VI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
The proper sense of these words, justification, and to justify, considered — Necessity thereof— Latin derivation of justification — Some of the ancients deceived by it — From "jus," and "justum; " "Justus filius," Avho— The Hebrew P"'"^"— Use and signification of it— Places where it is used examined, 2 Sara. xv. 4; Deut. XXV. 1 ; Prov. xvii. 1 5 ; Isa. v. 23, 1. 8, 9 ; 1 Kings viii. 31, 32 ; 2 Chron. vi. 22, 23 ; Ps. Ixxxii. 3; Exod. xxiii. 7; Job sxvii. 5; Isa. liii. 11; Gen. xliv. 16; Dan. xii. 3 — The constant sense of the word eYinced— AixaiSu, use of it in other au- thors, to punish— What it is in the New Testament, Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37; Luke vii. 29, X. 29, xvi. 15, xviii. 14; Acts xiii. 38, 39; Rom. ii. 13, iii. 4— Constantly used in a forensic sense— Places seeming dubious, vindicated, Rom. viii. 30; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 5-7; Rev. xxii. 11 — How often these words, hzaiia and iizaioV/x.xi, are used in the New Testament— Constant sense of this— The same evinced from what is opposed unto it, Isa. 1. 8, 9 ; Prov. xvii. 15 ; Rom. v. 16, 18, viii. 33, 34 — And the declaration of it in terms equivalent, Rom. iv. 6, 11, v. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 20, 21 ; Matt. i. 21 ; Acts xiii. 39 ; Gal. ii. 16, etc.— Justification in the Scripture, proposed under a juridical scheme, and of a forensic title— The parts and progress of it— Inferences from the whole . . . 1 23
CHAPTER V.
Distinction of a first and second justification— The whole doctrine of the Roman church concerning justification gi-ounded on this distinction— The first justifi- cation, the nature and causes of it, according unto the Romanists — The second justification, what it is in their sense— Solution of the seeming diiference be- tween Paul and James, falsely pretended by this distinction — The same dis- tinction received by the Socinians and others— The latter termed by some the continuation of our justification — The distinction dispi-ovcd- Justification con- sidered, either as xmto its essence or its manifestation — The manifestation of it twofold, initial and final— Initial is either unto ourselves or others— No second justification hence ensues— Justification before God, legal and evangelical — Their distinct natures— The distinction mentioned derogatory to the merit of Christ — More in it ascribed unto om'selves than unto the blood of Chri.st, in our justification — The vanity of disputations to this pui-pose— All true justifi- cation overthrown by this distinction — No countenance given unto this justifi- cation in the Scripture — The second justification not intended by the apostle James— Evil of arbitrary distinctions — Our first justification so described in the Scriptui-e as to leave no room for a second — Of the continuation of our jus- tification; whether it depend on faith alone, or our personal righteousness, inquired— Justification at once completed, in all the causes and elfects of it, proved at large — Believers, upon their justification, obliged unto perfect obe- dience— The commanding power of the law constitutes the nature of sin in them who are not obnoxious unto its curse— Future sins, in what sense remitted at our first justification — The continuation of actual pardon, and thereby of a justified estate; on what it doth depend — Continuation of justification, the act of God; whereon it depends in that sense — On o\ir pai-t, it depends on faith alone— Nothing required hei-eunto but the application of righteousness imputed — The continuation of our justification is before God— That whereon the con- tinuation of our justification depends, pleadable before God — This not our per- sonal obedience, proved : — 1. By the experience of all believers ; 2. Testimonies of Scripture ; 3. Examples— The distinction mentioned rejected . . . 137
CHAPTER YI.
Evangelical personal righteousness ; the nature and use of it — Whether there be an evangelical justification on our evangelical righteousness, inquired into — How this is by some affirmed and applauded— Evangelical personal righteousness
CONTENTS. VI r
asserted as the condition of our legal righteoiisness, or the pardon of sin— Opi- nion of the Socinians— Personal righteousness required in the gospel— Believers hence denominated righteous— Not with respect unto righteousness habitual, but actual only— Inherent righteousness the same with sanctification, or holi- ness—In what sense we may be said to be justified by inherent righteousness- No evangelical justification on our personal righteousness — The imputation of the righteousness of Christ doth not depend thereon— None have this righteous- ness, but they are antecedently justified- A charge before God, in all justifica- tion before God— The instrument of this charge, the law or the gospel— From neither of them can we be justified by this personal righteousness— The justifi- cation pretended needless and useless— It hath not the nature of any justifica- tion mentioned in the Scripture, but is contrary to all that is so called— Other ai'guments to the same piirpose- Sentential justification at the last day— Nature of the last judgment— Who shall be then justified— A declaration of righteous- ness, and an actual admission into glory, the whole of justification at the last day— The argument that we are justified in this life in the same manner, and on the same grounds, as we shall be judged at the last day, that judgment being according unto works, answered ; and the impertinency of it declaimed . , 152