Filter authors and titles

A37035:1057

A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…

Name: A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…
Author: James Durham

A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependence on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principal purposes and words contained in this treatise.

:1054p. 247

Yet, Fourthly, All this doth say nothing for Faith largely taken, as comprehending all Gospel-duties: for, though Faith strictly taken be necessary for having right to Christs Righteousness, or having it imputed to us; yet are not actual works so, by any means; but through the imputation of Christs Righteousness, we are first accepted, and then bring forth these good works; which showeth that they do not go before that imputation of Christs Righteousness, or our Justification, but that rather they follow thereupon. For, if we cannot do good works, till we be Sanctified, and if none be Sanctified, but such as are Justified, and these two cannot be separated; no not for an instant of time (for it cannot be said that a man is Sanctified, but not yet Justified, aut contra) Then it will follow, that a man is Justified before he hath actual works, (it is of such we debate, and not of habitual seminal holiness) for he may be, and is Sanctified before he can have them, much more ere he persevere in them. And so consequently, actual good works cannot concur to Justification as Faith doth, or be the condition thereof; But the former is true and clear: Therefore so is the latter also: which is the thing that was in Question. Lastly, we say, if Faith properly, and largely taken according to their meaning, (or yet strictly) be imputed to us for Righteousness, Then either Christs Righteousness is not imputed, but our Faith only, or Christs Righteousness and our Faith properly taken also; But neither can be said: not the first, to wit, that the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us, but Faith only, That I suppose is not intended: neither can the latter be said, viz. that Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness and Christ also: for then, Christ is either imputed for our total righteousness, and so Faith cometh not in, or, as a partial righteousness, and that is absurd. Again, either His Righteousness is imputed to us before we believe, (and so before our Faith can be imputed) which is false: for, that would make Christs Righteousness to be ours before we were in Covenant internally; Or, it is imputed to us after we believe, and so after our own Faith is imputed to us and accepted for Righteousness; But that cannot be; for then we would be righteous, before the imputation of Christs Righteousness; which is absurd:

Yet, Fourthly, All this doth say nothing for Faith largly taken, as comprehending all Gospel-duties: for, though Faith strictly taken be necessary for having right to Christs Righteousnesse, or having it imputed to us; yet are not actuall works so, by any means; but through the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse, we are first accepted, and then bring forth these good works; which sheweth that they do not go before that imputation of Christs Righteousnesse, or our Justification, but that rather they follow thereupon. For, if we cannot do good works, till we be Sanctified, and if none be Sanctified, but such as are Justified, and these two cannot be separated; no not for an instant of time (for it cannot be said that a man is Sanctified, but not yet Justified, aut contra) Then it will follow, that a man is Justified before he hath actuall works, (it is of such we debate, and not of habituall seminall holinesse) for he may be, and is Sanctified before he can have them, much more ere he persevere in them. And so consequently, actuall good works cannot concur to Justification as Faith doth, or be the condition thereof; But the former is true and clear: Therefore so is the latter also: which is the thing that was in Question. Lastly, we say, if Faith properly, and largely taken according to their meaning, (or yet strictly) be imputed to us for Righteousnesse, Then either Christs Righteousnesse is not imputed, but our Faith only, or Christs Righteousnesse and our Faith properly taken also; But neither can be said: not the first, to wit, that the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us, but Faith only, That I suppose is not intended: neither can the latter be said, viz. that Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness and Christ also: for then, Christ is either imputed for our totall righteousness, and so Faith cometh not in, or, as a partiall righteousness, and that is absurd. Again, either His Righteousness is imputed to us before we believe, (and so before our Faith can be imputed) which is false: for, that would make Christs Righteousness to be ours before we were in Covenant internally; Or, it is imputed to us after we believe, and so after our own Faith is imputed to us and accepted for Righteousness; But that cannot be; for then we would be righteous, before the imputation of Christs Righteousness; which is absurd:

