whom
they
have
not
heard
?
)
Or
2.
In
its
seed
,
root
or
habit
:
and
so
I
deny
that
it
is
alwayes
and
in
all
persons
,
wrought
by
hearing
of
the
Word
preached
.
The
Christian
and
godly
instructions
of
Parents
,
as
they
are
ordained
of
God
to
be
a
meanes
of
instilling
his
feare
into
the
hearts
of
their
children
,
Eph.
6.
4.
Isa.
28.
9
,
10
,
11.
so
are
they
not
unfrequently
blessed
with
successe
,
according
to
the
capacity
of
children
,
as
in
Timothy
,
2
Tim.
3.
14
,
15.
And
sometimes
God
by
his
own
immediate
working
,
may
inspire
that
grace
into
the
heart
of
an
Infant
,
which
it
is
not
possible
any
means
should
be
used
by
men
to
effect
.
David
seems
to
have
been
gracious
from
a
childe
,
Psal.
22.
9
,
10.
and
71.
5
,
6.
and
Isaac
,
G●l.
4.
29.
and
Christ
blessed
Infants
,
Mark
10.
16.
and
he
blesseth
by
doing
or
working
that
in
them
,
which
godly
Parents
can
do
no
more
,
then
desire
may
be
done
,
when
they
are
said
to
blesse
their
children
.
But
we
have
a
famous
instance
(
which
puts
all
out
of
doubt
)
of
John
filled
with
the
Holy
Ghost
,
even
from
his
mothers
womb
,
Luke
1.
15.
What
sayes
Mr.
Eyre
to
this
?
He
cites
these
words
,
and
gives
answer
to
others
a
great
way
off
,
ver.
41.
whereupon
Mary's
salutation
of
Elizabeth
,
the
babe
is
said
to
leap
in
her
wombe
;
and
tells
us
,
That
this
exultation
,
Divinitús
facta
est
in
Infante
:
non
Humanitùs
ab
Infante
:
and
therefore
is
not
to
be
drawn
into
an
example
,
or
urged
as
a
rule
to
us
,
what
to
think
of
others
.
Aliquando
bonus
dormitat
Homerus
.
We
cite
the
words
of
v.
15.
(
and
so
doth
Mr.
Eyre
too
,
)
to
prove
Infants
capable
of
the
habit
of
grace
:
and
he
answers
to
v.
41.
which
is
no
part
of
the
objection
he
had
proposed
against
himself
.
But
whereas
he
sayes
,
it
is
not
to
be
urged
as
a
rule
to
us
,
what
to
think
of
other
Infants
;
he
should
have
given
us
the
reason
too
;
for
it
proves
invincibly
,
that
Infants
are
capable
of
the
habits
of
grace
,
(
which
is
all
intended
to
be
proved
by
it
)
and
by
consequence
,
that
Mr.
Eyres
two
Arguments
to
the
contrary
,
from
Infants
want
of
knowledge
and
inability
to
hear
,
are
nothing
worth
.
[
d
](A96867-e60150-b)
d
Vi●●
B●co●m
.
de
side
●ustif
.
Q
●1
.
per
tot
.
Ergo
,
the
Scriptures
contradict
not
them
that
say
,
Infants
may
have
the
seed
of
faith
.
Nor
yet
do
they
say
any
thing
contrary
to
Scripture
,
who
assert
,
strangers
from
the
C●venant
,
together
with
their
Parents
,
and
thereby
liable
to
all
the
evils
that
accompany
such
a
condition
,
Ezra
10.
3.
Deut.
7.
2
,
3
,
6.
Isa.
56.
3.
so
doth
the
Lord
claim
a
special
right
and
propriety
in
the
children
of
his
people
,
Ezek.
16.
20
,
21.
in
regard
of
which
they
are
called
holy
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
(
the
greater
is
their
sacriledge
,
who
refuse
to
gi●e
unto
God
the
things
that
are
Gods
,
but
will
needs
have
their
children
kept
at
liberty
,
to
choose
whether
they
will
serve
God
or
the
devil
,
when
they
come
up
to
ripenesse
of
understanding
)
which
relation
of
theirs
to
God
,
as
some
of
his
people
,
and
of
him
to
them
,
as
their
God
,
by
vertue
of
their
Parents
faith
,
Deut.
7.
6
,
7
,
8.
Nehem.
9.
8.
(
for
never
since
the
world
was
made
did
God
make
a
Covenant
with
a
faithful
man
,
the
blessings
and
bene●it
of
which
should
reach
no
farther
then
his
own
person
▪
witnesse
his
Covenant
with
Adam
,
Noah
,
Abraham
,
Jacob
,
Phineas
,
David
,
&c.
)
doth
signally
include
the
Promise
of
pardon
of
sin
,
Jer.
31.
33
,
34.
and
32.
38
,
39
,
42.
And
if
Noahs
faith
was
available
,
to
the
saving
,
not
of
himself
only
,
but
his
family
also
,
Heb.
11.
7.
and
the
faith
of
godly
Parents
,
for
the
life
of
their
children
,
Matth.
15.
28.
John
4.
50
,
51.
I
see
no
reason
why
it
should
be
denied
,
to
be
of
as
great
acceptance
with
God
,
for
the
salvation
of
such
of
them
as
die
in
their
infancy
.
Yet
a
double
Argument
Mr.
Eyre
hath
against
it
.
1.
Hence
Answ.
But
he
might
have
known
that
the
Lutherans
say
so
;
and
that
without
any
great
inconvenience
,
which
I
am
able
to
foresee
.
That
which
I
apprehend
will
be
readiest
objected
against
it
,
(
though
Mr.
Eyre
object
not
it
,
nor
any
thing
else
)
is
,
that
many
children
of
godly
Parents
live
and
die
in
sin
:
Ergo
,
They
were
never
justified
.
But
this
inference
will
not
passe
:
for
it
will
be
answered
,
That
the
Parents
faith
remains
no
longer
the
condition
of
his
childes
pardon
and
salvation
,
then
during
the
state
of
infancy
:
when
he
is
growen
up
to
the
use
of
his
own
understanding
and
will
,
a
personal
faith
of
his
own
is
required
upon
the
same
termes
of
necessity
,
as
of
others
,
who
from
their
birth
were
without
God
,
and
strangers
from
his
Covenant
.
Israel
in
Egypt
is
likened
to
a
child
,
Ezek.
16.
5
,
6
,
&c.
Hos.
11.
1.
and
in
Gods
dealing
with
them
there
,
(
when
they
were
in
their
Infant-age
)
we
have
a
type
and
embleme
of
his
dealing
with
other
Infants
,
who
are
the
children
of
his
servants
,
and
of
such
as
believe
on
him
,
after
the
example
of
Abraham
.
Their
father
Abrahams
faith
,
was
the
condition
of
their
deliverance
from
the
bondage
of
Egypt
,
Deut.
10.
15.
Only
the
Lord
had
a
delight
in
thy
fathers
to
love
them
,
and
he
chose
their
seed
after
them
.
And
because
he
would
keep
the
oath
which
he
had
sworne
unto
your
fathers
,
hath
the
Lord
brought
you
out
with
a
mighty
hand
,
and
redeemed
you
out
of
the
house
of
bondmen
,
chap.
7
,
8.
Neverthelesse
,
after
they
had
been
farther
instructed
in
,
and
known
the
Will
of
God
,
he
required
of
them
,
that
they
should
feare
,
him
,
and
walk
in
all
his
wayes
,
and
love
him
,
and
serve
him
with
all
their
heart
and
soule
,
Deut
,
10.
12
,
16.
Otherwise
they
were
liable
to
a
returne
,
to
the
same
or
a
worse
bondage
,
then
that
out
of
which
they
had
been
redeemed
,
chap.
28.
65
,
68.
And
it
is
also
observable
,
that
the
Infants
in
Israel
,
continued
their
right
to
the
promised
land
,
while
their
Parents
were
cut
off
for
rebellion
,
Numb.
14
,
30
,
31.
As
to
the
second
exception
,
That
we
may
as
well
assert
works
I
had
thought
Mr.
Eyre
had
better
understood
what
works
of
supererogation
are
,
then
to
trouble
us
with
such
an
impertinency
.
But
to
the
two
texts
of
Scripture
in
the
margine
,
to
which
he
refers
us
,
Ezek.
18.
20.
and
Hab.
2.
4.
to
prove
,
that
a
mans
faith
or
righteousnesse
is
available
,
only
to
his
own
salvation
:
they
are
both
to
be
understood
pro
subject
â
materiâ
.
He
that
is
furnished
with
meanes
and
abilities
,
for
the
exercise
of
a
faith
of
his
owne
,
or
for
performing
works
of
righteousnesse
,
cannot
expect
salvation
by
the
faith
or
righteousnesse
of
his
Parents
,
while
himself
lives
in
unbelief
and
unrighteousnesse
.
The
eighth
Argument
is
the
old
postulatum
,
that
faith
cannot
be
[
e
](A96867-e60590-b)
e
Vide
D
Marta
.
Neapol
.
Digest
.
Noviss
.
Tom
3.
Tit.
Donatarius
.
and
the
freest
donation
becomes
invalid
,
if
he
to
whom
it
is
given
will
have
none
of
it
.
And
faith
being
no
more
then
an
acceptance
of
Christ
,
John
1.
12.
Rev.
22.
17.
one
would
think
it
might
be
made
the
condition
of
the
gift
of
righteousnesse
and
life
,
without
danger
of
sharing
in
the
glory
of
Christ
.
More
of
the
unreasonablenesse
of
Mr.
Eyres
crude
assertion
,
(
though
it
be
more
then
needs
,
and
more
then
once
I
intended
)
the
Reader
shall
finde
below
,
in
answer
to
Mr.
Eyres
nineteenth
chapter
.
Enter
the
ninth
Argument
.
If
it
were
the
Will
of
God
,
that
our
salvation
is
by
grace
,
to
the
end
that
the
Promise
may
be
sure
to
all
the
seed
,
Rom.
4.
16.
Answ.
We
expect
other
manner
of
proof
of
the
consequence
,
then
what
is
here
presented
us
,
It
is
most
true
,
that
Gods
Will
is
,
that
his
people
should
have
strong
consolation
,
not
without
faith
,
but
through
faith
,
as
is
most
expresse
in
that
very
place
which
Mr.
Eyre
quotes
,
Heb.
6.
18.
That
we
might
have
a
strong
cons●lation
,
who
have
fled
for
refuge
to
lay
hold
upon
the
hope
set
before
us
.
Also
the
Apostle
John
,
1
Ep.
1.
4.
gives
the
reason
of
his
writing
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
,
namely
,
that
through
the
faith
thereof
our
joy
may
be
full
.
But
it
is
the
wildest
reasoning
that
ever
I
met
with
,
to
inferre
,
that
if
the
gift
of
peace
and
reconciliation
be
suspended
upon
believing
,
then
he
that
believes
cannot
have
strong
consolation
;
just
as
if
I
should
inferre
,
because
the
Lord
sayes
,
John
16.
24.
Ask
and
ye
shall
receive
,
that
your
joy
may
be
full
.
Ergo
,
He
that
asketh
can
never
attain
to
fulnesse
of
joy
.
The
strength
of
our
joy
and
consolation
depends
upon
the
immutability
and
faithfulnesse
of
the
Promise
which
we
beleeve
:
and
by
how
much
the
more
stedfastly
we
beleeve
,
by
so
much
the
more
do
we
partake
in
the
comfort
of
the
Promise
.
But
that
is
above
all
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
should
quote
,
Rom.
4.
16.
to
prove
,
that
if
our
salvation
depended
never
so
little
upon
our
works
,
we
could
not
be
sure
thereof
;
(
Amongst
which
works
he
includes
faith
,
absurdly
enough
,
but
suitable
to
his
dealing
with
the
Authours
whom
he
quotes
here
,
and
elsewhere
,
applying
to
faith
what
they
speak
against
works
,
)
when
the
very
words
of
the
text
are
expresly
and
purposely
against
the
inference
which
he
makes
from
them
.
Therefore
it
is
of
faith
,
that
it
might
be
by
grace
,
to
the
end
the
Promise
might
be
sure
to
all
the
seed
.
Since
man
was
borne
upon
the
earth
,
was
it
ever
thought
possible
that
these
words
should
yield
this
inference
?
Ergo
,
if
salvation
depend
on
faith
,
we
can
never
be
sure
of
it
?
Though
neither
doth
the
text
speak
of
the
certainty
of
the
subject
,
or
of
our
being
sure
of
salvation
:
but
of
the
certainty
of
the
object
,
or
of
salvation's
being
sure
to
us
.
Let
us
hear
the
tenth
Argument
.
If
it
were
the
Will
of
God
,
that
Answ.
This
Argument
(
with
many
of
the
rest
)
if
it
prove
that
sinners
are
reconciled
without
any
condition
performed
on
their
part
,
yet
it
doth
not
prove
(
what
it
should
do
)
that
they
are
reconciled
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
before
they
beleeve
.
If
we
contended
for
no
more
then
that
faith
were
antecedent
to
Justification
,
not
the
condition
thereof
;
this
Argument
would
not
hurt
us
;
and
therefore
is
not
like
to
be
very
serviceable
to
Mr.
Eyre
.
2.
Nor
doth
it
so
much
as
pretend
to
disprove
Justification
upon
any
condition
,
(
as
suppose
upon
the
first
act
of
faith
)
and
therefore
is
yet
farther
impertinent
.
3.
But
that
which
it
would
disprove
(
if
it
had
strength
enough
)
is
the
conditionality
of
final
perseverance
unto
Justification
.
But
neither
do
we
make
final
perseverance
the
condition
of
our
first
Justification
;
but
the
first
simple
act
of
faith
,
and
perseverance
in
the
faith
to
the
end
,
the
condition
of
final
Justification
,
as
Paul
also
doth
,
2
Tim.
4.
7
,
8.
I
have
fought
a
good
fight
,
I
have
finished
my
course
,
I
have
kept
the
faith
,
From
HENCEFORTH
there
is
laid
up
for
me
a
Crown
of
righteousnesse
,
&c.
So
Rev.
2.
17.
To
him
that
overcometh
will
I
give
a
white
stone
,
&c.
of
which
we
have
spoken
before
.
Wherefore
I
deny
that
,
which
should
be
Mr.
Eyres
Assumption
,
viz.
That
it
was
the
Will
of
God
that
the
elect
should
be
perfectly
and
compleatly
reconciled
or
justified
,
whilest
they
live
in
th●●
world
.
The
reasons
of
which
denial
I
have
already
given
at
large
,
and
shall
not
now
repeat
them
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
thinks
much
,
●●at
the
elect
should
be
denied
perfect
reconciliation
,
not
only
till
they
beleeve
,
but
not
till
death
;
He
may
be
pleased
to
understand
,
that
I
deny
them
to
be
perfectly
justified
or
reconciled
,
till
the
resurrection
.
For
as
long
as
any
enmity
remaines
undestroyed
,
they
are
not
perfectly
reconciled
.
But
all
enmity
is
not
destroyed
till
the
resurrection
,
1
Corinth.
15.
25
,
26.
And
what
hath
Mr.
Eyre
against
it
?
words
and
nothing
else
.
(
Saith
he
)
innumerable
Scriptures
declare
that
the
Saints
are
perfectly
justified
.
A●sw
.
But
doth
not
quote
us
so
much
as
one
:
and
a
good
reason
why
.
2.
That
nothing
shall
be
able
to
separate
from
Gods
love
.
Answ.
Not
for
ever
,
but
for
a
time
it
may
,
til●
all
enemies
be
subdued
:
the
last
of
which
is
Death
.
The
happinesse
which
the
soule
enjoyes
in
the
mean
time
is
its
own
,
not
the
happinesse
of
the
person
,
as
our
Lords
Argument
supposeth
,
M●t.
22.
31
,
32.
3.
Justification
is
as
full
and
perfect
as
ever
it
shall
be
,
it
doth
not
grow
and
increase
,
but
is
perfect
at
first
.
●nsw
.
Prove
it
:
it
grows
in
the
renewed
acts
of
pardon
,
H●l
12.
17
,
1
Joh●
2.
1.
2.
●or
God
doth
multiply
●orgivenesses
,
Is●
.
55.
7.
It
grows
in
the
perfection
of
its
parts
:
whereof
the
most
absolute
and
compleat
is
our
Justification
in
the
day
of
judgement
.
It
grows
in
the
perfection
of
its
effects
:
which
are
begun
in
the
soule
first
,
and
so
take
place
upon
the
body
,
and
the
whole
man
,
R●m.
8.
10
,
11
,
23.
Paul
expected
a
farther
participation
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
then
he
attained
to
in
this
life
,
Gal.
5.
5.
Phil.
3.
8
,
9
,
11.
4.
Baptisme
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
which
seales
to
us
the
forgivenesse
of
all
our
sins
,
is
administred
but
once
in
all
our
life-time
:
to
shew
that
our
Justification
is
done
all
at
once
.
Answ.
Baptisme
seals
that
Promise
,
by
which
all
sins
past
are
forgiven
;
(
[
f
](A96867-e61100-b)
f
Luke
3.
3.
M●rk
1.
4.
)
and
all
sins
future
shall
be
forgiven
when
committed
,
the
sinner
continuing
in
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
;
from
which
if
he
fall
away
,
it
is
impossible
that
he
should
be
renewed
again
to
repentance
,
Hebr.
6.
6.
or
be
capable
of
having
another
Covenant
made
or
sealed
to
him
,
by
which
his
sins
may
be
remitted
,
Heb.
10.
29.
Mr.
Eyre
here
addes
some
texts
of
Scripture
,
Ezek.
16.
8
,
9.
Acts
13.
39.
1
John
1.
7.
Col.
2.
13
,
14.
to
what
purpose
I
cannot
imagine
;
unlesse
it
be
to
prove
,
that
all
sins
are
forgiven
at
once
(
for
neither
of
these
texts
speak
a
word
of
Baptisme
.
)
If
he
mean
all
sins
past
are
forgiven
upon
the
first
act
of
faith
,
I
have
granted
it
:
but
if
he
mean
all
sins
to
come
also
,
it
lies
upon
him
to
prove
it
:
that
is
,
that
sins
not
committed
are
sins
.
SECT.
IV.
THe
eleventh
Argument
proceeds
thus
.
If
it
were
the
Will
of
Answ.
1.
Neither
doth
this
Argument
prove
,
that
we
are
justified
immediately
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
or
before
we
beleeve
.
2.
I
deny
the
consequence
with
the
proof
of
it
:
for
although
that
which
depends
upon
future
conditions
,
as
to
the
event
be
uncertain
,
as
the
word
uncertain
signifies
the
same
with
contingent
,
(
for
it
is
a
true
rule
in
the
Civil
Law
,
(
[
f
](A96867-e61230-b)
f
L.
Si
pupillus
ff.
de
N
vat
.
)
Conditio
necessaria
non
suspendit
dispositionem
)
yet
is
this
uncertainty
or
contingency
to
be
understood
in
reference
to
man
,
and
the
second
and
immediate
causes
of
a
things
existence
;
not
in
reference
to
God
,
to
whom
even
contingent
events
Vid●
doctisfimum
D.
Ramum
Schol.
Dialect
.
l.
5
c
6.
are
as
certain
,
as
if
they
were
necessary
:
we
shall
make
strange
work
in
Divinity
,
if
events
shall
be
denied
to
be
contingent
in
their
own
nature
,
because
in
reference
to
Gods
Will
or
knowledge
they
are
certain
and
infallible
,
and
so
far
forth
necessary
;
for
example
,
God
did
will
the
certain
and
infallible
sa●ety
of
all
those
that
were
in
the
ship
with
Paul
,
Acts
27.
24.
yet
neverthelesse
it
came
not
to
passe
,
but
upon
condition
of
their
abiding
in
the
ship
:
without
the
performance
of
which
condition
they
had
perished
,
ver.
31.
Except
these
abide
in
the
ship
,
you
cannot
be
saved
.
And
Mr.
Eyre
might
easily
have
foreseen
,
that
this
Argument
wounds
himself
as
much
as
us
.
He
acknowledgeth
the
Covenant
made
with
Adam
,
to
have
been
conditional
:
and
in
that
very
thing
placeth
the
main
difference
between
it
and
the
Covenant
of
grace
;
obedience
then
was
the
condition
of
Adams
continuance
in
life
;
and
sin
,
of
his
death
.
But
did
not
God
know
that
Adam
would
sin
,
and
will
to
permit
it
?
or
will
Mr.
Eyre
deny
this
,
because
his
death
was
suspended
upon
a
future
condition
,
and
therefore
was
altogether
uncertain
,
as
to
the
event
?
Physician
heal
thy selfe
.
It
is
by
the
Will
of
God
,
that
contingent
things
come
to
passe
contingently
.
Nor
is
the
twelfth
argument
more
happy
.
If
God
willed
this
John
6.
38
,
39.
and
17.
21
,
22
,
24.
Answ.
(
[
h
](A96867-e61410-b)
h
Vide
Amyr●ld●m
Sp●●im
.
Anim●d
.
Speci●l
.
co●tra
Sp●●h●m
.
à
p.
146.
ad
siu●m
libri
.
)
Out
of
doubt
God
willeth
the
damnation
,
even
of
the
elect
themselves
in
case
they
do
not
beleeve
and
repent
:
(
though
that
case
supposeth
what
is
not
to
be
supposed
,
without
more
d●stinctions
then
my
present
matter
will
permit
me
to
digresse
into
)
but
Mr.
Eyres
inference
,
that
therefore
he
wills
their
damnation
as
much
as
their
Justification
,
is
meerly
drawn
in
,
without
any
disposition
in
it selfe
to
follow
;
for
the
Prom●se
of
remission
,
upon
condition
of
faith
,
is
not
made
unto
men
,
who
are
as
it
were
i●
m●di●
,
between
life
and
death
;
but
unto
sinners
already
under
condemnation
:
and
is
given
as
a
remedy
against
that
death
under
which
they
are
already
held
.
God
thereby
manifesting
,
that
although
▪
according
to
his
own
Laws
and
constitutions
,
he
cannot
save
impenitent
and
unbelieving
sinners
,
(
Heb.
3.
19.
Jer.
3.
19.
)
yet
is
it
far
more
acceptable
to
him
,
that
sinners
should
and
be
saved
,
then
by
their
obstinacy
provoke
him
,
and
as
it
were
constraine
him
to
execute
his
justice
upon
them
.
Ezek.
18.
31
,
32.
and
33.
11.
Lament.
3.
33
,
34
,
2
Pet.
3.
9.
As
Moses
speaks
,
Deut.
