I.

121. vol. i.

thousand absurdities will ensue." St. Jerome in his reply STRIC. to the eighth question of Algasias, which comes out of the same chapter, says in round terms, "The whole of this passage [Epist. of the Apostle, both in what precedes and in what follows, nay p. 870.] the whole of his Epistle to the Romans, is involved in extreme obscurities and if I wished to explain every thing, I should have to write not one book, but a number of large volumes." And the like of this you may find constantly in the same answer to the questions of Algasias. Lastly, this obscurity deterred even St. Augustine from finishing the exposition of Lib.i. the Epistle to the Romans which he had begun, as he himself bears witness.

Retract.

cap. 25.

3. 16.

§ 4. Farther, if it be an impious proceeding to say that St. Paul's Epistles are obscure, (I shudder at stating the blasphemy,) it was an impious proceeding in the Apostle St. Peter, who says plainly that there are "some things hard 2 Pet. to be understood" in those Epistles. That St. Peter refers here principally to St. Paul's argument on justification by faith, as opposed to the works of the Law, has been the judgment of most learned men; and very satisfactory grounds for this opinion I have given in II. Diss. iv. 2. p. 57. To those remarks may be added the following. The best interpreters agree that the Epistle which is called the second of St. Peter was written against certain impious heretics of that age, who came out of the school of Simon Magus; and this is sufficiently evident from the number of marks and hints that discover themselves in the Epistle. Now every one is aware that among other doctrines horrifying to Christian ears which the followers of Simon contended for, was this heretical doctrine, that good works are in no way necessary for a man's justification or salvation. On this point I will put before you two very remarkable passages of Irenæus. One, where recounting Simon's impious heresies Lib.i.c.20. he says that that first-born of the devil taught that "they [c. 23, 3. who trusted in him and his Helena, were free to do as they pleased: for that men were saved according to her favour, not by works of righteousness;" whence by the way you will observe that they who taught that men were justified or saved (for there certainly was no difference acknowledged between the two terms, at least by the ancients) otherwise than by

p. 29.]

I.

Lib. i. c. 1.

[c.6.p.29.]

ψιλῆς.

γνώσει τελείᾳ.

10 Valentinian heresy as to the necessity of good works.

STRIC. good works were held in the primitive Church to be heretics. The second passage is where he thus describes Valentinus' p. 26. edit. opinion on man's justification: (Valentinus was one who Feuardent, merely gave a new dress to the Simonian heresy). "Carnal men have carnal training, and by means of works and mere faith they are strengthened, but have not perfect knowledge : and such they say are we who are of the Church; and hence it is they declare good works are necessary for us, since otherwise we cannot be saved; but they teach that they will be entirely and without doubt saved, not by means of works, but because they are spiritual by nature." In these words of Irenæus every thing is plain, except one doubt of diariorews the meaning of the words "by mere faith :" but the difficulty is easily got rid of; for "mere faith" is not opposed to works, (for the Valentinians derided the Catholics for saying they were strengthened by this faith in conjunction with works,) but to "perfect knowledge," to which those most shameless heretics pretended. They boasted (as is plain from the words just preceding the quotation in Irenæus) that they were already perfected, and that not by a slender faith, but by an immediate and certain knowledge they had attained to all the Divine mysteries. However, it is evident from this passage that Christians of that age, who adhered to the doctrines of Be Balou- the Church, held that a man was strengthened not by faith only, but by works and faith together: (what Catholics understood by these words a thoughtful reader will readily guess:) that heretics on the contrary taught that a man could be justified and saved if not by a bare faith, without doubt by a perfect knowledge without good works. No one can doubt that the defence for this heresy of theirs was sought from the discourses of St. Paul; particularly as in other cases, without any colour of pretence, as is evident from Irenæus, they brought forward the testimony of St. Paul to support their ravings. If this were so, no one will doubt that St. Peter referred primarily to these men, when he said that there were some things hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles, "which men that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction."

σθαι.

§ 5. From all these things it is most evident that it is not an impious proceeding to attribute obscurity to St. Paul,

I.

especially in the arguments he has entered into on the sub- STRIC. ject of justification. But to be brief: some causes of this obscurity have been stated by very learned interpreters. The first is the frequent abruptness in St. Paul's style, frequent parentheses, not so much flowing on in a premeditated order, as borne on by a sort of divine impulse. Thus Irenæus of old observed; "that the Apostle introduces iii. 7. many hyperbata, on account of the rapidity of his style, and the impetuousness of the spirit which is in him, is discoverable from many things." The second cause is, that opinions of the Hebrew doctors, ancient and modern, are rather referred to, as being well known among those to whom he was writing, than fully given out. To which may be added, that he does not unravel the objections of Jews, which he was answering, but strikes through them with a blow-as known to those to whom he was writing. Many other causes of obscurity might be added, had I room for them. As you, however, have better eyes than all other men, and think you see so clearly through St. Paul's discourses, allow me to address you in the words of Origen to Celsus. "First Lib. iii. make plain St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and having edit. carefully considered the meaning of each expression therein, Cantab. shew that you understand his words." When you have done this, all learned men, I think, will willingly concede you the palm among the interpreters of Holy Scripture. And so much for our first argument, in which it is proved clearly that it is more reasonable to interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul.

