Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

there is no obedience in them. But how absurd is it to say, 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 2 To illustrate this by the forementioned comparison : If it should be asserted, that such 2 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 it thus : Or what one text is there in the Bible that may not at this rate be explained 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 his text, yet it is 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. If there were no other text in the Bible, about justification but this, this would clearly and invincibly prove that we are not justified by any of our own goodness, virtue, or righteousness, or for the excellency or righteousness of any thing that we have done in religion; because it is here so fully and strongly asserted : But this text does abundantly confirm other texts of the apostle where he denies justification by works of the law. There is no doubt can be rationally made, but that when the apostle here shews, that God “saves us according to his mercy,” in that he doth not save us by “works of righteousness that we have done,” verse 5, and that so we are “justified by grace,” verse 7 : Herein opposing salvation by works, and salvation by grace, he means the same works as he does in other places, where he in like manVol. VII. G

ner opposes works and grace : The same works as in Roma. xi. 6. “And if by grace, then it is no more of works: Otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace : Otherwise work is no more work.” And the same works as in Rom. iv. 4. “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” And the same works that are spoken of in the context of the 24th verse of the foregoing chapter, which the apostle there calls “works of the law being justified freely by his grace.” And of the 4th chapter, 16th verse, Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace.” Where in the context, the righteousness of faith, is opposed to the righteousness of the law : For here God's saving us according to his mercy, and justifying us by grace, is opposed to saving us by works of righteousness that we have done ; in the same manner as in those places, justifying us by his grace, is opposed to justifying us by works of the law. 10. The apostle could not mean works of the ceremonial law only, when he says, we are not justified by the works of the law, because it is asserted of the saints under the Old Testament as well as New. If men are justified by their sincere obedience, it will then follow that formerly, before the ceremonial law was abrogated, men were justified by the works of the ceremonial law as well as the moral. For if we are justified by our sincere obedience, then it alters not the case, whether the commands be moral or positive, provided they be God's commands, and our obedience be obedience to God : And so the case must be just the same under the Old Testament, with the works of the moral law and ceremonial, according to the measure of the virtue of obedience there was in either. It is true, their obedience to the ceremonial law would have nothing to do in the affair of justification, unless it was sincere; and so neither would the works of the moral law; obedience to the moral law would have been concerned in the affair of justification, if sincere ; and so would obedience te the ceremonial. If obedience was the thing, then obedience to the ceremonial law, while that stood in force, and obedience to the moral law, had just the same sort of concern, accord

[ocr errors]

ing to the proportion of obedience that consists in each ; as now under the New Testament, if obedience is what we are justified by, that obedience must doubtless comprehend obedience to all God's commands now in force, to the positive precepts of attendance on baptism and the Lord's supper, as well as moral precepts. If obedience be the thing, it is not because it is obedience to such a kind of commands, but because it is obedience. So that by this supposition the saints under the Old Testament were justified, at least in part, by their obedience to the ceremonial law. But it is evident that the saints under the Old Testament were not justified in any measure by the works of the ceremo. nial law. This may be proved, proceeding on the foot of our adversary’s own interpretation of the apostle's phrase, of the works of the law, and supposing him to mean by it only the works of the ceremonial law. To instance in David, it is evident that he was not justified in anywise by the works of the ceremonial law, by Rom.iv. 6,7,8. Even as David also describeth, “the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will notimpute sin.” It is plain that the apostle is here speaking of justification, by the preceding verse and by all the context ; and the thing spoken of, viz. forgiving inquities and covering sins, is what our adversaries themselves suppose to be justification, and even the whole of justification. This David, speaking of himself, says (by the apostle's interpretation) that he had without works. For it is manifest that David, in the words here cited, from the beginning of the 32d Psalm, has a special respect to himself: He speaks of his own sins being forgiven and not imputed to him ; as appears by the words that immediately follow. “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old ; through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me : My moisture is turned into the drought of summer. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid : I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord ; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Let us therefore understand the apostle which way we will, by works, when he says, David “ describes the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works,” whether of all. manner of works, or only works of the ceremonial law, yet it. is evident at least, that David was not justified by works of the ceremonial law. Therefore here is the argument: If our own. obedience be that by which men are justified, then under the Old Testament men were justified partly by obedience to the ceremonial law (as has been proved ;) but the saints under the Old Testament were not justified partly by the works of the ceremonial law ; therefore men's own obedience, is not that by which they are justified. 11. Another argument that the apostle when he speaks of the two opposite ways of justification, one by the works of the law, and the other by faith, does not mean the works of the ceremonial law only; may be taken from that place, Romans x. 5, 6. “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things, shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise,” &c. Here two things are evident. Pirso, That the apostle here speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification, one by the righteousness which is the law, the other by faith that he had treated of in the former part of the epistle ; and therefore it must be the same law that is here spoken of The same law is here meant as in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he says the Jews had “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 ;” as is plain, because the apostle is still speaking of the same thing ; the words are a continuation of the same discourse, as may be seen at first glance, by any one that looks on the context. Secondly, It is manifest that Moses, when he describes the righteousness which is of the law, or the way of justification by the law, in the words here cited, “He that doth these things shall live in them,” does not speak only, nor chiefly, of the works of the ceremonial law ; for none will pretend

that God ever made such a covenant with man, that he that kept the ceremonial law should live in it, or that there ever was a time, that it was chiefly by the works of the ceremonial law that men lived and were justified. Yea, it is manifest by the forementioned instance of David, mentioned in the 4th of Romans, that there never was a time wherein men were justified in any measure by the works of the ceremonial law as has been just now shewn. Moses therefore, in those words which, the apostle says, are a description of the righteousness which is of the law, cannot mean the ceremonial law only. And therefore it follows, that when the apostle speaks of justification by the works of the law, as opposite to justification by faith, he does not mean the ceremohial law only, but also the works of the moral law, which are the things spoken of by Moses, when he says, “he that doth these things, shall live in them ;” and which are the things that the apostle in this very place is arguing that we cannot be justified by ; as is evident by the context, the last verses of the preceeding chapter : “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,” &c. And in the 3d verse of this chapter, “For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” * And further, how can the apostle's description that he here gives from Moses of this exploded way of justification by the works of the law, consist with the Arminian scheme, of . a way of justification by the virtue of a sincere obedience, that still remains as the true and only way of justification under the gospel. It is most apparent that it is the design of the apostle to give a description of both the legal rejected, and the evangelical valid ways of justification, in that wherein they differ, or are distinguished the one from the other : But how is that, “he that doth those things shall live in them ;” that wherein the way of justification by the works of the law differs, or is distinguished from that in which Christians under the gospel

4.

« AnteriorContinuar »