A26974:458
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…
Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1658
Whether Works are a Condition of Justification? And so whether we a… › Part
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Answ. 1. The ordinary strain of the Apostles speech, being expressive of the works of the Law, is Expository of the rest, 1. Because a few passages must be usually expounded by many. 2. And because a few (much more abundance of) limiting passages, must expound those where the restriction is not expressed.
2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Justifying as works? but it follows not that therefore they are (as you may say) excluded under any Notion whatsoever.
3. And why might not Abraham be instanced in? Your proof is none. 1. Is it not a good Argument Negative, Abraham was not justified by works, therefore we are not? And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent: Because he had no works that could justify: No nor those which were then trusted on to Justification. 2. Doth not Paul show that he speaks of these, when he proves his assertion, 1. Because Abraham was then in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.10. (what's that to Gospel obedience?) 2. Because the Law was long after the promise, and was not then given, Gal. 3.17. 3. Paul maketh it all one to be justified by works, and to be justified by the Law; as abundance of passages show. A multitude of particular Texts do ⟨p. 105⟩expressly show that it is a Legal Justification only that he speaks of, and that he directly intendeth only Legal works. I will now instance but in one, viz. Rom. 4.13. compared with