Works

Front matter

HAllMONIA APOSTOLICA.

OXFORD : PRINTED BY I. SHBIMPTON.

HARMONIA APOSTOLICA:

Chap. I

The sense of St. James expounded — what the word * justify' signifies in the New Testament ; shewn by many proofs, that this word is used in its judicial sense, meaning to pronounce, or determine, to be innocent — The particle ' by,' in St. James, signifies only the indispensable cause, or preceding condition.

Chap. II

The conclusion of St. James corroborated ; first, by proofs drawn from Scripture, of which there are two divisions : one, of those passages which speak in general terms of obedience as necessary to justification: the other, of those which require works of repentance in particular. — An objection of our adversaries answered. — Faith and repentance of the same importance in the process of justification, both only conditions or moral instruments. — What peculiar faith is that, to which the sacred Scriptures ascribe so much? — On what account does faith so much excel all other virtues ?

Chap. III

A second proof drawn from the nature of justification. — Justification includes three things, the judge, the accused, and the law — What law that is by which we shall be condemned or acquitted, shewn. — Hence an argument deduced.

Xll CONTENTS.

Chap. IV

The third argument from the nature of faith. — The three acts into which faith is divided by divines, considered (knowledge, consent, confidence.) — That justification is not necessarily connected with any of these, proved.

Chap. V

The fourth argument taken from the proceedings of God in the last judgment. — The judgment of God in the next world will in every respect correspond with the Divine justification in this. — Our works in that judgment regarded not as mere signs of faith, but as a very principal part of the condition prescribed in the Gospel covenant.

Chap. VI

The fifth and last argument, drawn from the implicit confession of our adversaries.— Two facts unanimously allowed by reformed divines ; first, that the faith which justifies should be a living faith, that is, productive of good works. Secondly, that good works are undeniably necessary to salvation. — The necessity of good works to justification, shewn from both these points.

DISSERTATION II.

Chap. I

The various schemes of divines for reconciling St. James and St. Paul. — Those who suppose St. James to speak of the justification of man's faith before other men, and not before God, refuted.

Chap. II

Their opinion considered, who suppose St. Paul to speak of a true and lively faith, but St. James of a false and feigned one. — This overturned by various arguments, and the objections of this party answered.

Chap. III

The third opinion considered is theirs who, to reconcile St. James and St. Paul, divide justification into the first and second. — It is shortly proved, that this opinion is both false, and also repugnant to the reasoning of the Apostles. — The same shewn of the opinion of Placaeus concerning the twofold accusation, from which we are freed in justification.

CONTENTS. XIU

Chap. IV

The true method of removing this difficulty. — St. Paul to be interpreted from St. James, and not St. James from St. Paul. — St. Paul uses the words faith and works with different meanings. — What he means by faith. — That with him faith is all the obedience required by the Gospel, clearly argued and proved. — The contrary opinion of Grotius refuted.

Chap. V

Faith is used for all the obedience which the Gospel requires, because it is the beginning and root of all Gospel righteousness; Rom. x. 11. compared with verses 13, 14, and explained. — For nearly the same reason all piety is called knowledge in the Holy Scriptures. — The reason why St. Paul, describing the conditions required on our parts unto salvation, makes so frequent use of this word, further investigated. — Chiefly on two accounts ; first, to express the easy performance of the condition ; secondly, to take away all merit.

Chap. VI

What St. Paul means by works. — It is shewn from what has been said, — that he does not speak of every work, but those of a certain kind, those namely of the Mosaic law. — This proved from St. Paul's words, both in his Epistle to the Romans and that to the Galatians. — In the next place St. Paul so opposes the Mosaic law as also to refute the Jewish additions to it. — Lastly, since he had also to contend with the Gentile philosophers, he by the way disputes against the works of the natural law, works done by the mere force of nature.

Chap. VII

The arguments by which St. Paul rejects the Mosaic law from justification explained.— The Apostle's argument alTects those precepts of the law which are called moral, but only so far as they form part of the conditions prescribed in the Mosaic covenant — Hence the arguments must be divided into two kinds, those which include the whole law, and those which refer to the ritual part of it only. — The first argument which relates to the whole law of Moses is taken from its want of pardoning grace, or of remission of sins.— Whether the law of Moses under any view of it can be deemed a law of entirely perfect obedience ? — Does the reasoning of the Apostle in Romans, chapter iii. ver. 20; and Galatians, chapter iii. ver. 10, depend on this idea? — This question answered in the negative. — Arguments to the contrary answered.

XIV CONTENTS.

Chap. VIII

The true sources of the Apostle's argument laid open, which are two ; first, that Jews as well as Gentiles indiscriminately, and all of every nation, have been guilty of great sins, and therefore subject to the judgment and anger of God ; secondly, that in the law of Moses there is no promise of true and perfect remission of sins, or of freedom from the anger of God, and eternal death, due to sin. — Hence is shewn in what manner the Apostle deduces his conclusion.

Chap. IX

The second argimient of the Apostle, taken from the weakness of the law, or its

want of aiding grace. — Certain passages to that purpose produced The

seventh chapter of the Romans explained. — That St. Paul is there speaking of man under the law, and not assisted by the grace of the Gospel, clearly shewn. — Arguments to the contrary answered. — Gal. v. 17. explained.

Chap. X

The Apostle's argument taken from the weakness of the law more distinctly explained. — The law wanted a double assistance, both the promise of eternal

life and the gift of the Holy Spirit Of what consequence was the first

defect — Some passages on this head produced. — Four difficulties on this subject removed.

Chap. XI

The other weakness of the Mosaic law, — that it had not the gift of the Holy Spirit — Some passages proving this explained. — Two questions arising from

this subject answered It is shewn that the Ap'ostle defends justification by

the Gospel, in opposition to that of the law, by a ** demonstrative" argument taken from the evident gifts of the Holy Spirit, which in the early Church every where followed a belief in the Gospel. Hence light is thrown on that common observation of Grotius, that in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is put after faith.

Chap. XII

Two deductions from what has been said in the three foregoing chapters concerning the weakness of the law. — The first of which is, that the Apostle entirely excludes from justification only those works which are performed by the aid of the Mosaic, and (consequently) of the natural law, without the grace of the Gospel. — This proved by a threefold argument from the very Epistles of St. Paul. — Three arguments of Parseus to the contrary, so answered as to throw still stronger light upon the above deductions.

CONTENTS. XV

Chap. XIII

Another consequence drawn from the Apostle's argument concerning the weakness of the law, namely, that so far from taking from justification the necessity of good works, St. Paul's object is to prove that the true righteousness of works is absolutely necessary to justification, and that the Gospel is the only efiicacious means by which any one can be brought to practise such righteousness. — Some passages to this effect shewn. — The principal difference between the law and the Gospel pointed out.

Chap. XIV

Some passages pointed out in which the Apostle opposes the ritual law especially. — He so rejects the external and ritual observance of the law from justification, that in its place he substitutes the internal and spiritual righteousness of the Gospel. — Hence an invincible argument against the Solifidians.

Chap. XV

(Page 169.) Certain Jewish opinions concerning the manner of obtaining justification and salvation attacked by St. Paul, are noted. — Their first error consisted in attributing either too much strength and liberty to the human will, or at least in an ignorance of the necessity of the Divine grace. — This shewn from the Rabbins and Josephus himself. — A remarkable passage of St. James, chap. i. ver. 13. and 14, illustrated.

Chap. XVI

The second error of the Jews in placing the hope of their salvation in that civil righteousness, which was confirmed in the law by definite punishments. — Hence it happened that they lived in an obedience, either negative or external, or at the most, partial and defective. — Each of these shewn and proved from Holy Scripture, and the writings of the Hebrews.

Chap. XVII

A third error of the Jews, principally of the Pharisees, that they attached much righteousness to certain traditional rites and customs, and preferred them to the chief commands of God.— The fourth and last error was, that, content with this false righteousness, they did not think of the Messiah, who would give them a better righteousness. — Lastly, from this description of Jewish opinions, four observations are drawn of great use to the right understanding of St. Paul.

XVI CONTENTS.

