An end of doctrinal controversies which have lately troubled the churches

§. 17. Yea more; men use to put that into the Condition of something which the Person fain would have, which he is more backward to, and would not else do or have. A Physician useth not to say, Thou shalt be cured if thou consent to be cured; but if thou consent to take my Medicines and follow my Prescript. A Father will not say to the Child, I will give thee this Apple if thou wilt have it; but if thou wilt thank me for it, and do thy Duty: So if we might make a difference in the reason of the thing, we should say, That God saith not only, Thou shalt have Christ's righteousness, or justification by it, if thou wilt have it; no more than [Thou shalt be saved from Hell if thou wilt] (and who would not be forgiven?) But [thou shalt have Christ and Life, Pardon, Grace and Glory, if thou wilt thankfully take them together as they are, or wilt be taught and ruled by Christ, and renounce the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and take God and Glory for thy all.]

§. 18. Christ's own righteousness being not essentially given to us in it self, but given for us; and to us in the Effects, to say, That the receiving of that which is not given, is the only justifying act of Faith, is to say, That we are not justified by Faith at all. But if they mean the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, ⟨p. 273⟩then it is but to say, We are justified by no act of Faith, but by consenting to be justified by Christ's Merits: Which is not true.

§. 19. They contradict themselves that make Christ's Priestly Office the only Object of Justifying Faith, and yet make his whole Righteousness and Merit that Object: For who knoweth not, that all Christ's Righteousness was not performed by him only as Priest.