without a perfect obedience to them, the Apostle could not mean to reject the works of the law

require consideration to get at their rightful meaning: they are general words, and include the whole, and every part of the law of the commandments: the construction, which is put upon them by some writers, that they exclude the whole law from having any effect in justification, might reasonably be concluded, did such a construction not contradict, or render other texts inconsistent: the first great objection to such a construction is, that the law would become useless, and a perfect dead letter, and in the language of St. Paul, be void, contrary to his express words: we know both from St. Paul and St. James, that one single breach of the law renders it ineffectual to justification, and this breach does what St. Paul has stated in the 20th verse of the same chapter, that "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:" and that we shall be justified without the deeds of the law, that is, to justify us; which would be meritoriously, and introduce boasting; but whether they are to assist, and co-operate with faith, as in the case of Abraham and others, in obtaining justification, is a very different point; should excluding the works of the law wholly from justification be a rightful construction of St. Paul's words, what could be a greater contradiction and inconsistency, than for him in all his epistles to recommend the performance of works of the law, called good works, as ordained and commanded by God; and in almost numberless instances to unite faith with love or charity? He has also particularly stated one work as a most absolute condition for man to possess to obtain eternal life, namely, "holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord *." From this text it must be understood, that the man who is justified must have holiness, otherwise he must fail of salvation; these are a part,

*Heb. xii. 14.

wholly from justification. He had shewn, and the grand point, he was proving, was, that they would not of themselves justify; had he intended to reject them wholly from justification, he could not afterwards have said, "Do we then make void the law? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"." The law was to be established no doubt for some purpose, and it does not, nor can it be made appear, it could be established for any other purpose than to assist, and co-operate with faith in the matter of justification: St. Paul has shewn the distinction between justification obtained as a debt by a perfect obedience to the law, and by grace through faith, he has also said, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth ;" and Christ himself hath said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one

P

and only a small part of the objections, that may be raised to the construction of those words as excluding all the works of the law from justification; therefore, the construction, as stated above, namely, without a perfect obedience to the deeds of the law, is the most reasonable, and at the same time tends greatly to reconcile many parts of St. Paul's writings with each other, and cannot be said by any means, to be an overstrained, or far fetched meaning; but founded on sound argument. • Rom. iv. 4, 5.

n Rom. iii. 31.

P Rom. x. 4.

7

jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." By these statements it is most clear, that Christ came to finish, and perfect that, which the law did not of itself, "for what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit "." This is a plain exposition of God's purpose in sending his beloved Son to bring righteousness into the world, and thereby "life and immortality to light." From these statements we see the law was not abrogated, or annulled by Christ's appearance, death, and resurrection; but was thereby fulfilled, and the breach which sin had made through the weakness of the flesh, was cured and healed by "the sun of righteousness." Should we reject the law from any part or lot in justification, how is the righteousness of the law fulfilled in us? the law with all its righteousness is banished, utterly banished and made void what is then to bcome of "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" which Christ told the Scribes and Pha

1 Matt. v. 17, 18.

r Rom. viii. 3, 4.

s Matt. xxiii. 23.

risees they shall not leave undone. It is most certain Christ did not mean or intend to abolish the law, and make it " of none effect," why are we to suppose St. Paul should do it? it is not to be doubted but St. Paul intended to confirm what Christ had stated, that he came to fulfil the law, and by the 8th, 9th, and 10th verses of the 10th of Romans, St. Paul has fully shewn the way how the law is perfected in righteousness in man by faith, whereby salvation is obtained. Where St. Paul says, 66 we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;" it is most certain he did not mean to reject the law; but by many other statements it appears, he clearly intended to shew that faith, as an indispensable condition or instrument, was to be added to good works, and by their cooperation justification was to be effected. St. Paul confirms this conclusion by his own definition of faith, which, as is before stated, must work to be effectual for any purpose whatever with respect to Christ; and why was man to walk in good works, if they were to have no effect? consequently, from the Apostle's own words, he could not mean to reject works; but to prove that Christ by his appearance on earth, and what he did and suffered, established, fulfilled, and perfected the law, which must have been for some useful and effective purpose in

E

man's justification; had St. Paul intended to reject works wholly from justification, he would have directly contradicted the words of Christ in Matt. xii. 37. In the next chapter, the ivth at the 4th verse, St. Paul says, "Now to him that worketh," that is the man who hath fulfilled or

"Now to him that worketh," this passage seems capable of having different senses put upon it; one, as stated above, by applying it to a man, who has conformed wholly to God's commands in the law, by a perfect obedience to them: another, to a man who has been guilty of a breach of the law, but by sufficient good works and faith, has a just claim to justification : and another to the man to whom the Gospel of Christ had not been preached, and was not known, but has done good works according to the light of nature, and reason sufficient to obtain justification. The best and most sure mode of arriving at the sense of any writer is from his own words, so far as they will apply to elucidate a doubt. Let us then consider the case of Abraham, which is mentioned by St. Paul repeatedly in this ivth chapter, where St. Paul says, Abraham was justified because he believed God, consequently by his faith; but St. James says, in the iid chapter of his epistles, it was for his obedience; whether Abraham was justified for his faith, or for his obedience, or for his faith and obedience united, it most plainly appears by the 2d verse in the ivth chapter of Romans, according to St. Paul, he did not obtain justification as a debt, but from grace; which is apparent from the words, "for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." It is perfectly clear that Abraham, who from his implicit obedience to God's special commands, had seemingly a strong claim to justification as a debt, did not obtain it as such, but from grace; and if Abraham's obedience