XIV. The exclusion of all sorts of works from an interest in
justification--What is intended by "the law," and the "works" of it, in
the epistles of Paul

All works whatever are expressly excluded from any interest in our
justification before God--What intended by the works of the law--Not
those of the ceremonial law only--Not perfect works only, as required by
the law of our creation--Not the outward works of the law, performed
without a principle of faith--Not works of the Jewish law--Not works with
a conceit of merit--Not works only wrought before believing, in the
strength of our own wills--Works excluded absolutely from our
justification, without respect unto a distinction of a first and second
justification--The true sense of the law in the apostolical assertion
that none are justified by the works thereof--What the Jews understood by
the law--Distribution of the law under the Old Testament--The whole law a
perfect rule of all inherent moral or spiritual obedience --What are the
works of the law, declared from the Scripture, and the argument thereby
confirmed --The nature of justifying faith farther declared
 

We shall take our fourth argument from the express exclusion of all
works, of what sort soever, from our justification before God. For this
alone is that which we plead,--namely, that no acts or works of our own
are the causes or conditions of our justification; but that the whole of
it is resolved into the free grace of God, through Jesus Christ, as the
mediator and surety of the covenant. To this purpose the Scripture speaks
expressly. Rom.3:28, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith, without the deeds of the law." Rom.4:5, "But to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness" Rom.11:6, "If it be of grace, then is it no
more of works." Gal.2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and
not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh
be justified." Eph.2:8,9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith ...
not of works, lest any man should boast." Tit.3:5, "Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us."

   These and the like testimonies are express, and in positive terms
assert all that we contend for. And I am persuaded that no unprejudiced
person, whose mind is not prepossessed with notions and distinctions
whereof not the least little is offered unto them from the texts
mentioned, nor elsewhere, can but judge that the law, in every sense of
it, and all sorts of works whatever, that at any time, or by any means,
sinners or believers do or can perform, are, not in this or that sense,
but every way and in all senses, excluded from our justification before
God. And if it be so, it is the righteousness of Christ alone that we
must retake ourselves unto, or this matter must cease for ever. And this
inference the apostle himself makes from one of the testimonies before
mentioned,--namely, that of Gal.2:19-21; for he adds upon it, "I through
the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified
with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and
the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of
God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace
of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in
vain."

   Our adversaries are extremely divided amongst themselves. and can come
unto no consistency, as to the sense and meaning of the apostle in these
assertions; for what is proper and obvious unto the understanding of all
men, especially from the opposition that is made between the law and
works on the one hand, and faith, grace, and Christ on the other (which
are opposed as inconsistent in this matter of our justification), they
will not allow; nor can do so without the ruin of the opinions they plead
for. Wherefore, their various conjectures shall be examined, as well to
show their inconsistency among themselves by whom the truth is opposed,
as to confirm our present argument:--

