Lecture 2 History of the Doctrine in the Apostolic Age

We have seen that the privilege of Justification was enjoyed by all true believers, from the date of the first promise of a Saviour, till His advent in the ‘fulness of time.’ But the divine doctrine on this subject was in process of time sadly corrupted, both among Gentiles and Jews.

Our attention will now be directed to the state of opinion which prevailed in regard to it among the Gentiles, and also among the Jews, when the Gospel was first brought to them,—to the manner in which their respective errors were treated, by our Lord Himself during His personal ministry, and afterwards by His Apostles,—and to the controversies on the subject which arose, in that age, within the Christian Church itself, from the influence of Judaizing teachers, on the one hand, and the introduction of Gentile philosophy, on the other.

The state of opinion on the subject of Justification before God, which prevailed both among the Gentiles and the Jews, when the Gospel was proclaimed in ‘the fulness of time,’ is worthy of special consideration, as it serves to throw much light on the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles.

The divine doctrine of the Justification of sinners was associated, from the beginning, with the promise of a Saviour, and with the significant rite of Sacrifice; and these were universal, or common to the whole race of mankind, on two occasions,—first, when Adam, the father of the old world, and, secondly, when Noah, the father of the new world, were each admitted into covenant with God. (1) There was as yet no distinction,—no middle wall of partition,—between Gentiles and Jews; and God’s revelation was available for all mankind. It was transmitted at first from sire to son, and from age to age, by oral tradition. How far the revealed promise of a Saviour, combined with the practical observance of sacrificial worship,—with the instinctive dictates of conscience which awakened a sense of guilt, and a foreboding of judgment,—and with the experience of God’s dispensations in providence, as manifest proofs both of His justice and goodness, and as significant indications of their having been placed in a state of respite and reprieve, rather than of strict retribution,—may have led some to repent, and to ‘seek after God, if haply they might find Him,’ we cannot tell; but, for ought we know, the Spirit of God may have applied these elementary truths to the heart and conscience of many a sinner in that morning twilight of Revelation, so as to lead them to confess their sins with godly sorrow, and to trust and hope in the forgiving mercy of God through a promised Saviour. For, although there is only one method of Justification for sinners, there have been ‘many diversities of administration’ in applying it to the souls of men; and on every question respecting the extent of its efficacy, it is enough to say, that all who were pardoned and accepted of God in any age, or in any land, must have been chosen by His grace, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and renewed by His Holy Spirit.

It is manifest, however, that the first promise of a Saviour, and the real significance of Sacrifice, as a part of divine worship, were soon greatly obscured, or altogether forgotten, by those to whom no new revelation was vouchsafed; and that, while the outward rite of sacrifice continued to be universally observed, it was divorced, in most cases, from all knowledge of Gospel truth, and became, in process of time, the principal part of a gorgeous, but gloomy, system of superstition.

We cannot doubt, indeed, that the great question in regard to man’s relation to God, and his prospects under the divine government, must have exercised thoughtful minds, in all nations, and in all ages. For Gentiles as well as Jews—Greeks and barbarians—civilised and savage races—have all observed some form of religious worship, and must have had some idea, therefore, of their relation to an unseen Power. Their religious opinions and observances were no doubt inherited by tradition from their fathers, but they must have been sustained, also, and kept alive, by the instinctive promptings of their own conscience, and the suggestive facts of their own experience. Many a troubled spirit must have felt its need of some means of allaying the fears of guilt, and averting the tokens of judgment; and may have anxiously cast about for some hope of relief, asking in substance the same question with Balak—‘Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’ Some such anxious questionings as these may have been suggested by conscience, burdened with a sense of guilt, to many a troubled spirit even in the Gentile world, and they serve to account for a fact,—otherwise inexplicable,—the permanent continuance of animal sacrifice, however it may have been first introduced, among all the nations of the earth. When great crimes had been committed, or signal calamities were supposed to be impending, they had recourse to extraordinary means for averting the divine displeasure: they betook themselves to public confession and prayer,—to fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes,—to solemn washings and lustrations,—to severe self-inflictions and torture,—and to the most costly sacrifices, in which they spared neither their flocks nor their families, but devoted even their sons and their daughters to death. (2) There is much that is deeply impressive in the sad earnestness, and almost savage fervour, of this heathen worship; and it is fraught with profound instruction, since it shows that everywhere, and at all times, conscience was alive and active, even amongst the most ignorant and degraded tribes,—that it was impressed, more or less deeply, with the same solemn truths—the fact of guilt, the displeasure of God, and the desert of punishment,—and that in dealing with these truths, it invariably pointed to some expiation of sin, some satisfaction to justice, and some vicarious means of securing pardon, or, at least, impunity. It is probable, indeed, that many might take part in sacrificial worship merely as a traditional observance handed down by their forefathers, and in conformity with the established custom of their country, who had no real concern about religion, and who were living a godless life in carnal security; and it is certain, that where there was little knowledge of a holy and righteous God, and of a pure and spiritual law, there could be no adequate conviction of sin, and no sure and satisfying answer to the question—‘How shall a man be just with God?’

