Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified, be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, than the faith by which we are justified, is the believing in him as King, Priest and Prophet. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.

Only the Antecedent needs proof, though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denied also.

Only the Antecedent needs proof, though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also.

Here note, that by The condemning Unbelief, I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel: Where I suppose first, that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin. Secondly, And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace, which is not simply for sin as sin, but for one sort of sin in special, that is, the final rejection of the Remedy: And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument. The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake.

Here note, that by The condemning Ʋnbelief, I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel: Where I suppose first, that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin. Secondly, And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace, which is not simply for sin as sin, but for one sort of sin in special, that is, the final rejection of the Remedy: And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument. The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake.