CHAP. XI.] PBNAN(? B,?*S&TISF&(rTION. 041 hess. It nded tht something may fom, or ?at their f?th ?d patience, ? o?er ?ues, sh?dbe exerc?ed, ? ? ?eir own ?ial ?d ?0?, ?d ?e ?nefit o? ?hers which are ?ut them. These ?e ?e ?cipi? visiM?ons ?th w?ch G? ?ec?* ?s c?dren, but not pun?hmenM, p?perl F ? c?ed. This ?8tinction will solve ? ?ose tex? of Sc?pt?e tht are b?ht bF the Romanis? in (avour o; t? doc?e o( ?h;ac?on or me?ri* ous suffering. 5. The doc?jne of human sath?action is wi?out fo?n ? Seep- tare, and i8 expres81? a?st Sc?ptum. O? Sa?our Mught ? ? pray, "For?ve us our debM, (i.e., 8ins,) ? we for?ve our debtors." But c? any man be 8?d to for?ve debt ? another, and yet at ?e nine time r?re the pa?ent of it, eider in whole or in ? ? ?ither, therefore, there i8 no punh?ent exuc?d after ?or?veness, or our Saviour co?ds us ? p?y for what ?od will never ?ant. For?venes8 is represented in Sc?pture as off, e, as free and ?- tuitous, and ? a p?e effect of ?'8 undese?ed fayour and ?ne?. "Being freel F justified by his OaACE, t?ough ?e redemption w?ch is in Jesus," Rom. iii, 24. And this j?tification by ?ace is incompati- ble with pardon by works; for "if it be by wor?, it h no ?m of ?ce," Rom. xi, 6. But how can t? accord wi? the ?phh doc?ne of for?veness, which supposes t?t we c?not be absolved ?m the punishment of ottr sins till we shall have ?d, hereafter, the u?erm?t farthing for which we are accounable ? So far i8 God from exacting punishment a?er for?veness, ?at he expressly decides ? the courtly. "I will for?ve their sins, ?d ?member their ?iquities no more," Jer. ?i, 34. "If the wicked will turn from all his 8ins that he ha? committed, and keep all s?tu?8, and do that w?ch i8 lawful and right, he sh?l surely live, sh?l not die. AH his t?nsgre88ions which he hath co?itted shall not be mentioned to ?m," Ezek. xviii, 21, 22. Now if God does not men,on or remember their sins, there is no fear that he w? punish them a?rwa?; ?d ?at ?e sinner, ? prevent punishment, mus? m?e a complete satisfaction ? the &vine jus?cc, either by ?elf or ?he?. The prophet ls?ah 8?th: "The chastisement of our ?e was u?n ?m," liii, 5. "He ?th reconciled us in ?e body of his flesh, ?e us unblamable," &c., ?ol. i, 21, 22. A?in: "He hath o? ?ties,"Isa. ?i, 5. "He hath delivered ? from the c?e of the law," Gal. iii, 13. Here Christ ? represented as 5ear?g our ?tie?, w?ch ce?y refers ? tem?ral suffering. Besides, the ?p?sh distinction between Mineral and etem? punisl?- men? is ?script?, and therefore we ?ve no au?ori? to ?ke such distinctions, ?d fo?, on t? unscri?u? ?ncti?, a va?e? of doc- trines, duties, and ceremonies, w?ch ? to ?e? the ?i o? C?t. ? the Roman?M have cer?inly done. But ? prove ?e utter fallacy o? human me?t and satefaction, ? ap?ing the j?tice of ?, the sa?sfaction ?e by Jes? C?ht, ? 8ufferin? and de?h, b declared ? be ? 8b?luMIy ?,ct ?d ?pbb n ? effect the complem s?v?ion of ?1 who believe ?d o? �e ?1. "By ?m ? ? ?lieve ?e jmt? from ? ?n? ?
�
