Matthew Poole and continuators on James 2:24

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified , and not by faith only .

An Inference either from the Instance of Abraham, or from the whole preceding Discourse.

Works of new Obedience-

Declared to be righteous, or approved as such, and acquitted from the Guilt of Hypocrisie.

Not by a meer Profession of Faith, or a bare assent to the Truth, without the Fruit of good Works. Quest. How doth this general Conclusion follow from the particular Case of Abraham? Ans. Abraham's Faith and Justification both before God, and the World, are set forth as the Exemplars of ours, to which the Faith and Justification of all Believers, both Iews and Gentiles, is to be conformed, Rom. 4.11, 12, 23, 24. Q. Doth not Iames here contradict Paul's Doctrine in the matter of Justification, Rom. 4? Ans. The Contradiction is but seeming, not real, as will appear, if four things be considered: 1. The occasion of these Apostles Writing, and their Scope in it: Having to do with different sorts of Persons, they had likewise different Designs. As Christ speaks one way when he dealt with proud Pharisees, whom he would humble; another way, when with humble Hearers whom he would encourage: And Paul carried it one way when among weak Brethren, in Condescention to whose Infirmities he circumcised Timothy, Acts 16.2, 3. and another, when he was among false Brethren, and Men of Contention, who opposed Christian Liberty, seeking to bring Believers into Bondage, and then would not suffer Titus to be circumcised, Gal. 2.3, 4, 5 So in the present Affair, Paul's Business lay with false Apostles and Judaizing Christians, such as did, in the matter of Justification, either substitute a Self-righteousness instead of God's Grace, or set it up in Conjunction with it; and therefore his Scope is (especially in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians) to shew the true cause and manner of Justification, and vindicate the freeness of Grace in it, by the Exclusion of Man's Works of what kind soever; to which purpose he propounds the Examples of Abraham and David, in their Justification, Rom. 4. Whereas Iames having to do with carnal Professors, and such as abused the Doctrine of Grace, to encourage themselves in Sin, and thought it sufficient that they had Faith, (such as it was) tho they did not live like Believers, resting in an empty Profession, with the neglect of Holiness; his Design plainly is to shew the Effects and Fruits of Justification, viz. Holiness and good Works; thereby to check the Vanity and Folly of them, who did thus divorce Faith from an holy Life, (which God hath joyned to it) and fansied themselves safe in the Profession of the one, without any respect to, or care of the other, as appears in this Chapter, v. 14, 17, 26. And because they might bear themselves high in this false Confidence, by the Example of Abraham, their Father according to the Flesh, and whom Paul had set forth, Rom. 4. as justified by Faith, without the concurrence of Works to his Justification; Iames makes use of the same Example of Abraham, as one eminent for Holiness, as well as Faith; and who made his Faith famous by the highest Act of Obedience that ever a Saint did, to shew, that Faith and Holiness ought not to be separated; Abraham's Faith being so highly commended, especially as productive of it. To the same purpose he makes use of the Instance of Rahab, who tho a young Saint, and newly come to the Knowledge of God, yet shewed the truth of her Faith by so considerable an Exercise of her Love and Mercy to God's People, as her receiving the Spies in Peace, was. This therefore helps not a little to reconcile the difference between these two Apostles. Paul deals with those that magnified Works too much, as if they were justified by them, and slighted Faith and Grace; and therefore tho he frequently shews the usefulness of Faith and good Works unto Salvation, and presseth Men every where to the Practice of them, yet he proves, that they have no Interest in the Justification of a Sinner before God's Tribunal, which he asserts to be wholly and solely of Grace, and by Faith. But Iames, in dealing with loose Christians, who magnified Faith, and slighted good Works, not only as having no Influence on Justification, but as not necessary at all to Salvation; he takes upon him to maintain good Works, not as necessary to Justification, but as the Effects, Signs, and Evidences of it, and such as without which their Faith was vain, and themselves in an unjustified state. 