on the criminal, and works a sense of deserved wrath in his conscience. Far from justifying any offender, it denounces utter destruction against him, and unsheaths the sword of vengeance. As many as are of the works of the law,' who do their best endeavours to keep it, and are looking for justification by it, are -what? In a promising way to obtain acceptance with God, and to be rewarded with eternal life? Quite the reverse. They are under a dreadful curse. For it is written, by the pen of infallibility, and is awfully expressive of Jehovah's unchangeable purpose, Cursed is every one, without any respect of persons, without any regard to please, that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.† From this alarming text we learn that there never was, nor can be, any acceptance with God, without a perfect obedience-an obedience perfect in its principle, complete in all its parts, and without the least interruption in thought, word, or deed. For he who fails in one point,' breaks the law, is guilty before God, and exposed to ruin.‡

The apostle argues, in proof of the point, from the opposition there is between living by faith, and living by the works of the law. These are his words: "That no man,' however excellent his moral character, however righteous in his own esteem, 'is justified by' his own obedience to the law in the sight of God,' it is evident; 'for the just,' the truly righteous and justified person, shall live by faith. And' that he does not obtain the character and enjoy the blessedness connected with it, in virtue of his own obedience, appears from hence; the law is not of faith,' it makes no mention of a Redeemer, or of believing in him. 'But' its uniform language is, 'the man that doeth them,' that punctually performs the duties enjoined, and entirely avoids the things prohibited, he, and he only,' shall live in them,' shall find acceptance and enjoy peace.§ The inspired penman, ever jealous of his Master's

* Rom. iv. 15. † Gal. iii 10. ‡ James ii. 10. § Gal. iii. 11, 12.

honour, ever concerned for the glory of divine grace, argues from an absurdity—an absurdity obvious.to the meanest capacity, and shocking to every mind that has the least esteem for the Lord Redeemer.'If righteousness come by the law,' if men either were or could be justified by their own duties and endeavours, then' it would inevitably follow that 'Christ is dead in vain;' all his obedience and all his sufferings were useless things, there was no occasion for them.* Again, if they which are of the law be heirs,'-if they who rely on their own legal performances be accepted of God, and entitled to the heavenly inheritance, 'faith' in a dying Redeemer' is made' entirely void, and the promise' of life by him is made of none effect.'+

law;

Nor are the works of the law,' which Paul so expressly and repeatedly excludes from having any concern in our justification, to be understood only of an obedience to those positive rites and ceremonial institutions of Jehovah, which, being of a temporary kind, were abrogated by the death of Christ. His design was to set aside all our obedience to every all our works and duties of every kind. That this was the intention of the sacred writer, appears from the following considerations: The apostle excludes all works in general. 'God imputeth righteousness without works. By grace are ye saved-not of worksIf by grace, then it is no more of works. Not by works of rightecusness which we have done. Who hath saved us-not according to our works.' does not only say that we are not justified by the works of the law, but also that we are not justified by works, performances, duties, obedience in general, what rule soever may be their object, or however they may be denominated. He does not give the least hint, as if he meant only to exclude the works of some particular law, or duties of some particular

* Gal. iii, 21. + Rom. iv. 14. Rom. xi. 6. Tit. iii. 5. 2 Tim. i. 9.

He

Rom. iv. 4. 6. Eph. ii. 8, 9.

kind, in contradistinction to others. And when the Spirit of God declares that we are not justified by works, without limiting the phrase to any particular kind of duties, what authority have we to restrain the sense to this or that sort of works, to the exclusion of others? For as all duties performed in obedience to a law are works, whether the law be considered as moral or ceremonial, old or new, so all works, whatever they be, are here excluded, without any exception.

Again That law which the apostle designs, stands in direct opposition to the grace of the gospel, and the promise of life; to faith in Christ, and the righteousness of faith. The promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through thelaw, but through the righteousness offaith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace, that the promise might be sure to all the seed.'* Now it is the moral, and not the ceremonial law, which stands opposed to grace and the promise, to faith and the righteousness of faith. For the ceremonial law exhibited in various ways the grace of God, the promised Messiah, and life by him, as the great objects of faith and hope under the ancient Jewish economy; it cannot, therefore, be stated and considered in this contrasted view without a manifest impropriety. But the moral law is not of faith; it contains no revelation of grace; it exhibits no foundation of trust, no object of hope, for guilty sinners; nor does it make the least promise to them, but all the reverse. Besides, the law here intended worketh wrath.. By a transgression of it, wrath is incurred; and by a conviction of the evil of such disobedience, a sense of deserved wrath possesses the conscience. Which, though perfectly applicable to the moral law, and to mankind in general, as breakers of it, yet cannot be

*Rom. iv. 13. 16.

L

affirmed of the ceremonial institutions, neither in regard to Jews nor Gentiles. As to the former, those rites were long since abrogated; as to the latter, they never were under any obligation to observe them.

Further: The important reasons assigned by the sacred disputant, why we cannot be justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus, make it evident that he intended to exclude, not only all ceremonial performances, but all our moral obedience. Having asserted that there is no justification by the deeds of the law, he adds,' For by the law is the knowledge of sin.'* Now, the apostle informs us, from his own experience, that the knowledge of sin comes by that law, which forbids all irregular desires, and every unsanctified affection. 'I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.'+ Hence it is plain to a demonstration, that all the deeds and duties of that law by which is the knowledge of sin, are entirely excluded from all concern in ourjustification; and that the law which convinces of sin is spiritual; reaches the thoughts and intents of the heart; and says, 'Thou shalt not covet.' Whether it be the moral or ceremonial law which is here intended, the reader, I presume, will be at no loss to determine. Another reason assigned is, lest any man should boast. By grace ye are saved-not of works, lest any should boast. To declare at this time his righteousness, that He might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. From whence the apostle infers the following conclusion: Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Now, of what are men ready to boast, in a religious view, but of their supposed moral goodness? Of what but the integrity of their hearts, and the regularity of their lives; their sincere inten

tions, and pious performances? These, therefore, we may justly infer, are entirely excluded. For, if no works be accepted but those of a ceremonial kind, and if our moral obedience be any way concerned in procuring acceptance withGod, how is boasting excluded? Does not the performance of moral precepts afford as fair ground for boasting, as a submission to ceremonial rites? and were not the ancient Pharisees guilty in both respects?'*

Nor is faith itself our righteousness, or that for the sake of which we are justified. For though believers are said to be justified by faith, yet not for faith. That faith is not our righteousness, is evident from the following considerations: No man's faith is perfect; and if it were, it would not be equal to the demands of the divine law. It could not, therefore, be accounted or accepted as a complete righteousness, without an error in judgment. But the judgment of God is according to truth, and according to the rights of his law, as before proved. That obedience by which a sinner isjustified, is called 'the righteousness of faith; righteousness by faith;' and is said to be 'revealed to faith;' consequently, it cannot be faith itself. For, as it is of another, by another, and revealed to another, it must be distinguished from that other. Faith, in the business of justification, stands opposed to all works.

To him that worketh not, but believeth.' But if it were our justifying righteousness, to consider it in such a light would be highly improper. For, in such a connexion, it falls under the consideration of a work, a condition, on the performance of which our acceptance with God is suspended. If faith itself be that on account of which we are accepted, then some believers are justified by a more, and some by a less perfect righteousness, in exact proportion to the strength or weakness of their faith He was strong in faithO ye of little faith!' Consequently, more of justice, and less of grace, would appear in the justification of

*Luke xviii. 11. Rom. iii. 22. Philip. iii. 9. Rom. i. 17.