:1055p. 247

or, lastly, both must be imputed together; which also cannot be: for, if both be imputed together properly, Then both in the same sense or kind of causality, or in diverse senses: the first cannot be said; for that would make both meritorious, which is disclaimed: if the last be said, then it must be so as the one is imputed to us for our legal-righteousness, to wit, Christs satisfaction, and the other as our Evangelic, to wit, Faith; But, 1. That is the thing already spoken to, and doth divide Christ and our Gospel-righteousness; Or, 2. It turneth to this, that Christ is the thing that satisfieth Justice, but Faith is the ground or mean by which we come to have title to that satisfaction; which is the thing that is granted, and we suppose is the thing that by some is intended: and is in sum, that, to which others give the name of the instrumental cause. And if so, there needeth not be contending for words: for, both are acknowledged, to wit, that by Christs Righteousness, only as the meritorious cause, we are justified, and that there is no right to plead Justification by that, except by Faith, or upon condition of believing, by which, actual right to Christ, and by Him Justification, is obtained.

or, lastly, both must be imputed together; which also cannot be: for, if both be imputed together properly, Then both in the same sense or kind of causality, or in diverse senses: the first cannot be said; for that would make both meritorious, which is disclaimed: if the last be said, then it must be so as the one is imputed to us for our legall-righteousness, to wit, Christs satisfaction, and the other as our Evangelick, to wit, Faith; But, 1. That is the thing already spoken to, and doth divide Christ and our Gospel-righteousness; Or, 2. It turneth to this, that Christ is the thing that satisfieth Justice, but Faith is the ground or mean by which we come to have title to that satisfaction; which is the thing that is granted, and we suppose is the thing that by some is intended: and is in sum, that, to which others give the name of the instrumentall cause. And if so, there needeth not be contending for words: for, both are acknowledged, to wit, that by Christs Righteousnesse, only as the meritorious cause, we are justified, and that there is no right to plead Justification by that, except by Faith, or upon condition of believing, by which, actuall right to Christ, and by Him Justification, is obtained.

:1056p. 247–248

Further, it cannot be said, that they are imputed jointly: for then, 1. Either that imputation must be an instantaneous act, at the first believing, or exercise of Faith; and so Justification must be an instantaneous act also; which they will not grant: because the Faith ⟨p. 248⟩that is imputed (according to them) is Faith and the exercise of holiness persevered in; for which cause, Justification to them is a continued act. 2. It must be instantaneous, but not imputed, till Faith and Holiness be persevered into; and by this, neither Christs Righteousness, nor Faith is imputed to the person, not can he be accounted in friendship with God, or to be in Christ, or righteous, till his life be closed: for, he cannot be accounted so, till he be justified; and he is not justified, till these be imputed to him for Righteousness: Or, 3. that imputation must be a continued act, from the first closing with Christ till the end. But how can that be? For, 1. It is hard to conceive the act of the imputation of our faith to be continued, but more hard to conceive the imputation of Christs Righteousness to be a continuing act: for, Christs Righteousness, at the first, is perfect, and it is to be imputed to the Believer; if therefore one may be called a Believer, it is to be imputed to him instantly. 2. Imputation being a judicial word and act, it supposeth an instant sentencing of such a righteousness to belong to such a person, as it were, and to be accepted for him: for, if he hath not perfect right, there is no legal imputation, (to say so;) but if it be perfect, then it is an instantaneous act. 3. If it be continued, then it is continued as if at first it were not a perfect imputation or perfectly imputed; But that were to say that it is not imputation: if it be continued as perfect, then it is supponed to be instantaneous, and past; and what was said for Justification, doth hold here. Indeed if the meaning be that the Gospel doth continue to impute Righteousness, even after Faith, till the Believer be in Heaven, and to account such a sinner just by virtue thereof, That is truth; But that speaketh the changed state of a sinner, upon the account of an imputation and justification already: so indeed, the word of the Gospel continueth still to pronounce Believers justified upon that account, and that imputation in its virtue never ceaseth;

Further, it cannot be said, that they are imputed joyntly: for then, 1. Either that imputation must be an instantaneous act, at the first believing, or exercise of Faith; and so Justification must be an instantaneous act also; which they will not grant: because the Faith

:1057p. 248

But it cannot be said that the Word doth continue to justify, as justifying denoteth the changing of a persons state, from a state of enmity to a state of friendship: even as an absolved Rebel, or Debtor, once pronounced free by virtue of such a persons intercession, or Cautioners payment, doth continue to be declared free, that is, his absolution continueth in force; but properly, the act of freedom, or absolving, doth not continue, but is instantaneous upon the production of such rights.

