Verse 1. "Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory." The word ''glory'' is, by some commentators, connected with ""faith" i.e., the glorious faith of our Lord, &c. the connection in the Paraphrase, joining it with "our Lord," is the more probable. Our Lord Jesus Christ is called " the Lord of glory " (1 Cor. 2) "With respect of persons,'' i.e., do not attempt to unite two things so incompatible. "Respect, or exception, of persons" takes place, whenever an unjust preference is shown to one party beyond another ; (v.g) a judge would incur the guilt of "respect of persons," by pronouncing sentence, on account of the appearance and external circumstances of a person, without any regard to the merits of the case. Others, among whom is Cornelius a Lapide, interpret the words thus: do not believe that the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ consists in an exception or persons, so that he is honored when to your Agapes and meetings you admit the rich only and the noble, to the exclusion and contempt of the poor and squalid, as if the glory of Christianity consisted in external pomp and show.

Verse 2. He illustrates by an example, what this "respect of persons" is, against which he has been cautioning them. Suppose "there shall come into your assembly," in Greek, συναγωγην, synagogue, which, most probably, refers to their place of public assemblage for religious worship, like the Jewish synagogue; or, perhaps, to one of the old synagogues, converted into a place of worship for the converted Jews; "a man having a gold ring," which, as appears from the Greek, χρυσοδακτυλιος, was worn on his finger, a thing generally done by the rich; "in fine apparel;" in Greek, εσθητι λαμπρα, shining apparel. "Your assembly " is understood by some to refer to judicial assemblies, such having been, as they say, according to Jewish custom, held in places of worship.

Verse 3. And you assign an honorable commodious seat to the rich man, on account of his riches, while the poor man, because he is poor, is treated contemptuously, and made either to stand up or sit down in some humble, lowly place.

Verse 4. "Do not judge within yourselves." In Greek, διεκριθητε εν εαυτοις, are you not judged within yourselves, your conscience reproaching you, and stinging you with remorse for your unjust conduct. The Vulgate reading is the more probable, as appears from the following words, "and are become judges," &c., which are explanatory of the former. In some GreeK copits, και is prefixed to this verse, "and, do you not judge," &c., but it is omitted in the chief MSS. "And are become judges of unjust thoughts." In the Greek, διαλογισμων, reasonings, i.e., unjustly reasoning, and concluding from false estimates, that the rich man, as such, is to be preferred before the poor. It is not easy to see what St. James means by this example. Hence it is, that Commentators are perplexed about the meaning of the passage. They cannot discover anything like great guilt, in the preference shown to the rich man in the case alluded to, nor do they see any reason for ranking it with the crime of "respect to persons," which (verse 6) is called, "dishonoring the poor;" since, there is no great dishonor shown a poor man in having a rich man accommodated with a seat in any assembly, whether sacred or profane, before him: or of classing it (verse 11) with adultery or murder. It is on account of this difficulty, that St. Augustine and others assign to the example in question an enigmatical meaning; and say, that, it is not so much the giving of a place of honor to the rich man and refusing it to the poor, St. James here condemns, as the crime signified by this preference, viz., the preference given to the rich on account of their worldly connections in ecclesiastical dignities and offices, before the poor, who may be better qualified for such dignities. "Quis enim ferat eligi, divitem ad sedem honoris Ecclesiae, contempto paupere instructiore ac sauctiore—St. Augustine (Ep. 29), referring to this passage. The same interpretation is adopted by Mauduit. Hence, according to them, St. James is treating of the odious crime of simony. This interpretation derives probability from verse, 5, where the Apostle would appear to allude to the selection, which God made of poor fishermen, preferably to the great ones of the earth, for exercising the exalted and sublime functions of the Apostleship. Others understand the example of the preference shown 10 the rich before the poor in courts of justice, which unjust sentence is signified by the preference in seats alluded to. Others understand it to refer to the crime denounced by St, Paul in the first Epistle to 1 Cor. 11, viz, the contempt shown to the poor in the Agapes or love feasts, which in the infancy of the Church were celebrated immediately before receiving the Holy Eucharist (vide 1 Cor. 11) The neglect shown the poor, on such occasions, was highly scandalous and injurious to religion, on which account, St. Paul denounces it in the strongest language. This opinion has this advantage, that it solves the difficulty without departing from the literal meaning of the text. If we understand the passage to refer to the ordinary meetings in the church, we must suppose the neglect, referred to by St. James, to be greatly aggravated by the contempt with which the poor must have been treated. This, in the infancy of the Church, must have proved very detrimental to religion.