   1. Some say it is the ceremonial law alone, and the works of it, that
are intended; or the law as given unto Moses on mount Sinai, containing
that entire covenant that was afterwards to be abolished. This was of old
the common opinion of the schoolmen, though it be now generally exploded.
And the opinion lately contended for, that the apostle Paul excludes
justification from the works of the law, or excludes works absolutely
perfect, and sinless obedience, not because no man can yield that perfect
obedience which the law requires, but because the law itself which he
intends could not justify any by the observation of it, is nothing but
the renovation of this obsolete notion, that it is the ceremonial law
only, or, which upon the matter is all one, the law given on mount Sinai,
abstracted from the grace of the promise, which could not justify any in
the observation of its rites and commands. But of all other conjectures,
this is the most impertinent and contradictory unto the design of the
apostle; and is therefore rejected by Bellarmine himself. For the apostle
treats of that law whose doers shall be justified, Rom.2:13; and the
authors of this opinion would have it to be a law that can justify none
of them that do it. That law he intends whereby is the knowledge of sin;
for he gives this reason why we cannot be justified by the works of it,--
namely, because "by it is the knowledge of sin," chap.2:20: and by what
law is the knowledge of sin he expressly declares, where he affirms that
he "had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet,"
chap.7:7; which is the moral law alone. That law he designs which stops
the mouth of all sinners, and makes all the world obnoxious unto the
judgment of God, chap.3:19; which none can do but the law written in the
heart of men at their creation, chap.2:14,15;--that law, which "if a man
do the works of it, he shall live in them," Gal.3:12, Rom.10:5; and which
brings all men under the curse for sin, Gal.3:10,--the law that is
established by faith, and not made void, Rom.3:31; which the ceremonial
law is not, nor the covenant of Sinai;--the law whose righteousness is
"to be fulfilled in us," Rom.8:4. And the instance which the apostle
gives of justification without the works of that law which he intends,--
namely, that of Abraham,--was some hundreds of years before the giving of
the ceremonial law. Neither yet do I say that the ceremonial law and the
works of it are excluded from the intention of the apostle: for when that
law was given, the observation of it was an especial instance of that
obedience we owed unto the first table of the decalogue; and the
exclusion of the works thereof from our justification, inasmuch as the
performance of them was part of that moral obedience which we owed unto
God, is exclusive of all other works also. But that it is alone here
intended, or that law which could never justify any by its observation,
although it was observed in due manner, is a fond imagination, and
contradictory to the express assertion of the apostle. And, whatever is
pretended to the contrary, this opinion is expressly rejected by
Augustine, Lib. de Spiritu et Litera, cap.8: "Ne quisquam putaret hic
apostolum ea lege dixisse neminem justificari, quae in sacramentis
veteribus multa continet figurata praecepta, unde etiam est ista
circumcisio carnis, continuo subjunxit, quam dixerit legem et ait; 'per
legem cognitio peccati'". And to the same purpose he speaks again, Epist.
200, "Non solum illa opera legis quae sunt in veteribus sacramentis, et
nunc revelato testamento novo non observantur a Christianis, sicut est
circumcisio praeputii, et sabbati non observantur a Christianis, sicut
est circumcisio praeputii, et sabbati carnalis vacatio; et a quibusdam
escis abstinentia, et pecorum in sacrificiis immolatio, et neomenia et
ezymum, et caetera hujusmodi, verum etiam illud quod in lege dictum est,
'Non concupisces', quod utique et Christianis nullus ambigit esse
dicendum, non justificat hominem, nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, et gratiam
Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum".

   2. Some say the apostle only excludes the perfect works required by
the law of innocence; which is a sense diametrically opposite unto that
foregoing. But this best pleases the Socinians. "Paulus agit de operibus
et perfectis in hoc dicto, ideo enim adjecit, sine operibus legis, ut
indicaretur loqui eum de operibus a lege requisitis, et sic de perpetua
et perfectissima divinorum praeceptorum obedientia sicut lex requirit.
Cum autem talem obedientiam qualem lex requirit nemo praestare possit,
ideo subjecit apostolus nos justificari fide, id est, fiducia et
obedientia ea quantum quisque praestare potest, et quotidie quam maximum
praestare studet, et connititur. Sine operibus legis, id est, etsi
interim perfecte totam legem sicut debebat complere nequit"; says Socinus
himself. But,--(1.) We have herein the whole granted of what we plead
for,--namely, that it is the moral, indispensable law of God that is
intended by the apostle; and that by the works of it no man can be
justified, yea, that all the works of it are excluded from our
justification: for it is, says the apostle, "without works." The works of
this law being performed according unto it, will justify them that
perform them, as he affirms, chap.2:13; and the Scripture elsewhere
witnesses that "he that does them shall live in them." But because this
can never be done by any sinner, therefore all consideration of them is
excluded from our justification. (2.) It is a wild imagination that the
dispute of the apostle is to this purpose,--that the perfect works of the
law will not justify us, but imperfect works, which answer not the law,
will do so. (3.) Granting the law intended to be the moral law of God,
the law of our creation, there is no such distinction intimated in the
least by the apostle, that we are not justified by the perfect works of
it which we cannot perform, but by some imperfect works that we can
perform, and labour so to do. Nothing is more foreign unto the design and
express words of his whole discourse. (4.) The evasion which they retake
themselves unto, that the apostle opposes justification by faith unto
that of works, which he excludes, is altogether vain in this sense; for
they would have this faith to be our obedience unto the divine commands,
in that imperfect manner which we can attain unto. For when the apostle
has excluded all such justification by the law and the works thereof, he
does not advance in opposition unto them, and in their room, our own
faith and obedience; but adds, "Being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; whom God has set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood."

