_SELF-ASSURANCE AND INVASION OF DIVINE PREROGATIVES
INVOLVED IN PRESUMING UPON OUR FUTURE.
THE DOCTRINE OF PROBABILISM._
"Go to now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this
city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye
know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a
vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and
do this or that. But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such
glorying is evil. To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth
it not, to him it is sin."--ST. JAMES iv. 13-17.
Worldliness and want of humility are the two kindred subjects which
form the groundwork of this portion of the Epistle. This fourth
chapter falls into three main divisions, of which the third and last
is before us; and these two subjects underlie all three. In the first
the arrogant grasping after the pleasures, honours, and riches of the
world, in preference to the love of God, is condemned. In the second
the arrogant judging of others in defiance of the Divine law of
charity is forbidden. In the third arrogant trust in the security of
human undertakings, without consideration of God's will, is denounced.
The transition from the false confidence which leads men to judge
others with a light heart, to the false confidence which leads men to
account the future as their own, is easily made; and thus once more,
while we seem to be abruptly passing to a fresh topic, we are really
moving quite naturally from one branch of the main subject to another.
The assurance which finds plenty of time for censuring others, but
little or none for censuring self, is closely akin to the assurance
which counts on having plenty of time for all its schemes, without
thought of death or of the Divine decrees. This, then, is the subject
before us--presumptuous security as to future undertakings. The future
is God's, not ours, just as to judge mankind belongs to Him, and not
to us. Therefore to think and speak of the future as if we had the
power to control it is as presumptuous as to think and speak of our
fellow-men as if we had the power to judge them. In both cases we
assume a knowledge and an authority which we do not possess.
"Go to now" (ἄγε νῦω) is a vigorous form of address, which occurs
nowhere in the New Testament, excepting here and at the beginning of
the next section. Although originally an imperative singular, it has
become so completely an adverb that it can be used, as here, when a
number of persons are addressed. It serves to attract attention. Those
who think that they can acquit themselves of the charge of
censoriousness have yet another form of presumptuous confidence to
consider. The parable of the Rich Fool, who said to his soul, "Soul,
thou hast much good laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat,
drink, and be merry" (Luke xii. 19), should be compared with this
exhortation. And it is remarkable that it was just after our Lord had
refused to be made a judge over two contending brothers that He spoke
the parable of the Rich Fool.
There is no special emphasis on "ye that _say_," as if the meaning
were, "ye who not only have these presumptuous thoughts, but dare to
utter them." In the previous section giving utterance to unfavourable
judgments about one's neighbours is evidently worse than merely
thinking them, and is a great aggravation of the sin; but here
thinking and saying are much the same. The presumptuous people look
far ahead, think every step in the plan quite secure, and speak
accordingly. To-day and to-morrow are quite safe. The journey to the
proposed city is quite safe. That they will spend a year there is
regarded as certain, and that they will be able to spend it as they
please, viz. in trading. Lastly, they have no doubts as to the success
of the whole enterprise; they will "get gain." All this is thought of
and spoken of as being entirely within their own control. They have
only to decide on doing it, and the whole will be done. That there is
a Providence which needs to be considered is entirely left out of
sight. That not even their own lives can be counted on for a single
day is a fact that is equally ignored.
It was long ago remarked that "All men are mortal" is a proposition
which each man believes to be true of every one excepting himself. Not
that any one seriously believes that he himself will be exempt from
death; but each one of us habitually thinks and acts as if in his case
death were such an indefinite distance off that practically there is
no need to take account of it--at any rate at present. The young and
the strong rarely think of death as a subject that calls for serious
attention. Those who are past the prime of life still think that they
have many years of life in store. And even those who have received the
solemn warning which is involved in reaching man's allotted threescore
and ten years remember with satisfaction that many persons have
reached fourscore and ten or more, and that therefore there is good
reason for believing that they themselves have a considerable portion
of life still in front of them. Perhaps the man of ninety finds
himself sometimes thinking, if not talking to others, of what he means
to do, not only to-morrow, but next year.
Such habits of thought and language are very common, and a man has to
be carefully on the watch against himself, in order to avoid them.
They are entirely opposed to the spirit of both the Old and the New
Testament, and in the most literal sense of the term may be
stigmatized as _godless_. The security which ignores the will of God
in its calculations, and thinks and acts as an independent power, is
godless. Dependence upon God is the centre both of Judaism and of
Christianity. A story of the Rabbinists brings this out as clearly on
the Jewish side as the parable of the Rich Fool does on the Christian.