Chap. XVIII

The conclusion ; containing an epitome of the whole work, with a serious admonition to the reader diligently to guard against four errors in this controversy concerning justification.

HARMONIA APOSTOLICA.

FIRST DISSERTATION

ST. JAMES CHAP. 2. VER. 24.

YE 6EE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY."

I

Introduction

DIFFICULTY OF THii UNDEBTAKING METHOD TO BE PURSUED.

§ 1. Although all^ wlio are truly called Christians, fully intrqd allow both the infallible authority of Scripture, and the most perfect harmony of its parts; still, unhappily, it too often occurs that no few apparent contradictions and almost inextricable difficulties are found in that Sacred Volume. Whether this be owing to the sublimity of the subject, or the singularity of its style, to our ignorance of the opinions and customs of those to whom no small part of Scripture was necessarily addressed (customs which by so very long an interval are almost entirely obliterated), to our own dulness in understanding, or negligence in studying the Holy Scriptures, or, in short, to all these taken together, or to whatever other cause, is not now our intention to enquire. The fact and its consequences we are obliged to perceive and to lament.

§ 2. But, from a great number of Scripture texts, in appearance, at least, contradicting others, you will scarcely find one which has so much exercised the understandings of divines, as the passage of St. James now before us. What minute distinctions, ingenious devices and contrivances, have (r6<pa (pdpinterpreters used to reconcile this concluvsion of St. James '*"''"' with the Epistles of St. Paul ! They have indeed made a most important attempt ; for this apparent contradiction does not relate to a matter of fact, or history, but to an article of the Christian Faith of the greatest consequence. In general, however, they have laboured in vain; and promising the brightness of noon, they have spread over the Epistles of St. James and St. Paul clouds and thick darkness ; but what is most to be lamented, they have involved the doctrine of justification itself, which before was sufficiently easy and plain, in so many distinctions and subtleties, that theology does not afford an article more hard to be understood.

b3

4 Introduction,

INTROD. § 3. Which when some perceived (who could not acquiesce in the received opinion, nor were able to persevere with diligence in search for a better), they endeavoured to cut the knot, which to them was plainly a gordian one, and to the solving of which they were not equal, by doubting or openly rejecting the authority of that Epistle which bears the name of St. James*. One, indeed, reached such a pitch of boldness and impiety, as to make a violent attack on its author, and charge him with falsehood and error. This was Althamer, who^ as Grotius quotes, angrily uses these expressions of an author, not only innocent, but also inspired : " He writes in direct opposition to Scripture ; he quotes the Scriptures falsely, and alone contradicts the Holy Spirit, the Law, the Prophets, Christ, and all the Apostles : his testimony is of no weight.^' And again, '^ We know from his very words that he was ignorant of the meaning of faith. ^^ With still more daring blasphemy, he says, "truly he hes against his own life.^' Which, with other blasphemies of the same nature, that I shudder to mention, may be found in Grotius.

§ 4. Here then is a difficulty which well deserves an answer, could one be found to meet it. With respect to myself, although it is not fit to say much, yet without any vain-glory I may profess that, uninfluenced by party, and unbiassed by any thing but a love of truth, I have studied as attentively as possible, both the second chapter of St. James as well as the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those to the Romans and Galatians, paying in the mean time a proper attention to those commentaries of learned men which I could meet with; and hence I hope that I may possibly say somewhat to throw some light, at least, on the aim of both the Apostles, and may satisfy impartial judges.

§ 5. But not to delay my reader any longer, with God^s blessing, I will enter on the subject. For the explanation of which, I think the following method the best. First, we will briefly unravel the meaning of St. James^ conclusion and then support its truth by some arguments. This will be the subject of the first Dissertation. We will then enter

» Whom Scultetus himself (which is ^ Discuss. Rivetiani Apologetici, p.

strange) defends with many arguments. 170. Exercit. 5. ad c, iii. 2 Tim. ver. 13.

Introduction. 5

upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and clearly prove his agree- introd. ment with St. James in the doctrine of justification. This will be the subject of the second Dissertation, which, if it be more prolix, and contain a greater quantity of matter than the first, the reader must not be surprised, since the great difficulty of the subject renders it almost necessary.

