Discourses on Various Important Subjects, Discourse 1 (1 of 3)

Discourses on Various Important Subjects · Discourse 1 (1 of 3)

p. 1JUSTIFICATION BY Faith alone.

DISCOURSE, I.

ROMANS IV. 5.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that juſtifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righteouſneſs.

THE following Things may be noted in this Verſe; 1. That Juſtification reſpects a Man as ungodly: This is evident by thoſe Words—that juſtifieth the Ungodly. Which Words can't imply leſs than that God in the Act of Juſtification, has no Regard to any Thing in the Perſon juſtified, as Godlineſs, or any Goodneſs in him; but that nextly, or immediately before this Act, God beholds him only as an ungodly or wicked Creature; ſo that Godlineſs in the Perſon p. 2to be juſtified is not ſo antecedent to his Juſtification as to be the Ground of it. When it is ſaid that God juſtifies the Ungodly, 'tis as abſurd to ſuppoſe that our Godlineſs, taken as ſome Goodneſs in us, is the Ground of our Juſtification, as when it is ſaid that Chriſt gave Sight to the Blind, to ſuppoſe that Sight was Prior to, and the Ground of that Act of Mercy in Chriſt, or as if it ſhould be ſaid that ſuch an One by his Bounty has made a poor Man rich, to ſuppoſe that it was the Wealth of this poor Man that was the Ground of this Bounty towards him, and was the Price by which it was procured.

2. It appears that by him that worketh not in this Verſe, is not meant only one that don't conform to the ceremonial Law, becauſe he that worketh not, and the Ungodly are evidently ſynonimous Expreſſions, or what ſignify the ſame; it appears by the Manner of their Connection; if it ben't ſo, to what Purpoſe is the latter Expreſſion the Ungodly brought in? The Context gives no other Occaſion for it, but only to ſhew that the Grace of the Goſpel appears in that God in Juſtification has no Regard to any Godlineſs of ours: The foregoing Verſe is, Now to him that worketh is the Reward not reckon'd of Grace, but of Debt: In that Verſe 'tis evident, that Goſpel Grace conſiſts in the Rewards being given without Works; & in this Verſe which nextly follows it & in Senſe is connected with it, 'tis evident that Goſpel Grace conſiſts in a Man's being juſtified that is ungodly; by which it is moſt plain that by him that worketh not, and him that is ungodly, are meant the ſame Thing; and that therefore not only Works of the ceremonial Law are excluded in this Buſineſs of Juſtification, but Works of Morality and Godlineſs.

3. 'Tis evident in the Words, that by that Faith that is here ſpoken of, by which we are juſtified, is not meant the ſame Thing as a Courſe of Obedience, or Righteouſneſs, by the Expreſſion, by which this Faith is here denoted, viz believing on him that juſtifies the Ungodly—They that oppoſe the Solifidians, as they call them, do greatly inſiſt on it, that we ſhould take the Words of Scripture concerning this Doctrine, in their moſt natural p. 3and obvious Meaning; and how do they cry out of our clouding this Doctrine with obſcure Metaphors, and unintelligible Figures of Speech! But is this to interpret Scripture according to it's moſt obvious Meaning, when the Scripture ſpeaks of our believing on him that juſtifies the Ungodly, or the Breakers of his Law, to ſay that the Meaning of it is performing a Courſe of Obedience to his Law, and avoiding the Breaches of it? Believing on God as a Juſtifier, certainly is a different Thing from ſubmitting to God as a Lawgiver; eſpecially a believing on him as a Juſtifier of the Ungodly, or Rebels againſt the Lawgiver.

4. 'Tis evident that the Subject of Juſtification is look'd upon as deſtitute of any Righteouſneſs in himſelf, by that Expreſſion, it is counted, or imputed to him for Righteouſneſs; the Phraſe, as the Apoſtle uſes it here, and in the Context, manifeſtly imports, that God of his ſovereign Grace is pleaſed in his Dealings with the Sinner, to take and regard, that which indeed is not Righteouſneſs, and in one that has no Righteouſneſs, ſo that the Conſequence ſhall be the ſame as if he had Righteouſneſs; (which may be from the Reſpect that it bears to ſome thing that is indeed Righteouſneſs.) 'Tis plain that this is the force of the Expreſſion in the preceeding Verſes: In the laſt Verſe but one, 'tis manifeſt that the Apoſtle lays the Streſs of his Argument for the free Grace of God, from that Text that he cites out of the old Teſtament about Abraham, on that Word counted or imputed, and that this is the Thing that he ſuppoſed God to ſhew his Grace in, viz in his counting ſomething for Righteouſneſs, in his conſequential Dealings with Abraham, that was no Righteouſneſs in itſelf. And in the next Verſe which immediately preceeds the Text, Now to him that worketh is the Reward not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt; the Word there tranſlated reckoned, is the ſame that in the other Verſes is render'd imputed, and counted: And 'tis as much as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, As to him that works, there is no need of any gracious Reckoning, or counting it for Righteouſneſs, and cauſing the Reward to follow as if it were a Righteouſneſs; for p. 4if he has Works he has that which is a Righteouſneſs in itſelf, to which the Reward properly belongs. This is further evident by the Words that follow, Ver. 6. Even as David alſo deſcribed the Bleſſedneſs of the Man unto whom God imputeth Righteouſneſs without Works; what can here b… meant by imputing Righteouſneſs without Works, but imputing Righteouſneſs to him that has none of his own? Ver. 7, 8. Saying bleſſed are they whoſe Iniquities are forgiven, and whoſe ſins are covered: Bleſſed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin. How are theſe Words of David to the Apoſtle's Purpoſe? Or how do they prove any ſuch Thing, as that Righteouſneſs is imputed without Works, unleſs it be becauſe the Word imputed is uſed, and the Subject of the Imputation is mentioned, as a Sinner▪ & conſequently deſtitute of a moral Righteouſneſs? For David ſays no ſuch Thing, as that he is forgiven without the Works of the Ceremonial Law; there is no Hint of the ceremonial Law, or Reference to it, in the Words. I will therefore venture to infer this Doctrine from the Words, for the Subject of my preſent Diſcourſe, viz.

DOCTRINE, We are juſtified only by Faith in Chriſt, and not by any Manner of Vertue or Goodneſs of our own.

Such an Aſſertion as this, I am ſenſible, many would be ready to cry out of as abſurd, betraying a great deal of Ignorance, and containing much Inconſiſtence; but I deſire every One's Patience 'till I have done.

In handling this Doctrine I would

I. Explain the Meaning of it, and ſhew how I would be underſtood by ſuch an Aſſertion.

II. Proceed to the Conſideration of the Evidence of the Truth of it.

p. 5III. Shew how evangelical Obedience is concern'd in this Affair.

IV. Anſwer Objections.

V. Conſider the Importance of the Doctrine.

I. I would explain the Meaning of the Doctrine, or ſhew in what Senſe I aſſert it, and would endeavour to evince the Truth of it: Which may be done in Anſwer to theſe two Enquiries, viz. 1. What is meant by being juſtified? 2. What is meant when it is ſaid that this is by Faith alone, without any Manner of Vertue or Goodneſs of our own?

Firſt. I would ſhew what Juſtification is, or what I ſuppoſe is meant in Scripture by being juſtified. And here I would not at all enlarge, and therefore to anſwer in ſhort.

A Perſon is ſaid to be juſtified when he is approved of God as free from the Guilt of Sin, and it's deſerved Puniſhment, and as having that Righteouſneſs belonging to him that entitles to the Reward of Life. That we ſhould take the Word in ſuch a Senſe, and underſtand it as the Judges accepting a Perſon as having both a negative, and poſitive Righteouſneſs belonging to him, and looking on him therefore, as not only quit, or free from any Obligation to Puniſhment but alſo …s juſt and righteous, and ſo entitled to a poſitive Reward, is not only moſt agreable to the Etimology, and natural Import of the Word, which ſignifies to make righteous, or to paſs One for righteous in Judgment, but alſo manifeſtly agreable to the Force of the Word, as uſed in Scripture.

Some ſuppoſe that nothing more is intended in Scripture by Juſtification than barely the Remiſſion of Sins: if it be ſo it is very ſtrange, if we conſider the Nature of the Caſe; for 'tis moſt evident, and none will deny, that it is with Reſpect to the Rule, or Law of God that we are under, that we are ſaid in Scripture to be either juſtified or condemned: Now what is it to juſtify a Perſon, as the Subject of a Law or Rule, but to judge him, p. 6or look upon him, and approve him as ſtanding right with Reſpect to that Rule? To juſtify a Perſon in a particular Caſe, is to approve of him as ſtanding right, as ſubject to the Law or Rule in that Caſe; and to juſtify in general, is to paſs him in Judgment, as ſtanding right, in a State correſpondent to the Law or Rule in general. But certainly in order to a Perſon's being looked on as ſtanding right with Reſpect to the Rule in general, … or in a State correſponding with the Law of God, more is needful than what is negative, or a not having the Guilt of Sin; for whatever that Law is, whether a new one, or an old one, yet doubtleſs ſomething poſitive is needed in order to its being anſwered. We are no more juſtified by the Voice of the Law, or of him that judges according to it, by a meer Pardon of Sin, than Adam our firſt Surety, was juſtified by the Law, at the firſt Point of his Exiſtence, before he had done the Work, or fulfilled the Obedience of the Law, or had had ſo much as any Trial whether he would fulfil it or no. If Adam had finiſhed his Courſe of perfect Obedience, he would have been juſtified; and certainly his Juſtification would have implied ſomething more than what is meerly negative; he would have been approved of, as having fulfilled the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and accordingly would have been adjudged to the Reward of it: So Chriſt our ſecond Surety, (in whoſe Juſtification all who believe in him, and whoſe Surety he is, are vertually juſtified,) was not juſtified 'till he had done the Work the Father had appointed him, and kept the Father's Commandments, thro' all Trials, and then in his Reſurrection he was juſtified: When he that had been put to Death in the Fleſh was quickened by the Spirit, 1 Pet. 3. 18 then he that was manifeſt in the Fleſh was juſtified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. 3. 16. But God when he juſtified him in raiſing him from the Dead, did not only releaſe him from his Humiliation for Sin, and acquit him from any further Suffering or Abaſement for it, but admitted him to that eternal and immortal Life, and to the Beginning of that Exaltation, that was the Reward of what he had done. And indeed the Juſtification of a Believer is no other than his being p. 7admitted to Communion in▪ or Participation of the Juſtification of this Head and Surety of all Believers; for as Chriſt ſuffered the Puniſhment of Sin, not as a private Perſon, but as our Surety, ſo when after this Suffering he was raiſed from the Dead, he was therein juſtified, not as a private Perſon, but as the Surety and Repreſentative of all that ſhould believe in him; ſo that he was raiſed again not only for his own, but alſo for our Juſtification, according to the Apoſtle Rom. 4 25. Who was delivered for our Offences, and raiſed again for our Juſtification. And therefore it is that the Apoſtle ſays as he does in Rom. 8. 34. Who is he that condemneth, it is Chriſt that died, yea rather that is riſen again.

