Chapter 14: The Exclusion of All Works from Justification; The Law and Its Works in Paul's Epistles

WE shall take our Fourth argument from the express exclusion of all works of what sort soever from our justification before God. For this alone is that which we plead; namely, that no Acts or works of our own, are the causes or conditions of our justification; but that the whole of it is resolved into the Free grace of God, through Jesus Christ, as the Mediator and Surety of the covenant. To this purpose the scripture speaks expressly. Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude, that a Man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Romans 4:5. But unto him that works not, but believs on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 11:6. If it be of grace, then is it not of works. Galatians 2:16. Knowing that a Man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law, shall no flesh be justified. Ephesians 2:8, 9. For by grace are ye saved through faith, not of works, lest any Man should boast. Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according unto his mercy he has saved us.

These and the like testimonies are express, and in positive Terms assert all that we contend for. And I am perswaded, that no unprejudiced person, whose mind is not prepossessed with notions and distinctions whereof not the least title is offered unto them from the Texts mentioned nor elsewhere, can but judg that the law in every sense of it, and all sorts of works whatever, that at any time, or by any means sinners or believers, do or can perform, are not in this or that sense; but every way and in all senses, excluded from our justification before God. And if it be so, it is the righteousness of Christ alone that we must betake our selves unto, or this matter must cease for ever. And this Inference the apostle himself makes from one of the testimonies before-mentioned, namely that of Galatians 2:16. for he adds upon it; I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ livs in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then is Christ dead in vain.

Our Adversaries are extreamly divided amongst themselves, and can come unto no consistency, as to the sense and meaning of the apostle in these Assertions; for what is proper and obvious unto the understanding of all Men, especially from the opposition that is made between the law and works on the one hand, and faith, grace, and Christ on the other, (which are opposed as inconsistent in this matter of our justification) they will not allow, nor can do so without the ruine of the opinions they plead for. Wherefore their various conjectures shall be examined, as well to shew their inconsistency among themselves, by whom the truth is opposed, as to confirm our present argument.

1. Some say it is the Ceremonial law alone, and the works of it that are intended; or the law as given unto Moses on Mount Sinai, containing that intire covenant that was afterwards to be abolished. This was of old the common opinion of the Schoolmen, though it be now generally exploded. And the opinion lately contended for, that the apostle Paul excludes justification from the works of the law, not because no Man can yield that perfect obedience which the law requires, or excludes works absolutely perfect, and sinless obedience; but because the law it self, which he intends, could not justify any by the observation of it, is nothing but the renovation of this obsolete notion, that it is the Ceremonial law only, or which upon the matter is all one, the law given on Mount Sinai, abstracted from the grace of the promise, which could not justify any, in the observation of its Rites and commands. But of all other conjectures, this is the most impertinent and contradictory unto the design of the apostle, and is therefore rejected by Bellarmine himself. For the apostle treats of that law whose doers shall be justified. Chap: 2:13. And the authors of this opinion would have it to be a law that can justify none of them that do it. That law he intends whereby is the knowledge of sin; for he gives this reason, why we cannot be justified by the works of it, namely, Because by it, is the knowledge of sin, Chap. 3:20. And by what law is the knowledge of sin, he expressly declares, where he affirms, That he had not known lust, except the law had said, You shalt not covet, Chap. 7:7. which is the Moral law alone. That law he designs, which stops the mouth of all sinners, and makes all the world obnoxious unto the judgment of God. Chap. 3:19. Which none can do but the law written in the heart of men at their creation, Chap. 2:14, 15. That law which if a man do the works of it, he shall live in them; Galatians 3:12. Romans 10:5. and which brings all men under the curse for sin, Galatians 3:10. The law that is established by faith and not made void; Romans 3:31; which the Ceremonial law is not, nor the covenant of Sinai. The law whose righteousness is to be fulfilled in us; Romans 8:4. And the instance which the apostle gives of justification without the works of that law which he intends, namely that of Abraham, was some hundreds of years before the giving of the Ceremonial law. Neither yet do I say that the Ceremonial law and the works of it are excluded from the Intention of the apostle; For when that law was given, the Observation of it was an especial instance of that obedience we owed unto the first Table of the Decalogue; and the exclusion of the works thereof from our justification; in as much as the performance of them was part of that Moral obedience which we owed unto God, is exclusive of all other works also. But that it is alone here intended, or that law which could never justify any by its observation, although it was observed in due manner, is a fond Imagination, and contradictory to the express assertion of the apostle. And whatever is pretended to the contrary, this opinion is expressly rejected by Augustine; lib. de Spirit. & liter. cap. 8. Ne quisquam putaret hic Apostolum dixisse ea lege neminem justificari, quae in Sacramentis veteribus multa continet figurata praecepta, unde etiam est ista circumcisio carnis, continuo subjungit, quam dixerit legem & addit; per legem Cognitio peccati. And to the same purpose he speaks again, Epist. 200. Non solum illa opera legis quae sunt in veteribus Sacramentis, & nunc revelato Testamento novo non observantur a Christianis, sicut est Circumcisio praeputii, & Sabbati carnalis vacatio; & a quibusdam escis abstinentia, & pecorum in Sacrificiis immolatio, & neomenia & azymum, & caetera hujusmodi, verum etiam illud quod in lege dictum est, non concupisces, quod ubique & Christianus nullus ambigit esse dicendum, non justificat hominem, nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, & gratiam Dei per Jesum Christum dominum nostrum.