But it cannot be said that the Word doth continue to justifie, as justifying denoteth the changing of a persons state, from a state of enimitie to a state of friendship: even as an absolved Rebel, or Debtor, once pronounced free by vertue of such a persons intercession, or Cautioners payment, doth continue to be declared free, that is, his absolution continueth in force; but properly, the act of freedom, or absolving, doth not continue, but is instantaneous upon the production of such rights.

:1058p. 248

To shut up this, we may illustrate the way of Justification, which is more clearly expressed in the Gospel under these expressions, believe and thou shall be saved, by comparing it with the more obscure and typical expressions used under the Law: for, it is certain the substance is the same; and what is our legal-righteousness, was theirs; and what was their evangelic-righteousness, is ours also. Now, the terms or expressions of the Old Testament run thus, Levit. 4. vers. 3, 4, &c. When a man sinneth, he shall bring his offering, &c. and he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him, &c. In which words there is an express condescending upon the Lords side to propose something as a righteousness for a sinner, which was to be accepted for him; yet, I suppose, no Christian will say, that it was the external sacrifice itself, that was to be accepted for such, nor that it was the act of the Faith of the offerer alone, that was so accepted: for then there needed no sacrifice, but it behoved to be the thing typified by that sacrifice, to wit, the Sacrifice of Christ, looked to, apprehended and pleaded by the Faith of the offerer, that was so accepted. Yet, the external sacrifices in the Old, are as expressly said to be accepted for a sinners Justification, or as an atonement for him, as Faith is said to be accounted for righteousness in the New: and as it cannot be said, that by virtue of Christs satisfaction, or the Covenant with him, it was procured that such performances and sacrifices should be accepted of themselves, as the persons immediate evangelic-righteousness, though their ceremonial Law was their Gospel; So it cannot be said, that there is any such bargain concerning Faith in the New Testament; but that Christ apprehended by Faith, is the Righteousness both under the Old and New Testament: which is the thing we intend.

To shut up this, we may illustrate the way of Justification, which is more clearly expressed in the Gospel under these expressions, believe and thou shall be saved, by comparing it with the more obscure and typicall expressions used under the Law: for, it is certain the substance is the same; and what is our legall-righteousnesse, was theirs; and what was their evangelick-righteousnesse, is ours also. Now, the terms or expressions of the Old Testament run thus, Levit. 4. vers. 3, 4, &c. When a man sinneth, he shall bring his offering, &c. and he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him, &c. In which words there is an expresse condescending upon the Lords side to propose something as a righteousnesse for a sinner, which was to be accepted for him; yet, I suppose, no Christian will say, that it was the external sacrifice itself, that was to be accepted for such, nor that it was the act of the Faith of the offerer alone, that was so accepted: for then there needed no sacrifice, but it behoved to be the thing typified by that sacrifice, to wit, the Sacrifice of Christ, looked to, apprehended and pleded by the Faith of the offerer, that was so accepted. Yet, the external sacrifices in the Old, are as expresly said to be accepted for a sinners Justification, or as an atonement for him, as Faith is said to be accounted for righteousnesse in the New: and as it cannot be said, that by vertue of Christs satisfaction, or the Covenant with him, it was procured that such performances and sacrifices should be accepted of themselves, as the persons immediat evangelick-righteousnesse, though their ceremonial Law was their Gospel; So it cannot be said, that there is any such bargain concerning Faith in the New Testament; but that Christ apprehended by Faith, is the Righteousnesse both under the Old and New Testament: which is the thing we intend.

:1059p. 248

Concerning Repentance.

:1060p. 248–249

Repentance is much called-for in these Epistles, and that with peremptory certification of coming wrath, if the same prevent it not, as we may see, Chap. 2. vers. 5. in the Epistle to these of Ephesus, who look like a people real in the Work of God, though ⟨p. 249⟩under some decay: It is also called-for from Pergamos, vers. 16. Yea Jezebel hath a door of mercy opened to her, upon supposition of Repentance, vers. 21, 22. This also is required of Sardis, Chap. 3. vers. 3. and of Laodicea, vers. 21. For clearing of which places, and other truths concerning Repentance, it may be enquired, once for all, 1. If Repentance be simply necessary for preventing of wrath and obtaining of the pardon of sin? 2. In what respect it is necessary, and how it doth concur thereto? 3. If to a Believers recovery after his sin, the exercise of Repentance be necessary? 4. If so, what kind of Repentance?