But that a Believer's Juſtification implies not only Remiſſion of Sins, or Acquittance from the Wrath due to it, but alſo an Admittance to a Title to that Glory that is the Reward of Righteouſneſs, is more directly taught in the Scripture, as particularly in Rom. 5. 1, 2. where the Apoſtle mentions both theſe, as joint Benefits implied in Juſtification, Therefore being juſtified by Faith, we have Peace with God through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, by whom alſo we have Acceſs into this Grace wherein we ſtand, and rejoice in Hope of the Glory of God. So Remiſſion of Sins, and Inheritance among them that are ſanctified, are mentioned together as what are jointly obtained by Faith in Chriſt, Acts 26. 18. That they may receive Forgiveneſs of Sins, and Inheritance among them that are ſanctified, through Faith that is in me. Both theſe are without Doubt implied in that paſſing from Death to Life, which Chriſt ſpeaks of as the Fruit of Faith, and which he oppoſes to Condemnation, John. 5. 24 Verily I ſay unto you, he that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting Life, and ſhall not come into Condemnation, but is paſſed from Death to Life. I proceed now

Secondly. To ſhew what is meant when it is ſaid that this Juſtification is by Faith only, and not by any Vertue or Goodneſs of our own.

This enquiry may be ſubdivided into two, viz 1. How 'tis by Faith. 2. How 'tis by Faith alone, without any Manner of Goodneſs of ours.

p. 81. How Juſtification is by Faith. Here the great Difficulty has been about the Import and Force of the Particle BY, or what is that Influence that Faith has in the Affair of Juſtification that is expreſſed in Scripture by being juſtified BY Faith.

Here, if I may humbly expreſs what ſeems evident to me, tho' Faith be indeed the Condition of Juſtification ſo as nothing elſe is, yet this Matter is not clearly and ſufficiently explained by ſaying that Faith is the Condition of Juſtification; and that becauſe the Word ſeems ambiguous, both in common Uſe, and alſo as uſed in Divinity: in one Senſe Chriſt alone performs the Condition of our Juſtification and Salvation; in another Senſe, Faith is the Condition of Juſtification; in another Senſe, other Qualifications and Acts are Conditions of Salvation and Juſtification too: there ſeems to be a great deal of ambiguity in ſuch Expreſſions as are commonly uſed, (which yet we are forced to uſe,) ſuch as Condition of Salvation, what is required in order to Salvation or Juſtification; the Terms of the Covenant, and the like; and I believe they are underſtood in very different Senſes by different Perſons. And beſides as the Word Condition is very often underſtood in the common uſe of Language, Faith is not the only Thing, in us, that is the Condition of Juſtification; for by the Word Condition, as 'tis very often, (and perhaps moſt commonly,) uſed; we mean any thing that may have the Place of a Condition in a conditional Propoſition, and as ſuch is truly connected with the Conſequent, eſpecially if the Propoſition holds both in the Affirmative and Negative, as the Condition is either affirmed or denied; if it be that with which, or which being ſuppoſed, a thing ſhall be, and without which, or it being denied, a Thing ſhall not be, we in ſuch a Caſe call it a Condition of that Thing: But in this Senſe Faith is not the only Condition of Salvation or Juſtification, for there are many Things that accompany and flow from Faith, that are Things with which Juſtification ſhall be, and without which it will not be, and therefore are found to be put in Scripture in conditional Propoſitions with Juſtification and Salvation. in p. 9Multitudes of Places; ſuch are Love to God, and Love to our Brethren, forgiving Men their Treſpaſſes, and many other good Qualifications and Acts. And there are many other Things beſides Faith, which are directly propoſed to us, to be purſued or performed by us, in order to eternal Life, as thoſe which if they are done, or obtain'd we ſhall have eternal Life, & if not done or not obtain'd, we ſhall ſurely periſh. And if it were ſo, that Faith was the only Condition of Juſtification in this Senſe, yet I don't apprehend that to ſay that Faith was the Condition of Juſtification, would expreſs the Senſe of that Phraſe of Scripture of being Juſtified BY Faith: there is a Difference between being juſtified by a Thing, and that Thing univerſally, and neceſſarily, and inſeparably attending, or going with Juſtification; for ſo do a great many Things that we ben't ſaid to be juſtified by: it is not the inſeparable connection with juſtification that the Holy Ghoſt would ſignify, (or that is naturally ſignified,) by ſuch a Phraſe, but ſome particular influence that Faith has in the Affair, or ſome certain Dependance that that Effect has on its Influence.

Some that have been aware of this have ſuppoſed that the influence or dependance might well be expreſſed by Faith's being the Inſtrument of our Juſtification; which has been miſunderſtood, and injuriouſly repreſented, and ridiculed by thoſe that have denied the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone, as tho' they had ſuppoſed that Faith was uſed as an Inſtrument in the Hand of God, whereby he performed, and brought to paſs that Act of his, viz. Approving and Juſtifying the Believer: Whereas it was not intended that Faith was the Inſtrument wherewith God juſtifies, but the Inſtrument wherewith we receive Juſtification; not the Inſtrument where with the juſtifier acts in Juſtifying, but wherewith the receiver of Juſtification acts in accepting Juſtification. But yet it muſt be own'd that this is an obſcure way of Speaking, and there muſt certainly be ſome impropriety in calling of it an Inſtrument wherewith we receive or accept Juſtification; for the very Perſons that thus explain the Matter ſpeak p. 10of Faith as being the Reception or Acceptance it ſelf; and if ſo how can it be the Inſtrument of Reception or Acceptance? Certainly there is difference between the Act and the Inſtrument. And beſides by their own Deſcriptions of Faith, Chriſt the Mediator, by whom, and his Righteouſneſs, by which we are juſtified, is more directly the Object of this Acceptance, and Juſtification which is the Benefit ariſing therefrom, more indirectly: and therefore if Faith be an Inſtrument, 'tis more properly the Inſtrument by which we receive Chriſt, than the Inſtrument by which we receive Juſtification.

But I humbly conceive we have been ready to look too far to find out what that Influence of Faith in our Juſtification is, or what is that Dependance of this Effect on Faith, ſignified by the Expreſſion of being juſtified by Faith, over looking that which is moſt obviouſly pointed forth in the Expreſſion, viz. that, the Caſe being as it is, (there being a Mediator that has purchaſed Juſtification,) Faith in this Mediator is that which renders i… a meet and ſuitable Thing, in the Sight of God, that he rather than others ſhould have this purchaſed Benefit aſſigned to him. There is this Benefit purchaſed, which God ſees it to be a more meet and ſuitable Thing that it ſhould be aſſigned to ſome than others, becauſe he ſees 'em differently qualified; that qualification wherein the meetneſs to this Benefit, as the Caſe ſtands conſiſts, is that, in us, by which we are Juſtified If Chriſt had not come into the World and died, &c. to purchaſe Juſtification, no Qualification whatever, in us, could render it a meet or fit Thing that we ſhould be juſtified; but the Caſe being as it now ſtands, viz that Chriſt has actually purchaſed Juſtification by his own Blood, for infinitely unworthy Creatures, there may be ſome certain Qualification found in ſome Perſons, that, either from the Relation it bears to the Mediator and his Merits, or on ſome other Account, is the Thing that in the Sight of God renders it a meet & condecent Thing that they ſhould have an intereſt in this purchaſed Benefit, and which if any are deſtitute of, it renders it an unfit & unſuitable Thing that they ſhould have it. The p. 11Wiſdom of God in his Conſtitutions, doubtleſs appears much in the Fitneſs and Beauty of them, ſo that thoſe Things are eſtabliſhed to be done that are fit to be done, and that theſe Things are connected in his Conſtitution, that are agreable one to another: ſo God juſtifies a Believer according to his revealed Conſtitution, without doubt, becauſe he ſees ſomething in this Qualification, that as the Caſe ſtands, renders it a fit Thing that ſuch ſhould be juſtified; whether it be becauſe Faith is the Inſtrument, or as it were the Hand, by which he that has purchaſed Juſtification is apprehended and accepted, or becauſe it is the Acceptance it ſelf, or whatever. To be juſtified is to be approved of God as a proper Subject of Pardon, and a right to eternal life; and therefore when it is ſaid that we are Juſtified BY Faith, what elſe can be underſtood by it than that Faith is that BY which we are render'd approvable, fitly ſo, and indeed, as the Caſe ſtands, proper Subjects of this Benefit?

This is ſomething different from Faith's being the Condition of Juſtification, only ſo as to be inſeparably connected with Juſtification; ſo are many other Things beſides Faith, and yet nothing in us, but Faith, renders it meet that we ſhould have Juſtification aſſigned to us; as I ſhall preſently ſhew how, in anſwer to the next Enq…ry, viz.

2. How this is ſaid to be by Faith alone, without any manner of Vertue or Goodneſs of our own. This may ſeem to ſome to be attended with two difficulties, viz. How this can be ſaid to be by Faith alone, without any Vertue or Goodneſs of ours, when Faith it ſelf is a Vertue, and one Part of our Goodneſs, and is not only ſome manner of goodneſs of ours, but is a very excellent Qualification, and one chief Part of the inherent Holineſs of a Chriſtian? And if it be a part of our inherent Goodneſs or Excellency, (whether it be this Part or any other,) that renders it a condecent or congruous Thing that we ſhould have this Benefit of Chriſt aſſigned to us, what this is leſs than what they mean that talk of a Merit of Congruity? And moreover, if this Part of our Chriſtian Holineſs qualifies us in the Sight of p. 12God, for this Benefit of Chriſt, and renders it a fit or meet Thing, in his Sight, that we ſhould have it, why ſhould not other Parts of Holineſs, and Conformity to God, which are alſo very excellent, & have as much of the Image of Chriſt in them, and are no leſs lovely in God's Eyes, qualify us as much, and have as much Influence to render us meet, in God's Sight, for ſuch a Benefit as this? Therefore I anſwer,

When it is ſaid that we are not juſtified by any Righteouſneſs or Goodneſs of our own, what is meant is that it is not out of Reſpect to the Excellent or Goodneſs of any Qualifications, or Acts, in us whatſoever, that God judges it meet that this Benefit of Chriſt ſhould be ours; and it is not, in any wiſe, on Account of any Excellency, or Value that there … in Faith, that it appears, in the Sight of God, a me… Thing, that … …hat believes ſhould have this Benefit … Chriſt aſſigned to him, but purely from the Relation Faith has to the Perſon in whom this Benefit is to be had, or as it unites to that Mediator, in and by whom we are juſtified. Here for the greater Clearneſs, I would particularly explain my ſelf under ſeveral Propoſitions.

