with power, 'till you arrive without spot and blameless, before the throne of your sovereign and righteous Judge.

That you may thus be directed safe amidst all the snares and delusions in your way, is the prayer of, Sir,

Yours, &c.

LETTER XIV.

THE APOSTLE JAMES'S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS, IN HIS SECOND CHAPTER, DISTINCTLY REVIEWED, AND SET IN ITS GENUINE LIGHT, BY A COMPARISON WITH THE APOSTLE PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

SIR-You" acknowledge, that if it were not for one difficulty in your way, you should think the evidence offered against the doctrine you have proposed, must be conclusive: but you do not know how to give into a scheme, that is not only expressly contradicted, but particularly refuted, in the word of God. The apostle Paul (you say) does indeed seem to speak in favour of my principles: but he ought to be interpreted by the apostle James, who expressly rejects my interpretation of St. Paul's discourses on the subject before us. What appearance therefore soever there may be, in favour of my principles, in St. Paul's epistles, these must not be understood in direct contradiction to the express declarations of another inspired writer. You therefore desire me to show, how it is possible to reconcile my scheme with the doctrine of St. James, in the second chapter of his epistle, from the fourteenth verse to the end."

If this be all your remaining difficulty, I hope it will not prove a hard matter to give you full satisfaction, that the doctrine of the apostle James in the place referred to, is no ways inconsistent with the

doctrine of our justification by faith, so plainly and fully taught by the apostle Paul in all his epistles; and therefore, that our justification by works (in the sense that I oppose it) has no foundation at all in the whole word of God.

That this may be set in a proper light, there are two or three things necessary to be premised, and distinctly considered, previous to a direct and immediate view of the consistency and concurrence of these two apostles, in the doctrine of a sinner's justification. by faith, notwithstanding their seeming disagreement and repugnancy.

It should first be premised, that these two apostles must be understood in such a sense, as will make them consistent. We must take this for a principle, that whatever becomes of our schemes, on one side or the other, the Spirit of God cannot be inconsistent with himself, nor teach contrary doctrines. That interpretation therefore must be right, which will make them consistent; and that must be rejected, which sets them at variance, and makes their doctrines utterly irreconcilable.

It should be likewise premised, that the apostle James must be understood in such a sense, as will make him consistent with himself. We may not suppose, that he teaches such a doctrine in this part of the second chapter, as is repugnant to the doctrine which he himself teaches elsewhere, in the same epistle. Let us then see if we cannot find the doctrine I am pleading for, taught in this very epistle of James. Particularly in chap. i. 5, 6, 7: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth, is like a wave of the sea, driven of the wind, and tossed. 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 re

jected; then we are justified by faith, and not by works. For it is undoubtedly true, that what justifies our obedience, and renders that acceptable to God, does likewise justify our persons, and render them acceptable to him. And our works can have no hand in justifying our persons, if our works themselves are justified by faith; but condemned and rejected without it, as the apostle 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, if spiritual wisdom, or practical holiness, be the fruit and effect of faith (as we are told that it is, in the quoted text) then our justification and acceptance with God (by which we do, and without which we cannot obtain the divine influences to our progressive sanctification) is by faith, and not by works. I think no man will pretend, that we are so acceptable to God, as to obtain his sanctifying influences, in a progress of wisdom and grace, before we are justified: or that we are sanctified by faith, and justified by works. Whence it follows, that faith is the mean or term of our justification, because it is the mean or term of our sanctification; and that a holy life cannot be the condition of our acceptance with God, because it is the consequence and fruit of that faith, by which we find acceptance with him.

Another text to the same purpose, we find, in chap. ii. 5, "Hearken my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which God hath promised to them that love him?" It might be read, Hath not God chosen the poor to be rich, (as a similar phrase is translated, Rom. viii. 29,) to be rich with or by faith, and heirs. Does not this plainly teach us, that as the end of God's choosing the poor, was that they might be spiritually rich, so that it is faith which enriches them, and constitutes 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 source 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. These texts must therefore be remembered in our explication of the context you refer to, that we may not represent the apostle as teaching contradictions or inconsistencies.

It must also be premised, that we should understand the reasonings and conclusions of the two apostles, Paul and James, according to the professed scope and design of their discourses, and according to the subject they are professedly treating upon: and we should consider the expressions they each of them use upon the point in view, not as words occasionally and transiently spoken; but as what relate to, and are connected with, the subject matter professedly undertaken to be explained. This must be always allowed to be a natural and rational rule, which ought to be strictly adhered to, in the interpretation of Scripture. Now, then, let us look a little into this case; and see if we do not find the scope and design of these two apostles very different, where they speak so very differently of justification by faith and by works.

Paul designedly handles this question,-How a guilty, condemned, and convinced sinner shall get reconciled to God, find acceptance with him, and have a title to the heavenly inheritance? He treats of such "who are under sin, whose mouths must be stopped, who are all become guilty before God; and who have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God," Rom. iii. 9, 19, 23. He considers the impossibility 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 sinners, and remain under guilt. This is the plain and manifest scope of the two first and part of the third chapters to the Romans. He thence proceeds to show in which way, and which only, they may hope for acceptance with God, in the remaining part of the third, and in the following chapters of that epistle. This cannot be by the deeds of the law.

But it must be "by the righteousness of God without the law, by the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ;" and " by faith without the deeds of the law," v. 21, 22, 28. This is the subject, that the Apostle Paul keeps constantly in view, in his epistle to the Romans and Galatians.

But then on the contrary, the apostle James designedly handles this question, whether careless licentious professors of Christianity may presume upon their obtaining salvation, from their doctrinal faith, or from their notional and historical assent to the truth of the Gospel? And thence he takes occasion distinctly to consider, which way a Christian's faith may be justified, his profession vindicated and evidenced to be sincere and true. He discourses of "a man that saith he hath faith, and hath not works, (v. 14,) of one that hath a faith without charity, (v. 15, 16,) of "a faith that hath not works, but is dead being alone," (v. 17,) a faith, that is but like a body without spirit, or a carcase without breath, (v. 26.)

These are the respective questions handled by these two apostles; and their answers are adapted to the subjects professedly handled by them. They give the very same answers to each of these questions, that a judicious Calvinist divine would now give. Should an awakened sinner, under a sense of his guilt and danger, inquire of one of our divines, how he may obtain a pardon of his sins, a reconciliation to God, and a title to eternal life, would he not answer, with the apostle Paul, that he must "seek righteousness by faith, and not as it were by the works of the law:" for "by the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in his sight:" that he must "be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." But then, on the other hand, should any vain professor, that turns the grace of God into wantonness, yet say that he has faith, and flatter himself with salvation, from his historical doctrinal belief of the gospel, while living a careless and sensual life; would