455 (465)
Appendix 4
The Law, by the works whereof Paul denies that we
are
justified, is not the Jewish Law.
We find
the Apostle Paul directly and professedly proving and concluding, that we are not
justified by the Law, nor by the works of the Law: Yet such as differ from us,
about the interest of works, in justification, not being willing to yield and
submit unto the truth, do seek
456 (466)
what evasions they can, to evade the force of the Apostle’s
argument and peremptory conclusions; and therefore say, that Paul is to be
understood, as speaking only of such, or such a Law; and excludes only such and
such works, in which they think they may yield unto, what the Apostle says, the
same being limited and restricted, according to their own mind, and yet do no
prejudice to their own hypothesis: But yet what this Law in particular is, and
what are the works thereof, our Adversaries are not at all agreed among
themselves; but some imagine one thing, and some another, as we shall hear.
Some by
the Law, and the works thereof, which Paul excludes from justification, do mean
the Ceremonial Law, and the observances thereof; or as
others express it, the Jewish Law, including their Judaical Law, and so hereby
understanding all that Law, which is called Moses’ Law: this is owned by some
Papists, as Bellarmine shows us, De justif. Lib. 1 Cap.
19, but he himself rejects it, upon this ground, that the Apostle in Romans
4, Ephesians 2, and Titus 3, doth simply exclude works, making no mention of
the Law of Moses: The Socinians do choose this way of interpreting the Apostle,
as may particularly be seen in the author of the book entitled Consensus
Pauli & Jacobi &c. printed An. 1620.
But
this opinion doth not correspond with truth, as may be manifest from these
particulars.
1. If
Paul disputes only against Justification by ceremonial observances, he had a
far shorter cut, to confute that conceit, than the way he took, to wit, to tell
them that shortly that Law, with all its observances, was to be laid aside and
no more observed, by virtue of the Gospel administration, and because the end
of all these observances, and He, who was typified thereby, was come, and had
put an end to that dispensation. But we find not the Apostle making any use of
this one and only argument, which had suited that purpose; but on the contrary
he uses such mediums and arguments, as suit no less, if not more, other laws,
beside ceremonial.
2. Yea
before the writing of these Epistles, wherein the Apostle did dispute against
justification by the Law, at least, before he wrote that to the Galatians, he
had by his preaching and practice, opposed the observation of the ceremonial
law, as he himself tells us in Galatians 2. And in that same Epistle, chapters
3 and 4, he condemns the observation of that law, in most peremptory terms, as
being no less, than a falling from grace: And yet when he is treating of
Justification not by the works of the Law, chapter 3, he mentions not this
ground, which would have taken away the very subject of the debate. Shall we think, that the Apostle would have disproved justification,
only by the works of the ceremonial law by such arguments and topics, out of
Scripture, when he was within a little by forcible reasons to remove the very
Law itself, and condemn all observation thereof?
2. It
is strange, that Paul in writing to the Gentiles, should deny justification to
be by the works of the Law, meaning the ceremonial law only; and James writing
to the Jews, should cry up the observation of that Law, and plead for
justification thereby: This would say, that Jew and Gentiles
457 (467)
were not both to be justified one way: or that James and
Paul do clearly contradict each other; neither of which must be said. That James
speaks of another law, than Paul speaks of, cannot be made good. And therefore
when our Adversaries will prove from James, that we are justified by works,
their meaning is, that we are justified by works, their meaning is, that we are
justified by the observation of the ceremonial law.
4. The
several things mentioned of this law, whereof the Apostle speaks, show, that he
is not speaking of the ceremonial law only: as (1.) Romans 3: 19. It is a law
that stops all mouths, and whereby all the world
becomes guilty before God: But this is not the ceremonial law, or the Jewish,
or the Law of Moses, under which the Gentiles were not, nor yet are. (2.)
Romans 3: 20 –It is that law, by which is the knowledge of sin: but this is not
by the mere ceremonial law, as we see Paul himself professing, Romans 7: 7.
(3.) Romans 2: 13 –It is that Law, the doers whereof shall be justified: But
this cannot be asserted of the mere ceremonial law, or of the Law of Moses.
