Phil. iii. 8, 9. Heads of argument from this testimony— Design of the context — Righteousness the foundation of acceptance with God — A twofold righteoiisness considered by the apostle— Opposite unto one anothei-, as unto the especial end inquired after— Which of these he adhered unto, his OAvn righteousness, or the righteousness of God; declared by the apostle with vehemency of speech — Rea- sons of his earnestness herein — The turning-point whereon he left Judaism — The opposition made unto this doctrine by the Jews— The weight of the doctrine, and unwillingness of men to receive it— His own sense of sin and grace— Pecu- liar expressions used in this place, for the reasons mentioned, concerning Christ : concerning all things that ai'C our ewn — The choice to be made on the case stated, whether we will adhere unto our own righteousness, or that of Christ's, which are inconsistent as to tlie end of justification — Argument from this place — Exceptions unto this testimony, and argument from thence, removed — Our personal righteousness inherent, the same with respect unto the law and gospel — External righteousness only required liy the law, an impious imagination — Works wrought before faith only rejected— The exception removed— Righteous- ness before conversion, not intended by the apostle .... 363
CONTENTS. XI
CHAPTER XIX.
Objections against the doctrine of justification by tlie imputation of the righteous- ness of Christ — Nature of these objections— Difficulty in discerning aright the sense of some men in this argument — Justification by works, the end of all declen- sion from the righteousness of Christ — Objections against this doctrine derived from a supposition thereof alone— First principal objection : Imputed righteous- ness overthrows the necessity of a holy life— This objection, as managed by them of the church of Rome, an open calumny — How insisted on by some among ourselves— Socinus's fierceness in this charge — His foul dishonesty therein — False charges on men's opinions making way for the rash condemnation of their persons— Iniquity of such censures — The objection rightly stated— Sufficiently answered in the previous discoui-ses about the nature of faith, and force of the moral law — The nature and necessity of evangelical holiness elsewhere pleaded — Particular, answers unto this objection — All who profess this doctrine do not exemplify it in their lives — The most holy truths have been abused — None by whom this doctrine is now denied exceed them in holiness by whom it was formei'ly professed, and the power of it attested — The contrary docti-ine not successful in the reformation of the lives of men — The best way to determine this difference — The same objection managed against the doctrine of the apostle in his own days — Efficacious prejudices against this doctrine in the minds of men — The whole doctrine of the apostle liable to be abused — Answer of the apostle unto this olijection — He never once attempts to answer it by declaring the necessity of personal righteousness, or good works, unto justification before God — He confines the cogency of evangelical motives iinto obedience only unto believers — Grounds of evangelical holiness asserted by him, in compliance with his docti'ine of justification : — 1. Divine ordination — Exceptions unto this grovmd removed. 2. Answer of the apostle vindicated — The obligation of the law unto obedience — Nature of it, and consistency with grace — This answer of the apos- tle vindicated — Heads of other principles that might be pleaded to the same purpose .......... 372
CHAPTER XX.
Seeming difference, no real contradiction, between the apostles Paul and James, concerning justification— This granted by all — Reasons of the seeming differ- ence—The best rule of the interpretation of places of Scriptui-e wherein there is an appearing repugnancy — The doctrine of justification according luito that rule principally to be learned from the writings of Paul — The reasons of his fulness and accuracy in tlie teaching of that doctrine— The importance of the truth ; the opposition matle unto it, and abuse of it— The design of the apostle James — Exceptions of some against the writings of St Paul, scandalous and unreasonable — Not, in this matter, to be interpreted by the passage in James insisted on, chap. ii. — That there is no repugnancy between the doctrine of the two apostles demonstrated — Heads and grounds of the demonstration— Their scope, design, and end, not the same — That of Paul; the only case stated and determined by him— The design of the apostle James ; the case proposed by him quite of another nature— The occasion of the case proposed and stated by him — No appearance of difference between the apostles, because of the several cases they speak unto— Not the same faith intended by them— Description of the faith spoken of by the one, and the other— Bellarmine's arguments to prove time justifying faitli to be intended by Jamas, answered — Justificution not treated of by the apostles in the same manner, nor used in the same sense, nor to the same end— The one treats of justification, as unto its nature and causes; the other, as unto its signs and evidence— Proved by the instances insisted on— How
XII
CONTENTS.
the Scripture was fulfilled, that Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, when he offered his son on the altar — Works the same, and of the same kind, in both the apostles — Observations on the discourse of James — No conjunction made by him between faith and works in our justifi- cation, but an opposition — No distinction of a first and second justification in him — Justification ascribed by him wholly unto works— In what sense— Docs not determine how a sinner may be justified before God; but how a professor may evidence himself so to be — The context opened from verse 14, to the end of the chapter .•...,....