1. It is certain that there is ſome Union or Relation that the People of Chriſt, ſtand in to him, that is expreſſed in Scripture, from time to time, by being in Chriſt, and is repreſented frequently by thoſe Metaphors of being Members of Chriſt, or being united to him as Members to the Head, and Branches to the Stock,**Our Saviour compares his myſtical Body, that is his Church, to a Vine, which his Father, whom he compares to a Husbandman, hath planted, I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman. To repreſent to us the Union that is betwixt Chriſt and all true Chriſtians, and the Influence of Grace and ſpiritual Life, which all that are United to him do derive and receive from him, he ſets it forth to us by the Reſemblance of a Vine and Branches. As there is a natural vital Union between the Vine and the Branches, ſo there is a ſpiritual Union between Chriſt and true Chriſtians; and this Union is the Cauſe of our Fruitfulneſs, in the Works of Obedience and a good Life. There are ſome indeed that ſeem to be grafted into Chriſt by an outward Profeſſion of Chriſtianity, who yet derive no Influence from him, ſo as to bring forth Fruit, becauſe they are not vitally united to him. Dr. Tillotſon in his 3d. Vol. of Serm. p. 307. By this it appears that the vital Union between Chriſt and true Chriſtians, which is much more of a Myſtery than the relative Union, and neceſſarily implies it, was not thought an unreaſonable Doctrine, by one of the greateſt Divines, on the other ſide of the Queſtion in Hand. p. 13and is compared to a Marriage Union between Husband and Wife. I don't now pretend to determine of what Sort this Union is; nor is it neceſſary to my preſent Purpoſe to enter into any Manner of Diſputes about it: if any are diſguſted at the Word Union, as obſcure and unintelligible, the Word Relation equally ſerves my Purpoſe; I don't now deſire to determine any more about it, than all, of all Sorts, will readily allow, viz that there is a peculiar Relation between true Chriſtians and Chriſt, or a certain Relation between him and them, that there is not between him and others; which is ſignified by thoſe metaphorical Expreſſions in Scripture, of being in Chriſt, being Members of Chriſt, &c.

2. This Relation or Union to Chriſt, whereby Chriſtians are ſaid to be in Chriſt, (whatever it be,) is the Ground of their Right to his Benefits. This needs no Proof; the Reaſon of the Thing, at firſt Bluſh, demonſtrates it: but yet 'tis exceeding evident alſo by Scripture, 1 John 5. 12. He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son hath not Life. 1 Cor. 1. 3. Of him are ye in Chriſt Jeſus, who of God is made unto us—Righteouſneſs. Firſt we muſt be in him, and then he will be made Righteouſneſs, or Juſtification to us. Eph. 1. 6. Who hath made us accepted p. 14in the Beloved. Our being in him is the Ground of our being accepted. So it is in thoſe Unions which the Holy Ghoſt has thought fit to compare this Union to; the Union of the Members of the Body with the Head is the Ground of their partaking of the Life of the Head; 'tis the Union of the Branches to the Stock, which is the Ground of their partaking of the Sap & Life of the Stock; 'tis the Relation of the Wife to the Husband, that is the Ground of her joynt Intereſt in his Eſtate, they are looked upon, in ſeveral Reſpects, as one in Law: ſo there is a legal Union between Chriſt and true Chriſtians; ſo that (as all except Socinians allow,) one, in ſome reſpects, is accepted for the other, by the ſupreme Judge.

3. And thus it is that Faith is that Qualification in any Perſon, that renders it meet in the Sight of God that he ſhould be looked upon as having Chriſt's Satisfaction and Righteouſneſs belonging to him, viz. becauſe it is that in him, which, on his Part, makes up this Union between him and Chriſt. By what has been juſt now obſerved, 'tis a Perſon's being, according to Scripture Phraſe, in Chriſt, that is the Ground of having his Satisfaction and Merits belonging to him, and a Right to the Benefits procured thereby: and the Reaſon of it is plain; 'tis eaſy to ſee how a having Chriſt's Merits and Benefits belonging to us, follows from our having (if I may ſo ſpeak) Chriſt himſelf belonging to us, or a being united to him; and if ſo it muſt alſo be eaſy to ſee how, or in what Manner, that, in a Perſon, that on his Part makes up the Union between his Soul & Chriſt, ſhould be the Thing on the Account of which God looks on it meet that he ſhould have Chriſt's Merits belonging to him; and alſo that it is a very different Thing, for God to aſſign to a particular Perſon, a Right to Chriſt's Merits and Benefits, from Regard to any Qualification in him, in this Reſpect, from his doing of it for him, out of Reſpect to the Value or Lovelineſs of that Qualification, or as a Reward of the Excellency of it.

As there is no Body but what will allow that there is a peculiar Relation between Chriſt & his true Diſciples, p. 15by which they are in ſome ſenſe in scripture ſaid to be one; ſo I ſuppoſe there is no Body but what will allow, that there may be ſomething that the true Chriſtian does on his Part, whereby he is active in coming into this Relation or Union, ſome Act of the Soul of the Chriſtian, that is the Chriſtian's uniting Act, or that which is done towards this Union or Relation, (or whatever any pleaſe to call it,) … the Chriſtian's Part: Now Faith I ſuppoſe to be this Act

I don't now pretend to define juſtifying Faith, or to determine preciſely how much is contain'd in it, but only to determine thus much concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the Soul, that before was ſeperate, and alienated from Chriſt, unites it ſelf to him, or ceaſes to be any longer in that State of Alienation, and comes into that ſore mention'd Union or Relation to him, or to uſe the Scripture Phraſe, that 'tis that by which the Soul COMES TO Chriſt, and RECEIVES him: and this is evident by the Scriptures uſing theſe very Expreſſions to ſignify Faith. John 6▪ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39▪ He that cometh to me ſhall never hunger, and he that believeth on me ſhall never thirſt. But I ſaid unto you that ye alſo have ſeen me and believe not. All that the Father giveth me ſhall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wiſe caſt out; For I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own Will, but the Will of him that ſent me ver. 40. And this is the Will of him that ſent me, that every one which ſeeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlaſting Life, and I will raiſe him up at the laſt Day. Chap. 5▪ 38, 39, 40.—Whom he hath ſent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures for—they are they which teſtify of me: And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have Life ver. 43, 44. I am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if another ſhall come in his own Name him ye will receive How can ye believe which receive honour one of another—? Chap. 5▪ 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name. If it be ſaid that theſe are obſcure figures of Speech, that, however p. 16they might be well underſtood of Old, among thoſe that then commonly uſed ſuch Metaphors, yet they are difficultly underſtood now. I allow that the Expreſſions of receiving Chriſt and coming to Chriſt, are metaphorical Expreſſions; and if I ſhould allow 'em to be obſcure Metaphors; yet ſo much at leaſt, is certainly plain in 'em, viz. that Faith is that by which thoſe that before were ſeperated, and at a diſtance from Chriſt, (that is to ſay were not ſo related and united to him as his People are;) do ceaſe to be any longer at ſuch a Diſtance, and do come into that Relation and nearneſs; unleſs they are ſo unintelligible, that nothing at all can be underſtood by 'em.

God don't give thoſe that believe, an Union with, or an intereſt in the Saviour, in reward for Faith, but only becauſe Faith is the Soul's active uniting with Chriſt, or is it ſelf the very act of Unition, on their Part. God ſees it fit, that in order to an Union's being eſtabliſhed between two intelligent active Beings or Perſons, ſo as that they ſhould be looked upon as one, there ſhould be the mutual Act of both, that each ſhould receive other, as actively joining themſelves one to another. God in requiring this in order to an union with Chriſt as one of his People, treats Men as reaſonable Creatures, capable of Act, and Choice; and hence ſees it fit that they only, that are one with Chriſt by their own Act, ſhould be looked upon as one in Law: what is real in the Union betwen Chriſt and his People, is the Foundation of what is legal; that is, it is ſomething that is really in them, & between them, uniting them, that is the Ground of the Suitableneſs of their being accounted as one by the Judge: And if there be any Act, or Qualification in Believers, that is of that uniting Nature, that it is meet on that Account that the Judge ſhould look upon 'em, and accept 'em as one, no wonder that upon the Account of the ſame Act or Qualification, he ſhould accept the Satisfaction and Merits of the one, for the other, as if it were their Satisfaction and Merits: It neceſſarily follows, or rather is implied.

p. 17And thus it is that Faith juſtifies, or gives an Intereſt in Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits, and a Right to the Benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Chriſt and the Believer one in the Acceptance of the ſupreme Judge. 'Tis by Faith that we have a Title to eternal Life, becauſe, tis by Faith that we have the Son of God, by whom Life is. The Apoſtle John in thoſe Words, 1 John 5. 12. He that hath the son hath Life, ſeems evidently to have reſpect to thoſe Words of Chriſt that he gives an Account of in his Goſpel, Chap. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlaſting Life, and he that believeth not the Son ſhall not ſee Life. And in the ſame Places that the Scripture ſpeaks of Faith as the Soul's receiving, or coming to Chriſt, it alſo ſpeaks of this receiving, or coming to, or joyning with Chriſt, as the Ground of an Intereſt in his Benefits: To as many as received him, to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God. Ye will not come unto me that ye might have Life, And there is a wide Difference between its being looked on ſuitable that Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits ſhould be theirs that believe, becauſe an Intereſt in that Satisfaction and Merit is but a fit Reward of Faith, or a ſuitable Teſtimony of God's Reſpect to the Amiableneſs and Excellency of that Grace, and it's only being looked on ſuitable that Chriſt's Satisfaction and Merits ſhould be theirs, becauſe Chriſt and they are ſo united, that in the Eyes of the Judge they may ſuitably be looked upon, and taken, as one.

