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

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 Mat. 12. they say little to it. And as to that of James, they interpret it differently among themselves. First, Some of them say that James speaks of Justification before men, and others say he speaks of Justification before God. The former are easily confuted (as they restrain the text to that alone) by the express words of the Text. For, first, ver. 23. it expressly speaks of Righteousness by divine Imputation, and of Gods accepting Abraham into friendship. Secondly, The text speaks of that Justification which concurreth with Salvation, ver. 14. [can faith save him?] Thirdly, It speaks of the Death of faith without works, as to Profiting, ver. 16.17. which is different from manifestation. Fourthly, It instanceth in the secret act of Rahab, and such an act of Abraham, as we read of no men that then justified him for, nay they were liker to condemn him. Fifthly, Men may justify an Hypocrite as soon as the truly godly, and can but conjecture at the faith by the works. But the scope of the text shows that it is no such frivolous justification that is here meant.

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