A POSTSCRIPT, Containing the AUTHORS VINDICATION OF Himself and Doctrine FROM THE IMPUTATIONS OF Dr. JOHN own, In his late BOOK styled The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.  Si satis est accusâsse, Quis erit innocens? 
By THOMAS HOTCHKIS Rect. of Stanton by Highworth in the County of Wilts.  
LONDON, Printed by S. R. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops Head in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1678.   

An Advertisement to the Reader.  
THis Apology was designed by the Reverend Author to be annexed to the Second part of his Discourse now in the Press, and for that reason he E●ntituled it a Postscript; but because that will not come forth so soon as was hoped, I have with his leave, published it by its self.  
Walter Kettilby.   

Errata in the Postscript Apologetical.  
page. 3. line 28. red incompatible. p. 16. l. 2. add viz. before come. p. 20. l. 3. r. wholly. p. 31. l. 16. after of add the p. 35. l. 16. r. Distinctions.   

A Postscript Apologetical,  
CONTAINING The Authors Vindication of himself and Doctrines from the Imputations of Doctor John own in his late Book styled The Doctrine of Justification by Faith through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ.  Si satis est accusâsse, Quis erit innocens? 
ALthough to be judged( or misjudged) by mans judgement was with the Apostle St. Paul {αβγδ}, a very small thing, 1 Cor. 4.3. he did nevertheless vigorously assert his own innocency, and industriously vindicate himself against the misprissions, and prejudices of those, who did seek to blemish the reputation of his Person and Ministry, saying, We have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man, 2 Cor. 7.2. As I take it for my Duty to imitate that blessed Apostle in the former; so I hope, that it will not be deemed a thing superfluous( either fault, or folly) for such a one as myself to follow his example in the latter, and in compliance therewith to stand up in my just defence against the injurious imputations of Doctor John own, touching my dealing with him in my Discourse concerning The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us, and our Sins to him. I will transcribe in his own words all that he chargeth me with, and then make reply to every distinct passage.  
The first place, wherein I find my Name mentioned in his Book, is p. 50. where having  told his Readers, That whereas some men of an inferior condition have found it useful for the strengthening themselves in their dependencies, or in compliance with their own inclinations, to cavil at his Writings in his Discourse styled ( Communion with God) and to revile their Author, he doth immediately after the said description of me( A person of an inferior condition) proceed to give notice of me by my proper Name, saying.  
This Course is steered of late by one Mr. Hotchkis in a Book about Justification, wherein in particular he falls very severely on that Doctrine, which for the substance of it, is here again proposed, p. 81. And were it not that I hope, it may be somewhat useful to him to be a little warned of his Immoralities in that Discourse, I should not in the least have taken notice of his other Impertinencies. The Good man I perceive can he angry with persons, whom he never saw, and about things which he cannot, or will not understand, so far as to revile them with most opprobrious Language. For my part, although I have never written any thing designedly on this Subject, or this Doctrine of Justification before now; yet he could not but discern by what was occasionally delivered, that I maintain no other Doctrine herein, but what is the most common faith of the most learned men in all Protestant Churches: And the reasons, why I am singled out for the object of his petulancy, and spleen, are too manifest to need repetition. But I shall yet inform him, of what perhaps he is ignorant, Namely, That I esteem it no small Honour, that the Reproaches, wherewith the Doctrine opposed by him is reproached, does fall upon me. And the same I say concerning all the reviling and contemptuous expressions, that his ensuing pages are filled withall.  
Answ. 1. What? Hath the Doctor, having charged me with so many Immoralities, well spoken as he thought? or did he think me indeed to be a good man, when he has so called me? Are all, or any of these Immoralities( spleen, petulancy, reproaching, reviling, contemptuous and opprobrious Language, wherewith my Book is here said, not only to be here and there tainted, but filled) any signs or tokens of goodness? Are they not rather incompatible with it? But those words of his were intended for a Flout, and I had much rather have been without the Doctors sweet Bit( the Good man) than to have it given me with such shrewd Knocks, I mean, with the Imputation of so many heinous Crimes, as does speak nothing less than goodness in any man. But it being a Sarcasm, or Scoff, let it pass as a cast of his courtesy; not that I requited him for it in Kind, I mean with the like mock or scoff, after the proofs of his belying and slandering me, by replying in his own Language, The Good man Doctor own.  
2. As for the said manifold Immoralities, whereof I am here accused, I need say no more in this place by way of defence, than St. Paul being impleaded, did for himself in another case( that is) by a flat denial of them all; for, as he says, Neither against the Law of the Jews, neither against the Temple, nor yet against Caesar have I offended any thing at all, Acts 25.8. in like sort shall I say for myself, that by a serious review of all that I have written in my Discourse( here challenged by the Doctor) I am not conscious to myself, that I have offended any thing at all, neither by spleen, nor by petulancy or malepertness, nor by cavilling, nor by reviling, nor by any opprobrious Language; Having only shewed the manifold and dangerous evil consequences of his Doctrine, as is the manner of all the most temperate Authors, who have written against the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense professedly opposed in my Discourse: So that he is disappointed of that Honour, which in an holy ambition he hath carved to himself, I mean, the honour of suffering reproach for the Name and Doctrine of Christ; to the bearing whereof he would not have me ignorant of his resolution and readiness.  
3. As for my want of Wit or Will to understand the things I writ about, here objected to me, I shall altogether leave to the Reader to judge of me as he sees cause, as well with respect to my Intellectuals as Morals, the Doctor, it seems, hoping that it may be useful for himself and his Cause in hand, to accuse me respectively to both.  
4. I have hitherto discerned the contrary to what he here says, I could not but discern, viz. That the Doctrine concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in his sense ( i.e.) in its formal and essential nature, hath been opposed as the singular faith of some, but not received as the common faith, by many of the most learned men both in our own, and in foreign Protestant Churches.  
5. The doctor having so highly charged me in the general, proceeds to instance in some of my immoralities, and begins to do it in the words following, p. 51. But as to the present occasion, I beg his excuse, If I believe him not, that the reading of the passages, which he mentions out of my Book, filled him with horror and Indignation, as he pretends.  
Answ. The Doctor was a very unhappy man for he doth in ipso limine titubare, stumble at the very threshold, I mean begins his Charge against me witha notorious untruth: For I did not pretend any horror at all, much less a being filled with horror; and therefore as I wonder, how he could believe himself in this suggestion, so I must say, There was no cause, why he should beg my excuse in not believing a pretence of his own feigning; but instead of begging my excuse there is reason, that he should beg pardon for this his falsehood, as I am now to make apparent by the transcription of my own words out of the 83d. page. of my Discourse, wherein I expressly said.  
I have with a complication of affections( grief and sadness, with a mixture also of some indignation and abhorrency) taken notice of three, or four things in his express words.  
Judge whether the Doctor by imputing to me the said pretence of horror( which is printed with a great Letter, and in a different Character, that it might the rather be observed) yea of my being filled with horror by reading the passages mentioned out of his Book, hath belied me, or no: for among that variety of affections, wherewith I said, I did take notice of his said words, I make no mention at all of any horror, grief and sadness being intimated in the said complication of affections to be the most predominant, with a mixture only of indignation and abhorrency in some lower degree.  
But to prove the said fit of horror( feigned indeed by him, but not in the least by me pretended) he assigns the following reason immediately in saying,  
For whereas he acknowledgeth, that my words may have a sense which he approves of( and which therefore must of necessity be good and sound;) what honest and sober person would not rather take them in that sense, than wrest them unto another, to cast himself under the disquietment of a fit of horrible indignation.  
To pass by his flout in the Parenthesis( And which therefore must of necessity be good and sound)  
1. You see how he repeats his slanderous imputation of a fit of horrible indignation as pretended by me, the falsehood whereof hath already been laid open.  
2. We do aclowledge it to be a special part of Christian sobriety and honesty to take another mans words in the most approved sense, which they will well bear. But if the person, whose words they are, will not own, or be satisfied with such a construction of his words, asserting withall such a sense of them, as is not to be approved of; What should the most honest and sober person do in such a case? And this is the very case here betwixt me and my Accuser: for the Doctor will not own, or content himself with the truth of that construction, which may be made of his words, as I have expressly said and made apparentin the 18th Chapter of my Discourse, p. 85, 87. to which I shall( for the acquitting of myself from the dishonesty here charged upon me) refer both my Accuser himself and every Reader for his full satisfaction.  
4. Consequently I may truly say by way of retortion upon my Adversary, That there was neither honesty nor sobriety in this his imputing to me such an odious crime, as the wresting of his words from a good sense by him intended, to a bad sense disallowed by him.  
My Delator proceeds a third and fourth time to cast me in the Teeth with the said fit of horror saying, p. 51.  
In this fit I suppose it was, if such a fit indeed did befall him( as one evil begets another) that he thought, he might insinuate something of my denial of the necessity of our own personal repentance and obedience: For no man, who had red that Book only of all my writings, could with the least regard to Conscience or Honesty, give countenance to such a surmise, unless his mind was much discomposed by the unexpected invasion of a fit of horror.  