(4.) Romans 3: 27 –It is that Law, which doth not exclude boasting: but it
cannot be said, that the Law of Moses is only that Law. (5.) Romans 3: 31 –It
is that Law, that is not made void, through faith. But
this is not the ceremonial law; the ceremonial law is not established by faith.
(6.) Romans 3: 28 –It is that Law, justification by which is inconsistent with
and opposite to justification by faith: but this is
not the ceremonial law only. (7.) Romans 4: 1, 2 –It is that Law, by the works
whereof Abraham, was not justified. But the Apostle’s argument from the
instance of Abraham had not been pertinent, if no law had here been understood,
but the Law of Moses; which was not in being in Abraham’s days. (8.) Romans 4:
2 –It is that Law, and works of obedience to it, that
would give ground to man of glorying: But this is not true only of the
ceremonial Law. (9.) Romans 4: 4 –It is that Law, obedience to which is a
working, and makes the reward of debt: But this cannot be said only of the
ceremonial law. (10.) Romans 4: 15 –It is that Law that worketh wrath: But other
Laws do this, than the ceremonial law. (11.) Romans 8: 3, 4 –It is that Law,
that was weak through the flesh, and the righteousness of which was to be
fulfilled in us: but this cannot be applied to the ceremonial law only. (12.)
Galatians 3: 10 –It is that Law, of the works of which as many as are, are
under the curse, and of which it is said, cursed is everyone, that continues
not in all things, which are written in the Law to do them. But this agrees not
to the ceremonial law only. (13.) Galatians 3: 12 –It is that Law, by the doing
of which, man should live: but by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses alone
life was not to be had. (14.) It is that Law, that cursed all transgressors,
and under the curse whereof all those lay, for whom Christ died. Galatians 3:
13. But that is not the ceremonial law, which laid no curse upon the Gentiles.
(15.) Ephesians 2: 9 –It is that Law, that enjoins those good works, which God
hath before ordained, that we (even Gentiles) should walk in them: But that is
not the ceremonial law. (16.) It is that Law, the works whereof are
inconsistent with grace, as the ground of election, Romans 11: 6. But this is
not ceremonial law only, else we must say, that election is for works of the
458 (468)
Moral Law, and yet is for grace. (17.) Philippians 3:
9 –It is that Law, obedience to which can be called our righteousness:
but this is not the ceremonial law only.
5. If
Paul’s mind had been only to dispute against Justification by Mosaic
observances; after he had stated the question, and proposed the truth, he was
minded to confirm, Romans 1: 17, to what purpose did he insist so much, to
show, how guilty the Gentiles were, who were never under Moses’ precepts, and
thereby clear, what need they had of a justification by free grace through
faith without the works of the Law? This seems not to have a clear tendency
unto the clearing of justification to be by faith, and not by Mosaic
observances; for what had the Gentiles to do with these?
6. We
find likewise the Apostle to convince the Jews themselves to be under sin, in
order to the necessity they had of being justified by faith, holding forth
their breaches of the Moral Law, Romans 2: 21, 22, and speaks of a Law distinct
from that, to which circumcision belonged, saying in verse 25, &c. for
circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a breaker of
the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision: And this Law, is a Law,
that he, by supposition, says, one not circumcised, might observe, and so could
not be the Law of ceremonies. See also Romans 3: 9 – 19.
7. The
arguments, which the Apostle adduces to disprove justification by the Law,
cannot conclude against the ceremonial law only: for (1.) all the world are not
guilty of transgressing only the ceremonial law: and yet because all the world
are become guilty before God, the Apostle infers, Romans 3: 20, Therefore by
the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified. (2.) So that other
argument ibid. for by the Law is the knowledge of sin, cannot conclude
against ceremonial law only. (3.) Justification by the deeds of the ceremonial
law only, repungs not to the justification through the righteousness of God
without the Law, and which is by faith of Jesus Christ; and through the
redemption, that is in Christ. (4.) The law of ceremonies alone doth not
exclude boasting. (5.) Abraham’s works were not works of the ceremonial law
only. (6.) Works of the ceremonial law only do not exclude glorying, nor make
the reward of debt and not of grace. (7.) Believing on him,
that justifies the ungodly, is opposed as well to him that worketh
according to other laws, as to him, that worketh according t the ceremonial
law, Romans 4: 5. (8.) Imputed righteousness, Romans 4: 7, 11, is as much
opposite, in the matter of justification, to other observances, as to Mosaic
observances. (9.) Forgiveness of sins, mentioned in Romans 4: 7, 8, is as
inconsistent with the observation of other laws, as of the ceremonial law.