At his son's circumcision a Jewish father set wine that was seven
years old before his guests, with the remark that with this wine he
would continue for a long time to celebrate the birth of his son. The
same night the Angel of Death meets the Rabbi Simeon, who accosts him
and asks him, "Why art thou thus wandering about?" "Because," said the
angel, "I slay those who say, We will do this or that, and think not
how soon death may come upon them. The man who said that he would
continue for a long time to drink that wine shall die in thirty days."
It is in this way that "the _careless ease_ of fools shall destroy
them" (Prov. i. 32). And hence the warning, "Boast not thyself of
to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth" (Prov.
xxvii. 1). The man who makes plans for the future without taking
account of Providence is not far removed from "the fool, who says in
his heart, There is no God" (Ps. xiv. 1; liii. 1). "Set not thy heart
upon thy goods; and say not, I have enough for my life. Follow not
thine own mind and thy strength, to walk in the ways of thy heart; and
say not, Who shall control me? for the Lord will surely avenge thy
pride" (Ecclus. v. 1-3). "There is that waxeth rich by his wariness
and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward. Whereas he saith,
I have found rest, and now will eat continually of my good; and yet he
knoweth not what time shall come upon him, and that he must leave
those things to others, and die" (Ecclus. xi. 18, 19).
The Cyrenaics and their more refined followers the Epicureans started
from the same premises, viz. the utter uncertainty of the future, and
the inability of man to control it, but drew from them a very
different conclusion. Dependence upon God was one of the last
doctrines likely to be inculcated by those who contended that there is
no such thing as Providence, for the gods do not concern themselves
with the affairs of men. True wisdom, they said, will consist in the
skilful, calm, and deliberate appropriation of such pleasure as our
circumstances afford moment by moment, unruffled by passion,
prejudice, or superstition. The present alone is ours, and we must
resolutely make the most of it, without remorse for a past which we
can never alter, and without disquietude about a future which we
cannot determine, and may never possess. This is not very profound as
philosophy, for in the wear and tear of life it can neither fortify
nor console; and as a substitute for religion it is still less
satisfying. The whole difference which separates Paganism from
Christianity lies between two such stanzas as these;--
"Quid sit futurum cras, fuge quærere; et
Quem Fors dierum cunque dabit, lucro
Appone, nec dulces amores
Sperne puer neque tu choreas;"
and--
"Lead, kindly Light, amid th' encircling gloom,
Lead Thou me on:
The night is dark, and I am far from home;
Lead Thou me on.
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me."[81]
"We will go into this city, _and_ spend a year there, _and_ trade,
_and_ get gain." The frequent conjunctions separate the different
items of the plan, which are rehearsed thus one by one with manifest
satisfaction. The speakers gloat over the different steps of the
programme which they have arranged for themselves. St. James selects
trading and getting gain as the end of the supposed scheme, partly in
order to show that the aims of these presumptuous schemers are utterly
worldly, and partly because a restless activity in commercial
enterprise was a common feature among the Jews of the Dispersion. Such
pursuits are not condemned; but they are liable to become too
absorbing, especially when not pursued in a God-fearing way; and it is
this which St. James denounces.
"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life?
For ye are a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then
vanisheth away." It is not easy to determine the original Greek text
with certainty, but about the general sense there is no doubt. It is
possible, however, that we ought to read, "Whereas ye know not as to
the morrow of what kind your life will be: for ye are a vapour," etc.
In any case "Whereas ye know not" represents words which literally
mean, "Since ye are people _of such nature_ as not to know" (οἵτινες
οὐκ ἐπίστασθε). As human beings, whose life is so full of changes
and surprises, it is impossible for them to know what vicissitudes the
next day will bring. The real uncertainty of life is in marked
contrast to their unreal security.
"What is your life?" Of what kind is it? What is its nature (ποῖα)?
Bede remarks that St. James does not ask, "What is _our_ life?" He
says, "What is _your_ life?" It is the value of the life of the
godless that is in question, not that of the godly. Those who, by
their forgetfulness of the Unseen, their desire for material
advantages, and their friendliness with the world, have made
themselves enemies of God--what is their life worth? Such persons "are
a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away."
But it may be doubted whether St. James is here speaking of the
emptiness of an _ungodly_ life. He is addressing godless persons, and
in rebuking them reminds them how unstable and fleeting life is, not
merely to them, but to all men. It is the same thought as we find in
Job's complaint, "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more" (vii. 9); and we
shall see that in the next two sections (v. 1-6, 7-11) there are
coincidences with the Book of Job (see pp. 281, 291). But it is
perhaps the Book of Wisdom that is specially in the writer's mind:
"Our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be
dispersed as a mist, that is driven away with the beams of the sun,
and overcome with the heat thereof" (ii. 4). "For the hope of the
ungodly is like dust that is blown away with the wind; like a thin
froth that is driven away with the storm; like as the smoke which is
dispersed here and there with a tempest, and passeth away as the
remembrance of a guest that tarrieth but a day" (v. 14). And if these
passages _are_ the source of St. James's metaphor, Bede's
interpretation becomes more probable; for in both of them it is the
life of the ungodly that is likened to everything that is
unsubstantial and transitory.[82]
"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and
do this or that." We must beware of understanding these words in such
a way as to lose the spirit of them. It is one of many passages of
Scripture which are often taken according to the letter, when the
letter is of little or no importance. As in so much of the teaching in
the Sermon on the Mount, we have a _principle_ given in the form of a
_rule_. Rules are given that they may be observed literally.
Principles are given that they may be applied intelligently and
observed according to their spirit. We do not obey Christ when we
allow the thief who has taken our upper garment to have our under one
also; nor do we obey St. James when we say, "If the Lord will," or
"Please God," of every future event, and make a plentiful use of
"D.V." in all our correspondence. Nor is it enough to say that
everything depends upon the _spirit_ in which the second garment is
surrendered, and in which the "Please God" is uttered, or the "D.V."
written. It is quite possible to keep Christ's precept without ever
surrendering the second garment at all; and indeed we ought not to
surrender it. And it is quite possible to keep His brother's precept
without ever writing "D.V." or saying "Please God," the habitual use
of which would be almost certain to generate formalism and cant in
ourselves, and would be quite certain to provoke needless criticism
and irreverent ridicule. St. James means that we should habitually
feel that moment by moment we are absolutely dependent upon God, not
only for the way in which our lives are henceforth to be spent, but
for their being prolonged at all. At any instant we may be called upon
to surrender, not only all the materials of enjoyment which He has
bestowed upon us, but life itself, which is equally His gift; and
whenever He does so call upon us we shall have neither the right nor
the power to resist. "Shall He not do what He will with His own?" "The
Lord gave; and the Lord may take away. Blessed be the name of the
Lord."
The man who is thoroughly impressed with the fact of his utter
dependence upon God for life and all things is sure to express this in
his bearing, his tone, and his manner of speaking about the future,
even although such phrases as "Please God" and "If the Lord will"
never come from his lips or his pen. Indeed, the more complete his
realization of this truth is, the less likely will he be to be
constantly expressing it in a formula. It is the habitual setting of
his thoughts, and does not need to be stated any more than the
conditions of time and space. On rare occasions it may be well to
remind others of this truth by giving expression to it in words; but
in most cases it will be wisest to retain it as an unforgotten but
unexpressed premise in the mind. But it is for each one of us to take
care that it is _not_ forgotten. Only those who have it constantly in
their hearts can safely absolve themselves from the obligation of
obeying the words of St. James literally.
"But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil." The
carnal self-confidence with which people serenely talk about what they
mean to do next year, or many years hence, is only part of a general
spirit of arrogance and worldliness which pervades their whole life
and conduct; it is one of the results of the thoroughly vitiated moral
atmosphere which they have chosen for themselves, and to the
noxiousness of which they are constantly contributing. The word here
rendered "vaunting," and in 1 John ii. 16 "vainglory," (ἀλαζονεία),
indicates insolent and empty assurance; and here the assurance lies in
presumptuous trust in the stability of oneself and one's surroundings.
Pretentious ostentation is the radical signification of the word, and
in Classical Greek it is the pretentiousness which is most prominent,
in Hellenistic Greek the ostentation. There is manifest ostentation in
speaking confidently about one's future; and seeing how transitory
everything human is, the ostentation is empty and pretentious. To be
guilty of such vaunting is serious enough; but these fellow-countrymen
of St. James, with their minds absorbed in material interests, gloried
in their godless view of life. The simple character of his comment
makes its severity all the more impressive: "all such glorying is
evil." He uses the very word which is commonly used to express "the
evil one" (ὁ πονηρός), and thereby indicates the character and source
of such glorying.