30.
19.
I
have
set
before
you
life
and
death
,
blessing
and
cursing
,
therefore
chuse
life
,
that
both
thou
and
thy
seed
may
live
.
Wherefore
we
answer
by
the
usual
distinction
of
the
Will
of
God
:
which
is
either
[
i
](A96867-e61490-b)
i
Vid.
Chamier
.
Panstrat
.
de
Praedest
.
c.
6.
§.
3
&
14.
voluntas
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
determining
of
events
:
or
voluntas
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
determining
of
what
is
good
and
acceptable
in
the
sight
of
God
:
by
the
former
God
doth
will
infallibly
that
his
elect
shall
be
justified
by
the
death
of
Christ
.
By
the
latter
,
though
he
will
their
Justification
much
more
then
their
damnation
(
as
hath
been
shewed
)
yet
he
wills
it
no
otherwise
,
then
that
if
they
will
not
be
reconciled
,
but
turne
away
from
God
through
unbelief
,
Christ
and
his
righteousnesse
shall
profit
them
nothing
.
The
thirteenth
argument
undertakes
great
matters
.
Conditional
Answ.
It
doth
indeed
suppose
voluntatem
per
gratiam
liberabilem
,
the
will
freeable
by
grace
,
not
per
naturam
liberatam
,
freed
by
nature
.
If
the
case
of
sinful
men
were
the
case
of
devils
,
to
be
judicially
so
confirmed
and
obdurate
in
sin
,
as
that
it
were
impossible
for
them
to
repent
and
believe
on
a
Saviour
;
Mr.
Eyre
would
then
put
me
hard
to
it
,
for
I
should
never
be
able
to
give
any
tolerable
account
why
a
conditional
reconciliation
should
be
preached
and
pressed
so
vehemently
upon
a
sinful
world
.
But
how
doth
Mr.
Eyre
prove
that
a
conditional
reconciliation
supposeth
free-will
?
Thus
,
Either
God
willed
it
unto
men
,
upon
a
possible
or
impossible
condition
.
Answ.
Upon
a
condition
possible
.
Mr.
Eyre
,
Then
either
it
is
possible
because
God
will
bestow
it
,
or
because
man
can
performe
it
.
Answ.
Because
God
will
bestow
it
,
though
this
disjunction
be
not
well
expressed
,
for
mans
ability
to
performe
is
not
contrary
to
Gods
bestowing
,
but
the
effect
of
it
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
sayes
,
we
cannot
mean
it
of
a
condition
possible
by
Gods
gift
,
because
God
will
bestow
upon
us
nothing
but
what
Christ
hath
purchased
;
and
Christ
hath
purchased
nothing
,
save
what
God
hath
promised
in
his
Covenant
:
and
Mr.
W.
denies
that
the
Promise
of
faith
is
any
part
of
the
Covenant
,
or
any
effect
of
it
,
page
32.
and
others
that
are
for
this
conditional
reconciliation
,
look
upon
it
as
a
ridiculous
conceit
,
that
God
should
promise
men
salvation
upon
a
condition
,
and
that
he
should
work
this
condition
in
them
and
for
them
.
Answ.
Per
varios
casus
,
per
tot
discrimina
rerum
,
Tendimus
in
Latium
.
I
do
not
wonder
Mr.
Eyre
is
so
grossely
out
,
seeing
he
hath
no
shorter
way
to
his
Conclusion
.
It
is
very
hard
to
me
to
conceive
how
this
Argument
proceeds
:
but
thus
I
think
it
is
.
The
thing
which
Mr.
Eyre
is
proving
is
this
,
That
no
condition
,
or
particularly
,
that
faith
is
not
a
condition
possible
by
the
gift
of
God
▪
The
proof
stands
thus
,
If
God
bestow
nothing
but
what
Christ
hath
purchased
,
then
faith
is
not
a
condition
possible
by
the
gift
of
God
.
But
the
first
is
true
.
Ergo
,
so
is
the
last
.
The
Proposition
stands
upon
this
ground
.
Christ
(
according
to
us
)
hath
not
purchased
faith
▪
Ergo
,
if
God
bestow
nothing
but
what
Christ
hath
purchased
,
he
doth
not
bestow
faith
.
The
Antecedent
is
thus
proved
.
What
God
hath
not
promised
in
his
Covenant
,
Christ
hath
not
purchased
.
But
God
(
according
to
us
)
hath
not
promised
faith
in
his
Covenant
.
Ergo
,
Christ
hath
not
purchased
it
.
This
is
the
demonstration
.
But
yet
we
need
several
things
to
be
demonstrated
.
First
,
that
God
gives
nothing
but
what
Christ
hath
purchased
.
1.
He
gave
Christ
himself
to
be
a
purchaser
,
Esa.
9.
6.
To
us
a
childe
is
borne
,
to
us
a
Son
is
given
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
denies
Christ
to
have
purchased
the
Covenant
of
remission
.
3.
And
our
natural
being
and
faculties
will
hardly
be
proved
the
fruit
of
Christs
merits
.
4.
And
such
of
our
Divines
,
(
who
yet
are
neither
Papists
nor
Arminians
)
who
suppose
faith
to
be
an
immediate
effect
of
the
same
grace
,
with
the
giving
of
Christ
to
be
our
Redeemer
,
will
yet
need
a
farther
proof
of
this
position
then
I
do
.
Secondly
,
that
Christ
hath
purchased
nothing
,
but
what
God
hath
promised
in
his
Covenant
,
for
the
very
making
and
enacting
of
the
Promise
or
Covenant
of
grace
,
is
the
fruit
of
Christs
Purchase
,
(
whence
his
blood
is
so
often
called
the
blood
of
the
Covenant
,
Heb.
10.
29.
and
13.
20.
Matth.
26.
28.
)
3.
That
I
deny
that
the
Promise
of
faith
is
any
part
or
effect
of
the
Covenant
.
I
do
indeed
deny
that
it
is
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
made
with
us
,
that
is
,
that
we
are
not
in
Covenant
with
God
,
when
God
promiseth
to
give
faith
:
but
he
promiseth
to
give
faith
,
that
we
may
thereby
be
brought
into
Covenant
with
him
.
But
the
Covenant
being
taken
largely
,
for
a
declaration
of
that
whole
good
,
which
God
will
work
in
and
for
his
people
,
and
so
God
promiseth
faith
:
for
explication
of
which
,
I
must
refer
the
Reader
to
the
place
where
I
purposely
treat
of
it
.
In
the
mean
time
(
Reader
)
hath
not
Mr.
Eyre
gallantly
performed
his
undertaking
?
Something
,
I
perceive
,
he
would
faine
fasten
upon
us
:
but
his
cord
(
his
threefold
cord
)
is
made
of
burnt
flax
.
As
for
those
that
look
upon
it
as
a
ridiculous
conceit
,
that
God
[
k
](A96867-e61920-b)
k
Vid●●pis●op
D●venant
.
dissert
de
m●rte
Christi●
.
5.
p
57.
ad
ob●
.
2.
and
say
,
there
is
no
inconvenience
in
affirming
,
that
God
gives
salvation
upon
a
condition
of
his
own
working
.
Provided
it
be
understood
(
as
it
ought
)
according
to
the
difference
which
the
same
action
hath
,
in
reference
to
the
universal
,
and
its
particular
cause
.
Indeed
it
were
ridiculous
to
suppose
,
that
God
should
make
any
action
,
which
is
wholly
and
immediately
from
himselfe
,
the
condition
of
any
blessing
he
gives
;
as
that
he
should
promise
to
glorifie
us
upon
condition
he
raise
us
from
the
dead
:
to
raise
us
,
upon
condition
he
justifie
us
:
to
justifie
us
,
upon
condition
he
give
us
faith
.
But
the
same
faith
which
God
worketh
in
us
,
is
also
our
act
(
for
it
is
we
that
beleeve
,
and
not
God
,
though
he
make
us
to
beleeve
)
and
as
it
is
our
act
,
so
is
it
performed
voluntarily
,
and
a
fit
object
of
a
command
or
promise
:
I
mean
,
capable
of
being
commanded
or
rewarded
,
or
of
being
made
the
condition
of
a
reward
.
And
thus
(
for
example
)
obedience
was
the
condition
of
that
life
which
was
promised
to
Adam
.
(
this
Mr.
Eyre
grants
.
)
Neverthelesse
to
the
exercise
of
that
obedience
the
concurrence
of
God
was
necessary
,
as
of
the
first
cause
:
for
creatures
essentially
depend
on
God
,
not
only
for
their
being
,
but
for
their
motion
and
operation
,
Acts
17.
28.
Ergo
,
a
voluntary
act
of
ours
may
be
the
condition
of
our
salvation
,
though
God
work
that
act
in
us
.
How
many
orders
doth
God
give
to
Joshua
,
Gideon
,
David
and
others
,
concerning
the
times
and
places
,
when
and
whither
they
should
remove
their
host
,
that
they
might
put
their
enemies
to
the
rout
,
or
escape
an
overthrow
by
them
.
These
motions
were
the
conditions
of
those
special
victories
or
deliverances
which
God
would
give
them
;
yet
by
the
efficiency
of
Gods
power
and
providence
did
they
move
from
place
to
place
.
Hundreds
of
like
instances
are
obvious
.
One
thing
more
Mr.
Eyre
addes
,
If
(
saith
he
)
any
shall
say
,
that
God
did
will
that
by
Christ
we
should
have
faith
,
and
after
that
reconciliation
;
yet
1.
It
will
follow
notwithstanding
,
that
our
reconciliation
is
an
immediate
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
(
as
Owen
proves
against
Baxter
,
page
34.
)
And
2.
Then
all
the
controversie
will
be
about
Gods
order
and
method
,
in
conferring
on
us
the
effects
of
Christs
death
.
Answ.
That
reconciliation
is
an
immediate
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
may
be
understood
in
a
double
sense
:
either
1.
By
comparing
the
effects
with
the
cause
(
and
then
the
meaning
is
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
contributes
an
immediate
efficiency
to
our
reconciliation
,
whensoever
it
is
that
we
are
reconciled
:
and
this
is
all
that
Mr.
Owen
sayes
in
the
place
mentioned
.
Meritorious
causes
(
saith
he
)
do
actually
&
ipso
facto
produce
all
those
effects
which
immedi●t●ly
slow
from
them
:
not
in
an
immediation
of
time
,
but
of
causality
.
I
doubt
not
,
but
the
death
of
Christ
hath
in
its
kinde
an
actual
and
immediate
influence
upon
our
eternal
glorification
,
which
yet
is
the
last
effect
or
benefit
we
receive
by
him
.
)
Or
2.
By
comparing
the
effects
with
the
cause
,
and
one
with
another
,
and
so
that
is
the
immediate
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
which
exists
immediately
upon
the
death
of
Christ
,
without
the
interposition
of
any
other
cause
to
produce
it
.
Of
this
only
is
the
Question
,
as
also
Mr.
Eyre
himself
hath
hitherto
understood
it
:
otherwise
I
am
perswaded
himself
will
grant
,
that
all
the
Arguments
he
hath
hitherto
used
(
one
or
two
at
most
only
excepted
)
come
not
within
sight
of
the
Conclusion
they
aime
at
.
As
to
the
second
thing
,
that
then
all
the
controversie
will
be
about
Gods
order
and
method
,
in
conferring
on
us
the
effects
of
Christs
death
:
though
if
there
were
nothing
else
but
this
in
question
;
it
will
be
of
very
dangerous
consequence
to
pervert
and
trouble
that
order
,
which
God
useth
in
bringing
sinners
to
life
:
yet
is
there
much
more
in
question
,
viz.
whether
upon
supposition
of
Christs
Purchase
,
and
Gods
special
purpose
of
giving
faith
to
some
,
the
same
faith
,
as
it
is
a
voluntary
act
of
ours
,
may
not
by
Gods
Will
of
Precept
,
be
made
the
condition
of
our
partaking
in
righteousnesse
and
reconciliation
by
the
death
of
Christ
?
This
is
the
thi●g
which
Mr.
Eyre
should
have
disproved
,
if
he
had
intended
his
Argument
should
have
concluded
any
thing
.
We
have
already
shewed
at
large
the
monstrous
inconveniences
that
attend
the
denial
of
it
:
and
so
much
hath
been
spoken
by
those
that
are
for
the
middle
way
of
universal
redemption
,
especially
the
French
Divines
,
that
I
cannot
▪
think
it
worth
my
labour
to
adde
any
thing
more
.
The
Lord
Jesus
hath
put
the
matter
out
of
Question
to
me
,
John
6.
39
,
40.
And
this
is
the
Fathers
Will
which
hath
sent
me
,
that
of
all
which
he
hath
given
me
,
I
should
lose
nothing
,
but
should
raise
it
up
again
at
the
last
day
.
And
this
is
the
Will
of
him
that
sent
me
,
that
every
one
that
seeth
the
Son
and
believeth
on
him
may
have
everlasting
life
,
and
I
wil
raise
him
up
at
the
last
day
.
The
former
verse
declares
his
own
and
his
fathers
special
Will
to
save
the
elect
.
The
latter
,
that
yet
the
condition
of
beleeving
is
imposed
on
all
men
(
the
elect
,
as
well
as
others
)
that
they
through
the
performance
thereof
may
be
saved
.
And
so
we
are
come
to
the
last
Argument
,
which
in
brief
is
this
,
The
imputing
of
our
sins
to
Christ
was
formally
the
non-imputing
of
them
unto
us
.
But
our
sins
were
accounted
or
imputed
to
Christ
without
any
condition
on
our
part
.
Ergo
,
they
are
discounted
or
non-imputed
to
us
,
without
any
condition
performed
by
us
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
Proposition
,
namely
,
that
the
imputing
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
is
formally
the
non-imputing
of
them
unto
us
:
because
1.
If
this
be
true
,
then
doth
not
God
for
Christs
sake
forgive
any
mans
sin
,
as
the
Apostle
saith
he
doth
,
Eph.
4.
32.
the
reason
is
plain
,
because
it
was
not
for
Christs
sake
that
himself
was
punished
.
Our
pardon
is
not
the
effect
of
Christs
punishment
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
his
punishment
is
the
effect
of
our
pardon
,
if
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
him
be
formally
the
non-imputation
of
them
to
us
.
2.
What
then
is
the
meaning
of
Pauls
prayer
for
them
that
deserted
him
?
2
Tim.
4.
16.
The
Lord
grant
that
it
may
not
be
imputed
to
them
:
that
is
,
the
Lord
grant
that
Christ
may
be
punished
for
them
?
or
what
is
the
meaning
?
The
Lord
grant
they
may
be
some
of
those
for
whom
Christ
hath
been
punished
?
that
were
all
one
as
to
pray
that
they
may
be
elected
from
all
eternity
.
Whatsoever
sense
M.
Eyre
will
put
upon
the
words
,
it
will
either
not
agree
with
sense
,
or
not
with
himself
,
or
not
with
the
text
.
3.
Upon
the
same
principle
it
will
follow
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
as
it
was
a
satisfaction
,
and
his
resurrection
from
the
dead
contributes
nothing
to
our
justification
,
neither
by
way
of
influence
,
nor
by
way
of
evidence
:
for
might
it
be
supposed
that
the
Lord
Jesus
had
lyen
for
ever
under
the
power
of
death
,
that
had
been
the
best
evidence
to
us
that
we
should
never
be
punished
,
if
his
punishment
were
formally
our
nonp●nition
:
and
by
way
of
influence
it
can
do
nothing
,
because
Gods
freeing
or
taking
off
punishment
from
us
is
in
nature
before
his
laying
it
on
Christ
,
if
the
imputing
it
to
Christ
be
formally
the
non-imputing
it
to
us
:
many
other
inconveniences
attend
this
doctrine
:
but
it
is
needlesse
to
insist
upon
the
mention
of
them
.
Besides
these
Arguments
,
there
are
several
testimonies
of
Scripture
Colos.
1.
14.
Eph.
1.
7.
Heb.
9.
12.
2
Cor.
5.
18
,
19.
Heb.
1.
3.
and
10.
12
,
14.
Colos.
2.
10
,
13
,
14.
Rom.
8.
33
,
34.
Ans.
1.
We
have
already
answered
at
large
to
Rom.
8.
33
,
34.
2
Cor.
5.
18
,
19.
Eph.
1.
7.
and
by
consequence
to
Colos.
1.
14.
for
the
words
are
the
same
in
both
those
places
.
We
have
therefore
here
to
answer
no
more
then
the
texts
out
of
the
Hebrews
,
and
one
out
of
the
Colossians
;
let
us
take
them
in
order
,
Heb.
9.
12.
Christ
hath
obtained
eternal
redemption
for
us
.
I
cannot
assure
my self
how
M.
Eyre
understands
this
text
:
but
if
he
see
no
more
in
it
then
all
men
I
can
meet
with
,
he
can
conclude
no
more
from
it
then
what
was
never
denyed
,
namely
that
Christ
hath
purchased
eternal
redemption
for
us
.
But
he
hath
also
purchased
eternal
life
and
glory
for
us
:
will
it
therefore
follow
that
our
glorification
,
is
the
actual
and
immediate
effect
of
his
death
?
he
gave
himself
to
redeem
us
from
all
iniquity
,
Tit.
2.
14.
are
we
therefore
freed
from
all
sin
immediately
in
his
death
?
The
next
is
Heb.
1.
3.
Christ
by
himself
hath
purged
our
sins
,
and
afterwards
sate
down
as
having
finished
that
work
,
Heb.
10.
12.
Ans
.
The
former
place
(
according
to
the
original
)
saies
no
more
then
that
Christ
in
his
death
made
a
purge
of
our
sins
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
is
no
more
then
we
have
often
yeelded
,
that
Christ
hath
made
a
plaister
in
his
own
blood
for
the
curing
of
our
wounds
:
that
is
,
in
dying
he
performed
that
righteousnesse
which
is
the
cause
of
our
remission
:
his
blood
being
that
which
washeth
us
from
all
our
sins
.
But
that
this
purge
had
its
effect
immediately
upon
its
own
existence
,
is
that
which
M.
Eyre
must
give
us
another
Text
to
prove
:
whereas
he
addes
,
that
he
afterwards
sate
down
as
having
●inished
that
work
,
Heb.
10.
12.
and
good
reason
:
because
that
one
offering
of
himself
was
so
perfect
and
sufficient
for
all
those
ends
unto
which
it
was
ordained
,
that
there
is
no
need
that
himself
or
any
thing
else
should
be
offered
a
second
time
,
for
those
ends
.
But
if
M.
Eyre
mean
that
he
hath
so
perfectly
reconciled
us
in
his
death
(
not
only
quoad
constitutionem
causae
,
but
quoad
effectum
)
as
that
there
needs
nothing
more
to
be
done
towards
our
reconciliation
,
he
may
do
well
to
reconcile
the
Apostle
to
himself
,
who
tells
us
his
work
in
heaven
is
to
make
reconciliation
,
Heb.
2.
17
,
18.
Wherefore
in
all
things
it
beboved
him
to
be
made
like
unto
his
br●thron
,
that
he
might
be
a
mercifull
and
faithful
high
Priest
in
things
pertaining
to
God
,
to
make
reconciliation
for
the
sins
of
the
people
;
for
in
that
he
himself
hath
suffered
,
being
tempted
,
he
is
able
to
succour
them
that
are
tempted
.
compare
Heb.
4.
15.
and
7.
25.
The
like
answer
I
give
to
Heb.
10.
14.
By
one
offering
he
hath
perfected
for
ever
them
that
are
sanctified
,
namely
,
that
Christs
death
hath
perfected
us
quoad
meritum
,
not
quoad
efficaciam
.
The
death
of
Christ
(
saith
the
[
l
](A96867-e62660-b)
l
Dr.
Godwin
.
in
Rom.
8.
●4
.
sect
5.
pag.
177.
Author
often
commended
)
was
perfect
for
an
o●lation
,
to
which
as
such
nothing
can
be
added
:
there
needed
no
more
,
nor
any
other
price
to
be
paid
for
us
.
But
hence
to
inferre
,
that
therefore
we
were
perfectly
reconciled
quoad
effectum
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
is
point
blank
against
the
Text
,
which
tells
us
in
the
very
next
foregoing
words
,
v.
13.
that
Christ
doth
yet
expect
till
his
enemies
be
made
his
foot-stoole
:
amongst
which
the
Apostle
reckoneth
sin
and
death
,
2
Cor.
15.
26
,
55
,
56.
which
,
though
(
together
with
Devils
)
they
were
destroyed
in
some
sense
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
Rom.
8.
3.
Heb.
2.
14
,
15.
Yet
,
forasmuch
as
the
holy
Ghost
witnesseth
that
Christ
doth
yet
expect
a
farther
destruction
of
them
,
it
lets
us
understand
,
that
these
enemies
,
and
sin
in
particular
,
was
no
farther
destroyed
in
his
death
,
then
as
therein
was
laid
the
foundation
and
cause
of
a
perfect
and
eternal
remission
,
which
by
virtue
of
that
blood
carried
up
and
pleaded
in
heaven
,
should
be
given
unto
them
that
by
faith
come
for
it
unto
the
throne
of
grace
;
as
the
Apostle
explaines
himself
,
Heb.
4.
14
,
15
▪
16.
and
in
this
very
chapter
,
v.
26.
If
we
sin
wilfully
after
we
have
received
the
knowledg
of
the
truth
,
there
r●mains
no
more
sacrifice
for
sins
:
implying
,
that
a
wilful
rejecting
of
Christ
through
unbelief
(
which
I
conceive
to
be
that
special
sin
which
the
Apostle
means
)
deprives
us
of
the
benefit
of
remission
of
sins
by
his
sacrifice
:
which
how
it
can
be
if
sins
were
perfectly
and
absolutely
pardoned
immediately
in
his
death
,
I
cannot
conceive
:
see
also
,
v.
38
,
39.
The
last
place
is
least
of
all
to
purpose
:
Christ
(
saith
M.
Eyre
)
Ans.
1.
The
Apostle
speaks
to
such
who
had
already
received
the
Lord
Jesus
,
v.
6.
And
of
such
no
doubt
it
is
true
,
that
all
their
sins
are
pardoned
.
2.
But
neither
doth
the
Apostle
limit
our
compleatnesse
in
Christ
to
the
forgivenesse
of
our
sins
:
nor
doth
he
say
that
we
were
made
compleat
in
his
death
,
but
rather
in
his
exaltation
:
And
ye
are
compleat
in
him
who
is
the
Head
of
all
principality
and
power
.
His
scope
is
to
roote
and
establish
the
Colossians
in
the
faith
of
Christ
,
v.