Altho', on the Account of Faith in the Believer, it is, in the Sight of God, fit and congruous, both that he that believes ſhould be looked upon as in Chriſt, and alſo as having an Intereſt in his Merits, in the way that has been now explain'd, yet it appears that this is very wide from a merit of Congruity, or indeed any moral Congruity at all to either. There is a twofold Fitneſs to a State; I know not how to give them diſtinguiſhing Names otherwiſe than by calling the one a moral, and the other a natural Fitneſs: A Perſon has a moral Fitneſs for a State, when his moral Excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into ſuch a good State, is but a fit or ſuitable p. 18Teſtimony of Regard or Love to the moral Excellency, or Value, or Amiableneſs of any of his Qualifications or Acts. A Perſon has a natural Fitneſs for a State when it appears meet and condecent that he ſhould be in ſuch a State or Circumſtances, only from the natural concord or agreableneſs there is between ſuch Qualifications and ſuch Circumſtances; not becauſe the Qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only becauſe the Qualifications, and the Circumſtances are like one another, or do in their nature ſuit and agree or unite one to another. And 'tis on this latter Account only that God looks on it fit by a natural Fitneſs, that he whoſe Heart ſincerely unites it ſelf to Chriſt as his Saviour, ſhould be looked upon as united to that Saviour, and ſo having an Intereſt in him; and not from any moral Fitneſs there is between the excellency of ſuch a Qualification as Faith, and ſuch a glorious Bleſſedneſs as the having an Intereſt in Chriſt. God's beſtowing Chriſt and his Benefits on a Soul in conſequence of Faith, out of Regard only to the natural Concord there is between ſuch a Qualification of a Soul, and ſuch an union with Chriſt, and Intereſt in him, makes the Caſe very widely different from what would be; if he beſtowed this from regard to any moral Suitableneſs; for in the former Caſe, 'tis only from God's Love of order that he beſtows theſe Things on the account of Faith. In the latter God doth it out of Love to the Grace of Faith it ſelf. God will neither look on Chriſt's Merits as ours, nor adjudge his Benefits to us, till we be in Chriſt: nor will he look upon us as being in him, without an active unition of our Hearts and Souls to him; becauſe he is a wiſe Being, and delights in Order, and not in Confuſion, and that Things ſhould be together or aſunder according to their nature; and his making ſuch a Conſtitution is a teſtimony of his love of Order: whereas if it were out of regard to any moral Fitneſs or ſuitableneſs between Faith and ſuch Bleſſedneſs, it would be a Teſtimony of his Love to the Act or Qualification it ſelf: The one ſuppoſes this divine Conſtitution to be a Manifeſtation of God's regard to the Beauty of the act of Faith, the other p. 19only ſuppoſes it to be a Manifeſtation of his regard to the Beauty of that Order that there is in uniting thoſe Things that have a natural Agreement, and congruity, and unition the one with the other. Indeed a moral Suitableneſs or Fitneſs to a State includes a natural; for 'tis never ſo that if there be a moral Suitableneſs that a Perſon ſhould be in ſuch a State, but that there is alſo a natural Suitableneſs; but ſuch a natural Suitableneſs as I have deſcribed, by no means neceſſarily includes a moral.

This is plainly what our Divines intend when they ſay that Faith don't juſtify as a Work, or a Righteouſneſs, viz. That it don't juſtify as a Part of our moral Goodneſs or Excellency, or that it don't juſtify as a Work, in the Senſe that Man was to have been juſtified by his Works by the Covenant of Works, which was to have a Title to eternal Life, given him of God in Teſtimony of his pleaſedneſs with his Works, or his regard to the inherent Excellency and Beauty of his Obedience. And this is certainly what the Apoſtle Paul means, when he ſo much inſiſts upon it that we are not juſtified by works, viz. that we are not juſtified by them as good Works, or by any goodneſs, value, or excellency of our Works. For the proof of this I ſhall at preſent mention but one Thing, (being like to have occaſion to ſay what ſhall make it more abundantly manifeſt afterwards,) and that is, the Apoſtles, from Time to Time, ſpeaking of our not being juſtified by Works, as the Thing that excludes all boaſting, Eph. 2 9. Rom 3. 27. and Chap. 4. 2. now which way do Works give occaſion for boaſting, but as good? What do Men uſe to boaſt of, but of ſomething they ſuppoſe good or excellent? And on what Account do they boaſt of any Thing, but for the ſuppoſed Excellency that is in it?

From theſe Things we may learn in what manner Faith is the only Condition of Juſtification and Salvation; for tho' it be not the only Condition, ſo as alone truly to have the Place of a Condition in an hypothetical Propoſition, in which Juſtification and Salvation are the Conſequent, yet it is the Condition of Juſtification in a p. 20Manner peculiar to it, and ſo that nothing elſe has a parallel Influence with it; becauſe Faith includes the whole Act of Unition to Chriſt as a Saviour: The entire active uniting of the Soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Chriſt, and receiving of him, is called Faith in Scripture; and however other Things may be no leſs excellent than Faith, yet 'tis not the nature of any other Graces or Vertues directly to cloſe with Chriſt as a Mediator, any further than they enter into the Conſtitution of juſtifying Faith, and do belong to its Nature.

Thus I have explained my meaning, in aſſerting it as a Doctrine of the Goſpel, that we are juſtified by Faith only, without any manner of Goodneſs of our own.

I now proceed in the

II. Place, to the Proof of it, which I ſhall endeavour to produce in the following Arguments,

Firſt Such is our Caſe, and the State of Things, that neither Faith, nor any other Qualification, or Act, or Courſe of Acts does, or can render it ſuitable or fit that Perſon ſhould have an Intereſt in the Saviour, and ſo a Title to his Benefits, on Account of any excellency therein, or any other way than only as ſomething in him may unite him to the Saviour. It is not ſuitable that God ſhould give fallen Man an Intereſt in Chriſt and his Merits, as a Teſtimony of his reſpect to any Thing whatſoever as a lovelineſs in him; and that becauſe 'tis not meet till a Sinner is actually juſtified, that any Thing in him ſhould be accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableneſs of his Perſon; or that God by any Act, ſhould in any manner or degree teſtify any pleaſedneſs with him, or favour towards him, on the account of any Thing inherent in him; and that for two Reaſons, 1. Becauſe the nature of Things will not admit of it. 2. Becauſe an antecedent divine Conſtitution ſtands in the way of it.

1. The Nature of Things will not admit of it. And this appears from the infinite Guilt that the Sinner 'till juſtified is under; which ariſes from the infinite evil or heinouſneſs of Sin. But becauſe this is what ſome deny, I would therefore firſt eſtabliſh that Point, and ſhew that p. 21Sin is a Thing that is indeed properly of infinite Heinouſneſs; and then ſhew the Conſequence, and ſhew that it being ſo, and ſo the Sinner under infinite Guilt in God's Sight, it cannot be ſuitable, 'till the Sinner is actually juſtified, that God ſhould by any Act teſtify any pleaſedneſs with, or acceptance of, any Thing as any excellency or amiableneſs of his Perſon, or indeed have any acceptance of him, or pleaſedneſs with him to teſtify.

That the evil and demerit of Sin is infinitely great, is moſt demonſtrably evident, becauſe what the evil or iniquity of Sin conſiſts in, is the violating of an Obligation, the doing contrary to what we are obliged to do, or doing what we ſhould not do; and therefore by how much the greater the Obligation is that is violated, by ſo much the greater is the Iniquity of the violation. But certainly our Obligation to love or honour any Being is great in proportion to the greatneſs or excellency of that Being, or his worthineſs to be loved and honoured: we are under greater Obligations to love a more lovely Being than a leſs lovely; and if a Being be infinitely excellent and lovely, our Obligations to love him are therein infinitely great: The matter is ſo plain it ſeems needleſs to ſay much about it.

Some have argued exceeding ſtrangely againſt the infinite evil of Sin, from its being committed againſt an infinite Object, that if ſo, then it may as well be argued that there is alſo an infinite value or worthineſs in Holineſs and Love to God, becauſe that alſo has an infinite Object; Whereas the Argument from parity of Reaſon will carry it in the reverſe: the Sin of the Creature againſt God is ill deſerving in proportion to the diſtance there is between… God and the Creature, the greatneſs of the Object, and the meanneſs of the Subject aggravates it; but 'tis the reverſe with regard to the worthineſs of the reſpect of the Creature to God. 'tis worthleſs (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanneſs of the Subject: ſo much the greater the Diſtance between God and the Creature, ſo much the leſs is the Creature's reſpect worthy of God's notice or regard. The unworthineſs of Sin or oppoſition to God riſes, and is great in p. 22proportion to the dignity of the Object, & inferiority of the Subject; but on the contrary the worth or value of reſpect riſes in proportion to the value of the Subject; and that for this plain Reaſon, viz. that the evil of diſreſpect is in proportion to the Obligation that lies upon the Subject to the Object; which Obligation is moſt evidently encreaſed by the excellency and ſuperiority of the Object; but on the contrary the worthineſs of reſpect to a Being is in proportion to the Obligation that lies on him who is the Object, (or rather the Reaſon he has) to regard the Subject, which certainly is in proportion to the Subject's value or excellency. Sin or diſreſpect is evil or heinous in proportion to the Degree of what it denies in the Object, and as it were takes from it, viz. its excellency and worthineſs of reſpect; On the contrary, reſpect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the Object in that reſpect, which undoubtedly, (other Things being equal,) is great in proportion to the Subject's value, or worthineſs of regard; becauſe the Subject in giving his Reſpect, can give no more than himſelf; ſo far as he gives his reſpect he gives himſelf to the Object; and therefore his gift is of greater or leſſer value in proportion to the value of himſelf.

Hence (by the way,) the Love, Honour, and Obedience of Chriſt towards God, has infinite Value, from the excellency and dignity of the Perſon in whom theſe Qualifications were inherent: and the Reaſon why we needed a Perſon of infinite Dignity to obey for us, was becauſe of our infinite comparative Meanneſs, who had diſobeyed, whereby our Diſobedience was infinitely aggravated: We needed one, the worthineſs of whoſe Obedience, might be anſwerable to the unworthineſs of our Diſobedience; and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy, as we were unworthy.

Another Objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning.) is, that to ſuppoſe Sin to be infinitely heinous is to make all Sins equally heinous; for how can any Sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no Sin can be greater with reſpect to that aggravation the worthineſs of the p. 23Object againſt whom it is committed: one Sin can't be more aggravated than another in that reſpect, becauſe in this reſpect the aggravation of every Sin is infinite; but that don't hinder but that ſome Sins may be more heinous than others in other reſpects: as if we ſhould ſuppoſe a Cylinder infinitely long, it can't be greater in that reſpect, viz. with reſpect to the length of it; but yet it may be doubled, and trebled, and made a thouſand fold more, by the increaſe of other Dimenſions. Of Sins that are all infinitely heinous, ſome may be more heinous than others, as well as of divers Puniſhments that are all infinitely dreadful Calamities, or all of them infinitely exceeding all finite Calamities, ſo that there is no finite Calamity however great but what is infinitely leſs dreadful, or more eligable than any of them, yet ſome of them may be a thouſand Times more dreadful than others. A Puniſhment may be infinitely dreadful by reaſon of the infinite Duration of it; and therefore can't be greater with reſpect to that Aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance; but yet may be vaſtly more terrible on other Accounts.

