similitudes that have little or no similitude as to this The common similitude is A man that is oculatus heareth but not qua oculatus but qua auritus c. Repl. First If you take quà strictly the affirmative is not true For then à quatenus ad omne every man that is auritus would hear whereas he may stop his ears and be where is no sound c. And a man that hath eyes may wink and be in the dark c. Secondly If quà signifie the aptitude or causal interest I deny the similitude It is dissimile and the reason of the difference is evident for a mans eyes are Physical efficient causes of his sight and his ears of hearing naturally in their aptitude and potentiality determined to their proper objects but saith is no efficient cause of our Justification or of our interest in Christ at all much less a Physical efficient cause But the Interest it hath is Moral which dependeth on the Donors will and it is no higher then that of a condition and therefore the act that Physically hath least respect to the object may in this case if the Donor please do as much to procure a Title to it as that which hath the nearest physical respect to it As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will discover a Traitor or marry one that oweth it here the alien act hath more interest in procuring your Title then your Apprehending or treading on the soil or taking possession yea or accepting the deed of Gift it self So God hath made our Accepting of whole Christ to be the condition of life and pardon and consequently the Accepting him in other Relations in which he destroyeth sin advanceth God c. doth as much to our Justification as the accepting him at our Ransome Now to Mr. Blakes Reasons when he saith that this distinction would pass every where else as necessary he is much mistaken for as he doth not tell us at all what sort of distinction it is whether Realis Rationis Modalis Formalis Virtualis c. so I could give him an hundred instances in which it will not pass in any tolerable sense but what are his own select instances from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects But is it Christ or the believer that you put in these various Relations It s plain that you mean Christ But that 's nothing to the question I maintain as well as you that Christ performeth variety of works according to the divers parts of his office and that he meriteth not Justification as King but as a Sacrifice as he effectively justifieth not as a sacrifice but as a King and he teacheth as a Teacher c. this was never denyed by me But the question is whether the Interest of the several acts of our faith be accordingly distinct which I deny and confidently deny In the works that Christ doth in these several Relations there is distincti◠realis and Christ is the proper efficient cause of them But though our faith must accept Christ in all these Relations and to do the several works in the several Relations yet it is no proper cause of the effects and as I said the interest it hath in the procurement is meerly moral and that but of a condition and therefore it is to be judged of by the will of the Donor But you say that only they that come to Christ as a Physician are cured by him Repl. Very true I never denyed it But not only By coming to him as a Physitian especially as the Worker of this one part of the cure You add Believers through faith go to Christ that heareth all ◠the Relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding they are Justified Repl. Very true if by as you understand only the aptitude of the act to its office and the certain connexion of the effect otherwise it is not as they believe at all that they are justified but it is not only as they seek satisfaction in his blood but also as they believe in him as King Teacher Rising Interceding c. Though it be Christs blood and not his Dominion that Ransometh us yet his promise giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of believing in him as King as of the believing in his blood Hitherto we have come short of your proofs which next we shall proceed to and freely examine Mr. Blake I shall take the bodlness to give in my Arguments to make good that faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie First That which the types under the law appointed for atonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for atonement expiation and reconciliation this cannot be denyed These Levitical Types lead us doubtless to a right object being Schoolmasters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith which serves for that work But those types lead us to Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as sacrificing sometime as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Heb. is a proof of it Reply I grant you both Major and Minor but the question is a meer stranger to the Just conclusion First it will not follow because our faith must eye Christ as Priest for Reconciliation that therefore it must eye him only as Priest for Reconciliation And if only be not in your exclusion of other acts of faith follows not Secondly No nor if it were in neither for ex perte Christs for Reconciliation only Christs Priesthood is to be eyed as the meritorious cause speaking in their sense that take the priestly office to comprehend not only Christ as Sacrificer but as sacrifice yea as obeying in the form of a servant the sicness whereoff now pass by but ex parte nostri the so eying him is not the only act of faith by which we are justified so that for is ambiguous and either signifieth Christs procurement of our Justification or ours In the former sense grant as aforesaid these Types shew us that Christ only as Priest and sacrifice doth satisfie for us But as to the procuring Interest of our faith these Types shew us not that only this act procureth our Interest Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any such thing Jo. 1.19 saith that Christ the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world but it doth not say that only believing in him as the Lamb of God is the faith upon which we have part in his blood and are justified by him 1 Pet. 1.18 tels us we were Redeemed by his precious blood but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have interest in it but contrarily thus describes that faith ver 21. Who by him