§ 6. My next argument, by which I aimed at establishing the same, is drawn from tradition and the opinion of the ancients; they thought that St. James's Epistle (where he speaks of justification) was written expressly against men who had misinterpreted St. Paul's Epistles, and asserted that faith alone without good works was sufficient for a man's justification or salvation. The truth of this tradition, indeed, is sufficiently attested and evidenced by the fact, apart from the authority of the ancients. Otherwise, I ask, whence could that error of justification by faith, as a single virtue, without works, have arisen among the Christians against whom St. James argues, except from the misunder

p. 122.

I.

12 Argument from tradition. Trifling of the Censurer.

STRIC. standing of St. Paul's arguments? You could not even imagine a more probable origin of the error. Nothing however can be fairer, nothing better, than to interpret St. Paul's Epistles by comparison with a discourse of St. James, which he wrote with the design of putting an end to false interpretations of the same Epistles. Here you surely have nothing [II. Diss. to object to in the argument itself. Only because I said,

iv. 2. p.

57.]

Rom. 4.

"what adds a farther degree of probability is, that St. James uses the same example of Abraham to prove 'works are necessary for justification,' from which St. Paul deduces that 'man is justified by faith without works""-in reference to these words, I say, you address me thus; "What do you mean? do you think that St. James wrote with the intention of contradicting St. Paul? to what purpose do you raise this suspicion ?" But, Sir, in return, let me ask what do you mean by promising your reader censures on my book, and then setting before him this trifling, this sheer riff-raff? Tell me, do you really seriously think that by those words I meant that St. James wrote with the intention of contradicting St. Paul? that I meant this, I who wrote the whole of my second Dissertation, not a short one, with a design of shewing that in the controversy of justification neither St. James contradicted St. Paul nor St. Paul St. James one whit? I who have shewn that the example of Abraham was rightly and appositely brought forward by both the Apostles? Consider again my words, where, after much said in exposition of St. Paul's discourse on Abraham in Romans, chapter the fourth, among other things I subjoin the following conclusion: "In addition to this, the agreement of St. Paul with St. James is clearly seen from this, namely, that from the same example of Abraham, the former concludes ‘a man to be justified without works,' the latter 'by works:' for St. Paul speaks of Abraham according to the flesh,' such as he was before the call; St. James, when blessed by grace and the Divine call. The former denies justification to his works done before faith, while the latter attributes it to works proceeding from faith. Here, then, is no contradiction between • the Apostles."

II. Diss. xii. 27. P.

159.

Think again over these words, and be ashamed that such a remark, shall I call it so futile or so malicious, should have

I.

Quæstionibus, qu.

fallen from your pen. I will only add that my observation STRIC. which you object to is borrowed from St. Augustine, who thus speaks: "Since the Apostle Paul, saying that a man is Lib. de 83 justified by faith without works, has been misunderstood by men, who were led to suppose that if they once believed in 76. [vol. vi. p. 67.] Christ, although they still did evil and lived in iniquity and lewdness, they could be saved through faith: this passage of this Epistle (meaning St. James chapter the second) explains the meaning of St. Paul and shews how it is to be understood, and it is on this account that he rather chooses the example of Abraham, saying that 'faith which worketh not righteousness is vain,' as St. Paul had used the same example of Abraham to prove that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." The rest that St. Augustine says is well worth reading.

§ 7. And these were the arguments by which I thought it sufficiently proved that it was more agreeable to reason to interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul. But to all these arguments you oppose the well known rule of Tertullian, that things which are rare ought to be explained by things of oftener occurrence, and you remind me again of the same rule in your remarks on chap. iv. of second Dissertation, p. 57. Under this rule you seem to assume that there is one passage only of St. James, and that confined within a very few verses; whereas St. Paul's discussions on the same argument are both many and lengthened, and hence you would draw your conclusion, in opposition to mine, that therefore it is more reasonable to interpret St. James from St. Paul, than St. Paul from St. James. But here you impose a gross fallacy upon yourself and your reader, and mistake much in your calculations, for the passage of St. James, which you call single, stands supported, so to speak, by the whole army of the Scriptures: to wit, that there is need not of faith only, but of repentance also, (which includes the whole duty, as prescribed in the Gospel, of a sinner returning to God,) that a sinner may be accounted and dealt with as righteous through the sacrifice of the Mediator, with the remission of all his sins, and the bestowal of the right to salvation and eternal life, (which only is the doctrine of St. James,) the writings both of the