THE
SECOND
PART
OF
A
DISCOURSE
Concerning
Imputed
Righteousness
.
Together
with
a
large
Preface
in
Answer
to
Mr
Throughtons
late
Book
intituled
Lutherus
Redivivus
:
And
a
Postscript
containing
a
Vindication
of
the
Authors
Doctrine
in
the
former
part
,
against
the
Reflections
of
Dr
John
Owen
in
his
late
Book
of
Justification
.
By
Thomas
Hotchkis
Rector
of
Stanton
by
Highworth
in
the
County
of
Wilts
.
LONDON
,
Printed
for
Walter
Kettleby
at
the
Bishops-head
at
the
West-end
of
St.
Pauls
Churchyard
,
1678.
THE
PREFACE
.
Containing
Reflections
more
at
large
upon
Mr
Throughtons
late
Book
,
styled
Lutherus
Redivivus
.
Christian
Reader
,
FOrasmuch
as
the
Title-page
,
together
with
the
Index
annexed
to
this
Second
part
of
my
Discourse
(
Written
indeed
and
sent
to
the
Stationer
two
years
ago
in
order
to
its
being
made
publick
)
do
plainly
and
fully
declare
the
scope
and
subject
matter
thereof
,
I
should
not
have
deemed
it
necessary
in
the
least
to
have
prefixed
any
Preface
thereunto
,
were
it
not
to
give
thee
to
understand
,
that
a
few
weeks
ago
there
came
to
my
hands
Mr
Throughtons
late
Book
Entituled
(
Lutherus
Redivivus
,
or
,
The
Protestant
Doctrine
of
Justification
by
Faith
onely
.
)
Which
h●ving
rend
throughout
and
finding
my self
(
together
with
those
two
very
Learned
Writers
,
Mr
Richard
Baxter
,
and
Mr
Joseph
Truman
)
by
name
therein
opposed
,
I
have
thought
it
expedient
for
the
vindication
and
confirmation
of
that
Doctrine
,
which
is
held
forth
in
both
parts
of
this
Discourse
,
to
speak
somewhat
more
at
large
in
reference
thereunto
.
In
this
undertaking
I
intend
these
four
things
.
1.
A
brief
relation
of
the
scope
of
the
said
Authors
Book
.
2.
A
manifestation
of
his
want
of
candour
and
conscience
in
his
frequent
misrepresenting
the
doctrine
of
his
brethren
,
disguising
their
true
sense
and
meaning
,
and
mistaking
the
Question
,
or
Question
in
debate
betwixt
him
and
them
.
3.
A
punctual
answer
to
every
passa●e
in
his
book
,
wherein
I
find
my self
by
name
concerned
.
4.
Forasmuch
as
by
his
book
he
pretends
to
be
a
great
friend
to
the
Protestant
cause
against
Arminianism
,
Socinianism
,
and
Popery
,
I
will
give
in
a
list
of
several
his
doctrines
,
with
some
animadversions
upon
them
therein
divulged
,
and
thereupon
leave
it
to
the
judgment
of
the
learned
and
impartial
Reader
,
whether
instead
of
real
service
he
hath
not
done
great
dis-service
to
the
Protestant
Cause
and
Churches
.
1.
As
to
the
first
,
The
scope
of
his
book
is
apparently
to
maintain
a
sinners
justification
to
be
onely
by
faith
,
i.e.
by
faith
taken
in
a
strict
sense
by
way
of
contradistinction
from
all
other
graces
or
duties
of
evangelical
obedience
(
such
as
repentance
for
sin
,
or
sincere
purpose
for
amendment
of
life
)
Yea
that
it
is
onely
by
that
kind
of
act
of
faith
,
which
he
doth
all
along
style
,
A
trusting
in
the
promise
of
Christ
,
of
salvation
by
Christ
,
of
free
grace
in
Christ
or
of
God
through
Christ
for
mercy
.
Nor
will
he
acknowledg
,
that
this
trusting
in
the
promise
is
commanded
sinners
in
the
gospel
as
any
proper
condition
of
their
justification
,
but
only
as
a
natural
means
and
way
to
it
,
denying
also
perseverance
in
faith
and
holiness
to
be
required
of
God
as
the
condition
,
upon
which
a
sinner
is
to
continue
,
or
be
continued
in
a
pardoned
and
justified
estate
.
Faith
(
says
he
p.
122.
)
is
commanded
as
the
natural
and
onely
means
of
saving
a
sinner
,
who
hath
no
righteousness
of
his
own
.
And
(
p.
23.
)
Faith
is
not
a
proper
condition
,
but
a
natural
qualification
capacitating
the
soul
to
receive
benefit
by
Christ
,
appointed
by
God
for
that
use
and
having
the
promise
of
success
—
This
is
that
pretended
Protestant
doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
onely
,
which
he
sets
himself
his
book
throughout
to
vindicate
,
as
against
multitudes
of
his
Brethren
of
a
different
judgment
therein
from
himself
,
so
more
especially
against
that
Antesignanus
in
this
warfare
Mr
Richard
Baxter
:
for
having
said
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Reader
(
p.
2
,
3.
)
that
the
contrary
opinion
to
his
hath
of
late
diffused
it self
amongst
men
of
all
Perswasions
,
Forms
and
Modes
amongst
us
,
so
he
says
particularly
concerning
Mr
Richard
Baxter
,
p.
6.
That
he
hath
diffused
this
doctrine
,
viz.
That
faith
and
sincere
obedience
to
the
gospel
are
therein
required
of
sinners
as
the
condition
of
their
salvation
by
Crist
,
through
all
his
writings
,
of
which
doctrine
he
passeth
this
peremptory
censure
,
or
sentence
,
saying
in
his
Epistle
,
p.
3.
It
is
no
other
,
than
the
old
Popish
doctrine
divested
of
the
School-Terms
.
2.
As
to
the
second
thing
promised
(
the
manifestation
of
his
want
of
candour
in
misreporting
the
doctrine
of
his
adversaries
,
his
mistating
of
the
Question
,
or
Questions
in
debate
—
)
in
order
thereunto
among
very
many
I
shall
onely
single
out
a
few
the
following
instances
,
beginning
with
that
in
his
Epistle
,
where
p.
3.
In
short
,
says
he
,
this
is
the
Question
,
Whether
we
be
accepted
,
and
entitled
to
life
for
the
righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
us
,
or
for
our
own
righteousness
,
or
obedience
to
the
Gospel
whether
Christ
wrought
any
righteousness
to
justifie
and
save
us
by
,
or
only
died
to
procure
this
grant
,
that
we
should
be
justified
and
saved
by
believing
and
obeying
the
Gospel
.
Answ
.
The
Question
,
or
Questions
betwixt
him
and
his
Brethren
are
here
most
falsly
reported
by
him
:
for
none
of
them
(
of
what
perswasion
,
form
,
or
m●de
whatsoever
)
did
ever
question
,
whether
we
be
accepted
and
entitled
to
life
for
the
righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
us
,
or
whether
Christ
wrought
any
righteousness
to
justifie
and
save
us
by
:
for
to
make
a
Question
of
this
,
is
to
question
the
word
of
God
in
the
very
letter
of
it
which
says
,
That
we
are
justified
by
the
blood
of
Christ
,
and
that
by
His
Obedience
We
are
made
Righteous
,
Rom.
5.9
,
18.
Let
the
Reader
therefore
take
notice
of
the
words
of
this
Author
in
the
same
page
and
immediately
following
,
as
an
intolerable
slander
,
he
there
saying
,
It
is
the
latter
opinion
,
that
is
,
We
are
entitled
to
life
for
our
own
righteousness
,
not
for
the
righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
us
,
which
many
now
publish
in
Pulpit
and
Press
.
We
publish
no
such
doctrine
in
press
,
or
pulpit
.
2.
In
short
,
the
Questions
are
such
as
these
.
1.
Whether
sinners
be
accepted
and
entitled
to
life
,
justified
,
or
pardoned
actually
and
immediately
for
the
sake
of
that
righteousness
,
which
Christ
wrought
for
them
,
or
whether
their
actual
pardon
,
or
discharge
for
Gods
sake
doth
not
depend
upon
their
performance
of
certain
duties
required
in
the
gospel
in
order
thereunto
,
the
faithfull
performance
of
which
duties
being
commonly
styled
our
personal
,
or
evangelical
righteousness
,
and
in
the
language
of
Scripture
,
The
righteousness
of
Saints
,
Rev
,
19.8
.
2.
Q.
Whether
according
to
the
gospel-law
,
or
ordination
of
God
a
sinners
actual
justification
,
or
pardon
doth
depend
onely
upon
faith
strictly
taken
in
way
of
opposition
to
other
evangelical
graces
,
or
(
as
some
would
have
it
)
upon
one
elicite
act
of
faith
styled
(
trusting
,
recumbing
,
relying
upon
Christ
,
or
the
promise
in
Christ
—
)
or
else
Whether
it
doth
not
depend
upon
other
graces
also
,
or
upon
certain
other
imperated
acts
of
faith
,
i.e.
upon
faith
its
acting
it self
in
,
or
by
repentance
for
sin
,
holy
desires
,
sincere
purposes
for
amendment
of
life
and
the
like
?
3.
Q.
Whether
,
as
a
sinners
entring
into
a
pardoned
and
justified
estate
doth
depend
upon
the
said
acts
,
or
actings
of
faith
by
a
penitential
return
to
God
in
Christ
,
so
,
Whether
a
sinners
continuance
in
that
saving
estate
,
his
full
pardon
in
all
its
effects
,
or
final
justification
and
salvation
doth
not
a●so
depend
upon
his
perseverance
in
faith
and
holiness
,
as
the
condition
thereof
,
or
the
thing
prescribed
by
God
in
order
thereunto
?
4.
Q.
Whether
that
very
righteousn●ss
,
which
Christ
wrought
to
justifie
and
save
us
by
,
be
in
its
essential
nature
imputed
to
us
,
and
We
justified
and
saved
by
the
imputation
thereof
in
that
sense
,
or
else
Whether
it
be
imputed
to
us
in
such
a
sense
as
our
sins
were
to
him
,
i.e.
in
its
saving
fruits
and
effects
?
the
imputation
whereof
in
which
latter
sense
I
take
to
be
the
true
Protestant
Doctrine
,
and
I
am
glad
to
perceive
,
that
it
is
so
acknowledged
to
be
by
this
Author
,
pag
.
10.11
.
where
he
reports
their
Doctrine
in
the
express
words
transcribed
,
as
followeth
.
The
righteousness
of
Christ
,
whereby
he
fulfilled
the
law
,
is
imputed
to
belivers
for
their
justification
,
i.e.
for
that
his
righteousness
God
grants
them
pardon
of
sin
and
a
firm
gift
,
or
grant
of
eternal
life
.
Lo
the
true
Protestant
Doctrine
concerning
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
to
believers
,
the
imputation
whereof
in
that
sense
being
the
Doctrine
pleaded
for
by
my self
and
the
brethren
in
consort
with
me
;
so
falsly
is
it
said
of
us
by
this
Author
in
the
same
pages
,
That
we
do
(
upon
a
pretense
there
feigned
by
him
)
deny
,
that
Christs
righteousness
cannot
in
that
sense
be
imputed
to
us
.
Page
13.
He
represents
the
Doctrine
of
his
Brethren
concerning
justification
in
the
following
words
here
transcribed
.
Justification
is
nothing
else
but
the
pardon
of
sin
,
i.e.
the
not
exacting
the
punishment
of
sin
due
by
the
law
of
works
,
and
an
acceptance
of
man
so
far
and
so
long
as
he
performeth
the
new
condition
of
sincere
obedience
.
And
he
says
,
p.
99.
That
according
to
us
Christ
died
onely
for
sins
against
the
law
.
Whereas
we
say
,
That
Gospel-justification
doth
comprize
the
pardon
of
all
sin
against
any
law
whatsoever
(
whether
against
the
law
of
works
or
of
grace
)
onely
final
impenitency
,
or
unbelief
excepted
,
all
former
,
or
temporary
unbelief
,
and
impenitency
being
pardoned
to
a
justified
person
,
when
justified
and
all
the
bewailed
imperfections
of
his
new
obedience
being
pardoned
also
,
it
continuing
to
be
sincere
,
so
that
the
thing
we
say
is
,
That
Christ
died
for
the
pardon
of
sin
both
against
the
Law
,
and
Gospel
.
In
p.
14.
As
to
the
Question
,
By
what
way
,
or
means
Christs
righteousness
and
the
benefits
of
it
are
made
ours
,
he
thus
states
the
matter
,
viz.
Whether
by
trusting
in
it
according
to
Gods
promise
as
the
immediate
and
sole
cause
of
pardon
and
right
to
life
(
as
all
,
says
he
,
till
of
late
have
taught
)
or
whether
all
the
benefit
of
it
be
,
that
it
hath
procured
a
new
covenant
,
viz.
That
they
,
who
believe
and
obey
the
Gospel
,
shall
be
saved
,
though
their
obedience
be
not
perfect
?
Answ
.
The
matter
is
not
as
thus
reported
by
this
Author
,
but
the
Question
is
,
whether
God
hath
promised
,
that
Christs
righteousness
in
the
benefits
thereof
shall
be
ours
and
we
saved
thereby
meerly
by
the
means
of
our
trusting
thereunto
,
or
whether
besides
that
acting
of
faith
by
the
way
of
trust
or
reliance
,
God
doth
not
also
require
the
acting
of
faith
in
the
way
of
obedience
to
other
commands
of
the
Gospel
as
a
means
,
whereby
,
or
as
a
condition
whereupon
sinners
are
to
be
saved
,
and
upon
which
obedience
(
though
imperfect
,
yet
if
sincere
)
sinners
shall
certainly
be
saved
for
the
sake
of
Christs
righteousness
as
the
sole
meritorious
cause
thereof
;
but
otherwise
and
without
such
Gospel-obedience
not
at
all
?
So
that
it
is
untruly
said
by
him
,
that
the
said
Question
as
by
him
stated
was
agitated
amongst
us
about
30
years
since
in
opposition
to
growing
Antinomianisme
:
nor
was
there
any
just
ground
for
him
to
say
as
he
immediately
doth
in
the
following
words
.
And
because
it
seemed
most
effectually
to
overthrow
that
Error
(
of
Antinomianism
)
and
to
be
an
ingenuous
notion
,
viz.
That
we
should
be
saved
by
our
works
,
and
yet
works
are
not
to
be
meritorious
,
but
subordinate
to
Christ
,
it
began
to
please
many
,
who
(
I
believe
)
little
thought
,
they
should
come
utterly
to
exclude
the
righteousness
of
Christ
from
any
part
of
justification
,
and
make
it
only
subservient
to
mans
works
;
they
,
that
followed
the
controversie
,
found
,
that
they
could
not
defend
our
being
justified
by
our
works
,
unless
they
denied
our
being
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
;
for
that
alone
if
imputed
,
is
sufficient
to
justifie
.
Answ
.
1.
Although
we
do
upon
good
ground
exclude
Christs
righteousness
from
being
any
part
of
justification
(
forasmuch
as
Christs
righteousness
is
a
thing
wholly
extrinsecal
to
justification
even
as
a
cause
is
to
its
effect
;
)
nevertheless
we
do
not
in
the
least
exclude
it
from
doing
its
proper
part
towards
the
effecting
of
a
sinners
justification
,
viz.
the
part
of
a
meritorous
cause
.
2
We
are
no
way
necessitated
to
deny
our
being
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
as
the
meritorious
cause
of
that
saving
benefit
(
much
less
did
we
ever
deny
our
being
justified
thereby
because
we
do
assert
,
that
God
doth
in
the
promises
of
the
Gospel
require
certain
good
works
in
order
to
our
partaking
in
the
benefits
of
it
,
viz.
justification
,
remission
of
sin
,
or
eternal
salvation
;
of
the
actual
participation
of
which
saving
benefits
although
our
faithfull
works
,
or
working
faith
may
be
truly
said
to
be
the
means
whereby
,
or
the
condition
whereupon
we
are
par●●●ed
,
justified
,
or
saved
,
Yet
Christs
righteousness
truly
is
the
sole
meritorious
cause
;
so
that
it
is
falsly
said
by
this
Author
,
that
we
cannot
defend
our
being
justified
by
means
of
our
faithfull
works
,
unless
we
deny
our
being
justified
by
the
righteousness
of
Christ
.
3.
As
it
is
a
contradiction
to
say
of
us
(
as
this
Au●hor
here
doth
)
that
we
do
utterly
exclude
the
righteousness
of
Christ
from
any
part
of
justification
(
his
meaning
is
,
from
doing
any
part
towards
it
)
and
make
it
only
subservient
to
mans
work
(
for
if
we
make
it
subservient
to
mans
works
,
we
cannot
truly
be
said
,
even
for
that
very
reason
utterly
to
exclude
it
from
any
part
;
)
so
it
is
falsly
said
,
that
we
do
make
Christs
righteousness
subservient
to
mans
works
;
though
withall
it
is
most
true
to
say
,
That
Christs
righteousness
and
mans
faithfull
works
do
after
a
different
manner
,
or
in
a
way
peculiar
to
each
,
serve
for
,
or
towards
one
and
the
same
end
and
purpose
,
viz.
The
salvation
of
sinners
;
the
one
as
the
alone
meritorious
cause
,
the
other
as
the
means
under
Christ
whereby
,
or
the
condition
upon
which
a
sinner
is
to
be
saved
,
even
as
it
is
true
to
say
also
,
That
it
is
Christ
,
who
saves
the
sinner
,
and
it
is
the
sinner
also
,
who
under
Christ
must
save
himself
.
4.
It
is
a
notion
not
only
ingenuous
(
as
this
Author
phraseth
it
)
but
also
Scriptural
to
say
,
That
we
may
be
saved
by
our
works
:
and
yet
works
not
be
meritorious
,
but
subordinate
to
Christ
;
for
the
Scripture
says
,
that
the
Saints
of
old
did
{αβγδ}
,
by
,
or
through
faith
and
not
by
faith
onely
,
but
by
works
also
,
even
through
faith
and
patience
inherit
the
promises
,
Heb
.
6.12
.
whom
we
are
there
exhorted
to
follow
,
seeking
the
same
heritage
by
patient
continuance
in
well
doing
,
as
is
the
Apostles
expression
,
Rom.
2.7
.
Having
said
,
p.
36.
That
God
will
freely
forgive
a
sinner
upon
his
flying
for
refuge
to
the
blood
of
Christ
,
he
chargeth
us
with
the
following
words
,
No
say
our
Authors
,
pardon
is
not
granted
for
what
Christ
hath
done
,
nor
a
right
to
heaven
,
but
it
is
offered
and
promised
upon
condition
of
mans
future
and
sincere
obedience
.
Answ
.
We
do
not
say
,
that
pardon
is
not
granted
upon
what
Christ
hath
done
,
but
this
we
say
,
That
pardon
is
not
conferred
upon
sinners
,
or
sinners
are
not
actually
and
immediately
pardoned
upon
what
Christ
hath
done
,
the
actual
enjoyment
of
pardon
being
offered
and
promised
to
them
upon
condition
,
which
condition
is
not
meerly
a
sinners
flying
for
refuge
to
the
blood
of
Christ
(
which
a
sinner
may
do
in
such
sort
as
Joab
did
to
the
horns
of
the
altar
,
yet
found
it
not
a
place
of
refuge
for
such
a
Malefactor
as
himself
,
and
in
which
sort
those
workers
of
iniquity
Mat
.
7.21
,
22
,
23.
seem
to
fly
for
refuge
to
Jesus
Christ
)
but
a
return
to
God
by
repentance
altogether
with
a
sincere
purpose
of
future
amendment
of
life
.
And
it
is
no
small
wrong
,
that
this
Author
hath
done
his
Brethren
,
in
misrepresenting
their
Doctrine
by
the
following
similitude
,
p.
36.
Even
as
a
Captive
(
it
is
their
own
similitude
,
says
he
)
is
set
at
liberty
,
that
he
may
try
his
friends
and
use
means
to
procure
the
price
appointed
and
agreed
for
his
ransome
,
which
when
he
hath
fully
procured
and
paid
in
,
then
by
the
contract
he
must
be
set
at
liberty
,
and
if
he
procure
not
the
price
,
then
he
must
return
to
his
bondage
with
this
aggravation
of
his
misery
,
that
there
was
liberty
,
or
redemption
to
be
had
,
but
he
sell
short
of
it
.
All
this
while
the
man
is
a
prisoner
,
though
at
large
,
and
is
as
it
were
upon
parol
,
his
redemption
dependeth
upon
certain
conditions
to
be
fulfilled
by
him
.
Answ
.
Till
this
Author
,
or
some
other
for
him
shall
nominate
any
of
their
Brethren
,
who
did
ever
use
this
similitude
in
the
case
before
us
,
I
shall
take
liberty
to
think
this
similitude
to
be
of
this
Authors
pure
invention
and
not
theirs
;
for
his
Brethren
do
not
say
as
is
aforesaid
of
them
,
but
this
they
say
and
affirm
constantly
,
That
the
price
of
a
sinners
redemption
is
already
paid
by
Christ
and
accepted
by
God
the
Father
;
so
that
the
price
is
not
at
all
by
them
to
be
procured
,
nor
is
any
such
duty
as
the
procuring
the
price
of
their
redemption
(
whether
in
the
whole
,
or
least
part
)
incumbent
upon
them
,
by
which
price
already
paid
and
accepted
liberty
is
impetrated
,
or
procured
for
them
,
yet
not
actually
or
absolutely
to
be
enjoyed
by
them
,
but
upon
certain
(
not
uncertain
as
this
Author
says
p.
37.
)
conditions
agreed
upon
betwixt
God
and
Christ
,
and
declared
in
the
Gospel
,
upon
the
fulfilling
of
which
conditions
we
do
not
say
,
as
this
Author
would
have
us
say
,
viz.
that
a
sinners
redemption
doth
depend
,
but
upon
which
their
actual
enjoyment
of
the
benefit
of
their
redemption
doth
depend
.
In
page
78.
he
calumniates
us
in
saying
,
That
we
agree
with
the
Papists
in
this
,
that
both
of
us
do
make
mans
righteousness
the
immediate
formal
cause
of
justification
,
for
which
we
are
accepted
.
Answ
.
1.
It
is
falsly
said
of
his
Brethren
,
that
they
make
their
own
righteousness
the
formal
cause
of
justification
,
remission
of
sin
being
it
,
which
as
they
say
,
doth
constitute
,
or
is
the
formal
cause
of
Gospel-justification
.
2.
The
things
here
charged
upon
us
are
incompatible
,
it
being
a
naturally
impossibility
,
that
our
own
righteousness
should
at
once
be
both
the
formal
cause
of
justification
and
that
also
for
which
we
are
justified
,
forasmuch
as
in
that
case
it
would
be
a
thing
both
intrinsecal
and
extrinsecal
thereunto
,
for
as
a
cause
,
for
which
being
an
efficient
cause
,
is
always
extrinsecal
to
the
effect
,
so
a
formal
cause
is
always
intrinsecal
thereinto
,
it
doth
ingredi
naturam
●ei
.
3.
We
make
our
inherent
righteousness
no
other
than
a
condition
of
our
pardon
,
and
acceptance
with
God
,
or
a
means
of
Gods
appointment
in
order
to
our
acceptance
with
him
for
the
sake
of
Christs
righteousness
according
to
the
tenour
of
Gods
promise
to
sinners
,
If
we
do
well
,
we
shall
be
accepted
,
Gen.
4.8
.
from
which
and
the
like
conditional
promises
we
doubt
not
to
say
,
That
well
doing
is
a
condition
requisite
on
our
part
,
that
for
Christs
sake
we
may
be
,
and
without
which
we
shall
not
be
accepted
with
God
.
He
says
of
us
,
p.
81.
That
we
make
obedience
the
cause
of
justification
in
the
same
manner
,
that
all
Protestants
affirm
Christs
righteousness
to
be
,
and
is
put
into
the
room
of
it
,
viz.
That
we
are
not
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
trusted
in
,
but
by
fulfilling
the
commands
of
the
Gospel
.
Now
Christs
righteousness
is
a
proper
cause
of
justification
,
not
onely
Conditio
sine
qua
non
.
Answ
.
1.
It
is
a
notorious
calumny
,
that
we
put
our
obedience
in
the
room
of
Christs
righteousness
,
which
we
with
all
Protestants
do
constantly
affirm
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
and
not
onely
a
condition
,
or
a
condition
simply
so
called
,
such
as
mans
obedience
is
.
2.
As
Christs
righteousness
and
our
obedience
have
a
site
peculiar
to
each
(
the
one
being
in
the
series
of
a
meritorious
cause
,
the
other
of
a
bare
simple
condition
)
so
by
our
Doctrine
we
preserve
them
in
their
proper
place
and
for
their
proper
purposes
,
putting
neither
of
them
out
of
place
,
and
much
less
placing
the
latter
in
the
room
of
the
former
,
and
we
do
assert
withal
a
different
manner
of
operation
according
to
their
different
nature
,
the
one
having
the
nature
of
a
meer
condition
,
the
other
of
a
cause
meritorious
.
3.
It
is
falsly
here
said
,
That
according
to
our
Doctrine
we
are
not
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
,
but
by
fulfilling
the
commands
of
the
Gospel
:
for
our
Doctrine
is
,
That
we
are
not
justified
by
,
or
upon
the
fulfilling
this
one
,
or
this
onely
command
of
the
Gospel
,
that
bids
us
to
trust
in
the
righteousousness
of
Christ
,
but
upon
the
fulfilling
of
other
Gospel
commands
,
such
as
Act.
3.19
.
(
Repent
and
be
converted
)
pardon
of
sin
being
promised
in
the
Gospel
not
meerly
to
the
fulfilling
of
the
former
single
command
,
but
to
that
in
conjunction
with
these
,
upon
which
performance
we
are
justified
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
.
To
the
instances
foregoing
I
might
add
very
many
others
of
the
like
nature
dispersed
here
and
there
his
book
throughout
,
wherein
he
misrepresenteth
the
Doctrine
of
his
adversaries
,
and
mis-states
the
Question
,
or
Questions
under
debate
,
whereby
also
the
intelligent
Reader
may
easily
observe
,
that
very
much
of
his
arguings
do
not
touch
the
true
state
of
the
matters
in
question
.
But
to
prevent
the
excessive
lengthning
of
this
Epistle
,
I
shall
omit
the
mention
of
them
,
and
proceed
to
the
third
thing
promised
.
3.
I
am
now
to
reply
to
such
passages
in
this
Authors
book
;
wherein
I
find
my self
by
name
excepted
against
,
the
first
whereof
is
in
p.
4.
5.
where
to
manifest
,
that
many
of
his
adversaries
are
of
this
opinion
,
viz.
That
pardon
and
life
are
promised
to
them
that
believe
and
obey
the
Gospel
,
by
,
or
upon
both
which
a
man
is
justified
,
pardoned
and
accepted
with
God
,
he
brings
in
my self
for
an
instance
in
the
first
place
,
saying
,
Mr
Hotchkis
in
a
Treatise
purposely
written
for
this
opinion
thus
delivers
himself
Disc
.
p.
59.
The
law
,
by
which
a
sinner
is
justified
,
is
an
evangelical
law
,
the
law
of
the
Gospel
:
The
law
,
whereby
a
sinner
[
I
did
not
say
a
sinner
,
but
a
man
]
was
and
is
to
be
justified
,
is
twofold
,
1.
The
law
of
God
Creator
commonly
styled
Lex
originalis
,
or
law
of
works
.
2.
The
law
of
God
Redeemer
called
Lex
Remedians
,
or
a
law
of
grace
,
or
faith
;
the
formal
law
was
exacted
as
the
rule
of
justifying
an
innocent
person
,
and
the
latter
of
a
sinner
;
from
which
words
of
mine
thus
recited
he
infers
,
saying
p.
5.
Hence
it
is
evident
according
to
this
Author
,
that
faith
and
obedience
to
the
Gospel
are
the
righteousness
of
a
sinner
,
whereby
he
is
justiffed
in
the
same
manner
as
perfect
obedience
should
have
been
his
righteousness
and
have
justified
him
by
the
law
of
works
.
Answ
.
Hence
indeed
(
I
confess
)
it
is
most
evident
,
that
whereas
there
was
one
kind
of
righteousness
(
commonly
styled
legal
righteousness
,
which
consists
in
obedience
absolutely
perfect
)
required
in
the
law
of
works
,
whereby
innocent
man
was
to
be
justified
,
there
is
now
in
the
law
of
grace
and
faith
no
such
righteousness
required
of
us
for
that
end
;
the
righteousness
therein
required
of
us
as
the
condition
of
our
being
justified
,
saved
,
or
accepted
unto
life
by
God
,
consisting
in
a
return
to
God
by
faith
,
repentance
and
new
obedience
.
This
I
say
is
evident
from
my
words
.
But
it
is
not
in
any
sort
from
thence
evident
,
as
this
Author
suggesteth
,
viz.
That
according
to
me
a
sinner
by
his
faith
and
obedience
to
the
Gospel
is
justified
in
the
same
manner
,
as
man
innocent
would
,
or
should
have
been
justified
by
perfect
obedience
:
for
,
1.
A
sinner
by
the
means
of
his
faith
and
obedience
to
the
Gospel
(
his
evangelical
righteousness
)
and
an
innocent
man
by
his
perfect
obedience
to
the
law
of
works
(
his
legal
righteousness
)
is
not
justified
in
the
same
manner
,
nor
with
the
same
sort
of
justification
,
but
with
a
justification
of
a
far
different
kind
,
the
former
being
a
justification
A
reatu
poenae
,
from
guilt
of
punishment
,
the
latter
A
reatu
culpae
,
from
guilt
of
fault
.
I
do
truly
remember
,
that
this
distinction
of
Reatus
culpae
&
poenae
,
is
censured
by
Dr.
Owen
in
his
late
book
,
to
be
a
distinction
without
a
difference
(
Inanis
,
says
he
,
sine
mente
sonus
;
)
but
for
my
own
part
I
think
,
that
the
difference
betwixt
them
is
to
the
understanding
of
any
unprejudicate
person
as
discernable
as
is
the
difference
betwixt
the
precept
and
the
sanction
(
the
preceptive
and
the
remunerative
part
)
of
Gods
law
;
guilt
of
fault
being
the
result
of
the
precept
of
the
law
as
transgressed
,
and
guilt
,
or
obligation
to
punishment
being
the
result
or
consequent
of
the
comminatory
part
of
the
law
.
And
as
the
person
justified
is
(
innocent
,
or
not
innocent
)
such
I
say
is
his
justification
,
if
innocent
,
his
justification
is
f●om
the
guilt
of
fault
and
by
the
l●w
of
works
,
if
nocent
,
or
a
sinner
,
his
justification
is
,
and
can
be
no
other
absolutely
,
than
from
the
guilt
of
punishment
and
by
the
law
of
grace
or
faith
2.
The
former
justification
(
viz.
of
a
sinner
)
for
the
manner
of
it
is
(
to
speak
simply
,
and
precisely
)
arbitrary
and
of
free
grace
,
the
latter
,
viz.
of
an
innocent
person
would
have
been
necessary
and
of
strict
justice
.
3.
The
said
two
kinds
of
righteousness
(
legal
and
evangelical
)
referring
to
the
two
different
Covenants
of
Law
and
Gospel
,
do
save
,
or
justifie
a
person
after
this
different
manner
,
viz.
Perfect
legal
righteousness
would
have
justified
man
,
Vi
suâ
intrinsecâ
,
propriâ
,
ceu
innatâ
,
by
its
innate
worth
,
of
it self
and
without
the
intervention
of
any
gracious
promise
from
God
in
Christ
,
but
the
said
evangelical
righteousness
doth
justifie
,
or
save
a
sinner
,
Vi
tantum
aliunde
illatà
,
i.e.
onely
by
vertue
of
Christs
merit
and
Gods
merciful
promise
in
him
:
for
if
God
had
not
preordained
,
or
set
forth
Jesus
Christ
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
,
that
he
might
be
just
and
the
justifier
of
him
,
who
is
of
the
faith
of
Jesus
,
faith
would
not
,
faith
could
not
have
justified
,
or
saved
any
sinner
;
this
being
one
of
those
four
things
,
wherein
this
Author
doth
acknowledg
an
agreement
on
both
sides
,
(
p.
3.
)
viz.
That
neither
faith
,
nor
obedience
,
apart
,
or
together
could
justifi●
a
sinner
were
it
not
for
the
merit
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
who
hath
purchased
,
that
we
should
be
reconciled
to
God
this
way
.
The
Author
proceeds
to
recite
two
passages
(
in
my
Discourse
,
p.
23
and
43.
)
wherein
although
I
deny
,
that
we
are
made
righteous
with
the
perfect
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
I
do
nevertheless
acknowledg
,
that
Christs
righteousness
is
the
external
impulsive
,
or
meritorious
cau●e
of
our
justification
;
from
whence
this
Author
infers
,
saying
,
page
6.
But
when
he
saith
,
Christs
righteouss
is
the
impulsive
meritorious
cause
of
our
justification
,
he
meaneth
,
Christ
merited
,
that
we
should
be
justified
by
faith
and
gospel
obedience
.
Answ
.
1.
There
be
those
,
who
although
they
will
acknowledg
Christs
righteousness
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
justification
,
will
nevertheless
deny
,
that
by
that
acknowledgment
they
mean
,
That
Jesus
Christ
did
merit
for
us
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
or
the
gracious
terms
of
our
being
justified
according
to
the
tenour
of
this
Covenant
,
I
shall
onely
instance
in
two
learned
and
well
read
late
Writers
(
Dr
Owen
and
the
Author
of
Antizozzo
)
who
will
deny
,
that
Jesus
Christ
did
by
his
merits
procure
for
sinners
the
covenant
of
grace
,
they
herein
concurring
with
Socinas
:
for
this
Author
says
,
p.
90.
concerning
Mr
Baxter
,
Mr
Truman
and
my self
with
the
rest
opposed
by
him
in
his
book
,
that
we
and
Socinas
do
differ
in
this
main
point
.
Socinas
(
says
he
)
saith
,
That
God
of
his
meer
mercy
without
any
respect
to
the
death
of
Christ
granted
the
Gospel
terms
of
life
.
But
ours
teach
,
that
God
granted
the
terms
of
the
new
covenant
for
the
sake
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
that
he
fulfilled
so
much
of
the
law
and
bare
so
much
of
the
curse
,
as
God
thought
fit
,
that
so
that
law
(
That
is
,
as
a
covenant
of
works
)
might
be
taken
out
of
the
way
,
and
a
new
one
established
upon
milder
Conditions
.
2.
But
for
my
own
part
I
do
acknowledg
,
that
in
saying
,
that
Christs
righteousness
is
the
impulsive
meritorious
cause
of
our
justification
my
meaning
therein
implyed
is
,
That
Jesus
Christ
did
merit
that
we
should
be
justified
upon
milder
terms
,
than
those
of
the
covenant
of
works
,
viz.
by
,
or
upon
faith
in
Christ
,
our
obedience
to
him
being
therein
included
.
And
I
did
assert
this
to
be
my
judgment
in
the
same
words
as
this
Author
recites
them
(
out
of
my
Discourse
,
p.
8.
)
in
the
true
recital
whereof
,
p.
6.
he
hath
not
wronged
me
at
all
;
and
as
I
there
said
,
so
I
say
still
,
That
Christ
,
fulfilling
the
law
of
his
Mediatorship
was
accepted
of
God
,
not
as
our
fulfilling
either
of
that
law
,
or
any
other
law
whatsoever
(
for
the
law
of
Mediatorship
belonged
not
to
us
,
it
being
peculiar
to
Christ
himself
)
but
it
was
reckoned
,
reputed
or
accepted
by
God
as
a
satisfaction
for
our
not
fulfilling
the
law
of
God
imposed
upon
mankind
,
I
mean
the
law
in
the
rigour
of
it
,
or
as
a
Covenant
of
works
,
and
that
such
an
exact
fulfilling
of
the
law
should
not
be
exacted
of
us
as
the
covenanted
condition
of
our
salvation
,
but
that
faith
and
sincere
obedience
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
should
be
so
required
.
And
I
do
not
perceive
,
how
this
Author
can
with
self
consistency
deny
what
I
have
here
said
once
and
again
,
although
he
doth
professedly
oppose
it
;
for
(
as
was
before
related
)
he
confesseth
it
,
p.
3.
to
be
a
truth
agreed
upon
on
all
sides
,
That
neither
faith
nor
obedience
apart
,
or
together
,
could
justifie
a
sinner
,
were
it
not
for
the
merit
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
who
hath
purchased
that
we
should
be
reconciled
to
God
this
way
;
from
which
words
thus
recited
as
the
agreement
on
both
sides
we
may
certainly
conclude
this
to
be
the
Authors
sense
,
or
opinion
,
viz.
That
Jesus
Christ
hath
purchased
by
his
death
,
that
we
should
be
reconciled
to
God
by
the
way
of
faith
and
obedience
;
and
to
say
thus
is
all
one
in
effect
as
to
say
,
That
Christ
hath
purchased
by
his
death
,
that
we
should
be
justified
and
saved
upon
the
condition
of
Faith
and
Evangelical
obedience
.
And
this
is
that
,
which
Mr
Truman
says
(
Great
Propit
.
page
.
69.
)
is
the
immediate
effect
of
Christs
satisfaction
as
satisfaction
,
and
which
is
an
essential
consequent
as
a
satisfaction
to
justice
,
it
is
only
this
,
That
that
obstacle
being
removed
,
he
might
be
at
liberty
to
act
in
the
pardon
of
sinners
in
what
way
,
and
upon
what
termes
he
pleased
.
He
doth
not
say
(
as
this
Author
objects
against
him
and
others
)
that
the
onely
thing
,
which
Christ
by
his
merit
procured
for
sinners
was
a
conditional
covenant
of
grace
,
or
that
sinners
might
be
saved
upon
new
and
gracious
terms
,
but
that
this
procurement
was
the
immediate
effect
of
his
bloodshed
,
precisely
considered
as
a
satisfaction
to
Gods
justice
,
he
meaning
thereby
,
as
he
doth
express
the
matter
in
his
following
words
(
which
this
Author
is
not
so
ingenuous
to
this
his
deceased
Brother
as
to
take
notice
,
or
to
give
notice
of
)
not
that
God
must
pardon
sinners
,
come
what
will
of
it
,
or
be
unjust
,
nor
that
sinners
ipso
facto
should
be
pardoned
upon
the
price
being
undertaken
,
paid
and
accepted
,
but
onely
conditionally
,
or
upon
the
performance
of
such
terms
,
as
in
the
covenant
of
grace
are
expressed
.
The
next
place
,
where
I
find
my
name
mentioned
is
in
p.
229.
where
by
occasion
of
my
answer
to
that
Scriptùre
,
Rom.
5.18
.
alledged
by
Dr
Owen
,
to
prove
,
that
we
are
justified
with
the
righteousness
of
Christ
in
its
formal
,
or
essential
nature
imputed
to
us
,
and
my
answer
being
this
,
viz.
That
the
Apostle
doth
not
say
,
as
the
Doctor
would
have
him
,
with
whose
obedience
,
but
by
whose
obedience
we
are
made
righteous
,
the
two
particles
(
By
and
With
)
differing
in
signification
,
By
implying
the
nature
,
energy
,
or
interest
of
an
efficient
,
and
as
there
implyed
,
a
meritorious
cause
,
and
the
latter
particle
(
With
)
the
nature
and
interest
of
a
formal
cause
,
by
occasion
I
say
of
this
my
answer
to
that
allegation
of
the
Doctors
,
this
Author
replies
in
saying
in
the
following
words
.
A
learned
man
(
Mr
Hotchkis
,
ut
supra
p.
43.
)
saith
,
we
are
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
,
or
obedience
,
but
not
with
it
:
for
saith
he
,
By
,
in
this
controversie
denoteth
an
efficient
and
meritorious
cause
,
With
,
the
formal
.
Young
Sophisters
know
,
that
causa
per
quam
,
By
which
is
the
formal
cause
,
and
the
efficient
is
causa
a
qua
,
of
which
,
not
by
which
properly
(
though
sometimes
so
expressed
in
Englished
)
yet
a
meritorious
cause
in
English
must
not
be
so
expressed
.
Moreover
causa
cum
qua
,
with
which
,
is
in
no
language
a
formal
,
but
an
instrumental
cause
,
which
is
reduced
to
the
efficient
and
sometimes
it
signifies
a
bare
concomitancy
.
e
.
g
.
A
man
is
a
man
by
his
soul
,
not
with
his
soul
.
A
man
is
righteous
by
righteousness
,
not
with
righteousness
.
On
the
other
side
man
writeth
with
his
hand
,
with
his
pen
as
instruments
,
or
a
man
writeth
with
his
head
,
i.e.
not
without
it
.
With
what
a
wet
finger
doth
this
Author
wipe
away
all
the
Scriptures
which
can
say
,
We
are
justified
,
or
made
righteous
by
the
obedience
righteousness
,
or
death
of
Christ
?
Answ
.
1.
I
grant
it
indeed
as
a
thing
well
known
by
men
generally
(
whether
Sophisters
,
or
no
Sophisters
)
that
as
the
Greek
particles
{αβγδ}
,
so
the
English
particles
,
of
,
for
,
from
,
by
and
with
are
oft
times
used
promiscuously
and
to
express
sometimes
one
and
the
self
same
cause
,
and
sometimes
divers
kinds
of
causes
,
and
sometimes
no
proper
cause
at
all
,
but
barely
a
condition
,
or
some
concomitant
thing
,
and
therefore
as
I
did
not
then
,
so
neither
do
I
now
deny
,
but
that
the
particles
(
By
and
With
)
may
in
some
cases
be
used
indifferently
.
Nevertheless
if
any
one
shall
assert
concerning
Christs
righteousness
,
as
Doctor
Owen
doth
Com
.
p.
200.
that
we
are
By
it
and
With
it
perfectly
accepted
,
or
justified
by
God
(
the
Doctors
true
meaning
in
such
his
sayings
being
this
,
viz.
That
Christs
righteousness
is
not
onely
the
meritorious
cause
,
but
also
the
formal
cause
of
our
justification
,
or
that
we
are
made
righteous
with
Christs
righteousness
in
its
formal
nature
imputed
to
us
)
and
if
any
one
for
the
proof
of
this
assertion
shall
,
as
the
Doctor
did
,
alledge
that
Scripture
in
Rom.
5.18
.
I
still
think
,
that
I
may
fitly
make
answer
to
that
,
or
any
other
the
like
Scriptural
allegation
,
as
I
did
in
that
page
of
my
Discourse
,
viz.
That
it
doth
not
prove
the
Doctors
purpose
,
nor
is
it
pertinent
thereunto
,
the
Question
in
hand
not
being
this
,
viz.
Whether
we
are
justified
By
,
or
for
the
righteousness
of
Christ
as
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
justification
,
but
whether
we
are
justified
With
it
,
this
particle
With
being
taken
in
way
of
contradistinction
to
the
particle
By
in
this
controversie
,
as
importing
the
interest
of
a
formal
cause
.
2.
Though
I
do
in
part
grant
what
the
Author
here
says
,
viz.
That
the
particle
with
doth
sometimes
signifie
an
instrumental
efficiency
and
sometimes
onely
a
bare
concomitancy
,
nevertheless
I
deny
the
truth
of
his
saying
,
That
causa
cum
qua
doth
in
no
language
import
a
formal
cause
,
and
I
do
affirm
the
contrary
,
it
being
apparent
by
many
such
instances
as
these
.
e
.
g
.
A
whited
wall
is
made
white
with
whiteness
,
A
wise
man
is
made
wise
with
wisdome
and
if
I
am
indeed
(
as
this
Author
in
his
obliging
civility
and
charity
hath
styled
me
)
a
learned
man
,
it
may
be
truly
and
fitly
said
,
that
I
am
made
learned
with
learning
.
Yea
I
may
suggest
the
instances
specified
here
by
this
Author
for
himself
,
against
him
,
and
say
,
That
a
man
is
a
man
with
his
soul
,
and
a
man
is
righteous
with
righteousness
;
for
in
these
sayings
,
as
the
soul
is
the
substantial
form
,
or
that
,
which
together
with
its
matter
[
the
body
]
doth
constitute
man
,
or
make
him
to
be
what
he
is
,
viz.
man
,
so
are
whiteness
,
wisdom
,
learning
,
righteousness
the
accidental
forms
,
that
(
according
to
the
properties
of
all
forms
)
do
first
constitute
and
then
denominate
a
thing
or
person
,
white
,
wise
,
learned
,
righteous
,
whiteness
,
wisdom
,
learning
being
in
the
predicament
of
Qualities
,
all
Qualities
being
Accidental
Forms
,
as
this
Author
hath
truly
said
p.
168.
and
which
saying
of
his
own
he
may
do
well
here
to
call
to
mind
,
and
apply
to
the
case
in
hand
.
The
premisses
considered
,
it
may
appear
,
that
I
have
not
wiped
away
that
in
Rom.
5.18
.
or
any
the
like
Scriptures
with
a
wet
finger
(
as
is
this
Authors
censure
,
and
expression
)
instead
whereof
others
(
as
I
am
perswaded
)
will
say
,
That
I
have
dextrously
put
by
or
put
off
that
and
the
like
Scriptures
as
impertinently
alledged
for
Doctor
Owens
purpose
,
or
not
pertaining
to
the
Question
under
debate
;
the
Question
in
hand
not
being
concerning
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
justification
[
Whether
we
be
justified
,
or
made
righteous
by
Christs
righteousness
]
but
concerning
the
formal
cause
,
Whether
we
are
made
righteous
with
it
,
i.e.
with
the
very
thing
it self
imputed
,
or
with
the
imputation
of
it
in
its
formal
and
essential
nature
to
us
,
which
manner
of
imputation
as
I
said
then
,
so
I
say
again
,
that
Scripture
in
Rom.
5.18
.
doth
not
evince
,
nor
any
other
Scripture
,
that
I
as
yet
am
privy
to
.
The
last
place
wherein
I
find
my self
dealt
with
by
name
is
in
p.
231.
where
he
doth
except
against
me
and
Mr
Truman
,
and
others
of
us
,
in
that
we
affirm
,
That
the
justification
of
a
sinner
is
all
one
with
pardon
of
sin
,
he
quoting
certain
passages
out
of
mine
and
Mr
Trumans
books
to
manifest
that
to
be
the
thing
affirmed
by
us
.
Answ
.
To
this
his
exception
I
cannot
but
reply
in
the
way
of
wonder
,
it
being
matter
of
a
kind
of
astonishment
to
me
(
as
I
think
it
will
be
also
to
every
considerate
Reader
)
that
he
should
except
against
us
,
or
any
of
us
for
affirming
that
the
justification
of
a
sinner
is
all
one
with
pardon
of
sin
,
forasmuch
as
he
himself
hath
little
less
than
ten
times
either
in
plain
terms
,
or
in
effect
and
tantamount
in
his
book
expressed
his
concurrence
with
us
in
that
assertion
,
See
p.
97.
and
163.
and
172.
and
149.
An
offender
,
says
he
in
the
place
last
quoted
)
is
usually
justified
,
that
is
,
Forgiven
and
restored
into
favour
by
some
grant
,
and
p.
156.
The
Question
,
says
he
,
speaking
concerning
Jam
.
2.14
.
is
,
Whether
a
man
be
not
justified
,
that
is
,
pardoned
through
the
righteousness
of
Christ
by
believing
—
Yea
,
p.
221.
he
says
,
That
David
himself
placeth
justification
in
forgiveness
of
sin
,
Rom.
4.6
,
7.
And
again
,
says
he
,
quoting
the
same
Text
,
p.
199.
Justification
,
or
imputation
of
righteousness
to
a
believer
is
a
forgiving
of
sin
,
covering
iniquity
,
not
imputing
sin
.
What
can
be
more
plainly
spoken
in
the
way
of
acknowledgment
,
That
justification
,
non
imputation
of
sin
and
imputation
of
righteousness
are
all
one
,
than
what
hath
been
recited
,
from
the
Pen
of
this
Author
?
And
I
am
the
rather
glad
for
his
express
concurrence
with
me
therein
for
these
two
reasons
,
1.
Because
it
is
one
main
part
of
my
professed
design
in
this
second
part
of
my
Discourse
to
prove
(
and
which
I
hope
,
I
have
done
effectually
)
That
forgiveness
of
sin
is
that
very
righteousness
,
which
is
said
in
Scripture
for
the
sake
of
Christs
righteousness
to
be
imp●ted
to
sinners
by
God
.
2.
Because
hereby
it
is
apparent
,
that
in
our
asserting
repentance
for
sin
,
and
a
sincere
purpose
of
amendment
together
with
faith
to
be
duties
required
by
God
,
that
we
may
be
justified
at
present
and
that
perseverance
in
faith
and
holiness
are
required
in
Gods
word
,
that
we
may
continue
,
or
be
continued
in
that
estate
,
we
do
assert
no
more
,
nor
any
other
thing
than
this
,
viz.
That
the
said
graces
,
or
duties
are
commanded
by
God
,
that
thereupon
a
sinner
may
according
to
the
tenour
of
his
promise
be
pardoned
and
eternally
saved
.
And
this
very
doctrine
being
it
,
which
this
Author
doth
so
zealously
oppose
and
endeavour
by
his
book
to
ex●irpate
,
I
leave
it
unto
every
impartial
Reader
to
judge
what
manner
of
task
he
hath
undertaken
in
his
book
,
it
being
(
as
he
says
p.
16
)
an
endeavour
to
shew
,
That
the
foresaid
doctrine
concerning
faith
and
works
as
the
necessary
conditions
,
or
requisits
in
order
to
the
obtaining
and
retaining
the
pardon
of
our
sins
,
that
this
our
doctrine
,
-
1.
Doth
greatly
diminish
the
work
of
Redemption
.
-
2.
That
it
leadeth
to
Arminianism
.
-
3.
That
it
is
the
same
doctrine
for
substance
with
that
of
the
Papist
.
-
4.
That
it
is
a
high
way
to
Socinianism
.
And
verily
when
he
hath
effected
these
things
,
which
his
professed
endeavour
is
by
the
grace
of
Christ
to
shew
,
we
may
give
him
leave
to
say
,
That
he
hath
demonstrated
our
said
Doctrine
to
be
the
high
way
to
hell
and
leading
down
to
the
chambers
of
death
.
The
premisses
considered
,
I
cannot
but
say
again
,
as
I
said
before
,
that
I
wonder
greatly
,
that
he
should
except
against
me
,
or
any
of
my
Brethren
for
affirming
that
thing
which
himself
in
so
many
places
of
his
book
doth
affirm
also
,
viz.
That
a
sinners
justification
is
all
one
with
forgiveness
of
sin
;
so
that
we
may
rest
fully
assured
,
that
this
Author
can
object
nothing
against
this
assertion
of
his
brethren
,
but
what
will
touch
or
recoil
upon
himself
,
and
that
he
and
we
must
in
this
point
of
our
agreement
either
stand
,
or
fall
together
,
it
being
as
impossible
for
hm
to
confound
us
herein
without
confounding
himself
,
even
as
it
was
not
possible
for
Sampson
without
killing
himself
to
kill
his
enemies
,
the
Philistines
.
However
it
may
be
worth
while
to
relate
what
he
says
against
the
common
faith
both
of
himself
and
his
brethren
in
the
foresaid
Article
and
to
shape
a
reply
thereunto
,
as
followeth
.
Now
I
demand
,
says
he
p.
232.
If
justification
be
nothing
but
pardon
,
whether
it
be
an
absolute
pardon
,
or
on
condition
onely
?
Answ
.
Forasmuch
as
justification
and
Remission
of
sin
are
like
Pharaohs
two
dreams
,
viz.
One
in
sense
and
signification
,
so
that
though
the
words
signifying
be
two
,
yet
the
thing
signified
is
but
one
,
they
are
both
alike
distinguishable
into
Absolute
and
Conditional
;
whereupon
I
shall
directly
answer
this
Authors
demand
by
downright
saying
,
That
conditional
justification
is
all
one
with
conditional
pardon
,
and
absolute
or
actual
justification
(
for
when
the
condition
is
fulfilled
.
the
thing
conditioned
ipso
facto
becomes
absolute
)
is
all
one
with
actual
,
or
absolute
pardon
;
this
answer
is
enough
in
all
reason
to
put
a
stop
to
his
after
arguings
;
nevertheless
it
may
be
useful
in
some
respects
to
recite
them
,
as
I
find
them
in
the
same
Page
,
and
to
reply
thereunto
.
If
absolute
(
says
he
)
then
what
cometh
of
all
their
doctrine
of
works
being
the
condition
?
If
God
for
the
sake
of
Christs
death
grant
remission
of
sins
and
right
to
life
absolutely
,
then
these
can
depend
upon
no
condition
to
be
fulfilled
by
men
;
and
Christ
must
have
purchased
more
than
a
grant
of
life
upon
condition
,
even
life
it self
to
be
given
to
whom
he
pleased
.
Answ
.
1.
Neither
did
God
for
the
sake
of
Christs
death
ever
promise
,
covenant
or
grant
,
neither
did
Christ
purchase
,
or
ever
intend
to
purchase
remission
of
sin
,
justification
,
or
a
right
to
life
to
be
enjoyed
absolutely
by
sinners
,
i.e.
without
any
condition
to
be
fulfilled
by
them
in
order
to
such
enjoyment
.
2.
When
the
conditions
upon
which
the
enjoyment
of
the
said
justification
,
remission
of
sin
and
right
to
life
purchased
by
Christ
,
and
promised
by
God
are
by
sinners
fulfilled
,
then
doth
the
said
grant
,
or
promise
,
which
was
before
onely
conditional
,
become
absolute
,
that
is
,
the
things
granted
or
benefits
promised
come
to
be
actually
and
absolutely
enjoyed
,
which
absolute
enjoyment
Christ
Jesus
did
indeed
purchase
for
sinners
,
yet
not
that
they
should
enjoy
the
same
immediately
upon
his
purchase
,
but
in
consequence
upon
their
fulfilling
such
,
and
such
conditions
of
divine
institution
.
3.
Although
Christ
purchased
heaven
,
or
life
it self
to
be
given
to
whom
he
pleased
,
yet
it
did
not
please
him
,
to
give
it
meerly
arbitrarily
,
and
without
reason
.
Thus
says
this
Author
,
p.
156.
God
proceedeth
with
equity
in
giving
heaven
to
them
,
who
have
believed
and
been
obedient
,
and
he
doth
not
give
it
meerly
arbitrarily
and
without
reason
.
Briefly
,
As
Christ
purchased
heaven
to
be
given
To
whom
he
pleased
,
so
to
be
given
How
and
when
he
pleaseth
,
i.e.
not
presently
and
not
otherwise
than
upon
the
performance
of
the
conditions
of
his
own
and
his
fathers
appointment
.
The
Author
proceeds
to
say
of
us
in
the
following
words
.
But
if
they
say
,
That
justification
is
pardon
upon
condition
,
that
men
fulfill
the
Gospel-terms
,
it
is
a
contradiction
in
adjecto
,
to
be
nothing
but
pardon
,
and
yet
to
require
obedience
as
the
condition
of
it
,
are
inconsistent
,
pardon
being
nothing
else
,
but
Nolle
punire
,
a
will
not
to
punish
,
and
to
require
conditions
of
new
obedience
being
a
prescribing
of
a
new
law
,
by
which
they
shall
be
judged
both
for
what
was
past
before
their
justification
and
for
what
follows
after
.
Answ
.
1.
Although
we
say
,
that
Gospel-justification
and
pardon
of
sin
are
the
same
thing
,
and
though
we
say
,
That
justification
conditional
,
and
conditional
pardon
are
the
same
thing
,
as
also
,
That
justification
actual
is
the
same
thing
with
actual
pardon
,
nevertheless
we
do
not
say
,
,
as
this
Author
here
supposes
,
or
would
have
us
to
say
,
viz.
That
actual
justification
is
the
same
thing
with
conditional
pardon
,
or
with
pardon
upon
condition
,
that
men
fulfill
the
Gospel-terms
.
2.
Although
it
be
a
contradiction
to
say
,
that
actual
,
or
absolute
justification
is
pardon
upon
condition
of
our
fulfilling
the
Gospel-terms
,
yet
it
is
no
contradiction
to
say
,
That
justification
conditional
●s
pardon
of
sin
upon
condition
,
that
we
fulfill
the
Gospel-terms
.
And
forasmuch
as
this
Author
doth
rightly
describe
a
legal
condition
,
(
saying
,
p.
45.
It
is
the
condition
of
a
law
or
covenant
,
whereupon
some
thing
is
promised
.
)
I
judg
it
to
be
a
great
mistake
in
him
to
deny
the
Gospel
to
be
a
new
law
,
wherein
a
return
to
God
by
faith
,
and
repentance
and
new
obedience
is
prescribed
as
the
condition
,
upon
which
justification
,
remission
of
sin
,
and
a
right
to
life
are
for
the
sake
of
Christ
promised
to
be
conferred
upon
sinners
.
3.
It
is
his
errour
to
say
,
that
pardon
is
but
Nolle
punire
,
a
will
not
to
punish
,
which
errour
I
have
at
large
refuted
in
my
Exercitation
concerning
the
n●ture
of
forgiveness
of
sin
,
p.
209.
Pardon
of
sin
is
the
actual
dissolution
of
a
sinn●rs
obligation
to
punishment
,
which
doth
indeed
as
much
differ
from
Gods
Nol●e
punire
,
as
doth
Gods
will
,
or
purpose
to
do
a
thing
differ
from
the
thing
done
,
or
from
his
actual
effecting
the
deed
.
4.
Suppose
,
that
pardon
were
but
Gods
Nolle
punire
,
it
doth
not
from
thence
follow
,
but
that
God
may
by
a
law
prescribe
conditions
,
upon
which
the
thing
willed
by
him
is
to
be
enjoyed
,
and
according
to
which
law
sinners
must
finally
be
judged
.
He
proceeds
to
say
of
us
,
p.
232
,
233.
They
say
,
That
when
a
man
is
pardoned
all
his
sins
,
it
is
all
one
as
if
he
had
done
all
his
duty
and
fulfilled
the
law
.
Then
to
justifie
a
man
is
to
account
him
guiltless
and
in
effect
to
have
fulfilled
the
law
,
and
how
can
this
be
without
imputing
Christs
satisfaction
,
or
fulfilling
the
law
to
him
?
But
it
is
apparently
untrue
,
that
to
pardon
is
all
one
as
to
account
a
man
guiltless
,
or
to
have
done
his
duty
:
for
confession
of
g●●lt
and
sin
must
go
before
and
acco●pany
pardon
and
the
law
,
which
a
man
hath
broken
,
doth
still
accuse
,
and
c●ndemn
him
for
the
breach
of
it
:
Sin
is
still
sin
and
deserves
death
though
forgiven
,
though
the
law-maker
being
above
the
law
will
not
suffer
the
law
to
have
its
con●se
upon
the
offender
.
Answ
.
1.
We
do
not
say
,
as
is
here
insinuated
of
us
,
viz.
That
when
a
man
is
pardoned
all
his
sins
,
it
is
(
simp●y
,
abso●utely
,
universally
,
or
in
all
respect●
)
a●l
one
as
if
he
had
done
all
his
duty
and
fulfilled
the
law
:
But
the
thing
we
say
is
this
,
That
when
a
man
is
pardoned
all
his
sins
,
it
is
all
one
respectively
to
a
sinn
rs
impunity
,
or
freedome
from
suffering
,
as
if
he
had
done
all
his
duty
,
or
(
which
is
to
the
same
purpose
)
this
we
say
,
viz.
When
a
sinner
is
perf●ctly
pardoned
,
he
is
dealt
with
respectively
to
the
punishment
contracted
by
his
sins
,
as
if
he
had
never
sinned
.
And
the
tru●h
of
this
saying
this
Author
cannot
deny
without
self-contradiction
,
forasmuch
as
he
doth
expresly
acknowledg
,
p.
199.
that
to
impute
righteousness
,
and
not
to
impute
or
pardon
sin
are
all
one
.
2.
As
upon
the
reason
here
specified
by
this
Author
,
we
do
not
say
,
that
when
a
man
is
fully
pardoned
all
his
sins
,
it
is
all
one
(
simply
and
absolutely
,
or
in
all
imaginable
respects
)
as
if
he
had
done
all
his
duty
,
so
for
the
same
reason
we
neither
do
,
or
dare
say
,
that
it
is
thus
all
one
with
a
sinner
fully
pardoned
upon
the
imputation
of
Christs
satisfaction
and
fulfilling
the
law
to
him
,
though
this
Author
seems
to
say
that
it
may
be
done
upon
this
account
:
for
we
do
judge
it
a
natural
impossibility
,
that
he
,
who
hath
sinned
,
and
is
become
guilty
,
should
upon
any
account
whatsoever
be
,
or
be
truly
accounted
guiltless
,
i.e.
guiltless
in
respect
of
fault
,
that
is
,
never
to
have
sinned
,
or
to
have
always
done
all
his
duty
,
It
being
truly
said
by
this
Author
,
That
sin
is
still
sin
and
deserves
death
though
forgiven
;
and
it
is
also
truly
said
by
him
,
that
to
pardon
cannot
be
all
one
as
to
account
a
man
guiltless
or
to
have
done
all
his
duty
,
for
this
reason
,
viz.
Because
confession
of
guilt
and
sin
go
before
and
accompany
pardon
.
But
withall
I
observe
,
that
in
that
saying
he
hath
contradicted
what
he
said
elsewhere
,
p.
76.
where
although
he
acknowledges
repentance
for
sin
to
be
a
thing
requisite
consequently
to
a
sinners
pardon
,
yet
he
denies
it
to
be
requisite
antecedently
thereunto
.
I
know
no
way
possible
in
these
two
places
to
make
this
Author
consistent
with
himself
,
but
by
saying
,
That
by
confession
of
guilt
and
sin
he
doth
not
mean
a
penitential
confession
thereof
,
which
meaning
,
I
presume
,
he
would
with
indignation
disown
,
forasmuch
as
it
is
palbably
against
reason
and
against
the
truth
of
the
Gospel
to
say
,
That
confession
of
guilt
and
sin
is
to
go
before
pardon
,
but
a
penitential
confession
of
it
must
not
.
Now
whereas
this
Author
in
the
following
pages
having
objected
it
as
the
opinion
of
the
carnal
multitude
,
that
they
shall
be
saved
for
their
good
works
through
the
mercy
of
God
,
and
because
Christ
died
for
them
,
doth
,
notwithstanding
their
renouncing
the
merits
of
their
works
and
trusting
thereunto
,
doth
I
say
disallow
all
manner
of
trusting
to
our
good
works
,
as
they
are
the
performance
of
the
conditions
of
the
new
covenant
,
I
will
therefore
recite
his
words
and
reply
thereunto
.
Mans
reason
and
conscience
(
says
he
,
p.
234
,
235.
)
if
it
may
be
heard
,
will
allow
him
to
trust
no
further
to
his
works
,
than
as
they
are
the
fulfilling
of
Gods
commands
,
i.e.
as
they
are
the
conditions
of
the
covenant
,
as
these
Writers
express
it
,
and
unsanctified
reason
ignorant
of
the
righteousness
of
God
,
will
not
suffer
them
to
trust
in
Christ
without
the
concomitance
of
their
own
works
.
Answ
.
1.
Although
it
is
the
vain
opinion
and
damnable
presumption
of
the
carnal
multitude
(
like
those
Professors
of
Piety
,
yet
Workers
of
Iniquity
,
Mat
.
7
,
21
,
22
,
23.
)
to
trust
that
they
shall
be
saved
through
the
mercy
of
God
and
merits
of
Christ
upon
account
of
their
doing
some
external
works
pertaining
to
Christian
Religion
.
Nevertheless
this
Author
hath
no
just
ground
to
rebuke
the
hope
and
trust
of
sincere
Believers
,
who
do
believe
and
trust
,
that
through
the
mercy
of
God
and
merits
of
Christ
they
shall
be
saved
by
their
good
works
,
i.e.
by
their
faithful
performance
of
the
conditions
of
the
new
covenant
,
or
by
their
patient
continuance
in
well
doing
,
as
is
the
Apostles
expression
,
Rom.
2.7
.
Yea
this
Author
cannot
without
self-contradiction
deny
,
that
a
sincere
Christian
may
be
truly
said
,
through
Gods
mercy
and
Christs
merits
to
be
saved
for
his
good
works
,
forasmuch
as
he
doth
acknowledge
,
p.
141.
that
the
word
(
for
)
assigns
a
reason
of
a
thing
affirmed
,
and
not
always
a
cause
,
according
to
the
logical
expression
of
the
matter
,
Consequentiam
deno●at
,
non
causam
,
and
upon
that
ground
he
says
,
p.
148.
that
he
humbly
conceives
,
That
although
to
vulgar
ears
,
it
be
safest
to
say
,
We
are
saved
according
to
our
work●
(
they
being
good
and
not
evil
;
)
nevertheless
in
di●putation
We
need
not
fear
to
say
,
They
are
actually
saved
for
their
works
;
and
indeed
that
very
reason
,
which
he
gives
,
p.
156.
why
the
faithful
may
be
said
to
be
judged
to
salvation
according
to
their
works
,
is
a
cogent
reason
,
why
they
may
warrantably
be
said
to
be
saved
By
,
or
For
their
works
,
viz.
because
God
(
as
he
says
most
truly
)
proceeds
with
equity
in
giving
heaven
to
the
obedient
,
and
th●t
he
doth
not
give
it
meerly
arbitrarily
and
without
reason
;
God
hereby
manifesting
(
as
he
says
,
p.
148.
)
that
he
is
not
partial
giving
heaven
meerly
upon
favour
to
persons
,
that
are
as
bad
as
others
,
but
that
there
is
some
fitness
in
those
persons
in
their
dispositions
and
practices
.
2.
As
sanctified
reason
and
conscience
illuminated
by
the
sacred
Scriptures
will
allow
a
Christian
to
trust
to
his
works
no
further
,
than
as
they
are
the
fu●filling
the
conditions
of
the
new
covenant
,
to
,
or
upon
which
justification
,
remission
of
sin
and
eternal
life
are
therein
promised
,
so
the
same
sanctified
reason
and
conscience
will
warrant
him
so
far
forth
to
trust
unto
them
and
for
the
obtaining
of
so
much
as
God
hath
promised
to
,
or
upon
that
performance
,
it
being
no
less
than
justification
,
remission
of
sin
and
eternal
life
.
And
indeed
in
this
sort
,
or
thus
far
forth
to
trust
unto
our
works
(
as
they
are
the
performance
of
the
covenant
on
our
part
,
in
which
covenant
,
or
to
which
performance
all
good
things
are
promised
on
Gods
part
)
is
in
effect
neither
more
,
nor
less
and
in
true
construction
,
than
to
trust
God
upon
his
word
,
or
to
God
for
the
accomplishment
of
his
own
word
and
promise
in
his
own
appointed
way
,
or
upon
his
own
terms
.
3.
It
is
not
unsanctified
reason
,
ignorant
of
the
righteousness
of
God
,
that
will
not
suffer
sinners
to
trust
in
Christ
without
the
comitancy
of
their
own
works
,
but
it
is
reason
sanctified
and
illightned
by
the
knowledg
of
God
in
Christ
and
his
holy
Gospel
,
revealing
and
prescribing
to
us
the
terms
of
salvation
through
Christ
,
that
will
not
suffer
any
sinner
to
trust
in
Christ
for
salvation
without
the
concomitance
of
their
own
good
works
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
language
of
Scripture
,
Heb
.
6.9
.
)
without
such
works
,
which
do
accompany
salvation
,
the
{αβγδ}
,
those
Better
things
,
which
the
Apostle
there
speaks
of
.
And
the
contrary
may
easily
be
manifested
to
be
a
doctrine
of
unsufferable
presumption
and
not
of
the
true
Scriptural
trust
in
Christ
,
and
such
doctrine
,
which
was
never
taught
by
the
Protestant
Churches
:
for
the
Protestant
doctrine
in
this
matter
(
as
I
have
always
apprehended
it
,
notwithstanding
all
the
gainsayings
and
foul
aspersions
of
the
Papists
)
is
truly
this
,
viz.
That
without
the
concomitancy
,
or
presence
of
good
works
neither
is
Christ
Jesus
to
be
trusted
unto
for
salvation
,
nor
is
faith
to
be
trusted
unto
for
justification
.
Hereupon
I
leave
it
to
every
intelligent
Reader
to
judg
whether
this
Author
by
this
his
Anti-protestant
doctrine
hath
not
greatly
wronged
and
dishonoured
the
Protestant
cause
,
which
in
the
point
of
justification
by
faith
he
pretends
to
maintain
and
vindicate
.
What
wrong
he
hath
done
our
Protestant
Churches
by
the
manifold
false
doctrine
dispersed
in
his
book
,
I
will
endeavour
to
manifest
in
the
fourth
thing
,
which
I
promised
and
which
I
am
in
the
next
place
to
enter
upon
.
4.
Under
this
head
let
be
considered
in
the
first
place
,
what
he
says
respectively
to
the
perseverance
of
the
Saints
,
1.
As
he
asserts
in
p
206.
(
as
also
elsewhere
)
That
there
is
no
danger
of
their
Apostacy
,
nor
possibility
of
it
,
p.
200.
so
he
blames
us
for
supposing
it
possible
,
and
says
withall
,
That
to
assert
their
final
condemnation
upon
supposition
of
their
actual
Apostacy
,
is
prodigious
divinity
.
This
Doctrine
of
his
I
take
to
be
no
Protestant
,
or
Scripture
Doctrine
;
for
if
(
to
speak
simply
)
there
were
no
danger
,
nor
possibility
of
their
damnable
backsliding
,
in
vain
and
altogether
without
cause
would
those
and
multitude
of
the
like
admonitions
be
,
Heb
.
4.1
.
and
12.15
,
16.
2
Joh
.
8.
Rev.
3.11
.
And
it
is
plain
Scripture
Divinity
to
assert
the
damnation
of
the
Saints
upon
supposition
of
their
Apostacy
,
as
appears
by
the
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
1
Chron
.
28.9
.
Ezek
.
18.24
.
Rom.
8.13
.
Heb
.
10.
lat.
Nor
do
the
Dort-Synodists
(
for
ought
I
know
)
deny
the
Divinity
,
which
this
Author
calls
prodigious
,
to
be
scriptural
;
sure
and
certain
I
am
,
that
our
British
Divines
(
Members
of
that
Synod
)
do
not
deny
it
,
yea
they
do
assert
the
contrary
.
2.
In
p.
209.
he
doth
in
effect
plainly
assert
,
That
as
God
doth
purp●se
to
give
life
to
some
men
,
excluding
all
respects
to
their
works
(
which
is
their
election
)
so
he
will
certainly
in
time
give
them
an
actual
right
to
life
,
and
put
them
into
an
estate
of
life
without
respect
to
their
works
,
which
,
says
he
,
is
j●stification
.
This
,
I
am
well
assured
,
is
no
part
of
Protestant
,
nor
yet
of
School-divinity
;
for
though
Aquinas
with
some
other
School-men
do
deny
,
That
Deu●
propter
hoc
vult
hoc
(
wherein
notwithstanding
others
do
gainsay
him
,
as
in
my
slender
reading
I
have
observed
of
Amyraldus
and
Mr
Truman
;
)
nevertheless
all
of
them
do
agree
in
this
,
That
Deus
propter
hoc
vult
hoc
esse
,
which
indeed
is
a
truth
beyond
all
contradiction
.
And
as
it
is
the
very
letter
of
Scripture
,
that
God
chooseth
sinners
to
salvation
through
sanctification
and
belief
of
the
truth
,
2
Thes
.
2.13
.