Verse 5. He shows how opposed their conduct is to the example set us by God himself in the work of man's redemption; "the poor in this world," whether we regard the preachers of the Gospel, or those to whom it was first preached (vide 1 Cor. 1:26); "rich in faith," i.e., to be rich in faith, this being the end for which he had chosen them; for, before their call, they were not rich in faith; "and heirs," to inherit his heavenly kingdom. "That love him," shows, that an idle, merely speculative faith, is of no avail.

Verse 6. You have dishonored the poor, to whom God has shown such preference. From this verse, it is clear, that the example adduced cannot be understood of a mere preference in seats in any assembly, since a poor man could not look upon himself as dishonored by such a preference, unless there were great contempt accompanying it. The example may, besides the meaning already assigned (4), be understood of a preference shown the rich before the poor in the administration of the sacraments of the Church, the souls of the poor being as valuable in the sight of their common Father, as those of the rich and powerful. "Do they not draw you before the judgment seats " of infidels?—a vice denounced in the strongest language by St. Paul (1 Cor. 6)

Verse 7. "Do they not blaspheme?" or cause to be blasphemed by the infidels (for they are themselves supposed to be Christians), the sacred name of Christ, which you bear, from him being called Christians,

Verse 8. Lest it might be inferred, from the charges which are alleged by St. James, against the rich, that he was encouraging the poor to entertain positive hatred for them, he, with a view of removing any such misconception, inculcates the virtue of fraternal charity towards all; and says, that if their preference for the rich man does not exceed the limits which the precept of fraternal charity sanctions, they sin not. In other words, if their respect for the rich be only such as they would reasonably expect to be paid themselves in like circumstances, giving honor to whom honor is due, and paying that respect which the order of charity marks out, as due to each one, according to his rank and station, they commit no sin—they act well. By others, the connection of this verse with the preceding is made thus:—If in the distribution of ecclesiastical places of dignity and importance, you select a man who has equal qualifications and merit with a poor man, you in such a case commit no sin in preferring him.

Verse 9. But, if their preference be so unjust and unfair, as to constitute the crime of "respect of persons," that is, treating the rich man with marked distinction and preference where he has no right, and treating others with contempt and injustice; then, they "commit sin," and are "reproved by the law," the law of God in general, or the law of charity, to which belongs the precept just referred to. If, in the preceding, St. James were referring to the exception of persons in courts of justice, then, "the law" would refer to special prohibition contained in Leviticus (19:15), and Deuteronomy (10:17), "respect not the person of the poor, nor honor the countenance of the mighty, but judge thy neighbor according to justice."