   3. Some of late among ourselves,--and they want not them who have gone
before them,--affirm that the works which the apostle excludes from
justification are only the outward works of the law, performed without an
inward principle of faith, fear, or the love of God. Servile works,
attended unto from a respect unto the threatening of the law, are those
which will not justify us. But this opinion is not only false, but
impious. For,--(1.) The apostle excludes the works of Abraham, which were
not such outward, servile works as are imagined. (2.) The works excluded
are those which the law requires; and the law is holy, just, and good.
But a law that requires only outward works, without internal love to God,
is neither holy, just, nor good. (3.) The law condemns all such works as
are separated from the internal principle of faith, fear, and love; for
it requires that in all our obedience we should love the Lord our God
with all our hearts. And the apostle says, that we are not justified by
the works which the law condemns, but not by them which the law commands.
(4.) It is highly reflexive on the honour of God, that he unto whose
divine prerogative it belongs to know the hearts of men alone, and
therefore regards them alone in all the duties of their obedience, should
give a law requiring outward, servile works only; for if the law intended
require more, then are not those the only works excluded.

   4. Some say, in general, it is the Jewish law that is intended; and
think thereby to cast off the whole difficulty. But if, by the Jewish
law, they intend only the ceremonial law, or the law absolutely as given
by Moses, we have already showed the vanity of that pretence; but if they
mean thereby the whole law or rule of obedience given unto the church of
Israel under the Old Testament, they express much of the truth,--it may
be more than they designed.

   5. Some say that it is works with a conceit of merit, that makes the
reward to be of debt, and not of grace, that are excluded by the apostle.
But no such distinction appears in the text or context; for,--(1,) The
apostle excludes all works of the law,--that is, that the law requires of
us in a way of obedience,--be they of what sort they will. (2.) The law
requires no works with a conceit of merit. (3.) Works of the law
originally included no merit, as that which "ariseth from the proportion
of one thing unto another in the balance of justice; and in that sense
only is it rejected by those who plead for an interest of works in
justification. (4.) The merit which the apostle excludes is that which is
inseparable from works, so that it cannot be excluded unless the works
themselves be so. And unto their merit two things concur:--First, A
comparative boasting; that is, not absolutely in the sight of God, which
follows the "meritum ex condigno" which some poor sinful mortals have
fancied in their works, but that which gives one man a preference above
another in the obtaining of justification; which grace will not allow,
chap.4:2. Secondly, That the reward be not absolutely of grace, but that
respect he had therein unto works; which makes it so far to be of debt,
not out of an internal condignity, which would not have been under the
law of creation, but out of some congruity with respect unto the promise
of God, verse 4. In these two regards merit is inseparable from works;
and the Holy Ghost, utterly to exclude it, excludes all works from which
it is inseparable, as it is from all. Wherefore, (5.) The apostle speaks
not one word about the exclusion of the merit of works only; but he
excludes all works whatever, and that by this argument, that the
admission of them would necessarily introduce merit in the sense
described; which is inconsistent with grace. And although some think that
they are injuriously dealt withal, when they are charged with maintaining
of merit in their asserting the influence of our works into our
justification; yet those of them who best understand themselves and the
controversy itself, are not so averse from some kind of merit, as knowing
that it is inseparable from works.

   6. Some contend that the apostle excludes only works wrought before
believing, in the strength of our own wills and natural abilities,
without the aid of grace. Works, they suppose, required by the law are
such as we perform by the direction and command of the law alone. But the
law of faith requires works in the strength of the supplies of grace;
which are not excluded. This is that which the most learned and judicious
of the church of Rome do now generally retake themselves unto. Those who
amongst us plead for works in our justification, as they use many
distinctions to explain their minds, and free their opinion from a
coincidence with that of the Papists; so, as yet, they deny the name of
merit, and the thing itself in the sense of the church of Rome, as it is
renounced likewise by all the Socinians: wherefore, they make use of the
preceding evasion, that merit is excluded by the apostle, and works only
as they are meritorious; although the apostle's plain argument be, that
they are excluded because such a merit as is inconsistent with grace is
inseparable from their admission.

