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 saith, 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 shewed 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 appeareth in the text or context. For, 1. The apostle excludeth all works of the law, that is, that the law requireth of us in a way of obedience, be they of what sort they will. 2. The law requireth no works with a conceit of merit. 3. Works of the law originally, included no merit, as that which aris

eth 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: 1. 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. iv. 2. 2. That the reward be not absolutely of grace, but that respect be 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, ver. 4. In these two regards merit is inseparable from works; and the Holy Ghost utterly to exclude it, excludeth 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 excludeth 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 requireth 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 betake 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 còincidence 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 às 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, hath 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 excludeth all works without distinction or exception. And we are not to distinguish where the law doth 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 Psal. cxix. 35. Rom. vii. 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. ii. 16. 1 Cor. iv. 4. Phil. iii. 9. And so he excludeth the works of all other believers; Eph. ii. 9, 10. 4. All works are excluded that might give countenance unto boasting, Rom. iv. 2. iii. 17. Eph. ii. 9. 1 Cor. i. 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. xi. 6. 7. In the Epistle unto the Galatians the apostle doth 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 excludeth 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. ii. 13. x. 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. iii. 24, 25. iv. 16. Eph. ii. 8, 9. Rev. i. 6. Nor are they so unto the meritorious cause of it, which is Christ alone; Acts xiii. 38. xxvi. 18. 1 Cor. i. 30. 2 Cor. v. 18-21. Nor unto the material cause of it; which is the righteousness of Christ alone; Rom. x. 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. iii. 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; or, 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