Verse 10. By violating this single point they are reproved by the law as transgressors; for, "he who keeps the entire law, but offends in one point, is become guilty of all." How this can be, has caused Commentators much perplexity, and so difficult did this passage appear to St. Augustine that he consulted St. Jerome about its meaning (in Epistle 29). "Offends in one point," refers to a grievous offence, which constitutes a mortal sin; "is become guilty of all," because he incurs the wrath of God, and loses his sanctifying grace and friendship, as if he violated all the commandments, and is as liable to eternal flames, as if he violated the entire law, though, of course, not to the same degree of intensity, since the pains of hell will be proportioned to the number and grievousness of our sins; or, "is guilty of all," because he violates charity, the sum or abridgment of all the commandments—this is St. Augustine's interpretation; or, as all the commandments constitute one perfect whole, and the entire law is made up of a cha n of precepts, by breaking one link or precept, the integrity of the whole chain is broken; or, because the violation of one precept involves the contempt of the Legislator, by whom all the rest are also enjoined. This latter interpretation is rendered probable by the following verse. If we unite the two last interpretations, and say that he "is guilty of all," by violating grievously one point; because, he violates the integrity of the law, all the precepts, or parts of which were enacted by the same Legislator, we will adopt the more probable interpretation—an interpretation, which is also most in accordance with the words of the context, for, "guilty of all," in this verse, means the same as, "transgressor of the law" (verse 11). Some interpreters say, the words of this verse were intended by St. James as a refutation of an error of the Pharisees, viz., that by violating a few of God's commandments, a man does not cease to be just be ore God, provided he observe the greater portion of them.

Verse 11. All the commandments form one whole, emanating from the same Legislator; therefore by violating any one, you break the integrity of this whole, and contemn the Legislator, from whom they have all equally emanated.

Verse 12. This is the remedy against sin, "as being to be judged," the Greek, μελλοντες κρινεσθαι, being about to be judged. What a salutary restraint the consideration of God's future judgment should impose upon us. Were we to consider, that for every word we utter, every action we perform, we are one day to render an account to God, with what cautious circumspection, would we not act on all occasions. "Quid sum miser tunc dicturus. Quem patronum rogaturus. Cum vix justus sit securus?"

Verse 13. "For judgment, " &c. it is not easy to see the connection between this verse and the preceding. The more probable is that adopted in the Paraphrase, according to which, the particle "for," has reference to some clause omitted, and the Apostle takes advantage of the mention made of God's judgment in the preceding verse, to treat of the necessity of showing mercy to those who require it. He makes the announcement of this general truth, the connecting link between his teaching, regarding the injury done the poor in the religious assemblies, to which the preceding part of this chapter has been devoted, and the dissertation regarding the refusal to relieve their corporal wants, whereof he treats in the remainder of it. " Judgment without mercy" —which is a judgment of condemnation— "to him that hath not done mercy." This is a general proposition, extending to all kinds of miseries, whether corporal or spiritual which are the objects of the virtue of mercy. "And mercy exalts," &c. Some Expositors understand this of the mercy of God, so as to mean, that the mercy of God exceeds all his attributes. The interpretation in the Paraphrase, which refers it to the mercy that one man shows another, seems the more probable; for, this pro position would appear to announce the converse of the preceding, In the preceding, is stated, what the lot of the unmerciful man will be; a just judgment of God, without that mercy, always exhibited in his generous and merciful treatment of his elect; whereas, in this, the Apostle points to the reward of the merciful man, viz., a judgment, wherein mercy will predominate over justice; this predominance of mercy over justice, is a feature that always characterizes the judgments of God upon his elect. The Greek for exalts itself, κατακαυχαται, means, glories against, as happens, when a conqueror triumphs over his vanquished foes.

