decision of the point. That we may have a just view
of it, we shall consider,
I. The subject in dispute —
The question was, Whether the Jewish law was obligatory on the Gentiles ?
[This I say, was the original question; but it involved much more, even the whole plan of the Gospel salvation.
Many insisted that circumcision a, and the observance of the whole Mosaic lawb, were necessary to salvation. They con- tended that these were of Divine institution ; that the obser- vance of them constituted the grand line of distinction between the Lord's people, and all the rest of mankind ; and that the severest judgments were threatened for a wilful neglect of them : and consequently, that they must be obligatory on the Lord's people to the end of time. (It must be remembered, that the advocates of these opinions were not Jews, but Jewish Christians.)
On the other hand, it was maintained, that these laws were never imposed with a view to men's justification by them ; (for that Abraham was justified before even circumcision itself was ordained0:) — that to require the observance of them from the Gentiles was contrary to God's avowed design ; (since he had manifested his acceptance of them in their uncircumcised state, precisely in the same way as he had of the Jews who were circumcised d:) — that it was impossible for any man to be jus- tified by the observance of them ; (since one single deviation from them would utterly condemn hime:) — and that to blend the observance of them with the merits of Christ as a joint ground of our hope, was to invalidate the whole Gospel, and to make Christ himself of no effect to usf — ]
A question precisely similar is agitated amongst us at this day —
[Circumcision and the Jewish law are indeed, by common consent, rejected by us. But many amongst us proceed on the very same principle as those Judaizing Christians did, and make zvorks, either ceremonial or moral, the ground of their hope before God.
Some, and some of no mean name, have gone so far as to assert, that the very act of baptism saves us. Verily, if such sentiments were not expressed in terms which cannot be mis- taken, we should think it a libel to impute them to any man who calls himself a Christian, and much more to any one who would make his sentiments in theology a standard for the
a ver. 1. b ver. 5. c Rom. iv. 10, 11.
d Acts xi. 15—18. e Jam. ii. 10. f Rom. ix. 30 — o'2.