as opposed to state of wrath and condemnation. And this he illustrates by the example of Abraham, who was in the favour of God, before his circumcision, on account of his trusting to his promises, and obeying his commands; which faith" was imputed to him for righteousness," that is, God reckoned upon these acts, as if they had been an entire course of righteousness, and, thus, "justified him freely by grace." (Rom. iv. 3, 4, &c.)

In this act of justification, there is a great difference between the consideration upon which it is done, and the condition upon which it is offered. The one is a dispensation of God's mercy, in which he has regard to his own attributes and the honour of his laws; the other is the method in which that is applied to us, so as to lead to the perfection of human nature, and be consistent with the holiness of God.

(2.) As to the meaning of the word “faith." This term generally signifies in the New Testament the complex of Christianity,a in opposition to "the law," which as generally means the whole Mosaic dispensation. "The faith of Christ," therefore, is equivalent to " the Gospel of Christ," which is thus called, because Christianity is a fœderal religion, in which the only

Thus, in Gal. i. 23, St. Paul is said "to preach the faith which once he destroyed."

condition on our part is the believing this revelation; but still our faith must receive the whole Gospel, the precepts as well as the promises of it, and regard Christ in his threefold character of a prophet to teach, a king to rule, as well as a priest to save us.a

(3.) The meaning of "faith only." By this phrase is not to be understood, faith as separated from good works, properly so called, but as it is opposed to the rites of the Mosaic law. And those works are called good, which consist not merely in assumed and voluntary mortifications of the body, but in acts of true holiness and sincere obedience to the laws of God.

In defining the doctrine of justification, the Article considers it in two respects: I. As to the meritorious cause of our justification; and, II. As to the means by which this is effected.

66

I. As to the meritorious cause of our justification. “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." St. Paul frequently asserts, that "we are justified freely by grace, through the re"demption in Christ Jesus." (Rom. iii. 24.) Indeed, that God pardons sin, and receives us into favour only through the death of Christ, is so fully expressed in the Gospel, (as was already proved

a See Dwight's Theol. ser. 66.

in the second Article,) that it is impossible that any person can doubt it, who firmly believes and attentively reads the New Testament.

II. As to the means by which this is effected. "We are accounted righteous by faith." This is, likewise, frequently asserted by St. Paul. Thus, in Rom. iii. 28, he says, "We are justified by faith, without the works of the law." Here, however, a difficulty seems to arise from the assertion of St. James: "A man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (ii. 24.) But this will be removed by considering, that St. Paul merely excludes the rites of the Mosaic law. This is evident (1.) from his design, which was to guard against the Judaising Christians, who thought that the law of Moses was still to retain its force, and in opposition to them, he says," we are justified by faith, without the works of the law." (2.) He had before divided all mankind into those who were "in the law," and those who were" without the law," that is, into Jews and Gentiles." The same term then, when afterwards used, must have the same meaning, the Mosaical dispensation. On the other hand, St. James does not use these terms in the same sense. This is evident, (1.) From his design, which was to op

a See Lardner's Works, v. 6. p. 539.

b He afterwards shows, that the Gentiles were not free from, or without, the moral law. The law here mentioned, therefore, must be the Mosaic ritual.

pose the opinion of the Antinomians, who misunderstanding St. Paul's doctrine, held that men were justified by the mere profession of Christianity. (2.) The works that he mentions, (v. 21.) are not the circumcision or ritual observances of Abraham, but his offering up his son Isaac, which St. Paul had reckoned as a part of his faith; and hence he says, " a man is justified by works, but does not say "the works of the law." (3.) By the word faith, he means a bare believing, such as devils are capable of, which he says cannot justify us. These two parts, then, of the New Testament, do not, by any means, contradict each other; for as it is certainly true, that we are taken into the favour of heaven upon

a

a This is confirmed by v. 14., "What doth it profit, though a man say he hath faith and have not works Can faith save him?"

In the latter clause faith is expressed by n πioris, the faith, that kind of faith which the man declares himself to have; so that the phrase is equivalent to, can such faith as this save him?"

b No subject in the sacred writings has given rise to a greater variety of opinions than this. Some suppose St. Paul speaks of justification properly so called, and St. James of the manifestation of that justification. (See Poole's Synop. in loc.) The Council of Trent suppose that St. Paul speaks of the first justification, (as they termed it,) and St. James of the second. (Sess. 6. c. 19. Bellar. de Justif. 1. 11. c. 16., and Vega, Trid. dec. de Justif. expos. p. 308.) Others thought the reconciliation so difficult, as to induce them to expunge St. James's Epistle from the canon. (Centur. Magdeb. cent. 1. 1. 2. c. 4.) That given above is, perhaps, the most satisfactory. (See Dwight's Theol. ser. 68, and Turretin's Exerc、 Theol. text de Concord. Paul et Jac.)

our receiving the whole Gospel, without observing the Mosaical precepts, so it is as certainly true, that a bare professing the doctrines of Christianity, without our living suitably to them, cannot make us acceptable to God.

When it is said, however, that we are justified by faith, it is not to be considered as a meritorious act, but as the condition on which the mercy of God is offered to us. The consideration on which God acts is merely the death of Christ, which being provided by him out of the riches of his grace and offered to us, justification is therefore said to be free, there being nothing on our part which either did or could procure it. But our faith, which includes our hope, love, repentance, and obedience, is the condition that makes us capable of receiving the benefits of this redemption.b

Before we conclude, it may be necessary to mention the doctrine of the Roman Catholic

* This distinction is well observed in the Latin original : “Tantùm propter merita domini, per fidem, non propter opera et merita nostra." It would also be more apparent in the translation by a slight transposition. "We are accounted righteous before God by means "of our faith, only on account of the merit of our Lord, not on "account of our own works or deservings." For the opinion of Luther and Melancthon on this subject, see Archbp. Laurence, ser. 6. note (13. 17 and 18.)

b See Bate on the Harmony of the Div. Attrib. c. 14. p. 163. Ed. 1723, and Prideaux's Fas. Cont. p. 267.