When we pass on to other portions of the New Testament, we find examples
of the same kind of reasoning in James and Paul.
Most admirably does James show the futility of faith without works. "What
shall it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and hath not
works? Can faith save him? If a brother and sister be naked and destitute
of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed
and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are
needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone."
The class of people referred to by James are aptly described by Fielding
in the character of Peter Pounce. "Sir," said Adams, "my definition of
charity is a generous disposition to relieve the distressed." "There is
something in that definition," answered Peter, "which I like well enough;
it is, as you say, a disposition to do it, and does not so much consist in
the act as in the disposition to do it. But, alas! Mr. Adams, who are
meant by the distressed? Believe me, the distresses of mankind are mostly
imaginary, and it would be rather folly than goodness to relieve them."
"Sure, sir," replied Adams, "hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, and
other distresses which attend the poor, can never be said to be imaginary
evils." "How can any man complain of hunger," said Peter, "in a country
where such excellent salads are to be gathered in almost every field? or
of thirst, where every river and stream produce such delicious potations?
And as for cold and nakedness, they are evils introduced by luxury and
custom. A man naturally wants clothes no more than a horse or any other
animal; and there are whole nations who go without them." Peter Pounce
would have said to the "brother or sister naked and destitute of daily
food," "_Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled._"
The declaration of James that "faith without works is dead," is
illustrated in the sayings of others also:
"Sweet words, empty hands."--_Telugu._
"Kindness, but no milk."--_Urdu._
"Though they are brothers, their pockets are not sisters."--_Turk._
"It is not by saying Honey, Honey, that sweetness comes into the
mouth."--_Ib._
"His words leap over forts, his feet do not cross the
threshold."--_Telugu._
"If you do not ask me for food and raiment, I will care for you as my
own child."--_Ib._
Equally admirable is that comparison of Paul in which he likens the Church
to the human body and shows the folly of jealousy and schism: "If the foot
shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the
hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?"
Very pleasantly, but very effectually, does he remind those who professed
to "speak with tongues" a sort of supernatural language, in the early
Christian assemblies, that it was "better to speak five words with the
understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." An
illustration serves his purpose. "Even things without life, giving sound,
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in sound, how shall
it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain
sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise ye, except ye
utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known
what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air."
Paul maintains the right of those who establish and teach churches, to be
supported by those churches. It was a right upon which he did not always
insist in his own case; but he fought for it as a great principle. "Mine
answer to them that do examine me is this: Have we not the power (the
right) to eat and drink?" The objector would admit this. Very well! "Who
goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and
eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of
the milk of the flock? * * * If we have sown unto you in spiritual things,
is it a great thing if we shall reap of your carnal things? * * * Do ye
not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of
the temple? They which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should
live of the gospel." There is no gainsaying this argument. The "analogy"
is unanswerable.
Already once or twice in this chapter, reference has been made to Socrates
and his method. Much of the following passage would apply equally well to
Jesus or James or Paul: "He generally begins with some question,
apparently so simple, so stupidly simple, and at such a distance from the
field of discussion, that his opponent often hesitates whether most to
admire the docility or wonder at the stupidity of the querist, and with a
complacent smile, half of pity, half of contempt, promptly replies. Other
questions succeed faster and faster, more and more difficult, and
gradually approaching, in one long spiral of interrogations, the central
position in which the unhappy sophist's argument stands. He now finds it
impossible to escape, and confounded, perplexed and irritated, discovers
that he is compelled to admit some palpable contradiction to his original
assertions, and this too by means of those simple and innocent premises
which he had so unsuspectingly granted. He feels himself within the coils
of a great logical boa-constrictor who binds his folds together tighter
and tighter till the poor sophist is absolutely strangled."