Answ. It was never in my thoughts( in any fit, or at any time) to insinuate, that the Doctor doth in all manner of respects, or in respect of all sorts of persons( Believers and Unbelievers) or as to all intents and purposes, deny the necessity of personal repentance, and obedience: For having red that Book of his I do plainly perceive, that he doth aclowledge the necessity of obedience and good works in many distinct respects( respectively both to God and man, ourselves and others;) But I could never perceive by the reading of that his Book, that he doth aclowledge the necessity thereof in one main respect, which according to the current of Scripture ought to be asserted, the necessity thereof I mean in order to Gods pardoning our sins, and receiving us into his gracious acceptance for the obedience sake of Christ; Yea, I perceive the contrary, as by a multitude of passages in his late Book concerning Justification by Faith, so by his asserting, That we are justified by Faith in opposition to all Works of ours, no place being left for any works to make the least approach towards our justification before God under the covert of any distinction whatsoever, p. 457, 458. That no man is to do any good work with respect to his justification, and that God considereth no mans works, no mans duties of obedience in his Justification, p. 455. And forasmuch as its said, That God justifieth him, who worketh not, I cannot understand( says he, p. 456.) what place our works, or duties of obedience can have in our justification; saying further, Why should we trouble ourselves to invent, of what consideration they may be in our justification before God, when the Apostle himself affirms, that they are of none at all: with more to this purpose in the same page., and many others; he saying, p. 515. Not this or that sort of works, not this or that manner of performance of them, not this or that kind of interest in our justification; but all works, of what sort soever, and however performed, are excluded from any kind of consideration, as our works and duties of obedience.  
Now the foresaid, with many other the like assertions in his Book, are to my seeming a denial of the necessity of repentance and obedience towards, or in order to a Sinners Pardon and Salvation; for by place, or interest in justification( as are his expressions here) he meaneth( as his expressions are elsewhere, p. 514.) the place of a condition, or a thing requisite in order to our justification, or that we may be justified before God. Now what is that justification before God, which is promised to sinners for the righteousness sake of Christ? or what is it for a sinner to be so justified, but not to be condemned? And what is it not to be condemned, but on the contrary side to be absolved, pardonned, saved; Salvation from the guilt of sin being the self-same thing with Gospel-justification? Yea, the Doctor himself doth aclowledge pardon of sin to be one essential part of, yea, the first and the principal part of justifification( p. 403.) and he doth frequently use the words( justified and pardonned) as expressions synonymous, expounding the former by the latter; and speaking concerning the Publicans going to his house justified, p. 178. he expounds the word[ justified] saying, that is, acquitted, absolved, pardonned: so that denying any place to be left for any good works to make the least approach towards our justification before God, he doth consequently and necessary deny the necessity of repentance, and any other good work towards the pardon of sin. Yea he doth professedly deny it; For his professed Doctrine is, that a sinner is justified( that is pardonned) antecedently in order of nature unto all evangelical works( p. 525.) on which account he asserts( p. 217.) that our personal righteousness cannot be the condition of our justification before God, because it is consequential thereunto. And thence it is, that although he acknowledgeth a necessity of repentance in, or to a person already justified( that is, a person already pardonned) yet he denies the necessity thereof towards, or in order to his justification ( i.e.) his absolution or remission. And as he doth expressly deny true or evangelical repentance to be any condition of our justification, so he doth express positively to what end Repentance is, and is not required of sinners in the Gospel, saying, p. 301.  
Repentance for sin is peculiarly proposed with respect unto the Forgiveness of sins, as that without which it is impossible we should have any True sense, or comfort of it in our Souls; but it is not so as any part of that Righteousness, on the consideration whereof our sins are pardonned, nor as that whereby we have an interest therein.  
Hereupon let the Reader judge, whether any man, who hath been conversant in the Doctors Writings, may not with due regard to his own Conscience and honesty, and without any discomposure by any fit of horror( so causelessly and frequently imputed to me give countenance to a surmise, That he doth deny the necessity of our own personal repentance and obedience ( i.e.) in order to the remission of our sins; which although he doth professedly deny, as hath been manifested by his own words before recited( thereby subverting the Doctrine of the Gospel, turning it upside down, forasmuch as in the Gospel sinners are advised and commanded to repent, that they may be pardonned, Act. 3.19. and 8.22.) Nevertheless I must aclowledge, that elsewhere he seems to me to say, or at least to imply the contrary; so that I am not able to reconcile him to himself, he saying concerning the Publican( p. 171.) The Publican went down, {αβγδ}, justified unto his House; that is, acquitted, absolved, pardonned, upon the confession of his sins, and supplication for remission. These words do pregnantly imply, that the Publican was not justified antecedently to his repentance, or penitential confession of his sin, and supplication for pardoning mercy. And in his Vindication against Mr. Sherlock, the Doctor hath these words, p. 53. I never said, I never wrote, that the only supposition of the satisfaction of Christ is sufficient of itself to free us from destruction by sin. There is moreover required on our part Faith and Repentance, without which we can have no Advantage by it, or Interest in it. These words are a contradiction even in terms to his words before recited out of his late Book, p. 301. He there saying, That Repentance is not any part of that Righteousness, on the consideration whereof our sins are pardonned, nor that, whereby we have interest therein. But whether this forecited contradiction can, or cannot be reconciled, I hope notwithstanding, that I have fully acquitted myself from the Doctors foresaid imputation of want of Conscience and honesty in countenancing the surmise of his denying( as to the foresaid intent and purpose, i.e. the pardon of our sins) the necessity of repentance.  
And as he denies the necessity of repentance and obedience to be any part of the condition of obtaining, or in order to the attaining the remission of our sins( faith alone being in his divinity the condition thereof) so he doth professedly deny the necessity of repentance and works of obedience to be the condition of, or in order to the retainng of our pardon: for denying good works to be any part of the condition of our justification, or that they are necessary in order to the not losing it, he doth consequently and unavoidably deny them to be the condition of the continuance of our pardon, or not losing it( this being in some Cases, and upon certain suppositions threatened, Mat. 6.14. and 18.32. 1 Chron. 28.9.& 2.15. 2. Heb. 10.38.) forasmuch as pardon of sin is by his own confession( as was aforesaid) the first and principal part of Gospel-justification. He indeed confesseth( p. 208.) that our obedience and good works are the condition of the continuation of our justification, namely, that God doth indispensably require good works and obedience in all that are justified, so that a justified estate is inconsistent with the neglect of them; Nevertheless he doth deny, that the continuance of our justification doth depend upon any works of our obedience, but only upon Faith: For my part( says he, p. 204.) I cannot understand, that the continuation of our justification hath any other dependencies, than hath our justification itself:( by our justification itself he must and would be understood to mean our justification at first.) As Faith alone is required unto the one, so Faith alone is required unto the other. And p. 209. he says, That Faith is the only way, means and cause on our part of the continuance of our justification—( Though Faith be the way, means, or condition; yet for my part I dare not say, that it is the cause of our justification, whether begun, or continued, first, or last.) And in the same page. he argues against our obedience its being the condition of the continuation of our justification, and says,  
If the continuation of our justification dependeth upon our own works of obedience, then is the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us only with respeci unto our justification at first— It is not my work in this place to answer, or to refute his arguings, but only to manifest, that he denies the continuation of our justification( and consequently of our pardon) to depend upon our obedience and good works as the necessary condition thereof; although for my part, 
And he says expressly p. 170. Every premise of God doth tacitly require Faith and Obedience in us.  how he could deny it in confistency with himself, and with his yielding( that God doth indispensably require them in all that are justified, so that a justified estate is inconfistent with the neglect of them) is not with me easy to understand: However, it is sufficiently apparent, that he would be understood to deny, that God hath constituted any good works of our obedience to be any part of the condition, upon which God hath promised the continuation of our justification and( as inevitably must thence be inferred) of our retaining the remission of our sins. And yet notwithstanding his professed denials of repentance and obedience to be any part of the condition, upon which our attaining, and retaining the pardon of our sins doth depend; he hath the confidence to charge any man, who hath red his Books with unconscionableness and dishonesty, who shall offer to insinuate, that he denies the necessity of repentance and obedience in order to any such ends and purposes, as in scripture they are declared to be ordained of God. And as if hitherunto he had not said enough of my want of Conscience and Honesty, he proceeds to cast more filth upon me, saying,  
But such is his dealing with me from first to last, nor do I know where to fix on any one instance of his exceptions against me, wherein I can suppose, he had escaped his pretended fit, and was returned to himself, that is, unto honest and ingenuous thoughts, wherewith, I hope, he is mostly conversant. But though I cannot miss in the justification of this charge by considering any instance of his reflections, yet I shall at present take that, which he insists longest upon, and filleth his Discourse about it with most scurrility of expressions: And this is in the 164th page. and those that follow.  
Answ. 1. The Doctor having wilfully, or over hastily cast himself into a fit of slandering, knows not well on a sudden how to come out of it: for this is the fifth time that he hath repeated the slanderous imputation of the said fit of horror, and horrible indignation, as pretended by me, with the addition of another slander touching my dealing with him from first to last without honesty and ingenuity; of all which Accusations he hath given in no true evidence, whereby to convict me.  
2. As to the scurrility of expressions here charged upon me( which indeed is another slander added to the former) I appeal to the judgement of any impartial Reader, who will be at the pains to red that Chapter in my Discourse, whether the Doctor hath not as to this imputation also condemned the guiltless. And if he fail in the justification of the charge here commenced against me; it may with reason be conjectured, that he will miss the Mark he aims at in all the rest. And now enters the great instance picked out by him of my disingenuity and dishonesty, together with the proof thereof, it being expressed by him in the following words, p. 53. line 9. to line 31.  
For there he disputeth fiercely against me for making this to be an undue end of our serving God; namely, that we fly from the wrath to come. And who would not take this for an unexpiable crime in any; especially in him, who hath written so much of the nature and use of threatenings under the Gospel, and the Fear, that ought to be ingenerated by them in the hearts of men, as I have done? Wherefore so great a Crime being the object of them; all his revilings seem not only to be excused, but hallowed. But what if all this should prove a wilful prevarication, not becoming a good man, much less a Minister of the Gospel? My words transcribed by himself are these,[ some there are, who do the service of the House of God as the drudgery of their Lives; the Principle they yield obedience upon, is a Spirit of Bondage unto fear; the Rule they do it by, is the Law in its dread and rigour, exacting it of them to the utmost without mercy and mitigation; the end they do it for, is to fly from the wrath to come, to pacify Conscience, and to seek for Righteousness as it were by the works of the Law.] What follows to the same purpose he omits; and what he adds as my words, are not so, but his own: ubi pudor? ubi fides?  
Answ. 1. Here are many and grievous Crimes laid to my charge, scurrility, reviling, fierceness— But( to retort upon my Accuser in his own words) what if these prove, or be proved to be like the rest, presumptuous, or wilful slanders, unbecoming a good man, and much more a Minister of the Gospel? As to the falsehood of his charging me with scurrility, fierce manner of disputing and reviling, for the detecting thereof, and for the justifying of myself, I can but refer the Reader to the impartial perusal of the 29th Chapter in my Discourse( here reflected upon, but too large to be transcribed at length here) leaving him to judge of me as he shall find cause.  
2. The Doctors words as transcribed by me in my Discourse, are not as here they are Printed, ( some there are) but[ There be Gibeonites] these being the Doctors own words in his Book ( Communion with God.) Now the reason why he did thus fallaciously report his own words, will be specified by and by in its due place.  
3. Forasmuch as the Doctor doth not acquaint the Reader what are the words, with the addirion whereof he chargeth me, exclaiming thereupon, Ubi pudor? Ubi fides? I cannot therefore acquit myself in point of Modesty and Honesty( the shameful vices contrary to those lovely virtues being laid to my charge) but by giving the Reader a Transcript thereof out of my Discourse, p. 164. line 4, 5, 6. The Saints obedience is a free obedience; without fear, terror, bondage and constraint they go forth unto all holy obedience in Christ.  
Now I do freely aclowledge, that the crime, wherewith I am here charged, is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the Judge; and had I incurred the guilt of any such crime, I would say with that unspotted Handmaiden [ And I, 
2 Sam. 13.13.  whither shall I cause my shane to go?] But the Doctor shall not so ravish me of my reputation, which I shall fully clear and vindicate by the transcription of his own words, as I find them in the 145 page. of his Book ( Communion with God) and in the self same page., where those very words of his are, to which an addition is said to be made by me) where the Doctor having said, That the Saints obedience is a free obedience, his words, line 19.20, and 21.) are these.  
The Children of God do freely, willingly, genuinely, without fear, terror, bondage and constraint go forth unto all holy obedience in Christ.  
Ecce fides, Lo the faithfulness and integrity, that doth well become a good man, and a good Minister of Christ. See Reader, how I have acquitted myself from that abominable forgery here imputed to me; the Case standing as it doth, there is just ground of retorting upon him in his own words, Ubi pudor? Ubi fides?  
3. As for the Doctors words here said to be omitted by me, I myself did signify the omission thereof in my Discourse by the stroke of my Pen— And forasmuch as he here says, that the words omitted by me were to the same purpose as those transcribed; I do therefore conclude, that his intent was to impeach me only for the forementioned addition to his words, and not at all for any omission.  
4. What he here saith, he hath written concerning the nature and use of threatenings under the Gospel, I do not at all remember; Only I do now observe, that he doth here make mention of the Fear, that ought to be ingenerated by them in the hearts of men: But I do not as yet perceive, that by men he would be understood to mean men of all sorts, i.e. Good men and Bad men, Believers and Unbelievers. I do question his intended sense therein for these two reasons: 1. Because it is the common Doctrine of too many Teachers in these later times, That Believers are to live above and without all manners of fear of Divine wrath and vengeance in any case, or upon any supposition threatened to them in the Gospel of Christ; for the rectifying of which mistake I wrote 22 years ago a large Chapter in my exercitation concerning the nature of forgiveness of sin( Chap. 26.) the scope thereof being to prove, That& how, or in what case, and upon what Scriptural supposals Believers are to fear Hell and Damnation, viz. Upon supposition, or in case of their revolt and drawing back, Heb. 10.38. and 12. last.  
2. This fear of Divine threatenings the Doctor directly and professedly sets himself to extinguish in Believers, his Doctrine being this( as was noted in the former part of my Discourse, p. 168.) That it is the Law of God, as divested of all its terrifying, threatening, damning, cursing power, which is the rule of the Saints obedience.  
The next Crime objected against me, and from which I am to purge myself, is my insinuating, that he makes this an undue end of our serving God; namely, That we may fly from the wrath to come. I shall recite the matter, as hitherto all along I have done, in his own words, and then subjoin my reply thereunto.  
That which I affirmed( says the Doctor, p. 52, 53.) to be a part of an evil end, when, and as it makes up one entire end by being mixed with sundry other things expressly mentioned, is singled out, as if I had denied, that in any sense it might be a part of a good end in our obedience: which I never thought, I never said; I have spoken, and written much to the contrary.  
Answ. 1. It is untruly here said by the Doctor, that the thing by him affirmed was, that our serving God, that we may fly from the wrath to come, was part of an evil end, when, and as it makes up one entire end by being mixed with sundry other things expressly mentioned: And for the discovery of the the falsehood of that his affirmation, I need say no more, than to request the Reader to cast his Eye backward upon the Doctors own words, as they have been recited both by himself, in his late Book, p. 52. and transcribed by me, p. 9. of this Postscript; and thereupon let him believe his own eyes.  
2. The thing which he here says( but untruly) was affirmed by him is, as now it seems, the sense by himself intended in those words of his concerning the Gibeonites so called; and that orthodox construction, which he would have had myself and others to make of them. To which I reply, That forasmuch as this his construction was no ways obvious to me, nor( as I verily think) to the understanding of any common Reader; I do therefore judge myself altogether excusable( both as to my Intellectuals, and more especially as to my Morals) not to have understood his said words in such a sense, as is here expressed by him: For as the Eunuch said to Philip in answer to his Question ( Understandest thou what thou readest?) How can I, except some one should guide me? in like sort may I fitly here say for myself, How could I understand the sense aforesaid to be intended by the Author without an Interpreter, or except such a cunning man as the Dr. himself should guide me thereunto? Forasmuch therefore as I did with all faithfulness make a relation of his words, although he had blamed me for dullness of apprehension, or as a person of an inferior wit( suitable to the inferiority of my condition;) nevertheless he had no colour to accuse me( as he doth) of any immorality or dishonesty, because I did not fish out that his said meaning, not having an understanding to dive so deep as certain other men, or as he himself.  
3. The Doctor doth here to my seeming plainly retract, or contradict what he had said in those words of his at large recited in my Discourse, p. 159. from his Book Comm. p. 185. For whereas he doth here aclowledge, that it may be a part of a good end to serve God, to fly from the wrath to come, he doth there seem altogether to deny it, and wolly to exclude it from such an end; For he doth there assert, that we are freed from obedience to this end, that we may obtain life everlasting, and that we are not to work for life. Now not to obey, that we may obtain life everlasting, and not to work for life, is the self-same thing as not to obey and work, that we may escape everlasting death, which in very dead is the wrath to come, and is so styled in Scripture; so that what the Doctor here says[ He never thought, He never said] it seems sufficiently plain, that( whatever he thought) he there( in the place forecited) did say; and it seems also, that he doth now retract, or contradict what he had said, he here acknowledging, that it maybe a part of a good end to fly from the wrath to come; whereas before he had in positive and absolute terms wholly and altogether( as any one had reason to judge by his words) excluded it from any such end.  
3. I had no design at all, nor was it ever in my thoughts to insinuate, that the Doctor did deny, that our obeying God to fly from the wrath to come, might in any sense be a part of a good end in our obedience; for I know very well that there is scarce any thing affirmed, but that it may in some sense be denied; or denied, but that it may in some certain sense be affirmed, e. g. These Propositions[ there is no God; God is not to be worshipped, served, supplicated unto—] may with safety of truth in some sense be affirmed, ( i.e.) There is no such God, as the Anthropomorphites fancy God to be; God is not to be worshipped and served, as if he needed any thing, or could be profited by our Service; or to be prayed unto, as if he did not know our wants before we make them known— so that the Doctor may affirm any thing, or deny any thing, yea the same thing; and yet in some sense make it good or true: And what his sense is, wherein he denies it not, that it might be a part of a good end to obey God, to fly from the wrath to come, he was so wise as not to declare, but to keep to himself; whereupon no man living is able to gainsay that his secret sense, nor to abet it.  
4. I observe, how cautiously, and like a wary man, the Doctor hath here expressed himself: For he durst not( I am sure he doth not) say, I denied not that it ought to be, but that it might be; neither did he say a good end, but a part of a good end; nor did he say simply, a part of a good end, but that it might be in any sense a part of a good end in our obedience to fly from the wrath to come. Will not all these cautionary expressions serve to bring off the Doctor, with what Weapons soever, or by what hand soever he be assaulted, or to what straits soever he be reduced? But I observe withal, notwithstanding the said Caution upon Caution, how bold the Prophets and Apostles of old were: for the Prophet Amos was bold to say, seek good and not evil, that ye may live. The Prophet Jeremy is bold, and saith, O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayst be saved. And St. Paul also is bold, and saith to the Corinthians, so run, that ye may obtain. And I observe also the usual boldness of Catechistical Writers in asserting positively, absolutely and rorundis verbis, that to fly from the wrath to come ought to be a sinners main and great end: For to these Questions, What is the chief end of man? and what ought to be the chief and continual care of every man in this life? The answers are, Mans chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever: and Mans chief and continual care in this life ought to be the glorifying of God, and the saving of his own Soul. These are the prime Questions and Answers in those two well known Catechisms, commonly styled the Assemblies and Mr. Balls Catechism.  
