c x A P. 5. What works are excluded in 7u ffi fication. 77 fell obedience to the Law. This is the Evafion of the Socinianr, who fay, the Apoftle fpeaketh of the works of the Law , to shew , that he fpeaketh of thole works, which are enjoined by the Law, to wit of perpetual & perfect obedience required by the Law : And théyfay, that by Faith he meaneth that confidence & obedience, which everyone is able toperforme, and which is endeavoured after & fludied. That this cannot be the meaning of the Apoflles conclufion, we fuppofe will be clear from thefe.Conf,derations. I. This fuppofeth , that they againft whom the Aponte is here ifpu- Ling, were of opinion , that men could yet be juflified, & muft be julli- fied by perfect obedience to the Moral 'Law : But it is hardly imaginable., that men in their wits did ever fo dreamt , or think , that they were inno- cent, & could expeét to be juflified before God by their own perfection or perfect obedience to the Law in all points: for this were to fay , they never had finned : i. When the Aponte-, in the beginning of his difput , in his Epiftle to the 'Romani proveth, that all have finned ,:& are guilty before God , both jew & Gentile he thence inferreth , that by the works of the Law , no,flesh shall be juftified in God's fight 'tom. 3: io. Whereby he giveth us to underfland , that there is no juflification by the Law , unlefs it be perfectly keeped : And becaufe no meer man did ever keep it perfectly , or can fo keep it; therefore he concludeth that no man can be ;unified thereby. There is no juflifica. tion by works , unlefs the works be peifecl; &confequently that fuch as ex- pet;uftification thereby , be wholly finlefs. 3. If the Aponte had fo difputed againft juftification by perfect works , as to have granted , or eftablished ;uflification by imperfect works ; he needed not have ufed any moe arguments to that end , than what was mentioned & cleared_kom..a. & 2. & in the beginning of the 3. Chapter : for his evincing that all had finned & come short of the Glory of God , had been fufiicient to this end, without the addition of any one argument more , feing it is impof- fible, that fìnnerS can be perfect obeyers. And we mull not think, that all the Apofiles further argueings are meerly fuperfluous for this would refleì upon the Spirit of God , who acted Paul in this. ' 4. How Itrange is it to imagine, that the Apoftle should difput againft perfect works , that he might ettablish.imperfet`l works in the matter of ju- flification : & to think that the Apoftle is proving, that w.: are not juftified by the perfect works of the Law, but by the imperfect works thereof; that is, we are not juftified by fuch works , as keep a conformity with the Law , but by fuch works , as are violations of the Law; as all works are, which are not conforme thereunto, in all points ? 5. Imperfect works, as to the ground of juftification, are not that'Righ- teoufnefs of God without the Law , & which (is by Faith of Jefus Chrrtl, _but oppofite theteunto, and incontinent therewith, as well as perfet works: for as h.e, that perfectly keepeth the Taw, needeth not another 'Itighteoufnefs, in order to his ;uftification.; fo neither needeth he_, who Oath an imperfect `obedience if that be made the formal objeaive & meri- ln 2. tom.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=