the covenant of works is established, the covenant of grace denied, and the doctrine of Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, in which he excludes all works, is enervated, and rendered absurd.

Our adversaries, in order to disintangle themselves out of these snares, which they lay for themselves, seek various evasions, and say,

1. That the apostle excludes works done only by the power of freewill, without the assistance of grace, but not those that are done by the assistance of grace. But thus our adversaries condemn themselves, because they assert a justification of the ungodly by the mer its of their works, which are performed before regeneration by freewill, as we have shown before: Paul needed not to exclude works, which are done without grace, because they are only shining sins, and therefore evil works, which, as all know, deserve death. He excludes all works without any exception; we may not then make him speak of an exception, where he himself is silent. Yea, he excludes the works of godly Abraham and David, Rom. iv. 1—8.

2. They say further that he excludes only the works of the ceremonial, or ecclesiastical law: but this also is an invention, which is beside Paul; for he speaks of the law that was innate to the Gentiles, Rom. ii. 14, 15, which forbids stealing and adultery, Rom. ii, 21, 22, which is opposed to circumcision, Rom. ii. 25-27, which accuseth and condemneth Jews and Gentiles, and discovers their sins to them, Rom. iii. 9-20. Yea, he speaks of the law which Abraham had, and which he observed, before the ceremonial or ecclesiastical law was imposed on him by circumcision; and nevertheless his works according to the moral law are also excluded. See Rom. iv. 1, 2, 3, 9—12. It is true, the apostle hath respect in his epistle to the Galatians chiefly to the law of the fleshly commandment, since he therein manfully opposes the false apostles, who taught justification by works according to that law; but he doth this, because those false apostles looked upon those ceremonies, as the demand of the covenant of works, and as the proper performances to obtain life; for he alleges, in order to silence them, the promise and the threatening of the covenant of works. See Gal. iii. 10, 12. And he doth this, in order to show that we cannot be justified by our own performances, either according to the moral, or the ceremonial law. Therefore when he excludes the ceremonies according to the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, he then also excludes all kinds of works.

3. In this manner do the Papists endeavour to disentangle them

Jelves, but the Socinians pursue another method. Christ, according to them, preached a different doctrine and law from that of Moses. Paul, as they say, excludes from justification works done according to the law of Moses, but not works done according to the law of Christ, which they call the gospel. The Remonstrants differ not much from this, when they say that we are now justified by the faith of the gospel; for they consider faith as a work done according to the law of Christ, containing every virtue according to the commands of the gospel. But faith is a virtue by itself, distinct from other virtues, and may not be considered in justification as a work, but as an instrument and hand, by which we receive Christ, and Paul excludes all our own works, and besides this, we say, it is not true that Christ preached another, and a new law, as we will show in the proper place. God the Lord would then have abrogated the law of Moses; but how was this possible, when it expressed the image of God, and his demand against the sinner? he would then have dispensed with his right, which was impossible, as we have proved on the fifth Lord's day. If Christ had preached a new law, with a design, that men should be justified by works according to that law, then would that law have been "able to give life, contrary to the promise," and so "righteousness would come by the law," contrary to the doctrine of Paul, Gal. iii. 21.

II. The adversaries of the light, not willing to be convinced of their erroneous opinion, think that they will strengthen themselves by the word of God, which promiseth a reward to works. We cannot gainsay this, verily " in keeping God's commandments there is a great reward," according to the language of David, Psalm xix. 11. God will reward good works, not only in this life, but also in that which is to come, Heb. vi. 10. Matt. vi. 4, 6, 18. Yea, the people of God encourage themselves by the consideration of the reward to greater diligence in doing good works. Moses "had respect to the recompence of the reward," Heb. xi. 26, but good works do not therefore merit: for (a) we owe good works, and we are naturally bound to keep the law of God perfectly. How can we merit by doing our duty? Hear what the Saviour saith, Luke xvii. 10 "When ye shall have done all these things, which are commanded you, say. We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." (b) If good works did merit that great reward, then we ought to do them of and by ourselves; for we cannot merit by the work and assistance of another; but good works are not of man himself, but of God: Faith is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," saith the apostle, Eph. ii. 8. "It is God, which worketh in

you both to will and to do," so the same man speaks, Philip. ii. 13. (c) Works ought to be equal in value with the reward, if they shall merit the reward; but the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us," Rom. viii. 18. 2 Cor. iv. 17. (d) Can good works profit God, for this is required in order that they may merit? no! "Can a matt be profitable to God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?" These questions are rightly asked, in order to deny the assertions, Job. xxii. 2, 3.

Do evil works merit perdition, because they are perfectly evil, good works do not therefore merit salvation, for they are not perfectly good. And if they were perfect, as they might have been before the fall, they would not however merit by their worthiness, but only by the promises of God in the covenant of works.