know not they are not Scripture words nor my words For still I say All Good works are of Debt to God from man Argument 1. Ex natura rei There are many Moral Acts that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt and not of Grace Much less will such Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt and not of Grace The Consequence is grounded on these two or three Reasons 1. God is infinitely above us and therefore less capable of being obliged by our works then man 3. God is our absolute Proprietary and we are wholly his and therefore we can give him nothing but his own 3. God is our Supreme Rector and we are bound to a perfect fulfilling of his Law and we are sinners that have broak that Law and deserve eternal death therefore we are less capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor then of obliging men and indeed uncapable 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory and mans is but some transitory thing therefore we are less capable of making God our Debtor for Justification and Salvation then man for a trifle This proves the Consequence Now the Antecedent I prove by Instances 1. If a man be ready to drown in the water and you offer to help him out if he will lay hold of your hand this act of his is Actus humanus vel moralis and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 2. If a man be in prison for Debt and you ransom him and offer him deliverance on condition he will but consent to come forth on the account of your Ransom this moral Action makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 3. If a man be condemned for Treason and upon Ransom made you procure and offer him a pardon on condition he will take it or if you say If you will give me thanks for it or take it thankfully or If also you confess your Treason or If also you crave pardon of the Prince or If also you confess me your benefactor or If also you will profess your purpose to take up rebellions arms no more or If also you will openly profess the Princes Soveraignty and renounce the Leaders of the Rebells whom you have followed Vpon any one or on all these conditions you shall have a free and full pardon without any cost or suffering of your own Do you think that any of these do make the pardon to be of Debt and not of Grace 4. If you give a man a Lordship on condition he take it as a free Gift from you and pay you yearly a grain of sand or do some act of homage as to say I thank you which hath in it no consideration of value but only of acknowledgment of dependance doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace 5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold on condition he will take it and put off his hat and say I thank you I will not believe that any of these Acts do make the Reward to be not of Grace But if you bid them Go and do me so many daies work for it importing somewhat profitable or valuable for yourself then the case is altered Argument 2. Those works which a man cannot be justified without make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace But there are some works that a man cannot be justified without Jam. 2.24 Matthew 12.37 what ever they be some they are Argument 3. Those works which a man cannot be saved without make not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace But there are some works that we cannot be saved without Therefore there are some works that make not the Reward of Debt and not of Grace The Major is proved by the express exclusion of works in this sense from salvation both as begun and as consummate 2 Tim. 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but his own purpose and grace c. Ephes 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life Rom. 6.23 For the wages of sin is death but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Act. 4.12 Neither is there salvation in any other Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for you c. whence Expositors conclude against works The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts Mat. 25.35 For I was hungry c. Rev. 22.12 and 2.23 Mark 13.34 Rev. 20.13 Jam. 2 14. 1 Pet. 1.17 He will judge every man according to his works c. Argument 4. Those works which Grace commandeth and causeth the Godly to perform do not make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt But there are some such works Ergo c. The Major is evident What Saint dare say that he hath a work that makes not the Reward of Grace especially when it is a work of Grace The Minor is as true as Scripture is true 2 Cor. 9.8 Col. 1.10 2 Thess 2.17 2 Tim. 2.21 Tit. 3.1 Heb. 13.21 Mat. 5.16 Heb. 10.24 1 Pet. 2.12 Tit. 2.14 and 3.8 14. Ephes 2.10 c. Dare any say that God hath not commanded good works or yet that he hath commanded us in the Gospel so to work that the Reward may not be of grace but debt Will any say that the Saints do no good works or else that they do such good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt I hope not Argument 5. Repentance is a moral Act Repentance maketh not the Reward to be of debt and not of grace therefore there are some works that make not the Reward to be not of grace but of Debt The same I say of Faith it self and other Acts. But perhaps some one else will object that though its true that there be such works yet they have no Interest in the business of our Justification and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them Answer First It sufficed to my last purpose to prove that there are works which will not bear his description and therefore are not they that he means Secondly But that those other works have some Interest in the business of our Justification I have proved in the beginning Repentance hath the promise of Pardon so hath faith c. But I 'le not unseasonably here digress to this but refer you to what is said before and after and elsewhere more at large Argu. 6. In ver 5. the opposite term he that worketh not doth not signifie him that performeth no moral act
