Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XI. But our adversaries say that we have yet more difficulty
with James, since he contradicts us in express terms. For he
teaches, that “Abraham was justified by works,” and that we
are all “justified by works, and not by faith only.”[159]
What
then? Will they draw Paul into a controversy with James?
If they consider James as a minister of Christ, his declarations
must be understood in some sense not at variance with Christ
when speaking by the mouth of Paul. The Spirit asserts, by
the mouth of Paul, that Abraham obtained righteousness by
faith, not by works; we likewise teach, that we are all justified
by faith without the works of the law. The same Spirit
affirms by James, that both Abraham’s righteousness and ours
consists in works, and not in faith only. That the Spirit is not
inconsistent with himself is a certain truth. But what harmony
can there be between these two apparently opposite assertions?
Our adversaries would be satisfied, if they could totally subvert
the righteousness of faith, which we wish to be firmly established;
but to afford tranquillity to the disturbed conscience,
they feel very little concern. Hence we perceive, that they
oppose the doctrine of justification by faith, but at the same
time fix no certain rule of righteousness, by which the conscience
may be satisfied. Let them triumph then as they please,
if they can boast no other victory but that of having removed
all certainty of righteousness. And this miserable victory,
indeed, they will obtain, where, after having extinguished the
light of truth, they are permitted by the Lord to spread the
shades of error. But, wherever the truth of God remains, they
will not prevail. I deny, therefore, that the assertion of James,
which they hold up against us as an impenetrable shield, affords
them the least support. To evince this, we shall first examine
the scope of the apostle, and then remark wherein they are deceived.
Because there were many persons at that time, and the
Church is perpetually infested with similar characters, who, by
neglecting and omitting the proper duties of believers, manifestly
betrayed their real infidelity, while they continued to glory in
the false pretence of faith, James here exposes the foolish confidence
of such persons. It is not his design, then, to diminish,
in any respect, the virtue of true faith, but to show the folly of
these triflers, who were content with arrogating to themselves
the vain image of it, and securely abandoned themselves to
every vice. This statement being premised, it will be easy
to discover where lies the error of our adversaries. For they
fall into two fallacies; one respecting the word “faith,” the
other respecting the word “justification.” When the apostle
gives the appellation of faith to a vain notion, widely different
from true faith, it is a concession which derogates nothing from
the argument; this he shows from the beginning in these words:
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath
faith, and have not works?”[160]
He does not say, If any one
have faith without works; but, If any one boast of having it.
He speaks still more plainly just after, where he ridicules it by
representing it as worse than the knowledge of devils; and lastly,
when he calls it dead. But his meaning may be sufficiently
understood from the definition he gives: “Thou believest,”
says he, “that there is one God.” Indeed, if nothing be contained
in this creed but a belief of the Divine existence, it is
not at all surprising that it is inadequate to justification. And
we must not suppose this denial to be derogatory to Christian
faith, the nature of which is widely different. For how does
true faith justify, but by uniting us to Christ, that, being made
one with him, we may participate his righteousness? It does
not, therefore, justify us, by attaining a knowledge of God’s
existence, but by a reliance on the certainty of his mercy.
XII. But we shall not have ascertained the whole scope of
the apostle, till we have exposed the other fallacy; for he attributes
justification partly to works. If we wish to make
James consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, and even with
himself, we must understand the word “justify” in a different
signification from that in which it is used by Paul. For we are
said by Paul to be justified, when the memory of our unrighteousness
is obliterated, and we are accounted righteous. If
James had alluded to this, it would have been preposterous for
him to make that quotation from Moses: “Abraham believed
God,” &c.[161]
For he introduces it in the following manner:
Abraham obtained righteousness by works, because he hesitated
not to sacrifice his son at the command of God. And thus was
the Scripture fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and
it was imputed unto him for righteousness. If an effect antecedent
to its cause be an absurdity, either Moses falsely asserts
in that place, that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for
righteousness, or Abraham did not obtain righteousness by his
obedience, displayed in the oblation of his son. Abraham was
justified by faith, while Ishmael, who arrived at adolescence
before the birth of Isaac, was not yet conceived. How, then,
can we ascribe his justification to an act of obedience performed
so long after? Wherefore, either James improperly inverted
the order of events, (which it is unlawful to imagine,) or, by
saying that Abraham was justified, he did not mean that the
patriarch deserved to be accounted righteous. What, then, was
his meaning? He evidently appears to speak of a declaration
of righteousness before men, and not of an imputation of it in
the sight of God; as though he had said, They who are justified
by true faith, prove their justification, not by a barren
and imaginary resemblance of faith, but by obedience and good
works. In a word, he is not disputing concerning the method
of justification, but requiring of believers a righteousness
manifested in good works. And as Paul contends for justification
independent of works, so James will not allow those to
be accounted righteous, who are destitute of good works. The
consideration of this object will extricate us from every difficulty.
For the principal mistake of our adversaries consists in
supposing, that James describes the method of justification,
while he only endeavours to destroy the corrupt security of
those who make vain pretences to faith, in order to excuse their
contempt of good works. Into whatever forms, therefore, they
pervert the words of James, they will extort nothing but these
two truths—that a vain notion of faith cannot justify; and that
the faithful, not content with such an imagination, manifest
their righteousness by their good works.