Having thus, as I imagine, made it clear that all Sin is infinitely heinous, and conſequently that the Sinner, before he is juſtified, is under infinite Guilt in God's Sight, it now remains that I ſhew the Conſequence, or how it follows from hence, that it is not ſuitable that God ſhould give the Sinner an Intereſt in Chriſt's Merits, and ſo a title to his Benefits, from regard to any Qualification, or Act, or courſe of Acts, in him, on the Account of any Excellency or Goodneſs whatſoever therein, but only as uniting to Chriſt; or (which fully implies it) that it is not ſuitable that God by any Act, ſhould in any Manner or Degree, teſtify any acceptance of, or pleaſedneſs with any Thing, as any Vertue, or Excellency, or any part of lovelineſs, or valuableneſs, in his Perſon, until he is actually already intereſted in Chriſt's Merits; which appears by this, that from the Premiſſes it follows, that before the Sinner is already intereſted in Chriſt, & juſtified, 'tis impoſſible God ſhould have any acceptance of, or pleaſedneſs with the Perſon p. 24of the Sinner, as in any Degree lovely in his Sight, or indeed leſs the Object of his Diſpleaſure and Wrath: For, by the Suppoſition, the Sinner ſtill remains infinitely guilty in the Sight of God; for Guilt is not removed but by Pardon; but to ſuppoſe the Sinner already pardoned, is to ſuppoſe him already juſtified; which is contrary to the Suppoſition: But if the Sinner ſtill remains infinitely guilty in God's Sight, that is the ſame Thing as ſtill to be beheld of God as infinitely the Object of his Diſpleaſure and Wrath, or infinitely hateful in his Eyes; and if ſo, where is any room for any Thing in him, to be accepted as ſome valuableneſs or acceptableneſs of him in God's Sight, or for any Act of Favour, of any Kind towards him, or any Gift whatſoever to him, in Teſtimony of God's Reſpect to and Acceptance of ſomething of him lovely and pleaſing? If we ſhould ſuppoſe that it could be ſo, that a Sinner could have Faith, or ſome other Grace in his Heart, and yet remain ſeparate from Chriſt; and it ſhould continue ſtill to be ſo, that he is not looked upon as being in Chriſt, or having any relation to him, it would not be meet that that true Grace ſhould be accepted of God as any lovelineſs of his Perſon in the Sight of God: If it ſhould be accepted as the lovelineſs of the Perſon, that would be to accept the Perſon as in ſome Degree lovely to God, but this can't be conſiſtent with his ſtill remaining under infinite Guilt, or infinite Unworthineſs in God's Sight, which that Goodneſs has no worthineſs to ballance. While God beholds the Man as ſeparate from Chriſt, he muſt behold him as h… is in himſelf; and ſo his Goodneſs can't be beheld by God, but as taken with his Guilt and Hatefulneſs, and as put in the Scales with it; and being beheld ſo, his Goodneſs is nothing; becauſe there is a finite on the ballance againſt an infinite, whoſe Proportion to it is nothing: In ſuch a Caſe, if the Man be looked on as he is in himſelf, the exceſs of the Weight in one Scale above another, muſt be looked upon as the quality of the Man: Theſe Contraries being beheld together, one takes from another, as one Number is ſubſtracted from another; and p. 25the Man muſt be looked upon in God's Sight according to the remainder: For here by the Suppoſition all Acts of Grace of Favour, in not imputing the Guilt as it is, are excluded, becauſe that ſuppoſes a Degree of Pardon, and that ſuppoſes Juſtification, which is contrary to what is ſuppoſed, viz. that the Sinner is not already juſtified: and therefore Things muſt be taken ſtrictly as they are; and ſo the Man is ſtill infinitely unworthy, and hateful in God's Sight, as he was before, without diminution, becauſe his Goodneſs bears no proportion to his Unworthineſs; and therefore when taken together is nothing.

Hence may be more clearly ſeen, the Force of that Expreſſion in the Text, of believing on him that juſtifieth the ungodly; for tho' there is indeed ſomething in Man that is really and ſpiritually Good, that is prior to Juſtification, yet there is nothing that is accepted as any godlineſs or excellency of the Perſon, till after Juſtification. Goodneſs or Lovelineſs of the Perſon in the Acceptance of God, in any Degree, is not to be conſider'd as prior but poſterior in the Order and Method of God's proceeding in this Affair: Tho' a Reſpect to the natural Suitableneſs between ſuch a Qualification, and ſuch a State, does go before Juſtification, yet the Acceptance even of Faith as any Goodneſs or Lovelineſs of the Believer, follows Juſtification: The Goodneſs is on the forementioned Account juſtly looked upon as nothing, until the Man is juſtified: And therefore the Man is reſpected in Juſtification, as in himſelf altogether hateful.—Thus the Nature of Things will not admit of a Man's having an Intereſt given him in the Merits or Benefits of a Saviour, on the Account of any Thing as a Righteouſneſs, or Vertue, or Excellency in him.

2 A divine Conſtitution that is antecedent to that which eſtabliſhes Juſtification by a Saviour, (and indeed to any need of a Saviour,) ſtands in the Way of it, viz. that original Conſtitution or Law which Man was put under; by which Conſtitution or Law the Sinner is condemned, becauſe he is a violater of that Law; and ſtands condemned, till he has actually an Intereſt in p. 30the Saviour, through whom he is ſet at liberty from that Condemnation. But to ſuppoſe that God gives a Man an Intereſt in Chriſt in reward for his Righteouſneſs or Vertue, is inconſiſtent with his ſtill remaining under Condemnation 'till he has an Intereſt in Chriſt; becauſe it ſuppoſes that the Sinner's Vertue is accepted, and he accepted for it, before he has an Intereſt in Chriſt; inaſmuch as an Intereſt in Chriſt is given as a Reward of his Vertue; but the Vertue muſt firſt be accepted, before it is rewarded, and the Man muſt firſt be accepted for his Vertue, before he is rewarded for it, with ſo great and Glorious a Reward; for the very notion of a Reward is ſome Good beſtowed in teſtimony of Reſpect to and Acceptance of Vertue in the Perſon rewarded. It don't conſiſt with the Honour of the Majeſty of the King of Heaven and Earth, to accept of any Thing from a condemned Malefactor, condemned by the Juſtice of his own holy Law, … 'till that Condemnation be removed: and then ſuch acceptance is inconſiſtent with, and contradictory to ſuch remaining Condemnation; for the Law condemns him that violates it, to be totally rejected and caſt off by God; but how can a Man continue under this Condemnation, i. e. continue utterly rejected and caſt off of God, and yet his Righteouſneſs or Vertue be accepted, and he himſelf accepted on the Account of it, ſo as to have ſo glorious Reward as an Intereſt in Chriſt beſtowed as a teſtimony of that Acceptance?

I know that the Anſwer that will be ready for this is, that we now are not ſubject to that Conſtitution that Mankind were at firſt put under; but that God in Mercy to Mankind has aboliſhed that rigorous Conſtitution or Law that they were under originally, & has put us under a new Law, and introduced a more mild Conſtitution; And that the Conſtitution or Law it ſelf not remaining, there is no need of ſuppoſing that the Condemnation of it remains, to ſtand in the Way of the Acceptance of our Vertue. And indeed there is no other way of avoiding this Difficulty; the Condemnation of the Law muſt ſtand in force againſt a Man 'till he is actually p. 27intereſted in the Saviour, that has ſatisfied and anſwered the Law, effectually to prevent any Acceptance of his Vertue, before, or in order to ſuch an Intereſt, unleſs the Law or Conſtitution it ſelf be aboliſhed. But the Scheme of thoſe modern Divines by whom this is maintained ſeems to contain a great deal of Abſurdity and Self-Contradiction: they hold that the old Law given to Adam, which requires perfect Obedience is entirely repealed, and that inſtead of it we are put under a new Law, which requires no more than imperfect, ſincere Obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent Circumſtances ſince the Fall, whereby we are unable to perform that perfect Obedience that was required by the firſt Law: for they ſtrenuouſly maintain that it would be unjuſt in God to require any Thing of us that is beyond our preſent Power and Ability to perform; and yet they hold that Chriſt died to ſatisfy for the imperfections of our Obedience, that ſo our imperfect Obedience might be accepted inſtead of perfect—Now how can theſe Things hang together.—I would ask what Law theſe imperfections of our Obedience are a breach of? if they are a breach of no Law, then they ben't Sins; and if they ben't Sins, what need of Chriſt's dying to ſatisfy for them? but if they are Sins, and ſo the breach of ſome Law, what Law is it? they can't be a breach of their new Law, for that requires no other than imperfect Obedience, or Obedience with imperfections; and they can't be a breach of the old Law, for that they ſay is entirely aboliſhed, and we never were under it; and we can't break a Law that we never were under.—They ſay it would not be juſt in God to exact of us perfect Obedience, becauſe it would not be juſt in God to require more of us than we can perform in our preſent State, & to puniſh us for ſailing of it; and therefore by their own Scheme the imperfections of our Obedience don't deſerve to be puniſhed; What need therefore of Chriſt's dying to ſatisfy for them? What need of Chriſt's Suffering to ſatisfy for that which is no Fault, and in its own Nature deſerves no Suffering? What need of Chriſt's dying to purchaſe that our imperfect Obedience p. 28ſhould be accepted, when according to their Scheme it would be unjuſt in it ſelf that any other Obedience than imperfect ſhould be required? What need of Chriſt's dying to make way for God's accepting ſuch an Obedience, as it would in itſelf be unjuſt in him not to accept? Is there any need of Chriſt's dying to perſuade God not to do unjuſtly?—If it be ſaid that Chriſt died to ſatisfy that Law for us, that ſo we might not be under that Law, but might be delivered from it, that ſo there might be room for us to be under a more mild Law; ſtill I would inquire what need of Chriſt's dying that we might not be under a Law, that (according to their Scheme) it would in it ſelf be unjuſt that we ſhould be under, becauſe in our preſent State we are not able to keep it? What need of Chriſt's dying that we might not be under a Law, that it would be unjuſt that we ſhould be under, whether Chriſt died or no?

