Chapter 20: James on Faith and Works; Its Agreement with Paul

THe seeming difference that is between the apostle Paul and James in what they teach concerning faith, works, and justification, requires our consideration of it. For many do take advantage from some words and expressions used by the later, directly to oppose the doctrine fully and plainly declared by the former. But whatever is of that nature pretended has been so satisfactorily already answered and removed by others, as that there is no great need to treat of it again. And although I suppose that there will not be an end of contending and writing in these causes, whil we know but in part and Prophesie but in part, yet I must say, that in my judgment the usual solution of this appearing difficulty securing the doctrine of justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ from any concernment or contradiction in the discourse of St. James, Chap. 2. verse 14. to the end, has not been in the least impeached, not has had any new difficulty put upon it in some late discourses to that purpose. I should therefore utterly forbear to speak any thing hereof, but that I suppose it will be expected in a discourse of this nature, and do hope that I also may contribute some light unto the clearing and vindication of the truth. To this purpose it may be observed, That 1. It is taken for granted on all hands, that there is no real repugnancy or contradiction between what is delivered by these two apostles. For if that were so, the writings of one of them must be Pseudepigrapha, or falsly ascribed unto them whose names they bear, and uncanonical, as the authority of the epistle of James has been by some both of old and of late highly, but rashly questioned. Wherefore their words are certainly capable of a just reconciliation. That we cannot any of us attain thereunto, or that we do not agree therein is from the darkness of our own minds, the weakness of our understandings, and with too many, from the power of prejudices.

2. It is taken also for granted on all other occasions, that when there is an appearance of Repugnancy or contradiction in any places of scripture, if some, or any of them, do treat directly, designedly, and largely about the matter concerning which there is a seeming repugnancy or contradiction, and others, or any other speak of the same things only Obiter occasionally, transiently, in order unto other ends, the truth is to be learned, stated and fixed from the former places. Or the interpretation of those places where any truth is mentioned only occasionally with reference unto other things or ends, is, as unto that truth, to be taken from and accommodated unto those other places wherein it is the design and purpose of the Holy Penman to declare it for its own sake, and to guide the faith of the church therein. And there is not a more rational and natural rule of the interpretation of scripture among all them which are by common consent agreed upon.

3. According unto this rule, it is unquestionable that the doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of the apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places of scripture where it is occasionally mentioned. Especially it is so, considering how exactly this doctrine represents the whole Scope of the scripture, and is witnessed unto by particular testimonies occasionally given unto the same truth, without number. For it must be acknowledged that he wrote of this subject of our justification before God, on purpose to declare it for its own sake, and its use in the church, and that he does it fully, largely, and frequently in a constant Harmony of expressions. And he owns those reasons that pressed him unto fulness, and accuracy herein. (1) The importance of the doctrine it self. This he declares to be such, as that thereon our salvation does immediately depend; and that it was the hinge whereon the whole doctrine of the gospel did turn, Articulus stantis aut cadentis-Ecelesiae, Galatians 2:16, 21. Chap. 5:4, 5. (2) The plausible and dangerous opposition, that was then made unto it. This was so managed, and that with such specious pretences as that very many were prevailed on, and turned from the truth by it, as it was with the Galatians, and many detained from the faith of the gospel out of a dislike unto it, Romans 10:3, 4. What care and diligence this requirs in the declaration of any truth is sufficiently known unto them, who are acquainted with these things, What zeal, care and circumspection it stirred up the apostle unto, is manifest in all his writings. (3) The Abuse which the corrupt nature of man is apt to put upon this doctrine of grace, and which some did actually pervert it unto. This also himself takes notice of, and througly vindicates it from giving the least countenance unto such wrestings and impositions. Certainly, never was there a greater necessity incumbent on any person fully and plainly to teach and declare a doctrine of truth, than was on him at that time in his circumstances, considering the place and duty that he was called unto. And no reason can be imagined why we should not principally and in the first place learn the truth herein from his declaration and vindication of it, if withal we do indeed believe that he wasDivinely inspired, and Divinely guided to reveal the truth for the information of the church.

As unto what is delivered by the apostle James, so far as our justification is included therein, things are quite otherwise. He does not undertake to declare the doctrine of our justification before God, but having another design in hand as we shall see immediately, he vindicates it from the abuse that some in those days had put it unto, as other doctrines of the grace of God which they turn'd into licentiousness. Wherefore it is from the writings of the apostle Paul, that we are principally to learn the truth in this matter, and unto what is by him plainly declared is the interpretation of other places to be accommodated.

4. Some of late are not of this mind: They contend earnestly that Paul is to be interpreted by James, and not on the contrary. And unto this end they tell us that the Writings of Paul are obscure, that sundry of the antients take notice thereof, that many take occasion of errors from them, with sundry things of an alike nature, indeed scandalous to Christian religion. And that James writing after him, is presumed to give an interpretation unto his sayings, which are therefore to be expounded and understood according unto that interpretation. Ans. (1) As to the vindication of the Writings of St. Paul, which begin now to be frequently reflected on with much severity (which is one effect of the secret prevalency of the Atheism of these days) as there is no need of it, so it is designed for a more proper place. Only I know not how any person that can pretend the least acquaintance with Antiquity can plead a passage out of Irenaeus wherein he was evidently himself mistaken, or a rash word of Origen, or the like in derogation from the perspicuity of the Writings of this apostle, when they cannot but know how easie it were to overwhelm them with testimonies unto the contrary from all the famous writers of the church in several ages. And (as for instance in one) Chrysostome in forty places gives an account why some men understood not his Writings which in themselves were so gloriously evident and perspicuous; so for their satisfaction I shall refer them only unto the Preface unto his Exposition of his epistles, of which kind they will be directed unto more in due season. But he needs not the testimony of men, nor of the whole church together, whose safety and security it is to be built on that doctrine which he taught. In the mean time it would not be unpleasant to consider (but that the perverseness of the minds of men is rather a real occasion of sorrow) how those who have the same design do agree in their conceptions about his Writings, for some will have it, that if not all, yet the most of his epistles were Written against the Gnosticks and in the confutation of their errour; others, that the Gnosticks took the occasion of their errours from his Writings. So bold will men make with things Divine to satisfy a present interest.

Secondly, This was not the judgment of the ancient church for three or four hundred years. For whereas the epistles of Paul were always esteemed the principal treasure of the church, the great guide and rule of the Christian faith, this of James was scarce received as Canonical by many, and doubted of by the most, as both Eusebius and Hierome do testifie.

Thirdly, The design of the apostle James is not at all to explain the meaning of Paul in his epistles as is pretended, but only to vindicate the doctrine of the gospel from the abuse of such as used their liberty for a cloak of Maliciousness, and turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, continued in sin under a pretence that grace had abounded unto that end.

Fourthly, The apostle Paul does himself as we have declared, vindicate his own doctrine from such exceptions and abuses as men either made at it, or turned it unto. Nor have we any other doctrine in his epistles than what he Preached all the world over, and whereby he laid the foundation of Christian religion especially among the gentiles.

These things being premised, I shall briefly evidence that there is not the least Repugnancy or contradiction between what is declared by these two apostles, as unto our justification with the causes of it. And this I shall do, 1. By some general considerations of the nature and tendency of both their discourses. (2) By a particular explication of the context in that of St. James. And under the first head I shall manifest. (1) That they have not the same scope, design or end in their discourses; That they do not consider the same question, nor state the same case, nor determine on the same inquiry, and therefore not speaking ad idem unto the same thing do not contradict one another. (2) That as faith is a word of various signification in the scripture, and does as we have proved before, denote that which is of divers kinds, they speak not of the same faith, or faith of the same kind, and therefore there can be no contradiction in what the one ascribes unto it, and the other derogates from it, seeing they speak not of the same faith. (3) That they do not speak of justification in the same sense, nor with respect unto the same ends. (4) That as unto works they both intend the same, namely, the works of obedience unto the moral law.

