Argu. 6. In ver. 5. the opposite term [he that worketh not] doth not signify him that performeth no moral act. Therefore in the fourth verse, [he that worketh] doth not signify him that doth perform any moral act. The consequence is undeniable from the evident immediate opposition, between him that worketh, and him that worketh not. The Antecedent I prove, First, From the words of the Text, which mention one act, even believing, as opposite to working, and implied in, or consistent with not working. [To him that worketh not, but believeth.] Secondly, Because else it would subvert the Gospel. What sense would you make of it if you should interpret this and such texts as this of all moral Acts? Such as Christian ears would abhor. If [working] be the Genus, and the Text will hold as extended to Believing, Repenting, &c. as the species, and that even in their due Evangelical notion: Let us try them a little in such an Exposition. ver. 4, 5. [to him that worketh, that is, Repenteth, Believeth, &c. the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. But to him that worketh not, (that ⟨p. 115⟩is, that Repenteth not, Loveth not God▪ Desireth not Christ or Grace, believeth not in Christ,) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (supposing he have it not) is imputed to him for righteousness.] Is this a sweet and Christian sense? If we should run over an hundred such Texts by such an Interpretation, you would hear no sweeter Melody.
Argu. 6. In ver. 5. the opposite term [he that worketh not] doth not signifie him that performeth no moral act. Therefore in the fourth verse, [he that worketh] doth not signifie him that doth perform any moral act. The consequence is undeniable from the evident immediate opposition, between him that worketh, and him that worketh not. The Antecedent I prove, First, From the words of the Text, which mention one act, even believing, as opposite to working, and implyed in, or consistent with not working. [To him that worketh not, but believeth.] Secondly, Because else it would subvert the Gospel. What sense would you make of it if you should interpret this and such texts as this of all moral Acts? Such as Christian ears would abhor. If [working] be the Genus, and the Text will hold as extended to Believing, Repenting, &c. as the species, and that even in their due Evangelical notion: Let us try them a little in such an Exposition. ver. 4, 5. [to him that worketh, that is, Repenteth, Believeth, &c. the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. But to him that worketh not, (that ⟨p. 115⟩is, that Repenteth not, Loveth not God▪ Desireth not Christ or Grace, believeth not in Christ,) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (supposing he have it not) is imputed to him for righteousness.] Is this a sweet and Christian sense? If we should run over an hundred such Texts by such an Interpretation, you would hear no sweeter Melody.
