The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errors of Papists, Arminians,…The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errours of Papists, Arminians,…

¹Secondly, This is described from the adjunct, adherent to remission of sin, viz. blessedness. The Apostle, Rom. 4, allegeth this place to prove, That a man hath righteousness imputed to him without works, But the pertinency of the Apostles argument is disputed of: for how doth it from this place follow, that a man hath righteousness imputed to him without works? This is as if a man should argue, He is a rich man, because his debts are forgiven, which is a non sequitur, because they are two distinct things. This makes Piscator and Wotton, with others, to make justification to be nothing but remission of sins, and that imputation of righteousness, and remission of sins are the self same thing; a man being therefore accounted righteous because his sins are not imputed unto him. Hence they deny that the Scripture ever saith Christs righteousness is imputed unto us, although in some sense they grant, it may be said so, inasmuch as by his death for us, he purchased remission of sin, which is our righteousness. This is to be considered of, when we speak of the other part of justification, viz.. imputation of Christs righteousness. Although they that are for imputed righteousness, say, The Argument is good, which Paul useth, because imputing of righteousness is immediately contrary to the imputing of sin; and therefore Paul might argue righteousness imputed, from sin remitted, even as we truly argue, The night is not, therefore the day is, because darkness and light are immediate contraries, and the subject must necessarily have one of them.

¹Secondly, This is described from the adjunct, adherent to remission of sinne, viz. blessednesse. The Apostle, Rom. 4, alledgeth this place to prove, That a man hath righteousnesse imputed to him without works, But the pertinency of the Apostles argument is disputed of: for how doth it from this place follow, that a man hath righteousnesse imputed to him without works? This is as if a man should argue, He is a rich man, because his debts are forgiven, which is a non sequitur, because they are two distinct things. This makes Piscator and Wotton, with others, to make justification to be nothing but remission of sins, and that imputation of righteousnesse, and remission of sins are the self same thing; a man being therefore accounted righteous because his sins are not imputed unto him. Hence they deny that the Scripture ever saith Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us, although in some sense they grant, it may be said so, inasmuch as by his death for us, he purchased remission of sin, which is our righteousnesse. This is to be considered of, when we speak of the other part of justification, viz.. imputation of Christs righteousnesse. Although they that are for imputed righteousnesse, say, The Argument is good, which Paul useth, because imputing of righteousnesse is immediatly contrary to the imputing of sinne; and therefore Paul might argue righteousnesse imputed, from sinne remitted, even as we truly argue, The night is not, therefore the day is, because darknesse and light are immediate contraries, and the subject must necessarily have one of them.