(
and
therefore
,
as
I
am
apt
to
think
,
not
without
respect
thereunto
)
so
I
am
most
assured
that
it
is
the
very
truth
of
Scripture
,
that
God
puts
no
sinner
(
elect
,
or
not
elect
to
salvation
,
I
say
thus
,
because
there
are
many
great
Divines
,
who
with
Austin
hold
,
that
all
who
are
sanctified
are
not
of
the
elect
number
)
into
an
estate
of
life
,
or
justifies
them
without
respect
to
their
faith
,
which
worketh
by
love
.
I
may
justly
stile
this
Authors
Divinity
concerning
the
irrespective
election
and
irrespective
justification
of
sinners
(
to
speak
in
his
own
language
)
prodigious
Divinity
,
a
prodigy
of
Divinity
;
for
I
think
,
that
in
the
Native
consequence
thereof
it
makes
(
with
due
reverence
to
the
Divine
Majesty
be
it
spoken
)
a
Prodigy
of
God
himself
,
by
turning
The
God
and
Father
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
into
the
similitude
of
a
Creature
worse
than
what
is
said
was
done
by
the
Israelites
in
the
Wilderness
(
Psal
.
106.20
.
into
the
similitude
of
an
Ox
,
that
eateth
grass
)
even
into
the
similitude
of
such
a
creature
as
I
abhor
to
think
upon
,
and
shall
therefore
here
forbear
to
name
.
But
the
best
of
it
is
,
that
there
is
(
to
my
seeming
)
no
more
agreement
with
this
Authors
divinity
in
this
page
with
his
divinity
in
another
before
recited
(
he
there
saying
,
That
God
doth
not
save
sinners
meerly
arbitrarily
and
for
no
reason
)
than
between
light
and
darkness
,
or
between
Christ
and
Belial
.
I
proceed
to
specifie
this
Authors
Doctrine
touching
the
Article
of
redemption
by
Christ
.
3.
In
page
76.
He
condemns
the
asserting
,
that
Christ
died
for
all
men
as
Popish
Doctrine
,
and
says
of
us
,
In
like
manner
do
our
late
Authors
lay
this
as
a
foundation
,
that
Christ
died
for
all
men
properly
and
intentionally
.
What
this
Author
calls
Popish
,
is
,
as
I
am
perswaded
,
truly
Protestant
and
Scriptural
Doctrine
.
What
he
means
by
(
Properly
)
I
know
not
,
But
certain
I
am
,
that
however
in
a
peculiar
sense
,
or
for
a
more
peculiar
reason
Christ
is
said
in
certain
Scriptures
to
die
for
some
(
his
sheep
,
his
Church
;
)
nevertheless
in
other
Scriptures
he
is
said
to
die
for
All
and
every
man
,
2
Cor
.
5.14
.
Heb
.
2.9
.
And
if
he
did
at
all
die
for
them
,
we
may
well
lay
it
as
a
sure
foundation
,
that
he
died
for
them
intentionally
,
or
intended
to
die
for
them
,
whereupon
it
may
be
truly
said
,
That
in
his
dying
for
sinners
he
did
not
onely
pay
a
price
sufficient
for
all
,
but
also
,
He
paid
for
all
a
sufficient
price
,
and
upon
that
account
he
is
to
be
acknowledged
the
Redeemer
of
all
Mankind
.
And
however
Amesius
,
with
certain
of
the
Synodists
at
Dort
(
the
Low
Dutch
Divines
)
have
denied
it
,
yet
this
Author
,
I
presume
,
is
not
ignorant
,
that
our
British
Divines
with
those
of
Breme
,
(
to
name
no
more
)
were
otherwise
minded
,
and
touching
the
Doctrine
of
Universal
Redemption
in
a
Scriptural
sense
,
he
may
be
pleased
to
peruse
at
leisure
our
famous
Davenant
,
De
morte
Christi
,
and
Dallies
Apology
against
Spanhemius
his
Exercitations
.
I
proceed
to
mention
this
Authors
Doctrines
concerning
other
matters
of
our
Christian
Faith
,
viz.
Forgiveness
of
Sin
,
Justification
,
Repentance
,
Justifying
Faith
—
4.
If
Justification
,
says
he
,
p.
110.
be
real
forgiveness
of
sin
,
it
cannot
depend
upon
works
.
That
Justification
is
real
forgiveness
of
sin
is
indeed
true
Protestant
Doctrine
,
&
Habemus
Authorem
ipsum
confitentem
,
this
Author
himself
doth
acknowledge
it
(
as
appears
by
several
testimonies
out
of
his
book
before
recited
)
but
to
deny
justification
to
depend
upon
works
and
therefore
to
deny
it
,
because
justification
is
real
forgiveness
of
sin
,
is
not
Protestant
,
or
Scripture
Doctrine
.
I
may
well
here
apply
the
old
saying
,
Cujus
contrarium
verum
est
:
for
because
Gospel-justification
is
real
forgiveness
of
sin
,
therefore
or
thereupon
it
is
most
apparent
by
the
Scriptures
,
that
it
doth
depend
upon
works
,
for
proof
whereof
I
shall
onely
quote
two
Texts
or
verses
in
one
Chapter
,
1
John
1.7
,
9.
And
having
mentioned
these
texts
of
Scripture
,
I
shall
recite
his
inferences
from
the
Doctrine
of
his
Brethren
,
which
he
opposeth
,
and
leave
it
to
the
judgment
of
the
learned
Reader
,
Whether
he
had
not
a
like
reason
to
infer
,
or
object
the
same
against
the
Doctrine
of
the
Apostle
S.
John
in
the
forecited
Scriptures
,
as
against
theirs
.
In
p.
188.
he
says
,
That
upon
our
asserting
the
immediate
effect
of
Christs
righteousness
to
be
the
procuring
a
new
grant
,
or
charter
of
life
upon
condition
of
sincere
obedience
to
God
and
Christ
,
That
thus
Christ
is
but
a
remote
Saviour
,
His
righteousness
justifies
not
at
all
,
onely
makes
way
,
that
our
own
may
justifie
us
,
We
are
not
washed
from
our
sins
in
his
blood
,
but
by
our
own
repentance
and
obedience
;
onely
his
blood
procured
,
that
our
obedience
might
be
a
means
of
our
expiation
;
We
are
beholding
to
Christ
for
making
a
way
for
our
justification
,
but
we
must
be
justified
by
our
own
selves
,
our
righteousness
being
the
onely
immediate
and
totall
cause
of
our
justification
.
Thus
he
.
Now
judge
,
Christian
Reader
,
Whether
this
Author
had
not
a
like
reason
to
make
the
same
inferences
from
the
Apostolical
Doctrine
of
S.
John
,
as
against
ours
touching
forgiveness
of
sin
its
depending
upon
works
,
and
to
say
.
If
we
must
walk
in
the
light
as
God
is
in
the
light
,
that
thereupon
we
may
be
cleansed
by
the
blood
of
his
son
from
all
sin
,
If
we
must
confess
our
sins
(
yea
and
forsake
them
says
Solomon
,
Prov.
28.13
.
)
that
thereupon
we
may
be
forgiven
and
cleansed
from
all
unrighteousness
,
Thus
is
Christ
but
a
remote
Saviour
,
His
righteousness
justifies
not
at
all
,
onely
makes
way
—
We
are
not
washed
from
our
sins
in
his
blood
,
but
by
our
own
repentance
and
obedient
walking
,
Onely
his
blood
procured
,
that
—
We
are
beholding
to
Christ
for
making
a
way
—
but
we
must
be
justified
by
our
own
selves
,
our
righteousness
(
our
obediential
walking
and
penitential
confessing
of
our
sins
)
must
be
the
immediate
total
cause
of
our
justification
.
Thus
by
confuting
us
,
he
hath
killed
two
birds
with
one
stone
(
I
mean
)
he
hath
confuted
the
Evangelist
and
Apostle
S.
John
also
.
5.
He
says
,
p.
120.
That
Jesus
Christ
having
performed
the
conditions
of
life
,
the
conditions
of
the
covenant
are
not
to
be
performed
by
us
,
i.e.
by
the
Head
and
Members
both
.
This
his
Doctrine
I
take
to
be
Doctrine
Anti-protestant
:
for
therein
is
implyed
this
piece
of
false
Doctrine
,
viz.
That
Christ
is
the
onely
person
covenanted
with
by
God
and
that
it
is
the
same
covenant
and
law
,
which
is
made
with
and
for
Christ
,
and
which
is
made
with
and
for
us
.
6.
He
says
,
p.
72.
That
our
Doctrine
of
conditional
Justification
is
n●
less
in
substance
,
than
the
Popish
justification
by
works
,
though
put
into
more
Scriptural
phrases
.
And
he
says
,
p.
87.
That
the
Popish
Doctrine
,
that
Christ
hath
merited
,
that
our
works
should
deserve
heaven
,
is
in
other
terms
no
more
than
that
Christ
hath
purchased
,
that
our
works
should
be
the
condition
,
whereupon
we
shall
be
saved
.
If
this
be
true
,
that
the
Papists
mean
no
more
by
the
merits
of
their
works
,
than
is
here
said
;
surely
we
have
all
cause
to
bless
God
for
it
,
and
not
to
oppose
them
in
it
,
but
to
say
to
them
according
to
the
old
saying
,
Mentem
teneas
,
however
there
be
just
occasion
to
say
to
them
,
Linguam
corrigas
:
for
their
said
meaning
is
the
very
sense
of
Scripture
,
even
of
the
Prophets
of
God
and
Apostles
of
Jesus
Christ
,
1
Joh
.
1.7
.
1
Cor
.
15.2
.
1
Tim
.
2.1
.
Col.
1.23
.
Amos
5.14
.
7.
In
p.
84
,
he
says
,
That
as
our
said
Doctrine
of
conditional
justification
,
and
that
of
the
Papists
agree
in
the
article
of
j●stification
so
they
do
also
about
justifying
faith
;
The
Papists
deny
it
to
be
a
trust
,
or
affiance
in
the
promises
of
salvation
,
Conc
.
Trid
.
Sess
6.
can
.
12.
Si
quis
dixerit
,
fidem
justificantem
nihil
aliud
esse
quam
fiduciam
divinae
misericordiae
peccata
propter
Christum
,
vel
eam
fiduciam
solam
esse
,
qua
justificamur
,
Anathema
sit
.
This
also
is
the
Doctrine
of
our
Authors
,
and
indeed
if
w●
are
not
justified
immediately
by
the
righteousness
of
Christ
without
the
intervention
of
our
obedience
,
then
to
trust
in
his
righteousness
cannot
justifie
us
,
says
he
.
It
is
the
truly
ancient
,
Catholick
and
Apostolical
Doctrine
,
as
well
as
the
Doctrine
of
Mr
Throughtons
Authors
,
that
we
are
not
justified
meerly
by
this
one
act
of
faith
(
trusting
in
Christs
righteousness
)
but
by
the
intervention
of
other
acts
thereof
also
,
viz.
by
faith
its
acting
it self
by
repentance
,
holy
desires
and
purposes
—
2.
Forasmuch
as
Christs
righteousness
is
one
thing
,
and
trust
in
his
righteousness
is
another
,
the
things
he
implicitly
here
affirms
,
are
inconsistent
,
viz.
That
we
are
justified
immediately
by
Christs
righteousness
,
and
yet
not
without
,
but
by
the
intervention
of
our
trust
in
it
.
3.
He
wrongs
the
Papists
in
saying
,
that
they
deny
justifying
faith
to
be
a
trust
,
or
affiance
in
the
promises
of
salvation
;
the
thing
by
them
denied
being
onely
this
,
viz.
That
justifying
faith
is
not
a
meer
trust
in
the
promise
of
salvation
,
as
the
Trent
Canon
here
recited
doth
plainly
manifest
.
4.
This
Author
had
no
more
reason
to
distaste
,
or
gainsay
this
Tridentine
Canon
,
nor
yet
that
recited
by
him
in
these
words
,
p.
76.
(
Si
quis
dixerit
,
homines
justificari
vel
solâ
imputatione
justitiae
Christi
,
vel
solâ
peccatorum
remissione
,
exclusâ
gratiâ
,
&
c●aritate
,
quae
in
cordibus
eorum
per
spiritum
sanctum
diffundatur
,
atque
illis
inhaereat
,
aut
etiam
gratiam
,
quâ
justificamur
esse
tantum
favorem
dei
,
Anathema
sit
)
than
there
is
cause
for
him
,
or
me
to
deny
Jesus
Christ
to
be
the
son
of
God
,
because
the
Devils
did
confess
it
,
Mar.
1.24
.
Hath
this
Author
indeed
{αβγδ}
,
senses
so
exercised
,
as
to
discern
good
and
evil
,
or
to
distinguish
betwixt
truly
Protestant
and
Popish
Doctrine
?
8.
He
says
,
p.
196.
That
men
in
their
sinful
and
lost
estate
are
not
capable
of
new
conditions
of
life
,
b●ing
under
the
sentence
of
wrath
for
breaking
the
law
;
therefore
not
to
be
treated
with
by
God
upon
new
terms
,
or
conditions
,
being
also
utterly
unable
in
this
estate
to
fulfill
any
new
conditions
.
This
I
take
to
be
no
Protestant
,
or
Scriptural
Doctrine
:
for
I
have
always
thought
and
am
still
of
the
same
mind
,
That
the
external
way
,
in
,
or
by
which
God
doth
t●eat
with
sinners
,
is
by
the
dispensation
of
his
word
and
Gospel
(
wherein
are
contained
precepts
,
promises
and
threatnings
)
and
which
Gospel
by
Gods
command
is
to
be
preached
to
every
rational
creature
;
so
that
this
Authors
Doctrine
doth
give
a
Supersedeas
,
or
check
to
the
execution
of
that
Commission
of
our
Saviour
given
to
his
Apostles
for
their
treating
with
all
and
every
sinner
,
declaring
to
them
the
terms
or
conditions
of
their
salvation
through
Christ
revealed
,
and
beseeching
them
as
his
Ambassadors
,
and
in
his
stead
,
to
accept
of
them
,
that
thereupon
they
may
for
Christs
sake
be
made
partakers
of
the
salvation
promised
in
the
Gospel
.
Nor
do
I
perceive
any
more
reason
,
why
mens
inability
(
of
themselves
)
to
fulfill
the
new
conditions
of
the
covenant
,
should
more
make
against
institution
of
such
conditions
,
and
render
them
uncaple
to
be
treated
with
by
God
in
that
way
,
than
their
said
inability
doth
render
them
uncapable
of
Gods
giving
,
or
their
receiving
any
such
commands
from
God
as
that
in
Ezek
.
18.
lat.
Make
you
a
new
heart
and
a
new
spirit
,
together
with
many
other
Scriptures
of
the
same
importance
both
in
the
Old
and
New
Testament
.
9.
Though
he
doth
frequently
acknowledg
justification
to
be
all
one
with
remission
of
sin
,
yet
he
denies
that
so
much
as
a
purpose
of
new
obedience
is
antecedent
thereunto
,
making
the
contrary
to
be
Popish
Doctrine
,
p.
79.
and
hardning
himself
with
the
authority
of
Dr
Preston
,
he
saying
on
Eph.
2.3
.
That
justification
hath
no
anteceden●
conditions
,
though
it
hath
condition●
,
that
follow
it
.
This
Doctrine
hath
been
already
manifested
to
be
anti
evangelical
Doctrine
,
nor
is
it
any
whit
the
more
authentick
for
being
attested
by
any
humane
authority
(
the
mistake
of
Dr.
Preston
therein
I
have
long
since
taken
notice
of
,
and
refuted
his
reasonings
at
large
in
other
papers
)
the
contrary
being
that
indeed
,
wherein
both
Protestants
and
Papists
do
and
should
agree
,
no
pardon
being
by
God
so
much
as
promised
to
sinners
but
upon
the
condition
of
a
sincere
purpose
of
amendment
as
antecedaneous
to
the
enjoyment
thereof
,
the
conditions
,
which
follow
it
being
conditions
not
of
the
thing
it self
,
or
thing
it self
simply
to
be
enjoyed
,
but
of
the
enjoyment
thereof
to
be
continued
or
not
lost
.
10.
He
says
,
p.
49.
That
faith
is
a
coming
empty
and
naked
of
all
righteousness
of
our
own
,
that
we
may
be
accepted
only
through
Christ
.
This
also
I
conceive
to
be
no
part
of
the
Protestant
Doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
onely
,
their
Doctrine
being
this
,
viz.
That
justifying
faith
is
an
operative
faith
,
which
works
by
love
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
a
coming
to
God
empty
and
naked
of
all
righteousness
of
our
own
(
with
which
kind
of
faith
those
,
who
came
unto
him
,
were
not
welcomed
by
him
,
but
turned
from
him
without
their
errand
,
Mat
.
7.21
,
22
,
23.
)
but
it
is
a
coming
to
God
in
the
name
of
Christ
with
such
repentance
,
self
loathing
and
supplications
a●
did
the
Publican
,
saying
,
(
God
be
mercifull
to
me
a
sinner
)
with
a
willingness
to
be
rid
of
the
service
of
sin
,
and
to
take
upon
them
Christs
easie
yoak
,
that
through
this
way
of
well-doing
they
may
for
the
sake
of
Jesus
Christ
the
Righteous
be
accepted
with
God
;
this
kind
of
well-doing
being
the
condition
,
upon
which
sinners
are
(
according
to
the
tenour
of
Gods
promises
)
to
expect
acceptance
with
God
and
not
otherwise
,
Gen.
4.8
.
2
Cor
.
6.
lat.
11.
In
p.
122.
He
denies
faith
to
be
a
condition
of
pardon
,
and
gives
this
reason
,
saying
,
Faith
is
nothing
else
but
trusting
in
mercy
and
free
grace
with
acknowledgment
of
sin
and
misery
,
and
therefore
it
is
of
all
things
most
unfit
to
be
a
condition
of
pardon
,
being
no
service
to
God
,
nor
bringing
any
proper
tribute
of
honour
to
him
,
but
what
is
founded
upon
his
own
good
pleasure
to
forgive
.
This
is
no
Protestant
Doctrine
,
that
justifying
faith
(
for
of
this
faith
he
spake
those
words
)
is
nothing
else
but
trusting
in
mercy
and
free
grace
with
an
acknowledgment
of
sin
and
misery
(
as
hath
been
already
manifested
in
the
foregoing
paragraph
)
.
2.
That
faith
,
which
the
Author
here
will
own
to
be
justifying
faith
,
or
the
means
,
or
way
to
justification
(
as
are
his
expressions
else
where
)
the
Protestants
do
with
the
Scriptures
disown
to
be
justifying
faith
,
(
viz.
such
a
faith
as
is
nothing
else
,
but
trusting
in
mercy
and
free
grace
with
an
acknowledgment
of
sin
and
misery
)
they
reputing
faith
without
works
to
be
a
dead
faith
.
3.
It
is
admirable
to
me
that
this
Author
should
upon
the
reason
,
or
reasons
here
specified
deny
the
faith
here
described
by
him
to
be
a
condition
of
pardon
,
or
justification
,
and
yet
assert
it
to
be
an
effectual
way
and
means
to
it
,
as
he
doth
elsewhere
in
his
book
.
13.
A
sinner
,
says
he
p.
127.
by
flying
to
,
or
trusting
in
Christ
for
reconciliation
is
justified
before
God
(
in
nature
at
least
)
before
he
considereth
Christ
as
a
King
,
or
Prophet
.
And
says
he
p
128.
)
Faith
in
order
of
nature
(
and
of
time
in
some
)
first
looketh
upon
Christ
as
a
Priest
for
reconciliation
with
God
,
then
as
a
Prophet
and
King
for
illumination
and
sanctification
.
The
contrary
doctrine
I
take
to
be
the
true
Protestant
doctrine
,
viz.
1.
That
is
not
saving
faith
till
it
look
upon
Christ
as
Christ
,
i.e.
upon
Christ
in
all
his
saving
offices
.
2.
That
though
a
sinner
should
first
look
uppon
Christ
as
a
Priest
for
reconciliation
with
God
,
yet
that
he
is
not
meerly
thereupon
justified
at
all
(
whether
in
time
,
or
in
nature
)
before
he
considereth
,
yea
and
accepteth
Christ
as
a
King
and
Prophet
.
I
am
perswaded
,
that
though
a
sinner
should
look
upon
Christ
as
a
Priest
for
reconciliation
,
he
may
look
out
his
eyes
and
not
be
reconciled
to
God
meerly
upon
such
a
look
or
looking
,
nor
till
he
both
look
upon
him
,
and
accept
him
as
a
King
and
Prophet
.
And
whereas
this
Author
says
(
ibid
.
)
That
Christ
in
the
order
of
his
offices
was
first
a
Priest
undertaking
to
satisfie
for
sin
,
then
a
Prophet
and
King
to
rule
and
guide
his
people
to
eternal
life
,
I
answer
,
Neither
do
I
believe
this
to
be
any
branch
of
Protestant
doctrine
of
justification
by
faith
onely
,
but
rather
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
Christ
was
at
once
constituted
,
the
Christ
of
God
,
or
our
Mediator
in
all
his
Offices
;
nor
do
I
believe
,
that
if
it
had
been
even
thus
,
as
this
Author
hath
modelled
the
matter
in
his
own
fancy
,
it
would
prove
the
thing
intended
thereby
,
viz.
That
a
sinner
is
justified
before
God
before
he
considereth
Christ
as
a
King
,
or
Prophet
.
14.
Though
he
acknowledgeth
,
p.
164.
that
a
working
faith
,
or
a
faith
apt
to
produce
obedience
is
the
only
justifying
faith
,
nevertheless
he
denies
,
that
the
operativeness
of
it
hath
any
proper
influence
upon
justification
,
only
it
must
be
a
working
faith
for
other
reasons
.
Answ
.
1.
Neither
is
this
any
branch
of
the
Protestant
,
or
Scripture-Doctrine
to
deny
the
operativeness
of
faith
to
be
any
part
of
the
condition
,
or
means
of
justification
;
for
as
for
the
words
(
influence
and
proper
influence
)
we
do
decline
such
expressions
,
having
never
asserted
,
that
either
faith
,
or
the
operativeness
thereof
have
any
proper
influence
upon
justification
.
2.
Yea
the
contrary
I
judge
to
be
the
true
Protestant
Doctrine
,
viz.
That
the
mode
,
or
qualification
of
faith
,
that
it
be
a
working
faith
,
for
its
aptitude
to
produce
good
works
,
is
as
well
appointed
by
God
to
be
the
means
,
or
condition
,
by
,
or
upon
which
a
sinner
is
to
be
justified
,
as
is
faith
it self
,
or
that
in
its
kind
it
be
true
faith
.
If
one
promise
to
give
to
his
neighbour
a
reward
,
if
he
will
bring
him
an
horse
of
such
,
or
such
a
colour
,
it
is
part
of
the
condition
,
that
it
be
of
the
colour
nominated
and
agreed
upon
betwixt
them
,
as
that
it
be
an
horse
.
15.
Davids
repentance
(
says
he
,
p.
175.
)
was
necessary
only
to
remove
Gods
fatherly
displeasure
for
the
present
,
but
not
to
avert
,
or
prevent
his
eternal
damnation
(
as
he
plainly
there
insinuates
.
)
This
is
not
Protestant
Doctrine
,
that
a
godly
man
having
committed
such
heinous
crimes
,
as
Davids
(
Murder
and
Adultery
)
is
not
obliged
to
repent
for
them
under
peril
of
damnation
.
And
I
am
apt
to
think
,
that
the
Dort-Synodists
did
not
abet
such
Doctrine
.
Sure
I
am
,
that
our
British
Divines
do
renounce
it
,
they
roundly
averring
,
That
if
David
had
not
repented
he
had
been
damned
,
he
by
those
his
enormous
crimes
having
lost
his
right
(
by
them
styled
Jus
aptitudinale
)
to
the
kingdom
of
heaven
.
16.
Repentance
properly
taken
(
says
he
,
p.
176.
)
is
required
in
Scripture
sometimes
as
necessary
to
salvation
,
sometimes
to
pardon
,
but
consequently
,
not
antecedently
,
as
a
disposition
,
that
must
be
in
a
subject
,
that
is
pardoned
,
not
as
the
very
means
of
obtaining
pardon
.
Neither
is
this
Protestant
Doctrine
,
it
being
apparently
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
as
hath
been
already
proved
and
proveable
by
Act.
2.38
.
and
3.19
.
repentance
being
there
required
in
order
to
pardon
,
the
force
of
which
Scriptures
he
pretends
to
evade
by
this
bold
and
shameful
answer
,
saying
,
p.
175
,
176.
That
by
repentance
there
is
meant
an
external
repentace
,
which
is
necessary
to
an
external
and
temporary
pardon
,
which
may
be
without
that
inward
true
repentance
,
which
is
pleaded
to
be
the
condition
of
justification
,
or
pardon
of
sin
.
With
the
like
shamefull
confidence
doth
he
put
off
that
Scripture
,
in
Mat
.
6.14
,
15.
saying
,
p.
179.
It
doth
not
prove
that
our
forgiving
others
is
a
condition
of
Gods
forgiving
us
,
saying
moreover
,
That
that
Scripture
with
others
there
mentioned
(
Eph.
4.32
.
Mat
.
18.23
,
24
,
32
,
33.
)
speak
more
properly
of
external
pardon
,
not
of
justification
to
eternal
life
.
But
what
if
it
should
be
granted
,
that
they
speak
most
properly
of
external
pardon
?
will
any
Protestant
conclude
from
thence
,
that
they
speak
it
exclusively
to
eternal
forgiveness
,
as
he
interpreted
Act.
2.38
.
and
3.19
?
17.
Justification
by
works
,
says
he
,
p.
197.
in
any
sense
will
not
exclude
boasting
:
for
a
man
may
say
,
He
hath
done
those
things
,
upon
which
justification
is
promised
,
and
therefore
it
is
his
due
to
be
justified
.
Justification
by
faith
excludes
boasting
,
Quicquid
bonorum
operum
habemus
,
id
est
fructus
regenerationis
.
Unde
sequitur
,
opera
ipsa
esse
partem
gratiae
,
quibus
ideo
salutem
non
possumus
mereri
,
Calv
.
on
Eph.
2.10
.
only
when
men
acknowledge
,
they
are
nothing
and
can
do
nothing
,
but
trust
to
receive
all
of
free
grace
.
Mr
Calvin
doubtless
would
disown
this
as
any
part
of
Protestant
Doctrine
,
viz.
That
the
asserting
of
any
works
in
any
sense
,
i.e.
faithful
works
,
or
●orks
of
faith
to
be
any
part
of
the
condition
of
pardon
,
or
justification
,
will
not
exclude
boasting
:
for
himself
asserts
(
upon
Eph.
2.10
.
)
that
our
evangelical
works
are
Pars
gratiae
,
and
consequently
do
as
much
exclude
boasting
as
doth
faith
it self
,
it
being
God
,
who
worketh
in
us
both
to
will
and
to
do
of
his
good
pleasure
.
Hereupon
although
in
one
sense
believers
must
say
with
S.
Paul
(
they
are
nothing
,
2
Cor
.
12.11
.
)
yet
may
they
say
with
the
same
Apostle
elsewhere
,
I
can
do
all
things
through
Christ
,
that
strengthneth
me
,
Phil
.
4.13
.
2.
Justification
would
be
as
much
a
sinners
due
upon
this
Authors
supposal
,
that
a
bare
trust
in
Gods
promise
were
the
only
means
of
divine
appointment
for
the
attaining
of
it
,
as
it
would
upon
the
supposal
of
the
truth
of
our
doctrine
concerning
the
necessity
of
repentance
also
by
vertue
of
Gods
command
in
order
thereunto
,
and
upon
the
former
supposal
as
well
as
the
latter
,
a
man
may
say
,
He
hath
done
that
upon
which
justification
is
promised
,
and
therefore
it
is
his
due
to
be
justified
.
18.
Having
said
in
p.
199.
That
faith
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
not
the
obedient
,
he
says
in
p.
95.
That
Abraham
was
justified
as
an
ungodly
man
by
imputed
righteousness
.
Doubtless
this
is
no
Protestant
Doctrine
:
for
although
time
was
,
when
Abraham
was
ungodly
and
then
not
justified
,
nevertheless
when
after
justified
,
he
in
person
was
not
an
ungodly
man
,
nor
was
he
justi●●●d
as
an
ungodly
man
,
but
as
a
pious
and
an
obedient
believer
.
19.
He
denies
the
Gospel
to
be
a
new
law
,
and
God
a
Lawgiver
in
granting
terms
of
salvation
,
p.
51.
and
112.
The
asserting
whereof
he
censures
to
be
Popish
and
Socinian
Doctrine
,
allowing
the
Gospel
,
or
covenant
of
grace
properly
taken
to
be
only
a
promise
of
grace
and
life
through
Christ
to
lost
sinners
,
p.
110.
The
contrary
doctrine
I
have
always
conceived
to
be
the
true
Protestant
and
Scriptural
Doctrine
,
the
Gospel
of
Christ
being
in
express
letters
styled
a
law
both
in
the
Old
and
New
Testament
.
What
is
or
can
be
meant
by
the
Apostles
expressions
(
The
Law
of
Faith
and
the
Law
of
Christ
,
Rom.
3.27
.
Gal.
6.2
.
)
but
the
Gospel
of
Christ
?
And
what
is
meant
by
those
expressions
of
the
Prophets
(
Isa
.
2.
begin
.
and
Mic
.
4.21
.
Out
of
Zion
shall
go
forth
the
law
,
and
the
word
of
the
Lord
from
Jerusalem
)
but
the
promulgation
of
the
Gospel
as
a
law
to
be
begun
first
at
Jerusalem
and
thence
to
be
published
throughout
all
nations
,
of
whom
it
was
foretold
,
Isa
.
42.4
.
That
the
Isles
,
that
is
,
the
Gentiles
should
wait
for
this
law
of
Jesus
Christ
,
styled
Hi●
law
?
20.
Our
justification
and
salvation
(
says
he
,
p.
105.
were
typified
and
set
out
by
the
birth
of
Isaac
,
Rom.
4.18
.
By
the
deliverance
out
of
Egypt
and
Babylon
—
but
in
all
these
there
was
nothing
of
mans
work
,
or
endeavour
—
from
whence
we
argue
,
that
no
works
of
ours
have
any
concurrence
in
bringing
us
out
of
the
state
of
death
into
the
estate
of
life
by
Christ
.
If
the
Gospel
of
Christ
be
no
law
,
but
a
meer
promise
,
well
might
this
Author
conclude
,
that
there
is
no
duty
therein
commanded
,
or
imposed
upon
sinners
,
whereby
through
Gods
assisting
grace
to
extricate
themselves
out
of
the
estate
of
death
,
and
that
no
work
of
ours
(
so
much
as
our
own
endeavours
)
have
,
or
are
to
have
any
concurrence
therein
.
The
contrary
doctrine
I
believe
to
be
Protestant
doctrine
and
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
wherein
sinners
are
commanded
to
co-operate
with
God
,
To
circumcise
the
foreskin
of
their
hearts
,
Deut.
10.18
.
To
circumcise
themselves
to
the
Lord
,
Jer
.
4.4
.
To
make
them
new
hearts
and
new
spirits
,
Ezek
.
18.
lat.
To
make
themselves
clean
,
Isa
.
1.16
.
To
hear
,
that
their
souls
may
live
,
Isa
.
55.3
.
Not
to
grieve
,
resist
,
or
quench
the
spirit
,
1
Thes
.
5.19
.
Briefly
,
To
awake
and
stand
up
from
the
dead
,
this
being
the
way
in
which
Christ
doth
give
us
life
,
Eph.
5.14
.
2.
Nor
do
I
believe
what
this
Author
hath
here
said
,
either
that
the
manner
of
Gods
justifying
and
saving
sinn●●s
without
any
concurrence
of
their
own
works
,
or
workings
was
typified
by
the
birth
of
Isaac
,
and
by
the
deliverance
out
of
Egypt
,
or
Babylon
,
or
that
no
works
of
Abraham
,
or
the
Israelites
did
concur
to
the
effecting
or
actual
bringing
to
pass
of
Gods
promises
to
them
,
I
say
,
I
can
no
more
believe
our
Author
herein
,
than
I
can
perswade
my self
;
either
that
Abraham
did
not
beget
Isaac
(
for
as
it
is
recorded
,
that
Sarah
conceived
him
,
Gen.
21.2
.
So
it
is
as
expressy
said
,
that
Abraham
begat
him
,
Mat
.
1.2
.
(
or
that
the
Israelites
were
brought
out
of
Egypt
and
Babylon
without
their
own
consent
,
or
the
use
of
their
legs
;
though
withall
I
do
not
forget
what
is
said
concerning
Gods
bringing
his
people
out
of
Egypt
,
.
How
that
he
did
it
with
a
mighty
hand
and
a
stretched
forth
arm
,
Yea
that
he
bare
them
on
Eagles
wings
,
and
brought
them
unto
himself
,
Exod
.
19.4
.
21.
He
says
p.
111.
That
to
impose
new
conditions
of
obedience
is
a
new
covenant
of
works
with
some
mercy
,
but
no
covenant
of
grace
.
The
true
Protestant
Doctrine
is
,
that
the
new
covenant
truly
is
a
covenant
of
grace
,
notwithstanding
that
obedience
,
which
is
therein
commanded
as
the
condition
of
enjoying
pardon
and
salvation
therein
promised
.
God
promiseth
to
his
revolted
Israel
to
love
them
freely
,
Hos
.
14.4
.
Yet
not
otherwise
than
upon
their
faithful
and
penetential
return
to
him
commanded
,
ver
.
1.2
.
This
Author
doth
indeed
copiously
set
himself
to
prove
,
that
to
justifie
by
pardon
of
sin
and
free
grace
and
to
justifie
by
works
in
any
sense
,
i.e.
to
make
any
kind
of
works
any
part
of
the
condition
of
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
,
are
inconsistent
,
arguing
from
Rom.
11.6
.
the
utter
inconsistency
of
all
manner
of
works
with
divine
grace
,
which
construction
of
his
as
it
is
against
plain
reason
,
so
it
is
as
palpably
against
the
analogy
of
faith
,
I
mean
the
current
of
many
other
Scriptures
:
for
if
grace
and
all
manner
of
works
in
any
sense
be
utterly
opposite
and
inconsistent
,
it
would
be
impossible
,
for
any
promise
to
be
a
gracious
promise
that
hath
any
duty
therein
imposed
as
the
condition
of
enjoying
the
benefit
promised
,
which
to
affirm
is
point
blank
contrary
to
that
Scripture
,
1
Chr.
30.9
.
(
The
Lord
our
God
is
gracious
and
merciful
and
will
not
turn
away
his
face
from
you
,
says
Hezekiah
,
If
Ye
return
unto
Him
,
)
and
very
many
others
,
particularly
Jer
.
3.1
,
12
,
Jon
.
4.2
.
Joel
2.12
,
13.
22.
He
concludes
his
arguing
against
us
,
from
the
example
of
Abrahams
justification
,
and
says
p.
220.
That
works
of
no
sort
,
in
no
sense
did
justifie
Abraham
.
This
doubtless
can
be
no
part
of
the
Protestant
Doctrine
touching
justification
;
for
they
own
the
Epistle
of
S.
James
for
a
part
of
Canonical
Scripture
(
although
Lutherus
vivus
did
not
)
wherein
it
being
asserted
,
That
Abraham
was
justified
by
works
and
not
by
faith
onely
,
the
Protestants
as
well
as
Papists
,
do
conclude
,
That
certainly
Abraham
was
justified
by
some
sort
of
works
in
some
sense
,
or
else
St.
James
was
mistaken
.
23.
He
reproves
us
for
our
concurring
with
the
Papists
,
p.
85.
in
describing
faith
to
be
such
an
assent
to
all
the
truths
of
the
Gospel
,
as
makes
a
man
love
,
fear
,
serve
God
,
forgive
his
enemies
—
and
that
we
are
justified
as
well
by
believing
the
threatnings
and
the
commands
and
histories
,
as
by
believing
the
promises
.
1.
It
is
a
great
scandal
to
Protestancy
for
any
professed
Protestant
to
gainsay
any
Papist
for
such
a
description
of
justifying
faith
as
is
here
recited
,
or
to
deny
,
that
we
are
justified
as
well
by
believing
divine
threatnings
as
well
as
promises
.
2.
Forasmuch
as
very
much
of
the
Gospel
of
Christ
is
Historical
,
we
cannot
be
justified
,
or
said
to
be
justified
by
believing
the
Gospel
,
but
by
believing
history
.
Yea
S.
Paul
doubted
not
to
say
,
that
we
are
justified
and
saved
by
our
professed
belief
of
the
history
of
Christs
resurrection
,
Rom.
10.9
,
10.
3.
Forasmuch
as
Gods
promises
of
pardon
and
salvation
to
sinners
through
Christ
are
conditional
,
and
forasmuch
as
all
conditional
promises
are
vertually
threatnings
(
even
as
all
conditional
threatnings
are
vertual
promises
)
sinners
cannot
believe
the
one
without
an
implicite
faith
of
the
other
,
for
believing
the
one
,
they
do
of
natural
necessity
believe
the
other
.
24.
He
blames
us
,
p.
191.
for
concurring
with
Socinas
,
in
saying
,
Idem
est
Christo
credere
ac
Christo
obedire
.
For
my
own
part
I
verily
thought
this
saying
(
though
in
the
mouth
of
a
Devil
)
had
been
true
Protestant
Doctrine
,
and
that
therein
we
do
concur
with
the
Apostle
S.
Paul
,
who
doth
as
plain●y
,
as
almost
the
pen
of
man
can
express
,
make
Credere
Evangelio
&
obedire
Evangelio
,
to
believe
the
Gospel
and
obey
the
Gospel
(
not
to
insist
also
upon
the
word
in
the
original
its
signifying
both
to
believe
and
to
obey
,
and
is
therefore
by
our
Translators
rendred
indifferently
,
sometimes
to
believe
and
sometimes
to
obey
.
)
I
say
,
the
Apostle
makes
these
two
to
be
all
one
.
I
might
produce
very
many
other
instances
,
whereby
to
manifest
what
real
disservice
this
Author
by
his
book
throughout
hath
done
to
the
Protestant
cause
(
his
contrary
pretenses
notwithstanding
)
to
the
scandalizing
of
the
Protestant
Churches
,
and
to
the
hardning
of
our
common
Adversaries
both
Papists
and
Socinians
)
in
their
enmity
against
our
truly
Protestant
Doctrine
.
And
it
grieves
me
not
a
little
,
that
I
cannot
do
that
service
to
God
,
his
truth
and
t●e
Protestant
Church
,
(
whereof
I
am
both
a
M●mber
and
a
Minister
)
as
I
think
my self
obliged
Pro
posse
meo
to
endeavour
,
without
exposing
the
nakedness
of
this
brother
and
of
all
those
Brethren
(
which
as
I
hear
,
are
not
a
few
)
who
do
applaud
his
book
and
abet
him
in
his
Anti-protestant
and
Anti-evangelical
mistakes
,
and
in
such
a
matter
as
himself
in
the
first
page
of
his
Epistle
to
the
Reader
doth
aver
to
be
the
chief
and
weightiest
point
in
practical
Divinity
.
But
hastning
towards
the
conclusion
of
this
Prefatory
Epistle
,
I
shall
forbear
to
specifie
any
other
instances
of
like
import
with
those
already
produced
,
onely
requesting
the
Reader
as
to
observe
,
so
also
to
bear
in
mind
,
That
the
great
thing
,
which
this
Author
contends
for
by
this
his
book
is
to
maintain
the
new
Covenant
to
be
unconditional
,
not
allowing
faith
it self
to
be
therein
imposed
by
God
upon
sinners
as
any
condition
of
enjoying
the
benefits
promised
in
the
said
covenant
,
viz.
Justification
,
remission
,
and
salvation
)
and
disallowing
also
the
imputation
of
faith
it self
for
righteousness
,
the
contrary
doctrine
of
his
Brethren
in
these
points
being
so
offensive
and
distastful
to
him
,
as
that
(
among
other
his
falshoods
and
slanderous
words
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Reader
,
he
says
,
That
we
do
in
effect
tell
the
people
,
that
the
Papists
are
in
the
right
in
all
the
main
Doctrines
our
Reformers
oppose
them
in
.
I
was
about
immediately
ultimam
manum
apponere
,
to
conclude
.
But
because
I
perceive
this
Author
is
so
scrupulous
and
fearful
to
assert
,
that
ought
in
,
or
done
,
or
to
be
done
by
sinners
is
any
condition
of
their
pardon
of
sin
,
or
justification
through
Christ
(
although
the
conditional
particle
If
,
as
expressive
of
the
nature
,
or
interest
of
a
Condition
,
as
the
tongue
of
men
,
or
Angels
can
utter
,
be
never
so
frequently
used
in
Scripture
)
it
may
not
therefore
be
amiss
to
take
notice
of
the
reason
or
reasons
of
that
his
scruple
,
which
being
expr●ssed
by
him
in
page
134.
I
will
recite
,
and
in
few
words
reply
to
.
B●cause
the
term
of
condi●ion
doth
properly
imply
a
full
pow●r
in
man
to
fulfill
it
,
if
he
will
take
pains
to
fulfill
it
,
and
especially
because
it
s●em●th
to
make
God
depend
upon
man
in
the
performance
of
his
own
purposes
and
p●omises
,
I
should
choose
rather
to
say
,
Good
works
and
obedience
are
the
way
and
order
,
in
which
onely
God
giveth
more
grace
and
glory
and
every
good
thing
,
Psal
.
84.11
than
to
say
,
They
are
conditions
of
salvation
.
Answ
.
And
is
this
indeed
the
true
reason
,
and
all
the
reason
?
It
being
all
to
a
tittle
,
which
I
find
here
expressed
by
this
Author
,
I
reply
,
1.
The
term
condition
doth
properly
imply
no
more
power
,
or
other
power
in
man
to
fulfill
it
,
than
Gods
bare
commanding
us
any
Christian
saving
duty
doth
imply
a
power
in
man
to
fulfill
that
simple
command
.
2.
As
Gods
bare
commanding
man
to
do
this
,
or
that
duty
doth
imply
a
power
in
man
(
though
not
meerly
of
himself
,
yet
through
Gods
assisting
help
and
mans
co-operating
with
God
,
or
his
taking
pains
(
as
is
this
Authors
phrase
)
to
perform
that
command
,
so
doth
Gods
imposing
that
duty
as
a
condition
of
his
promised
mercy
imply
the
same
power
in
man
so
assisted
and
so
co-operating
,
to
fu
fill
the
condition
(
for
if
man
so
assisted
and
co
operating
had
not
a
power
so
to
do
,
well
might
we
say
with
the
Disciples
,
Who
then
can
be
saved
?
)
so
that
the
word
condition
is
as
properly
used
in
this
case
,
as
the
word
command
,
the
thing
required
of
man
being
as
properly
a
condition
as
Gods
bare
requiring
of
a
thing
is
properly
a
command
to
do
it
.
Let
these
replies
be
the
rather
observed
,
because
they
may
serve
to
answer
what
we
read
,
page
40.
Where
having
said
,
that
this
is
the
Core
of
our
opinion
,
that
it
turneth
the
Gospel
into
a
Covenant
of
works
,
and
thereby
lesseneth
,
if
not
maketh
void
,
the
righteousness
of
Christ
in
the
efficacy
of
it
for
our
redemption
,
he
proceeds
to
say
,
To
what
purpose
is
it
to
promise
life
upon
condition
of
obedience
be
it
never
so
so
easie
,
when
it
is
known
,
that
a
man
had
no
power
to
do
any
thing
,
that
should
be
required
,
before
the
covenant
was
made
?
Observe
,
Reader
,
That
what
is
here
said
doth
as
well
,
yea
as
much
militate
,
or
make
against
Gods
bare
commanding
man
in
his
lapsed
estate
any
duty
,
as
against
Gods
imposing
the
performance
of
that
duty
as
the
condition
of
his
salvation
,
forasmuch
as
mans
whether
power
,
or
impotency
to
perform
a
duty
barely
commanded
,
or
imposed
as
a
condition
by
God
,
is
the
same
in
both
cases
.
I
proceed
in
my
reply
,
saying
in
the
third
place
.
3.
The
same
reasons
,
upon
which
this
Author
is
so
tender
and
timorous
(
that
I
may
not
say
also
superstitious
)
to
use
the
term
Condition
,
he
might
and
ought
(
so
far
as
I
know
)
to
have
scrupled
the
use
of
the
terms
,
way
,
order
,
or
means
(
which
last
word
in
other
places
of
his
book
he
useth
passi●●
)
for
1.
Man
by
nature
is
{αβγδ}
,
a
creature
much
disordered
,
and
there
is
as
much
power
remaining
in
him
to
do
the
one
as
the
other
.
Hath
not
man
as
much
power
to
fulfill
a
condition
of
divine
appointment
for
salvation
,
as
to
observe
that
order
,
which
God
hath
prescribed
,
or
to
make
use
of
those
means
,
which
God
hath
commanded
,
or
to
betake
himself
to
that
way
of
salvation
,
which
God
hath
instituted
?
Doth
not
the
Prophet
say
of
the
way
of
man
as
much
as
this
Author
can
say
of
any
duty
imposed
by
God
as
a
condition
,
viz.
That
the
way
of
man
is
not
in
himself
(
I
know
it
,
says
the
Prophet
,
Jer
.
10.23
.
)
It
is
not
in
man
that
walketh
to
direct
his
steps
.
4.
How
doth
the
word
(
Condition
)
make
,
or
seem
to
make
God
to
depend
upon
man
in
the
performance
of
his
purposes
and
promises
more
than
the
terms
(
prescribed
Order
,
Way
,
or
means
?
)
Not
one
jot
the
more
to
my
simple
understanding
,
or
seeming
;
Onely
man
in
both
doth
and
may
be
truly
said
to
depend
and
to
be
obliged
to
depend
upon
God
and
his
appointment
;
whereas
the
Independent
God
cannot
truly
be
said
to
depend
upon
any
thing
,
although
withall
it
may
be
truly
said
(
as
was
afore
said
)
that
Deus
wilt
hoc
esse
propter
hoc
,
and
that
he
hath
other
reasons
of
his
doing
this
,
or
that
,
specially
of
bestowing
benefits
(
the
benefits
of
pardon
,
justification
and
salvation
)
than
his
own
arbitrary
will
,
or
meerly
arbitrarily
,
as
was
this
Authors
fore-recited
words
;
this
therefore
is
a
truth
,
which
he
is
obliged
not
to
gainsay
under
the
peril
of
self-contradiction
.
I
will
conclude
my
Reply
to
this
Author
with
the
same
Scripture-words
,
as
he
doth
his
Book
,
saying
in
Gods
name
with
the
Prophet
Jeremiah
,
(
Chapter
6.
verse
16.
)
Stand
ye
in
the
ways
and
see
and
ask
for
the
old
paths
,
where
is
the
good
way
,
and
walk
therein
,
and
ye
shall
find
rest
for
your
souls
.
But
withall
let
me
expound
the
Prophets
meaning
;
for
he
doth
not
mean
,
as
this
Author
by
comparing
these
last
words
of
his
Book
seems
to
intend
.
viz.
Look
to
Luther
(
the
Book
it self
being
entituled
,
LUTHERUS
REDIVIVUS
)
but
he
meaneth
as
doth
the
Prophet
Isaiah
,
Chapter
8.
verse
23.
To
the
law
and
to
the
Testament
.
This
then
is
it
,
which
I
am
minded
to
say
,
Look
beyond
Luther
,
look
beyond
the
times
,
when
there
were
any
such
distinguishing
names
as
Protestants
,
or
Papists
in
the
world
.
Briefly
,
let
me
speak
my
mind
,
in
two
words
,
they
being
the
words
of
our
Saviour
,
John
5.39
.
Search
the
Scriptures
,
and
take
heed
of
being
misled
by
the
names
of
such
men
of
renown
,
as
were
either
Luther
or
Calvin
,
or
any
single
person
among
our
famous
Protestant
Reformers
,
of
whom
notwithstanding
we
may
say
as
Solomon
says
concerning
the
just
indefinitly
,
Prov.
10.7
.
And
Ecclesiasticus
concerning
Moses
particularly
[
Their
memorial
is
blessed
,
Chapter
45.
verse
1.
]
and
for
whom
let
us
throughout
all
the
Protestant
Churches
not
onely
give
thanks
to
God
,
but
pray
also
for
them
in
the
words
of
the
last
forecited
Author
,
saying
,
Let
their
memorial
be
blessed
,
and
let
their
bones
flourish
out
of
their
place
(
I
mean
out
of
their
graves
to
their
fulness
of
bliss
with
all
the
Saints
departed
at
the
Resurrection
in
the
last
day
)
Chapter
49.10
.
But
because
both
Luther
and
Calvin
with
the
best
of
our
worthies
were
men
subject
to
the
like
passions
of
heart
and
mistakes
of
mind
as
we
are
,
I
shall
say
again
,
To
the
law
and
to
the
Testimony
;
to
prevent
the
hurt
,
which
the
specious
title
of
this
Authors
Book
may
do
to
the
unwary
and
unlearned
Readers
;
for
had
not
the
title
(
LUTHERUS
REDIVIVUS
)
been
intended
by
him
as
a
Lure
or
Bait
to
draw
the
more
simple
sort
to
partake
of
his
sweet-meats
,
he
would
have
chosen
rather
(
I
doubt
not
)
to
have
entituled
it
CRISPUS
REDIVIVUS
.
These
words
I
would
not
have
spoken
,
if
the
cause
of
saying
them
could
possibly
have
been
hid
.
I
conclude
with
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Prove
all
things
:
hold
fast
that
which
is
good
,
1
Thes
.
5.21
.
(
that
which
is
good
and
true
in
any
whether
Arminian
,
Socinian
,
Protestant
,
or
Popish
Writer
)
to
which
counsel
of
the
Apostle
,
I
shall
onely
add
that
of
our
Saviour
,
John
7.24
.
Judge
not
according
to
appearance
,
but
judge
righteous
judgment
.
This
is
the
humble
request
of
,
Reader
,
Thy
aged
servant
in
the
Ministry
of
the
Gospel
.
Thomas
Hotchkis
.
Stanton
.
Feb
:
5.
1677
/
8.
THE
Contents
.
-
Chap.
I.
Q.
IS
there
any
kind
of
Righteousness
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
proved
by
Rom.
4.6
.
from
which
text
together
with
the
context
it
is
also
manifested
,
That
forgiveness
of
sin
is
that
righteousness
,
which
for
Christs
sake
is
there
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
.
A
distinction
concerning
a
twofold
Non-imputation
of
sin
commended
to
observation
.
The
matter
cleared
from
an
Objection
,
with
the
Attestation
of
several
worthy
Authors
,
p.
1.
-
CHAP.
II
.
Q.
What
manner
of
Righteousness
is
forgiveness
of
sin
?
Answ
.
In
order
to
the
resolution
of
the
Question
a
distinction
concerning
a
twofold
Righteousness
is
premised
(
the
word
Righteousness
implying
sometimes
Officium
,
duty
commanded
;
and
sometimes
Beneficium
,
mercy
promised
:
)
which
distinction
being
also
in
other
words
apt
for
edification
expressed
,
the
Question
it self
is
thereupon
plainly
determined
.
p.
12.
-
CHAP.
III
.
Q.
Why
is
Forgiveness
of
sin
in
Scripture
styled
Righteousness
,
or
a
person
pardoned
there
said
to
be
Righteous
?
Answ
.
The
Question
for
the
more
clearness
of
understanding
is
answered
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
.
A
Caution
to
prevent
the
misconstruction
of
some
places
in
Scripture
,
and
two
Rules
suggested
as
conducing
to
a
right
interpretation
thereof
.
A
few
brief
Animadversions
upon
some
passages
in
Mr.
Will
.
Bradshawes
Latin
Dissertation
concerning
Justification
.
p.
18.
-
CHAP.
IV
.
Q.
What
peculiar
Names
have
certain
Modern
Authors
used
to
give
to
the
said
imputed
,
or
imparted
Righteousness
(
the
Non-imputation
of
sin
)
whereby
to
distinguish
it
from
that
other
kind
of
Righteousness
,
which
doth
consist
in
a
practical
conformity
to
the
law
of
God
?
Answ
.
They
have
distinguished
them
by
such
Names
,
or
Epithetes
as
these
,
viz.
Active
and
Passive
;
Negative
and
Positive
;
Proper
and
Improper
;
Literal
and
Interpretative
;
Legal
and
Prolegal
;
to
which
is
added
,
Primary
and
Secondary
,
with
the
Authors
Opinion
concerning
the
fitness
of
the
said
diacritical
,
or
distinguishing
Titles
.
p.
27
-
CHAP.
V.
Q.
By
what
distinguished
words
is
the
said
Imputed
Righteousness
styled
in
Scripture
?
Answ
.
It
is
styled
a
Righteousness
without
works
.
Hereupon
it
being
questioned
,
how
,
or
in
what
sense
it
is
,
or
can
be
said
to
be
(
forasmuch
as
the
expression
,
a
Righteousness
without
Works
,
is
in
sound
like
the
expression
,
a
Righteousness
without
Righteousness
)
the
Question
is
answered
more
at
large
,
1.
Negatively
,
2.
Affirmatively
.
p.
32
-
CHAP.
VI
.
Another
distinguishing
Phrase
,
whereby
the
said
imparted
or
imputed
righteousness
(
forgiveness
of
sin
)
expressed
in
the
Writings
of
S.
Paul
,
is
a
righteousness
of
God
,
and
without
the
Law
,
the
Reasons
whereof
are
specified
in
the
Chapters
immediately
following
.
p.
39
-
CHAP.
VII
.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
imputed
righteousness
styled
the
Righteousness
of
God
?
Answer
Hereunto
it
is
answered
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
,
What
is
,
and
What
is
not
,
the
Reason
thereof
.
p.
41
-
CHAP.
VIII
.
Q.
What
Law
doth
the
Apostle
mean
in
styling
pardon
of
sin
a
Righteousness
without
Law
?
Answ
.
In
answer
hereunto
it
is
specified
both
what
is
and
is
not
the
reason
thereof
.
A
large
explication
of
Phil
.
3.9
.
wherein
is
manifested
what
righteousness
that
is
,
which
he
calls
his
own
,
and
yet
doth
disown
;
and
a
vindication
of
the
said
Scripture
from
the
misconstruction
of
divers
Brethren
.
p.
43
-
CHAP.
IX
.
Further
Reasons
added
to
those
in
Chapter
VII
.
Why
the
said
Righteousness
is
styled
the
Righteousness
of
God
:
wherein
it
is
commended
to
observation
,
that
there
is
a
twofold
righteousness
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
one
which
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
and
must
be
called
the
Righteousness
of
God
;
and
another
which
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
not
,
ought
not
,
to
be
styled
the
Righteousness
of
God
:
and
what
these
two
kinds
of
Righteousness
are
,
is
plainly
specified
.
Whence
it
is
inferred
,
that
Jesus
Christ
did
not
,
in
reference
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
keep
the
Law
in
his
stead
.
p.
52
-
CHAP.
X.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
imparted
or
imputed
righteousness
of
God
styled
a
righteousness
without
the
Law
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
,
1.
Negatively
,
What
is
not
:
2.
Affirmatively
,
What
are
the
Reasons
thereof
.
p.
57
-
CHAP.
XI
.
Another
Scriptural
Title
given
to
remission
of
sin
is
,
in
its
being
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
,
by
,
from
,
and
through
Faith
;
divers
Reasons
whereof
are
rendred
.
The
Authors
Opinion
touching
the
pardonableness
of
sin
,
or
placability
of
God
in
the
question
,
Whether
,
this
was
any
part
of
the
{αβγδ}
,
i
.
e
.
A
thing
discoverable
by
the
light
of
Nature
.
p.
62
-
CHAP.
XII
.
Q.
Whether
doth
a
Sinner
need
ought
more
than
the
righteousness
of
Christ
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
?
Answ
.
Yes
.
The
Authors
professed
Dissent
as
from
certain
other
Brethren
,
so
in
special
from
Doctor
Grew
,
late
of
Coventry
,
wherein
is
manifested
,
that
although
a
Sinner
needs
nothing
of
the
same
kind
more
than
Christs
righteousness
to
the
said
end
,
i.e.
In
genere
causae
meritoriae
,
as
a
meritorious
cause
;
nevertheless
(
simpliciter
loquendo
,
to
speak
the
truth
absolutely
)
he
needs
many
things
,
and
those
of
several
kinds
,
to
justifie
him
before
God
;
and
what
those
things
are
is
specified
at
large
.
p.
68
-
CHAP.
XIII
.
Q.
In
what
sense
is
the
word
(
Faith
)
to
be
taken
in
those
Scriptures
,
wherein
forgiveness
of
sin
is
insinuated
to
be
the
fruit
or
consequent
of
Faith
,
and
wherein
it
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
by
Faith
?
Answ
.
It
is
not
taken
strictly
,
as
excluding
all
other
Evangelical
graces
in
a
sinner
,
viz.
Repentance
and
sincere
Resolution
for
amendment
of
life
;
but
in
a
large
sense
as
comprizing
them
,
these
being
of
the
very
essence
of
Faith
,
as
justifying
,
or
as
taken
(
though
not
in
a
strict
Philosophical
,
yet
)
in
a
Scriptural
construction
or
importance
of
the
word
.
p.
73
-
CHAP.
XIV
.
Another
Scriptural
Title
given
to
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
in
its
being
styled
,
The
righteousness
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
Rom.
4.11
.
The
whole
Verse
being
opened
more
at
large
,
and
vindicated
from
mis-interpretation
too
commonly
received
.
Caution
given
for
a
due
understanding
as
well
of
the
Authors
full
as
true
meaning
,
in
his
asserting
Justification
or
Remission
of
sin
(
a
righteousness
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
)
to
be
it
which
S.
Paul
doth
style
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
which
is
by
faith
,
the
Author
in
that
his
assertion
must
not
be
understood
as
excluding
,
but
as
supposing
and
including
that
other
branch
or
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
in
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
Faith
is
commanded
.
p.
68
-
CHAP.
XV
.
Q.
Is
there
any
thing
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Tes
,
viz.
Faith
,
it
being
thus
recorded
in
the
Old
Testament
,
Gen.
15.6
.
and
the
record
thereof
produced
in
the
New
Testament
once
by
S.
James
,
chap.
2.
23.
and
twice
by
S.
Paul
,
Gal.
3.6
.
and
Rom.
4.3
.
in
which
Chapter
he
doth
assert
little
less
than
ten
times
over
,
that
Abrahams
faith
was
imputed
to
him
,
and
that
the
like
or
same
specificial
faith
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
ver
.
3
,
5
,
9
,
20
,
22
,
23
,
24.
p.
88
-
CHAP.
XVI
.
Q.
What
is
meant
by
faith
in
those
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
wherein
it
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
Righteousness
?
Is
it
to
be
taken
properly
for
faith
it
se●f
,
or
figuratively
,
i.e.
objectively
,
for
Christs
righteousness
the
object
of
faith
?
Answ
.
Properly
for
the
thing
faith
,
or
faith
it self
,
the
truth
of
which
answer
is
proved
by
many
reasons
,
and
cleared
from
certain
objections
,
with
the
suffrage
of
the
very
learned
and
most
industrious
Mr
R.
Baxter
,
and
reflection
upon
a
passage
of
Dr
Grew
in
his
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
p.
91
-
CHAP.
XVII
.
Q.
Whence
comes
it
to
pass
,
that
so
many
very
learned
and
most
pious
men
have
so
much
and
miserably
mistaken
the
true
meaning
of
the
word
[
Faith
]
in
its
being
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
righteousness
,
they
interpreting
by
faith
not
to
be
meant
faith
,
but
the
righteousness
of
Christ
?
Answ
.
Four
things
are
assigned
as
the
causes
of
it
,
wherein
much
is
spoken
for
the
removing
of
them
out
of
the
way
of
truth
,
whereby
they
may
no
longer
obstruct
the
sree
current
thereof
.
p.
104
-
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Q.
What
is
it
for
Faith
[
the
thing
it self
Faith
]
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
Righteousness
?
Answ
.
There
being
a
twofold
righteousness
,
viz.
Legal
[
commanded
in
the
law
of
works
,
or
innocency
,
]
and
evangelical
(
promised
in
the
law
of
faith
;
)
and
there
being
also
a
difference
betwixt
these
two
sayings
(
Faith
,
is
imputed
to
us
{αβγδ}
,
instead
of
righteousness
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
To
righteousness
,
this
being
the
Apostles
literal
expression
of
the
matter
;
)
it
is
thereupon
declared
,
How
faith
may
be
truly
conceived
and
asserted
to
be
imputed
to
believing
sinners
,
both
To
Righteousness
and
instead
of
Righteousness
.
The
Authors
humble
opinion
touching
the
genuin
sense
of
the
phrase
,
and
the
reasons
thereof
rendred
.
p.
112
-
CHAP.
XIX
.
Q
Upon
what
account
,
or
from
what
cause
,
or
causes
is
it
,
that
faith
(
properly
taken
)
is
counted
to
Believers
for
righteousness
,
or
proves
to
them
effectually
available
unto
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
,
1.
Negatively
,
Not
ab
intrinseco
,
from
ought
,
which
is
in
the
intrinsecal
nature
of
faith
,
or
the
value
and
merit
thereof
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
The
causes
assigned
being
wholly
ab
extrinseco
,
viz.
Gods
mercy
,
Christs
merit
and
the
G●spel
covenant
.
Hereupon
it
is
made
apparent
,
that
those
Protestant
Writers
,
who
do
assert
faith
it self
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
or
to
righteousness
,
do
not
dethrone
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
set
up
any
branch
of
mans
own
righteousness
in
its
stead
.
p.
124
-
CHAP.
XX
.
Q.
Can
ought
,
that
is
imperfect
,
possibly
be
by
God
imputed
to
a
sinner
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Yes
.
The
Authors
professed
dissent
herein
from
certain
other
Brethren
,
whereof
two
onely
by
name
are
instanced
in
,
whose
words
are
recited
,
and
a
reply
made
thereunto
.
p.
130
-
CHAP.
XXI
.
Q.
Under
what
notion
,
specifical
conceptus
,
or
formal
consideration
is
faith
(
properly
taken
)
imputed
to
sinners
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
at
large
clearly
and
distinctly
,
i.e.
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
.
An
objection
answered
.
p.
140
-
CHAP.
XXII
.
Q.
Is
there
any
personal
righteousness
,
which
God
sees
in
a
sinner
himself
,
upon
the
intuition
whereof
God
is
,
or
may
be
said
to
be
moved
to
justifie
him
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
in
maintenance
of
the
truth
of
which
answer
a
copious
reply
is
made
to
a
contrariant
passage
in
Doctor
Grews
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
p.
145
-
CHAP.
XXIII
.
Q.
By
whom
is
faith
imputed
to
believing
sinners
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
?
Answ
.
In
answer
hereunto
that
text
in
Gen.
15.6
.
is
vindicated
from
the
misconstruction
of
some
of
the
more
ancient
Rabbins
,
it
being
withal
asserted
,
That
it
is
God
himself
,
who
doth
so
impute
it
.
But
whether
it
was
imputed
to
Abraham
by
God
as
Benefactor
,
or
else
as
Estimator
,
or
Judge
,
is
left
to
consideration
upon
what
is
said
in
answer
to
a
Question
,
which
is
the
subject
of
the
Chapter
ensuing
.
p.
150
-
CHAP.
XXIV
.
Q.
Was
not
Abraham
a
Believer
and
his
Faith
thereupon
actually
imputed
to
him
for
Righteousness
before
he
believed
the
promise
recorded
in
Gen
,
15.5
.
and
that
testimony
given
to
his
Faith
ver
.
6
?
Answ
.
Yes
:
long
before
,
his
departure
out
of
his
native
countrey
(
Ur
of
the
Caldees
)
implying
not
only
a
local
,
but
also
a
moral
departure
.
p.
154
-
CHAP.
XXV
.
Quest
.
Forasmuch
as
Abraham
was
a
Believer
,
and
his
Faith
imputed
to
him
for
Righteousness
long
before
that
Testimony
given
to
his
Faith
in
Gen.
15.6
.
How
was
it
true
to
say
,
that
his
believing
in
the
Lord
was
then
,
or
at
that
time
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
several
ways
.
A
parallel
Scripture
concerning
Noah
(
Heb
.
11.7
.
)
opened
,
by
occasion
whereof
4
Questions
,
with
reference
to
that
clause
(
And
he
became
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
)
are
proposed
and
answered
,
1.
What
kind
of
righteousness
is
there
meant
?
2.
What
is
it
to
be
an
heir
of
that
kind
of
righteousness
?
3.
What
was
that
righteousness
,
which
Noah
is
there
said
to
have
been
heir
of
?
or
,
Wherein
did
it
consist
?
4.
Why
is
the
said
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
Faith
?
p.
158
-
CHAP.
XXVI
.
Q.
What
was
the
object
of
that
faith
of
Abrahams
,
which
is
said
to
have
been
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Generally
those
revelations
,
which
God
had
imparted
to
him
concerning
his
divine
will
,
i.e.
both
Mandati
and
beneplaciti
:
both
what
God
himself
had
promised
to
do
,
and
also
what
he
had
commanded
Abraham
to
do
,
the
prime
whereof
(
both
the
things
commanded
and
promised
)
are
made
instances
in
;
Hereupon
six
things
as
observable
are
commended
to
consideration
,
with
a
reflection
upon
a
passage
in
that
very
learned
forein
Writer
,
Doctor
And.
Ryvet
.
p.
168
-
CHAP.
XXVII
.
Q.
What
was
the
object
of
the
faith
of
Abel
,
Enoch
,
Noah
,
and
other
the
faithfull
Patriarchs
of
the
old
world
before
Abraham
was
?
Answ
.
Such
things
as
were
made
known
to
them
by
supernatural
revelation
,
which
things
are
summarily
said
to
be
Gods
Existence
and
his
Beneficence
,
proved
by
Heb
.
11.6
.
Hereupon
two
Questions
are
proposed
and
answered
,
1.
Whether
Gods
Existence
and
Beneficence
were
not
things
of
natural
revelation
,
or
made
known
by
the
light
of
nature
?
2.
Q.
Whether
was
it
made
known
to
the
said
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
that
God
(
in
Christ
,
or
for
Christs
sake
)
was
,
or
would
be
the
Rewarder
of
them
who
diligently
seek
him
.
p.
182
-
CHAP.
XXVIII
.
Q.
What
is
the
object
of
that
Christian
faith
,
which
in
the
New
Testament
is
promised
by
God
to
be
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Two
remarkable
differences
in
the
object
of
their
,
and
our
Christian
faith
specified
,
the
one
styled
Modal
,
the
other
Material
,
the
object
of
our
Christian
faith
being
of
larger
extent
,
than
that
of
the
said
Patriarchs
.
A
refutation
of
those
,
who
do
assert
ens
incomplexum
,
i.e.
the
person
of
Christ
to
be
the
adequate
object
of
justifying
faith
as
justifying
;
as
also
of
those
,
who
will
not
extend
the
object
of
justifying
faith
[
as
justifying
]
so
far
as
to
whole
Christ
in
person
,
i.e.
to
Christ
as
considered
in
all
his
Offices
,
but
do
restrain
it
to
the
formal
consideration
of
him
onely
as
a
Priest
.
Three
causes
of
this
mistake
in
a
late
learned
Latine
Author
.
The
suffrage
of
that
most
judicious
and
impartial
Author
Le-Blanc
one
of
the
very
learned
Professors
of
Divinity
in
Sedan
.
p.
192
-
CHAP.
XXIX
.
Q.
Is
it
onely
one
act
,
or
one
kind
of
acts
of
faith
,
or
else
various
acts
thereof
,
and
of
divers
kinds
,
respectively
whereunto
it
is
said
,
That
Abrahams
faith
was
impu●ed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Ans.
The
most
noted
distinction
of
two
kinds
of
the
acts
of
faith
,
styled
Elicite
and
Imperate
,
being
premised
,
exemplified
and
explained
,
the
Question
it self
is
perspicuously
answered
;
and
this
in
way
of
dissent
from
those
Brethren
,
who
instruct
sinners
to
believe
,
that
they
are
to
be
justified
onely
by
one
act
of
faith
,
which
act
various
Authors
do
use
to
express
by
various
phrases
,
some
whereof
are
indeed
Scriptural
expressions
,
and
some
of
their
own
invention
.
Certain
of
these
Authors
are
instanced
in
,
and
their
words
being
recited
,
a
reply
is
made
thereunto
,
together
with
a
passage
in
the
larger
Catechism
of
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
.
p.
205
-
CHAP.
XXX
.
A
brief
reply
to
a
passage
in
Dr
Owen
,
he
saying
,
That
in
the
Doctrine
by
him
asserted
touching
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
he
hath
as
good
company
as
the
Pr●lacy
and
the
whole
Church
of
England
can
afford
.
p.
226
THE
SECOND
PART
Of
a
Discourse
concerning
IMPUTED
RIGHTEOUSNESS
.
CHAP.
I.
Q.
Is
there
any
kind
of
Righteousness
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
proved
by
Rom.
4.6
.
from
which
text
together
with
the
context
it
is
also
manifested
,
That
forgiveness
of
sin
is
that
righteousness
,
which
for
Christs
sake
is
there
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
.
A
distinction
concerning
a
twofold
Non-imputation
of
sin
commended
to
observation
.
The
matter
cleared
from
an
Objection
,
with
the
Attestation
of
several
worthy
Authors
.
FOrasmuch
as
it
doth
not
appear
(
as
hath
been
said
in
the
former
part
of
this
Discourse
)
that
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
is
in
any
text
of
Scripture
expresly
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
Righteousness
,
or
at
all
to
be
imputed
to
them
;
I
therefore
think
it
not
amiss
to
enquire
,
whether
there
be
any
other
Righteousness
explicitly
,
or
in
the
express
terms
of
Scripture
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
,
or
ought
else
there
said
to
be
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
.
These
two
grand
Enquiries
,
with
the
Resolution
of
very
many
material
and
useful
Questions
pertaining
thereunto
,
shall
be
the
Subject
of
this
Second
part
of
the
Discourse
in
hand
.
1.
Q.
Is
there
any
kind
of
Righteousness
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
believing
Sinners
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
as
doth
appear
by
Rom.
4.6
.
where
the
words
following
are
express
,
Even
as
David
describeth
the
blessedness
of
the
man
to
whom
God
imputeth
Righteousness
.
And
to
what
manner
of
persons
this
Righteousness
is
imputed
,
the
Apostle
informs
us
v.
11.
he
there
asserting
,
That
Abraham
received
the
sign
of
Circumcision
,
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
that
he
might
be
the
Father
of
all
them
that
believe
,
though
they
be
not
circumcised
,
that
Righteousness
might
be
imputed
unto
them
also
.
2.
Q.
What
is
that
Righteousness
,
which
in
the
forecited
Scriptures
is
said
to
be
imputed
by
God
to
believing
Sinners
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
,
Not
Christs
personal
Righteousness
,
or
Christs
Righteousness
in
its
Essential
nature
,
or
as
properly
taken
,
as
hath
been
abundantly
manifested
in
the
former
part
of
this
Treatise
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
Forgiveness
of
sin
,
I
say
,
is
the
self-same
thing
with
that
Justification
,
which
by
the
Righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
was
purchased
for
,
and
in
his
Gospel
of
Salvation
is
promised
unto
sinrers
conditionally
upon
their
return
to
God
by
faith
and
repentance
,
or
(
to
express
the
matter
in
the
words
of
St.
Paul
in
his
farewel-Sermon
at
Ephesus
,
Act.
20.21
.
)
upon
their
repentance
towards
God
,
and
faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
or
(
as
he
elsewhere
expresseth
it
Gal.
5.16
.
)
upon
such
a
faith
as
works
by
love
,
Forgiveness
of
sin
(
which
indeed
is
all
one
with
the
Justification
promised
to
Sinners
)
is
that
Righteousness
,
which
is
there
said
to
be
by
God
imputed
to
Believers
;
Gods
imputing
Righteousness
unto
them
being
the
self
same
thing
with
Gods
forgiving
them
their
sins
,
his
justifying
or
acquitting
them
from
the
guilt
thereof
.