In concluding this section of his letter, St. James brings the conduct
which he has been condemning within the sweep of a very comprehensive
principle: "To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it
not, to him it is sin." No Jew, whether Christian or not, could plead
ignorance as an excuse for his transgressions in this matter. Every
human being has experienced the uncertainty of the future and the
transitoriness of human life; and every Jew was well instructed in the
truth that man and all his surroundings are absolutely dependent upon
the Divine will. Moreover, those whom St. James is addressing prided
themselves on their spiritual knowledge (i. 19); they were professed
hearers of God's Word (i. 22, 23), and were anxious to become teachers
of others (iii. 1). Theirs is the case of servants who knew their
master's will, and neglected to do it (Luke xii. 47). They themselves
declared, "We see;" and the rejoinder is, "Your sin remaineth" (John
ix. 41). They knew, long before St. James instructed them on the
subject, what was seemly for human beings living as creatures in
dependence upon their Creator; and they neglected to do what is
seemly. To them this neglect is sin.
The passage is very commonly understood as applying to all sins of
omission; and no doubt it is very capable of such application, but it
does not follow that St. James was thinking of more than the
particular case before him. The words may be interpreted in three
different degrees of comprehensiveness, and St. James may have meant
one, or two, or all three of them.
1. The relation in which a creature ought to stand to the Creator is
one of humility and entire dependence; and he who knows that he is a
creature, and adopts an attitude of self-confidence and independence,
sins.
2. In all cases of transgression knowledge of what is right aggravates
the sin, which is then a sin against light. "If I had not come and
spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse
for their sin" (John xv. 22).
3. This applies not only to transgressions, but to omissions.
Knowledge of what is evil creates an obligation to avoid it, and
knowledge of what is good constitutes an obligation to perform it. The
latter truth is not so readily admitted as the former. Everyone
recognizes that an opportunity of doing _evil_ is not a thing about
which any choice is allowable. We are not permitted to use the
opportunity or not, just as we please; we must on no account make use
of it. But not a few persons imagine that an opportunity of doing
_good_ is a thing about which they have full right of choice; that
they may avail themselves of the opportunity or not, just as they
please; whereas there is no more freedom in the one case than in the
other. We are bound to make use of the opportunity of doing good. "To
him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
Some of those who think that St. James knew the Epistle to the Romans
see here an allusion to the principle which St. Paul there lies down:
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (xiv. 23). For reasons already
stated (p. 57), it must remain doubtful whether St. James had
knowledge of that Epistle; and even if he had, we could not by any
means be sure that he had it in his mind when he wrote the words
before us. But his words and St. Paul's, when combined, give us a
complete statement of a great moral principle respecting the
possession or non-possession of knowledge as to what is right and
wrong in any given case. So long as we have _no_ knowledge that a
given act is right, _i.e._ so long as we are in doubt as to whether it
is allowable or not, it is sin to do it. As soon as we _have_
knowledge that a given act is right it is sin to leave it undone.
This principle cuts at the root of that unwholesome growth which in
moral theology is known as the doctrine of _Probabilism_, and which
has worked untold mischief, especially in the Roman Church, in which
its chief supporters are to be found. This doctrine teaches that in
all cases in which there is doubt as to whether a given act is
allowable or not the less safe course may be followed, even when the
balance of probability is against its being allowable, if only there
are grounds for believing that it _is_ allowable. And some supporters
of this doctrine go so far as to maintain that the amount of
probability need not be very great. So long as it is not certain that
the act in question is forbidden it may be permitted. The object of
which teaching is not that which ought to be the object of all moral
teaching, viz. to save beings with immortal souls from making serious
mistakes of conduct, but to enable beings with strong desires and
passions to gratify them without scruple. The moral law is not so much
explained as explained away. The very titles of some of the treatises
in which the doctrine of Probabilism is advocated indicate their
tendency, _e.g._ "The Art of Perpetual Enjoyment."[83] To all such
special pleading, and making the Word of God of none effect by human
glosses, the simple principles laid down by St. Paul and St. James are
the best antidote: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;" and "To him
that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
[81] Horace, _Odes_ I. ix. 13. J. H. Newman, _Verses on Various Occasions_,
"The Pillar of the Cloud," June 16th, 1833.
[82] In commenting on Wisdom ii. 4, Farrar quotes Gregory Nazianzen:
"We are a flitting dream, a phantom that cannot be grasped,
the scud of a passing breeze, a ship that leaves no trace on the sea,
dust, vapour, morning dew, a flower that now blossoms, and now is
done away" (_Speaker's Commentary, Apocrypha_, I., p. 431).
[83] _Ars Semper Gaudendi_, by Alphonso de Sarasa, a Flemish theologian
of Spanish extraction, 1741. For the fullest account of the
history of Probabilism see the great work by Döllinger and Reusch,
_Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der Römisch-katholischen Kirche_
(Nördlingen, 1889).