Imágenes de páginas

Evangelical personal righteousness, the nature and use of it. Whether there be

an evangelical justification on our evangelical righteousness, inquired into.

How this is by some affirmed and applauded. Evangelical personal righte-

ousness asserted as the condition of our legal righteousness, or the pardon of

sin. Opinion of the Socinians. Personal righteousness required in the gos-

pel. Believers hence denominated righteous. Not with respect unto righte-

ousness habitual, but actual only. Inherent righteousness the same with sanc-

tification or holiness. In what sense we may be said to be justified by in-

herent righteousness. No evangelical justification on our personal righte-

ousness. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ doth not depend

thereon. None have this righteousness, but they are antecedently justified.

A charge before God, in all justification before God. The instrument of this

charge; the law or the gospel. From neither of them can we be justified by

this personal righteousness. The justification pretended needless and useless.

It hath not the nature of any justification mentioned in the Scripture; but

is contrary to all that is so called. Other arguments to the same purpose.

Sentential justification at the last day. Nature of the last judgment. Who

shall be then justified. A declaration of righteousness, and an actual ad-

mission unto glory, the whole of justification at the last day. The argument

that we are justified in this life, in the same manner, and on the same grounds

as we shall be judged at the last day, that judgment being according unto

works, answered; and the impertingency of it declared

Imputation, and the nature of it. The first express record of justification, deter-

mineth it to be by imputation. Gen. xv. 6. Reasons of it. The doctrine

of imputation cleared by Paul; the occasion of it. Maligned and opposed

by many. Weight of the doctrine concerning imputation of righteousness on

all hands acknowledged. Judgment of the reformed churches herein, parti-

cularly of the church of England. By whom opposed, and on what grounds.

Signification of the word. Difference between 'reputare' and 'imputare.'

Imputation of two kind.
1. Of what was ours antecedently unto that im-

putation, whether good or evil. Instances, in both kinds. Nature of this

imputation. The thing imputed by it, imputed for what it is, and nothing

else. 2. Of what is not ours antecedently unto that imputation, but is made

so by it. General nature of this imputation. Not judging of others to have

done what they have not done. Several distinct grounds and reasons

imputation. 1. Ex justitia.' 1. Propter relationem fœderalem.' 2. Propter

relationem naturalem.' 2. Ex voluntaria sponsione.' Instances, Phil. xvii.

Gen. xliii. 9. Voluntary sponsion, the ground of the imputation of sin t

Christ. 3. Ex injuria.' 1 Kings i. 21. 4. Ex mera gratia.' Rom. iv. Dif-

ference between the imputation of any works of ours, and of the righteous-

ness of God. Imputation of inherent righteousness, is 'ex justitia.' Incon-

sistency of it, with that which is 'ex mera gratia.' Rom. xi. 6. Agreement

of both kinds of imputation. The true nature of the imputation of righteous-

ness unto justification, explained. Imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

The thing itself imputed, not the effect of it; proved against the Socinians. 201

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Nature of the obedience or Tighteousness required unto justification. Original
and causes of the law of creation. The substance and end of that law. The
immutability or unchangeableness of i considered absolutely; and as it was
the instrument of the covenant between God and man. Arguments to prove
it unchangeable and obligation unto the righteousness first required, per-
petuallif. Therefore not abrogated, not dispensed withal, not dero-
ul, but accomplished. This alone by Christ, and the imputation of

s righteousness unto us .....
... 297


Imputation of the obedience of Christ, no less necessary than that of his suffer-
ing on the same ground. Objections against it. 1. That it is impossible.
Management hereof by Socinus. Ground of this objection, that the Lord
Christ was for himself obliged unto all the obedience he yielded unto God,
and performed it for himself, answered. The obedience inquired after, the
obedience of the person of Christ the Son of God. In his whole person, Christ
was not under the law. He designed the obedience he performed, for us not