To
the
proof
of
the
truth
of
this
Answer
,
by
way
of
Premisal
be
it
considered
,
that
pardon
of
sin
,
or
Justification
is
in
many
places
of
Scripture
styled
Righteousness
:
among
which
at
present
I
shall
instance
in
a
very
few
,
reserving
the
rest
for
some
other
place
.
See
Rom.
10.10
.
With
the
heart
man
believeth
to
righteousness
,
i.e.
to
Pardon
of
sin
,
or
Justification
;
as
is
plain
by
the
Apostles
words
,
as
elsewhere
in
many
of
his
Epistles
,
so
in
those
words
of
his
Sermon
preached
in
the
Synagogue
at
Antioch
,
and
recorded
Act.
13.38
,
39.
(
Through
this
man
is
preached
unto
you
the
forgiveness
of
sins
;
and
by
him
all
that
believe
are
justified
—
)
as
also
by
those
words
of
St.
Peter
,
Act.
10.43
.
To
him
give
all
the
Prophets
witness
,
that
whosoever
believeth
in
him
shall
receive
remission
of
sin
.
And
this
is
that
Righteousness
,
which
the
Apostle
says
,
that
himself
with
other
true
Believers
hoped
for
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
i.e.
by
embracing
Christianity
in
opposition
to
any
other
Religion
professed
by
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
Gal.
5.5
.
In
this
sense
also
the
word
Righteousness
seems
to
be
taken
in
Rom.
5.
ult
.
where
,
as
sin
through
the
redundant
guilt
thereof
is
said
to
have
reigned
unto
death
:
so
the
grace
and
mercy
of
God
in
Christ
is
said
through
Righteousness
,
i.e.
through
the
forgiveness
of
sin
,
to
reign
to
eternal
life
by
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
.
Having
manifested
,
that
Forgiveness
of
sin
or
Justification
is
styled
by
the
name
of
Righteousness
in
other
Scriptures
,
I
shall
now
address
my self
to
prove
,
that
this
is
that
Righteousness
,
which
is
said
to
be
by
God
imputed
to
Believers
,
Rom.
4.6
.
and
the
matter
seems
apparent
by
the
Context
,
i.e.
by
the
words
both
foregoing
and
following
the
sixth
verse
of
that
Chapter
:
1.
The
Apostle
having
asserted
v.
5.
that
God
by
faith
justifieth
an
ungodly
man
,
i.e.
an
undeserving
man
,
a
sinner
,
a
man
in
the
strict
sense
of
the
Law
unjust
,
he
proves
it
by
that
description
,
which
David
gives
of
the
blessedness
of
that
man
,
to
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
imputeth
Righteouss
without
works
.
This
plainly
proves
,
that
Gods
justifying
a
Sinner
,
and
Gods
imputing
Righteousness
to
him
are
all
one
;
and
that
Gods
justifying
,
or
imputing
Righteousness
to
a
Believing
sinner
,
are
the
same
thing
with
Gods
pardoning
his
sins
,
appears
by
the
words
following
,
quoted
from
the
Psalmists
saying
,
Blessed
are
they
whose
transgressions
are
forgiven
,
and
whose
sins
are
covered
:
blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
will
not
impute
sin
.
Whence
be
it
it
observed
,
1.
That
that
which
St.
Paul
calls
Gods
imputing
Righteousness
,
v.
6.
is
interpreted
to
be
his
forgiving
iniquities
and
covering
sin
.
He
makes
forgiveness
of
sin
a
description
or
declaration
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
imputed
to
believers
.
2.
The
Apostle
by
the
Psalmist's
saying
(
Blessed
is
the
man
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
and
whose
sins
are
covered
)
makes
him
constructively
to
have
said
,
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
imputeth
righteousness
without
works
:
So
that
as
he
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
and
to
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
without
works
,
is
one
and
the
same
blessed
person
:
so
the
forgiveness
of
sins
,
and
the
righteousness
by
God
imputed
to
him
is
that
very
self
same
thing
that
doth
constitute
him
blessed
,
or
wherein
his
blessedness
doth
consist
.
And
this
is
consonant
to
what
he
says
in
the
following
Chapter
,
where
v.
16.
he
calls
the
gift
of
Righteousness
the
free
gift
of
Offences
;
and
what
is
the
giving
of
an
offence
,
but
the
forgiving
of
it
,
we
being
usually
said
to
give
a
man
that
debt
,
which
we
forgive
him
?
3.
If
Gods
forgiving
Believers
their
iniquities
and
covering
their
sins
were
not
tantamount
,
or
in
effect
the
self
same
thing
with
his
imputing
righteousness
unto
them
,
that
allegation
from
the
Psalmist
would
not
have
proved
the
point
undertaken
to
be
proved
by
the
Apostle
,
viz.
Gods
justifying
believing
sinners
,
or
imputing
righteousness
unto
them
.
4.
Observe
,
that
the
Apostle
in
his
allegation
from
the
Psalmist
,
saying
(
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
will
not
impute
sin
)
doth
evidently
make
Gods
not
imputing
sin
,
and
his
imputing
righteousness
to
be
phrases
of
the
self-same
importance
,
they
being
indeed
the
self-same
thing
,
and
effected
by
one
and
the
same
act
of
God
,
only
differently
denominated
from
the
Terminus
à
quo
,
&
ad
quem
.
And
what
is
it
for
God
not
to
impute
sin
,
but
for
God
to
forgive
it
;
his
not
imputing
sin
being
one
among
those
many
Negative
phrases
,
that
are
of
frequent
use
in
Scripture
,
whereby
to
express
his
forgiving
the
same
?
2
Cor
.
5.18
.
I
grant
indeed
,
that
there
is
one
kind
of
a
Non-imputation
of
sin
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
which
is
not
all
one
with
forgiveness
of
sin
;
for
the
better
understanding
whereof
be
it
considered
,
That
as
the
person
is
(
whether
guilty
,
or
not
guilty
)
who
is
accused
of
sin
:
so
is
the
Non-imputation
of
sin
unto
him
to
be
interpreted
,
whether
of
the
pardoning
,
or
not
pardoning
him
.
E.
g
.
If
the
person
be
not
guilty
,
by
the
not
imputing
sin
to
him
,
is
not
meant
the
pardoning
of
the
person
,
but
the
direct
contrary
,
viz.
the
justifying
him
as
not
guilty
,
in
which
sense
the
phrase
is
used
1
Sam
.
22.15
.
where
Abimelech
clearing
himself
doth
beseech
Saul
,
who
had
him
in
suspicion
,
to
hold
him
guiltless
,
saying
,
Let
not
the
King
impute
any
thing
to
his
Servant
—
.
But
if
the
person
to
whom
sin
is
said
not
to
be
imputed
,
be
indeed
undeniably
guilty
,
then
by
the
Non-imputation
of
his
sin
is
meant
the
forgiveness
thereof
.
There
be
these
two
sensible
and
remarkable
differences
betwixt
the
non-imputation
of
sin
,
as
applied
to
the
said
different
objects
or
subjects
thereof
(
the
guilty
and
not
guilty
)
1.
As
applied
to
the
guiltless
,
the
phrase
imports
an
acquitting
or
justifying
from
the
guilt
of
fault
;
but
as
applied
to
the
guilty
,
it
imports
an
acquittance
or
justification
from
the
guilt
of
punishment
,
this
kind
of
Justification
being
it
alone
that
a
Sinner
is
a
subject
capable
of
,
as
hath
been
proved
in
the
foregoing
part
of
this
discourse
.
The
former
Non-imputation
of
sin
is
wholly
of
debt
,
and
not
at
all
of
Grace
;
whereas
the
latter
is
directly
contrary
,
viz.
not
of
strict
debt
,
but
wholly
(
in
respect
of
us
)
of
grace
:
And
this
is
that
gracious
Non-imputation
of
sin
,
which
St.
Paul
doth
in
the
Scripture
forecited
make
to
be
all
one
with
forgiveness
of
sin
(
the
subject
thereof
there
spoken
of
being
a
Sinner
,
though
a
Believer
)
and
with
the
imputation
of
Righteousness
,
I
mean
that
righteousness
,
to
which
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
.
Lastly
,
The
meaning
of
the
phrase
(
imputing
righteousness
)
may
be
best
interpreted
by
the
contrary
expression
of
imputing
sin
.
The
old
Logical
saying
is
herein
verified
,
Opposita
juxta
se
posita
magis
elucescunt
.
Now
what
is
it
to
impute
sin
to
a
sinner
,
but
not
to
pardon
him
,
to
hold
him
guilty
,
and
accordingly
to
punish
him
?
And
,
if
to
impute
sin
be
thus
to
do
,
to
impute
righteousness
must
needs
imply
the
contrary
,
i.e.
to
pardon
,
and
to
deal
with
a
delinquent
as
righteous
.
I
conclude
therefore
,
that
that
righteousness
,
which
God
is
said
to
impute
unto
believing
sinners
,
Rom.
4.6
.
is
nothing
else
but
the
forgiveness
of
their
sins
,
or
acquitting
them
from
that
punishment
,
which
for
their
unrighteousnesses
was
due
unto
them
.
And
that
the
Imputation
of
Righteousness
to
a
believing
sinner
doth
not
import
more
,
than
the
plenary
forgiveness
of
all
his
sins
,
hath
already
sufficiently
(
I
hope
)
been
manifested
in
the
former
part
of
this
Discourse
;
wherein
hath
been
declared
,
that
forasmuch
as
there
are
sins
of
Omission
as
well
as
Commission
,
no
Sinner
therefore
can
be
said
to
have
his
sins
of
the
former
kind
as
well
as
the
latter
,
not
imputed
to
him
,
or
pardoned
,
but
he
must
be
said
for
that
reason
to
have
righteousness
imputed
to
him
:
for
he
who
is
judged
,
or
dealt
with
in
judgment
as
a
person
who
hath
omitted
no
good
,
must
needs
be
dealt
with
as
one
who
had
performed
all
good
,
and
therefore
as
a
person
perfectly
and
positively
righteous
.
Object
.
Is
not
Faith
it self
that
very
righteousness
,
which
God
is
said
to
impute
to
every
blessed
person
in
that
forecited
Scripture
Rom.
4.6
?
Answ
.
1.
I
grant
,
that
Faith
it self
is
of
its
kind
righteousness
.
2.
That
Faith
it self
is
imputed
to
believing
sinners
for
righteousness
,
as
is
frequently
said
in
this
Chapter
.
3.
That
Faith
may
in
this
sense
be
rationally
styled
a
sinners
imputed
righteousness
,
because
it
is
constituted
and
accepted
by
God
as
the
sole
condition
of
a
sinners
righteousness
,
pardon
,
or
justification
through
Gods
mercy
in
Christ
.
4.
I
grant
,
that
the
connotation
of
Faith
its
being
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
or
as
the
condition
of
our
pardon
is
not
to
be
excluded
,
but
is
implied
in
those
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
4.6
.
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
without
works
:
For
it
is
by
faith
as
the
means
or
condition
,
by
,
or
upon
which
God
imputes
righteousness
to
sinners
,
their
faith
being
imputed
to
them
to
that
end
and
purpose
,
as
is
oft
said
by
the
Apostle
in
this
Chapter
,
and
of
which
I
shall
take
occasion
to
speak
more
at
large
in
the
sequel
of
this
Discourse
.
Yea
,
it
is
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
in
this
and
the
foregoing
Chapter
,
to
shew
what
is
and
is
not
necessary
on
our
parts
in
order
to
our
justification
,
or
the
imputation
of
righteousness
unto
us
,
which
he
asserts
to
be
faith
in
opposition
to
the
works
there
in
question
,
the
necessity
whereof
was
taught
and
obtruded
upon
believers
by
the
false
Teachers
in
those
times
crept
into
the
Churches
of
Christ
newly
planted
.
So
that
when
it
is
said
by
the
Apostle
in
Rom.
4.6
.
[
Blessed
is
the
man
,
unto
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
without
works
]
he
meaneth
no
less
,
than
if
he
sayd
more
fully
and
explicitly
,
even
as
he
doth
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
v.
28.
[
We
conclude
,
that
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
without
the
deeds
of
the
Law
.
]
Blessed
is
the
man
,
unto
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
by
faith
,
or
by
means
of
faith
without
works
,
the
works
of
the
Law
.
But
Fifthly
,
Although
God
imputeth
a
believers
Faith
for
,
or
to
righteousness
;
nevertheless
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
the
righteousness
,
which
God
is
said
to
impute
to
believers
in
Rom.
4.6
.
is
Faith
it self
.
6.
The
truth
is
,
that
though
Faith
be
imputed
to
sinners
as
the
condition
qualifying
,
or
capacitating
them
for
righteousness
;
nevertheless
that
righteousness
,
for
which
,
or
to
which
it
is
said
to
be
imputed
,
or
which
it
doth
qualifie
them
for
,
is
forgiveness
of
sin
,
or
Justification
;
and
this
is
that
Righteousness
it self
,
which
God
is
said
to
impute
to
believing
sinners
in
that
fore-alledged
Text
Rom.
4.6
.
As
faith
alone
,
i.e.
faith
in
opposition
to
works
of
the
Law
obtruded
by
the
false
Apostles
,
is
imputed
as
the
Condition
:
so
pardon
of
sin
is
imputed
to
believing
sinners
,
as
the
full
and
formal
nature
of
their
righteousness
and
justification
.
And
it
is
of
great
concernment
,
that
we
preserve
in
our
minds
distinct
notions
of
faith
and
righteousness
in
all
such
Scriptures
,
wherein
both
the
one
and
the
other
are
said
to
be
imputed
by
God
,
faith
being
to
be
conceived
of
in
the
nature
of
a
Condition
imposed
,
and
righteousness
in
the
nature
of
a
Reward
in
the
Law
of
grace
promised
unto
every
penitent
and
believing
Convert
.
Lest
I
should
seem
to
any
Prejudicate
person
to
be
singular
in
the
said
interpretation
of
Rom.
4.6
.
which
I
have
so
industriously
,
and
(
I
hope
)
effectually
both
proved
and
cleared
,
I
will
close
this
Chapter
with
the
allegation
of
the
testimonies
of
several
Authors
famous
in
their
generation
,
abetting
me
in
the
same
.
Remisso
peccatorum
est
Justitia
imputata
,
Justificatio
hominis
coram
Deo
nihil
aliud
est
,
quam
remissio
peccatorum
.
Pisc
.
on
Act.
13.38
,
39.
Our
imputed
righteousness
is
forgiveness
of
sin
,
says
Chamier
,
that
incomparable
confounder
of
all
Popery
,
as
Mr.
Robert
Bolton
calls
him
,
whom
all
the
Jesuites
in
Christendom
shall
never
be
able
to
answer
,
whether
in
this
world
,
or
in
the
world
to
come
,
Cham
.
tom
.
3.
l.
21.
c
.
19.
Notandum
primo
,
Remissionem
peccatorum
esse
justitiam
nostram
,
This
is
first
to
be
noted
(
says
Musculus
on
Rom.
4.6
.
)
that
Remission
of
sins
is
our
Righteousness
—
and
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
imputed
to
us
,
is
that
sin
is
not
imputed
.
Justitia
imputata
consistit
—
Imputed
righteousness
(
says
Pareus
on
Rom.
4.
)
consists
in
Gods
gracious
pardoning
,
covering
,
not
imputing
our
sins
;
this
is
its
both
privative
and
positive
form
.
Again
,
Imputata
Justitia
—
Imputed
righteousness
is
not
legal
conformity
,
or
inherent
perfection
,
but
gratuitous
pardon
of
sin
.
Calvin
on
Rom.
3.21
.
calls
this
a
definition
of
the
Righteousness
of
faith
[
Blessed
are
those
,
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
them
;
]
and
St.
Paul
teacheth
,
that
God
justifieth
men
by
not
imputing
their
sin
.
The
like
description
of
this
righteousness
,
says
he
,
see
2
Cor
.
5.
that
which
v.
19.
he
calls
in
God
the
not
imputing
of
sin
,
he
calls
in
v.
21.
a
being
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
him
.
He
says
on
Rom.
4.6
,
7.
His
verbis
docemur
—
by
these
words
we
are
taught
,
that
Righteousness
with
St.
Paul
is
nothing
else
but
Remission
of
sin
;
and
he
calls
Justification
the
imputation
of
righteousness
,
placing
it
in
the
pardon
of
sin
:
Surely
,
says
he
,
the
Apostle
disputes
not
there
of
a
part
of
Justification
,
but
of
the
whole
.
And
on
Act.
13.38
.
says
he
,
Haec
est
justitia
fidei
—
This
is
the
Righteousness
of
faith
,
while
God
reputes
us
for
righteous
by
not
imputing
our
sins
.
And
in
his
Inst.
l.
3.
c
.
11.
Sect
.
21.
Justitia
fidei
est
—
The
righteousness
of
faith
is
our
reconciliation
with
God
,
which
doth
consist
in
the
sole
remission
of
sin
.
See
Mr.
Wott
.
De
Reconc
.
Peccatoris
,
wherein
he
doth
at
large
declare
both
his
own
judgment
and
Calvin's
,
with
very
many
others
,
affirming
,
that
the
righteousness
imputed
without
works
is
forgiveness
of
sins
.
If
we
examine
the
doctrine
of
the
Apostle
St.
Paul
and
other
Scriptures
(
says
that
universally
Learned
and
judicious
Author
Mr.
George
Lawson
in
his
Theopol
.
p.
311.
)
we
shall
find
,
that
remission
and
imputation
of
righteousness
are
taken
for
the
same
—
and
p.
312.
This
imputation
of
righteousness
is
the
forgiveness
of
sin
.
Thus
he
determines
,
and
(
as
I
conceive
)
most
justly
and
truly
,
in
opposition
to
those
who
hold
,
that
a
sinners
justification
doth
consist
of
two
integral
parts
,
viz.
Remission
of
sin
,
and
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
.
I
will
conclude
this
Chapter
with
the
sweet
saying
of
Bernard
,
that
most
affectionate
Postiller
,
on
Cant
.
Dei
justitia
est
non
peccare
,
hominis
autem
justitia
est
Dei
indulgentia
,
Not
to
sin
is
Gods
righteousness
,
but
mans
Righteousness
is
Gods
indulgent
pardon
:
I
mean
the
Homilies
of
our
Church
.
And
with
the
first
words
in
the
first
Homily
of
Salvation
(
which
I
had
almost
forgot
to
recite
)
they
being
as
followeth
:
Because
all
men
be
sinner's
and
offenders
against
God
,
and
breakers
of
his
Law
and
Commandments
,
therefore
can
no
man
by
his
own
acts
,
words
and
deeds
(
seem
they
never
so
good
)
be
justified
and
made
righteous
before
God
;
but
every
man
is
of
necessity
constrained
to
seek
for
another
righteousness
or
justification
to
be
received
at
Gods
own
hands
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
forgiveness
of
his
sins
and
trespasses
in
such
things
as
he
hath
offended
:
And
this
justification
or
righteousness
(
viz.
the
Forgiveness
of
sins
)
which
we
so
receive
of
Gods
Mercy
and
Christs
Merits
,
embraced
by
faith
,
is
taken
,
accepted
and
allowed
by
God
for
our
perfect
and
full
justification
.
By
these
words
it
appears
,
what
was
the
Judgment
of
our
first
Protestant
Reformers
concerning
a
sinners
Righteousness
,
or
Justification
,
viz.
that
the
essence
or
nature
thereof
doth
consist
in
Forgiveness
of
sin
;
and
that
this
is
the
Righteousness
of
sinners
,
which
is
upon
their
faith
imputed
to
them
by
God
,
and
allowed
by
him
in
mercy
and
for
the
Merits
sake
of
Christ
,
for
their
perfect
and
full
justification
.
Nor
doth
Justification
put
a
sinner
any
more
into
a
state
of
acceptation
,
or
grace
and
favour
with
God
,
than
doth
Remission
of
sin
:
I
do
not
say
,
than
such
a
bare
remission
of
sin
,
which
we
may
by
our
understandings
abstractedly
conceive
or
fancy
in
our
minds
;
but
than
such
a
plenary
Remission
of
sin
,
as
in
the
Gospel
is
promised
to
penitent
sinners
.
This
hath
been
asserted
and
proved
in
the
22d
.
Chapter
of
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
.
CHAP
II
.
Q.
What
manner
of
Righteousness
is
forgiveness
of
sin
?
Answ
.
In
order
to
the
resolution
of
the
Question
a
distinction
concerning
a
twofold
Righteousness
is
premised
(
the
word
Righteousness
implying
sometimes
Officium
,
duty
commanded
;
and
sometimes
Beneficium
,
mercy
promised
:
)
which
distinction
being
also
in
other
words
apt
for
edification
expressed
,
the
Question
it self
is
thereupon
plainly
determined
.
Q.
WHat
manner
of
Righteousness
is
Forgiveness
of
sin
?
Answ
.
In
order
to
the
solution
of
this
Question
be
it
considered
,
that
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
in
Scripture
taken
in
a
twofold
sense
,
either
as
importing
Officium
,
or
Beneficium
,
Mans
duty
,
or
Gods
mercy
;
or
as
it
may
be
not
unfitly
in
two
words
expressed
,
Work
or
Wages
:
1.
It
signifies
certain
duty
,
or
duties
commanded
by
God
,
and
by
man
to
be
performed
,
in
which
sense
it
is
all
one
with
holiness
of
living
.
In
this
sense
it
is
taken
Luke
1.75
.
That
we
might
serve
him
in
holiness
and
righteousness
before
him
all
the
daies
of
our
life
;
where
there
is
no
necessity
to
confine
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
to
the
duties
of
th
Second
Table
,
and
the
word
[
Holiness
]
to
the
duties
of
the
First
;
but
both
words
may
well
and
warrantably
be
taken
as
Synonymous
,
the
word
[
Holiness
]
being
sometimes
used
in
Scripture
as
expressive
of
the
duties
of
the
Second
Table
,
1
Thess.
4.3
,
4
,
7.
and
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
as
comprehensive
of
the
offices
belonging
to
both
Tables
,
Hos
.
10.12
.
Sow
to
your selves
in
Righteousness
;
the
meaning
of
which
phrase
is
commensurate
with
that
of
the
Apostle
,
of
Sowing
to
the
Spirit
,
Gal.
6.8
.
And
in
this
latitude
the
word
Righteousness
is
used
by
St.
Peter
,
1.
Pet
.
2.24
.
That
we
being
dead
unto
sin
,
might
live
unto
Righteousness
;
this
phrase
of
living
unto
Righteousness
being
of
the
same
extent
in
sense
and
signification
with
that
of
the
same
Apostle
else
where
,
i.e.
of
living
not
to
the
lusts
of
men
,
but
to
the
will
of
God
,
1
Pet
.
4.2
.
and
of
St.
Pauls
expression
,
i.e.
of
living
not
to
our selves
,
but
to
him
that
died
for
us
,
and
rose
again
,
2
Cor
.
5.15
.
2.
The
word
[
Righteousness
]
is
sometimes
used
in
Scripture
as
importing
certain
Mercy
by
God
promised
to
sinners
,
and
according
to
the
tenour
of
divine
Promise
conferr'd
upon
them
.
In
this
sense
it
s
taken
Isa
.
48.18
.
O
that
my
people
had
hearkned
to
my
Commandments
(
this
had
been
their
Righteousness
in
the
former
sense
of
the
word
,
as
appears
by
that
express
Scripture
in
Deut
.
6.25
.
)
then
had
thy
peace
been
as
a
River
,
and
thy
righteousness
as
the
waves
of
the
Sea
.
In
this
sense
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
seems
to
be
taken
in
Prov.
8.18
.
where
Wisdom
is
commended
from
this
,
that
there
is
with
her
durable
riches
and
righteousness
.
And
in
one
place
(
viz.
Hos
.
10.12
.
)
the
word
being
repeated
is
used
in
both
the
said
senses
,
Sow
to
your selves
in
Righteousness
(
there
the
word
implies
Duty
commanded
)
till
he
come
and
rain
Righteousness
upon
you
(
there
it
imports
Mercy
promised
.
)
The
former
is
styled
the
Doing
of
righteousness
.
1
Joh
.
3.7
.
(
He
that
doth
righteousness
,
is
righteous
;
)
the
latter
is
styled
the
Receiving
of
righteousness
,
Psal
.
24.5
.
(
He
shall
receive
the
blessing
from
the
Lord
,
and
Righteousness
from
the
God
of
his
Salvation
.
)
The
former
may
not
unfitly
be
styled
The
work
of
Righteousness
;
the
latter
The
effect
,
or
the
fruit
,
or
the
reward
of
Righteousness
.
2.
Or
to
the
same
purpose
,
as
hath
been
already
said
,
I
may
express
the
matter
in
manner
and
form
following
,
and
say
,
Forasmuch
as
the
word
Righteousness
is
relative
to
the
Law
,
and
forasmuch
as
the
divine
Law
doth
consist
of
two
parts
,
the
Preceptive
and
Retributive
part
,
commonly
styled
the
Precept
and
the
Sanction
,
Righteousness
may
be
denominated
from
its
relation
to
each
part
of
the
Law
:
1.
To
the
Precept
,
or
preceptive
part
thereof
,
which
is
the
Rule
of
mans
living
,
and
doth
constitute
debitum
Officii
,
that
which
is
due
from
man
to
God
.
2.
To
the
Sanction
,
or
Retributive
part
of
the
Law
(
the
Promises
and
Threatnings
thereof
)
that
doth
constitute
debitum
Praemii
&
Supplicii
,
what
shall
be
mans
due
from
God
in
the
way
of
reward
and
punishment
.
Now
(
to
apply
the
distinction
)
when
I
say
,
that
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
a
Righteousness
of
its
kind
,
and
oft-times
meant
by
the
word
[
Righteousness
]
in
Scripture
,
particularly
in
Rom.
4.6
.
I
must
be
understood
,
that
it
is
a
Righteousness
of
this
latter
kind
,
i.e.
as
it
imports
not
mans
Duty
,
but
divine
Mercy
;
not
our
Work
,
but
Reward
;
not
as
denominated
from
the
Preceptive
,
but
from
the
Retributive
part
of
the
Law
;
in
which
sense
pardon
of
sin
is
frequently
in
Scripture
styled
Righteousness
,
two
or
three
places
whereof
have
already
been
made
instance
in
,
to
which
many
more
might
be
added
:
For
in
this
sense
it
seems
to
be
taken
Rom.
6.16
.
Know
ye
not
,
that
to
whom
ye
yield
your selves
servants
to
obey
,
his
servants
ye
are
to
whom
ye
obey
,
whether
of
sin
unto
death
,
or
of
obedience
unto
righteousness
?
Where
,
as
sin
and
obedience
,
so
death
(
the
punishment
of
sin
)
and
righteousness
(
a
right
to
impunity
,
or
deliverance
from
the
punishment
deserved
by
sin
)
are
opposed
;
and
therefore
Righteousness
must
in
all
reason
be
taken
in
such
a
sense
,
as
is
directly
opposite
to
death
(
the
wages
of
sin
;
)
and
what
can
that
be
in
effect
,
but
the
remitting
,
or
remission
of
it
?
This
is
that
which
St.
Paul
doth
elsewhere
style
The
gift
of
Righteousness
,
Rom.
5.17
.
If
by
one
mans
offence
death
reigned
by
one
,
much
more
they
which
receive
abundance
of
grace
and
of
the
gift
of
righteousness
,
shall
reign
in
life
by
one
Jesus
Christ
.
What
he
there
styles
The
gift
of
Righteousness
,
he
doth
in
the
verse
foregoing
style
The
free
gift
of
Offences
,
i.e.
the
free
forgiveness
of
Offences
:
For
as
sins
are
styled
Debts
,
and
we
thereupon
are
said
to
give
men
that
Debt
,
which
we
do
forgive
them
:
so
the
forgiveness
of
Offences
is
there
styled
The
gift
of
Offences
,
he
retaining
the
word
gift
,
v.
17.
and
what
he
doth
elsewhere
oft-times
style
Righteousness
,
he
doth
there
style
The
gift
of
Righteousness
;
and
it
seems
worth
the
noting
,
that
it
is
a
thing
not
unusual
with
the
Penmen
of
Scripture
(
as
some
Learned
men
have
observed
)
to
accommodate
or
suit
their
expressions
one
to
another
,
of
which
among
many
other
which
might
be
produced
,
are
the
instances
following
,
viz.
Jer
.
33.17
.
where
,
upon
mention
of
the
word
[
Liberty
]
follows
the
expression
[
liberty
to
the
Sword
;
]
and
Rom.
14.13
.
where
the
Apostle
having
said
,
Let
us
no
longer
judge
,
i.e.
censure
one
another
,
he
suits
thereunto
his
following
expression
,
saying
,
But
judge
this
rather
;
and
Matth
.
5.19
.
where
our
Saviour
having
spoken
of
them
,
who
break
the
least
of
Gods
Commandments
,
he
accommodates
his
following
words
thereunto
,
saying
,
He
shall
be
called
least
in
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
;
as
also
in
Matth
.
12.50
.
where
,
upon
the
mention
of
his
Mother
and
Brethren
seeking
him
,
Christs
reply
thereunto
is
in
a
suitable
phrase
,
saying
,
Whosoever
doth
the
will
of
my
Father
,
the
same
is
my
Brother
,
and
Sister
,
and
Mother
.
But
to
return
:
As
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
styled
Righteousness
,
so
a
person
pardoned
is
upon
that
account
said
to
be
Righteous
,
Rom.
5.19
.
As
by
one
mans
disobedience
many
were
made
sinners
,
so
by
the
obedience
of
one
shall
many
be
made
righteous
;
where
,
as
by
the
word
Sinners
is
meant
guilty
,
or
obnoxious
to
condemnation
,
so
by
the
word
Righteous
(
which
is
directly
opposite
thereunto
)
the
plain
contrary
to
it
must
necessarily
be
understood
,
i.e.
not
obnoxious
to
condemnation
,
pardoned
or
justified
,
as
appears
also
by
the
context
.
And
in
this
sense
is
the
word
Sinner
,
as
opposed
to
Righteous
in
the
said
sense
asserted
,
taken
oft-times
in
other
Scriptures
,
i.e.
as
importing
subjection
not
to
the
power
of
sin
,
at
least
not
it
directly
and
immediately
,
but
subjection
to
the
guilt
of
sin
;
in
which
sense
our
Saviour
Christ
doth
vindicate
the
Woman
in
Luke
7.
from
being
a
Sinner
,
as
she
was
charged
by
one
of
the
Pharisees
,
v.
39
;
this
he
doth
by
proving
in
his
discourse
(
whether
with
Simon
the
Pharisee
,
or
Simon
the
Apostle
)
the
direct
contrary
,
viz.
that
her
sins
were
forgiven
her
:
this
he
proves
by
her
love
to
him
,
and
therefore
she
was
no
longer
a
Sinner
,
but
Righteous
,
i.e.
not
obnoxious
to
condemnation
.
And
in
the
like
sense
the
word
seems
to
be
taken
in
that
saying
of
the
Apostle
Rom.
3.7
.
Why
am
I
judged
as
a
Sinner
?
that
is
,
He
in
that
saying
personating
our
objecting
against
his
doctrine
concerning
our
own
Righteteousness
commending
the
Righteousness
of
God
,
says
,
Why
am
I
judged
,
complained
of
and
dealt
with
as
one
obnoxious
to
punishment
?
Thus
the
word
[
Sinner
]
is
also
taken
in
1
King
.
1
21.
where
Bathsheba
taking
a
course
for
the
future
security
of
her self
and
hers
after
Davids
death
,
says
thus
unto
him
,
Otherwise
it
shall
come
to
pass
,
when
my
Lord
the
King
shall
sleep
with
his
Fathers
,
that
I
and
my
Son
Solomon
shall
be
counted
sinners
,
i.e.
shall
be
dealt
with
as
obnoxious
to
suffering
.
Why
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
styled
Righteousness
,
will
be
declared
in
the
following
Chapter
.
I
will
only
add
,
As
righteousness
and
unrighteousness
are
measured
by
the
Retributive
part
of
the
Law
(
the
Promissory
and
Comminatory
part
thereof
)
he
is
unrighteous
,
who
hath
no
right
to
impunity
,
but
is
obliged
to
the
punishment
threatned
,
both
of
loss
and
sense
;
and
he
is
righteous
,
who
is
disobliged
from
this
punishment
threatned
,
or
hath
right
to
the
contrary
(
both
Privative
and
Positive
)
good
promised
.
And
in
this
respect
,
I
say
,
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
styled
Righteousness
;
and
a
person
pardoned
said
to
be
Righteous
.
CHAP
III
.
Q.
Why
is
Forgiveness
of
sin
in
Scripture
styled
Righteousness
,
or
a
person
pardoned
there
said
to
be
Righteous
?
Answ
.
The
Question
for
the
more
clearness
of
understanding
is
answered
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
.
A
Caution
to
prevent
the
misconstruction
of
some
places
in
Scripture
,
and
two
Rules
suggested
as
conducing
to
a
right
interpretation
thereof
.
A
few
brief
Animadversions
upon
some
passages
in
Mr.
Will
.
Bradshawes
Latin
Dissertation
concerning
Justification
.
Q.
WHy
is
Forgiveness
of
sin
styled
Righteousness
,
or
a
person
pardoned
said
to
be
Righteous
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
,
The
Reason
is
not
,
because
it
doth
make
a
sinner
to
be
righteous
in
such
a
sense
,
or
in
that
very
sense
as
Righteousness
is
taken
for
Holiness
,
for
a
Non
reatus
culpae
,
i.e.
for
a
conformity
to
the
Preceptive
part
of
Gods
Law
:
for
as
he
,
who
was
alwaies
thus
perfectly
Righteous
,
is
not
naturally
capable
of
pardon
;
so
it
is
impossible
,
that
any
unrighteous
person
should
by
any
means
whatsoever
be
made
righteous
,
i.e.
no
sinner
,
or
a
person
who
never
sinned
.
2.
Although
an
unrighteous
person
may
cease
the
practice
of
his
former
unrighteousnes
and
become
righteous
,
i.e.
holy
for
the
future
;
yea
,
although
every
pardoned
sinner
doth
in
that
sense
become
righteous
;
nevertheless
it
is
not
the
pardon
of
sin
,
that
doth
make
or
constitute
him
righteous
in
that
sense
:
For
in
order
of
nature
an
unrighteous
person
doth
thus
become
righteous
,
i.e.
he
breaks
off
his
sins
by
righteousness
before
he
is
pardoned
,
or
is
in
a
proximate
moral
capacity
for
pardon
.
3.
It
is
by
Sanctification
,
and
not
by
Remission
of
sin
(
by
that
change
,
which
is
commonly
by
Divines
styled
Real
,
and
not
by
this
styled
Relative
)
that
an
unrighteous
person
is
in
this
sense
made
righteous
.
These
Answers
,
together
with
the
foresaid
distinction
of
Righteousness
,
are
the
rather
to
be
minded
,
because
the
not
heeding
thereof
seems
to
be
the
cause
of
some
,
errour
in
the
Papists
,
who
still
taking
the
word
Righteous
for
Holy
,
and
Righteousness
for
Holiness
,
have
wronged
themselves
and
the
truth
in
confounding
Justification
and
Sanctification
,
and
making
Remission
of
sin
to
consist
not
only
in
taking
away
the
guilt
of
it
,
but
also
in
the
change
of
our
depraved
qualities
and
conversations
,
whereby
of
unrighteous
we
become
inherently
righteous
.
Whereas
the
truth
is
,
that
although
this
change
be
required
in
order
to
Forgiveness
of
sin
(
for
that
God
may
have
mercy
upon
the
wicked
in
his
abundant
pardon
,
the
wicked
must
forsake
his
way
,
and
the
unrighteous
man
his
thoughts
,
Isa
.
55.7
,
8.
)
nevertheless
it
is
not
effected
by
a
pardon
;
yea
,
because
it
is
an
external
pre-requisite
thereunto
,
therefore
in
reason
it
cannot
be
conceived
to
be
effected
by
it
,
neither
is
it
any
ingredient
into
pardon
as
constituting
the
precise
nature
of
if
,
I
mean
as
this
change
is
a
duty
imposed
upon
us
,
or
a
work
to
be
done
by
us
,
Ezek
.
18.31
.
2.
Affirmatively
;
1.
Because
it
is
equivalent
to
that
righteousness
,
which
stands
in
a
perfect
conformity
to
Gods
Law
,
or
which
consists
in
perfect
Innocency
.
It
is
a
Righteousness
by
account
,
construction
,
or
interpretation
,
as
having
,
although
not
the
real
substance
,
yet
the
legal
priviledges
and
benefits
of
the
said
perfect
innocency
and
conformity
:
for
he
whose
unrighteousness
is
forgiven
,
is
in
as
blessed
and
comfortable
a
condition
(
as
to
freedom
from
punishment
)
as
he
,
who
never
did
transgress
the
Law
.
And
for
this
cause
it
may
well
be
styled
an
Imputed
righteousness
(
in
that
sense
as
the
word
Imputed
is
properly
and
commonly
taken
in
the
writings
of
St.
Paul
)
that
is
,
a
Righteousness
by
Imputation
,
or
account
;
because
a
sinner
,
whose
unrighteousness
is
pardoned
,
shall
be
dealt
with
as
if
he
were
righteous
,
notwithstanding
that
he
is
not
righteous
as
a
fulfiller
of
the
Law
of
Innocency
,
or
as
a
person
who
never
transgressed
.
2.
Because
,
as
in
respect
of
the
Preceptive
part
of
the
Law
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
a
righteousness
interpretatively
,
so
in
respect
of
the
Retributive
part
it
is
only
such
.
A
person
pardoned
,
although
he
cannot
strictly
and
properly
be
denominated
righteous
respectively
to
the
precept
of
the
Law
,
nevertheless
he
may
truly
and
properly
(
without
any
such
terms
of
diminution
as
Quasi
,
or
Tanquam
)
be
so
styled
with
respect
to
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
the
Law
having
no
right
to
punish
him
,
such
an
one
being
disobliged
from
its
punishing
power
:
The
Law
of
God
(
as
to
its
Condemnatory
part
)
hath
no
more
power
over
a
sinner
,
when
his
sin
is
pardoned
,
than
the
Law
of
the
Husband
hath
over
the
Wife
,
when
he
is
dead
,
Rom.
7.1
.
for
Pardon
is
the
death
of
sin
respectively
to
its
guilt
,
it
gives
sin
its
deadly
wound
,
it
slays
the
enmity
of
the
Law
respectively
to
its
sanction
,
and
being
thus
slain
,
the
sinner
is
loosed
from
if
,
as
a
Woman
once
obliged
by
the
Law
of
her
Husband
while
living
,
is
loosed
from
it
by
his
death
.
And
upon
this
consideration
a
person
,
whose
unrighteousness
is
forgiven
,
and
whose
sins
are
covered
,
may
well
be
denominated
Righteous
.
Before
I
proceed
to
specifie
any
other
reason
,
why
Gods
pardoning
sinners
is
styled
his
imputing
righteousness
to
them
,
be
it
observed
by
the
way
,
and
by
occasion
of
what
was
last
said
,
viz.
that
Forgiveness
of
sin
being
considered
as
a
proper
righteousness
respectively
to
the
sanction
of
the
Law
,
so
Gods
imputing
it
is
verily
and
indeed
all
one
with
his
imparting
it
,
and
implies
no
more
than
his
giving
or
bestowing
it
upon
believing
sinners
,
in
which
improper
sense
of
the
word
[
Imputing
]
certain
Learned
men
do
conceive
it
to
be
taken
in
some
places
of
Scripture
.
Any
matter
of
profit
,
benefit
,
or
advantage
(
says
Mr.
J.
Goodwin
)
which
any
waies
accrueth
to
a
man
,
whether
by
way
of
due
debt
,
or
of
free
donation
and
grant
,
may
be
said
to
be
imputed
to
him
accordingly
;
in
which
sense
he
understands
the
word
in
Rom.
4.4
.
where
the
reward
is
said
to
be
reckoned
or
imputed
to
him
that
worketh
,
i.e.
that
by
works
deserves
or
earns
it
,
of
debt
and
not
of
grace
.
And
so
Pareus
having
distinguished
of
a
threefold
imputation
of
a
good
thing
(
jure
,
injuriâ
,
&
gratiâ
)
says
,
That
a
thing
,
when
it
is
said
to
be
imputed
of
right
and
of
debt
,
is
then
said
to
be
imputed
in
an
improper
sense
of
the
word
,
Imputari
pro
Dari
,
to
be
imputed
being
all
one
as
to
be
given
,
or
conferr'd
,
in
which
improper
sense
of
the
word
we
are
said
to
impute
glory
to
God
,
i.e.
to
give
glory
to
him
;
and
in
this
sense
he
interprets
that
saying
of
the
Apostle
,
Operanti
,
to
him
that
worketh
is
the
reward
imputed
,
i.e.
is
given
not
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
.
2.
Be
it
observed
,
that
that
Righteousness
,
which
in
Rom.
4.6
,
11.
is
styled
Justitia
imputata
,
imputed
righteousness
,
is
in
the
following
Chapter
in
effect
styled
Justitia
donata
;
he
plainly
styling
it
Donum
,
&
Donum
gratuitum
,
&
Donum
justitiae
,
the
Gift
,
the
free
Gift
,
and
the
Gift
of
Righteousness
,
v.
16
,
17.
i
.
e
.
Righteousness
freely
given
.
So
that
whether
by
Gods
imputing
this
righteousness
to
believers
we
are
necessarily
to
understand
more
than
his
free
giving
it
to
them
,
or
bestowing
it
upon
them
,
I
shall
not
take
upon
me
peremptorily
to
determine
,
but
will
leave
to
consideration
.
3.
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
styled
Righteousness
,
as
some
judge
,
for
the
same
reason
as
they
think
it
to
be
styled
Justification
,
viz.
because
it
is
merited
or
procured
by
the
satisfactory
Righteousness
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
And
this
is
the
reason
,
which
is
rendred
by
the
learned
and
pious
Author
Mr.
W.
Bradshaw
:
For
the
Law
,
says
he
,
having
two
parts
(
the
Injunction
and
the
Commination
,
)
there
is
a
twofold
Righteousness
,
viz.
of
Obedience
in
reference
to
the
former
,
and
of
Justification
in
reference
to
the
latter
;
upon
which
Satisfaction
therefore
,
as
given
and
taken
,
a
person
though
a
sinner
is
deemed
righteous
.
And
the
said
Author
addeth
,
saying
,
By
satisfaction
made
Gods
Law
is
fulfilled
,
forasmuch
as
his
Will
was
,
either
that
the
Law
should
be
observed
,
or
else
the
penalty
suffered
;
if
therefore
the
one
or
the
other
be
done
,
the
Will
of
the
Lawgiver
is
satisfied
,
so
that
he
for
whose
sins
a
full
satisfaction
hath
been
made
(
either
by
himself
,
or
by
some
other
for
him
)
and
hath
been
accepted
by
him
,
against
whom
the
transgression
was
committed
,
is
as
just
and
righteous
as
he
that
never
transgressed
;
there
being
as
much
justice
and
righteousness
in
repairing
the
wrongs
and
injuries
done
to
any
,
as
there
is
in
abstaining
from
doing
any
.
E.
g
.
He
that
by
his
Cattel
hath
trespassed
against
his
Neighbour
in
his
Grass
,
or
Corn
,
and
hath
made
him
full
satisfaction
for
the
spoil
done
,
or
dammage
sustained
,
is
as
honest
and
just
a
Neighbour
,
and
deals
as
righteously
with
him
,
as
he
that
never
trespassed
in
that
kind
.
Wherefore
our
pardon
coming
to
us
,
or
being
derived
upon
us
in
the
way
,
or
by
means
of
satisfaction
made
by
Christ
to
the
Justice
of
God
for
the
breach
of
his
Law
,
may
fitly
for
that
reason
be
styled
Righteousness
,
and
a
sinner
pardoned
may
be
denominated
Righteous
upon
that
account
.
Thus
have
I
related
the
reason
,
as
rendred
by
the
fore-named
Author
,
the
force
whereof
I
leave
to
the
judgment
of
others
;
only
saying
,
that
for
my
own
part
I
shall
not
much
urge
or
insist
upon
it
for
these
two
reasons
:
1.
B●cause
the
pardon
of
sin
Quocunque
modo
,
whether
with
,
or
without
satisfaction
given
and
taken
,
doth
take
away
the
guilt
of
punishment
,
and
disoblige
from
suffering
,
and
doth
consequently
so
far
forth
make
the
Delinquent
just
and
righteous
.
2.
Because
I
judge
,
that
the
two
first
reasons
before
speci●ied
are
sufficiently
satisfactory
to
the
Question
in
hand
,
Why
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
styled
Righteousness
.
I
would
thereupon
now
immediately
close
this
Chapter
,
were
it
not
,
that
I
think
it
my
part
for
the
Truthes
sake
,
and
prevention
of
Errour
,
to
Animadvert
upon
somewhat
,
that
is
cautiously
to
be
understood
in
the
forecited
passage
from
the
Author
before
named
.
E.g.
Whereas
the
said
Author
speaks
of
a
Righteousness
resulting
upon
satisfaction
given
,
and
accepted
,
we
must
not
so
understand
it
,
as
if
a
sinner
were
actually
pardoned
,
and
made
righteous
immediately
upon
Christs
satisfaction
given
,
and
accepted
:
for
Christs
satisfaction
is
only
the
meritorious
cause
of
a
Sinners
pardon
and
righteousness
,
and
although
God
did
accept
it
as
such
,
or
so
far
forth
,
so
soon
as
given
,
yea
,
so
soon
as
undertaken
to
be
made
,
nevertheless
it
was
not
the
intent
of
God
,
or
Christ
,
that
a
Sinner
should
be
actually
pardoned
,
or
for
it
immediately
be
made
righteous
;
but
that
for
the
sake
of
it
he
should
be
pardoned
,
or
constituted
righteous
in
his
appointed
time
and
way
,
by
or
upon
the
intervention
of
a
sinners
sincere
faith
and
repentance
.
Yea
,
this
Caution
,
I
think
,
is
very
expedient
to
be
observed
for
the
due
interpretation
of
many
places
of
Scripture
,
where
pardon
of
sin
is
spoken
of
,
they
being
to
be
understood
not
of
actual
,
but
of
virtual
pardon
,
which
some
Authors
style
pardon
inchoate
,
i.e.
of
pardon
Quoad
pretium
,
or
Quantum
ad
Meritum
,
of
pardon
so
far
forth
as
purchased
by
a
price
paid
and
accepted
.
E.g.
Rom.
5.9
,
10.
where
it
being
said
,
That
being
now
justified
by
his
blood
,
we
shall
be
saved
from
wrath
through
him
;
and
if
,
when
we
were
enemies
,
we
were
reconciled
to
God
by
the
death
of
his
Son
.
—
We
are
not
necessarily
there
to
understand
it
of
actual
justification
and
reconciliation
with
God
(
for
this
belongs
not
to
enemies
,
while
they
are
such
,
)
but
of
virtual
justification
and
reconciliation
,
i.e.
that
we
are
,
as
far
as
belongs
to
Christs
part
as
Satisfier
,
justified
,
pardoned
,
or
reconciled
,
the
price
thereof
being
by
him
paid
and
accepted
by
his
Father
;
all
which
may
very
well
be
,
while
a
sinner
doth
remain
as
is
said
v.
6.
{αβγδ}
,
weak
and
deadly
sick
,
or
in
a
state
of
enmity
,
as
is
said
v.
10.
Yea
,
all
which
may
be
said
to
be
before
a
sinner
be
a
sinner
,
yea
,
before
he
have
an
existence
in
rerum
naturâ
,
even
as
Creatures
,
before
they
do
actually
exist
,
are
said
to
be
in
their
existent
causes
;
even
so
a
sinners
pardon
,
before
the
sinner
himself
be
actually
pardoned
,
may
be
said
to
be
in
Christ
,
or
in
the
death
of
Christ
as
the
meritorious
cause
thereof
;
in
which
respect
all
the
Sinners
in
the
world
may
in
some
sense
be
said
to
be
now
justified
,
or
pardoned
,
i.e.
conditionally
pardoned
,
or
justified
by
the
blood
of
Christ
,
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
Rom.
5.18
.
Therefore
as
by
the
offence
of
one
judgment
came
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
,
even
so
by
the
righteousness
of
one
,
the
free
gift
came
upon
all
men
unto
justification
of
life
.
And
for
the
right
understanding
of
that
in
Rom.
5.9
.
with
many
other
the
like
Scriptures
,
two
things
are
moreover
,
as
I
think
,
remarkable
:
1.
That
(
as
I
have
somewhere
read
in
the
most
Learned
Dr.
Hammond
)
passive
verbs
and
particles
being
used
in
Scripture
,
are
sometimes
to
be
construed
as
real
passives
,
and
sometimes
only
as
nominal
,
i.e.
as
denoting
sometimes
the
action
with
the
reality
of
the
passion
,
or
effect
thereof
in
the
subject
wrought
upon
,
and
sometimes
importing
only
the
action
of
the
agent
without
the
said
effect
.
2.
It
is
the
manner
of
Scripture
oft-times
to
speak
of
the
effect
as
wrought
,
when
provision
is
made
of
a
cause
sufficient
in
suo
genere
,
by
which
it
shall
or
may
be
wrought
.
Thus
St.
Paul
speaks
of
Death
as
already
abolished
by
Christ
,
2
Tim
.
1.10
.
because
Christ
hath
merited
the
abolition
thereof
,
although
Death
is
not
as
yet
actually
and
fully
abolished
,
nor
shall
be
till
the
general
Resurrection
,
this
being
the
last
Enemy
to
be
destroyed
.
Thus
also
Christ
is
said
by
one
offering
to
have
perfected
for
ever
them
that
are
sanctified
,
Heb
.
10.14
:
I
have
the
rather
thought
meet
to
Animadvert
as
above
,
upon
the
passage
forecited
out
of
the
said
Author
,
because
it
seems
to
have
been
the
mistake
,
as
of
certain
others
,
so
of
that
Learned
Author
himself
,
to
conceive
that
a
sinner
is
justified
,
pardoned
,
or
made
righteous
upon
Christs
satisfaction
given
,
and
taken
,
as
is
too
too
suspicious
by
certain
of
his
mistakes
in
his
Tractate
of
Justification
,
ch
.
26.
(
Latin
Copy
)
which
it
concerns
young
Students
in
the
reading
thereof
to
beware
of
:
he
there
said
(
ch
.
13.
)
That
our
effectual
vocation
doth
follow
our
reconciliation
with
God
:
and
(
ch
.
15.
he
says
)
that
the
reason
,
why
Faith
is
called
Justifying
,
is
,
because
it
doth
then
first
declare
us
in
our
Consciences
to
be
righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
for
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
:
and
(
ch
.
24.
)
he
positively
asserts
,
That
Faith
is
the
effect
of
Justification
,
and
therefore
that
Justification
doth
not
depend
upon
it
.
The
cause
of
these
gross
Mistakes
in
that
Author
was
,
as
I
think
,
his
mis-conceiving
a
sinners
Justification
,
or
pardon
,
to
exist
immediately
upon
Christs
satisfaction
given
and
taken
in
his
behalf
,
and
his
not
distinguishing
betwixt
Reconciliation
,
Remission
of
sin
,
or
Justification
as
barely
merited
,
and
as
actually
conferr'd
:
And
for
that
cause
it
is
useful
to
observe
,
that
albeit
our
effectual
Vocation
doth
follow
our
Reconciliation
quoad
meritum
,
or
as
it
is
nudè
parta
,
i.e.
as
barely
purchased
by
the
Blood
of
Christ
;
yet
it
goes
before
it
quoad
efficaciam
,
or
as
it
is
actually
conferr'd
.
And
be
it
further
observed
,
that
the
reason
of
Faiths
being
called
Justifying
,
is
not
either
primarily
,
or
principally
,
and
much
less
only
,
because
it
doth
manifest
us
in
our
Consciences
to
be
justified
,
but
because
it
doth
suo
modo
,
scilicet
per
modum
conditionis
praestitae
,
i.e.
as
the
condition
of
our
Justification
actually
performed
,
it
doth
introduce
our
Justification
,
or
actually
justifie
us
by
,
or
in
the
virtue
of
Gods
promise
,
Faith
being
therein
constituted
the
condition
thereof
,
and
consequently
our
Justification
depending
upon
our
Faith
,
as
Res
conditionata
doth
depend
,
or
is
suspended
upon
that
,
which
in
any
promise
is
constituted
the
condition
of
enjoying
it
.
But
I
acknowledge
this
a
digression
from
the
matter
in
hand
.
CHAP.
IV
.
Q.
What
peculiar
Names
have
certain
Modern
Authors
used
to
give
to
the
said
imputed
,
or
imparted
Righteousness
(
the
Non-imputation
of
sin
)
whereby
to
distinguish
it
from
that
other
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
doth
consist
in
a
practical
conformity
to
the
Law
of
God
?
Answ
.
They
have
distinguished
them
by
such
Names
,
or
Epithetes
as
these
,
viz.
Active
and
Passive
;
Negative
and
Positive
;
Proper
and
Improper
;
Literal
and
Interpretative
;
Legal
and
Pro-legal
;
to
which
is
added
,
Primary
and
Secondary
,
with
the
Authors
Opinion
concerning
the
fitness
of
the
said
diacritical
,
or
distinguishing
Titles
.
Q.
ARe
there
any
peculiar
Names
,
or
Titles
given
to
the
said
imputed
Righteousness
,
i.e.
to
forgiveness
of
sin
,
whether
by
humane
Authors
,
or
in
the
Sacred
Scriptures
,
whereby
to
distinguish
it
from
that
other
kind
of
Righteousness
said
to
consist
in
a
conformity
to
the
Precept
,
or
Precepts
of
the
Law
.
Answ
.
Yes
:
the
truth
of
which
Answer
I
shall
exemplifie
by
instances
of
both
kinds
,
the
former
whereof
shall
be
the
Subject
of
this
Chapter
.
I
have
observed
,
That
the
righteousness
of
pardon
is
for
distinctions
sake
by
certain
Modern
Writers
styled
a
Passive
righteousness
,
and
the
other
Active
:
And
I
do
judge
them
very
fitly
so
denominated
,
because
respectively
to
the
one
we
are
Patients
,
or
the
Subjects
recipient
;
and
with
respect
to
the
other
we
are
Agents
.
And
thus
is
the
matter
expressed
in
Scripture
.
Wrought
righteousness
,
Heb
.
11.33
.
Worketh
righteousness
,
Psal
.
15.2
.
Receive
righteousness
,
Psal
.
24.5
.
Receive
forgiveness
of
sin
,
Act.
26.18
.
2.
It
is
styled
a
Negative
,
or
Privative
righteousness
,
and
the
other
Positive
.
And
I
do
judge
the
former
word
no
less
fit
in
its
application
than
the
latter
,
because
forgiveness
of
sin
is
in
Scripture
expressed
by
a
Not-imputing
it
,
and
said
to
be
a
righteousness
without
Works
;
as
will
be
declared
more
at
large
in
the
following
Chapter
.
3.
It
is
by
some
Author
,
or
Authors
styled
an
improper
Righteousness
;
and
this
among
others
is
the
denomination
given
to
it
by
the
Learned
Mr.
J.
Goodwin
,
who
calls
the
other
kind
of
Righteousness
a
Proper
righteousness
.
But
whether
this
denomination
be
so
fit
,
I
doubt
:
for
seeing
there
are
two
parts
of
the
Law
,
the
Precept
and
the
Sanction
(
as
was
said
in
the
Chapter
immediately
foregoing
)
and
forasmuch
as
a
person
may
be
denominated
righteous
respectively
either
to
the
one
,
or
to
the
other
;
I
therefore
judge
it
to
be
justly
questionable
,
whether
a
man
may
not
properly
be
denominated
righteous
from
the
one
,
as
well
as
from
the
other
,
or
whether
a
dis-obligation
from
punishment
be
not
in
propriety
of
Speech
a
Righteousness
of
its
kind
,
as
Non-obligation
to
fault
is
a
proper
Righteousness
of
another
kind
If
any
Reader
therefore
be
dissatisfied
with
those
distinguishing
terms
(
Proper
and
Improper
,
)
he
will
,
I
presume
,
be
better
pleased
with
the
terms
,
which
I
will
here
suggest
instead
thereof
,
viz.
Primary
and
Secondary
.
Although
I
do
not
remember
,
that
I
have
read
the
Terms
thus
used
,
and
applied
in
any
other
Authors
;
nevertheless
as
the
Terms
are
obvious
to
be
thought
upon
,
so
I
think
them
in
this
case
to
be
very
fit
,
forasmuch
as
that
Righteousness
,
which
doth
consist
in
a
conformity
to
the
precept
of
the
Law
is
primely
intended
,
there
being
no
place
for
the
other
,
but
upon
the
defect
of
this
,
for
which
cause
that
other
may
be
said
to
be
Secunda
tabula
post
naufragium
justitiae
prioris
.
4.
It
is
by
some
called
a
Righteousness
constructively
,
or
by
interpretation
,
and
the
other
a
Literal
or
Text-righteousness
;
and
by
these
terms
(
to
my
remembrance
)
doth
the
said
Learned
Author
Mr.
J.
Goodwin
distinguish
them
.
But
this
expression
of
his
doth
(
I
think
)
need
Explication
,
and
must
be
warily
understood
:
for
although
forgiveness
of
sin
respectively
to
the
preceptive
part
of
the
Law
be
a
Righteousness
only
by
interpretation
,
or
imputation
(
in
the
strict
and
proper
sense
of
the
word
imputed
,
)
or
in
loco
,
i.e.
a
Righteousness
instead
of
a
Righteousness
;
nevertheless
respectively
to
the
Retributive
part
of
the
Law
(
destroyed
,
abolished
,
or
spoiled
of
its
damning
power
)
it
is
truly
,
properly
,
and
literally
a
Righteousness
.
5.
Forgiveness
of
sin
is
somewhere
(
to
my
remembrance
)
in
the
Writings
of
Mr.
Baxter
styled
our
Justitia
Pro-legalis
,
our
Pro-legal
righteousness
;
and
(
if
I
do
not
mis-remember
)
Christs
satisfaction
,
or
Satisfactory
righteousness
is
by
him
so
styled
also
:
and
,
I
think
,
that
both
of
them
may
well
and
rationally
be
so
called
,
because
both
of
them
do
bestead
us
(
Sinners
)
instead
of
that
primary
Righteousness
,
which
doth
consist
in
a
conformity
to
the
Precept
of
the
Law
;
yet
with
some
difference
,
each
of
them
after
their
manner
,
in
a
diverse
way
,
or
upon
an
account
peculiar
to
each
,
viz.
our
pardon
it self
as
the
matter
,
which
doth
constitute
that
our
Righteousness
,
and
Christs
satisfactory
Righteousness
as
the
Meritorius
cause
thereof
.
And
be
it
observed
,
that
I
do
not
say
,
as
Christs
Righteousness
is
in
it self
immediately
imputed
to
us
(
for
this
is
that
Doctrine
,
which
hath
been
professedly
opposed
,
and
at
large
refuted
in
the
foregoing
part
of
this
Discourse
)
but
as
the
Meritorious
cause
of
it
,
Jesus
Christ
having
by
his
Satisfaction
procured
our
Pardon
,
and
such
a
Pardon
,
as
doth
effectually
bestead
us
instead
of
that
other
kind
of
Righteousness
,
which
consists
in
a
perfect
conformity
to
the
Law
.
6.
I
have
observed
also
,
that
as
some
Authors
do
call
Pardon
of
sin
a
Legal
righteousness
;
so
Others
,
if
not
the
same
also
,
do
style
that
other
Righteousness
,
which
consists
in
a
perfect
conformity
to
the
Law
,
a
Legal
Righteousness
:
and
for
this
cause
it
behoves
us
,
in
matters
of
Controversie
specially
,
intently
to
observe
the
meaning
of
what
is
written
,
and
the
mind
of
the
Writer
,
lest
by
mistaking
his
true
sense
we
fall
to
strife
about
words
,
a
thing
to
be
detested
,
and
with
much
care
to
be
avoided
.
But
for
the
warranting
of
the
term
[
Legal
]
as
applied
to
both
the
said
Righteousnesses
,
be
it
known
,
That
those
,
who
call
Pardon
of
sin
a
Legal
Righteousness
,
do
take
the
word
[
Legal
]
sensu
forensi
,
in
a
judiciary
or
Court-sense
,
they
meaning
thereby
,
that
a
Sinner
pardoned
shall
in
Judgment
,
and
before
Gods
Tribunal
be
discharged
,
or
legally
acquitted
,
i.e.
by
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
;
and
therefore
do
they
call
his
Pardon
a
Legal
righteousness
,
a
person
so
discharged
being
Rectus
in
Curiâ
,
and
in
account
of
that
Law
righteous
.
On
the
other
side
it
concerns
us
to
know
,
that
they
who
style
our
inherent
qualitative
Righteousness
by
the
name
of
a
Legal
righteousness
in
way
of
contradiction
to
Pardon
of
sin
,
do
take
the
word
[
Legal
]
in
sensu
morali
,
in
an
Ethical
,
or
Moral
sense
;
not
in
a
Jural
or
Court-sense
,
and
as
Lawyers
,
but
in
a
School-sense
,
and
as
Philosophers
take
the
word
,
the
word
[
Legal
]
being
all
one
with
them
as
Moral
,
and
as
corresponding
to
the
Laws
Precept
in
the
Letter
thereof
:
And
thence
it
is
sometimes
styled
by
them
a
Literal
,
or
Text-righteousness
,
the
Text
it self
,
or
Letter
of
the
Law
,
as
the
Rule
of
Duty
,
requiring
it
.
Yet
this
I
must
needs
say
,
That
albeit
Pardon
of
sin
may
in
a
well
explained
sense
,
as
aforesaid
,
be
called
a
Legal
righteousness
;
yet
conceive
,
that
they
who
call
the
other
kind
of
Righteousness
,
which
is
contrary
to
Pardon
,
a
Legal
righteousness
,
do
express
themselves
in
language
more
agreeable
both
to
reason
and
to
the
Scriptures
,
wherein
we
read
conformity
to
the
Precepts
of
the
Law
styled
by
the
Apostle
{αβγδ}
,
a
Righteousness
which
is
in
the
Law
,
Phil
.
3.6
.
or
the
Righteousness
of
the
Law
;
and
Pardon
of
sin
is
styled
a
Righteousness
{αβγδ}
,
without
the
Law
,
Rom.
3.21
.
as
I
shall
have
occasion
to
declare
in
one
Chapter
or
another
of
this
Discourse
,
and
wherein
I
shall
intimate
,
by
what
distinguishing
words
or
phrases
this
imputed
Righteousness
(
Forgiveness
of
sin
)
is
held
forth
,
or
expressed
in
the
Sacred
Scriptures
,
and
this
will
,
in
part
at
least
,
be
the
Subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
Q.
By
what
distinguishing
words
is
the
said
Imputed
Righteousness
styled
in
Scripture
?
Answ
.
It
is
styled
a
Righousness
without
works
.
Hereupon
it
being
questioned
,
how
,
or
in
what
sense
it
is
,
or
can
be
so
said
to
be
(
forasmuch
as
the
expression
,
a
Righteousness
without
Works
,
is
in
sound
like
the
expression
,
a
Righteousness
without
righteousness
)
the
Question
is
answered
more
at
large
,
1.
Negatively
,
2.
Affirmatively
.
Q.
BY
what
distinguishing
Names
,
or
phrases
is
Forgiveness
of
sin
expressed
in
the
Sacred
Scriptures
?
Answ
.
It
is
styled
by
the
Apostle
St.
Paul
,
a
Righteousness
without
Works
,
Rom.
4.6
.
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
without
works
.
Now
what
he
means
by
this
Righteousness
without
works
(
for
a
Righteousness
without
works
sounds
like
a
contradiction
)
he
doth
plainly
express
in
the
verses
immediately
following
,
quoted
from
the
Psalmist
,
saying
,
Blessed
are
they
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
,
and
whose
sins
are
covered
.
Blessed
is
the
man
to
whom
the
Lord
will
not
impute
sin
.
I
need
not
prove
,
that
forgiveness
of
sin
is
the
thing
it self
,
or
that
very
righteousness
without
works
,
which
is
there
said
to
be
imputed
by
God
to
believing
sinners
;
for
,
besides
that
the
Apostle
doth
presently
,
so
soon
as
the
expression
had
drop'd
from
his
pen
,
interpret
the
matter
(
making
forgiveness
of
sin
,
or
a
non-imputation
thereof
,
a
description
of
righteousness
without
works
)
I
have
already
more
at
large
made
proof
of
the
same
in
the
first
Chapter
of
this
second
Part
of
this
Discourse
.
The
onely
thing
therefore
that
is
here
needful
to
be
done
,
is
to
manifest
the
reason
why
S.
Paul
doth
style
forgiveness
of
sin
by
a
name
so
seemingly
uncouth
and
strange
,
(
a
righteousness
w●thout
works
;
)
which
words
from
the
mouth
of
an
ordinary
Speaker
would
be
thought
to
be
of
affinity
with
these
,
(
a
righteousness
without
righteousness
.
)
The
reason
or
reasons
hereof
I
will
endeavour
to
manifest
in
answer
to
the
following
Question
.
Q.
How
or
in
what
sense
is
it
true
to
say
,
That
forgiveness
of
sin
is
a
righteousness
without
works
?
or
upon
what
grounds
or
in
what
respects
doth
S.
Paul
so
style
it
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
:
The
reason
is
not
because
no
manner
of
work
at
all
is
to
be
done
by
sinners
,
(
Gods
helping
Grace
inclining
and
enabling
them
thereunto
)
that
this
righteousness
may
by
God
be
imputed
to
them
,
or
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
conferred
upon
them
:
this
cannot
be
the
reason
;
for
nothing
is
more
plain
and
evident
by
the
current
of
Scripture
,
than
that
the
work
of
Faith
,
of
Repentance
and
Conversion
,
is
required
of
sinners
,
and
by
the
Law
of
Christ
made
absolutely
necessary
in
order
to
the
forgiveness
of
their
sins
.
See
Luke
13.3
,
5.
&
24.47
.
Acts
3.19
.
And
it
concerns
us
the
rather
to
take
heed
of
thinking
,
that
pardon
of
sin
is
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
,
as
if
no
good
work
were
to
be
done
by
sinners
,
that
they
may
be
morally
capable
of
having
it
for
Christs
sake
bestowed
upon
them
by
God
,
because
such
an
imagination
is
an
error
of
most
dangerous
consequence
,
yea
so
dangerous
,
as
that
should
it
be
practically
entertained
,
a
sinner
could
not
possibly
be
saved
.
As
was
said
by
the
Comedian
concerning
the
Family
of
a
profuse
Spend
thrift
,
Ipsa
si
cupiat
salus
sorvare
hanc
familiam
,
prorsus
non
potest
:
In
like
sort
may
it
be
said
concerning
such
sinners
,
who
imagining
or
presuming
as
aforesaid
,
do
practise
accordingly
.
The
Saviour
of
the
world
(
all
things
considered
)
cannot
save
such
sinners
,
i.e.
during
such
.
Onely
I
must
say
,
that
Gods
Grace
and
Mercy
is
wonderful
towards
some
Christians
of
better
Hearts
than
Heads
,
in
preserving
them
from
living
up
to
their
unsound
Opinions
,
which
yet
they
are
not
contented
to
hold
onely
to
themselves
,
(
like
that
private
Faith
spoken
of
by
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
14.21
.
)
but
do
also
openly
hold
forth
in
Press
and
Pulpit
,
and
do
zealously
contend
for
(
under
pretence
of
Christs
Sceptre
Advanced
)
Christ
alone
Exalted
,
the
Freedom
of
Grace
,
and
Gratuitous
Justification
Vindicated
;
with
the
like
specious
pretences
prefixed
as
glorious
Titles
to
their
Books
.
2.
Affirmatively
.
Forgiveness
of
sin
may
well
and
truly
be
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
,
because
no
works
at
all
of
ours
did
purchase
or
procure
the
grant
thereof
,
according
to
the
Terms
expressed
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
being
the
sole
Purchase
of
Christs
own
righteousness
,
without
any
work
of
ours
,
yea
without
so
much
as
a
request
from
our
lips
,
Gods
pardoning
Covenant
being
granted
without
any
Petition
from
Man
,
God
in
Christ
having
prevented
Man
with
that
blessing
of
his
goodness
.
2.
It
may
be
truly
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
,
because
no
work
of
ours
doth
ingredi
naturam
rei
,
i.e.
is
any
ingredient
into
it
,
or
any
constituent
cause
of
it
,
i.e.
this
kind
of
righteousness
doth
not
lie
in
or
consist
of
works
done
by
us
,
it
being
wholly
and
solely
the
work
of
God
done
upon
us
,
or
a
work
of
Divine
Mercy
exercised
towards
us
;
briefly
,
it
being
Gods
blessing
conferred
upon
us
.
I
call
this
righteousness
a
blessing
,
because
the
Apostle
not
onely
says
,
(
Blessed
are
they
whose
iniquities
are
forgiven
;
)
but
he
doth
also
style
it
{αβγδ}
,
v.
9.
(
cometh
this
blessedness
on
the
Circumcision
onely
—
)
and
{αβγδ}
,
a
blessing
,
the
blessing
of
Abraham
,
Gal.
3.14
.
because
it
is
that
wherewith
God
blessed
believing
Abraham
.
And
it
seems
worthy
of
Observation
,
that
herein
lies
a
notable
and
grand
difference
betwixt
the
righteousness
of
Sanctification
and
this
of
Justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
;
in
that
the
former
is
a
righteousness
of
works
,
made
up
of
Mans
works
constituting
the
same
(
I
must
here
be
understood
to
mean
Sanctification
Actual
,
and
not
meerly
Habitual
;
)
whereas
this
other
kind
of
righteousness
is
of
no
such
complexion
or
constitution
.
For
although
the
work
of
Faith
,
Repentance
,
and
new
Obedience
,
(
in
full
purpose
of
heart
at
least
)
be
an
external
requisite
unto
it
;
nevertheless
this
righteousness
it self
is
entirely
the
work
of
God
,
and
consisteth
in
this
acquitting
or
absolving
a
sinner
from
the
guilt
of
his
sins
,
or
(
as
the
Apostles
expression
is
)
it
is
Gods
not
imputing
sin
to
a
believing
sinner
;
the
said
Absolution
and
Discharge
,
or
non-imputation
of
sin
,
being
the
very
formalis
ratio
,
the
quiddity
or
essential
nature
of
this
imputed
righteousness
,
and
to
which
Faith
it self
is
said
to
be
imputed
,
as
will
be
afterwards
declared
.
But
although
pardon
of
sin
may
be
truly
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
,
for
the
reason
in
this
Paragraph
specified
:
nevertheless
I
have
not
alledged
it
as
the
genuine
reason
,
upon
which
S.
Paul
doth
in
the
Text
so
style
it
:
for
Faith
it self
doth
not
ingredi
naturam
rei
,
is
no
ingredient
into
remission
of
sin
,
or
any
constituent
cause
of
it
;
and
the
Apostles
intent
in
this
Chapter
is
far
from
insinuating
a
sinners
righteousness
or
justification
to
be
without
Faith
;
yea
his
scope
is
to
prove
the
contrary
,
viz.
that
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
unto
this
righteousness
.
I
will
therefore
alledge
the
following
reason
as
that
,
which
doth
(
I
doubt
not
)
directly
and
plainly
suit
with
the
mind
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
.
3.
S.