   But the Roman church cannot so part with merit. Wherefore, they are to
find out a sort of works to be excluded only, which they are content to
part withal as not meritorious. Such are those before described, wrought,
as they say, before believing, and without the aids of grace; and such,
they say, are all the works of the law. And this they do with some more
modesty and sobriety than those amongst us who would have only external
works and observances to be intended. For they grant that sundry internal
works, as those of attrition, sorrow for sin, and the like, are of this
nature. But the works of the law it is, they say, that are excluded. But
this whole plea, and all the sophisms wherewith it is countenanced, have
been so discussed and defeated by Protestant writers of all sorts against
Bellarmine and others, as that it is needless to repeat the same things,
or to add any thing unto them. And it will be sufficiently evinced of
falsehood in what we shall immediately prove concerning the law and works
intended by the apostle. However, the heads of the demonstration of the
truth to the contrary may be touched on. And, --(1.) The apostle excludes
all works, without distinction or exception. And we are not to
distinguish where the law does not distinguish before us. (2.) All the
works of the law are excluded: therefore all works wrought after
believing by the aids of grace are excluded; for they are all required by
the law. See Ps.119:35; Rom.7:22. Works not required by the law are no
less an abomination to God than sins against the law. (3.) The works of
believers after conversion, performed by the aids of grace, are expressly
excluded by the apostle. So are those of Abraham, after he had been a
believer many years, and abounded in them unto the praise of God. So he
excludeth his own works after his conversion, Gal.2:16; 1 Cor.4:4;
Phil.3:9; and so he excludes the works of all other believers,
Eph.2:9,10. (4.) All works are excluded that might give countenance unto
boasting, Rom.4:2,; 3:27; Eph.2:9; 1 Cor.1:29-31. But this is done more
by the good works of regenerate persons than by any works of unbelievers.
(5.) The law required faith and love in all our works; and therefore if
all the works of the law be excluded, the best works of believers are so.
(6.) All works are excluded which are opposed unto grace working freely
in our justification; but this all works whatever are, Rom.11:6. (7.) In
the Epistle unto the Galatians, the apostle does exclude from our
justification all those works which the false teachers pressed as
necessary thereunto: but they urged the necessity of the works of
believers, and those which were by grace already converted unto God; for
those upon whom they pressed them unto this end were already actually so.
(8.) They are good works that the apostle excludes from our
justification; for there can be no pretence of justification by those
works that are not good, or which have not all things essentially
requisite to make them so: but such are all the works of unbelievers
performed without the aids of grace,--they are not good, nor as such
accepted with God, but want what is essentially requisite unto the
constitution of good works; and it is ridiculous to think that the
apostle disputes about the exclusion of such works from our justification
as no man in his wits would think to have any place therein. (9.) The
reason why no man can be justified by the law, is because no man can
yield perfect obedience thereunto; for by perfect obedience the law will
justify, Rom.2:13; 10:5. Wherefore, all works are excluded that are not
absolutely perfect; but this the best works of believers are not, as we
have proved before. (10.) If there be a reserve for the works of
believers, performed by the aid of grace, in our justification, it is,
that either they may be concauses thereof, or be indispensably
subservient unto those things that are so. That they are concauses of our
justification is not absolutely affirmed; neither can it be said that
they are necessarily subservient unto them that are so. They are not so
unto the efficient cause thereof, which is the grace and favour of God
alone, Rom.3:24,25; 4:16; Eph.2:8,9; Rev.1:5;--nor are they so unto the
meritorious cause of it, which is Christ alone, Acts 13:38; 26:18; 1
Cor.1:30; 2 Cor.5:18-21;--nor unto the material cause of it, which is the
righteousness of Christ alone, Rom.10:3,4,--nor are they so unto faith,
in what place soever it be stated; for not only is faith only mentioned,
wherever we are taught the way how the righteousness of Christ is derived
and communicated unto us, without any intimation of the conjunction of
works with it, but also, as unto our justification, they are placed in
opposition and contradiction one to the other, Rom.3:28. And sundry other
things are pleadable unto the same purpose.

   7. Some affirm that the apostle excludes all works from our first
justification, but not from the second; at; as some speak, the
continuation of our justification. But we have before examined these
distinctions, and found them groundless.