Verse 14. The Apostle now enters on one of the principal subjects of this Epistle, viz., the refutation of the errors of the followers of Simon Magus, regarding the sufficiency of faith alone for justification. As this erroneous doctrine, so ably and clearly refuted here by St. James, is one of the fundamental errors revived by modern Reformers, it may not be amiss to explain, in a few words, the doctrine of the Catholic Church on this subject; this doctrine has been so clearly laid down by the Council of Trent (SS. vi,, De justificatione). Every Catholic admits the absolute, indispensable necessity of faith for justification. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11); without it, no man was ever justified, sine qua (fide) nulli unquam contigit Justificatio (Council of Trent, SS. vi., 7). Although, not absolutely the first grace (the proposition, fides est prima gratia, put forward in the Schismatical Council of Pistoia, was condemned in the Bull, Auctorem fidei); sail, it is the first grace in the order of justification, of which it is "the root and foundation," in the language or the Council of Trent (SS. vi., 8). But every Catholic denies the sufficiency of this faith, for justification or salvation. It is necessary, not sufficient. Besides faith, Catholics require other dispositions, viz., hope, fear, penance, initial charity. All these are required, as previous dispositions., before God infuses the grace of justification. These may all exist in the soul; but they do not, by any means, constitute this grace, nor do they establish any claim to it, that either on the grounds of justice or fidelity, God might not refuse. It is quite certain, however, that whenever they exist in the soul, God will, of his own goodness, gratuitously infuse the grace of justification, which is a grace inhering in the soul—this is a point of faith—and it is theologically certain, that it inheres, permanently, by way of habit. It cleanses the soul from the stains of sin whereby it is detailed, in a manner analogous to the defilement caused the body by leprosy; and according as this grace is increased, the soul becomes brighter and fairer in the sight of God; in the language of the Psalmist, "whiter than snow." This grace of justification is accompanied with the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and the several gifts of the Holy Ghost. The same good works, the same acts, which, performed under the influence of divine grace and faith by a sinner before he is justified, serve only as depositions for justification, will, when performed by the same man, after he is justified, and in a state of sanctifying grace, give him a claim, and a strict right, grounded on God's gratuitous and liberal promise, to an increase of sanctifying grace, to eternal life, and its attainment, if he die in grace, and to an increase of glory. This is what Catholics call merit, grounded, however, on God's grace, and his gratuitous promise, through the merits of Christ (Council of Trent, SS., ver.; Can. 32) Modern sectaries, on the other hand, maintain, that in order to be justified and saved, faith alone is sufficient; this justifying faith, according to them, consists in a firm and undoubted confidence, which each one has, that, although in sin, God does not impute to him his sins, in consideration of the merits of Christ. As for good works, they deny them a share in justifying man, they require them merely as the fruits of faith, signs of its presence; since without them, true faith, according to their notions, cannot exist.  Now, that their idea of justifying faith is wholly erroneous, will appear quite evident to any person who reads the nth chapter of St. Paul to the Hebrews, wherein he describes this justifying faith to be the "evidence of things that appear not," and in applying it to the several examples, he always supposes it to consist in a firm belief in the truth of God's revelation. Again, that, besides faith, good works are required for justification and salvation, is so evident from the following part of this chapter, that it only requires to be read over attentively, to be convinced of it. In truth, the words bear no other meaning, and on this account it was, that some of the early Reformers rejected the Epistle altogether. Finally, that true faith may exist without good works or charity, is clear from several passages of Sacred Scripture. St. John says in 12:42, "many of the chief men believed in him, but did not confess him, for they loved the glory of man more than of God," The word, "believe,'' here has reference to real, true faith, as is evident from the use of the word, in the entire chapter. St. Paul tells us, that ''if he had faith strong enough to remove mountains, &c.," and had not charity, it would profit him nothing (1 Cor. 13), and that this faith can be separated from charity, is clear from chapter 7 of St. Matthew, wherein, we are told, that many will say, "Lord have we not performed many wonders in your name," and shall receive for answer—"I never knew you."

Objection.—St. James does not deny the sufficiency of real faith, because he is referring to mere putative faith, "if a man say, he has faith."

Answer.—He speaks of real faith; for, he adds, "shall faith be able to save him?" He therefore, supposes the person in question to have real, genuine faith.

Verse 15. The Apostle illustrates the inutility of faith and the knowledge it gives us, unless accompanied with good works, by an example of the inutility, to a distressed neighbor, of our knowledge of his wants, and of our sterile sympathy, unless it be accompanied by acts of benevolence administering to his wants. "If a brother or sister," i.e., a Christian of either sex, "be naked,“ &c, i.e., in want of the common necessaries of life.

