Imágenes de páginas

(3) God has wisely determined to fave proud man in a way that excludes (pharisaic) boafting. God is juft, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? says the apostle ; It is excluded, anlwers he: By what covenant, does he ask i Is (pharifaic] boafting excluded by the covenant of works ? No, but by the law of faith, by the covenant of grace, whose condition is (penitential, felf-abasing, obedicnt] faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore we conclude, says he, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Rom. iii. 27, 28. If our good works (properly speaking] deserve the least part of our salvation, we may juftly boast that our own arm has got us that part of the victory; and we have reason (pharifaicaljy] to glory in ourselves, contrary to the scriptures, which say, that every mouth most be stopped, that boasting is excluded, and that he who glories, muft glory in the Lord. +

[If St. Paul glories in his fufferings and labours, it is not then without Christ before God, but with Christ before the Corinthians, and under peculiar circumstances. He never imagined that his work's were meritorious according to the first covenant ; much less did he fancy that they had one single grain of proper merit. He perfectly knew, that if they were rewardable, it was not from any self-excellence, which he had put into them; but merely from God's gratuitous promise in the second covenant; from Christ's grace, by which they were wrought; from his atoning blood, in which they were washed ; and from his proper merits, with which they were perfumed.]

( To suppose that Adam himself, if he had conti nued upright, would have gloried in his righteousness as a pharisee, is to suppose him deeply fällen. In paradise God was all in all; and as he is also all in all in heaven, we may easily conceive, that, with respect to self-exaltation, the mouth of Gabriel is not less

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

+ See a note in the Scriptural Ejay, 2d Part, upon the glorying to which St. Paul excites believing workers, Gal. vi. 4.

thut before the throne, than that of Mary Magdalen. Therefore, if any out of hell pharisaically glory in themselves, it is only those self-righteous fons of Lucifer and Pride, to whom our Lord says ftill, You are of your father the Devil, whose works ye do; when ye seek to kill me, and glory in yourselves.]

(4) Our evil works [in general] far overbalance our good works, both in quantity and quality : Let us first then pay a righteous God the debt, [the immense debt of ten thoufand talents that) we owe him, by dying the second death, which is the wages of our bad works; and then we may talk of buying heaven with our good works.

(5) Our beft works have such a mixture of impero fection, that they muit be atoned for, and made acceptable by Christ's blood; so far are they from atoning for the least fin, † [and properly meriting our acceptance before God (even according to the second covenant.]

(6) If ever we did one truly good work, the I merit is not ours, but God's, who by his free grace

prevented, accompanied, and followed us in the performance. For it is God, who of his good pleasure worketh in us both to will and to do. Phil. ii. 12. Not 1, says the apostle after mentioning his good works, but the grace of God in me, 1 Cor. xv, 10, compared with James i. 17.

(7) We

(34), + Eleven years ago I said [and making us accepted) I now reject the expression as unguarded ; for it clashes with this proposition of si. Peter : In every nation be that WORKETA righteoufnefs is acCEPTED of him. We thould take care so to secure the foundation, as not to throw down the building.

(35) i This is the very doctrine of evangelical rewardableness, or improper, derived merit, só honourable to Chrnt, so humbling to man, which I have maintained in the Vindication, p. 72, &c. Therefore, if I am a merit-monger and an heretic now, it is evident that I was fo eleven years ago, when I wrote a sermon, which, as my late opposer.t is pleased to say, [Fin. Stroke, p. 44 ] “ does me much credit, and plainly phews, that I was once zealously attached to rbe do&trines of obe church of England,

17) We perpetually say at Church : Glory be to the Father, as Creator ; and to the Son, as Redeemer; and to the Holy Ghost, as fanctifier. Christ is then to have all the glory of our redemption : But if our good works come in for any share in the purchase of heaven, we must come in also for some thare of the glory of our (redemption. + ] Thus Christ will no longer be the only Redeemer: we fhall be + co-redeemers with him, and consequently we shall have a share in the doxology ; which is a blafphemous fuppofition.

(8) Our Lord himself decides the question in thofe remarkable words, When you have done all that is commanded you ; and where is the man that [according to the law of innocence] has done (without interrupcion] I shall not say ali, but the one half of it? fay, We are unprofitable servants. Now it is plain, that unprofitable servants do not (properly] merit in whole or in part, to fit down at their master's table, and be admitted as children to a share of his eftate. Therefore, if God gives heaven to believers, it is entirely owing to his free mercy, {according to his diftributive justice, and the tenour of the law of faith) thro' the merits of Jesus Christ, [derived by faith] and not at all thro' the (proper) merits of our own works.