7.
in
opposition
to
such
innovators
as
would
have
introduced
the
worship
of
Gentile
Daemons
,
v.
8
,
18.
or
the
observation
of
Jewish
rites
,
v.
20
,
21.
as
if
without
these
Christ
had
not
of
himself
been
able
to
save
them
.
But
ye
are
compleat
in
Christ
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
or
be
ye
content
with
Christ
(
as
the
words
will
beare
to
be
rendred
)
as
who
alone
is
most
sufficiently
able
to
give
and
increase
you
in
all
good
,
and
to
deliver
you
from
all
evil
,
and
bestow
on
you
the
reward
of
eternal
life
,
v.
15
,
18
,
19.
But
what
all
this
is
to
the
purpose
I
know
not
.
It
seems
Mr.
Eyre
had
a
mind
to
bring
it
in
for
company
.
CHAP.
XI
.
A
reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
fifteenth
Chapter
:
of
justification
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
.
Justification
not
proved
thereby
to
be
before
faith
.
SECT.
I.
WE
are
now
come
to
the
review
of
those
two
Arguments
If
we
are
justified
in
Christ
,
then
we
are
justified
before
we
beleeve
.
But
we
are
justified
in
Christ
,
Ergo.
This
Argument
Mr.
Eyre
proposeth
more
at
large
in
his
answer
to
my
Sermon
:
shewing
withal
how
each
part
was
proved
in
his
conference
with
me
,
(
concerning
which
I
am
able
to
give
the
Reader
no
account
:
having
so
perfectly
forgotten
the
method
he
used
in
proposing
and
prosecuting
his
Argument
)
the
summe
is
,
Christ
was
justified
in
his
resurrection
,
as
a
common
person
:
Ergo
,
the
elect
were
then
justified
in
him
.
My
answer
to
this
in
my
Sermon
is
large
and
distinct
.
The
summe
is
:
if
justification
be
taken
properly
,
I
deny
that
we
were
justified
in
Christ
:
if
improperly
,
I
deny
that
it
will
follow
,
that
we
were
justified
before
faith
,
because
we
were
justified
in
Christs
resurrection
,
no
more
then
it
will
follow
,
that
because
we
are
said
to
be
risen
with
Christ
.
Ergo
,
men
are
risen
from
the
dead
before
they
are
borne
,
or
dead
,
or
while
they
are
lying
in
their
graves
.
But
because
M.
Eyre
hath
taken
my
answer
in
pieces
,
let
us
see
what
he
doth
animadvert
upon
each
part
of
it
.
First
then
,
I
say
we
may
conceive
of
a
threefold
justification
.
1.
A
justification
purposed
in
the
decree
of
God
,
Gal.
3.
8.
2.
A
justification
purchased
and
impetrated
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
Heb.
9.
12.
3.
A
justification
exemplified
in
the
resurrection
of
Christ
:
who
himself
was
justified
in
his
own
resurrection
,
and
thereby
became
the
exemplary
cause
of
justification
to
beleevers
,
by
virtue
whereof
themselves
shall
also
be
justified
in
due
time
,
&c.
What
says
Mr.
Eyre
to
this
?
1.
He
infers
in
general
,
that
then
by
my
own
confession
,
justification
in
a
Scripture
sense
goes
before
faith
.
The
vanity
of
which
triumph
we
have
already
discovered
,
chapt
.
1.
§.
2.
should
I
say
that
our
glorification
may
be
conceived
as
purposed
of
God
,
as
purchased
by
Christ
,
as
exemplified
in
his
glorification
;
I
should
not
count
him
worthy
of
a
reply
that
should
inferre
,
that
I
had
therefore
yeelded
glorification
to
be
before
believing
.
Mr.
Eyre
therefore
foreseeing
that
I
would
deny
either
of
these
to
be
actual
justification
,
tells
his
Reader
before
hand
that
,
That
were
a
poore
put
off
,
because
omnis
justificatio
simpliciter
dicta
congruenter
exponenda
est
de
justificatione
actuali
.
Analogum
per
se
positum
stat
pro
famosiori
significato
.
When
we
speak
of
justification
simply
,
there
is
no
man
but
understands
it
of
actual
justification
.
Which
makes
me
beleeve
his
report
concerning
his
book
(
at
least
some
parts
of
it
)
that
it
had
cost
him
but
little
paines
:
for
I
cannot
see
how
such
observations
could
cost
him
much
.
I
mention
justification
cum
adjecto
with
a
limitation
:
and
in
the
close
of
my
answer
,
oppose
each
branch
of
my
distinction
to
justification
simply
so
called
;
and
this
I
may
not
be
allowed
to
do
,
because
of
Analogum
per
se
positum
,
&c.
Nextly
,
He
speaks
something
on
each
member
of
the
distinction
,
1.
That
which
I
called
justification
,
purposed
in
the
decree
of
God
is
real
and
actual
justification
.
Ans.
Thou
hast
then
thy
choise
(
Reader
)
whether
thou
wilt
beleeve
,
the
Apostle
or
M.
Eyre
.
The
Text
quoted
(
Gal.
3.
8.
)
says
thus
:
The
Scripture
foreseeing
that
God
would
justifie
the
Gentiles
through
faith
,
preached
before
,
the
Gospel
unto
Abraham
.
The
justification
here
spoken
of
,
is
surely
justification
simply
so
called
,
because
it
is
put
by
it self
,
without
any
Term
of
restraint
or
diminution
:
and
M.
Eyres
rule
is
,
Analogum
per
se
positum
stat
pro
famosiori
significato
.
And
this
justification
(
according
to
the
Apostle
)
was
a
thing
foreseen
:
a
thing
that
God
would
do
▪
a
thing
before
the
existence
of
which
the
Gospel
was
preached
to
Abraham
:
all
which
notwithstanding
,
M.
Eyre
will
have
the
eternal
decree
of
God
to
be
our
justification
.
But
of
this
we
have
spoken
already
,
as
also
of
what
he
notes
upon
the
second
branch
of
the
distinction
.
The
great
exception
is
against
the
third
branch
,
wherein
I
say
,
that
1.
(
Saith
M.
Eyre
)
there
is
not
the
least
hint
thereof
in
holy
writ
:
the
Scripture
no
where
calls
our
Saviour
the
example
or
patern
of
our
justi●●cation
.
Rep.
If
the
Question
be
concerning
a
name
or
term
,
where
doth
M.
Eyre
find
in
Scripture
the
Term
of
a
common
person
(
in
which
he
so
much
delights
)
attributed
to
Christ
?
2.
If
concerning
that
which
is
equivalent
;
surely
,
the
Term
of
an
exemplary
cause
,
is
every
whit
as
agreeable
to
Scripture
as
the
other
:
for
in
all
spiritual
and
eternal
blessing
we
beare
the
image
of
the
heavenly
Adam
,
1
Cor.
15.
49.
and
we
are
predestinated
to
be
conformed
to
the
image
of
Christ
,
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
of
our
faith
,
Rom.
8.
29
,
17.
Now
wherin
we
bear
Christs
image
,
therein
was
he
an
exemplary
cause
;
for
to
an
exemplary
cause
no
more
is
required
then
that
another
thing
be
conformed
to
it
,
as
its
image
,
and
exist
by
virtue
of
it
(
which
I
desire
the
Reader
to
observe
,
because
M.
Eyre
doth
often
confound
an
example
with
an
exemplary
cause
,
as
if
there
were
no
difference
between
them
.
)
If
then
we
in
our
resurrection
and
justification
bear
the
image
of
Christ
,
then
he
in
his
resurrection
and
justification
was
the
exemplary
cause
of
ours
.
And
whereas
M.
Eyre
says
,
that
Christ
in
his
works
of
mediation
was
not
an
exemplary
,
but
a
meritorious
cause
:
it
is
not
universally
true
.
For
the
resurrection
and
ascension
of
Christ
were
acts
of
Christs
as
Mediatour
:
and
yet
in
them
he
was
not
the
meritorious
cause
of
any
thing
.
He
proceeds
thus
.
It
was
needlesse
Christ
should
be
a
patern
Rep.
The
disjunction
is
imperfect
:
for
it
was
needful
for
the
glory
of
Christ
,
as
the
Apostle
expresly
witnesseth
,
Rom.
8.
29.
Them
he
also
did
pr●d●stinate
to
be
conformed
to
the
image
of
his
Son
,
that
he
might
be
the
first
born
among
many
brethren
.
It
is
no
small
part
of
Christs
glory
to
be
the
first
begotten
from
the
dead
,
and
a
person
so
farre
advanced
above
all
others
,
that
their
highest
glory
shall
consist
in
a
conformity
to
him
,
and
in
being
fashioned
according
to
his
image
.
2.
It
is
also
of
as
much
use
to
us
in
all
respects
,
as
if
we
are
said
to
be
justified
in
Christs
resurrection
as
a
common
person
:
whether
we
respect
the
evidence
which
his
resurrection
gives
,
or
the
influence
which
it
hath
upon
our
justification
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
saies
it
can
be
of
no
use
to
us
,
because
we
do
not
justifie
our selves
,
it
is
a
strange
kind
of
reason
.
Cannot
a
soul
by
faith
behold
the
certainty
and
glorious
effects
of
his
justification
(
notwithstanding
all
the
opposition
of
sense
and
reason
)
by
looking
on
Christ
justified
as
an
exemplary
cause
,
to
whom
himself
also
shall
be
conformed
in
one
time
?
Secondly
,
Mr.
Eyre
argues
against
it
thus
.
He
that
pays
our
debts
to
the
utmost
farthing
,
and
thereupon
receives
a
discharge
,
is
more
then
a
paterne
of
our
release
.
Rep.
More
then
a
patern
of
our
release
?
Is
this
all
Mr.
Eyre
contends
for
?
upon
what
pretence
then
doth
he
oppose
me
?
I
acknowledge
Christ
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
release
in
his
death
,
and
not
only
the
exemplary
cause
of
it
in
his
resurrection
.
As
to
the
thing
which
(
I
think
)
Mr.
Eyre
intends
,
I
have
told
him
often
,
that
Christ
entred
into
an
obligation
of
his
own
to
make
satisfaction
for
our
debt
:
from
which
obligation
he
was
discharged
in
his
resurrection
:
God
acquitting
him
,
as
having
paid
as
much
as
was
demanded
.
But
if
Christ
had
power
to
do
what
he
would
with
his
own
;
then
was
it
in
his
power
and
his
Fathers
,
to
give
us
the
effect
of
this
satisfaction
,
when
and
upon
what
tearms
they
pleased
:
and
to
suspend
our
discharge
(
notwithstanding
Christ
were
long
before
discharged
)
till
himself
should
sit
down
at
the
right
hand
of
Glory
,
and
give
it
us
with
his
own
hand
,
according
as
sinners
in
successive
generations
come
to
him
for
it
.
M.
Eyre
hath
often
said
the
contrary
,
but
proves
it
no
where
.
His
third
Argument
chargeth
high
(
magnis
tamen
excidit
ausis
:
)
If
Christ
were
only
a
patern
and
example
of
our
justification
,
then
was
he
justified
from
his
own
sins
,
and
consequently
was
a
sinner
,
which
is
the
most
horrid
blasphemy
that
can
be
uttered
.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
evident
:
for
if
Christ
was
but
a
patern
of
our
justification
,
then
was
he
justified
as
we
are
.
Now
we
are
justified
from
our
own
sins
which
we
our selves
have
committed
.
Rep.
1.
This
the
charge
:
this
the
proofe
.
But
because
M.
Eyre
is
so
carelesse
of
what
he
speaks
,
let
us
see
whether
the
matter
be
mended
according
to
his
own
principles
.
He
then
doth
not
only
acknowledge
,
but
contend
that
the
elect
were
justified
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
.
Now
what
is
a
common
person
?
It
is
a
general
tearm
,
and
should
have
been
described
more
plainly
then
it
is
:
but
something
he
speaks
of
him
,
§
.
1.
Whatsoever
is
done
by
or
to
a
common
person
as
such
,
is
to
be
attributed
to
them
in
whose
steed
he
stands
,
and
§.
4.
1.
The
act
of
a
common
person
is
the
act
of
them
whom
he
represents
.
The
summe
is
.
A
common
person
is
he
that
represents
another
both
in
what
he
doth
,
and
in
what
is
done
to
him
.
Now
then
thus
I
proceed
.
If
Christ
were
justified
as
a
common
person
,
then
was
he
justified
from
his
own
sins
,
and
consequently
was
a
sinner
,
which
is
the
most
horrid
blasphemy
that
can
be
uttered
.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
is
evident
:
for
if
Christ
was
justified
as
a
common
person
,
then
was
he
justified
as
we
are
(
for
a
common
person
is
he
that
represents
another
both
in
what
he
doth
,
and
in
what
is
done
to
him
)
Now
we
are
justified
from
our
own
sins
,
which
we
our selves
have
committed
.
Ergo.
Let
M.
Eyre
answer
this
for
himself
,
and
he
hath
answered
for
me
.
But
because
he
hath
put
me
out
of
hope
of
the
former
,
I
will
do
the
latter
presently
.
2.
In
the
mean
time
I
will
propose
one
thing
to
M.
Eyres
consideration
.
If
the
justification
of
Christ
as
a
common
person
were
actually
,
and
formally
the
justification
of
the
elect
,
then
are
not
the
elect
justified
of
grace
but
of
works
:
(
which
is
the
most
horrid
contradiction
to
the
Gospel
that
can
be
uttered
:
)
the
reason
of
the
consequence
is
evident
:
because
Christ
was
not
justified
of
grace
but
of
debt
.
Ergo
,
if
that
act
of
justification
which
passed
upon
him
,
be
that
which
justifies
us
,
then
are
not
we
justified
of
grace
.
But
to
M.
Eyres
Argument
(
if
it
may
so
be
called
)
I
deny
his
consequence
,
his
own
▪
obligation
,
which
he
voluntarily
undertooke
to
suffer
and
satisfie
for
our
sins
:
and
therein
he
became
the
exemplary
cause
of
a
like
discharge
which
should
follow
on
them
that
beleeve
,
from
that
obligation
which
comes
upon
them
involuntarily
and
necessarily
because
of
sin
.
To
the
proof
I
say
,
that
Christs
Justification
was
such
as
ours
is
,
in
regard
of
its
common
nature
and
effects
,
(
which
is
sufficient
to
the
agreement
of
the
example
and
counterpart
:
as
the
sacrifices
of
old
represented
Christ
dying
,
though
he
were
a
man
,
and
they
were
beasts
)
not
in
its
principle
and
special
nature
.
Surely
it
will
not
be
denied
,
that
we
beare
the
image
of
Christ
in
our
resurrection
from
the
dead
:
but
then
(
will
Mr.
Eyre
say
)
he
was
raised
as
we
are
:
now
we
are
raised
from
corruption
.
Ergo
,
he
also
was
raised
from
corruption
,
which
is
as
horrid
a
contradiction
to
Scripture
as
can
be
uttered
,
Psal.
16.
10.
or
he
was
raised
by
his
own
power
,
John
2.
19.
Ergo
,
if
we
in
our
Resurrection
are
conformed
to
him
,
then
are
we
also
raised
by
our
own
power
;
which
is
blasphemy
as
bad
as
the
other
:
that
makes
Christ
as
bad
as
sinners
;
this
makes
sinners
as
good
as
Christ
.
Did
M.
Eyre
think
it
possible
to
convince
mens
understandings
by
such
Argumentations
as
these
?
His
fourth
Argument
is
upon
the
point
all
one
with
this
,
and
hath
been
answered
already
over
and
over
,
in
that
wherein
it
differs
from
this
.
His
fifth
Argument
is
.
That
I
recede
very
far
both
from
the
but
never
the
exemplary
cause
of
our
justification
:
particularly
my
Grandfather
Parker
,
de
descens
.
lib.
3.
sect.
49
,
50
,
53.
Rep.
1.
I
did
not
think
before
(
nor
do
I
now
)
that
the
affirming
of
Christ
to
be
an
exemplary
cause
of
all
those
spiritual
heavenly
blessings
which
God
bestows
on
us
,
had
been
,
to
deny
him
to
be
a
common
person
.
The
Scriptures
call
him
the
first
borne
amongst
many
brethren
,
Rom.
8.
29.
The
first
borne
of
every
creature
,
Colos.
1.
15.
the
first
fruits
of
them
that
slept
,
1
Cor.
15.
20.
phrases
importing
that
there
are
many
others
,
who
by
his
power
shall
be
conformed
to
his
image
in
all
his
heavenly
perfections
:
which
is
all
I
seek
by
the
tearm
of
an
exemplary
cause
.
But
he
that
calls
Christ
the
first
borne
,
the
first
begotten
,
the
first
fruits
,
is
so
far
from
denying
him
,
as
that
he
doth
suppose
him
to
be
a
common
person
,
in
regard
that
the
proper
import
of
these
phrases
is
to
teach
us
,
that
he
hath
received
excellent
blessings
,
not
for
himself
,
but
for
others
also
.
The
reason
why
I
use
the
tearm
of
an
exemplary
cause
rather
then
of
a
common
person
,
I
give
the
Reader
a
little
below
.
2.
And
that
our
Divines
do
usually
call
Christ
a
common
,
person
is
a
thing
so
well
known
,
that
M.
Eyre
should
not
need
to
have
quoted
my
Grandfather
Parker
to
convince
me
of
it
.
He
should
have
shewed
that
they
call
him
so
in
such
a
sense
as
cannot
be
expressed
by
the
tearm
of
an
exemplary
cause
.
So
doth
not
my
Grandfather
,
at
least
in
the
point
of
Christs
resurrection
,
of
which
he
there
speaks
not
a
word
:
but
[
m
](A96867-e64140-b)
m
Do
descens
.
lib.
4
sect.
75.
elsewhere
saies
with
Athanasius
.
Anima
Christi
descensum
suum
ad
inferos
peregit
,
&
ab
inferis
resurrectionem
produxit
,
ut
nostrae
resurrectionis
imaginem
concinnaret
;
which
in
sense
is
the
very
same
that
I
say
,
concerning
Christs
becoming
an
exemplary
cause
in
his
resurrection
.
3.
Nor
are
our
Divines
such
strangers
to
the
use
of
that
expression
,
as
M.
Eyre
represents
them
:
[
n
](A96867-e64170-b)
n
Sound
Beleev
pag
79.
80.
edit.
1653.
M.
Shepheard
useth
it
verbatim
.
There
is
(
saith
he
)
a
merited
justification
by
Christs
death
:
and
a
virtual
or
exemplary
justification
in
Christs
resurrection
as
our
head
and
surety
.
So
[
o
](A96867-e64200-b)
o
Med.
Theol.
l.
1.
c.
23.
th
.
16
,
17.
Dr.
Amese
,
finis
resurrectionis
fuit
—
ut
se
&
justificatum
&
alios
justificantem
ostenderet
.
5.
ut
resurrectionis
nostrae
tam
spiritualis
quàm
corporalis
hypostasin
,
exemplar
,
&
initiatio
fieret
.
Christus
enim
exemplaris
causa
est
nostrae
resurrectionis
,
ut
à
morte
resurgens
:
[
p
](A96867-e64220-b)
p
Lud.
Croc.
s
.
Theol.
l.
2.
cap.
12.
p.
353.
So
others
.
His
last
Argument
is
,
that
this
expression
savours
rankly
of
Pelagianisme
For
they
make
the
second
Adam
a
meer
paterne
and
example
of
our
reconciliation
.
Rep.
I
have
read
indeed
concerning
the
Pelagians
,
that
they
deny
the
propagation
of
Adams
sin
any
otherwise
then
by
imitation
:
and
that
the
Socinians
say
,
Christ
shews
us
the
way
of
salvation
by
the
example
of
his
own
life
,
I
know
.
But
if
I
,
who
thankfully
acknowledge
our
Lords
merits
and
satisfaction
,
and
live
by
the
faith
thereof
,
am
yet
guilty
of
Pelagianisme
and
Socinianisme
for
affirming
,
that
as
in
all
things
else
,
so
in
his
justification
he
had
this
preeminence
above
others
,
as
not
only
to
be
justified
himself
,
but
to
become
the
justifying
cause
of
others
after
his
own
paterne
and
similitude
;
I
am
content
to
beare
the
reproach
of
both
.
SECT.
II.
IN
the
next
place
I
gave
the
Reader
an
account
why
I
used
the
This
excuse
(
saith
M.
Eyre
)
is
both
fallacious
and
impertinent
.
Fallacious
,
because
it
seems
to
intimate
,
that
an
exemplary
cause
doth
expresse
as
much
as
a
common
person
:
which
is
clearly
false
:
for
the
act
of
the
exemplar
is
not
the
act
of
the
Imitator
;
as
the
act
of
a
common
person
is
the
act
of
them
whom
he
represents
.
Parents
are
examples
to
their
children
,
not
common
persons
.
Rep.
Know
(
Reader
)
first
,
that
we
are
not
now
speaking
of
our
active
,
voluntary
imitation
of
Christ
in
duties
of
obedience
:
but
of
our
being
passively
conformed
and
fashioned
like
him
in
the
participation
of
his
spiritual
blessings
,
according
to
our
condition
and
capacity
.
Thus
in
our
justification
do
we
bear
his
image
and
partake
in
his
likenesse
;
who
as
he
was
the
first
borne
from
the
dead
,
so
is
he
the
first
borne
of
them
that
are
justified
,
forasmuch
as
his
resurrection
was
his
justification
.
And
as
our
resurrection
from
death
(
whensoever
it
shall
be
)
exists
by
virtue
of
his
,
Joh
14.
19.
He
being
risen
as
the
first
fruits
of
them
that
slept
,
1
Cor.
15.
20.
So
also
doth
our
justification
.
2.
This
being
premised
I
adde
,
that
to
say
that
Christ
in
his
resurrection
was
the
exemplary
cause
of
our
justification
is
far
more
pertinent
and
significant
,
then
to
say
,
we
were
then
justified
in
him
as
a
common
person
(
especially
according
to
M.
Eyres
use
of
that
tearme
,
of
which
more
presently
:
)
the
reason
is
ready
;
because
the
former
phrase
expresseth
the
influence
which
his
justification
hath
upon
ours
,
and
the
dependance
which
ours
hath
upon
his
,
which
the
latter
doth
not
;
for
to
be
justified
in
another
as
a
common
person
,
doth
neither
declare
his
justification
to
be
the
cause
of
ours
,
nor
ours
the
effect
of
his
:
could
we
have
delegated
a
person
to
have
received
from
God
that
sentence
of
absolution
in
our
names
(
as
Israel
sent
up
Moses
into
the
mount
)
we
had
all
of
us
been
justified
as
immediately
as
himself
,
nor
had
our
justification
had
any
dependance
upon
his
,
though
we
had
then
been
justified
in
him
as
a
common
person
.