Verse 16. "And one of you," without relieving them, merely wishes them well, "be you warmed," &c., "what will it profit?" which is equivalent to saying—it shall be of no profit whatever to them.

Verse 17. "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself." In the Greek, καθ εαυτην, by itself. This is the application of the foregoing example. As kind words, and the professions of regard, even accompanied by good wishes, will prove of no avail to the distressed; so, neither will faith profit the believer; "it is dead in itself;" because, the person who only has faith, although he be a member, is still but a dead member of the body of Christ; his faith is altogether dead, as to justification. The Apostle explains this more fully in verse 26, "as the body without the spirit is dead," &c.  From this, it by no means follows, that faith without good works is not real faith. St. James looks upon faith in this verse, as destitute of the vivifying principle of charity, or good works, by which it is enlivened or roused to action (Gal. 5:6); he compares it to a human body, destitute of the soul that animates it, which, although dead, is still a real body. So, charity is the soul or form of faith, which, although proceeding from the principle of divine grace, is, still, dead as to justification without charity, which alone perfectly unites us with Christ, our head. “faith" says the Council of Trent (SS. vi. C. 7), "unless hope and charity be added to it, does not perfectly unite one with Christ, nor render him a living member of his body:'' Faith, even without charity, really subsists in its subject, viz., the soul of man ; in its object, God and eternal glory; in its motive, revelation; but, it is dead as to justification. From this very example, it is clear, that faith can be without good works; because, as we can have a knowledge of our neighbor’s wants without actually relieving them; so, also, can we have the knowledge imparted by faith, without acting up to it by good works.

Verse 18. This is a new argument of the inutility of faith alone, without good works. —Faith cannot be manifested without them; now, this external profession is obligatory on all, both for the sake of example, and for holding that communion of saints, in which we all believe.

Query.—How can a man show his faith from his works, since an unbeliever can perform many good works?

Answer.—St. James, in the present instance, supposes both the persons in question to have faith, and that the man having works, recurs to them as a proof and manifestation of his faith. Hence, he does not infer faith from works; for, he supposes faith to have existed previously. Moreover, from works we can infer the existence of faith; because, there are certain good works, or a continued performance of them, which only a person having faith could accomplish. For, although an unbeliever may, aided by actual divine grace, perform certain good works; still, he could not persevere in performing a continued series of good works, without sin; and there are certain heroic deeds of virtue, which he could not perform at all.

Verse 19. These may be the words of the Christian having faith and works, in continuation of his appeal to the other, whom he is supposed to be addressing in the preceding verse; you may, possibly, say; you have the symbols of faith, as a means of externally professing your faith, the first article of which is to believe "that there is one God," which is also a distinguishing point of true faith from the false belief of Paganism; or, they may be the words of it. James, adducing a new argument of the inutility of faith unaccompanied by good works, since it resembles the faith of demons, who, compelled by evidence in favor of our creed, viz., miracles, prophecies, &c., are constrained to believe the same things which we believe, and by their "trembling," externally profess this interior conviction, without any advantage. "You believe there is one God." This article being the first and most important distinguishing feature of true faith, is probably put for all the points of faith. "You do well;" this act of faith is a good act, but it does not, alone, suffice as a disposition for justification, or for obtaining salvation. "The devils also believe and tremble." The word, “tremble” is used metaphorically to express the dread, horror, and despair, with which the devils are inspired, in considering their eternal punishment and the just judgment of God.

Objection.—From this verse is it not evident that St. James looks upon faith without works, or as Catholics term it, fides informis, as no faith at all; since he compares it with the faith of demons, who surely cannot elicit an act of the theological virtue of faith; for, they are not susceptible of grace, without which faith cannot exist?