2. Some say the apostle only excludes the perfect works required by the law of Innocency, which is a sense diametrically opposite unto that foregoing. But this best pleass the socinians. Paulus agit de Operibus & perfectis in hoc dicto ideo enim adjecit, sine operibus legis ut indicaretur loqui eum de operibus a lege requisitis, & sic de perpetua & perfectissima divinorum praeceptorum obedientia sicut lex requirit. Cum autem talem obedientiam qualem lex requirit nemo praestare possit, ideo subjecit Apostolus nos justificari fide, id est, fiducia & obedientia ea quantum quisque praestare pot, & quotidie quam maximum praestare studet, & connititur. Sine operibus legis, id est, etsi interim perfecte totam legem sicut debebat complere nequit; says Socinus himself. But (1.) We have herein the whole granted of what we plead for; namely, that it is the moral indispensible law of God that is intended by the apostle; and that by the works of it no man can be justified, yea, that all the works of it are excluded from our justification; for it is, says the apostle, without works. The works of this law being performed according unto it, will justify them that perform them, as he affirms, Chap. 2:13. and the scripture elsewhere witnesss, that he that does them, shall live in them. But because this can never be done by any sinner, therefore all consideration of them is excluded from our justification. (2.) It is a wild Imagination that the dispute of the apostle is to this purpose; that the perfect works of the law will not justify us, but imperfect works, which answer not the law, will do so. (3.) Granting the law intended to be the Moral law of God, the law of our creation, there is no such distinction intimated in the least by the apostle, that we are not justified by the perfect works of it which we cannot perform, but by some imperfect works that we can perform, and labor so to do. Nothing is more foreign unto the design and express words of his whole discourse. (4.) The Evasion which they betake themselves unto, that the apostle opposs justification by faith unto that of works which he excludes, is altogether vain in this sense. For they would have this faith to be our obedience unto the Divine commands in that imperfect manner which we can attain unto. For when the apostle has excluded all such justification by the law and the works thereof, he does not advance in opposition unto them and in their room, our own faith and obedience; but adds, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

3. Some of late among our selves, 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 Threatning 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 says, 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 honor 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 appears in the Text or Context. For, (1.) The apostle excluds all works of the law, that is, that the law requirs of us in a way of obedience, be they of what sort they will. (2.) The law requirs no works with a Conceit of merit. (3.) works of the law Originally, included no merit, as that which ariss from the Proportion of one thing unto another in the Ballance 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. 4:2. (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, verse 4. In these two regards merit is inseparable from works; and the Holy Ghost utterly to exclude it, excluds 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 excluds 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 Controversie it self, 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 requirs 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 Romanse 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 co-incidence with that of the papists; so as yet, they deny the name of merit, and the thing it self in the sense of the church of Romanse, 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 apostles plain argument be that they are excluded because such a merit as is inconsistent with grace, is inseparable from their admission.

But the Romansan 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, has 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 falshood, 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 excluds all works without distinction or exception. And we are not to distinguish where the law does 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 Psalm 119:35. Romans 7:22. 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 excluds his own works after his conversion, Galatians 2:16. 1 Corinthians 4:4. Philippians 3:9. And so he excluds the works of all other believers; Ephesians 2:9, 10. (4.) All works are excluded that might give countenance unto boasting, Romans 4:2. Chap. 3:17. Ephesians 2:9. 1 Corinthians 1:29, 30, 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, Romans 11:6. (7.) In the epistle unto the Galatians the apostle does 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 excluds 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 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, Romans 2:13. Chap. 10:5. 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 indispensibly 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 favor of God alone, Romans 3:24, 25. Chap. 4:16. Ephesians 2:8, 9. Revelation 1:6. Nor are they so unto the Meritorious cause of it, which is Christ alone, Acts 1338. Chap. 26:18. 1 Corinthians 1:30. 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19, 20, 21. Nor unto the Material cause of it; which is the righteousness of Christ alone; Romans 10:3, 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, Romans 3:28. 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 aequivocal 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 meaning of these Terms the law and works, the apostle takes for granted as very well known, and agreed on between himself and those with whom he had to do.

2. The jews by the law intended what the scriptures of the Old testament meant by that Expression. For they are no where blamed for any false notion concerning the law, or that they esteemed any thing to be so, but what was so indeed, and what was so called in the scripture. Their present Oral law was not yet hatched, though the Pharisees were brooding of it.

3. The law under the Old testament, does immediately refer unto the law given at Mount Sinai, nor is there any distinct mention of it before. This is commonly called the law absolutely; but most frequently the law of God, the law of the Lord; and sometimes the law of Moses, because of his especial ministry in the giving of it. Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him, Malachi 4:4. And this the jews intended by the law.

4. Of the law so given at Horeb, there was a Distribution into three parts. (1.) There was Deuteronomy 4:13. The ten words; So also Chap. 10:4. that is the ten commandments written in two Tables of Stone. This part of the law was first given; was the Foundation of the whole; and contained that perfect obedience which was required of Mankind by the law of creation, and was now received into the church, with the highest Attestations of its indispensible obligation unto obedience or punishment. (2.) which the LXX render by , that is jura; Rites or Statutes; but the Latine from thence Justificationes, Justifications, which has given great Occasion of Mistake in many both Ancient and Modern Divines. We call it the Ceremonial law. The apostle terms this part of the law distinctly Ephesians 2:15. The law of commandments contained in ordinances; that is consisting in a Multitude of Arbitrary commands. (3.) which we commonly call the Judicial law. This Distribution of the law shuts up the Old testament, as it is used in places innumerable before, only the the Ten words, is expressed by the general word the law, Malachi 4:4.