Among the more cultivated classes, the popular religion was generally despised, and even ridiculed, as superstitious; yet always patronized, and occasionally practised, by the wisest of their sages, in servile deference to the laws and customs of their country. Every sect of philosophy had its own favourite theory, and speculated keenly on many questions of profound interest and importance. They discussed the constitution of the universe,—the origin of nature,—the doctrine of first causes,—the nature of the gods,—the chief end or highest good of man,—the nature and ground of moral distinctions,—the laws and conditions of happiness,—the extent and limits of free-will,—the power of fate,—the province of chance,—and the great problem of a life beyond the grave. In that dim light of nature they grappled with some of the most arduous problems which can occupy the human mind, and they treated them with a degree of intellectual power, and in a spirit of serious earnestness, such as contrast favourably with the more superficial, and less reverent, treatment which they have sometimes received from philosophical inquirers in modern times. (3) But some were Atheists,—others Pantheists,—others Epicureans, who admitted the existence of God, but denied His providential and moral government; while those who held most of the truths of Natural Religion, and discoursed sublimely on the principles of moral virtue, had vague and doubtful conceptions of their relation to God, and their prospects under His government. They had, properly speaking, no definite doctrine of Justification; and if they thought of pardon and acceptance at all, they looked mainly to three grounds of hope: the placability of God,—the efficacy of repentance,—and the merit of personal rectitude. The doctrine of the educated Gentiles was, in these respects, substantially the same with that of modern Socinians, while it contained also the Pelagian element, so natural to the human mind, which appeared especially in the proud self-sufficiency of the Stoics, and represented the virtue of man as independent of God Himself. (4)

In the Jewish Church, the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith, was never altogether extinguished, but was sadly obscured and corrupted in the later ages of her history.

The reasoning of the Apostles with the Jews on the subject of Justification relates chiefly to the doctrine which was revealed in the Old Testament; and, apart from its inspired authority, or considered simply as a process of logical deduction from the facts which are there recorded, it is one of the finest specimens of close, consecutive, conclusive reasoning to be found in the whole range of human authorship. It is founded, to a large extent, on the historical relation between the Promise (ἐπαγγελία), the Law (νόμος), and the Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον). In the case of man unfallen, the Law came first, and then the Promise:—‘Do this’ was the preceptive requirement, ‘and thou shalt live’ was the promised blessing; but the Promise was suspended on the condition of obedience to the precept, and was forfeited in the event of transgression. In the case of man fallen and ruined, the Promise came first; then after a long interval the Law was added; and in the fulness of time, the Gospel was proclaimed, as the fulfilment both of the Promise and of the Law. The Promise came first to the parents of the human race in the shape of a curse pronounced on their tempter: ‘I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel;’ and this was associated, as we have seen, with the rite of sacrifice as its symbol and seal. It was afterwards renewed to Abraham in the gracious assurance, ‘In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed;’ and in this form it was associated with the rite of circumcision as its sacramental sign and pledge. The Law was not given by Moses till four hundred and thirty years after the Promise had thus been sealed to Abraham; and the Apostle founds his argument for Justification by faith, without the works of the Law, on the historical relation between the Promise and the Law,—in other words, on the priority of the one to the other. His argument, as addressed to the Jews, was irresistible. They objected that the Gospel, as preached by him, annulled or set aside the Law, as given by Moses: Beware, he replied, lest you be chargeable with the very error which you impute to me, that of making one divine dispensation annul or set aside another which had gone before it,—that of making the Law of Moses to supersede the Promise made to Abraham: ‘To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. And this I say, that the covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.’ If it was ‘by Promise,’ then it was ‘by faith,’ for faith only receives the Promise; if it was by the Law, then it was by works, for works only fulfil the Law. True, the Law was afterwards added to the Promise, but not to disannul or to supersede it; on the contrary, it was itself a dispensation of the covenant of grace, for it was proclaimed in the name of the ‘God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob;’ and if it republished in all their rigour the original terms of the covenant of works, it was only ‘because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the Promise was made.’ It was for conviction of sin, for ‘the Law worketh wrath,’ and is a ‘ministration of death;’ but, as such, it was ‘our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’2 ’Is the Law then against the Promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe;’—‘and we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.’ The Gospel, which reveals that faith, is the fulfilment both of the Promise and of the Law; for as the Promise made to Abraham was this Gospel anticipated, so the Gospel is the Promise fulfilled: and it is also the fulfilment of the Law,—for ‘Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one who believeth.’ And thus, ‘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,’—and that ’we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’4

The fact that the promise of grace was prior to the Law, and could not be annulled by it,—and that the Law itself was ‘added’ as a means of carrying out the Promise to its fulfilment in the Gospel, is the main ground of the Apostle’s argument from the Old Testament; while a subordinate, but powerful, proof is derived from the additional fact, that Abraham was justified before he was even circumcised. The Jews trusted in the Law; they trusted also in Circumcision: and the Apostle cuts the sinews of their confidence in the Law, by reminding them, first, that ‘the Promise was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith;’ and that ‘if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect:’ and he equally cuts the sinews of their confidence in Circumcision, by reminding them, secondly, that Abraham, the father of the faithful, was justified before he was circumcised. ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised.’

