own salvation in the hidden counsel of God, let us learn that the election of God is so proved by faith that our minds may be turned to Christ as the pledge of election, and that we may seek no other certainty than that which is made manifest to us in the Gospel. Let this seal, I say, suffice us, that whosoever believeth on the only begotten Son of God hath eternal life' (John iii. 36). After every allowance is made for Calvin's defects, on the whole few commentators can be found more judicious in the general mode of treating their subject; few who have been less influenced by previously formed views in their interpretation of particular passages; few of greater fairness and sobriety of judgment; perhaps none possessed of more delicate tact. These qualities, united with the strain of piety which pervades the whole and infuses into it a living power, are the main excellencies of Calvin, and for these he well deserves to be studied by all Biblical scholars, but especially by those whose duty it is to set before their fellow-men the great truths of religion. If, as preachers, we were more completely imbued with the manly sense and sober judgment which are so conspicuous in the Commentaries of Calvin, we should not be so frequently contented with easy and flippant remarks, intended as explanations of the oracles of truth, which, however they may excite the applause of the multitude, produce, alas! but little effect either on their understandings or their hearts; and if we had attained his deep-toned piety and strong faith, we should not be so often chargeable with the too sensitive shrinking from a difficulty or glossing it over with fair words, lest it should be laid hold of as an objection by the mass of the people.

The student of the word of God in the present day will, indeed, need other helps than those which the writings of Calvin afford him. He may have access to, and ought to make use of, more elaborate criticism of the language of the Scriptures; he may and ought to know more accurately what is the genuine text of the sacred writings. But let his acquirements and his doctrinal views be what they may, we cannot but think that it will be for his good that he should study the Commentaries of Calvin; that he should enter into his method; that he should apply the principles of exegesis which he finds there developed; and above all, in this age of searching criticism, when the very foundations of our belief are anew exposed to scrutiny, that he should seek to attain the earnestness of faith and the same fervour of piety which constitute alike the charm and the vital power of Calvin's Commentaries.

THE

THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN

PAUL AND JAMES.

By the Rev. EBENEZER KENNEDY, Leith.

THE Bible is the work of holy men of old, who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It is the combined production of more than forty different authors. Comparatively few of these were personally acquainted with one another. They lived in different climes, and districts far asunder; and, from the first of them to the last of them, a period of about one thousand six hundred years elapsed. They received very different training-some being men of thorough education, and others comparatively illiterate. Some of them were men of genius and considerable power of mind, whilst others were men of only very ordinary parts. They were of very different standing in society: some belonging to the humble peasantry, some to the middle classes, and some to the highest rank. They followed very different pursuits: some of them were shepherds, some fishermen, several teachers of the people, one a tax-gatherer, one a tentmaker, one a physician, one a legislator, and two kings. Seldom were the people they addressed in precisely the same circumstances. Seldom were the errors in doctrine or in practice, they had to combat, in every respect alike. Hence they had very different immediate objects in view; indeed, scarce any two of them (unless it be the Evangelists) can be pointed out who had exactly the same.

Though these all were inspired by one and the same Spirit, He left their personal and intellectual peculiarities entirely untouched. Infallibly guided by that Divine Agent as to real truth, each was left to grapple with the particular phase of error that came under his notice in his own way, and to impart to his production the cast of his own mind. Hence we might, beforehand, expect to find in these writings real harmony but apparent discrepancy. And when we come to the more minute investigation of the Scriptures we find our anticipations fully realized. Between no two parts of the Bible is this discrepancy more apparent than between the statements of Paul and the statements of James on the subject of justification.

If we place their respective statements in contrast with each other, it will be easily seen that the discrepancy is very apparent. Paul (Rom. v. i.) says, We are justified by faith.'

James

(ii.

(ii. 14) asks, Can faith save a man?' Paul (Rom. iii. 20) says, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.' James (ii. 21) asks, 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works?' Paul (Rom. iii. 28) says, 'A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' And James (ii. 24) says, 'Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.' The seeming want of harmony between these statements of the two apostles is so obvious that no attentive reader can fail to be struck with it. The honest enquirer after the truthfulness of Revelation has observed it; and, from his non-acquaintance with the phraseology of Scripture, and the different objects of the Apostles, it has appeared to him so glaring as to induce him at once to throw aside the Bible, as wholly unworthy of the character and the place to which it aspires. The practised and dexterous sceptic, ever ready to lay hold of what seemingly lies on the surface, has taken advantage of this and made the most of it. And the apparent jarring between Paul and James has been so easily and quickly observed as to have called forth numerous efforts, in all ages, in order to show their harmony.

