/ y- TWELVE SERMONS On the following feafonable and im- portant Subjeds. Juftlfication impoffible by the Works of the Law. The QiJeftion anfwered, '* wherefore then ferv- eth the Law" ? The Nature of Faith, as juftifying, largely ex- plained, and remarked on. The Place, and Ufe, of Faith, in the Affair of Juftification. @ m m Human Endeavours, in the ufe of Means, the way in which Faith is obtained. The Method of the Spi- rit in communicating the " Faith, by which the Juft do live". Thelnquiryofthe young Man in the Gofpel, '« what (hall I do that I may have eternal Life" ? With interfperfed Notes, inDefence of the Truth ; efpecially in the Points treated on, in the above Difcourles. By C H A R L E S C H A U N C Y, £). Z). And one of the Paftors of the firft Church of Chrift in Boston, Boston ; New-England 1- Printed by D. and J. Kneeland, for Thomas Leverett, in Corn-hill. Mdcclxv; PREFACE. mmsimmmm^mmm^mmmm^ rHE making any apology for the following puh- licatioyi would be needlejs^ the fiihjehs of it are fo highly inter ejling and important^ fhould they he fet in a clear andjujl point of light : If they are not^ no excufe canjuftifie the Author for medling with that he had better let alone. It mufl he left with the reader to judge in this matter. In the mean time., I may fay., in behalf of my felf that I have endeavoured, not without confiderahle pains^ to colle5i fro?n the [cripture what it fays., in differ- ent places, concerning the feveral truths here treated on ; and to place it in one connected view, and in as dijiin^ and perfpicuous a manner as 1 could. I have purpofely avoided all pomp of zvords, and all fhew of learned fub tie ty by the artful ufe of fcholajiic, fyfier/ia^ tical, and metaphyfical terms \ Jiudying to deliver my felf fo as- that 1 might be eafily underftood. If I have wrote in a myftical, perplexed, unintelligible way, I own it is a fault not to be overlooked > aJtd am ii PREFACE. am willing to fuhmit to deferved chaflijement : ^nd the rather^ as it is, with me, a fettled pointy that if a man writes fo as that it is difficulty if poffible^ to underfiand, and afcertain^ his real meanings his thoughts are confufed and unconneEled^ as they lie in his mind ; cr he has been inexcufably carelcfs in ranging and expreffing them •, cr^ what is worfe^ he has foiM covered defign to ferve^ hy entrenching himfelf in darknefs and ambiguity. If any fjjould think it worth while to read thefe "Difcourfes^I would advifd them to receive nothing^they may meet Tvith in them^as " the truth ofGod^\till they have impartially examined what is offered in proof of it as fuch, from the f acred books \ and are there- upon convinced^ in their confdmcies^that it really is fo, 'fheir faith will now fiand on a jafe and fun bajisy the word of hi my who fe file is that^ *-'■ faithful and true*. And this^ I would add, is the only way in which we fhould always read the writings of others^ Upon the facred do^rines of fcripture^ however high an opinion we may have of their integrity ^ capacity^ or fuperior knowledge in divine things. We fhall now uje their labois as ^* helps\ {which we reafon- ably may) in order to our underfianding the jufi im- port oj the fcripture \ and flo all found our faith, not on what they fay^ but on what we are enabled., hy their affifiancc^ to perceive to be the word and will of God, It would be extraordinary, if, thro* careleffnefs^ inattention, or the undue infuence of fome wrong biafs or other, I have not been led into a mi f con- ception of fome of the " many texts'*, I have en- deavoured to explain : Tho* I am not fenfible, that this PREFACE. iii (his is the cafe. If I have been miflake% I have mt knowingly heenfo. It is owing to the want of more underfianding., and a better judgment., rather than to any fault in my will. 7 he Holy Bible', and not any " human fyfti^n\ or *-'- fallible compo- Jure'\ has been my governing rule^ in what 1 have prefented to the view of others : Nor have I faid any thing but as it appeared to me, upon a clofe in- quiry., to agree with this only test of revealed truth. Foffibly^ there arefome.^ who, upon reading what is herewith emitted, ^ perceiving its contrariety to their peculiar fentiments, may be in a temper of mind, at once, to fpeak of me, in their zeal, as a pervert er of the " truth as it is in Jefus''\ and to fuch a degree as to be in a flate of wrath. Such cenforious judg- ing will give me no dtjlurbance, fo long as thofe words are to be found legibly wrote in the infpired hooks, '* who art thou that judgefi another man^s fervant ? To his own majler he Jlandeth^ or fall- eth. — ^hy do/i thou judge thy brother f — We fhall all fi and before the judgment-feat ofChrifi'\ Men^s ajjuming to themfelves a right to determine what is " trutW\ or ^^ falfehood^^ , and to afcertain the doom of others as they agree, or dif agree, with fuch deter- mination ; ejpe daily, if they do it w th great pofi- tivenefs and afjurance, as though they were divinely authorifed, and infallible, judges in the cafe, may Jlartle weak minds, and powerfully tend to imprefs on them a wrong biafs : But it can convey no light in- to the under {landings of any. It may excite a various motion in the paffions of thofe, who defpife Juch airs of juperiority and importance -, and feldom fails of doing fo : But it can have no rational aptitude to re^ifie IV PREFACE. re^fifie their miftakes, if they labor of any ; or to effe3 an alteration, for the better^ in their Jenti- ments. It would argue a more manly, not to fay chrijlian fpirit, to endeavour their conviElion only hy fair and jufl reafoning from thefcriptures. This would be to apply to them as reafonable creatures ; and in no other way can we properly dofo, Ifhall only fay further, the temper of my mind^ refpeBing the following work, is fuch, that I find within my felf a freedom as heartily to wifh, on the one hand, that it may meet with no acceptance in the world, if fited " to deceive unwary fouls, and turn them afide from the ftmplicity of the go/pel" \ as, on the other, that it may be received with ap- probation, and admited into the hearts of all that Jhall read it, if it fhould exhibit, as I trufl it doeSy " the truth of the gofpel'\ by which we may be Javed. Bofton, May 4th. 1765. Charles Chauncy* SERMON SERMON I Juftification impofiible by the Works of the Law. G A L A T I A N S II. 1 6. ^* Knowing that a man is nor juftified by the works of the law, but by the faith, of JefusChrift, even we have believed in Jelus Chrifl-, that we might bejiiftiiied by the fairh of Chrift, and not by the works of the Jaw : For by the works of die law (hall no flefh be juftified." THE firft and lafl claufe in this yerfc are exprefs in affirming negatively, that the method of juftification before God is not hy " the works of the law". And the affirma-- tion extends univerfally ; taking in one man as well as another, mankind without dillindlion or difcrimination. " Knowing that a man is not Jyj|tiiied by the works of the la\y". The wor(is B srf 2 Jujiif cation impojfthk arc fpoken, not of any particular man, but of man as ri<7nifying the whole fpecies, every individual that is of the rank we call nuen. So the Apoftle explains himfelf in the other claufe of the verfe, « by the works of the law fhall no flefh be jufti- f-ied"; that is, no partaker of human flcfh, no man, whether he be Jew or Gentile, no one of the race of Adam. In this fcnfe precifely the phrafe, " no fiefh", is ufed by this fame Apoille, when fpeak- ing, in the following chapter, ver. ii. upon this fame fubjed:. Says he, " no man is juftified by the law in the fight of God". In agreement wherewith is that prayer of pious David, * " en- ter not into judgment with thy fervant", as grounded upon this reafon, " for in thy fight Ihall no man living be juftified". In further fpeaking to the text it will be pro- per to explain the terms "juftifie**, and " the works of the law". The way will then be clear to illuftratc the truth here affirmed, that " no fiefli", no man, " can be juftified by thefe works". As to the term " juftifie", it is not an original Englifti word, but borrowed from a Latin one (juttificare) : Neither is this latin word of anci- ent ufe among the beft Roman writers \-\ but has been introduced fince, by chriftian divines, to exprefs the fenfe of a fcripture one, often to be met with, particularly in the Apoftle Paul's epi- ftles, efpecially his epiftles to the Romans and the Galatians. It's meaning is not, to make juft ; as to * Pfalm ,143. 