As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul, the question which he answers, the case which he proposs and determines upon, are manifest in all his Writings, especially his epistles unto the Romans and Galatians. The whole of his purpose is to declare, how a guilty convinced sinner comes through faith in the blood of Christ to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted with God, and obtain a right unto the Heavenly inheritance, that is, be acquitted and justified in the sight of God. And as the doctrine hereof belonged eminently unto the gospel, whose Revelation and declaration unto the gentiles was in a peculiar manner committed unto him, so as we have newly observed, he had an especial reason to insist much upon it from the opposition that was made unto it by the jews and Judaizing Christians, who ascribed this priviledge unto the law, and our own works of obedience in compliance therewithal. This is the case he states, this the question he determines in all his discourses about justification; and in the explication thereof declares the nature and causes of it, as also vindicates it from all exceptions. For whereas men of corrupt minds and willing to indulge unto their lusts (as all men naturally desire nothing but what God has made eternally inconsistent, namely, that they may live in sin here, and come to blessedness hereafter) might conclude that if it were so as he declared, that we are justified freely through the grace of God by the imputation of a righteousness that Originally and inherently is not our own, then was there no more required of us, no relinquishment of sin, no attendance unto the duties of righteousness and holiness, he obviates such impious suggestions, and shews the inconsequence of them on the doctrine that he taught. But this he does not do in any place by intimating or granting that our own works of obedience or righteousness are necessary unto, or have any causal influence into our justification before God. Had there been a truth herein, were not a supposition thereof really inconsistent with the whole of his doctrine and destructive of it, he would not have omitted the Plea of it, nor ought so to have done, as we have shewed. And to suppose that there was need that any other should explain and vindicate his doctrine from the same exceptions which he takes notice of by such a Plea, as he himself would not make use of but rejects, is foolish and impious.

The apostle James on the other hand had no such scope or design, or any such occasion for what he wrote in this matter. He does not inquire, or give intimation of any such inquiry, he does not state the case how a guilty convinced sinner whose mouth is stopped as unto any plea or excuse for himself, may come to be justified in the sight of God, that is, receive the pardon of sins, and the gift of righteousness unto life. To resolve this question into our own works, is to overthrow the whole gospel. But he had in hand a business quite of another nature. For as we have said, there were many in those days who professed the Christian religion or faith in the gospel, whereon they presumed that as they were already justified, so that there was nothing more needful unto them that they might be saved. A desirable estate they thought they had attained, suited unto all the interest of the Flesh, whereby they might live in sin, and neglect of all duty of obedience, and yet be eternally saved. Some suppose that this pernicious conceit was imbibed by them from the poysonous Opinions that some had then divulged, according as the apostle Paul foretold that it would come to pass, 2 Timothy 4:1, 2, 3. For it is generally conceived that Simon Magus and his followers had by this time infected the minds of many with their abominations, and amongst them this was one, and not the least pernicious, that by faith was intended a liberty from the law, and unto sin, or unto them that had it, the taking away of all difference between good and evil, which was afterwards improved by Basilides Valentinus, and the rest of the Gnosticks. Or it may be it was only the corruption of mens hearts and lives, that prompted them to seek after such a countenance unto sin. And this latter I judg it was. There were then among professed Christians, such as the world now swarms withal, who suppose that their faith, or the religion which they profess, be it what it will, shall save them, although they live in flagitious wickedness, and are utterly barren as unto any good works or duties of obedience. Nor is there any other occasion of what he writes intimated in the epistle; For he makes no mention of Seducers, as John does expressly and frequently, some while after. Against this sort of persons, or for their conviction he designs two things. (1.) In general to prove the necessity of works unto all that profess the gospel or faith in Christ thereby. (2.) To evidence the vanity and folly of their pretence unto justification, or that they were justified and should be saved, by that faith that was indeed so far from being fruitful in good works, as that it was pretended by them only to countenance themselves in sin. Unto these ends are all his arguings designed and no other. He proves effectually that the faith which is wholly barren and fruitless as unto obedience, and which men pretended to countenance themselves in their sins, is not that faith whereby we are justified, and whereby we may be saved, but a dead carcass, of no use nor benefit, as he declares by the Conclusion of his whole dispute, in the last verse of the chapter. He does not direct any how they may be justified before God, but convincs some that they are not justified by trusting unto such a dead faith, and declares the only way whereby any man may really evidence and manifest that he is so justified indeed. This design of his is so plain, as nothing can be more evident, and they miss the whole scope of the apostle, who observe it not in their Expositions of the Context. Wherefore the principal design of the apostles being so distant, there is no repugnancy in their Assertions, though their words make an appearance thereof. For they do not speak ad idem, nor of things eodem respectu. James does not once inquire how a guilty convinced sinner, cast and condemned by the law, may come to be justified before God; and Paul speaks to nothing else. Wherefore apply the Expressions of each of them unto their proper design and scope, as we must do, or we depart from all sober rules of Interpretation, and render it impossible to understand either of them aright, and there is no disagreement or appearance of it between them.

Secondly, they speak not of the same faith. Wherefore there can be no discrepancy in what one ascribes unto faith, and the other denies concerning it, seeing they understand not the same thing thereby, for they speak not of the same faith. As if one affirms that fire will burn, and another denys it, there is no contradiction between them, whilst one intends real fire, and the other only that which is painted, and both declare themselves accordingly. For we have proved before that there are two sorts of faith wherewith men are said to believe the gospel, and make profession thereof, as also that which belongs unto the one, does not belong unto the other; None I suppose will deny but that by faith in the matter of our justification, St. Paul intends that which is or properly so called. The faith of Gods elect, precious faith, more precious then Gold, the faith that purifies the heart, and works by love, the faith whereby Christ dwells in us, and we abide in him, whereby we live to God, a living faith, is that alone which he intends. For all these things, and other Spiritual effects without number does he ascribe unto that faith which he insists on, to be on our part the only means of our justification before God. But as unto the faith intended by the apostle James, he assigns nothing of all this unto it; yea, the only argument whereby he proves that men cannot be saved by that faith which he treats of, is that nothing of all this is found in it. That which he intends is, what he calls it, a dead faith, a Carcass without breath, the faith of Devils, a wordy faith, that is no more truly what it is called, than it is true charity to send away naked and hungry persons without relief, but no without derision. Well may he deny justification in any sense unto to this faith however boasted of, when yet it may be justly ascribed unto that faith which Paul speaks of.

Bellarmine useth several arguments to prove that the faith here intended by James, is justifying faith considered in its self; but they are all weak to contempt, as being built on this supposition, that true justifying faith is nothing but a real assent unto the Catholick doctrine or Divine Revelation. De Justificat. lib. 1. cap. 15. His first is, that James calls it faith absolutely, whereby always in the scripture true faith is intended. Ans. 1. James calls it a Dead faith, the faith of Devils, and casts all manner of reproach upon it, which he would not have done on any duty or grace truely Evangelical. (2.) Every faith that is true as unto the reality of assent which is given by it unto the truth, is neither living, justifying, nor saving, as has been proved. (3.) They are said to have faith absolutely or absolutely to believe, who never had that faith which is true and saving, John 2:23. Acts 8:13. He urgs that in the same place and chapter he treats of the faith of Abraham, and affirms that it wrought with his works, Vers. 22, 23. But this a vain shadow of faith does not do; It was therefore true faith, and that which is most properly called so, that the apostle intends. Ans. This pretence is indeed ridiculous: For the apostle does not give the faith of Abraham as an instance of that faith which he had treated with so much severity, but of that which is directly contrary unto it, and whereby he designed to prove that the other faith which he had reflected on, was of no use nor advantage unto them that had it. For this faith of Abraham produced good works, which the other was wholly without. Thirdly, He urgs, verse 24 You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only: For the faith that James speaks of justifies with works, but a false faith, the shadow of a faith does not so; it is therefore true saving faith, whereof the apostle speaks. Ans. He is utterly [〈1 page duplicate〉][〈1 page duplicate〉] mistaken; for the apostle does not ascribe justification partly to works, and partly to faith; but he ascribes justification in the sense by him intended, wholly to works in opposition to that faith concerning which he treats. For there is a plain Antithesis in the words between works and faith as unto justification in the sense by him intended. A dead faith, a faith without works, the faith of Devils is excluded from having any influence into justification, Fourthly, He adds that the apostle compares this faith without works unto a rich man that gives nothing unto the poor, verse 16. and a body without a Spirit, verse 26. wherefore, as that knowledg whereby a rich man knows the wants of the poor is true and real, and a dead body is a body; so is faith without works true faith also, and as such is considered by saint James. Ans. These things do evidently destroy what they are produced in the confirmation of, only the Cardinal helps them out with a little Sophistry. For whereas the apostle compares this faith unto the charity of a man that gives nothing to the poor, he suggests in the room thereof his knowledge of their poverty. And his knowledge may be true, and the more true and certain it is, the more false and feigned is the charity which he pretends in these words, Go and be fed or cloathed. Such is the faith the apostle speaks of. And although a dead body is a true body, that is, as unto the matter or substance of it, a Carcass; yet is it not an essential part of a living man. A Carcass is not of the same nature or kind as is the body of a living man. And we assert no other difference between the faith spoken of by the apostle, and that which is justifying, than what is between a dead breathless Carcass and a living animated body, prepared and fitted for all vital acts. Wherefore it is evident beyond all contradiction, if we have not a mind to be contentious, that what the apostle James here derogates from faith as unto our justification it respects only a dead barren lifeless faith, such as is usually pretended by ungodly godly men to countenance themselves in their sins. And herein the faith asserted by Paul has no concern. The consideration of the present condition of the profession of faith in the world, will direct us unto the best exposition of this place.