The Apostle thus proves the Gospel doctrine of Justification from the Old Testament Scriptures, because, while it had not been so fully or so clearly revealed, it was nevertheless ‘witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,’ and had been embraced by all true believers from the beginning, as the method of their pardon and acceptance with God. And in addressing this argument to the Jews, he does not plead merely his authority as an inspired Apostle, but appeals to the plain and obvious meaning of their own Scriptures,—proving from undeniable facts the principles which he lays down, and showing a marvellous insight into the doctrinal importance of these facts, and their logical bearing on the question at issue.

The errors which prevailed among the Jews, before, and at the time when, the Gospel was first proclaimed, have been classified and arranged according to their historical origin and development (5); but, in a mere outline, we cannot enter into details, and must confine ourselves to the most prominent and characteristic features of corrupted Judaism. The chief sources of information on the subject are some incidental notices in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and a fuller exposition of the views of their more learned men in the writings of the Talmud. In the Old Testament, they are described as resting in mere ceremonial observances, and sacrificial offerings, while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law. In the New Testament, our Lord speaks of the Pharisees as men who ‘trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others;’ and Paul ascribes their rejection of the Gospel to their ‘being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness.’2 Their grand error, therefore, consisted in Self-righteousness,—and this error implied defective views both of the spiritual requirements of the Law, by which is ’the knowledge of sin,’ and also of the free promise of grace, by which is the knowledge of salvation.

But while this general statement sufficiently marks, and brings into due prominence, the most characteristic feature of their religious profession, their self-righteous confidence rested on some peculiar opinions which were inherited by tradition from their elders, and are expounded and defended in the Talmudical writings. From these we learn that, such was their ignorance of the spiritual meaning and extent of God’s Law, which requires perfect obedience, and holds him who ‘offendeth in one point to be guilty of all,’ that their Rabbis were in the habit of dividing men into three classes,—the righteous, whose good works preponderated over the evil,—the wicked, whose evil works preponderated over the good,—and a third class who were neither righteous nor wicked, but neutral, since their good and evil works exactly counter-balanced each other, and thus produced a perfect equilibrium. It was admitted that all the three classes needed the pardon of sin,—the wicked most of all, for they had more evil actions than good,—the neutral next, for they had good and evil in equal proportions,—and the righteous least of all; but still, to whatever extent they fell short of perfection, they were guilty, and, as such, stood in need of the divine forgiveness. They held that such forgiveness was attainable, but that it depended in every instance, not on the free grace of God through the expiatory work of a Divine Redeemer, but on the actions or the sufferings of men themselves. They thought little of the legal or judicial standing of moral agents, as being either simply righteous or guilty in the sight of God; or even of their radical spiritual character, as being either ‘good trees, bringing forth good fruit,’ or ‘evil trees, bringing forth evil fruit:’ they looked rather to particular actions, as being in themselves either virtuous or vicious, according to their mere external conformity, or want of conformity, to the letter of the divine precepts; and they were thus involved in two fundamental errors,—the error of overlooking the effect of any one sin in changing a man’s whole relation to God, by forfeiting His favour and incurring His curse,—and the error of supposing that actions might be morally good and acceptable to God, while the agents were still chargeable with the guilt, and subject to the power, of sin. The one error lay at the root of their erroneous views of Justification; the other prevented them from feeling their need of Regeneration; and both proceeded from a defective apprehension of the spirituality and extent of God’s Law. This was their radical want; but the peculiar feature of their doctrine consisted in their looking to actions apart from the agent, and in their holding that every good work is meritorious, just as every evil work is deserving of punishment,—that no sin can ever extinguish the merit of any good work, and no good work extinguish the guilt of any sin,—and that, consequently, all sin must be expiated by suffering, while the sinner, nevertheless, may have a meritorious title to eternal life by reason of those good actions which he has done, and which all his sins have no power to cancel, or to deprive of their just reward. Nominal Christians sometimes think that their good works may be set over against their sins, as a sort of compensation for them; but the self-righteous Jews, even in their blindest infatuation, never ventured to count on this. They held, indeed, that no good work is ever lost, and that its merit can never be extinguished by any amount of sin; but they held, also, that sins and good works cannot neutralize each other,—that both must be dealt with according to their respective deserts,—and that all sin must invariably, and without any exception, be first punished in the person of the sinner, in order that his good works may then come in for their merited reward. Forgiveness of sin, therefore, could only be obtained by expiatory suffering, and eternal life secured by works of meritorious obedience.