2. t Vid. Sir Charles Wolfeley, on juftification evan- gelical. hy the Works of the Law. 3 to fandifie is to make holy. This may feem to be the fenfe of the word, judging by its etymology. But its rarely, if ever, ufed, in the'inlpired pages, as carrying in it this meaning. Tis rath' r to be underftood in a law-fenfe, alluding to the acquit- ance of an accufed perfon upon a legal procefs, and his being accounted juft in oppofirion to the charge that was exhibited againil him. It ac- cordmgly fignifies to approve, accept, vindicate or adjudge as juft. We fhall exemplifie this m a few inftances. The holy God is applied to in thofe words, * " hear thou in heaven, and judge thy fervants ; condemning the wicked, and j uni- fying the righteous". Where, " juftifying the righteous" does not fignifie, the making them righteous -, but appearing for them in judgment, and vindicating them as fuch. It is affirmed, -f- " He that jullifieth the wicked is an abomination to the Lord". By '' juftifying the wicked" is not meant, the making them qualitatively juft : This would be weil-pleafing to God : But it fig- nifies a pleading for them, and defending them in judgment as juft, while, at the fame time, they are wicked. Hence that threatning of the Pro- phet, :j: " Wo unto them, who juftifie the wicked for a reward" ; that is, vindicate them in judg- ment as righteous perfons, when the reverie is their true charader. And the word is ufed in this fame fenfe in the New-teftament. " Not the hearers of the law are juft before God, but the doers of the law fhall bejuftified" ;§ thatis,fhaii be accounted and declared juft in judgment. So tis faid of the Publican, in the gofpel of Luke, |} B 2 that P I Kin. 8. 32. t Prov. 17. 5. J Ifa. 5. 21, 23. § Rom. 2. I J. II Chap. 18. 14. 4 yujiifxation impoffihle that he " went down to his houfe juftified racher than. the . harifee" \ that is, approved by God, and accepted as jiifl. In hke manner we read, * *' Who fliall lay any thing to the charge of God's eleft ? It is God that juftifieth. V\^ho is he that cofidemneth ? It is Chrift that died". By " God's jnitifying", we are evidently to undcrftand his ac- quiting and vindicating in judgment asjuft; for it here (lands oppofed to condemnation. — But I need not multiply inftances. Tis generally al- lowed, on all fides, that the word, " juftifie", is ufed in this judicial fenfe throughout the fcrip- lures i at lealt in a fenfe refering to this, and cor- refponding with it. Tho it ought to be remem- bered, and heedfully remarked here, that no one can, in confiftency with truth, be judicially de- clared juft, unlefs he really is fo in the eye of thac rule, whatever it is, by which he is tried ; and, in confequence of this, we may be fure, that the rightcousjudgeof all the earth will never approve of any man as jud, and pronounce him to be fo, if this be not the truth of his chara6ler, when com- pared with the meafure of judgment in his cafe. " WoR Ks of the law" are the other terms to be explained. Now, by " law", the Apoftlefome- times means law "in general", both the " law written in men's hearts", and in '' the books of revelation". Sometimes he ufes the word more reftrainedly to fignifie the "Mofaic law" in fpecial. But whether he underftands by it the " natural" or " revealed law", or law " including both", works done in conformity to it, when mentioned with reference to juilification, he always fets afide as * Rcipc 8. 33, 34. hy the Works of the Law. 5 as totally infufficient for the procurement of it. Accordingly, when he affirms, that, " by the works of the law, no one fhall be juftified", the thoc he would convey is obvioiifly this, that juftification is not obtainable " upon the foot of law", upon any claim grounded on works done in obedience to it. As if he had faid, no man, whe- ther he be Jew or Genriif, naked law, law con- fidered fmiply in itftlf, being the rule of judg- ment, can be accounted, accepted or vindicated as juft, upon the fcore of any works he has per- formed in obedience to it : Neither the Jew, up- on works he has done in compliance with the law as publifhed by Mofes ; nor the Gentile, upon the works he has done in obedience to the law of nature And it may be added with equal truth, nei- ther can the chriiiian bejuftified in the meer vir- tue of any works he has wro't in compliance with the law,as promulged in the gofpel byJefusChrift, and his apoftles. In fhort, all works, whether of Jews, Pagans, or Chriftians, are excluded from jultificanon, law, rigid law, being the rule of tryal. They are totally and abfolutely infufficient to procure for any man living an acquitance in judgment, a vindication as juft and righteous. And this, the way being prepared for it, I now come to make evident to you : In the doing of which I fliall take the Apoftle Paul for my in- ilruclor and guide. He, of all the facred writers, is the moft frequent and peremptory in affirming, that juftification is obtainable by no fon of Adam upon a plea of v^orks, done in conformity to meer law. Nor does he barely aftert this, but greatly enlarges in the proof of it. 1 fhali make ufe of his B 3 arguments 6 Jufijication impojjihk arguments upon this head, and endeavour to {^t them in a point of hght that may be convincing. In his epiille to the Romans, he has diftindtly and largely proved, that mankmd univerfaily are finners, and therefore incapable of attainmg to " thejuflification of iife"upon the terms of naked ]aw. rhe proof he has eAhibited of this is con- tained in the three firft chapters of this epiflle ; where we ihall find a very melancholy account of the degenerate ilate, the whole world, then con- fiding ot Jews and Gentiles, had funk into. " It cannot indeed be iuppofed, that the character he here draws of the Jews & Gentiles juftly belonged, in all its hneaments, to either of them indivi- dually confidered. There were, doubtlefs, a- mong thefe bodies of men a confiderable number, who had "efcapcd the pollutions" that were com- mon in that day " thro lull" : Nay, there is no reafon to think but that fome,atleaft,of the indi- viduals that conftituted thefe coUtftive bodies, were really good men, in the fenfe in which the infpired Solomon fays, " a good man obtaineth favor of the Lord". But ftill, it was true of them all, that they " had gone out of the way" : Not indeed equally, confi ered as individuals, - but in varioas degrees ; fome in one degree, o- thers in another ; but the generality in an high degree : infomuch that the apoitle might judly delcribe them, in the grofs, as awfully corrupt. For this was the real truth of their character ; tho* it might be faid of fome of them, in the indir- ^Jt'dudl knih, that they were finners in that view only in which it is affirmed. " there is not a juft man that fmneiii not". And hy the PForh of the Law. 7 And that it was the intention of the apoflle to give us to Linderftand, that both Jews & Gen- tiles, mankind in common, were fmners mdivi- dually, as well as in a colle(5live fenfe, would leem evident beyond all reafonable difpute. Why elfe fhould he ufe the terms of univertality ? Why the ilrongefl ones the language could furnifh him with ? And why Hiould he, as it were, heap them upon one another ? He is not content with fay- ing, " all have finned" ; but infifls that " there is none righteous, no not one" ; that " there is none that doth good, no not one" •, and that '' all are gone out of the way". Surely, thtfe terms mull take in au the individuals of the