( I84) citesofgrace then I dare do. Fcr I fay that Chriít and all his im- pu :edRsghteoufnefs, ismade ours, and we pardoned and ¡uni- fied at firft without any works or obedience more then bare faith, (and what is precedent in its place or concomitant) and that bona opera fequuntur juflJfacaturn non pracedunt jugsfican- dum, in regardof our firfl ¡unification. I dare not fay, they are Antecedents or media ordnata.Where you add,What is that to you that awake the rightecu[nefs (1. the Covenant of grace to be made ours upon our godly werking. &c. I anfwer, i . I have fhewed it is as much as I fay,ifnot more,[r pon1 intending but a condition or medium ordinaturn., 2.1 never laid what you lay I maintain in phrafe or fenfe(iftheword[made] intend either efficiencyor any caufality, or the firít poifefíion of R ghteoufnefs. 3. You much ufe the harsh phrafeof : workjngl, as here [Godly working j as mine ; which t doubt whether ever I uttered or ufed ; And the term,[works] I little ufe, but in the explication of 7ames For I told you that I difclaim works in Paull fenfe, Rom. 4.4. which make the reward not of grace, but of debt. You add [If therefore you bad ('pent your Pelf to ¡her that faith loath no pe. caliar infirumentality in our ju /Jxfisatim but What other graces have, then you had hit the mark.] Anfon. I confefs Sir you nowcome to the point in difference. But do you not hereby confefs that I give no more to works then you, but only lets to faith ? Why then do you Rill harp upon the word [ works as if I did give more to them ? the taskyounow fet me is to prove that faith Both no more, and not that works do fo much : That faith is not an intlrument, and not that love or obedience are conditions. And to this' anfwer you : . I have in my book Paid fomewhat to prove faith no inftrument of ¡unifying, and you faid nothing againtt it. ;Why then fhould I aim at this mark ? 2. I think I have proved there that faith juftifiethpri- marily and properly as the condition of the Covenant, and but remotely as, ,af receiving j!etrficatio4, this which you call the in- firumentality, being but the very formal nature of thea&, and fo the gtsa f materia or its aptitude to the office of .P unifying. And becaufe I build much on this fuppofition, I put it in the Qeseries,which you judge impertinent. 3. Yet if you will un- de .ftand the -word injtrrstì ert laxely , I have not any where denyed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=