2. You object [Gospel-Precepts are many, if not all, the same with the moral Law: if justified then by obedience to them; are we not justified by the works of the Law? &c. Answer. 1. James yields the whole. 2. If you speak of our Justification at first, by which, of guilty and liable to condemnation, we become recti in curia, or are acquit, I then yield all that you seek here, viz. that we are not justified by works. 3. This objection is grounded on your forementioned mistake of my meaning, as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works. 4. We are not justified by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt, which are the works that Paul speaks of. 5. That which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue, taken Division, without the sanction, viz: the Promise or the Commination, is not the Law, but one part of the Law: and the other part, viz. the sanction adjoined, if diversified, makes it two distinct Laws, though the Duty commanded be the same. The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam, is not the same with that which should command a sick man to drink some for a cure. 6. That our Justification is continued, on condition of our sincere obedience, added to our faith, I maintain with James. 7. Will you answer your own objection, and you tell me what to answer: Faith is a duty of the moral Law: if we are justified by faith, then we are justified by a work of the Law. I know you will not evade as those that say, Faith is not a work, but a Passion: nor as those that say, we are justified by it not as a work; but as an Instrument: for I have heard you disclaim that. If you say it is not as a work, but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end, then you say as I do, both of faith, and secondarily of works. For what Divine denieth works to be a condition of Salvation, or of the final Justification? or of our present Justification as continued, vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam recaptam, as Conr. Bergius saith; I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured ⟨p. 350⟩on; but lately an acute Disputant (with me) maintains, that faith is not conditio moralis, vel ex voluntate constituentis, but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei.
2. You object [Gospel-Precepts are many, if not all, the same with the moral Law: if justified then by obedience to them; are we not justified by the works of the Law? &c. Answer. 1. James yields the whole. 2. If you speak of our Justification at first, by which, of guilty and lyable to condemnation, we become recti in curia, or are acquit, I then yield all that you seek here, viz. that we are not justified by works. 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned mistake of my meaning, as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works. 4. We are not justified by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt, which are the works that Paul speaks of. 5. That which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue, taken Division, without the sanction, viz: the Promise or the Commination, is not the Law, but one part of the Law: and the other part, viz. the sanction adjoined, if diversified, makes it two distinct Laws, though the Duty commanded be the same. The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam, is not the same with that which should command a sick man to drink some for a cure. 6. That our Justification is continued, on condition of our sincere obedience, added to our faith, I maintain with James. 7. Will you answer your own objection, and you tell me what to answer: Faith is a duty of the moral Law: if we are justified by faith, then we are justified by a work of the Law. I know you will not evade as those that say, Faith is not a work, but a Passion: nor as those that say, we are justified by it not as a work; but as an Instrument: for I have heard you disclaim that. If you say it is not as a work, but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end, then you say as I do, both of faith, and secondarily of works. For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation, or of the final Justification? or of our present Justification as continued, vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam recaptam, as Conr. Bergius saith; I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured ⟨p. 350⟩on; but lately an acute Disputant (with me) maintains, that faith is not conditio moralis, vel ex voluntate constituentis, but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei.