human kind without exception. Had it been h:s defign to include the whole world of men, he could not have exprefled himfelf in words more full to his purpoie. Befides, the conclufion he introduces trom the foregoing premifes requires, that the terms ufed in them fhould be explained in this univerfal fenfe. How elfe could he lay, " we have before proved, that every mouth is flop- ped", and that " all the world are become guilty before God" .? How elfe could he infer, " there- fore by the deeds of the lawiliall noflefhbe jufli- fied in God's fight" ? And how elfe could he argue, that we are " juftified freely by his grace," that is, by an acl of his meer favor, in oppofition to every plea as grounded on works done in obe- dience to the law, and to the utter exclufion of all boafling ? It fHould feem indubitably clear,that theApo- flle's aim was to prove the impolTibility of jufti- iication upon terms of law,and that his long thread B4 of 8 yuPification imp'^Jfihk of reafonlng, in rhcfe chapters, was principally intended to fettle this important point. But if, in conrcqucnce oi" what he has offered, it is £iot fad, rhac bo:h Jews and G. ntiles are finners iri the account of law, confidered individually and univerfally^ there is no argumentative connexion between the point in vitw, and the reafoning ufed to defend and fupport it. '^ ay, if it were true of ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL, whether in the Jewifh or Gentile world, that he was not a finner, judging of his charadlcr by meer law,' the apoftle has left his dodrine of the " unattainablenefs of juflifica- tion upon the foot of law" without any folid proof • at lead in regard ot that univerfahty^ in which he has afferted, and endeavoured to maintain it. He can, in a word, be looked uponas a coherent con-/ clufive writer upon no other fcheme than this, that Jews and Gentiles, individually as well col^ le^ively confidered, were finners in the view of lav/, and therefore not within the pofTibility of being juftified uport a tryal by fo leverc a rule. I MAY not improperly remark here, that the apoftle's reafoning, with refpe6t to the unattain- ablenefs of juftification upon the terms of law, ought to be confidered, as refering, not only to mankind as they exifled at the time when he wrote, but in all after-ages of the world. For the confequence he deduces, from his method of reafoning, is in thole tlrong terms of univcrfality, " therefore, by the deeds of the law, there fhal! no fiefh be jiUtified in his fight'*. ''No flefli", that is, no fon of Adam, not one of the human race. Nor, unlefs he is to be underftood as tak- ing into his meaning mankind in all ages, haYe we. dy the Worh of the Law. g we, in thefe days, any concern with his do6lrIne of "juftificanon without law" : Whereas, he moft certainly wrote with a view ro afcer-ages as well as that in which he lived \ defigning to affirm and prove, that no Ton o^ man, in any age, till the end of time, could be juftificd upon law-terms : be- caufe, m the eye of law, they could not but be found guilty before God And the plam truth is, his realoning, upon this head, is as applicable to mankind univerially m theie days, as to man- kmd at the time when he wrote his epiftle. For it is as true now as it was then, and has all along been fo, that they have univerially finned Not that mankind, in all ages, have been finners juft in the fame degree as in the apottle's days : But they now arc, and always have been, and always will be, finncrs in fuch a (cnfe as that tis impofli- blc they ihould be juttified by the rule of fti id law. . And this account of his reafoning. It is ob- fervable, pcrfe6t:ly coinci Jes with the reprefenta- tions that areevtry where cllc, in fcriprurt, given 'of this matter ^ays the intpiredDavio,* "If thou, Lord, (houldeft mark iniquities ; O Lord, who fhail (land" ? And again,-f '' enter not into judg- ment wi:h thy iervanr ; for in thy light no man Jivmg ihail be juilihed". To the lil^e purpofc is the rea oning of Job, \ '' How Ihould man be juft with God ? It he contend with him, he can- not anlwer him for one or* a thoufand". To the fame purpofc ftill are tHofe words of Solomon, § " i h^re is not a juft man upon the earth that dorh *.Ta1. no. 2. fPfal. 143. 2. tChap. 9.2,3.-- § Ecclef. 7. 20. ■ lO yuflijicatton hnpojfible doth good, andfinneth not". Agreable whereto the Apuitk John aflures us, * that " if we lay we have no fin, we deceive ourfelv(-s, and the truth is not in us" : Vea, he declares f that " if we fay we have not finned, we fball make God a liar, and his word is not in us", I MAY pertinently add here, this fcriptural ac- count of our being univerfally finners, in the eye of law, mod evidently accords with the experience of every man living. Who can lay his hand upon his heart, and fay, that it is clear of all fin } Who can look into his life, and declare with truth, that it has nor, in a lefs or greater degree, been (lained with " the pollutions that are in the world thro' luft ? If any are thus pure in heart, and have given proof of it by their '' holinefs in all manner of converfation", they muft be thofe good men, who, with pious David, '' have walked in their integrity". i\nd are there any amongthefe who have never deviated from the path of duty ? Not one. They " have all finned, and come fliort of the glory of God". And they are deeply fenfi- ble of it, and herefrom in readinefs to exclaim with the Ir'falmift, % " Who can underfland his errors" ! and to join with him in the prayer to God v/^^.Ich follows, *' cleanfe thou me from fecret faults". Far from imagining that they are per- fect, and able, on account of their innocency, to ftand a trval at the bar of flridl law, they adopt the words of upright Job, || humbly con- feffing, "if we juftifie ourfelves, our own mouths would condemn us : If \Nt fhould fay we are per- fect, it fhall alio prove us perverfe". And, with Eliphaz, * Epift. T. 8. t Ver. lo. % Pfal. 19. 12^ II Job 9. 20. hy the Works ef the Law. 1 1 Eliphaz, their language is, * '' What is man that he fhould be clean, and he that is born of a wo- man that he fhould be righteous" ? In a word, there is no fon of Adam, be his attainmtnts in goodnefs ever fo high, but feels within himfelf the truth of what the ir'octiays. Video, mellora proboque : Deteriora fequor. 1 fee the right, approve it too. Condemn the wrong, and yet the wrong purfue. Or of what is exprclTed in (lill more flriking language by, an infpircd pen, f " What I wouldj that 1 do not •, but what I hate, that 1 do. I'he good that I would, I do not -, and the evil that I would not, that 1 do'*. Now, if all men are fmners, as having tranf- grelled the law, how can they be juftified upon the foot of law ? It is not pofTible. Law, ftrid law, being the rule by which they are tried, con- demnation, and that oniv, mud be the judicial refuk of a procedure upon their cafe. Should they be declared legally juft, the feri'tence would exhibit a manifeft falfehood •, it would-be the effedt of perverted judgment. For notli^g fhortr of obedience without a failure, in any inftance of duty, refpedling either heart or life, could en- title them to an acquitance as righteous pe, if we v/ere juilified by works. For '' to hinj hy the Works of the Law. 1 5 him that worketh",ro as to be entitled to juftlfica- tion on the fcore of his works, " the reward would be reckoned, not of grace, but of debt". * And is this the fcripture-way of men's being juftified ? No ; fays the apoitle, "we are juftified freely by- God's grace", f And " if by grace, then not by works". :j: And of furh c6nfequence is ir, in che judgment of this apoftle, that we fhould depend upon " grace", and not upon '• works", in the affair of juftification, that he declares to the Ga- latians, y *' W^ofoever of you are juftified by the law, ye are fallen from grace". Juftification up- on a plea grounded on works done in obedience to the law, andjuftificarion upon the foot of grace, the free favor of God, are fubverfive of each o- ther : Infomuch that if we are juftified by works, we cannot be juftified by grace ; and if we are juftified by grace, we cannot be juftified by works. The other confequence^of our being juftified by works is, the difhonor it* refltdls on Chrift. It renders his mediatorial interpofition a necdlefs thing, counter-ads the ^t{\gr\ of his coming into the world, and nullifies his death ; making it of little or no importance in the bufmefs of falvati- on. To this purpofe the apoftle reafons, § " If rightcoufnefs comes by the law, then Chnft is dead i,n vain". Agreably whereto he again ar- gues, §§ " If they which are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promife made of no effea:". As if he had faid, if they that will be juftified by works in obedience to the law, may * obtain * Rom. 4. 