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, to write to them against persons' trusting in any works of righteousness, and that it was a very proper occasion too? Yea, it would have been unavoida ble for the apostle to have argued against trusting in a particu lar work in that quality of a work of righteousness, which quality was general, but he must therein argue against 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 work 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 alleged as an evidence that the apostle means the ceremonial law, when he says, we cannot 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. iii. 17. “ And this, I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which 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 does not 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 19th and 20th 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 their's 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 sced, (which is often mentioned on 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 judaising Christians supposed.

But that the apostle does not mean works of the ceremonial law only, when he excludes works of the law in justification, but also of the moral law, and all works of obedience, virtue and righteousness whatsoever, may appear by the following things.

1. The apostle does not 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, to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth, &c.; and in the 6th verse, "God imputeth righteousness without works;" and chap. 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." So Eph. ii. 8, 9, " For by grace are ye 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 virtue 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 has any one to confine it to works of a particular law or institution, excluding others? Are not observances of other di- * vine 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 mentions works only, without any additions, 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 be not justified by works, another when he says, we be not 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 on the same argument, is very unreasonable, it is to dodge, and fly from scripture, rather than to open and yield ourselves to its 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 verse, 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 19th and 20th verses, “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 sinned, (as it was said in the 9th verse) and been guilty of those breaches of the moral law that he had mentioned, (and it is repeated over again afterward, verse 23.). For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," therefore none at all can be justified by 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 cannot be justified by the deeds of the Mosaic administration: They are guilty of the breaches of the moral law; and therefore they cannot be justified by the deeds of the ceremonial law? Doubt. less the apostle's argument is, that the very same law that they

have broken and sinned against, can never justify them as obi servers of it, because every law does not justify, but necessarily condemns its violators. And therefore our breaches of the moral law argue no more, than that we cannot 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 are under the condemnation of that original law or constitution that God established with mankind; and therefore it is no way fit that any thing that we do, any virtue or obedience of ours should be accepted, or we accepted on the account of it.

3. The apostle, in the preceding part of this epistle, wherever he has the phrase, the law, evidently intends the moral law principally. As in the 12th verse of the foregoing chapter: "For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law." It is evidently the written, moral law the apostle means, by the next verse 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 verse, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts." It is 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 verse, "Thou approvest the things that are more excellent; being instructed out of the law." It is the moral law that shews us the nature of things, and teaches us what is excellent; 20th verse," Thou hast a form of knowledge and truth in the law." It is the moral law, as is evident by what fol. lows, ver. 22, 23. "Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God? Adultery, idolatry, and sacrilege, surely are the breaking of the moral, and not the ceremonial law. So in the 27th verse, “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?" ie. The Gentiles, that you despise

because uncircumcised, if they live moral and holy lives, in obedience to the moral law, shall condemn you though circumcised. And so there is not one place in all the preceding part of the epistle, where the apostle speaks of the law, but that he most apparently intends principally the moral law; and yet when the apostle, in continuance of the same. discourse, comes to tell us that we cannot be justified by the works of the law, then they will needs have it, that he means only the ceremonial law; yea, though all this discourse about the moral law, shewing how the Jews, as well as Gentiles have violated it, is evidently preparatory and introductory to that doctrine, chap. iii. 20. "That no flesh," that is none of mankind, neither Jews nor Gentiles, "can be justified by the works of the law."

4. It is evident that when the apostle says, we cannot 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. iii. 20. "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by

Now that law by which we

the law is the knowledge of sin.” come to the knowledge of sin, is the moral law chiefly and primarily. If this argument of the apostle be good, "that we cannot 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 cannot 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. It is 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 us ; that the use of it is to declare to us our own guilt and unwor thiness, which is the reverse of justifying and approving 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