Paul
styles
pardon
of
sin
,
or
Gospel
justification
,
a
righteousness
without
works
,
in
opposition
to
those
works
,
the
necessity
whereof
to
the
salvation
of
sinners
was
in
those
days
taught
by
the
false
Apostles
;
against
which
as
not
necessary
to
the
justification
of
believing
sinners
,
he
doth
designedly
argue
in
that
and
in
other
of
his
Epistles
.
So
that
the
Apostle
styles
it
a
righteousness
without
works
,
because
there
are
a
certain
sort
or
sorts
of
works
,
that
are
not
at
all
by
any
standing
Law
of
God
now
required
of
sinners
,
in
order
to
the
imputation
of
this
righteousness
,
viz.
such
works
as
are
opposite
to
the
Faith
of
Christ
Incarnate
,
(
these
being
the
works
excluded
by
the
Apostle
in
the
foregoing
verses
)
and
such
works
as
do
(
really
or
reputatively
)
make
the
reward
to
be
of
Debt
,
and
not
of
Grace
,
as
is
manifest
by
the
preceding
v.
4
,
5.
Now
to
him
that
worketh
is
the
reward
not
reckoned
of
grace
,
but
of
debt
;
but
to
him
that
worketh
not
,
but
believeth
on
him
that
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
his
faith
—
Now
what
these
works
so
excluded
by
the
Apostle
are
,
I
shall
somewhat
more
distinctly
specifie
in
some
other
Chapter
.
In
the
mean
while
be
it
observed
what
works
are
not
excluded
,
viz.
not
Faith
in
Christ
,
the
work
of
Faith
,
or
the
works
of
Faith
;
for
by
worketh
not
,
v.
5.
we
may
not
,
ought
not
,
cannot
(
agreeably
to
the
analogy
of
Faith
)
understand
the
Apostle
to
have
excluded
all
and
every
Christian
good
work
:
as
if
he
had
said
,
To
him
that
repenteth
not
,
converteth
not
—
For
such
a
construction
would
make
S.
Pauls
Doctrine
not
onely
contrary
to
Christs
and
other
his
fellow
Apostles
,
but
would
also
set
him
at
odds
with
himself
,
and
that
not
onely
in
what
he
writes
in
other
of
his
Epistles
to
other
Churches
,
but
also
in
this
of
his
to
the
Romans
,
particularly
chap.
8
13.
If
ye
live
after
the
flesh
,
ye
shall
die
;
but
if
ye
through
the
Spirit
do
mortifie
the
deeds
of
the
body
,
ye
shall
live
.
And
Chap.
2.10
.
Glory
,
honour
,
and
peace
to
him
that
worketh
good
.
And
Chap.
6.16
.
where
he
expresly
speaks
of
obedience
unto
righteousness
,
intimating
thereby
the
necessity
of
a
Christians
sincere
obedience
,
in
order
to
the
partaking
of
that
righteousness
which
I
am
now
speaking
of
.
Finally
,
forasmuch
as
that
righteousness
which
God
is
said
to
impute
to
believing
sinners
,
Rom.
4.6
.
is
there
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
;
I
shall
offer
two
things
to
the
consideration
of
those
,
who
do
assert
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
it self
to
Believers
;
and
that
this
is
the
imputed
righteousness
meant
by
the
Apostle
in
that
Scripture
.
I
desire
them
to
consider
,
how
or
in
what
sense
Christs
righteousness
can
be
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
:
for
is
not
Christs
righteousness
a
perfect
legal
righteousness
,
made
up
of
works
,
and
consisting
(
his
habitual
righteousness
being
supposed
)
in
his
fulfilling
all
righteousness
,
to
speak
in
his
own
words
,
Matth
.
3.15
.
2.
How
are
those
capable
of
pardon
of
sin
,
who
have
a
perfect
righteousness
of
works
imputed
to
them
?
or
whether
forgiveness
of
sin
and
imputation
of
the
said
perfect
righteousness
be
not
utterly
inconsistent
?
For
if
we
are
perfectly
righteous
with
a
righteousness
of
works
,
whether
in
our
persons
,
or
by
imputation
of
that
righteousness
of
works
wherewith
Christ
was
righteous
,
we
have
(
as
I
think
)
no
need
of
forgiveness
;
and
if
we
need
forgiveness
,
it
from
hence
follows
,
that
God
doth
not
impute
the
said
righteousness
of
works
unto
us
,
accounting
us
thereupon
perfectly
righteous
,
and
upon
that
account
,
or
as
such
,
acquitting
us
;
but
that
we
are
justified
(
for
so
indeed
we
are
)
as
Malefactors
by
a
Pardon
purchased
by
the
righteousness
of
Christ
.
CHAP
VI
.
Another
distinguishing
Phrase
,
whereby
the
said
imparted
or
imputed
righteousness
(
forgiveness
of
sin
)
expressed
in
the
Writings
of
S.
Paul
,
is
a
righteousness
of
God
,
and
without
the
Law
,
the
Reasons
whereof
are
specified
in
the
Chapters
immediately
following
.
Q.
BY
what
other
distinguish'd
Title
or
Titles
is
the
said
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
or
remission
of
sin
)
styled
in
Scripture
?
Answ
.
It
is
styled
A
righteousness
of
God
without
the
Law
,
Rom.
3.21
.
But
now
the
righteousness
of
God
without
the
Law
is
manifested
,
being
witnessed
by
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
.
By
the
righteousness
of
God
is
not
there
meant
that
righteousness
of
God
wherewith
he
is
righteous
,
or
which
denominates
him
righteous
,
(
in
which
sense
it
is
taken
in
other
verses
of
this
Chapter
,
ver
.
5
,
25
,
26.
)
but
a
righteousness
wherewith
(
as
the
gift
of
God
)
we
are
righteous
;
which
righteousness
here
meant
is
that
righteousness
which
I
am
now
speaking
of
,
and
which
doth
consist
in
a
sinners
justification
,
or
the
remission
of
his
sin
,
as
doth
appear
by
the
following
verses
,
ver
.
22
,
29
,
25
,
26.
Even
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
unto
all
and
upon
all
that
believe
—
Being
justified
freely
by
his
grace
,
through
the
redemption
that
is
in
Jesus
Christ
,
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
bloud
,
to
declare
his
righteousness
for
the
remission
of
sins
,
that
are
past
through
the
forbearance
of
God
.
To
declare
,
I
say
,
at
this
time
his
righteousness
,
that
he
might
be
just
and
the
justifier
of
him
that
believeth
in
Jesus
,
{αβγδ}
,
as
it
is
in
the
Original
,
which
word
for
word
being
rendred
is
,
him
who
is
of
the
faith
of
Jesus
,
i.e.
of
the
Christian
Faith
.
There
is
a
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
in
another
Epistle
S.
Paul
styles
a
righteousness
{αβγδ}
,
in
the
Law
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
of
the
Law
,
ver
.
9.
and
for
distinctions
sake
,
or
in
opposition
thereunto
he
calls
the
righteousness
which
I
am
here
speaking
of
,
the
righteousness
of
God
without
the
Law
,
and
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
;
by
which
righteousness
of
God
,
though
I
do
interpret
justification
or
remission
of
sin
,
(
the
righteousness
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
)
to
be
meant
thereby
:
nevertheless
I
would
not
be
understood
as
excluding
,
but
as
including
that
righteousness
also
,
which
in
the
Law
of
Faith
is
commanded
;
the
said
Phrases
,
(
the
righteousness
of
God
without
the
Law
,
and
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
)
being
in
my
opinion
comprehensive
of
both
the
said
righteousness
,
as
well
of
that
which
is
commanded
,
as
of
that
which
is
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
.
As
for
this
later
phrase
(
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
)
it
being
one
of
those
Phrases
,
whereby
the
righteousness
which
I
am
now
speaking
of
(
Justification
or
Remission
of
sin
)
is
expressed
in
Scripture
,
I
will
speak
of
it
distinctly
and
more
at
large
in
a
peculiar
Chapter
.
In
the
mean
while
I
will
answer
two
or
three
Questions
referring
to
the
title
in
hand
,
viz.
Why
is
this
imputed
righteousness
(
forgiveness
of
sin
)
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
?
and
,
Why
without
the
Law
?
The
Answer
to
which
Questions
shall
be
the
subject
of
the
Chapters
next
ensuing
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
imputed
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
?
Answer
hereunto
,
It
is
answered
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
,
What
is
,
and
What
is
not
,
the
Reason
thereof
.
Q.
WHY
is
this
imputed
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
?
Answ
.
Negatively
,
not
because
it
may
not
in
any
commodious
or
fitting
sense
be
truly
styled
Mans
own
righteousness
:
for
this
gift
of
Grace
,
or
gift
of
righteousness
,
(
as
the
Apostle
styles
it
,
Rom.
5.15
,
17.
)
is
verily
a
mans
own
,
and
so
to
be
accounted
,
as
any
other
gifts
of
God
are
,
that
are
by
God
freely
and
graciously
bestowed
upon
him
.
And
in
this
righteousness
of
his
own
a
sinner
need
not
fear
to
appear
before
God
,
or
at
the
judgment
seat
of
Christ
,
no
more
than
a
Malefactor
at
the
Bar
with
the
Kings
Pardon
in
his
bosom
:
for
though
an
ungodly
or
impenitent
sinner
shall
not
stand
in
the
judgment
;
nevertheless
a
penitent
believer
,
being
one
of
the
congregation
of
the
righteous
,
may
assure
himself
that
it
shall
then
be
well
with
him
,
and
that
he
shall
not
come
into
condemnation
,
Isa
.
3.10
.
Joh
.
1.24
.
and
this
upon
account
(
under
Gods
mercy
in
Christ
)
of
his
own
righteousness
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
it
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
in
opposition
to
one
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
the
Apostle
styles
our
own
righteousness
,
Rom.
10.3
.
They
being
ignorant
of
Gods
righteousness
,
and
going
about
to
establish
their
own
righteousness
,
have
not
submitted
themselves
to
the
righteousness
of
God
.
And
in
a
like
opposition
to
our
own
righteousness
doth
S.
Paul
call
it
the
righteousness
which
is
of
God
,
Phil
.
3
9.
Not
having
mine
own
righteousness
,
which
is
of
the
Law
;
but
that
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousness
which
is
of
God
by
faith
.
Where
it
is
very
considerable
,
what
that
righteousness
is
which
S.
Paul
doth
there
style
his
own
,
and
as
such
rejects
even
as
loss
and
dung
,
that
he
might
gain
the
righteousness
of
God
,
or
that
righteousness
which
is
of
God
by
Faith
.
Now
that
we
may
understand
the
Apostles
meaning
,
he
doth
so
far
interpret
himself
,
and
the
matter
in
hand
,
as
to
give
a
description
of
that
his
own
righteousness
,
saying
,
{αβγδ}
,
which
is
of
the
Law
;
and
which
he
styles
ver.
6.
{αβγδ}
,
which
is
in
the
Law
;
which
what
this
righteousness
is
,
because
it
doth
greatly
concern
us
to
know
;
I
will
therefore
endeavour
to
manifest
in
answer
to
another
Question
,
which
will
be
the
subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Q.
What
Law
doth
the
Apostle
mean
in
styling
pardon
of
sin
a
righteousness
without
Law
?
Answ
.
In
answer
hereunto
it
is
specified
both
what
is
and
is
not
the
reason
thereof
.
A
large
explication
of
Phil
.
3.9
.
wherein
is
manifested
what
righteousness
that
is
,
which
he
calls
his
own
,
and
yet
doth
disown
;
and
a
vindication
of
the
said
Scripture
from
the
misconstruction
of
divers
Brethren
.
Q.
WHat
Law
doth
the
Apostle
mean
,
where
speaking
of
his
own
rejected
righteousness
,
he
defines
it
to
be
a
righteousness
,
which
is
of
and
in
the
Law
?
Answ
.
This
is
a
Question
(
as
hath
been
already
intimated
)
of
great
moment
;
and
therefore
I
will
answer
to
it
more
punctually
,
and
that
both
negatively
and
affirmatively
.
1.
Negatively
,
he
doth
not
mean
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
,
and
consequently
by
his
own
righteousness
he
doth
not
mean
a
righteousness
conform
thereunto
,
either
that
kind
of
righteousness
which
is
promised
in
it
,
or
commanded
by
it
;
neither
of
which
is
meant
by
the
Apostle
't
is
easie
to
demonstrate
.
1.
Then
be
it
considered
,
that
under
the
phrase
(
his
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
or
of
the
Law
)
he
doth
not
mean
a
righteousness
promised
in
the
Law
of
Christ
,
or
Gospel
,
is
evident
:
for
this
righteousness
so
promised
is
justification
it self
,
or
remission
of
sin
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
:
and
to
renounce
this
is
in
effect
to
have
renounced
his
part
in
Paradise
,
and
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
or
the
Crown
of
Life
,
as
dung
.
2.
Nor
was
the
renouncing
of
this
his
Evangelical
righteousness
the
way
to
win
Christ
,
make
what
construction
we
will
or
can
of
that
phrase
;
which
if
construed
(
as
well
it
may
)
of
the
favour
of
Christ
,
and
those
high
privileges
that
come
by
Christ
,
it
may
be
truly
said
,
that
the
Apostle
in
renouncing
his
Evangelical
righteousness
promised
in
the
Gospel
,
had
renounced
pardon
of
sin
,
and
justification
by
Christ
;
for
even
this
is
that
high
favour
and
privilege
,
(
that
favour
of
favours
,
that
privilege
of
privileges
,
that
mercy
of
mercies
)
that
is
promised
by
Christ
in
his
Law
of
Grace
to
all
penitent
Believers
.
2.
That
by
his
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
or
of
the
Law
,
the
Apostle
doth
not
mean
that
righteousness
which
is
commanded
by
the
Law
of
the
Gospel
,
is
no
less
evident
than
the
former
:
for
,
1.
The
righteousness
there
commanded
is
believing
in
Christ
,
love
to
Christ
,
repentance
for
sin
,
in
a
word
obedience
to
Christ
.
2.
This
righteousness
is
not
onely
commanded
in
the
Gospel
as
matter
of
duty
,
but
it
is
thereby
constituted
the
condition
of
enjoying
that
other
kind
of
righteousness
which
is
therein
promised
.
3.
Consequently
,
to
slight
the
having
of
this
righteousness
,
or
to
renounce
this
,
is
interpretatively
to
renounce
the
other
:
(
even
as
to
despise
the
means
,
is
constructively
to
despise
the
end
;
)
for
it
is
so
far
from
being
the
way
to
win
Christ
,
i.e.
his
favour
,
as
that
the
neglect
of
that
Evangelical
righteousness
is
the
direct
way
to
miss
or
lose
Christ
and
his
favour
;
God
having
in
his
Word
of
Life
(
the
Gospel
of
our
Salvation
)
entailed
the
righteousness
therein
promised
upon
the
peformance
of
the
righteousness
therein
prescribed
,
as
the
Condition
thereof
.
4.
Consider
the
words
of
that
verse
10.
That
I
may
know
him
and
the
power
of
his
resurrection
,
and
the
fellowship
of
his
sufferings
,
being
made
conformable
to
his
death
.
In
which
two
things
to
my
purpose
in
hand
are
considerable
:
1.
That
by
the
knowledge
of
Christ
,
the
power
of
his
resurrection
,
the
fellowship
of
his
sufferings
,
and
conformity
to
his
death
,
is
meant
that
Evangelical
righteousness
,
consisting
in
a
Christians
both
active
and
passive
obedience
,
which
is
commanded
by
Christ
in
the
Gospel
Law
,
in
order
to
the
enjoyment
of
the
righteousness
therein
promised
by
him
.
2.
Consider
that
the
Apostle
was
so
far
from
renouncing
that
branch
of
his
Evangelical
righteousness
as
loss
and
dung
,
as
that
he
doth
highly
value
it
,
and
so
highly
prize
it
,
and
the
excellency
thereof
,
as
to
suffer
the
loss
of
all
things
that
stood
in
competition
with
it
,
and
to
account
them
as
dung
,
ver
.
8.
3.
Yea
thirdly
,
from
the
verse
and
verses
immediately
following
it
is
considerable
what
the
reason
was
,
why
S.
Paul
did
not
renounce
,
but
incomparably
prize
,
that
his
Evangelical
righteousness
,
viz.
Because
he
well
knew
,
1.
That
without
this
righteousness
he
could
not
be
found
in
Christ
,
i.e.
be
a
true
member
of
Christs
body
.
Where
note
,
that
S.
Paul
say
;
not
,
that
I
may
be
found
in
●●s
righteousness
,
much
less
in
his
righteousness
imputed
to
him
;
but
simply
in
him
,
in
Christ
himself
,
this
being
the
description
of
the
spiritual
estate
of
a
Believer
oft
times
in
the
New
Testament
,
he
there
being
said
to
be
one
in
Christ
,
Rom.
8.1
.
&
16.7
.
2.
The
Apostle
knew
full
well
,
that
there
was
no
winning
of
Christ
without
that
his
Evangelical
righteousness
,
and
that
this
was
the
mean●
by
God
appointed
for
the
winning
of
him
:
for
,
says
he
ver
.
15.
If
by
any
means
I
might
attain
to
the
resurrection
of
the
dead
.
To
attain
to
the
resurrection
of
the
dead
,
is
in
the
language
of
the
Apostle
elsewhere
to
obtain
a
better
,
i.e.
a
most
blessed
resurrection
at
the
last
day
,
Heb
.
11.35
.
or
in
the
language
used
by
him
in
the
14
ver
.
of
this
chapter
,
it
is
to
obtain
that
,
which
in
allusion
to
the
Olympick
Games
(
a
thing
frequent
in
the
Writings
of
this
Apostle
)
he
styles
the
price
of
the
high
calling
of
God
in
Christ
Jesus
,
i.e.
of
our
Christian
calling
.
Now
to
attain
to
this
,
or
to
obtain
this
,
what
is
it
in
effect
,
or
true
construction
of
the
Apostles
meaning
;
but
to
win
or
gain
Christ
,
whom
we
cannot
be
said
in
the
most
full
and
complete
sense
to
have
won
,
till
we
have
so
attained
or
obtained
?
And
that
the
pursuing
of
the
said
Evangelical
righteousness
was
the
means
of
attaining
the
said
price
,
appears
by
his
saying
,
{αβγδ}
,
If
by
any
means
I
may
attain
unto
the
resurrection
of
the
dead
.
Which
because
as
yet
to
that
time
he
had
not
(
confessedly
ver
.
12.
)
attained
,
he
acquaints
us
therefore
with
his
present
and
constant
pursuit
of
the
means
,
saying
ver.
12
,
13.
I
follow
after
,
if
that
I
may
apprehend
—
And
this
his
practice
in
the
constant
pursuit
of
the
means
of
winning
Christ
,
of
attaining
or
obtaining
the
prize
at
last
,
he
exhorts
the
Philippians
,
and
in
them
all
Christians
,
to
imitate
,
saying
,
Let
us
therefore
,
as
many
as
be
perfect
,
be
thus
minded
:
and
ver
.
17.
Brethren
,
be
followers
together
of
me
,
and
mark
them
which
so
walk
as
—
The
righteousness
which
S.
Paul
did
there
renounce
,
he
doth
express
in
one
repeated
word
(
flesh
,
ver
.
3
,
4.
)
the
meaning
of
which
word
he
doth
presently
interpret
,
ver
.
5
,
6.
he
meaning
thereby
his
Pedigree
,
as
a
perfect
Jew
by
Descent
,
Pharisaism
,
Circumcision
,
and
the
Observation
of
all
that
Law
,
to
which
Circumcision
did
oblige
him
,
i.e.
the
Mosaical
Law
;
for
Gal.
5.3
.
by
Circumcision
a
person
became
a
debtor
to
that
whole
Law
.
2.
Having
been
so
copious
in
the
Negative
branch
of
my
Answer
to
the
Question
in
hand
,
I
shall
now
answer
thereunto
Affirmatively
,
viz.
That
by
the
Law
in
those
words
,
(
not
having
mine
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
or
of
the
Law
)
the
Apostle
means
the
Mosaical
or
Ceremonial
Law
,
that
Law
which
was
peculiar
to
the
Jews
,
and
therefore
by
us
commonly
styled
the
Judaical
Law
.
In
this
sense
the
word
Law
is
frequently
taken
in
the
Writings
of
this
Apostle
,
especially
in
his
Epistles
to
the
Romans
and
Galatians
,
wherein
he
doth
purposely
argue
against
the
necessity
of
the
works
of
that
Law
,
and
the
obligingness
thereof
.
See
Rom.
3.21
,
28.
&
7.4
.
Gal.
4
5.
&
3.23
.
&
4.21
.
And
that
the
word
Law
is
thus
to
be
taken
in
the
place
under
debate
,
doth
manifestly
appear
by
the
precedent
verses
(
ver
.
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
)
and
by
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
therein
,
which
was
to
arm
the
Philippians
against
the
insinuations
of
such
dividing
Teachers
,
who
maintained
Judaism
,
especially
Circumcision
,
to
be
necessary
to
the
Salvation
of
a
sinner
.
Now
this
righteousness
of
the
Judaical
Law
S.
Paul
calls
his
own
righteousness
,
because
it
was
not
at
that
time
a
righteousness
of
God
,
or
any
branch
of
righteousness
commanded
by
him
as
then
to
continue
in
force
,
or
in
statu
quo
prius
.
True
,
time
was
when
it
might
have
been
styled
a
righteousness
of
God
,
because
it
was
commanded
by
God
in
his
Law
,
(
styled
the
Law
of
commandments
,
Eph.
2.15
.
)
and
promises
by
God
were
made
thereunto
,
Rom.
9.4
.
but
that
Law
by
the
death
of
Christ
being
abolished
,
a
righteousness
conformable
thereunto
was
no
longer
a
righteousness
of
God
,
but
purely
their
own
:
it
was
indeed
{αβγδ}
,
(
to
use
the
Apostles
word
,
Col.
2.23
.
)
Will-worship
,
not
Gods
worship
.
2.
If
any
one
shall
adde
to
that
Answer
,
saying
,
That
by
Law
may
also
possibly
be
meant
the
Law
of
works
,
or
innocency
as
given
to
Adam
in
Paradise
,
the
truth
thereof
is
not
to
be
denied
:
for
,
1.
A
righteousness
conformable
to
this
Law
no
flesh
living
could
be
found
in
,
all
having
sinned
,
and
come
short
of
the
glory
of
God
,
the
Scriptures
having
concluded
all
under
sin
,
as
says
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
3.19
,
23.
2.
Even
the
righteousness
which
is
of
or
in
this
Law
,
although
it
cannot
be
denied
(
speaking
simply
)
to
be
a
righteousness
of
God
;
nevertheless
it
may
in
some
respect
be
denied
so
to
be
,
i
.
e
.
respectively
to
the
justification
or
salvation
of
lapsed
man
as
the
end
thereof
:
for
perfect
righteousness
conformable
to
that
Law
is
not
now
commanded
of
God
as
the
condition
of
a
sinners
justification
and
salvation
,
that
Law
as
a
covenant
of
works
being
now
abolished
,
repealed
,
abrogated
,
(
as
some
use
to
express
the
matter
;
or
as
others
)
relaxed
and
dispensed
with
,
or
(
as
others
chuse
to
express
the
thing
)
ceased
.
Where
by
the
way
be
it
observed
,
how
most
intolerably
it
is
said
by
Mr.
Ferguson
,
(
of
which
I
spake
somewhat
,
but
too
too
sparingly
,
and
as
some
perhaps
will
say
over
mildly
;
for
that
saying
of
Mr.
Fergusons
doth
in
the
consequence
thereof
subvert
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
the
saying
being
understood
according
to
the
sound
and
most
obvious
sense
or
meaning
thereof
;
in
the
former
part
of
this
Discourse
,
chap.
8.
p.
34.
)
that
notwithstanding
the
introduction
of
the
Law
of
Faith
,
the
Law
of
Perfect
Obedience
doth
remain
still
in
force
:
for
although
this
Law
being
now
become
the
Law
of
lapsed
Nature
,
doth
in
some
respect
remain
in
force
,
i.e.
doth
continue
still
as
a
Precept
obliging
to
future
perfect
obedience
,
and
makes
punishment
due
for
all
future
disobedience
;
nevertheless
upon
the
main
,
or
to
speak
simply
,
it
is
utterly
to
be
denied
,
that
this
Law
doth
to
lapsed
Nature
still
remain
in
force
;
for
,
1.
The
promissory
part
with
its
condition
is
expired
,
cessante
capacitate
subjecti
,
as
Casuists
say
of
the
Obligation
of
an
Oath
,
that
it
ceaseth
,
cessante
materiâ
juramenti
.
2.
The
preceptive
part
thereof
is
now
ceased
:
1.
As
it
commanded
absolute
innocency
,
both
actual
and
habitual
,
as
well
in
habit
as
in
act
.
2.
As
it
commanded
the
seeking
of
the
reward
(
the
justification
of
Life
)
on
the
condition
,
and
by
the
means
of
perfect
personal
innocency
.
I
have
suggested
these
things
as
an
Antidote
,
whereby
to
prevent
the
evil
of
Mr.
Fergusons
intolerable
saying
.
3.
But
to
return
,
that
by
Law
in
the
Text
aforesaid
may
very
well
and
truly
be
meant
the
Law
of
works
,
is
manifest
by
this
reason
,
viz.
Because
a
righteousness
conformable
to
the
Law
of
works
is
incompossible
and
utterly
inconsistent
with
that
righteousness
which
S.
Paul
(
a
convinced
sinner
)
and
every
man
being
a
sinner
,
is
by
Jesus
Christ
,
and
through
his
bloudshed
,
to
seek
after
,
i.e.
forgiveness
of
sin
:
for
where
there
is
no
sin
,
there
is
no
place
for
pardon
:
that
which
is
not
,
cannot
be
pardoned
.
And
forgiveness
of
sin
may
very
well
therefore
be
styled
by
the
Apostle
a
righteousness
without
works
,
(
as
hath
been
said
in
the
5.
chap.
of
this
Discourse
;
)
because
it
is
a
righteousness
altogether
without
the
works
of
this
Law
,
i.e.
works
exactly
thereunto
conformable
;
for
as
much
as
such
works
are
incompetible
with
remission
of
sin
,
there
being
in
that
case
no
sin
to
be
remitted
.
And
some
of
the
Apostles
Arguments
against
justification
by
works
do
directly
and
forcibly
conclude
against
the
works
of
this
Law
,
these
making
the
reward
to
be
of
debt
,
and
not
of
grace
;
and
also
making
a
sinners
blessedness
to
be
another
manner
of
blessedness
than
David
spake
of
,
i.e.
a
blessedness
not
consisting
in
remission
of
sin
.
I
have
been
the
larger
in
answering
the
Question
touching
the
righteousness
which
S.
Paul
calls
his
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
and
of
the
Law
;
because
what
hath
been
said
may
serve
to
rectifie
the
common
mistake
of
the
true
mind
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
that
Scripture
;
the
mistake
particularly
not
onely
of
Dr.
Owen
and
Dr.
Grew
mentioned
in
the
foregoing
part
of
this
Treatise
,
but
also
of
the
Author
,
whom
since
the
printing
thereof
I
lately
read
,
(
styled
Anti-sozzo
,
whom
Mr.
Baxter
in
the
detection
of
several
his
Errors
doth
style
a
person
of
great
wit
and
piety
)
who
would
persuade
us
,
that
by
Law
is
there
meant
any
Law
indefinite
;
and
that
by
the
righteousness
of
Law
is
there
meant
that
righteousness
which
any
Law
urges
,
presses
,
and
prescribes
,
p.
547.
and
he
pursues
this
his
mis-interpretation
in
many
pages
,
to
which
it
were
no
difficult
work
punctually
to
make
a
satisfactory
Reply
,
and
I
would
do
it
here
,
were
it
not
actum
agere
,
and
that
I
have
said
already
what
is
sufficient
for
the
satisfaction
of
any
of
my
Dissenting
Brethren
,
as
to
the
true
sense
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
that
Scripture
.
I
shall
now
proceed
to
intimate
some
further
reason
or
reasons
,
why
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
:
but
having
so
amplified
the
first
reason
,
(
he
so
styling
it
in
opposition
to
his
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
and
of
the
Law
)
I
will
be
so
much
briefer
in
the
rest
.
Onely
let
me
adde
this
to
that
which
was
before
said
,
viz.
That
by
his
own
righteousness
,
which
is
in
the
Law
,
the
Apostle
doth
not
onely
mean
that
righteousness
,
which
(
when
time
was
)
was
commanded
by
God
in
the
Judaical
Law
,
but
also
all
those
Privileges
and
Prerogatives
,
that
therein
were
promised
to
the
Observers
thereof
.
This
,
I
doubt
not
is
one
part
of
the
Apostles
meaning
comprized
in
that
his
Expression
,
mine
own
righteousness
which
is
of
the
Law
.
CHAP.
IX
.
Further
Reasons
added
to
those
in
Chapter
VII
.
Why
the
said
Righteousness
is
styled
the
Righteousness
of
God
:
wherein
it
is
commended
to
observation
,
that
there
is
a
twofold
righteousness
mentioned
in
Scripture
,
one
which
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
and
must
be
called
the
Righteousness
of
God
;
and
another
which
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
not
,
ought
not
,
to
be
styled
the
Righteousness
of
God
:
and
what
these
two
kinds
of
Righteousness
are
,
is
plainly
specified
.
Whence
it
is
inferred
,
that
Jesus
Christ
did
not
,
in
reference
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
,
keep
the
Law
in
his
stead
.
THE
said
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
or
forgiveness
of
sin
)
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
because
as
God
doth
promise
it
to
us
,
so
it
is
he
who
doth
actually
impute
it
unto
,
or
bestow
it
upon
us
;
even
as
the
Apostle
says
from
the
Psalmist
,
Rom.
4.6
.
(
As
David
describes
the
blessedness
of
the
man
,
unto
whom
God
imputeth
righteousness
—
)
And
Jesus
Christ
being
the
meritorious
cause
of
this
righteousness
,
he
is
said
to
be
of
God
made
unto
us
righteousness
,
i.e.
made
such
unto
us
causally
,
i.e.
made
to
us
of
God
the
cause
of
righteousness
,
1
Cor
.
1.30
.
And
thence
it
is
that
this
righteousness
is
styled
justitia
ex
Deo
,
a
righteousness
which
is
of
God
,
Phil
.
3.9
.
and
the
gift
of
righteousness
,
Rom.
5.17
.
i
.
e
.
a
gift
of
Gods
free
grace
through
Christ
,
ver
.
16.
And
thence
it
is
that
those
who
are
made
righteous
by
Gods
pardoning
or
not
imputing
their
trespasses
unto
them
,
are
said
to
be
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
Christ
,
2
Cor
.
5.21
.
the
abstract
(
righteousness
)
being
put
for
the
concrete
(
righteous
)
as
is
frequent
in
Scripture
,
circumcision
for
circumcised
,
Phil
.
3.3
.
and
uncircumcision
for
uncircumcised
,
Rom
2.26
.
Ye
are
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
Christ
,
i.e.
by
God
through
Christ
,
he
not
imputing
your
trespasses
unto
you
,
ye
are
made
very
righteous
.
1.
Possibly
it
may
be
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
because
it
is
that
which
God
will
own
and
countenance
,
and
which
will
bear
a
man
out
before
God
,
and
bring
a
sinner
off
before
Gods
Tribunal
as
clear
from
guilt
,
i.e.
guilt
of
punishment
,
as
if
he
were
perfectly
righteous
,
with
a
righteousness
of
his
own
wrought
by
himself
in
person
,
according
to
that
celebrated
saying
of
one
of
the
Ancients
,
which
oft
times
I
have
seen
quoted
in
Authors
,
Omnia
mandata
Dei
facta
deputantur
,
quando
quicquid
non
sit
,
ignoscitur
:
It
is
in
Gods
account
,
as
if
all
his
commandments
had
been
kept
and
done
by
us
,
when
whatsoever
hath
not
been
done
is
forgiven
us
.
At
the
close
of
my
Answer
to
the
Question
,
(
Why
the
s●id
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
?
)
and
in
answer
whereunto
it
hath
been
declared
,
that
it
is
so
styled
by
the
Apostle
in
opposition
to
that
which
he
calls
his
own
,
and
what
that
righteousness
is
which
he
styles
his
own
,
having
been
also
amply
declared
,
I
desire
the
intelligent
Reader
to
observe
from
the
premisses
,
that
there
is
a
twofold
righteousness
mentioned
in
the
Scriptures
,
viz.
one
that
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
and
must
be
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
;
and
of
this
sort
is
a
sinners
Evangelical
righteousness
,
I
mean
,
both
that
which
was
commanded
by
,
and
that
also
which
is
promised
in
the
Law
,
or
Gospel
of
Christ
,
viz.
holiness
of
life
and
remission
of
sin
.
These
truly
are
a
mans
own
righteousness
,
and
yet
are
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
so
styled
in
Sacred
Writ
.
2.
There
is
another
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
is
so
our
own
,
as
that
it
may
not
,
ought
not
,
cannot
be
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
but
must
be
denied
to
be
such
,
either
simply
or
respectively
at
least
,
e
.
g
.
a
righteousness
conformed
to
the
Judaical
Law
is
simply
to
be
denied
to
be
a
righteousness
of
God
,
the
Law
it self
formerly
requiring
it
being
now
expired
;
and
a
righteousness
conformed
to
the
Law
or
Covenant
of
works
,
being
also
respectively
to
be
denied
to
be
a
righteousness
of
God
,
i.e.
respectively
to
the
justification
or
salvation
of
Man
now
in
his
lapsed
estate
:
for
although
it
once
was
a
righteousness
of
God
,
with
respect
to
the
justification
of
Man
innocent
;
yet
now
it
is
not
so
with
respect
to
the
justification
of
Man
in
his
lapsed
condition
,
it
being
now
not
commanded
of
God
for
any
such
end
or
purpose
,
as
hath
been
plainly
declared
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
.
Whence
by
the
way
be
it
observed
,
how
groundlesly
it
is
said
by
too
too
many
Brethren
,
that
Jesus
Christ
in
reference
to
our
justification
did
keep
the
Law
in
our
stead
.
It
may
be
truly
said
I
readily
acknowledge
,
that
Christ
did
keep
the
Law
for
us
,
that
we
might
be
justified
,
i.e.
pardoned
,
or
not
condemned
for
our
breaches
thereof
:
but
it
is
false
to
say
,
that
he
fulfilled
the
Law
in
our
stead
,
that
we
might
be
justified
as
fulfillers
thereof
in
or
by
him
;
for
this
sense
of
the
word
(
instead
)
doth
pregnantly
import
,
that
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
was
primarily
required
of
every
man
since
the
Fall
for
his
justification
,
and
that
God
in
regard
of
the
personal
disability
of
mankind
for
the
fulfilling
thereof
for
such
an
end
,
did
send
his
Son
Jesus
Christ
to
fulfill
it
in
their
room
and
place
:
which
Supposition
is
a
manifest
and
notorious
untruth
;
for
,
1.
Man
having
once
broken
the
Law
,
is
become
from
thence
forward
a
Subject
naturally
uncapable
of
being
justified
by
any
future
obedience
to
it
,
although
he
should
perfectly
keep
it
to
the
worlds
end
.
2
,
God
hath
since
the
Fall
of
Man
opened
another
way
(
a
new
and
living
way
,
to
speak
in
the
language
of
the
Apostle
,
Heb
.
10.19
.
)
for
the
justification
of
sinners
,
yea
for
their
justification
of
another
kind
,
i.e.
for
their
justification
from
the
guilt
of
punishment
contracted
by
their
sin
,
and
this
by
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
.
So
that
to
assert
(
as
many
do
,
who
have
gotten
to
themselves
,
whether
designedly
or
by
hap
,
the
prime
name
of
Gospel
Preachers
with
the
Vulgar
both
in
City
and
Country
)
that
the
fulfilling
of
the
Law
is
required
of
any
man
now
in
his
lapsed
estate
,
whether
by
himself
or
by
any
other
in
his
stead
,
is
in
the
consequence
thereof
to
subvert
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
and
in
effect
to
preach
another
Gospel
than
we
have
received
from
him
and
his
Apostles
;
the
embracing
whereof
by
too
too
many
is
yet
the
less
to
be
marvelled
at
,
seeing
there
were
those
,
even
in
the
primitive
times
,
while
the
Apostles
of
our
Saviour
were
alive
,
who
were
soon
removed
unto
another
Gospel
,
Gal.
1.6
.
Again
,
be
it
considered
whether
this
Assertion
(
that
Christ
hath
fulfilled
all
the
righteousness
of
the
Law
in
our
stead
for
our
justification
)
doth
not
overthrow
their
grand
Gospel
Doctrine
,
(
as
it
is
mis-called
)
of
a
sinners
justification
by
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
which
they
usually
affirm
to
be
one
integral
part
of
justification
;
for
if
he
did
it
in
our
stead
,
it
seems
to
become
ours
ipso
facto
without
an
imputation
.
If
we
suppose
that
Christ
did
undertake
,
and
that
God
did
accept
of
Christ
to
be
our
surety
and
Mediator
to
act
in
our
stead
,
what
needs
any
imputation
to
make
it
ours
?
Would
not
his
righteousness
become
ours
by
his
bare
precise
acting
in
our
stead
;
even
as
whatsoever
is
done
by
our
Proxy
appointed
and
allowed
to
act
for
us
,
becomes
ours
immediately
even
in
strictness
of
Law
,
and
without
any
imputation
of
grace
to
make
it
so
?
CHAP.
X.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
imparted
or
imputed
righteousness
of
God
styled
a
righteousness
without
the
Law
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
,
1.
Negatively
,
What
is
not
:
2.
Affirmatively
,
What
are
the
Reasons
thereof
.
Q.
WHY
is
the
said
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
or
remission
of
sin
)
styled
a
righteousness
of
God
without
Law
,
a
Law
,
or
the
Law
?
For
a
righteousness
without
a
Law
sounds
alike
harshly
as
a
righteousness
without
works
.
Answ
.
The
Question
being
of
moment
,
I
will
therefore
make
answer
to
it
as
I
have
done
to
many
others
,
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
.
1.
Negatively
,
not
because
it
is
universally
without
any
manner
of
Law
whatsoever
:
for
,
1.
Without
all
manner
of
Law
whatsoever
there
can
be
no
manner
of
righteousness
at
all
;
for
all
righteousness
hath
reference
to
one
Law
or
other
,
as
the
rule
thereof
,
the
Law
being
the
rule
both
of
Duty
and
of
Judgment
.
As
,
Where
there
is
no
Law
,
there
is
no
transgression
,
Rom.
4.14
.
no
unrighteousness
,
so
nor
righteousness
.
There
is
not
any
thing
that
can
deserve
the
name
of
righteousness
,
much
less
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
absolutely
and
universally
without
any
Law
.
2.
This
imputed
righteousness
accrues
,
is
conveyed
to
us
,
or
comes
upon
us
(
as
is
the
frequent
language
of
the
Apostle
in
his
Epistle
both
to
the
Romans
and
Galatians
)
by
Law
,
even
that
Law
which
for
distinctions
sake
is
called
the
Law
of
Faith
,
Rom.
3.27
.
As
there
are
two
sorts
or
integral
parts
of
our
Evangelical
righteousness
,
which
are
so
our
own
,
as
that
withall
they
are
in
Scripture
said
to
be
the
righteousness
of
God
;
so
neither
of
them
are
simply
without
Law
,
but
both
of
them
are
indeed
according
to
Law
,
i.e.
the
Law
of
Faith
,
or
of
the
Gospel
,
the
one
kind
of
righteousness
,
as
a
sinners
duty
being
thereby
commanded
,
and
the
other
as
Gods
merciful
favour
and
divine
blessing
being
therein
promised
.
2.
I
answer
Affirmatively
:
1.
It
is
called
a
righteousness
without
Law
for
the
same
reason
as
it
is
called
a
righteousness
without
works
,
these
Phrases
(
without
Law
,
without
works
,
without
the
works
of
the
Law
)
being
equivalent
and
of
promiscuous
use
with
this
Apostle
in
several
places
of
his
Writings
,
wherein
there
are
many
things
hard
to
be
understood
,
and
very
dangerous
being
misunderstood
;
so
that
the
Apostle
by
(
without
the
Law
)
doth
mean
without
the
works
of
the
Law
,
there
being
an
elegant
Antanaclasis
in
the
word
Law
repeated
,
Rom.
3.21
.
and
there
used
in
a
different
sense
;
for
whereas
in
the
later
part
of
that
verse
it
is
taken
for
the
Books
of
Moses
,
in
the
first
part
it
is
taken
for
the
Works
of
the
Law
;
S.
Paul
herein
being
his
own
Interpreter
,
saying
ver.
18.
Therefore
we
conclude
,
that
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
without
the
deeds
of
the
Law
.
2.
S.
Paul
styles
it
a
righteousness
without
the
Law
,
in
opposition
to
that
which
in
other
places
he
styles
a
righteousness
which
is
of
the
Law
,
Phil
.
3.9
.
and
a
righteousness
which
is
ex
lege
,
by
the
Law
,
Gal.
3.21
.
If
there
had
been
a
Law
given
,
that
could
have
given
life
,
verily
righteousness
should
have
been
by
the
Law
.
See
the
same
opposition
Rom.
10.3
.
with
ver
.
5.
Moses
describeth
the
righteousness
which
is
{αβγδ}
,
of
,
from
,
or
by
Law
,
or
the
Law
.
And
if
the
question
be
demanded
,
What
Law
is
it
that
is
meant
in
that
forecited
saying
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
3.21
.
The
righteousness
of
God
without
the
Law
.
I
answer
,
in
the
same
restrained
sense
as
the
word
Law
is
to
be
taken
in
those
sayings
of
his
,
Phil
.
3.9
.
wherein
he
speaks
of
a
righteousness
which
is
of
the
Law
,
i.e.
it
is
truly
to
be
understood
,
as
hath
been
already
said
,
chap.
8.
of
that
Law
which
is
opposite
to
the
Law
of
faith
,
or
belief
of
Christ
incarnate
,
viz.
concerning
the
Judaical
Law
,
and
the
law
of
works
,
i.e.
the
law
of
innocency
,
this
being
most
frequently
in
the
Writings
of
modern
Authors
styled
the
law
of
works
.
1.
When
S.
Paul
styles
our
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
of
sin
)
a
righteousness
without
law
,
by
that
law
truly
is
excluded
the
law
or
covenant
of
works
:
for
,
1.
This
law
hath
no
promise
of
pardon
of
sin
,
nor
affords
any
ground
of
hope
of
pardon
to
sinners
.
2.
The
works
of
this
law
are
incompatible
with
forgiveness
.
He
that
is
righteous
according
to
this
law
,
is
not
in
a
natural
capacity
of
pardon
,
and
he
is
justified
by
,
or
with
another
kind
of
righteousness
than
this
imputed
righteousness
of
forgiveness
of
sin
.
3.
His
justification
is
of
debt
,
and
not
of
grace
,
as
hath
been
before
insinuated
.
2.
When
S.
Paul
styles
the
said
righteousness
a
righteousness
without
law
,
or
the
law
,
he
doth
directly
mean
the
Judaical
law
,
as
hath
been
already
said
chap.
8.
that
law
,
for
the
continued
obligation
or
necessary
observation
whereof
,
not
onely
the
unbelieving
,
but
also
thousands
of
the
believing
Jews
,
were
blindly
zealous
,
and
not
according
to
that
knowledge
,
which
by
the
light
of
the
Gospel
was
afforded
to
them
,
as
appears
Acts
21.20
.
Rom.
10.
beg
.
yea
so
zealous
,
as
to
think
they
did
God
service
in
persecuting
the
Apostles
,
and
other
orthodox
Christians
,
for
their
non-compliance
with
them
in
adhering
to
the
Mosaical
law
.
I
need
not
prove
that
this
law
is
the
law
designedly
and
directly
excluded
by
the
Apostle
in
those
words
of
his
(
without
the
Law
:
)
for
,
1.
The
occasion
and
scope
of
several
the
Apostles
Epistles
to
the
Romans
,
Galatians
,
and
the
Hebrews
,
is
so
well
known
,
as
that
it
cannot
rationally
be
doubted
of
by
any
man
,
it
being
to
take
them
off
from
adhering
to
that
Law
.
2.
If
we
take
Faith
or
believing
in
Christ
in
that
sense
,
wherein
the
Apostle
speaks
of
it
,
viz.
for
believing
in
the
Messias
as
already
come
in
the
flesh
;
so
faith
in
Christ
is
inconsistent
with
that
Law
and
the
Works
thereof
.
For
,
to
uphold
or
adhere
to
that
Law
and
the
Works
thereof
,
is
by
consequence
to
deny
that
Jesus
Christ
is
come
in
the
flesh
,
or
to
deny
the
Faith
of
Christ
Incarnate
;
for
as
much
as
that
Law
,
and
the
Works
thereof
,
were
but
a
shadow
of
good
things
to
come
,
Coloss
.
2.17
.
Hebr
.
10.1
,
Whereupon
the
retaining
of
them
was
virtually
or
in
Works
to
deny
,
that
those
good
things
(
the
Body
)
were
already
come
.
I
shall
instance
in
another
Scriptural
Phrase
,
whereby
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
expressed
,
and
this
shall
be
the
subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XI
.
Another
Scriptural
Title
given
to
remission
of
sin
is
,
in
its
being
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
,
by
,
from
,
and
thorough
Faith
;
divers
Reasons
whereof
are
rendred
.
The
Authors
Opinion
touching
the
pardonableness
of
sin
,
or
placability
of
God
in
the
question
,
Whether
this
was
any
part
of
the
{αβγδ}
,
i
.
e
.
A
thing
discoverable
by
the
light
of
Nature
.
THE
said
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
or
forgiveness
of
sin
)
is
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
Faith
.
Thus
in
two
places
,
Rom.
9.30
.
The
Gentiles
,
which
followed
not
after
righteousness
,
have
attained
to
righteousness
,
even
the
righteousness
which
is
of
Faith
.
And
Rom.
10.6
.
But
the
righteousness
which
is
of
faith
saith
on
this
wise
—
And
Rom.
3.22
.
it
is
styled
,
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
.
And
Phil
3.9
.
A
righteousness
which
is
thorough
the
faith
of
Christ
,
the
righteousness
which
is
of
God
by
faith
.
In
which
places
before
cited
the
Apostle
doth
not
use
one
and
the
same
Greek
Preposition
,
but
various
,
saying
,
{αβγδ}
,
Rom.
9.30
.
{αβγδ}
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
of
,
from
,
by
,
or
thorough
faith
,
the
faith
of
Christ
.
Whence
observe
by
the
way
,
that
the
righteousness
which
is
by
God
imputed
to
sinners
,
is
not
Christs
righteousness
it self
;
for
if
so
,
the
Apostle
would
have
said
so
,
even
the
righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
himself
,
or
Christs
own
righteousness
;
whereas
he
says
once
and
again
,
yea
four
times
over
,
the
righteousness
which
is
of
,
by
,
from
,
or
through
faith
,
the
faith
of
Christ
.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
,
by
,
from
,
or
through
faith
,
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
?
Answ
.
1.
It
is
so
styled
in
opposition
unto
that
kind
of
righteousness
which
the
Apostle
doth
oft
times
,
and
sometimes
in
the
self
same
verse
,
style
a
righteousness
of
the
Law
,
it
not
resulting
from
,
or
being
obtained
by
the
observation
of
the
Law
,
but
by
faith
in
Christ
.
This
opposition
we
read
expresly
in
several
Scriptures
,
Phil
.
3.9
.
Not
having
mine
own
righteousness
,
which
is
of
the
Law
,
but
that
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
.
Thus
also
Rom.
3.21
.
with
v.
22.
and
Rom.
9.30
.
where
having
asserted
the
Gentiles
,
who
followed
not
after
righteousness
,
to
have
attained
to
righteousness
,
even
the
righteousness
which
is
of
faith
,
he
doth
in
the
verse
following
oppose
it
to
another
kind
of
righteousness
,
saying
,
But
Israel
which
followed
after
the
Law
of
righteousness
,
hath
not
attained
to
the
Law
of
righteousness
.
Where
by
the
Law
of
righteousness
,
which
Israel
is
said
not
to
have
attained
to
,
is
meant
the
righteousness
of
the
Law
,
there
being
in
that
saying
the
Figure
called
by
Rhetoricians
Hypallage
.
Now
from
the
said
opposition
we
may
,
as
I
think
,
unerringly
conclude
what
manner
of
Works
the
Apostle
doth
mean
in
any
of
his
Writings
,
wherein
he
opposeth
Faith
and
Works
,
viz.
not
all
manner
of
Works
whatsoever
,
but
Works
of
Law
,
(
for
so
it
may
be
rendred
out
of
the
Original
,
the
Article
{αβγδ}
therein
being
wanting
or
not
expressed
,
Rom.
3.28
.
and
9
31.
)
a
law
,
the
law
,
i.e.
Works
not
consistent
with
,
but
opposite
unto
,
the
Faith
of
Christ
Incarnate
,
or
Works
of
law
(
any
law
whatsoever
)
opposite
to
the
law
of
Faith
.
Now
what
that
law
or
laws
are
,
and
what
those
Works
are
,
which
are
inconsistent
with
,
or
opposite
thereunto
,
hath
been
at
large
declared
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
.
2.
It
is
called
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
by
Faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
because
God
in
his
law
hath
constituted
Faith
in
Christ
to
be
the
condition
of
a
sinners
enjoying
this
righteousness
,
which
law
is
for
this
reason
styled
the
law
of
Faith
,
Rom.
3.27
.
I
need
not
bring
Scriptures
to
prove
the
said
legal
Constitution
.
As
S.
Paul
tells
us
,
that
this
righteousness
was
witnessed
by
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
,
Rom.
3.21
.
so
S.
Peter
tells
us
,
that
all
the
Prophets
did
witness
faith
in
Christ
to
be
the
condition
of
enjoying
it
,
Acts
10.43
.
To
him
give
all
the
Prophets
witness
,
that
through
his
name
whosoever
believeth
in
him
shall
receive
remission
of
sin
.
And
thence
it
is
that
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
to
this
righteousness
,
as
hereafter
will
be
said
at
large
,
because
it
is
the
Condition
of
enjoying
it
.
3.
Consequently
because
it
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
that
we
are
to
seek
and
follow
after
this
righteousness
,
if
ever
we
mean
to
attain
it
.
For
the
reason
of
attaining
and
not
attaining
it
,
the
Apostle
shews
to
be
the
seeking
and
following
after
it
in
a
right
and
wrong
way
,
i.e.
by
faith
and
not
by
faith
,
Rom.
9.30
,
31
,
32.
4.
Because
it
is
through
faith
to
be
expected
,
and
as
to
the
completion
thereof
waited
for
,
Gal
5.5
.
We
through
the
spirit
wait
for
hope
of
righteousness
,
i.e.
righteousness
hoped
for
by
faith
.
5.
Consequently
because
it
comes
upon
us
,
or
is
actually
derived
to
us
upon
our
believing
in
Christ
,
or
faith
in
him
,
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
,
with
many
other
such
sayings
in
Scripture
,
Rom.
10.10
.
With
the
heart
man
believeth
unto
righteousness
.
6.
As
for
the
foresaid
Reasons
it
is
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
by
faith
,
(
faith
being
taken
for
fides
quâ
,
the
grace
of
faith
,
whereby
or
wherewith
we
believe
;
)
so
if
we
take
faith
for
fides
quae
creditur
,
the
object
of
faith
or
thing
believed
,
I
answer
to
the
question
so
intended
,
that
it
is
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
because
it
is
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
(
the
word
of
faith
,
as
it
is
styled
Rom.
10.8
.
)
that
doth
reveal
this
righteousness
to
be
through
Christ
,
and
through
faith
in
him
;
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
1.
where
having
mentioned
the
Gospel
,
ver
.
16.
As
the
mighty
power
of
God
through
faith
to
salvation
;
he
adds
saying
ver.
17.
Therein
is
revealed
the
righteousness
of
God
,
from
faith
to
faith
.
I
cannot
deny
that
Gods
placability
or
merciful
nature
,
in
his
readiness
to
pardon
penitent
sinners
,
is
a
branch
of
the
{αβγδ}
,
one
of
those
things
which
was
revealed
to
the
Heathen
by
the
light
of
Nature
,
and
experience
of
Gods
Providential
Dispensations
,
Gods
patience
and
longsuffering
being
of
a
native
tendency
,
in
it self
apt
to
lead
all
sinners
(
the
Gentiles
as
well
as
the
Jews
)
to
repentance
,
Rom.
2.4
.
Again
,
if
Gods
placability
had
not
been
made
known
to
the
Heathen
World
,
they
would
(
as
I
think
)
undoubtedly
never
have
sought
by
any
means
or
sacrifices
whatsoever
,
whether
of
the
flesh
of
Beasts
or
Men
,
bad
men
or
good
men
,
the
best
or
worst
of
men
,
to
have
appeased
God
,
whom
they
were
so
sensible
they
had
provoked
.
But
although
I
cannot
deny
,
as
aforesaid
,
nevertheless
that
this
righteousness
of
pardon
was
purchased
,
or
to
be
purchased
by
Christ
,
or
to
come
upon
us
through
faith
in
him
,
whereupon
justly
to
be
styled
a
righteousness
which
is
through
faith
in
Christ
;
this
they
did
not
know
by
any
light
which
they
had
,
nor
could
it
be
known
by
any
without
supernatural
revelation
.
Yea
this
is
that
which
was
but
darkly
,
and
not
so
clearly
made
known
to
the
Jews
themselves
by
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
Testament
,
to
which
purpose
the
Apostle
speaks
in
several
of
his
Epistles
,
Rom.
16.25
,
26.
2
Tim
.
1.10
.
And
for
this
cause
I
do
concur
with
that
which
Dr.
Owen
doth
frequently
assert
in
his
Book
styled
Communion
with
God
,
viz.
that
the
Scripture
reveals
no
pardon
of
sin
,
but
by
and
through
Christ
,
and
faith
in
him
.
And
I
do
absolutely
presume
,
that
if
we
speak
of
Gospel
pardon
,
and
according
to
that
description
which
the
Doctor
gives
of
it
,
saying
p.
91.
Pardoning
mercy
is
Gods
free
gracious
acceptance
of
a
sinner
upon
satisfaction
made
to
his
justice
in
the
blood
of
Jesus
.
Amyrald
himself
,
yea
every
Christian
,
who
confesseth
satisfaction
made
by
the
bloud
of
Christ
to
the
justice
of
God
,
will
acknowledge
with
the
Doctor
,
that
the
discovery
of
this
pardoning
mercy
is
not
in
the
least
glimpse
discovered
by
the
light
of
Nature
,
but
solely
by
the
Scriptures
.
Yea
the
Socinians
themselves
,
who
although
they
deny
pardon
of
sin
to
be
upon
satisfaction
made
to
Divine
Justice
by
the
Blood
of
Jesus
;
yet
forasmuch
as
they
do
not
deny
it
to
be
in
and
through
Christ
,
they
also
will
concur
in
asserting
,
that
pardon
of
sin
in
,
by
,
and
through
Christ
,
is
not
discoverable
by
any
other
light
,
than
that
of
Scripture
.
But
if
we
speak
of
Gods
pardoning
mercy
indefinitely
,
(
not
so
and
so
circumstantiated
as
in
the
Doctors
description
)
I
must
say
again
as
before
,
viz.
that
I
cannot
deny
,
but
that
the
Heathen
World
had
some
glimpse
thereof
,
and
that
they
did
know
,
(
however
imperfectly
,
and
who
can
say
but
that
they
might
have
known
it
more
perfectly
?
)
viz.
that
there
was
pardoning
mercy
with
God
,
that
he
might
be
feared
.
CHAP.
XII
.
Q.
Whether
doth
a
Sinner
need
ought
more
than
the
righteousness
of
Christ
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
?
Answ
.
Yes
.
The
Authors
professed
Dissent
as
from
certain
other
Brethren
,
so
in
special
from
Dr.
Grew
,
late
of
Coventry
,
wherein
is
manifested
,
that
although
a
Sinner
needs
nothing
of
the
same
kind
more
than
Christs
righteousness
to
the
said
end
,
i.e.
In
genere
causae
meritoriae
,
as
a
meritorious
cause
;
nevertheless
(
simpliciter
loquendo
,
to
speak
the
truth
absolutely
)
he
needs
many
things
,
and
those
of
several
kinds
,
to
justifie
him
before
God
;
and
what
those
things
are
is
specified
at
large
.
FOrasmuch
as
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
so
often
in
Scripture
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
of
,
by
,
from
,
or
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
I
shall
think
it
not
amiss
thereupon
to
propose
two
or
three
Questions
,
and
answer
thereunto
.
Q.
Doth
a
sinner
need
ought
more
than
the
righteousness
it self
of
Christ
to
make
him
righteous
,
or
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
?
Answ
.
It
is
most
apparently
evident
,
that
he
doth
,
even
from
the
said
iterated
description
of
a
sinners
justification
,
it
being
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
.
It
is
observable
,
that
the
Apostle
doth
not
style
it
simply
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
Jesus
Christ
,
(
although
this
is
a
truth
worthy
of
all
acceptation
;
)
neither
doth
he
always
style
it
a
righteousness
which
is
by
faith
simply
:
but
he
styles
it
explicitly
a
righteousness
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
Phil
.
3
9.
and
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
Rom.
3.22
.
I
do
the
rather
commend
this
to
observation
,
because
it
may
serve
to
prevent
an
evasion
,
or
answer
an
objection
,
that
some
I
well
know
are
apt
to
make
,
saying
,
that
where
our
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
a
righteousness
which
is
of
,
by
,
or
through
faith
;
there
the
word
(
Faith
)
is
to
be
taken
relatively
or
objectively
,
i.e.
not
for
the
grace
of
Faith
,
but
for
the
object
of
it
;
not
for
Faith
it self
,
but
for
Christ
Jesus
the
object
of
it
.
Now
be
it
observed
,
that
the
Apo●tle
adds
to
the
word
(
Faith
Christ
)
Phil
.
3.9
.
and
(
Jesus
Christ
)
Rom.
9.22
.
the
Apostle
therein
interpreting
what
he
meant
by
Faith
in
those
other
sayings
of
his
,
where
he
styles
it
a
righteousness
which
is
of
Faith
,
that
is
,
that
by
faith
he
meant
Faith
,
not
Christ
simply
,
or
the
object
of
Faith
meerly
,
but
faith
in
Christ
.
And
to
make
the
Apostle
to
have
meant
otherwise
,
is
to
make
him
to
have
spoken
non-sense
in
saying
(
a
righteousness
which
is
by
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
;
)
as
if
he
had
or
meant
to
say
,
a
righteousness
which
is
through
Christ
of
Christ
,
or
which
is
of
Jesus
Christ
of
Jesus
Christ
;
even
as
to
make
the
like
construction
of
the
word
(
Faith
)
for
the
object
of
Faith
,
in
that
saying
Rom.
3.25
.
Through
faith
in
his
blood
,
is
to
make
the
Apostle
nonsensically
to
have
said
,
Through
his
blood
in
his
blood
.
And
yet
this
is
(
not
without
shame
and
sadness
of
heart
be
it
spoken
)
that
work
which
some
,
to
the
reproach
of
Protestancy
,
and
to
the
hardening
of
our
common
Adversaries
,
do
make
of
the
Scriptures
,
as
if
by
faith
it self
,
and
the
object
of
faith
,
one
and
the
same
thing
were
to
be
understood
:
or
as
if
in
that
saying
of
S.
Peter
(
Acts
3.16
.
His
name
through
faith
in
his
name
hath
made
this
man
strong
)
the
name
or
person
of
Christ
,
a●●
faith
in
him
,
did
mean
the
self
same
thing
,
faith
being
not
to
be
construed
as
meaning
the
thing
it self
(
Faith
)
but
onely
the
object
thereof
,
Christs
name
or
person
.
The
premisses
considered
,
it
undeniably
appears
,
that
faith
in
Jesus
Christ
is
as
well
necessary
to
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
,
as
is
the
righteousness
it self
of
Christ
;
even
as
faith
in
Christs
name
was
as
well
necessary
for
the
working
of
Miracles
,
as
was
his
name
or
power
it self
.
And
I
desire
this
the
rather
to
be
minded
,
because
it
may
serve
to
detect
and
rectifie
the
mistake
of
Dr.
Grew
,
who
in
his
late
Book
styled
the
Lord
our
righteousness
,
(
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
)
says
p.
200.
even
as
others
have
said
before
him
,
viz.
That
a
sinner
needs
no
more
than
Christs
righteousness
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
.
I
grant
indeed
,
that
in
some
sense
the
saying
is
very
true
,
forasmuch
as
Christs
righteousness
is
in
suo
genere
,
i.e.
in
the
sphere
or
series
of
a
meritorious
cause
all
sufficient
to
justifie
a
sinner
,
even
all
and
every
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
,
and
nothing
more
of
that
kind
is
needful
for
that
purpose
.
But
forasmuch
as
,
1.
A
saying
,
which
is
onely
true
respectively
,
or
in
a
certain
limited
sense
,
may
be
well
said
(
speaking
simply
and
absolutely
)
to
be
false
.
2.
Forasmuch
as
it
is
not
fit
and
good
for
edification
,
but
of
native
tendency
to
deception
,
to
affirm
that
concerning
a
thing
in
simple
and
absolute
terms
,
and
without
due
explication
,
which
is
onely
verified
in
some
one
limited
sense
or
other
,
I
cannot
justifie
the
Doctors
so
saying
.
3.
Forasmuch
as
it
doth
not
appear
,
that
the
Doctor
did
onely
intend
the
said
true
meaning
in
that
saying
,
but
rather
the
contrary
(
it
being
his
intent
,
as
it
is
indeed
of
too
many
,
to
insinuate
,
that
no
righteousness
of
our
own
,
but
onely
the
righteousness
of
Christ
himself
,
is
needful
to
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
;
)
I
am
so
far
from
justifying
him
,
that
I
shall
altogether
leave
him
with
the
rest
of
the
Brethren
in
that
saying
to
their
own
defence
.
For
I
can
say
no
less
,
than
that
there
are
many
things
needful
to
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
,
and
each
of
which
do
suo
modo
,
after
their
own
manner
,
or
in
their
own
proper
place
and
kind
,
justifie
him
,
something
ex
parte
Dei
,
something
ex
parte
Christi
,
something
ex
parte
Evangelii
,
something
ex
parte
nostri
;
on
Gods
part
,
Christs
part
,
the
Gospels
part
,
our
part
;
Gods
mer-mercy
,
Christs
merit
,
the
Gospel
Law
,
a
Sinners
faith
:
all
which
do
in
their
kind
or
rank
,
and
after
a
way
peculiar
to
each
,
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Exempli
gratiâ
:
Gods
mercy
as
the
inward
moving
,
Christs
merit
as
the
external
impulsive
cause
,
the
Gospel
Law
as
the
instrumental
cause
of
conveyance
,
a
sinners
own
faith
in
Christ
as
the
condition
thereof
.
I
adde
also
,
pardon
it self
,
the
imputed
righteousness
I
am
now
speaking
of
,
is
intrinsecally
needful
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
before
God
,
it
being
the
form
or
thing
it self
,
which
doth
constitute
a
sinners
justification
,
or
wherein
it
doth
consist
:
and
as
the
form
of
a
thing
is
absolutely
necessary
to
its
being
,
and
without
which
it
is
not
(
forma
dat
esse
;
)
so
is
pardon
of
sin
absolutely
necessary
:
and
as
the
other
(
Gods
mercy
,
Christs
merit
,
the
Gospel
Law
,
and
a
sinners
faith
)
are
extrinsecally
,
so
this
is
intrinsecally
necessary
to
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Hereupon
it
abundantly
appears
,
that
it
is
a
saying
too
too
loose
and
extravagant
to
say
,
That
a
sinner
needs
no
more
than
the
righteousness
of
Christ
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
Q.
In
what
sense
is
the
word
(
Faith
)
to
be
taken
in
those
Scriptures
,
wherein
forgiveness
af
sin
is
insinuated
to
be
the
fruit
or
consequent
of
Faith
,
and
wherein
it
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
Faith
?
Answ
.
It
is
not
taken
strictly
,
as
excluding
all
other
Evangelical
graces
in
a
Sinner
,
viz.
Repentance
and
sincere
Resolution
for
amendment
of
life
;
but
in
a
large
sense
as
comprizing
them
,
these
being
of
the
very
essence
of
Faith
,
as
justifying
,
or
as
taken
(
though
not
in
a
strict
Philosophical
,
yet
)
in
a
Scriptural
construction
or
importance
of
the
word
.
FOrasmuch
as
in
that
iterated
saying
of
the
Apostle
,
wherein
he
styles
a
sinners
imputed
righteousness
the
righteousness
of
God
,
which
is
by
faith
in
Christ
or
through
Christ
,
he
doth
unquestionably
mean
as
he
spake
,
by
Faith
meaning
Faith
,
and
by
Christ
Christ
.
I
shall
next
propose
the
following
Question
.
Q.
In
what
sense
is
the
grace
of
Faith
to
be
taken
in
the
said
sayings
,
wherein
a
sinners
imputed
righteousness
is
insinuated
to
be
the
issue
,
product
,
or
consequent
of
his
believing
in
Christ
?
Whether
is
faith
there
to
be
taken
in
a
strict
sense
,
as
excluding
all
other
Evangelical
graces
?
(
Exempli
gratiâ
:
Repentance
for
sin
,
an
holy
resolution
to
return
to
God
in
new
obedience
—
)
or
else
in
a
large
sense
,
as
including
and
comprehending
them
?
Answ
.
It
it
most
evident
by
the
current
of
plain
Scripture
as
plain
can
be
,
that
a
sinners
imputed
righteousness
(
the
non-imputation
or
remission
of
sin
)
is
promised
unto
,
and
doth
depend
upon
,
his
repentance
and
amendment
,
as
well
as
upon
his
faith
or
believing
:
and
for
that
cause
we
cannot
in
reason
,
or
agreeably
in
any
wise
to
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
construe
the
grace
of
Faith
in
the
said
sayings
,
in
a
strict
but
in
a
large
sense
,
and
as
it
is
not
unusual
in
many
Scriptures
,
viz.
not
as
excluding
,
but
as
in●luding
,
supposing
or
comprehending
other
Evangelical
duties
,
vertues
,
or
graces
.
(
It
hath
been
already
said
in
chap.
5.
that
remission
of
sin
is
not
styled
a
righteousness
without
works
,
because
it
is
without
the
works
of
repentance
and
amendment
.
)
It
is
matter
of
sadness
,
that
a
Minister
of
the
Gospel
should
(
by
any
Protestant
Professor
)
be
put
to
prove
,
that
repentance
and
amendment
is
one
part
of
the
condition
of
his
pardon
,
or
discharge
from
the
guilt
of
his
sin
.
Let
this
his
discharge
be
expressed
by
what
Scriptural
name
soever
,
Redemption
,
Reconcilianion
,
Justification
,
Non-condemnation
—
)
as
well
as
Faith
in
Christ
strictly
taken
;
and
consequently
that
his
pardon
or
discharge
is
by
vertue
of
Gods
gracious
promise
in
Christ
,
the
issue
,
fruit
,
or
consequent
of
his
repentance
and
amendment
,
and
not
of
his
faith
alone
,
as
strictly
taken
and
exclusively
to
them
,
or
in
contradistinction
from
them
.
The
Question
in
hand
is
,
I
confess
,
of
exceeding
great
moment
,
and
for
that
cause●
it
would
be
very
expedient
to
make
answer
thereunto
more
at
large
,
were
it
not
of
very
easie
resolution
.
But
because
of
the
common
prejudices
,
which
too
too
many
Brethren
have
conceived
against
it
,
some
perhaps
will
deem
,
that
much
more
than
I
have
as
yet
said
,
is
very
necessary
to
be
spoken
in
the
matter
,
and
of
which
necessity
if
I
shall
be
convinced
,
I
may
not
improbably
(
God
sparing
my
Life
,
and
continuing
Health
to
me
in
my
old
age
)
endeavour
a
more
copious
Discourse
concerning
that
point
.
Mean
while
I
will
conclude
this
Chapter
onely
by
asserting
it
as
a
most
indubitable
truth
,
viz.
That
in
all
such
sayings
as
before
cited
faith
is
to
be
taken
in
such
a
large
sense
as
in
all
those
Scriptures
,
wherein
th●y
are
said
to
be
blessed
who
trust
in
God
,
(
a
saying
frequent
with
those
Sacred
Writers
David
and
Solomon
;
)
by
which
trust
such
a
trust
in
God
is
meant
,
as
doth
imply
other
graces
or
duties
consequent
thereunto
,
and
virtually
therein
contained
;
even
as
the
fruit
is
in
the
seed
or
root
,
faith
being
indeed
a
radical
grace
,
or
a
principle
of
all
religious
actings
.
And
in
this
large
sense
it
is
taken
in
those
two
Scriptures
recorded
in
the
Book
of
Daniel
,
where
Nebuchadnezzar
speaking
concerning
the
miraculous
preservation
of
the
three
Children
says
,
That
God
did
deliver
his
Servants
that
trusted
in
him
,
chap.
3.28
.
and
wherein
Darius
also
speaking
of
a
like
miraculous
deliverance
of
the
Prophet
Daniel
,
says
,
That
no
hurt
was
found
upon
him
,
because
he
believed
in
his
God
,
chap.
6.23
.
in
both
which
places
the
Antecedent
is
put
for
the
Consequent
,
(
a
manner
of
speaking
usual
in
Scripture
,
as
also
the
Consequent
oft
times
for
the
Antecedent
,
things
of
useful
observation
;
)
I
mean
the
Antecedent
in
those
sayings
is
used
as
implying
what
was
Consequent
to
their
faith
and
trust
in
God
,
and
upon
which
their
preservations
or
deliverances
did
mainly
and
more
immediately
under
God
depend
,
viz.
their
renouncing
of
the
Idol-worship
set
up
by
Nebuchadnezzar
,
and
the
not
renouncing
of
the
true
God
,
no
not
for
a
day
,
which
was
commanded
by
Darius
;
for
such
in
effect
I
conceive
to
be
the
intent
of
Darius
his
command
:
and
so
would
Daniels
omitting
to
pray
to
God
for
the
space
of
the
time
interdicted
have
been
interpreted
,
viz.
a
renouncing
pro
tempore
the
true
and
living
God
.
As
to
the
sense
wherein
faith
is
to
be
taken
in
the
said
Scriptures
,
or
in
any
other
wherein
Justification
,
Remission
of
sin
,
Imputation
of
righteousness
,
or
Salvation
,
is
attributed
unto
it
as
the
fruit
or
consequent
thereof
,
there
will
be
occasion
to
speak
somewhat
more
of
it
in
some
other
Chapter
towards
the
later
end
of
this
Discourse
,
whither
I
shall
refer
the
Reader
.
See
chap.
29.
at
large
.
CHAP.
XIV
.
Another
Scriptural
Title
given
to
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
in
its
being
styled
,
The
righteousness
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
Rom.
4.11
.
the
whole
Verse
being
opened
more
at
large
,
and
vindicated
from
mis-interpretation
too
commonly
received
.
Caution
given
for
a
due
understanding
as
well
of
the
Authors
full
as
true
meaning
,
in
his
asserting
Justification
or
Remission
of
sin
(
a
righteousness
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
)
to
be
it
which
S.
Paul
doth
style
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
which
is
by
faith
,
the
Author
in
that
his
assertion
must
not
be
understood
as
excluding
,
but
as
supposing
and
including
that
other
branch
or
kind
of
righteousness
,
which
in
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
Faith
is
commanded
.
I
Shall
instance
onely
in
one
other
Scriptural
Phrase
,
whereby
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
expressed
,
although
in
effect
it
be
but
the
same
which
was
specified
in
chap.
11.
See
Rom.
4.11
.
wherein
it
is
styled
,
The
righteousness
of
the
faith
which
Abraham
had
,
yet
being
uncircumcised
.