Answer.—St. James, by no means, intends to compare the faith of devils, and that of wicked Christians, in every respect. He only compares them as to the utter inutility of both for salvation; his object in introducing the comparison does not warrant us in urging it further; and the only criterion by which we are to be guided, in judging of the extent to which a comparison can be urged, is, the scope and object of him who introduces it. There is another point, in which the faith of both is compared; viz., in their objects. The same thing is believed by the demons involuntarily, and forced by the conviction of evidence, which the sinner believes voluntarily, and freely, aided by divine grace. So tar the comparison is made, and no further; no comparison can be urged, as they say, ad vivum.

Verse 20. St. James now introduces a new argument, and undertakes to prove, from the example of Abraham, whose justification is the model of ours, the necessity of good works for justification. This argument is the more convincing, and better suited for the refutation of the error he is combating, as it was on the very same example, urged at full length by the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Romans 4, and erroneously interpreted, the Simonians grounded their doctrine of the sufficiency of faith alone for justification. "O vain man !" i.e., foolish man, who art bund in a matter of such evidence.

Verse 21. "Offering up." In Greek, ανενεγκας, having offered. The determined resolution to offer up Isaac, from the execution of which the voice of the angel from heaven prevented him, was accepted by God as a perfect offering.

Verse 22. "Faith did co-operate with his works." This shows that the faith of Abraham was not an idle, inoperative faith, a mere ace of belief, unaccompanied by works; that it was an active, operative faith; it was the principle of the works which Abraham performed, and it was it that regulated, how they were to be performed: and hence, in saying that Abraham was justified by works, St, James refers to works grounded on, and accompanied by faith. The words, "and by works faith was made perfect," show that it was works which brought faith to its destined end of justification. Both one and the other mutually concurred in Abraham s justification.

Verse 23. ''And he was called the friend of God." These words are not found in Genesis 15:6, from which the preceding words of Scripture are quoted. They are the words of St. James himself.

Query.—How can St. James say, "the Scripture was fulfilled, saying, Abraham believed," &c. (Genesis 15:6), since we find no prophecy contained in these words to be afterwards fulfilled? All that is recorded of Moses in this passage is simply historical. Again, had not these words, “Abraham believed, &c.," reference to his believing in God's promise regarding his son Isaac (Genesis 15); which was prior to his sacrifice, (Genesis 22), the matter in question here? How then say, a Scripture was now "fulfilled," which was long before accomplished?

Answer.—The Scripture is said, by St. James, to be fulfilled in this sense, that when Moses (Genesis 15:6), said, "'Abraham believed, and it was reputed to him unto justice,” he omitted all mention of another ingredient and disposition for justification, viz., worlds. These are referred to here by St. James; all the disposition for justification are therefore enumerated, and the cause of the justification referred to (Genesis 15), fully expressed; and so, the Scripture account of the causes of justification is "fulfilled" or “complete“—which is more clearly expressed in the Vulgate version, " Et scriptura suppleta est," scilicet, quoad enumerationem dispositionum justificationis. Secondly, Although the words of Genesis, " Abraham believed''' &c., were referred by Moses to an occasion prior to that o. which St. James now speaks; still, we may apply them to every subsequent act by which Abraham afterwards was justified; and hence, they were verified in the present instance also.

Verse 24. Can there be a clearer refutation of the doctrine of modern innovators on the subject of justification by faith only? St. James expressly states, that faith is not the only disposition or cause of justification; that in whatever way faith produces or concurs in justification, works concur m the same way, "a man is justified by works and not by faith only." The word, by (εξ)—shows that faith and works concur in the same way.

Objection.—Does not St. Paul (Rom. 3:4), say, that works have no share in justification? How, then are the two Apostles reconciled?

