reftoration of his image in us, we are obliged to endeavour after all that holiness and righteousness which the law requires.

3. The Apoftle anfwereth this objection, by fhewing the neceffary relation that faith hath unto the death of Chrift, and the grace of God; with the nature of fanctification, the excellency, ufe and advantage of gofpel holiness, and the end of it, in God's appointment. This he doth at large in the whole fixth chapter of his epiftle to the Romans, and with the express design of fhewing the confftency of Juftification by faith alone, with the neceffity of perfonal righteoufnefs and holinefs. I fhall only say, that thofe, to whom the reasons and motives therein expreffed, are not effectual to their own perfonal obedience, are fo unacquainted with the gofpel, the nature of faith, the genius and inclinations of the new creature, the constraining efficacy of the grace of God and love of Chrift, and the economy of God in the disposition of the causes and means of our falvation, that I shall never trouble myself to contend with them about these things.

CHAP. XXIII.

The Doctrine of the Apostle James concerning Faith and Works; and its Agreement with that of St. Paul.

THE seeming difference, between the Apoftles Paul

and James, in what they teach concerning Faith, Works and Juftification, requires fome confideration; for many take advantage from fome expreffions of the latter, directly to oppose the doctrine fully and plainly declared by the former. This hath been fo fatisfactori

ly

1

ly answered by others, that I should wholly omit speak-. ing any thing of it here, but that it will probably be expected in a difcourfe on this fubject; and I hope I may contribute fome light unto the clearing and vindication of the truth. To this purpose it may be observed,

1. That it is taken for granted, on all hands, that there is no real contradiction between the two Apostles ; if there were, the writings of one of them must be falfely afcribed to the author whofe name they bear, and be uncanonical; and indeed the authority of the epiftle of James hath, both formerly and lately, been highly, but rafhly, queftioned. Wherefore, their expreffions are certainly capable of a just reconciliation.

2. It is also taken for granted, on all other occafions, that when there is an appearance of contradiction between any places of Scripture, if any of them treat directly, defignedly, and largely of the matter in queftion; and others speak of it only tranfiently or occafionally in order to other ends, then the truth is to be learned from the former places. And there is not a more rational and natural rule of interpreting Scripture, among all thofe which are, by common confent, agreed upon.

3. According to this rule, it is unquestionable, that the doctrine of Juftification before God is to be learned from the writings of the Apostle Paul; especially confidering how exactly it reprefents the whole scope of the Scripture, and is witneffed to by particular teftimonies without number, occafionally given to the fame truth. It must be acknowledged, that he wrote on this fubject, on purpose to declare it for its own fake, and its use in. the Church; and that he doth it fully, largely, and frequently, in a constant harmony of expreffions.

As to what is delivered by the Apostle James, fo far as our Juftification is included therein, things are quite otherwife. He doth not undertake to declare the doctrine of our Juftification before God, but having ano

S 2

ther

ther defign in hand, he vindicates it from the abuse that fome in those days had put it unto. Wherefore it is from the writings of St. Paul chiefly, that we are to learn the truth in this matter; and, to what is by him plainly declared, the interpretation of other places is to be accommodated.

4. Some of late are of another mind, and contend that Paul is to be interpreted by James; for, they tell us, the writings of Paul are obfcure; that many take occafion of errors from them; and that James, writing after him, is presumed to give an interpretation to his fayings, which are therefore to be understood accordingly.

(1.) As to the vindication of St. Paul's writings, which now begin to be feverely reflected on, (which is one effect of the fecret prevalence of modern Atheisin) it is unneceffary: He needs not the teftimony of men, nor of the whole church together, whofe fecurity it is to be built on the doctrine he taught.

(2.) This was not the judgment of the ancient church for three or four hundred years; for while the Epiftles of Paul were always esteemed the principal treasure of the church; the great guide and rule of the christian faith; this epiftle of James was scarce

received

* I wonder how any persons, pretending the least acquaintance with antiquity, can plead a paffage out of Irenæus, wherein he was evidently mistaken, or a rafh word of Origen, in derogation from the perfpicuity of the writings of the Apostle; when they cannot but know how easy it were to overwhelm them with teftimonies to the contrary, from all the famous writers of the church in feveral ages. Chryfoftome, for instance, in forty places, accounts for it why fome men understood not his writings, which in themselves were fo glorioufly evident and perfpicuous. (See his Preface to his Expofition of his Epiftles.) It is alfo worth notice how thofe, who agree in their diflike of his writings, differ in their accounts of them. Some will have it, that most of his Epiftles were written against the Gnostics; others, that the Gnoftics took the occafion of their errors from his. writings. So bold will men make with things divine to fatisfy a prefent intereft.

received as canonical, by many, and doubted of by the moft, as both Eufebius and Jerom testify.

(3.) The defign of the Apostle James is not at all to explain the meaning of Paul, as is pretended; but only to vindicate the doctrine of the Gospel from the abuse of fuch as used their liberty for a cloak of maliciousnefs," and continued in fin under a pretence that grace had abounded to that end.

(4.) The Apoftle bimfelf, vindicates his own doctrine from fuch exceptions and abufes as men made to it, or turned it unto. Nor have we any other doctrine in his epiftles than that he preached all the world over, and whereby he laid the foundation of the Chriftian religion among the Gentiles.

I fhall now proceed to fhew that there is not the leaft contradiction between the two Apostles in this matter; and this I fhall do,

I. By fome general confiderations of the defign and tendency of both their difcourfes; and,

II. By a particular explication of the context in that of St. James.

I. I fhall give fome general confiderations of the defign of both their difcourfes; and here I fhall fhewThat they have not the fame fcope-That they speak not of the fame faith-That they speak not of Juftification in the fame fenfe, and-That, as to works, they both intend works of obedience to the moral law.

1. As to their scope and defign. That of St. Paul, in all his writings, and particularly in his epiftles to the Romans and Galatians, is to declare how a guilty convinced finner may obtain, through faith in the blood of Chrift, the pardon of all his fins, acceptance with God, and a right to the heavenly inheritance. The doctrine hereof belonging eminently to the

Gofpel, the publication of which to the Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed to him, he had a special reafon to infift much upon it, from the oppofition made to it by Jews, and judaizing chriftians, who afcribed Juftification to the law.

The apostle James had no fuch defign. He doth not inquire how a guilty finner may be juftified in the fight of God; his intention was totally different. For, as we have faid, there were many perfons in those days profeffing the chriftian religion, who thereon prefumed that they were already juftified, and that nothing more was needful to their being faved. Some think they imbibed this poisonous tenet from Simon Magus and his followers; but more probably it was merely the corruption of their own hearts and lives that prompted them to feek after fuch a countenance to fin. Such a fort of profeffors the world still swarms with, who suppose that their faith, or the religion they profefs, be it what it may, will fave them, though they live in flagitious wickedness, and are utterly barren as to the duties of obedience. The defign, therefore, of the Apostle, was to prove the neceflity of works to all who profefs the Gofpel; and to evince the vanity of their pretence to Juftification, by that faith which was fo far from being fruitful in good works, that it was pretended by them only as a cloak for fin.

The defign, then, of the Apoftles being fo diftant, there is no contradiction in their affertions; though their words make an appearance thereof. James doth not once inquire how a guilty finner may be justified before God, and Paul fpeaks to nothing else.

2. They speak not of the fame faith. We have before proved, that there are two forts of faith; and none I fuppofe will deny that by faith in the matter of our Juftification, St. Paul intends-the faith of God's elect the faith that purifieth the heart, and works by love; the faith whereby Chrift dwelleth in us, and we in him :

but