Chap. I

ST. JAMES MEANING EXPLAINED WHAT THE WORD 'JUSTIFY SIGNIFIES

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — IT IS SHEWN BY MANY PROOFS, THAT THIS WORD IS USED IN ITS JUDICIAL SENSE, MEANING TO PRONOUNCE, OR

DETERMINE, TO BE INNOCENT. THE PARTICLE ' BY,' IN ST. JAMES,

SIGNIFIES ONLY THE INDISPENSABLE CAUSE, OR PRECEDING CONDITION.

DISS. § 1. Beginning then with St. Janies_, we shall have little

'- trouble to arrive at the meaning of his conclusion, so far, at

least, as may be necessary for our present design. We will only observe two things : —

§ 2. First, the word to justify, hucaiovv (to which the Hebrew pi^n answers), is used by him in its more usual sense, that is, as a term of law, meaning to acquit, or pronounce guiltless. Every unprejudiced person must know this to be the most obvious and common meaning of that word in the Holy Scriptures, and especially in the New Testament. So that it is strange to find a most learned man% who, in other respects, has with great truth explained this doctrine of justification, denying it, and contending that the word justification generally signifies, especially when connected with the word faith, a purifying from vice, or a freedom from the habit of sinning. Grotius, indeed, does allow (for him I mean) that to justify^ in the second chapter of St. James, signifies to treat any one as just, and adds that the whole context of his argument renders this meaning absolutely necessary. Still he entirely denies that this is its general sense, especially in the Epistles of St. Paul. But we will easily prove, though perhaps a better opportunity may appear hereafter, that this word constantly, and almost always, has the above-mentioned meaning in the New Testament.

Rom. 8. 33. § 3. There is a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans ; " Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth." Where the word justify is evidently opposed to the word accuse, or lay to the charge

'* In Prolegom. in Epist. ad Ro- ^ Vid. secund. annot. ad Jac. ii. 21.

manos.

Meaning of the word ^ justify^ in the New Testament. 7

of J and therefore necessarily signifies to acquit an accused chap.

person, and to pronounce and decree him free from accusa '-

tion. Similar to this is the following passage from the Old Testament ; " He that justifieth the wicked_, and he that con- Prov.i7.i5. demneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord/^ Where the opposition of justification to condemnation proves the above interpretations. Moreover, Christ Himself uses the word in this sense; '^By thy words thou Mat. 12.37. shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'^ Thus condemnation smdi justification are opposed Rom. 5. 16, to each other by St. Paul. In a similar sense also the word is used in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where, after St. Paul had said that he was conscious of no offence, he 1 Cor. 4. 4. immediately adds, ''^yet am I not hereby justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord :'' plainly appealing for his justification to the tribunal of God, who would hereafter pass a definite sentence upon him. It is wonderful, then, what could induce Grotius*' to place this passage among those where to justify signifies to purify from vice. There is a remarkable passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians ; "But ye are washed; but ye are sanctified; but ye are icor. 6.11. justified :'' where every one must perceive that a puriiying from vice is clearly distinguished from justification. Hence Grotius found himself under the necessity of inventing in this place a different meaning for the word; namely, that it means, making a greater progress in righteousness; and he adds, that the order of the words points out this meaning. But this is to no purpose : for the very order of the words is sufficiently clear without this comment ; since washing here means the first purifying from sin, by Baptism; sanctification, the preparing and forming, as it were, of the man, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do good works, and to lead a holy life; lastly, justification signifies that love of God, by which He embraces those who are already leading a holy life, and determines them to be worthy of the reward of life eternal through Christ.

§ 4. But far above all, is that text in the Acts, which the Acts 13. learned Hammond'*, of blessed memory, hath not improperly •^®' ^^' called the summary of the whole Gospel, and from which he

•^ In Prolegom. Epist, ad Rom. <• Note on Rom. iii.