   Evident it is, therefore, that men put themselves into an uncertain,
slippery station, where they know not what to fix upon, nor wherein to
find any such appearance of truth as to give them countenance in denying
the plain and frequently-repeated assertion of the apostle.

   Wherefore, in the confirmation of the present argument, I shall more
particularly inquire into what it is that the apostle intends by the law
and works whereof he treats. For as unto our justification, whatever they
are, they are absolutely and universally opposed unto grace, faith, the
righteousness of God, and the blood of Christ, as those which are
altogether inconsistent with them. Neither can this be denied or
questioned by any, seeing it is the plain design of the apostle to evince
that inconsistency.

   1. Wherefore, in general, it is evident that the apostle, by the law
and the works thereof, intended what the Jews with whom he had to do did
understand by the law, and their own whole obedience thereunto. I suppose
this cannot be denied; for without a concession of it there is nothing
proved against them, nor are they in any thing instructed by him. Suppose
those terms equivocal, and to be taken in one sense by him, and by them
in another, and nothing can be rightly concluded from what is spoken of
them. Wherefore, the meaning of these terms, "the law," and "works," the
apostle takes for granted as very well known, and agreed on between
himself and those with whom he had to do.

   2. The Jews by "the law" intended what the Scriptures of the Old
Testament meant by that expression; for they are nowhere blamed for any
false notion concerning the law, or that they esteemed any thing to be so
but what was so indeed, and what was so called in the Scripture. Their
present oral law was not yet hatched, though the Pharisees were brooding
of it.

   3. "The law" under the Old Testament does immediately refer unto the
law given at mount Sinai, nor is there any distinct mention of it before.
This is commonly called "the law" absolutely; but most frequently "the
law of God," "the law of the Lord;" and sometimes "the law of Moses,"
because of his especial ministry in the giving of it: "Remember ye the
law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him," Mal.4:4. And this
the Jews intended by "the law."

   4. Of the law so given at Horeb, there was a distribution into three
parts. (1.) There was "'aseret hadevarim",--Deut.4:13, "The ten words;"
so also chap.10:4;--that is, the ten commandments written upon two tables
of stone. This part of the law was first given, was the foundation of the
whole, and contained that perfect obedience which was required of mankind
by law of creation; and was now received into the church with the highest
attestations of its indispensable obligation unto obedience or
punishment. (2.) "chukim", which the LXX render by "dikaioomata",--that
is, "jura," "rites," or "statutes;" but the Latin from thence,
"justificationes," ("justifications,") which has given great occasion of
mistake in many, both ancient and modern divines. We call it "the
ceremonial law." The apostle terms this part of the law distinctly,
"Nomos entoloon en dogmasi", Eph.2:15, "The law of commandments contained
in ordinances;" that is, consisting in a multitude of arbitrary commands.
(3.) "mishpatim", which we commonly call "the judicial law." This
distribution of the law shuts up the Old Testament, as it is used in
places innumerable before; only the "'aseret hadevriem",--"the ten
words,"--is expressed by the general word "torah",--"the law," Mal.4:4.
   5. These being the parts of the law given unto the church in Sinai,
the whole of it is constantly called "torah",--"the law,"--that is, the
instruction (as the word signifies) that God gave unto the church, in the
rule of obedience which he prescribed unto it. This is the constant
signification of that word in Scripture, where it is taken absolutely;
and thereon does not signify precisely the law as given at Horeb, but
comprehends with it all the revelations that God made under the Old
Testament, in the explanation and confirmation of that law, in rules,
motives, directions, and enforcements of obedience.

   6. Wherefore; "torah",--"the law,"--is the whole rule of obedience
which God gave to the church under the Old Testament, with all the
efficacy wherewith it was accompanied by the ordinances of God, including
in it all the promises and threatening that might be motives unto the
obedience that God did require;--this is that which God and the church
called "the law" under the Old Testament, and which the Jews so called
with whom our apostle had to do. That which we call "the moral law" was
the foundation of the whole; and those parts of it which we call "the
judicial and ceremonial law," were peculiar instances of the obedience
which the church under the Old Testament was obliged unto, in the
especial polity and divine worship which at that season were necessary
unto it. And two things does the Scripture testify unto concerning this
law:--

   (1.) That it was a perfect, complete rule of all that internal
spiritual and moral obedience which God required of the church: "The law
of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is
sure, making wise the simple," Ps.19:7. And it so was of all the external
duties of obedience, for matter and manner, time and season; that in both
the church might walk "acceptably before God", Isa.8:20. And although the
original duties of the moral part of the law are often preferred before
the particular instances of obedience in duties of outward worship, yet
the whole law was always the whole rule of all the obedience, internal
and external, that God required of the church, and which he accepted in
them that did believe.

