Pauls Question is, What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law? And this he saith is no Works (under any notion) no not Faith, but only Christs Righteousness, and so faith must be taken relatively: for certainly it is Christ, and not Faith that is that Righteousness. Is not this all that our Divines say, or require? and so say I, over and over. But Paul doth not resolve there [what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his?] so directly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you say he do: yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification, I say it is without, not only the operation, but the presence of works, which is more then you say. 9. Or whether he speak of begun, or continued Justification, I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense: yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification. For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward, as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly saith, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. These works I disclaim as sinful in their ends. But obeying the Gospel, or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us, should rule over us, and running that we obtain, and fighting the good fight of faith, and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring to the end, and so doing good works, and laying up a good foundation against the time to come: I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions, or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement, or the continuance of it here. Abraham's faith excluded works in Pauls sense, as before, but not works in this sense, or in James his sense. When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted. 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better: ⟨p. 167⟩and answered what I have said in that. 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force. For first you say [the one saith a Justification by faith without works, you make Faith as well as works, &c.] Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works, but without the works of the Law. And I have showed you what he means by works, Rom. 4.4. 2. I say no more then James, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only:
Pauls Question is, What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law? And this he saith is no Works (under any notion) no not Faith, but only Christs Righteousness, and so faith must be taken relatively: for certainly it is Christ, and not Faith that is that Righteousness. Is not this all that our Divines say, or require? and so say I, over and over. But Paul doth not resolve there [what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his?] so directly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you say he do: yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification, I say it is without, not only the operation, but the presence of works, which is more then you say. 9. Or whether he speak of begun, or continued Justification, I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense: yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification. For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward, as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly saith, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. These works I disclaim as sinfull in their ends. But obeying the Gospel, or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us, should rule over us, and running that we obtain, and fighting the good fight of faith, and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring to the end, and so doing good works, and laying up a good foundation against the time to come: I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions, or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement, or the continuance of it here. Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls sense, as before, but not works in this sense, or in James his sense. When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted. 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better: ⟨p. 167⟩and answered what I have said in that. 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force. For first you say [the one saith a Justification by faith without works, you make Faith as well as works, &c.] Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works, but without the works of the Law. And I have shewed you what he means by works, Rom. 4.4. 2. I say no more then James, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only:
