apply'd to the Gospel-law, it do's include in the Notion of it the Forgiveness of Sin. So that no place of Scripture can be alledg'd, wherein the whole Justification of a Sinner by the Gospel Covenant (concerning which alone is the Controverfy) is fpoken of, but that the Senfe of the faid Place will be as genuin or proper, if for justify be put forgive Sin, as otherwife. Thus in all Places where a Man is faid to be juftify'd by Faith, the Sense will be ftill proper, tho' it be put a Man is forgiven bis Sins by Faith, or the like. So Luk. 18. 14. If for the Publican went down to his House justify'd, be read he went down pardon'd or having his Sins forgiven, the Senfe is ftill Good and in effect the Same. So that enough has been faid to fhew that the Objection we are upon is Falfe, forafmuch as there are feveral places in Scripture, where Juftification and Forgiveness of Sins may be used as equivalent Terms; and where they cannot, fuch Places don't belong to the Point controverted, and fo are foreign to the Purpose, and of no Weight. Part II. XIII. Another Objection is this: Forgiveness of Sins and Another ObjeJuftification are two different Things, it being a re- &tion answer'd. ceiv'd Axiom, that fuch Things as differ in Subject, differ between themfelves. Now that Forgiveness of Sins and Juftification do or may differ in Subject, is manifeft. For Juftification may be found, where there is no Room for Forgivenefs; and on the contrary, there may be Forgivenefs, where there is no Juftification. For instance. If a Man injures me, I may forgive him the Fault, and yet not justify him in my Judgment. See 2 Sam. 19. 23. On the contrary: One that is falfely accused of Injuring another, he may be jufti fy'd, tho' he stands in no need of Forgiveness, when he is free from the Fault he is accufed of. See Deut. 25. 1, &c. The fame Answer will ferve to take off this Objection, as took of the first, viz. It is to be remember'd, that the Queftion is only about Forgiveness and Jufti=fication by the Gospel Covenant, which two never differ zn Subject. For God never forgives any one according to or by virtue of the Gospel-Covenant, whom he do's not Part II. not also justify; and on the other hand, he never jufti Chap. 2. fies any one, whom he do's not alfo forgive his Sins. Hence it appears that the Inftance of the rebellious Ifraelites, whom God is faid Pfal. 78. 38. to have forgiven their Iniquity, and yet 'tis certain did not justify, is foreign to the Purpose, forafmuch as it is manifeft, that what is there faid, is not to be understood of a full and perfect, that is, Gospel-Forgiveness, but only of Forgiveness as to this Life, and for the prefent Time, or till they fhould Revolt or become again Difobedient. Further, Forgiveness by the Gofpel-Covenant is not a bare Forgiveness, fuch as that, when one barely forgives another that has injur'd him; but Forgiveness by the Gofpel-Covenant is a Legal-Forgiveness, i. e. is granted by virtue of a Law and under certain Conditions. Bare Forgiveness never is the fame with Juftification. For he that is barely forgiven by a private Perfon, as fuch can in no Senfe be properly faid to be juftify'd, forafmuch as Juftification has properly respect to fome Judicature. On the contrary, a Legal-Forgiveness may in a lefs proper Senfe be call'd Juftification, forafmuch as it is always a Juftification of the Perfon forgiven by Law from Punishment. A clear Inftance of this has been taken notice of afore §. 10. viz. in refpect of a King juftifying or pardoning one that has been a Rebel, but is return'd to his Duty, by virtue of a Proclamation. And fuch is the Juftification of a Sinner by the Gofpel-Covenant, as is above fhewn in the fame place. XIV. laft Objection anfwer'd. The third and laft Objection is, that Forgiveness The third and confider'd barely in it felf is an Act of meer Grace and Mercy, whereas Juftification properly fo call'd is an Act only of fuftice, as Deut. 25. 1. And therefore they differ one from the other. Now the whole Antecedent is readily granted. But what follows thence? Only thus much truly, viz. that Juftification do's not confift in bare Forgivenefs, which is no more than has afore been granted. For it has been obferv'd under the fecond Objection, that where there is no more than bare Remiffion in a private Cafe, there can be in no proper Senfe Juftification. Juftification. The Question is, Not whether Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant confifts in bare For giveness, (for this implies a Contradiction, inafmuch as Juftification ftrictly fo call'd is pronouncing a Man to be free from Fault, and fo not to need Forgiveness:) but whether Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant do's confift in that Forgiveness which is allow'd by the faid Covenant, as a Part of, or included in the faid Juftification by the Gospel-Covenant. This is what we affert, and this third Objection alledges nothing to the contrary. For altho' Forgiveness confider'd barely in it felf, and Juftification ftrictly fo call'd, are different Things, yet there is one and the fame State or Condition of Forgiveness and Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant, and fo they differ not therein. As far forth as Juftification by the Gospel-Covenant is an act of Justice, fo far forth Forgiveness by the Gofpel-Covenant is alfo an act of Juftice. And as far forth as Juftification by the GospelCovenant is an act of Grace and Mercy, fo far forth Forgiveness by the Gofpel-Covenant is alfo an act of Grace and Mercy. As to the first, viz. that Juftification by the Gospel-Covenant is an act of Justice, it may clearly be prov'd by these two Arguments: 14, that it is founded in Chrift's Satisfaction for Sin. 2ly, that it is no other than is tranfacted by virtue of a Law, and according to the faid Law. And the fame Arguments prove, that Forgiveness by the Gofpel-Covenant is alfo no other than an act of Justice, forafmuch as it is in like manner founded in Chrift's Satisfaction, (compare Rom. 5. 