5. What was ever spoken, or written by the Doctor to the contrary of what he was by me charged with ( i.e.) his asserting, that Jesus Christ hath freed us from obedience for this end, namely, That we may obtain life everlasting, or( which is all one) that we may fly from the wrath to come, for my own part I do not know, nor do I think myself culpable for that my ignorance; although the Doctor supposing my knowledge thereof, doth charge me as the more heinously criminal in his following words saying, p. 53.  
And yet to countenance himself in this disingenuous procedure, besides many other untrue reflections, he adds, that insinuate, that those, whom I describe, are Christians, that seek Righteousness by Faith in Christ, p. 167.  
Answ. The Doctor doth still persist in his egregious slanders, by imputing to me untrue reflections, yea a multitude of untrue reflections, whereof not so much as any one hath he proved against me; only as to the insinuation here said to be added by me, I doubt not, but that I shall be able to justify the ground of it to the sense of every intelligent and impartial Reader by my Answers following,  
1. Be it considered, that the persons described by him, were by him styled Gibeonites. Now what were the Gibeonites, or what manner of persons? They were Proselytes to the Jewish Religion, such as the Prophet Isaiah, describes( ch. 56.6.) Strangers that joined themselves to the Lord, to serve him, to love the Name of the Lord, to be his Servants— as appears by the Story of their professed conversion and dedition of themselves to the Captain General of Gods host, Josh. 9.9. they thereupon exposing themselves to the hazard of their Lives from the Confederate Borderers, no less than Rahab did her self by her entertaining the Spies, as appears by the process of the Story concerning them, Josh. 10. 'tis true indeed, that being taken into covenant and protection, they were put to the meanest Services belonging to the Tabernacle; they were such, as to whom that description given of my person doth fitly agree ( i.e.) persons of an inferior condition( and if the Doctor barely upon that score had pointed me out by the Name of a Gibeonite, it would not have offended me;) but notwithstanding the inferiority of their condition and employment, they were Servants of the true God, the God of Israel, and professedly therefore such, as did seek Righteousness by Faith in the messiah, as did the faithful Jews under the Old Testament. Now the persons here spoken of by the Doctor going under this express denomination [ Gibeonites] I appeal to the Reader, whether I did wrong him by inferring, that he did insinuate the persons here spoken of by him to be such as sought Righteousness by Faith in Christ; for were not the Gibeonites such persons, as did so seek Righteousness, as was before proved? But that the Reader might not observe them to be such, the Doctors craftiness in concealing the word [ Gibeonites] is notable, yea in falsifying my report of his words, as was before intimated in another Paragraph, the suggestion of the reason of it being for this place reserved: For whereas his words, as by me transcribed from his own Book [ Communion of Saints] were( there be Gibeonites) he reports them thus( some there be) as designing to delude the Reader by making him to believe, that the persons here spoken of were not Gibeonites( i.e.) such as did seek Righteousness by the messiah; or at least he did falsify as aforesaid, that the Readers might not observe them to be such.  
2. That it is an undue end for true Believers( such Christians as do now seek Righteousness by Faith in Christ) to serve God, namely, that they may fly from the wrath to come, is a thing not only insinuated, but also plainly asserted by the Doctor, as hath been already manifested, and as is further manifest by his words recited in my Discourse, p. 168. he saying, that the obedience of the Saints is the way of walking in the life, they have received; not the way of working for the life they have not. Now forasmuch as the Life, which as yet the Saints have not, is the life of Glory, and it being denied by him that the Saints do, or are to work for this life, is it not plain, that he doth make it an undue end to do the works of God, or to obey God for this end, namely, That they may be glorified, saved, or escape the wrath to come, one part of which wrath is the loss of Heaven? But oh, how contrary is this to the practise of the Apostle related by himself, Phil. 3.12, 13, 14. and this to give us an example as appears, v. 15.17?  
The Doctor proceeds in his next words to make a remarkable profession of his Faith as to one Article thereof, saying, p. 53. I must needs tell my Author, that my Faith in this matter is, that such works as these will have no influence in his justification: and that the principal reason, why I suppose, I shall not in my progress in this Discourse take any particular notice of his exceptions, either against the truth, or me, next unto this consideration, that they are all trite and obsolete, and as to what seemeth to be of any force in them, will occur to me in other Authors, from whom they are derived, is, that I may not have continual occasion to declare, how forgetful he hath been of all the Rules of ingenuity, yea and of common honesty in his dealing with me.  
Answ. Our Doctor hath spoken falsely( himself being his own Judge) in pretending a necessity, that he must needs tell me his Faith as afore related: for what professed Christian is of a Faith so unchristian, as to believe, or think, that the works here reflected on by him( works of darkness, fruits of the flesh, works of the Devil, dead works, deadly works, works of more than Heathenish dishonesty, works short of common honesty, being in usual construction such honesty as is not wanting in Pagans) that these works, I say, should have an influence in his justification? Let the Doctor himself be Judge of the no necessity of his telling me this his private Faith, forasmuch as he elsewhere says, p. 535. To what purpose should the Apostle exclude evil works from our justification? whoever imagined, that any could be justified with respect to them? I cannot say, I must necessary, yet I will say, that I may hereupon fitly tell our Doctor, that he hath at unawares condemned himself in pretending a necessity to tell me that, which by his own confession no Man can be imagined to have need to be  told.  
2. The very truth is, as I am persuaded, our Doctor thought it a thing necessary by the said profession of his private Faith, to expose me as a fit object for public scorn and contempt, and partly also to upbraid me for the maintaining of some good works of our own in order to our justification before God. And this being my persuasion touching his real intent in that Sarcasm, I think it not amiss in this place to tell the Reader, what is my plain Faith touching this matter, viz. Although I know and believe, that no good works of ours( our very best works not excepted) have any causal influence into, or upon our justification, or are any the least ingredient therein( And for this reason I do renounce and abhor such odious and absurd Language, as is frequently used by this Doctor and many other prejudicate Brethren, whereby to disguise the true sense of their Adversaries, as if they introduced works into justification, made them ingredients of the thing, or asserted works to have any causal influx in, or into it;) nevertheless I am persuaded, and do verily believe, that there are certain good works( viz. Faith and Repentance, together with a sincere purpose of heart for amendment of life) which God, 
This is that which the Doctor doth so expressly and frequently in his late Book deny and argue against, affirming, that Faith alone is the means or condition of our justification, p. 96, 445, 446, & Passim.  who justifieth, doth require to be( through his grace enabling) performed by Sinners as the condition of their justification; and I mean the word[ condition] in no other sense, than our Doctor seems to allow the use of it in this case( see his late Book p. 154.) I mean, my Faith is, that the said good works( repentance and a sincere purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord in the way of well-doing) are duties together with Faith required of sinners by Jesus Christ in his Gospel, in order to their justification, or that they may be justified; and upon the performance whereof they shall for the promise sake of God, and for the Righteousness sake of Christ, certainly and infallibly be justified ( i.e.) absolved, acquitted, discharged from the guilt of their sins, freed from condemnation, or saved from the punishment deserved, or contracted by their sins▪  
My Accuser having dispatched his business with me in those four Pages together( p. 50, 51, 52, 53.) I hear no more from him till p. 70. wherein taking exception against what I had said in the first Chapter of my Discourse concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us as a phrase expressly not to be found in Scripture, thereupon he says,  
And thus although a sufficient answer hath frequently enough( if any thing can be so) been returned to the objection in Bellarmine; yet hath one of late amongst ourselves made the translation of it into English to be the substance of the first Chapter of a Book about justification: though he needed not to have given such an early intimation, unto whom he was beholding for the greatest part of his ensuing Discourse, unless it be in what is taken up in despiteful reviling of other men; for take from him what is not his own on the one hand, and impertinent cavils at the words and expressions of other men, with forged imputations on the other, and his whole Book will disappear.  
Answ. One would be apt to think, that my Adversaries intent was to run me down, and to gain a triumph over me by oppressing me with an heap of falshoods and slanders; this whole Paragraph being an heap of nought else but such ingredients, wherein with his slanderous Pen he hath piled falsehood upon falsehood, and calumny upon calumny: for,  
1. It is falsely said by him, that I have made the translation of Bellarmines objection into English to be the Subject of the first Chapter in my Book; for the very truth is, I never did make the translation of any one Sentence( objection or answer) of Bellarmine in any part of my Book, nor in any other Book which I ever wrote, or Sermon, that( to my best remembrance) I did ever Preach.  
2. It is with more falsehood here said by him, that I was beholding to Bellarmine for the greatest part of my ensuing Discourse, for I have not served myself of one line( to my knowledge) in, or out of the Books of Bellarmine in any part of my Discourse.  
3. It is still with more falsehood said of me, that the greatest part of my Discourse( except before excepted) is taken up in despiteful reviling of other men: For although I have contradicted some men, perhaps many; yet I have reviled no man.  
4. And still with more falsehood doth he charge me with impertinent cavilling, as at the words of other men, so with forged imputations on some of them; all these Accusations being gratis dicta, his own forgeries, and mere slanders, of which he hath given into my bosom measure pressed down, shaken together, and running over. But blessed be God, that( for ought hitherto my Accuser hath made to appear) I am able to justify myself, and that, as I hope, my Book itself will justify me against all the said heinous Crimes here laid to my charge, the proof whereof he hath not so much as attempted to make, nor yet instancing here in any one particular of reviling, and forgery, whereby to discover any real guilt, whether to my own Conscience, or to any other Man or Men.  