Thirdly, They speak not of justification in the same sense nor unto the same end. It is of our absolute justification before God, the justification of our persons, our acceptance with him and the grant of a right unto the Heavenly inheritance, that the apostle Paul does treat and thereof alone. This he declares in all the causes of it, all that on the part of God, or on our part concurrs thereunto. The evidence, the knowledge, the sense, the fruit, the manifestation of it in our own Consciences, in the church, unto others that profess the faith, he treats not of, but speaks of them separately as they occur on other occasions. The justification he treats of, is but one and at once accomplished before God, changing the relative state of the person justified, and is capable of being evidenced various ways unto the glory of God and the consolation of them that truly believe. Hereof the apostle James does not treat at all; for his whole inquiry is after the nature of that faith whereby we are justified, and the only way whereby it may be evidenced to be of the right kind, such as a man may safely trust unto. Wherefore he treats of justification only as to the evidence and manifestation of it, nor had he any occasion to do otherwise. And this is apparent from both the instances, whereby he confirms his purpose. The first, is that of Abraham, verse 21:22, 23. For he says, that by Abrahams being justified by works in the way and manner wherein he asserts him so to have been, the scripture was fulfilled, which says that Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. And if his intention were to prove that we are justified before God by works and not by faith, because Abraham was so, the testimony produced is contrary, yea directly contradictory unto what should be proved by it, and accordingly is alledged by Paul to prove that Abraham was justified by faith without works, as the words do plainly import. Nor can any man declare, how the truth of this proposition, Abraham was justified by works, intending absolute justification before God, was that wherein that scripture was fulfilled; Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; especially, considering the opposition that is made both here and elsewhere between faith and works in this matter. Besides, he asserts that Abraham was justified by works then when he had offered his Son on the Altar; the same we believe also, but only inquire in what sense he was so justified. For it was Thirty years or thereabout after it was testified concerning him, that he believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and when righteousness was imputed unto him he was justified. And twice justified in the same sense, in the same way, with the same kind of justification he was not. How then was he justified by works when he offered his Son on the Altar? He that can conceive it to be any otherwise, but that he was by his work in the offering of his Son evidenced and declared in the sight of God and man to be justified, apprehends what I cannot attain unto, seeing that he was really justified long before, as is unquestionable and confessed by all. He was I say then justified in the sight of God, in the way declared, Genesis 22:12. And gave a signal testimony unto the sincerity of his faith and trust in God, manifesting the truth of that scripture, he believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. And in the quotation of this testimony the apostle openly acknowledgs that he was really accounted righteous, had righteousness imputed unto him and was justified before God (the reasons and causes whereof, he therefore considers not) long before that justification which he ascribes unto his works, which therefore can be nothing but the evidencing proving and manifestation of it: whence also it appears of what nature that faith is whereby we are justified, the declaration whereof is the principal design of the apostle. In brief the scripture alledged that Abraham believed and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, was fulfilled when he was justified by works on the offering of his Son on the Altar, either by the imputation of righteousness unto him, or by a real efficiency or working righteousness in him, or by the manifestation and evidence of his former justification, or some other way must be found out. (1) That it was not by imputation, or that righteousness unto the justification of life, was not then first imputed unto him is plain in the Text, for it was so imputed unto him long before, and that in such a way as the apostle proves thereby, that righteousness is imputed without works. (2) That he was not justified by a real efficiency of an habit of righteousness in him, or by any way of making him inherently righteous, who was before unrighteous is plain also, because he was righteous in that sense long before, and had abounded in the works of righteousness unto the praise of God. It remains therefore that then, and by the work mentioned, he was justified as unto the evidencing and manifestation of his faith and justification thereon. His other instance is of Rahab concerning whom he asserts that she was justified by works when she had received the Messengers and sent them away. But she received the Spies by faith, as the Holy Ghost witnesss, Hebrews 11:31. And therefore had true faith before their coming; and if so, was really justified. For that any one should be a true believer, and yet not be justified is destructive unto the foundation of the gospel. In this condition she received the Messengers, and made unto them a full declaration of her faith, Joshua 2:10, 11. After her believing and justification thereon, and after the confession she had made of her faith, she exposed her life by concealing and sending of them away. Hereby did she justify the sincerity of her faith and confession, and in that sense alone is said to be justified by works: And in no other sense does the apostle James in this place make mention of justification, which he does also only occasionally.

Fourthly, As unto works mentioned by both apostles, the same works are intended, and there is no disagreement in the least about them. For as the apostle James intends by works, duties of obedience unto God according to the law, as is evident from the whole first part of the chapter, which gives occasion unto the discourse of faith and works; So the same are intended by the apostle Paul also, as we have proved before. And as unto the necessity of them in all believers, as unto other ends, so as evidences of their faith and justification, it is no less pressed by the one than the other as has been declared.

These things being in general premised, we may observe some things in particular from the discourse of the apostle James, sufficiently evidencing that there is no contradiction therein, unto what is delivered by the apostle Paul concerning our justification by faith and the imputation of righteousness without works, nor to the doctrine which from him we have learned and declared; as (1) He makes no composition or conjunction between faith and works in our justification, but opposs them the one to the other, asserting the one and rejecting the other in order unto our justification. (2) He makes no distinction of a first and second justification, of the beginning and continuation of justification, but speaks of one justification only which is our first personal justification before God. Neither are we concerned in any other justification in this cause whatever. (3) That he ascribes this justification wholly unto works in contradistinction unto faith, as unto that sense of justification which he intended, and the faith whereof he treated Wherefore (4) He does not at all inquire or determine how a sinner is justified before God, but how Professors of the gospel can prove or demonstrate that they are so, and that they do not deceive themselves by trusting unto a lifeless and barren faith. All these things will be further evidenced in a brief consideration of the context it self, wherewith I shall close this discourse.

In the beginning of the chapter unto verse 14. He reproves those unto whom he wrote for many sins committed against the law the rule of their sins and obedience; or at least warns them of them; and having shewed the danger they were in hereby, he discovers the Root and principal occasion of it, verse 14. which was no other but a vain surmise and deceiving presumption that the faith required in the gospel was nothing but a bare assent unto the doctrine of it, whereon they were delivered from all obligation unto moral obedience or good works, and might without any danger unto their eternal state live in whatever sins their lusts inclined them unto, Chap. 4. verse 1, 2, 3, 4. Chap. 5. verse 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The state of such persons which contains the whole cause which he speaks unto, and which gives rule and measure unto the interpretation of all his future arguings is laid down, verse 14. What does it profit my Brethren though a man say he has faith and have not works, can faith save him? suppose a man, any one of those who are guilty of the sins charged on them in the foregoing verses, do yet say, or boast of himself, that he has faith, that he makes profession of the gospel, that he has left either Judaism or Paganism, and betaken himself to the faith of the gospel, and therefore although he be destitute of good works, and live in sin, he is accepted with God and shall be saved? will indeed this faith save him? this therefore is the question proposed: whereas the gospel says plainly, that he who believs shall be saved; whether that faith which may and does consist with an indulgence unto sin, and a neglect of duties of obedience, is that faith whereunto the promise of life and salvation is annexed? And thereon, the inquiry proceeds, how any man, in particular he who says he has faith, may prove and evidence himself to have that faith which will secure his salvation. And the apostle denies that this is such a faith as can consist without works, or that any man can evidence himself to have true faith any otherwise but by works of obedience only. And in the proof hereof does his whole ensuing discourse consist. Not once does he propose unto consideration the means and causes of the justification of a convinced sinner before God, nor had he any occasion so to do. So that his words are openly wrested when they are applied unto any such intention.

That the faith which he intends and describes, is altogether useless unto the end pretended to be attainable by it; namely, salvation, he proves in an instance of, and by comparing it with the love or charity of an alike nature, verse 15:16. If a Brother or Sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto him, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what does it profit? This love or charity is not that gospel grace which is required of us under that name; For he who behavs himself thus towards the poor, the love of God dwells not in him, 1 John 3:17. whatever name it may have, whatever it may pretend unto, whatever it may be professed or accepted for, love it is not, nor has any of the effects of love; is neither useful nor profitable. Hence the apostle infers, verse 17. Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead being alone. For this was that which he undertook to prove, not that we are not justified by faith alone without works before God, but that the faith which is alone without works, is dead useless and unprofitable.