9. with Matt. 26. 28. Ephef. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14.) and is tranfacted by Virtue of and according to the Tenor of the Law of the Gofpel. Whence it is that God is faid to be faithful and just in forgiving the Sins of the. truly Penitent, 1 Joh. 1.9. Again that our Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant is alfo, and that in a primary Manner, an act of Grace and Mercy, is moft plainly attefted by Holy Scripture. Thus we are faid to be juftify'd freely by his Grace, Rom. 3. 24. Where the Apoftle ufes a remarkable Pleonafm by faying, freely and by his, viz. God's Grace, that he might the better fhew, N Part II. Chap. 2 Part II. Chap. 2. XV. What has been fhew, that our Juftification is to be attributed to the Grace and Mercy of God. In like manner the fame Apostle speaks of the Forgiveness of Sins, Ephef. 1. 7, In whom, viz. Chrift, we have Redemption thro' bis Blood, the Forgiveness of Sins, according to the Riches of his Grace. So that whichever way those we are difputing against turn themselves, they can find nothing, but what may be alike affirm'd both of Justification and Forgiveness by the Gospel-Covenant. And this may fuffice as to that Part of Justification faid of the For- by the Gofpel-Covenant, whereby God forgives one giveness of Sins, who has perform'd the whole Condition of the Gospel. is of great Ule to confute the Errors Covenant for the State he is in, all fuch Sins as he has of the Solifidians. committed before his Repentance, according to the Go . fpel-Covenant; or more briefly, this may fuffice as to Forgiveness of Sins, as it is included in Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant. I have infifted the longer on this Point, because it is of great Ufe to fhew the Erroneoufness of the Doctrin of the Solifidians. For these, at least the most Rank of them, tho' they deny not Repentance to be neceffarily requir'd by the Gofpel-Covenant to the Forgiveness of Sins, yet they stick not to deny Repentance to be requir'd to Juflification. Which Error arifes from their not duly diftinguishing between Forgiveness and Juftification properly fo call'd and con fider'd in themselves, and Forgiveness and Juftification cónfider'd in refpect to the Senfe in which they are ufed in the Gospel; and therefore falfely affert Forgiveness by the Gospel-Covenant to be altogether different from Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant; because Forgiveness confider'd ftrictly in it felf is different from Juftification confider'd ftrictly in it felf. But fince it appears from what I have faid, that Forgiveness by the Gospel-Covenant is not different from, but included in Juftification by the Gofpel-Covenant; it follows that Repentance is requir'd by the Gofpel-Covenant to our Of the third Part Juftification, forafmuch as by the Confeffion of our Adof Juftification by Verfaries it is requir'd to the Forgiveness of Sins. the Gospel-Cove- It remains now to speak of the last Part of Juftifi ptance to Eternal Cation by the Gofpel-Covenant, viz. whereby God ac XVI. nant, viz. Acce Life. cording cording to the Tenor of the Gofpel-Covenant receives one that has perform'd the whole Condition of the Gofpel-Covenant for the State he is in, unto Eternal Life as a Reward of his prefent Righteousness. There are fome Solifidians who contend, that the adjudging of Eternal Life to a Perfon (as well as the Forgiveness of Sins) is very different from Juftification, and an Act altogether foreign thereto. Wherefore that on the contrary the adjudging of Eternal Life is included in the Notion of Juftification by the Gospel Covenant, shall be fhewn from Scripture. Part II. Chap. 2. fication. XVII. For the right Understanding of what I here underIn what Sense this take to prove, the Like is to be observ'd, as was afore is a Part of Juftiobferv'd in reference to Forgiveness of Sins: viz. I do not affirm, that the word Juftification of it felf, or according to the literal Signification thereof, do's imply the adjudging of a Reward. For I well know that there may be Justification, where there is no Reward. He that is accused of Theft or Murder &c. in our Courts, if he be found Innocent, he is indeed juftify'd or acquitted by the Judge; but then the Law appoints no Reward to be given him, because he is not a Thief or Murderer. It is well to be obferv'd, that I speak of the word Juftification, as it is apply'd to or made use of in the Divine Judicature and Law of the Gospel. And this is what I affert, viz. that Justification by God and according to the Gospel-Covenant, do's always include within its Extent the adjudging of Eternal Life as a Reward to the Perfon fo juftify'd. To fum up the whole Matter in fhort. The Latitude or Extent of Juftification is to be judg'd of by the Law it refers to. Hence no Reward is adjudg'd to one that is juftify'd in our Judicatures, because our Law do's not appoint fuch a Reward to the Innocent. But to him that is juftify'd by the Gospel-Covenant in the Divine Judicature, to him a Right to the Reward of Eternal Life is also ad-judg'd, because the Gospel-Law or Covenant has decreed fuch a Reward to the Juít. So that in the Divine Judicature, altho' it be not exactly the fame, to pronounce one Juft, and to adjudge him worthy of Reward, yet it |