5. As for the disappearing of my whole Book( that being taken from me, which is not my own—) for as much as it is a reflection upon me in point of my Ministerial Disability, but not of any unchristian Immorality, although it were never so notorioufly false; nevertheless I shall altogether leave it to the learned Reader to judge, with what truth and integrity he hath uttered those words. Only I will say, That my Delator in all probability will say the same concerning all that I have written, both in this, and in the second part of my Discourse: which if he shall say( for what will he not say, that tends to my diminution and disparagement in any kind?) my answer shall be no other than is here given, viz. I do wholly leave it to others to judge of my Ministerial gifts, or defects, abilities, or disabilities, as they see cause; my morality or immorality( as to which it highly concerns me, even as I hope to be saved, to acquit myself) being not at all concerned in such suggestions. So I be not in account a wicked Minister, let who will account me weak.  
The Doctor proceeds after his manner saying, p. 70.71.  
But yet although he affirms, that none of the Protestant Writers, who speak of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto us( which were all of them without exception till of late) have precisely kept to the form of wholesome words; but have rather swerved, or varied from the language of Scripture in that saying, yet he will excuse them from open error,( the word open, was not mine, but is here of the Doctors putting in) if they intend no more thereby, but that we are made partakers of the benefits of the Righteousness of Christ: But if they intend that the Righteousness of Christ itself is imputed unto us( that is, so as to be our Righteousness before God, whereon we are pardonned and accepted with him, or do receive the forgiveness of sins, and a right to the Heavenly inheritance) then are they guilty of that error, which makes us to be esteemed to do ourselves what Christ did, and so on the other side Christ to have done what we do and did, ch. 2.3. But these things are not so: for if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons, it cannot be imputed unto us as done for us by another, as it will appear when we shall treat of these things afterwards.  
Answ. 1. The Doctor hath spoken untruly, and( as rationally may be presumed) contrary to his own knowledge in his first parenthesis, asserting therein, That all Protestants without exception, till of late, have abetted the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense opposed in my Discourse; for he cannot be ignorant, that many eminent Protestant writers, both in our own, and in foreign Churches have long since opposed the said Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense by me opposed, allowing and defending the Imputation thereof only in the sense by me acknowledged and maintained. And in what sense I have expressly owned the imputation of Christs Righteousness to us in the third Chapter of my Discourse, the Doctor, I confess, hath here rightly reported: But as to the explication or declaration of the sense disallowed by me, he hath palpably and most unconscionably wronged me by misreporting the same; for the manifestation of which wrong I am here necessitated to transcribe my own words in the 7th page. of my Discourse, wherein I do express the said sense disowned by me, as followeth.  
To assert the Righteousness of Christ in the proper and formal sense of the word[ righteousness] to be imputed to us, is a Doctrine, however owned by too too many, yet by very many others of our own and foreign Protestant Churches justly disowned, as that which is no where to be found in Scripture: for to assert, that Christs Righteousness is in this sense imputed to us, is to assert, that God doth account, or reckon, that the righteousness which Christ wrought, we wrought in and by him; or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine justice in and by Christ, that what Christ did in his own natural person, God doth account, we did in and by him; for to have any thing imputed to a Man in the propriety, formality, or essential nature of the thing, is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him, these being terms equivalent and explicatory one of another; And as thus explicated do the Brethren, whom I take upon me in this point to oppose, openly own the said Doctrine touching the imputation of Christs Righteousness to us, it being their error to think, that Christs Righteousness cannot be accepted by God in our behoof, or prove savingly beneficial to us, unless it be imputed to us in their said sense.  
Now let my own explication of the sense of the imputation of Christs Righteousness opposed by me, and here transcribed out of Discourse, p. 7, 8. be compared with the foresaid misrepresentation thereof by the Doctor, and his most dishonest unchristian dealing with me will evidently appear: for,  
1. Instead of the explication of the said sense( disowned by me) in my own words here transcribed, he would make the Reader to believe, that I do oppose it in the sense expressed by himself in this his parenthesis ( That is, so as to be our Righteousness before God, whereon we are pardonned and accepted with him, or do receive the forgiveness of sins, and a right to the Heavenly inheritance) whereas I never did, nor ever will I oppose the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in the sense, as is specified by the Doctor in this said parenthesis; Yea I do readily aclowledge the imputation of it so far forth, or in that sense, it being all one as to say, that Christs Righteousness is indeed before God the meritorious cause, whereon we are pardonned and accepted with God— and that as such it is imputed in our behalf, half, we enjoying the saving effects thereof, or benefits thereby purchased.  
2. The thing inferred by me in my Discourse is not as he hath here expressed it in his own words before related [ If they intend, that the Righteousnes's of Christ itself is imputed to us, then are they guilty of that error, which makes us to be esteemed to do ourselves what Christ did, and so on the other side, Christ to have done what we do and did:] but my inference was, that then they are guilty of error in asserting, that God doth account or reckon, that the righteousness which Christ wrought, we wrought in and by him, or that we are reputed by God to have fulfilled the Law and satisfied Divine justice( not we ourselves to have done these things, as the Doctor misrepresents my words, but) in and by Christ. And as this was my inference in the words here transcribed out of my Discourse, so also I did assert, and that most truly( which is a material matter here craftily concealed by the Doctor) that the thing inferred was it, which the Brethren, whom in this controversy I oppose, do professedly own in the very terms, as by me their sense is expressed from their own Books and Writings.  
3. Whereas he says, 
To be esteemed to have done in and by Christ, what Christ did, is to be esteemed not to have done it in our own persons.  that if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons, it cannot be imputed unto us, as done for us by another, as it will appear when he will treat of these things afterwards; I reply, that this makes nothing at all against what was by me inferred from the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in its formal and essential nature, which indeed was not as the Doctors words do here imply, viz. That we are esteemed to have done in our own persons, what Christ did; But my inference was, that we are esteemed to have done in and by Christ what Christ did; so that although what the Doctor doth here say may be true, viz. That if we are esteemed to have done any thing in our own persons, it cannot be imputed to us as done for us by another; my inference and the thing by me inferred is nevertheless true, viz. That to have any thing imputed to a Man in the propriety, formality, or essential nature of the thing is to be reputed the doer of what is so imputed to him; this consequence as the Brethren whom I oppose do not deny, so the consequent itself they do expressly own. The premises considered, the Doctors after-pains( here promised) to make that appear, which is nothing at all unto, but altogether beside the purpose in hand, will appear to be vain and needless, if not ridiculous.  
The Doctors next onset is, p. 288. where he mentions me by Name, and having there argued for the Imputation of the guilt of our sin to Christ, by me disowned( my persuasion being this, viz. That Christ did not take upon him our guilt or culpability, or our obligation thereupon to suffer, but an obligation at the will of his Father, peculiar to himself, he suffering in our stead, and our iniquities being laid upon him in such a sense, as the sins of the Sacrificers were laid upon the Sacrifice, the innocent Beast dying instead of the Offender; whereas the persuasion of them, I suppose, is, that Christ took upon him that same guilt or obligation to punishment, which we by our sins had contracted, and that in this sense God laid upon him the iniquities of us all) the Doctor I say, having there argued for the imputation of our guilt to Christ, or of our obligation to suffering unto Christ, he says respectively to myself in the words here following,  
Without a supposition hereof it cannot be understood, how the Lord Christ should be our {αβγδ}, or suffer {αβγδ}, in our stead, unless we will admit the exposition of Mr. Hotchkis a late Writer, who reckoning up many things the Lord Christ did in our stead, adds, as the sense thereof, that is to bestead us; than which if he can invent any thing more fond and senseless, he hath a singular faculty in such an employment.  
Answ. 1. What he here says cannot be understood, I have in my Discourse both against him and Mr. Fergusen made obvious to any unprejudicate person of common understanding; neither do I perceive, that the Doctor hath so much as attempted in his late Book to answer my arguings; and therefore as I said in my Discourse, so I say still, that Jesus Christ having assumed to, or upon himself an obligation to suffer( although not our obligation, but an obligation of another kind than ours) may well be said to be our {αβγδ}, and to have suffered in our stead, because he suffered that, which was equivalent to the suffering, which being due to us we should have suffered, and therefore to save us from suffering. This is the explication which I gave concerning Christs suffering in our stead, or as our {αβγδ}, p. 70. of my Discourse.  
2. To free myself from all, the least colour of suspicion of Socinianism I did concerning Christs dying in our stead assert more, than he himself did allow, affirming that, which he did deny; and because he hath here dealt so unconscionably and unchristianly with me, as to mention only these words of mine( Christ did thus in our stead ( i.e.) to bestead us) as if he would have every Reader to believe that I am a perfect Socinian( for the whole Tribe of Socinians will aclowledge, that Christ died in our stead ( i.e.) to bestead us); I am therefore again necessitated( for the shaming of my Accuser, and for the clearing of myself) to transcribe my own words at large out of the 214, 215. page. of my Discourse, wherein I did make profession of my Faith, that whereas Doctor J. O. doth deny the death of Christ to have been in our stead as it was a Price, and a Sacrifice( he acknowledging it to have been in our stead only as it was a punishment) the profession of my Faith is expressed at large in the words here following,  
After All This Dispute, I Do Freely And Plainly Confess, And aclowledge, And This I Do Without Any of Doctor Owens Dictinctions; That All Christs Mediatory Obedience To Any Law Whatsoever( Common To Us, Or Peculiar To Himself) Especially His Obedience To The Death Of The across, Was Under All Considerations( Both As A Penalty, As A Price, And As A Sacrifice) In Our Stead; And Forasmuch As The Dignity, Or Value Of All His Obedience Did Depend Upon The Dignity Of His Person( He Being Both God And Man) I Do Confess, That All His Obedience Was In Our Stead( That Is) To Bestead Us, And That It Did Bestead Us In The Purchasing Of A Pardon, And Life Eternal For Us, Upon Terms In The Gospel Promised To Us, And Upon Performance Thereof To Be conferred Upon Us; And That The Said Obedience Of Christ( Both Active And Passive, As It Is Usually Styled) Is Imputed To Us, Although Not Immediately And In itself, Yet To As Much Purpose, And Real Benefit, As If It Were Actually, Or Could Possibly Be So Imputed( i.e.) That It Is Imputed To Us In All Its Saving Fruits, and Blessed Effects, All That His Foresaid Obedience Making Up One Entire Meritorious Cause Of All The Said Benefits, and Blessings.  