5. These being the parts of the law given unto the church in Sinai, the the whole of it is constantly called the law, that is, the Instruction (as the word signifies) that God gave unto the church, in the rule of obedience which he prescribed unto it. This is the Constant signification of that word in scripture, where it is taken absolutely; and thereon does not signifie precisely the law as given at Horeb, but comprehends with it all the Revelations that God made under the Old testament, in the explanation and Confirmation of that law, in rules, Motives, Directions and Enforcements of obedience.

6. Wherefore the law is the whole rule of obedience which God gave to the church under the Old testament, with all the Efficacy wherewith it was accompanied by the ordinances of God, including in it all the promises and Threatnings, that might be Motives unto the obedience that God did require. This is that which God and the church called the law under the Old testament, and which the jews so called with whom our apostle had to do. That which we call the Moral law was the Foundation of the whole; and those parts of it which we call the Judicial and Ceremonial law, were peculiar instances of the obedience which the church under the Old testament was obliged unto, in the especial Politie and divine worship, which at that season were necessary unto it. And two things does the scripture testifie unto concerning this law.

1. That it was a perfect compleat rule of all that internal, spiritual and moral obedience which God required of the church. The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul, the testimony of the Lord is sure making Wise the Simple. Psalm 19:7. And it was so of all the external duties of obedience, for matter and manner, time and season; that in both, the church might walk acceptably before God, Isaiah 8:20. And although the Original duties of the Moral part of the law are often preferred before the particular instances of obedience in duties of outward worship; yet the whole law was always the whole rule of all the obedience internal and external that God required of the church, and which he accepted in them that did believe.

2. That this law, this rule of obedience as it was ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by Vertue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was Adapted, and which its Introduction on Sinai did not disanul, was accompanied with a power and Efficacy enabling unto obedience. The law it self as merely preceptive and commanding, administred no power or Ability unto those that were under its authority to yield obedience unto it; no more do the mere commands of the gospel. Moreover under the Old testament it enforced obedience on the minds and Consciences of men, by the manner of its first delivery, and the severity of its Sanction, so as to fill them with fear and bondage; and was besides accompanied with such burthensom rules of outward worship, as made it an heavy yoke unto the people. But as it was Gods doctrine, teaching, Instruction in all acceptable obedience unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church. And the law is not to be looked on as separated from those Aids unto obedience, which God administred under the Old testament, whose effects are therefore ascribed unto the law it self. See Psalm 1. Psalm 19. Psalm 119.

2. This being the law in the sense of the apostle, and those with whom he had to do, our next inquiry is what was their sense of works, or works of the law? And I say it is plain that they intended hereby, the universal Sincere obedience of the church unto God, according unto this law. And other works, the law of God acknowledgs not; yea, it expressly condemns all works that have any such defect in them, as to render them unacceptable unto God. Hence notwithstanding all the commands that God had positively given for the strict Observance of Sacrifices, Offerings, and the like, yet when the people performed them without faith and love, he expressly affirms that he Commanded them not, that is, to be observed in such a manner. In these works therefore consisted their personal righteousness, as they walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the law blameless, Luke. 1:6. wherein they did instantly serve God day and night, Acts 26:7. And this they esteemed to be their own righteousness, their righteousness according unto the law, as really it was, Philippians 3:6, 9. For although the Pharisees had greatly corrupted the doctrine of the law, and put false glosses on sundry precepts of it; yet that the church in those days did by the works of the law, understand either Ceremonial duties only, or external works, or works with a conceit of merit, or works wrought without an internal principle of faith, and love to God, or any thing but their own personal sincere obedience unto the whole doctrine and rule of the law, there is nothing that should give the least color of Imagination. For,

1. All this is perfectly stated in the Suffrage which the Scribe gave unto the declaration of the sense and design of the law, with the nature of the Obed[•]ence which it does require, that was made at his request by our blessed savior, Mark 12:28 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And one of the Scribes came and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, which is the first commandment of all; or as it is, Matthew 22:36, Which is the great commandment in the law? And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord; and you shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength; this is the first commandment: and the second is like, namely this, You shalt love your neighbor as your self. And the Scribe said unto him, Well Master, you hast said the truth, for there is one God, and there is none but he. And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more then all whole burnt Offerings and Sacrifices. And this so expressly given by Moses as the Sum of the law, namely faith and love, as the principle of all our obedience, Deuteronomy 6:4, 5. that it is marvellous what should induce any learned sober person to fix upon any other sense of it; as that it respected ceremonial or external works only, or such as may be wrought without faith or love. This is the law concerning which the apostle disputes, and this the obedience wherein the works of it do consist. And more then this, in the way of obedience God never did nor will require of any in this world. Wherefore the law and the works thereof, which the apostle excluds from justification, is that whereby we are obliged to believe in God as One God, the only God, and love him with all our hearts and souls, and our Neighbours as our selves. And what works there are, or can be in any persons regenerate or not regenerate, to be performed in the strength of grace, or without it, that are acceptable unto God, that may not be reduced unto these heads, I know not.

2. The apostle himself declars, that it is the law and the works of it in the sense we have expressed, that he excluds from our justification.

For the law he speaks of, is the law of righteousness, Romans 9:31. The law whose righteousness is to be fulfilled in us, that we may be accepted with God, and freed from condemnation, Chap. 8:3. That in obedience whereunto, our own personal righteousness does consist, whether what we judg so, before conversion, Romans 10:3. or what is so after it, Philippians 3:9. The law which if a man observe, he shall live, and be justified before God, Romans 2:13. Galatians 3:12. Romans 10:5. That law which is Holy, Just and Good, which discovers and condemns all sin whatever, Romans 7:7, 9.

