XX. The doctrine of the apostle James concerning faith and works--Its
agreement with that of St Paul

Seeming difference, no real contradiction, between the apostles Paul and
James, concerning justification--This granted by all--Reasons of the
seeming difference--The best rule of the interpretation of places of
Scripture wherein there is an appearing repugnancy--The doctrine of
justification according unto that rule principally to be learned from the
writings of Paul--The reasons of his fulness and accuracy in the teaching
of that doctrine--The importance of the truth; the opposition made unto
it, and abuse of it--The design of the apostle James--Exceptions of some
against the writings of St. Paul, scandalous and unreasonable--Not, in
this matter, to be interpreted by the passage in James insisted on,
chap.2.--That there is no repugnancy between the doctrine of the two
apostles demonstrated--Heads and grounds of the demonstration--Their
scope, design, and end, not the same--That of Paul; the only case stated
and determined by him--The design of the apostle James; the case proposed
by him quite of another nature--The occasion of the case proposed and
stated by him--No appearance of difference between the apostles, because
of the several cases they speak unto--Not the same faith intended by
them--Description of the faith spoken of by the one, and the other--
Bellarmine's arguments to prove true justifying faith to be intended by
James, answered--Justification not treated of by the apostles in the same
manner, nor used in the same sense, nor to the same end--The one treats
of justification, as unto its nature and causes; the other, as unto its
signs and evidence--Proved by the instances insisted on--How the
Scripture was fulfilled, that Abraham believed in God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness, when he offered his son on the altar--Works
the same, and of the same kind, in both the apostles--Observations on the
discourse of James--No conjunction made by him between faith nor works in
our justification, but an opposition--No distinction of a first and
second justification in him--Justification ascribed by him wholly unto
works--In what sense--Does not determine how a sinner may be justified
before God; but how a professor may evidence himself so to be--The
context opened from verse 14, to the end of the chapter
 

The seeming difference that is between the apostles 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 latter, 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,
whilst we "know but in part, and prophesy 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.2:14, to the end,--has not been in the
least impeached, nor has had any new difficulty put upon it, in some late
discourses to that purpose. I should, therefore, utterly forbear to speak
any thing thereof, 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
pseudepistolae, or falsely 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 itself. 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 ecclesiae,"
Gal.2:16-21; 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, Rom.10:3,4. What care and diligence
this requires 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 thoroughly vindicates it from
giving the least countenance unto such wrestings and impositions. Cer-
tainly, 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
was divinely 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 turned into licen-
tiousness. 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
ancients 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. First,
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 prevalence 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 Origin, or the like, in derogation from the perspicuity of
the writings of this apostle, when they cannot but know how easy 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)
Chrysostom 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 meantime, 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
Gnostics, and in the confutation of their error; others, that the
Gnostics took the occasion of their errors 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 Jerome do testify.

   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 into. 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 diverse 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.

   (1.) As to the scope and design of the apostle Paul, the question
which he answers, the case which he proposes 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 privilege 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 shows 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 showed. 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 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
poisonous opinions that some had then divulged, according as the apostle
Paul foretold that it would come to pass, 2 Tim.4:1-4: 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 afterward
improved by Basilides, Valentinus, and the rest of the Gnostics. Or, it
may be, it was only the corruption of men's hearts and lives that
prompted them to seek after such a countenance unto sin. And this latter
I judge 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,--First, In
general, to prove the necessity of works unto all that profess the gospel
or faith in Christ thereby. Second, 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 [by] 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
convinces some that they are not justified by trusting unto such a dead
faith; and declares the oddly 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.

   (2.) 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 denies 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 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 "kurios",
or properly so called. The "faith of God's elect," "precious faith,"
"more precious than gold," "the faith that purifieth the heart, and
worketh by love," "the faith whereby Christ dwelleth 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 not without derision. Well may he deny
justification in any sense unto this faith, however boasted of, when yet
it may be justly ascribed unto that faith which Paul speaks of.

   Bellarmine uses several arguments to prove that the faith here
intended by James is justifying faith considered in itself; 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 catholic doctrine
or divine revelation: De Justificat. lib.1 cap.15. His first is, "That
James calleth 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 truly 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. Secondly, He
urges, "That in the same place and chapter he treats of the faith of
Abraham, and affirms that it wrought with his works, chap.2:22,23; 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 urges verse 24, "'Ye 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 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 knowledge 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 St 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 and clothed." 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 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.

   (3.) They speak not of justification in the same sense nor unto the
same end; it is of our absolute justification before God,--the justifi-
cation 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, concurs 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 21-23: for he says, that by Abraham's being justified by
works, in the way and manner wherein he asserts him so to have been, "the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was im-
puted 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
alleged 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,
Gen.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 acknowledges 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 alleged, 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. First, 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. Secondly,
That he was not justified by a real efficiency of a 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 Ahab;
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 witnesses, Heb.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, Josh.2:9-11. 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.

   (4.) 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 opposes
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 farther evidenced in a brief consideration of the context itself;
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 showed 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.4:1-4; 5:1-6. 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 arguing, 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
believeth 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, verses 15,16, "If a brother or sister be naked and
destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, 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 behaves himself thus towards the poor, the love of God dwelleth 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; it 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 18, "Yea, a
man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without
thy works," (that is, which is without works, or by thy works,) "and I
will show thee 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 showed, evidenced, or
demonstrated, so as that their folly may appear who trust unto any other
faith whatever? "Deixon moi ten pistin sou",--"Evidence or demonstrate
thy faith to be true by the only means thereof, which is works." And
therefore although he say, "Thou hast faith," that is, "Thou professes
and boastest that thou hast that faith whereby thou mayest be saved,"--
"and I have works," he does not say, "Show me thy faith by thy works, and
I will show thee my works by my faith," which the antithesis would
require; but, "I will show thee 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
farther 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 19,
"Thou believest there is one God; thou does 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 thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead?" verse 20. And we may consider in the words,--
First, 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. Secondly, That which he designs with respect unto this vain
man is his conviction,--a conviction of that foolish and pernicious error
that he had imbibed: "Wilt thou know, O vain man?" Thirdly, 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 arguing;
neither do they prove any more. To wrest his words to any other purpose,
when they are all proper and suited unto what he expresses 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 Abraham's 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 human affections, Gen.22:12, "Now I know that
thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine 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 produces 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, is the scope of the places,
[and the] 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, Gen.15, and the
story of sacrificing his son, related Gen.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 Pet.1:7), and raises
up glory unto himself; which is in the nature of faith to give unto him,
Rom.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. Secondly, 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 enjoined 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 encouragement 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 easy for
him to say, that as no such work was ever performed by him, so none such
was ever required of him. But, Thirdly, Upon Abraham's compliance with
the command of God, given him in the way of trial, God himself
"anthropopathoos" declares the sincerity of his faith and his justi-
fication thereon, or his gracious acceptance of him. This is the whole
design of the place which the apostle traduces into 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 verse, where he declares what he had proved by this instance, verse
22, "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith
made perfect?" Two things he enforces as proved unto the conviction of
him with whom he had to do:--1. That true faith will operate by works; so
did Abraham's,--it was effective in obedience. 2. That it was made
perfect by works; that is, evidenced so to be,--for "teleios,
teleioumai," does nowhere in the Scripture signify the internal, formal
perfecting of any thing, but only the external complement or perfection
of it, or the manifestation of it. It was complete as unto its proper
effect, when he was first justified; and it was now manifested so to be.
See Matt.5:48; Col.4:12; 2 Cor.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." He adds, in the confirmation of what he had
affirmed, verse 23, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was
called The friend of God."

   Two things the apostle affirms herein:--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
itself, 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 distinction 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
was [not], nor can be, otherwise fulfilled by Abraham's 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, Isa.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 privileges from God, and
answered them by a holy walking before him. Wherefore, his being called
"The friend of God," was God's 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):--l. 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
carcase 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 testifies, 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 itself 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 carcase 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.