Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal…

Some of our Opponents in this Doctrine of Justification, when they deny that by the Law, the Apostle means the moral Law, or the whole Rule of Life which God has given to Mankind, seem to choose to express themselves thus, that the Apostle only intends the Mosaic Dispensation: But this comes to just the same Thing as if they said that the Apostle only means to •••lude the Works of the Ceremonial Law; for when they say that 'tis intended only that we ben't justified by the Works of the Mosaic Dispensation, if they mean any Thing by it, it must be that we ben't justified by attending, and observing what is Mosaic in that Dispensation, or by what was peculiar to it, and wherein it differed from the Christian Dispensation; which is the same as that which is ceremonial and positive, and not moral, in that Administration—. So that this is what I have to disprove, viz. That the Apostle when he speaks of Works of the Law in this Affair, means only Works of the Ceremonial Law, or those Observances that were peculiar to the Mosaic Administration.

And here it must be noted, that no Body controverts it with them, whether the Works of the Ceremonial Law ben't included or whether the Apostle don't particularly argue against Justification by Circumcision, and other ceremonial Observances; but all that is in Question is, whether when he denies Justification by Works of the Law, he is to be understood only of the Ceremonial Law, or whether the moral Law ben't also implied and intended; And therefore those Arguments that are brought to prove that the Apostle meant the Ceremonial Law are nothing to the Purpose, unless they prove more than that, viz. that the Apostle meant those only.

What is much insisted on is, that it was the judaising Christians being so fond of Circumcision, and other Ceremonies of the Law, and depending so much on them, which was the very Occasion of the Apostles writing as he does against Justification by the Works of the Law. But supposing it were so, that their trusting in Works of the Ceremonial Law, were the sole Occasion of the Apostle's writing; (which yet there is no reason to allow, as may appear afterwards;) if their trusting in a particular Work, as a Work of Righteousness was all that gave occasion to the Apostle to write, how does it follow that therefore the Apostle did not upon that Occasion write against trusting in all Works of Righteousness whatsoever? Where is the absurdity of supposing that the Apostle might take occasion from his observing some to trust in a certain Work as a Work of Righteousness. o write to them against Persons trusting in any Work of Righteousness at all, and that it was a very proper Occasion too? yea it would have been anavoidable for the Apostle to have argued against trusting in a particular Work in that quality of a Work of Righteousness, which quality was general, but he must there in argue against trusting in Works of Righteousness in general Supposing it had been some other particular sort of Works that was the occasion of the Apostle's writing, as for instance, Works of Charity, and the Apostle should hence take occasion to write to them not to trust in their Works, could the Apostle by that be understood of no other Works besides Works of Charity? Would it have been absurd to understand him as writing against trusting in any Work at all, because it was their trusting to a particular Work that gave occasion to his writing?