Having given this first evidence unto the conclusion which in Thesi he designed to prove, he reassumes the question and states it in Hypothesi, so as to give it a more full demonstration, verse 15. Yea a man may say you hast faith, and I have works, shew me your faith without your works, (that is, which is without works, or by your works) and I will shew you my faith by my works. It is plain beyond denial, that the apostle does here again propose his main question only on a supposition that there is a dead useless faith which he had proved before. For now all the inquiry remaining is how true faith, or that which is of the right gospel kind, may be shewed, evidenced or demonstrated, so, as that their folly may appear, who trust unto any other faith whatever , evidence or demonstate your faith to be true by the only means thereof, which is works. And therefore although he say, you hast faith, that is, you profess and boast that you hast that faith whereby you may be saved, and I have works, he does not say, shew me your faith by your works, and I will shew you my works by my faith, which the Antithesis would require, but I will shew you my faith by my works, because the whole question was concerning the evidencing of faith and not of works.

That this faith which cannot be evidenced by works, which is not fruitful in them, but consists only in a bare assent unto the truth of Divine Revelation, is not the faith that does justify or will save us, he further proves in that it is no other but what the Devils themselves have, and no man can think or hope to be saved by that which is common unto them with Devils, and wherein they do much exceed them, verse 11. You beliiv there is one God, you dost well, the Devils also believe and tremble. The belief of one God is not the whole of what the Devils believe, but is singled out as the principal fundamental truth, and on the concession whereof an assent unto all Divine Revelation does necessarily ensue. And this is the second argument, whereby he proves an empty barren faith to be dead and useless.

The second Confirmation being given unto his principal assertion, He restates it in that way, and under those terms wherein he designed it unto its last Confirmation. But wilt you know O vain man that faith without works is dead? verse 20. And we may consider in the words. (1) The person with whom he deals whose conviction he endeavoured him, he calls a vain man, not in general, as every man living is altogether vanity, but as one who in an especial manner is vainly puffed up in his own fleshly mind, one that has entertained vain Imaginations of being saved by an empty profession of the gospel, without any fruit of obedience. (2) That which he designs with respect unto this vain man is his conviction, a conviction of that foolish and pernicious errour that he had imbibed; wilt you know O vain man. (3) That which alone he designed to convince him of is, that faith without works is dead; that is, the faith which is without works, which is barren and unfruitful, is dead and useless. This is that alone, and this is all that he undertakes to prove by his following instances and Arguings, neither do they prove any more. To wrest his words to any other purpose when they are all proper and suited unto what he expresss as his only design, is to offer violence unto them.

This therefore he proves by the consideration of the faith of Abraham. verse 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar? Some things must be observed to clear the mind of the apostle herein: As (1) It is certain that Abraham was justified many years before the work instanced in was performed: For long before was that testimony given concerning him, he believed in the Lord, and he counted it unto him for righteousness, and the imputation of righteousness upon believing is all the justification we inquire after or will contend about. (2) It is certain that in the relation of the Story here repeated by the apostle, there is not any one word spoken of Abrahams being then justified before God, by that or any other work whatever. But (3) It is plain and evident that in the place related unto, Abraham was declared to be justified by an open attestation unto his faith and fear of God as sincere, and that they had evidenced themselves so to be, in the sight of God himself, which God condescends to express by an assumption of humane affections, Genesis 22:12. Now I know that you fear God, seeing you hast not withheld your Son, yours only Son from me. That this is the justification which the apostle intends cannot be denied, but out of love to strife. And this was the manifestation and declaration of the truth and sincerity of his faith whereby he was justified before God. And hereby the apostle directly and undeniably proves what he producs this instance for; namely, that faith without works is dead. (4) It is no less evident that the apostle had not spoken any thing before, as unto our justification before God, and the means thereof. And is therefore absurdly imagined here to introduce it in the proof of what he had before asserted, which it does not prove at all. (5) The only safe rule of interpreting the meaning of the apostle next unto the scope and design of his present discourse, which he makes manifest in the reiterated proposition of it, and the scope of the places, matter of fact, with its circumstances which he refers unto, and takes his proof from, and they were plainly these and no other. Abraham had been long a justified believer, for there were Thirty years or thereabout, between the testimony given thereunto, Genesis 15. and the story of Sacrificing his Son related, Genesis 22. All this while he walked with God, and was upright in a course of holy fruitful obedience. Yet it pleased God to put his faith after many others, unto a new, his greatest, his last trial. And it is the way of God in the covenant of grace, to try the faith of them that believe by such ways as seem meet unto him. Hereby he manifests how precious it is (the trial of faith making it appear to be more precious than Gold, 1 Peter 1:7.) and raiss up glory unto himself, which is in the nature of faith to give unto him, Romans 4:20. And this is the state of the case as proposed by the apostle; namely how it may be tried whether the faith which men profess be genuine precious, more precious than Gold, of the right nature with that whereunto the gospel promise of salvation is annexed. 2. This trial was made by works or by one signal duty of obedience prescribed unto him for that very end and purpose. For Abraham was to be proposed as a Pattern unto all that should afterwards believe. And God provided a signal way for the trial of his faith; namely, by an act of obedience, which was so far from being enjoyned by the moral law that it seemed contrary unto it. And if he be proposed unto us as a Pattern of justification by works in the sight of God, it must be by such works as God has not required in the moral law, but such as seem to be contrary thereunto. Nor can any man receive any incouragement to expect justification by works, by telling him that Abraham was justified by works, when he offered up his only Son to God, for it will be easie for him to say, that as no such work was ever performed by him, so none such was ever required of him. But (3) upon Abrahams compliance with the command of God given him in the way of trial, God himself declares the sincerity of his faith and his justification thereon, or his gracious acceptance of him. This is the whole design of the place which the apostle traducs unto his purpose; And it contains the whole of what he was to prove and no more. Plainly it is granted in it that we are not justified by our works before God, seeing he instances only in a work performed by a justified believer many years after he was absolutely justified before God. But this is evidently proved hereby; namely, that faith without works is dead; seeing justifying faith as is evident in the case of Abraham is that, and that alone which brings forth works of obedience; For on such a faith alone, is a man evidenced declared and pronounced to be justified or accepted with God. Abraham was not then first justified; He was not then said to be justified, he was declared to be justified, and that by and upon his works, which contains the whole of what the apostle intends to prove.

There is therefore no appearance of the least contradiction between this apostle and Paul who professedly asserts, that Abraham was not justified before God by works. For James only declares that by the works which he performed after he was justified, he was manifested and declared so to be. And that this was the whole of his design, he manifests in the next verses, where he declares what he had proved by this instance, verse 22. Seest you how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. Two things he inforcs as proved unto the conviction of him, with whom he had to do. (1) That true faith will operate by works, so did Abrahams, it was effective in obedience. (2) That it was made perfect by works, that is evidenced so to be. For does no where in the scripture signifie the internal, formal perfecting of any thing, but only the external complement or perfection of it, or the manifestation of it. It was compleat as unto its proper effect, when he was first justified; and it was now manifested so to be. See Matthew 5:48. Colossians 4:12. 2 Corinthians 12:9. This says the apostle, I have proved in the instance of Abraham; namely, that it is works of obedience alone that can evince a man to be justified, or to have that faith whereby he may be so. (3) He adds in the confirmation of what he had affirmed, verse 23. And the scripture was fulfilled, which says Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God.

Two things the apostle affirms here[••] (1) That the scripture mentioned was fulfilled. It was so in that justification by works which he ascribes unto Abraham. But how this scripture was herein fulfilled, either as unto the time wherein it was spoken, or as unto the thing it self, any otherwise but as that, which is therein asserted, was evidenced and declared, no man can explain, what the scripture affirmed so long before of Abraham was then evidenced to be most true, by the works which his faith produced, and so that scripture was accomplished. For otherwise supposing the distinctions made between faith and works by himself, and the opposition that he puts between them, adding thereunto the sense given of this place by the apostle Paul, with the direct importance of the words, and nothing can be more contradictory unto his design; (namely, if he intended to prove our justification before God by works) than the quotation of this testimony. Wherefore this scripture neither was nor can be otherwise fulfilled by Abrahams justification by works, but only that by and upon them he was manifested so to be. (2) He adds that hereon he was called the friend of God. So he is, Isaiah 41:8. as also 2 Chron. 20:7. This is of the same importance with his being justified by works: For he was not thus called merely as a justified person, but as one who had received singular priviledges from God, and answered them by an holy walking before him. Wherefore his being called the friend of God was Gods approbation of his faith and obedience, which is the justification by works that the apostle asserts.