3.
Wherefore
,
as
to
the
tearme
of
a
common
person
(
concerning
which
I
have
made
a
more
toylesome
search
into
the
civil
law
,
and
those
few
Civilians
which
I
have
,
then
the
moment
of
the
matter
requires
)
it
may
be
understood
in
a
double
sense
:
either
,
1.
fictione
suppositi
,
when
a
person
(
by
a
kinde
of
civil
metempseuchosis
)
doth
so
represent
another
,
in
what
he
doth
,
or
is
done
to
him
,
as
that
the
same
things
are
said
to
be
done
by
,
or
to
the
person
whom
he
represents
.
As
Ambassadours
represent
the
person
of
the
Princes
that
employ
them
:
what
they
do
as
such
,
is
reputed
the
act
of
the
Prince
that
sends
them
forth
,
and
what
is
done
to
them
as
such
,
is
reputed
as
done
to
him
.
We
do
,
or
receive
that
,
which
our
Attorney
doth
,
or
receives
in
our
name
.
Or
2.
Ex
re
gestâ
,
when
a
person
doth
that
,
in
the
effects
of
which
(
be
they
good
or
evil
)
others
partake
as
well
as
himself
.
Thus
the
punishment
of
high
treason
is
common
with
the
Traitour
to
his
children
,
though
he
do
not
represent
them
,
neither
in
offending
,
nor
in
being
punished
.
Thus
a
Surety
payes
his
money
as
a
common
person
,
because
the
Debtour
(
as
well
as
himself
)
if
no
compact
hinder
)
hath
the
benefit
of
a
discharge
,
though
he
do
not
represent
the
debtour
in
making
payment
.
In
this
latter
sense
I
readily
acknowledge
,
that
Christ
was
a
common
Person
in
his
Death
and
Resurrection
,
because
we
receive
the
benefit
of
both
in
our
measure
and
kinde
as
well
as
himself
And
in
this
sense
an
exemplary
cause
expresseth
as
much
and
somewhat
more
then
a
common
person
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
will
have
Christ
to
be
a
common
person
in
the
former
The
Resurrection
of
Christ
I
acknowledge
to
be
of
another
consideration
,
exemplary
cause
of
our
Justification
.
Sodom
and
Gomorrah
are
set
forth
for
examples
of
what
judgements
God
will
execute
upon
such
sinners
,
but
they
are
not
exemplary
causes
thereof
.
This
for
the
fallacie
.
2.
(
Saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
it
is
impertinent
,
because
Christs
discharge
Answ.
1.
Nor
do
I
intend
any
thing
more
in
changing
the
terme
of
a
common
person
into
that
of
an
exemplary
cause
,
then
to
expresse
that
preheminence
which
Christ
hath
,
as
in
all
things
else
,
so
in
his
Justification
;
which
the
terme
of
a
common
person
is
so
farre
from
doing
,
as
that
it
supposeth
the
just
contrary
;
for
the
action
or
passion
of
a
common
person
is
not
so
properly
his
own
,
as
his
whom
he
represents
.
As
,
what
an
Ambassadour
doth
is
not
so
properly
his
own
act
as
the
Kings
,
and
what
is
done
to
him
as
such
,
is
more
properly
done
to
the
King
then
to
him
.
In
like
manner
,
if
Christ
were
raised
precisely
as
a
common
person
representing
us
,
then
are
we
properly
the
first
risers
from
the
dead
,
and
his
Resurrection
hath
no
causal
influence
at
all
upon
ours
.
2.
That
God
appointed
his
Sonne
to
be
the
Head
,
Surety
,
and
common
Person
of
the
Elect
,
is
a
contradiction
;
if
a
common
person
be
taken
in
Mr.
Eyres
sense
,
for
one
that
represents
others
in
what
he
doth
,
and
in
what
is
done
to
him
;
Christ
is
undoubtedly
a
Head
and
Surety
to
the
Elect
;
so
the
Scriptures
call
him
,
and
both
expressions
imply
a
causal
influence
of
life
from
him
to
us
;
But
the
common
Person
described
as
such
,
is
neither
Head
nor
Surety
,
because
the
operations
of
a
Head
and
Surety
are
his
own
peculiarly
:
none
other
do
the
like
,
and
therefore
are
not
capable
of
being
represented
in
doing
of
them
:
the
case
is
the
same
in
what
he
receives
,
or
in
what
is
done
to
him
,
as
Head
and
Surety
.
3.
Concerning
Adam
,
I
do
also
deny
that
he
is
fitly
called
a
common
person
in
Mr.
Eyres
sense
of
that
phrase
:
and
in
what
sense
we
may
be
said
to
have
sinned
in
him
,
we
have
already
largely
opened
.
His
sin
is
indeed
imputed
unto
us
:
not
that
it
is
imputed
to
us
that
we
have
done
it
or
committed
it
,
for
that
is
in
it selfe
an
errour
of
falshood
:
and
besides
is
contrary
to
the
Apostle
,
who
supposeth
this
sin
to
be
imputed
unto
many
,
who
never
sinned
after
the
similitude
of
Adams
transgression
,
neither
in
individuo
,
nor
in
specie
,
Rom.
5.
14.
but
because
by
vertue
of
that
sin
we
his
children
stand
obliged
to
the
suffering
of
death
natural
:
he
being
the
common
Parent
,
who
by
Covenant
received
righteousnesse
and
life
to
be
communicated
to
his
children
,
if
himself
continued
obedient
,
otherwise
to
lose
it
,
both
to
himself
and
us
.
That
the
Reader
might
see
how
inconsequent
Mr.
Eyres
argument
Rom.
6.
6.
1
Cor.
1.
30.
yet
we
may
not
infer
,
Ergo
,
we
are
sanctified
before
faith
.
In
answer
to
this
Mr.
Eyre
speaks
many
words
to
little
purpose
;
the
summe
of
them
is
,
Our
personal
Resurrection
necessarily
supposeth
our
life
and
death
.
But
to
our
actual
discharge
there
needed
no
more
then
the
payment
of
our
debt
,
&c.
Rep.
The
difference
between
our
Resurrection
and
Sanctification
on
the
one
hand
,
and
Justification
on
the
other
,
is
plain
and
obvious
;
but
the
whole
strength
of
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
lieth
in
this
one
thing
,
that
we
were
justified
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
.
Now
if
our
rising
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
,
will
not
infer
that
our
Resurrection
is
before
faith
,
then
neither
is
our
Justification
proved
to
be
before
faith
,
because
we
were
justified
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
:
and
if
we
were
justified
simply
in
his
Resurrection
,
●t
must
be
upon
some
other
account
,
then
because
we
were
justified
in
him
as
a
common
person
.
2.
Therefore
Mr.
Eyre
doth
tacitly
deny
,
(
not
publickly
,
for
feare
of
the
people
)
that
we
are
risen
in
Christ
as
a
common
person
.
Christ
(
saith
he
)
fully
merited
our
Resurrection
to
glory
,
in
which
respect
we
are
said
to
be
risen
with
Christ
,
(
a
strange
and
unheard
of
interpretation
,
that
we
should
be
said
to
be
raised
with
Christ
,
because
he
in
his
death
merited
our
Resurrection
,
which
might
have
been
true
,
though
himself
had
never
been
raised
)
but
Mr.
Eyre
might
easily
foresee
,
that
as
he
interprets
our
Resurrection
in
Christ
,
so
might
we
interpret
our
Justification
in
Christ
rising
,
(
a
phrase
not
used
in
Scripture
,
but
admitted
by
me
as
agreeable
,
or
not
contrary
thereunto
,
)
not
for
our
Justification
in
him
as
a
common
person
,
but
for
his
merit
or
purchase
of
our
Justification
.
Truly
this
doth
Mr.
Eyre
own
too
,
(
though
very
privately
)
and
thereby
quite
and
clean
desert
his
whole
argument
in
the
very
next
words
.
It
is
,
(
saith
he
)
no
such
absurdity
to
say
,
Christ
hath
purchased
our
R●surrection
,
though
we
are
not
risen
,
as
to
say
,
he
hath
purchased
our
discharge
,
and
yet
we
are
not
discharged
;
for
to
say
a
debt
is
discharged
,
and
yet
justly
chargeable
,
is
a
contradiction
.
Purchased
?
why
I
thought
we
had
been
now
disputing
whether
the
discharge
of
Christ
as
a
common
person
in
his
Resurrection
,
were
really
and
formally
the
discharge
of
sinners
?
and
not
whether
he
purchased
our
discharge
in
his
death
?
But
some
men
had
rather
speak
nothing
to
purpose
,
then
nothing
at
all
.
As
to
the
reason
added
,
we
have
already
shewed
at
large
,
in
what
sense
Christs
death
,
may
be
called
the
payment
of
our
debt
.
A
debtour
cannot
discharge
a
debt
,
and
yet
that
debt
be
justly
chargeable
upon
him
:
but
that
another
may
not
leave
a
full
and
sufficient
price
in
the
Creditors
hand
,
that
he
may
discharge
his
debtour
some
time
after
that
price
is
paid
,
or
upon
some
condition
to
be
performed
by
him
,
I
shall
beleeve
,
when
I
see
,
not
words
,
but
power
and
argument
:
which
I
have
long
in
vaine
expected
from
Master
Eyre
.
The
Conclusion
therefore
,
and
summe
of
my
Answer
was
this
,
Justification
Mr.
Eyres
answer
is
nothing
but
a
repetition
of
several
things
(
already
confuted
)
concerning
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
and
the
payment
and
satisfaction
in
his
death
:
but
upon
the
distinction
it self
he
fixeth
nothing
.
By
all
which
,
I
perceive
,
he
is
weary
of
his
argument
drawen
from
Christs
Justification
in
his
Resurrection
,
to
prove
ours
.
I
speak
of
a
Justification
virtual
and
causal
in
Christs
Resurrection
,
and
he
answers
I
know
not
what
,
concerning
Christs
death
.
Yet
the
latter
part
of
the
answer
deserves
a
little
consideration
.
I
grant
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
that
the
death
of
Christ
doth
justifie
us
only
virtually
;
but
the
satisfaction
in
his
death
doth
justifie
us
formally
.
—
And
therefore
Christs
dying
for
us
,
or
for
our
sins
,
his
reconciling
us
to
God
,
and
our
being
justified
,
are
Synonyma's
in
Scripture
phrase
,
Rom.
58
,
9
,
10.
Rep.
1.
The
distinction
here
proposed
I
never
reade
before
,
nor
can
I
understand
now
,
viz.
How
we
are
justified
virtually
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
it
was
his
death
,
not
as
it
was
a
satisfaction
in
whole
or
part
.
If
the
meaning
be
that
there
was
that
vertue
and
worth
in
the
death
of
Christ
as
made
it
satisfactory
,
which
no
mans
death
else
could
be
for
want
of
the
like
worth
:
yet
is
the
speech
strangely
improper
.
As
if
a
broken
undone
debtour
,
seeing
a
very
wealthy
man
that
hath
many
thousands
more
lying
by
him
,
then
his
debt
comes
to
,
should
say
,
his
debt
is
virtually
paid
,
or
himself
virtually
discharged
by
that
mans
money
.
2.
To
say
that
Christs
satisfaction
doth
justifie
us
formally
,
is
to
deny
our
Justification
formal
to
be
Gods
act
,
(
for
it
was
not
God
but
Christ
that
satisfied
)
or
that
it
doth
at
all
consist
in
the
pardon
of
sin
(
for
Christ
did
not
satisfie
by
having
any
sin
pardoned
to
him
)
or
that
he
was
justified
before
us
:
yea
rather
,
we
are
first
justified
,
if
his
satisfaction
justifie
us
formally
:
because
himself
was
not
properly
justified
till
his
Resurrection
.
I
have
often
read
that
Christs
satisfaction
justifies
us
materially
,
being
that
matter
or
righteousnesse
for
which
we
are
justified
;
never
till
now
,
that
it
justifies
formally
.
2.
The
next
observation
,
that
Christs
dying
for
us
,
or
for
our
sins
,
and
our
being
justified
,
are
Sy●●nyma's
in
Scripture
,
is
most
plainly
refuted
by
Scripture
,
Rom.
4.
25.
who
was
delivered
,
(
namely
,
unto
death
)
for
our
sins
,
and
rose
again
for
our
Justification
.
In
the
next
place
Mr.
Eyre
undertakes
the
answer
of
an
objection
,
Cor.
5.
21.
Christ
was
made
sin
for
us
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
we
might
be
made
(
he
doth
not
say
,
that
thereby
we
are
made
,
)
the
righteousnesse
of
God
in
him
.
Ergo
,
the
laying
of
our
sinnes
on
Christ
is
only
an
Antecedent
,
which
tends
to
the
procuring
of
our
Justification
,
and
not
the
same
formally
.
Thou
seest
(
Reader
)
that
the
scope
of
the
objection
is
to
prove
,
that
the
death
of
Christ
is
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
,
which
Mr.
Eyre
,
after
frequent
acknowledgements
of
the
truth
of
it
,
doth
now
plainly
deny
:
and
that
of
Justification
not
as
signifying
the
act
but
the
effects
.
What
,
have
we
heard
so
often
of
Christs
procuring
,
meriting
,
purchasing
Pardon
and
Redemption
,
when
he
is
here
denied
to
have
done
any
thing
,
tending
to
the
procuring
of
our
Justification
?
But
let
us
see
Mr.
Eyres
answer
:
it
consists
of
three
parts
.
1.
(
Saith
he
)
That
this
phrase
,
that
we
might
be
,
or
be
made
,
doth
not
alwayes
signifie
the
final
,
but
sometimes
the
formal
cause
:
as
when
it
is
said
,
That
light
is
let
in
,
that
darknesse
may
be
expelled
.
Rep.
But
in
this
sense
is
that
phrase
very
rarely
,
if
at
all
,
used
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
improperly
,
wheresoever
it
is
used
:
and
thrice
in
this
chapter
,
but
a
little
before
,
used
in
its
most
obvious
sense
,
verse
10.
12
,
15.
and
in
this
text
cannot
have
that
sense
which
Mr.
Eyre
here
mentions
,
because
himself
acknowledgeth
in
his
very
next
answer
,
that
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
righteousnesse
to
us
do
differ
.
But
the
Apostle
in
this
verse
speaks
of
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
,
and
of
his
righteousnesse
to
us
;
Ergo
,
the
making
of
him
to
be
sin
for
us
,
and
of
us
righteousnesse
in
him
,
is
not
formally
the
same
.
Mr
Eyre
,
2.
Though
the
imputation
of
our
sins
to
Christ
and
of
his
righteousnesse
to
us
,
differ
:
yet
the
imputation
of
sin
to
him
,
and
non-imputation
of
it
unto
us
,
is
but
one
and
the
same
act
of
God
.
Rep.
1.
I
must
needs
say
this
is
to
be
wise
above
what
is
written
:
The
Apostle
supposeth
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
and
non-imputation
of
sin
to
be
one
and
the
same
act
(
differing
only
in
respect
of
the
terminus
à
quo
&
ad
quem
)
Rom.
4.
6
,
8.
David
describeth
the
blessednesse
of
the
man
,
unto
whom
God
imputeth
righteousnesse
without
works
.
—
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
will
not
impute
sin
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
argued
not
far
before
,
that
God
promiseth
nothing
in
his
Covenant
which
Christ
hath
not
purchased
.
But
non-imputation
of
sin
is
the
special
blessing
promised
in
the
Covenant
,
Heb.
8.
12.
for
the
pardon
of
sin
,
and
the
non-imputation
of
it
is
all
one
,
Rom.
4.
7
,
8.
Ergo
,
it
was
procured
in
the
death
of
Christ
3.
According
to
the
model
of
this
distinction
,
the
death
of
Christ
procures
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
but
not
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
that
is
,
it
procures
positive
blessings
,
but
not
the
destruction
of
,
or
our
deliverance
from
the
evil
and
miseries
of
sin
,
which
makes
our
Lord
but
halfe
a
Saviour
.
4.
Would
Mr.
Eyre
had
told
us
what
is
that
imputation
of
righteousnesse
,
which
in
its
formal
notion
includes
not
the
non-imputation
of
sin
;
or
that
non-imputation
of
sin
,
which
includes
not
essentially
the
imputation
of
righteousnesse
.
He
hath
told
us
long
since
that
both
these
are
immanent
and
eternal
acts
of
God
,
and
as
such
,
the
death
of
Christ
procures
neither
:
the
effects
of
both
are
one
and
the
same
,
and
it
is
therefore
impossible
to
distinguish
them
in
reference
to
their
effects
.
It
is
to
me
a
mystery
beyond
comprehension
,
how
that
imputation
which
constitutes
a
sinner
righteous
,
should
yet
include
nothing
of
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
or
how
sin
can
be
non-imputed
to
a
sinner
,
and
yet
he
abide
unrighteous
,
unlesse
some
other
act
concur
to
make
him
righteous
.
His
third
answer
is
,
The
non-imputation
of
sin
to
us
,
antecedes
Rep.
That
is
,
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
avails
nothing
to
the
non-imputing
of
sin
to
us
.
The
very
naming
of
these
hideous
doctrines
is
a
sufficient
confutation
of
them
.
Should
I
have
delivered
such
things
,
the
names
of
all
the
most
loathsome
hereticks
that
ever
were
,
would
have
been
accounted
too
soft
to
have
been
thrown
at
my
head
.
Yet
Mr.
Eyre
hath
not
done
object●ng
against
himself
,
but
in
the
His
answer
is
,
They
might
as
well
object
,
our
sins
were
not
then
.
Erge
,
they
could
not
be
imputed
unto
Christ
in
the
businesse
of
Justification
,
God
calleth
things
that
are
not
,
as
if
they
were
,
Rom.
4.
17.
Rep.
1.
I
deny
the
parity
of
reason
between
the
one
and
the
other
.
Sin
can
neither
be
punished
nor
pardoned
before
it
be
committed
,
in
●r
to
the
person
that
sin●eth
.
Neverthelesse
,
he
that
hath
the
absolute
dominion
of
his
own
life
(
as
Christ
had
)
may
as
a
Surety
suffer
all
that
punishment
,
which
by
the
Law
can
at
any
time
grow
due
to
sin
:
for
even
amongst
men
,
[
p
](A96867-e65680-b)
p
L.
S●ipula●●s
sum
&
L.
potest
.
ss.
de
fide
juss
&
§.
side
●●ss
.
instit
.
de
fide-juss
.
〈◊〉
accipi
potest
in
●uturam
obligationem
,
Sureties
are
admitted
upon
future
obligations
.
If
as
soon
as
death
by
the
Law
was
made
the
punishment
of
sin
,
before
men
had
broken
the
Law
,
the
Lord
Jesus
had
given
up
himself
to
death
,
that
in
case
we
should
sin
,
his
death
should
have
had
the
same
effect
as
now
it
hath
:
in
this
case
our
sin
,
(
though
then
but
possible
)
had
been
imputed
unto
him
;
for
he
had
borne
the
penalty
due
to
it
,
and
threatened
against
it
,
but
his
righteousnesse
had
not
been
imputed
to
us
,
upon
the
same
supposition
,
that
we
had
not
sinned
.
In
like
manner
,
though
the
sins
of
the
elect
were
not
in
being
,
(
I
mean
of
all
the
Elect
borne
since
his
death
)
when
Christ
died
;
yet
the
full
penalty
which
could
at
any
time
grow
due
to
them
,
was
then
in
being
,
and
determined
by
the
Law
,
which
punishment
also
(
in
summe
and
substance
)
he
might
and
did
undergo
,
that
when
we
should
sin
,
we
might
yet
be
washed
in
his
blood
from
all
our
sins
.
The
future
sins
of
the
Elect
,
Christ
might
make
so
farre
present
in
himself
,
as
to
endure
all
the
penalty
which
they
could
at
any
time
deserve
,
it
being
not
our
desert
of
punishment
which
obligeth
him
to
suffer
it
,
but
his
own
voluntary
submission
to
it
,
which
makes
punishment
due
to
him
as
our
Surety
,
before
it
become
due
to
us
as
actual
sinners
;
But
pardon
of
sin
being
essentially
the
destruction
of
that
very
obligation
,
which
the
sinner
hath
contracted
upon
himselfe
,
doth
therefore
essentially
suppose
the
sinner
and
his
sin
in
being
:
though
another
may
suffer
for
him
,
yet
another
cannot
be
pardoned
for
him
,
pardon
of
sin
being
a
personal
priviledge
,
that
is
,
such
as
rests
in
the
person
of
the
sinner
,
or
nowhere
.
2.
And
that
God
in
the
matter
of
Justification
calleth
things
that
are
not
as
though
they
were
,
is
no
part
of
the
Apostles
meaning
,
Rom.
4.
17.
but
to
shew
the
ground
of
Abrahams
stedfast
believing
on
God
,
for
the
obtaining
of
a
blessing
,
to
sense
and
reason
impossible
,
namely
,
that
he
should
become
the
father
of
many
nations
,
his
own
body
,
and
Sarahs
wombe
being
dead
,
v.
19.
The
reason
hereof
was
,
because
God
is
he
that
raiseth
the
dead
,
and
is
able
to
give
being
to
things
out
of
nothing
,
for
he
calleth
things
that
are
not
,
as
if
they
were
,
therefore
Abraham
against
hope
believed
in
hope
,
v.
18.
This
is
that
faith
through
which
he
,
and
all
his
children
in
the
same
faith
obtain
righteousnesse
.
Having
thus
at
large
demonstrated
the
weaknesse
of
the
argument
,
As
to
the
Argument
,
his
own
deserting
it
in
plain
ground
is
evidence
enough
that
it
is
too
weak
to
bear
the
weight
which
is
laid
upon
it
,
and
if
men
will
embrace
opinions
which
have
no
stronger
foundations
,
is
not
their
own
credulity
in
fault
?
The
charge
of
schisme
and
faction
was
not
intended
against
him
,
or
any
of
his
charge
in
particular
:
(
I
little
know
whether
all
under
his
charge
be
of
his
opinion
,
or
whether
all
of
his
opinion
in
the
place
he
lives
in
,
be
under
his
charge
)
but
in
general
against
all
,
who
without
better
ground
then
the
foresaid
Argument
will
afford
them
,
shall
by
jealousies
,
separations
,
envyings
,
backbitings
,
rash
censurings
,
&c.
violate
the
rules
of
Christian
love
and
peace
,
whereof
if
neither
Mr.