(
And
he
received
the
sign
of
Circumcision
,
that
is
,
the
sign
Circumcision
,
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
,
which
he
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
,
that
he
might
be
the
father
of
all
them
th●●
believe
,
though
they
be
not
circumcised
,
that
righteousness
might
be
imputed
to
them
also
.
By
the
righteousness
of
Abrahams
faith
I
do
conceive
there
to
be
meant
the
reward
of
his
faith
,
viz.
justification
or
imputed
righteousness
,
which
as
it
was
promised
to
him
not
through
the
Law
,
but
through
Faith
,
ver
.
13.
so
it
did
accrue
to
him
upon
his
actual
obediential
faith
,
even
as
it
shall
likewise
accrue
unto
all
other
sinners
(
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
)
upon
such
a
faith
as
his
was
before
Circumcision
;
for
this
righteousness
,
says
the
Apostle
,
shall
be
imputed
to
every
Child
of
Abrahams
faith
,
though
he
be
not
circumcised
,
i.e.
to
every
one
who
walks
in
the
steps
of
that
faith
which
Abraham
had
,
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
ver
.
12.
Whether
S.
Paul
doth
there
speak
of
Circumcision
(
received
by
Abrahem
primarily
in
its
Institution
,
and
secondarily
in
his
Body
)
as
mans
seal
is
a
question
,
but
without
all
question
he
speaks
of
it
as
it
was
Gods
seal
,
and
God
doth
not
seal
,
that
any
man
believeth
,
he
sealeth
onely
what
himself
saith
,
testifieth
,
or
promiseth
,
viz.
his
own
part
of
the
Covenant
,
viz.
that
upon
the
performance
of
the
righteousness
(
the
righteousness
of
faith
)
therein
commanded
,
sinners
shall
partake
of
the
righteousness
(
the
righteousness
which
is
by
,
from
,
or
through
faith
)
therein
promised
.
And
it
seems
observable
,
that
the
Apostle
there
doth
not
say
,
that
Circumcision
received
by
Abraham
was
a
seal
of
his
faith
,
(
as
if
God
did
thereby
testifie
that
Abraham
believed
;
)
but
of
the
righteousness
of
his
faith
,
i.e.
of
the
validity
to
righteousness
of
that
kind
of
Faith
,
or
specifical
Faith
,
which
he
had
being
uncircumcised
.
In
this
sense
the
word
(
Faith
)
is
taken
in
,
2
Tim
.
1.5
.
S.
Paul
there
saying
,
That
that
faith
which
was
first
in
Timothies
Mother
and
Grandmother
,
was
also
in
process
of
time
in
Timothy
himself
:
where
he
doth
not
mean
the
same
personal
individual
faith
which
they
had
,
(
for
Accidentia
non
migrant
à
subjecto
in
subjectum
;
)
but
a
faith
of
the
same
sort
or
species
,
that
is
,
and
as
the
Apostle
doth
there
specifie
it
by
that
differencing
Character
,
a
faith
unfeigned
.
And
in
this
sense
also
must
that
expression
(
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
in
ver
.
16.
)
be
understoo
,
as
also
in
ver
.
24.
where
in
the
expression
(
it
shall
be
imputed
)
by
the
Relative
(
it
)
is
not
meant
Abrahams
personal
individual
faith
,
for
this
was
imputed
to
Abraham
in
person
,
to
him
alone
,
and
to
no
Child
of
his
;
)
but
to
such
a
kind
of
Faith
as
Abraham●
was
,
i
.
e
.
to
a
working
faith
,
albeit
without
such
works
as
were
there
intended
,
and
related
unto
by
the
Apostle
.
Briefly
then
,
S.
Paul
in
saying
,
that
Circumcision
was
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
,
which
Abraham
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
,
doth
mean
,
that
it
was
a
seal
of
his
righteousness
,
pardon
,
or
justification
,
upon
condition
of
believing
with
such
a
kind
of
faith
as
he
did
,
or
had
while
uncircumcised
,
i.e.
a
faith
without
the
deeds
of
the
Law
.
It
was
a
seal
of
the
truth
of
this
promise
or
covenant
,
and
of
Gods
faithfulness
in
performing
it
.
He
that
believeth
like
a
Child
of
Abraham
,
i.e.
that
so
believeth
as
to
walk
uprightly
before
God
,
although
not
circumcised
,
shall
be
made
righteous
,
pardoned
,
justified
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
very
words
of
the
Apostle
in
that
verse
)
shall
have
righteousness
imputed
to
him
,
even
as
it
was
to
Abraham
,
even
that
righteousness
which
God
is
said
(
ver
.
6.
)
to
impute
without
works
unto
that
man
,
whom
David
doth
pronounce
blessed
.
I
need
not
here
move
the
question
,
why
the
said
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
:
for
the
reasons
hereof
are
obvious
;
and
if
they
were
not
so
,
yet
may
they
be
collected
from
what
hath
been
at
large
answered
to
the
question
indefinitely
proposed
,
chap.
11.
why
this
imputed
righteousness
is
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
faith
.
Onely
I
desire
it
may
be
observed
,
that
the
Apostle
in
styling
the
said
imputed
righteousness
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
which
Abraham
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
,
doth
plainly
interpret
his
own
meaning
,
in
his
having
styled
this
righteousness
a
righteousness
without
works
,
i.e.
without
Circumcision
,
or
any
such
legal
works
,
without
which
he
says
in
the
close
of
this
ver
.
11.
that
righteousness
shall
also
be
imputed
to
all
Abrahams
Children
,
even
as
it
was
to
Abraham
their
father
.
Q.
Is
not
Christs
righteousness
it self
meant
in
that
expression
of
the
Apostle
,
wherein
he
asserts
Circumcision
to
have
been
the
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
Abrahams
faith
,
faith
being
there
to
be
taken
for
the
object
of
faith
,
which
object
is
Christs
righteousness
?
Answ
.
No.
For
,
1.
I
remember
no
place
of
Scripture
,
where
Christs
righteousness
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
faith
.
Yea
,
I
remember
onely
one
place
,
viz.
Rom.
5.18
.
wherein
by
the
word
righteousness
is
meant
the
righteousness
of
Christ
;
and
this
onely
according
to
our
last
English
Translation
of
the
Bible
;
for
as
the
word
is
in
the
Original
,
not
{αβγδ}
,
but
{αβγδ}
(
it
being
rendred
by
divers
Latine
Translators
not
justitia
,
but
justificatio
;
)
so
by
the
Genevah
Translators
it
is
rendred
not
by
the
righteousness
of
one
,
but
by
the
justifying
of
one
;
or
as
agreeably
to
the
Original
,
{αβγδ}
,
it
might
be
rendred
,
By
one
justifying
,
i.e.
by
one
means
,
or
meritorious
cause
of
justifying
,
styled
in
the
verse
following
{αβγδ}
,
the
obedience
of
one
,
i.e.
of
one
Jesus
Christ
,
ver
.
17.
2.
Although
the
righteousness
of
Christ
being
a
thing
revealed
in
Scripture
is
to
be
believed
,
and
so
may
be
called
an
object
of
faith
(
as
whatsoever
the
Scriptures
do
reveal
may
be
said
to
be
an
object
of
faith
;
)
yet
was
it
onely
a
partial
object
of
Abrahams
faith
,
the
word
of
God
being
the
full
or
complete
object
thereof
:
so
that
if
we
take
faith
here
for
the
object
of
faith
,
we
may
as
well
,
yea
must
(
for
ought
I
know
)
as
necessarily
take
it
for
the
whole
object
,
or
any
other
part
of
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
,
as
for
this
part
of
its
object
,
the
righteousness
of
Christ
.
3.
To
construe
the
word
(
Faith
)
in
the
said
figurative
sense
for
the
object
of
Faith
(
Christs
righteousness
)
seems
to
be
a
sensless
contradiction
to
the
Apostle
:
for
whereas
the
Apostle
says
plainly
,
that
Abraham
received
circumcision
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
faith
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
;
This
construction
makes
him
to
have
said
,
Abraham
received
circumcision
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
righteousness
,
which
he
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
.
Having
hitherto
spoken
of
that
righteousness
,
which
is
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
believing
sinners
;
I
shall
now
proceed
to
enquire
,
whether
any
thing
be
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
unto
them
for
,
or
to
righteousness
:
and
touching
this
inquiry
,
together
with
the
resolution
of
such
material
questions
as
are
incident
thereunto
,
the
residue
of
this
part
will
be
taken
up
.
Onely
at
the
close
of
this
chapter
,
and
indeed
of
all
that
I
have
to
say
at
present
concerning
remission
of
sin
as
that
righteousness
,
which
is
said
in
Scripture
to
be
for
Christs
sake
imputed
to
believing
sinners
,
I
shall
think
it
necessary
for
the
prevention
of
mistake
,
and
for
the
due
understanding
as
well
of
my
full
as
true
meaning
in
the
premisses
,
to
request
the
Reader
to
take
notice
,
that
whereas
in
certain
of
the
foregoing
Chapters
I
have
spoken
of
a
twofold
branch
of
a
sinners
Evangelical
righteousness
,
the
one
being
officium
,
duty
commanded
;
the
other
beneficium
,
mercy
or
benefit
promised
in
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
Faith
:
And
whereas
having
proved
,
that
neither
of
these
two
parts
or
kinds
of
righteousness
are
meant
by
that
righteousness
,
which
S.
Paul
styles
his
own
,
in
opposition
to
that
which
he
styles
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
which
is
of
,
from
,
by
,
or
through
faith
;
I
have
withall
asserted
,
that
justification
or
remission
of
sin
(
this
being
the
righteousness
promised
to
sinners
conditionally
upon
their
faith
)
is
it
,
which
S.
Paul
doth
style
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
which
is
by
faith
:
whereas
I
say
,
this
hath
been
asserted
by
me
,
I
must
not
in
that
express
assertion
be
understood
as
excluding
,
but
as
supposing
and
including
that
other
branch
of
righteousness
which
is
commanded
in
the
Gospel
.
For
as
I
am
perswaded
,
that
by
that
righteousness
which
S.
Paul
calls
his
own
,
which
is
of
the
Law
,
in
opposition
to
that
by
him
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
God
by
faith
,
he
doth
not
onely
mean
the
righteousness
which
(
when
time
was
)
was
commanded
in
that
Law
,
but
also
all
those
Privileges
,
Prerogatives
,
Emoluments
,
or
Advantages
,
which
were
therein
promised
to
the
Observers
thereof
;
so
I
do
readily
acknowledge
,
that
both
that
righteousness
which
is
promised
,
and
that
also
which
is
commanded
in
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
Faith
,
are
to
be
understood
as
comprized
in
that
righteousness
which
S.
Paul
styles
in
those
various
phrases
,
The
righteousness
of
God
,
The
righteousness
of
Faith
,
The
righteousness
of
the
faith
which
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
with
the
like
expressions
to
this
purpose
.
Yea
,
if
any
one
that
affirms
,
that
the
righteousness
commanded
in
the
Law
of
Faith
is
the
prime
thing
,
or
that
which
is
most
immediately
to
be
understood
by
the
said
expressions
of
the
Apostle
,
I
shall
not
gainsay
;
it
being
sufficient
for
my
purpose
,
that
the
righteousness
which
is
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
(
viz.
Justification
or
Remission
of
sin
)
be
acknowledged
to
be
one
part
of
that
righteousness
,
which
S.
Paul
styles
the
righteousness
of
God
which
is
by
faith
,
and
included
therefore
in
the
said
expressions
of
the
Apostle
,
where
he
speaks
of
this
righteousness
in
opposition
to
that
righteousness
which
he
calls
his
own
,
which
is
of
the
Law
.
And
I
shall
think
it
here
not
amiss
,
to
commend
to
observation
the
difference
betwixt
the
said
two
parts
or
kinds
of
righteousness
,
the
one
commanded
,
the
other
for
Christs
sake
promised
in
the
Gospel
or
Law
of
Faith
;
how
that
they
differ
as
the
way
to
an
end
,
and
the
end
it self
of
that
way
;
righteousness
promised
in
the
Gospel
being
the
end
,
or
scope
,
the
reward
,
the
{αβγδ}
,
or
prize
to
be
attained
(
so
the
Apostle
styles
it
,
Phil
.
3.14
.
)
and
righteousness
therein
commanded
as
the
condition
,
being
the
means
of
attaining
it
,
as
is
the
Apostles
expression
,
saying
ver.
11.
If
by
any
means
I
may
attain
—
Both
these
(
the
Means
and
the
End
)
seem
evidently
to
be
comprized
in
that
expression
of
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
9.30
.
where
speaking
concerning
the
believing
Gentiles
he
says
,
that
they
attained
to
righteousness
,
even
the
righteousness
which
is
of
Faith
,
i.e.
they
did
take
the
right
way
,
and
they
obtained
thereby
their
desired
end
,
viz.
they
followed
the
way
of
righteousness
prescribed
in
the
Gospel
(
the
way
of
Faith
without
the
works
of
the
Law
)
and
in
the
pursuit
of
that
way
they
did
attain
to
,
or
obtain
,
the
righteousness
therein
promised
:
whereas
the
Jews
by
missing
or
avoiding
the
way
,
and
taking
another
course
,
attained
not
the
end
,
as
is
said
in
the
following
verses
.
And
as
I
have
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
shewed
several
reasons
,
why
the
said
righteousness
promised
in
the
Gospel
(
Justification
or
Remission
of
sin
)
is
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
and
which
is
by
or
through
Faith
;
so
it
were
easie
to
suggest
several
considerable
reasons
,
why
that
other
branch
of
Evangelical
righteousness
(
commanded
in
the
Gospel
,
and
in
the
said
expressions
comprized
)
may
very
fitly
be
styled
the
righteousness
of
God
,
the
righteousness
of
Faith
,
or
which
is
by
Faith
.
But
it
being
not
so
pertinent
to
my
purpose
in
hand
,
to
insist
upon
those
reasons
,
I
will
therefore
forbear
here
to
specifie
or
suggest
them
;
and
the
rather
because
I
think
it
sufficient
to
have
proved
,
that
whether
by
the
said
expressions
of
the
Apostle
(
The
righteousness
of
God
,
The
righteousness
of
Faith
,
The
righteousness
which
is
by
or
from
Faith
—
)
we
do
understand
precisely
the
righteousness
in
the
Law
of
Faith
promised
,
or
the
righteousness
therein
commanded
,
or
both
the
one
and
the
other
to
be
therein
comprized
(
neither
of
them
according
to
my
perswasion
being
to
be
excluded
)
I
have
manifested
,
and
I
hope
it
is
apparently
manifest
,
that
by
that
righteousness
wherein
S.
Paul
desired
to
be
found
(
by
him
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
of
God
by
Faith
,
in
opposition
to
that
which
he
styles
his
own
,
which
is
of
the
Law
)
is
not
meant
the
personal
righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
the
imputation
thereof
,
in
opposition
to
our
Evangelical
righteousness
,
whether
that
righteousness
of
duty
which
is
commanded
,
or
that
righteousness
of
reward
and
benefit
,
which
is
promised
in
the
Law
of
Faith
;
it
having
been
a
mistake
too
too
common
,
and
for
the
commonness
of
it
the
more
to
be
privately
lamented
and
openly
opposed
,
in
such
sort
to
interpret
that
so
much
vexed
Scripture
.
And
therefore
let
that
Note
in
the
Assemblies
(
so
called
)
Annotations
upon
the
said
Scripture
,
Phil
.
3.9
.
be
no
otherwise
noted
,
than
as
a
mistake
to
be
avoided
:
where
by
our
being
found
not
in
our
own
righteousness
,
but
in
that
which
is
through
the
faith
of
Christ
,
the
Annotator
would
have
us
to
understand
our
being
clothed
with
the
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
.
As
for
that
Metaphorical
expression
of
the
said
Annotator
(
our
being
clothed
with
the
righteousness
of
Christ
)
I
have
at
large
declared
my
thoughts
in
Chap.
30.
of
the
former
part
of
this
Discourse
,
by
way
of
answer
to
the
Question
,
Whether
Believers
may
be
truly
or
fitly
said
to
be
clothed
with
the
righteousness
of
Christ
?
wherein
hath
been
manifested
the
unfitness
of
that
unscriptural
and
unedifying
phrase
,
it
being
a
phrase
as
purely
of
humane
invention
,
so
also
taken
up
or
occasioned
by
the
mis-understanding
of
the
true
sense
of
that
other
unscriptural
phr●s●
,
wherein
Christs
righteousness
hath
been
ordinarily
s●id
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
and
the
asserting
of
a
sense
of
that
saying
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
;
it
having
been
also
the
manner
of
some
popular
Preachers
to
direct
and
exhort
their
Hearers
to
live
out
of
themselves
,
i.e.
out
of
their
own
personal
graces
,
and
gracious
dispositions
,
upon
a
naked
Christ
,
or
the
naked
righteousness
of
Christ
(
imputed
to
them
)
for
righteousness
and
salvation
.
This
is
that
new
mode
of
language
of
later
times
I
have
observed
from
the
Mouths
and
Pens
of
some
Preachers
,
particularly
from
Mr.
Edward
Pearse
,
in
his
late
printed
book
,
styled
The
Great
Concernment
,
and
said
to
be
the
last
Sermons
that
he
preached
before
his
death
:
because
he
hath
miserably
abused
and
mis-interpreted
every
Text
of
the
Sacred
Scriptures
alledged
by
him
for
his
said
purpose
;
I
will
therefore
relate
his
words
,
and
make
a
short
reply
thereunto
.
This
living
out
of
our
own
graces
,
says
he
,
upon
Christs
naked
(
imputed
)
righteousness
,
is
that
which
is
called
the
readiness
of
the
Lambs
wife
,
Rev.
19.7
,
8.
and
by
the
righteousness
of
the
Saints
is
there
meant
the
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
us
—
And
he
says
also
,
That
this
is
that
robe
mentioned
Luke
15.22
.
and
that
this
imputed
righteousness
of
Christ
is
meant
in
Phil
.
3.8
,
9.
and
also
in
Isa
.
61.10
.
In
all
the
said
Scriptures
he
hath
erred
exceedingly
from
the
true
sense
and
meaning
of
them
,
having
expresly
ut●er'd
the
dreams
and
imaginations
of
his
own
brain
and
fancy
.
One
of
the
said
Scriptures
I
have
already
copiously
vindicated
in
this
second
part
of
my
Discourse
,
having
therein
manifested
,
that
by
the
Righteousness
,
wherein
St.
Paul
desired
to
be
found
(
in
opposition
to
that
styled
his
own
,
which
is
of
the
Law
)
is
not
meant
Christs
personal
Righteousness
,
and
much
less
Christs
Righteousness
as
imputed
to
us
;
but
that
Righteousness
,
which
is
commanded
and
is
prom
sed
to
Sinners
in
the
Gospel
.
As
for
those
two
Scriptures
(
Isa
.
61.10
.
and
Lev
.
19.7
,
8.
)
I
have
vindicated
them
from
the
same
misconstruction
made
of
them
by
others
in
the
thirtieth
Chapter
of
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
.
And
as
for
that
other
Scripture
(
Luke
15.22
.
)
my
Reply
to
this
Author
is
,
That
he
had
no
more
reason
,
colour
,
or
shadow
of
reason
to
say
,
that
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
is
the
thing
meant
by
the
Robe
there
mentioned
,
than
by
the
Ring
,
and
Shoes
,
and
fatted
Calf
,
which
together
with
the
Robe
were
alike
ordered
by
that
glad
Father
for
the
welcoming
home
of
his
lost
Son
.
CHAP.
XV
.
Q.
Is
there
any
thing
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousnes
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
viz.
Faith
,
it
being
thus
recorded
in
the
Old
Testament
,
Gen.
15.6
.
and
the
record
thereof
produced
in
the
New
Testament
once
by
S.
James
,
chap.
2.23
.
and
twice
by
S.
Paul
,
Gal.
3.6
.
and
Rom.
4.3
.
in
which
chapter
he
doth
assert
little
less
than
ten
times
over
,
that
Abrahams
faith
was
imputed
to
him
,
and
that
the
like
or
same
specifical
faith
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
ver
.
3
,
5
,
9
,
20
,
22
,
23
,
24.
Q.
IS
there
any
thing
expresly
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
to
believing
sinners
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Yes
:
their
saith
is
said
both
in
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
and
of
the
New
Testament
to
be
so
imputed
.
For
thus
it
is
reported
concerning
Abrahams
faith
,
Gen.
15.6
.
And
he
believed
in
the
Lord
,
and
he
counted
it
unto
him
for
righteousness
.
This
saying
is
once
quoted
by
Saint
James
,
chap.
2.23
.
and
once
by
Saint
Paul
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Galatians
,
chap.
3.6
.
Even
as
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
accounted
(
or
imputed
)
to
him
for
righteousness
.
And
more
than
once
by
the
same
Apostle
the
same
is
asserted
,
chap.
4.3
,
&
5
,
9
,
10
,
22
,
23.
in
which
verses
Abrahams
faith
is
five
times
over
asserted
to
have
been
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
And
lest
it
might
be
thought
to
have
been
the
peculiar
privilege
of
Abrahams
personal
faith
,
to
have
been
accounted
to
him
for
righteousness
;
for
as
the
Jews
said
to
our
Saviour
,
Art
thou
greater
than
our
father
Abraham
?
so
possibly
may
it
be
objected
by
a
Christian
,
specially
of
the
weaker
sort
.
Is
my
faith
as
strong
as
was
Abrahams
,
or
comparable
in
degree
to
his
?
The
Apostle
therefore
doth
not
content
himself
to
have
s●id
,
ver
.
11
,
12.
And
he
received
the
sign
of
Circumcision
,
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
faith
,
which
he
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
;
that
he
might
be
the
father
of
all
them
that
believe
,
though
they
be
not
circumcised
,
that
righteousness
might
be
imputed
to
them
also
:
And
the
father
of
Circumcision
to
them
,
who
are
not
of
the
Circumcision
onely
,
but
also
walk
in
the
steps
of
that
faith
of
our
father
Abraham
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
:
but
he
doth
also
plainly
and
explicitly
again
assert
the
same
imputation
touching
the
faith
of
every
one
to
the
worlds
end
,
that
shall
be
a
true
Believer
,
saying
ver.
23
,
24.
Now
it
was
not
written
for
his
sake
alone
,
that
it
was
imputed
to
him
,
but
for
us
also
,
to
whom
it
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
believe
on
him
,
who
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
't
is
true
indeed
,
that
circumcision
spoken
of
ver.
11.
did
seal
the
righteousness
of
Abrahams
personal
faith
,
faith
subjectively
and
individually
taken
,
yet
not
as
his
faith
,
i.e.
not
simply
,
and
precisely
as
his
(
for
if
so
,
it
would
seal
righteousness
,
blessedness
,
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
to
none
else
;
)
but
exemplariter
,
for
examples
sake
,
as
his
faith
without
circumcision
,
and
the
deeds
of
the
law
was
to
be
a
pattern
of
the
way
of
justifying
sinners
(
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
)
under
the
Gospel
,
Abraham
being
the
Father
,
i.e.
the
exemplar
of
the
Gospel-way
of
justifying
sinners
(
for
so
father
is
taken
ver.
12.
)
that
so
,
as
the
Apostle
expresses
it
,
Gal.
3.14
.
The
blessing
of
Abraham
might
come
upon
the
Gentiles
through
Jesus
Christ
.
Briefly
,
it
did
not
seal
the
said
righteousness
to
his
faith
as
his
individually
,
but
as
it
was
such
a
faith
,
as
the
promise
,
which
was
sealed
was
made
unto
,
i.e.
a
true
,
lively
,
operative
,
and
working
faith
.
Although
circumcision
did
seal
his
justification
,
he
having
that
sort
of
faith
,
which
the
general
promise
was
made
unto
;
yet
it
did
not
seal
his
justification
primarily
,
but
consequentially
,
i.e.
by
sealing
the
general
promise
.
It
sealed
the
righteousness
of
his
faith
as
he
was
the
designed
Farher
,
or
pattern
(
for
in
this
sense
the
word
Father
is
taken
,
ver
.
12.
)
as
his
faith
was
to
be
a
pattern
to
believing
sinners
,
respectively
both
to
the
nature
,
as
also
to
the
privilege
of
his
justification
,
or
righteousness
consequent
thereunto
;
which
righteousness
,
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
,
even
as
Abraham
is
called
the
Father
of
the
Faithful
,
so
is
it
styled
their
Fathers
blessing
,
common
now
to
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
.
The
premisses
considered
,
let
it
be
observed
,
how
much
a
late
learned
Author
was
out
of
the
way
of
truth
in
saying
,
That
the
sound
of
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
to
believers
is
as
loud
in
the
Scriptures
,
as
was
that
of
the
trumpet
upon
Mount
Sinai
,
it
being
sounded
forth
almost
ten
times
in
that
forecited
Chapter
,
Rom.
4.
Whereas
in
truth
,
it
is
the
imputation
of
Faith
,
for
righteousness
that
is
there
spoken
of
;
but
of
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
there
is
not
the
least
whisper
in
all
that
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
Q.
What
is
meant
by
faith
in
those
Scriptures
both
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
wherein
it
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
righteousness
?
Is
it
to
be
taken
properly
for
faith
it self
,
or
figuratively
,
i.e.
objectively
,
for
Christs
righteousness
the
object
of
faith
?
Answ
.
Properly
for
the
thing
faith
,
or
faith
it self
,
the
truth
of
which
answer
is
proved
by
many
reasons
,
and
cleared
from
certain
objections
,
with
the
suffrage
of
the
very
learned
and
most
industrious
Mr
R.
Baxter
,
and
reflection
upon
a
passage
of
Dr
Grew
in
his
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
Q.
WHat
is
meant
by
faith
in
the
said
iterated
saying
of
the
Apostle
[
Faith
is
,
was
,
and
shall
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
righteousness
?
]
Answ
.
It
is
famously
known
,
that
there
are
some
learned
Authors
,
and
of
those
no
small
sum
,
who
would
have
us
to
believe
,
that
by
faith
[
so
expresly
and
frequently
there
said
to
be
imputed
]
is
not
meant
faith
,
i.e.
the
grace
of
faith
,
or
any
act
thereof
,
but
the
obedience
,
satisfaction
,
or
righteousness
of
Christ
believed
on
,
or
apprehended
by
faith
.
And
because
it
is
a
thing
,
that
having
discovered
it self
to
the
world
,
cannot
be
hid
,
it
must
be
therefore
acknowledged
,
that
this
construction
is
formed
into
an
Article
of
the
faith
of
two
Assemblies
in
time
of
the
long
Parliament
and
reign
of
the
late
Protector
(
so
called
)
the
one
sitting
at
Westminster
,
the
other
at
the
Savoy
,
that
consisting
for
the
greatest
part
of
Presbyteriall
,
and
these
altogether
(
for
ought
I
ever
heard
)
of
Divines
styled
Congregational
and
Independent
,
who
however
differing
each
from
other
in
other
things
,
did
too
too
unhappily
accord
in
the
misconstruction
of
the
word
[
Faith
]
in
the
said
celebrated
saying
of
the
Apostle
,
which
they
would
have
to
be
taken
not
properly
and
formally
for
faith
it self
,
but
figuratively
,
or
objectively
for
the
righteousness
of
Christ
believed
,
or
rested
upon
,
which
appears
not
onely
by
the
Printed
Confessions
of
their
faith
,
but
also
by
that
Catechism
styled
The
Larger
Catechism
agreed
upon
by
the
Assembly
of
Divines
at
Westminster
.
But
blessed
be
God
▪
that
this
is
none
of
the
Articles
of
the
Church
of
England
,
to
which
subscription
is
required
;
and
therefore
as
for
those
confessions
,
how
good
and
wholsom
in
other
things
they
may
be
,
as
I
am
not
required
,
so
neither
am
I
able
to
assent
to
them
in
this
matter
,
although
owned
by
them
as
an
Article
of
their
private
faith
,
yet
was
not
in
their
power
,
nor
in
the
power
of
any
man
,
or
Assemblies
of
men
to
make
it
any
Article
of
the
Common
faith
of
Christians
;
Faith
therefore
in
that
known
,
and
common
saying
of
the
Apostle
(
faith
is
imputed
to
believers
for
righteousness
)
is
to
be
taken
properly
and
formally
for
faith
it self
,
or
believing
,
not
figuratively
or
objectively
,
i.e.
for
the
object
of
faith
,
the
righteousness
of
Christ
believed
on
,
even
in
the
like
propriety
of
construction
,
as
indeed
it
is
to
be
taken
in
any
other
Scriptures
,
wherein
any
privilege
whether
pertaining
to
this
life
or
the
life
to
come
is
(
under
Christ
)
attributed
to
faith
,
as
in
that
wherein
our
Saviour
says
to
the
diseased
woman
,
Mat
.
9.22
.
Thy
saith
hath
made
thee
whole
(
it
being
in
very
deed
faith
in
his
name
,
that
did
it
even
no
less
,
when
it
was
done
by
Christ
in
person
,
than
when
a
like
miracle
was
done
by
him
through
the
Ministery
of
St.
Peter
Acts
3.16
.
)
and
in
those
Scriptures
wherein
we
are
said
to
be
saved
through
faith
,
justified
by
faith
,
and
the
like
.
I
do
the
rather
instance
in
the
phrase
of
our
being
justified
by
faith
(
an
expression
frequent
with
our
Apostle
)
because
these
his
phrases
[
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
and
we
are
justified
by
,
through
,
or
from
faith
]
are
perfectly
equipollent
,
so
that
look
in
what
construction
the
word
[
Faith
]
is
taken
in
the
one
,
it
is
to
be
taken
in
the
other
,
and
in
very
deed
it
is
in
all
the
said
phrases
to
be
taken
properly
,
it
being
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
by
that
word
to
give
us
to
understand
,
that
faith
it self
(
the
grace
of
faith
)
hath
a
certain
interest
,
place
,
or
office
,
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
;
and
under
what
notion
,
and
upon
what
account
it
doth
operate
,
or
prove
effectual
to
that
end
,
will
be
declared
in
answer
to
certain
Questions
in
the
sequel
of
this
Discourse
,
which
in
that
behalf
will
be
proposed
.
I
will
only
say
here
,
that
it
was
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
in
all
the
said
phrases
to
intimate
the
necessity
and
the
effectualness
of
faith
as
a
means
(
of
one
kind
,
or
other
)
to
the
righteousness
,
or
justification
of
a
sinner
.
Obj.
Is
not
Christs
righteousness
the
merit●rious
cause
of
a
Believers
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Yes
:
For
he
was
made
our
substitute
so
far
forth
as
to
be
made
sin
for
us
,
or
to
bear
the
punishment
of
our
sins
,
whereby
to
purchase
righteousness
for
us
,
or
that
we
might
be
made
righteous
;
but
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
his
righteousness
it self
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
Obj.
Hath
not
faith
an
object
,
and
is
not
Christs
righteousness
the
object
of
that
faith
,
which
is
imputed
to
us
for
our
justification
?
Answ
.
1.
In
the
way
of
concession
,
I
grant
,
1.
That
as
every
act
doth
imply
one
object
,
or
another
,
about
which
it
is
conversant
;
so
doth
faith
:
and
as
a
man
cannot
be
said
to
see
,
except
he
see
something
;
so
not
to
believe
,
except
he
believe
something
:
and
it
is
altogether
a
thing
unreasonable
to
conceive
,
that
those
,
who
do
affirm
,
that
faith
properly
taken
doth
justifie
us
,
or
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
do
thereby
mean
faith
as
divided
,
or
severed
from
its
object
.
2.
I
grant
,
that
the
righteousness
of
Christ
is
a
main
thing
to
be
believed
,
as
well
as
other
things
revealed
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
that
it
is
of
far
greater
concernment
to
believe
it
,
than
many
other
things
therein
written
and
made
known
unto
us
.
2.
Nevertheless
in
the
way
of
opposition
I
answer
,
1.
The
righteousness
of
Christ
is
but
a
partial
,
not
the
adequate
,
or
ultimate
object
of
that
faith
,
which
was
imputed
to
Abraham
,
and
which
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
;
for
it
is
said
of
Abraham
,
that
he
believed
God
,
and
it
was
counted
to
him
for
righteousness
,
Rom.
4.3
.
so
that
God
,
or
the
promise
of
God
was
the
object
of
that
his
faith
;
and
that
faith
,
which
the
Apostle
says
shall
be
imputed
to
us
,
is
said
to
have
for
its
object
Him
that
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
,
i.e.
God
the
Father
,
Eph.
1.17
,
20.
2.
We
may
believe
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
even
as
well
as
other
Articles
of
the
Christian
faith
,
and
yet
not
be
thereby
justified
,
or
have
that
faith
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
3.
For
which
reason
possibly
it
comes
to
pass
,
that
(
as
some
have
observed
)
whereas
the
object
of
faith
as
saving
is
expressed
with
great
variety
of
phrase
in
Scripture
,
there
is
not
to
be
found
in
all
that
variety
any
express
mention
of
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
e
.
g
.
Sometimes
Christs
person
is
made
the
object
of
this
faith
,
John
3.16
.
So
God
loved
the
world
,
that
he
gave
—
that
whosoever
believeth
in
him
—
Sometime
Christ
in
his
word
,
or
doctrine
,
John
5.46
.
Had
ye
believed
Moses
,
ye
would
have
believed
me
.
Sometimes
Christ
in
the
relation
of
his
person
;
sometimes
as
he
stands
related
to
God
as
his
only
begotten
Son
,
John
20.31
.
These
things
are
written
that
ye
might
believe
,
that
Jesus
is
the
Christ
the
son
of
God
,
and
that
—
Sometimes
as
he
stands
related
to
those
ancient
promises
of
God
,
recorded
in
the
Old
Testament
,
concerning
the
Messias
as
the
off-spring
of
the
Jewish
nation
,
John
8.24
.
Except
ye
believe
,
that
I
am
he
,
ye
shall
die
in
your
sins
.
Sometimes
the
raising
of
Christ
from
the
dead
is
made
the
object
of
this
faith
,
Rom.
10.9
.
If
thou
shalt
confess
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
shalt
believe
in
thy
heart
,
that
God
raised
him
up
from
the
dead
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
Sometimes
God
himself
is
solely
specified
as
the
object
of
this
faith
,
Rom.
4.3
.
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
counted
to
him
for
righteousness
.
Sometimes
God
through
Christ
,
1
Pet
.
1.21
.
Who
by
him
do
do
believe
in
God
,
who
raised
him
up
from
the
dead
,
and
gave
him
glory
,
that
our
faith
and
hope
might
be
in
God
.
Sometimes
the
record
or
testimony
of
God
concerning
his
Son
is
made
the
object
of
this
faith
,
1
John
5.10
.
Sometimes
no
object
at
all
of
this
faith
is
expresly
mentioned
,
where
yet
the
Gospel
is
to
be
understood
as
the
object
thereof
,
Mark
16.16
.
with
ver
.
15.
He
that
believeth
,
i.e.
that
Gospel
,
which
the
Apostles
had
in
commission
to
preach
to
every
creature
,
ver
.
15.
shall
be
saved
—
The
premisses
considered
,
it
may
seem
strange
,
why
those
,
who
do
assert
,
that
by
faith
is
meant
Christs
righteousness
(
an
object
thereof
as
justifying
never
expresly
mentioned
in
Scripture
)
should
not
as
well
,
or
rather
assert
,
that
by
it
is
meant
God
,
or
Christ
,
or
some
object
of
faith
in
express
terms
specified
in
Scripture
.
4.
Although
the
righteousness
of
Christ
be
one
part
of
the
object
of
faith
,
nevertheless
it
will
not
follow
,
that
in
the
said
assertion
of
the
Apostle
(
faith
is
imputed
to
believers
,
and
was
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousness
)
the
word
faith
is
to
be
taken
not
formally
for
faith
it self
,
but
objectively
for
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
no
more
than
it
will
from
thence
follow
,
that
it
is
to
be
taken
for
God
himself
,
or
Christ
in
person
the
objects
thereof
.
But
that
by
faith
is
meant
faith
it self
(
the
grace
of
faith
)
seems
manifest
by
the
consideration
of
these
two
things
,
viz.
by
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
in
that
chapter
,
as
also
by
the
description
of
Abrahams
faith
,
which
was
imputed
to
him
,
and
of
that
faith
which
the
Apostle
says
shall
be
imputed
to
others
for
righteousness
.
1.
The
thing
,
which
was
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousness
,
is
said
by
the
Apostle
to
be
that
,
which
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
.
Now
that
,
which
the
Apostle
said
,
that
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
is
not
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
but
faith
;
for
which
see
Rom.
4.11
.
And
he
received
the
sign
of
circumcision
a
seal
of
the
righteousness
of
the
Faith
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
.
Obj.
The
antecedent
to
that
relative
,
is
not
the
word
faith
,
but
righteousness
,
and
so
the
meaning
is
,
which
righteousness
i.e.
of
Christ
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
?
Answ
.
In
the
way
of
concession
;
forasmuch
as
the
words
[
{αβγδ}
and
{αβγδ}
]
are
bath
of
them
of
the
feminine
gender
,
I
grant
that
the
pronoun
relative
[
{αβγδ}
,
]
which
may
in
true
construction
of
Grammar
indifferently
refer
either
to
the
word
Righteousness
,
or
to
the
word
Faith
as
its
antecedent
.
2
,
In
way
of
exception
,
1.
Although
in
Grammatical
construction
it
may
possibly
refer
to
either
of
them
,
nevertheless
it
doth
truly
refer
to
the
word
faith
,
as
appears
by
the
Apostles
interpretation
,
or
construction
thereof
in
the
verse
immediately
following
,
where
speaking
of
the
believing
Gentiles
,
he
d●s●ribes
them
to
be
such
,
as
do
walk
in
the
steps
of
that
Faith
of
our
Father
Abraham
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
.
So
that
if
we
will
believe
the
Apostle
,
the
Relative
which
in
verse
11.
doth
not
refer
to
the
word
righteousness
(
as
if
he
had
meant
,
which
righteousness
Abraham
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
)
but
to
the
word
faith
:
Hence
it
follows
unavoidably
,
That
if
the
thing
said
to
be
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousness
be
that
,
which
he
is
said
to
have
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
i.e.
faith
,
hence
I
say
it
follows
necessarily
,
that
the
thing
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousness
was
his
faith
,
and
not
the
righteousness
of
Christ
.
2
I
answer
Ex
abundanti
,
By
the
righteousness
of
faith
in
Rom.
4.11
.
is
not
meant
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
but
that
righteousness
which
is
the
fruit
of
faith
,
or
doth
acc●ue
to
sinners
by
faith
in
Christ
,
as
hath
at
large
been
manifested
in
the
14th
Chapter
of
this
Discourse
.
2.
That
faith
,
which
was
imputed
to
Abraham
for
righteousness
,
is
that
,
by
which
he
believed
in
God
,
who
quickneth
the
dead
,
and
verse
17.
But
Christs
righteousness
cannot
in
any
tolerable
construction
be
called
that
faith
,
by
which
Abraham
believed
in
God
,
who
quickneth
the
dead
,
and
calleth
the
things
that
are
not
as
though
they
were
.
3.
It
is
said
to
be
that
faith
,
wherein
Abraham
was
not
weak
,
verse
19.
But
the
righteousness
of
Christ
cannot
in
reason
be
conceived
to
be
that
,
wherein
Abraham
was
not
weak
.
4.
It
is
opposed
unto
doubting
of
the
promise
of
God
through
unbelief
,
verse
20.
to
which
doubting
the
righteousness
of
Christ
carries
no
opposition
,
it
being
a
thing
predicamentally
differing
,
or
of
a
different
kind
from
it
.
It
was
that
faith
,
by
which
he
was
fully
assured
,
that
he
,
which
had
promised
,
was
able
to
perform
.
Thus
it
is
described
verse
21.
and
the
imputation
thereof
so
described
,
is
affirmed
verse
22.
But
no
such
thing
can
be
affirmed
concerning
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
viz.
That
by
it
Abraham
was
assured
,
that
he
,
who
had
promised
,
was
able
to
perform
it
.
2.
Consider
what
the
Apostle
says
concerning
that
faith
of
other
believers
,
which
,
as
he
asserts
,
shall
be
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
,
e
.
g
.
1.
He
says
verse
5.
That
to
him
,
that
worketh
not
,
but
believeth
on
him
,
who
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
His
faith
is
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
Hence
it
is
evident
,
that
that
faith
(
whatsoever
we
understand
by
it
)
which
is
imputed
to
a
believer
for
righteousness
,
is
somewhat
,
that
may
be
truly
and
properly
called
His
,
before
such
imputation
of
it
be
made
unto
him
.
Now
it
cannot
be
said
of
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
that
that
is
any
mans
(
even
our
adversaries
in
this
controversie
being
judges
)
before
the
imputation
of
it
be
made
unto
him
;
but
faith
properly
taken
is
the
believers
(
at
least
in
order
of
nature
)
before
it
be
imputed
.
2.
That
,
which
shall
be
imputed
to
others
for
righteousness
,
is
said
to
be
our
believing
on
him
,
that
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
ver
.
24.
But
the
righteousness
of
Christ
is
not
our
believing
on
him
,
who
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
Therefore
it
cannot
be
the
Apostles
meaning
,
that
Christs
righteousness
is
the
very
thing
,
which
is
there
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
Lastly
,
That
the
word
faith
here
is
to
be
taken
properly
for
faith
,
and
not
figuratively
for
Christs
righteousness
is
sufficiently
apparent
by
the
drift
of
the
Apostle
in
his
whole
discourse
concerning
justification
,
which
evidently
was
to
direct
unto
and
assert
the
true
way
of
being
justified
,
in
opposition
to
that
wrong
way
(
through
works
and
legal
performances
and
not
by
faith
,
Rom.
9.32
.
)
which
was
embraced
by
many
in
those
times
,
according
to
the
doctrine
of
their
false
Teachers
.
We
may
well
suppose
the
Question
to
be
the
same
with
that
of
the
Jaylors
.
What
shall
I
do
to
be
saved
,
or
justified
?
Must
we
be
circumcised
and
keep
the
law
of
Moses
of
necessity
to
justification
,
and
salvation
,
or
is
it
enough
for
that
end
to
believe
in
Christ
without
such
works
?
Thus
is
the
Question
stated
Acts
15
,
beginning
.
This
Question
the
Apostle
determines
in
this
Chapter
,
as
in
the
Chapter
foregoing
,
affirming
constantly
,
That
that
which
God
now
requires
at
our
hands
in
order
to
our
justification
,
or
salvation
,
is
not
legal
performances
,
works
of
the
Judaical
law
,
but
faith
in
Christ
.
As
for
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
this
is
not
the
thing
required
at
our
hands
(
as
Dr
Owen
says
)
for
our
justification
;
this
is
it
,
which
God
required
of
Christ
,
and
Christ
did
perform
to
the
uttermost
of
what
was
required
,
and
this
righteousness
of
Christ
so
required
,
and
performed
,
the
Apostle
in
his
discourse
concerning
justification
always
supposeth
,
and
sometimes
intimateth
in
such
places
where
he
mentions
the
blood
of
Christ
,
Rom.
3.25
.
and
justification
by
his
blood
.
Chap.
5.9
.
and
his
being
delivered
for
our
offences
,
Chap.
4.25
.
But
the
thing
required
of
us
,
is
our
faith
in
Christ
himself
,
or
in
God
through
Christ
,
as
the
Apostle
most
agreably
to
the
occasion
and
drift
of
his
discourse
doth
determine
.
And
verily
for
the
Apostle
to
have
certified
them
,
that
the
righteousness
of
Christ
should
be
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
,
or
barely
to
have
informed
them
,
what
Christ
hath
done
for
the
procuring
of
righteousness
for
them
,
had
been
,
if
not
quite
beside
,
yet
marvellously
short
of
the
thing
designed
by
him
,
which
was
plainly
and
directly
this
,
viz.
to
make
known
unto
them
what
was
required
of
them
,
or
to
be
performed
by
themselves
(
through
Gods
gr●ce
assisting
and
enabling
them
)
for
their
being
justified
,
or
made
righteous
by
Christ
,
which
he
affirms
to
be
by
their
faith
,
or
believing
without
the
said
works
of
the
Law
.
And
thence
it
is
,
that
speaking
concerning
justification
,
redemption
,
and
salvation
by
Christ
,
he
doth
so
expresly
and
frequently
mention
faith
as
the
duty
,
or
means
required
by
God
of
us
,
or
on
our
parts
for
the
enjoyment
thereof
,
Rom.
3.25
.
and
5.1
,
2.
Eph.
2.8
.
If
my
one
shall
desire
to
hear
,
what
more
can
be
said
in
th●s
point
,
I
shall
refer
him
to
what
he
may
read
,
as
in
other
Authors
,
so
especially
in
Mr
Baxters
late
great
Volume
,
styled
his
Cath
.
Theology
,
Par
.
3.
p.
252
,
wherein
he
hath
purposely
and
to
very
good
purpose
answered
this
Question
,
Whether
faith
it self
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
?
I
will
only
transcribe
the
following
words
of
his
,
and
leave
them
to
the
Readers
impartial
consideration
.
If
good
men
,
and
wise
men
(
says
he
,
p.
253
,
254
)
and
men
,
that
cry
down
the
Papists
and
others
for
adding
to
Gods
word
,
and
corrupting
it
and
calling
it
a
nose
of
wax
,
and
introducing
new
Articles
of
faith
,
will
yet
own
such
expositions
as
these
(
they
saying
,
that
by
faith
is
not
meant
faith
at
all
,
but
Christs
righteousness
in
all
those
Scriptures
,
where
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
believers
for
righteousness
,
Rom.
4.3
,
4
,
10
,
11
,
13
,
16
,
18
,
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
,
23
,
24
)
and
accuse
those
,
that
own
them
not
,
they
are
as
great
instances
as
most
I
remember
,
except
the
defenders
of
Transubstantion
,
how
far
education
,
or
custome
,
or
humane
dependance
,
or
faction
,
or
partiality
,
and
prejudice
may
blind
the
reason
of
professed
Christians
,
and
godly
men
.
And
that
man
,
that
dare
lay
his
comforts
and
hopes
of
justification
,
and
life
upon
such
expositions
of
Gods
word
,
should
be
modest
in
crying
down
the
false
hopes
of
others
,
and
reproving
them
that
build
upon
the
sand
.
Quest
.
Are
there
any
such
as
Mr
Baxter
here
speaks
of
,
who
do
lay
their
comfort
and
hopes
of
justification
and
life
upon
the
righteousness
of
Christ
alone
,
and
not
at
all
upon
faith
,
or
ought
else
in
man
,
or
done
by
man
?
Answ
.
This
is
(
for
ought
I
know
)
ordinary
with
those
,
who
deny
faith
properly
taken
to
be
imputed
for
righteousness
,
among
whom
I
shall
instance
in
Dr
Grew
for
one
of
the
said
daring
Adventurers
,
as
doth
evidently
appear
by
many
passages
in
his
late
Printed
Sermons
on
Jer
.
23.6
.
Some
whereof
I
shall
recite
,
as
followeth
.
Holiness
and
holy
duties
(
says
he
,
p.
86.
)
in
the
point
of
justification
are
but
as
Cyphers
,
here
we
must
deny
our
best
as
well
as
our
worst
.
Our
eyes
fixed
on
Christs
righteousness
made
ours
(
he
means
by
imputation
of
the
thing
it self
)
settles
us
on
a
firmer
rock
,
than
mount
Sion
,
but
fixed
on
our selves
and
our
own
righteousness
within
doors
,
as
in
a
leaking
vessel
—
and
therefore
(
says
he
,
p.
88.
)
count
all
your
own
righteousness
(
he
means
,
all
our
holiness
and
holy
duties
)
loss
and
dung
.
And
p.
90.
(
says
he
)
many
would
be
in
commission
with
Christs
righteousness
(
he
means
,
Christs
righteousness
imputed
in
his
own
anti-gospel
sense
)
and
Gods
free
grace
for
their
peace
and
comfort
,
but
this
is
to
have
one
foot
on
the
firm
ground
,
and
another
in
a
boat
;
but
here
is
no
standing
.
And
p.
72.
he
makes
a
sinners
being
made
righteous
with
the
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
him
to
be
Articulus
stantis
,
&
cadentis
ecclesia
,
for
which
he
quotes
the
authority
of
Luther
,
mentioning
the
same
also
(
if
I
do
not
misremember
)
in
the
Epistle
prefixed
to
his
book
.
And
he
doth
so
enhance
the
comfort
of
Christs
righteousness
in
his
own
heterodox
sense
imputed
,
as
to
say
(
p.
204.
)
That
upon
account
thereof
the
obedience
of
one
Believer
is
more
acceptable
with
God
,
than
the
obedience
of
all
mankind
in
the
first
covenant
.
And
in
p.
120.
he
m●kes
as
if
nothing
will
quiet
our
consciences
,
but
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
in
his
sense
as
aforesaid
.
Mr
Baxter
needs
not
to
go
far
in
seeking
to
find
those
bold
Adventurers
,
who
dare
lay
their
comforts
and
hopes
of
justification
and
life
upon
such
misexpositions
of
Gods
word
as
aforesaid
,
for
here
is
one
who
dare
(
as
it
seems
)
do
it
with
open
face
,
and
with
superlative
confidence
.
CHAP.
XVII
.
Q.
Whence
comes
it
to
pass
,
that
so
many
very
learned
and
most
pious
men
have
so
much
and
miserably
mistaken
the
true
meaning
of
the
word
[
Faith
]
in
its
being
said
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
righteousness
,
they
interpreting
by
faith
not
to
be
meant
faith
,
but
the
righteousness
of
Christ
?
Answ
.
Four
things
are
assigned
as
the
causes
of
it
,
wherein
much
is
spoken
for
the
removing
of
them
out
of
the
way
of
truth
,
whereby
they
may
no
longer
obstruct
the
free
current
thereof
.
Q
WHence
comes
it
to
pass
,
that
so
many
godly
and
learned
men
have
so
mistaken
the
true
meaning
of
the
word
Faith
in
its
being
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
?
A.
Not
to
mention
the
common
infirmities
of
our
degenerate
nature
(
though
regenerate
)
nor
the
hand
of
Satan
our
common
Enemy
,
who
is
still
sowing
tares
among
the
good
seed
in
Gods
field
,
I
humbly
conceive
,
that
such
things
as
these
may
be
main
causes
or
occasions
thereof
.
1.
As
the
misexposition
of
one
Scripture
doth
oft
times
occasion
the
misconstruction
of
another
:
so
I
do
humbly
conceive
,
that
their
misexposition
of
all
such
Scriptures
,
wherein
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
hath
occasioned
their
misinterpretation
of
that
word
in
other
Scriptures
,
wherein
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
:
for
these
two
things
are
apparent
.
1.
To
be
justified
by
faith
,
and
to
have
faith
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
are
phrases
synonymous
,
signifying
the
self
same
thing
as
hath
been
already
said
,
and
as
is
proveable
from
Gal.
3.6
.
compared
with
ver
.
8.
where
having
said
ver.
6.
That
Abraham
believed
God
and
it
was
accounted
to
him
for
righteousness
,
he
interprets
the
saying
to
be
all
one
,
as
Gods
justifying
Abraham
by
faith
,
ver
.
8.
And
the
Scriptures
foreseeing
,
i.e.
God
foreseeing
,
as
the
Scripture
testifies
,
that
he
would
justifie
the
Heathen
through
faith
preached
before
the
Gospel
unto
Abraham
,
saying
,
In
thee
shall
all
nations
(
believing
Gentiles
as
well
as
Jews
)
be
blessed
.
2.
Consequently
hereupon
it
sufficiently
appears
by
those
Synonymous
expressions
,
that
the
word
faith
is
to
be
taken
in
the
same
sense
in
both
the
said
phrases
.
And
indeed
,
would
the
adverse
party
grant
,
that
it
is
faith
it self
properly
taken
by
which
we
are
justified
,
they
would
not
stick
to
yield
,
that
our
faith
it self
is
the
thing
,
which
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
But
forasmuch
as
they
do
professedly
maintain
,
that
in
the
former
sayings
(
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
and
saved
through
faith
and
the
like
)
the
word
faith
is
to
be
taken
relatively
,
or
objectively
(
not
for
faith
it self
,
but
for
Christs
righteousness
the
object
of
faith
;
)
they
have
thereupon
obliged
themselves
to
make
the
like
misconstruction
of
the
word
in
all
those
many
Scriptures
,
wherein
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
But
it
is
commonly
objected
,
that
the
habit
or
act
of
faith
is
sometimes
taken
for
the
object
of
faith
.
Adsw
.
1.
Though
that
he
supposed
,
or
granted
,
yet
it
will
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
it
is
so
to
be
taken
in
those
Scriptures
,
wherein
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
.
2.
As
in
some
Scriptures
we
are
said
to
be
justified
simply
by
faith
,
so
in
other
Scriptures
,
where
that
saying
is
interpreted
,
We
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
in
Christ
(
Gal.
2.16
.
knowing
,
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
law
,
but
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
even
we
have
believed
in
Christ
,
that
we
might
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
.
)
Whence
observe
,
that
the
grace
or
act
of
faith
are
both
of
them
there
expresly
mentioned
.
Now
when
the
act
and
object
are
named
together
,
and
the
act
expressed
and
specified
by
an
object
suitable
to
it
,
and
somewhat
moreover
immediately
ascribed
to
this
act
,
in
this
case
to
make
a
meer
cypher
of
the
act
,
and
to
ascribe
the
thing
solely
to
the
object
,
or
as
the
onely
thing
to
be
understood
by
the
act
,
is
altogether
against
reason
and
without
parallel
in
the
Scripture
.
I
shall
onely
commend
here
these
two
things
to
observation
,
viz.
1.
That
the
Scriptures
speaking
concerning
a
sinners
justification
,
do
sometimes
express
onely
the
grace
of
faith
,
ascribing
it
thereunto
,
as
in
Rom.
5.11
.
Being
justified
by
faith
.
—
Sometimes
they
do
express
onely
the
object
,
So
Gal.
3.16
.
That
the
blessing
of
Abraham
,
i.e.
justification
,
might
come
upon
the
Gentiles
through
Jesus
Christ
.
Sometimes
there
is
made
express
mention
both
of
the
grace
,
or
act
of
faith
,
as
also
of
its
object
.
So
in
the
Scripture
occasionally
forecited
,
Gal
2.16
.
Knowing
that
a
man
is
not
justified
by
the
works
of
the
law
,
but
by
the
faith
of
Jesus
Christ
,
even
we
have
believed
in
Jesus
Christ
,
that
we
might
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
.
2.
From
the
said
Scriptures
compared
together
▪
I
shall
commend
it
to
observation
as
a
very
safe
rule
,
and
very
necessary
for
the
deciding
and
preventing
of
needless
contests
,
viz.
That
where
the
act
of
justifying
faith
is
onely
mentioned
,
there
the
object
thereof
is
not
to
be
excluded
,
but
implyed
.
And
on
the
other
side
,
where
the
object
of
that
faith
is
onely
expressed
,
there
faith
it self
is
not
to
be
excluded
,
but
understood
.
And
where
both
are
expresly
mentioned
,
we
are
there
to
preserve
distinct
notions
of
them
,
neither
construing
the
object
of
faith
for
faith
it self
,
nor
faith
it self
simply
or
precisely
for
its
object
.
This
rule
well
observed
,
is
,
I
humbly
conceive
,
a
special
means
for
the
due
interpretation
of
many
Scriptures
,
which
treat
of
the
matters
I
am
now
speaking
of
,
and
for
the
ending
of
needless
controversies
.
2.
Another
thing
which
I
conceive
to
be
a
cause
of
these
misinterpretations
of
the
word
faith
,
is
(
as
I
am
perswaded
)
a
certain
jealousy
of
derogating
from
Christ
,
and
arrogating
to
our selves
;
which
jealousy
being
causless
is
of
a
most
mischievous
nature
,
and
hath
done
much
hurt
in
the
Churches
of
Christ
,
as
we
have
sadly
experienced
in
those
called
Antinomians
,
who
have
entertained
many
false
doctrines
,
because
of
that
{αβγδ}
,
or
{αβγδ}
(
as
are
the
words
of
Scripture
in
like
cases
,
Col.
2.23
.
Acts
17.30
.
)
I
mean
,
that
shew
,
which
they
have
of
humility
and
self-denial
,
and
honouring
Gods
free
grace
and
the
merits
of
Christs
.
The
causlesness
of
this
jealousy
I
shall
take
occasion
to
discover
,
in
answer
to
one
Question
or
other
,
which
for
that
end
shall
be
proposed
in
the
sequel
of
this
Discourse
.
In
the
mean
time
for
the
preventing
,
or
removing
of
such
causless
jealousies
in
the
case
before
us
,
it
may
be
sufficient
to
commend
to
observation
that
22d
Canon
of
the
most
excellent
Glassius
in
his
Philologia
Sacra
de
verbo
,
p.
586.
Activa
verba
tribuuntur
illis
,
quae
non
propriissime
,
&
influxu
proximo
id
agunt
,
quod
verba
significant
,
sed
certâ
tantum
ratione
concurrunt
.
Sometimes
matters
,
or
effects
are
in
Scripture
ascribed
to
those
things
,
which
are
no
principal
causes
thereof
,
but
onely
instruments
under
God
,
yea
which
are
no
causes
at
all
thereof
[
strictly
so
called
,
]
but
onely
in
means
or
conditions
in
one
sort
or
other
,
concurring
to
the
matter
.
It
were
easie
to
multiply
instances
of
this
kind
,
besides
those
which
are
specified
by
the
said
expert
Linguist
and
learned
Author
.
Thus
is
Timothy
by
his
life
and
doctrine
said
to
save
Himself
and
his
Hearers
,
1
Tim
.
4.16
.
And
sinners
are
said
to
make
themselves
new
hearts
and
new
spirits
,
Ezek
.
18.
lat.
Thus
is
baptisme
i.e.
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
towards
God
,
said
to
save
us
,
1
Pet
.
3.21
.
Not
that
this
Renovation
[
the
thing
meant
by
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
towards
God
]
is
so
much
as
a
cause
(
in
propriety
of
speech
)
thereof
,
but
because
it
doth
suo
modo
,
or
quadam
ratione
,
in
some
sort
morally
concur
thereunto
,
i.e.
as
a
certain
means
,
or
condition
of
a
sinners
salvation
,
at
least
by
divine
order
and
appointment
extrinsecal
thereunto
.
Where
by
the
way
be
it
observed
,
1.
That
S.
Peter
thought
it
no
derogating
from
the
grace
of
God
,
or
merits
of
Christ
,
to
attribute
our
salvation
to
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
toward
God
,
i.e.
to
real
holiness
.
In
like
sort
there
is
no
just
cause
to
think
,
that
the
adscription
of
a
sinners
righteousness
,
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
to
his
faith
properly
taken
,
is
any
sinful
arrogating
to
our selves
,
or
derogating
from
God
,
and
Christ
.
2.
Be
it
observed
,
that
this
same
jealousy
,
being
given
way
unto
,
must
necessarily
cause
us
to
make
some
such
strange
construction
of
that
expression
of
S.
Peter
(
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
towards
God
)
how
that
by
it
is
not
meant
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
towards
God
,
but
God
himself
,
who
alone
doth
save
us
,
and
by
whose
free
grace
sinners
are
saved
.
3
Another
cause
of
the
said
mis-interpretation
,
as
I
judge
,
is
,
because
it
is
in
appearance
full
of
comfort
,
and
as
such
by
too
too
many
swallowed
down
even
as
the
marrow
and
fatness
of
the
Gospel
,
as
if
this
were
that
feast
of
fat
things
,
that
feast
of
wines
on
the
lees
,
of
fat
things
full
marrow
foretold
by
the
Prophet
Isaiah
chap.
25.6
.
This
indeed
is
a
most
woful
calamity
,
that
the
true
comforts
of
Scripture
are
with
the
most
of
sinners
,
so
small
,
as
that
they
are
not
at
all
affected
therewith
,
and
that
when
the
Ministers
of
God
do
mourn
to
them
i.e.
do
denounce
the
threatnings
of
God
against
them
,
they
will
not
lament
,
nor
when
they
pipe
,
i.e.
proclaim
to
them
the
comfortable
doctrines
of
the
Gospel
,
they
will
not
dance
.
But
if
we
pipe
and
preach
such
doctrines
as
these
[
in
shew
and
appearance
to
a
fleshly
eye
most
comfortable
]
That
Jesus
Christ
hath
done
all
for
our
salvation
,
and
we
have
nothing
to
do
for
that
end
,
That
it
is
the
righteousness
of
Christ
himself
,
that
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
nothing
that
is
done
by
our selves
is
capable
of
any
imputation
in
order
to
that
end
:
this
is
the
piping
and
preaching
,
which
makes
sinners
dance
;
but
alas
they
dance
to
the
musick
of
a
Syren
,
a
Doctrine
that
charms
them
onely
to
destroy
them
;
for
although
while
they
live
it
may
bear
them
up
in
their
sins
,
against
the
natural
temper
of
their
own
consciences
,
yet
for
certain
in
the
end
it
will
leave
them
desperate
and
miserable
.
4.
Another
cause
of
the
said
mis
interpretation
of
the
word
(
faith
)
is
,
as
I
am
perswaded
,
the
not
understanding
the
nature
of
Gospel
justification
,
they
misconceiving
,
1.
That
by
it
a
sinner
is
freed
,
not
onely
from
guilt
of
punishment
,
but
also
from
guilt
of
fault
;
which
errour
hath
been
at
large
refuted
in
the
first
part
of
this
discourse
.
2.
They
falsly
supposing
,
That
justification
doth
consist
of
two
integral
parts
,
whereof
,
say
they
,
Remission
of
sin
is
one
,
and
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
or
Christs
righteousness
it self
imputed
(
for
so
some
do
express
the
matter
)
is
the
other
;
and
they
do
usually
say
(
as
doth
Dr
Owen
and
Dr
Grews
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
p.
55.
)
that
we
have
the
one
from
Christs
passive
,
and
the
other
from
his
active
obedience
,
upon
which
latter
account
onely
(
as
to
me
seemeth
)
Dr
Grew
would
have
him
to
be
called
,
The
Lord
our
righteousness
.
Whereas
the
truth
is
,
that
Christs
righteousness
however
it
be
the
meritorious
cause
,
yet
it
is
no
part
at
all
of
a
sinners
justification
;
yea
because
it
is
the
meritorious
cause
,
and
a
thing
for
that
reason
wholly
extrinsecal
to
it
(
for
so
are
all
efficient
causes
to
their
effects
)
it
cannot
therefore
be
any
part
of
justification
it self
,
remission
of
sin
being
it
,
that
doth
Totam
naturam
justificationis
Evangelicae
absorbere
,
i.e.
doth
wholly
constitute
justification
(
I
mean
,
that
justification
,
which
was
merited
by
Christ
,
and
promised
by
God
to
believing
sinners
,
or
to
sinners
conditionally
,
upon
their
sincere
believing
)
and
that
it self
is
Ipsa
justitia
imputata
,
ceu
donata
,
that
very
righteousness
,
which
is
said
in
Scripture
to
be
imputed
,
or
imparted
to
believing
sinners
,
and
that
faith
it self
is
the
very
thing
,
which
is
imputed
to
them
in
hanc
,
or
ad
hanc
justitiam
,
to
,
or
for
this
righteousness
.
Nor
do
I
think
it
a
thing
more
to
be
doubted
,
that
by
faith
is
meant
faith
in
that
so
oft
repeated
saying
of
the
Apostle
(
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
)
than
that
by
Believing
is
meant
Believing
in
that
his
saying
,
With
the
heart
man
believeth
unto
righteousness
,
Rom.
10.10
.
There
be
other
causes
,
or
occasions
at
least
of
the
said
mis-interpretation
of
the
word
(
Faith
)
useful
to
be
known
;
but
because
I
have
enlarged
my self
beyond
my
first
intention
upon
those
already
intimated
,
I
shall
forbear
to
lengthen
this
Chapter
by
the
addition
of
any
other
,
but
shall
proceed
to
the
Answer
of
some
other
Question
pertaining
to
the
matter
in
hand
,
which
will
be
the
Subject
of
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Q.
What
is
it
for
Faith
[
the
thing
it self
Faith
]
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
Righteousness
?
Answ
.
There
being
a
twofold
righteousness
,
viz.
Legal
[
commanded
in
the
law
of
works
,
or
innocency
,
]
and
evangelical
(
promised
in
the
law
of
faith
;
)
and
there
being
also
a
difference
betwixt
these
two
sayings
(
Faith
,
is
imputed
to
us
{αβγδ}
,
instead
of
righteousness
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
To
righteousness
,
this
being
the
Apostles
literal
expression
of
the
matter
;
)
it
is
thereupon
declared
,
How
faith
may
be
truly
conceived
and
asserted
to
be
imputed
to
believing
sinners
,
both
To
Righteousness
and
instead
of
Righteousness
.
The
Authors
humble
opinion
touching
the
genuine
sense
of
the
phrase
,
and
the
reasons
thereof
rendred
.
HAving
manifested
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
,
that
faith
is
expresly
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
and
that
by
faith
so
said
to
be
imputed
,
is
meant
faith
it self
in
the
propriety
of
the
word
,
and
having
withall
declared
the
main
causes
,
or
occasions
of
the
contrary
misconstruction
,
as
if
by
faith
were
meant
the
righteousness
of
Christ
[
the
object
of
faith
,
]
I
shall
next
put
it
to
the
Question
(
the
matter
being
now
ripe
for
it
.
)
Quest
.
What
is
it
for
faith
to
be
imputed
to
a
Believer
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
According
to
a
twofold
sense
of
the
word
(
righteousness
,
)
so
a
twofold
construction
may
possibly
and
agreeably
both
to
reason
and
to
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
be
made
of
the
said
phrase
,
e
.
g
.
There
is
a
twofold
righteousness
,
which
in
modern
Authors
is
usually
for
distinction
sake
expressed
by
the
name
of
Legal
and
Evangelical
;
by
the
former
is
meant
obedience
absolutely
perfect
,
such
as
that
,
which
was
made
the
condition
of
the
covenant
of
works
or
innocency
,
and
by
the
latter
is
here
meant
not
that
righteousness
,
which
is
commanded
in
the
Gospel
(
although
this
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
one
kind
,
or
branch
of
a
sinners
Gospel
righteousness
and
therefore
fitly
called
Evangelical
)
but
that
righteousness
,
which
is
promised
in
the
Gospel
upon
condition
of
the
righteousness
therein
commanded
,
these
two
branches
of
a
sinners
Evangelical
righteousness
differing
the
one
from
the
other
(
as
hath
by
occasion
been
before
said
)
as
Officium
,
&
Beneficium
,
as
Mans
duty
,
and
Gods
mercy
,
mans
duty
consisting
in
the
former
,
and
his
felicity
in
the
latter
;
that
having
the
nature
,
and
to
be
therefore
conceived
under
the
notion
of
a
means
,
and
this
of
an
end
,
to
which
that
means
doth
(
I
do
not
say
efficiently
,
but
)
effectually
conduce
.
Now
(
to
apply
the
said
distinction
of
a
twofold
righteousness
to
the
matter
in
hand
)
if
we
take
the
word
Righteousness
for
Legal
righteousness
,
it
may
be
well
and
truly
said
,
That
faith
it self
is
imputed
to
believing
sinners
,
Vice
,
or
in
Loco
,
instead
of
the
said
Legal
righteousness
,
i.e.
faith
doth
stand
a
believing
sinner
in
a
like
saving
stead
,
or
is
available
to
a
like
saving
purpose
unto
him
,
as
the
said
Legal
righteousness
would
have
done
,
or
been
,
if
man
had
never
become
a
sinner
.
This
being
a
safe
and
true
construction
,
I
shall
for
the
clearing
thereof
,
and
for
the
prevention
of
mistake
commend
to
consideration
,
how
the
phrase
of
accounting
,
imputing
,
or
reckoning
is
taken
in
certain
other
Scriptures
(
apt
for
the
purpose
in
hand
)
it
being
there
used
to
manifest
the
accepting
of
one
thing
for
another
,
or
to
the
like
purpose
as
if
it
were
another
,
for
which
see
Num
.
18.27
.
where
the
Levites
heave-offering
is
promised
to
be
reckoned
,
counted
,
or
imputed
to
them
,
as
though
it
were
the
corn
of
the
threshing
floor
,
and
as
the
fulness
of
the
winepress
;
and
ver.
30.
Where
God
speaks
to
the
same
purpose
concerning
their
gifts
,
as
was
said
of
the
heave-offering
of
their
tithes
(
When
you
have
heaved
the
best
thereof
from
it
,
then
it
shall
be
counted
unto
the
Levites
as
the
increase
of
the
threshing
floor
and
as
the
increase
of
the
wine-press
.
)
Quest
.
How
,
or
in
what
sense
was
it
thus
accounted
,
or
promised
to
be
so
accounted
?
Answ
.
Not
that
the
said
heave-offering
was
judged
,
esteemed
,
or
simply
thought
to
be
the
very
corn
of
the
threshing
floor
,
or
the
very
full
fruit
of
the
vine
.
Not
so
:
for
as
the
Papists
by
making
use
of
any
of
their
three
senses
(
tasting
,
feeling
,
seeing
)
may
unerringly
know
,
that
the
consecrated
bread
in
the
Lords
supper
(
by
them
commonly
called
the
Host
)
is
not
Ipsum
Corpus
,
the
very
body
of
Christ
,
so
might
the
Levites
by
their
eye-sight
have
perceived
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
the
heave-offering
of
both
those
kinds
of
tithes
,
which
by
divine
law
were
made
due
from
them
to
the
Priests
,
wa
not
the
very
corn
of
the
threshing
floor
,
and
the
very
fruit
of
the
vine
:
But
the
meaning
is
(
as
the
learned
do
interpret
it
,
and
which
indeed
is
an
interpretation
obvious
)
it
shall
be
alike
acceptable
to
God
and
available
to
the
like
purpose
,
as
if
it
had
been
of
their
own
proper
fields
,
or
vineyards
.
In
like
sort
may
the
imputation
of
faith
to
Believers
for
Righteousness
(
the
said
Legal
righteousness
)
be
truly
and
safely
understood
,
1.
Negatively
,
not
that
God
doth
account
,
or
reckon
faith
to
be
that
,
which
in
it self
it
is
not
,
or
to
be
any
other
thing
,
than
in
its
true
nature
and
in
very
deed
it
is
,
e
.
g
.
(
To
speak
more
punctually
)
1.
Not
that
God
doth
account
,
or
repute
it
to
be
our
very
fulfilling
the
law
of
innocency
,
whether
in
our
own
persons
,
or
in
Chr●st
:
for
as
Christ
by
fulfilling
the
law
did
satisfie
for
our
sin
,
so
by
fulfilling
it
himself
(
I
mean
the
whole
law
of
Mediatorship
,
whereof
the
law
,
that
obliged
us
,
was
one
material
part
,
and
which
he
did
fulfill
not
in
our
persons
,
but
in
his
own
as
Mediator
for
us
)
he
did
merit
,
that
no
such
fulfilling
of
the
law
should
be
required
of
us
in
order
to
the
attaining
of
righteousness
.
Thence
that
saying
of
the
Apostle
,
God
was
in
Christ
reconciling
the
world
to
himself
,
2
Cor
.
5.19
.
Where
it
is
observable
that
St.
Paul
says
not
,
We
were
in
Christ
reconciling
our
s●lves
to
God
;
which
yet
he
might
have
said
,
yea
and
more
might
he
have
said
,
viz.
We
were
in
Christ
reconciling
the
world
to
God
,
if
it
were
one
,
That
we
in
Christ
fulfil
the
law
.
I
conclude
therefore
,
that
as
by
faith
is
not
meant
Christ
,
or
his
righteousness
,
so
neither
by
Gods
imputing
faith
to
us
for
righteousness
is
it
meant
,
that
our
faith
is
reputed
by
God
to
be
ipsa
legis
impletio
,
our
legal
righteousness
,
i.e.
our
fulfilling
of
the
law
of
innocency
,
whether
in
our
own
persons
,
or
in
and
by
Christ
.