From what has been discoursed, these two things are evident in the Confirmation of our present argument. (1.) That The law intended by the apostle, when he denies that by the works of the law any can be justified, is the entire rule and Guide of our obedience unto God, even as unto the whole frame and spiritual Constitution of our souls, with all the Acts of obedience or duties that he requirs of us. And (2.) That the works of this law which he so frequently and plainly excluds from our justification, and therein opposs to the grace of God, and the Blood of Christ, are all the duties of obedience, Internal, Supernatural, External, Ritual, however we are or may be enabled to perform them, that God requirs of us. And these things excluded, it is the righteousness of Christ alone imputed unto us, on the account whereof we are justified before God.

The truth is, so far as I can discern, the real difference that is at this Day amongst us about the doctrine of our justification before God, is the same that was between the apostle and the jews, and no other. But Controversies in religion make a great Appearance of being new, when they are only varied and made different, by the new Terms and Expressions that are introduced into the handling of them. So has it fallen out in the Controversie about nature and grace; For as unto the true nature of it, it is the same in these days, as it was between the apostle Paul and the Pharisees, between Austin and Pelagius afterwards. But it has now passed through so many forms and dresses of words, as that it can scarce be known to be what it was. Many at this day will condemn both Pelagius and the doctrine that he taught, in the words wherein he taught it, and yet embrace and approve of the things themselves which he intended. The Introduction of every Change in Philosophical Learning, gives an Appearance of a Change in the Controversies which are managed thereby. But take off the covering of Philosophical Expressions, distinctions, Metaphysical Notions, and futilous Terms of Art, which some of the Ancient Schoolmen and later Disputants have cast upon it, and the difference about grace and nature is amongst us all, the same that it was of old, and as it is allowed by the socinians.

Thus the apostle treating of our justification before God, does it in these Terms which are both expressive of the thing it self, and were well understood by them with whom he had to do; such as the Holy Spirit in their Revelation had consecrated unto their proper use. Thus on the one hand he expressly excludes the law, our own works, our own righteousness from any interest therein; and in opposition unto, and as inconsistent with them in the matter of justification, he ascribes it wholly unto the righteousness of God, righteousness imputed unto us, the obedience of Christ, Christ made righteousness unto us, the blood of Christ as a propitiation, faith, receiving Christ and the atonement. There is no avvakened conscience guided by the least beam of spiritual Illumination, but in it self, plainly understands these things, and what is intended in them. But through the admission of Exotick Learning, with Philosophical Terms and notions into the way of teaching Spiritual things in religion, a new face and Appearance is put on the whole matter; and a Composition made between those things which the apostle directly opposs as contrary and inconsistent. Hence are all our discourses about Preparations, Dispositions, conditions, merits de congruo & condigno, with such a train of distinctions, as that if some bounds be not fixed unto the inventing and coyning of them, (which being a facile work grows on us every day) we shall not e're long be able to look through them, so as to discover the things intended or rightly to understand one another. For as one said of lies, so it may be said of arbitrary distinctions, they must be continually new thatched over, or it will rain through. But the best way is to cast of all these coverings, and we shall then quickly see, that the real difference about the justification of a sinner before God is the same and no other, as it was in the days of the apostle Paul between him and the jews. And all those things which men are pleased now to plead for, with respect unto a Causality in our justification before God, under the names of Preparations, conditions, Dispositions, merit with respect unto a first or second justification, are as effectually excluded by the apostle, as if he had expressly named them every one. For in them all, there is a management according unto our Conceptions, and the Terms of the Learning passant in the present Age, of the Plea for our own personal righteousness which the jews maintained against the apostle. And the true understanding of what he intends by the law, the works and righteousness thereof, would be sufficient to determine this Controversie, but that men are grown very Skilful in the Art of endless Wrangling.

Our fourth argument is drawn from Scripture's explicit exclusion of all works of whatever kind from our justification before God. This is our central claim: that no acts or works of our own are the causes or conditions of our justification — the whole of it is resolved into the free grace of God through Jesus Christ, the Mediator and Surety of the covenant. Scripture speaks to this expressly. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28). "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works" (Romans 11:6). "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5).

These and similar testimonies are explicit and in plain terms assert everything we contend for. I am convinced that no unprejudiced person — whose mind is not already filled with notions and distinctions that have no basis in these texts or anywhere else — can read them and conclude anything other than this: the law in every sense, and all kinds of works that sinners or believers could ever perform at any time or by any means, are excluded from our justification before God — not in this or that particular sense, but entirely and in every sense. And if that is so, then it is to the righteousness of Christ alone that we must turn, or the matter must be settled forever. The apostle himself draws this conclusion from one of the testimonies cited above — Galatians 2:16 — adding: "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:19-21).

Our opponents are deeply divided among themselves and cannot agree on what the apostle means in these statements. The natural and obvious reading — especially given the contrast drawn between law and works on one side and faith, grace, and Christ on the other, set as incompatible alternatives in the matter of justification — they refuse to accept, because accepting it would ruin the positions they are defending. Their various interpretations will therefore be examined — both to expose the inconsistency among those who oppose the truth, and to confirm our present argument.

First interpretation: some say it is the ceremonial law alone and its works that are intended — or the law as given through Moses on Mount Sinai, constituting the covenant that was afterward to be abolished. This was formerly the common view of the scholastic theologians, though it has now been generally discarded. A recently revived version of this position argues that Paul excludes justification from works of the law not because no one can render the perfect obedience the law requires — not excluding works that are absolutely perfect and sinlessly righteous — but because the law he has in view is one that could not justify anyone through its observance. This is nothing but a revival of the old discredited notion that it is the ceremonial law only, or equivalently the Sinai covenant separated from the grace of the promise, that could not justify anyone through its rites and commands. Of all the proposed interpretations, this one is the most off-target and most contrary to the apostle's purpose — and is therefore rejected even by Bellarmine himself. For the apostle refers to the law whose doers will be justified (Romans 2:13) — but the proponents of this view want him to mean a law that can justify none of those who observe it. He refers to the law through which comes the knowledge of sin, giving as his reason why we cannot be justified by its works: "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). And the law by which sin is known he identifies explicitly: "I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet'" (Romans 7:7) — which is the moral law alone. He has in view the law that stops every mouth and makes all the world accountable to God (Romans 3:19) — which can only be the law written in human hearts at creation (Romans 2:14-15). He means the law by which one who does its works shall live by them (Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5) and which brings everyone under its curse for sin (Galatians 3:10). It is the law that is established by faith and not made void (Romans 3:31) — which the ceremonial law and the Sinai covenant are not. It is the law whose righteous requirement is to be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4). And the example the apostle gives of justification apart from the works of the law he has in mind — the case of Abraham — occurred hundreds of years before the ceremonial law was given. I do not say that the ceremonial law and its works are entirely outside the apostle's scope. When that law was given, observing it was a specific expression of the obedience owed to the first table of the Decalogue — and its exclusion from justification, as part of the moral obedience we owe to God, is therefore also an exclusion of all other works. But that the ceremonial law is the only one intended, or that the law in view is one that could never justify anyone through its observance even when properly observed — this is an empty notion, directly contradicted by the apostle's own statements. Whatever is claimed to the contrary, this view is explicitly rejected by Augustine (lib. de Spirit. et liter., cap. 8): "Lest anyone think the apostle here said that no one is justified by that law containing many figurative precepts in the old sacraments — including the circumcision of the flesh — he immediately goes on to identify the law he means, adding: 'through the law comes the knowledge of sin.'" Augustine speaks to the same point again (Epist. 200): "Not only the works of the law which consist in the old sacraments and are no longer observed by Christians now that the new covenant has been revealed — such as circumcision of the foreskin, resting on a physical sabbath, abstaining from certain foods, sacrificing animals, observing new moons and unleavened bread, and similar things — but even what the law says, 'You shall not covet,' which no Christian anywhere doubts is still binding, does not justify a man except through faith in Jesus Christ and the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Second interpretation: some say the apostle excludes only the perfect works required by the law of innocence — a view diametrically opposed to the first. This position is favored by the Socinians. Socinus himself states: "Paul in this saying is dealing with works that are perfect. He added 'apart from works of the law' to indicate that he is speaking of works as the law requires them — that is, perpetual and most perfect obedience to God's commandments as the law demands it. Since no one is able to render such obedience as the law requires, the apostle therefore says we are justified by faith — that is, by trust and that obedience which each person is able to render, and which daily he strives and labors to render as fully as possible. 'Apart from works of the law' means: even though for the present he cannot perfectly fulfill the whole law as he ought." But in response: first, this concedes everything we are arguing for. It grants that the moral, indispensable law of God is what the apostle intends, and that no one can be justified by its works — indeed, that all works of it are excluded from our justification, since the apostle says justification is "apart from works." The works of this law, when performed according to its requirement, would justify those who perform them — as the apostle affirms (Romans 2:13) and Scripture elsewhere confirms: "the one who practices it shall live by it." But because no sinner can ever perform these works as the law requires, all consideration of them is excluded from our justification. Second: it is a wild notion that the apostle's whole argument amounts to this — that perfect works of the law will not justify us, but imperfect works that fall short of the law's standard will do so. Third: even granting that the law in view is the moral law of God — the law of creation — the apostle nowhere introduces the distinction that we are not justified by the perfect works we cannot perform, but can be justified by some imperfect works we can perform and labor to do. Nothing is more foreign to his argument and explicit words. Fourth: the escape route they take — claiming that the "faith" the apostle sets in opposition to the excluded works is our own obedience rendered imperfectly as best we can — is completely futile in this context. For when the apostle has excluded all justification by the law and its works, he does not replace them with our own faith and obedience. Instead he says: "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Romans 3:24-25).

Third interpretation: some in our own day — and they have predecessors — claim that the works the apostle excludes from justification are only external works performed without an inward principle of faith, fear, or love for God. Servile works done out of fear of the law's threats, they say, are the ones that cannot justify. But this view is not merely false — it is impious. First, the apostle excludes the works of Abraham, which were not the kind of external, servile works imagined here. Second, the excluded works are those the law requires — and the law is holy, just, and good. But a law that requires only external works without internal love for God is neither holy, just, nor good. Third, the law itself condemns works separated from the internal principle of faith, fear, and love — for it requires that in all our obedience we love the Lord our God with all our hearts. The apostle says we are not justified by works the law condemns — but he says nothing about being justified by works the law commands. Fourth, it is deeply dishonoring to God — whose divine prerogative it is to know the hearts of men, and who therefore regards the heart alone in all acts of obedience — to suggest that He gave a law requiring only outward, servile works. And if the law He actually gave requires more than that, then those external works are not the only ones being excluded.

Fourth interpretation: some say in general terms that the Jewish law is what is intended, thinking this settles the whole difficulty. But if by the Jewish law they mean only the ceremonial law or the law as absolutely given through Moses, we have already shown the emptiness of that claim. If, however, they mean by it the whole law or rule of obedience given to the church of Israel under the Old Testament, they are expressing much of the truth — perhaps more than they intended.

Fifth interpretation: some say it is works performed with a claim to merit — works that would make the reward a matter of debt rather than grace — that the apostle excludes. But no such distinction appears in the text or context. First, the apostle excludes all works of the law — that is, all works the law requires in the way of obedience, whatever their kind. Second, the law requires no works along with a claim to merit. Third, the works of the law, originally considered, included no merit in the sense of merit arising from the proportion between work and reward by the rule of commutative justice — and it is only in that sense that those who argue for a role of works in justification now reject merit. Fourth, the merit the apostle excludes is the kind inseparable from works as such — so that works cannot be admitted without also admitting this merit. Two things make works meritorious in this sense. The first is a comparative boasting — not absolute boasting before God, which would follow from strict condign merit (the kind that some poor sinful mortals have imagined in their works), but the kind that gives one person a preference over another in obtaining justification, which grace will not allow (Romans 4:2). The second is that the reward not be absolutely of grace, but that works have some bearing on it — making it in some measure a matter of debt, not from any intrinsic worth that would not even have existed under the law of creation, but from some congruity with respect to God's promise (verse 4). In these two respects, merit is inseparable from works. The Holy Spirit, in order to exclude merit entirely, therefore excludes all works from which it is inseparable — which means all works. Fifth, the apostle does not say a word about excluding only the merit of works while allowing the works themselves. He excludes all works whatsoever, arguing that admitting them would necessarily introduce merit in the sense described, which is incompatible with grace. And while some think it unfair to be accused of maintaining merit when they assert a role for works in justification, those among them who understand the matter best are not so quick to deny all merit — knowing it is inseparable from works.

Sixth interpretation: some argue that the apostle excludes only works done before faith — works performed in the strength of the natural will and abilities, without the help of grace. Works required by the law, they say, are those performed by the law's direction alone. But the law of faith, they argue, requires works performed through the supply of grace, and these are not excluded. This is the position that the most learned and careful theologians of the Roman church have now generally settled on. Those among us who argue for a role of works in justification use many distinctions to explain their position and distance themselves from agreement with the papists. They deny the word "merit" and reject it in the Roman sense, just as the Socinians do. They therefore make use of the previous evasion — that merit is what the apostle excludes, and works are excluded only insofar as they are meritorious — even though the apostle's plain argument is that works are excluded because the kind of merit incompatible with grace is inseparable from them.

But the Roman church cannot so readily give up merit. They must therefore identify a specific category of works to be excluded — one they are content to let go, since those works are not meritorious. These are the works described above: performed, as they say, before faith and without the help of grace. All works of the law, they say, are of this kind. They do this with somewhat more care and sobriety than those among us who would limit the excluded works to external observances only. For the Roman theologians grant that certain internal works — such as attrition, sorrow for sin, and similar acts — are of this non-meritorious kind. But it is works of the law, they say, that are excluded. This entire argument, and all the sophisms supporting it, has been so thoroughly examined and refuted by Protestant writers of all kinds against Bellarmine and others, that there is no need to repeat those same arguments or add to them. It will be sufficiently proved false in what follows concerning the law and works the apostle actually intends. The main points of that demonstration may however be briefly outlined. First, the apostle excludes all works without distinction or exception — and we are not to draw distinctions where the text gives us no basis for them. Second, all works of the law are excluded, and therefore all works performed after faith by the help of grace are excluded — for all such works are required by the law (see Psalm 119:35; Romans 7:22). Works not required by the law are no less an abomination to God than sins against the law. Third, the works of believers after conversion, performed with the help of grace, are explicitly excluded by the apostle. He excludes the works of Abraham, performed many years after Abraham had been a believer and was abounding in them to God's praise. He excludes his own works after his conversion (Galatians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:4; Philippians 3:9). And he excludes the works of all other believers (Ephesians 2:9-10). Fourth, all works that might provide grounds for boasting are excluded (Romans 4:2; 3:27; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 1:29-31) — and the good works of regenerate persons give more grounds for boasting than any works of unbelievers. Fifth, the law required faith and love in all our works, and therefore if all works of the law are excluded, the best works of believers are included in that exclusion. Sixth, all works are excluded that are opposed to grace working freely in our justification — and that describes all works whatsoever (Romans 11:6). Seventh, in the letter to the Galatians the apostle excludes from justification all the works that the false teachers were pressing as necessary for it. But those false teachers were urging the works of believers — of people who had already been converted to God by grace. For those to whom they pressed these requirements were already believers. Eighth, it is good works that the apostle excludes from justification. No one could seriously claim to be justified by works that are not good or that lack what is essentially required to make them good. But all works of unbelievers performed without grace are exactly that: not good, and not accepted by God as such — they lack what is essentially required for a work to be good. It is absurd to think the apostle is arguing about the exclusion of such works from justification, when no one in their right mind would think those works had any place there to begin with. Ninth, the reason no one can be justified by the law is that no one can render the perfect obedience it requires. For perfect obedience would justify under the law (Romans 2:13; 10:5). Therefore all works that are not absolutely perfect are excluded — and the best works of believers are not perfect, as has already been demonstrated. Tenth, if a reserve for the works of believers performed by grace were made in our justification, these works would have to function either as co-causes of justification or as indispensably subordinate to whatever is the cause. But they are not co-causes of our justification — that is not openly claimed. Nor can it be said they are necessarily subordinate to the causes that actually are causes. They are not subordinate to the efficient cause, which is the grace and favor of God alone (Romans 3:24-25; 4:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Revelation 1:6). They are not subordinate to the meritorious cause, which is Christ alone (Acts 13:38; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21). They are not subordinate to the material cause, which is the righteousness of Christ alone (Romans 10:3-4). Nor are they subordinate to faith, wherever its role is placed. For not only is faith alone mentioned wherever Scripture explains how the righteousness of Christ is derived and communicated to us — with no mention of works alongside it — but works and faith are actually set in opposition and contradiction to each other with respect to justification (Romans 3:28). Many other points could be pressed to the same effect.

Seventh interpretation: some affirm that the apostle excludes all works from our first justification, but not from the second, or as some put it, from the continuation of our justification. But we have already examined these distinctions and found them groundless.

It is therefore evident that those who oppose the apostle's teaching place themselves in an unstable and slippery position, with no firm footing — unable to identify any reading that gives their denial of his plain and repeatedly stated assertion even the appearance of truth.

To confirm the present argument further, I will look more closely at what the apostle actually means by the law and works he discusses. Whatever they are, with respect to our justification they are absolutely and universally opposed to grace, faith, the righteousness of God, and the blood of Christ — as entirely incompatible with them. This cannot be denied or questioned by anyone, since it is the apostle's plain design to demonstrate that incompatibility.

First, it is generally evident that by "the law" and its "works" the apostle means what the Jews with whom he was dealing understood by the law and their entire obedience to it. This cannot be denied. Without granting it, nothing is proved against them and they learn nothing from him. Suppose the terms were used in one sense by the apostle and in another by his readers — nothing could rightly be concluded from what is said about them. The apostle therefore takes the meaning of "the law" and "works" as well known and agreed upon between himself and those he was addressing.

Second point: the Jews by "the law" meant what the Old Testament Scriptures meant by that expression. They are nowhere blamed for having a false notion about the law, or for counting something as law that was not in fact law and not called law in Scripture. Their present oral law had not yet developed, though the Pharisees were beginning to incubate it.

Third point: in the Old Testament, "the law" primarily refers to the law given at Mount Sinai — there is no distinct mention of it before then. It is commonly called simply "the law" without qualification, but most frequently "the law of God" or "the law of the Lord," and sometimes "the law of Moses" because of his particular ministry in delivering it: "Remember the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded him" (Malachi 4:4). This is what the Jews meant by the law.

Fourth point: the law given at Horeb comprised three parts. First, the Ten Commandments — "the ten words" (Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4) — written on two stone tablets. This part of the law was given first, served as the foundation of the whole, and contained the perfect obedience required of mankind by the law of creation — now received into the church's life with the highest testimony to its indispensable obligation, carrying the sanction of obedience or punishment. Second, the statutes and ordinances — what the Septuagint renders as the legal rights, and the Latin translators rendered as "justifications" (justificationes), a translation that has caused great confusion among many ancient and modern theologians. We call this the ceremonial law. The apostle refers to this part of the law distinctly as "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances" — consisting in a multitude of specific and arbitrary commands (Ephesians 2:15). Third, what we commonly call the judicial law. This division encompasses the Old Testament as it is used in countless places — though only the Ten Commandments are referred to by the general word "the law" in Malachi 4:4.

Fifth point: these being the parts of the law given to the church at Sinai, the whole of it is consistently called "the law" — meaning the instruction (as the Hebrew word signifies) that God gave to the church as the rule of obedience He prescribed for it. This is the consistent meaning of the word in Scripture wherever it is used absolutely. And on this basis, the term does not refer precisely to the law as given at Horeb alone, but encompasses with it all the divine revelations under the Old Testament that explained and confirmed that law — its rules, motives, directions, and reinforcements of obedience.

Sixth point: therefore the law is the whole rule of obedience God gave to the church under the Old Testament, together with all the power and influence with which it was accompanied through God's ordinances — including all the promises and threats that served as motivations for the obedience God required. This is what God and the church called the law under the Old Testament, and what the Jews with whom the apostle was dealing called it. What we call the moral law was the foundation of the whole. What we call the judicial and ceremonial law consisted of particular expressions of the obedience the Old Testament church was bound to render in its specific political arrangements and forms of divine worship appropriate to that era. Scripture testifies two things about this law.

First: it was a perfect and complete rule of all the internal, spiritual, and moral obedience God required of the church. "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple" (Psalm 19:7). It was equally a complete rule of all external duties of obedience — their substance and manner, their times and occasions — so that in both respects the church might walk acceptably before God (Isaiah 8:20). Although the foundational duties of the moral law are often given priority over the particular duties of outward worship, the whole law was always the complete rule of all the obedience — internal and external — that God required of the church and accepted from those who believed.

Second: this law — this rule of obedience as God appointed it to govern the church, adapted to the covenant made with Abraham whose administration it served and which its introduction at Sinai did not annul — was accompanied by a power and efficacy enabling obedience. The law itself, considered merely as a set of precepts and commands, supplied no ability to those under its authority to render obedience — any more than the bare commands of the gospel do by themselves. Moreover, under the Old Testament the law pressed obedience on people's minds and consciences through the manner of its delivery and the severity of its sanction, filling them with fear and dread. It was accompanied by burdensome requirements of outward worship that made it a heavy yoke for the people. But as God's instruction and teaching in all acceptable obedience — adapted to the Abrahamic covenant — it was also accompanied by an administration of effectual grace that produced and sustained obedience in the church. The law is therefore not to be considered in isolation from those aids to obedience which God administered under the Old Testament, whose effects are therefore ascribed to the law itself (see Psalm 1; Psalm 19; Psalm 119).