as that any acts of our own must interpose but they are in eodem instanti and differ only in order of nature In sum we prove a promise of pardon to all that receive Christ himself and believe in him If any will affirm the necessity of any other act before we can be justified it is incumbent on them to prove it This was the substance of my Answer to which the Reverend Bishop said no more whether satisfied or not I cannot tell But I thought meet to recite his Judgement both because it comes so neer the matter and because I know not of any other that saith the same or so much of seeming strength against us Against all these seven particular Opinions I am now to defend the Thesis when I have first told you in certain distinctions and propositions how much I grant and what I deny which I shall in short dispatch And here I need but to rehearse what I have said already to Mr. Blake pag. 3.4 or to give you some short account of my thoughts to the same purpose First We must not confound Justification by Constitution or Guift and justification by the Sentence of the Judge and the Execution of that sentence which are three distinct things Secondly We must not confound Justification with the assurance or feeling of Justification Thirdly We must distinguish between our first Justification from a state of sin and our daily Justification from particular Acts of sin Fourthly Between that which is necessary on Christs part and that which is necessary on our part to our Justification Fifthly Between Christs purchasing our Justification and his actual justifying of us Sixthly Between these two senses of the phrase justified by Fatih viz. as by an efficient Cause or as a meer Condition Seventhly Between the Causality of faith in the Physical effects of sanctification on the soul and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promise in our Justification Proposition 1. Ex parte Christi We easily grant that it is not his Teaching or Ruling us but his Ransome and Obedience that are the Meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation Proposition 2. Therefore if Christ did justifie us per modum objecti aprehensi in the nearest sense as the Belief of sacred Truths doth make a Qualitative impression on the soul in our Sanctification and the exciting and acting of our Graces then I should confess that it is only that Act of Faith which is the apprehension of this Object that doth help us directly to the benefit of the Object Proposition 3. But it is not so For the Object justifieth us causally by way of Merit and Moral procurement and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promise conveying to us Justification and partly Justification conveyed by that Promise not to speak now of other benefits and the Promise conveyeth Justification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift or a Pardon to a Traytor Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver and the Promise or deed of Gift being the Immediate Instrumental efficient Cause of it as it is signum voluntatis Donatoris our Belief or Apprehension qua talis cannot justifie us nor have any nearer or higher interest in our Justification then to be the Condition of it as it is a free Gift And therefore the Condition must be judged of by the will of the Donor expressed in his Promise and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeableness to the Object in this or that respect Proposition 4. Yea Even ex parte Christi though he Merit Justification by his Ransome and Obedience yet he actually justifieth us as King of his Church and that in regard of all the three sorts or parts of Justification He giveth it constitutively by his Promise as Lord and Legislator and Benefactor on these terms of Grace He sentenceth us Just as our Judg and he executeth that sentence as a Just Judge governing according to his Laws So that if Faith did justifie ex natura rei which they call its Instrumentality I see not yet but that the apprehension of Christ as Lord and Judge must justifie us because the Object apprehended doth thus justifie us Proposition 5. I easily grant that in our Sanctification or the exciting and exercise of our Graces the case standeth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Justification This Interest of the Act must be judged of by the Object apprehended For it is not the Belief of a Promise that feareth us but of a Threatning nor the Belief of a Threatning that Comforteth us but of a Promise For here the Object worketh immediately on our minds per modum objecti apprehensi But in Justification it is not so where God is the Agent as a Donor and there can be nothing done by us but in order to make us fit Subjects and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as such but Relative by a Fundamentum which is without us in the Gospel and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition without which it will not be done Proposition 6. Accordingly I easily grant that the Sense or Assurance of Justification in our Consciences is wrought by the Object as an Object Because this Assurance is a part of our Sanctification But that Object is not directly Christs Ransome but the Promise through his blood and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promise Proposition 7. I easily grant that Faith in Christ as Lord or Teacher of the Church is not the Instrumental efficient Cause of our Justification They need not therefore contend against me in this But withall I say that faith in his Priest-hood is not the Instrumental efficient Cause neither though I allow it to have a nearer Physical Relation to the Ransome which meriteth our Justification Proposition 8. Though there is a greater shew of Reason to assert the Interest of the single Belief in Christs Priest-hood for a particular Pardon then for our first general Pardon yet indeed it is but a shew even there also For it is not only the applying our selves to his blood or Ransome but it is also the applying our selves to whole Christ to make up the whole breach that is the Condition of our particular Pardon so far as a particular Act of saith is a Condition which though it be not a Receiving Christ for Union with him as we did in the beginning yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et secundum quid and a renewed Consent to his whole Office and adhesion to him as our special remedy for recovery from that fall by freeing us both from the guilt and stain of Sin Proposition 9. It is undoubtedly the duty of every Sinner in the sense of his guilt and misery to fly to the Ransome of Christs blood and the Merit of his Obedience as the satisfaction to Gods Justice and the Purchaser of our Justification And he that doth not this how willing soever he may seem
