Ver. 24. You see then hoio hy luorks a man is justified, and not hij faith only.
You see then. — It is either a consectary out of the whole discourse, or out of the particular cxami)le of Abraham ; he alludeth to Paul's manner of reasoning: Rom. iii. 28, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law ;' and probably this discourse is intended to correct the abuse of that doctrine.
Hoio hy works ; that is, by the parts and offices of the holy life.
A man is Jastijied ; that is, accpiitted from hypocrisy ; for he is said to be justified, in the phrase of our apostle, whose faith a])peareth to be good and light, or who is found just and righteous ; as Christ is said to be ' manil'ested in the ficsli, but justified in the Spirit,' 1 Tim. iii. 1() ; that is, approved to be God.
And not by faith only. — Not by a bare naked profession, or a dead vain faith, such as consisteth in a mere assent or empty speculation, which is so far from justifying that it is not properly faith.
The main work in the discussion of this verse is to reconcile James with Paul. The conclusions seem directly opposite. See Rom. iii. 28 ; Gal. ii. IG. Paul also bringeth the iii.stance of Abraham against justification by works. Much ado there hath been to reconcile this
JaS. II. 24.] UPON THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 261
seeming difference. Some npon this gronnd deny the authority of the epistle ; so Lutiier, and many of the Lutherans at fii-st. Camcrarius^ speaketh boklly and rashly, as if heat of contention had obtruded the apostle upon the contrary extreme and error ; but this is to cut the knot, not to untie it. The apostles, acted by the same Spirit of truth, could not deliver contrary assertions ; and though men usually out of the extreme hatred of one error embrace another, yet it cannot be imagined, without blasphemy, of those who were guided by an infallible assistance. They show more reverence to the scriptures who seek to reconcile both places than to deny the authority of one. Many w;iys are propounded ; I shall briefly examine them, that with good advice and evidence we may pitch upon the best.
1. The Papists 2 say that Paul speaketh of the first justification, by which a man, if unjust, is made just ; and that by Avorks he under- standeth works done without faith and grace, by the sole power and force of free-will. But James speaketh of the second justification, whereby of just he is made more just ; and by works he uuderstandeth such as are performed in faith, and by the help of divine grace. To this I answer — (1.) That it confoundeth justification with sanctifica- tion. (2.) That the distinction is false, and hath no ground in scrip- ture. We can merit nothing after we are in a good estate, and are saved by grace all our lives : Kom. i. 17, ' the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, for the just shall live by faith.' If the righteousness whereby a sinner is justified be wholly absolved by faith, there is no place for works at all. But the apostle saith, throughout the whole life it is revealed from faith to faith ; besides, the apostle Paul excludeth all works, even those done by grace. It is true, this error is less than that of the Pelagians, who said that by natural abili- ties the law might be kept to justification. However, it is not enough to ascribe justificatory works to the grace of God. So did the Pha- risee: Luke xviii. 11, 12, ' God, I thank tliee,^ not myself. Yet he went not a\vay justified. It is ill to associate nature with grace, and to make man a coadjutor in that in which God will have the sole glory. (3.) It is little less than blasphemy to say. We are more just by our own works than by the merits of Christ received by faith ; 3 for to that justification, whereby a man is made more just, they admit works. (4.) The phrase of being more just suite tli not with the scope of the apostle, who doth not show how our righteousness is increased, but who hath, an interest in it. Neitlier will the adversaries grant that those against whom the apostle disputeth had a first and real righteousness ; and beside, it is contradicted by the example of Piahab, who, according to their explication, cannot be said to be justified in their second way of justification, and yet in our apostle's sense she is
^ ' Contentionis studium quoddam irritatum ab importunis ostentatoribus doctrinie fidei, longius hujus epistolaj auctorem quasi extulisse videri possit, nam hoc in certaminibus semper fieri cousucvit.' — Camerar. in hanc Epist.
^ ' Paulus loquitur de prima justificatioue, et nomine operum intelligit opera quse fiunt sine fide et gratia, solis viribus liberi arbitrii. Jacobus autem de secunda justificatione,' &c. — BcUarm. de Verho Dei, lib. i. cap. 13, sec. 12.
^ ' Coutumeliosum est in sanctum meritum Christi, asserere secundam justificationem, quffi in nostris operibus consistit, raajoi-em et auctiorem et digniorem esse apud Deum quam primam, quje solo merito Christi nititur, et quidem nou primam sed secundam justificationem mereri vitam xieY\\Avci.''^Chcranitius, Exam. Concil. Trident, p. 153.