REpentance is much called-for in these Epistles, and that with peremptory certification of coming wrath, if the same prevent it not, as we may see, Chap. 2. vers. 5. in the Epistle to these of Ephesus, who look like a people real in the Work of God, though ⟨p. 249⟩under some decay: It is also called-for from Pergamos, vers. 16. Yea Iezebel hath a door of mercy opened to her, upon supposition of Repentance, vers. 21, 22. This also is required of Sardis, Chap. 3. vers. 3. and of Laodicea, vers. 21. For clearing of which places, and other truths concerning Repentance, it may be enquired, once for all, 1. If Repentance be simplie necessary for preventing of wrath and obtaining of the pardon of sin? 2. In what respect it is necessary, and how it doth concur thereto? 3. If to a Believers recovery after his sin, the exercise of Repentance be necessary? 4. If so, what kind of Repentance?

:1061p. 249

For understanding of all, we would premit, that Repentance may fall under a threefold consideration, 1. It may be considered as somewhat previous in time to the exercise of Faith and Pardon of sin. This is properly legal-sorrow, and is a common work of the Spirit, which may be in one, whose sins will never be pardoned: it is therefore not of it self gracious, although the Lord may sometimes make use thereof, for a sinners humbling and wakening before his conversion. This is not the Repentance that is pressed here.

For understanding of all, we would premit, that Repentance may fall under a threefold consideration, 1. It may be considered as somewhat previous in time to the exercise of Faith and Pardon of sin. This is properly legall-sorrow, and is a common work of the Spirit, which may be in one, whose sins will never be pardoned: it is therefore not of it self gracious, although the Lord may sometimes make use thereof, for a sinners humbling and wakening before his conversion. This is not the Repentance that is pressed here.

:1062p. 249¶2

2. It may be considered, as it doth not only follow pardon, but also the intimation thereof; so it is a melting of heart, and a self-loathing that floweth from felt love, as the promise of the Covenant is, Ezek. 16.63 . and 36.31. This is the melting of heart, spoken of in that woman, Luke 7. Who loved much, because much was forgiven her, vers. 47. Neither is this that which is principally intended here.

:1063p. 249¶3

3. We may consider Repentance as a work of sanctifying Grace, rising from the sense of by-past sin, and hope of future mercy, whereby the heart is both affected with indignation in respect of what is past, and warmed with desire and love in respect of what it expecteth, and so differeth from the first, which ariseth from apprehended future wrath; and from the second, which floweth from self-received mercy. This Repentance goeth alongst with Faith and the exercise thereof, for the attaining of the hoped-for remission, with a through impression of the freeness thereof in respect of the persons felt sinfulness. That is the sorrow after a godly manner, which is spoken of, 2 Cor. 7.11. and it is that which is principally intended here, and in other places where Repentance is required in order to remission of sin.

3. We may consider Repentance as a work of sanctifying Grace, rising from the sense of by-past sin, and hope of future mercy, whereby the heart is both affected with indignation in respect of what is past, and warmed with desire and love in respect of what it expecteth, and so differeth from the first, which ariseth from apprehended future wrath; and from the second, which floweth from self-received mercy. This Repentance goeth alongst with Faith and the exercise thereof, for the attaining of the hoped-for remission, with a through impression of the freenesse thereof in respect of the persons felt sinfulnesse. That is the sorrow after a godly manner, which is spoken of, 2 Cor. 7.11. and it is that which is principally intended here, and in other places where Repentance is required in order to remission of sin.

:1064p. 249

In Answer then to the first Question, We say, that Repentance, understood in the last sense, is simply necessary for the obtaining of the pardon of sin, so that without it no unreconciled sinner can expect peace with God: which we thus make out, 1. from several places of Scripture, and first, by these places where the command of Repentance is prefixed to the obtaining of pardon, and preventing of wrath; and that by way of certification, that if it be not, remission is not to be expected, as Acts 3.19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out: which doth imply, that without this, the blotting out of sin is not to be expected: otherwise the proposing of the blotting out of sin, could be no great motive to press the exercise thereof; which is the Apostles scope: as also, Acts 2.38. Acts 8.22. and so in all other places, where Repentance is pressed as a mids for attaining of that end.

