Brown - BS2685 B86 1695

70 3lufiif. through Imput. of Ch.Right. cleared from the N.T. C H A P. 8. 4. He faith. The Law maybe faid to be efiablished by faith in as much as the threatningsof the Lati' are by the dodrine of faith declared not to be in vaine, Chrifi's fi,fferingsbeing a full confirmation of the force , efficacy and authority of the Curfe of the Lam. An f. This is fo fargood : But why shall not aifo His obe- dience be a full confirmation of the force efficacy & authority of the com- manding power of theLaw ? This being principally intended inthe Law, belongeth as much , aft leaft , .to the eftablishment thereof, as the Sanetíon. We affert not the one with an excluficn of the other ; but affert the efta- blishment of both by faith : and thus the Law is by faith fully eftablishied, in all its parts & demands. 5. He faith. The bell Interpretation is, that by the Law here is meant that part of the Old Teß. which comprehendeth the witting of Mofes , with thole other books , which together with the writtings of the Prophets , make up she entire body thereof, as it was ufed vers 2i. and in this fenfe, the Law may moll properly be faid to be eflablished by Paul teaching the Doi-trine of faith , becaufe it is fully con- fonant der agreable to thole things , that are written there. Anf. But this fenfe is not the fame with the fenfe of the word Law v. zi. for the Law there is men- tioned, as diftinct from the Prophets. And if that part of the Old. Teß. be meaned, which is different from the book of the Prophets , what ground was thereto think,that the doctrine of faith did more feem to cross what was con ained in the one , than what was contained in the other ? efpecially feing he had faid v.zi.that the Righteoufnefs, he !poke of, waswitneffed both by the Law and the Prophets. And if both should be here underftood , feing the Apofile did fully enough declare his mind as to that v.zz.what ground is there to think, that he was called to remove that objection here againe ? And what imaginable colour can be from any thing that the Apoftle (poke, in the foregoing words, for fuch an objection , as this ? This manifefily is no- thing but a groundlefs invention of men , that know not elfe what to fay. Thirdly R,pm.4: 6. where mention is made of a Righteoufnefs imputed without works, & that as the ground of a mans bleffednefs & juftification for it is of the bleffednefs of juitification that the Apoftle is there (peaking, and he showeth , that this is attained, not by the works of the Law , but by an imputed Righteoufnefs which can be none elfe, thatthe Righte- oufnefs of God, fpoken of in the preceeding Chapter; or of Chrift , who wrought the Redemption , and was let forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. Againft this He excepteth pag. rq.o, faying t. Ifine'will needs here under - hand a pofitive legal RZighteou fnefs, it is much more probable , He should meane a Righteoufnefs confifling of fach , or of fuch an obedience to the Law , as bath an abfolute da perfeîtagreablenefs to every mans condition dT calling refpetlively'than thef1ighteoufnefs of Chrifl, which bath no fuch property in it. Anf. The Apoftle tpeaketh ofa Righteoufnefs, and ofa Righteoufnefs imputed, and all Righ- teoufnefs muff confift in obedience to the Law, and in full conformity the- reto: and Icing it is faid to be imputed , and not by our works, it muff of neceflity follow , that the Apoftle is to be underilood, asfpeaking of the Surety -righteoufnefs of Chritt. And if the Righteoufnefs of Chritt , who gave