The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that there is not the least Repugnancy or contradiction between what is declared by these two Apostles, as unto our Justification with the causes of it. And this I shall do, 1. By some general considerations of the nature and tendency of both their discourses. (2) By a particular explication of the context in that of St. James. And under the first head I shall manifest. (1) That they have not the same scope, design or end in their discourses; That they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor determine on the same enquiry, and therefore not speaking ad idem unto the same thing do not contradict one another. (2) That as Faith is a word of various signification in the Scripture, and doth as we have proved before, denote that which is of divers kinds, they speak not of the same Faith, or Faith of the same kind, and therefore there can be no contradiction in what the one ascribes unto it, and the other derogates from it, seeing they speak not of the same Faith. (3) That they do not speak of Justification in the same sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4) That as unto Works they both intend the same, namely, the Works of Obedience unto the moral Law.

As to the scope and design of the Apostle Paul, the question which he answereth, the case which he proposeth and determines upon, are manifest in all his Writings, especially his Epistles unto the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is to declare, how a guilty convinced sinner comes through Faith in the blood of Christ to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right unto the Heavenly inheritance, that is, be acquitted and justified ⟨p. 563⟩in the sight of God. And as the Doctrine hereof belonged eminently unto the Gospel, whose Revelation and Declaration unto the Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed unto him, so as we have newly observed, he had an especial reason to insist much upon it from the opposition that was made unto it by the Jews and Judaizing Christians, who ascribed this privilege unto the Law, and our own Works of Obedience in compliance therewithal. This is the case he states, this the question he determines in all his Discourses about Justification; and in the explication thereof declares the nature and causes of it, as also vindicates it from all exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds and willing to indulge unto their lusts (as all men naturally desire nothing but what God hath made eternally inconsistent, namely, that they may live in sin here, and come to blessedness hereafter) might conclude that if it were so as he declared, that we are justified freely through the Grace of God by the Imputation of a Righteousness that Originally and inherently is not our own, then was there no more required of us, no relinquishment of sin, no attendance unto the duties of Righteousness and Holiness, he obviates such impious suggestions, and shows the inconsequence of them on the Doctrine that he taught. But this he doth not do in any place by intimating or granting that our own Works of Obedience or Righteousness are necessary unto, or have any causal influence into our Justification before God. Had there been a Truth herein, were not a supposition thereof really inconsistent with the whole of his Doctrine and destructive of it, he would not have omitted the Plea of it, nor ought so to have done, as we have showed.