In Answer then to the first Question, We say, that Repentance, understood in the last sense, is simply necessary for the obtaining of the pardon of sin, so that without it no unreconciled sinner can expect peace with God: which we thus make out, 1. from severall places of Scripture, and first, by these places where the command of Repentance is prefixed to the obtaining of pardon, and preventing of wrath; and that by way of certification, that if it be not, remission is not to be expected, as Acts 3.19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out: which doth imply, that without this, the blotting out of sin is not to be expected: otherwise the proposing of the blotting out of sin, could be no great motive to presse the exercise thereof; which is the Apostles scope: as also, Acts 2.38. Acts 8.22. and so in all other places, where Repentance is pressed as a mids for attaining of that end.

:1065p. 249¶2

2. We may add these places where the connection between Repentance and Pardon is more peremptorily enforced, as Luke 13.2, 3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish: than which nothing can be more clear; and Prov. 28.13. He that covereth sin, shall not prosper: but he that confesseth and forsaketh (which is, upon the matter, all one with Repentance) shall find mercy.

2. We may adde these places where the connexion between Repentance and Pardon is more peremptorily enforced, as Luke 13.2, 3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish: than which nothing can be more clear; and Prov. 28.13. He that covereth sin, shall not prosper: but he that confesseth and forsaketh (which is, upon the matter, all one with Repentance) shall find mercy.

:1066p. 249¶3

3. It is confirmed from such places as ground the cause of peoples ruin upon their not repenting, as in Levit. 26. Amos 4. Ezek. 18. Ra•el. 16, &c. and many such places, is clear, where this, they repented not, is given as the cause of Gods continued quarrel against them.

3. It is confirmed from such places as ground the cause of peoples ruine upon their not repenting, as in Levit. 26. Amos 4. Ezek. 18. Ra•el. 16, &c. and many such places, is clear, where this, they repented not, is given as the cause of Gods continued quarrell against them.

:1067p. 249

All these considerations we will find in these Epistles, where the Lord doth not only require the exercise of Repentance by command; but doth threaten judgement, except Repentance prevent, Chap. 2. vers. 5, 16, and 22. and it is particularly marked to be the ground of His continued controversy with Jezebel, vers. 21. that she did not repent, and so Chap. 3.21.

All these considerations we will find in these Epistles, where the Lord doth not only require the exercise of Repentance by command; but doth threaten judgement, except Repentance prevent, Chap. 2. vers. 5, 16, and 22. and it is particularly marked to be the ground of His continued controversie with Iezebel, vers. 21. that she did not repent, and so Chap. 3.21.

:1068p. 249–250

In the second place, this may be made out, if we consider the promises of Gods Covenant, in which remission of sins is subjoined to the exercise of Repentance, as necessarily antecedent; so that without it there is no access to any promise of pardon. See, first, Levit. 26.40, 41, 42. If they shall confess their iniquity, then will I remember my Covenant: which doth presuppose confession, and the exercise of Repentance, and the ⟨p. 250⟩humbling of the heart, to go before the application of the Covenant. And, left it should be thought a legal-covenant, it is expressly said to be the Covenant with Isaac and Abraham, which cannot be denied to be of Grace. The like also may be gathered from the 1 King. 8.47. where Solomon expressly Covenanteth for pardon on these terms: and, 2 Chron. 7.13. the Lord doth expressly assent to these articles. Yet this is a Covenant of Grace, being a Covenant for obtaining of pardon through Faith in Christ Jesus, whereof praying toward the Temple and Mercy-seat, was a type: and it is expressly said to be, upon the matter, Gods Covenant with David: which cannot be denied to be the same Covenant of Grace with that comprehended in the Gospel, seeing the mercies sworn to the Fathers Abraham and David, are the same mercies that are now conferred upon Believers. And, although there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham and David in respect of their own seed, and some other things; yet these peculiar promises were not the grounds of their own Justification, much less are they to be pleaded by any other for that end. Now, the Covenants end, as it holdeth forth remission, and its essential promises, must be common to all. It may be confirmed also from 1 Joh. 1.9. If we confess our sins, God is faithful to pardon, &c. which supposeth that there is no engagement (to speak so) upon Gods faithfulness to pardon any sinner but him who repenteth.