This large profession and explication of my belief concerning the person of Christ, and concerning all his mediatory obedience( both his doings and sufferings) its being in our stead, I wrote in my Discourse in such sort as I have here transcribed it ( i.e.) every word beginning with a great Letter, that every Reader( Friends and Foes) might the rather observe and remember it, yet the Doctor it seems, was neither willing himself to take notice of it, nor willing that it should have been taken notice of by any other. The explication of my professed belief in the Article, or Articles aforesaid being thus transcribed, I leave to the Reader what judgement to make of the Doctors censure, he saying [ That if I can invent any thing more fond and senseless, I have a singular faculty in such an employment,] Yea, what judgement to make of the Doctor himself for this his censure, and for this manner of dealing with me and my Writings: And I leave it also to the judgement of every impartial Man, what manner of faculty and invention is hereupon to be ascribed to the Doctor, and what manner of employment is fit for a person, that will make no more Conscience of what he doth, or what he says, than he hath manifested throughout every page. in his dealing with me.  
The fourth and last place, wherein the Doctor hath to do with me by Name, is in p. 386, 387. He therein taking exceptions against my exposition of two Texts of Scripture, Zech. 3.3, 4, 5. and Isaiah 61.10. mentioned in my Discourse, p. 180, and 198. his words are as followeth,  
This place I had formerly urged to this purpose( that is, that by the change of Raiment, and rob of righteousness in the said Scripture is meant the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or put upon us) about Communion with God, p. 187. which Mr. Hotchkis in his usual manner attempts to answer. And to omit his reviling expressions, with the crude unproved assertion of his own conceits, his answer is, That by the change of Raiment mentioned by the Prophet, our own personal Righteousnesss is intended. For he acknowledgeth, that our justification before God is here represented. And so also he expounds the place produced in the confirmation of the exposition given Isaiah 61.10. where this change of Raiment is called the Garments of Salvation, and the Robo of Righteousness; and therein affirms, that our Righteousness itself before God is our personal Righteousness, p. 103. That is in our justification before him, which is the only thing in question.  
Answ. 1. The Doctor doth still persist to charge me as guilty of reviling expressions( among which he doth not instance in any, nor am I conscious to myself of any one) intimating moreover, that this is my usual manner of answering, or attempting to answer. If any intelligent person shall vouchsafe impartially to peruse those two Chapters( ch. 30, and 34.) where I make answer to those two objected Scriptures, Isa. 61.10. and Zech. 3.3, 4, 5. And if he doth not find, that my Book there doth justify itself and me to his Conscience as guiltless of the Crime here imputed to me( Reviling expressions) let him come forth in Gods Name and ston me, as the Delator here hath done, with accusations thick and threefold.  
2. I did, and still do aclowledge, that in the vision of the Prophet Zech. there is a representation of justification, or remission of sin and sanctifification and that as the former is represented by the phrase( Gods causing the Prophets iniquities to pass from him) so is the later by the fine change of Raiment and the Doctor himself cannot but know, how well I am seconded by several of the best Commentators in that interpretation, whom were it needful I would here produce. And as for that in Isa. 61.10. as I did in my Discourse declare my thoughts, so I am still of the same mind, viz. That by Righteousness is there meant Gods beneficence and bounty, with the several fruits of it conferred upon his Church in their preservations, deliverances, restorations—( the word Righteousness being in this sense of frequent use in Scripture) and that by Gods covering them with the Garment of Salvation and the rob of Righteousness( it being an allusion to the custom of all Nations, which was, and still is to cloth themselves suitably to their present condition, whether of prosperity or adversity, fasting or feasting times) is meant the great goodness and bounty of God( let the particulars in the retail thereof, whether in temporals, or spirituals, or in both, be what they will) promised, or manifested to his Church, and manifested by them in a suitable manner of open and solemn rejoicing for them. Neither is this interpretation the crude and unproved assertion of my own conceits, as will appear to any Reader, upon his perusal of what I have in my Discourse said for the proof of it; although my Censor, who hath taken liberty to himself to say of me and and mine, whatsoever pleaseth himself, is pleased here to say as he doth, shooting his boult after his usual manner. But if he hath any thing in the next Paragraph to disprove my said interpretation of the sayings of those two Prophets, it shall be there considered with a just reply thereunto. In the mean while I am to answer to what I am charged to have said in the 23 page. of my Discourse, viz. That our Righteousness itself before God is our personal Righteousness, to which I make answer.  
1. The Doctor hath greatly wronged me by making an imperfect relation of my words, omitting those words of mine in the self same page., wherein as I do assert, that our Righteousness itself before God is our personal Righteousness; so I do there expressly aclowledge also, that the Righteousness of Christ is in a causal sense our Righteousness before God, this also being my assertion in p. 87. and also in p. 182. of my Discourse, wherein was asserted, that this Proposition[ Christs Righteousness is a Sinners clothing] is true, praedicatione causali, though not essentiali, or formali, as are the School-terms.  
2. I am not indeed of the same mind with the Doctor and many other of my Brethren, viz. That Christs Righteousness is our sole Righteousness in our justification before God, he saying p. 295. of his late Book, that Christs whole obedience unto God in all that he did and suffered for the Church, is that which is imputed to Believers; and that this is imputed to them so, as to become their only Righteousness before God unto the justification of life. Whereas my persuasion, which I am not afraid or ashamed openly to own, is plainly this, viz. There is a threefold Righteousness concurrent, or requisite in, unto, or towards the justification of a Sinner in the sight of God, each of which truly are, and may well be said to be a sinners righteousness before God, viz. 1 The Righteousness of Jesus Christ the Son of God; this is that Righteousness which is the meritorious cause of our justification. And in this sense it is most true to say, that Christs Righteousness is in suo genere, or of its kind, our only Righteousness before God unto the justification of life. And in this sense it is also true to say( although indeed it be no Scriptural expression) that Christs Righteousness is imputed to Believers as their only Righteousness ( i.e.) so as to be reckoned or reputed the only Righteousness that hath merited, or meritoriously procured their justification unto life.  
2. forgiveness of sin, as it doth frequently in the New Testament go under the Name of Righteousness, and is a true Righteousness in its kind( as hath been at large proved and opened in my second part) so is it that Righteousness which doth ingredi naturam rei, it is the formal constituent Cause, or that which doth constitute a sinners justification before God; I mean that justification of a sinner, which is promised in the Gospel to be conferred upon him for the righteousness sake of Christ, conditionally upon his Faith, such a working Faith as was that of Abraham. And as was said in my Discourse, so I say again, with this Righteousness a sinner may with boldness appear before the judgement Seat of God, even as a Malefactor may at the Bar with the Kings pardon in his Hand or bosom.  
3. a sinners faithful performance of the conditions required in the Gospel, upon which God hath promised to them the justification of life, truly is, and may well be said in that respect, and so far forth to be their righteousness before God: and both these later kinds of Righteousnesses being through Gods gift our own, and whereof we are the Subjects, may fitly be styled for that reason our Personal Righteousness. The premises considered, all the toresaid several sorts of Righteousnesses( Christs Righteousness and our own) may be said in several respects to be or Righteousness before God, as was said and distinctly opened in the 139th page. of my Discourse. Hereupon let me commend to observation, how false that imputation of the Doctor is( p. 221, 222. of his late Book; and which to my remembrance is several times repeated by him) he saying, That those, who place the whole of justification in the remission of sins, making our personal Righteousness the condition of it, leave not any place for the Righteousness of Chrest: For although I stick not to declare myself to be one of those, who do assert, That the whole of that justification, which God hath promised to believing sinners, doth consist in the forgiveness of their sins, and that our personal Righteousness( consisting( summarily) in our return to God by Faith and Repentance) is the condition of enjoying it( altogether despising the imputation of Socinianism upon account of these assertions;) nevertheless I most explicitly and expressly leave a place, a prime place, a peculiar place to the Righteousness of Christ in our justification ( i.e.) the place of a meritorious Cause.  
And as touching the difference, or differences betwixt the said threefold Righteousness asserted to be requisite to the justification of a sinner in the fight of God, I shall commend to observation the following particulars,  
1. The first and the third kind of righteousness are extrinsical, or extrinsically requisite to the justification of a sinner before God( the first being the efficient cause, the third the condition thereof;) but the second is intrinsical to a sinners justification, it being( as was before said) the form, or thing itself, which constitutes a sinner justified, or that justification of a sinner, which Christ hath purchased, and God hath promised conditionally upon Faith in Christ.  
