(79) Come now to prove the foam of the Affirmative Propofiti- ons together fo far as they retolve the Queflion in hand,-/z. that works or actsof min have inch an Interell in our J uftifica- on, and are fo far conditions as is here aflrted. My firff proof is from thofe Texts of Scripture wh ich ex- -prefly fpeak of Jufl ficari era by fuch acts or works. If we are juftiàYd By our words and works, then are they no lets then conditions of .jollification. But we are jufl,fied By them. Er20.&c. The Confequence of the Major is plain, firif, In that the Prepofition';_ 73 r] loth fignifie no lets then the Intereft of Tome means : but thefe Works can be no means,but either a conditi- onor acaufe,which is more: Acaufe,the perlons that now I deal with, will not affi; m them to be : If they do, then they afcribe much more to them then to be a condition. Secon4ly, he Inte- reft of faith it feif is expreffed by no higher terms then [By, that is, = , ox J)1, or ts4, : and fo is the Intereft of thefe other acts. The Minor is exprefs, I . In Mat. I a. 3 6, 37.[For by thyword, thou [halt be jufified, and by thy words thou Jhalt be condemned] ( E' r , r : )that is , at the day of Judgement, in the great Juftifi ation. 2. Pm. 2.24. re fee then how that By Works è`Qy or ) aman rd jut,ft,d, and not by faith only (' ì sic s'X 45-E>>s µono') This fpeaks of Juftification in this life. When men argue againft Justification by our Words or works, I defire I.ro.underftand whether it be the words or the fenfe that they argueagaìnft if the.words,chen it is either againft the ufe of themfimply, as being falle or unmeet.or elfe againft unfealin'a ble ufe ofthem.Fnr the former they have no ground;for you fee it is the exprefs language ofChrift himfelf:andhisApoflle.And as to the later, I eafily grant that no °cripture phrafe fhould be un- feafon2biy ufed. But if it be not the words but the fenfe that they .blame, why then do they harp fo much on the words themfelves, and raife the moft of theodium from thence ? And what
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=