engages his attention, who is satisfied with stating what he means, without always stopping to say what he does not mean, who writes naturally, and gives his readers credit for some intelligence and some honesty, must often subject himself to the misinterpretations of the silly, and the perversions of the unfair. Nothing would be easier, if this is forgotten, than to convict many of the sacred penmen of contradicting themselves. In one short chapter, the apostle Paul makes these statements: "Bear ye one another's burdens," "Every man shall bear his own burden;""Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another," "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although here are two apparent contradictions, is it at all difficult to perceive that there is no real one?

There are but two conceivable methods of reconciling Paul and James; the one is, by showing that both teach the doctrine of justification by faith, the other, that both teach the doctrine of justification by works. We believe that both teach the doctrine of justification by faith. That Paul does so, we assume; that James does so, we proceed to prove.

There are two general remarks of great importance to be made, to account for the appearance of disagreement where its existence cannot be allowed. The first is, that the style of a writer must be considered. To ascertain a man's sentiments, we must know his manner. It would be preposterous to apply the same rule of interpretation to all authors, however different the kinds of their composition. It is manifest, that one may write in such a way as to justify and demand a mode of explanation peculiar to his productions. The style of James is pithy, sententious, and paradoxical. He abounds in brief, forcible, and abrupt modes of expression. If we would understand him, we must remember this.

The second remark, and by far the more important one, is this, that the circumstances under which a man writes, and the particular object he has in view must be carefully attended to. It is absolutely necessary to consider this in order to do him justice. We shall quote on this subject from an admirable volume published a few years since.* A man ignorant of the true principles of religion might imagine, that we have the express authority of our Lord for ascribing to almsgiving a proper power of purifying the heart, in the words, "Give alms of that ye have, and behold, all things are clean unto you,”-nay, that his command, "Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have trea

* An Attempt to Explain and Establish the Doctrine of Justification by Faith only, in Ten Sermons upon the Nature and Effects of Faith, preached in the chapel of Trinity College, Dublin. By James Thomas O'Brien, D.D.

sure in heaven," warrants us in assigning to it the power of securing to us eternal rewards-and this in the case of the unconverted and irreligious, for to such he was, in both instances, addressing himself. One better taught would know, that it was impossible that the Lord could thus contradict the doctrine distinctly preached by himself, and the whole current of the word of God; and would find in the circumstances under which he was speaking, a satisfactory mode of clearing up the difficulty. You are not, he would say, to treat our Lord here as laying down any general principles concerning almsgiving. He is addressing a particular class in the one case, a particular individual in the other. In all fairness, what he says is to be strictly limited to those to whom it is directly addressed. And not only so, but in interpreting its meaning, we ought, in prudence, to make use of all that we know of their circumstances and character. Now, we know that they were both idolaters of mammon. We know, upon his own testimony, that there was no length of oppression, violence, and wrong, to which the Pharisees (to whom the first passage was addressed) did not resort from the love of money; and the young ruler (to whom the other invitation was offered) showed soon, by his mode of answering the appeal, how much more he was a lover of riches than a lover of God. Now, that Christ should publish to these, that if they truly turned to God there was full forgiveness and full acceptance for them with him, was but to preach his Gospel of repentance and remission of sins; which we too may do, at all times, and to all. But that he, a discerner of spirits, should see the condition of those whom he addressed, so as to know that they could only escape from the thraldom of this inordinate passion, in effectually turning to God, that he, a discerner of spirits, should know and name the particular outward acts which were sufficient to show their emancipation from its tyranny complete, and therefore their conversion accomplished, this is plainly peculiar to him and to them. It does not warrant us in proposing a similar test, in any case which we may conceive similar, much less in deriving from this language any general principle applicable to all cases, except that principle which is elsewhere so distinctly set forth, that "him that cometh to God, he will in no wise cast out." This is very important. It is quite possible for the circumstances of a writer to suggest and require a very different explanation of his words than alone, and considered in their independent meaning, they would warrant. Writers who believe the same thing may easily appear to believe different ones, according as they present different aspects, or enforce different bearings, of that thing; just as the same object, viewed from different positions, assumes different forms, and produces different impressions. Suppose two authors, holding the same opinions respecting political liberty, engaged, the one in defending it from the encroachments of tyranny, the other in guarding it against licentious abuse; notwithstanding their essential agreement, if they

kept their respective purposes steadily in view, and especially if they wrote with warmth and energy, they would be almost certain to seem to hold different doctrines, and, in having recourse to arguments and illustrations of various kinds and from various quarters, the marvel would be, if they were not assailed by accusations altogether unlike, except in their groundlessness. Thus has it happened to Paul and James, and for just these reasons. They were very differently circumstanced. They had to combat opposite errors. Paul had to do with those who denied the efficacy of faith, James with those who denied the necessity of works; Paul had to defend the truth from pharisaic self-complacency, James had to defend it from antinomian licentiousness; Paul had to prove the doctrine of justification, James had to preserve it from perversion; Paul had to vindicate the grace of the Gospel against the objections of pride, James had to guard the holiness of it against wickedness. Knowing this, we might expect, that, whatever identity of creed there might be between them, they would make statements, and employ reasonings, capable of conveying to the superficial and the careless the notion that they held different opinions upon the subject.