2. The second kind of Righteousness is requisite ex naturâ rei, it being a natural impossibility, that a sinner should be Rectus in curiâ, should be justified or made righteous respectively to the sanction, or retributive part of the Law, but by a pardon, whereby his obligation to punishment due by Law is dissolved. But the other two kinds of Righteousness are requisite ex lege dei, they are made necessary to a sinners justification By, or From the Law or Covenant of God, and this twofold, 1. The Law of the mediator, that Law which was imposed by God the Father upon Christ( commonly called the Covenant of Redemption) and by which Christs Mediatory righteousness was made necessary to the meriting the justification of believing sinners, Christ being for this end commanded to lay down his life: John 10.18.  
2. As for the third kind of Righteousness, it is requisite, or necessary to a sinners justification by virtue of the Covenant of Grace with Mankind, or the Law of Faith( as is the Apostles expression, Rom. 3, last.) wherein the terms imposed upon us in order to our justification are expressed, upon which it is promised, and without the performance of which it shall not be enjoyed; neither without this performance can it be enjoyed, either according to the tenor of the Covenant of God with us sinners, or with Christ in our behoof; forasmuch as by virtue of the agreement betwixt him and his Father, he was to metit our justification to be enjoyed upon performance of the said terms, and not otherwise.  
Now if the Doctor hath ought to say, whereby to disprove what I have said as to the interpretation of those two Texts in Zech. 3.4, 5. and Isa. 61, 10. I am ready to reply thereunto, which is the next work incumbent upon me after the recital of his words here following,  
To all which presumptions I shall oppose only the testimony of the same Prophet, which he may consider at his leisure, and which at one time or other he will subscribe unto, Isa. 64, 6. We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. He, who can make Garments of Salvation and Robes of righteousness of these filthy rags, hath a skill in composing Spiritual vestments, that I am not acquainted withall.  
Answ. 1. I have long ago had leisure to consider, and I have intently considered those words of the Prophet Isaiah, and I do subscribe to them; but I cannot at this time subscribe to that construction, which the Doctor would have me to make of them, nor I think, shall I ever do it at any other time; the words of the Prophet being indeed no Testimony to, or for what the Doctor would compel them to bear witness to, viz. to prove that there is no Righteousness of our own, that is, or may be truly said to be our Righteousness before God unto the justification of life; or that Christs Righteousness is our only Righteousness for that purpose. For among that variety of interpretations, which are given by Commentators upon those words, the Doctor hath fixed upon that, which to my seeming is most improbable, and which is therefore justly rejected by Gataker and Grotius with many other most learned men and skilful Textuaries; and that for weighty reasons, which I could easily suggest and multiply. It may be here sufficient for me to say, that the Doctor doth two ways misexpound the words, and mistake the meaning of the Prophet ( i.e.) both in respect of the persons themselves( the Subject) and in respect of the Righteousnesses( the Adjunct) of the persons there intended by the Prophet: for by the persons[ We all] the Prophet doth not mean every individual person( the remnant to be saved, as is the expression of that Prophet, speaking of the small excepted number;) but he means the body, bulk, or generality of the People( as Mr. Calvin expounds it:) and by their Righteousnesses the Prophet doth not mean any saving Righteousness( such as accompanies Salvation, as is the Apostles expression Heb. 6.9.) but that superficial, ceremonial, external Righteousness, which the body of the Jewish Nation did vainly boast of and confided in; Briefly, the Prophet doth there mean that Righteousness( with all its ingredients) which elsewhere he tells them, should not profit them, Isa. 57, 12. As for our personal habitual Righteousness( commonly styled saving Righteousness) it is styled in the language of Scripture A Divine nature, the Image of God, Christ formed in us— upon which account the Righteous are said to be The glory of God, the excellent, more excellent than their Neighbours— And the works of Righteousness are said to be fruits of the spirit, an odour of a sweet smell, a Sacrifice acceptable through Christ— 2 Pet. 1, 4. Gal. 4.19. Eph. 4.24. Col. 3.10. Psal. 16.3. Prov. 12.26. 2 Cor. 3.23. Eph. 5.9. Phil. 4.18.  
2. That which the Doctor here calls, and would persuade us, that the Prophet calls filthy rags, Job doth not stick to call a rob and a diadem, Job 29.14. and the Psalmist, Raiment of Needlework, and clothing of wrought Gold, Psal. 45.13, 14. and Solomon, An ornament of grace to our head, and chains about our neek, Prov. 1.9.  
3. The skill, which the Doctor here says, he is not acquainted with, he may learn at his leisure, and that in a very short time, if he hath a mind to it; and for that purpose, although I do not expect that he should so far condescend as to learn of me, but rather disdain and scorn to be taught any skill in any kind by such an inferior as myself; nevertheless, I will be bold to commend to his notice two skilful Artificers( work-men who needed not to be ashamed) who will acquaint him, that there is such a skill to be learned, to which he is, it seems, hitherto a professed Stranger; I mean, those two prime Apostles, St. Paul and St. Peter; who, both of them, do instruct the Woman-kind to compose Spiritual Vestments, I say not of filthy rags, but of materials so Nick-named by the Doctor, see 1 Pet. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. 1 Tim. 2.9, 10. The premises considered, I hope, that the Readers will not suspect any rag, or remnant of popery in what I have said to correct the Doctors misexposition of the words of those two Prophets( Isaiah and Zechariah:) for the prevention of which suspicion( for abundance cautela non nocet)  
1. Be it remembered, that I have left a peculiar place for the Righteousness of Jesus Christ in the justification of a sinner, even a Royal Throne, in which no Righteousness of ours must be set, or to which it may aspire or approach.  
2. Be it remembered, that although I do deny, that the Saints personal Righteousness is by the Prophet Isaiah styled Filthy rags; I do nevertheless aclowledge, that there is Iniquity adhering to the best of our holy things, which doth therefore need pardon, as well as our unholy things, which are iniquity, the guilt of all which is taken away by a pardon from God through Christ, which pardon of sin is a sinners justification before God, it being a thing not to be imagined( which yet seems to be the common gross imagination of too too many) and, for ought as yet appears to me, of the Doctor himself, that God in justifying us, doth justify us to be sinless, whereas the truth is, that God in justifying us doth for Christs sake only acquit and discharge us from condemnation, our sins notwithstanding.  
The Doctor concludes all, that in his Book he says against me by Name, in the following words, p. 387.  
What remains in the Chapter, wherein the Answer is given to that testimony of the Scripture, I shall take no notice of; it being after his accustomend manner, only a perverse wresting of my words unto such a sense, as may seem to countenance him in casting a reproach upon myself and others.  
Answ. 1. What the Doctor cannot answer with sobriety of reason, he doth very wisely to take no notice of; but he doth very ill so to wrong himself and me by the repetition of his slanderous accusing me for wresting, perverse wresting his words, whereby to countenance myself in casting reproach upon him and others. In my own defence against this his Accusation I shall request the Reader, who is minded to judge betwixt me and my Accuser, to peruse that Chapter( Chap. 30. in my Discourse) and if he doth not acquit me from the Crime here charged upon me, I will say in the words of Judah to his Father Jacob, Gen. 43.9. Let me bear the blame for ever. In the mean while let him know this, viz. That if my own Conscience did not acquit me to myself of this and all other immoralities charged upon me by my Adversary, I would be much more an abhorring to my seif, than I can be to him, or to any other.  
2. The words forecited being the Doctors last words at his parting with me( for I hear no more of him to the end of his Book) the Reader may observe two things; 1. How he hath spun the whole of what he hath said, referring to me with an even Thread, I mean, how uniform he hath been from first to last, even all along in his dealing with me: For as he began his onset, and continued his pursuit with one false Accusation or another( spleen, spite, petulancy, scurrility, wresting his words, reproaching, forgery, disingenuity, dishonesty from first to last in my dealing with him, reviling and many of these repeated) in such sort doth he here conclude, filling up the Ephah or measure of his sin. To all these his slanderous imputations put together, although by occasion of them I cannot but call to mind those words of the Psalmist ( What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?) Nevertheless I shall only make a reply once for all in such words, as the Apostle being impeached at the bar did Answer for himself before Felix, Acts 24.13. saying, Neither hath this Tertullus the Orator, or Impleader( Dr. J. O.) as yet proved, neither is he ever able to prove the things( the immoralities) whereof he hath accused me; respectively to all and every of which I shall further say in my own defence, as did the same Apostle, being many ways traduced by his back Friends, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself; which if I did, I would both do and say with Job( Ch. 42.6.) I repent, and abhor myself in dust and ashes. But let me say also with the same Apostle, Although I am not conscious to myself of any of that guilt here charged upon me by my Accuser, yet I am not thereby( absolutely, authentically, decisively, finally) justified: For he that will judge( both the accuser and the accused) is the Lord; Nor is it he, who commends himself, that is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth, 2 Cor. 10.1.  
2. The Reader may observe whether the Doctor spake true or false( that we may know how to take his word for time to come, especially when he speaks of himself) in his Epistle prefixed to his Book, wherein he says, That he hath ascribed no opinion to any particular person, much less wrested the words of any, Reflected on their Persons, censured their Abilities, taken Advantages of presumed prejudices against them.  
What? Hath the Doctor like an Inhabitant of the Holy Hill of Sion, spoken the truth from his heart in those words of his? What? Hath he so peppered my Jacket, and smitten me hip and thigh with his slanderons tongue, and yet not at all reflected upon my Person, nor censured my Abilities? What though this Hotchkis be a Person of an inferior condition( è vulgo Cleri, an obscure country Minister?) Is he therefore in account no person at all? But forasmuch as undeniably I am some manner of Person, the Doctors vile reflections upon me and manifold slanders( as before laid open) being considered, every impartial Reader will doubtless say of Him, that by that his professed denial( his reflecting upon any person) he hath no otherwise justified, or cleared himself, than that naughty Patch, of whom Agur said, She eateth, and wipeth her Mouth and saith, I have done no wickedness, Prov. 30.20. For my own part, I should greatly wonder that the fear of God had not effectually restrained him from his manifold slanders and unchristian dealing with me, were it not, that as he professeth to have great assurance of his Saintship, so it is his professed Doctrine( see my Discourse p. 168, 169. That the Rule of the Saints obedience is the Law of liberty, as divested of all its terrifying, threatening, damning, cursing power. As to the falsehood of this saying I have spoken somewhat in my Discourse, p. 168, 169. But because I judge it to be very dangerous, and of woeful tendency, I shall suggest two things more.  