Testimonies out of the Epistles of Paul, the apostle. His design in the fifth
chapter to the Romans. That design explained at large and applied to the
present argument. Chap. iii. 24-26. explained, and the true sense of the


words vindicated. The causes of justification enumerated. Apostolical in-
ferences from the consideration of them. Chap. iv. Design of the disputa-
tion of the apostle therein. Analysis of his discourse. Ver. 4, 5. particularly
insisted on, their true sense vindicated. What works excluded from the jus-
tification of Abraham. Who it is, that worketh not. In what sense the un-
godly are justified. All men ungodly antecedently unto their justification.
Faith alone the means of justification on our part. Faith itself absolutely
considered, not the righteousness that is imputed unto us. Proved by sun-
dry arguments
Chap. v. 12-18. Boasting excluded in ourselves, asserted in God. The desigu
and sum of the apostle's argument. Objection of Socinus removed. Com-
parison between the two Adams, and those that derive from them. Sin en-
tered into the world. What sin intended. Death, what it compriseth.
What intended by it. The sense of those words inasmuch, or, in whom all
have sinned, cleared and vindicated. The various oppositions used by the
apostle in this discourse. Principally between sin or the fall, and the free
gift. Between the disobedience of the one, and the obedience of another.
Judgment on the one hand, and justification unto life on the other. The
whole context at large, explained, and the argument for justification by the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, fully confirmed

Chap. x. 3, 4. explained and insisted on to the same purpose


[ocr errors]

.... 417

[ocr errors]

Eph. ii. 8-10. Evidence of this testimony. Design of the apostle from the be-
ginning of the chapter. Method of the apostle in the declaration of the
grace of God. Grace alone the cause of deliverance from a state of sin.
Things to be observed in the assignation of the causes of spiritual deliverance.
Grace, how magnified by him. Force of the argument, and evidence from
thence. State of the case here proposed by the apostle. General determi-
nation of it. By grace ye are saved. What it is to be saved, inquired into.
The same as to be justified, but not exclusively. The causes of our justifica-
tion, declared positively and negatively. The whole secured unto the grace
of God by Christ, and our interest therein through faith alone. Works ex-

Icluded. What works? Not works of the law of Moses. Not works ante-

cedent unto believing. Works of true believers. Not only in opposition to

the grace of God, but to faith in us. Argument from those words. Reason

whereon this exclusion of works is founded. To exclude boasting on our

part. Boasting, wherein it consists. Inseparable from the interest of works

in justification. Danger of it. Confirmation of this reason obviating an ob-

jection. The objection stated. If we be not justified by works, of what use

are they, answered

Phil. iii. 8, 9. Heads of argument from this testimony. Design of the context.


Objections against the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righte-

ousness of Christ. Nature of these objections. Difficulty in discerning

aright the sense of some men in this argument. Justification by works, the

end of all declension from the righteousness of Christ. Objections against

this doctrine derived from a supposition thereof alone. First principal objec-

tion; imputed righteousness overthrows the necessity of a holy life. This

objection as managed by them of the church of Rome, an open calumny.

How insisted on by some among ourselves. Socinus's fierceness in this charge.

His foul dishonesty therein. False charges on men's opinions, making way

for the rash condemnation of their persons. Iniquity of such censures. The

objection rightly stated. Sufficiently answered in the previous discourses

about the nature of faith, and force of the moral law. The nature and neces-

sity of evangelical holiness elsewhere pleaded. Particular answers unto this

objection. All who profess this doctrine do not exemplify it in their lives.

The most holy truths have been abused. None by whom this doctrine is now

denied, exceed them in holiness, by whom it was formerly professed, and the

power of it attested. The contrary doctrine not successful in the reformation

of the lives of men. The best way to determine this difference. The same

objection managed against the doctrine of the apostle in his own days. Effi-

cacious prejudices against this doctrine in the minds of men. The whole

doctrine of the apostle liable to be abused. Answers of the apostle unto this

objection. He never once attempts to answer it, by declaring the necessity

of personal righteousness, or good works unto justification before God. He

confines the cogency of evangelical motives unto obedience only unto be-

lievers. Grounds of evangelical holiness asserted by him in compliance with

his doctrine of justification. 1. Divine ordination. Exceptions unto this

ground, removed. 2. Answer of the apostle vindicated. The obligation of

the law unto obedience. Nature of it, and consistency with grace. This an-

swer of the apostle vindicated. Heads of other principles that might be

pleaded to the same purpose

Seeming difference, no real contradiction between the apostles Paul and James,
concerning justification. This granted by all. Reasons of the seeming dif-
ference. The best rule of the interpretation of places of Scripture, wherein

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »