But we need not go to the writings of other penmen of the scripture. If we will allow the Apostle Paul to be his own interpreter, he, when he speaks of our own righteousness as that which we are not justified or saved by, does not mean a ceremonial righteousness only, nor does he only intend a way of religion, and serving God, of our own choosing and fixing on, without divine warrant or prescription; but by our own righteousness he means the same as a righteousness of our own doing, whether it be a service or righteousness of God's prescribing, or our own unwarranted performing: Let it be an obedience to the ceremonial law, or a gospel obedience, or what it will, if it be a righteousness of our own doing, it is excluded by the apostle in this affair, as is evident by Titus iii. 5. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done."

But I would more particularly insist on this text; and therefore this may be the 9th argument, That the apostle, when he denies justification by works, and by works of the law, and by our own righteousness, does not mean works of the ceremonial law only, viz. what is said by the Apostle in Tit. iii. 3.......7. "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: That, being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eterna! life." Works of righteousness that we have done are here excluded, as what we are neither saved nor justified by. The apostle expressly says, we are not saved by them; and it is evident that when he says this, he has respect to the affair of justification, and that he means, we are not saved by them in not being justified by them, by the next verse · but one, which is part of the same sentence. "That, being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

It is several ways manifest, that the apostle in this text, by "works of righteousness which we have done," does not mean works of the ceremonial law only. It appears by the third verse," For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.” These are breaches of the moral law, that the apostle observės they lived in before they were justified: And it is most plain that it is this that gives occasion to the apostle to observe, as he does in the 5th verse, that it was not by works of righteous◄ ness which they had done, that they were saved or justified.

But we need not go to the context, it is most apparent from the words themselves, that the apostle does not mean works of the ceremonial law only. If he had only said, it is not by our own works of righteousness, what could we understand by works of righteousness; but only righteous works, or, which is the same thing, good works? And to say, that it is by our own righteous works that we are justified, though not by one particular kind of righteous works, would certainly be a contradiction to such an assertion. But the words are rendered yet more strong, plain and determined in their sense, by those additional words, which we have done; which shews that the apostle intends to exclude all our own righteous of virtuous works universally. If it should be asserted concerning any commodity, treasure, or precious jewel, that it could not be procured by money, and not only so, but, to make the assertion the more strong, it should be asserted with additional words, that it could not be procured by money that men possess; how unreasonable would it be after all, to say, that all that was meant was, that it could not be procured with brass money?

And what renders the interpreting this text of works of the ceremonial law yet more unreasonable, is, that these works were indeed no works of righteousness but were only falsely supposed to be so by the Jews; and that our opponents in this doctrine suppose, is the very reason why we be not justified by them, because they are not works of righteousness, or because (the ceremonial law being now abrogated)

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? To illustrate this by the forementioned comparison: If it should be asserted, that such a 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 scrip ture 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 cer emonial 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: Hercin opposing salvation by works, and salvation by grace, he means the same works as he does in other places, where he in like manVAL. VII.

G

xi. 6.

ner opposes works and grace: The same works as in Roma "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 to 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

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 ceremonial 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 any wise 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 not impute sin." It is plain that the apostle is here speaking of justification, bythe 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 under