4. t P^om. 4. 24. % Ver. 27,28. Chap. II. 6. II Chap, 5. 4. §Gal.3. 21. §§ Rom. 4. 14. i6 ^uftification impojfibk obtain the heavenly inheritance, then faith iii Chriil as the end of the law for righteoufnefs is necdlcfs, and (he promife by grace thro' him is bro't to nought. These are the genuine confeqnences of the dodnne of j unification upon the '■erms of law, if we may trull to the reafoning of the apolUe Paul. And it was upon this account, principally, that he was fo frequent and zealous in his oppoficion to it. He had been made to feel the abfolute in- iuHiciency of law and works in the great affair of the finner's judification, and knew that ii could be effcdled in no way but that " of grace thro* Chri^l". T^is therefore was the way he carefully pointed out both to Jews and Gentiles, that is, to mankind univerfally. And he was abundant in his labors relative hereto ; particularly in tak* ing men off from their -dependance on the law, as knowing that, if they fought to be juliified on clie fcore of iheir works in conformity to it, they would fruftrate the grace of God, and render the v,'ho)c work of Chrift a thing neediefs, and to no purpofe. I HAVE now faid what may be tho't fufficientj wir!;OUt any further enlargement, to make it evi- dent, beyond allreafonabledii'pute^that " no f^icfh", m man, ,, can be juftilied by che works of the » ^BiroBT .1 'proceed to make what has been dikoiuCcd pnitmWy ufeful^ I would interpofc a rt/mark, *Mdi I eikcm &n. Impomnt one. It U tills. hy the Works of the Law. 1 7 this. The apodle Paul no where fuggefts, * that meer law, law feperated from grace and Chi ill, was C ever * Tis true, he brings in Mofes thus defcribing the righ- teoufnefs which is of the law, '' the man that doth . thefe things fhall Hve by them", Rom. lo. 5. He does the fame, Gal. 3. 12. " the man that doth them Ihall live in them". It may feem, at firft fight, as tho' the apoflle fuppofed, m thefe texts, that the Jews might live upon the terms of their law, as a covenant of works J and that it was given them by God to this end. And in this fenfe he has fometimes been inter- preted. The great Mr. Lock thus explains him, in his note upon Rom. 5. 20. But we ftiould make him flatly contradict himfclf, fhould we underftand him as intending to fay, that life might be obtained by the Mofaic law, meerly as fuch. For he exprefly declares^ Rom.4. 13, 14. "that the promife was not toAbraham, or to his feed, thro* the law, but thro' the righteouf- nefs of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promife made of none efft6l". To the fame purpofe he teaches us. Gal. 2. ult, " if lighteoufnefs comes by the law, Chrift- " is dead in vain". When therefore he fays, in a way of reafoning, " the man that doth them ihail live in them", he is to be conficJered as arguing with the Jews upon their own principles. Their law, as they inter- preted it, promifed life, life beyond the grave, eternal life in heaven, uppn the sole consideration of their obedience to it. The apoftle, from this con- ftruClion which they, not he, put upon the Mofaic law, points out to them the impoflibility of their obtaining life, by oppofmg the curfc to the promife, " curfed is every one that continueth not in all things written in book of the law to do them". It will be found, I be- lieve, upon the clofcft examination, a difficult, if not impoffible talk, to make this apoflle a confident cohe- rent writer, upon any other fcheme of interpretation. 1 {l:iall add here, there is a fenfe, in which the. words, ^' the man that doth them fhall live in them", is flncfl- 1 8 jufiijication impojfible ever fince the lapfe, whatever it might be before,* a divinely conftituted method for the obtainment of hfe ; or that life could be obtained upon the foot of law, in this fenfe, by any works done in conformity ly true ; and this is, by viev/ing the law in its " fpirit", and not according to the " letter" ; that is, as refering to the promife revealed to Adam, and afterwards re- peated to Abraham, and connefted, in the divine intention, " with the gift thro' Chrift". A man, in this fenfe of the law, might " live" in confequence of his obedience to it ; tho' tis impoffible he fhould con- fidering it as naked "law". And this,in fa(ft, was the way in which the pious Jews, all along under the Mofaic difpenfation, obtained life. And, interpreting the law in this fenfe, that is, ccnfidering it in con- nection with grace and Chrift, Mofes and Ezekiel might with truth fay to the Jews, " ye fhall keep my ftatiJtes, which if a man do he fhall live in them" ; tho', perhaps, fuch declarations refer, not to " eternal life", but that "temporal one in Canaan", which, by a national covenant, was promifed to the Jews, and could be enjoyed by them, only upon the foot of their obedience. * Poffibly, the rule of tryal the firft father of men was under, in his innocent ftate, was a " covenant ot grace, revealed by Chrift", then in " the form of God", tho* v/hen he appeared in our world, it was " in fafhion as a man". Perhaps alfo, " faith in Chrift", the re- vealcr of this law of tryal, was the only fpring of con- du6t upon which the life promifed could be obtained. But however this might be, which 1 only mention en paflant, thus much feems plain, that the original promife of life was not fufpended upon " perfeCl obe- dience" to what is commonly called " the natural or moral law of God". In contradiction hereto, I know, tis faid by moft chriftian writers, that the firft man was fo placed under this law,as that he muft work his way to life by perfedtly doing all things commanded by it 5 infomuch that he could not have obtained it, but by the Works ef the Law. i g conformity to it, whether perfe6t, or imperfedl. Far from faying thus, he declares, with great pe- remptorinels, that the fuppofition of coming to life by bare law would totally fruftrate the grace C 2 of but by perfevering obedience in every point of duty, without the Icaft failure. But this is Lid intirely with- out book. The fcripture no where infinuates, that he was under " fuch a covenant of works". It fuggefls, on the contrary, that God, in favor to him, did not put him upon fo fevere a tryal for life. His tryal, if we may believe the facred record of it, was in a " fin- gle inffance", and this, not of doing, but of forbear- ing to do. Life and death were fufpended upon his regard or difregard to a divine rejiraint laid upon him in one article only. This is the account the infpired Mofes has given of the matter ; and he has done it in words too plain and exprefs to need any comment, or to admit ot difpute. Read Gen. 2. 