Answer.—There is no contradiction whatever between them; there is question of different works in both cases. What description of works does St. Paul exclude from a share in justification? The works preformed by the sole aid of our natural faculties, or of the law of Moses, without grace or faith. These, alone, are the works which the scope of the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Romans, required of him to exclude. These, alone, are the works on which the Jews and Gentile converts respectively grounded their claims to the gospel, viz., the works they performed, before they received the gospel, or embraced the faith. Does St. James here assert the necessity of the same works? By no means. He speaks of works performed, after they received the gospel, under the influence of grace and faith. For, he addresses men who had embraced the faith, but denied the necessity of works performed in this state. And it was to refute their error that St. James, as well as St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, wrote their Catholic Epistles, as we are assured by St. Augustine (Libro de Fide et Operibus, c. 14) If the doctrine of St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, be joined to that delivered by St. James in  this, we have a full and perfect account of all the causes and dispositions of justification, viz., faith and works conjointly. No other interpretation, save that warranted by Catholic doctrine, can reconcile the apparent discrepancy that exists between both Apostles. In the Catholic interpretation, there is no difficulty whatever; although the same example of Abraham would seem to be employed for opposite conclusions. The matter is thus explained. Abraham was justified even before, Moses said of him, that "he believed," &c. (Genesis 15:6), as is clear from chapter 11 verse 8, of Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is stated, that he was justified by faith going forth from his native country—an event which took place long before the promise of a son was made to him. The words, therefore, "was reputed to him unto justice,” must be understood of second justification, or increase of justice; and St. Paul (Rom. 4), adduces the mode in which Abraham's second justification, or increase in justice took place, viz., by faith, as an argument an example to prove, that to faith, independently of the works which he performed without the influence of grace or faith, his first justification, or, his translation from a state of sin to that of grace was owing (vide Rom. 4); whereas St. James employs the same example to prove the necessity of good works done in faith, for preserving, and progressing in the justification once acquired; and, of course, it is implied that they are still more necessary for acquiring first justification. Were St. Paul, in the passage referred to, to insist on the necessity of good works also, and describe all the concurring dispositions for justification, it would only embarrass him, and more or less obscure his arguments against the Romans, and render them less forcible; for they might imagine, that he coincided with them in their error, respecting the efficacy of works performed before faith, for obtaining justification. St. James supplies what St. Paul, for good reasons, omitted, and removes any misconception to which the words of the latter might have given occasion. There is no other mode of reconciling the two Apostles, save that furnished by the Catholic doctrine, as above.

Verse 25. "In like manner also," i.e., by faith, which works consummated, and by works, which co-operated with faith, as in the case of Abraham. "Rahab, the harlot ;" her history is given (Joshua 2) Some persons understand this to refer to second justification. They suppose that Rahab had, already, before the arrival of the spies, conceived divine faith, and having believed in the God of the Hebrews (of whose power she already had heard, Joshua 2:11), had been justified; and that, by the act of humanity in concealing the spies, she obtained second, that is to say, merited an increase of justification. Others maintain, that although Rahab may have had faith before the arrival of the spies—in which they had, probably, more fully instructed her—still, she had been in sin; for, she is called "a harlot," and that this act of humanity only disposed her for first justification. It might be said in reply to this reason, that Rahab was called ''a harlot," even after she ceased to commit acts of sin; because she had been previously such, and that her former appellation had been retained; just as Simon is called "the leper," and Matthew "the publican." To this it might also be added, that the Hebrew word for "harlot" also signifies a hostess. The former signification is, however, the more probable meaning. In this latter interpretation, we will have the necessity of works both in first and second justification; in the one case, as dispositions; in the other, as concurring and meritorious causes. It is worthy of remark, that all through, St. James supposes that, without works, no man can be justified; for, in all the examples adduced, he leaves us to infer, that if the just man did not perform good works, he would lose justice, and the sinner could not otherwise acquire it.

Verse 26. Objection.— Does not this verse show that dead faith, or, as Catholics term it, fides informis, is no faith at all, as a dead man, properly speaking, is no man? 

Answer.— Faith is compared not with a dead man, but with a dead body, which, although dead, and not animated by the soul, is still a real body. Hence, dead faith is real, genuine faith, in the sense already given in this chapter.