In the way of obedience, they required such works as these: Repentance, or ‘a turning to God,’ which was supposed to have such an efficacy as to raise the penitent, in some respects, even above the innocent,—Prayer, which was supposed to be expiatory and meritorious, especially when it included confession of sin, and was accompanied with outward signs of grief and humiliation,—Almsgiving, for ‘he that giveth to the poor lendeth unto the Lord,’ and makes God his debtor,—the diligent use of ceremonial observances, such as the diverse washings and lustrations, prescribed in the Law,—the due celebration of sacrifice,—above all, the sacrament of Circumcision, which was held to have such sovereign virtue that no circumcised person could finally perish, since Abraham himself would secure his exemption from hell, and his admission into heaven. They ascribed a certain efficacy to the due observance of morning and evening sacrifice, and especially to the services of the great day of Atonement, but chiefly, it would seem, because they were offered in obedience to the divine Law, and were, on that account, acceptable to God. It was not the sacrifice that secured the acceptance of the worshipper, but rather the obedience of the worshipper that secured the acceptance of the sacrifice. Faith was required as one of the chief means of meriting eternal life, for they knew from their own Scriptures that ‘the just shall live by faith;’ but by faith they meant a meritorious virtue, which consisted in acknowledging the divine authority of the Law, and trusting in God, without reference to the promised Messiah, at least as a suffering and atoning Redeemer. The only Messiah whom they now expected, was a human and temporal deliverer,—not a divine and spiritual Saviour; and thus their whole salvation was left to depend on their observance of the Law of Moses, and their trust in the general mercy of God.

While the merit of good works formed an essential part of their doctrine of Justification, the indispensable necessity of some satisfaction for sin was also recognised. The satisfaction to which they looked, however, was not a vicarious one,—such as had been symbolized and typified from the beginning in the rite of sacrifice, and revealed in the writings of their own prophets; it was strictly personal, and consisted entirely in their own sufferings, whether these were inflicted by God as a punishment, or imposed on themselves as a penance, for sin. In both forms, penal satisfaction was expressly recognised. It was one of their fundamental principles, that every sin deserved punishment, and that no sin could pass with impunity; and, as good works could not remove its guilt, it could only be expiated by the sufferings of the offender. These sufferings might be self-imposed,—by voluntary castigation,—by fasting,—by sitting in sackcloth and ashes; or they might be divinely inflicted, in the shape of disease,—poverty,—bereavement,—and death itself, which were regarded, not as paternal chastisements, but as parts of the satisfaction due to divine justice on account of sin; and if at the hour of death its guilt had not been fully expiated, there was a Rabbinical purgatory, which was mercifully limited to twelve months of torment, at the end of which, all sin being fully expiated, the good works of every Israelite will come in for their due reward in heaven. Such was the Pharisaic doctrine of a sinner’s Justification; and its general prevalence among the Jews, at the time of our Lord’s advent, affords a key to the explanation of many passages in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. (6)

The Gospel was addressed equally to Jews and to Gentiles; and we are now to consider how they were dealt with respectively, by our Lord Himself, during His personal ministry, and afterwards by His Apostles. The Gospel was designed to counteract the errors on this subject which then prevailed among both. These errors assumed different forms as they appeared, respectively, in the Gentile world, and in the Jewish Church; but some of them were, in substance, common to both, and sprung from the same prolific root,—the natural blindness and depravity of all men as fallen creatures; while others were peculiar to the Jews, and arose out of their traditional notions in regard to the nature and value of their special privileges, as a people in covenant with God.

The errors which were common to Jews and Gentiles alike, may be reduced to these two: first, to reliance on what they were, or had done, or might yet do; and secondly, to reliance on mere rites and ceremonies in the formal observance of religious worship. These were the fundamental errors which then prevailed equally among both (7); and if we investigate the sources from which they flowed, or the grounds on which they were maintained, we shall find that they originated, in either instance, from the same causes, which can be specified with the utmost precision, and proved to have been in powerful operation, both among Jews and Gentiles. These causes were,—First, their overlooking the guilt of sin, or its immediate and inevitable effect in subjecting the sinner to a sentence of condemnation, whatever may have been his conduct in other respects, and exposing his person to the righteous displeasure of an offended Lawgiver and Judge. Secondly, their overlooking the spirituality of the Law in its preceptive requirements, as reaching to the state of the heart, not less than the actions of the life, and prescribing holy principles, as well as correct practice. Thirdly, their overlooking, or underrating, the penal sentence of the Law, as if it did not imply any serious danger, or such only as might easily be averted by repentance, reformation, and temporal sufferings, while it could, in no case, be supposed to endure for ever. And fourthly, their overlooking, or proudly denying, their inability, as sinners, to do anything that could effectually secure their deliverance either from the guilt or dominion of sin, and give them any well-grounded assurance of pardon and acceptance here, or of eternal life hereafter.

