Secondly, This was not the judgment of the ancient church for
PAUL AND JAMES RECONCILED. 387
three or four huncU'ed years ; for whereas the epistles of Paul were always esteemed the principal treasure of the church, the great guide and rule of the Christian faith, this of James was scarce received as canonical by many, and doubted of by the most, as both Eusebius and Jerome do testify.
Thirdly, The design of the apostle James is not at all to explain the meaning of Paul in his epistles, as is pretended ; but only to vin- dicate the doctrine of the gospel from the abuse of such as used their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, and, turning the gTace of God into lasciviousness, continued in sin, under a pretence that gi'ace had abounded unto that end.
Fourthly, The apostle Paul doth himself, as we have declared, vindicate his own doctrine from such exceptions and abuses as men either made at it, or turned it into. Nor have we any other doc- trine in his epistles than what he preached all the world over, and whereby he laid the foundation of Christian religion, especially among the Gentiles.
These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that there is not the least repugnancy or contradiction between what is declared by these two apostles as unto our justification, with the causes of it. And this I shall do, — 1. By some general considerations of the nature and tendency of both their discourses. 2. By a particular explication of the context in that of St James. And under the first head I shall manifest, — (1.) That they have not the same scope, design, or end, in their discourses; that they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor deteraiine on the same inquiry ; and therefore, not speaking " ad idem," unto the same thing, do not contradict one another. (2.) That as faith is a word of various signification in the Scripture, and doth, as we have proved before, denote that which is of diverse kinds, they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same kind ; and therefore there can be no con- tradiction in what the one ascribes unto it and the other derogates from it, seeing they speak not of the same faith. (3.) That they do not speak of justification in the same sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4.) That as unto works, they both intend the same, — namely, the works of obedience unto the moral law.
(1.) As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul, the question which he auswereth, the case which he proposeth and determines upon, are manifest in all his writings, especially his Epistles unto the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is, to declare how a guilty, convinced sinner comes, through faith in the blood of Christ, to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right unto the heavenly inheritance ; that is, be acquitted and justi- fied in the sight of God. And as the doctrine hereof belonged emi-
388 ON JUSTIFICATION.
nently unto the gospel, Avhose revelation and declaration unto the Gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed unto him; so, as we have newly observed, he had an especial reason to insist much upon it from the opposition that was made unto it by the Jews and judaiz- ing Christians, who ascribed this privilege unto the law, and our own works of obedience in compliance therewithal. This is the case he states, this the question he determines, in all his discourses about justification; and in the explication thereof declares the nature and causes of it, as also vindicates it from all exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds, and willing to indulge unto their lusts (as all men naturally desire nothing but what God hath made eternally inconsistent, — namely, that they may live in sin here, and come to blessedness hereafter), might conclude that if it were so as he declared, that we are justified freely, through the grace of God, by the imputa- tion of a righteousness that originally and inherently is not our own, then was there no more required of us, no relinquishment of sin, no attendance unto the duties of righteousness and holiness; he ob- viates such impious suggestions, and shows the inconsequence of them on the doctrine that he taught. But this he doth not do in any place by intimating or granting that our own works of obedience or righte- ousness are necessary unto, or have any causal influence into, our justification before God. Had there been a truth herein, were not a supposition thereof really inconsistent with the whole of his doctrine, and destructive of it, he would not have omitted the plea of it, nor ought so to have done, as we have showed. And to suppose that there was need that any other should explain and vindicate his doc- trine from the same exceptions which he takes notice of, by such a plea as he himself would not make use of, but rejects, is foolish and impious.
The apostle James, on the other hand, had no such scope or de- sign, or any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter. He doth not inquire, or give intimation of any such inquiry; he doth not state the case how a guilty, convinced sinner, whose mouth is stopped as unto any plea or excuse for himself, may come to be justified in the sight of God; that is, receive the pardon of sins and the gift of righteousness unto life. To resolve this question into our own works, is to overthrow the whole gospel. But he had in hand a business quite of another nature ; for, as we have said, there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion, or faith in the gos- pel, whereon they presumed that as they were already justified, so there was nothing more needful imto them that they might be saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained, suited unto all the interest of the flesh, whereby they might live in sin and neglect of all duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved. Some