Eyre
,
nor
any
of
his
charge
are
guilty
,
yet
some
others
of
his
judgement
in
this
point
,
are
:
and
that
so
foully
that
he
would
loath
to
undertake
their
defence
,
if
he
will
be
true
to
the
Profession
which
here
he
makes
of
himself
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
A
Reply
to
Mr.
Eyres
Seventeenth
Chapter
.
Concerning
the
Covenant
wherein
faith
is
promised
and
by
vertue
whereof
it
is
given
to
us
.
SECT.
I.
HAving
thus
shewed
that
we
receive
not
the
Spirit
before
we
beleeve
,
whether
faith
it self
be
not
given
to
us
,
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
made
with
us
?
for
if
we
are
in
Covenant
with
God
before
faith
be
given
us
,
it
is
every
whit
as
much
to
Mr.
Eyres
purpose
,
to
shew
that
we
are
in
Covenant
before
we
beleeve
,
as
if
he
had
proved
that
the
Spirit
is
given
us
before
we
beleeve
.
For
answer
therefore
to
the
question
,
understand
(
Reader
)
that
it
may
have
a
double
sense
.
1.
Whether
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
that
is
,
the
Gospel
,
have
any
efficiency
in
converting
the
Matth.
12.
21.
Psal.
89.
25
,
26.
&c.
Hereupon
Mr.
Eyre
disputes
largely
,
that
faith
is
given
to
the
Elect
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
made
with
them
:
the
sense
of
which
we
have
already
explained
,
that
the
Elect
are
supposed
to
be
in
Covenant
with
God
before
they
beleeve
,
and
so
God
obliged
to
them
by
Covenant
to
give
them
faith
.
I
deny
it
.
See
we
what
Mr.
Eyre
brings
for
proof
of
it
.
First
,
a
similitude
at
the
end
of
his
first
section
.
If
one
promise
Answ.
Whether
the
case
be
the
same
between
Christ
and
us
,
is
the
proper
debate
of
the
next
Argument
:
in
the
mean
time
this
comparison
is
not
to
our
case
,
because
the
Prom●se
made
to
Christ
,
that
Jews
and
Gentiles
shal
come
into
him
by
faith
;
is
a
promise
that
he
shall
have
children
spiritual
;
that
he
shall
have
a
numerous
seed
,
even
like
the
stars
of
heaven
for
multitude
.
But
as
the
promise
made
to
Abraham
concerning
the
multitudes
of
children
which
he
should
have
,
was
no
promise
to
them
that
they
should
becom
children
(
which
were
promise
to
nothing
,
that
it
should
become
something
)
so
the
promise
to
Christ
,
that
many
Nations
shall
come
unto
him
,
and
becom
children
to
him
in
a
spiritual
sense
,
is
no
promise
to
them
,
nor
have
they
thereby
any
right
given
them
to
be
made
believers
;
but
unto
him
,
and
in
gratiam
sui
,
for
his
own
honour
and
glory
.
Much
lesse
doth
such
a
promise
hinder
,
that
that
faith
by
which
they
become
children
unto
Christ
,
may
not
be
enjoyned
them
as
the
condition
upon
which
they
are
to
partake
in
Christ
and
blessednesse
by
him
.
The
serond
and
great
Argument
is
this
,
If
there
be
but
one
Covenant
Answ.
Before
we
can
give
a
distinct
answer
,
to
this
we
must
first
enquire
how
we
may
conceive
of
the
forme
and
tenour
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
The
tenour
of
the
Covenant
of
works
is
plain
and
intelligible
,
Do
this
and
live
;
But
(
it
seems
)
there
is
no
Covenant
of
grace
made
with
men
at
all
(
though
some
men
are
the
intended
objects
of
the
blessings
therein
contained
)
but
only
with
Christ
:
with
whom
we
are
to
conceive
the
father
striking
a
Covenant
to
this
sense
:
If
thou
wilt
make
,
or
do
thou
make
satisfaction
for
the
sins
of
the
Elect
,
and
I
will
give
them
grace
and
glory
;
where
the
condition
is
Christs
death
,
or
rather
his
satisfaction
,
(
for
his
death
,
if
it
had
not
been
satisfactory
,
had
availed
nothing
)
and
the
promise
is
,
that
the
Elect
shall
have
grace
and
glory
.
This
being
explained
I
do
utterly
deny
,
that
there
is
but
one
Covenant
of
grace
made
both
with
Christ
and
us
,
which
is
Mr.
Eyres
Assumption
.
And
1.
I
desire
Mr.
Eyre
to
reflect
a
little
upon
his
own
principles
,
v.
15
,
16.
2
Cor.
3.
6.
with
chap.
4.
3
,
4.
and
Eph.
3.
6
,
7.
and
Col.
1.
23
But
the
Gospel
obligeth
all
men
to
believe
and
repent
(
the
elect
as
well
as
others
)
that
they
may
be
saved
:
and
thus
did
the
Apostles
(
the
special
Ministers
of
the
New
Covenant
)
preach
wheresoever
they
came
,
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
Luke
24.
47.
Mark
1.
14
,
15.
Acts
2.
38.
and
3.
19.
and
20.
21.
and
26.
20.
Rom.
10.
6
,
8
,
9.
Col.
1.
23
,
28.
&c.
Ergo
,
the
Covenant
of
grace
requires
faith
and
repentance
,
as
necessary
in
point
of
duty
that
we
may
be
saved
;
or
else
the
Apostle's
Ministry
had
destroyed
the
Covenant
.
Hence
thirdly
,
it
will
be
impossible
for
any
man
to
sin
against
the
de
jure
or
de
facto
:
I
mean
,
either
such
a
one
as
actually
is
in
Covenant
,
or
else
is
bound
to
enter
into
Covenant
.
Now
upon
supposition
that
none
are
Covenanters
but
God
and
Christ
,
there
can
be
no
breach
of
the
Covenant
but
on
one
of
their
parts
.
And
consequently
,
neither
will
it
be
any
grace
in
God
to
preserve
the
Elect
from
a
final
breaking
of
Covenant
:
such
being
the
constitution
thereof
,
that
it
is
impossible
ex
natura
rei
,
that
it
should
be
broken
but
by
God
or
Christ
:
nor
can
any
by
unbelief
or
Apostasie
violate
the
covenant
(
seeing
it
hath
no
preceptive
part
)
which
is
surely
contrary
to
Scripture
,
Heb.
10.
29.
He
hath
counted
the
blood
of
the
covenant
,
wherewith
he
was
sanctified
,
an
unholy
thing
.
Hence
4ly
.
No
man
becomes
worthy
of
punishment
for
breaking
the
covenant
of
grace
through
unbelief
or
Apostasy
(
as
the
Apostle
in
the
same
place
saith
they
do
,
and
that
most
justly
;
and
I
shall
farther
shew
when
I
come
to
it
)
Nor
5ly
.
Is
salvation
and
eternal
life
given
as
a
reward
to
them
that
keep
the
covenant
of
their
God
:
(
which
is
contrary
to
innumerable
Scriptures
)
the
reason
is
,
because
the
covenant
promiseth
a
reward
to
none
,
but
unto
them
that
fulfill
the
conditions
of
it
.
If
Christ
onely
fulfill
the
condition
,
then
our
grace
and
glory
may
be
his
reward
:
but
glory
is
not
the
reward
of
our
faith
or
obedience
.
Mr.
Eyre
will
say
,
yes
,
because
glory
follows
our
faith
and
obedience
.
But
though
I
readily
acknowledge
that
glory
is
called
our
reward
onely
metaphorically
,
and
one
reason
of
the
similitude
is
that
which
Mr.
Eyre
mentions
,
because
glory
follows
our
faith
and
obedience
,
as
wages
follows
the
work
:
yet
is
not
that
the
onely
,
or
of
it self
a
sufficient
reason
(
as
we
have
shewed
before
)
nor
are
the
Scriptures
or
our
Divines
wont
to
rest
in
it
.
The
Scriptures
tell
us
that
God
will
reward
every
man
according
to
his
works
,
See
Rom.
2.
6
,
7
,
8.
2
Cor.
5.
10.
Gal.
6.
7.
Rev.
22.
12.
&c.
I
acknowledge
the
sense
in
which
our
Divines
understand
the
words
viz.
that
the
phrase
,
according
to
his
works
doth
not
signifie
the
proportion
of
desert
,
but
the
suitablenesse
,
and
agreeablenesse
between
works
,
and
the
reward
which
God
gives
:
if
the
works
be
good
,
the
reward
shall
be
good
:
if
evill
,
the
reward
shall
be
evill
also
.
But
this
is
as
much
as
I
need
to
shew
,
that
eternall
life
is
not
called
a
reward
meerely
because
it
follows
faith
and
obedience
.
For
if
so
,
then
a
beleever
quatenus
a
beleever
,
or
a
godly
man
quatenus
a
godly
man
is
no
nearer
the
reward
,
then
if
he
had
neither
faith
nor
godlinesse
,
upon
any
other
score
but
this
,
that
these
by
Gods
appointment
are
to
go
before
the
reward
.
And
if
God
had
appointed
that
all
that
shall
be
saved
should
live
to
20
or
30
years
of
age
,
their
arrivall
at
such
an
age
,
had
been
every
whit
as
conducible
to
their
reward
,
as
now
their
faith
and
godlinesse
is
supposed
to
be
.
Againe
?
Our
Divines
account
it
no
ascribing
to
the
desert
of
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
expects
that
I
should
have
shewed
,
that
Hos.
2.
v.
18.
God
promiseth
to
make
a
Covenant
for
his
people
with
the
beasts
of
the
field
(
that
they
shall
do
them
no
hurt
)
and
with
the
heavens
and
the
earth
,
that
they
shall
concurre
to
yeild
them
blessings
,
v.
21
,
22.
Or
rather
when
God
promiseth
,
that
the
heavens
and
earth
shall
receive
some
farther
persection
then
they
now
have
,
for
his
childrens
sake
,
Rom
8.
21.
In
this
case
these
creatures
may
(
but
improperly
)
be
said
to
be
in
covenant
with
God
:
and
(
but
more
improperly
)
that
God
hath
made
a
covenant
with
them
:
and
the
Scripture
somewhere
speaketh
in
a
language
very
neere
it
.
But
God
governs
men
in
a
way
suitable
to
their
natures
,
drawing
them
with
the
cords
of
men
:
blessing
them
,
not
as
he
blesseth
the
earth
,
and
other
inanimate
or
bruite
creatures
;
but
bestowing
blessednesse
on
them
as
the
reward
of
some
former
act
or
actions
of
theirs
:
and
so
they
are
not
onely
the
objects
for
whom
God
covenanteth
,
but
the
subjects
with
whom
.
Now
if
the
constitution
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
be
such
that
men
are
taken
into
it
,
mediante
actione
voluntarià
,
not
without
some
voluntary
act
of
their
own
intervening
,
then
Gods
declaring
concerning
them
that
he
will
blesse
them
,
is
not
a
sufficient
ground
upon
which
he
can
be
said
to
have
made
the
covenant
of
grace
with
them
.
But
such
is
the
constitution
of
the
covenant
of
grace
that
men
are
taken
into
it
,
not
without
some
voluntary
act
of
their
own
intervening
.
Ergo
,
the
assumption
is
plaine
from
the
words
of
Moses
,
Deut.
29.
12
,
13.
That
thou
shouldest
enter
(
or
passe
)
into
covenant
with
the
Lord
thy
God
—
that
he
may
be
unto
thee
a
God
—
as
he
hath
sworne
unto
thy
fathers
,
to
Abraham
,
to
Isaack
,
and
to
Jacob
;
which
to
be
the
substance
of
the
covenant
of
grace
(
excepting
the
additions
and
explications
peculiar
to
the
times
of
the
gospel
)
appeares
.
1.
In
that
it
is
for
substance
the
same
which
was
made
with
their
fathers
,
Abraham
,
Isaack
,
and
Jacob
,
which
not
onely
the
Scriptures
witnesse
,
but
Mr.
Eyre
grants
,
to
be
,
for
substance
,
the
covenant
of
grace
.
The
promise
to
the
fathers
that
they
should
have
a
seed
was
peculiar
to
themselves
:
but
the
other
blessings
promised
,
pertained
to
the
seed
as
well
as
to
the
fathers
:
onely
the
Lord
requires
of
them
to
enter
into
,
and
keep
his
covenant
(
as
their
fathers
did
)
that
they
might
inherit
the
blessing
of
their
fathers
.
2.
Because
the
covenant
here
mentioned
,
is
expressely
distinguished
from
the
covenant
of
the
law
made
with
them
in
Horeb
,
v.
1.
The
words
of
the
covenant
made
with
Israel
in
the
land
of
Moab
,
beside
the
covenant
which
he
made
with
them
in
Horeb.
3.
Because
the
Apostle
calls
this
very
covenant
(
excepting
as
above
excepted
,
the
additions
of
grace
,
and
explications
of
promises
,
proper
to
the
times
of
the
Messiah
)
the
righteousnesse
which
is
of
faith
,
and
the
word
of
faith
which
he
and
other
Apostles
preached
,
compare
chap.
30.
v.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
with
Rom.
10.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
Or
else
he
may
say
,
that
we
also
performed
the
condition
in
Christ
.
But
this
I
think
he
will
not
say
,
because
he
so
distributes
the
covenant
of
grace
into
parts
,
as
to
ascribe
to
Christ
the
performance
of
the
condition
:
to
us
,
the
receiving
of
the
benefit
.
Secondly
,
the
covenant
made
with
Christ
,
and
that
with
us
,
agree
Isa.
53.
10.
Heb.
10.
5.
7.
Of
us
there
is
no
such
thing
required
:
but
onely
that
we
beleeve
as
Abraham
did
:
so
shall
we
pertake
in
the
blessings
of
his
covenant
,
Rom.
4.
23
,
24.
Gal.
3.
6
,
7
,
9
,
16
,
22.
Heb.
6.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
3.
The
promises
made
to
Christ
in
the
covenant
of
redemption
,
are
of
a
higher
nature
then
those
made
to
us
in
the
covenant
of
reconciliation
;
to
wit
,
a
name
above
every
name
,
whether
in
heaven
or
earth
:
the
inheritance
of
all
nations
:
dominion
from
sea
to
sea
.
See
Philip.
2.
9.
Heb.
1.
4.
and
2.
9.
and
the
other
places
mentioned
,
§
.
1.
The
most
which
is
promised
to
us
is
a
conformity
in
our
measure
unto
him
in
glory
.
SECT.
2.
Mr.
Eyres
second
Argument
proceeds
thus
.
If
Christ
merited
But
the
first
is
true
.
Ergo.
Answ.
I
deny
the
consequence
:
because
though
Christ
merited
nothing
for
himself
,
(
it
being
unworthy
to
rank
him
amongst
such
mercinary
servants
,
to
whom
nothing
is
due
but
for
their
labour
:
in
which
sense
are
our
Divines
to
be
understood
,
when
they
deny
him
to
have
merited
for
himself
)
yet
what
he
did
and
suffered
was
necessary
for
himself
at
least
as
a
condition
,
without
which
he
had
not
obtained
that
advancement
which
now
he
hath
(
viz.
power
of
sending
the
Spirit
,
Act.
2.
33.
dominion
over
Angels
,
in
short
,
all
power
,
both
in
heaven
and
earth
)
as
our
Divines
do
liberally
grant
.
Which
promises
are
not
made
to
us
,
but
to
Christ
:
though
instrictnesse
of
propriety
he
did
not
merit
them
.
And
therefore
though
I
do
not
find
that
he
is
called
his
own
mediatour
,
yet
he
was
his
own
way
unto
the
father
,
Joh.
14.
4
,
6.
forasmuch
as
not
without
the
rending
of
his
flesh
,
and
the
shedding
of
his
own
blood
,
he
entred
into
the
holy
place
.
Heb.
9.
11
,
12.
Mr.
Eyre
proves
his
consequence
in
these
words
.
Christ
is
the
mediatour
of
the
new
covenant
,
Heb.
12.
24.
Faith
is
bestowed
upon
us
,
by
virtue
of
that
covenant
whereof
Christ
is
Mediatour
.
Now
Christ
is
the
Mediatour
of
the
covenant
made
with
us
,
not
of
a
covenant
made
singly
and
particularly
with
himself
:
for
a
man
is
not
properly
a
Mediatour
for
himself
.
Answ.
Which
words
,
if
they
had
stood
by
themselves
as
an
argument
directly
proving
the
maine
question
,
viz.
that
faith
is
given
us
by
virtue
of
the
covenant
made
with
us
,
they
had
been
of
more
strength
then
all
that
Mr.
Eyre
hath
said
for
it
besides
.
But
as
they
now
stand
for
a
proof
of
the
foresaid
consequence
;
I
cannot
imagine
into
what
forme
to
cast
them
,
though
I
have
toyled
my self
about
it
more
then
enough
.
Therefore
leaving
it
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
to
shew
how
they
prove
his
consequence
;
let
us
consider
them
as
an
argument
by
themselves
,
the
forme
whereof
is
this
.
What
is
given
us
by
virtue
of
that
covenant
whereof
Christ
is
Mediatour
,
is
given
us
by
that
covenant
which
is
made
with
us
:
the
reason
is
,
because
Christ
is
the
Mediatour
of
the
covenant
made
with
us
,
not
with
himself
.
But
faith
is
given
us
by
virtue
of
that
covenant
whereof
Christ
is
Mediatour
.
Erg●
,
I
cannot
guesse
what
strength
the
argument
looseth
in
this
forme
,
if
it
loose
any
,
Mr.
Eyre
must
thank
himself
for
speaking
no
plainer
:
my
answer
to
it
is
this
,
faith
may
be
said
to
be
given
by
virtue
of
the
covenant
in
a
double
respect
.
1.
Operatione
&
●fficacia
foederis
,
by
the
operation
and
efficiency
of
the
covenant
working
faith
in
the
soul
,
by
the
power
of
the
Spirit
accompanying
it
.
In
this
sense
I
deny
the
proposition
,
because
what
is
given
us
by
the
efficiency
of
the
covenant
,
doth
not
suppose
us
to
be
in
covenant
before
our
receiving
it
:
forasmuch
as
the
working
of
faith
it self
,
by
which
we
are
brought
into
covenant
,
is
the
effect
of
the
covenant
,
or
2.
Ex
obligatione
faederis
.
and
so
that
is
given
by
virtue
of
the
covenant
,
which
we
by
the
covenant
have
a
right
to
receive
,
and
God
by
the
same
covenant
hath
obliged
himself
to
us
,
to
bestow
upon
us
.
In
this
sense
(
which
onely
is
proper
to
our
Argument
)
I
deny
the
assumption
:
because
there
is
no
covenant
whereof
Christ
is
Mediatour
,
which
gives
any
man
a
right
to
the
receiving
of
faith
,
or
makes
it
due
to
him
that
faith
be
given
him
:
as
I
shall
farther
shew
by
and
by
,
when
I
come
to
examine
Mr.
Eyres
answer
to
my
explication
of
Heb.
8.
10.
And
that
faith
is
given
us
by
the
righteousnesse
and
merits
of
Christ
,
will
never
prove
that
therefore
it
is
given
us
as
unto
a
people
in
covenant
with
God
.
What
?
may
not
Christ
merit
faith
,
that
thereby
we
might
be
estated
in
the
covenant
?
though
I
will
also
tell
Mr.
Eyre
,
that
the
three
places
he
mentions
,
viz.
2
Pet.
1.
1.
Eph.
1.
3.
Rom.
8.
32.
to
prove
that
we
obtaine
faith
by
the
merits
of
Christ
,
would
never
convince
me
if
I
were
contrary
minded
.
The
third
argument
proceeds
thus
.
If
faith
be
given
us
by
virtue
Ezek.
36.
25.
&c.
Jer.
31.
34.
Answ.
I
deny
the
assumption
,
if
understood
according
to
the
foregoing
distinction
,
of
what
is
given
by
a
covenant
obligation
.
Till
I
see
better
proofe
then
any
I
meet
with
in
Mr.
Eyres
book
(
which
I
beleeve
I
never
shall
)
it
will
never
enter
into
my
heart
,
that
God
is
as
much
bound
to
give
faith
to
sinners
and
rebells
,
as
he
is
to
give
righteousnesse
and
salvation
to
beleevers
.
As
for
the
proofe
out
of
Ezek.
36.
and
Jer.
31.
I
deny
that
God
doth
give
righteousnesse
,
or
glory
by
virtue
;
that
is
,
by
the
obligation
of
the
covenant
there
mentioned
.
The
reason
(
which
shall
be
farther
explained
by
and
by
)
is
,
because
those
texts
do
not
expresse
the
forme
and
tenor
of
the
covenant
of
grace
;
but
onely
the
matter
and
particulars
,
wherein
God
would
make
the
said
covenant
,
as
administred
in
the
days
of
Christ
,
to
excell
it self
in
its
administration
before
his
coming
.
As
for
example
,
that
it
shall
have
greater
efficacy
in
giving
ability
to
fulfill
it
:
and
to
conferre
more
excellent
,
spirituall
and
eternal
blessings
,
to
them
that
do
fulfill
it
.
But
he
that
declares
,
that
his
purpose
is
to
establish
and
enact
such
a
covenant
,
by
and
according
to
which
such
excellent
blessings
shall
be
given
,
doth
not
by
such
a
declaration
oblige
himself
to
give
them
:
it
is
the
covenant
it self
enacted
and
established
,
which
enduceth
the
obligation
.
Wherefore
the
texts
mentioned
,
do
indeed
declare
that
the
effects
of
the
new
Covenant
(
that
is
of
the
Covenant
in
its
new
administration
)
shall
be
farre
more
excellent
then
of
the
old
:
but
they
do
by
no
means
declare
that
the
said
Covenant
shall
produce
these
effects
in
one
and
the
same
way
or
manner
.
It
produceth
faith
by
its
reall
efficacy
(
as
I
may
so
call
it
)
for
it
is
the
new
Covenant
which
administreth
that
Spirit
by
which
faith
is
wrought
:
and
having
thus
brought
souls
within
the
bond
,
and
made
them
to
take
hold
of
it self
,
it
produceth
justification
,
perseverance
and
salvation
by
its
legall
efficacy
,
inasmuch
as
it
makes
these
and
all
other
blessings
due
to
them
that
beleeve
.
The
fourth
argument
succeeds
.
Faith
is
given
by
virtue
Ergo
,
it
is
given
by
virtue
of
the
Covenant
made
with
us
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
antecedent
.