2.
Not
,
that
God
doth
reckon
,
or
account
our
faith
it self
to
be
absolutely
perfect
,
or
without
any
the
least
sinful
defect
:
for
such
is
not
the
faith
of
any
Believer
,
the
best
of
all
,
though
being
able
to
say
with
him
in
the
Gospel
(
Lord
I
believe
)
yet
having
need
with
him
also
to
pray
,
Lord
help
,
yea
and
the
Lord
pardon
my
unbelief
.
If
such
a
perfection
of
faith
had
been
made
the
condition
of
a
sinners
righteousness
or
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
what
man
living
had
been
justified
?
But
our
Christian
comfort
is
,
That
the
promise
of
righteousness
by
faith
is
made
to
the
reality
,
or
sincerity
,
not
to
the
perfection
thereof
.
So
that
as
God
cannot
account
our
imperfect
faith
to
be
perfect
(
for
this
is
repugnant
to
his
nature
,
and
his
judgment
is
never
otherwise
than
according
to
truth
:
)
so
we
have
no
need
,
that
he
should
do
so
,
because
the
law
of
faith
requires
no
such
perfection
of
faith
to
the
foresaid
end
,
or
as
the
condition
of
our
justification
.
3.
Not
,
that
God
doth
repute
faith
to
be
of
that
intrinsecal
value
,
worth
or
merit
,
as
the
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
law
of
innocency
would
have
been
,
or
as
if
it
would
serve
to
the
self
same
end
and
purpose
,
I
mean
,
to
the
self
same
kind
of
righteousness
,
or
justification
.
Not
so
I
say
:
for
if
man
had
continued
in
innocency
,
he
should
and
would
have
been
justified
for
that
his
innocency
,
or
perfect
obedience
,
and
this
would
have
been
the
meritorious
cause
of
that
;
so
that
this
his
justification
would
not
have
been
,
1.
Gratuitous
,
and
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
.
2.
It
would
have
been
a
justification
of
another
kind
,
than
that
of
sinners
by
faith
in
Christ
,
i.e.
It
would
have
been
a
justification
,
A
reatu
culpae
,
from
guilt
of
fault
,
whereas
the
justification
of
a
sinner
onely
is
,
yea
can
be
A
reatu
poena
,
from
guilt
of
punishment
,
not
from
the
guilt
of
fault
simply
and
absolutely
,
i.e.
from
the
guilt
of
all
,
or
all
manner
of
faults
.
2.
Affirmatively
I
make
answer
,
That
faith
may
be
truly
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
Legal
righteousness
,
because
it
is
promised
by
God
,
in
some
certain
sense
to
be
reckoned
to
them
,
as
though
it
were
;
even
as
the
heave-offering
of
the
tithe
was
promised
by
him
to
be
reckoned
to
the
Levite
,
as
though
it
were
the
corn
of
the
threshing
floor
and
the
increase
of
the
winepress
(
that
is
)
that
it
shall
be
accepted
with
God
,
and
prove
alike
available
to
the
salvation
of
a
sinner
,
as
a
Legal
righteousness
consisting
in
perfect
obedience
would
have
been
to
the
salvation
of
an
innocent
man
;
That
as
a
Legal
righteousness
should
,
and
would
have
availed
a
person
innocent
to
justification
from
guilt
of
fault
,
so
faith
in
Christ
shall
avail
a
believing
sinner
to
justification
from
guilt
of
punishment
,
this
being
fully
answerable
to
a
sinners
necessity
and
hearts
desire
.
Briefly
,
Gods
reckoning
faith
unto
us
instead
of
a
Legal
righteousness
is
in
plain
sense
and
construction
Gods
looking
upon
a
sinner
,
who
truly
believeth
,
with
as
much
grace
and
favour
,
and
his
dealing
with
him
as
graciously
and
bountifully
(
so
far
as
concerns
his
eternal
salvation
)
as
if
he
were
a
man
of
perfect
righteousness
,
and
had
entirely
fulfilled
the
whole
law
.
I
shall
somewhat
further
exemplifie
the
truth
of
what
hath
been
here
asserted
by
this
familiar
instance
,
As
a
Creditor
upon
a
promise
made
to
accept
from
a
Debtor
a
p●nny
in
a
shilling
,
or
twelve
pence
instead
of
a
pound
legally
due
to
him
,
may
be
said
to
reckon
it
(
being
paid
)
to
the
Debtor
,
as
if
it
were
the
full
payment
of
the
whole
sum
due
by
law
,
or
to
count
that
as
paid
,
which
in
strict
construction
according
to
law
was
not
paid
,
but
of
courtesie
according
to
promise
is
remitted
;
even
so
I
can
perceive
no
reason
,
why
it
may
not
be
with
safety
of
truth
and
with
fitness
of
expression
said
,
that
God
imputeth
faith
to
believing
sinners
for
legal
righteousness
,
in
that
he
doth
accept
it
in
its
stead
,
i.e.
doth
deal
with
them
as
if
they
were
perfectly
righteous
,
pardoning
all
their
unrighteousnesses
,
and
acquitting
them
from
all
that
punishment
,
whereunto
upon
that
account
they
were
obnoxious
.
The
Apostle
oft
times
saying
[
We
are
justifyed
by
faith
]
doth
give
us
to
understand
,
that
we
are
some
way
or
other
justified
by
it
,
and
the
way
of
its
justifying
he
says
,
is
by
imputation
,
or
account
from
God
for
righteousnes●
,
which
imputation
of
faith
may
well
and
truly
be
asserted
,
because
it
is
all
that
God
requires
of
men
to
th●ir
justification
instead
of
the
perfect
righteous
ess
of
the
law
.
Hitherto
I
have
spoken
of
the
meaning
of
the
phrase
(
Gods
imputing
faith
to
us
for
righteousness
)
upon
a
rational
supposition
,
that
by
righteousness
is
meant
legal
righteousness
,
and
supposing
that
by
[
for
]
is
meant
(
instead
)
in
which
sense
the
word
(
for
)
seems
to
be
taken
in
Exod
.
13.9
.
where
it
is
said
,
That
the
paschal
solemnity
should
be
for
a
sign
to
them
upon
the●r
hand
,
and
for
a
memorial
between
their
eyes
,
i.e.
it
should
be
in●tead
of
such
signs
and
memorials
,
as
men
use
to
carry
about
them
to
preserve
,
or
renew
the
remembrance
of
any
thing
.
I
shall
now
proceed
to
specifie
another
safe
construction
of
the
phrase
on
supposition
,
that
by
righteousnes●
is
meant
Evangelical
righteousness
.
2.
By
that
righteousness
,
for
which
faith
is
said
to
be
imputed
,
most
probably
is
meant
that
Evangelical
righteousness
,
which
is
promised
in
the
Gospel
to
believing
sinners
,
and
which
is
styled
in
Scripture
(
as
hath
been
already
said
and
proved
)
the
righteousness
of
faith
,
and
which
is
of
God
by
faith
.
My
reasons
for
this
construction
are
such
as
these
,
1.
Because
his
words
in
the
original
are
not
{αβγδ}
,
instead
of
righteousness
(
this
particle
properly
signifying
Vicem
,
instead
)
but
{αβγδ}
,
unto
,
or
into
righteousness
.
And
thus
it
is
literally
rendred
by
several
Authors
;
In
justitiam
,
into
righteousness
(
s●ys
Calvin
)
Ad
justitiam
,
unto
righteousness
,
says
Piscator
.
I
grant
indeed
,
that
St.
Paul
in
his
expression
(
{αβγδ}
)
doth
follow
the
Septuagint
,
as
was
usual
with
him
and
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
,
together
with
our
blessed
Saviour
,
in
their
quotations
from
the
old
Testament
:
for
in
the
Hebrew
,
Gen.
15.6
.
(
Whence
that
sentence
is
quoted
by
the
Apostle
)
it
is
not
said
explicitly
,
that
Abrahams
faith
was
accounted
to
him
,
either
for
,
or
to
,
or
into
righteousness
,
but
simply
without
any
preposition
particle
,
Righteousness
.
Nevertheless
the
Apostle
did
warrantably
follow
the
Septuagints
Translation
of
the
said
Text
in
Gen.
15.16
.
1.
Because
the
particle
,
or
letter
(
Lamed
)
is
in
some
other
Scriptures
wanting
,
where
necessarily
it
is
to
be
understood
,
an
instance
of
which
defect
that
great
Rabbi
,
Mr
H.
Ainsworth
doth
specifie
,
viz.
Lebeith
in
the
house
,
Jer
.
52.17
.
is
written
onely
Beith
,
2
King
.
25.13
.
2.
Because
the
said
letter
(
Lamed
)
is
in
another
Scripture
(
viz.
Psal
.
106.31
.
)
prefixed
to
the
word
Righteousness
,
where
the
act
of
Phixeas
is
said
to
be
counted
to
him
for
righteousness
.
Now
although
our
Translators
(
together
with
Beza
and
others
in
their
Latine
Translation
of
the
New
Testament
)
do
render
the
particle
[
{αβγδ}
]
not
to
,
but
for
,
as
also
doth
the
Genevah
translation
,
nevertheless
we
may
not
necessarily
conclude
from
thence
,
that
they
would
have
the
particle
(
Pro
,
or
For
)
to
be
understood
in
the
same
sense
as
{αβγδ}
,
instead
,
as
if
it
had
been
said
,
Instead
of
righteousness
:
for
it
is
ordinary
with
our
Translators
to
render
the
said
particle
(
{αβγδ}
)
by
the
word
(
for
)
in
many
Scriptures
,
where
the
word
(
for
)
cannot
in
reason
be
understood
in
such
a
construction
as
is
evident
by
the
following
Texts
Acts
3.38
.
(
Repent
and
be
baptized
{αβγδ}
for
the
remission
of
your
sins
)
And
Heb
.
11.7
.
Where
Noah
is
said
to
have
prepared
an
Ark
{αβγδ}
for
the
saving
of
his
house
,
So
Luke
3.3
.
Where
John
the
Baptist
is
said
to
have
come
into
all
the
countrey
about
Jordan
,
preaching
the
baptism
of
repentance
{αβγδ}
,
for
the
remission
of
sins
.
2.
I
am
much
assured
;
that
by
righteousness
in
the
said
sentence
of
the
Apostle
concerning
Gods
imputing
faith
to
,
or
for
righteousness
is
not
meant
Legal
,
but
Evangelical
righteousness
,
because
for
a
sinner
to
be
justified
by
faith
and
for
his
faith
to
be
imputed
to
him
to
,
or
for
righteousness
,
are
phrases
equivalent
and
of
the
self
same
importance
,
they
being
promiscuously
used
by
the
Apostle
,
as
was
before
said
:
for
he
proves
the
justification
of
a
sinner
to
be
by
faith
without
legal
works
from
the
witness
of
Scripture
touching
the
manner
or
means
of
Abrahams
justification
,
wherein
it
is
testified
That
Abraham
believed
God
,
i.e.
without
the
said
works
of
the
law
,
and
that
his
faith
was
accounted
,
or
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
3.
Because
there
is
no
other
kind
of
justification
,
or
righteousness
promised
in
the
Gospel
to
sinners
upon
their
faith
in
Christ
,
or
in
God
through
Christ
,
than
the
said
Evangelical
righteousness
,
which
consists
in
the
pardon
of
their
sins
,
they
being
not
in
a
natural
capacity
of
that
other
legal
righteousness
,
as
hath
been
already
said
upon
occasion
more
than
once
.
The
premisses
considered
,
I
am
perswaded
,
that
the
genuine
sense
of
the
Apostles
saying
,
That
God
imputeth
faith
to
a
believer
for
,
or
to
righteousness
is
this
,
viz.
That
God
doth
accept
of
faith
as
the
only
requisite
condition
of
a
sinner
being
made
righteous
,
i.e.
of
his
being
justified
or
pardoned
for
the
sake
of
Christ
.
Briefly
,
To
say
,
that
a
sinners
faith
is
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
is
the
self
same
thing
as
to
say
in
those
other
words
of
the
Apostle
else
where
,
That
sinners
are
justified
by
faith
,
or
,
That
with
the
heart
man
believeth
unto
righteousness
,
So
that
,
he
who
understandeth
rightly
what
is
meant
by
faith
or
believing
,
and
what
by
righteousness
in
the
said
assertions
,
and
what
it
is
to
believe
unto
righteousness
,
cannot
but
rightly
know
the
meaning
of
every
simple
term
in
this
proposition
(
faith
is
imputed
to
us
to
righteousness
)
and
the
true
sense
of
the
proposition
it self
.
But
because
various
ways
of
expressing
the
same
thing
may
not
be
altogether
needless
,
but
in
many
cases
,
and
as
to
many
persons
useful
rather
,
I
shall
,
although
still
to
the
same
purpose
,
add
,
Forasmuch
as
there
is
a
twofold
righteousness
,
the
one
commanded
in
the
Gospel
,
or
law
of
faith
(
faith
it self
being
this
Righteousness
and
the
Ipsum
Quod
,
the
thing
it self
said
to
be
imputed
by
God
)
and
the
other
in
that
law
promised
thereupon
(
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
being
this
righteousness
,
the
Ipsum
ad
Quod
,
the
thing
to
which
it
is
imputed
:
)
and
forasmuch
as
the
righteousness
,
which
is
commanded
in
the
law
of
faith
is
that
,
which
doth
by
Gods
designation
qualifie
us
for
enjoying
the
righteousness
therein
promised
,
it
is
faith
,
which
by
vertue
of
the
promise
doth
intitle
a
sinner
to
this
promised
righteousness
,
which
to
say
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
A
sinners
faith
is
imputed
to
him
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
.
Hereupon
it
is
true
also
to
say
,
That
in
the
Gospel
of
Christ
the
Righteousness
of
God
is
revealed
from
faith
to
faith
,
i.e.
from
the
righteousness
of
faith
therein
commanded
to
the
righteousness
,
which
is
of
faith
,
and
is
therein
promised
.
This
I
say
is
a
truth
,
and
a
commodious
construction
of
that
saying
,
Rom.
1.17
.
Let
the
genuine
sense
of
it
prove
,
or
be
proved
to
be
otherwise
what
it
will
,
or
can
.
Having
declared
the
true
sense
and
meaning
of
that
saying
(
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
)
both
of
the
simple
terms
,
and
of
the
entire
propositions
,
I
shall
in
the
next
place
address
my
discourse
to
the
clearing
and
disentangling
the
true
construction
thereof
as
aforesaid
,
from
such
objections
as
usually
are
,
or
possibly
may
be
made
against
it
:
And
this
I
will
do
by
the
resolution
of
several
Questions
,
which
will
be
the
subject
of
certain
Chapters
next
following
.
CHAP.
XIX
.
Quest
.
Upon
what
account
,
or
from
what
cause
,
or
causes
is
it
,
that
faith
(
properly
taken
)
is
counted
to
Believers
for
righteousness
,
or
proves
to
them
effectually
available
unto
righteousness
?
Ans.
The
Question
is
answered
,
1.
Negatively
,
Not
ab
intrinseco
,
from
ought
,
which
is
in
the
intrinsecal
nature
of
faith
,
or
the
value
and
merit
thereof
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
The
causes
assigned
being
wholly
ab
extrinseco
,
viz.
Gods
mercy
,
Christs
merit
and
the
Gospel-covenant
.
Hereupon
it
is
made
apparent
,
that
those
Protestant
Writers
,
who
do
assert
faith
it self
to
be
imputed
to
Believers
for
or
to
righteousness
,
do
not
dethrone
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
or
set
up
any
branch
of
mans
own
righteousness
in
its
stead
.
Q.
UPon
what
account
is
it
,
that
faith
is
accounted
to
us
for
righteousness
,
or
proves
to
us
effectually
available
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
,
The
cause
is
not
Ab
intrinseco
,
e
.
g
.
1.
Not
from
any
meritorious
worth
,
that
is
in
the
grace
of
faith
,
or
in
any
act
,
or
work
of
ours
therein
comprized
,
name
,
or
thing
.
2.
Not
meerly
from
any
thing
that
is
natural
,
or
essential
to
it
,
or
its
peculiar
actings
,
viz.
the
apprehending
of
Christ
,
the
laying
hold
upon
Christ
and
his
righteousness
and
the
like
:
for
were
there
not
some
other
cause
of
the
thing
here
in
Question
,
our
believing
,
or
laying
hold
on
Christs
righteousness
(
although
his
righteousness
be
a
most
enriching
treasure
,
sufficient
in
it self
and
kind
to
enrich
the
whole
world
of
sinners
)
would
do
us
no
good
,
or
turn
to
any
profit
unto
us
,
no
more
than
a
poor
mans
bare
laying
hands
upon
the
gold
and
silver
,
which
is
in
a
rich
mans
bag
,
or
chest
,
would
enrich
him
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
The
cause
,
or
causes
thereof
are
wholly
ab
extrinseco
,
taken
from
what
is
extrinsecal
to
the
essence
,
or
nature
of
faith
,
viz.
from
God
and
Christ
,
and
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
1.
The
inward
moving
cause
is
Gods
gracious
good
will
and
love
and
pleasure
.
This
is
the
will
of
him
that
sent
me
(
says
our
Saviour
Joh
.
6.40
)
that
every
one
that
seeth
the
son
,
and
believeth
on
him
may
have
everlasting
life
,
See
Joh
.
3.16
.
2.
Christs
merit
,
or
meritorious
righteousness
is
the
external
impelling
cause
thereof
.
It
is
Christ
,
who
died
and
by
his
bloodshed
hath
procured
righteousness
,
or
the
justification
of
life
for
sinners
upon
their
sincere
faith
,
Rom.
5.19
.
As
by
the
disobedience
of
one
many
were
made
sinners
,
so
by
the
obedience
of
one
shall
many
be
made
righteous
.
See
both
these
causes
(
God
free
grace
and
Christs
merit
)
expressed
together
,
Rom.
3.24
,
25.
Being
justified
freely
by
his
grace
through
the
redemption
,
that
is
in
Jesus
Christ
,
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
propitiation
through
faith
in
his
blood
—
3.
The
Covenant
of
God
and
his
fidelity
thereupon
engaged
to
perform
the
same
,
is
the
cause
why
a
sinners
faith
is
available
unto
righteousness
.
God
was
pleased
for
Christs
sake
to
put
his
gracious
purpose
to
pardon
and
justifie
believing
sinners
into
a
faithful
promise
,
or
covenant
so
to
do
,
which
promise
,
or
covenant
of
God
with
sinners
concerning
faith
,
is
called
the
law
of
faith
,
Rom.
3.27
.
And
this
law
is
that
,
which
gives
that
force
,
efficacy
,
or
power
,
which
faith
hath
to
our
righteousness
,
or
justification
.
As
sin
hath
its
strength
to
condemn
from
one
law
(
the
law
of
works
)
1
Cor
.
5.56
.
So
faith
hath
its
strength
to
justifie
and
save
from
another
,
The
law
of
faith
,
or
covenant
of
grace
.
To
this
purpose
are
we
taught
(
by
those
words
in
the
eleventh
Article
of
our
Church
,
saying
,
We
are
accounted
righteous
before
God
,
for
the
merit
of
our
Lord
and
Saviour
Jesus
Christ
by
faith
.
Where
observe
,
that
it
is
not
said
,
We
are
accounted
righteous
with
his
righteousness
,
or
merit
,
but
for
it
by
faith
,
i.e.
the
merit
of
Christ
,
or
of
his
righteousness
hath
so
far
prevailed
with
God
,
that
by
,
or
upon
our
faith
we
shall
be
accounted
righteous
before
him
;
which
is
all
one
indeed
as
to
s●y
,
That
God
for
Christs
merits
sake
doth
impute
our
fai●h
to
us
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
,
requiring
no
more
at
our
hands
for
our
just
fication
in
his
sight
.
These
are
the
true
causes
(
all
of
them
extrinsecal
to
the
precise
nature
of
faith
)
of
faith
its
being
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
,
God
thus
effectually
imputing
it
for
his
mercy
and
faithfulness
sake
,
and
for
his
Christs
sake
.
I
have
purposely
proposed
,
and
answered
this
Question
,
and
reserved
a
peculiar
Chap.
for
it
,
for
the
more
abundant
satisfaction
of
many
my
dissenting
Brethren
,
who
will
by
no
means
allow
faith
in
that
saying
(
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
)
to
be
taken
properly
,
i.e.
for
believing
,
but
figuratively
for
the
object
of
faith
[
Christs
righteousness
,
]
they
pretending
,
that
the
said
propriety
of
construction
doth
derogate
from
the
honour
of
Gods
free
grace
and
mercy
,
and
from
the
merit
of
Christs
righteousness
.
But
the
foresaid
answers
to
the
Question
in
hand
,
do
sufficiently
manifest
the
vanity
of
such
pretences
:
for
what
just
cause
of
suspicion
can
there
be
,
that
we
derogate
from
God
and
Christ
,
and
arrogate
to
our selves
and
our
own
acts
,
in
our
asserting
,
That
God
doth
impute
our
faith
it self
to
us
unto
righteousness
,
we
withal
openly
declaring
,
that
it
is
for
his
mercies
sake
and
his
son
Christs
sake
,
that
he
doth
so
?
I
desire
therefore
,
that
the
foregoing
Answers
to
the
Question
in
hand
may
be
the
rather
taken
into
consideration
and
remembred
,
because
they
may
serve
to
discover
,
how
causlesly
those
Protestant
Writers
,
who
maintain
faith
it self
to
be
the
thing
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
,
are
accused
by
their
disse●ting
brethren
,
as
if
they
did
dethrone
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
and
in
the
place
thereof
set
up
mans
own
righteousness
:
for
they
do
professedly
and
constantly
maintain
,
that
it
is
for
the
sake
of
Christs
righteousnes●
,
that
this
priviledge
is
indulged
unto
,
and
by
divine
promise
entailed
upon
faith
;
And
therefore
be
it
known
,
That
the
brethren
here
impleaded
do
not
thrust
Christs
righteousness
out
of
its
due
place
,
nor
do
they
place
mans
righteousness
in
its
stead
,
although
God
hath
designed
(
they
still
say
)
a
proper
place
fo●
it
.
The
peculiar
seat
for
Christs
righteousness
is
under
the
head
or
title
of
a
meritorious
cause
,
and
so
long
as
we
do
reserve
this
honourable
and
eminent
place
for
it
,
and
it
alone
,
we
do
preserve
it
sartam
tectam
in
its
throne
of
glory
.
The
matter
by
Gods
gracious
covenant
for
Christs
sake
being
ordered
,
as
aforesaid
,
What
remains
,
but
that
upon
consideration
of
this
his
divine
and
merciful
disposition
,
we
do
make
acclamation
,
saying
(
as
of
old
in
another
case
,
Zech
.
4.7
.
)
Grace
,
Grace
unto
it
?
What
reremains
,
but
that
we
utter
forth
the
high
praises
of
God
and
Christ
in
words
like
those
of
David
,
2
Sam
.
7.20
,
21.
And
what
can
we
poor
sinners
say
more
?
for
thy
words
sake
,
and
according
to
thine
own
heart
hast
thou
done
this
great
thing
,
this
wonder
of
goodness
,
and
free
favour
?
What
remains
,
but
that
we
breath
forth
our
thanksgiving
to
God
in
the
words
of
our
Saviour
,
Mat
.
11.25
.
We
thank
thee
,
O
Father
,
Lord
of
heaven
and
earth
,
that
whereas
the
Devil
and
his
Angels
can
have
righteousness
imputed
to
them
upon
no
terms
,
being
left
hopeless
in
their
unrighteousness
,
thou
hast
graciously
promised
for
Christs
sake
to
impute
to
sinful
men
their
faith
for
righteousness
,
Even
so
,
O
Father
,
because
it
seemed
good
in
thine
eyes
?
What
remains
,
but
that
as
Scipio
Africanus
being
arraigned
before
the
Roman
Senators
,
as
having
done
dis-service
to
the
Commonwealth
,
did
call
them
away
from
the
Senate-house
(
the
place
of
judicature
)
to
the
Temple
,
there
to
sacrifice
to
the
Gods
for
the
victories
obtained
by
his
conduct
,
In
like
sort
that
I
bespeak
,
and
beseech
my
dissenting
brethren
,
that
they
would
cease
all
that
quarrelling
,
which
they
have
taken
up
against
faith
it self
,
its
being
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
,
and
that
they
would
let
fall
that
suit
,
which
they
have
causlesly
commenced
against
their
Brethren
upon
the
score
aforesaid
,
charging
them
as
back-friends
to
the
merits
of
Christ
and
freedom
of
divine
grace
,
and
that
instead
of
farther
contendings
in
this
needless
quarrel
,
we
all
would
unanimously
hasten
to
build
an
altar
and
there
sacrifice
the
sacrifices
of
thanksgiving
,
saying
as
did
the
multitude
of
that
heavenly
Chorus
,
Glory
be
to
God
on
high
,
on
earth
peace
,
good
will
towards
men
,
Luke
2.14
.
CHAP.
XX
.
Q.
Can
ought
,
that
is
imperfect
,
possibly
be
by
God
imputed
to
a
sinner
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Yes
.
The
Authors
professed
dissent
herein
from
certain
other
Brethren
,
whereof
two
only
by
name
are
instanced
in
,
whose
words
are
recited
,
and
a
reply
made
thereunto
.
Q.
CAn
ought
,
that
is
imperfect
,
possibly
be
by
God
imputed
to
a
sinner
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Yes
.
God
forbid
,
that
it
should
be
otherwise
.
There
be
many
indeed
,
who
do
assert
the
impossibility
of
this
thing
,
and
upon
that
mistake
they
have
perverted
,
as
is
before
expressed
,
the
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
that
saying
of
his
so
oft
inculcated
by
him
(
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
:
)
among
whom
I
shall
onely
in
this
Chapter
instance
in
two
,
Dr
Andrew
Ryvet
,
and
Dr
Obadiah
Grew
,
and
having
recited
their
words
shall
reply
thereunto
.
Nov●mus
(
says
Dr
Andrew
Ryvet
in
his
Exercitations
upon
Genesis
,
p.
400
)
nihil
adeo
nobis
imputari
ad
justitiam
,
quod
vere
,
&
perfecte
justitia
non
sit
—
We
know
,
that
nothing
is
imputed
by
God
to
righteousness
,
which
is
not
truly
and
perfectly
a
righteousness
,
therefore
if
faith
be
not
a
perfect
r●ghteousness
,
it
cannot
Adeo
haberi
,
be
by
God
acc●unted
or
imputed
for
righteousness
.
But
(
pace
tanti
viri
)
1.
Why
may
not
a
sincere
faith
be
made
by
God
the
condition
of
Gods
imputing
,
or
imparting
righteousness
to
sinners
,
i.e.
of
justifying
them
,
or
constituting
them
righteous
for
Christs
righteousness
sake
,
and
thereupon
so
reputing
them
as
well
as
faith
in
perfection
?
Why
may
not
God
make
a
sincere
faith
available
,
and
count
it
as
available
to
all
saving
purposes
,
as
a
perfect
faith
?
I
mean
,
Why
may
not
God
reward
the
one
,
as
well
as
the
other
with
righteousness
?
Is
the
Lords
hand
shortned
,
that
he
cannot
?
or
are
his
bowels
straitned
,
that
he
will
not
save
,
justifie
,
or
make
righteous
a
sinner
without
a
faith
absolutely
perfect
?
With
God
,
says
the
Archangel
to
the
blessed
Virgin
,
nothing
is
unpossible
,
Luke
1.37
.
and
to
say
that
this
is
(
to
my
seeming
)
a
constructive
denial
of
Gods
power
to
pardon
the
sinful
imperfection
of
our
good
duties
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
language
of
Scripture
)
to
take
away
the
iniquity
of
our
Holy
things
:
for
if
God
doth
pardon
the
imperfection
of
our
faith
,
or
of
any
other
our
graces
,
surely
it
ought
not
to
be
denied
,
that
God
doth
Eodem
loco
habere
,
account
,
or
reckon
them
to
the
sinner
,
as
if
they
were
perfect
.
Yea
,
God
having
in
his
law
of
grace
,
or
act
of
oblivion
(
as
will
be
said
in
another
Chapter
)
constituted
a
sincere
faith
,
however
otherwise
imperfect
,
the
condition
of
our
attaining
Righteousness
,
how
can
it
be
otherwise
,
but
that
God
(
who
cannot
deny
himself
)
should
according
to
his
promise
Eodem
loco
habere
,
account
it
to
the
sinner
as
perfect
,
i.e.
reward
it
with
righteousness
?
2.
I
answer
Ex
abundanti
,
That
true
faith
,
i.e.
such
as
S.
James
says
,
is
made
perfect
by
works
,
although
as
a
moral
vertue
,
or
a
grace
of
Gods
spirit
it
be
imperfect
,
and
although
the
works
,
whereby
it
is
said
by
S.
James
to
be
made
perfect
,
be
in
themselves
imperfect
,
nevertheless
is
in
another
sense
(
very
fit
to
the
purpose
in
hand
)
most
perfect
,
viz.
In
sensu
Legali
,
civili
,
or
In
genere
medii
,
i.e.
as
it
is
the
constituted
condition
of
a
sinners
justification
,
it
is
Vere
,
&
perfecte
justitia
(
to
speak
in
our
Authors
own
words
)
both
truly
and
perfectly
a
righteousness
,
and
accounted
by
God
no
otherwise
,
than
in
truth
it
is
:
for
it
is
Tota
conditio
,
the
whole
condition
,
Yea
I
will
say
(
the
word
,
Faith
,
being
rightly
,
and
in
its
due
latitude
understood
according
to
the
full
importance
thereof
as
frequently
used
in
Scripture
)
it
is
the
whole
of
that
condition
,
which
God
doth
now
require
of
sinners
by
the
law
of
Faith
,
in
order
to
the
obtaining
of
that
righteousness
,
which
is
said
to
be
by
Faith
without
Works
.
Now
be
it
impartially
considered
,
what
hinders
,
that
a
thing
imperfect
in
it self
,
yet
being
perfectly
the
full
of
all
that
God
requires
for
such
and
such
ends
and
purposes
,
should
by
God
be
esteemed
,
reckoned
,
or
imputed
,
as
if
it
were
in
it self
perfect
?
Whereas
therefore
it
is
the
saying
of
this
learned
Author
,
that
faith
properly
taken
Nec
est
justitia
,
nec
justitia
loco
habetur
,
I
cannot
but
upon
account
of
the
premisses
think
,
and
say
the
contrary
,
viz.
That
faith
is
truly
of
its
kind
a
righteousness
(
it
being
commanded
in
the
law
of
Faith
and
styled
therefore
by
our
Saviour
the
work
of
God
,
John
6.19
.
)
and
that
it
is
imputed
for
,
or
to
that
righteousness
,
which
is
therein
promised
,
so
that
we
may
not
onely
with
safety
,
but
we
must
also
of
necessity
say
,
if
we
mean
to
speak
the
truth
,
That
fides
&
est
justitia
,
&
justitia
loco
habetur
,
and
this
with
a
non
Obstante
to
any
imperfection
of
faith
,
provided
it
be
sincere
.
Thus
I
have
endeavoured
to
remove
that
great
stumbling
block
out
of
the
way
of
truth
,
which
occasioned
this
Author
to
turn
aside
from
it
in
his
mis-exposition
of
that
saying
of
the
Apostle
.
I
shall
in
the
next
place
reply
to
a
few
passages
out
of
Dr.
Grew
,
in
his
Sermons
on
Jer
.
23.6
.
In
p.
51.
as
he
reasons
against
the
imputation
of
the
{αβγδ}
credere
,
because
it
is
imperfect
,
so
his
words
are
p.
38.
The
righteousness
which
justifies
a
sinner
,
is
not
in
,
or
of
himself
in
any
gracious
dispositions
in
him
,
or
acts
done
by
him
,
because
being
imperfect
they
are
unable
to
justifie
,
but
it
is
the
righteousness
of
another
,
yet
by
grace
and
favour
accounted
his
.
Answ
.
1.
It
is
falsly
supposed
by
this
Doctor
,
that
there
is
any
righteousness
,
which
a
sinner
hath
of
himself
:
for
although
it
be
truly
presumed
,
that
there
is
a
righteousness
,
which
a
sinner
hath
in
himself
,
nevertheless
it
is
not
asserted
by
any
Authors
(
for
ought
I
know
,
or
ever
heard
of
)
that
this
righteousness
is
of
himself
.
And
it
is
uncharitably
here
insinuated
by
the
Doctor
,
that
there
are
some
,
who
do
maintain
,
that
there
is
a
righteousness
,
which
a
sinner
hath
of
himself
,
and
that
this
righteousness
will
justifie
him
,
for
none
are
so
sensless
,
as
to
assert
,
that
ought
,
which
is
not
,
can
justifie
.
2.
Though
the
righteousness
,
which
doth
justifie
a
sinner
per
modum
meriti
,
i.e.
doth
merit
his
justification
,
be
the
righteousness
of
another
,
nevertheless
a
personal
righteousness
,
which
consisteth
in
certain
gracious
dispositions
in
a
sinner
,
and
acts
done
by
him
,
may
be
made
of
God
the
condition
of
a
sinners
justification
for
the
merits
sake
of
Christs
righteousness
.
3.
Although
these
gracious
dispositions
and
acts
done
by
a
sinner
are
not
able
because
of
their
imperfections
to
justifie
him
from
guilt
of
fault
,
or
as
one
legally
righteous
,
i.e.
as
no
sinner
,
nevertheless
their
imperfection
hinders
not
,
but
that
through
the
mercy
of
God
in
Christ
promised
in
the
Gospel
,
a
sinner
may
thereupon
be
justified
,
or
absolved
from
guilt
of
punishment
,
th●s
being
by
God
required
of
every
sinner
in
order
thereunto
.
4
Gods
grace
and
favour
doth
not
consist
(
as
this
Author
and
other
much
mistaken
Brethren
would
have
it
)
in
reputing
,
or
accepting
Christs
righteousness
to
be
ours
,
but
in
accepting
it
as
a
valuable
consideration
,
whereupon
to
pardon
,
or
justifie
us
through
faith
in
him
,
and
in
his
conferring
upon
us
those
saving
effects
,
and
benefits
,
which
were
purchased
by
that
his
righteousness
.
And
whereas
the
Doctor
says
,
p.
45.
Mens
repentings
makes
them
not
righteous
before
God
.
O
take
heed
of
setting
sorrow
for
sin
in
Christs
room
.
I
answer
,
1.
Mens
repentings
and
sorrow
for
their
sins
are
a
part
of
that
Evangelical
righteousness
,
which
in
the
law
of
grace
is
required
of
sinners
in
order
to
their
being
made
righteous
,
or
justified
,
i.e.
this
being
that
righteousness
,
which
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
God
hath
promised
in
the
Gospel
to
penitent
sinners
,
which
for
that
cause
in
the
name
of
Christ
is
by
the
Ministers
of
Chrst
to
be
preached
to
all
and
every
sinner
.
2.
To
maintain
repentance
and
godly
sorrow
for
sin
to
be
a
requisite
condition
in
order
as
aforesaid
,
is
not
to
set
it
in
Christs
room
(
as
this
Doctor
here
in
several
places
of
his
Sermons
doth
odiously
and
erroneously
insinuate
)
nor
in
any
other
room
,
or
place
,
than
where
Christ
himself
by
his
law
of
grace
hath
set
,
and
settled
it
.
3.
Hereupon
I
shall
in
the
way
of
caution
and
admonition
to
the
Doctor
himself
,
and
all
those
who
are
taught
by
him
,
and
to
all
such
Teachers
,
say
,
O
take
heed
,
Sirs
,
of
setting
Christ
in
the
room
of
repentance
,
as
Saltmarsh
,
and
divers
others
have
done
to
the
destruction
of
souls
,
it
being
alike
hazardous
to
set
Christ
in
the
room
of
repentance
,
as
to
set
repentance
in
the
room
of
Christ
:
for
as
repentance
will
not
supply
Christs
room
,
so
nor
will
Christ
supply
the
vacant
room
of
repentance
,
it
being
as
well
impossible
for
a
sinner
to
be
saved
without
repentance
,
as
for
a
penitent
sinner
to
be
saved
without
Christ
:
As
repentance
without
Christ
cannot
;
so
Christ
without
repentance
will
not
save
a
sinner
.
This
we
may
and
ought
to
believe
;
for
he
hath
told
us
over
and
over
.
That
except
we
repent
,
we
shall
all
perish
,
his
righteousness
notwithstanding
,
Luke
13.3
,
5.
Of
any
Author
almost
that
ever
I
read
,
this
Dr
seems
to
me
to
have
need
of
the
said
Caution
(
O
take
heed
)
This
I
say
seems
to
me
by
many
dangerously
seducing
passages
dispersed
in
his
Book
▪
he
saying
(
p.
173.
)
Some
will
not
venture
their
souls
on
Christ
alone
,
they
will
have
two
strings
to
their
bow
,
something
of
their
own
,
at
least
for
a
reserve
,
and
dead
lift
.
These
he
resembles
(
in
the
following
page
)
to
that
harlot
,
who
would
have
had
the
the
living
child
divided
,
saying
,
They
would
have
their
justification
before
God
to
be
parted
betwixt
Christs
righteousness
and
their
own
.
And
says
he
p.
200.
A
sinner
needs
no
more
than
Christs
righteousness
to
justifie
him
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Many
other
passages
there
be
in
his
Sermons
to
this
purpose
,
which
forbearing
here
to
relate
,
I
shall
in
few
words
reply
to
these
forecited
.
1.
No
wise
adventurers
will
adventure
their
souls
on
Christ
alone
without
repentance
for
their
sins
:
for
if
they
do
,
they
will
be
sure
to
lose
their
venture
:
for
Christ
will
save
no
impenitent
sinner
,
who
although
he
may
hope
in
Christ
,
and
after
a
fashion
put
his
trust
in
Christ
,
yet
he
and
his
hope
shall
perish
;
Nor
would
Christ
have
any
sinner
to
make
a
fool
of
himself
by
thinking
otherwise
,
he
having
told
us
all
,
what
we
are
to
trust
unto
in
that
forecited
text
,
Luke
13.3
,
5.
And
yet
alas
!
how
many
foolhardy
Adventurers
are
there
in
the
world
,
who
will
adventure
their
all
in
all
(
I
mean
)
their
souls
salvation
upon
Christ
alone
without
repentance
?
Such
foolish
adventurers
were
those
,
whom
Christ
speaks
of
in
Mat
.
7.22
.
who
in
their
impenitency
venturing
their
souls
upon
Christ
alone
,
or
upon
naked
Christ
,
according
to
the
late
devised
phrase
in
the
Books
of
certain
popular
Preachers
,
our
Saviour
there
resembles
to
that
foolish
man
,
who
built
his
house
upon
the
sand
,
which
when
the
floods
came
and
the
winds
blew
,
and
did
beat
upon
it
,
fell
with
a
vengeance
.
2.
Although
sinners
are
to
venture
their
souls
upon
Christ
alone
as
one
that
hath
done
his
own
part
,
i.e.
hath
finished
the
work
,
which
God
gave
him
to
do
,
whereby
to
merit
their
salvation
,
conditionally
upon
their
return
to
God
by
Faith
and
Repentance
to
be
confered
upon
them
,
nevertheless
they
are
not
to
venture
their
souls
upon
Christ
for
the
doing
of
their
own
work
,
i.e.
which
God
hath
imposed
upon
them
in
order
to
the
saving
of
their
own
souls
.
It
is
mad
venturing
further
than
Christ
would
have
us
to
venture
.
3.
Forasmuch
as
Christ
would
have
no
sinner
to
adventure
his
soul
upon
him
without
repentance
for
his
sins
,
it
did
ill
become
this
Author
in
a
kind
of
a
gibing
fashion
(
as
is
obvious
to
be
construed
)
to
say
of
those
,
who
dare
not
be
so
fool-hardy
as
to
run
such
a
desperate
venture
,
That
they
would
have
two
strings
to
their
bow
.
4.
Although
a
sinner
needs
no
more
than
Christs
righteousness
for
the
satisfaction
of
Gods
justice
,
for
the
expiation
of
his
sin
,
or
for
meriting
his
justification
upon
terms
revealed
in
the
Gospel
,
nevertheless
that
a
sinner
may
be
actually
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
,
there
is
more
needfull
than
Christs
righteousness
:
for
to
this
end
he
needs
that
righteousness
,
of
which
our
Saviour
Christ
says
,
Except
your
righteousness
exceed
the
righteousness
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
ye
shall
i●
no
wise
enter
into
the
kingdom
of
heaven
.
Although
a
sinner
needs
nothing
in
co-ordination
with
Christs
righteousness
to
justifie
him
before
God
,
yet
in
subordination
thereunto
he
doth
need
a
personal
,
or
evangelical
righteousness
,
which
consisteth
summarily
in
repentance
towards
God
,
and
faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
of
which
see
more
at
large
in
Chap.
12.
p.
39.40
—
If
the
Publican
had
not
repented
,
he
had
not
departed
to
his
house
justified
.
So
that
if
the
Dr.
be
minded
to
make
others
,
or
himself
merry
by
calling
Christs
righteousness
and
a
sinners
repentance
two
strings
,
I
shall
endeavour
to
spoil
the
sport
by
retorting
the
common
Proverb
,
which
as
to
the
purpose
in
hand
is
very
considerable
and
applicable
,
[
It
is
wisdome
to
have
two
strings
to
ones
bow
:
]
He
will
prove
himself
at
last
to
be
no
wise
Bowman
,
who
shall
trust
to
the
single
string
of
Christs
righteousness
without
the
said
personal
righteousness
,
which
consists
in
a
sinners
repentance
towards
God
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
;
which
if
he
doth
,
he
will
be
sure
to
miss
the
Mark
he
aims
at
,
I
mean
,
justification
,
or
remission
of
sin
,
or
(
to
speak
in
the
language
of
the
Apostle
)
the
prize
of
the
high
calling
of
God
in
Christ
Jesus
.
But
I
do
assuredly
hope
,
that
the
Citizens
of
Coventry
are
much
wiser
men
,
than
Dr
Grew
took
them
,
and
taught
them
to
be
;
at
least
I
cannot
but
take
notice
what
great
need
some
people
have
to
pray
,
that
God
would
make
them
wise
as
David
,
i.e.
wiser
than
their
Teachers
.
5.
To
assert
the
necessity
of
the
said
personal
righteousness
in
order
to
a
sinners
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
is
not
to
part
our
justification
betwixt
Christs
righteousness
and
our
own
(
as
this
Author
doth
ignorantly
and
odiously
word
the
matter
)
that
is
,
It
is
not
to
ascribe
one
part
of
our
justification
to
Christs
righteousness
,
and
another
part
thereof
to
our
own
,
nor
is
it
either
in
whole
,
or
in
the
least
part
to
ascribe
our
justification
to
our
own
righteousness
under
any
such
notion
,
or
respect
as
to
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
but
it
is
in
truth
to
ascribe
the
whole
of
our
Justification
to
Christs
righteousness
as
the
meritorious
cause
,
whereby
alone
it
was
purchased
,
and
to
our
own
evangelical
righteousness
as
the
condition
,
upon
which
according
to
Gods
gracious
promise
in
Christ
,
it
is
to
be
actually
enjoyed
,
and
without
which
it
cannot
be
had
.
He
,
that
says
,
That
Christ
by
his
righteousness
doth
deliver
the
souls
of
sinners
,
yet
says
withall
(
as
doth
the
Prophet
Ezekiel
,
ch
.
14.14
.
)
that
sinners
do
deliver
their
souls
by
their
own
righteousness
,
cannot
be
justly
charged
for
parting
their
souls
salvation
betwixt
Christs
righteousness
and
mans
own
:
for
in
so
saying
he
doth
attribute
his
whole
salvation
to
both
,
yet
●nder
such
different
notions
,
habitudes
,
or
respects
(
rationally
to
be
understood
)
as
are
peculiar
to
each
,
i.e.
to
Christs
righteousness
as
the
meritorious
cause
,
and
to
a
sinners
own
righteousness
,
only
as
to
the
condition
,
but
no
cause
at
all
thereof
,
as
partly
hath
been
already
said
,
and
will
be
more
at
large
declared
by
way
of
answer
to
a
Question
,
which
will
be
the
subject
of
the
following
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XXI
.
Q.
Under
what
notion
,
specifical
conceptus
,
or
formal
consideration
is
faith
(
properly
taken
)
imputed
to
sinners
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
at
large
clearly
and
distinctly
i.e.
both
Negatively
and
Affirmatively
.
An
objection
answered
.
Q.
UNder
what
notion
,
specifical
conceptus
,
or
consideration
is
faith
it self
imputed
to
sinners
for
,
or
to
Righteousness
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
(
besides
what
hath
been
by
occasion
already
said
chap.
18.
and
19.
I
add
)
That
faith
is
not
so
imputed
to
us
as
it
is
a
moral
vertue
,
or
grace
of
Gods
holy
Spirit
,
or
as
it
acts
in
a
peculiar
manner
in
relying
,
laying
hold
upon
,
apprehending
,
or
applying
to
our selves
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
the
object
of
this
faith
:
for
,
1.
Christs
righteousness
is
not
proposed
to
our
faith
in
order
to
our
justification
meerly
as
an
object
to
be
apprehended
,
or
relyed
upon
,
nor
is
righteousness
,
or
justification
promised
to
faith
precisely
as
it
acts
by
way
of
apprehending
,
or
laying
hold
upon
Christs
righteousness
:
for
nothing
is
more
apparent
both
by
Scripture
,
and
sad
experience
,
than
that
many
wicked
persons
going
on
in
a
wilful
course
of
sin
do
act
faith
so
far
forth
as
to
apprehend
,
lay
hold
upon
,
or
lean
themselves
on
the
righteous
-
of
Christ
;
nor
otherwise
is
it
easily
,
if
at
all
conceivable
,
how
a
professed
Christian
should
be
guilty
of
that
sin
,
which
we
call
Presumption
,
did
he
not
lean
upon
Christs
righteousness
to
be
saved
by
it
,
or
him
.
2.
The
object
of
justifying
Faith
as
justifying
,
is
not
simply
the
righteousness
of
Christ
by
Faith
to
be
rested
,
and
relied
upon
,
but
Christ
himself
in
person
to
be
by
our
faith
accepted
,
or
received
as
our
Saviour
and
Governour
,
or
(
as
we
do
usually
express
the
matter
)
to
be
received
in
all
his
offices
,
both
as
Prophet
,
Priest
and
King
,
this
being
that
reception
,
or
acceptation
of
Christs
to
which
the
saving
benefits
of
justification
,
remission
of
sin
,
and
adoption
are
promised
in
the
Gospel
,
John
.
1.11
,
12.
3.
As
for
that
unscriptural
phrase
in
great
vogue
(
applying
Christs
righteousness
to
our selves
)
I
humbly
conceive
,
1.
That
Christs
righteousness
is
not
in
it self
at
all
imputed
,
imparted
,
or
applyed
to
us
,
otherwise
than
in
the
saving
effects
and
benefits
procured
by
it
.
2.
The
application
of
Christs
righteousness
to
us
in
this
true
construction
of
the
phrase
,
is
not
any
act
of
Faith
,
but
it
is
the
act
of
God
consequent
to
,
or
upon
our
Faith
:
for
this
application
of
Christs
righteousness
to
us
in
the
saving
effects
thereof
being
all
one
with
the
collation
of
them
upon
us
,
it
is
God
himself
,
I
say
,
who
according
to
the
tenour
of
his
promise
consequently
upon
our
Faith
applies
them
to
us
,
or
confers
them
upon
us
,
it
is
not
we
sinners
,
that
do
apply
them
to
,
or
confer
them
upon
our selves
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
Faith
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
under
the
same
notion
,
or
formal
consideration
,
as
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
it
;
for
as
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
and
to
have
faith
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
are
but
varied
expressions
of
the
self
same
thing
(
as
was
aforesaid
,
)
So
I
do
conceive
,
that
under
what
considerations
of
the
word
[
Faith
]
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
under
the
same
conception
must
faith
be
understood
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
;
and
this
is
,
As
it
is
the
performance
of
that
duty
,
which
in
the
law
of
Faith
is
made
the
condition
of
our
being
made
righteous
,
or
our
being
justified
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
.
Though
faith
be
in
propriety
of
speech
no
cause
of
a
sinners
righteousness
,
or
justification
(
having
no
natural
,
or
meritorious
,
or
any
proper
efficiency
to
that
effect
,
as
which
is
indeed
aliundè
,
or
from
other
causes
;
)
nevertheless
it
is
by
law
constituted
of
God
a
Cause
sine
qua
non
,
a
thing
without
which
it
shall
not
be
obtained
;
which
divine
constitution
doth
intitle
it
to
the
nature
of
a
Condition
,
and
as
such
a
condition
of
divine
appointment
it
is
imputed
to
us
by
God
for
righteousness
,
and
we
are
justified
by
it
under
that
notion
,
or
consideration
.
Hereupon
to
prevent
all
misconstruction
,
I
desire
,
it
may
be
still
remembred
,
That
in
asserting
a
sinners
Faith
[
properly
taken
]
to
be
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
we
do
not
say
,
That
Faith
is
instead
of
perfect
obedience
Quoad
meritum
,
as
to
the
merit
or
value
of
it
(
for
so
we
do
assert
Christs
righteousness
to
be
instead
thereof
;
)
All
that
we
say
(
I
speak
for
my self
and
other
my
Brethren
)
in
effect
amounts
to
this
,
That
whereas
perfect
obedience
was
in
the
Covenant
of
Works
made
the
onely
condition
of
life
,
it
is
now
quite
otherwise
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
(
God
having
since
the
fall
a
new
modeled
the
government
of
mankind
by
new
laws
)
wherein
for
Christs
righteousness
sake
Faith
in
him
is
constituted
the
condition
of
attaining
righteousness
,
the
performance
of
which
condition
God
hath
promised
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
,
i.e.
shall
be
available
unto
us
for
that
righteousness
,
or
justification
of
life
,
which
is
spoken
of
by
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
5.18.19
.
And
therefore
I
can
perceive
no
just
cause
,
why
it
may
not
be
truly
said
(
although
I
know
that
Doctor
Andrew
Ryvet
with
several
other
dissenting
Brethren
,
will
not
allow
the
saying
)
Quod
fides
habetur
pro
justitiâ
perfectâ
,
quae
lege
continetur
,
ex
gratuitâ
acceptatione
,
i.e.
That
Faith
is
accounted
for
that
perfect
righteousness
,
which
is
contained
in
the
law
,
through
Gods
gracious
acceptation
:
for
Gods
mercy
,
Christs
merit
,
and
the
law
of
Faith
thereupon
enacted
,
being
considered
,
what
hinders
it
from
being
so
accounted
?
specially
it
being
withal
considered
,
that
according
to
the
tenour
of
the
new
law
God
doth
for
Christs
sake
pardon
the
imperfection
of
our
Faith
and
of
all
our
sincere
evangelical
obedience
;
the
imperfections
whereof
being
covered
with
a
gracious
pardon
,
Why
may
it
not
be
said
,
Quod
fides
habetur
pro
justitiâ
perfectâ
—
That
Faith
through
Gods
gracious
acceptation
in
Christ
is
accounted
for
the
righteousness
of
the
law
,
or
instead
of
it
?
The
true
meanining
of
such
sayings
being
no
more
than
this
,
viz.
That
in
point
of
Conditionality
(
not
in
value
,
or
merit
)
Faith
is
instead
thereof
,
and
that
it
will
thereupon
stand
a
sinner
in
a
like
saving
stead
,
or
prove
is
sure
a
title
of
life
unto
him
,
as
the
perfect
righteousness
of
the
law
would
have
been
to
man
continuing
innocent
.
CHAP.
XXII
.
Q.
Is
there
any
personal
righteousness
,
which
God
sees
in
a
sinner
himself
,
upon
the
intuition
whereof
God
is
,
or
may
be
said
to
be
moved
to
justifie
him
?
Answ
.
Yes
,
in
maintenance
of
the
truth
of
which
answer
a
copious
reply
is
made
to
a
contrariant
passage
in
Doctor
Grews
Sermons
upon
Jer
.
23.6
.
Q.
IS
there
any
thing
,
that
God
beholds
in
a
sinner
,
upon
the
sight
whereof
he
justifies
him
,
or
upon
intuition
of
which
he
accounts
him
righteous
?
Answ
.
Yea
,
though
many
,
I
confess
,
will
say
,
No
;
among
whom
I
shall
onely
instance
in
Dr
Grew
,
who
says
in
his
forecited
Sermons
,
p.
76.
God
is
not
moved
by
any
thing
out
of
himself
in
our
justification
;
for
proof
whereof
he
quotes
Deu
.
7.6
.
and
Mat
,
11.26
.
and
says
,
So
God
justifies
a
sinner
by
the
righteousness
of
another
made
his
,
because
it
is
his
good
pleasure
so
to
do
:
for
we
are
justified
when
ungodly
,
Rom.
4.5
.
and
loved
when
in
our
blood
,
Ezek
.
16.8
.
Answ
.
1.
There
are
several
external
requisites
to
justification
,
I
mean
,
external
to
God
,
and
external
to
justification
it self
▪
and
also
external
,
both
on
Christs
part
and
ours
,
e
.
g
.
On
Christs
part
his
righteousness
is
requisite
as
the
meritorious
cause
thereof
,
and
on
our
part
evangelical
righteousness
(
styled
faith
,
the
rightteousness
of
faith
,
obedience
to
the
faith
,
obeying
the
Gospel
,
with
the
like
Scriptural
expressions
)
is
requisite
thereunto
as
the
condition
thereof
.
2.
The
al
seeing
God
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
doth
not
Ad
unum
,
but
Ad
omnia
respicere
,
he
casts
an
eye
of
intuition
upon
all
the
requisites
thereunto
,
and
as
they
are
,
whether
themselves
by
his
appointment
,
or
are
made
of
him
,
he
beholds
and
regards
them
,
even
according
to
their
several
natures
and
formalities
:
exempli
gratia
,
He
beholds
and
regards
Christs
righteousness
as
the
meritorious
cause
,
and
the
sinners
own
righteousness
as
the
condition
of
his
being
justified
.
3.
Although
this
Doctor
affirms
(
as
aforesaid
)
that
God
is
not
moved
by
any
thing
out
of
h●mself
in
our
justification
,
nevertheless
he
doth
not
exclude
Christs
obedience
(
Page
78
)
from
being
the
motive
of
our
justification
;
Whereupon
I
reply
,
that
,
As
God
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
may
be
said
to
be
moved
by
the
righteousness
of
Christ
(
we
speaking
of
God
after
the
manner
of
men
,
as
it
is
necessary
we
should
;
)
so
he
may
be
said
to
be
moved
also
by
a
sinners
own
righteousness
,
moved
I
mean
according
to
the
different
nature
of
those
motives
,
i
e
.
by
the
one
as
the
cause
,
and
by
the
other
(
although
not
as
any
cause
,
yet
)
as
the
appointed
condition
of
his
justification
.
4.
As
for
the
Scriptures
alledged
by
this
Author
to
prove
,
that
God
is
not
moved
by
any
thing
out
of
himself
in
our
justification
(
he
means
by
any
thing
in
us
)
they
do
indeed
prove
no
such
matter
,
the
justification
of
sinners
being
not
so
much
as
spoken
of
in
two
of
the
said
Scriptures
,
Deut.
7.6
.
and
Mat
.
11.26
.
5.
Although
God
justifies
a
sinner
for
the
merits
sake
of
the
righteousness
of
another
,
nevertheless
he
doth
not
justifie
him
by
the
righteousness
of
that
other
made
His
in
this
Authors
meaning
,
i.e.
in
it self
or
essential
nature
made
his
.
6.
Although
it
be
a
Gospel-truth
to
say
,
That
God
doth
justifie
a
sinner
upon
his
faith
,
Although
God
doth
justifie
us
freely
by
his
grace
in
Christ
,
nevertheless
it
is
through
Faith
as
the
means
thereof
,
or
motive
thereunto
(
Rom.
3.24
,
25.
)
els●
God
would
alike
justifie
all
sinners
,
and
not
any
one
sinner
more
,
or
rather
than
another
.
because
it
was
his
good
pleasure
to
constitue
this
his
faith
the
condition
thereof
,
to
promise
it
thereunto
:
nevertheless
it
is
notoriously
false
to
say
simply
,
That
God
justifies
a
sinner
,
because
it
is
his
good
pleasure
so
to
do
,
and
that
he
is
not
at
all
moved
thereunto
by
a
sinners
performance
of
that
duty
,
which
was
of
his
own
good
will
and
pleasure
made
the
condition
of
obtaining
that
saving
mercy
.
And
this
Doctor
in
saying
as
here
he
doth
,
hath
spoken
most
strangely
of
God
and
for
God
,
as
if
God
were
moved
by
nothing
out
of
himself
in
justifying
,
and
saving
sinners
:
for
if
he
doth
justifie
sinners
meerly
,
because
it
is
his
good
pleasure
to
justifie
them
,
it
will
,
I
think
,
follow
,
that
he
damns
sinners
,
because
it
is
his
pleasure
to
damn
them
,
whereas
he
says
and
swears
the
contrary
,
Ezek
33.11
.
and
withal
tells
the
righteous
,
Ezek
.
18.28
.
saying
,
Because
he
considereth
and
turneth
away
from
all
his
transgressions
,
that
he
hath
committed
,
he
shall
surely
live
,
he
shall
not
die
.
The
Doctors
words
do
to
my
savour
relish
of
that
,
which
some
Authors
style
Turcismus
,
and
God
forbid
,
that
it
should
be
owned
by
any
of
our
Protestant
Writers
,
of
what
denomination
soever
,
whether
Lutheran
,
or
Calvinist
.
7.
Although
it
is
said
,
that
God
justifieth
the
ungodly
,
Rom.
4.5
.
yet
it
is
not
there
said
,
or
meant
in
the
Doctors
sense
,
that
we
are
justified
when
ungodly
;
as
if
nothing
but
ungodliness
,
or
an
emptiness
of
all
godliness
were
antecedently
requisite
to
our
justification
:
for
though
sin
,
or
ungodliness
be
naturally
necessary
to
render
a
person
capable
of
Gospel-justification
,
i.e.
of
remission
of
sin
(
forasmuch
as
where
there
is
no
sin
,
there
can
be
no
place
or
possibility
for
remission
:
)
nevertheless
holy
faith
,
or
obedience
to
the
faith
is
legally
necessary
to
make
a
person
morally
capable
thereof
.
So
that
(
to
speak
the
true
sense
of
the
Apostle
)
although
God
doth
justifie
the
ungodly
Sensu
diviso
,
i.e.
those
,
who
once
were
ungodly
,
yet
in
sensu
composito
,
i.e.
he
doth
not
justifie
them
in
their
ungodliness
,
or
when
ungodly
,
but
when
they
become
believers
,
or
when
godly
and
not
before
:
Whereupon
I
can
say
no
less
,
than
that
this
Authors
Exposition
of
this
Scripture
(
oft
times
inculcated
in
his
Sermons
)
is
an
ungodly
exposition
,
it
being
both
in
it self
a
falshood
,
and
of
a
native
tendency
to
ungodliness
.
8.
Whatever
be
the
importance
of
that
love
of
God
to
his
Israel
of
old
there
mentioned
in
that
expression
(
thy
time
was
the
time
of
love
,
)
most
undoubtedly
by
it
cannot
be
meant
Gods
love
of
reconciliation
,
his
pardoning
,
or
justifying
them
in
their
blood
,
i.e.
when
they
were
,
or
while
they
were
in
their
blood
,
i.e.
in
their
sin
and
ungodliness
,
as
the
Doctor
would
have
it
understood
:
for
till
sinners
repent
and
are
converted
,
God
will
not
justifie
,
or
pardon
them
,
or
actually
be
reconciled
to
them
,
as
appears
by
the
current
of
Scripture
,
particularly
by
Isa
.
1.16
,
17
,
18.
and
55.6
,
7
,
8.
CHAP.
XXIII
.
Q.
By
whom
is
faith
imputed
to
believing
sinners
for
,
or
unto
righteousness
?
Ans.
In
answer
hereunto
that
text
in
Gen.
15.6
.
is
vindicated
from
the
misconstruction
of
some
of
the
more
ancient
Rabbins
,
it
being
withal
asserted
,
That
it
is
God
himself
,
who
doth
so
impute
it
:
But
whether
it
was
imputed
to
Abraham
by
God
as
Benefactor
,
or
else
as
estimator
,
or
Judge
,
is
left
to
consideration
upon
what
is
said
in
answer
to
a
Question
,
which
is
the
subject
of
the
Chapter
ensuing
.
Q.
BY
whom
is
faith
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Although
faith
is
in
the
New
Testament
frequently
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
;
nevertheless
I
do
not
remember
,
that
it
is
in
any
place
expresly
there
said
,
By
whom
it
is
imputed
;
and
therefore
for
the
resolution
of
this
Question
we
are
to
have
recourse
to
other
Scriptures
,
and
to
consult
with
right
reason
.
1.
We
may
in
reason
conclude
,
who
it
is
,
that
doth
impute
our
faith
to
righteousness
.
for
forasmuch
as
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
and
to
have
our
faith
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
are
the
self
same
thing
(
as
by
occasion
hath
been
before
said
once
and
again
,
)
we
may
thence
conclude
,
that
he
,
who
imputes
faith
to
a
sinner
for
righteousness
,
is
the
same
,
who
doth
justifie
him
;
Now
says
the
Apostle
,
It
is
God
,
that
justifieth
,
Rom.
8.33
.
and
3.30
.
It
is
one
God
,
which
shall
justifie
the
circumcision
by
faith
,
and
uncircumcision
through
faith
.
We
may
in
reason
hereupon
unquestionably
conclude
,
that
it
is
God
,
who
imputeth
to
sinners
their
faith
for
righteousness
.
2.
Let
us
for
the
purpose
in
hand
have
recourse
to
the
original
Text
,
Gen.
15.6
.
which
is
so
oft
quoted
in
the
New
Testament
and
rendred
[
And
he
believed
in
the
Lord
,
and
he
counted
it
unto
him
for
righteousness
.
]
Whence
(
to
intimate
this
by
the
way
)
it
is
again
observable
,
that
the
Apostle
doth
quote
that
text
(
as
was
usual
with
our
Saviour
and
other
the
sacred
Writers
of
the
New
Testament
)
out
of
the
Septuagint
,
who
render
that
passively
,
which
stands
upon
the
original
record
actively
expressed
.
But
they
did
it
not
without
warrant
:
for
it
is
observed
by
some
expert
Linguists
,
that
words
of
the
praeterperfect
tense
,
and
active
voice
in
the
Hebrew
language
are
of
passive
construction
,
instances
whereof
they
furnish
us
with
,
such
as
that
in
Mic
.
1.7
.
Ezek
.
23.47
.
Esa
.
22.8
.
where
the
Septuagint
do
take
the
same
liberty
to
vary
,
although
from
the
Grammar
,
or
Letter
,
yet
not
from
the
sense
of
the
Hebrew
Text
.
But
still
the
Question
in
hand
is
not
as
yet
expresly
resolved
from
that
Text
,
and
therefore
it
must
still
be
demanded
,
Who
is
that
He
(
the
Antecedent
to
that
Relative
)
who
must
be
understood
to
have
imputed
Abrahams
believing
in
the
Lord
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
1.
Negatively
,
by
He
is
not
meant
Abraham
himself
,
as
if
it
had
been
said
,
That
Abraham
believed
in
the
Lord
,
and
Abraham
did
impute
it
to
the
Lord
for
righteousness
,
i.e.
Abraham
ascribed
the
promise
unto
the
righteousness
,
or
goodness
of
God
.
This
is
the
exposition
of
certain
Jewish
Doctors
,
notwithstanding
which
there
are
of
their
own
in
later
times
,
who
do
justly
recede
from
it
,
so
that
there
needs
nothing
to
be
said
for
the
refutation
thereof
,
but
to
assert
and
prove
the
true
meaning
of
the
words
,
as
will
next
be
declared
in
the
affirmative
branch
of
my
Answer
to
the
Question
before
us
.
2.
Affirmatively
,
By
He
is
meant
the
Lord
,
and
by
Him
Abraham
,
as
if
it
had
been
said
by
the
Historian
,
Abraham
believed
in
the
Lord
and
the
Lord
imputed
it
unto
Abraham
for
righteousness
.
This
appears
to
be
the
meaning
,
as
otherwise
,
so
by
the
words
following
,
verse
7.
[
And
he
said
unto
him
,
I
am
the
Lord
,
that
brought
thee
out
of
Ur
of
the
Caldees
to
give
thee
the
land
to
inherit
it
—
]
He
then
,
that
brought
Abraham
out
of
Ur
of
the
Caldees
,
and
by
promise
gave
him
the
land
of
Canaan
to
inherit
it
,
did
impute
Abrahams
faith
unto
him
for
righteousness
.
Briefly
,
He
,
who
is
said
to
impute
righteousness
to
believers
,
truly
is
He
,
who
doth
impute
their
believing
in
him
for
righteousness
;
and
who
this
He
is
,
that
imputes
righteousness
unto
believers
,
The
Apostle
doth
explicitly
acquaint
us
,
saying
(
Rom.
4.6
.
David
describeth
the
blessedness
of
the
man
,
to
whom
GOD
imputeth
righteousness
-
The
Question
in
hand
,
you
perceive
,
is
of
easie
resolution
,
and
there
being
no
controversie
about
it
,
or
depending
upon
it
(
for
ought
I
know
)
there
needs
not
much
to
be
said
concerning
it
.
But
forasmuch
as
God
is
considerable
under
divers
capacities
,
or
relations
,
viz.
as
Benefactor
,
and
as
Judge
,
the
Question
may
therefore
be
demanded
,
under
what
capacity
,
or
consideration
did
God
impute
Abrahams
faith
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Although
this
Question
may
seem
too
too
curious
and
needless
(
which
if
indeed
it
were
,
I
would
not
have
proposed
it
;
)
nevertheless
forasmuch
as
in
some
respect
it
may
be
useful
,
I
will
therefore
make
some
brief
answer
to
it
;
but
because
the
due
answer
thereunto
doth
necessarily
depend
upon
the
refolution
of
another
Question
,
which
will
be
the
subject
of
the
next
Chapter
,
I
will
therefore
refer
the
decision
of
it
and
the
Reader
for
satisfaction
in
that
behalf
to
what
will
be
there
said
.
CHAP.
XXIV
.
Quest
.
Was
not
Abraham
a
Believer
and
his
Faith
thereupon
actually
imputed
to
him
for
Righteousness
before
he
believed
the
promise
recorded
in
Gen.
15.5
.
and
that
testimony
given
to
his
Faith
ver
.
6
?
Answ
.
Yes
:
long
before
,
his
departure
out
of
his
native
countrey
(
Ur
of
the
Caldees
)
implying
not
onely
a
local
,
but
also
a
moral
departure
.
Quest
.
WAs
not
Abraham
a
Believer
,
and
his
Faith
actually
imputed
to
him
by
God
for
Righteousness
before
the
Vision
recorded
in
Gen.
15.
beg
.
where
in
the
word
of
the
Lord
both
in
the
way
of
command
and
promise
came
to
him
,
as
are
there
(
together
with
his
Faith
therein
)
distinctly
related
?
Answ
.
Yes
Verily
;
He
was
justified
certain
years
before
,
viz.
at
his
departure
out
of
his
native
country
in
obedience
to
the
command
of
God
,
and
upon
his
believing
the
promise
of
God
made
to
him
at
that
time
(
it
being
the
same
promise
for
substance
which
was
occasionally
afterwards
oft
times
renewed
by
God
)
the
story
of
all
which
(
Gods
command
and
promise
and
Abrahams
faithful
obedience
)
is
recorded
in
the
beginning
of
the
12th
Chapter
of
this
book
of
Genesis
,
and
to
which
those
words
of
the
Author
to
the
Hebrews
do
refer
,
he
saying
(
Chap.
11.8
.
that
by
faith
Abraham
,
when
he
was
called
to
go
into
a
place
,
which
he
should
after
receive
for
an
inheritance
obeyed
,
and
he
went
out
not
knowing
whither
he
went
.
Abraham
saw
full
warrant
from
the
command
of
God
to
do
what
he
did
,
i.e.
to
leave
his
native
country
,
onely
at
first
though
he
knew
the
place
from
which
,
yet
not
knowing
for
some
time
the
place
,
to
which
he
was
to
depart
,
nor
the
way
to
it
,
till
God
did
afterwards
make
them
known
to
him
.
Now
by
this
command
of
God
to
Abraham
touching
the
leaving
of
his
country
,
kindred
and
his
fathers
house
,
there
is
great
reason
(
as
I
think
)
to
understand
,
that
therein
is
implyed
,
that
God
did
not
command
him
barrly
to
leave
his
native
soil
,
but
also
the
sinful
fashions
of
that
his
country
,
i.e.
to
renounce
the
idols
and
false
Gods
,
the
worship
of
which
his
forefathers
had
been
accustomed
unto
,
and
wherein
as
is
most
likely
,
himself
was
at
first
educated
under
his
Idolatrous
Ancestors
,
Josh
.
24.2
.
And
if
so
,
then
are
we
by
those
words
expressive
of
his
obedience
(
He
went
out
)
to
understand
not
simply
his
parting
from
his
native
country
and
kindred
,
but
also
the
renouncing
of
his
former
sinful
course
of
life
which
among
them
he
had
lived
,
though
together
with
it
he
did
renounce
his
nearest
and
dearest
relations
,
even
as
every
Christian
for
Christs
sake
should
so
far
deny
himself
,
as
to
do
the
like
upon
a
call
from
God
,
this
being
to
walk
in
the
steps
of
that
Faith
of
our
Father
Abraham
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
(
Rom.
4.12
.
)
and
in
this
construction
(
as
aforesaid
)
the
like
phrase
of
leaving
kindred
seems
to
be
taken
in
Psal
.
45.10
.
Hearken
O
daughter
,
and
consider
,
and
incline
thine
ears
:
forget
also
thine
own
people
and
thy
fathers
house
.
If
it
be
said
,
That
Abraham
had
left
his
Idolatry
and
was
become
a
worshipper
of
the
true
God
before
he
had
that
call
from
God
to
leave
his
country
and
kindred
:
I
answer
,
if
so
,
then
are
we
rationally
to
conceive
,
That
in
Gods
commanding
him
to
leave
his
country
and
kindred
there
is
implyed
a
command
to
him
from
God
to
persist
in
his
renouncing
of
the
idolatry
received
from
his
forefathers
,
which
for
sometime
he
had
already
renounced
,
and
to
continue
in
that
Godly
course
of
life
and
worship
of
the
true
God
,
which
he
had
entred
upon
;
so
that
still
I
think
,
That
it
was
not
onely
a
local
,
but
also
a
moral
departure
(
whether
then
to
be
begun
,
or
from
that
time
to
be
continued
)
which
was
by
God
commanded
Abraham
by
the
full
importance
of
those
words
,
[
Get
thee
out
of
thy
country
and
from
thy
kindred
—
]
Neither
do
I
think
,
that
God
did
command
Abraham
to
depart
from
his
native
soil
simply
as
such
,
but
as
a
place
over-run
with
idolatry
,
an
infectious
place
,
a
place
of
constant
temptation
to
lewd
and
idolatrous
living
.
Briefly
,
I
think
,
that
God
in
mercy
to
Abraham
,
did
command
him
to
get
him
out
of
his
native
country
and
from
his
kindred
as
a
snare
,
and
a
dangerous
temptation
,
lest
he
should
continue
to
be
infected
with
that
Idolatry
,
or
return
to
that
idolatry
,
which
then
did
reign
throughout
Caldea
.
