ROMANS
162
ROMANS
tification. Paul cannot proclaim sufficiently the in-
compatibility of sin and the Divine sonship. If the
Christian must avoid sin, those who seek salvation
must also tiu-n aside from it \Miile St. Paul never
speaks in his Epistle of penance and contrition, these
constitute so self-e\-ident a condition that they do not
call for any special mention. Besides, chapters i-iii
are onlv a grand exposition of the truth that sin sepa-
rates us from God. For the nature of justification it is
immaterial whether Paul is displaying before the eyes
of the Christian the consequences of sin, or is making
sentunents of contrition and a change to a Cliristian
mode of life a necessar>' preliminary condition for the
obtaining of grace WTiat sentiments he requires, he
describes in the words: "For in Jesus Christ, neither
circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision;
but faith, which worketh by charity" (Gal., v, 6). It
is merely a repetition of this sentence when the Apostle,
after proclaiming freedom in Christ, seeks to remove the
misconception that the condition of Christian freedom
might endure anything and become sjTionymous with
Uberty to sin (Gal., v, 13-21; cf. Rom., xii, 1 sq.; xiii,
12 sqq.; viii, 12 sqq.; xi, 20 sqq.).
We thus see what Paul would have us understand by justifying faith. If he does not always describe it from every standpoint as in the present instance, but designates it as dogmatic or trusting faith, the reason is easily understood. He has no intention of describing all the stages along the road to justification ; he is so far from desiring to give a strict definition of its nature, that he wishes merely to indicate the fun- damental condition on the part of man. This con- dition is, from the standpoint of the supernatural character of justification, not so much the feeling of contrition or the performance of penitential works as the trusting acceptance of the promise of God. When a person has once taken this first step, all the rest, if he be consistent, follows of itself. To regard justifj^- ing faith as the work or outcome of natural man and to attribute grace to this work, is to misunderstand the Apostle. The free submission which lies in faith prepares the soul for the reception of grace. Provided that the teaching of St. Paul be studied in the context in which it is found in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, it cannot be misunderstood. If, how- ever, Paul in both Epistles forestalls an unjustified practical consequence that might be drawn therefrom, this is a proof of his deep knowledge of mankind, but in no way a limitation of his doctrine. The faith which justifies without the works of the Law and the Christian freedom from the Law continue unimpaired. The possibility of error would be afforded if one were to withdraw the words of the Apostle from their context; even shibboleths for libertinism might be extracted in that case from his teaching. This leads us to the well-known sentence in the Epistle of St. James concerning faith without works (ii, 20, 24). Was this written in premeditated opposition to St. Paul?
Paul ami James. — Two questions must be dis- tinguished in our inquiry: (1) Is there an historical connexion between the statements in the Epistles? (2) How are the antitheses to be explained? Are they premeditated or not?
(1) The possibility of a direct reference in the Epistle of St. James to St. Paul (this hypothesis alone ifl tenable) depends on the question of the priority of the Epistle. For scholars (e. g., Neander, Beyschlag, Th. Zahn, Belser, Camerlynck, etc.) who hold that the Epistle of St. James was written before a.d. 50, the question is sfittled. But the grounds for the aesigning of this date to the Epistle are not entirely convincing, since the Epistle fits in better with the conditions of the 8ucc(r<'ding decades. An extreme attitude is julopted by many moflern critics (e. g., Chr. Baur, Hilgenffld, H. J. Holtzmann, von Soden, Jii- licher), who assign the Epistle to the second century —
a scarcely intelligible position in view of the historical
conditions. If the Epistle of St. James were com-
posed shortly after the year 60, it might, in view of
the lively intercourse among the Christians, have been
influenced by the misunderstood views of the teach-
ings of St. Paul, and James may have combated the
misused formula of St. Paul. The almost verbal con-
nexion in the passages might thus be accounted for.
(2) Does there exist any real opposition between Paul and James? This question is answered in the affirmative in many quarters to-day. Paul, it is as- serted, taught justification through faith without works, while James simply denied St. Paul's teaching (Rom., iii, 28), and seeks a different explanation for the chief passage quoted by St. Paul (Gen., xv, 6) concerning the faith of Abraham (Jiilicher and others). But does James really treat of justification in the same sense as St. Paul? Their formulation of the question is different from the outset. James speaks of true justice before God, which, he declares, consists not alone in a firm faith, but in a faith supported and enlivened by works (especially of charity). Without works faith is useless and dead (ii, 17, 20). James addresses himself to readers who are already within the fold, but who may not lead a moral life and may appeal in justification of their conduct to the word of faith. To those who adopt this attitude, James can only answer: "But he that hath looked into the per- fect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed " (i, 25). Through- out his Epistle James aims at attaining the translation of faith to life and works; in speaking of a faith that worketh by charity (Gal., v, 6), Paul really teaches exactly the same as James.
But wliat of the argument of James and his appeal to Abraham? "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God" (ii, 21-23). Paul, like James, ap- pealed to the same Abraham — both rightly from their individual standpoints. With entire right could Paul declare that Abraham owed his justice, not to cir- cumcision, but to his faith; with comi)lete right could James appeal to Abraham's act of obedience and assert that faith accompanied it and by it faith was com- pleted. And if James applies to this act llie phrase: "It was rei)nted to liini to justice", lie is (juite entitled to do so, since Al)raliain's obedience is rewarded with a new and glorious promise of God (Gen., xxii, 16 sqq.).
It is clear from the whole passage that James does not use the word "justify ", in the sense in which Paul speaks of the first justification, but in the sense of an increasing justification (cf. Rom., ii, 13; Apoc, xxii, 11), as corresponds to the object of the Epistle. Of any contradiction between the Epistle to the Romans and that of St. James, therefore, there can be no question.
Finally, there is a difference in the use of the term faith. In the passage in question, James uses the term in a narrow sense. As shown by the refer- ence to the faith of th(^ demons (ii, 19), nothing more is here meant by faith than a firm conviction and undoubting acceptance, which is shared even by the damned, and has therefore in itself no moral value. Such a faith would never have been termed by St. Paul a justifying faith. That throughout the whole course of the Epistle of St. James St. Paul's doctrine of justification is never called into question, and that St. Paul on his side shows nowhere the least opposition to St. James, calls for no further proof. The funda- mental concc^ptions and the whoh; treatment in the two Epistles exclude all views to the contrary.