(9) I mall close these observations by St. Paul's unanswerable argument. If righteousness comes by the law, If salvation comes by (the covenant of] works, then Christ died in vain, Gal. ii. 21. Whence it follows that if it comes in part by the works of the saw I (of innocence,] part of Christ's fufferings were vain ; a fuppofition which ends in the same blafphe. my (against the Mediator. ]



(36) + I substitute the word redemption for the word salvation, that I formerly used ; because English logic demands it. By the fame 'reason I leave out in the end of the paragraph the words “ Saviour, and “joint saviours” which I had illogically coupled with “ Redeemer,” and “co-redeemers.For, altho’ it is ftrictly true that no man can redeem his brother's foul, or even ransom his body from the power of the grave : yet, according to the doctrine of secondary, infirumental causes, it is absolutely false that no man can save his neighbour; for In doing this, fays St. Paul, thou shalt both fave thyself, and then tbat bear thee, 1 Tim. iv, 16.

(37) 1 I say (the law of innocence] to defend the works of the law of FAITH, by the inftrumentality of which we shall be justified or saved in the great day. For these works flowing from Christ's grace, and never aspiring at any higher place, than that, which is alloted them, viz. the place of juflifying evidences, they can never detraat from the Saviour's honour or his grace,

[(10) That man might deserve any thing of God, upon the footing of proper worthiness, or merit of equivalence, God hould fand in need of some thing, which it is in man's power to bestow : But this is absolutely impoffible: for God being felf-sufficient in his infinite fulaess, is far above any want; and man be. ing a dependant creature, every moment supported by his Maker and Preserver, has nothing, and can do nothing, to which God has not a far greater right than man himself. This is what the apostle afferts where he says, Who has given Him First, and it shall be recompensed unto him again ? - But much more in this remarkable passage : Who maketh thee to differ from another? If thoa fayeit, The number of my talents and the proper use I have made of them : I ack again, Who gave thee those talents? And who fuperadded grace, wisdom, and an opportunity to improve them?

Here we must all give glory to God, and fay with St. James, Every good gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.

Upon this confideration the apoftle proceeds to check the christian pharisee thus; What haft thou, that thou didd not receive ? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou had not received it? Whence it follows, that, tho' St. Paul himself glories in, and boats of his disintereltedness, yea folemnly declares, No man fall stop me of this boafting, yet he did not glory in that virtue as if he had not received it : No; he gave the original glory of it to Him of whom, thro' whom, and to whom are all things. The glory of bestowing original gifts upon us belongs then to God alone ; and the original glory of the humility with which we receive, and of the faithfulness, with which we use those gifts, belongs also to him alone; altho', in the very nature of things, we have such a derived share of that glory, as gives room to the reaYonableness of divine rewards. For why should one be rewarded more than another ; yea, why should one be rewarded rather than punished, if derived faithfulness does not inake hion more rewardable ?


Observe however, that, altho' by this derived faithfulness one man makes himself to differ enough from another, for God to reward him reasonably rather than another ; yet no

man can say to his Maker without fatanic arrogance, “I have made myself to differ from 66 such an one, therefore I make a lawful demand

upon thy justice : Thus much have I done for thee; “ do as much for me again.” For while God dis. penses punishments according to the rules of Ariet justice; he bestows his rewards only according to the rules of moral aptitude and distributive equity, in consequence of Christ's proper merits, and of his own gracious promise ; all men on earth, and all angels in heayen being far less capable of properly deserving at God's hands, than all the mites and ants in England are, of properly meriting any thing at the hands of the king.]

[ Laitly, what flaves earn is not their own, but the master's to whom they belong ; and what your horses

your property, not theirs : Now as God has a thousand times more right to us, than matters to their flaves, and you to your horses; it follows, that, fupposing we were finless, and could properly earn any thing, our profit would be God's, not ours. So true it is, that, from the creature to the Creator, the idea of proper merit is as contrary to justice as it is to decency.]

As the preceding arguments (against the proper merit of works] will, I hope, abundantly satisfy all those modern pharisees,] who have not entirely caft away the christian revelation, I pass to the old objection of (some ignorant] papists (and injudicious protestants.] If good works cannot [merit us heaven, (see the 5th note) or properly) save us, why should we trouble ourselves about them ?" [And in answer

get is

« AnteriorContinuar »