That James was dealing with persons who pretended to the faith of the Gospel, without possessing holy works, who substituted a mere assent of the understanding for Scriptural belief, appears from the very beginning of his discourse. After enforcing obedience to the law of liberty, and especially in reference to mercy, declaring it to be necessary to final acquittal, he argues, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" He plainly intimates, that, if faith is said to be possessed, it is only said, that the profession is vain and false. This is put beyond question by the expression, "and have not works." It is the case of a man, who claims to be considered a believer without works, a barren and unprofitable professor of the Gospel, and when the question is put, "Can faith save him?" we are bound, by all sound rules of interpretation, to understand the apostle as meaning, such a faith as may exist apart from holiness. He is not referring at all to the faith with which the other Scriptures connect the justification of sinners, but to something else, which deceived men put into its place.

The illustrations he employs confirm this opinion. "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone." The faith to which the pretension was made, required the evidence of obedience, as truly as benevolence requires active goodness to its needy objects. The claim to the one, without works of righteousness, was just as vain and groundless as the claim to the other, without the gifts of charity. He further intimates a similarity between the faith of

individuals he opposes, and the faith of devils; but we know the essential difference between the latter and the faith of God's elect.

James selects instances, to which he applies his principle of the necessity of works, one of which is full to our present purpose. It is the case of Abraham. "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Seest thou, how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." Here, James quotes a Scripture, which says, that Abraham's faith was counted to him for righteousness, and says it was fulfilled. It is not likely, then, whatever his object, that he should mean to assert any thing contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith. We have James's distinct authority for saying, that Abraham's belief was his justification, and that the act of obedience to which he refers fulfilled the previous Scripture, declaring it to be so. Again, to what act does he refer? To Abraham offering up his son Isaac? Now, this took place many years after he exercised the faith which was counted to him for righteousness. This is worthy of especial notice. The manner in which his obedience "fulfilled" the declaration of his previous justification was, by the proof it furnished of the excellence and power of his faith. It manifested the kind of faith which he had exercised, and thus vindicated the assertion, that it was the right kind, just as the active kindness of a friend might "fulfil" and confirm the declaration, that he possessed the spirit of benevolence. So, when the apostle says, that by this act "his faith was made perfect," he does not imply that his faith was previously deficient and imperfect, for he allows that it had justified him before; it made it perfect by proving it so; it was the evidence of its sincerity and strength; just as our love is said to be made perfect by our being as God is in this world. If Abraham had not obeyed, there would have been no evidence of the existence of his faith, but, by obeying, he demonstrated his faith, and substantiated the declaration that he had it.

James concludes with this statement, For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The faith that exists without works is as useless as a dead body. This may be considered as the doctrine which James is solicitous to establish and enforce. All he says goes to its confirmation and proof. His words, his illustrations, his references, all evince one thing, that justifying faith is practical, and, consequently, all pretensions to it, apart from practice, are dangerous and delusive. He is opposing a class of persons who professed to believe without works, who denied the obligation of holiness on believers, and it is their error he destroys, not Paul's truth. When he says, Can faith save? he means just such a faith as they had,

and no other; when he says that Abraham was justified by works, he means that he was justified by works in the sense in which they denied men to be; and when he says that men are justified by works, and not by faith only, he means by "faith only," what they meant by it, a faith which is alone, a bare and barren faith, a faith separated from the acts and exercises of godliness. We repeat, the true principle of interpreting James's language is to be found in the views of the parties whose errors he assails. They maintained, that faith which yielded no righteousness justified, and called the being justified by a faith which yielded righteousness, the being justified by works; then, says the apostle, in this sense of the expressions, Abraham was justified by works, and all men must be, if justified at all, for reason and Scripture prove, that God has annexed no spiritual favours with a mere intellectual assent to truth, which leaves a man in all the filth and frailty of natural corruption.

It will appear from the above remarks, that we consider James to employ the term justification in the same way, and with the same meaning, as Paul. We cannot at all accede to the prevalent supposition, that Paul speaks of justification before God, and James of justification before men; that Paul speaks of the justification of sinners, and James of the justification of saints. We have insurmountable objections to this notion, which is sufficiently disproved by the evidence which shows it to be unnecessary, for nothing but its presumed necessity can account for its adoption.

The doctrine which James is at pains to establish, is the doctrine of Paul. As they both teach the same things about faith, so they both teach the same things about works. James would have said what Paul did, had he been in Paul's circumstances; and Paul would have said what James did, had he been in James's circumstances. Can any man more clearly state the necessity of holiness, or more earnestly enforce it, than Paul? He asserts, in the plainest manner, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord, that they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts; he expresses the greatest indignation at the thought of Christians sinning, because not under the law, but under grace, and declares that sin shall not have dominion over them, because they are not under the law, but under grace. But this is not all. He not only asserts the fact and necessity of the holiness of Christians, but ascribes it to their faith. He teaches in different words, the identical doctrine of James, that faith is powerful and prac tical, that it secures and produces godliness of heart, and righteousness of life. What is the eleventh chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews, but an illustration and confirmation of the practical and purifying efficacy of faith? And does he not say expressly, that "faith which worketh by love" is the great and indispensable constituent principle of acceptable religion? All the Scriptures agree in this view of faith.