Brown on Justification

[Prufrock]

(Hits on a variety of topics, so I put it in the "general theology" thread: I hope this is acceptable)

Following several positive mentions of it here on the PB, I was reading through John Brown of Wamphray's Life of Justification this last week, and I was certainly impressed. A few things jumped out at me in this section in particular:

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. (Appendix 4, p. 469)

The bolded part was particularly interesting to me, as it reveals a drastic fundamental difference regarding presuppositions of the nature of scripture between older, orthodox biblical scholarship and modern scholarship. I can't even imagine a professor in a university today bringing forward a reason such as that: he would be laughed out of his office and his job. These old divines weren't simpletons or ignorant: they truly very much realized the specific, occasional purpose of the various New Testament epistles; and yet, while granting the occasional cause and use of them, they granted priority of meaning and thought to the universal and permanent use and purpose. Thus, while the historical meaning was of utmost necessity to determine, such is not the only nor the primary frame of reference by which they interpreted scripture; rather, it was interpreted in light of the understanding that it was composed by the Holy Spirit for universal and general use by the church in all ages, and that it was designed to direct us yet today in whatever circumstances the church finds itself. I was really struck by that while reading this. (Please, someone correct me if I'm way off base in these thoughts).

Also, as Brown interacts very much with Baxter in this book, reading it often felt like like I was in the twilight zone: lots of it sounded much like the issues being raised all over again today:

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?

Hm, deja vu?

Bottom line: thank you to those of you who mentioned this book, and provided links to where it could be found online. Have a blessed Lord's Day tomorrow.