The
reason
is
,
because
the
seed
of
Abraham
according
to
Scripture
,
are
they
that
do
beleeve
.
Rom.
4.
11
16.
Gal.
3.
7
,
9
,
26
,
29.
If
then
the
promise
be
made
to
them
that
are
beleevers
,
the
thing
promised
cannot
be
,
that
they
shall
be
beleevers
.
And
therefore
Mr.
Eyre
,
in
the
proofe
of
his
antecedent
,
doth
palpably
contradict
that
which
he
would
prove
.
The
same
Covenant
(
saith
he
)
which
God
made
with
Abraham
,
is
made
with
all
the
faithfull
to
the
end
of
the
world
,
and
therefore
they
are
called
the
children
of
Abraham
,
Gal.
3.
7
,
29.
A
Covenant
made
with
the
faithfull
is
not
,
that
they
shall
have
faith
.
And
so
we
come
to
the
last
argument
,
which
onely
was
mentioned
If
faith
be
given
us
by
virtue
of
the
Covenant
made
with
the
house
of
Israel
,
then
is
it
given
us
by
virtue
of
the
Covenant
made
with
us
:
for
the
house
of
Israel
,
is
the
whole
company
of
Gods
elect
,
who
are
therefore
called
Spiritual
Israel
.
Rom.
9.
6.
But
faith
or
the
Spirit
which
works
faith
,
is
promised
in
the
Covenant
made
with
the
house
of
Israel
.
Jer.
31.
31.
Heb.
8.
8
,
9
,
&c.
Answ.
Though
Rom.
9.
6.
will
by
no
means
prove
that
the
elect
as
such
,
are
Spiritual
Israel
(
for
the
words
may
,
and
I
think
must
be
understood
of
beleevers
as
such
)
yet
I
will
have
no
quarrel
here
with
Mr.
Eyre
about
his
interpretation
.
Neverthelesse
I
do
ingenuously
confess
to
him
,
I
am
very
much
puzled
about
one
objection
,
which
it
concernes
him
as
much
as
me
to
see
well
answered
.
Suppose
then
a
man
should
say
,
that
by
the
house
of
Israel
,
is
not
meant
the
elect
as
such
,
but
beleevers
:
and
that
it
is
not
faith
which
is
here
promised
,
but
some
greater
measures
of
grace
,
which
they
that
beleeve
should
receive
;
above
what
were
usually
communicated
before
the
times
of
Christ
:
he
m●ght
thus
argue
from
the
words
?
Whatsoever
blessings
are
promised
in
the
Covenant
recorded
,
Jer.
31.
and
Heb.
8.
are
such
as
are
peculiar
to
the
days
of
the
New-Testament
.
But
the
giving
of
faith
,
is
not
peculiar
to
the
dayes
of
the
New-Testament
,
(
for
since
sin
entred
into
the
world
,
there
was
no
other
way
of
salvation
then
b●
faith
:
and
therefore
God
gave
faith
in
all
ages
to
the
elect
.
)
The
proposition
may
not
be
questioned
.
For
the
time
and
season
of
giving
the
blessings
mentioned
,
Heb.
8.
is
expressely
determined
,
v.
8.
Behold
the
dayes
come
when
I
will
make
a
new
Covenant
,
&c.
and
v.
10.
This
is
the
Covenant
which
I
will
make
after
those
dayes
,
and
in
reference
to
these
blessings
in
this
Covenant
called
a
better
Covenant
,
and
the
promises
thereof
better
,
v.
6.
All
which
prove
that
the
blessings
here
mentioned
are
such
as
were
never
given
before
.
But
as
the
pardon
promised
,
v.
12.
the
knowledge
of
God
,
v.
11.
Gods
being
a
God
to
his
people
,
v.
10.
are
all
more
perfect
then
ever
before
,
though
the
substance
of
these
blessings
were
alwayes
the
same
:
so
,
it
is
not
the
substance
and
being
of
faith
which
is
here
promised
,
but
some
more
eminent
degrees
of
grace
,
then
ever
were
dispensed
before
these
times
of
the
New-Testament
.
Unlesse
Mr.
Eyre
can
answer
this
argument
better
then
I
,
the
whole
foundation
of
his
discourse
sinkes
,
and
he
doth
but
labour
in
vaine
to
prove
from
these
Texts
,
that
faith
is
given
us
as
unto
a
people
in
Covenant
with
God
before
our
receiving
it
.
Neverthelesse
other
reasons
preponderate
with
me
to
cleave
to
my
Mr.
Eyres
first
answer
,
is
but
a
repetition
of
his
argument
now
under
debate
:
and
is
more
particularly
answered
below
.
Two
things
he
sayes
to
it
.
1.
That
it
is
not
manifest
that
these
texts
containe
a
promise
of
sending
Christ
to
dye
for
us
.
The
Apostle
,
Heb.
10.
15.
mentions
the
Covenant
,
not
to
prove
,
that
God
would
send
his
Son
to
dye
:
but
that
being
come
he
hath
offered
up
a
perfect
sacrifice
,
v
,
10
,
12
,
14.
Rep.
The
words
are
these
,
v.
14
,
15.
By
one
offering
he
hath
perfected
for
ever
them
that
are
sanctified
,
whereof
the
Holy
Ghost
also
is
a
witnesse
to
us
.
And
then
quotes
,
or
rather
cites
the
words
of
Jeremy
;
Now
if
the
Holy
Ghost
in
that
place
of
Jeremy
do
witnesse
;
that
Christ
by
offering
himself
,
should
for
ever
perfect
them
that
are
sanctified
:
then
doth
he
also
testifie
,
that
Christ
should
come
at
the
time
there
mentioned
,
to
be
made
a
sacrifice
:
and
the
coming
of
Christ
,
though
it
be
not
expressed
,
yet
is
included
and
understood
,
as
promised
in
that
Covenant
.
Yea
,
and
all
the
promises
or
predictions
of
the
glory
of
the
Church
in
the
New-Testament
,
above
it self
under
the
old
,
do
signally
include
the
promise
of
Christ
himself
as
the
Author
of
that
glory
and
perfection
.
Secondly
,
He
ownes
it
as
an
undenyable
truth
;
that
the
new
before
the
foundations
of
the
world
were
laid
:
it
being
the
fixed
and
immutable
will
of
God
,
concerning
all
those
good
things
which
in
time
were
bestowed
upon
them
.
Therefore
it
is
called
an
everlasting
Covenant
,
2
Sam.
23.
5.
As
it
shall
have
no
end
,
so
it
had
no
beginning
.
Rep.
It
is
very
strange
to
me
,
that
the
New
Covenant
should
be
now
discovered
to
be
older
then
the
world
:
and
that
at
no
lesse
distance
,
then
there
is
between
time
and
eternity
.
And
more
strange
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
should
tell
us
gratis
,
that
it
is
Gods
immutable
purpose
,
without
so
much
as
pretending
the
least
jot
from
Scripture
;
where
either
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
the
Greek
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
we
are
wont
to
render
Covenant
or
Testament
,
may
be
taken
in
such
a
signification
:
which
appeare
not
,
either
in
the
Old
or
New-Testament
(
unlesse
where
they
are
used
Metonymically
,
or
Metaphorically
,
or
other
wayes
tropically
)
in
any
other
sense
,
then
of
a
Law
,
or
a
Testament
,
or
a
Convention
.
And
most
strange
,
that
he
should
also
tell
us
gratis
that
it
is
called
an
everlasting
Covenant
,
2
Sam.
23.
5.
not
onely
a
parte
post
,
but
a
parte
ante
,
not
onely
as
hauing
no
end
,
but
also
as
not
having
beginning
:
when
the
Hebrew
word
will
by
no
means
enforce
it
:
and
it
is
most
certaine
,
that
that
Covenant
made
with
David
had
a
beginning
,
recorded
,
2
Sam.
7.
16
,
19.
and
all
the
places
mentioned
in
the
margine
,
as
Gen.
17.
7.
&c.
Do
also
speak
of
such
everlasting
Covenants
,
as
we
know
were
not
without
beginning
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Eyre
doth
afterwards
acknowledge
,
that
notwithstanding
this
Covenant
be
eternall
;
yet
there
are
more
especially
three
periods
of
time
,
wherein
God
may
be
said
to
make
this
Covenant
with
us
.
As
1.
Immediately
upon
the
fall
of
Adam
.
2.
At
the
death
of
Christ
.
3.
When
God
bestowes
on
men
the
benefits
of
the
Covenant
.
If
we
are
properly
in
Covenant
from
eternity
,
there
is
no
act
of
God
in
time
by
which
we
are
brought
into
Covenant
:
nihil
agit
in
simile
,
therefore
these
three
periods
of
time
,
are
but
three
degrees
of
manifestation
that
we
are
in
Covenant
.
Accordingly
,
as
I
argued
before
in
the
matter
of
Justification
,
so
now
in
the
matter
of
the
Covenant
.
If
the
Covenant
of
grace
consist
essentially
in
Gods
eternal
purpose
of
blessing
the
elect
,
then
is
not
the
word
Covenant
(
that
Covenant
I
mean
by
which
the
elect
are
saved
)
taken
properly
in
all
the
Scriptures
:
forasmuch
as
it
no
where
signifies
the
foresaid
purpose
.
A
thing
as
incredible
and
abominable
as
the
former
.
But
let
us
farther
examine
this
undenyable
truth
.
If
the
foresaid
Mr.
Eyre
answers
.
Though
we
do
not
say
that
Christ
procured
the
Covenant
(
he
might
have
added
,
and
therein
we
agree
with
the
Socinians
)
yet
we
say
,
the
effects
of
the
Covenant
,
or
the
mercies
themselves
,
were
all
of
them
obtained
by
the
blood
of
Christ
;
as
deliverance
from
the
curse
,
inherent
holinesse
,
&c.
Rep.
Such
a
salve
for
the
honour
of
Christs
merits
,
I
remember
we
had
before
in
the
matter
of
Justification
.
viz.
That
Christ
merited
the
effects
of
Justification
,
not
the
act
:
even
as
he
merited
the
effects
of
election
,
but
not
the
act
.
As
if
the
reason
were
the
same
between
a
particular
univocall
cause
(
such
as
Justification
is
)
determined
to
a
particular
kind
of
effect
(
which
causes
do
alwayes
produce
their
effects
immediately
,
without
the
intervention
of
any
other
cause
:
)
and
an
universal
cause
of
severall
heterogeneous
effects
(
such
as
election
is
)
and
therefore
produceth
nothing
but
by
the
sub-serviency
of
those
severall
kinds
of
causes
▪
ordained
to
their
severall
kinds
of
works
;
But
the
like
distinction
here
,
between
the
Covenant
and
its
effects
is
of
worse
consequence
if
I
mistake
not
.
Therefore
against
Mr.
Eyres
answer
,
I
have
these
things
to
object
.
1.
It
makes
void
the
death
of
Christ
:
for
if
the
elect
,
before
the
death
of
Christ
,
haue
a
foederall
right
to
the
blessings
of
the
Covenant
,
then
they
are
righteous
before
his
death
:
(
for
to
be
righteous
by
righteousnesse
imputed
,
and
to
have
right
to
blessednesse
are
inse
parable
.
)
But
Christ
is
dead
in
vain
if
righteousnesse
comes
by
any
other
way
or
cause
then
his
death
,
Gal.
2.
21.
2.
If
the
Elect
are
in
Covenant
before
the
death
of
the
Mediatour
,
they
must
have
the
blessings
of
the
Covenant
whether
he
die
or
no
;
for
every
Covenant
induceth
an
obligation
in
point
of
faithfulnesse
(
at
least
)
upon
the
Covenanter
to
fulfill
his
Covenant
.
If
then
God
have
made
a
Covenant
before
the
death
of
Christ
with
the
Elect
,
what
should
hinder
their
receiving
these
blessings
without
his
death
?
Either
God
is
unable
to
fulfill
his
covenant
:
(
but
he
is
Almighty
,
)
or
he
is
unfaithful
,
(
but
he
is
a
God
that
keepeth
covenant
:
)
or
our
sin
hinders
,
(
but
he
hath
covenanted
before
the
death
of
Christ
,
that
sin
shall
not
hinder
:
for
pardon
of
sin
is
a
special
branch
of
the
covenant
.
)
Or
finally
he
hath
covenanted
to
give
us
these
blessings
through
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
no
otherwise
.
But
then
we
are
not
in
covenant
before
the
consideration
of
Christs
death
:
and
besides
,
(
which
I
most
stick
at
)
then
the
whole
reason
why
God
should
punish
his
deare
and
only
Sonne
so
grievously
is
this
,
it
was
his
pleasure
so
to
do
.
But
surely
he
that
doth
not
afflict
men
meerly
because
he
will
,
Lam.
3.
33.
would
much
lesse
deal
so
with
his
Son
.
3.
Either
Christ
and
his
merits
are
part
of
the
blessings
of
this
covenant
,
or
no.
If
they
be
,
then
it
is
false
that
Christ
merits
all
the
effects
and
blessings
of
the
covenant
:
for
he
did
not
merit
that
himself
might
merit
,
or
be
by
his
death
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
blessings
.
If
not
,
then
the
New-Covenant
is
never
a
whit
better
or
more
excellent
then
the
Old
.
The
first
covenant
was
faulty
,
because
it
could
not
bring
sinners
to
perfect
happinesse
,
Heb.
8.
7
,
8
,
9.
and
7.
19.
Rom.
8.
3.
If
the
New-Covenant
cannot
give
us
the
blessednesse
it
promiseth
,
unlesse
Christ
merit
and
bring
forth
the
effects
thereof
,
then
is
it
altogether
as
impotent
and
unprofitable
as
the
old
:
a
faire
advancement
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
4.
Nor
can
I
conceive
how
this
eternal
Covenant
can
consist
with
what
Mr.
Eyre
hath
hitherto
been
disputing
for
,
viz.
That
the
New
Covenant
was
made
with
Christ
:
he
performed
the
conditions
,
and
we
receive
the
benefit
.
Christs
death
was
either
the
condition
of
the
Covenant
,
or
of
the
effect
of
it
.
Not
the
former
,
if
it
consist
in
Gods
purpose
;
Mr.
Eyre
knows
how
our
Divines
disgust
a
conditional
purpose
in
God
.
And
how
it
should
be
the
condition
of
the
effects
,
when
it
is
not
the
condition
of
the
Covenant
it self
,
I
cannot
reach
.
I
know
Mr.
Eyre
will
tell
me
that
there
are
no
conditions
of
Gods
purpose
,
and
yet
there
may
be
and
are
conditions
of
the
things
purposed
:
But
then
that
purpose
is
not
a
covenanr
properly
so
called
:
Metaphorically
,
it
may
be
,
it
may
so
be
called
:
but
then
it
is
such
a
Covenant
as
is
neither
made
with
man
nor
with
Christ
,
but
with
God
himself
:
being
no
more
then
his
own
resolution
within
himself
.
And
yet
the
foresaid
position
,
viz.
That
there
are
no
conditions
of
Gods
purpose
,
though
there
are
causes
of
conditions
of
the
things
purposed
,
had
need
of
a
distinction
too
;
for
so
farre
forth
as
they
are
the
effects
of
purpose
,
they
have
no
other
cause
or
condition
:
and
so
farre
forth
as
they
have
other
conditions
or
causes
,
they
are
not
the
effects
of
purpose
.
The
existence
and
order
of
the
things
purposed
is
from
Gods
purpose
.
For
example
,
he
did
purpose
that
first
he
would
give
up
his
Sonne
to
death
for
us
,
then
call
us
,
then
justifie
us
,
then
glorifie
us
,
and
had
there
been
nothing
else
but
Gods
purpose
,
these
foure
had
been
the
simple
successive
effects
of
his
purpose
;
but
had
not
had
the
relation
of
cause
and
effect
amongst
themselves
.
That
Christs
death
merits
our
salvation
is
not
from
Gods
purpose
,
but
from
the
convention
between
the
Father
and
him
.
That
faith
is
the
condition
of
justification
,
and
glorification
is
from
the
promise
of
grace
made
with
us
:
That
glorification
is
also
a
reward
,
is
from
the
same
promise
:
That
it
is
not
only
a
consequent
but
an
effect
of
our
justification
,
ariseth
from
the
nature
of
that
act
,
as
being
an
adjudging
unto
glory
:
that
it
is
an
inheritance
,
is
because
it
is
given
by
Testament
.
Wherefore
all
these
purposed
acts
of
God
may
be
considered
,
either
simply
,
ratione
existentiae
,
in
respect
of
their
existence
,
and
so
they
have
no
other
cause
but
his
purpose
:
or
quoad
modum
essendi
,
according
to
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
habitude
or
relation
which
they
have
one
to
another
in
their
execution
,
arising
either
from
the
nature
of
the
things
themselves
,
or
some
Law
,
Covenant
and
constitution
of
God
;
and
thus
they
are
not
the
effects
of
his
purpose
.
But
I
have
been
two
long
in
my
reply
to
this
answer
of
Mr.
Eyres
:
A
word
more
to
prove
that
Gods
eternal
purpose
is
not
the
New
Covenant
,
and
I
passe
on
.
That
Covenant
which
is
of
the
same
common
nature
with
those
Gal.
3.
15.
Brethren
,
I
speak
after
the
manner
of
men
,
though
it
be
but
a
mans
Covenant
,
yet
if
it
be
confirmed
,
no
man
disannulleth
or
addeth
thereto
,
and
ver.
17.
And
this
I
say
,
that
the
Covenant
which
was
confirmed
before
of
God
in
Christ
,
&c.
Where
the
whole
strength
of
the
argument
lyes
upon
this
supposition
,
that
the
covenant
made
with
Abraham
was
a
true
formall
Covenant
or
Promise
,
such
as
usually
passeth
between
man
and
man
.
See
to
the
same
purpose
,
Heb.
9.
15
,
16
,
17.
many
more
arguments
I
could
adde
if
need
were
.
SECT.
III.
The
direct
answer
to
the
Argument
,
and
the
proof
of
it
out
of
so
it
should
have
been
printed
,
not
the
conclusion
;
and
so
it
is
printed
in
the
second
Edition
of
my
Sermon
)
is
the
only
support
of
Mr.
Eyres
Argument
.
1.
There
is
the
matter
and
blessings
of
the
Covenant
on
Gods
part
:
I
will
be
their
God
and
they
shall
be
my
people
.
2.
The
bond
and
condition
of
it
on
our
part
:
and
that
is
faith
,
in
those
words
,
I
will
put
my
Lawes
in
their
mindes
,
&c.
In
these
two
things
is
the
tenor
and
formality
of
the
new
Covenant
;
They
that
believe
,
the
Lord
will
be
their
God
,
and
they
shall
be
his
people
.
3.
There
is
also
a
promise
and
declaration
that
God
will
work
this
condition
,
by
which
men
shall
have
an
interest
in
this
Covenant
and
a
right
and
title
to
the
blessings
of
it
.
I
will
put
my
Lawes
into
their
mindes
,
that
is
,
I
will
give
them
faith
:
which
faith
is
not
promised
as
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
already
made
,
but
as
a
means
by
which
we
are
brought
into
Covenant
,
and
thereby
invested
in
a
right
to
all
the
blessings
of
it
,
&c.
That
this
is
the
true
meaning
of
the
text
(
Reader
)
thou
shalt
see
proved
below
:
In
the
mean
time
(
according
to
my
promise
)
take
a
farther
Explication
of
the
words
which
I
shall
set
down
in
distinct
propositions
,
that
Mr.
Eyre
may
see
what
little
ground
my
words
afford
him
of
all
his
wonderments
and
paratragediations
.
Prop.
1.
The
Old
and
New
Covenant
so
called
,
ver.
8.
and
13.
Prop.
2.
Therefore
that
which
is
called
the
New
Covenant
,
and
described
,
ver.
10
,
11
,
12.
doth
not
containe
the
form
and
tenour
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
;
but
only
the
differences
between
the
Old
Covenant
and
the
New
,
and
the
matter
wherein
the
latter
excells
the
former
.
And
that
the
name
of
a
Covenant
is
given
to
it
,
doth
not
alter
the
case
:
it
being
so
frequent
in
Scripture
to
use
the
name
of
Covenant
,
when
not
the
forme
,
but
the
matter
or
quality
and
efficacy
of
it
is
signified
,
2
Cor.
3.
14.
Rom.
9.
4.
1
King
.
8.
21.
Hos.
2.
18.
Job
5.
23
,
&c.
Prop.
3.
The
differences
between
the
Old
Covenant
on
the
one
side
,
and
the
new
on
the
other
are
thus
stated
in
the
text
.
The
Old
in
generall
is
called
faulty
,
ver.
7
,
8.
and
the
faultinesse
of
it
described
in
two
particulars
.
1.
That
it
could
not
give
strength
and
ability
to
the
people
to
fulfill
it
,
and
by
consequence
,
2.
That
it
could
not
make
them
blessed
in
the
favour
and
enjoyment
of
God
,
ver.
9.
They
continued
not
in
my
Covenant
,
and
I
regarded
them
not
,
saith
the
Lord
.
In
respect
of
which
it
is
elsewhere
called
weak
and
unprofitable
and
unable
to
make
any
thing
perfect
,
chap.
7.
18
,
19.
compare
also
Rom.
8.
3.
and
Gal.
3.
21.
On
the
contrary
,
the
New
Covenant
in
general
is
called
better
,
ver.
6.
and
its
betternesse
(
beare
with
the
Anglicisme
)
expressed
in
two
opposite
respects
.
1.
That
it
should
minister
ability
and
strength
to
keep
Covenant
.
2.
And
by
consequence
perfect
the
people
in
the
favour
and
enjoyment
of
God
,
ver.
10.
I
will
put
my
Lawes
into
their
minde
.
—
And
I
will
be
to
them
a
God
,
and
they
shall
be
to
me
a
people
.
The
former
of
which
is
farther
illustrated
,
ver.
11.
They
shall
all
know
me
,
&c.
and
the
latter
,
ver.
12.
I
will
be
mercifull
to
their
unrighteousnesse
,
&c.
Hence
the
new
Covenant
is
elsewhere
called
a
ministration
of
the
Spirit
,
Life
and
righteousnesse
,
2
Cor.
3.
6
,
8
,
9.
Prop.
4.
From
what
hath
been
said
it
appeares
,
that
the
Apostle
in
this
place
is
so
far
from
denying
the
Covenant
of
Grace
(
formally
so
taken
)
to
have
any
conditions
,
as
that
he
doth
plainly
suppose
the
contrary
.
1.
In
that
he
saith
the
New
Covenant
hath
its
Lawes
as
well
as
the
Old
,
ver.