16, in. Tis ob- fervable, that which was made the teft of Adam's fub- je6lion to God, was a command, not of the moral, but pofitive kind 5 a command, not deducible from reafon, but knowable only by revelation from heaven. It could not therefore be obeyed but from faith in GoD,the revealer. Upon which it may, with all freedom, be affirmed, that our firft father, while innocent, as really as any of his pofterity, tho* not in the fame fenfe, was to LIVE BY FAITH. And it was owing to his un- belief, however this was efFecSied, that he ^« eat of the tree",concerning whichGod had faid, '^ thou (halt not eat of it",thereupon incuring thethreatned penalty *' thou fliall furely die". If Adam, from faith in the 'divine revelation, which put him upon a tryal for life, had abftained from eating of " the forbidden tree", he would, without all doubt, have had God for his in- ftru(aor, guide, and conftaht affiftant, fo as that he would, in all inftances, have obeyed '^ the natural moral law" as perfectly as one, of (o low an order in the fcale of being, can be fuppofed to have done. But his " thus obeying" was not the tryal God put him to for life, but a fpecial one by immediate revelation, in 20 ytiftijication impojfihle of God, and nulliFiC the death ofChrlii. The cafe v/as plainly this. The Jews, in his day, had eflentially corrupted the Moiaic lav/ in their ufe of it with reference to eternal life. They ccn- fidered it as a" covenant of u*orks",depenaing or^ their which FAITH was the only governing principle that could have fecur'd him from death, it would be the exa61: truth, fhould I fay, that the firfl parents of men, while innocent, in common with their pufterity fince the Japfe, could have obtained life in no way but that " of grace thro' faith"* It is readily own'd, as the poileritv of the firli: pair, in confequencc of the lapfe, are under a fcntence which has doom"d them to death, there mud: be the difcovery cf " abounding grace" in delivering them from death, that they may live j and, as the iifeopen'd to their view is not life in an earthly paradire,butinGod's eternal kingdom,by a refurre£t;on that will make them incorrupible and imm.ortal, there muft be the difplay of" fuper-abounding grace" : efpe- ciaiiy, as this life is obtainable, notwithftanding thi: *' many offences". however aggravated, they may have been guilty of in their own perfons. It is acknov/- ledged alfo, that the " obje^f'' of their faith is difier- ent. They mufl believe in God as " reconcilable to fmners thro' Jefus Chrifl:", and as '^reconciling thf-m to himfel.^'not imputino; to them their trefprfles". But iliil, it was grace in God to man, while in his inno- cent ftate, to make the promife of life ; and faith jn God, as the rcveaier of this promife, was that alone upon the foot of which he could have obtained this blefnng. it may be worth remarking here., " the co- venant of works" contrafted, in the facred books, with *•• the covenant ot grace", is not any covenant of voiks God ever made with Adam ; but " the Sinai-cove- nant" made with the Jewifh nation. This is accord- ingly the covenant always meant, when we read of the *' old covenant", the *' firft covenant", in opp( fi- ' tion to the " new covenant", the " fecond covennt", which ought to be heedfully minded in leading the fc .^'^Uires ; particularly the epiitle to the HcbrewSo by the TVorh of the Law. 2 1 their legal obfervances, meerly as fuch, for a title to life. It was this fundamenial miflake of their's that gave rife to a great part of this Apoftle's epiftles to the Romans, and the Galatians ; in which he labors to take their, off from this ufe of the law, by fhewing the impoffibility of their ever being juftified in this way. And he fo manages his argument, as to make it equally conciufive, whether applied to Jews, or Gentiles. His rca- foning, in its real force, and juil confcqiience, ex- tends univerfally ; leavmg every fon of Adam deftitiue of any claim to life, as grounded on law only, or any works done in conformity to it. It was to illuflrate this grand point, (which may be v/orthy of our fpecial notice) that he introduces what he fays upon the lapfe by the " one man" Adam, with it's confequences relative to ail his pofterity. And it gives his argument a moil ftriking force. For if both Jews and Gentiles, mankind univerfally, are fubjeded to ''death" by means of the original lapfe, and, m confequence of this fubje6lion, are in fuch a (late, as that they will certainly commit fin in violation of the law, * C 3 it * Subjetfllon to death, and upon this fuch a llablcnefs to commit fm, as is inconfiftent with the obtainment of life by law, without grace and Chrift, are the two GRAND tho'ts, the Apoftle would communicate by thofe words, Rom. 5. 1 2. " Wherefore, as by one man fm entered into the world, and death by fm, and fo death paffed upon all men, for that all have finned". The lapfe of the " one man" Adam is here evidently reprefented as the original fource both of SIN and DEATH. The Apoftle not only affirms, that " deat I*', in confequence of this lapfe, " pafted upon all men", but that *' all have fmned" ; fpeaking of that which certainly will be, as the* it actually was : 22 'Jufiijication impojfibh it is from hence demonftrable, that the dodrine of juftification, upon the foot of law, in oppofitl- to grace and Chrifl, is an imaginary notion only. The great point in view with this Apoftle wa^, to difeneage finners from " working for life", as tho' a mode of diftion not unufual in the fcripture. So tis faid concerning our Saviour, Heb. 2. 8. " Thou haft put all things in fubjedion under his feet" ; tho* it follows, in the latter part of the fame verfe, " we fee not yet all things put under him". In like manner, tis here declared concerning the whole human race, tho' vaft multitudes of this race had not then come into exiftence, that *' death pafled upon them", and that they " have all fmned". And tis with real truth the apoftle thus fpeaks, becaufe, in confequenceof the lapfe, both " death" and " fm", fm as well as death, will be certain izd: with refped to them all. They will all, after they have been in being, fall by the ftroke of death ; and they will ail as certainly, when they become capable of moral a6tion, become charge- able with fm, fo as to be beyond the poftibility of jufti- cation upon the foot of law. Tis accordingly ob^ fervable, mankind, judging of their charader by meer law, are ever confidered by this apoftle as *' fmners". Hence that univerfal affirmation, Kom. 3. 9. " all are under fm". And again, ver. 19. " all the world are become guilty before God". And yet again, ver. 23. " all have fmned". The apoftle means precifely the fame thing in the above-cited words, that he does in the paftage we are upon, " all have fmned". Only, he goes further here, and lets us into the true rife, the occafional caufe, of this univerfal defection, namely, the lapfe of the " one man" Adam. But then, it fhould alv/ays be particularly minded, as " fm" and *' death" are eflentially different, the one being a na- tural, the other a moral evil, this lapfe of the firft man is to be confidered as the fource of thefe evils in differ- ent ways, correfponding to the difference in their na- tures. And this leads me to exhibit a verfion of the latter by the Works of the haw. 23 tho'thcy could obtain it upon the fcore of any works they could do to this purpofe. He never once called any Ton of Adam to work in this fenfe, or gave him encouragement to hope for life, fhould he work ever fo perft^diy. C 4 Let latter claufe of this 12th ver. which, fnould it be new, may notwithftanding itxvt to convey clear and juft fentiments concerning this important matter. I would read the verfe (droping its comparative form, that I may the more eafily be underftood) after the follov\^ing manner, " by one man fm entered into the world, and death by fm, and fo death palTed upon all men, (s(|) &>) UPON WHICH all have fmned". As if the apoftle had faid, by the ^- one man" Adam, fm entered into the world, and death by his fm in eating of the foibidden tree ; and thus, by this one ofFence of this one man, death, in the fenfe Mofes has given of it, hath come upon all men, whereupon, upon which, in con- sequence OF which they have all fmned, fpeaking of that which certainly will be, as tho' it now was. The apoftle had it in his view, as I imagine, not only to reprefent " death" and " fm", with rcfpe6^ to the whole human race, as taking rife from the lapfe of the one man Adam, but to fuggeft the different ways in which this