Yet
in
this
conjecture
(
having
no
absolute
grounds
of
certainty
)
I
shall
not
be
peremptory
,
freely
leaving
the
judgment
thereof
to
others
,
and
the
rather
,
because
I
cannot
at
present
call
to
mind
any
Question
of
moment
,
the
decision
whereof
doth
depend
upon
it
,
this
onely
excepted
,
viz.
Whether
Abrahams
obedience
to
the
said
command
of
God
(
Get
thee
out
of
thy
country
)
is
,
or
may
be
alledged
,
as
a
fit
instance
of
doing
,
or
forbearing
of
a
thing
in
its
own
nature
purely
indifferent
upon
the
command
of
God
?
In
the
decision
of
which
question
I
can
easily
suffer
every
one
to
abound
in
his
own
sense
.
CHAP.
XXV
.
Quest
.
Forasmuch
as
Abraham
was
a
Believer
,
and
his
Faith
imputed
to
him
for
Righteousness
long
before
that
Testimony
given
to
his
Faith
in
Gen.
15.6
.
How
was
it
true
to
say
,
that
his
believing
in
the
Lord
was
then
,
or
at
that
time
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
is
answered
several
ways
.
A
parallel
Scripture
concerning
Noah
(
Heb
.
11.7
.
)
opened
,
by
occasion
whereof
4
Questions
,
with
reference
to
that
clause
(
And
he
became
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
)
are
proposed
and
answered
,
1.
What
kind
of
righteousness
is
there
meant
?
2.
What
is
it
to
be
an
heir
of
that
kind
of
righteousness
?
3.
What
was
that
righteousness
,
which
Noah
is
there
said
to
have
been
heir
of
?
or
,
Wherein
did
it
consist
?
4.
Why
is
the
said
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
Faith
?
Quest
.
FOrasmuch
as
Abraham
was
a
Believer
,
and
his
Faith
was
thereupon
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
long
before
,
how
was
it
true
to
say
as
in
the
Text
(
Gen.
15.6
.
)
that
his
believing
in
the
Lord
,
or
his
faith
in
that
word
of
his
,
that
came
to
him
in
a
vision
afterwards
,
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
Question
,
or
Objection
may
several
ways
be
truly
answered
,
and
(
as
I
judge
)
to
satisfaction
,
e
.
g
.
1.
The
words
of
the
Text
in
Gen.
15.6
.
may
be
referred
to
Abrahams
first
believing
and
to
his
being
justified
thereupon
,
although
they
are
here
brought
in
by
the
occasion
of
a
relation
of
another
act
of
his
faith
in
this
Chapter
;
and
so
the
sense
may
well
be
,
Abraham
believed
God
with
that
Faith
(
the
same
specifical
,
unfeigned
,
operative
faith
)
which
was
from
the
beginning
,
even
from
the
command
of
God
given
to
him
touching
his
departure
from
his
native
soil
and
Gods
promise
then
made
unto
him
(
which
promise
was
now
renewed
)
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
There
is
no
necessity
to
conceive
,
that
this
testimony
should
be
precisely
limited
to
,
or
understood
onely
of
that
particular
act
of
his
believing
,
whereunto
it
is
subjoyned
,
but
it
may
indifferently
relate
as
well
to
the
first
act
of
his
believing
:
for
it
is
not
said
in
the
forecited
Text
,
that
Abraham
believed
the
Lord
in
this
particular
promise
now
made
,
or
renewed
unto
him
,
but
indefinitly
,
or
in
the
general
,
that
Abraham
believed
,
or
had
believed
in
the
Lord
and
it
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
This
answer
is
the
rather
considerable
,
because
it
seems
not
to
have
been
the
intent
of
God
in
this
Testimony
concerning
Abraham
to
shew
punctually
,
or
exactly
the
time
when
Abraham
was
first
justified
,
but
the
manner
how
,
or
means
by
which
;
I
say
,
to
shew
the
time
exactly
and
precisely
when
he
first
believed
and
was
justified
;
for
I
grant
,
that
Gods
intent
was
to
manifest
the
time
in
general
i.e.
not
when
Abraham
was
circumcised
,
but
when
and
while
he
was
uncircumcised
.
Obj
,
This
construction
cannot
possibly
stand
;
for
it
is
plain
by
Rom.
4.18
.
that
Abrahams
believing
in
hope
,
that
he
should
be
the
Father
of
many
Nations
(
although
against
hope
and
all
visible
reasons
to
the
contrary
)
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
interpretation
before
rendred
may
well
stand
this
Objection
notwithstanding
:
for
that
promise
in
Gen.
15.
was
no
new
promise
,
but
a
promise
renewed
to
Abraham
and
the
self
same
in
substance
with
that
in
Gen.
12.2
,
3.
(
I
will
make
of
thee
a
great
nation
:
And
in
thee
shall
all
families
of
the
earth
be
blessed
:
)
so
that
that
Testimony
concerning
Abrahams
faith
as
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
may
as
well
(
if
not
rather
)
relate
to
the
act
of
his
faith
exercised
upon
Gods
promise
at
first
made
,
as
well
I
say
,
as
upon
his
promise
afterwards
renewed
.
2.
If
we
refer
the
Testimony
(
as
aforesaid
)
to
his
first
justification
,
or
at
first
,
we
must
conceive
the
meaning
to
be
,
That
God
as
Benefactor
did
then
impute
his
faith
to
him
for
righteousness
,
or
did
then
actually
justifie
him
.
3.
Supposing
Gods
donation
of
righteousntss
to
,
or
upon
Abraham
to
have
been
a
thing
antecedent
(
as
truly
it
was
)
to
the
story
in
Gen.
15.6
.
We
may
well
and
truly
say
,
That
God
did
impute
the
renewed
act
of
Abrahams
faith
unto
him
for
righteousness
as
Judge
,
or
Estimator
,
i.e.
he
did
still
account
,
repute
,
or
had
him
in
estimation
as
righteous
,
or
in
a
state
of
justification
.
4.
Upon
the
said
supposition
of
Abrahams
faith
its
being
long
before
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
we
may
well
and
warrantably
understand
this
Text
to
be
meant
of
Abrahams
continued
believing
and
of
Gods
continued
act
of
imputing
that
his
continued
believing
for
the
continuance
of
his
righteousness
,
or
to
the
continuing
of
him
in
a
state
of
justification
thereupon
.
And
this
interpretation
as
it
is
agreable
to
the
analogy
of
faith
,
so
I
do
judge
it
to
be
the
more
rational
,
because
it
is
agreable
to
the
language
of
Scripture
,
I
mean
to
the
manner
of
Scripture
expression
of
matters
,
concerning
which
that
rule
of
the
most
excellent
Glassius
among
many
others
in
his
Philologia
Sacra
(
p.
551
)
is
very
observable
,
Verbum
quandoque
de
continuatione
rei
significatae
intelligendum
est
,
or
,
Videtur
actio
aliquando
nova
,
cum
sit
veteris
continuatio
,
i.e.
Things
are
somtimes
in
Scripture
said
to
be
,
when
the
scope
of
the
place
,
or
speaker
is
to
give
us
to
understand
their
continuance
;
Apt
instances
whereof
are
divers
there
rendred
by
that
Learned
Author
,
as
Jer
.
7.3
.
Amend
your
ways
and
your
doings
,
that
ye
may
dwel
,
i.e.
continue
to
dwel
in
this
place
,
John
2.11
.
And
his
disciples
believed
on
him
,
i.e.
persisted
and
were
confirmed
in
the
faith
of
him
;
for
they
believed
on
him
before
,
as
appears
by
the
foregoing
Chapter
,
ver
.
41
,
42.
and
John
14
1.
Ye
believe
in
God
,
believe
also
in
me
,
i.e.
continue
to
believe
in
me
;
So
also
Chapter
16.30
.
According
to
the
measure
of
this
Rule
,
or
Canon
may
that
in
Gen.
15.6
.
very
well
and
aptly
be
construed
,
q.
d
.
Abraham
persisted
to
believe
in
the
Lord
,
and
this
his
faith
was
continued
to
be
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
:
for
as
of
one
and
the
same
specifical
faith
there
are
divers
individual
acts
,
so
there
may
be
still
one
and
the
same
substantial
consequent
,
issue
,
or
fruit
of
them
all
,
which
in
sufficient
propriety
of
speech
may
accordingly
be
ascribed
both
to
the
one
,
and
to
the
other
,
i.e.
as
well
to
after
acts
,
as
to
the
first
act
of
faith
.
As
for
the
answer
,
that
is
usually
made
by
the
Papists
to
the
objection
,
or
question
in
hand
(
they
distinguishing
of
justification
into
first
and
second
)
I
need
not
here
specifie
;
and
to
avoid
prolixity
,
I
shall
not
at
all
in
this
place
take
it
into
consideration
,
and
thereupon
declare
,
what
may
with
safety
to
the
truth
be
granted
,
and
what
must
be
denied
in
the
matter
.
I
will
onely
specifie
what
is
recorded
concerning
Noah
,
Heb
.
11.7
.
(
this
being
an
instance
to
my
seeming
parallel
with
what
is
witnessed
of
Abraham
,
Gen.
15.6
.
)
where
it
is
said
of
him
,
That
by
faith
being
warned
of
God
of
things
not
seen
as
yet
,
moved
with
fear
prepared
an
Ark
to
the
saving
of
his
house
,
by
the
which
he
condemned
the
world
,
and
became
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
.
That
Noah
had
faith
and
was
righteous
before
God
warned
him
to
prepare
the
Ark
,
is
most
apparent
by
Gen.
6.7
,
8
,
9.
—
So
that
the
same
difficulty
,
or
question
occurs
concerning
him
as
concerning
Abraham
,
viz.
Forasmuch
as
Noah
had
faith
and
was
justified
before
his
said
warning
from
God
to
prepare
the
Ark
,
how
can
it
be
said
,
that
by
any
after
act
,
or
acts
of
faith
in
preparing
the
Ark
he
became
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
?
I
will
make
way
to
the
solving
of
this
grand
Question
by
proposing
and
answering
three
or
four
others
.
-
1.
What
kind
of
righteousness
is
there
meant
?
-
2.
What
is
it
to
be
an
heir
of
that
kind
of
righteousness
?
-
3.
What
was
that
righteousness
,
which
Noah
is
there
said
to
have
been
an
heir
of
?
or
,
wherein
did
it
consist
?
-
4.
Why
is
it
styled
a
righteousness
which
is
by
Faith
?
1.
Q.
What
is
there
meant
by
righteousness
?
Answ
.
The
word
righteousness
is
taken
in
a
twofold
sense
,
in
a
moral
,
or
in
a
jural
sense
.
1.
In
a
moral
construction
it
implies
duty
commanded
,
this
kind
of
righteousness
[
actual
]
consisting
in
good
works
,
in
which
sense
it
s
taken
in
that
Scripture
,
wherein
Noah
(
who
in
all
probability
was
a
great
Prince
)
is
said
to
have
been
a
Preacher
of
righteousness
(
2
Pet
.
2.5
.
)
that
is
of
repentance
,
and
amendment
of
life
.
2.
It
is
taken
in
a
jural
,
or
law
sense
,
viz.
for
that
right
,
or
title
,
which
any
one
hath
to
have
,
hold
,
or
enjoy
certain
benefits
and
blessings
,
which
God
hath
promised
to
sinners
,
and
the
benefits
themselves
so
promised
and
enjoyed
.
Instances
of
this
twofold
acceptation
of
the
word
righteousness
,
have
been
more
at
large
specified
in
the
second
Chapter
of
this
Discourse
.
Now
the
word
is
here
to
be
taken
not
in
the
former
,
but
in
the
latter
sense
,
as
appears
by
the
consequence
of
it
to
the
word
Heir
:
for
men
are
not
heirs
to
moral
righteousness
,
because
such
righteousness
is
not
a
thing
transient
,
or
capable
of
conveyance
from
one
person
to
another
,
and
consequently
is
not
inheritable
;
but
men
are
heirs
of
jural
rights
to
those
persons
who
have
the
property
,
or
power
to
dispose
,
convey
,
or
grant
such
rights
to
others
.
In
this
sense
the
word
righteousness
is
oft
times
taken
in
Scripture
,
specially
in
the
Epistles
of
S.
Paul
,
viz.
for
a
right
of
liberty
,
or
exemption
from
such
punishments
,
or
grievous
things
,
which
others
are
liable
unto
,
and
in
this
sense
the
word
is
to
be
taken
in
the
Text
before
us
,
Heb
.
11.7
.
2.
Q.
What
is
it
to
be
an
heir
of
the
said
righteousness
?
Answ
.
To
be
an
Heir
of
this
righteousness
is
to
have
,
or
possess
a
right
,
or
title
thereunto
:
for
heir
being
a
jural
word
,
or
Law
term
,
signifies
one
,
who
hath
a
right
or
title
to
this
,
or
that
priviledge
,
benefit
,
estate
,
or
the
like
.
3.
Q.
What
was
that
righteousness
,
which
Noah
is
there
said
to
have
been
an
heir
of
,
or
to
have
been
intitled
unto
?
Wherein
did
it
consist
?
Answ
.
This
is
a
different
question
from
the
first
in
order
,
that
was
proposed
,
and
therefore
must
receive
a
different
answer
:
for
that
question
did
onely
enquire
concerning
the
kind
of
this
righteousness
,
of
what
sort
it
was
,
and
accordingly
it
was
resolved
,
that
it
was
not
of
that
kind
,
which
we
commonly
style
Moral
,
but
Jural
.
But
this
question
doth
enquire
concerning
the
matter
of
this
Jural
righteousness
,
what
it
was
,
or
wherein
it
did
consist
?
to
which
I
answer
,
it
did
import
something
literally
,
and
something
mystically
,
1.
This
righteousness
in
the
literal
sense
did
consist
in
that
right
,
which
God
by
promise
granted
to
him
and
his
house
,
to
be
saved
from
the
In
this
sense
the
word
[
righteousness
]
is
sometimes
taken
in
Scripture
,
viz.
for
outward
prosperity
,
temporal
deliverances
and
preservations
,
Hos
.
10.12
.
Isa
.
48.18
.
although
not
as
excluding
Gods
saving
love
and
favour
.
flood
,
to
which
the
impenitent
world
was
actually
condemned
;
and
from
which
right
these
were
(
as
I
may
so
say
,
meaning
the
word
in
a
negative
,
not
in
a
privative
sense
)
dis-inherited
.
2.
In
the
mystical
sense
it
did
consist
in
Noahs
deliverance
from
the
deluge
of
Gods
eternal
wrath
:
for
the
saving
of
Noah
by
the
Ark
from
the
flood
was
a
kind
of
type
,
or
shadow
of
eternal
salvation
by
Christ
.
Destruction
by
the
flood
was
but
part
of
that
punishment
,
which
the
impenitent
world
did
suffer
,
and
deliverance
from
that
flood
was
but
a
part
of
the
great
reward
,
eternal
salvation
being
that
,
which
is
obtained
by
faith
in
Christ
.
All
this
seems
to
be
signified
by
that
Doctrine
of
St.
Peter
1.3.21
,
22.
where
there
is
mention
of
salvation
,
together
with
the
causes
or
means
of
it
,
as
the
water
of
baptism
,
the
answer
of
a
good
conscience
towards
God
(
which
in
effect
is
true
faith
and
repentance
)
as
also
the
resurrection
of
Christ
.
4.
Q.
Why
is
the
said
righteousness
styled
the
righteousness
which
is
by
faith
?
Answ
.
Because
the
right
,
which
he
had
to
be
saved
,
as
aforesaid
,
did
proceed
from
Gods
special
grace
and
free
promise
,
conditionally
upon
his
faith
:
for
as
faith
and
works
are
opposed
,
so
is
a
right
by
faith
opposed
to
that
right
,
which
accrues
by
strict
desert
,
merit
of
works
,
or
valuable
service
.
The
Author
therefore
by
that
expression
would
intimate
to
us
,
that
Noah
had
no
right
to
the
said
benefits
by
the
merit
of
his
works
,
but
all
the
right
he
had
came
from
Gods
gracious
grant
in
a
free
promise
,
which
Noah
accepting
with
an
operative
faith
,
whereby
at
Gods
command
he
prepared
the
Ark
,
the
said
right
was
actually
invested
in
him
,
or
settled
upon
him
.
These
things
being
thus
premised
,
to
the
said
question
(
How
can
it
be
said
,
that
Noah
,
being
a
believer
and
justified
before
Gods
warning
him
to
prepare
the
Ark
,
by
an
after
act
,
or
acts
of
Faith
in
preparing
the
Ark
did
become
or
was
made
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
?
)
I
do
now
make
answer
,
That
Noah
being
justified
before
may
upon
the
after
acts
of
his
faith
be
said
to
be
made
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
,
because
as
upon
these
after
acts
or
actings
of
his
faith
he
had
a
right
conferred
upon
him
to
temporal
salvation
from
the
deluge
,
so
thereupon
he
had
also
his
former
right
to
eternal
salvation
from
the
wrath
of
God
continued
to
him
.
Noahs
preparing
of
the
Ark
was
one
special
act
of
that
faith
,
which
was
from
former
days
habitual
in
his
soul
,
which
if
he
had
not
at
that
time
and
therein
exercised
,
he
had
incurred
the
danger
not
onely
of
a
temporal
deluge
,
but
the
deluge
also
of
Gods
eternal
wrath
:
so
that
by
this
after
acting
of
his
faith
he
escaped
the
danger
of
both
,
and
thereupon
as
he
came
to
Have
a
right
to
a
temporal
salvation
;
so
to
Hold
his
right
to
eternal
salvation
,
so
that
as
upon
it
he
became
an
heir
of
temporal
happiness
in
this
world
,
so
he
continued
to
be
an
heir
of
eternal
happiness
in
the
world
to
come
.
And
this
was
a
fit
argument
to
perswade
to
perseverance
in
faith
(
this
being
the
scope
of
the
Apostle
both
in
this
and
in
the
latter
end
of
the
Chapter
foregoing
)
perseverance
wherein
after
the
example
of
Noah
and
the
rest
named
in
this
Chapter
,
of
whom
it
is
testified
,
that
they
all
died
in
faith
,
perseverance
,
I
say
,
wherein
was
the
onely
way
to
escape
the
deluge
of
Gods
eternal
wrath
,
and
perdition
,
which
the
Apostle
in
the
last
verse
of
the
foregoing
Chapter
tells
them
would
prove
the
fate
of
all
such
as
did
draw
back
,
and
did
not
continue
in
faith
,
in
which
sense
the
word
(
believe
)
is
taken
in
that
verse
,
viz.
for
continuance
in
the
faith
,
it
being
opposed
to
a
drawing
back
(
We
are
not
of
them
that
draw
back
to
perdition
(
says
the
Apostle
)
but
of
them
who
do
believe
,
i.e.
who
without
drawing
back
do
persist
to
believe
,
to
the
salvation
of
the
soul
.
CHAP.
XXVI
.
Q.
What
was
the
object
of
that
faith
of
Abrahams
,
which
is
said
to
have
been
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Generally
those
revelations
,
which
God
had
imparted
to
him
concerning
his
divine
will
,
i.e.
both
Mandati
and
beneplaciti
:
both
what
God
himself
had
promised
to
do
,
and
also
what
he
had
commanded
Abraham
to
do
,
the
prime
whereof
(
both
the
things
commanded
and
promised
)
are
made
instances
in
;
Hereupon
six
things
as
observable
are
commended
to
consideration
,
with
a
reflection
upon
a
passage
in
that
very
learned
forein
Writer
,
Doctor
And.
Ryvet
.
Quest
.
WHat
was
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
,
that
was
imputed
to
him
for
,
or
to
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Without
controversie
it
was
Divinum
testimonium
,
certain
the
Oracles
of
God
,
some
supernatural
revelation
,
or
revelations
,
that
were
made
known
unto
him
by
God
,
which
what
they
were
,
will
be
the
subject
of
the
present
enquiry
;
wherein
I
shall
not
think
it
necessary
to
search
,
whether
that
{αβγδ}
,
that
divine
revelation
touching
the
promised
seed
(
Gen.
3
,
15.
)
came
to
his
knowledge
[
antecedently
to
his
extraordinary
call
out
of
Ur
of
the
Caldees
]
by
tradition
,
as
it
did
to
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
:
for
whether
this
can
be
demonstrably
proved
,
or
no
,
it
is
fully
sufficient
to
my
purpose
in
hand
to
manifest
,
what
those
supernatural
revelations
were
,
which
being
personally
made
known
to
Abraham
,
were
the
objects
of
that
faith
of
his
,
which
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
The
matter
of
these
revelations
may
upon
the
main
(
as
I
conceive
)
be
reduced
to
these
two
heads
(
divine
Commands
and
divine
Promises
)
as
will
instantly
be
made
manifest
by
three
special
Revelations
from
God
unto
him
,
that
are
recorded
in
three
several
Chapters
in
the
Book
of
Genesis
,
viz.
Chap.
12.
begin
.
Where
God
is
said
to
have
commanded
him
to
leave
his
contrey
(
by
which
in
probability
was
meant
not
onely
a
local
,
but
a
moral
departure
,
as
was
aforesaid
Chapter
24.
)
and
to
have
promised
to
make
him
a
great
nation
,
and
to
bless
him
,
to
make
him
an
exemplar
of
blessing
,
and
that
in
him
,
i.e.
in
his
seed
all
the
families
of
the
earth
should
be
blessed
;
herein
God
having
revealed
to
him
more
particularly
that
,
which
was
onely
indefinitly
revealed
to
the
former
ages
:
for
whereas
God
had
onely
made
known
to
them
,
that
in
the
seed
of
the
woman
the
world
should
be
blessed
,
he
acquaints
Abraham
,
that
it
should
be
in
his
seed
.
Now
in
Gen.
15.
begin
.
God
doth
partly
renew
the
same
promise
to
him
,
giving
him
also
a
command
to
persevere
(
for
this
I
am
perswaded
,
is
comprized
in
that
inhibition
,
Fear
not
)
animating
him
thereunto
with
these
words
(
I
am
thy
shield
and
exceeding
great
reward
,
)
and
partly
he
makes
certain
new
revelations
to
him
,
which
are
recorded
,
ver
.
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
and
may
be
read
at
leisure
.
In
Gen.
22.
begin
,
there
is
recorded
another
revelation
(
besides
the
renewing
of
the
former
promise
and
the
institution
of
circumcision
as
a
seal
thereof
,
chap.
17.
and
again
the
renewing
thereof
,
chap.
18.
)
where
God
imposeth
a
new
command
upon
him
for
the
offering
up
his
son
to
him
as
a
sacrifice
,
upon
his
faithful
performance
whereof
(
for
so
it
is
interpreted
Heb
.
11.17
.
)
God
doth
again
renew
his
former
promises
,
both
general
and
special
,
yea
with
the
addition
of
an
oath
for
Abrahams
more
abundant
confirmation
,
and
consolation
ver.
16
,
17
,
18.
Now
be
it
considered
,
that
although
these
words
(
Abraham
believed
in
the
Lord
,
and
he
imputed
it
to
him
for
righteousness
)
are
recorded
onely
by
occasion
of
the
second
revelation
in
Gen.
15.
nevertheless
all
the
said
revelations
were
the
objects
of
Abrahams
justifying
faith
,
and
by
the
same
reason
as
it
is
said
respectively
to
the
second
,
it
may
be
truly
said
,
That
respectively
to
them
all
,
Abraham
believed
in
the
Lord
,
and
he
imputed
it
to
him
for
righteousness
.
And
there
is
the
more
reason
thus
to
conclude
,
because
that
testimony
of
Scripture
recorded
as
immediately
referring
to
the
second
divine
Revelation
made
to
Abraham
,
St
James
doth
apply
to
the
third
,
saying
,
That
upon
Abrahams
offering
Isaac
his
son
upon
the
altar
the
Scripture
was
fulfilled
,
which
saith
,
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
Chap.
2.21.22
,
23.
The
premisses
considered
,
I
humbly
desire
,
that
the
following
remarks
may
be
duely
observed
,
and
minded
.
1.
That
the
object
of
Abrahams
justifying
faith
was
not
only
divine
promises
,
but
also
divine
commands
,
Get
thee
out
of
thy
countrey
chap.
12.1
.
Fear
not
,
i.e.
be
constant
,
fear
not
them
,
that
can
kill
the
body
and
after
that
have
no
more
,
that
they
can
do
.
Gen.
15.1
.
Walk
before
me
,
and
be
upright
,
chap.
17.1
.
Take
thy
son
,
thy
onely
son
Isaac
,
whom
thou
lovest
,
and
get
thee
into
the
land
of
Moriah
,
and
offer
him
there
for
a
burnt
offering
—
Gen.
22.
beg
.
All
these
are
express
commands
.
2.
Observe
,
That
Abraham
did
not
onely
believe
the
promises
,
but
also
perform
the
commands
of
God
,
one
command
of
God
,
as
well
as
another
,
seemingly
never
so
harsh
and
contrary
to
flesh
and
blood
,
yea
although
the
performance
of
Gods
command
in
the
sacrificing
of
his
son
did
seem
utterly
to
make
against
the
accomplishing
of
his
promise
.
Briefly
,
Abraham
did
not
onely
believe
,
that
God
is
,
and
is
a
rewarder
of
them
that
diligently
seek
him
,
but
by
vertue
of
that
his
faith
,
himself
was
according
to
the
divine
command
a
diligent
seeker
of
God
.
He
did
all
Gods
commands
without
murmurings
,
and
disputings
.
3
,
Be
it
observed
,
that
the
things
promised
to
Abraham
were
not
onely
things
temporal
,
viz.
a
legitimate
issue
(
a
seed
of
God
,
or
a
Godly
seed
as
is
the
Prophets
expression
,
Mal
.
2.15
.
)
and
this
by
his
old
wife
,
and
the
Land
of
Canaan
to
be
his
in
present
right
&
to
be
his
prosterities
in
future
possession
,
but
things
of
spiritual
and
eternal
concernment
,
viz.
pardon
of
sin
and
everlasting
salvation
by
Christ
.
This
is
it
,
which
is
implyed
in
that
pro●ise
of
God
expressed
in
those
words
to
Abraham
(
I
am
thy
shield
and
exceeding
great
reward
,
or
as
the
Septuagint
render
them
,
as
well
they
may
,
I
am
thy
shield
,
and
thy
reward
shall
be
exceeding
great
,
)
wherein
is
comprised
(
say
the
Dutch
Annotations
upon
the
place
)
Omnis
beatitudo
,
quae
hic
incipit
,
&
in
futurâ
vitâ
completur
,
All
that
felicity
,
which
is
begun
in
this
life
,
and
perfected
in
that
which
is
to
come
.
And
though
it
be
said
,
that
Socinus
did
confine
the
promise
of
God
to
Abraham
unto
matters
of
temporal
concernment
,
yet
Crellius
,
I
am
sure
,
doth
not
so
:
for
in
his
comment
on
Hebrews
11.10
.
He
yields
,
That
Abraham
hoped
to
have
from
God
some
life
and
happiness
after
his
death
,
in
regard
he
knew
the
great
goodness
of
God
toward
his
Servitors
,
and
the
great
power
of
God
,
that
he
is
able
to
raise
even
the
dead
,
and
can
give
his
servants
a
blessing
,
or
reward
after
their
death
;
and
he
says
expresly
,
That
the
promises
of
God
made
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
do
in
the
mystical
sense
contain
this
spiritual
and
heavenly
inheritance
.
And
in
the
same
sense
the
seed
of
Abraham
doth
signifie
the
seed
of
all
the
faithful
,
who
follow
the
faith
of
Abraham
:
for
both
these
senses
are
taught
us
by
the
Apostle
,
Rom.
4
,
11
,
12
,
13.
and
Gal.
3.7
.
and
4.22
.
Thus
that
Socinian
Author
.
He
doth
indeed
peremptorily
deny
,
that
Abraham
understood
more
than
a
temporal
felicity
to
be
comprized
in
those
bare
words
of
Gods
promise
to
be
his
exceeding
great
reward
,
or
that
his
reward
should
be
exceeding
great
;
and
Ryvet
also
upon
the
place
seems
to
be
of
the
same
opinion
with
him
therein
,
and
upon
the
same
ground
,
viz.
because
of
Abrahams
reply
to
God
in
the
words
following
(
Lord
God
,
what
wilt
thou
give
me
,
seeing
I
go
childless
,
and
—
)
which
he
would
not
have
made
,
say
they
,
if
he
had
apprehended
heavenly
happiness
to
be
intimated
in
the
words
aforesaid
.
But
for
my
own
part
,
I
do
not
perceive
any
cogency
in
the
said
reason
alledged
for
their
purpose
:
for
as
for
the
words
of
Abrahams
reply
,
though
they
have
in
short
the
form
of
a
Question
,
or
Expostulation
,
nevertheless
they
seem
to
me
to
have
the
force
of
an
holy
complaint
,
and
fervent
supplication
(
I
may
warrantably
call
the
complaint
Holy
,
notwithstanding
some
mixture
of
humane
infirmity
therein
perhaps
not
to
be
denied
)
which
may
not
unfitly
be
thus
more
at
large
paraphrased
,
Lord
God
,
I
do
well
understand
that
temporal
felicity
,
which
thou
dost
promise
me
in
being
my
exceeding
great
reward
,
but
to
what
great
purpose
is
this
,
seeing
I
am
like
to
depart
the
world
childless
?
I
am
rich
enough
already
in
cattel
,
in
silver
and
in
gold
(
Gen.
13.2
.
)
and
how
insignificant
a
thing
would
it
be
for
thee
to
give
me
more
,
so
long
as
I
have
no
child
of
my
own
body
to
inherit
it
after
me
,
the
steward
of
my
house
this
Eliezer
of
Damascus
being
in
expectation
to
inherit
my
estate
,
when
I
(
now
a
man
so
old
)
am
gone
?
Lord
God
,
I
do
well
understand
also
that
heavenly
felicity
intimated
to
me
in
thy
promise
of
being
my
exceeding
great
reward
,
but
how
can
this
be
effected
and
brought
about
,
so
long
as
I
do
not
experience
thy
promise
to
be
fulfilled
in
giving
me
a
child
,
from
whose
loyns
the
Messias
is
to
issue
,
in
whom
my self
and
all
the
families
of
the
earth
shall
be
eternally
blessed
?
Except
thou
hasten
the
performance
of
thy
promise
in
giving
me
a
child
(
I
being
already
so
stricken
in
years
)
how
shall
the
said
promised
blessedness
to
me
and
them
ever
come
to
pass
?
Thou
,
who
art
Jehovah
Adonai
,
hasten
O
Lord
God
the
performance
of
thy
gracious
word
and
free
promise
.
Briefly
,
as
the
blessed
Virgin
having
heard
that
message
from
God
by
the
mouth
of
the
Arch-angel
concerning
her
bringing
forth
a
son
(
the
Messias
)
replyed
,
saying
,
How
shall
this
be
,
seeing
I
know
not
a
man
?
to
the
like
sense
and
purpose
may
Abrahams
reply
to
God
be
interpreted
,
without
any
imputation
to
Abrahams
not
apprehending
of
any
more
than
temporal
felicity
to
have
been
promised
to
him
in
those
words
,
I
am
thy
shield
and
exceeding
great
reward
.
And
as
upon
that
reply
in
the
way
of
question
by
the
blessed
Virgin
,
the
Arch-angel
did
immediately
satisfie
her
saying
(
The
Holy
Ghost
shall
come
upon
thee
,
and
the
power
of
the
Highest
shall
over
shadow
thee
—
)
Even
so
upon
that
reply
of
Abraham
to
God
question-wise
,
doth
God
(
who
being
the
searcher
of
hearts
,
did
know
the
mind
of
the
Spirit
in
those
words
of
Abraham
,
Lord
God
,
what
wilt
thou
give
me
?
)
instantly
satisfie
that
his
aged
servant
,
saying
,
This
shall
not
be
thine
heir
—
But
whatever
be
the
due
construction
of
those
words
(
I
am
thy
exceeding
great
reward
)
or
whatever
the
present
construction
that
Abraham
did
make
of
them
was
,
it
is
a
thing
not
to
be
questioned
,
but
that
the
things
promised
by
God
to
Abraham
were
not
onely
of
temporal
,
but
also
of
eternal
concernment
:
for
1.
By
Abrahams
seed
in
those
words
(
In
thy
seed
shall
all
the
kindreds
of
the
earth
be
blessed
)
St.
Peter
doth
interpret
to
be
meant
Jesus
Christ
,
as
appears
by
Act.
3.25
.
compared
with
ver
.
26.
and
so
also
doth
St.
Paul
(
as
that
Text
is
usually
expounded
,
Gal.
3.16
.
)
He
saith
not
to
seeds
as
of
many
,
but
as
of
one
:
And
to
thy
seed
,
which
is
Christ
.
Thence
it
is
,
that
Jesus
Christ
(
the
true
Isaac
)
is
justly
as
usually
styled
by
us
(
{αβγδ}
)
the
promised
seed
.
Abraham
had
in
the
said
promise
a
prospect
of
Christ
,
whereupon
Christ
says
,
Abraham
saw
my
day
and
rejoyced
Joh
.
8.56
.
2.
God
is
said
by
the
Apostle
in
that
promise
to
have
preached
the
Gospel
to
Abraham
,
Gal.
3.8
.
which
Gospel
is
of
soul-concernment
(
for
were
it
onely
of
temporal
concernment
,
it
were
not
worthy
in
a
signal
sense
to
be
so
called
)
and
thence
it
is
styled
the
Gospel
of
salvation
,
Eph.
1.13
.
and
the
word
of
salvation
,
Act.
13.26
.
and
The
grace
of
God
which
bringeth
salvation
,
Tit
.
2.11
.
3.
That
Gospel
,
or
good
news
,
which
was
in
the
said
promise
preached
to
Abraham
,
was
remission
of
sin
,
or
justification
through
faith
in
Christ
to
be
enjoyed
by
all
the
kindreds
of
the
earth
,
as
the
Apostle
doth
plainly
interpret
the
matter
,
saying
,
(
Gal.
3.8
,
9.
)
And
the
Scripture
foreseeing
,
that
God
would
justifie
the
Heathen
through
faith
,
preached
before
the
Gospel
unto
Abraham
,
saying
,
In
thee
shall
all
nations
be
blessed
(
that
is
,
By
Faith
in
thee
,
as
the
Apostle
expounds
it
in
the
words
immediately
following
.
)
so
then
,
they
which
be
of
faith
,
are
blessed
with
faithful
Abraham
.
And
this
is
that
blessedness
,
which
Abraham
is
said
to
have
expected
,
or
which
(
as
Crellius
construes
it
)
expected
Abraham
,
and
which
the
Apostle
sets
forth
in
that
Metaphorical
expression
,
Heb
.
11.10
.
He
looked
for
a
City
,
which
hath
foundations
,
whose
builder
and
maker
is
God
.
4.
Observe
,
That
although
justification
,
remission
of
sin
and
everlasting
salvation
through
faith
in
Christ
,
or
his
righteousness
were
the
main
part
of
the
blessedness
therein
promised
,
nevertheless
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
appears
not
at
all
promised
unto
,
or
expected
by
either
him
or
his
;
and
therefore
was
no
object
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
or
any
of
his
posterity
.
And
for
my
own
part
I
am
perswaded
,
that
the
groundless
asserting
of
such
an
imputation
hath
been
one
great
occasion
of
hardening
Socinus
with
his
partakers
against
the
Protestant
Churches
(
not
to
mention
also
our
adversaries
of
the
Romish
Church
;
)
nor
do
I
perceive
any
more
reason
,
why
any
Protestant
Preacher
,
or
Writer
should
be
had
in
suspicion
as
less
friends
to
Christ
,
for
their
denying
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
in
the
sense
here
opposed
,
because
his
enemies
the
Socinians
do
deny
it
,
than
for
their
maintaining
Jesus
Christ
to
be
the
Son
,
or
Holy
One
of
God
,
because
the
Devil
himself
did
make
that
confession
of
him
.
5.
Be
it
observed
,
that
the
promise
of
justification
,
remission
of
sin
,
and
everlasting
blessedness
through
Abrahams
seed
(
the
true
Messias
)
to
all
the
Nations
of
the
Earth
,
was
no
more
absolute
to
them
,
than
it
was
to
Abraham
himself
.
The
truth
is
,
that
blessedness
was
not
absolutely
promised
to
either
,
but
conditionally
to
both
:
to
Abraham
upon
his
operative
faith
,
and
to
all
other
sinners
upon
condition
of
the
same
specifical
faith
,
such
as
Abrahams
was
.
And
thus
doth
St.
Paul
himself
interpret
that
promise
(
In
thee
shall
all
the
nations
of
the
earth
be
blessed
;
)
I
mean
,
he
doth
interpret
it
to
have
the
foresaid
condition
implyed
therein
,
and
therefore
constructively
to
be
a
conditional
promise
:
for
which
see
Gal.
3.
Where
having
mentioned
that
promise
,
verse
8.
he
adds
,
saying
,
ver
.
9.
So
then
,
they
,
which
be
of
faith
,
are
blessed
(
he
says
not
simply
with
Abraham
,
but
)
with
FAITHFUL
Abraham
,
intimating
thereby
,
That
faith
(
an
operative
faith
,
such
a
faith
,
as
Abrahams
was
)
is
the
condition
of
the
promised
blessedness
in
and
through
the
promised
seed
unto
all
the
nations
of
the
earth
.
This
is
the
faith
,
which
doth
speak
a
person
to
be
like
to
Abraham
,
or
doth
denominate
us
Abrahams
children
,
as
is
the
Apostles
language
,
saying
ver.
7.
Know
ye
therefore
(
a
considerable
thing
indeed
,
and
therefore
to
be
well
known
,
although
to
this
day
many
seem
to
take
no
due
knowledge
of
it
)
that
they
which
are
of
faith
(
that
is
of
a
faith
like
that
of
Abraham
)
the
same
are
the
children
of
Abraham
.
The
inheriting
of
our
father
Abrahams
blessing
(
as
is
the
Apostles
expression
,
ver
.
14.
depends
upon
our
inheriting
his
faith
,
I
mean
,
our
imitating
his
faith
,
as
the
condition
thereof
.
6.
Be
it
observed
,
that
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
was
not
this
,
or
the
like
revelation
,
or
proposition
,
Thou
Abraham
art
a
person
in
Christ
,
Art
actually
justified
,
Reconciled
to
God
,
Art
in
his
special
love
and
favour
—
I
say
,
no
such
proposition
,
or
revelation
was
the
object
of
his
faith
,
except
upon
supposition
of
his
faith
antecedently
thereunto
.
I
put
in
this
exception
for
the
preventing
of
an
objection
easie
to
be
foreseen
:
for
may
some
object
,
saying
,
Doth
not
God
in
those
very
words
(
I
am
thy
shield
and
thy
exceeding
great
reward
)
assert
Abraham
to
be
a
person
justified
,
Reconciled
,
blessed
with
his
special
love
and
favour
?
and
was
not
Abraham
(
fide
divinâ
)
to
believe
this
report
,
it
being
uttered
by
the
mouth
of
God
himself
?
Answ
.
The
words
in
the
original
are
defective
,
the
Verb
being
wanting
,
and
being
word
for
word
rendred
,
are
[
I
thy
shield
and
thy
exceeding
great
reward
]
and
they
may
be
supplied
indifferently
with
a
verb
substantive
,
whether
of
the
present
tense
(
I
am
)
or
of
the
future
(
I
will
be
.
)
2.
If
we
supply
them
with
a
verb
of
the
present
tense
,
as
we
find
them
supplied
by
our
English
Translators
,
then
the
words
must
be
understood
upon
supposition
of
Abrahams
faith
as
antecedent
,
or
of
Abraham
his
being
a
true
believer
before
this
revelation
,
or
affirmation
;
which
we
may
well
suppose
,
forasmuch
as
he
was
truly
a
believer
before
this
vision
,
or
revelation
recorded
in
this
Chapter
,
as
hath
been
already
proved
from
Gen.
12.
beg
.
3.
If
we
supply
the
words
with
a
verb
of
the
future
tense
,
as
do
the
Septuagint
(
thy
reward
shall
be
exceeding
great
)
or
I
will
be
thy
exceeding
great
reward
,
then
are
they
to
be
conceived
of
under
the
notion
of
a
promise
from
God
to
Abraham
,
wherein
God
doth
promise
to
him
the
continuance
of
his
fatherly
protection
,
favour
and
benediction
,
he
continuing
not
to
fear
,
or
fall
back
,
but
still
to
walk
before
him
and
to
be
faithful
unto
death
.
I
grant
indeed
,
that
God
may
be
said
to
be
the
reward
of
the
faithful
both
in
an
active
and
in
a
passive
sense
,
i.e.
he
will
reward
them
,
and
he
will
be
their
reward
,
(
he
will
be
their
rewarder
,
and
their
reward
)
and
it
may
indifferently
be
rendred
in
either
sense
.
Yet
I
am
apt
to
think
,
that
the
words
are
constructively
a
promise
,
rather
than
an
assertion
,
or
affirmation
,
and
that
they
are
to
be
supplied
rather
with
a
verb
of
the
future
tense
(
I
will
be
)
than
of
the
present
(
I
am
.
)
My
reason
is
,
not
simply
,
because
the
Septuagint
(
as
was
aforesaid
)
do
so
render
them
(
thy
reward
shall
be
exceeding
great
;
)
but
because
Abraham
himself
did
understand
them
under
the
notion
of
a
promise
,
as
appears
by
his
reply
thereunto
,
saying
,
Lord
God
,
what
wilt
thou
give
me
—
Hereby
it
is
manifest
,
that
the
said
words
of
God
did
bode
somewhat
,
that
was
coming
towards
him
,
and
which
God
did
therein
promise
at
one
time
or
other
to
bestow
upon
him
,
acccording
to
Abrahams
construction
thereof
.
Having
thus
cleared
this
sixth
particular
commended
to
observation
,
I
shall
now
recommend
it
;
and
much
the
rather
do
I
desire
it
to
be
taken
into
impartial
consideration
,
because
there
are
some
,
who
would
have
this
,
or
the
like
proposition
(
Thou
art
a
person
reconciled
to
God
,
Art
one
in
his
special
love
,
and
fatherly
favour
-
)
to
be
the
object
of
justifying
faith
,
a
faith
like
that
of
Abrahams
;
and
this
is
it
,
which
some
Protestant
Writers
do
seem
to
maintain
to
have
been
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
,
and
to
maintain
it
both
against
Papists
,
Socinians
and
Arminians
,
I
shall
instance
only
in
one
,
the
forecited
eminent
Author
(
Dr
And.
Ryvet
in
one
of
his
exercitations
upon
Genesis
,
p.
403.
)
and
having
recited
his
words
with
my
reply
thereunto
,
I
shal
freely
and
friendly
leave
the
judgment
thereof
to
every
intelligent
,
and
unprejudicate
Reader
.
The
said
Author
having
said
,
that
Abraham
in
the
promise
did
embrace
God
as
a
father
,
he
adds
immediately
,
saying
,
Quâ
ratione
nos
justificat
fides
,
nosque
deo
reconciliat
,
non
suo
quidem
merito
,
sed
dum
gratiam
nobis
in
promissionibus
divinis
oblatam
recipientes
,
certo
persuasi
sumus
,
nos
amari
à
deo
tanquam
filios
,
i.e.
After
the
same
fashion
(
or
manner
)
faith
justifies
us
,
and
reconciles
us
to
God
,
truly
not
by
its
own
merit
,
but
while
we
receiving
(
or
embracing
)
the
grace
offered
to
us
in
the
divine
promises
,
are
assuredly
,
or
certainly
,
perswaded
that
we
are
beloved
of
God
as
children
.
The
truth
is
,
and
we
all
confess
it
,
that
faith
doth
not
justifie
us
by
its
own
merit
,
nor
do
Arminians
or
Socinians
(
for
ought
I
know
,
or
ever
heard
)
say
otherwise
,
but
faith
doth
justifie
us
,
as
it
is
the
performed
condition
of
the
new
covenant
,
or
law
of
faith
,
which
performance
materially
is
such
an
embracing
of
the
grace
and
favour
of
God
promised
and
offered
therein
,
as
doth
effectually
encline
us
sincerely
to
do
the
duty
,
which
in
the
said
law
or
covenant
is
required
in
order
to
the
enjoyment
thereof
;
But
it
is
not
true
to
say
with
this
learned
,
but
herein
mistaken
Author
(
with
too
many
other
Brethren
,
specially
of
forein
Churches
)
that
faith
is
such
an
embracing
,
or
receiving
of
the
grace
of
God
offered
in
his
promises
,
as
that
we
are
assuredly
,
or
certainly
perswaded
,
that
we
are
beloved
of
God
as
children
,
and
that
this
is
the
faith
,
that
doth
justifie
us
and
reconcile
us
to
God
,
even
as
it
did
Abraham
in
the
same
manner
.
Is
it
not
strange
that
learned
men
should
not
even
of
themselves
discern
the
inconsistency
of
such
sayings
with
the
truth
of
Scripture
,
and
right
reason
,
yea
how
inconsistent
they
are
with
themselves
?
for
how
can
that
be
said
to
reconcile
a
person
to
God
,
which
doth
assuredly
perswade
him
,
that
he
is
already
,
or
was
antecedently
to
his
believing
reconciled
to
God
and
beloved
of
him
?
Is
not
this
plainly
to
make
a
sinner
reconciled
to
God
before
he
be
reconciled
,
making
the
perswasion
of
his
reconciliation
to
God
the
means
of
his
reconciliation
?
The
scandal
,
that
in
such
assertions
as
these
by
some
Protestant
Writers
in
extremes
hath
been
given
to
the
common
Adversary
,
is
much
to
be
lamented
.
I
shall
caution
the
Reader
against
another
of
his
mistakes
in
the
same
Lecture
,
p
406
Non
gaudet
aliquis
(
says
he
)
ob
justificationem
,
cujus
se
participem
esse
non
sentit
,
i.e.
No
man
rejoyceth
for
that
justification
,
whereof
he
perceives
not
himself
to
be
a
partaker
.
This
saying
is
far
from
truth
:
for
a
man
may
and
ought
to
rejoyce
in
a
probability
,
yea
a
possibility
of
having
that
,
which
at
present
he
hath
not
.
And
Gods
conditional
promises
of
justifying
the
ungodly
,
are
just
matter
of
joy
to
all
sinners
,
and
wherein
they
ought
greatly
to
rejoyce
,
although
at
present
they
are
not
justified
,
they
being
yet
in
the
gall
of
bitterness
and
in
the
bond
of
iniquity
,
or
in
their
ungodliness
.
Having
declared
more
at
large
in
this
Chapter
what
was
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
,
that
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
I
will
in
the
next
Chap.
propose
it
to
enquiry
,
what
was
the
object
of
the
faith
of
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
that
was
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
.
CHAP.
XXVII
.
Q.
What
was
the
object
of
the
faith
of
Abel
,
Enoch
,
Noah
,
and
other
the
faithfull
Patriarchs
of
the
old
world
before
Abraham
was
?
Answ
.
Such
things
as
were
made
known
to
them
by
supernatural
revelation
,
which
things
are
summarily
said
to
be
Gods
Existence
and
his
Beneficence
,
proved
by
Heb
.
11.6
.
Hereupon
two
Questions
are
proposed
and
answered
,
1.
Whether
Gods
Existence
and
Beneficence
were
not
things
of
natural
revelation
,
or
made
known
by
the
light
of
nature
?
2.
Q.
Whether
was
it
made
known
to
the
said
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
that
God
[
in
Christ
,
or
for
Christs
sake
]
was
,
or
would
be
the
Rewarder
of
them
who
diligently
seek
him
?
Q.
WHat
was
the
object
of
the
faith
of
Abel
,
Enoch
,
Noah
,
and
other
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
that
was
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
This
Question
doth
suppose
,
that
those
Ancient
Fathers
had
faith
,
and
that
their
faith
was
imputed
to
them
for
righteousness
;
and
this
may
securely
be
presumed
to
the
enquiry
in
hand
:
for
the
Author
to
the
Hebrews
,
(
chap.
11.
beg
.
)
doth
testifie
of
several
of
them
by
name
,
that
they
had
faith
,
and
that
thereupon
they
became
heirs
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
,
i.e.
of
right
,
or
title
to
life
eternal
:
for
this
being
expresly
testified
concerning
one
of
them
(
Noah
by
name
verse
7.
)
by
the
same
reason
we
may
safely
conclude
it
to
be
verified
concerning
the
rest
,
and
so
much
(
for
ought
I
know
)
is
imported
in
that
witness
,
which
Abel
is
said
upon
his
faith
to
have
obtained
,
viz.
That
he
was
righteous
;
for
upon
believing
to
be
made
righteous
,
and
thereupon
to
be
made
,
or
to
become
an
heir
of
the
righteousness
,
which
is
by
faith
,
I
take
to
be
phrases
synonymous
,
and
of
the
self-same
importance
.
Consequently
hereupon
with
like
security
of
truth
I
may
presume
,
that
they
were
under
a
covenant
of
grace
made
to
them
,
and
indeed
to
all
men
in
Adam
;
and
that
this
covenant
was
in
force
to
all
mankind
,
before
it
was
renewed
to
Abraham
with
the
addition
of
certain
great
priviledges
peculiar
to
him
and
his
natural
posterity
above
the
rest
of
the
world
upon
his
extraordinary
and
most
exemplary
faith
;
I
say
,
the
covenant
of
grace
was
in
force
to
all
mankind
,
before
it
was
renewed
to
Abraham
;
for
it
is
most
evident
,
that
Cain
himself
[
one
of
the
Serpents
seed
]
was
not
excepted
,
God
saying
to
him
,
If
thou
do
well
,
shalt
not
thou
be
accepted
?
If
Cain
,
as
Abel
,
had
done
well
,
he
as
well
as
his
younger
brother
,
had
obtained
witness
,
that
he
was
righteous
.
These
things
being
presupposed
as
things
undubitable
,
I
answer
to
the
Question
,
1.
More
generally
,
Some
divine
,
or
supernatural
revelation
was
the
object
of
their
faith
.
This
doth
necessarily
follow
from
the
premisses
,
That
if
those
Patriarchs
had
faith
,
then
some
supernatural
revelation
was
the
object
of
it
:
for
this
is
the
difference
betwixt
faith
and
knowledge
,
or
betwixt
that
kind
of
assent
,
which
is
called
Assensus
fidei
,
and
Assensus
scientificus
,
the
assent
of
faith
and
knowledge
,
that
being
a
supernatural
assent
,
or
an
assent
to
some
truth
made
known
by
divine
witness
,
or
supernatural
revelation
,
but
this
being
a
natural
assent
to
such
truths
as
are
made
known
,
or
revealed
to
us
by
the
light
of
nature
.
Onely
it
concerns
us
rightly
to
understand
the
reason
of
the
said
expressions
,
why
the
said
object
of
faith
is
said
to
be
certain
truths
testified
by
supernatural
revelation
;
the
reason
whereof
is
not
,
because
it
is
always
so
ex
parte
rei
,
i.e.
because
we
cannot
be
said
to
believe
any
truth
made
known
unto
us
by
natural
demonstration
,
but
the
said
assent
is
called
supernatural
ex
parte
medii
,
because
the
ground
,
reason
,
or
motive
thereof
is
evermore
divine
testimony
,
the
witness
of
God
,
or
supernatural
revelation
;
so
that
although
faith
and
knowledge
may
,
and
do
frequently
agree
ex
parte
rei
cognita
,
i.e.
Although
they
may
and
often
have
the
same
material
object
,
or
objective
matter
,
to
which
we
do
yield
our
assent
,
nevertheless
they
do
always
differ
ex
parte
modi
,
ceu
medii
,
i.e.
in
the
ground
or
motive
of
that
assent
,
natural
demonstration
being
the
ground
of
the
one
,
and
supernatural
revelation
or
divine
witness
being
always
the
ground
of
the
other
.
2.
I
answer
more
particularly
,
The
Existence
and
Beneficence
of
God
were
the
objects
of
the
faith
of
those
Patriarchs
;
as
is
most
evident
by
what
the
Author
to
the
Hebrews
asserts
in
the
sixth
verse
of
that
Chapter
,
saying
(
For
without
faith
it
is
impossible
to
please
God
:
for
he
that
cometh
to
God
,
must
believe
,
that
he
is
,
and
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
,
that
diligently
seek
him
.
)
In
those
words
are
considerable
the
subject
and
the
object
of
saving
faith
,
1.
The
Subject
of
this
faith
is
one
,
that
comes
to
God
,
every
one
who
comes
to
God
.
Now
to
come
to
God
is
for
sinful
man
to
turn
to
him
,
to
seek
and
serve
,
and
please
God
.
This
coming
(
as
the
Apostle
there
gives
us
to
understand
)
always
presupposeth
faith
,
and
follows
it
as
an
effect
upon
its
cause
,
faith
being
the
principle
,
or
master-wheel
of
this
divine
motion
,
styled
Coming
to
God
.
2.
Observe
there
the
object
,
or
objects
of
saving
faith
,
viz.
1.
The
Existence
of
God
.
God
is
.
As
God
himself
is
Prima
veritas
incomplexa
,
the
first
simple
truth
,
so
(
God
is
)
prima
veritas
complexa
,
the
first
categorical
,
or
affirmative
proposition
.
As
Gods
being
,
or
Existence
is
first
and
before
all
other
things
and
Existences
,
so
that
God
is
,
or
doth
exist
,
must
needs
be
the
first
truth
,
and
first
to
be
believed
in
order
to
our
coming
to
him
:
for
if
a
man
believes
not
,
that
God
is
,
or
that
there
is
a
God
,
he
can
never
come
to
him
.
2.
The
other
object
of
their
faith
is
said
to
be
Gods
Munificence
,
in
his
being
a
Rewarder
of
them
,
that
do
diligently
seek
him
,
or
seek
him
out
(
as
the
word
signifies
)
that
is
,
who
do
seek
him
in
good
earnest
,
seriously
,
throughly
and
constantly
.
This
rewarding
of
them
who
are
diligent
seekers
of
God
,
doth
comprize
his
accepting
their
persons
,
his
pardoning
their
sins
,
and
finally
his
bestowing
upon
them
life
everlasting
.
Now
as
the
belief
of
a
God
is
the
first
ground
of
all
religiou●
service
,
and
first
therefore
to
be
believed
,
so
the
belief
of
Gods
being
a
Rewarder
of
piety
,
is
a
second
,
and
therefore
in
the
second
place
is
to
be
believed
;
for
if
sinners
believe
,
that
there
is
a
God
,
and
yet
are
not
perswaded
,
that
he
will
reward
them
,
who
diligently
seek
him
,
they
will
have
little
,
or
no
heart
to
his
service
,
their
religion
will
be
very
cold
,
or
rather
none
at
all
.
Thence
that
of
the
Psalmist
(
130.4
.
)
There
is
forgiveness
with
thee
,
that
thou
mayst
be
feared
.
We
use
to
say
,
that
the
end
is
the
principle
of
motion
in
morals
.
It
is
the
belief
of
the
final
reward
of
blessedness
,
which
is
a
prime
principle
of
this
moral
motion
,
i.e.
of
diligent
seeking
of
God
.
As
our
Saviour
says
concerning
those
two
great
commandments
of
the
law
(
the
love
of
God
and
our
Neighbour
Mat
.
22.34
,
40.
)
they
are
like
one
another
,
and
on
them
two
do
hang
all
the
law
and
the
Prophets
,
in
like
sort
may
it
truly
be
said
concerning
those
two
objects
of
faith
(
Gods
Existence
and
Beneficence
)
they
are
of
a
like
necessity
to
be
believed
in
order
to
salvation
,
and
upon
the
belief
of
them
hangs
all
the
worship
and
service
of
the
true
,
and
living
God
.
It
being
apparent
by
the
premisses
,
that
the
Existence
and
Beneficence
of
God
were
the
objects
of
the
Patriarchs
faith
,
witnessed
,
or
made
known
unto
them
by
supernatural
revelation
.
I
shall
think
it
expedient
thereupon
to
propose
two
useful
Questions
,
1.
Whether
Gods
existence
and
beneficence
were
not
known
to
them
by
natural
demonstrations
,
or
were
not
revealed
to
them
by
the
light
of
nature
?
to
which
I
answer
affirmatively
,
I
doubt
not
,
but
that
they
were
some
way
made
known
to
them
,
and
indeed
so
they
were
also
some
way
made
known
to
the
Heathen
world
:
for
the
Heathen
by
the
light
of
nature
knew
,
That
God
is
,
whom
their
Philosophers
styled
{αβγδ}
,
the
first
being
,
and
{αβγδ}
,
a
certain
cause
and
beginning
of
all
things
.
And
the
Apostle
puts
the
matter
out
of
doubt
,
affirming
of
the
Heathen
and
of
the
book
of
nature
,
That
that
which
may
be
known
of
God
,
was
manifest
to
them
,
God
having
shewed
it
unto
them
:
for
the
invisible
things
of
him
from
the
creation
of
the
world
are
clearly
seen
,
being
understood
by
the
things
that
are
made
,
even
his
eternal
power
and
Godhead
,
so
that
they
are
without
excuse
,
and
verse
20.
he
says
,
that
they
knew
God
although
they
did
not
glorifie
him
as
God
.
That
the
Heathen
did
not
onely
know
God
,
but
moreover
that
they
in
some
sort
knew
him
to
be
a
Remunerator
of
them
,
that
diligently
seek
him
,
and
that
they
knew
this
so
far
forth
at
least
as
to
leave
them
{αβγδ}
,
without
excuse
,
seems
to
be
evident
,
from
that
Scripture
;
nor
can
I
perceive
,
how
any
sinner
should
be
left
of
God
altogether
without
excuse
,
if
God
had
not
,
by
one
means
or
other
,
revealed
unto
him
both
his
Existence
and
Beneficence
,
both
that
he
is
and
is
a
rewarder
of
them
,
who
diligently
seek
him
.
It
is
true
indeed
,
that
God
(
in
Christ
,
or
for
Christs
sake
)
will
reward
them
,
who
diligently
seek
him
,
is
not
a
thing
discoverable
by
the
light
of
nature
,
nor
can
it
be
known
without
supernatural
revelation
,
and
whether
God
did
thus
far
forth
make
it
known
to
the
Patriarchs
,
is
a
Question
,
which
before
the
close
of
this
Chapter
I
will
propose
and
make
answer
to
.
In
the
mean
while
let
it
be
observed
,
that
these
two
Articles
(
That
God
is
and
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
,
that
diligently
seek
him
)
were
Articles
,
or
objects
both
of
the
knowledge
and
faith
of
the
Patriarchs
,
they
were
things
to
which
they
did
yield
a
twofold
kind
of
assent
,
that
which
in
the
Schools
is
called
Assensus
scientificus
,
or
Scientiae
,
and
Assensus
fidei
,
God
having
made
these
things
known
unto
them
both
by
natural
and
supernatural
revelation
.
Briefly
,
These
were
Articles
,
both
known
and
believed
;
yea
as
for
the
first
Article
touching
the
Existence
of
God
,
it
is
true
to
say
,
It
is
in
order
of
nature
first
to
be
known
,
and
afterwards
to
be
believed
.
That
faith
and
knowledge
may
have
one
and
the
same
material
object
hath
been
already
said
and
manifested
,
though
the
assent
of
the
one
and
the
other
being
of
different
kinds
their
formal
objects
do
always
differ
;
by
their
formal
objects
I
mean
,
the
formal
motive
,
medium
,
or
ground
,
upon
which
our
assent
is
founded
,
the
one
being
founded
upon
natural
demonstration
and
the
other
upon
supernatural
revelation
or
divine
testimony
.
Q.
Was
it
made
known
to
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
by
supernatural
revelation
,
that
God
in
Christ
,
or
for
Christs
sake
is
a
rewarder
of
them
,
who
diligently
seek
him
,
and
consequently
was
this
any
object
of
their
faith
?
Answ
.
I
think
it
was
:
for
I
am
perswaded
,
that
as
it
is
said
of
Abraham
,
That
the
Gospel
was
preached
to
him
,
Gal.
3.8
.
so
also
,
that
it
was
preached
to
them
;
and
that
as
it
was
preached
to
him
in
that
saying
mentioned
there
by
S.
Paul
(
In
thee
shall
all
nations
be
blessed
)
so
it
was
preached
to
them
in
that
saying
recorded
concerning
the
seed
of
the
woman
its
bruising
the
Serpents
head
;
as
the
Gospel
was
preached
to
Abraham
under
the
notion
of
His
seed
[
signanter
,
]
so
I
am
perswaded
,
that
it
was
preached
to
those
Patriarchs
under
the
notion
of
Semen
mulieris
,
the
seed
of
a
woman
[
indefinitly
.
]
And
the
grounds
of
this
my
perswasion
are
these
two
,
1.
Because
,
as
this
is
the
most
received
opinion
of
almost
all
Protestant
,
that
I
may
not
say
also
,
almost
all
Christian
Writers
(
for
ought
I
know
and
from
whom
I
would
not
willingly
recede
without
evident
and
cogent
reason
)
so
I
never
hitherto
have
perceived
the
cogency
of
what
hath
been
objected
to
the
contrary
.
I
will
not
here
relate
what
is
objected
against
the
said
interpretation
by
the
Socinian
,
or
any
other
Writers
,
all
of
them
being
(
to
reasonable
satisfaction
as
I
think
)
answered
by
several
Authors
,
one
of
the
last
whereof
,
that
I
have
read
some
years
ago
,
is
that
Elegant
Latinist
and
very
learned
man
Dr.
Arrowsmith
,
(
Tactica
Sacra
,
p.
4
,
5.
)
to
whom
among
many
others
I
shall
refer
the
Reader
,
who
scruples
the
matter
here
in
Question
.
2.
Christs
second
coming
(
his
coming
to
judgment
)
was
revealed
to
some
of
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
;
)
and
therefore
it
is
(
to
speak
the
least
)
most
highly
probable
,
that
his
first
coming
(
his
coming
in
flesh
)
was
also
revealed
to
them
by
God
.
See
Jude
14
,
15
,
wherein
he
affirms
,
That
Enoch
the
seventh
from
Adam
prophesied
saying
,
The
Lord
cometh
with
ten
thousands
of
his
Saints
,
To
execute
judgment
upon
all
,
and
to
convince
all
that
are
ungodly
of
all
their
ungodly
deeds
,
which
they
have
ungodly
committed
,
and
of
all
their
hard
speeches
,
which
ungodly
sinners
have
spoken
against
him
.
It
is
not
material
to
enquire
,
how
this
prophesie
came
to
the
cognizance
of
the
Apostle
St.
Jude
.
It
may
be
sufficient
to
say
,
that
in
all
probability
he
did
receive
it
from
common
and
undoubted
tradition
transmitted
from
the
Patriarchs
(
whom
I
am
now
speaking
of
)
and
so
handed
from
generation
to
generation
,
till
such
time
as
it
seemed
good
to
the
Holy
Ghost
by
this
Apostle
to
make
it
a
part
of
canonical
Scripture
,
even
as
certain
other
matters
of
ancient
tradition
are
now
made
a
part
of
Scripture
by
the
Apostle
St.
Paul
,
such
as
that
passage
about
Jannes
and
Jambres
,
2
Tim
.
3.8
.
and
that
about
Moses
his
saying
,
I
exceedingly
fear
and
quake
,
Heb
.
12.21
.
with
several
others
,
which
might
be
named
.
We
have
heard
of
the
prophecy
of
Enoch
,
and
what
any
of
Gods
Prophets
have
spoken
,
God
is
said
by
them
to
have
spoken
(
Luke
1.70
.
As
he
spake
by
the
mouth
of
all
his
holy
Prophets
since
the
world
began
,
saith
Zachary
in
his
Benedictus
;
)
and
that
it
was
the
Lord
Christ
(
though
not
as
altogether
excluding
the
Father
and
the
Holy
Ghost
)
of
whose
coming
to
judgement
Enoch
did
prophesie
,
is
that
,
which
is
beyond
all
question
and
not
in
the
least
doubted
of
by
any
Christian
,
he
who
is
here
styled
The
Lord
,
being
elsewhere
,
where
his
coming
to
judgment
is
spoken
of
,
called
the
Son
of
man
,
Mat
.
16.27
.
and
the
Great
God
and
our
Saviour
,
Jesus
Christ
,
Tit
.
2.13
.
I
shall
submit
these
things
to
consideration
,
omitting
(
for
brevity
sake
)
to
speak
concerning
the
Patriarchs
offering
sacrifices
to
God
,
their
bloody
sacrifices
being
(
as
is
generally
conceived
,
and
as
I
still
do
think
)
typical
Gospel
instituted
by
God
to
typifie
the
bloodshed
of
the
Messias
.
To
conclude
this
Chapter
,
from
what
hath
been
said
concerning
the
object
of
the
faith
of
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
expressed
in
those
words
of
the
Author
to
the
Hebrews
chap.
11.6
.
I
shall
commend
this
to
observation
,
viz.
That
the
object
of
their
faith
was
not
onely
blessedness
promised
,
and
expected
,
but
also
duty
commanded
,
it
being
in
those
words
plainly
implyed
,
that
they
did
believe
the
diligent
seeking
of
God
to
be
a
duty
incumbent
upon
every
sinner
in
order
to
their
being
made
blessed
by
God
as
Remunerator
of
all
those
,
who
do
faithfully
serve
him
.
I
shall
now
proceed
to
another
Question
,
wherein
we
all
under
the
New
Testament
are
more
nearly
concerned
,
and
therefore
have
the
greater
need
to
be
rightly
and
duly
informed
.
CHAP.
XXVIII
.
Q.
What
is
the
object
of
that
Christian
faith
,
which
in
the
New
Testament
is
promised
by
God
to
be
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
Two
remarkable
differences
in
the
object
of
their
,
and
our
Christian
faith
specified
,
the
one
styled
Modal
,
the
other
Material
,
the
object
of
our
Christian
faith
being
of
larger
extent
,
than
that
of
the
said
Patriarchs
.
A
refutation
of
those
who
do
assert
ens
incomplexum
,
i.e.
the
person
of
Christ
to
be
the
adequate
object
of
justifying
faith
as
justifying
,
as
also
of
those
,
who
will
not
extend
the
object
of
justifying
faith
[
as
justifying
]
so
far
as
to
whole
Christ
in
person
,
i.e.
to
Christ
as
considered
in
all
his
Offices
,
but
do
restrain
it
to
the
formal
consideration
of
him
onely
as
a
Priest
.
Three
causes
of
this
mistake
in
a
late
learned
Latine
Author
.
The
suffrage
of
that
most
judicious
and
impartial
Author
Le-Banch
one
of
the
very
learned
Professors
of
Divinity
in
Sedan
.
Q
WHat
is
the
object
of
that
Christian
faith
,
which
in
the
New
Testament
is
promised
by
God
to
be
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
?
Ans.
The
whole
word
of
God
is
the
adequate
object
of
faith
:
and
as
the
word
of
God
,
for
so
much
as
was
in
former
ages
made
known
to
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
&
unto
Abraham
in
his
days
,
was
the
object
of
their
faith
,
so
is
the
same
word
of
God
together
with
such
other
revelations
as
God
hath
since
those
times
made
known
unto
us
,
the
object
of
ours
,
1
Tim
.
1.15
.
But
the
more
especial
object
of
our
Christian
faith
is
the
Gospel
of
Christ
incarnate
,
this
was
the
special
object
of
that
faith
,
which
John
the
Baptist
preached
,
saying
,
Repent
ye
,
and
believe
the
Gospel
,
Mar.
1.15
.
and
which
our
Saviour
gave
in
commission
to
his
Apostles
after
his
resurrection
to
be
preached
to
all
the
world
,
saying
,
Go
ye
into
all
the
world
,
and
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
Creature
.
He
that
believeth
,
shall
be
saved
(
Mark
16.15
,
16.
)
Believeth
what
?
Answ
.
Believeth
that
Gospel
,
which
was
in
his
name
to
be
preached
to
every
creature
.
By
this
Gospel
life
and
immortality
is
said
to
be
brought
into
light
,
2
Tim
.
1.10
.
that
is
,
into
much
more
,
and
clearer
light
than
by
that
,
which
was
preached
to
Abraham
and
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
.
This
Gospel
to
be
preached
to
all
the
world
,
reveals
to
us
the
accomplishment
of
the
prophesies
and
promises
of
the
old
Testament
concerning
our
Saviours
incarnation
,
death
,
resurrection
—
Hereby
two
remarkable
differences
appear
to
be
betwixt
our
Christian
faith
and
the
faith
of
Abraham
with
the
Patriarchs
before
the
flood
,
e
.
g
.
1.
The
object
of
their
faith
was
the
word
of
God
unwritten
;
for
it
appears
not
,
that
any
part
of
Gods
word
was
in
their
days
committed
to
writing
,
nor
till
the
days
of
Moses
,
which
was
certain
hundred
years
after
Abrahams
time
,
as
appears
by
Gen.
15.13
,
14.
But
the
object
of
our
faith
is
the
written
word
of
God
,
it
having
since
those
days
been
commited
to
writing
,
styled
The
Scripture
.
Whence
that
saying
of
our
Saviour
to
the
Jews
,
Joh
.
5
,
39.
Search
the
Scriptures
,
for
in
them
ye
think
,
ye
have
eternal
life
,
and
they
are
they
,
which
testifie
of
me
:
And
that
of
St
John
the
Evangelist
,
saying
,
Joh
.
20.
ult
.
These
things
are
written
,
that
ye
might
believe
,
that
Jesus
Christ
is
the
son
of
God
,
and
that
believing
,
ye
might
have
life
through
his
name
.
This
difference
ex
parte
objecti
,
respectively
to
the
object
,
is
onely
Modal
,
the
next
following
is
Material
.
2.
The
object
of
their
faith
was
of
narrower
extent
,
than
that
of
ours
.
As
the
object
of
Abrahams
faith
was
of
larger
extent
,
than
that
of
the
Patriarchs
(
for
Abraham
was
to
believe
,
that
in
his
seed
all
nations
should
be
blessed
,
which
is
more
than
to
believe
simply
,
or
indefinitly
,
that
it
should
be
through
the
seed
of
a
woman
)
so
the
object
of
our
Christian
faith
is
of
larger
compass
,
than
was
that
of
Abrahams
:
for
besides
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
Testament
written
by
Moses
,
and
the
Prophets
,
the
Scriptures
of
the
New
Testament
are
the
objects
of
that
faith
,
which
is
,
or
is
to
be
imputed
to
believing
Christians
for
righteousness
,
there
being
therein
new
Articles
of
faith
added
to
the
old
,
upon
the
belief
whereof
the
salvation
of
sinners
doth
depend
.
It
is
not
enough
now
to
believe
,
that
God
is
gracious
and
mercifull
and
will
not
turn
his
face
from
us
,
if
we
turn
to
him
,
but
we
must
believe
also
,
that
Jesus
Christ
(
the
son
of
the
blessed
Virgin
)
is
the
true
Messias
,
is
He
,
by
,
and
through
whom
we
must
turn
to
God
,
and
for
whose
sake
God
in
mercy
will
turn
to
us
,
according
to
that
of
our
Saviour
,
If
ye
believe
not
,
that
I
am
he
,
ye
shall
die
in
your
sins
,
Joh
.
8.24
.
It
is
not
enough
for
a
sinner
now
to
believe
,
that
God
is
,
and
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
,
that
diligently
seek
hm
,
but
he
must
believe
also
,
that
the
said
Jesus
is
the
Christ
the
Son
of
God
,
if
he
will
have
life
through
his
name
.
If
thou
shalt
confess
with
thy
mouth
the
Lord
Jesus
(
says
St.
Paul
Rom.
10.9
.
)
and
shalt
believe
in
thine
heart
,
that
God
raised
him
from
the
dead
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
.
And
Rom.
4.24
.
he
concludes
what
he
had
at
large
in
that
Chapter
spoken
concerning
Abrahams
operative
faith
,
saying
,
That
as
Abrahams
obediential
faith
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
so
it
was
recorded
for
our
sakes
,
to
whom
the
like
obediential
faith
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
believe
the
additional
Articles
of
the
Christian
faith
,
whereof
he
makes
instance
in
a
prime
one
,
viz.
