1. An Action is not righteous, which is not conformable to the Law; if in some respects it be conformable, and in some not, it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action. So that we having no actions, perfectly: conformed to the Law, have therefore no one righteous action. 2. If we had; Yet many righteous Actions, if but one were unrighteous, will not serve to denominate the person Righteous, according to the Law of ⟨p. 69⟩Works. And that these joined with Christs Righteousness, do not make up one Righteousness for us, is plain thus; The Righteousness which we have in Christ, is not of the same sort with his pretended partial Righteousness: For this pretendeth to be a Righteousness (in part) of the first kind mentioned formerly viz. Obediential consisting in conformity to the Precept. Now, Christs Righteousness imputed to us, being only that of the second sort (viz. By satisfaction for nonconformity, or for our disobedience,) cannot therefore possible be joined with our imperfect Obedience, to make up one Righteousness for us. I acknowledge, that some actions of ours, may in some respects be good, though that respect cannot denominate it (strictly in the sense of the old Covenant) a good Work. I acknowledge also, that so far it is pleasing to God: yet the Action cannot be said to please him (much less the person,) but only that respective Goodness. Also that Christ dyed only to satisfy for our actions so far as they were sinful, and not in those respects wherein they are good and lawful. Yet that these good works (so commonly called) can be no part of our Righteousness, I think is fully proved by the fore-going Argument. Though I much question, whether they that stand for the imputation of Christs moral Righteousness in the rigid rejected sense (as if ⟨p. 70⟩(as if in him we had paid the primary proper debt of perfect obedience) can so well rid their hands of this objection.
1. An Action is not righteous, which is not conformable to the Law; if in some respects it be conformable, and in some not, it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action. So that we having no actions, perfectly: conformed to the Law, have therefore no one righteous action. 2. If we had; Yet many righteous Actions, if but one were unrighteous, will not serve to denominate the person Righteous, according to the Law of ⟨p. 69⟩Works. And that these joyned with Christs Righteousness, do not make up one Righteousness for us, is plainthus; The Righteousness which we have in Christ, is not of the same sort witht his pretended partial Righteousness: For this pretendeth to be a Righteousness (in part) of the first kinde mentioned formerly viz. Obedientiall consisting in conformity to the Precept. Now, Christs Righteousness imputed to us, being only that of the second sort (viz. By satisfaction for nonconformity, or for our disobedience,) cannot therefore possible be joyned with our imperfect Obedience, to make up one Righteousness for us. I acknowledge, that some actions of ours, may in some respects be good, though that respect cannot denominate it (strictly in the sence of the old Covenant) a good Work. I acknowledge also, that so far it is pleasing to God: yet the Action cannot be said to please him (much less the person,) but only that respective Goodness. Also that Christ dyed only to satisfie for our actions so far as they were sinfull, and not in those respects wherein they are good and lawfull. Yet that these good works (so commonly called) can be no part of our Righteousness, I think is fully proved by the fore-going Argument. Though I much question, whether they that stand for the imputation of Christs moral Righteousness in the rigid rejected sence (as if ⟨p. 70⟩(as if in him we had paid the primary proper debt of perfect obedience) can so well rid their hands of this objection.