That there is no difficulty in harmonizing the two Apostles, it would betray much ignorance of the whole subject and much folly to affirm. So great has this difficulty appeared to some that, failing to discern any reconciling principle, it has led them to entertain serious suspicions of the canonical authority of the Epistle of James. In the primitive church Eusebius was one of these. The earlier opinion of Luther is well known. And, in later times, the eminently pious Bengel has said: To receive both James and Paul on an equal footing will not be easy, either for one and the same person, or for one and the same Church.' Yet these were men that had much regard for the authority of Scripture, and such sentiments can only be accounted for on the supposition that they found much difficulty in harmonizing Paul and James. If anything besides be necessary to show that there is difficulty in the matter, it will be found in the discordant principles of reconciliation which have been adopted by those who have set themselves to this task.

Now when a difficulty of this nature meets us, and when we are pressed with an objection based upon it, though we were prepared with nothing but a mere hypothesis in reply, it should be enough to silence the objector, or at any rate to prevent his objection from shaking our confidence in the position against which it is brought. Dr. Chalmers, in his 'Evidences,' developes this idea with his usual perspicuity. An hypothesis cannot legitimately be made use of as an argument, but it can in meeting an objection. Hence, in the case before us, though we had nothing but a mere hypothesis to propose, it should be enough to prevent any one

from

from boldly affirming that there is any real contradiction between Paul and James.

Upon this subject many views have been adopted and propounded which, we presume, need very little more than to be stated in order to their speedy rejection. It has been affirmed with a great deal of confidence that James wrote expressly to oppose Paul's sentiments on the subject of justification. These words that follow are used by Hug in his Introduction- In this Epistle the Apostle Paul is (if I may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and opinions. All that Paul has taught respecting faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here directly contravened.' And, again, he says 'The Epistle (of James) was therefore written of set purpose against Paul, against the doctrine that faith procures man justification and the Divine favour.' Now if this be so, it needs little penetration to see that it is fatal to the inspiration of either the one or the other Apostle. And it is indeed difficult to avoid the conviction that the author we have just quoted was influenced in his statements by his theological views and ecclesiastical connection.

Others, who hold back with pious fear from such a bold assertion as we have just listened to, affirm that, though James did not write against Paul, nor against his doctrine, he wrote against the perversion or the abuse of it by some ill-designing teachers who early crept into some of the churches. The objections of Neander against this view appear to us conclusive. We name only one of them. Had James' Epistle been written against a misunderstanding, or an abuse of Paul's doctrine, he would no doubt be careful to state that, so as to prevent his readers from supposing that there was any antagonism betwixt himself and his brother Apostle.

As forming a part of the view propounded by Hug, the divines of the Church of Rome have understood James strictly and literally, and have endeavoured to reconcile Paul's statements with his the best way they could. According to this representation of the case, James teaches the doctrine that a man is justified before God by the works of the law-understanding by the 'law' the moral law-and when Paul denies that a man is justified by the deeds of the law, he is to be understood as meaning the ceremonial law. Along with this solution of the difficulty we must class the laboured one by Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia Apostolica.' According to this prelate, James teaches the doctrine that a man is justified by works-understanding, however, by 'works,' evangelical works; and, in order to harmonize the two Apostles, Paul is understood

as

as meaning by 'works' works of the Mosaic law. That this theory would reconcile Paul and James is very obvious. But insuperable difficulties stand in the way of its adoption. It would be contrary to the plan we are pursuing in this part of our dissertation to state these at length. Suffice it to say, that such a construction of Paul's language is far-fetched, and would not very readily strike the mind of an individual who had not some dogma to maintain; a dogma, indeed, to which something like a death blow would be given by the obvious and common sense interpretation of the words. Beside, the law of which Paul speaks, and the works of which cannot justify, is that by which comes the 'knowledge of sin.' Now that this comes by the ceremonial rather than the moral law, it cannot, we think, very easily be made out.

Others have endeavoured to solve the difficulty and to reconcile the Apostles, by understanding James as meaning to say that works make it obvious to ourselves that we are justified; whereas Paul is to be understood as speaking of justification before God, properly so called. This was the view taken of the matter by President Edwards, though he would not confine the evidence of one's justification, afforded by these works, to himself, but regard them as manifesting the same thing to others around him. In reference to this it has been well observed, that good works certainly are an evidence to ourselves that we are in a state of favour with God; but surely it cannot be said that Abraham had no evidence of this till he offered up his son.' 'Justification here does not signify a man's approbation of himself, but the favourable verdict of another concerning him; for not "he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." As closely connected with this view may be stated another, which solves the difficulty by understanding Paul as speaking of justification in the sight of God, and James of justification in the sight of man. That Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God will be readily admitted; but that James speaks only of justification in the sight of man cannot, we think, very easily be shown from his Epistle. The reverse is very clear from some of James' statements. When he says, 'So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty,' it would be a very forced interpretation of his language to understand him as referring only to the judgment of men. And, besides, the judgment of men is always fallible, frequently erroneous, and at best but of small consequence.'

The unmeaning harmonizing theory that Paul speaks of the justification of men's persons, and James of the justification of their faith, needs no more than to be named in order to its dis

ownment.

There