The
resurrection
of
Christ
,
which
Article
as
it
supposeth
his
death
,
or
delivery
for
our
offences
,
so
upon
it
the
belief
of
other
Articles
of
the
Christian
faith
doth
depend
;
If
we
believe
(
says
he
Rom.
4.24
.
)
on
him
,
who
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
As
for
the
object
of
saving
faith
,
as
also
the
acts
,
or
actings
of
faith
conversant
thereabout
(
which
will
be
spoken
of
in
the
next
Chapter
)
I
shall
commend
to
observation
the
words
of
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
sitting
at
Westminster
in
the
Confession
of
their
faith
,
they
saying
Chap.
14.
By
this
saving
faith
a
Christian
believeth
to
be
true
whatsoever
is
revealed
in
the
word
for
the
authority
of
God
himself
speaking
therein
,
and
acteth
differently
upon
that
,
which
each
particular
passage
thereof
containeth
,
yielding
obedience
to
the
commands
,
trembling
at
the
threatnings
,
and
embracing
the
promises
of
God
for
this
life
and
for
that
,
which
is
to
come
.
Be
it
observed
,
That
those
Reverend
Divines
do
make
the
whole
word
of
God
to
be
the
object
of
saving
faith
,
not
onely
promises
,
but
commands
and
threatnings
also
,
the
threatnings
of
the
word
being
a
part
of
that
Gospel
,
which
was
commanded
by
Christ
to
be
preached
to
every
creature
,
as
was
proved
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
from
those
words
of
his
to
his
Apostles
,
Mark
16.15
,
16.
The
premisses
considered
,
it
seems
to
me
,
that
those
Authors
are
mistaken
,
who
do
assert
the
person
of
Christ
to
be
the
adequate
object
of
our
Christian
faith
,
as
it
justifies
.
This
is
the
assertion
of
that
learned
Author
and
great
Schoolman
Doctor
Ames
in
his
Med
.
Theol
.
lib
.
1.
chap.
27.
th
.
17.
Christus
est
adaequatum
objectum
fidei
,
quatenus
fides
justificat
.
Christ
,
says
he
,
is
the
adequate
object
of
faith
as
it
justifies
;
Which
he
therefore
doth
assert
to
be
not
Ens
complexum
[
Not
this
,
or
that
axiom
,
or
proposition
]
but
Ens
incomplexum
,
the
person
of
Christ
,
or
Christ
in
person
.
Whereas
the
truth
to
my
seeming
is
this
,
viz.
That
as
Ens
complexum
(
God
is
,
and
is
a
Rewarder
of
them
,
who
diligently
seek
him
)
was
the
object
of
the
faith
of
the
Patriarchs
,
as
justifying
,
and
as
those
revelations
,
which
God
made
to
Abraham
(
consisting
as
aforesaid
in
commands
and
promises
)
were
the
objects
of
his
justifying
faith
,
as
justifying
,
so
it
is
Ens
complexum
,
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
or
the
promise
of
salvation
to
sinners
upon
their
sincere
believing
in
Christ
as
crucified
,
dead
,
risen
again
and
ascended
,
that
is
the
object
of
justifying
faith
,
as
justifying
.
As
this
seems
to
be
apparent
by
what
hath
been
already
said
in
this
Chapter
,
so
it
may
further
appear
by
what
will
be
said
in
the
next
concerning
those
actings
of
faith
,
that
are
made
of
God
the
condition
of
our
being
justified
.
In
the
mean
time
let
it
be
observed
,
that
those
are
mistaken
,
who
would
not
have
the
object
of
justifying
faith
(
as
justifying
)
extended
so
far
as
to
the
person
of
Christ
,
i
e
.
to
whole
Christ
as
considered
in
all
his
Offices
,
but
do
restrain
it
to
the
formal
consideration
of
his
person
onely
as
a
Priest
.
I
remember
this
to
have
been
the
mistake
of
Mr
Thomas
Blake
of
Thamworth
,
To
whom
Mr
Richard
Baxter
did
make
a
reply
(
I
think
truly
satisfactory
)
and
which
I
read
many
years
ago
.
And
I
do
perceive
by
my
late
reading
,
that
that
learned
Author
is
followed
with
another
pious
,
learned
,
and
reverend
Thomas
,
who
although
he
declares
himself
to
be
so
far
satisfied
with
Mr
Baxters
definition
of
justifying
faith
(
it
being
,
as
Mr
Baxter
well
says
,
A
receiving
of
Jesus
Christ
in
all
his
Offices
,
as
Prophet
,
Priest
and
King
)
as
not
to
deny
,
that
it
receives
a
whole
Christ
,
nevertheless
he
will
not
yield
,
that
Christ
is
the
formal
object
of
faith
as
justifying
,
being
considered
in
all
his
Offices
,
but
only
as
in
his
priestly
function
.
I
will
relate
his
mind
in
his
own
words
,
and
I
will
then
reply
thereunto
.
Christus
,
says
that
Reverend
and
learned
Author
,
est
objectum
justificationis
ut
quod
,
sive
materiale
;
ut
servator
tantum
formale
,
sive
ut
Quo
,
i.e.
etsi
idem
Christus
sit
Dominus
,
&
sacerdos
,
totusque
in
justificatione
recipiatur
,
Totus
tamen
omni
sensu
,
i.e.
omnium
promiscuè
munerum
intuitu
ad
justificationem
formaliter
non
requiritur
,
sed
tantum
qua
sacerdos
,
&
legi
satisfaciens
,
i.e.
Christ
is
the
material
object
of
justification
,
the
formal
onely
as
Saviour
,
i.e.
although
the
same
Christ
be
both
Lord
,
and
Priest
,
and
whole
Christ
be
received
in
justification
,
yet
the
intuition
,
or
consideration
of
him
as
such
respectively
to
all
his
Offices
is
not
required
formally
to
justification
,
but
onely
as
a
Priest
and
satisfying
the
law
.
The
reason
hereof
(
says
he
page
113.
)
is
,
because
to
be
justified
is
nothing
else
,
but
to
be
freed
from
the
curse
of
the
law
,
and
how
are
we
so
freed
,
but
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
?
and
how
did
Christ
satisfie
for
us
,
but
as
that
great
Priest
and
Sacrifice
,
who
died
for
us
?
as
a
Prophet
he
teaches
,
as
he
a
King
he
commands
,
as
a
Priest
onely
he
reconciles
us
to
God
.
To
these
forecited
words
I
reply
,
1.
It
is
strange
to
me
,
that
such
an
acute
Disputant
and
learned
Schoolman
as
this
Reverend
Author
,
Memorandum
,
that
these
reflections
upon
this
Reverend
and
learned
Author
were
written
before
his
death
,
and
before
Mr
Baxters
reply
to
him
came
forth
in
Print
.
should
affirm
Jesus
Christ
to
be
in
any
sense
the
object
of
justification
whether
the
material
or
formal
:
for
it
is
with
me
an
undoubted
truth
,
that
it
is
not
Christ
under
any
consideration
,
who
is
any
kind
of
object
of
justification
,
but
it
is
the
sinner
himself
,
who
is
the
material
object
of
justification
,
and
it
is
the
same
sinner
as
Penitent
,
or
believing
in
Christ
,
who
is
the
formal
object
thereof
.
Christ
indeed
is
most
truly
and
fitly
said
to
be
the
meritorious
efficient
cause
,
which
doth
procure
a
sinners
justification
,
and
his
bloodshed
as
Priest
,
or
sacrifice
may
be
truly
and
aptly
said
to
be
the
thing
,
whereby
he
did
meritoriously
procure
the
same
:
But
it
is
neither
fitly
nor
truly
said
of
Christ
under
any
consideration
,
that
he
is
the
object
of
justification
,
whether
ut
Quod
,
or
ut
Quo
,
material
,
or
formal
.
Object
.
The
said
Author
by
Objectum
justificationis
doth
not
mean
the
object
of
justification
,
but
Objectum
fidei
justificantis
,
the
object
of
justifying
faith
as
it
justifies
?
Answ
.
1.
If
this
was
his
meaning
,
it
was
his
oversight
,
and
he
did
not
well
not
to
speak
as
he
meant
.
2.
Whatever
his
meaning
was
,
it
is
intolerably
said
,
That
Christ
is
the
object
of
our
justification
,
or
of
any
ones
justification
,
but
his
own
,
or
that
of
his
own
person
,
himself
being
said
in
Scripture
[
in
a
peculiar
sense
]
to
be
justified
.
3.
I
am
verily
perswaded
,
that
this
Author
according
as
is
here
pretended
in
the
objection
,
by
objectum
justificationis
did
not
mean
the
object
of
justification
,
but
of
justifying
faith
,
and
I
doubt
not
,
but
that
(
the
occasion
of
his
words
being
duly
considered
)
this
ought
to
be
his
meaning
,
it
being
Lapsus
pennae
,
not
error
mentis
.
And
because
I
conceive
this
to
be
his
true
meaning
,
I
have
therefore
thought
meet
in
the
handling
of
the
present
Question
,
to
take
the
said
passage
into
consideration
;
and
thereupon
to
his
supposed
true
intent
and
meaning
therein
,
I
shall
now
reply
,
that
it
will
not
follow
,
that
because
Christ
did
merit
our
justification
formally
onely
as
a
Priest
,
we
are
therefore
Intueri
,
to
behold
,
consider
,
or
receive
him
onely
as
such
in
order
to
our
actual
justification
;
for
it
is
evident
,
that
God
in
his
Gospel
,
or
law
of
grace
doth
to
this
end
require
of
sinners
not
onely
the
intuition
,
but
also
the
acceptation
of
Jesus
Christ
in
all
his
offices
,
both
as
Lord
and
Saviour
.
The
main
grounds
of
this
Authors
mistake
in
this
matter
seem
to
be
such
as
these
,
1.
That
he
doth
not
mind
to
distinguish
betwixt
justification
barely
as
merited
and
as
actually
confer'd
:
For
though
it
be
granted
,
that
Christ
hath
merited
our
justification
formally
as
a
Priest
,
yet
he
doth
not
confer
it
precisely
,
or
onely
as
such
,
but
as
Lord
,
and
Legislator
,
and
this
also
he
doth
upon
such
terms
as
in
his
law
of
grace
(
the
instrument
of
conveyance
)
he
hath
constituted
in
order
to
the
collation
or
enjoyment
thereof
.
2.
In
that
he
doth
not
duly
consider
,
that
it
is
not
Christs
satisfaction
alone
,
that
doth
actually
entitle
sinners
to
pardon
of
sin
,
or
justification
:
for
if
the
expiation
of
sin
(
the
thing
indeed
,
which
hath
been
done
on
Christs
part
)
were
the
onely
requisite
to
the
actual
pardoning
thereof
,
it
would
follow
from
thence
,
that
all
and
every
sinner
had
a
title
to
pardon
,
or
that
all
sinners
were
ipso
facto
actually
thereby
pardoned
,
and
that
no
sinner
is
thereby
entitled
to
pardon
of
sin
more
than
another
,
forasmuch
as
Christ
by
the
sacrifice
of
himself
was
a
ransome
for
all
,
even
a
propitiation
for
the
sins
of
the
whole
world
.
3.
In
that
he
doth
not
mind
to
distinguish
betwixt
two
sorts
of
benefits
,
which
sinne●s
do
enjoy
by
Christ
,
some
whereof
are
by
,
or
from
Christ
as
Absolutely
considered
,
and
some
from
him
onely
as
received
,
or
accepted
of
by
faith
,
e
.
g
.
Some
benefit
sinners
do
enjoy
by
Christ
as
absolutely
considered
,
i.e.
as
considered
barely
upon
account
of
what
himself
hath
done
as
a
Priest
in
offering
himself
an
expiatory
sacrifice
for
sin
,
and
the
benefit
,
which
all
sinners
do
hereupon
immediately
enjoy
is
a
general
Act
of
Oblivion
,
or
a
conditional
grant
of
pardon
for
all
their
sins
.
This
benefit
they
do
enjoy
antecedently
to
their
faith
,
yea
whether
ever
they
believe
it
,
or
no
.
But
some
benefit
(
e
.
g
.
actual
pardon
,
justification
,
and
reconciliation
with
God
)
sinners
do
not
enjoy
by
Christ
barely
as
so
considered
,
but
as
received
or
accepted
by
faith
(
for
these
benefits
a
sinner
doth
not
enjoy
antecedently
to
,
but
consequently
upon
his
sincere
believing
)
accepted
I
mean
in
all
his
Offices
,
both
as
Lord
and
Saviour
,
as
our
Redeemer
and
our
Ruler
.
Nothing
seems
to
me
more
apparent
by
the
Scriptures
,
than
that
a
sinners
actual
pardon
doth
depend
upon
his
acceptance
of
whole
Christ
i.e.
in
one
Office
as
well
as
in
another
.
See
for
this
purpose
,
Act.
3.23
.
where
excision
is
threatned
to
every
soul
,
that
will
not
hear
Christ
as
the
great
Prophet
of
his
Church
;
and
Luke
19.27
.
where
sinners
are
doom'd
to
destruction
for
rejecting
Christ
in
his
kingly
function
,
or
because
they
will
not
suffer
him
as
their
rightful
Lord
and
Redeemer
to
rule
over
them
.
Hitherunto
I
have
expressed
my
dissent
or
dissatisfaction
as
to
the
forecited
words
of
this
Reverend
Author
;
nevertheless
there
are
two
things
in
them
,
wherein
I
am
better
satisfied
.
1.
In
that
he
doth
plainly
insinuate
the
justification
of
a
sinner
to
be
in
effect
the
same
thing
with
his
reconciliation
to
God
.
2.
In
that
he
doth
expresly
assert
a
sinners
justification
to
be
his
freedom
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
.
And
I
do
thereupon
crave
leave
heartily
to
commend
them
,
specially
the
last
of
these
true
sayings
to
the
remembrance
of
himself
and
all
my
dissenting
Brethren
:
for
I
do
humbly
conceive
,
that
a
due
recognition
thereof
is
enough
to
cause
them
to
dissent
from
that
Author
in
his
Justificatio
Paulina
,
the
design
of
which
is
to
prove
,
That
God
requires
no
other
Evangelical
grace
,
but
onely
faith
in
order
to
the
justification
of
a
sinner
:
for
what
is
more
manifest
by
the
current
of
Scripture
,
than
that
Repentance
towards
God
,
as
well
as
faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
is
required
of
sinners
,
that
they
may
be
delivered
from
the
wrath
of
God
and
from
the
curse
of
the
law
?
They
,
who
will
acknowledge
(
as
all
ought
to
do
)
that
it
is
a
sinners
duty
to
repent
of
his
sins
,
that
he
may
be
delivered
from
the
wrath
of
God
and
from
the
curse
of
the
law
,
and
do
withall
acknowledge
,
that
to
be
justified
is
to
be
delivered
from
that
curse
,
cannot
without
extream
forgetfulness
,
and
self
contradiction
deny
,
that
it
is
the
duty
of
sinners
to
repent
of
their
sins
,
that
they
may
be
justified
from
them
,
and
consequently
,
that
it
is
not
by
faith
alone
in
way
of
contradistinction
from
,
or
in
opposition
unto
all
other
Evangelical
graces
,
or
duties
that
sinners
are
justified
,
but
by
faith
taken
in
a
large
,
or
comprehensive
sense
as
including
them
.
I
think
it
not
amiss
in
the
close
of
this
Chapter
to
inform
the
Reader
,
that
since
the
writing
thereof
the
Theological
Theses
of
that
most
impartial
and
judicious
Author
[
Ludovicus
Le
Blanc
Professor
of
Divinity
in
Sedan
]
came
to
my
hands
,
wherein
having
read
his
Lecture
concerning
the
nature
and
essence
of
justifying
faith
,
I
am
confirmed
in
the
truth
of
what
I
have
said
in
this
Chapter
concerning
the
object
of
justifying
faith
,
and
for
that
cause
I
shall
transcribe
the
following
passage
in
his
said
Lecture
(
Chap.
91.
)
wherein
having
denied
the
promises
of
the
Gospel
to
be
the
sole
object
of
justifying
faith
as
justifying
,
and
having
asserted
(
most
truly
)
that
faith
justifies
us
,
as
it
is
the
condition
of
the
new
covenant
,
he
adds
,
Fides
autem
illa
—
But
that
faith
,
which
the
Gospel
requires
as
the
condition
,
under
which
it
offers
salvation
to
us
,
doth
not
onely
respect
the
promises
of
the
Gospel
,
but
also
the
precepts
and
doctrines
thereof
,
such
as
that
concerning
the
resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
,
as
is
manifest
by
those
words
of
St.
Paul
,
Rom.
10.9
.
And
therefore
that
faith
,
which
is
the
condition
upon
which
God
for
Christs
sake
absolves
us
from
our
sins
and
accounts
us
as
righteous
(
pro
justis
habet
)
is
not
onely
that
act
of
the
mind
and
will
,
wherewith
we
embrace
the
promises
of
grace
,
but
that
whereby
we
assent
to
the
mysteries
of
the
Gospel
as
true
.
And
therefore
we
approve
not
those
,
who
seem
to
restrain
the
object
of
faith
as
justifying
to
the
promise
of
grace
,
although
this
promise
be
the
chief
object
.
I
shall
conclude
this
Chapter
by
minding
the
Reader
,
that
those
Authors
,
who
do
confine
the
object
of
justifying
faith
as
justifying
to
the
promises
of
salvation
by
Christ
,
(
however
many
of
them
seem
not
to
intend
,
but
rather
to
gainsay
it
)
must
,
whether
they
will
or
no
,
extend
it
to
the
precepts
of
the
Gospel
:
for
all
the
promises
of
justification
,
remission
of
sin
,
and
salvation
by
Christ
are
conditional
,
i.e.
they
are
made
upon
condition
of
our
obedience
to
the
precepts
of
Christ
,
styled
obedience
to
the
Gospel
,
this
obedience
being
styled
obedience
somtimes
to
the
Gospel
of
God
,
1
Pet
4.17
.
and
somtimes
to
the
Gospel
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
2
Thes
.
1.8
.
and
somtimes
the
obedience
of
faith
,
Rom.
16.26
.
CHAP.
XXIX
.
Q.
Is
it
onely
one
act
,
or
one
kind
of
acts
of
faith
,
or
else
various
acts
thereof
,
and
of
divers
kinds
,
respectively
whereunto
it
is
said
,
That
Abrahams
faith
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
?
Ans.
The
most
noted
distinction
of
two
kinds
of
the
acts
of
faith
,
styled
Elicite
and
Imperate
,
being
premised
,
exemplified
and
explained
,
the
Question
it self
is
perspicuously
answered
;
and
this
in
way
of
dissent
from
those
Brethren
,
who
instruct
sinners
to
believe
,
that
they
are
to
be
justified
onely
by
one
act
of
faith
,
which
act
various
Authors
do
use
to
express
by
various
phrases
,
some
whereof
are
indeed
Scriptural
expressions
,
and
some
of
their
own
invention
.
Certain
of
these
Authors
are
instanced
in
,
and
their
words
being
recited
,
a
reply
is
made
thereunto
,
together
with
a
passage
in
the
larger
Catechism
of
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
.
FOrasmuch
as
it
hath
been
made
apparent
,
that
faith
not
as
figuratively
taken
,
i.e.
for
the
object
of
faith
[
Christs
righteousness
,
]
but
in
proper
construction
for
faith
it self
is
imputed
to
sinners
for
righteousness
,
and
forasmuch
as
the
whole
word
of
God
,
specially
the
Gospel
of
Christ
styled
the
word
of
faith
,
Rom.
10.9
.
hath
been
declared
to
be
the
object
of
faith
,
the
next
&
last
Question
shall
be
concerning
the
act
,
or
acts
of
faith
,
that
is
,
or
are
imputed
to
believers
for
righteousness
.
Q.
Is
it
onely
one
act
of
faith
,
or
certain
acts
of
faith
onely
of
one
kind
,
or
else
various
acts
of
faith
,
and
of
various
kinds
,
respectively
whereunto
it
is
said
,
that
Abrahams
faith
was
imputed
to
him
,
and
that
ours
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
?
Answ
.
This
Question
doth
suppose
,
or
take
it
for
granted
(
as
the
very
truth
is
)
that
there
are
divers
acts
of
faith
,
yea
acts
of
a
divers
kind
,
and
specificated
from
the
divers
objects
thereof
.
The
most
notable
distinction
of
the
acts
of
faith
in
the
usual
terms
of
the
School
,
is
into
Acts
Elicite
,
&
Imperate
,
i.e.
Immediate
,
and
Mediate
,
i.e.
such
as
are
immediately
exerted
by
the
habit
of
faith
in
the
soul
,
and
from
thence
bubbling
(
as
I
may
so
say
)
as
water
from
the
fountain
,
or
else
such
as
faith
dictates
to
be
done
through
the
intervention
of
other
graces
,
or
actings
of
them
.
An
act
of
Faith
of
the
former
kind
styled
Elicite
,
is
an
assenting
to
the
truth
of
what
God
says
,
a
believing
,
that
such
,
and
such
things
are
promised
,
or
commanded
by
God
,
are
(
to
speak
in
the
language
of
Scripture
,
1
Pet
.
4.11
.
and
Rom.
3.2
.
)
{αβγδ}
,
the
Oracles
of
God
.
An
act
,
or
acting
of
Faith
of
the
latter
kind
styled
Imperate
,
is
by
vertue
of
the
former
act
to
do
the
thing
,
or
things
by
God
commanded
,
so
as
that
we
may
enjoy
the
good
by
him
promised
,
e
.
g
.
An
assenting
to
this
truth
,
or
truths
,
That
God
is
,
and
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
that
diligently
seek
him
,
is
an
Elicite
act
of
Faith
,
and
our
diligent
seeking
of
God
thereupon
Is
an
imperated
act
of
Faith
;
or
rather
(
to
speak
the
full
truth
,
it
is
a
complication
of
many
imperated
acts
:
for
such
a
constellation
,
or
complication
of
duty
doth
the
phrase
(
seeking
of
God
)
import
both
in
that
Scripture
,
and
in
many
other
texts
,
it
imports
,
I
say
,
many
acts
of
the
soul
,
yea
of
the
whole
man
.
If
the
matter
be
not
by
this
instance
made
sufficiently
obvious
to
common
understanding
,
I
will
endeavour
to
make
it
more
plain
(
if
possible
)
so
that
the
most
illiterate
person
may
perceive
the
meaning
,
and
this
I
will
attempt
by
the
most
familiar
instance
,
that
at
present
I
can
think
upon
,
e
.
g
.
To
assent
to
the
truth
of
this
revelation
in
Gods
word
(
That
he
,
who
hideth
his
sins
,
shall
not
prosper
,
but
whosoever
confesseth
and
forsaketh
them
,
shall
have
mercy
)
is
an
Elicite
,
or
an
immediate
act
of
Faith
,
and
so
is
our
trusting
to
,
or
fiducial
recumbency
upon
God
,
and
his
faithfulness
,
that
so
it
shall
be
both
with
the
one
,
and
with
the
other
;
but
by
vertue
of
this
,
or
these
acts
of
Faith
to
discover
,
confess
and
forsake
our
sins
,
are
imperated
,
or
mediate
acts
of
Faith
.
Now
the
Question
is
,
Whether
God
doth
impute
to
us
the
former
onely
,
or
those
and
the
later
also
for
righteousness
?
To
which
I
do
now
make
answer
roundly
,
and
plainly
,
that
both
the
said
kinds
of
acts
of
Faith
are
imputed
by
God
unto
sinners
for
righteousness
.
The
truth
of
this
answer
is
apparent
by
what
hath
been
already
said
two
ways
,
1.
In
declaring
by
the
most
familiar
instances
,
what
are
the
several
acts
of
Faith
(
styled
Elicite
and
Imperate
,
Mediate
and
Immediate
)
for
is
it
rational
,
or
is
it
not
rather
most
absurd
,
and
senseless
to
imagine
,
that
God
should
impute
to
us
for
righteousness
our
bare
crediting
,
or
believing
barely
,
that
he
is
a
rewarder
of
them
that
diligently
seek
him
,
or
that
such
shall
have
mercy
,
and
not
at
all
impute
to
us
for
righteousness
the
things
,
or
duties
,
which
by
vertue
of
that
Faith
we
do
,
i.e.
our
actual
seeking
of
God
,
our
not
hiding
,
but
confessing
,
and
forsaking
our
sins
?
Yea
,
if
comparison
were
fit
to
be
made
,
is
it
not
more
agreable
to
common
reason
and
plain
Scripture
to
imagine
the
imputation
of
the
latter
kind
of
the
acts
of
Faith
to
us
for
righteousness
rather
than
the
former
?
If
one
of
them
must
be
excluded
,
which
in
reason
do
we
think
should
,
or
ought
to
be
exempted
from
the
priviledg
,
or
promise
of
the
said
imputation
?
But
we
need
not
to
answer
,
or
propose
any
such
Question
,
it
being
enough
to
say
,
That
Scripture
excludes
neither
,
but
includes
both
in
the
word
[
Faith
]
in
all
such
Texts
,
where
it
is
said
to
be
by
God
imputed
to
us
for
,
or
to
righteousness
.
2.
The
truth
of
the
said
answer
hath
been
already
made
evident
in
what
hath
been
said
concerning
the
object
of
Abrahams
Faith
,
that
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
,
and
of
our
Christian
faith
,
which
shall
to
the
same
purpose
be
imputed
to
us
.
The
object
of
both
,
as
hath
been
manifested
,
are
not
onely
divine
promises
,
but
also
divine
commands
,
a
practical
Faith
of
which
commands
by
vertue
of
Faith
in
the
promises
was
that
thing
,
which
was
imputed
to
Abraham
,
and
which
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
.
I
desire
,
that
the
answer
to
this
Question
may
be
observed
as
matter
of
my
professed
dissent
from
those
mistaken
Brethren
,
who
have
in
their
Sermons
,
or
Writings
divulged
the
contrary
doctrine
,
teaching
people
to
believe
,
that
a
sinner
is
justifyed
by
one
act
,
or
one
onely
kind
of
acts
of
Faith
,
those
styled
Elicite
,
which
by
various
Preachers
and
Authors
,
are
in
various
words
expressed
,
viz.
A
leaning
upon
Christ
,
rolling
our selves
upon
him
,
laying
down
●ur
sins
at
his
cross
,
or
upon
his
shoulders
,
taking
from
him
his
righteousness
,
an
apprehending
,
or
laying
hold
upon
Christ
,
a
recumbency
of
the
soul
upon
him
,
an
embracing
of
his
righteousness
,
an
accepting
his
righteousness
alone
and
nothing
else
for
our
justification
,
a
renouncing
of
all
our
own
personal
righteousness
in
order
to
our
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
a
cleaving
to
his
merits
alone
,
and
resting
upon
nothing
else
for
salvation
,
an
hiding
of
our selves
in
his
wounds
,
as
Doves
in
the
clefts
of
the
rocks
,
an
applying
of
Christ
and
his
righteousness
to
our selves
—
Which
last
phrase
(
the
application
of
Christs
righteousness
to
our selves
)
being
an
expression
full
of
ambiguity
(
some
Writers
understanding
one
thing
by
it
,
Of
this
ambiguity
see
Lt
Blanc
in
his
Theological
Theses
page
207.
th
.
74
,
75
,
76
,
77
,
78.
and
some
another
.
)
I
am
truly
sorry
as
well
for
that
,
as
for
other
reasons
,
that
it
ever
came
into
the
description
of
justifying
faith
as
justifying
,
it
being
a
phrase
more
fit
(
as
I
ever
did
and
still
do
think
,
submissively
be
it
said
)
to
amuse
,
perplex
and
entangle
poor
Christian●
,
than
to
edifie
them
in
the
nature
of
saving
faith
,
as
saving
.
As
for
the
refutation
of
the
said
mistaken
Brethren
,
besides
what
hath
been
already
said
,
I
desire
the
Reader
to
consider
what
is
written
by
two
Apostles
,
S.
Paul
and
S
James
.
1.
That
of
S.
Paul
,
Rom.
4.20
,
21.
wherein
commending
Abrahams
faith
,
he
says
,
He
staggered
not
at
the
promise
of
God
,
being
fully
perswaded
,
that
what
he
had
promised
he
was
able
to
perform
.
Was
not
this
in
Ab●aham
a
distinct
act
of
faith
from
the
accepting
of
Christs
righteous●ess
to
justifie
him
,
or
a
recumbing
upon
it
alone
for
that
purpose
?
And
yet
doth
the
Apostle
immedi●tely
say
upon
Abrahams
thu●
a●ting
faith
(
ver
.
22.
)
And
therefore
it
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
Again
,
it
is
considerable
what
he
says
in
ver
.
24.
It
was
written
for
us
,
to
whom
it
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
believe
on
him
,
who
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
Is
the
belief
of
Christs
resurrection
from
the
dead
no
distinct
act
of
Faith
from
lea●i●g
upon
Christ
,
accepting
his
righteousness
—
And
yet
doth
the
Apostle
affirm
,
that
faith
thus
acted
is
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
or
that
thus
cordially
believing
(
which
is
to
be
understood
Caeteris
paribus
,
other
necessaries
corresponding
,
as
I
may
not
unfitly
expres
the
Apostles
meaning
)
we
believe
to
righteousness
,
Rom.
10.9
,
10
2.
As
it
appears
by
the
forecited
words
of
St.
Paul
,
so
it
seems
no
less
demonstrable
from
that
of
●t
.
James
,
chap.
2.21
,
22
,
23.
where
,
1.
He
asserts
Abraham
to
have
been
justified
by
works
,
and
he
doth
exemplifie
the
matter
by
one
eminent
work
,
or
Imperated
act
of
his
faith
,
viz.
the
offering
of
his
son
Isaac
upon
the
altar
.
2.
He
bids
us
take
notice
of
it
,
saying
,
Seest
thou
?
or
thou
seest
,
How
faith
wrought
with
his
works
and
by
works
was
Faith
made
perfect
,
i.e.
made
perfectly
available
to
its
appointed
end
,
i.e.
to
justifie
Abraham
.
As
Abrahams
Faith
,
so
that
Imperated
act
,
or
work
of
his
Faith
did
cooperate
(
it
wrought
)
towards
the
self
same
issue
.
3.
He
tells
us
,
that
thereupon
the
Scripture
was
fulfilled
,
which
saith
,
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
imputed
to
him
for
righteousness
.
Now
how
can
it
be
truly
said
,
that
the
said
Scripture
was
therupon
fulfilled
,
if
we
confine
the
meaning
of
the
word
(
faith
,
or
believing
God
,
or
believing
in
the
Lord
)
onely
to
one
Elicite
act
of
Faith
,
or
to
acts
onely
of
that
kind
,
and
do
not
extend
it
to
that
Imperated
act
,
or
work
of
Faith
in
Abrahams
offering
his
son
upon
the
altar
?
I
do
the
rather
desire
,
that
the
premisses
may
be
taken
into
impartial
consideration
,
bec●use
they
are
subservient
to
rectifie
what
we
read
to
the
contrary
in
several
Authors
,
among
whom
I
shall
instance
in
some
,
and
having
recited
their
words
,
I
will
shape
a
reply
thereunto
.
In
the
first
place
I
will
recite
a
passage
of
Dr.
Ames
in
his
Med
.
Theol
.
l.
1.
c
.
27.
th
.
17.
Wherein
having
justly
rejected
a
bare
general
assent
to
the
truth
of
Gods
word
as
not
justifying
Faith
(
th
.
16.
)
he
adds
,
saying
,
(
th
.
17
)
Fides
illa
proprie
dicitur
justificans
,
qua
—
That
Faith
is
properly
said
to
be
justifying
,
whereby
we
do
rest
on
Christ
for
the
pardon
of
our
sins
and
salvation
:
for
Christ
is
the
adequate
object
of
faith
(
Quatenus
)
as
it
justifies
:
faith
also
doth
not
justifie
(
aliâ
ratione
)
for
any
other
reason
,
or
upon
any
other
account
,
but
as
it
apprehends
that
righteousness
,
for
which
we
are
justified
;
and
that
righteousness
doth
not
consist
in
the
truth
of
any
proposition
,
to
which
we
do
assent
,
but
onely
in
Christ
,
who
was
made
sin
for
us
,
that
we
might
be
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
him
,
2
Cor
.
5.21
.
But
the
truth
is
,
1.
Although
Jesus
Christ
be
a
chief
object
,
yet
he
is
not
the
sole
,
or
adequate
object
of
justifying
Faith
as
it
justifies
,
as
hath
been
already
manifested
in
the
foregoing
Chapter
.
Christ
indeed
is
but
the
mediate
,
not
the
ultimate
,
and
therefore
not
the
adequate
object
of
our
faith
as
justifying
;
for
as
it
is
God
,
who
justifies
,
so
it
is
through
Christ
,
that
sinners
are
to
believe
in
God
,
according
to
that
description
,
which
St.
Peter
gives
of
those
believers
,
to
whom
he
directs
his
Epistle
,
saying
,
Christ
was
manifest
in
these
last
times
for
you
,
who
by
him
do
believe
in
God
,
that
raised
him
up
from
the
dead
,
and
gave
him
glory
,
that
our
faith
and
hope
might
be
in
God
,
1
Pet
1.20
,
25.
2.
Although
a
sinner
by
faith
doth
apprehend
the
righteousness
of
Christ
,
i.e.
doth
believe
Christs
righteousness
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
pardon
of
sin
,
and
doth
rest
,
or
lean
upon
it
as
such
,
nevertheless
that
Faith
doth
not
justifie
him
Illâ
ratione
,
as
it
is
such
a
leaning
,
or
apprehension
:
for
it
is
not
this
or
that
act
of
faith
that
justifies
us
,
but
all
of
both
kinds
as
well
Elicite
as
Imperate
that
are
in
the
covenant
of
grace
promised
by
God
to
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
or
as
they
are
therein
constituted
by
God
the
condition
of
our
justification
,
and
accordingly
performed
.
2.
God
in
his
Gospel
of
Grace
hath
not
constituted
the
said
apprehension
of
Christs
righteousness
,
or
leaning
upon
it
,
or
him
for
pardon
the
sole
condition
of
a
sinners
justification
,
or
of
their
being
made
the
righteousness
of
God
in
him
,
but
it
is
such
a
belief
of
Gods
word
,
specially
of
the
conditional
promises
of
salvation
through
Christ
,
as
doth
effectually
induce
sinners
to
perform
the
conditions
thereof
,
i.e.
to
repent
and
convert
from
their
sins
,
and
in
so
doing
absolutely
to
rest
,
or
lean
upon
Christ
for
pardon
and
salvation
.
3.
Upon
the
same
reason
as
this
learned
Author
doth
reject
a
bare
general
assent
to
the
truth
of
Gods
word
from
being
that
faith
,
whereby
we
are
justified
;
he
ought
to
have
rejected
the
apprehension
of
Christs
righteousness
,
and
a
sinners
recumbency
thereon
from
being
that
faith
,
whereby
they
are
justified
:
for
as
that
general
assent
,
so
this
apprehension
of
Christs
righteousness
,
or
recumbency
upon
Christ
may
be
in
men
continuing
wicked
,
as
is
most
manifest
by
the
Scriptures
,
and
by
sad
experience
.
Those
,
whose
neck
was
as
an
iron
sinew
,
and
the●r
brow
as
brass
,
did
notwithstanding
stay
themselves
upon
the
God
of
Israel
,
and
lean
upon
the
Lord
,
saying
,
None
evil
can
come
upon
us
,
as
the
Prophets
Isaiah
(
ch
.
48.2
,
4.
)
and
Micah
(
ch
.
3.11
.
)
have
testified
;
and
the
l●ke
is
witnessed
by
our
Saviour
concerning
those
,
who
persisting
to
be
workers
of
iniquity
,
will
nevertheless
lean
upon
him
for
salvation
,
Mat
.
7.12
,
13.
Hence
it
appears
,
1.
That
it
is
not
true
to
say
,
that
a
bare
apprehension
of
Christs
righteousness
,
or
a
leaning
upon
Christ
will
justifie
sinners
,
or
is
justifying
Faith
,
or
is
that
faith
,
which
in
the
Gospel
of
Christ
is
made
the
condition
of
their
justification
.
2.
That
it
is
much
less
true
to
say
with
that
forenamed
Author
,
that
faith
doth
illâ
ratione
,
therefore
justifie
sinners
,
as
it
doth
so
apprehend
,
and
lean
upon
Christ
and
his
righteousness
.
I
have
the
rather
thought
meet
to
reply
to
that
passage
in
this
Author
,
because
I
guess
,
that
by
his
means
(
he
being
a
person
so
famed
for
piety
and
School-divinity
)
divers
have
been
led
into
the
same
,
or
the
like
mistakes
,
among
whom
I
shall
instance
in
two
particular
persons
,
by
name
Dr.
Grew
and
Mr.
Thomas
Shepheard
of
New
England
.
As
for
Dr.
Grew
,
in
his
Sermons
upon
Jeremy
,
ch
.
23.6
.
(
p.
147
,
148.
)
he
asserts
,
That
the
act
of
faith
,
which
justifies
us
,
is
an
act
of
recumbence
and
reliance
upon
Christ
as
he
is
made
sin
for
us
and
righteousness
to
us
,
and
thus
offered
in
Scripture
to
our
faith
—
This
and
this
onely
act
of
faith
justifies
us
—
and
149.
Thus
we
see
(
says
he
)
the
Gospel
hath
brought
the
justifying
act
of
faith
into
a
little
room
and
within
compass
.
And
p.
152
,
153.
All
(
says
he
)
even
the
best
of
all
in
man
,
or
which
is
done
by
a
man
,
is
hereby
excluded
from
his
justification
,
yea
every
act
of
faith
besides
this
of
recumbence
on
Christ
for
righteousness
is
excluded
—
I
need
not
say
much
more
for
the
refutation
of
these
most
dangerous
mistakes
,
than
hath
been
already
said
.
I
shall
onely
add
,
That
the
Doctor
doth
palpably
and
shamefully
pervert
the
Gospel
of
Christ
in
asserting
,
that
it
hath
brought
the
justifying
act
of
Faith
into
a
little
room
:
for
it
is
he
himself
,
who
by
the
hammering
of
his
own
brain
,
or
working
fancy
,
not
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
that
hath
so
reduced
it
;
for
the
Gospel
of
Christ
makes
justifying
Faith
to
be
of
the
same
latitude
,
as
obeying
Christ
,
or
obedience
to
his
Gospel
,
these
phrases
being
in
the
Gospel
of
promiscuous
use
,
as
any
one
,
who
will
make
use
of
his
eyes
,
may
see
,
and
wherein
also
is
plainly
to
be
seen
,
that
Jesus
Christ
is
offered
to
our
Faith
,
not
onely
as
he
was
made
sin
for
us
,
or
as
our
great
High-priest
,
who
by
his
once
offering
of
himself
hath
expiated
our
sins
,
but
also
as
our
Teacher
,
Master
,
Leader
and
Ruler
,
and
that
our
acceptation
of
him
as
thus
both
offered
for
us
and
to
us
is
the
condition
of
our
being
actually
justified
.
Yet
this
Anti
evangelical
Author
proceeds
to
say
further
,
p.
182.
It
s
a
dangerous
thing
to
set
up
our
own
righteousness
,
and
graces
,
and
duties
and
works
as
a
qualification
for
our
faith
in
Christ
;
this
is
but
clarified
poyson
.
As
God
hangs
the
earth
upon
nothing
,
Job
26.7
.
So
must
we
the
righteousness
of
Christ
upon
our
own
nothingness
—
Such
sayings
as
these
by
this
Doctor
,
with
many
other
the
like
,
I
do
judge
to
be
a
great
scandal
to
the
Protest●nt
Churches
,
and
to
Christian
Religion
,
they
being
more
gross
and
shamefull
,
than
(
to
my
present
remembrance
)
I
have
read
in
any
Author
,
except
in
those
,
who
are
most
notorious
for
Antinomian
Doctrine
,
such
as
Saltmarsh
,
Paul
Hobson
with
their
Peers
.
But
blessed
be
God
,
that
(
so
f●r
as
I
know
)
I
am
able
to
say
,
that
all
the
Protest●nt
Churches
do
(
even
as
the
Gospel
of
Christ
it self
doth
)
make
operativeness
to
be
a
Qualification
for
s●ving
faith
in
Christ
;
whence
it
is
,
th●t
they
do
usually
style
justifying
faith
a
lively
faith
,
an
effectual
Faith
(
this
being
the
language
of
Scripture
)
an
obediential
,
or
working
faith
(
in
opposition
to
that
Faith
,
which
St.
James
styles
a
dead
Faith
)
without
which
qualification
they
do
professedly
teach
,
that
the
righteousness
of
Christ
will
not
justifie
us
,
nor
any
Faith
in
his
righteousness
.
Nor
ought
sinners
to
hang
their
hopes
of
Christs
righteousness
,
i.e.
of
their
partaking
in
the
saving
benefi●s
of
Christs
righteousness
upon
any
Faith
,
but
a
Faith
so
qualified
,
i.e.
a
penitential
,
obediential
,
lively
,
effectual
,
working
Faith
;
&
he
,
that
hangs
his
hope
upon
any
other
,
doth
indeed
hang
it
upon
nothing
,
that
will
profit
him
in
the
day
of
wrath
.
So
that
to
instruct
sinners
to
hang
the
righteousness
of
Christ
(
he
means
,
I
presume
,
their
hopes
of
righteousness
by
Christ
)
upon
their
own
nothingness
,
is
indeed
to
tender
to
them
a
sweet
and
gilded
poyson
,
which
yet
because
of
its
sweetness
to
the
taste
,
and
speciousness
to
the
eye
is
not
a
jot
the
less
,
but
much
the
more
dangerous
,
I
mean
,
in
its
being
apt
to
be
swallowed
,
and
in
its
being
absolutely
mortal
by
being
digested
.
The
next
Author
I
shall
name
is
Mr.
Thomas
Shepheard
(
a
man
of
great
name
in
New
England
)
who
in
his
Sincere
Convert
,
page
151.
says
,
That
by
the
first
act
of
Faith
a
man
glorifies
God
by
obeying
all
the
law
at
an
instant
in
Christ
:
that
is
,
as
he
apparently
means
,
upon
this
first
act
of
Faith
a
man
so
intitles
himself
to
Christs
perfect
obedience
,
as
that
by
vertue
of
that
,
he
obeys
all
the
law
at
an
instant
;
but
this
is
notoriously
false
to
say
,
That
Believers
do
by
any
act
of
their
Faith
(
first
,
second
,
or
third
,
yea
from
first
to
last
)
obey
all
the
law
,
or
any
p●rt
of
the
law
in
,
or
by
Christ
,
in
the
sense
here
intended
by
this
Author
with
many
other
Brethren
,
as
hath
been
already
demonstrated
in
the
first
part
of
this
Discourse
concerning
imputed
Righteousness
,
to
which
I
shall
now
add
,
That
although
Jesus
Christ
did
obey
all
that
law
,
which
God
gave
him
in
the
person
of
a
Mediator
to
do
,
nevertheless
it
is
false
to
say
,
That
believers
do
obey
that
law
,
or
any
part
of
that
law
in
Christ
(
whether
in
an
instant
,
or
in
tract
of
time
:
)
for
although
Christ
did
many
things
,
which
we
sinners
are
bound
to
do
by
the
law
of
God
,
yet
he
did
them
not
by
vertue
of
that
obligation
,
that
bound
us
to
do
them
,
but
by
force
of
an
obligation
peculiar
to
himself
,
i.e.
of
his
fathers
command
,
and
of
his
own
voluntary
consent
,
or
undertaking
:
So
that
the
law
which
he
obeyed
,
or
fulfilled
,
was
peculiar
altogether
to
himself
,
as
to
the
formal
obligation
,
although
there
were
some
things
as
to
the
matter
of
it
,
which
we
by
Gods
law
imposed
upon
us
are
bound
to
do
;
I
say
some
things
:
for
as
we
are
not
bound
by
the
law
imposed
upon
us
to
do
all
,
that
Christ
did
,
so
neither
was
he
bound
by
the
law
imposed
upon
him
to
do
all
,
that
we
are
bound
to
do
;
although
the
expression
here
of
this
Author
doth
imply
,
that
he
was
;
this
also
being
it
,
which
is
frequently
asserted
by
Dr.
Owen
,
and
by
several
other
Brethren
,
the
falshood
whereof
is
of
easie
discovery
,
for
if
Christ
did
obey
,
or
was
obliged
to
obey
all
the
law
,
which
we
are
bound
to
obey
,
then
was
he
obliged
to
repent
and
convert
from
sin
,
and
to
believe
in
himself
for
remission
of
sin
:
Whereupon
Saltmarsh
and
other
his
Complices
will
be
found
to
have
been
true
witnesses
of
Christ
in
their
dogmatizings
concerning
him
,
That
he
repented
for
us
,
converted
for
us
and
believed
for
us
,
these
being
duties
imposed
upon
us
by
the
law
of
God
,
and
which
we
are
to
obey
.
There
are
many
other
erroneous
and
dangerous
passages
in
this
Authors
book
styled
(
The
Sincere
Convert
)
very
fit
to
be
brought
to
the
touchstone
with
animadversions
thereupon
;
but
I
shall
forbear
to
lengthen
this
Discourse
by
mentioning
them
at
this
time
.
Onely
forasmuch
as
I
have
since
the
writing
of
the
premisses
received
the
Theological
Theses
of
that
most
impartial
and
judicious
Author
Le-Blanc
(
the
learned
Professor
of
Divinity
in
Sedan
)
I
will
,
to
close
this
Chapter
,
transcribe
out
of
that
book
several
passages
for
the
confirmation
of
what
I
have
said
in
way
of
resolution
of
both
the
Questions
which
are
the
subject
of
this
and
the
foregoing
Chapter
.
In
his
Lecture
,
Quomodo
fides
justificat
,
his
words
are
(
p.
255
,
256.
)
Imo
,
cum
cum
solam
fidem
justificare
dicimus
—
Yea
,
Christian
Reader
,
Observe
well
the
words
here
of
this
Author
,
whereby
you
may
perceive
the
true
meaning
,
as
of
other
Protestant
Churches
,
so
also
of
the
Church
of
England
,
in
that
clause
of
the
11th
Article
,
concerning
the
Justification
of
man
,
expressed
in
these
words
(
That
we
are
justified
by
faith
onely
,
is
most
wholsome
doctrine
,
and
very
full
of
comfort
.
)
And
thus
is
this
Article
expounded
in
the
Homilies
of
our
Church
.
when
we
say
,
that
faith
alone
doth
justifie
,
we
do
not
signifie
,
that
the
sole
act
of
faith
precisely
taken
,
as
it
is
opposed
to
the
acts
of
love
and
hope
,
and
is
distinguished
from
amendment
,
or
repentance
is
the
condition
,
which
the
new
Covenant
or
Gospel
requireth
,
that
we
may
obtain
the
forgiveness
of
our
sins
,
and
for
Christs
sake
be
absolved
from
them
.
For
hope
of
pardon
and
the
love
of
God
,
and
also
sorrow
for
sin
and
a
purpose
of
a
new
life
,
and
in
one
word
,
all
the
acts
requisite
to
true
and
serious
conversion
,
are
also
a
certain
thing
necessary
and
altogether
prae-required
,
that
a
man
may
be
received
into
the
favour
of
God
,
and
may
from
thenceforth
be
by
him
had
for
a
justified
person
,
Yea
,
that
lively
faith
,
and
working
by
love
,
which
we
do
affirm
alone
to
justifie
,
doth
include
and
involve
all
those
things
.
And
as
the
Scripture
doth
frequently
assert
,
that
we
have
remission
of
sin
through
faith
:
so
no
less
frequently
and
expresly
doth
it
teach
,
that
repentance
and
the
whole
conversion
of
a
sinner
to
God
,
is
the
condition
,
without
which
pardon
of
sin
cannot
be
obtained
from
God
,
and
which
is
prae-required
thereunto
no
less
than
faith
,
although
it
doth
not
effect
,
nor
merit
it
,
Prov.
28.13
.
Act.
2.38
.
and
3.14
.
But
when
the
Scripture
says
,
that
a
man
is
justified
by
faith
and
not
by
works
,
or
without
works
,
which
we
call
being
justified
by
faith
alone
,
the
meaning
is
simply
this
,
That
no
man
can
be
justified
by
performing
the
works
,
which
the
law
requireth
,
that
by
it
he
may
be
justified
,
but
onely
by
believing
in
Christ
with
a
lively
and
effectual
faith
,
which
thing
the
Gospel
requires
,
that
we
may
with
God
be
accounted
as
righteous
.
And
by
works
,
which
the
law
properly
taken
and
as
it
is
opposed
to
grace
,
or
the
Gospel
,
doth
exact
to
the
Justification
of
a
man
,
is
understood
that
perfect
and
by
no
sin
interrupted
obedience
,
which
doth
exclude
every
transgression
and
every
sin
—
And
(
Th.
35.
he
says
)
As
often
as
the
Apostle
affirms
,
that
we
are
not
Justified
by
works
,
but
by
faith
,
he
intends
to
teach
The
Apostle
doth
intend
to
teach
one
other
thing
more
,
than
is
here
mentioned
by
this
Author
,
viz.
That
no
man
is
justified
by
the
works
of
the
Mosaical
law
.
no
other
thing
,
than
that
none
can
be
Justified
by
such
an
observation
of
the
law
,
which
the
legal
covenant
requires
,
that
we
may
have
life
through
it
and
may
escape
the
curse
of
God
;
but
that
God
doth
account
them
as
righteous
,
and
doth
of
his
meer
grace
bestow
the
pardon
of
all
their
sins
upon
all
those
,
who
receive
the
Gospel
with
a
sincere
heart
,
and
do
from
faith
perform
true
obedience
thereunto
.
And
according
to
this
sense
of
the
word
(
works
)
doth
he
reconcile
the
two
Apostles
,
St.
Paul
and
St.
James
(
seemingly
opposite
)
saying
Th.
39.
St.
Paul
will
deny
,
that
a
man
is
Justified
by
doing
the
works
,
which
the
law
,
as
it
is
opposed
to
the
covenant
of
grace
,
doth
exact
to
the
Justification
of
a
person
,
which
thing
St.
James
doth
in
no
sort
affirm
;
but
St.
James
intends
to
assert
,
that
a
man
is
Justified
not
by
that
bare
and
naked
assent
,
which
is
given
to
the
word
of
the
Gospel
,
but
by
such
a
faith
as
works
by
love
,
and
which
many
good
works
do
accompany
,
which
thing
St.
Paul
himself
hath
expresly
taught
,
so
far
he
is
from
denying
it
.
And
therefore
,
when
St.
James
says
,
Ye
see
,
that
a
man
is
Justified
by
works
and
not
by
faith
onely
,
it
is
the
same
as
if
he
should
say
,
Ye
see
,
that
God
doth
not
account
him
as
righteous
,
who
doth
simply
and
nakedly
give
credit
and
assent
to
the
word
of
God
,
but
he
,
who
with
his
faith
doth
joyn
good
works
,
and
who
hath
faith
efficacious
in
good
works
.
I
might
for
this
purpose
cite
much
more
,
were
it
needful
,
out
of
that
learned
and
very
judicious
Protestant
Writer
;
but
I
shall
alledge
his
testimony
for
the
countenance
and
confirmation
of
what
I
have
asserted
concerning
faith
its
being
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
and
under
what
formal
consideration
it
is
so
imputed
,
for
which
purpose
I
shall
transcribe
and
translate
his
words
Thes
.
22
,
23.
It
seems
to
us
(
simplicissimum
)
most
simple
,
or
plain
,
if
we
say
,
that
Faith
doth
justifie
,
because
to
a
man
believing
,
his
faith
is
imputed
to
righteousness
:
for
so
the
Apostle
explicates
his
own
meaning
,
professedly
treating
concerning
Justification
by
faith
,
Rom.
4.5
.
To
him
,
who
believeth
on
him
,
that
Justifieth
the
ungodly
,
his
faith
is
accounted
for
righteousness
;
and
to
this
end
he
cites
that
of
Moses
(
Abraham
believed
God
,
and
it
was
accounted
to
him
for
righteousness
.
)
Faith
also
is
said
to
be
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
,
because
God
doth
,
hath
and
reputes
him
as
righteous
,
freeing
him
from
the
punishment
of
his
sin
,
and
accepting
him
to
life
eternal
for
the
sake
of
Christs
death
and
obedience
,
who
doth
with
a
lively
faith
believe
in
Christ
:
To
the
same
sense
or
purpose
(
eodem
redit
)
is
the
judgment
of
those
,
who
teach
,
that
Faith
Justifies
us
,
as
it
is
the
condition
of
the
covenant
of
grace
:
for
in
that
their
meaning
is
no
other
,
but
that
God
,
that
he
may
account
us
as
,
or
for
righteous
(
pro
justis
)
and
may
accept
us
to
eternal
glory
,
doth
in
the
Gospel
require
no
other
thing
of
us
,
but
that
we
adhere
to
Christ
by
a
lively
faith
and
working
by
love
;
and
that
salvation
and
remission
of
sin
is
offered
and
promised
to
us
in
the
word
of
the
Gospel
,
upon
,
or
under
this
condition
,
and
no
other
;
and
that
this
is
the
reason
,
why
in
the
Scripture
we
are
said
to
be
justified
by
faith
.
Now
forasmuch
as
the
doctrine
held
forth
in
this
Treatise
concerning
imputed
righteousness
,
is
so
attested
by
such
a
most
judicious
Writer
of
the
Protestant
French
Church
;
and
forasmuch
also
as
in
these
latter
years
it
hath
been
much
contended
for
by
that
indefatigable
Writer
,
Mr
R.
Baxter
,
Dr
Henry
More
,
Mr
Edward
Fowler
,
Mr
Joseph
Truman
,
with
other
learned
men
of
our
own
Church
as
Protestant
,
I
shall
leave
it
to
consideration
,
how
causless
the
clamors
of
those
are
,
who
in
the
bitterness
of
their
zeal
do
cry
out
against
it
,
as
a
contradiction
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
,
even
in
the
highest
point
of
Divinity
,
and
as
a
piece
of
Popery
,
even
the
worst
of
Popery
.
It
is
upon
this
account
,
that
a
late
Author
is
accused
by
one
of
those
zealous
Brethren
,
saying
,
You
have
given
away
the
better
half
of
the
Protestant
Religion
by
contending
for
Justification
by
our
own
works
.
I
had
as
lieve
yield
to
all
things
else
,
which
the
Papist
say
,
or
do
,
as
to
this
one
damnable
Doctrine
,
which
is
the
very
rats-bane
of
Popery
,
viz.
That
it
is
not
(
as
Protestant
Divines
assert
it
to
be
)
by
the
righteousness
of
Jesus
Christ
imputed
to
us
,
and
applyed
by
faith
,
but
by
our
own
works
in
conformity
to
the
moral
law
;
(
and
again
says
he
)
They
,
who
say
,
that
men
are
not
Justified
by
the
righteousness
of
Christ
imputed
to
them
upon
their
believing
,
but
their
own
works
,
or
sincere
(
though
imperfect
)
obedience
to
the
Gospel
,
do
say
that
the
Church
of
England
erreth
in
the
great
Doctrine
of
Justification
.
Deus
bone
!
Such
accusations
,
or
declamations
as
these
,
I
look
upon
as
just
matter
of
great
sadness
,
considering
how
the
Protestant
Churches
generally
,
and
the
Church
of
England
in
special
is
thereby
wronged
,
as
if
the
one
half
of
our
Protestant
Religion
(
as
distinguished
from
Popery
)
did
consist
in
what
this
Author
would
make
us
believe
,
whereas
the
foresaid
learned
Protestant
Author
Le-Blanc
in
his
Lecture
(
Quomodo
fides
Justificat
)
among
those
nine
things
,
wherein
he
asserts
the
agreement
of
Protestants
and
Papists
,
doth
name
this
as
the
third
head
of
their
accord
,
(
p.
260.
)
viz.
Non
solum
credendi
actum
praecise
sumptum
—
That
it
is
not
the
act
of
faith
precisely
taken
,
but
that
many
other
acts
also
which
do
concur
to
true
repentance
and
serious
conversion
to
God
,
are
conditions
by
God
pre-required
,
that
a
man
may
obtain
of
God
the
pardon
of
his
sins
,
which
is
indeed
(
and
as
this
Author
also
doth
oft
times
assert
)
the
self
thing
in
effect
with
Justification
.
So
that
whatsoever
the
opinion
of
this
fervent
Author
,
or
of
other
single
less
knowing
Protestants
is
,
the
doctrine
contended
for
by
him
is
so
far
from
being
the
one
half
,
as
that
it
is
not
to
be
accounted
any
part
,
or
scruple
of
the
true
Protestant
Religion
:
For
the
true
Protestant
Doctrine
is
not
,
That
believers
are
justified
by
Christs
righteousness
in
it self
imputed
&
in
that
sense
(
the
sense
of
this
Author
)
applyed
to
themselves
,
or
by
themselves
,
but
that
they
are
justified
for
the
merits
sake
of
Christs
righteousness
,
which
righteousness
of
his
is
in
the
saving
fruit
or
effects
thereof
(
justification
,
or
rem●ssion
of
sin
thereby
purchased
)
imputed
,
imparted
,
communicated
,
or
(
as
modern
Authors
use
to
speak
)
applyed
to
believers
(
not
by
themselves
,
but
)
by
God
as
Donour
thereof
;
and
this
according
to
the
tenour
of
his
gracious
promise
upon
their
sincere
faith
,
this
being
the
condition
of
the
grant
;
in
which
promise
,
or
conditional
grant
,
the
word
Faith
is
not
to
be
taken
strictly
in
opposition
to
repentance
and
all
other
Evangelical
graces
,
or
duties
,
but
as
including
them
.
And
yet
the
late
Assembly
of
Divines
in
their
larger
Catechize
in
answer
to
that
question
,
How
doth
Faith
Justifie
a
sinner
,
return
this
positive
answer
.
Faith
justifies
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
,
not
because
of
those
other
graces
,
which
do
always
accompany
it
,
or
of
good
works
that
are
the
fruits
of
it
,
nor
as
if
the
grace
of
faith
,
or
any
act
thereof
,
were
imputed
to
him
for
his
justification
,
but
onely
as
it
is
an
instrument
,
by
which
he
receiveth
,
and
applyeth
Christ
,
and
his
righteousness
.
But
to
demonstrate
the
falsness
of
this
Answer
,
I
will
more
particularly
consider
,
1.
What
Justifying
Faith
is
.
2.
How
it
Justifies
.
First
,
What
is
Justifying
faith
?
To
which
Question
I
will
make
answer
,
first
in
my
own
words
,
and
then
in
theirs
:
1.
I
will
express
my
sense
briefly
in
my
own
words
,
saying
,
Justifying
faith
is
a
practical
assent
to
the
truth
of
Gods
word
.
If
any
shall
desire
a
larger
Description
,
I
will
say
,
Justifying
Faith
is
a
Practical
assent
to
the
truth
of
Gods
word
,
but
more
especially
(
I
do
not
say
properly
)
to
that
part
of
Gods
word
,
which
in
a
signal
sense
,
or
for
a
peculiar
reason
,
is
styled
the
word
of
Faith
,
Rom.
10.8
.
that
is
,
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
or
promise
of
salvation
through
him
unto
the
world
of
sinners
conditionally
upon
their
return
to
him
by
repentance
and
faith
,
or
as
S.
Pauls
expressions
are
,
Act
20.23
.
Upon
condition
of
their
repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
or
as
Peter
expresseth
the
condition
,
Act.
3.19
.
Repentance
and
Conversion
,
or
as
our
Saviour
in
one
word
expresseth
it
,
Luke
24.47
.
Repentance
.
He
that
believes
this
word
of
God
,
with
a
practical
faith
,
is
justified
,
for
this
is
justifying
Faith
.
2.
I
shall
answer
to
the
said
Question
in
their
own
words
,
yet
not
in
those
of
their
Catechism
,
but
of
their
confession
touching
saving
Faith
,
Chap.
14.
and
say
,
Justifying
,
or
saving
faith
is
that
,
by
which
a
Christian
believeth
to
be
true
,
whatsoever
is
revealed
in
the
word
for
the
authority
of
God
speaking
therein
,
and
acteth
differently
upon
that
,
which
each
particular
passage
thereof
containeth
,
yielding
obedience
to
the
commands
,
trembling
at
the
threatnings
,
and
imbracing
the
promises
of
God
for
this
life
,
and
that
which
is
to
come
.
But
the
principal
acts
of
saving
faith
are
accepting
,
receiving
and
resting
upon
Christ
alone
for
justificrtion
,
sanctification
and
eternal
life
,
by
vertue
of
the
covenant
of
grace
.
This
to
my
seeming
is
a
true
and
memorable
description
of
justifying
Faith
,
and
doubtless
he
,
that
doth
so
believe
Gods
word
as
to
act
sutably
to
the
different
passes
thereof
(
divine
commands
,
threatnings
and
promises
)
shall
be
justified
;
and
this
I
do
affirm
,
Although
such
a
believer
never
heard
,
or
understood
that
(
for
ought
I
remember
)
unscriptural
or
apocryphal
expression
of
applying
Christ
and
his
righteousness
to
himself
.
It
is
time
now
to
make
answer
to
the
other
Question
.
Q.
How
doth
Faith
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
?
Answ
.
I
need
not
at
this
time
of
day
make
answer
to
this
Question
,
because
it
hath
been
so
plainly
and
fully
already
answered
in
this
Discourse
,
as
well
in
my
own
as
in
the
words
of
Le-Blanc
:
But
if
it
must
be
answered
again
,
I
will
still
say
as
before
,
viz.
That
faith
doth
justifie
a
sinner
in
the
sight
of
God
,
not
for
any
merit
,
that
is
in
it
,
or
in
any
grace
accompanying
,
or
good
works
proceeding
from
it
,
but
onely
for
the
righteousness
sake
of
Christ
,
and
for
Christs
righteousness
sake
it
becomes
available
to
our
justification
in
the
sight
of
God
,
as
the
imputation
of
it
to
,
or
for
righteousness
is
entailed
upon
it
by
the
free
promise
of
God
in
Christ
,
which
is
all
one
as
to
say
,
Faith
justifies
us
in
the
sight
of
God
as
it
is
Conditio
novi
foederis
praestita
,
i.e.
as
it
is
the
performance
of
the
condition
of
life
promised
in
the
new
covenant
.
CHAP.
XXX
.
A
brief
reply
to
a
passage
in
Doctor
Owen
,
he
saying
,
That
in
the
doctrine
by
him
asserted
touching
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
he
hath
as
good
company
as
the
Prelacy
and
the
whole
Church
of
England
can
afford
.
HAving
concluded
the
former
long
Chapter
,
I
shall
be
very
much
briefer
in
this
,
my
intent
therein
being
to
take
into
consideration
a
passage
(
of
less
moment
indeed
)
in
Doctor
Owens
Book
,
styled
his
Vindication
against
Mr.
Sherlocke
,
forasmuch
as
it
doth
refer
to
the
subject
of
this
Discourse
,
wherein
he
doth
excuse
himself
by
the
company
,
with
whom
he
errs
,
if
it
be
an
errour
to
maintain
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
in
the
sense
oppugned
in
this
Treatise
,
he
saying
,
p.
117.
Herein
I
have
as
good
company
as
the
Prelacy
and
whole
Church
of
England
can
afford
,
sundry
from
among
them
having
written
large
Discourses
in
its
confirmation
,
and
the
rest
having
till
of
late
approved
of
it
in
others
.
The
Doctor
doth
here
make
mention
of
company
both
Good
,
and
Great
,
wherein
although
I
allow
him
to
have
spoken
truth
as
to
the
quality
of
them
,
Yet
as
to
their
quantity
,
I
cannot
;
to
both
which
distinctly
I
will
speak
a
few
words
,
Allowing
the
truth
of
the
former
,
I
do
further
say
,
1.
It
is
matter
of
good
hearing
,
that
the
Prelates
are
in
reputation
with
the
Doctor
as
good
company
,
this
being
more
than
many
now
adays
will
acknowledge
,
it
being
their
manner
to
declaim
against
that
whole
Tribe
,
saying
,
There
is
none
of
them
good
,
no
not
one
,
Yea
to
say
of
Prelacy
it self
,
as
was
prejudicatly
said
of
Galilee
,
Can
any
good
come
out
of
Prelacy
?
But
forasmuch
as
such
things
are
spoken
not
in
corners
,
but
upon
the
house
top
,
and
cannot
therefore
be
hid
from
the
Prelates
,
it
is
therefore
in
reason
to
be
presumed
,
that
they
will
be
the
more
circumspect
so
to
act
in
their
several
capacities
(
both
as
Christians
,
Presbyters
and
Prelates
)
as
to
put
to
silence
the
ignorance
of
clamorous
and
foolish
zeal
.
2.
As
the
Prelates
are
never
the
better
company
with
some
because
of
their
Prelacy
,
so
neither
is
their
,
or
the
Doctors
company
to
boot
,
ever
the
better
with
me
,
because
of
their
concurrence
in
a
popular
mistake
,
it
being
my
resolution
to
keep
company
with
the
truth
,
although
it
happen
,
that
I
find
it
like
a
Sparrow
upon
the
house
top
,
sitting
alone
,
or
like
a
Pellicane
in
the
Wilderness
,
mourning
for
want
of
friends
and
followers
.
3.
If
the
Doctor
here
say
true
concerning
the
Prelates
,
I
am
truly
sorry
in
the
Doctors
behalf
,
but
in
my
own
I
do
rejoyce
:
I
am
indeed
sorry
for
the
Doctor
,
in
that
differing
from
the
Prelates
in
many
things
,
wherein
to
my
seeming
they
have
the
truth
on
their
side
,
and
being
no
companion
with
them
in
their
Prelacy
(
as
I
heartily
wish
he
were
)
he
should
be
so
unfortunate
as
to
light
into
their
company
in
a
certain
path
,
wherein
like
men
(
for
Humanum
est
errare
)
they
have
gone
astray
,
having
reason
to
make
the
like
acknowledgment
with
the
Church
of
old
,
saying
,
Erravimus
cum
patribus
.
But
I
am
glad
in
my
own
behalf
,
forasmuch
as
I
do
now
perceive
,
that
the
Doctor
himself
cannot
but
advocate
for
me
,
if
he
happen
to
hear
me
accounted
as
a
Time-server
,
or
as
one
,
who
wrote
this
Discourse
out
of
design
to
please
the
Prelates
,
to
curry
favour
with
them
,
or
to
get
Preferment
from
them
:
for
to
detect
errours
,
in
the
guilt
whereof
the
Prelates
are
involved
,
is
not
(
one
would
think
)
the
way
to
gain
their
friendship
,
or
favour
.
Of
a
truth
I
now
perceive
,
that
the
Doctor
is
convinced
in
conscience
,
that
it
was
not
the
design
of
the
Author
of
this
Discourse
to
make
him
odious
more
than
his
good
company
the
Prelates
,
and
much
less
to
make
odious
the
whole
party
of
dissenting
Brethren
.
4.
I
do
firmly
believe
,
that
the
Prelates
may
be
good
company
,
notwithstanding
their
association
in
errour
,
as
aforesaid
:
for
it
is
very
possible
,
and
I
am
verily
hopeful
,
that
it
is
a
thing
ordinary
with
not
a
few
to
hold
false
doctrines
speculatively
,
but
not
practically
;
and
I
do
cordially
bear
witness
with
Mr
Joseph
Truman
(
in
his
excellent
Book
styled
The
Great
Propitiation
,
p.
137.
)
That
many
of
the
worthiest
men
,
both
Prelates
and
others
,
that
ever
England
had
,
held
such
things
(
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
,
and
certain
errors
depending
thereupon
)
notionally
,
yet
so
as
to
deny
the
consequence
,
but
never
any
good
man
(
says
that
learned
and
pious
Author
)
did
hold
them
practically
.
2.
I
cannot
allow
the
Doctors
words
as
to
the
numerosity
of
his
companions
in
those
words
of
his
(
The
whole
Church
of
England
,
)
in
which
saying
he
hath
out-gone
the
truth
:
for
(
presuming
that
by
the
Church
of
England
he
meaneth
it
as
Protestant
)
I
cannot
but
say
,
That
as
some
Worthies
of
the
Church
of
Eng.
wrote
for
it
,
so
others
of
our
own
(
not
to
mention
any
of
Forein
Churches
)
wrote
against
it
:
As
I
could
easily
shew
,
had
it
not
been
largely
done
already
by
other
hands
,
particularly
by
Mr
Bull
in
his
late
learned
Answer
to
his
Adversaries
,
and
this
Mr
Joseph
Truman
takes
notice
of
in
his
Great
Propitiation
(
p.
95.
)
Wherein
after
with
several
reasons
he
had
refuted
the
Imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
in
the
sense
maintained
by
the
Doctor
,
and
in
this
Discourse
oppugned
,
he
closeth
his
Arguments
with
this
saying
,
I
am
almost
ashamed
to
lay
open
the
weakness
of
them
,
that
hold
these
things
,
after
such
multitudes
of
learned
Protestants
have
shewn
their
absurdity
.
But
if
the
good
company
,
with
whom
the
Doctor
doth
erre
in
this
matter
,
be
just
ground
of
ease
to
his
mind
,
I
shall
grant
it
as
a
thing
,
that
cannot
be
denied
,
and
(
as
the
said
Mr
Truman
says
)
is
much
to
be
lamented
,
that
many
important
Doctrines
of
the
Protestant
Churches
are
frequently
by
too
many
grosly
explained
,
and
that
by
more
than
those
(
says
Mr
Baxter
)
who
are
down
right
Antinomians
,
so
as
to
have
wofully
ill
consequences
attending
them
,
to
the
scandal
of
the
Protestant
Religion
,
the
heartning
and
hardning
of
our
common
adversaries
(
both
Papists
and
Socinians
)
against
us
,
and
to
the
prejudice
of
the
power
and
practice
of
Christianity
:
I
mean
more
especially
such
Doctrines
as
do
concern
faith
,
and
works
,
justification
,
and
Imputed
Righteousness
,
for
a
redress
whereof
,
were
I
able
to
do
any
thing
more
than
hath
been
abundantly
already
done
by
others
my
betters
,
I
could
say
with
the
Apostle
,
I
would
gladly
spend
,
and
be
spent
;
spend
I
mean
,
not
onely
of
my
time
,
but
my
reputation
also
(
as
the
Apostles
meaning
there
is
.
)
Though
the
more
abundantly
I
loved
,
the
less
I
should
hap
to
be
beloved
of
my
dissenting
brethren
,
for
whose
satisfaction
I
shall
now
in
the
closing
of
this
Chapter
commend
to
their
consideration
the
saying
of
that
learned
,
and
most
judicious
Author
B.
Davenant
De
grat
.
hab.
ch.
27.
De
facto
imputantur
(
extrinseca
)
quando
illorum
intuitus
,
&
respectus
valent
nobis
ad
aliquem
effectum
aque
ac
si
à
nobis
vel
in
nobis
essent
.
Then
those
things
,
which
are
without
us
,
i.e.
which
are
not
ours
in
the
propriety
of
the
very
things
,
or
being
properly
taken
do
not
belong
unto
us
,
are
said
to
be
imputed
to
us
,
when
with
respect
to
them
we
are
equally
intitled
to
their
effects
,
or
dealt
with
upon
account
of
them
,
as
if
they
had
been
done
by
us
,
or
were
inherent
in
us
.
According
to
this
sense
of
the
word
(
Imputed
)
is
the
true
and
truly
Protestant
Doctrine
concerning
the
imputation
of
Christs
righteousness
to
be
expounded
,
as
I
have
(
I
hope
)
made
apparent
more
at
large
according
to
my
design
in
this
Discourse
.
FINIS
.