again I shall yield so far to their Importunity as to recite here briefly the state of the Controversie and some of that evidence which is elsewhere more largely produced for the truth And First We must explain what is meant by Works and what is meant by Justification what by a Condition and what by the Preposition by here when we speak of Justification by works And then we shall lay down the truth in several propositions Negative and Affirmative It seems strange to me to hear men on either side to speak against the Negative or Affirmative of the Question and reproach so bitterly those that maintain them without any distinction or explication as if either the error lay in the terms or the terms were so plain and univocal that the Propositions are true only on one part what sense soever they be taken in No doubt but he saith true that saith that Works are the Condition of Justification and he saith as true that saith they are not if they take the terms in such different senses as commonly Disputers on these Questions do take them And its past all doubt that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law and that it is not of Works but of Grace and it s as certain that a man is justified by works and not by faith only and that by their Words men shall be justified and by their Words they shall be condemned Gods word were not true if both these were not true We must therefore necessarily distinguish And first of Works First Sometime the term Works is taken for that in general which makes the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Meritorious works Or for such as are conceited to be thus meritorious though they be not And those are materially either Works of perfect obedience without sin such as Adam had before his fall and Christ had and the good Angels have or else Works of obedience to the Mosaical Law which supposed sin and were used in order to pardon and life but mistakingly by the blind Unbelievers as supposing that the dignity of the Law did put such a dignity on their obedience thereto as that it would serve to life without the satisfaction and merit of Christ or at least must concur in Co-ordination therewith Or else lastly they are Gospel duties thus conceited meritorious Secondly But sometime the word Works is taken for that which standeth in a due subordination to grace and that first most generally for any moral virtuous Actions and so even faith it self is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fiduciall act of faith or less generally for external acts of obedience as distinct from internal habitual Grace and so Repentance Faith Love c. are not Works or for all acts external and internal except faith it self And so Repentance Desire after Christ Love to him denying our own Righteousness distrust in our selves c. are called Works Or else for all Acts external and internal besides the Reception of Christs Righteousness to Justification And so the belief of the Gospel the Acceptance of Christ as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption with many other acts of faith in Christ are called works besides the disclaiming of our own Righteousness and the rest before mentioned Secondly As for the word Justification it is so variously taken by Divines and in common use that it would require more words then I shall spend on this whole Dispute to name and open its several senses and therefore having elsewhere given a brief schem of them I shall now only mention these few which are most pertinent to our purpose First Some take Justification for some Immanent Acts of God and some for Transient And of the former some take it for Gods eternal Decree to justifie which neither Scripture calleth by this name nor will Reason allow us to do it but improperly Sometime it s taken for Gods Immanent present Approbation of a man and Reputing him to be just when he is first so constituted And this some few call a Transient Act because the Object is extrinsick But most call it Immanent because it makes no Alteration on that object And some plead that this is an eternal act without beginning because it is Gods essence which is eternal and these denominate the Act from the substance or Agent And other say that it begins in time because Gods Essence doth then begin to have that Respect to a sinner which makes it capable of such a denomination And so these speak of the Act denominatively formally respectively Both of them speak true but both speak not the same truth Sometime the word Justification is taken for a transient Act of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrinsick object And so first It s sometime taken by some Divines for a Conditional Justification which is but an act that hath a tendency to that change and this is not actual Justification Secondly Sometime it is taken for actual Justification and that is threefold First Constitutive Secondly Sentential thirdly executive First Constitutive Justification is first either in the qualities of the soul by inherent holyness which is first perfect such Adam once and the Angels and Christ had secondly or Imperfect such as the sanctified here have Secondly Or it s in our Relations when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory This is an act of God in Christ by the free Gift of the Gospel or Law of Grace and it is first The first putting a sinner into a state of Righteousness out of a state of Guilt Secondly Or it is the continuing him in that state and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular sins Secondly Sentential pardon or Justification is first by that Manifestation which God makes before the Angels in heaven Secondly at the day of Judgement before all the world Thirdly Executive Justification viz. the execution of the aforesaid sentence less properly called Justification and more properly called pardon consisteth in taking off the punishment inflicted and forbearing the punishment deserved and giving possession of the happiness adjudged us so that it is partly in this life viz. in giving the spirit and outward mercies and freeing us from judgements And thus sanctification it self is a part of Justification and partly in the life to come in freeing us from Hell and possessing us of Glory Thirdly As for the word Condition the Etymologists will tell us that it first signifieth Actionem condendi and then Passionem qua quid conditur and then qualitatem ipsam per quam condere aliguis vel condi aliquid potest hinc est pro statu qui factus est rem condendo deinceps pro omni statu quem persona vel res aut causa quoquo modo habet aut accipit But we have nothing to do with it in such large acceptions in which all things in the world may be called Conditions Vid. Martin in Nom. They