is done. The judicial fentence of God, occafioned by the one offence of this one man, is that which faftens " death", with all its natural caufes and appendages, upon the human kind ; and tis in con- sequence of this fentence, upon men's coming into exiftence under the difadvantages arifmg from it, that they " fm" themfelves. Tis obfervable, the apoftle having faid, " by one man fm entered into the world, and death by fm", this fm of his, does not go on to fay, " and \y^ death and fm havepafled upon all men" ; but " death", in this way, " paffed upon all men", ^ », upon which, in consequence of which, they have fmned themfelves. It is with great exa£t- nefs the apoftle has here exprefl'ed himfelf. And he purpofely did It, as I conceive of the matter, to carry our 24 Juftificatton impojjlble Let us then, as the improvement of what has been faid, fix ic in pur hearts as an indifputed truth, that we cannot be ••' juRified by the works of the lav/". A nd as we would hope, for an ac- quirance at the bar of God's judgment, let our vl^^w be to the free favor of God, and the atoning blood of his fon Jefus Cbrift. For, i^ we are ever vindicated in judgment, it muft be " by grace, thro' our tho'ts up to Adam as the true original fource of SIN as well as death ; and to give us to underftand, at the fame time, that he is the fource of thefe evils in different ways : Of " death", by the fentence of God, taking; rife from the one offence of this one man ; and of " lin", UPON or in consequence of this, by rea- fon of that frail, mortal, unhappy flate,to virhich we are fubje \ and in the fame fenfe ftill, and \n the fame way of iirammatical conftrudlion too, Rom. 6. 21. I could eafily have placed thefe criticifms in a clear and ftrong point of ligxht ; but the hints I have given niufl fufncc for an occafional note. 26 jfujitjication hnpojfible And that this was really the intention of God fcems very evidently fuggefted in the facred wri- tings. For, tis remarkable, " the fentence of condemnation", occafioned by the lapie, is fpoken of as pofterior to the promife of a Saviour. God firfl declared, " the feed of the woman fhould bruife the ferpent's head", and after this pronoun- ced the judicial fentence, " dull thou art, and un- to duft thou jQialt return". This promife, with- out all doubt, was intended as a remedy againft the difadvantages which Adam had bro't upon himfelf, and confequentially upon his pofterity, by means of his '' one offence" ; and by it they were all put into fuch a (late as that, thro' the "promifed feed of the woman",ic became pofliblc for them to be juflified and faved. The Apoftle Paul certainly viewed the matter in this light. Hence, * he declares, " that the creature, [by which phrafe he muft needs include m.ankind] was made fubjed to vanity in hope".-f Of what I It follows in the next vtrfe, " that § the creature itlelf§§fhall be delivered from the bondage of cor- ruption * In the 8th Chap, of his epiftle to the Romans, ver. 20. f ear iK'TTc^t, in confequence of fome previous ground for hope. This interpretation perfectly falls in with the proper force and meaning of the prepofition e'7(, join'd with a dative cafe. And it is an interpretation grounded on the truth of faft : For man was not ju- dicially '^ fubje£led to vanity", till after a door of hope had been opened to him biy exprefs revelation from God. § So the particle on is rendered a thoufand times in the new-teftamcnt ; and fo it ought to have been rendered here. §§ The original words, y.»i»'jT>j ^ «r{?t?,are emphatically flrong J as meaning, " even the feif-fame creature" that had been fubjeded to vanity. hy the Worh of the Law. % 7 ruptlon into the glorious liberty of the children of God" -, which would have been impofTible upon the plan of law, but is eafily to be accounted for upon the fcheme of grace thro' the promifed Saviour. He very obvioully leads us into the fame way of thinking upon the matter, when he fays, * " as by the offence of one judg- ment came upon all men to condemnation, even fo by the righteoulnefs of one the free gift came upon all men unto juftification of life, f What inteUigible meaning can be given to this text, if the pofterity of Adam, thro' the righteoulnefs of one, were not within the pofTibility of attaining the juftification of life } I may add here, tis the exprefs declaration of him, who is " head over all things", " that all that are in their graves (hall hear the voice of the fon of God, and come forth". f Tis put beyond all doubt, by thefe words, that mankind univerfally ihall be raifed from the dead. But how is this poflible according to the courfe of law ? Law, as fuch, knows no mercy. Accord- ing to law, if mankind are once dead, they muft be forever dead. Tis nothing but the interpofi- tion of grace can deUver them from the power of the grave. And as they fhali be thus delivered, and this univerfally, tis as certain that they are herein dealt with upon the foot of grace, as thac death paffes upon them, § death would otherwife everlaftingly * In his 5th Chap. 8th ver. t The oriiiinai words, anfwering to the englifh ones, *' all men\ are the fame in both parts of the corn- par i fon. X John 5. 28, 29. § If any fliould objeft and fay, a refurredion from the dead is no argument of grace in God, becaufe it will be, to many, " a refurredion to damnation, and not falvation" y 28 Juftificatton impojfible everlaftingly reign over them. Thofe who ima- gine, that any of Adam's pofterity are fo under law, as not to be at the fame time under grace, might do well to turn the tho't in their minds, how it is pofTible, upon this fcheme, that they fhould, afcer they were once dead, be bro't back to life again ? I fhall fubjoin yet further, the fcrip- ture give us reafon to think, that men's condition, in another worlds fhali be determined, at the great day, not according to the rigor of law, but the gofpel-plan of grace. Ought not thofe obferva- ble words of the Apoftle Paul, * to be interpreted to th's purpofe, '^ In the day when God flialJ judge the fecrets of men according to my gof- pel" ? That is, the mercy revealed in that gofpel, I, in an efpecial manner, have been commiffioned to preach to the world. It may be worthy of remark, the apoftle had been ipcaki ng, m the foregoing verfes, of Gentiles as well as Jews, which then comprehended the whok world of mankind, and affirms in this text, with reference to falvation'* ; the anfwer is obvious : Is it no favor to live under the hght of the gofpel, rather than in pagan darknefs, fmce manv, thro' their abufe of the gofpel, will be the more miferable in another worh^ ? Are the bounties of common providence no proof of the goodnefs of God to men, becaufe, by their mifimprove- ment of them, they may " treafure up to themfelves wrath againft the day of wrath" ? The race of Adam, by an abfolute grant of God, delivering them from the power of the grave, are put within the poffibility of a glorious immortality after death : And if, by their own folly, in mifimproving this advantage, they ex- pofe themfelves to " a fecond death", (hall the grace of God be refleded upon ? Tis highly unreafonable, and bafely ungrateful. * Rom. 2. i6. hy the Worh of the haw. 29 to them all indifcriminately, that they Ihall be hereafter judged " according to his gofpel". And if they will be thus judged, it muft be according to the revelation of the grace that is in Jefus Chrift. This view of the flate of Adam's pofterity at once cuts off all occafion for murmuring and complaint, tho' our condition is fuch, that if law fnould be the rule of our tryal, we muft unavoid- ably fall under afentence of condemnation. For we may be "laved by grace thro'Chrift",rho' fal- vation is impoffible upon the foot of law. Shall v/e then any of us be fo unadvifed, as to feek to be juftified by v/orks done in conformity to the law ? This has all along been the great folly of mankind. Tho' confcious to themfelves that they are finners, it has been their way to betake them- felves to doings of their own, in one form or a- nother, to procure the favor of God, and their acceptance as righteous in his fight. Tis faid of tfie Jews, in the days of the Apoftles, who "fol- lowed after the law of righteoufnefs", that they " attained not to the law of righteoufnefs". And why } The reafon follows, " becaufe they fought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law". * And it may, v/ith equal truth, be faid of moft chriftians fo called, that neithf r have they "attained to a juftifying righteoufnels" ; and for the like leafon, " becaufe they have fought for it in virtue of the deeds they have done in imagined conformity to the law " Law, as we have heard, is rigidly fevere ; making no abate- ment admitting of no excufes, and (hewing no mercy, f he man that fails in his compliance with us demands, tho' it (hould be in one article only, t Rom. 9. 