C H A P. 5. What rvorhs are excluded is yu fli ftcattofr. 479 works of the Law. Rom. 9: 31, 32.: And this of neceffity mull have been mixed with much imperfeétion : And yet the Apofile plainly fait h in the pla- ce cited, that they did not attaine to a Righteoufnefs , nor to the Law of Righteoufnefs, becaufe they fought it not by faith , but as it were by the works of the L;w , fo that feeking after Righteoufnefs asit were by the works of the Law , is oppolite to a feeking of it by Faith. And againe Rpm. 10: 3. they went about to eitablish their own Righteoufnefs ,. and did not fubtnit then:felves unto the Righteoufnefs of God ; which twoare oppofit e&in- confiltent ; And this their own Righteoufnefs, was but an impeded Righ- teoufnefs , which they were labouring to caute fland, 5 -near, I4. We cannot imagine , that when the Apoftle did exclude his own Rigbteoufnefs , and defired not to be found therein , he only excluded , that which was nor; 8t defired not to be found in that , whichte had not , and which he knew he had not , to wit, a perfect finlefs obedience. Rpm. 7: 24.. I.Tim. r: 13, 15. He confeffed he had been a blafphemer , and the chiefe of !inners, and fo was far from imagineing ; that his obedience was per- fed & finlefs. This then could not be theRighteoufnefs, whereof he fpea- keth Phil. 3: 9. bot his imperfeEt Righteoufnefs, being that only which he could call his owne , is that only , which he defird not to be found in , in the day of his appearing before his judge, in order to his juiti- ication, 15. If Paul had difputed only againf perfect obedience & had yeelded ju. flification by impel fed obedience. What ground was there for that obje- étion. R. m. 6: r. Shall we continue in fin, that grace may abound: feing juftifi.- cation by imperfect obedience doth of it felf engadge to all endeavoure afcer obedience , & againft the allottzance of fin 16. And the Apoftles anfwere to this objes`tionmay fournish us with an- other Argument againft this ; for if Paul had allowed of, or pleaded for jultifìcation by our imperfect works , he had ufed this, at !call, as oneargu.- ment to perfwade unto an ablleaning from fin , by faying, there is no juftifi,- cation but by endeavouring after obedience; But we hear of nofuch think in all the Apoltles Arguments, whereby he preffeth unto holinefs &obe- dience; whether there , or elfewhere. 17. We are not juflifi.ed by works done afterFaith & Regeneration as was proved before. Therefore we are not juflified by imperf :& works ; for worksafterfaithareimperfc&, & again , they cannot but be foe as pre, fappoftng fin & guilt-going before. There is yet another Evafton, wherewith fornefatisfie themfelves; for they fay, that when Paul faith, we are not juflified by the works of the. Law , by thefeiworks , he meaneth only outward works of the Law , performed without an inward Principle of Grace, of faith, or fear or Love of God. But we need not infift in the discovery of the vanity of this Eva.fion , having before at large proved , that the works , whereof Paul fpe..aketh , ate not works done before Faith & Regeneration ; For all there works , that ate done be- fore Faith & Regeneration, are done without any inward Principle o£Grace,- & are only outward works,fuch asHeathens may perCortne : a -few reafons wiliferve hete.: as Whets 6 tif
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=