me such contrary waies and I must be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I say Yea or Nay And yet which is the wonder they differ not among themselves 2. But seeing your ends direct you to fetch in his controversie so impertinent to the rest its requisite that the Abettor do better open his opinion then you have done that the Reader may not have a Defence of he knows not what My opinion so oft already explained in other writings is this 1. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator is to be distinguished from the Remedying Law of Grace called the New Testament the Promise c. Whether you will call them two Laws or two parts of one Law is little co the purpose seeing in some respect they are two and in some but one 2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and Sanction or doth constitute the Dueness 1. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or shall command 2. And of many duties in particular 3. And of everlasting death as the penalty of all sin So that it saith The wages of sin is death 3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace like an act of Oblivion which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed 2. And command the belief of them which other particular duties in order to its ends 3. And doth offer Christ and Pardon and Life by a Conditional Donation enacting that whosoever will Repent and Believe shall be Justified and persevering therein with true obedience shall be finally adjudged to everlasting life and possessed thereof It s tenor is He that Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved and he that doth not shall be damned 4. That the sense of this Promise and Threatning is He that Repenteth and Believeth at all in this life though but at the last hour shall be saved and he that doth it not at all shall be damned Or he that is found a penitent Believer at death c. And not he that believeth not to day or to morrow shall be damned though afterward he do 5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was not at first Peremptory and Remediless and that now it is so far Remedyed as that there is a Remedy at hand for the dissolving of the Obligation which will be effectual as soon as the Condition is performed 6. That the Remedying Law of Grace hath a peculiar penalty that is 1. Non-liberation A privation of Pardon and life which was offered For that 's now a penal privation which if there had been no Saviour or Promise or Offer would have been but a Negation 2. The certain Remedilesness of their misery for the future that there shall be no more sacrifice for sin 3. And whether also a greater degree of punishment I leave to consideration 7. I still distinguished between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant and between sin as it respecteth both And so I said that Repentance and Faith in Christ even as a means to Justification are commanded in specie in the Gospel which constituteth them duties but commanded consequently in genere in the Law of nature under the generall of Obedience to all particular precepts and whether also the Law of Nature require the duty in specie supposing God to have made his supernatural preparations in providing and propounding the objects I left to enquiry Accordingly I affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity though afterward Repented of as also the Imperfections of true faith and repentance are sins against the General precept of the Law of Nature and the special precept of the Law of Grace and that Christ dyed for them and they are pardoned through his blood upon condition of sincere Repentance and Faith 8. Accordingly distinguishing between the respect that sin hath to the precept and prohibition on one side and to the promise and threatning on the other I affirmed that the foresaid Impenitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance are condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only and that the person is not under the Actual obligation of the peculiar Threatning of the Law of Grace that is that though as to the Gospel Precept these sins may be against the Gospel as well as the Law yet as to the Threatning they are not such violations of the New Covenant as bring men under its actual curse for then they were remediless And therefore I said that its only final Impenitency and Unbelief as final that so subjects men to that Curse or Remediless peremptory sentence The reason is because the Gospel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death the Condition of promised pardon and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impenitency and unbelief final it is not that which brings a man under the Remediless Curse except only in case of the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is ever final 9 Accordingly I affirm that Christ never bore or intended to bear the peculiar Curse of his own Law of Grace 1. As not suffering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief which is proved in his Gospel constitution which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance and therefore the non-performance of his Condition is expresly excepted from all pardon and consequently from the intended satisfaction and price of pardon 2. In that he did not bear that species of punishment as peculiarly appointed by the Gospel viz. To be denyed Pardon Justification and Adoption and to be Remediless in misery c. 10. Also I said that all other sins are pardonable on the Gospel Conditions but the non-performance that is final of those Conditions is everlastingly unpardonable and consequently no sin pardoned for want of them Reader this is the face of that Doctrine which Reverend Brethren vail over with the darkness and confusion of these General words that I say Christ hath not satisfied for sins against the second Covenant And all these explications I am fain to trouble the world with as oft as they are pleased to charge me in that confusion But what remedy This is the Legion of errours and contradictions which I leave to thy impartial judgement to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit shall convince thee that they are erroneous and to bless those Congregations and Countries that are taught to abhor them and to rejoyce in their felicity that believe the contrary Treat pag. 235. 2. If so then the works of the Law are Conditions of our Justification and thus he runneth into the extream he would avoid Answ 1. The works which the Law requireth to Justification that is perfect obedience are not the Conditions of Justification 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Mosaical Law of Sacrifices c. 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law after the special Constitution of the Gospel God hath chosen