Hereon he makes a double conclusion (for the instance of Rahab being of the same nature and spoken unto before, I shall not insist again upon it) (1) As unto his present argument, verse 24. (2) As unto the whole of his design, verse 26. The first is, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only; Ye see then; you whom I design to convince of the vanity of that imagination, that you are justified by a dead faith, a breathless Carcass of faith, a mere assent unto the truth of the gospel and profession of it, consistent with all manner of impiety, and wholly destitute of good fruits, you may see what faith it is that is required unto justification and salvation. For Abraham was declared to be righteous, to be justified on that faith which wrought by works, and not at all by such a faith as you pretend unto. A man is justified by works as Abraham was when he had offered up his Son to God. That is, what he really was by faith long before, as the scripture testifis, was then and thereby evidenced and declared. And therefore let no man suppose that by the faith which they boasted of, any one is or can be justified, seeing that whereon Abraham was declared to be so, was that which evidenced it self by its fruits. (2) He lays down that great conclusion which he had evinced by his whole disputation, and which at first he designed to confirm, verse 26. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. A breathless Carcass and an unworking faith are alike, as unto all the ends of natural or spiritual life. This was that which the apostle designed from the beginning to convince vain and barren professors of, which accordingly he has given sufficient reason and testimony for.

FINIS.

The apparent difference between the apostle Paul and James in what they teach about faith, works, and justification requires our attention. Many people take advantage of certain words and expressions in James to directly oppose the doctrine fully and plainly set out by Paul. But whatever has been claimed along these lines has already been answered so thoroughly by others that there is little need to go over it again. And while I expect that debate and writing on these questions will continue as long as our knowledge remains partial, I must say that in my judgment the standard resolution of this apparent difficulty — which secures the doctrine of justification by faith through the imputation of Christ's righteousness from any contradiction in James chapter 2, verse 14 to the end — has not been undermined in the least, nor has any new difficulty been raised against it in recent discussions. I would therefore have left the matter entirely alone were it not that some treatment of it is expected in a work of this kind, and I also hope to contribute something to the clarity and defense of the truth. To that end, it should be observed, first, that all parties agree there is no real conflict or contradiction between these two apostles. If there were, the writings of one of them would have to be falsely attributed — not genuinely written by the person named — and therefore uncanonical, as the authority of James's epistle has been rashly questioned by some, both in early times and more recently. Their words are therefore certainly capable of a just reconciliation. Our failure to achieve or agree on that reconciliation comes from the darkness of our own minds, the weakness of our understanding, and for too many people, from the power of prejudice.

Second, it is also universally agreed on all other occasions that when there is an apparent conflict or contradiction in any passages of Scripture — where some passages treat directly, deliberately, and at length on the matter in question, while others mention the same things only incidentally and in passing, in pursuit of other aims — the truth is to be learned, established, and determined from the former passages. In other words, the interpretation of passages where a truth appears only incidentally, in relation to other things or ends, must be drawn from and shaped by those other passages where the inspired writer's purpose is specifically to declare that truth for its own sake and to guide the faith of the church. Among all the interpretive rules generally agreed upon for reading Scripture, this is one of the most rational and natural.

Third, by this rule it is beyond question that the doctrine of justification before God is to be learned from the writings of the apostle Paul, and that his treatment of it should illuminate all other Scripture passages where it is mentioned incidentally. This is especially true given how precisely his doctrine represents the whole scope of Scripture and how it is confirmed by countless incidental testimonies throughout. It must be acknowledged that Paul wrote about our justification before God specifically to declare it for its own sake and for its use in the church — and that he does so fully, extensively, and repeatedly, in consistent harmony of expression. He himself explains what drove him to such thoroughness and precision. First, the importance of the doctrine itself. He makes clear that our salvation directly depends on it and that it is the hinge on which the whole doctrine of the gospel turns — the article by which the church stands or falls (Galatians 2:16, 21; 5:4-5). Second, the persuasive and dangerous opposition that was then being mounted against it. This opposition was so skillfully conducted, with such plausible pretexts, that many were won over and turned from the truth by it — as happened with the Galatians — and many others were kept from the faith of the gospel because they disliked it (Romans 10:3-4). Those familiar with such situations know what care and diligence the declaration of a truth under such conditions demands. How much zeal, care, and watchfulness it aroused in the apostle is evident throughout his writings. Third, the misuse that fallen human nature is prone to make of this doctrine of grace — and which some people actually did pervert it to. Paul himself takes note of this and thoroughly vindicates the doctrine from giving any support to such distortions and impositions. Certainly, no person was ever under a greater obligation to teach and declare a doctrine fully and plainly than Paul was at that time, given his position and calling. And if we truly believe he was divinely inspired and divinely guided to reveal the truth for the instruction of the church, there is no reason we should not learn this truth primarily and first from his declaration and defense of it.

As for what the apostle James delivers, insofar as our justification is involved, the situation is quite different. He does not set out to declare the doctrine of our justification before God. Rather, having a different purpose in view — as we will see momentarily — he defends it from the misuse that some in his day were making of it, just as others turned other doctrines of God's grace into license. Therefore, it is from the writings of the apostle Paul that we must primarily learn the truth in this matter, and the interpretation of other passages must be shaped by what he has plainly declared.

Fourth, some recent writers take the opposite position: they argue earnestly that Paul should be interpreted by James, not the other way around. To support this they tell us that Paul's writings are obscure, that various ancient writers noted this, that many have drawn erroneous conclusions from them — along with various similar claims, which in fact bring discredit on Christianity. They also claim that James, writing after Paul, is presumed to be interpreting his statements, and that Paul should therefore be understood in light of James's interpretation. In response: first, regarding the defense of Paul's writings, which are now frequently criticized with considerable severity (a symptom of the quiet spread of atheism in our time) — as there is no need for such a defense here, it is reserved for a more fitting place. I will only say that I cannot understand how anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the ancient writers can appeal to a passage from Irenaeus where he was plainly mistaken, or to an offhand remark from Origen, or anything similar, as grounds for questioning the clarity of Paul's writings — when they cannot but know how easy it would be to overwhelm them with testimonies to the contrary from the major writers of the church across multiple centuries. To take one example: Chrysostom in forty places explains why some people failed to understand Paul's writings, which in themselves were so gloriously clear and transparent. For their benefit I will simply refer them to his preface to the exposition of Paul's epistles, and they will be directed to more of the same in due course. But Paul does not need the testimony of men, nor of the whole church together. His safety and security belong to those who build on the doctrine he taught. In the meantime it would be interesting to note — though the perverseness of the human mind gives more cause for sorrow than amusement — how those with the same agenda reach contradictory conclusions about his writings: some claim that if not all, then most of his epistles were written against the Gnostics and to refute their errors; others claim that the Gnostics drew their errors from his writings. Such liberties will people take with divine things to serve an immediate interest.

Second, this was not the view of the ancient church for the first three or four centuries. Paul's epistles were always regarded as the church's primary treasure and the great guide and rule of the Christian faith, while the epistle of James was barely accepted as canonical by many and was doubted by most — as both Eusebius and Jerome testify.

Third, the purpose of the apostle James is not at all to explain what Paul meant in his epistles, as is claimed, but only to defend the doctrine of the gospel from those who were abusing their freedom as a cover for malice — turning the grace of God into license and continuing in sin on the pretense that grace had increased as a result.

Fourth, the apostle Paul himself, as we have shown, defends his own doctrine against the objections and abuses that people either raised against it or distorted it to support. And we have no other doctrine in his epistles than what he preached throughout the world, and by which he laid the foundation of the Christian faith especially among the Gentiles.

With these points established, I will briefly demonstrate that there is not the slightest conflict or contradiction between what these two apostles declare regarding our justification and its causes. I will do this, first, by some general observations about the nature and direction of both their discussions; and second, by a close examination of the context in James. Under the first heading I will show: first, that they do not have the same scope, purpose, or goal in their discussions — they do not address the same question, state the same case, or resolve the same inquiry, and therefore since they are not speaking to the same thing, they cannot be contradicting each other; second, that since faith is a word with various meanings in Scripture and, as we have shown earlier, refers to things of different kinds, they are not speaking of the same faith or the same kind of faith — and therefore no contradiction can exist between what the one attributes to it and what the other denies of it, since they are speaking of different things; third, that they do not use justification in the same sense or with reference to the same ends; and fourth, that regarding works, both apostles mean the same thing — namely, works of obedience to the moral law.