How doth God then reward works, if they do not merit the reward? Paui will declare, when he teacheth that there is not only "a reward of debt," but also "of grace," Rom. iv. 4. The reward of debt is bestowed on account of the perfection of the work, which obligeth the Lord to bestow on his servant the promised recompence: the reward of grace is bestowed in consequence of certain endeavours, and a certain defective work, from kindness, and it is of more value than the work, and is therefore not merited. Say not, How can this be a reward? for thou shouldest not inquire wisely concern. ing this. Can any man "buy without money, and without price?" yet this is asserted, Isaiah Iv. 1, there can then be a reward of grace. Although a son owes his father obedience, his father can nevertheless reward him from kindness; especially if his obedience be not perfect, and nevertheless sincere. Thus also the Lord, when he beholds the sincere endeavours of his children to please him by good, although defective works, rewards them. Is the recompence of God from grace called a reward without reason? no: for as a proper reward is bestowed in consequence of a promise upon the work, as it encourageth the worker, sweetens the labour, and follows the work, so also is the reward according to grace bestowed.

They will nevertheless have that God bestows a reward of merit and debt upon works, since the few at Sardis, who had not defiled their garments, should walk with the Saviour in white, because they were worthy," Rev. iii. 4. But their works were not worthy of this, for they should be "washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb," Rev. xii. 14. But their persons were worthy of it, because they were "found" in Christ, and so were "perfect in him," ac

cording to Phil. iii. 9. Coll. ii 10. And their good works were evidences of this, since "they had not defiled their garments," and so" he will reward eccording to works," as evidences of a person's good state, agreeably to the words of Christ and of Paul, Matt. xvi. Rom. iii. 6, 8.

27.

"Was Abraham justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" as James asks, James ii. 21. This doth not militate against us, because it cannot militate against Paul, who had said that "Abraham was not justified by works," Rom. iv. From which nominal Christians took occasion to boast largely of their faith, and conceived that if they had faith, it was enough, although they had not works. James sets himself against these, and he shows that faith without works is not good, and that it must be manifested by works: in order to demonstrate this to them, he alleges the example of Abraham, who was justified by works, when he had offered his son Isaac. And he speaks not therefore of the justification of Abraham as a sinner, as Paul doth, Rom. iv. but as a godly person, by which the Lord God declares of him to his posterity, that he had proved himself to be a righteous and godly perAbraham was justified by faith, before he had offered his son, for so it is said Gen. xv. 6. "Abraham believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for righteousness." But when he had offered his Son, it appeared, and God declared in consequence of his work, and because he feared him, that he was righteous: the Lord said, Gen. xxii. 12, "For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy Son, thine only son from me."

son.

III. When our adversaries can do no more, and we have disarmed them, they betake themselves to slandering, reproaching and scoffing, saying, that the doctrine of justification without works "makes men careless and profane." But why need we regard this? it is indeed an ancient slander, which was cast also upon Paul's doctrine of justification in his time, but which was manfully opposed and repelled by him. See Rom. iii, 8. vi. 1. Our adversaries show thus, that they are in their temper exceedingly like Ishmael, who scoffed at the freeborn Isaac, who was intitled to the inheri tance by promise. But that we may show them that our doctrine cannot justly be reproached in this manner, we say with the instrucfor, that it doth not make men careless and profane, but exceedingly serious, fervent and godly, for no doctrine excites and influenceth more than this to zealous godliness, as we will show at large upon the thirty second Lord's day. We say no more at present, than that it is impossible, that those who are implanted into Christ by

a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness." It is frequently declared in the word of God, that they who are justified are implanted and ingrafted into Christ, and thus most intimately united to him, as the graft is united to the stock. Being thus united and ingrafted into him, "they partake of the root and fatness of that olive tree," Rom. ix. 47. Is it now possible that they should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness? the Saviour saith, John xv. 5, "I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit," If our doctrine make men careless and profane, then the doctrine of the legalist ought to make men exceedingly zealous and godly; but how doth this appear, when they are so ignorant, wanton and exceedingly riotous on their holydays so called, unless we will acknowledge that it is godliness to present God with a certain number of mumbled prayers, paternosters, avemarys, with hearing masses, abstaining from meats, neglecting the body, and I know not what other bodily exercises; but "these things are not of any profit, but only a satisfying of the flesh," Coll. ii. 23. And what is the Socinian and Arminian godliness? is it a "worshipping of God in the Spirit ?" no, for they "rejoice not in Christ Jesus, but have confidence in the flesh." See Phil. iii. 3. The whole morality of those men doth not exceed the decent conversation of the most moral heathens. And how can they say that our doctrine renders men careless and profane? this truly the doctrine of the Hagarenes, the hirelings, and the servants who labor for a reward, doth, and no other. Have not the Papists proffered for sale indulgences of sins, heaven and all that is holy? what will induce me to pursue sanctification, if my money, my skill in reckoning bodily exercises can obtain for me the pardon of my sins, and every other advantage? Every legalist teaches that a man may be perfect in this life, if he will only exert his free will: why then are not all those men perfect? is it not because they conceive that they can offer to God a righteousness by their own works for their sins, or that he will wink at them, if they only perform pen ance, and amend their conduct? See to what all this tends.

APPLICATION.

Hearers, ye who attend to these things, will any one of you contradict us? and will he not manifest his aversion from that impi