These deep-seated causes of error on the subject of a sinner’s justification, were then in powerful operation both among Jews and Gentiles; but there was another class of errors which prevailed especially among the Jews, and which arose partly from their misconception of the nature and design of the privileges which undeniably belonged to them, as a people in covenant with God,—and partly from the mere human interpretations which they had received from their father and which served, in many cases, to make ‘the commandments of God of none effect by their traditions.’ They rested in their national privileges,—they relied on their connection with Abraham as his children,—they trusted in Moses, and ‘made their boast of the law,’—they gloried in circumcision, as the badge of their peculiar relation to God,—they proudly contrasted their condition with that of the Gentiles, ‘who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise;’ for ‘they were Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.’

When we combine in one view the errors which were thus peculiar to the Jews, with those which were common to them with the Gentiles, we are able to understand, in some measure, the views which then prevailed on the subject of Justification, and are prepared to estimate the wisdom and suitableness of the teaching of our Lord and His Apostles, when, in dealing with both parties, they sought to sweep away alike their common and their peculiar prejudices, and to convey the Gospel to their minds, as a divine message which proclaimed the free pardon of all sin, and the sure hope of eternal life, through faith alone.

We find our Lord, during His personal ministry, insisting much on the supreme and unchangeable authority of God’s Law; expounding the spiritual meaning of its precepts,—as requiring the homage of the heart, as well as the obedience of the life,—setting forth its penal sentence, as extending to everlasting punishment, where ‘the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,’—and insisting on the depraved state of all men, as rendering necessary something more than a mere outward reform, even an inward regeneration of the soul, if they would enter into the kingdom of God. We find Him making use of the Law, even in its covenant form, and saying, at one time, ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,’ and at another, ‘Thou hast answered right, This do, and thou shalt live;’2 for He knew that a pure and spiritual law, requiring perfect obedience as the condition of life, was the most powerful instrument of conviction, and that it could not be brought home to the conscience without making every sinner feel that he is self-convicted and self-condemned. He thus sought to impress them, in the first instance, with a sense of their guilt, and misery, and danger, as sinners—to convince them of their need of another method of Justification than that by works of obedience to the Law, and of a far deeper, more inward and radical, change of mind and heart, than they had ever imagined to be either necessary or even possible: and then He proclaimed, in all its richness and freeness, the Gospel of the grace of God; revealing Himself as the Messiah who had been promised to their fathers; announcing the object of His coming, even to give ’His life a ransom for many,’ that His ‘blood might be shed for the remission of sins,’ and proclaiming the doctrine of a free Justification by grace through faith, in that summary statement of the whole Gospel—‘God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but might have eternal life.’ He thus dealt with the deep-seated errors that were common to the Gentile and the Jew; and in dealing with those which were peculiar to the latter, He spoke of the humble publican as justified rather than the proud Pharisee,—of the wretched prodigal restored to his father’s home and heart,—of there being ‘more joy in heaven among the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentance.’ Speaking of their peculiar privileges, as the seed of Abraham, and the disciples of Moses, He told them, ‘If ye were the children of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham;’ ‘but ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.’ ‘There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.’ ’I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.’2

The Apostles dealt in like manner with the errors which were common alike to Jews and Gentiles, and those which were peculiar to the former. They were brought into immediate contact and collision with both; and equally in their preaching and in their epistles, they first applied the doctrine of the Law, whether of Nature or of Revelation, for the conviction of sin, and then proclaimed the Gospel, for the justification of the sinner. Paul especially, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, sets himself to prove that both Jew and Gentile were ‘all under sin,’—that ‘the wrath of God was revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness,’—that ‘every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God,’—and that ‘by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ He thus seeks to bring them to a sense of their need of another method of pardon and acceptance than any that could be found in their own righteousness, and then proclaims another righteousness, even ‘the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Christ alone.’

The manner in which our Lord and His Apostles dealt with the errors which then prevailed, both among Jews and Gentiles, is still deeply instructive, and fitted to throw much light both on the doctrine of Justification which they taught, and on the nature and causes of the opposition which it has encountered in all ages of the Church. These errors assumed various forms, but they had a common origin in the fallen nature of man, and they exhibit some marked features of resemblance to those which prevail at the present day. Nothing, indeed, is more remarkable, and nothing can well be more instructive, than the fact that, on a comparison of all the errors on this subject, whether ancient or modern,—the Gentile, the Jewish, the Mohammedan, the Pelagian, the Popish, the Socinian, the Arian, and the Neonomian,—they are found to exhibit, amidst some circumstantial differences, so much substantial sameness in their radical principles, as to show that human invention in such matters is extremely limited, and that all false religions, which originated from men, have a certain family likeness, by which they stand opposed to the Religion which is from God. It has been said that ‘it would be difficult to invent a new heresy’ (8); and the reason is, that all heresy has its roots in the depraved tendencies of nature, while nature is radically the same in all ages and in all nations. The grand characteristic of all human systems, as distinguished from the divine method of Justification, is self-righteousness or self-sufficiency, in one or other of its manifold forms, which are all, more or less, opposed to dependence on the grace of God: and this radical error manifests itself universally amongst men,—either in reliance on the general goodness of their character and moral conduct,—or in their observance of religious forms and ceremonies, as a compensation for any shortcoming in moral obedience,—or in their possession of peculiar privileges, viewed as special tokens of God’s favour. The two former grounds of false confidence appeared in Gentilism, the corruption of the Patriarchal religion,—and in Pharisaism, the corruption of the Jewish religion; while in the latter, they were combined with a third delusion,—reliance on their peculiar privileges as a Church, in special covenant with God; and all the three are equally manifest, in the corrupt forms, and mere nominal adherents, of Christianity itself. The errors were the same, and their causes were the same,—slight views of the evil and demerit of sin, arising from ignorance of the spirituality and extent of the divine law, and from unbelief in regard to its penal sanctions; and from the careful study of the manner in which they were dealt with by our Lord and His Apostles, we may best ascertain, both the true import of the doctrine which they taught, and the only effectual way of counteracting the same errors wherever they still prevail at the present day.

