282 ON JUSTIFICATION.
4. Some say, in general, it is the Jewish law that is intended; and think thereby to cast ofif the whole difficult3^ But if, by the Jewish law, they intend only the ceremonial law, or the law absolutely as given by Moses, we have already showed 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 appeareth in the text or context; for, — (1.) The apostle excludeth all luorks of the law, — that is, that the law requireth of us in a way of obedience, — be they of what sort they will. (2.) The law requireth no ivorks with a conceit of merit. (3.) Works of the law originally included no merit, as that which ariseth from the proportion of one thing unto another in the balance 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: — First, 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 ; Avhich grace will not allow, chap. iv. 2. Secondly, That the reward be not absolutely of grace, but that re- spect 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, excludeth 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 excludeth 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 controversy itself, are not so averse from some kind of merit, as knomng 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
WORKS EXCLUDED IN JUSTIFICATION. 283
are such as we perform by tlie direction and command of the law alone. But the law of faith requireth works in the strength of the supplies of grace ; which are not excluded. This is tliat which the most learned and judicious of the church of Rome 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 coincidence with that of the Papists; so, as yet, they deny the name of merit, and the thing itself m the sense of the church of Kome, 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 merito- rious; although the apostle's plain argTiment be, that they are ex- cluded because such a merit as is inconsistent with grace is insepa- rable from their admission.
But the Roman 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 laAV. And this they do with some more modesty and sobriety than those amongst us who would have only external works and observances to be in- tended. For they grant that sundry internal works, as those of at- trition, 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, have been so dis- cussed and defeated by Protestant writers of all sorts against Bellar- mine and others, as that it is needless to repeat the same things, or to add any thing unto them. And it will be sufiiciently evinced of falsehood in what we shall immediately prove concerning the law and works intended by the apostle. However, the heads of the de- . monstration of the truth to the contrary may be touched on. And, — (1.) The apostle excludeth all works, without distinction or excep- tion. And we are not to distinguish where the law doth not distin- guish before us. (2.) All the woi'lcs of the law are excluded: there- fore all works wrought after believing by the aids of grace are ex- cluded ; for they are all required by the law. See Ps. cxix. 35 ; Rom. vii. 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 be- liever many years, and abounded in them unto the praise of God. So he excludeth his own works after his conversion. Gal. ii. 1 6; 1 Cor. iv. 4 ; Phil. iii. 9 ; and so he excludeth the works of all other believers, Eph. ii. 9, 10. (4.) All works are excluded that might give counte-