31, 32. 30 Jujiijication impojftble^ &c. only, inflantly comes under condemnation. We can't therefore take a more effedtual method to fallen ruin upon ourfelves, than by feeking to obtain deliverance from it upon the terms of law. Our cafe indeed is abfolutely defperate, while law, or any works we have done in obedience to it, is what we depend upon for an acquirance in judg- ment. No ion of Adam, in any age, in any place, or under any difpenfation of God, was ever jufti- fied in this way, or could have been. For, in the eye of law,"the whole world is guilty beforeGod". Let us be fo each one of us in the view we have of ourfelves, Inftead of " trufting in ourfelves", with the proudPharifee, '^ that we are righteous'*, let us be abafed before God in a fenfe of our mani- fold weaknefTes and defedts, not to fay the grofs mifcarriages we have too often been betrayed into. Surely, we have no caufe of pride on account of our works of righteoufnefs. They have been at- tended with fo much frailty and imperfe 34- 2^^^^ ^ejtion anfwered^ nently cheir fault in the days of the apoftles : For which realon, even thofe among them who pro- fcfled faith inChrift,con{:ended earneftly for an ad- herence to the law, as what washecefTary in order to their obtaining the favor of God. But they were herein egregioufly miftaken. And it was this miftake ot their's that gave occafion for numerous palTages in Paul's cpiilles, from which it may with certamty be colledled, that juftification was obr, tainable even while the law fubfifted. But how ? Not " thro' the law", but in virtue of " the pro- mife founded in Chriil", with which it was con- neded in the view of God. To this purpofe he argues, * "^ The promife was not to Abraham, or to his feed, thro' the law , but thro' the righte- Gufnefs of faith". That is to fay, the promifed grant of life was not made upon " terms of law", but in quite another method heie fignified by " the righteoufnefs of faith". He adds, in the words that immediately follow, ^' if they which are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promife m.ade of no effed". Parallel v/here- to is that text, f " If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promife \ but God gave it to Abraham by. promife". And that the law did not exclude the promife \ but that the Jews, not- withftanding the law, were ftill to have their de- pendance on the promife for life, he argues from this, that '* the covenant with Abraham was con- firmed in Chrift", unalterably fettled and efta- bUlhed with a view to him, '' 430 years before the law v/as given by Mofes" •, fo that the law could not be introduced in the room of the pro- mife, or to fet it afide, without making void a folemn * Rom. 4. 13. t Gal. y 18. wherefore ferveth the Law^ 3 % folemn contradt, after it had, in an authentic man- ner, been confirmed. His reafoning runs thus, ^ ^' Brethren, I fpeak after the manner of men ; tho* it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be con- firmed, no man difannulleth, or addeth thereto. — • And this I fay, that the covenant which was con- firmed before of God in Ghrift, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot difannul, that it fliould make the promife of none efFed". Tis abundant- ly evident from thefe texts, that *' the juftification of life", tho' unattainable by the law, was yet at- tainable under the law, in virtue of the abrahamic covenant, which it neither did, nor could, fet a- fide. It is evident alfo, that it was not the in- tention of the law to fruftrate, or, in any meafure^ oppofe, the operation of the promife, but that it ^as rather defigned jto promote it by its adings in fubferviency to it. It may, I think, be juilly colle6led frora wha5: has been thus previouily remarked, that the ?•' Mofaic law", meerly as fuch, was not intended by God as a " covenant of life". His view here- in was not to let the Jews, or any of the race of men, know, that perfed innocency was the way in which they were to obtain the favor of Gcd to eternal life ; or that, unlefs they were thus inno- cent, they fhould be " cafe into prifon till they had paid the utmoft farthing". Had this been the defign of God in publifhinghis law fromSinai, it would have been abfolutely inconfiftenr, not only with his promife to Abraham, " I v/ill be your God, and the God of your feed" ; but with jthat more ancient one to the firft father of men^ D 2 i' ih^ i Gal, 3. 155 ijo 36 "The ^e ft ion anfwered^ ^' the feed of the woman fhall bruife the ferpcnt's head". The law of God, it is true, being a per-. fe61: rule of righteoufnefs, always did, and always muft, require perfeft innoccncy. And God's fet- ting it before the world, as he does in the pro- mulgation of it, may powerfully tend to lead them intojufl apprehenfionsoftheir duty, and convince them from thence of their unhappy condition, Ihould they be dealt with according to the re- quirements of law : But it could not be defigned to let them know, that they could find acceptance with heaven in no way but by " perfe6Uy" keep- ing the law. This would be to fubftitute the law in the room of grace, and, in reality of fenfe, to alter the method the wifdom of God, excited by his goodnefs, has contrived forthe juftification of fmncrs. An obvious corolla-y now prtfents itfelf. It is this. That fmners ought i ot to be told, that they muft be " per fed", * that they muft " un- erringly * This is what the author of the *' letters on Theron and Afpafio" tells thofe, who, while deftitute of" the falutary truth", would do any thing that they might obtain life. ''If they attempt to do in any fenfe ^ they btnd themfelves to do all'*. The requirement of them iz^ " every things or nothing\ pag. 285. He accord- ingly fums up what they have to do in thefe words, pag. 387. " Be pc^fed, keep the commandments, and rhoii fhalt live. The obligation of the law is eternal, fo can never be loofed". If the " obligation of the law is thus indifToluble*', why does he fpeak of foim- felf, pag. 10. " as ready to fhew, that all objections iind impediments have been, by a particular divine edi^ for the purpofe, removed and difpenfed with in favor of all, who are fmcerely difpofed, whenever they /hall be "wherefore ferveth the Law. 37 erringly keep the commandments of the law in order to their obtaining eternal life". It may be proper to fet the law before their view, in its ab- folute purity and perfedlion, to point out to them the mifery of their condition, while law is the rule of judgment in their cafe. But to tell them, that they muft be " perfect" in their regards to D 3 the be found" ? Why does he bring in the blefled God, pag. 90. ^' afluring every man, who fhall fincerely re- *< pent, or tarn from his evil way, and do that which " is lawful and right, that he fhall be happy [that is, *' as he means here, in the fole virtue of his repentance *' and righteoufnefs, without any view to Chrift] and ^' no mention made of his former faults ; and con- <' firming al .his by his oath, that there might be no *' remaining doubt or hefitation in the minds of men, *' about their acceptance with God, as foon as they " are reformed" ? If our author can reconcile " this particular edi6t", and " afTurance from the God of truth", with a " law-obligation that is eternally in- diflbluble", he may claim the honor of doing that which no man has ever yet done, that is, of making both parts of a contradi^ion true. Befides, if the law requires perfcdl perfinai obedience^ and " its obligation can never be loofed",how cameChrift to be admitted to do & fufFer in the fmner*s ftead ? This principle ftri6l- ly adhered to, will nuUifie the whole fcheme of grace thro' Chrift. It is indeed a fiat contradiction to the revealed character of God. But to pafs thefe things. If one fhould put the queftion to our author, what law of heaven ever required men perfectly to keep the commandments in order to life ? he would, per- haps, find himfelf greatly puzzled to g've a juft anfwer. Was it the law man was placed under in paradife ? Tis as evident as words can make it, that lite, even in man's innocent ftate, was a matter of grace, and fufpended upon a fingle article of forbearing to do ; aiid this, from a principle of faith in a revelation from 38 T^he ^ejiion anfweredj the law,or that damnation will be the confequence, is to apply to them as tho' God had provided no Saviour, and had made no revelation of his grace towards finnfers \ yea, it is, in true conftrudtion, to overlook the whole gofpel-fcheme of mercy, and to make void both the life and death 6f Jefus Chrift. We God. See a preceding note, pag. 18, 19, 20. — Was it a law given to man immediately after the lapfe ? The all-merciful God, even before he pronounced the fentei.ce, dooming man to death, fummarilv revealed ^' the grand falutary truth", by promifing, that " the feed of the woman fhould bruife the ferpent's head". And by promulging this promife, a confVitution of grace was ere6led, conform?.bly to which eternal life became obtainable by Adam, and all his pofterity. How ? Not by " perfe(B:ly doing" ; but by " believ- ing in the feed God had promifed". And as this method of grace was eftablifht immediately upon the lapfe, it has all along been, now is, and always will be, the one only way to life for fmful man. — Was it the law publifhed from Sinai ? If we confider this law as a " national covenant", containing the terms upon which the Jews fhould hold the land of Canaan, and live in the quiet happy pofleffion of it,no other people had any concern v^^ith it. Tho' it ought to remem- bered here, this law, fo far as its precepts were of a moral nature, being founded in reafon, and not pofi- tive injun£lion,was obligatory upon all others as a rule of duty, wherein they might come to the knowledge of it. It ought alfo to be very heedfully minded, this political law, or national covenant, was fo conftru6ted as to be, in the defian of God, a figure, type, or em- blematical reprefentation of that gospfl, which hac3 been preached to Abraham, and has fince been preach- ed to all the world, and is the only foundation upon which eternal life is obtainable. God has promifed it in no other way j and to go to work for it in any other way, whether by perfefi or imperfed obedience, no wherefore ferveth the Law. 39 We may accordingly lay it down for. certain, that, when the holy God is introduced, by the prophet Ezckiel, as fvvearing by his life, " the ioul that finncth, it fhall die y but if a man be D 4 j^ft no matter which, would be, virtually and in reality of fenfe, to let up a method for obtaining life in direfl- oppofition to that, which God has already eftabliftied. This was the great fault of the Jews, particularly in the times of Chrift and his apoftles. They intirely miftook the " true fpirit" of their law, as it related to eternal life. In their obfervance of it, they regarded the " letter only", overlooking its ultimate intention, which was its very " life ani foul'*. It accordingly became " a miniftration of death" to them, and not " of life". And why ? Not becaufe the.^ did not per- fe<5lly obey it ; for if they had, according to '* the letter", it would ftill have been " the miniftration of condemnation"^ becaufe their obedience would have been without " fpirit", that is, it would have been o- bedience detached from "gofpel", which was the " life and fpirit" of the law. No perfe(a:ion, could we fup- pofe it angelic, feparate from grace and Chrift, could have given a Jew a tide to life^ becaufe that God, whofe gift it is, had not promifcd it in that way. — There is no law .now left that can require " perfect doing" IN ORDER TO LIFE, unlcfs it be that which is commonly called, "the law of nature''. But what law is this ? Is it a law naturally imprinted on men's minds, which tells them, either direc^tly, or by the ex- ercife of the powers they are endowed wath, what God's requirements are, at the fame time assuring them, that, upon their compliance with them, they ftiall LIVE FOREVER? Nothing is more certain, than fuch a law of nature never exifted but in imagination only. — Is this law that rule of right, which God knows to be the meafure of men's duty to him, and of what it is fit he Ihould do for, or inflict upon, them, as they are either obedient, or difobedient f There is, without all doubt, fuch a rule of men's duty Juft ahd do that which is lawful and right, he ftiall furely live", his meaning (whatever it was) could duty towards God, and of God*s cohdudl towards meii in a way of reward, or punifliment, according to their works. But yet, none of the fon6 of Adam, by the mere exercifc of their natural powers, ever yet attained to a perfe<5fc knowledge of this rule. Moft certainly, they are unable, after all their reafonings, to fay, what puniftiment, as to kind, or degree, or duration, would be their due in cafe of fin, or what reward it would be proper fpr God to beftow upon them in cafe of obedience. God alone is abfolutely & fully acquainted with " this rule of right" \ and we can be clearly and certainly acquainted with it only by revelation from him. And fuch reVelition man has all along, from the beginning, in his innocent and lapfed ftate, been favored with. This revealed law therefore is the only tone we have any concern with as ti^e way to ETERNAL LIFE. Infhort, whatever law of nature be fuppofed, tis fuperfedcd by revelation } which is the «' only rule" God will obierye in the bcftowment of life after death. 4^nd yet, our author, inftead of di- recting men to exert themfelves, in the ufe of mekns, to obtain that " faith'' in the revelation of God, with- out which tis impoffible they (hould inherit' life, points their endeaVoars another way, boldly tcljing them, if they will do any thing, they muft " be perfeS"*' And why ? Becaufe truly this tl>ey are obliged tp by a fup- pofed " law of nature, whofe obligation is eternal, and cannot be loofed". Tis upon this fo'nd^conceit of his, that he has, with fo much prophane levity, per- verted the fenfe of a great part of the bible \ making the calls of God, which are all founded on the plan of grace thro' Chrift, not calls of mercy, but to obey ** his imaginary law" ; hereby turning the grace of God, in reality of cbnftrudion, into a wanton infult on his poor fintul creatures. ^ " Our author", in the following notes, always meanis «' the writer of the letters on iheron, and Aipafio". The pages refer'd to, in thefe letters, agree with the fecond edition, printed at Edingburg, 1759. wherefore ferveth the Law. 4! fcould not be to put the Jews under the law, as " a covenant of life". * For he had, many hun- dreds * As the promired life, and threatned death, in the i8th and 33d chapters of Ezekiel, are fuppofed, by our author, (whether juftly, or not, 1 ftiall not now dif- pute) to refer to the eternal world, and to mean hap-* pinefs and mifery there, tis ftrange he fhould iirft un- derftand, by " the righteoufnefs required", that which would, on its own account, fave from the one, and give a title to the other. fis more ftrange, he fhould then fpeak of " repentance'*, as what would ferve, in- ftead of perfe