   (2.) That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of God
to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by virtue of the
covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was adapted, and
which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, was accompanied with a
power and efficacy enabling unto obedience. The law itself, as merely
receptive and commanding, administered no power or ability unto those
that were under its authority to yield obedience unto it; no more do the
mere commands of the gospel. Moreover, under the Old Testament it
enforced obedience on the minds and consciences of men by the manner of
its first delivery, and the severity of its sanction, so as to fill them
with fear and bondage; and was, besides, accompanied with such burdensome
rules of outward worship, as made it a heavy yoke unto the people. But as
it was God's doctrine, teaching, instruction in all acceptable obedience
unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was
accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and
promoting obedience in the church. And the law is not to be looked on as
separated from those aids unto obedience which God administered under the
Old Testament; whose effects are therefore ascribed unto the law itself
See Ps.1, 19, 119.

   This being "the law" in the sense of the apostle, and those with whom
he had to do, our next inquiry is, What was their sense of "works," or
"works of the law?" And I say it is plain that they intended hereby the
universal sincere obedience of the church unto God, according unto this
law. And other works the law of God acknowledges not; yea, it expressly
condemns all works that have any such defect in them as to render them
unacceptable unto God. Hence, notwithstanding all the commands that God
had positively given for the strict observance of sacrifices, offerings,
and the like; yet, when the people performed them without faith and love,
he expressly affirms that he "commanded them not,"--that is, to be
observed in such a manner. In these works, therefore, consisted their
personal righteousness, as they walked "in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless," Luke 1:6; wherein they did "instantly
serve God day and night," Acts 26:7. And this they esteemed to be their
own righteousness, their righteousness according unto the law; as really
it was, Phil.3:6,9. For although the Pharisees had greatly corrupted the
doctrine of the law, and put false glosses on sundry precepts of it; yet,
that the church in those days did, by "the works of the law," understand
either ceremonial duties only, or external works, or works with a conceit
of merit, or works wrought without an internal principle of faith and
love to God, or any thing but their own personal sincere obedience unto
the whole doctrine and rule of the law, there is nothing that should give
the least colour of imagination. For,--

   1. All this is perfectly stated in the suffrage which the scribe gave
unto the declaration of the sense and design of the law, with the nature
of the obedience which it does require, and was made at his request by
our blessed Saviour. Mark 12:28-33, "And one of the scribes came, and
having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered
them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?" (or as it
is, Matt.22:36, "Which is the great commandment in the law?") "And Jesus
answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the
Lord our Gods is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength; this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely
this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And the scribe said unto
him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and
there is none but he: and to love him with all the heart, and with all
the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and
to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings
and sacrifices." And this [is] so expressly given by Moses as the sum of
the law,--namely, faith and love, as the principle of all our obedience,
Dent.6:4,5, , that it is marvelous what should induce any learned, sober
person to fix upon any other sense of it; as that it respected ceremonial
or external works only, or such as may be wrought without faith or love.
This is the law concerning which the apostle disputes, and this the
obedience wherein the works of it do consist; and more than this, in the
way of obedience, God never did nor will require of any in this world.
Wherefore, the law and the works thereof which the apostle excludes from
justification, is that whereby we are obliged to believe in God as one
God, the only God, and love him with all our hearts and souls, and our
neighbours as ourselves; and what works there are, or can be, in any
persons, regenerate or not regenerate, to be performed in the strength of
grace or without it, that are acceptable unto God, that may not be
reduced unto these heads, I know not.