Thus far I have argued principally from Reaſon, and the Nature of Things: I proceed now to the

Second Argument, which is, That this is a Doctrine that the holy Scriptures, the Revelation that God has given us of his Mind and Will, by which alone we can never come to know how thoſe that have offended God can come to be accepted of him, and juſtified in his Sight, is exceeding full in: Particularly the Apoſtle Paul is abundant in teaching that we are juſtified by Faith alone without the Works of the Law: There is no one Doctrine that he inſiſts ſo much upon, and is ſo particular in, and that he handles with ſo much diſtinctneſs, explaining, and giving Reaſons, and anſwering Objections.

Here it is not denied by any, that the Apoſtle does aſſert that we are juſtified by Faith, without the Works of the Law, becauſe the Words are expreſs; but only it is ſaid that we take his Words wrong, and underſtand that by 'em that never entered into his Heart, in that when he excludes the Works of the Law, we underſtand him of the whole Law of God, or the Rule which he has given to Mankind to walk by; whereas all that he intends is the ceremonial Law.

Some that oppoſe this Doctrine indeed ſay, that the p. 29Apoſtle ſometimes means that it is by Faith, i. e. an hearty embracing the Goſpel in its firſt Act, only, or without any preceeding holy Life, that Perſons are admitted into a juſtified State; but, ſay they, 'tis by a perſevering Obedience that they are continued in a juſtified State, and it is by this that they are finally juſtified. But this is the ſame Thing as to ſay that a Man on his firſt embracing the Goſpel is conditionally juſtified and pardon'd.—To pardon Sin, is to free the Sinner from the Puniſhment of it, or from that eternal Miſery that is due to it; And therefore if a Perſon is pardon'd, or freed from this Miſery, on his firſt embracing the Goſpel, and yet not finally freed, but his actual freedom ſtill depends on ſome Condition yet to be performed, 'tis inconceivable how he can be pardon'd otherwiſe than conditionally: that is he is not properly actually pardon'd, and freed from Puniſhment, but only he has God's Promiſe that he ſhall be pardon'd on future Conditions; God promiſes him that now, if he perſeveres in Obedience, he ſhall be finally pardon'd, or actually freed from Hell; which is to make juſt nothing at all of the Apoſtle's great Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith alone: ſuch a conditional Pardon is no Pardon or Juſtification at all, any more than all Mankind have, whether they embrace the Goſpel or no; for they all have a promiſe of final Juſtification on Conditions of future ſincere Obedience, as much as he that embraces the Goſpel.—But not to diſpute about this, we will ſuppoſe that there may be ſomething or other at the Sinner's firſt embracing the Goſpel, that may properly be called Juſtification or Pardon, and yet that final Juſtification, or real freedom from the Puniſhment of Sin, is ſtill ſuſpended on Conditions hitherto unfulfill'd; yet they that hold that Sinners are thus juſtified on embracing the Goſpel, they ſuppoſe that they are juſtified by this, no otherwiſe than as this is a leading act of Obedience, or at leaſt as Vertue and moral Goodneſs in them, and therefore would be excluded by the Apoſtle as much as any other Vertue or Obedience; if it be allowed that he means the moral Law, when he excludes Works of the Law. And therefore if p. 26that Point be yielded that the Apoſtle means the moral, and not only the ceremonial Law, their whole Scheme falls to the Ground.

And becauſe the iſſue of the whole Argument from thoſe Texts in St. Paul's Epiſtles depends on the determination of this Point, I would be particular in the diſcuſſion of it.

Some of our Opponents in this Doctrine of Juſtification, when they deny that by the Law, the Apoſtle means the moral Law, or the whole Rule of Life which God has given to Mankind, ſeem to chooſe to expreſs themſelves thus, that the Apoſtle only intends the Moſaic Diſpenſation: But this comes to juſt the ſame Thing as if they ſaid that the Apoſtle only means to …lude the Works of the Ceremonial Law; for when they ſay that 'tis intended only that we ben't juſtified by the Works of the Moſaic Diſpenſation, if they mean any Thing by it, it muſt be that we ben't juſtified by attending, and obſerving what is Moſaic in that Diſpenſation, or by what was peculiar to it, and wherein it differed from the Chriſtian Diſpenſation; which is the ſame as that which is ceremonial and poſitive, and not moral, in that Adminiſtration—. So that this is what I have to diſprove, viz. That the Apoſtle when he ſpeaks of Works of the Law in this Affair, means only Works of the Ceremonial Law, or thoſe Obſervances that were peculiar to the Moſaic Adminiſtration.

And here it muſt be noted, that no Body controverts it with them, whether the Works of the Ceremonial Law ben't included or whether the Apoſtle don't particularly argue againſt Juſtification by Circumciſion, and other ceremonial Obſervances; but all that is in Queſtion is, whether when he denies Juſtification by Works of the Law, he is to be underſtood only of the Ceremonial Law, or whether the moral Law ben't alſo implied and intended; And therefore thoſe Arguments that are brought to prove that the Apoſtle meant the Ceremonial Law are nothing to the Purpoſe, unleſs they prove more than that, viz. that the Apoſtle meant thoſe only.

p. 31What is much inſiſted on is, that it was the judaiſing Chriſtians being ſo fond of Circumciſion, and other Ceremonies of the Law, and depending ſo much on them, which was the very Occaſion of the Apoſtles writing as he does againſt Juſtification by the Works of the Law. But ſuppoſing it were ſo, that their truſting in Works of the Ceremonial Law, were the ſole Occaſion of the Apoſtle's writing; (which yet there is no reaſon to allow, as may appear afterwards;) if their truſting in a particular Work, as a Work of Righteouſneſs was all that gave occaſion to the Apoſtle to write, how does it follow that therefore the Apoſtle did not upon that Occaſion write againſt truſting in all Works of Righteouſneſs whatſoever? Where is the abſurdity of ſuppoſing that the Apoſtle might take occaſion from his obſerving ſome to truſt in a certain Work as a Work of Righteouſneſs. …o write to them againſt Perſons truſting in any Work… of Righteouſneſs at all, and that it was a very proper Occaſion too? yea it would have been anavoidable for the Apoſtle to have argued againſt truſting in a particular Work in that quality of a Work of Righteouſneſs, which quality was general, but he muſt there in argue againſt truſting in Works of Righteouſneſs in general Suppoſing it had been ſome other particular ſort of Works that was the occaſion of the Apoſtle's writing, as for inſtance, Works of Charity, and the Apoſtle ſhould hence take occaſion to write to them not to truſt in their Works, could the Apoſtle by that be underſtood of no other Works beſides Works of Charity? Would it have been abſurd to underſtand him as writing againſt truſting in any Work at all, becauſe it was their truſting to a particular Work that gave occaſion to his writing?

Another Thing that is alledged as an Evidence that the Apoſtle means the ceremonial Law, when he ſays we can not be juſtified by the Works of the Law, is that he uſes that Argument to prove it, viz. that this Law that he ſpeaks of was given ſo long after the Covenant with Abraham, in Gal 3▪ 17. And this I ſay that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, the p. 32Law that was four hundred and thirty years after cannot diſannul. But ſay they, it was only the Moſaic Adminiſtration, and not the Covenant of Works that was given ſo long after.—But the Apoſtle's Argument ſeems manifeſtly to be miſtaken by them. The Apoſtle don't ſpeak of a Law that began firſt to have being four hundred and thirty Years after; if he did, there would be ſome force in their Objection; But he has reſpect to a certain ſolemn Tranſaction, well known among the Jews, by the Phraſe of the giving of the Law, which was that great Tranſaction at Mount Sinai, that we have Account of in the 19, and 20 Chapters of Exodus, conſiſting eſpecially in God's giving the ten Commandments, which is the moral Law, with that terrible Voice, which Law he afterwards gave in Tables of Stone. This Tranſaction the Jews in the Apoſtles Time miſinterpreted, they looked upon it as God's eſtabliſhing that Law as a Rule of Juſtification. This conceit of theirs the Apoſtle brings this invincible Argument againſt, viz. That God would never go about to diſannul his Covenant with Abraham, which was plainly a Covenant of Grace, by a Tranſaction with his Poſterity, that was ſo long after it, and was plainly built upon it: He would not overthrow a Covenant of Grace that he had long before eſtabliſhed with Abraham, for him, and his Seed, (which is often mention'd as the Ground of God's making them his People,) by now eſtabliſhing a Covenant of Works with them at Mount Sinai, as the Jews and judaizing Chriſtians ſuppoſed.

But that the Apoſtle don't mean only Works of the ceremonial Law, when he excludes Works of the Law in Juſtification, but alſo of the moral Law, and all Works of Obedience, Vertue, and Righteouſneſs whatſoever, may appear by the following Things.

1. The Apoſtle don't only ſay, that we are not juſtified by the Works of the Law, but that we are not juſtified by Works, uſing a general Term; as in our Text it is ſaid, unto him that worketh not, but believeth on him that juſtifieth, &c. and in the 6. v. God imputeth righteouſneſs without Works, And Chap 11. 6. "And p. 33if by Grace, then it is no more of Works, otherwiſe Grace is no more Grace: But if it be of Works, then it is no more Grace; otherwiſe Grace is no more Grace. St Eph. 2 8, 9 For by Grace ye are ſaved, through Faith,—not of Works. By which, there is no Reaſon in the World to underſtand the Apoſtle of any other than Works in general, as correlates of a Reward, or good Works, or Works of Vertue and Righteouſneſs. When the Apoſtle ſays we are juſtified or ſaved not by Works, without any ſuch Term annexed, as the Law, or any other Addition to limit the Expreſſion, what Warrant have any to confine it to Works of a particular Law, or Inſtitution, excluding others? Are not Obſervances of other Divine Laws Works, as well as of that? It ſeems to be allowed by the Divines in the Arminian Scheme, in their Interpretation of ſeveral of thoſe Texts where the Apoſtle only mentions Works, without any Addition, that he means our own good Works in general; but then they ſay, he only means to exclude any proper merit in thoſe Works. But to ſay the Apoſtle means one Thing when he ſays we ben't juſtified by Works, another when he ſays we ben't juſtified by the Works of the Law, when we find the Expreſſions mixed. and uſed in the ſame Diſcourſe, and when the Apoſtle is evidently upon the ſame Argument, is very unreaſonable, it is to dodge, and fly from Scripture, rather than to open and yield our ſelves to it's teachings.

