the other, the Spirit of God cannot be inconfiftent with himself, nor teach contrary doctrines.-That interpretation therefore must be right, which will make them confiftent; and that must be rejected, which fets them at variance, and makes their doc trines utterly irreconcilable.

It fhould be likewife premifed, that the Apoftle James must be understood in fuch a fenfe as will make him confiftent with himself. We may not fuppofe, that he teaches fuch a doctrine, in this part of the fecond chapter, as is repugnant to the doctrine which he himself teaches elsewhere, in the fame Epiftle. Let us then fee if we cannot find the doctrine I am pleading for taught in this very Epiftle of James, particularly in chap. i. ver. 5, 6, 7. If any of you lack wifdom, let him afk of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it hall be given him. But let him afk in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth, is like a wave of the fea, driven of the wind, and toffed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. From whence I argue, if faith be the way to divine acceptance and audience of our prayers, the means by which our duties will find a gracious reception with God, and without which they will be rejected, then we are justified by faith, and not by works. For it is undoubtedly true, that what juftifies our obedience, and renders that acceptable to God, does likewife juftify our perfons, and ren. der them acceptable to him. And our works can have no hand in justifying our persons, if our works themselves are juftified by faith; but condemned and rejected without it, as the Apoftle teaches us in the cited text. So we learn from chap. v. 15, 16. that the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man, is the prayer of faith.

Moreover,

Moreover, if fpiritual wisdom, or practical holiness, be the fruit and effect of faith, (as we are told that it is in the quoted text), then our juftification and acceptance with God (by which we do, and without which we cannot obtain the divine influ. ences to our progreffive fanctification) is by faith, and not by works. I think no man will pretend, that we are fo acceptable to God, as to obtain his fanctifying influences, in a progrefs of wisdom and grace, before we are juftified; or that we are fanc tified by faith, and juftified by works. Whence it follows, that faith is the mean or term of our juftification, because it is the mean or term of our fanctification; and that a holy life cannot be the condition of our acceptance with God, because it is the confequence and fruit of that faith by which we find acceptance with him.

Another text to the fame purpose we find in chap. ii. 5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chofen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which God hath promifed to them that love him?-It might be read, Hath not God chofen the poor-to be rich, (as a fimilar phrafe is tranflated, Rom. viii. 29.), to be rich with or by faith, and heirs.-Does it not plainly teach us, that as the end of God's chufing the poor was, that they might be fpiritually rich? fo that it is faith which enriches them, and conftitutes them heirs of the kingdom. And you will readily own, that if we are heirs of the kingdom by faith, we are justified by faith.—— The kingdom is prepared for them that love God; and faith is the fource of that love to God, by which we are qualified for the kingdom. Faith worketh by love, Gal. v. 6. and therefore faith is the term or medium of our acceptance with God and title to the kingdom.-Thefe texts must therefore be remembered in our explication of the context you re

fer

fer to, that we may not represent the Apostle as teaching contradictions or inconfiftencies.

It must also be premised, that we should underftand the reasonings and conclufions of the two Apoftles Paul and James, according to the professed Scope and defign of their discourses, and according to the fubject they are profeffedly treating upon And we should confider the expreffions they each of them ufe upon the point in view, not as words occafion. ally and tranfiently fpoken; but as what relate to, and are connected with, the subject-matter profeffedly undertaken to be explained.-This must be always allowed to be a natural and rational rule, which ought to be ftrictly adhered to in the interpretation of Scripture.--Now then, let us look a little into this cafe, and fee if we do not find the fcope and defign of these two Apoftles very different, where they speak fo very differently of justification by faith and by works.

Paul defignedly handles this question, How a guilty, condemned and convinced finner fhall get reconciled to God, find acceptance with him, and have a title to the heavenly inheritance?-He treats of fuch who are under fin, whofe mouths must be flopped, who are all become guilty before God, and who have all finned, and come short of the glory of God, Rom. iii. 9. 19. 23. He confiders the impoffibility in the nature of the thing, that such as these can be justified by works; because when they have done all they can do, they yet in their highest attainments continue finners, and remain under guilt. This is the plain and manifeft fcope of the two firft, and part of the third chapters to the Romans. thence proceeds to fhew, which way, and which only, they may hope for acceptance with God, in the remaining part of the third, and in the follow. ing chapters of that Epiftle. This cannot be by the deeds

He

deeds of the law. Therefore by the deeds of the law Shall no flesh be justified in his fight, chap. iii. 20. But it must be by the righteousness of God without the law; by the righteoufnefs of God by faith of Jefus Chrift; and by faith, without the deeds of the law, ver. 21, 22. 28.—This is the subject that the Apostle Paul keeps conftantly in view, in his Epiftle to the Romans and Galatians.

But then, on the contrary, the Apostle James defignedly handles this queftion, Whether careless, licentious profeffors of Christianity may prefume up. on their obtaining falvation from their doctrinal faith, or from their notional and hiftorical affent to the truth of the gofpel? and thence he takes occafion diftinctly to confider, which way a Christian's faith may be justified, his profeffion vindicated and, evidenced to be fincere and true. He difcourfes of a man that faith he hath faith, and hath not works, ver. 14.; of one that hath a faith without charity, ver. 15, 16.; of a faith that hath not works, but is dead, being alone, ver. 17.; a faith that is but like a body without fpirit, or a carcale without breath, ver. 26.

These are the respective questions handled by thefe two Apoftles; and their anfwers are adapted to the fubjects profeffedly handled by them. They give the very fame answers to each of these queitions, that a judicious Calvinist divine would now give. Should an awakened finner, under a sense of his guilt and danger, inquire of one of our divines, how he may obtain a pardon of his fins, a reconciliation to God, and a title to eternal life? Would he not answer with the Apostle Paul, that he must feek righteoufnefs by faith, and not as it were by the works of the law: for by the deeds of the law no flesh Shall be juftified in his fight: that he must be found in Chrift, not having his own righteousness, which is of

the

the law, but that which is through the faith of Chrift, the righteoufnefs which is of God by faith-But then, on the other hand, fhould any vain profeffor, that turns the grace of God into wantonness, yet fay that he has faith, and flatter himself with falvation from his hiftorical or doctrinal belief of the gofpel, while living a careless and fenfual life; would he not be told, in the language of the Apostle James, that fuch a faith will not fave him; that the very de vils have fuch a faith as well as he; that faith without works is a dead faith, and but a carcafe without breath; that he muft have works to justify his pretence to faith, and must shew his faith by his works, or his hopes are vain, and he a vain man to enter. tain fuch hopes? Now, what fhadow of dif agreement would appear in thefe different anfwers to fuch very different fubjects in question?

After this view of the cafe, it is now to be confidered, from which of thefe Apoftles we may expect to have the doctrine of a finner's juftification before God explained and fet in its proper light: Whether from him who is purpofely handling this fubject, or from him who is not purpofely handling this matter, but treating on a very different fubject? This is an inquiry very easily answered; and being answered, the whole difficulty vanishes of courfe.

:

These things being premifed, I proceed to confider the fubject before us more directly and particularly And by taking notice of the doctrines refpectively taught by thefe Apostles, fhall endeavour to fhew you, that there is no difagreement at all between them, nor any thing at all in this difcourfe of the Apostle James, which you refer to, that is in the leaft repugnant to our juftification by faith, without works of righteoufnefs done by us.