The scope and purpose of the apostle Paul, the question he answers, and the case he sets out and resolves, are evident throughout his writings — especially his letters to the Romans and Galatians. His entire aim is to declare how a guilty, convicted sinner comes through faith in the blood of Christ to have all his sins pardoned, to be accepted by God, and to obtain a right to the heavenly inheritance — that is, to be acquitted and justified before God. Since this doctrine was central to the gospel, whose declaration to the Gentiles was especially entrusted to Paul, and since — as we just noted — he had particular reason to press it given the opposition mounted against it by Jews and Judaizing Christians who attributed this privilege to the law and to our own works of obedience, this is the case he states and the question he resolves in all his discussions of justification. In explaining it he also declares its nature and causes, and defends it against every objection. Because people of corrupt minds who want to indulge their desires — and all people naturally desire what God has made eternally incompatible: to live in sin now and arrive at blessedness hereafter — might conclude that if what Paul declared were true, and we are freely justified by God's grace through the imputation of a righteousness not originally and inherently our own, then nothing more would be required of us: no turning from sin, no pursuit of righteousness and holiness. Paul preempts these godless suggestions and shows they do not follow from the doctrine he taught. But he does not do this anywhere by suggesting or conceding that our own works of obedience or righteousness are necessary for or have any causal role in our justification before God. If there had been any truth in such a position — if it were not actually incompatible with and destructive of his whole doctrine — he would not have omitted it, nor should he have, as we have shown. And to suppose that anyone else needed to vindicate his doctrine from the same objections he himself addressed — by appealing to a position he himself would not use but explicitly rejected — is both foolish and misguided.

The apostle James, on the other hand, had no such purpose or design, nor any such occasion for what he wrote on this matter. He does not raise or even hint at the question of how a guilty, convicted sinner whose every excuse has been silenced may come to be justified before God — that is, receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of righteousness leading to life. To resolve that question by pointing to our own works would overthrow the entire gospel. James had a completely different matter in hand. As we noted, many people in those days professed the Christian faith or claimed to believe the gospel, and on that basis assumed they were already justified and that nothing more was needed for their salvation. They imagined they had reached a desirable condition that suited all the desires of the flesh — one that allowed them to live in sin, neglect all duties of obedience, and still be saved in the end. Some suppose this harmful idea was absorbed from the poisonous teachings that had begun to circulate, as the apostle Paul predicted would happen (2 Timothy 4:1-3). It is generally believed that Simon Magus and his followers had by this time infected many minds with their corrupt teachings. Among them, and not the least dangerous, was the idea that faith meant freedom from the law and freedom to sin — or, for those who held it, the abolishing of any difference between good and evil. This was later developed by Basilides, Valentinus, and the rest of the Gnostics. Or perhaps it was simply the corruption of people's own hearts and lives that led them to seek such a cover for their sin. I believe it was the latter. There were among professing Christians in those days the same kind of people the world is now full of — those who suppose that their faith or the religion they profess, whatever it may be, will save them even if they live in open wickedness and are utterly fruitless when it comes to good works and duties of obedience. No other occasion for what James writes is suggested in the letter — he makes no mention of deceivers, as John does explicitly and repeatedly some time later. Against this kind of person — or for their correction — James has two goals: first, to prove in general that works are necessary for all who profess the gospel or faith in Christ; and second, to expose the emptiness and absurdity of their claim to justification — that is, that they were justified and would be saved on the basis of a faith that so far from bearing good fruit was actually invoked by them to excuse their sins. All of his arguments serve these ends and no others. He effectively proves that a faith which is entirely barren and fruitless in obedience — and which people invoke to cover themselves in sin — is not the faith by which we are justified and saved, but a dead shell, of no use or benefit, as he declares in the conclusion of his entire argument in the last verse of the chapter. He does not direct anyone on how to be justified before God. Rather, he convinces some that they are not justified by relying on such dead faith, and declares the only way anyone can truly demonstrate and show that they genuinely are justified. His purpose is so plain that nothing could be more obvious, and those who miss it in their expositions of this passage have missed the whole point of the apostle. Since the two apostles' primary purposes are so different, there is no real conflict in their statements, even though their words create an appearance of one. They are not speaking to the same thing or from the same perspective. James never once addresses how a guilty, convicted sinner condemned by the law may come to be justified before God — and Paul speaks of nothing else. Apply the expressions of each to their proper purpose and scope, as we must do — or else we abandon all sound principles of interpretation and make it impossible to understand either of them correctly — and there is no disagreement between them, nor even any appearance of one.

Second, they are not speaking of the same faith. Therefore no discrepancy can exist between what one ascribes to faith and what the other denies of it, since they do not mean the same thing by the word — they are speaking of different kinds of faith. If one person affirms that fire burns and another denies it, there is no contradiction between them as long as one means real fire and the other means something painted or depicted, and both make this clear. We have already shown that there are two kinds of faith by which people are said to believe the gospel and profess it, and that what belongs to one does not belong to the other. No one, I think, will deny that when Paul speaks of faith in relation to justification, he means genuine saving faith — what Scripture calls the faith of God's elect, precious faith more valuable than gold, the faith that purifies the heart and works through love, the faith through which Christ dwells in us and we abide in Him, through which we live to God: a living faith. That is the only faith he has in mind, and to it he ascribes all these things and countless other spiritual effects as the only means on our part of justification before God. But regarding the faith James has in view, he assigns none of these qualities to it. In fact, his only argument for why people cannot be saved by this faith is precisely that none of these things are found in it. What James has in mind is what he himself calls it: a dead faith, a lifeless shell, the faith of demons, a verbal faith — no more truly deserving the name than it is true charity to send away the naked and hungry with a wish for warmth and food but nothing more, and even that accompanied by mockery. He is well within his rights to deny justification in any sense to this faith, however confidently it is claimed — while justification may rightly be ascribed to the faith Paul speaks of.

Bellarmine uses several arguments to prove that the faith James has in mind is true justifying faith considered in itself — but all of them are hopelessly weak, being built on the assumption that genuine justifying faith is nothing more than a real assent to the Catholic doctrine or divine revelation (De Justificatione, lib. 1, cap. 15). His first argument is that James calls it faith without qualification, and that the unqualified use of the word in Scripture always refers to true faith. In response: first, James calls it a dead faith, the faith of demons, and heaps contempt upon it, which he would never have done to any genuinely evangelical grace or duty. Second, every faith that is real as an act of intellectual assent to the truth is not thereby living, justifying, or saving — as has been proved. Third, people are said to believe, or to have faith, without qualification, who never had true and saving faith (John 2:23; Acts 8:13). Bellarmine then presses that in the same passage and chapter James discusses the faith of Abraham and affirms that it worked together with his works (James 2:22-23). A mere shadow of faith does not do this, he argues — therefore James must be speaking of true faith, the most properly so-called. This is a transparently weak argument. The apostle does not offer Abraham's faith as an example of the dead faith he has been reproaching so severely, but as the direct opposite of it — using it to prove that the empty faith he had critiqued is of no use or benefit to those who hold it. Abraham's faith produced good works; the other faith produced none at all. Third, Bellarmine presses James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." He argues that the faith James speaks of justifies along with works, but a false faith — a mere shadow of faith — does not, and therefore James must be speaking of true saving faith. He is entirely mistaken. The apostle does not ascribe justification partly to works and partly to faith. Rather, he ascribes justification in the sense he intends wholly to works, in direct contrast to the kind of faith he is discussing. There is a plain opposition in the words between works and faith as James uses justification. A dead faith, a faith without works, the faith of demons, is excluded from having any bearing on justification. Fourth, Bellarmine adds that the apostle compares this faith without works to a wealthy man who gives nothing to the poor (James 2:16) and to a body without a spirit (James 2:26). Therefore, just as the knowledge by which a rich man recognizes the needs of the poor is real and genuine, and a dead body is still a body, so faith without works is still true faith and is treated as such by James. These examples actually destroy the point they are meant to support, though the Cardinal rescues them with a little sleight of hand. Where the apostle compares this faith to the charity of a man who gives nothing to the poor, Bellarmine substitutes his knowledge of their poverty. But that knowledge may be perfectly real and accurate — and the more real and certain it is, the more false and hollow is the charity he pretends by saying "Go, be warm and well fed." That is precisely the kind of faith James is describing. And while a dead body is a true body in the sense of its matter or substance — a corpse — it is not a constituent part of a living human being. A corpse is not the same in nature or kind as the body of a living person. We assert no other difference between the faith James speaks of and justifying faith than the difference between a dead, breathless corpse and a living, animated body capable of all vital functions. It is therefore beyond all reasonable dispute — for those not intent on being argumentative — that what James denies to faith with respect to justification applies only to a dead, barren, lifeless faith of the kind typically invoked by ungodly people to excuse themselves in their sins. The faith Paul asserts is not in view at all. Observing the current state of faith in the world today will guide us to the best understanding of this passage.