6.
He
is
the
Mediatour
of
a
better
Covenant
established
upon
better
promises
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
enacted
.
The
word
implies
that
the
New
Covenant
is
also
a
Law
requiring
something
of
us
;
that
we
may
obtain
the
blessings
of
it
:
though
it
be
enacted
upon
better
promises
:
it
being
promised
long
before
,
that
this
Covenant
should
make
us
perfect
,
and
not
the
former
.
2.
Because
one
great
part
of
the
perfection
of
this
Covenant
consists
in
this
,
that
it
should
have
vertue
to
enable
us
to
keep
it
,
or
to
preserve
us
from
breaking
it
,
(
as
Israel
brake
the
former
)
which
were
no
perfection
at
all
,
if
the
said
Covenant
had
no
condition
in
it
which
we
were
bound
to
keep
.
Let
us
now
see
what
Mr.
Eyre
objects
against
my
exposition
.
First
he
denyes
.
That
the
whole
matter
,
and
all
the
benefits
of
I
will
be
their
God
,
and
they
shall
be
my
people
,
That
promise
being
not
put
alone
,
but
with
other
promises
,
denotes
one
particular
blessing
.
Rep.
The
contrary
is
evident
from
the
opposition
here
made
between
the
old
Covenant
and
the
New
.
For
I
will
be
their
God
(
in
the
new
Covenant
)
is
directly
opposed
to
,
I
regarded
them
not
(
in
the
old
.
)
Therefore
as
Gods
not
regarding
them
,
was
not
one
particular
evil
,
but
containes
all
the
miseries
which
befell
them
for
their
breach
of
that
Covenant
:
so
on
the
contrary
,
I
will
be
their
God
containes
all
the
comfort
and
blessednesse
which
is
given
them
by
this
.
And
indeed
the
most
frequent
sense
in
which
that
phrase
(
I
will
be
their
God
)
is
used
in
Scripture
,
is
to
denote
God
to
be
a
benefactor
liberally
giving
whatsoever
pertaines
,
adde
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
welfare
and
felicity
of
his
people
,
Psal.
144.
15.
Exod.
3.
15.
Rev.
21.
7.
Jer.
7.
23.
with
Deut.
26.
3.
and
Exod.
19.
5.
and
Lev.
26.
12.
Rev.
21.
3
,
4.
and
other
places
innumerable
.
Nor
can
I
find
it
so
much
as
once
in
all
the
Scriptures
,
whether
by
it self
or
joyned
with
other
promises
,
where
,
with
any
shew
of
reason
,
it
can
be
confined
to
one
particular
benefit
.
Nor
doth
Mr.
Eyre
pretend
any
Scripture
for
it
,
but
his
own
word
only
.
But
what
is
that
one
particular
blessing
which
it
must
denote
?
Either
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
the
formal
part
of
mans
happiness
which
consists
in
the
fruition
and
enjoyment
of
God
.
Rep.
But
that
cannot
be
the
meaning
here
,
because
then
,
God
by
the
New
Covenant
is
not
the
God
of
any
while
they
live
in
this
world
,
which
though
it
be
true
in
regard
of
the
perfection
and
full
enjoyment
of
those
blessings
which
God
promiseth
,
when
he
sayes
,
I
will
be
their
God
:
yet
in
respect
of
all
degrees
of
enjoyment
it
is
false
for
in
the
New
Covenant
he
promiseth
the
pardon
of
sin
,
Heb.
8.
12.
which
is
a
speciall
blessing
contained
in
the
said
words
,
I
will
be
their
God
,
Rom.
3.
29
,
30.
Or
2.
(
saith
he
)
It
relates
to
the
knowledge
of
our
interest
and
propriety
in
him
.
Thus
,
I
will
be
their
God
,
is
as
much
as
,
they
shall
know
that
I
am
their
God
,
and
that
they
are
my
people
.
Rep.
Nor
can
this
be
the
meaning
.
1.
Either
this
knowledge
results
from
the
experience
of
Gods
being
their
God
:
and
then
we
are
to
seek
,
as
much
as
before
,
what
it
is
for
God
to
be
their
God
.
Or
from
partaking
in
some
other
blessings
,
mentioned
in
this
description
of
the
New
Covenant
:
and
then
that
grand
promise
,
I
will
be
their
God
,
promiseth
just
nothing
upon
the
matter
,
for
if
the
meaning
be
,
such
and
such
blessings
will
I
give
them
,
and
thereby
they
shall
know
that
I
am
their
God
:
this
promiseth
nothing
;
but
only
declares
how
excellent
those
benefits
shall
be
,
such
as
shall
evidence
plainly
that
God
is
their
God
:
and
thus
the
grand
pro●ise
of
grace
will
be
made
a
nullity
.
2.
Mr.
Eyre
should
also
have
taken
some
paines
to
allay
the
harshnesse
of
his
interpretation
.
I
will
be
their
God
,
that
is
,
they
shall
know
that
I
am
their
God
.
If
I
had
taken
this
liberty
of
interpre●ing
,
he
had
accused
me
justly
of
chopping
and
changing
the
Word
of
God
at
pleasure
.
3.
When
God
promiseth
to
be
their
God
,
he
promiseth
that
which
is
contrary
to
his
not
regarding
them
;
But
his
not
regarding
them
was
not
meerly
his
not
manifesting
himself
to
them
to
be
their
God
:
Ergo
,
his
being
their
God
is
not
meerly
his
making
them
to
know
that
he
is
their
God
.
Or
3.
(
Saith
he
)
I
will
be
their
God
,
&c.
imports
as
much
as
I
will
protect
them
,
and
they
shall
worship
me
.
Rep.
But
what
is
that
protection
?
If
it
impart
our
whole
deliverance
from
all
spirituall
enemies
and
miseries
,
and
the
bestowing
of
all
good
which
makes
us
happy
;
then
it
is
the
thing
which
I
contend
for
.
If
of
any
particular
deliverance
or
any
one
particular
blessing
,
shew
us
what
it
is
:
and
that
I
will
be
their
God
is
taken
so
much
as
once
(
as
many
scores
of
times
as
it
is
used
in
Scripture
)
so
restrainedly
.
Next
he
denyes
that
in
these
words
,
I
will
put
my
Lawes
in
their
and
then
tells
me
of
Dr.
Tw●sse
,
Dr.
Preston
,
Mr.
Strong
,
Mr.
Baxter
,
who
all
acknowledge
that
this
Text
expresseth
an
absolute
Covenant
.
Rep.
Indeed
the
words
have
not
the
forme
of
a
precept
:
nor
did
any
man
ever
dreame
that
they
had
(
as
I
know
of
.
)
But
they
do
declare
that
the
New
Covenant
shall
be
so
much
better
then
the
Old
,
as
to
enable
us
to
fulfill
the
precept
and
condition
of
it
,
which
the
Old
could
not
do
:
For
as
it
was
the
faultinesse
and
imperfection
of
the
Old
Covenant
,
that
the
people
brake
it
:
so
is
it
the
excellency
of
the
new
,
that
it
shall
enable
them
to
fulfill
it
.
The
new
covenant
then
hath
a
condition
as
well
as
the
old
:
or
else
it
hath
no
glory
above
the
old
in
this
respect
,
that
it
ministreth
strength
to
fulfill
it
.
Is
Mr.
Eyre
satisfied
now
?
or
will
he
shew
me
wherein
any
of
the
Authors
mentioned
contradict
this
:
though
I
will
not
be
bound
to
justifie
all
the
expressions
of
every
one
of
them
.
And
when
he
addes
in
the
words
following
(
by
way
of
scorne
)
That
I
may
as
well
say
,
that
the
bond
and
condition
of
the
covenant
on
our
part
,
is
expressed
in
that
clause
,
I
will
be
their
God
:
which
,
one
would
have
the
condition
of
the
covenant
on
our
part
▪
who
that
one
is
,
I
do
not
know
:
but
I
know
one
who
may
stand
in
steed
of
many
hundreds
,
[
d
](A96867-e70220-b)
d
Thes.
4.
pag.
109.
ex
Gen.
17.
1.
Hos.
2.
16.
23.
Dr.
John
Reyn●lds
,
who
was
accounted
the
ornament
and
wonder
of
his
age
for
piety
and
learning
;
that
doth
so
expound
those
words
:
and
that
from
one
who
is
above
all
,
even
God
himself
:
who
doth
plainly
so
sense
the
words
in
some
places
,
D●●t
.
26.
17
,
18.
Zech.
13.
9.
Neverthelesse
I
did
wave
this
interpretation
in
this
place
:
and
interpret
both
clauses
,
I
will
be
their
God
,
and
they
shall
be
my
people
,
as
expressing
one
and
the
same
thing
,
in
reference
to
two
tearmes
,
(
as
when
it
is
said
,
I
wi●l
be
their
father
,
and
they
shall
be
my
children
)
because
whatsoever
is
essentiall
to
the
taking
of
the
Lord
for
our
God
.
I
conceive
to
be
included
in
the
words
foregoing
,
I
will
write
my
Laws
in
their
hearts
,
&c.
Whereas
I
said
,
that
faith
is
not
promised
as
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
,
cause
us
to
walk
in
his
statutes
.
Is
it
therefore
no
duty
of
ours
to
walk
in
his
statutes
?
In
the
same
chapter
,
v.
26.
he
promiseth
to
give
a
new
heart
and
a
new
Spirit
:
yet
are
we
elsewhere
commanded
to
make
as
a
new
heart
and
a
new
Spirit
,
Ezek.
18.
31
God
hath
promised
to
circumcise
our
hearts
to
love
him
,
Deut.
30.
6.
Yet
is
it
our
duty
to
circumcise
our
hearts
.
Jer.
4.
4.
And
may
not
then
faith
be
promised
,
and
that
as
the
condition
or
meanes
by
which
we
are
brought
into
Covenant
?
Mr.
Eyre
.
2.
If
the
promise
of
faith
be
a
part
of
the
new
Covenant
;
then
faith
it self
is
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
,
or
a
benefit
given
by
virtue
of
it
;
But
the
promise
of
faith
,
is
part
of
the
new
Covenant
;
Ergo.
Rep.
I
deny
the
Assumption
.
The
new
Covenant
worketh
or
begetteth
faith
,
but
it
doth
not
promise
it
.
Note
therefore
(
Reader
)
that
there
is
a
great
difference
between
what
is
promised
concerning
the
new
Covenant
,
and
what
the
new
Covenant
promiseth
.
Concerning
the
new
Covenant
,
it
was
promised
that
it
should
be
effectual
to
quicken
the
soul
,
and
cause
it
to
beleeve
:
but
it self
doth
not
promise
to
make
us
beleeve
.
If
it
did
,
forasmuch
as
that
can
be
no
other
then
an
absolute
promise
,
then
God
doth
promise
in
the
Old-Testament
(
namely
Jer.
31.
31.
)
that
he
will
promise
faith
in
the
New
.
But
a
promise
to
promise
,
and
that
to
the
very
same
persons
,
concerning
the
same
benefit
,
is
so
contrary
to
reason
,
and
runs
such
an
infinite
course
of
promising
,
without
beginning
or
ending
,
that
it
may
not
be
admitted
.
But
how
doth
Mr.
Eyre
prove
his
Assumption
?
Thus.
All
the
promises
of
God
do
belong
either
to
the
Covenaut
of
works
,
or
to
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
The
promise
of
faith
is
no
part
of
the
Covenant
of
works
;
Ergo
,
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
Rep.
I
deny
the
proposition
.
The
promise
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
it self
,
Of
which
Covenant
is
it
a
part
?
of
the
Covenant
of
works
?
or
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
?
not
of
the
former
,
for
that
promiseth
no
good
to
sinners
.
Not
of
the
latter
:
for
the
Covenant
it self
is
the
thing
promised
.
If
then
the
Covenant
it self
may
be
promised
,
and
yet
that
promise
be
no
part
of
the
Covenant
:
may
it
not
also
be
promised
to
be
in
such
a
manner
or
degree
more
or
lesse
efficacious
,
and
perfect
,
and
yet
that
promise
in
like
manner
be
no
part
of
the
said
Covenant
?
Hence
we
answer
the
third
argument
.
If
the
promise
of
faith
be
an
effect
of
Christs
death
,
then
it
is
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
already
made
:
for
all
the
effects
of
his
death
,
are
effects
of
the
Covenant
which
was
confirmed
by
his
death
.
Rep.
I
deny
the
consequence
with
the
proof
of
it
.
Not
to
question
againe
whether
Christ
merited
the
Covenant
:
M.
Eyre
here
acknowledgeth
that
he
confirmed
it
in
his
death
;
But
that
which
confirmes
the
Covenant
,
is
no
part
of
the
Covenant
:
for
the
whole
Covenant
is
the
thing
confirmed
;
Ergo
all
the
effects
of
Christs
death
are
not
the
effects
of
the
Covenant
which
God
hath
made
with
us
.
Yea
and
the
preaching
of
the
Gospell
to
all
nations
(
Gentiles
as
well
as
Jews
)
that
they
thereby
might
be
brought
into
Covenant
,
is
an
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
Eph.
2.
16
,
17.
Colos.
1.
20.
But
affording
the
means
by
which
men
may
be
brought
into
covenant
,
is
not
an
effect
of
the
covenant
.
In
like
manner
,
the
promise
of
a
better
covenant
,
which
God
would
make
in
the
dayes
of
Christ
(
a
covenant
more
able
,
and
successefull
in
all
respects
)
may
be
very
well
yeelded
to
●●
the
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
:
but
it
will
by
no
means
foll●●
that
therefore
that
promise
is
also
an
effect
of
the
Covenant
promised
.
4ly
.
Thus
he
speaks
.
The
Scripture
no
where
affirmes
that
faith
is
promised
as
a
means
to
bring
us
into
covenant
,
or
to
invest
us
with
a
right
and
title
thereunto
.
Rep.
Nor
doth
it
any
where
say
:
that
it
is
promised
as
a
part
of
the
Covenant
already
made
with
us
.
But
it
sayes
that
in
sense
which
Mr.
Eyre
denyes
,
and
that
in
this
very
place
:
supposing
(
which
Mr.
Eyre
hath
not
hitherto
denyed
)
that
faith
is
included
in
those
words
,
I
will
put
my
laws
into
their
minds
,
&c.
For
in
these
words
(
as
we
are
forced
often
to
note
)
is
declared
the
successe
of
the
new
covenant
above
the
old
,
that
it
should
enable
men
to
beleeve
;
that
God
may
be
their
God
,
and
they
his
people
.
But
if
it
were
not
promised
in
this
place
,
yet
the
constant
voyce
of
the
Gospel
is
;
beleeve
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
Which
words
shew
,
that
faith
is
the
means
by
which
we
obtaine
the
blessings
of
the
Covenant
.
What
saith
Mr.
Eyre
against
it
?
Nothing
but
this
:
we
may
as
well
make
Baptisme
,
Sanctification
,
Perseverance
,
&c.
(
to
which
the
promise
of
salvation
is
sometimes
annexed
)
means
to
bring
us
into
Covenant
.
Rep.
Alas
!
how
frigidly
?
where
is
the
Scripture
that
saith
,
Be
baptized
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
?
or
where
doth
it
say
to
men
that
are
strangers
from
the
covenant
,
persevere
and
you
shall
be
saved
?
Indeed
they
that
have
already
received
Christ
,
are
wont
to
be
exhorted
to
holinesse
,
and
perseverance
in
the
faith
,
that
they
may
not
lose
or
forfeit
their
right
,
Rev.
22.
14.
and
21.
7.
2
John
8.
Heb.
4.
1.
&c.
But
our
first
entrance
into
covenant
is
never
ascribed
to
either
of
them
.
But
Mr.
Eyre
shall
have
measure
pressed
down
and
running
over
,
I
meane
,
many
plaine
testimonies
of
Scripture
where
faith
is
promised
as
a
meanes
to
bring
us
into
Covenant
with
God
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
A
reply
to
Mr.
Eyrs
twentieth
chapter
,
containing
the
solution
of
his
Arguments
,
tending
to
prove
,
that
God
is
the
God
of
his
people
before
they
beleeve
.
SECT.
I.
FRom
the
Apostles
description
of
the
New
Covenant
,
that
God
is
the
God
of
his
people
before
they
beleeve
.
Let
us
take
them
in
their
order
.
First
,
If
God
be
their
God
whom
he
doth
peculiarly
love
,
But
God
is
their
God
whom
he
hath
chosen
.
Answ.
If
by
choosing
be
meant
from
eternity
,
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
,
Eph.
1.
4.
I
deny
the
Minor
,
God
is
never
said
in
Scripture
to
be
the
God
of
any
in
reference
to
his
eternal
election
of
them
:
that
being
no
more
then
a
purpose
of
making
them
his
people
,
and
of
becoming
a
God
to
them
.
God
is
not
the
God
of
them
that
are
not
,
Matth.
22.
32.
Let
us
see
the
proofes
.
God
was
the
God
of
Israel
:
now
he
became
their
God
by
setting
his
love
upon
them
and
chusing
them
,
and
by
separating
them
from
other
people
,
Deut.
7.
6
,
7
,
8.
Lev.
20.
24
,
25.
Answ.
1.
I
deny
,
that
either
the
chusing
of
them
,
Deut.
7.
or
the
separating
of
them
,
Lev.
20.
are
to
be
understood
of
eternal
election
;
of
which
neverthelesse
Mr.
Eyre
pretends
to
be
understood
in
his
Major
,
by
quoting
for
proof
,
Eph.
1.
4.
otherwise
I
would
have
denyed
the
Major
for
even
in
vocation
(
which
also
is
sometimes
in
Scripture
called
choosing
,
as
we
have
shewed
elsewhere
,
God
separates
men
to
himself
from
the
rest
of
mankind
:
yet
will
it
by
no
means
follow
that
therefore
he
is
the
God
of
some
that
believe
not
:
for
vocation
is
the
giving
of
faith
.
As
to
the
texts
before
us
,
it
is
manifest
that
the
chusing
,
spoken
of
,
Deut.
7.
is
a
temporall
act
,
for
the
cause
of
it
is
set
down
,
ver.
8.
Because
he
would
keep
the
oath
which
he
had
sworne
unto
their
Fathers
:
expressed
more
plainely
,
chap.
4.
37.
Because
he
loved
their
Fathers
,
therefore
he
chose
their
seed
after
them
.
So
also
chap.
10.
15.
2.
Much
lesse
is
it
said
,
that
this
love
or
chusing
them
was
the
thing
in
respect
of
which
he
is
said
to
be
their
God
and
they
his
people
:
but
the
contrary
is
implyed
,
verse
6.
The
Lord
thy
God
hath
chosen
thee
to
be
a
special
people
to
himself
above
all
people
,
&c.
Where
the
making
of
them
to
be
his
people
(
which
also
includes
the
correlate
of
becoming
their
God
)
is
mentioned
as
the
end
and
effect
of
his
chusing
them
:
which
effect
,
when
it
is
wrought
is
easie
to
learne
from
Exod.
19.
5.
Now
therefore
if
you
will
obey
my
voice
indeed
,
and
keep
my
Covenant
,
then
ye
shall
be
a
peculiar
treasure
unto
me
above
all
people
.
Again
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
the
Lord
,
Ezek.
16
8.
declares
concerning
spiritual
Israel
,
that
they
became
his
,
whilest
they
were
in
their
blood
;
that
he
sware
unto
them
and
entred
into
Covenant
with
them
:
which
swearing
,
as
it
referres
to
spiritual
Israel
must
be
understood
of
the
oath
which
he
made
to
Christ
concerning
the
blessing
of
his
seed
.
Answ.
Nothing
but
uncertainties
.
1.
It
is
not
faire
in
a
dispute
to
ground
a
conclusion
upon
Types
,
unlesse
we
have
firme
demonstrations
of
the
Antitype
.
Mr.
Eyre
should
therefore
prove
that
the
words
there
spoken
are
not
peculiar
to
Israel
in
the
letter
.
2.
That
the
spiritual
Israel
typified
are
the
Elect
as
such
,
and
not
believers
as
such
.
3.
That
the
Israel
there
spoken
of
were
his
,
before
he
entred
into
Covenant
with
them
.
The
text
is
expresse
against
it
.
I
entred
into
Covenant
with
thee
,
and
thou
becamest
mine
;
Which
way
doth
this
prove
that
Gods
eternall
Election
is
the
thing
in
respect
of
which
he
is
our
God
and
we
his
people
?
4.
That
the
said
Covenant
was
a
type
of
the
Covenant
made
with
Christ
.
Yet
againe
,
The
Prophet
inferres
this
their
relation
unto
God
from
his
everlasting
love
,
Jeremiah
31.
1
,
3.
Answ.
Negatur
.
The
Apostle
likewise
,
Romans
8.
31.
Answer
.
Negatur
.
So
2
Tim.
2.
19.
The
foundation
of
God
standeth
sure
—
The
Lord
knoweth
who
are
his
.
Implying
,
that
the
Election
and
foreknowledge
of
God
doth
make
men
his
.
Ans.
Mr.
Eyre
knows
how
Mr.
Mede
and
others
expound
this
place
.
Prove
,
1.
That
by
Gods
foundation
and
knowledge
is
meant
his
Election
and
foreknowledg
.
2.
That
his
are
meant
of
,
his
by
Election
.
It
may
be
meant
of
such
as
are
his
by
sincerity
of
faith
.
3.
That
if
men
were
called
his
in
reference
to
his
Election
of
them
,
it
must
therefore
needs
be
understood
in
the
same
sense
,
as
when
he
is
said
to
be
our
God
and
we
his
people
.
The
second
Argument
is
this
.
God
is
a
God
not
only
to
his
Answ.
It
is
not
then
in
reference
to
Election
that
God
is
said
to
be
our
God
and
we
his
people
,
for
certainly
all
the
children
of
faithful
Parents
are
not
elected
.
2.
The
children
of
the
faithful
are
altogether
in
the
same
Covenant
with
their
Parents
,
whiles
by
reason
of
their
infant
age
,
they
are
in
morall
consideration
,
ra●●er
parts
of
their
parents
then
divided
from
them
by
a
personal
subsistence
of
their
own
,
as
not
being
then
able
either
to
owne
or
reject
their
Fathers
Covenant
:
Neverthelesse
when
they
come
of
age
they
must
themselves
answer
and
fulfill
the
conditions
of
the
Covenant
,
as
their
Fathers
did
:
else
will
God
call
them
(
as
he
did
Israel
,
Hos.
1.
6
,
9.