First, Besides the reason specified in my Discourse, why the Gospel of Christ is called by St. James the Law of liberty, there is this reason of it rendered by Learned expositors, and by them judged to be the prime and most proper reason, viz. Because it is, as most impartial in its commands, so also in its threatenings, threatening Hell and damnation libere, freely and without all manner of respect of persons to all presumptuous transgressors, this being threatened to Believers themselves in case of their revolting and living as Unbelievers, or( to speak in the language of the Prophet Ezek. 18, 24.) their turning away from their righteousness and committing iniquity, and doing according to all the abominations that the wicked man doth, Heb. 10.38. Whence that admonition, Heb. 4.1. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. Hence also that exhortation to the serving of God with reverence and Godly fear, it being backed or seconded with these words( for our God is a consuming fire) Heb. 12.28, 29. and this exhortation and consideration given and suggested to those, who at present were Heirs apparent of Heaven.  
Secondly, That Eastern St.( holy Job, a Man celebrated for the fear of God, Ch. 1.1.) was of another mind, than our Doctor in this point, as appears, in that he declares this to be a reason, why he did not despise the cause of his Man-servant or his Maid-servant( persons for ought I know of condition as inferior as myself) saying( Chap. 31.23.) For Destruction from God was a terror to me. Had any thing like to Destruction been a terror to this Doctor, he would not have so despised, set at nought, belied and slandered any Brother, however of a condition never so inferior to himself. But that my Accuser may the rather perceive and lay to heart, what a grievous evil it is to transgress by false accusing and open calumniating, I shall put him in mind of his own words, p. 541. where he says,  
False Accusations and open Calumnies are the worst of Evils, to which some will( of certain Papists he there speaks) out of a perverse zeal to promote their own interest in the Religion they profess, wilfully give up themselves. It is probable, that the word[ {αβγδ}] was in his mind, when he wrote those words, that word( the Devils common name) signifying a false Accuser. And if such were his thoughts, there is the more hope, that sooner or later he will seriously reflect who it is that did set him on work, or whose work he hath done in his open Calumnies and false Accusations of me from page. to page. in his late Book, wheresoever he mentions my Name. I hear he hath put forth a New Catechism, and I did very lately red some ●●●●●tions upon it by that judicious Author Mr. lamb, in his Book styled, A fresh svit against Independency: I wish he had first learned to have put in practise our old one. He would then have kept himself from evil speaking, lying, and slandering. And if the Doctor did judge it somewhat useful to me to be warned of my Immoralities)[ in truth not mine, but feigned by himself, and wrongfully imputed to me) it may well be thought to be more useful unto him to be warned of trespasses, truly and really, plainly and palpably His, as I have by many instances made apparent in this Reply.  
I have styled the Immoralities charged upon me false and feigned: for the only thing which sticks to me, of which in my Conscience I am convinced, is, That I have contradicted Him; this Contradiction being an heinous Crime, may an Adversary be judge, who cannot endure to be contradicted by any Man, especially his inferior, all contradiction being a kind of correction, and all correction being more or less grievous to him, that forsakes the way i. e. the way of truth, says the wise Man, Prov. 15.10. But that the inferiority of my condition( suggested by the Doctor) may not prove any remorse or hindrance to the reception and progress of the truth opposed by him, and defended in my Discourse, it may not be amiss to inform the Reader of what the Doctor is not ignotant, viz. That there are two persons of a superior condition( eminent Authors) who in their late Books( come forth since my Discourse) have seconded my sense, and abundantly confirmed all that I have said therein concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us, and our sins to him. These Authors are the very learned and most laborious Mr. Richard Baxter, in his Book concerning the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to Believers; the other is Sir Charles Wolsely Knight and Baronet, and a person of rare accomplishments; there remains only one thing, which because it is of comfortable hearing, I have referved to the last. The Good news is, that notwithstanding all the scuffle which hath been betwixt the Combatants( Doctor own and myself) touching the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to Believers, they have( like schoolboys) fought themselves Friends, I mean, they are at last perfectly agreed in the said point of difference, for he declares his full assent and consent with Bellarmine in his exposition of the phrase( The Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23.6.) and says, p. 427. ihat Bellarmines sense of the words contains the whole of the Cause He( we, says be, meaning himself and the Brethren on his side) pled for. Now Bellarmines sense he relates in the words following, p. 427, 428. here transcribed, and by him translated.  
Christ may be called our Righteousness, because he is the efficient cause of our Righteousness. Again, Christ is said to be our Righteousness, because he hath made satisfaction for us to the Father, and doth so give and communicate that satisfaction unto us, when he justifies us, that it may be said to be our satisfaction and righteousness. And in this sense it would not be absurd, if any one should say, That the righteousness of christ and his merits are imputed to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. De Justif. lib. 12. cap. 10.  
This sense of Bellarmine the Doctor doth declare his subscription unto once and again, he saying( p. 500.) It grants the whole of what we pled for.  
Now if he with his Brethren do pled for no more, what need any further pleading on either side? for this is in effect the whole of that, which I have all along professedly and explicitly pleaded for, viz. That Christs Righteousness is called our Righteousness( not indeed because it is ours, or imputed to us in its formal and essential nature, Bellarmine also disclaiming the Imputation of it in this sense, but) because it is the efficient meritorious cause of our Righteousness, in which sense( sensu causali though not formali) I have acknowledged it more than once in my Discourse to be our Righteousness; to which I add, saying, In this sense Christ is said, as by the Prophet Jeremiah to be our righteousness, so by the Apostle St. Paul to be our Life, Col. 3.4. because he is the meritoriously procuring cause of our Righteousness, and Life, viz. by his satisfaction and merits: And in what sense his satisfaction and merits may be said to be Ours, I have expressly declared in my Discourse, p. 98. Chap. 19. viz. Because Christ having thereby abundantly satisfied the Father, God doth, when he justifieth us, communicate them unto us ( i.e.) in their saving fruits and effects: For to construe Bellarmines words otherwise than thus( In their effects) is to impose a sense, or construction upon the Cardinals words contrary to his professed intent and true meaning. And I have said in my Discourse, Chap. 2. and 3. even as plainly as doth Bellarmine in his words forecited, viz. That it is not untruly or absurdly said, that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us: For although I never thought myself obliged to use the expression, and have always therefore in my Praying and Preaching abstained from it( the Phrase not being Scriptural) yet I never had any such indignation against it as some learned Authors( Dr. Gil and Dr. Thornedike) have in their late Writings manifested; Yea I was so far from blaming any of my Brethren simply for using this phrase( Christs Righteousness is imputed to us) that I have in an Orthodox sense( which the Doctor himself tells us is the sense of Bellarmine) vindicated the use of it, and withall I have afferted in my Discourse( p. 215.) That although Christs Righteousness is not immediately and in itself imputed to us, nevertheless its being imputed in its saving fruits, and blessed effects, it is imputed to us to As Much Purpose, And Real Benefit, As If He Were Actually, Or Could Possibly Be So Imputed. To say thus is all one in true construction as to say in the words of Bellarmine forecited, viz. That Christs Righteousness and Merits are imputed to us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. Bellarmine doth not say, Christs Righteousness is imputed to us, because, or forasmuch as we in and by him did satisfy God, but it is imputed( that is, to as much our real benefit) As if we ourselves had satisfied God.  
And what now will the Reader say upon the hearing of the Doctors declared, yea repeated acknowledgement of his accord with Bellarmine, whose sense in this matter appears to be the same, which I and my Brethren pled for?  
All that I will say hereupon of the Doctor, shall be only what himself says of Bellarmine in the same page.( 917.) and in reference to the same thing. Bellarmine( says the Doctor) whether unawares, or overpowered by the evidence of truth, grants that sense of the words, which contains the whole of the cause we pled for.  
So say I, Whether unawares, or overpowered by the evidence of truth, the Doctor hath granted and declared himself well satisfied with that sense of the words( Christ is our Righteousness, and Christs Righteousness is imputed to us) which contains the whole of the cause by myself in my Discourse, and by the Brethren in consort with me, pleaded for, I mean, particularly by Sir Charles Wolsely, and Mr. Richard Baxter in their late Books, together with many other of the most learned Men of old in the Protestant Churches. And what need is there to say more at present than this in short, Magna est veritas, quae praevaluit, etiam ac praevalebit?  
The matter being compremised by Bellarmine, and brought to an accord betwixt us( for qui conveniunt in uno tertio, conveniunt inter se) I shall conclude in a good hour, and my conclusion shall be with the same Request to the Readers, that the Apostle used in the close of his Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 13.18.  
Pray for the Author of this Defence, 
Stanton Sept. 24. 1677.  for he trusteth he hath Conscience( notwithstanding all the foul imputations of his Adversary Doctor own) in all things willing to live honestly.  
If Any Man Among You Seem To Be Religious, And Bridleth Not His Tongue, But Deceiveth His Own Heart, This Mans Religion Is Vain. Jam. 1.26.  
God Resisteth The Proud: But He Giveth Grace unto the Humble. Jam. 4.6.  
FINIS.