2. In the third Chapter of Romans, our having been guilty of Breaches of the moral Law, is an Argument that the Apoſtle uſes why we cannot be juſtified by the Works of the Law; Beginning with the 9th v There he proves out of the Old Teſtament, that all are under Sin; There is none righteous, no not one…. Their Throat is an open Sepulchre: With their Tongues they have uſed deceit: Their Mouth is full of curſing and bitterneſs; and their Feet ſwift to ſhed Blood. And ſo he▪ goes on mentioning only thoſe Things that are Breaches of the moral Law, and then when he has done, his Concluſion is, in the p. 3419th, and 20th ver. Now we know that whatſoever Things the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law, that every Mouth may be ſtopped, and all the World may become guilty before God. Therefore by the Deeds of the Law, ſhall no Fleſh be juſtified in his Sight. This is moſt evidently his Argument, becauſe all had ſinn'd, (as it was ſaid in the 9th ver.) and been guilty of thoſe Breaches of the moral Law, that he had mentioned, (and it is repeated over again, afterward ver. 23.) For all have ſinn'd and come ſhort of the Glory of God. Therefore none at all can be juſtified by the Deeds of the Law: Now if the Apoſtle meant only that we are not juſtified by the Deeds of the ceremonial Law, what kind of arguing would that be, Their Mouth is full of… curſing and bitterneſs, their Feet are ſwift to ſhed Blood, therefore, They can't be juſtified by the Deeds of the Moſaic Adminiſtration▪ They are guilty of the Breaches of the moral Law, and therefore they can't be juſtified by the Deeds of the ceremonial Law? Doubtleſs the Apoſtle's Argument is, that the very ſame Law that they have broken and ſinn'd againſt, can never juſtify 'em as Obſervers of it, becauſe every Law don't juſtify, but neceſſarily condemns it's Violaters: And therefore our Breaches of the moral Law, argue no more, than that we can't be juſtified by that Law that we have broken.

And it may be noted, that the Apoſtle's Argument here is the ſame that I have already uſed. viz. That as we are in our ſelves, and out of Chriſt, we … under the Condemnation of that original Law, or Conſtitution that God eſtabliſhed with Mankind; and therefore 'tis …o Way fit that any Thing that we do, any Vertue or Obedience of ours, ſhould be accepted … accepted on the Account of it.

… Apoſtle, in all the preceeding part of this Epiſtle, wherever he has the Phraſe, the Law, evidently intends the moral Law principally: As in the 12th ver. of the foregoing Chap. For as many as have p. 35ſinn'd without Law, ſhall alſo periſh without Law. 'Tis evidently the written moral Law, the Apoſtle means, by the next ver. but one. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature the Things contained in the Law,—That is, the moral Law that the Gentiles have by Nature: And ſo the next ver. Which ſhew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts. 'Tis the moral Law, and not the Ceremonial that is written in the Hearts of thoſe that are deſtitute of Divine Revelation. And ſo in the 18th ver. Thou approveſt the Things that are more Excellent, being inſtructed out of the Law. 'Tis the Moral Law, that ſhews us the Nature of Things, and teaches us what is Excellent. 20th, ver. Thou haſt a form of Knowledge, and truth in the Law. 'Tis the Moral Law, as is evident by what follows, ver. 22. 23. Thou that ſayeth a Man ſhould not commit Adultery, doſt thou commit Adultery? Thou that abhorreſt Idols, doſt thou commit Sacriledge? Thou that makeſt thy boaſt of the Law, through breaking the Law diſhonoureſt thou God. Adultery, Idolatry and Sacriledge, ſurely are the breaking of the moral, and not the ceremonial Law. So in the 27th ver. And ſhall not uncircumciſion which is by Nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumciſion doſt tranſgreſs the Law. i e. The Gentiles, that you deſpiſe becauſe uncircumciſed, if they live moral and holy Lives, in Obedience to the Moral Law, ſhall condemn you tho' circumciſed. And ſo there is not one Place in all the preceeding part of the Epiſtle, where the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Law, but that he moſt apparently intends principally the moral Law: And ye… when the Apoſtle, in continuance of the ſame Diſcourſe, comes to tell us that we can't be juſtified by the Works of the Law, then they will needs have it, that he means only the ceremonial Law; yea tho' all this Diſcourſe about the moral Law, ſhewing how the Jews … well as Gentiles have violated it, is evidently …, and introductory to that Doctrine, Chap 3 20. That no Fleſh, that is none of Mankind, neither Jews nor Gentiles, can be juſtified by the Works of the Law.

p. 364. 'Tis evident that when the Apoſtle ſays, we can't be juſtified by the Works of the Law, he means the Moral as well as ceremonial Law, by his giving this Reaſon for it, that by the Law is the Knowledge of Sin, as Rom 3. 20. By the Deeds of the Law ſhall no Fleſh be juſtified in his Sight, for by the Law is the knowledge of Sin. Now that Law by which we come to the knowledge of Sin, is the moral Law chiefly and primarily.—If this Argument of the Apoſtle be good, that we can't be juſtified by the Deeds of the Law, becauſe it is by the Law that we come to the knowledge of Sin, then it proves that we can't be juſtified by the Deeds of the Moral Law, nor by the Precepts of Chriſtianity; for by them is the Knowledge of Sin. If the Reaſon be good, then where the Reaſon holds, the Truth holds.—'Tis a miſerable Shift, and a violent Force put upon the Words, to ſay that the meaning is, that by the Law of Circumciſion is the Knowledge of Sin, becauſe Circumciſion ſignifying the taking away of Sin, puts Men in mind of Sin. The plain meaning of the Apoſtle is, that as the Law moſt ſtrictly forbids Sin, it tends to convince us of Sin, and bring our own Conſciences to condemn us, inſtead of juſtifying of us; that the Uſe of it is to declare to us our own Guilt and Unworthineſs, which is the reverſe of juſtifying and approving of us as virtuous or worthy. This is the Apoſtle's meaning, if we will allow him to be his own expoſitor; for he himſelf in this very Epiſtle explains to us how it is that by the Law we have the Knowledge of Sin, and that 'tis by the Law's forbidding Sin Chap. 7. 7. I had … known Sin, but by the Law, for I had not known Luſt, except the Law had ſaid, thou ſhalt not covet. There the Apoſtle determines two Things, Firſt, That, …he Way in which, by the Law is the Knowledge of Sin, … by the Law's forbidding Sin: And Secondly, which … more directly ſtill to the Purpoſe; he determines …at 'tis the Moral Law by which we come to the knowledge of Sin; for ſays he, I had not known Luſt except the Law had ſaid, thou ſhalt not covet: Now 'tis the moral, and not the ceremonial Law, that ſays thou p. 37ſhalt not covet: Therefore when the Apoſtle argues that by the Deeds of the Law no Fleſh living ſhall be juſtifyed, becauſe by the Law is the knowledge of Sin, his Argument proves, (unleſs he was miſtaken as to the force of his Argument,) that we can't be juſtifyed by the Deeds of the Moral Law.

5. 'Tis evident that the Apoſtle don't mean only the ceremonial Law, becauſe he gives this Reaſon why we have Righteouſneſs, and a Title to the Privilege of God's Children, not by the Law, but by Faith, that the Law worketh Wrath, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16. For the promiſe that he ſhould be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the Righteouſneſs of Faith: For if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the promiſe made of none effect: Becauſe the Law worketh Wrath; for where no Law is there is no Tranſgreſſion. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace. Now the way in which the Law works Wrath, by the Apoſtles own Account, in the Reaſon he himſelf annexes, is by forbidding Sin, and aggravating the Guilt of the Tranſgreſſion; for, ſays he, where no Law is there is Tranſgreſſion: And ſo, Chap 7 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding ſinful.—If therefore this Reaſon of the Apoſtle be good, it is much ſtronger againſt Juſtification by the moral Law, than the ceremonial Law; for 'tis by Tranſgreſſions of th… moral Law chiefly that there comes Wrath; for they are moſt ſtrictly forbidden, and moſt terribly threaten'd.

6. 'Tis evident that when the Apoſtle ſays, we be… juſtified by the Works of the Law, that he excludes all our own Vertue, Goodneſs, or Excellency, by that Reaſon that he gives for it, viz. That boaſting might be excluded. Rom. 3. 26, 27, 28. To declare I ſay at this Time his Righteouſneſs, that he might be juſt, and the juſtifier of him that believes in Jeſus. Where is boaſ… ing then? It is excluded. By what Law? of Works Nay; but by the Law of Faith. Therefore, We conclude that a Man is juſtified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law, Eph. 2. 8. 9. For by Grace are we ſaved through p. 38Faith; and that not of your ſelves, it is the Gift of God: Not of Works left any Man ſhould boaſt.—Now what are Men wont to boaſt of, but what they eſteem their own Goodneſs, or Excellency?—If we are not juſtified by Works of the ceremonial Law, yet how does that exclude boaſting, as long as we are juſtified by our own Excellency, or Vertue and Goodneſs of our own, or Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done?

But it is ſaid that boaſting is excluded, as Circumciſion was excluded, which was what the Jews eſpecially uſed to glory in, and value themſelves upon, above other Nations.

To this I anſwer, that the Jews were not only uſed to boaſt of Circumciſion, but were notorious for boaſting of their moral Righteouſneſs. The Jews of thoſe Days were generally Admirers, and followers of the Phariſees, who were full of their Boaſts of their moral Righteouſneſs, as we may ſee by the Example of the Phariſee mention'd in the 18th of Luke, which Chriſt mentions as deſcribing the general Temper of that Sect; Lord, ſays he, I thank thee, that I am not as other Men, an Extortioner nor Unjuſt, nor an Adulterer. The Works that he boaſts of were chiefly moral Works: He depended on the Works of the Law for Juſtification; and therefore Chriſt tells us that the Publican, that renounced all his own Righteouſneſs, went down to his Houſe juſtified rather than he. And elſewhere we read of the Phariſees praying in the corners of the Streets and ſounding a Trumpet before 'em when they did A…ms: But thoſe Works which they ſo vainly boaſted of were moral Works▪ And not only ſo, but what the Apoſtle, in this very Epiſtle, is condemning the Jews for▪ is their boaſting of the moral Law. Chap. 2. 22, 23. Thou that ſayeth a Man ſhould not commit Adultery doſt thou commit Adultery! Thou that abhorreſt Idols, doſt thou commit Sacriledge. Thou that makeſt thy boaſt of the Law, through breaking the Law diſhonoureſt thou God The Law here mentioned that they made their boaſt of, was that of which Adultery, p. 39Idolatry, and Sacriledge, were the breaches, which is the moral Law: So that this is the boaſting which the Apoſtle condemns them for; and therefore if they were juſtified by the Works of this Law, then how comes he to ſay that their boaſting is excluded? And beſides, when they boaſted of the Rites of the ceremonial Law, it was under a Notion of it's being a Part of their own Goodneſs or Excellency, or what made them holier and more lovely in the ſight of God than other People; and if they were not juſtified by this Part of their own ſuppoſed Goodneſs, or Holineſs, yet if they were by another, how did that exclude boaſting? How was their boaſting excluded, unleſs all Goodneſs or Excellency of their own was excluded?