8 Used in a judicial sense j

DISS, thought the true meaning of this word justify in St. PauPs

'■ Epistles, might be most profitably gathered. The passage is as

follows : " Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him (that is Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Whence it is clear, that the justification which is preached in the Gospel of Christ, is nothing else than the gratuitous act of God, by which for Christ's sake He acquits those who truly believe, those, namely^ endowed fides for- with « perfected faith, and frees them from the guilt and punishment of all sins, even the greatest ; and for which, according to the law of Moses, there was no hope of pardon. Grotius indeed contends, that the mercy meant by justification in verse 39, is different from that mentioned in verse 38, under the expression, /o7•^we/^e55 of sins, saying that remission signifies absolution from the guilt of sin, and justification /r^edom from the power of sin. Who does not here perceive a manifest perversion of the Apostle's words ? Nothing is more evident than that the Apostle in the 39th verse explains more fully the same mercy of forgiveness which he had briefly mentioned in the 38th; by shewing both its condition, namely, faith in Christ, and its excellency over that forgiveness which the Law of Moses afforded. For the Law of Moses gave only a temporal, the Gospel an eternal forgiveness : the Law of Moses provided no pardon for some of the heavier sins, but the Gospel preaches to every believer, the most full and perfect remission of all sins, even the greatest. And so Grotius has himself excellently explained this very passage^ on another occasion.

§ 5. I will add another argument for this interpretation, hiKaiovv. which appears to me unanswerable. The word justify, both with St. Paul and St. James, has exactly the same force as it.ia%))v \0' to impute a reward, to impute righteousness, and to impute for SiKaioav- righteousness. Now it is well understood, that imputation ywf^oyl- denotes the act of God regarding a man as just, not making flsSiKaio- him just; and this Grotius neither can nor will deny. He^ yiCfordau' ^^^7 coutcuds that it is one thing when a man is said to be

« De Satisfact. Christi, c. 10. p. ' In Praefat. ad Annot. in Epist. ad sigmftjing to pronounce or determine to be innocent. 9

justified by faith, but another, when faith is said to be im- chap.

puted to a man for righteousness. But every one will see —

the contrary, who compares the fourth chapter of the Romans, verse 2, with verses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 22 with verses 23, 24, 25, and St. James, chapter the second, verse 21, with verse 23. On which last passage, Grotius himself^ observes, that to be justified, and to be called the friend of God, mean the same thing ; adding that passage in the Romans, where to be Rom. 5. i. justified is to have peace with God. To these you may add the following; "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no Rom. a 20. flesh be justified in His sight.^' Where it is plain that justify is used as a judicial term, both from the words in the sight of God, that is, at the judgment-seat of God, and also from the hundred and forty-third Psalm, verse 2, (to which passage Grotius allows, and the words shew, that St. Paul alludes,) where David most humbly deprecates the severe judgment of God. This passage should be particularly observed, since from it is quite clear what St. Paul means by justification in the whole of his discussion on faith and works.

Hence we deduce our argument thus :

The justification which St. Paul denies to works, he ascribes to faith.

But the justification which he denies to works, is judicial, by which, any one is pronounced just at the judgment-seat of God.

Therefore, the justification which he attributes to faith, is of the same nature^.

§ 6. Our adversaries produce only one passage from the New Testament, where the words to justify can have the other meaning to be made just, or to make every day fresh >s/Mm progress in inherent and habitual righteousness. It is in the Revelations: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust Rev. 22. 11. still, and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.'^ Where to be righteous, is opposed to to be unjust, and therefore would seem to signify nothing else but to be made just, or rather to increase in righteousness. But, however, to deduce the

^ Vid. Amiot. prior, in Jac. ii. ^ See Luke vii. 29 ; x. 29 ; xviii. 14;

10 Particle 'by' signifies the indispensable condition.

DISS, meaning of a word from one or two passages, (although I still doubt whether any other can be given from the New

TestamentJ and to reject that which is far more convenient, and more agreeable to the constant use of the Holy Scriptures, is not the part of a fair disputant. Besides, it may 8iKota>0ijTco be questioned whether the Greek word here used be the right reading. For some manuscripts, and amongst them, one of great antiquity, presented by Cyril the Patriarch of Constantinople to Charles the First, of blessed memory, hiKaioffi- read, instead of " he that is righteous, let him be righteous Xr*^' still,'' "he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still.'' See iJohn "Wliich reading well agrees with the style of St. John. For elsewhere in his first Epistle, 'to do righteousness' is used by him in the same sense. Grotius moreover, which one may wonder at, reads the passage as above, although he often quotes it in defence of his interpretation. We may then certainly conclude, that the word justification in this subject has the meaning of a judicial term, and signifies the act of God as a judge, acquitting the accused, according to the merciful law of Christ, pronouncing him righteous, and admitting him to the reward of righteousness, that is, eternal life.