In the second place, this may be made out, if we consider the promises of Gods Covenant, in which remission of sins is subjoyned to the exercise of Repentance, as necessarily antecedent; so that without it there is no accesse to any promise of pardon. See, first,

:1069p. 250

In the third and last place, the necessity of Repentance may be confirmed, if we consider the qualifications of such persons as God pronounceth pardon unto in His Word; it is not to sinners, as sinners simply, but to lost sinners, (that is, lost in their own eyes) such as are weary and loadened, such as are broken in heart, grieved, wounded, &c. as appeareth from Isa. 61.1, 2. and else where. All which qualifications show the necessity of Repentance in a person that may expect pardon. It is true both Repentance and Remission are Christs gifts; but in this method, he giveth first Repentance, and then Remission, Acts 5.31. And though he came to call sinners; yet doth he call them to Repentance, as that which maketh way for their getting good of Him.

In the third and last place, the necessity of Repentance may be confirmed, if we consider the qualifications of such persons as God pronounceth pardon unto in His Word; it is not to sinners, as sinners simplie, but to lost sinners, (that is, lost in their own eyes) such as are weary and loadened, such as are broken in heart, grieved, wounded, &c. as appeareth from Isa. 61.1, 2. and else where. All which qualifications shew the necessity of Repentance in a person that may expect pardon. It is true both Repentance and Remission are Christs gifts; but in this method, he giveth first Repentance, and then Remission, Acts 5.31. And though he came to call sinners; yet doth he call them to Repentance, as that which maketh way for their getting good of Him.

Position

Cited: :1057
On this page: :1054–1069
Section: :1004–1058
Whole work: 3,503 passages

Cite

James Durham, A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the… (Edinburgh, 1658), lect. 3, p. 248. EEBO-TCP A37035.

Or select words in any passage to make an image of them.

The book

Title as printed: A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependence on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principal purposes and words contained in this treatise.A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependance on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithfull servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principall purposes and words contained in this treatise.
Author: James Durham 1622–1658
Place: Edinburgh
Printer: Christopher Higgins
Year: 1658
Size: [8], 787, [17] p.
Words: 683,470
Catalogue: Wing D2805 · ESTC R216058
Text: EEBO-TCP A37035

Passages: 3,503
Sections: 149

Title page

The author

James Durham 1622–1658

PuritansScotland

Minister in Glasgow.

Transcription key

•: an illegible letter
〈…〉: illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉: Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪: illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩: a page break in the printed book

that is imputed (according to them) is Faith and the exercise of holinesse persevered in; for which cause, Justification to them is a continued act. 2. It must be instantaneous, but not imputed, till Faith and Holinesse be persevered into; and by this, neither Christs Righteousnesse, nor Faith is imputed to the person, not can he be accounted in friendship with God, or to be in Christ, or righteous, till his life be closed: for, he cannot be accounted so, till he be justified; and he is not justified, till these be imputed to him for Righteousnesse: Or, 3. that imputation must be a continued act, from the first closing with Christ till the end. But how can that be? For, 1. It is hard to conceive the act of the imputation of our faith to be continued, but more hard to conceive the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse to be a continuing act: for, Christs Righteousnesse, at the first, is perfect, and it is to be imputed to the Believer; if therefore one may be called a Believer, it is to be imputed to him instantly. 2. Imputation being a judiciall word and act, it supponeth an instant sentencing of such a righteousnesse to belong to such a person, as it were, and to be accepted for him: for, if he hath not perfect right, there is no legall imputation, (to say so;) but if it be perfect, then it is an instantaneous act. 3. If it be continued, then it is continued as if at first it were not a perfect imputation or perfectly imputed; But that were to say that it is not imputation: if it be continued as perfect, then it is supponed to be instantaneous, and past; and what was said for Justification, doth hold here. Indeed if the meaning be that the Gospel doth continue to impute Righteousnesse, even after Faith, till the Believer be in Heaven, and to account such a sinner just by vertue thereof, That is truth; But that speaketh the changed state of a sinner, upon the account of an imputation and justification already: so indeed, the word of the Gospel continueth still to pronounce Believers justified upon that account, and that imputation in its vertue never ceaseth;

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

Concerning Repentance.