Besides the errors which prevailed, both among Jews and Gentiles, on the subject of a sinner’s acceptance with God, before the Gospel was proclaimed, there arose afterwards certain questions within the Christian Church itself, which had an important bearing on the doctrine of Justification, and which gave rise to new controversies, depending on different grounds from the former, and requiring, therefore, distinct and separate consideration. These questions arose partly from the influence of Judaizing teachers, on the one hand, and partly from the introduction into the Church of Gentile philosophy, on the other.

The first great controversy in the Apostolic Church was occasioned by the influence of Judaizing teachers, and had reference to the continued obligation and observance of the Mosaic Law. It was natural, and perhaps inevitable, that questions should arise on this subject at a time when the Church was in a state of transition from one divine dispensation to another, each of which was equally supernatural, and equally sanctioned by the same supreme authority. They were such as these: Whether the Jews who believed in Christ should, and how far they might lawfully, continue to attend the worship of the Jewish Church, or observe the ordinances of the Mosaic Law,—Whether the Gentile believers might be admitted into the Christian Church without passing through the porch of Judaism, and submitting to the rite of circumcision which bound them to observe the Law of Moses; and lastly,—a more general question which arose out of these two, and which had a most important bearing on the whole doctrine of Justification,—Whether faith in Christ was, or was not, sufficient for a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God, without obedience to any law, whether Ceremonial or Moral, as the reason or ground of his being justified. (9)

The last of these questions, as it was discussed by the Apostles in opposition to certain false teachers who had crept into the Church, is one, not only of deep historical interest, but of permanent value, as having a decisive bearing on the ground of a sinner’s Justification in every nation and in every age. It originated in, and was occasioned by, circumstances which were of a local and temporary nature, and the first questions which were suggested by these circumstances related chiefly to the mere observance of the Ceremonial Law: but these led on to a wider, and far more vital, question, which involved the radical principle of the whole Gospel, and included all obedience to law, whether Ceremonial or Moral, considered as the ground of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God. The fact that the discussion arose at first in connection with the observance of the Ceremonial Law, has been made a pretext for saying that it related to that law only, and had no bearing on obedience to the Moral Law; and hence it has been inferred that when Paul excludes ‘works’ from the ground of Justification, he means only such works as were peculiar to the Mosaic, as distinguished from the Christian, economy, and not those works of moral obedience which are due to the law that was common to both. (10) But while the discussion related, in the first instance, to the observance of the Ceremonial Law, it involved from the beginning the special question, whether that observance, considered as an act of obedience, was necessary to a sinner’s justification; and this led on to the more general question, whether obedience of whatever kind, Ceremonial or Moral, formed any part of the ground of his acceptance with God. The Apostle excludes all works without exception, Moral as well as Ceremonial,—and that, too, for the self-same reason,—namely, that they were works of law, and part of man’s obedience to God. There was a difference between the two in some respects; but in the one only respect in which they had any bearing on the Justification of sinners, they were precisely the same; for while the Ceremonial Law consisted of positive precepts which were binding on the Jews only, the observance of these precepts was a moral duty by reason of the divine authority which enacted them, and became binding only by virtue of that Moral Law which was common alike to Jews and Gentiles. To admit, therefore, that the observance of the Ceremonial Law was necessary to the Justification of a sinner, would have been to admit that he was justified in part by his obedience; but so far from admitting this, the Apostle takes occasion to show that neither Jew nor Gentile could be justified by works of obedience to any law, whether peculiar to the one or common to both, and that the one, not less than the other, might be justified, fully and freely, by grace through faith.