   2. The apostle himself declares that it is the law and the works of
it, in the sense we have expressed, that he excludes from our
justification. For the law he speaks of is "the law of righteousness,"
Rom.9:31,--the law whose righteousness is to be "fulfilled in us," that
we may be accepted with God, and freed from condemnation, chap.8:4;--that
in obedience whereunto our own personal righteousness does consist,
whether that we judge so before conversion, Rom.10:3; or what is so after
it, Phil.3:9;--the law which if a man observe, "he shall live," and be
justified before God, Rom.2:13; Gal.3:12; Rom.10:5;--that law which is
"holy, just, and good," which discovers and condemns all sin whatever,
chap.7:7,9.

   From what has been discoursed, these two things are evident in the
confirmation of our present argument:--first, That the law intended by
the apostle, when he denies that by the works of the law any can be
justified, is the entire rule and guide of our obedience unto God, even
as unto the whole frame and spiritual constitution of our souls, with all
the acts of obedience or duties that he requires of us; and, secondly,
That the works of this law, which he so frequently and plainly excludes
from our justification, and therein opposes to the grace of God and the
blood of Christ, are all the duties of obedience,--internal,
supernatural; external, ritual,--however we are or may be enabled to
perform them, that God requires of us. And these things excluded, it is
the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed unto us, on, the account
whereof we are justified before God.

   The truth is, so far as I can discern, the real difference that is at
this day amongst us, about the doctrine of our justification before God,
is the same that was between the apostle and the Jews, and no other. But
controversies in religion make a great appearance of being new, when they
are only varied and made different by the new terms and expressions that
are introduced into the handling of them. So has it fallen out in the
controversy about nature and grace; for as unto the true nature of it, it
is the same in these days as it was between the apostle Paul and the
Pharisees; between Austin and Pelagius afterwards. But it has now passed
through so many forms and dresses of words, as that it can scarce be
known to be what it was. Many at this day will condemn both Pelagius and
the doctrine that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and yet
embrace and approve of the things themselves which he intended. The
introduction of every change in philosophical learning gives an
appearance of a change in the controversies which are managed thereby;
but take off the covering of philosophical expressions, distinctions,
metaphysical notions, and futilous terms of art, which some of the
ancient schoolmen and later disputants have cast upon it, and the
difference about grace and nature is amongst us all the same that it was
of old, and as it is allowed by the Socinians.

   Thus the apostle, treating of our justification before God, does it in
those terms which are both expressive of the thing itself, and were well
understood by them with whom he had to do; such as the Holy Spirit, in
their revelation, had consecrated unto their proper use. Thus, on the one
hand, he expressly excludes the law, our own works, our own
righteousness, from any interest therein; ally in opposition unto, and as
inconsistent with them, in the matter of justification, he ascribes it
wholly unto the righteousness of God, righteousness imputed unto us, the
obedience of Christ, Christ made righteousness unto us, the blood of
Christ as a propitiation, faith, receiving Christ, and the atonement.
There is no awakened conscience, guided by the least beam of spiritual
illumination, but in itself plainly understands these things, and what is
intended in them. But through the admission of exotic learning, with
philosophical terms and notions, into the way of teaching spiritual
things in religion, a new face and appearance is put on the whole matter;
and a composition made between those things which the apostle directly
opposes as contrary and inconsistent. Hence are all our discourses about
preparations, dispositions, conditions, merits "de congruo et condigno,"
with such a train of distinctions, as that if some bounds be not fixed
unto the inventing and coining of them (which, being a facile work, grows
on us every day), we shall not see long be able to look through them, so
as to discover the things intended, or rightly to understand one another;
for as one said of lies, so it may be said of arbitrary distinctions,
they must be continually new thatched over, or it will rain through. But
the best way is to cast off all these coverings, and we shall then
quickly see that the real difference about the justification of a sinner
before God is the same, and no other, as it was in the days of the
apostle Paul between him and the Jews. And all those things which men are
pleased now to plead for, with respect unto a causality in our
justification before God, under the names of preparations, conditions,
dispositions, merit, with respect unto a first or second justification,
are as effectually excluded by the apostle as if he had expressly named
them every one; for in them all there is a management, according unto our
conceptions and the terms of the learning passant in the present age, of
the plea for our own personal righteousness, which the Jews maintained
against the apostle. And the true understanding of what he intends by the
law, the works and righteousness thereof, would be sufficient to
determine this controversy, but that men are grown very skilful in the
art of endless wrangling.