BUT the justification spoken of by St. James, when he says, "Ye see then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," cannot be our first justification; for he is arguing with professing Christians, who would needs hope to be saved by faith without works; in other words, with men who had received their first, about the means of securing their final justification. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (11. 14. 17.)

THUS then we have sufficiently proved, that St. Paul and St. James speak of different justifications; and we are now enabled to explain, what we before remarked, that although they speak of the self-same works, yet they speak of them in different respects.

As St. Paul is speaking of our first justifica

$6

tion, when he excludes works from all share in it, he must necessarily be understood of works going before justification. (Comp. Eph. ii. 8, 9; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. iii. 4-7.)

On the other hand, St. James, as he has not our first justification at all in his view, but is looking forward to final justification; when he requires works as necessary to this, must needs be understood of works which follow after justifi

cation.

AND now your thoughts have already reached the goal to which I was leading them; you perceive that the Apostles are already reconciled. They are placed far out of all danger of contradicting each other; and where the propositions compared relate to different subjects, to shew that they are not inconsistent, is to reconcile. St. Paul speaks of preceding works, as not meriting our first justification; St. James of works, succeeding our first, as required in order to our final justification. St. Paul says, "We conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." And is it not consonant to the voice both of reason and of conscience, that admission

to the favour of God, and the benefits of Christianity, must depend, not upon any preceding worthiness or righteousness of our own; (for then the Gospel would fail, for all are concluded under sin) but that the justification of the person baptized must proceed from the mere mercy of God? That this justification, or imputation of righteousness, should be derived through faith, is indeed what reason could not have told us beforehand; but when once revealed, it is straightway seen not to be contrary to reason. For that faith in the efficacy of the Saviour's blood should be the title of admission to the benefits of salvation purchased by his blood, is surely not contrary to reason, but rather is very agreeable to it.

ST. JAMES says, "Ye see then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” And is not this what reason and Scripture equally teach, That for the obtaining of final justification, or salvation through Christ, a bare trust alone in Christ as our Saviour is not sufficient; but that the fruits of faith, in sincerity of heart, and service of obedience, are absolutely requisite ? Is it not particularly what St. Paul himself, in this very Epistle, with heavenly wisdom brings home

*

to our conviction; when he teaches those, whose right and title to Christianity he has vindicated, that continuance in sin is inconsistent with a state of grace; (Chap. vI.) and that mortification of the deeds of the body is yet required of those, who already by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, are the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven? (Chap. VIII.)

THUS then, as we conceive, St. Paul and St. James are truly and easily reconciled. Thus also, (which was indeed the main object of this investigation) St. Paul's doctrine of "Justification by faith only, without works," is cleared of all both difficulty and danger. Both difficulty, I say, and danger :-For as long as Justification, in that proposition, is understood of our final justification; I see difficulty on the one hand, and danger on the other. What? A man to be justified without good works! Good works not to be necessary to eternal salvation! Those who conceived works to be a Gospel condition of salvation, (holding Christ however for the only meritorious cause) in order to soften the apparent difficulty of St. Paul's proposition, gave a notion

to Faith or Works contrary to their natural signification, and to the drift of St. Paul's argument. Those on the other hand who magnify Faith, and cannot allow that works should be called a condition of salvation; holding the true notion of Faith and Works, and understanding Justification, as well as the others, of our final Justification; have been driven, the most rational of them, to great perplexity of mind, and great contortion of argument; whilst they would clearly discern themselves, and explain to others, the consistency of their sense of St. Paul with the necessity of a holy life: the less learned, and more enthusiastic, in the mean time, seeing most probably neither difficulty nor danger, preach what they call St. Paul's doctrine in such a way, as to give us uneasiness, not only for the analogy of faith, but for the morality of their hearers. But the true interpretation of St. Paul's doctrine (if at least we have found the truth, whilst we sought, not certainly the establishment of any one set of doctrines, nor the reduction of Gospel truth to the standard of preconceived notions; but, with all sincerity, the solution of what seemed a real difficulty,) if, I say, we have found the true interpretation of St. Paul's doctrine of "Justification