Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

The Minor is express, 1. Mat. 12.36, 37. [For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned]. ([Greek or Hebrew]:) that is, at the day of Judgement, in the great Justification. 2. Jam. 2.24. ye see then how that By Works ([Greek or Hebrew]) a man is justified, and not by faith only ([Greek or Hebrew]) This speaks of Justification in this life.

The Minor is express, 1. Mat. 12.36, 37. [For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned]. (〈non-Latin alphabet〉:) that is, at the day of Judgement, in the great Justification. 2. Jam. 2.24. ye see then how that By Works (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) a man is justified, and not by faith only (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) This speaks of Justification in this life.

When men argue against Justification by our words or works, I desire 1. to understand whether it be the words or the sense that they argue against. If the words, then it is either against the use of them simply, as being false or unmeet: or else against unseasonable use of them. For the former they have no ground; for you see it is the express language of Christ himself and his Apostle. And as to the later, I easily grant that no Scripture phrase should be unseasonably used. But if it be not the words but the sense that they blame, why then do they harp so much on the words themselves, and raise the most of the odium from thence? And ⟨p. 80⟩what is the unwarrantable sense? I know not of any lower sense that they can put on these words, then what importeth the Interest of a condition: As for that of