Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sense [sic] sound Protestants…Of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers in what sence [sic] sound Protestants…

Because we make Good-Works necessary to the First Justification, which unless equivocally spoken, is false; and because the Protestants rank them with Inherent Holiness, as we do]. What greater advantage will they desire against us, than to choose us such Advocates? And to show the World that even where their keenest Adversaries condemn them, and draw Men from them, they do but justify them? Who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of such passages to draw any to Popery? It is my assurance, that such Over-doing, is Undoing; and that mistaken Accusations of the Papists greatly advantage them against us, which maketh me the more against such Dealing; besides the sinfulness, of pretending that any differences among Christians, are greater than indeed they are. But may not I think that you take the word [Justification] here in the Protestant Sense, and not in the Papists, when you say that they rank Good-work's-necessity as stretched to the First Justification? No sure: For, 1. Protestants use not to distinguish of a First and Second Justification, which Papists do, but of Justification as Begun, Continued, and Consummate. 2. If it were so, it were not true: For the First Justification in the Protestant Sense, is our first right to Impunity and Life Eternal, freely given to Believers, for the Merits of Christs perfect Righteousness and Satisfaction. And Papists do not make Good-works (unless Equivocally so called) necessary to this; but as a Fruit to follow it. ⟨p. 35⟩As for Remission of Sin, I have else-where proved, 1. That most commonly by that word the Papists mean nothing, but that which we call Mortification, or Putting away, or destroying the Sin it self, as to the habit and ceasing the Act. 2. That most of them are not resolved, where the Remission of the Punishment (which Protestants call Remission of Sin, or Forgiveness) shall be placed: They differ not much as to its Time, but whether it be to be called any part of Justification: Some say, yea; some make it a distinct thing. Most describe Justification by it self, as consisting in our Remission of, or Deliverance from Sin it self, and the infused habit of Love or Righteousness (all which we call Sanctification), and the forgiveness of the Penalty by it self, not meddling with the Question, whether the latter be any part of the former; so much are they at a loss in the Notional part among themselves.

Because we make Good-Works necessary to the First Justification, which unless equivocally spoken, is false; and because the Protestants rank them with Inherent Holiness, as we do]. What greater advantage will they desire against us, than to choose us such Advocates? And to shew the World that even where their keenest Adversaries condemn them, and draw Men from them, they do but justifie them? Who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of such passages to draw any to Popery? It is my assurance, that such Over-doing, is Ʋndoing; and that mistaken Accusations of the Papists greatly advantage them against us, which maketh me the more against such Dealing; besides the sinfulness, of pretending that any differences among Christians, are greater than indeed they are. But may not I think that you take the word [Justification] here in the Protestant Sense, and not in the Papists, when you say that they rank Good-work's-necessity as stretcht to the First Justification? No sure: For, 1. Protestants use not to distinguish of a First and Second Justification, which Papists do, but of Justification as Begun, Continued, and Consummate. 2. If it were so, it were not true: For the First Justification in the Protestant Sense, is our first right to Impuniy and Life Eternal, freely given to Believers, for the Merits of Christs perfect Righteousness and Satisfaction. And Papists do not make Good-works (unless Equivocally so called) necessary to this; but as a Fruit to follow it.