(10.) Justification by the faith of Christ is as opposite to the Moral Law, as
to the Ceremonial Law: and thus reasons the Apostle, Galatians 2: 16. (11.)
That Curse denounced in Deuteronomy 27: 26, by which the Apostle proves,
Galatians 3: 10, that justification cannot be by the works of the Law, is not
against transgressors only of the Ceremonial Law. (12.) Obedience, to the moral
commands, is as little a living by faith, as was obedience to the Ceremonial
Law: And by this argument Paul proves, Galatians 3: 11, that no
459 (469)
man is justified by the Law, in the sight of God, because
the just shall live by faith. (13.) This is clear also from verses 12 and 13,
to mention no more. And the Law is not of faith, (which holds not true
only of the Ceremonial Law) but the man that doth them shall live in them,
(which was the tenor of the Old Covenant, Romans 10: 5, Leviticus 18: 5.) Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law. (And surely this is from the
curse of other laws, than of the Ceremonial Law.)
8.
Though it were true, that Paul’s conclusion was only
against justification by Mosaic observances: Yet by good consequence it might
hence be inferred, that there is no justification by the works of the moral
law. Partly because the Apostle’s mediums and arguments are general, and, as we
saw, reach further than to the Ceremonial Law: Partly because if it were not
thus, all the Apostle’s dispute should be of no use or value to us, now that
the subject of that controversy is quite removed: Partly because the Ceremonial
Law belonged to the first Table, being God’s instituted worship, and obedience
thereunto required by the second command: Partly because so long as that law
was not abrogated, obedience thereunto was their Gospel righteousness, just as
obedience to other laws is now called our Gospel righteousness: And if that
could not then justify them, no more can this now justify us.
We do
not by all this say, that the ceremonial law had no place or interest in this
dispute; for the Jews being pertinacious adherers unto this, and the false
teachers urging the observation of this, even upon the Gentile Churches, gave
occasion and first rise unto this question; for they alleged, there was no
justification, or salvation without the observation hereof: but as they did not
restrict the Law and the works thereof, purely unto the Mosaic rites and
typical ceremonies; but urged the observation of the whole law, which
comprehended moral precepts, as well as Ceremonial injunctions; so the Apostle
argues against justification by works of the Law in general, without any
particular limitation (expressed or hinted) unto the ceremonial observances.
Mr. Baxter, in his Cathol.
Theol.
part 2. Sect. 26. n. 362) where he would
tell us how Paul and James agree about justification by works, says that, The
key of understanding Paul’s discourses of justification is, to know: 1. That
the grand question, which he first manages, is, whether the Gentiles may not be
saved, without keeping the Jewish Law, as well as the Jews with it? Answer:
(1.) But our principal difficulty here is to understand, what Mr. Baxter means
by the Jewish law? For if he means all that, which was prescribed unto the
Jews, as a rule of their obedience, we assent; but then the Moral Law is as
much concerned here, as he Ceremonial, or judicial: and these, as such being
abrogated, the dispute concerns us, as well as them, in respect of the Moral
Law: but if he means hereby, only the Law of Ceremonies, we have shown, that
howbeit this might have given the first rise unto the dispute, yet the dispute
was not wholly and purely restricted thereunto; nor doth the Apostle only speak
to that abstracted or restricted consideration of the Law, in his pleading
against a justification by works
460 (470)
of the Law; as we have seen; this he doth, when he
pleads for the abrogation of that law, and against the observation of it. (2.)
Mr. Baxter, as it would seem, supposes, that Paul made no question concerning
the Jews themselves, but yielded that they were justified and saved by their
Law: for the question was, says he, whether the Gentiles might not as well be
saved thereby, as the Jews? But where
does he find this, either asserted, or granted by the Apostle, or the question
thus stated by the Apostle?