Third, they do not speak of justification in the same sense or for the same purpose. Paul treats exclusively of our absolute justification before God — the justification of our persons, our acceptance with Him, and the granting of a right to the heavenly inheritance. He declares all the causes of this: everything that contributes to it on God's side and on ours. He does not in those discussions treat of the evidence, the knowledge, the sense, the fruit, or the manifestation of justification in our consciences, in the church, or to others who profess the faith — though he addresses those things separately as they arise on other occasions. The justification he treats of is a single, once-for-all act before God that changes the standing of the person justified, and it may be evidenced in various ways to the glory of God and the comfort of true believers. James does not deal with this at all. His entire inquiry concerns the nature of the faith by which we are justified — and specifically the only way by which it can be shown to be genuine and of the right kind, the kind a person may safely trust. Therefore James treats of justification only as to its evidence and demonstration. He had no occasion to treat of it in any other way. This is evident from both of the examples he uses to support his point. The first is Abraham, in James 2:21-23. James says that in the manner and way in which he shows Abraham to have been justified by works, the Scripture was fulfilled that says Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. If his intention were to prove that we are justified before God by works rather than by faith, because Abraham was so, the evidence he cites directly contradicts what he is trying to prove — and it is cited by Paul to demonstrate precisely the opposite: that Abraham was justified by faith without works, as the words plainly state. No one can explain how the truth of the proposition "Abraham was justified by works" — understood as absolute justification before God — was what fulfilled the Scripture "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness," especially given the opposition everywhere made between faith and works in this matter. Moreover, James asserts that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son on the altar — as do we. But we simply ask in what sense he was so justified. It was approximately thirty years after it was testified of him that he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. And when righteousness was credited to him, he was justified. He could not have been twice justified in the same sense, in the same way, with the same kind of justification. How then was he justified by works when he offered his son on the altar? The only conceivable answer is that through his act of offering his son, he was evidenced and declared — before God and men — to be justified. Any other reading is beyond my comprehension, since it is beyond question and universally agreed that he was truly justified long before. He was then, as I say, justified in the sight of God in the way declared in Genesis 22:12, and he gave a striking testimony to the sincerity of his faith and trust in God, demonstrating the truth of the Scripture: "he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." In citing this testimony, James openly acknowledges that Abraham was genuinely accounted righteous — that righteousness was imputed to him and he was justified before God — long before the justification James attributes to his works (whose reasons and causes James therefore does not consider). That justification by works can only be the evidencing, proving, and manifesting of his prior justification. This also shows the nature of the faith by which we are justified, which is the apostle's main purpose to declare. In brief: the Scripture that Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness was fulfilled when he was justified by works in offering his son — and this must have occurred either by imputation of righteousness, or by an actual working of righteousness in him, or by the manifestation and evidence of his prior justification, or by some other means yet to be identified. First, that it was not by imputation at that time — that righteousness leading to life was not first credited to him then — is clear from the text, for it had been credited to him long before, and in such a way that Paul uses it to prove righteousness is credited apart from works. Second, that he was not justified by an actual working of an inward habit of righteousness in him — as if he had previously been unrighteous and was now made righteous inherently — is also clear, because he had been righteous in that sense long before and had abounded in works of righteousness to God's praise. It remains, therefore, that by the act mentioned, he was justified in the sense of evidencing and manifesting his faith and the justification that rested on it. James's other example is Rahab, of whom he asserts she was justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them away. But she received the spies by faith, as the Holy Spirit testifies in Hebrews 11:31. She therefore had true faith before they arrived — and if so, she was already truly justified, since for anyone to be a true believer and yet not be justified destroys the foundation of the gospel. It was in this condition that she received the messengers and made a full declaration of her faith to them (Joshua 2:10-11). After her believing and the justification that followed, and after the confession of her faith she had made, she risked her life by hiding them and sending them away. By this she proved the sincerity of her faith and confession, and it is in that sense alone that she is said to be justified by works — and it is in no other sense that the apostle James speaks of justification in this passage, which he also mentions only incidentally.

Fourth, regarding the works mentioned by both apostles: they have the same works in mind, and there is no disagreement between them on this point at all. James means by works the duties of obedience to God according to the law, as is evident from the entire first part of the chapter, which occasions the discussion of faith and works. Paul means the same, as we have shown earlier. And as for the necessity of works in all believers — as evidence of their faith and justification as well as for other purposes — this is pressed no less by the one apostle than the other, as has been made clear.

With these general points established, we may observe some particulars from James's discussion that make sufficiently clear there is no contradiction between it and what Paul declares about justification by faith and the imputation of righteousness apart from works — and no contradiction with the doctrine we have learned from Paul and set out here. First, James makes no combination or joining of faith and works in justification, but sets them in opposition, affirming one and rejecting the other in relation to justification. Second, he makes no distinction between a first and second justification, or between the beginning and continuation of justification — he speaks of one justification only, which is our first personal justification before God. No other justification concerns us in this matter. Third, he attributes this justification entirely to works in direct contrast to faith — as far as the sense of justification he intends and the kind of faith he is discussing are concerned. Therefore, fourth, he does not at all raise or resolve the question of how a sinner is justified before God, but rather how those who profess the gospel can prove and demonstrate that they are indeed justified — and that they are not deceiving themselves by trusting to a lifeless and fruitless faith. All of this will be further confirmed in a brief examination of the passage itself, with which I will bring this discussion to a close.

From the beginning of the chapter through verse 13, James rebukes those to whom he writes for many sins committed against the law — the rule of their sin and obedience — or at minimum warns them of these sins. Having shown the danger they were in because of them, he identifies the root and main cause of the problem in verse 14: nothing other than a foolish and self-deceiving presumption that the faith required by the gospel amounted to mere intellectual assent to its teaching, which they imagined freed them from all obligation to moral obedience or good works, so that they could live in whatever sins their desires inclined them to without any danger to their eternal standing (James 4:1-4; 5:1-5). The condition of such people — which is the entire issue he is addressing and which governs the interpretation of everything he goes on to argue — is stated in verse 14: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but has no works? Can that faith save him?" Suppose any one of those guilty of the sins he charged them with in the preceding verses were to say or boast that he has faith — that he professes the gospel, that he has left Judaism or paganism and embraced the Christian faith — and therefore, although he has no good works and lives in sin, he is accepted by God and will be saved. Will this faith actually save him? That is the question being raised: since the gospel plainly says that the one who believes will be saved, the question is whether a faith that is compatible with and even invoked to excuse sinful indulgence and neglect of obedience is the faith to which the promise of life and salvation is attached. From this the inquiry follows: how can anyone — and specifically anyone who claims to have faith — prove and demonstrate that he has the faith that will secure his salvation? The apostle denies that a faith consistent with the absence of works is such a faith, and that anyone can demonstrate he has true faith by any means other than works of obedience. Proving this is the entire purpose of everything he goes on to say. Not once does he set before the reader the means and causes of a convicted sinner's justification before God — he had no occasion to do so. Therefore his words are openly distorted when they are applied to any such intention.

That the faith James has in mind and describes is entirely useless for the end it is claimed to achieve — namely, salvation — he proves by an example and by comparing it to a similar kind of love or charity in James 2:15-16: "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" This love or charity is not the gospel grace required of us by that name. For whoever behaves this way toward the poor does not have the love of God dwelling in him (1 John 3:17). Whatever name it bears, whatever it claims to be, whatever it is professed or accepted as — it is not love and has none of love's effects. It is useless and worthless. From this the apostle concludes in verse 17: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." This was precisely what he undertook to prove — not that we are not justified by faith alone without works before God, but that faith which stands alone without works is dead, useless, and worthless.

Having given this first argument for the conclusion he set out to prove in general terms, he restates the question and presents it in a more concrete form to give it fuller demonstration in verse 18: "But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.'" It is unmistakably clear that the apostle is here again raising his main question, but now on the assumption of the dead and useless faith he had already established. The remaining inquiry is simply how true faith — faith of the right gospel kind — may be shown, evidenced, or demonstrated, so that the folly of trusting in any other kind of faith becomes apparent. The answer: demonstrate your faith to be genuine by the only means available, which is works. Therefore, although he says "you have faith" — meaning you profess and boast of having the faith by which you may be saved — and "I have works," he does not say "show me your faith by your works, and I will show you my works by my faith," which the strict antithesis would require. Instead he says "I will show you my faith by my works," because the entire question was about demonstrating faith, not demonstrating works.

