This opinion, however ill grounded, produced an effect, 1. in preventing the Jews from receiving Christianity: and 2. in corrupting the opinions of those who embraced it.

That the opinion is ill grounded, may easily be made to appear. That a partial compliance with the demands of God's moral law has nothing of merit, and makes no compensation for sin, has, we have just observed, been shown on other occasions. But if it be true of compliances with moral law, how much more obviously so of ceremonial observances. Can any person, who contemplates the nature of God, and the relation, existing between him and his intelligent offspring;-can any one, who contemplates the broad foundation of reason, which supports the law of the Almighty, imagine for a moment, that the violation of these is paid for, because a lamb is slaughtered, his blood sprinkled and poured out, part of his flesh eaten by the priests, and the rest consumed on the altar? How dishonourable such opinions are to Jehovah, may be learned from his own words: I will take no bullock out of thy house, or he goat out of thy fold. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, 1 would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?

Expiatory sacrifices were designed, as expressions of guilt, and appeals to mercy. The language of those, who had correct views on the subject, was this: For the violation of God's law I am now condemned; nor is it possible, that the guilt, thus contracted, should be annihilated. But God has appointed sacrifices, as expressions of mercy on his part; and to resort to them will be an acknowledgement of demerit on mine. Knowing myself condemned by justice, I will appeal to mercy in that manner, which has been divinely prescribed.

Widely different from these were the views of many, probably of most, in the Jewish nation. There is an essential, a radical distinction between the use of sacrifices, as an appeal to

mercy; and that by which debts are cancelled, and mercy rendered unnecessary. The latter opinion tended strongly to prevent the Jews from receiving Christianity. For, if the sacrifices, which were offered under the Mosaic establishment, were an equivalent for sin;- if the good desert, attached to them, were equal to the demerit of the moral delinquencies of those concerned, what need could there be of the sacrifice of Messiah? Why should the Son of God be slain to take away the sins of the world, if this effect could be produced by the slaughter of a common victim? If the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin, it would appear highly incredible, that Jesus Christ should have died for such a purpose. To all Jews, who embraced the opinion, which we have noticed, the doctrine of Christ, crucified for sin, must, according to the apostle's assertion, have appeared a stumbling block.

So likewise must have appeared the doctrine of gratuitous justification. If the Jew had been in the habit of supposing that he could, by prescribed sacrifices, balance accounts with his Maker, he would doubtless be disinclined to a religion, which declares in the plainest terms, "That by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified;" a religion, which represents the sinner's freedom from punishment, as the result of sovereign grace; to the prudent exercise of which grace, the sufferings of Messiah were requisite. This latter opinion would be highly offensive to that pride, to which the former would give disturbance. It will readily occur to you, that the same opinion, if retained even partially by those who embraced Christianity, would tend to produce inadequate and corrupt sentiments. It would prevent just ideas, as to the subserviency of Judaism to Christianity attributing to the one that value, honour, and efficacy, which are exclusively claimed by the other. If the Mosaic Institution did not derive its value from its relation to Christ, and yet procured justification to the sinner, thus answering the highest purpose, which can be accomplished by any religion, it was extremely natural, and not irrational for the Jewish Christian to adhere pertinaciously to the rites and sacrifices of Moses. Nor VOL. II.

4

could he, consistently with such sentiments, believe the doctrine of our Saviour's atonement.

III. We are now to consider on what condition justification is to be obtained.

On this subject, the epistles to the Romans and Galatians will permit us to entertain no doubts: Being justified by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5: 1 To him that worketh not, but belieɣeth on him, that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness, Rom. 4:5: A man is not justified by the works of the law; but by the faith of Christ, Gal. 2: 16. Such, it is declared, have in all ages, been the terms of justification. The instances of Abraham and David are distinctly mentioned. But faith, you will recollect, when connected with justification, comprehends something more, than an exercise of the understanding. The character, that is, feelings of the heart, must correspond with those divine truths, to which the understanding gives assent. We are by no means to consider faith, as the ground, or meritorious cause of justification. This would be just as absurd, as the opinion, that obedience in some particulars merits absolution for disobedience in others. The sufferings of Christ are the ground of the sinner's justification; and faith is the condition of our being interested in the blessings, which they procure. By him, that is, by Christ, they who believe, are justified from those things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Mo

ses.