2ly. Paul and Iames take Faith in different senses; Paul speaks of a true, lively Faith, which purifies the Heart, and works by love, Gal. 5, 6. Whereas Iames speaks of a Profession, or Presumption of Faith, barren, and destitute of good Fruits, such a Faith as is dead, v. 17. such as the Devils may have, v. 19. which is but Historical, and consists only in a Belief of God's Being, not a consent to his Offer, or relying on his Promises. What Contradiction then is there here between these two Apostles, if Paul assert Justification to be by Faith, viz. a lively, working Faith, and Iames deny it to be by Faith, viz. an idle, unactive, barren Faith, and which hath only the Name, but not the Nature of that Grace, and is rather the Image of Faith than Faith it self? 3ly. But because Iames not only denies Justification to the Faith he speaks of, but ascribes it to Works in this Verse; therefore it is to be considered, that Justification is taken one way by him, and another by Paul: Paul takes it for the Absolution, and Acceptation of a Sinner at God's Bar, by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which is the primary and proper Notion of Justification. But Iames takes it for the Manifestation and Declaration of that Justification; and the Word is taken in the like sense in other Scriptures, Luke 7.29. the People justified God, i. e. owned and declared his Righteousness by Confession of their Sins, and Submission to Iohn's Baptism; and v. 35. Wisdom is justified, i. e. declared to be just and right, Rom. 3.4. justified in thy Sayings, i. e. acknowledged and declared to be true in thy Word. And what is Christ's being justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim 3.16. but his being declared to be the Son of God? Rom. 1.4. And that Iames takes Justification in this sense, appears, 1. by the History of Abraham here mentioned: he was (as hath been said) justified by Faith long before his offering up his Son, Gen. 15. but here is said to be justified, i. e. declared and proved to be so by this Testimony which he gave to the Truth of his Faith, and consequently to his Justification by it; and the Lord therefore tells him, Gen. 22.12. Now I know that thou fearest me, &c. q. d. by this Obedience thou hast abundantly shewed the Sincerity of thy Graces. 2. Because if Iames doth not here speak of Abraham's being justified declaratively, how can it be true which he speaks, v. 23. that the Scripture was fulfilled (in his sacrificing his Son) which saith, [illegible: 1 letter]e believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness? For if Iames intends Justification in the proper sense, how was Abraham's being justified by Works, a fulfilling of the Scripture, which asserts him to be justified by Faith? Here therefore again there is no Contradiction between these Apostles. For it is true, that Abraham was justified, i. e. accepted of God, and absolved from Guilt, by Faith only: And it is as true, that he was justified, i. e. manifested and declared to be a Believer, and a justified Person by his Works. 4ly. Lastly, we may distinguish of the Person that is said to be justified, either he is a Sinner, in the state of Nature; or a Believer in a state of Grace; whence ariseth the two-fold Justification here mentiond. The Justification of a Sinner in the Remission of his Sins through the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and acquitting him from the Condemnation of the Law, is the Justification properly so called, and which Paul speaks so much of▪ and this is by Faith only. The Justification of a Believer, is his Absolution from Condemnation by the Gospel, and the charge of Infidelity, or Hypocrisie, and is no other than that declarative Justification Iames speaks of, or an asserting, and clearing up the truth and reality of the former Justification, which is done by good Works, as the Signs and Fruits of the Faith, by which that former is obtained; and this is but improperly called Justification. The former is an Absolution from the general Charge of Sin, this from the special charge of Hypocrisie, or Infidelity: A Sinner's great fear (when first awakened to a sense of his Sin and Misery) is of an holy Law, and a righteous Judge ready to condemn him for the Violation of that Law; and so his first Business is to look to Christ by Faith for Righteousness, and Remission of Sin. But when he is justified by that Righteousness, Men may charge him with Hypocrisie, or Unbelief; and so may the Devil and Conscience too, when Faith is weak, or a Temptation strong; and therefore his next Work is to clear himself of this Imputation, and to evidence the truth and reality of his Faith and Justification in God's sight, which must be done by producing his Obedience and good Works, as the Indications of his Faith; and hereby he proves, that he hath indeed closed with the Promise of the Gospel, and so is clear of the Charge of not believing it, which was false; as well as (by Consequence) is justified from the Charge of Sin against the Law, which was true. To conclude, therefore, here is no opposition between Paul and Iames. Paul speaks of Abraham's being justified as a Sinner, and properly, and so by Faith only: Iames speaks of his being justified as a Believer, improperly, and so by Works; by which not his Person was justified, but rather his Faith declared to be justifying; nor he constituted righteous, but approved as righteous. In a Word, what God hath joyned, must not be divided; and what he hath divided, must not be joyned. He hath separated Faith and Works in the Business of Justification, and therefore we must not joyn them in it, as Paul disputes; and he hath joyned them in the Lives of justified Persons, and there we must not separate them, as Iames teaches. Paul assures us they have not a co-efficiency in Justification it self; and Iames assures us they may, and ought to have a co-existence in them that are justified. If the Reader desire further Satisfaction yet, let him consult Turretine de Concordia Pauli & Iacobi, where he may find much more to the same purpose, as hath been here said.