2. He
says, To prove the affirmative, he proves, that the Jews themselves cannot
be saved or justified merely or primarily by the Law, notwithstanding the
divinity and great excellence of it; but must be justified by a Savior, and
freely given pardon and right to life, and to which the sincere keeping of the
Law of Moses was to be but subservient. Answer: (1.) Then the question
concerned the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, and Paul did no more grant
justification by the Law to the one, than to the other. (2.) Where does Mr.
Baxter find these restrictions, Merely or
Primarily, in all the Apostle’s dispute? This is not fair, to pervert
the Apostle’s plain peremptory and absolute conclusions, and restrict them to a
certain limited sense, that they may the better be subservient to our designs,
and our hypotheses. Do the Apostle’s mediums only serve to prove, that
justification is not by the Law Merely or
Primarily? Which of them all, I pray, hath only this force? (3.) Though
the keeping of the Law of Moses is here said to be but subservient; Yet,
according to Mr. Baxter, it was all their righteousness, no other was properly
imputed to them, and upon it immediately they received Pardon and Right to
life, as merited thereby ex pacto, the Savior only procuring the New
Covenant: that is, that all, who work well and keep the Law of Moses, shall
have free pardon and right to life. And thus they were as well justified by the
works of the law, as by faith: for faith was also required of them: And then
the meaning of the Apostle’s conclusion, Romans 3: 28, is, therefore we
conclude, that a man is justified by faith, and by the deeds of the law: for
both faith and works with Mr. Baxter, belong to this subservient righteousness,
as he calls it. If this be consonant to the Apostle’s doctrine, which doth so
contradict it, let the reader judge.
3. He
says, That therefore it appears, that the
Jews did so fondly admire the Law, and their national privileges under it, that
they thought the exact keeping of it was necessary and sufficient to
justification and salvation. And they thought the Messiah was not to be their
righteousness, as a sacrifice for sin, and Meriter of free pardon and the gift
of life, but only a great king and deliverer, to redeem them by power from all
their enemies and bondage. Answer: This mistake of the Jews, concerning the
Messiah, speaks nothing to the point, whereupon we are; that is, that Paul
denies justification to be by the Law: and their error and mistake about the
Law, is not to be limited and restricted to the ceremonial law; and so the
thing, that we say, is confirmed hereby. (2.) They thought the Messiah was not
to be their righteousness: And Mr. Baxter not will have him to be our
righteousness, save only, in that he hath purchased the New Covenant, wherein
our faith and obedience to the law, is to be looked
461 (471)
upon as all our proper and immediate righteousness, upon
the account of which we are to receive pardon and right to life.
4. He
says It was not Adam’s Covenant of Innocence, or perfection, which the Jews
thus trusted to, or Paul doth speak against, as to justification (though a
minore ad majus, that is also excluded) for the Jews knew, that they were
sinners, and that God pardoned sin, as a merciful God, and that their law had
sacrifices for pardon and expiation with confessions, &c. But they thought
that so far as God had made that Law sufficient to political ends, and to
temporal ends and punishments, it had been sufficient to eternal rewards and
punishments, and that of itself, and not in mere subordination to the typified
Messiah. Answer: Though the Jews knew, that they were sinners, yet they did
also suppose, that by their works of obedience to the Law Moral, as well as
Ceremonial, they might make amends, and so think to be justified and pardoned
thereby, and that God would accept of them, and grant them life for their own
righteousness’ sake, and therefore did they labor so much to establish their
own righteousness, and followed after the Law of Righteousness, and sought
righteousness, as it were by the works of the Law. What Mr. Baxter talks here
of the Jews not using of that Law, in subordination to the typified Messiah,
hath need of explication: for as to his sense of it, we see no ground thereof
in all the Apostle’s discourse.