The special question, as to the necessity of Circumcision in the case of the Gentiles, was thus the occasion of a much more general discussion, in regard to the relation which Justification, in the case of a sinner, bears to Grace and Faith, on the one hand, and to Law and Works, on the other: and in conducting that discussion, in opposition to Judaizing teachers who insisted on the necessity of Circumcision, the Apostle passes far beyond the observance of the Ceremonial Law, and grapples with the fundamental principle which lay at the root of their false doctrine,—namely, that obedience to God’s Law, whether Ceremonial or Moral, was necessary as being the ground, in whole or in part, of a sinner’s Justification in His sight. And so far from confining himself to the Ceremonial Law,—which was the mere occasion, and not the chief subject, of his great argument,—he merely refers to it, in his Epistle to the Galatians, as that part of the Law which was morally binding on the Jews, until it was repealed by the same divine authority which imposed it, and shows that neither that part of their obedience, nor any other, could secure their Justification before God. He excludes, therefore, all works of obedience of whatever kind, and, in his Epistle to the Romans, his whole argument is based on a law which was common both to Jew and Gentile, and which made it manifest that ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight.’

The more special questions which led to this general discussion of the method of Justification, were speedily determined by the unanimous judgment of the Apostles, which obtained the general acquiescence of the primitive Church.

The question,—whether the Jews who believed in Christ should, or might lawfully, continue in the observance of those Mosaic institutions to which they had been accustomed from their earliest years,—was not settled abruptly by any dogmatic decree, but left to the judgment of every worshipper, who was held free to act on his own responsibility in this matter, provided he neither looked to any of these observances for his own justification, nor sought to impose them on others, as if they were necessary to salvation. In one view, the Jewish Dispensation may be said to have come to an end, when the figures under the Law were superseded by the substance under the Gospel, or when ‘the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom;’ and already the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentle was taken down by the vision and revelation which the Lord vouchsafed to Peter; but, practically, the old economy was to continue, to some extent, until God should finally abolish it by the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of His ancient people. During that interval, while the Ceremonial Law was no longer binding even on the Jews, it might still be observed, at least in part, and treated with reverence, both on account of its divine origin, and in deference to the general estimation in which it was held. A difference of practice in this respect was not deemed of such moment as to occasion division among Christian believers, or to disturb the peace of the Church; and it was dealt with by the Apostles in a truly catholic spirit, and on the most enlightened principles of mutual toleration. It was important, however, that the disciples should be gradually weaned from these observances; and the Epistle to the Hebrews was written on purpose to convince them—that they had now the substance instead of the shadow,—that the new dispensation was in every respect superior to the old,—that the type had now been realized in the antitype,—and that the services of the Law were ‘merely shadows of good things to come, but that the body is of Christ.’

The question, again,—whether the Gentiles might continue to eat meats which had been offered in sacrifice to idols,—was dealt with on the same enlightened principles. They were left free ‘to eat whatever might be set before them, asking no question for conscience sake;’ but if they were told that this meat was offered in sacrifice to idols, they were not to eat, simply because, by partaking of that food, they might seem to encourage idolatry,—might embolden weaker brethren who had not the same faith to sin against their conscience,—and might thus ‘put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in their brother’s way.’

The question, again,—whether the Gentiles who believed in Christ should be circumcised, and keep the Law,—was settled by God Himself, when He poured out the Holy Ghost, first on Cornelius and his company, and afterwards on the Gentiles at Antioch: and the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which was founded on the concurrent testimony of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, and proposed by James of Jerusalem, was merely declarative of the divine decision, and was passed unanimously by all the Apostles and brethren then convened. It rejected the opinion of those Pharisaic believers who insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile converts, and it imposed no other restriction on the Gentiles than what was equally incumbent on their Jewish brethren,—namely, that they should abstain from whatever might give offence or scandal to others, whose welfare they were bound to regard in the exercise of their Christian freedom. Some have attempted to show that the Apostles were divided in opinion on this subject, and that while Peter and James and the Church at Jerusalem agreed with the Pharisaic believers in holding the necessity of circumcision in the case of the Gentile converts, Paul and the Gentile churches stood alone in rejecting and condemning their doctrine. But this is at direct variance with the sacred narrative, which bears that the decree of the Council was unanimous—that it was adopted on the proposal of James himself—and that it was founded on the narrative of Peter and Barnabas, not less than of Paul. This gross misrepresentation rests entirely on a statement of Paul himself, to the effect that ‘at Antioch he withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed;’ and the reason why ‘he was to be blamed’ is distinctly stated: it was,—not that he differed in doctrine from Paul, or that he affirmed, while Paul denied, the necessity of circumcision in the case of Gentile believers,—but simply that his conduct was inconsistent, on that occasion, both with his avowed principles and his previous practice; for, ‘before certain persons came down from Jerusalem,’ he associated freely with the Gentiles, and did eat with them, but after their arrival ‘he withdrew and separated himself.’ It was not doctrinal error, but practical inconsistency, for which Paul ‘withstood him to the face;’ and Paul did so all the more boldly, because such conduct on the part of one who had learned at an earlier period ‘to call no man common or unclean’ was fitted, although not intended, to give offence to the Gentile believers, and to confirm the Pharisaic professors in the Jewish prejudices which still cleaved to them. When some other Jews, and even Barnabas, Paul’s chosen companion, ‘dissembled likewise,’ and ‘walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,’ Paul, with that straightforward integrity by which he was eminently characterized, pointed out, in the first place, the inconsistency of Peter’s personal conduct, saying ‘to him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’ and then, including Peter, and Barnabas, and all the Jews along with himself, and giving expression to their common faith, he declared that the Justification of Jew and Gentile alike rested on the same ground, and that it did not depend, in the case of either, on their observance of the Mosaic Law. He strikes at the root of the evil by founding mainly on the case of the Jews, and argues from the one to the other, a fortiori. ‘We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,—that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ Both might be justified, the circumcised Jew, and the uncircumcised Gentile; but both must be saved in the same way, by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. For the great question which was ever present to his mind was one which related alike to Jew and Gentile,—whether by any work of man, of whatever kind, or only by the mere grace of God, through the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by a lively faith, any one can attain the pardon of sins, and a right to eternal salvation. (11)