This state of heart, which is denominated faith, must have a beginning. At the first moment of its existence, the person possessing it, is justified.

In this faith is implied, as you will readily perceive, a disposition to the performance of good works. But a Christian's justification is not suspended until such manifestation of his faith is made. If, at the first monent of believing, he be in a desert, far from every object, to which his charity might be shown, and he should there die, he would still die in a justified state, and be treated accordingly. In this case, his faith is

manifest to God; and would be so to men, were opportunities presented. The only difference between this Christian and another, whose works testify to his faith, consists not in moral qualities, but in external circumstances, which are beyond his control. Therefore, in view of Deity they are equally acceptable. To suppose a distinction, resting on such ground, is dishonorable to the divine impartiality.

It remains, that we notice a seeming discrepancy between the opinion of Paul and that of James, on the subject of justification. The former teaches, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, and that the faith of him, who worketh not, but believeth on him, that justifieth the ungodly, is counted to him for righteousness. The latter teaches that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. We know that truth is always consistent with itself: and, if the words, used by two inspired writers, disagree, these words cannot be used by both in the same sense.

The meaning of Paul is, that a man is justified agreeably to the Gospel system, without performing the works and ceremonies of the Mosaic law; and in this is implied, that men are justified by the exercise of evangelical faith, without that perfect obedience, which is the only ground of legal justification.

Now this doctrine is not impugned by James. He treats of a very different subject. He is writing of those, who thought themselves sure of justification, barely on account of the intellectual assent to the Gospel, without correspondent feelings of heart, or actions of life. He affirms, that the devils believe, and that therefore, simply a belief cannot be effectual. Surely St. Paul did not contradict this. St. James moreover shows, that they who, in former ages, were justified by faith, had works attending it: they had an operative, influential faith. Of this, Abraham was an example, whose faith produced correspondent actions.

James never taught that sinners could obtain legal justification; that they could be pronounced pure, or by any future obedience, make atonement for sins, already committed. Nor

did St. Paul teach, that an intellectual assent to Christianity, without corresponding dispositions of heart, or a readiness to do good works, when opportunities occur, was the condition, on which any sinner could be justified. By faith, Paul means either the Christian religion, or the evangelical temper, which it demands. By faith, James means barely a belief that the Gospel is true. By works, Paul means works in fulfilment of law. By the same term, James means works in obedience to the Gospel.

Some divines are of the opinion, that James treats not of the conditions on which persons are justified; but of the manner in which their justification is made known, and that his arguing amounts to this. Faith cannot be exhibited, or proved to the

world without works.

It is probable, that no person ever thought this the most obvious meaning of the passage. No one, it is presumed, would adopt the interpretation, were it not for the sake of avoiding supposed ill consequences. Now, if the preceding observations are true, no ill consequences are to be apprehended. The apostle James is perfectly consistent with himself; and equally so with St. Paul. But against the interpretation, of which we speak, strong objections may be urged.

1. The apostle is speaking of the justification of persons, and not of the justification or exhibition of faith. He does not say, that faith is not; but that a man is not justified without works.

2. The original word, which is translated justify, is no where in the New Testament used simply to signify exhibit, or manifest.

3. We can hardly conceive it possible, that it should ever have been made a question, whether faith is to be manifested, or exhibited, by the performance, or by the omission of good works.

But if a person is justified by faith, at the moment, when this faith, or holiness of heart, commences, though he be in solitude, as has been asserted in the present lecture, how, it may be asked, can this be reconciled with that declaration of James,