)
Lo
Ammi
,
&
Lo
Ruhama
;
ye
are
not
my
people
,
nor
will
I
be
your
God
;
And
thus
I
think
are
all
those
Covenants
to
be
understood
,
wherein
God
promiseth
mercy
to
the
faithful
and
to
their
seed
.
God
promised
mercy
to
David
and
his
house
,
yet
so
that
thy
children
take
heed
to
their
way
,
to
walk
in
my
Law
as
thou
hast
walked
before
me
,
2
Chron.
6.
16.
and
chap.
7.
17
,
18
,
19.
God
promised
mercy
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
:
by
vertue
of
which
promise
he
was
gracious
to
the
children
that
had
not
rebelled
against
him
:
though
the
same
promise
profited
not
their
Parents
because
of
their
unbelief
,
Deut.
1.
39
,
40.
With
Heb.
4.
1
,
2.
and
often
doth
the
Lord
require
of
them
to
return
to
him
,
and
obey
his
voice
,
that
he
might
give
them
the
blessings
of
their
Fathers
Covenant
.
See
Lev.
26.
40
,
41
,
42.
Deut.
29.
12
,
13.
and
other
places
innumerable
.
In
like
manner
the
promise
is
to
you
and
your
children
(
saith
Peter
)
Act.
2.
39.
therefore
are
they
exhorted
to
repent
and
be
baptized
,
that
they
and
their
children
might
continue
the
people
of
God
,
and
partake
in
the
full
blessednesse
promised
long
before
,
and
now
exhibited
in
Christ
Jesus
.
The
same
promise
is
left
to
all
in
the
Church
under
the
Gospel
,
Heb.
4.
1
,
2
,
&c.
But
it
concerns
them
to
see
that
they
do
not
fall
short
of
it
through
unbelief
,
as
the
Apostle
there
speaks
.
The
sum
is
,
God
is
the
God
of
the
infants
of
faithful
Parents
(
in
signe
whereof
they
are
baptized
.
)
But
they
when
they
are
grown
up
must
see
that
they
personally
fulfill
the
conditions
of
the
Covenant
:
otherwise
God
remaines
no
longer
their
God
;
unlesse
it
be
externall
,
and
in
regard
of
outward
Administrations
,
which
doth
not
concerne
our
question
.
Thirdly
,
thus
he
argues
.
They
whom
the
Lord
hath
purchased
Answ.
I
deny
this
proposition
.
Christ
purchased
his
wife
before
he
made
her
his
wife
:
and
he
purchased
a
people
out
of
the
hands
of
those
Lords
that
ruled
over
them
,
(
Sin
,
Satan
,
the
Law
,
)
and
God
himselfe
as
the
Judge
and
Executioner
of
his
Law
before
he
made
them
his
people
.
Indeed
Mr.
Eyre
tells
us
a
little
below
,
that
by
the
purchase
of
the
blood
of
Christ
we
were
made
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
peculiar
people
,
Tit.
2.
14.
when
the
text
saies
no
such
thing
,
but
the
just
contrary
.
He
gave
himself
for
us
that
he
might
purifie
to
himself
a
peculiar
people
zealous
of
good
works
.
He
might
as
well
say
that
by
the
death
of
Christ
immediately
we
are
made
zealous
of
good
works
,
or
redeemed
from
all
iniquity
,
that
is
,
made
to
deny
all
ungodlinesse
and
worldly
lusts
(
for
that
's
the
meaning
of
those
words
here
,
as
appears
by
their
opposition
to
verse
12.
)
That
which
makes
us
a
p●culiar
(
or
a
choise
and
excellent
)
people
is
Christs
purifying
us
:
which
purifying
being
the
effect
and
end
of
his
death
,
is
some
other
act
then
his
dying
for
us
.
Compare
Eph.
5.
25
,
26.
2.
This
Argument
contradicts
the
first
.
There
Mr.
Eyre
argued
that
God
was
our
God
and
we
his
people
by
the
act
of
eternal
election
:
if
that
be
true
,
then
the
purchase
of
Christ
is
not
that
which
immediately
makes
God
our
God
and
us
his
people
.
3.
The
promise
,
that
God
will
be
our
God
and
we
his
people
,
is
no
effect
of
Christs
death
if
his
purchase
immediately
made
,
that
God
was
our
God
and
we
his
people
;
for
what
was
already
done
could
not
be
promised
to
be
done
.
But
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
What
a
man
purchaseth
he
obtains
a
Legal
right
and
propriety
in
,
therefore
the
Apostle
concludes
from
hence
that
we
are
not
our
own
but
Gods
,
because
we
are
bought
with
a
price
,
1
Cor.
6.
19
,
20.
Answ.
A
right
!
Why
,
I
doubt
not
but
God
and
Christ
have
a
right
,
not
onely
by
creation
,
but
by
redemption
to
the
obedience
and
subjection
of
all
the
world
(
at
least
wheresoever
he
comes
by
the
Gospel
to
challenge
it
)
that
they
should
not
live
to
themselves
,
but
should
wholly
addict
themselves
to
glorifie
God
in
their
souls
and
bodies
.
Otherwise
let
Mr.
Eyre
tell
me
how
men
can
be
said
to
deny
the
Lord
that
bought
them
,
2
Pet.
2.
1.
2.
But
if
this
were
not
so
,
and
that
it
were
no
sin
in
men
to
deny
the
Redeemer
to
be
their
rightfull
Lord
(
as
the
Apostle
sayes
he
is
,
Rom.
14.
9.
)
What
hath
Mr.
Eyre
gained
?
If
I
buy
a
piece
of
Land
to
make
it
a
Garden
an
Orchard
,
or
a
Vineyard
,
't
is
neither
of
these
till
I
have
made
it
so
.
Or
,
if
I
purchase
a
servants
freedome
that
I
may
make
him
my
heire
;
some
other
act
besides
the
meer
purchase
is
necessary
that
he
may
be
my
heir
:
In
like
manner
,
if
Christ
purchase
sinners
,
that
he
may
purifie
them
and
make
them
his
peculiar
people
,
they
are
not
his
people
,
nor
is
he
their
God
,
meerly
because
of
his
purchase
.
See
Exod.
19.
5.
We
shall
cleare
all
this
by
a
distinction
at
the
end
of
Mr.
Eyres
Arguments
.
Mr.
Eyre
proceeds
fourthly
.
We
receive
faith
it self
upon
this
The
antecedent
he
proves
,
Gal.
4.
6.
Because
ye
are
sons
,
God
hath
sent
forth
the
Spirit
of
his
Son
into
your
hearts
,
crying
Abba
father
.
So.
Isa.
48.
17.
I
am
the
Lord
thy
God
which
teacheth
thee
to
prof●t
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
Antecedent
.
The
proof
is
such
as
I
never
expected
to
have
met
with
from
a
Scholar
and
a
Divine
.
To
Gal.
4.
6.
I
deny
that
the
Spirit
of
the
Sonne
there
mentioned
is
to
be
understood
of
faith
,
but
of
that
Spirit
of
prayer
(
which
includes
that
boldnesse
,
liberty
and
confidence
spiritual
)
which
God
gives
to
them
that
are
his
Sonnes
by
faith
;
For
we
are
the
Sonnes
of
God
by
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
saith
this
Apostle
,
not
farre
before
chap.
3.
26.
and
receive
the
Spirit
of
the
Sonne
through
faith
,
ver.
14.
a
Spirit
given
to
believers
,
not
a
Spirit
given
to
make
men
believers
,
Joh.
7.
38
,
39.
Rom
▪
8.
14
,
15.
for
we
are
believers
before
we
are
Sons
,
Joh.
1.
12.
as
to
the
other
text
,
Isa.
48.
17.
I
consent
to
Junius
that
the
meaning
is
,
Praesto
quod
mearum
est
partium
:
not
that
they
had
actually
believed
(
which
sense
the
very
next
ver.
contradicts
)
but
(
as
Piscator
in
his
Scholia
upon
the
place
)
because
he
had
taught
them
,
ea
quae
apta
,
vel
comparata
sunt
ad
prodessendum
,
those
things
which
if
they
had
observed
,
would
have
been
very
much
for
their
profit
and
advantage
.
Fifthly
,
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
.
)
None
do
or
can
believe
and
repent
Answ.
This
is
strange
Divinity
,
that
the
soul
must
be
assured
by
revelation
that
God
is
his
God
,
before
he
can
believe
or
repent
.
If
this
be
true
,
souls
are
in
worse
condition
after
they
have
repented
and
believed
then
before
:
many
faithful
souls
are
groaning
all
their
daies
after
this
manifestation
of
God
to
be
their
God
.
But
what
is
the
proof
?
We
ch●se
and
love
him
because
he
chose
and
loved
us
first
,
Joh.
15.
16.
1
Joh.
4.
10
,
19.
H●●
.
2.
23.
And
Burroughs
,
Rivet
and
Zanchy
are
quoted
to
prove
,
what
?
That
God
begins
with
us
first
,
and
makes
us
his
people
,
before
we
owne●
▪
him
for
our
God
.
Alas
,
the
thing
to
be
proved
is
,
not
that
God
gives
faith
and
repentance
(
of
which
there
was
never
an●
question
between
Mr.
Eyre
and
me
)
but
that
he
is
our
God
and
we
his
people
▪
before
he
give
it
us
:
we
have
shewed
from
Scripture
that
he
gives
faith
that
he
may
be
our
God
and
we
his
people
.
And
if
God
make
us
his
people
(
viz.
by
giving
us
faith
and
repentance
)
before
he
be
our
God
,
(
which
is
the
sense
of
the
Authours
whom
Mr.
Eyre
quotes
)
have
they
not
fairely
proved
his
proposition
,
viz.
That
none
can
believe
and
repent
but
they
to
whom
God
hath
manifested
himselfe
to
be
their
God
?
His
sixth
and
last
Argument
is
.
They
to
whom
God
is
a
Father
Joh.
10.
16.
Isa.
53.
10.
Heb.
2.
13.
Jer.
3.
19.
Answ.
I
deny
the
assumption
.
Indeed
the
Elect
are
called
the
sheep
of
Christ
,
Joh.
10.
16.
not
that
they
were
his
sheep
at
present
(
for
none
of
the
qualities
of
sheep
mentioned
or
not
ment
oned
in
that
Chapter
a
gree
to
men
dead
in
sinne
and
ungodlinesse
:
and
much
lesse
to
men
that
are
not
:
and
a
shepheard
actually
there
cannot
be
where
there
are
no
sheep
;
)
but
pro●eptically
from
what
they
should
be
:
of
which
manner
of
speech
we
have
given
many
instances
before
from
Scripture
.
Thus
saith
Abraham
to
his
servant
,
Gen.
24.
4
,
38.
Thou
shalt
go
unto
my
kindred
and
take
a
wife
unto
my
Son
Isaac
.
Not
that
she
was
his
wife
,
or
any
mans
else
before
he
took
her
:
but
because
she
was
to
be
made
his
wife
,
or
she
whom
God
had
appointed
for
him
,
ver.
44.
and
if
Abraham
knowing
Rebeckah
,
had
said
to
his
man
(
as
is
usual
to
be
said
amongst
our selves
in
like
cases
)
I
have
a
wife
for
my
son
in
such
a
place
:
it
would
have
argued
no
more
,
then
that
he
had
an
intention
(
if
he
could
)
to
make
such
a
one
his
sonnes
wife
.
Thus
[
a
](A96867-e75490-b)
a
Q●est
.
super
.
L●v●t
.
cap.
23.
&
Hieron
.
in
Ez●k.
30.
Augustine
observes
,
that
before
the
ordination
and
sanctification
of
the
Priests
,
they
are
yet
called
by
the
name
of
Priests
,
Exod.
19.
22.
Non
quia
jam
sacerdotes
erant
,
sed
quia
futuri
erant
,
hoc
eos
jam
tunc
Scriptura
app●llavit
,
per
anticipationem
:
sicut
sunt
pleraque
talium
locutionum
.
Nam
&
filius
Nave
,
Jesus
appellatus
est
,
cum
longe
postea
hoc
nomen
ei
Scriptura
narret
impositum
.
As
to
Isa.
53.
10.
and
Heb.
2.
13.
We
have
spoken
to
them
often
.
It
should
be
proved
,
and
not
only
said
that
the
seed
and
children
there
mentioned
are
meant
precisely
of
the
Elect.
As
to
Jer.
3.
19.
But
I
said
,
how
shall
I
put
thee
among
the
children
,
and
give
thee
a
pleasant
land
—
and
I
said
,
Thou
shalt
call
me
my
Father
,
and
shalt
not
turn
away
from
me
.
Deodate
gives
the
true
sense
,
viz.
my
will
indeed
is
firme
to
re-establish
you
,
but
true
conversion
is
the
only
means
and
necessary
condition
of
it
.
God
according
to
the
order
of
government
he
hath
▪
established
,
cannot
give
the
inheritance
of
children
to
any
but
those
whom
he
hath
converted
and
made
his
children
,
Junius
upon
the
place
to
the
same
purpose
.
Upon
the
survey
of
this
whole
dispute
,
I
have
onely
two
things
to
I
will
be
their
God
,
and
they
shall
be
my
people
,
to
be
a
promise
made
to
them
that
beleeve
;
of
the
many
places
in
Scripture
,
where
those
words
are
used
,
Mr.
Eyre
cannot
find
us
so
much
as
one
,
wherein
they
are
applyed
to
men
that
are
not
converted
unto
God
.
2.
His
arguings
from
such
passages
of
Scripture
,
wherein
men
are
sometimes
said
to
be
the
Lords
,
or
to
be
Gods
,
or
the
Lord
thy
God
,
and
the
like
,
conclude
nothing
,
till
it
be
proved
that
such
expressions
imply
as
much
and
the
same
with
those
words
in
the
Covenant
,
I
will
be
their
God
,
&c.
forasmuch
as
men
may
be
said
to
be
his
,
and
he
theirs
sometimes
in
some
other
sense
then
those
words
in
the
Covenant
signifie
.
All
the
earth
is
Gods
,
and
all
the
fullnesse
thereof
,
Psal.
50.
12
,
10.
11.
All
men
are
his
,
Ez●k.
18.
4.
generally
,
whatsoever
is
made
by
him
,
or
used
to
his
glory
,
or
subject
to
his
government
,
or
separated
more
immediately
to
his
service
:
as
the
Levites
were
,
Numb.
3.
12.
and
the
first
borne
,
Exod.
13.
2
,
12.
or
the
like
:
these
in
a
generall
sense
are
his
.
So
the
Lord
thy
God
(
a
phrase
which
God
often
useth
when
he
speaks
to
Israel
)
mostly
signifies
,
the
God
whom
they
professed
and
externally
worshipped
:
or
at
least
,
whom
they
ought
to
have
worshipped
▪
as
is
to
be
seen
in
places
without
number
.
Therefore
it
is
not
every
sense
,
in
which
we
are
called
his
,
or
he
ours
,
which
will
conclude
him
to
be
our
God
in
the
covenant
sense
,
Jer
,
7.
23.
compared
with
Jer.
31.
33.
where
it
is
plainly
a
promise
of
spiritual
,
eternal
,
universal
and
perfect
blessednesse
,
though
gradually
accomplished
.
Accordingly
,
neither
did
I
use
any
of
the
foresaid
texts
or
phrases
(
though
I
might
have
used
many
with
great
advantage
)
to
prove
,
either
that
I
will
be
thy
God
,
&c.
contained
all
the
blessings
of
the
covenant
on
Gods
part
,
or
that
it
is
a
promise
made
to
them
that
beleeve
and
are
converted
:
but
those
plaine
texts
,
where
these
words
are
set
down
syllabically
,
as
the
matter
and
summe
of
the
Covenant
:
nor
can
Mr.
Eyre
gaine
any
thing
by
the
use
of
them
,
till
he
hath
better
reconciled
the
Scriptures
to
his
cause
.
As
to
the
following
observation
,
which
I
had
from
some
learned
Jewish
and
Christian
writers
,
viz.
That
God
is
never
said
to
be
our
[
b
](A96867-e75800-b)
b
Upon
Gen.
28.
13.
R.
Solomon
Jarchi
,
who
saies
,
that
God
is
not
in
Scripture
said
,
to
be
the
God
of
any
,
whiles
they
are
alive
:
endeavouring
to
prove
it
out
of
Job
15.
15.
the
God
of
Abraham
,
the
God
of
Isaack
,
and
the
God
of
Jacob
,
Matth.
22.
32.
and
the
Apostle
so
expounds
it
,
Heb.
11.
16.
He
is
not
ashamed
to
be
called
their
God
,
for
he
hath
prepared
for
them
a
City
;
which
place
firml●
shews
that
God
is
called
their
God
,
in
reference
to
the
reward
of
a
heavenly
blessednesse
specially
,
which
he
gave
them
.
Mr.
Eyre
(
whether
willingly
or
ignorantly
,
himself
best
knows
)
quite
mistakes
the
Argument
from
the
place
,
as
if
it
were
no
more
but
this
,
God
was
the
God
of
Abraham
Is●ack
▪
and
Jaco●
,
who
were
beleevers
:
Ergo
he
is
not
the
God
of
any
before
they
do
beleeve
.
No.
The
Argument
is
grounded
in
the
Apostles
interpretation
of
the
phrase
:
He
is
called
their
●o●
,
inasmuch
as
he
hath
prepared
for
them
a
City
.
Nevertheless●
,
●f
I
had
argued
in
his
sense
,
the
Argument
had
been
strong
and
unde●iable
;
for
their
faith
is
mentioned
as
the
reason
upon
w●●ch
God
became
a
God
unto
them
:
as
appeares
by
the
note
of
inference
〈◊〉
wer●f●re
.
Wherefore
he
is
not
ashamed
to
be
called
their
God
.
Hence
the
Argument
is
(
and
let
Master
Fyre
answer
it
if
he
can
)
If
Gods
being
the
God
of
Abraham
,
Isaack
,
and
Jacoh
were
a
consequent
of
their
faith
,
then
is
it
also
a
conseque●t
of
all
other
mens
faith
,
or
he
is
not
the
God
of
any
other
before
they
beleeve
:
the
reason
is
,
because
he
is
the
God
of
all
men
in
the
same
way
.
Rom.
3.
29
,
30.
But
the
first
is
cleare
from
the
te●t
;
Wherefore
▪
Ergo
,
so
is
the
last
,
Mr.
Eyres
parallel
,
if
he
will
review
it
,
he
will
acknowledge
to
be
rediculous
and
unworthy
of
an
answer
.
And
as
thus
,
Gods
being
our
God
,
is
clearly
made
a
consequent
of
our
being
his
people
is
made
a
consequent
of
the
same
faith
,
1
Pet.
2.
10.
In
times
past
you
were
not
a
people
,
but
are
now
the
people
of
God
.
This
(
saith
Mr.
Eyre
)
is
to
be
understood
in
reference
to
the
external
administration
of
the
Covenant
,
and
not
the
reall
participation
or
interest
in
the
blessings
of
it
.
Rep.
1.
If
the
words
be
spoken
of
Jews
(
to
whom
this
Epistle
is
written
,
chap.
1.
1.
)
they
were
externally
the
people
of
God
before
:
and
in
reference
to
them
it
must
be
therefore
something
more
that
is
here
promised
then
that
they
shall
be
externally
the
people
of
God
.
2.
If
of
Gentiles
(
whom
the
Apostle
also
includes
in
this
promise
,
Rom.
9.
25.
)
their
condition
had
been
happy
,
if
the
want
of
an
externall
covenant
had
been
the
worst
:
and
they
had
had
right
and
interest
in
Christ
and
everlasting
life
by
some
Covenant
internall
.
But
all
gentiles
equally
in
their
gentile
state
are
strangers
from
the
Covenants
of
promise
,
Eph.
2.
12.
that
is
,
have
no
right
to
any
of
those
blessings
which
pertaine
to
the
houshold
and
City
of
God
,
v.
19.
no
more
then
Spaniards
,
or
any
other
forreigners
have
a
right
to
any
of
the
priviledges
,
honours
,
preferments
of
the
City
of
London
,
or
an
Indian
in
America
,
hath
right
to
inherit
with
the
Son
of
an
Englishman
.
3.
To
be
externally
in
covenant
,
is
to
be
in
covenant
by
visible
profession
:
and
it
is
opposed
to
him
that
is
in
covenant
internally
by
true
faith
:
this
is
the
usual
sense
of
that
distinction
;
used
by
the
Apostle
(
for
substance
)
when
he
distinguisheth
between
:
a
Jew
outwardly
,
and
a
Jew
inwardly
,
Rom.
2.
28
,
29
if
M.
Eyre
have
here
the
same
sense
(
as
he
seemes
to
ha●e
,
or
at
least
willing
to
have
)
then
when
the
Apostle
sayes
,
you
are
now
a
people
,
and
Mr.
Eyre
interprets
him
of
a
people
onely
visible
and
external
;
either
he
supposeth
that
they
had
faith
long
before
the
time
he
speaks
of
,
or
that
they
were
but
hypocrites
now
,
both
which
are
absurd
.
If
he
use
the
distinction
in
any
other
sense
,
I
know
neither
Scripture
nor
reason
to
justifie
it
.
4.
What
manner
of
people
they
now
were
,
and
formerly
had
not
been
,
is
set
down
,
v.
9.
Yea
are
a
choice
generation
,
a
royall
priesthood
,
an
holy
nation
,
a
peculiar
people
,
&c.
all
which
they
were
internally
(
if
Mr.
Eyres
glosse
be
true
)
even
while
they
were
a
generation
of
Vipers
,
base
idolaters
,
a
prophane
people
,
defiled
with
all
manner
of
abominations
:
yea
and
multitudes
,
many
years
before
they
are
borne
:
for
this
internall
covenant
is
nothing
else
but
Gods
election
or
Christs
purchase
.
5.
These
words
in
Peter
,
are
taken
out
of
Hos.
2.
23.
which
text
Mr.
Eyre
urged
but
even
now
in
that
very
sense
which
here
he
opposeth
.
6.
The
former
part
of
the
verse
is
an
universal
negative
:
you
are
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
a
people
:
Ergo
,
whatsoever
God
had
done
for
them
towards
their
salvation
,
before
their
conversion
,
was
not
sufficient
to
denominate
them
to
be
a
people
of
God
.
7.
Especially
when
it
follows
,
but
now
you
are
the
people
of
God
:
which
being
the
accomplishment
of
that
promise
so
frequent
in
Scripture
,
they
shall
be
my
people
,
containes
more
then
a
promise
of
that
,
whereof
a
hypocrite
,
or
a
hypocritical
people
is
as
capable
as
themselves
.