7. The Reaſon given by the Apoſtle why we can be juſtified only by Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, in the 3d Chap. of Gal. viz. That they that are under the Law are under the Curſe, makes it evident that he don't mean only the ceremonial Law. In that Chapter the Apoſtle had particularly inſiſted upon it that Abraham was juſtified by Faith, and that it is by Faith only, and not by the Works of the Law, that we can be juſtified and become the Children of Abraham, and be made Partakers of the Bleſſing of Abraham: And he gives this Reaſon for it, in the 10th v. For as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curſe; for it is written curſed is every one that continueth not in all Things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. 'Tis manifeſt that theſe Words cited from Deuteronomy, are ſpoken not only with Regard to the ceremonial Law, but the whole Law of God to Mankind, and chiefly the moral Law; and that all Mankind are therefore as they are in themſelves under that Curſe, not only while the ceremonial Law laſted, but now ſince that has ceaſed: And therefore all that are juſtified, are redeemed from that curſe, by Chriſt's bearing it for them; as there in the 13. ver. Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us; For it is written, curſed is every one that hangeth on a Tree.—Now therefore, either it's p. 40being ſaid ſo, that he is curſed that continueth not in all Things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, is a good Reaſon why we can't be juſtified by the Works of that Law, of which it is ſo ſaid, or it is not; if it be, then it is a good Reaſon why we can't be juſtified by the Works of the moral Law, and of the whole Rule which God has given to Mankind to walk by; for the Words are ſpoken of the moral as well as ceremonial Law, and reach every Command, or Precept which God has given to Mankind, and chiefly the moral Precepts, which are moſt ſtrictly enjoin'd, and the Violations of which in both New Teſtament and Old, and in the Books of Moſes themſelves, are threatned with the moſt dreadful Curſe.

8. The Apoſtle does in like Manner argue againſt our being juſtified by our own Righteouſneſs, as he does againſt being juſtified by the Works of the Law; and evidently uſes the Expreſſions of our own Righteouſneſs, and Works of the Law, promiſcuouſly, and as ſignifying the ſame Thing It is particularly evident by Rom. 10▪ 3. For they being ignorant of Gods Righteouſneſs, and going about to eſtabliſh their own Righteouſneſs have not ſubmitted themſelves to the Righteouſneſs of God ▪ Here 'tis plain that the ſame Thing is aſſerted as in the two laſt Verſes but one of the foregoing Chap. But Iſrael which followed after the Law of Righteouſneſs, hath not attained to the Law of Righteouſneſs: Wherefore: Becauſe they ſought it not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Law. And 'tis very unreaſonable, upon ſeveral Accounts, to ſuppoſe that the Apoſtle by their own Righteouſneſs, intends only their ceremonial Righteouſneſs. For when the Apoſtle warns us againſt truſting in our own Righteouſneſs for Juſtification, doubtleſs it is fair to interpret the Expreſſion in an Agreement with other Scriptures where we are warned not to think that 'tis for the ſake of our own Righteouſneſs, that we obtain God's Favour and Bleſſing; as particularly that in Deut. 9▪ 4, 5, 6▪ Speak not thou in thine Heart, after that the Lord thy God hath caſt them out from before thee, ſaying, for my Righteouſneſs p. 41the Lord hath brought me in, to poſſeſs this Land; but for the wickedneſs of theſe Nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee: Not for thy Righteouſneſs, or for the uprightneſs of thy Heart, doſt thou go to poſſeſs their Land; but for the wickedneſs of theſe Nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which he ſware unto thy Fathers, Abraham Iſaac and Jacob. Underſtand therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good Land to poſſeſs it, for thy Righteouſneſs, for thou art a ſtiff necked People. None will pretend that hear the Expreſſion thy Righteouſneſs, ſignifies only a ceremonial Righteouſneſs, but all Virtue or Goodneſs of their own; yea and the inward Goodneſs of the Heart as well as the outward Goodneſs of Life; which appears by the beginning of the 5 ver. Not for thy Righteouſneſs, or for the uprightneſs of thy Heart,—and alſo by the Antitheſis in the 6. v Not for thy Righteouſneſs, for thou art a ſtiffnecked People. Their ſtiffneckedneſs was their moral Wickedneſs, Obſtinacy, and perverſeneſs of Heart: By Righteouſneſs, therefore, on the contrary, is meant their moral Vertue, and rectitude of Heart, and Life.—This is what I would argue from hence, That the Expreſſion of our own Righteouſneſs, when uſed in Scripture, with Relation to the favour of God, and when we are warned againſt looking upon it as that by which that Favour, or the Fruits of it are obtained, don't ſignify only a ceremonial Righteouſneſs, but all manner of Goodneſs of our own.

The Jews alſo in the New Teſtament are condemned for truſting in their own Righteouſneſs in this Senſe; Luke 18. 9 &c.—And he ſpake this Parable unto certain that truſted in themſelves that they were Righteous.—This intends chiefly a moral Righteouſneſs, as appears by the Parable it ſelf, in which we have an Account of the Prayer of the Phariſ…e, wherein the Things that he mentions, as what he truſts in, are chiefly moral Qualifications and Performances, viz. That he was not an Extortioner, unjuſt, nor an Adulterer, &c.—

p. 42But we need not go to the Writings of other Penmen of the Scripture; but if we will allow the Apoſtle Paul to be his own Interpreter, he when he ſpeaks of our own Righteouſneſs as that which we are not juſtified or ſaved by, don't mean only a ceremonial Righteouſneſs, nor does he only intend a Way of Religion, and ſerving God▪ of our own chooſing and fixing on, without divine Warrant or Preſcription; but by our own Righteouſneſs he means the ſame as a Righteouſneſs of our own doing, whether it be a Service or Righteouſneſs of God's preſcribing, or our own unwarranted performing: Let it be an Obedience to the ceremonial Law, or a Goſpel Obedience, or what it will, if it be a Righteouſneſs of our own doing, it is excluded by the Apoſtle in this Affair, as is evident by Titus 3, 5. Not by Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done.—But I would more particularly inſiſt on this Text; and therefore this may be the▪

9. Argument, That the Apoſtle when he denies Juſtification by Works, and by Works of the Law, and by our own Righteouſneſs, don't only mean Works of the ceremonial Law viz. What is ſaid by the Apoſtle in Tit 3. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7▪ For we our ſelves alſo were ſometimes fooliſh diſobedient, deceived, ſerving divers Luſts and Pleaſures, living in Malice, and Envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the Kindneſs and Love of God our Saviour, toward Man, appeared, not by Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghoſt; which he ſhed on us abundantly, through Jeſus Chriſt Our Saviour; that being juſtified by his Grace, we ſhould be made Heirs, according to the Hope of eternal Life. Works of Righteouſneſs that we have done, are here excluded, as what we are neither ſaved, nor juſtified by. The Apoſtle expreſly ſays, we are not ſaved by 'em; and 'tis evident that when he ſays this, he has reſpect to the Affair of Juſtification, and that he means, we are not ſaved by 'em in not being juſtified by 'em, by the next verſe but one, which is part of the ſame Sentence, That being p. 43juſtified by his Grace we ſhould be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life.

'Tis ſeveral Ways manifeſt that the Apoſtle in this Text, by Works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, don't mean only Works of the ceremonial Law. It appears by the 3d v. For we our ſelves alſo were ſometimes fooliſh, diſobedient, deceived, ſerving divers Luſts and Pleaſures, living in Malice and Envy, hateful, and hating one another. Theſe are Breaches of the moral Law, that the Apoſtle obſerves they lived in before they were juſtifyed: and 'tis moſt plain that 'tis this that gives Occaſion to the Apoſtle to obſerve as he does in the 5 ver. That it was not by Works of Righteouſneſs which they had done, that they were ſaved or juſtified.

But we need not go to the Context, 'tis moſt apparent from the Words themſelves, that the Apoſtle don't mean only Works of the ceremonial Law: If he had only ſaid, it is not by our own Works of Righteouſneſs; what could we underſtand by Works of Righteouſneſs, but only Righteous Works, or which is the ſame Thing, good Works? And to ſay that it is by our own righteous Works, that we are juſtified, tho' not by one particular kind of righteous Works, would certainly be a Contradiction to ſuch an Aſſertion. But the Words are render'd yet more ſtrong, plain, and determined in their Senſe, by thoſe additional Words, which we have done; which ſhews that the Apoſtle intends to exclude all our own righteous or vertuous Works univerſally. If it ſhould be aſſerted concerning any Commodity, Treaſure, or precious Jewel, that it could not be procured by Money, and not only ſo, but to make the Aſſertion the more ſtrong, it ſhould be aſſerted with additional Words, that it could not be procured by Money that Men poſſeſs; how unreaſonable would it be after all to ſay, that all that was meant was, that it could not be procured with Braſs Money?

And what renders the interpreting this Text of Works of the ceremonial Law, yet more unreaſonable is, that theſe Works were indeed no Works of Righteouſneſs at all, but were only falſly ſuppoſed to be ſo by the p. 44Jews; and that our Opponents in this Doctrine ſuppoſe is the very reaſon why we ben't juſtified by 'em, becauſe they are not Works of Righteouſneſs, or becauſe (the ceremonial Law being now abrogated) there is no Obedience in 'em: But how abſurd is it to … that the Apoſtle when he ſays we are not juſtified by Works of Righteouſneſs that we have done, meant only Works of the ceremonial Law, and that for that very Reaſon becauſe they are not Works of Righteouſneſs. To illuſtrate this by the forementioned Compariſon; If it ſhould be aſſerted that ſuch a Thing could not be procured by Money that Men poſſeſs, how ridiculous would it be to ſay that the meaning only was, that it could not be procured by counterfeit Money, and that for that Reaſon, becauſe it was not Money.—What Scripture will ſtand before Men, if they will take liberty to manage Scripture thus? Or what one Text is there in the Bible that mayn't at this rate be explain'd all away, and perverted to any Senſe Men pleaſe.

But then further, if we ſhould allow that the Apoſtle intends only to oppoſe Juſtification by Works of the ceremonial Law in this Text, yet 'tis evident by the Expreſſion he uſes that he means to oppoſe it under that Notion, or in that quality, of their being Works of Righteouſneſs of our own doing. But if the Apoſtle argues againſt our being juſtified by Works of the ceremonial Law under the Notion of their being of that Nature and Kind, viz. Works of our own doing; then it will follow that the Apoſtle's Argument is ſtrong againſt, not only thoſe, but all of that Nature and Kind, even all that are of our own doing