Изображения страниц


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 bave 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 jastified 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 purposc.

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 s:Ime manner, and on the same grounds

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

works, answered; and the impertin sncy of it declared



Impotation, 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 whoni opposed, and on what grounds.

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

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

patation, 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 oars 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 fæderalem. 2. . Propter

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

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

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



Imputation of sin unto Christ. Testimonies of the ancients unto that purpose.

Christ and the church, one mystical person. Mistakes about that state and

relation. Grounds and reasons of the union, that is the foundation of this

imputation. Christ the surety of the new covenant; in what sense, unto

what ends. Heb. vii. 22. opened. Mistakes about the causes and ends of

the death of Christ. The now covenant, in what sense alone procured and

purchased thereby. Inquiry whether the guilt of our sins, was imputed unto

Christ. The meaning of the words, guilt, and guilty. The distinction of

* reatus culpæ,' and 'reatus pænæ,' examined. Act of God in the imputation

of the guilt of our sins unto Christ. Objections against it, answered. The
truth confirmed



Principal controversies about justification. 1. Concerning the nature of justi-

fication, stated. 2. Of the formal cause of it, 3. Of the way whereby we

are made partakers of the benefits of the mediation of Christ. What in-

tended by the formal cause of justification, declared. The righteousness

on the account whereof believers are justified before God alone, inquired

after under those terms. This the righteousness of Christ, imputed unto them.

Occasions of exceptions and objections against this doctrine. General ob-

jections examined. Imputation of the righteousness of Christ; consistent

with the free pardon of sin, with the necessity of evangelical repentance. Me-

thod of God's grace in our justification. Necessity of faith unto justification,

on supposition of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Grounds of

that necessity. Other objections arising mostly from mistakes of the truth,

asserted, discussed, and answered ..



Arguments for justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Our own personal righteousuess, not that on the account whereof we are jus-

tified in the sight of God. Disclaimed in the Scriptures, as to any such end.

The truth and reality of it granted. Manifold imperfections accompanying
it, rendering it unmect to be a righteousness unto the justification of life.... 276


Nature of the obedience or righteousness required unto justification. Original

and causes of the law of creation. The substance and end of that law. The
immutability or unchangeableness of jo vunsidered absolutely; and as it was
the instrument of the covenant huiween God and man. Arguments to prove
it unchangeable and upligation unto the righteousness first required, per-
petuall. in fin Therefore not abrogated, not dispensed withal, not dero-

vu, but accomplished. This alone by Christ, and the imputation of

sind righteousness unto us



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 bis whole person, Christ
was not under the law. He designed the obedience he performed, for us not


for himself. This actual obedience not necessary as a qualification of his per-

son, unto the discharge of his office. The foundation of this obedience in his

being made man, and of the posterity of Abraham, not for himself, but for

03. Right of the human nature unto glory, by virtue of union. Obedience

necessary unto the human nature, as Christ in it was made under the law.

This obedience properly for us. Instances of that nature among men. Christ

obeyed as a public person; and so not for himself. Human nature of Christ

subject unto the law, as an eternal rule of dependance on God, and subjec-

tion to him; not as prescribed unto us wbilst we are in this world, in order

unto our future blessedness, or reward. Second objection, that it is useless,

answered. He that is pardoned all his sins, is not thereon esteemed to have

done all that is required of him. Not to be uprighteous, negatively; not the

same with being righteous, positively. The law obligeth both unto punish-

ment and obedience; how, and in what sense. Pardon of sin gives no title

to eternal life. The righteousness of Christ who is one, imputed unto many.

Arguments proving the imputation of the obedience of Christ, unto the justi-

fication of life



The difference between the two covenants, stated. Arguments from thence

... 340


All works whatever expressly excluded from any interest in our justification be-

forę God. What intended by the works of the law. Not those of the cere-

monial law only. Not perfect works only, as required by the law of our crea-

tion. Not the outward works of the law performed without a principle of

faith. Not works of the Jewish law. Not works with a conceit of merit.

Not works only wrought before believing in the strength of our own wills.

Works excluded absolutely from our justification without respect unto a dis-

tinction of a first and second justification. The true sense of the law in the

apostolical assertion, that none are justified by the works thereof. What the

Jews understood by the law. Distribution of the law under the Old Testa-

ment. The whole law a perfect rule of all inherent moral or spiritual obe-

dience. What are the works of the law, declared from the Scripture, and

the argument thereby confirmed. The nature of justifying faith farther de-


... 343

[ocr errors]

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 discoursé. 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 ification 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 wbom 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. 1. 3, 4. explained and insisted on to the same purpose


1 Cor. i. 30. Christ, how of God made righteousness unto us. Answer of Bel-

larmine unto this testimony, removed. That of Socinus, disproved. True

sense of the words evinced


2 Cor. v. 21. In what sense Christ knew no sin. Emphasis in that expression.

How he was made sin for us. By the imputation of sin unto him. Mis-

takes of some about this expression. Sense of the ancients. Exception of

Bellarmine unto this testimony, answered; with other reasonings of his to the

same purpose


The exceptions of others also removed. Gal. i. 16.


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 if the argument, and evidence from
thence. State of the case here proposed by the apostle. General determi-
nation of it. By grace yê 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-

cluded. 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. iji. 8, 9. Heads of argument from this testimony. Design of the context.



Righteousness the foundation of acceptance with God. A twofold righteous-

ness considered by the apostle. Opposite unto one another, as unto the es-

pecial end inquired after. Which of these he adhered unto, his own righte.

ousness or the righteousness of God; declared by the apostle with vehemency

of speech. Reasons of his earnestness herein. The turning point whereon

he left Judaism. The opposition made unto this doctrine by the Jews. The

weight of the doctrine and unwillingness of men to receive it. His own sense

of sin and grace. Peculiar expressions used in this place, for the reasons

mentioned, concerning Christ. Concerning all things that are our own. The

choice to be made on the case stated, whether we will adhere unto our own

righteousness, or that of Christ's, which are inconsistent as to the end of jus-

tification. Argument from this place. Exceptions unto this testimony, and

argument from thence, removed. Our personal righteousness inherent, the

same with respect unto the law and gospel. External righteousness only re-

quired by the law, an impious imagination. Works wrought before faith only

rejected. The exception removed. Righteousness before conversion, not

intended by the apostle



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 wbom 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. Efi-

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 Paol and James,

concerning justification. This granted by all. Reasons of the seeming dif-
ference. The best role of the interpretation of places of Scripture, wherein

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »