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

6. I will therefore suppose some men to be so unreasonable, as to expect a Legal Justification, by their believing or confessing that Christ only can Legally justify them, and not themselves; and so I will grant you, that Paul doth (consequentially) exclude all works, even Evangelical works from Justification: ⟨p. 106⟩But though he exclude all works, yet not in every notion, nor doth he exclude All interest of All works in our Justification. All works as valuable offerings, he excludes, and so as meritorious, not only in point of Commutative Justice, but also in point of Legal worth and Legal Justice, as the Pharisees supposed them meritorious: All works he excludes from all proper Causality. But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interest at all in subordination to Christ. Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Interest in our Pardon, in sub-ordination to Christ? If you say, No, not any, you contradict God, and your self, and all the Christian world. If you say, Yea, but they justify not qua works; you say nothing to the controversy: For I have over and over as loud as you, professed that they justify not formaliter as works. If you say they have any Interest: 1. Tell us better what it is. 2. And then you confute your general assertion. There's no Christian that I know but will confess that the Gospel works have the interest of Declaring signs in our final Justification. And few will deny that Repentance hath the interest of a necessary qualification, or condition to our first Justification. Now would you persuade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Interest, or opposeth faith to it? If not against the signal interest of works, then not against all Interest; therefore if Pauls general exclusion will consist with your signal Interest, then I shall maintain that it will consist with the fore-explained Conditional interest.

6. I will therefore suppose some men to be so unreasonable, as to expect a Legal Justification, by their believing or confessing that Christ only can Legally justifie them, and not themselves; and so I will grant you, that Paul doth (consequentially) exclude all works, even Evangelical works from Justification: ⟨p. 106⟩But though he exclude all works, yet not in every notion, nor doth he exclude All interest of All works in our Justification. All works as valuable offerings, he excludes, and so as meritorious, not only in point of Commutative Justice, but also in point of Legal worth and Legal Justice, as the Pharisees supposed them meritorious: All works he excludes from all proper Causality. But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interest at all in subordination to Christ. Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Interest in our Pardon, in sub-ordination to Christ? If you say, No, not any, you contradict God, and your self, and all the Christian world. If you say, Yea, but they justifie not qua works; you say nothing to the controversie: For I have over and over as loud as you, professed that they justifie not formaliter as works. If you say they have any Interest: 1. Tell us better what it is. 2. And then you confute your general assertion. There's no Christian that I know but will confess that the Gospel works have the interest of Declaring signs in our final Iustification. And few will deny that Repentance hath the interest of a necessary qualification, or condition to our first Justification. Now would you perswade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Interest, or opposeth faith to it? If not against the signal interest of works, then not against all Interest; therefore if Pauls general exclusion will consist with your signal Interest, then I shall maintain that it will consist with the fore-explained Conditional interest.