He further proves that this faith — the faith that cannot be evidenced by works, that bears no fruit, and that consists only in bare intellectual assent to divine revelation — is not the faith that justifies or will save us, by pointing out that it is no different from what the demons themselves have. No one can hope to be saved by something shared with demons, in which they even excel: "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:19). Belief in one God is not the whole of what the demons believe, but is singled out as the foundational truth, assent to which necessarily carries assent to all divine revelation. This is his second argument proving that an empty, barren faith is dead and useless.

Having given his second confirmation of his main assertion, James restates it in the form and terms that set up its final and definitive proof: "But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" (James 2:20). We should observe three things in these words. First, the person he is addressing — whose conviction he is seeking — he calls a foolish fellow. Not in the general sense in which every person is altogether vain, but as someone who is specifically puffed up in his own carnal thinking: a person who has entertained the foolish delusion that he can be saved by an empty profession of the gospel without any fruit of obedience. Second, his purpose with respect to this foolish man is to bring him to his senses — to convict him of the foolish and destructive error he has embraced: "Are you willing to recognize...?" Third, the one and only thing he sets out to convince him of is that faith without works is useless — that is, the faith which is without works, which is barren and fruitless, is dead and worthless. This is all, and the only thing, he undertakes to prove by the arguments and examples that follow — and they prove nothing more. To force his words into any other purpose, when they are all perfectly suited to what he states as his sole aim, is to do violence to them.

He proves this, therefore, by examining the faith of Abraham in James 2:21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" Several observations are needed to clarify the apostle's meaning. First, it is certain that Abraham was justified many years before the act here cited was performed. Long before it, the testimony was given of him: "he believed in the Lord; and He credited it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). The imputation of righteousness upon believing is the whole of the justification we are discussing and contending for. Second, it is certain that in the account of the story James refers to here, not a single word is said about Abraham being justified before God by that act or by any other work. Third, it is plain and clear that in the passage James cites, Abraham was declared to be justified — by an open attestation to the genuineness and sincerity of his faith and fear of God, attested in the sight of God Himself, which God condescends to express using human terms: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me" (Genesis 22:12). That this is the justification the apostle intends cannot be denied except by someone determined to argue. It was the manifestation and declaration of the truth and sincerity of the faith by which he had been justified before God. And by this the apostle directly and unmistakably proves exactly what he cited this example to prove — namely, that faith without works is dead. Fourth, it is no less clear that the apostle has said nothing up to this point about our justification before God and the means by which it is obtained. It is therefore absurd to imagine he is introducing that subject here in order to prove what he had previously asserted — since it does not prove that at all. Fifth, the safest rule for interpreting the apostle's meaning — next to the scope and purpose of his present discussion, which he makes plain through his repeated statement of it — is the scope of the actual events, their circumstances, and what he draws his proof from. And these are plainly the following and nothing else. Abraham had long been a justified believer — about thirty years separated the testimony given in Genesis 15 from the story of the sacrifice of his son in Genesis 22. Throughout all that time he walked with God and lived in a course of holy, fruitful obedience. Yet it pleased God, after many other tests, to subject his faith to a new one — his greatest and final trial. It is God's way in the covenant of grace to test the faith of believers in ways He sees fit. By this He shows how precious faith is — the testing of faith showing it to be more precious than gold (1 Peter 1:7) — and He raises glory to Himself, which it is the very nature of faith to give Him (Romans 4:20). This is the state of the case as the apostle presents it: how it may be tested whether the faith a person professes is genuine, precious, more precious than gold — truly of the kind to which the gospel promise of salvation is attached. Second, this test came through works — through one significant act of obedience prescribed to Abraham for that very purpose. For Abraham was to serve as a pattern for all who would believe after him. God provided a singular way to test his faith: by an act of obedience that was so far from being required by the moral law that it seemed contrary to it. If Abraham is held up as a pattern of justification by works before God, it must be by means of works that God has not required in the moral law — works that actually seem contrary to it. Nor can anyone be encouraged to expect justification by works by being told that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up his only son to God, since it is easy to reply that no such work was ever performed by anyone else, nor was any such work ever required of anyone else. Third, when Abraham complied with God's command given to him as a test, God Himself declared the sincerity of his faith and his justification on that basis, or His gracious acceptance of him. This is the entire purpose of the passage the apostle applies to his argument, and it contains the whole of what he needed to prove — nothing more. The passage clearly concedes that we are not justified by our works before God, since the example James uses is of a work performed by an already-justified believer approximately thirty years after he had been absolutely justified before God. But this is what the passage clearly proves: that faith without works is dead. For justifying faith — as is evident in Abraham's case — is precisely the faith, and only that faith, which produces works of obedience. It is on the basis of such faith alone that a person is evidenced, declared, and pronounced to be justified and accepted by God. Abraham was not first justified then. He was not said to be justified then. He was declared to be justified — and that by and through his works. This is the whole of what the apostle intends to prove.

There is therefore not even the appearance of the slightest contradiction between James and Paul, who explicitly asserts that Abraham was not justified before God by works. James only declares that by the works he performed after he was already justified, he was manifested and declared to be so. That this was the whole of his purpose, he makes clear in the next verses, where he states what he has proved by this example in James 2:22: "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected." He presses two things as proved for the conviction of the person he is addressing. First, that true faith will operate through works — as Abraham's did: it was active in obedience. Second, that it was made perfect by works — that is, evidenced to be so. "Made perfect" in Scripture does not refer to the internal, formal completing of something, but only to its external completion, fulfillment, or manifestation. Abraham's faith was complete in its proper effect when he was first justified; now it was shown to be so. See Matthew 5:48; Colossians 4:12; 2 Corinthians 12:9. This, says the apostle, is what I have proved by the example of Abraham — namely, that it is works of obedience alone that can show a man to be justified, or to have the faith by which he may be justified. Third, in confirmation of what he has affirmed, he adds in James 2:23: "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God."

The apostle asserts two things here. First, that the Scripture cited was fulfilled — and it was fulfilled in the justification by works he ascribes to Abraham. But no one can explain how this Scripture was fulfilled — either in terms of the time it was originally spoken or in terms of the event itself — in any other way than that what it had long before asserted of Abraham was then evidenced to be perfectly true, through the works his faith produced. In this way that Scripture was accomplished. For otherwise — taking account of the distinctions James himself makes between faith and works, the opposition he places between them, the interpretation given to this passage by the apostle Paul, and the plain meaning of the words — nothing could be more contrary to his design than the quotation of this testimony, if he intended to prove our justification before God by works. Therefore this Scripture was not and cannot be fulfilled by Abraham's justification by works in any other way than this: that through and upon those works he was manifested and declared to be justified. Second, James adds that Abraham was therefore called the friend of God — as in Isaiah 41:8 and 2 Chronicles 20:7. This carries the same meaning as his being justified by works. For he was not called the friend of God merely as a justified person, but as one who had received singular privileges from God and had answered them with a holy walk before Him. His being called the friend of God was therefore God's approval of his faith and obedience — which is the justification by works the apostle asserts.

From this James draws a double conclusion (the example of Rahab being of the same nature and already addressed, I will not return to it). The first conclusion relates to his present argument in James 2:24; the second to the whole of his purpose in James 2:26. The first: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is: you who I intend to convince of the emptiness of the delusion that you are justified by a dead faith — a breathless corpse of faith, a mere assent to the truth of the gospel and profession of it, compatible with all kinds of ungodliness and entirely without good fruit — now you can see what kind of faith is required for justification and salvation. For Abraham was declared righteous, was declared justified, on the basis of a faith that worked through deeds — and not at all on the basis of the kind of faith you are claiming. A man is justified by works as Abraham was when he offered up his son to God: that is, what he truly was by faith long before — as Scripture testifies — was then and by that means evidenced and declared. Therefore let no one suppose that by the faith they boast of, anyone is or can be justified — since that on the basis of which Abraham was declared to be justified was precisely a faith that evidenced itself by its fruits. The second conclusion is the great summary James has established through his entire argument — the conclusion he set out to confirm from the beginning, in James 2:26: "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." A breathless corpse and an inactive faith are alike in this: neither is capable of any of the purposes of natural or spiritual life. This was what the apostle aimed from the beginning to drive home to empty and fruitless professors — and he has provided sufficient evidence and argument to accomplish it.

End.