Baxter - BT763 B397 1658

004 this was none of Abrahams firft Julification,"for he waslull be- fore this ; but it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God, and a kind of fentential Declaration thereof, by the voice of the Angel. But a Jufification it was, and fo Tones calls it. Now let ushear your Replies. Treat. pag. 2 Z I . This cannot be a fetid Anfrer. I. ßecaufe the 4pofllefpeaketh generally of works in this defcription of Iu- ftification, though in other places hefometimesfaith [theworks of the Law]yet Abraham couldnot be Inftancedin for filch Works , &c.--- When We read the Holy ghoflfp4e generally of all Works , who are We that We fhould limit it tofume ? _- Tj their interpretation, the believer fhould be oppofedonly to forne kind of works andfaith, &c. Anftsa. I, The ordinaryf}rain of the Apoftles fpeech, being expretiive of the works of the Law; is Expoficory of the rett, i. Becaufe a few pafï'ages muff be ufually expounded by many. 2. And becaufe a few ( much m( re abundance or) limiting pafl°ages, mutt expound thofe where the reftri &ion is not ex- preffed. 2. Have not lever yielded toyou that all works are excluded from Juftifying as works ? but it follows not that therefore they are (as you may fay) excluded under any Notion whatfo- ever. 3. And why might not ,lbrah.arvs be inftanced in ? Your proof is none. 1. Is it not a good Argument Xegarive , t4braharrn was not ¡unified by works, therefore we are not ? And a good Argument toprove the A ltecedent : Becaufe he had no works that could juftifie : No nor thofe which were then trufted on toJultificatton. 2.Doth not 'Paul thew that he fpeaks ofthee, when he proveshis affertion, t. Becaufe Abraham was then in uncircumcifion , Rom. 4. to. ( what's that to Gofpel obedi- ence ?) 2. Becaufe the Lawwas long after the promife and was not thengiven, .real, 3..17.- 3. 1 maketh it all one to bejufttfied by works , and to be juttified by the Law ; as abun- dance of WagesPhew. A multitude of particular Texts do etprclly 1