5. He
says that thing which Paul disproves them by is: 1. That
the Law was never made for such an end. Answer: This we cannot yield to, in
Mr. Baxter’s sense, often mentioned, for Paul nowhere gives us to understand,
that their obedience to this was their immediate righteousness, and condition
of justification, and the meritorious cause (ex pacto) of their right to
Christ, and to life &c. 3. He says that the free gift or Covenant of
Grace, containing the promise of the Messiah, and pardon and life by him, was
before the law, and justified Abraham and others without it. Answer: It is
true, this argument did particularly militate against the ceremonial law; Yet,
this not being the Apostle’s only argument, and other arguments reaching the
moral law, as well as the ceremonial, we must not limit the Apostle’s dispute
only to the ceremonial law. 4. He says that their law was so strict, that no
man could perfectly keep it all. Answer: Add also, that they could not
perfectly keep any one command thereof. 5. He says that every sin deserves
death indeed, though their Law punished not every sin with death by the
Magistrate. Answer: And this holds true of the Moral, as of the Ceremonial
Law. 6. He says that their Law was never obligatory to the Gentile world,
who had a law written in their hearts; and therefore not the common way of
justification. Answer: The Apostle makes no such conclusion, that therefore
it was not the common way of justification, for this would suppose, that it
were the way of justification unto them, which is directly against the
Apostle’s dispute. 7. He says that their
462 (472)
Law, as such, discovered sin, but gave not the Spirit
of Grace to overcome it: in so much, as though he himself desired perfectly to
fulfill it without sin, yet he could not, but was under a captivity, that is, a
moral necessity of imperfection, or sins of infirmity, from which only the
grace of Christ could, as to guilt and power, deliver him. Answer: Therefore the Moral Law is as well here to be
understood, as the Ceremonial; as is manifest. 8. He says that no man ever
came to heaven by that way of merit, which they dreamed of, but all by the way
of redemption, grace, free gift, and pardoning mercy. Answer: But that way
of merit attends all works, in the matter of justification; as the Apostle
assures us, Romans 4: 4, Ephesians 2: 8, 9, and is opposed to the way of
redemption, grace, free gift, and pardoning mercy, Romans 11: 6 and 3: 21, 24,
Titus 3: 5, 7.
From
these things Mr. Baxter draws this conclusion: Therefore their conceit, that
they were just in the main and forgiven their sins; and so justifiable by the
mere dignity of the Law of Moses, which they kept, and by the works of the Law,
and not by the free gift, pardon and grace of a Redeemer, and by the faith and
practical belief of that gift, and acceptance of it, with thankful, penitent,
obedient hearts, was a pernicious error. Answer: 1. Nothing is here said to
ground a restriction of this erroneous conceit of theirs unto the ceremonial
law: for this conceit of being justifiable by the law, and the works thereof,
in opposition to the free gift, pardon and grace of a Redeemer, is as
applicable to the Moral Law, as to the Ceremonial Law. (2.) The Apostle doth
not ground his dispute upon the Jews’ express rejecting of a free gift, and of
pardon, &c. But from justification by faith, laying hold on the free grace
and merits of a Mediator, he argues against justification by the Law and the
works thereof: And according to the Apostle’s method do we argue. (3.) To cover
justification by our own inherent righteousness, having the same place in the
New Covenant, which inherent righteousness and obedience had in the old, by
these fine words, Faith, and a practical belief of the gift, and acceptance
of it, with thankful, penitent, and obedient hearts, is not such ingenuous
dealing, as the importance of the matter requires: But this will be clearer by
what follows.
But (he
says) the true way of righteousness was to become true Christians, that is,
with such a penitent, thankful accepting, practical belief, or affiance to
believe in God, as the giver of salvation, in Christ as redeemer, and his
Spirit, as our life and Sanctifier; and to accept Christ, and all his procured
benefits, justification and life, as purchased by his sacrifice and meritorious
righteousness, and given in the New Covenant on this condition, and so to give
up ourselves to his whole saving work, as to the Physician of our souls, and
only Mediator with God. This is the sum of Paul’s doctrine on this point.
Answer: Not to speak of this matter here, which is elsewhere done, I shall only
say, that we are not enquiring after the true way of righteousness, but after
the true way of justification before God; and enquire where the Apostle
teaches, that all the righteousness, required unto justification, must be
within us, and none at all imputed; as this sum holds forth? Where does he
teach that this faith, including works and all obedience, is the only mean of
justification? Where does he teach that this inherent imperfect righteousness of
ours, is the immediate
463 (473)
ground, and meritorious cause (ex pacto) of our
justification and salvation? Where does
he teach that Christ’s righteousness is no otherwise ours, than as purchasing
the New Covenant, wherein our own personal righteousness is made the
potestative condition of our justification and salvation? And yet these and
several other particulars of this alloy doth Mr. Baxter hold forth, as taught,
in Scripture; as hath been seen elsewhere.