§ 7. And indeed to this meaning of the word justification we must strictly adhere, not only to answer the perversions of the Roman Catholics, with which they have obscured the doctrine of both St. Paul and St. James, but also because it See 3. 3. will be of some use, as we shall soon see, to confute the Antinomians and Solifidians, whom, on this question, I have always considered to have wandered in an opposite, but no less dangerous manner.

§ 8. Let us now go on to that other point which we thought il epyuv necessary to notice ; namely, that by the phrase by works, St. James does not mean that our works are the principal or meritorious cause of our justification, for that depends on the mere and gracious mercy of God the Father, while the cause thereof is to be placed solely in the death and merits of Christ, and by the Apostle is really so declared. For although the particle by has sometimes that force, yet it is often used in a lower meaning, as it were, signifying the means of obtaining any thing, or the preceding condition,

ConcliLsion of St. James corroborated from Scripture. 11

which is generally called the indispensable cause, though it chap. scarcely deserves the name of a cause. And this mode of speaking is neither unusual, nor contrary to the style of non ^"" Scripture. To pass over other texts, when a man is said to be justified by faith, the particle by is used in the same (Kinar^ws. sense. Since no one can be said to be justified by faith itself as a principal cause, nor even as a cause at all, unless inaccurately speaking. A man, therefore, is said to be justified by works, because good works are ordered and established by God in the Gospel Covenant as the necessary condition for a man's justification, that is, that he may receive the forgiveness of sins, obtained through Christ, and become accepted of God to salvation. And thus far of the meaning of the words.

Chap. II

THE CONCLUSION OF ST. JAMES CORROBORATED ; FIRST, BY PROOFS DRAWN FROM SCRIPTURE, OF WHICH THERE ARE TWO CLASSES ; ONE, OF THOSE PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK IN GENERAL TERMS OF OBEDIENCE AS NECES- SARY TO JUSTIFICATION ; THE OTHER, OF THOSE WHICH REQUIRE WORKS

OF REPENTANCE IN PARTICULAR. AN OBJECTION OF OUR ADVERSARIES

ANSWERED. — FAITH AND REPENTANCE OF THE SAME IMPORTANCE IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTIFICATION, BOTH ONLY CONDITIONS OR MORAL

INSTRUMENTS, WHAT KIND OF FAITH IS THAT, TO WHICH THE SACRED

SCRIPTURES ASCRIBE SO MUCH ? IN WHAT RESPECT DOES FAITH EXCEL

ALL OTHER VIRTUES ?

§ 1. Let us now proceed to the second part of our dissertation, which is, to corroborate by certain arguments St. James' opinion, that good works are necessary to obtain justification.

§ 2. Our first argument shall be drawn from other passages of Holy Scripture, which no less clearly assert, than they defend this truth. For it is not to be supposed, that St. James hath advanced any paradox or dogma peculiar to himself. No. What he says is the voice of the Holy Spirit, which every where utters the same sound. The Prophets, the Apostles, Christ Himself, all give the same evidence. This doctrine occupies almost every page of Holy Scrip-

12 Passages ivhich speak generally of good works

DISS, ture ; and I will venture to say, that scarce any other can be produced, which is so distinctly laid down, or so often taught in the Sacred volume. But not to be diflPuse, we will divide these passages into two classes.

§ 3. The first division shall contain those which speak generally of good works, of piety, sanctity, and obedience, (all which have the same meaning,) as the conditions necessarily required, that any one should be acceptable unto God to salvation, i. e. be justified; for these are synonymous