Second: this being the law as the apostle and his audience understood it, the next question is what they meant by "works" or "works of the law." The answer is plain: they meant by this the universal, sincere obedience of the church to God according to this law. The law of God acknowledges no other works — it expressly condemns all works that have any defect making them unacceptable to God. Hence, despite all the positive commands God gave for the strict observance of sacrifices, offerings, and similar rites, when the people performed them without faith and love, He explicitly declared that He had not commanded them to be observed in that manner. The works of the law therefore constituted the personal righteousness of believers — those who "walked in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord blamelessly" (Luke 1:6), who "served God night and day" (Acts 26:7). This they regarded as their own righteousness, their righteousness according to the law — as indeed it was (Philippians 3:6, 9). Although the Pharisees had greatly corrupted the doctrine of the law and placed false interpretations on many of its precepts, the idea that the church in that era understood "works of the law" to mean only ceremonial duties, or only external acts, or works performed with a claim to merit, or works done without an inward principle of faith and love for God — rather than their own personal, sincere obedience to the whole teaching and rule of the law — has nothing to support it. For the following reasons:

First: all of this is perfectly set out in the answer the scribe gave to our Savior's declaration of the meaning and purpose of the law when asked about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:28-33; Matthew 22:36). One of the scribes asked: "Which is the foremost commandment of all?" Jesus answered: "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" And the scribe said to Him: "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is One, and there is no one else besides Him; and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." And this — faith and love as the principle of all obedience — is so plainly set forth by Moses as the sum of the law in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 that it is remarkable what could lead any learned, sober person to fix on any other interpretation — as if it referred only to ceremonial or external works, or to works that could be performed without faith or love. This is the law about which the apostle is disputing, and these are the works of obedience that constitute its demands. God has never required, and never will require, anything more than this as obedience in this world. Therefore the law and its works that the apostle excludes from justification are the very duties by which we are obligated to believe in God as the one and only God and to love Him with all our hearts and souls and our neighbors as ourselves. I do not know of any works — however performed, whether by regenerate or unregenerate persons, whether in the strength of grace or without it — that are acceptable to God and that cannot be reduced to these categories.

Second: the apostle himself makes clear that it is the law and its works in the sense we have described that he excludes from our justification.

The law he speaks of is the law of righteousness (Romans 9:31). It is the law whose righteous requirement is to be fulfilled in us so that we may be accepted with God and freed from condemnation (Romans 8:3-4). It is the law in obedience to which our personal righteousness consists — whether that which we consider righteous before conversion (Romans 10:3) or after it (Philippians 3:9). It is the law that one who keeps it shall live by and be justified before God (Romans 2:13; Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5). It is the law that is holy, just, and good — the law that exposes and condemns all sin whatsoever (Romans 7:7, 9).

From what has been discussed, two things stand clearly confirmed in our present argument. First: the law the apostle intends, when he denies that anyone can be justified by its works, is the complete rule and guide of our obedience to God — covering the whole spiritual constitution of our souls and all the acts of obedience and duty He requires of us. Second: the works of this law that the apostle so frequently and plainly excludes from our justification, setting them against the grace of God and the blood of Christ, are all the duties of obedience — internal, supernatural, external, and ceremonial — however we are or may be enabled to perform them, that God requires of us. With these excluded, it is the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to us, on the basis of which we are justified before God.

The truth is — as far as I can discern — the real disagreement among us today about the doctrine of justification before God is the same disagreement that existed between the apostle and the Jews, and no other. But religious controversies often appear entirely new when they are really only the same old debates dressed up in new terminology. So it has been with the controversy about nature and grace. At its core, it is today the same controversy it was between Paul and the Pharisees, and afterward between Augustine and Pelagius. But it has passed through so many forms and disguises in its language that it is barely recognizable as the same thing. Many today will condemn Pelagius and the exact words in which he taught his doctrine, yet embrace and approve of the very things he meant. Every shift in philosophical thinking gives the appearance of a new development in the controversies argued through it. But strip off the covering of philosophical expressions, scholastic distinctions, metaphysical concepts, and the fashionable technical jargon that some ancient scholastics and later disputants have piled upon it — and the disagreement about grace and nature is, among all of us, the same as it always was, and is fully in line with what the Socinians allow.

So the apostle, in treating of our justification before God, uses terms that both express the thing itself and were well understood by those he was addressing — terms the Holy Spirit had consecrated through revelation to their proper use. On one side, he explicitly excludes the law, our own works, and our own righteousness from any role in justification. In opposition to them, and as incompatible with them in the matter of justification, he attributes it wholly to the righteousness of God, righteousness imputed to us, the obedience of Christ, Christ made righteousness for us, the blood of Christ as a propitiation, faith, receiving Christ and the atonement. There is no awakened conscience guided by even the least beam of spiritual light that does not plainly understand these things and what they mean. But through the introduction of foreign learning — with its philosophical terms and concepts — into the teaching of spiritual things in religion, an entirely new appearance is given to the whole matter, and a compromise is constructed between things the apostle directly sets in opposition as contrary and incompatible. Hence arise all our discourses about preparations, dispositions, conditions, merits of congruity and condignity, accompanied by such a train of distinctions that unless some limit is placed on inventing and coining them — an easy work that grows on us daily — we will soon be unable to see through them clearly enough to understand the things intended or to follow one another's meaning. As one said of lies, so it may be said of arbitrary distinctions: they must constantly be patched and re-covered, or the truth will rain through. But the better course is to cast off all these coverings — and we will then quickly see that the real disagreement about the justification of a sinner before God is the same today as it was in the apostle Paul's day between him and the Jews. And all the things people now argue for, under the names of preparations, conditions, dispositions, and merit in relation to a first or second justification, as having some causal role in our justification before God — the apostle excludes all of these just as effectively as if he had named every one of them. For in all of them, what is being argued for is nothing but the role of personal righteousness that the Jews maintained against the apostle — now expressed in the concepts and terminology of current intellectual fashion. A clear understanding of what the apostle means by the law, its works, and its righteousness would be sufficient to settle this controversy — were it not that people have grown very skilled in the art of endless argument.