The Papists’
Second Argument
They take their second argument from
James 2:24, in which these words exist: “You see that a man is justified by
works and not by faith alone.” Hence, they conclude that the godly are
justified before God by good works.
Response
The Papists try to deceive with a
twofold homonym, one of which is the verb to justify and the other in
the noun faith. For to justify here in James is to be shown
righteous and to be approved fully before men and to be acknowledged righteous
by men, but it is not to be established righteous before God. And here faith
is understood as knowledge, in the external profession of which many were falsely
promising righteousness and salvation for themselves, even if they did not
testify to their faith with good works, and therefore here dead faith is
understood, but not living faith that works through love or trust that leans of
the mercy of God and merit of Christ. (Amandus Polanus, “The Free Justification
of Man the Sinner before God” (1615), in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected
Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), and
Francis Turretin (1623-1687) [trans. Casey Carmichael; Classic Reformed Theology
6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press, 2023], 159)
Thesis 11
Therefore, the Papists having been
dismissed, who, fascinated with the blind prejudice of their errors, neither
see nor want to see what is true and appear to do nothing else than as they can
in whatever ways serve their hypothesis (τη
υποθεσει δουλευωσι), come let
us see what the orthodox have established in this part. For in diverse manners,
they, too, have had their hands full with removing this scruple.
Some do so by distinguishing justification
before God and before men, so that Paul speaks about the former and
James about the latter. Others do so by distinguishing the work that can be
taken either properly or by metonymy as their cause—namely, faith—so
that Paul removes justification from works properly taken up, but James
attributes the same to the former, but that understood by metonymy, for living and
effective faith. Neither appears clearly sufficient. The first does not
because, as it will be clear from the progress, something more advanced seems
to be insinuated in James besides the display of justification before men. The
second does not because this way of speaking of metonymy is more awkward and
less customary, and it does not appear sufficiently with the circumstances of
the text, where faith and works are distinguished and especially in verse 22.
Therefore, let us consider whether there is not an easier way of interpreting
the passage, and the reason of taking up the difficulty set forth is at hand
for us. (Francis Turretin, “A Textual Theological Exercise concerning the
Harmony of Paul and James on the Articles of Justification” (1687), in Justification
by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus
Polanus (1561-1610), and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) [trans. Casey Carmichael;
Classic Reformed Theology 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press,
2023], 192)
Thesis 30
Regarding the third point concerning
Rahab the prostitute: first, [Robert Bellarmine] errs by force (κατα το
βιαιον). If Rahab is said to have been justified by
works because she was made faithful from unfaithful, James therefore does not
speak about increase of righteousness but also first justification. Otherwise,
we should not have been made faithful from unfaithful, but more righteous form
righteous.
Second, he errs directly by denial of
the antecedent—namely, that Rahab was not declared righteous by her works but
was actually made righteous. Nay, since works follow someone who has been
justified, they do not precede in order to justify, from Augustine. Since no
good works can be furnished except from the Spirit, and the Spirit cannot be
conferred except from a placated and propitiated God, she could never have
produced those works of love and hospitality unless she was already justified.
Hence, it must be established that that faith by which she was justified was
already entirely conceived by the peculiar incitement of the Holy Spirit from
the reports which had become well known about the wondrous works of God toward
Israel and His judgments against enemies. This appears to be suggested from
Joshua 2:8-10. There indeed she professes that she was persuaded of what God
had promised the Israelites. She said, “I know that the Lord has delivered the
land to you,” etc. “The Lord your God Himself is God in heaven above and on
earth beneath.” And that faith was confirmed from the words of the explorers,
who without a doubt more clearly and more surely told her all these things and
especially what related to the promises of grace made to the people. But lest
anyone should think that faith was empty, she demonstrates that she proved it
in exceptional works of hospitality in hiding and peacefully releasing the explorers
even to her own danger. She as not constituted righteous from these works. For
she had to have been righteous by faith already earlier. Otherwise, she could
not have furnished the good works of hiding and releasing the messengers. But
she was declared righteous because she showed her faith and justification by
those works outside.
Third, he cannot oppose that she is called a prostitute here. For as now
we may not say that it was pleasing to some people after the Jews to be called
not so much a prostitute as an innkeeper, as the Aramaic translates, because זנה,
which for the Hebrews is “to whore” is also “to keep an inn,” perhaps because these
two are not rarely joined. For when James, after the LXX, distinctly calls her πορνην, there is no doubt that
she was truly a prostitute. But she is not thus called a prostitute because she
was justified by works she was still a prostitute in a composite sense,
but differently (διακριτικως), because she had been a prostitute before in a divided sense.
This is according to Scripture’s common mode of speaking, which, the state
of the thing having changed, usually retains its old name. Thus, in the
gospel the blind are said to see, the lame to walk—that is, who
were such before. Thus, Jerusalem is called the “city full of judgment” and the
”faithful city” because it had once been such. Thus, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the
Antichrist is said to sit in “the temple of God” because such was the case
before. In this way a virgin is called a virgin who recently ceased to be one: “Wail
as a virgin, girded with a sack, on the man of her puberty” (Joel 1:8), which
cannot be understood about an unmarried woman. In this way the poet spoke about
Pasiphae, overcome by the bull: “But the unfortunate virgin”; and Terence about
the violated girl, “the crying virgin”—namely, who was such before. Thus, it is
not obscure that the apostle wanted to indicate her with this term for the sake
of distinction on account of her preceding state. In this manner he used this
example to magnify the grace of God and to remove every limitation. For because
the faith of Abraham, which he had discussed in what preceded, was able to
appear extraordinary and to which perhaps it would not be granted to all to
rise, he produces this example of a little woman worth little, who was a
Gentile and a prostitute. For if faith did not lack its works in her, should
not Christians be steeped in shame for boasting of faith without works? In this
way he shows again that there is no degree of faith—neither high and lofty, which
sort was in Abraham, nor low and weak, which sort was in Rahab—which should not
and could not produce certain fruits of good works. (Francis Turretin, “A Textual Theological
Exercise concerning the Harmony of Pual and James on the Articles of
Justification” (1687), in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings
from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), and Francis
Turretin (1623-1687) [trans. Casey Carmichael; Classic Reformed Theology 6;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press, 2023], 210-11, comment in square
brackets added for clarification)