Paul’s views in regard to circumcision, in its relation to the Jews, on the one hand, and to the Gentiles, on the other, receive an instructive illustration from the seemingly opposite course which he pursued in dealing with the cases of Timothy and Titus. Timothy was the son of a Jewess, Eunice, whose ‘unfeigned faith’ was attested by the Apostle; him Paul ‘took and circumcised, because of the Jews which were in those quarters,’—thereby showing that, like the other Apostles, he tolerated the continued observance of this part of the law among the Jews, while the Church was yet in a state of transition from the old to the new dispensation. On another occasion, also, he complied with the ceremonial requirements of the law, when he purified himself with four men who had a vow on them, and entered into the temple with them, on express purpose to disarm the prejudices of Jewish believers against him, as one who was supposed to teach ‘that the Jews must forsake Moses, and cease to circumcise their children.’2 But Titus was ’a Greek;’ and when certain ‘false brethren’ would have ‘compelled him to be circumcised,’ as if this were necessary, in the case of a Gentile believer, to his acceptance with God, ‘Paul gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue’ with the Gentile Church. In both cases, he acted on the same comprehensive principle, and in the same catholic spirit: ‘I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law: to them that are without law, as without law, that I might gain them that are without law.’ There was no dissembling, and no time-serving here; he openly avowed, and fearlessly acted on his convictions, in regard alike to the lawfulness of circumcision for a time among the Jews, and the utter unlawfulness of imposing it on the Gentiles; and he maintained that, being unnecessary for the Justification of believing Gentles, it could form no part of the ground of Justification even in the case of believing Jews.

The questions, which have been briefly explained, had an important bearing, more or less directly, on the fundamental doctrine of a sinner’s Justification; and the precise import of that doctrine, as it was taught by the Apostles, may be best ascertained by a careful consideration of the discussions which were occasioned by them in the primitive Church. Not only the arguments of the Apostles, but the objections of their opponents also, serve to bring out, and to place very clearly before us, the salient points of what the Apostles were understood to have taught. It was objected, for example, that ‘they made void the law through faith;’ the Apostle denies the charge, but adds, ‘Yea we establish the law,’—clearly showing that he spoke not of the ceremonial, but of the moral law. It was objected again, that if his doctrine of Justification by grace without works were true, ‘men might continue in sin because grace abounds;’ the Apostle rejects and refutes this false inference from his doctrine,—but that inference, whether true or false, clearly shows that the Justification of which he spoke was not understood on either side to be Sanctification, or to depend at all on Sanctification as its ground,—for there could be no room for the objection, if Paul was supposed to teach that men are justified by their infused or inherent righteousness. And so in many other instances, the objections of avowed unbelievers, or of Pharisaic professors, throw much light on what was then understood to be the Apostle’s meaning, and go far to determine many modern questions in regard to the Gospel doctrine of Justification. (12)

Another controversy, which arose at a later period in the Apostolic Church, was occasioned by the introduction, through some learned converts, of certain false principles of Gentile philosophy. Paul took occasion to warn the disciples of the danger that might arise from this source: ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.’ But it was at a later period that John referred mote specifically to the heresy which had begun to appear among some speculative members of the Church, and which threatened to undermine their faith in all the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. It arose from a mere figment of philosophy, which represented matter as being essentially evil, and it consisted in denying the reality of our Lord’s body,—thereby setting aside the doctrine of His incarnation, and consequently the doctrine of His human sufferings, and His atoning death. Of course this heresy undermined the very foundations of Christian faith, and left no ground for a sinner’s Justification in the shedding of the Saviour’s blood. For this reason, the aged Apostle condemned it with the same energy and earnestness with which Paul had opposed the errors of Judaizing teachers: ‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.’

It had been well for the Christian Church, if this seasonable warning against ‘philosophy, falsely so called,’ had been remembered and applied in every stage of her subsequent history; for all the chief corruptions of her doctrine,—especially on the subject of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God,—arose, in the East, from the admixture of the Platonic, and in the West, from the admixture of the Aristotelian, philosophy, with the articles of the Christian faith.