A47599:76
The marrow of true justification, or, Justification without works containing the substance of two…
The marrow of true justification, or, Justification without works containing the substance of two sermons lately preached on Rom. 4:5 ... : wherein the nature of justification is opened, as it hath been formerly asserted by all sound Protestants, and the present prevailing errors against the said doctrine detected / by Benjamin Keach ...
London: printed for Dorman Newman, 1692
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
2. The second sort I shall mention are the Socinians, who deny the Deity of the Son of God; and from hence deny also the Satisfaction of Christ, because the latter depends upon the former: It was from the dignity and excellency of Christ's Person, he being God as well as Man, that his Sacrifice •ad such infinite value and worth in it, that by one single payment (as I may […] say) he made such a full compensation to the Law and Justice of God: But ••ey erring in those two grand Points of Christian Religion, run into the third, and deny the imputation of Christ's Personal righteousness to us in justification. And indeed it seems to me that this sort of Men assert that Justification of the Sinner, is nothing more than God's pardoning him freely by •is Mercy, and that only as a simple act of his own Mercy and Grace, without respect had to the Satisfaction made for our Sins by Jesus Christ, by which act of God's pardoning Grace they affirm the guilt of Sin that binds the Sinner •ver to punishment is taken off, and so he is acquitted and delivered from Eternal Wrath; but could this be admitted which they affirm, why should God •end his beloved Son into the World to be a Sacrifice for Sin? For could not God, without that Glorious Fruit of his infinite Goodness, have pardoned and acquitted us, and never have suffered his Son to have underwent such pain and •orrow for us, which indeed he did?
2. The second sort I shall mention are the Socinians, who deny the Deity of the Son of God; and from hence deny also the Satisfaction of Christ, because the latter depends upon the former: It was from the dignity and excellency of Christ's Person, he being God as well as Man, that his Sacrifice •ad such infinite value and worth in it, that by one single payment (as I may 〈…〉 say) he made such a full compensation to the Law and Justice of God: But ••ey erring in those two grand Points of Christian Religion, run into the •hird, and deny the imputation of Christ's Personal righteousness to us in •ustification. And indeed it seems to me that this sort of Men assert that Justification of the Sinner, is nothing more than God's pardoning him freely by is Mercy, and that only as a simple act of his own Mercy and Grace, without espect had to the Satisfaction made for our Sins by Jesus Christ, by which act of God's pardoning Grace they affirm the guilt of Sin that binds the Sinner ver to punishment is taken off, and so he is acquitted and delivered from Eternal Wrath; but could this be admitted which they affirm, why should God end his beloved Son into the World to be a Sacrifice for Sin? For could not God, without that Glorious Fruit of his infinite Goodness, have pardoned and acquitted us, and never have suffered his Son to have underwent such pain and orrow for us, which indeed he did?