stand the apostle which way we will, by works, when he says, David "describes the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works," whether of all manner of works, or only works of the ceremonial law, yet it is evident at least, that David was not justified by works of the ceremonial law. Therefore here is the argument: If our own obedience be that by which men are justified, then under the Old Testament men were justified partly by obedience to the ceremonial law. (as has been proved ;) but the saints under the Old Testament were not justified partly by the works of the ceremonial law; therefore men's own obedience, is not that by which they are justified.

11. Another argument that the apostle when he speaks of the two opposite ways of justification, one by the works of the law, and the other by faith, does not mean the works of the ceremonial law only, may be taken from that place, Romans x. 5, 6. "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things, shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith, speaketh on this wise," &c. Here two things are evident.

First, That the apostle here speaks of the same two opposite ways of justification, one by the righteousness which is the law, the other by faith that he had treated of in the former part of the epistle; and therefore it must be the same law that is here spoken of. The same law is here meant as in the last verses of the foregoing chapter, where he had "not attained to the law of righteousness. Because they sought it not by faith, but as works of the law;" as is plain, because the apostle is still speaking of the same thing; the words are a continuation of the same discourse, as may be seen at first glance, by any one that looks on the context.

says the Jews Wherefore? it were by the

Secondly, It is manifest that Moses, when he describes the righteousness which is of the law, or the way of justification by the law, in the words here cited, "He that doth these things shall live in them," does not speak only, nor chiefly, of the works of the ceremonial law; for none will pretend

that God ever made such a covenant with man, that he that kept the ceremonial law should live in it, or that there ever was a time, that it was chiefly by the works of the ceremonial law that men lived and were justified. Yea, it is manifest by the forementioned instance of David, mentioned in the 4th of Romans, that there never was a time wherein men were justified in any measure by the works of the ceremonial law as has been just now shewn. Moses therefore, in those words which, the apostle says, are a description of the righteousness which is of the law, cannot mean the ceremonial law only. And therefore it follows, that when the apostle speaks of justification by the works of the law, as opposite to justification by faith, he does not mean the ceremonial law only, but also the works of the moral law, which are the things spoken of by Moses, when he says, "he that doti these things, shall live in them;" and which are the things that the apostle in this very place is arguing that we cannot be justified by; as is evident by the context, the last verses of the preceeding chapter: "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law," &c. And in the 3d verse of this chapter, "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

And further, how can the apostle's description that he here gives from Moses of this exploded way of justification by the works of the law, consist with the Arminian scheme, of a way of justification by the virtue of a sincere obedience, that still remains as the true and only way of justification under the gospel. It is most apparent that it is the design of the apostle to give a description of both the legal rejected, and the evangelical valid ways of justification, in that wherein they differ, or are distinguished the one from the other: But how is that, "he that doth those things shall live in them;" that wherein the way of justification by the works of the law differs, or is distinguished from that in which Christians under the gospel

are justified, according to their scheme; for still, according to them, it may be said, in the same manner, of the precepts of the gospel, he that doth these things, shall live in them? The difference lies only in the things to be done, but not at all in that, that the doing of them is not the condition of living in them, just in the one case, as in the other. The words " He that doth them, shall live in them," will serve just as well for a description of the latter as the former. By the apostle's saying, the righteousness of the law is described thus, he that doth these things shall live in them; but the righteousness of faith saith thus, plainly intimates that the righteousness of faith saith otherwise, and in an opposite manner. But besides, .' if these words cited from Moses, are actually said by him of the moral law as well as ceremonial, as it is most evident they * . are, it renders it still more absurd to suppose them mentioned by the apostle, as the very note of distinction between justification by a ceremonial obedience, and a moral and sincere obe'dience, as the Arminians must suppose.

Thus I have spoken to a second argument, to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own, viz. that to suppose otherwise, is contrary to the' doctrine that is directly urged, and abundantly insisted on, by the Apostle Paul in his epistles.

I now proceed to a

Third Argument, viz. That to suppose that we are justi.fied by our own sincere obedience, or any of our own virtue or goodness, derogates from gospel grace.

That scheme of justification that manifestly takes from, or diminishes the grace of God, is undoubtedly to be rejected; for it is the declared design of God in the gospel, to exalt the freedom and riches of his grace, in that method of justification of sinners, and way of admitting them to his favor, and the blessed fruits of it, which it declares. The scripture teaches, that the way of justification that is appointed in the gospel covenant, is appointed as it is, for that end, that free. grace might be expressed and glorified? Rom. iv. 16...... "Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace." The exercising and magnifying the free grace of God in the gospel

contrivance for the justification and salvation of sinners, is evidently the chief design of it; and this freedom and riches of. the grace of the gospel is every where spoken of in Scripture as the chief glory of it. Therefore that doctrine that derogates from the free grace of God in justifying sinners, as it is most opposite to God's design, so it must be exceedingly offensive to him.

Those that maintain, that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, do pretend that their scheme does not dimin ish the grace of the gospel; for they say, that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing such a way and method of salvation, by sincere obedience in assisting us to perform such an obedience, and in accepting our imperfect obedience instead of perfect.

Let us therefore examine that matter, whether their scheme, of a man's being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience, does derogate from the grace of God or no or whether free grace is not more exalted, in supposing as we do, that we are justified without any manner of goodness of our own. In order to this, I will lay down this selfevident

Proposition, That "whatsoever that be by which the abundant benevolence of the giver is expressed, and gratitude in the receiver is obliged, that magnifies free grace." This I suppose none will ever controvert or dispute.

And it is not much less evident, that it doth both shew a more abundant benevolence in the giver when he shews kindness without goodness or excellency in the object, to move him to it; and that it enhances the obligation to graţitude in the receiver.

1. It shews a more abundant goodness in the giver, when he shews kindness without any excellency in our persons or actions that would move the giver to love and beneficence. . . For it certainly shews the more abundant and overflowing goodness, or disposition to communicate good, by how much the less loveliness or excellency there is to entice beneficence: The less there is in the receiver to draw good will and kindness, it argues the more of the principle of good will and kindness in the giver; for one that has but a little of a

principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good and to shew kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move good will; when he whose goodness and benevo lence is more abundant, will shew kindness where there is 'less to draw it forth; for he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle, within, to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in least need of something without to excite it: For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less; or, which is the same thing, the more any one is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness appears the more exceeding great when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency: And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repelit: The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without any thing extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is respected in the gift, as not only wholly without all excellence or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea, infinitely vile and hateful.

2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness, is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the word of God. How often does God in the scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness?